|
A"^ |
- .-s- vy A'. " *^x>^«^^*\w^ |
V\" * 1 |
|
.,..., •a^C'S^vWiM |
- *-**■- 1 |
|
|
1^ \m |
||
|
w J? ^^, |
X \i \ VS JV ^« *v >^ ?' it%%% |
■i^^^HI'^' |
|
^^^y> |
.'.^wJ5«\\'V^-v^.i* ' |
|
|
'Sw |
* ^ B lOl ' -^^'N/ » U fl i4 * * ^^ |
|
|
: :y. , |
1. wQ'n;'^'^"" . |
^^^^^^^^^|B! 2 |
W'V
SS-K
VV\>'
-pp
"^m
m
■■f6»':
f!^^
3y»
I
THE LIBRARY
OF
THE UNIVERSITY
OF CALIFORNIA
LOS ANGELES
M
REPLY
TO THE
"END OF RELIGIOUS CONTROVERSY;"
AS DISCUSSED IN A
Corre0pontrence
BETWEEN
A SUPPOSED SOCIETY OF PROTEST AISTS,
AND THE
Rev. JOHNMILNER, D.D. F.S.A.
UISHOP OF CASTABALA, 6cC.
BY THE
Rev. RICHARD GRIER, A.M.
VICAK OF TEMPLEBODANE, IN THE DIOCESE OF CLOYNE, AND CHAPLAIN TO HIS EXCELLENCY
EARL TALBOT,
LORD LIEUTENANT OF IRELAND.
pOVCrn- " that baffled system of superstition and iniquity, wliicii hath been confuted a tliousand times, and wliich, |)erlia|)s, no autiioi ( ver at- tacked without giving it a mortal wound."
JoRTiN ON EccL. HiST. Vol. iii. p. 208.
LONDON:
PRINTED FOR T. CADELL, IN THE STRAND;
R. MILIKEN, DUBLIN; EDWARDS AND SAVAGE, CORK J AND W. BLACKWOOD, EDINBURGH,
1821.
J.M'Cfeery, Tooks Court, Cliaocery Lane, Lomdon.
to THE
RIGHT HONOURABLE
}
LORD VISCOUNT SIDMOUTH,
SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT.
My Lord,
If a devoted attachment to the Estabhshed Rehgion of the State ; if a deep interest about its most important con- cerns ; if high station and high character ; and if talent united to integrity — point out one individual more than another, whom 1 could with the greatest propriety address in the present instance, I humbly conceive your Lordship to be that individual. Impressed with this idea, I feel anxious to acquire for the following pages, upon which I have expended some portion of time and thought, all the credit to be derived from the sanction of your Lordship's name.
i-vjv-r<"3
DEDICATION.
It cannot have escaped your Lordship's observation, that Popish writers have of late 3^ears manifested an increased activity in the diffusion of their principles; that they have assumed a loftier tone and used a bolder language, than they have been accustomed to do ; and as this may more particularly be said of the Rev. Doctor Milner, a temperate Refutation of the per- nicious errors, which he has sent abroad in his latest publication, appeared to me to be not only expedient, but nectamry.
But, feeling as I do my own inability to accomplish my design to the full extent of my wishes, 1 beg leave respectfully to appeal to your Lordship's candour for in- dulgence on the occasion ; while I offer up a fervent prayer, that, as our pure Church, with the existence of which, vital piety and true religion, no less than the public good, are intimately connected, has withstood to this day the assaults of infidelity and irre- ligion ; of superstition and enthusiasm : so
DEDICATION.
it may, by the Divine blessing, be pre- served for ages yet to come.
I have now the honour to entreat your Lordsliip's acceptance of this humble tri- bute of my respect, and that your Lord- ship will believe me to be, with grateful acknowledgments for past instances of con- descension and kindness.
My Lord, Your Lordship's most obliged. And very humble Servant,
RICHARD GRIER.
Midkton, May 1, 1821.
CORRIGENDA.
Page Liue
69 26, read have.
99 11, lead compels,
160 28, supply the word mentio. »;♦•
197 27, read administraverit. «
204 13, supply llie words, it to. «-.
205 15, supply llie word, to. 243 16, read ccepit.
a70 10, dele the word, not.
397 8, read Hibernian Bible Society.
PREFATORY REMARKS.
When 1 first conceived the idea of vindi- cating the exposition given of certain texts in my Answer to Ward's Errata of the Protestant Bible, from Doctor Milner's animadversions ; my thoughts did not ex- tend beyond the individual point. But having accomplished my design in this re- spect, in a manner at least to satisfy my- self, other objects presented themselves to my view, without the attainment of which, what I had done, seemed to be incomplete. Possessed with this feeling, I was insen- sibly led on to the production of the fol- lowing Reply.
I am perfectly aware of the responsibi- lity incurred, when 1 descend into the con- troversial arena with a disputant so versa- tile and long practised as this gentleman undoubtedly is; but I ecjually well know, that I sustain, at the same time, the cause of truth ; that, by the ardent prosecution of it, I best redeem the solcnui pledge by
b
11 PREFATORY REMARKS.
whicli I bound mj^self on entering into the ministry of the Church ; and that, should the attempt, which I make, prove unsuc- cessful, its failure will not involve any con- sequences prejudicial to the cause itself. For, since 1 only profess to speak my own sentiments, I alone am chargeable with any errors, into which I may have been in- advertently betrayed.
If TRUTH be the end oi controversy. Doctor Mihier could not have selected a title less expressive of such an object; nor of the means used to attain it, than that, which he has prefixed to his last publica- tion. The work to which I allude, assumes the specious name of The End of Reli- gious Controversy ; but, were it his de- sign to establish the very opposite to what he professes to do, he could not have pur- sued a course better calculated to effect his purpose, than that, which he lias taken on the present occasion. In vain may the reader expect, on opening the pages of this veteran Polemic, to meet with what should always characterize controversial writing — courteousness, good temper, can- dour towards an adversary, and modera-
PREFATORY REMARKS. ill
tion in defence of the writer's own opinions. In vain may he look lor impartial decisions on the merits of conflicting opinions ; for candid inquire, for fair argument, or for fair representation. Such hopes would be illusor}' in the extreme; since, in almost every page, he will find passages perverted from their original meaning, misquotations, garbled extracts from the fathers, lying legends, the false miracles, and arrogant pretensions of the Church of Rome, and the jargon and sophistry of the schoolmen ; together with a revival of all the calumny, falsehood, and abuse, which Gregory Mar- tin in the sixteenth, and Thomas Ward in the seventeenth, centuries, have heaped on the Church of England, its Clergy, and its Ordinances. When, in addition to this, it is considered, that he commences and concludes his book with an attack on our Prelacv, far exceeding in virulence that of Chaloner, Walmsley, Ilawarden, Plowden, Drumgoole, or Gandolphy ; and that the intermediate parts correspond with the extremes, we can have no hesitation in pronouncing upon the cndy which he had in view, and in saying, that he could not have
ba
iv PREFATORY REMARKS.
adopted a less appropriate Title for his precious Digest, than that which he has given it.
His Book, which consists of Jite hundred and Jifty-Jlve pages of imperial octavo, di- vided into three parts, has, according to his own account, lain dormant during twice the period prescribed by the poet, within the Fenetrale of his study, receiving each day such embellishments from his master- hand, as might exhibit his Portraiture in its most attractive form. Nor has it been among the least artful of his devices, to set up a fictitious society of Protestant Correspondents, and to have shaped the Letters ascribed to them in such a way, as to make his own replies appear triumph- ant.
It is admitted, that the coarse and ribal- drous trash to be met with in Martin's Dis- coverie, and Ward's Errata, finds no place in Doctor Milner's pages ; yet we can trace in his specious and sophistical language, and more polished style, the same unmiti- gated severity towards the Established Church, and the identical ultramontane principles, which characterize their works.
PREtATORY REMARKS. V
and which, during their banishment, im- pelled the * one to recommend assassi- nation, and the -f other to foment treason, in their native country. Such diabolical acts are not, to be sure, attributable to this gentleman ; but how can he be answerable for the .consequenCiCs, which a work under the magic of his name, will have produced among every class of the Popish community? And, when he so blends politics with pole- mical discussion, as to induce those, who are hostile to the Church of England to believe, that the wholesome restraint, which the Laws necessarily impose on them for its preservation, is a direct persecutipn ; and this at a time, when he furnishes in his own person a practical comment on the tolerant
• FouLis states, "that the better to procure Queen Elizabeth's ruin, there was a little book composed, and called a Treatise of Schism, which amoug other things ex- horted the women at Court to act the same part against the Qiiceu, us Judith had done, with commendations, against Ilolofernes. The author of this pernicious pamphlet was one Gregory Martin" p. 338. Cambden testifies to the same effect. — Hist, of Eliz. 1>^S4.
f Ward kept up a treasonable correspondence with the rebels at the period of the Revolution in England. See Prrskkvative against Popeky, vol. iii.Tit. ix. p. 38.
vi PREFATORY REMARKS.
spirit of the age ; I ask, must he not be aware of the fatal consequences likely to result from the exercise of such mischievous ingenuity ?
The exclusion of Roman Catholics from power, offices, and emoluments, furnishes Doctor Milner with a grand topic for decla- mation. Thus, he says, * " that a civil in- capacity amounts to a real persecution ;" and that this is doubly severe, as it arises from **a belief in a particular doctrine." But he here misstates both cause and effect. He misstates the cause; for he must be conscious, that the doctrine of Transubstan- tiation, to which he alludes, is not, at this moment, the reason why Roman Catholics are excluded from political power. It ori- ginates in a very different cause ; in a cause, which diminishes their loyalty to their legi- timate Sovereign ; while it proclaims their devotedness to a foreign Ecclesiastic. I mean the Supremacy of the Pope. But Transubstantiation is the touchstone of Po- pery ; it is the test by which a rigid adhe-
* End of Religious Contuoversy, Letters xxxvi. and xlix.
PREFATORY REMARKS. VII
rent to the Church of Rome can be found out; and therefore, the Legislature have determined, that the abjuration of it shall constitute the eligibility of persons to sit in Parliament, and to possess honours and emoluments. Taken by itself, this doctrine is perfectly harmless, as far as the State is concerned, because it is of a speculative na- ture, like prayers for the dead, ending where it begins, in the mind, and consequently is not subject to political cognizance ; but it is inseparably connected with other doctrines, which are not so. It is, in short, the best criterion that could be devised to discover diluted loyalty. If we look to the practice of the Romish Church, we shall find most of its other doctrines operate, only as it were, partially and occasionally. There is no absolute compulsion, in theory at least, to worship images and relics ; and monastic vows are generally at the option of the in- dividual. ButTransubstantiation is always a prominent part of Popery. It was the test, by which Protestants were discovered in Queen Mary's reign ; and which was pro- posed to the martyrs and exiles in France, and to all the victims of the Inquisition.
Vlli PREFATORY RKMARKS.
As therefore, it has been at all times, the grand * [>oint of distinction between Pro- testants and Roman Catholics ; and as it is that, which is of perpetual recurrence, per- haps the only one which is so, in the Church of Rome ; the Legislature have acted wisely in constituting it a test of Popery, as the Popish Church had before made it, a test of Protestantism.
Doctor Milner also misstates the effect." For in the first place, f civil disability and persecution are not convertible terms. To say that they are so, is to confound things, which are in their own nature perfectly dis-
* In that admirable Epitome of clerical duty, Bishop Mant's primary Charge to his Clergy; after adverting to the consequences to which the doctrine of Christ's corporeal presence in the Sacrament led in the sixteenth century, his Lordship extends his observations to every point, which af- fects the well-being of our National Church. Thus, while he stimulates his clergy to use every mild endeavour to dis- sipate the delusion, under which the modern Romish pro- fessor lies, he cautions them against opening a door to the extravagances of the enthusiast, (pp. 43, 52.) His re- marks are urged with such unaflfected modesty and good sense, that I cannot but hail his advancement to the Epis- copal Bench, as another splendid accession to the talents, learning, and orthodoxy of the Irish Prelacy.
t See Chap, xvi, p. 356.
PREFATORY REMARKS. IX
tinct. Secondly, persecution enforces a re- nunciation of religious principles, and the adoption of a particular creed, at the risk of libert\% propert}^ or life itself; while ex- clusion from power only debars persons from filling certain offices, without trench- ins: on liberty of thouoht. It may hence be fairl}^ inferred, that the political disa- bilities of the Roman Catholics, do not wkly arise, as Doctor Milner avers, from their belief in Transubstantiation ; but be- cause they divide their allegiance between their own King and a foreign Jurisdiction. In a word, their disabilities are only such as the\ choose to impose on themselves. As a further proof, that the doctrine in question has no operative effect ; and that it is not raised by the Popish Church itself as an insurmountable barrier to accommo- dation ; it may be observed, that the Pope proposed to sanction the English Liturgij, and the use of the Communion in both kinds, (and would repeat his proposal to- morrow, were it iikelv to be accepted on the same terms) [)rovided * Queen Elizabetfi
• That wiie Princess well knew, had she admitted the Pope's Supremacy, that he would have denied her Legiti-
X PREFATORY REMARKS.
would acknowledge his Supremacy. The fact is, that the behevers in Transubstan- tiation * conformed to the Church of Eng- land for the first ten years of her reign, before they formed distinct congregations. Doctor Milner says, that as Roman Ca- tholics *' have abjured the Pope's jurisdic- tion in all civil and temporal cases," they should, therefore, be admissible to offices and power. However, the policy of such a measure is more than questionable. They admit, it is true, that obedience in tempo- ral matters is due to the King ; but then, as they acknowledge a foreign Head in ec- clesiastical affairs, there can be no doubt, when their civil allegiance to the former interfered with their spiritual allegiance to the latter, which duty would f yield to the
macy. See Shepherd's Introduction to the Book of Common Prayer, p. Ixiv,
• Heylin's Reform, p. 503. and Bishop of Win- chester's Elem. of Theol. vol. ii. p. 26. Doctor Je- remy Taylor says, " from primo of Elizabeth to undecimo, the Papists made no scruple of coming to our Church," &c. as in note :|:, Chapter vi. p. 142.
•f BcLLARMiNE says, " that when the jus divinum and the jus humanum are opposed to each other, the latter must be sacrificed to the former." — De Romano Pontifice, lib. V. c. 7.
PREFATORY REMARKS. XI
other. History and experience shew, that it is not always possible to distinguish be- tween civil and religious concerns. It was from this conviction, that resistance was given to the Papal encroachments in Eng- land by Popish Kings and Popish Parlia- ments, even before the era of the Refor- mation. It is to this we owe the statute of the 30th of Charles the Second, that fence and safeguard of our lives and liberties. And it was this conviction, operating on the mind of the distinguished character, who framed the Roman Catholic Bills now under discussion in Parliament, which in- duced him to devise, what he conceived, adequate * securities, as substitutes for those ;ibout to be given up.
* One Titular Bishop says, the security Bill should be indignantly rejected; another, that it would go to deca" llio/tcize Irelat)(l ; while Mr. O'Conuel compares it to the Infernal Machine! In this way do the Irish Roman Catholics receive the boon which the first men of the age liave designed for them. The fact is, that no political re- gulation, consistent with the safety of our Church, can, in the nature of things, satisfy them. We should, therefore, make our stand, and not relinquish the 'vantage ground on which we have been happily established by the Constitu- tion.
Xll PREFATORY REMARKS.
Sluill I not add the former instance of the refusal of the veto to our King, in the appointment of their Bishops, as a proof how strongly the spiritual jurisdiction of the Pope clashes with the temporal con- cerns of this Empire. In truth, it would defy the most subtle casuist always to draw a line of distinction between them. I therefore conclude, that, as the Pope is known to possess unbounded influence over his Episcopal Clergy, who, in their turn, have no less influence over their subordi- nates; and these again over their respec- tive flocks : were Roman Catholics vested with power on the terms prescribed by Doctor Milner, or even on those laid down in the Bills now before Parliament; they must anxiously seek the * subversion of
" * We are not left to conjecture, or to rational inference on this head ; since, in Doctor Milner's THEoLOGiCAli Judgment on the Bills pending in Parliament, not only is the doctrine, which relates to the deposition of Princes recognized, but an explicit avowal set forth, that the Roman Catholic Clergy of the United Kingdom cannot forego such communications with the Pope, as have either a di- rect, or indirect tendency to overthrovv our Church. First, says he, " we declare, that it is contrary to the doctrine of the (Roman) Catholic Church to condemn upon oath the
PREFATORY REMARKS. Xlll
what they deem an heretical establishment, and the substitution of that religion, out of which they believe no person can be saved ; and that the more conscientiously they are impressed with this idea, the more desirous they must be to effect their wishes.
mere deposing doctrine, as daimiahh and heretical." Se- condly. " We cannot bind ourselves never to have any communication with the Pope, tending directly or indirect- ly io overthrow, or disturb the Protestant Church; as all our preaching, writing, and ministring tend indirectly to this effect." The manly candour of this language reflects the highest credit on Doctor Milner. Here is no mincing. We are told distinctly, and by the first authority too, that every thought, word, and act of the Roman Catholic priest- hood have a reference to this one fixed object, the extinc- tion of the Protestant Religion ; and that to this end, all the energies of their souls are directed. Shall not tlie solemn intimation here given be attended to by the Legislature, while it produces, as the natural result, on the part of the Estabhblied Clergy, a corresponding vigilatice, activity, and zeal iu defence of what is so dear to them, as men and as Christians ; and while it convinces them, that the machina- tions of their adversaries for its annihilation, although un- seen and unnoticed, are nevertheless carried on with a de- gree of sleepless perseverance, which would do credit to a better cause ?
Since the preceding note was commilled to the printer's han<ls, the l*«jpish iJills have been rejected in the House of Lords, by a niajuiity strikingly remarkable, on account of its coincidence with ihe number of the Articles of oui Cluucii !
XIV PREFATORY REMARKS.
I am aware, bow unpalatable language of tbis kind will be to my Roman Catbolic friends and neigbbours, and tbat 1 sball probably incur tbe charge of bigotry, if not of something worse. But such a charge, if made, will be unsupported by a shade of truth. If, indeed, to be faithful, sincere, and unwavering ; if to " hold fast the form of sound words," inculcated by the Church to which I belong; and if to maintain my faith with integrity — be bigotry, I must plead guilty to the charge ; but in no other case whatever. But I shall hope for better things at their hands. Among the Roman Catholic gentry, I know many estimable characters, and most anxiously do I desire to reciprocate with them offices of kindness and good-will. And although my disposi- tion towards several of their clergy be the same ; yet I fear, that so long as the ex- clusive character hangs about them, it is vain to expect belief for my professions, or credit for my sincerity. Notwithstanding this, I claim the indulgence, to which they shall in turn be entitled ; of expressing my sentiments without restraint.
Were I to hazard a word of advice to
PREFATORY REMARKS. XV
my Roman Catholic countrymen, it would be this. That, as the Parliament of the United Kingdom must, on the rational principle of self-preservation, inviolably maintain the bulwarks raised by the consti- tution against the superstition and idolatry of the Church of Rome, in its * Corpora- tion and Test Acts, they should abjure a point, which restrains them in the exercise of many natural, civil, and religious duties. I allude to the ecclesiastical supremacy of the Pope. They are called on to do so, by the laws of their country, by the repeal of penal statutes, by the concession of several valuable privileges, and by the enjoyment of the most enlightened -f- Toleration. May
* Blackstone calls them "two bulwarks erected against perils from non-conformists of all denominations." By the former, the oath of Supremacy is enjoined, and by the latter, the declaration against Transubstantialion is required, vol. iv. p. 58. — See also Burn's Eccl. Law, vol. iii. p. 17.
f It should rather be called Encouragement — witnessihc rich endowment of Maynooih College by our Protestant Parliament; the establishment of Popish seminaries under the direction of Jesuits ; the erection of splendid edificea in our Metropolis, and in our large lowns> for Roman Ca-
XVI PREFATORY REMARKS.
this invitation, which makes so forcible an appeal to their reason and good sense, be accepted by them ; and may the only eman- cipation their wants require, be effected by themselves — an emancipation from spiritual bondage and tyranny.
As connected with this subject, I feel it necessary to lay before the reader a few ex- tracts from the Notes to the Rhemish Testa- ment, which every true Roman Catholic regards as of equal authority Avith the text; inasmuch as they express the sentiments of the one infallible Church. But were they even not considered so, the effects would be the same ; since the Scripture is, as it is interpreted, not only to the lower, but to such of the higher classes, as either cannot, or will not judge for themselves.
I. The Note on Deut. xvii. 12, inti- mates, " that the church guides of the New Testament ought to punish with death such as proudly refuse to obey their decisions on controversial points." 2. Matt. xiii. 29,
iholic worship; and of chapels without number throughout this country : the chief contributors to all which, are members of the Established Church.
PREFATORY REMARKS. XVll
" the good must tolerate the evil, when it is too strong, &c. otherwise heretics ought to be chastised or executed^ 3. That on John, xv. 7, says, ** the prayer of a Protes- tant cannot be heard by heaven." 4. Acts, X. 9. *' The Church service of England being in heresy and schism, is therefore not only unprofitable, but damnable." 5. Ibid. xxxviii. 22. *' The Church of God, viz. that of Rome, calling the Protestants' doc- trine heresy y in the worst part there can be, and in the worst sort that ever was, doth rightly and most justly.'' 6. First of TiM. iii. 12. ** The speeches, preachings, and writings of Protestants ixve pestiferous, conta- gious, and creeping like a cancer, and there- fore never to be heard." 7. Heb. v. 7. ** The translators of the English Protestant Bible ought to be abhorred to the depths of hell." 8. Ibid. "A Catholic man should give the curse, the execration, and the ana- thema to heretics, though they were his pa- rents."
.*8urh arc some of the milder sj)ecimens
• A Letter has been lately publihiitd and addressed to His Majesty, the King, containing a judicious selection of sixty-one of those dangerous and uncharitable notes.—
c
Xt'lll PREb'ATUKV REMARKS'.
of Roman Catholic affection for their Pra-' testant brethren, and such the pious ancf orthodox annotations with which * Doctor Milner says, the Enghsh Bible of his Church is enriched! But to me, they appear to breathe a spirit, which is not only a re- proach to the present enhghtened age ; but Avhich would have disgraced the darkest and most bigotted. Here it is openly avowed, that the clergy of the Church of Rome have a right to inflict death on those, who are disobedient to their decrees ; that Protestants are to be tolerated from prudent- tial motives, not from principle; and that they must not be too suddenly extirpated, but that the tares shall be permitted t^.
Stockdale, 1820. At the last Popish Board held in Dub- lin, Mr. O'Connel denounced " the doctrines contained in the Rhemish Annotations as damnable, &c." and declared, that he would not remain one hour longer a Roman Ca- tholic, if he thought it essential to the profession of the R. C. faith, to hold them. With a display of liberality equally affected, the Board appointed a Committee to pre- pare a disavowal of the offensive notes; but before this object was accomplished, it very wisely dissolved itself! The fact is, they dare not disclaim them ; as their church expressly forbids the interference of the laity touching eccle- siastical affairs. — See Lab. Concil. Gen. torn. ii. p. 6 17.
* See his Life of Bishop Chaloner, p. 1 9-
PREFATORY REMARKS. XlX
grow until thej'^ can be conveniently eradi- cated from the soil. I should add, that Mr. Gandolph}'- too, after justifying the In- qifisition, says in the same gentle spirit with the notes ; * " that a Protestant iias no re- ligious principle at all !"
While, therefore, the Roman Catholic Clergy of the present day maintain an ex- position of the Scriptures so worthy of the Priests of Bonner's school ; while they publicly instruct their flocks, that (heir Protestant neighbours are the objects of divine vengeance, and describe the offices of charity which they perform, as insidious snares to entrap the inexperienced to sin against heaven ; while such grave authority- declares our English Version of the Scrip- tures to be false and blasphemous interpre- tations of God's Holy Word, contrived for the wicked purpose of destroying Christi- anity, and extinguishing the light of the Gospel, and designed for the propagation of opinions in direct opposition to Christ's Revehition : while, I say, the Roman Ca- tholic Pastor commuiucatcs such instruc-
* Defence of the Ancient railb, vol. iv. p. '2oo.
C '2
XX PREFATORY REMARKS.
tion to his flock, can we be surprised, that they should look on their Protestant coun- trymen with distrust and aversion ? In truth, as long as such a state of things continues to exist, I shall never admit the policy of investing them with either legis- lative or executive authority. This, I be- lieve, to be the general feeling of Protes- tants, and I consider it a signal instance of the interposition of Providence, that the bigotry and intolerance of the republishers of those notes should rouse them to a sense of their danger, and point out the increased necessity of abiding by the securities which have hitherto protected them ; not from creeds and theories, which they deride, but from unrelenting hatred and avowed anathema. But I feel, I have fallen into a devious track by at all adverting to the Roman Catholic question ; and if I must ex- culpate myself for having done so, be it my apology, that I have only followed whither Doctor Milner has led me, and that 1 should have considered my reply defective, were I to have left his observations on this head unnoticed. ' In making these prefatory remarks, an
PREFATORY REMARKS. XXl
allusion to the introduction of the Jesuits into the United Kingdom cannot be avoid- ed. * Two rich seminaries of this intriguing- order of men are established among us. Their influence is gradualh^ altliough in- sensibly gaining ground; and if not checked, will soon betray itself in its effects. Their former devotion to the pecuhar interests of the Pope acquired for them the title of his BODY GUARD, and when animated bv the same principles and in pursuit of the same object as before, they will, as they gain strength, be seen to adopt the same course of action, and to render themselves deserv- ing of the same distinctive appellation. As, however, the political circumstances, which led to their establishment in this
* At Stonyhurst, in Lancashire, and at Mount Browne, in the county of Kildare. The Bishop of Chester, in his luminous and argumentative speech on the Popish question, April iG, 1821, staled, lliat several Jesuits had lately ar- rived in his diocese from Lirge, and held an ordination of their order, suh titulo patipertatis. These are alarming facts, and richly deserve the attention of Protestant England. It were well, indeed, for the interests of true religion, that the fate predicted by Archbishop Browne, awaited them ; but, alas ! their revival among us, at a time in which they are expelled from Russia, only aggravates the evil, which we already so deeply deplore.
XXII PREFATORY REMARKS.
country cannot be now controlled ; it is imperative on our governing powers to watch with suspicious vigihince these men and their cause ; to attend with minute cir- cumspection to their machinations for the diffusion of Poper}^ and as they will to- lerate a confederacv thus leagued against our Established Religion, at least to guard against the further increase of Popish in- fection. I feel the more earnest in pressing the consideration of this subject on their attention, as I view the existence of the Jesuits in the British isles, as among the most awful of the signs of the times. But to return to Doctor Milner.
When this gentleman objects to us the extravagancesof Luther and Zuinglius, the blasphemies of Paine, and the impious re- veries of Joanna Southcote, I feel myself no way called on for a vindication. If Lu- ther * travestied parts of the Bible, and could not divest himself of his wild no- tions about exorcisms and the adjurations of devils ; and if Zuinglius, even after he threw off the shackles of Popery still con-
* See Chap. vi, p. 14 J.
PREFATORY REMARKS. XXIII
sidered himself under the protection of his guardian angel ; such things do not affect the question between us and Roman Ca- tholics. Those Reformers did not found our Church ; nor are we led by their ipse dixits. To objections like these, Doctor Milner seems to attach great consequence ; but how weak must be the cause, which re- quires such miserable support? But were it essential to the point, what an infinitely greater number of impieties, blasphemies, and absurdities could be brought home to the legendary heroes of bis own Church ; without a reference either to the * Liber Aureus of St. Francis, or the Alcoran of the Franciscans.
I can feel little surprise at his attack on the characters of Cranmer, Latimer, and Ridley, and at the intemperance with which he assails the Church of England, on its first emergence from Papal darkness, when
* This rare and curious little Book is iutiiled, Liber AtUEUS iuscriptus Liber Conformitatum Hta S. Fran- cisci: but having been successfully burlesqued in the Al- <:oranu8 Franciscorum, the Popish Church got ashamed of it, and issued orders for its suppression, as far as was possible !
XXIV PREFATORY REMARKS.
1 see him pouring out all the virulence of his fury on several of our most distin- guished Prelates. As to the venerable Fathers of the Reformation, if their opi- nions on doctrinal points were erroneous, and if they even betrayed an intolerance of spirit ; it should be recollected, that they were candid enough to retract their errors, and that their intolerance was mainly at- tributable to the Church, which they had abandoned. But why reproach the Church of England with its earliest frailties ? When struggling with the colossal power, which would fain have strangled it in its cra- dle ; it would have been surprising indeed, if it did not betray the weakness and imper- fection of infancy. But let it be viewed in its present matured state, and it will be found minutel}'^ to accord with its beautiful model — the primitive Church of Christ : in its Faith and Practice ; in its Rites and Ordinances ; in the character of its Clergy ; and in the pure and Apostolic form of its Doctrine. And if it even have thrown open the door to Sectarianism, as Doctor Milner so repeatedly objects ; the greatest evils,
PREFATORY REMARKS. XXV
with which that is attendant, are as nothing compared with the spiritual slavery, which Popery imposes on its votaries.
When he taunts us with the extravagant conceits of those few of our hrethren, whom he denominates * Evangelical ; can he se-
* As an orthodox member of the Church of England, I do not hesitate to say, that the principles of the Evange- lical, or, as they may more properly be called, of the cahi- nian-methodistical preachers of the present day, are as in- compatible with the sound Apostolic doctrine of the Estab- lished Church, as the corruptions of Popery. If the tenet of exclusive salvation be found among the latter, do not the former hold that of Election, and its tremendous conse- quent, of which the author himself was forced to say, " horribile fateor decretuni" If the one proclaims the su- perior merit of works, the other dwells upon that oi faith. And if the Roman Catholic decries reason, can those be said to make a proper use of it, who subject it to their feel- ings, or their fancies ? 1 shall not pursue the parallelism farther, but content myself with noticing the justness of Swift's homely siutilitudc of the two pair of compasses ; that if a leg of each bo held together, while the others are equally widened, alilioiigli they seem at first to go off in ad- verse directi<jn«, they will iiltimauly meet at the opposite side! riius, while Popery luid Calvinism are performing their aemivolutions, and as it wtit; tilting against each other at stated intervals, the Chinch "f England, preserving the golden mean, abides at the centre iiuinoveably iixed.
With respect to Regeneration and Election, on which
3^2>:>i I'KliFAToRY KEiMARKS.
rioLislv^ expect, that we should enter on a justification? The aberrations of those gentlemen from the orthodoxy of our Church, are like spots on the sun ; they are either lost in the halo of its brightness, or are only known to exist, when their eccen- tricity forces therrj into notice.
As little are we concerned aboijt " the numerous sects, into which," he says, "the Reformed Church have divided themselves." But when Doctor Milner raises an objection on this head, he seems to forget, how much greater and more violent divisions and dis- sensions have prevailed in the Church of Rome, and continue to this day to distract it, notwithstanding all its boasted unity of faith, than any that have occurred within the bosom of the Church of England : wit- ness, the eternal war carried on between the Franciscans and the Dominicans; the
points our Evangelical Praters think proper to be dissenti- ent from our venerable Church ; I shall only remark, that by doing so, they hold out every encouragement to the ravings of fanatics about the pan^a of the tiew-birth, as well as to all their sudden impulses, itluminations, assur- aiiceSf and convictions !
PREFATORY REMARKS, XXVll
Scotists and the Thomists ; and still later, between the Jesuits and the Jansenists, &c. &c. on subjects of doctrine and discipline; and at all times, between the Popes and the Bishops, on points of" authority and juris- diction !
If" we refer to the schisms, which arose irt'the Church of Rome, from the seventh century, when Popery was firmly estab- lished, to the fifteenth inclusive, not to ,speak of * those, which were antecedent to the former period : we shall find no less than twent}j-three grand ones, according to ^one authority ; and twenty-six according to \ another ; and that within the same pe-
♦ MosH. EccL. Hist. vol. iv. p. 222 — 240. Sec also Hickes's account of nine principal schisms in the Church of Rome; 2nd Ed. 1706.
•f- See Panvinius's Chronicon, Ed. 1568, subjoined to Platina's History of the Lives of the Popes. In the series of Schisms and Popes cited by the Bishop of St. David's from this author, I have omitted the first seven Schisms which took place from the year 232, to 537 inclu- sive ; and also the first six schisnialical Popes, who flou- rished within llic same period ; as it was not before the seventli century (A. D. 6')'^) that Phocas had conferred the title of Universal Bishop on ihe Pope.
;|: Petayii Tabula Chronologica Schi^matum ct Anti- paparnm, Efl. 1724.
XXVlll PREFATORY REMARKS.
riod, there were no less than * thirty-two usurping and schismatical Popes! But should Doctor Milner overlook all these well-attested facts, can he forget the severe language of rebuke, which was indirectly addressed to himself on tliis very subject, by a late Roman Catholic Divine? In- deed, I may say personally addressed, be- cause the object of Doctor O'Conor seems at all times to have been, to correct the er- rors and -f misrepresentations of his friend the Bishop of Castabala. Has the seventy years' residence of the Popes at Avignon escaped Doctor Milner's recollection ? Does he forget, too, that after a short interrup-
* Panvinius ut supra.
f " I once asked the Bishop of Castabala," says Doctor O'Conor, "how he had nerves strong enough to refer in his Winchester for the history of King Arthur to Gildas, who never, even once, mentions his name. He replied, Gildas CERTAINLY rfoesw^n^eow his name. Wehappened to be at the time in a large and splendid library; I took down Gale's edition. He turned over leaf after leaf, but in vain." — Columbanus ad Hibernos, Letter iii. p. 50.
Doctor M. having thus confounded Gildas, who speaks of the Battle of Bath, (Mons Badonicus) with W. of Malmsbury, the historian of the young hero Arthur's ex- ploits ; attempts in his present work, but unsuccessfully, to make his critics participate in the bhmder.
PREFATORY REMARKS. XXIX
tion, the papal throne was re-estabhshed there, and that a schism o^ fifty years du- ration ensued ; during which, the Christian world was so divided between Popes and Aiiti'Popes, that it was not possible for the most learned and pious men of the day to * determine between the two opposite lines of succession, who was the legitimate pos- sessor of the papal chair? But, when we read, not merely of Antipopes, but Anti- Cardinais and Anti-Councils, I would ask him, whether the Roman Communion, when rent asunder by their contentions, and when the people were divided into separate churches, had been, during that period, the centre of Unity. On the contrary, did not this phantom of external unity, which is the princi[)le of its consistence, as an eccle- siastical body, disappear amidst those con- ihcts? Did not that one schism, of which I have spoken, commonly called the Great Western Schism, also destroy all its preten- sions to sanctity and infallibility ? And have not the heresies, which it adopted at its last general Council of Trent, by remo- ving it far from the standard of the (ios[)el,
• See MosH. Eccl. Hist. vol. iii. p. S'l7.
XX x: Piua-'ATOKV hemakks.
weakened, if not inviilidatcd, its claim to the title of Apostolical ; still more, to the exclusive character of Apostolicity ? With all these facts on record, it is most unac- countable, liow he could bring himself to upbraid, not merely the Church of Eng*? land, but in short, any other Church with schism. ^»
Our Episcopal Clergy are, in general objects of Doctor Milner's severest attack;* and according as he advances in his work^ he cuts at them right and left. But the Bishop of St. David's he * singles out as
* See Address to ihe Bishop of St. David's, prefixed to ihe End of Religious Controversy, pp. 8, 9, 10, and Postscript to the same, p. 202. In 1814, a pamphlet unj- der the title of a Political Catechism, was published in Cork by the Rev. Mr. England, P. P. Its tendency was to exasperate the minds of adult Roman Catholics, (as it was' far beyond the capacity of youth, for whose use it pro-: fessed to be designed) against the Laws and Religion of the State, by ascribing every suffering of theirs, from the era of the Reformation to the present time, to religious perse- cution. To counteract the effects of that mischievous per-^ formance, the Bishop of St. David's shortly after produced his Protestant's Catechism on the Origin, &,c. of Popery. And most completely would it have answered its end, had every mind which imbibed the poison received its corrective. To this, and other publications of this learned and indefatigable Prelate, are we to attribute the scurrility
PREFATORY REMARKS. XXXI
the victim of his most inveterate rancour. When he calls him a paradoxical and a bur- lesquing Prelate, and sneeringly, a modern Prelate ; ironical wit of this kind, consi- dering the sort of warfare in which he is engaged, might pass unnoticed. But when he accuses his Lordship with being of an acrimonious and malignant spirit ; with the advocacy of persecuting and sanguinarij measures ; and in broad terms, with " being bent on the persecution of the (Roman) Catholics." When he can thus coolly and deliberately express himself in the face of the Legislature, at a time, that he is asking for power from the very person, whom he thus calumniates and insults ; we may form a j)retty fair estimate, how conscientiously he would use that power for the extirpation of heresy, were he once invested with it. But the grossness of" his language, and the per- sonalities to which he has descended, have only produced their natural consequence, that of a dignified fori )eara nee on the part of his Lordship.
wilh wliitli his Lordship has been treated by Doctor Mil- uc\.— I line ((n/iiymcr !
XXXll PREFATORY REMARKS.
It will be seen, in the following pages, with what address Doctor Milner brings forward some of the ablest writers of the Church of England in controversion of their own principles. The contrivance, al- though novel and ingenious, has not suc- ceeded, as I have generally demonstrated the sense of the authors to be at variance with the detached parts cited by him, a circumstance not very creditable to the candour and impartiality of which he boasts. And although, in some one or two instances, as in the case of Thorndyke and Montague, he seems to be warranted in what he says ; yet their authority is not sufficient to bear down the unaltered senti- ments of our Church, since the Reforma- tion. In fact, the exception of these two but goes to establish the rule of general consent among Protestant writers on the main points. This was the opinion of Bi- shop Stillingfleet himself, who expressly oames Thorndyke and Montague, and point- edly censures their vanity in setting up their ** singular fancies" in opposition to the doc- trine and practice of the Church of Eng-
PREFATORY REMARKS. XXxili
land, which is not now to he * " new-mo- delled by the caprichios of superstitious fa- natics. .... such as these; we rather pity," adds he, *' their weakness, than regard their censures, and are onl}^ sorry, when our adversaries make such properties o{ ihexn, as bv their means to beoet in some a dis- affection to our Church." Here we find StilHngfleet, upwards of a century ago, con- demning a Popish artifice, to which Doctor Milner is not above resorting at the present day, when he reproduces the rejected au- thorities of such men, as though they bad never been so much as questioned.
Doctor Milner adds the name of Jeremy Taylor, Bishop of Down, to his hstof Pro- testant divines, who palhate, if not defend, the Popisli worship of images, &c. ; but with what justice may be judged from the retractation of liis arguments in favour of Popery, or rather in favour of the lives and liberties of its j)rofcssors. For the cause of Popery itself he never advocated, as I have shewn at largo in the -|- sequel. He
* Sec Conclusion of liisliop Stillingneel's Preface to his Discourse on the Idolatry of the Chinch of Rome.
•\ SeeCHAP.v. p. 131 — l.'-J-J-. ; and Chap, x v. note *, p. 329.
XXXIV PKEIATORY REMARKS.
disclaims every intention of saying, that the Popish rehgion is a true religion, and dis- tinctly states, that he merely'argued for To- leration, in his Liberty of Prophecy ; but that every thing else which he advanced, "was vain flourish, nothing but * " wooden daggers ; tinsel, and pretence ; imageri/y and whipt cream." Indeed, as if he himself had a forecast of the abuse to which his autho- rity would be subject, he prophetically says, f " I know no reason, but it may be possible, that a witty man may pretend, when I am dead, that in this discourse I have pleaded for the doctrine of the Roman Church." If ever the epithet witti/ applied to any person, who has made an unfair use of Bishop Taylor's name, surely we cannot be mistaken in saying, that that person is Doctor Milner.
Archbishop Wake too comes in for his share of misrepresentation. " This Prelate," says :j: Doctor Milner, " after all his bitter writings against the Pope and the (Roman) Catholic Church, coming to discuss the
* Preface to Dissuasive against Popery, second part, f Treatise on the Real Presence, p. 26 1, note 28. % Letter xlvi. p. 143.
PREFATORY REMARKS. XXXV
terms of a proposed union between this Church and that of England, expressed himself willing to allow a certain superio- rity to the Roman Pontiffs." But this cet'- tain superiorit}^ the Doctor afterwards de- clares to be " a supreme authority,'' which is as essential to a Christian Church as to a political state. Thus, according to him, the Archbishop conceded the point of Papal supremacy, so great was his desire to effect an * union between the Churches of Eng- land and Rome. Now, in the first place, the proposed union was not between those Churches, but between the former and the Galilean Church. And, in the next place, it was not even with the Gallican Church,
* The hopelessness of the Rev. Mr. Wix's project of a union between the Churches of England and Rome, so long as the latter continues in its unreformed state, and so widely separated from the former in Jioidamentals, is most ably proved by the Bishop of St. David's, in his Letter of Reply to that gentleman, as well as in that, which his Lord- ship addressed to Lord Kenyon. The present Pope has set the question of union at rest in his instructions to his Bishops, as he says, that " la religion Calholique, Apostolique, et Romaine, parce qu'cllc est diviuc, est n^cessairement scale, et unique, et par li NE prut faiiie d'alliance avec AUCUNE autre." — RELATION de 06 qui b'est passe A Rome, vol. i. p. 193.
d2
XXXVl PREFATOl^Y REMARKS.
Avhile ill connexion with the Church of Rome, but with the GaUicaii Church, se- parated and independent from that Church, and purged from every thing which distin- guished it from the Church of England. If Mosheim misconceived the object of Archbishop Wake's correspondence with the Doctors of the Sorbonne, this cannot be the case with Doctor Milner, as he must have benefitted by Maclaine's expo- sure of Mosheim's error. He is, therefore, convicted of a wilful misrepresentation. He quotes, it is true, part of the Primate's let- ter to Doctor Du Pin ; but he does not quote enough of it, as in candour he was bound to do. The passage which follows, not to speak of the strong language which goes before his quotation, in rejection of the Papal Supremacy, qualifies the word, QUALICUNQUE, from the use of which. Doc- tor Milner insinuates, that the Archbishop acknowledged the Pope's jurisdictio?i, as well as his precedence. But how unfairl}, the reader may judge, by referring to the Archbishop's own words, as contained in the * note.
* III a strain of eloquence worthy of the Roman orator,
PREFATORY REMAUKS. XXXVII
A difference of opinion having arisen be- tween two learned Prelates of our Church respecting the exposition of the words, * " thou art Peter, and upon this Rock I will build my Church :" Doctor Milner hails it as a matter of joy, exclaiming, that f " Landaff was from remote ages a thorn in the side of Menevia," meaning St. Da- Archbishop Wake thus addresses the Bishops of the French Church: — " Expergiscimini itaque viri erudili, et quod ra- tio postulat, nee refragatur religio, strenue agite
Excutite iandemjugum istud, quod nee patres vestri, nee
vos ferri potuistis Ex nobis promplum ac paratum
cxemplum ; quod sequi vobis gloriosum! Quo solo
irridere valeatis bnita de Yaiicano Jul mina." Tlien, after remarking, that though, on the dissolution of the Roman Empire, the Pope lost any privilege, which might have been conceded to him, as the Bishop of a place which was the seat of government ; yet, provided they could agree about
fundamentals, he was indifferent about emptj/ titles
" raodo in ceteris conveniatur (then comes what Doctor Milner cites), per me licet, suo fruatur qualicunque Primatu : non ego illi locum primum^ non iyiauem honoris titulum invideo, &c." The admission of even a shadow of authority, much less of a certain defined one, is not implied in these words. — SeeTiinu) Appendix to Mosh. Eccl. Hist. vol. vi. pp. 107—1 10.
♦ Matth. xvi. IB.
-}• Addukss ut supr. p. xiv. ; the translation of Bishop Marsh to the See of Pctei borough, has put aw end to this fanciful coincidence.
XXXVIU PREFATORY REMARKS.
vid*s. But, whether we determine with * Bishop Marsh, on the one hand, that the word Rock refers to St. Peter, and that our Saviour argued from the name to the mean- ing of the name ; i. e. from Cepha or nEXPor, to what corresponded with the office of the Apostle ; or with the substantial services, which our Lord foresaw he would render the Church ; and that we thus identify the faith with the person of the Apostle, because his faith operated through his person : or, whether we coincide, on the other hand, with the -|- Bishop of St. David's, that the Rock alludes to Christ, and to the con- fession, not of St. Peter individually, but of the other Apostles united with him ; that is, to their doctrine — the Messiahship of Je- sus, on which, as on a foundation, the Christian Church is built ; and that we cannot argue from the name to the meaning of the name. I say, in whatever light we view their opinions, resulting as they do from the deepest philological research, and
* Appendix to Comp. View of the Churches of Eng- land and Rome, pp. 273 — 286.
•f Tracts on the Origin and Independence of the an- cient British Church, &,c. pp. 10 — 21.
PREFATORY REMARKS. XXXIX
to whichsoever side we attach ourselves, we can discern no accession of strength to Doc- tor Milner's cause ; for both agree, that Pe- TRUS has a relative signification, as they also agree, that the * Supremacy of the Pope is discountenanced as well by the Scriptures, as the primitive History of the Church.
f Doctor Milner having complained that Protestant writers are in the habit of ap- plying the term Papist, in the offensive sense, and having in his present work inti- mated his wish on this head ; I have through- out these pages, cautiously abstained from
* Doctor Milner imagined, that the argument for Papal
Supremacy was strengthened in consequence of Bishop
Marsh having asserted, that the words in Matt, xvi, 18,
have the same import, as if we said in EngHsh to a person,
whose name was Rock; "Thou art Rock in name, and
shalt be Rock in deed ; for on thee," &.c. : and because his
Lordship illustrated the Syriac words used by our Saviour
by the French translation, "Tu es Pierre, et sur cette
Pierre, 8cc. ;" the corresponding Cepha and Pierre being
both a proper name, and an appellative in their respective
languages. But how vain is the conjecture f For if the
mere circumstance of St. Peter's presiding over the Church
of Rome (granting that ho did so) entitled it to Supremacy ;
it would follow, that everi/ ol/icr Church over which he or
St. Paul presided, would be likewise enUllcd to Siiprcmary.
t Letters to a Prebendary, p. .'J.
kI prefatory remarks.
the use of it. Not that 1 consider it in its a|)pro[)riate meaning as more than designa- ting a sectary ; namely, a person devoted to the Pope : just as the adjuncts, hutheraiiy Calvinkt and Avian, jjoint out the particular sect, to which individuals respectively be- long. To the term Papist, strictly speak- ing, Doctor Milner should not object, hav- ing its root in Papa, and because both it and the word Romanist were used, as may be seen in Bishoj:> Jewell's works, long be- fore pains and penalties were enacted against the members of the Church of Rome. This very circumstance sets aside his charge, ***that these terms were invented in the time of persecution, to serve as a cloak for the exercise of it." Indeed, were Pro- testant writers to use the term Papist, there might be some ground for objecting to it as an offensive term ; since, like its correla- tives, Pope and Popery, it might be said to spring from \ Popa, a word descriptive of a person every way contemptible and mean.
* Ibid. •\ PoFA signilied one of the lowest and most degraded class. ^^ Pupa, nescio quis de circo niaximo." — Cic. pro Milone, Sect. 24. On this passage the Annotator Asco-
PREFATORY REMARKS. xU
But while Doctor Milner is thus particu- lar on the score of epithets as apphed to those of his own Communion ; he seems to feel perfect indifference, to say the least of it, about those, which he applies to the members of the Established Church, He tauntingl}'^ calls them Anglicans, Church-of- England men, Frotestant Christians, &c. ; and frequently brands them with the odious names of heretics, and schismatics. Not- withstanding this, in the following pages, I shall not be tempted, in imitation of him, to depart from that line of moderation and civility, which 1 prescribed to mj^self from the outset, and which I deem perfectly compatible with the interests of truth.
The term Catholic, as exclusively applied to members of the Church of Rome, I do
nius observes, " Popa est sacronim administer, qui victi* mas immolal." The Rev. Mu. Roberts sliiewdly con- jeclures, that llie title of Pope was probably given by the Gentiles, when the Masa came to be represented as a sacri- Jice ; but that the Pope disHkin;,' if, substituted Papa, Fa- ther, in opposition to our Lord's injunction to his disciples — "call no man your FatJier upon earth, for one is your Father, which is in heaven." — Matt, xxiii. {). See Mr. KOIJFirrS's Review of Popery, p. HI, and CuiTo's Letter to Mr. Gandolphy, Protestant Adv. Sept. 1815, p. 542.
xlii PREFATORY REMARKS.!
not use, for the very reason, on account of which it is adopted hy Doctor Milner ; as it would he assuming, that they wei'Cf and that we were notf true members of the Church of Christ. There is no doubt, that the * early Christians were unwilling to grant the ap- pellation of Catholic to the heretics of their time. But will he, therefore, pretend to say, that the members of the Church of Rome, to whom alone he gives this appel- lation, hold that pure and unadulterate faith demanding universal credit and belief, which those early Christians did : or, that we of the Church of England resemble those he- retics in disclaiming all dependance on Christ and God? If he cannot, then the infer- ence is plain, -f " Of what Church are you," said Tolemo, his judge, to an ancient martyr. Pionius replied, " 1 am of the Catholic Church, for Christ has no other.** When I myself aver the same thing, and in jus-
* Some excellent observations on -the scrupulousness of the prinoitive Christians in this respect, are given by the Rev. Dr. Nares in his elaborate Discourses on the three Creeds. See particularly Sermon 1, p. J2, Ed. 18 ly.
•f Cujus, inquit Polenio, es Ecclesiae f Respondit Pio- nius, Catholica: nulla enini est alia apud Christum." — Act. Pionii apud Baron, an. 254.
PREFATORY REMARKS. xliii
tice, concede to Doctor Milner the privilege of Catholicity, I must necessarily protest against his arrogant assumption of a term, to which, in his use of it, excliisiveness is attached.
Should I appear either too minute, or too diffuse in my references to the ancient fa- thers, this must be my apology ; that it arises from the numerous and varied ci- tations produced by Doctor Milner. I was determined to deprive him of the adventi- tious aid, which he derived from this source, and therefore, 1 have attentively explored it through all its branches. By these means, the reader, who has neither time, nor incli- nation to consult the originals, will have the opportunity of judging with accuracy and satisfaction, what violence is done to the early writers in being pressed into the service of Popery.
With respect to both ancient and mo- dern authors, I may say, that as 1 considered it indispensable to quote their own words, so I have [)ointe(l to the original with the most scrupulous exactness, and have nei- ther left my reader in doubt or displeasure at nnanthenticatod assertions. I have done
xliv PREFATORY REMARKS.
SO, both because they express their own thoughts better than I could j30ssibly do, and because it enabled mc to direct the reader's attention to places, whence he might derive further information on the subject under discussion. In general, I can conscientiously declare, that truth has been my sole object, and that, for the at- tainment of this honest and honourable end, 1 have only had recourse to corre- sponding means. 1 have stated nothing as a fact, but what I believed, and almost uniformly proved, to be one ; nor have I deduced a single inference, which I was not persuaded to have fairly resulted from the premises.
I have, as I conceive, noticed all Doctor Milner's principal arguments, and have dis- tinctly placed them and my answers toge- ther under the reader's view ; so that he can at once decide on the merits of the case. And if I have, in any instance, drawn a false conclusion, or have been inadvertent- ly betraj^ed into a warmth of expression, 1 furnish a corrective ; as I, at the same mo- ment, exhibit the grounds on which I build my argument, or throw out an imputation.
PREFATOEY REMARKS. xlv
And, however some persons may think, that the single objection to Poper}^ arising from its idolatry, is in one word an Answer to the whole of Doctor Milner's Hiud of ReligioKs Controversii, every other supersti- tion being either included in it, or of minor consideration ; yet the necessit}^ of still continuing to refute that, which in defiance to refutation, is with confidence upheld, appeared to me absolutel}^ indispensable. Arguments, however weak, should be an- swered, and calumnies, however ground- less, should be exj)osed ; lest, in the opi- nions of ignorant and superficial observers, weakness should be mistaken for strength, and wicked and false assertions should be admitted as truths, because not disputed.
I have, ill the last place, to observe, that it is an incontrovertible proof of the sound- ness of our cause, that the arguments of our ablest Divines can bear to be brought forward again and again in opposition to the exploded objections of Popery ; as often as the temerity of our adversaries call for their reproduction. Of those adversaries themselves, I can only say, that they ma- nifest no symptoms of thai infa]hl)le prin-
xlvi PREFATORY REMARKS.
ciple, which they claim for the Church, to which they helong. Levity, fallacy, and fol- ly, minutely characterize them, and, while they seem to forget the humiliating defeats, which Popery, in all its forms, has sus- tained since the era of the Reformation, the}^ daily appear to court fresh disaster and multiplied disgrace. In a word, while the champions of our Church have, from the time of Jewell to the present day, heen uniformly triumphant, their opponents only live in the praises of such men as Gregory Martin, Thomas Ward, and
The Reverend Doctor Milner.
CONTENTS.
CHAPTER I.
PAGE
The Scripture Canon of the Church of England
vindicated • 1
CHAPTER n.
The variance of the XI Vth Psalm, as it stands in our Authorized Translation of the Bible and Book of Common Prayer, accounted for 34
CHAPTER III.
The genuineness of the Text of the three heavenli/
Witnesses inquired into 42
CHAPTER I\^.
Our Authorized Translation of the Bible vindicated , . 60
CHAPTER V.
The Doctrine of Transubstantialion, a Papal Novelty. 109
CHAPTER VI.
The Real Presence of Christ in the Sacrament .... 139
CH7\I>TER VII.
The Suppression of half the Eucharist, sacrilegious ..189
CHAPTER VIII. The Sacrifice of the Mass, impious 239
CHAI*TER IX. Absolution from Sin 245
CONTENTS.
PAGE
CHAPTER X. Indulgoices » 265
CHAPTER XI. Purgatori/ 277
CHAPTER Xn. Extreme Unction 294
CHAPTER Xni.
The Invocation of Saints, and Worship of Images,
blasphemous and idolatrous 298
CHAPTER XIV. Antichrist 31?
CHAPTER XV. The Supremacy of the Pope 326
CHAPTER XVI. Toleration 351
CHAPTER XVII. Popish, or false Miracles 36 1
CHAPTER XVIII. Prai/ers in an j^nknown Tongue 381
CHAPTER XIX. Prohibition of the Scriptures . . , 391
CHAPTER XX. The CelibaCT/ of the Clergy 400
CHAPTER XXI. Exclusive Catholicity 407
SCRIPTURE CANON,
CHAPTER I.
THE SCRIPTURE CANON OF THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND VINDICATED.
Preparatory to the charge which Doctor Milner makes on our received English version of the Scriptures, he passes some remarks on * " the vain confidence of the Protestant," who adheres to the Bible alone, as his rule of faith, and who disregards the two-fold rule or law, by whicii the f (Roman) Catholic Church is guided, and of which it is constituted an inter- preter or judge. *' Supposing then," says he,
• Enj) of Religious Contuoveksy, Letter IX. p. 67.
t When Doctor Miliicr makes mention of the Catholic Church, Ik; \h to be understood as speaking ot" the Church of Rome. Hut to (;uard against mistake, the term Roman is generally prefixed to it in a parenthesis^ where his own words are cited.
1)
2 SCKIFTUKE CANON Ol" THE
addressing himself to his correspondent, *' you to be the Protestant I have been speaking of, I ask you, liow you have learnt what is the Canon of Scripture ; that is to say, which are the books that have been written by divine in- spiration ; or, indeed, how have you ascertained that any books at all have been so written?"
1 shall then, for a moment, put myself in the place of his correspondent, and reply, that 1 need not refer to a living, speaking authority, such as that which exists in the Church of Rome, to tell me in what the Canon of Scripture consists. *Our Saviour said, that the law, and the prophets, and the Psalms, testified of Him ; and his words are true. Thus, then, the Scriptures themselves, the ivritlen word, tell me where the Canon of Scripture is to be found. Those I believe, while I reject tradition, which Doctor Milner receives with sentiments of f equal piety and reverence ; nay, as possessing even superior authority to the Scriptures them- selves. Let me, however, be here understood as drawing a distinction between tradition as a rule of faith, and all other kinds of it; and that when I say generally 1 reject tradition — the un- written ivord, the tota doctrina non scripta — it
* Luke, xxiv. 44.
t Tridentina Synodus - - pari pictatis affectu ac re-
verentid suscipil et veneratur. Sess. IV. p. 11. Ed. Soteal. Ijbl.
CHURCH OF ENGLAND VINDICATED. 3
does not follow, that I reject that * species of it which proves the genuineness of the New Testament. This is tradition of testimony, and is no way whatever connected with tradition of doctrine ; but is applied to the ivritten word. So that, when we speak of tradition of tesii- mojiy, tradition of ceremonies, and tradition of interpretation, we must take care not to con- found any of them with that sort of tradition which is to the Church of Rome a rule of FAITH, and which is exclusively applicable to the univritten ivord. Indeed, if this dis- tinction be not observed, as any thing whatever delivered from one person to another may be called tradition, endless confusion must be the consequence.
I say then, that on the Scriptures themselves,
* According to Bellarmine, there are three kinds of Tra- diliun. The first is divine tradition, relating to doctrines delivered by Christ to his apostles ; and though taught by thenn, left unrecorded. The second is apostolical tradition, relating to doctrines also taught by the apostles, and also letl unrecorded ; yet as they have been dictated by the Holy Spirit, tlicy also have received the epithet divine. These two kinds cutii^lilute with Ikilannine tlic unwritten word of Qoi\ , and are always comprehended in the term tradition. Tlie third kin<l, which he mentions, is of human origin, and relates to church ceremonies, &c. ; this is called tradition of the church, or kcclesiasticai. tradition. Sec Bishop Marsh's Comparative View of the Chuichc-j of England and Rome, pp. 6— b.
IJ 2
4 SCRIPTURE CANON OF THE
the certainty respecting the Canon of the Old Testament is founded; for the Scriptures, uhicli Christ sanctioned are the very ones which are now contained in the HeUrew Bible, and which, in the GUI Testament constitute the Canon of the Church of Enghuid ; while the Canon of the Old Testament adopted by the Ciuirch of Rome, received neither the sanc- tion of Christ nor of his apostles. What those books are, as well as their exact number, is certified, in the first place, by Josephus, himself too a Jewish Priesl,and likewise contemporary vs^ith * some of the apostles ; next, by Melito, Bishop of Sardis, in the second century ; and lastly, by Jerome, in the fourth century.
The first of these writers says, f " we have not thousands of books, discordant and contradict- ing each other, but we have only tiveyity-tivo ; which comprehend the history of all former ages, and are justly regarded as divine." The Jewish historian then proceeds to divide the entire number into three classes, and to give a detail of the subjects treated of in each class— the law occupying the first; the pro- phets, the secotid; and the hagiographa, the
* SS. Paul, PuiEa, and John, ^(iyi.iym AYO AE MONA HPOS TOIS EIKODI BIBAIA, ra irx»-
CHURCH OF ENGLAND VINDICATED. 5
third class. In this last class, the Psalms oc- cupy the Jirst place. Melito only differs from Josephus in his omission of the Book of Esther, which is an oversight, as it is not found in Origen's catalogue. And Jerome agrees with Josephus, not only as to the three-fold division, but as to the books themselves, and the num- ber of them ; holding in common with him the books of the law to be five, but * varying from him as to the point, which divides the remain- ing seventeen into the second and third classes. The coincidence between the number of the books of which the Canon of the Old Testa- ment consists, and the number of the letters in the Hebrew alphabet, viz. tiveniy-two, although probably designed, was regarded by f Jerome as something mysterious. From this it ap- pears, that the Church of Ji^ngland has adopted in its Canon of the Old Testament precisely the same Books, whirh the Hehreiv Bible con- tained, when Jerome translated it; and that its
* Thus Joseplius and Jerome afjrced ahnut tlic nmTiI)er of the books of which lh(; first class consisted ; Iml diflcrcd in this nnanner respecting the others.
Josepliiis'g Bccond class J , „ • . Jerome's spcond class )
consisted of S consistod of \ « ""o^s.
• third ditto .. 4 third ditto .. <J
17 17
t Viginti dun volimiina siippntanliir, (piil)us, (piasi liinis, exordiis in Dei doctrinA, tenera adhiic et hictrns viri jusli eruditur infanlia. JriioME, Prologus galcatiis.
b SCRIPTURE CANON OF THE
Canon is the zV/ew//r«Z one Nvhich was sanctioned by our Saviour.
Ilow diftereutly circumstanced is Doctor Milner's mjallihle church, wliich possesses a Canon, that neither Christ nor his Apostles au- thorized. It is true, they say, it was handed down by apostolical tradition ; but it is as true, that this living, speaki^ig authority, by which the Word of God itself is reduced to a state of tutelage and subserviency, was guilty of an egregious error in the very outset, in determin- ing its Canon from an * interpolated Greek copy of the Bible, and making it to consist not only of those books, which the Church of England retains as being referred to by Christ; but of others, wliich not only were not alluded to by Him, but which the concurrent voice of antiquity rejects, for the vei^y reason of their not being alluded to by Him, as apocryphal. It is well known, that the council of Trent has ratified this corrupt Canon, and that it has attached equal reverence and esteem to the books of which it is composed indiscriminately. By doing so, however, it was well aware that it upheld such
* " They were not out of the Hebrew fountain (we speak of the Latin Translations of the Old Testament), but out of the Greek stream; therefore the Greek being not altogether clear, the Latin derived from it must needs be muddy." Preface or Epistle to the reader by the translators of our Bible, in 1611.
CHURCH OF ENGLAND VINDICATED. 7
of the corruptions of Popery, as derived-counte- nance and support from the apocryphal books. The difference between the Canons of the two Churches marks the difference between the sources whence they are derived. We know that the Septuagint version of the Scriptures was made at the instance of Ptolemy Philadel- phus, nearly .300 years before the birth of Christ ; and that the books which that version contained in addition to the writings of the He- brew Bible, were written at a period not more remote than two centuries before that event. To the Greek Jews resident in Egypt may be ascribed the insertion of those additional books among their Scriptures ; yet without their having acknowledged them to be canoni- cal. This appears to be the case from the testimony of Philo, an Egyptian Jew of the lirsit century. Unable to discriminate between the books whicli were of Hebrew, and those of Greek origin, the author or authors of the * Latin version translated all the books of the Septuagint without distinction into Latin ; and without distinction all were pronounced by St.
* The most notcfl of the earliest Latin versions is that called the old Jtalic, Of this version there are thr»c varieties, the oldest of which is represented as being most beautiful, being written on purple vellum, in silver cliurnctcrs, and preserved at Hrescia in Italy. See >.oi,AN'b Integnly of the Greek Vulgate, pp. 39, 60.
8 SCRIPTURE CANON OF THE
Augustine as of canonical authority. Such is the source from which the Cliurch of Rome derives its Canon of the Old Testament.
On the other hand, we find, that Jerome, al- though he attempted at the request of Pope Damasus to revise the discordant Latin ver- sions, which existed in liis time, from the Sep- tuagint ; yet he relinquished this attempt, and formed a new Latin version of the Old Testa- ment early in the fifth century ; not like the other Latin versions derived from the Septua- gint, but from the Hebrew, the original inspired text. This he was enabled to do, as he did not confine his reading, like * Augustine, to w^orks in his native language, being intimately versed both in Greek and Hebrew. But such books as were not in the Hebrew Bible, he marked down as apocryphal. This is the source from which the Church of England derives its Canon of the Scriptures ; and such is the view taken by our ablest divines of the Canons of the respective churches. The
* "Augustine wished to dissuade Jerome from translating the Scriptures of the Old Testament out of the Hebrew Tongue ; whose reasons, as they are but frivolous, are de- rided by Jerome, who being learned in the Hebrew and Chaldee tongues, refused to be taught by Augustine, that was ignorant in tliem, what was to be done in translations out of them." Fulke's Defense of the sincere and true Transla- tions of the Holie Scriptures, p. 22. Ed. 1583.
CHURCH OF ENGLAND VINDICATED. 9
reader may now judge whether the Church of Rome be warranted, as Doctor Mihier con- tends, in rejecting Jerome's Canon ; in attempt- ing to degrade that which was the only Canon of our Saviour Jesus Christ, by calling it the Canon of the * Scribes and Pharisees ; and finalh% in ratifying Augustine's corrupt Canon. To pronounce with confidence what books of the Canon, or parts of books, are inspired, and what not, may consistently belong to Doctor JMilner, as being a member of a church which lays claim to infallibility; but certainly not to a member of the Church of England. So that, when he asks, how tve have learned what books " have been written by divine in- spiration," or how we have ascertained that any books at all have been so written? we may an- swer, that where the Holy Scriptures declare, that they set forth a divine Revelation, or that they express the word of God, we believe them to do so. But as to the fact of their in- spiralion, we must with awe and humility decline to say, what we believe no church, an- cient or modern, can ever attest. In respect to the use of Scriptur<', wherever we conceive our authorized English version to be inaccurate, and what human production can claim per-
* See Bishop ChaloncrV noie, prefixed to the First Book of Maccabees.
10 SCRIPTURE CANON OF THE
feet exemption from error, we are at liberty to appeal to the original ? In this point, we difl'er from the practice of the Church of Rome, which ascribes to the Latin vulj^ate, its autho- rized translation, even higher authority than it does to the inspired originals themselves ; and in its last general council directs, **' that it shall be esteemed authentic, and that no person, under any pretence whatever, shall presume to reject it." Doctor Milner knows too, that we do not, like the Church of Rome, affect to expound the Scriptures under the influence of the Holy Spirit, and that we are satisfied to interpret them by the aid of reason and learning.
But here Doctor Milner urges, that Hooker, " our great authority," shews, that Scripture cannot bear testimony to itself. Hooker's opi- nion would certainly carry great weight with it in deciding any point, but on the present one he is silent ; for in the place to which Doctor Milner refers, he discusses a different branch of the subject : viz. by what authority the Ca- non of Scripture is determined. But were he to have thus expressed himself, his opinion would be far outweighed by that of the most
* Ut hsEC ipsa vetus et vulgata editio ---. pro
aulhentica habeatur, ut nemo illain rejicere (juovis pratextn audeal \t\ prcesumat. — Concil. Trid. Sess. iv. p. 14.
CHURCH OF ENGLAND VINDICATED. 1 I
enlightened divines of the Church of England, \vho have declared with one voice, that the * inspiration of Scripture is not cognizable by /f «/;//«» observation; that it is what human evi- dence ca7inot attest ; that it cannot be deter- mined except by divine testimony, and there- fore, only by Scripture itself.
t Doctor INJilner next says, that we have no authority for receiving the Gospels of SS. Mark and Luke, who were not apostles, as canonical, and rejecting an authentic work of great ex- cellence, the Epistle of St. Barnabas, who is termed in Scripture an apostle. In a word, that we have no authority for asserting, that the sacred volumes are the genuine composition of the holy persons, whose names they bear, *' except tradition, and the living voice of the church.''
1 need not here remind Doctor Milner, that the rejection of tradition as a rule of faith constituted the vital principle of the Reforma- tion, and that although we receive as canonical the Gospels of SS. Mark and Luke, as we do ancient interpretations of them, by what in a certain sense may be called tradition ; yet we do so at our owji discretion. So that, when he insinuates, that the Churches of England and
* See parliciilarly CoMi'. View, p. 147. t Lettf.r ix. p. 6S.
12 SCRIPTURE CANON OF THE
Rome agree about tradition, it must be ob- served, that the word is used by him in a sense different from tliat in which we understand it. Tradition, in this general sense, as it applies to the umvritten word, will not prove that the sacred writings are the genuine productions of those, whose names they bear. A proof of this kind, must be established by a different sort of tradition — the tradition of testimony. This latter kind, therefore, which applies to the written tvord, should, as I have already ob- served, not be confounded with tradition as a rule of faith, and which applies exclusively to the umvritten ivord. To shew how well this distinction is preserved by our church, as
*aWITNESS AND KEEPER OF HoLY WrTT, let the
very Gospels of St. Mark and St. Luke, which Doctor Milner speaks of, be those, the genuine- ness of which, we are about to establish. The process to be observed is similar to that, which would be used in determining the genuineness of any profane work, such as tliat of Virgil, or of Horace ; since it makes no difference so far as the discovery of the author is concerned, that the former are inspired writings, the latter, not. Thus, we have passages from those Gospels in ecclesiastical writers, as may be seen in a Catena Patrum and in Pole's Synopsis, from the present
* Article xx.
CHURCH OF ENGLAND VINDICATED. 13
time, nearly to that in which those Gospels were written, when the authors of them must have been known. This certainly is tradition; because the evidence is * conveyed down to us from the earliest ages ; but it is a tradition o( testimony y and is no way connected with tradition of doctrine.
'vVith respect to St.Barnabas's Epistle, which Doctor Milner pronounces to be an authentic work of great excellence, there were not the same grounds for receiving it into the Canon of the Church of England, as for receiving the Gospels just spoken of, and therefore the framers of that Canon wisely rejected it. For, in llie first place, doubt and uncertainty affect the testimonies of the different writers, who have made quotations from the Epistle of this father. Jn the next place, it is not found in any of the ancient Canons. And lastly, it was not acknowledged as Scripture by any very early writer. But, for the purpose of coming to the point, I shall meet Doctor Milner on ground of his owi) choosing, lie first refers to Cote- lerius, ;is fiiniisliiiig evidence that the Epistle ascribed to Barnabas is " authentic," {genuine^ I suj)pose he means) and next, to Grabe's Spicilegium.
1 am willing to admit, that JJoctor Milner
* See BisHOf Buknet'b Expos, of ihe Sixth Article, p. 72.
14 SCRIPTURE CANON OF THE
has, in the present instance, forgot, that the Council of Trent has, in its fourth Session, enumerated in its Canon of the New Testament, the very books which we adopt in ours. But that he should quote Cotelerius, as aftbrding evidence of Barnabas being the author of the Epistle ascribed to him, is not a little surprising. For, in that author's * Syllabus of Letters, which relate to the Apostolic Fathers, the first is that of t Archbishop Laud to Menard, in which he says, [ grant that Barnabas's Epistle is sufficiently ancient, hninot canonical. Next, X Eusebius, in his Ecclesiastical History, ob- serves : — " moreover, let that Epistle, which is reported to belong to Barnabas, be ranked among the spurious books of the New Testa- ment." § RuflSnus too enumerates it among those productions, about which there is the greatest doubt. || Clemens Alexandrinus speaks of it as being among those writings, to w^hich objections are made. He specifies those objec- tionable writings to be the Epistles of Clemens
* COTELER,, p. 4.
t Barnabae Epistolam satis antiquam agnosco, non ca- nonicam.
t E» To»? N0©0ir x«T«T£Tap(;Ow xa» rw> n«t^A8 Trpx^euv ii ypu^t) xai 71 ^ipojjiftT) Bapawa iTrtroXi).
§ De fjiiibtK (/nam maxinie duhitatiir.
II ArT^^lyo/xl^aJ» yp»<pur Trjf Ttr BAPNABA, y.cn K^))/Ae»TOf,
Kxt I«5«. Lib. vi. c. 13.
CHURCH OF ENGLAND VINDICATED. 15
Romauus, Barnabas ^ and Jude. * He again says, that he does not omit in his account of the Scriptures those books about which there is any doubt, and expressly names the Epistle of St. Barnabas as one of them. This fatiier's testimony, as far as it goes, it is true, leads to the rejection of the Epistle of Jude, which we deem canonical. Doctor Milner seems to have this circumstance in view, when he proclaims the uncertainty of the Church of England, about the formation of its Canon, and its want of au- thority to determine what books are genuine, and what not. But his observation, if it have any force, applies equally to the Church of Rome. Thus, f says he, "numerous apocry- phal prophecies, and spurious Gospels and Epistles, under the same or equally venerable names, 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." All this is true, and the prtjsent is a casein point, where the evidence of Clemens Ah-xaiidrinus impeaches the genuine- ness of the Epistle ascribed to .hide. However, to rescue this |)articular Epistle from the im- putation cast on it by this father, w(i must pre-
* M») di Ta{ afTtAiyo^t^af nxfih^u* t»)» tu BAPNABA.
t Lt-.TTEIi IX. |>. OS.
Id SCRIPTURE CANON OP THE
serve the course employed in establishing the spuriousness of the Jilpistle ascribed to Barna- bas. When there are conflicting testimonies ; the number, credibility, and skill of the wit- nesses on both sides, must be taken into ac- count, and the matter be decided as those preponderate, for or against. To this process alone, had our reformers recourse, when they settled our Canon, without requiring the aid of a living, speaking authority, to guide them in the selection of the books of which it consisted. It should be remarked too, that * Jerome, in his catalogue of Greek writings, sets down Barnabas's Epistle as among the apocryphal Scriptures. And Coteleriuss own argument, after combatting the opinion of Bede, about the time at which Barnabas entered on his disciple- ship, is of an hypothetical nature, beginning with a certk vix credi potest. He says, that on the score of authority, there is a difference be- tween the Epistles of Clemens and Barnabas ; ffor, that the Epistle of the former obtained greater celebrity. '\, Cotelerius likewise adds,
* CoTELER. Monumen. Graec. Eccl. p. 5.
t Cujus Epistola tantum famm non est consecuta, ac ilia dementis. Ibid.
X Earn saltern a multis Catholicis admissam - - - ex quibus omnibus conficitur, non admodum clarum utrum prajsentetn Epistolam adjudicare debemus Barnabas Apostolo, an alteri homini apostolico, qui autBarnabae nomen assumpsit, &c. &c. Ibid.
CHURCH OF ENGLAND VINDICATED. 17
that it has been received, at least by many (Roman) Catholics; and concludes with ob- serving, that " it is not very evident, whether we ought to ascribe the present Epistle to Barna- bas, the apostle, or to some apostolic person who assumed his name." It certainly is not surprising, that so ancient a fragment, whether genuine or not, should be held in high estima- tion by Cotelerius; the surprise rather is, that Doctor Milner could quote this Doctor of the Sorbonne as doing, what in fact, he does not, — namely, give the least evidence towards esta- blishing the genuineness of Barnabas's Epistle. It appears from what*Lardner says on the subject, tliat Barnabas's Epistle was not reck- oned a book of authority, or part of the rule of faith, by those ancient Christians, who have taken the greatest notice of it ; as Clemens Alex., Origen, or Eusebius in his Ecclesiastical History. Nor is it ranked as such, by those wlio have given catalogues of the books of the New Testament ; as Athanasius, Cyril of Jeru- salem, tipiph;inius, Gregory Nazianzen, Amplii- locliius, Jerome, HiilTinus, and Augustine. It also apjX'ars, that JJaruabas was not one of ChriKt's twelve aposth^s, and that he was not
• See Bishop Watson'8 Collection of Tracts, vol. ii. p. 14, for Lardner's Ilifitory of tlie Apostles and Kvangelisls.
C
18 SCRIPTURE CANON OF THE
chosen one instead of Judas; for, if he were, St. Paul wouhl liavc said us in the * Epistle, which he addressed to the Galatians, where he twice uses the word me. f Mosheim, on the authority of Tillemont and Ittigius, accounts for the Epistle in question being the production of some Jew of the second century, from the superstitions attachment which it shews to Jewish fables. On the whole, therefore, it ap- pears, that the Church of England is warranted in the decision it has come to respecting the reputed Epistle of Barnabas ; and that it has been guided, as it should be, by that kind of tradition which we call tradition of testimony ; but by no means, by tradition in the popish sense, as Doctor Milner would lead his readers to suppose was the case. As to JGrabe, the second writer referred to by Doctor Milner, he only gives fragments of the Epistle ascribed to Barnabas ; while in his Index, he inserts the saint himself as one of the apostolical fathers. No farther does his testimony extend.
It is not by popish authorities alone, that Doctor Milner supports his arguments ; he has enlisted under his banner a still greater number of Protestant writers. If this be a novel course for a popish polemic to take, it certainly is not
* ii. 9 t Eccl. Hist, vol.i. J). 113.
\ See SpiciLEGiuM.
CHURCH OF ENGLAND VINDICATED. J 9
an unwise one, being designed as the means of confirming the bigotry of his Roman Catholic readers, who will receive at his hands his por- traiture of heresy, with as much reverence as they receive the Gospel itself, on the supposi- tion that he con\icts his adversaries by their own testimony. To disabuse such persons, I have principally directed my research to those Protestant works on which Doctor Milner has laid so much stress ; and as often as I could discover the passages to which he refers, I have been almost uniformly successful, as these pages will shew, in detecting error, or misrepresenta- tion. I say, as often as I could discover, since his references, whether from accident or design, al*e seldom correct.
* Doctor Milner proceeds to say, '' that the genuine Canon of Scripture was fixed in the fourth century by the tradition and authority of the church, declared in the third Council of Carthage, and by a decretal of Pope Inno- cent tlic; First; and tiiat it is so clear, that the Canon is built on tlie tradition of the church, that most learned Protestants, with Luther him- self, have been forced to acknowledge it in terms as strong as those in the well-known declaration of St. Augustine."
In the first place, the assumption with respect
* Letteu ix. J). 6S. c 2
20 SCRIPTURE CANON OF THE
to Luther is quite gratuitous; for as to bis confessious, retractations, or inconsistencies, with which Doctor Milner constantly taunts the Church of England, they go for nothing. What have the errors of Luther, or of this apos^ tate monk, as he calls him, to do with the ques- tion at issue? If, in the body of his doctrine, defects can be discovered, we know that the greatest lights of the church, and in the purest timesof it, were not agreed in all their opinions; and if, in his character, failings are discernible, we equally know, that an apostle himself was not free from reproach. But were they as glar- ing as Doctor Milner represents them to be, they were counterbalanced by great virtues and high endowments of mind, which appeared as constellations in the dark expanse which sur- rounded them. The wonder, then, should be, not that he had imperfections; but that he had so few. To expect that Luther should not be tossed about by the tempest which agitated Europe in his time, and which he himself may, in a manner, be said to have created, would be to suppose him more than mortal.
Doctor Milner confronts us with the testimony of the judicious Hooker, another of those learned Protestants, who, he says, are compel- led to acknowledge, that the Canon of Scrip- ture is built on the tradition of the church. What this acknowledgment is, we shall pre-
CHURCH OF ENGLAND VINDICATED. 21
«eutly see. * Hooker argues thus. After ob- serving, that it is bj^ some childishly demanded, what Scripture can teach the authority of Scrip- ture, he goes on to say, that certainly it is not a self-evident proposition, that the Scriptures are the oracles of God; for then, that every per- son who heard them would as readily assent to them, as to the axiom, that the whole is greater than a part. Therefore, that some knowledge must be presupposed, by which we know them to be divine. " So that the thing to be ascertain* ed is, whence comes our instruction? Some answer from tradition; (observe he does not expressly give this as his own answer). Is this enough ?" He then adds, that we should not reject the lessons of experience, as by it we know, *' that the first outward notice, which leads men to esteem the Scriptures is the autho- rity of God's church. For, when we know, that the vjhole Church of God has that opinion of the Scriptures, we judge it, even at the first, an impudent thing for any man bred and brought up in the church, to be of a contrary mind without cause." What is this but the lan- guage of sonje of our ablest commentators, whose opinions confirm the right of private judgment, whihi they recommend a distrust in our own understanding, and a resj)ectful defer-
* EccLEiiASTicAL PoLiTV, book Hi. sccl. vii'i. p. 77,
22 SCRIPTURE CANON OF THE
ence to the judgment of our superiors — the governing members of the church, when we think differently from them in any particular point. This surely is not ascribing to the church that infallible authority, with which Doctor Milner invests the Church of Rome.
But to proceed with Hooker. * '* If," says he, " I believe the Gospel, reason is of singular use in confirming my belief. Again; exclude the use of natural reason, about the sense of the Holy Scriptures, concerning the articles of our faith, and then, who can assure us that the Scriptures doth concern the articles of our faith ? Can christian men perform what Peter requires, and be able, ivithout the use of reason, to ren- der a reason sound and sufficient, to answer them that demand it. And for that cause, it is not said amiss, touching ecclesiastical canons, that by instinct of the Holy Ghost, they have been made and received by the reverend accepta- tion of the world" It may be seen from this, that Hooker ascribes a due reverence to the church, and argues, that it should not be with- held from it without sufficient cause. But he is far from laying down any such position as that attributed to him by Doctor Milner; or acknowledging that the Canon of Scripture is built on the tradition of the church. On the
* Ecclesiastical Polity, book iii. sect. viii. p. 77.
CHURCH OF ENGLAND VINDICATED. "23
contrary, he dwells too largely on the use of reason, to admit of such a conclusion ; for rea- son must be discarded, if the authority of the church, in the popish sense, be admitted.
How stands the case with respect to Lard- NER, whom Doctor Milner puts down as agree- ing with Hooker, and consequently with him- self, respecting the foundation on which the Canon of Scripture is built? We find his evi- dence very full on this subject, and to the fol- lowing effect: — * " That the number of the books to be received as canonical, had not been detennined hy the authority of any council^ as appears from the different judgments among Christians concerning divers books ; particu- larly the Epistle to the Hebrews, and the Reve- lations, which some received as canonical, others not." Is this a forced acknowledgment in fa- vour of Doctor Milner's argument? On the contrary, the testimony, as far as it goes, refutes it; while it calls his candour in question. But further; the Doctor contends, that the Canon was finally fixed, by the tradition and authority of the church, declared in the third Council of Carthage: while ( Lardner, to whom he appeals, says *' that the third Council of Carthage only ordains, that nothing; but canonical Scripture be
* See Bishop Watson's Collection uf Tracts, vol. ii. p. 20. t 1bii>.
24 SCRIPTURE CANON OF THE
read in the cliurcli, luider the name of divine Scripture." But the council does not pro- nounce, wliat books were canonical, and what not ; although it appears that some were con- sidered canonical at that time. Lardner further states, that the Council of Laodicea, which pre- ceded that of Carthage, held the same language. But he has only stated, what every ecclesiastical historian, before his time, has done — namely, that the books, of which the Canon consists, were known to be the genuine writings of the apostles and evangelists, as we know the works of Caesar and Cicero; and that in all ages, chris- tian people and churches had a liberty to judge according to evidence. Lardner then draws his observations on the subject to a close, after decidedly rejecting tradition in the sense at- tached to it by Doctor Milner; no less than the authority of the church itself, as the basis of the Canon. * '* In fine," says he, " the writings of the apostles and the evangelists are received, as the works of other eminent men of antiquity, upon the ground of general consent and tes- timony.'' Does this language express any thing like a forced acknowledgment respecting the basis on which the Canon rests; an acknow- ledgment, which Doctor Milner affirms, has been made on the part of the most learned Protest-
* Ibidem.
CHURCH OF' ENGLAND VINDICATED. 26
ants, in terms equally significant with those in the celebrated declaration of *St. Augustine, who would not believe the Gospel itself, if the authority of the Catholic church did not oblige him to do so? Does it not rather point out the criterions by which the genuineness of the in- spired originals may be ascertained, and the sufficiency of reason and learning in the appli- cation of those criterions ?
The observations of the great Selden, as having the same bearing with those of Lardner, richly deserve our attention, f " It is," says this writer, " a great question, how we know Scripture to be Scripture, whether by the church or man's private spirit. Let me ask, how 1 know any thing? How I know this carpet to be green ? First because somebody told me it was green : that you call the church in 1/our way. Thus after I have been told it is green, when I see the colour again, I know it lo be green, my own eyes tell me it is green : that you call the private spirit.'' Here the senses give evidence to the truth of previous in- formation respecting a particular colour, and may be considered analogous to reason and learning, by the aid of which, the testimony
* Ego Evangelic non credcrem, nisi me commovcret Ec- clesiae auctoritas. — Epist. contra Fundam. t Table Talk, J). 2010.
26 SCUIPTUKE CANON OF THE
handed down to us, that is, the tradition oi tes- timony, can be rendered serviceable in deter- mining- what Scripture is canonical and what not, contrary to the dogma of the popish church.
But, * Doctor Milner contends, that, as we admit " that the unwritten word was the first rule of Christianity, it is incumbent on us to demon- strate, and this by no less an authority than that which established the rule, at what precise period it ivas abrogated" It is true, that the doctrines which Christ taught during his mi- nistry were traditional, and that those, which his apostles subsequently taught, under the direction of the t Holy Spirit, were likewise traditional; as neither were, as far as we can know, com- mitted to writing precisely at the time in which they were delivered. But, although this be the case, yet when he insists that the authority, which the unwritten word then had, was not abrogated, because the written word, as he im- plies, was added to it, his argument carries with it its own confutation ; since it supposes a point to be proved which cannot be urged against those who deny it. The precise period, therefore, at which those traditions, whether divine or apostolical, were abrogated, was, tvhen
* Letteii xi. p. 106.
t See Bellarmine's distinction, Note (*) p. 3.
CHURCH OF ENGLAND VINDICATED. 27
they were recorded: the former, in the Gospels • the latter, in the Epistles.
It is further argued, by * Doctor Milner, that when St. Paul wrote to the Thessalonians, it was against " the superstitions and vain spe- culations" of the Jews and Pagan philosophers that he warned them ; and not against apostO' lical traditions, which he strongly recommend- ed. This, again, is for the purpose of proving that the whole of God's word is not contained in Scripture, and that the unwritten part of it is no less to be received than the written. Ac- cording to the Rhemish version, St. Paul says, f'hold the traditions which ye have learned, whether it be by word, or our epistle." And our authorized version also reads, "hold the traditions, &c." This passage is decisive on the point, in Doctor Milner's opinion. But I should wish to ask him, what St. Paul understood by those traditions; and particularly, whether he designated by them those traditions which are known to be the constituent parts of the Popish Rule of Faitli. If this cannot be proved to be the case, it follows, that the traditions of that church have only an imaginary existence. \V hatever facihty i\\v- proof might derive from the traditio of tlie Vulgate is entirely done away, by refer- ring to the original Greek word, va^d^oaK;, which
* Letter xi. p. 124. \ 2 Thessal. ii. 15.
28 SCRIPTURE CANON OF THE
is more extensive in its signification ; and may imply *a precept, an instruction, ordinance, &c. &c. Now as those Trapa^otre.? wcFC partly oral, partly written, they might as well have referred to discipline as to doctrine. This appears from his commanding them afterwards to withdraw themselves f " from every brother that walketh disorderly, and not (xaT» t»)* Trapa^o^rnr) after the tra- dition which he received of us." So far Doc- tor Milner accompanies me in the quotation of the apostle's words. Now let the reader refer to the four next verses ; and he w^ill find that the apostle more fully explains himself, and shews, that he had in contemplation the disci- pline and personal conduct of individuals ; as he desires them not to walk disorderly, not to eat the bread of idleness, and to follow his ex- ample. I therefore maintain, from this view of the passage, taken by the apostle himself, that those TrapaJoau?, or traditions, as we have it, mean nothing more than precepts; and that even the whole of it, but particularly the part cited by Doctor Milner, is altogether irrelevant, and fo- reign to the purpose for which he produced it. This was the opinion of Coverdale, when, in allusion to similar strictures, he thus expressed
r doctrines and precepts of God. Macknight * Traditions < in loc.
'doctrines and injunctions. Parrhuiist, t 2 Thejsal. iii. 6.
CHURCH OF ENGLAND VINDICATED. 29
himself: * " If," says he, "we were not de- ceaved by men's traditions, we should find no more diversitie between these terms, than he- iween fourpence and ^ groats
Were it granted that TrapaJoo-ti? imply doc- trines, yet Doctor Milner would gain nothing by the concession, unless, as f Fulke says, this be his argument, " that as all was not written in the Epistle to the Thessalonians, ergo, it is no where written, or set down in the Holy Scrip- tures." Or, for the sake of explanation, as on the grounds of that concession, there were doc- trines delivered by St, Paul to the Thessalo- nians, which w^ere not specified in the epistle which he addressed to them, I say he would derive no advantage from the concession, unless it followed that they were, therefore, 7iot re- corded in any of his Epistles to the other chiirches, or many of the Epistles of the other Apostles, or even in the Gospels themselves. But as -d jjossibilitt/ exists of their being so record- ed, then those m-afaSoaui cease to be apostolical traditions, and the argument in favour of their present existence falls to the ground.
But were their existence certain, a difliculty would .still arise, how to know the j)earl when
• See Dedication of his Bible to King Henry VIII.
t See Confutation of the Uhemibts, on text 2Cor. ii. 16.
■ )() SCRIPTURR CANON OF THE
we have found it. This difficulty, Doctor Milner will tell us, that the flithers, and particularly the precious annotations to the Rhemish Testa- ment, which contain their sentiments, have re- moved. With respect to the fathers, if they speak of traditions, it is in the most compre- hensive sense, including written as well as un- written doctrines. [n fact, the doctrines of which they treat are those which are princi- pally found in the New Testament. And as to the Rhemish Annotators, their observations are not confined to doctrines ; they also extend to customs and ceremonies. The * fathers some- times call the Scriptures themselves by the name of tradition ; or else they speak of doc- trines contained in them, though not set forth in express terms, as the Trinity, the Baptism of Infants, &c. Thus when St. Jerome treats of i\\e Sacraments ?Ln{\ Ceremonies oiihe church in his time, he refers the former to the Scriptures, and the latter to the tradilion of the bishops ; but is altogether silent about doctrines supposed to have been delivered by the Apostles, that are no where recorded, and yet necessary to salva- tion. The bare possibility, therefore, which ex- ists, of doctrines, which were first unwritten^ being afterwards embodied in the written word,
* Annot. on Rhem. Test. p. 663.
CHURCH OF ENGLAND VINDICATED. 31
is sufficient to defeat Doctor Milner s appeal to the Scriptures on the agitated point.
But, continues he, it is unwarrantable in those Protestant Prelates, Bishops Porteus and Marsh, to compare the essential traditions of religion with ordinary stories ; and that * " the Catholic Church (that of Rome, of course) has always guarded them as the apple of her eye." Here again is the petitio pj'i7icipii ; the thing as- sumed, which is to be proved. We do not find in the Scriptures, the doctrines of transubstan- tiation, the worshipping of the host, the propi- tiatory sacrifice of the mass, the communion under one kind, the grant of indulgences, the praying of souls out of purgatory, the invoca- tion of saints, and the remission of sin through their intercession and merits. Neither do we find those doctrines recorded by any father of the first four centuries ; and yet we are told that they are, and ever have been, the doctrines of the church. INow, as Doctor Milner has not specified the precise point of time when those doctrines had a begiiuiing, and as we have suf- ficient evidence that they were not in existence for four centuries, at least, after Christ ; we may safely coiicliKh', first, that tin- Church of Home, which now teaches those doctrines as apostoli- cal traditions, docs so on the sole, but compre-
• Letter xi. p. 107.
32 SCIUPTUKE CANON OF THE
hensive principle of its infallibility. Secondly, that the Church of England has had sufficient grounds for refusing to receive them as doc- trines having an apostolical origin, from the mere circumstance of the ignorance which ex- ists among the advocates of the rival church, about u'here or when they had a beginning, not to speak of its own conviction about the mat- ter. And, lastly, that it is extremely improba- ble, as * Bishop Marsh most sensibly observes, *' that an all-wise Providence, imparting a new revelation to mankind, would suffer any doc- trine or article of faith to be transmitted to pos- terity by so precarious a vehicle as that of oral tradition."
Throughout the Letters in which he treats of the " True and False Rules," Doctor Milner affords repeated instances of the Popish mode of arguing in what is termed a vicious circle. With him, the church unerringly determines the authority of Scripture ; while the authority of Scripture deternjines the inerrability of the church. He was sensible that the objection had before been successfully made by Protes- tant writers, and as if it were in anticipation of its recurrence, he endeavours to elude its force in this fanciful way : — he supposes that a per- sonage calling himself the King's delegate, and
* CoMP. View, p. 67.
CHURCH OF ENGLAND VINDICATED. 33
whom, from circumstances, he believed to be really such, had presented him with a letter, in which the King expressed his wish that the same credit should be given his messenger's declara- tions as would be given his own. Here, we may perceive, that the delegate represents the church, and the letter the Scriptures. He (that is, the church,) decides infallibly on the autho- rity of the letter, i. e. the Scriptures ; while their authority confirms his infallibility. I here ask Doctor Mihier, whether this case be like that of the Baptist bearing testimony to Christ, and Christ bearing testimony to the Baptist? Or whether, when * he says " that the (Roman) Catholic Church follows the right rule, and the right rule infallibly leads to the (Roman) Ca- tholic Church," he can deny that this is a mu- tual testimony which, as running in the vicious circle, is destructive of itself For, when he believes the Scriptures, because the church bids him, and believes the church, because the Scriptures bid him ; what is it but arguing in a circle, and proving tin; thing by itself? But I shall not weary the reader's patience with fur- ther [)roofs of such fatuity.
• Letteii L. p. Ht2.
D
34 XlVril PSALIM IN OUK RECEIVED
CHAPTER II.
THE VARIANCE OF THE XIVTH PSALM, AS IT STANDS IN OUR AUTHORIZED TRANSLATION OF THE BIBLE AND BOOK OF COMMON PRAYER, ACCOUNTED FOR.
I SHALL not follow Doctor Milner into his la- byrinth, as he appropriately calls it, of biblical criticism ; but notice his leading objections to our authorized translation of the Bible, as they present themselves. One of these objections is directed against the difference which is found to exist between our Book of Common Prayer and our English Bible, with respect to the Fourteenth Psalm.* " Look," says he, "at Psalm xiv. as it occurs in the Book of Com- mon Prayer, to which your clergy swear their assent and consent; then look at the same Psalm in your Bible : you will find four ivhole verses in the former, which are left out in the latter. You must here say that your church has added to, or else that she has taken away from, the words of this prophecy."
An inquiry into the cause of this difference between the existing English Translations of the
* Leiteh ix. p. 70.
TRANSLATION NOT DEFECTIVE. 35
fourteenth Psalm, as well as into the motives by which the reviewers of our Liturgy in IGGl were influenced, when they retained in the Book of Common Prayer the original English version of it, will shew the futility of Doctor Miluer's animadversions. If we go so far back as the period when Jerome commenced his bib- lical labours, we shall find him urged to them by the multiplicity of the Latin versions of the Bible then extant, and by the confusion which prevailed among them. He began by correct- ing the Psalms ; but the people at large, being accustomed to their old version, (viz. the Italic,) could not he induced to lay it aside in favour of one of his substitution. He, therefore, pub- lished another edition, with few alterations in the text, but marked where it differed from the Septuagint or the Hebrew. From this *last edi- tion, and the old Italic, is formed the vulgate edition of the Psalms now used in the Roman Catholic Church.
We come next to speak of the Psalms as they appear in English, in what is called Cranmer's, or, from its size, the f^R^AT Bible. The
* See Blackwall's Sacred Classics, vol. ii. p. 341.
t III Craflon and Wliitclmrch's edition of this Bible in 1.540, tlie four verses aliiidc<l to by Doctor Milner are incor- porated with tlie text, but in a lesser type— a circumstance that most sironi^ly proves the integrity of our earliest trans- lators.
D 2
S6 xivTH Psalm in orn received
English Translation of the Psalms, as they stand in the Great Bible, was * exclusively made by Coverdale; for neither Tyndal, nor Rogers, (with whose joint assistance he executed the English version of the entire Bible,) took a part in trans- lating the Psalms. Coverdale, in the execution of his work, derived, as every translator must, important aid from the Seventy and the La- tin vulgate ; but he disclaims the unlimited use of them, particularly of the latter. I mention this circumstance, to shew Doctor Milner the value attached to the Latin vulgate by our translators. From Coverdale's Bible, then, the Psalms were inserted in Edward the Sixth's Book of Common Prayer, by the f compilers of our Liturgy in 1548; and, for good reasons, which 1 shall presently assign, were retained by the reviewers of it in 1661, when it was last re- vised.
As J Jerome yielded to the public feeling in giving a second edition of the old Italic version of the Psalms, it is probable that the reviewers of our Liturgy, in 1661, were similarly inflii-
* See Shepherd on Common Prayer, vol. i. pp. 127, 128,
t Ibid, Introd. p. xlii.
X BcTLER, in his Horce Biblicce, xiv. 2. observes, " that Je- rome began by correcting the Psalms; but the people at large being accustomed to their old version, could not be induced to lay it aside, in favour of St. Jerome's. He therefore published another edition."
TRANSLATION NOT DEFECTIVE. 37
diced, and that they too consulted the public tastein retaining the old English Translation of them made b\ Coverdale. But in doing so, it is more than probable, that they conceived what is now generally admitted among the learned, that the old translation is preferable to the new. * First, because it is not fettered with the idiom of the Hebrew ; and next, because it is expres- sed with greater freedom and a more perfect accordance to the genius of our own language, than the last translation, which, from too close an adherence to the original, is often more harsh iu its constructions, and less harmonious in its periods. It is acknowledged, that obsolete words and ])hrases, are to be met with in the old translation ; but blemishes of this kind are not immerous, and when they do occur, they are sufficiently compensated by the general
* In his Introduction to Morning and Evening Prayer, Reeves accounts for tiie preference given the old Englisb Translation, from the circumstance of its having " feuer He- braisms in the style, which causes the language to be consi- dered plainer and smoother." Shepueud's observations, in the places already cjuoted, have the same tendency. And Knox rcconiujcnds the adopted version of the Psalms, with all the persuasiveness of his elo(|uence, as abounding " with passages exquisitely beautiful, and irresistibly transporting. Even when the sense is not very clear, nor the connexion of the ideas obvious at first si^ht, the mind is soothed, and the car ravished, wiih the powerful yet unafllctcd charms of style.'' Essays Literary and Mural, No. xlix.
;jy \1VTH 1»SALM IN OUK KECLIVEU
merit of the work. So that, in vindicalion of tlie reviewers of our liturgj' in 1001, who have been inijustly cen8ure(J, it may be asserted, that they sliewed both taste and judgment in retain- ing, in our Book of Common Prayer, Cover- dale's translation of the Psalms. For, had they not been influenced by the conviction, that it is much better adapted to public worship than any other which appeared in the English lan- guage, it may be reasonably inferred, that they would have taken the Psalms, as they did the lessons, epistles, and gospels, from King James's translation of 1011.
The preceding paragraph will have shewn Doctor Milner the motives, by which the com- pilers and reviewers of our Liturgy were actua- ted, in making the selection they did, and at the same time account for the variance, which he notices between the number of verses con- tained in the fourteenth Psalm, as inserted in our Book of Common Prayer, and our autho- rized translation of the Bible, Nor is it more difficult to prove that the Church of England has neither " added to, nor taken away from the word of prophecy." Doctor Milner's main argument to establish this charge rests on the circumstance of the four verses in question being quoted by St. Paul in his Epistle to the Romans, iii. 13. It is true, St. Paul does quofce those four verses ; but it does not necessarily
TRANSLATION NOT DEFECTIVi:. 39
Ibllow tliat he refers to the fourteenth Psahii. His allusions are to Psalms, v. 9. — cxl. 3. and X. 7. Prov. i. 16. Isaiah, lix. 7, 8, and Psalm \xxvi. 1. It should be observed too, that the iifty-third Psalm is in a manner the same as the fourteenth, except as to a slight difference in the sixth verse, and that it does not contain \ersesji/th, sixth, and seventh, as not being in the Hebrew. J t is on this account that * Byth- nar, where he analyzes the fourteenth Psalm, docs not notice those verses. This will more fully appear, by referring to Archbishop Park- er's, or as it is more usually called, the Bishop's Bible, which was published in 1568. In this Bible, the several additions taken from the vul- gar Latin, and which are inserted in a smaller ti/pe in the Great Bible, are omitted, particularly the three verses which were inserted in the fourteenth Psalm, t In Barker's edition also of the Englisji Bible, in 1583, there is a note, set' ting fortl), tliat the Jifth, sixth, and seventh verses of the fourteenth I*salm of the connnon
* Lyha Prophetica, p. 96. See also Lewis's History of the Eiiglisli TraiiHlatiuiis of the Bible.
t There are apparently /oar verses more in the version of the fourteenth Paalm, in the Book of CominoN Prayer, than in that of the Bible; but only iliree in reality, as \.\\i; first verKC in the latter is diviiJed into two \(r>k:6 in the former. Doclor Milner thinks proj)cr to overlook this circmnstance, and to rest his charge on the oniisi^ion of "four ■whole teises/"
40 XIVTH PSALM IN OUK RECEIVED
translation are not in the same Psalm, in the liebrew text ; and that they were rather put in " the more fully to exjDress the manners of the wicked:" that they are found in the Ji/th, one liuudred and fortieth, and tenth Psalms, and in ihe Jijhj-ninth chapter of Isaiah, as also in the thirty-sixth Psalm; and that they are alleged by St. Paul, and placed together in the third chaj)ter of his Epistle to the Romans. Now, what can so clearly convey an idea of the can- dour and judgment of the more ancient and venerable * Translators of our Bible, as this very note; or, more distinctly shew, as their suc- cessors can plead the benefit of it, that the au- thorized translation of the Bible is not, as Doc- tor Milner pronounces it to be, defective; and that St. Paul's quotation, though not in the fourteenth Psalm, is taken from the places al- ready pointed out?
For the reasons assigned, it appears also, that the cause of the omission of which Doctor Milner complains, was the very best, in fact the only one, that could warrant it ; namely, that the Psalms in the Book of Common Prayer
* The curious reader would be abundantly rewarded for his trouble, had he it in his power to consult the different translations and editions of the English Bible themselves, an- tecedent to the year 1611, on this subject. Sets of those Bibles enrich the splendid Library of Tkinity College, Dublin.
TRANSLATION NOT DEFECTIVE. 41
were translated from the Septuagint and the Latin Vuhatc : whereas the version of them in our English Bible, was made from the original Hebrew. And lastly, it appears, as the Douay version of the Psalm, which agrees with our * fourteenth, corresponds in substance, though not in the fnumber of the verses, with the version of the same Psahn, as it stands in our Book of Common Prayer, that Doctor Milner must ad- mit, at least m Joj-o conscientia, notwithstand- ing the denunciation of the council of Trent, that the Church of Rome is not justified in sanctioning this very Douay version, as not being made from the original language itself ; and that if we be wrong in retaining the inter- polated verses in our Prayer Book, that Church would be involved in greater error, did not its infaUil)ility interi)ose to justify the retention of those very verses in its own authorized Bible.
• This is the thirteenth Psalm in the Sixtine Clementine edition of the Vulgate. It is the thirteenth, in the first Douay version of 1610, vol. ii. p. 33, as it is also in Doctor Troy's last approved edition of the Douay Bible, piil)li.'«hcd by Coyne, Dublin, ISIG.
t The 4lh, 5th, Glh, and 7th verses in our Book of Common Prayer, constitute the 3d verse in the Douay version. The same exactly occurs in the Septuagint, and in tijeLatinVulgate,
42 TEXT OF THE THREE HEAVENLY
CHAPTER III.
THE TEXT OF THE THREE HEAVENLY WITNESSES.
Having disproved the ch^LVge of defectivetiess, which Doctor Mihier has brought against our English Bible respecting the fourteentli Psalm, 1 proceed to consider one of an opposite de- scription, which he has preferred under the sanction of Bishop Tomline's name, viz. that of redundance/, as to a particular text. *' The Bishop of Lincoln" (now of Winchester) says * Doctor Milner, " has published his convic- tion, that the most important passage in the New Testament, I John, v. 7, for establishing the divinity of Jesus Christ, is spurious." It is true, that his lordship's opinion is, that the con- tested passage is spurious, for which reason he omits it in the enumeration of proofs from the New Testament towards establishing the doc- trine of the Trinity : because, as he says, it would be improper to produce a doubtful text in support of " so important a doctrine." But, it is not true, that he attaches any value to the
*■ Letter ix. \>. 70.
WITNESSES, 1 JOHN, V. 7. 43
text itself (as Doctor Milner contrives to make hiin appear to do by the artful connexion he forms between his own opinion, and the Bishop's conviction); consequently, it is not true, that lie considers it the most important passage in the New Testament for establishing a particular doctrine; nor does he express regret at the absence of the text in question, as affording further confirmation of that doctrine. In short, he does not say one word about its importance. In his * Exposition of the First Article, he confirms the proofs from the Old Testament in support of the doctrine of the Trinity, by such convincing ones from the New Testament — such as our Saviour's commission to the apostles as recorded by t St. Matthew, the doxology of St. Paul in his J Second Epistle to the Corinthians, and the benediction in the beginning of the 1| Revelations, &c. &c. &c. — that he could well dispense with other aid. For, he well knew, that the text contains nothing but what is abundantly asserted in other places, both with respect to the Trinity in general, and this their divine testimony in particular. This too was Bisliop Burnet's opinion. § " There is no need of it," says that prelate ; " for this matter is capable of a very full |)roof, whether that passage is believed to be a part of the
♦ Elem. of Tluol. vol. ii. p. 90. t xviii. 19.
t xiii. 1 \. il I. 4. § Article I.
44 TEXT or THi: THKEI: HliAVKM.Y
Canon, or not/' When tliis is the simple state- ment of the fact, what sliall be said of Doctor Milner, who thus makes assertions, which a re- ference to the authority, to which he appeals, proves to be unfounded. But even if he did not know that they were so, will ignorance justify error?
The text in the First Epistle of St. John, re- specting the three heavenly witnesses, has di- vided the opinions of many of the ablest divines, and most eminent critical scholars of the pre- sent and past century ; but as their opinions have not been given as incontrovertible, the matter still lies open to discussion. We find a sharp controversy on this subject carried on be- tween Archdeacon Travis and Professor Por- son, originating in the letters of the former to the sceptical * Gibbon. Porson, no less than Gibbon, although with very opposite feelings, maintains that the passage is spurious. To them '(" Griesbach lends the weight of his testir
* The following paragraph in Gibbon's History led to the series of letters which Travis wrote to him on the subject. " The three witnesses have been established in our Greek Testaments by the prudence of Erasmus; the honest bigotry of the Complutensian editors; the typographical fraud or error of Robert Stephens in placing a crotchet ; and the de- liberate falsehood, or strange misapprehension of Theodore Beza." — Decline and Fall, vol. ii. p. 292.
f Griesbach thus briefly sums up the history of the text, I John, V. 7. The Complutensian editors first published tjiat
WITNESSES, I JOHN, V. 7. 45
niony ; as he says that it was an interpolation from the Latin vulgate in the Jifteenth or six- teenth century, and that there are but two ma- nuscripts extant, which possess the 1 John, v. 7 ; viz. the * Montfort one belonging to Arch- bishop Usher's collection in Dublin College, and the Berlin or Ravian one, which is an apograph or transcript from the Complutensian edition. He lays great stress on the silence of theGreek fathers, and adds, that in one hundred and thirty-two Greek MSS. which he had ex- amined, the seventh (comma) verse was not to be found ; and that if so precious and desirable
verse; next Erasmus, in his third or last echtion; from these it was transferred into Stephens's editions; thence into those of Beza, and lastly into those of Elzevir, — Appendix, Dia- tribe in loc 1 Joann. v. 7, 8.
* The Montforlian Greek MS., which is preserved in the library of Trinity College, Dublin, though in other respects valuable ; yet, it must be admitted, bears evident marks of a modern date. It is on glazed paper, not parchment, and on close inspection exhibits a water-mark in parallel rij^lil lines, which the Revekend Doctok Bauret, the learned Vice- Provost of our University, ascribes to the reign of Edward the Fourth. Candour obliges me to declare that these cir- cumstances bear Griesbach out in \vliat he says respecting the Montfort MS. I should further observe, that this great critic infers the identity of the British Cpdex, cited by Eras- mus, with our Dublin one, in cotisecpn nee of there not being the minutest difference {nc unicn ijuidcm lilcrnla) between them rtsjucting the verse in riuislioii.
4() TKX'T OF Tin: TIIKF.i: HF.AVKNLY
a treasure could any wliere be discovered, it would loug since have l)een brought to light. Notwithstanding all this mass of evidence against it, and that Bishops Toniliue and Marsh have strengthened it by their powerful support; yet as I see such invincible arguments brought forward on the opposite side by the Rev. Mr. Nolan, which are also supported by ^ other auth6rs of high established reputation, 1 feel compelled to abandon my former prejudices against it, and to think that a person should al- most as soon doubt the genuineness of the rest of St. John's Epistle as that of the disputed passage. This able f writer exhibits the strongestprobabilities that Eusebius, who, at the instance of Constantine, had prepared fifty written copies of the Scriptures, had expungedy rather than that the orthodox had inserted this passage in the sacred text. Thepotverw'\i\\ which the emperor's order had invested Eusebius, his inclination to exercise that power in the sup-
* Bishop Manx and iheRev. Mr. D'Oyley liave, in their Fa- mily Bible, supplied u* with the testimonies of Bishops Hall, Beveridge, Home, and Horsley, in favour of the genuineness of 1 John, V. 7. This circumstance, connected with the tem- perate and impartial view, which the learned editors them- selves take of the subject, fully expresses their own opinion about the matler.
t See Nolan's Inquiry into the Integrity of the Greek Vulgate, pp. 96, 27.
WITNESSES, 1 JOHN, V. 7, 47
pressiou of tliat particular verse, and the * un- limited sway of Arianisra over the church from the reign of Constantine to that of Theodosius, during a period of forty years, after he had made his revision ; the edition thus altered being "peculiarly accommodated to the opinions ofthe Arians ; the f error* into which his hatred to the peculiar notions of Sabellius betrayed JEusebius ; and lastly, the evidence in favour of the contested passage aflbrded by the § African Church, to the integrity and purity of which, Eu-
* Pole says, " Et sane cum Ariani essent et Impcraiores, Conslaiitiiis, Valens, &c. et Episcopi, qui pulsis orthodoxis, totum pene Orbeni occuparunt, facile illud effectum dare potuc- runt." — Synops. in loo. See also Nolan's Inquiry, pp.28, 29.
t Ibid, p. 40.
X As Sabellius held that the Father, Word, and Holy Spirit, were three energies in the Divinity, {r^nc, tn^ynon u rr, ©ioTi)T») ; so he held, that these three energies were one person, and thus confounded i\\t persons of the Trinity. Marcellus, therefore, and others who leaned towards his error, would not quote 1 John, v. 7, as this text contained the term t^e*?, which made against their confounding the persons. On the other hand, Eusebius would not ap])eal to it, on account of its containing the term i», which made asmucli againsthisdivid- ing the substance. As neither parly, llierefore, speak of it during their controversy, Mr. Nolan justly concludes, that its unsuitablcness to their respective purposes, was the cause why one expunged the text from his edition of the New Testament, and the other acfpiicsced in its suppression. Ibid, jip. 305, 528—539, and 56.3.
§ Gibbon is forced to acknowledge, that this text was al- leged by the Catholic Bishops, whom Ilunneric convened to
40 TEXT OF THE THREE HEAVENLY
sebiiis liiinself lias borne the strongest testinion y^ present more than presumptive proof that it is genuine. Mr. Nolan thus concludes his most useful and elaborate work. — *" Were the Greek Church the only witness of the integrity of the Greek text, or guardian of its purity, the ob- jection that this verse is wholly lost in the Greek Vulgate would be of vital importance. But in deciding the present question, the Afri- can Church is entitled to a voice no less than the Byzantine; and on its testimony we receive the dis()uted passage. In fact, as the proper witnesses of the inspired word are the Greek and Latin Churches, they are adequate wit- nesses of its integrity : so that the general cor- ruption of tlie text received in these churches, in the vast tract of country from Armenia to
ft/
Africa, was utterly impossible." But what par- ticularly decides, that the African Church pos- sessed this text in the fifth century, is the very circumstance alluded to bv Gibbon: viz. that
•/ /
400 bishops, who liad been summoned to Car- thage by Hunneric, an Arian king, to defend their doctrine, had distinctly referred to its au- thority. And it is not a little remarkable, that that text, whose existence at that period is now so warndy denied, is the very one which
the Conference ofCarthajje, and that tliey styled hluce clarius. Decline and FaCl, vol.vi. p. 292. ^ Nol«in's Inquikv, p. 573.
WITNESSES, J JOHN, V. 7. 4.0
was then best autlieiiticated. In a word, no other controverted verse has been supported by so many bishops of the priniiti\e church.
Although Erasmus at first doubted the ge- nuineness of the British codex, which, accord- ing to Griesbach, is no other than the Mont- fort one; yet we afterwards find him esteeming it of such high autliority on account of its an- tiquity, that he restored this verse in a subse- quent edition of his INew Testament, which, to leave no ground of complaint, he had omitted in a preceding one. These words, ne cut sit causa calumniandi, and others expressive of Erasmus's doubts, are dwelt on by Griesbach, to shew that Erasmus attached no importance to the passage ; whereas, on the contrary, Eras- mus conceived that it shoidd be read by the faithful. J should not omit to speak of the still stronger attestations of Ximenes, Laurentius Valla, and Robert Stephens. Of sixteen Greek codices wliich the last author inspected, this verse was lost only in seven; he followed the authority of the other nine.
If wr MOW refer to an old work, but yet one of emiiMiit autliority, Pole's Critical Synopsis, we shall lind Mr. jNolan's highest degree of pro- bability strengtiicned, if not advanced to abso- lute certainty, respecting the genuineness of the passage in (picNtion. First, * he says, that • Pom Synopsis CuiTiroRtM in 1 I'pist. .loli., v. 7.
E
60 TEXT OV THE TilKEE HEAVENLY
* Jerome in his Prologue to theCatbolicEpistles, which he inscribed to Eiistochium, complains that this verse concerning the unity of the
* Mr. Nolan here also supplies valuable information, con- necteil with the edition of the Old Italic Vulgate, to which Pole equally refers. He observes, and most certainly with justice, that of the two editions of that ancient version made by Jerome, one only> viz. that dedicated to Eustochium, and intended for private use, possesses the 1 John, v. 7. In the other, designed for general circulation, and which he under- took at the request of Pope Damasus, he omitted it on the authority of the Greek text, from which Eusebius had removed it. — See Inquiry, pp. 562, 563. There is likewise an old French version in existence made by the Waldenses, which retains the text of the heavenly witnesses, with the variation of lefilz for vcrbian, as in the Italic version ; but which vari- ation corresponds with the confession of faith used by them. It runs thus, " Trois choses qui donnent tcsmoing an ciel, U pere, lefili, et le sainct espent, et ces trois sont une chose." From this coincidence, as well as the collateral circumstance of the French version in the Lord's Prayer, " ne nous mene mye en temptacion," being the same with that in the old Italic one, ne inducas nos in templationem; we may conclude, that 1 John, v. 7, existed in that old Italic version, from which the Waldenses made their translation, and that it was remotely adopted from Cyprian by Eusebius Vercellensis, who revised that version ; and consequently, that it existed previously to the introduction of either of Jerome's two editions of the Vul- gate spoken of above. Ibid. Pref. p. xix. The Waldenses oc- cupied the very district, which was formerly called the Italic diocese. To that people, therefore, we owe the preservation of this important text, no less than the first risings of that spirit of resistance to Papal tyranny and usurpation, which after a lap&e of ages, has been, through the blessing of God, instru- mental in establishing our civil and religious liberties.
WITNESSES, 1 JOHN, V. 7. 51
Trinity was omitted (infidelihus) bj' the Arian interpreters; and then argues on the giounds subsequently stated, that one or other of two things must have happened, * either that the verse was removed by them, or added by the orthodox ; but that of the two, the former was by far the most probable. Pole next alludes to the periods, when Tertullian, Cyprian, and Athanasius cited it; and states, that Idacius in the reign of Theodosius, A. D. 380, produced it against the Arians. His own arguments on this subject are quite conclusive. He contends that the Arians must have cancelled the seventh verse rather than the orthodox forged it ; be- cause, if genuine, it convicted them of heresy, if fabricated, the doctrine of the Trinity is abundantly proved from other parts of Scrip- ture. I shall content myself with noticing the argument which he derives from the internal evidence of the thing itself, viz. of the context, and the end which St. John had in view when
* Pole's words are : Scopus E|>istolae Generalis est vcrae dc Christo floctrina* confirmatio, idqiie contra Ebioiu-m et Cerin-
thum, qui Deitatrm Christi nc;;abant hoc imprimis
credenchim docet, quod Jesus sit Christus. i.e. verus Deus, ct
verus Homo qu;i; etiam probarc voluit .Johannes
per testes ct divinus ct hinnanos, de quibus omnibus conjunctim, V.6. — dp divinia, hocvcrsu, 7. — de liumanis, v.S. deiude addit, V. 9. " .Si testiinnniKm hnminum rccipianiux, testimonium Dri mnjus est." Kxpiicat manifcste, quod dc sex tc.Mibus dixeraf, tres seorsim carlo, ires lerrae tribuens. — Crit. Synops. in loo,
E 2
52 TEXT Oi- THL THREE HEAVENLY
he \viote the epistle. St. Johii*s object, as * Pole justly observes, was to oppose Ebion and Ceriiillius, who denied the divinity of Christ, and consequently, to establish it as an article of faith, that Jesus was the Christ, TRUE God and true Man, by witnesses hu- man and divine. As, therefore, it treats of a two-fold description of witnesses, if we acknow- ledge the seventh as genuine, no chasm will oc- cur by the absence of the divine testimony; and the eighth speaks of that which is human. The apostle then adds the ninth verse, which has as evident reference to the seventh, as to the sixth verse; for he says, " if we receive the witness o^men, the witness of God is greater," and thus demonstrates, that he had spoken of the '\six witnesses : — three distinct ones in lieaven, and three on earth. To direct us therefore to judge between the value of the proofs brought forward on the one side by Griesbach, and on the other by Pole, their internal evidence at once shews,
* See note, p. 51.
t Bishop Horsley judiciously observes, that St. John "de- scribes the unity of the testimony of the three celestial, and the three terrestrial witnesses, in different terms ; I conceive for this reason : of the latter more could not be said with truth, than that they agree in one; but the three in Heaven being in substance and in nature one, he asserts the agreement of their testimony in terms which predicate their substantial unity ; that he might not seem to lower his own doctrine." (See Bishop Mamt's Family Bible in loc.) Thus does this great cri-. tical scholar assert the genuineness of the text in question.
WITNESSES, I JOHN, V. 7. 63
iliat error lies on the side of the former, that is, ou the side of the Greek Church ; as the tes- timony which it affords is not so full as that afforded by an equally competent witness — the * African Church; and as such testimony is Fiot consistent, when considered by itself. No- thing-, therefore, can be more evident, from every view of the case, than that this passage, if it be genuine, is neither decisive; nor is it, as Doctor INIilner says, the most imporlant in the New Testament towards establishing the Divinity of Christ. If it be genuine, I main- tain, that it is not in any respect a corner-stone of the Tenij)le. If it be spurious ; it is only a heivn-stoHe.
It is now hoped, that the reader has been satisfied by the preceding illustration, that Doctor Milner's charge of redundancy respect- ing the text of the Heavenly Witnesses, against
* Mr. Nolan, having traced the history of the disputed text, through the Saljellian and Eutychian controversies, and blaled the probable causes of its omission in the Greek manu- script?, and in tiic writincjs of the Greek fathers ; and having assigned the reason, why Jerome inserted it in one, and omit- ted it in the oilier, of his editions of the I/atin Vulgate, (see note * p. 50) presents his reader with an niduction of the most conclusive arguments in support of its genuineness. " The objections," he says, " raised against that tcXt, ww perfectly consistent with that strong evidence in its favour, which is deducible from ihe inlcuirtl evidence and the external tistimony of the African Clturc.lt." — Inquiuy, p..')64.
64 TEXT OF THE THREE HEAVENLY
our authorized English version of the Bible, merits the fate of that preferred against it on the score oi defect ivcuess, in the case of the four- teenth Psalm.
Although there be no connexion whatever between the subject matter of Bishop Watson's Charge, and the text of the heavenly witnesses, yet as Doctor Milner has thought proper to blend them together in the same letter, I shall not attempt to separate them. Next to Bishop Tomlinc, that prelate comes under his animad- versions. * According to him, nothing but doubt and uncertainty hang over the days of our greatest divines, and most profound scrip- tural students; if reference be had to their pub- lications. And, as if to prove the truth of his assertion, he cites tivo ivhole sentences from the Bishop of Landaff's Charge to his Clergy in 1795! But before the reader knows what this proof is, he must be prepared to be horror struck at the address of this protestant bishop, who after ex- ploring the depths of scripture to the utmost extent of reason, and all the commentators who have written on it, acknowledges that his mind is unsettled about the doctrines of Christianity. After a preparation to this efiect, Doctor Mil- ner introduces the bishop, on the topic of the
* Letter ix. p. 78.
WITNESSES, 1 JOHN, V. 7. 55
Christian doctrines, as saying, * " 1 think it safer to tell you, ivhere they are contained, than ivhat they are. They are contained in the Bible, and if in reading that book, your sentiments concerning the doctrines of Christianity, should be different from those of your neighbour, or from those of ike church, be persuaded on your part, that infallil)ility appertains as little to you, as it does to the church." These certainly were the words of that learned and intelligent bishop, but a little enquiry will satisfy us, that they by no means shew, as Doctor Milner asserts, how far removed his lordship was from the assurance of faith ; nor how fallacious the rule of the mere Bible must be. It will further satisfy us, that no reader should, without investigation, express surprise, much less " shudder,'' at the perusal of a partial and isolated extract, and that it would not involve the Cliurch of England in either shame or disgrace, as Doctor Milner in- sists it would, if it even proved, that it led to a diversity of sentiments among its members.
1 am far from being an apologist of this pre- late's general character ; because I consider it, whether it relates to the consistency of his con- duct, or the orthodoxy of his principles, as al- together mdefciisiblc. But candour obliges me to declare, that if I can believe the evidence
56 TEXT or THE THKEE HEAVENLY
Avhich now lies brfore nie, I must believe, that, if any man knew wliat the Christian doetrines were ; who was capable not merely of" ascertain- ing, but of accurately defining them, and into whose vigorous and intuitive mind, doubt and error were little likely to enter; that person was Doctor Watson. So that, to determine what the opinion of that eminent divine was, respect- ing the Bible as a rule of faith, and the doetrines which it contains, we must enlarge the view, which Doctor Milner has given us, and collect it from the scope of his entire charge, and not confine ourselves to a detached passage. *' When we speak," says Bishop Watson, " con- cerning the truth of revealed rebgion, we include not only the certainty of the divine missions of Moses and Jesus, but tlie nature of the several doctrines, promulgated by them to mankind. Now, you ujay ask me what those doctrines are? I know ivlial they are to me, but pretending to no degree of infallibility, 1 think it safer to tell you where they are contained, than what they are." And so on to the end of Doctor Milner's quotation, as already given.
I now ask Doctor Milner, in the name of candour and honest dealing, whether he has done justice to Bishop Watson, in citing a garbled extract from his charge; and not rather grossly misrepresented him, where he said, that liis lordship was forced publicly to confess to
WITNESSES, 1 JOHN, V. 7. 57
his assembled clergy, that he could not tell them, what the doctrines of Christianity were ? Bishop Watson not able to tell what they were I — and yet but seven words intervene, between Doctor Milner's q notation, and the Bishop's emphatic declaration ! — / knoiv uhat they are to me. Is this the language of doubt and uncertainty? Does it not rather express the strength of his conviction, and the fulness of the assurance of his faith?
If we now consider the occasion on which this prelate spoke, we shall have reason to ad- mire his prudent reserve, as much as the sen- tentious bre\ity of his language. AVere he de- livering a lecture as professor of divinity, he might, and no doubt would, point out and de- fine the Christian doctrines; but in an episcopal charge, he more properly stimulated the industry of his clergy to explore the sacred source itself, whence those doctrines were derived. With that becoming diffidence so peculiar to the di- vines of the Church of England, he stated, that In- knew what they were to himself; but as he pretended to mo drgrcc of infallibilily, and as he knew that his opinion wns lia/jle to error, he encouraged each individual of his chirgy to the active exercise of his reason; to prosecute vigo- rous iucpjiry; to disclaim all authority; and to rest satisfied with nothing short of what he con- scientiously believed to be the truth. Such seems
58 TEXT or THE THREE HEAVENLY
to me to be the tendency of this distinguished prelate's advice; suc:h is the sj3irit of Protestant- ism, and in such a sj)irit was the work of the reformation acliieved. When, therefore, Doctor Mihier sjjeaks of the doubt and uncertainty of the Protestant clergy, about doctrinal points of divinity, he cannot expect to be believed except by Popish readers. For he well knows, that the privilege which we exercised, o^ judging for ourselves, when we withdrew from the Church of Rome, we must consistently extend to those of our own communion ; otherwise, we should act as reprehensibly as that church, in setting ourselves up as infallible judges; and that al- though, from the latitude thus allowed, some of our clergy, or laity, may separate from us, who have not what we had to urge, when our separation from the former took place ; viz. the jjlea of conscience ; yet, the greatest evil result- ing from the abuse of this liberty is a very trifle, vi\\en compared with the evil of a restraint, which controls the will and enslaves the con- science.
I shall now close my defence of Bishop Wat- son, by presenting the reader with the conclud- ing part of that paragraph in his charge, from which Doctor Milner has made his mutilated extract. It goes to confirm the justice of the observations, which I have offered ; while it re- moves from us the imputation of doubt and ua-
WITNESSES, 1 JOHN, V. 7. 59
certainty about matters affecting our salvation. After recommending those graces, which adorn the Christian character — respect and reverence towards the church, and towards individuals, " charity of thought and courtesy of conduct," the bishop thus proceeds, " many learned men have bestowed mucli useless labour, in defining what are the fundamental verities of the Chris- tian religion ; useless I esteem it, because the same things are not fundamental to all men, and there is no iiifallible ]\\(\^e of controversy to settle the disputes which may arise. A Papist believes the doctrine of transubstantiation, of worshipping of images, of invocation of saints, of purgatory, of the insalvahility (if the word may be admitted) of heretics, and of the infal- libility of Popes, councils, and churches, to be fundamental doctrines. A I^rotestant does not believe any of those doctrines to be fundamen- tal. Protestants differ from each other in their sentiments concerning the Eucharist; concern- ing the Trinity ; concerning satisfaction ; con- cerning original sin ; and personal predestina- tion— but the wisest among them do not esteem any particular oj)inion concerning any of those points to be so fniKlamcnhilly rii^/il, llial salva- lioH will not belong to those, who think other-
wise ^
(SO OUK AUTHORIZED TRANSLATION
CHAPTER IV.
OUR AUTHORIZED TRANSLATION OF THE BIBLE
VINDICATED.
1 HEY, who executed the authorized and re- vered translation of our Bible, anticipated sucli uncharitable imputations as those cast on it by Doctor Milner. They well knew, when evea *Jeronie did not escape censure for what he had so ably performed ; that however, f " the inno- cencie of a good conscience," might, at the time, have " supported " them under the obloquy of " selfe-conceited brethren;" yet that it would shield neither themselves, nor their labours from future aggression. Of the justice of these anti- cipations, we have a memorable instance in the
J: END OF RELIGIOUS CONTROVERSY. " Had the
Protestants," says Doctor Milner, " demonstra- tive evidence, that the several books in their Bible
* Ruffin, Augustin, and other learned men, vilified both Jerome and his labours ; and "interpreted his Latin transla- tion of the Bible as done {in contuinellam jm h) to the dis- paragement of the seventy." See Walton's Considerator considered, p. 3, edit. 1659.
t The Epistle Dedicatorib of the Translators of the Bible, in 1611, to King James.
♦ Letter ix. p. 70.
OF THE BIBLE VINDICATED. 61
were canonical and aiitlientic {genuine he must again mean) in the originals, it would still re- main doubtful, that they are faithfully translated in their English copy; a consequence of their rejecting the great universal church, and build- ing upon that of some obscure translator in the reisfn of James T." He further observes, *' that the Bibles of Tindal, Coverdale, and Queen Elizabeth's bishops, were 50 wo/onow^/y corrupt, as to cause 2i geiieral outcry lA^diinsi them, among learned Protestants, as well as among (Roman) Catholics, in which King James himself joined ; and according v, that he ordered anew version, that now in use, to be made. And that though the new translators corrected many wilful errors of their predecessors; yet, that a sufficient num- ber remain behind, for which their advocates offer no excused
Here is a series of charges levelled at the in- t('o-rity and skill of our translators, and at the fidelity of our translation. Frequently as they have been made by popish divines they have never been preferred with a greater air of super- ciliousness ; nor with less pretensions to truth, tlinn in the present instance. Ignorant of the Hebrew, and i)nt imperfectly acquainted with the Greek language, according to his own avowal, Doctor Milncr delivers an opinion, which can only be sustained by a perfect know- ledge of l)oth languages. If Mr. Bellamy, and
62 OUR AUTHOR I ZED TRANSLATION
Sir James Bland Burs^es have, in tlieir late * publications, had tiie hardihood to condemn the received Translation of our English Bible, as imperfect, and its authors, as incompetent to exe- cute so imjiortant a work; their opinions, how- ever precipitate and erroneous, are entitled to a certain degree of deference. The attempt, which the former gentleman has made to super- sede our present English Translation, by what he calls a neiv and more perfect one of his own, even though such an attempt has been unsuc- cessful, bespeaking as it does great proficiency in the original languages, claims indulgence, even commands a respect, compared with what the arrogant dogmas of a superficial critic de- serve. . Doctor Milner, indeed, may be competent to pronounce an opinion on the merits of a trans- lation made from the Latin Vulgate solely; but no farther can he go. The consequence of this disparity between his and Mr. Bellamy's know- ledge, is this; that while equal violence is ma- nifested by both assailants, the mode of assault on our authorized English Bible varies. The one objects, that it is not translated according to the Hebrew, in the Old, and to the original
* The Holy Bible newly translated from the original He- brew, with notes critical and explanatory by John Bellamy ; and Reasons in favour of a New Translation of the Holy Scriptures, by Sir James Bland Burges, Baut.
OF THE BIBLE VIXDICATED. (J3
Greek in the INevv, Testament; but that it is derived from the Septiiagint and the Latin Vul- gate. The other tries its merits, if not by the Septuagint, at least by the Latin Vulgate, and is equally loud in its dispraise, as not being conformable thereto. Both are wrong. Mr. Bellamy is so; because the translators of 1611, although they did not disdain the use, either of the Seventy, orofthe Latin Vulgate, and although they even occasionally consulted our early Eng- lish versions ; yet they looked to nothing as au- thority, but the//eir<?26" text of theOLD, and the original Greek of the New, Testament. For, as they express themselves in their ^preface or epistle to the reader ; if you ask, what they had before them, " truely it was the Hebrew text of the Olde Testament, the Grecke of the New. These are the two golden pipes, or rather con- duits, where-through the olive branches cniptie themselves into the golde.' But, Doctor Milner is still more in error, in setting up the Latin Vulgate as a standard by which our insulted version is to be tried. It was in this way that ^Racine judged of Milton, and in which Vol- taire criticised Shakspeare; not viewing them as they should have done, in the original Eng- lish, but probably through an imperfect French
* Translators' Preface to Kinp; James's Bible of 1611. t See Geddes's Prospect, p. 92.
04 OUR AUTHORIZED TRANSLATION
or Latin inedium. But if the opinions of these critics must liave necessarily been erroneous, how much less to be rci^arded uiust Doctor Mil- uer's criticism be ; when he judges of our Eng- lish Bible, not by that from M'hich it is derived ; but by one, which neither is, nor can be, a fair representation of it, inasmuch as it does not flow purely from the source itself? For as the * translators say, the Latin is not " the precedent or originall tongue ;" nor " the fountain," whence the stream of living water first issued. What they afterwards add is alike applicable to both those gentlemen, and confirms the truth of what I have here stated, f " The credit of the olde bookes, according to Gratian, is to be tried by the Hebrew volumes; so of the new, by the Greek tongue, he meaneth the original Greek. If a trueth be to be tried by these tongues, then whence should a translation be made, but out of them. These tongues, therefore, the Scriptures, we say, in these tongues, were set before us to translate, being the tongues wherein God WAS pleased to speake to his Church by HIS Prophets and Apostles." In such em- phatic terras is that standard, by which Doctor Miln( r would try our authorised translation of the Bible, comparatively lowered by those vener- able persons.
* Preface to the Bible of 1611. f Ibid.
OF THE BIBLE VINDICATED. (Jo
Mr. Bellamy I now resign to the literary casti- gations of *Mr. Whittaker, as well as to those of the f Quarterly and J British Critic Reviewers, from whom he has already experienced not un- merited treatment ; while 1 confine myself to the consideration of Doctor Milner's charges. As this gentleman possesses both rank and influ- ence in the Roman Catholic Church, which im- part an air of candour and truth to every thing- he says, it is for me to shew to what purposes he perverts those advantages, and with what gross injustice he vilifies our received Trans- lation of the Bible, no less than its learned and pious authors.
It has been the lot of our industrious, zealous, and truly learned Translators, to have their la- bours undervalued and their characters aspersed by Popish writers for the last two centuries; yet the Church of England has called their work blessed, and has uniformly paid their memories the triljute of its veneration and era- titude. And, aHliough they have, like other men, descended to the grave, and are nowequally insensible to the voice of calunmy or |)raise, their n'pntation for learning will never die but with the decay of the J'^nglish langnagc. It is, therefore, little to be regarded that an individual
* Sl'c liis Hi>.T()i(icAL and CiinirAi. Ivnqiikv into tin lu- ll rprtlation of llic- Iltbrew SS.
1 Sec Numbirs 37 and 3^. ; Sec Niiuibir \\n April I^JO.
|-
00 OUR AUTHORIZEU TRANSLATION
like Doctor Milner, who cannot stand a com- petition with even tlie obscurest of them on the score of learning nncl talents, .should occasionally ^^tep forward from the pale of his infallible Church, to impeach their motives, or deny their competence for an undertaking, which they have so happily accomplished. That they were pos- sessed of every qualification suited to their task, the world of letters abundantly testifies. Their contemporaries paid them due honours when alive; and since their death their memories have been esteemed in j)roportion to the increase of sound learning ; and I trust that, for genera- tions to come, their wisdom and knowledge will be lauded in the congregation of the people. The language of congratulation addressed by the learned Fulke to the British nation on the production and effect of the first English Ver- sions of the Bible, is still more applicable, in reference to the treasure which these our last Translators have bequeathed us. *'* Happy, and thrice happy," says that venerable advocate of our Church, " hath our English nation bene, since God hath given learned translators to ex- j)ress in our mother tongue the heavenly mys-
* " A Defense of the sincere and true translations of the holie Scriptures into the English tong, against the manifold cavils, frivolous quarrels, and inijradent slaunders of Gregory Martin, one of the readers of Popish Divinitie in the trayterous Seminarie of Rheims, by William Fclke, D. D., and Master of Pembroke Hall, Cambridge." Ed. 15S3.
OF THE BIBLE VINDICATED. 67
teries of his holy worde, delivered to his Church in the Hebrew and Greek languages. Who^ although they have in some matters of no im- portance unto salvation, as men, bene deceived, yet have they faithfully delivered the whole substance of the heavenly doctrine, conteyned in the Holy Scriptures, without any hereticall translations, or wilful corruptions. And in the whole Bible, among them all, have commited as few oversights, for any thing that you can bring, and of less importance than you have done only in the JNew Testament."
Notwithstanding Dr. Milner's reproach, the curious reader will perceive that there was not an obscure, by which, of course, he means an illiterate individual among the * forty-seven translators of our Bible, named in the original list, and approved by King James the First, if he only consult (Mr. Todd's late vindication of it. So much achlitional information to that already recorded has been supplied by this
* According to llic Fifteenth Rule laid down by the King', and to be observed by the Translators, seven ol' the most ancient and grave divines of Oxford and Cambridge, were appointed overseers of tiie Translation, which increased the number to ^/y-/o«;-; allhongh Doctor Mihier will not allow that so many were engaged in the work. See Buunkt's Mist, of the Reform. Coll. Vol. ii. P. ii. p. 3(i4.
t Vindication of our aiitliorize<l 'I'raiislatioii and Transla- tors of the liiblc, by the Rev. II. I. Todd, Kecjur of the Arch- bishop of Canterbury's Records, pp. 49—65.
<i8 OUR AUTHORIZED TRANSLATION
geiiUemau's industry, from the Lambeth MSS. that there remain but few of the learned charac- ters concerned in framing our authorized Trans- lation, about whom something is not known. It is true, that they did not all attain an equal degree of celebrity; nor were they all equally fortunate in leaving after them a biographer to procure them a posthumous reputation. Some of them were secluded scholars, enjoying the shade of academic retirement, while others were engaged in the humble discharge of their pas- toral duties, and had never attained that emi- nence in the church, which would have attracted public attention. It is only on grounds such as these, that Doctor Milner can object to us the obscurity of those learned and estimable men. To Mr. Todd's research are the public also indebted for a more circumstantial list of the Translators than that published either by Burnet or Lewis, and for important information respect- ing some of them, not generally known. So completely has he filled up the biographical chasm which existed, iha-tjive only of the en- tire number remain, with whose characters and attainments we are unacquainted : viz. Doctors Hutcheson and Spenser, Mr. Fenton, Mr. Rab- bett, and Mr. Sanderson. By the way, an opinion has been hazarded, that the Mr. San- flerson, who was advanced to a fellowship in Lincoln College, in 1G06, and afterwards to the
OF THE BIBLE VINDICATED. 69
Bishopric of Lincoln ; the author of Episcopacy, and the reputed author of that inimitable prayer in onr Liturgy, the * General Thanksgivins^, was the last of the five mentioned. His literary rank qualified liim for the office of a Translator, and what makes it probable that he was one of them, is, that the business of translation was not set about, until the beginning of 1607. How- ever this be, the five already spoken of were in what was called the second division of the Westminster Class, to which also belonged tDakins, a Professor of Divinity in Gresham College, and Barlow, the historian of the Confe- rence at Hamj)ton Court. It may, therefore, be fairly presumed, that even these hvo, who ranked so high for scholarship, although there were 710 general conference, no supervision of the entire translation ; would have taken care to preserve the version of the Epistles, which was consigned
* As llic i/ianksqwing was not ackletl to our Liturgy until 1661, il remain's a qucv^slion, ulutlur llic Sanderson who was said Ic) \)r it*. ;iulhor, could have been the same Sanderson who was eniia<red forty-four years before that period intrnii^- lalinp our Bible. Tlie opinion of my late esteemed Diocesan, Bishop Bennf.t, as appears from his MS. notes on our Book of Common Prayer, which haj. lately come into my hand^, determints in llie nrgalirc, in which he is supported by
WhEATLEY, ShEI'HCRD, &c.
t Ward, in his Lives of the Professors of Gresham (Jollc<;«', says, that Dakins was employed in this work on arcomil of his skill in the original langudges, p. 46.
70 OUR AUTHORIZED TRANSLATION
to tliein, free from error. In addition to this, we can form a favourable estimate of the talents and learning of the five in question, from what is known of the great body of their associates. This we are further assisted in doing- by tlie te- nour of the King's commission, * " authorizing forty-seven dignitaries, and eminent cliurchmen, and scholars, to meet, confer, and consult together, so that nothing should pass without a general consent:" also, by the purport of his Majesty's declaration at Hampton Court, about one uniform translation, t" to be done by the best learned in both universities ; after them to be reviewed by the bishops, and the chief learned of the Church :" and, lastly, by what his Ma- jesty says in his letter to Bancroft, Bishop of London, about promoting those meritorious persons, viz. that J" whereas, we have ajjpoint- ed certain learned men to the number oi four and fifty for tlie translating of the Bible, and that in this number, divers of them have either no ecclesiastical preferment at all, or else so very small, as the same is far unmeet for men of their deserts. We, therefore, ordain, &c. &c." So that, whether the Translators be con- sidered individually, according to their divi-
* FuLLEn's Church History, p. 40.
t Sum and Substance of the Conference at Hampton Court, liyDr. Barlow, Dean of Chester, p. 46.
\ See Appendix IV,, to Todd's Vindication.
OF THE BIBLE VINDICATED. 71
sions, or in their collective capacity; Doctor Milner's charge, that the translation of any par- ticular text, is that of some obscure, or un- known, or illiterate Translator; that it is noio- riously corrupt, and one, on which it is danger- mis to rely, is directly refuted ; inasmuch as the whole English version is a joint production, the work of one being the wTjrk of all ; what each did separately, was revised, corrected, and approved only '^ by general consent''
The most interesting and inij)ortant editions of the Eno-lish Bible, which were antecedent to our authorized one, are those mentioned in the following page. Before it arrived at its pre- sent state, it may be said to have passed through several stages, and at each, to have acquired a degree of improvement, which was itself sur- passed by a succeeding revision. Thus, in the space of seventy years preceding the date at which the last was undertaken by command of King James the First ; our English Bible was revised at several distinct i)eriods. As, there- fore, the correctness of this last version, its beauty of language, and sinif)licity of style, have not been superseded by any successful at- tempt at further improvement, it is to be hoped, before any future revision takes place, that its necessity will Ix; clearly established.
Before I enter more fully into this subject, it becomes necessary to inrpiire, with what jus-
I JL
I OUH AUTHORIZED TRANSLATION
tice Doctor Miliicr asperses even the Eiiglisli versions of tlic Bible, which jireceded this hist one; those, for instance, of Tyndal, Cover- dale, and Queen Elizabeth's bishops, which he says, were also notoriously corrupt ; and to as- certain the grounds, on which, he alleges, that an outcry was raised against them.
We know, that WicklifT published, in the fourteenth century, a translation of the whole Bible in the English then spoken ; but, that it was suppressed at the instigation of those, *" who were for taking away the key of know- ledge," by the 13th Rich. IJ. And with re- spect to Tyndal's partial translation of the Scriptures, the first Protestant English one made, we find Geddes himself, whose authority will not be very acceptable to Doctor Milner, in his prospectus of a new translation of the Bible, speaking of it in high terms; and that though far from being a perfect one, yet few first translations would be found preferable to it. It is astonishing, he observes, f" how little obsolete the language of it is, even at this day ; and in point of perspicuity and noble simpli- city, propriety of idiom, and purity of style, no English version has yet surpassed it." Asain he says, had he been inclined to make any English version the ground- work of his
* Lewis's History of the Translations of the Bible, p. 25. t Ibid.
OF THE BIBLE VINDICATED. 73
own, it would certainly have been ^Tyndal's. Such was the judgment of that very eminent scholar about the matter, and willingly, or not, Doctor Milner must bow to an authority, which Archbishop Newcome acknowledged as deci- sive, when he cited it.
Of Coverdale's Bible, we have the distinct admission of Gardiner himself, as recorded by fhe learned ftulke, that it could not be notori- ously corrujDted, as it set forth no heresies. " I myself," says that able vindicator of the Eng- lish translations of the Bible, " did heare that reverend father, M. Doctor Coverdale, of holie and learned memorie, in a sermon at St. Paul's Crosse, upon occasion of some slaunderous re- portes, that then were raised againste his trans- lation, declare his faithful purpose in doing the same, which, after it was finished and present- ed to king Henry the Eight of famous memo- rie, and by him committed to diverse bishops of that time to peruse, of which, (as I remem-
* I^win, when spcakinpc of Tyndal's qualifications as a translator, expressly asserts, that he rendered the Scriptures " from the original Ilcbrnv and Greek into Enghsh." — Ibid. In his Prologue to the Translation of the Pentateuch, Tyndal affirmH, what he could not have said, had he translated solely from the Latin. " They that konne well the sentence of holy writ, and I'.nglish together, and wolen travaile with Godis grace thereahout, mounc make the Bible as true and as open, yea and openlier it) English, than it is in I/tlyn."
t DEfENSE ut supr. p. 4.
74 OUR AUTHORIZED TRANSLATION
ber,) Steven Gardiner was one; after they had kept it long in their hands, and the king was diverse times sued unto for the publication thereof, at the last, being called for by the king himself, they redelivered the book ; and being- demanded by the king, but are there any heresies mayntained thereby ? — they answered, that there were no heresies, that they could linde, maintayned thereby. If there be no here- sies, said the king, then in God's name, let it go abroad among our people." This single ad- mission of Gardiner speaks volumes, and if to it, and the direct evidence of Fulke, be added the testimony of *Mr. Whittaker, in behalf of Coverdale's Bible, its merit will be put beyond any question.
The passages in which Coverdale forsook both the Septuagint and the Vulgate are numerous. His policy in not openly declaring this, was wise, as he would thereby have endangered his personal safety without promoting the sacred cause in which he was engaged. To this, probably, we have to attribute his escaping the fateof Tyndal ; for when both himself and his Bible were seized on in Paris by the offi- cers of the Inquisition, the latter only was committed to the flames. But it is more than probable, had Coverdale followed the old Latin text word for word, that Doctor Mil- * See Critical Enquiry, p. 51 — 56.
OF THE BIBLE VINDICATED. 75
ner would not have so violently exclaimed against his translation. The reason for his not having done so, is thus admirably stated in his * Dedication to the King : *' as though al were not as nye the truth to translate the Scripture out of other languages, as to turne it out of Latyn : or as though the Holy Goost were not the authoure of his Scripture as well in the Hebrew, Greke, French, Dutche, and English, as in Latyn." However this be, the objections, w hich Doctor Milner now raises to Coverdale's translation, were not such as to deter Roman Catholics from continuing to join in the com- munion of the Established Church, in the early part of queen Elizabeth's reign. I may specify Coverdale's Bible, as the alterations peculiar to Cranraer's edition were few and unimportant.
We come next to consider Doctor Milner's charge as it bears against the ^Bishops' Bible. ;|;Selden, whom § Cud worth styles the glory of the English nation for oriental literature, and who is known to have been no way partial to the Church of England ; likewise a man, who
* See Hoi.LYBUsn's rjuarto edition of the New Testament, 1538. See also, Lewis's Hist, of iuig. Transl.
t So called, because of the majority of the persons engaged in it being of Episcopal rank, viz. Abps. Sandys and Grin- dal ; Bp«. Alley, Davies, I^nthani, (lox, and Hornc.
t Table Talk, p. .'i. Kd. 1710.
§ Disc, on the Lord's Supper, p. Ki,
76 OUK AUTHOR IZKl) TRANSLATION
ill forming- his opinions, was seldom, if ever, guided by the judgment of others, represents " tlie English translation of the Bil)le, as the best in the world, and which renders the sense of the original best ; taking in for the English translation, the Bishops' JBible, as well as king James's." Thus, in the opinion of this inde- pendent man, and profound scholar, the Bi- shops' Bible ranks equally high as a. transla- tion with King James's ; and if, as is univer- sally admitted, his judgment be decisive, that either of these is the best translation in the world : it follows, that the Bishops' Bible is at least as free from heresy, as Coverdale's was pronounced to be by Gardiner ; and therefore, not, as Doctor Milner says, notoriously cor- rupt. My argument here, is grounded on Sel- den's attestation to the excellence of the Bi- shops' Bible as a translation, and the answer given Henry VIII. by Gardiner, respecting Coverdale's Bible, as already stated. But it is further strengthened by the fact, that the Bi- shops made the preceding English versions of Tyndal and Coverdale, the models ; and, as it were, the basis of their own. Again, Fulke, whom 1 have already represented as the first and ablest advocate of our English versions, bears direct testimony here also, to the zeal, the talents, and the learning of the Bishops employed in the work ; and while with candour,
OF THE BIBLE VINDICATED. 77
he admits the possible existence of such imper- fections as cannot always be guarded against ; yet he successfully vindicates the faithfulness of the Translation, no less than the honesty of the Translators. *'* That some error," says he, addressing himself to the Rhemish doctors, " may bee in translation, although by you it cannot be shewed, [ will not deny ; but that any shameless translations, or ivilful corrup- tions can be found of purpose to draw the Scriptures to any hereticall opinion, all the Papists in the ivorld shi\\\ never be able to make demonstration." If this opinion of Fulke, and that of King James's Translators, be deemed decisive ; the reputation of the Bishops' Bible will not have been endangered by Doctor Milner's censures. Those Translators, speaking of the English versions antecedent to their own, say, t'*tli'*tall is sound for substance, in one or other of our editions, and the worst of ours is far better than the authentick vulgar of the Papists." As for the estimation, in which King .lames himself held the Bishops' Bible, it may br collected from the first of his instructions to \hv translators, where he orders, J" that the ordinary Bible read in llie Church, commonly
' JSfc iJMENbt, i>|). :i\0, 521—624, and pp. i^), 46, •>(
I'l.l F\< E.
i I'hi.pacf., or I--pislU lo ilit Krudcr, 'I'raiibl. ol" Kil I. I BuiiiLl's Mi>.t. o( llie lUforni., vol. ii. I'arl ii. p. .^(>S.
78 OUR AUTHORIZED TRANSLATION
called the Bishops' Bible, be followed, and as little altered, as the truth of the original will permit." Such are the memorials of the earliest of what Doctor Milner calls our notoriously corrupt English versions.
" But," continues Doctor M., " there was an outcry raised against those Bibles among learn- ed Protestants and (Roman) Catholics, in which King James himself joined." When he speaks of learned Protestants, he would lead his reader to suppose, that he meant learned divines of the Church of England, as objecting to the English versions of the Bible; whereas he, in fact, alludes to the Puritans. Now, that the Puritans did not raise this alleged outcry against our biblical corruptions, as he calls them, appears, in the first place, from this one circumstance, that, at the Conference held at Hampton Court, where their complaints would have been attended to, there was no discussion whatever, on any subject of the kind. And in the next place, instead of an outcry, a petition was presented to the King by the non-conform- ists, desiring reformation of sundry ceremonies. But most certainly, there was no outcry, and but an accidental mention of a revision or cor- rection of the English Bibles, at the Conference. Their object was to discuss matters respecting the doctrine and disciplitie of the Church ; and it was for this purpose exclusively, that it was
OF THE BIBLE VINDICATED. 79
held. The substance of the petition or remon- strance, which they then presented to his Ma- jesty, proves this to be the case. It was drawn up under the following heads : 1. *The Service of the Church. 2. Church Ministers. 3. The Livings and Maintenance of the Church. And 4thl/. The Discipline of it. The historian re- lates, that the petitioners were unsuccessful in obtaining what they had in view, f " They sped no better," says Heylin, " in relation to the forms of worship, than they had done in reference unto points of doctrine." It is true, the same writer adds, " somewhat also was ob- served, touching some errors in the old transla- tion of the English Psalter, as also in the Gospels and Epistles, as they stood in the Liturgy. But, their objections were so stale, and so often anstvered, that the bishops and conformable party went away with an easy victory." But surely, an allusion, which was thus incidentally made to some alleged mis- translations in certain parts of the Liturgy, as ill the Psalter, the Epistles and Gospels ; as well as the complaints, which were preferred by the disappointed party, but not until (he object of their petition was defeated, cannot br considered what Doctor Milner calls " an oiU- cry' against the English versions of the Bible.
* Heylin's History of the Prcbhytcrians, p. 370. I Ibiu. p. 373.
80 OUR AUTHORIZED TRANSLATION
The Kiiiir himself states the causes of the coin"* plaints, which gave rise to the conference ; viz. such as dissensions in the church ; disobeilience to the laws ; and a great falling away to Popery. His purpose, therefore, was *" like a good phy- sician, to examine and try the complaints, and fully to remove the occasions thereof." Not the remotest allusion to complaint against any English translation occurs in the Royal state- ment. It seems, indeed, that on that occa- sion. Doctor Reinolds, one of the petitioners, t '* moved his Majesty, that there might be a new translation of the Bible ;" assigning as a reason, that the English versions then extant, " were not answerable to the truth of the origi- nall." But this request was not made by hini until the second day of the conference, as the historian says, after they had been speaking upon several other subjects. The Translators themselves, in their preface or epistle to the reader, echo the words of the King. J *' The very historical truth," say they, " is, that upon the importunate petitions of the Puritans at his Majesty's coming to this crown, the conference at Hampton Court having been appointed for hearing complaints, when by force of reason, they were put from all other grounds, they had
* Baulow's Sum and Substance, &c. ut supr. p. 5. t Ibid. p. 46. 1 Bible ofl 611.
OF THE BIBLE VINDICATED. 81
recourse at the last to this shift, that they could not with good conscience subscribe to the Com- munion Book, since it maintained the Bible, as it was there translated, which was, as they said, a most corrupted translation. And although, this was judged to be but a poor and empty shift; yet even hereupon, did his Majesty be- think himself of the good, that might ensue by a new translation, and presently gave order for THIS TRANSLATION, which IS uow presented unto thee." But what further proves, that the complaints against the English versions were groundless, that it really was an " empty shift," a mere shallow pretence of the Non-conformists, who only condemned them, as Doctor Milner knows, after their objects in other points were defeated, is this ; that they neither collectively nor individually attempted to supersede the versions then extant by one of their own : nor have those, who succeeded them, to this clay, sup- plied, or attempted to supj)ly, the place of our existing version, although the passages at first objected to, have continued in it ivithout altera- tion. In fact, the attempts at a new one, which have been made from other quarters, have been uniformly misuccessfnl, and have consequently added to the n'j)utalion of this our standard English version of 1011.
That the Puritans, when driven to the last extremity, put in a plea for certain alterations
o
82 OUR AUTHORIZED TRyVNSLATION
in the Comnmnion Book, and that pitiful as it was, it led to our present English version of the Bible, is here conceded ; but that they raised an outcry in the way spoken of by Doctor Milner, is contradicted by the very nature of the thing, and by the principle on which they acted. These sectaries, as their name imports, affected greater ptiriti/ in tlie service of God, than, they allege, * " is set forth in the Book of Common Prayer ;" and carried on their hos- tility against the rights and usages of the Rom- ish Church, farther than was consistent with the moderation of the Church of England. It is therefore conceivable enough, why Doctor Milner should feel anxious to conceal the name of Puritan under that of Protestant, by which the members of the Church of England are now exclusively designated ; but it is difficult to conjecture, why he should say generally, that there was an outcry among the most learned Protestants, against the English Bibles, unless he expected, that his readers would be of such a class as would receive every thing he said, without further inquiry, as the truth itself. When it is admitted, therefore, that the Puri- tans in King James's time, cavilled at certain passages in the then received English version of the Bible ; it must, at the same time, be reraem-
* Heylin's Hist. p. 3S6.
OF THE BIBLE VINDICATED. 83
bered, that no hishop^ no king, was their * mot- to; aud that consistently with the levelling principle, which such a motto indicated, their objections, originating- as they must have done, in fanatic zeal, were little likely to impeach the accuracy of the Authorized Translation ; still less, to sanction those advanced by Popish ca- villers. Had our Authorized Translation, in- deed, been a negligent or an ill-executed one, there would no doubt, have been an outcry raised against it by learned Protestants ; nor could it possibly have maintained the high cha- racter it has done for two centuries, amidst the numerous religious parties which have sprung up within that period. But, as those parties have never substituted a new one in its place, and as the attempts of individuals have always failed, we may conclude, that nothing can more clearly demonstrate its purity and excellence. Moreover, although various motives may have of late years urged the different denominations of J>issenters to unite in affording it the most general and wide-spread circulation, when not imi)ell(d to do so by any partiality for the Church which gave it birth ; yet, we may be certain, that a sincere admiration of its excel-
* Duriiifi the discussion at Hampton Court, King James observed, that " if the liislmps were out, and (he Puritans in, he knew what would become of his supremacy." — Shepherd's Inlrod. to Com. Prayer, p. Ixv.
G 2
Q4 OUR AUTHORIZED TRAMSLATTON
lence was a leading one. It is, therefore, not going too far to say, that not only the members of the Church of England, but those, who have detached themselves from it, regard this version of God's Word as an invaluable possession, and that the veneration for it is universal.
We shall now find the case reversed, when we consider the outcry, which Doctor Milner says existed " among learned (Roman) Catho- lics." On this point, I most cordially acquiesce with him. There are numerous testimonies to prove, that t/iei/ were incensed beyond measure at every attempt, which had been made to sup- ply the people with the Scriptures in their mo- ther tongue. Thus, Tonstall, Bishop of Dur- ham and Sir Thomas More, are said to have been * *' soj-e aggrieved*^ at Tyndal's transla- tion of the New Testament being published ; to have purchased as many copies of it as they could procure, and to have them burnt at St. Paul's Cross. The former complained that he found no less than 2000 corruptions in the first English Bible; and Bishop Bedell observes, that the latter also pretended to have discovered errors in Tyndal's New Testament: for f *' that there he found and noted wrong, and falsely translated, above a thousand texts by tale." But
* Stkype's Cranmer, Book i. ch. 21,
f Burnet's Life of Bishop Bedell, p. 386.
OF THE BIBLE VINDICATED. 85
the Bishop afterwards assigns the true cause for this pretended discovery of faults ; inasmuch as * " men," (scil. the Popish Bishops), " were loth these books should be read. The sub- stance of them was such as could not be con- trolled. The next remedy was to forestal the readers' minds with a prejudice oi falsification^ that so they might not regard them, but cast them out of their hands of their own accord.'* When Tyndal's New Testament was brought into England, the Popish clergy were highly enraged ; some said f " that it was not possible to translate the Scriptures into English ; some that it was not Icnvful for the laity to have them in their wjoMer tongue ; and some, that it would make them all heretics, and produce rebellion." X Lewis, speaking of the English translation of the Bible directed to be made by King Henry the Eighth, in 1542, says, " that it was cer- tainly the greatest eye-sore to the Popish party, and that which they knew would most effec- tually beat down all their projects. But there was no opposing it directly, for the king was fully resolved to have it. Therefore, the way they took was this; they loaded the translation with as many faults as they could, and complainecj
* Ibid.
t Bishop Watson's Coll. of Tracts, vol. iii. p. 70. X HisTOKY of the English Translations of the Bible, pp.SS*^, 335.
rr
86 OUR AUTHORIZED TRANSLATION
of it as being very erroneous and heretical. They likewise represented to the king, the allowin the people the free use of it, was a means of in- creasing faction and parties, and destroying the peace of the kingdom ; that the common jieople disputed of the Scriptures, and quarrelled about tliem in taverns, and ale-houses, calling one another papist and heretic." The same histo- rian informs us, that Archbishop Parker was more successful in effecting an English transla- tion of the Bible, than his predecessor Cranmer. * " The Popish party," says he, " having done their utmost to argue and force the Protestants out of their religion, and nothing able to gain their end, they had recourse to jest and ridi- cule."
Both t Johnson and \. Lewis represent Bishop Gardiner to be no less severe in his censures on the English versions, than Doctor Milner is at the present day ; and that when his anger was assuaged, he was content to propose a list of words amounting to ninety-nine in number, which he had collected from the New Testa- ment, alleging, that || "■ they should on account
* Ibid.
t History of the Translations of the Bible by Anthony Johnson.
X Ut supra.
II Viz. Ecclesia, Pamitentia, Pontifex, Confiictationes, parabola, panis propositionis, zizania, olocaustu, idolum, apostolatus, pas- cha, Ifc.
OF THE RIBLE VINDICATED. 87
of the majesty of the matter signified by them, either be left untranslated, or Englished with as little variation as possible." And, on the ap- pearance of our received English version, we find the outcry thus raised, kept up with un- abated violence. Johnson relates, * '- that the Romanists much excepted liereat ; (viz. the translation of 1(311). Was their translation, say they, good before? Why do they now mend it ? Was it not good ? Why was it obtruded on the people?" Again, he says, " besides this, the Papists take exception; because in our new translation, the various senses of the words are set in the margin ; this they conceive a shaking of the Scriptures, such variations being as suckers to be pruned oflT, because they rob the stock of the text of its due credit and reputa- tion." We shall find a still later period dis- graced by the f coarsest invective against, and most vulgar abuse of, our Authorized Trans- lation of the Scriptures, in what is pompously styled, the Errata of the Protestant Bible; and which ;}; J)octor Milner dignifies with the title of Mr. Ward's learned Polyglott. In verse too, this his favourite author, vents his rage in his
* Watson's Coll., vol. ii. p. 97.
f For instances, see Preface to my Answer to Ward's Errata of the Protestant I'iMc, p. xvii.
J See his Inquiry into certain vulgar opinions, pp. 337, 31 1 .
88 OUR AUTHORIZED TRANSLATION
* Satire on the Reformation, in the following way :
III short, this last translation still
Is false, coiTupt, almost as ill
As those crooked rules of faith they had
In days of Elizabeth and Ned.
It would be an endless task to enumerate the instances of Popish abuse and calumny, which have been heaped on our received Trans- lation, written or verbal, from Ward's time to the present day ; all which would go to prove, that the spirit of rancorous opposition, which was given to the blessed work of our Reformers at the outset, and which was continued to their successors, has not yet died away. Indeed, when we call to recollection the tragical end of Tyndal, who, after encountering all the evils of poverty, exile, and imprisonment, was strang- led and burnt; as well as the various dangers attendant on the first attempts of other learned men to effect an English Translation of the Scriptures ; when, at an earlier period, we find the Church of Rome wreaking its vengeance on the very bones of Wickliff, for the same reason ; and when we connect with all this, the eternal f sameness of Popery and its boasted unchange-
* Ward's Reformation, Canto iv. p. 87. t " Semper eadem is more emphatically descriptive of our religion than our jurisprudence." — Plowden's Case Stated.
Doctor
OF THE BIBLE VINDICATED. 89
ableness; should we be surprised at the virulence with which our English Bible is assailed by the Romish clergy of the present day? When, there- fore, Doctor Milner affirms, that the Roman Ca- tholics raised an outcry against the early English versions of the Bible in use, on the accession of King James I., I entirely concur with him in opinion, from the evidence adduced.
But, says Doctor Milner, the King himself ''joined in the outcry, and accordingly ordered a new English version of the Bible to be made." We shall presently see how far this is true by reverting to the subject of the conference at Hampton Court. I should first observe, that Doctor Milner makes no express mention of this conference, when he speaks of the outcry ; but that he evidently alludes to it, may be col- lected from its connexion with the subjects of which he treats, as well as from the arguments he uses in his other publications. For, in his Inquiry into certain vulgar opinions respecting Ireland, he introduces Ward as saying, *" that when the growing sect of Puritans began to turn these corru|)tioiis, (alluding to certain texts in the Bibles of Henry VJII., Edward VI., and Elizabeth), against the nieinbers of the Church
DocTou TiioY also says, " The rclif,Mous opinions of Roman Catholics being uncfianf^cuiilc, arc applicable to all limes." — Pastoral Ltttcr, Dublin, 17 93. * Page 342.
90 OUR AUTHORIZED TRANSLATION
of England, particularly at the famous confer- ence of Hampton Court, in the beginning of the First James's reign; at last you thought proper to correct them." * [ have already shewn, that the conference was not held as Ward and Doctor Milner would lead a person to suppose, for the discussion of biblical cor- ruptions ; but for matters ^vhich related to the doctrine and discipline of the church : that the subject of a new translation of the Bible was no more than introduced ; and that the men- tion of it seemed to arise from accident, rather than from design. And as to the general cen- sure, which Barlow reports King James to have thrown on the English translations of the Bible then extant, when Doctor Reinolds moved his Majesty, that there might be a new one made ; a little explanation will divest it of the severity which Doctor Milner attaches to it. On the representation being made, his Majesty expres- sed a wish, t *' that some especiall paines should be taken in that behalf for one uniform translation; professing, that he could never yet see a Bible well translated in English ; but the worst of all his Majesty thought the Geneva to be." Now, in order that the King should pre-
* See page 79.
•f- Sum and Substance of the Hampton-Court Conference, p. 46.
OF THE BIBLE VINDICATED. 91
serve consistency, between what he is reported to have said respecting the English versions of the Bible, and the First and Fourteenth of the rules laid down for the learned men, whom he appointed to execute a new translation ; the expression " well translated in English," can only be supposed to mean, that he had never yet seen an English Bible, in which there were not passages capable of being better translated. A reference to the rules themselves will prove this. For, the first of them, according to * Burnet, directs, that "the Bishops' Bible be followed; and as little altered as the truth of the original will permit ;" while the Four- teenth prescribes, " that the following trans- lations be used, when they agree better with the text, than with the Bishops' Bible." viz, -) Tyndal's, Matthew's, Coverdale's,
Whitchurch's, better known by the name of Archl)ishop Cranmer's, or the Great Bible ; and The Geneva. And, when tiie king pronounced the Geneva Bible, which had been translated by the Eng- lish refugee Calvinists resident in that city the
* History of the Reform., vol. ii. Part ii. p..%8. t Ibid.
92 OVU AUTHORIZED TRANSLATION
worst of all ; it appears, that political causes, which were totally unconnected with its merits as a translation, induced him to say so. His Majesty contended, that some of the notes an- nexed to the Geneva Bible were *'* very par- tial, untrue, seditious, and savouring too much of dangerous and traitorous conceits ;" and supported his opinion from the marginal note, ** Exodus, i. 19, which alloiveth disobedience to the king ;" and from the marginal note, *' 2 Chronicles, xv. 16, which taxeth Asa for de- posing his mother only, and not killing her.'' His Majesty only contended publicly against the notes of the Geneva version. But, that he became better informed about its true charac- ter, is evident, from his having pointed it out to the new translators as one to be followed. What their opinion of it was, and the com- parative estimation in which they held even it, contrasted with the Douay Bible, I have al- ready had occasion to state.
I have thus disposed of the royal censure in all its bearings, and trust I have shewn, that His Majesty did not consider even the worst English Bible that he had ever seen, in the way described by Doctor Milner. On the whole, therefore, I conclude, as the Kings instructions
* Sum and Substance, ut supra, pp. 47, 48.
OF THE BIBLE VINDICATED. 9$
were, that the Translators should use the above- named six versions, but particularly Arch- bishop Parker's, commonly called the Bishops' Bible; that His Majesty no more censured the English versions then extant, than he joined in an '' outcry" (which, except among the Popish party, did not exist,) under the idea of their being " notoriously corrupt."
The general charge, therefore, against our Authorized Translation of the Bible being now disproved ; we next proceed to consider the nature of the particular one preferred against it by Doctor Milner.
This Gentleman says, * *' though these new translators have corrected many wilful errors of their predecessors, most of which have been levelled at (Roman) Catholic doctrines and dis- cipline ; yet they have left a sufficient number of these behind ; for which, 1 do not find, that their advocates offer any excuse." For these errors, he refers to the learned Gregory Martins Treatise on the subject, and to Mr. Ward^s Errata of the Protestant Bible, ft is strange, that he defends generally the criticisms of the latter, although some of the texts which he vindicated, stand altered in the last published Douay edition of the Old Testament; and it is still more strange, that he should approve of
* Letter ix. p. 72.
9-k OUR AUTHORIZED TRANSLATION
them, for no other reason, than because of the virulence with which they are drawn up. But, to what a low and degraded state must biblical criticism be reduced in the Romish Church, when Doctor Milner, one of its most learned divines, sets up two such men and their miser- able performances, in opposition to the united talent and learning of Protestant Europe since the Reformation ? For, according to him, all the errors which they have pointed out remain uncorrected in our Bibles to this day, for which no excuse has been offered ! And yet, at the moment he utters those words, he alludes to the late Doctor Ryan's Analysis of the Er- rata, and makes express mention of the An- swer I sent forth in counteraction of Ward's misrepresentations, as containing something more than an excuse. Doctor Ryan's Review of Popish cavils is decisive to the extent it goes ; and with respect to my own Answer to Ward, were I to say, that I only palliated errors, in- stead of repelling charges, I should, as one of the humblest advocates of our English versions, thereby admit the justice of Doctor Mtlner's imputation. But, I will say more, and I trust, the readers of my Answer will credit the truth of the assertion, that my publication, comprising as it does the ablest arguments of our most learned divines, contains a full and victorious refutation of pernicious error ; and that I have success-
OF THE BIBLE VINDICATED. 95
fully established the superior merit of our stand- ard English text, no less than its fidelity to the original, iu the passages criticised. In their hands I rest my cause, while [ join issue with Doctor Milner respecting the vindication I have given of two passages in particular ; the one re- lating to the celibacy of the clergy, and the other to the doctrine of Communion under one kind, which, on the authority of Martin and Ward, he reproduces as erroneously translated in our English Bible.
The passages, to which I allude, are 1 Cor. xi. 27, and Matt. xix. 11. These very ones he has spoken of in his * Inquiry as "still dis- figuring" the Protestant Bible. In his present t publication, he says, that "though these cor- ruptions stand in direct opposition to the ori- ginal, as the Rev. Mr. Grier and Doctor Ryan themselves quote it, yet these writers have the confidence to deny, that they are corruptions ; because they pretend to prove from other texts, that the cup is necessary, and that continency is not necessary y In my Answer, I have, as I conceive, satisfactorily proved, that the render- ing of » 7ra»Tn x'^pao-i, Matt. xix. 11, is j)C'rfectly correct in our Authorized V^ersion of the Bible; as being most agreeable to the original, as well as to the sense in which SS. Augjistine and
• Page 346. t Letter ix. ut supra. ,
96 OUR AUTHORIZED TRANSLATION
Jerome understood it. T liave there been obli- ged to convict Doctor Milncr of gross igno- rance of the Greek, no less than of a fraudulent application of the Latin language, in which he is so deeply versed ; and have proved to de- monstration, that the Rhemish version of this very text, as well as of n Si »k tyy.fXTivovrui, 1 Cor. vii. 9, which he considers of "such importance towards settling the disputes concerning the pos- sibiUty of leading a continent life" is erroneous. Should the reader refer to the * pages of my Answer pointed out below, 1 entreat him to notice, whether I have expressly, or by implica- tion, said, or pretended to prove, that continency is not necessary. In truth, the abstract ques- tion, whether the continency of the clergy was, or was not necessary, was but a secondary ob- ject with me ; my chief design being to shew, that an ordinance respecting their celibacy, was rather of human, than of divine institution. But, as I have devoted a separate f chapter to this subject, I shall not now further enlarge on it.
As to the text, 1 Cor. xi. 27, on which the Romish church grounds its sacrilegious prac- tice of suppressing half the Eucharist, the reader will find it also amply treated of in a subse- quent J chapter. To the Protestant interpreta- tion of both texts. Popish writers, it is true,
* Pages 33, 55, and 92. f xx. % Viz. vii.
OF THE BIBLE VINDICATED. 97
have, from the peiiod of the Reformation to the present time, made objections; but these are futile, and few, compared to the solid rea- sons which exist for our preserving them un- altered. As bearing on this point, I may be allowed to relate an anecdote told of. Doctor Kilbie, one of the venerable translators of our Bible. *" Doctor Kilbie and Mr. Sanderson going together to that parish-church where they were, found the young preacher to have no more discretion, than to waste his time in ex- ceptions against the late translation of several words, (not expecting such a hearer as Doctor Kilbie) and shewed three reasons, why a parti- cular word should have been otherwise trans- lated. When evening-prayer was . ended, the preacher was invited to the Doctor's friend's house, where, after some other conference, the Doctor told him, he might have preached more useful doctrine, and not have filled his audi- tors' ears with needless exceptions against the late translation ; and for that word, for which he ofi'ered to that poor congregation three rea- sons why it ought to have been translated as he said, he and others had considered all of them, and found thiktken more considerable reasons why it ic((s translated as noa; jninted.^ To Doctor Milner 1 leave the apj)lication of tiie
- Watson's Coll. vol. iii. p. 9S. U
98 OUR AUTHORIZED TRANSLATION
foregoing anecdote ; for it certainly affords an useful hint to a self-confident critic.
If we now direct our attention from the con- sideration of those few words to which our ad- versaries object, as being erroneously translated, to the merit of our Translation itself; we shall find, that for the three critics, viz. Gregory Mar- tin, Thomas Ward, and Doctor Milner, who have heaped on it every species of vitupera- tion and abuse ; not merely three, but, 1 might almost say, three hundred of the soundest di- vines, and most profoundly learned biblical scholars might be enumerated, who have ad- mired it for its general faithfulness, the severe beauty of its language, and the simplicity of its style ; and have pronounced it one of the grand- est efforts of human skill and industry. That they are borne out in the high encomiums they have passed on it, will appear, if we but advert to the peculiarly happy circumstances, under which it was executed ; — the flourishing state of the Hebrew, and the wholesome vigour at which the English language had at the time arrived. Every prudent and wise precaution was taken, in employing the most learned men of the day, and in laying down strict rules for their ob- servance ; and, as the same may be said with respect to those who prepared the version, which immediately preceded it, the circum- stance of our last English Bible being a revision
OF THE BIBLE VINDICATED. 99
thus derived, is an advantage in itself of the greatest value. In short, executed as it was, when the English language was, as I have al- ready observed, fresh in its native simplicity and vigour, it will ever be esteemed as classical, and regarded with awful respect.
Among the eminent literary characters who have given their attestations in favour of our Authorized Translation of the Bible, the follow- ing a|)pear conspicuous. Their high authority compel us to believe, that it is a faithful ver- sion of the original text, and that one more per- fect, every thing considered, is neither necessary, nor expedient. Most of them are to be found in Archbishop IVewcome's and Mr. Todd's lists ; and, although Sir James B. Burges has at- tempted, in his Reply to the latter gentleman's vindication of our received English Bible, to throw discredit on many of the authorities here referred to, because of the deistical Geddes, as the worthy baronet styles him, being associated with ihem ; yet Mr. Todd may rest secure from censure for having cited Geddes, since the Arch- bishoj) did not hesitate to cjuote his opinion on the nierits of our translation, much as he dis- approved of his religious |)rin(ipl<;s.
1. As to Selden's testimony, *r have al- ready had occasion to advert to it, when ic-
* See page 75. 11 -1
100 OUR AUTHORIZED TRANSLATION
pelling- Doctor Mil tier's attack on the Bishops' Bible. He speaks in high terms of the process adopted by the translators in forming our re- ceived version ; and surely, his opinion of the result of that process ought to have great weight. In one place, he says, that *" there is no book so translated as the Bible," and, in f another, '* that the last English translation is the best in the world."
2. J Fuller, after censuring the cavils, which were raised against our English Bible, as not being furnished with the notes of the Geneva one, commends the translators in these para- phrased words of Scripture. " Wheresoever the Bible shall be preached or read in the whole world, there shall also this, that they have done, be told in memorial of them."
3. II Walton says, in the Prolegomena to his Polyglott Bible, "that among the Euro- pean translations of the Scriptures, King James's one (emmet) stands conspicuous." And again, in his § Defence of his Polyglott, he affirms,
* Table Talk, sect. ii. p. 2009. f Ibid, p. 5.
X Church History, Book x. p. 59, not cited by Archbishop Kevvcome.
II "In omnes fere Europae hnguas bodie eloquia sacra tra-
ducta sunt --.-. inter omues vero eminet Anglicana'
Jacobi Regis auspiciis multorum virorum doctorum studiik claborata." — Prolegom., p. 5.
§ CoNsiDEBATOR Considered, Preface, p. 3.
OF THE BIBLE VINDICATED. 101
•' that the last English translation made by di- verse learned men in 1611, nmj justlt/ co7itend with any now extant in mii/ other language of Europe." It will hardly be expected, that Walton, after expressing himself in this de- cided manner respecting the King's Bible, in- tended to say, that the church of Rome was ex- clusively the true church of Christ; inasmuch as it has denounced as heretical and corrupt this very version of the Scriptures which he ex- tols ; yet, strange as it may appear, he is made to do so ; since Doctor Milner quotes him to this effect, in the following passage. ''"'The word of God does not consist in mere letters, whether written or printed, but in the true sense of it, which no one can interpret better than the true church, to w^hich Christ com- mitted this sacred deposit." But, that this Pro- testant Prelate did not solely mean the church of Rome, when he spoke of the true church, ap- pears no less from this extract, than from his general reasoning.
4. tLiGHTiooT remarks, "with what sweet- ness and harmony the New Testament doth follow this Translation, .sometimes even besides the letter of the Old, to shew that He that gave
* IniD. p. 34.
t Miscellanies, Christian and Judaical, p. 65.
102 OUll AUTHORIZED TKANSLATION
the Old, may and can best expound it in the New."
5. * Pole, in the Prefiice to his Synopsis, acknowledgjes the greatest obligations to our English Bible, for the aid which it afforded him in his critical labours, and speaks of it as possessing the highest merit.
0. t PococK, Hebrew Professor at Oxford, in 1076, says, " that we deservedly follow that translation of our own, it being such and so agreeable to the original, that we might well choose among others to do so, were it not our own, and established by authority among us."
7. X LowTH esteemed the English transla- tion of the Bible, " the best standard of our language'^
8. II Swift says, "that no translation our country ever yet produced, hath come up to that of the Old and New Testament."
9. §MoNBODDo's testimony is similar to that of Lowth.
* " In qua plurima occurrunt magna eruditionis peritiaijue
in Unguis originariis quaeque mihi baud raro in dif-
hcillimis textibus maximo erat adjwnento et usui." — Page 5.
t PuEFACE to a Commentary on tbe Propbet Micab.
X Introduction to Englisb Grammar, p. 93.
|] Proposal for improving tbe Engbsb Tongue, vol. iv. p. 48.
§ Okigjn and Progress of Language, vol. ii. p. 141.
OF THE BIBLE VINDICATED. 103
10. *DuRELL, after observing- that our Eng- lish translation is closer to the original than any preceding one, as hevn^^ free from the affectation of sublimity, no less than vulgarity of expres- sion, remarks, "that it preserves a due me- dium between the Geneva and Roman versions, equally avoiding, on the one hand, the scrupu- losity of the Puritans, who prefer their new terms, such as luashing, and congregations to the old ecclesiastical ones, baptism^ and church\ and on the other hand, the obscurity of the Papists, in not translating such words as azyme^ holocaust, pasche, <^c."
Jl. fGEDDES speaking of the high estima- tion, in which the translation of James I. is held both at home and abroad, says, " if accu- racy, fidelity, and the strictest attention to the letter of the text, be supposed to constitute the qualities of an excellent version, this of all ver- sions must be accounted the most excellent.
12. JGray considered it one of unrivalled excellence, lie calls it *' a inost wo?iclerJul a?id incomparnhle work, equally remarkable for the general fidvlil If of its construction, and theviag- nijiccnt simpluiti/ of its language,"
J 3. § Professor White says *' as the style of
* CniTirAL Remakks on Jol), Pref. p. 6. t PiiosPEc.TUS of" a new TraiLslalioi), p. 92. X Key to llie Old Teslarnetit, Introd. p. 43. § Sermons^ pp. 8, D. Ed. 1779.
104 OUK AUTHORIZED TRANSLATION
the vulgar translation is not only excellent in it- self, but has taken possession of our ear, to have endeavoured to vary from it, with no other design than that of giving something new in- stead of it, would be to disgust the reader."
14, 15, 10. * Bishop Bagot, f Lesley, and J Wakefield, speak of our authorised trans- lation in the highest terms of commendation ; although writers of opposite characters and de- nominations.
17. §Waterland says, *' it is with a just veneration to the memory of our learned and judicious translators, that I acknowledge their version in the main to be faithful, clear, and solid."
18. II Rennell observes, " that our received version exhibits a more perfect specimen of the integrity of the English language, than any other writing which that language can boast." And *• that the industry, the learning, and abilities, which have been sedulously exerted in collect- ing the mistakes and inaccuracies said to exist in it, have scarcely been able to produce a single error, by which any material fact or doctrine is affected."
19. ^ Middleton speaks of the style of our present version as being " simple, harmonious,
* Charge, p. 33. f Transl. of the N. T., Pref. p. 5.
+ Pref. to N. T., p. 4. § See Nf.wcome's Hist. View, p. 396. II DiscouKSE, ix. ^ Essay on the Greek Article, p. 32.
OF THE BIBLE VINDICATED. 105
and energetic ; and which is of no small import- ance, use has made it familiar, and time has rendered it sacred."
20. * Knox contends, " that our present translation should be retained in our churches, for its intrinsic beauty and excellence. The poetical passages of Scripture are peculiarly pleasing. The language, though it is simple and natural, is rich and expressive."
21. t Archbishop Newcome, notwithstand- ing his prejudices in favour of an improved ver- sion of the Scriptures, observes, " that that now in use leaves nothing necessary to salva- tion in doubt or uncertainty. And that ?io translation, even of a single book, has yet ap- peared preferable on the whole to the received one."
22. J Mr. Whitaker has enhanced the value of his testimony in its favour, by having sunk beyond the possibility of recovery Mr. Bel- lamy's 7ieiv version in the estimation of the learned, lie thus expresses himself, " Our authorized version of the Bible may be com- pared with any translation in the world without
fear of inferiority ; it has not shrunk from the most rigorous examination, it challcmres inves- tigation, and in spite of numerous attempts to
* Essays, Literary and Moral, No. XLIX.
t Hist. View, p. 296.
X HisToniCAL AND CRITICAL Enquiky, pp. 93, 94.
lot) OUR AUTHORIZED TRANSLATION
supersede it, has liitherto remained unrivalled in tlie aflectioMS of the country. "
I shall content myself with adding the tes- timonies of two other distinguished Divines — Bishops Horsley and Magee. The former, in the Preface to his translation of the Prophet Hosea, modestly says, " I desire, that it may be distinctly understood, that 1 give my trans- lation, not as one that ought to supersede the use of the public translation in the service of the church." And the latter of those learned Prelates has presented us with such a mass of in- valuable criticism on a *new translation of the Book of Job, and such incontestable proofs of its erroneousness, that our regard for our standard version, which great learning, attested by the seal of episcopal authority, was calcu- lated to chill ; has been quickened into affec- tion. Bishop Stock, the author of the new translation of that ancient book, unwisely pro- duced it as one, which ought to supersede the translation in public use. I say unwisely^ be- cause he acted, in this instance, so unlike the learned Horsley ; and because had he not put forward his translation, with such vain preten- sions to superiority, it might have slept in harm- less repose, and have escaped the critical acu-
* The Book of Job, newly translated by the Right Rev. J, Stock, Bishop of Killala.
OF THE BIBLE VINDICATED. 107
meii, which explored its unsoundness. The Bishop of Raphoe, thus finally dismisses his subject with saying, * " that, in his opinion, the necessity for a new English version of the Book of Job (if any be supposed previously to have existed) has in no particular been dimi- nished by that, which has been given to the world by the Bishop of Killala."
Were it necessary to add any thing to evi- dence so irresistible, I should speak of the esti- mation, in which our Authorized Translation of the Bible has been held by all sects, who have forsaken our church ; and that when church and state were overthrown, and the established religion underwent the most rancorous persecu- tion, it survived the general convulsion, and met with universal respect from all parties. Of late too, the strongest testimony in its favour has been manifested by every denomination of Protestants in their desire to give it the greatest publicity and most wide-spread circulation.
Lastly. If the reader will only contrast the foregoing attestations, with the puny efforts which have been made to impeach its fidelity; he will have no less reason to admire; this glo- rious work, than the talents aiitl integrity of those who consummated it. lie will have ad- ditional reason to bless God, that he has been
* See Discourses on the Scriptural Doctrines of Atonement and Sacrifice, vol. ii. pp. 132, 199.
108 OUR AUTHORIZED TRANSLATION, &C.
rescued from the horrors of Papal darkness and superstition, by their labours, as well as by those of their immediate predecessors ; and that a direct communication has been laid open be- tween him and the divine fountain of truth it- self For, to use the strong and appropriate language of our translators; * " how shall men meditate in that which they cannot understand? How shall they understand that, which is kept close in an unknown tongue?" Then, after pro- claiming the triumph they obtained through their labours over their Popish adversaries, they thus conclude: — " Translation it is, that open- etli the window to let in the light; that breaketh the shell, that we may eat the kernel ; that putteth aside the curtaine, that we may looke into the most holy place; and that remooveth the cover of the well, that wee may come by the water."
* Preface or Epistle to the Reader, Transl. 1611.
109
CHAPTER V.
THE DOCTRINE OF TRANSUBSTANTIATION — A PAPAL NOVELTY.
The doctrine of Transiibstantiation, like every other innovation in the church, was gradual in its growth and progress from its earliest rise, until its final adoption. It was not heard of before the year 787, at the second Council of Nice; when it was originally introduced. The period in which it was first proposed in set terms was peculiarly favourable to its reception. When newly invented rites, and superstitious ceremonies increased in number, and assumetl so much consequence as to throw the vital doc- trines of Christianity into the shade ; it was natural, that the merit and importance of those few simple rites, which could without difliculty be traced to our Saviour's connnands, should be extolled in the most extravagant terms. I^angiiago, which, if ajjpiicd to recent institu- tions, might not have been listcncjd to, was re- ceived wilh so much the greater satisfaction ; because, if it elevated th<: dignity of tliost,' holy mysteries, it contribuUMi, at the same time, to exalt the character of the priesthood. The
no TRANSUBSTANTIATION,
opinion entertained about Transubstantiation was conceived to be so powerful an engine for effecting this purpose, that when once set on foot, it could not but be favourably received by all those, who sought every possible pretext to advance their credit and authority. The con- sequence was, that the artifice employed for this purpose, became ultimately successful, for, as they blasphemously expressed it — what was impossible for those to do, who could, by utter- ing a few words, make God ? And, as one error generally produces another; the error in faith, that the consecrated bread and wine were literally the body and blood of Christ, led to the error in practice, of worshipping them as such. The clergy also were so numerous, and their contrivances so well suited to the credulity of the age, that they easily imposed on the weak and ignorant multitude. Besides, the prevailing taste of those times was that of pomp and pageantry ; and having lost the beauty of religion, they wished to compensate for the de- fect by outward shew and ceremony.
Such was the state of things in the eighth century, at which time the sentiments of Chris- tians concerning the nature of Christ's presence in the sacrament were various and contradic- tory: neither Bishop nor Council having pre- viously determined that important point. But in the beginning of the next century, the doc-
A PAPAL NOVELTY. Ill
trine of the church on tliis head appeared to assume a settled shape, at the hands of * Pas- chasius Radbert, who, at least, affected to ex- plain it with precision, if not decide on it with certainty. This view of the subject varies little from that taken of it by the late f Bishop Por- teus, the present J Bishop of Winchester, and by other writers, who have preceded them on the same ground. So that were Doctor Mil- ner to make good his charge against these mo- dern bishops, as he styles them, on the score of ignorance, it would lie with equal force against Usher, Claude, Burnet, and others of equal eminence, as shall be now shewn.
Thus, to begin with § Usher. He maintains, *' that Paschasius was one of the first setters forward of this doctrine in the west," and grounds his assertion on antecedent authorities, to which he refers. || Claude observes, *' that that monk j)roposes his opinion in the way of paradox, as if he were about to say something extraordinary and surj)rising by the words, et ut mirahilins lofjuar, i^c. ; yet he never vaunt- ed, that his doctrine was that of the church,
♦ See MosH. Eccl. Hist. vol. ii. p. 340.
f Confutation of the Errors of tlie Church of Rome, p. 3S.
I Elf.m. of Thf.ol., vol. ii. p. 4S0.
§ Essay on the Real Presence, p. SO.
II DocTKiNE OF THE EucnAiusT, Book vi. pp. i314, 224c. Ed. I6b4.
J 12 TRANSUBSTANTIATION,
and frankly acknowledges, tbafj before his time, men were ignorant of it." * Burnet affirms, that antecedent to the year 754 of the Christian era, the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper " was not considered to be any thing else, than ihejigure or image of Christ's body." Mosheim's testi- mony has the same bearing, and, according to Doctor Milner, his evidence, as being that of a fair historian, is admissible. And even t Sirmond the Jesuit, in his life of Radbert, relates, " that this monk was the j^r5^, who ex- plained the genuine sense of the Catholic church in this mystery." I might enlarge this cata- logue by the names of J Bramhall, Laud, An- drews, &c. &c. By such high authorities, are Bishops Porteus and Tomline borne out in what they say respecting Radbert being the^V*^ ivriter who started this doctrine ; and yet are they exclaimed against by Doctor Milner, as if no historical record of what they relate were in existence. It is truly tender in him, no doubt, to express his apprehensions, lest the character of the Church of England for eccle- siastical literature should suffer throughout Europe, should it be said, " that such posi- tions respecting Radbert, had been published by one or two of its most celebrated Prelates." But let me speak peace to the gentle Doctor's
* Article xxviii. t Vita Pasch. Radbert.
X See Chap. vi. in loc.
A PAPAL NOVELTY. 113
fears on this head, as those Prelates ground their statements not only on the positive evi- dence of tliose to whom I have referred ; but on the negative evidence to be derived from the silence of the ancient fathers, councils, and his- torians on the subject ; and unless he confines knowledge, as he does salvation, to those of his own communion, he must admit, that the most learned Protestant Divines of the present day have, like them, declared Transubstantia- tion to be of modern invention, a novelty, and a heterodoxy of the Church of Rome.
Transubstantiation has always constituted the leading point of controversy, as being that which forms the chief difference between the Churches of England and Rome. It is that which recurs every day in the Romish Cluirch. Most of its other doctrines are not indis[)ens- able in their operation ; but, an attentiance at mass, said as it is daily at every altar, is en- joined, if not enforced, as a regular part of de- votion: while the celebration of it is esteemed one of the most prominent acts of tiic Popish clergy. As, therefore, our denial of Transub- stantiation is tlie cliief heresy, which they ob- ject to us, so it is against their faith and prac- tice respecting this important tenet, that we enter our most solemn protest; because, that next to its doctrine of infallibility, it is what the Church of Rome most highly values ; as
1
114 TRANSUKSTANTIATION,
constituting the sul)limest part of its worship, and the chief subject of its devotions; as inte- resting in a greater degree both clergy and laity in its support, than any other; and as being more the object of their study, and for which they so. confidently appeal to the primi- tive fathers and to the Scriptures.
The Church of Rome has declared, by more than one solemn act, that, in the Sacrament of the Eucharist, the bread and wine are so changed into the body and blood of Christ, that their substance is wholly annihilated ; that the accidents or species, (i. e. the appearances,) of those elements alone remain, and that their substance is the very body and blood of Christ, even that very body which suffered upon the cross. When Berenger was forced to retract his heretical opinions respecting the Eucharist, the doctrine of Christ's corporal presence in the sacrament was first pronounced an article of faith, in a council held at Rome by Pope Ni- cholas II., A. D. 1059; but was not generally acknowledged as such by the Church. This council declared, that after the consecration of the bread and wine, the true body and blood of Christ were in reality, and according to the testimony of the senses (sensualiter), * ^^ handled by the priests, and broken and crushed by the
* Sacerdotum manibm, tractari, frangi, et fiddium dentibus utteri. — Gratian. De Consecrat. Dist. ii. c. 42.
A PAPAL NOVELTY. il5
teeth of the faithful^ This doctrine was sub- sequently asserted with greater effect, by the *fourth council of Lateran, A. D. 1216, which set forth, that f " the bread is transubstantiated into the body, and the wiue into the blood of Christ;" thus preserving a distinction between the bread and wine, and the body and blood. The council of Florence, in 1439, added, J" that the ivhole Christ is contained under the species of the bread, and the whole under the species of wine ; and that in every particle of the con- secrated wafer, and of the consecrated wine, whenever a separation takes place, there is the whole Christ.'' But its final confirmation was reserved for the famous council of Trent in the sixteenth century, which unequivocally affirms, § *' that in the blessed Sacrament of the Eucha- rist, after the consecration of the bread and wine, our Lord Jesus Christ is tr%ily, really,
* "In this council," says Gibbon, "Innocent III. may boast of the two most sitjnal triumphs over sense and huma- nity : the estahlishnient of Trunsubstantiation, and the origin of the inquisition." — Dfxline and Fall, vol. ii. p. 152.
t " Traii'>ub>taritiatis pane in corpus, ct vino in sanguinem j)Otestate <livinil." — Cauasslt. IIi!<l. Concil.
X " Sub qudlibct rpioque parte ho8ti<x> consecrata;, et vini conaecrati, separatione facii, totua est Chri.-^tus." — Binnii Con- cil., lorn. V. pars I. [». (ill.
§ " Dom. N. I. C. vere, realitcr, ac substanlialitcr, sub specie illarum rcrum sensibiliujn contineri." — luiu.
I '2
116 TRANSUBSTANTIATION,
and sxihstavtinlli/ contained under the appeaf- ances (species), or accidents of the sensible things." It further dechires, *'' i\i?d ihe whole substance of the bread is converted into the body, and the ivhole substance of the wine into the blood of Christ ; and that the most holy Sacrament is to be honoured with the highest degree of worship, even that expressed by La- TRiA ;" and f'that itis wo^ the less to be adored for having been instituted by oiir Lord in order to be taken." AH this doctrine is enjoined by the council, under the penalty of the accus- tomed anathemas, as its J Canons shew.
So much for the doctrine of Transubstanti- ation and its consequents, as laid down by the council of Trent. To them are opposed the official declarations of the Church of England; 1 speak of its xxviiith, xxixth, xxxth, and xxxist Articles. On comparing those docu-
* " Per consecrationem panis et vini conversionem fieri <ofms substantiae panis in substantiain corporis Christ), D.N. et totius substantiae vini in substantiam sanguinis ejus." — Ibid.
•\ " Neque idea minus est adorandum, quod fuerit a Christo Donriino ut sumatur institutum." — Ibid.
:|: Canon I. " If any one shall deny, that in the most holy Sacrament of the Eucharist, there is truly, really, and mbstantially con- tained the body and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ, together •with his soul and divinity, and consequently the whole Christ ;
A PAPAL NOVELTY. J 17
inents with each other, it will be at once per- ceived, that although both churches agree about Christ's real presence in the Sacrament; yet that thej' possess a different idea of that pre- sence. In fact, the great dispute between them relates to the nature of it. They say, that Christ is present substantially ; after the manner of a body : we maintain, that He is only spiri- tually present. Neither of us can, therefore, use the words real presence as descriptive of our differences, or of our peculiar opinions, without further illustration; unless through
but shall say, that he is in it only as in a sign or by a figure, or virtually J let him be accursed."
Canon II.
Or; "that the substance of the bread and wine remains together with the body and blood of Christ, or that a miracu- lous conversion of them takes place /•* Anathema.
Canon III. Or; " that the whole Christ is contained under each specie, and under every individual particle of each specie ;" Ana- thema.
Canon IV. Or ; " that in the particles consecrated, which are re- served after the communion, the true body of our Lord does not remain ;" Anathema.
The sixth Canon enforces the worship and procession of the host ; and the eighth denounces thosr who say, that Christ is calen after a spiritual manner, and not really.
ll» TRANSUBSTANTIATION,
ignorance, or with an intention to deceive. But, as I resume this subject in the next Chapter, I shall, for the present, pursue it no farther.
It is not possible, either that Doctor Milner believes it himself, or expects that others should believe, that the divines of the Church of Eng- land have recourse to *'' disingenuous artijice" whenever they discuss the subject of the Eucha- rist ; because he must be conscious, that no- thing distinguishes them so much from their ad- versaries, as candour and fair dealing. If they use stronger language in condemning those un- scriptural doctrines of the Romish Church, which he enumerates ; namely, those relating to "the veneration of saints, pious images, in- dulgences, and purgatory," than what they ap- ply to similar conundrums of that church : they are neither guilty o^faheliood, nor do they betray a malevolent spirit towards their Roman Catholic brethren: inasmuch as they only ex- press what they are bound to do : — the senti- ments of the church, to which they belong, on these points. In proof of this, if we refer to our LITURGY, ARTICLES, and HOMILIES, we shall find, that they contain more emphatic terms than any we use in our ordinary writings against the usages and doctrines of the Church of Rome;
* Letter xxxvi. p. 39.
A PAPAL NOVELTY. 119
such as anti-christian, heretical, idolatrous. riiey condemn " the. fond things vainly invented'' by that church, which are as ^'repugnant to the word of God, as they are to Christ's ordinance and commandment." They censure its " blas- phemous fables and datigerous deceits,^ and ac- cuse it of " arrogance and impiety." By our ordination vows, upon the faith of which we have been received into the ministry of the church, it becomes our bounden duty *"to be ready with all faithful diligence to banish and drive away all erroneous and strange doctrines contrary to God's word ;" and, if in the fulfil- ment of those vows, we manifest a feeling cor- respondent to the importance of our obliga- tions, due allowances should be made. Zeal, and the warmth of our language, should be as- cribed to the proper motive, and never be said to originate in malevolence towards our Roman Catholic brethren.
Dr. Milner's next accusation is, that we mis- represent Roman Catholics, j " as worshippers of bread and wine, in the sacrament, and there- fore as idolaters ;" at the same time that we are aware, that they firmly believe, " that there is 710 bread, nor wine ; but Christ alone, true God as well as man, jiresent in it." He then adds,
* Ordemng of Pbiusts. |- Lettlk xxxvi. p. .19.
I'lO TRANSUBSTANTIATION,
" granting that we are mistaken in this belief, the worst we could he charged ivith is an errors in supposing- Christ to be where he is not; and nothing but imcharitable calumny could accuse us of the heinous crime of idolatry." His illus- tration of this point is very remarkable. * " Let us suppose," says he, " that being charged with a loyal address to the sovereign, you presented it by mistake to one of his courtiers, or even to an inanimate figure of him, which for some reason or other had been dressed up in royal robes, and placed on the throne, would your heart reproach you, or would any sensible per- son reproach you with the guilt of treason in this case?"
It is much to be lamented, that a gentleman like Dr. Milner, who possesses such a versati- lity of talent, so much learning and such acute observation on every other subject, should ap- pear to betray symptoms of an impaired intellect in religious concerns alone. He affords a con- vincing proof to what a low ebb a man's reason may be degraded, whose mind is overcast by the mists of superstition. 1 should wish to know, from him, what similitude exists between his error, in supposing a courtier, or an inanimate figure decked out in the robes of royalty, to be
• Letter xxxvi. p. 40.
A PAPAL NOVELTY. J 21
the sovereign, and in consequence of that sup- position, in his presenting either of them with an address intended for the sovereign himself; and a solemn act of religious worship ? There can be no resemblance discovered between a solitary mistake produced by a person's agita- tion in the bustle of a court, and the regular and systematic observance of a rite deliberately adopted, and pertinaciously defended, during a succession of ages. Besides, no two things can be more unlike, than homage, or civil worship, to man, and adoration to God. But, let us suppose, that the person charged with the ad- dress, after having been made personally ac- quainted with his sovereign, and his own duty as a subject, and further told that the sovereign was jealous about the honour and respect due to him ; should his subject, 1 say, after this, still jjersevere in paying the courtier, or the senseless statue in the niche, the homage due to the other ; could he, in such a case, plead ignorance as his excuse, or exculpate himself from the suspicion, if not from the charge of disloyalty r When Sysigambis, the Queen of Darius, fell at the feet of lirpha;stion, whom she mistook for Alexander, she was not by that one error guilty of treason. 80, neither were the people, who, while* in doubt, probably wor-
# <t
And all men tnused in their hearts of John, whether he
122 TRANSUBSTANTIATION,
shipped John the Baptist as Christ, to be coH' sidered as idolaters, in consequence of their mistake. One overt act committed in this way will not constitute an offence of the kind ; but a deliberate and determined repetition of it, after it had been forbidden. So, with regard to such a sin as idolatry, a man's misconception of it, may with a merciful God, who is slow to anger, and ready to pardon, operate in his fa- vour; but it never can make that innocent, which is in itself sinful.
But, observes Doctor Milner, " our adversa- ries are perfectly aware, that we believe as an. article of faith, that there is no bread nor wine, but Christ alone, true God, and true man," present in the sacrament. By this, he means, that the members of his church inwardly wor- ship no creature, and pay divine adoration
were the Christ, or not."i — Luke, iii. 15. The Rev. Mr. Le Mesurier exposed this plea when urged by Mr. Fletcher, in his Remarks on the Bishop of Durham's Grounds of separa- tion from the Church of Rome. Harding, the Jesuit, at the time of the Reformation, relied on a more curious instance, in his controversy with Bishop Jewell, viz. " that Jacob was not guilty of adultery, when he was put to bed to Leah, thinking her to be Rachel." — See Jewell's Reply, p. 30.5. It is admittech that Jacob was imposed on ; would Doctor Milner. therefore, allow, that the people are equally deluded in the celebration of the mass ? However, we see, that every illustration, argu- ment, or remark used by him, has had its parallel in some of the antiquated works of former controvertists.
A PAPAL NOVELTY. 123
only, as they conceive, to God. But, how can the sincerity of their behef, that the bread and wine are really God, lessen the idolatry ; inas- much as it is in the error of the belief, as well as in the falsehood of the doctrine, that idola- try consists r Were sincerity of belief a palli- ation, it is such as the ignorant Egyptian might urge, since he is as firmly persuaded about the divinity of the crocodile, as the Roman Catho- lic is respecting his breaden God.
Besides, on Doctor Milner's principle, no reason can be assigned for any external sign, or act of worship; nor had the Almighty any rea- son for attaching such importance to acts and signs, as we find He has done in his law ; nor for directing that they should only be exhibited in honour of Himself; nor for his issuing the second commandment. All these co!isidera- tions are thrown aside by the Doctor, as if the adoration of the bread and wine in the Eucha- rist was only an act of the mind, and that bow- ing down before them was not idolatry in the outward ticX. J5«llarmine declares, *" that ado- ration belongs even to the symbols of bread and wine, as being oik" with Christ whom they con- tain." Another writer of the same class ob-
* Atlorationem ad symhula cliatii panis et viiii iitrtiiRTC- Df. Eucm. lib. iv. c. 2y.
124 TRANSUBSTANTIATION,
serves, * " that the council of Trent does not say, that the Sacrament is to be adored with Latria, but Christ in the Sacrament." And a third, t " that not only Christ, but the whole visible Sacrament must be adored by one and the same worship ; because it is one consisting of Christ and the species." Thus, on their own shewing, the Latria, which is the highest pos- sible worship, is offered to the external and visi- ble, as well as to the internal part of the Sacra- ment. The propriety of this is defended by Bellarmine, on the ground, J "that they who adored Christ when on earth, adored not only Himself, but after a certain manner, the gar- ments which He wore." It cannot here escape notice, that Bellarmine's argument proves too much ; for, according to it, the || wise men must have been justified in worshipping the very clothes in which he was wrapped, as well as the child Jesus Himself when lying in the
* Non dicit Concil. Triden. Sacramentum, sed Christum in Sacramento, Latria adorandum. — St. Clara de Grat. p. 308.
•f Non solum Christum, sed totum visihile Sacramentum, unico cultu adorari, quia est unum constans ex Christo et speciehus. — Suarez in Theol. Quest. 79.
X Qui Christum in terris vestitum adorabant, non ipsum solum, sed etiam vestes quodam tnodo adorabant, — De Euch, Venerat.
II See that invaluable Repository of Popish confutation,— the Preservative against Popery, Tit. vii. c, y. p. 342.
A PAPAL NOVELTY. 125
manger. The people must have been so too, in worshipping the ass, on which Christ rode, as well as Christ Himself; not, to be sure, on account of the animal, but of the burthen which he bore ! ! The sentiments of those expositors, and the reasonableness of the worsliip, had been, about the same time, oflScially declared* by the council of Trent (sess. 13,) with the usual ANATHEMA agaiust those, who thought or spoke differently. If, therefore, we only bear in mind, that idolatry is the believing that to be God, and bowing down to that as Giod, which is not God; we must be convinced, that neither firmness of persuasion, nor sincerity of belief, can extenuate the idolatry of such wor- ship ; and that, whether the bread and wine be worshipped as God, or God be worshipped under the form of bread and wine ; it is as much a violation of God's commandment to bow down to an image of bread, as it is to one of brass or wood.
" The worst''' we can be charged with, says Doctor Milner, is '* only aw error" in suppo- sing Christ to be where he is not. Might not the idolatrous Jews, who worshipped the molten calf have excused themselves in the same way ? By such worship, they did not intend to withdraw their allegiance from the true God, who brought them out of the land of Egy|)t; nor did they conceive the gold, which they adored, to be
126 TRANSUBSTAMIATION,
God, as the * feast appointed to the Lord testi- fies. The same thing- may be said of the Ma- nichaeans, who adored the f'sun and moon, al- though Christ was the declared object of their worship. These visionaries absurdly supposed, that Christ had placed his tabernacle in the sun, and that what appeared to be the sun, was not so in reality. But, to go a step farther, is it not such a plea as the Heathens might urge, and such as their philosophers have often urged ? Even the anti-christian Celsus apologizes for the idolatrous Egyptians on the same ground ; that they did not worship their brute creatures but only as they were '^.symbols of God. As, therefore, the Jews conceived, that after Aaron's consecration of the golden calf, the accidents or species of the gold alone remained, while the substance of it was annihilated, and that under those, God Himself was present; and, as the Manichaeans wildly imagined, that the body of the sun had been converted into Christ's glori- ous body ; and lastly, as the unenlightened Pagans have taken their idols for the Gods themselves : will, I say, their misconceptions have excused their idolatry? According to Doctor Milner's reasoning, they all stand wide
* ExoD. xxxii. 5.
t Solem etiam et Lunam adorant. — August. Epist. 94, ad Deuter.
X Etvctt «t/T« x«( 0»t» ©■k/aC«x«. — Orig. contra Cels. lib. iii.
A PAPAL NOVELTY. 127
of this great offence; but the Heathens most of all, because, apparently, most in error.
At the worst ive are only in error. But, what ■will Doctor Milner say, should any of those things, which the church of Rome esteems es- sential, be absent; the mere want of which would nullify the consecration? A variety of causes may contribute to this end; such as the bread not being of a proper kind ; nor properly made ; or the wine sour ; or the forgetful ness of the priest to consecrate the bread and wine ; or the consecration being unduly performed; or the absence of the priest's intention ; or, should the intention be right, but that through inad- vertence, he consecrated suppose thirty, instead of twenty wafers prepared for the purpose ; or that he distrusts his power to transubstantiate; then there is no consecration : but that which is adored is a little bread or wine. Again, should the priest not have been regularly bap- tized or ordained ; to ascertain which, it would be necessary to trace the priestly oflice from hini to every other priest, through whom it de- scended, up to the apostolic age. Even a sin- gle link in the chain being wanted, or the lea»t defect in these particulars, according to the principles of the Church of Rome, as it affects the consecration, leaves the elements of the bread and wine unchanged. Shoidd a man oi connnon sense, therefore, run a risk in a matler
128 TRANSUBSTANTIATION,
of such importance, and which depends on sucli extreme contingencies ? Where there is go much uncertainty, the goodness of the in- tention cannot be taken into account, except it can at the same time be said, that it will not only excuse what Doctor Milner may probably suppose to be au error; but what may possi- bly, on his own principle, be an heinous sin — that of paying adoration to the mere elements. For he himself admits, that if the doctrine of Transubstantiation be false, the members of the Church of Rome are in that case the greatest idolaters.
Doctor Milner has so contrived to mix up political with polemical matter, in the discus- sion of every subject, that it is often difficult tO decide, in what character he wishes to be consi- dered ; whether in that of the politician, or of the religious disputant. This is particularly the case in the present instance. But, as I de- precate political warfare, 1 shall barely offer a passing remark, that nothing can be more un- candid, nor untrue, than that the charge of ido- latry, which he says has been " vociferated by Bishop Porteus and Protestant writers in gene- ral against his brethren, is perpetuated by the legislature, for the purpose of defeating their civil claims." Because, it is not on account of their belief in Transubstantiation, which is only a speculative error ; nor on account of their
A PAPAL NOVELTY. 129
adoration of the host, which is the practical re- sult of that error, that Roman Catholics are subject to disabilities; but because, as I have *elsewhere observed, they divide their allegi- ance between their rightful Sovereign and a foreign Ecclesiastic.
Among those Protestant Prelates, who, un- like Bishop Porteus, and other ilUherals of his stamp, have acquitted Roman Catholics of the charge of idolatry. Dr. Milner mentions the learned Gunning, Bishop of Ely, and Jeremy Taylor, Bishop of Down : the former, he says, reprobated the Declaration against Popery when it was brought into the House of Lords, f *' pro- testing, that his conscience would not permit him to make it." Here Doctor Milner tells the truth, but not the whole truth ; for, although Gunning at first maintained, that the Church of Rome was not idolatrous, his subsequent conduct shewed, that he thought it so : because, as Burnet tells us, % " after the law was passed for the Test against Popery to be taken by both Houses, in which, not only Transubstan- tiation was renounced, but the worship of the Virgin Mary ; he look it in the crowd with the rest, though he scrnpUd at first." Thus, instead
• See Pheface. + Letteh xxxvi. p. 41. X History of his own Times, vol. i. p. 24G.
K
130 TKANSUBSTANTIATION,
of vindicating- Roman Catliolics from the charge of idolatry, Bishop Gunning seals his conviction with the solemn sanction of an oath, *" that in the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper, there is not any Trans ubstantiation of the elements of bread and wine into the body and blood of
Christ and that the sacrifice of the
mass, as it is now used in the Church of Rome, is siiperstilious and idolatrous." t Cunning is further stated to have been J " a very honest and sincere man," and, like the Reverend Mr. VVix of the present day, intent on reconciling the Church of England to Popery in some points. But enough has been said to enable us to ap- preciate the value of his support to Dr. Milner's cause.
Never was authority more misapplied than Bishop Taylor's ; for when he appears to vindi- cate Roman Catholics from the charge of idol- atry, he does so from motives different from tliose ascribed to him by Dr. Miiner. After
* For Declaration against Popery, see Burn's Eccl. Law, vol. iii. p. 151.
f According to both Wheatlj' and Shepherd, Bishop Gun- ning was considered the author of the Prayer — " Foi- all con- ditions of men ;" at least, in St. John's College, Cambridge, to which he belonged. I mention this as an additional proof, that his prtjudices were not of the complexion represented by Dr. Miiner.
X Burnet's Hist., ut supra, p. 102.
A PAPAL NOVELTY. 131
speaking of the pertinacity, with which they fasten the name of heretic and schismatic on all who disagree with them, he remarks, *" that in no sect of men do they with more ease and cheapness reconcile a wicked life with the liopes of heaven, than in the Roman commu- nion." Then, having contrasted Transubstan- tiation with their other doctrines, he says, " il is harder to be judged of; if false, as upon much evidence we believe it is, then is it accused of idolatry." And again, " t/iei/ have done vio- lence to all philosophy and the reason of man, and undone and cancelled the principles of two or three sciences to hrinsr in this article of Transubstantiation." On tlie words, " This
IS MY BODY, WHICH IS IIKOKEN, &C. he thuS
comments, f " we are to understand them in a sense not natural, but spiritual, that is, truly sacramental; and all this is besides the plain
demonstrations of sense the natural
sense not oidy being unreasonable and impossible, but to Jio purpose of the spirit, or any way perfective of tlie soul." After this view of that Prelate's sentiments, how can it be said that he acfpiitted Koman Catholics of the charge of idolatry, and }et accused them of perverting a
* See LiBEKTY OF PnoPHEsYiNG, scct. XX. pp. 357 — 359, 366, et seq.
t Dissuasive fiom Popery, \)\i. 36, 39, -16, cl passim.
K 2
l.'J'i TKANhUBSTANTIATION,
text ill Scripture, and of violating reason by the introduction of the doctrine of Transubstantia- tion, which produces the occasion of that charge; except by supposing, that while he was con- vinced of the erroneousness and absurdity of their faith, he still, through a charitable motive, gave them credit for the sincerity of their pro- fessions ?
But, to return to his Liberty of Prophesying. From this work of the celebrated Bishop of Down, Dr. Milner derives an argument, which, as shall be presently shewn, imparts to his cause but imaginary support, and, as far as [ can see, by no means acquits Roman Catholics of the charge of idolatry. I give the Bishop's words, as cited by him : — * ** The object of their adoration in the Sacrament is the only true and eternal God, hypostatically united with his holy humanity, which humanity they believe actually present under the veil of the Sacrament. And if they thought him not pre- sent, they are so far from worshipping the bread, that they profess it idolatry to do so. This is demonstration, that the soul has nothing in it, that is idolatrical; the will has nothing in it but what is a great enemy to idolatry'' It is ad- mitted, that the Bishop made this declaration ; but he afterwards, like Bishop Gunning, re-
* LlBLRTY OF PitOPH. SCCt. XX. p. 366.
A PAPAL NOVELTY. 133
traded it with derision and contempt, and there- by proved, that he viewed the doctrine of Tran- substantiation in the same light with all those, who considered it absolute idolatry. His desire was to secure toleration to the persons of the Roman Catholics ; and although he wished that their doctrine should be discountenanced " by all means, human and divine," yet he contend- ed, that they themselves " should be tole- rated eatenus, because, by their good lives, they confute their doctrines." But, to effect this, he defended their belief in Transubstan- tiatioii with fictitious arguments, which he call- ed " wooden daggers, intended to represent how the poor men are cozened by themselves."
It has been the fate of Jeremy Taylor to be held forth by Roman Catholics as being favourable to their tenets, from the moment he published his Liberty of Prophesying to the present day. Both a Popish manual and cate- chism, which now lie before me, proclaim this Protestant Bishop as a supporter of Transub- stantiation, while his advocacy is more than once relied on by Doctor Milner to the same eflfect. But never was autliorily more shame- fully misrepn^scnted; because, if he pleaded for toleration, he did not palliate error. This most distinctly appears in his Dissuasive from Vo- pery ; in the Preeace of which work he says, " [ did not intend to make tliat harangue to re-
I ."34 T K A N SU J J ST A N T I AT I O N ,
present, tliat the Roman religion had probabili- ties of being true, biit^;/'oZ>a/y//i7/e5 that tlie religion might be tolerated." He afterwards adds, " but now, in my conscience, this was unkindly done ; that when I had spoken for them what I could, that they should take the arms that I had letii them for their defence, and throw them at my head. But the best of it is, that the weapons themselves are wooden daggers, intended to re- present how poor men are cozened by them- selves. And though what I have said was but tinsel and pretence, imagery and whipt cream, yet I could not be blamed, to use no better than the best their cause would bear ; yet, if that be the best they have to say for themselves, their^ro- uahilities will be soon overbalanced by one Scripture testimony urged by Protestants ; and thou shalt not worship any graven images, will outweigh all the best and fairest imaginations of their Church." When the reader considers, that too much of this great and learned Prelate's sentiments cannot be known, particularly when they are contradictory to his former opinions, on which Popish writers so eagerly fasten, he will the more readily excuse so long and in- teresting an extract as the preceding.
Were it necessary to add another word in proof, that the support which he gave this ques- tion was hollow, — mere empty bravado; I might refer to the way in which he argued : e. g.
A PAPAL NOVELTY. 105
They profess it to be idolatry, says he, to wor- ship the bread; ergo, the soul has nothing in it that is idolatrical ! Weak as this argument is, it is the best, as he says himself, that he could advance, or that their cause would bear. And certainly he is not to be charged with the in- sufficiency of an argument, wiiich he afterwards disclaimed. But, as if to put it beyond doubt, that he thought the doctrine false, and the wor- shipping the bread and wine idolatrous, he thus expresses himself, — ^" We know idolatry is a damnable sin, and we also know that the Ro- man Church, with all the artifices she could use, never can justify herself, or acquit the com- mon practices from idolatry." Which is to say, that tiie practices of the Church of Rome, not- withstanding all its contrivances to disguise and envelope it's doctrine, partake of the guilt of idolatry. In truth, by once admitting that the doctrine of Transubstantiation is false, he dis- closes his real sentiments ; while he dissipates into air the phantom of defence he set up for it by his pretended rhetoric.
To Thorndyke's opinion 1 attach but little importance, for the '| reasons already stated. But even his authority is misrepresented by Doctor Mibier; and although he asks, \'' will
» luiD. t ^^^ Preface.
X Just Weights and Measuues, c. xix. ji. M7.
136 TKANSUBSTANTIATION,
any Papist acknowledge, that he honours the elements of the Eucharist? will common sense charge him with honouring that in the Sacra- ment which he does not believe to be there?" — yet his subsequent * explanation shews, as Bishop Taylor's did in his own case, that, al- though he had peculiar ideas on the subject, they were very different from those ascribed to him.
If Bishop Cosin be not held forth as an apo- logist for Popish idolatry, he is at least repre- sented as maintaining, f " that Christ is i\eaHy and substantially present in the Eucharist." I disjoin the words, " by an incomprehensible mystery," from ihe preceding sentence, because Doctor Milner esteems them of no force; al- though, in my mind, they qualify the nature and manner, in which the Bishop conceived Christ to be present in the Sacrament. But, instead of dissenting from the Church of Eng- land, he fully expresses her sentiments on this important point. For, after stating the benefits of a worthy reception, and observing that the elements are by the power of God raised to a higher dignity in the Sacrament than their na- ture bears, he goes on to say, J" but that Christ, as the Papists affirm, should give his flesh and
* See Preservative against Popery, vol. ii. Tit. vii. p. 332. t HisT. OF Tkansub,, p. 44. X Idid. p. 56.
A PAPAL NOVELTY. 137
blood, to be received with the mouth and ground with the teeth, so that not only the most wick- ed and infidels, but even rats and mice should swallow him down, this ourivords mid hearts do utterhj deny." Immediately after, he says, " we deny that we may avoid all ambiguity, that after the words of prayer and consecration, that the bread should remain bread no longer, but should be changed into Christ's Body." He then con- cludes with pronouncing the Roman doctrine, " so strange and monstrous, that it exceeds the nature of all miracles." From the extracts here adduced, it may be seen, how unfairly Doctor Milner has acted in torturing a solitary passage from that Prelate's writings into the Popish ac- ceptation, with utter disregard to his general reasoning. But this is not all ; for, as if he had convinced his reader that the Bishop was an advocate for the corporeal j)resence, he thus artfully connects his name with the doctrine in question. * " Transubstantiation," says he, " according to Bishop Cosin, was the first of Christ's miracles, in changing water into wine ; so it may be said to have been his last, during his mortal course, by chaFii^ing bread and wine into his sacred body and bh)od." The antithe- sis, no doubt, is lively and ingenious ; but I see no analogy between the miracle performed
* LETTLn XXXVI. p. 44.
138 THANSDBSTANTIATION, &C.
at the marriage feast, which was attested by the evidence of the senses, and one given out as such on the authority of the Romish Church. For, as * Tertullian remarks, that which yir5^ tasted like water, after the miracle was per- formed, tasted like tvine. But can this be said of the sacramental wafer ? The contrivance, however, is not always without its use; al- though, in the present instance; it has not escaped detection.
<
» " Fidelis et gustus vini illius, licet aquae ante in nuptiis Galilaeae ; fidelis et tactus exinde creduli Tliomae." — De Ani- md, c. xviii.
lay
CHAPTER VI.
THE REAL PRESENCE OF CHRIST IN THE SACRAMENT.
A COMPARISON of the first four * Canons of the Council of Trent, with the corresponding Articles of our Church, will satisfy the reader, that both Churches agree, that Christ is present in the Sacrament, and that they only difler about the nature of that presence. When, therefore, Doctor Milner, in speaking of our differences, uses the words real presence as expressive of the opinion of the Church of Rome without further explanation, his object cannot be mis- taken. He is perfectly sensible, that Transub- stantiation and Real Presence, in the Popish sense, imply the same thing, and that if he only used the former term, he would avoid the am- biguities and equivocations, to which the use of the latter j)hrase gives rise. He, therefore, shrewdly keeps that word, which points out the subject of dispute, in the back ground. Tran- substantiatiou is a term indicative of its own
* Sec pages 116, 117.
140 THE REAL PRESENCE OF
ineaiiiiig. In the jiulgment of the Trent Fa- thers, it is clear, appropriate, and what should render it unobjectionable to him, it is purely of Popish origin ; he should consequently adopt it. Protestants believe Christ to be really present in the Sacrament, because they believe in his ubiquity ; but ubiquity is not Transubstanti- ation.
I would here ask Doctor Milner, what the Church of England has to do with the doc- trine of Consubstantiation, or the errors and extravagancies of Luther, which he so unne- cessarily introduces into this discussion? His adjurations of devils, his exorcisms, and the like, to which Luther had been habituated when a member of the Church of Rome, na- turally betrayed him into the grossest absur- dities, after he had withdrawn from its commu- nion. These fooleries make nothing for Doctor Milner's argument ; while the stress he lays on them betrays the weakness of his cause. Nei- ther is the coarse and vulgar language, which that Reformer applied to those, who denied the corporeal presence, and of which Doctor Milner has so industriously given us * specimens, im- putable to us. And if, in the heat of contro- versy, he compared the glosses of Zuinglius,
* Such as a damned sect, lying heretics, soul-destrot/crs, &c. &c. Letter xxxvii. p. 53.
CHRIST IN THE SACRAMENT. 141
to his own blasphemous parody on the * first verse of Genesis; the Church of England, pu- rified as it is to the perfection of its apostolic model, is in no respect accountable for such in- discretion and violence. We do not repose our faith on Luther ; nor do we, to use Doctor Milner's courteous and conciliating language, esteem him the father of our pretended Re- formation. It was not he, who founded our Church ; as its foundation was partly laid be- fore his time. In fact, the grounds of its sepa- ration from the Church of Rome existed long antecedent to that memorable era.
Doctor Milner next alleges the alterations, which have been made in our Liturgy in the course of a century, as a proof, that our Church has varied in its sentiments respecting the cor- poreal presence of Christ in the Eucharist. We shall now see how this matter stands. The Church of England maintained the same opi- nion on this subject during the above period ; but her governing members were obliged to yield to circumstances, over which they had no rotitroi. It is i^rantcd, that our first Liturgy in 154B, expressed, as might naturally be expected, the Popish idea of the real presence. But in
* In principio Dens crcavit cculum et terrain. — In the l)c- giiming the cuckoo cat the .iparrow and his feathers ! — Deftns. Verb. Dom.
142 THE REAL PRESENCE OF
its next reviyion in 1552, a Rubric was added, expressly * denying this tenet. Queen Elizabeth, however, who had not yet imbibed the pure spirit of Christianity, which had guided her youthful Predecessor, and the venerable Cranmer, ex- punged it in 1559 ; f " her design being to unite the nation in one faith." The contrivance had the desired effect, as the Popish laity con- tinued in connexion Avith the Church of Eng- land for J ten years, and only broke off when she refused to acknowledge the Pope's Supre- macy. In 1661, after the Restoration, the old antipopish Rubric of King Edward's second book was restored, and holds its place in our Liturgy without alteration to this day. These stages mark the successive improvements which it received ; and although I mention but a vari- ation on the point alluded to by Doctor Milner, yet I may add, that each subsequent revision brought the whole of it nearer to that state of perfection, for which we now so justly admire it.
* See Shepherd's Introd. to Com. P. p. Ixiii., and Bishop Tomline's Theol. Elem., vol. ii. pp. 25, 26.
t Buunkt's Hist, of the Reform., vol. ii. part ii. p. 390.
X Bp. Taylor says, " from primo of Elizabeth to undecimo, the Papists made no scruple of coming to our churches; re- cusancy was then not so much as a c/irysome, not an embryo. But when Pius Quinlus sent forth his Breves of excommuni- cation and (Itposiiion of the Queen, then first they forebore to pray with us, or to have any religious communion." — Fifth or NovEMBEii Sermon, p. 23.
CHRI&T IN THE SACRAMENT. 143
Doctor Milner next * argues, that the Esta- blished Church itself appears to hold the real presence^ since it declares in its authorized cate- chism, " that the Body and Blood of Christ are verily and indeed taken and received by the faithful in the Lord's Supper." Here again is the equivocal use of the wGrds real presence ; equivocal, I say, as they imply a sense which we admit, as well as another, which we reject. We acknowledge, that Christ is sjnritually pre- sent to the true believer; but we deny that he is present in any bodily, transubstantiated shape. To say, therefore, that we receive in truth and mjacl in the Sacrament, what we acknowledge to be there after a spiritual manner, is to speak conformably to the sound doctrine of our church. Moreover, were Christ present in a bodily shape; unbelievers as well as the "faithful" would be partakers of his Sacrament. But our xxixth Article declares, that " such as be void of a lively faith, in no ivise arc partakers of Christ." Here the Article interprets the language of the catechism ; while it completely overturns Doc- tor Milner's argument.
t" We maintain," says the venerable Bishop of Duriiam, " that to eat Christ is an act of th(; mind ; of faith, not of the Body ; and (hat what
• Lltter xxxvii. [). It.
t Sermon* by Sliutc, Bp. of Durliam, |). Ii2.
144 THE REAL PRESENCE OF
is (lone spiritually is done verily ^ Or as Seeker expresses it, * " we firmly believe the union with Christ, to be not only represented, but really and spiritually communicated to the worthy re- ceiver." To the eye of faith, Christ's real pre- sence is disclosed, and in this light we consider it. But this will not satisfy our Popish adversa- ries, unless we believe what contradicts the tes- timony of our senses, our reason, and the Scrip- tures themselves. We must not only believe, as we do, ihe real presence of what is not visible to the eye of the body ; but we must even believe the real absence of what we see, touch, taste, and smell. Jeremy Taylor remarks f " that Christ's Body is in the Sacrament really, but spiritually. The Papists say the same. Where now is the difference? Here; by spiritually they mean present after the manner of a Spirit ; by spiritually, we mean present to our spirits only: that is, so as Christ is not present to any other sense, but that of faith or spiritual sus- ception." Again, *' Christ is no way present in the Sacrament as to his human nature; he is present there by his divine power, &c., but for any other presence it is idolum, it is nothing in the world." I refer the more willingly to Bishop Taylor, because of the gross misapplication, which Doctor Milner has made of his autho-
• Sermons, vol. vi. p. 84.
t See Preserv. against Popery, vol. ii. Tit. vii. p. 321.
CHRIST IN THE SACRAMENT. 14o
rlty, as I have shewn in the preceding * chapter. Let it hencefortli not be forgotten, that he con- sidered the Popish real presence as a figment, a non-ens, a mere idolum.
After this exposition of tlie antepenultimate answer of our church catechism, 1 should be glad to know, how it involves a contradiction to say, that verily and indeed refer to a spiritual, rather than to a corporeal participation of the Sa- crament, when the word juilhjul most empha- tically makes it to be of that nature. Doctor Milner has, however, discovered a direct vari- ance, which he thus illustrates : i " You re- ceive," says he, " that in the Sacran)ent, which does not exist in it; it is like tlie speecli of a debtor, wiio siiould say to his creditor, 1 hereby verily and indeed pay you the money 1 owe you, but I have not verily and indeed the money wherewith to pay you." As far as I can per- ceive, there is no discoverable analogy between the two cases, and 1 question much, but this was Doctor Alihior's own opinion, wlicn he had recourse to tliis fanciful illustration If he have gratified himself by playing oH" his wif, lie has done so at the expense of his judgment. Now for the proof of this. WImii, in obedience to Christ's commands, I receive the blessed Sacra- ment of his Jioily and Blood, I do so because
* See |j. 131 — 133. i Lun i;k xvxvii. p. 45.
L
140 THE REAL PRESENCE OF
he orders it ; I claim no merit for the perform- ance of the act ; nor do I set any value on it : on the contrary, 1 conceive it to be my ** houn- den duty and service," and 1 am fully sensible, that after my utmost efforts to please God, I am still an " unprofitable servant." How, there- fore, can it be said of me, that I pay my kind creditor a debt, when according to my own ac- knowledgment, the return 1 make is of no esti- mation ? Let us now view Doctor Milner in the light of the debtor, and see, whether the language, which he has applied to the members of the Church of England, be not strictly ap- plicable to himself. Is he, or is he not, one of those who contend, that the mere receiving of the Lord's Supper procures a remission of sins ex opere operato, as it were mechanically ? Does he not set a value on the performance of the work ; on, 1 say, the opus operatum ; on the mere observance of Christ's command ? If 1 can form any opinion of the estimate of human merit in the Church of Rome, all this is criti- cally the case. As, therefore. Doctor Milner can thus cancel the obligation, which he owes his heavenly creditor, he may very consistently address him after this manner. ' [ herehy verily and indeed i)ay you the debt I owe you ;' and he may with as much propriety add, ' but [ have not verily and indeed that, wlierewith to pay you !'
CHRIST IN THE SACRAMENT. 147
Doctor Milner lays great stress on the mi- racle of the loaves, as recorded by St. John, vi. r3. ; because Christ fed the multitude, who followed him. This, he insists, is an " evident sign of the future multiplication of his own person, on the several altars of the world." But did not Christ bid the multitude to * " labour not for the meat which pcrisheth, but for that which endureth to eternal life?" And again, t " my Father giveth you the true bread from heaven." Now were the Sacrament implied by these words, or were they to be understood li- terally, we must conclude, not that bread was converted into Christ's Body, but his Body into the bread. So that the whole passage appears but a figurative mode of pointing out that those benefits, which the soul derives from his death, are much more valuable than what the body receives from its daily food. I should add that although Doctor Milner gives the sacramental construction to the vith chapter of John, f Po- pish writers may be adduced, who reject it and apparently for good reasons; hecause if inter- preted directly of the Eucharist, it would fur- nish one strong argumriit for Infant Connnu- nion, which thtir church has discontinued, and
* John, vi. 27. 1 Iinn. vi. 32.
t Viz. Bi« I, Cii>ann.s, Tiipptr, Ilcs>Lliiis, aiidJanscniu-, -.ly llial the vitli r)r .liihii dors vol re late to ihc K(i(li;iri>t.
I. '1
IJ8 THE REAL PRESENCE OF
another aoainst (lie denial of the Cup to the Laitv, uhich it maintains.
At the Institution of the Eucharist, our Sa- viour expressly said, this is i\iy body ; and THIS IS i\iY BLOOD. The questiou then is, in what sense, and after what manner, must the i)read and wine be conceived to be his Body and Blood. Doctor Milner says, * '* that the native evidence of those texts goes to establish the literal meaning." Well; the original Greek is Taro ir» TO au^cc ^a, aiid if hc bc corrcct in what he says, the T-aTo must refer to what is contained under tiie species of the bread. Not to say, that grammar forbids this apjjlication of the pronoun demonstrative; it is highly absurd to afhrm that it can be thus applied. For, what is contained under the species, or accidents of bread, must refer either to the bread itself, or to the Body, or to the species. It would not ex- actly suit him to admit that it referred to the bread. t«to does not refer to the Body ; for it would be supposing that present, which is not yet present : as he himself admits, that the change in the bread does not take place, until after the consecration. Nor can raro refer to tlie species ; because, until there be such a conversion, they continue in the bread and are one with it. It may therefore, be reasonably
* Lettek xxxvii. p. 4b.
CHRIST IN THE SACRAMENT. 149
asked, what that thing is, wliich tsto expresses, Avhich is neither bread, nor body, nor accidents? In the embarrassment in which this subject for- merly involved Popish Controvertists, * Bishop Jewell relates the cnrious expedient to which they had recourse for the purpose of extrica- ting; themselves. They said, that it referred to some individnum vagnm, some creature of the brain, which they could not tell ! But the diffi- culty will be avoided by taking- raro as it stands in the proposition, This is my J^odij iu a de- terminate sense. Let it be resolved thus. This, namely this thing, referring to the bread, which Christ was before said to have taken, blessed, aiid broke. Body properly refers to Christ's Body. Therefore, the copula, to speak logi- cally, which unites two things of such opposite natures as bread and the Body of Christ, must necessarily have the force of to signify or to represent: for they themselves admit that dis- paratuni de disjjarato non proprie predicalnr. Therefore, Christ must have spoken /tquntdveh/, when he caHed the bread his Body, they being disparates, and consecjucntly, of opposite na- tures. Ilcncc tlic words, " "^riiis is my Body," imply, ' This represents my Hody :' as this is Caesar, ' this represent sCdisiW.' But, l»esides, this
* Reply to Iiar(liii;,s Art. 21. Sec also Presf.uv. against Pop. Tit. vii. cli. iv. j). 289, ;md Le Mesuu. I'^ucli. pp. .')9, (iO.
lOO THE REAL PRESENCE OF
exjiosition is perfectly accordant to the genius of" the Syio-Chaldaic, the langnai»e spoken by our Saviour. In that lan<;«iai;v, there is no term expressive of to mean, to denote, to signify ; and therefore, the Jews always say * it is^ in- stead of it signifies.
We perceive the Jewish idiom frequently oc- curring in the Scriptures ; as f " the seed is the word," J: " I am the door," § " I am the true vine,'' II " the seven kine are seven years," and ^ " it is the Lord's Passover," Here we may observe that the eating of the paschal lamb is metonymically called the Passover. Doctor Milner, it is true, admits that the paschal lamb, was " a mere figure, and an incitement to faith ;" yet, because there are not as heavy denuncia- tions against the profaners of it, as against the unworthy communicants of the Lord's Supper, he therefore infers, that this was in consequence of Christ being present in the Eucharist; where- as he was only represented by the paschal lamb in the Passover. But he should at the same time recollect, that were the Jews commanded to drink wine at the Passover, there would no
* The Rev. Mr. Warnek's Chronolog. Hist, of our Lord .lesus Christ, Ed. 1819, and Ahp. Usheii's Discourse on the Rehgion of the Ancient Irish, p. 38, will be advantageously consulted on this subject.
t Luke, viii. 11. X John, x. 7. § Ibid. xv. 1.
11 Gen. xli.26. f Exod. xii. II.
CHRIST IN THE SACRAMENT. 151
doubt have been as heavy denunciations uttered against drunkenness, or any other profanation of that Sacred Feast, as were against indecency of conduct, or unworthy communication at the Table of the Lord.
But further, if we only consider the nature of the festival among the Jews ; of what it was commemorative ; and to what it was in every particular allusive ; and next the nature of the Institution, which was to supersede it, we must conclude, that our Saviour designed, and that the Apostles understood it to have a typical signification. As Jews, they knew w ell, of what the eucharistical sacrifice of the lamb, and the cup of blessing were typical, and must neces- sarily have understood our Saviour's expres- sion, when he called the bread his Body, nay, his Body hrokcn, at the moment he was present with them, as typical also. But, besides, can it be supposed, that the Apostles, who were slow to comjnehend difiicult things, and forward to ask questions, understood our Saviour to have taken his own Body, into his own hand, and then to have distributed that very Body to each of the twelve at the same time; and that each of theui believed, that he bruised his Master's Body with his teeth, and swallowed him, al- though sitting at the table with them at the same time? "^riie suj)|)Osition is monstrous and unnatural. Most cordiallv do I agree wilh
152 THK REAL PRESENCE OF
Doctor Milncr, tliat our Saviour did not intend to deceive liis Apostles, wijen lie instituted the Sacrament, and \vas on tlie point of leaving them, and bequeathing them the legacy of his love. For, * " He who ditl no sin, neither was guile found in his mouth," could not practise deception. We must be perfectly convinced, that lie only designed by this ceremony, that they should remember Him, and His Body broken for them : as thev had, bv a corres- ponding one, before that time, remembered the thread of aflHiction, which their Fathers eat in Egypt. This analogy of the Eucharist to the Fassover, was noticed long before the Re- formation by the Jews tliemselves. They ob- jected to the literal interpretation of the words as being contrary to the intention of our blessed Lord ; no less than to the belief of His Apos- tles, who were well versed in the paschal forms. AVhile on the other hand % St. Austin observes, that the phrase, This is my Body, is the same as if we were to say, this is Christmas day; or Good Friday; or Easter day: not that they were the very days which they express; but that they were the return or remembrance of them.
* 1 Peter, ii. 22.
f Deut. xvi. 3. See Preserv. against Popery, vol. ii. c. iv, p. 306, and Abp. Seeker's Sermons, vol. vi. p. 82. \ Epist. xxiii. ad Bonifac, Optr. vol. ii. p. 29.
CHRIST IN THE SACRAMENT. 153
In tlie preceding" chapter, I have shewn on Avhat grounds the origin of Transubstantiation is ascribed to the ninth century, and the ^V*^ mention of it to Paschase Radbert. With re- spect to tliose writers, who followed up the idea of the bodily presence in the Sacrament, in the ninth, tenth, and eleventh centuries, their authority, although relied on by Doctor Mil- ner, is to be disregarded, as no other sources of information were open to them, than those •which we now possess. But as he appeals to the early fathers to prove its existence in the primitive ages of the Church, I am contented to let the question be decided by those of his own selection, after having premised a few gene- ral observations.
It is remarkable, that although the fathers are, generally speaking, unanimous, respecting those doctrines which are held in common by the Churches of England and Home, such as those of the Trinity, the Atonement, &c. ; yet, that the points about which they differ, are the very ones, about whirh those Churches are notagreed; but that, as to the doctrine of the corporeal presence in the Sacrament, they had no thought of it at the time, 'riirrc is no douht, that they use very forcible language, and apparently speak ill direct terms of it ; but tliis is not irreconcile- ablc with the original aj)plication of their words in a figurative sense. Because, as they have
154 THi: ri:al prksenck of
all admitted the fimirative meaning of" the Words, TAKE, eat; this IS My Body; their reasoning on thorn, in this sense, might proceed to an in- dclinite lengtli. They might amphfy their ex- pressions to any extenton this principle, altliough in language apj)licable to the actual eating of Christ's Body. When it has been once admitted, that Christ's words have a metaj)horical bearing, it entirely does away the idea, that they can be afterwards understood in a literal sense, [t is the very property of a figure, that things are spoken of, as being different from what they are. Thus, when a father calls the sacramental l)read and wine, a type or representation of Christ's Body or Blood ; to make him consistent with himself, we must consider him, when he again makes mention of Christ's Body and Blood, to mean, that they are only there typically, or figuratively. In other words, if he, like the Roman Catholics, believed, that the natural Body and Blood of Christ were really in the Sacrament, he could never again consistently call the Bread and Wine, the symbols of Christ's Body and Blood.
I must premise too, that of the ancient fathers, to whose writings Doctor Milner directs my at- tention ; some lived in the very infancy of the Church, and had either known our Lord Him- self, or conversed with his Apostles. It, there- fore, cannot be supposed, that such men should
CHRIST IN THE SACRAMENT. 155
be unacquainted with the true interpretation of Scripture. Of this description of persons is Ignatius, one of the apostohc fathers, to whose authority Doctor Mihier makes his first appeal.
1. Ignatius, speaking of certain heretics of the day, remarks, *" that they do not admit of Eucharists and oblations, because they do not believe the Eucharist to be the flesh of our Saviour, Jesus Christ, who suffered for our sins." Here Doctor Milner stops, but the father adds, " and which was raised from the dead ; they, therefore, resisting the grace of God, die in their disputes." The Greek word vfocnvxrK;, which the Doctor renders ^oblations, signifies prayer. Ikit his motive for thus mis- translating is evidently for the purpose of raising in the reader's mind the idea, that Ignatius con- demned those heretics for abstaining — from what? Not from the Eucharist and prayer,
■' Ei;;^«g»r»«? ^« nPDl^EYXHi; a.'niycina.i, Sta. to jw,») o^o^oyskv T>;i'
Epist. adSiiiyiii. c vii.
t Dr. Milner must surely have overlooked iheoriQinal, and taken the father's meaninqf from a Latin version. I^^tanccs of a .similar kind are so numerous throughout his Work, that a person is ahno»l tempted to helievc him to be in the same iiappy state with the Neapolitan Jesuit, who, we are some- where told, fjravely returned thanks to Heaven, that he Avas ignorant of the Greek language, for that the knowledge of it was a sure sifrn of heresy !
150 THE REAL PRESENCE 01'
but the Eucliarist and oblations; tliat is, from the Eucharist and the sacrifice of Christ's Body and Blood !
We must recollect, that the f Doceloi, against whom Ignatius wrote, were those visionaries who conceived, that the Birth, Passion, &c. of Christ, were imaginary; and who, impressed with the conviction of Christ's aerial form, refused the Eucharist, because it was said to be His Body. The father, therefore, argues^ that, as the ele- ments of bread and wine are, by a just con- struction, the Body and Blood of Christ, he must have had a real body. Without this sup- position, the Eucharist was no Eucharist at all ; it was a representation of nothing, or a false representation. " Ignatius," says Waterland, " could not imagine that the symbols were lite- rally flesh and blood ; but if they were con- structlonally or interpretatively so, it was all his argument required." He did not suppose, that there was a natural body locally present, and also a sacramental body ; but that all was one symbolical body. Of this, those unbelievers were perfectly sensible, and, therefore, they abstain- ed from the Eucharist, and the accompanying prayer, as being founded on the doctrine of our Lord's real humanity.
Lastly, even supposing Ignatius to have
f Review of the Doct. of the Euch. ed. 1737, p. 215.
CHRIST IN THE SACRAMENT. 157
spoken of the substance of Christ's flesh as present in the Eucharist, he is entirely silent about the change of the substance of the bread into that of Christ's Body ; the very point which Doctor Milner undertakes to prove from his writings. In the very Epistle under considera- tion, he makes express mention of the proof which Christ afforded His disciples, who sup- posed him to be a spirit : * " Handle me and see ; for a spirit hatli not Jiesh and hones as ye see me have." It therefore follows, that Igna- tius could not have held, that the real Body of Christ was in the Eucharist, when it could not be judged of by the senses; as he would, in that case, iiave weakened the force of his for- mer argument.
2. Justin Martyr is next adduced by Doc- tor Milner. On examination it will be seen, that this father's testimony is as adverse to the Popish doctrine as that of Ignatius, while he speaks the language of the Church of England on the subject. In truth, it is not possible to form a conjecture, how any reader of the origi- nal Greek could wrest Justin's meaning into one favourable to the Homish Chur('h, since lie ex- pressly says, that th<' consecrated elements are nutritive of our bodies Wka oilier food. Doctor
* Luke, xxiv. ;iy.
150 THE KKAL PKESENCE OF
Milner barely mentions his name, leaving the reader to infer, that his testimony has the same bearing as that he ascribed to Tgnatins. But the father must speak for himself, f " We do not," says he, " take these as common bread, or as common drink, but we consider the food so blessed through the prayer of the Word, (which came from Him, by which our flesh and blood are nourished by its conversion into them) to be the Body and Blood of that Jesus, who be- came incarnate." He then proceeds to say, that the Apostles relate, that when Jesus had taken the bread and given thanks, he said, Do this, 6K TJii- ANAMNHsiN MOT. What Justiu has written to this effect is too long for insertion ; but enough is given to shew the gross misapplication which is made of his language. The elements, after consecration, are called ybo«?, and although not considered common bread and wine; yet they are called so by these names, and are said to nourish our flesh and blood, and are only un- derstood in the very acceptation which we take them, that is symbolically, to be the Body and Blood of Christ.
3. IreN;Eus, who comes next in order, also
* Ci/ yuf u<; KOINCN ctproi' sJs KOINON Tru/Act rccvrcc >^cif^- Qxtmm, ------ BTw? xai rrtv o» ^v^r,q Xoya ru Trap ocvth
ivyjcf^fUffut Tpo!pr,ir ES HX ctt/jiic KOCi aufy.si; kuIcc ^ETaboAvjn TFE- <J>0NTA; xfAut, tec. wcc. — A POL. .i. ad Anlt.iiin. |). l'-2b.
CHRIST IN THE SACRAMENT. 159
believed, that the eucharistic elements *m- creased our bodies like other food, and conse- quently, that they retained their nature as bread and wine, only in a more exalted degree, and as if endued with certain heavenly virtues. In his arguments against the Marcionite here- tics, he says, *' when, therefore, the mixed cup and the bread become the Eucharist of the Body and Blood of Christ, -( by which the sub- stance of our flesh is increased; how can they deny, that the flesh, which is nourished by the Body and Blood of Christ, receives the gift of God ?" In both editions of Irenaeus's works, of 1702, and 1710, 1 found the respective editors, Grabe and Massuet, labouring to prove Tran- substantiation from the words of that father, and to do away the effect of this and similar passages. They argue, that if the elements be not transubstantiated, then, that Christ Mas a phantom: this is what the heretics affirmed, and the very opposite to what Irenaeus had esta- blished. In fact, according to them, that fa- ther must have considered the bread and wine in the Eucharist to be stihstanlialli/ tiie body and blood of Christ. This exactly suits I)oc-
* 'a^' b Tat *)/>tiTi(j« AYHEI cufj.u.Tu. — luiA. advcrs. IhiTo. Ill), iv. 1-. '>. |.. 306.
i Ek TUTut it AYS£1 x«» ai/nr«Tai ») xr,? ara^xo^ rijAUv viro- r»fft;. — liiiit.
1(30 THE REAL PRESENCE Ol
tor Milner, and he accordinj^ly assumes the point, as we may suppose, on their authority. But let the meaning- be elicited from tlie original, and it will be seen, that from any snp|)osition of Transubstantiation, the arguments of Irenaius and the orthodox must have yielded to those of the heretics.
4. St. Cyprian's Epistle to Cornelius is the fourth reference made by Dr. Milner. After a most attentive perusal of that epistle in the ori- ginal work, I could not discover a single pas- sage which glanced at Transubstantiation ; ex- cept it be supposed, that the father alluded to it where he asks, " how can we make those fit to taste the cup of martyrdom, if we do not first admit them to communicate in the cup of the Lord?" I should not quote words so inappro- priate to such a meaning, did T not perceive from a note on them, that some writer like Doctor Milner, whom Cyprian's annotator re- proves, fancied he saw the doctrine of the cor- poreal presence established by them ! Pamelius, the person 1 allude to, thus comments on this passage ; * " there is no mention here of con- comitance, of Transubstantiation, of the adora- tion of the signs, or of carrying them about." Cyprian speaks of the Body of our Lord in the
* Nulla hie concomitaiiU;c, Iraiisubslanlialiunis^ manduca- lion'iJ- oralis. — Pamel. in loo.
CHRIST IN THE SACRAMENT. 161
Eucharist not only as bread, but as * being
composed of flour and water, and representing
the union of the Church with Christ. Of the
wine, he says, f " when it is mixed with water,
the people is united with Christ." Throughout
the epistle, quoted by Dr. Milner, he refers to
the real substance of bread and wine ; while he
diverts our attention from the body of Christ.
' This is one of the ways familiar to the ancient
fathers, when speaking of the elements, and
which, as much as any other, negatives the
doctrine of Transubstantiation.
5. Origen's evidence is equally at variance with thedoctrine, which he is said to support. In truth, were not Dr. Milner's judgment under a most unnatural bias, he would admit, that whatever virtue was attributed by this ancient writer to the elements after consecration, he considered their material substance to remain unaltered^ and to contribute to the support of our bodies, like any common food. Thus, he says, '* even the meat, which is sanctified by the word of God and by
• Nam quando Dominus corpus suum panem vocat, de multoruin frranorurn aduiiatione congestum, po|)uIum nos- trum qucm porlabat indicat adunatum. — Epist. Ixxvi. sect. 4. p. 133.
t duando in calico vino aqua miscetur, Christo populiis adunatur. — Epist. Ixiii. sect. 10. p. lOS.
M
162 THi: RKAL PRESENCE OF
prayer, * as toucliini;- llie material part thereof, goeth into the helly, and is voided into the dramrht.' He tlien acids, f** it is not the mat- ter of the bread, but the word that is said over it, that profits him who eats it not unworthily of the Lord." And concludes in this decisive manner, J" and these things I speak of the ti/pic(d or symholic(d body." Here are epithets apphed to the elements, which are quite irre- concileable with the idea of Transnbstantiation. Doctor Milner imj)eaches Bishop Tomline's judgment for appealing to Origen's authority in his exposition of the xxviiith article, when he affirms, that the passage cited by his Lordship § " is nothing at all to the purpose." The Bishop, after observing that more than twenty fathers understood our Saviour's words in 2i Jigurative sense, without one support on the opposite side, rests his cause on Origen's single testi- mony in the Greek, where he says, || " that the understanding our Saviour's words, of eating
* K«t' uvto fxi* TO vMhov tt; T^r KOIAIAN X*^**' "*• **'> AOEAPONA txCaXXtrai. — Orig, in Matl. xv. 15.
t Kai ax i 'YAH t« u^ruj a'Kh h iir otvro £»gDji*Ejio; >koyo5, &C. — Ibid.
t Ka» ravrac /ai» wtgi tu TYniK.OY Ka» lYMBOAIKOY aufAX- Toj. — Ibid.
§ Letter xxxvii. p. 50.
II Elem. of Theol., vol. li. p. 48S.
CHRIST IN THE SACRAMENT. 163
his flesh aud drinking his blood according to the letter, is a letter that kills." This passage not/ling to the purpose ! Well, let us see what Dr. Milner cites from the father as being to the purpose. * " Manna was formerly given as a figure; but now the flesh and blood of the Son of God is specifically given, and is real food." I must here observe, that I have not been able to discover this passage in Origen's seventh homily on Leviticus, after a most pa- tient search for it in Genebrard's edition. How- ever, granting that it escaped my notice, I see nothing in it which disproves what the Bishop says ; as the father, having once admitted the figure, might consistently expatiate on the real signification of his words to any extent he pleased. Thus, to the question, "j " how can he give us his body?" he replies, " believe it, because those ave J/gures which are written in the divine volumes." Against the Marcionites he urges, J" if Christ were without body and blood, of what kind of flesh, or of what kind of body, or of wliat kind of blood, did he give the bre«id and the cup to be images; when he
* HoM. vii. in Levit.
f Q.u\n fii^urcB sunt, qurc in divinis voluminibus scripta sunt. Jhid.
J El y J; «Toi <pa,a-i», uffoc^KOi, »t«» a»ai/xot »"» iroiot( <rapxof, ri
fiof, &c. — Orig. Dialog, iii.
M "2
104 THE REAL PRESENCE OP
commanded his disciples to make a cammemo- ration of him by them?" His distinction, too, between the eating the typical and the true body of Christ is thus clearly drawn. *" That which is sanctified by God and by prayer, does not of its own nature sanctify him that useth it; for if that were so, it would sanctify him that doth eat unworthily of the Lord." This is exactly con- formable to our xxixth article; while it explains the language of our Church Catechism, and is incompatible with the doctrine of Transubstan- tiation, according to which '\ " the wickedy and such as be void of a lively faith," partake of the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper. It is un- necessary to add another proof how fully the Bishop of Winchester was borne out in saying, that Origen only understood our Saviour's words in a figurative sense.
Although apprehensive that I shall have ap- peared too minute in the foregoing references, yet I must entreat the reader's further indul- gence, while I briefly state a few of those J " heautifid testimonies for the (Roman) Ca- tholic doctrine," to which Dr. Milner barely adverts. It were unpardonable, after his par- ticular commendation of them, to leave them unnoticed.
* Id. in Matt. xv. f Article xxix.
X Letteh XXXV ii. \K 50.
CHRIST IN THE SACRAMENT. 165
6. Basil says, " we have often observed, that the operations of the mind are called by the same names as those of the ontvt'ard mem- bers. But, as our Lord is the true bread, and his flesh is the true meat, it is necessary tliat the delightful pleasure which we receive from that bread should be conveyed to us, * by our tasting it spiritually.'"
7. Chrysostom asks, "f"" for if Jesus be not dead, whose symbols are they which are offered ?" He then adds, " since, therefore, the word says, This is my body, let us both obey and believe, and look upon it with the eyes of the understand- ing. For what Christ delivered has nothing to do with the senses ; but although joined with sensible objects, all is spiritual."
8. Jerome says, J" in the type of his blood, he offered not water, but wine."
9. Austin remarks, §" how the signs are varied, faith remaining the same ; in the wil- derness, the Rock was Christ ; to us that which is placed on the altar is Christ,"
10. Cyril's sentiments on this subject are put beyond the; possibility of doubt, lii his
* Ai« yjt/ffiw? iif*i» NOHTHI lyyuiffSdci. — In Ps. xliv. 6,
t NOHTOIi; oLvro /3^iww^i» o^9aAp.ot; .... -rrottret it NOHTA. — In Matt. Horn, ixxxii.
I Advers. Jovin. lib. ii. p. 198.
§ Ibi Pctra Christus, nobis ChristiM quod in nltari
Dei ponitur. — In Johan. Beet. xii.
16(3 THE REAL PRESENCE OF
reasoning on tlie fi2:urative acceptation of the VI til of Jolin, he refers to what Christ told the Jews, that unless they eat his flesh and drank his blood, they had no life in them. " But lhey,"*says he, "not understanding these things which were spoken spiritually, went back, thinking that he invited them to an eating of his flesh."
Were I to name one of those early writers more than another, to whom the most flagrant injustice has been done, I should particularize Cyril. The passage from this father's writings, which Dr. Milner has quoted, is precisely the same as that, which Ward, above a century ago, published in a mutilated state, as expressive of his sentiments, after so much had been taken out of the context as would have determined its meaning. The re-production of it now is the more inexcusable ; as the Doctor should have assigned some reason for following in Ward's track, after the detection and exposure of the fraud in my f strictures on that author. I have there exhibited in its true colours, his dis- ingenuous attempt to palm on the public the pas- sage in question as the unbroken narrative of Cyril, after he had pared it down to suit his
* Exityot fAw anfiKoorti IlNEYMATIKfiS rut Xtyoixtnun carnXdtp. — Caleches,. Myst. iv. p. 293.
t See Answer to Ward's Errata, p. 123.
CHRIST IN THE SACRAMENT. 1(J7
particular purpose. Nor can I now condemn in less severe terms the artifice to which his servile imitator has had recourse.
11. Ambrose's testimony is the last in Doc- tor JVIilner's catalogue. This father compares the change, which takes place in the elements of the Eucharist, to the regeneration of a man in baptism. But as this change is of a spiritual nature, he could not illustrate the point, if he considered such change in the elements as of a material or corporeal one. Thus he says, * "thou thyself did exist but as an old creature. After you were consecrated, you began to be a new creature." Again, f " the priest says, make this oblation applicable, rational, accept- able, which is the figure of the Body and Blood of our Lord Jesus Christ." There is not the slightest countenance given here to Tran- substantiation ; even the very passage, on which Doctor Milner relies, is no less adverse to it. I shall now produce it, still advising the reader to bear in mind, that a figure once admitted, the subsequent discussion may consist of real- ities. The unconnected form into which he has thrown it, precludes the possibility of my detect-
* Tu ipse eras, set! eras vetus crealura ; post([uam conse- cratiis e? ; nova crealura esse cccpisti. — De Sacram. lib. iv. c. 4.
t Fac nobis banc oblationem ascriptam . . . quod est _/!^«ra I)om. N. I. C. — Ibid. Lib. iv. c 3.
l68 THE REAL PRESENCE OF
ing any operation of the pruning knife such as that performed on Cyril. The J)octor has there- fore all the advantage which this circumstance, and his own arrangement can give him. *"How many examples do we produce to shew you, that this is not what nature made it, but what the benediction has consecrated it ; and that the benediction is of greater force than nature, because by the benediction nature itself is changed." Then after speaking of the miracle performed on Moses's rod, the father is made by Doctor Milner to say ; *' Thou hast read of the creation of the world : if Christ by his word was able to make something out of nothing, shall he not be thought able to change one thing into another ?" The father says nothing more, nor less, than that the elements after con- secration are endued with more heavenly graces than they had before it ; but that they retain their properties unchanged. But although Christ's power to perform the miracle spoken of, be unquestioned, and although the Gospel may seem to say that he wrought one at his last Supper ; where, I would ask, is it even re- motely intimated in Scripture, that he delegated such power to the priests of the present day.f^ I therefore infer, from every view of the subject, the insufficiency of those '* beautiful testimo-
* Ambros. de hi3 qui Myst. Init. c. ix.
CHRIST IN THE SACRAMENT. 169
nies' alluded to by Doctor Milner, to establish the Popish doctrine, or * " to refute ' what he calls, *' the rash assertions of two Protestant Bishops." Other passages from the fathers, of the same tendency, could be multiplied to an indefinite amount ; but enough has been pro- duced to shew the gross perversion to which their authority has been subjected.
By the way, 1 cannot avoid noticing, that Tertul Han's name does not appear in Doctor Milner'y list. The omission is the more remark- able, as that father stands foremost, when he labours to establish other points, which the Church of England does not deny. But as Tertullian's wntings are necessarily included among the " numberless documents," which " all the fathers" furnish in support of the Doctor's opinions, I shall give a few specimens of the kind of support, which he derives from this parricular source, as he has, for reasons perfectly obvious, not done so himself.
** We ought not," t «ays he, ** to offer unto God earthly, but spiritual sacrifices, as it is written, the sacrifice of God is an humble and eotUritc spirit ; offer also unto God the sacrijice
* Letter xxxvii. p. 51.
f " Noil tcrrenissacrificiis, scd ,^jr//Mrt/j7>JMlitandum
cor contribulatum tt luimiliatnm hostia Deo est ;" et alibi, " sacrifica Deo sacrificiwn lauclis." — Tf.rtui.. adversus Jud. c. v. p. 188.
1)70 THE KEAL PRESENCE OF
of praised Again, *" Christ made the bread his Body, by saying. This is my Body ; that is, tlie Jigure of my Body." His arguments against the Academics are such as might with propriety be urged against tlie Romish Doc- tors, who, like those heretics, discredit the tes- timony of the senses. After stating the extent to which their evidence was applied during our Lord's ministry, lie thus concludes : " Neither was nature abused, as far as the Apostles were concerned: "^ faithful ■dX^o was the taste of that wine, which had before been water at the mar- riage of Galilee: Thomas's touch -wa.^ faithful." I would here inquire, whether the sacramental bread has a different taste after, from what it had before, consecration ; as the fluid had at the marriage feast, after the performance of the miracle ? Does it resemble flesh in taste, or any other substance, rather than bread? And is not the whole representation an act of the mind and of faith? Let Doctor Milner an- swer these questions, if he can. However, I trust 1 have assigned satisfactory reasons, why he has in the present instance, omitted to men- tion a name, which on other occasions he holds
* " Corpus ilium suum fecit, hoc est coui'Li melm di- cciido, id est, figura corporis niei." — Id. contra Marcioii. \\h. iv. c. 40.
t See Note(*) p. 138.
CHRIST IN THE SACRAMENT. \7\
up as of paramount authority : while I have oa the whole of the evidence brought forward, fully- proved, *' that all the fathers, and the whole se- ries of ecclesiastical history," instead of being " on his side," as he so positively asserts, are in direct opposition to him.
We shall now see, how he gets over the diffi- culty, which our Saviour's words, at the very institution of this Sacrament, produce, on the supposition of his being corporeally present in it. Those words are, do this in remembrance of me: in which. Doctor Milner says, there is no contradiction; *" for the Eucharist is both a memorial of Christ and the real (viz. cor- poreal) ju-esence of Christ. When a persoti stands visibly before us, we have no need of any sign to call him to our memory; but if he were present in such a manner as to be con- cealed from our senses, we might, without a memorial of him, as easily forget him as if he were at a great distance from us." 1 ask, in the name of common sense, what are we to sup- pose that the memorial of a person implies? It cannot surely be the very person himself; but something or other, which represents him in his absence. 'J'his is the declared opi- nion of the fath( MS, \\\\v\\ they speak of what the Eucharist was designed to commemorate; which he caimot, as a mend)er of a Church,
* Letter xxxviii. p. 59.
172 THE REAL PRESENCE 01
which bends so much to authority, refuse to acknowledge. Thus says —
Tertullian. — * " The image cannot be every way adequate to the truth ; for it is one thing to be according to the truth, another to be the truth itself y Again : t *' No person intending to shew a man, produces a helmet or a mask."
Athanasius. — J " That which is like an- other thing, is not the thing itself to which it is like."
Hilary and Ambrose. — 1| *' Neither is any one an image of himself."
Gregory Nyss. — § " The original is plainly seen in the likeness of it."
Chrysostom. — % " A sign is inferior to that of which it is a sign."
Jerome. — ** " He left us a. commemoration or
* " Imago veritati non uaquequaque adaequabitur." — Contra Marcion. lib. ii. c. 9.
f " Nemo ostendere volens hominem, cassidem nut personam introdtrcit." — De Came Christi, c. ii.
t To ofAoto* Tim, «K ir» AYTO EKEINO u o^oierai. — Con- tra Hypocr. Milet.
II" Nequeenim sibi ipsi quisquam imago est." — DeSynodis et De Fide.
§ To apx^rvirov tvxfyui; tv r» ^niA7nt.tt.7t xaSogao-fiai. — In Cant. Horn. xv.
% KATAAEEETEPA laoy oynt,t\o» rs «"pay/*«To; uirt^ if»
** " Ultimam nobis commemorationem sive ynanoriam dere- liquit."— Oper. Tom. v. p. 998.
CHRIST IN THE SACRAMENT. 173
memory of himself. As if one going abroad should leave some pledge to a person whom he loves, that as often as he sees it, he may remem- ber both his benefits and his friendship." And
Austin, who is, and always has decidedly been, the greatest favourite in the Romish Church, says, * " no person remembers any thing, but such as is not present''
The reader now sees how successful Doctor Milner has been in his appeal to the fathers: that which he makes to the eminent bishops and divines of the establishment in this coun- try will next claim our attention. He express- ly names Laud, Andrews, Cosin, and Bram- HALL, with five or six others ; and adds the justly esteemed divine, Hooker, f Their testi- monies for the Real Presence, he says, ;|; " are as explicit as Roman Catholics themselves can wish them to be." As a Catholic, I subscribe to their opinions; but 1 shall prove, from their own lips, that their sentiments are most ad- verse to the Popish idea of the Real Presence.
To begin witli || Laud. In this Prelate's Conference with Fisher the Jesuit, he first states, that Bellarmine held " that the conver-
* " Nemo reconlatur nisi quod in prascntiu non est positum. Oper. torn. iv. p. 220.
t It is deserving of notice, that JtweH's name is suppressed in this, as Tertulhan's was in the fo)-mer catalo£i;iie.
X Lettefi xxxvii. p. 53. || Page 286.
171 tHE REAL PRESENCE OF
sion of the bread and wine, into the Body and Blood of Christ, is substantial, but after a secret and ineffable manner." Now, says the wVrchbishop, " if he liad left out conversion, and only affirmed Christ's Keal Presence tiiere, after a mysterious and ineffable manner, no man could have spoken better." He then shews, from a comparison of two passages, wliere that writer contradicts himself; that though he affirms in the one a corporeal Presence of Christ in the Sacra- ment; yet, in the other, he denies that it is corpo- raliter, i. e. " after the manner in which bodies naturally exist." Laud next alludes to the clear manner in which Cranmer speaks on the subject, * " If you understand by their word really, reipsd, that is, in very deed and effectually, so Christ, by the efficacy of his passion, is indeed and truly present ; but if you understand cor- poraliter, in His natural and organical Body, under the form of Bread and Wine, it is con- trary to the Word of God." He next quotes Ridley to the same effect, and adverts to the re- cantation of Berengarius, who admitted there- by the oral manducation of the real Body of Christ, at which the learned f Averroes took such offence. But why multiply instances to shew the nature of the Real Presence held
* Page 259.
t Mundum peragravi, et uon vidi secfam deterioreiii, et magis faluam Chrihtiaii4, quia Dtum (jueni culuiit, dentibus c/«oran<.— Oper. Vol. i. p. 68. Ed. 1608.
CHRIST IN THE SACRAMENT. 175
by Laud. Indeed, so explicit is he on this point, that it is wonderful how Doctor Milner could have confidence enough to quote him as an advocate for the Popish doctrine.
Andrews, Bishop of Winchester, comes next,^ and distinctly pronounces Transubstantiation to be a " modern invention," not having been named for above twelve hundred years after Christ. *" I agree," says he, " with Gregory of Nyssa, that the nature of the bread and wine is changed ; yet, that neither them, nor us is transubstantiated." After stating the opi- nions of several fathers, the Bishop concludes with observing, f " that the change in the Sa- crament is not substantial.'' He then says, that St. Austin divided the Eucharist into two parts ; viz. the Sacramentum, and the res Sacramenti. J" That Christ, the subject (res) of the Sacra- ment was to be adored, but not the Sacrament — namely the earthly part, as Irenaeus expres- ses it ; or that which is exposed to the sight, as August! n says." Can any thing, therefore,
* Et nos, cum Nysscno crtdinuis, virlute heiiedictioi;l$, panii et viiii iiaturam immutari, nee tamen vel i/)«a, vel rio.t iransubslantiari. — Answer to Bellarmine, p. 192.
t SuhsUmliakm non esse, quae in Sacramento fit, transmuta- tioneni. — Ihid. p. 195.
I (Ihnalufi Sacramenti res adorandus est ; al 7ion Sacratiicn- iwn, terrcna scdictt pars, ut Irciiuus ; vibibilis, ut Augusti- nus. — Ibid.
176 THE REAL PRESENCE OP
be plainer than the injnstice done to Bishop Andrews, when he is said to have " firmly be- lieved" the corporeal presence of Christ in the Eucharist.
Havinj? vindicated Bisliop Cosin, in the con- cluding part of the last chapter, from the foul imputation of advocating the Popish doctrine of the corporeal Presence ; I pass on to the equally abused authority of Archbishop Bram-
HALL.
In his Answer to Le Militiere, he says, * *' 7 find not one of your arguments, that comes home to Transuhstantiationy but only to a true, real presence, which no genuine son of the Church of England did ever deny, no, nor your adver- sary himself. Christ said, this is my Body; what he said, we do stedfastly believe, he said, [not, after this manner, or that manner,] neque con, neque suh, neque trans ; and therefore we place it among the opinions of the schools, not among the articles of our faith." In order to make the preceding passage speak the language of the Church of Rome, Doctor Milner leaves out the first clause, which is put in italics, and then transposes the second one. He likewise omits the words within the brackets. By this contrivance, the distinction, which the Arch- bishop drew between Transubstantiation and
* Bramhall's Answer, Fol. Ed. D. 15.
CHRIST IN THE SACRAMENT. 177
"the true real presence," by Avhich he evidently meant the spiritual presence, being done away ; the words ' real presence,' are, from their am- biguity, necessarily made to imply the corporeal presence !
But the Archbishop has put it beyond the reach of sophistry to make him even appear friendly to this monstrous doctrine. He speaks of the * " fatliers seeing Christ in the Sacra- ment, fastening their teeth in his flesh, and mak- ing their tongues red in his blood." . . . . " They never meant," says he, " by these forms of speech, the manner of the presence ; but to raise the devotion of the hearers." Again, " Transub- stantiation was not an old article of faith : it was not well digested, nor rightly understood above a thousand years after Christ." Then, after enlarging on the miraculous conversion of the water into wine at the marriage feast, and of Moses's rod into a serpent, he reverts to the subject of Transubstantiation, " The substance of the elements is not converted, for that is sup- posed to be destroyed ; the accidents are not converted, but remain the same they were. It is no adduction at all, when the Body of Christ (which is the thing suj»j)ose(l to hv ad- duced) remains still in Heaven, where it was before." Lastly, he says, |"?r^; have rejcclcd
* liiii). y. 17. I Iiui). |). .'{f).
178 THE REAL PRESENCE OF
Tiaiisubstantiation deservedly from being an article of our Creed ; but if we had rejected it 400 years sooner, that had been a miracle : (Bramhall was born A. D. 1593), it was not so soon hatched. To find but the word Transub- stantiation in any old author were sufficient to find him a counterfeit." I fear, I shall have ap- peared somewhat tedious in ray quotations ; but 1 set too high a value on the authority of those eminent Prelates to allow garbled statements to go forth as expressive of their opinions, when they stand in direct contradiction to their real sentiments.
Doctor Milner's treatment of Hooker does not correspond with the respect he professes to entertain for that profound writer. What will the reader say, when he is told, that two folio j)ages intervene between the two sentences which Doctor Milner has joined together, and cited as if they stood so in the original ? Might not the Scriptures themselves be thus made to speak contradictions, absurdities, and false- hoods?
* Hooker thus expresses himself on this im- portant question : " As touching a literal, cor- poral, and oral manducation of the very sub- stance of Christ's flesh and blood, this is surely an opinion no where delivered in holy Scripture."
* EccL- Polity, book v. sect. 67. p. 560.
CHRIST IN THE SACRAMENT. 179
Immediately after he says, * " in a word, it ap- peareih not, that of all the other ancient fatliers of the Church, any one did ever conceive other than only a mystical participation of Christ's both Body and Blood in the Sacrament." He uniformly dwells on this point, *' that the real presence of Christ's most blessed Body and Blood is not to be sought for in the Sacrament, but in the worthy receiver of the Sacrament." And, lastly, " there is no sentence in holy scrip- ture, which saith, that we cannot by this Sa- crament be made partakers of his Body and Blood, except they be first contained in the Sa- crament, or the Sacrament ^;\s^ converted into them." Such are the sentiments of that judicious writer; although Doctor Milner affects to say, that on the part of the Church of England, he is " as explicit as (Roman) Catholics can wish him to be," in favour of the corporeal pre- sence of Christ in the Sacrament ! Thus we see, notwithstanding- all his empty flourishes, that he is unsupported either by ancient or modern authority, respecting the Popish interpretation of the real presence.
Christ's bo<ly is present, says Dr. Milner, though concealed from our senses. \\\ other words, his very flesh, which was nailed on llie cross, is present, although we do not perceive
* Ibid. p. "2(il. N 2
180 • THE REAL PRESENCE OF
it; although the other senses bear testimony, that there is no delusion of the sight ; and al- though the early fathers never made Christ's body invisible, but because he was absent. But Dr. Milner tells us what they do not, that the body lying before us is invisible; although its invisibility demonstrates its absence ! that is, we are told, that its presence demonstrates its absence ; or, what is no less absurd, that its absence demonstrates its presence ! Besides, where is the proof of this corporeal presence, except the mere assertion of the Church of Rome ? None whatever. We know that God is present in all his creatures ; but were he pre- sent after the manner alleged by that Church, he would, no doubt, make a sensible manifes- tation of himself, as he did to Moses by his *Shekinah, or glory. As, therefore, we per- ceive no alteration in the eucharistic elements either at, or after the time of consecration, we may safely infer, that they are not the habita- tion of his corporeal presence. This is what 1 contend for, and I defy Dr. Milner to dis- ])rove the truth or justice of my arguments.
Again, Doctor Milner insists, that our chief objections against this doctrine f " is the testi- mony of the senses ; and that though this be a
* See Preserv. af^ainst Pop., Tit. vii. ut supra. I Leitek xxxviii. p. j9.
CHRIST IN THE SACRAMENT. 181
good topic for pulpit oratory, it will not stand the test of Christian Theology. It would un- dermine the incarnation itself. With equal rea- son the Jews said of Christ, Is this the carpen- ter s son P Hence, they concluded, that he was not what he proclaimed himself to be. The Son of God." For ray part, I can see no likeness between the two cases ; because my senses give evidence to the fact in the one, that what has the properties of bread, is bread ; but, in the other, although my senses may testify the ac- tual existence of a certain individual, they nei- ther can tell the relation, which that individual bears to other persons ; nor of themselves deter- mine the truth of what he says. The senses of the Apostles bore evidence to the truth of Christ's miracles, and those miracles proved the truth of his professions ; but the truth of his pro- fessions could never have been ascertained by the testimony of the senses, without the inter- vention of miracles.
It is further urged by Doctor Milner, that our senses are not to be relied on, for, * " that Joshua thought he saw a man, and Jacob that he touclnMl one, and Abraham that he eat with three men ; when, in all these instances, there were no real men, but unembodied spirits, the different senses of those patriarchs misleadiug
IblD.
182 THi: REAL PRESENCE OF
them.' Neither here do I discover any simili- tude ; because, if thej^ were deceived in sup- j)Osiiig aerial forms ofluiman shape to he real men, the delusion was such as might he ex- pected. In none of the cases mentioned, could the senses be brought into play, as there were not subjects on which to exercise them ; they consequently could not be said to mislead. For, it was an avgel which appeared to * Joshua ; it was an angel that wrestled with "f Jacob ; and they were three angels, whom :{; Abraham enter- tained. But let Doctor Milner furnish an in- stance, where both sight and touch have at the same time been so imposed on, that shadows should seem to possess what they had not, the properties of bodies, their solidity and sub- stance ; and then, the appositeness of his parallel Avill be acknowledged. But as for visions, dreams, and the like, they are totally inap- plicable.
Again. — How can the reliance we repose on our senses, undermine the Incarnation itself, it being a mystery ; while in Transubstantiation there is no mystery at all? We can as clearly comprehend the most palpable falsehoods, as we can the most evident truths. In the Incar- nation, we can see nothing false, or contrary to our reason ; but this is not the case in Tran- substantiation. The former, we believe to be
* Chap. V. 13. f CuN. wxii, 24. X Ibiu. xviii. S.
CHRIST IN THE SACRAMENT. 183
a truth, on the express declaration of the Word of God ; the latter, we consider a falsehood, be- cause unaccompanied b}' those si^ns and tokens which distinguish the miracles of Christ.
From Scripture, Doctor Milner appeals to philosophy and experience to prove, that each of our senses frequently deceives us. On this point, there can be but one opinion. But the thing for him to shew is, that all our senses at any time deceive us in matters cognizable by them. He instances a setting sun, which is below, at the moment it appears to be above, the horizon. True: — there is an optical delu- sion there. But, if for this we substitute Au- gustin's example, which, like Doctor Milner's, depends on the laws of refraction, we shall find two senses brought to bear on the same object, and one of them rectifying the mistake of the other. * " If," says Austin, " one thinks that an oar is broken in the water, and when it is taken out of the water made whole again, he has not
a bad reporter, but he is a bad judge
For, if the air be adiflerent medium from waler, it must be perceived, one way in air, and an-
♦ " Si qiiis remum frangi in a(iu& opiriatur, cl ciini inilt; aufcrtur iiitegrari, noti liahtt malum iiilcrmincium, srH mains
rst judex si cnim aliiid i-st acr, nlmd aqua, jiisUmi ni
aliter in acre, alitor in aqua scntiatur." — Dc Vera Rclig. c. xx.xiii.
184 THE REAL PRl^SENCE OF
of/ier in water." Here the sight itself detects, and tl)e toiicli confirms the error; which conid not ha))pen in the case of the setting snn.
His proof, that we are deceived by the sense of touch, and that we cannot trust more to it than to any other sense, is quite amusing. *" Let any person," says he, " cause his neighbour to shut his eyes, and then crossing the two first fingers of either hand, make him rub a pea, or any other round substance, between them, he will then protest, that he feehttvo such objects." But let the person submit this puerile trick to the test of vision, and his error will be instantly removed. Thus it appears, that it is only by the evidence of our senses that we know any thing. To say, that the substance of the bread does not exist in the Sacrament, when all its pro})erties appear, and that the substance of the flesh is there, although without the f appearance of any of them, is a monstrous contradiction ! Jt is, as J one father says, to suppose the Al- mighty to do what is absurd {urotro*) ; and as § another says, what is contrary to nature (Tra^a (pviTn>) and impossible. It is to suppose God to
* Letter xxxviii. p. 60.
t When Doctor Milner uses the word species, he considers it to be an accident, which inheres in no substance, but sub- sists by itself. Matter without primary quahties !
t Cf>em. Alex. Strouiat. lib. iv. c. 26.
§ Orig. contra Cels. lib. v. sect. 23.
CHRIST IN THE SACRAMENT. 185
pursue a course contrary to what he has done in every other instance, where the miracle wrought derived its effect from, and is expressly submitted to, the senses.
How, therefore, can Doctor Milner come to such a copclusion as this; that, because each of our senses frequently deceives us, (not observe constantly, but now and again,) that they must all, therefore, often deceive us in matters cog^- nizable by them? Or, how can he say, that I oppose their fallible testin)ony to God's infallible Word, if I submit that bread on which the reputed miracle is wrought to the judgment of my senses; when I perceive, that all the mira- cles, which Christ performed when on earth, were not only submitted to the senses of His disciples, but most pointedly referred to them? Doctor Mihier may believe all he says, if he can ; but as for the poor laity, when they are thus *instructed and invited to cozen themselves, can we wonder at their besotted adherence to the Church of Rome?
I shall add but a few words more. The lite- ral acceptation of the phrase, this is My Body, is inadmissible; because, the miracle, which Doctor Milner says they imply, cannot be re-
* In their Mas-; Book, the; laity arc required individually to make this declaration, " Herein I utterly renounce the judg- ment of my sense."!, and all human understundinv^" — English Manual, Ed. 1725, p. 409.
18() THi: KKAL PRESKNTE OF
conciled with the instructions of our Lord to his disciples at Capernaum, that they were to understand what he said about eating His flesh, not literally, but spiritually. It is further in- admissible, because it is not only repugnant to the evidence of the senses, as I haye proved, but likewise to the laws of nature ; that Christ should have held His Body in His own hand, thereby making the transubstantiated bread to exist under two dislinct shapes, its natural and assumed, at one and the same time. Moses's rod was turned into a serpent; yet the rod and the serpent did not co-exist under two different forms, as the Body of Christ and the Bread which He blessed must have done. The diffi- culty is further increased; if, as the Romish Church says, Christ be considered * whole and entire, within the contracted dimensions of a wafer. For, if He be whole and entire in one wafer, He cannot be ivhole and entire in another wafer, or in a thousand others, at the same in- stant, which would be to make two bodies, or a thousand bodies, ivhole and entire, of Christ, all co-existent. On this t supposition, the same body might be far distant from itself, come and meet itself, be at rest and in motion at the same time, which are direct contradictions! This
* " Totus et inlesrer Christus est sub qudlibet quoque parte hosline consecrala?." — Binnh Concil, vol, v. pars 1 ma. p. 614. t See Secker's Seumons, vol. vi. p. 80.
CHRIST IN THE SACRAMENT. 187
line of argument will equally apply, whether Christ's Body be considered in its " glorified state," as Doctor Milner says, " on Mount Tabor ;" or in its natural state, when he insti- tuted the Er.charist. For whether spiritual or natural, it cannot be whole and entire, in two different places, at the same moment of time; because God can do nothing, which is, in its own nature, impossible or absurd. 1 say spiritual, for a spiritual body is as subject to the same impossibility, in this respect, as a na- tural body ; and because Christ's appearing to St. Paul on the road to Damascus, after His Ascension, as urged by Doctor Milner, is no proof, that His spiritual Body, which is tvhole and entire at His Father's right hand in Heaven, can be whole and entire within the narrow com- pass of a piece of bread on the altar, at the same time.
The last point, on which Doctor Milner relies, is this, * " That God fills all space, and is whole and entire in every particle of matter; and that his own soul is in his right hand and in his left, whole and entire." This objection I have met in the preceding paragraph; I shall, therefore, simply remind him, that Omnipre- sence is not Transubstantiatiori. 1 sincerely believe the Real I^resencf. of Christ in the
* Letieu x\\'\ ill. p. 61.
188 THE REAL PRESENCE OF CHRIST, &C.
Sacrament after a spiritual manner; because, I believe His Presence to be universal, immu- table, Tiud always subsisting ; but the doctrine of Transubstantiation requires me to believe, that the elements, which / see, are converted into a Body, which I do not see; and therefore, I as sincerely reject it.
189
CHAPTER VII.
THE SUPPRESSION OF HALF THE EUCHARIST, SACRILEGIOUS.
Were it not to shew the high authority, which Tradition holds in the Church of Rome, it would have been unnecessary for Doctor Mil- ner to preface his Letter on the subject of half communion, with an allusion to Infant Baptism. * " Protestants," he says, "are forced to have re- course to the Tradition of the Church on doubt- ful points, with respect to the two Sacraments, which they acknowledge ; thus Christ was bap- tized in a river, and the Egyptian eunuch was led into the water, and infants also are suscep- tible of baptism, who are incapable of making an act of faith." The t advocates of the Church of Rome.', ill imitation of the :f Council of Trent, uniformly re|)resent Infant Baptism as an apos- tolical tradition. When they do this, they con-
* Letter xxxix. p. 62.
f BhLLxnMiNE says, " Parvulos baptizaiidos, vocalur (la- ditio apnslulica, non scripta." — Dc Vtrbo Dei, lib. iv. c. '2.
X " El trudidonc Apostolornm ctiam parvuli
vcracitcr baplizanlur, ut in eis regcneratione inuiulctur, tjuotl gciieralioiic contraxcnuil." — Concil. Triuent., St-ss. vii.
lf)0 COMMUNION
sider it, as a doctrine at least, in reference to its inward grace ; but with respect to its out- ward and visiWle sign, as a ceremotif/. But since the Clinrch of England uses its oirn discretion with respect to ceremonies, though it uniformly rejects doctrines, wliich have no other foun- dation tlian tradition, it may on the same prin- ciple be fairly inferred, that the ceremony of Infant Baptism has been observed in the Chris- tian Church from the earliest ages. This, be- sides the agreeableness of the practice to Christ's Institution, furnishes an additional reason for our adoption of it. When, therefore, Doctor Milner says, that Protestants have recourse to tradition in certain cases, he * confounds tradition of doctrines with tradition of ceremonies ; and consequently represents the Church of England, as similar in this respect to the Church of Rome, when they are altogether different.
Thus he may be supposed to argue : the Church of England professes to reject tra- dition of doctrines, while it adopts ceremonies, which are derivable from no other source, than tradition : therefore, as tradition in the one case, is tradition in the other, it necessarily fol- lows, that its members must have recourse to Iradilion for determining doubtful points. This is, however, false reasoning. Our vith Article rejects tradition of doctrines, iuasmuch as it
* See p. 3.
UNDER ONE KIND. U) 1
rejects " whatsoever is not read in Holt/ Scrip- tures, nor proved thereby ;" and it should be ob- served, that in this rejection of tradition as a Rule of Faith consists the vital principle of the Reformation. The xxxivth Article no less rejects the sole authority of tradition in re- gard to ceremonies. If, therefore, the Church of Enj^land retains some ''^ceremonies, which have no other foundation than tradition, it does so for this substantial reason, not because they are supported by tradition ; nor even because they are not contrary to Scripture ; but, because they possess this positive quality, that they tend to edijication. It speaks in the last-mentioned Article, of its not being " necessary that tra- ditions and ceremonies be in all places one, or utterly like ; for at all times they have been di- verse and may be changed ; so that nothing be ordained against God's word." The conclud- ing part of the Article says, that " every par- ticular or national Church hath authority to ordain, change, and abolish ceremonies, or rites of the Church, ordained only by man's autho-
* Bishop Mar&ii thus marks the difltreiice between tra- dition of ceremonies, and tradition oi doctrines : "the tra- dition of tlic latter is oral, and going from moutli to mouth must be perpetually sulyect to nUcration. But the tradition of the former is ocular tradition, and may be preserved unal- tered through a succession of ages, though never committc<l u< writing." — C^omw. Virw, p. 144.
J 92 COMMUNION
rity, so that all things be done lo edifying ^ From this it appears, that Doctor Milner, at the very outset, presents his reader with a gross misrepresentation.
Tradition as it regards the doctrine of Infant Baptism, is inapplicable to the Church of Eng- land, which expressly states in her xxviith Article, that " the Baptism of young children is in any wise to be retained in the Church, as most agreeable with the Institution of Christ." Here is no acknowledgment of tradition. On the contrary, it is disclaimed ; while the sanc- tion of the practice is traced to the example of our Blessed Lord Himself, and to His Holy Word. If our Saviour encouraged those who brought little children to Him, He likewise said to His disciples, * " Go ye, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Fa- ther, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost." Thus He gave them a general precept, without the least restriction whatever as to age ; whe- ther young or old, infants or adults, they were to be equally the objects of Baptism.
In like manner, with respect to the Eucha- rist, our Church retains what is essential to that Sacrament, while it has wisely omitted such circumstances as would be useless, inconve- nient, or impossible to be complied with, it
* Matt, xxviii. 19.
UNDER ONE KIND. 193
performs the sacramental action, in the way commanded bv Christ, when he said, '' do THIS ;" by blessing bread and eating it, and by blessing wine and drinking it, in remembrance of Him. In this consists the essence of the Sacrament of the Eucharist, and to the punc- tual observance of it, the Church of England is scrupulously attentive, while it omits circum- stances in themselves indifferent, such as the * washing of feet ; the time, place, and manner of receiving, &c. &c. The charge of inconsis- tency, therefore, which Doctor Milner brings against it, falls to the ground, since it has been as little intiuenced by Tradition, when it agreed with the Church of Rome, in the omission of the latter points, which are unessential ; as it was, when it rejected the doctrine and practice of tliat church in the remaining particulars of this institution. In short, the Church of Eng- land never took Tradition at all into considera- tion on the subject in question. The same may be said of it with respect to Baptism. The
• Doctor Milner sayt!, " that Christ enjoined this ceremony with tht; utmost strictness, and that Protestants in rcjectin<j it are puided by tradition." But this is not the fact. The Church of Kntjlaiid perceived thai there was no command given on tiie .suhjccl, and that our Saviour only profesbcd to >et an example, as may be collected fronj John, xiii. 15 ; where he says, " I have given you an example" &c. This clearly shews, from the nature of the thing, that he did not intend that it should he strictly followed,
O
IJ>4 COM ]M UN ION
manner ot' using the watei", whether by *imm«r- sioii, or asi)crsion, is set forth in the Rubrics ; while an indifference is observed about the quantity or quabty. But our Church retains the use of water generally, which alone, witli the prescribed form of words, is essential to Baptism as a Sacrament, and is also an \\n- alterable circumstance attending- it.
Doctor Milner admits, that our Saviour in- stituted the Eucharist under two kinds ; but that t " he then made it a sacrifice, as well as a sacrament; that he ordained Priests, namely his twelve Apostles, to consecrate the one, and to offer up the other ; that, for the purpose of making it a sacrifice, the victim should be really present, and, at least, mystically immo- lated ; and that this is effected in the Mass, by the separate consecration of the elements ; and finally, that to complete the sacrifice, the Priests, who had immolated the victim, should consum- mate it in both kinds, agreealjly to the divine precept, which was addressed to the Apostles as Priests, and not to the laity as communi- cants." Thus does this gentleman prepare his reader for what he has to advance in support of a practice in the Church of Rome, which ex-
* Our Church, at its own discretion, directs in its Baptismal Rubrics to " dip the child in the water discreetly," &c. ; or " to pour the water upon it;" according to circumstances.
t Letts u xxxix. p. 63.
UNDER ONE KIND. 1 9o
dudes its laity from an essential part of Christ's ordinance; and both in his present and * former publications, assert, that it has been from the apostolic age " a mere matter oi changeahle disci- pline:" whereas he sees it to be so intimately connected with the lofty pretensions of his Church ; with her doctrines of Transubstanti- ation and Infallibility ; and with her consequent desire to exalt the priesthood at the expense of the laity — that he could not give up a part with- out abandoning the whole, in order, therefore, to decide the question at issue, I shall, in the progress of the discussion, state the respective doctrines of the Churches of England and Rome, not on the authority of individuals, but on that of their official declarations.
It would appear, that our blessed Lord Him- self laid greater emphasis on the participation of the cup, by enjoining them all to drink of it, than on that of the bread, which he distributed, not with a general injunction, such as " take you all and eat;" but with this simple precept, " take, eat." Jf St. Matthew reports him to have said, " drink ye all of this ;" St. Mark relates that " they all drank of it;" which shews the strict observance of the connnand, and the importance attached to it in the minds of the
* Viz. Letters to a I'rtbeiulary, p. 110; mid Inquiuy, &c. p. 147.
<) 2
11K> COMMUNION
Apostles : an importance which they evidently did not attribute to the receiving of the bread. So that, in their narrative, they appear to have been under the unerring guidance of the Holy Spirit Himself, who, in His infinite wisdom, foresaw the errors and abuses, which were to arise in His Church in after-ages, in this par- ticular, as if with a view to their prevention.
But the Church of Rome has its strong rea- sons to advance for so wide a departure from the letter and spirit of the divine command. These also I shall state with fairness and candour, after 1 have made some observations prepara- tory to their introduction; and then proceed to advance proofs, which will appear no less strong because of their being supported by Scripture and the usage of the primitive Church: **' that the cup of the Lord ought to be ministered to ALL Christian men alike."
Two centuries, at least, before the doctrine of Communion in one kind became established by a decree of a general council as a tenet of the Romish Church, it began to be agitated by the clergy. Towards the middle of the thir- teenth century, Aquinas, so distinguished for his scholastic subtleties, reduced it to a tangi- ble shape, and first pro])Osed the question, as a subject of disputation; viz. f" whether it were
* Article xxx. t Utruui liceat suiucre corpus Christi sine sanguine -----
UNDER ONE KIND. 197
allowable to take the body of Christ, wiifhovf the blood, as it was customary with mani/ Churches to do so." Yet, at the same time, he admitted, that *'' accordinj^ to the custom of the ancient C/hurch, all persons, as they partook of the body, so they also partook of the blood" Thus it appears, that the innovation was gradual in its progress, from the first faint mention of it in the schools, until it was finally ratified by the Council of Constance, A. D. 1414. How- ever, this very Council itself, which first com- manded the partial administration of the Sacra- ment, decreed, under pain of excommunication, t" that though Christ instituted and adminis- tered this venerable Sacrament to his disciples in both kinds of bread and wine, and though it was received in both kinds in the primitive Church, by the faithful, yet, that this custom was fitly introduced for the avoidance of some dangers and indecencies." But, notwithstand- ing this acknowledgment, it grounds its decree
ut erat nmltarum ecclesiarum usiis. — TnoM. Aquin., pars iii. Qu. 80. Art. 12.
* Sccunrlum an^Vywa Ecclesiae consuetiidinem, omnes sicut commiinicabant corpore, ita e\. cnniinnuicabant sanguine. — lern.
t Licet Cliristus post ccriiam imtiluerit, et siiis discipulis adminislravit ct sub utrdcjuc specie paiiis et vini hoc venerahile
Sacramcntum et in primitivd rcclcsid hujusmodi Sii-
crumenlum reripcreiur a fdctilms sub utraque specie, tameii liECC consueludo ad cvitanduvi aliqua pericula ct Kcandnla, est ratioiiabliller introducta. — CoNcii.. Constant. Spss. 13.
I.*'8 COMMUNION
neither on Scripture, nor Tradition. The sic volo of the Council nullifies a divine command, while its authority abolishes a long established usage. About the middle of the following cen- tury the Council of Trent further sanctioned this sacrilegious act, and, like its predecessor, with- out appealing either to Scripture, or Tradition, rested its decision on its own unsupported au- thority. * " Wherefore," says their decree, *' holy mother Church, acknowledging its own author- ity in the administration of the Sacraments ; and although from the commencement of the Christian religion, the use of it under both kinds tvus not infrequent ; yet that the custom having now widely changed in the lapse of time, the Church, induced by just and grave causes, has approved and decreed as a law, the custom of communicating under o/ie kind." Here is an admission of the frequency (non infrequens usus) of the administration of the Sacrament in both kinds in the primitive Church; yet so guarded is the expression by the context, that the reader is led to infer, that the common practice was administration under one kind, and that the use of both kinds was the excep-
* Quare, agnoscens sancta mater ecclesia hanc suam in ad- ministratione Sacramentorum auctoritalan, licet ab initio Christianae religionis non infrequens utriusque speciei usus
fuisset - hanc consuetudinem sub altera specie commu-
nicandi approbavit. — Sess. xxi. Canon ii. p. 204.
UNDER ONE KIND. 190
tio?t, contrary to what was the fact. The coun- cil further declares, * " that although our Re- deemer instituted this Sacrament V7ider two kinds, in that last Supper, and gave it to the Apostles ; nevertheless, it must be allowed, that the whole and €?itire Christ, and a true Sacra- ment is received, even luider one kind only." From this extract it appears that the assumption implied by the words fatendum esse is gratui- tous, and that the only reason assigned for its decision, is the mere jylacuit EcclesicB.
If we now compare the following passage of the decree made at the thirteenth Session, relative to Transubstantiation, with the last cited one of the twenty-first Session, we shall see the glaring inconsistency, which ex- ists between the two declarations. It says, (seepage 110,) |" that by the consecration of bread and wine a conversion or change takes place of all the substance of the bread into the substance of the Body of our Lord Jesus
* Quamvis Rcdemplor nosier, hoc Sacramentum in duabus speciebus inslitiierit, ct Aposlolis tradidcrit, tamcn fatendum esse etiam sul) alterd tantum specie, iotum alquc intcgnim Christum, verumque Sacramentum sumi. — IiiiD.
f " Per consecrationem panis ct vini convcrsionem fieri totius substantia? panis in sub.stanliam corporis Christi Domini Noslri, et lotius substantia,' vini in substantiam sanguinis ejus, «|u;l' convcrsio convenienter et j)ropric a sancia Catbolica V.c- clesia Transubslantiutio est appellata." — Sess. xiii. »:lin}». 1.
1200
COMMUiNION
Christ ; and of all the substance of the wine into tlie substance of His Blood, which conver- sion is properly called Transuhstantiation, by the Catholic Church." According to this, the bread alone becomes the Body of Christ ; it being declared, that there is a total and entire change of the bread into the substance of His Body; it cannot, therefore, for a moment be sup- posed, that there is a conversion of any the smallest part of the bread into any other sub- stance, as for instance, into that of the Blood: consequently, to receive the Bread, is to receive the Body of Christ, and the Body only — a con- clusion quite at variance with the decree rela- tive to half communion, which says that the receiving of the bread alone is the receiving of both Body and Blood !
So, in like manner, respecting the wine. Its conversion is declared, as above, to be wholly changed into the Blood of Christ, and into the Blood only; for so totius substantia implies. Accordingly, to receive the consecrated wine is literally (vere, realiter, et substantialiter) to re- ceive the Blood of Christ. But here again, the decree on communion under one kind, de- clares the receiving of the wine alone, to be the receiving of both Body and Blood ! This be- trays the same inconsistency as the former case, as well as the weakness of the pretensions to " inerrancy" set up by Popish writers, in behalf
UNDER ONE KIND. 201
of the decisions of the Council of Trent. For, were it, as Doctor Mihier says, "inerrant," how could the twenty-first Session, under Pius IV., have so completely overlooked the letter and spirit of the decree passed by the thirteenth Session, under Julius III.? Though the Body and Blood of Christ, therefore, should be re- ceived under one kind ; yet as * Durandus says, " since the Blood is not eaten, nor the Body drank, so neither is drank vnider the species of bread, nor eaten under the species of wine." To receive the eucharistic elements sacramen- tally there must be eating and drinking, as both those acts belong to the Sacrament ; but, this could not be the case, if either the bread or the wine were alone administered. To such in- consistency and error, the Church of Eng- land opposes her xxxth Article, founded on the Institution of Christ Himself, as well as on the practice of the apostolic, and the succeed- ing ages of the primitive Church.
Various reasons have been assigned for the practice of denying the cup to the laity, some of which are futile in the extreme, otiiers little founded in fact. Bellarmine alleges as an ex-
* Quia sicut nee sanguis comcdilur, nee corpus bibitur ; ita neu.iium^\i\i specie panis bibitur, aut iub specie vini comc- dilur.— Dl'Ra.nu. Rational, bb. iv. c. 42.
202 COMMUNION
cuse, * " that the inconvenience became more and more apparent as the multitude of commu- nicants increased, and so tlie custom of commu- nicating under both species gradually ceased.'' And Bona admits, f " that from the origin of the Church to the twelfth age, Christians at all times and in every place^ communicated under the species of head and ivine.'* Such are the admissions of two of the most eminent writers of the Romish Church, in the seventeenth cen- tury ; both cardinals and nearly contempora- ries. Some also of its advocates say, that the Sa- crament v/as pa)'tialli/ administered in every age of the Church, and that it was optional with the communicants to receive either or both kinds ; others, that the cup was withheld to avoid the risk of spilling the wine ; or the inde- cency, which arose by the communicants dip- ping their beards in it ; or probably to accom- modate the custom to countries not productive of wine ; or lest the wine kept for the sick should turn sour ; or lest some persons should not be able to bear its smell or taste. Trifling as these
* " Crescente autem multitudine magis et magis apparuit incommodum, et sic paulatim desiit usus sub ulraque specie." De Euchak. lib. iv. c. 4.
t " Semper enim et uhique ab Ecclesiae primordiis usq>ie ad saeculum duodecimum, sub specie panis et vini communicA- runt." — Bona, Rer. Liturg. lib. ii. 18.
UNDER ONE KIND. 203
excuses are ; yet it maybe easily conceived that a dark and superstitious age would have re- course to them to justify a departure from pri- mitive usage. The doctrine of Transubstan- tiation had taught them, that the sacramental bread and wine, were actually converted into the real Body and Blood of Christ ; and tlie apprehensions, that any part of them should be lost or wasted, produced, as its natural conse- quence, the practice of denying the cup to the laity. Expedients were adopted to prevent this loss and waste ; the bread was adminis- tered in the form of wafers, and the wine con- veyed through * tubes into the mouths of the communicants. The bread was even steeped in wine as a preventive of accidents ; still as they occurred, it was finally agreed on, that the officiating priest only should partake of both kinds. From a consideration of all the reasons taken tosrether, two are discoverable as influ- encing the Ciiurch of Home in this decision : one, that the cup is superfluous and not an essen- tial part of the Sacrament, as the tolus ct inte- ger Christus is contained in the transul)stan- tiated bread ; and the other, that the Comrau-
♦ The Pope's practice of drinkinf^ the wine through a gold pipe, chalumcau d'or. (termed l)y Cassandcr, pu^illarisj is cir- cumstantially related in Pk aut'h f;ercmonial of High Mass.— ReligieuscsCeremonieg des Cathol. Rom., vol. i. p. 94.
204 COMMUNION
nion in one kind has been established by Us otvn authority, ^vhicll is necessarily paramount to Scripture itself! Such are the reasons as- signed for this sacrilegious practice by the sup- porters of the doctrine ; but whether they be weighty and just ones, (graves etjustcE,) as the decree professes, the reader may judge.
But let us hear Doctor Milner's scriptural justification of the practice of half communion. 1. *" Our Saviour," says he, " after his resur- rection, took bread, and blessed and brake, and gave it to them, Luke, xxiv. 30, which shews he communicated them under the form of bread alone. 2. That it is recorded in the Acts, ii. 42, that the baptized converts at Jerusalem con- tinued stedfastly in the Apostles' doctrine, and fellowship, and in breaking of bread and prayer. 3. And again, upon the first day of the week, when the disciples came together to break bread, Acts, xx. 7, without any mention of the other species ; which circumstances prove, that the Apostles were accustomed to give the Sacra- ment under one kind alone." A little consider- ation will shew, what a weak sanction those passages afford Doctor Milner's doctrine. For, extraordinary as it would be in the Apostles, CD the first occasion of their administering the Sacrament, (taking for granted that it was the
• Letter xxxix. p. 65.
UNDER ONE KIND. 205
sacramental bread, which was broke at their meetings on the Lord's day,) to depart from Christ's Institution, and to violate his command about it ; it would be much more strange, that Christ himself should, on the day of his resurrec- tion, give the Sacrament in a manner different from what he had done three days previously.
It is true, that the words quoted in the Jirst text are the same as those which occur in the account given of the last Supper ; but although they be, it does not hence follow, that Christ distributed the Sacrament as often as he took bread, and blessed and brake it, and gave it to others. For thus, it would have been a Sacra- ment, when on one occasion, he performed the astonishing miracle of feeding five thousand with five loaves, and two fishes ; as he then looked up to heaven, and * " blessed and brake the loaves and gave them to his disciples." St. Mark records, that our Saviour acted in a like manner on a similar occasion, when he filled the multitude of four thousand with seven loaves ; for f " lie took them and gave thanks and brake and gave to his disciples, to set before Ihemy If then, it must be conceded Doctor IVJilner, that Christ administered the Sacrament at Em- maus, on tiie day of His Resurrection ; it must be done, not only, without any authority, but
* Mark, vi. II, and MaU. XIV. H>. i Mark,vin.6.
206
COMMUNION
without any reason. To break bread was a phrase familiar to the Jews, and implied the distribution of it, and though singly expressed here, it means nothing more than that He sat at meat with them ; His object being, that they should be satisfied with the truth of His Resur- rection.
As to the second and third texts, what more can they imply, than that those meetings were designed for the purpose of prayer and refresh- ment in the same house, and that an eucharistic form of words, similar to our Grace at the time of eating, vt'as adopted by those assembled? AH kinds of food essential to life have, in all countries, been signified by Bread ; thus, when we pray for our " daily l)read," we surely mean more, than that single article of nourishment. And when * " Christ went into the house of one of the Chief Pharisees to eat bread on the Sab- bath day," it is to be inferred, that he intended to drink also. When Joseph's brethren f "heard that they should eat bread with him," they must have expected also to be regaled with drink. But, in addition to the second and third texts, I shall supply Doctor Milner with a fourth to the same effect. J *' And they breaking bread from house to house, did eat their meat with gladness and singleness of heart." His motive
* Luke, xiv. I. f Genesis, xliii. 25. X Acts, ii. 46.
UNDER ONE KIND. 207^
in overlooking this text, although only three verses intervened between it and one of those cited by him, and although the act, by which he would establish his Half-Communion, viz. the breaking of bread, is expressed in it also ; is very evident. On the whole, therefore, we cannot but perceive, from the frequent use of this Hebrew idiom, that to break bread directs the mind to its correlative act, that of drinking. Otherwise, if the texts produced prove Com- munion in one kind, they prove too much for Doctor Milner's purpose ; for they prove, that there was consecration only in one kind, and reception in owe kind, even by the Priest who consecrated ! But this is contrary to what he says about the injunction, drink ye all of thiSj regarding " the Apostles as Priests, and 7iot the laity as communicants."
Doctor Milner next adduces what he con- siders a still more important passage for Com- munion in either kind ; where the Apostle saysy "Whosoever shall cat this Bread, or drink this Chalice of the Lord unworthily, shall be guilty of the Body and Blood of the Lord.' In his observations on this text, he says, | " that tlieliEV. Mr. Grier, who has attempted to vin- dicate the purity of tlio English IVotestaut Bible, has nothing else to say for tiiis alteration
• 1 Cor. xi. 27. Rbcm, Traiisl. I Li/nru xxxix. p. «5:
*
200 COMMUNION
of St. Paul's Epistle, than in what he falsely calls the parallel texts of Lnke and Matthew, the conjunctive and occurs."
My Answer to Ward's Errata of our Re- ceived English Version of the Bible was oc- casioned by the re-publication of that mis- chievous production, enlarged as it was by matter most highly offensive to our Established Clergy, by, it is supposed, Mr. Lingard. As it appeared to me a new proof of the rancorous disposition of Popery, I spared no pains to repel the foul accusations which it contained. But the readers of that Answer are competent to decide how far ''my attempt " to defend the purity of that Version has been successful. To their opinion I respectfully defer. It is not for me to go farther than to say, that, while I feel myself sustained by the approbation of some of the most eminent among the English and Irish Prelates, and many other characters dis- tinguished for their learning and talents, as welt as by the consciousness of having performed a duty; I can have no great difficulty, either in reconciling myself to Doctor Milner's displea- sure for what I have done, or in calling it down on me hereafter with aggravated force for what I now do.
However, to return to the subject more im- mediately under consideration. Doctor Mil- iier alleges my inability to stateawy overground
UNDER ONE KIND. 209
for "the alteration " in St. Paul's Epistle, than what is ''falsely" called the parallel texts of Luke and Matthew, in which the conjunctive and occurs. To me, there does not appear a more decisive way of ascertaining the sense in which the Greek particle q should be taken, than by those very parallel passages to which he objects. In * one of them, St. Luke says, " by what authority doest thou these things? or, who gave thee this authority ?" And, in the f other, St. Matthew repeats, " by what authority doest thou these things? and who gave thee this au- thority?" The passages in the original are cri- tically the same, with the exception of the 7, and ««.; while the translation of those two words correspond in the Protestant and Rhe- mish Versions. So that, if due regard be had to the genius of the Greek language, as well as to the import of the questions asked, it is impossible for any sound or unprejudiced critic to deny, thnt the «*» determines the sense of the «, ratljer than the " tl);it of the x«« ; parlieu- iarly as there are two distiiirt (piestions asked, one relatini^ to the tliiufr — iiamdv, the aulhoritv; anfi the other to {\\v. person, in th( pronoun ulm.
But had St. Paul, in the circumstantial :|; ac- count which he gives ot" the Lord's Supper, and of its commemorative tendency, introduced
* Chap. XX. 2. t Chai.. .\xi. 23. I I Cor.-xi. 'ICy—'Z'i).
210 COMMUNION
» instead of k«i, into the 26th verse, and said, " as often as ye eat this bread, (.») or drink this cup," as he does into the one in question ; and had he again used the^ in tlie 28th verse, and not the »«.; and liad he moreover introduced it ttvice into the 29th verse, as thus, " for he that eateth, („) or drinketh unworthily, eateth or drinketh damnation to himself," instead of inserting a ncn in each place. Had St. Paul, I repeat it, in- troduced the disjunctive into the ^bwr places, which I have enumerated, as he did (and let it be remembered, that he has done so only once) into the 27th verse ; or, had he even introduced it into two of the four passages, that read «<«• ; as this would give the greater number of readings favourable to the Rhemish Version of the « in the 27th verse: I do conceive, that the stick- lers for that Version would have the argu- ment for Communion under one kind decidedly in their favour, quoad the same 27th verse, and partially so in the latter. But, how they can bend the signification of the ^, (which is, on all hands, admitted to be variable, like the Hebrew ])artic]e *),) from the conjunctive meaning, and do this contrary to the legitimate rules of criti- cism, which require the sense of the * fewer l)assages to be regulated by that of the greater number, is most unaccountable. It is equally
* " Opor'.c! secundum plura intelligi pauciora." — Tertul. adv. Harrct.
UNDER ONE KIND. 211
SO, even on their own principles, by any possi- bility, * ** to shew forth the Lord's death," ex- cept we both " eat of that bread and drink of that cup." Indeed, of the two, the taking of the cup is more strongly enforced than that of the other. It is called, f the Cup of the New Testament in His blood, as if in it consisted the very essence of the New Covenant ; and the injunction, j:" drink ye a// of this," is used, as if to obviate the supposition, that some might omit, or be ckyiied it.
Should Doctor Milner refer to Rosemniiller, on whose authority I relied, when preparing my Answek to Ward for publication; he mustad- mit, how well 1 was supported by that author in my exposition of ^ ^n**? ; although I barely ad- verted to him at the time. His excellent com- ment runs thus, § " as to the particle ^ (in the words r, w-.»«) it is without reason, that the Paj)ists rely ujjon it, as shewing that both species are not absolutely necessary. For, first, there is a variety of reatling, (as some use x«i) and also, it is very common with the Greek in- terpreters of the O. "^J". to put y.cn for », as in (jEN. iii. 'J2 ; Synnnachus has x«^c» » ircnpo,, and other translators, naXo, xa^ vo»r,fbK IJcsidcs this, any one of tin? (Corinthians nii^ht take the rup
* 1 Cor. xi. 27. t L»'kf. xxii. ^20. ♦ :\Inft. xxvi. 27.
§ RoiCli. vol. iv. |i. I.'il.
v2
•21-2 COMjMUNION
uiivvortliily, a5 by drinking of it to intoxication, although in eating no indecency had been com- mitted.' From the clear manner in which this commentator states the subject, it is sur- jnising that any difficulty should arise about it. Two things are proposed to be done, and both guilt and consequent punishment are to be in- curred by the non-performance of either. It is further to be observed, respecting the variety of reading in the old Greek copies alluded to by Rosenmiiller, that * Griesbach presents his reader with no less than fifteen MSS., including the Alexandrine and Clermont ones, which have Kdi. f Wolff' also, another learned collator, enu- merates no fewer than thirty of the oldest copies of the Vulgate, in which et is the translation of t). The objection, I should observe, which is made to the translation of this particle in the Protestant Bible, is far from being new ; it is quite traditional, being as old as the Reforma- tion itself. It was first started by Gregory Martin, and from him transmitted by Harding and Ward to the present age, and has now ac- quired fresh vigour for further transmission from Doctor Milner's pen. The specimen of scholar- ship connected with it distinctly shews, that there has been no advance whatever in Scrip-
* Nov. Test. Gu-tc. vol. ii. p. 265. t CuR« Philolog. vol. iii. p. 492.
UNDER ONE KIND. 213
ture criticism among Roman Catholic divines- for the last three centuries ; and, if the progres" sive growth of Biblical learning, and the vast accessions which have been made to it by Protestant writers within that period, be taken into account, the Popish Church will have ap- peared to retrograde in this particular, and to be HOW sunk into a state comparatively more de- graded, than what it had been in, at the com- mencement of the Reformation.
Jewell's * Reply to Harding is likewise very much to the point, and contains such forcible reasoning, and unanswered, because unanswer- able, argument; that I cannot forbear pressing Doctor Miliier with it in the present instance. The Bishop, after some pointed animadversions on Harding, proceeds to say, f*' that sometimes disjunctives stand instead of copulatives, some- times copidatives instead of disjunctives. But if he have so good an eye to one little disjunctive, and mean uprightly, why doth he so blindly pass by so many coj)uhitives in the selfsiuue place altogether?" I^rom every view of the case, therefore, which I have been able to take of it, and after the most deliberate consideration of the arguments advanced on both sides, 1 Wwd
• P. 95.
t " Sa;pc ita coniparatiini est, ut et disjuncla pro conjunclis accipianlur, et conjuncla pro diftjiinctis." — Dc verb, rt rcr, sii^- nificulione. — I did.
•214 COMMl'MON
SO many, and such convincing- ones/or its being and; and so many against its being- or, that a shadow of doubt does not remain on my own mind of the correctness of the former version. The similarity of the cases is so striking, that I cannot here resist admonishing Doctor Milner in the language of rebuke addressed by Doctor Kilbie to the young preacher, as * before re- lated.
It was reserved for the Doctors of the Po- pish Church to make a discovery,which escaped the acuteness of the primitive Christians — that a tiling is different from itself. This appears in reference to the Eucharist, which Doctor Milner says, was made " a Sacrifice, as well as a Sacrament.'' A Sacrament to those who communicate in one kind, and a Sacrifice to the officiating priest, who in offering it receives both bread and wine. On this very principle Pope Pius v., in his instructions to parish priests, observes, that although the Eucharist is always a Sacrifice after consecration, yet that it does not continue one, as when it is brought to the sick, or kept in the pyx (dum in pyxide continetur), it is then only a Sacrament. More- over, he says, f** as a Sacrament it brings with
* See p. 97.
f " Ui Sacramentum est meriti causam aftert; ul
aulcm eacrificium est, noii merendi solum aaiisfacicndi fju0(juc cjjicaciatn continct." — Stcl. 78.
UNDER ONE KIM). 215
it the ground of merit; but as a Sacrifice it satisfies for sin." Reader, observe, that as the Sacramental merits are here distinguished from the SACRIFICIAL ones, they must necessarily be unconnected witli those of Christ!
This is a refined distinction, no doubt, and one, although beyond ordinary conception, for which Bellarmine assigns as a reason, *" that it is chiefly done for the integrity of the Sacri- fice, and not of the Sacrament." I the more readily adduce the Cardinal's words, because Doctor Milner leaves us in the dark as to the grounds of the distinction being evidently aware that any attempt at explanation would but involve the subject in greater obscurity. The learned Usher, after incontestably proving that the Sacrifice of the primitive Christians was every way unlike that in the Church of Rome; and that in their use of the Sacrament, they received both the bread and wine, concludes with saying, that they knew no difference be- tween the Sacrifice and the Sacrament: f" for, that they were not so acute as to discern between the things that belonged unto the integrity of the Sacrifice and of the Sacrament, because, in very trutli, they took the one to he the other.''
* " Id fit potissimum ob Sacrificii, non ob Sacramenti inlegri- tutem." — De Sacram. Euch. lib. iv. c. 22, in fine.
f Abp. Uuber's Discourse on the Religion anciently pro- fessed by the Irish. — c. iv. p. 36.
-1^ COMMUNION
Im'ohi this fanciful distinction, Doctor Milner proceeds to say, * " that the command of Clirist, on which our opponents hiy so much stress, drink ye all of this, regards the Apostles •ds priests, and not the laity as communicants." Bossuet's language is the same, as is that of Boileau ; we may therefore take it to express the sentiments of the Popish Church in general. The latter remarks, f" that the words of the command respect no man whatsoever, but the twelve Apostles." Now, according to this, the Apostles, and the Apostles only, without refe- rence to succession in the ministry, were en- joined to drink the cup ; an inference, which is every whit as defensible, as that the Apostles only drank it in the capacity of priests. But this difficulty is got over by their considering the Apostles in a twofold light : one, as repre- senting all Christian priests by their participa- tion of the cup; and the other, as representing all the laity, by their participation of the bread. So then, according to the reasoning of the Popish Doctors themselves; the Apostles, who sat down with Christ to celebrate his last sup- per as laymen, and who, as laymen, partook of the bread, were instantaneously impressed with
* Letter xxxix. p. 63.
t "Jgilur haec verba, bibite ex hoc ouines, neminem praeter cluodtcim Apostolos spectant aut attinerit."— Boileau. De Praicep. Divin. p. 188.
UNDER ONE KIND. 217
the indelible character of the priesthood, by virtue of the words, hoc facite, which were spoken to them after he had given them the bread. Hence, also, it inevitably follows, that Christ appointed at his last supper, not one alone, but two of their Sacraments, that of Orders, as well as the Eucharist. But, unfortu- nately for them, this new character would in this case be too hastily acquired ; for, as yet, they were not constituted pastors of his Church, as Christ had not, until after his resurrection, *" breathed on them," nor imparted to them the Holy Spirit. Besides, there was the ab- sence of every form peculiar to an occasion of the kind ; for neither word nor action purported any thing like ordination. The injunction " DO THIS," also followed without interruption, the words, take, eat, this is my body. So that, whether Christ gave the bread to each of them separately, or whether they took it as it lay on the table, the expression do this must have been uttered he/ore they received it. Wherefore, it is as natural to suppose that the Apostles eat the bread as priests, as that they drank the wine; as such ; a supposition that will go to take away tlie bread, and, by conse- quence, the entire Sacrament from the people, and thus make it, as some of tin; Jewish Sacri-
• John, xx. 22.
'218 (OMiVlUMON
fices were, peculiar to the priests. On the whole, therefore, the matter is reduced to this alternative; if the effect and virtue of the Sacra- ' nient depend on Christ's institution, then both bread and wine are essentially necessary: but, if the effect and virtue may be had without adhering to the institution, then neither is so. The Sacrifice of the Mass, ideal manducation, or some other substitute, need only be provided, and both the symbols, as much as one, may be dispensed with.
Again : not one of the fathers, who have written on the Sacrament, ever entertained such a notion, as that the Apostles were made Priests by the words * hoc facite ; or, that they received the cup only as such. Even some Popish writers are unwilling to adopt this sophistical evasion, such as Suarez and Alfonsus a Castro ; while t Estius admits, that hoc facite refers to the common people eating and drinking this Sacrament. In making this
* The observance of the command is imperative on all Christians, unless we say with some Socinians, that the Sacra- ment was a mere temporary rite, which exclusively belonged to the Apostles; but which was neither to continue in the Church, nor be observed in all future ages. — See DiscounsEs on Atonement passim, and Presehv. against Pop., Tit. vii. p. 106.
t " Et Paulus, 1 Cor. xi. illud facere etiam ad plebem re- fert edentem et bibentem de hoc Sacramento, quando ait, hoc facite quotiescunque." — See Pol. Synops. in loc.
rXDliU ONE KIND. 21 J>
admission, he judged wisely, being aware of the difficulty, which would arise, whenever the use of the cup was allowed, should he, like Doctor Milner, have asserted, that Christ's cominaQd regarded the Apostles as Priests, and not the laity as communicants. For, on this principle, those very instances of special favour, which the Doctor speaks of, as being shewn to the Hussites, the Eniperor Ferdinand, the Kings of France, and the monastic order of Cluni, by the Church of Rome, in conceding to them the use of the cup, are but so many condemning proofs of the inconsistency of that Church.
But further; if, as Doctor Milner says, the command regards the Apostles as Priests, why is there so glaring a contradiction between the Popish practice and its profession, as that the Minister cimjiciens, the Priest who consecrates, let ever so many Priests be present, is the only one, who receives the cup? If the Apostles received the cup as Priests, and that they re- presented the Christian priesthood in ctlernum ; why slu)uld not all the attendant Priests enjoy the privilege as well as the consecrator? lint, if he be the only one to partake of the cup, for no other Priest would dare incur the * anathema;
* " Si quis (lixerit, saDclam Mcclosiam Catliolicam von ju.Uit c«U9is et ralioiiilMiK adductam fiiiHSC, ut lairos aUnie etiani riciirns non rovlirienlfs. siih pnms tfintwnmorlo specie conimu-
220 COMMUNION
then, by this rule, the Apostles should not have received it at the Institution, as they did not consecrate ! On that occasion, Christ was the 31inister conficiens, and accordingly, He only^ and not the Apostles, should have received it.
Again, as it is most probable, that Christ Himself received neither the bread nor the wine, the Tridentine Synod, should, agreeably to their principle, have laid it down, that the Minister coiificiens was not to receive at all, but to consecrate, and to give to the other Priests who were present ! But moreover, if the Apostles were made Priests by the words * hoc facile, then they were made Priests twice at that time ; since our Saviour uttered those words, not only after he gave the bread, but likewise after he administered the wine ; and had thus not only imparted to them a double con- secration, but a two-fold impression of the sa- cerdotal character ! Thus we see what a string of absurd, contradictory, and inconsistent con- clusions we arrive at, in arguing from Doctor Milner's assumption to the basis of it — the fore- mentioned decree of the Council of Trent.
I should not omit to state, that Doctor Mil-
nicaret, aut in eo errasse ; Anathema sit." — Trid. Concil. Sess. xxi. Can. 2.
* Facae has been made to sij^nify, to sacrifice, — See Pre- sERV. against Popery, Tit. vii. p, 109.
UNDER ONE KIND. 221
ner introduces Barclay, the acute Apologist of the Quakers, as observing how inconclusively Protestants argue from the words of the Insti- tution. This animadversion is of course ren- dered available to the Popish cause. Nothing indeed, was more natural, than that Barclay, as the defender of Mysticism, should find fault both with the time and manner of eating the sacramental bread, and therefore, that he should, in the spirit of cavil, apply the words do this, not merely to the taking and eating the bread ; but likewise to the blessing and breaking it at supper. But, if his argument have any force, it is applicable to every denonn'nation of Chris- tians, * " who" as he says, " have not yet obeyed this precept, nor fulfilled this Institu- tion." Barclay, after noticing the differences between the Lutherans, wlio used the unlea- vened, and the Calvinists, who used the lea- vened bread ; then says, i " ^''^^ by these un- certainties, the Protestants, (observe, he means particularly the Lutherans and Calvinists, with whom Doctor Milner as usual confounds the members of the Church of England) open a door to the Papists for their excluding the people from th«^ cup, and that they are no more justified in dispensing with the manner a\u\ time
* Barclay's A [)olo^y for lljc Quakers, Prop. xiii. Srrl. 7. p 470. t Ibid.
'22'2 COMMUNION
in which Christ performed the sacramental act, t/tau the Papists are to dispense ivith the other.' He tiien asks, as Doctor Mihier states, how Protestants ascertain from tiie words uo this, the respective part which botii Clergy and Laity are required to take on the occasion? But, for the avoidance of this uncertainty, he recom- mends tiiem * " no longer to cling supersti- tioiisly to this ceremony, but to lat/ it aside, as thev have done others of a like nature." These last words distinctly shew the object which Barclay had in view. They are such as are natural for a writer of his class to use, who at- tached every importance to the inward ope- rations of the spirit, and none to the outward signs of the Sacraments. But for Doctor Mil- ner to quote them as authority against the faith and practice of the Church of England, respect- ing the Eucharist, is passing strange ; inasmuch as Barclay's arguments come with redoubled force against the Church of Rome : witness what he says about Protestants opening a door to the Papists for excluding the people from the cup, &c. &c.
Doctor Milner again produces the fathers to prove that t " f^'O'" the Apostolic age, the Church regarded half-communion as a mere
' Ibid.
! Letter xxxix. p. 66. See also his Inquiry, p. 147.
UNDEU ONE KIND. 223
matter of variable discipline." Tertullian, who stands foremost on his list, does certainly state, that the primitive Christians, after they had partaken of the holy Sacrament, carried some home and preserved it for private communion ; but this they did, for reasons and under cir- cumstances very different from those assigned by Doctor Milner. The storm of persecution, which consigned thousands of the unoffending Christians to torture and to death, during the reigns of Nero and Domitian, continued to rage with unabated fury in the second century also, under Adrian and Marcus Aurelius. * Mos- heim informs us of the sanguinary laws, which were enforced against them, and | Gibbon him- self, who never loses an opportunity of sneer- ing at the popular superslition, proclaims their hardsliips; for that none except themselves expe- rienced the injustice of Marcus. In those pe- riods, therefore, of which Tertullian is the his- torian, and in the reign of this Emperor, of whom lie was a contemporary, the Clirislians seldom met for the purpose of devotion, and then onl> l>y night ; — \vitn<;ss their antelucan as- semblies, of which X l^li'iy tlitj younger speaks.
* FxcL. Hist. vol. i. p. 157. et stq.
t " Marcus" says Giblion, " despised the Christians as a philosopher, and puni.ihed them a<; a SovcrciLjri." — Drcune
AND FaI.C, vol. li. |). 146.
5 L.F1ST. ad Tiaj.
•224 coMMUNroN
Can it then be wondered at, that they should cherish and preserve what was so precious to them, and which sustained them under their afflictions?
Let it then be conceded to Doctor Mihier, that the Sacrament was taken home, and that those who partook of it in a secret manner enjoyed a perfect Communion of the Body and Blood of Christ ; still, what advantage would he derive from the concession, unless he could prove, that after the faithful had communicated in both kinds publicly, they had carried home and re- served only one species for private Communion. * Bossuet, where he treats of this very subject, admits, that the faithful were allowed to take away the Blood also, if they required it ; but that they were not anxious for the wine, as it could not be preserved for any length of time without change. This may be Doctor Milner's opinion too; but experience proves how erro- neous it is, as the bread suffers from length of time sooner than the wine. The fact is, they took home not one, but both species ; and this appears on the evidence of Tertullian himself. Bossuet grants this also, 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
* De Commun. p. 112. t Ibid p. 113.
UNDER ONE KIND. 225
the primitive Christians preserved the blessed Sacrament, as Doctor Mihier insists, under the form of Bread only for private Communion. But, to come to the point respecting TertuUian's testimony. This father, speaking of the resur- rection, says, * " our flesh is fed with the Body and Blood of Christ." And in his Address to his wife, to which Doctor Mihier particularly alludes, he urges her, in two separate places, t to take the cup, with earnestness of soul ; which proves, that the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper was received, in his time, under both kinds.
St. Cyprian and St. Dennis of Alexandria come next in succession ; but their evidence is of the same general nature and tendency as that of Tertullian. The J former pleads forgiving the Communion to the lapsed, in order to pre- pare them for further trials ; while the latter barely relates, that Serapion, who had sacrificed to idols, prayed for the comfort of the Eucha- rist, as a token of reconciliation to the Church, when he found his end approaching; and that the priest sent him by tin- yonnj; man, who
* " Caro corpore ct samfuine Cliri>ti vfscilur." t " De cujus maim dcsidcrabil } dc ci'Jus poculo partici- pahit ?" And again — " Dc cibo, dr poculn invadere, doidcrarc, in ineuto habere." — .\d Uxoh. I,iI). li. c. iv ct vi. : Sec |.. 160.
Q
t>J(] COMMUNION
delivered the message, * " a small portion (0fax") of the Eucharist, enjoining him to moisten it, and so to pour it into the old man's mouth." But it is not to be inferred, because of the small- ness of the quantity, that the bread only was sent. For it-x*g«ria implies the sacramental food (j^otpn) under both kinds, according to t Jus- tin Martyr; while J St. Jerome tells ofthe^Body of our Lord being carried in a basket, and the Blood in a glass vessel, to relieve the poor." So that we must conclude, that a small portion of both the bread and wine was sent, and that the injunction to moisten it (|| «7roC§E|a») before he put it into the mouth of the dying Serapion, related to his dipping the bread in the wine; a practice under the title of Intinction, well known in the early ages of the Church.
Descending the stream of time, I next accom-
* ^S^X" "^^^ £yp^agtr»«? iTTtSuxiv t« ircn^ot^nj, AnOBPESAl v.i\tvax<;, xai tw -Tr^u^vrrt nurx ra r^i^uToi Eni2TASAI. — Lib. vi. c. 44. apud Ertseh.
\ Kat yi r^o(p*i avrv v.a.>.nTon irotf iii*i* tvy^ups-ix. — JusT. Mart. Apol. i. p. 95.
I "Qui Corpus Domini canistro vimineo, Sanguincm portat in vitro." — Epist. ad Rustic. Monacli.
II Bishop Andrews, in his Answer to Bellarmine, p. 192, contends, "that the bread was not separately brought to Sera- pion ; because the bread could not be said to he poured, cer- tainly not to be moistened without something liquid. The Eu- charist was, therefore, either mixed there, or reduced to a liquid state."
UNDER ONE KIND. 227
pany Doctor Mihier to the fourth century, when SS. Basil and Chrysostom flourished. Tlie former says in the very epistle cited by the Doctor, *" that it is good and profitable to partake every day of the blessed Body and Blood oi Christ." And where he treats of the peculiar virtues of Christians, he asks, t" what is proper to those, that eat the bread and drink the cup of Christ?" As for the latter, he draws no distinction between the priest and the laity ; when we come to J" partake of the divine mys- teries, for we are all admitted to them alike." And again, it was not lawful under the old dis- pensation, for the people to ])artake of the same things with the priest, but not so now, §'* for to ALL one body is offered, to all one cup." Now is it possible to find language more adverse to Doctor Milner's cause; or which expresses in more direct terms the usage of the Church in their days, respecting the Eucharist ? I should add, that Justin Martyr also says expressly, that the deacons took the wine, as well as the
* MiTaXa/x.Cani» tm iyi« a»/**Tot xm« ctif*.a,Toi X^»r«. — Epist. ad Cicsar.
•f T» iJtor Tuf itr^ntTu* apron xai vtntiDTUt 'I'O IIOTHFION tm 0IH. — Ibiu. Moral.
I 'O/A0t«{ yap riANTES «^itff*i6« ruf uvruir. — Tom. X. p. ."ifiO.
\ AXXa riAXIN in aufxa wpxiiTa*. k«» to •» 7ro1>)pto/. — IruD. Iloin. xxiii. in 1 Cor.
o 2
228 COMMUNION
bread to tliose *wlio were absent, after they had distributed both elements to each person pre- sent.
As a further proof, that there was only com- munion in one kind in the primitive Church ; Doctor Milner says, t" that the blessed Sacra- ment was administered to mere infants, by a drop out of the Chalice," and appeals to Cyprian s authority in confirmation of this prac- tice. The story told by that father relates to an infant, who after having taken bread and wine in a Pagan temple, was afterwards brought to a Christian assembly, where the priest forced a little of the wine into its mouth, when dis- tributing the cup ; a circumstance, which, if it prove any thing, proves too much : — namely, that as no mention is made of the bread, all present must necessarily have only received the cup !
The hacknied passages from the ordinances of Leo and Gelasius, in support of half com- munion, are :j:reproduced by Doctor Milner as
* AtJoacrm txaj-w Tfv "jrufovruv /AfTaXatim otvo t» •vpgapjriOf- T«; afTd xat omv xai v5aT0?> xcti toij Ot riAPOTSIN a'jr»(ptfttff\f. — Apol. 2.
t Letter xxxix. p. 67.
t Harding the Jesuit, Bossuet, and last of all, Mr. Fletcher, urged the same authorities for half-communion ; but they were met and successively refuted by Bishop Jewell, Mr. Payne, and the present Bishop of Durham.
UNDER ONE KIND. -229
though they had never before been so much as challenged. " On the same principle," says he, " that the Manichaean heretics at Rome objected to the sacramental cup, Pope Leo ordered them to be excluded the communion entirely." There is no doubt, that such an order was made; but no evidence is afforded by the document spoken of to prove, that it was the practice of the Church in Leo's time to distribute the bread only, or that the practice was to be varied on that occasion by the addi- tion of the cup. The contrary appears to have been the case, and that it was the settled cus- tom 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 ; nor would he have been entirely silent on the subject, had it been an abolished or a suspended usage, which was, in this instance, restored for the purpose of expos- ing the heretics. He presses on the notice of his congregation the objections of those persons, *" that so they might by this evidence be dis- covered, and their sacrih-gious dissiiiiuhition be detected." In a word, if the dishibufion of the cup were not an »stal»Iishcd ordiniinc** of
* Srrtn. iv. ih- UiKidrn'^. p. .18.
230 COMMUNION
the Cliurcl), vvliy should lie call the violation of it sacrilegious ?
Doctor Milner next assumes, that the Chris- tians of the fifth century were in the habit of communicating only in one kind, when he as- serts, that " Pope Gelasius required all his flock to receive under both kinds." But that this too is a gratuitous assumption, will appear by considering the words of the decree and the motive, which existed for his making it. He merely follows up the example set him by Leo, in excommunicating those superstitious per- sons who partook of the bread, but who de- clined the cup. This practice he also deemed sacrilegious, which is the only motive assigned for so rigid an exercise of his authority. *' We find," says he, " that some persons receiving only the portion of the sacred Body abstain from the sacred Cup,* who should, without doubt, either take the Sacraments entirely, or be wholly kept from them ; because, the division of one and the same Sacrament cannot take place WITHOUT GREAT SACRILEGE." Here we see, that the sacrilegious suppression of part of the Sacrament was the cause, and the only cause
* "Qui aut Integra Sacramenta percipiant, aut ab integris arceantur, quia divisio unius ejusdemque mysterii sine grandi sacrilegio, non potest pervenire." — Gratian. Decret. pars iii. dist. 2.
UNDER ONE KIND. 231
for passing the decree. But it does not hence follow, as Doctor Mihier insinuates, tliat it was previously 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 at Rome. Cassauder thought, and his authority should have great weight with Doctor Milner, that the testimonies of Leo and Gelasius, instead of favouring, condemn this practice. In reply to a half-communionist, he says, '* that it is very evident, that, during their Pontificates, Com- munion in hoth kinds was usual in the Church ; otherwise, how could the Manichaeans be de- tected, unless the Cup of Christ's Blood hatl been offered to all in the Church?" He then concludes with observing *" ihat a new decree was not necessary for the Catholics, who reli- giously adhered to the established custom of re- ceiving (inlegra sacramcnta) the Sacrament in both kinds." Thus it appears, that Conmm- nion in one kind was not the usage of the primi- tive Church, whether it regarded domestic |)ur- poses, the sick, or injanls ; that it is not coun- tenanced by the decrees of Leo and Gelasius; and that the indulgence of a partial admini-
* "Nam Calliolicls nf»vo dccn to iioii opus crat, tjui riciplain intrpra sacramcnta pcrcipicndi consucliidiiipm rcligiow- ner- vabant." — De Commun. sub vitra(|ii( , p. I '26.
232 COMMLiMON
stratioii of the Sacrament, in times of persecu- tion and in cases of necessity, was no violation of the general rule.
From the fifth, Doctor Milner passes on, per saltum, to the usage of the twelfth century, when he says, * " that only the officiating Priest and infants received under the form of wine, which discipline was confirmed at the begin- ning of the fifteenth century, by the Council of Constance, on account of the profanations and other evils resulting from the general reception of it in that form." The reader has only to bear in mind, what I have proved to have been the practice of the Church, relative to the Eu- charist, to the time ofGelasius, and also to take into account the total want of evidence to the point, from that period to the twelfth century ; and he must conclude, that, before this latter period, there appears no authority to counte- nance \\\^Vo^\^ innovation. The first attempt at a change in the important ordinance of the Lord's Supper seems to have been made at that time, although Aquinas speaks of it in the thirteenth century, as being then only an in- cipient custom, t " I" 50>we churches," says he, " it is observed, that the Priest alone par- takes of the Blood, but the rest of the Body." In q^iihusdam, and in aliquibus Ecclesiis shew,
* Letter xxxix. p. 67. f Comment, in Johan. vi. 53,
1
UNDER ONE KIND. '233
that it was in his day very far from being a general observance in the Latin Churches.
The Council of Constance openly opposed its authority to that of the Divine Founder of the Institution. It set out vrith acknowledg- ing, * " that Christ instituted and administered this blessed Sacrament to His disciples in both
kinds of bread and wine and that in th
primitive Church the faithful received it in hot kinds ; yet a practice being reasonably in- troduced to avoid some dangers and scandals, they appoint the custom of consecrating in both kinds, and of giving to the laity only in one kind ; since Christ was truly and entire under each kind." 13ut this acknowledgment does not render tlie decree a whit the less reprehensible; and althoiij::h the Council alleged some pericula and scandala, those weighty reasons, f already spoken of, as the 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 considorrd. This was the feeling of Burnet on the subject, who ascribed this viohition to Transubstantiation, as to \\\v true cause from
• " Licet Chrislus post cccnam iiistilucnt hub utraijue specie panis ct vini hoc vcntraljilc sacramnilunj .... Kl in primi- tive F,cclesi4 (jusmodi Sacramcnlum rccipcrrlur a fidelibus %\ih utraijuc specie." — CoNciL. Constant. Scss. 12.
t See p. 202.
234 COMMUNION
which it emanated, and by which the belief is inculcated, that * " as Christ was in every crumb of bread, it was thought needless to give the Sacrament in both kinds."
As for the indulgence in the use of the cup, which, Doctor Milner says, was extended by the Popes to certain individuals in the six- teenth century, or to some of the regular or- ders of the Clergy, that goes for nothing, after the arbitrary proceeding of the Council of Con- stance ; as the power which could bring itself to suspend or to abolish an established custom, in opposition to the concurring testimony of every ecclesiastical writer from the Apostolic age to that of Thomas Aquinas, and to the ge- neral usage of the primitive church, no less than to the Scriptures themselves ; could feel little hesitation, about an occasional departure from its own decree.
Doctor Milner concludes his letter on this subject, with, what he calls, evidence, which, t " after all the Bishop of Durham's Anathe- mas against his. party, will demonstrate, either that the point at issue is a mere matter of dis- cipline, or that the three principal denomina- tions of Protestants are inconsistent with them- selves." His first reference is to Luther's Let-
* Hist, of the Reform, vol, ii. p. 42. t Letter xxxix. p. 6S,
UNDER ONE KIND. 235
ter to Carlostad ; his next to the decree of the French Cahinists ; and his third to the sepa- rate English Acts of Parliament, which, though they establish communion in both kinds, yet make exceptions "in cases of necessity''
To speak of the " Anathemas" of a Protes- tant Bishop, whose acknowledged moderation and forbearance accord with the unassumins: and tolerant spirit of that Church, of which he is an ornament, is truly ridiculous; but parti- cularly so, when such is used by the Doctor of a Church, which, with unmitigated severity, thunders fortli its execrations against, and con- signs to perdition, those, who deny its infalli- bility.
When Doctor Milner tells us, that Luther in his correspondence with Carlostad, reproached him with " having placed Christianity in things of no account,'' such as communicating under both kinds ; or, when he objects to us, that by a decree of the Calvinistic Synod of Poictiers, " the use of the wine was to be dispensed with :" he must be aware, that we neither profess the creed of Luther or Calvin. Had those Uefor- mers, actuated as they were by a feeling of op- position to the Church of IJoiih , and infected as they must have been by its errors, either dis- continued sno marte the receiving of both kinds, or admitted but of one ; it can only be said, that such is not the doctrine of our Qhurch at
236 COMMUNION
the present day : nor does it, in the remotest de- gree, countenance any departure from the ori- ginal institution. It is, however, but a justice due to the Reformed Churches, to state ; that they, but more particularly the Lutheran, to which Doctor Milner alludes, and which held the doctrine, that is so nearly allied to Tran- substantiation, have restored the cup to the laity.
Lastly. Doctor Milner should know, that when the doctrines of the Church of England are concerned, Acts of Parliament are simply declaratory, and require nothing more than a conformity to them. With respect to the Act of Edward the Sixth, of which he speaks, and in which an exception is made, when necessity re- quires ; he cannot but know, that it is inope- rative— a mere dead letter, although unrepealed. That Statute says, that " it being more agree- able to Christ's first institution, and the practice of the Church for 500 years after Christ, that the Sacrament should have been given in both kinds of bread and wine, rather than in one kind only : therefore, it was enacted, that it should be commonly given in both kinds, ex- cept necessity did otherwise require it.^^ From this last clause he argues, that the Church of England did not at first conceive the wine to be an essential part of the Sacrament; " for," says he, *' if it did, no necessity could ever
UNDER ONE KIND. 237
plead in bar of the Sacrament, and men might as well pretend to celebrate the Eucharist *ivith- out bread as without wine." Now in the Jirst place, had Doctor Milner, who refers expressly to Burnet's History of the Reformation as bear- ing him out in this argument, only carried his eye to the bottom of the page, he would see that the Act in question was one of great con- sequence, since it reformed two abuses whicli had crept into the Church : — f " the one was denying the cup to the laity ; and the other, the priests' communicating alone" And in the next place, had he only called to recollection, that Queen Mary, on her accession, repealed
* Doctor Milner says, " that he has heard of British made wine being frequently used by Church Ministers for reulwme, and of the Missionaries to Otaheite using the bread fruit for real bread." — Letter xxxix. p. 69. There is no doubt, but that tuch bread and wine should be substituted in the absence of real bread and wine. Those aliments nourish and sustain the body, when the others cannot be procured ; why, therefore, may they not be as eflicaciouily used, as those others, to con- vey the spiritual nourishment, which is imparted by the Sa- crament of the Lord's .Supper r Whether Christ broke lea- vened, or unleavened bread is not clearly ascertained; as little known is the particular sort of wine, which lie blessed. These are mere contingencies, and as well as the manner of receiving, are not essential to the Eucharist. Hut the parti- cipation of 6o</* bread and wine, is indispensable; because without them, wc cannot do what Christ did and comniandrd to be done.
^ Ilivt. fip iiir. RrroRM., vol. ii. part 2. |ip. 11. 12.
'238 COMMUNION UNDER ONE KIND.
this very Act, he would have concluded, that she did not consider it a sanction to the prac- tice of communion in one kind ; to uphold which her clergy strenuously lahoured at the time. But, besides, concurrent with this statute of Edward the Sixth, was the unanimous vote of the Convocation held in the first year of this young King's reign, that the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper should be received in both kinds by the laity as well as the Clergy. So that, al- though it may be sound Popish doctrine to con- sider the cup an unessential part of the sacra- ment, it certainly was abhorrent from the feel- ings, both of the framers of the Statute and of the Articles of our Church. And with respect to the exception, which the act makes in cases of necessity, such as sickness, or age, it may be said to be done away in 1562, the fourth of Elizabeth, by our thirtieth Article, inasmuch as it is entirely silent about half-communion many case whatever.
239
CHAPTER VIII.
THE SACRIFICE OF THE MASS, IMPIOUS.
Had the Doctrine of Transubstantiatioii, al- though abounding with contradictions and absurdities, terminated where it began, in the mind ; the Church of Christ would not have to lament those sins and abominations, which have been so fatal to its purity and innocence. But, as error in faith leads to error in practice, so the belief, that the bread and wine are by consecration converted into the real Body and Blood of Christ, produced as its natural re- sult,— idolatry and sacrilege : the former, by the adoration of the elements ; and the latter, by the denial of the cup to tlie laity. These prac- tices, sinful as they are, are obstinately de- fended in " THE End of Religious Contro- versy."
But, besides the iclohitry and sacrilege, lo which TraMsubstuntiatioii gav(! birth, may be added, the gross impidy wliich arose out of it, in the sacrifice of the Mass ; by which the sufficiency of our Saviour's Sacrifice (mcc of. fered is roundly denied. For according to it, tlu' (Jlinrrh of rjonic coiisi^lcis ihr Lord's
240 THE SACRIFlcr.
Supper, both as a memorial of Christ's death, and as a sacrifice actually offered up to God ; and that it is not only commemorative, but joro- pitiatofi/, both for the living and the dead ! The Eucharist is, no doubt, a sacrifice in a figwative sense, as when we call it a sacrifice of praise ; but no authority exists for calling it a sacrifice in the sense in which Christ is said to be one. It is also appropriately called a * " feast upon a sacrifice," at which we pro- fess our belief in the death of Christ, and renew our baptismal covenant with him. Because, if after having made our humble | sacrifice of prayer and praise, " we partake of the material feast;" we may, also, be understood "to partake of the spiritual benefits of the sacrifice." So that, although we neither admit a substantial change, nor the reality of the victim, our feast is not, as Doctor Milner represents it; " an imaginary banquet on an ideal viand." In conformity with this exposition, the Table of the Lord is an altar, on which is offered the type of the
* See Burnet, Article xxxi. p. 351, and the'BiSHOP of Win- chester's Elem. of Theol., vol ii. p. 511. Bishops Warbur- ton and Cleaver too call the participation of the Lord's Sup- per, " a feast upon a sacrifice." However, Cudworth seems to have been the first who distinctly treated of this subject, al- though the idea of it may be traced in the fathers.
t See Psalm li. 17, and cxli. 2. Also, the Communion SaKVicE.
OF THE MASS. 241
great Sacrifice of Christ Himself; while they who serve at it, discharging- the priestly offices of consecration and absolution, are properly called priests. Where, then, is the inconsist- ency, with which the Church of England is chargeable respecting this point ? " For, " * says he, " she has priests, but no sacrifice; altars, but no victim ; and an essential consecration of the sacramental elements without any the least effect upon them." No certainly : she has no supposititious carnal sacrifices, nor vic- tims, like those of the Church of Rome; be- cause she is too scriptural to maintain what is in its nature contradictory and impossible.
The Church of Rome esteems the | sacrifice of the Mass, as 1 have observed, to be expi- atory, an alonemeut for sin, and a means of re- conciling to God those for whom it is oU'ered ; whether on earth, or in purgatory. Rut the Scriptures do not warrant our calling it a sa- crifice; nor <lo the records of the primitive Church furnish us with any document for con- sidering it one. In fact, if the f;>tiirrs thou<;ht
* I.ETTF.n xl. j). 77.
t In Kinjj Kdwriril's First P.ook, 1319, this od'n'c is styliil the Supper of the I.ord, (I Cor. xi. 20.) nml ihc Ilnly Corn- munion, (1 Cor. x. 16.) commonly called the Mans. At the Re- view oftljis Book ill l.').5'2, these latter words were expunged ; althoiitrh it is [)lain, that when they were fir«l inserted, the term Mats was uudcrsl'.iod m lis primitive aeceptalioii.
K
242 THE SACRIFICE
it such, they wouhl liavo called it so ; and wheu the heathens ohjccted to them, that they ])08- sesscd a religion ivilkoul a sacrifice, they ne- ver called the Sacrament of the Lords Snpper the Sacrifice of the Eucharist.
Usher, in his Religion of the ancient Irish, remarks * " that the ])ublic liturgy or service of the Church was of old named Mass," even so early as the sixth century among that people ; and that it was in those days applied to the ad- ministration of the Lord's Supper. He refers toAdamnanus, a writer of the seventh century, who both called the evening prayer the f Vesper Mass of the Lord's day, and took " the sacred ministry of the Eucharist, and the solemnities of the Mass for the same thing." The learned Primate likewise quotes Gildas, as saying, J" that the Britons were contrary to the whole world, and enemies to the Roman customs, not otily in the Mass, but in the Tonsure."
^ Bingham assigns three different significa- tions to the word Missa, to shew that it was anciently a general name for every part of the
* Discoinst;, c. iv. p. 3i. Ed. 1&15.
t Vcsperlinalis Missa. — IniD.
X " Britones toti mtindo contrarii, moribus Romanis iriimici noil solum in Missd, sed etiam in lonsura." — Inin. Appendix, p. 142.
§ EccL. Antiq. vol. i. book xii. p. 556. See also Shepherd's Elucid. vol. ii. p. 149.
OF THE MASS. 5-i3
divine service. It sometimes sionified the Les- sons; sometimes, the Collects or Prayers; and sometimes, the dismission of the people ; in which third sense, he says, *' is the original notation of the word." It has been attempted by Ba- ronius and other Popish writers to derive Missa from the Hebrew ; but Bingham overthrows this conceit, by observing th^t no Greek writer before the tentli century, retained it in their language, as they do the words hosannn, sah- baoth, &c. and therefore, that it could not have been of Hebrew derivation. If we look to more ancient authority, we shall find Ambrose to be the earliest writer, who makes mention of the word Mass, in the emjihatical sense, when he says, * 3IissamJacereccpi. The 3Iissa Catechumcnorum, and the Missa Fidclium, also denote a \ariation in the sense dilli rent from thai, in wliich it is now understood in the Po- pish Church.
I therefore contend, that tiie doctrine, which relates to the sacrifice of the Mass, \\\\d lo which Doctor S ihier attaches so much im|)or- tance as to make it the subject of a separate Letter, is of modern growth, and was unknown to the early Christians; and that it is unscrip- tural,asa,)pearseven from his (»u ii oltseiire refe- rences to the O. 'J\, no less than from thiscircum-
* Epist. XX. ad Marcellin. p. BS.'i. r.<l Bnifd. R 2
244 THE SACRIFICE OF THE MASS.
stance, tlmt tlie * Council of Trent made no ap- peal to Scrij)ture for the purpose of establisliing this doctrine; but merely declared it to be ac- cording to Apostolic "^JVadition — -juxta Apos- tolorum Tradilionem. Suffice it, therefore, to say with our xxxist Article, that *' the Sacrifices of Masses, in the which it ivas commonly said, that the Priest did offer Christ for the quick and the dead, to have remission of pain or guilt, were blasphemous fables, and dangerous
DECEITS."
* The decree of the twenty-second Session is entitled, Doclvina de sacnficio MisscE, in which the Council urges the daily sacrifice of the Mass as an unbloody one, and as propi- tiatory for the sins of the living, as well as of the dead in pur- gatory ! To this decree our thirtt-fiust Article was wisely opposed.
245
CHAPTER IX.
ABSOLUTION FROM SIN.
As 1 have already so fully treated of the Popish doctrines of Absolution from sin, Indul- gences, Purgatory, Extreme Unction, the Invo- cation of Saints, and worship of Images, or, as Doctor Milner tenderly expresses it. Religious Memorials, in my Answer to Ward ; and as the sense of the Established Church on these points is so well and so generally known; I shall merely confine myself to a Refutation of the charges, direct or imjjlied, against our clergy, or our forumlaries, with wliicii he has in- terspersed the Letters devoted to the above sub- jects. And in the very outset, \ must disclaim all concern with the ribaldrous trash and ex- travagances of Martin l^ullur, on which Doctor Milner dwells with snrli apparent pleasure. He is not, what the Doctor wishes to make him, the Representative of tln^ C-hurch of l:^ng- land ; nor are tiny his doctrines, which it sanctions.
* He first arraigns Bishojt l*orteus for being
* Letter xli. p. S'.i.
24(j ABSOLUTION
" cliiefly bent on disproving" the necessity of sacramental confession, and in dejiriving the sacerdotal Absolntion of all efficacy whatso- ever;" and for saying, ** that Christ did not give his Apostles any real power to remit sins, but only a power of declaring who were trnly peni- tent, and of inflicting miraculous punishments on sinners ; as likewise of preaching the word of God." But, let a full and fair hearing be given the Bishop, and his arguments will be found to be incontrovertible. It is true, *he strenuously denies that our Saviour's words, whatsoever ye shall bind on earth, 6fc. imparted a discretionary power of pardoning, or refusing to par(ion, persons without distinction, whether right or wrong ; and maintained, that though they possessed great powers by virtue of those words, namely, " the power of discerning by the spirit,'' and of declaring, " who tvere peni- tent and pardoned, and who ivere not;'' and that likewise *' of inflicting miracidous punish- ments on wicked persons, which is binding their sins, and of removing such punishments, which is loosing their sins :" — powers, to which the Church of Rome can no more lay claim than ourselves ; yet, with all this, he contends,
* Confutation of the Errors of the Church of Rome, pp. 44, 45.
FROM SIN. -247
*' that the Apostles could not use the keys of the kingdom of Heaven further than it pleased the Searcher of Hearts to permit them."
In such strong and emphatic language does the learned Prelate expound the commission of the keys, ascribing to it, as our Church pro- perly does, neither more nor less authority than it really imparts ; while Doctor Milner classes him among those who consider that commission as nugatory and void. But, however unfairly he has represented him, by the suppression of part of his statement, he has performed a still more unmerciful operation on the author, whom he has produced against, what he calls, *" the Bishop's vague and arbitrary gloss, on the deci- sive passage, John, xx. 22, 23." His motive for not arguing the case himself is not a little remarkable; it is because the renowned Pro- testant Champion, Cliillingworth, renders any effort of his own unnecessary ; he having so successfully advocated the Roman Catholic doctrine. Yes! Cliiliiiigworlh, niiihiatrd and cut down, expresses the lan;;uage of l*opery, as Porteus is niadt* to use flial oT Dissmt. lUit it is in tliat way, and in that way oiiIn, llial he can be made to apprar favouraljlc to a connnu- nion, into which Ik- was b(.'trayr(l, no less by
• Letter xli. p. 81.
248 AHSOLUTION
Jesuitical artifice than juvenile indiscretion ; and from which he disengaged lunisolf, when a matured jud^iuent and more enhirgcd experi- ence enabled him to see his error.
In order to give an adequate idea of Doctor Milners expertness in the art of garbling, it is necessary to exemplify his skilful reduction of more than a folio page of matter to something about the size of half an octavo page, in the fol- lowing way. I should j)remise, that the sen- tences within the brackets are those of his selection; while the others are those which he has suppressed. The former should be read first, and then the entire statement, as it stands. But, for the purpose of more clearly compre- hending Chillingworth, we must take him a little higher up than the place, at which Doctor Milner begins; for instance, where he refers to * Archbishop Usher, as conveying his own ideas on the subject, f" ^^ '^ known to our adver- saries of Rome, that the thing we reject, is that new pick-lock of confession, obtruded upon mens consciences as a matter necessary to salvation, by the Canons of the Conventicle of Trent." Chillingworth having thus identified the Primate's sentiments with his own, respect-
* Aiip. UbHEu's Answer to the Jesuit ; Chap, of Confession. + Chillingworth's Religion of Protestants, Serm. vij. p. 63.
FROM SIN. 249
ing the neiv picklock, as he calls it, proceeds to ask : — " [Can any man be so unreasonable as to imagine, that when our Saviour] after his resurrection, having received, as himself saith, all power in heaven and earth, having led capti- vity captive, came then to bestow gifts upon men : when he, 1 say, [in so solemn a manner, having first breathed upon his disci[)les, thereby conveying and insinuating the Holy Ghost into their hearts, renewed unto them, or rather con- firmed that glorious comniission,] which before he had given to Peter, sustaining, as it were, the person of the whole Church, [whereby he delegated to them an authority of binding and loosing sins upon earth,] with a promise that the proceedings in the Court of Heaven should be directed and regulated by theirs on (;arth ; [can any man, I say, think so unworthily of our Saviour as to esteem these words of His for no better than compliment,] for nothing but court holy icuterT'
Chilling worth afterwards proceeds to say — " Yet so impudent ha\c f)iir adversaries oi Rome been in tlieir dealings with us, that they have dared to lay to onr charge, as if wv had SO mean a conceit of our Saviour's gift of the keys, taking advantage, indeed, from the un- wary expressions of some particidar divines, who, out of too forward a zeal against the Chnrch of Rome, have bended the statl' to<>
250 ABSOLUTION
much the contrary way ; and, instead of taking- away that intolerable burden of a sacramental, necessary, universal confession, have seemed to void and frustrate all use and exercise of the keys."
The reader, on casting his eye over this long extract, will at once perceive, that so far from Chillingworth contravening what Bishop Por- teus advances on the subject, as Doctor Mil- uer says, or from expressing himself differently from the Church of England ; that his argu- ments have the same tendency as those used by both. Let him observe; Chillingworth com- plains, that the Church of England is confound- ed with those, who, out of violent opposition to the Church of Rome, " have bended the staff too much the contrary way, and seemed to void and frustrate all use of the keys," by the en- tire rejection of Absolution ; instead of render- ing it available to the purposes for which it was designed : while the * Bishop recommends the acknowledgment of our errors, and a disclosure of the state of our souls to the ministers of God's word, for " that their opinion, their ad- vice, and prayers, may be extremely useful, sometimes necessary." Chillingworth condemns " the intolerable burden of a sacramental, neces- sary, universal confession ;" Porteus does the
* CONFUT. p. 46.
FROM SIN. 2^)1
same, when lie says, that Scripture no where makes Absolution " necessary,'' and that the chief text, which the Church of Rome pleads for this purpose, viz. * confess your faults ONE TO ANOTHER, " no morc obliges the people to confess their sins to the priest, than the priest to the people." And, lastly, Chillingworth up- holds the authority, which Christ deputed to his ministers to release from sins,?/y;ow an unfeign- ed repentance and contrition ; the Bishop says no more, when he remarks, " that it is not the priest's knowledge of a person's sins which can qualify him to grant Absolution, but knowing that he hath repented of them." To say, there- fore, that those two great divines entertained discordant opinions on the subject, is not to state the fact; as there is, on this point, the most perfect harmony between them.
Thus is Chillingworth represented and mis- represented. In the former case, he argues against sacramental confession; that is, against confession considered as an essential part of a Sacrament instituted by Christ, and liniits the exercise of tlu' minister's authority to thr vn- feigncd contrition of \\\v, penitent, and thus coincides with Bishop l*orteus ; in the latter case, Doctor Milner ujakes him argue for the wece55iVy of sacramental confession, and attrilmte
* .Fames, v. 16.
2>2 ABSOLUTION
to sacerdotal Absolution, all possible efficacy; and consequently, makes him disprove every argument advanced by the Bishop of an oppo- site bearing. In fact, so mutilated and dis- torted is Chillingworth, by suppression and curtailment, that were Doctor Milner to treat Bishops Magee and Tomline in a similar way, he might exhibit the one as a staunch Unitarian, and the other as a rank Calvinist.
But although I rescue Chillingworth's au- thority from the degradation to which Doctor Milner has so shamefully reduced it; yet 1 must in candour declare, notwithstanding the high estimation in which he is so generally and so deservedly held, that I do not regard him " our most renowned champion." He was first a Protestant; afterwards, at the age of nine- teen, conformed to Popery; and, lastly, became an Antipapist. As, therefore, his Protestantism was Protestantism in the abstract, he may be said to have been, in his latter days, what has been properly icYiuGd^t. generalizing Protestant, rather than a Protestant of the Established Church ; or even than what Doctor Milner so insidiously calls him.
It will not, I trust, be objected to me, that I have dwelt too long upon so plain a case, when it is considered, what extraordinary pains Doctor Milner has been at to misstate Chilling- worth's sentiments, and that without an en-
FROM SIN. 253
larged view of the subject, such deliberate per- version and misrepresentation as those of which he has been guilty, could not have been suffi- ciently exposed.
Supported, as he conceives himself to be, by the weiglit of Chill ingworth's nanie, Doctor Milner next appeals to Luther's * Catechism, and Cranmer's Order of the Holy Communion, for determining the point concerning sacerdotal Absolution, in his favour. With respect to Luther, I willingly concede to him all tiie benefit which can be derived, either from his primary Confession of Faith, or from his Apology for that Confession. Both those documents would have no weight, were he, even as Doctor Mil- ner calls him, the Patriarch of the Church of England ; as they were drawn up innucdiately after he had shaken off' the papal yoke, and be- fore he had entirely divested himself of his early prejudices. In what relates to Cranmer, I join issue at once with him on the subject.
He sets out with attempting to prove, that the Church of JMigland, in l^dward the Sixth's reign, hehl, that particular Absolution was ne- cessary \\\ Confession, and that, <ven in \\\c pre- sent day, its ministers maintain a doctrine in conformity with this tenet. For the former,
• The forgiveness of the priest is the forgivenesi of (Jod. — • This i» rank Fopcry.
*2o4 ABSOLUTION
* he refers (o the admonition in the Order of Communion, conij)osed by Cranmer, and pub- lished by King Edward ; and for the latter, to the Ruhrick, immediately before the Absolution, and to the Absolution itself, in our Office for the Visitation of the Sick. It will be seen, that he fails in both attempts. The passage, which he cites from the Order of Communion, is to tlie following effect: f " And if there be any of you whose conscience is troubled and grieved in any thing, lackyng comforte or coun- sayll, let him come to me, or to some other discrete and learned prieste, taught in the lawe of God, and confesse and open his sinne and
griefe secretly that of us he may
receyve comforte and ahsolucion,' &c. But the very sentence which immediately precedes this extract, and which Doctor Milner has prudently withheld, shews on what terms our distinguished Reformer considered absolution to be effica- cious. It is this : " For, (i. e. unless restitu- tion be made to your neighbour, &c. &c.) neyther the ahsolucion of the prieste can any thing avayle them, nor the receyving of this Holy Sacrament doth any thing but increase
♦ Letter xli. pp. 85 and 86.
t This is part of the on/y exhortation which was inserted in King Edward the Sixth's First Book, Whitchurch's Edi- tion, and is in a very different form from that in his Second Book, and in our present Book of Common Prayer.
FROM SIN. 2i))
their clnvuiation." On tliese very words taken in connexion with those cited by Doctor Milner, I rest mv defence of Crannier's Order of Com- munion, tliat it does not command confession ; nor pronounce absolution Hecessary ; but leaves every person to act as he pleases. In the pre- ceding part too, of the same exhortation, the minister admonishes those, who are conscious of any crime, to repent, to confess to Almighty God, &c. In short, although it be transposed and very much altered in our present Commu- nion Office, it is in substance the same, and consequently cannot be perverted to uphold a Popish doctrine.
The confessions which our Church enjoins are of a general nature, in which the priest unites with the congregation ; and although it recommends special confession, under certain limitations, as in times of sickness, and when exhorting to attend the Sacrament; yet it is dis- cretionary witli the person himself, whether he confess or not. In our Book of ('ommon Pray- er, what corresponds with that c\Ua\ by Doctor Milner, runs thus; *' if then; be any of you, who by this means cannot quir't his own con- science herein, but re(jiiir(tli further comfort or counsel, let him come t(» iim-, or fo some other discreet or learned ministrr of ( iod's word, and open his grief" Here is no connnand that private confession of sins shoiild be made ; as
256 ABSOLUTION
the exhortation refers only to cases where a person cannot quiet his ouu conscience, and ofl'ers relief to such only as are disj)osed to seek it.
How different this from that whole and ab- solute confession, extending even to mortal sins, which the Church of Rome requires to be made once, at least, every year (* saltern semel in anno), in private to the priest, and which con- stitutes so essential a part of its sacrament of penance. Not only must the members of that Church confess tiieir sins at stated intervals, but confess them without reserve; thus sub- njitting themselves to a species of religious slavery, to the endurance of which, the youthful mind is habitually trained, and to which, when it is advanced to maturity, it submits without a murmur. It is a duty, we know, imperative on us all to confess our sins to God ; but to be obliged to make an aimual confession to a priest, and to be told that the concealment of even a mortal sin from him is fa lie to the Holy Ghost, is the grossest insult that can be offered to the reason of man.
* CoNciL. Triden. Sess. xiv. ]). 136.
t Douay Catech. It is also asked in Butler's Catechism, p. 49 :— - S. — What do you think of those who conceal a mortal sia in confession ?
A. — They commit a most grievous sin, by telling a lie to the Holy Ghost.
FROM SIN. 257
Doctor Milner next passes on to onr Office for the Visitation of the sick, to which he refers, as being in conformity with the exhortation to the Sacrament on the subject of confession, and consequently as proving that the Churches of England and Rome ag7'ee in this particular. The expression on which he grounds his proof, is the very one on which all the Popish advocates exclusively rely, as implying a command, at least something more than a simple recommen- dation to the confession of sin. The following is the Rubric cited by him. " Here the sick person shall he moved to make a special confes- sion of his sins, if he feels his cojiscience troubled with any iveighly matter. After which confes- sion the priest shall ai)solve him, if he humbli/ and heartily desire it, after this sort
*I ABSOLVE THEE FROM ALL THY SINS, IN THE NAME OF THE FaTHER, &C. &C."
* This Absolution is often quoted, in order to shew the similarity of the Church of England to the Church of Rome ; but this is what has never yet been, indeed what never can be, made out. The Rev. Mr. Gandolphy lias had recourse to a like expedient in the Popish prayir-bo()k, which he eilitcd some years ago. So ingeniously arc the titles of ihe iliflcrf nt ofllccs drawn up, that the dincrrncc between it and our Rook of Common Prayer is not at first sight discoverable. Thus, in the ordinary of the Mass, he speaks of The Lord's Supper Inirether with the Holy Communion, &c. Now what will the reader think of this gentleman, who, when charged in the n. <■, Orthodox Journal of October, 1816, with abandoning the word Mas»,
'258 ABSOLUTION
Let it be observed, that the sick man is here moved to confess; but in the Rubric iimnedi- ately preceding, he is earnesLly moved to be Uberal to the poor. Now, if it cannot be said that he is commanded to dispose of his property as the minister directs ; it will be still less in- sisted on, tliat lie is commmidedto confess, where the expression is simply " moved," and, of course, less forcible than in the other case, where it is " earnestly moved." And further, the words, '* i/^he feels his conscience troubled," shew, that it is * optional with the sick man, whether he confess or not; as the words, " if he humbly and heartily desire it," shew, that he may, if he choose, dispense with the Absolu- tion. Every thing is discretionary on the part of the sick [>erson ; indeed so much so, that if he give no intimation on these points, and ask for no relief, the minister is neither directed to enforce confession, nor of himself to absolve him. Here then is the simple course to pursue. The minister is to intreat the patient to confess his sins, if his conscience be disquieted. If this
declares " his sole intention in joining another expression (viz. the Lord's Supper, &c.) was, to reconcile Protestants to the mystery ?" — Surely such a nnolive would do credit to Loyola himself.
* The Church of En<;land neither commands nor forbids private confession and absolution. " It recommends both, but does not enjoin citlier." — Shephekd, vol. ii. p. 486.
FROM SIN. 259
appeal be unnoticed, he passes over the remain-- ing directions in the Rubric. But should the patient indicate, that his conscience is troubled uith some weighty matter ; then the minister is to advise him to state the cause of his uneasi- ness, as the most certain M'ay of affording him- self relief. And, without some indication, how is his spiritual state to be known ? Even then the minister does not pronounce the Absolution ; nor, when desired to do so, would any well-in- formed Protestant clergyman consider himself as granting the positive form, such as, in the Church of Rome, affects to convey a phnarif remission of sin, and not the ministerial and declaratory one. It is, as our Morning Service expresses it, " tlie power and commandmeni given by God to liis ministers, to declare and pronounce to his people, being penitent, the ab- solution and remission of their sins." Lastly. — If any tiling can decide the sense of our (/hurcli on this head, that it neither considers the abso- lution used in our Visitation OHire, essentially necessary to salvation ; nor, that the priest's pronouncing it r;m of itself ( tiict the remission of sins, itis tliis ; tlial in llic collect which inune- diately follows thrit form, the minister imjilores (Jod " to oj)en his eye of mercy on this his ser- vant, who earnt'stly (h'sireth y>»a/Y/c;/t \i\u\Jori(irc- ncss, &c. ;"' which prayer would b<' grossly absurd, were the absolution employed plenary,
s 2
-1)0 ABSOLUTION
and, according to Doctor Milner, judicial: as it would be asking God to give the sick per- son what he had alreaxly obtained!
The * Council of Trent anathematizes those,' who say, that it is a ministerial and not 2i judi- cial did. Accordingly, the judicial absolution is the one in common use in the Church of Rome, and is given to persons in healthy as well as in sickness, after confession and the performance Of the prescribed penance. The form, however, used by it for those at the point of death is also judicial, but more "j" concise than the ordinary one.
On this point, therefore, a wider difference exists between the two Churches, than Doctor Milner seems to have thought of, when he assi- milated them. As in the one, Confession is voluntary; in the other, compulsory. h\ the one, it rarely happens; in the other, it is of perpetual recurrence. In the Church of Eng- land, no abuse can arise from it ; while, in the Church of Rome, it is capable of being con- verted into an engine of spiritual dominion, from the power possessed by the priest to mea-
* *• Si quia dixerit Absolutionem sacramentalem sacefdotiit, non esse actum judiciakm, sed«nudum ministerium pronunci- andi et declarandi remissa esse peccata confitenti j anathema ^iT." — Sess. xiv. Can. 9.
f *' Ego te ahsolvo ab omnibus censuris ttpeccatis in nomine Patris, Filii, et SS/'— Rituale Roman. Ed. 1625. p. 58.
FROM SIN. 261
feuie out to the oftender the (les:ree of his penance.
Should Doctor Mihier be now asked, to what cases does the Church of Rome limit the exercise of this species of absolution ; he must reply, that it is used on all occasions, whether emergent, or ordinary. The Council of Trent, he must add, has decreed, that the power of remitting sins is vested in the priest himself; and that he possesses, as it were, ex officio, a judi- cial power ; and therefore, that it is fitly exer- cised in every possible case, which may occur. But can any thing be more presumptuous and absurd, or more repugnant to Scripture and reason, than to claim such a power? As if the Almighty's will were to depend on the decision of a fallible creature, and his justice to be dis- pensed at the discretion of man ! It is certain, that after the effusion of the Spirit on the day of Pentecost, that a j)Ower of this kind was vested in the Apostles, and that they besides had * " the discerninir of spirits,'^ and couhl dis- cover fthe inmost thoughts of the heart. They could also judge with certainty, wlio were for- given, and who not. lint no such power cai) be claimed for their successors, who, uiiaidrd by inspiration, and liable to error, might by
•• I Cor. xii. 10. ^ Arts, ». JJ. 9. and viii. 1\. iJ.
'i(i2 ABSOLUTION
possibility remit, or retain sins, contrary to what it pleased God to do.
I have only one word to add on the * .shorter form of absolution. It was unknown in the Church for the first twelve centuries; therefore, the compilers of our Liturgy prudently prefixed some words of prayer, or, as it is called, the ^precatory form, and thus combined the two forms into one, as it stands in our Office for the visitation of the sick. The words, te ah omni- bus censuris ahsolvo, exemplify the act oi judi- cial power in the relaxation of ecclesiastical censures; but it is impious to say, that the priest can exercise a judicial power in the re- mission of sin, as it is, in effect, clothing him with an J attribute of the Deity.
* See note (f), p. 260.
f Shepherd specifies a variety of absolutions in the Romish Church, all running in \.he precatory form. — Vol. ii. p. 480.
There are three forms of absolution in our service, which are thus admirably illustrated in Bishop Mant's Book of Com- mon Prayer: " 1. When a person says, by virtue of a com- mission granted to me under the Prince's hand and seal, I release this prisoner. 2. The prince, who hath given me this commission, he pardons you. 3. Prince ! Pardon and deliver you ; — the Prince then standing by and confirming the word of his servant. All these are but several expressions of the $ame thing."
J In a book published by Keating and Co. entitled, Missce piopricc ordinis Francisci, &c., the importance of those pie-
FROJI SIN. 203
Following up the attack on our Visitation Office, Doctor Milner refers to the 113lh Ca- non of the Church of England, which, he says, *" encourages tlie secret confession of sins, and requires her ministers not to reveal the same." But where is the inconsistency in t4iis? By the ]09th Canon, the Churchwardens or Quest-men are required " faithfully to present all often ders to their Ordinaries;" but when they forbear to discharge this duty through negligence, the Parson, Vicar, or Curate is required, by the 113th Canon, to supply the defect. Now, as confession to a minister is alloivedy though not commanded, by the exhortation to attendance at the Lords table, ^'H>beJ'ore observed ; it would be absurd, indeed, were no difl'erence to be placed between those, who accepted this invita- tion of their own accord, and whose sins were only known to themselves ; and those, whose " scandals" were notorious. The provision in the 113th Canon, relating to Alinislers, who present notorious offenders to the (K^clesiastical
nary indulgences in urticulo mortis, and of the alisolulion to which tlicy lead, is fully set forth. The plenary indiil;rrnce granted to the memhers and retainers of llu fortgoinj; order
at the point of death, is thus expresned Kt rcidluo te
illi statui innoccnticc in (juo eras, (juanilo hnptizalits fuisti ; in nomine Palris, &c. &r. ! In bober sadness, 1 a>k Doctor Mihur, is there nothing blasphemou!* in this arrogant aosumplion of divine power ?
* Letter xli. p. 86. ,
264 ABSOLUTION FROM SIN.
courts, is to this intent : — ** Provided always, that if any man confess his secret and hidden sins to the minister, for the unburdening of his conscience, and to receive spiritual consolation and ease of mind from him ; we do not any way bind tlie said minister by this, our constitution, but do straightly charge and admonish him, that he do not at any time reveal and make known to any person whatsoever any crime or offence so committed to his trust and secrecy," &c. This Canon is, as I have already said, in exact accordance with the second exhortation in the communion service, and demands no other defence than that given in the wise pro- vision just recited, which forbids what would constitute the basest treachery — that of reveal- ing secrets, which are disclosed as a relief to a troubled conscience.
Thus it appears, that our Church is, in her every act, consistent; while no grounds whatever exist for instituting a parallel between it and the Church of Rome on the subject of Abso- lution,
2G.5
CHAPTER X.
INDULGENCES.
Bishop Porteus having, in his Confutation of the Errors of Popery, treated of Purgatory, before he entered on the subject of Indulgences, Doctor Miiner speaks of his " reversing the pro- per order," and affects to pity him, on account of " the confusion of his ideas, and his very im- perfect knowledge," concerning both subjects ! This, no doubt, is extremely tender in the Doc- tor. But it so happens, that the Bishop has been most judicious in proceeding in tiie ordey he has done ; because, by having proved the place of a temporary punishment to be a creature of the imagination, repugnant to Scripture and to every dictate of reason and connnon sense, he thereby weakened one of the strongest argu- ments in favour of Indulgences. For, as the Komish Doctors do not pretend to release the suffering spirit from a more rigid bondage than that of Purgatory, the proof of its non-existence would determine, tliat Indulgences were oidy applicable to this present life, and would ron- sequenlly diminish, if not destroy, both their
•i(»0 INDULGENCES.
power and profit. Snob aj)pears to me to Iiave been the Bishop's motive, and a most sensible one it unquestionably was, for reversing", what Doctor Mihier calls, the proper order. But I am not left to unsupported conjecture on the point, as Bishop Jewell, that good old father of our Church, establishes the justness of my ob- servation, and puts to silence every cavil on the subject. In fact, it is more than probable that Bishop Porteus had his reasoning in view, when he adopted the course he pursued. Thus Jewell, after observing, that it is not quite clear by whom Indulgences were first granted, goes on to say, *" that among the ancients there is no mention, or certainly very little, of purgatory. But as long as there was no care about purga- tory, no man sought after Indulgences ; for the whole credit of Indulgences depends upon pur- gatory. Take aivay purgatory, and what need is there of Indidgences ? Indulgences began when men came to tremble at the torments of purgatory."
In the primitive ages of the Church, long and severe penances were imposed upon those, who had been guilty of public or private sins; but were afterwards mitigated when the offenders appeared to deserve it by their contrition and repentance. This relaxation of ecclesiastical
* Bishop Jewell's Defence of his Apology, p. 486.
INDULGENCES. 267
discipline was called an Indulgence, and when wisely exercised was, no doubt, promotive of religion and piety. But the Popish Indul- gence is of a different description. It supposes a treasure in the Church, consisting of the in- finite merits of our blessed Redeemer, and of *" the ovetylus of the goodness of the Saints made transferable by the ministry of the Pope, for the purpose of remitting the sins of those, who, while on earth, perform certain prescribed acts ; or whose friends will perform them after their death." The dispensation of this treasure was arrogated by the Roman Pontifl's, in the eleventh century, who thus perverted into an instrument of their ambition and avarice, that power which the Church had at first discreetly exercised for the maintenance of its discipline. During thenextfour centuries, the clergy abused it l>y licentiousness and tyranny; and instead of allowing the voluntary and open confession, which formerly prepared the work of reconcilia- tion to the Church, they became incjuisitors, interrogating the ofl'ender, and compelling him to account for his thoughts, words, aiul actions. lint, in tJMj beginning of the sixteenth century, the misrule of the Church had arrived at the highest pitch of infamy and llagitiousness, as
* Confutation of Popish Errors, p. 53.
2(38 INDULGENCES.
the commission giftiited to * Tetzel most fully demonstrates. This audacious monk publicly proclaimed that the Indulgences, with the sale of which Leo X. exclusively entrusted him, iu)parted to the purchaser the remission of all sins, past, present, and to come; and even went so far in his impiety as to derogate from the all- suflScient merits of Christ, and to extend the remission of divine punishments inflicted on offenders, to a future state. It was at that period, as in his own appointed time, that God put a stop to all these enormities. It was at that period, that our Patriarch Luther, as Doctor Milner sneeringly calls him, single- handed opposed the ambition and despotism of the lordly Pontiffs, and who ultimately suc- ceeded in humbling their grandeur, and in eclipsing their glory. And lastly, it is to that period, that the Roman Catholics of this Em- pire should in justice and gratitude ascribe their comparatively happy state to what those enjoy, who live in countries purely Popish. Of Luther it is not necessary for me to say much. A genius great and unparalleled ; a memory vast
• In describing the efficacy of these Indulgences, Tetzel used to boast, " that he had saved more souls from hell by their means than St. Peter had converted to Christianiti/ by his preach- ing."— MosH. EccL. Hut. vol. iv. p. 30 — 33.
INDULGENCES. 2G1>
and tenacious ; an incredible patience in the endurance of labour; a mind not easily subdued, and extensive learning; seem to have marked him out as one of those great characters, whom Providence in its wisdom employs at distant intervals, to effect some great purpose or other. But, whatever his defects and weaknesses may have been, (although I consider him worth ten thousand of such persons as those, who revile his memory;) the glorious cause of the Reformation is in no manner affected thereby, but stands on the ground of its own intrinsic merits.
Since the era of the Reformation, reserved as the Romish Church has been about the sale of * Indulgences, instances are not wanting where perfect strangers have obtained them from the Holy See. A remarkable one is related by Jiishop Porteus of a plenary Indulgence having been purchased at Rome, in the year 1745. But, because he does not tell, who granted it, Doctor Milner insinuates a doubt of its exist- ence. But surely the Bisliop's asseveration, that it not only existed,, but that it was in hia actual possession at the time he wrote, sufficiently authenticates the fact. It was drawn up, his Lordship says, not merely in favour of the person
* When the Council of Trent (Sew. xxv.) passed the decree about Indulj^ciices, no reference whatever waB made to Scrip- ture to support it. The power of the Church, divinely handed do-wn to it, {divinilui sibi traditaj wa» ita lo/c baaia.
•270 INDULGENCES.
to wlioin it was given, but also * " of his kin- dred to the third degree, and to thirty persons more, for whose name a proper blank is left in the instrument." When it is considered what a door is here thrown open to sin, can Doctor Milner deny, that fMrs. Hannah More, when she describes Roman Catholics as " procuring indemnity for future gratifications, by tempo- rary abstractions, and Indulgences purchased at the Court of Rome," is not fully justified in saying so? Will he, after this, deny, that Indul- gences have only a reference to canonical pe- nance, and only absolve from the censures of the Church ? But should he attempt to do so, let him account for a plenary J Indulgence, which the present Pope granted to the faithful of both sexes, in a certain district in England, in the year 1808, who should utter a short form of prayer therein contained. The Indulgence I speak of was, after certain repetitions of that
* CoNFUT. of Popery, p. 55. In an admirable little work published in Glasgow, and now reprinting in Cork, there is a concise yet circumstantial account of an Indulgence granted as a special mark of favour, to persons of the name of Rose, at Kilravack in Scotland. It contains a remission of all their sins, to all the branches of that family, from the time of granting it, to a period, of which there still remain sixty years unex- pired ! — See The Protestant, pp. 7 and 26.
t Strictures on Female Education, vol. ii. p. 248.
X See the Laity's Directory, for 1821, published by Keat- ing, London.
INDULGENCES. "271
prayer, extended to the living and the dead, and also to the hour of dissolution. Here also, let Doctor Milner honestly say, what means a ple- nary Indulgence in articulo mortis ; and how the remission of canonical penance is eftected by it; or, how canonical penance is applicable to the dead, so as to be removeable only by the intercession of friends.
But, to come lower down, let Doctor Milner explain the nature of the Indulgence, which the See of Rome granted to the late Doctor Moylan, titular Bishop of Cork, on the com- pletion of his Cathedral Chapel in that city. And let l»ini deny, if he can, that the solemn plenary '^Indulgence in question only absolved from ecclesiastical censure.
In the document to which I allude, a great deal is said about penance, and but little of re- pentance. But the principal stress is laid on the Indulgence, which, through the act of the church, procures the forgiveness of sin. It is l>y the Indulgence, and the indulgence alone, the man is saved. Let us now see what entitles the pe- nitent to obtiiin the benefit of this act of Grac4». *' A. i(ood Coiifeasion, assistini^ lU least ei^hl limes at lite iiislrHclious, unci pious exercises of the holif mission; a visit lo the Cuthedral; vwv.
* llie Bum. was dated May, WM), hut was not acted on l>y Doctor Movlan untd Novcmbrr, iSl.l.
27'i INDULGENCES.
PATERS, hhVE AVES, AND A CREED," wiU fulfil flie
obligation ! ! If this be not indulgent, and an CJisy way of blotting out sin, it is difficult to say what is. The treatment of the devotee resem- bles that of a sick man, who first acknowledges his disease, and after his recovery, must attri- bute his cure to the nostrum he had taken. What can the observance of those things amount to, if not to superstition ? Is it not making re- ligion to consist chiefly in form, and holding out an encouragement to sin ? For, when a person obtains his Indulgence, confesses, and is absolved, he heedlessly contracts new debts, knowing how easily he can afterwards discharge them. Nothing more is requisite to entitle him to return to confession, than to perform the new penance assigned him ; his absolution the second time is the immediate consequence.
Here we are told by the first authority, " that the priest is ready to ease the sinner of the bur- den of sin.*' And again, " that he is authorized to absolve from all sins and censures reserved to the Holy See and to us," viz. to Doctor Moylan. So that when Doctor Milner so confidently as- serts, that an Indulgence is a relaxation of ca- nonical penance, and that when *" the pardon of sin is mentioned in any Indulgence, this means nothing more than the remission of the
• Letter xlii. p. 96.
INDULGENCES. 273
temporary punishmetiis annexed to such sin ;" I would remind him of the Absolution given by the priest, wliich is evidently, (tam a pcEtu'i quam a culpa,) as well from the punishment as the guilt; and 1 should then call on him to re- concile such Absolution with his theory. But this, 1 am satisfied, he could never do.
Although I have considered the Indulgence granted to the late Doctor Moylan, only in a religious light; yet we should never forget, that transactions of this kind have always a refer- ence, mediate or immediate, to our ecclesiastical establishment. Indeed, except on such a sup- position, it would be impossible to account for the pomp and parade, which attended llie open- ing of this new Cathedral, in opposition to the true and proper Cathedral of the established Church ; accompanied as it was, by all that so- lemnity, which the Church of Rome reserv« s for the most important occasions.
Towards the concluding |)art of his Letter on Induli^ences, Doctor MilmM-, by way of re crimination, urges, that we too have our Indul- gences; for * •' that Luther, in conjunction wilh Bucer and Melancthon, granted one to Philip, l^andgrave of Hesse, to liavi two wivrs at the same time, and that he preache'd up adidtery; robbery, and murdtr, in his public sermons. " 1
* luiD. p. 10S.
I
i
•274 INDULGENCES.
have more than once had occasion to say, that, admitting liUther to have deserved all tlie op- probrium heaped on his character by Popish writers, still we should not be bound to defend him. If we pinned our faith on his sleeve; if we esteemed him infallible in faith or in prac- tice, then he would be entitled to our advocacy. But as we think him to have been a fallible man, though not less infallible than the Pope, we are no way answerable for his mistakes. The man who was liberated from the darkness of the Bastile, after a forty years' confinement, did not all at once recover the distinctness of his vision : so it was with Luther ; his mental eye was still bedimmed, even after he had torn off the Popish film which obscured it. If he granted the * Indulgence of which Doctor Mil- ner speaks, and acted so unworthily of the great cause in which he was engaged ; yet shall
* Will Doctor Milner believe, that Pope Clement VII. made the offer of an indulgence to King Henry VIII,, through Gregory Cassalis, his ambassador at Rome, that he might have tivo wives ? The letter slates, " superioribus diebus, Pontifex, secreto, veluti rem quam magni faceret, mihi pro- posuit conditionem hujusmodi, concedi posse vestra Majestati ut duos uxores habeat." — Loud Herbert's History of the Life and Reign of Hen. VIII., p, 330, British Museum Library. The historian adds, " that no effect followed thereof, as the King forbade purchasing or publishing any bull from the court of Rome ; and thus began to shake off the Romish yoke."— P. 331.
INDULGENCES. 275
he not derive some palliation for his conduct, from the peculiar circumstances in which he was placed ? Besides, we must remember, if he gave way and fell in the moment of temptation, that he was at the same time surrounded by malignant enemies; while he was fearful of risking the loss of a powerful friend, who would probably have increased their strength in the event of a refusal. But, what is this isolated instance, which only forms a single exception to the manner in which the Reformers proceed- ed, to the numberless Indulgences winch have been granted by the Bishops of Rome ? How- ever, be it admitted, that his conduct wns, in this respect, inexcusable; still, we cannot but draw a broad line of distinction between it and a power claimed, and systematically exercistMl, by the Head of a Church arrogating to himself the attribute of infallibility, and sacrificing every moral obligation to his individual anjbi- tion or avarice. As lo what Doctor Milner says about LutluT's preaching u|) adultery, it is to be utterly disregarded ; ("or often as the imputation has been repeated, it never yet came' forward substantiated by an iota of evidence.
1 cannot conclude this ch:ij»(er without ex- pressing my commendation of Doctor .Vlilner's delicacy in not retorting on us the advertise- ments he frecjuently sees in the newsj)apers, " about hnyinff and selling benefices' with (he
1 2
276 INDULGENCES.
cure of souls annexed to them in our Church." He knows the cases are not most distantly ana- logous, and he, therefore, very discreetly in- deed, forbears to compare them. For what proportion can one simoniacal act, even if it be committed and escape detection, bear to the myriads of sins, of which Indulgences, Confes- sions, and Absolutions are productive?
277
CHAPTER Xf.
PURGATORY.
The inveteracy of the Popish religion is in no instance more distinctly seen, than in that tenet which respects Purgatory, or a temporary state of punisliment in another life. The same con- fident and authoritative tone with which it was officially declared an article of faitli by the Council of Trent, characterizes the dill'erent writers who have since supported it ; hut not one in a more distinguished degree than Dr. Milner. With whatever arrogance or self-suffi- ciency Bellarmiiie or Bossuet, the Rhemish Je- suits, or Thomas Ward, may have pronounced their dogmas ; of this I am perfectly satisfied, that not an iudiNidual among them has astsauit- ed his opponent with greater rudeness and in- temperance than Doctor Milner has ihe late excellent and learned Bisho|) Porteus. Ah, however, that distinguished Pk late's ehararter stands too high in j)ul)lic opinion to b(; allecled by any thing, which he can say, I shall confuu- myself to what is more inunedialely the obj) ( t of these pages.
•278 PURGATORY.
The learned Bishop argues, * " that there is no Scripture proof of the existence of Purga- tory ; otherwise, that Christ would not have concealed it from us, and that we read of hea- ven and hell perpetually in the Bible; but Pur- gatory lie never meet tvit/i." To this conclusive and most convincing argument, what does Doctor Milner oppose? Indeed, a parallel one respecting the sanctification of the Sabbath, or Saturday; but that we never meet with the Sunday as a day of obligation ; although, if there were such an obligation, Christ vs^ould not have concealed it from us. This also is one of the many cases adduced by Doctor Milner, between which and the Bishop's, we have no more than a glimmering of analogy. But, if Christ did not speak about keeping the first day of the week holy ; yet, by his selection of that day for his resurrection from the dead, he furnishes a sufficient reason for making it a day of obligation; particularly, as on that day he completed that dispensation, which, in every part, superseded the Jewish one, that antece- dently existed. This very distinction marked the Sunday as the new Sabbath, and the prac- tice of the Apostles meeting and breaking bread on that day, above any other, no less than the sacredness with which it was kept by the pri- mitive Christians, decidedly proves, that they
* CONFUT. p. 48.
PURGATORY. 279
considered such to be the intention of their blessed Master. Our Saviour's example, there- fore, and the imitation of it by his Apostles, and the first Christians, speak volumes for the sa7ictiJication of the first day of the vi^eek, and for its appointment as a day of obligation. Now, as we have not so much as an mtimatioii from our Saviour, no precept from the Apostles, and no mention respecting Purgatory in the Creeds of the early Christians; and as, moreover. Doctor Milner does not seem to lay much stress on his parallel, and as I myself cannot see the bearing points in either case, which could be made to meet, I the more readily accompany him to what he calls his Scripture proofs from the Old and New Testament, of tiie existence of this middle state.
Let us first see what the Council of Trent says in its decree, relating to Purgatory. — *" Since the Catholic Church, instructed by the Holy Ghost, out ojthc sacred writings, has taught that there is a Purgatory, tliis holy Council comniaiids Ihr- r.ishoj)s to do tlirir diligent endeavours, thai i\u: snuud docd inc of Purgatory, as handed down bj/ t/u Juth/ i\i- thcrs and the sacred Councits, he bi'lir\«(l,
* " Cum Catliolica Ixclcsia, Bpirilu sanclo cdocla oxsacris
literis docuerit, Purgatorium esse pr.Tcipit saiicta Sy-
iiodus Episcoi)i», ci sanam dc Purgalorio doclriiiain u tututis Putribua ct sacrit concUiis tradilam, a Christ i fidclibii^ crrdi diligeiiter stiideant." — Siss. xxv.
•280 PIRGATOKY.
rtlaiued, taught, and every where preached, by tlie faithful in Christ." It is remarkable, that the decree introduces, but does not end with, an appeal to the Scriptures. It is further remarkable, that there is no allusion whatever to Scripture, in the decree about the Sacrifice of the Mass, in which the mention of Purgatory also occurs. This decree says of the Host, that it is duly offered, according to the tra- lition of the Apostles, not only for the sins, &c. of the livitig, but also for those who are deceased in Christ, and are not yet fully purged of their sins.'' So total a f silence respecting Scripture, in my mind, completes the proof, that the Trent Fathers were conscious, that it afforded them no support on the subject of Purgatory. But
* "Quare non solum pro fidelium vivorum peccatis, poenis. Sec. sed pro defunctis in Cliristo, nondum ad plenum purgatis, rite juxta Apustolorum Traditionem." — Sess. xxii.
t The Bishop of Winchester having remarked, in his Elements of Theology, vol. i. p. 279, " that the Epistles arc not to be considered as regular treatises upon the Christian religion :" the expression is laid hold of by Doctor Milner, Us if it afforded a countenance to tradition. But had he com- pleted the sentence by adding, " though its most essential doctrines are occasionally introduced and explained," and told his reader, that the Bishop's general arguments on the Canon of the New Testament, go to prove the perfectness of the Christian scheme, as detailed in it; the idea that his Lordship admitted the necessity of collateral aid to supply a supposed deficiency, would have been removed. — But fairness of this kmd is not to be expected from Doctor Milner.
PURGATORY. 281
to supply this deficiency, Doctor Milner at- tempts more than they themselves have done: first, bv a reference to the second book of Maccabees, which he considers an integral part of the Old Testament; and secondly, to certain passages in the New Testament. Thus in the very outset, Ave differ about the value of the authority quoted.
The Church of Rome has declared the two first books of the Maccabees canonical. In conformity with this declaration, the Transia- tors of the Douay Bible say, * " that the Canon of the Christian Catholique Church is of sovereigne auctoritie, though the Jewes' Canon have them not." On the other hand, we have seen that the Church of England esteems those books canonical, and those only, of which our Saviour made express mention after his Resur- rection. But, as this |)oint has been tfib'«-ady discussed, I shall now inquire whether the passage in question gives any support to the doctrine of Purgatory.
It is stated, J:" that Judas Maccainus sent a collection of money, whirli he tnadf, to Jeru- salem, for a sacrifice' to br offj-n-d ffir simn-. well and religiously thinking of llic n-sunrc-
* DoLAY Preface to ihe two first Books of MaccabcM.
t See p. 2, et seq.
t II. Matcal). XII. M). Doiay Thansi. Ld. 1610.
282 PURGATORY.
tion." If we now connect this passage with the mention made in a preceding one, * " that they found under the coates of the slayne, some of the ■\donaries of the idols, that were in Jamnia, from which the lawe forbiddeth the Jewes;" we shall see the reason for which the sin-offer- ing was made by tlie pious general. He enter- tained a proper sense of the danger to which he had been exposed by the sin of those men, and prayed to God, that if might not be imputed to the people ; offering at the same time a sacrifice for sin, according to the law : " because he perceived that there was great favour laid up for those that died godly." But the men, who were slain, died in a mortal sin ; viz. the sin of idolatry. Now, as according to the Popish idea, those who are guilty of a mortal sin, cannot go to Purgatory ; it follows, that those could not be relieved by the prayers of the living from a place to which their guilt debarred their admission. And besides, if we take the account of what Judas did, as it stands in the apocryphal book referred to ; its immediate rela- tion is not to the dead, and by consequence, not to Purgatory. But supposing that the dead are alluded to, the allusion is to their future
* Ibid.
t " Things consecrated to the Idols'* — Our Authorized Transl.
PURGATORY. 283
resurrection, and not to their present punishment. From all which it is clear, that Doctor Milner's quotation from Maccabees is irrelevant to the subject of Purgatory. When to the reasons assigned for the rejection of this book, is added the circumstance of its not being once mentioned by any of the writers of the New Testament, or cited as an inspired book, by any ecclesias- tical author of the three first centuries; we may safely conclude, that Purgatory is, as our twenty-second Article says, " a fond thing,
VAINLY INVENTED, AND GROUNDED UPON NO WARRANTY OF ScRIPTURE, 1$UT RATHER RE- PUGNANT TO THE WORD OF GoD."
Doctor Mihiers references to the New Tes- tament are the trite ones made use of by every supporter of this foolish and unscrij)tural con- ceit. I shall not, therefore, follow him in the stupid track, which he has marked out, but content myself with noticing some one or two points as I pass along.
Bishop Porteus's gloss on the text, * " Jf any mails work shall be burned, he shall suffer loss ; but he himself shall be saved, yet so a> ii\ fire,"« is almost " too feeble and insignilirant" to merit even being nxiitioiu'd by J^octor iMilmr. Sut- fice it, however, to say, lliat that Pnlate has
• I. (or. iii. 15.
284 PURGATORY.
followed Seeker and the otlier learned Com- TDentators, who have discovered no sanction for Purgatory in this passage of St. Paul ; but an allusion, either to the fiery trial of persecution, or rather, to the final judgment of God, when both danger and difficulty would attend an escape. But to let this pass, in order that we may arrive at Doctor Milner's proof positive from Scripture, of the existence of Purgatory, in Christ's denunciation concerning blasphemy against the Holy Ghost ; namely, that this sin * " shall not he forgiven, neither in this world, neither in the loorld to come." The f Doctor says, that these words " clearly imply, that some sins are forgiven in the world to come." — A proof by implication is a strong one certainly, for establishing an Article of Faith ; yet such is the nature of that used by him in the present instance. But to shew how erroneously he infers Purgatory from those words, I shall first briefly observe with Bishop Porteus, hxa feeble antagonist, that they denounce punishment, both here and hereafter, for the sin of blasphemy against the Holy Ghost, and that it would never be forgiven : or next, with % Mr. Wake, that some sins ^//a/Z assuredly be forgiven in the world to come, even all those that are forgiven
* Matt. xii. 32. f Letter xliii. p. 107.
X PhEsERVATivE against Popery, vol. ii. Tit. vii. p. 119.
PURGATORY. ^85
in this, and for which, therefore, God will not call us to an account at the last day. In no sense, therefore, can " this comfortable doc- trine," as Doctor Milner calls it, be derived from the text spoken of
The most palpable absurdities follow from the supposition, that such a place as Purgatory exists. For, according to the Popish argument, those only shall be forgiven, who die in venial sin. But, first, what has Purgatory to do witli remission of sin, being a place, not where sins are remitted, but where they are punished with extreme rigour, after they are remitted ; and wliat is still more extraordinary, punished because they are remitted? And secondly, if the guilt were not remitted, the sinner would be excluded Purgatory. To say, therefore, that God for- gives the guilt of sin, and yet that the obligation to punishment remains, is in eflbct to say, tliat God forgives the guilt, and does not forgive it, at the same time— which is highly absurd ! So that, in every view of the case, it is worse than ridiculous to conclude, that there is a plaie, where every the least sin is severely pmiishrd, and where the sufferings of the siuner can be mitigated by thf prayers of the living; by the intercession of saints; but particularly by the Sacrifice of the Mass; iiid(|Knd»-ntly of the death and merits of Christ. Indeed, .so tndy nonsensical is the idea respecting Purga-
*286 PURGATORY.
tory, that it must have long since been aban- doned, did not interested motives stand in the way.
Having demonstrated how completely Doctor Mihier has failed in his Scripture proofs for establishing the doctrine of Purgatory, I feel but little disposed to trespass on my readers patience by enlarging on the sense of the early Fathers, whose authority, on this subject, he grossly misapplies ; and still less to excuse *Calvin, fPriestley, and others, for holding what he terms a general Protestant Purgatory. The authority of the Fathers I deem respectable,
* Doctor Milner repeats the charge of blasphemy against Calvin, which Ward advanced upwards of a century ago. Although it was foreign to the object of my Answer to his Errata to vindicate any other tenets, than those of the Church of England ; yet a regard to truth induced me to give a cor- rect statement of Calvin's view respecting Christ's descent into hell, for the purpose of shewing the gross injustice which had been done him. See Answer to Ward, p. 76.
t The Bishop of Raphoe, where he argues against Doctor Priestley's idea of substituting a Purgatory in place of an eternal punishment, says, " if the idea of punishment for that which was the result of inevitable necessity, be repug- nant to the essential nature of Justice, it must be equally so, whether that punishment be of long or short duration." Dis- courses on Atonement, &c. Tol. ii. p. 397. I may add that it is equally repugnant to right reason to suppose, that a God of infinite mercy and goodness should punish, merely for the sake of punishing, those, who are justified in his sight, through the blood of his only Son, Jesus Chpist. %
PURGATORY. 28?
but not decisive ; and it is with this feehng I contend with Doctor Milner about its pos- session. Origen, Cyprian, and Tertullian, speak, it is true, of a Purgatory. The first conceived that there were no pains at all, but those of Purgatory after this life. This notion was con- demned by the fifth General Council as here- tical ; yet without mentioning any other Pur- gatory in contradistinction to it. The second applied it to the penance inflicted on those who had lapsed in times of persecution. And the third, to Christ's millenary kingdom. But how different is this from the Poi)ish Purgatory, as defined by the Council of Trent? When to this is added a perfect silence respecting this doctrine, in the Creeds, catechetical Discourses, and Decrees of their times, I must set it down as one of the novelties of the Churci) of Rome, and not as an article of Faitli in the primitive Catholic Church.
The unfairness with whicii Doctor Milner treats Archl)ishop Usher, compels me to rescue his great name from thr olilocpiy in whirh h«^ has involved it. Of ei[::ht Divines of the Church of England, whom he expressly menti(ms aH believing, that " tli<! dead ought to be prayed for," I can only speak decidedly of one, name- ly, the Arelil>ish(;p. JJut shoiihl I make it ap- pear, that that illustrious individual among tliem, to whose works aloii«- I have uit present
•288 PURC.ATORV.
access, and who is in himself a host, condemns this very practice of praying for the dead as a " monstrons foolery ;" J shall, at least, have cast a suspicion on Doctor Milner's candour, as to the use he makes of the remaining seven.
* Archbishop Usher begins with observing, that, in the book ascribed to St. Patrick, detrl- hus hahitaculis, there is no mention of any other place after this life, but of these two, — Heaven and Hell; and that he leaves it to the judg- ment of any indifferent man, whether it accords with " what the Romans teach concerning Pur^ gatory at this day. There are," he adds, " three habitations under the power of Almighty God. The highest is called the kingdom of Heaven, the lowermost is termed Hell, the middle is named the present ivorld. Of which the ex- tremes are altogether contrary to each other; but the middle has some similitude with the extremes. For in this world, there is a mixture of the bad and of the good together. Whereas in the kingdom of God, there are none bad, but all good ; but in hell there are none good, but all bad. And both these places are supplied out of the middle." From this language may be collected what the sentiments of the Irish Clergy respecting Purgatory were in the begin- ning of the fifth century ; while the manner, in
* Discourse on the Religion of the ancient Irish, p. ^4.
PURGATOPvY. 20f)
>vhich the Archbishop introduced it, sliews wliat he himself thought on the subject. But the question, whether the sins of the dead could be redeemed by the prayers of their friends in life, he treats with derision.
The Archbishop then proceeds to say, *" that in those elder days it was an usual thing to make prayers and oblations for the rest of those souls which were not doubted to have been in glory ; and, consequently, that neither the com- memoration, nor the prai/m<r for the dead, nor the requiem masses of that age, have any neces- sary relation to the belief in purgatory." He then concludes, from Jerome, tiiat " while we are in this present world, we may be able to help one another, either by our prayers or our counsels; but when we shall come brforc (he judgment-seat of Christ, neither Job, nor Da- niel, can intreal for any one; but each niu^i bear his own burdens." And, laslly, | " that in hell no need can be stipplicd, no pnif/cr he heard." After this iiii|)artial statement of Arch- bishop Usher's sentiments on this point, I shall leave it to the discretion <tf liic rr:»d( r to pro- nouiice that scnterH'e on Doctor Milticr. whirli his misrepresentation of an i lumciil author loudJN <;»lls for.
As It uoul I be painful to me to mark, \\\ ap- pro])riale language, my sense of the outrage
* Iiiib, p. 29. t Iun>/ p.'30.
u
•2iK) PURGATORY.
committed by Doctor MHikm" on one of the es- teemed Prelates of our Church of the present day; I shall simply state the particulars of it. His assaults on Bishops Tomline and Burgess may possibly find some extenuation in their pub- lished sentiments; but the violence done to the present *Bishop of Lincoln is without excuse. His Lordship is represented, by Dr. Milner, to have ''published a sermon," when Bishop of Exeter, in which " he prays for the soul of our poor Princess Charlotte, as far as this is lawful and profitable." The rank Popery of this language excited my suspicions and inqui- ries; and the result has been the discovery, that although the then Bishop of Exeter preached in his Cathedral on the great national loss sus- tained by the death of that lamented Princess ; yet, that he not only did not publish, but never so much as expressed a sentiment, which could be tortured into any thing of the kind !!! As I speak from authority, I invite Doctor Milner to investigate the truth of what I say. For the present, I add another leaf to his laurels. We are next confronted with the authority of the celebrated Doctor Johnson, for the neces- sity of offering up prayers for the dead ; as if the morbid melancholy inherent in the consti- tution of that great man, and the f terrific
* The Hon. and Right Rev. Dr. Pelham. t Hawki.ns's Life of Johnson, p. 316,
PURGATORY. 291
dreams with which he was haunted, and which scarcely afforded him a liope that his deceased wife was in a state of happiness, did not suffi- ciently account for the agitation of his mind, and for the gloomy notions entertained by him about a future life. Yet, with all his peculia- rity of thought on this head, * his middle state was not one, on which he looked with horror ; but only as not being the most blissful. But such wayward conceptions, although urged by Doctor Milner as a proof, that we have a Purgatory of our own, fall equally under the censure of our Church with the Popish doc- trine, as/bwd' things, vainly imagined, and not only not supported by, but directly opposed to, the Word of God.
One concluding observation will suffice, ei- ther on Doctor Milner's want of taste, or on his proneness to detraction ; when he calls our Bu- rial Service, *' a cold and disconsolate ceremony.' Here 1 would ask, what service, not merely in our book of Conunon Prayer, but in the Litur- gical Offices of the Greek or Latin Cliurches, can stand a competition with it in beauty of language, piety of sentiment, and sul)limity of thought? Are the inspired passages, witli which it begins, cold and disconsolate; and not rather calculated to cheer and animate? Are the me-
* See Boswell's Life of Johnson, vol. i. p. 196.
u 2
"292 PURGATORY.
ditatious ami prayers, \vith which it closes, of a chillinj^ nature? Are they not on the contrary, })ious, affectins;, and tnl! of consoldtion? But, in what terms shall 1 join in the admiration, which the elegiac strains of David^ and one of the grandest specimens of St. Paul's eloquence have always acquired for it? In short, whe- ther our Service for the dead be taken as a whole, or viewed in detached parts ; nothing can less deserve to be called " cold and discon- solate.' For, as the Resurrection of the dead is the foundation of our faith, and the pillar of our hope ; so, by this Service is our faith strength- ened and our hope encouraged, that by well- doing here, we shall be happy hereafter. And while it instructs us not to be sorry as those, ** who have no hope," it tends to soothe our anguish for our departed friends. Our Service, it is true, does not prescribe the use of holy water, and incense at the grave ; a benediction over it, or intercession for the dead : but with justice, because such ceremonies are vain and superstitious. But, instead of them, it supplies us with beautiful illustrations of the shortness and uncertainty of life ; it teaclies us to repose our dependence on God ; to confess that by our sins we have offended Him; and, in a word, to turn our whole attention to the state of our own souls. It is thus we show a regard for our departed friends, and not as Doctor Milner im-
PURGATORY. 293
putes to us, * " hy cosily pomp and feathered pageantry ;" it is by the regard we shew our- selves. And it is thus, while the Compilers of our Liturgy have guarded us on the one hand, from gross superstition, and on the other, from gloomy despondency; that they have bequeathed us a Service, which breathes the very fervour of piety, consistent with reason, and sanctioned by Scripture.
* Letteu xliii. p. 114.
294
CHAPTER XII.
EXTREME UNCTION.
1 SHOULD not here advert to the doctrine of Extreme Unction, but leave it as it had been determined by Bishops Burnet, Porteus, and Tomline, as relating to the miraculous restora- tion of the sick to health, were it not for the misapplication, which Doctor Milner makes of our Church Catechism. The reader must know that the passage by which the Popish Church establishes its sacrament of Extreme Unction, occurs in St. James's Epistle General, and is to the foUowitag effect. — * " Is any sick among you? Let him call for the elders of the Church, and let them pray over him, anointing him with oil, in the name of the Lord. And the prayer of faith shall save the sick :" — that is, the recovery of health will be the consequence of the appointed prayers. Accordingly, we see that the act of anointing, spoken of in the Gospel, was only one of those circumstances attendant on the performance of a miracle ; as when our Saviour f *' anointed the eyes of the
* James, v. 14, 15. f John, ix. 6.
EXTREME UNCTION. 21)5
blind man with clay :" whereas it is never pro- ductive of such a consequence in the Popisli Church, and is but seldom resorted to by it, except when all hopes of recovery are at an end. This marks the wide difference between the Apostolic and the Popish practice, and their effects.
But to come to the question of Extreme Unc- tion being a Sacrament. There being a sym- bolical action, that is, the " outward visible sign," it necessarily follows, in Doctor Milner's opinion, that there is an accompanying " inward spiritual grace; which is," he says, *" all that is requisite, according to the English Protes- tant Catechism, to constitute a Sacrament." All that is requisite ! Well: before we proceed further, let us inquire, where is the proof of this " inward spiritual grace?" Doctor Milner will reply, in " the saving of the sick, and the forgiveness of his sins." But this is assertion, and not [)roof ; first, because the recovery of the sick, which the words, " saving of the sick," imply, does not immediately follow the applica- tion of the oil; and secondly, because the for- giveness of sins can be as well had by (he absolution of the priest ; — circumstances which directly negative his as.sertion.
The answer which our Church Catechism
* Letter xliv. ]). 1 16.
296 EXTREME UNCTION.
gives to the question respecting- tlie meaning of the word Sacrament, is next to be considered. By it ■\ve are to understand, that it is not only " an out- ward and visible sign of" an inward and spiri- tual grace;" but further, that it is "ordained by Christ himself." I have admitted, that there is an outward sign, and proved, from Doctor Milner's own explanation, that the second re- quisite is absent. But there is still a grand ob- stacle to be overcome, even supposing, that Extreme Unction possesses both the fore-men- tioned essential requisites of a sacrament; I allude to that part of the answer, which speaks of tlie " sign" being " ordained hy Christ Him- self." This difficulty Doctor M. endeavours to get rid of, first, by paraphrasing these last words thus: " there is the ordination of Christ, as the means by which the same is received ;^ and next, by attaching a new import to this paraphrase, quite opposite to the sense in which the Church of England understands the original words in the Catechism. " There is the ordination of Christ," says he ; that is, as St. James was ordained to the Apostolic office, he conse- quently had ihepower to institute a Sacrament! This is what I understand him to mean, when, after the last cited words, he adds, " unless it be alleged, that the holy Apostle fabricated a Sacrament, or means of grace, without any authority for this purpose from his heavenly
EXTREME UNCTION. *297
Master." Thus it turns out, notwithstanding the ingenuity of the Paraphrast, that the Popish sacrament of Extreme Unction has not all that is requisite to constitute a Sacrament, according to our catechism ; because, it wants that indis- pensable requisite, the sanction of Christ Him- self; because it is of human, and not of di\ine institution; and has not, as our twenty-fifth Article expresses it, " any visible sign or cere- njony, ordained of God."
2<)8
CHAPTER XIII.
THE INVOCATION OF SAINTS, AND WORSHIP OF IMAGES, — BLASPHEMOUS AND IDOLATROUS.
Doctor Milner says with truth, * " that the first and most heavy charge which Protes- tants bring* against (Roman) Catholics is that of Idolatry ;" for, of all controversial points, this is one of the most important, and what places us at the farthest distance from each other. We may, in this particular, indeed, be said to be in opposite hemispheres. On other occasions, the Council of Trent appeals to Scripture and tradition conjointly ; sometimes to tradition alone ; but if it founded its decree about Relics and Saints on tradition only, it is on such tradition as the Council does not even call apostolical. This, therefore, marks the broad distinction, which exists between the Churches of England and Rome ; inasmuch as the doctrine which the one has established on such insufficient grounds, is necessarily reject- ed by the other, '* as a foolish, vain, and false invention !"
* Letter xxxiii. p. 14.
INVOCATION OF SAINTS, &C. 299
As it is alleged by Doctor Milner, that the charge of idolatry has caused Protestant con- trovertists to oppose and misrepresent the doc- trine of his Church, and that " in fact, their cause has not a leg to stand on," if misrepre- sentation be taken away ; I shall, for the pur- pose of removing every ground of complaint on his part, defer with him to the expressed and implied sense of those very documents, to which he so confidently appeals. 1 allude to the Trent decree about Relics and Saints ; the Catechism published by Pope Pius V. ; and the first Popish Catechism which appeared in English.-
First, the decree says, * "that it is good and useful supplianlly to invoke the Saints, and to have recourse to their prayers, help, afid assis- tance to obtain favours from God,'' &c. The words in italics are not, as the reader per- ceives, in the original. But, be this as it may, the Doctor argues from this passage, that the Council only teaches, that it is ''good and pro- fitable'io invoke the saints; but that it does not insist on the iiecessity of invoking them, " there being no positive law of the- Church incumbent on all her children to pray to them." But, Invocation is said to be more than simply good and i)roritab!e ; it is pr<filable according
* " Bonum atfjue u/i/e suppliciter cos invocare ; et ob bcnc- ficia impelranda a Deeper Filium ejus."— Ses\xx\. <le Invoc.
300 INVOCATION OF SAINTS,
to Doctor Milner's gloss, " to have recourse to their prayers, help, and assistance ;" and it is further profitable *' to obtain favours from God, through his Son, Jesus Christ ;" that is, the In- vocation of Saints is ])rotitable to bring about man's salvation! Now, if this be not making- it an article of faith, and a positive law of the Church, I cannot see what an article of faith means.
Again, the part of the decree relating to In- vocation consists of four mandates ; the first, which regards the Invocation of Saints, ends with a condemning clause (*impie sent ire) ; the second, about the honour due to the relics of Saints, ends with a condemning clause (dantfiat ecclesia); the third, about the veneration of images, ends with an admonition (esse sanci- tum); and the last division about the use of images and pictures, concludes with a cursCf that should f " any one teach or thi7ik contrary to this decree, let him be anathema." When, therefore, it is imperative on the Bishops and Priests, by virtue of this ordinance, to teach, that the Saints should be invoked, and curses those who should inculcate any thing contrary thereto ; the Council must have considered such Invocation as necessary to salvation.
* SesS. XXV.
t " Si quis autem his decretis contraria docuerit di\xi senscrit , Anathema sit." — Ijiid.
AND WORSHIP OF IMAGES. 301
When Doctor Milner says, that it is not in- cumbent on any Roman Catholic to pray to the Saints ; he adds, * " nevertheless, what member will fail to communicate with his brethren of the Church triumphant?"' But, he should have said, what member dare fail to communicate with it. For, as I understand the decree, it is not left to the discretion of the individual, whether he abstain from a duty which it pro- nounces to be useful, to obtain favours from God (ob henejicia impetranda), throui^h his Son ; nor does it exempt from its operation those sober interpreters — Fetavius, Suarez, Wal- lenburg, &c., who have inferred, that there is no positive law of the Church, obligatory on its children to pray to the Saints ; for the Ana- thema is levelled as much against those, who do not lliiiik in conformity with the decree, as against its direct opposers.
Secondlij, the Catechism of Pope Pius V. is a mere echo of thcTridentine decree, f" We
• Letter xxxiii. p. 22.
t On the decree are founded the eighth and ninth articles of the Trent Crted. Thus, " the saints who reipn together with Chri'^t are to be venerated and invoked, and as tluyq/Tfr prayers for us to God, their relics are to be venerated." — And " tlie images of Christ, and the ever-Virgin Mother of God, as also of the other haintc, are to l»e had and retanicd ; and that (hie honour and veneration are to be bhewn to them." This profession of faith, out of which no man can be saved, each Roman Catholic clergyman, when bciaficcd, is pound to 8ub-
302 INVOCATION OF SAINTS,
beg of the Saints, because tlioy are pleasing to God, that they wouhl be our advocates, and obtain from God wliat we stand in need of." This is a direct admission of the mediation of the Saints ; profitable, as in the former case, to obtain favours from God, and profitable also for an end, which is mainly conducive to man's salvation.
Lastly, the first English Catechism of the Popish Church says, * " we are to honour saints and angels as God's special friends and servants, but not with the honour which belongs to God." This is somewhat milder than the Pope's Cate- chism ; but any one of the three documents produced by Doctor Milner, inculcates doc- trines and rules of worship in a more decent manner, than what appear in the Roman Mis- sal. So that it is not from the public formu- laries of the Church of Rome, that we can de- rive the justest notions of its doctrines; but from its daily practice and its general obser- vances. Accordingly, the Collects in the Mis- sal rest the hope of salvation on the merits and intercession of the Saints, rather than on the merits and mediation of Christ. Thus, on the appropriate day of the tutelary Saint of Ireland, God is entreated " to grant, that by his inter- scribe, and sworn to uphold, to the last moment of his ex- istence !
* Letter xxxiii. p. 16.
AND WORSHIP OF IMAGES. 303
cession and merits, we may through his mercy be enabled to perform what he commands." Tliomas i\ Becket's merits seem not only to have exceeded those of the other Saints, but to have superseded those of Christ himself.
* Doctor Milner himself recommends a spe- cial devotion to the Virgin Mary. Other in- stances of the kind are too numerous for inser- tion here. From all which we may perceive, that the Saints are not merely invoked as inter- cessors ; they are directly addressed for grace, assistance, and safety, which God only can be- stow. Now, would a Saint be addressed in prayer, if he were thought unable to give that assistance for which he was asked ? We may fairly suppose— not. Our Homilies, therefore, .say, that it is in this faith, in which the blasphemy of such Invocation consists. That on prayer directs f " that we must only and solely pray unto God ; for to say, that we should believe ei- ther in Angels or Saints, or in any other living creature, were most horrible blasphemy against God and his holy word." Hence it appears^ that liovvever plausible the theory, and with whatever art, the doctrine about the Invocation of Saints and the worship of Images and Relics is laid down and defined in the Trent Canons
• Pastoral LeUcr, 1803. i Uook of Homilies, p. 273, Oxford Ed.<1602.
.304 INVOCATION OF SAINTS,
and Catechism ; yet it is from the practical ap- plication of the rules alone, tind from the cus- toms, institutions and observances, which are in common use in the church of Home, that we can understand the true import of the terms employed in those rules. It was thus, that the framers of those Canons endeavoured to avoid the imputation of Idolatry in the * philosophical sense of the word, as they could not do so in the scriptural sense. However, the practice is idolatrical as much in one sense, as in the other. If, as the above-cited Homily says, Invocation be a thing proper to God, it must be absolute Idolatry, however explained and recommended by the Trent Canons, to give to the creature that honour, which is only due to the Creator. Nor, can all the sophistry of the church of Rome, nor all the address, with which it disguises its doctrines, justify the common practices of in- dividuals in this respect. So that, supposing such men as Doctor Milner to be able to pre- serve the nice metaphysical distinction, which is so artfully drawn between the honour due to God and his Saints, or their Images ; yet it is not to be expected, nor indeed does it ever happen, that the unlettered peasant will carry his thoughts beyond the Saint he invokes, or the material oh- ject to which his devotion is directed. Will he
* MosH. Eccl. Hist. vol. iv. p. 213.
AND WORSHIP OF IMAGES. 3(J5
not rather imagine, when he prostrates himself before the images of the Saints, that they are, as it were, the places of their habitation ? Does he in this respect differ from the poor heathen, who, guided only by the light of nature, adores his image of wood, or stone ? But, although I say this, I am far from supposing, that the learned and acute Doctor is more exempt from the charge of Idolatry, than the ignorant and besotted devotee ; because my Church informs me, that there can be wo distinction. Indeed, if there be an exception, it must be in favour of the latter. * " INot only," says the Homily against the peril of Idolatry, " the unlearned and siin[)ie, but the learned and ivise ; not the people only, but the Bishops; not the sheep, but also the Shepherds themselves, who should have been lights to shine in darkness, being blinded by the bewitchings of images, as blind guides of the blind, fell both into the pit of damnable itiolatry."
It is, therefore, idle in Doctor Milner to con- tend, that he himself restricts dirinc adoration to God, and that he merely honours the Saints and pious images wilii a relative or secondary worship ; or, to carp at the | liishop of Durham for preferring a charge of blasphemy against the Church of Rome, for invoking the media-
*HoM. |)201. t ScrraonB, p. 44?.
S06 INVOCATION OF SAINTS,
tion of Saints. The act of invocation is in itself idolatrous; and therefore hlasphemouSy because it is idolatrous : however intended by himself, or modified by his Church. Belief in the efficacy of invoking Saints may be a delusion ; yet that does not remove the Idolatry incurred by the Invocation. Thus our Church further declares, *'* that idolatry standeth chiefly in the mind, that our image maintainers have had, and have the same opinions and judgments of Saints and that they use the same out- ward rites and manner of worshipping their images, as the Gentiles did use their idols ; and that, therefore, they commit idolatry, as well inwardly and outwardly, as did the wicked Gentiles Idolaters."
But, as the ability of the Saints to hear all those, who invoke their mediation, implies the attribute oi universal presence, and as there is no possibility of knowing, or cause for thinking, that they possess any such power; Doctor Milner, in order to extricate himself from this difficulty, asks by way of recrimination, — since f " it appears that our Church believes in the existence and efficacy of sorcery, enchantment, and witchcraft ; whether we, therefore, ascribe the divine attribute of universal presence to the devil ?" Here is the misstatement of a fact, no
* HoM. p. 187. t Letter xxxiii. p. 20.
AND WORSHIP OF IMAGES. 307
less than a perversion of the very authority referred to in support of it. Because the belief of the Church of England, on this head, is the very opposite to that ascribed to it by Doctor Milner; while both the * Articles and Injunc- tions issued by Queen Elizabeth, instead of countenancing, expressly condemn those de- moniacal conceits. Thus the 37th Article, or subject of inquiry, to be made by the clergy in their respective parishes, was to ascertain, ** whether you know any that do use charms, enchantments, witchcraft, &c." in order to their prevention; while the 32nd Injunction desires, " that no person shall at any time resort to the same (viz. charms, &c.) for counsel, or for help." How Doctor Milner could find nerve to bring forward these documents, in proof that our Church believes in the efficacy of sorceries, and the like, is more than I am able to account for!
Doctor iNIilner's other objections respecting Queen I'^lizalieth's retaining the crucifix in her chapel, the elevation of the cross at the top of St. Paul's, and carved images in Westminster Aijbey, are scarcely deserving of noticr. He might, if he pleased, have added, that the I historians, wlio sprak of the crucifix, tell us
* See Bishop Spaiikow's Colk'Ction of Arlicles and Iiijiiiic- tions, published in 1jj9, pp. 7Saiid ISO.
t Strype and Blrnet. ,
A Am
308 INVOCATION OF SAINTS,
tliat lier Majesty likewise observed another Popisli custom — that of having lighted tapers Oil the altar, during- divine service. We per- ceive too that she had so strong- *a predilection for images, that it was with difficulty subdued by Archbishop Parker and the other Prelates. But this shews nothing more than the influence of Popish prejudices on her mind, and that she had not proceeded on the same pure principles of Christianity, by which the conduct of the pious and enlightened Edward had been regu- lated. However all this has nothing to do with the agitated point. For Doctor Milner must know, that it is not the having images in churches and chapels, which is forbidden by the commandment, but the conversion of them to a religious use ; and that, as far as Protes- tants are concerned, they may remain in harm- less repose in their niches, only to be gazed on by the curious, either as models of ancient sculpture, or as giving uniformity to the vene- rable fabrics, in which they were originally placed.
But neither is our Church silent about the consequence of permitting Images to remain in places of divine worship. The Homily, so of-
* The 35th Injunction forbade " images and other monu- ments of Idolatry to be kept in houses ;" which accords with the bias of the Queen's mind, about retaining them in places of public worship.
AND WORSHIP OF IMAGES. 309
ten quoted, says, * " if it should be admitted, that although Images were suffered in Churches, yet might idolatry, by diligent and sincere preaching of God's word, be avoided." Here is Doctor M ilner's objection anticipated. But the same Homily explains it away, and shews that no two cases ever bore less resemblance ; for it subsequently adds, f " that Idolatry cannot •possibly he separated from Images any long time ; but that, as an inseparable accident, or as a sha- dow followeth the body when the sun shineth, so idolatry followeth and cleaveth to the public having of injages in temples." Here it is stated that the having of images in temples is not idolatry ; but that their continuance for religious purposes '* cannot be without idolatry." But what else is this idolatry, but the invocation of the images themselves, or of the saints repre- sented by them ? Jn this decided tone do those venerable Reformers, who composed our Homi- lies, speak of the perils of idolatry. They had been themselves members of the church of Rome, and although intimately acquninlrd both with its i)recepts and practice, aiul nitli the doctrine of the Invocation as recomniended and intended by it, they yet admitted no distinction ; but condemned both, in tlie most unqualified terms, as equally idolatrous. Our own exprri-
* HoM. against the peril of Idolatry, p. 199. t Ibid. •
310 INVOCATION OF SAINTS,
dice can fully appreciate the value of their authority ; for what Popery was in their time, it continues to be at the present day, as the bar, which the practice of Invocation interposes to the admission of Roman Catholics to Parlia- ment, sufficiently testifies.
As if to justify the Popish custom of kneel- ing and prostration before the images of the Saints, and praying to them in those postures, Doctor Milner objects to us the ceremony in our Church of kneeling at the altar. He asks, whether we do not oblige those who frequent the Sacrament, * " to kneel and prostrate them- selves before it, at which time it is to be sup- posed they lift up their eyes to it, and say their prayers." Protestants kneel, but there is no jyrostratiou ; because kneeling is a reverential way of acknowledging the benefits derived from the death and passion of our Redeemer. If, when we knelt at the altar, we thought we thereby worshipped the consecrated bread and wine, the practice would, no doubt, be idola- trous, and in that respect both churches would be on a level. But, since the adoration of the Host rests on the belief, that as soon as the elements are consecrated, Christ is present, as well after a corporeal as a spiritual manner, and as our Church entirely rejects this tenet ; our kneeling has no resemblance to the kneeling in * Letter xxxiv. p. 28.
AND WORSHIP OF IMAGES. 311
the Church of Rome. There can, therefore, be no ground for Doctor Milner's insinuation, that because we may lift up our eyes to the Sacra- ment, we therefore worship the consecrated elements. Besides, he well knows that even the Popish Churcli itself never affected to worship the mere bread and wine, detached from the corporeal presence. Neither is our kneeling at the Sacrament a superstitious ceremony ; un- less it should be impiously said, that Christ himself was guilty of superstition, when, after he had instituted it, he withdrew from his apos- tles, * '* and kneeled down and prayed;" or, M'itliout imputing superstition to f Saints Peter and Paul, as well as to the prophets of the Old Testament. It is equally frivolous in Doc- tor Milner to object, on the part of the Dissent- ers, that when the name of Jesus is pronounced in any lesson, we revere it J: '* with all lowli-
* Luke, xxii. 41. t Acts, ix. 40; and xx. 36.
\ This expression in the Injunctions of 1559 (No. 52.), is fully explained by our 18lh Canon, which says, " when in time of Divine Service the Lord Jesus shall be mentioned, due
and lowly reverence shall be done by all persons present
testifying, by these outward gesture?, their inward humility, Chriitian resolution," &c. I have cited the Injunctions and the IBth Canon particularly ; because Doctor Milntr aftccls to say, that these documents furnish grounds for the outcry raised by the Dissenters, on the score of Idolatry, against the Established Church ! But, afl'ording to the objections of our Protestant brethren their full wcif^ht, they neither imj)eath the Church of England on this head ; nor warrant the infer-
312 INVOCATION OK SAINTS,
iiess of courtesie and uncovering the heads;'* inasmuch as * St. Paul has declared, that it is an act of reverence to our Blessed Lord, that at the mention of his name, *' every knee should bow:'
t " It is a gross calumny," says Doctor Mil- ner, " to pretend that ive suppress any part of the Decalogue ; for the whole of it appears in all our Bibles, and in all our most approved Catechisms." With respect to the Bible, it may be put entirely out of the question, inas- much as that is a sealed book to the Popish laity. But what will the reader think of this positive assertion, to deny which is a gross calumny ; when he is told, that the J Catechism in great- est circulation in this country, is one, in which, after being revised^ enlarged, approved, and re-
ence drawn of a similarity of practice existing between it and the Church of Rome. So consistent is our Church through- out, that, in the Rubric at the end of the Communion service, it tells us, that kneeling " is meant for a signification of our humble and grateful acknowledgment of the benefits of Christ ;
and, lest it should by any persons be misconstrued and
depraved, it is declared, that thereby no adoration is intended ;
• and that therefore, the elements are not to be adored,
for that were idolatry to be aijhorred of all faithful Christians." The act of kneeling is therefore simply prescribed, as being most congenial with those feelings of humility, which our prayers are calculated to inspire.
* Phil. ii. 10. t Letter xxxiv. p. 31.
X By the most Rev. Dr. James Butler, titular Archbishop of Cashel, Cork edit. 1810. p. 23.
AND WORSHIP OF IMAGES. Slo
coiDmended by the four titular Archbishops, as a general Catechism for Ireland, the second commandment is suppressed, and the tenth di- vided into two parts? The Decalogue also may be preserved entire in the Trent and Douay Catechisms ; but even that will not profit the Irish people. Will it not rather be productive of the greatest mischief, that the idolatry of their Church should be screened by so impor- tant an omission as that of a commandment, and themselves imperceptibly led away from the worship of God to the worship of images; or, as it is tenderly called by Doctor Milner, to the relative or secondary veneration of them ? Here is additional proof, that, however guarded and defended by decrees ; or, however enve- loped and disguised by explanations; notwith- standing all its artifice and contrivance, the common practices and usages of the Church of Rome are idolatrous.
The plea which he sets up for the division of the tenth commandment is this; that in the ori- ginal Hebrew, there was *"wo mark of sepa- ration between one commandment and anofhcr ; so that there were no rules by which to be gui- ded, but the sense of the context." But the fu- tility of this plea is evident on his own state- ment; because, in the absence of every kind of
* Letter xxxiv. p. 'M.
314 INVOCATION OF SAINTS,
distinguishing mark between the command- ments, no otlier rule could exist for determining, whether there sliould be any^ and what division of the context, than its own meaning. To il- lustrate this in English.
*' Thou shalt have no other Gods before me thou shalt 7iot make to thee ani/ graven image or any likeness of any thing, Sf^c. ^c."
" Thou shalt not covet thy neighbours house thou shalt not covet thy neighbour s wife, Sfc.
As the * context is here given without mark
* The late Granville Sharp, in his elaborate Remarks on the Irish Roman Catholic Catechism, p. 24 — 47, specifies the year 1530 as the precise period, at which the original Hebrew of the decalogue was tampered with. "At that time," he ob- serves, " that a full stop was placed after the second command- ment, and not after the first, in order to warrant its omission in the Popish catechisms. A full stop was also placed after \ht first clause of the tenth commandment, as it stands in Deu- teronomy ; thus affording a colour for completing the numbers rendered deficient by the suppression of the second. But, as this division was not made in the corresponding text in Exo- dus, the interpolation became more palpable And
thus the providential variation of expression in the two paral- lel texts, has rendered the division of the tenth commandment into two, a matter of impossibility." Such are the operating causes of Doctor Milner's forced appeal to the sense of the Hebrew context, and of his consequent acknowledgment of a standard, which has been shewn to militate against the sup- - pression of the second, and the division of the tenth coip- mandment. Yet, his is but the admission of an individual ; and although every member of the Roman Catholic Hierarchy
AND WORSHIP OF IMAGES, 315
or stop, it is submitted to the reader's judgment, whether it does not rather demand a separation between those clauses, wliich forbid different things, than that it should take place between those, which referred to one and the same thing. That is, that the clause which related to ' other Gods,' should form a distinct commandment from that, which related ' to graven images,' on account of the variance in the expressions, thou shalt HAVE, and thou shalt not make ; while the clauses, which relate to coveting generally, should form one indivisible commandment, as one and the same verb is used in both.
But, besides, let the reader compare Exodus, XX. 17. with Deuteronomy, v. 21. and he must consider the * variation between them to have been wisely designed by Providence for the ex- posure of the fraud, which has been since prac- tised. Thus, in Exodus, the clause relating to the neighbour's wife occurs second, and in Deu-
in the United Kingdom sliould individually admit the same thing, it would not be received as the voice of the Church, Init as go many distinct opinions. The second command- ment would not, on that account, be restored to tlic (Cate- chetical Decalogue, nor would "pious images" cease to be worshipped by Roman Catholics!
* The Council of Trent, aware of the difliculty arising from this circumstance, gave that which stands as our tenth com- mandment, the common title of the ninth and tenth Com- mandments !—Remahk8 ut supra.
31(3 INVOCATION OF SAINTS, &C.
teronomy,^/'5^, in order. Can there be a plainer proof than this, that God, foreseeing the perver- sion of his commands, intended that there should be no division in that which relates to covetingy but that it should form one distinct command- ment ; while that which relates to a graven image; or, as the Douay Version has it, a gra- ven thing, (as if an image were not a thing, and therefore that making an image was not prohi- bited by the commandment) should neither be suppressed, nor yet moulded into the command about having no other than the true God ? Reader, examine and judge !
317
CHAPTER X[V.
ANTICHRIST.
What Doctor Milner calls " contradictions'' among learned Protestants, should be rather called disagreements, about the period of the rise of Antichrist; since all are agreed in one particular point — namely, that the Pope is that character. Apostacy is the Jirst Antichristian mark, which accompanied the revelation of the * man of sin. The second mark of Antichrist, St. Paul likewise says, is, that he f " opposeth and exaltcth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshipped ; so that he, as God, sitteth in the Temple of God, shewing himself that he is God.'' And the third n)ark relates to his being one, ^ *' whose coming is after the working of Satan, with all powers and sigjis, and lying wonders'' Those three characteristic marks of Anticlirist, whicii Protestant writers have inva- riably ascribed to the ciiicf Pastor of the church of Rome, are declared by Doctor Milner to be totally inapplicable to hiu), and to be descrip- tive rather of % " that class of religionists," allu-
* 2 TiiESi. II. J. t In'D. ii. 4.
♦ Iduj. ii. y. \ Letter xIv, p. 125.
318 ANTICHRIST.
ding to the members of the Church of England, " who have fallen off from the true church." But in what does this imputed apostacy of our church consist? In its abandonment of a corrupt church? This is not apostacy, for apostacy implies sin; whereas it would have been sinful to have continued in connexion with a church, which had itself fallen off from the truth; when an opportunity for leaving it occurred. It there- fore follows, that the Church of England has no Antichristian mark, and that it is not that Aiiti- christian power to which the prophetic marks peculiarly belong; and as they all exclusively apply to the Pope and the Papal Church, their united character must be St. Paul's Man of Sin, that is, the Antichrist.
It is unnecessary to prove here, that the church of Rome has apostatized and departed from *"the faith once delivered to the Saints;" as every page of this book is replete with evidence to that effect. I therefore consider the appli- cation of the first Antichristian mark to that church as established. The self-abasement which the Pope observes in the performance of his re. ligious exercises, and which Doctor Milner brings forward as a proof of the second Anti- christian mark being inapplicable to him, is perfectly compatible with that lordly pre-emi-
* JUDE, 3.
ANTICHRIST. 319
nence, which he arrogates to himself over the Christian Church. Is not the assumption of universal dominion over kingdoms and nations an act of Antichristian arrogance, whether ex- ercised by a * Hildebrand, or a Pius the Seventh, and does it not exactly accord with what St. Paul says of him, " who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God ?" This second Antichristian mark, therefore, applies to Papal Rome equally with the first. And, as I conceive, that there are no true miracles wrought in the Church of Rome, 1 may as a member of the Church of England, safely acquiesce in its judgment, when speaking of the pretended miracles of its corrupt sister ; that f " the Scrip- tures have for a warning hereof foreshewed, that the kijigdom o/' Antichrist shall be mighty in miracles and tvonders, to the strong illusion of all the reprobates.'' Hence it inevitably fol- lows, that this third Antichristian mark is equally descriptive of the same character.
But it is not in apostacy, pride, and false mi- racles alone, that the Church of Rome is Anti-
* The German Clcrj^y, A. D. 1080, accused this <le.spotic Pope will) being an apostate Monk and a sorcercT ; whicli ap- pellations imply two of ihc Anticbrhlian marks. The words they used were "/alms monachus, ditinaculus, somniorum prodi- giorumque conjector, manifestus necromanticus." — Villersou the Reformation, p. 465.
t Homily against peril of Idolatry, p. 195.
320 ANTICHRIST.
christian; ii is equally so in its imag-e worship, and in its sitperjiuous decking of churches, which our Church also pronounces * " to be a token of Antichrists kingdom ; who, as the prophet foresheweth, shall worship God with such gor- geous things." Here too are we authorised to consider the Pope Antichrist, and the Church of Rome the Aniichristian power.
In one point, Doctor Mihier and I are agreed ; namely, that the Socinian, who denies the Mes- siahship, or the Divinity of the Son of God, is an Antichrist. St. John says, that he "f *' who confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh, is a deceiver and an Antichrist :" and that ;|; " he is Antichrist, that denieth the Father and the Son.'' We find the Antichristian cha- racter ascribed to Simon Magus at a very early period of Christianity. He is said to have been honoured by many as God, and to have given himself out as being the Son, among the Jews; the Father in Samaria; and that he descend- ed from Heaven among the Gentiles as the Holy Ghost. But those individuals are not the only Antichrists, or enemies to Christ and his religion; for, Antichrist and his ministers are not the open, but concealed foes of Christ, who, in his name, give him opposition ; and while only one of the prophetic marks applies to each
* IiifD. p. 214. t 2 Episile, 7. + 1 Epistle, ii.22.
ANTICHRIST. 321
of those alluded to, we may perceive a/Zattacli to the Pope, as the 3Ia?t of Si7i, and to the Church of Rome, as the Antichristian power.
With respect to the Pope's temporal power, Doctor Milner is very reserved in his observa- tions; but we may, however, collect his opinion from what Bellarmine, the great oracle of his Church, advances on the subject. Speaking; of the Pope, he says, that as the * " delegate of Christ, he obtains jurisdiction over all Em- perors and Kings." In the Commentaries on the Canon Law, corrected and edited under the auspices of Pope Gregory XIII., -he is called -\ our Lord God. Downham, after relating this circumstance, adds, that the Pope " receives adoration of which St. Peter would not accept." The usual titles of the Pope are the :j: Vicar of God, the Vicar of Christ, the Vicar General of God on earth, and Head of Christendom. He also declares, in his common rescripts and bulls, that God has appointed him supreme Kuhr over the whole Ciiristian Church. " lie truly sets himself up as God," says § Sim[)lirins, " who boasts that he rules the Church at ///,v own discretion, enacts laws, and dissolves those
* Pol. Symops. in loc. — Ihiu. vol. iv. I'ars posterior, p. !»S(i ud calc.
t Ibid. p. 9S7,
\ Vkarius Dei; Vic. Christ i ; Vic. Gen. Dei in terris, &c. — In.
§ Ibiii. in Them. p. 988.
Y
3*22 ANTICHRIST.
of divine origin, ami shuts or opens the gates of heaven as he pleases; that he cannot err, who is daily called our most holy Lord, with no less impiety than what was formerly said of Domi- tian, our Lord God ordered it to he done thus" The blasphemous salutations with which the Italian populace greeted the present Pope on his way to Savonne plainly shew, that there has been no abatement in pontifical pride. For, he gave them his benediction, as the narrator states, * " amidst acclamations oilong Z^'ve Jesus Christ and his representative on earth."
The Scriptures inform us, that t " the Lord only is Holy ;" yet, in opposition to this sacred authority, does the Pope, as if he possessed the highest degree of all holiness, assume the blasphemous and high-sounding titles of most holy Lord, most Holy Father, Ruler of the ivorld. Father of Piinces and Kings. But, in the assumption of his other title of J Pon-
* Plus de 16,000 individus de tout sexe et de tout age s'e- taient rendus en cet endroit pour jouir du bonheur de voir sa Saintete, lorsqu'a 6 heures elle a paru et donne sa benediction aux acclamations de Vive Jesus Christ, et son representant sur la terre ! — Relation de ce qui s'est passe a Rome, &c. Vol. iii. p. 122.
t Revel. XV. 4.
X The origin of the word, Pontifex, has been traced by the ingenious Mr. Bryant (Analysis of Ancient Mythology, vol. iii. p. 121.) to the words Panti, or Pond, in the Amoniaii language. Mr. Granville Sharp has further refined on his principle by discovering its root to lie in a Greek or Latin
ANTICHRIST. 323
TiKEx Maximus, we can find little difficulty in perceiving the resemblance between him and the prophetical character of Antichrist.
As connected with the subject of the Anti- christian character of Papal Rome, it only re- mains for me to advert to the mysterious num- ber 666, which, Doctor Milner says, *"many Protestant expounders have endeavoured to ex- tract from the name or title of certain Popes ; but which ingenious (Roman) Catholics have extracted from 3Iartinus Lutlierus and David Chrijtli(eus." It is true, that that exact number has been found in several names; but no name, although it may possibly include it, can be the
soil. Thus, says he, " the Latins might have conceived that Ponti had some allusion to Pons, a bridge, which might occasion the ludicrous inauguration of the ancient Pond/ex Maximus under a wooden bridge, built over a dry ditch near Rome, and bored full of holes." — Remauks, p. 70. But, whichsoever be right, it appears certain, that the Pontificate was alone held by the Roman Emperors, from the time of Au- gustus to that of Auguttukis ; that it was annexed by the former to the imj)f rial titles of the Roman Ca.'sars, and only became extinct when this last of thr Western Emperors ceased to reign. So that, towards the conclusion of the fifth century, and not before, was this Pagan title, this cliuractaktic mark of the iJ/«n of Sin, this fatal distinction tA' pat^an apostacy, and idoialrotis pre-eminence, claimed by the IJishopg of Rome, as may he seen in Pope Gelasius't letter (Vanualb's Diskeiit. ix. p. 192.) to the (ircek Emperor Anastasius, in which he speaks of the sacred authority of the Poncijfs. — See aUo 1)e- cLit<E and I'all, vol. iii. p. '2bl.
• Letter xIv. p. \2'J.
Y -) •
324 ANTICHRIST.
apocalyptic name of the beast; unless it corre- spond in all other respects to the prophetic de- scription of that name. Thus, Martin * Lauter not Lutherus, as Dr. Milner has it, produces the number in Saxon ; David Chitraeus and Beza antitheus in Greeks and John Calvin in Hebrew. But as the other particulars of the beast are not discovered in those names, the resemblance is lost. The number 660 lias been discovered in two of the Papal titles, viz :
V t c ar I V s f j l i i d e i,
6" T 100 T 5" T 6 0 1 T Too T = 66 and
V I c ar I V s generai^i s De i in terr i s.
r 'i 100 T r Yo'i Too ~[ T T::^«6«
But neither of these can be the name intended by the Apostle, because, -\ neither of them is the name of the temporal beast; neither of them is the proper name of a man:, diWd neither of them can be obviously borne by each individual Roman Catholic. The Hebrevi^ word n^'on Romiith has been discovered to contain the same number if QQiJ ; but this is as inapplicable as either of the two former, and for the reasons which I have al- ready stated. Hence, Doctor Milner may per- ceive that the talents of the expounders on both
* Lowman's Paraph, in Foe.
t See Faber on the Prophecies, vof. ii. p. 33.
1 The apocalyptic number has been thus explained ; 666=^ 1453 — 787, namely, the period at which the second Council of Nice established Image worship. See Rev. Dr. Bauret's Letter on the Hebrew Medal found near Cork.
ANTICHRIST. 325
.sides of the question have thus far been exer- cised in vain. But the idea has been suggested, and that by *a Protestant writer, that xaTfi^os is the name of that particular man, in whose ap- pellative is found the same number as the name of the beast ; for,
t A A _T_ E X_ N_ 0_ S
30 1 300 6 10 50 70 2 00 = 666
is at once the name of a man, the title of an Empire, and the distingiiishiiig appellation of every individual in that Empire. The Apostle wrote in Greek; it is therefore morally certain, that he intended, that the calculation should not be made in a different language. As it will baffle the ingenuity of Doctor Milner tp brin^ home so many and such strong distijiguishing marks of an Antichristian character, against Martin Lautcr, with all " his anagrams and chronograms," we must unavoidably conclude that the Pope is
Antichrist.
* See Granviu.e Shahp's Appendix to three tracts, p. 126.
t Doctor More says, "the Papists latinize in every ihijig, IMa»s, prayers hymns, litanies, canons, decretals, hulls are conceived in iMtin. The Papal Councils speak in Latin. The women j)ray in Latin. Nor is the Scripture read in any other
language than Latin In short, all things are Latin ;
the Pope having communioaled hib language to the people under his dominion, as the mark un«l character of his Empire.'* Mystery of Iniquity, part 2, book i. c. 15.
n2n
CHAPTER XV.
THE SUPREMACY OF THE POPE.
However ofTensive it may be to Doctor Mil- iier, I cannot but subscribe to Archbishop Til- lotson's opinion, * *' that the Pope's supremacy is not only an indefensible, but an impudent cause ; and that while there is not one tolerable argument for it, there are a thousand invincible reasons against it." It is a part of the Ecclesi- astical polity of the Cliurch of Rome, but no part of the Popish religion. Scripture, reason, and antiquity, oppose it, while a solitary pre- text, a specious but remote one, alone remains to uphold its existence; namely, the necessity of a visible head over the whole Church, for the preservation of its unity.
The pre-eminence ascribed to the Bishop of Rome by Doctor Milner, according to which, he is entitled to rank and jurisdiction, dig- nity and potver superior to other Bishops of the Church of Christ, so as to be f " its spiritual
* Vid. Adfiress to the reader, prefixed to Barrow's Treatise on the Pope's Supremacy, t Lettek xlvi. p. 134.
THE SUPREMACY OF THE POPE. 327
liead here, and his see the centre of (Roman) Catholic unity," is grounded by him on the following declaration of our Lord, * " Blessed art thou, Simon Bar-jona ;. . . and I say unto thee, that thou art PETER, and tipon this ROCK / will build my Church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it'' Doctor Milner thus argues, that, as St. Peter was the Rock on which the Church was built, it proves, that a special dignity and charge was conferred upon him by our Lord in preference to the other Apostles ; and that, as the Pope is the repre- sentative of St. Peter, who was constituted chief of the Apostles, {Princeps Apostolorum,) he must consequently be Chief over all Bishojis; whence it is further inferred by him, that the Pope possesses spiritual jurisdiction over all Bishops, and that he, therefore, possesses it in the Uni- versal Church. But this argument is more shewy than solid. Because, although Peter had been the Rock on which the Church was built, yet that Church was not the Church of Rome, but the Church oi Jerusalem. This was the mother of all Churches; and, if Dortor Milner's positions were tenable, if might chiim to be mistress of all (jhurrrhes. But the Church of Rome was neither the one nor the other. It was (prima inter pares) first among equals, bnl
* Mall. XVI. 18.
:\-lS THE SUPREMACY
nothing more. And, as to the preference, which he says was conferred on St. Peter above the other Apostles, i/iat St. Paul positively denies^ when he speaks of himself as not being *"a whit behind the very chiefest Apostles," and of his withstandina- Peter to his face, | " ^^- cause he was to be blamed." And when, at the last supper, there was a strife among the Apostles, as to J " which of them should be accounted the greatest;" it is evident, that this could not have happened, had they supposed that St. Peter possessed a supremacy over them. And it is further evident, that they had not recognized such supremacy, when they ^sent him with John to settle the Church, and when they subsequently \\ called him to an account about his ministry. But, that neither he, nor they could have entertained any such notion, appears from our Saviour's observation, which was so well calculated to put down £^11 worldly distinction and pride. ^ " He that is greatest,'' says he, '* among you, let him be ^5 theyounger; and he that is chief, as he that doth serve''
With respect to the repetition of our Saviour's question to Peter, ** *' lovest thou me?" — this, according to Doctor Milner, marks a distinc- tion in consequence of Peter's being called
* 2 Cor. xi. 5. f Gal. ii. 11. % Luke, xxii. 24.
^ Acts, viii. 14. 1| Ibid. xi. 2, 3. % Luke, xxii. 36.
** John, xxi. 15.
OF THE POPE. 329
upon by Christ to declare three several times that he loved him, and even, that he loved him more than his fellow Apostles. He says, that Peter was further distinguished by being charged io feed Christ's lambs ; and, at length, * *' to feed his sheep also, whom the lambs are used to fol- low." In short, that f* this Apostle was to act the part of a shepherd, not only with respect to the flock in general, but also with respect to the pastors themselves" But these questions and injunctions rather imjily a distrust in Pe- ters constancy ; for we find that he was grieved, because Clirist said unto him the third time, *' lovest thou me?" while the charge to feed Christ's flock implied the care which was re- quired as the proof of his love, and not« com- mission to exercise supreme authority. And, although Doctor Milner enumerates diflerent points, in which Peter had the precedence; such as being the first on the list of the Apostles ; the first to confess his faith in Christ; the first to
* " If it be asked," says Bishop Taylor, " why the Bishop of Rome calU himself Universal Bishop ? Pasce ovfs is his warrant. Why he jjrctends to a power of deposing Princes ? Viiscc oves, said Clinst to Peter, a second time. If it he de- manded, why also he pretends to a power of authorizing' their suhjccls to kill them ? Pasce agnos, said Christ, the third time : thus, pasce is doce, pasce is impera, and pasce is occidc." — l)i»- snasive a^^ainst Popery, p. \.i7.
I Letteu xlvi. p. 135.
330 THE SUPREMACY
whom Christ appeared after his Resurrection ; and the Jirst to preach the belief of this to the Apostles; yet, such precedence does not imply Supremacy. The contrary instances, which may be adduced, namely, of his fallen state after his unhappy denial of his Loid ; his infirmity in not watching, even so much as one hour; the severe rebuke, which he drew from our Sa- viour, when he said, * " Get thee behind me^ Satan;" and the want of faith M'ith which Christ upbraided him, when ) " he walked on the wa- ter," and began to sink, &c. &c. — tend to shew, that no precedence, implying power and supreme government in the Church, was intended. And further, were I to concede, which I do not, that St. Peter founded the Church of Rome, and hnparted to his successors this precedence of which Doctor Milner speaks ; yet such pre- cedence or primacy is nothing more than what those Bishops, who succeeded to an Apostolic chair in Asia and Greece, had as just a right to claim as the Bishops of Rome.
Doctor Milner contends, that the Popes, as successors of St. Peter, possess the same supe- riority over all other Bishops, which he did over the other Apostles. But, if this assertion be disproved, his principal argument in favour of the Pope's Supremacy, is invalidated.
* Matt. xvj. 23. t Ibid. xiv. 29,
OF THE POPE. 331
In the first place, then, the Acts of the Apos- tles, as well as St. Peter's Epistles, afford no distinct evidence of his having* ever been at Rome; although there are strong grounds for supposing that he was there the year preceding bis martyrdom. And secondly, wlien St. Paul wrote to the Romans, he sent no salutation to St. Peter in his Epistle, which it may be pre- sumed he would do, were he at Rome. Nor, in the * different Epistles, which he addressed to the churches in Asia from Rome, does he oiice speak of St. Peter being with him. But in ad- dition to this negative proof, there is direct testi- mony from St. Paul's own words to the Christian converts in that city, to the same effect. For had a church been established among them by an Aposllc, he would not have said, that he '\ " so strived to preach the Gospel, not where Christ was named, lest 1 should build on another mans foundation." Neither does he make the remotest allusion to the alleged superiority of St. Peter ; a further proof, that he did not understand our Sa- viour s words to convey any such superiority. Moreover, he expressly says, that f" tlie Gospel of the nncircumcision was committed nnto me;
• Vi/. to l!ic Colossians, Ephesi<ms, Pliilijypians and Jlrhrrivs. St. Pavil also wrote to Vhilemon, anil liis second Epistle to Ti- mothy FROM Rome; yet never once mcntioHH St. Peter's name.
t W« //») iit' AAAOTPION 9i/<iA»«r oiK9f»/*«. — RoM. XV. 20.
X Gal. II. 7.
33*2 THE SUPREMACY
as the Gospel of circumcision was unto Peter." These words go to prove, that if ever Peter were Bishop of Rome, it was only perhaps of the Jewish Christians resident there.
In anticipation of the negative and direct evi- dence here offered, Doctor Milner flies to the authority of Irenaeus, who wrote in the latter part of the second century, and who is the^r*^ to make mention of St. Peter's co-operation with St. Paul in founding- the Church of Rome. That father, referring to the tradition of the Apostles preserved in that Church, calls it * " the greatest, most ancient, and most univer- sally known, as having been founded by St. Peter and St. Paul, to which every Church is bound to conform by reason of its superior au- thority.'' However, on closely examining the value of his testimony, we shall find, that the piecedence diud jurisdiction, which Doctor Mil- ner says, he ascribes to the Church of Rome, depended on mere contingencies, and could only be said to have continued so long as the causes, which produced them, existed ; and also, that as Irenaeus asserts, in one part of his evi- dence on this subject, what is false, it destroys the
* "Maxima; et antiquissimae et omnibus cognitae a glorio- sissimis duobus Apostolis, Petro et Paulo Romae fundatae et constitutae ecclesiae, ad quam convenire necesse est, omnem ecclesiam propter potiorem principalitatem."
OF THE POPE. 333
credit due to the remainder. First, as the city of Rome was the capital of the Roman Empire, it followed, that the Church of Rome would acquire an ascendancy among the Churches of the Empire, and be naturally deferred to, prop- ter potiorem principalitatem. This one instance too would lead to its being called the maxima ecdesia. But where was the fitness of the ap- pellation, when the Roman Empire became ex- tinct ; inasmuch as the Church of Rome could not be said to have retained its pre-eminence, after that event took place? Secondly, we have Irenaeus versus Irenajus ; for if he asserted what is true, in calling the Church of Rome the greatest in the Roman Empire, he has asserted what is false, in saying it was the most ancieiit ; because the establishment of the Church of Je- rusalem was antecedent to that of the Church of Rome. And as St. James was the tirst of the Apostles, who presided in a Christian as- sembly, discharging in a manner the office and duty of a Bishop ; he, and not St. Peter, was the first Christian Bishop. Hence it follows, that our Saviour's words do not imply, that the Church was found<,'d exclusively on St. Peter, and that as they have no reference either to power or au- thority, they cannot mean, that any particular Church, or Bishop of such Cimrrli, possessed such authority or suprema<^y over all other Churches. And thus the entire argument for
334 THE SUPREMACY
the Supremacy of the Pope, resting- as it does on a misinterpretation of Scripture, falls to the ground. I should observe that TertuUian, Cy- prian, and the other writers quoted by Doctor Milner, have, like Irenaeiis, declared that St. Peter was concerned in establishing the Church of Rome. But their opinion, in all probability, depended on the authority of Irenseus. How- ever this may be, since there is no possibility of reconciling what he says with St. Luke's narra- tive respecting the Apostles, or with the passages, which 1 have adduced from St. Paul's Epistles ; either Scripture or tradition must give way ; for when they are contradictory, both cannot be true. But, the Supremacy of the Pope is not only unsupported by Scripture, it is also contra- dicted by the evidence of the primitive fathers of the Church. One testimony out of many will suffice to ])rove this ; that of the great Chrysostom, who, in speaking of St. Pauls unbounded authority over the Church of Christ) thus expresses himself: *" to St. Paul was com- mitted the whole world. St. Paul had an anx- ious solicitude for all the Churches throughout the world." Again he says, '| " iw one is greater than St. Paul ; no one is equal to him. If he laboured more abundantly than the rest of the
* De laudibus Pauli. — Oper. vol. ii. p. 485. t Ibiu. vol. i. pp. 171,517,
OF THE POPE. 335
Apostles, he will be more abundantly rewarded. And as he is greater than they, (xax£»*w» /*£»^w») it is evident, that he will enjoy the highest honour ^ndjirst seat (t»? a*uTUTu n/x)]?, x«» Trfos^pa?) among them." St. Paul's superiority is asserted here in very strong terms ; yet with such superiority and with such general solicitude about all the Churches, as is ascribed to him, St. Peter's Supremacy and that of the Popes, his reputed successors, is wholly incompatible.
But, continues Doctor Milner, the Churches of England and Home agree, that " Bishops, in general, succeed to the rank and functions of the Apostles; so, by the same rule, the succes- sor of St. Peter, in the See of Rome, succeeds to his primacy and jurisdiction." We are now first to consider in what light the Popes can be said to be the successors of St. Peter; whether as Apostles, or as Bishops. Not certainly as Apostles ; because they neither inherit, nor af- fect to inherit the miraculous gifts of the Apos- tles; but, if as Bishops, (Biwhops being often said to succeed the Aposlh's as chief pastors in the Church,) it is on tlir siipp();-)itioii that St. l^eter bore the title of one. 'J'herefore, as they rio not succeed St. Peter in that sense alone, in which they could be strictly said to be his suc- cessors; namely, in llial r)f possessing the (jua- iities of iw.sy>i;t'(/ Apostles ; I conclude that the rule of analogy does not apply. Again, as uo
3.'3() THE SUPREMACY
evidence exists, thai tlie title of Bishop was borne by St. Peter; and as Irenaius, on the joint authority of SS. Peter and Paul, testifies, that it was first conferred on Linus ; it follows, that the Bishops of Rome are the successors of Li- nuSy and not of St. Peter. Irenaeus's words are, * " The blessed Apostles, (he f subsequently makes express mention of their names) after they had founded and built the Church of Rome, committed the office of Bishop, or the admini- stration of the Episcopacy, (m? ETno^xewj)? XnTa^yKnr,)
to Linus." This father's authority is decisive on the point, and cannot consistently be objected to by Doctor Milner, after admitting it in a former instance.
Although Doctor Milner does not say ex- pressly totidem verbis, that the Church of Rome is the Mother and Mistress of all other Churches, yet he does so totidem Uteris, by the frequent repetition he makes of its greater anti- quity and superiority. These titles, which oc- cur in J one of the heterodoxical articles of
l)(lt^t){7ta» Aim TUf T»? EniDK-OriHS AuTa^yjac £«;^stf*)i7a».' — Iren. lib. iii. contra Heraes. c. 3.
\ riiTgM x«t TB Ila.v'Ka If 'Pufji.yt ivotyyi'Ki^of/.uuv xcn Ge/xe^iac- ru» T»)» l)tx^^|c^i«» ? — luiU.
X " Viz. I acknowledge the Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church of Rome to be the Mother and Mistress of all Churches."
OF THE POPE. 337
Pope Pius the Fifth's creed, are formally assert- ed by the Council of Trent, and sworn to by the beneficed Clersfv of the Church of Rome. Now, that the Church of Rome is " the Mother of all Churches," is manifestly untrue; as appears from * various passages in the Acts of the Apos- tles, which speak of a Church at Jerusalem so early after our Lord's Ascension as the day of Pentecost. It was, therefore, through this Church, which was the Mother of all Churches, and not tlirough that of Eiome, that the [)ro- phecy of our Saviour was conveyed to Christian churches in general. Besides, it was in the Church of Jerusalem, and not in the Church of Rome, that our Saviour's prophecy respecting the Church being built on St. Peter as on a rock, was fulfilled. As to the Church of Jiome being " the Mistress of all Churches,' it is equally untrue; for, if we look back to the ])riniitivc ages, we shall find that the See of Rome had no universal supremacy. When it was stated to the first Council of Nice, that jMehtius, a Rishop of Egyi)t, ordained Bishops, without the consent of the metrojioiituii Uislioj) of Alexandria; it thus expressed itself in its sixth Canon : |' " Let the ancient customs prevail that are in J^lgypt, Lybia, and Pentapolis, that the Rishop of Alex.
• Acts, ii. 4, 14, 41, 47. luin. v. 11. lu. viii. 1. In. xv. 1. t Sec Pp. of St. D.-ivid's Ciiunc mman armed, vol. ii. p. IHI.
33H THE SUPREMACY
aiidria have the power over them all, as the Hisliop of Rome also hath the like custom." A short period l)efore this Council was held, we find Cyprian maintaining a controversy with Stephen, Bishop of" Rome, about the baptism of heretics, in which he treated that haughty Pre- late with the greatest contempt, and would only allow him a pre-eminence of ot'der and associ- ation'., not of POWER and authority. Yet * Doctor Milner ascribes this assertion of his rights to ** the mistake of Cyprian," in not think- ing the Pope's authority superior to general tra- dition ; which is, in fact, conceding the point. But, as if he felt, that he had gone too far, he says, that Cyprian admitted Stephen's authority to a certain extent, " by advising the same Pope to depose Marcian, a schismatical Bishop of Gaul, and to appoint another Bishop in his place;" whereas, this only shews, that Cyprian thought that Stephen had power over a Bishop of Gaul, who had derived his mission from Rome. So that the case, quoad Marcian's affair, rests, as Doctor Milner's concession left it.
The instances which the Doctor adduces, of Athanasius, Chrysostom, and other Bishops, who had been deposed, being restored to their respective Sees, through the mediation of the Popes, do not in the least degree tend to settle
* Letter xlvi. p. 139.
OF THE POPE. 339
the question of Supremacy. Because, as often as any of the eastern Bishops were * forced to yield to the stronger party; they sought redress in a quarter where it was readily granted. The Bishop of Rome took tliem one after the other under his j)rotection, and thus acqiiired for the Roman See new degrees of influence and power. For, if the appeal of the exiled Bishops to him, was politic and wise, as through his interpo- sition, they obtained in the eastern Emperor, more than a counterbalance to their domestic enemies ; it was equally politic and wise in the Pope to espouse their cause, as it tended to raise his consequence and authority in the eyes of the eastern Church, and thus imj)erc('ptibly to establish his Supremacy.
Doctor Milner also lays great stress on the authority of the Council of Sardis, which, he says, I " confirmed the Bishop of Uome in the right of receiving apj)eals from all the Churches in the worhl." But, were I to admit this, which 1 do not, because the authority of tliat Council is consider<(l dubious, and its laws spurious, by the most ciiiiueMt writers: still, llic j)lea lor assuming a supreme jurisdiction in I lie univer- sal Church, nmst be very weak, which only de- pends on the deeree of our obscure (Viuiieii.
* Mosu. EccL. H18T. vol. ii. p. 'J*>.
t Lettek xlvi. |i. 140.
/. '2
340 THE SUPREMACY
It is true, as Doctor Milner observes, that
* Gregory the Great rebuked the pride of John, Patriarch of Constantinople, for " as- suniing to himself the title of cecumenical or universal Bishop." Yet, suspicious as were the time and manner of John's lordly pretensions on this head, the counter-pretensions of Gre- gory were still more so. But, notwithstanding the ambitious designs of the latter, and the pomp and splendour with which the see of Rome was then surrounded, it was reserved for the succeeding age to see the unprincipled Phocas, after the murder of his master, trans- fer the title of f universal Bishop from the East- ern Patriarch to the Roman Pontiff. After this manner, was this spiritual tyranny, which sprang from a misinterpreted text of Scripture, and with which the pontifical character was first invested by an inhuman monster, intro- duced and established. From that tyranny we were happily released at the ever-memorable era of the Reformation, and we must always
* Gregory thus writes to the Emperor Maurice about John : — " Ego autetn fidenter dice, quia quisque se universakm sa^ cerdotem vocat, vel vocari desiderat, in elatione sua Antichris- turn prcpcurrit, qxxisL iuperbiendo se cajteris praeponit." — Lib. W. Ep 30.
t " The title of Universal Bishop, which had been given by Lto and Justinian to the Patriarchs of C. P. was not at- tended with any accession of power." — Mosh. Eccl. Hist. Vol. ii. p. 112.
OF THE POPE. 341
be on our guard against its return. For * "" as God has appointed no universal Mo- narch, neither has he an universal Bishop. And all the arguments, which an universal Bishop could use for unity and peace to end controversies, might be used by an univei-sal Monarch, and both prove fallacious, to the greater disturbance, rather than settlement of that peace." We should, therefore, dread an universal Bishop, as much as an universal Mo- narch ; the one being no less an enemy in tem- poral affairs, to civil, than the other is in spiri- tual concerns, to religious, liberty. But, the very thought about such a chiim as that of s})i- ritual dominion being set up, is sufficient to excite both our surprise and indignation ; for we may rest assured, tliat when one Church affects a control over another, it will never want the inclination, if it have the power, to exercise its authority.
Towards the conclusion of his letter. Doctor Milner tiirows off all restraint, and indulges in a virulence of huignage, not erpiaMed, certainly not surpassed, by Ward, Chaloner, or (iandol- phy, against the first Protestant Monarchs of this n^ahn, and (heir successors. " If/' Ka\s he, t *' they could succeed in j)roving, that Christ
* Leslie's Case slated, vol. i. p. 468. t LETTEn xlvi. p. Hi.
342 THE SUPREMACY
had not built his Church on St. Peter and the Popes, it ^vould still remain for thcni to prove, that he founded any part of it on Henry VIII., Edward VI., and the Protestant Monarchs who succeeded them." He then institutes a compa- rison between those Princes, including, of course, our present Gracious King, and Tiberius, Pi- late, and Herod, as to their power over a Chris- tian Church : he even travels farther, as he ex- tends his parallel to the Great Turk and the Lama of Thibet! When I meet with passages even more aspersive than this, of the Royal Guardians of our Church, and find them classed with Simon Magus, Mahomet, Voltaire, and Robespierre, as chief heretics and schisma- tics of their respective ages ; and not only thus classed, but represented on what Doctor Mil- ner calls the Apostolical Tree, as * branches cast forth, withered, and Jit only to be thrown into the fire. When I hear him speak of conci- liation, and, in the same breath, tell those to be conciliated, that they are heretics and schis- viatics ; I feel at a loss how to reconcile such language with the principles of reason or com- mon sense.
To the reader who may not have seen his Aj)ostolical Tree, a few words descriptive of
♦ John, XV. 6.
OF THE POPE. 343
it, may not be unacceptable. The Tree is sup- posed to be the vine ; the root of it represents Christ; while its trunk exhibits the succession of the Roman Pontiffs, to the present day. On the parts of the branches immediately attached to the trunk, at each side, are engraved the nations which first embraced Christianity ; while the fruit, on the more remote parts of each branch, demonstrates the saints and pious per- sonages of their respective ages. So far, so good : but then come the withered and broken off limbs, which designate the Heretics and Schismatics ; the greater ones, such as Simon Magus, Mahomet, Henry VHL, Edward VI., Elizabeth, as above enumerated, with many others, on the one side; and the /fAArr lieretics, such as EI)ion, Gotcscalc, Wicklilli-, Luther, and Wesley, .&c. kc. on the other.
This s|)ecious but unjust re[)resentation of Christ's Universal Church, according to whicli Doctor Milner assiunes the main stem and trunk to be the Roman Church, whence the Apostolic! juice llowed to all otiier (Jliurches, may be met by tli(.' following simple statement, as il- lustrative of tlie in(lei)enden(M' of the diflerent Apostolic Churches fruni one another. The reader may |)er 'cive, that then- is more than one main conduit conveying the stream of lile from the J)iviNr I'orNTAiN to tlir nations of
344 THE SUPREMACY
the earth. The * selection of a few out of many instances will suffice.
THE ROCK,
€])ou art €Ijri.st, tJ)c .^on of tijc Eibing ^oD.
|
^} |
Oi |
Ox |
4^ |
CO |
to |
)— > |
|
|
• |
• |
• |
• |
• |
|||
|
no |
o |
C/5 Hi |
> IT" |
D3 |
o |
e-i w |
ET |
|
H |
o |
H |
s |
||||
|
B |
U) |
> |
> |
> |
w |
en |
S |
|
>• |
w> |
55 |
i-i |
> |
*♦ |
||
|
^ |
^ |
s |
9 |
||||
|
H |
a* |
cr |
M^ |
*TS |
en |
2 |
c |
|
v; |
• |
> |
—1 o |
H. |
S |
||
|
C en • |
H o s |
^-1 • |
c- u cr |
5' |
cr a |
||
|
tad •1 |
22 |
cr |
«!-( |
i. |
|||
|
{» |
CO |
T» |
v<; |
^ |
m |
||
|
CB |
" |
r^ |
>■ |
a^ |
|||
|
CD |
C/2 • c |
a. |
w • |
r |
^
After this artless representation, I may ask, what becomes of the exclusive Apostolicity, &c. of the Church of Rome?
The very nature of the charge which Doctor Milner urges against the principle of the Re- formation, defeats itself; when he infers, that because Cranmer's notions respecting the King's
** The authorities by which I have been guided are, Hart- inanu dc rebus Christianorum, and Fabricius's Lux EvangeUi.
OF THE POPE. 345
Supremacy were at one time unsettled, he there- fore constantly held, that the Monarch could make Bishops by his proclamation, or even " by the bill of the town-crier." But what ex- cuse can he offer for repeating the vile fabrica- tion of the Nag's-head affair ? There may be some palliation for Ward's virulence and false- hoods, when he said, that during the reigns of the first Protestant Monarchs the Church of England had no Episcopal Consecration, and that our Bishops were made by Letters Patent^ because he was then in exile, enduring hardship and want; but there can be no apology for Doctor M liner's treading in his steps, when in the full enjoyment of the blessings of Tolera- tion, and of ail the rights and privileges of a British subject.
As to the despotic power, which he alleges Queen Elizabeth to have exercised over the Church, it went no farther than to appoint Bishops to sees, where they were to discharge episcopal functions after tliey were duly conse- crated. That wise Monarch well knew that Letters Patent could not give validity to conse- cration or ordination; nor invalidate them when they possessed the re<^inisitc essentials. Farther than this she neither went, nor affected to go. Do we not fmd, that tin; Emperors formerly exercised a similar jurisdiction within their dominions, and sometimes extended it to the
34(J THE SUPREMACY
appointment of the Popes? Can we forget, that it was the edicts and laws of Constantiue in favour of the Christian religion, which caused persecution against its professors to cease, and which established Christianity as the religion of the Empire? Can we either forget what Clovis did in France, or Ethelbert in England ? We know that the temporal power has, in every age and in every country, exercised authority over the concerns of the Church; and that it is in consequence of such interfe- rence that Kings and Queens have been ap- propriately called its " nursing fathers and mothers."
But we shall be told, that the Anathemas of the Council of Trent are mere hruta fulmina, and that it is idle at the present day to speak of a controlling power in the Church of Rome over other countries ; or that it now claims to be Mistress of all Churches. Thanks to the strong arm of the law, and to the wholesome restraints imposed on Popery, that those denun- ciations are inoperative. Yet if our lives be not at stake, the truth of the Gospel is, and conse- quently, the Protestant religion. But that the principle continues, and that the claim for exercising spiritual jurisdiction over those, who have withdrawn from its communion, is upheld as vigorously as ever, is beyond all controversy. It is so declared in the Trent catechism, which
OF THE POPE. 347
has always been a standard for doctrine in the Popish Church, that heretics and schismatics, who have abandoned the Church, are still in its poiver, *" as persons liable to be called by it to judgment, punished, and doomed by ana- thema to damnation^' And it is further taught in the theological lectures in Maynooth, that the Church, viz. that of Rome, t " retains its jurisdiction over all apostates, heretics, and schismatics, although they may not belong to its body." When with this is connected the doctrine of exclusive salvation, and the dogma, that the Romish Church is exclusively Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic ; and when the thousand expedients are considered, (witness Doctor Milners ingenious delineation of the Apostolical Tree,) which are artfully contrived by the Popisii clergy to make their laity think as they themselves do; — I must candidly express my ap])rehensions about the fate of our Protes- tant Church ill this part of the Unittnl King- dom, should unqualified political power be put into the hands of men, who conscientiously
* " Herelici vero tt scliisinatici, qui ab licclcsiA descivcrunt
non iicgandiim tarncti <niiii in Ecclesia' poteslutc
sint, ut qui ab e4 in judicium voctntur, puniantur, et analhc- mate damnentur." — Catucii. Kom. p. 7M. ¥A. 1587.
t " Ecclesia iuam retinot jurisdiclioncm in omnt-s Apostutas. Hcreticos, et .Sc/iismaticos, (|uanquarn ad illud corpus nonjavi periineani."—l)f. rA IIogue de Eccl. Cliristi, p. 394.
o4Q THE SUPREMACY
believe it to be involved in heresy and schism, and consequently an object of divine vengeance. If the Cli n rch of Rome be resolved to uphold a title, to \vhich it has no just claim, and if conformably with its pretensions of being Mother and Mis- tress of all other Churches, it claims a spiritual jurisdiction over their members as deserters from itself; — our Legislature will, I trust, in their wisdom guard us against the recurrence of those evils, which the exercise of spiritual power has so often produced in this coun- try, should they carry into effect their pre- sent intentions respecting the Roman Catholic Body.
We have already seen that the Church of Jerusalem, and not the Church of Rome, is the Mother of all particular Churches, that is, of the Church Universal : and as it might claim to be Mistress of all Churches, on the very same principle as that set up for the supremacy of the Roman Church , it incontrovertibly follows, that the Pope is not the Head or Governor of Christ's Church universal. Be- sides, it was laid down by the first Councils of JNice and Ephesus, that every metropolitical Church was independent from the other. The ancient British and Irish Churches too, were
independent, as appears from their observance
♦ See Bp. or St. David's Second Letter to his clergy on
#
OF THE POPE. 349
of Easter being different from that kept up in the Church of Rome ; while they agreed with the Oriental Churches in this particular, no less than in their f rejection of the Papal Supremacy. It is unnecessary to add, how the intruder's conduct is viewed at the present day by our own national Church,
Thus is the Supremacy of the Pope discar- ded by every authority, ancient and modern. I have also proved that it is antiscriptural ; — that it is not borne out by any thing, which St. Peter says of himself; — nor by any thing, which St. Paul says of him ; — nor by any superior respect
this subject. Blackstonf says, " that the ancient British Church was a stranger to the Bishop of Rome, and all her ])retended authority." — Vol. iv. p. 105. Alp. Usher proves to conviction, that " the Pope had no jurisdiction, spiritual or temporal, in Ireland, before the twelfth century." — Dis- course, &c. c. viii. p. 74.
f Bp. Jewell, speaking of the Eastern Patriarchs, says that ihey will not, " in any wise, yield to his authority, nor give any manner of honour or reverence to his person, no more than to Mahomet." — Defence of his Apol. p. 714. Dr. Buchanan shews, that the same feeling exists among the present race of Christians in India. " Whence do you derive your ordination?" said the chaplains of the Syrian Bishop to him : " From Home. You derive it from a (.'hurch, which is our ancient enemy, and with which wc never would unite." — Christian Researches, p. \i\. Mii. I.. Fosteu gives farther confirmation to this account, as he has " heard more than one Greek Prelate pronounce the Po|)«; to be marly as great a deceiver as Mahomet himself" — Speech on the II. C. Qucj.1. 1813. p. 32.
350 THE SUPREMACY OF THE POPE.
shewn Saint Peter on the part of the other Apostles ; — nor by any of the recorded oc- currences of St. Peter's life; — nor by any special authority delegated to him by our Saviour.
351
CHAPTER XVI.
TOLERATION.
Doctor Milner has devoted the longest Let- ter in his End of Controversy, to the subject of religious persecution, and appears to treat of it with more than ordinary satisfaction. Fires, stakes, faggots, axes, knives, halters, gibbets, racks, and tortures, meet the eye in every page. The reformed Churches on the Continent, and the Protestant Princes of the English Reforma- tion, with those highest under their authority, alone ai)plied those instruments of death, im- pelled by the fiery spirit of persecution, and an unmitigated rancour against the nnoffending membersof the Church of Rome: while he never once glances at the intolerance of Charles IX. and Lewis XIV., or the bloody tribuiiul of the Duke of Alva! When speaking of (^ueen Elizabeth, Ik details with circumstantial mi- nuteness, the cruelties she indicted * " on two hundred (Roman) Catholics, whom she got hanged, drawn, and quarten'd, for the mere exercise of tlu- relit:;i<)ii of fhrir ancestors:" —
* Lktter xlix. i>. ISI
352 TOLERATION.
although he is conscious that those persons suffered, not because of their belief in Popish doctrines, but because their zeal to restore Popery led them to rebel against her govern- ment. But, if he speaks of Queen Mary and her partisans, it is for the purpose of palliating the faults into which their anxiety about the welfare of Christ's Church on earth betrayed them ! Over the disgusting subject, which re- lates to their times, I willingly draw a veil, while I ardently wish, that so much of this narrative of human infirmity and wickedness, as Doctor Milner has detailed, was struck out of the page of history ; or, at least, that it should never re-appear in print. As we have escaped the storm of persecution, and have not witnessed the tremendous trials to which those, who went before us, were exposed ; we should rather cultivate the feelings of mutual charity and forbearance, than exasperate each other by charge and recrimination. Let Doctor Milner speak, not of what was, but what is, the state of the Roman Catholics of the British Empire; and instead of dwelling as he does, on irritating topics, let him rather bespeak their friendly •affections on the part of the British Constitu- tion, and laud it for the blessings which they now enjoy under it. This is what would be- come a good subject, and a good Christian. There are two points, and two only, in Doc-
TOLERATION. 353
tor Milner's letter on Persecution, to which I shall advert. The one respects what he calls the " unintelligible Declaration against Po- pery," and the other, the " impracticable Test Act;" by both of which, he says, the exclu- sion of Roman Catholics from political power is effected.
He affirms, that we rigidly adhere to the De- claration against Popery, under the groundless pretext of its being necessary for the support of the established Ciiurch, although it be undeni- able, * " that that Church flourished more ])e- foi'e, than after the passing of that law." If we only consider tlie (precise period, at which that statute was called into existence, we shall have reason to admire the wisdom and policy of its enactment. Indeed, were it not for the impregnalile barrier, which it reared at that time, in defence of our established Church, we should not now have a Church to defend. Every <la}'s ;|;experi(;nceproves, that neither the tone, nor the temper of the Church ol" Uomc to- wards heretics and schismatics, are dillerenl
* Letteu xlix. J). 167. I -^0 Charles II.
\ The rc!>it*taiice given l)y Doctors INIilner, Coppiu^'cr, and Murphy, Friar Hayc8, Mr. O'Comiel, and other zealots, to the intercourse with Rome Hill, demonstrates the increased neces- sity of not Pxi;osin}( the I'.st.ihhshed Churcli to the mildpcrsvti- ninns, which lhos(; hbcr;il chararlcr^ would employ in its ov< i- throw.
•1 A
3d4 TOLERATION.
now from what tliey were in the sixteenth cen- tury ; witness, the deliberate and published sen- timents of Gregory Martin, Ward, Chaloner, Walmsley, Plowden, Gandolphy, and though last, not the least violent, of Doctor Milner himself, respecting the Church of England. Do not those writers consider our Church here- tical and schismatical ; our authorized version of the li\h\e notoriously * corrupt and erroneous ; our form of Consecration and Ordination null- the acts of our Ministry invalid^ and ourselves doomed to inevitable damnation? May I not add, that the present Pope himself reprobates t " intermarriages with heretics as sacrilegious^ criminal, and odious," and points out, in language not to be mistaken, those meant by this oppro- brious title? Yet, with these facts staring us in the face, are we told, that we continue the De-
* See the Letter of the present Pope, as published in the Dublin Journal of October IS, 1820.
t When the Pope pronounces an union of Roman Catholics with heretics detestable, he does so in consequence of an ab- horrence of all connexion wilh the Church to which they be- long. " Les memes lois," says he, " qui I'oiit porte a defendre aux Chretiens de se marier avec les infideles, Tont aussi determine a prohiber les noces sacrileges des Catholiques avec les Itereliqucs. Aussi nous devons etre amerement affliges . . .
• de trouver des Catholiques epris d'une passion si
criminelle, que de ne pas avoir en horreur, et de ne pas se faire un devoir de s'abstenir de ces delestables Mnzona."— Re- lation de ce qui s'est passe a Rome, vol. ii. p. 109.
TOLERATION. 355
rlaration against Popery under a groundless pretext.
As the die is not yet cast, which is to unset- tle the existing order of tilings, I would respect- fully entreat those distinguished advocates for Popish aggrandizement, who have joined Doc- tor Milner in denouncing the Parliamentary De- claration against Popery as unnecessarily severe and insulting; to consider, that every argument which (an be urged against it, bears with greater force against the very formularies of our Church. Thus, if it be compared with our tuenlij- second and Iwentij- eighth Articles, whicli pronounce the doctrines, of which they speak, superstitious and false, and as being " repugnant to tiie Word of God ;"or, with the Homily which teaches, that the Invocation of Saints is gross Idolatry, "as well inwardly as outwardly, like that of the Gentiles ;*' or, with the Uuimic annexed to the Communion Service, which declares the doctrine of Transubstantiation to be false, and the wor- ship of the Sacramental bread and wine, ido- latrous, and lo he abhorred of all faithful Chris- tians'^ or, witli the general language of our Chuicli, which spraks of the arrogance aiul /;/?- pieli/ of the Chui'ch of Rome, no less tli:ui of her hlaspheuwus f'(d>les and dangerous deceits: we shall lind, that the obnoxious statute is couched in language hss forcible, and less sig- nificant of the abominations of Popery, than
2 A 2
ti-JO TOLERATION.
that used in tliose formularies. Unless, there- fore, our Legislators be prepared to new-model then), I see not how they can consistently can- cel this salutary enactment.
We come now to the second point — the ex- clusion of Roman Catholics from political power, which Doctor Milner says, is enforced under another groundless pretext (viz. the Test Act) of being essential to the support of the Esta- blished Church. He sets out with assuming, that exclusion from power and religious persecution, are one and the same thing. But no two things are more opposite in their nature. For, * perse- cution is positive ; while exclusion from power is negative in its effects. Persecution interferes with personal liberty, on speculative grounds; while exclusion from power is consistent with Tole- ration in the most extensive sense of the word. Persecution is the offspring of intolerance; while exclusion from power is the dictate of nature's first law, that of self-protection. Thus it is, that Doctor Milner confounds things which are totally distinct. It is thus, that Popish writers have always confounded them, in their earnest- ness to remove those Tests, which have been enacted for the stability and permanence of the Established Church.
1 can readily conceive why Doctor Milner
* See Preface.
TOLERATION. 357
pays such deference to Hume's opinion re- specting those statutes which are so obnoxious to him. Prejudiced as that writer was in fa- vour of the House of Stuart, and indifPerent to every principle of religion ; it was natural to expect, that he would represent them as our greatest national disgrace. But it is beyond my conjecture, how he could bring himself to do Swift such palpable injustice, as to make him appear favourable to emancipation, in the Popish sense of the word, and to ascribe to him language, which, i/heever used it, was spoken for a purpose different from that to which it is applied.
Doctor Milner makes Swift to say, * *' that an incapacity by law for any man to be made a judge, or a colonel, merely on a point of con- science, is a negative discouragement, and con- sequently a real persecution." iNow, there were only two parties, viz. the Presbyterian and lh«' Popish, in favour of one or other of wliich, Dean Swift could have thus ex|)ressed hiuisi-If, These we shall examine sc|)arat('ly, and, iIm re- fore, first begin with llic case of (lie Presby- terians.
That lie was hostile to the ;itt<iiipts iiuuh' in Ireland, to take off llie Jest, as a kind i\\' pre-
* Doctor Milnrr's rcfennci; \« to vol. vm. p. ,'»<», nl SwifiV Works, where no hucli words as those aitnltiited to ihal author are to be found, at least not in NichoU's, or Scott's editions.
358 TOLKKATIUN.
paratory step, to make it j)alatable in England, may be collected from his tract entitled the Presbyterian's Plea of Merit. In this he observes, that, * " if once their light (viz. that of the Presbyterians) would so shine, the Pa- pists, delighted with the blaze, would all come in and {lance about it." Again, when bespeaks of the great objection of the Presbyterians, about making the blessed Sacrament a kind of Test, before admittance into any employment; (although, by the way, he believes, that f " they would scruple it as little as a long grace before and after a good dinner, which they can say without bending a knee:") yet he proposes, that " before the repeal of the Test Act, one equivalent to it may be substituted, and that no man shall receive any employment before he swears him- self a true member of the Church of Ireland, in doctrine and discipline." And, lastly, " that if the gate be thrown wide open, without any Test at all," to those who profess " an utter ha- tred to kingly government," the consequence may be easily foreseen. It is hence evident, that Dean Swift did not use the words as- cribed to him by Doctor Milner, in favour of the Presbyterians ; or that, if he did, it must have been in his usual ironical style.
* Swift's Works, Nichols's edit. vol. viii. p. 375. i Ibid. pp. 394, ^j'db.
TOLERATION. 359
But that he had neither Popery, nor its pro- fessors at heart, can also be abundantly proved from his writings.
As to Popery in general, which has * " for a thousand years past been introducing and multiplying corruptions both in doctrine and discipline," he remarks, *' I look upon it as the most absurd system of Christianity professed
by any nation and that, if it had been
thought fit to abate of the law's rigour against Popery in this kingdom, it was done for very wise reasons." In another place, he speaks of the wisdom of keeping Popery in check, and *' thanked God, that it was daily growing less and less by the just severity of the laws, and the utter aversion of our pcojdc from that idola- trous superstition^ And again, he expresses his belief, f " that Presbytery is not above one
third as bad as Popery that there is no
doubt, that Presbytery and a commonwealth are less formidable evils than Popery, slavery, and the Pretender; for, if the fanatics were in power, he shouhl be in niort' apprclu'nsion of being starved, than burned." But it is unneces- sary to trouble tin; reade-r willi ("ml her jmooI" of Swift's feelings Ixing, not <nily not favourable, but dire( tiy iiostile l<> any (he least encourage- ment being extended to Popery. Indeed, were
* Idii). i)|>. 388, 3S9. I Imu. vol. v, pp. 88, 89.
'^00 TOLERATION.
he now alive, and to get the credit of hiiiguage at such variance with his real sentiments, as that attributed to him by Doctor Milner, he would, with his usual point, observe, as he did on a similar occasion, when he was set down as friendly to the repeal of the sacramental Test ; * " that it was his misfortune to be treated like a sober ma7i tvith a drmtken face, to have the SCANDAL oj the vice ivithout the satis- faction ! "
* Ibid. vol. x. p. 761.
361
CHAPTER XVII.
POPISH, OR FALSE MIRACLES.
It is painful to think, tliat in the present en- iightened age, a gentleman like Doctor Milner, who displays learning in almost every depart- ment of science ; who possesses experience, in- telligence, and taste ; who writes well, and rea- sons acutely — should be so besotted, as not only to believe himself, but to attempt to induce others to believe, all the stupid legends of the dark ages, and the modern fabrications of the same stamp. Such fatuity would be a miracle in itself, were it not known how superstition debases the reason, when it has gained the ascendant over the mind.
In tlie lett(;r, which he has devoted to the j^ubject of Miracles, he argues, ***that if the Roman Catholic Church were not the ow/y true Churcli, God would not have given any attes- tation ill its favour." Thus h«' (hriy^es a new proof frr)in false Miracles, of I he Church of Rom(; being the only true Church. Vov, when once a strong faith admits tin- r«'ality of thoso
* liCtter xxiii. p. 72. Sec also his Lrttf.U!* to n Prrbendary ; Inquiry into certain opinions, &r. &r.
362 POPISH, OR falsi: miracles.
Miracles, it concludes at once, that as none but members of the Church of Rome can perform them, that Church must be the 07il^ true Church. " Having demonstrated the distinctive," by which he means the exclusive holiness of the Roman Catholic Church, he professes himself * '* pre- pared to shew, that God has borne testimony to that holiness, by the many and incontestable Miracles he has wrought in her favour, from the age of the Apostles down to the present time." These incontestable miracles, he afterwards states to be cures of a miraculous nature, per- formed on different persons ; as if such cures could be admitted as evidence of the truth of doctrines entertained by the persons relieved; inasmuch as they are not confined to the Ro- mish Church, but are found in communions di- rectly opposed to each other.
Our blessed Lord did not confine the power of working Miracles to himself, or to his own time. If he promised this power to his Apos- tles, he confirmed his promise in their respective persons. It is no where said in Scripture, that a miraculous event should not take place out of the true Church ; and if it be not, then it fol- lows, that such an event cannot be regarded as a proof of the truth of any particular Church. This t St. Paul determines to be the case ; for
* Ibid. f 2 Thess. ii. 7.
POPISH, OR FALSE MIRACLES. 363
when speaking of the " Mystery of Iniquity,*' he says, that his * "coming wouhl be after the working of Satan, with all powers and sigiis, and lying wondersT In fact. Doctor Mihier himself seems to be reserved in putting in too great a claim to supernatural agency in favour of the Church of Rome; when he admits thai it " never possessed miraculous powers, so as to be able to effect cures, or other supernatural events at her mere pleasure" When the zeal is so great as to discover a miracle in every extra- ordinary event, for the purpose of strengthening the feeble arguments put forward in favour of the exclusive sanctity of the Ronush Church, the number of miracles said to exist cannot ex- cite surprise; and when those only, who are in- terested in pronouncing such events miraculous, are present during their performance; it cannot much promote Doctor Milner's views, were all the miracles reported to have been wroughl since the age of the Apostles, conceded to his Church, since the advantage to be derived from the concession is only such as any otlur Church would disdainlnily reject.
He begins with what Ignatius relates about fhe wihl beasts, which were let loose u])()n the martyrs, being frecjiK'iitiy restrained by a <livine power from hurting tin'm. On this head, n
* linn. II. 9.
:iC)4 POPISH, OR FALSE MIRACLES.
single observation will suffice. This Father's words are, " ne sicut in aliis, territce sint et non COS tetigenint," and imply, that the fierce animals did not behave as in ordinary cases, but that being terrified at the sight of the surrounding spectators, they refused to fight. Ignatius con- sidered the occurrence purely accidental and natural ; otherwise, he would have given the glory to God, and have besought him not to repress their fury. And as to the * Miracle which deterred the Apostate Julian from re- building the Temple of Jerusalem, it must of necessity have occurred ; or the f prophecy which related to it could not be fulfilled. In its exact completion, I perfectly agree with Doctor Milner, and for the very reason assigned by Gibbon himself; that if it were not verified, J " the Imperial sophist would have converted the success of his undertaking into a specious (he should have said solid,) argument, against the faith of prophecy, and the truth of Reve- lation." But, I am not equally disposed to ad- mit, that there were other as extraordinary mi- racles, beside the one mentioned, since the Apostolic age; or if there were, that they were performed for the purpose alleged by him.
* Marcellinus, a contemporary of Julian, aUests the fact of fiery eruptions and other convulsions of nature taking place, when the Apostate attennpted to rebuild Jcrupalem.
t Daniel, ix. 27. | Decline and Fall, toI. iv. p. 104.
POPISH, OR FALSE MIRACLES. 365
The miracle to which he alludes, as having taken place at Tipasa in Africa, consisted in this, that those Christians, whose tongues were cut out by order of the Arian Hunneric, in the fifth century, were enabled to speak as dis- tinctly as they did before this barbarous ope- ration was performed. It is true, as the Doctor says, that some learned Protestants, as Abbadie and Dodwell have admitted this miracle; but he is far from correct, when he sets down Mos- heim as its advocate. This correct writer states the circumstances as transmitted to him by Procopius and others; but his own opinion, he thus ex[jresses : * " whether it is to be attributed to a supernatural and miraculous power is a matter not so easily decided, and which admits of viiick dispute.' His able Translator, like- wise, after presenting his reader with a clear and concise view of the arguments advanced for and against the miracle by Dodwell and Toll, seems to feel the smne doubts, which IMosheim did, about its existence. According to him, Dodwell considered the occasion of sullicient importance to n'fjiiirc the diviiu* interposition; whih- '^I'oll niiiiiitained, that as it was not w rought to convert intidcls to (.'hri^f iiinity, biil ;ij»j>a- rently lor tin- pnrpoK(r of making proselytes from Arianism to the Athanasian i'aitii, the di
• MosH. Ecct. HiiT. vol. ii. p. 63.
.'](J(i POPISH, OH FALSE MIRACLES.
vine interposition was not necessary. Between tliese conflicting- opinions, Maclaine takes a middle course, neither denying the power of God on the one hand, nor, on the other, admit- ting the necessity of its exercise. He observes- that the case of the two who remamed dumb, (of whom it should be remarked, Doctor Mil- ner makes no mention) " furnishes a shrewd presumption, that all did not equally undergo the same operation." When I say, I admit the full force of this observation, I wish to be un- derstood, not as arguing against the possibility/ of such a miracle having occurred ; God for- bid ! but the probability, against which I see such strong objections to exist. But, were I to acknowledge the miracle to the fullest extent of Doctor Milner's wishes, I conceive that my ad- mission would be more prejudicial, than ser- viceable to his cause; since the Church, in whose favour the miracle is reported to have been performed, is rather to be considered the prototype of the Church of England, than that of the Church of Rome.
I should not omit to mention, that the scepti- cal Gibbon relates the accounts transmitted to us of the miracle in question by the foremen- tioned historians, with circumstantial accura- cy; but, in such a way, and with such a sneer against the Christians, that Doctor Milner can- not, in the next Edition of his Book, consist-
POPISH, OR FALSE MIRACLES. 367
ently refer to the authorities, to which his atten-- tion has, in the present instance, been directed by this fascinating, but prejudiced writer.
There still remain two of the many remarkable instances of supernatural agency spoken of by Doctor Milner, to which I shall now advert. The one relates to St. Augustine, " the Apostle to England," in the sixth, and the other to St. Xavier, the Popish missionary to the Indies, in the sixteenth, century. The question, which relates to the planting and propagation of Chris- tianity in England before Augustine's mission into that country, and the independence of the British Church from that of Rome, is happily set at rest by the learned labours of the Bishop of St. David s, and the Rev. Doctor Hales. On this point, therefore, it is unnecessary for me to enlarge ; but I would ask J>r. Milner, whether the miracle of restoring sight to the blind, (which, on the authority of Bede, he al- leges Augustine to have wrought) convinced the British Bishops; or, whether they did in consequence admit the jurisdiction of the Bishop of Rome? VVi* know that tln-y did not; and that tiiey (.(lually resist<-(l tin; threats and pro- mises of liis missionary.
As to Xavier; it niiL;hl hav<* b«,'cn expected that tin- I)(i( tor would have been more reserved in ascribing miraenloiis powers to one, who lived -o mu( li nearer our own times, than to those
368 POPISH, OR lALSE MIRACLES.
of more distant ages : because, the means of de- tecting imposture is more within our reach in the former, than in the latter case ; and because, if it be found, that recourse has been had to fa- brication with respect to accounts of modern date, it sinks into disrepute those of earUer origin.
Of Xavier's miracles, which. Doctor Milner says, * " consisted in foretelling future events, speaking unknown languages, calming tempests at sea, and raising the dead to life;" t Acosta, a contemporary writer, a Jesuit, and a Missionary also, makes no mention. But had those singu- lar occurrences taken place, he must have no- ticed them. And, with respect to the gift of tongues, which is ascribed to him in a superna- tural degree, it is certain that he himself deeply lamented in one of his letters, his deficiency in this very particular ! Now, where he wanted a requisite which would have been so essential to the cause of proselytism among the pagans ; it is highly improbable that his saintship should have been vested with any other. Indeed, hi& simple acknowledgment on this one point throws discredit on the other marvellous stories told of him. But Doctor Milner adds, that Xavier's miracles " were verified soon after the saint's death by virtue of a commission from John III. King of Portugal." Here again, the silence of
* Lr.TTf.R xxiii. p. SI. t De Procurandd Indortim salute.
POPISH, OR FALSE MIRACLES. 36^
Acosta about those alleged miracles meets him; and not only this, but the express assertion of this writer, that no miracles whatever were per- formed in India. And, as Acosta's account was not published for nearly forty years after Xavier's death, it is evident that that space of time at least elapsed, before his miracles were thought of. This is * Bishop Douglas's opinion on the sub- ject ; and although Doctor Milner attempts to invalidate it by a reference to Acosta's work, yet the very f place referred to establishes its correctness. That writer barely says, " that great signs were reported of Xavier by numerous and credible witnesses." But Dr. M. goes iwr- ther, since he says, that they not only " vie in
* See Criteuion of Miracles, p. 84. Doctor Biicliai):in tells of his havin<T observed to the Archbishop of Goa "' that Xavier was an eminently great man; but that what others have writ- ten/or him and of him tarnished his fame, by makm{r him the inventor of fables. To which the chief Inquisitor candidly signified his assent." .Sec Christian Researches, p. 162. Tliis anecdote is the more valuable, both as it records the admission of a Popish ecclesiastic of liijjh rank, resident on the very thea- tre of Xavier's ministry, and consc()ucntly ac(|Uainlfd with every act of his; and as it exhibits the liollow pretensions set up for this saint by Doctor Milncr, on the score of miraculous agency.
t . . . . " quod miraculorum nulla facultas sit, qutr ApoitoH plurima perprlrArunt." — Dt Procur., &r. L. ii. c. S. Mere Acosta denies that the missionaries had any power; but ])oc- tor M.'s gloss is, " that they only had not the same fucHity ati the Apostles." FA(i;i.TA9—/rtci7/(y, secundum Milner! — Sci- Lettlr xxiv. p. 9{).
2 B
S70 POIMSII, OU FALSE MIRACLtS.
number, splendour, and publicity with the mr- racles of St. Bernard ;" but appear to equal those of our Saviour Himself! !
1 must necessarily pass over the claims to supernatural agency, put forward for St. Fran- cis of Sales, and others, whose performances. Doctor Milner tells us, extended even to the resurrection of the dead; because they rest, at best, but on doubtful authority, and are i\ot acknowledged by some of the most eminent writers of the Popish communion ! But the miracles of recent date, with which " God has illustrated the (Roman) Catholic Church," are beyond all suspicion; inasmuch as those which Doctor Milner did not witness himself, have *' had the most respectable attestation" to their genuineness! Those, which he specifies are the cures of Joseph Lamb, *' who conceived that the spine of his back was broken;" of Mary Wood, who had received " a desperate wound in her hand ;" and of Winifred White, whose disease was " a curvature of the spine^ which produced a hemiplegia, or palsy." The circumstances attendant on the recovery of those persons are detailed with such laboured minuteness, and are in themselves so marvel- lously ridiculous, that I should dismiss the subject as beneath serious notice, were it not for the importance attached to it by Doctor Milner.
POPISH, OR FALSE MIRACLES. 371
t
Whether we consider a miracle to be * a sus- pension of the laws of nature, or t ^" effect above human |)o\ver to produce, in attestation of some truth ; or :[: an extraordinary work, in which the interposition of a supernatural power is indisputable; we shall not tind the cases re- ported by Doctor Milner as coming' imder any one of those definitions. In them, we can per- ceive no alteration in the course of nature ; no effect above human means to accomplish ; and no evidence of a divine agency: we can trace them all to their natural causes. With resj)ect to Joseph Lmnh, whom Doctor Milner reports, from actual knowledge, to have derived relief from the [ij)plication of § " a dead maii^ hand"
* Locke. f Bentley. \ Bishop Douglas,
§ The wonderful cures reported by Doctor Milner to have been wrought by the hand of Father Arrowf>inilh, find a pa- rallel in those performed by the hands and arms of Oswald, as recorded by William of ISIalmsbury. This historian (see Sharp's Transl. p. 53. London edit. ISlG.) says, " that those precious relics remain, according to the testimony of Bcde, through the power of Cod, without corruption." It must be observed, that l'< dc flourished within less than one century of Oswald's reign, and/c/ur centuries before William of Malms- bury lived. So that, taking for granted, (hat Hcde's account of Oswald's handx, &c. being without cnrrvptirm at the tiiuc Jie wrote, is correct ; still, the nnraeleof their preservation is in- ferior to that related by Diictor iMilner (I.nrr.K xxiii. p. HG.) respecting Arrowsrnith's hand, which is " j)reRervcd to ilii^ day entire at Wigaii," after a lapse of nearly two cenlurie«'.
2 K 2
:572 I'Ol'ISH, OR FALSE MIRACLES.
(that of priest Arrowsmith) to his diseased l>ack ; what more can be said, than that his iinai2:iMatioii hud been so povverfnlly worked upon, and so strongly excited, as to bring- him relieC? To this circumstance his cure is to l)e attributed ; there being no evidence by revelation, tliat it was brought about through divine interposition, and, in the absence of such evidence, we camiot go beyond bare con- jecture, that his cure was miraculous, were we even disposed to think it so. The power of imagination, in the cure of agues, and of the evil l)y the Royal touch, is known to be most as- tonishing. The * fear of becoming a prisoner to Marshal Turenne, suddenly cured an Austrian general, who was crippled from the gout; and Young, the tourist, mentions, that the terror of falling into the sea, or of being devoured by birds of prey, changed the '\ colour of a per-
* Mead, in his Medica Sacra, p. 70, says, subitus terror multos interemit.
t The occurrence took place in the county of Clare, where a lad descended an eyry, which overhung the sea. The rope by which he was held becoming entangled, caused him to despair of safety ; and before it was disengaged, the extraor- dinary change spoken of took place.
Should I omit to mention the surprising effects of Haygarth'g metallic tractors on rheumatic affections, or the no less sur- prising cures performed by the once noted Maineduc, of Cork ? This person had wound up public credulity to such a pitch, that the patient, who submitted to his treatment, as he called it.
POPISH, OR FALSE MIRACLES. 373
son^s hair from black to white, within the few minutes, durin«^ which he reckoned on death as inevitable. Here are instances, not merely of the power of the imagination, Imt of the violence of the passions, producing- wonderful effects on the human frame. Can we, therefore,* be at a loss, to what the supposed miraculous cure of Joseph Lamb is to be attributed?
As to the cures of Mary Wood and Winifred White, which Doctor Milner sets down as mi- raculous, we shall find, that they were pro- duced by the regular operations of nature; and where we can do so, reason points out to us this general rule, that we should never ascribe any event to miraculous interposition.
Of the former, he says, *" that beiug unable to use her hand, she had recourse to God, through the intercession of St. Winifred, by prayers for nine days ; that siie put a piece of moss, from the Saint's well, on her wounded arm, continuing recollected and praying; when, to her great surprise, the next morning, sh« found \\cvinM perfectly curctiy Of flu- lalter, ( he
has, when placed hy him m a certain position, from no <ithcr assignable rau»c than the mere force of ima^^ination and an ardent faith in the powcrftof ihf operator, derived the Nought- for reli<r The- deiiision sc» in*, lo originale in this circnm- »lancc, that where there cxistK a prcdiR()osition to helieve, no impo&tiire will be too gross to be swnlliiwrd.
* Lr.TTER xxiii. p. *^^. t Ikih. p. S9.
374 POPISH, OR FALSE MIRACLES.
remarks, " that her disease was a curvature of the spine; that this produced a palsy on one side, so that she couhl feebly crawl, and that having performed certain acts of devotion, and having bathed in the fountain, she, in one instant of time, on the 28th of June, 1805, found herself freed from all her pains and disabilities, and was enabled to cany a greater weight on the arm which was diseased, than on the other!"
In the first place, then, the waters of * St. Winifred's well in Flintshire, to which Doctor Milner alludes, have been discovered to possess medicinal properties of the highest degree. "Their green and sweet scented moss," says t Doctor Linden, "is frequently applied to w/- cerated wounds, with signal success." This he ascribes to " a vegetating spirit in the water, which is clear of all gross earth and mineral contents." Hence, we may perceive, that had that physician lived to see the cure of Mary Wood's arm, he would have said, that the ap- plication of the moss to the wound was attended
* The author of Columbani;s denies the existence of such a Saint as St. Winifred, and observes, "that the monks of Holy- well applied in 1380 to Gilbert de Stone, to write the Life of St. Winifred. Stone asked for materials, which could not be procured. No matter, said he, I shall compose her life without qaaterials !" — See Letter iii. p. 79, and Warton's Hist, of Eng. Poetry, vol. ii. for a further account of this imaginary saint.
t Linden on Chalybeate Waters, Lond. 1748, p. 126.
POPISH, OK FALSE MIRACLES.
375
with signal success, but would never have pro- nounced the cure itself miraculous.
Again, when Doctor Linden speaks of those waters being " a most powerful cold bath of the first rank, having in their favour a variety of au- thentic cures, worked upon the most stubborn and malignant diseases ; such as leprosy, weak- ness of nerves, Sec. &c." does he not enable us to account for the recovery of Winifred White also on natural principles? In her case, we see everj"^ thing proceed according to the established laws of nature. We see a relaxed frame re- lieved, and finally cured by an immersion in cold water ; whence, we may reasonably ascribe the recovery of the patient, (which Doctor Mil- ner says, was eflected in one instant of time, that is, viiracnlously) to the suddeimess and vi- olence of the shock on her frame. He remarks, it is true, that the physicians gave " no hope of a perfect cure" in either case. But will it be said, because the diseases baHled their skill, that they were, therefore, beyond reuicdy? If so, the argument will stand thus. Th«; diseases were incurable, but they were inslanlatieimsly removed ; therefore, the cures were supernatural! Or, to put the argument in riiiotli< r form, the cure was deenH;d imj)ossible; but it was cU'ected **m one instant of time ;' therefore, it was ?/i;ra. culous. Again, " Winifred \\ liite had recourse
S76 POPISH, OR FALSE MIRACLES.
to God, through St. Winifred by a *Novena ;" but she had a stronu: faith iu the Saint's intercession ; therefore, St. Winifred effected her cure! He must be an expert logician, that could discover the connexion between the conclusion and the premises. Such is Doctor Milner's reasoning on the point, which if it be not the most logical, will, at least, be allowed the merit of novelty.
But, further, Doctor Milner seems to have forgotten, in 1819, what he admitted in 1805, when he published his observations on Winifred White's cure ; namely, that she remained a fort- night at Holywell, to bathe by the advice of her friends. This single circumstance throws discre- dit on the reputed miracle; inasmuch as it shews their apprehensions of a relapse, which they would not have entertained, were they satisfied of her perfect restoration to health. We may be- sides collect from Doctor Milner's account, that she was grossly superstitious ; when he speaks of her setting out for Holywell, ■\ " with an humble confidence, that God was both a^/eand willing to work a miracle in her behalf." On her arrival there, we perceive her mind, which was prepared for this event, enlivened to the
* Certain prayers continued during nine days. See Doc- tor Milner's Authentic Documents relative to the cure of W. White, of Wolverhannpton, &c. p. 34.
t IniD.
POPISH, Oil FALSE MIRACLES. 377
greatest degree. She goes through her stated rounds of devotion. She sees, or thinks she sees, her malady all but removed. As those, who associate spectres with darkness, are said never to be disappointed in their ajipearance; so it is with such as look for a miracle. We can easily conceive, therefore, what her imagination, exci- ted as it was by superstition, cherished by igno- rance, and stimulated by her spiritual direc- tors, was capable of effecting on her enfeebled frame.
And lastly, when Doctor Milner confidently declares, that Winifred ^^ bite's cure is superna- tural, his decision is grounded on the .strength and accuracy of his own judgment, in oppo- sition to an liijunclion of the Council of 'I'rent, which desires, * " that liishops shall 7iot decide without calling a Council of the Clergy to de- termine, whether the supposed miracles might not be the effect of natural causes." This col- lision between his dictum, and llic riilo |)re- scribed by the Council, I uk rely allude (<», for the purpose of shewing how authoritatively he pronounces an opinion, to which the members of his own CommiHiion are in no respect bound to defer.
We may further observe, that both Mary Wood and W. White, were j)ers()ns of livel\
* Ses.s. XXV. Df Jnvoc. SS.
378 POPISH, OR FALSE MIRACLES.
imaginations, and had wrought themselves into a firm persuasion, that by praying to the tutelary Saint of the Well, their diseases would be re- moved ; and moreover, that their ])rayers had consequently excited in them a degree of en- thusiasm. When, therefore, we connect with those circumstances the medicinal qualities of the waters, we should not be surprised, that nature should be restored to its proper tone. The story of Madame de la Fosse's recovery, as told by Bishop Douglas, strongly resembles those related by Doctor Milner. Being a per- son of a warm, fanciful temper, her prayers produced in her, says tlie Bishop, * " such phrenzy as that of a lunatic, or the wildness of a drunkard, so as to cause such a contraction of her blood-vessels, as led to her cure." He further adds, that '* the accelerated motions communicated to the nervous system by sur- prise and joy have removed the most obstinate maladies." As therefore, there can be no reason for doubting, that those excited in Doctor Mil- ner s patients by the warmth of their devotion, might not, with other co-operating causes, such as the application of the moss, and the use of the cold bath, produce their respective cures also ; we can feel no hesitation in pronouncing what he attempts to palm on the public as " evi-
* Criterion of Miracles, p. 232.
POPISH, OR FALSE MIRACLES. 370
dent miracles," to be, at best, but surprising cures, brought about by natural causes.
The miraculous restoration of speech to a person at Killesandra, in the Diocese of Kil- more, through the agency of his parish Priest, is so worthy of being associated with Doctor Milner's miracles, that I cannot forbear calling the reader's attention to it. While we admire the address of the impostor, in duping his su- perstitious neighbours, and of the Priest, who affected to exercise a supernatural power on the occasion ; we cannot but applaud the talent, with whicli the cheat and the artifices of its contrivers have been exposed. Tiie 7no(Ius ope- randi adopted by the Priest is not a little cu- rious. He first * " read some prayers over the dumb man, and next gave him holy water to sup three times; on swallowing which, he found something stirring in his stomach, whicli ascen- ded by his throat, (risum teneatis ?) and he in- stantly spoke!!" It is scarcely necessary to add, that the man evinced his gratitude to his benefactor by ceasing to be a Iicretic, and adop- ting the creed of his I*opish wife.
Doctor Milner may, if he please, add to (his
* Sec Inuciuy iiilo llic r<|)orlt(l miraculous curt- of Matthew Breslin, by tlic lU.v. John Cotsiss, Curate to the Hev. Doctor Hales, with tlie aflidavils of credible witnenstu aiincxctl, that Brcslin spoke within the five days, during which, il was said, he had losl the faculty of speech.
380 POPISH, OK FALSE MIRACLES.
his other divine attestations in favour of the ex- clusive hohness of the Church of Rome; but let him recollect, that by giving currency to this and similar delusions, he does a greater injury to the frish people, than any they sustain by the want of education ; because, he obstructs, to the degree his influence extends, the growth of vital piety and religion, and contributes to perpetuate among them ignorance, superstition, and error.
;jai
CHAPTER XVIII.
PRAYERS IN AN UNKNOWN TONGUE.
Notwithstanding the express opinion which * St Paul has pronounced in conclenuiation of the practice of praying- in an unknown tongue, and at a time too, when, in consequence of the miraculous gift of tongues, men prayed in strange languages ])y inspiration ; Doctor Mil- ner alleges Ids authority for this very j)ractice in the Church of Rome; for, that he addressed an Epistle, which forms part of tiu- liturgy of all Christian churches, to the Romans, fin the Greek language, although they themselves made use of the Latin." As it appears to me^ there is no analogy whatever hetween the two cases; between St. Paul's addressing a Church in a language generally known at that time, and the Clergy of that Church, after a lapse of many centuries, praying in a language not to the edification of th(^ peoph-. \\\\\ Ixsides, his argument proves too much; for, if the I'2pis- tle to the Romans justify the use nf a strange tongue in the Roman Catholic Church at the
* 1 Cor. xiv. + l.KTTKu xlvii. y. \V.).
382 PRAYERS IN
present day, it would follow, that the' service intended for the use of that Church should have been drawn up in Greek, as soon after the period in which the Epistle was written, as Liturgical Offices were composed, although not understood by the people. Or, as that Epistle was written to the Roman Church when Latin was the vernacular tongue of the western world, by parity of reasoning, whenever that language ea sed to exist, the praying in it should have ceased also. The similitude, therefore, does not hold.
Had the Roman Pontiffs allowed divine wor- ship to be celebrated in the language known to the people, when the decline of the Roman Empire had brought on the extinction of the Latin language, and had not been influenced by a superstitious veneration for it, because it Lore the stamp of antiquity; or by other mo- tives less worthy : they would not have incurred the Apostolic censure. What St. Paul says on the subject to the Corinthians, is so pointedly directed against the usage of the Popish Church, that it is surprising how Doctor Milner could have imagined, that the circumstance al- ready stated afforded it a sanction. We should recollect, that the Corinthian Church princi- pally consisted oi Jews, and that, although the service was divided between two or three offi- ciating ministers ; they still retained the use
AN UNKNOWN TONGUE. 383
of the Hebrew, to which they were familiarized. To this St. Paul does not object, provided an mXej:\n'eiev be present. The Apostle thus rea- sons : — * " If, then, I know not the virtue of the voice, I shall be to him to whom I speak, barbarous ; and he that speaketh, barbarous to me. But, if thou bless in the spirit, he that supplieth the place of the vulgar, how shall he say Amen upon thy blessing, because he know- eth not what thou sayest?' From this passage, indeed, as well as from the whole of the chap- ter in which it occurs, it may be collected, that the Corinthian Church had fallen into the prac- tice of the Jewish synagogue; in short, that it had tjiMfZaecef/ in this particular, and had there- fore excited the Apostle's displeasure.
Doctor iNIilner grounds a second argument in
• Rhemish Version, 1 Cor. xiv. 11, 16. In conformity wiili this reasoning, St. Paul is said (Acts, xxi. 40.) to have addressed the Jews of Jerusalem, tr 'L^^uiSt 3i«Xi>tTw.
t LicHTFOOT, in his Hor<E Ilebraica;, observes, " Quamvrs autem tarn utilis forct lintjuoe Hebra-a: ugus apud lios niinistros,
crat tanifcu tt abuxxu aliquis <jucm caatii^ut Aj>ostolu9
buspicor eos in hAc rtjudaizassc attjue usuni lingua; Ilebrsea, quamvis vul;^o ignotce, in l'".cclesi4 retinuisse, consucludnicni MfiuutoH Synaqoffcc." — Vol. ii. p. *)1S, in Epist. 1 ad Corin. The same author again says, " Memini magnam partem Eo- ctesiee Corinlhiaca* coiutitiise ex Juditis, non possum non %\\»-
picari ct ininistros eorum c4«lcm lingui u»o» <juam
rem nuidcm tolerat Apostolus, viodo aUsit Interpies, uli ttiam 111 Synagogis est factum." — Ibid. p. 9\\h
384 PRAYERS IN
favour of the Popish practice, on the attendance of Christ at the Jewish service in the Temple, and ill the Synagogue. He says, * " that al- though that service was performed in a language which the vulgar did not understand, yet that our Saviour never censiired it." But this argu- ment is of the same description as that derived from the Epistle to the Romans, having been written in Greek. It is true, that Christ, but with different motives from those of approbation or disapprobation of what was going forward, joined with the Jews in their religious worship, being that in which he was bred up. For f St. Luke tells us, that our Lord read to the people part of Esaias, which was prophetic of himself; and that after preaching to them, " the eyes of all them in the Synagogue were fastened on him ;" and " that all bare him witness." Now, how could they have done so, or have " won- dered at the gracious words which proceeded out of his mouth -^ had they been unacquainted with the language in which he spoke ? And if, on the sabbath days, " they were astonished at his doctrine ;" we must equally conclude, that he addressed them in the language, which they understood.
On referring to :j: Basnage's continuation of
* Letter xlvii. p. 149. f IV. 17, 22, 32.
\ Book v. p. 456.
AN UNKNOWN TONGUE. ,'J85
Josephus, we may perceive the foundation of Doctor Milner's argument laid in a conjecture of Voisin ; but which that author does not sup- port. * " They pride tliemselves," says he, " at Rome, in the conformity of this Churcli with the Synagogue, about the Jews praying in a strange tongue; for as they perform their ser- vice in Latin, by order of the Pope, the Jews make their prayers in Uebrcir, which is the language of the great Sanhedrim." But Bas- nage remarks, that this conformity is quite clii- merical, as the Jews neitlier performed tlieir service in an mtknoicn tongue; nor was tliere a decree of the Saidiedrim to tliat effect. He admits, no doubt, *' that they do not all under- stand Hel)re\v, but they have forms of prayer in the language they understand. There needs but little use and custom to prevent being mistaken, and to answer Amen with nnderstandhig' as St. Paul recpjires." He afterwards adds, (hat th(> Hebrew language was not extinct, " since the Jews, at this day, write their Itdoks and con- traets, and journals, in the language of the llabbies, and that those of the .Morea wsv il generally f<»r every thing." It is therefore evi- tlent, to (hiuonstration, lli;it Doclor Milnei overstrains Hie parallel, whi< h lie institutis be.
* N'oiMN — I'u^jiia li'!< I, I'. I"^<.
38(5 PRAYERS IN
tween the Jewish and Romish Churches, so far as their respective Liturgies are concerned. ♦
Besides, he is aware, that portions of the Scripture were read to the people in the Syna- gogue from the Hebrew Bible ; that these were afterwards expounded to them * verse by verse, in the language which they understood ; that the attention of Ezra and Nehemiah was specially directed to this point; that the Levites f "gave the sense, and caused them to understand the reading ;" and, that if from the length of their captivity, they nearly lost the knowledge of the Hebrew, and acquired the Chaldee; yet, that this was rather a variation of, than a different lan- guage from the other. Every thing that was done, had a reference to the instruction of the people. Is it, therefore, natural to suppose, that when such pains were taken to make them ac- quainted with the Scriptures, that they should be left in utter ignorance about the meaning of their prayers?
JLightfoot tells us, that "every Synagogue had its own interpreter to translate into the ver-
* "Nee licet lectori praeire interpreti plures versus quam unum" — VixniNGA. de Synagoga vetere, cap. xii. p. 1019.
t Nehemiah, viii. 8.
+ " Unaquaique Synagoga interpretetn saum sortita est, qui iu vernaculam linguam redderet qusecunque ex lege aeu propbetis, secundum autographa, periegi solebant." — Vol. ii. p. 135.
AN UNKNOWN TONGUE. 387
nacular language, whatever was usually read from the law, or the prophets, according to the autogi-aphs." Besides, the elders required every man to have the original Scriptures as well as the Targums, which would enable him to under- stand them. But he is equally satisfactory on the subject of their prayers, when he says, "that they were composed in the Chaldee lan- guage, * that all might understand." And fPrideaux informs us, that ihc Prayers of Ezra, which eveiy age and sex were required to :{: re- peat three times a day, were deemed a " funda- mental and principal part of their Oflices. But, if we refer to the testimony of || Nehemiah him- self, our doubts must vanish ; for the Levites, according to him, used to cry out with a loud voice, " stand up and bless the Lord your God for ever and ever.' This single circumstance J shews, that the people knew both tlu- forms of 1 prayer and the language in which they were re- quired to bless; while it rationally accounts for the passivene«ss of our Saviour on the occasion. Indeed, were this not the case, were no inter-
* " Ut omiies intcUigercnt." — Iniu. p. 9lV. Sec aUo Pni- vzwx, ut supra.
f Vol. ii. part li. p. 411.
X " Every private person amonfj the Jcw»," >nyH Basfinj^e,
" ii obliged to repeat a hundred hcncdictions a day." — Hi»t. »>I
the .Tews, hook v. p. 454.
II IX. h.
2 ( 2
3BB PRAYERS IN
preter to explain, and no instruction imparted; were there nothing but idle shew accompanied with unintelligible sounds, as in the Church of Rome at the present day ; instead of a tacit acquiescence in what took place in the Temple and the Synagogue; there can be no doubt, but that our Lord would have been more deci- ded in his condemnation of it, than St. Paul af- terwards was in the case of the Corinthian Christians.
1 therefore conclude, that no plea is reserved to Doctor Milner for justifying the custom which prevails in the Romish service. Had the Apostles, indeed, been influenced by such a de- sire as he seems to have, of praying in a tongue not to the edification of the people, and had they accordingly adopted either the old or new Hebrew in their forms of prayer, then, indeed, the resemblance would have been most marked ; but as the matter stands, there is none whatever.
We find Origen, in the third century, ob- serving, that every person prays to God in his own tongue ; * " that the Greeks used the Greek, and the Romans, the Roman language, in their prayers." The f history of the sixth century tells us, that when some of the super-
* Elf Tat5 eup^ai? o» f^i> t'Khnni; EAAHNIKOIS ^^uvyon, ot is fw^atot PilMAlKOlS. — Orig. cotitra Cels. Lib. viii. p. 402.
t See Bingham's Antiquities, Book xiii. chap. iv. p. 580. Also, BtKNET, Art. xxiv.
AN UNKNOWN TONGUE. 389
stitious Jews wished the Law to be read only in the Hebrew, then not understood hy tl\e people; while others contended for its being read in Greek, or in any other language kiiotcfi to them, the wise Justinian decided in favour of the latter, and thus at once checked the in- novation as soon as it was perceived to be gaining ground in the Jewish synagogue. At that period the Christian Church was free from this corruption. So late as the seventeenth cen- tury, the state of the Jews in Barbary, no less than their customs, secular and religious, is mi- nutely detailed by Doctor Addison. * "Those," he remarks, '* which cannot read the service in the Hebrew, who are but Jew, arc bound when to learn to say Amen." And, if we look to the existing custom of even tlm Romish ciiurches in the province of Madura, we shall iun\, that f *' the priest reads the Si/rian mass, instead of the Latin, which he does tiol understuudy
Doctor Milners ////;y/ argument is, " tliat tin- Greek churches, like the J^atin, retain tlicir original (ircek in tli< ir Liturgy, although tlM" comuHJU people liav(,' forgotten it." ^^ lieti Ik referred to }, Mo>lieiiii, lur ilie usages ol' llie Eastern (christians, lie .^lioiiid in candour, have prefaced his reference willi the severe censure
* IjOndoi) rdit. IfiTG.
t Pi:ar»on's Memoirs of DocTon Hue iunan, vol. ii. p. Ifi.
i Vol. li. p. 3iry.
390 PRAYERS IN AN UNKNOWN TONGUK.
pronounced by that historian on *' the Uonuui Pontirts, who, with the most senseless obsti- nacy, retained the use of the Latin language in the celebration of divine worship, even ivhen it was no longer understood by the people." Had Doctor Milner done so, he might then have added, " that the same absurd principle on M'liich the Popish Church acts, produced a si- milar effect among the Egyptian Christians, wlio perform their religious service in the an- cient Coptic language ; among the Nestorians, who use the Syriac; and among the Abyssi- nians, who adopt the old Ethiopic; although these languages have been long unintelligible to the people." But, how can the prevalence of a practice, which is inconvenient and absurd in principle, justify a continuance of it, when Scripture, reason, and common sense, condemn it; and when history attests, that every Chris- tian Church originally had a Liturgy in its na- tive tongue?
!i
30]
CHAPTER XTX.
PROHIBITION OF THE SCRIPTURES.
Xo the unrestricted use of the Scriptures, Doctor Milner takes all the exceptions which were laid down by the Council of Trent. While he admits, that the revealed truths of the Bible are to be made known as much as possible, yet, he says, that it does not hence follow, that ***«// are to read the Scrij)tures ;" that this in- dulgence is only to be extended to those who adduce " some attestation of their piety and tlocility;" and that, for the use of persons so disposed, " the Enj^lish version of tlx; Itoniish Bible is exposed to sale in all si/es — folio, quarto, and octavo;" against which, Jlisljoj) Tomline has no other objection lo make, " ex- cept that it is loo literal, that is, to(t laitlifiil." Here is an explicit avowal, tiiat the Church of Rome does not |)ermit its laity to read the Bible in their mother tont^nH-, \\itliout sjxcial penms- sion to do so. This admission is the more \a- Inabh', considering; thr aiifhorily ot the person
* LETTr.n xlvii. p. I.'>2.
oi)J. PHOlilBlTlON OF
who makes it; since it has been erroneously supposed, that tliat Church has relaxed in its opposition to the ditrusion of the Scriptures. INo; the spirit in wliicli tlie rule prohibiting the use of the Scrijitures was conceived and puhbshed by Pins IV., in whose Pontificate the Council of Trent tinished its sittings, continues in full force to this day. It is Ihia Rule, which Poj)ish writers give as the apology of their Church for the rigorous enforcement of its de- crees.
The reader will perceive, as it stands in the * original, that the license must be in writing, and that it relates to the Bible simply. Another liule ordains, that whoever dared to read, or possess a Bible without this licence, and did not surrender it to his Ordinary, could not re- ceive Absolution. This power of granting li- cences was afterwards wholly withdrawn by the Church of Home, and if restored, it was Avith a still greater limitation than that laid down in the original Ride, viz. that the editions of the Bible should be subject to the fappro-
* " Eis concedere possint, quos parochi vel confessarii, in- lellexerint tx hujusmodi leclione, non damnum, sed fidei at- que pietatis augtncntum capere posse ; quam faciiltatem in saiptis habeaiit." — Regula IVtu P. Pii IV.
t " (iuod si hujusmodi Bibliorum versiones vulgari lingua, fuerint ab Apostolica Sede approbatae, auteditue cum annola- tionibus desumptis ex Sanctis patribus, vel ex doctis catholi- cisque viris, concedunlur."
THE SCRIPTURES. 393
bation of the Holv See. These rules extend to books of * controversy. When, therefore. Doctor Milner speaks of *' the vulgar transla- tions of the whole Scripture being itpon sale, and ojien to every one,'' it is mere idle talk, as long as such Rules as these are in existence, and enforced with rigour; inasmuch as that does not prove that everi/ Roman Catholic is per- mitted to read them. And, even before w^e can form an opinion, that any particular man will be allowed this indulgence, wc should know what his confessor's judgment is on the subject ; as it is both in his, and in his Bisho()'s |)ower, to lock tliem up, or to make them a sealed vo- lume to any iiidividiial they think proper. From what we know of the lower orders of the Ro- man Catholics iu this country, wc may safely aver, that the Scriptures are to thum a (hnul letter, and as little known as if they never ap- peared in print.
With respect to what IJislioj) Tnndine says about the J)ouay Old, ;ui(l the RiMinish New Testaments, 1 cannDt tliiiik it possible tli;it Doc- tor Milner could li;i\e had his Lordshi|>s VAo-
* " Lil)ri de controvcrsiis non passim pcrmittuuiur, »cd
idem dc iis srrvetur, (jiiod dr Hiljhit* viil|;ari liiiguA Kcripli* sla- lulutii (St." hi illuhlralioii of tliiH ndr, I may s|>( c ify the Dr- fence of the Ancient Faith, l>y tlic Rev. 1'i.ri n d animh imiy, n work which WAt at first approved l»y the Papal .St<-, but after - war<ls, ihroii^di Doctor Poynlcr'n innticiice, coiidiiiintd, iinld the author made humhlc submisttioii lo that Uiyht Hcv. Vicar Apostolic.
394 PROHIBITION OF
ments of Theology before him when he quoted him, not as disapproving, but as highly com- mending those versions of the Scriptures. He represents that Prelate as saying, " that they are too literal,'' an expression bespeaking their me- rit, as it implies, " that they are too faithful,'' which, in the Doctor's mind, constitutes the excellence of a translation. But so far is his Lordship from saying any thing commendatory of the English Bible of the Church of Rome, that he pointedly censures it; or rather, on the au- thority of Fuller, denies that it is a translation at all. The translators, says he, * " retained in it many Eastern, Greek, and Latin words, and contrived to render it unintelligible to common readers." Now, as by possibility. Doctor Mil- ner may hold up as admirers of that version, those who agree in opinion with his Lordship ; as one of them, I most distinctly declare, that I not only concur with the Bishop of Winches- ter in what he has said on the subject, but that I subscribe to the opinions delivered by Fulke, Fuller, and Johnson, as w^ell as by the vener- able translators of our own authorized Trans- lation, respecting it.
* Bishop of Winchester's Elem. of Theol. vol. ii. p. 16. Fulke, Fuller, Lewis, Johnson, Archbishop Newcome, and Geddes, no less than our own authorized Translators, pro- nounce the Douay Bible, a barbarous translation from the Vulgate before its last revision, accompanied with acrimo- nious and injurious annotations.
THL SCRIPTURES. 3i)o
But, much as I lament to see the Scriptures veiled iu obscurity, and rendered unintelligible to commoQ readers, my regret is heightened by the republication of the ofl'ensive and unchari- table * notes, \vhich tirst accompanied the Khe- mish Testament. Were it ever once supposed that the Church of Rome had abandoned its bigotted and unchristian dogmas, the last Dub- lin edition of the English Bible, published under the auspices of Doctor Troy, would produce conviction on the mind of every unpre- judiced person, of tint hopeless fallacy of such a supposition. This volume, when the Church of Rome interprets it according to its own tra- dition, is held forth as containing the rule of faith and practice, and as uniting, at the same time, scripture and trailHion; the former in the text, and the latter in the notes. \\ h<ii I con- sider this, and the high authority under which it circidates among the Irish public; an<l llial it unfolds, in its \o\\^, pious, and oiric/iiiii^' anno- tations, as they are called in (he K.C. Orlliodox Journal ol October, IH17, (he conipreliensive' principle of the infallibility of Pof>ish <-onncils and (heir decrees; 1 cannot l»ii( feel alarmed at the rniscliievons tendency of ijio'sc selfsame pious and curieJiinj^ notes, :iii(i ;il the spirit *>( persecution which pervades (hem.
If we refer to recent occurrences, wr shall
• SfC pRErATOHV KeMAHK«, J». XVII.
39(> PROHiniTlON OF
see the present Supreme Pontiff, notwithstand- inj^ the niiklness of his character, denouncing' Jti his * Letter to the Titular Bishops of Ire- land, what lie calls " Bible Schools," and stig- uializing our Received Version of the Scriptures, as " abounding with errors," and our Bible So- cieties, as endeavouring to infect our peasantry "with the fatal poison of depraved doctrine:" when we see in the f Brief recently trans- mitted from Rome, a repetition, if not of the same language, at least, of the same sentiments : when we see those Titular Bishops, in their col- lective capacity, coming to a J Resolution, '' that the New Testament, or any part of the Scrip- ture, with, or without note or comment, is not a fit or proper book to be used in schools :" when, II individually, they act up to this Resolution in their respective dioceses : and lastly, when we
* This Letter, dated September 18th, 1819, and signed by Cardinal Fontana, is referred to by Mr. Brougham in his eloquent speech on National Education, June 28th, 1820.
t The Brief is addressed to the R. C. Prelates of Ireland by the Holy See, dated August IJth, 1820, and signed by Cardinal Somaglia. It represents our Bible as "pregnant with errors" and the Bible Society as tainting the indigent classes " with the deadly poison of perverse doctrine."
X See Dublin Journal of February 7th, 1820.
U The R. C. Bishops, Coppinger, Kelly, Doyle, &c. &c. have, in their respective Pastoral Letters and Sermons, also forbidden their Congregations to read the Scriptures, ivith, or without notes ! !
THE SCRIPTURES. 39?
see the * Bishop of Castabala himself apphiiul- ing this whole affair, can we be surprised at the little progress of religious knowledge among our lower orders ; or, that iVJr. Brougham, \vhen he developed his admirable system of Education, should have considered it inapplicabk'td Ireland. And here I must take leave to make an ol> servation on the Hibernian Society, and its Auxiliary Branches, as at present constituted. I do so solely from a regard to my own |)rinci- ples as an orthodox clergyman of the Estal>- lished Church. Much as 1 condemn the r<v strictions imjjosed by the Church of Rome oi» the free circulation of the Scriptures; and al- though it be an object nearest my own heart, to aflbrd them the widest dissemination possible; yet I must declare, that I am far from being in- difterent about the medium, through which this is to be carried into effect. It is urged, and with justice, that an Association composed of Churchmen, and all denominations of Disseu- ters, has a necessary tendency to produce an apathy about the vital doctrines of Christianity
* Doctor Milncr, V. A. lor tin- luiddK dislrici of Kntjlaml, speak* tlius in Ins I'asloral Ix.Uit of ISOJ. " Tlii» »l»i(ly, in- deed, (tliat of the Holy .SrnpUircb) \» not rc«|uircd of all tlic faithful indiscnnnnatcly, as the Church h(u declared, bccauw: there arc in tln-^ in>>tcriou!» Code thinni hard to he uudrr- slood, wlncli llie unlearned and unstable utkhI to tlicir own de»lruclion, and aif to receive the ivurd of God broken and pin- puredjoi their dufestion ul the hand of their I'culon."
398 I'KOHIBITION OF
in our Churcli ; that tliose persons, whose prin- ciples may not be fixed, are more likely to be- come a prey to false opinions, in consequence of this heterogeneous mixture; and that * Dissent- ers will undoubtedly follow up the circulation of the Scriptures, with all their influence, for the })urpose of propagating their peculiar tenets. As I feel the full force of these objections, for one I should be happy to see the dissolution of this unnatural connexion taking place, and the Churchmen, who are members of this Society, either attaching themselves to the Parent Associ- ation, that for discountenancing Vice; or form- ing a distinct one of Churchmen with Church- men, and leaving the Dissenters, if they please, to imitate their example. Were this to take place, and were the new Society to accompany the dis- tribution of the Bible, with a t -Prayer Book,
* Under the denomination of Dissenters, I class our Evange- lical clergy, who only adhere to our church, because of the consequent adhesion of ecclesiastical benefits to themselves. But with what inconsistency, to say the least of it, do they act, in thus engrossing emoluments, and at the same time, in vio- lating the terms, on the faith of which the Church of England conferred them.
t It is not a little gratifying to me to find my own opinion on this subject fortified by such high authority as that of Bishop Mant. His Lordship also recommends, a diligent, but judicious distribution of the Holy Bible, accompanied by the Book of Common Prayer ; while tie disapproves of a boundless circulation of it without regard to circumstances. Charge, pp. 48, 49.
THE SCRIPTURES. 399
as a safeguard against the delusions of Calvin- istic interpretation ; we should see the same blessed effects follow from the proposed altera- tion in the frame of our Hibernian Bible So- ciety, as have been so fondly anticipated from the new-modelling of the British and Foreign Bible Society, by some of the most orthodox and learned Divines of the present day.
400
CHAPTER XX.
CELIBACY OF THE CLERGY.
I SHOULD not have adverted to this subject, had not Doctor Miliier, by a misstatement of the fact, thought proper to involve me in a se- rious contradiction. Speaking of the text of
ot. IVJattneVi'', ( ov ntuvvtc, yu^wcn rov Myot tovtoi, iVlatt.
xix. 11.) he says, that when cannot is put for do not in the translation, the sense of the pas- sage is altered; and that, although this corrup- tion stands in direct opposition to the original, t " as the Rev. Mr. Grier himself quotes it, yet this writer has the confidence to deny, that it is a corruption ; because he pretends to provCy from other texts, that continency is not 7ieces- saryT It would be painful to me, to designate this representation by the title it deserves. I shall, therefore, content myself with barely re- peating, that it is a misstatement. I have not proved it, either directly, or by implication ;
* Doctor Milner renders it, " All men do not receive this saying." In the Rhem. Translation, it is, " Not all take this word." Our authorized Eng. Transl. has it, " Ail men can- not receive this !-aying."
f Letter ix. p. 72.
CELIBACY OF THE CLERGY. 401
nor have I affected to prove, that continency is iiot necessary. This I can affirm with the ut- most confidence, as I have re-examined the ar- guments, which I advanced on tiie suhject, with the closest attention. \\\ fact, the contested point between Ward and me, did not refjuire either of us to come to the decision about continency being, or not being necessary ; inas- much as it is on all hands admitted to be an ornament and grace of the sacerdotal character.
The question is simply this, whether our Sa- viour's words, as above stated, make it im|)e- rative on the ministers in his Church to lead a life of celibacy, or not. Had Doctor Milner only substituted ce/j^acj/ f<jrcoiitinency, 1 should readily plead guilty to the charge, eitlur, that I proved, or atteujpted to prove, that celibaci/ was not necessary. A reference to the * iiook it- self will satisfy the reader, that in llu' nfuta- tion of the objection to our K('(«MV(<i \ rrsion <»t' the above text, 1 have involved any future ones, which may be raised against its correctness. In truth, Doctor Milrier's cavil is in substance the same as Ward's, and only \arirs from it as briiii; couched in a more artfid form of »\|)r<SNi(»M.
But, neitlnr tlie text (jiiohd by Ward from St. Matthrw, nor that adducid by Dorfor Milner from St. I^aui, dctcriniTus cithrr ;!•- to
* Sec .\N<>%vtit III W.ird, ]>|i. XS aixl i ■1 f)
•102 rtLlBAL\ 01 THE CLERGY.
tlie possibility or impossibility of leading a life of continency; and when I thus explicitly say so, I trust, I shall not be again represented by Doctor Milner as pretending to prove, " that continency is not necessary." The fact is, that it is no where stated in Scripture, that conti- nency proceeds from man's free will ; while it makes express mention of it here, and in other texts, as being the gift of God. It were, in- deed, superfluous, even for the best men, to ask it as a divine favour, if they could impart it to themselves. Besides, that which every man may, by ordinary means, obtain, cannot be called a special gift ; that is, a gift proper to some, which the words, " to whom it is given," imply.
Not to speak of St. Peter's being a * married man, and that our Saviour did not consider this circumstance as a disqualification to his be- coming an Apostle, we have abundant proof afforded us by Archbishop Usher, that celibacy was not generally imposed upon the clergy in ancient times. Even from the Irish records, he produces a manuscript containing St. Pa- trick's confession, that f " his father, Calphur- nius, was a deacon, and his grandfather, Poti-
* Mati. viii. 14.
t " Patrem habui Calphurnium Diaconum filium quondam Polili Presbyteri." — Archbishop Usher's Discoukse on the Re- ligion of the Ancient Irish, p. 145.
CELIBACY OF THE CLERGY. 403
tus, a priest ;'' and quotes Gil das, a writer of the sixth century, as censuring the Bisho[)s in the British Church, " that tliey were not con- tent to be the Inisband of one, but many wives ; and that they had corrupted their children by their evil example." * He likewise informs us, on the authority of Giraldus Camlirensis, that, in the twelfth century, the British and >\ elsh clergy contrived to make their sons succeed them as well in their spiritual as in tlieir tem- poral estates. In the beginning of the thir- teenth century, the letters of Pope Imiocent the Third, to his Cardinal Legate, shew, that this abuse prevailed even to a greater degree in Ireland. Here is a mass of testimony to prove, that, although that imperious Pontifi", (Gregory VII., had subjected the Church to the Pa|)al See, by enforcing the celibacy of the clergy on the continent; yet that, for uj)wards of a cen- tury after his time, f" ^^^^'^ ^'*<^ grandchildn'ii used to succeed their fathers and grandfathers in their ecclesiastical henejiccs,'^ in these islands. Finding evidence so strong agaifist him, Doc- tor Milner attem|)ts to invalidate ii, by impeac Ii- intr Archbishop Usher's character, on the uroutid of unfairness in suppressing what he should have told. Thus, [says he. " if the learned Primate had ;ict( d Jairb/ by Ins r«-ader^, In
* Ibid. p. b\. \ Imn. p. bS. \ K'ji irv. y. I4'i.
2 i> '2
40-1 CELIBACY OF THE CLERGY.
would have informed them, that the same au- thor, who mentions tiiese particulars, concern- ing St. Patrick's family, expressly tells us, that the children of Calphnrnius and Potitus were born previonslf/ to their father s ordination^ It is true, were this charge fully established against the Archbishop, it would lessen the * reliance placed on his general accuracy and candour. But, Doctor Milner has not only miserably failed in his attack on that great man, but has been' unable to sustain what he asserts on the authority of Joceline himself, weak as his au- thority is considered to be. For, in the first place, it may be seen from the preceding para- graph, that Usher d-oes not refer to Joceline, but to the Manuscript containing the confession of St. Patrick. So that, although Doctor Milner were correct in what he gives as Joceline's words, still bis' charge against Usher would be un- founded. And secondly, Doctor Milner is unable to point out the place where Joceline " expressly tells us," that St. Patrick was born before the ordination of his father, Calphnrnius;
* Doctor O'Conor, who was eminently qualified to pro- nounce upon the accuracy of Archbishop Usher's quotations, thus expresses himself. — " Having diligently perused all the printed works and many of the MS. Letters of that great man, I can with truth declare for him, what I cannot with truth say for the Bishop of Castahala, that I never yet discovered a false reference to any MS,, or to any printed book, in any of his vritings." — Colimbanus ad Ilibernos, Letter iii, p. 50.
CELIBACY OF THE CLERGY- lO/)
as that author onlv savs, that * " his Parents relinquished the use of the niarriage-betl, and died hohly in the lord.*' This does not deter- mine the ordination of Calphnrnius to have taken place after his separation from his \vife, as Doctor Milner insinuates ; it rather goes to prove that Calphurnius was a deacon when St. Patrick was begotten. On the whole, therefore,^ it appears, that the accusation brought against Usher is not sustained by historical evidence, and that Joceline's testimony, poor as it is, which Doctor Milner has cited for the pnrpose of disparaging a married life, justifies, so far as it goes, the account given by Usher of celibacy among the clergy being unkiiuwn in the early ages of the church.
If we must determine the origin of this inno- vation, we shall have to trace it to the monkery of the dark ages. To the andjitious llilde- l)rand, (Gregory VII.) are we to attribute its ^establishment. Indeed to such a man could it alone b(?long to subjert the Church to the See of Rome, and then to compel leMip(»r;il J*iincrs to submit to the Church. We know, gi- ;rantic as the enterpri/e waw, how Huccessfnily it was executed. l>y <'mancii)i»tiiii; lln" Church
* " Castitati htudueruul p-ir. iiUsSli I'alricii, ii^ni|H' (;»l|»luir- iiiuB el Couquoba ; Cal|)liui riuj'. auleiii /»rjf/t i/i Duiconatu <li- ulius Domino saxivit, j>oi.lromo in prrshyleiutu vilam fiiiivit." •locELiN. Vila Sli. Pal. c 1.
40(» CELIBACY 01" THi: CLERGY.
from the tcinporal power, this haughty Pontirt" was enal)le(l to destroy the dependence of the Ecclesiastics on their respective Sovereigns, and thus to turn the mental energies of that vast body of men to the exclusive advancement of his individual interests. To no purpose did the German and French Bishops denounce the pa- pal decree, as requiring what was repugnant to the word of God, and the doctrine of the Apos- tles. And in vain did they urge their liability to the same temptations and infirmities as other men. Gregory was inflexible, and their resist- ance but rendered his triumph more complete. He deprived them of their benefices, excommu- nicated them, pronounced their children bast- ards, and their wives concubines : and thus gaining the ascendant over every finer feeling of the heart, he might boast, that shame, fear, and avarice, reduced the clergy to his subjection, rather than a sense of duty. This state of things, after a duration of more than four cen- turies, was happily terminated, wherever the blessings of the Reformation were felt, and an ecclesiastical polity established, which was more consonant to the early usages of Christi- anity.
407
CHAPTER XXr.
EXCLUSIVE CATHOLICITY.
Having *already discussed the subject of the baneful schisms, which, for upwards of half a century, disgraced the Church of Rome in the very seat of its pretended sanctity and infalli- bility ; and having proved from the existence of those t schisms, that if unity be a mark of the true Church of Christ, the Romish Church is 7iot that true Church ; it only remains for me to observe with respect to the other exclusive characteristics, which Doctor Milner claims for it, that history attests, that it is not the most an- cient, while it destroys its pretensions to holi- 7iess ; and that the novelties and heterodoxies in its faith, with which it is encumbered, dt;mon- strate, that it is not apostoiicai, except au to it*^
* See Prefatoiiy Remarkh, p. xxvi — xxix.
t Tliat, distinpuiiilicd by the luimc of llic (treat Hejtrrm Schisvi, l)r^,'aii iii 137S, aflir the litiitb of (irrgory XI., and ended in 1429. For ^//j^ yrars, durinj; which iIun dis»rn»ion was fomented with such fatal »uccf»«, tlic Church of Romr had two or three difFi-rcnt hracU at the »ninr lime ; a circiim- Ntance, which does away all ilt claimn to t 'uly, SanctUy, n\\<\ Infallihility. — Mosii. EctL. Ilr^T. vol. m. p. .ilfi— .i2S.
408 EXCLUSIVE CATHOLICITY.
origin and form of Govenmient; \\h'\\e a refer- ence to geography will prove, that it is not Catholic, or Universal.
On looking to the extent of the See of Rome, or the Pope's jurisdiction, about the time of the Reformation, when Popery was most general, we shall find, that it did not occupy more than onfe'fourth part of Christendom. If his Supre- njacy extended at that time over Great Britain and Ireland, and several states of the Continent of Europe, it was excluded from the Russian Empire, and not acknowledged by the Greek, Syrian, and Armenian Churches, and other branches of the Asiatic and African Churches. But from the view wliicli Doctor Milner give$ of * "the present diffusiveness of (Roman) Ca- tholics," although greatly abridged since the above period; his reader would be led to ima- gine, that in Europe alone, they were to Protes- tants in the proportion of sia.' to one; and that they were almost the only Christians to be found throughout the other quarters of the world.l Here, however, his usual disregard to accuracy Ijctrays itself; since, according to a correct i statistical account lately published in France, of the population, and of the different denomi- nations of Christians in Europe, the Roman
■* Letter xxvi. p. 109.
i See Schoell's Tableau, Sec, as quoted in The Dublin Journal, Nov. 17, 1619.
EXCLUSIVE CATHOLICITY. 400
Catholics are to the Protestants of (hft'ereiit Coniinunions, in a ratio of somewhat less than tivo and a half to two; the former being stated atone hundred, and the latter 2it forty-two mil- lions. Now, if to these forty-two millions be added thirty-two millions of whatthe French calculator calls schismatic Greeks; meaning those not in communion with, or under the ju- risdiction of the Papal See; and likewise up- wards of half a million of Christians of other denominations, including Herndiutters, Meno- nists, kc. &c. who equally protest against Po- pish errors ; the gross number of all those sects dissentient fiom the Church of Rome, would amount to somewhat more than seventy four millions and a half According to which calcu- lation, the proportion of Roman Catholics in Jiurope, to other Christians of dift'erent deno- minations, would be somewhat less than ojir und a third, to one.
Again, were I to admit that the Christian converts and settlers in North and South Amc rica, are in connnunion with the See of Rome; yet what becomes of i)o( tor iVIilner's exclusive Catholicity with reference to the (Churches in Africa and Asia? If wcMlircct our atl<iition to the oriental ones alone, we shall find rven on the coast of Malabar, •one hundred Christian
* III Doctor Buchanati's acconnl ».f llic Syrian riiurchc*, \vc fnid ilial in llic region of tliiidohtaii alour, there arc ./f/Vy-
410 EXCLUSIVE CATHOLICITY.
Churches, with the purity aud simplicity of whose worship, Doctor Buchanau informs us, the Portuguese adventurers were, on their first visit, offended. Here we find a race of Chris- tians maintaining the order and discipline of a regular Church under Episcopal jurisdiction, and enjoying a succession of Bishops appointed by the Patriarch of Antioch for thirteen centu- ries before those freebooters came among them. Will Doctor Milner allow, that those Christians were Catholic, before the terrors of the Inqui- sition reduced them to submission to the church of Rome ; or, that those of them are Catholic, who have since resumed, under British pro- tection, the exercise of their own pure and una- du Iterate religion?
* " The Syrian Churches," said Vasco de Gama, " belong to the Pope. Who is the Pope, asked the natives: we 7iever heard of him ? We, added they, are of the true faith, whatever you from the West may be ; for we come from the place where the followers of Christ were first called Christians." The same may be said of the Asiatic Christians in general, who, not only were not subject to the Pope, but who never
^Ave Churches agreeing in essential points with those of the Church of England. They have the Bible and a Scriptural Liturgy, which have preserved the vital spark of Christianity among them. — See Christian Researches, p. 117.
* Ibid. p. 107.
EXCLUSIVE CATHOLICITY. 411
SO much as once heard his name mentioned. This was the state of things in l-50;>, when the Portuguese first visited the East; and even when Doctor Buchanan wrote his account of the Syrian Churches in India, they were inde- pendent from the Papal See, and disclaimed a connexion with it, with the exception of such as were under the control of Portugal and Spain. * And if, as has been shewn, the Syrian Church be a distinct and an independent branch of the Catholic or universal Ciiurch of Christ, what exclusive pretensions to Catholicity can the Roman Cliurcli have, since both are equally of Apostolical foundation? It follows, therefore, as an inevitable consequence, that the Clinrch of Rome is not only not cxclusiveli/ C'atholic, but that, were the Syrian Church to put forward like pretensions to Catholicity, tiicy would be equally well founded. They are both brancheH of Chri.st's (Catholic or Universal Church; and are each independent from the other. The same may be said of the Creek and Britiwh Churches, &c. &c.
In justice to the character of Doctor liucha-
• According; to Doctor Biicljanan, Clirioliamly iii the Ro- mitti Province* in tlic Kaitt, m in tlie lumi «l«'t;ra(lfil »tatf, ow ingtollic corrnpuons of I'«.|»»ry. Of llu- Primt*. hr tayi, " tliat tli< y arc- in general tx-llrr ac<]\inimr<l with thr Vrda nj Bralima, than with the (;o«|»<l of riiri»l. In M)nic p1ac««. the «loclrinci» of both arc blended." — Uid. p. 163.
412 EX(LU6lVi: CATHOLK ITY.
nan, I am compelled to notice a misiepiesciii' tation made by Doctor Milner of what that writer says respectinG; the ))ower of the Romish Church in India. I'he number of the Roman Catholics, did not, as Doctor Milner aversj' * '* excite either the jealousy, or the complaints of that celebrated Missionary." Not a word of complaint, nor an expression of jealousy occurs in the place quoted ; nor is there even an al- lusion in it to the number of Roman Catholics resident in the Peninsula within the Ganges. Doctor Buchanan's sole object was to secure the co-operation of the Syrian Church, in order to counteract the influence of the See of Rome, and if possible, to effect an union of that Church with the Church of England. This was all he aimed at. But it suited Doctor Milner's purpose to misre[)resent, even at the risk of detection, and accordingly, he has mis- represented.
But, as Doctor Buchanan has been quoted' for what he has not said, I shall take leave to state what he has said, in the page referred to by Doctor Milner. The passage could not have escaped his notice ; as it contains an interesting conversation on the subject of an union between the Syrian and British Church. The Chap- lains of the Syrian Bishop asked, f " Whence
* Letter xxvi. p. 111. t Chutstian Researches, p. 131.
EXCLUSIVE CATHOLICITY. 413
do you derif e your ordination ? From * Rome. Yon derive it, said they, from a Cliurch wliicli is our ancient enemy, and witli which we would never unite." They fnrther remarked, that, ad- mitting: that the same ordination witli their own had descended from theApostles of that Church; yet, that " it had departed from lUe faith.' Sucli was the opinion of some of the members of that pure and ancient Church, whose Scrip- tures, doctrines, and language; in short, whose very existence, are standing memorials of its Apostolic origin : which never was in connec- tion with the See of liome, and which, wiitn an unioLi was i)roi)Osed to it, rejected it with indignation and scorn.
One or two of J)octor Milners arguments in favour of liis exclusive Catholicity, remain to be noticed, which, if they do not convince,;
* The late piihlications of ihc Bishop of St. David's, and df
tlie Kov. Doctor Halts, on the Oripin ami IiKUpendcnccof thf
T^iliuh an<l Irisli Chnrches from the ("iiurcli of Roinr, unont
8ali^factory proof, that ilriliih Ordination wa» dcrivcil from
Si. Paul, and descended in the Uritish Church, in direct »uc-
cession, to the bc;;inniiij; of the twelfth century. Anil. «1-
thouMi the Saxon Church derived ordination from Uome,
lllronph AuMin, the fir»l Archhihhop of Canterbury, and that
the Hritish < hnrch, on its xuhniiKMon, win united v»ith it al
that pertoil under the common liilt of the Church of Kng-
land ; yet, had Doctor liuehanan been ac<|uaintrd with the
former cireumxtance, m) (.atinfarlorily proved by the obovr
named diviiKH, he need n«»t have al oil alarmed the Syiian
clerfjy uiili iIh mnUion of the Church of Koine.
414 EXCLUyiVK CATHOLICITY.
will at least amuse the reader. " When," says he, " a Protestant repeats, I believe in the Ca- tholic Church, should J ask him, are you a Catholic? He is sure to answer me, No, I am a Protestant." Again, " were a stranger to ask his way in London to the Catholic chapel, no sober Protestant would direct him to any other place of worship than ours." These are, ac- cording to him, " glaring instances of Protestant inconsistency and self-condemnation." But such reasoning, if reasoning it can be called, carries with it its own refutation. As no well- informed Protestant ever supposes the Catholic Church, in which he expresses his beliefs to be any other than Christ's Church Universal. And if, in the ordinary intercourse of life, Pro- testants unguardedly speak of the Catholic cha- pel, the Catholic question, or the Catholic po- pulation, they use that term, if they attach any meaning at all to it, not in reference to its ec- clesiastical sense, but as a synonyme of Roman Catholic. The advantage, however, which Po- pish writers take of this indifference, and the additional claim to exclusive Catholicity, which they affect to establish on this verbal inaccu- racy, would, if duly considered by the Pro- testant community, lead to the total disuse of the word * Catholic in the May spoken of lo
* I have already had occasion^ to protest against Doctor Milner'n rigbt to apply the term Catholic exclusively to the
EXCLVSIVE CATHOLICITY, 4\'>
truth, were tliat epithet acknowledged to be appropriate to the Church of Rome, and con- tradistinguished in meaning to that of Protest- ant, it wouhl inevitably follow, that the Pro- testant Church was not within the pale of the Catholic Church of Christ; a consequence which even many of our liberalists would be reluctant to admit.
Towards the conclusion of his Letter on Ca- tholicity, Doctor Milner remarks, that Pro- testants have wo ivay of accounting for the change of the pure religion of the primitive ages, for the new and false system, whi(?h they call Popery, at whate\er period it may be tixed, " but by supposing, tluit the whole collection of Cliristians, on some one niglit, went to bed Protestants, and awoke the next morning Pa- pists !" "^J'his is wit with a vtngeance. The facetious Doctor reminds me of those persons who draw on their memories for that article, as they do on their imaginations for argununl ; for, poor as the joke w, it has not • \('n the merit (if originality, lint surely the idea was iiev«r
■icinberg of ihe Church of Rome, in my ninarka on hi* nr- riion preached at the coiuccratioii of ihc Fopinh church of St. (.'had's in the town of Hirniiti;;iiani, in 1S09. Tlic quiliblci » liich he thtii |»nl)lishctl on ihr subject, clo»fly re»rml)lc thn»r, uhich appear in bin Endqf ('onlrovrrty — .Sec Ak^meu to \Vnr«l. J'rtfari-, p. xxxiv. ; and Prcf.T"'- fo tbi^ Work, t"WJirdii ihc end.
4i(3 KXCLL'SIVE CATHOMCTTY.
once entertained, that the corruptions of Chris- tianity were of instantaneons growth, or that the Church of Rome liad contracted them in a clay, a year, or even in a century. Be this as it may, my wish isy that all the members of its communion may, after their next night's sleep, awake Protestants, and that the Church to which they belong, may imitate the modest and unassuming demeanour of the Church of ling- land, and ever feel itself under the influence of that meek and tolerant spirit — that genuine Christian charity, which is the unerring mark and criterion of the true Church of Christ.
ITNIS.
J. M'Creery, Tooks-Court, Chancery-Laoa, LoodoD.
UNIVLRSITV OF CALIFORNIA LIUKAKY
Los Angeles
Tliis book is DUE on the last date stamped below.
Form L9-Series 4939
BX1731. M636EZG
AA 000 632 341 4
• tJ^- .-
5^
VL'
f H
UJ^
^M 1. «:
« ^^^ !■■
M m ■.:■
. M^n. % K. w w. :i ¥ :■■
|
MMJiiil'Ji' |
'i/ M r |
|
^ t... t ill If VI |
C^'''^^ |
|
In Mm m T4. w |
III
M » %.M %. M. K.
M- M.
"Ti
ri*
^ l| it '^ 4 '^^
•UUf
}iji
#'V
'"itX:^
J: A