cbc ClnivcrsUv of Cbiccuio
w -V
libraries
DURRETT COLLECTION
, njz&--&^
THE END OF CONTROVERSY,"
CONTROVERTED.
OF
"
d&ih of
IN A SERIES OF LETTERS
ADDBESSED TO
THE MOST REVEREND FRANCIS PATRICK KENRICK,
Ionian fettjolic Slrrjiliisjiop uf Mtintorj.
BY JOHIST H. HOPKINS, D. D., LL. D.,
\
of Vermont.
VOL. I.
NEW-YORK ;
PUDNEY & RUSSELL, No. 79 JOHN-STREKT.
STANFORD & SWORDS, 637 BUOABWAY.
1854.
.'. .
Entered, according to Act of Congress, in the year 1854, by
PTJDNEY & RUSSELL,
in the Clerk's Office of the District Court of the United States for the Southern
District of New- York.
PUDNET & KUSSELL, Printers, 79 John-Street, N. Y.
TABLE OF CONTENTS,
LETTER I.
Previous controversy with Archbishop Kenrick " The Church of
Rome" " The Primacy of the Apostolic See" Address to our Bish-
ops, recommending Milner's End of Controversy to their perusal
Public Discussion proposed and declined " Lectures on the British
Reformation" " History of the Confessional" Reply to Milner
Reasons for addressing the present work to Archbishop Kenrick
Events of the last ten years General interest of the Romish Contro-
versy Character of Milner's book This work mainly concerned with
the English branch of the Reformation The phrase Roman Catholic
Protestants against Romanism, not against Catholicism Allowance
to be made for Milner Temptations of the Romish system Christian
Fidelity. Pp. 311.
LETTER II.
Milner's adroit and fanciful Introduction His statement in regard
to the Rule of Faith Three modes of settling this Rule Private In-
spiration The Bible, as understood by each particular reader of it
The Word of God at large, as explained by the Church This rule
held by the Church of England The Bible alone, according to the
Interpretation of the Primitive Church, as embodied in the Prayer
Book This proved by the XXXIX. Articles Authority of the Church
in Controversies of Faith Ground covered by the Articles No room
left for Private Judgment on any important point of Christian Doc-
iv Contents.
trine The Liturgy constantly gives the. decisions of the unerring
Judge of Controversy, the Church,, to. all the faithful Milnei's hardi-
hood in misrepresentation Oral- Tradition not on an- equality with
Scripture This proved by the Primitive Church Whether Rome or
England possesses, most fully, the advantage of the Church as the
unerring Judge of Controversy, and sure guide in all matters relating
to Salvation 1 The Church of England gives the voice of the Church
to all her people, in English : Rome speaks only to the few who un-
derstand Latin rEngland gives the voice of the Church directly : Rome
indirectly, through a Priest only England gives a Catechism for all her
little ones : Rome only for her Clergy Instruction in the Church of
England open : in that of Rome, secret, in the Confessional Milner's
boast for Rome incomparably more true of England Milner's three
fundamental maxims proved to be more true in the Church of Eng-
land, than in that of Rome Romish books in English Not stamped
with that Church's Authority The Church of England responsible
for the Prayer Book No book corresponding to it authorized for the
laity in the Church of Rome. Pp. 12 22.
LETTER III.
The Reformation in England Wickliffe's Translation of the Bible
Lollards Bohemia Lollards' Tower Luther Zuinglius and Cal-
vin England last in the field Milner's great object is to impeach
the English Reformation His statement of its cause, instruments
and results This statement almost wholly false True statement
Marriage of Prince Henry, while a minor, with his brother's widow,
Catharine of Arragon The validity of the Pope's Dispensation denied
at the time King Henry VII. convinced of the unlawfulness of it
He commands his son to protest against it when of age This Pro-
testation made in 1505 Action postponed until the accession of
Henry VIII. Majority of the Council opposed to dissolving the mar-
riage The King complies ; is publicly married and crowned Mary
the only child that survived The French Bishop of Tarbe objects
that Mary is illegitimate, her mother's marriage being against the law
of God Cardinal Wolsey and Longland confirm the King's doubts
He examines Leviticus and Thomas Aquinas All the Bishops of
England, except one, agree that the marriage was null and void from
the first, and that the Pope had no power to dispense with the Laws
Contents.
of God The King applies to the Pope for a .divorce Arguments for
it Napoleon obtained a divorce on much, less cause The Pope tem-
porizes His reluctance to act accounted for, although well inclined
of himself to grant the Divorce This fact shown by Lingard The
Pope authorizes Wolsey to decide the point in England, and grants
Henry a Dispensation to marry again He even recommends the
King to marry before any divorce is pronounced Milner contradicted
by the Pope The Pope testifies in favor of Anne Bullen's good cha-
racter, and Henry's conscientiousness Milner against the Pope
Causes of delay in the matter of the Divorce- Cardinal Campeggio
joined with Wolsey in the Papal Commission The Queen appeals to
Rome Three years wasted Cranmer suggests taking the opinion of
the Universities Enumeration of authorities in favor of the nullity
of the King's marriage with Catherine He marries Anne Bullen pri-
vately No rupture with the Pope on this account The pallium for-
warded to Cranmer without delay Declaration of the King's supre-
macy All the English Bishops consented to it, except Fisher, of
Rochester And all prominent Laymen except Sir Thomas More
Points involved in the Supremacy Previous exemption of the Clergy
from secular justice Right of Sanctuary for others Peter-pence,
First-fruits, Offerings, Presents, Subsidies, Expenses of causes at
Rome Filling English Sees with foreigners Expenses of Legates
All this a Usurpation Supremacy of the Kings of Israel, and Christian
Emperors in early times Summary of Milner's errors thus confuted
Dates concerning the Divorce Question Milner's charges, if true,
recoil upon his own Church King Henry no Reformer, in the proper
sense But rather an Instrument to prepare the way for the Reforma-
tion. Pp. 2341.
LETTER IV.
The abolition of the Pope's Supremacy and the suppression of the
Monasteries, not a Reformation Henry VIII. a Romanist in all but
the Papal Supremacy His character not more cruel" or lustful than
that of other Sovereigns in good odor with Rome Edward VI. The
true Reformation Cranmer, Ridley, Latimer, Hooper The Duke
of Somerset Milner's misrepresentations of Somerset's measures
The Bishops were the leaders in the work of Reform Suppres-
sion of the Chantries, Colleges and Chapels The Bishops taking out
vi Contents.
new Commissions during good pleasure Visitors, Homilies, the read-
ing of Scripture Imprisonment of Bonner and Gardiner Altering
the work of the Bishops in compliment to Calvin Pictorial represen-
tations of the Blessed Trinity Cranmer orders the removal of Images
Cranmer compiles the Catechism Cranmer, with other Bishops
and Divines, draws up the Liturgy and Offices Milner's misrepresen-
tations in regard to Elizabeth The Bishops deposed, all but one, as
Traitors No doctrine or principle adopted under Elizabeth different
from those settled under Edward VI. No changes, except of verbal
expediency Exercises and Prophesyings Never approved Milner's
effrontery Outcry about the Despotism of the Reforming Princes
Milner's Theory of the causes of the Reformation The Politics of
Princes and Statesmen The avarice of the Nobility and Gentry
The irreligion and licentiousness of the People Not true as to
Politics No Politics influenced Luther, Zuinglius, Calvin, Cranmer,
Knox The Politics of Princes and Statesmen mainly opposed to the
Reformation The Reformation not wrought by earthly policy, but in
the face of it Cranmer and his colleagues had nothing to gain by the
Reformation, because it reduced the privileges of their own Order,
and lessened their wealth and ambition Politics under Elizabeth were
rather on the side of the -Pope The Avarice of the Nobility and Gen-
try had no incentive No more Monasteries then left to suppress
Their alienation already confirmed by the Pope The Irreligion and
Licentiousness of the People were -the result of ages of Romanism,
not of the Reformation The Causes of the Reformation must have
existed before the Reformation But Irreligion and Licentiousness
would never have accomplished the Reformation It was accomplished
in spite of them. Pp. 42 58.
LETTER V.
Human depravity works gradual corruption Proved from the His-
tory of the World Also from the History of the Church Parallel
between Israel and the Christian Church The corruption of the
Middle Ages in perfect analogy with all previous History Foretold
also by Prophecy Romish .authorities for the History of Corruption
Fleury's Ecclesiastical History, and Hardouin's Councils Origin and
growth of the Disease needful to be known, in order to its Cure
Contents. vii
Milner pretends there was no disease at all HISTORICAL SKETCH OF
THE RISE AND PROGRESS OF ECCLESIASTICAL CORRUPTION The Se-
cond Century pure, according to Tertullian Origen, Cyprian, and
Eusebius prove a growing declension in zeal and godliness in the
Third Century Fourth Century Constantine's Conversion Increase
of wealth, power, and dignity in the Church Tendency towards
clerical celibacy Checked at the Council of Nice Monachism de-
spised at Rome as a novelty, A. D. 341 No image-worship Prayer
for the Saints, not to them Corruption and Licentiousness on the
increase Riot and slaughter at the election of Pope Damasus Epi-
scopal style of living at Rome, superior to that of a King Commence-
ment of Rome's appellate power Monkery defended by Chrysostom
and Jerome, owing to the general licentiousness of the age St. Au-
gustine complains of superstitions in his day Fifth Century Rapid
deterioration Testimony of Salvian Contest beginning between
Rome and Constantinople, for the Primacy Monachism and Super-
stition increasing Sixth Century Gregory the Great condemns the
ambition of Bishops He denounces the title of Universal Bishop'
Claims the Primacy for his own See of Rome Image-worship on the
increase Serenus, Bishop of Marseilles Gregory rebukes him, but
condemns the worship of images Seventh Century Bishops take
part in temporal government Fruits of clerical celibacy in Spain
Bishops marching at the head of their troops A Council absolves
subjects from their allegiance Saints invoked, for deliverance from
the Plague Relics Growth of Superstition Eighth Century
Iconoclastic controversy Pope Gregory offers to withdraw his alle-
giance from the Emperor Pope Zachary sanctions Pepin, in deposing
King Childeric Pope Stephen gives Pepin a letter from St. Peter
King Pepin's Donation of Rome and twenty-two small cities, to the
Pope This beginning of Temporal Sovereignty made by a double
treason and an impious fraud Confession enforced for the first time,
by Chrodegang, Bishop of Metz, from his Monastic Priests, A. D. 763
^Tithes compelled by King Pepin Previously enjoined only on
grounds of Conscience Charlemagne did not know how to write
Progress of Superstition Forgery of the Decretals This forgery un-
questioned for eight hundred years False documents quoted without
suspicion at the Second Council of Nice, A. D. 787 Private Masses
expressly forbidden Nuns forbidden to write billets doux Baptism
of Bells prohibited Ninth Century Rejection of the Second Council
viii Contents.
of Nice, by the Council of Frankfort The Laity request that Bishops
may no longer head armies Charlemagne's attempts to purify the
Morals of the Clergy Charlemagne invoked as a Saint Monks
kept in order by being whipped naked Guetin's Dream Purgatory
What the Angel said of the Bishops The Rage for Relics The
Parliament of Aix-la-Chapelle Miracles wrought by False Relics at
Dijon Gotheschalk whipped and imprisoned for eighteen years, as a
Heretic, for holding high views on Predestination The capitular of
Hincmar Holy Water Number of Priests in Rome The Festival
of the Assumption firmly established Admission of the power of
Bishops to depose Bangs Paschase teaches Transubstantiation Op-
posed by John Scotus and Ratram Blood shed in St. Peter's at
Rome between the troops of an Archbishop and those of the Pope
The first partial Interdict, A. D. 871 Ordeals Enormities sanctioned
by the Pope The Council of Mayence attributes all the evils of the
times to the sins of the Bishops Clerical incest Clerical ignorance
in England in the time of King Alfred Outrage of Pope Stephen VI.
upon the dead body of his predecessor, Formosus No Pope conse-
crated without the approbation of the Emperor, according to the Can-
ons and the Custom The Bishop of Rome chosen by the Bishops
and Clergy, upon the demand of the Senate and People Sergius III.
approves the barbarity of Stephen VI. Tenth Century Sergius III.
governed by his mistress, Theodora Her daughters Marozia and The-
odora, worse than herself Marozia's son by the Pope, comes to be
Pope himself Archbishop Hervey's complaint of the Bishops, Clergy,
and Monks John X., illegitimate son of Sergius III., and paramour
of Theodora the younger John XII. Pope at the age of eighteen
Reigned like a Temporal Prince Degraded state of the Clergy
Boys made Bishops Abominations charged against John XII. by a
Council held under the Emperor Otho The Council deposes John,
and elects Leo VIII. Scandalous hostilities between the two Popes
and Bishops well matched John XII. dies from a blow received while
with a married woman Benedict V. War with Otho Rome taken
Leo VIII. restored, and Benedict banished Council in England,
under Dunstan The Clergy as described by King Edgar Benedict VI.
seized, imprisoned, and strangled Boniface VII. chased away Bene-
dict VII. Shameful excesses Complaints of Rathier, Bishop of Ve-
rona The Clergy the cause of the destruction of the People Arnoul,
Bishop of Orleans Antichrist St. Udalric, Bishop of Augsburg, the
Contents. ix
first saint canonized, A. D. 993 Gregory V. expelled from Rome
Brought back by the Emperor's army The usurper, John XVI., mu-
tilated, and paraded sitting backwards on an Ass Saint Nilus The
devil returning at the sight of a woman Eleventh Century Heretics
punished by the sword or the stake The Pope's description of the
Clergy at the Council of Pavia Heretics burned alive as a general
rule Benedict IX. elected Pope when twelve years old His infa-
mous life Benedict IX. sells out to Gregory VI. for 1,500 livres
Italy overrun with robbers, thieves, and assassins Three Popes in the
field at once Council .at Rheims in 1049, for Reform in Morals and
Discipline Another Council at Mayence, against Simony .and other
vices of the Clergy Another in the Diocese of Oviedo, in Spain
Pope Leo IX. taken prisoner in battle New mode of electing Popes
by the Cardinals Peter Damien on the incontinence of the Clergy
Mortification and Superstition among the Monks St. Dominic, the
Cuirassier Penance by Proxy An hundred years of Penance done
in six days No example of this previous to the Eleventh Century
The Little Office of the Virgin introduced Baptism no longer gratis
Shocking outrage at Goslar between the Abbot of Fulda and thtf
Bishop of Hildesheim Gregory VII. elected in 1073 He claims the
feudal lordship of Spain Censures the Kings of France and Germany
for Simony He claims the right of Investiture, and enforces the celi-
bacy of the Clergy His decrees resisted Canonical obedience com-
pelled by force The Pope deposed in an assembly at "Worms The
Pope anathematizes and deposes the Emperor Fleury condemns both
Severe Penance of the Emperor at Canusium Rudolph elected Em-
peror Civil war Stale of the Church as described by Gregory VII.
Berengarius opposes Transubstantiation Compelled to retract
He renounces his retractation Gregory VII. refuses to permit the
Mass to be celebrated in the Sclavonian tongue His way of treating
the example of the Primitive Church Gregory's enormous claims
The Anti-Pope, Guibert Long and bloody war The Anti-Pope en-
throned, as Clement, III. Schism in the Papacy Clement yields in
1089 The Council of Clermont, in 1095, orders the Bread and Wine
to be received separately, instead of together in a spoon, after the
manner of the Greeks State of Religion as given by Fleury in his
Preliminary Discourse to his 13th Volume. Pp. 59-97.
Contents.
LETTER VI.
Continuation of Historical sketch The Twelfth Century Gregory
VII. Clerical celibacy and Investitures Allowance of Investiture
held to be a Heresy The Emperor excommunicated Two Popes at
once, Gelasius II. and Gregory VIII. A Pope besieged by an army
commanded by a Cardinal The conquered Pope publicly exhibited
with a camel's tail in his hands The Emperor Henry V. yields the
form of Investiture with Ring and Crozier General Council of Late-
ran, A. D. 1123 Plenary Remission for Crusaders Testimony of St.
Bernard to the corruption of his day Knights Templars instituted,
A. D. 1128, at the Council of Troyes St. Bernard's exhortation to
the Archbishop of Sens Another Schism in the Papacy Innocent
II. and Anacletus II. Celestin II. Lucius II. Eugene III. Arnold
of Brescia Guibert, Abbot of Nogent, writes against Relics and Mira-
cles Festival of the Conception of the Blessed Virgin opposed by St.
Bernard as a novelty John of Salisbury What people said of the
Pope and the Roman Church in the time of Adrian IV The Pope
gives away Ireland to the King of England Gratian on the Canon
Law False Decretals Another Schism in the Papacy Alexander
III. and Victor III. The Laity incapable, through ignorance, of prac-
tising Law and Physic Charlemagne canonized by an excommuni-
cated Pope The Pope expelled from Rome Another Anti-Pope, Ca-
listus III. Quarrel between Alexander III. and Henry II. about Tho-
mas a Beckett The English Monasteries in 1175, as described by
Richard, Archbishop of Canterbury Archbishops Richard and Roger
A combat between them in the presence of the King Another
Anti-Pope The Cardinals restrict the election of Popes to their own
Body Pope Celestin III. kicks the crown from the Emperor's head
Elevation of the.Host introduced. Pp. 98-111.
LETTER VII.
Historical Sketch continued Thirteenth Century A better sort of
Popes Fleury denounces several propositions taught in the false De-
cretals The Pope's power over Councils, Bishops, and in Appeals,
the Union of spiritual and temporal Jurisdiction, Persecution and Pen-
Contents. xi
ances, attributed by Fleury to ignorance What produced this igno-
rance Corrupt state of the University of Paris Reformation desired
by Pope Innocent III. Council of Lateran in 1215 Extirpation of
Heretics made imperative on all Auricular Confession made compul-
sory once a year An acknowledged innovation Order of Preaching
Friars, instituted A. D. 1216 Gregory IX. The Clergy of France
compelled by the Pope to pay the expenses of Persecution The Em-
peror Frederick- excommunicated for being too sick to go on a Crusade
His Letter to all the Kings and Princes of Christendom The Pope
compelled to leave Rome The Pope goes to war with the Emperor
Peace restored The Scriptures forbidden to the Laity, at the Council
of Thoulouse, A. D. 1229 The first instance of such a prohibition
The Pope, in 1234, testifies that English Monasteries were extremely
debased Thirty French lords complain to the Pope, saying that the
Bishops were insubordinate to the royal Authority Salve Regina in-
troduced by the Preaching Friars, A. D. 1237 Alexander, King of
Scotland, refuses to admit a Papal Legate In 1238 the Patriarch of
Antioch excommunicates the Pope and the whole Roman Church
The Emperor calls the Pope the Great Dfagon, Antichrist, Balaam,
and the Prince of Darkness The Pope declares the Emperor deposed
War Gregory IX. dies in 1241 Celestin IV. supposed to be poi-
soned A Papal vacancy of eighteen months Quarrel between the
Minorites and the Preaching Friars Pope Innocent IV. flees to Genoa
Neither France, Arragon, nor England, willing to give him an Asy-
lum The Council of Lyons in 1245 The Pope's Five Wounds
Complaints of England against the exactions of Rome The Pope
drew a larger revenue from England than the King himself The
Pope pronounces the Emperor deposed The Emperor in reply advo-
cates Apostolic poverty and humility A rival Emperor set up by the
influence of the Pope The Preaching Friars odious to the ancient
Monks and Secular Clergy They monopolize Confessions Conse-
quent increase of immorality Bloody war between the Emperor
Frederick and the Pope's Emperor The " Pastorals," a new set of
Heretics, preach against Preaching Friars, Minorites, Cistercians,
Black Monks, Canons, Bishops, and the Court of Rome Noble Pro-
test of Grossetete, Bishop of Lincoln Pope Alexander IV. compelled
to leave Rome The Inquisition Heretics to pay the expense of the
persecutions against them Scandals from Clerical Licentiousness
general throughout the whole Church The Pope's Letter on this
xii Contents.
subject Excommunicated persons imprisoned by the Bishops Dying
regulation of Alexander IV. Festival of Corpus Christi instituted in
1264 The Pragmatic Sanction Gregory X. elected after a vacancy
of two years and nine months Sad state of things in Prussia Curi-
ous Letter from the Pope to the Bishop of Liege A Bishop by Dis-
pensation The Papal Legate denounces the scandalous state of the
University of Paris Tendency of the Aristotelian Philosophy to pro-
duce Infidelity Two Hundred impious propositions, then current
Specimens of them Roger Bacon imprisoned for his suspicious stu-
dies Four Councils in France in 1279 Hatred between the Clergy
and the Laity Powers of the Pope, according to the laws of Alfonso
the Wise How Crusaders availed themselves of Indulgences An
Archbishop so learned as to be esteemed a Necromancer The Pope's
account of the German Clergy Voluntary resignation of Pope Celes-
tin V. Imprisoned for life by his successor, Boniface VIII. The
famous Papal Constitution Clericis Laicos, setting forth the hostility
between Clergy and Laity Two cardinals hold that a Pope cannot
resign They are deprived of their dignities, and excommunicated
Plenary Indulgence to all Visiting the Churches of St. Peter and St.
Paul at Rome in the year 1300 Two hundred thousand pilgrims
This new institution afterwards called the Jubilee. Pp. 112-141.
LETTER VIII.
Historical Sketch continued Fourteenth Century Duns Scotus
broaches the Doctrine of the Immaculate Conception of the Blessed
Virgin Pope Clement V. takes up his residence at Avignon He ap-
points three Cardinals to take evidence proving that Boniface VIII.
and Cardinal Cajetan were both Atheists Testimony of Nicholas, a
Priest and Canon Of Manfred, a Citizen of Lucca Thirty-six wit-
nesses in all All men of letters taken for granted to be Infidels
What Philip the Fair proposed to do to the dead body of Boniface
Probable truth of the Testimony The affair dropped for fear of too
great scandal A Bishop's statement of the corrupt condition of the
Church, laid before the Council of Vicnne Seven hundred excommu-
nicated persons in one parish Other abuses and enormities Reform
called for in the Head and in the Members, according to the Canons
of the first Four General Councils The Bishop of Mende confirms
Contents. xiii
the above account at the Council of Vienne The Pope himself
preaches in favor of Reformation The Order of Templars abolished
King Philip protected, by the Pope, from reproach for what he had
done against Boniface VIII. The Clergy forbidden to be butchers or
tavern-keepers, or to carry arms The dress of the Clergy reformed
No other reformation attempted ^The Bishop of Liege slain in a bat-
tle at Rome Character of Pope Clement V. A long interregnum
John XXII. continues the Papal Court at Avignon Alleged errors of
Arnold de Villa Nova, a cleric and Physician to the Pope, condemned
by the Inquisitor of Tarragon Proofs of corruption given by the
Council of Boulogne in 1317 Papal Commissions concerning a con-
spiracy of wizards Political condition of Europe as described by the
Pope The Emperor Louis, excommunicated by the Pope, sets up
Nicholas V. as Anti-Pope The Emperor fails to provide troops and
money, and the Anti-Pope submits Pope Clement VI. The Bull
Unigenitus and the Jubilee every fifty years His fondness for women
Pope Urban V. returns with the Papal Court to Rome He rides
over the spot where Pope Joan was delivered Death of Petrarch
His morals Credibility of his Testimony as to the state of the Church
A Pope confesses that the Papal Primacy was the real cause of the
Schism between the East and the West Urban VI. reproaches the
Bishops and Cardinals They elect an Anti-Pope, Clement VII., who
resides at Avignon The rival Popes excommunicate each other
Cruelty and tyranny of Urban VI. He twice tortures six Cardinals
Pope Boniface IX., who could neither write nor sing The two Popes
anathematize each other Letter of the King to the University, de-
scribing the state of the Church Benedict XIII. succeeds Clement
VII. The King and Princes withdraw all obedience from both Popes
General consent in this withdrawal The Authority of the Pontiff
devolved, meanwhile, upon the Bishop of the Dioceoe This of itself
justifies the English Reformation Pope Benedict XIII. immovable,
although besieged in his Palace The University of Oxford does not
blame France and Spain for withdrawing obedience from their Pope
It recommends a "General Council The same principle involved in
both plans for ending the Schism Reserved Right of Revolution.
Pp. 142-165.
xiv Contents.
LETTER IX.
Historical Sketch continued Fifteenth Century Benedict XIII.
shut up in his palace for four years He escapes in 1403 The obe-
dience of France restored to him in the Council of Paris, but not on
the ground of any duty Boniface succeeded by Innocent VII., and he
by Gregory XII. The two Popes both offer to resign, "without any
intention of doing it The Appeal of the Cardinals at Pisa in 1408
Another justification of the English Reformers Six Cardinals Pro-
testants Benedict XIII. excommunicates, pronounces an Interdict,
and dispenses with the oaths of fidelity John de Courtecuisse main-
tains thirteen propositions against the Pope The Cardinals, without
either Pope, issue a Bull for a General Council, which meets at Pisa
in 1409 The two Popes declared to be contumacious schismatics and
heretics, perjured, scandalous, and incorrigible, deprived of all rights,
and all Christians forbidden to obey or favor them Alexander V.
elected by the Council He approves all the acts of the Council
Succeeded by John XXIII., who calls and opens the Council of Con-
stance in 1414 The Legates of the other two Popes honorably re-
ceived Vote by Nations List of all the mortal sins, and an infinity
of abominations, charged against John XXIII. Suppressed He con-
sents to resign if the other two Popes do the same He flees in dis-
guise The Council suspends and then deposes him The Laity de-
prived of the Cup in the Holy Eucharist Six conclusions in this
matter Concomitancy The Emperor made President of the Coun-
cil for one Session Gregory XII. resigns John Huss and Jerome of
Prague burned alive as Heretics Benedict XIII. deposed General
Councils ordered to be held every ten years The Council chooses
Martin V., who formally acknowledges the Council as a standard ol
faith The Council is dismissed in 1418, two Cardinals and Benedict
XIII. still holding out On his death, his two Cardinals elect Clement
VIII., who soo"n resigns, and his Cardinals elect Martin V., thus end-
ing a Schism of fifty-one years The Council of Basle meets in 1431
Dissensions between Pope and Council The Council decrees itself
superior to the Pope The Pope attempts to dissolve the Council,
and then, fearing the Emperor, formally approves all that had been
done by it Infallible decisions not believed unless acceptable The
Contents. xv
Pope very complaisant to the Council in 1434, through artifice New
dissensions when the Council touches the Annates The Council
grants the use of the Cup to the Bohemians Attempted reunion
with the East The commander of the Pope's galleys dissuaded, by
the Greek Emperor, from obeying the Pontiff's orders to attack the
Galleys of the Council The Council summons the Pope to appear
The Pope commands the dissolution of the Council, and appoints an-
other at Ferrara The Council pronounces the Pope contumacious
The Pope opens the Council of Ferrara The Council of Basle sus-
pends the Pope The Pope and his Council nullify the acts of the
Council of Basle, and excommunicate its adherents The Council of
Basle decrees the dissolution of the assembly at Ferrara Conference
with the Greeks at Ferrara Afterwards at Florence, in 1439 A re-
union effected Repudiated 'by the Greeks on the return of their
deputies to Constantinople The Council of Basle continues, partly
supported by the Emperor Sigismund and the King of France It de-
poses the Pope, on the same day that the reunion with the Greeks is
celebrated at Florence The Pope and his Council depose all the
members of the Council of Basle The Council of Basle elects Felix
V. as Pope He reluctantly consents to shave his beard Eugenius
excommunicates Felix, and the Council of Basle annuls the excom-
munication Europe divided between the two Popes Another Gen-
eral Council proposed, and consented to by that of Basle In 1444
the Council of Basle still in Session, and the Pope transfers the Coun-
cil of Florence to Rome Eugenius IV. succeeded by Nicholas V.
Felix resigns in 1449 under the direction of the Council of Basle,
which then ends its labors Nicholas annuls all that his predecessor
had done against the Council of Basle Outward Unity then restored
Constantinople taken in 1453 Callixtus III. annuls the sentence
against the Maid of Orleans. Pp. 166-186.
LETTER X.
Historical Sketch continued Latter half of the Fifteenth Century
Eneas Sylvius becomes Pope Pius II. He excommunicates all who
presume to appeal from the Pope to a General Council Nevertheless,
the Parliament of Paris and the King of France appeal from the Pope
to a General Council, as also the Archduke of Austria and the Arch-
xvi Contents'.
bishop of Mayence The Pope retracts his own former writings in
favor of the superior authority of Councils Paul II. reduces the pe-
riod of the Jubilee to twenty-five years He dies : supposed to have
been strangled by a jealous husband Fleury's account of the Spanish
clergy in the time of Sixtus IV. The Cathedral of Florence burned
in 1473, being set on fire in the representation of the descent of the
Holy Ghost The conspiracy of the Pazzi The Archbishop of Pisa
hung as one of the murderers Florence laid under interdict for thus
hanging an Archbishop The Inquisition established in Castile, by
the counsel of the Archbishop of Seville, and by the authority of Pope
Sixtus IV. Preposterous to deny that the Pope and the Roman
priesthood are responsible for the Inquisition Innocent VIII. elected
through bribery and corruption, notwithstanding his being the father
of seven children by various women He begins his pontificate with
Excommunication and War The Spanish Inquisitor, Peter d'Aibuesa,
slain before the Altar Canonized by Paul III. Abuse of the privi-
lege of Asylum in England Henry VII. applies for a Bull to reduce
the nuisance The Clergy opposed to the Bull Sedition at Rome on
the death of Innocent VIII. Alexander VI. elected through corrup-
tion He is confessed to have had five children by another man's
wife The new Pope received at Rome with extraordinary honor and
joy He proposes an alliance with the Turks against the King of
Naples Eighteen Cardinals request the King of France to depose the
Pope for his scandalous enormities The Pope gives a dispensation
for Incest The Faculty of Theology in the University of Paris ad-
vises the summoning of a General Council independently of the Pope
The Pope dispenses his Son, the Cardinal Ccesar Borgia, from his
ecclesiastical vows The Jubilee of 1500 attended by disorder and
licentiousness, and the most monstrous corruption of morals amongst
the clergy. Pp. 187-194.
LETTER XL
Historical Sketch continued Sixteenth Century The Faculty of
Theology in Paris decide that the Pope's Bull against the Clergy not
paying him tithes, was of no force, and no regard should be paid to it
Alexander VI. dies at a feast by the poison which he had prepared for
others Fresh intrigues Pius III. elected Dies in twenty-six days,
under strong suspicions of poison Julius II. fond of war Grants
Contents. xvii
Heniy VII. a dispensation for the marriage of Prince Henry with his
brother's widow Fleury admits that many of the Cardinals were op-
posed to this dispensation, as contrary to Divine Law The Prelates
of England divided as to the validity of this Dispensation Archbishop
Warham maintains that the previous marriage had been consummated
Proofs of this sent to Spain at the time Nevertheless, the Pope
grants the Bull of dispensation St. Peter's begun in the year 1506
Indulgences sold to raise money The Pope excommunicates and
makes war on the King of France Louis XII. regards the excommu-
nication as notoriously void Who is to judge when the Pope exceeds
his authority 1 ? Romish doctrine never really adopted Answers of
the Clergy of France to the King's four questions They decide that
the Pope has no right to go to war, except for religion or the domains
of the Church ; that a Prince thus assailed by the Pope may seize
and hold the Papal territories, and that he may withdraw obedience
from the Pope so far as is necessary for the defence of his own domi-
nions The Pragmatic Sanction dispensing with the Pope's authority
Further determination of the" Council Julius excommunicates the
Council, the French army, the general, and all the officers He makes
a truce when in danger And breaks it on the arrival of reinforce-
ments A revolt prevents the establishment of the Inquisition at
Naples in 1510 The Pope commands in person at the siege of Miran-
dola The second General Council of Pisa, against Julius, meets in
1511 Convoked by nine Cardinals, the perjured Pope refusing The
Pope nullifies and excommunicates it, and calls a counter Council at
Rome The declared objects of the Council of Pisa The majority of
the Cardinals opposed to the Pope- The Pope falls sick, from vexation
The Council transferred from Pisa to Milan in 1512 They suspend
the Pope The Prelates leave, and will not return France accepts the
deposition of the Pope England and Germany refuse their acquies-
cence The Pope nullifies the acts of the Council, and lays France
under interdict The Council is discontinued The Pope convenes
the General Council of Lateran, for the Reformation of Morals, and
re-establishment of Discipline The opening Sermon by the General
of the Augustinians An honest Confession The Pope dies in 1513
Character of Leo X. Ordinary style of preaching, as described in a
Bull of the Pope The Pope denounces and abolishes the Pragmatic
Sanction Pope against Pope, and Council against Council Francis
I. accepts a Concordat in place of the Pragmatic Sanction The Coun-
xviii Contents.
cil of Lateran ends in 1517 Pico de Mirandula's discourse Conspir-
acy among the Cardinals to poison the Pope Thirty-one new Cardi-
nals made One of them only eight years old The Concordat, rejected
by the Parliament and the University of Paris The King and the
University at issue A Reform of the Spanish Inquisition defeated by
Cardinal Ximenes Indulgences on easy terms, issued in 1517 Tet-
zel and Luther Romish falsehoods against Luther Disavowed by
Fleury The Pope dies in 1521, as suspected, by poison Adrian VI.
unpopular, because a Reformer His_ account of the Reformation in
Germany The German Diet sends the Pope a list of an hundred
grievances, to be reformed The Pope dies in 1523, as suspected, by
poison Previous attempts to kill him His epitaph Clement VII.
Rome pillaged by the Duke of Bourbon hi 1527 Horrible excesses by
Romanists at Rome These outrages last two months Impossible in
a Protestant army The Pope's escape, after making promises he
never meant to keep. Pp. 195-214.
LETTER XII.
Historical Sketch continued Fleury admits that Henry VIII. ap-
plied for a Divorce on the ground of conscience, which had troubled
him since 1524 His doubts confirmed by the Bishop of Tarbe, by his
confessor Longland, and Cardinal Wolsey How the decision of the
Universities was obtained The decision of the Faculty of Theology
at Paris Dissension in them all Bribery Dr. Crook's payments for
votes in Italy Paul III. succeeds Clement VII. in 1534 A General
Council proposed by the Pope, to check Lutheranism He excommu-
nicates Henry VIII. , and places the Kingdom under Interdict This
Bull not published till two years afterwards In 1536 the Pope at-
tempts, in vain, to begin a Reform at Rome His Commission of Four
Cardinals and Five Bishops report twenty-eight abuses : 1, In ap-
pointing Bishops and Priests too young ; 2, In unworthy Collations
to Benefices with cure of souls ; 3, Pensions ; 4, Permutation of
Benefices ; 5, Coadjutors ; 6, Children of Priests succeeding to the
Benefices of their Fathers ; 7, Graces Expectative, and Reservations ;
8, Incompatible Benefices ; 9, Pluralities ; 10, Non-residence of Bish-
ops ; 11, Non-residence of Cardinals ; 12, Impunity of the wicked;
13, Disorders of Religious Houses ; 14, Legates and Nuncios ; 15,
Contents. xix
Disorders of Nunneries conducted by Monks ; 16, Universities full of
impiety; 17, Dispensations given to Monks ; 18, Solicitors of St. An-
thony, and others of the same -sort ; 19, Dispensation of Marriage to
those in Orders ; 20, Dispensations for marriage between relations by
blood or affinity; 21, Simony; 22, Clergy embezzling the property of
the Church ; 23, Private Chaplains ; 24, Commutation of religious
vows, for money ; 25, Changing wills, so as to void pious bequests ;
26, Slovenliness at St. Peter's in Rome ; 27, Strumpets publicly ac-
companied in the streets of Rome by the Clergy, and living in magni-
ficent palaces ; 28, Private feuds, and negligence in administering
Hospitals and other Charities of the Church Abuses not mentioned
The .Reform opposed in the Consistory The Cardinal of Capua's
reason Reform left to the future Council. Pp. 215-225.
LETTER XIII.
Historical Sketch continued The Council of Trent meets in 1545
Neither General nor Free Reformation one of its proposed objects,
as announced by its President Exhortation and confession of the
Papal Legates The Council bent on reform, the Pope on matters
concerning the Faith The Legates are charged to delay the decree
How the Legates completely secured the management of the Council.
Death of Luther The Bishops taking too many liberties and form-
ing cabals among themselves Mode of securing a majority The
numbers of the Italian Prelates Death of Paul III. Julius III.
makes the keeper of his monkey a Cardinal The King of France, in
1551, protests against the Council as neither Free nor General The
Pope dies of the gout in 1555 Progress of Reform in England, Ger-
many, Holland, Denmark, Sweden, Switzerland, and France The
Council suspended by Bull, in 1552 None of its objects accomplished
Marcellus II., being zealously in favor of Reform, dies in ten days
Paul IV. The English Reformation restored under Elizabeth The
Clergy willing to receive the Reformation Fleury does not even men-
tion the Nagg's Head Fable Death of Henry II. of France The fac-
tions of Guise, Montmorenci, and Navarre Plan adopted to discover
the Heretics Pope Paul IV. in favor of counteracting the Reforma-
tion by means of the Inquisition On his death in 1559 the populace
attack the Inquisition Four Popes patronize Judicial Astrology An
xx Contents.
Astrologer made Bishop Pius IV. The Spanish Inquisition con-
demns Lutherans to death by burning, to show the King's gratitude
for his preservation from a watery grave Constantino Fontinus
and John Egidius The same rigor at Valladolid The King ready
to carry wood to burn his own Son if he should prove a heretic In
1560 the Pope issues his Bull for the renewal of the Council of Trent
Assassination of the King of Navarre determined on, but not perpe-
trated Francis II. succeeded by Charles IX. The Council reassem-
bles in 1562 Four Legates and an hundred Bishops present The
clause introduced, Legatis proponentilus, by which the Pope rules the
whole A proposal to take up the Reformation of the Court of Rome,
including the Most Illustrious Cardinals Speech of the Archbishop
of Braga Discord in the Council The truth leaks out The Pope
alarmed The Holy Spirit sent from Rome to the Legates, in a post-
bag The Reformation of Discipline and of the Court of Rome, to be
left to the Pope alone The Council subjected completely to the dicta-
tion of the Pope The Emperor dissatisfied with the Council He de-
mands reformation in twenty points : 1, The Pope ; 2, The Cardi-
nals ; 3, Dispensations ; 4, Exemptions ; 5, Pluralities and Schools ;
6, Non-residence, Diocesan Synods, and visitations in person ; 7, The
Sacraments to be administered without pay ; 8, Simony ; 9, Ecclesi-
astical Constitutions ; 10, Excommunications ; 11, A known tongue to
be used in the Liturgy ; 12, Missals to be purged from unscriptural
additions ; 13, The lives of the Clergy ; 14, Fasts and Communion in
both kinds ; 15, Marriage of Priests ; 16, New Homilies and Ritual ;
17, Evil Priests; 18, Multiplying Dioceses; 19, Ecclesiastical prop-
erty alienated, to be left undisturbed ; 20, Lightening and reducing
of Ecclesiastical laws, and Prayers in the vulgar tongue The Legates
decline receiving these propositions The Council expensive to the
Pope The majority of the Bishops pensioners on the Papal treasury
The Council hard to manage Diversity of votes on the question of
the Cup The King of France remonstrates on their neglecting Ref-
ormation Thus far, no Bishops attend from France The Cardinal of
Lorraine and several French Bishops arrive Alarm of the Pope The
Cardinal demands the Cup, the Marriage of Priests, and the adminis-
tration of the Sacraments in the vulgar tongue Complaint of the
licentious life of the Ecclesiastics Speeches of the Cardinal of Lor-
raine and the Ambassador of France, before the Council How Bish-
ops ought to be tried France retains the ancient rule The Council
Contents. . xxi
terminates, December 24, 1563 The Pope, well satisfied, confirms all
the acts of the Council The Council not received in France, and only
partially in Spain Difficulty with the Emperor also The Pope, by
the advice of the Cardinals, grants the use of the Cup partially He
is inflexible in regard to the Marriage of the Priests The Council not
generally received at the death of Pius IV. in 1565 Difficulties of the
Roman theory of the authority and reception of Councils The Coun-
cil a failure both in producing Unity and in effecting a Reformation.
Pp. 226-249.
LETTER XIV.
Historical Sketch concluded Latter part of the Sixteenth Century
Pius V., elected in 1566 Commences his Pontificate by burning
Heretics He also makes severe ordinances against prostitutes, much,
against the will of Cardinals and Clergy In 1570 he excommunicates
Queen Elizabeth, depriving her of her royalty, and dispensing her sub-
jects from their allegiance Rejoicing at his death in 1572 His vast
wealth, amassed in a little more than six years Gregory XIII. The
massacre of St. Bartholomew's Miracle of the Thorn-bush The
King throws the blame on the Princes of Guise He afterwards avows
the act, in the presence of the Parliament A procession to return
thanks to God for these murders Medals struck The Provinces
filled with murders during two months Twenty-five thousand slain
in the Provinces The Pope orders Processions and a Medal in honor
of the Massacre A Panegyric pronounced before the King of Spain
The Massacre condemned by Fleury What it proves The Fes-
tival of the Rosary established Death and Character of Gregory XIII.
Sixtus V. Change wrought in him by his Election Outrageous
Bull against the King of Navarre and the Prince of Conde Protesta-
tion affixed to the gates of the Vatican that Monsieur Sixtus had lied
Sixtus V. checks debauchery, and condemns Astrology In 1588 he
renews the Bull against Queen Elizabeth, and puts England under an
Interdict His promises to those who aid the King of Spain The In-
vincible Armada of King Philip II. Its destruction Civil war in
France Enormities of the Leaguers after the Battle at the Bridge of
Tours These enormities permitted them, because they were fighting
for Religion Jacques Clement assassinates Henry III. How he was
instigated Joy of the Duchess of Montpensier and Madame de Ne-
xxii *' Contents.
mours Jacques Clement a true Martyr Prayers and Thanks to God
for the Murder How Sixtus V. received the news Fleury's apology
King Henry IV. Death of Sixtus V. by poison He leaves an im-
mense treasure behind him Popular outbreak Urban VII. Gregory
XIV. Favors the League He treats Henry IV. as an excommuni-
cated and relapsed Heretic The Parliament nullify the act of the
Pope, arrest the Nuncio, and appeal to a future Council The Edict
of Nantes Civil war continues between the King and the League
Innocent IX. Clement VIII. The Bishops and Theologians of the
League compel a Monk to be the General of their army The Pope
dispenses, and the people applaud Henry IV. reconciled to the
Church of Rome by the Archbishop of Bourges The Leaguers treat
the reconciliation as a nullity Peter Barriere instigated by Priests to
murder the King Assassinated at last, in 1610, by Ravaillac His
motive for the act Summary of the growing corruption proved, from
Romish writers, as accumulating throughout seven centuries. Pp.
250-266.
LETTER XV.
The Rule of Faith, as stated by Dr. Milner, ia the doctrine of the
Church of England But the Word of God is confined, by us, to the
Holy Scriptures It does not include the Apocrypha Rome makes
the Church the Master of the "Word of God The only Rule of Faith
is the WRITTEN WORD OF GOD contained in the Canonical Scriptures
Outline of the argument The testimony of the Primitive Church
Irenseus True use of Tradition Tradition not an Independent Rule
Tertullian Clement of Alexandria Origen Cyprian Athanasius
Cyril of Jerusalem Ambrose Jerome Augustine Vincent of
Lerins Duty of Private Judgment to discover the judgment of the
Church The true Catholic adheres to Antiquity The Scriptures the
Rule of Faith, according to the Primitive Catholic Interpretation, and
the right of Private Judgment to find out what that Interpretation was.
Pp. 267-287.
LETTER XVI.
Dr. Milner's objections to the Bible as the Rule of Faith That
Christ should have written the New Testament Himself, and enjoined
Contents. *" xxiii
the obligation of learning to read it Impiety of this objection His
other cavils refuted at large Characteristic of Popery to disparage the
Scriptures Every lover of God a Theophilus Request for the writing
of the Gospels proves the desire for a permanent record by the hand
of Apostles St. Mark's Gospel If with Scripture there has been so
much superstition, what would there have been without it 1 The
Scripture the Standard Made void by Traditions Gross incongruity
and irreverence of Romish theory It involves blasphemy A man of
straw The Church the authorized Judge in controversies of Faith
The Ministry the official Interpreters Analogy attempted to be drawn
from Common and Statute Law Erroneous The Church originates,
not in the custom of men, but the Revelation of God Faith and Bap-
tism Nothing resembling the Common Law Traditions mentioned
by the Apostle By the Fathers also But no Tradition independent
of their writings Rome's claim for unwritten Tradition is an utter
absurdity, for six reasons The true analogy with Secular Law Scrip-
ture the Law Primitive Tradition the Interpreter The Ministry, the
Judges Distinction between the Law itself, and its Interpretation
The Judge has no power to enlarge, diminish, or change, the Law
Apostolic Office two-fold Legislators, and Administrators Analogy
of the case of Moses The Bishops, as the Administrators, are the
successors of the Apostles So the Jewish Priests were the Interpret-
ers of the Mosaic Law The Tradition of the Church, as to Forms,
Rites, and Ceremonies Romish departure from Apostolical Tradition
in Confirmation and the Cup Discretion of Bishops Power of the
Sanhedrim The primitive Bond of Union Senses in which the
Fathers speak of Tradition 1, Scripture ; 2, Creeds and Councils ; 3,
Forms, usages, ceremonies None of these accord with the Romish
doctrine of Oral Tradition Milner's objection, as to the impossibility
of the Scriptures being understood by the people, refuted Traditorcs
A falsehood uttered in a line, it may require pages to answer. Pp.
288-312.
LETTER XVII.
The Canon of Scripture Dr. Milner objects to the Church of
England that there is no sufficient evidence in favor of the genuine-
ness of Scripture She has all the evidence that exists All the an-
cient truth retained in the Reformation The Church of England not
xxiv * Contents.
indebted to Rome for her commencement The British Church spoken
of by Irenseus and Tertullian British Bishops at the Council of Aries
All these before Gregory sent Augustine Augustine found the an-
cient British Church still in existence Conferences with the Bishops
They refuse to comply with his demands Slaughter of the Monks
of Bangor Augustine had no right to invade the rights of the An-
cient British Church Luidhard, Queen Bertha's Bishop The British
Church of Oriental origin Even after the Union with Rome, the na-
tive stock of Bishops and Clergy always preponderated Original
rights therefore retained, though dormant The Right of Reformation
inherent and inalienable Rule of St. Vincent of Lerins The Canon
not first settled in the fourth century The great bulk of Scripture was
never doubted from the beginning Apocryphal Books No difference
between England and Rome as to the New Testament Canon The
List of Books of Scripture in the Apostolic Canons Origen excludes
all the Apocrypha except the Maccabees The Council of Laodicea
The Apocalypse omitted The third Council of Carthage, A. D. 397
Roman Council under Pope Gelasius, A. D. 494 Capitular of Aix-la-
Chapelle, A. D. 789 Nicephorus Epiphanius Cyril of Jerusalem
All Canonical books received from the first, except the Apocalypse
Jerome excludes the Apocrypha, as being read only for edification, not
for Doctrine Pope Gregory I. excludes Maccabees Milner misleads
his readers both negatively and affirmatively Vast superiority of evi-
dence in our favor His objection that four verses are omitted from
Psalm xiv. in the Bible, though inserted in the Prayer-Book Con-
temptible cavil Omission accounted for Milner's assertion that we
can never be sure of understanding the whole Bible rightly Church
of Rome no more certain than ourselves The ancient heritage of the
Church ours Romish Priests have no means for understanding Scrip-
ture superior to ours Milner's statement that a Protestant cannot
make an Act of Faith Absurd The Church and the Scripture con-
firm each other Analogy with the Constitution and the American
Nation Acts of Faith and Acts of Martyrdom Fanaticism charged
upon Luther, Fox, Naylor, Wesley With such charges the Church
of England had nothing to do Church of Rome abounds in examples
incomparably worse than any of them Hoadly, Balguy, Watson,
falsely represented as the exponents of the English Church No re-
gard paid to Hoadly or Watson Their errors light compared with
Roman enormities Death-bed conversions Disunion among Pro-
Contents. : ' xxv
testants Abuse of Private Judgment Unity in the Church of Eng-
land. Pp. 313-341.
LETTER XVIII.
Correctness of the English Bible Milner acknowledges that his
Church can afford no security The Vulgate a Version far less correct
than the English No doctrine of the Faith depends on a single text
No version absolutely perfecl All sufficiently correct The English
the best Greater care bestowed on it than on any other since the
Septuagint Milner charges no error affecting Faith St. Matthew,
xix. 11 1 Corinthians, xi. 27 Three errors in the Romish version
Genesis, iii. 15 Ephesians, v. 31-2 Hebrews, xi. 21 Roman
Pontiffs in regard to Biblical accuracy Recension of the Vulgate
by Alcuin By Anselm, Stephen, Abbot of the Cistercian Monks, and
others No copy of the Latin Bible deserved to be considered a Stand-
ard in the time of Sixtus V. He publishes an Edition corrected by
his own hand, as thoroughly amended as may be So full of errors,
that it was called in before two years were over Other errors left oh
purpose Amusing specimen of Infallibility Recapitulation of Roman
absurdities Blessings promised upon the study of the Scriptures
This the spirit of the Primitive Fathers Rome Antichristian in this
respect England truly Catholic. Pp. 342-351.
LETTER XIX.
Which is the true Church 1 Unity, Sanctity, Catholicity, Aposto-
licity The Primitive Church the Standard Rule of St. Vincent of
Lerins Unity Required by Scripture Out of the Catholic Church,
no Salvation The Church of England admitted by Milner to have
better pretensions than other Protestant Societies Laxity of Disci-
pline, not want of Unity The Church of Rome much more lax The
Church of Rome not now, and never heretofore, strictly One Begging
the question Want of Unity as to the Papal Prerogative, Infallibility,
the decrees of Trent, Predestination, the Immaculate conception of the
Blessed Virgin, Persecution, Oaths made to heretics, and Jesuit morals
B
xxvi Contents.
Also Purgatory, Usury, Mixed Marriages, Reception of Bulls
More points of difference than among us Present unity no proof of
Truth Unity with the Primitive Church necessary That is ours, in
a far superior degree Sanctity 1, Doctrine ; 2, Means ; 3, Fruits ;
4, Divine Testimony The Church of England censured for allowing
Calvinism Insinuations St. Augustine St. Thomas Aquinas Au-
gustinians and Carmelites Predestination tolerated in the Church of
Rome until the time of Jansen and the Provincial Letters The differ-
ence tolerated in the Primitive Church Milner's charge that the
Church of England has now compromised with Socinianism A poor
Calumny Laxity of Discipline Fire and Faggot, taught by Rome
Milner's statement of the Doctrine of Sanctity, ignores Romanism
The Means of Sanctity The Sacraments Our Definition of a Sacra-
ment approved How many Sacraments Assurance of Grace Mil-
ner's admission of the principle which reduces the Sacraments to two
-Confirmation not instituted by Christ Himself Has no outward and
visible symbol Laying on of hands no new appointment Rome has
laid aside the Apostles' practice, which we retain Penance no Sacra-
ment Repentance required from the first No outward or visible
sacramental sign The Romish system without authority Extreme
Unction Not justified by the injunction of St. James Holy Orders
not a sacrament Not necessary to all the faithful A Priesthood no
new thing No sacramental ^Element Matrimony not a sacrament
The absurdity of the Romish doctrine Only two Sacramental rites in
the ancient Church of Israel Testimony of the Primitive Church
St. Augustine specifies but two Sacraments in the fourth century
Isidore of Seville mentions three Sacraments in the sixth century
Spiritual Reception of Christ in the Holy Eucharist Milner's attack
on the Liturgy Not borrowed from the Mass The ancient Liturgies
of the Church were common Property. Pp. 352-369.
LETTER XX.
The Fruits of Sanctity Miracles Characteristics of Scripture Mir-
acles Old Testament Miracles of our Lord and His Apostles Two
fundamental Principles which condemn the claim of Rome No Mira-
cle ever wrought as a test of the truth in the controversy of Rome
Contents. xxvii
against England Miracles in the Primitive Church The proof of
truth among the Fathers, not miracles, but Scripture Comparison of
the Apostolic and the subsequent periods The continuance of Mir-
acles disclaimed by Isidore of Seville and Pope Gregory the Great
St. Bernard and the Crusade Xavier and Schwartz Scriptural and
Legendary Miracles compared Alban Butler Ada, Sanctorum Gen-
eral consent The Religion of Christ a public Fact Contrast Dii
Majorum Gentium Repudiating their own Miracles Manufacturing
Miracles General depravity notwithstanding the " Saints" The con-
troversy to be determined not by the Sanctity of individuals, but by
the authority of the System General result Exceptions prove the
Rule Milner's calumnies against Cranmer. Pp. 370-384.
LETTER XXI.
Milner refuted from Fleury Fleury's account of Cranmer's life and
character Jesuists' justification of calumniating falsely The truth of
Cranmer's History The charge of Perjury His conduct excused, by
examples from Fleury Similar oaths not considered binding in cases
of Popes against Emperors, Cardinals against Popes, the English
Bishops in the reign of Henry VIII., the English Romanists in regard
to the Bull of Sixtus V., and the established maxims of human rights
Cranmer a bold, brave man Divorce of Anne Bullen Condemnation
of two Heretics, Joan Boucher and George Van Parr Cranmer's Re-
cantation Fleury's account of it The Prison The public degrada-
tion Kindness Plea of Circumstances Case of Pope Pascal in
duress Pope Marcellinus Imprisonment under threat of Death, in
the judgment of Rome, excuses an Act of Heresy Cranmer does not
justify himself He retracts his Recantation Resolves that his Right
hand should be first burned His Martyrdom Effect of his Death
Effects of the Reformation on the Morals of the People Such effects
to be judged by the work of centuries Like People, like Priest Re-
formed and Papal countries compared Morals at Rome The Pope
upheld in his own city only by bayonets Achilli versus Newman
Tendency of Romanism to Immorality Civil wars, Rebellions and
Desolations, not chargeable to the Reformation, but to Rome Sup-
pression of Monasteries, Colleges, Hospitals, Chapels, and Chantries
xxviii Contents.
The Reformation favorable to Learning, in England, Prussia, and the
United States Religious and Benevolent Orders no monopoly of
Rome History of the Suppression Sanctioned by Popes for political
causes, in France and Spain No Orders of men in ancient Israel
Their rise in the Fourth Century of the Church Evil results of Mon-
achism. False Principle at the root of Monachism. Pp. 385-413.
LETTER XXII.
Catholicity General Usage Fallacy Doctor Soldier A very
small quibble The Church of Rome under the Papacy never ex-
tended throughout the world Catholicity no longer possible, except
through unity with the Primitive. Church in Doctrine, Discipline, and
Worship This granted by Milner himself We are the true Catholics
St. Vincent of Lerins Superior Numbers no test of truth This ar-
gument applied to Noah, Abraham, Moses, Elijah, Our Lord, Athana-
sius St. Vincent again The Argument from Numbers, worthless
Absolute Universality not to be expected before the Second Advent
Meaning of the word Catholic in the Creed Cyril of Jerusalem Isi-
dore of Seville Existing Catholicity not to be determined by a table
of Statistics, but by the old rule of Vincent, Always, Everywhere, and
By All Catholicity as to Time Milner confounds the Failure of the
Church with its Corruption Israel has not failed Judaism not there-
fore the true Faith The Bride of Christ A Harlot Rome an Adul-
teress " On this Rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell
shall not prevail against it" The Gates of Hell have not prevailed
against any Church of Christ Corruptions may be proved, without
proving the lime when they first arose Corruptions gradual in their
nature Corruption does not do away identity But the Corruptions
do not constitute the Church The manhood of a Leper does not con-
sist in his Leprosy Sophistry Invisible Church Waldenses The
Church erroneously thought to have wholly failed for centuries Scrip-
ture and ancient Israel Milner's bold assumption that Romanism is
proved by the Fathers This assumption false General summary of
Argument The Catholic Church. Pp. 414-434.
Contents. xxix
LETTER XXIII.
Apostolicity No controversy as to the Apostolic Succession St.
Peter asserted to be the Centre of Union and Head Pastor The Keys
The Rock Founder of the See of Rome The Papal assumption
false in all its parts St. Matthew, xvi. 18 The Rock not Peter, but
Christ Uer/joj not Iltrpa The word Rock in the Old Testament
The Vulgate and the Douay not faithful to the Hebrew Pagnini and
Arias Montanus Quotation of passages from the Old Testament
Comparative 'fidelity of the Versions Two passages in the New Tes-
tament The word Rock applied to the Divine Nature, never to a
mortal The word Stone applied to believing men The Septuagint
Trommius Twelve Foundations in the Apocalypse Double sense of
the word Foundation Paraphrase of the Charge to St. Peter Who
shall be the greatest The same powers given to all the Apostles
No superiority of St. Peter in the Acts of the Apostles St. Paul
more prominent than St. Peter St. Paul's account of his own Com-
mission, irreconcilable with the Roman theory of St. Peter's Suprem-
acy The Promise of the Keys given only by one Evangelist St.
Peter's Epistles show no trace of his fancied Supremacy St. Paul
the true Apostle of the Gentiles. Pp. 435-447.
LETTER XXIV.
The figment of St. Peter's Supremacy as the first Bishop of Rome,
disproved from the Fathers Irenseus Origen Cyprian Eusebius
Ambrose Jerome Augustine Chrysostom Actual basis of the
Roman Supremacy Edict of the Emperor Valentinian, A. D. 366
Testimony of the Apostolic Canons The Apostolic Constitutions
Canons of the Council of Antioch The Council of Sardica, and its
Innovation Power of ordering a new trial only, not of hearing an
Appeal The first General Council of Constantinople The Primacy
of Honor, and why This Council styles Jerusalem " The Mother of
all the Churches" The Council of Milevi, Canon xxii. The Sixth
Council of Carthage Canons of Sardica palmed off as those of Nice
xxx Contents.
The fraud detected The General Council of Chalcedon No other
Creed to be composed or required Canon xviii. of Chalcedon Op-
posed by the Roman Legates Another fraud Retained in the Canon
Law of Rome to this day Summary of Contrast between the Roman
Supremacy and the Truth Their theory refuted by facts The Pa-
pacy fatal to that Christian Unity which, it is claimed, cannot be pre-
served without it Summary Apostolicity cannot be grounded on the
Papacy. ' Pp. 448-468
Cmttateg,
LETTER I.
MOST REVEREND SIR :
SEVERAL years have elapsed since you and I had some
public correspondence together, which, I presume, you have
not altogether forgotten, notwithstanding the accession of
your present ecclesiastical dignity during the interval, and
the consequent increase of your official cares and respon-
sibilities. You, doubtless, recollect a certain humble vol-
ume of mine, called The Church of Rome, &c., which you
honored by a reply, entitled The Primacy of the Apostolic
See and the Authority of General Councils Vindicated, in a
series of letters, addressed to me in person. You recollect,
also, that you subsequently printed an Address to all our
Bishops, predicated upon the flattering prospects of the
recent movement in a small section of the Church of Enff-
O
land, in which you urged us to read MILKER'S END OF
CONTROVERSY, and hasten to transfer ourselves to the
Church of Rome, lest our flocks should go before us ;
that, in answer to this Address, I invited you to a public
discussion of the controversy between our respective
Churches, which you declined, and suggested, instead of
4 Letter I.
that, a discussion in. the Church papers ; that this sugges-
tion was declined on my part, as alike unsatisfactory, and,
in my circumstances, impracticable ; and that I promised
to perform my side in the form of books or pamphlets, if it
should please Divine Providence to continue my life so
long.
This promise I have partly redeemed by one volume of
Lectures on the British Reformation, and another -on the
History of the Confessional, to say nothing of some smaller
works in which the doctrines of your Church were touched
on incidentally. But, having been urgently requested to
prepare a reply to the particular book which you so strongly
recommended to our Bishops namely, MILNER'S END OF
CONTROVERSY and calling to mind the fact that you
seemed to regard it with such special confidence, I thought
it due to your patronage of its authority, that I should ad-
dress myself to you, and thus accommodate, as well as I
could, your former desire for a written discussion, since an
oral controversy proved to be so distasteful to your feelings,
and a newspaper controversy was equally distasteful to
mine.
There were some other reasons, however, which had
their share of influence in producing my decision. One of
these was suggested by the obvious propriety of returning
your courtesy in addressing your first book on the Primacy
to myself, in the form of a series of letters. Another was
furnished by the opportunity which I should thus have of
noticing that work in a more permanent shape. And a
third not the least, in my esteem was derived from the
consideration that I should in this way be more constantly
reminded of the rules of Christian moderation and kindli-
ness, which ought to govern every writer of religious con-
The Last Ten Years.
troversy ; and be better protected from the temptation to
. severity or bitterness, by which far holier men than I pre-
tend to be, have, unhappily, so often suffered themselves to
be led astray.
I was the more solicitous upon this last point, because
the circumstances which have marked the past ten years
have been calculated, on both sides, to sharpen the edge of
accusation, and give new intensity to the strife of ecclesi-
astical warfare. More than a hundred clergymen of our
- Mother Church of England have entered your Communion,
many of whom were men of distinguished character for
talents, zeal, and learning. More than a dozen amongst our
own ranks have followed the example ; and now a Bishop
has been added to the list. Of these I have no heart to
speak unkindly. That I regard them as fearfully deluded
and misguided men, is very certain ; but I pity and compas-
sionate them too deeply to utter one sentence of unchari-
table denunciation. On the other hand, some sixty thou-
sand of the laity, with several priests, have left your Church
for our Reformed Communion ; and other vast defections
are stated by some of yourselves as having insensibly taken
place amongst the multitudes of your people who have
emigrated from Europe to the United States. Many other
movements which I shall not here detail are now in pro-
gress, which have assuredly roused the spirit of keen and
searching examination into your doctrines and principles,
throughout Christendom; and perhaps there has been no
period since that of the great Reformation in the 16th cen-
tury, when the Roman controversy has excited so general
and powerful an interest as we behold at this day. At such a
time, the wisest men are in danger of sacrificing charity to
zeal. At such a time, caution looks like indifference, and
6 Letter I.
moderation is apt to appear like a covert treachery to truth.
And therefore, at such a time, it behooves us to search our
own spirits with jealous care, and watch with more than usual
self-distrust over the temper of our controversies, lest the
excitement of the age disturb the fairness of our judgments,
and we be betrayed into the sad error of defending the
cause of God with the unholy weapons of human passion
and infirmity.
In addition to this, however, I am aware of a very pecu-
liar temptation in the character of the volume which I
have undertaken to answer for of all the writers whose
works have passed under my notice, Milner is the most
provoking. In this respect he presents a singular contrast
to yourself, and that may possibly be one cause of your
apparent affection for his book, since it is an old maxim
that love delights in contraries. But, doubtless, you have
other reasons for recommending it to our study, because it
certainly deserves its fame as an extraordinary specimen of
subtle, dexterous, and perfectly reckless misrepresentation.
I am not at all surprised, therefore, that it is the general
favorite with your priesthood, as the most available instru-
ment for proselyting the ignorant or the unwary. Its
author was learned in all that belonged to his vocation, and
especially in the various perversions of history which his
predecessors had furnished to his hand. He was also a
thorough adept with respect to all the concessions which
the English divines had made, or seemed to make, in favor
of your system. And these he displayed with peculiar
talent, boldness, vigor, and sophistical ingenuity ; never
hesitating to denounce and ridicule Our Reformers with un-
flinching hardihood, nor even to deny or mystify the more
obnoxious tenets and practices of Romanism, when they
Milner.
stood in his way. Nor is this the whole which consti-
tutes the attraction of his volume. He contrived to invest
it with a sort of dramatic interest, by adopting the fiction of
a society composed of Methodists, Presbyterians, Baptists,
and Churchmen, whose imaginary letters to the author are
written with great skill, so as to give him an admirable op-
portunity of contrasting the uncertainties of Protestantism
with the boasted unity of the Church of Rome. And out of
these materials he constructed a book which, though nei-
ther so learned nor so profound as many others, is far more
engaging and effective to the ordinary mind than any con-
troversial work that I have seen on your side of the
question.
To expose in full detail all the misrepresentations of
Milner would demand more time and space than I purpose
to occupy. A large portion of his book is taken up with
the alleged sayings and doings of Luther, Calvin, Beza, the
Anabaptists, the Quakers, and others, which I do not con-
ceive myself called upon to notice, partly because there are
enough of other advocates to take care of those various
points which concern them ; and mainly because my
design is limited to the vindication of the Church of Eng-
land and our own, which is of the same Communion. This,
indeed, is his principal object of attack ; and to its defence
these pages are alone' devoted. Nor even with respect to
this will my limits allow me to remark on every little error.
But I shall undertake to point out and rectify all his impor-
tant sophistries and falsifications ; so that any fair-minded
and intelligent man can form a just judgment of the truth,
in history and doctrine, provided he will dispense with the
attractions of a story, and give his attention to the real
questions in controversy, notwithstanding there may be no-
8 Letter I.
thing said about James Brown and the Society of New Cot-
tage, or any similar display of dramatic fancy.
And here, permit me to explain and justify the phraseol-
ogy which I shall be obliged to employ throughout these
letters. I acknowledge you, most Reverend Sir, to be a
prelate of the Roman Catholic Church, because I acknowl-
edge in your Communion the existence of two elements
which these epithets properly express. The first of these,
in honor and validity, is the Catholic, which has come down
from the beginning in the great DOCTRINES OF THE GOSPEL
FAITH, embodied in the primitive creeds as derived from
the Scriptures, and in the APOSTOLIC ORDER OF THE MINIS-
TRY, both of which we claim for the Church of England
and our own, in all their primitive purity. With this Ca-
tholic element we hold no controversy. On the contrary,
we revere it as the constituent principle of the Church of
Christ, being only another name for the divine truth which
is given for the salvation of the world. But the other ele-
ment, which is so directly expressed by the term Roman,
we maintain to be just what the word implies not Catho-
lic, not the Gospel, not properly belonging to the Church
of Christ, but introduced by degrees invented, not re-
vealed ; adopted by men of good intentions, but who were
deluded by false views of expediency ; and growing up
from a small and seemingly harmless beginning, until it over-
spread the Church with a noxious growth of anti Christian
errors. This is what I mean by ROMANISM, because it was
adopted, supported, and enforced by Rome. It was against
this that the English Reformation was directed. It is
against this that we are Protestants. With this we are
O
bound to hold a perpetual controversy. And to this, we at-
tribute all the evils of superstition, licentiousness, idolatry,
Romanism.
persecution, dissension, and strife, which have infested the
Church from the opening of the seventh century, and will,
doubtless, continue to infest it until the second advent of
the glorious Redeemer.
You will not, therefore, impute to me any want of cour-
tesy or personal respect, because I shall be obliged to em-
ploy the terms Romanism and Romanists throughout this
discussion, in reference to all those features of your system
which we hold to be unauthorized innovations on the true
Apostolic and primitive doctrine. You say that these things
were CATHOLIC. We deny the claim, and hold ourselves
prepared to prove that they were Roman, by your own wit-
nesses. I call them your own witnesses, because you
claim them as such, because you have had them in your own
possession all along, because your own historians accuse
the old writers of having tampered with their- testimony,
and because your Council of Trent forbids you to interpret
the Scriptures by any other standard. Yet enough of their
genuine evidence still remains to prove our principles, on a
fair and candid appeal ; and by that appeal I, for one, am
prepared to stand or fall.
With regard to Milner, whose book, so strongly recom-
mended by your authority, is to be my subject in the
following pages, I wish to say nothing personally unkind
or disrespectful. Placed in the prominent position of
Vicar Apostolic, with the title of Bishop of Castabala, in
order that he might perform episcopal offices in England,
and relied on to sustain the interests of the Papacy in the
midst of Protestants, I am aware that all possible allowance
should be made for his peculiar circumstances. Certain it
is that he had the greatest earthly temptations to present
his Church in the fairest guise, and procure for her the
1*
10 Letter I.
largest attainable sympathy; for the bonds which chain a
Roman prelate to his allegiance are the most potent in the
world. Habits, feelings, and prejudices formed in early
youth, strong though they be, are far from forming the firm-
est links of attachment. Over and above these, there are
interests involving every personal privilege ; vows which
cannot be broken without serious peril to liberty, and even
to life ; and a stringent oath of fidelity to the Pope, framed
upon the model of feudalism. While on the other side,
there is the dazzling eminence of wealth, and pomp, and
power which awaits the successful aspirant, since the nod
of the reigning pontiif can place the Cardinal of Rome
amongst the princes of the earth, and open to him the
road to the lofty throne of Papal supremacy, where he may
be reverenced as a king of kings, and have his feet kissed
by the noblest lips of Europe, and fancy himself author-
ized to wield the vicarial sceptre of the omnipotent Son of
God!
All this must form a force of worldly influence to which
no man but a Roman priest of talent can be exposed ; and
no other can estimate the vast control of the human will
which it is so wonderfully adapted to exercise. Thank
God! we who are the ministers of a Reformed Church are
under no such temptations ; but, for that very reason, we
should the more carefully avoid a personal judgment on the
fettered supporters of the Roman system. Far be it from
me, therefore, to condemn the departed Milner of inten-
tional misrepresentation. It is not for me to say how much
of his book was the product of conscious dishonesty, or
how much was the offspring of willing delusion. Sorry
should I be to charge his character with a tithe of the vil-
lany which he has so recklessly imputed to the martyred
Milner.
Reformers of the English. Church. Sorry should I be to
brand him with the systematic hypocrisy of which he did
not hesitate to accuse the whole body of her Bishops and
clergy. My duty is not to judge the author, which is the
sole prerogative of the great Searcher of hearts, but to vin-
dicate the truth from his numerous falsifications. For the
spirit in which he wrote, he has accounted long ago to an
infallible tribunal ; and for the spirit in which I shall an-
swer, I must account ere long, in the course of nature. I
humbly trust, in the favor and goodness of the Almighty,
that I may perform my task in such a temper of Christian
fidelity, united with Christian kindliness, as shall bear .the
solemn test of retrospection at the hour of death, and be
acceptable to the God of truth and love in the day of
judgment.
12 The End of Controversy ^Controverted.
LETTER II.
THE RULE OF FAITH.
MOST REVEREND SIR :
You will probably concur with me in the opinion, that
there is nothing in the Introductory Address to Milner's
elaborate volume which requires attention, because it
contains nothing to the purpose of our actual controversy.
True, indeed, there is an abundance of what I consider
positive misrepresentation, ably, artfully, and rhetorically
put together, and well calculated to prepare the incautious
or the ignorant reader for very false impressions. But all
that demands specific notice will recur in a more appro-
priate place, and I am anxious to avoid useless repetition.
For the same reason I shall pass over the first four letters,
which contain the author's correspondence with the imagi-
nary Society at New Cottage, through their principal rep-
resentative, James Brown, Esq. ; as also two brief but
sound discussions on the general evidences of Christianity,
and sundry exhortations to fairness and impartiality ; toge-
ther with an extract from Francis Walsingham's Fifty Rea-
sons for becoming a member of your Communion, sufficiently
characteristic of Milner's adroitness and subtlety. The
value of this extract, however, will appear in due time ; and
therefore I shall pass on to the fifth letter, where we have
the proper commencement of theological argument.
Here, then, the author sets forth three fundamental max-
ims, which I shall quote in full, as follows :
The Rule of Faith. 13
" First" saith he, " our Divine Master, Christ, in estab-
lishing a religion here on earth, to which all the nations of it
were invited, left some RULE or method by which those persons
who sincerely seek for it may certainly find it."
" Secondly This rule or method must be SECURE and
never-failing, so as not to be ever liable to lead a rational,
sincere inquirer into error, impiety, or immorality of any
kind"
" Thirdly This rule or method must be UNIVERSAL ; that
is to say, adapted to the abilities and other circumstances of
all those persons for whom the religion itself was intended
namely, the great bulk of mankind."
By adhering to these maxims, Milner assures his supposed
correspondent that he will quickly discover the right Rule
of Faith. And the rule thus settled will, of course, lead to
a correct decision of all our controversies. Thus far I
assent entirely to his propositions. And now we have to
attend to their application.
In his next letter, accordingly, which is the sixth, he
proceeds to set forth sundry methods for settling this Rule
of Faith. The first consists in a supposed private inspira-
tion, communicated to the individual ; and this he asserts
to have been professed formerly by the Montanists, the Fam-
ily of Love, the Anabaptists ; and at present by the Quakers,
the Moravians, and different classes of the Methodists. I
am far from endorsing this statement as laid down without
any qualification. But, as my object is limited to the vindi-
cation of our own branch of the Holy Catholic Church, I
shall not spend my time in controverting it.
The second of these rules the author defines to be " the
written Word of God, or THE BIBLE, according as it is un-
derstood by each particular reader of it" And such he de-
14 Letter II.
dares to be the professed rule of " the more regular
Protestants the Lutherans, the Calvinists, the Socinians,
and the CHURCH OF ENGLAND MEN." This statement is an
absolute misrepresentation ; but I shall confine myself to
that part of it which concerns our own Communion, as I
have already intimated, and shall prove incontestably that
it is utterly untrue.
The third rule, as Milner lays it down, is, " THE WORD
OF GOD AT LARGE, whether written in the Bible or handed
down from the Apostles in continued succession by the Catho-
lic Church, and as it is understood and explained by that
Church. To speak more accurately besides their rule of
faith, namely, Scripture and Tradition, Catholics acknowl-
edge an unerring judge of controversy, or sure guide in all
matters relating to salvation, namely, THE CHURCH."
These are the words of our author ; and in order to as-
certain how far the Church of England is entitled to the
benefit of this last rule, I shall first settle the question of
fact, in reference to our claims, and then state 'the different
views of Avhat is properly the Word of God, according to
the English and the Roman systems. We shall then be
enabled to ascertain which of the two enjoys the benefit of
the unerring judge of controversy, THE CHURCH, in the
most direct and practical form of application.
First, then, I assert that the Church of England main-
tains the Rule of Faith to be THE BIBLE ALONE, not as it
is understood by each particular reader of it, but ACCORDING
TO THE INTERPRETATION OF THE PRIMITIVE CHURCH, EM-
BODIED AND DISTINCTLY SET FORTH IN HER OWN ESTAB-
LISHED STANDARD OF DOCTRINE AND WORSHIP, THE PRAYER
BOOK.
For this assertion I appeal to the Thirty-nine Articles of
Rule of Faith in the Church of England. 15
our religion: of which, the first declares our faith in the
Holy Trinity ; the second, in the divinity; incarnation, and
atonement of our Lord and Saviour, Jesus Christ ; the
third, His descent into Hades ; the fourth, His resurrec-
tion ; the fifth, the divinity of the Holy Ghost ; the eighth,
the Apostles' and the Nicene Creeds ; the sixth, the suffi-
ciency of the Holy Scriptures, as containing all things
necessary for salvation ; and the twentieth, the authority
of the Church in controversies of faith, as well as in the
ordering of rites and ceremonies ; which authority is again
declared in the thirty-fourth Article, to say nothing of a
large amount of doctrine in the other Articles, on Justifica-
tion, Original Sin, the Sacraments, &c. So that there is
not a single topic decided by the Councils and the Fathers,
in the pure and primitive ages of the Church, which is not
here distinctly set forth with the most admirable exactness
and precision, leaving no room for heretical private judg-
ment in any important point of Christian doctrine.
And next, I appeal to the fixed order of the Liturgy and
Offices of the Church of England and our own, which not
only sets forth the Creeds and all the cardinal tenets of the
ancient faith in the plainest terms, but keeps them con-
stantly before the eyes and on the lips of our people ; not
wrapping them up in Latin, which none but the priest in
general pretends to understand, but proclaiming them in
the language of the country, and thus giving regularly
the decisions of the unerring Judge of Controversy, the
CHURCH, to every man, woman, and child belonging to the
body of the faithful.
And yet, in the face, of all this, your favorite, Milner,
had the hardihood to publish the charge, that the Rule of
Faith in the Church of England is, THE BIBLE, according as
16 Letter II.
it is understood by each particular reader of it ! I respect-
fully invite you to point out a more glaring example of
theological misrepresentation than this, which yet is but a
specimen of the author's style of management throughout
the whole volume. Still, nevertheless, I will not say that
he was a conscious slanderer, because I am aware that there
are many conditions of the human mind which manifest a
morbid hallucination on certain subjects, altogether beyond
the reach of evidence or reason. The physicians tell us
in their books of numerous examples of monomania, in
which men were incurably insane on some particular
topics, while they seemed to be in the full possession of
their faculties on every other. I am anxious to lay hold of
any hypothesis which can save the moral principles of the
writer from the charge of wilful falsehood, although the
casuistry of your Jesuits, as I shall have to show by-and-
by, undertakes to justify even this, in the service of Ro-
manism.
But while we have thus secured to us the interpretation
of the Holy Scriptures by the voice of the primitive Church,
faithfully embodied and proclaimed intelligibly to all ia oar
established standard, and look to it as an unerring Judge
of Controversy or sure guide in all matters relating to salva-
tion, we entirely repudiate that part of your system which
places oral tradition on an equality with the Scriptures as
the Word of God. And for this we appeal to the same un-
erring Judge of Controversy, the primitive Church, by which
you profess to be directed. The proofs will be cited in
their proper place ; and, meanwhile, I shall only ask your
attention to a brief comparison of our respective Churches,
on the point presented by our author, namely the advan-
tage, and even, if you please, the necessity of possessing
The English Contrasted with the Romish System. 17
the unerring Judge of Controversy, THE CHURCH, as a sure
guide in all matters relating to salvation.
Remember, then, I pray you, that the Church of England
claims this authority, as well as the Church of Rome, the
chief difference being in this all-important point, that Eng-
land claims it in strict subordination to the Bible, while
Rome claims it independent of the Bible, on the ground of
what she calls Apostolical tradition. But, putting this aside
for future discussion, and looking to the practical security
and efficiency of the respective systems, in reference to
those who are committed to our pastoral charge, I submit
the following questions to your consideration :
1. Does not the Church of England give the unerring
judgment of the Church to all her people, directly, in their
own language, in the Book of Common Prayer, along with
the Holy Scriptures, so that THE VOICE OF THE LORD and
the voice of the Church are constantly heard alike, by pas-
tors and flocks, without the possibility of concealment or
evasion 1 While the modern Church of Rome does not give
her judgment directly to the people at all, but keeps her
Council of Trent in Latin, keeps her public Liturgy in
Latin, keeps her selections from the Bible in Latin, so that
the people never hear either the Word of God or the judg-
ment of their Church, save only so far as their particular
priest sees fit to deliver it.
2. Does not the Church of England thus secure to all
her children the benefit of her own teaching, and enable
them to test, by that unerring judgment, the fidelity and
soundness of each particular pastor ? While the Church
of Rome obliges her people to depend absolutely on the
priest alone.
3. Does not the Church of England instruct even her
18 Letter II.
little ones, by giving them her own Catechism, and com-
manding her ministers to make that the text-book of their
instructions ? While the Church of Rome has only gotten
so far as to prepare a Catechism for her parochial clergy*
and leaves the Catechisms for the people to the discretion
of each particular Bishop, although she does not deny, any
more than we do, that individual Bishops and priests are
liable to err.
4. Does not the Church of England secure, in this way,
the whole of her instruction, in a plain, public, open form,
accessible to all, and available for all 1 While the Church
of Rome directs her priests, admitted to be fallible, to hide
their most important teachings in the impenetrable conceal-
ment of the Confessional.
5. Granting, then, what is certainly true, that both our
systems claim to have a Judge of Controversy, or sure guide
in all matters relating to salvation, namely, THE CHURCH, is
it not perfectly demonstrable that the Church of England has
secured that important privilege to her people in modes
which are incomparably superior to those of Rome more
primitive beyond all comparison, more sure, more operative
on the masses of our congregations, more direct, more avail-
able as a preservative both of the priests and the people in
the way of truth and holiness ? With you, so far as the
laity are concerned, the priest is everything. With us,
they hear the Church and the priest together. With you,
the priest is admitted to be fallible, and yet you bind the
people to his dictates as if he were infallible, in the secret
tribunal of the Confessional, where, should he be temptsd
to go astray, there is no way provided for the remedy.
With us, he has no powers beyond the public sanction of
* The Calechismus ad Parodies of the Council of Treat.
The English Contrasted with the Roman System. 19
the Church, and no opportunity to abuse those powers with-
out the certainty of exposure. In a word, with you the
Church only teaches her priests ; while with us, she teaches
and constantly regulates the whole body of the faithful.
Hence, on a fair comparison, the very rule which your
favorite Milner lays down as the peculiar boast of Rome,
proves to be incomparably more applicable to England.
Now, then, let us see how our author's three fundamental
maxims will operate, in relation to the two systems.
" First,-' saith Milner, " our Divine Master, Christ, in
establishing a religion here on earth, to which all the nations
of it were invited, left some RULE or method by which those
persons who sincerely seek for it may certainly Jind it."
To this we fully agree. This rule is the faithful recep-
tion of His Gospel, as proclaimed by His Apostles, re-
corded in His Word, and visibly established in His Church^
to which, as to His spouse and His body, it is committed.
Hence, the Church must provide the necessary instructions,
by which all persons may certainly Jind the way of salvation.
This is done by the Church of England, as I have shown,
directly and intelligibly ; while it is committed to the indi-
vidual priest by the Church of Rome.
" Secondly? continues our author, " this rule or method
must be SECURE and never-failing, so as not to be ever liable
to lead a rational, sincere inquirer into error, impiety, or im-
morality of any kind."
To this also we assent most cordially. And therefore
the Church of England points to the divine authority of the
Holy Scriptures, as they were interpreted by the primitive
Church ; and, that the rule may be secure and never-failing,
provides for the constant, public proclamation of it, in all
her services, by all her ministers, to all her people, and to
20 Letter II.
every rational and sincere inquirer, in the language which all
can understand ; while the Church of Rome shuts up her
own teaching in Latin, and leaves the anxious inquirer to
the teaching of the individual priest ; who has not a single
book to put into the hands of the people which bears the
stamp of his Church's authority, unless they can read.
Latin ; and who may mislead them grossly into error, im-
piety, and immorality, especially if -he-belongs to the Jesuit
school, in the secret and irresponsible work of the Confes-
sional.
" Thirdly? saith Milner, " this rule or method must be
UNIVERSAL, that is to say, adapted to the abilities and other
circumstances of all those persons for whom the religion itself
was intended, namely, the great bulk of mankind."
Perfectly right, beyond controversy. And therefore the
i Church of England, like the Primitive Church, translates
the Scriptures into the vulgar tongue, and, like the Primi-
tive Church, commands her clergy to read them to the
people, and puts the ancient creeds and worship into the
same familiar words, and prepares a simple but comprehen-
sive Catechism for instruction in the elements of the faith,
and weaves all the truths of the saving Gospel into her
public services, so that the great bulk of mankind, however
ignorant of the dead languages, may have a rule or method
which is indeed UNIVERSAL, and adapted in all respects to
their abilities and other circumstances: while the Church of
Rome provides no Scriptures, no Creeds, no Catechism, no
worship, in the vulgar tongue, for the bulk of any people
upon earth, accommodates her teaching in no respect to the
intellectual wants of the ignorant, obliges her ministers to
pray and sing in a language which the people cannot
understand, and casts the whole practical work of instruction
The two Systems Compared. 21
upon the priest, whom she acknowledges to be liable to
error.
Thus, then, I claim for the Church of England a full and
honest conformity to the very rules laid down as fundamen-
tal by your favorite, Milner himself. I vindicate her from
his false and absurd calumny ; and I assert the high superi-
ority of her system, over that of Rome, with respect to the
authority of the Church as a Judge of Controversy, and her
office as a sure guide in all matters relating to salvation.
I trust that I have made myself intelligible, and yet I
am sensible that I am liable to be quite misunderstood, in
one respect, not by readers like yourself, but by the ordi-
nary carelessness of such minds as have not been accus-
tomed to accurate reflection. It may be necessary, there-
fore, for the sake of others who may read those pages, that
I should guard my meaning from the risk of misapprehen-
sion.
When I say that the Church of Rome has furnished no
instruction of her own, in any shape, to any people in the
world, except in the Latin tongue, I do not at all deny that
there are thousands of books in , circulation, and in all
languages, written by various individuals, for the purposes
of either aiding the devotions of the members of that
Church, or of recommending her communion to those
whom it is desired to proselyte. Of these last, Milner's
End of Controversy is one, and a great favorite with her
priests and Bishops, wherever the English language is
spoken. But none of those books are stamped with the
Church's authority, and therefore the inquirer can never be
sure that he derives from them full and authentic iaforma-
tion. Most of them, in order to succeed with Protestants,
disguise and mystify their readers with statemeats that are
22 Letter II.
either quite defective, or absolutely untrue, of which sev-
eral examples will come under notice in the present work.
And the Church of Rome, though she avails herself of
them all, is not formally committed to any of them.
In complete contrast with this, the Church of England gives
all her authority to one small but comprehensive volume, the
Book of Common Prayer, with the 39 Articles, and the offices;
made obligatory on all her clergy, used in all her services,
and thus set forth as the established standard of her teaching,
for which she is entirely accountable, to which every one
can appeal without danger of mistake for her true teaching,
and try, by that, the correctness of every writer who pro-
fesses to comment upon her system. With this remark, I
trust that the previous statements will be perfectly compre-
hended by every reader. To you, most Reverend Sir, I
should not offer it, because you understand thoroughly the
advantages derived from the accommodating license of your
writers, when they prepare their delusive baits for Protes-
tant appetites. But other eyes may peruse this discussion,
and other minds may need to learn what I should deem it
officious and impertinent to direct to an eminent prelate in
the Church of Rome. For just as you addressed to me,
with perfect correctness, a series of letters designed for the
public, so I address to you this humble work, in confutation
of a book which you have taken under your special patron-
age, in the hope of protecting others against its fabrications
and its sophistry, but certainly with quite as little expecta-
tion of affecting your course, as you probably entertained of
changing mine.
The Reformation. 23
LETTER III.
MOST REVEREND SIR :
THE Reformation of the Church of England, in the 16th
century, threw off the usurpation of the Pope, together
with the whole mass of perilous innovations in faith and
practice which had grown up in the Church of Rome during
a thousand years before. It was the result, under the favor-
ing providence of God, of a general awakening of the minds
of men throughout Europe, forced, into reluctant action by
an accumulation of abuses and oppression on the part of the
priesthood, of which the last was the issuing of indulgences
by Pope Leo X., whose agents roused the indignant elo-
quence of Luther. The movement, however, had its real
commencement in the latter part of the 14th century, -when
the famous Wickliffe boldly attacked the authority of the
Pope, the jurisdiction of the Bishops, and the temporalities
of the Church. He also assailed the doctrine of transub-
stantiation ; but his most important work was the transla-
tion of the Bible into English, after it had been, for so
many ages, a sealed book to the great body of the priests,
and to all the laity.
The preaching and the writings of this extraordinary
man, aided by his translation of the Scriptures, bore fruit
far and wide. Not only did he succeed in gathering around
him a numerous body of adherents, amongst the nobles as
well as the middling class in England, whom the Roman-
ists stigmatized with the name of Lollards, but he was the
24 Letter III.
origin of the effort towards reform in Bohemia, for which
John Huss and Jerome of Prague were condemned by the
Council of Constance, and suffered the agonies of martyr-
dom. Wickliffe himself, of course, was adjudged to be a
heretic, and the sword of Rome was raised against his fol-
lowers with its usual persecuting vigor. The Lollards'
Tower yet remains, attached to the Archiepiscopal palace
at Lambeth, where I have had the melancholy privilege of
beholding the time-worn monuments of the cruelties which
gave it that name. And as I gazed upon the gloomy walls
which imprisoned so many of the martyrs of the Bible, and
saw the iron rings bolted in the oaken floor, to which they
had been chained in the bloody ages of Papal supremacy,
I could not but feel, with an emotion of unspeakable grati-
tude, the contrast between the mild and gentle government
of the Reformed Church of England, and the savage and
crushing despotism which had passed away.
But although Rome succeeded, apparently, in extirpating
the influence of Wickliffe by her favorite weapons of the
dungeon and the stake, yet it can hardly be doubted that a
lasting impression had been made upon many thousaad
minds, which contributed largely to the ultimate triumph of
the true Reformation in the 16th century. In many re-
spects, the notions of that eminent man were crude and
erroneous, and the thorough and effectual work required
the co-operation .pf various laborers before it could be brought
to a mature result. Luther, in Germany, led the way, fol-
lowed by Zuinglius and Calvin ; and, far from wondering
that their views were in some respects mistaken and de-
fective, I am rather disposed to wonder that they should
ha-ve been so nearly right, and, in most points, so harmoni-
ous. The reformers of England had the vast advantage of
Mzlner's Misrepresentations. 25
being last in the field. From the commencement of Luther,
in A. D. 1517, to the accession of Edward VI., in A. D.
1547, thirty years elapsed, during which they were gradu-
ally finding their way to the ground of the primitive Church,
in doctrine, worship, and discipline, and several years in
addition were spent before the true system of Christianity,
recovered from the corrupt innovations of past ages, was
prepared for the adoption of Parliament. In A. D. 1553,
Edward VI. was succeeded by the bigoted and persecuting
Mary, who labored hard to overthrow their work, and re-
establish the old bondage of the Papacy. But the good
providence of the Almighty made use of her bloody reign
to fasten the heart of the nation more strongly to the prin-
ciples of the Reformation ; so that when Elizabeth came to
the throne, in A. D. 1558, the establishment of the pure
Gospel of Christ as laid down in the Scriptures, and the
system set forth by the Apostles as it existed in the primi-
tive Church, were hailed with general joy and acclama-
tion.
To impeach this Reformation, therefore, and persuade
his readers that it was in all respects an unjustifiable and
even execrable violation of the laws of religious truth and
duty, is the great object of Milner's book ; and it must be
confessed that he assails it with a dexterity and hardihood
which prove him to be a master in the art of reckless vitu-
peration. To trace him in his more important misrepresen-
tations, and vindicate the truth of history and religion from
his attacks, is a weary and ungrateful task, but one which
bears its own reward in the highest sense of duty.
I proceed, therefore, to our author's mode of assigning
the cause, and describing the instruments and results, of
the British Reformation. And this is his statement of what
26 Letter III.
he considers the commencement of the work by. Henry
VIII. in his 8th letter, p. 66 : " Becoming enamored of
one of his queen's maids of honor, Ann Bullen, and the
reigning Pope refusing to sanction an adulterous marriage
with her, he caused a statute to be passed abrogating the
Pope's supremacy, and declaring himself the supreme head
of the Church in England. Thus he plunged the nation
into schism, and opened a way for every kind of heresy
and impiety. In short, nothing is more evident than that the
king's inordinate passion, and not the Word of God, was the
rule followed in this first important change of our national
religion."
Saving only the facts that the English Parliament abol-
ished the supremacy of the Pope, and declared the king to
be the supreme head of all estates in England, whether civil
or ecclesiastical, this whole statement is utterly false from
beginning to end. But to demonstrate this falsehood will
require a little patient attention to the truth of history.
The real aspect of the matter is as follows : Queen
Katherine, who was the first consort of Henry VIII., was
the daughter of Ferdinand and Isabella, and was married,
from motives of State policy, to Prince Arthur, the eldest
son of Henry VII., a youth of sixteen years of age, who
died soon afterwards. This marriage had no issue, and
the king, in order to keep up his alliance with Spain, and
prevent the widow from carrying her rich jointure out of
England, resolved to have her wedded to his next son,
Henry. The ecclesiastical law, however, was opposed to
such a union, and there was no remedy for this but the ob-
taining the Pope's dispensation. The Pontiff, Julius II.,
who was much more of a soldier and a politician than of a
divine, made no difficulty about granting the king's request,
False Statement disproved by History. 27
and the marriage between Henry and Katherine was sol-
emnized accordingly, while he was yet in his minority.
But the validity of the whole proceeding was denied at
the time by many. Not only several of the Cardinals, but
also Warham, who was then Archbishop of Canterbury, and
as eminent for his learning as for his office, dissented from
it openly, as did others of the English Bishops and divines,
on the ground that the marriage of a brother's wife was for-
bidden by the law of God in the Book of Leviticus, aad
therefore the Pope had no power to give such a dispensa-
tion. These objections made the young prince uneasy, and
his father also. Indeed, the king became so convinced of
the unlawfulness of the marriage, that he commanded his
son, in the presence of many of the nobility, to protest
against it when he came of age. In compliance with his
wishes, the protestation was drawn up, the prince read it
himself before a public notary, June 27th, 1505, and it was
lodged in the hands of Fox, the Bishop of Winchester.
By this instrument, the prince declared that, " whereas he,
being under age, was married to the Princess Katheriue,
yet now, coming to be of age, he did not confirm that mar-
riage, but annulled it, and would not proceed in it, but in-
tended, in full form of law, to void it and break it off, which
he declared that he did freely, and of his own accord."*
The affection which he had for his consort, however, in-
duced him to postpone any further measures, until the death
of his father, and his consequent accession to the crown,
again brought up the question. It was debated warmly be-
fore the Council, where the majority decided that the mar-
riage should not be dissolved. And as this decision accorded
* Burnet's History of the Reformation, b. 2, vol. i. p. 45.
28 Letter III.
with Henry's personal feelings at the time, they were again
married publicly, and both crowned soon afterwards.
This union, disputed from the first, had several issue, of
which two were sons, who died at an early age, and the
third was Mary, the same who was afterwards queen, and
the only offspring of Henry and Katherine who came to
maturity. It so happened, however, that her father, having
entered into a negotiation with the King of France to marry '
this, his only child, either to Francis himself, or to his son,
the Duke of Orleans, was struck with mortification and
alarm when the Bishop of Tarbe, who was the French Am-
bassador, objected that the Princess Mary was illegitimate,
being the fruit of a marriage contracted against the divine
law, from which no human authority could grant a dispen-
sation.* This revived the former scruples of Henry. Those
scruples were further strengthened by his favorite, Cardinal
Wolsey, and by Longland, the Bishop of Lincoln, who was
the king's confessor. He examined the Book of Leviticus,
and found it there recorded, that if a man took his brother's
wife, he should die childless, and he began to look upon
the untimely death of his two sons as a punishment, accord-
ing to this very menace, for his unlawful marriage. He
read the most learned casuists, and especially Thomas
Aquinas, and saw that they were against him. He then
commanded the Archbishop of Canterbury to take the opinion
of the Bishops of England upon the question. And the re-
sult was that all, with the solitary exception of Fisher, Bishop
of Rochester, declared in writing, under their hands and seals,
that the marriage was null and void from the beginning, since
the Pope, although he had full power to grant a dispensa-
* Burnet, History of the Reformation, vol. i. p. 49.
Scruples of Henry VIII. 29
tion from the laws of the Church, had no warrant to au-
thorize the violation of the law of God, which, as they
maintained, expressly forbade the taking of a brother's
widow.*
The king being now completely convinced that the French
Bishop was right, and that his marriage was illegal, his
next movement was to apply to the Pope, through Cardinal
Wolsey, for a decree to annul it, or to grant him a divorce.
For this, the arguments chiefly insisted on were the un-
lawfulness of the marriage, and the manifest fact that the
question affected the succession to the English throne, since
it was evident that the Princess Mary, if illegitimate, might
have her title disputed, and Henry, in his present circum-
stances, could have no other issue. Such an application was
certainly just and reasonable. "We all know that Napoleon,
the first French Emperor, found it an easy matter to obtain
a divorce from Josephine, in order that he might marry an
Austrian princess, on the mere ground that he might thus
have a hope of an heir to his imperial sceptre, although, in
that case, there was no question as to the validity of his
marriage. Why, then, should the request of Henry VIII.
have met with so much difficulty ? He had hitherto proved
himself a devoted servant of the Papacy. He had even
published a book against Luther, in return for which act of
royal authorship the Pope had sent him the golden rose,
which was the chief compliment to princes, and had added
to his other titles the new and flattering appellation of
" Defender of the Faith." How, therefore, did it happen,
that the Pontiff adopted a course so unaccommodating to-
wards this, his favorite son, in the 16th century ?
* Burnet, History of the Reformation, vol. i. p. 50.
30 Letter III.
The answer is perfectly plain upon the face of his-
tory. Clement VII. , the reigning Pope, had been engaged
in a war against Charles V., the Emperor of Germany, and
was actually, at the very time, a prisoner in the monarch's
hands, negotiating for his own release, and for a treaty of
pacification. And Charles was the nephew of Queen Ka-
therine, and held that the honor of her powerful house was
implicated in the question. Her own pride of character,
and that of all her kindred, naturally revolted at the idea
that her marriage should be pronounced unlawful from
the beginning, thus bringing an ineffaceable stain upon
her own wedded life, and through her, casting humiliation
upon the majesty of Arragon. And hence the emperor was
violently opposed to the course of Henry VIII. , and the
Pope was at the mercy of the emperor. If Katherine of
Arragon had been an unprotected female, like Josephine
of France, or if Henry VIII. had been the virtual master of
the Pope's dominions, as was the Emperor Napoleon, the
question would probably have been settled in his favor at
once, without the slightest prevarication.
As it was, however, the evidence is sufficiently complete
that the Pope was well inclined towards Henry's applica-
tion. He had effected his escape from confinement, but still
felt himself obliged to temporize, delay, and evade a direct
decision of the main question, from policy, lest he should
.provoke the resentment of Charles, and involve himself in
new troubles. Nevertheless, he went very far in favor of
the king's request. This is fully proved by the Roman Ca-
tholic historian, Lingard, notwithstanding the decided bias
towards his Church, which is apparent through his whole
elaborate work. I need hardly say, Most Rev. Sir, that
his testimony, even to your mind, ought to be conclusive.
The Pope Temporizes. 31
I pray you to observe, therefore, particularly, his distinct
statement, "that the Pope signed two instruments presented
to him by the envoys of King Henry the one authoriz-
ing Cardinal Wolsey to decide the question of the divorce in
England, as the Papal legate, and the other " granting to
Henry a dispensation to marry, in the place of Katherine, any
other woman whomsoever, even if she were already promised to
another, or related to himself within the first degree of
affinity." The Pontiff' further expressed his opinion in favor
of this latter course in these extraordinary terms : " The
king is said by some to have chosen a most circuitous route.
If he be convinced in his conscience, as he affirms, that his
present marriage is null, HE MIGHT MARRY AGAIN. This
would enable me or the legate to decide the question at once.
Otherwise it is plain that by appeals, exceptions, and adjourn-
ments, the case must be protracted for many years."*
Here, then, I beg you to mark how completely your
reckless partisan, Milner, is contradicted by the Pope him-
self, on the clear testimony of your own historian. " Be-
coming enamored," saith this, your favorite author, " of one
of his queen's maids of honor, Ann Bullen, and the reigning
Pope refusing to sanction an adulterous marriage with her,"
&c. But, in fact, the Pope was so far from refusing the
application of Henry, that, on the contrary, he authorized
Cardinal Wolsey to decide the question of the divorce, as the
Papal legate in England, being perfectly aware at the time
that Wolsey held the marriage to be invalid, and was, be-
sides, the obsequious and devoted servant of the king. And
moreover, he sent a dispensation to Henry, allowing him to
marry, in the place of Katherine, any woman whomsoever,
* Lingard's History of England. Dunigan's Ed. of 1848, vol. vi.
p. 128-9.
32 Letter III.
even if she were already promised to another ! Did that
look like a refusal of the Pope to sanction his marriage to
Anne Bullen ?
This, however, is not the only evidence which the same
Pontiff has furnished on the particular point of Milner's
calumny. " It had been intimated to Pope Clement," saith
your historian, Lingard, " that the real object of the king
was to gratify the ambition of a woman who had sacrificed
her honor to his passion, on condition that he should raise
her to the throne. But after the perusal of a letter from
Wolsey, the Pontiff believed, or at least professed to believe,
that Ann Boleyn was a lady of unimpeachable character, and
that the suit of Henry proceeded from sincere and conscien-
tious scruples."*
Thus we have your favorite, Milner, presenting the ac-
tion of the Pope in one light, while the Pope himself pre-
sents the very contrary ! What sense of truth or decency
could have governed a writer who was thus ready to blacken
the character of the dead in the face of the highest testi-
mony, if, by so doing, he thought that he could stain, di-
rectly or indirectly, the Reformed Church of England 1
For no ingenuity can reconcile his statements .with the
facts. According to Milner, the king desired the Pope to
sanction an adulterous marriage: according to the Pope,
the application of Henry proceeded from sincere and con-
scientious scruples. According to Milner, Ann Bullen
was accessory to the monarch's sin : according to the Pope,
she was a lady of unimpeachable character. According to
Milner, the Pope refused the request of Henry : accord-
ing to Lingard, he was so far from refusing, that he author-
* Lingard's History of England, Dunigan's Ed. of 1848, vol. vi.
p. 133.
Milner against the Pope. 33
ized Cardinal Wolsey, the king's most zealous partisan, to
decide the case, as Papal legate. According to Milner,the
Pope would not sanction Henry's marriage with Anne Bul-
len : according to the historian, the Pontiff gave him a
dispensation to marry, instead of Katherine, any woman he
chose; and even advised him to take that course, as the
quickest and easiest mode of settling the question ! How
plainly does this prove that the Pontiff, at this time, felt
confident of a final decision in favor of Henry; and how ut-
terly impossible to justify his own course, if he had doubted
the substantial justice and propriety of the monarch's appli-
cation !
But however cordial the Pontiff may have been, the criti-
cal circumstances in which he found himself, with reference
to the emperor, effectually deterred him from a firm or de-
cided course of action. His Cardinals were' divided in
opinion, and many of the more influential insisted that he
must delay and temporize until the imperial troops should
be driven out of Italy. Wolsey himself shrunk from the
responsibility of deciding the question of divorce without a
colleague, and requested that Cardinal Campeggio might
be united with him in the Papal commission. The applica-
tion was granted. After a considerable delay, Campeggio
arrived. The Court opened their sessions, and the queen be-
ing summoned, refused to answer any authority below that
of the Pope himself, and appealed. The cause was evoked
to Rome, on the demand of the emperor, and thus three years
were wasted, and the king found himself no nearer to a de-
cision than he was at the beginning. About this time,
Cranmer suggested that the opinion of the foreign universi-
ties should be taken ; and as it had now become apparent
that the Pope, influenced by political expediency, had
34 Letter III.
changed his course, and united his interests with the em-
peror, Henry resolved to submit the question to the princi-
pal learned Faculties and Canonists of Europe, and abide
by their decision.
The result was as follows : The judgment of the English
Bishops (all of whom, except Fisher, had affirmed, under
their hands and seals, the nullity of the king's marriage
with Katherine) was ratified and approved
1 . By the Universities of Oxford and Cambridge.
2. By the celebrated Faculty of the Sorbonne, at Paris.
3. By the divines of Bologna.
4. By the University of Padua.
5. By the divines of Ferrara.
6. By the University of Orleans.
7. By the Faculty of Canon Law at Pans.
8. By the Faculties of the Civil and Canon Law at An-
giers.
9. By the Faculty of divines at Bourges.
10. By the University of Thoulouse.
11. By the most famous Jewish Rabbins. These were
consulted because the question involved the construction of
Leviticus, which was a portion of the Jewish law. And
they all decided that the Mosaic rule, by which a man
should marry his deceased brother's wife, in case there was
no issue by her former husband, (the main argument of the
imperial party,) was a local law, confined to Judea on ac-
count of its connection with the original division of the land,
and therefore not operative upon the Jews who resided
in any other country ; while the law forbidding the marriage
of a brother's wife, on the contrary, was a general law,
which bound them everywhere.
12. And lastly ; the same judgment was given, on their
Judgment of the Universities. 35
individual responsibility, by a large number of eminent
canonists and divines in Rome itself, in Venice, and many
other places.
Such, being the result, the king determined at length, to
pursue the course advised by the Pope himself --at the be-
ginning, and married Ann Bullen privately on the 14th day
of November, 1532. But neither did this marriage, nor
the consultation of the universities, nor the refusal of Henry
to obey, in person, the citation of the Pontiff to Rome, in
the matter of the divorce, which was still pending, produce,
as yet, any open rupture. Hence, the Pope made no ob-
jections against Cranmer, who was appointed Archbishop
of Canterbury on the death of Warham. And the usual
bull for his consecration, together with the pallium, was
sent from Rome without delay, notwithstanding the perfect
knowledge that the king's course had been prompted by
this favorite counsellor's suggestions.
The declaration of the king's supremacy, however, fol-
lowed soon afterwards, and annihilated, at one blow, the
Papal power in England. Yet, all the English Bishops
consented to it, except Fisher, the Bishop of Rochester, and
all the English laymen of eminence, except Sir Thomas
More. Nor can it be censured on any ground of Scripture
or of reason. Neither can it be truly denied that the act
was justifiable, according to the practice of the primitive
Church. To understand it rightly, however, it is neces-
sary to advert to the state of matters under the Papacy.
For a long period prior to this assertion of the king's pre-
rogative, the clergy enjoyed a complete immunity from the
administration of secular justice. They were only amena-
ble to the Church, and the courts of the king could not call
them personally to account for any enormity. Whatever
36 Letter IIL
crimes they might perpetrate, whatever disorders they might
commit, whatever evil example they might set before the
community, they could laugh to scorn the powers of national
law so long as they enjoyed the Papal favor. Not only
were they"thus secure in their own persons, but they were
the guardians of all the villains in the land ; for every
Church, with a certain space around it, was a sanctuary of
refuge, and if the thief, the murderer, or the robber, could
get within the line of its protection, the officers of justice
were set at naught, and thus the priests became the stand-
ing obstacles to right, and the safeguard of the grossest in-
iquity. We shall see, by and by, the application which had
been made by Henry VII. to the Pope to have this ami-
sance done away, and the very small success which at-
tended his urgent petition.
Besides these evils, the supremacy of the Pope operated
directly upon the wealth and the safety of the nation. Enor
mous sums were annually carried out of the kingdom t*,-
Rome, in the shape of Peter-pence, first-fruits, offerings,
and presents, to say nothing of the frequent demands of
subsidies, and the expenses of parties and witnesses who
were obliged to submit to the appellate jurisdiction of the
Pontiff. The prerogatives claimed by the Pope, moreover,
gave him the power of filling the English Sees with foreign-
ers, and the expenses attendant upon the legatine authority
were often oppressive and severe.
For all this, there was not a particle of real authority in the
Bible, in reason, or in the primitive Church. It was perfectly
undeniable that the whole despotic system was a usurpation,
which came in after the time of William the Conqueror. It
was certain that the Christian Bishops of the early ages
were subject to the civil ruler, to the emperors and magis-
Summary of Corrections. 37
trates, in all the temporal relations of their lives and proper-
ties. It was demonstrable that they held the sovereign to
be the supreme head of the clergy as well as of the laity in.
all the ordinary interests of law and justice, and that even
in matters of faith, from the time of Constantine, the mon-
arch's assent was necessary to give practical validity to
the decrees of Councils. Such was the supremacy which
Henry VIII. determined to reclaim: the same supremacy
which was exercised by the kings of ancient Israel the
same supremacy which was exercised by the Christian
emperors for more than ten centuries. And therefore he
was clearly right, on every ground of argument which
stands properly connected with the question.
Thus, then, Most Reverend Sir, I trust that I have fully
disproved the assertions of your favorite, Milner, in refer-
ence to the acts of Henry VIII. I have shown that the Pope
did not refuse to sanction the marriage of the king with
Ann Bullen, but sent him, on the contrary, a dispensation
to marry any woman whatever ; that instead of the Pontiff
imputing to either of them an adulterous design, he ex-
pressed himself satisfied that Henry's scruples were sincere
and conscientious, and that Ann Bullen was a lady of unim-
peachable character ; that instead of the refusal of the Pope
producing the act declaring the king's supremacy, the ap-
plication for the divorce was still pending at Rome at the
time when that act was passed, and thus far the Pope had
refused nothing, but had only put off the decision, by policy
and prevarication ; that instead of the king's " inordinate
passion" being the cause which induced Henry to insist on
his supremacy, as Milner so positively asserts, he had actually
married Ann Bullen after the judgment of the universities
nad been pronounced in his favor, A. D. 1532, and this
38 Letter III.
marriage produced no rupture with the Pope, who showed
his desire to accommodate the king by forwarding, at his
request, the bull for Cranmer's consecration the year after.*
But in the face of all historical evidence, Milner boldly
insists that the conduct of Henry VIII. was the sole result
of an adulterous attachment to Ann Bullen. " Nothing is
more evident," saith he, " than that the king's inordinate
passion, and not the Word of God, was the rule followed in
this first important change of our national religion." How
marvellous that he could not see how such a charge, if
true, rebounded against his own infallible Church ! For
the course of Henry was approved, 1st, by all the English
* The dates, as given by the historian Burnet, will show the course
of the whole matter precisely :
A. D. 1501, Nov. 14. Prince Arthur married Katherine of Arragon.
(Vol. i. p. 45.)
" 1502, April 2. He died. (Ib.)
" 1503, Dec. 26. Pope Julius granted the bull of dispensation, in
order that Prince Henry might marry the
widow, and they were united accordingly.
" 1505, June 27. Prince Henry, by his father's command, pro-
tested against the marriage, being then of
age. (p. 47.)
" 1509, April 22. The old king died, advising his son to break off
the marriage. (Ib.)
" " June 3. The Council advise the contrary, and the king
preferring that course, he was married again
publicly. (Ib.)
'' 1527, April. The French King's Ambassador demurs about
the Princess Mary's legitimacy. (p. 48.)
" " Cardinal Wolsey and Longland, the king's con-
fesser, revive the old scruples of the king,
who examines the question for himself.
(P- 49.)
Henry VIII. a Romanist. 39
Bishops except Fisher ; 2d, by the Pope himself at the be-
ginning, though two years afterwards he was gained over
by the emperor ; 3d, by the foreign Universities, Faculties,
Divines, and Canonists of Europe ; 4th, by many of the Ro-
man Cardinals. And Henry, all this time, was a devoted
Romanist, and all who concurred with him belonged to the
same communion ! Did Milner's anxiety to blacken the
Reformation blind his eyes to the inevitable consequence of
his own assertion 1 Did he forget that if Henry VIII. pur-
sued his course without any just ground, and only to gratify
an inordinate passion, the whole of these Bishops, Cardi-
A. D. 1527, April. The English Bishops, except Fisher, all concur
against the marriage. (p. 50.)
" " Dec. 5. The application for the divorce sent to the Pope,
(p. 60,) but the king's agent could not gain
admission to him, as he was the emperor's
prisoner. (p. 62.)
" " " 9. The Pope escapes to Orvieto. (Ib.)
" 1528, January. About the beginning of the next month, the Pope
signs the documents referred to by Lingard.
" 1529, July 25. The cause evoked to Rome.
" 1530, The Universities consulted.
" 1532, Nov. 14. The king married Ann Bullen. (p. 166.)
" 1533, Feb. 21. The bulls signed at Rome for Cranmer's con-
secration. (p. 170.)
" 1533, Sept. 14. Queen Elizabeth born. (p. 177.)
" 1534, Mar. 20. Act abolishing the Pope's power passed in Par-
liament. (p. 190.)
" 1534, Mar. 23. Sentence of the Pope against the divorce in
Rome. (p. 180.)
Burnet, moreover, states expressly, that Henry " was beforehand
with the Court of Rome ;" that " the Pope's power had, then been for four
years together much examined and disputed," and therefore the subject
was thoroughly canvassed before the Parliament decided upon the act
of abolition. (p. 181.)
40 Letter III.
nals, Divines, Universities, Canonists, and even the Pope
himself, were guilty as his accomplices ? Did he forget
that all this took place several years before the Reforma-
tion 1 That all the actors in it were the members and the
clergy of his own Church ? That Henry VIII., in every
point except the supremacy of the Pope in England, re-
mained a bigoted and persecuting adherent to Romanism
to his dying day 1 That, in fact, the true work which re-
stored the Church of England to the privileges of the primi-
tive apostolic faith did not begin until the accession of Ed-
ward VI., in A. D. 1547 ; so that thirteen years elapsed
after the Act of Supremacy, in 1534, during which all the
Romanists in England, save Fisher and More, submitted to
Henry's dictation ?
And now, Most Reverend Sir, permit me to say, that although
I have occupied so large a space in proving the falsehood of
Milner's statements, as well for the sake of historical truth
as to demonstrate the utter treachery of the guide which
you have recommended to us, yet I do not hold Henry VIII.,
in any proper sense, as a reformer of the Church of Eng-
land. In the matter of his divorce from Katherine, the
general sense of Rome was with him. In the matter of
his supremacy to the exclusion of the Pope, it was not so
much a point of religion as a point of government. All the
Bishops, save Fisher, took the new oath without scruple,
and all the clergy, save the Franciscans, did the same.
Hence, Fisher and More did not suffer as heretics, but as
TRAITORS, under the act of Parliament. And the whole
charge against them was confined to the secular offence, of
opposing what was now the established law of the land.
I fully admit, however, that although Henry VIII. was
no reformer, he was undoubtedly an instrument in the hand
Henry VIII. no true Reformer. 41
of God to prepare the way for the Reformation. To this
end, he overthrew the supremacy of the Pope and the
monastic system in England. As Jehu was appointed to
execute the judgment of heaven against the house of Ahab
and the worshippers of Baal, and executed the task, while he
was himself a friend to idolatry : so Henry was appointed
to destroy the usurped power of the Pope and the super-
stitious influence of the monasteries, notwithstanding he
was, in all things else, the friend and patron of Romanism.
The Church of Christ, as planted by the Apostles, was like
a noble temple, round which the hand of barbarous and
wanton innovation had erected an unsightly pile, thus spoil-
ing its effect, and concealing its fair proportions. To tear
down the. walls of this, and bear away the rubbish, would
be the first step towards the restoration of the original
fabric. And such was the work which, in part, was as-
signed to Henry. The repairing and refitting the temple
itself, so as to exhibit to every eye its pristine beauty, was
a very different task, and was committed, in the wisdom of
God, to a very different instrumentality.
42 The End of Controversy, Controverted.
LETTER IV.
MOST REVEKEND SIR :
I HAVE already said that the act of Henry VIII., in abol-
ishing the Pope's supremacy in England, and taking pos-
session of the monasteries, produced no reformation. He
may have been, as your writers paint him, a lustful and
bloody tyrant. But with that we have nothing to do. He
was bred and educated in the school of Romanism. He
v_
was even more than commonly well read in the religion of
his day, and exhibited his erudition, to the admiration of the
Pope and the Bishops, in his book against Luther, which
gained him the title of " Defender of the Faith." I doubt
not that if he had continued, in all respects, an obedient son
of Rome, the world would have heard very little of his cru-
elty or his despotism. As to the first, it was a small mat-
ter in comparison with the tortures and fiery death inflicted
by your old Inquisition, and universally sanctioned through-
out Europe previous to the Reformation. And as to the
second, it did not exceed the common measure of sovereigns
in that age, and for centuries before. Towards his wives,
his conduct was only severe when he believed them to be
faithless. None of them, from Katherine of Arragon down
to Katherine Parr, ever complained of his ill-treatment.
The famous Charlemagne had four wives at once, and yet
his name was inserted by many Churches on the catalogue
of saints. Your Louis XIV. kept mistresses constantly, un-
der the eyes of his queen, yet he was a prodigious favorite
Edward VI. a Boy. 43
with, your Bishops and clergy. Compared with either of
them, or with the ordinary list of your sovereign princes,
Henry VIII. was a pattern of continence and decorum.
With all this, it must be granted that he had an extraordi
nary power of gaining and keeping the affection and con
fidence of his subjects ; so that the sole motive to which J
must attribute the pre-eminence of his evil character amongst
your writers, is their determination to stigmatize him be-
cause he brake the bands and yokes of Papal domination.
The true work of reformation, however, was reserved
for the reign of his son, Edward VI., who came to the
crown when he was only eleven years old, and died at the
early age of sixteen. Against him Milner can say nothing,
save that he was a boy ! But this boy was a prodigy of
learning, wisdom, and piety, which I might defy the history
of Europe to equal. We all know that many cases have
occurred of boys, whose precocious development of intellect
in mathematics, music, and dramatic skill, has astonished
the oldest and most accomplished minds of their time. We
all know that it has sometimes pleased the Almighty to
manifest His grace to children in a manner quite as won-
derful, of which the youthful Samuel, called to be a prophet
at an earlier age than Edward was called to be a king, was
a marked example. We even find the principle recorded
in Scripture, where the Psalmist, addressing the Deity,
saith : " In the mouth of babes and sucklings thou hast
perfected praise" a passage which the great Redeemer
rendered memorable by employing it in His stern rebuke
of the Pharisees, when they found fault with the children
crying in the temple, " Hosanna to the Son of David." The
sneers of Milner, therefore, with respect to Edward's youth,
are not merely absurd, but savor of impiety. That sur-
44 Letter IV.
prising boy was a man in intellect, and a saint in virtue.
Precocious in all respects, the victim of consumption, which
cut him off' so soon, and which is well known to be usually
connected with a premature unfolding of the reasoning facul-
ties, his attainments and his character were the constant
subjects of astonishment and delight to all around him.
And as his name has thus far bid defiance to the calumny
of Romanists, I doubt not that it will shine as a bright star
upon the page of history, long after the memory of those
who mock his youth shall have sunk into oblivion.*
The leading men amongst the reformers who carried on
the work under the patronage of their saint-like young sove-
reign, were Cranmer, Ridley, Latimer, and Hooper. And
although there may be some flaws found by an ingenious
and unscrupulous . adversary, like Milner, in their personal
consistency, yet I may safely challenge their enemies to
name an equal number of English Romanists in their day
who stood upon the same exalted height of Christian vir-
tue.
I come now to another tissue of misrepresentations,
which your bold and reckless advocate has crowded, with
his usual skill, into a single paragraph, although it will re-
quire many paragraphs to expose their falsity. Thus he
avers that " the unprincipled Duke of Somerset," who was
the uncle of the youthful king, and held the highest office
in the government, " pushed on the Reformation for his own
ambitious and avaricious purposes, suppressing the remaining
colleges and hospitals which the profligacy of Henry had
spared, and converting their revenues to his own and his
associates' uses. He forced Cranmer and the other Bishops
* Burnet, History of the Reformation, vol. iii. pp. 2, 3.
The Bishops Reformers. 45
to take out fresh, commissions for governing their dioceses
during his nephew's that is, his own good pleasure. He
made a great number of important changes in the public
worship by his own authority, or that of his visitors ; and
when he employed certain Bishops and divines in forming
fresh Articles and a new Liturgy, he punished them with
imprisonment if they were not obedient to his orders. He
even took upon him to alter their work, when sanctioned
by Parliament, in compliment to the Church's greatest
enemy, Calvin."
The whole of this, however, is a mere string of misrepre-
sentations. For, 1st, the Reformation was prosecuted vigor-
ously, saith Burnet in his history, by CRANMER, who had
upon his side several of the Bishops Holgate, of York ;
Holbeck, of Lincoln ; Goodrick, of Ely ; and above all,
Ridley, of Rochester, afterwards of London. Old Latimer
was discharged from imprisonment, to which Henry VIII.
had consigned him on account of his opposition to the Six
Articles of the Papal doctrine which that monarch had re-
solved to maintain, but declined any public station, and em-
ployed himself solely in preaching the doctrines of the
Reformation. Somerset was " firmly united with Cranmer
in his design" saith the historian ; but Milner's statement
makes him the leader, instead of the Bishops, to whose office
it belonged. This fabrication, therefore, was set forth by
your favorite in order to deceive his ignorant or careless
readers into the false idea that the work was the mere prod-
uct of an ambitious and avaricious politician. Yet nothing
can be more contrary to the truth of history.*
2d. The remaining colleges and hospitals which Milder
* Burnet, vol iii. p. 32.
46 Letter IV.
states to have been suppressed by Somerset, and the rev-
enues applied to his own uses, must be an allusion, not to
the act of Somerset, but to the Act of the first Parliament,
which gave the CHANTRIES, COLLEGE'S, AND CHAPELS, to
the king, to be applied " to the maintenance of grammar-
schools, to the support of preachers, and the increase of
vicarages."* This act was opposed by Cranmer and seven
other Bishops ; but it passed, notwithstanding. It is a mani-
fest perversion, however, to represent it as if it were the
work of Somerset's single authority.
3d. The third fabrication of Milner states, that " deforced
Cranmer and the other Bishops to take out fresh commis-
sions for governing their dioceses during his nephew's
that is, his good pleasure ;" the truth being that the act was
passed by the whole Privy Council, appointed by the will
of Henry VIII., in pursuance of the course adopted during
the reign of that monarch, Cranmer being one of the Coun-
cil, and recommending the measure, both by precept and
example, as a prudent precaution under present circum-
stances. But it was intended only as a temporary thing,
and it was neither, as Milner asserts, the single act of
Somerset, nor was it forced at all.f
4th. The appointment of visitors, with injunctions, the
preparation of the first Book of Homilies to supply the lack
of sermons to the people, the order to read publicly certain
portions of Scripture, &c., were also the work of the whole
Privy Council, under Cranmer's advice, and in no respect
the act of Somerset's sole authority.^ And the imprison-
ment of Bonner and Gardiner was rendered necessary by
* Burnet, vol. iii. p. 60-1.
t Burnet, History of the Reformation, vol. iii. p. 7. $ Ib. p. 35-7.
Compliment to Calvin. 47
their resistance to these injunctions, with, which all the
other Bishops had complied.
5th. And the last of these statements is equally untrue,
that " Somerset took upon him to alter the work of the
Bishops, in compliment to Calvin, the Church's greatest
enemy.'''' What he meant by Calvin's being the greatest
enemy of the Church, is indeed ambiguous. If the word
Church be referred to the Church of Rome, the epithet may
be consistent with the idea of Romanists, who suppose
their Church to be incapable of improvement ; but certainly
quite inconsistent with those even among themselves (and
there are, thank God, many such) who earnestly long to
see her reformed. If, on the other hand, our author in-
tended to say that Calvin was the greatest enemy of the
Church of England, it is a very gross mistake. For he was
in friendly correspondence with the reformers throughout.
He even thought seriously of uniting all the Reformed
Churches to that of England, and is reported to have pro-
posed the measure in a letter to King Edward, which the
Papal party suppressed. But it was Cranmer, the Arch-
bishop of Canterbury, and his Episcopal colleagues, who
were the leading persons in the whole work, according to
their office ; and the resolutions of the Privy Council, un-
der the will of the late king, together with the hearty assent
of Edward himself, were the authority by which they acted
in every change of the existing system.
A few specimens of this, as given by the historian Bur-
net, may be here set down by way of illustration. There
were in the Churches some images of the blessed Trinity,
in which the Father was* represented sitting on the one
hand, as an old man, with a triple crown, and rays about
him ; the Son on the other hand, as a young man, with a
48 - Letter IV.
crown and rays ; and the Blessed Virgin between them,
and the emblem of the Holy Ghost, a Dove, spread over her
head. And there was a great variety of other images, all
which the Council resolved should be removed ; and Som-
erset, who was the Lord Protector during the king's
minority, and, by virtue of this office, the President of the
Council, wrote to Cranmer, that he might give order accord-
ingly.* Again, we find that Cranmer compiled a Cate-
chism.f And again, the Parliament, A. D. 1548, in order
that there might be a perfect uniformity throughout the
whole kingdom, gave their sanction to the Liturgy and
Offices which the king, by the advice of the Lord Protector
and the Council, had appointed the Archbishop of Canterbury,
with other learned and discreet Bishops and divines, to draw
U P4 We see ' therefore, throughout, the utter falsehood of
the statement that the Reformation, in Edward's time, was
the work of Somerset, for his own ambitious and avaricious
purposes. And thus we have another specimen of the reck-
less spirit of your favorite author.
From this tissue of misrepresentations Milner proceeds
to another. " When Elizabeth came to the throne," saith
he, " a new Reformation, different in its Articles and Liturgy
from that of Edward VI., was set on foot, and moulded, not
according to Scripture, but to her orders. She deposed all
the Bishops except one, * * * and she required the
new ones, whom she appointed, to renounce certain exer-
cises which they declared to be agreeable to the Word
of God, but which she found not to agree with her system
of politics."
Of this set of assertions thus much is true, viz., tha^ Eliza-
* Burnet, vol. iii. p. 79. f Ib. p. 93. J Ib. p. 123.
Deprivations and Prophesyings. 49
beth deprived every Bishop save one, the reason being that
only one would consent to her coronation, and hence the
rest exposed themselves to be dealt with as traitors. Un-
der those circumstances, they should have been thankful
that their lives were spared ; and the notion that she should
have allowed them to continue as Bishops is simply ridicu-
lous. But it is perfectly false that the Reformation, re-
established under Elizabeth, differed from that which was
finally settled under Edward VI., in a single doctrine or
principle. The few alterations which were made were
mere matters of verbal expediency, designed to remove
needless offence to the remaining Romanists, who had
shown a general willingness to attend the Church, and
who would doubtless have soon conformed entirely, if the
Pope's excommunication of the queen, together with the
strenuous efforts of Jesuit missionaries, had not roused their
zeal into opposition.
As to the " exercises" which Milner says she required
the new Bishops to " renounce" they were not exercises
authorized by the Bishops at any time, but were mere irreg-
ular meetings, gotten up among some of the laity, con-
ducted in the Puritan style, under the name of Prophesyings,
and of course liable, in that day, to produce disorder. Arch-
bishop Grindal thought them likely to be edifying, or at
least harmless ; but most of the other Bishops, as well as
Elizabeth herself, were of a different opinion, and therefore
he was requested to discourage them. With what pro-
priety, then, could this be called a renunciation required of
the new Bishops? How could they renounce what they
never had adopted ?
These examples exhibit the character of Milner's book
throughout. He seems to have been utterly incapable of
3
50 Letter IV.
writing with candor or truth, when the facts or instruments
of the Reformation Avere in question. And there is an easy,
dashing, confident air in his style of falsification, which
shows him to have been a perfect master in the art. But
yet his effrontery is astonishing, when we look at the con-
trast between the treatment of Bishops under the Romish
kings, and that which they received under the reformed
sovereigns of England. When Charles V. seized the per-
son of the Pope himself, and held him a prisoner when
Henry VIII. successfully insisted that all his Romish Bish-
ops should agree to abolish the Papal supremacy, and sub-
stitute his own, and suppress the monasteries when Queen
Mary, instead of being content with deposing Cranmer, Rid-
ley, Latimer, and Hooper, and confining them for a season,
burned them alive at the stake, with more than two hun-
dred other victims the despotism of princely power does
not draw a single remark from your determined partisan.
But when Elizabeth deprives the Bishops who refused to
acknowledge her right to the crown, and orders Archbishop
Grindal to execute his office in putting a stop to an irreg-
ular exercise of the laymen, which neither the Church
nor her Bishops had ever authorized these are shocking
proofs of the despotism which produced the Reformation !
Yea, they demonstrate that the poor Bishops were not al-
lowed to have any voice at all in questions of religious doc-
trine or worship, but that the mere dictation of royalty reg-
ulated the whole ! And yet Milner must have known that
the entire preparation of the work was in the hands of the
Bishops, and that not a single instance can be found in
which any point of doctrine or worship was changed or
established, unless it was done by their express judgment
and sanction.
Milner'a Causes. 51
But, to sum up the hypothesis of your favorite com-
pletely, I must quote another passage where he puts forth
his view of the Reformation. " The more strictly the sub-
ject is examined,"- saith he, " the more clearly it will ap-
pear, that it was not in consequence of any investigation of
the Scriptures, either public or private, that the ancient
Catholic" (i. e., Roman) " religion was abolished, and one
or other of the new Protestant religions set up, in the dif-
ferent northern kingdoms and States of Europe, but in con-
sequence of the politics of princes and statesmen, the avarice
of the nobility and gentry, and the irreligion and licentious-
ness of the people" Here is the theory of the Reformation,
as represented by all Romanists, with a few rare and can-
did exceptions. And I pronounce it utterly untrue, as I
shall prove in due time from the testimony of their own
witnesses. I shall only for the present point out its histori-
cal absurdity, and total inconsistency with common sense
and reason.
Your bold and unscrupulous author assigns, as his first
cause of the change, " the politics of princes and statesmen."
But what political motive could have influenced Luther in
Germany, Zuinglius in Zurich, Calvin in Geneva and
France, Cranmer in England, Knox in Scotland ? Were
they politicians, princes or statesmen ? What political
motive could have induced those who were the rulers of
those nations to quarrel with the Pope, with the emperor,
with the vast internal force of the priests and monks, and
with the large body of their own subjects, at the imminent
risk of a fearful civil war, if they should fail to convince
the majority of the people that their cause was just and
righteous 1 What single instance can be pointed out, where
the Reformation was connected, directly or indirectly, with
3
52 Letter IV.
the field of politics, with the overthrow of any existing dy-
nasty, or with a proposed change of civil government 1 On
the contrary, it is manifest to the slightest reflection that
every motive of earthly policy must have been hostile to
the effort which sought to overthrow the established reli-
gious system of all Europe. As at the beginning of the
Gospel dispensation " the rulers and kings took counsel
together against the Lord and against His anointed," so it
was in the great movement of the 16th century. And if
the mighty hand of God had not roused up, in a wonderful
manner, the slumbering consciences of men, the politics of
princes and statesmen would have trampled on the preachers
of His truth, and consigned them all, for the sake of tempo-
ral peace, to the flames of martyrdom.
But leaving the question of policy with respect to the
other branches of the work, and confining myself to my
proper field of the Reformation in England, I ask for the
evidence that this could have been carried forward by such
a motive. What earthly interest could have prevailed on
Henry VIII. to cast off the Pope's supremacy in the year
1 534 ? Was it the privilege of marrying Anne Bullen ? The
Pope had given him a dispensation, and even advised him
to take any woman he pleased, and he had actually mar-
ried her two years before. Was it the wealth to be de-
rived from the suppression of the monasteries ? The Pope
had granted his bull to Cardinal Wolsey for this very act,
and there was no obstacle in the way of the king's good
pleasure. Was it to stop the drain by which the Papal ex-
actions and subsidies drew off so much of the wealth of
England 1 This could have been effected by act of Parlia-
ment, without any difficulty. No earthly policy, therefore,
can possibly account for Henry's course. It was the work
The Politics of Princes and Statesmen. 53
*
of Divine Providence, who raised up this man of energy
and passion to prepare the way for the restoration of His
truth, in mercy to mankind.
And where is the argument derived from the politics of
princes and statesmen, in the genuine Reformation estab-
lished under Edward VI. by Cranmer, Ridley, and their
colleagues ? The body of the whole nation was devoted to
all the doctrines and practices of Romanism, which Henry
VIII. -had left, saving the Papal supremacy, in their full
vigor. The worship of the Virgin and the saints, of images
and relics, purgatory, priestly celibacy, transubstantiation,
communion in one kind, masses for the dead, all was
there, and all defended by the strongest arguments of posi-
tive law, and vested rights, and worldly expediency. More-
over, Edward VI. was in his minority, and the main pow-
ers of government rested, until he should be of age, in the
Council, to whom the will of Henry had committed them.
Was this a time which the politics of princes and statesmen
would choose for such an undertaking ? Or could the
whole range of earthly policy point out a single advantage
to be gained by such an effort ? When, since the world
began, did it ever enter the head of a politician, that a di-
rect assault upon the established religion of a nation was
the most likely way to advance his temporal power 1 Most
absurd and preposterous, therefore, is the attempt to account
for the facts by an hypothesis like this. It was the work
of God, and He raised up His chosen instruments to ac-
complish it, not by earthly policy, but in the face of it.
Equally manifest it is that Cranmer and his colleagues
had nothing to gain, of this world's treasures, by venturing
their all in such a cause. What interest had they in re-
ducing to the Scriptural standard the inordinate privileges
54 Letter IV.
of their own order ? Was it the desire, as the Romanists
would tell us, of having a wife ? I shall prove, in due time,
that the Church of Rome was far more liberal than the Re-
formed Church of England has ever been, in allowing the
pleasures of female intercourse to her clergy, provided only,
that it was not in the lawful way of marriage. Was it the
enlargement of their official power ? The Reformation did
not enlarge, but diminished it. Was it the increase of
their wealth 1 The Reformation dried up many of fhe old
sources of priestly profit, and did not open a single new one
to replace them. Under the rule of Romanism, they might
look forward to the princely rank of the Cardinals, the rich
rewards of legatine authority, or even the splendid majesty
of the Papal throne. And the Reformation cut off all these
dazzling prizes of ambition, with no earthly hope of a
higher advancement before them. How plain, therefore,
the result, that their motives must needs have been derived
from the spiritual power of the faith, which not only purifies
the heart, but overcomes the world !
And surely the argument loses nothing of its force, when
we come to the reign of Elizabeth. For the cause of the
Reformation seemed hopelessly lost, under the reign of her
predecessor, Mary. The Pope was reinstated in his old
prerogatives. Cranmer, Ridley, Latimer, Hooper, and more
than two hundred others, had endured the agonies of a fiery
martyrdom. The Parliament had submitted the whole na-
tion to the Roman yoke, and the general acquiescence proved,
to all appearance, that the people, at heart, had received
but little benefit from the measures adopted in the reign of
Edward, and were rather disposed to be content with their
old attractive superstition. On what ground, therefore, un-
der these circumstances, could the policy of princes and,
Avarice of Nobility and Gentry. 55
statesmen rest the attempt to re-establish the Reformation 1
What argument of worldly wisdom could induce Elizabeth
to incur the Papal sentence of deposition, which the im-
mense resources of Philip of Spain stood prepared to make
effectual ? What advantage could she reap from embroil-
ing herself with her subjects, especially as the decision of
the Pope, in the case of her father's marriage to Katherine
of Arragon, made her of necessity illegitimate, and she
might be sure that this defect in her title to the throne
would be urged against her, if she excited the hostility of
Rome ?
This consideration alone must have determined her to do
nothing in favor of the Reformation, if she had really been
disposed to settle the choice of her religion by the policy of
princes. You remember, Most Reverend Sir, how one of
Elizabeth's contemporaries, Henry IV. of France, abjured
the Protestant Church in which he was educated, and be-
came a Romanist, in order that he might put an end to the
civil war in which a powerful Papal faction had involved
him. Much more might Elizabeth, who had been brought
up by Henry VIII. , and found the kingdom fully committed
to Rome, have held that her safety required her to favor no
change in the existing system. So manifest, indeed, in
every point of view, is the absurdity of Milner's hypothesis,
that it is impossible to account for his venturing to palm it
upon the merest tyros in English history, if he had not al-
ready learned, by experience and observation, that any
falsehood, well told and firmly adhered to, will gain some
belief from the easy credulity of mankind.
The next motive assigned by your favorite author, which
induced Elizabeth to re-establish the Reformation, is " the
avarice of the nobility and gentry." But how could that ar-
56 Letter IV.
gument apply, when there were no more monasteries to
suppress, and no more -abbey-lands to surrender 1 It is ad-
mitted, on all hands, that this part of the work was done by
Henry VIII. , under the papal sanction, and the remaining
chantries, colleges, and chapels, were swept away by act
of Parliament, in the reign of Edward. It is also unques-
tionable that when the nation returned to Romanism in the
reign of Mary, the titles of those who had come into pos-
session of what had formerly been Church property, were
all solemnly confirmed. On what, then, was the avarice of
the nobility and gentry to speculate 1 At no period, indeed,
could such an inducement have produced a religious change,
because the retention of these lands might have been
secured just as easily, without renouncing Romanism.
Many monasteries have been suppressed in France and
Spain, although those countries still continue wedded to
the Papal system. But the allegation loses even the sem-
blance of support from history in the time of Elizabeth, al-
though that is the very point where proof is most necessary
to sustain the statement of your author.
The last reason which Milner assigns for the Reforma-
tion, is " the irreligion and licentiousness of the people."
He does not seem to have reflected upon the evidence thus
given by himself, to the results of the Romish system.
For here, he is speaking of the causes which produced the
change in the national faith ; namely, " the politics of
princes and statesmen, the avarice of the nobility and gentry,
and the irreligion and licentiousness of the people." And it
is very certain that the causes of the Reformation must
have been in existence before the Reformation itself. If,
then, such was the fact if the people were, as he describes
them, irreligious and licentious should not the Church oi
The True Causes. 57
Rome take the responsibility ? And does not this very ad-
mission prove, though unwittingly, that there was abundant
need of a thorough reformation ?
And yet it is perfectly absurd to suppose that wicked
princes, and an avaricious and unprincipled nobility, and a
licentious people, would ever, of themselves, seek to ex-
change the yoke of Romanism for the doctrines of the Bi-
ble, because the priests of Rome were far more indulgent
to moral iniquity than the Word of God, and therefore an
alteration like this would never have been agreeable to the
lovers of transgression. Hence it is obvious that the pre-
vailing corruption could only be assigned as the cause of
the Reformation in one way ; and that is the very way
which we assert, and which Milner could never have con-
sistently admitted. We doubt not that the dreadful state of
Christendom was operative, in the mercy of the Most High,
who raised up the instruments for the work, and gave them
success, in the face of difficulties and opposition. The au-
thor takes good care to pass by the irreligion aad licen-
tiousness of the priests and monks, which exposed them to
the contempt and hatred of the people. He gives no place
to the knowledge of the Scriptures, which had beea trans-
lated into English by Wickliffe, more than a century be-
fore, and, through the latter part of the reiga of Henry
VIII. and the whole of Edward's, had been allowed to be
read without restraint. Light from the Word of God had
thus become widely disseminated in many quarters. The
doctrines of the Reformation were openly preached on the
Continent, by Luther, Calvin, Zuinglius, and their followers,
and with a large measure of success. A multitude of hearts
and minds in England were well prepared to receive them.
And therefore, when the hand of Divine Providence had
58 Letter IV.
opened the way, and raised up the instruments, the pure
principles of religious truth were enabled to achieve the
victory, not through the policy of princes, nor through the
licentiousness of the people, but in despite of them.
Corruptions of Religion. 59
LETTER V
MOST REVEREND SIR :
IT is an awful and deplorable fact, that ever since the fall
of man, human depravity, urged by the artifices of Satan,
has always succeeded in corrupting the religion of divine
truth, so as to obscure the light of heavenly wisdom, and
lead the most favored portions of our race into the darkest
abuses of their privileges. Thus it was in the period of
the patriarchs before the flood. The posterity of Seth
were called the Sons of God. They became united to the
daughters of men, and in the course of a few generations,
all piety seems to have disappeared, with a very few excep-
tions, until the earth was filled with violence, and only
Noah remained, a preacher of righteousness, while the
deluge swept away the multitudes of the ungodly.
In due season the world is again replenished, the old pro-
clivity begins to take its course towards idolatry, and the
Lord, in mercy, calls Abraham away from his kindred, and
places him by himself in Canaan, to be the father of a new
and pure race of worshippers. In the lapse of time, his
descendants depart into Egypt, and multiply into a nation.
But they become degenerate, and adopt the idolatrous habits
and notions of the heathen. God sends Moses to deliver
them, and through this chosen instrument, they are in-
structed, guided, and governed, in the midst of signs and
wonders, and under his successor, they achieve the con-
3*
60 Letter V.
quest of Canaan. Yet after this, they relapse into pagan
corruption and licentiousness. They are chastened and re-
claimed, and rebel again. And through their long and
eventful history, up to the captivity in Babylon, we see the
same propensity to idolatrous worship, and its invariable
companion, immorality. At length, they crucify the Son of
God, and are delivered up to the terrible retribution by
which their city, Jerusalem, is razed to its foundations, and
the Jewish race becomes dispersed throughout the earth,
as we see it to this day.
Now there is a wonderful similarity in all this, to the
history of the Church, under the last, or Christian dispen-
sation. The literal Israel was, in many respects, the type
of the spiritual Israel ; and the same sad tendency to de-
cline from the truth of God, through a fondness for idolatry,
accompanied by immorality and licentiousness, may be seen
in both. The chosen people became infected, even at the
period of their highest prosperity, through the marvellous
inconsistency of Solomon himself, in building heathen altars
to gratify his wives and concubines. And the consequence
was a great schism in Israel, for the ten tribes revolted
against Judah and Benjamin. Thus, too, the Church of
Christ, after some centuries had passed away, borrowed the
system of the heathen in the worship of the saints. And
the schism between the Eastern and the Western Church
was consummated. In the case of ancient Israel, we find
that the priesthood became idolaters, dumb dogs, drunkards,
avaricious, oppressive, not feeding their flocks, but devour-
ing them. And in the Church, we shall see, by-and-by,
the very same sins amongst the clergy. Yet still, the
Lord did not utterly abandon Israel, but had always a few
faithful hearts, even in the worst of times, who did not bow
I
Corruption of the Jewish Church. 61
the knee to Baal. Moreover, He kept them in mind of
their iniquity by the rebukes of the prophets and others,
and at no period did He suffer the prevailing corruption of
the multitude to destroy entirely the succession of His true
people, and the certainty of His promises. And in like
) manner, He did not abandon His Church, but when false
| doctrine, despotism, and superstition, were all triumphant,
?! there were still some sincere and honest souls to continue
''
$ His own pure truth, and the prevailing degeneracy was
'$. boldly reproved by many witnesses. Another point of
; striking coincidence may be noted in the fact, that when
the Pharisees, who became the majority in ancient Israel,
made void the law of God, they justified themselves by their
traditions. And such was the very course followed by the
Church for ages before the Reformation. Moreover, we
find that Israel never openly abandoned the Word of divine
truth, but only sinned by adding to it their own corrupt in-
ventions ; just as the Church never gave up the true Gos-
H pel of Christ, but only transgressed by adopting new arti-
cles of faith and practice. Lastly, we see that idolatrous
Israel killed the prophets, and stoned them who were sent
unto her. And alas ! the Church became stained with the
blood of many a martyr, only with the horrible improvement"
of the most refined cruelty, in the agony of studied torture,
and the fearful death of flames.
I premise these remarks, before I enter upon the proof of
the state of the Church previous to the Reformation, in or-
der to show, that there is nothing in the fact of its dreadful
corruption, which is not in perfect analogy with all the
previous history of Israel. But there is yet another point
of correspondence worthy of special attention. The de-
generacy of Israel was especially foretold by Moses, in the
62 Letter V.
book of Deuteronomy ; and the degeneracy of the Church
was as plainly foretold by the Apostles. St. John saith
that already, in his own time, there were many Antichrists.
St. Jude warns the faithful against false teachers who were
attendants upon the Christian feasts. St. Paul expressly
declares that there should arise men speaking perverse things
to draw away disciples after them, that there would be wolves
^n sheep's clothing, not sparing the flock, that there should be
a falling away, and that the man of sin should come, sitting
in the temple of God, and showing himself that he was God.
The last book in the Scriptures contains warnings to the
Seven Churches of Asia, proving that some of them had
begun to adulterate the faith. Afterwards we read a won-
derful series of events, represented, indeed, by symbols and
figures, but clearly showing that there would be a power
rising up in dreadful hostility to all pure religion, that the
true Church would be driven into the wilderness, and that her
proper influence would be usurped by the scarlet whore,
which is explained to be the city sitting on seven hills, that
is, Rome, confessedly. And the result is set forth in the
prevalence of iniquity, and in a fearful succession of wars
and calamities, until the period of her final destruction at
the second coming of the Saviour. Now it is abundantly
manifest that all this would lead the candid reader of Scrip-
ture to expect precisely what has occurred in the experience
of centuries. And therefore, in the condensed history of
Church corruption which I shall proceed* to place before
you, we shall find nothing more than the fulfilment of pro-
phecy. The facts which I shall notice will all be taken
from your best authorities, Fleury, your celebrated ec-
clesiastical historian, the Fathers, and the collection of the
Councils by the Jesuit Hardouin ; and for every one of my
Reformers like Physicicws. 63
proofs, I shall cite the volume and page, with the most care-
ful accuracy. The comments upon the facts are, of course,
my own.
I make no apology for presenting this extended series of
historical facts, as a necessary branch of knowledge for
every man who seeks to understand aright the work of the
Reformation. The physician who would deal successfully
with a chronic disease, must acquaint himself with its ori-
gin and growth, through the previous years of its gradual
and insidious progress. Much more should the intelligent
inquirer into the course of our reformers be well informed
concerning the rise and constant expansion of ecclesiastical
corruption. And if I record only the evils and terrible
abuses which mark your system of priestly and Papal usur-
pation, you will remember, I trust, that the nature of my
task prescribes the track of duty. First, because the work
of the English reformers, like that of the physician, was to
eradicate the chronic diseases which had fastened upon the
constitution of the Spouse of Christ, and therefore, in order
to do justice to the reformers, a full knowledge of those dis-
eases is a necessary preliminary. Secondly, because Mil-
ner's whole effort is to create the false impression that the
Church was sound and healthy in the main, and labored
under no disease which would not have cured itself, if it
had been let alone. And thirdly, because, in answering a
writer who deals in the most constant calumny and abuse
of the English -Reformation and alL. concerned in it, while
he studiously keeps back the real principles which governed
the great work, and, under Providence, crowned it with
such success, there is no method so thorough and so fair
as to place before the reader, from your own witnesses, the
actual history of your Papal system, in its great practical
64 Letter V.
results, during the previous ages. Hence, this portion of
my labor is imposed upon me by justice to our reformers,
justice to the studied perversions of Milner, and justice to
the goodness of God. For no man can be a proper judge
of the subject, nor capable of estimating as he ought, the
blessings of a pure faith and a true Christian morality, until
he has a clear view of the progress and the strength of those
accumulated corruptions, which had brought the Church to
such a fearful state in the 16th century.
With these views, Most Reverend Sir, I have imposed
upon myself a large amount of labor, which I would will-
ingly have avoided, if I could. It may help to refresh your
own memory, but I write rather with a view to benefit those
who have no interest to serve save the establishment of
truth. Let me ask, then, an attentive perusal of what I
may properly style,
A BRIEF BUT AUTHENTIC HISTORY OF THE RISE AND PROG-
RESS OF ECCLESIASTICAL CORRUPTION.
During the 1st pentury after the death of St. John, which
is the second century of the Christian era, the Church,
as a general rule, was pure in doctrine and in morals, sim-
ple in her worship, Scriptural in her teaching, and strict in
her discipline. Tertullian speaks with confidence of the
virtues of believers. He mentions the custom of using the
sign of the cross,* but places the worship of the cross
amongst the false accusations brought against Christians by
the heathen.f He declares that they used no incense, ex-
cept in the burial of the dead. He argues all questions of
doctrine by appealing to Scripture, and tells the heretic to
* Fleuiy, Hist. Ecc. Tom. 2, p. 132. f Ib. 22-35.
Third and Fourth Centuries. 65
consult the sense of the Churches where the/original epis-
tles of the Apostles were still to be seen. And he boasts,
with honest pride, of the purity and innocence of Chris-
tians.* Origen, fifty years later, complains of the neglect
and inattention of his day, through the increase of world-
liness, and lays down the rule that the ministry must prove
everything from Scripture, not according to their private
judgment, but by the sense of the Holy Spirit, comparing
each passage with the rest.f Cyprian, about the same
time, mourns over the progress of degeneracy, charges the
Bishop of Rome with' arrogance, and asserts his independ-
ence.:): And Eusebius, towards the close of the 3d century,
laments the corruption of the primitive morality in strong
terms of c ensure.
In the commencement of the 4th century, Constantine,
the Emperor of Rome, became a Christian, the persecutions
against the Church ceased, her Bishops became elevated
in power and wealth, and the troubles of the Church were
rapidly multiplied through internal strife, while the desire
to facilitate the conversion of the heathen, whose nobility
and people still clung to their ancient mythology, opened a
wide door to the entrance of attractive pomp, and gainful
superstition. The Church throughout the vast empir^ of"
Rome became divided into patriarchates and dioceses, the
Bishop of Rome held a high place of honor, as being Bishop
of the metropolis, and the claim of spiritual supremacy was
advocated with vigor and address, although many ages
elapsed before it was established. Strong efforts were
made from time to time to enforce the rule of .clerical
celibacy, but Fleury acknowledges that the customs of the
* Fleury, Hist. Ecc. Tom. 2, p. 23-35. t Ib. 159.
t Ib. 176, 313. $ Ib. 436.
66 Letter V.
Churches were various upon that point, and that the at-
tempt made in favor of it at the Council of Nice was vic-
toriously repelled.* The institute of Monachism was in-
troduced to the favor of the Church mainly by the influence
of Athanasius ; yet your historian truly saith, that in the
year 341 the profession of a monk was despised at Rome
as a novelty.f The image of the Saviour was sometimes
set up, but only in the sacristy, and no adoration was paid
to it.J The Liturgy called by the name of St. Basil shows
that the Virgin Mary and the saints were not the objects, but
the subjects of prayer ; for there the communicants offered
their supplications, not to the departed saints, but for them,
and the Virgin is named particularly, plainly proving that
the Church then believed her to be with the rest of the
faithful dead, in the place of departed spirits, instead of sup-
posing, as in after ages, that she was the queen of heaven,
and exalted to the throne of God. The doctrine of the
Church, too, remained pure, so far as concerned the great
points of Christian truth. But yet superstition was rapidly
advancing, and the complaints of priestly corruption and
general licentiousness were on the increase. The elec-
tion of Pope Damasus was the occasion of a public riot, in
which his partisans besieged the Church where the friends
of the other candidate were assembled, broke down the
doors, and uncovered the roof, and in the shameful battle
that ensued, one hundred and thirty-seven persons were
slain, of both sexes. |j The splendor of the Roman Bishops
had grown so rapidly, that the heathen, historian, Ammi-
anus Marcellinus, pronounced the Episcopal style of living
* Fleury, Hist. Ecc. Tom. 3, p. 125. f Ib. 283.
t Ib. Tom. 4, p. 46. St. Basil, op. Tom. 3.
11 Ib. Tom. 4, p. 153.
Progress of Corruption. 67
to be superior to that of a king.* The Emperor Valen-
tinian, about the year 366, ordered that the Pope, with his
colleagues, should examine the causes of the other Bish-
ops,! which was the real commencement of the appellate
authority so confidently claimed for the Roman See. To-
wards the close of the 4th century, Chrysostom defended
the new system of monkery, on the ground that Christians
had become so corrupt, especially in the large cities.^
Jerome, before him, had bitterly complained of the prevail-
ing degeneracy, and became a monk in order to escape from
it. St. Augustin lamented that many Christians in his
day (about A. D. 389) were superstitious ; that they adored
the sepulchres and pictures of the saints, and ate and drank
to excess at funerals, under the excuse that it was an act
of religion. He further recorded the fact, that the Church
was becoming full of human inventions. || But there was
no compulsion in the keeping of the monastic vows, and
the Church employed neither force nor persecution.^ The
Casuists treated every question of doctrine by the authority
of Scripture.** There were no lighted candles by day in
the churches. ff And although the respect paid to relics
and martyrs had attained a high degree of extravagance,
yet Augustin and all the other great names of that age
maintained the true Gospel doctrine that God alone was to
be adored, and that there is but one Mediator between God
and man, Jesus Christ.||
The fifth century was Hot likely to improve the state of
* Fleury, Tom. 4, p. 154. t Ib. 154.
t Ib- 577. $ Ib. 600.
II Ib. Tom. 5. p. 114. ^ Ib. 303.
** Ib - tt.Ib. 277.
tt Ib. 398.
68 Letter V.
the Church, but on the contrary, it witnessed a rapid de-
terioration. The testimony of Salvian is set forth by
Fleury, proving that among the Roman Christians there
was much heathen idolatry remaining ; that the greater part
were only Christians in name, and worse than the barba-
rians in life and conversation.* The Council of Constanti-
nople declared, that as the Fathers gave the first rank to
the See of Rome because it was the mistress city, there-
fore Constantinople should have the same privileges, as it
was the residence of the emperor and the Senate. But to
this the Pope would by no means consent, insisting that
the Council of Nice had acknowledged his authority, and
that the Nicene Canons could not be abrogated by any
other.f And now began the contest of ambition between
the rival Bishops of Rome and Constantinople, which finally
ended in the great schism of the 9th century. Monachism
increased rapidly. Superstitions multiplied, and the primi-
tive purity and peace of the Church were fast disappearing
from the cities- and towns, and could only be found in re-
treats and solitudes.
In the sixth .century, towards the close, we see Pope
Gregory the Great attributing all the public calamities to
the. ambition of the Bishops, " who concealed the teeth of
wolves under the face^of sheep."! This pontiff rebuked
with great force the claims of the Patriarch of- Constanti-
nople, who had taken the title of Universal Bishop, and
contended that his own See was the See of Peter, to whom
the Saviour Himself had given the primacy. The custom
of image worship was growing in the Church, and Serenus,
the Bishop of Marseilles, indignant at the idolatry of the
* Fleury, Tom. 6, p. 219. t Ib. 428. t Ib. Tom. 8, p. 84.
Progress of Corruption. 69
people, caused the images to be taken away and brokea to
pieces. For this Gregory rebuked him, but nevertheless
he only pleaded that the images should be used as memo-
rials of the actions of the saints, and approved the zeal of
Serenus in preventing the people from performing any act
of worship to them.*
The seventh century exhibits the Bishops of Spain
taking part in the temporal government of the kingdom
along with the nobles. f And we begin to see the fruits of
clerical celibacy in the rule established by the Council of
Toledo, that the illegitimate children of the clergy, from the
Bishop down to the subdeacon, should be slaves in the
Church where their fathers served.^ It is to be presumed
that this canon was intended to discourage and amend the
incontinence of the clergy, but the adoption of such an ex-
traordinary law proves plainly the prevalence of the evil.
So general had the worldliness of the clergy become, that
in the latter part of this century, the most eminent Bishops
of France took great part in political matters, and in time
of war marched at the head of their troops, like the lay
barons.
Towards the close of this century, A. D. 682, the first
instance occurs of a Council of Bishops undertaking to ab-
solve the subjects of a king from their allegiance, on the
pretext of penance. But the example, once given, passed
into the hands of the Popes in due season. || The year 680
was marked by the first instance of saints being invoked,
in order to be freed from the plague .^ St. Sebastian's
relics were carried from Rome, an altar was erected ia his
* Fleury, Tom. 8, p. 125. f Ib.
* Ib - 448. $ Ib. 535.
II Ib. Tom. 9, p. 71. T ID. 8 9.
70 Letter V.
honor, and as the pestilence ceased soon after, the saint
received all the credit, and superstition advanced with
greater speed than ever, in the worship of the saints and
their images.
The 8th century was made memorable by the effort of
the Emperor Leo to put down this image worship, and tu-
mults and insurrections in many places were the conse-
quence. In A. D. 741, Pope Gregory offered to withdraw
his allegiance from the emperor, and give Charles Martel
the Consulate of Rome, if he would deliver the city from
the Lombards. The plan did not immediately succeed.
But after the death of both the parties, Pepin, the son of
Charles, Mayor of the Palace to the King of France, con-
sulted Pope Zachary on the propriety of deposing his
royal master, Childeric, and the pontiff gave him the coun-
sel he desired, on the strength of which Pepin mounted the
throne in A. D. 752. The successor of Zachary, Pope
Stephen, two years afterwards, renewed the application
for defence against the Lombards in person. Pepin, sensi-
ble that the authority of the Pope was his best title to the
throne, granted his request, conquered the Lombards, and
relieved Rome. But in order to secure the monarch's ef-
forts most effectually, the Pope imposed upon his credulity
a letter purporting to be written by St. Peter himself, prom-
ising him prosperity and success, with the final blessing of
salvation, if he became the protector of Rome, and threat-
ening him with everlasting fire if he refused.* The result
was, that the king not only expelled the Lombards, but
made a donation of Rome, together with twenty-two small
cities, to St. Peter, to the Church, and to the Popes, in per-
* Fleury, Tom. 9, p. 350-353.
Progress of Corruption. 71
petuity. Thus was a beginning made to the Papal tem-
poral sovereignty ; but it was effected by a double treason,
one of the Pope against his sovereign, the emperor, and the
other by Pepin against his sovereign, Childeric, to say
nothing of the impious fraud of the pontiff in the pretended
letter of St. Peter.
The next event which I shall notice was the institute of
Chrodegang, Bishop of Metz, who established a kind of
monastic rule for his priests, in which Confession was com-
manded for the first time in the history of the Church ; and
the concealment of any sin, or seeking to confess to any but
the Bishop, was to be punished by scourging and imprison-
ment. This step of spiritual tyranny was taken in A. D.
763.*
In A. D. 768, King Pepin ordered tithes to be paid to
the clergy by all. Before this, the tithe was enjoined, but
not compelled, just as it was in the case of ancient Israel.f
The state of education was such, that the son of Pepin, the
famous Charlemagne, did not know how to write his name,
but used a cross or a cipher for his signature .| To mark
the progress of superstition, it may be observed, that S.
Ambroise Autpert, one of the most learned and eminent di-
vines of France, would not express any opinion as to whe-
ther the Virgin was raised up to heaven in her body or her
soul. It was reserved for a later age to invent, and to
celebrate by an authoritative yearly festival, the fable of her
assumption. But one of the most important events of the
eighth century was the forgery of the Decretals, by which
all the primitive Bishops of Rome, from Clement to Sil-
vester, were made to utter the most extravagant doctrines
* Fleury, Tom. 9, p. 390. f Ib. 416.
t Ib. 433. $ Ib. 434.
72 Letter V.
concerning the power of the Pope, the supremacy of Rome,
and the authority to judge the other Bishops, while the
Pope himself could be judged by none. Yet such was the
ignorance of the times, that 'this forgery was successful
throughout the whole Latin Church, and remained unques-
tioned for eight hundred years together.* Another strong
proof of this prevailing ignorance is found in the course of
the Bishops at the second Council of Nice, where pretended
miracles, performed by images, were cited from false docu-
ments, without any suspicion of mistake.! It was this
Council which decreed in favor of the worship of images,
A. D. 787, after several other Councils had decided
against it. The capitular of the distinguished Theodulf,
Bishop of Orleans, expressly forbade private or solitary
masses,:}: and in this respect, it only laid down the ordinary
rule of the time. But the very contrary became the prac-
tice of the Church long afterwards, and solitary masses still
continue in the Church of Rome to be a large source of gaia.
to the clergy". By the capitular of Charlemagne, in A. D.
790, the convents of nuns were ordered to be closed, and
they were forbidden to write billets of gallantry. The bap-
tism of bells was also prohibited,^ but subsequently this be-
came one of the standing ceremonies of Rome, and remains
to this day.
The opening of the ninth century exhibits the Church
throughout the dominions of Charlemagne, rejecting the
second Council of Nice, and pronouncing against the wor- .
ship of images,!! in the Council of Frankfort ; but this abuse
also became universal. The Parliament of Worms pre-
* Fleury, Tom. 9, p. 458. t Ib. 487-8.
t Ib. 459. $ Ib. 530.
U Ib. 523.
Purgatory. 73
sented to the emperor a request from all the people, that the
Bishops should no longer go out at the head of their troops,
but should stay in their dioceses, and assist the army by
their prayers. And Charlemagne willingly granted the pe-
tition.* But it is remarkable that this application came not
from the clergy, but from the laity. And it was so little
regarded afterwards, that we shall find some warlike Bish-
ops even amongst the Popes themselves. This same em-
peror endeavored, with great zeal, to purify the morals of
the clergy ; and his reproofs of their worldliness, their
avarice, and their prostitution of sacred things for the sake
of gain, are remarkable monuments of his own good sense,
and of the corruption which infested the Church in the
ninth century .f After his death, which occurred in A. D.
814, some Churches invoked him as a saint, notwithstand-
ing he had four wives and five concubines 4 It is a sad
proof of the low state of monastic piety in his time, that at
the monastery at Aix-la-Chapelle, which was the favorite
royal residence, the refractory monks were ordered to be
punished by the whip, naked. The first prominent ap-
pearance of purgatory is in this century. A certain monk
in France, named Vetin, or Guetin, had a dream, in which
he said that an angel showed him the souls of the departed,
tormented in a river of fire, amongst whom he recognized
many of his former acquaintances. There were Bishops
and priests, and women whom they had abused ; and the
angel said to him, " The majority of Bishops seek temporal
interests, apply themselves to the affairs of court, and take
pride in the magnificence of their apparel and their tables,
without caring for the salvation of souls. They even.
* Fleury, Tom. 10, p. 48. t Ib. 103.
t B>. 145 ' ' ' $ Ib. 183.
74 Letter V.
abandon, themselves to pleasure and debauchery, and thus
become incapable of interceding for others."* The monk
died two days after this dream, and the narrative was forth-
with written in prose and in- verse, and circulated far and
wide among the clergy .f The rage for relics rose so high
that some used fraud and artifice to steal them from their
possessors, and a large amount of legends were prepared in
honor of the saints to whom they were supposed to belong.^
The Parliament of Aix-la-Chapelle, under the Emperor
Louis, held an assembly in A. D. 828, in which the corrup-
tion of the clergy was much complained of, and four Coun-
cils of the Church were ordered to be held at different
places, for the purpose of rectifying them. The year 844
was signalized by the introduction of false relics at Dijon,
in France, by which, nevertheless, several remarkable cures
were supposed to have been effected, until the fraud was
discovered ; but the proceedings show that such impostures
were common. || In A. D. 850, a poor presbyter named
Gotheschalk, who had adopted high views on predestina-
tion, was not only deposed from the priesthood, but after-
wards publicly whipped, as an incorrigible heretic, and cast
into prison, where he died, after eighteen years' confine-
ment. Yet his doctrine was defended by other Bishops of
high reputation, and his punishment was denounced as cruel
and unjust-IT The capitular of Hincmar, a very eminent
Bishop of France, in A. D. 852, directs holy water to be
sprinkled on the people, the houses, the cattle, and the food
of men and beasts.** In A. D. 853, it was declared that
* Fleury, Tom. 10, p. 227. t Ib. 228-9.
t Ib. 255. $ Ib. 268-9.
11 Ib. 373, &c. IF Ib. 460.
** Ib. 462.
Transubstantiation. 75
there were three times as many priests in Rome as were
necessary.* The festival of the Assumption of the Virgin
was firmly established, and Pope Leo IV. added the Oc-
tave, to invest it with the greater dignity.f From the pro-
ceedings of a Council held at Savonieres, in France, it ap-
pears that the king, Charles the Bald, admitted the power
of the Bishops to depose him, and such seems to have been
the general opinion of the time.J The doctrine of Pas-
chase on the Eucharist, which maintained the present
dogma of transubstantiation, was written a few years be-
fore, and was opposed by the famous John Scotus. It
was also combated, A. D. 859, by a famous work of Ra-
tram, who held that the body of Christ in the sacrament
was not the real body of Christ which suffered on the cross,
but a spiritual body. Yet both these authors lived and died
in the communion of the Church. [| This clearly proves
that transubstantiation was not the settled faith as yet, but
was only making its way to the acceptance of the clergy.
In A. D. 864, a violent outrage took place at Rome, in
which Gonthier, the Archbishop of Cologne, protesting
against the judgment of Pope Nicholas, told his brother
Hilduin, who was a priest, to place his protestation on the
tomb of St. Peter that is, upon the altar of the Church'.
Accordingly, Hilduin entered into the Church with several
followers, all armed ; and as the keepers opposed him, he
repulsed them with blows, and killed one of them upon the
spot. He then accomplished his purpose, and retreated,
sword in hand. 8 }]" The anecdote is only of importance as a
proof of the spirit of the age. The first instance of a par-
* Fleury, Tom. 10, p. 481. t Ib. 502.
\ Ib. 536-7. Ib. 544.
lift- 546. 1TIb. Tom. 11, p. 74.
76 Letter V.
tial interdict occurs in A. D. 871.* The ordeals of boiling
water, cold water, and red-hot iron, were employed in this
age to determine questions "of justice, under the auspices of
the priests ; and even the kings employed them, with all
faith and confidence. f The Duke of Naples had formed
an alliance with the Saracens, which the Pope disapproved;
and as he refused to break it on the order of the pontiff, he
was excommunicated. The Bishop Athanasius, who was
the duke's own brother, took him and put out his eyes, sent
him as prisoner to Rome, and caused himself to be pro-
claimed Duke of Naples, in his place. The Pope ap-
proved this conduct highly, and praised the Bishop for lov-
ing God more than his brother, and for putting out the right
eye which had offended, according to the Scripture ! This
pontiff was John VIII., and the time was A. D. 8774 The
following year, the Pope dictated the Canons of the Coun-
cil of Troyes, in which it was decreed that the secular
powers should treat the Bishops with all sorts of respect,
and that no layman should presume to sit down in their
presence, unless they ordered him. It was the general
rule that the Bishops should furnish their quota of troops in
war, like the lay-barons ; and the treatise of Hincmar,
Archbishop of Rheims, reckoned this amongst the posi-
tive duties of the Episcopate. || So great were the disor-
ders of the Bishops, that a Council held at Mayence, A. D.
888, attributes to their sins all the evils of the time.Tf And
one of the canons of the same Council forbids the priests
to have any female lodging in the same house, however
nearly related, because cases had occurred amongst them
* Fleury, Tom. 11, p. 305. t Ib. 359.
t Ib. 375. f) Ib. 385.
U Ib. 466. IF Ib. 501.
Barbarity of Pope Stephen VI. 77
of the most shocking incest.* Such was the prevailing ig-
norance in England, that King Alfred could find very few
who understood the most common prayers, or could trans-
late the Latin, into their mother tongue. f He exerted him-
self nobly in favor of education, but the clergy cared little
about sustaining the effort. " I have seen everywhere
through England," saith the king, " churches well furnished
with books, but the ecclesiastics derived no profit, because
they did not understand them."! Pope Stephen VI. held
a Council A. D. 896, and condemned his predecessor, For-
mosus. He then, caused the dead body to be disinterred
placed it in the pontifical chair, clothed in the ecclesiastical
ornaments, and appointed an advocate to answer in its
name. When all was prepared, he addressed the corpse, as
if it were living. " Thou Bishop of Porto," saith he, " why
hast thou carried thine ambition to the point of usurping the
See of Rome 1" Then, pronouncing his condemnation, the
sacred habits were stripped from the dead body, three
fingers were first cut oft', and afterwards the head ; and the
corpse, thus maimed, was thrown into the Tiber. But soon
afterwards this violence was avenged, for the Pope was put
into prison, laden with fetters, and strangled. A Council
held under his successor published a declaration, strongly
stating their abhorrence of the act. And they decreed that
in future, no Pope should be consecrated without the ap-
probation of the emperor, according to the canons and the
custom ; and moreover, that the person elected should be
chosen by the Bishops and the clergy, upon the demand of the
Senate and the people. In process of time, all this, too, was
changed. And ten years later, Pope Sergius III. openly
* Fleury, Tom. H, p. 502. t Ib. 513.
t Ib, 514. $ Ib. 543.
78 Letter V.
approved the barbarity of Stephen, transferred his remains
to an honorable tomb, and placed upon it a flattering epi-
taph.*
This brings us to the tenth -century. Pope Sergius III.
was entirely governed by his mistress, the infamous Theo-
dora. She had two daughters, Marozia and Theodora, who
were yet more vile and depraved. Marozia had a son by
the Pope, who was afterwards Pope himself ; and such was
the state of the Church, that those horrible crimes were en-
dured without any attempt of discipline.! At a Council
held in France, A. D. 909, Hervey, the Archbishop, com-
plains bitterly of the prevailing degeneracy. " We bear
the name of Bishops," saith he, " but we do not perform the
duties. We neglect preaching ; we see those who are
committed to us abandon God and wallow in vice without
reproving them ; and if we rebuke them, they charge us, in
the words of the Gospel, with laying on them burdens
grievous to be borne, while we will not touch them with
one of our fingers. Let us ask ourselves, what sinner has
ever been converted by our discourse ? Who has renounced
his debauchery, his avarice, and his pride, at our exhorta-
tion ?" Afterwards the same honest tongue proceeds to de-
plore the sad condition of the monasteries. " The monks
forget," saith he, " the sanctity of their profession. * * *
We see in the monasteries consecrated to God, abbots who
are like laymen, with their wives, their children, their
soldiers, and their dogs. How shall such abbots cause the
rules to be observed, which they do not even know how to
read ? And yet they pretend to judge the conduct of priests
and monks."| In A. D. 912, John X., the illegitimate son
* Fleury, Tom. 11, p. 570-1. f Ib. 571. t Ib. 577-8.
Boy Bishops. 79
of Pope Sergius, and the paramour of Theodora the younger,
was elected Pope, by the influence of his infamous mother,
and held the See of Rome for more than fourteen years.
There was another Pope, named Octavian, Avho was elected
A. D. 954, at the age of eighteen years, and took the name
of John XII., being the first instance of adopting a new
name as the Papal title. This, however, afterwards be-
came the prevailing custom. The commencement of his
administration was rather in the character of a temporal
warrior, for he raised an army, and marched against Pan-
dolf, Prince of Capua. But the young pontiff was resisted
successfully, and soon afterwards asked for peace.* The
letters of Alton, Bishop of Verciel, show a most degraded
state of the clergy, especially in the matter of incontinence.
Many of them kept their concubines publicly. In order to
support their illegitimate families, they became avaricious,
usurers, robbers, and cheats. And the people, disgusted,
would not pay their tithes and offerings, so that the clergy
often had hardly any subsistence.! The same writer com-
plains of the abuse of Bishops, being compelled to submit
their causes to the duel,J and of the custom of great men,
who educated their children for the Episcopate, and had
them consecrated so young as to make the service a mere
mockery. " They interrogate the poor boy," saith he, " on
certain Articles which he has learned by heart, or which
he reads trembling from a paper, more from the fear of be-
ing whipped than for any desire for the Episcopate. Those
who put the questions know very well that he does not un-
derstand what he is saying, and they do it, not in order to
examine him, but to observe the canonical forms, and in-
* Fleury, Tom. 12, p. 94. f Ib. 108. $ Ib. 110.
80 Letter V.
sure the fraud by the appearance of truth. And these
Bishops, thus consecrated against the rule, are also accused
without respect, oppressed unjustly, driven off by perfidy,
and sometimes put cruelly to death."* The year 963 was
marked by a Council, held in the presence of the Emperor
Otho, against Pope John XII. He was accused of ordain-
ing Bishops for money ; of having abused several women,
one of whom had been the concubine of his own father ; of
having converted the pontifical palace into a sink of de-
bauchery ; of having put out the eyes of his spiritual parent,
Benedict ; of having killed John, a Cardinal subdeacon, by
castration ; of having drunk wine to the health of the devil ;
with other matters equally abominable.! The Pope refused
to appear, however, and set the Council at defiance. And
they proceeded to depose him, and to elect Leo VIII. as
his successor, who was consecrated accordingly, with the
approbation of the emperor. But three months afterwards
John XII. entered Rome again, drove out Leo, cut off the
right hand of one of his accusers, and the tongue, the nose, and
two- fingers of another, and immediately assembled a Coun-
cil, consisting of the same men who had deposed him but a
little while before. And this new Council at once con-
sented to depose the new Pope, and all who"had assisted
m his elevation, themselves included. Which being done,
he pardoned them, and restored them to the rank which
their unprincipled and base subserviency disgraced. But
such a Pope was well matched with such Bishops. J In a
few months more, while he was pursuing his favorite
pleasures at night with a married woman, he received a
violent blow on the temple, of which he died eight days
* Fleury, Tom. 12, p. 112. t Ib. 124. $ Ib. 130-2.
Clerical Debauchery at Rome. 81
after. And the Romans, instead of recalling Leo, elected
Benedict V., and involved themselves in a : war with Otho.*
Rome was besieged and taken by the emperor. Leo VIII.
was re-established, and Benedict sent into banishment. f
* The year 969 was marked by a Council held in England,
under Archbishop Dunstan, where Edgar, the king, made
an oration, in which he thus describes the condition of the
clergy : " Their lasciviousness of dress," saith the monarch,
" their insolence in gesture, their shamelessness in speech,
betray the madness of their inner man. How great is their
negligence in the ' sacred offices, when they come to the
solemn mass itself to play and laugh, rather than to chant !
How profuse are they in drunkenness, and chambering, and
wantonness, so that the house of a clergyman might be
thought a little assembly of players and prostitutes ! There
are the dice of the gamester, there are dancing and singing,
protracted until midnight, with clamor and noise. And it
is thus that the revenues of the poor and the patrimony of
kings are lavished on licentiousness. "|
In A. D. 972, after the death of Pope John XIII., the
Romans elected Benedict VI., who held the See eighteen
months. But becoming odious, he was seized by Crescen-
tius, son of the infamous Theodora, and Pope John X., and
imprisoned in the Castle of St. Angelo. They then pro-
ceeded to appoint, as his successor, (though he had neither
resigned nor been deposed,) Francon, a deacon of the
Church of Rome, who took the name of Boniface VII. , and
Benedict VI. was soon afterwards strangled in his prison.
Boniface VII. was next chased away, and he fled for
* Floury, Tom. 12, p. 133. t Ib. 134.
t Hard. Concilia, Tom. 6, P. 1, p. 654-5 See also Fleury, Tom.
12, p. 168.
82 Letter V.
refuge to Constantinople. Finally, they elected Benedict
VII., and he continued in his office eight years and a half.*
Such were the wretched disorders of that Romish See,
which claimed to be the " mother and mistress" of all the
Churches ! *
We next read, about the year 974, the complaints of
Rathier, Bishop of Verona, against the morals of the clergy.
" Scarcely can we find any one," saith he, " worthy to be
elected a Bishop, or to lay hands on him who is elected.
Not being willing to renounce this vice of incontinence,
they count the rest for nothing, and hence it is, that of all
baptized nations, the Italians are the most accustomed to
despise the Canons, because they are the most lascivious,
and encourage this vice by stimulating food and excess of
wine ; so that the clergy are only distinguished from the
laity in this, that they shave their beard and the crown of
the head, and perform a certain service at the Church to
please men rather than God."f This same honest and bold
censor tells his clergy that he could not hold a Synod with-
out embarrassment. For he beheld amongst them biga-
mists, fornicators, conspirators, perjured men, drunkards,
and usurers. " In a word," saith he, " the cause of the
destruction of all my people is the clergy. For how can I
dare in my Synod to reprove a layman for adultery, for per-
jury, or any other crime, while I suffer it in the ecclesi-
astics ?" With respect to the ignorance of the priests, the
Bishop uses very plain language. " I questioned them,"
saith he, " on their belief, and I found many among them
who did not even know the Apostles' Creed. "| Thus we
see that, notwithstanding the prevalent iniquity and disor-
* Fleury, Tom. 12, p. 177. f Ib. 191. $ Ib. 192.
Indignities put upon John XVI. 83
ders of the Papacy, there were some who boldly spake the
truth. In the same honest spirit, Arnoul, the Bishop of
.Orleans, addressed a Council, in A. D. 991 : "Why do
they put into the first See a man who could not deserve
the lowest place among the clergy I What, think you,
should such an one be, seated on an elevated throne, and
shining in the gold and purple with which he is clothed ?
If he be destitute of charity, and only inflated by science,
he is an antichrist sitting in the temple of God, and showing
Jdmself as if lie were God."* Here is the very language of
the reformers, from the mouth of an approved and venera-
ble Bishop, (for such Fleury calls him expressly,!) in the
tenth century.
In A. D. 993, we meet with the first instance of the
Pope canonizing a saint, in order that the Church " might
be aided by his prayers and by his merits." The Pope
was John XV., and the saint was Udalric, the Bishop of
Augsburgh, who had died twenty years before .|
The year 997 was distinguished by the expulsion of
Pope Gregory V. from Rome, and the setting up of a rival,
who took the name of John XVI. The emperor, however,
espoused the cause of Gregory, and led him with an army
to Rome. The usurper, John, fled, but was taken by some
servants of the emperor, who cut off his tongue and his
nose, put out his eyes, and in that state thrust him into
prison. Pope Gregory, not content with all that his rival
had suffered, caused him to be paraded through all the
streets of the city, clothed in the torn habit of a priest, and
mounted on an ass, with his back towards the head of the
* Fleury, Tom, 12, p. 262. t Ib. 265.
t Ib. 275. Ib. 312.
.3*
84 Letter V.
animal, and holding its tail in his hands, as an object of
public derision.*
There was a famous saint in those days called Nilus,
whom the Princess of Gae'ta was very- desirous to see and
converse with, and her husband, the prince, sent him word
that they proposed to Adsit him. The answer of the saint
to the messenger was in these terms : " For God's sake have
compassion on me. When I was in the world, I was
troubled with a devil. I have been cured since I have been
a monk ; but if I see a woman, the devil immediately re-
turns to torment me."f Such stuff as this passed as a sign
of superior sanctity !
The eleventh century presents us with a brief statement
of some heretics who were condemned by the Archbishop
of Ravenna, and punished by the sword or by the stake.J
In A. D. 1020, Pope Benedict VIII. presided at the Coun-
cil of Pavia. At the opening of this Council, the pontiff
delivered a long discourse, in which he declared that the
licentious lives of the clergy dishonored the Church, and
that they dissipated the large revenues received from the
liberality of princes, in publicly supporting their concubines
and enriching their children. He decides that the clergy
should not be allowed to have either wife or concubine ; that
the contrary doctrine is the heresy of Jovinian ; and that
the children of the clergy shall all be accounted the serfs
of the Church, whether their mother be a free or a bond-
woman. .
In A. D. 1022, several heretics were burned alive in
France. || This had become the general rule for a con-
* Fleury, Tom. 12, p. 314. t Ib. 316.
t Ib. 363. $ Ib. 404-5.
11 Ib. 421.
Three Popes at Once. 85
siderable period throughout Europe. The year 1033 was
marked by the election of Pope Benedict IX., a boy of
'twelve years old, who occupied the See more than eleven
years, and dishonored it by a life of infamy. His appoint-
ment was the result of bribery, and thus the sin of Simony
was added to the rest.* In the twelfth year of Benedict's
pontificate, however, the Romans, unable any longer to en-
dure the rapines and murders which he committed, expelled
him, and put into his place Silvester III., who had hardly
held his seat three months, when Benedict IX. repos-
sessed himself by the aid of his powerful family, and con-
tinued his scandalous course, until he found himself so
despised by both clergy and people, that he consented to
retire, and yield the pontificate to John Gratian, for the sum
of fifteen hundred livres.f The state of Rome at the acces-
sion of Gratian, who took the name of Gregory VI., was
most deplorable. Throughout all Italy the roads were so
full of robbers, that the pilgrims could not travel in safety,
unless they were strong enough in numbers to protect them-
selves. In the city, every place was full of thieves and
assassins. They drew their swords even at the altars of
the Apostles, seized the offerings as soon as they were
placed upon them, and spent the amount in feasts, and in
the company of prostitutes 4
There were now three Popes in the field, for Silvester
III. and Benedict IX. still kept up their claims against
Gregory VI., whom they accused of having obtained the
office by Simony.
To such an extent had corruption gone, that at length a
Council was convened at Rheims, A, D. 1049, the Pope
* Fleury, Tom. 12, p. 501. t Ib. 527.
t Ib. 532. $ Ib. 533,
86 Letter V.
himself presiding, for the avowed purpose of " reforming
the Church in morals and discipline." (Concilium Remense,
pro disciplina et moribus Ecclesios, reformandis celebratum.}
And here the clergy Avere charged, by some among them-
selves, with Simony, with living in disuse of their habits
and their duties, with going into the ranks of the military,
with robberies, with unjust seizure of the poor, with un-
natural lusts, and with many heresies.*
Another Council assembled, about the same time, for the
same purpose, at Mayence, bearing this title : Concilium
Moguntinum XLII. Episcoporum, contra Simoniam aliave
vitia Cleri celebratum ;f and a third, viz. : Concilium Coy-
acense pro reformandis moribus Ecclesies in dioccsi Ovetense,
was held, with the same avowed object, by Ferdinand,
King of Castile, in A. D. 10504
In A. D. 1053, Pope Leo IX. led an army against the
Normans, who had taken possession, as he alleged, of the
property of the Church. A bloody battle was fought, and
the pontiff's troops being defeated, he was taken prisoner,
and detained nearly a year, being obliged at last to absolve
the Normans from the excommunication which he had ful-
minated against them.
In the year 1059, at a Council in Rome, Pope Nicholas II.
had the new plan introduced of electing a Pope by the
Cardinal Bishops in the first place, after which the Cardi-
nal priests and deacons should be called, and finally the
rest of the clergy and the people, to give their consent. ||
This was designed to guard against the violent and disor-
* Hard. Con., Tom. 5, p. 1002. t Ib. 1009.
$ Ib. 1025. $ Fleury, Tom. 12, p. 597-8.
H Fleury, Tom. 13, p. 63.
St. Dominic the Cuirassier. 87
derly elections of former times ; but it did not prevent, as
we shall see, an abundance of distraction.
The famous Peter Damien, Bishop of Ostia, addressed
to the Pope, A. D. 1059, a remonstrance in favor of clerical
celibacy, in which he used these words : " In a conference
lately held with certain Bishops, by your order, I desired
to convince them of the necessity of continence among ec-
clesiastics, but I could not draw from them any positive
promise : First, because they despaired of being able to at-
tain to the perfection of this virtue ; and next, because they
were not afraid of being punished for incontinence by the
judgment of a Council. The Church of Rome is accus-
tomed, in our time, to dissemble this sort of sins, on ac-
count of the reproach against the secular clergy. This
conduct might be supportable if it were a hidden evil ; but
it is so public, that all the people know the places of de-
bauchery, the names of the concubines, and their parents ;
they see the messages and presents passing ; they hear the
bursts of laughter ; they are acquainted with the secret in-
terviews. In fine, it is impossible to hide the pregnancy of
the women, and the cries of children. Thus it is not just
to excuse those who, instead of punishing, tolerate sinners
so open to censure."*
Along with this prevalence of lasciviousness and all other
sins amongst the secular clergy, we find the most astonish-
ing mortification and superstition amongst the monks.
Thus, St. Dominic, the Cuirassier, as he was called, who
lived in the eleventh century, derived his surname from an
iron cuirass, which he wore continually next his flesh for
penance. He scarcely passed a day without reciting the
* Fleury, Tom. 13, p. 76.
88 Letter F.
whole Psalter twice at least, and occasionally twelve times,
scourging himself the whole time, with rods in both hands,
on his naked body, after which the iron cuirass was re-
placed as before.* " It was not, however, for himself only
that Dominic used this discipline, but to discharge the pen-
ances of others. For the doctrine then in vogue was, that
they were obliged to accomplish, for each sin, the penance
marked in the Canons ; so that if ten years were allotted
for a homicide, he who had committed twenty, owed two
hundred years of penance. And as it was impossible to
discharge this, they had found means to compound it.
Thus, Peter Damien saith that he had learned from Domi-
nic how they discharged a hundred years of penance by
twenty Psalters, accompanied by discipline. For three
thousand blows of the scourge were worth a year of pen-
ance, and a thousand blows were given during ten psalms ;
hence, the one hundred and fifty psalms were equal to five
years of penance, and the twenty Psalters were equal to
one hundred. Dominic accomplished this penance of a
hundred years easily in six days, and thus discharged the
sinners. "f It was little wonder that men were encouraged
to* sin, when it was so easy to find enthusiastic visionaries
to undertake its discharge for them. But the wonder is,
how they could ever imagine that the blows of a scourge on
the back of one, would be received as an equivalent for re-
pentance and holiness on the part of another. It seems to
have grown out of a very wild idea of imitating Christ, who
bore our sins in his own body on the cross, and by whose
stripes we are healed. They forgot, however, that in His
vicarious atonement, there were four elements to which
* Fleury, Tom. 13, p. 96-7. t Ib. 100.
A. Battle in a Church. 89
they could make no claim. First, He was God as well as
man ; secondly, He was Himself perfectly sinless and pure ;
thirdly, His sufferings were endured by the merciful ap-
pointment of His Father ; and fourthly, even this stupen-
dous sacrifice could profit no one, unless he was truly re-
pentant, and resolved, b'y the grace of the Divine Spirit, to
seek after that holiness without which no man can see the
Lord. It was, therefore, an instance of wonderful presump-
tion that those monkish dreamers should have undertaken
to attribute an effect resembling that of Christ's atonement,
though on a smaller scale, to their self-imposed inflictions.
And yet the boasted saints of the Church of Rome are all
indebted for their pre-eminence to the supposed virtue of
this kind of mortification. Fleury himself, however, con-
demns it, and states that he could find no example of it
previous to the eleventh century.*
Our historian sets down the Little Office of the Virgin as
having been introduced about this time, viz., after the close
of the tenth century. And he frankly admits that it would
have been better had the Church adhered to the wise insti-
tutions of the ancients.f
Another evil is incidentally noted in A. D. 1062, viz.,
" that the priests had already introduced the bad custom of
not baptizing gratis."^.
The church at Goslar, in Saxony, was the scene of a
shocking outrage, in A. D. 1063, about a mere point of
precedence between the Abbot of Fulda and the Bishop of
Hildesheim, at the vesper service on the day of Pentecost,
or Whitsunday. The Bishop posted an armed body of his
friends behind the altar, and expelled by force the adherents
* Fleury, Tom. 13, p. 102. t Ib. 105. t Ib. 108.
90 Letter V.
of the abbot. These, however, were reinforced by their
comrades, and rushed back into the church while the clergy
were chanting, and there commenced a furious combat, in
which much blood was spilt, and men were massacred even
upon the altar. The Bishop, standing in an elevated place,
exhorted his followers not to be restrained by respect for
the church, as they were acting by his order. The youth-
ful king, who was present, cried out that the combatants
. should desist, but no one listened to him. The men of the
abbot were again driven out, and again rallied on the out-
side of the church, and only night at last put an end to the
slaughter. And yet this outrageous conduct of the Bishop
was suffered to pass unpunished, through the influence of
his friends, and the poor abbot, on whom they cast all the
blame, only saved himself by force of money.*
The year 1073 was signalized by the election of the fa-
mous Hildebrand, who took the name of Gregory VII. One
of his first acts was to claim the feudal lordship of Spain,
as having properly belonged, in ancient times, to St. Peter .f
Philip, the King of France, was greatly censured for Si-
mony, and Gregory threatens that unless the monarch re-
nounced it, he would strike the French with a general
anathema, and they should either renounce their allegiance
to him, or renounce Christianity. :{: Henry, King of Ger-
many, had been excommunicated for the same offence a
very common, one in those days of selling ecclesiastical
dignities for money. And the Pope was resolved to claim
the right of investiture over all Bishops, which had previ-
ously belonged to kings, and to enforce the celibacy of the
clergy, which was not regarded at all in Germany. His
* Fleury, Tom. 13, p. 133-4. t Ib. 343. J Ib. 249.
The Emperor and Pope Depose each Other. 91
decree for this purpose was resisted with clamor, and pro-
nounced to be a manifest heresy and an absurd doctrine,
requiring men to live like angels, and contrary to the words
of Christ and St. Paul.* But Gregory, engaged the Dukes
of Suabia and Carinthia in his interests, and was deter-
mined to employ force, if persuasion would not prevail. f
The historian remarks that the Pope acknowledged the
novelty of this plan, to make the clergy observe the Canons
by force of the secular arm, but that he thought it was ne-
cessary in those unhappy times. |
The Emperor Henry paid no serious attention to the
pontiff's warnings ; but as Gregory's extraordinary vigor in
his new course raised the resentment of his Bishops and
clergy, as well as his own, he held an assembly at Worms,
where the Pope was deposed ; and the emperor sent a spe-
cial messenger to Rome, with letters to the Pope and the
Romans, requiring Gregory to vacate the See immediately,
and informing the clergy and people that Henry would
come and assist them to choose a worthy successor. In
return, however, the Pope pronounced an anathema against
the emperor, and a sentence of deposition from his throne,
which Gregory delivered in presence of his Council, and
in the new form of a solemn address to St. Peter. This
was the first time that a Pope had undertaken to declare
such a sentence, and the whole empire was thrown into
astonishment and indignation. Two parties were formed
throughout Europe, the one insisting that the clergy at
Worms had no right to depose the Pope, and the other say-
ing that the Pope had no right to depose the emperor. H
* Fleury, Tom. 13, p. 258, 260-1. f Ib. 263.
t Ib. 264. $ Ib. 295-301.
II Ib. 304.
92 Letter V.
The historian Fleury, himself, justly argues that they were
both wrong ; and with respect to the new power of investi-
ture assumed by the pontiff, he proves clearly that it had no
foundation in Scripijjire, or in the previous practice of the
Church.* Notwithstanding the novelty and the danger of
the precedent, however, the Pope succeeded in forcing the
emperor to an unconditional surrender, and the monarch
was reduced to the necessity of standing, barefooted, and
clothed in a Avoollen garment, outside the fortress of Canu-
sium, fasting as a penitent for three days, and asking for
mercy, with abundant tears, before the pontiff would consent
to withdraw the sentence of excommunication. f The em-
peror soon afterwards repented of his submission, and the
Pope advised his subjects to elect another king. A power-
ful party accordingly chose Rudolph, Duke of Suabia, and a
civil war ensued, which filled Europe with calamity.
The state of the Church at this time, in the opinion of
Gregory VII., is set forth by himself in a letter to the Ab-
bot of Clugny. H describes the Bishops everywhere as
being of impure lives, given up to ambition, the princes as
preferring their own interest to the honor of God, and the
people as worse, in some sort, than Jews or pagans 4
It was in the 6th Council of Rome, A. D. 1079, that
Berengarius, a celebrated theologian, who had opposed the
novel dogma of transubstantiation, was compelled to sign
his retractation. But your historian informs us, that al-
though the majority of the Council were against him, yet
some of the members contended that the terms of Scripture
were to be taken figuratively. And Berengarius himself,
as soon as he returned to France, publicly renounced his
* Fleury, Tom. 13, p. 306. t Ib. 325. J Ib. 356.
Gregory VII. ' 93
retractation, and continued to oppose transubstantiation as
he had before.*
Pope Gregory VII. being applied to by the King of Bo-
hemia for liberty to have the office of the Mass adminis-
tered m the Sclavonian tongue, refused absolutely. In an-
swer to the argument that the sacred offices were all in the
vulgar tongue in the primitive Church, he replied that the
primitive Church dissembled many things, which were after-
wards corrected when religion was better established. The
historian Fleury condemns the decision of the Pope, and
his argument.f
But this was a comparative trifle, for Gregory main-
tained many things more extraordinary. He held that the
Holy See, meaning that of St. Peter, makes holy those who
occupy it ! And he required not only the submission of all
temporal power to the spiritual dominion of the Papacy, but
he also set forth particular titles, in order to subject to him-
self every kingdom in Europe, the sovereigns of which he
considered his vassals, according to the feudal law, and un-
dertook to make them pay him tribute accordingly.^ Thus
he claimed Germany, Saxony, France, England, Spain,
Sardinia, Hungary, Dalmatia, and Russia, all of which
were embraced in the enormous sweep of his ambitious cu-
pidity.
The anti-Pope, Guibert, whom the emperor had caused
to be elected, marched towards Rome, under the protection
of his patron, A. D. 1081. But the Romans would not re-
ceive him as Pope, and the king was obliged to retreat into
Lombardy. The war was long and bloody. Rome was
* Fleusy, Tom. 13, p. 367-8. t Ib. 389.
t Ib. 395, &c. Ib. 401.
94 Letter V.
besieged three years.* Henry at length succeeded in
gaining the people ; and although the nobles, for the most
part, remained faithful to Gregory, who retired to the Cas-
tle of St. Angelo, the emperor attained his object in having
the anti-Pope enthroned, under the name of Clement III.,
by the Bishops of Bologna, Modena, and Cervia.f Gregory
died in exile at Salerno, A. D. 1085 ;| and while his ad-
herents lauded him as a saint, his adversaries charged
him with having been a magician. || His short pontificate
of twelve years is justly celebrated as an era in the ec-
clesiastical polity of Rome, since it was he who achieved,
with a firm and unflinching hand, the perfect system of
towering despotism over sovereign princes which has ever
since been the guiding principle of his successors. A
schism in the Papacy itself, with a long and cruel war, was
the immediate consequence. Victor III. succeeded Greg-
ory VII. , while Clement III. continued as before. And
Victor, dying in 1087, was followed, in 1088, by Urban II.,
whose ' party gained the ascendant ; so that at length, in
1089, Clement was compelled to leave Rome, and to swear
that he would give up forever his usurped dignity, although
he was allowed to retain his former post as Archbishop of
Ravenna.^
The famous Council of Clermont, A. D. 1095, ordered
that none should commune in the Eucharist, without taking
separately the body and the blood. This was done, saith
Fleury, to correct the custom of some who imitated the
Greeks, by taking the bread soaked in the wine, out of a
* Fleury, Tom. 13, p. 413. t Ib. 415.
t Ib. 430. Ib. 431.
II Ib. 433-4. IT Ib. 476.
Ordeals. 95
spoon. He adds, that the general custom of the Church
had continued up to this time to receive the sacrament in
both kinds.* But all this, too, was changed afterwards by
the unchangeable and infallible Church of Rome.
It may present a clearer view of the state of religion at
this time, if we take from the Preliminary Discourse of
Fleury, which is at the commencement of his thirteenth vol-
ume, some extracts, which deserve credit for the candor of
the author.
From the sixth century, saith this learned Romanist, the
Church declined, Rome was overrun by barbarians, learning
sunk into neglect. Hence, the few who retained any por-
tion of it, were able to impose an immense number of for-
geries upon the others. The famous donation of Constan-
tine, and the false decretals on which the Popes founded
their most ambitious claims, are particularly specified by
our author. Credulity and superstition went hand-in-hand,
and false miracles abounded. Relics were transported
from place to place, and even divided, in the hope of mul-
tiplying their supposed powers. Various ordeals came into
fashion, and were called the judgment of God. Such were
the ordeals by water, by fire, by single combat ; and judi-
cial astrology was held in reverence and honor. These
superstitions Fleury properly calls the remains of Pagan-
ism, but they were adopted and sustained by the Church.
The acts of the second Council of Nice, in favor of
image-worship, although of course, Fleury, being a Roman-
ist, could not condemn them in the main, are yet cited by
him to prove the ignorance of that age, through which he
confesses that a great number of doubtful histories, not to
* Fleury, Tom. 13, p. 571.
96 Letter V.
say fabulous, and of suspicious writings which were quoted
by the fathers of the Council, were taken as evidence, with-
out any real authority.
He next deplores the change which was manifest in the
Bishops and clergy, who became hunters and warriors, like
the. laity. The Bishops had large estates, and held them
by feudal tenure. Hence they not only claimed the right-
to call upon their vassals to defend them, but were ready to
go to war themselves, at the summons of the king. The
constant blending of the State with the Church was the
natural consequence. The Bishops attended" the parlia-
ments, and the affairs of the State and those of the Church
were decided by the same authority.
By reason of their spiritual power, however, the Bishops
next undertook to judge the kings ; and the crown which
they conferred in the ceremony of consecration, they claimed
the right to take away. And as the Pope was confessedly
the superior of the Bishops, this authority was soon arro-
gated as a branch of his prerogative.
The churches and the monasteries became rich, and thus
attracted the cupidity of the barons, and created contention
for the sake of the spoils. And hence our author observes
that the three vices which ravaged the Church to the great-
est extent were, the licentiousness of the clergy, the pillage
and violence of the laity, and the Simony of both. The
functions of the. clergy were almost reduced to the singing
of psalms which they did not understand, and the practising
of outward ceremonies. Living in all other respects like
the people, they easily persuaded themselves that they
should also have wives and concubines, and that the virtue of
chastity was impossible. Thus the discipline of the Church
perished, and morality became corrupted more and more.
Tenth and Elevent/i Centuries. 97
Enforced penances became another abuse, against which
our author declaims with just severity. Hence came all
the temporal pains by which transgressors and heretics
were punished chains, prisons, scourges, and at length,
tortures and burnings, even unto death.
In fine, everything, in the tenth and eleventh centuries,
was done in the Church by force or interest. Money or
power was the instrument, -and spiritual truth was pros-
tituted to the service of carnal lusts and worldly pride, al-
most universally. 'Hence, even then, as we have seen, the
clergy and the Bishops were singled out as the most cor-
rupt members of every community, and the cry was already
raised for a thorough reformation.
98 The End of Controversy, Controverted.
LETTER VI.
MOST REVEREND SIR :
THE twelfth, century presents, according to your own
candid historian, a continuance of the same aspects of the
Church which, we have seen already. The attempt of
Gregory VII. to force continence upon the clergy and sub-
mission upon kings, was carried on by his successors. But
Fleury takes part against the Popes, in the question of in-
vestitures ;* very justly distinguishing between the eccle-
siastical commission which can only come from the Church,
and the authority to exercise it by law throughout a particular
district, which can only come from the laity. The Popes
of the middle ages, however, did not think so, but insisted
on what they called their rights, and the quarrel continued.
Henry V. took Pope Pascal II. prisoner in Rome, A. D.
1111, and kept him in durance for some months, until at
length the pontiff yielded, after the schism had ravaged
Europe for thirty-five years. f But a party of the Cardinals,
who disapproved the concession of the Pope, united to some
of the Bishops, openly opposed him ; and the Council of
Lateran, A. D. 1112, with the approbation of the pon-
tiff, reasserted the old claim, denounced the conduct of the
emperor, and nullified the act of the Pope, as being the
result of compulsion. It was the approved fashion of the
*Fleury, Tom. 14, p. 27. fib. 131.
Council of Lateran. 99
time to call the allowance of investiture a heresy ; and the
Council of Vienna soon afterwards declared it to be ,so, for-
mally, and pronounced the emperor excommunicated.* The
same course was adopted generally, and, as the successor of
Pascal, Pope Gelasius II. , refused to make the desired con-
cession to the emperor, the monarch had another Pope
elected, under the name of Gregory VIII., A.D. 1118. Gela-
sius having fled, and being at the time in Gaeta,f Gregory
VIII. took quiet possession of Rome, and was recognized in
Germany and in. England, while there were some who re-
fused to acknowledge either of them.ij: Gelasius died the
following year, and Callixtus II. succeeded him. The
schism continued until the year 1121, when Callixtus, hav-
ing gained possession of Rome, and Gregory having fled to
Sutri, his rival sent an army, under one of his Cardinals,
and besieged the city. The inhabitants seized Gregory
and delivered him to his enemies, who obliged him to
mount a camel, with its tail in his hands, and put upon his
back the bloody skin of a sheep, fresh slaughtered for the
purpose. In this style he was compelled to enter Rome,
and the successful Pope consigned him to imprisonment in
a monastery.^ Soon afterwards, viz., A.D.I 122, Henry V.
consented to give up the form of investiture with the rino-
and crozier, and the Pope and the empire were at peace -
again.
The next year was distinguished by the General Council
of Lateran, as the Church of Rome calls it. in which the
Crusaders received a grant of plenary remission of their
sins, with a decree of excommunication against all who
o
* Fleury, Tom. 14, p. 147. f Ib. 229.
. 295-6.
100 Letter VI.
should seize their property during their absence ; while those
who had undertaken the crusade and afterwards abandoned
it, were ordered to return to their duty within a year from
the ensuing Easter, under pain of .being excommunicated
and their lands and territories being laid under inter-
dict of all divine service, except the baptism of infants
and the absolution of the dying.* Here was an exercise
of spiritual power which placed the warrior of the Church
in possession of the highest merits of sanctity, and com-
pelled men, whether they would or ho, to continue a war-
fare of the flesh, under the severest earthly penalties ; and
this was by a General Council called infallible !
We come now to the testimony of Bernard, the famous
Abbot of Clairvaux, against the clerical and monastic lux-
ury of his day.f
" While the Church shines so splendidly in her build-
ings," saith this bold censor, " her poor are wanting the
necessaries of life ; and it is at their expense that the eyes
of the rich are delighted." This reproach would never
have been published by so eminent a man as Bernard, if
the condition of the poor had been so comfortable in his
day as the admirers of mediaeval Christianity imagine. The
tables of the clergy and the monks, their dresses, their va-
riety of wines, are all rebuked in the same spirit. Peter,
the Abbot of Clugny, answered Bernard by finding fault
with his unreasonable austerity. He apologizes for the
relaxation of the ancient rules of monastic life, by saying,
that " Human nature has become weak since the time of
St. Benedict." He justifies himself by the example of the
abbots of Clugny, his predecessors, and accuses the monks
* Fleury, Tom. 14, p. 309. t Ib. 350-2.
St. Bernard on Clerical Luxury. 101
of Citeaux " of a want of charity in refusing to their breth-
ren the comforts necessary for the preservation of their
health."*
The year 1128 beheld the institution of the Knights
Templars sanctioned by the Council of Troyes, and the
order appointed to them provided that they should hear
the divine office entire every day and night ; but when their
military service hindered them from attending, they should
recite thirteen Paters for matins, seven for each of the little
hours, and nine for vespers. Fleury observes, that this
order was adopted because these good knights were unable
to read !f -And he adds, that this was the first attempt to
unite the monastic life with the profession of arms.
Bernard, however, did not confine his censures to the
monks, for he addressed a long letter to the Archbishop of
Sens, in which he exhorts that prelate to honor his office,
not by the pomp of his clothing and his horses, or the grand-
eur of his buildings, but by virtue and good works. " St.
Paul," saith Bernard, " forbids Christian women to wear
sumptuous garments, how much more the prelates ? Have
not the poor a right to complain that you spend upon super-
fluous habits, on gilded bridles for your horses, on rich har-
ness for your mules, what would suffice to clothe and feed
the destitute ?" He then passes on to their ambition, their
avarice, and easy self-indulgence, and shows that the least
of their concern is the care of souls-! Alas ! there were
few such honest censors amongst the clergy of that day.
The year 1130 was marked by another schism in the
Papacy. Pope Honorius died ; and one party of the Car-
dinals elected Innocent II., while another elected one of
* Fleury, Tom. 14, p. 355-6. t Ib. 365-6. t Ib. 368-9.
102 Letter VI.
their number, who took the name of Anacletus II. The
latter was the richer and more powerful, and Innocent II.,
with his principal adherents, abandoned Rome, and sought
a refuge in France. He was favorably received, and his
right acknowledged by the greater part of Europe ; and
three years afterwards, he returned to Rome with the em-
peror and an army, to settle the dispute by battle, according
to custom. His adversary being too strong for him, he was
obliged to retire. Nor was the schism ended until the
death of Anacletus, A. D. 1 137, after he had held possession
of St. Peter's eight years.*
Innocent II. was succeeded by Pope Celestin II., A. D.
1143, whose death in a few months left the Papal throne
vacant. Lucius II. followed, and died within the year.
He was succeeded by Eugene III., A. D. 1145, when
Rome was all in arms, under the influence of Arnold de
Brescia, who desired to abolish the power of the Pope, and
restore the ancient republic. And to this Pope, Bernard
wrote freely, condemning the relaxed discipline of the age,
and exhorting him to follow the examples of primitive sanc-
tity.
But one of the boldest reformers in the Church of those
days was Guibert, Abbot of Nogent, who wrote strongly
against false relics, especially deriding the pretensions of a
certain tooth alleged to be of Christ, as also of another relic
believed to be the milk of the Virgin. He denied that mir-
acles were always to be esteemed a proof of sanctity, and
appealed to the current faith in the power of sovereigns to
cure, by their touch, the disease called the king's evil. He
refused to assert that the Virgin Mary was ever raised from
* Floury, Tom. 14, p. 480-1.
John of Salisbury. 103
the dead, although he tolerated those who chose to think
so. And he censured the custom of taking the bodies of
the saints from the grave, and dividing them.*
The festival of the Conception of the Virgin was intro-
duced at Lyons about the year 1140, and Bernard opposed
it as a novelty without authority from Scripture or reason. f
As frank and bold a man as Bernard was John of Salis-
bury, who was the countryman of Pope Adrian IV., and
enjoyed his confidence. This Pope, one of the few honest-
hearted individuals who ever held the office, asked his
friend one day what the people said of himself and the Ro-
man Church, and the answer is worthy of commemoration.
" They say," said the candid adviser, " that the Church of
Rome is not the mother of all the churches so much as the
stepmother. They see there the Scribes and Pharisees,
who place on the shoulders of others excessive burdens,
which they will not touch themselves with the tip of their
fingers. They tyrannize over the clergy, without making
them an example to the flock. They heap up precious fur-
niture, and load their tables with gold and silver, and are
always avaricious for themselves. They give no access to
the poor, except sometimes through vanity. They make
assaults upon the churches, they excite legal complaints,
and place strife between the clergy and the people, and be-:
lieve that the whole of religion consists in enriching
themselves. Everything is venal, even justice itself; and
they resemble the devils in this, that they pretend to do
good when they cease to do injury. I except some few,
who do their duty. The Pope himself is a burden to all
the world, and almost insupportable. The people complain
* Fleury, Tom. 14, p. 321. t Ib. 527.
104 Letter VI.
that lie builds palaces, while the churches fall into ruin,
and that he goes abroad adorned with gold and purple,
while the altars are neglected." " And you," replied the
Pope, " what do you think of all this ?" " I am much em-
barrassed," answered John of Salisbury. " I am afraid of
being a flatterer, if I oppose myself alone to the public
voice ; and on the other side, I am afraid of being wanting
in respect. Nevertheless, since Gui Clement, the Cardinal
of S. Pontentian, speaks like the public, I dare not contra-
dict him. For he maintains that there is a depth of dupli-
city and avarice in the Roman Church, which is the source
of all our evils ; and he said this publicly one day in the
Assembly *of Cardinals, where the holy Pope Eugenius
presided. Still, I shall say boldly, and according to my
conscience, that I have nowhere seen ecclesiastics more
virtuous, and more opposed to avarice, than in the Church
of Rome. But since you press me, I must declare that
men ought to do as you teach, although they must not imi-
tate in all respects what you do. All the world applauds
and flatters you ; they call you father and lord. If you are
a father, why do you expect presents from your children 1
If you are lord, why do you not make yourself feared by
your Roman subjects 1 But you wish to preserve Rome to
the Church by your presents. Is it thus that S. Sylvester
obtained it ? You are, holy father, out of the right road.
Give gratuitously what you have received gratuitously."
" The Pope burst out in laughter, and praised John of
Salisbury . for the freedom with which he had spoken.
Then, in order .to justify the contributions which the Church
of Rome received from all Christendom, he adduced the
fable of the stomach and the members, which complained
that it alone profited by their labor, and yet found by ex-
Papal Gift of Ireland. 105
perience that they could not subsist without it." But
Fleury observes, that " in order to make the application
just, the Church of Rome should have distributed to all the
rest, benefits of the same kind as those which she received
from them."*
Our historian immediately afterwards gives a fair speci-
men of the maternal style in which Rome has undertaken
to dispose of the kingdoms of the world since the time of
Hildebrand. John of Salisbury had come to Rome as the
messenger of King Henry II. of England, A. D. 1156, to
demand permission from the Pope to take possession of
Ireland, and make himself its master, in order to establish
religion in its purity. Pope Adrian IV. granted the de-
mand of the king at the prayer of John, and issued his bull
accordingly, in which he says : " No one doubts, and you
know the fact yourself, that Ireland, and all the islands
which have received the Christian faith, belong to the
Church of Rome. And you have signified to us that you
wish to enter into this island, in order to subject the people
to the laws, and extirpate their vices ; to make them pay to
St. Peter a penny a year for each house, and preserve in
all things the rights of the Church. Which we grant to
you with pleasure, for the increase of the Christian reli-
gion." With this bull, the Pope sent to the King of Eng-
land a golden ring, adorned with an emerald, in token of
investiture.! It is a marvellous thing how the poor Roman
Catholics of Ireland, who are so ill at ease under the Eng-
lish yoke, can be ignorant that the whole right of the Eng-
lish crown was thus derived from the pretended preroga-
tive of Popery. But the very character of the transaction
* Fleury, Tom. 15, p. 24-6. t Ib. 26.
106 Letter VI.
affords the plainest proof, that previous to this time, the re-
ligion of Ireland was not in accordance with the progress
of Romanism. For the historian expressly declares that
the Irish were to be subjected for the very purpose of giv-
ing them what the king called " religion in its purity" of
making them pay Peter-pence, and adopt the laws of the
Papal system. And as this was the only pretext for the
application, and the only ground on which the Pope ac-
ceded to it, the conclusion is irresistible, that Ireland, up to
this time, had maintained its independence of the Church
of Rome, notwithstanding it had been converted at least as
early as the time of St. Patrick, seven hundred years be-
fore, and was known by the honorable title of the Island of
Saints in the eighth and ninth centuries.
The celebrated work of Gratian, on the Canon Law, be-
longs to the twelfth century, in which the most extravagant
modern claims of the Papacy are sustained by the false
Decretals and other pretended documents of primitive an-
tiquity. The doctrine of Gratian is, " that the holy Roman
Church gives authority to the Canons ; but she is not bound
by the Canons, nor does she submit herself to them. As
Jesus Christ who made the law, accomplished the law to
sanctify it in Himself, and afterwards, in order to show that
He was its Master, He dispensed with it, and freed His
Apostles from its bondage." Your historian, Fleury, refutes
these extravagant claims, and demonstrates their falsity.*
But the work of Gratian became the authoritative text-book,
notwithstanding its basis was a pure imposture. And your
Church continues to rely on it, even to this day.
In the year 1159, Pope Adrian died, and behold ! another
schism in the Papacy. Alexander III. was elected regu-
* Fleury, Tom. 15, p. 49.
Another Schism in the Papacy. 107
larly, but Victor III., sustained by an armed force, im-
prisoned his rival, and it was not till after some days that
the people delivered him. Victor III., however, gained the
Emperor Frederick, and the Council of Pavia decided in
his favor ; while France and England, with the greater
part of Europe, held Alexander III. to be the true Pope.
Excommunications, violence, and disorders followed, as
usual. Alexander anathematized the emperor, and absolved
his subjects from their oath of allegiance. And the mon-
arch continued, notwithstanding, to reign and govern, just
as he did before.* But the Pope was, doubtless, comforted
by the honor paid to him by the kings of France and Eng-
land, who conducted him to his tent on foot, holding on
either side the bridle of his horse, with all possible respect
and humility.f
The professions of law and physic were at this time, and
for ages after, in the hands of the clergy, because, saith
Fleury, the laity were so ignorant of letters as to be quite
incapable 4
The anti-Pope, Victor, died, in the year 1]64, and was
succeeded by another, under the title of Pascal III., whose
election was approved by the emperor. The following
year, on the application of King Henry of England, and by
the consent of the Lords temporal and spiritual at the im-.
perial court of Aix-la-Chapelle, the body of Charlemagne
was raised from the tomb, and he was canonized as a saint.
Your historian, Fleury, remarks, that although this canoniza-
tion was made by the authority of an anti-Pope, the lawful
Popes have never objected to it:|[ a sad proof of the in-
* Fleury, Tom. 15, p. 84. f Ib. 126.
t Ib. 129. | ft. 154.
II Ib. 192.
4*
108 Letter VI.
diligence which, they show to any sort of superstition.
Charlemagne had four wives and five concubines ; the em-
peror and his adherents, as well as the anti-Pope and his
followers, were all excommunicated by him whom your
Church holds to be the true successor of St. Peter. And
yet such a man, canonized by such authority, remains a
saint, in the calendar of a large portion of your infallible
Church, without objection.
In the year 1166, the emperor came to Rome at the head
of an army, to expel the Pope, Alexander III., and estab-
lish his rival, Pascal III., by main force. The next year
there was a battle, in which the emperor's troops killed
eight thousand Romans, while four thousand more were
taken prisoners. The Archbishops of Mayence and Co-
logne were amongst the generals who conquered on this oc-
casion.* Still the Pope was able to defend the city of
Rome, until at length the people, wearied with the war,
were disposed to listen favorably to the emperor's proposals,
and the pontiff consulted his safety by flight. f Pascal III.
came in with the emperor in triumph, and reigned, with the
consent of the citizens, until A. D. 1168. His party elected
another anti-Pope, by the title of Calistus III., and so the
schism continued. The quarrel between Pope Alexander
III. and King Henry of England about Thomas a Beckett,
Archbishop of Canterbury, served greatly to strengthen the
schism, until the murder of Beckett and the submission of
the king removed the difficulty 4
The condition of the monasteries in England, which had
been exempted by the Pope from the jurisdiction of the
Bishops, is thus described by Richard, the Archbishop of
* Fleury, Tom. 15, p. 323. t Ib. 224.
\ Ib.243
Disorders of the Church. 109
Canterbury, in the year 1175 : " The evil extends very far,"
saith he, in a letter to the Pope. " The abbots oppose
themselves against the Primates and the Bishops. They
will have no one to repress their disorders, nor restrain
their desires. Hence it comes, that the property of the
greater part of the monasteries is pillaged. The abbots
care for nothing but to make good cheer, and live in peace ;
and the monks, having no head, abandon themselves to
idleness and vain discourse ; so that if you were to listen
to their tumultuous disputes, you v/ould take the cloister to
be a market-house. If you do not promptly remedy this
evil, it is to be feared that the Bishops will withdraw their
submission from the Primates, the deans and archdeacons
from their Bishops, and thus there will be no subordination
left."* It seems that there was neither piety nor principle
to be depended on, but all these men, under the most strin-
gent vov/s of sanctity, were only to be governed by force at
last, even in the duties of religion.
A very striking -specimen of the temper of the clergy was
exhibited about this time at the Council of Westminster.
Richard, the Archbishop of Canterbury, had placed himself
at the right of the Papal Legate, the kings, father and son,
being present. Roger, the Archbishop of York, desiring
to be as near the legate as the other, sat down on the knees
of Richard. Some of the Bishops and others, as well clergy
as laity, took him off, and threw him on the ground. The
assembly immediately came to blows with fists and clubs,
when the Archbishop, Richard, withdrew. Roger rose up
with his cope torn in the tumult, and cast himself at the
feet of the king, demanding justice against Richard ; while
* Fleury, Tom. 15, p. 354.
110 Letter VI.
many cried out, " Go, thou traitor, go ; thy hands are yet
red with the blood of St. Thomas." The king only laughed
at the complaint of Roger, and both parties appealed to the
Pope. The Council broke up, and the legate retired, see-
ing how little authority he was likely to have in England.*
In A. D. 1176, the emperor, being defeated by the Mila-
nese, proposed to withdraw from the schism,f and Pope
Alexander gladly received his advances, so that the anti-
Pope, Callistus, was obliged to submit, two years after-
wards. But yet the schismatics were not all inclined to
comply. On the contrary, they elected another anti-Pope
from the powerful family of the Frangipani, whom they
styled Innocent III. And he took possession of a fortress
near to Rome 4
When Pope Alexander III. died, A. D. 1181, about two
years after the third Council of Lateran, the Cardinals
elected Lucius III., according to the new mode decreed in
that Council, by confining the election entirely to them-
selves, to the exclusion of the rest of the clergy and the
people. This was certainly a very serious innovation,
and, strictly considered, it was not within the power of any
Council of Bishops to disfranchise the rest of the Church
by depriving them of their primitive rights and privileges.
Pope Celestin III., elected A. D. 1099, distinguished
himself by the absurd arrogance which he displayed in
kicking the crown from the head of the new emperor,
Henry VII., as he knelt before him, in order to show how
completely the secular powers were subjected by the Pa-
pacy. 1| I shall only add another small novelty, introduced
* Fleury, Tom. 15, p. 358. t Ib. 369.
t Ib. 404. $ Ib. 437.
I! Ib. 527.
More Innovations. Ill
about this time ; for Fleury expressly states, that the cus-
tom of your priests to elevate the host before the conse-
cration of the chalice, was not in use until the commence-
ment of the following century.*
* Fleury, Tom. 15, p. 580.
112 The End of Controversy, Controverted.
LETTER VII.
MOST REVEREND SIR :
IN entering upon the thirteenth century, it will be expe-
dient to note some important statements of your historian,
Fleury, in the excellent Preliminary Discourse to his six-
teenth volume.
After the<Church of Rome had groaned for one hundred
and fifty years under many unworthy Popes, there followed
a better sort of men, zealous and devoted to maintain her
discipline, but misled by the false lights of the established
system.
Thus it is said in the forged Decretals, that a Council
cannot be held without the permission of the Pope. But
this, Fleury proves to be altogether contrary to the practice
of the Church for centuries together, during which Coun-
cils, not only provincial, but general, were held, without the
slightest regard to the Papal sanction.
The forged Decretals also lay down the maxim that a
"-Bishop cannot be definitively judged except by the Pope :
whereas Fleury shows that Bishops were judged in the
Provincial Councils and others, without reference to the
Pope, for the first nine centuries. The same remark ap-
plies to your modern doctrine of Episcopal translations, and
the erection of new dioceses.
In the primitive ages, says Fleury, even the title of
Archbishop was unknown. And appeals to the Pope are
equally without authority.
Corruptions. 113
Fleury next argues most cogently against your modern
usage of uniting the spiritual with the temporal sovereignty.
There should be no temporal lordship united with the care
of a diocese.
The modern system, as your historian well insists, is fur-
ther objectionable from its inevitable tendency to pride,
luxury, and avarice. And he rightly declares, that by your
holding no Council without a legate of the Pope, the whole-
some effects of the old Provincial Councils were superseded
altogether.
He also denounces strongly your modern system of per-
secution towards heretics, and he contrasts wi^h this the
conduct of the primitive Bishops, who strove to turn away
the severity of princes, instead of stimulating them.
Compulsory penances, which were nothing more in effect
than so many temporal judgments operating on liberty and
property, he condemns altogether. And works of satisfac-
tion he places in the same category. All these he attributes
to ignorance, misled by false writings, and by the equally
false reasoning of the scholastic divines. But he does not
tell us what produced these.
I shall now proceed to note a few of the more prominent
facts which serve to illustrate the state of your Papal
Church in the thirteenth century.
The famous University of Paris, saith your historian, was
sunk into an astonishing depth of moral corruption about
the year 1210. The students did not count simple fornica-
tion to be a sin at all. The harlots stopped in the street
the clergy who passed by. If they refused, they were ac-
cused of the most criminal debaucheries. It was even
thought an honor to have many concubines. In one house
especially, the schools were above, and below were the
114 Letter VII.
brothels. The clergy who expended the most were the
most highly esteemed, and those who lived frugally and
piously were treated as avaricious, and hypocritical or su-
perstitious. The majority studied either from curiosity,
vanity, or interest very few for edification. They were
divided, not only by their scholastic sects, but by the diver-
sity of nations French, English, Germans, Normans, Poi-
tevins, Burgundians, Bretons, Lombards, Sicilians, Braban-
tines, Flemish. Each nation was reproached for some
especial vice, and from words they often came to blows.*
It must be remembered that these were almost exclusively
students of theology, as secular learning for the laity had
not yet obtained any attention. And Fleury goes farther
in saying that they were chiefly of the clergy.
In the year 1213, Pope Innocent III. resolved to convoke
a General Council ; and in the Bull of Convocation, he says :
" God is our witness that the two things which we most de-
sire in this world are the recovery of the Holy Land, and the
reformation of the universal Church."^ This Council was
held accordingly, in the Church of St. John Lateran, A. D.
1215, and consisted of a larger number of Bishops and other
dignitaries than any other. The two decrees by which it
is most known, are 1st, that designed to extirpate the here-
tics, who, when condemned, were to be delivered up to the
secular power to be punished, their property, if laymen, to be
confiscated, and if clergy, to be applied to the Church. Those
who were only suspected of heresy should be bound to jus-
tify themselves by a sufficient purgation, and if they neglected
or refused, they should' be excommunicated for a year, and
then condemned as heretics. The secular powers should
* Fleury, Tom. 16, p. 270. t Ib. 304.
The Confessional Instituted, 115
be warned, and if necessary, constrained by ecclesiastical
censures, to swear publicly that they would chase from their
lands all the heretics noted by the Church. If the temporal
lord should neglect this duty, he should himself be excommu-
nicated, and if he did not render satisfaction in one year, his
vassals should be absolved from their oath of fidelity, and his
lands should be given over to Catholics, who should possess
them peaceably, after having expelled the heretics.*
Every Bishop must visit, at least once a year, the part of
his diocese where he may be told that there are heretics,
and shall take three men of good reputation, who shall
swear that if they know of any heretics, or persons holding
private conventicles, or leading a singular life different from
the custom of the faithful, they will inform the Bishop con-
cerning them. He shall cause the persons accused to come
before him, and if they do not justify themselves, or fall
back, they shall be punished canonically. If they refuse
to swear, they shall be thenceforth reputed heretics. And
if the Bishop shall neglect to purge his diocese of heretics, he
should be himself deposed.^
Here was a regular inquisition of the most stringent kind,
adapted to the forcing a revelation of every man's secret
thoughts, at the pleasure of the clergy and their assistants.
The other canon decreed, that every one of the faithful
of either sex, being arrived at the age of discretion, should
confess alone to his or her proper priest, at least once a year,
all his sins, and should accomplish such penance as may be
enjoined upon him. And that every one should receive the
sacrament of the Eucharist at least once a year, at Easter,
otherwise he should be chased out of the Church, and de-
prived of Christian burial.^.
* Fleury, Tom. 16, p. 363. t Ib. 365. * Ib. 375.
116 . Letter VII.
"This," say sFleury, "is the first canon, that I know, which
has commanded generally sacramental confession." The
object was, probably, to obtain a still better guard against
the spread of what they called heresy, which, in various
forms, was then widely extending; for it was impossible that
men could continue to be blind to the corruption and tyranny
of the Church of Rome. But it has served, in the end, to
increase that corruption and tyranny, so as to secure the
ultimate triumph of a true reformation. This will be mani-
fest from the facts of your Church's subsequent history.
The important order of the Preaching Friars was insti-
tuted A. D. 1216, under St. Dominic, by Pope Honorius, to
be the champions of the faith, and the true lights of the
world, in the words of the bull of confirmation.
Gregory IX. having become Pope, after the death of
Honorius, A. D. 1227, pressed on the crusade against the
heretics in Thoulouse, Beziers, and other places, and the Pa-
pal Legate demanded the payment of a tithe, to defray its
expenses, from the clergy of France. The clergy mur-
mured sorely, but the Pope was inexorable.*
The Emperor Frederick, having promised to undertake
the crusade to the Holy Land, fell sick ; and the Pope, be-
lieving his sickness feigned, declared him excommunicate ,f
threatening, moreover, if he continued refractory, to depose
him.
This severe course, however, met with a due answer.
The emperor wrote to all the kings and princes of Chris-
tendom, justifying his course, and to the King of England
he. expressed himself as follows : " The Church of Rome
burns with such avarice, that the ecclesiastical revenues no
* Fleuiy, Tom. 16, p. 594. t Ib. 598.
The Emperor Frederick's Letter. 117
longer sufficing her, she is not ashamed to spoil sover-
eign princes, and make them her tributaries. You have a
very sensible proof of this in the case of your father John.
You have that of the Count of Thoulouse, and many other
princes, whose lands she holds under interdict, until she
can reduce them into the same servitude. I do not speak
of the. simonies, the unheard-of exactions which she inflicts
upon the clergy, the usuries, direct or palliated, with which
she has infected all the world. Nevertheless, these insatia-
ble bloodsuckers use words of honey, saying that the Court
of Rome is the Church which is our mother and our nurse,
when, on the contrary, she is a step-mother, and the source of
all evils. We may know her by her fruits. She sends her
legates on all sides, with power to punish, to suspend, to ex-
communicate ; not to spread the word of God, but to amass
money, and reap, that which they have not sown. Thus, they
pillage the churches, the monasteries, and the other places
of piety which our fathers have founded for the pilgrims and
the poor. And now these Romans, without nobility or
valor, inflated solely by their literature, aspire to kingdoms
and empires. The Church' has been founded on poverty
and simplicity, and no one can give it any other foundation
than that which Jesus Christ has established."*
The Pope, however, continued to fulminate against the
emperor, assembled a Council at Rome, and excommuni-
cated him formally, interdicting the divine offices wherever
he should be present, and repeating .the threat that he should
be deposed if he did not submit.! Frederick paid no re-
gard to this, but raised so strong a party in Rome that
Gregory was afraid to remain there, and went to Spoleto.
* Fleury, Tom. 16, p. 600. f Ib. 604.
118 Letter VII.
Soon afterwards, the emperor actually went to the Holy
Land, in fulfilment of his promise, having written to the
Pope that he had left full powers with Rainald, Duke of
Spoleto, to treat with the pontiff about peace with the
Church. Gregory refused to ' hold any conference with
Rainald, because he considered him the enemy of the
Church, and its persecutor : and Rainald forthwith com-
menced a war upon the Papal territory. The Pope raised
an army, and invaded the empire in his turn.* And to en-
able him to sustain the expense, he sent a legate to ask the
tithe of England and Ireland.! The same system was pur-
sued by Gregory in Italy, Spain, Portugal, France, Denmark,
and Sweden. He maintained that the Bishops were even
obliged to aid him by virtue of their oath.J And thus a
new ground was set up for Papal exactions, which was
odious to the clergy themselves. In a little while, the
Pope executed his threat by absolving the subjects of the
emperor from their allegiance. But the emperor made
satisfactory concessions, and peace was restored the follow-
ing year.
Another movement in a false direction was taken in the
Council of Thoulouse, A. D. 1229, where it 'was forbidden
to the laity to have the books of the Old or New Testament,
unless so far as to allow of any one having for devotion a
Psalter or Breviary, or the Hours of the Virgin. But the
Council strictly forbade the having those books trans-
lated into the vulgar tongue. Your historian, Fleury, ac-
knowledges this to be the FIRST TIME THE SCRIPTURES
WERE THUS FORBIDDEN.il
* Fleury, Tom. 16, p. 607-8. t Ib. 627.
} Ib. 628. $Ib. 631.
II Ib. 633.
No Legate in Scotland. 119
About the year 1234, the Pope sent throughout all Chris-
tendom, beginning with the province of Canterbury, a bull
to reform the monasteries, in which he said, " We have
been informed that the monasteries of your province are
extremely debased ; and as we would not be guilty of this
corruption, we have appointed visitors to all those which
depend upon the Roman Church, to reform them, as well in
the head as in the members." Your historian remarks,
however, that this visit produced through all Europe more
of disorder than of reform, because they were so divided by
new constitutions that hardly any two of them were regu-
lated alike.* But the history of the monks shows a con-
stant tendency to corruption in all the ages of the Church,
from the sixth century.
The constant progress of priestly despotism was marked
by a formal complaint of thirty French lords to the Pope, in
A. D. 1235, setting forth the insubordination of the prelates
and Bishops to the royal authority in temporal matters, and
the novel exactions to which the laity were subjected by
their rapacity.f But Pope Gregory wrote to the king,
charging him with a design to bring the Church into servi-
tude ; reminding him that God had given to the Pope as
well the rights of the temporal as the celestial empire
of the world, and warning him to change his ordinances,
if he did not choose to incur the risk of excommunication.
To which the king paid no regard, but opposed himself to
the usurpations of the clergy, as before.^
The anthem Salve Regina was introduced by the order
of the Preaching Friars, in A. D. 1237. In the same year,
Alexander, King of Scotland, flatly refused to suffer the le-
* Fleury, Tom. 17, p. 137. f Ib. 177. t Ib. 179.
120 Letter VII.
gate of the Pope to enter his kingdom, saying, that there
never had been a legate there, and never should be, with
his consent.* It was no wonder, for your historian ac-
knowledges that there was no liberty in the Councils where
the legate presided. All the .decrees were prepared by
him beforehand, and the prelates were not permitted to ex-
amine them.f
In the year 1238, the Patriarch of Antioch excommuni-
cated the Pope and the whole Roman Church, as being
stained with a constant course of Simony, usury, and all
sorts of crimes. | And the following year beheld another
excommunication fulminated by the Pope against the em-
peror Frederick.^ The emperor replied by a manifesto, in
which he calls for a General Council to try the quarrel, and
in the course of the dispute, he styles the Pope " the great
dragon who seduces the whole world, the Antichrist, another
Balaam, and the prince of darkness" He maintains that
the Pope has lost his power, in losing virtue, and holds his
censures as nullities, and threatens vengeance if the Cardi-
nals do not bring the pontiff back to reason. || The Ger-
man prelates, moreover, all took the side of the emperor, as
well as the order of Teutonic Knights, and others. ^f
The Pope next declared the emperor deposed, and of-
fered the empire to France ; but the king and nobles re-
fused it, denying that the emperor could be deposed except
by a General Council.** A war followed, in which the
emperor made considerable progress in Italy, while the
Pope levied, as had now become usual, heavy contributions
* Fleury, Tom. 17, p. 204. t Ib. 212.
t Ib. 225. $ Ib. 238.
H Ib. 257. tf Ib. 272.
** Ib. 279.
The Pope's Five Evils. 121
on the clergy, to sustain him, to the great dissatisfaction of
the parties. But Gregory IX. died A. D. 1241. The
Cardinals were much divided about the choice of a suc-
cessor. At length, Celestin IV. was chosen, and expired
in sixteen days, not without strong suspicions of poison.
And the See of Rome remained vacant for eighteen months
together.*
The year 1243 was marked by a scandalous quarrel be-
tween the monkish orders of the Minorites and the Preach-
ing Friars, in which they accused ea'ch other fiercely to the
King of France. A similar spectacle was exhibited in Ger-
many. But Fleury remarks truly, that in these disputes
the clergy showed far more zeal for their temporal interests
than for the salvation of souls. f Another Pope, by the
name of Innocent IV., was elected A. D. 1243, and an ef-
fort was made to obtain peace with the emperor, but in
vain. The Pope, being informed that he was in danger of
being seized by the knights of the monarch, fled secretly
to Genoa. And not knowing where to establish himself, he
applied to France, Arragon, and England, to give him an
asylum, but in none of them could the consent of the nobles
be obtained. We are already, said the English, too much
infected by the usury and Simony of the Romans, without
the Pope coming himself to rob the property of the Church
and the kingdom 4
The Council of Lyons, called by your writers a General
Council, assembled A. D. 1245. The Pope preached, and
compared the five evils with which he suffered to the five
wounds of Christ. The first was, the disorder of the clergy
and the people ; 2d, the insolence of the Saracens ; 3d, the
* Fleury, Tom. 17, p. 310-11. t Ib. 327-9. * Ib. 346-7.
6
122 Letter FJLf.
schisms of the Greeks ; 4th, the cruelty of the Tartars ;
and 5th, the persecution of the Emperor Frederick, whom
he accused of heresy and sacrilege.* At the same Coun-
cil, the English deputies presented the complaints of the
whole kingdom of England against the exactions of the
Court of Rome ; alleging that the Popes, not content with
the old allowance of Peter-pence, had called for heavy
subsidies ; that the patronage of the Popes had given the
churches and monasteries to Italians, who neglected all
their duties, and took the revenues out of the kingdom,
so that there was no care taken for the salvation of souls,
nor for alms, nor for hospitality, nor for the defence of the
monasteries, while more than sixty thousand marks of silver
were annually abstracted from England, being a larger sum
than that which came into the hands of the king himself.f
To all this, the Pope only replied that an affair of so much
importance required grave deliberation. And then he pro-
nounced the solemn deposition of the emperor, absolved his
subjects from their allegiance, and called on the electors of
the empire to proceed and elect another sovereign.
The emperor replied by letters, addressed to all the
sovereigns of Europe, in which he said, " If you will only
pay attention, how many infamous practices will you not
discover in the Court of Rome, which modesty does not even
permit us to mention ? It is the immense revenues with
which they are enriched, at the expense of many kingdoms,
which render them insane, and what recompense, what
gratitude do they return for the alms and tithes with which
you sustain them ? They should be reduced to the state of
the primitive Church, leading a life of Apostolic humility.
* Fleury, Tom. 17, p. 363-4. f Ib. 370-2.
Confession to Friars, 123
Then the clergy beheld the angels, cured the sick, raised
the dead, and subjected kings and princes, not by arms, but
by virtue. But these men, entirely given up to worldliness,
and drunk with pleasures, despise God, and the excess
of their riches stifles in them all sense of religion."*
The Pope succeeded in having a rival of the emperor
elected by the two Archbishops of Mayence and Cologne,
and some lords of the laity. He sent them large sums of
money, and they declared war immediately against all
heretics, Frederick being counted amongst them. And the
pontiff published anew the sentence of deposition, and put
all those who should obey Frederick under interdict.
It appeared, about the year 1246, that the Preaching
Friars rendered themselves very odious to the ancient
monks and the secular clergy. " They were entirely devoted
to the interests of the Pope, who had ordered the Bishops
everywhere to admit them to preach, and to administer
penance." They demanded that their privileges should be
published in the churches, and were in the habit of asking
all whom they met, ' Have you confessed your sins ?' ' Yes,'
answered the individual. ' To whom 1' ' To my curate.'
' He is an ignoramus, who has never studied theology nor
the Canon Law. Come to iis, who know how to distin-
guish leprosy from leprosy, and who have received the
great powers which you behold.' Thus it happened that
many of the laity, chiefly the nobles and their wives,
despising their pastors and their Bishops, confessed to these
Friars, and their contempt of their own spiritual superiors
became quite apparent. The parishioners sinned more
recklessly than ever, being no longer restrained by the fear
* Fleury, Tom. 17, p. 376-7.
5
124 Letter VII.
of giving account to their pastors, and were accustomed to
say to each other, " Let us take our pleasures freely. We
will confess without trouble to some of these Friars who
pass this way, whom we have never seen before, and shall
never see again."* These are .the very words of your
learned historian, and they give a faithful picture of the
general morality of your Church for centuries. But Fleury,
while he makes the statement for the manifest purpose of
showing the danger of the powers given by the Popes to
these wandering friars, does not seem to be aware that the
whole account demonstrates the corruption attendant upon
auricular confession. For it is plain that the superstitious
laity of that age could not have thus argued if they had not
effectively lost the fear of God, and contented themselves
with the belief that they were quite safe in a life of sin, if
they could only obtain absolution from any one under Papal
sanction.
Your historian next informs us that a bloody war ravaged
Germany, between the Emperor Frederick and the new
King of the Romans, who had been elected through the in-
fluence of the Pope, in which the latter gained strength
every day, " through the preaching of the friars and the
money of the Pope."f But Frederick died in 1250, and
the Pope, in a circular letter, " invited the heavens and the
earth to rejoice on the death of his persecutor. "|
The year 1251 was signalized in France by the rise of a
set of heretics named Pastorals, who increased rapidly until
they had an army of one hundred thousand men. " They
declaimed loudly against the ecclesiastics and the monks,
chiefly the Preaching Friars and the Minorites, whom they
* Fleury, Tom. 17, p. 403-4. f Ib. 463. t Ib. 493.
Grossetete, Bishop of Lincoln. 1 25
styled vagabonds and hypocrites. They taxed the Cister-
cians with avarice, caring only for their lands and their cat-
tle ; the Black Monks, with pride and gluttony ; the Canons,
with being half laymen, addicted to good cheer ; the Bish-
ops and their officials, with being occupied in the accumu-
lation of money, and living in all sorts of delights. As to
the Court of Rome, they abused it in terms which one dares
not repeat." Your historian adds, that " the people, already
filled with contempt and hatred for the clergy, applauded
such discourses as these."* Such a statement speaks vol-
umes, since it is impossible to account for the popular sen-
timent if -the facts alleged were not generally known to be
true. However, this undisciplined rabble soon committed
such disorders as to make them dangerous. Their leader
was killed, and his adherents, being all excommunicated,
were dispersed and overcome.
The year 1253 was marked by a noble protest of Robert
Grossetete, Bishop of Lincoln, who openly resisted an order
of the Pope which he esteemed unjust and dangerous, and
published a letter to his clergy, in which he used these
words : " The Holy See, which has received its full power
from Christ only for edification, cannot order or do any-
thing which tends to a sin so abominable and pernicious to
the human race ; for this would be to abuse its power, to
separate itself from the throne of Jesus Christ, and to sit down
in the seat of pestilence and hell. No one can obey such
commands, even if they came from the sovereign order of an-
gels, but should oppose them with all his force." The
Pope, says our historian, was much irritated, and desired to
chastise the Bishop of Lincoln. But his Cardinals dis-
* Fleury, Tom. 17, p. 499.
126 Letter VII.
suaded him, on account of the high character and influence
of Grossetete, lest a tumult should be excited. " Besides
this, adds Matthew Paris," (quoted by Fleury,) ' they know
that the revolt must come some day.' It seems that they fore-
saw then what happened in England three centuries after-
wards"* This great Bishop of Lincoln, one of the most
learned and virtuous men of the age, died soon after, and
on his sick-bed, discoursed freely with his friends against
the Papal tyranny. " He enlarged upon the vices of the
Roman clergy, especially their avarice and their licentious-
ness, and upon the loss of souls caused by their iniquity.
Jesus Christ, he said, came into the world to save souls,
and therefore he who does not fear to lose them deserves
the name of Antichrist. Such were the complaints of the
Bishop of Lincoln," observes your historian : " too sharp,
indeed, but too well founded, as it appears by the writings of
that age, and even by the letters of the Popes them-
selves."!
In A. D. 1258, Pope Alexander IV., who had succeeded
Innocent IV., was obliged to leave Rome on account of the
seditious violence of the people. This fact occurs so con-
tinually in the Papal history, that it furnishes a surprising
commentary on the lives of the superior Roman clergy.
The power of the Inquisition, so systematically established
by the fourth Lateran Council, had been enforced from time
to time, and now it received a new addition by a Papal order,
that the heretics who should return to the obedience of the
Church, should give bail in a pecuniary amount that they
would continue faithful. And the amount of this bail should
be paid strictly, under pain of excommunication. The
* Fleury, Tom. 17, p. 521-2. t Ib. 522-4.
The Council of Lambeth. 127
sums thus collected were to be lodged in the hands of the
Bishop and three men of probity, as a fund to defray the ex-
pense of the proceedings against heretics. Besides which,
the confiscation of their property and the destruction of
their houses were a punishment which told severely upon
them and their heirs.*
" Licentiousness had become so common and so public
among the clergy," says your historian, " that Pope Alex-
ander IV. thought it necessary to devise some remedy.
To this effect, he wrote a circular letter, addressed to the
Archbishops and the other superior clergy, in which he
dwells upon the scandal given by those priests who pub-
licly entertained their concubines in defiance of the Canons.
He observes the reproaches which they drew upon the
Church, on the part of heretics, the oppression which they
caused from the nobles, and the contempt of the people.
It is evident," adds Fleury, " that this disorder was general
throughout the whole Church. The Pope's letter is fine, but
such evils require remedies more specific than exhortations,
however pathetic they may be."f
It was the established usage for the Bishops to imprison
all excommunicated persons, until they had rendered satis-
faction, and for the king to give his warrant for such ar-
rests. But sometimes the king refused, or the viscounts
and the other officers delivered the prisoners in spite of the
Bishop. To remedy this, the Council of Lambeth, held
under the Pope's Legate, in A. D. 1261, decreed that in
all such cases the officers should be excommunicated, and
the domains of the king placed in interdict. The same
Council forbade the arrest of any of the clergy by the secu
* Fleury, Tom. 17, p. 637. t Ib. 652-3..
128 Letter VII.
lar judges, or the collection of any fines which they should
impose upon them, or the seizing of their goods.* All these
were a part of the steady system of the Roman Church to
make the clergy entirely, independent of any secular power,
and to give them complete dominion over it in all things.
Pope Alexander IV. died in 1261, one of the last of his
regulations being, that his inquisitors of heresy should sell
the confiscated property of the heretics, and reserve the
proceeds for the wants of the Church of Rome !f
The year 1264 was signalized, according to Fleury, by
the institution of the festival of Corpus Christi. And it
was not long afterwards that the French king, called Saint
Louis, being about to sail to the Holy Land on a second
crusade, established the famous ordinance called the Prag-
matic Sanction, by which the cupidity of Rome was effect-
ually checked in France, and the Church there was de-
livered, at least from the unlimited power of her exactions 4
Gregory X. was elected Pope, A. D. 1272, after the See
had been vacant two years and nine months ; a very strong
comment, of itself, on your unity.
In Prussia, about this time, a sad state of things existed.
" The multitude of men who desired to enjoy the privileges
of the clergy was excessive, in comparison of the small
number and poverty of the benefices. The Bishops .could
not provide them with livings, and hence they were reduced
to beg, to the disgrace of the clergy, or else, as they were
not willing to cultivate the soil, and were ignorant of any
trade, they abandoned themselves to theft and sacrilege,
and being taken, they were sometimes delivered up to the
Bishops. But they often escaped, persevered in crime,
* Fleury, Tom. 18, p. 11. f Ib. 13.
t Ib. 114. Ib. 142
The Pope's Account of a Bishop. 129
were taken and retaken, and thus excommunications were
drawn upon the laity, and scandal was provoked between
them arid the prelates."*
We have next a curious letter from the Pope to Henry,
Bishop of Liege, A. D. 1273, in which, after .a general ex-
, hortation, he says : " We learn with grief that you are ad-
dicted to Simony and incontinence, so that you have had
several children both before and after your promotion to the
Episcopate. You have taken an abbess of the order of St.
Benedict for your public concubine, and, at a feast, you
have boasted before all the company that you had fourteen
children within twenty-two months, to some of which you
have given benefices, even with the cure of souls, although
they were not of the proper age, and you have given to
others the property of your see, in order to marry them ad-
vantageously. In one of your houses named the Park, you
keep for a long time a nun with other women, and when
you visit that house, you enter alone, leaving outside those
who have accompanied you. A convent of your diocese
having lost its abbess, you have quashed the canonical
election which they had made, and you have put over them
for abbess the daughter of a count, to whose son you have
married one of your daughters ; and it is said that this ab-
bess has been delivered of a child which she has had by
you." After alleging many other crimes equally scandalous,
" the Pope proceeds to say : Finally, you do not say the
ecclesiastical office, and do not understand it, being without
letters, and you often wear secular garments of scarlet, with
girdles of silver, so that you appear rather as a knight than
as a prelate." And what was the conclusion of the Pope's
* Flenry, Tom. 18, p. 159.
6*
130 Letter VII.
letter against such a monstrous specimen of Episcopal li-
centiousness as this 1 " The Pope exhorts him to convert
himself immediately, and not to trust to his youth, which
seemed to promise him a long life !"*
But your historian explains this in part, by saying that
this Henry " was a young noble, brother to the Count of
Gueldfes, and cousin of the Count of Holland. That he
was put into the Bishopric of Liege without being ordained
even a priest, and governed it by dispensation, under the
Popes Innocent IV. and Alexander IV. ! At length he
was ordained priest and Bishop, A. D. 1258, eleven years
after his election, and his principal occupation was always
war and temporal affairs."! What a picture does the whole
present of the practical discipline of the Papal Church, and
your infallible and most holy See of St. Peter !
In the year 1276, the Papal Legate made a regulation
concerning the feasts of the University of Paris, which dis-
closed a shocking state of irreverence and impiety amongst
the clergy belonging to the institution. " We learn," saith
he, " that the scholars, instead of the exercises of piety and
the works of charity which they practised formerly, aban-
don themselves to excess of wine, good cheer, and dancing,
unbecoming the clerical profession ; that they take arms
and go by night, troubling the peace of the city by their in-
solent shouts, to the great scandal of the laity, and not
Avithout peril to their persons. And, what is most insup-
portable, in the very churches where they ought to celebrate
the divine office, they presume to play at dice upon the al-
tars, where they consecrate the body and blood of the Sa-
viour, and while playing, they blaspheme, as is ordinary, the
* Fleury, Tom. 18, p. 161-2. t Ib. 162.
Aristotelian Infidelity. 131
name of God and the saints. In order to cut off this abuse,
which has been introduced during many years, we declare
that all who shall take part in it hereafter shall be excom-
municate, ipso facto"* That such conduct, practised " for
many years," by so prominent and important a body as
the University of Paris, should have drawn down no cen-
sure for the past, and have attracted no attention even now,
apparently, from the clergy, except on the ground that the
laity were scandalized, furnishes an awful commentary upon
the corruption of religion.
We see also, about the same time, the tendency of the
Aristotelian philosophy, which had been the favorite of the
Church for a considerable period, to produce infidelity.
The Bishop, Stephen Tempier, wrote to the Pope an ac-
count of the matter, in these words : " We have learned,
by persons of consideration and zeal, that some of those who
study the arts at Paris, passing the limits of their faculty,
dare to maintain manifest and execrable errors. They find
those propositions in the books of the pagans, and they ap-
pear to them so demonstrative, that they know not how to
answer them. Willing to palliate them, they give them-
selves up to another peril, for they say that these proposi-
tions are true according to the philosopher, that is to say,
Aristotle, but not according to the Catholic faith, as if there
were two truths contrary to each other. Lest, therefore,
these discourses should seduce the simple into error, we
condemn entirely these errors, and excommunicate all those
who presume to teach or maintain them."f
Your historian then proceeds to specify the most remark-
able of these propositions, the whole of which amounted to
* Fleury, Tom. 18, p. 226. . t Ib. 227.
132 Letter VII.
more than two hundred. I select, for example, the follow-
ing :
" In God there is no Trinity, because it is not compatible
with perfect simplicity. God cannot beget His like, because
that which is begotten has a principle on which it depends.
God knows nothing but Himself. There could not have
been any first man, because it is impossible to make a. man
without the proper agent, namely, a father. Hence the
generations of men, as well as the world itself, are eternal.
God cannot produce anything new, nor move anything
otherwise than He moves it, because there are not in Him
divers wills. It is false that the first cause could have
preordained all things, otherwise everything would happen
by necessity. The soul is inseparable from the body, and
is corrupted along with it. The will and the understand-
ing do not actually move by themselves, but by an eternal
cause namely, by the celestial bodies. The will is deter-
mined by the good desired, as matter is by the agent. Men
actuated by passion act by constraint. The will is influ-
enced by the knowledge, like the appetite of the beast, and
cannot abstain, according to the dictates of reason. There
can be no sin in the superior powers of the soul. There-
fore men sin by passion, and not by will. The act of crea-
tion is impossible, although we must maintain the contrary,
according to the faith. The various signs in the heavens
signify the different dispositions of men, as well for things
spiritual as temporal. We may likewise know by certain
signs or figures the intentions of men, and future events.
There is no state more excellent than to apply ourselves to
philosophy. The discourses of theology are founded on
fables, and we know nothing more by knowing them. We
should not pray, nor be troubled about our burial, nor con-
Roger Bacon. 133
fess, except to save appearances. Simple fornication is
not a sin. Chastity is not essential to virtue. A philoso-
pher ought not to believe the resurrection, because it is im-
possible. A man ruled by the intellectual and moral vir-
tues of which Aristotle speaks, is sufficiently disposed to
eternal felicity. Happiness is in the present life, and not
in another, and we lose all good after death." " We may
easily perceive," says Fleury, " that these errors proceeded
from the mischievous philosophy that reigned at that time,*
and why Thomas Aquinas and the other doctors treated so
many questions, which to us seem useless." But he does
not add, what nevertheless appears to be the only probable
solution of the horrible disorders of the clergy, that with the
great bulk of them, religion was only a matter of " appear-
ances," and that in their hearts they took this false
philosophy for their guide, instead of the Gospel. The
priesthood was their public trade, by which they secured
wealth and power. Philosophy was their secret system,
by which they silenced the voice of conscience, in the pur-
suit of avarice and licentiousness, and in the determination
to secure their supremacy, by any and every means of cruel
oppression against all who opposed them.
Pope John XXL, though he promised himself a long life,
was crushed by the falling of a new building which he had
just erected near the palace of Yiterbo. After suffering six
days, he died A. D. 1277, and was succeeded by Nicholas
III. This was about the time when Roger Bacon was
charged with teaching suspicious novelties. He had made
himself a master of all sorts of studies. He excelled in
grammar, Latin, Greek, and Hebrew ; in poetry, rhetoric,
* Fleury, Tom. 18, p. 229-30.
134 Letter VII.
history, mathematics, philosophy, medicine, chemistry, juris-
prudence, and lastly, in theology. They called him the Ad-
mirable Doctor, and he had long been doctor in theology of
the University of Oxford. Nevertheless, he was put in
prison for his alleged errors, and died six years after-
wards.*
The year 1279 beheld four Councils held in France, the
subject of whose deliberations, says Fleury, " was the
preservation of the property, the privileges and the jurisdic-
tion of the ecclesiastics, against the efforts of the nobles
and the secular judges, together with some superficial refor-
mation of the clergy and the monks ."f The state of mu-
tual hostility between the clergy and the laity is well indi-
cated by this passage from the address of the Papal Legate :
" We have seen ourselves," saith he, " that in Hungary and
the other countries of our legation, the ecclesiastics, both
regular and secular, and often, which is still worse, the
prelates themselves, neither observe, nor cause to be ob-
served, the censures of the Church, but lead the people to
despise them by their negligence and bad example. From
this it arises that the clergy are imprisoned with impunity,
beaten, mutilated, and killed, the prelates are spoiled of their
goods and their rights, the churches are pillaged and pro-
faned, the ecclesiastical liberty and immunity are scorned,
and discipline is annihilated. For this cause, at the press-
ing instance of all the prelates assembled in this Council,
we order all prelates and clerks to observe inviolably all
the sentences of excommunication, suspension, or interdict,
pronounced by the judge or by the Canons, and to cause
them to be observed ; the whole to be done under pain of
* Fleury, Tom. 18, p. 249. t Ib. 278.
Laws of A Iphonso the Wise. 135
excommunication against the persons, and interdict against
the communities."* This was the general mode of your
Papal Councils. Refusing to see the manifest fact, that no
people pretending to be Christians could have so abused
their pastors and governors in Christ, unless they had been
almost maddened by the iniquitous tyranny of the clergy
themselves, they took it always for granted that the people
must be forced to submission by the terror of pains and
penalties, instead of being won by the truths of the Gospel,
operating on their hearts and consciences. Your historian
himself makes this reflection : " I am astonished," saith he,
" that they could flatter themselves that these second cen-
sures would be more respected than the first, and that they
Avould prove a remedy for the contempt of the censures
themselves. They ought to have raised the authority of
the Church from the foundations, and established it upon
the esteem and veneration due to her ministers, and upon
a lively faith in the rewards and punishments of eternity."!
Good Protestant doctrine, this ! but very opposite to the
course of the Church of Rome for centuries prior to the
Reformation.
A fair representation of the prerogatives of the Pope
above the other Bishops, as generally held in this century,
is given by Fleury from the laws of Alfonso, surnamed the
Wise, King of Castile. They were as follows : " The
Pope can depose the other Bishops, and afterwards restore
them, if he think 'fit, transfer them from one church to
another, receive their dismission, withdraw them from the
jurisdiction of their superiors, Archbishops, Patriarchs,
or Primates, and re-establish the clergy degraded by their
Bishop. He can divide a diocese into two, or unite two
* Fleury, Tom. 18, p. 289. t Ib. 289.
136 Letter VII.
into one, make one Bishop subject to another, and erect a
new bishopric. He can loose men from vows for the voy-
age to Jerusalem, or other pilgrimages, absolve from oaths
to avoid perjury, and dispense from the vice of birth or de-
fault of age, in order to qualify persons for the reception of
the priesthood and of benefices. He can convoke a Gen-
eral Council when he pleases, at which all the Bishops
should attend. He can also order princes to march, or send
those who were suitable, whenever the defence or the in-
crease of the faith is concerned. He can make constitur
tions for the honor and utility of the Church in spiritual
matters, and all Christians are bound to observe them. He
has power to take their benefices from the clergy, and to
bestow or promise them by his letters when they are va-
cant. He can absolve from excommunications pronounced
by others, but no one can absolve from those which are
pronounced by himself or his delegates. No one can ap-
peal from his judgment, and he only can judge the appeals
carried to his tribunal. In all ecclesiastical matters, an
appeal direct can be taken to him. He can give a dispen-
sation to hold many benefices, even with charge of souls.
He only can dispense from simony. And all the greater
causes should be brought to him, as well as questions of
faith."* Here is a catalogue sufficiently comprehensive,
though it did not include directly the power of deposing
princes, which had been so often claimed and exercised by
the Papal monarchs of the world.
A specimen of the mode in which the Crusaders availed
themselves of the Papal indulgence in A. D. 1285, is' given
by your historian. " The army of France," saith he, " com-
* Floury, Tom. 18, p. 360.
The German Clergy. 137
posed of Crusaders, entered Catalonia, and committed no
less disorders than other troops. They profaned the
churches by the effusion of blood, and by licentiousness.
They violated even the nuns. They carried off the sacred
vessels, the crosses and the images, the books and the or-
naments of the church, and sold them one to another.
They took down the bells, broke them, and bore them
away. Thus they conducted themselves through the whole
campaign, pretending, nevertheless, to gain the indulgence
of the Crusade ; for which they had such devotion, that
those who could not draw an arrow or use any other arms,
took stones, and said : ' I cast this stone against Peter of
Arragon, to gain the indulgence.'"*
In A. D. 1286, we find an account of Henry, Archbishop
of Mayence, who was so learned a man that he passed for
a necromancer !f The same compliment had been paid
to poor Roger Bacon a few years before.
The legate of the Pope addressed himself to the Council
of Wirsburgh, A. D. 1287, on the state of the German clergy.
" Some ecclesiastics," said he, " observed little modesty in
their apparel, frequented the taverns, gamed with dice, visited
the nuns, and talked and played with them in their cham-
bers. They tilted in the tournaments, they maintained
concubines, they usurped the benefices by intrusion, fraud,
or violence. Some of them said two masses each day
without necessity, but only to get the money." After a long
list of other complaints, the legate turns to the mode in
which the laity pillaged the clergy. " Ecclesiastical per-
sons," saith he, " were not spared any more than their
property. They were killed, wounded, mutilated, pro-
* Fleury, Tom. 18, p. 374. t Ib. 400.
138 Letter VII.
scribed, arrested, imprisoned, all with impunity. No re-
spect was paid any longer to the messengers of the Bish-
ops, nor even of the Papal legates. Full often they arrested
them, struck them, robbed them, and took away their let-
ters, which they tore in pieces. The Bishops neglected
their visitations to such extent, that one might find persons
sixty years old who had not been confirmed. The disorder
was great amongst the monks and the convents of nuns,"
&c.* But as usual, the Council proposes no other remedy
but excommunications and interdicts. " Feeble remedies,"
saith your candid historian, " for evils like these."
One of the most interesting facts of the thirteenth century
is that solitary example of the voluntary resignation of Pope
Celestin V., after he had held the office during five months,
and found himself totally wanting in the knowledge, the
tact, but chiefly, perhaps, of the politic ambition, which
were required to discharge it acceptably. The language
of the document which he read to his Cardinals on the oc-
casion is very touching : " I, Celestin, Pope, the fifth of the
name, moved by lawful causes, by humility, by the desire
of a better life, in order not to wound my own conscience,
by the weakness of my body, by lack of knowledge, and by
the malignity of the people, and to recover the repose and
consolation of my past life, do quit voluntarily and freely
the Papacy, and I renounce expressly that charge and dig-
nity ; giving by these presents to the Sacred College of
Cardinals full and free power to elect canonically a pastor
for the Universal Church." At the reading of this paper,
the Cardinals could not restrain their sighs and tears, but at
length they concluded that the Pope should first make a
* Fleury, Tom. 18, p. 402-4.
Pope Celestin V. 139
constitution providing that every Pope may renounce his
dignity, and that the College of Cardinals may accept his
resignation. Celestin agreed to this, the constitution was
drawn up, and the matter was concluded. He lost no time
in resuming his simple habit of a monk ; and men, says
Fleury, interpreted Ms conduct differently : " the people of
the world regarding it as an act of pusillanimity, while the
wisest admired it as the effort of the most sublime virtue."*
He was succeeded by Boniface VIII., who kept him most
cruelly confined, in spite of his desire to return back to
his beloved monastery, lest some persons should practise
on his simplicity, and induce him to resume the dignity
which he had resigned. And thus he ended his days as a
prisoner in the Castle of Fumona, where he was kept in a
strong tower, guarded day and night by six knights and
thirty soldiers. No one was suffered to have access to
him. They allowed two friars of his own order to cele-
brate the divine office with him ; but these friars could not
long endure the confinement, and his guards took them out
sick, and replaced them with others. The room was so
small that he slept with his head in the same spot where
he placed his feet during the day when he said the Mass
He suffered all these hardships, and even the bad treatment
of his keepers, without any signs of impatience ; and when,
after eighteen months' endurance, he was wearied out at
last, and departed, in May, 3296, Pope Bonifaco sent a
Cardinal to do honor to his funeral, and celebrate for him a
solemn Mass at Rome !f This was the course of one of
your most famous Popes ! To wear out the life of his pious
and humble-minded predecessor, on the ground of a suspi-
* Fleury, Tom. 18, p. 495-6. | Ib. 504-5.
140 Letter VII.
cious and unprincipled policy, embittering his days in a
rigorous confinement, which sickened the friars that accom-
panied him, and excluding from him the free air and light
of heaven, without the society of friends ; and then, after
he was dead, paying the highest respect to his memory.
The new pontiff, in A. D. 1296, put forth a famous con-
stitution, which begins with the words Clcricis laicos, where
he said in substance as follows : " Antiquity teaches us the
hostility of the laity against the clergy, and the experience
of the present times declares it manifestly, since, without
considering that they have no power over ecclesiastical
persons or property, they oppress both the regular and secu-
lar prelates and clergy with impositions, and, what we de-
clare with grief, some prelates and other ecclesiastics, fear-
ing more to offend the temporal than the Eternal Majesty,
acquiesce in this abuse. Desirous, therefore, to remedy
the evil, we ordain that all prelates or ecclesiastics, whether
regular or secular, who shall pay to the laity the tenth or
any other part of their revenue, under the title of aid, as-
sistance, or any other, without the authority of the Holy
See ; and the kings, princes, magistrates, and all others
who shall impose or exact it, or who shall give their aid or
counsel for that object, shall henceforth incur the sentence
of excommunication, the absolution of which shall be re-
served to the Holy See, notwithstanding their privileges."
On this, your historian makes the very just observation,
that " the aversion of the laity against the clergy, which the
Pope begins by remarking, did not go back to such great
antiquity ; since, during the first five or six centuries, the
clergy drew to themselves the respect and affection of every
one by their charitable and disinterested conduct."*
* Fleury, Tom. 18, p. 507-8.
Jubilees at Rome. 141
The following year was signalized by the two Cardinals
of St. Mary, in via lata, and of St. Eustachius, protesting
against Boniface being a true Pope, on the ground that
Celestin V. could not resign, and therefore there was no
vacancy of the See when Boniface was appointed. These
Cardinals both belonged to the powerful house of the
Colonna, and they appealed to a General Council to judge
the legality of their objection. The Pope, however, on the
very same day, published his bull against them, depriving
them of their dignities, excommunicating them and their
adherents, and even proceeding so far as to declare that
all the descendants of John Colonna, the ancestor of those
Cardinals, should be incapable of holding any ecclesiasti-
cal benefice to the fourth generation !*
The novel appointment of a plenary indulgence to all
who should visit the churches of St. Peter and St. Paul, in
Rome, for fifteen days together, during the year 1300, was
the work of this Pope, Boniface VIII. ; but he did not call
it a jubilee. During the whole of that year, being the last
of the century, an immense crowd of two hundred thousand
pilgrims were continually in the city, whose offerings en-
riched the Church, while the money paid for their mainte-
nance enriched the people. f So profitable a device was
gladly adopted by subsequent Popes, only they .thought it
better to shorten the period from a hundred years to fifty, and
finally it was brought down to twenty-five. And they gave
it the name of the Jubilee, to the great satisfaction of the
multitudes, who thus gained so pleasant and easy a mode
of having all their sins blotted out by a journey to Rome,
and a fortnight's devotion !
* Fleury, Tom. 18, p. 515-18. t Ib. 549-50.
142 The End of Controversy, Controverted.
LETTER VIII.
MOST REVEREND SIR :
IT was in the commencement of the fourteenth century
that the famous John Scot, commonly called Duns Scotus,
from the place of his birth, broached the doctrine of the im-
maculate conception of the Blessed Virgin.*
The year 1308 was marked by the resolution of Pope
Clement V. to take up his residence at Avignon. Two
years afterwards, he appointed three Cardinals to examine
the witnesses against the former Pope, Boniface VIII., and
Cardinal Cajetan ; and the testimony taken on the occa-
sion proved them both to have been downright atheists. It
was in substance as follows :
Nicholas, a priest and canon of the cathedral, &c., on
oath, said, that being at Naples, under the pontificate of
Celestin V., viz., A. D. 1274, in the house of Marin Sichi-
nulfe, where Cardinal Benedict Cajetan dwelt, he entered
the chamber of the Cardinal, in the suite of the Bishop of
Fricenti, and found there a clerk disputing with him, in
presence of several persons, upon the questions, which was
the best law or religion, that of the Christians, of the Jews,
or of the Saracens 1 and who those were that best observed
their own 1 Then the Cardinal said, What are all these
religions ? They are the inventions of men. We need
* Fleury, Tom. 19, p. 150.
Pope Boniface VIII. an Infidel. 143
s
not put ourselves to any trouble, except for this world, since
there is no other life but the present. He said also, on the
same occasion, that this world has had no beginning, and
would not have an end. Nicholas, Abbot of St. Benedict,
&c., deposed to the same fact, adding, that the Cardinal
Cajetan had said, that the bread was not changed in the
sacrament of the altar, and that it was false that it was the
body of Jesus Christ ; that there is no resurrection ; that the
soul dies with the body ; that this was his opinion, and that
of all men of letters, but that the simple and the ignorant
thought otherwise. The witness being asked if the Cardi-
nal did not thus speak jestingly, replied, that he said these
things seriously, and in good faith.
Manfred, a lay citizen of Lucca, said, that in the year
1300, before Christmas, being in the chamber of Pope Boni-
face, in presence of the ambassadors of Florence, of Bou-
logne, and of Lucca, and many other persons, a man, who
appeared to be the Pope's chaplain, told his holiness of the
death of a certain knight, who had been a wicked man, and
therefore it was necessary to pray for him, that Jesus Christ
might have pity on his soul. Upon which Boniface treated
him as if he were a fool ; and after having spoken injuri-
ously of Jesus Christ, he added : This knight has already
received all the good and evil he can have, and there is no
other life than this, nor any other paradise or hell than what
is in this world. The witness testified to another discourse
of Boniface which modesty does not allow of our reporting ;
and another witness recited a story about him still more im-
pious than the foregoing.
" What remains of this information," says Fleury, " com-
prehends the depositions of thirteen witnesses, all to a simi-
lar effect. Another information which appeared the follow-
144 Letter VIII.
ing year contained the evidence of twenty-three witnesses
to the same facts, with others equally scandalous. But as
the affair was never brought to judgment, it is superfluous
to enter into any further detail."*
Now here is a very extraordinary and powerful evidence
to prove that at least one Pope, and he a very distinguished
one, Boniface VIII., and one Cardinal, of high reputation,
were not only infidels themselves, but claimed to be of the
same class with " all men of letters" That the testimony
was satisfactory, seems incontrovertible ; because the wit-
nesses were thirty-six in number, unimpeached in character,
and thought sufficient by Philip the Fair, King of France,
and all his leading nobility. He proposed that Boniface
should be arraigned, though dead, for heresy, and that his
bones should be disinterred and burned, according to the
modern fashion established by the Roman Church. It may
seem strange, however, that even if Boniface and Cajetan
had held such sentiments, they should have been so foolish
as to utter them in the presence of so many. To this, two
answers may be given. First, that the influence of the
philosophy which we have already noted in the University
of Paris was so prevalent, that the clergy and the upper
ranks of the laity were generally infected with it, and re-
ligion was looked upon, by nearly all, as a thing of policy,
necessary to keep the vulgar in order, but only professed
by the higher classes, as it was in heathen Rome, " for the
sake of appearances." Unhappily, there are many proofs,
too strong to be doubted, that this infidel philosophy was
rife among the priesthood ; and perhaps there is no other
way of accounting for the manifest fact, that the Church,
* Fleury, Tom. 19, p. 186-8.
Boniface VIII. 145
like the State, was governed for so many ages by the ma-
chinery of force and fear, as if there was no inward con-
science to appeal to, except among a few pious souls, here
and there enough to perpetuate the Church, according to
the promise of Christ, but not enough to affect the gen-
eral sentiment.
If, however, we should not adopt this view of the case,
we may still reconcile the rash avowals of Boniface and
Cajetan with the well-known fact, that even the most ac-
complished masters of dissimulation are not always on their
guard, but are led to betray themselves sometimes in a man-
ner quite unexpected by themselves, as all guilty men are
apt to do. And certainly this is much more likely than
that thirty-six independent witnesses could be found to per-
jure themselves, without any motive to induce the King of
France to make it their interest. For Boniface was now
dead, and the reigning Pope was a Frenchman, residing at
Avignon, in France, and devoted to the king. And as to
Cajetan, we read of no reason why the royal Philip should
have sought to stain his reputation, even if he could have
been induced to incur the risk of engaging in such a con-
spiracy, which, if discovered, would have put his crown in
peril, by raising the whole body of the priesthood against
him.
That the affair was afterwards dropped with the consent
of the king, serves still more to prove that he was not very
strongly, bent upon the measure ; while it is obvious that
the reigning Pope and clergy must have been anxious to
consign it to oblivion on account of the scandal which it
could not fail to produce, and the imminent danger that such
a charge, once prosecuted to a formal conclusion, might
have involved a great many of the clerical body in the
146 Letter VIII.
same condemnation, to the total ruin of their influence and
power.
One of the most unquestionable statements of the condi-
tion of the Church at this time was furnished by a Bishop,
to be laid before the approaching General Council of Vi-
enne. The principal points are as follows :
Throughout the greater part of France, the Sundays and
principal festivals of the Church were the days for holding
markets, fairs, and courts of assize, so that the times ap-
pointed in honor of God were profaned by the dissipation
of secular business, by debauches in the taverns, quarrels,
blasphemy, and other crimes. The archdeacons, arch-
priests, and the rural- deans, often committed their authority
to mean and ignorant persons ; and, whether they acted by
themselves or by others, they abused the power of the keys
to such extent, that they excommunicated for light and
trifling causes, and often without any cause at all ; so that
it was common to find three or four hundred excommuni-
cated persons in one parish, and there was a case in which
there were seven hundred. Hence arose a total contempt
for these censures, with many injurious and scandalous
speeches against the Church and her ministers.
Another evil was, that a multitude of vile and despicable
persons were admitted to the priesthood, entirely unfit for
their office either by knowledge or morality ; from which it
was a natural consequence that the priests, in most places,
were held in less esteem than the Jews by the laity. Many
canons had been made against this disorder, but they were
treated with no attention. .
Again : persons received benefices who were incapable
of serving them ; strangers, who spake a foreign tongue ;
or such as never resided, but remained attached to the
Laxity of Clergy and Monks. 147
Court of Rome, or to the service of princes. Hence the
country churches fell into ruin, their property and rights
became lost, the divine office ceased, and the intention of
the founders was frustrated. Connected with this was the
plurality of benefices. The same man often possessed
from three to twelve different churches ; and even many
children were endowed with benefices before they attained
the age of reason. " When a cathedral church becomes
vacant," says this honest Bishop " we can hardly find an
eligible person to occupy it ; and if there be a good subject,
which is rare in these days, the evil are in such great
numbers, that they do not permit him to be elected. They
choose one like themselves, and the evil party carry him
through, either by artifice or surprise, or by violence or im-
portunity Avith the great, or by consideration for his parent-
age, and these unworthy prelates only serve to destroy the
Church instead of edifying."
The candid censor next describes the disorderly life of
the clergy, chieily of those who held benefices, the im-
modesty of their dress, and the superfluity of their tables.
He complains that during the performance of divine service
the canons walk through the church, and only come into
the choir at the end, to receive their money. Or if they
remain in the choir, they talk, two or three together, with
great noise, and burst out into laughter, while the rest are
singing.
He also notices the relaxing of monastic rules, many of
the monks quitting their cloisters and residing where they
pleased. Others, without celebrating their office, run
through the fairs and markets, trading like men of the
world, and abandoning themselves to the most shameful
vices, to the great scandal of the people. He concludes
6
148 Letter VIIL
by saying, that the best remedy for so many evils is to re-
turn to the observance of the ancient canons, chiefly those
of the first four Councils, and that the Church must be re-
formed in the head as well as the members.* Precisely what
was done by the great reformers of the sixteenth century in
England, by restoring the Church to her primitive state, re-
ducing the Papal power within its ancient limits, and
sweeping away the accumulated mass of corruption which
had become so offensive^) every sound mind in Christen-
dom.
There was another memoir prepared for the Council at
the same time by the Bishop of Mende, which Fleury re-
ports at large. This clear-sighted and candid Bishop con-
firms all that the other had said, and adds the following
topics :
He states that even amongst the clergy who were men
of letters, there were so few well instructed in the articles
of faith and the salvation of souls, that they were exposed
to the ridicule of infidels whenever they were obliged to
confer with them. " This arises," saith he, " from the fact,
that they have abandoned the holy Scripture and true theology,
and applied themselves to the vain subtleties of dialectics."
He rebukes strongly the simony which governed in the
Court of Rome, and insists upon a great reformation in the
prelates and all the clergy. " Licentiousness," he declares,
" was so common, that marriage ought to be permitted to
the priests, as in the Greek Church." And he complains
that " houses of ill fame were allowed to stand near the
churches, and in Rome near the palace of the Pope, and
that his marechal even derived a tribute from prosti-
tutes."!
* Fleury, Tom. 19, p. 195-9. t Ib. 801-2.
A Bishop Slain in Battle. 149
At the opening of the General Council of Vienne, Pope
Clement V. preached a sermon, and proposed as the three
causes for the celebration of the Council, the affairs of the
Knights Templars, the Crusades to the Holy Land, and the
reformation of the morals and discipline of the Church*
The Pope decreed the abolition of the order of the Tem-
plars, with the approbation of the Council. And they
passed a resolution to justify the faith of Pope Boniface
against the accusation of King Philip. The Pope, however,
made a decree, declaring that no reproach should be ever
brought against the king or his successors for what he had
done against Boniface or the Church. f
With regard to the morals and conduct of the clergy, the
Council forbade them to carry on the business of a butcher
or tavern-keeper, under penalty of being deprived of their
clerical privilege. They were also excluded from the ex-
ercise of any occupation which was not suitable to their
state, and from carrying arms. Moreover, they were for-
bidden to appear in public with their garments slashed, or
composed of two colors, or with cloaks so short as to show
their under garments, or with breeches checkered with
red or green !| And this was all which the Pope and the
Council deemed it necessary to enact in their acknowl-
edged duty to reform the clergy.
The year 1312 witnessed a battle in Rome between the
Emperor of Germany and the brother of the King of Na-
ples, who was sustained by the faction of the Ursini. The
Germans were defeated, many of the nobles were slain, and
amongst them was Thibaud de Bar, Bishop of Liege, who
was taken prisoner, pierced with wounds, and died three
* Floury, Tom. 19, p. 203. t Ib. 210. t Ib. 219.
150 Letter VIII.
days afterwards. Here was another proof of the warlike
habits of those prelates whom no" considerations of religious
duty or consistency were able to restrain.*
Pope Clement V. died A. D. 1314, near Avignon, leaving
behind him this character, according' to your historian :
" He loved money greatly, so that at his court all benefices
were sold. It was publicly said that he had for his mis-
tress the Countess of Perigord, a very beautiful woman,
daughter of the Count de Foix, and he left immense treasures
to his nephews -and other relations."! Yet he appears to
have lived and died with reasonable credit, as a true suc-
cessor of St. PeCer, and vicar of the Lord Jesus Christ !
The see remained vacant after his decease, two years and
three months, another long interregnum.
In A. D. 1316, however, the Cardinals elected Pope
John XXII., who had previously been the Cardinal Bishop
of Porto. And notwithstanding the strong desire of the
Italian Bishops that he should reside in Rome, he resolved
to continue the Papal Court at Avignon.
The following year Avas marked by the inquisitor of Tar-
ragon, who formally condemned the errors of Arnold de
Villa Nova. This man was a cleric of the diocese of Va-
lentia, in Spain, who became a famous practitioner of medi-
cine. Frederick, King of Sicily, had made him an am-
bassador, and he was physician to the Pope. His alleged
errors were the following, amongst others : " The devil,"
he said, " had industriously succeeded in turning the whole
of Christendom from the truth of Christ, and had succeeded
so completely that nothing of religion remained, save the
skin, that is to say, the appearance of external worship ;
* Fleury, Tom. 19, p. 221. t Ib. 233.
Necromancy and Magic. 151
and the faith of the people has become the faith of the demons,
so that they are all led straight to hell. All the monks are
-without charity, and falsify the doctrine of Jesus Christ.
The theologians have done evil by borrowing from philoso-
phy, the study of which. should be entirely condemned.
The works of mercy are more agreeable to God than the
sacrifice of the altar, in which neither the priest, nor he
who causes the offering to be made, offers anything of his
own."* It was well for Arnold that he had died some years
before s or these unpalatable doctrines might have brought
him to the stake; or at least to torture and a dungeon.
The Archbishop of Ravenna held a Council at Boulogne
A. D. 1317, in which we have another witness of the ex-
tent of clerical corruption. For this Council complains
that the licentious lives and scandalous exterior of the
clergy make them contemptible in the eyes of the people,
and excite the laity to usurp the goods and the rights of the
Church. And therefore the Council forbids ecclesiastics
to carry arms, to enter places of debauchery, or to give
lodging to suspected persons. Besides which, the Council
prescribes in detail the form and quality of their dress, and
prohibits the monks from the amusement of huntin^.f It
was the old disease, and treated by the same ineffectual
remedies, which left the evil just where it was before.
The Pope, as our historian states, had been for some
time the object of a conspiracy, and he had given a commis-
sion of inquiry, in February, 1317, to two persons of emi-
nence, in which he uses the following words :
" We have learned that John de Limoges, James, called
the Braban9on, John d'Aman, physician, and some others
* Fleury, Tom. 19, p. 266. t Ib. 274.
152 Letter VIII.
have applied themselves by damnable curiosity to necro-
mancy and other magical arts, of which they have the
books ; that they have often availed themselves of mirrors
and images consecrated after their manner ; placing them-
selves in circles, they have often invoked evil spirits, in
order to cause men to perish by violence or enchantment,
or to inflict upon them maladies to shorten their days.
Sometimes they have shut up demons in their mirrors, cir-
cles or rings, to interrogate them, not only concerning the
past, but the future, and thus make predictions. They pre-
tend to have made many experiments in these matters, and
are not afraid to assure their adherents that they are able,
not only by certain potions or meats, but by mere words,
to abridge or lengthen life, or take it away altogether, and
cure all sorts of diseases."
The Pope gave a similar commission, in the following
April, to the Bishop of Riez, Peter Tessier, Peter Desprez,
and two others, in which he says : " The conspirators have
prepared potions to poison us and certain Cardinals ; and
not having had the opportunity of making us swallow them,
they have made images of wax under our names, in order
to attack our lives by pricking these images, with magical
enchantments and invocation of demons ; but God has pre-
served us, and has caused three of those images to fall into
our hands."* Here was the authority of the great monarch
of monarchs, and the final judge of all things in the Church,
from whom there could be no appeal, deciding upon the re
ality of those diabolical conjurations, which were derided
as mere superstitious fancies three centuries afterwards.
The political condition of Europe, which, as your modern
* Fleury, Tom. 19, p. 280-1.
of-
H'
Xo-
State of Europe. 153
writers would fain persuade us, was so much favored by
the influence of the Papacy, is described by the same Pope,
John XXII., in a letter to the King of France, A. D. 1319,
written in order to dissuade the king from attempting a new
crusade to Jerusalem. It is substantially as follows :
" The peace," says the Pope, " which is so necessary
for such an enterprise, is almost banished from Europe.
England and Scotland are opposed to each other. The
princes of Germany are mutually involved in war ; the
Kings of Sicily and Trinacria have between them a truce
of short duration, and are not disposed to peace ; the Kings
of Cyprus and Armenia are constantly in suspicion and dis-
trust of each other ; the Kings of Spain have enough to do
to guard their frontiers against the kingdom of Grenada ;
the cities of Lombardy have risen against each other ; di-
vided internally, filled with hatred and cabals, while the
country is full of tyrants, who persecute with fire and sword
those who refuse to obey them. Genoa, that city so cele-
brated, and so convenient for the passage to Palestine, is
desolated by divisions, and almost destitute of all resource.
The sea is impracticable in those quarters ; by land, the
roads are not open ; in a word, all these countries are
much more likely to injure than to aid such an enterprise."*
This specimen shows how the peace of Europe was pro-
moted by the Papacy. Your theory of Romanism asks us
to regard the Pope as the common father of mankind ; and
it is a pretty theory enough, if it were not proved, by all
history, that such a pretence is, and always has been, to all
practical intents and purposes, a most unmitigated imposi-
tion.
In the year 1328, the Emperor Louis, who had been ex-
* Fleury, Tom. 19, p. 293.
154 Letter VIII.
communicated by the Pope, and had been elected King of
the Romans, pronounced John XXII. deposed, and ap-
pointed an anti-Pope by the title of Nicholas V., who took
possession of St. Peter's, with the consent of the people,
and began to exercise the usual functions of the office,
under the protection of the emperor,* furnishing another
proof how little the Papacy, with all its seeming power,
could do to secure obedience from its own professed sub-
jects. In a very short time, however, the Romans turned
against the emperor and his new Pope, and they left the
city, where they could no longer remain in safety. The
Romans regarded them as heretics and excommunicated,
and received the legate of Pope John with great honor.
The secret was, that the emperor lost his influence in
Rome, because he had no longer at his command either
troops or money. f Two years afterwards, the anti-Pope
submitted.
Pope Clement VI., A. D. 1343, in his famous Bull Uni-
genitus, established the Jubilee, placing the indulgence of
Pope Boniface to all who should visit the churches of
Rome, at the expiration of every fifty years, and founding
the ne\v arrangement upon the Jubilee of the Jewish sys-
tem.:]: This Pope died in the year 1352. " He was mag-
nificent," says your historian, " in his manner of living, and
was prodigal of gifts and ecclesiastical benefices to his
friends and relatives, in which he paid no regard to
science nor virtue. While he was an Archbishop, he went
beyond the young nobility in his fondness for women ; and
when he was Pope, he knew not how to contain himself on
this point, nor how to conceal his propensities. The great
* Fleury, Tom. 19, p. 410-13. t Ib. 422-3.
J Fleury, Tom. 20, p. 35-6.
Licentiousness of Petrarch. 155
ladies went to Ids chamber, like the prelates, and amongst
the rest, a certain Countess of Turennes was distinguished
by a large amount of favor."* Here was another sad pat-
tern to the clergy and their flocks in the chief Bishop of
Christendom !
Pope Urban V. returned with his Court from Avignon to
Rome A. D. 1367, and it was remarked, that in riding in
state through the city, he did not turn away from the spot
where it was said that Pope Joan had been delivered, as
was the custom of some of his predecessors. " This shows,"
says Fleury, " that they had begun to be disabused about
this fable." In truth, however, it shows nothing of the
kind. The existence of the custom which your historian
admits is quite unaccountable, if the story was a fable. But
it is easy to conceive that the Pope, who was a stranger in
the city, had never had the spot pointed out to him, and
therefore rode over it without thinking of the matter at the
time.
In the year 1374, Francis Petrarch died, and Fleury sets
forth his character very unfavorably, in order, as he says,
that his readers may judge how much weight is due to his
writings against the Popes and the Court of Rome. Your
historian confesses that Petrarch had led the life of a cler-
gyman from his youth, and was afterwards Archdeacon of
Parma and Canon of Padua ; but his profession did not
hinder him from giving way to debauchery when he was
young, nor did he retire from it at the age of forty. He
had also a daughter, whom he named Franciscola. Pope
Benedict XII., wishing Petrarch to marry Laura, promised
Kim a dispensation, so that he might preserve his benefices.
* Fleury, Tom. 20, p. 313.
6*
156 Letter VIIL
But the poet told him that if he was once in possession of
the lady, all that he pretended to say of her would be out
of season. Laura, however, who had not the same reasons,
finding that she .was frustrated of her hopes, married an-
other. Such is Fleury's statement of the matter. Next
he attacks Petrarch on the ground of his encouragement to
the enterprise of Nicholas Rienzi, who endeavored to re-
store the ancient Republic to Rome A. D. 1347. And he
adds : " After this, can any one take advantage of his
declamations against the Court of Rome, saying as he
does that Avignon was Babylon, and the Church which re-
sided there was the harlot of the Apocalypse ?"*
Here, however, your historian, though usually candid,
argues very absurdly. The verdict of all Europe has set-
tled the character of Petrarch, as a man endowed with ex-
traordinary learning and genius. And if he was guilty of
notorious licentiousness, which is certainly true, that did
not prevent his enjoying the utmost favor with the Popes as
well as the princes of his day, simply because the body of
the clergy and the nobles were accustomed to clerical licen-
tiousness, and therefore thought nothing of the sin. But
no one has ever impeached him of calumny, venality, or
defect of high honorable principle. His reputation as a
scholar and a poet placed him on the pinnacle of fame, and
every motive of interest and gratitude would have con-
curred to make him the advocate and apologist of the Pa
pacy. Has testimony, then, is perfectly clear of any real
defect. Nor, indeed, does he say any more than many had
said before his time, and multitudes more have said after
him.
There is an interesting fact noted by Fleury, on a differ
* Fleury, Tom. 20, p. 248-250.
Pope Urban and the Torture. 157
ent subject, which is worth recording. Pope Gregory XI.,
writing, in A. D. 1374, to the Greek, John Cantacuzene,
who had become a monk after being emperor, makes a
very distinct statement of the ground which had separated
the Churches. " It was the refusal to acknowledge our
primacy," saith he, " which caused the division between the
Latins and the Greeks, and has maintained the schism."*
This seems to show, from the testimony of a Pope, the
opinion entertained upon the substantial agreement of Rome
and Greece on all their other doctrines.
His successor, Urban VI., commenced his pontificate by
reproaching the Bishops and Cardinals publicly, by which
he thoroughly disgusted them. A large majority forthwith
withdrew to Anagnani, and consulted together to annul the
election, on the ground that they had been forced by the
violence of the people to choose an Italian. f Accordingly,
in A. D. 1378, they elected another, as if the see was va-
cant, and styled him Clement VII., and so the Church was
again involved in schism. |: France declared in favor of
Clement, who repaired to Avignon. And as Urban had
published bulls of excommunication against him. he pub-
lished similar bulls against Urban. Thus they charged
each other mutually with reproaches and maledictions.
Both parties employed violence, seizing, abusing, and
even killing the partisans of their adversary. But Urban
had the advantage of the stronger secular power, the larger
number of the kingdoms of Europe being in his favor.
In the year 1385, Pope Urban, suspecting a conspiracy
against him by six of his Cardinals, put them to the torture,
degraded them from their dignities, confiscated all their
* Fleury, Tom. 20, p. 250. t Ib. 281-3.
J Ib. 286. Ib. 298.
158 Letter VIIL
property, and confined them in prison. Moreover, he ex-
communicated the King of Naples, and placed the city un-
der interdict. The king not only disregarded these acts as
uncanonical, and obliged the clergy to perform divine ser-
vice as .usual, but sent troops to besiege the Pope in his
castle at Nocern.* The six imprisoned Cardinals stead-
fastly professed their innocence, and Urban resolved to put
them to the question again, displaying a savage spirit of
cruelty .f Happily for them, however, he died in A. D.
1389, and the Cardinals of Rome elected Boniface IX. as
his successor. He was a Neapolitan, of good stature and
handsome countenance, understood grammar, and spake
well ; but Fleury says expressly that he could neither
write nor sing, and that he was ignorant of the affairs and
style of Rome.J The two Popes proceeded to anathema-
tize each other as usual, and published the most terrible
censures ; which, as your historian justly observes, were
equally idle on both sides.
The letter addressed to the king by the University, pro-
posing the best means of terminating the schism in the Pa-
pacy, A. PJ. 1394, gives a very instructive view of the state
of the Church. Some passages are as follows :
" The Church has fallen into servitude, poverty, and con-
tempt : she is exposed to robbery : they elevate to Bishop-
rics unworthy and corrupt men, who have no sentiment of
justice or of humanity, and only seek to indulge their brutal
passions. They ravage the churches and monasteries
the sacred and the profane are all alike to them, provided
they can extract money from it ; they charge the poor min-
isters of the Church with intolerable exactions, and collect
* Fleury, Tom. 20, p. 335. t Ib. 338-9.
t Ib. 376-7. $ Ib. 382.
The Papal Schism. 159
them by the hands of inhuman men, who spare no one, and
scarcely leave them enough to support life : we see every-
where priests begging, and reduced to perform the lowest
services. In many places they sell the relics, crosses,
chalices, and sacred vessels, provided they are of gold and
silver: we seethe churches falling into ruin."
" What shall we say of the simony, which governs to
such extent in the Church, that everything is subjected to
it ? Without money few can obtain any favor ; those who
have money have nothing to fear. This simony distributes
to the most corrupt, if they be only rich, the benefices
which are of some profit, while the poor are despised, how-
ever learned they may be. What is most of all deplorable
is, that they sell even the sacraments, especially ordination
and penance ; and they elevate the most vile and incapable
to ecclesiastical dignity."
" What shall we say of the divine service, diminished
everywhere, and in some places entirely abandoned ? What
shall we say of the morals and virtues of the ancient Church
being so forgotten, that if the fathers returned again, they
could hardly believe that it was the same Church that they
formerly governed ?"* All this is certainly lamentable
enough, but the same picture is presented from every
quarter.
Before the year 1394 ended, Pope Clement died, and the
Cardinals of his party proceeded to elect Peter de Luna, who
took the name of Benedict XIII., and retained it, says
Fleury, for thirty years.
The desire to do away with this obstinate schism, and
restore the Church to unity, became stronger and stronger,
* Fleury, Tom. 20, p. 403-4.
160 Letter VIII.
and yet the Popes gave no encouragement on either side to
any hopes of their voluntary cession. The French king,
Charles VI., therefore, convoked a great assembly of pre-
lates and doctors. The Patriarch of Alexandria opened
the session ; .and after concluding that the best plan was to
obtain the resignation of the existing Popes, they adjourned
to meet in two months after, viz., July of the year 1398.
At this second session, being fully aware of the inflexible
determination of Benedict not to resign, it was resolved that
the best way to bring him to reason would be to deprive
him of all exercise of his power by an entire withdrawing
of their obedience. This resolution was carried into effect
by the royal authority, in letters patent, where, after ex-
plaining the reasons at great length, the king pronounces
thus : " We, assisted by the princes of our blood, and many
others, and with us the Church of our kingdoms, as well the
clergymen as the people, do withdraw entirely from the
obedience of Pope Benedict XIII.. and from that of his ad-
versary," (that is to say, Boniface IX.,) " of whom we make
no mention, because we have never obeyed, nor can we
obey him. We will that henceforth no one shall pay any-
thing to Pope Benedict, to his collectors or other officers,
of the ecclesiastical emoluments or revenue, and we strictly
forbid all our subjects to obey him or his officers in any
manner whatever."*
This course was adopted on the united recommendation
of three hundred persons of credit and distinction, besides
the Universities of Paris, of Orleans, of Angers, of Mont-
pelier, and of Toulouse. And it was resolved to provide
for the preservation of the ancient rights and liberties of the
* Fleury, Tom. 20, p. 437-8.
Church of France abandons Benedict XIII. 161
Church, of France : the whole being concluded by going
in procession to the Church of Si. Genevieve the following
Sunday.*
Two commissaries were appointed to publish this act at
Avignon, and the ordinance was universally obeyed both by
clergy and people. The eighteen Cardinals of Pope Bene-
dict likewise renounced their obedience to the Pope, and re-
tired with one accord to Villa Nova.f
An occasion of celebrity was soon presented to execute
the new regulation concerning the disposition of benefices
during the subtraction of obedience. The Abbot of St.
Denis, in France, died in April of the same year. The
king having granted the usual liberty of election, the monks
proceeded accordingly, and chose Philip de Villette to be
their new Abbot. This election ought to have been con-
firmed by the Pope, according to the charter of the abbey ;
but the most learned Canonists judged that in the present
case, the authority of the pontiff might be devolved upon
the Bishop of the diocese.^
Now here we have a most instructive piece of history,
which goes to the full extent of justifying the Church of
England in casting off her obedience to the Pope, accord-
ing to the principles of your own communion, including the
whole Gallican clergy. For if the Church of France could
withdraw from the obedience to Pope Benedict XIII. ,
whom she held to be the true and lawful Pope, and adopt
a new plan of continuing her ecclesiastical life and func-
tions in total contravention of his authority, merely because
it was the judgment of the universities and clergy that he
ought to resign, and since he would not consent, that he
* Fleury, Tom. 20, p. 439. t Ib. 440. t Ib.
162 Letter VUI.
must be compelled to it : how much more could the Church
of England withdraw her obedience, on the far higher
ground of a thorough reformation, according to the rules of
primitive Catholicism ! Under ordinary circumstances, the
Church of France admitted that the Pope was the final
judge of all things in the Church, from whom there was no
appeal. But here we have a proof that under extraordinary
circumstances, they had within themselves the right to
suspend the established rule, and act quite independently ;
and that they were competent to decide upon the measure
of the necessity which made their proceedings lawful. Nor
is this the only example of the kind, for we shall find many
other proofs of the exercise of the right, before we arrive at
the great secession of the sixteenth century.
Of course, however, Pope Benedict XIII. was not a con-
vert to the doctrine. On the contrary, he was perfectly.,
immovable, and flatly refused to renounce his dignity, pro-
testing that he would not submit to the orders of the king,
but would keep his name and office until death. The con-
sequence was, that he was besieged in his palace at Avi-
gnon by the army under Marshal Boucicaut, and although he
had plenty of provisions, yet he and his little garrison were
reduced to great suffering for want of fuel to cook them.
Still, his constancy and courage never failed, notwithstand-
ing the example of France was followed during the same
year by Henry, King of Castile, and the clergy of his
kingdom.*
The University of Oxford being consulted by the king,
whether the example of France with respect to Benedict
ought not to be followed by England with regard to Boni-
* Fleury, Tom. 20, p. 445-6.
Uncanonical Expedients. 163
face, replied in the negative : " We do not blame the
Spanish nor the French," said they, " for having with-
drawn from the obedience of their fictitious Pope, and de-
siring to compel him to resign. But if they pretend that
this mode of forced resignation, or of subtraction of obe-
dience, is canonical or universal, and ought to be followed
by those whose conscience does not reproach them, we
deny it absolutely."
" It is a mortal sin to refuse to our superior the obedience
which is due to him, and they commit it here without ne-
cessity, because there is another way to end the schism,
namely, that of a General Council, more canonical and
more proper to calm the consciences of both parties. Our
holy father, S. Boniface, ought to convoke a General
Council, to which he should call not only those of his own
obedience, but also the anti-Pope, Peter de Luna, and his
adherents ; and the acts of this Council should be conclu-
sive on the subject of the schism."*
Now here, Most Reverend Sir, although there appears to
be a vast difference in opinion, yet it is evident that this
judgment of the Oxford University could only be sustained
by the same principle which justified the course of France.
For where was the canonical authority to compel Boniface to
call a General Council, and invite his antagonist's adherents
to attend it, with a view to have them both deposed and
another Pope elected ? Boniface had twice pronounced
excommunications against his rival and all who obeyed
him, and how could he be expected to give these excom-
municated men equal rights in a General Council, or even
to consider them worthy of being admitted there at all ?
* Fleury, Tom. 20, p. 450.
164 Letter VIII.
Besides which, this expedient, at best, was only another
uncanonical way of doing the same thing. The very ob-
ject of the proposed General Council was such, that the
Pope who called it virtually committed his own deposition
to its judgment, on the mere ground of an arbitrary expe-
diency. Hence it is manifest, that if he could be com-
pelled to call such a Council, by any existing power in the
Church, the same power must be sufficient to withdraw its
obedience, since the ultimate object in both cases was to
get rid of that obedience, for the sake of the Church's wel-
fare ; and therefore, by either mode, the present Pope would
be equally deposed, against his will, and without any
canonical justification.
With regard to the duty of obedience, too, the breach of
which, according to the University of Oxford, is a mortal
sin, it is incontrovertible that this duty, where the Pope
was concerned, was just as incumbent on the whole Church"
as it was on any part of it. And here is a point of obvious
inconsistency in your Papal theory, that while the Pope is
the . sovereign Ruler and Master of the whole Church, yet
the same Church, though only acting by a very imperfect
representation in a General Council, is superior to him !
The truth is, that your Church, in times of difficulty, has
always bent her own theory to expediency, and justified
herself by that necessity which must sometimes, whether
in Church or State, prostrate, for the time and the occasion,
all ordinary rules of conventional subordination. Thus, in
a monarchy, the whole nation, in theory, is subject to the
king. But this authority can only be available in practice
so long as he can put down the rebellion of the few by the
strength of the many. Hence, whenever the majority of
his subjects are united against him, they become his mas-
Right of Revolution. 165
ters, and lie must submit to the necessity of a revolution.
And if, in point of fact, the change is justified by the prin-
ciples of truth and substantial justice, the rebels are called
heroes, and the dethroned tyrant is abandoned and con-
demned. In like manner, precisely, your Church of Rome
has always treated the power of her Popes. She inveighs
loudly and angrily against the resistance to the Pope, ex-
hibited in the English Reformation, notwithstanding her
frequent adoption of the same resistance whenever it suited
her supposed interests. And yet the difference of the cases
will appear to be immeasurably in favor of the Church of
England, because Rome rebelled only on her notions of ex-
pediency, while England rebelled in obedience to the law of
primitive Christianity, and the WORD OF GOD. At this
point, however, I shall close my historical notes upon the
fourteenth century.
166 The End of Controversy Controverted.
LETTER IX.
MOST REVEREND SIR :
BENEDICT XIII. remained four years shut up in his
palace at Avignon, from which the French king did not in-
tend him to be delivered until the final removal of the
schism. Wearied of this captivity, he concerted with a
Norman gentleman the means of escape in A. D. 1403,
having previously, however, written to the king, and pro-
tested that he remained of the same mind to continue his
efforts for the union of the Church. By this time, the wind
had changed. The Cardinals and citizens of Avignon
hastened to reconcile themselves with him. Another Coun-
cil was convened in Paris, and it was resolved unanimously
to restore their obedience to Benedict XIII. The argu-
ment on which they decided is again quite instructive. It
was not on any ground of duty, but rather on a point of
honor and of pride. Many persons represented to the king,
who was then in his right mind, that France was almost
the only kingdom which had taken this course. " All the
States," said they. " of the obedience of the anti-Pope,
Boniface, have declined to withdraw their adherence, and
the rest of Christendom has remained under the obedience
of Benedict. It would be disgraceful to the King of France
to be the only one to follow such a counsel. The king said
that he did not remember having ever consented to the
withdrawal, and finally the restoration of obedience was re-
Pope and Anti-Pope. 167
solved upon." These are the words of your historian,
Fleury.* To understand the language of the king aright,
it must be remembered that he was subject to fits of in-
I sanity, one of which afflicted him at the time when the
J former course had been adopted. But what had the in-
f sanity of the king to do with the judgment of the Universi-
ties and the clergy 1
Boniface died the same year, and was succeeded by In-
I nocent VII. , the Cardinals who elected him having first
I taken an oath that whoever among them should be chosen
Pope, would labor to restore the union of the Church, even
if, to that end, it should be necessary to renounce the pon-
tificate.f The new Pope also died about three years after-
wards, and Gregory XII. was elected, a similar oath having
been adopted by the act of the Cardinals, and formally sub-
scribed by all 4 Without delay, Gregory wrote to his rival,
offering to renounce, on condition that Benedict would do
i. the same, and communicated his proposal in a circular let-
t ter to all the princes and prelates of Christendom. To
this, Benedict XIII. replied that he had always been desirous
of the union of the Church, and had never refused the mode
of discussion to show the justice of his claims. He then
offered to meet Gregory, with their respective Cardinals on
both sides, at some sure and convenient place, and there to
resign his right, if Gregory would do the same. This let-
ter is dated January, 1407. Thus, says Fleury, " the two
Popes held the same language, and the event proves that
they thought precisely alike, that is to say, the very con-
trary of what they professed. "\{
* Fleury, Tom. 20, p. 463. t Ib. 470.
t Ib. 483. . Ib. 489.
II Ib. 490.
168 Letter IX.
After many vain attempts to bring the matter to any prac-
tical conclusion, in the course of which the insincerity of
Gregory became particularly manifest, he excited the sus-
picions of his Cardinals, who withdrew to Pisa A. D. 1408,
and there drew up a formal act, complaining of his injus-
tice. The terms of this instrument are remarkable. We
appeal, say they, " first to yourself, holy father, better in-
formed, and judging according to right reason; but if we
must appeal from one person to another, we appeal from
you to our Saviour Jesus Christ, of whom you are the vicar,
and who will judge the quick and the dead. We also ap-
peal to a General Council, who are accustomed to examine
and judge all the actions of the Popes themselves. We
appeal still further to the future Pope, to whom it belongs
to reform whatever evil his predecessor may have done,
and we protest against all that may be done or attempted
to our prejudice during the course of this appellation."*
Down with the laws of servile obedience even to Popes,
and even from their own Cardinals ! All honor to the Apos-
tolic right of Episcopal judgment, whenever men are able
to make themselves heard and respected ! For in the end,
we shall see the whole Church of Rome sanctioning this
act of theoretical rebellion, to the utter confusion of those
absurd controversialists who denounce the reformed Church
of England, only because her Bishops exercised the same
right on an infinitely more exalted ground of duty. And
yet these Cardinals were not all Bishops, and they were
only six in number. Notwithstanding which, they appeal
from the Pope to himself, when better informed, and judg-
ing according to right reason ! They appeal from the
/
* Fleury, Tom. 20, p. 500.
Bull of Benedict XIII. - 169
Pope to the judgment of the Lord Jesus Christ ! They
appeal to a future General Council ! They appeal to a fu-
ture Pope ! And they protest against all that shall be done
or attempted to their prejudice during the course of their
appellation ! So that here, Most Reverend Sir, you have
four forms of appeal from the pontiff, whose decision you
profess to consider final and conclusive ! And at the end,
they become Protestants, against all that may be done or
attempted to oppose them !
A similar specimen of independence was exhibited by
the French clergy the same year. For Benedict XIII.
sent to the king and all the lords of the Council a bull, in
which he excommunicates, 1st, all who should reject the
mode of conference, in order to settle the claims of himself
and his rival, whether they were kings or princes ; 2d, all
who should approve the mode of resignation ; 3d, all who
should profess an opinion contrary to his own ; 4th, all who
should withdraw from his obedience ; and 5th, in case any
one shall attempt the contrary, if, within twenty days, he
does not restore everything to its former state, then the
Pope pronounces a general interdict, and suspends all the
holders of benefices, and dispenses with the oaths of fidelity
to the king and the other princes.*
An immense assembly, at the head of which were the
king and the princes, as also the members of Parliament,
the Bishops and the clergy, came together in the palace
gardens, on the 21st of May, A. D. 1408, to hear John de
Courtecuisse, appointed by the University of Paris to sus-
tain thirteen propositions, amongst which were the follow-
ing, viz. :
* Fleury, Tom. 20, p. 502.
170 Letter IX.
" That Peter de Luna (Pope Benedict XIII.) is obsti-
nately perjured in matter of faith. That he has taught a
manifest heresy in publicly saying that he would sin mor-
tally in resigning the pontificate. That he and his ad-
herents are endeavoring to make a new schism in the
Church. That he is an obstinate schismatic, and even
heretic, and a troubler of the peace of the Church. That
he ought not to be called Benedict, nor Pope, nor Cardinal ?
nor any other nazne of dignity, and no one ought to obey
him, under the penalty of being an abettor of schism. That
all who give him aid or counsel in the kingdom of France
render themselves guilty of treason."*
The Cardinals of Gregory who were at Pisa, after cor-
responding with those of Benedict, issued a bull for a Gen-
eral Council, on the ground that the Canons investing the
Pope with the sole authority in that matter, could not have
effect when there were two contending parties, both claim-
ing the pontificate.! And, doubtless, they were right; for
there is a necessity in the affairs of Churches as well as
States, at times, which no law can provide for, and which
must be allowed to govern by the maxims of eternal truth
and justice.
The Council assembled at Pisa accordingly, March 25,
A. D. 1409, and assumed to itself the style and privileges
of a General Council. The two Popes were called by open
summons at the door of the church, and as neither of them
answered, the summons was repeated at intervals on subse-
quent days, until the third time, and they were declared
contumacious. A statement of the accusations against
them was drawn up, witnesses were examined, and the re-
* Fleury, Tom. 20, p. 503-4. t Jb. 510.
The Council of Pisa. 171
port was adopted as true, public and notorious. A last ci-
tation was then made at the door of ihe church, as before,
calling on the condemned Popes to hear their definitive
sentence. To which no answer being returned, the Patri-
arch of Alexandria, seated between the two Patriarchs of
Antioch and Jerusalem, read the sentence, which declared
in substance, that " this holy Council, representing the uni-
versal Church, to which belongs the cognizance and deci-
' O O
sion of this cause, concerning the union of the Church, and
the schism, having seen all that was proved against Peter
de Luna and Angelo Corrario, formerly called Benedict
XIII. and Gregory XII., after mature deliberation, decides
and declares, that all the crimes contained in the memorial
presented by the promoters to the Council, are true and no-
torious, and that the said Angelo Corrario and Peter de
Luna are obstinate schismatics and heretics, guilty of per-
jury, scandalizing the Church, and incorrigible. Wherefore
they have rendered themselves unworthy of all honor and
dignity, of all right to command or preside, and are cut off
from the Church accordingly."
" Nevertheless, for the greater surety, the Council de-
prives them of all these rights, forbids either of them to
bear the name of Pope, declares the See of Rome vacant,
and all Christians, of whatever dignity, even imperial or
royal, absolved from their obedience, notwithstanding any
oaths of fidelity, or engagement whatsoever, forbidding all
the faithful to obey either the one or the other, to give
them aid or counsel, to receive or favor them, under pain of
excommunication."*
The Council next proceeded to elect a new Pope, who
* Fleury, Tom. 20, p. 522-532.
7
172 Letter IX.
took the name of Alexander V., a Greek by nation, but
educated first in Italy, and afterwards at Oxford, in Eng-
land. He was about seventy years old when elected, amia-
ble, liberal, and a reasonable lover of good cheer and good
wine. Immediately after his election, he approved all that
had been done in the Council, united the two Colleges of
Cardinals, and declared that he would apply himself to the
reformation of the Church as the Council had promised, and
that each nation should choose wise and virtuous men to
deliberate on this subject \vith the Cardinals.* Finally, the
Pope ordered, for great and important reasons, that another
General Council should assemble in three years, viz., A.
D. 1412. f After this settlement of the difficulty, the Coun-
cil adjourned on August 7th of the same year.
The new Pope, however, gave little satisfaction. He
was too facile, and ignorant of law. Nothing was reformed ;
and he died before twelve months had passed from the time
of his consecration. He was succeeded by John XXIII. ,
who issued his bull for the General Council of Constance,
and opened it in person A. D. 1414. Here it soon became
manifest that some course should be taken to accomplish the
union of the Church, which was not yet attained. The
legates of Gregory and Benedict attended, and were honor-
ably received, notwithstanding the sentence of the Council
of Pisa. Gregory proposed to resign, if Benedict and John
would do the same, and if John did not preside over the
Council. And many of the prelates were disposed to think
that this was the only plan likely to secure peace and
unity.
A new mode of voting was proposed, viz., by nations ;
* Fleury, Tom. 20, p. 537-3. t Ib. 539.
John XXIII. Condemned. 173
and this, through the efforts of the Emperor Sigismund,
who was the leading spirit in this Council, was resolved
upon, notwithstanding it was contrary, as your historian
admits, to the usual practice in Councils, where the vote of
each member was always counted.* The effect of this
new rule was to neutralize the preponderance of the Italians,
who had more members present than all the rest together.
A secret list of accusations was prepared against Pope
John XXIII. , " which contained all the mortal sins, with an
infinity of abominations. "f But in order to avoid dis-
honoring the Holy See, it was suppressed. Deputies, how-
ever, were sent to him, to ascertain if he were willing to
resign ; and he, fearing a deposition, consented, on condi-
tion that Gregory and Benedict should resign also. Never-
theless, he fled in disguise from Constance, and other depu-
ties were dispatched, in order to induce him to return ; be-
cause many feared that his absence would dissolve the
Council. But the Council settled that doubt by a decree
that it was not, and should not be dissolved, until the
schism was extinguished, and the Church was reformed in
faith and morals, " as well in the head as in the mem-
bers."!
Finally, the Council proceeded to cite Pope John, who
did not appear ; and then, having heard the testimony of a
large number of witnesses, they first suspended, and then
deposed him. The charges against him were very nu-
merous, and amongst them the following : That he was
notoriously simoniacal ; that he had dissipated the property
and the rights of the Church of Rome and the other
churches ; that by his evil and detestable immoralities he
* Fleury, Continuation, Tom. 21, p. 235. f Ib. 336. $ Ib. 251.
174 Letter IX.
had scandalized the people of Christendom ; and that he
had shown himself incorrigible. As such, the Council pro-
nounced him deposed, and deprived absolutely of the pon-
tificate, discharged all Christians from their oaths of fidelity,
forbade them for the future to acknowledge him as Pope,
and committed him to the custody of the emperor, reserving
to itself the right to punish him for his excesses, according
to the Canons and the laws.*
The next act of this celebrated Council was to establish
the new custom of depriving the laity of the cup in the holy
Eucharist. And here they assumed a much greater power,
for their decree embraced the six conclusions following, ac-
cording to your historian : " 1st, That the Eucharist was in-
stituted under both the species," (that is, with the symbols
of both the body and the blood of the Saviour.) " 2d, That
it is an allowed and laudable custom not to administer this
sacrament after supper, unless to the sick. 3d, That al-
though it was the usage of the primitive Church to com-
mune under both the species, nevertheless, in order to avoid
some danger and scandal, it was allowable to introduce the
custom of giving the Communion to the laity only under the
species of bread. 4th, That this custom, observed 'for a
long time, ought to pass for a law, which it is not permitted
to any one to change or disapprove without the authority
of the Church. 5th, That whoever saith that it is unlaw-
ful to observe this custom, is in error. 6th, That those
who decide otherwise, ought to be reputed heretics, and as
such, repressed and punished ."f
Now here we see the bold impiety with which this
Council presumed to legalize what they acknowledged to be
* Flcury, Contin., Tom. 21, p. 313-14. t Ib. 329-334.
Refusal of the Cup. 175
a departure from the institution of Christ himself, and
not only so, but to pronounce it a heresy if any one should
dare to do what the Lord commanded, and what they admit
the primitive Church observed, by giving both the wine
and the bread to the laity ! Thus they openly set them-
selves above and against the word of Christ, and furnished
a plain proof that they were acting in the true spirit of that
Antichrist, who should " sit in the temple of God, and show
himself to be God." True, they endeavored to justify them-
selves by the doctrine of concomitancy, saying, that as there
can be no body without blood, therefore the laity received
the blood virtually, when they received the body ! Entirely
forgetting that this sacrament was instituted to show forth
the death of Christ His sacred body broken, and His
precious blood shed for sinners, which could not possibly.be
symbolized with the bread alone. Forgetting, also, that the
Church has always held the power of Christ Himself to be
necessary to make a sacrament, and hence that they could
not presume to take away one of its essential elements.
Forgetting, above all, that instead of being really able to
make a heretic of him who followed Christ and the primi-
tive Church of the Apostles, they were in truth making
themselves and the Church heretical, by wantonly setting up
their judgment against their Lord, and His inspired mes-
sengers. But such was the depth of corruption in which
the rulers of your Church had sunk, that they felt neither
afraid nor ashamed to proclaim this awful assumption of
authority over the Son of God and His Apostles ; confident
that as the impious custom was already in general use, their
pronouncing it to be a law would excite no opposition.
Another act of novelty in your modern Church of Rome,
although it might have been much better justified by primi-
176 Letter IX.
tive precedents, was the resolution of the Council to make
the emperor the President of the Council for one session, in
order to overcome the scruples of Gregory XII., who re-
fused to acknowledge the authority of a Council called by
John XXIII., or his Cardinals. This being done, Charles
de Malatesta, the authorized representative of Gregory, re-
nounced his title as Pope in due form, and Gregory himself
afterwards ratified it in person.
Their next act of importance, unhappily, was no novelty,
for they proceeded to condemn John Huss, the reformer of
Bohemia, as a heretic. Accordingly, after being degraded
from the priesthood, he was delivered to the secular arm,
and burned alive ; maintaining to the last, by the confession
of his enemies themselves, the most undaunted and heroic
deportment.* The disciple of Huss, Jerome of Prague,
came next under condemnation, and the fathers of this
Council had the satisfaction of committing him also to the
flames, where he suffered with the same firmness and con-
stancy as his master.f
After many vain efforts to procure the voluntary abdica-
tion of Benedict XIII., the Council resolved to depose him,
as they had deposed John XXIII 4 And thus, having got-
ten rid of three Popes, the field seemed clear to elect an-
other.
The twenty-ninth session of the Council was marked by
a decree, ordering that General Councils should be held
every ten years, as the best mode of preserving the Church,
in such place as the Pope should appoint. But since the
assembly at Trent, three hundred years ago, your consistent
and infallible Church of Rome has treated this wise law
* Fleury, Cont., Tom. 21, p. 349-352. f Ib. 417-18. J Ib. 461.
Martin V. sole Pope. 177
with perfect contempt and contumacy. Much disputation
took place on the question whether the Council should first
elect a Pope, or finish the decrees for the Reformation. At
length, however, the election was agreed on, and they chose
Martin V., an Italian of the house of Colonna. This Pope,
in a bull against the Hussites, formally acknowledged the
Council of Constance, as a standard of belief to all the faith-
ful. From which your historian very justly concludes, that
the doctrine of the General Council being superior to the
Pope, is an article offaUt'i, since such was the decreed doc-
trine of that Council.* But as to the reformation of the
Cardinals and the Court of Rome, the Pope so managed as
to elude it altogether.! The Council was dismissed A. D.
1418, having sat three years arid a half. And Fleury can-
didly remarks, that they failed to extinguish the schism
completely, since two Cardinals and Pope Benedict XIII.
still held out. And although they had so solemnly decreed
that the Council should not be dissolved until a thorough
reformation was effected, in the head and in the members,
yet the whole of this most important matter was now put
off " to a more convenient season. "J
In A. D. 1424 Benedict XIII. died ; but, on his death-
bed, he made his two Cardinals swear that they would elect
a successor to him immediately, as he fully believed him-
self the only true Pope. The Cardinals, accordingly,
elected the Canon of Barcelona, who took the name of
Clement VIII., and was sustained by the King of Arragon.
The king, however, agreed soon afterwards to the proposi-
tions of Pope Martin V. Clement VIII., with great joy,
laid, down his dignity, his Cardinals proceeded formally to
* Fleury, Cont., Tom. 21, p. 515. t Ib. 520.
t Ib. 530 i) To. 597-8.
178 Letter IX.
elect Martin V., and thus this schism was ended, after hav-
ing endured for fifty-one years.*
Martin V. died A. D. 1431, and was succeeded by Eu-
genius IV. And now we come to the history of the famous
Council of Basle, which has always been a subject of con-
troversy amongst your own theologians, notwithstanding
your confident boast of unity.
This Council was assembled as a General Council, ac-
cording to the acceptation of your Church, in the same
year, viz., 1431 ; and from the very beginning, the Pope
and the Council were involved in dissension. For the pon-
tiff desired to transfer it to Bologna, in Italy, where it would
be more under his control ; whereas the prelates were de-
termined to hold it as Basle, which was the place expressly
decreed by the previous Council, and was preferable in
their judgment, for the very reason that the Pope would
probably have assigned against it. The ostensible causes
which were set forth for the assembling of the Council,
were the re-establishment of union with the Oriental
Church, and the other communities which had separated
from Rome, and the great object of the general reformation
of the whole Church, as well in the head as in the members,
which had become, in the judgment of all good men, a work
of primary obligation. But as this reformation threatened
seriously to curtail the powers and riches of the Papacy,
the Popes were all anxious to get rid of it, by every pre-
text and artifice in their power. f That this was the policy
of Eugenius, is plainly asserted by your historian.
Hence, one of the first acts of the Council of Basle was
to ordain that the Pope could not dissolve the Council, nor
* Fleury, Cont., Tom. 21, p. 626-9.
f Fleury, Cont., Tom. 22, p. 9-12.
Eugenius approves the Council of Basle. 179
transfer it elsewhere. And in answer to his legates, they
expressly declared that a General Council was superior to
the Pope, being the voice of the universal Church, and that
by necessary consequence, instead of the Pope having au-
thority over the Council, the Council, on the contrary, had
authority over the Pope.* Eugenius, however, had no idea
of yielding his transcendent prerogative, and issued a bull,
decreeing his dissolution of the Council. The Council, in
return, cited the pontiff to appear, and answer the charge
of contumacy. And thus the shameful spectacle was ex-
hibited for two years of Pope against Council, and Coun-
cil against Pope. It would be a troublesome question to
answer, Most Reverend Sir, according to your modern sys-
tem, where was your Church during this and many other
periods of intestine warfare ?
Eugenius, however, being alarmed by the menaced oppo-
sition of the Emperor Sigismund, thought it best to tem-
porize, and sent four legates to the Council to preside in
his name, at the same time publishing another bull, by
which he revoked the former ones, and declared that the
General Council of Basle had been lawfully continued since its
commencement, and that he approved all that they had done.\
This declaration of the pontiff was not acceptable to all, and
they made no secret of their dissatisfaction. Nor have the
various parties in your Church agreed upon the subject to
this day.;}: According to your highest theory, accepted on
all sides, a. General Council, approved by the Pope, is INFAL-
LIBLE ! And yet your theologians have shown that this
theory was not believed by themselves, unless the result
was satisfactory; and hence they have played fast and
* Fleury, Cont., Tom. 22, p. 21-22. t Ib. 72-3. J Ib. 75.
180 Letter IX.
loose with their Popes and Councils, whenever policy re-
quired. It is incontrovertible that the Council of Constance,
as well as the Council of Basle, decreed the supreme au-
thority of a General Council, even without or against the
Pope. This doctrine was approved by Martin V., in the
Council of Constance, and again by Eugenius IV., in the
Council of Basle. And your historian, Fleury, most truly
asserts, that such has been the law of the Church, as far
back as the great Council of Chalcedon.* Nevertheless,
your ultramontane party refuse to accept the infallible deci-
sion. And the controversy, although it is of the first im-
portance to your whole system, is as far from being settled
now, as it was in the fifteenth century.
But to return to the history of the celebrated Council of
Basle. Eugenius, being much troubled in his affairs, was
all complaisance to the Council. In the year 1434, Philip,
the Duke of Milan, had made war upon him. The Roman
citizens compelled him to fly from the city in the disguise
of a monk, and he rested not until he found safety in
Florence. For these reasons, little as he relished the in-
dependent course of the prelates at the Council of Basle, he
addressed another letter to them, renewing the assurance of
his approbation, and making the most flattering protesta-
tions of esteem and affection.! All of which, as the event
showed, was nothing else but deceit and artifice.
In the following year, viz., A. D. 1435, the Council, after
passing some decrees against clergymen who kept public
concubines, against interdicts, and against appeals, (which
last two were only matters of better regulation,) proceeded
to attack the Annates, which were a source of vast pecu-
* Fleury, Cont., Tom. 22, p. 78. t Ib. 81-2.
War between Pope and Council.
181
niary profit to the Court of Rome. The Pope's legates
protested, but in vain. Eugenius himself remonstrated, and'
thus a new theme of discord arose between them.*
The year 1436 was marked by the extinction of the
schism of the Bohemians, who, after the kingdom had been
ravaged by a religious war of twenty-two years, agreed to
be content with only one concession, viz., the receiving of
the sacrament in both kinds. And this the Council of Basle
granted to them, thus virtually indulging what the Council
of Constance had infallibly defined to be a heresy, just be-
fore the reformers Huss and Jerome of Prague were con-
demned, and committed to the flames. f
In order to facilitate the reunion with the Greek Church,
the Council next resolved to send some galleys to convey
the Greek emperor and the Patriarch, with the chief of their
prelates, to the conference, proposing Basle, or Avignon, or
Savoy, as the place of meeting. But the Pope refused to
approve the decree, and exerted himself successfully to pre-
vent its execution.^ He even went so far as to equip a set
of other vessels at Venice, to supersede the galleys of the
Council. Accordingly, having gained the ambassadors of
the Greeks, three of the pontiff's Bishops, appointed as his
legates, embarked, and arrived first at Constantinople. j|
Not many days afterwards, the galleys sent by the Council
came into port, and the commander of the Pope's vessels
" had orders to attack them," saith your historian, " and
would have done so, if the Greek emperor had not dis-
suaded him !"^[ Another precious specimen of your Papal
unity ! The management of Eugenius, however, prevailed,
* Fleury, Cont., Tom. 22, p. 113.
% Ib. 142.
Illb 156-7.
t Ib. 134.
$ Ib. 149.
IT Ib. 157.
182 Letter IX.
and, notwithstanding all that the deputies of the Council
could urge, the emperor and the Patriarch, with the rest
of the Greek ecclesiastics, went on board the Pope's ships,
and left the Council to digest the affront as they chose.*
The consequence was, a prompt resolution of the Council,
to summon the Pope to appear, and answer for his bad faith,
in introducing schism into the Church, &c.f To this, Eu-
genius replied by a bull, decreeing that the Council should
be dissolved the moment that the Greeks should arrive, and
appointing another Council to convene at Ferrara.lj:
The next act in this comedy of Roman unity was the de-
cree of the Council of Basle, declaring Eugeriius contuma-
cious, inasmuch as he had not obeyed their summons.
They sent him a remonstrance, in which they argued the
matter at great length, and informed him, that if he failed
to retract within two months, they would proceed to depose
The Pope, however, instead of retracting, renewed his
bull for the Council of Ferrara, and the first session was
accordingly held A. D. 1438, and was numerously attended.
A small number of deserters, of \vhom Cardinal Julian was
the chief, left Basle, and repaired to the standard of Euge-
nius, but the rest continued the Council, and pronounced a
decree of suspension against the Pope, from all his jurisdic-
tion, temporal and spiritual; i| forbidding all persons to obey
him, under pain of excommunication. Eugenius, on his
part, together with his Council of Ferrara, returned the as-
sault by a decree, nullifying all the acts of the Council of
Basle, and excommunicating all who should adhere to it :^J
*Fleury, Cont., Tom. 22, p. 158. f Ib. 159.
t-Ib. 160. Ib. 165-169.
II Ib. 175-8. IT Ib. 180.
The Council of.Ferrara.
183
a sad dilemma to which your Papal Church has always re-
duced her unfortunate subjects in the times of her numerous
schisms, since every soul was sure to be delivered to Satan,
either by the one party or the other. Happily, these tre-
mendous fulminations were valued about as much as if
they had all become Protestants already.
Of course, the Council of Basle were ready with a fit re-
turn. They decreed the dissolution of the assembly at
Ferrara, as being schismatic, and umvorthy of the name of
Council, annulled all that they had done, and summoned
the members to appear and answer, within one month, for
their offence.*
The Council of Ferrara commenced the conference with
the Greek emperor and the delegates of the Greek Church,
and proceeded to some extent, when it was transferred to
Florence, on account of the pestilence, and there the first
session was held, in February, 1439. The Pope paid all
the expenses of the Greeks, and sent, besides, nineteen
thousand florins to Constantinople. I shall not detain my
readers with any detail of the synodical discussion. Suf-
fice it to say, that the necessifies of the Greek emperor
produced a formal acquiescence on their part with the doc-
trines of Rome, and the reunion was celebrated by the Pope
with great rejoicing. But after the return of the Greeks to
Constantinople, it was found that the Greek Church would
by no means ratify the decrees. The parties to the union
were regarded as traitors, and the two Churches remained
as much separated as before.
The Council of Basle continued its sessions, with the
approbation of the Emperor Sigismund, the King of France,
* Fleury, Cont., Tom. 22, p. 181.
184 Letter IX.
and the other princes, who had not approved the transfer of
the Council to Ferrara or to Florence, although they did
not agree to the decrees of Basle against the Pope, and still
acknowledged him as the true pontiff: thus choosing for
themselves what they would accept and what they would
reject of the doings of an infallible Council,* and plainly
showing that they did not believe the Holy Spirit had much
to do with either the one Council or the other.
The next important act of the Council of Basle was the
deposition of Eugenius IV. for contumacy, which took place
on the same day that the Council of Florence, with the
Pope at its head, celebrated the reunion with the Greek
Church.f
Eugenius and his Council lost no time, on the other
hand, in deposing all the members of the Council of Basle
from their dignities and offices, condemning all who adhered
to them as heretics and schismatics, and annulling all the
acts of the Council, especially those of the two last sessions.
The Council of Basle, however, proceeded to elect another
Pope, Amadeus, the Duke of Savoy, a layman, who had
been married, and had several children. These facts were
regarded as objectionable by some, but they were overruled,
and he was enthroned accordingly, by the name of Felix V.
The greatest difficulty in the way of the new Pope was his
beard, which he was accustomed to wear very long, and to
which he was so much attached, that he positively refused
to part with it. Nevertheless, the force of ridicule accom-
plished more than the remonstrance of the fathers, and he
consented to be shaved when he found, as saith your histo-
rian, " that this novelty did not accord with the majesty of
* Fleury, Cont., Tom. 22, p. 265-6. t Ib. 285.
Another Papal Schism.
185
religion /"* Of course, Eugenius forthwith denounced Felix
as a heretic and schismatic, and excommunicated all his
partisans, if they did not renounce him within fifty days.
And the Council of Basle annulled the decree on their part,
and forbade obedience to it.f
The following year, the Council proceeded to excommu-
nicate all who should refuse obedience to Felix V., and re-
newed their decrees against Eugenius. :{: And now came
the main point, practically, viz., to secure the adherence of
the various kings and princes, for which each party struggled
with great zeal and pertinacity.^ France recognized Eu-
genius, while she likewise maintained the Council of Basle
in all its proceedings, except its deposition of the Pope.
The only exception was the University of Paris, which pro-
nounced in favor of Felix. Alphonso, King of Arragon, Eliz-
abeth, Queen of Hungary, Albert, Duke of Bavaria, another
Albert, Duke of Austria, and many princes and prelates of
Germany, were also in his favor. England, like France,
was an eclectic in the matter, honoring the Council of Basle,
though disapproving its acts concerning Eugenius. Poland,
and the Milanese, favored Felix, and the rest of Europe,
with few exceptions, remained in the obedience of the
former Pope. And thus the schism stood, when the inven-
tion of printing came in to give more trouble than ever to
the domination of the Papacy.
In 1442, a great assembly was held, upon the subject of
the division, at Frankfort, the result of which was, that the
emperor declared for neutrality, and it was recommended
that another General Council should be held to estab-
* Fleury, Cont., Tom. 22, p. 299-301.
t Ib. 317.
tlb.
Ib. 322.
186 Letter IX.
list peace.* To this the Council of Basle consented,
and Eugenius also gave the proposal a qualified accept-
ance.
The year 1444 saw the Council of Basle still in session,
while Eugenius transferred the Council of Florence to
Rome. But the death of this Pope gave a new turn to the
affairs of the Church, and the Cardinal of Bologna was
elected, three years afterwards, under the name of Nicholas
V. The following year, Felix agreed to resign, and this
was put into formal execution A. D. 1449, tinder the direc-
tion of the Council of Basle, which met at Lausanne. With
this act ended the labors of this celebrated assembly. Pope
Nicholas conducted himself with great liberality, annulling
all that his predecessor had done against the members of
the Council, and giving Felix the dignity of Cardinal and
legate. Thus the outward unity of the Church was once
more restored.!
The year 1453 was signalized by the taking of Constan-
tinople, and the triumph of the Turks over the last feeble
remains of the Roman empire. - Pope Nicholas V. died
two years afterwards, and his successor, Callixtus III.,
made a vow to declare war against the Turks. This Pope
annulled the sentence against the Maid of Orleans, who
had been condemned to death as a sorceress some years
before. Her fame was henceforth re-established, and a
statue was erected in her honor.
* Fleury, Cont., Tom. 22, p. 376. f Ib. 494-6.
The End of Controversy, Controverted. 187
LETTER X.
MOST REVEREND SIR :
NICHOLAS V. was succeeded by Callixtus III., and after
his death, in A. D. 1458, the celebrated Eneas Sylvius was
elected, who took the name of Pius II. This Pope issued
a bull in A. D. 1460, condemning the practice of appealing
from the Pope to a General Council, and pronouncing an
excommunication, ipso facto, on all, even kings and princes,
who should presume to make such appeal in future. Your
historian condemns this, as contrary to the rules of the
Canon Law, and to the ancient and universal custom of the
Church.*
But a short time elapsed, however, before the Parliament
of Paris, under Charles VII., attacked the course of the
Pope in condemning the Pragmatic Sanction, and appealed
to a General Council, in open contempt of the novel ordi-
nance which the pontiff had set forth : another specimen of
your boasted unity and subordination !f A second speci-
men, within the same year, was furnished by the Archduke
of Austria, who appealed to the next Council against the
sentence of Papal excommunication. | And the year after,
the Archbishop of Mayence folloAved their example.
This Pope had been one of the most active friends and
defenders of the Council of Basle, and had written largely
* Fleury, Cont., Tom. 23, p. 106-8.
tlb. 115.
fib. 113.
$ Ib. 136.
188 Letter X.
against the prerogatives claimed by Pope Eugenius, and in
support of the superior authority of that Council. Finding
his own productions in his way, he published a bull in
A. D. 1463, in which he retracted his former opinions, at-
tributing them to his youth and inexperience, and ordering
the faithful to reject them, as unsound and dangerous.* The
following year he died, and was succeeded by Paul II. It
was this last Pope who reduced the Roman Jubilee to the
period of twenty-five years. Boniface VIII. had instituted
it at the end of every century. Clement VI. lessened the
interval to fifty, Urban V. to thirty-three, and Paul II. to
twenty-five, since which there has been no further change,
lest the attraction should lose its force by too frequent re-
currence.! He died in A. D. 1471, of apoplexy, as your
historian affirms, in the night, without any witnesses. It
was reported that in reality he was strangled by a man who
had found him in company with his wife, but the ccntinu-
ator of Fleury considers this to be only a calumny of the
Protestants.ij: ^ * s difficult, however, to understand how
the poor Protestants could have invented such a report so
many years before the Reformation.
The successor of Paul II. was Sixtus IV., and I may
here notice the account which your historian gives of the
clergy of Spain at this time, as worthy of observation.
" There were very few amongst them," saith he, " who un-
derstood the Latin, though it was the language of the
Church. Good cheer and debauchery were their ordinary
occupations. Concubinage was almost public amongst
them, and the least of their disorders was to bear arms and
go to war. So common was it to buy and sell benefices,
* Fleury, Cont,, Tom. 23, p. 192. f Ib. 306. $ Ib. 320.
An Archbishop hung for Murder.
189
that it was done even without any scruple."* A sad pic-
ture of religion in one of the first countries of Europe !
The year 1473 was rendered memorable by the burning
of the Cathedral of Florence. Louis Sforza, the Duke of
Milan, had made his entry into the city with great pomp ;
and in order to do the more honor to his reception, it was
resolved to represent the descent of the Holy Ghost on the
day of Pentecost. But the imitation of the tongues of fire,
falling from the roof of the cathedral, proved too much for
the skill of the actors in this irreverent spectacle. While
the assembled multitude were gazing at the pageant, the
flames attacked the ceiling of the edifice, and notwithstand-
ing all their efforts, the whole was consumed.! It had
been customary to dramatize, in this way, all the marked
events of the Gospel history, for many centuries, throughout
Europe ; and this dangerous and profane kind of exhibition,
as you know, Most Reverend Sir, is still a regular matter,
in many Papal countries, to the present day.
The year 1478 beheld the consummation of a conspiracy
of the Pazzi, at Florence, against the two Medici, Laurence
and Julian, who were attacked in the cathedral, during the
Mass, by the assassins, the first being wounded in the
throat, and the other slain upon the spot. The conspirators
were hung, and amongst them was Francis Salviati, Arch-
bishop of Pisa. The Pope was indignant that so eminent
a prelate should be thus dispatched without ceremony, like
a common felon, and laid the city of Florence under ex-
communication, although it was manifest that no punish-
ment could be too severe for an ecclesiastic who could take
part in such a sacrilegious murder, committed before the
very altar of the Prince of peace.J
* Fleury, Cont., Tom. 23, p. 366. t Ib. 376. J Ib. 464-5.
190 Letter X.
The same year was marked by the establishment of the In-
quisition in the kingdom of Castile, under Ferdinand and Is-
abella. And your historian saith expressly that it was done
" by the counsel of the Archbishop of Seville, and by the authority
of Pope Sixtus IV."* Your writers are accustomed to deny,
in our day, that your Church is accountable for this abomina-
ble institution. And it is true that it was not the doing of
your whole body, represented in General Council. But your
Popes, your Cardinals, your priesthood, and your monks, are
accountable. And the principle of the Inquisition was fixed
by the third General Council of Lateran, long before ; and
the use of the torture, and the punishment of heresy by the
horrible death of burning in the flames, were the work of
your ruling ecclesiastics, in every part of Europe, for cen-
turies. Your historian states the facts very candidly ; and
nothing can be more preposterous than the attempt to clear
the Popes and the Bishops of the Church from the awful
responsibility of this most cruel and bloody of all tribunals.
Sixtus IV. died in A. D. 1484. The Cardinals elected
another Pope, who took the name of Innocent VIII. ; and
his election, as your historian relates, was effected by bribery
and corruption.^ This fact, however, was of frequent oc-
currence, and a volume might be filled with the various
proofs furnished by this single history. The new Pope had
led a very irregular life, having had seven children by sev-
eral women ; but this fact, too, was so common amongst the
clergy, notwithstanding your Church had enforced, with
such bitter wantonness, the celibacy of the priesthood, that
it caused very little scandal, except amongst the laity.^
Innocent VIII. began his reign by declaring war against
* Fleurj, Cont., Tom. 23, p. 478. i Ib. 597. t Ib. 598.
Death of Innocent VIII.
191
the King of Naples, whom he excommunicated.* And the
Spanish Inquisition excited so much opposition among the
people, by reason of the cruelty and injustice of its proceed-
ings, that the estates of Arragon complained to Ferdinand,
and the inquisitor, Peter d'Arbuesa, was slain- before the
grand altar by a band of assassins. This victim of popular
indignation was afterwards canonized by Pope Paul III., on
the application of the emperor, Charles V.f
The privileges of asylum which the Church of Rome had
long established, grew to be such an abuse in England, that
King Henry VII., A. D. 1488, applied to the Pope either
to abolish or to regulate them. The worst criminals were
sheltered from the pursuit of justice, whenever they-retired
into these sanctuaries. Every day might be seen rebels,
men guilty of sedition, or overwhelmed with debts, villains
charged with all sorts of iniquities, running to the churches,
and finding in those consecrated places protection and im-
punity. Hence the number of culprits increased continu-
ally, and the peace of communities and the administration
of government were in constant danger. The Pope issued
a bull, which tended to lessen the evil, but it still continued
to be a sore abuse, until another century had passed away 4
Strange to say, the clergy were opposed to the bull, but the
king succeeded in enforcing it.
Pope Innocent VIII. died A. D. 1492. The city of
Rome was immediately filled Avith confusion by a mob of
the lower orders, who pillaged the houses, and filled the
streets with murders and carnage, heaping curses on the
deceased pontiff, whom they reproached with the sin of
having no compassion for the poor. This sedition was
* Fleury, Gont., Tom 24, p. 11.
t Ib. 83-4.
tlb.
$ Ib. 139.
192 Letter X.
the cause of detaining the funeral solemnities until the 8th
of August, the Pope having breathed his last on the 25th of
July. The Cardinals found the streets of Rome so full of
thieves, assassins, and banditti, that they were obliged to
bring entire companies of soldiers into their palaces, and to
point cannon at the head of the avenues, in order to prevent
the pillage.*
The election of the new Pope was influenced by the
usual amount of cabal and intrigue, and resulted in the
choice of Roderigo Borgia, who took the name of Alexander
VI. Your historian expressly saith, that " as he was rich
and sufficiently insinuating, he knew how to employ his
gold and his promises, so as to gain the Cardinals, and .
cause himself to be elected, although his morals were such
as ought to have excluded him forever, not only from the
sovereign pontificate, but even from the lowest functions in
the Church. While he was a Cardinal, he had^ue children
by Vanozza, a Roman lady, who Avas the wife of Dominick
Arimano."f Yet his colleagues had no compunction at the
monstrous iniquity of pocketing their bribes, and placing
this persevering adulterer on the altar of St. Peter, to be
adored as the vicar of Jesus- Christ ! So low, however,
was the principle of Christian morals in Rome, that the new
Pope was received with extraordinary honor and joy.
This pontiff proposed an alliance with Bajazet,the Sultan
of the Turks, in order to resist the arms of Charles VIII. ,
and to save Naples !J True, your historian saith that he
did not act thus as Pope, but as a temporal prince, and
Lord Paramount of that kingdom. But this is an absurd
distinction, because his temporal sovereignty was only held
* Fleury, Cont., Tom. 24, p. 139. t Ib. 140-1. $ Ib. 189.
The Pope authorizes Incest.
193
through his election as Pope, and he had no rights what-
ever in the matter distinct from the pontificate. It only
furnishes, therefore, another proof that religion was of no
weight in the scale against worldly interest.
In 1495, the French monarch entered Rome, with the en-
forced permission of the Tope, who retired, with only two
Cardinals, to the Castle of St. Angelo. Eighteen Cardi-
nals united in soliciting the king to seize the person of the
pontiff, and depose him ; and their spokesman argued
strongly that Providence had brought his majesty to Rome,
in order that he might give the Church another chief; that
Alexander was held in execration by all Christendom for his
shameful life ; that he had been elected by the power of
money ; that he had little religion ; that he had united with
the Turks ; and that he was so far from regretting his old
sins, as to entertain in his own house, most scandalously,
his own bastards, and had even elevated one of them to the
dignity of Cardinal, &c.* But the Pope had managed to
gain so many of the king's most influential counsellors, that
the monarch could not be induced to adopt such extremi-
ties. On the contrary, all difficulties were accommodated
by a treaty of peace, the conditions of which the Pope kept
no longer than it was for his interest.
The next act of this pontiff which I shall notice, is the
dispensation which he gave to Ferdinand, King of Naples,
to marry his .own aunt, at the age of thirteen or fourteen
years ! A plain proof, amongst a multitude of others, that
the laws of God were of no account in the estimate of Pa-
pal policy .f
In A. D. 1497, the French monarch consulted the famous
Faculty of Theology in Paris as to the duty of the Pope to
* Fleury, Cont., Tom. 24, p. 226-7. f Ib. 285.
194 Letter X.
hold a General Council every ten years, and whether, if the
pontiff, being required so to do, neglects or postpones it, any
considerable portion of the Church, as the Kingdom of
France, or the king who represents it, can summon such
Council, without the presence of those who refuse, and thus
provide for the necessities of the Church. To these ques-
tions the Faculty replied in the affirmative, especially, as
they said, " in times like the present, where there are so
many notorious disorders in the head and the members of
the Church."* The king, however, did not live long enough
to avail himself of the counsel of the Faculty.
The Pope, in A. D. 1498, dispensed his son, Cesar Bor-
gia, (whom he had made a Cardinal,) from his ecclesiasti-
cal vows, in order that he might enter the secular state ;
and King Louis XII., the successor of Charles YIIL, gave
him the dukedom of Valentinois. Thus converted, by the
Papal sanction, from an ecclesiastic into a layman, he
solicited forthwith the influence of the French monarch, that
he might marry the Princess of Naples. In this ambitious
design, nevertheless, he failed, to his great mortification. f
In the year 1500, the Pope proclaimed the Jubilee,
during which, although the members in attendance were
not as great as he expected, on account of the wars which
troubled Italy, yet " license and disorder," saith your his-
torian, quoting Mariana, " reigned at Rome beyond any
other place in the world. Crime was on the throne, and
never perhaps had so monstrous a corruption of morals been
seen, especially among the clergy."^.
But here, as we have arrived at the memorable sixteenth
century, which- beheld the great work of the Reformation,
I shall close this letter.
* Fleiiry, Cont., Tom. 24, p. 332. f Ib. 350-1. t Ib. 399.
The End of Controversy-) Controverted. 195
LETTER XI.
MOST REVEREND SIR :
I COME now to the period when, in the good providence
of God, a real Reformation was effected, for which, so many
right-minded men in the Church had been laboring for cen-
turies, and all in vain. And I shall proceed to note a few
of the more remarkable doings of the Papacy, drawing upon
your own writers, as before, for ail my authority.
In A. D. 1502, the Canons of the Cathedral in Paris ad-
dressed the Faculty of Theology, to inquire whether they
were obliged in conscience to submit to the censures which
the Pope had fulminated in his bull against the clergy who
refused to pay him the tenth of their income. And the Fac-
ulty replied that the bull in question was of no force nor
validity whatever; that the Pope could not compel the
clergy to pay the tenth without their own consent ; and that
they were not obliged to suspend the divine offices, nor to sub-
mit in any way to the censures tohich the Pope had decreed
against them*
Here we have another proof of the liberty with which
national Churches, Universities, and Faculties of Theology,
belonging to the Roman obedience, judged the Pope, even
when he was acting ex cathedra, condemned his acts as in-
consistent with their rights, and treated them as an illegal
usurpation.
* Floury, Cont., Tom. 24, p. 454-5.
8
196 Letter XL
The year 1503 put an end to the iniquitous career of
Alexander VI. " The Duke of Valentinois being in want
of money for his troops, and the treasury of his father, the
Pope, being empty, the duke, to whom the greatest crimes
were as nothing, proposed to the pontiff that they should
poison some of the wealthy Cardinals, the law of the Church
at that time being such, that the Popes were the heirs of
the Cardinals. The Pope consented. A magnificent feast
was prepared, and the doomed men were invited. Alex-
ander had sent one of his trustiest domestics before, with
some bottles of poisoned wine, strictly enjoining him not to
give it to any one without the Pope's orders. But the
officer, supposing that he was forbidden to serve this wine,
only because it was the best, gave some of it to Alexander
himself, as he called for drink before the supper. The
duke also partook of it, for the weather was extremely sul-
try, and they were both thirsty after their walk to the hall
appointed for the entertainment. The Pope soon after felt
the effects in a violent colic, ending in convulsions, which
killed him in a few hours. The duke, however, who had
mixed it with water, and who, besides, was younger, and of
firmer constitution, escaped with a severe sickness, which
lasted ten months, in the course of which his hair and his
nails fell off, and the skin peeled from every part of his
body."* Such is the account which the greater portion of
the Romish writers give of the death of this monster. A
few others, saith your historian, give a different one, but no
credit is attached to it, for the most part, among themselves,
and therefore the world at large cannot be expected to receive
it, especially as the whole life of Alexander furnished
* Fleury, Cont., Tom. 24, p. 473-5
Julius II.
197
abundant proof that he was capable of any villany. And
yet the Church of Rome endured such a master for eleven
years together !
The Cardinals assembled to choose a successor. " The
candidates," saith our author, " counted more surely on
their intrigues and on the credit of their friends, than on
probity, virtue, or science, which they seemed to regard as
useless qualifications."* What a sink of corruption must
the Roman conclave have been, when such an avowal is
wrung from their own historians !
At length, after thirty-five days spent in electioneering,
they elected the Cardinal of Sienna, who was an old man,
and sick at the time. Some voted for him because he was
an enemy of France, and some because they thought it
likely that he would die in a month, and leave the stage
more clear for themselves. He took the name of Pius
III., and notwithstanding his age and his weakness, he
commenced his reign by ordering all the French to quit the
Papal territory. Nevertheless, he enjoyed his dignity only
twenty-six days, and died, under strong suspicions of poi-
son, f
Julius II. succeeded, who, being very fond of war, took
this name, as they said, in memory of Julius Caesar. In fact,
he had been general, when Cardinal, under Pope Sixtus
IV., and was well known to be a man of a fiery, restless,
and domineering temper.^
It was to this Pope that Henry VII. applied for a dis-
pensation, to enable his son to marry Katherine of Arragon,
the widow of his deceased brother, Arthur. And here it is
worthy of remark, that in the Consistory of Cardinals, held
Floury, Cont., Tom. 24, p. 484.
fib.
Ib. 493.
198 Letter XL
upon this application, there were many who took precisely
the same ground which was afterwards assumed by Henry
VIII., namely, that the prohibition to marry the widow of a
deceased brother was one of the divine laws, with which
the Pope coiild not dispense. And this was agreed to by
all ; but a distinction was taken by the majority, which con-
fined the prohibition to the case of a widow who had borne
children to the first brother. Besides which, they con-
tended that it was a law established only for the Jews,
which did not bind after the commencement of the Gospel
dispensation. It was true, indeed, that the Church had re-
enacted it ; but then it was to be considered only as an ec-
clesiastical law, and the Pope had authority therefore to
dispense with it, and should do so, as they held, for the
reasons advanced by the King of England, one of which
was mainly insisted on, viz., that the first marriage had not
been consummated, by reason of the sickness of Prince
Arthur.*
But now we come to another statement which concerns
the truth of history. Your historian goes on to say :
" Nevertheless, the prelates of England were divided about
the validity of this dispensation. Warham, Archbishop of
Canterbury, maintained that the first marriage had been
consummated ; that Prince Arthur had made this known
sufficiently by the discourse which he held with his officers
the day after the nuptials ; and that the ambassador of his
Spanish majesty, by order of his master, had taken cer-
tificates of the consummation, and had sent them to Spain.
Fox, the Bishop of Winchester, without entering into the
question of consummation, held that the dispensation of the
* Fleury, Cont., Tom. 24, p. 501-7.
The Building of St. Peters. 199
Pope satisfied all objections, took away all difficulties, and
closed the mouth of any one who should wish to oppose
this alliance ; acknowledging that without this, it might be
disputed, and cause troubles about the succession." The
pontiff Julius, however, paid no regard to this division of
sentiment, and gave the bull of dispensation.* Thus we
see, on the highest Roman authority, the doubts entertained
both in Rome and in England about the Pope's power to
grant this dispensation. And I have recorded many ex-
amples to prove, that when the Popes exceeded their
proper bounds, the best Canonists of the Church of Rome
held their acts to be without validity.
The year 1506 beheld the commencement of St. Peter's
Church of the Vatican at Rome, and the Pope published
indulgences for all those who should contribute to the edi-
fice. f Little did he think that the same system of indul-
gences, for the same magnificent building, should become
the exciting cause of an opposition, in comparison with
which all the previous troubles of the Papacy were as
nothing.
It would be tedious to notice all the instances of despot-
ism and bad faith which are recorded of this pontiff. But,
as a specimen, I will select the following : Being desirous
to have a pretext for a total rupture with the King of France,
Louis XII., he demanded of that monarch some towns to
which he had pretensions. Louis refused to give them up,
and immediately on this refusal, Julius excommunicated the
king, put his kingdom under an interdict, and gave it to the
first who could take it. He fulminated the same sentence
against all those princes who should take the part of Louis,
* Fleury, Cont., Tom. 24, p. 507-8. t Ib. 563.
200 Letter XL
and also gave away their lands and territories to any one
who could get possession. And not content with using
those spiritual arms of which he ' had reason to fear the
weakness, the Pope, in person, took the field against the
Duke of Ferrara, in order to give trouble to the French
king.*
Louis XII., according to the usual custom of Europe, at-
tached no importance to the excommunication of the Pope,
which, saith your historian, " was notoriously void, because
the Pope had passed the limits of his authority."! But in
all such cases, who was to judge ? The Pope, on your
principles, was the supreme authority, the judge in the last
resort. Who gave the king a right to decide whether the
vicar of Christ was in error ? Nevertheless, such right
was always assumed in case of extremity, and hence it is
perfectly manifest, that however the States of Europe might
allow the boastful assumptions of the Papacy, when they
had no interest at stake, yet, in point of fact, your doctrine
was never adopted by that conscientious and universal con-
sent, which belongs to the very definition of Catholicity.
The king, however, " in order to oppose spiritual arms
to spiritual power," saith your historian, " convoked a gen-
eral assembly of his clergy, to whom he submitted the fol-
lowing questions :"
1. " Whether a Pope could in conscience declare war,
raise troops, and put them in action, when the cause con-
cerned neither religion nor the domains of the Church ?
The answer of the Council was, that he could not, and
ought not."
2. " Whether the prince thus assailed was permitted, in
* Fleury, Cont., Tom. 25, p. 89 t Ib. 91.
Wars and Excommunications . 201
defence of his person and his rights, not only to repel the
attack, but to take possession of the Papal territories, and
hold them so long as the war continued 1 The answer was
in the affirmative."
3. " Whether it was lawful for such a prince to withdraw
his obedience from the Pope ? The answer was, that he
had the right to do so, but only so far as was necessary for
the defence of his dominions."
4. " How, in case of such withdrawal of obedience,
should the prince and his prelates act in those matters
where recourse was usually had to the pontiff's authority ?
The answer was, that they must recur to the ancient law,
and the Pragmatic Sanction, taken from the decrees of the
Council of Basle."
" The Council further determined, that it was lawful to
apply the same principles in the case of the allies of the
king, and that the excommunications of the Pope, pro-
nounced under such unjust circumstances, were null and
void, and bound no one."*
Julius replied to all this by excommunicating the Coun-
cil, the French army, the general, and all the officers. But
finding that several of his Cardinals were against him, and
being in danger of losing his liberty, he entered into an ac-
commodation with the commander of the French forces, by
which it was proposed that he should remove all his ex-
communications, and make a truce of six months with the
Duke of Ferrara, &c. While the matter was under de-
liberation, however, some unexpected succors arrived from.
Spain and Venice, and the Pope "broke off the treaty, and
talked of nothing but battles and sieges. "f A precious
representative of Him who was the Prince of peace !
* Fleury, Cont., Tom. 25, p. 92. t Ib. 96-101.
202 Letter XL
In A. D. 1510, an attempt was made to establish the
Inquisition at Naples. But the people rose in open re-
volt, and the viceroy was obliged -to abolish the institu-
tion.*
The warlike Pope next indulged his militant spirit by
commanding in person at the siege of Mirandola. " He
rode through the camp on horseback ; night and day he
was on the batteries, directing where to place the cannons,
exciting the soldiers by menaces and caresses, and appear-
ing to forget his proper office in the work of blood. "f
The General Council of Pisa was assembled against Ju-
lius A. D. 1511. It was convoked by nine Cardinals, after
the Pope had been applied to in vain, notwithstanding he
had sworn, before his election, that if he should be
chosen Pope, he would call a General Council within two
years.i
The pontiff concluded that the best mode of meeting this
difficulty was to convene another Council at Rome, for
which he issued a bull without delay, nullifying the convo-
cation of the Council at Pisa, and forbidding all persons to
favor it, under pain of excommunication.
The Cardinals, nevertheless, persevered, and the second
Council General of Pisa assembled. Their number was
not large, but the preacher on the occasion declared that
this fact should not discourage them, because their Council
represented the Church, and was like the little stone which,
afterwards, in the -words of Scripture, became a great
mountain, and filled the whole earth. In the decree of the
first session, the Council set forth the objects for which it-
was convened ; viz., to reform the Church in its head and in
* Fleury, Cont., Tom. 25, p. 109. fib. 110.
t Ib. 129-130. $ Ib. 131-4.
Council of Lateran. 203
its members, to declare ivar against heretics, and to extinguish
schisms, heresies, and errors.'*
The Pope lost no time in publicly excommunicating the
members of the Council, and declaring them deprived of all
their offices and dignities. The majority of his Cardinals,
however, opposed him, maintaining that there was nothing
wrong in the convocation of such a Council. But Julius
was only the more irritated, and regarded them all 'as his
enemies. He fell dangerously sick in consequence of his
angry excitement, and recovered with difficulty.!
The Council was transferred from Pisa to Milan, where
its labors were resumed, with a large attendance, in 1512.
In their eighth, session, they proceeded to suspend the
Pope. But soon after this, the prelates left Milan, and no
efforts could bring them back again. t The kingdom of
France accepted the decree of the Pope's suspension, and
Julius published a bull, nullifying all that the Council had
done, and putting France under an interdict. Your his-
torian justly accounts for the failure of the Council, from
the fact that the Emperor of Germany and the English king,
Henry VIII., refused to unite in its proceedings. The
strength of the secular power has always been the only
support of the Papacy.
The Pope convened the General Council of Lateran, for
the reformation of morals, and the re-establishment of dis-
cipline, and it was assembled accordingly on the 3d of
May, A. D. 1512. The opening discourse was preached
by the General of the. Order of St. Augustin, in which he
said that " matters were reduced to the last extremity ; that
furious storms were ready to burst over their heads. Could
* Fleury, Gout., Tom. 25, p. 143. t Ib. 148-9. t Ib. 213.
204 Letter XL
any one behold, without groans and tears of blood, the con-
tinual disorders, the pollution of that perverse age, the mon-
strous corruption of morals, the ignorance, the ambition, the
shamelessness, the licentiousness, the impiety, which tri-
umph in the holy place, from which those disgraceful vices
should be eternally banished?" Then, after lauding the
Pope for the success of his labors for the temporalities of
his See, the preacher honestly and boldly adds : " But
Christian Europe expects from your prudence, your courage*
and your zeal, somewhat more great, and more worthy of
your holiness. Let us lay down those arms, which we
have not, as it seems, taken, except to steep them in the
blood of the faithful. Let us take up other weapons, more
conformable to our sacred character, and in better harmony
with the holy warfare in which we are engaged. Let us
declare an eternal and implacable war against that crowd
of enormous vices which have overwhelmed the face of the
Church, and which dishonor religion."*
Truly, a frank and full confession, going quite as far, on
the point of moral corruption, as any good Protestant could
desire, and proving how universal must have been the
opinion of all well-disposed men as to the horrible condition
of the- Church ; since it is impossible to suppose that the
eminent ecclesiastic appointed to preach the sermon at the
opening of such a Council, in the city of Rome itself, and
in the presence of the Pope and the Cardinals, would have
dared to utter such language, if the knowledge of all who
heard him were not compelled to bear witness that he spake
the melancholy truth. But the wars of Europe continued to
rage, and the Pope continued to take an active part in them,
* Fleury, Cont., Tom. 25, p. 229-232.
Popular Preaching. 205
until at length, in February of A. D. 1513, when the Coun-
cil had only arrived at its fifth session, the pontiff died, re-
gretted by no one.*
The Cardinal Julian de Medecis was elected his suc-
cessor, and took the name of Leo X. The character which
your historian gives him is that of a man who loved science
and the fine arts, like his father, the famous Lorenzo ; but
those good qualities were obscured by many evil ones.
True it was, that he was neither so passionate nor so
haughty as his predecessor, but he was much more subtle
and insincere. f
A bull of this Pope, approved and read at the eleventh
session of the Council of Lateran, in A. D. 1516, gives a
graphic description of the ordinary style of preaching at
that day. " Many there are," saith this bull, " who do not,
in their preaching, teach the way of the Lord, nor seek to
explain the Gospel, but rather invent things through osten-
tation, crying aloud, and accompanying what they say with
violent gestures. Others display in the pulpit feigned
miracles, apocryphal histories, which are altogether scan-
dalous, without any authority, and without any edification ;
while some abuse the prelates, and declaim boldly against
their persons and their conduct," &c.| It is no wonder
that the Church had become so corrupt, when the truth of
God was thus virtually set aside even in the public work of
His ministry.
The Council also received and adopted a bull of the
Pope, abolishing the Pragmatic Sanction, which had for so
long a time secured, to some extent, the liberties of the
Church in France. The Pope in this bull declares, that
* Fleury, Cont., Tom. 25, p. 277-8. t Ib. 282-3. J Ib. 438.
206 Letter XL
the Pragmatic Sanction might be justly " called the deprava-
tion of France ; that it worked peril to souls, and detriment
to the Holy See ; that it Avas notoriously null in many of
its articles, and that it maintained a manifest schism in the
Church."* And yet it was established, with the Pope's
consent, by St. Louis, the most religious and devout of all
the kings of France. It was approved by the Council of
Basle, and many pontiffs. So that here is another glaring
proof of Pope against Pope, and Council against Council,
showing, with a multitude of other instances, the preposter-
ous absurdity of your claim of unity in the Church of
Rome. Francis I., however, who, since A. D. 1514, had
occupied the French throne, consented to the policy of Leo
X., and accepted a Concordat instead of the Pragmatic
Sanction. And thus, as your historian remarks, " the kings
of France lent their hands to a blow, of which they after-
wards felt all the force. "f
The Council of Lateran was concluded, after having sat
for five years, in A. D. 1517, having done nothing which
really advanced the object of Reformation. Some authors
assert, saith your historian, that a discourse of the famous
Pico de Mirandnla, printed . at the end of his works, was
read at the last session of the Council, in which, speaking
of the corrupt morals of his time, he employs the following
language :
" It has often been proposed." saith this author, " to
make new laws, but let them rather maintain and enforce
the old Canons against licentiousness, cupidity, and avarice.
At this day we see.no more piety or justice. The princes
have changed the simplicity of our fathers into tricks and
<*
* Fleury, Cont. Tom. 25, p. 437-441. f Ib'. 442.
The Concordat rejected. 207
artifice, chastity into libertinism, liberality into tyranny or
avarice. The greater part of the prelates, who ought to be
the delight of the world, and illuminate the people by their
doctrine, by edifying them with their piety, have scarcely
any longer either religion, or shame, or modesty ; justice
is changed into robbery ; devotion has almost degenerated
into superstition ; they make a virtue of vice ; the care of
the churches is committed to workmen without principle,
the fold of the Good Shepherd to ravenous wolves. In fine,
they make a shameful traffic of holy things." The author
exhorts the Pope to apply the remedy, and reminds him of
the fate of the High Priest Eli, who was severely punished
because he did not repress the disorders of his children.*
It appears that in the same year a conspiracy was dis-
covered amongst the Cardinals against the Pope, whom
they had resolved to poison. Four were degraded, one
was strangled in prison, and another condemned to per-
petual confinement. The Pope, finding that the majority
of the Cardinals showed him but little affection, created
thirty-one new ones, amongst whom was Alphonso, son of
the King of Portugal. This last-mentioned Cardinal was
only eight years old at the time ; but the Pope made it
a condition that he should not be regarded as Cardinal
until he attained the age of fourteen !f
The Concordat which Francis I. had so foolishly entered
into with the Pope, was rejected by the Parliament of
Paris, who resolved that the Pragmatic Sanction should
continue. The University of Paris also opposed the Con-
cordat very zealously ; appealed from the bull of the Pope
to a future Council ; declared that the corruption of the
%
* Flemy, Cont., Tom. 25, p. 470-1. f Ib. 475.
208 Letter XL
Church, instead of being reformed, was increasing more
and more ; inveighed against the Pope for censuring the
Council of Basle ; and denied that the Council of Lateran
was convened by the Holy Spirit, because the Holy Spirit
does not abolish the authority of the sacred Canons, nor
the pious regulations of the Catholic faith. Many preach-
ers declaimed in the same way, so that the king published
an edict, nullifying the act of the University, and insisted
upon the enregistering of the Concordat, to which, never-
theless, the Parliament paid no attention.* Here we have
another edifying example of your Church unity !
The King of Castile, gained by the presents of the Jews
and the Moors, undertook, about this time, to reform the
Inquisition, by making its proceedings conformable to those
of other Courts, instead of hiding them in the darkness of im-
penetrable secresy. But Cardinal Ximenes, being informed
of the proposed change, wrote a letter, saying, that " if they
reformed the Inquisition, they would be exposed to be
poniarded continually by the accused, and would infallibly
behold a general insurrection throughout the whole king-
dom." This put an immediate end to the enterprise, and
that nefarious institution continued to go on as it had done.f
The Cardinal died soon after, of poison, supposed to have
been administered by his secretary, Banacaldo.
But the most important event of the year 1517 was the
issue of indulgences by Leo X., in order to replenish his
coffers, which were exhausted by his magnificent prodi-
gality, and especially by his undertaking to finish the
sumptuous edifice of St. Peter's, which Julius II. had be-
gun And with this view, he granted those indulgences,
* Fleury, Cont., Tom. 25, p. 481-5. t Ib. 487.
Calumnies against Luther. 209
" on conditions so easy," saith your historian, " that men
could hardly care at all for their salvation if they refused
to gain them."* On this occasion, the first step was taken,
which led, from a very small beginning, through the provi-
dence of God, to an effectual Reformation. For Tetzel, a
Dominican, being appointed to sustain the credit of the
Pope's indulgences in Saxony, the Vicar-General of the
Augustinian Order opposed him by his influence with the
Elector, and the famous Luther commenced his work with
the energy and spirit which marked him out as a peculiar
instrument in the service of the Most High.
Your historian here gives an interesting sketch of the
shocking falsehoods which the writers of Rome were not
ashamed to circulate concerning this bold reformer, but
which he, as an honest man, disdained to endorse. " I shall
not stop," saith he, " to enlarge upon the calumnies which
some Catholic authors, too ultra, have charged against him,
and in which they have paid little regard to probability.
As, for example, that he was. born of a commerce between
his mother and an incubus ; that having fought for ten years
against his conscience, he had reached the point of having
no conscience at all, and fell into total atheism ; that he
avowed frequently his willingness to renounce paradise,
provided God would give him a hundred years of pleasure
in the present life ; that he denied the immortality of the
soul ; that he composed hymns in honor of drunkenness, a
vice to which he was greatly addicted ; that he uttered a
thousand blasphemies against the holy Scriptures, and ex-
pressly against Moses ; and that he had often declared that
he believed nothing of his own preaching. These reproaches
* Fleury, Cont., Tom. 25, p. 497-8.
210 Letter XL
are taken from a book called Colloquia Mensalia, published
by Henry Peter Rebenstock, Minister of Eischerheim. But
we do not pretend to adopt them. 'All that can be said
against Luther," continues your candid historian, " is, that
he rose up against the Church ; that he has endeavored to
destroy the faith ; that he became a declared heresiarch ;
and that he has caused infinite and innumerable evils to re-
ligion by the pernicious errors which he so obstinately
maintained."*
This avowal from a Romish author is comparatively can-
did and fair, and forms an admirable contrast with the false
and reckless spirit of that Jesuitical policy, to which any
weapon is welcome, if it can only destroy an adversary.
Pope Leo X. died in A. D. 1521, and, as Ave find too
often, it was suspected that he was taken off by poison.
Your historian states, that up to the time of his election, he
had been perfectly continent, but after he became Pope, he
fell into many disorders. He favored men of letters, chiefly
the poets, in which he did not always observe the gravity
which his station demanded. ' For he made more account
of those who were familiar with fables, the classic writers,
and profane learning, than of those who understood theology
and the history of the Church. He also loved extravagance
and luxury .f
The conclave of Cardinals, as a matter of course, was
involved in intrigues and cabals, which your historian sets
forth with his usual fidelity. They concluded at last, how-
ever, to elect Adrian, Cardinal of Tortosa, who refused to
adopt a new title, and chose to be called Adrian VI. This
man was an honest Hollander, without any ambition for the
* Fleury, Cont., Tom. 25, p. 501-2.
t Fleury, Cont., Tom. 26, p. 74.
A hundred Grievances. 211
dangerous responsibilities of such an office. He was quite
unpopular at Rome, and was treated by the Cardinals them-
.selves with very little courtesy.'' Nevertheless, he set
about the work -of reforming his Court very earnestly, and
deserved better success than the prevailing corruption,
would allow.
In the instructions which he gave to his Nuncio in Ger-
many, this Pope made the following statement of the condi-
tion of the Church : " The confusion created by the prog-
ress of Luther," he said, " was the effect of the sins of
men, and especially of the ecclesiastics, from which the
Court of Rome was not exempt. That for many years,
much abuse was introduced into the administration of spirit-
ual things, and much excess in the execution of the pre-
cepts. That the contagion had passed from the head to
the members, from the Popes to the prelates, and that, for
himself, he was resolved to give himself wholly to the refor-
mation of the Court of Rome. These abuses, however,
could not be corrected immediately, because the evil had
taken root, and was strongly fortified, so that it was neces-
sary to proceed by degrees, and all would be spoiled if the
whole were assailed together."!
In A. D. 1523, the Diet of the Empire at Nuremberg
sent to the Pope a list of a hundred grievances which they
suffered under the Papacy, and which they required to be
reformed. A document proceeding from such authority de-
serves t be set forth at length, but your historian reports
them partially .J
Adrian VI. only occupied the Papal throne for one year
and eight months, dying in A. D. 1523, and, as was gen-
erally suspected, from the effects of poison. Certain it is
* Fleury, Cont., Tom. 26, p. 92-3. t Ib. 142-3. Ib. 155.
212 Letter XL
that the Romans were rejoiced at his death. " They had
never loved him," saith your historian, " partly because he
was a foreigner, partly because he was opposed to the
grandeur and magnificence which his predecessors had en-
couraged. But above all, they loved him not, because he
was zealous for the reformation of the clergy." He had re-
trenched many abuses in the offices of the court, in the col-
lation, and reservation of benefices, in superfluous expenses,
and in the dispensation of indulgences. And what was his
reward 1 " During his lifetime, they had often publicly
testified their desire for his death, and there were actual
conspiracies to effect it. One man laid wait to kill him,
and being discovered, committed suicide, to avoid a greater
punishment. On another occasion, the Pope had a narrow
escape from the falling of a wall in the pontifical chapel,
where he was going to celebrate Mass. Some of the Swiss
guard who accompanied him were crushed to death, and
the Bishops of his suite showed plainly that they would not
have been sorry if the pontiff himself had been the victim.
The people were even so impious as to utter imprecations
against Providence for having saved his life. In a word,
they hated him, because he kept no public table, ate in pri-
vate like a monk, and observed great frugality in his per-
sonal expenses. This conduct, so different from the vanity
of his predecessors, and so much in conformity with the
holy Popes of the first ages, gave rise to the remark that
he was an honest man and a good Christian, but a poor pon-
tiff. His remains were buried in the Church of St. Peter,
under a simple tomb, with this epitaph : Here rests Adrian
VI., who esteemed nothing so unhappy for himself in all his
life as to govern."* Alas ! what a commentary on the
* Fleury, Cont., Tom. 26, p. 205-7. "
Sack of Rome by Romanists. 213
deep-seated wickedness of Rome is furnished in such a
history!
After six weeks spent in caballing, the Conclave finally
elected the Cardinal of Medicis, who took the title of
Clement VII. His first choice was to retain his own name
of Julius, but some one observing to him that the Popes
who did not change their names always died soon, he had
the weakness to believe it, and gave up his intention.*
The year 1527 was signalized by the pillage of Rome,
under the Duke of Bourbon, the Pope seeking for refuge in
the Castle of St. Angelo. And here, although a part of the
invaders were Spaniards, and therefore Romanists, your
historian acknowledges that they were as violent and cruel
as the rest. Not only were the houses of the citizens pil-
laged, but the women and maidens were violated, the
churches sacked, and sacred things profaned without scru-
ple. " It would be impossible," saith the author, " to de-
scribe the excesses which they committed. They sur-
passed infinitely all that Rome had heretofore experienced
in the eight different assaults in which it had been taken.
* * * The Spaniards and Italians, who were more cruel
and avaricious than the Lutheran Germans, glutted them-
selves upon the rich persons of quality, prelates, Bishops,
abbots, magistrates, bankers, merchants, who were tor-
mented in a thousand frightful ways ; hung up by the feet,
burned, and torn by great blows of scourges, in order to
force them to pay enormous ransoms, which they were un-
able to raise ; so that many killed themselves, that they
might at once escape from their sufferings ; while others,
breaking from the hands of those madmen, cast themselves
* Fleury, Cont., Tom. 26, p. 811.
214 Letter XL
out of the windows into the streets, where their bodies re-
mained without burial."*
And this work of bloody devilishness lasted two months
in the city, and then extended itself into the neighboring
country a fact without example !f Now, the Duke of
Bourbon and his officers were professed Romanists. The
Spaniards and Italians in his army were the same. And
this was their conduct for two months together in the city
of Rome, the very central spot of their religion, and towards
those persons whom they were bound to respect as the
dignitaries of their Church, and their brethren in the faith !
The duke himself, however, was slain in the assault, and
was not involved in the guilt of the subsequent barbarities ;
but the officers and soldiers were none the less account-
able. We have here, therefore, another horrible detail,
which sheds the same awful light upon the character of
Christendom in that day, sufficient, of itself, to make us
grateful for that Reformation which has diffused so differ-
ent a spirit. For I may safely assert, that a similar ex-
hibition would now be simply impossible in any Protestant
army throughout the world.
The Pope, after making a treaty with the imperialists,
which obliged him to pay more money than he was able to
raise, escaped from his confinement in the disguise of a
merchant, and then made known his intention not to observe
his promises, because he could not, even if he would.|
It was about the beginning of the same year, ] 527, that .
Henrv VIII. began to entertain the design of a divorce from
j o ti
his queen, Katherine of Arragon. And it may be well to
commence, with this, another letter.
* Fleuiy, Cont., Tom. 26, p. 455-7. t Ib. t Ib. 474-5.
The End of Controversy, Controverted. 215
LE TT E R XII.
MOST REVEREND SIR :
As I have already treated fully the historical facts of the
rise of the English Reformation, I shall not repeat them
here, save only to notice the admissions of your own histo-
rian. He states that Henry VIII. placed his application
for a divorce on the ground of conscience, which had
troubled him since the year 1524, with regard to the law-
fulness of the marriage ; that the French Bishop of Tarbe
increased his doubts ; that Longland, his confessor, strength-
ened, and that Cardinal Wolsey confirmed them. The au-
thor proceeds to declare that the king had no heir male of
his crown, and could not hope to have any by the queen.
And then he concludes by the usual allegation of your party,
that the king was in reality governed by lust, and had be-
come desperately enamored of Anne Sullen.* The rest
of his statements are in accordance with what I have al-
ready noticed.
He also pursues the usual track of your writers with re-
spect to the judgments of the Universities, taking pains to
show that they were induced to decide against the mar-
riage of the king, through force and management, at Oxford
and Cambridge, and through bribery in the other kingdoms
of Europe. He ought to have remembered what he had
* Fleury, Cont, Tom. 26.
216 Letter XII.
himself recorded of the opposition to the dispensation by
the Pope's Cardinals at the time, and the division of senti-
ment on the same point among the prelates of England, in
which the Archbishop of Canterbury was amongst the dis-
senting party. He ought to have remembered likewise,
that while it was true that Henry VIII. scattered money in
the course of the proceeding, it was also true, and had been
true for centuries, as his own history abundantly testifies,
that in the Church of Rome nothing was done, or could be
done, without money. And yet, he is obliged to admit the
fact, at last, that the Universities did decide to the ex-
tent claimed by Bishop Burnet, and that if the influence of
money had weight upon the one side, the influence of the
Pope and the emperor, and the regard which all public pro- .
fessors of theology were obliged to have for their own con-
sistency and character, must have been at least as strong
upon the other ; even granting, as I willingly do, that the
Romanists of that day were as little troubled by strict con-
science as he himself considered them.
He gives, at length, the decision of the Faculty of
Theology at Paris, the conclusion of which is in these
words : " We affirm and determine, that the marriage with
the widows of brothers deceased without children, is for-
bidden by the divine and natural law, so that the sovereign
pontiff cannot dispense in favor of contracting such a mar-
riage." The doctors of the Faculty of Rights decided in
the same way ; that of Angers pronounced a similar judg-
ment, and so of the others.* But he states that there was
dissension or trouble with them all. Doubtless there was ;
because the question was one of grave importance which
* Fleury, Cont., Tom. 27, p. 217-18.
Price of Roman Consciences. 217
agitated the Church through all Europe, and great names
might be found on either side. If, however, the existence
of trouble and dissension in large bodies of divines is to
nullify their final decisions, he would find it hard to secure
validity to the judgments of your Church for centuries to-
gether.
In proof of his accusation of bribery, your historian gives
an amusing detail from one of the accounts laid before the
king by Dr. Crook, his agent in Italy : " To a Monk Ser-
vite, when he signed the decision in favor of the king, one
crown. To the Doctors of the Servites, two crowns. To
the monks of the Order of the Observants, two crowns. To
the Prior of St. John and St. Paul, who had written in
favor of the divorce, fifteen crowns. To the convent there,
two crowns. Paid to John Maria for travelling to Milan
and Venice, including what he had given to the doctors of
that country, thirty crowns. To John Marino, Preacher of
the Cordeliers, who had written for the divorce, twenty
crowns."* If such paltry sums were really sufficient to
bribe these men, we can only admire the meanness of the
depravity which our historian attributes to his brethren of
Rome, who were willing not only to sell their conscience,
but to take such a trifling amount for their bargain.
Pope Clement VII. died A. D. 1534, and was succeeded
by Paul III., who took immediate measures for the meet-
ing of a General Council, as the only means of checking
the progress of Lutheranism in Germany. He occasioned
much discontent amongst his Cardinals, however, by add-
ing to their number two of his own nephews, one of whom
was only fourteen, and the other sixteen, years of age.f
The following year, he fulminated a bull of excommunica-
* Fleury, Cont., Tom. 27, p. 218. f Ib. 419.
218 Letter XII.
tion against Henry VIII., in which he absolved all the
monarch's subjects from their allegiance, enjoined the ec-
clesiastics to withdraw from the country, ordered the no-
bility to take arms against the king, placed the kingdom
under interdict, and forbade all Christians to hold any in-
tercourse with the English. This bull, however, was not
published until two years afterwards.*
In A. D. 1536, Pope Paul III. " put forth a bull to reform
the city and Court of Rome, which he declared to be the
capital of all Christendom, the source of doctrine, of morals,
and of discipline, in order that, having purified his own
house, he might more easily purify all the others. But as
so great an enterprise surpassed the powers of a single
man, the Pope took for adjuncts four Cardinals and several
Bishops, and ordered that they should be in all respects
obeyed, under heavy penalties. This body proceeded, ac-
cordingly, to apply themselves to the reformation of the
Penitentiary, the Datary, and the morals of Rome ; ~but
without success "\ Another frank confession of the corrup-
tion which prevailed, and the impossibility that any efforts
could avail to counteract it, while the errors of the faith
throughout all Europe remained unchanged.
The Pope, nothing daunted, renewed his labors the fol-
lowing year, and appointed four other Cardinals, with five
Bishops, to draw up a memoir of the chief abuses which
should be reformed, and to lay it before him. They pro-
ceeded accordingly, and reduced the whole to the number
of twenty-eight. From this report I shall condense a few
of the items.
The first abuse was in the choice of prelates and priests.
* Fleury, Cont, Tom. 27, p. 524.
t Fleury, Cont., Tom. 28, p. 33.
Twenty -eight Abuses. . 219
They complained that men were admitted to those sacred
offices who had neither morals nor capacity, and who were
besides, sometimes too young. From this abuse an infini-
tude of scandals proceeded, the contempt of the whole ec-
clesiastical order, and the small respect entertained for the
worship of God, which was not only diminished, but almost
extinct.
The second abuse regarded the collation of benefices and
ecclesiastical dignities, principally those connected with
the cure of souls, as bishoprics and curacies. The depu-
ties complain that regard was only paid to the advantage of
the beneficiary, without regard to the flock of Jesus Christ.
The rulers of the Church, say they, ought to bestow these
benefices on persons of worth and learning, who can dis-
charge their duty properly ; and they ought not to provide
an Italian with a benefice in Spain and in France, nor
establish the Spanish or the French in Italy.
The third abuse was that of pensions, which ought only
to be given to the poor. The fourth, the permutation of
benefices, in which nothing was regarded but pecuniary
profit, and the management was such, that he who bears the
name of a Bishop has often neither right nor power in the
diocese, and he who is really the Bishop does not assume
the title. The fifth abuse, connected with the last, was
that of coadjutors, by means of which a man gives his bene-
fice to another, without being despoiled of it. This, say
the deputies, is an artifice to substitute an unlawful heir,
and serves as a cover for cupidity and injustice. The sixth
abuse was a violation of the old rule, that the children of
priests should not succeed to the benefices of their fathers
a rule which was now easily set aside, to the great scandal
of the faithful.
9
220 Letter XII.
The seventh, abuse consisted in the graces expectative,
and the reservations of benefices. These concessions tempt
men to desire the death of the incumbents, and prevent the
benefice, when vacant, from being given to the most worthy.
The eighth abuse was the giving incompatible benefices to
the same persons, of which it is impossible that one man
can perform the duties. The ninth was of a kindred na-
ture, when bishoprics are conferred on Cardinals, and even
several are sometimes bestowed on the same man, although
it is manifest that the functions of Cardinal and Bishop are
incompatible, since the Cardinals should reside with the
Pope, to aid him in the government of the Church, while
the Bishops should reside in their dioceses.
The tenth abuse was the non-residence of Bishops, the
dioceses being almost everywhere abandoned to mercena-
ries, and the Bishops absenting themselves often for years
together. The eleventh abuse applies the same remark to
Cardinals.
The twelfth abuse consisted in the impunity of the
wicked, who find means to withdraw themselves from the
jurisdiction of their Bishop, or have recourse to the peni-
tentiary, from whom they purchase for money an exemp-
tion from the punishment due to their crimes.
The thirteenth abuse regarded the religious orders. It
is with grief, say the commissaries, that we acknowledge
the existence of great disorders in those houses, and disor-
ders so public that they cause extreme scandal to the laity.
It is therefore our advice that the monasteries -which they call
conventual should be abolished, not all at once, nor by using
any violence, but by forbidding them -to receive any more
novices, to the end, that by letting the old ones die off,
more regular persons may be put into their places.
Twenty-eight Abuses. 221
The fourteenth abuse regarded the legates and the nun-
cios. The commissaries say that they ought to receive
nothing for expeditions, but perform their duty gratis.
The fifteenth abuse concerned the disorders committed in
many convents of nuns conducted by monks, and the depu-
ties say that this evil could only be remedied by removing
them from their government, and giving it to others who were
above suspicion, and with whom the females would run no
risk.
The sixteenth abuse consisted in the conduct of many
Universities, which suffered a great number of professors
of philosophy to propose questions full of impiety, to sustain
impious theses even in the churches, and to treat matters of
theology itself in a manner but little edifying before the
people.
The seventeenth abuse regarded the dispensations which
were granted to monks to lay aside their monastic habits,
and leave their monasteries. Instead of which, they should
be deprived of their benefices, and of all ecclesiastical
functions.
The eighteenth abuse turned upon the solicitors of St.
Anthony, and others of the same sort, who were suffered to
deceive simple people, and draw them into many superstitions.
The nineteenth consisted in the dispensations of mar-
riage granted to those who were in Holy Orders, which
should never be suffered, unless for great reasons of public
good.
The twentieth abuse concerned dispensations granted for
marriage between those who were nearly related by blood or
affinity. Those should never be granted in the second de-
gree, unless for urgent cause, and in the other degrees they
should be granted more readily, the whole without money.
222 Letter XII.
The twenty-first abuse was that of simony, and the Pope's
commissaries said that this sin, which derives its name
from Simon the Magician, had made such great progress,
and was then so common in the Church, that the greater part
felt no shame in committing it ; that they sinned boldly ; that
with money they thought their transgressions could be expiated;
and that they had no scruple in retaining benefices which
they had obtained by means that were very unjust, and very
criminal. What, say they, can be more shameful and more
pernicious than such a traffic ?
The twenty-second abuse was in the liberty taken by the
clergy to dispose of the goods of the Church by their last
will and testament, which should never be allowed, unless
for causes of great force, lest others enrich themselves to
the prejudice, of the poor, and lavish the property of the
Church in pleasure and in luxury.
The twenty-third abuse was the custom of having chap-
lains hired to celebrate the Mass in private houses, which
diminished the respect for the ceremonies of the Church, and
for the chief of the sacraments. They also expressed the
wish that indulgences should be more rare, and should be
only granted in each church once in every year.
The twenty-fourth abuse was in the commutation of re-
ligious vows for money, because those vows should never'
be made lightly, and never should be changed for any sup-
posed equivalent.
The twenty-fifth abuse consisted in the changing of the
last will and testament of those who have left pious lega-
cies, in favor of the heirs ; which should not be allowed ex-
cept under very peculiar circumstances.
From these abuses, which concerned the whole Church,
the commissaries passed on to others which regarded *'the
Corruption in Rome. 223
Church of Rome, which, being the mother and the mistress
of the other churches, was bound to take the greater care
that religion, morals, and piety, should flourish within her-
self. They say, therefore, in the first place, that strangers
coming to Rome were exceedingly scandalized, when, en-
tering the Church of St. Peter, they beheld there priests
dirty and slovenly, celebrating the Mass with ornaments
which they would not use in the poorest houses. In the
second place, they remark that strumpets and public women
appear in the city, walking in the streets, or riding on mules,
and accompanied by the gentlemen belonging to the Cardinals,
and often by the clergy. These women are supported in
the best style, say the deputies, and occupy magnificent
palaces ; in a word, mankind have never beheld a dissolute-
ness equal to that which reigns in Rome, although she ought
to be the example of the other cities.
In the third place, continue the commissaries, there are
in Rome enmities and divisions, many private men cherish-
ing hatred towards each other, whom the sovereign pontiff
should labor to reconcile, or appoint some of the Cardinals
to do so. And in the fourth place, there should be a remedy
for the negligence with which the hospitals are adminis-
tered, and provision should be made for the orphans and the
widows. The prelates conclude by saying to the Pope,
that they hope to see, from his time, that the Church will
be purified, and enjoy a solid peace. " You are named
Paul," say they, " and we trust that, after the example of
St. Paul, you will burn with zeal for the Church of God."*
Now here we have a document from the highest authority,
giving a most deplorable picture of the state of the Church,
* Fleury, Cont., Tom. 28, p. 149-159;
224 Letter XLL
and yet falling lamentably short of what was required for its
true reformation. Not a word is said about the abuses of
relics, image worship, purgatory, and the confessional. Not
a word about the Papal policy which kept Europe in con-
tinual wars. Not a word about the long-standing abuse of
using excommunication in the service of temporal interests.
Not a word about the necessity of providing a better educa-
tion for the masses. Not a word of opening to the people
the pure teaching of the Scriptures. These topics would
have savored of Lutheranism and heresy ; and therefore
the deputies confine themselves to those matters which gave
rise to scandal, and hope to attain their end by the washing
of the outside of the cup and platter, as if the inside were
in no need of cleansing ; forgetting, apparently, the maxim
of the Saviour, that the tree is known by its fruits ; that a
good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit ; and that it was im-
possible for the whole state of the clergy to have become
so corrupt, unless the faith itself, from which works must,
in the regular order, proceed, like fruit from the tree, had
been corrupted previously.
This report of the four Cardinals and five Bishops being
laid before the Pope, he proposed the reform recommended
in a full Consistory. But here it was warmly opposed by
the Cardinal of Capua and others, who insisted that disor-
ders which were already known were less likely to create
scandal than new experiments ; that men were now so wicked,
that in striving to Jiinder them, from one evil, they would take
pleasure in committing a greater, and that the attempt to make
any change would only furnish an occasion of triumph to the
Lutherans. Other Cardinals took the opposite side, and
the result was that the whole matter was left to the Coun-
cil, which was soon to assemble. The Pope contented
Partial Reform. 225
himself with profiting by the advice he had received, to im-
prove by insensible degrees a portion of the abuses, until
the whole should be accomplished at a more propitious sea-
son.*
As the next event, however, which I shall notice, is the
great Council of Trent, I shall here close this letter, in-
asmuch as that famous assembly formed an era in the his-
tory of your Church, and therefore merits a distinct place
in our discussion.
* Fleury, Cont., Tom. 28, p. 159-160.
226 The End of Controversy, Controverted.
LETTER XI I I.
MOST REVEREND SIR :
THE year 1545 beheld the opening of the Council of
Trent, called by your Church a General Council, although
in no respect entitled to the name. For, in the first place,
a General Council being a body representing the whole
Church, there could be none such since the separation of
the East from the West in the ninth century. In the
second place, a General Council must be free, giving equal
rights to all the members. But it is certain that the Coun-
cil of Trent was chained and riveted to the dictates of the
Pope, no proposition being allowed except what his legates,
who presided, were willing to sanction. Still, it was as
near an approximation to what its name imports as the Pa-
pal policy could allow ; and as three centuries have elapsed
without any attempt to hold another, the fact of its being
the last, and set forth as the standard of Romanism through-
out the world, invests it with paramount importance in theo-
logical controversy.
On the 13th of December, A. D. 1545, the day which
Paul III. had appointed, the three Papal Legates, accom-
panied by four Archbishops and twenty-two Bishops, as-
sembled in the Church of the Trinity, where they put on
their pontifical habits, and then went in procession to the
Cathedral of St. Virgilius. The Bishop of Bitonto, by ap-
pointment, preached the opening sermon. The president
announced the objects of the Council to be for the increase
The Pope's Instructions 227
and exaltation of the Christian religion, for the extirpation
of heresies, the peace and union of the Church, the reforma-
tion of the clergy and the Christian people, and for the hu-
miliation and extinction of the enemies of religion*
The legates then read a long exhortation, in which we
have this candid confession : " Let us consider the three
evils which at this day afflict the Church, let us examine
their origin, and we shall be obliged to acknowledge that
we are ourselves the cause. If we have not introduced heresy,
have we not contributed to it, at least, by neglecting our
duty to sow good doctrine, and to pull out the tares ? As
to the corruption of morals, there is no need to speak of it,
because no one can be ignorant that the clergy and the pas-
tors were corrupters and corrupted ; in punishment of which,
God has sent the third plague, viz., war without, against
the Turks, and war within, among the Christian princes.
Let each one, therefore, confess his sins, and labor to ap-
pease the anger of God ; since, without this, in vain will
they invoke the Holy Ghost, in vain will they commence
the Council.''!
There was an abundance of disputation in the Council
about the order in which they should proceed, the legates
recommending the settlement of the doctrines of faith, and
many others warmly contending that it was first necessary
to consider the Reformation. At length, however, it was de-
termined to go on with both these subjects together. But
when the Pope was told of this, he informed the legates
that " he was very angry that they had consented to the
examination of the proposed reform ; that they ought to ex-
ecute the first orders which he had given them ; and that
they must absolutely not permit the Council to treat of
* Fleury, Cont., Tom. 29, p. 2-5. t Ib. 6-7.
9*
228 Letter XIII.
other matters than those which concerned the faith, in spite
of the resolution which they had already adopted."*
In answer to this, the legates returned an humble -remon-
strance, showing the necessity which had constrained them,
and the Pope acquiesced, only charging them to delay the
decree as long as possible, and to await his orders as to the
manner in which it should be prepared. f
The next movement of the legates was to divide the pre-
lates into three classes, who should meet in the rooms of
the three legates severally, before they carried their de-
liberations into the general congregation. The reason
which secretly led them to this, saith your historian, was
to secure more completely the management of the fathers, to
arrest all conspiracies and cabals, and to prevent the more
turbulent prelates from exercising a troublesome influence by
their oratory upon the whole Council.^ It was, doubtless, a
masterly piece of policy, and produced the effect intended,
since there never was a Council of the Church which was
more perfectly governed by the will of one master.
The death of Luther occurred in the following year.
But my object in the present work is not to trace the prog-
ress of the real Reformation, the history of which I presume
to be familiar to the reader. A.nd therefore I confine my-
self to those facts which concern the Church of Rome, with
a view to the statements of Dr. Milner. Nor will my limits
allow of my giving a full account of the acts of the Council
of Trent, and still less of the contests which took place
among different doctors. But I shall content myself with
showing the manner in which it was conducted in reference
to the unity and sanctity so boldly claimed for your Church
by our accuser.
* Fleury, Cont., Tom. 29, p. 54. t Ib. 55-6. t Ib. 57-8.
Policy of the Legates. 229
At the session held in 1547, the Spanish Bishops pre-
sented a memorial to the legates, setting forth their views
on the subjects then under discussion. The legates were
quite surprised, saith your historian, not so much because
the contents of the memorial threatened the authority of the
Pope, as because this new mode .of the Bishops banding to-
gether, and presenting their views in writing, might have
troublesome consequences. They took time, therefore, for
their answer, under the pretext that the matter was import-
ant, and wrote immediately to the Pope, to whom they sent
a copy of the memorial, representing to him that the Bish-
ops took more liberties from day to day ; that they spake to
the Cardinals without any respect, and without disguising
the public expression of their opinion that they ought to be
reformed ; that they even spared not himself, and said
openly that he gave them nothing but words ; and that he
only held the Council in order to amuse the public with a vain
hope of reformation. The legates added, that in future it
would be difficult to restrain them, because they often assem-
bled among themselves, and formed cabals. They therefore
besought the Pope to suggest to them what they should do.
As for themselves, they were resolved to stand firm, and
not to suffer the Bishops to imagine that they could obtain by
force anything more than they were willing to grant them,
since otherwise the legates would be at their discretion.
"But they advised the Pope that, in order to be sure of a plu-
rality of votes when the day of public session arrived, he
should command the Bishops Avho had gone to Venice to
return promptly to Trent, so that the obstinate might not
have the upper hand in the assembly.*
* Fleury, Cont., Tom. 29, p. 361. . ^: k? \
230 Letter XIIL
The Pope followed this advice, and the effect was mani-
fest. For the Spanish Bishops, says your historian, be-
came more moderate when they saw the number of the
Italian prelates increase who were devoted to the legates ;
and on the return of the Venetian Bishops, they all made it
a duty to show their docility to the orders of the pon-
tiff.* This is one small specimen of the low human policy
pursued in the management of a Council, which yet you
profess to hold as being inspired by the Holy Ghost !
Paul III. died in A. D. 1549, at the age of eighty-one,
and the Cardinals were divided into three factions the im-
perialists, the French, and the creatures of the deceased
Pope, at whose head was Cardinal Farnese, his nephew. f
Cardinal Pole would undoubtedly have been elected at
once, if it had not been for his modesty and disinterested-
ness. His enemies delayed the vote. They spread a report
that he was inclined to Lutheranism, and managed with so
much skill that he had not the requisite majority. | Two
months elapsed in the usual process of intrigue, when at
length the Conclave elected the Cardinal di Monte, who
took the name of Julius III. His first act was to bestow
his Cardinal's hat upon a young adventurer, one of his do-
mestics, who had been solely occupied in the keeping of his
monkey .'
The year 1551 was marked by the protestation of the
King of France against the Council of Trent, in which h*
declines to send to it the Bishops of his jurisdiction, " be-
cause they could not have a free and assured access, and
therefore the Council, from which he is thus excluded in
spite of himself, cannot be esteemed, reputed, and called a
* Fleury, Cont., Tom. 29, p. 363. t Ib. 680-2.
$ Ib. 685-7. $ Ib. 696
No Protestants at Trent. 231
Council of the whole Catholic Church, but only a private
Council, not being convened for the reformation and establish-
ment of discipline, and to extirpate heresies, but to favor cer-
tain parties, and to promote the interests of some individuals,
instead of the public good. And therefore, neither his ma-
jesty, nor the prelates and doctors of the Gallican Church,
will consider themselves in future obliged to acknowledge
such Council, nor to submit to its decrees."* This was
read before the Council by the king's ambassador, and
proves, of itself, the partiality and practical despotism with
which the Pope ruled the Council. And it is further in-
teresting as showing another example of your boasted unity.
The Pope enjoyed his dignity but five years, dying of
the gout A. D. 1555. Edward VI. had established the
pure principles of the primitive Church in England, and
died in 1553. He had been succeeded by Mary, who
brought back the nation to the Church of Rome. The
Reformation had taken root in Germany, Holland, Denmark,
Sweden, and Switzerland, and had made great progress
in France. But the hope which the Pontiff, the emperor,
Charles V., and the French monarch had indulged, viz.,
that the Council of Trent would reunite the Church, was
dissipated. The Council and the Protestant princes could
not agree upon the terms of the safe-conduct, nor the con-
ditions on which the Protestants should be admitted ; and
thus, after numerous attempts to manage these prelimina-
ries, the matter was abandoned. The Council itself had
been suspended, by the bull of the Pope, in A. D. 1552,
notwithstanding the strong opposition of many prelates ;
and nothing had been done to reform the Church of Rome,
* Fleury, Cont., Tom. 30, p. 141.
232 Letter XIII.
nor to define the proper limits of the Papal prerogative.
Still, the religious wars continued in many quarters, al-
though they were terminated in Germany, to the advantage
of the Protestants, by the treaty of Passau ; and all
the objects for which the Council of Trent had been as-
sembled, viz., the extirpation of what they called heresy,
the union of the Church, and the restoration of discipline,
were seemingly as far off as ever.
The successor of Julius II. was Marcellus II., who dis-
played an ardent zeal for a thorough reformation, and
formed great designs for the purification of the Church,
which he expressed openly. But he died in ten days after
his coronation, with the suspicion by some that he had been
poisoned, through the arts of those who dreaded his love of
reform, leaving behind him an excellent character too
good, perhaps, for that age of corruption.
Cardinal CarafFa succeeded him, who took the name of
Paul IV. The year 1556 was marked by the abdication
of the emperor, Charles V. The martyrdom of Cranmer,
after many other glorious victims had offered themselves
to death for the truth, seemed to insure the triumph of Ro-
manism in England. But the victory was brief. For
Queen Mary died in 1558, and the succession of Elizabeth
restored the Reformation established under Edward VI.,
which had now become far more endeared to the nation, by
the experience of the difference which the bloody reign of
her predecessor had taught them. So willing were the
clergy themselves to receive the Reformation which was
formally established by act of Parliament in 1559, that, ac-
cording to the statement of your historian, " out of 9,400
holders of benefices which were in the whole kingdom,
there were only fourteen Bishops, twelve archdeacons, fif-
Catherine de Medicis. 233
teen principals of colleges, fifty canons, and about eighty
curates, who preferred to give up their benefices rather than
their religion ! Their places were filled with Protestants.
Many monks returned to the world, and some nuns emi-
grated to foreign lands."*
And here I find that your historian relates the conse-
cration of Matthew Parker, to the Archbishopric of Canter-
bury, at length, without taking any notice of the ridiculous
fable put out by unscrupulous Romanists, called the Nag 's
Head Ordination a contemptible fabrication, which has
been repudiated by Lingard, and every other Romanist of
candor.f
At this time, a general peace being concluded between
France, Spain, England, and the Empire, Henry II., King
of France, turned all his thoughts to counteract the great
progress which the Protestant Reformation was making in
that kingdom. The Duchess of Valentinois, who derived
profit from the proscriptions and the seizure of the property
of those that were condemned, and the princes of Guise,
who attracted the popular regard by punishing the secta-
rians, took pains to make the king believe that the venom
of heresy was diffused throughout France, and that the sov-
ereign did not really govern in those provinces where this
evil had the upper hand.;}; The death of the king, how-
ever, before the expiration of the year, threw the power into
the hands of his widow, the famous Catherine de Medicis,
his son and successor, Francis II., being only sixteen years
of age. The court was divided between the two factions
of Guise and Montmorenci, to Avhich was now added a
third, the heads of whom were the King of Navarre and
his brother, Louis de Conde.
* Fleurv, Cont., Tom. 31, p. 320-1. t Ib. 335. t Ib. 342-3.
234 Letter XIII.
The efforts of the queen mother, who favored the party
of the Guises, directed the movements of the government,
in union with the popular feeling, against the Protestants
with great asperity, especially in Paris. In order to dis-
cover those who were not favorable to Romanism, they
placed in all the cities, at the corners of the streets, images
of the Virgin Mary, before which they set lighted tapers,
while the populace and children chanted litanies and other
prayers. By the side of these, they put chests and boxes,
in which they importuned all who passed by to drop a lit-
tle money for the wax candles ; and if any passenger re-
fused to pay this kind of tribute, or went on his way with-
out saluting the images, the people threw themselves upon
him as a suspected heretic, and he might think himself
happy if he only received blows, or if, after being dragged
through the dirt, he was led to prison with his life saved.*
This persecution irritated the Calvinists, and mutual ani-
mosity raged in every quarter.
The Pope, Paul IV., was zealous for reformation, and
spake continually of its necessity. But he was persuaded
that the only remedy for the encroachments of Protestant
reform was the establishment of the Inquisition, which, as
he averred on all occasions, was the sole antidote for the
evil, while a Council would only serve to increase it, as it
had done already in the preceding years. In this persua-
sion, he applied himself entirely to the functions of this re-
doubtable tribunal, which he stimulated to the utmost se-
verity throughout the world. f It was according to the genius
of Popery, however, for many ages, to rely on the arm of
physical force, and, instead of appealing to the reason,
* Fleury, Cont., Tom. 31, p. 376-7. t Ib. 383.
The Pope and Astrology. 235
the conscience, and the feelings of men, in obedience to the
Word of God, to drive them, by the fear of tortures and of
death, into an implicit subservience to the priesthood.
Paul IV. died in 1559, at the age of eighty-three-; and
the people, full of fury, saith your historian, ran towards
the new prison of the Inquisition, from which they liberated
all the prisoners, and then set it on fire. Hardly could
they be restrained from doing the same to the convent of
the Dominicans, in their hatred to the Inquisition with
which those monks were intrusted. Not content with this,
they went to the Capitol, brake the statue of the Pope, car-
ried off the head, rolled it for three days through the streets
of the city, and then threw it into the Tiber. The Com-
missioner of the Inquisition was wounded, his house burned,
and the disorder continued for a fortnight before they could
or would put a stop to it.*
In the account which your historian gives of the death of
Luke Gauric, Bishop of Civita Ducale, we find a proof, in-
cidentally, of the credit which the folly of Judicial Astrology
enjoyed in the Church of Rome. " He was very learned,"
saith the author, " in mathematics, and, above all, in that
part of the science which pretends to judge, by the stars,
the life and the fortune of men. This procured him great
consideration from the Popes, Julius II., Leo X., Clement
VII., and Paul III., especially the last, who often had him
at his table, and raised him to the Episcopate."! It is a
striking fact in the character of Popery, which claims a di-
vine right to govern the whole world, that four Popes should
be recorded as believers in judicial astrology so late as the
middle of the sixteenth century. It may, indeed, be truly
* Fleury, Cont., Tom. 31, p. 390. f Ib. 407-8
236 Letter XIII.
said, that many Protestants also believed the same. But
the Protestants do not pretend to rule the world, neither do
they claim infallibility.
The Cardinals entered the Conclave on the 15th of Sep-
tember, formed cabals as usual, and were not able to agree
until the 26th of December, when they elected the Cardi-
nal de Medicis, who took the title of Pius IV.
Philip II.., returning to Spain in the same year, 1559, in
order to show his gratitude to Heaven for his preservation
from shipwreck during a violent storm, made it his first and
chief care to cleanse Spain from the plague of Lutheran-
ism. On his arrival at Seville, where it had made the
greatest progress, the Inquisition seized all who were sus-
pected, and condemned thirteen to be burned alive. Some
of these were men of quality. And the case of Constantine
Fontinus, a man of great merit, doctor in theology, and
preacher of Charles V., was of especial note, as an exam-
ple of inquisitorial practice. He had been condemned for
heresy, (that is to say, for adopting the doctrines of Luther,)
and sentenced to death. But as he died in prison before
the day appointed for the Auto da Fe, they burned him in
effigy. Another famous preacher of Seville, named John
Egidius, who had been nominated by Charles V. as the
Bishop of Tortosa, was seized by this terrible tribunal, and
subjected to such a long and severe process, that he died.
" The judges caused his corpse to be summoned," saith
your historian, " and condemned to death a man that was
already dead and, as if they had made him come out of the
grave by some machine, they exhibited him as a spectacle
to the people, under an image made of osiers, on which they
executed the sentence."*
* Fleury, Cent, Tom. 31, p. 420-2.
Council of Trent renewed. 237
The following October, the same rigor was exhibited at
Valladolid, for the same reasons. Philip caused twenty-
eight of the first nobility of the country to be burned in his
presence ; and in order to stop the importunities of their
relations and friends, he made a vow to carry the wood for
the stake of Don Carlos, his only son, if it should ever hap-
pen that this young prince should become a Lutheran.*
Here we have an instructive example (and only a small
specimen out of an immense number of similar facts) of the
mode in which the system of Popery strove to bear down
the cause of religious truth, and the liberty of conscience.
The following year, 1560, Pope Pius IV. issued his bull
for the renewal of the Council of Trent. And in the same
year, your historian reports that it was determined, by the
Duke of Guise, and his brother, the Cardinal, in conjunc-
tion with the king, to assassinate the King of Navarre, in
an interview with the monarch, to which he was to be in-
vited on a given day. The interview took place ; but the
King of France, either through timidity or repentance, suf-
fered the King of Navarre to depart without giving the con-
certed signal. And the Duke of Guise, going out along
with his sovereign, is reported to have exclaimed, in anger,
" O Prince, fearful and cowardly !"f Francis II. died the
same year, and was succeeded by Charles IX., who was
only ten years and six months old on his accession to the
throne. And it was resolved at the assembly of the Estates-
General, that the queen mother, Catherine de Medicis,
should be the regent, and the King of Navarre the lieute-
nant-general.^:
The troubles of France, on account of the hatred borne
Fleury, Cont., Tom. 31, p. 422. t Ib. 521. $ Ib. 546.
238 Letter XIII.
towards the Calvinists, continued, and increased in vio-
lence, but my limits forbid the notice of the details. I
come, therefore, to the re-opening of the Council of Trent,
which took place on the 15th of January, 1562. Four of
the Pope's legates and a hundred Bishops attended. The
order which was to be observed being one of the first sub-
jects to be decided, the legates required the insertion of the
phrase, Proponcntibus Icgatis et pr&sidentibus, the legates
proposing and presiding, which four of the Spanish Bish-
ops resisted, saying that this clause was a novelty which
ought not to be admitted, because it was dishonorable to the
dignity of an (Ecumenical Council. All the rest, however,
consented, and the phrase was adopted accordingly.*
At the second session, or the 18th, from the commence-
ment in 1545, Cardinal Seripand recommended that the
Council should take up the reformation concerning the-
Court of Rome. This course was warmly supported by
the Archbishop of Braga. And as some of the prelates
had suggested that it was not necessary to include the Most
Illustrious Cardinals, the fearless Archbishop maintained,
on the contrary, that " the Most Illustrious Cardinals had
need of a most illustrious reformation. He added, that the
Episcopal authority had been almost extinguished since the
introduction of this new order of Cardinals, which was un-
known in the ancient Church ; that there was no hope of
a real reformation in the Church until the Bishops were re-
stored to their authority; * * * that, in fine, consider-
ing what the Bishops and Cardinals were formerly, and
what they were at that day, he could not excuse himself
from saying, in lamentation before God, and in complaining
* Floury, Cont, Tom. 32, p. 210-11.
Want of Unanimity at Trent. 239
to the Church of the Church herself, that matters were not
thus in the beginning."* This remonstrance, however, was
entirely ineffectual.
The Council, meanwhile, was greatly troubled with the
want of unanimity amongst the prelates, and your historian
uses the following language on the subject of their divi-
sions : " The presiding legate," saith he, " had been very
careful to recommend secrecy to the fathers, to prevent the
public from being informed of the discord which reigned in
the Council, and of the little moderation which they had
shown in their disputes. Many, on going out of the assem-
bly, shed tears on account of these lively altercations, con-
tenting themselves with keeping them secret, since they
could not prevent them ; but the report spread very soon,
the whole city of Trent was informed of them, and the let-
ters which were sent from thence into all kingdoms lessened
greatly the advantageous opinion which had been at first con-
ceived. They did not spare the reputation of the legates,"
&c.f All this looked very little like the Roman assump-
tion that the Council was inspired by the Holy Ghost.
The Pope was so much alarmed by the accounts which
he received of those divisions, that he fancied there was a
conspiracy among them to drive him from the Vatican, and
deprive him of the pontifical See. Therefore, he assembled
six Cardinals of great experience, and after hearing their
advice, he resolved to send new legates to Trent, and re-
call the others, for the purpose of establishing union, and
.sustaining, with more zeal, the interests of the Papacy.^
But he abandoned this design on further reflection.
The constant recurrence by the legates to the directions
* Fleury, Cont., Tom. 32, p. 249. t Ib. 304-5. % Ib. 338.
240 Letter XIII.
of the pontiff, and their dependence upon him as their mas-
ter in all points, was well known, and was even a subject
of irreverent jesting amongst the Romanists themselves.
Thus your historian, quoting from a letter which the am-
bassador of France wrote to the Sieur de 1'Isle, informs us,
" that the legates obliged the Holy Spirit to come from Rome
in a post-bag." And the same expression, according to
Pallavicini, had been previously applied to their mode of
proceeding by the Bishop of Five Churches, in his letters
to Maximilian II.* The Pope, indeed, was so fearful that
some encroachment might be made upon his authority, that
he replied to the demands of the French Ambassador, by
insisting that " the Bishops of France must do no prejudice
to his power, and that the reformation of ecclesiastical dis-
cipline and of the Court of Rome must be reserved to him-
self alone." And he determined " to go to Bologna with
the College of Cardinals, in order to be nearer to the Coun-
cil, and even to go to Trent, if it should be necessary to
accomplish his purposes."! So utterly unfounded is the
pretence that the Council of Trent could be considered as
a free expression of sentiment, even in the Church of Rome
itself, and so perfectly was it subject to the dictation of the
pontiff.
The emperor was as little likely as the King of France
to be satisfied with the proceedings of the Council. And
of this we have a plain proof in the document which he or-
dered his ambassador to lay before the legates, containing
twenty demands on the subject of reformation. Your his,-
torian states these demands, substantially, as follows :
1. That the Pope should submit himself and his court
to correction.
* Fleury, Cont., Tom. 32, p. 351. t Ib. 353.
The Emperor's Demands. 241
2. That if they would not reduce the Cardinals to the
ancient number of twelve, they should at least content them-
selves with four and twenty, besides two supernumeraries.
3. That in future, dispensations should not be granted so
easily, to the scandal of the laity.
4. That all exemptions against common right should be
revoked, and all the monasteries be made subject to their
proper Bishops.
5. That no ecclesiastic should have more than one bene-
fice ; that schools should be established in the cathedral and
collegiate churches ; and that the offices of the Church
should not be given to mercenary priests.
6. That the Bishops should reside in their dioceses, hold
a Synod every year, and perform their visitations in person,
without deputing their functions to others, unless in cases
of necessity.
7. That everything in the Church should be done gra-
tuitously, and that no money should be taken for the ad-
ministration of the sacraments.
8. That they should restore to their proper rigor the an-
cient Canons against simony.
9. That in the ecclesiastical constitutions they should
cut off all that was superfluous, and that those ordinances
should not be made equal to the obligations of the divine
law.
.1 0. That excommunications should only be used in cases
of mortal sins, and for manifest irregularity.
11. That the sacred office should be celebrated in such
a manner as to be understood by all the assistants.
12. That the breviaries and missals should be corrected,
by taking away from them all that could not be found in the
Holy Scriptures.
242 Letter XIII.
13. That they should seek for means to reduce the clergy
to a life more Iwly and more pure, and that the monks should
follow their first institution, by laboring for a more exact
administration of their property.
14. That they should moderate the obligations of posi-
tive law, by lessening somewhat the rigor of the fasts, and
allowing the communion in both hinds.
15. That they should allow marriage to the priests of
some nations.
16. That the short explanations of the Gospels which the
curates used in preaching should be corrected by learned
theologians, or others be substituted by public authority,
and that a new ritual should be established for all ecclesias-
tics.
17. That they should find means to depose evil priests,
and put wiser and more correct men in their places.
18. That they should establish several bishoprics in the
proA r inces which were of too great extent, and that the rich
monasteries should be converted to this purpose.
19. That ecclesiastical property which had been usurped
to profane uses, should be suffered, for the present, to re-
main undisturbed.
20. That the Council should be prayed to consider
whether it would not be advisable to decree that the con-
stitutions of the prelates should not oblige under the penalty
of sin ; that the multitude of human laws should be reduced
to a smaller number ; and that for some quarters there should
be added to the Latin Psalms some prayers in the vulgar
tongue*
The legates, instead of giving a favorable reception to
* Fleury, Cont., Tom. 32, p. 380-2.
Bishops Paid ~by the Pope. 243
these suggestions, told the ambassador that it was unwor-
thy of his imperial majesty, as well as of the Council, that
he should have presumed to propose them. And they de-
clined proceeding with regard to them until the emperor
should be so informed, and have an opportunity to abandon
his design.
It seems that the Pope, about this time, intended to dis-
solve the Council, on account of the great expense which
it caused him. But the legates sent a special envoy to
dissuade him from this course, as dangerous to the Church,
and highly inexpedient.* This piece of information is
given by the historian incidentally, but it explains very satis-
factorily the reason why the majority of the Bishops were
so easily managed, viz., because they were dependent on the
pontiff for their position, and were actual pensioners upon his
treasury. In the nature of the case, there was neither jus-
tice nor propriety in the Pope's being charged with the ex-
penses of a Council. The income of the Bishops who had
dioceses was princely in those days, and they were able
to support themselves in opulence, as long as it should be
necessary, in any city of Europe. There were few amongst
them who did not, in fact, reside out of their dioceses, as
we see by the general complaint on the subject of non-
residence. But the policy of the Pope was to fill up the
ranks of his party with Bishops in partibus, and men sub-
servient to him, and doubtless the expense of supporting
these so long was a very serious matter.
As a specimen of the difficulty, nevertheless, which the
legates experienced in managing the Council, your histo-
rian states the votes on the proposition to allow the use of
* Floury, Cont., Tom. 32, p. 382-3.
10
244 Letter XIII.
the cup to the laity in the communion, a concession to
which the King of France and the Emperor of Germany
attached great importance, in the hope of conciliating the
Protestant reformers. " The prelates," saith our author,
" who were in number one hundred and sixty-six, composed
several different parties. Thirty-eight were for refusing
the cup ; twenty-nine for granting it ; twenty-four thought
it best to leave the matter to the Pope ; thirty-one admitted
one part of the proposition, and denied the other ; that is
to say, they thought the concession should be granted, but
preferred committing the execution to the Pope instead of
the Bishops ; ten were for the negative, who desired the
Pope might be requested to send delegates to Germany ;
and nineteen limited the concession to Germany and Hun-
gary."* Here, again, we see all the ordinary marks of an
assembly composed of common mortals, showing the ab-
surdity of your theory that your Councils are infallibly
directed by the Holy Spirit.
The King of France sent them a remonstrance during
the same year, in which he complained of what he heard
from all sides, viz., that " they spent their time on matters
of doctrine, and neglected what concerned the reformation
of morals and the discipline of the Church, and that from
such conduct no advantage could arise, nor repose nor
union for the Church of God."f
Up to this period, there had been an ambassador from
France, but no Bishops of that kingdom had attended the
Council. Now, however, the Cardinal of Lorraine and
several French prelates received the royal orders to repair
to Trent, and the Pope and his party were not a little
* Fleury, Cont., Tom. 32, p. 501. t Ib. 555.
The true Rule of Reform, 245
alarmed by the fear of consequent trouble in the Council.
The Cardinal was instructed to insist on the concession of
the cup to the laity, the marriage of the priests, and the ad-
ministration of the sacraments in the vulgar tongue. With
regard to the second point, your historian states the lan-
guage of the king as follows, viz. : " It was .with the ut-
most regret that his majesty thought himself obliged to
complain of the licentious life of the ecclesiastics, who caused so
mucli of scandal, and even of corruption among the people, that
it seemed to him necessary to provide for the evil promptly."
Amongst the measures recommended for this end, " the
marriage of the priests" was particularly specified.*
In the oration of the Cardinal of Lorraine before the
Council, after setting forth the dreadful condition of France
through religious dissensions, he candidly blamed the clergy
for the melancholy results. " Whom," saith he, "shall we
accuse ? Who will pass for the author of all these evils ?
It is ourselves who have excited this tempest, therefore cast us
into the sect."f But the ambassador of France spake with
much greater freedom. " All the demands of the king,"
said he, " are contained either in the Holy Scriptures, or in
the ancient Councils of the Church Catholic, or in the
writings of the holy fathers, or in the constitutions of Uhe
Popes, the Decretals, and the Canons. He desires that
you will re-establish the Church, not in general clauses,
but according to the express words of that perpetual and
divine edict, against which there can be no prescription, so
that the holy rules which the ancient enemy, Satan, has
held captives so long, may appear in open day, and return
into the holy city of God.J But if you will not do this, holy
* Fleury, Cont., Tom. 33, p. 17. t Ib. 33. t Ib. 38.
246 Letter XIIL
fathers, it is in vain that you will ask if France does not
enjoy peace.. We shall reply to you what Jehu replied to
King Joram : ' How can there be peace, so long as' * * *
You know the rest. Unless we work seriously for refor-
mation, it is in vain that we have recourse to the alliance
of Spain, or that we implore aid of the Pope, of Venice, of
the Dukes of Lorraine, Savoy, and Tuscany. All these,
believe me, will be useless, if you will not employ your-
selves to reform the Church."*
In the matter of the cognizance and decision of accusa-
tions against Bishops, the Council of Trent determined that
they should belong solely to the sovereign pontiff, or, if it
were absolutely necessary to send the cause out of Rome, it
should be committed to metropolitans, or to Bishops ap-
pointed by the Pope, in a commission signed by his own
hand. Your historian states, however, that " in France
they keep up the ancient rule, according to which the
Bishops ought only to be judged by the Bishops of the
province assembled in Council, calling in those of the
neighboring provinces, to the number of twelve, saving the
appeal to the Pope, recommended by the Council of Sar-
dica. Since the time of the Council of Trent, the clergy
orFrance have protested against their decree on this sub-
ject."! But we shall find other points than this in which
the Council failed to produce unity, even amongst your-
selves.
The 24th day of December, A. D. 1563, beheld the ter-
mination of this famous Synod. The decrees were signed
by two hundred and fifty-five names, in which there were
four legates, two Cardinals, three Patriarchs, twenty-five
* Fleury, Cont., Tom. 33, p. 39.
t Fleury, Cont., Tom. 34, p. 24-5.
Reception of the Council. 247
Archbishops, one hundred and sixty-eight Bishops, thirty-
nine proxies of absentees, seven Abbots, and seven Generals
of Orders, viz., the Dominicans, the Minor Observants, the
Minor Conventuals, the Hermits of St. Augustin, the Serv-
ites, the Carmelites, and the Jesuits.* The Pope expressed
great satisfaction with the result, and confirmed the acts of
the Council without any reservation.
The Council was received, first by Sebastian, King of
Portugal, and next by the Republic of Venice. The King
of Spain received it with a reservation (implied, though not
formally expressed) of the rights of the prince and the king-
dom ; and in Naples, Sicily, and Flanders the same course was
taken. But in France there was an abundance of difficulty.
The Cardinal of Lorraine was reproached for the course he
had taken, and all the excuses he could make did not re-
move the impression, that his conduct concerning the de-
crees of reformation had been altogether contrary to the
rights of France and the royal authority.! The Parliament
also opposed the reception of the Council strongly.
With respect to the emperor there was also some dif-
ficulty. He applied to the Pope for the concession of the
cup to the laity, which was granted by the advice of the
Cardinals, though with conditions and restrictions. But
the emperor made another demand which was not so suc-
cessful, viz., the permission for priests who had married to
retain their wives in returning to the Church. On that
point the Pope was inflexible.^:
Poland also received the decrees of Trent, but Scotland
could not act in the troubled condition of Queen Mary and
the kingdom: And thus this important matter was situated,
* Floury, Cont., Tom. 34, p. 122. f Ib. 164-5. f Ib. 173.
248 Letter XIII.
according to your historian, when Pope Pius IV. died, the
18th of December, 1565, two years after the conclusion of
the Council.*
Here we see again a glaring absurdity in your Papal
system, that while you profess to regard the acts of a Gen-
eral Council, regularly called and confirmed by the Pope,
as the infallible work of the Holy Spirit, binding upon the
whole Church, you are obliged, nevertheless, to allow the
national Church of each country to decline receiving them
as long as may seem proper. True, you make a distinc-
tion between matters of faith and matters of discipline,
claiming inspiration for the first only. But your writers
have never discovered any mode of proving this distinction,
which has, indeed, only been invented to meet the difficulty.
It is impossible to show why the Holy Spirit, if He conde-
scends to guide a Council in the one, should abandon the
same Council in the other, since the unity of the Church,
to be complete, requires the same rule to be observed in
both. Neither can they justify this notion from Scripture,
because it is unquestionable that the Almighty deigned to
give a divine rule to Israel in matters of discipline as well
as in matters of faith, and it is equally manifest that the
very first Council, held by the Apostles at Jerusalem, con-
cerned a question of discipline, and yet the Holy Ghost di-
rected it. Moreover, the marriage of Bishops and deacons
is laid down as an inspired rule by the Apostle, though it
be only a point of discipline ; and many other examples
might be added to these to disprove your distinction.
Nor can your theologians justify themselves by the reason
of the case, because faith, being in its own nature unchange-
* Fleury, Cont., Tom. 34, p. 247.
Unity not restored at Trent. 249
able, while discipline may be changed according to circum-
stances, a Council of the Church requires the guidance of
special inspiration far more in respect to discipline than in
respect of faith. It needs no inspiration to keep up the
faith " once delivered to the saints," since it is only neces-
sary to guard it from any innovation. But it does need su-
pernatural guidance to enact new laws of discipline, which
may work the most serious consequences in the end, far
beyond the power of human wisdom to foresee. Thus,
when the early Councils changed the inspired Apostles'
rule of clerical marriage into the Church's rule of clerical
celibacy, the Holy Spirit would have forbidden such an act
of profanation, which presumed to abrogate, by what is ac-
knowledged to be a rule of expediency, the liberty given by
the wisdom of God. Yet what mortal could have foreseen,
at that time, the flood of licentiousness and immorality
which followed in the train of this single alteration ?
Hence, this very Council of Trent, convened for the pur-
poses of unity, failed most signally. Not only was it per-
fectly inoperative on the Reformation which was then at
work, but it even failed in reference to the Church of Rome
itself. In matters of faith it made no change ; but in mat-
ter of discipline, where it undertook to lay down the law, it
was at the mercy of each particular nation to accept it or
not ; and in point of fact, it is not universally received to
this day. And yet, you are never weary of boasting about
your Church's unity !
250 The End of Controversy, Co?itroverted.
LETTER XIV.
MOST REVEREND SIR :
THE new Pope, elected in 1566, took the title of Pius
V., and commenced his pontificate by manifesting great
zeal against the heretics, condemning one distinguished
man to" the flames for being intimate with heretics, and an-
other for only having spoken ill of the Inquisition.* He
also made severe ordinances against the prostitutes of
Rome, much against the will of the Cardinals and the
clergy. He ordered the Cardinals, moreover, to reform
their trains, to avoid pomp, and to lead a sober and frugal
life. He forbade the combats of beasts in the circus, and
endeavored to re-establish the monastic discipline. In a
word, he labored to extirpate all the former licentiousness
with great severity, and displeased very many in conse-
quence. f
In A. D. 1570, Pius V. published his bull of excommu-
nication against Queen Elizabeth, separating her and her
adherents from the body of Christ, as corrupted members,
depriving her of all right of royalty, dispensing her subjects
from their oath of allegiance, and forbidding them to obey
her, &c.t Two years after this impotent display of au-
thority, the Pope died, and your historian informs us that
the people were rejoiced, because they disliked the severity
* Fleury, Cont., Tom. 34, p. 305. f Ib. 306-8.
J Fleury, Cont., Tom. 35, p. 3.
Massacre of S. Bartholomew's. 251
of his morals, and the rigors which he had exercised by
means of the Inquisition, of which he had always been one
of the most zealous patrons. His coffers were found filled
with more than a million of crowns in gold, which he had
amassed during a pontificate of only six years and a quar-
ter.*
The conclave, for a wonder, completed their work in a
single day, and Gregory XIII. was proclaimed as the new
pontiff in May, 1572.
This was the year when Charles IX., the young King
of France, under the advice of his mother, Catherine de
Medicis, planned and executed the detestable massacre of
St. Bartholomew's day, in which the leaders of the re-
formed or Calvinistic party, invited to the court for the very
purpose, under the professions of amity and peace, were
cruelly assassinated, with every circumstance of horror
and barbarity. The Duke of Guise willingly undertook
the execution of the diabolical scheme. The people were
also excited, by studied lies, to take part in the slaughter.
At a concerted signal, the work began in every quarter.
" They spared," saith your historian, " neither old men, nor
children, nor pregnant women, and carnage reigned on every
side." At the palace of the Louvre, " the galleries and
the staircases were almost covered with dead bodies, and
the assassins pursued their unhappy victims even into the
apartments of the princesses. "f
" The butchery continued for seven days in Paris, and
more than five thousand persons are reported to have per-
ished. "| A thorn-bush, planted in the cemetery of the
Holy Innocents, served, strangely enough, to augment the
* Fleury, Cont., Tom. 35, p. 117-18. t Ib. 141-2. J Ib. 151.
10*
252 Letter XIV.
fury of the people. For, on the day of the massacre, which
was the festival of St. Bartholomew, although this bush
was half dry and leafless, it put out an abundance of flow-
ers. " This circumstance," saith the historian, " might
have been quite in the course of nature, but they regarded
it as a miracle, and pretended to prove by this fact that the
murder of the Calvinists was acceptable to God ! The
drums were beaten, the religious fraternities walked in pro-
cession, the king himself came to see the miraculous thorn-
bush, and the massacre continued. "
" On the 25th of August, the king, either alarmed at the
barbarity of such an action, or apprehensive that the blame
of it would fall on himself alone, wrote to all the governors
of the provinces, to cast the whole upon the Princes de
Guise; assuring them that the sedition had been excited
without his knowledge ; that the Guises, having discovered
that the friends of the admiral, Coligny, had resolved to re-
venge the wound he had received, gathered together a great
number of gentlemen and of Parisians to prevent them';
that with this force they had overcome the guards whom
the king had given to Coligny, and had killed him and all
that were with him ; that this example had been followed
with so much violence and fury in all the other quarters of
the city, that it was not possible to remedy it ; that the
cause of the tumult was only the ancient enmity between
the two houses ; and that, as this evil had occurred against
his will, he wished all men to know that he had not violated
any article of the treaty of peace, but, on the contrary, de-
sired that it might be religiously observed," &c.f
But the queen mother and the Duke of Anjou took a dif-
*Fleury, Cont, Tom. 35, p. 151. t Ib. 151-2.
Medal of S. Bartholomew's. 253
ferent view of the matter soon afterwards ; and lest the
Guises should avail themselves of the position in which the
king had placed them, and keep up an armed force, and
thus give rise to a renewal of the war, they persuaded him
to avow his act, and acquit them of all blame, inasmuch as
all that they had done was in obedience to the royal orders.
.Accordingly, the king "went the following day to the Par-
liament, and there publicly acknowledged the fact, de-
claring that he had been constrained to use violent meas-
ures, in consequence of his being informed that the admi-
ral and his accomplices had conspired to kill him, his
mother and his brothers, in order to place the Prince de
Conde on the throne ; that extreme perils required extreme
remedies ; and that therefore he wished all the world to
know that all the murders of the last few days had been
committed by his sole order, that he might prevent the re-
sults of a detestable conspiracy."*
" They presumed," continues your historian, " to make a
procession, at which the people assisted in great numbers,
with the king and all his court, to render thanks to God for
the happy success of an enterprise which covered France
with confusion, and which could not be otherwise than ab-
horred by Heaven and all good men. And they even had
medals struck to eternize an action which they were after-
wards obliged to regard with the detestation it deserved."!
" But there were several of the provinces which were no
better treated than Paris. For the king had written to the
governors the day before the massacre, ordering them every-
where to lay violent hands upon the Calvinists ; the conse-
quence of which was, that during two months there was
* Fleury, Cont., Tom. 35, p. 153-4. t Ib. 155.
254 Letter XIV.
nothing to be seen but murders in almost all France. The
numbers killed in the different provinces amounted to no
less than twenty-five thousand persons."*
" This execution," adds your historian, " was regarded
with a favorable eye at Rome and in Spain. Gregory
XIII., beholding only the good which he persuaded himself
would result to the Catholic religion in France, ordered a
procession, at which he assisted in person, from the Church
of St. Peter to that of St. Louis, to give thanks to God for
such happy success. And he caused some medals to be
struck, to perpetuate the memory of the transaction, where
the Pope was represented on one side, and on the obverse
an angel, holding a cross in one hand, and a sword in the
other, exterminating the heretics, and particularly the ad-
miral, Coligny. In Spain, a panegyric of the action was
pronounced in presence of King Philip II., and they dared
to give it the name of the triumph of the Church militant."!
This foul and nefarious transaction is condemned as it
deserves by your historian, and by all candid men of your
own communion. But the facts show the character of your
people at that day, and the true spirit of the religion which
their priests had taught them. And therefore the narrative
is worthy of serious contemplation, as an irrefragable proof
that kings and queens, and the highest noblemen of the
most civilized nation in Europe, were capable of commit-
ting the deepest and darkest treachery, and the most cruel
and wholesale murder, and of framing the most despicable
lies, in the supposed service of the God of peace and truth,
while Popes, and Bishops, and mighty sovereigns, were
ready to applaud the diabolical achievement, and insult the
majesty of heaven with a public religious thanksgiving.
* Fleury, Cont., Tom. 35, p. 156-7. t Tb. 159.
Sixtus V. elected Pope. 255
The festival of the Rosary was established by a bull of
Gregory XIII. in the following year, and your historian
states that it had been introduced by a Dominican only
about a century before.* So modern is this form of devo-
tion, which has become such a special favorite amongst the
worshippers of the Virgin.
Gregory XIII. died in A. D. 1585, at the age of eighty-
three, after a pontificate of twelve years and ten months.
Your historian praises him for piety and wisdom, and gives
him credit for a mild, moderate, generous, and beneficent
disposition. He is only reproached for t\vo faults that he
had too much complaisance for his own family, and too
little firmness to arrest and punish the disorders of the citi-
zens. The bandits took advantage of their opportunity un-
der his pontificate to scour with impunity the Campagna
of Rome, and dared to carry on their terrible trade in open
day, within the very walls of the city.f When we see a
Pope so praised for amiable qualities that he carried his
easy kindliness to an extreme, rejoicing over the bloody
massacre of St. Bartholomew's day, and zealous, as the au-
thor saith elsewhere, for the Inquisition,^ it only gives us a
deeper impression of the quality of that religion, which
could outrage every feeling of humanity and every precept
of the Gospel in the horrid work of persecution and of
blood.
The election of the new Pope resulted in the elevation
of the Cardinal Montalto, who took the name of Sixtus V.
The moment that he found himself chosen, saith your his-
torian, he flung into the middle of the hall the staff on which
he had been accustomed to lean, like a man bowed down,
* Pleury, Cont., Tom. 35, p. 228. f Fleury, Cont., Tom. 36, p. 23.
t Eleury, Cont., Tom. 35, p. 177.
256 Letter XIV.
with infirmity, and stood erect, as if he were a youth of
thirty. Two hours before, he seemed scarcely able to
speak without pain, but now he intoned the Te Deum, with
a voice which rung in strength and energy.*
Sixtus V. displayed vast talent, force, and vigor, in his
pontificate, with an abundance, of course, of the ambition
and pride of his office, as king of kings. He published a
bull against the King of Navarre and the Prince of Conde,
which went so far in violence beyond previous examples,
that it outraged the King and Parliament of France. Henry
III. was then in possession of the throne, and the King of
Navarre stood next in succession. So far was this prince,
however, from yielding to the attack of the Pope, that he
caused to be affixed to the gates of the Vatican, in all the
streets of Rome, and on the doors of the Cardinals, a prot-
estation, in which he gave the pontiff the title of Monsieur
Sixtus, maintained that, in calling him a heretic, the Pope
had lied, and threatened vengeance, appealing to a free
General Council, and treating the assault as an insult to his
house, and to the whole French nation. f
This Pope, however, deserved credit for some other mat-
ters. Among the rest, he put a considerable check to the
debauchery of the city, issued a bull against judicial astrol-
ogy, and watched over the administration of justice with
commendable care.
In A. D. 1588, Sixtus V., " desirous to favor the designs
of Philip II. upon England," as your author expressly states,
renewed the bull against Elizabeth, and put the kingdom
under interdict. His pretexts were, that " England was a
fief of the Holy See, that the queen had never rendered
* Fleury, Cont., Tom. 35, p. 25. t Ib. 36, p. 37-8.
The Spanish Armada. 257
homage for it, and that she persecuted the Catholic Church.
Therefore, he pronounces her deposed, and commands her
subjects to cast off their allegiance, and to join the army of
the King of Spain as soon as it should arrive, and to obey
the Duke of Parma, who was the commanding general, in
all things." Moreover, the pontiff promised great rewards
to those who should secure Elizabeth, and deliver her to
the Catholics, that she might be punished for her crimes.
And he concluded his bull by opening the treasures of the
Church to all who should favor the expedition. Your his-
torian adds, that an agreement to subject England, not only
to the faith, but to the homage of the Holy See, had been
concluded between the Pope and the Spanish sovereign.*
This bold effort of Papal ambition was backed with the
most imposing preparations for conquest. Philip II. sent
out a fleet of one hundred and fifty vessels, the most formi-
dable that had ever appeared upon the ocean. Not only
Avere they stocked with six months' provisions, and supplied
with a numerous army, but also, saith your author, with a.
great many monks of various orders, who, after they should
have effected a landing, were intended to exhort the people
to return to their obedience to Rome.f In fact, the Pope
was the soul and centre of the expedition. It was all
right, in the policy of Rome for centuries together, to prop-
agate your religion in the style of Mahomet, with fire and
sword. Treason was nothing, civil war was nothing,
the blood and misery of a whole nation were nothing, when
weighed in the balance against Roman supremacy. I need
not repeat the familiar story of the fate which the Almighty
prepared for the Spanish Armada ; how the elements them-
* Fleury, Cont., Tom. 36, p. 163-4. t Ib. 165.
258 Letter XIV,
selves warred against the cruel and unchristian enterprise,
and a large portion of the vast fleet, like the hosts of
Pharaoh, " sank as lead in the mighty, waters." But I
quote it as a proof of the principles and practice of your
Papal system, and an example of what your Popes would
do again if they had the power. The heads that could
plan and the hands that could execute the terrible crusades
against the Albigenses and Waldenses the hearts that
could rejoice over the massacre of St. Bartholomew's day
were not to be controlled by the precept of the Saviour to
St. Peter himself : " Put up again tliy sword into his place :
for all they that take the sword shall perish with the sword"
I pass on to the year 1589, to notice the statement given
by your historian of the battle at the bridge of Tours, be-
tween the troops of the kings of France and Navarre upon
the one side, and those of the Duke of Mayence. with the
other Papists who formed the famous League, upon the
other. The King of Navarre, who was the next heir to
the crown, had made profession of Romanism, and had af-
terwards returned to the Calvinistic branch of the Refor-
mation. Hence, the Pope held him to be a relapsed here-
tic, and the object of the League was to prevent his suc-
cession to the throne. Thus, a civil war broke out in
France, patronized and upheld by the pontiff's policy, not-
withstanding the reiterated pledges of the King of Navarre
that he would not seek in any way to disturb the religion
of the kingdom.
In this battle, the Leaguers conquered the royal army.
And " the soldiers," saith your author, " committed a
thousand outrages, respecting what was sacred no more
than what was profane. The monasteries were pillaged,
the churches ravaged, the altars despoiled ; the women
Assassination of Henry III. 259
were forced even at the foot of the sanctuary, often in the
very presence of their husbands ; and the maidens were
violated. And in the midst of these excesses, the leaguers
boasted that everything was permitted them, because they were
fighting for religion, under the protection of the Pope, who
would grant them the, pardon of their sins."* A lively speci-
men of the operation of your system upon the consciences of
its poor, blind, and deluded votaries, before it was compelled
to borrow a purer light from the progress of the Protestant
Reformation !
Sixtus V. excommunicated Henry III., King of France,
during the same year, 1589 ; and it was not long before a
Dominican, named Jacques Clement, undertook to assassi-
nate the monarch, as the enemy of the Church. Your author
saith that he was excited by the priests, who treated the
king as a tyrant, or by the persuasions of some theologians,
or by some secret intrigue. " The Duchess of Montpensier
was reported to have urged him on, assuring him that if he
escaped, the Pope would not fail to make him a Cardinal ;
and if he perished, he would be put into the rank of the saints,
for having delivered the kingdom from the persecutor of the
faith."\
The king died from the wound inflicted by this assassin,
who was himself sacrificed upon the spot, and his body was
dragged by four horses through the dirt, and burned.^:
Your historian gives a very graphic account of the way
in which the clergy and the people testified their feelings
on the occasion. " The leaguers, to show their joy," saith
he, " clothed themselves in green ; the Duchess of Mont-
pensier embraced the man who brought her the first news
* Fleury, Cont, Tom. 36, p. 238. f Ib. 245. % Ib. 246- H/
260 Letter XIV.
saying, c Welcome, my good friend. But can it be true that
this wicked and perfidious tyrant is dead 1 Great God !
how happy you make me ! I am only sorry for one thing,
that he did not know before he died that it was I who
caused him to be assassinated.' She went immediately to
find Madame de Nemours, her mother, and they rode to-
gether in a carriage through all the streets, crying out,
wherever the people were assembled, ' Good news, my
friends ! good news : the tyrant is dead there is no longer
any Henry de Valois in France !' It was even said that,
at the monastery of the Cordeliers, Madame de Nemours
harangued the people from the steps of the altar, and told
them to make bonfires that evening throughout the city."
" The theologians and preachers," continues your histo-
rian, " did not fail to play their part, and manifest their
fury. These last cried out in their sermons, that Jacques
Clement, who had suffered death with so much constancy
to deliver the kingdom from a miserable tyrant, was a true
martyr. They compared this monk to Judith, and Henry
III. to Holofernes, and the deliverance of Paris to that of
Bethulia. They ordered prayers in all the churches, to
render solemn thanks to God for this assassination. They
even made processions, which lasted a whole week, and
exposed the image of Clement on the altar for the venera-
tion of the people."*
" When the news of the murder of Henry III. arrived
at Rome," saith your author, " Sixtus V. held a Consistory
of his Cardinals, and praised the zeal and courage of
Jacques Clement, whom he compared to Judith and to
Eleazar. Such was the force of the prejudices which
* Fleury, Cont., Tom. 36, p. 249-250.
Sioctus V. poisoned. 261
reigned, founded on those principles Avhich an extravagant
zeal had established in those times of trouble and confusion,
before they had leisure to recognize their i'alsehood, as they
have done in a more tranquil period."* This is the best
apology which your historian, as a Romanist, is able to
make for his ancestors. But it is manifest that there is
no ground for the excuse. Whatever allowance might be
made for the immediate actors in France, where there was
certainly enough of confusion, this could not operate in
Rome, where there was nothing of the kind. And hence,
when we find a deliberate approbation pronounced by the
Popes themselves, with the assent of their Cardinals, of
such deeds as the massacre of St. Bartholomew's, and
the assassination of Henry III., it is in vain to deny that we
have a display of neither more nor less than the true spirit
of Popery.
The King of Navarre became the King of France, by
the title of Henry IV. ; and this was followed by the death
of Sixtus V., A. D. 1590. It was believed that he was
poisoned, and he had himself, saith your historian, the same
suspicion, as he is reported to have declared to his physi-
cian, " I think the Spaniards are so tired of seeing me
Pope, that they will seek means to shorten my days and
my pontificate." In fact, after his death, they examined
his cranium, and " found the substance of the brain injured
by the malignity of the poison which was attached to it."
The people, urged by malcontents, amongst whom were
reckoned the Spaniards, ran to the capitol, and brake the
statue which the Romans had erected in honor of the Pope,
complaining loudly of the exactions and new taxes with
which he had burdened them, to satisfy his passion for
* f leury, Cont., Tom. 36, p. 251-2.
262 Letter XIV.
amassing money. And doubtless the reproach, was not un-
just, as he left an immense amount of treasure in the Cas-
tle of St. Angelo.* Tlie Cardinal Castagna was elected
his successor by the title of Urban YIL, and gave great
hopes of being a benefactor to Rome, from his character.
But, as was the case with several good men before him, he
died within a short time. He fell sick the third day from
his election, and his death followed ten days after. The
Cardinals proceeded to a new election forthwith, and
Gregory XIV. became the wearer of the tiara. Your his-
torian records the usual amount of cabals and intrigue in
both these conclaves, but the last was not concluded until
two months of contest had passed away.f
The new Pope gave all his influence to the party of the
League in France, and sent his nuncio with an admonition
to the Parliament, in which he treated Henry IV. as an ex-
communicated and relapsed heretic, and enjoined them to
withdraw themselves from their allegiance. But the Par-
liament pronounced the act of the Pope a nullity, and or-
dered the nuncio to be arrested, appealing to the future
Council against Gregory XIV. The king confirmed this
act of his Parliament, and issued the Edict of Nantes to
establish the liberty of conscience 4
The principal prelates united to sanction the declaration
of nullity, and refused to obey the order of the Pope ; but
the party of the League, which had also a Parliament in
Paris, took the other side of the question, sustained the acts
of the pontiff, and pronounced the declarations and acts of
the royal Parliament and clergy null and void, full of heresy
and sedition Meanwhile, the \var between the king and
* Fleury, Cont., Tom. 36, p. 304-5. f Ib. 315. i Ib. 332-6.
A. Monk made General. 263
the League continued to be waged with bitterness. The
Pope died after a pontificate of six months and ten days,
and his successor was Innocent IX., who was consecrated
A. D. 1591. But he also died in two months after his cor-
onation.
The next pontiff was Cardinal Aldobrandino, who took
the name of Clement VIII., and followed the same policy
as his predecessors with regard to France, with the same
results precisely.*
In 1592, a Capuchin monk, who had formerly been a
Knight of Malta, named Antonio Scipio, was chosen by
the party of the League to be their general. He declined
on account of his religious vows. But the Bishops and
theologians of that party assembled at Thoulouse, and de-
cided that he might not only quit his monastery and his
habit to command the army, but even that he was obliged
to do it, under pain of mortal sin, because it concerned the
defence of religion. f
The- dispensations were accordingly obtained from the
Pope, and the monk was transformed into a general, with
the title of the Count de Bouchage, which change the peo-
ple applauded greatly. J
The following year, King Henry IV. professed, a second
time, his change of religious sentiments, and was openly
reconciled to the Church of Rome, with great pomp, by the
Archbishop of Bourges, who gave him absolution and the
sacrament. The party of the League, howerer, treated the
act as a nullity, on the ground, 1st, that none but the Pope
could give absolution to a heretic relapsed ; and 2d, that it
was not a sincere, but simulated conversion.
* Fleury, Cont., Tom. 36, p. 375-8. t Ib. 390. t Ib. 391.
264 Letter XIV.
The year 1593 witnessed another example of conspiracy.
" The Spaniards plotted in France," saith your author,
" against the life of the king. About the end of August,
they arrested a soldier named Peter Barriere, who had un-
dertaken to assassinate the sovereign. He had opened his
design to some monks, who, as he said, had strongly
pressed him to execute it. But a Dominican of Florence,
who happened to be at Lyons, being also consulted by him,
took measures to have the king put upon his guard. On
the arrival of Barriere at Paris, he was taken to the house
of the curate of St. Andrew, and afterwards to that of the
rector of the Jesuits' College, both of whom persuaded him
that the king's conversion was feigned, and animated him
to the accomplishment of his project. This fact, neverthe-
less, the Jesuits have always strongly denied. But how-
ever this may have been, he bought a knife, and sharpened
it himself, and left Paris for Melun, where the king was
then sojourning. Here he was recognized and arrested.
After being put to the question, he was condemned to death,
and then he acknowledged his fault, and declared that there
were two priests, whose person and countenance he de-
scribed, who had formed the same plan, and had set out
from Lyons to execute it."*
Your historian closes his work with the year 1595 ; but
all the world knows that this celebrated king was at last,
in A. D. 1610, the victim of the same religious hatred. A
bigoted fanatic named Ravaillac plunged a long two-edged
knife twice into his heart, in the streets of Paris, having
mounted for that purpose on the steps of the carriage in
which the monarch was sitting, as it was obstructed by a
* Fleury, Cont., Tom. 36, p. 449-451.
Long Outcry for Reform. 265
crowd in the street de la Feronnerie. It appears to have
been a settled design of this man for a considerable time
before, but he died without inculpating any other in his
villany. We can be at no loss, however, to understand
that he acted on the same principles, and under the same
guidance, which were exhibited in the case of Jacques
Clement, and believed his crime to be an acceptable offer-
ing, under the delusive guidance of superstition.
I have now gone over the history of your Church, with
the single aim of proving, from your own records, the rise,
progress, and terrible extent of its corruption, up to the
close of the sixteenth century. Here we see that, for a
period of seven centuries together, there had been a con-
stant outcry for reformation ; that the Popes and the priest-
hood were the objects of continual complaint on the part of
the laity ; that by their own acknowledgment, although the
Church was never destitute of true Christians, yet holi-
ness was the exception, and iniquity the rule, sinoe the
great body of the clergy were steeped in licentiousness,
avarice, simony, cruelty, violence, falsehood, and blood ;
that the University of Paris, one of your most famous nur-
series of theological education, was infested with an infidel
philosophy, and with habits of libertine sacrilege ; that the
boasts of absolute atheism were heard from the lips of pon-
tiffs and Cardinals ; that the reliance of your Church was
in the terrors of the Inquisition, in the rack, the dungeon,
and the stake ; that war, and treachery, and assassination,
were patronized in the service of religion ; that Bishops,
and Cardinals, and Popes, were ready to lead their troops
to battle ; that there were constant revolts- and rebellions
against the tyranny of the priestly power ; that there were
many schisms in the Papal kingdom, in which two or three
266 Letter XIV.
pretenders to infallibility cursed each other at the same
time, in the name of God and His Apostles ; and that every
effort to banish these horrible iniquities proved utterly abor-
tive, until the success of the Protestant Reformation com-
pelled them to respect public opinion, by fear for their very
being, if they continued to brave it any longer. The task
has been a painful one, but it was necessary, in order to
defend the truth against the perversions of Milner's " End
of Controversy." We shall see, in the progress of my
work, the bearing of all this upon that author's most false
assumptions. We shall see how it stands opposed to his
unblushing claim of unity and sanctity for the Church of
Rome. And thus, when we are able to compare the results
of the two systems upon the morals of Christendom, we
shall have the best practical proof of the argument which
we maintain in favor of the Reformation.
The End of Controversy *, Controverted. 267
LETTER XV.
MOST REVEREND SIR :
HAVING given, from your own historian, a statement of
facts proving the terrible extent of corruption amongst the
priesthood and clergy of your Church up to the period of the
British Reformation, and for some time beyond it, I now
return to the course of Dr. Milner's book. And here, in.
his eighth letter, he commences his assault upon the prin-
ciple of the continental Reformers, that the Bible alone, ac-
cording to each individual's private judgment, is the Rule
of Faith ; and he extends his censure to the Church of
England, as if that Church had not most carefully provided
the Apostolic ministry for the work of interpretation, and
preserved, in her Articles, all the guards of primitive anti-
quity. I have already said that I should not meddle in the
controversy with regard to others. They are, doubtless,
able to take all the care which is possible of their own po-
sition. But as it respects our own branch of the Church
Catholic or Universal, we claim the whole benefit of the
Rule of Faith laid down by the Church of Rome, according
to the statement of Dr. Milner, namely, that it must be the
Word of God, having, besides the rule itself, a living, speak-
ing judge, to watch over it, and explain it in all matters of
controversy. That therefore the rule of faith appointed by
Christ must be certain and unerring, that is to say, it musl
be one which is not liable to lead any rational and sincere in-
11
268 Letter XV.
quirer into inconsistency or error, and this rule must be UNI-
VERSAL -proportioned to the abilities and circumstances of the
great bulk of mankind. The only point in which we differ
from your Church with respect to the rule of faith is this : that
we confine the Word of God to the inspired Scriptures,
while you extend it to what you call the Word of God both
written and unwritten, which takes in the Apocrypha, and
all your so-called Apostolical traditions, as well as all the
decisions of your nominal General Councils, thereby put-
ting the inventions of subsequent ages upon a level with the
Scriptures, or rather above them, on the plain principle
that the last law abrogates the former one, so far as it is
contrary to it. Leges posteriores priores contrarias abro-
gant. Practically, therefore, you make the voice of the
Church the master over the WORD OF GOD, and while you
treat it, theoretically, with all possible reverence, you over-
rule its authority at pleasure by your unauthorized assump-
tion, that the Church speaks, all along, with the positive
majesty of divine inspiration.
Now, in order to show the falsity of this assumption, I
shall first prove, by the direct testimony of those early
fathers to whom Dr. Milner himself appeals, that the true
and only rule of faith is the WRITTEN WORD OF GOD, in the
canonical Scriptures. I shall then show the respect due to
the decisions of the Church, as the interpreter of Scripture,
which we admit as well as yourselves, so long as the
Church remained united and practically Catholic. I shall
consider, by the way, the various allegations of your inge-
nious but most unscrupulous advocate, on the Canon of
Scripture, on our authorized English version, and on the
statements of certain English Bishops and divines. I shall
show that the provision of the Church of England and our
IrencBus on the Mule of" Faith. 269
own for the living, speaking judge in all matters of contro-
versy, is not only as complete and satisfactory as that of the
Church of Rome, but in fact much more so, because it em-
braces all that you have derived from the Apostles, while
it excludes only those later inventions in favor of priestly
despotism, which almost brought Christianity to utter ruin.
This order will dispose of every point which belongs to the
real argument between the two Churches, and I trust that
you will find the conclusion clear enough, although I can-
not expect that you will think it satisfactory.
1 . That the primitive Church held the Scriptures to be the
rule of faith, which is the first point proposed in the order
of argument, I shall prove by the following authorities :
Irenaeus, Bishop of Lyons, in A. D. 170, in ch. xxviii. of
his work against heresies, saith, " We ought to leave all
such questions to God who made us, knowing most rightly
that the Scriptures truly are perfect, since they were dic-
tated by the Word of God, and His Spirit."* Again : " We
know the plan of our salvation by no others except those
by whom the Gospel came to us, which truly they then
preached, but afterwards, by the will of God, delivered to us
in the SCRIPTURES, to be the foundation and pillar of our
faith. * * * Thus, Matthew put forth the Scripture
of the Gospel to the Hebrews in their tongue, when Peter
and Paul preached at Rome, and founded the Church there.
And after their departure, Mark, the disciple and interpreter
of Peter, delivered to us in writing those things which
Peter had preached. And Luke, the follower of Paul, ar-
ranged in a book the Gospel which had been preached by
him. Afterwards, John also, the disciple of our Lord, who
* Iren. Contra Haereses, Lib, 2, cap. xxviii., 3, p. 156.
270 Letter XV.
had reclined upon his breast, published a Gospel while he
sojourned at Ephesus, in Asia."*
" But when," continues Irenaeus, " the heretics are put
down. by the Scriptures, they turn to- accusing the Scrip-
tures themselves, as if they were not correct, nor from au-
thority, because things are related variously, and therefore
the truth cannot 4 be found from them by those who are ig-
norant of tradition. For this was not delivered by writing,
but by the living voice." * * * " And when, again, we
challenge them to compare their doctrine with that tradi-
tion which is from the Apostles, and is kept by the succes-
sion of the elders in the Churches, then they oppose tradi-
tion, saying that they, being wiser than the elders and the
Apostles themselves, have found the sincere truth, * * *
which is nothing better than to blaspheme against their
Maker. Thus it happens that they assent neither to the
Scriptures nor to tradition."!
Here the intelligent reader will see at once the meaning
which Irenaeus gives to tradition, viz., the sense which the
Church had handed down from those Scriptures, which were
given to be the foundation and the pillar of our faith ; not as
being a distinct and additional revelation, according to the
Gnostics and Dr. Milner, but as the fixed and settled inter-
pretation of the ScritJtures in the Church of God. In this
sense, which includes the early creeds and the really Gen-
eral Councils, Dr. Milner well knew that our Church ac-
cepts tradition, and reverences it sincerely. And he also
knew that we respected the primitive tradition in matters
of form and ceremony. But when tradition presumes to
add to the original faith, and claims to be a guide superior
* Iren. Contra Haereses, Lib. 3, cap. i., p. 173-4.
f Ib. Lib. 3, cap. ii., p. 174.
Iren&us on Tradition. 271
to the .Scriptures, and an independent rule. of perfect obliga-
tion, beyond and above what the primitive Church derived
from the written Word, we hold with Irenseus, that such a
pretended tradition is nothing better than a blasphemy
against our Maker.
Irenseus proceeds to establish this true apostolical tradi-
tion by the successions of the Bishops from the Apostles ;
and then, as if to prove, beyond the possibility of dispute,
that he intended nothing different from the settled interpre-
tation of the Scriptures, he speaks as, follows :
" Therefore, the tradition which is from the Apostles,
thus existing in the Church, and remaining with us, let us
return to it, which is the manifestation FROM THE SCRIP-
TURES of those Apostles who wrote the Gospel, by whom
was written the Word of God, showing that our Lord Jesus
Christ is the truth, and there is no falsehood in Him."*
And again : " The faith is therefore firm, and not feigned,
but the only true one, according to our teaching, having its
plain manifestation FROM THOSE SCRIPTURES, which are in-
terpreted in the manner already shown, and announced to
the Church without interpolation. And thus the Apostles
agree with our interpretation, and our interpretation accords
with the tradition of the Apostles. "f And once more :
" Let us then flee," saith Irenseus, ' : from the doctrine of
heretics, and beware of them, and we shall not be troubled ;
and let us take refuge in the Church, and be brought up in.
her bosom, and be nourished BY THE DIVINE SCRIPTURES,
for the Church is planted as a paradise in this world. You
shall eat food, therefore, from every tree of paradise, saith the
Spirit of God, that is, EAT OF ALL DIVINE SCRIPTURE, but
* Iren. Contra Haareses, Lib. 3, cap. v., p. 179.
t Ib. Lib. 3, cap. xxi., $ 3, p. 216.
272 Letter XV.
of any foreign doctrine you shall not eat, neither touch the
dissentient heretical opinions."*
These extracts are but a small portion of the evidence
furnished by this father, since, in truth, his whole work is
a constant appeal to the Scriptures, from which alone he
argues every branch of the Gnostic heresy. But my limits
will not allow me to go more largely than is necessary into
the testimony of each witness ; and- there are many more
to be heard upon this fundamental error of your Papal system.
The next authority which I shall set before you belongs
to the year 200 the celebrated Tertullian, who is quoted
largely by Dr. Milner.
Thus, speaking of the worshipping assemblies of the
Church, in his apology to the Gentiles, he saith, " We
come together to commemorate THE DIVINE SCRIPTURES.
* * .* We feed our faith with holy words, we elevate
our hope, and establish our confidence. "f " We have the
APOSTLES OF THE LORD FOR AUTHORS, who did not choose
of their own will what they should set forth, but faithfully
delivered to the nations what they had received from the
teaching of Christ. Therefore, although an angel from
heaven should evangelize otherwise, he should be called
anathema by us."! " How can they speak of the things of
faitli except from the SCRIPTURES OF FAITH ?" " But this
heresy does not receive certain portions of Scripture, and
what they do receive, they do not receive entire, but dis-
tort it, by additions and subtractions, to their own purpose. "||
* Iren. Contra Hsereses, Lib. 5, cap. xx., 2, p. 317.
f Tert. Apol. xxxix. A, p. 31.
t Ib. de Praes. Hseret., cap. vi., p. 204.
Ib. cap. xv., p. 207.
II Ib. cap. xvii., p. 208.
Tertullian and Clement. 273
'Again, after a long and eloquent castigation of the heretics,
on the ground that the Church alone has a right to the
Scriptures, Tertullian, speaking of the true Christian, saith,
" He acknowledges one God, the Creator of the Universe,
and Jesus Christ, the Son of the Creator, from the Virgin
Mary, and the resurrection from the dead. HE UNITES
THE LAW AND THE PROPHETS WITH THE EVANGELICAL AND
APOSTOLICAL SCRIPTURES, AND FROM THENCE DRINKS IN
HIS FAITH. Water signs it, it is clothed with the Holy
Spirit, the Eucharist feeds it, martyrdom exhorts it, and
against this institution it receives no one." * * * "There-
fore, they are not Christians who DO NOT TAKE THE LAW
FROM THE SCRIPTURES OF THE CHRISTIAN."*
I shall close these extracts from Tertullian with two
maxims, which are of the highest value to the safety of the
Church. " Heresy," saith he, " is not overcome by the
charge .of novelty so much as by the truth. Whatever is
wise against the truth is HERESY, although it be an ancient
custom."^ " That which is first is TRUE, and that which
comes after is adulterous.^ Here is the sure principle
adopted by our English reformers, in going up to the foun-
tain head of the Scriptures and the primitive Church, not-
withstanding the errors of the Papacy had become venera-
ble by antiquity.
Nearly contemporary with Tertullian was Clement of
Alexandria, the master of the Catechetical School in that
city, and a man of eminent learning in his day. His testi-
mony on the subject of the rule of faith will be sufficiently
manifest from the following words : " Whoever, being re-
* Tert. de Praes. Hocret., cap. xxxi., p. 215.
t Ib. do Virgin. Vel., p. 172.
t Ib. Adv. Praxeam, p. 501.
274 Letter XV.
covered from his error, OBEYS THE SCRIPTURES, and gives
tip his life to the truth, is made, in a certain sense, God
from man. For we have the Lord as the head of doctrine,
who, by the prophets, by the Gospel, and by the blessed
Apostles, led our knowledge in various ways from the be-
ginning to the end. * * * Whoever, therefore, is faith-
ful from himself," (that is, faithfully disposed,) " is worthy
of faith from THE VOICE AND SCRIPTURE OF THE LORD.
For we use this as a criterion, * * * and we are trained
by the voice of the Lord to the knowledge of the truth."
* * * u \Ye do not expect the testimony which is given
by men, but we prove what is sought by the voice of the
Lord, which is more worthy of faith than any demonstra-
tion, or rather, which is the only demonstration, by which
knowledge, those who have only tasted the Scriptures are
believers. * * * Therefore we, perfectly demonstra-
ting FROM THOSE SCRIPTURES, are persuaded demonstra-
tively by faith."*
We pass next to the testimony of Origen, which will be
found equally clear and conclusiA r e.
Thus he speaks of the intelligent and instructed Chris-
tian : ' ; He knows," saith Origen, " that the whole Scrip-
ture is a perfect and apt instrument of GOD, which utters
one harmony from many sounds to those who wish to learn
the voice of salvation, calming and restraining all the power
of the evil spirit, in like manner as the music of David
bound the evil spirit who assailed Saul, and suffocated
him."f And again : " I dare to say that the Gospel is the
first-fruits of all the Scriptures.^ Again : " Paul writes in
* Clem. Alex. Strom., Lib. vii., p. 757.
t Origenis in Evangel. Mat., Tom. 1, p. 204-5.
$ Ib. Com. in Joannera, Tom. 2, p. 3.
Oyprian on Tradition. 275
a certain place, According to my Gospel. Yet, among the
writings of Paul, there is no book extant which is com-
monly called Gospel. But whatever he preached or said
was the Gospel, and what he preached and said he also
wrote, and therefore it is properly inferred that HIS WRI-
TINGS ARE HIS GOSPEL."* Here is an important statement,
proving that Origen, the most eminent man of his day in the
primitive Church, had no idea of your Papal dogma, that
the Apostles delivered many things belonging to the faith
which they did not put in writing.
I come next to Cyprian, the eminent Bishop and martyr,
who flourished about the year 250. In his dispute with
Stephen, the Bishop of Rome, concerning the rebaptizing
of those who had received their baptism at the hands of
heretics, he quotes the appeal which Stephen had made to
tradition, and answers in these words : " From whence is
this tradition 1 Has it descended from the divine authority
of the Gospel, or does it come from the commands and epis-
tles of the Apostles ? For God testifies that those things
are to be done which are written. * * * If, therefore,
it is ordered in the Gospel, or is contained in the Epistles
or Acts of the Apostles, that those who come from any
heresy shall not be baptized, but shall only have the impo-
sition of hands in penitence, let this divine and holy tradi-
tion be observed. * * * But what obstinacy is this,
what presumption, to prefer human tradition before the sys-
tem of God, and to be thoughtless of this, that God is wrath-
ful and indignant whenever human tradition sets aside the
divine precepts !"f " Nor let custom, which has broken in
with some, hinder the truth from overcoming. For custom
* Origenis Com. in Joannem, Tom. 2, p. 6.
t Gyp. ad Pompeium, Contra Epistolam Stephani, p. 152-3.
11*
276 Letter XV.
without truth is only the antiquity of error ; therefore let us
forsake the error, and follow truth."* * * * And if in
anything the truth is shaken, let us return to the divine
original, the evangelical and apostolical tradition."! Here
we see that Cyprian applies the term Tradition in both the
senses. The divine and apostolical tradition he confines ex-
pressly to what was DELIVERED IN THE SCRIPTURES, and
refuses to obey any other. The human tradition he treats
with contempt, where it seemed to him inconsistent with
Scripture. I need hardly observe that the word Tradition
signifies simply a thing delivered or handed down, and
hence it admits of either application.
It may be interesting to advert to the testimony of Atha-
nasius, whose numerous labors in defence of the Nicene
Creed would seem to place him, in the opinions of your
modern theologians, in the front rank of those who rest
upon tradition as an equally faithful guide in faith with the
Scriptures, or rather, as some have not blushed to say, a
superior one. Quite contrary to this false and perilous no-
tion, however, was the opinion of Athanasius. Speaking
expressly on the very subject of the first Council of 'Nice,
he saith, " It is manifest that they did not write concerning
the faith otherwise than to declare that the Catholic Church
believes in this manner, and the confession of faith was im-
mediately added, in order to prove that this was not a new
opinion, but apostolical, and that what they set forth was
not their invention, but THE DOCUMENTS OF THE APOS-
TLES." Then, adverting to the numerous Councils which
had been held by the heretics, he adds, " They ask in vain
for Councils concerning the faith, when THE DIVINE SCRIP-
* Gyp. ad Pompeium, Contra Epistolam Stephani, p. 155.
f Ib. p. 156.
S. Athanasius. 277
TURE is MORE POTENT THAN ALL. For if, in that respect,
the employment of a Council is desirable, the acts of the
fathers remain. Nor were those who assembled at Nice
neglectful on the subject, but they wrote accurately, in or-
der that whoever should read their writings might be easily
reminded of that religion in Christ, which is ANNOUNCED
BY THE HOLY SCRIPTURES."* Again : " THE HOLY SCRIP-
TURES have taught us to speak thus of the monarchy of
Christ. And these things we are compelled to explain
more largely, since the compend of our faith is published,
not by reason of ambition, but that we might purge our-
selves from all suspicion which could in the least attach
to us among those to whom our acts are known, and that
all the Western Churches may understand the calumnies of
those who teach error and irreverence, as well as- the ec-
clesiastical elevation of mind of those Oriental Christians
towards Christ ; THE DIVINELY INSPIRED SCRIPTURES
FREELY BEARING THEM WITNESS with all who are uncor-
rupted."f And again, Athanasius records this true state-
ment : " For the orthodox Church, RIGHTLY READING AND
EXACTLY EXAMINING THE DIVINE SCRIPTURES, builds her-
self upon the Rock that Church which is the perfect dore.
which holds the rule of a right and pious faith in the apos-
tolic vessel, while the vast waves dash upon the immovable
Rock, and, cast backwards -upon themselves, disappear in
foam. And such waves are all heresies. "J Thus we see
how plainly Athanasius rests the Nicene Creed, in strict
accordance with the eighth Article of the Church of Eng-
and and our- own, not upon an independent apostolical tradi-
* Athan. de Syn, Arim, et Seleucias Epist. Op., Tom. 1, p. 873 %
+ Ib. p. 899.
% \b, Conto Qra. Haereses, Op., Tom. 1, p. 1087.
278 Letter XV.
tion, as Dr. Milner would persuade the world, but upon the
faith derived from the DIVINE SCRIPTURES. And as this
eminent father was himself a member of the first Gen-
eral Council, his statement is conclusive and irresistible.
Let us now turn to Cyril, the Archbishop of Jerusalem,
whose catechetical lectures have come down to our day as
a valuable relic of antiquity. " Embrace and keep," saith
this eminent father, " the faith which is now delivered to
you by the Church, TAKEN FROM ALL THE SCRIPTURES.
For as all cannot read the Scriptures, but some are pre-
vented by unskilfulness, and others by occupation, lest any
soul should perish through ignorance, we comprehend the
whole doctrine of faith in a few verses. * * * And this
faith I command you to nave as your viaticum through life,
and to receive nothing riiorc besides it, not even if we ourselves
should change, and spsa.lt contrary to those things wlticli we
now teach you ; nor even if an opposing angel, transformed
into an angel of light, should seek to lead you into error.
For although we or an angel from heaven should preach
unto you another Gospel besides that which you now re-
ceive, let him. bs anathema. And what you have in words,
retain in your memory, and TAKE THE ORIGIN (Gr.,
cvoratjiv] OF EACH HEAD, at a fitting time, FROM THE DI-
VINE SCRIPTURES. For the sura of the faith was not com-
posed as it pleased men, but the most important things,
(Gr., Kaipi&rara.) SELECTED OUT OF ALL THE SCRIPTURES,
complete one doctrine of faith. And even as the mustard-
seed includes many branches in a little grain, so this faith,
in few words, incloses, as in a bosom, all the knowledge
of piety contained as well in the Old as in the New Testa-
ment. Behold, therefore, my brethren, and hold fast the
traditions which you now receive, and write them in the
<S'. Cyril of Jerusalem. 279
breadth of your hearts."* Here we have the most distinct
' statement that the Original Creed of the Church was not
an independent tradition, orally delivered, but a compend
taken from THE SCRIPTURES. And yet, notwithstanding
its scriptural origin, it is called the traditions, because it
was transmitted, or handed down, just as we have seen the
same word employed by the other fathers. It is too obvi-
ous to require any argument, however, that the tradition of
the faith contained in the Creeds, and derived entirely from
the Scriptures, cannot yield the slightest warrant for your
Romish tradition, which presumes to add new Articles of
faith, of which the primitive Church had no conception, not
only without warrant from the Word of God, but even
against it.
A few other extracts from the same ancient writer will
strengthen the true ground of this all-important distinction.
Thus, Cyril, speaking of the Sonship of Christ as an im-
penetrable mystery which no man can safely venture to ex-
plain, saith : " Who can know the deep things of God, ex-
cept the Holy Spirit alone, who has dictated the divine Scrip-
tures? And yet the Holy Spirit Himself has not spoken in
the Scriptures concerning the generation of the Son from
the Father. Why, then, should you laboriously inquire into
those things which the Holy Spirit has not written in the
Scriptures ? Why shouldst thou, who knowest not those
things which are written, seek to penetrate what is not
written ? There are many questions in the divine Scrip-
tures : we do not comprehend what is written. Wherefore
should we fatigue the mind about what is not written ?
Let it suffice us to know that God begat his only Son."f
* Cyril, Hierosol. Cat. 5, De Fide et Symbolo, p. 78.
t Ib. Cat. 11, De Filio Dei, p. 154.
280 Letter XV.
Again, speaking' of the incarnation, Cyril saith, " Are not
the DIVINE SCRIPTURES our salvation ? Are not these the
predictions of the prophets ? Therefore, this deposit is
committed to me, to be kept immovable. Let no one move
thee. Believe that God was made man."*
Again, treating of the Holy Spirit, Cyril repeats the same
solemn truth in another form. " Let us speak only those
things which are written ; if anything be not written, let us
not curiously seek to know it. THE HOLY SPIRIT HIMSELF
HAS UTTERED THE SCRIPTURES ; He has said whatever He
chose concerning Himself, and all that we were able to re-
ceive. Let us speak, therefore, those things which are dic-
tated by Himself, for what He has not said, we dare not"\
The same honor was rendered to the perfection of the
Scriptures by the famous Ambrose, Bishop of Milan, who
adorned the fourth century. Thus, he saith in one place,
" All truth is in the New Testament."^ Again, in comment-
ing upon St. Luke's Gospel, he saith, " The Gospel is
complete, and overflows in redundance to all the faithful
throughout the world, and waters the minds of all, and con-
firms them." Again : " The reward of the Scriptures is
our faith, for what is read therein is estimated by the
judgment of him that understands it. And the remission of
sins is the reward of both the Testaments, for what was an-
nounced in type by the lamb, was completed by Christ. "||
" And now God walks with me in paradise when I read the
divine Scriptures. The book of Genesis is a paradise, in
* Cyril, Hierosol., Cat. 12, p. 170.
t Ib. Cat. 16, De Spiritu Sancto, p. 244.
$ Ambros. in Psalm. 118, Expos.. Op., Tom. 1, p. 1206.
<J Ib. p. 1266.
II Ib. Op., Tom. 2, p. 895.
S. Jerome. 281
.which the virtues of the patriarchs are put forth ; Deuter-
onomy is a paradise, in which the precepts of the law
spring up ; the Gospel is a paradise, in which the tree of
life bears good fruits, and diffuses the commands of eternal
hope to all people."* And once more, Ambrose uses this
strong language : " The traditions of the SCRIPTURES are
the body of CHRIST."!
The famous Jerome expresses his reverence for the com-
pleteness and authority of the Scriptures with equal clear-
ness. " Our care," saith he, " is to say, not what any one
can or may, but what THE SCRIPTURES authorize. ,"J " Love
the holy Scriptures, and Wisdom will love thee." In an-
other of his works, arguing against the advocates of certain
errors into which Origen had been led by his disposition to
affix an allegorical and a spiritual sense to every passage
in Scripture, Jerome enters largely into the praises of
Origen's zeal, his extraordinary learning, his astonishing
industry as a voluminous writer, and all the other excellen-
cies of his character. But although, in point of fact, Origen
did not advance his errors with dogmatic certainty, and, on
the contrary, merely propounded them as conjectural opin-
ions, yet Jerome censures them, on the ground of their be-
ing departures from the faith of the Scriptures laid down to
the Church from the beginning. And therefore, Jerome re-
proves his admirers in these memorable words : " Whoever
thou art that assertest new dogmas, I pray thee to spare
Roman ears. Spare them, because the Romans are praised
by the Apostle. Why, after four hundred years, dost thou
* Ambros. Op., Tom. 2, p. 992.
t Ib. Tom. 1, p. 1391, $ 33.
i S. Hieron., Tom. 2, p. 75, D.
$ Ib. Tom.- 1, p. 46, G.
282 Letter XV.
endeavor to teach us what we never knew before ? Why
dost thou bring forward now WHAT PETER AND PAUL WERE
UNWILLING TO SET FORTH ? To this day the Christian
world was ignorant of this doctrine. I will hold, as an old
man, the same faith into which I was born when a boy."*
Here we see how Jerome rested his faith on the Scriptures,
and how sternly he repelled the idea that he could suffer it
to be adulterated by any innovation.
I shall pass on next to the evidence of Augustin, and com-
mence with the language of his prayer : " O Lord my God,
* * * let THY SCRIPTURES be my chaste delight ; may I
neither be deceived in them, nor deceive from them. * * *
May I confess to Thee whatever I shall find IN THY BOOKS.
May I hear the voice of praise, and drink of Thee, and con-
sider the wonderful things of Thy law from the beginning,
in which Thou madest the heavens and the earth, even to
the eternal kingdom of Thy holy city with Thee."f
In one of his strong remonstrances against the Donatists,
Augustin saith, " We know not what men may cast forth
against themselves, who take pleasure in scandalous dissen-
sions. In the Scriptures we learn Christ, in the Scriptures
we learn the Church. These Scriptures we have in com-
mon. Why do we not hold in them Christ and the Church
in common also ?" Then, quoting a great number of texts
in which Christ is spoken of, and His Church likewise,
Augustin renews his appeal in the end with these words :
" Behold, the Scriptures are common to us. Behold where
we know Christ. Behold where we know His Church. If
you hold Christ Himself, why do you not hold His Church ?
If you believe in Christ, of whom you read, but whom you
* Hieron. Op., Tom. 2, p. 131, D. Ad Pammachium, &c., Epist.
t Augustin. Confes., Lib. 11, cap. ii. Op., Tom. 1, p. 147.
S. Augustine. 283
do not see, by reason of the truth of Scripture, why do you
deny the Church, Avhich you both read and see ?"*
Again, in another epistle, Augustine treats the same sub-
ject in the following words : " Heresies and offences were
foretold, that we might be perfected among enemies, and
our faith and love be more approved : Our faith, lest we be
deceived by them ; and our love, that we should consult for
their correction as much as lies in us, not only watchful
that they do not hurt the weak, and that they may be de-
livered from their nefarious error, but also praying for them,
that the Lord may open their sense, and that they may UN-
DERSTAND THE SCRIPTURES. Because, in the holy books
where the Lord Christ is manifested, there also His Church
is declared. But these men, with wonderful blindness, al-
though they only kn oio Christ Himself THROUGH THE SCRIP-
TURES, yet do not acknowledge the Church by the authority
of the same divine writings, but fabricate it by the vanity
of human perversions."!
And yet more clear is Augustine's statement that the
Scriptures are THE RULE OF FAITH, in the following words,
extracted from his greatest work, De Civitate Dei : " The
City of God," saith he, (that is, The Church,) " BELIEVES
THE HOLY SCRIPTURES, both Old and New, which we call
canonical, FROM WHICH THE FAITH ITSELF is CONCEIVED by
which the just man liveth, by which we walk without doubt-
fulness, so long as we are absent from the Lord : which
faith being safe and certain, we may doubt without censure
concerning other things, which we do not perceive either
by the sense or reason, which are not made clear to us by
* Augustin. ad Donatistas Op., Tom. 2, p. 228, 14 and 17.
t Ib. de Correctione Donatistarum, Op., Tom. 2, p. 490.
284 Letter XV.
the canonical Scripture, nor brought under our notice by
witnesses whom it is absurd not to credit."*
Lastly, on this all-important question, we may cite the
authority of Vincent of Lerins, who died dm-ing the reign
of Theodosius and Valentinian, in the fifth century, and
whose Commonitorium is acknowledged by all your writers
to be a true expression of the Rule of Faith, as held by the
primitive Church.
" If any man desires," saith this author, " to avoid the
frauds of heretics, and to remain safe and sound in the sav-
ing faith, he must fortify his faith in a twofold manner.
First, namely, by the authority of the divine law, and then
by the tradition of the Church Catholic or universal. But
here, perhaps, it may be inquired, Since the canon of Scrip-
ture is perfect, and is enough, and more than enough, for all
things, what need is there to join the authority of ecclesias-
tical interpretation ? Because the holy Scripture, by rea-
son of its sublimity, is not received in the same sense by
all, but is interpreted in various ways by various interpret-
ers. For Novatian expounds it in one way, Sabellius in an-
other ; Donatus in another ; Arius, Eunomius, Macedonius,
in another ; Photinus, Apollinaris, Priscillian, in another ;
Jovinian, Pelagius, Celestius, in another ; and finally, Nes-
torius. And therefore it is absolutely necessary that the
line of prophetical and apostolical interpretation should be
directed according to the rule of the ecclesiastical and
Catholic sense. In. the Catholic Church itself, too, we must
be particularly careful to hold that which was believed
everywhere, always, and by all. For this it is which is truly
and properly CATHOLIC, as the very force and reason of the
* Augustin. De Civitate Dei, Lib. 19. cap. 18, p. 425, E.
S. Vincent. 285
word declares, which comprehends almost all things uni-
versally. And this will be our case if we follow universal-
ity, ajitiquity, and consent "*
The application of this rule by Vincent is a wonderfully
close approximation to the state of the case at the time of
the English Reformation. " What, therefore," continues
our author, " shall the Catholic Christian do if a portion of
the Church should cut itself off from the communion of the
universal faith 1 What, truly, but that he should prefer the
soundness of the whole body before one pestiferous and cor
rupted member ? What if some new contagion should laboi
to stain, NOT A PORTION ONLY, BUT THE WHOLE CHURCH
TOGETHER ? Even then, also, he will take care that he ad-
heres to antiquity, which now certainly cannot be seduced
by any fraud of novelty. What if, in antiquity itself, some
error be found of two or three men, or of one city, or even
province ? Then he will prefer the decrees of a Universal
Council generally accepted in ancient times, if any such there
be, before the rashness and ignorance of a few. What if
something should arise where nothing of this kind can be
found 1 Then he will labor to consult and interrogate the
opinions of the great majority, comparing them together,
especially of those who, although in different times and
places, yet continuing in the faith and communion of the
one Catholic Church, were esteemed as approved masters ;
and whatever he shall know that not one or two only, but
alltalike, with one and the same consent, have openly, fre-
quently, and perseveringly held, written, and taught, let him
understand that this he also should believe without any du-
bitation."f
* Vincentii Lirinensis Commonitorium, cap. ii.
[ Ib. cap. iii.
286 Letter XV.
Now here we see not only the liberty, but the absolute
dut) 1 ", of the exercise of private judgment, in order that the
individual Christian may discover the judgment of the Church
in the ancient days of true Catholicity. For Vincent plainly
supposes the case possible that the whole Church may be
infected by a new contagion. And even then, he insists that
the truly Catholic Christian shall adhere to antiquity. And
in order that he may be able to determine what was the
doctrine of antiquity, he must examine, compare, and decide
from the works of tho fathers, until he is satisfied and con-
vinced of what the great majority of the approved masters
held and taught. That very work, however, evidently re-
quires an exercise of private judgment. And yet, so soon
as this task is honestly completed, the individual is bound
to adopt the teaching of the true Catholic Church, and hold
to that, though the whole Church, in his own day, might
decide against him.
And, as a practical illustration of his meaning, Vincent
next recurs to the past history of the Church. " Thus,"
saith he, " when the poison of the Arians contaminated, not
a portion only, but almost the whole world, so that the minds
of nearly all the Latin Bishops, partly deceived by force,
and partly by fraud, were overspread with a certain dark-
ness as to the course which should be followed in such a
confusion of things, even then, whoever was a true lover
and worshipper of Christ, preferring the ancient faith to the
new perfidy, was not spotted by the plague of this conta-
gion."*
On this ground we stand, and we ask no other. The
Scriptures, as THE RULE OF FAITH, according to the primi-
* Vincent. Lir., cap. iv.
Catholic Interpretation. 287
tive Catholic interpretation, with the right of private judg-
ment, in order to decide what that interpretation was, and
the duty of rejecting all that innovated, or presumed to add
any new invention to the pure doctrine of antiquity, even
though the corruption had spread almost over the whole
Church : such is the position of Vincent such was the
teaching of all the fathers and such was the principle for
which the martyrs of England were content to lay down
their lives in the flames of Papal persecution,
288 The End of Controversy^ Controverted.
LETTER XVI.
MOST REVEREND SIR :
ENOUGH of authority has been cited, from the very sources
to which Dr. Milner himself appeals, to establish the doc-
trine of the Church of England and our own, viz., that the
Rule of Faith is the word of God recorded in the Scriptures,
as they were received and interpreted by the primitive
Church. I shall now return to your favorite advocate, and
consider those parts of his argument which are so subtilly
directed against this ancient and really Catholic doctrine.
Thus, in his 8th letter, (p. 60,) he ventures to make this
absurd assertion, that " if Christ had intended all mankind
to learn His religion from a book, namely, the New Testa-
ment, He Himself would have written that book, and would
have laid down, as the first and fundamental precept of His
religion, the obligation of learning to read it." This impi-
ous attempt to lessen the divine authority of the Scriptures
can only impose on the most shallow mind. For it strikes,
in one blow, at the whole majesty of the Bible. On the
same principle, the Pentateuch would cease to be the Word
of God, because it was written by Moses. The prophets
would lose their authority, because it does not appear that
their writings were put into their present shape by any ex-
press command of the Almighty. The Gospels ivould be
robbed of their celestial character, because the Saviour did
not become, in person, His own biographer ! And when Dr.
Argument against Scripture. 289
Milner had prostrated, in this profane way, the supreme au-
thority of the Scriptures, how would he prove that the Lord
Jesus Christ speaks to men by the priesthood ? Alas ! what
madness possesses your Papal theologians to utter such an
impious slur upon the Book of God, in the vain hope of
magnifying their own authority ! But we know that the
blessed Redeemer told the Jews to SEARCH THE SCRIP-
TURES, and called them THE WORD OF GOD. "We know
that the Apostle declared in writing, " If any man among
you think himself to be a prophet or spiritual, let him ac-
knowledge what I say to be THE COMMANDMENTS OF OUR
LORD JESUS CHRIST." We know that the same Apostle
recorded the statement, " ALL SCRIPTURE is GIVEN BY IN-
SPIRATION OF GOD." And I have already proved that the
primitive Church, Avith one voice, professed to derive their
faith from the Scriptures, and settled every question belong-
ing 'to the faith by an appeal to their divine authority.
But suppose Dr. Milner's infidel suggestion to have been
the plan of the Lord, what then ? Is it not manifest that
Christ would have descended to the level of all human
teachers ? For the ancient philosophers wrote down their
own systems, with the single exception of Socrates. Ma-
homet wrote the whole of his Koran. How infinitely more
sublime and worthy of Deity, that the Lord should send
forth His inspired messengers, and qualify them, by the di-
vine gift of His own Spirit, to record His revelations to
mankind !
Again, Dr. Milner informs us, that " only a part of them
(the Apostles) wrote anything, and what these did write,
was, for the most part, addressed to particular persons or
congregations, and on particular occasions. St. Matthew
wrote his Gospel at the particular request of the Christians
290 Letter XVL
of Palestine, and St. Mark composed his at the desire of
those at Rome. St. Luke addressed his Gospel to an indi-
vidual, Theophilus, having written it because it seemed
good to him to do so. St. John wrote the last of the Gos-
pels in compliance with the petition of the clergy and peo-
ple of Lesser Asia. ' * * No doubt, the Evangelists
were moved by the Holy Ghost to listen to the requests of
the faithful in writing their respective Gospels ; neverthe-
less, there is nothing in these occasions, nor in the Gospels
themselves, which indicates that any one of them, or all of
them together, contain an entire, detailed, and clear exposi-
tion of the whole religion of Jesus Christ. The canonical
epistles in the New Testament show the particular occa-
sions on which they were written, and prove, as the Bishop
of Lincoln observes, that they are not to be considered as
regular treatises on the Christian religion."
Nothing can manifest more plainly the real spirit of
Popery, than the necessity which its unhappy priests are
under to disparage, in this style, the Scriptures of divine
truth, in order to draw away the confidence of mankind from
the sacred oracles to their own corrupt teaching. And
therefore I must ask your attention to the various points
which Dr. Milner puts in this most irreverent and blas-
.phemous specimen of argumentation.
He had just before stated that the Saviour does not ap-
pear to have commanded His Apostles to write, though he
repeatedly and emphatically commanded them to preach His
Gospel. And your inference, of course, is, that what they
said orally is to be taken for our guide, as the Churches
who heard them have handed it down by tradition, since in
this mode your innovations may be imposed upon the world,
under the pretence that they are derived from the oral teach-
Argument against Scriplart 291
ing of the Apostles, notwithstanding there is not a trace of
them to be found in the written word.
But does not the command to preach include every mode
of preaching ? When, for example, the Apostle Paul ad-
dressed his epistles to the Churches, commanding that they
should be read by the disciples when they met together, was
not this the PREACHING to those Churches, with the single
difference, that as writings are intended to remain as the
permanent monuments of instruction, they are always ex-
pected to be more full and deserving of repetition than the
oral teaching, which is confined to a single delivery ?
And what does Dr. Milner mean by saying that the Gos-
pels and Epistles were addressed to particular persons or
congregations, and on particular occasions 1 Did he ever
hear of any divine revelation that was not addressed to par-
ticular persons, and on particular occasions ? And, in the
name of common sense, does that fact prevent its applica-
tion to all other persons and occasions where there is equal
need of it ? And on the same ground, what advantage
would he gain for his oral traditions, which are pretended
to be derived from the same source ? For I suppose that
when the Apostles delivered the truth of God by the living
voice, they must have done it to particular persons or con-
gregations, and on particular occasions, inasmuch as they
certainly could not address the whole Church at once, ex-
cept in Avriting, after they were dispersed throughout the
world, in the fulfilment of their sacred mission.
He tells us, however, that the Christians of Palestine, and
those at Rome, and those in Lesser Asia, requested that the
Gospels might be written. He also says that " St. Luke
addressed his Gospel to a single individual, Theophilus?
apparently forgetting that this name cannot be shown to be
12
292 Letter XV L
the title of any particular man, since it signifies a lover of
God, and hence it is at least as likely, if not much more so, .
that it was addressed to every believer, because each one of
the faithful is a Theophilus, of necessity. But Dr. Milner
takes care not to inform his readers why those requests
were made, supposing, what cannot be proved, that the sa-
cred writers did not prepare their several contributions un-
til they had been requested. And yet it is most obvious
that there could have been but one reason for such a re-
quest, viz., that the hearers desired to have a permanent
record, of what had been delivered to them 'by the voice of
the Apostles, in order that they might be reminded of the
truth by a lasting standard, and freed from the danger of
distorting or losing any portion of the celestial revelation,
through the inevitable infirmity of human memory. The
ancient fathers state this expressly in the case of St. Mark's
Gospel ; and if it had not been stated, the slightest reflec-
tion would prove the necessity of such a course. And the
history of the Church confirms it most painfully. Since
if, with the Scriptures, so much falsehood and superstition
have been added to the faith by a pretended apostolical tra-
dition, what must have been the condition of the Church in
case the wisdom of God had furnished no fixed monuments
of divine truth as the standard of His will ?
Neither is this the whole of Dr. Milner's sophistry. He
informs us, that the Gospels, taken altogether, do not con-
tain an entire, detailed, and clear exposition of the whole
religion of Jesus Christ. If he means by this that the rest
of the New Testament, together with the Old, is supposed
to be unnecessary, he treats his adversaries with the most
absurd' unfairness, because no one has ever undertaken to
say that the rest of the Scriptures were superfluous, and
Why was Scripture given 1 293
that the whole religion of Christ is in the Gospels alone.
If he means by an entire, detailed, and clear exposition of
the religion of Jesus Christ, the system of your Papal
Church, I fully agree with him, since it is very certain that
the distinctive dogmas of Popery, which the Church of
England renounced, are not only unwarranted by the Scrip-
tures, but are, in many respects, directly opposed to them.
But if he means that the Scriptures of the New Testament
do not contain all the doctrines of the Gospel faith, and all
the morality of Christian practice, and, moreover, when
taken in connection with the Old Testament, all the war-
rant required for the details of form and ceremony which the
primitive Church adopted in worship and discipline, and
which we have retained, I deny the assertion on the au-
thority of the fathers, and on the ground of all sound argu-
ment. His quotation from the English Bishop of Lincoln,
that " the epistles of the New Testament are not to be con-
sidered as regular treatises on the Christian religion," is
nothing to the purpose. The question is, whether the di-
vine Scriptures, as a whole, contain a full and ample reve-
lation of the Rule of Faith, and not whether it has pleased
the Spirit of God to put their instructions into the form of
what Dr. Milner or any other uninspired man would call
" a regular treatise."
Your Church, Most Reverend Sir, is compelled to ac-
knowledge the Bible as THE WORD OF GOD, notwithstand-
ing, like, the ancient Pharisees, she makes it void by her
traditions. Why, then, I ask, were these divine Scriptures
given at all, if they were not designed to be the standard
for the Church of Christ, just as the Books of Moses were
the standard for Israel under the previous dispensation ?
For if, according to your hypothesis, the faith of the Church
294 Letter XVI.
was intended to rest on oral tradition, it is manifest that the
written word would be of no real value. What can be
more absurd than the idea that the Holy Spirit /would dic-
tate to the Church in this permanent shape an incomplete,
inconclusive, and unsatisfactory exposition ? That, while
there are many things recorded there which are not strictly
necessary to be known for our salvation, yet the Spirit of
God neglected to set forth the whole of the faith, without which
no one could be saved ! That, while the Scriptures contain a
rich abundance of fruits and flowers, yet they do not con-
tain a sufficient amount of the Bread of life ! As well might
they charge upon the Lord any other gross incongruity. As
well might they persuade us, that although He has adorned
our bodies with various members, and provided for the least
among them the form of grace and the beauty of color, yet
He neglected to furnish the lungs to breathe, the brain to
govern, or the heart to circulate the blood of their vitality !
As well might they contend, that although His bounty had
filled our lower world with an exuberance of light and a
vast variety of vegetation, yet He had omitted the supplies
of food which were essential to our being ! Is it not an
amazing proof of infatuation that your Papal Church will
thus persist in charging an absurdity to God which would
be a reproach to any human lawgiver ? For who does not
know that every earthly governor is chiefly careful to pro-
vide first what is most necessary ? Or what mortal author
ever sought to instruct the world, without giving his chief
attention to that which he thought most important for his
reader's information 1
*
But such is the deplorable irreverence of your writers
towards the Word of God, that they deny its chief office as
the Rule of faith, the Guide to heaven, the Light of the
Another Specimen of Sophistry. 295
Church and of the world. The Scriptures are indeed in-
spired, they admit ; but the dictates of the Holy Ghost are
not of half so much importance as those of a Roman Coun-
cil ! The Evangelists and Apostles wrote the Gospels and
Epistles by the direction of the Almighty ; but the Pope
and the Bishops of Trent are far better teachers than they !
The Lord undertook to teach the way of life, but left out
an essential portion of the lesson ! The Redeemer placed
His saving truth in the permanent record of a Book, but the
truth thus recorded was not worthy of being received as
sufficient for salvation ! He inspired His special messen-
gers, and gave them holiness, and miracles and tongues, and
made them His organs to publish a written revelation, and
called it, by pre-eminence, the Gospel. But he intended,
notwithstanding, that their work should be full of fatal de-
fects, in order that a succession of uninspired men, many
of them destitute of holiness, some of them monsters of
crime, and all of them without miracles or any other super-
natural gift, might accomplish the task of supplying them !
Such is the fundamental proposition of Popery. The
Bible must be cast down, in order to set up its traditioas.
The supremacy of the divine Scriptures must be dethroned,
and the dictates of Popes and Councils must be invested
with the crown and sceptre. And there is the head and
front of your offence against Heaven. It is cunningly de-
vised. It is artfully set forth. It is eloquently defended.
But it comes to this at last, and no sophistry can disguise
it. And hence I look upon your Papal system as involving
a high and very awful, though a covert blasphemy against
the majesty of God.
The next assault of the unscrupulous Dr. Milner is upon
a man of straw which he has set up in the name of Prot-
296 Letter XVI.
estants in general, including the Church of England in par-
ticular. Thus he saith, (p. 61,) that " in supposing our Sa-
viour to have appointed His bare written Word for the rule
of our faith, without any authorized judge to decide on the
unavoidable controversies growing out of it, you would sup-
pose that He has acted differently from what common sense
has dictated to all other legislators." But who supposes
any such absurdity 1 Certainly, the Church of England,
when she declares in our 20th Article, that " the Church
hath authority in controversies of faith," asserts the very
contrary. The apostolic ministry appointed by the Re-
deemer were the teachers and the judges in all matters of
religion. Being inspired for the purpose, they established
the Rule of faith and the maxims of discipline, which they
left on record in the Acts of the Apostles and the Epistles,
to be the permanent law of their successors ; and from that
time, those successors have acted as the judges in matters
of religious controversy, and will so act to the end of the
world. Hence, the Scriptures are the LAW OF FAITH, and
the ministry are the official interpreters. I have said that
it was no part of my design to answer Dr. Milner's charges
against the various Protestant sects which came into ex-
istence in the Reformation of the sixteenth century. They
have a sufficient body of their own defenders, and probably
would not desire that I should intrude into their office. But
with respect to ourselves, we derive our rights, as teachers
and judges, from the apostolic root, as well as the Church
of Rome, and exercise all the powers which properly be-
longed to the primitive ministry. And we define them ac-
cording to the same standard, viz., the early ages of pure
Catholic Christianity.
And here it may be as well to notice the argument of
Common and Statute Law. 297
Dr. Milner, (p. 80,) where he saith that the Church of
Rome hath a twofold rule or law, tradition and Scripture,
and an interpreter or judge to explain them, and then refers
to the analogy of the common law and the statute law of
England, according to the statement of Blackstone. " The
municipal law," saith he, " may be divided into Lex non
Scripta, the unwritten or common law, and the Lex Scripta,
or statute law. The common law is the first ground and
chief corner-stone of the laws of England. And if the
question arises, how the customs and maxims of the com-
mon law are to be known, and by whom their validity is to
be determined ? the answer is, by the judges in the several
courts of justice. They are the depositaries of the laws,
the living oracles, who must decide in all cases of doubt,
and who are bound by oath to decide according to the law
of the land." This analogy Dr. Milner applies to the
Church, and justly, to a certain extent, but in some respects
quite erroneously.
Thus, the notion that the law of the Church was like the
common law, derived, as Blackstone saith, from " custom,
whereof the memory of man runneth not to the contrary" is
manifestly untrue, because the Church, not being a human
institution, could not possibly have such an origin for its
laws. On the contrary, the Church takes its origin from
divine revelation, and has its very being by the act of faith
in that revelation, followed by the sacrament of Baptism,
which grafts the believer into the body of Christ. This
revelation was committed to writing, so far as the chosen na-
tion were concerned, fifteen hundred years before the ad-
vent of the promised Redeemer. The law and the prophets,
the Aaronic priesthood and the tabernacle, the temple ser-
vice and the sacrifices, were all established by express enact-
298 Letter XVI.
ment from the divine Lawgiver, and assuredly, at the coming
of Christ, there was nothing in the Jewish system which
could be properly compared to the supposed analogy of the
Common Law, unless it was the traditionary system of the
Pharisees, which our Lord denounced in such strong terms
of condemnation.
When the divine Saviour fulfilled His wondrous mission,
accomplished the prophecies, and commissioned His. Apos-
tles to plant His Church throughout the world, giving them
for that purpose the extraordinary powers of miracles,
tongues and inspiration, there was still nothing in the whole
process -which resembles tradition or the common law.
True, indeed, it was, that eight years elapsed before
St. Matthew's Gospel was written, that nearly thirty years
elapsed before the Gospel of St. Mark and St. Luke, the
Acts of the Apostles, and the greater part of the Epistles
were composed and published, and that sixty or seventy
years elapsed before the Scriptures were produced which
claimed St. John for their author. But still there was not
the slightest element of tradition, in the sense of the Phari-
sees or of the common law, throughout the work, because
the Spirit of God was supernaturally present with His cho-
sen messengers, and everything was done by His direct
dictation. And all that the Church could require for the
laws of faith and the maxims of official administration, was
committed to writing under the influence of the Holy Spirit,
before the Apostles passed away. The appointment of dea-
cons, the ordination of presbyters, and finally the consecra-
tion of Bishops, with the rules by which they should teach,
govern, and administer discipline in the Church, all appear
in the written documents. The holding of a Council, though
St. Peter neither called it nor presided, has a place among
Romish Tradition an Absurdity. 299
the Acts of the Apostles, and there is not an essential fea-
ture belonging to the full organization of the Gospel sys-
tem, which is not clearly set down in the inspired record.
I do not forget that the word traditions is used by the
Apostle in a sense which includes both oral commands and
writing ; as where he saith to the Thessalonians, (2 Thes.
ii. 15,) " Hold the traditions which ye have been taught,
whether by word or our epistle." And we have already
seen that the fathers used the same term in reference to
Scripture. But this application of the word proves nothing
on either side of the question. For it is admitted that the
doctrines which the Apostles taught were first delivered
orally, and that when thus received, they were indeed oral
traditions. And it is evident that when committed to writ-
ing, and given to the Church, they would be called, accord-
ing to the language of the above text, written traditions, the
word tradition in both cases applying only to the fact that
the doctrines had been delivered, for the Greek term irap-
ddoaig, and the Latin traditio, bear the same meaning of de-
livery, or a thing delivered, without respect to the mode.
This, however, yields no support to Dr. Milner's as-
sumption ; for the question is not whether the contents of
the New Testament were delivered orally before they were
written, which no one denies, but whether an additional
and independent set of doctrines was orally communicated by
the Apostles, which were not intended to be written, but to
be handed down, as the Pharisees pretended that their tra-
ditions had been from Moses, and which would thus form a
distinct branch of faith, equally binding icith the Scriptures, to
the end of time. And this claim which Romanism makes
to what you call " the unwritten Word of God," I hold to
be an utter absurdity, for the following reasons :
12*
300 Letter XVI.
1. Because it is admitted, on all sides, that the entire
Gospel system was in the first place preached orally by the
Apostles. But Milner does not pretend to deny that a large
portion of it was afterwards recorded in the Scriptures, and
it is impossible to assign any reason why a, part should have
been so recorded, and not the whole.
2. Because the claim of the Pharisees was precisely the
same, namely, that while Moses gave the written law to
Israel, he delivered at the same time a set of oral traditions
which were not designed to be recorded, but which were
equally obligatory. And it is certain that our Saviour dis-
allowed this claim, denounced those traditions as making
void the true law of God, and declared to them, " In vain
do ye worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments
of men."
3. Because the manifest reason why the Lord had given
a written system to Israel was to guard them, as far as pos-
sible, against the corruption of doctrine. For oral tradi-
tion was fearfully corrupted before the flood, leaving none
who were true believers except Noah and his family. It
was again corrupted after the flood, by the gradual intro-
duction of idolatry, so that the Almighty called Abraham
by a new revelation to be the father of the faithful. It was
sadly defiled again among the Israelites themselves, during
their sojourn in Egypt, and then the wisdom of God gave
them the written revelation and the law, dictated to Moses.
Now assuredly it is not to be believed that Christ Jesus,
who came to establish His kingdom in its power, would de-
prive His Church of this best safeguard of the truth, and
turn the world back again to the perils of oral tradition
without any assignable causes or intimation of such an in-
congruity. For no one can be so absurd as to consider an
True Idea of Tradition. 301
oral tradition equal to a written record, as an evidence of
truth, of law, of history, or of any fact whatever. And if
the inspired writings of the Evangelists and Apostles, like
those of Moses and the prophets, were confessedly the lest
adapted instrument for the preservation of the faith, how can
it be believed that our Almighty Lawgiver would fail to
make the record complete 1 How can any reasoning mind
believe that He would do what no earthly legislator ever
did cause one part of His law to be written, and leave the
other part to the uncertainty of an oral proclamation ?
4. Because the Apostles, in their arguments with the
Jews, always appealed to the Scriptures, as the ground of
their religion, and never to tradition, just as Christ Himself
had done before them. And it is not reasonable to suppose
that the Church in after ages was to be left without an
equally sure and sufficient guide for her faith and practice.
5. Because the ancient fathers, as I have shown by nu-
merous extracts, held the Scriptures as THE RULE OF FAITH,
expressly stating that the creeds and doctrines of the Church
were all DERIVED FROM THEIR AUTHORITY.
6. Because, in arguing against the heretics, and on all
other subjects of controversy, they constantly appealed to
the Scriptures, and when, in addition to these, they ap-
pealed to tradition, it was never in any other way than this,
viz., to show that the same interpretation of Scripture had
always been held by the teachers and judges in the Church,
from the beginning.
And this brings me to the true idea of tradition, so far as
it concerns the doctrine of faith, in which the analogy of
human law is fairly applicable. We allow, as well as Dr.
Milner, that the blessed Redeemer appointed His commis-
sioned ministers to preach His Gospel and establish His
302 Letter XVI.
kingdom. We repudiate, as much as Dr. Milner, the ab-
surdity of the notion that this could be done merely by the
written revelation. And we acknowledge, as well as Dr.
Milner, that there were millions of men who were unable
to read the Scriptures, and who were, nevertheless, able to
receive the knowledge of the faith from the voice of the
living preachers, since they must always be, like the judges
in the earthly court, the actual administrators of the estab-
lished system. But the result of all this leads us only to
the manifest distinction between the divine Scriptures which
contained the LAAV of the celestial Legislator, and the in-
terpretation of those Scriptures, which was the office of the
ministry, the judges, and the administrators of the law.
The ministry of Christ, therefore, we readily admit, ful-
fil an office analogous to that of the earthly judges. And
we all know how careful these judges are to abide by the
construction of the law established by their predecessors,
and how unwilling they are to depart from the precedents
thus laid down. We know, too, that they always pay the
highest respect. to that interpretation of a statute, which is
jirst pronounced after the law was enacted, on the reasonable
ground that the judges were then most likely to understand
the true meaning of the legislature. But with all this, no
one is so ignorant that he cannot understand the distinction
between the LAAV ITSELF, and its judicial interpretation. The
judge has no power to add to the law, none to take away
from it none to change its plain 2^1'ovisions . His duty is
to interpret or expound it according to what he believes to
be the true intent and meaning of the legislature. And
while it is the privilege of the people to read the law for
themselves, and to complain to the legislature if they think
the court has not expounded it correctly, and t have the
Twofold Office of the Apostles. 303
corrupt judge impeached if he has knowingly administered
it wrongly, yet, for the most part, they are content to learn
the law from the lips of the judges, and thus enjoy all the
benefits intended by its administration, whether they under-
stand its mysteries or no.
In like manner, precisely, the Bishops were left by the
Apostles to discharge this part of their office in the Church.
The Apostles themselves had a twofold office. As the or-
gans of the Holy Spirit, they were the legislators of the
Church, and, like all other legislators, they committed this
portion of their work to loriting. There were the rule of
faith, the laws of Christian morality, the three orders of the
ministry, the sacraments, confirmation, ordination, the ob-
servance of the first day of the week as a day of united
worship, suspension, excommunication, the separation from
heretics, and the general maxims of discipline, obedience
to spiritual rulers, a council in questions of controversy
in a word, all that the Church of God required for a su-
preme and infallible directory, and all laid down on the ex-
press authority of the " GREAT LAWGIVER, who is able to
save and to destroy." But, like the mode pursued by the
same divine wisdom in legislating for ancient Israel, it was
not drawn up in the form of what men would call " a regu-
lar treatise," but mingled with history, biography, miracles,
wonders, exhortations, denunciations, prophecy, precious
promises, and awful maledictions, in all the rich exuber-
ance of comprehensive love. And why ? In order that
the Church might never separate what God had joined to-
gether that faith might never be disjoined from moral-
ity ; nor hope, from holiness ; nor charity, from justice ;
nor redemption, from the means of grace ; nor the mercy
of heaven, from the practice of mercy upon earth ; nor the
304 Letter XVI.
discipline of man, from the responsibility to Christ ; nor re-
ligion, from the ordinances ; nor the flock, from their law-
ful pastors ; nor any or all of them, from.the marvellous his-
tory of the planting of the Church, and the amazing life and
death of the blessed Lamb of God, whose Bride that Church
was designed to be, in the glory of His celestial kingdom.
And if it be demanded why the Apostles spent so many
years in preaching, guiding, and governing, before their
writings were complete, I answer by asking, why the same
Jjord who inspired them, thought fit to delay the written
law for Israel until they were delivered from Egypt, and al-
most brought through the wilderness into the promised land ?
In both cases, the Almighty might have begun His work
by the inspired Scriptures ; but in neither, according to my
humble judgment, would such a course have been so con-
sonant with right reason. For the Israelites did not need
the records of the written law, so long as they had Moses
with them. Nor -did the first Christians need the New
Testament, so long as the inspired Apostles were alire.
The immediate teaching of the Holy Spirit, in both cases,
superseded all other ; and the written word only became
necessary, when the supernatural instructor was about to
be taken away. And so far is this fact from being favora-
ble to Dr. Milner's hypothesis, that it operates directly to-
wards the contrary conclusion. For it is evident, that if
the Scriptures of the New Testament had been first com-
pleted, and the inspired Apostles had then spent almost forty
years in converting the nations, there would be an incom-
parably better ground for the notion that during this long
ministry, they had found occasion for a large increase of
matter which was not noticed in their previous writings.
Whereas now, as the Scriptures were produced from time
Administrators and Interpreters. 305
to time, and a considerable portion of them were among the
last acts of their ministry, and St. John added his supple-
ment nearly thirty years after his inspired colleagues had
gone to their reward, there seems to be a tenfold absurdity
in the notion that the whole together did not comprise a
complete provision for faith and practice, to the end of
time.
But the Apostles were not only the commissioned guides,
teachers, and legislators of the Church, as Moses was of
Israel ; they were also the actual administrators of their
divine system, in the ordinary work of the ministry. In
the legislative part of their office they were not intended
to have successors, and neither had Moses. In the or-
dinary administration which the Church needs at all times
they must have successors, since otherwise the promise of
Christ could never have been fulfilled : J/o, / am with you al-
ways, even to the end of the world. Thus, as Joshua suc-
ceeded Moses in the ordinary administrative capacity, but
yet was bound himself by the Scriptures, which the inspired
legislator left as the law of God for Israel, even so the Bishops
who (as in the case of Timothy and Titus) succeeded the
Apostles, were ordained to administer the regular functions
of preaching and discipline, being bound by the Scriptures,'
which their inspired leaders had left as the law of Christ
for His Church. And just as the Jewish priesthood, after
the death of Moses, became of necessity the interpreters of
the divine Scriptures which were the law of Israel, in like
manner the Bishops, after the death of the Apostles, be-
came of necessity the interpreters of the Scriptures which
were the law of the Church. In cases of alleged heresy,
they assembled to judge the offender, and in all questions
of doubt, they would, of course, consult together. And thus
306 Letter XVI.
was formed, from the general decisions of these official
judges, the line of consistent interpretation which formed a
TRADITION OF THE CHURCH, and to which the writers
quoted by Dr. Milner frequently appealed with perfect pro-
priety ; just as one of our secular judges would appeal to
preceding decisions of the courts in the construction of a
statute of the legislature, but without the least idea of claim-
ing the office of lawgiver, or of suggesting that the law itself
was only a tradition.
Besides this additional interpretation of the Scriptures,
however, there is another application of the term tradition,
which belongs not to the doctrines of the faith as they are
recorded in the Scriptures, but rather to the forms, rites,
and ceremonies, appended to them in their practical admin-
istration. And these were left to be modified at the discre-
tion of the Bishops, so long as the essentials laid down in
Scripture were retained, because the inspired Apostles had
no desire to tie up the Christian liberty of their successors
in minor points of mere formal expediency. Thus, St.
Paul united with all the other Apostles in allowing the Jew-
ish converts to retain circumcision, while the Gentile con-
verts were declared free from the ceremonial law. Thus,
the same Apostle adopted rules of order in the use of veils
for women, which were not supposed to be intended as a
permanent or general regulation for the Church. Thus,
too, he used a " form of sound words," which he recom-
mended Timothy to hold fast, but without enjoining it as a
matter of positive obligation on others. Thus, the first
Church in Jerusalem is stated to have had all things in
common; yet this was not regarded as a precept. The
consequence of which was the variety in creeds, in litur-
gies, in the days of fasting, in the festival of Easter, and
Ti~ue. Meaning of Tradition. 307
many other matters, which are frequently referred to by the
old writers ; and it is in the same sense that the word tra-
dition is employed in our 34th Article. It is very certain
that many such traditions became established before the
close of the third century, as matters of ancient custom, in
various parts of the Church ; such as the use of the sign of
the cross, of white garments for seven days after baptism,
of holy oil, of incense, of religious services annually at the
tombs of the martyrs, &c., to which the people and the
priests attached themselves with great tenacity, and of
which not a few of the fathers strongly complained. But
so far were they from seeking for them an apostolic origin,
that the only really apostolic traditions, the form of sound
words given by St. Paul to Timothy, and the precise lan-
guage used by the Apostles themselves in the administra-
tion of the sacraments, in confirmation, and in ordaining,
are nowhere preserved ; and the Church of Rome herself
pretends to know no more about them than we do. Indeed,
it is somewhat extraordinary, that with all your zeal for
imaginary apostolical traditions, your Church has chosen
to administer confirmation for many centuries without the
laying on of hands, which the Book of the Acts records ex-
pressly as the apostolic mode of conferring the ordinance.
And she has likewise chosen to deny the cup to the laity in
the sacrament of the Eucharist, in defiance alike of the
practice of the Apostles, and the uninterrupted usage of the
Church for at least twelve centuries together. Both of
these we repudiate as gross and inexcusable departures
from the apostolic rule, and from all antiquity.
The liberty left to the Bishops of the Church, however,
in matters of mere form and ceremony, is not a question of
law, but a changeable rule of practice. And it may be il-
308 Letter XVL
lustrated by the prerogative exercised by the judges in our
civil courts, who hold themselves competent to institute
new modes of form Avithin their respective jurisdictions, al-
though they do not give up the old ones without consider-
able reluctance. In this way, every lawyer knows the ex-
tensive changes which have been gradually introduced in
the ancient modes of pleading, in the technical forms of ac-
tions, in matters of judicial costume, and other things, which
do not at all touch the principles of justice, nor the majesty
of the written law. And precisely in like manner did the
primitive Church distinguish between the divine authority
of the Almighty Lawgiver, recorded as the rule of faith, in
the holy Scriptures, and reverently handed down in the
Creeds of the Church, by traditional interpretation, as the
great law of her being, and those traditions of form and
ceremony which might be, and actually Avere, various and
changeable, according to the vieAvs of her rulers from time
to time.
It follows, naturally, from the same alloAvance of Chris-
tian liberty, that the Church Avas permitted to regulate every
minor point of discipline according to her oAvn discretion.
The same pOAver had been exercised by the JeAvish Sanhe-
drim, Avithout any invasion of their divine laAv, as given by
Moses, and Avitliout any censure by our blessed Lord. And
hence arose the powers of the various Councils, the subdi-
vision of the Church into provinces, and the body of Canon
laAV, all of Avhich belonged to the institution of Christianity
as a spiritual commonwealth. But in the primitive ages
there Avas no arbitrary conformity in these lesser things. That
impossible result Avas not attempted, until the rise of papal
supremacy and the ambitious struggle between the rival
Bishops of Rome and Constantinople effected the great
Papal Dogma of Tradition. 309
schism between the East and the West, which has never
been healed to this day. The bond of union in the primi-
tive ages was sufficiently secured by the faith of the Scrip-
tures, the Apostolic Episcopate, and the spirit of brotherly af-
fection. Happy would it have been for the Church and the
world, if that bond had not been broken by the combined
influence of superstitious fraud, false faith, avaricious cu-
pidity, and licentious indulgence, of whose terrible fruits
the extracts which I have given from your own historian
fmaiish but a weak description, until at length priestly des-
potism and priestly corruption had almost destroyed the re-
ligion of the world.
I have now, I trust clearly, explained the various senses in
which the primitive fathers employed this word, tradition.
First, they used it occasionally to mean the Scriptures
themselves, as was done by St. Paul, in the text quoted from 2
Thes. ii. 15, and also by Cyprian and others. Secondly, they
used it for the Creeds and early Councils of the Church, in
which sense I have proved from Cyril's catechetical dis-
courses and other authorities, that it was directly taken from
the Scriptures, the Bishops fulfilling their office as judges to
interpret and expound the faith revealed in the oracles of
God. Thirdly, they employed the word to signify the va-
rious usages, forms, and ceremonies introduced or sanc-
tioned by the same Bishops, after they had become some-
what venerable by the lapse of a few generations ; and this,
too, grew; out of the same Episcopal prerogative as judges,
being analogous to the rules of practice in our courts of
law.
Not one of those meanings, however, at all approaches to
your papal doctrine, viz., that the Apostles delivered a set
of dogmas orally, which they did not put in writing, al-
310 Letter XVI.
though they were equally the Word of God, and equally in-
tended to be a rule of faith, which dogmas inculcated the
worship of the Virgin and the Saints, together with their
relics, purgatory, and every other error which cannot be
proved by any plainer evidence. And yet, notwithstanding
Dr. Milner well knew that the sense in which the word was
used by the fathers, whom he has quoted, was altogether
different, he did not hesitate to mystify his readers by cit-
ing them with an air of honest triumph, never hesitating to
employ the pious fraud, nor pausing to examine the mpral
character of the means, if he could only win the victory.
If any intelligent reader, however, will undertake the trou-
ble to compare my quotations with his, and apply the true
explanation of the term tradition, it will be at once appa-
rent that there is no inconsistency whatever to disturb the
clear and distinct statements of the fathers which I have
cited, as conclusive on the question.
I shall make but a few remarks in addition, to SUOAV the
worthlessness of the objection which Dr. Milner ingeni-
ously advances against the Scriptures being given as the
Rule of Faith, namely, that our Lord knew the impossibil-
ity of their being understood by the people, the mass of
whom were unable to read them.
To this weak though specious argument I shall answer
by the following questions :
1. Supposing that the Scriptures, as containing the Rule
of Faith, the laws of Christian morals, and the great events
of the Gospel history, were designed only as furnishing the
materials for the ministry, would it not be enough to justify
their controlling operation on the whole welfare of the
Church ? Have not the people at large, in every nation, the
entire benefit of the written laws of the land, although those
Scripture read in the Church. 311
laws may not be often read, except by the advocates and
judges ? And was not the mass of the ancient Israelites
at least as ignorant of letters, when the Lord gave them the
written law by the hand of Moses ?
2. A much more conclusive reply, however, belongs to
the truth. I ask then, next, whether the Scriptures were
not universally read publicly in all the assemblies of the
Church, according to the fixed custom of the Jewish syna-
gogue, and the express command of the Apostle ? Were
they not translated without delay for that very purpose, into
the Latin, the Syriac, the Ethiopic and other languages ?
Was not the ordinary mode of preaching, for the first few
centuries, a familiar Homily iipon some chapter of the Scrip-
tures 1 And was not the knowledge of the Scriptures thus
brought within the reach even of those who could not read,
as it is in the Church of England, by the very order of the
services, at this day ?
3. And in the third place, I ask, whether copies of the
Scriptures were not so numerous in the hands of private
Christians during the first three centuries, that in the prin-
cipal persecutions against the Church, there was a command
always given by the heathen magistrates that the sacred
writings should be given up ? And were not those copies
so highly esteemed that the Church held it to be a special
sin to part with them on a heathen summons 1 And were
not those who thus surrendered them excommunicated, by
the opprobrious name of Traditores ?
I am sorry to be obliged, by the necessities of the task
which I have undertaken, to spend so much time in refuting
these impieties. But a falsehood may be uttered in a line,
which it takes many pages to answer. I shall next ex-
pose the dishonest cavils of your favorite and specious, but
312 Letter XV L
reckless writer, in reference to the Canon and the version
of our Mother Church ; and meanwhile invoke the patient
perseverance of my readers, in the full belief that their la-
bor will not be in vain.
The End of Controversy ^Controverted. 313
LETTER XVII.
MOST REVEREND SIR :
IN his ninth letter, Dr. Milner undertakes to show that
the Church of England has no sufficient evidence in favor
of the genuineness of the Bible ; that the canon of Scrip-
ture was not fixed until the third Council of Carthage, and
a Decretal of Pope Innocent I. in the fourth century ; that
there is a palpable omission of four verses from the 1 4th
Psalm ; that our English version is not faithful ; that the
Protestant Churchman can never be certain that he under-
stands the whole of his Bible rightly ; that the divine ora-
cles present many difficulties which need an interpreter ;
that the Protestant, on the principle that the Bible is the
rule of faith, cannot make an act of faith, because he can-
not have a full and perfect persuasion of its truth ; that
many absurd and ridiculous speeches and doings were found
amongst the ranks of Protestants. Finally, he quotes pas-
sages from Bishop Watson and other divines, to show their
doubt and uncertainty concerning the truth of their religion,
and asserts, that while many Protestants seek to be re-
ceived into the Church of Rome at the hour of death, not a
single instance can be produced of a Roman Catholic wish-
ing to die in any other communion than his own.
To dispose of all this specious but most absurd matter,
will take some time and trouble, but the result, I trust, will
314 Letter XVII.
be satisfactory, if not to your mind, yet to that of every
candid reader.
1. With respect to the first of these imaginary difficul-
ties, viz., that our Mother Church has no sufficient evi-
dence in favor of the genuineness of the Bible, it is simply
ridiculous, because we have all the evidence which exists,
and there can be no more. Dr. Milner repeats continually
what he well knew to be an atrocious misrepresentation,
namely, that in rejecting the errors of the Church of Rome,
our reformers rejected all the truth which she derives from
the pure ages of primitive antiquity. But he was perfectly
aware that the controversy turned upon the corrupt additions
which she adopted, and not at all upon the truths which she
still retained. Our reformers, for the most part, held that
the Pope was Antichrist, sitting in the temple of God, and
usurping to himself a false, impious, and most dangerous
authority ; but they never denied that it was the temple of
God, that is to say, a true Church, in which he was sitting,
nor did they ever question, that by reason of tbe truth which
remained from the beginning in that Church, there had al-
ways been more or less of faithful Christians saved. And
it was in this very union of the false with the true that the
subtlety of Satan was manifested. The Evil One had en-
grafted upon the most fruitful branch of the true vine the
poisonous fruit of superstition, priestly celibacy, Papal des-
potism, the enforced confessional, purgatory and indulgences,
the worship of the Virgin and the saints, pictures, images, rel-
ics, and the cross, the mutilation of the Eucharist, works of
supererogation, the Inquisition with all its horrors, the de-
nial of the Bible and public prayers in the vulgar tongue,
false miracles, and monkery. All of these were corrupt
innovations and unwarrantable additions to the true Chris-
England not evangelized by Rome. 315
tianity of the Apostolic Church, and the reformers desired
that they might be done away. But the rest of the system
was identical with the pure Gospel. The Bible was there,
only with some apocryphal additions. The original Creeds
and the early Councils were there, only overridden by
modern Councils of no real authority. The succession of
the Apostolic Episcopate was there, though sadly stained,
yet genuine. The Church of England had become united
with the Church of Rome since the sixth century, and had
gone hand in hand with nearly all her innovations, but now,
awakened to the knowledge of the truth, she sought to re-
turn to her primitive purity of faith and practice, taking the
same Scriptures and the early fathers for her guide, and
changing nothing of her previous faith except what she
knew now to be a corrupt innovation. Of course, she had
only to keep the Bible which she had from the beginning,
the true faith which she had from the beginning, the Apos-
tolic Orders which she had from the beginning. None of
these had the Church of England received from Rome, and
what Rome had not given, it would be strange, indeed, if
Rome could take away.
To make this point plain, however, beyond the reach of
cavil, let me here prove directly that the Church of Eng-
land was not indebted to Rome for her commencement.
First, then, Irenseus, in A. D. 170, speaking of the unity of
the faith diffused throughout the world, enumerates the
Churches of Germany, the Churches among the Hibernians,
and the Churches among the Celts, expressly.* Tertul-
lian, a few years afterwards, not only confirms his state-
ment, but adds to it the very fact which I advance. For,
* Irenaei Contra Htereses, Lib. 1, cap. x., 2, p. 49.
13
316 Letter XVII.
in a long list of the countries which had received the Gos-
pel, he sets down " the various nations of the Gauls, and
the places of the Britons, INACCESSIBLE TO THE ROMANS, but
subject to Christ."* There Is the positive testimony, that
however, or by whomsoever, the Church was first planted
in Britain, which is a matter of uncertainty, it was not
planted by a missionary from Rome. Indeed, it was impos-
sible that it should have been, for during the three centuries
of persecution no Bishop or diocese was in a condition to
think of distant missionary enterprises. That it was in a
nourishing state, however, in the beginning of the fourth
century, and possessed of the regular apostolic ministry, is
clearly shown by the fact, that the great Council of Aries,
held by the command of the Emperor Constantine in A. D.
312, to settle a controversy which the Bishop of Rome and
his colleagues had previously failed to determine, numbered
the following names amongst its members :
" Eborius, Bishop of the City of York, in the Province
of Britain.
Restitutus, Bishop of the City of London.
Adelfius, Bishop of the Colony of London.
Sacerdos, Presbyter. *
Arminius, Deacon."!
True, indeed, it is, that the irruption of the Saxons gave an
opportunity, which the zeal of Pope Gregory I. improved,
to send Augustin as a missionary to the King of Kent to-
wards the close of the sixth century ; and here began the
connection of Rome with Britain. But Augustin found the
ancient Church still in being, though the Christian Britons
* Tertul. adv. Judseos, cap. vii., p. 189. His words are, Et Britan-
noruminaccessa Romania loca, Christo vero subdita.
f Hardouini Con. Gen., Tom. 1, p. 267.
British Bishops subdued by Force. 317
were much distressed by their heathen invaders. He held
a conference with several Bishops and doctors, and was un-
able to induce them to give up their own customs, or sub-
mit to the Papal jurisdiction, although, as the monkish
chronicler asserts, he performed a miracle before them, by
giving sight to a blind man after they had attempted it in
vain. A second conference was appointed, A. D. 601, and
seven British Bishops and many learned men, chiefly from
the " most noble monastery" of Bangor, met Augustin ac-
cordingly. And here he offered to tolerate their other pe-
culiarities if they would consent to three things : 1.' That
they would keep Easter at the same time as the Church of
Rome. 2. That they would adopt the Roman mode of ad-
ministering baptism. 3. That they would unite with him
in preaching to the Anglo-Saxons. But they refused to
comply, or to take him for their Archbishop, and Augustin
left them with a menace, which the Romanists convert into
a prophecy. An army of the Anglo-Saxons attacked the
Britons, slew twelve hundred monks because they prayed
against their enemies, and so, after a time, force compelled
the British Church to submit to the authority of Rome.* It
was a just retribution of Providence when the day of Refor-
mation came, that force should break the yoke which force
imposed.
Whatever credit, therefore, may be due to Gregory I. and
Augustin, the missionary, whom the Pope created Arch-
bishop of Canterbury for the work of converting the King of
Kent, and establishing the Church of Rome among the Anglo-
Saxons, it is very certain that he had no right whatever, on
* Hard. Con. Gen., Tom. 3, p. 539, where the Conference is called
Synodus Wicorniensis, and the details are quoted from the Venerable
Bede.
318 Letter XVII.
true ecclesiastical principles, to set up altar against altar,
and invade tlie rights of that ancient British Church, which
had held possession for so many centuries, and which he
could not charge with any heretical deviation from the true
faith. It was but a little more than a hundred years since
Jerome had published the sound doctrine of the primitive
Church, that, in official rank, all Bishops were equal.
" Wherever there is a Bishop," said this eminent father,
"whether at Rome or at Eugubium, &c., he has the same
authority and priesthood. For they are all the successors
of the Apostles."* True, the triumph of the Saxon arms
had dispossessed the native Bishops of their proper field in
part and for a season. But this was no excuse for the
Pope or for Augustin to impose upon them a foreign au-
thority. The King of Kent had married Bertha, of the
royal house of Clovis, the sovereign of France, and not only
was she a Christian, but her husband, though a heathen
himself, had granted her the exercise of her religion, by the
ministry of Luidhard, a Bishop of her own nation. Through
him, the door was already open for the conversion of the
Saxons of Kent, and the old and established Church of the
country might soon resume their proper jurisdiction. And,
therefore, the mission of Augustin, conducted in open vio-
lation of their rights, was a flagrant usurpation, in defiance
of the true order of the Church, of the precepts of charity,
and of the golden rule of Christ, to do unto others as we
would they should do unto us ; which rule, of itself, would
have condemned such a course, even if there had been no
fixed laws of Episcopal administration.
Taking these unquestionable facts of history into view
* Hieron. Op., Tom. 2, p. 220-1.
England not dependent on Home. 319
it is obvious that the ancient Church of Britain must have
derived her first principles from the Oriental stock, as we
know, from various sources, that, previous to the period of
Augustin's mission, the Churches of the East differed from
those of the West in many points of unimportant ritual ob-
servance, while, nevertheless, they all held the same doc-
trines of faith, derived from the Scriptures. And after the
enforced union, which gave to Rome the chief authority
over the British Church, the perpetuation of the Church in
England must have been mainly from the native stock, be-
"cause the Bishops of that stock were far more numerous
than the Imported clergy, and the ordinations must there-
fore have been chiefly from their hands. And hence it re-
sulted that the Church of England continued her proper life
and functions without interruption, submitting, indeed, to
the necessity laid upon her, united perforce to Rome, gov-
erned by Rome, and becoming awfully corrupt in the course
of her subsequent history, yet still competent to resume her
separate rights, and to cast off the foreign yoke, whenever
she should be awakened to the knowledge of the truth, and
should receive from the hand of Providence the power to
accomplish her reformation.
When, therefore, Dr. Milner pretended to make the
Church of England dependent on the Church of Rome for
the Bible, or for anything else belonging to the attributes
of a true Church, he must have relied with the most absurd
confidence upon the ignorance of his readers. But even if
it had been otherwise if, in truth, the Church of Rome
had been the first to plaat the Gospel in Britain, yet that
would not have affected their right to reform themselves,
nor thrown into doubt their heritage of the Scriptures, or
the pure principles of the primitive faith, derived from
320 Letter XVII.
Christian antiquity. For those Scriptures and that pure
faith were not the exclusive property of Rome, but were
given alike by the bounty and grace of the Redeemer to all
Christians. And no bond of ecclesiastical or artificial
tyranny could ever take away the duty and the privilege of
each particular Church to cast off the slavery of falsehood
and superstition, and return to the liberty with which Christ
had made them free. Hence, as we have seen, Vincent of
Lerins, the great authority to which Dr. Milner himself re-
fers, lays down the principle, that even the individual Chris-
tian, though the whole Church should become infected with er-.
ror, must look for the rule which was observed from the be-
ginning, " always, everywhere, and by all," semper, ubique
et ab omnibus, and follow that ; since that alone, as he most
justly declares, "is TRTTLY CATHOLIC."
2. I proceed next to the second position of Dr. Milner,
that the canon of Scripture was not fixed until the fourth
century, and then by the third Council of Carthage and a
Decretal of Pope Innocent I. This I shall show to be one
of those specious misrepresentations in which your favorite
author abounds ; and as it involves the most important prin-
ciples with respect to the whole foundation of Christianity,
I must bespeak my reader's patience for a thorough expo-
sure of its fallacy.
First, then, let it be carefully remembered, that the great
body of the Scriptures was received, acknowledged, and
everywhere dispersed, as fast and as far as the Church ex-
tended, the Old Testament being already derived from the
Jews, and the New Testament being accepted as soon as
each portion was produced by the inspired writers, and
read, by apostolic precept, at the assemblies of the faithful.
The Book of the Revelations, was almost the only one
Canon of Scripture. 321
which remained for a considerable time out of the canoni-
cal list. But there was a number of apocryphal books
which were found appended to the Greek version of the
Old Testament, on the claims of which there was much
variety of opinion. Nevertheless, this uncertainty did not ';
affect the doctrines of t>he faith ; because it is perfectly de- '.
monstrable that the disputed books, whether they are in- \
eluded or cast out, do not furnish a single clear authority for /
any doctrine, beyond that which is derived from the great \
muss of the Scriptures, about which there was no question. /
Secondly, it must be remembered, that the controversy
between our respective Churches orj the subject of the
canonical Scriptures, affects only the apocryphal books
which are supposed to belong to the Old Testament. With
regard to the New Testament, there is no difference what-
ever in the Books, although there are a few points of va-
riance in the versions.
Now, in order to have a satisfactory view of the whole, I
shall show the differences in the ancient catalogues, and
cite the opinions of some of the most authoritative fathers,
from which the reader may readily see whether your Bo-
man Church or our own has the best evidence upon the
question.
- First, then, I commence with the Apostolic Canons, so
called, many of which were, most probably, among the ear-
liest rules adopted by the Church, although, taken as a
whole, your writers themselves do not allow them to be en-
titled to the name of apostolic ; and it is certain that, in giv-
ing them such a title, a fraud was committed, whether un-
consciously or otherwise. But the catalogue of the Books
of Scripture is the first of which we have any detail, and
is as follows :
322 Letter XVII.
CANON LXXXIV.
" Let those books be esteemed holy, and entitled to ven-
eration by all the clergy and the laity, viz. : The 5 Books
of Moses, Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deutero-
nomy ; of Joshua, 1 ; Judges, 1 ; Ruth, 1 ; of the Kings, 4 " (the
first two of which we call the 1st and 2d Books of Samuel) ;
" of Chronicles, 2 ; Ezra, 2" (one of which we call the
Book of Nehemiah) ; " Esther, 1 ; of Maccabees, 3 ; Job,
1 ; the Psalms, 1 ; the Books of Solomon, Proverbs, Ec-
clesiastes, and Canticles ; of the Prophets, 12 ; Isaiah, 1 ;
Jeremiah, 1 ; Ezekiel, 1 ; Daniel, 1. Besides which, let
it be understood that your youths should learn the wisdom
of the most erudite Sirach" (i. e., the Book of Ecclesias-
ticus).
" And our own, that is, the four Gospels of the New
Testament, Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John ; fourteen
Epistles of Paul ; two Epistles of Peter ; of John, three ;
of James, one ; of Jude, one ; of Clement, two ; and the
Constitutions addressed by me, Clement, to you who are
Bishops, in eight books, which are not to be divulged to all,
because there are mysteries in them ; and the Acts of us
the Apostles."*
Here we have three books of Maccabees, of which your
Roman Church retains two, and also Ecclesiasticus, which,
however, the above author does not reckon amongst the sa-
cred books, but enjoins it as a useful instruction to the youth.
The rest of the Old Testament books are the same with
our own. But in the New Testament list, the difference is,
5,
that the Book of Revelations is omitted, and the Epistles and
Constitutions of Clement are inserted, contrary to the Canon,
* Hardouin. Con. Gen., Tom. 1, p. 30, Can. 84.
The Canon of Scripture. 323
as received by both the Churches of Rome and England.
All the other books of the Apocrypha, however, which your
Church retains, are omitted, viz., two books of Esdras,
Tobit, Judith, the rest of Esther, Wisdom, Baruch, the Song
of the Three Children, Susannah, Bel and the Dragon, and
the Prayer of Manasses.
Next, we find the famous Origen, who devoted so much
labor to the Scriptures, setting forth the Hebrew Canon of
the Old Testament, excluding all the apocryphal books ex-
cept the Maccabees.*
We may thirdly refer to the Canon adopted by the
Council of Laodicea, A. D. 372, in these words :
CANON LIX.
" It is not fitting to read Psalms composed by private
persons in the churches, nor books which are not allowed
by authority, but only the canonical books of the Old
and the New Testament."
CANON LX.
" Those which should be read and received as authority
are these : The Genesis of the world, the Exodus of Egypt,
Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy, Jesus of Nave (Joshua),
Judges, Ruth, four books of the Kings, two books of Parali-
pomenon (Chronicles), two of Esdras (Ezra and Nehe-
miah), the book of one hundred and fifty Psalms, the
Proverbs of Solomon, Ecclesiastes, the Song of Songs,
Job, Esther, the Twelve Prophets, i. e., Hosea, Amos, Joel,
Abdias (Amos), Jonah, Micah, Nahum, Habaccuc, Zepha-
niah, Haggai, Zechariah, Malachi. Also, Isaiah, Jere-
miah, Ezekiel, Daniel. And of the New Testament, four
Gospels, according to Matthew, Mark, Luke, John ; the Acts
* Orig. Com., Tom. 1, p. 41.
324 Letter XVII.
of the Apostles ; seven Catholic Epistles of James, one ; of
Peter, two, the first and second; of John, three, the first,
second, and third ; of Jude, one : of the Apostle Paul, four-
teen Epistles to the Romans, to the Corinthians (the first
and second), to the Galatians, to the Ephesians, to the
Philippians, to the Colossians, to the Thessalonians (the
first and second), to Timothy (the first and second), to Titus,
to Philemon, to the Hebrews."*
Here is a list which corresponds with our own through-
out, except that it omits the last book of the New Testament,
the Apocalypse. It may have been partly because this
book was so highly symbolical, and partly because it was
written while the Apostle was in exile, that it was so much
more slowly adopted throughout the whole Church.
I come now to the third Council of Carthage, held A. D.
397, where the list is found which corresponds rather more
nearly with that of your Roman Church, though it lacks
still a considerable portion of the apocryphal books which
you have adopted. The words of this Council are as fol-
lows :
CANON XLVII.
" Also it pleased the Council, that nothing be read in the
Church under the name of the divine Scriptures, besides
the Canonical Scriptures. And these are the Canonical
Scriptures : Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuter-
onomy, Jesus Nave (Joshua), Judges, Ruth, four books of
Kings (2 of Samuel and 2 of Kings), two books of Para-
lipomenon (Chronicles), Job, the Psaltery of David, five
books of Solomon, twelve books of the minor prophets.
Also, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, Daniel, Tobit, Judith,
* Hard. Con. Gen., Tom. 1, p. 791.
The Canon under Pope Gelasius. 325
Esther, two books of Esdras, two books of Maccabees.
And of the New Testament, four books of the Gospels, one
book of the Acts of the Apostles, thirteen Epistles of the
Apostle Paul, one of the same to the Hebrews, two of the
Apostle Peter, three of the Apostle John, one of the Apos-
tle Jude, and one of James. One book of the Apocalypse
of John."*
Here the books of Wisdom and Ecclesiasticus are in-
cluded in the five books of Solomon ; but as there is only
one statement of Esdras, containing the books which we
call Ezra and Nehemiah, while there are two other books
attributed to Esdras in the apocryphal list, these last are
evidently omitted, as are also Baruch, the Song of the
Three Children, Susannah, Bel and the Dragon, and the
Prayer of Manasses.
The next list which may be mentioned is that of a Ro-
man Council, held A. D. 494, under Pope Gelasius, by
seventy Bishops, for the express purpose of separating the
canonical Scriptures, the Councils and the fathers, from
the numerous apocryphal books which were in circulation,
and of which a long list is added. And here we find the
same books as in the third Council of Carthage, saving only
that there is but one book of Ezra, and one of Maccabees. f.
The Lamentations of Jeremiah are also distinguished as a
separate book. According to this, therefore, we see a Ro-
man Council, held almost a hundred years later than the
third Council of Carthage, by a much larger number of
Bishops, (seventy instead of forty-four,) and under the
Pope, Gelasius, rejecting as apocryphal one book of Esdras
and two of Maccabees, which the third Council of Carthage
* Hard. Con. Gen., Tom. 1, p. 968. t Ib. Tom. 3., p. 938,
326 Letter XVII.
admitted. Thus we have stricken off from the list adopted
by the Council of Trent, seven writings, viz., Baruch, three
books of Esdras, the Song of the Three Children, Susan-
nah, Bel and the Dragon, and the second book of Macca-
bees. And yet, Dr. Milner tells us that the Canon of
Scripture was not settled before the third Council of
Carthage, and the Decretal epistle of Pope Innocent I.,
implying that it was settled then. Whereas he ought to
have said that the Church of Rome did not settle it until
nine centuries afterwards, and then took care to differ seri-
ously from the previous opinion of her own Popes and
Councils.
But when we come to the famous Capitular of Aix-la-
Chapelle, put forth under the authority of the celebrated
Charlemagne, A. D. 789, as the result of the best labors of
all the Bishops and doctors of his vast empire, we have the
Canon of Scripture laid down again, in perfect correspond-
ence with that of the Council of Laodicea ; the same with
our own, excepting the book of the Apocalypse.* This
furnishes a decisive proof that the authority of Rome had
not yet settled the Canon.
With respect to the apocryphal books of Esdras, we have
another direct condemnation in the fourth Canon of the
Confessor, Nicephorus, who expressly orders them, along
with some other books, not to be received, but rejected.f
And Epiphanius, the Bishop of Cyprus, in the fourth cen-
tury, sets forth a list of the books of the Old Testament,
which agrees with that of the Council of Laodicea, adding
.only the book of Baruch ; but the books of Wisdom and
that of Ecclesiasticus, as he saith, are regarded by the Jews,
* Hard. Concil, Tom. 4, p. 831. 1 Ib. p. 1051.
The Canon of S. Jerome. 327
along with other books, as apocryphal.* With him, also,
Cyril, the Archbishop of Jerusalem, agrees, giving the list
precisely as the Council of Laodicea had done, with the
single addition of Baruch, but excluding the whole of the
books which the Church of England classes as apocryphal,
and even warning his people not to read them.f
Thus we find that the Scriptures were universally re-
ceived from the beginning, in the same way, without the
slightest question or difficulty, saving only the Book of
Revelation!, which was recognized universally at a later
day, and those apocryphal books which the Council of Trent
adopted as canonical in the middle of the sixteenth century,
notwithstanding they had been rejected -by so large a por-
tion of the early Church, and had been only partly received
in any quarter.
I have yet, however, a few testimonies to add before I
have done with Dr. Milner's statement. The famous Jerome,
whose version of the Scriptures obtained the highest credit
in the Church of Rome, and whose judgment claims supe-
rior authority, adopted the true principle of taking the He-
brew Scriptures for the Old Testament, in preference to the
Greek Septuagint version, Avhich was, as you know, the
translation made by a company of learned Jews at Alexan- "
dria, in the reign of Ptolemy. Whatever he found in the
Hebrew originals he admitted, and all else, before the time
of Christ, he counted apocryphal. And his opinion of the
books which the Church of England calls apocryphal is
clear and decisive. Thus, in his Preface to the Proverbs
of Solomon, he mentions the book of Ecclesiasticus, the
book of Wisdom, Judith, Tobit, and the books of the Mac-
* Epipk, Tom. 1, p. 19.
t Cyril. Hierosol., Cat. 4, cap. xxxvi ; , p. 69
328 Letter XVII.
cabees, and saith, that ".the Church, indeed, reads them,
but does not receive them among the canonical looks, only
reading them for the edification of the people, and not for
the confirmation of ecclesiastical doctrine."* Elsewhere
he specifies the History of Susannah, the Song of the Three
Children, Bel and the Dragon, and calls them " Fables."!
Now, Jerome could never have presumed to use such words
as these, unless the authority of those books had been con-
sidered, in his day at least, entitled to no confidence.
If, however, any further proof be necessary, I shall ap-
peal to a name which Dr. Milner "could not consistently
contradict, if he were still in the land of the living. Pope
Gregory I., surnamed the Great, in his Commentary on the
Book of Job, expressly states that the 1st book of Macca-
bees was not admitted into the Canon. For this is his lan-
guage, in quoting a passage from that book, (p. 46) : " We
shall not go too far if we bring forward a testimony from
those books, which, although not canonical, are used to edify
the Church.";]: And the same eminent pontiff praises the
version which Jerome had given to the Church as superior
to the previous versions, by saying, that " the new transla-
tion from the Hebrew exhibited all things more truly ."
Thus we find that your favorite, Dr. Milner, misleads his
readers both negatively and affirmatively. Negatively, when
he suggests that the Canon of Scripture was not fixed from
the beginning, so far as faith and practice were concerned,
since, in point of fact, there never was any doubt with regard
* S. Hieron., Tom. 3, p. 18.
f Ib. Tom. 2, p. 154, e.
$ S. Greg. Mag. Moral, in Job. Lib. 19, cap. xxxiv. Op., Tom. 1, p.
622, a.
$ Ib. p. 665.
Cavil against the English Bible. 329
to the list of those books from which the Church derived
her whole doctrine. And affirmatively, when he leads the
world to conclude that in the fourth century the Canon was
fixed by the 3d Council of Carthage and the Decretal of
Pope Innocent I., whereas, in truth, the Capitular of Char-
lemagne and the opinion of Pope Gregory I. clearly show
that the Council of Laodicea came far nearer to the mark ;
and the Council of Trent, in the sixteenth century, thought
fit to go beyond all that had spoken before them. As the
matter actually stands betAveen the Churches of Rome and
of England, we are justified in putting the Apocryphal books
out of the Canonical list, by the Apostolic Canons, by Ori-
gen, Jerome, Cyril, Epiphanius, the Council of Laodicea,
Pope Gregory I., and the Capitular of Charlemagne ; while
your Church has only the 3d Council of Carthage, Augus-
tin, Pope Innocent I., and the Roman Council under Ge-
lasius, to warrant her in part, and not one amongst them all
justifies her altogether. Let the rule of Vincent of Lerins
be applied to the question, that we must hold what was held
everywhere, always, and by all ; and especially let it be
noted that in a question concerning the true Scriptures, the
earliest authority must needs be the most reliable ; and the
reader will see, at once, the vast superiority of the evi-
dence in our favor.
I come now to the absurd objection of your reckless ad-
vocate, that in our English Bible there are four verses omit-
ted from the 14th Psalm, although they are inserted in our
Prayer Book. This is, in truth, a very contemptible cavil ;
but as Dr. Milner has thought fit to make it a part of his ar-
gument, it must be answered fairly.
The simple truth, then, is this. The Prayer Book was
first published in the reign of Edward VI., and the version
330 Letter XVII.
was taken from the Latin Vulgate, which, was then in gene-
ral use throughout Europe. The corrected translation of
the Scriptures was not set forth until several years after-
wards, in the time of James I., and- was the result of a
thorough examination of the best authorities of the Ancient
Church. It was found that those four verses were not in
the original Hebrew Scriptures, which our translators took
for their guide, but had been transferred from one of St.
Paul's Epistles. And therefore, in faithful adherence to the
Hebrew original, and to the course pursued, as we have
seen, in the primitive Church, they properly omitted them.
But the Prayer Book was suffered to remain as it was, first,
because habit had- endeared its language to the people ; and
next, because as the verses in question were really the
words of St. Paul, and therefore scriptural and true, there
could be no possible danger in retaining them, since, at
most, it was only a repetition of one part of Scripture in
another, the whole being the unerring Word of God. The
. objection, however, displays an amusing example of fastid-
iousness on the part of Dr. Milner, when his own Church
had added to the Bible a whole list of Apocryphal Books,
which the voice of all antiquity had excluded from the Can-
on. And it reminds one very strongly of those respectable
prototypes of Romanism, the old Pharisees, who so piously
" strained at a gnat, and swallowed a camel."
The next accusation of your author is, that a Protestant
can never be sure that he understands the whole of the Bi-
ble rightly ! A grave charge, undoubtedly, from a man who
is obliged to acknowledge that there are so many matters
in Scripture which his own infallible Church does not pre-
tend to explain. But what greater certainty has the Church
of Rome in arriving at the sense of the sacred oracles than
Primitive Interpretation. 331
we have ? In all the cardinal doctrines of the faith which
the primitive Church derived from the Scriptures, we hold
the interpretation of the fathers and the old General Coun-
cils precisely as you do yourselves. And as it respects all
those modern doctrines where we repudiate your errors, it
is not on the written word of God that you pretend to rest
them, but on your imaginary Apostolical and oral traditions.
None of the really General Councils, held before the great
schism, were Roman Councils. The 1st Council of Nice,
the three Councils of Constantinople, the Council of Ephe-
sus, the Council of Chalcedon, were all held in the"
East, The Pope of Rome neither summoned them, nor
presided in them, . as I have already proved from your
own historian, Fleury. And it was then and there that the
voice of the whole Church settled forever the interpreta-
tion of the primitive faith as derived from the Scriptures.
All this heritage we possess in full, together with the an-
cient fathers and doctors. And when your Church goes on
from these to proclaim her subsequent corruptions, we meet
her, as I shall hereafter show, with the positive proof that
she has brought in heretical novelties, which were not only
unknown to the pure ages of the faith, but would have
brought down upon her head, at any time before the sixth-
century, the sentence of anathema.
That the divine oracles present many difficulties which
need an interpreter, is truly said by Dr. Milner. And I have
already shown that we take for our interpreter the Church,
as fully as Rome herself. But we hold, with Vincent of
Lerins, and with the theory of Romanism, that the Church
must adhere to the primitive interpretation, and not presume
to depart from those SCRIPTURES which Irenseus, Tertul-
lian, and all the ancient fathers, held to be " the ground and
332 Letter XVII.
pillar of the faith" If Dr. Milner would insinuate here,
however, that the priests of your Church are possessed of
any better knowledge of the Scripture, or can explain its
various parts more thoroughly than- ourselves, we deny the
fact, not only as being totally unsupported by any evidence,
but as involving an absurdity : 1st. Because they have no
helps nor knowledge of Scripture beyond what we possess
in common with them. 2d. Because they are so far from
seeking to interpret the Scripture, that their main efforts
are directed to give their people a distrust in its teaching,
as being a dangerous and imperfect guide, and a confidence
in tradition, as a far superior instructor. 3d. Because your
Church has even forbidden the laity to have the Bible in
the vulgar tongue, by the decrees of many Popes and Coun-
cils, and has only allowed it since the Reformation under
great 'restrictions, through fear and necessity. And 4th.
Because the Scriptures are so directly opposed to your
modern dogmas, that the only way in which you interpret
many passages is to argue them away.
The allegation of Dr. Milner- that the Protestant cannot
make an act of faith, because he cannot have a full and
perfect persuasion of the truth, is simply ridiculous. He
quotes Augustin, where he saith, that " if it were not for
the authority of the Catholic Church, he would not have
believed the Scriptures," and I have quoted the same emi-
nent father, saying, that " In the Scriptures we learn Christ,
and in the Scriptures we learn the Church." Bpth these
declarations are perfectly consistent, and it is only the Ro-
manist who finds it so hard to reconcile them. For the
Scriptures contain the revelation of God, first to His chosen
people, the Jews, in the Old Testament, and next to His
Church, in the New Testament. Who else but the Jews
Authority of the Church. 333
could lead the inquirer to the sacred books in which their
revelation was contained 1 Who can inform the world as
to the written constitution and government of any nation,
but the nation itself to which they belong 1 Hence it is
manifest that " if it were not for the authority of the Jews,
no one would or could have any belief in the Old Testa-
ment Scriptures," since, if there were no such people, there
could be no warrant for believing" that a divine constitution
and laws had ever been delivered to them. And in like
manner, the law of the Christian faith given to the Church,
in the New Testament, could only be identified by the au-
thority of the Church. For the Christian Church is the
kingdom of Christ on earth, and St. Peter applies to it the
title of " A royal nation, a peculiar people." Hence, if it
were not for " the authority of the Church," no man could
or would believe the Scriptures of the Church's constitu-
tion. But when the inquirer has been led to acknowledge
the Scriptures of Israel, it is from them he has to learn
what was, in fact, their divine system, and not from the
traditions of their Pharisees, nor the unbelief of their Sad-
ducees, nor the man-worship of their Herodians, nor their
mixing of the- true faith with their deviations into heathen
idolatry. From the Scriptures, and from them only, could"
he infallibly derive their origin, their rule of faith, their laws
of practical morality, the wonders of their first settlement,
the promises and privileges which the divine benevolence
had granted to them, as the chosen people of God. And
just so it is, that when the inquirer into Christianity is led by
the authority of the Church to the Scriptures of the Gospel,
it is from them, and from them only, that he can infallibly
learn the divine constitution of the Church, the rule of faith
prescribed by their celestial Lawgiver, and all the essential
334 Letter XVII.
laws, sanctions, and blessings secured to His. loyal peo-
ple.
All this, therefore, is perfectly clear, to any intelligent
and reflecting mind. Thus, it is from the American nation
that a foreigner must learn what is our written Constitution,
from which our whole law and government derive their
being. For, if there were no such nation, there could be
no constitution, and the written document itself would nev-
er be received as a real institute, but only as an essay of
the imagination, like the Republic of Plato, or the Utopia
of Sir Thomas More. When, however, the stranger is led
to the written rule, it is from that he must learn the distinc-
tive principles of our people. And in order that he may
understand it rightly, he does not trust himself implicitly to
the assertions of presidents, governors, or statesmen of ^the
.present day. but he appeals to those who lived nearest to
the time of its establishment. He reads the Federalist.
He examines the opinions of the Supreme Court, and with
these, as interpreters, he knows that he cannot erf in the
true meaning of the written rule. Therefore, according to
the very same maxims of St. Augustin, he learns from the
universal testimony of the American nation what the Consti-
tution is. And then he learns from the CONSTITUTION, right-
ly interpreted, what the American people should be, in the
whole length and breadth "of their peculiar principles and
organization.
But now let us suppose that, in the lapse of time, our peo-
ple should become ignorant and debased, and their rulers
should become, in the same proportion, corrupted and des-
potic. Suppose that our President gains command over the
national treasury, and wields a tyrannical power over a vast
standing army, and governs the Senate and House of Ro,p-
Interpretation of the Constitution. 335
resentatives, and all the officials throughout the land, by
the bond of a common interest, so that all look up to him, as
their great fountain of honor, safety, and success, and, like
'the case of the late President of France, actually desire
to maintain him, in the exercise of enormous prerogatives,
to which he has not the shadow of any legal claim. If now,
an honest band of reformers should rise up to oppose this
iniquitous usurpation, what should they do but go back to
the WRITTEN CONSTITUTION, and appeal to the interpretation
put upon it in the pure and early days of the Republic, and
insist from this that the presidents and rulers were ap-
pointed for the benefit of the people ; that it was not the ag-
grandizement of the few, but the advantage of the whole, for
which the Constitution was designed ; and that the nation
must return to the true character of its original institution "?
And if the President and statesmen and office-holders
should fiercely denounce this claim, and insist that the writ-
ten Constitution was an imperfect instrument, and was not
intended to be their rule at all, but that there was given
along with it an oral tradition which supplied its defects, and
of which they, the President and office-holders, were the
sole authorized expounders ! that this oral tradition was
the real fundamental law, and that if any man dared to say
the contrary, he should be sacrificed forthwith, as a politi-
cal heretic and traitor to his country : if such tyranny as
this should force the reformers to withdraw their own State
from the Union, who would be to blame 1 And how absurd
would "it be to tell them, after they had seceded, that they
had no confidence in their own principles that, in the lan-
guage of Dr. Milner, they could not make an act of faith,
that they could not really believe the Constitution to be the
Constitution, or that they had not read aright the interpretation
336 Letter XV IL
of its earliest expounders, because, forsooth, the President
and office-holders were infallibly gifted lo decide, and no
one could have any true and sincere faith, except it were
according to their teaching !
Now here is a supposed case which bears some analogy
to the actual position of the Church of Rome, in relation to
the Reformed Church of England. Dr. Milner tells us that
we cannot make an act of faith, on the principle that the
Bible is the rule of faith, because we cannot have a full
persuasion of its truth. And it is certainly difficult to decide
whether the folly or the effrontery of such a statement is
most worthy of admiration. For how can Christian men
have faith in anything, if they cannot have it in the written
Word of God ? And how is their faith in that Word to be
weakened by their belief that God gave it to be the only
sure and unerring constitution of His Church the great
fundamental law of His people 1 I marvel much that your
advocate forgot the proof so awfully displayed against his
preposterous assumption in the bloody reign of the English
Mary ; when hundreds of true reformers stood firm amidst
the horrors of the torture and the stake, and consummated
their act of faith by the act of martyrdom.
I come next to the charge which Dr. Milner brings
against the weak and fanatical speeches and doings of cer-
tain men Luther, and Fox, and Naylor, and Wesley, with
others. And while I shall certainly allow him all due credr
it for his industry and ingenuity, and at the same time shall
save myself and my readers the trouble of examining how
much of his narrative is true, and how much is a most un-
fair exaggeration, I reply to the whole by saying, that the
Church of England had nothing to do with it, and that we
are only responsible for our own course of principle and
Contrast- 337
action. But'here I must appeal to the long array of facts
which I have stated from your own historian, Fleury, and
ask how your infallible Church proved the superiority of her
rule of faith, during the ages prior to the Reformation ; and
how, whenever she has the power, she proves it down to
the present day 1 Where is the systematic licentiousness,
ambition, cruelty and avarice of the Protestant ministry,
exhibited, century after century, generation after generation,
as they were confessedly displayed throughout Europe, by
the priesthood of Rome ? When and where did the re-
formed clergy light up the flames of the most inhuman wars
and persecutions, arm the assassin, immolate thousands upon
thousands, as in the massacre of St. Bartholomew's, and
then appoint a public Te Deum, and strike medals in honor
-of the atrocious and execrable triumph 1 When did the
princes of every or of any land charge the reformed clergy,
as they have so often charged the Romish priesthood, with
all the vices of unbridled and notorious libertinism ? When
were they branded, like the Jesuits, as public 7iuisances,
and ignominiously expelled as enemies to the public wel-
fare ? But I shall not enlarge now upon this odious com-
parison. Suffice it to say, that when Dr. Milner presumed
to direct his readers to the sins and follies of Protestants,
he must have either reckoned largely upon the ignorance or
forgetfulness of the world, or supposed that the specious in-
genuity of his attack would deprive them of their under-
standing.
I have reached at length the last topic of reproach, in
the assault which he directs against the security of the
faith in the Church of England, based upon certain passages
in the works of Hoadly, Balguy, and Watson, on the reser-
vations with which some men have signed the 39 Articles,
338 Letter XVII.
and other matters of a similar character ; winding up with the
assertion, that as a consequence of the uncertainty of their
religion, many Protestants desire to lie received in the Church
of Rome at the hour of death, while not a single instance can
be produced of a Roman Catholic wishing to die in any other
but his own communion.
Now here we have another specimen of Dr. Milner's
reckless disregard for all the ordinary maxims of truth and
honest dealing. He could not have been ignorant that the
Church of England, as a whole, had no respect whatever
for the theological character or learning of either Hoadly or
Watson. Nor were any of the clergymen whom he has
quoted entitled to represent her system or her principles,
farther than they spake according to the manifest sense of
her Creeds and Articles. He knew, likewise, that no
Church on the face of the earth could at all times secure
the consistency of her clergy within the strict rules of her
dogmatic teaching. But these men were a few dozen
amongst a body of twelve thousand. And they were pure
as angels of light in comparison with the mass of his own
priesthood. For how, as it respected the unity of the Rule
of Faith, could he have forgotten the dissensions of Roman-
ism 1 Two and three Popes at once, cursing each other !
the Council of Basle excommunicating the Pope and the
Council of Florence, and the Council of Florence and the
Pope anathematizing the Council of Basle ! The same
spectacle displayed in the Council of Pisa ! The variances
with respect to the reception even of the Council of Trent !
The long quarrels between the Dominicans and Fran-
ciscans about the immaculate conception ! The bitter con-
troversies between the Jesuits and the Jansenists upon the
doctrine of predestination! The disputes between the
Change of Circumstances. 339
Popes and the Galilean Church about the Pragmatic Sanc-
tion ! The interminable strife concerning the power of the
Pope to dethrone a sovereign, and the mooted point whether
a General Council is superior to the Pope, or the Pope to the
Council ! Nay, had he forgotten the downright atheism
charged upon Pope Boniface and Cardinal Cajetan by the
King of France, and the infidel philosophy so long permit-
ted in the theological schools of Paris, where the clergy
themselves were not only in the habit of the most disgust-
ing licentiousness, but even showed their infidelity by play-
ing their games of dice on the very altars of God ? I have
referred, to a mere sprinkling from your own historians, and
shall we be told by your advocates of the superior certainty
and unity of your system, in the face of facts like these ?
True, indeed, it may be said that these disorders are
passed away since the Reformation, and that your Church
has long exhibited the aspect of unity and peace. And to
this I answer, that your unity and peace are merely the
outward result of prudence and policy, and that it is a very
ignorant and weak credulity which would ascribe them to
your religion. For it is your own perpetual and constant
boast that YOUR RELIGION WAS THE SAME BEFORE THE REF-
ORMATION AS IT is NOW ; and therefore, if the strifes and
dissensions in which you were then continually involved are
since kept down, and out of sight, it results, of necessity,
that it must be the change of circumstances. In point of fact,
you are as little united as ever, but your quarrels are more
wisely concealed from public observation.
And as for the last of Dr. Milner's assertions, that " many
Protestants seek, at the hour of death, to be received into
his Church, while not an instance can be found of a Roman
Catholic wishing to die in any other than his own commu-
14
340 Letter XVII.
nion!" it caps the climax of absurdity. What marvellous
reliance must he have placed on the thoughtlessness or stu-
pidity of his readers in venturing upon such a statement !
For who were the Albigenses .and the Waldenses of former
ages, whom the Popes persecuted with fire and sword, but
Romanists, who had been forced, by the corruptions of the
Church, to abandon her communion ? Who were the mil-
lions of the reformed in Germany, France, Holland, Sweden,
and Denmark, but men who left the Church of Rome, at the
peril of property and life, in the hope of a purer religion ?
Who were the millions in England that resolved to restore
the Church to her primitive rule of true Catholicism, by
taking the Bible for the Rule of Faith, along with the inter-
pretation of the ancient fathers ? Who are the thousands
upon thousands within the last few years in Ireland, that
have gone out from Rome to join the pure Church of the
Apostles' planting ? And what is the handful of deluded or
ignorant Protestants, who, from time to time, have fallen
victims to the wily sophistry of such men as Dr. Milner, in
comparison with such mighty hosts as these ?
That there has been a large amount of strife and dissen-
sion among Protestants, I admit with sorrow. Nor am I
justified in denying that their want of complete unity is to
be ascribed to their over-sanguine reliance on the exercise
of private judgment, without regard to the primitive models
of interpretation. We hold the right and duty of the Church
to be the judicial expounder of the Bible in all controver-
sies of faith, as well as in the great rules of ecclesiastical
order. And doubtless it is to this, mainly, under the favor
of Divine Providence, that we are indebted for such admira-
ble unity in the Church of England, and her offspring, du-
ring three centuries together, so that there is at this mo-
Unity of the Church of England. 341
ment a larger and firmer amount of efficiency within our
pale than at any former period. But the question will re-
cur again, under its own head of controversy ; and here I
shall leave it for the present, content with repelling the un-
just attack of our unscrupulous adversary.
342 The End of Controversy, Controverted.
LETTER XVIII.
MOST REVEREND SIR :
BEFORE I proceed to the positive branch of Dr. Milner's
argument, it may be proper to notice his remarks about our
English version of the Scriptures, which he charges with
being erroneous. In reply, I shall only say, that while it
is impossible, in the nature of things, that any translation
can be, in all respects, equal to the original, yet that, so far
as the substantial meaning is concerned, which is all that is
required to its being the Rule of Faith, no fault has ever
been, or can ever be, found with the English Bible.
Indeed, Dr. Milner himself is obliged to acknowledge,
that " in this inquiry, the Catholic Church herself can af-
ford no security." He does not explain his meaning, and
therefore I shall do it for him. He would have said, if it
had suited his purpose to be explicit, that your own Church
was obliged to use a translation as well as ours, and this
translation, though adopted by the Council of Trent, is
far from being immaculate. He might also have said, be-
cause it is the unquestionable truth, that the primitive
Church in the West, where the Latin tongue was spoken,
had several versions, the work of individuals, and used
sometimes one, and sometimes another, according to the
judgment of the Bishops, until the version executed by the
celebrated Jerome from the original languages, the Hebrew
and the Greek, obtained the general confidence, and be-
Superiority of the English Version. 348
came, with some exceptions, the prevailing text of th
Latin Vulgate throughout Europe. Yet all these version,
were so far a safe guide, that their inaccuracies never gave
rise to any error of doctrine. For the wisdom and good-
ness of God, who intended His holy Scriptures to be a
guide for the whole world, and who knew, far better than
we, the inevitable imperfection of all translations, guarded
against the difficulty by the very form of the Revelations
themselves. Thus we find that no doctrine of the faith is
dependent upon a single text, or a single chapter. But all
our doctrines, on the contrary, are spread abroad throughout
a vast range, expressed in a multitude of lorms, and placed
in various connections ; the duty of faith being to compare,
as Origen saith, Scripture with Scripture, and out of the
general consent and mutual bearing of the whole, to derive
the definite result of every article.
The question, then, of the versions of the Scriptures, since
none are absolutely perfect, while all are accurate enough
for the purposes of a right faith, so long as the interpreta-
tion of the primitive Church is taken along with them, is
purely a question of comparison. And here I claim for our
own the highest place in the whole catalogue. For it was
the work of FIFTY MEN, the first for learning and piety in.
England, appointed by the royal mandate of James I., a
man of uncommon attainments, with all the advantages of
the previous versions before them. Whereas the German
version was the work of one man, the French, of another, the
Latin Vulgate used by the Church of Rome, of another ; so
that in no case, since Ptolemy employed the seventy Jews
in Alexandria to translate the Old Testament into Greek,
were so many superior minds congregated together for such
an enterprise. And the result has been answerable to the
344 Letter XVIII.
munificent and pious care employed, since, although we do
not call it perfect, which no translation can be, in compari-
son with the original, yet we challenge the realms of Chris-
tendom to show a version which, on the whole, is more
worthy, if as worthy, of entire confidence and admiration.
Perhaps the best proof of this may be found in the fact,
that Dr. Milner, with the strongest disposition to censure,
has not ventured to say that there is any error which could
possibly affect the faith of the reader. He does, indeed,
in the note, specify two passages, the first of which reads
thus : Mat. xix. 1 1 . But he said unto them, AH men CAN-
NOT receive this saying, save they to whom it is given. Here
Dr. Milner rightly observes, that the original means, All
men DO NOT receive this saying, &c. But the difference
really amounts to nothing, for the very simple reason, that
no man can receive either that or any other saying of our
Lord, unless it be given to him. So that the variation has
no effect whatever upon the substantial truth of the text.
The other passage is 1 Cor. xi. 27, where the Apostle
saith, Whoever shall eat this bread AND drink this cup of the
Lord unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and blood of the
Lord. Here Dr. Milner remarks, that the and should be
or, and he is correct, undoubtedly, according to the Greek
original. But neither does this affect the substantial mean-
ing of the Apostle, for the following reasons :
1. Because in the 26th verse, immediately preceding,
we read, For as often as ye eat this bread AND drink this
cup, ye do show the Lord's death till he come. In this verse,
the conjunction is AND, and not OR, as in the following one,
the Greek and Roman Vulgate both agreeing with our Eng-
lish. And therefore it is manifest that the Apostle used
either form indifferently.
Errors in the Romish Version. 345
2. Because the error of your Church in taking away the
chalice from the laity could not be defended by the word
OR, taken in its strict meaning, inasmuch as this would not
prove that the bread might be taken without the cup, .any bet-
ter than it would prove that the cup might be taken without
the bread, which last you do not admit any more than we
do.
3. Because the question of doctrine does not depend on
this text, but on the Institution of Christ as related in the
Gospels, an i the imiform rule of the Church, from which
there was no authoritative license to depart until the Coun-
cil of Constance, more than twelve centuries after.
These, then, are the most serious of the cavils made
against our English Bible. But now, in return, I must ask
your attention to three errors in your own. And these are not
merely trifling verbal inaccuracies, which do not affect the
doctrine of the Scriptures in the slightest degree, but grave
misrepresentations, directly contrary to what we hold to be
the true faith.
Thus, in Genesis iii. 15, the Almighty addresses these
words to the tempter of our first parents : " / will put en-
mity between thee and the ivoman, and between thy seed and
her seed. IT shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his
heel."
The word IT, in this important text, evidently refers to
the seed of the woman, which was our Lord Jesus Christ.
And in the original Hebrew, it is the masculine fcnrr- But
the Latin Vulgate of your Church has changed it into the
feminine, " SHE shall bruise thy head," thus furnishing a
strong support of your idolatry of the Virgin Mary, as the
efficient instrument of the victory over Satan. Not only the
famous Jerome, but long afterwards your own learned Pag-
346 Letter XVIII.
nini, decided this text against the Church of Rome, and
in our favor, on the conclusive testimony of the original
Hebrew. And yet you continue the error to this day, aad
have given it the further sanction of your English Douay
version.
The second text that I shall specify is in St. Paul's Epis-
tle to the Ephesians, v. 31-2, where we read as follows :
" For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and
shall be joined unto his wife, and they two shall be one jlesh.
This is a great MYSTERY." The Greek original is pvorrj^Lov,
the very word from which the Latin mysterium, and our
English mystery, were both derived. And yet the Vulgate
translates it thus : SACRAMENTUM hoc magnum ; and your
Douay Bible, This is a great SACRAMENT ; thereby manu-
facturing a very direct proof, to the ordinary mind, that mar-
riage is a sacrament, in the theological sense, although you
know, or ought to know, that the Church never accounted
it to be one of the sacraments, until long after the days of
Gregory I., in the time of the Schoolmen.
The third passage is a very gross perversion, in the
Epistle to the Hebrews, xi. 21, where we read : " By faith
Jacob, when he was a-dying, blessed both the sons of Joseph,
and worshipped, leaning upon the top of his staff." Here,
the word leaning is supplied by our translators, and is put
into italics, according to their invariable rule, when they
add anything to the original. If we omit that word, how-
ever, the meaning is precisely the same, worshipped upon
(Gr. E7n) the top of his staff. But the Vulgate has trans-
formed it effectually by leaving out the word STU, signifying
upon, and translating it, " adoravit fasti glum virga ejus ;
or WORSHIPPED THE TOP OF HIS ROD, according to your
Douay Bible. Here, therefore, we have the manufacture
Infallible Edition of Sixtus V. 347
of a very plausible proof in favor of image or relit wor-
ship.
My readers may see, in this brief enumeration, another
specimen of Dr. Milner's truth and fairness. Was he aware
of these facts ? If he was not, he must have been far more
ignorant than I am "willing to suppose. But if he was
what must we think of the assurance with which he could
venture to assail our English Bible, for two trifling inaccu-
racies which signified nothing, while his own infallible
Church had adopted the Latin Vulgate, containing such
grave and important departures from the Word of God 1
But it would be doing injustice to this important matter,
if I should pass by the course taken by your Roman Pon-
tiffs on the great point of Biblical accuracy. The version
of Jerome, as I have already stated, though warmly opposed,
yet obtained the general confidence of the Church, and
held it for a long period. Nevertheless, it was thought ne-
cessary to have many recensions, because the older versions
were still in use, and there was no perfect uniformity.
Thus, in the time of Charlemagne, Alcuin revised the whole
with great care, under the patronage of that emperor, about
A. D. 788.
Again, in A. D. 1089, as the Scriptures had become ex-
tensively faulty by the carelessness of the copyists, An-
selm, the Archbishop of Canterbury, set forth another cor-
rected edition. This was" followed by the amended version
of Stephen, Abbot of the Cistercian Monks, in the twelfth
century, and others of less note were made after that, the
result of the whole being by no means satisfactory to men
of research and learning. The decree of the Council of
Trent, therefore, which adopted the Vulgate, gave no small
trouble to Pope Sixtus V., twenty years afterwards, because.
348 Letter XVIII.
in fact, there was no copy of the Latin Bible which de-
served to be considered a standard. To remedy this de-
fect, that energetic Pontiff assembled some men of known
acquirements at Rome, and after the best examination in his
power, as he supposed, he published a rectified edition of
the Bible as the standard Vulgate, along with a Bull, in
which these words appear : " Nostra nos ipsi manu correxi-
mus, * * * * Ex certa nostra scientia, deque Apostoli-
C<B potestatis plenitudine, statuimus earn Vulgatam sacra tarn
Veteris quam Novi Testamenti paginas Latinam editionem, *
* * sine ulla dubitatione aut controversies censendam esse hanc
ipsam, quam nunc prout optime Jieri potuit emendatam ;" i. e.,
" We have corrected it with our own hand, * * * an( l
from our certain knowledge, and from the plenitude of Apos-
tolical power, we decree that this Vulgate Latin edition of
the sacred page of the Old as well as the New Testament,
is to be esteemed, without any doubt or controversy, as thor-
oughly amended as it can be."
Yet, before two years had elapsed, so many errors had
been discovered in the edition which Sixtus V. had thus
published from Ms certain knowledge and from the plenitude
of Apostolic power, that Pope Clement VIII. was constrain-
ed to call in the copies, and to put out another, which is the
present standard. And the Preface to this expressly states
that, in hac tamen pervulgata Lectione, sicut nonnulla con-
sulto mutata, ita etiam alia, qua MUTANDA VIDEBANTUR,
consulto immutata relicta sunt ; i.e., "ALTHOUGH SOME
THINGS WERE ADVISEDLY CHANGED FROM THE COMMON
READING, THERE WERE OTHERS, WHICH SEEMED TO REQUIRE
A. CHANGE, ADVISEDLY SUFFERED TO REMAIN UNALTERED."*
* The scholastic reader will find this matter fully set forth in the
admirable Prolegomena of Professor Lee to Bagster's Polyglott Bible,
More Infallible Version of Clement VIII. 349
Most truly, therefore, though doubtless sore against his will,
did Dr. Milner confess that, " in this inquiry the Catholic
Church herself" (meaning, of course, his own) " can give no
security." And the whole affair exhibits an amusing spe-
cimen of your assumed infallibility.
For, in the first place, the Council of Trent, which being
guided, as you say, by the Holy Spirit, ought to have known
the errors of the existing Latin version, solemnly decide
that the Latin Vulgate should be the authorized and adopted
copy. But twenty years afterwards, Pope Sixtus V. being
resolved to establish a noble printing office for the head-
quarters of the Church at Rome, where Bibles and the fa-
thers and Councils should be published in the best possible
style, discovered that the copies in general use were not re-
liable ; and therefore he determines to print a new and cor-
rected edition. The decree of the Council, therefore, evi-
dently went for nothing, since the version to which the
Pope resolved to apply it was yet to be produced, twenty
years afterwards !
Next, the Pope, after consulting with several mea of
learning, corrects the new edition with his own hand, and
publishes it with all the formality of a Papal Bull, from his
certain knowledge and from the plenitude of Apostolic power.
And it is evident that the PLENITUDE OF APOSTOLIC POWER
ought to include the infallible assurance of inspiration.
But lo ! two years after this, Pope Clement VIII., being
also endowed, as all Popes must be, with the same certain
vide Prol. V., p. 44^5. The copies of the edition of Sixtus V. are ex-
tremely rare, because they were called in as extensively as possible by
the Roman prelates. I had, however, in A. D. 1839, the opportunity
of examining one of them, in the Library of Trinity College, Dublin,
and was astonished to see the number of corrections which some
learned critic of their own had made upon its pages.
350 Letter XVIIL
knowledge and plenitude of Apostolic power, discovers that
the Bible of Sixtus V. was full of errors, and .therefore he
finds himself obliged to publish a more correct copy. And
in this, he is so far from claiming absolute perfection, that
the preface itself records the fact, dictated by the master
spirit of Romanism, expediency : " Some things were
changed," saith this preface, " and some which seemed to
require change" (quee mutanda videbantur) " were suffered
to remain .'" There we have, undoubtedly, a fair specimen
of your Roman infallibility. Alas ! how much longer will
your leaders practise upon the weak credulity of the world ?
And how wonderful is the audacity with which Dr. Milner,
under such circumstances, could presume to assail the fidel-
ity of our English Bible, when he ought to have known
that it was, to all intents and purposes, so much more trust"
worthy than his own !
I need hardly remind my readers of the blessing pro-
nounced by the written Word on the faithful reading of
the Scriptures : " Blessed is the man that walketh not in the
counsel of the ungodly, nor standeth in the way of sinners :
nor sitteth in the seat of the scornful. But his delight is in
the law of the Lord : and in His law doth he meditate day and
night." (Ps. i.). " The law of the Lord is perfect, convert-
ing the soul : the testimony of the Lord is sure, making
wise the simple. The statutes of the Lord are right, re-
joicing the heart : the commandment of the Lord is pure,
enlightening the eyes. The fear of the Lord is clean, en-
during forever : the judgments of the Lord are true, and
righteous altogether. More to be desired are they than
gold, yea, than much fine gold : sweeter also than honey
and the honeycomb. Moreover, by them is thy servant
warned : and in keeping of them there is great reward."
England more Catholic than Rome. 351
(Ps. xix.). " Search the Scriptures," saith our blessed Re-
deemer, " for in them ye think ye have eternal life, and
they are they which testify of me." (S. John, v. 39). " What
is written in the law ?" saith He, elsewhere : " How read-
est thou ?" (S. Luke, x. 26). " All Scripture," saith St.
Paul, " is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for
doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in right-
eousness : that the man of God may'be perfect, thoroughly
furnished unto all good works. "(2 Tim. iii. 16).
We have seen that such was the practice and feeling of
the primitive saints how Augustin prayed for grace to un-
derstand the Scriptures how Ambrose compared the read-
ing of them to the walking in Paradise how Irenseus
likened it to eating of the good fruit in the Garden of the
Lord how every doctrine of faith was derived, and every
error in the faith resisted, from their authority. In nothing
does your Church of Rome show the anti-Christian spirit
which possesses her more plainly than in her efforts to su-
persede these precious oracles of God by her traditions.
In nothing does the Church of England demonstrate her
truly Catholic character more than in the fixed principle
that the Scriptures shall hold the first place of honor in all
the worshipping assemblies of her people ; and that thus',
even those who cannot or will not read, shall at least hear,
from the lips of all her ministers, the pure and unadulter-
ated teaching of the Bible.
352 The End of Controversy^ Controverted.
LETTER XIX.
MOST REVEREND SIR :
I COME, at length, to the great point of Dr. Milner, name-
ly, the settling of the question, " Which is the true Church ?"
He saith, with perfect propriety, " that we profess to believe
in the HOLT CATHOLIC CHURCH," or, as the Nicene Creed
expresses it, in " ONE CATHOLIC AND APOSTOLIC CHURCH.
Hence it evidently follows that the Church must possess
these four marks, UNITY, SANCTITY, CATHOLICITY, AND
APOSTOLICITY. All we have to do, therefore, by way of
discovering the true Church, is to find out which of the ri-
val churches or communions is peculiarly One Holy
Catholic and Apostolic." I accept this statement willing-
ly, and shall proceed to consider the evidence which he ad-
duces to prove that the Church of Rome is the true Church,
in the full confidence that the result will rather demonstrate
the superior claims of the Church of England. But in en-
tering upon this important and most interesting question, I
shall insist upon the primitive Church being the standard of
appeal, according to the rule of Vincent of Lerins. The
decisive maxim, from which Rome herself does not dare to
dissent, at least in theory, is, that we must hold what was
held ALWAYS, EVERYWHERE, AND BY ALL, semper, ubique et
ab omnibus, FOR THAT ALONE is TRULY CATHOLIC.
I proceed, therefore, to the first of those four points,
Unity. 353
UNITY. Dr. Milner devotes his 14th letter to proving that
God cannot be the author of different religions, and hence
the Church must be strictly One, in Doctrine, in Worship,
and in Government. He quotes the language of Christ, in
which He prayed that all His Disciples may be One ; and
the text of St. Paul, where he saith, that we, being many,
are One body in Christ. There is One body and One Spirit,
One Lord, One faith, One baptism. And again, that a man
who is a heretic must be rejected.
All this, of course, I fully admit, because it is the doc-
trine of Scripture. Your favorite author next quotes seve-
ral declarations from the fathers, to show that no one can
be saved out of the Catholic Church. And here, likewise,
there is no ground of controversy. Having thus prepared,
as he supposes, the groundwork of his argument, he passes
on, in his fifteenth letter, to prove the lack of unity in the
Church of England, although he admits that she has " bet-
ter pretensions to, this and the other marks of the Church,
than any other Protestant Society possesses." He then
quotes, as he has previously done, various passages from
certain divines belonging to the Church, to prove that it is
not united, to which I have already answered sufficiently.
He might have said that the Church of England has been
indulgent to a fault in suffering her clergy to write as some
of them have done, without any formal censure. But that
is not a question of unity in the Church herself, so much as
a question of discipline. And on this ground your own
Church is incomparably more open to censure, as the ex-
tracts from your historian, Fleury, have abundantly demon-
strated.
Dr. Milner next undertakes to assert and " maintain, as
a notorious fact, that the Catholic Church, meaning the
354 Letter XIX.
Church of Rome, is, AND EVER HAS BEEN, strictly One, in
her faith, worship, and government." And this we utterly
deny, and prove our denial by the unquestionable evidence
of Scripture, and the fathers of the primitive Church. He
says, indeed, that all her members, and all her priests
throughout the world, would give precisely the same an-
swers if they were examined as to their faith. But this is
little better than a mere begging of the question, because
it is appealing to a kind of evidence which is impossible.
No one can interrogate every individual, to ascertain the
reality and extent of his faith. We know, however, from
facts sufficiently public, that the assertion cannot be true
that you do not agree in your sentiments concerning the
prerogatives of the Pope nor where to place the infalli-
bility which you claim, whether in the Pope, or in a Gen-
eral Council. That the decrees of Trent are received in
some countries and not in others. That your divines are of
different minds concerning predestination, the immaculate
conception of the Virgin, the lawfulness of persecution, the
binding effect of oaths made to heretics, and the whole exten-
sive system of Jesuit morals. That in consequence, there
is no security for unity amongst you in your secret tribunal
of the confessional, and no sufficient guard against the most
shocking licentiousness, in those countries which are solely
governed by your Church, as Italy, Spain, France, and
South America. That there is a large variety of senti-
ment amongst your authors with regard to purgatory, the
lawfulness of usury (which many confound with the inter-
est allowed by the legislature), and mixed marriages. Nay,
that the Bulls of your Popes are not allowed to be read by
all your Bishops, but some receive, and others exclude
them, according to the notions of the individual prelates.
Unity. 355
In a word, I might safely defy your writers to specify as
many points of internal discord in the Church of England,
as there are among yourselves, even at this day, notwith-
standing the caution with which your strifes are kept secret
from Protestants since the Reformation, on the one hand,
and the foolish publicity which is given to all our Church
disputes, upon the other.
But this, after all, is nothing to the purpose, although
Dr. Milner places so much stress upon it in his 16th letter.
The completeness of unity of sentiment amongst yourselves,
even if you possessed it at the present day, would not prove
that you are free from error, but only that you are more
thoroughly drilled, because your priests are so anxious to
keep their people from the influence of Protestants in gen-
eral, and the Church of England in particular. We doubt
not that there is quite as much of this sort of unity amongst
the Budhist and the Hindoo idolaters, and the followers of
the false prophet. But unity, in itself, never can be a proof
of any truth, in religion or in philosophy. The Church of
Rome was united in the propriety of treating Galileo as a
heretic, because he maintained the motion of the earth.
And the Church of Rome is probably united now in the con-
viction that their ancestors were grievously mistaken. The
ancient Church of Israel was united with its priesthood
when they cried out against the Saviour, " Crucify him, cru-
cify him." But no Christian can doubt that such unity was
produced by the influence of Satan in deluding tho minds
of men.
What, therefore, Dr. Milner had to prove, was the unity
of his Church, not simply among themselves, but with the
primitive Church of the Apostles, in faith, worship, and gov-
ernment. And this he could never do, without a total mys-
356 Letter XIX.
tification of all the monuments of Christian antiquity. I
have already proved your fatal departure from the primitive
doctrine, in the fundamental article of the holy Scriptures
being the Rule of Faith, as interpreted by the Church uni-
versal. I have also shown your error in adding to the
Canon of the Scriptures. And I shall prove, by and by,
when we come to the specific details, that you have further
corrupted the original Gospel with your saints, relics, im-
ages, and purgatory ; that you have corrupted the ancient
liturgy in your worship ; and that you have corrupted the
original government by your priestly celibacy, your secret
confessional, and your Pope. And in all these respects, so
far from yielding the point of Unity to the Church of Rome,
I shall claim it, in a far superior degree, for the Church of
England.
I pass on next to the second note of the true Church
SANCTITY, or HOLINESS. And this, Dr. Milner divides into,
1st, the doctrine of holiness ; 2dly, the means of holiness ;
3dly, the fruits of holiness ; and lastly, the divine testi-
mony of holiness. To the first of these, viz., the doctrine
of holiness, he devotes his 19th letter. And here he cen-
sures the Church of England because- she tolerated the
doctrine of Calvinism, and even allowed the main body of
her clergy to profess it, as they certainly did, until the tide
of theological opinion took an Arminian course, after the
Synod of Dort. But he does not pretend to allege that her
Articles enjoined it. Neither does he venture to say that
our Church ever tolerated that excrescence of the system
which is properly called Antinomianism, although he in-
sinuates it most unjustly, by the specious mode in which
he puts his quotations together.
But here he is wilfully blind to the fact, so well known
Calvinism tolerated by Rome. 357
to every reader of ecclesiastical history, that the system
of Calvin did not originate with him, but with the famous
Augustin, whom the Church of Rome has placed upon her
Calendar of Saints ; that Augustin elaborated this system
in his controversy against Pelagius ; that the same system
appears fully endorsed in the Summa of Thomas Aquinas,
another of the Romish saints ; that it was the system of the
monks of the Order of Augustin, and the Carmelites ; nay,
that it was freely tolerated in the Roman Church, until the
Jesuits attacked it in the writings of Jansen, and thereby
brought down upon their heads the famous Provincial Let-
ters of Pascal. If, therefore, the Church of England tol-
erated it, and still tolerates it if she even allowed her di-
vines to favor it, and denounce Arminianism in the reign of
James I., which I acknowledge, Dr. Milner ought to have
remembered, that Augustin first, and afterwards the Church
of Rome, had taught her. That the primitive Church had
allowed her Bishops to use their liberty with regard to this
matter, is undeniable, since Augustin himself records the
fact, that in the earlier part of his ministry, he held what,
in modern days, we call Arminian views, but afterwards
adopted the other. And I maintain that the Church of
England was right in tolerating both the doctrines (al-
though I am, myself, no advocate of Calvinism), not only
because the subject is one of peculiar mystery, but because
it was her duty, as it certainly was her design, to be faith-
ful in all things to the example of the primitive Church,
which was her model in the plan of her Reformation.
The next charge which your unscrupulous advocate
brings against us is, that the Church of England " has now
compromised" with the Socinian doctrine, " which she for-
merly condemned as a damnable heresy, and punished with
358 Letter XIX.
fire and faggot." (p. 138). This is a poor calumny, of
which any just and generous-minded Romanist would have
been ashamed. The Church of England has never com-
promised with any heresy, least of all with that which is so
constantly opposed in the established order of her Litany,
and in her leading Articles, and in all her Creeds. I have
already said that this ridiculous tirade which your favorite
author so constantly reiterates, amounts to nothing more than
a laxity of discipline, which suffered some of her divines to
publish doctrines of a very unsound character, without call-
ing them to account. But when we remember the almost
universal licentiousness which Rome permitted to such a
terrible extent, that her own laity were crying out for refor-
mation during seven centuries together, we cannot suffi-
ciently admire the hardihood of Dr. Milner in making so
much of laxity of discipline. The other charge, of having
punished this heresy with fire and faggot, is true, unhappily,
in a few instances. But your subtle advocate takes good
care not to remind his readers that the Church of England
was taught this cruel lesson by your own Church, which
first invented the diabolical law of burning heretics ; and
that the same Church of England was the leader in the
change which finally established the doctrine of religious
toleration, while Rome clings to her Inquisition and her
dungeons to this day.
After this overflow of virtuous indignation, Dr. Milner
proceeds to claim for his Church SANCTITY of doctrine,
averring that she has never changed it. He next affirms
the fidelity of Rome to the first four Councils, and gives a
general statement of the faith, to which no reformed Church-
man would object. But he forgets again to tell his readers
that the whole of this is held as fully by the Church of
The Definition of a Sacrament, 359
England. The controversy, as he well knew, was not
about these scriptural and primitive doctrines, but about the .
additions of false and dangerous superstitions to the true
apostolic system which was derived from the Word of God,
And as these were cast away, while the pure faith of the
primitive Church was all retained, we claim for the Church
of England a vast superiority over the Church of Rome, on
the ground so strongly stated by our Lord Himself, when
He reproved the traditions of the Pharisees, and said : In
vain do ye worship Me, teaching for doctrines the command-
ments of men.
The means of Sanctity come next to be considered, and
to these our author devotes his 20th letter. And the prin-
cipal and most efficacious of these, as he informs us, are
the sacraments. He approves the definition of a sacrament
in our Catechism ; but in the note at the foot of page 143,
he censures the last clause as being far too strong, although
he ought to have known that the error which he fancies to
be implied, is plainly excluded in the subsequent instructions
of the same Catechism, as well as in the Articles. He ob-
jects, however, that our Church reduces the number of the
sacraments to two, Baptism and the Lord's Supper, and
claims for his own Church the whole collection of seven
sacraments. And then he proceeds to remark on each one
separately.
And here the controversy lies, first, in the question,
whether the term sacrament is properly applied to Con-
firmation, Penance, Extreme Unction, Orders, and Matri-
mony. Let me appeal, then, to the definition of a sacra-
ment, which Dr. Milner is obliged to approve, as given in
our Catechism, viz., that it is an outward and visible sign of
an inward and spiritual grace, given unto us, ORDAINED
360 Letter XIX.
BY CHRIST HIMSELF, as a means whereby we receive the
.same, and a pledge to assure us thereof. It is only the last
clause wliicli he affects to censure, namely, that a sacra-
ment is a pledge to assure us of inward and spiritual grace,
as if the Church of England had not guarded against his
cavil by the statement of what is required of those who
come to receive the sacraments, which immediately follows
in the same Catechism. With what face, therefore, could
he say, that this clause " seems to imply, that every person
who is partaker of the outward part of a sacrament, necessarily
receives the inward grace of it, whatever may be his disposi-
tion ?"
But this clause has no bearing on the question, What is
a sacrament ? The answer is given above, and is admitted
to be satisfactory. According to the definition, then, the
sacraments must be ordained by Christ Himself. And they
must be outward and visible signs of an inward and spiritual
grace, given to us. Thus, our Lord instituted the sacrament
of Baptism, in which the water is the outward and visible
sign, of the inward cleansing of the soul by the grace of the
Holy Spirit. Thus, likewise, He instituted the Eucharist,
the bread and the wine being the sacramental signs of His
sacred Body broken, and His Blood poured out on the cross,
by which great Atonement we receive the gift of spiritual
life, and by the spiritual reception of which our souls are
nourished.
But in Confirmation, there is no evidence whatever of
either the one or the other. That is, there is no institution
of it by Christ Himself, and no outward and visible sign or
symbol of the grace conferred. For the Apostles laid their
hands upon the head of the person who had been previously
baptized, and prayed that he might receive the Holy Ghost.
Penance.
361
And our Church retains the ordinance, and precisely in the
same mode of administration. But here there was no new
appointment, since we read that " Moses laid his hands upon
the seventy elders of Israel, and God took of the spirit that
was in Moses and gave it unto them." Moreover, the patri-
archs laid their hands upon their sons, as an accompaniment
of a prophetic blessing. And in like manner, the Saviour laid
His hands upon the children which were brought to Him,
and blessed them. Therefore, we venerate this rite as a holy
ordinance, and use it after the example of the Apostles, but
do not call it a sacrament, in the proper sense, as Baptism,
and the Lord's Supper.
Sensible of the difficulty, therefore, which lay before
them, your writers pretend that Confirmation was ordained
by Christ during the forty days which He passed with the
Apostles after His resurrection from the dead, which, of
course, they derive from their favorite treasury of tradition,
but of which not one word can be found in Scripture, nor in
the fathers of the primitive ages. And to supply the want
of an outward and visible sign (as the laying on of hands is
only an expressive gesture, and was in use so long before),
they rested upon the use of chrism, that is, oil, consecrated
by the Bishop, with which they signed the forehead of the
baptized believer in the form of a cross. But neither of
these could justify the calling of it a sacrament, because the
first could not be admitted without an impeachment of the
Scriptures, and the second had no other force, at best, than
that of early practice, which the Church might add or take
away according to her judgment of expediency.
As to Penance, the Scriptures commanded it, under its
true title of repentance, from the first. It could not, there-
fore, be called a sacrament, because it was not instituted by
362 Letter XIX.
our Lord, nor was there any outward or visible sign at-
tached to it of a sacramental nature. The profession of it
was required by John the Baptist, as well as by the Apos-
tles, and the reality of it could only be tested by the habit
of the life in forsaking sin. The Church of Rome, indeed,
attached to the act of repentance after baptism, the neces-
sity of auricular confession to the priest, followed by an act
of absolution. But both of these were the work of the
thirteenth century, and have, therefore, no element of a
sacrament about them. We do not find that the Apostles
ever remitted sins in any other way than as in connec-
tion with a faithful reception of the true sacraments in-
stituted by Christ. And of this we have a plain proof from
the inspired St. Peter, when he said, " Repent and be bap-
tized every one of you for the remission of sins, and ye
shall receive the Holy Ghost." The Apostle James com-
mands us to confess our sins, not to the priest, but " to one
another" when they are sins of action which offend our
brethren. And the multitude of secret sins, which are
k<5wn only to God, we are nowhere, in Scripture, com-
manded to detail to any human ear. Hence we regard the
tribunal of penance, erected by your modern Church of
Rome, as a flagrant act of priestly despotism, not only des-
titute of all sacramental authority, but in direct opposition
to the true rule of apostolic institution, and, in its practical
working, an instrument of multiform evil to the religion of
the Gospel.
.Extreme Unction, another of your Romish sacraments,
we also hold to be a mere abuse, though not of such serious
consequence as the preceding. It is justified, as your wri-
ters say, by the language of St. James, " Is any sick among
you ? Let him call for the elders of the Church, and let
Extreme Unction. 363
them pray over him, anointing liim with oil in the name of the
Lord. And the prayer of faith shall save the sick, and the
Lord shall raise him up, and if he have committed sins, they
shall be forgiven him." But it requires a very peculiar
power of vision to see in this any warrant for your doctrine.
For it is evidently a part of the supernatural gifts which the
Saviour promised to His disciples, when He said, "They
shall lay hands on the sick, and they shall recover." Hence
the Apostle directs that the sick brethren shall rely on the
prayer of faith rather than on the physician that the elders
of the Church shall use no curative process, but only anoint
the patient with oil in the name of the Lord. And then fol-
lows the statement, that not the anointing, but THE PRAYER.
OF FAITH, SHALL SAVE THE SICK, AND THE L/ORD SHALL
RAISE HIM DP.
Now, where is the resemblance between this and your
Romish Sacrament of Extreme Unction ? It is true, in-
deed, that there is oil applied in both, but in all else there
is a perfect opposition. For, 1st, your Church never in-
tends it to be used with the idea of the sick man's cure, but
on the contrary, the priest is sent for only when the patient
is near the point of death, and the doctor has no hope of
his recovery. For which reason they call it, very prop-
erly, EXTREME UNCTION, that is, the last anointing, to be
used when he is in extremis. And 2dly, it does not super-
sede in your system the use of all the ordinary means, as
in the precept of the Apostle, and therefore it is not granted
to any man in the beginning of his sickness, but only when
the art of the physician is exhausted. And 3dly, you
neither promise nor expect, what St. James states so plainly,
that the prayer of faith shall save the sick, and the Lord
shall raise him up, but consider the sending for the priest
15
364 Letter XIX.
to be the herald of certain dissolution. This rite, in fact,
was doubtless practised in the beginning, not as a sacra-
ment, but as an exercise of the miraculous gifts by which
the infant Church, in the time of the Apostles, gained such
a rapid establishment in the face of opposition. And then,
instead of giving it up when the age of miracles had passed
away, the priesthood gradually changed it into quite a dif-
ferent thing, and made it the sacrament of the dying, for
the sake of strengthening the importance of their office.
This they had no right to do, and therefore the Church of
England cast it off, rather than be a party to a pious fraud,
which quoted the Apostle in a sense so utterly contrary to
his manifest meaning.
The next imaginary sacrament upon your list is Holy
Orders. But it is against the primary notion of a sacra-
ment that it should only operate on one small class, instead
of being applicable alike to all the faithful. Neither could
it be said, in the words of the definition, that Orders were
an outward and visible sign of an inward and spiritual grace
given to us, and ordained by Christ Himself, 1st. Because it
is only an outward and visible sign that our Lord appoint-
ed for His Church, teachers and governors' ; which, although
it is of essential importance, is yet a ve/y different thing
from a sign of inward and spiritual grace to us, personally,
as Baptism and the Eucharist. 2dly. Because the institu-
tion of an order of teachers and rulers in the Church of
God was already of long standing, in the case of the an-
cient Priests and Levites. And thirdly, because, in Ordina-
tion, as in Confirmation, the Apostles used only the gesture
of the imposition of hands with prayer ; and there was no
symbol or outward and visible element adopted, to signify
the operation of the Spirit of Christ upon the soul of the
Matrimony. 365
receiver. For these reasons, the Church of England was
abundantly justified in calling Holy Orders what the term
implies, viz., the ORDER of the ministerial office ; but not
a sacrament, in the proper sense of the term.
And the last of your Roman sacraments, Matrimony, is
plainly liable to the same, and yet greater objections. For
it was so far from being appointed by Christ as a part of the
Gospel plan, that it was instituted in paradise itself, before
the fall of man had made the promise of a Saviour neces-
sary. Nor is it a sign of grace or a means of grace to all
believers, because all are not obliged to marry, and many of
those who do, find matrimony to be a trial and a temptation,
rather than a help to holiness. But it is particularly
strange that your Church should make marriage a sacra-
ment, since she has discovered that Bishops and priests
must have no wives. For it is a well-known branch of
your doctrine that the state of celibacy is more holy than
the state of wedlock. And here is certainly a marvellous
incongruity, that while you reckon marriage as a sacra-
ment on the express ground that it is a means of sanctity,
you should yet maintain that sanctity is better promoted by
letting it alone !
To prove yet further the correctness of the Church of
England in this matter, it should be observed that there
were but two rites of a sacramental character in the ancient
Church of Israel, Circumcision, which was succeeded by
Baptism, and the Feast of the Passover, which was fol-
lowed by the Feast of the Eucharist. Now it is, to say
the least, highly improbable that the Gospel dispensa-
tion, which was confessedly of a far more spiritual
character, and less encumbered with forms than the Mosaic
law,, should have been, notwithstanding, so much more
366 Letter XIX.
largely marked with sacraments, that two were changed to
seven.
But a conclusive argument in this, as in most otljer ques-
tions, may be derived from the testimony of the primitive
Church. And here let me quote an interesting passage from
the writings of St. Augustin :
" Our Lord Jesus Christ, as He declares in the Gospel,
subjects us to a yoke that is easy and a burden which is
light ; hence He has gathered the society of his new peo-
ple by SACRAMENTS in number most small, in observance
most easy, in signification most excellent, as Baptism con-
secrated in the name of the Trinity, and the communica-
tion of His body and blood ; and, if anything else be com-
manded in the Holy Scriptures, those being excepted which
burdened the service of the ancient people, in accordance
with the hardness of their hearts and the period of prophe-
cy, which also are written in. the five books of Moses.
Those things, however, which are not written, but are tra-
ditions, we also keep, since they are observed throughout
the whole world, and it is to be understood that they are
either from the Apostles themselves, or that they have been
commended and ordered to be retained by General Coun-
cils, whose authority is most salutary in the Church, such
as the custom that the Passion, Resurrection, and Ascension
to heaven of our Lord, and the Advent from heaven of the
Holy Spirit, shall be celebrated with annual solemnity, and
any other similar practice which is kept by the whole
Church, wherever diffused."*
Here, most Reverend Sir, we see two points of distinct
instruction laid down by the greatest of the primitive doc-
* S. Augustin, Ep. Januario, Op., Tom, 2, p. 93-4.
Isidore mentions three Sacraments. 367
tors, according to the judgment of Rome herself, in the
fourth century. The first, in which he states that the sa-
craments are THE FEWEST IN NUMBER (in numero paucissi-
mis], and specifies only Baptism and the Eucharist. The
second, in which he limits tradition to things of universal
practice, such as the yearly keeping of the great festivals of
Easter, Whitsunday, and the Ascension, the Fast of Good.
Friday, and similar matters. It is not possible to make this
language consistent either with the number of seven sacra-
ments, or with your modern Roman theory that tradition was
to be taken as a ground for the doctrines of faith.
Isidore, the Bishop of Seville, treats of the same subject
in the following words, so late as the sixth century : " The
sacraments are, Baptism, and Chrism, and the Body and Blood
of -Christ, which are called sacraments from this, because,
under the outward clothing of material things, the divine vir-
tue secretly works the health of those sacraments, whence,
from these secret or sacred virtues, they are called sacra-
ments."*
Thus we see that Augustin, in the fourth century, speci-
fies the two which the Church of England retains, while,
two hundred years later, in the sixth century, Isidore in-
forms us that Confirmation was added to the number. But
as yet the other four are not placed in the same category,
thus showing the progress of the sacramental system, until
it finally reached the point of its modern culmination.
Dr. Milner takes some pains to persuade his readers that
we have virtually changed our principles with respect to
Baptism, quoting, as usual, from certain divines, but know-
ing full well that the service of our Prayer Book and the
doctrine of our Articles are the only standard of our faith
* Isid. Hisp., p. 52.
368 Letter XIX.
and practice, from which the great body of the ministry
have never varied. He likewise speaks of the inferior
privileges of our Church, in the reception of the Eucharist,
because we have discarded the false and dangerous dog-
ma of Transubstantiation. Our justification for this, how-
ever, will come under its proper head, in due time ; and I
shall therefore only remark here, that the Church of Eng-
land teaches the spiritual reception of Christ in that sacra-
ment, in the clearest terms, and has only rejected the su-
perstitious abuse which we are prepared to prove the prim-
itive Church" had never received, and which was not adopt-
ed by Rome herself before the tenth century, nor finally es-
tablished until the twelfth.
The concluding portion of your favorite author's 20th
letter is occupied by an attack upon the Liturgy of the
Church of England. He saith that we have not the candor
to inform the public that it is all, in a manner, borrowed from
the Catholic Missal and Ritual. And he charges the Re-
formers with having eviscerated, it of its noblest parts, so that
James I. pronounced it an ill-said mass. To this I would
reply, that it was not the design of the reformed Church of
England to reject anything merely because the Church of
Rome retained it. On the contrary, she kept everything
which was consistent with the truth of Scripture and the
primitive Church, and has always been ready to avow the
fact, as the very basis of the Reformation. That the Church
of Rome still retained all the original elements of the Gos-
pel system, we have never denied. Her error was in add-
ing to these a fearful mass of falsehood, superstition, and
priestly tyranny over the bodies and the souls of men. The
object, then, being not to found anew Church, but to purify
the old one, it is simply absurd to charge the Reformers
The Prayer-Book not borrowed. 369
with borrowing ; since he who borrows obtains something
which he had not before. But the Church of England,
being descended from the Apostolic stock from the begin-
ning, and being also united with the Church of Rome from
the seventh century, held the whole of the previous ritual
and practice, as common property. And therefore she had
no need to borrow anything, but accomplished her work by
reforming, according to the Bible and the primitive stand-
ard, what was already her own.
As to the " eviscerating the Liturgy of its noblest parts" she
only cast off what. she esteemed to be corrupt inventions,
which had no true nobility about them. And Avith respect
to the remark of King James, Dr. Milner ought in honesty
to have told his readers that it was uttered when his majes-
ty was a Scotch Presbyterian, before he came to the dig-
nity of the English throne. Doubtless, too, your favorite
author forgot to mention that the reformers translated the
Liturgy into the language of the people, in order that they
might have some opportunity to understand the worship
which it was their duty to offer. It is only your Church of
Rome that insists upon the superior advantage of excluding
the congregation from all intelligent participation in her
services, by the unscriptural, unsocial, and absurd employ-
ment of the Latin language ; which, to the great mass of
her people, all over the world, is to all intents and purposes
an unknown tongue.
370 The End of Controversy, Controverted.
LETTER XX.
MOST REVEREND SIR :
THE next four letters of Dr. Milner are devoted to what
he terms THE FRUITS or SANCTITY, and in proof that these
are to be found most abundantly in the Church of Rome, he
sets forth an elaborate attack upon the Reformers, particu-
larly Cranmer, and a still more elaborate enumeration of the
saints, and especially the miracles continually wrought in
your communion.
To follow him throughout all the details of this claim,
would of itself demand a volume., and then the question
would remain precisely where it was before. Instead of
this, I shall take a shorter, and, as it appears to my mind, a
far more satisfactory course, to any reflecting understand-
ing. *
First, then, let it be remembered that the real miracles
recorded in Scripture were all performed AS A TESTIMONY
TO THE TRUTH OF GOD, by the men whom He had appointed
as leaders in the work of establishing it. Thus Moses,
Joshua, Samuel, Elijah, Elisha, &c., were the official in-
struments of the Deity to make known His divine system,
in opposition to the awful idolatry which had overspread
Egypt and Canaan, and even extended itself throughout the
whole world. And supernatural gifts were also employed
to reclaim Israel, which was the chosen witness for the
truth of God, before the nations of "the earth ; but still on
the same principle of defending the truth against error.
Miracles. 371
The divine agency of miracles again appeared, to a great-
er extent than ever, in the Person of the divine Redeemer,
and through His gift, in the Apostles and their followers,
but still in the same connection, viz., as a testimony to the
truth of heaven, and still by the official instruments, who
were appointed to proclaim that truth to all mankind. In
this only correct view of divine miraculous agency, there
can be no doubt that it was necessary to the establishment
of the Church and nation of Israel, and equally necessary
to the establishment of the Church and people of Christ.
Here, then, we have these important fundamental princi-
ples : 1st, that divine miracles were only wrought TO PROVE
THE TRUTH OF GoD IN ITS CONFLICTS AGAINST ERROR; and
2d, that those miracles were performed BY THE OFFICIAL
INSTRUMENTS employed in the establishment of truth.
Now, according to these principles, how does the claim
of miracles bear upon the comparative merits of the Church
of Rome and the Church of England ? When and where
have the Bishops, the priests, or the emissaries of Rome,
dared to set up a public miracle as a test in the controversy
between them ? How has it happened that none of your
official men, your monks, your preachers, your prelates,
your Cardinals, your Popes, have ever been gifted with the
power of an appeal to miracles, in order to convert so many
millions to the truth of Romanism, like the prophets and
Apostles in their conflicts against error ?
The same insurmountable difficulty meets us in the primi-
tive Church, which stamps with the strongest improbability
the notion that the gift of miracles, properly considered,
was intended to go beyond the age of the Apostles. For
they planted the Church, and left their writings to govern
it. And after this was done, it would seem that miracles
372 Letter XX.
should cease, because there was no further need of them.
Thus, we see that there was no miracle wrought to con-
vince the Gnostics, Arians, Nestorians, Eutychians, Dona-
tisls, Pelagians, or any other of the old sects of heretics or
schismatics. For although it is true that the fathers some-
times appealed to the existence of miracles in the Catholic
Church as a proof that they were orthodox, yet those mira-
cles never appear at the time when they might have estab-
lished the truth, and decided the controversy. Hence we
see, invariably, that the reliance of the primitive Christians
was on the SCRIPTURES, and, in subordination to these, on
the interpretation which had been given to those Scriptures
from the beginning. In a word, they appealed " to the law
and to the testimony," and not to a miraculous agency, which,
whether it existed or not, was confessedly no longer claimed,
as in the Apostles' days, by those who were the Bishops of
the Church, and the prominent defenders of her doctrine.
A careful comparison of the two periods will make this
contrast apparent. Thus, when Philip, the deacon, was sent
by the Holy Spirit to convert the Samaritans, he does not
tell them anything about miracles performed by somebody
else, but he exercises the power before their eyes, so that
even Simon the Magician wondered, " beholding the mira-
cles and signs which were done," and believed the Gos-
pel (Acts viii.). So St. Paul, when Elymas the Sorcerer
strove to turn Paulus Sergius, the Roman Deputy, from the
faith, denounces blindness upon him ; the miracle is per-
formed immediately ; and the conversion of all present is the
consequence.
But nothing like this appears in the case of the primitive
fathers in their contests against error. Ignatius was a
Bishop and a martyr, but did no miracle. Irena8us was a
Isidore on Miracles. 373
Bishop and a martyr, but did no miracle. Cyprian was a
Bishop and a martyr, but did no miracle. Ambrose was a
Bishop of great reputation, but did no miracle. Augustin
was a famous Bishop, and a most eminent teacher and de-
fender of the faith, but did no miracle. Athanasius was a
celebrated Bishop and preacher, but did no miracle. Some
of these, doubtless, believed that miracles were done, and
yet, although they were the chief men in the Church of their
day, and actively engaged in controversy, they conducted it
invariably by an appeal to Scripture, and presumed not, in
any case, to claim, in their own persons, the proof derived
from the gift of supernatural power.
It is certain, however, that the notion of miracles re-
maining in the Church was so far from being the prevailing
sentiment even of the early ages, that some of the most
eminent fathers entirely disclaimed it. For thus writes
the learned Isidore, Bishop of Seville, in the sixth cen-
tury :
" The reason why the Church does not perform the mira-
cles which she performed under the Apostles, is, that then
it was fitting that the world should believe through mira-
cles ; but now it is fitting that the world, already believing,
should shine in good works. For even then, the signs
were manifested outwardly, in order that faith might be
strengthened inwardly. Whoever, therefore, now requires
miracles, seeks only vain-glory, tliat Tie may be praised. Be-
fore Antichrist appears, both miracles and virtues will cease
in the Church, so that being made, as it were, more abject,
he may persecute her more audaciously." The correspond-
ence between this almost prophetic declaration of the fa-
mous Isidore, with the actual state of the Church under the
Papal Antichrist for centuries before the Reformation, as
374 Letter XX.
given by your own historian, must strike every intelligent
reader forcibly.*
To this, I shall only add a quotation from another writer,
a little anterior to Isidore, whom your favorite advocate
was bound to respect, viz., Pope Gregory the Great; and
here we are taught how little the alleged power of miracles
had to do, in his time, with the question of sanctity or truth.
After citing the words of Christ (Mat. vii. 22), " Many
will say unto me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not
prophesied in thy name, and in thy name have cast out
devils, and in thy name done many wonderful works ? And
then will I say unto them, I never knew you ; Depart from
me, ye workers of iniquity," Gregory proceeds as follows :
" What shall we understand by these words, unless this :
that except there be in men the humility of charity, their
miracles ought not to be venerated ? Hence now, the Holy
Church despises heretics, even if they do miracles, because she
docs not acknowledge them to be a proof of sanctity. For the
proof of sanctity is not to work miracles, but to love one an-
other ; to think of God what is true, and to think of our
neighbor better than of ourselves. That true virtue consists
in love, and not in the showing of a miracle, the Truth
Himself demonstrates, where He saith, By this shall all
men know that ye are my disciples, if ye have love one
towards another. For here He openly shows that it is not
miracles, but only charity, which proves the true servants of
God."f
But notwithstanding these authoritative testimonies, Dr.
Milner insists strongly on the importance of miracles as a
* Isidor. Hisp. Sententiarum, Lib. 3, Op., p. 424.
t S. Greg. Mag. Moral., Lib. 20, in cap. xxx. Job , 17, Tom. J,
p. 644.
Xavier's Miracles. m 375
note of the true Church. And he asks his readers to be-
lieve that St. Bernard worked a miracle to prove the truth
of his doctrine against the Henrician heretics ; that he dis-
covered the heretics of Toulouse by miracles, and that he
justified himself again by miracles, when he preached the
second Crusade (p. 1612). In all this, however, your au-
thor not only opposes the evidence which I have quoted
from the best lights of the sixth century, and the whole
course of the early fathers, but he involves his statements
in fatal contradiction to reason and history.
For, if it pleased God to work a miracle in order to jus-
tify St. Bernard in preaching the Crusade, will you conde-
scend to inform us how it happened that miracles were not
wrought to make the Crusade successful ? If a miracle was
performed to overcome the Henricians, how did it hapnen
that the Albigenses and Waldenses were put down, not by
miracles, but by a most diabolical war of extermination, in
which the Popes and the priesthood led the armies of their
vassals with fire and sword, for years together ? How was
it that the primitive Church, whose martyred Bishops the
Church of Rome has canonized as saints, were obliged to
oppose the heretics of their times without miracles, relying
only on the sword, of the Spirit, which is the WORD OF GOD ?
And how is it that your modern Romanists, who call the
Church of England heretical, have never presumed to at-
tempt the course which they attribute to St. Bernard, by
openly working miracles to convince them of their error ?
We are assured again by Dr. Milner, that Xavier worked
stupendous miracles to convert the Hindoos ! And if so,
how are we to account for the strange inconsistency, that
amongst the mighty hosts who were led to recover the Holy
Land, there was not a single worker of miracles, either to
376 . Letter XX.
convert the infidel enemy, or to secure victory to the army
of the Christians 1 But the whole evidence for the mira-
cles of Xavier is derived from the Jesuits. And all the
world knows that the Jesuits count it no sin to deceive,
where the credit of their Church or of themselves may be
promoted by the falsehood. Nor have we any right to con-
fine this atrocious doctrine to the Jesuits, since there is but
too much proof to allow us to doubt that the same accommo-
dating principles were general throughout the whole Romish
priesthood for centuries together. Yet even in the case of
Xavier, who was assuredly a man of extraordinary zeal and
energy, it is certain that he did not accomplish as much in
the East Indies, with all his supposed miracles, as the Prot-
estant missionary, Schwartz, effected among the same peo-
ple without thjim. Indeed, the results of his whole miracu-
lous work bear no comparison with the conversion of Green-
land by the Moravians, or even with the evangelizing of
the Sandwich Islands in our own day.
It seems, therefore, to my mind, a sort of blasphemy to
compare the miracles of Rome with those recorded in the
Scriptures. There, the wonders of the Deity delivered Is-
rael from Egypt, sustained them in the wilderness, and
planted them in Canaan, notwithstanding the numbers and
the valor of seven idolatrous nations, more numerous and
warlike than themselves. The miracles of Christ proved
His divinity in the face of the bitterest persecution, and the
miracles of His Apostles enabled a despised company of
poor unlettered men to convert the most important portion
of the world, to cast down the proud idolatry of Greek and
Roman heathenism, and to raise the Church upon its ruins.
Here, all is consistent and sublime. The predictions, the
instrumentality, and the results, are all worthy of the AL
Romish Miracles discarded by themselves. 377
mighty. The causes and the effects correspond with per-
fect harmony. And when we turn from this glorious spec-
tacle, and attempt to. form an estimate of. Dr. Milner's at-
tested cases of Mary Wood and Winefrid White, it seems
like a comparison of the meridian sun which illuminates the
world, to the smoky light of a farthing candle.
But in truth, the whole of this claim is discountenanced
in the very histories given by your own writers themselves.
The three volumes of Alban Butler profess to be a selection
from the huge treasure-house of the Acta Sanctorum, which
contains so much ridiculous and puerile nonsense, that even
Dr. Milner is ashamed of them, and is obliged to reject
" the Legenda Aurea of Jacobus de Voragine, the Speculum
of Vincentius Belluacensis, the Saints' Lives of the Patri-
cian Metaphrastes, and scores of similar legends, stuffed as
they are with relations of every description." But here
your ingenious advocate asks, whether we are to deny the
truth of all history, because there are numberless false his-
tories 1 Are we to question the four Evangelists, because
there have been several fabricated Gospels ? And, there-
fore, I must request my reader to pause a few moments,
and consider the substantial merits of this specious but
most absurd analogy.
First, then, the test which distinguishes between true and
false history, is only to be found in the general consent of
mankind. The facts of history, for the most part, are pub-
lic facts, and rarely, if ever, in themselves, contradict the
ordinary rules of human probability. And when historians
descend from these public facts into private individual cir-
cumstances, which do not, and cannot, possess the general
attestation, their statements are not received unless upon
this very, ground of probability, and are always rejected
378 Letter XX.
without scruple when they violate its laws. Of course,
then, this analogy of Dr. Milner is no analogy at all. Not
one of his list qf miracles ever attained to the rank or dig-
nity of public historical facts, and they ' are all directly op-
posed to every rule of human 'probability .
In the second place, his appeal to the Gospels is as weak
as it is audaciously irreverent. We have already seen that
those Sacred Books were acknowledged from the begin-
ning as the records of the faith by Christians universally ;
that the success and progress of the Church in every
quarter gave the seal to the truth of its history ; that through-
out the whole extent of the Roman Empire, the Gospel and
the Church destroyed the influence of heathenism, notwith-
standing all the attractions of its poetry and sculpture, all
the magnificence of its priesthood and its temples, all the
strength of its venerable associations with history, all the
power of its laws, and all the terrors of its ten cruel and
bloody persecutions. The religion of Christ, then, as de-
livered in those very Gospels, was a fact A PUBLIC FACT
not only a fact of history, but the greatest of the facts of
history, because it gave its own form to the religion and
legislation of the whole civilized globe. And hence, when
spurious Gospels and false histories were sent abroad, by
the arts of the devil, to introduce confusion and uncertainty
into the records of the Christian faith, Councils of Bishops
were called to vindicate the true Sacred Books which had
been received from the beginning, and the whole Church
watched over the celestial Deposit with jealous and con-
stant care.
Now, what analogy do we find between this and the mass
of stuff which contains the alleged miracles of the Papacy ?
What order of men was ever founded upon them ? What
Manufactured Miracles. 379
change did they produce in the religion of mankind ? What
Councils assembled to defend their truth, or to distinguish
between the real and the false among them ? To which of
them does even your Church stand committed with any-
thing like a formal public attestation ? True, indeed, it is,
that the impiety of your Popes has presumed to institute the
old heathen apotheosis, by enrolling some hundreds of saints
amongst the angelic hosts, and authorizing your deluded
people to address their prayers to them, as the ancient pa-
gans did to their Dii Minorum Gentium ; and equally true
it is, that the working of miracles, with other proofs of
.sanctity, were attributed to these canonized saints, by indi-
vidual attestations, collected fifty and even a hundred years
after their death. But still it remains an unquestionable
fact, that the miracles themselves produced no movement, at
the time, which gave them the slightest historical value.
And if the rules of legal evidence are applied to the proofs
required for the process of canonization, in which Dr. Mil-
ner modestly asks his readers to place such implicit con-
fidence, it is demonstrable that there was nothing in any
case which a court of justice would regard as being better
than the merest hearsay nothing, in fact, which would
justify a decision if property were involved to the value of
a sixpence. And yet this writer, and all his brethren, re-
quire us to place such testimony upon the same ground with
the Gospel of the Redeemer, and the saving faith of the
world !
Nor is this the whole of the difficulty. For not only are
your writers obliged to repudiate, as we have seen, an im-
mense mass of their own alleged miracles, and confine their
statements to a comparative few, but the world knows that
the manufacturing of pretended miracles was shown to be a
380 Letter XX.
standing trick in a large number of your most respectable
monasteries, at the time of the Reformation. Images con-
trived to communicate the human voice, to roll their eyes
and move their limbs by secret machinery, frauds and im-
positions on human credulity in a variety of forms, furnish-
ed the most abundant evidence of systematic and extensive
deception, to excite the astonishment, and operate on the
superstition, and draw forth the money, of the multitude.
And are these the men to claim credit for their wonders ?
If the primitive Christians had been found employed in
work like this, would it not have blasted the credit of the
Church forever 1 And have not the false miracles of Popery,-
connected with the notorious licentiousness of the priest-
hood, been the chief handle for the scoffs of infidelity dur-
ing many ages, even within your own pale ? Let the suc-
cessful ridicule of Yoltaire and Rousseau, in Roman Catho-
lic France, answer the question. Let the Revolution of
1792 reveal the actual state of religion in Paris, when
Christianity was abolished by a public decree, and apostate
Bishops and priests were seen to hail the enthroning of a
common prostitute, under the title of the Goddess of Rea-
son.
But even if we granted to Dr. Milner his whole list of
saints, say three or four hundred names in the progress of
fifteen centuries, it would go but a little way to prove that
your Church is entitled to the boast of sanctity, against the
acknowledged licentiousness, simony, venality, and corrup-
tion which your own historian, Fleury, has set before us,
in the extracts which I have made from his 36 volumes
popes, cardinals, priests, universities, monks, laymen all
sunk, with a few rare exceptions, in the same tremendous
and notorious gulf of abandoned profligacy. Yet, awful as
Sanctity tested by the System. 381
the picture is, who can believe that your historians have
told a tithe of the actual abominations 1 And what but the
absolute knowledge of this wide-spread depravity could
ever have roused the nations of Europe Germany, Switzer-
land, Denmark, Sweden, Holland, England, Scotland, and
a large proportion of France itself to protest 'against the
plague of iniquity, and cast off the bonds which they had
been trained to venerate, throughout a course of more than
thirty generations ?
The truth is, that this claim of your Papal Church to su-
perior sanctity is in the face of Scripture, as to principle,
and in the face of your own histories, as to facts. It was
one of the censures which our blessed Saviour cast upon
the Pharisees, that they boasted of their sanctity, and. said,
" Stand by, for I am holier than thou." The true virtues of
a Christian heart are always found connected with deep hu-
mility. And there is no surer sign of a corrupt religion,
than the systematic effort to trumpet forth the merits of our
own Church, on the assumed ground of our superior sancti-
fication. The controversy is not about the claims of indi-
viduals, but the authority of the SYSTEM. And the practi-
cal working of a system must be sought for, not in the spe-
cial results of a few peculiar cases, but on the broad scale
of the general and prevailing character.
We have never denied that there was a succession of
true Christians in the Church of Rome, even through the
darkest ages of her corruption. For the great doctrines of
the scriptural and primitive faith were never lost, and there-
fore, by the grace of God, it was always possible that in-
dividual believers might cling to these, and thus rise above
the mass of false and perilous superstitions which surround-
ed them ; tolerating, for the sake of peace, the established
382 Letter XX.
errors which they could not overthrow, but giving their own
hearts only to the spiritual teaching of the Saviour. From
such cases, however, we should learn the exceptions rather
than the rule. It is a gross perversion of all sound argu-
ment that the Church of Eome should take the credit to
herself, while the vast majority of her very PRIESTHOOD
were allowed to riot, for centuries together, in the unblush-
ing guilt of open and notorious pollution.
Far be it from us to imitate the boasting of Dr. Milner,
by the claim of superior sanctity. Even the holy Apostles
of our Lord avoided all appearance of vain-glory, by the
humble tone of their own acknowledgments, and the sharp-
ness of their rebukes against the Christian believers of their
own day. Thus St. John saith, " If we say that we
have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in
us." St. James declares, " In many things we offend all."
And St. Paul saith, " Brethren, I count not myself to have
apprehended, neither that I am already perfect." Again he
calls himself " less than the least of all saints." And again,
he takes to himself the title of " the chief of sinners." We
would esteem it an infinitely safer course to mourn our de-
ficiencies, and to acknowledge that our attainments in true
sanctity are immeasurably below our privileges. But at
least we may be allowed to repel the shameful calumnies of
Dr. Milner, against the venerated martyr,. Cranmer, and the-
whole company of the Reformers, as well as against the
moral results of the Reformation. And I extract one pas-
sage from his 21st letter, from which the atrocious malig-
nity of his spirit may be but too plainly seen.
Alluding to another book of his which I have not met
with, he saith : " I have shown that the Patriarch Luther was
the sport of his unbridled passions, pride, resentment, and
Wholesale Slander of the Reformers. 383
lust ; that lie was turbulent, abusive, and sacrilegious in the
highest degree ; that he was the trumpeter of sedition, civil
war, rebellion, and desolation, and finally that by his own
account he was the Scholar of Satan, in the most important
article of his pretended reformation. * * * With re-
spect to Cranmer, who under Edward VI. and his fratricide
uncle, the Duke of Somerset, was the chief artificer of the
Anglican Church, I have shown that, from his youthful life
in a College, till his death at the stake, he exhibited such a
continued scene of libertinism, perjury, hypocrisy, barbarity
in burning his fellow-Protestants, profligacy, ingratitude and
rebellion, as is, perhaps,. not to be matched in history. I have
proved that all his fellow-laborers and felloAv-sufferers were
rebels like himself, who would have been put to death by
Elizabeth, if they had not been executed by Mary. I ad-
duced the testimony not only of Erasmus and other Cath-
olics, but also of the gravest Protestant historians, and of
the very Reformers themselves, in proof that the morals of
the people, so far from being changed for the better by em-
bracing the new religion, were greatly changed for the worse.
The pretended Reformation in foreign countries, as in Ger-
many, the Netherlands, at Geneva, in Switzerland, France,
and. Scotland, besides producing popular insurrections, sack-
ages, demolitions, sacrileges, and persecution beyond de-
scription, excited also open rebellions and bloody civil wars.
In England, where our writers boast of the orderly man-
ner in which the change of religion was carried on, it nev-
ertheless most unjustly and sacrilegiously seized upon and
destroyed, in the reign of Henry VIII., 645 monasteries,
90 colleges, HO hospitals, besides the bishopric of Dur-
ham ; and under Edward VI., or rather his profligate uncle,
it dissolved 2,374 colleges, chapels, or hospitals, in order to
381 Letter XX.
make princely fortunes of their property for that uncle and
his unprincipled comrades, who, like banditti, quarrelling
over their spoils, soon brought each other to the block.
Such were the fruits of sanctity everywhere produced by
this Reformation !"
Assuredly this extract proves that in the art of reckless
and thorough-going vituperation, Dr. Milner was a master.
It will need but little space to show the absurd iniquity of
these sweeping charges, and to separate the truth from the
error, by an appeal to the historical knowledge and the com-
mon sense of every intelligent reader. And to this I shall
devote the following letter.
The End of Controversy, Controverted. 385
LETTER XXI.
MOST REVEREND SIR :
IN entering upon a reply to the bitter calumnies of Dr. Mil-
ner, I shall first oppose to him the candid admissions of the
Roman Catholic historian, already quoted on page 209-10,
where, after summing up the vile accusations which Romish
writers were accustomed to make against the great German
Reformer, he concludes by saying, " These reproaches are
taken from a book called Colloquia Mensalia, published by
Henry Peter Rebenstock, minister of Eischerheim. But
we do not pretend to adopt them. All that can be said against
Luther is, that he rose up against the Church ; that he has en-
deavored to destroy the faith ; that he became a declared
heresiarch ; and that he has caused infinite and innumerable
evils to religion, by the pernicious errors which he so ob-
stinately maintained."
Now this is fair and honest. Of course we cannot ask
a Romanist to think otherwise than evil of the religious ref-
ormation which destroyed the power of his o\^a Church in
Germany, and gave such a powerful influence to the same
work in so many other kingdoms of Europe. But, as for
all the rest of Dr. Milner's reckless charges, the " unbridled
passions of pride, resentment, and lust," and the allegation
that " by his own account he was the scholar of Satan,"
your own historian plainly ignores the shameful slander, and
386 Letter XXL
thus brands your favorite author, as he well deserved, with
the character of an unprincipled partisan, who cared little
for the truth, so that he could only succeed in blackening
the Reformers.
I shall next proceed to the same historian's statement
with regard to Cranmer.*
" Cranmer was born at Nottingham, July 2, 1489, but we
know not of what family. The Protestants make him no-
ble, and say that his ancestors came from Normandy in the
train of William the Conqueror ; but to this the Catholic
writers do not agree. All that seems certain is, that from
his youth he made progress in literature ; that he embraced
the ecclesiastical state ; that he was a Professsor in the Uni-
versity of Cambridge, from which they expelled him for being
married ; that he came to London at the time when Henry
VIII. was in love with Anne Bullen ; that he entered the
service of her father, the Earl of Wiltshire, as chaplain ;
that he was one of the first who wrote to maintain the nul-
lity of the marriage with Catherine ; that he suffered him-
self to be seduced by the books of Luther, and that he en-
tered into close correspondence with the Lutherans of Ger-
many, without daring to declare himself in favor of their
doctrine. It was he who advised Henry to rest the inva-
lidity of his marriage upon the prohibition in Leviticus, and
to consult the Universities thereon. He was employed in
England, inFrance and in Germany, to obtain from the Uni-
versities and Theologians opinions favorable to the king,
and Henry sent him to Rome to solicit the dissolution of
his marriage."
" As to his good and evil qualities," continues your his-
torian, " authors are still less agreed than with respect to
* Fleury, Cont, Tom. 27, p. 359. Livre 134, xcii.
Honesty of the Historian. 387
his nobility. To hear the Protestants speak, Cranmer was
comparable to the first fathers of the Church : he was a
man at once judicious and enlightened, lacking neither vig-
or nor courage. They say that he was in Germany when
Henry named him Archbishop, and that when he knew for
what they destined him, he used every effort to induce the
king to change his resolution ; that he even suffered six
months to elapse before he accepted the dignity, in the hope
that the king's affection for him would cool down, and that
as other ecclesiastics were intriguing for the vacant place,
some one among them would obtain it. To listen to the
Catholics, on the contrary, there never was a man who had
less religion than Cranmer, and he deserved the end which
he suffered. In the voyage which he made to Germany,
they say that he abused a relative of Osiander, whom he
afterwards married. That so far from being firm and sin-
cere, one may see from his actions that there never was a
man more cowardly nor more of a dissembler, and that his
true character was that of a base soul, which accommodates
itself to everything. Cardinal Pole, in the letter which he
wrote to him, reproached him for having entered the fold of
Christ by the window, to gratify a shameful passion, and
for having glided along through covert ways like a robber
and a thief."
Here, again, there is fairness and honesty, because your
historian gives both sides, and does not pretend to decide
between them. Of this, we cannot complain. But how
much less repulsive is even the dark and unfriendly state-
ment which he places, on the Roman side, before his read-
ers, than the atrocious libel of Dr. Milner, who roundly de-
clares, that " from the youthful life of Cranmer in college,
till his death at the stake, he exhibited such a continued
16
388 . Letter XXL
scene of libertinism, perjury, hypocrisy, barbarity (in burn-
ing his fellow-Protestants), profligacy, ingratitude and re-
bellion, AS IS, PERHAPS, NOT TO BE MATCHED IN HISTORY !"
The best excuse I can frame for this wanton defamer is to
be found in the doctrine of that Jesuit Society, of which I
presume he was a member. For thus we find it laid down
by some of their divines : "It is only a venial sin to calum-
niate and accuse of false crimes, in order to ruin the credit
of those who speak. ill of us. It is certainly a probable opinr
ion, says Caramouel, that there is no mortal sin in calumniat-
ing falsely, for the purpose of preserving our honor. For it
is maintained by more than twenty grave doctors, Gaspar
Hurtado, Dicastillus, Jesuits, <$fC.; so that if this doctrine be
not probable, there would hardly be any which could be so
called in all theology.""*
But what saith the voice of history "? Cranmer must be
admitted on all sides to have been a successful student and
a reputable man, at the time of his appointment to a Pro-
fessor's chair in the University of Cambridge, since he
gained that high distinction by his own unaided merit. His
subsequent advancement to be the Chaplain of the Earl of
Wiltshire is another reasonable proof of his good charac-
ter. The high confidence with which Henry VIII. treated
him, and his persisting in the choice of Cranmer to succeed
the eminent Warham, as Archbishop of Canterbury, not-
withstanding there were so many others intriguing for the
place, is another evidence of his eminent attainments. And
the attestation of Rome is not wanting, because. the Pope
himself knew Cranmer well, as the adviser of Henry, as
his main agent in obtaining the opinions of the foreign xmi-
* Pascal, Lett. Prov. xv. Tom. 3, p. 183-4. See History of the
Confessional, p. 231.
Cranmer s Protest. 389
versities, and as the author of a treatise against the papal dis-
pensation, which was the only basis of the Ring's marriage
with Katherine of Arragon. And with this knowledge, it
is impossible to suppose that the Pontiff was suffered to re-
main ignorant of all that the enemies of Cranmer could al-
lege against him at the time. Yet, under such peculiar
circumstances, the Pope granted the bull, by which alone,
under the then existing la ws, Cranmer could be consecrated.
Thus far, then, it is impossible to make the admitted facts
agree with Dr. Milner's strain of invective.
But now occurs a difficulty. Cranmer was opposed to
the oath of obedience to the Pope which the established
form required, and would rather have declined the high dig-
nity pressed upon him. The king, however, was bent upon
the measure, and his favorite, not only from motives of pru-
dence, but from a strong feeling of gratitude towards the
sovereign to whom he owed so much, yielded his opposi-
tion, and consented to comply. In order to reconcile his
conscience to the form, "he made a protestation before-
hand, in writing, before notaries and witnesses, that by
force, and against his will, he was about to promise obe-
dience to the Holy See, but that this was only to comply
with the custom, and that his intention was not to make an
oath which should prejudice the obedience due to his sov-
ereign."* And after this protestation was duly recorded,
he took the usual oath, and was consecrated accordingly.
Now, this act of Cranmer has been stigmatized outrage-
. ously by your writers as a flagrant perjury, and I shall cer-
tainly be very far from denying that its aspect is revolting
to the general sense of moral consistency. And yet, there
* Fleury, Cont., Tom. 27, p. 361-2.
390 Letter XXL
is much that may be said to justify his course, at least so
far as to show/ conclusively, that no one can have a right to
cry out upon it, as if it argued a total lack of high Christian
principle. .
First, then, I refer to my extracts from Henry's Ecclesi-
astical History for multiplied proofs that Cranmer was un-
der no necessity of making such a protest at all, because
the prelates of Rome had given the same construction to
the oath for ages together, without any doubt or hesitation.
From the time of Gregory VII., all along the current of
events, we have seen that the Popes were almost constantly
involved in disputes with the emperors and monarchs of
Europe, and whenever the prelates found it right, according
to their judgment, or expedient according to their interest,
they had taken the side of their sovereign without scruple.
And why should they not ? For, in all such cases, there
was oath against oath, duty against duty; the oath of al-
legiance on the one side, and the oath to the Pope upon the
other. To keep them both, when the Pope and the king
were at open variance, was impossible. One must be
broken, and private judgment alone could determine which
must give way.
Secondly, I refer to the cases in which the Cardinals
took ground against the Popes, because, in their opinion,
the Popes had gone astray, and the best interests of the
Church required their deposition. In all such cases, there
was the same oath to the Pope, and it was necessary to
break that oath before they could even confer about the call-
ing of a Council. Yet, who blames them ? Your own his-
torian evidently praises them for their opposition, in the
cases, especially, of the Council of Pisa and the Council
of Basle. And here again, therefore, we have the same
Tacit Condition of Oaths. 391
construction of the oath, viz., that it was not to be kept
against what the individual held to be a higher obligation.
Thirdly, I refer to the construction of the same oath by
all the other Bishops in the reign of Henry VIII., since
there was not -one amongst them, save Fisher, who did not
go with the king against the Pope. And even Fisher com-
plied, until it came to the point of taking the new oath in
favor of the royal supremacy. The rest acted, to a man, on
the very principle laid down in Cranmer's protestation.
Fourthly, I refer to the resistance made by all the Eng-
lish Romanists against the Papal bull of Sixtus V., in which
he undertook to depose Queen Elizabeth, and absolved her
subjects from their oath of allegiance, and commanded them
to join the army of the King of Spain. They judged for
themselves, and rightly, that the Pope had done wrong.
But who gave them authority to judge the Vicar of Christ
the infallible and paramount Lord over all human judges ?
Nevertheless, they did it, and refused obedience, and acted
accordingly ; preferring the obligations of allegiance and
the claims of their country before the authority of the Pope,
in despite of the chains of their religious bondage.
Lastly, I refer to the established maxims of human rights,
on which all our patriots are accustomed to defend the
American Revolution. For it is evident, that in the case
of all revolutions, the oath of allegiance must first be broken.
And this could never be lawful, unless we allow that all
such oaths have a tacit condition implied, by virtue of which
they cease to be binding under certain circumstances.
We see, then, after all the obloquy which has been poiired
upon poor Cranmer for this act, that he only expressed before-
hand, by a public and regularly attested protestation (BEFORE
NOTARIES AND WITNESSES), like a bold and brave man, the
392 Letter XXL
same doctrine which had always governed, and must always
govern mankind, in times and exigencies of conflicting obli-
gations. He did it then, because the contest between the
king and the Pope was already begun, and his mind was
determined as to the course of duty. He did it, because he
thought it high time that the real limitations which had
been so long maintained by all men in the hour of difficulty,
should be openly expressed. He did it for the better relief
of his own conscience, and the better defence of his own
consistency. And he also did it, most probably, as a whole-
some example to his brethren, in order to teach them how
to defend, on principle, what they had hitherto defended
mainly on the ground of expediency.
Cranmer has been censured severely for another act of
alleged "jneanness. " When Anne Bullen was condemned
to lose her life, the king determined to bastardize her issue,
and the Archbishop pronounced a sentence of divorce, on
the plea that the queen had confessed to him a previous
contract with Lord Percy before her marriage to Henry.
Suppose the accusation to be true, I ask, how could he avoid
it 1 By the laws which then existed, a pre-contract of mar-
riage was a just 'ground of divorce. And if the king was al-
ready aware of the fact, which he probably must have been
a long while before, and chose now to insist upon his right,
how could Cranmer refuse his compliance with what was
neither more nor less than an official duty ?* -
The next of his unquestionable acts for which he has
been greatly blamed, was his condemnation of two heretics
to death, Joan Boucher and George Van Parr ; and the in-
fluence which he employed to induce the youthful Edward
* See the article " Cranmer," in the Encyclopaedia Amencana.
Cranmer's Recantation. 393
to sign the warrant of execution, has been particularly
singled out for censure. But here, too, however contrary
to our modern ideas of toleration the whole of this may be,
it should be remembered that the Church of England had
not yet learned the lesson. The laws of the land against
heretics were still in force, a part of the terrible legacy
bequeathed to them by your modern Church of Rome.
Cranmer acted, doubtless, from the conviction of duty, and
he exhorted the young king to do the same, when he saw
him shrink from the painful task under the natural impulse
of compassion. Nor can we say with justice that he did
wrong, if we only reflect upon the obligations which were,
in that age, connected with his official position. It is ab-
surd to censure a man who was only finding his way slowly
out of a dark labyrinth, because he did not see all things as
clearly as ourselves, who are in the full light of day.
And the last and loudest reproach is proclaimed with tri-
umph against his recantation. The fact is not disputed
that he did sign an abjuration of his principles, and did seek
by this act to avoid a cruel death at the age of sixty-seven.
Let us look at the law which your own Church herself has
sanctioned in relation to this matter, and at the temptation
laid in his way, on purpose that he might fall. And then
we shall be better enabled to judge how much reason Dr.
Milner had to execrate the character of the unhappy vic-
tim.
It was the month of April, 1554, according to your Ro-
man historian, when Cranmer, with his two noble col-
leagues, Ridley and Latimer, were excommunicated for
heresy in the reign of Queen Mary. He lay in prison un-
til February 14, 1556, when he was publicly degraded
from the priesthood, with all the forms of studied contumely.
394 Letter XXL
" But," saith your author, " they deferred condemning him
to death, and they wished to give him some further time, that
he might resolve to abjure his errors. They insinuated to him
that by this means he might be enabled to save his life. They
treated him more gently than they had done. They removed
him from his prison to the house of the dean of Christ
Church. Cardinal Pole wrote to him a long letter, exhorting
him to repent, and combating his errors with great solidity.
This letter, the gentle treatment which they employed to-
wards him, and yet more, the fear of death, made, an impres-
sion upon his mind, and TO REDEEM HIS LIFE, he consented
to sign such an abjuration AS THEY PRESENTED TO HIM.
* * * At the end, he protested that he had signed this
abjuration with entire liberty, and only to relieve his con-
science. The reformed were thrown into consternation by
this act, "but the queen was not touched. That princess be-
lieved that the heresiarch who had poisoned all England
ought to bear the punishment ; that although such an abju-
ration might suffice in the case of simple heretics, yet it
ought not to be accepted in favor of their chief; that at all
events, his conversion would lie useful, since, in procuring his
own salvation, IT WOULD EDIFY THE PUBLIC. And so his
sentence was decreed, and the order for his death was given
on the 24th of February."*
Now, here I give you the precise statement of your own
historian, from which it appears incontestably, that Cranmer,
at the age of sixty-five, was thrown into prison in April,
1554, and kept there until February 14th, 1556, ALMOST
TWO WHOLE YEARS. And what a prison ! We may readi-
ly imagine, if we reflect, that those were the days when
* Fleury, Cont., Tom. 31, p. 151-3.
Cranmer^s Imprisonment. 395
the Spanish Inquisition was in its glory that Philip of
Spain was the husband of the queen, who was entirely de-
voted to him anckto the Roman priesthood ; that the use of
torture was universal throughout Europe, and that even the
ordinary jail of men only confined for . debt, was then, and
long afterwards, a place of horrid filth and destitution.
What, then, was the prison of Cranmer, the very head of
the accursed heretics, held in utter abomination by the sub-
jects of the Pope, and kept by men who made it a merit to
press him down to the lowest depths of suffering and
misery !
That this was done in the hope of breaking his spirit,
and inducing him to recant, in order that they might thus
discredit the cause of the Reformation, is sufficiently plain
from the statement of the historian. But at length, tired of
the useless delay, they proceeded to degrade him publicly.
And now, we may imagine the feeble old man, after twenty
months spent in fetters, solitude, damp, and gloom, on a diet
of mouldy bread and foul water, brought forth before his
judges, and still having strength and holy resolution enough
to defend his cause, deny the justice of the tribunal, and
appeal from the Pope to a General and free Council. And
then we behold him clothed with the sacerdotal garments,
made, in mockery, of the coarsest linen, having each par-
ticular piece stripped off, with solemn curses, and finally
remanded to his dungeon, under the public execrations of
the poor bigoted multitude, to seek his only comfort in his
God !*
But thus far his enemies had exercised their barbarity in
vain, and therefore they resolve, as a last effort, to change
* Fleury, Cont., Tom. 31, p. 151.
16*
396 Letter XXL
their plan of operation. For, strange to say, this man, who
was so utterly destitute of any religious principle this cow-
ard and time-server this low and bane ssul, who accommo-
dated himself to everything had withstood them to the face,
after two years of slow torture, enough to break down the
energy of the strongest mind and the firmest frame. What
means should be tried next ? Perhaps something might be
gained by a totally different treatment. It was certain that
severity could not move him, but possibly kindness might
prevail. Fear could not overcome, but hope might con-
quer. And so the subtle plotters removed their intended
victim from his dungeon, to the house of the dean, and gave
him air and light, and comfortable meals, and a soft bed,
and looks of pity, and gentle words of sympathy. And, as
always happens with a generous and cordial nature, the
poor old man was touched, and doubtless felt it all the more
deeply, from the sudden contrast. And then came the let-
ter from the Cardinal, urging him to repent, and arguing
with skill the points of controversy. But still with lan-
guage of affectionate concern, and insinuating the happy re-
sults of his conversion. And those who were about him
held the same strain, only with greater plainness, and as-
sured him, doubtless, that he would have his life spared, and
that honor and royal favor would even reward his recanta-
tion.
And was it all a plot and a lie, intended to deceive his
kind and trusting nature ? Most surely ! by the evidence
of your Roman historian himself. For he expressly saith
that at the time of Cranmer's first condemnation for heresy,
two years before, Cardinal Pole, being destined by the queen
to be his successor, was ordained priest, having previously
been only a deacon, .-and that four months afterwards he took
Cranmer the Victim of a Plot. ' 397
possession of the Archbishopric, BUT SCRUPLED BEING CON-
SECRATED so LONG AS CRANMER WAS ALIVE.* His death
was therefore resolved upon, as necessary, not merely to
satisfy the vengeance of popery, but also to complete the
dignity of his successor. And it was only delayed in the
hope of consuming his influence and character in the na-
tion, before they consumed his flesh in the flames. Hence
the protracted cruelty of his confinement. Hence the
change of tactics when that course had failed. Hence the
glozing letter of the Cardinal, the gentle treatment, and the
delusive words of hope. And hence, after they had gained
their purpose, <and the Reformers were thrown into consterna-
tion, and the public were edified, THE QUEEN WAS NOT TOUCH-
ED, BUT ON THE CONTRARY, IN TEN DAYS from the change
of their plan, and therefore in two or three days from the
act of recantation, the fallen prelate was chained to the
stake, that he might feel in his body a foretaste of the de-
vouring fire, to which they had so piously consigned his
soul.
Still, all this does not justify Cranmer in signing his ab-
juration. It may be said with apparent justice, that the
conduct of his enemies, however cruel, treacherous, and ex-
ecrable, is no apology for him. Let us try this act, there-
fore, by another standard, and see how far it was worthy of
reprehension.
I presume that no reflecting mind can conceive for a mo-
ment that this eminent reformer, at the age of sixty-five,
could have changed his real sentiments. At the beginning
of the persecution, when he might have escaped, he had
deliberately chosen to stand his ground ; and, at the end of
two years, after so many of his old colleagues had actually
* Fleury, Cont., Tom. 3 p. 49.
398 Letter XXI.
suffered martyrdom, he displayed his unconquered resolu-
tion by openly resisting his judges, and denying their au-
thority ; and therefore it cannot be doubted that his mind
was fully determined to suffer the utmost severity of their
power, according to the diabolical code of fiery execution
which then prevailed all over Europe. But he had found
himself, thus far, subjected to another form of cruelty the
slow, lingering torment of imprisonment, which was harder
to bear than the pangs of the stake. And he saw plainly
their object in thus keeping him a wretched inmate of a
dungeon, so long after others had been delivered to their
fate. It was easy for him to anticipate that this system
might be continued, until his wasting frame should enfeeble
his intellect, and that in the end he might die in his prison-
house, while his enemies should have it in their power to
publish their own account of his pretended remorse and
final confession of his alleged heresy, with none to contra-
dict the tale. He knew the men with whom he had to deal.
He knew that any artifice would be a virtue in their eyes,
if they could render it tributary to the credit of the Church
of Rome, and dishonorable to the Reformation. And now,
when the comparative comfort of his new abode, and the
increased vigor of his system, began to operate in strength-
ening the natural love of life, it is easy to conceive how he
might begin to regard the accomplishment of his escape as
a kind of duty to the truth ; and thus, if he could only put
to sleep the suspicions of his persecutors, and gain his lib-
erty, and make his way to the Continent, amongst his old
friends, the Lutherans of Germany, he might look forward
to the opportunity of vindicating his principles ; and even
if it should please God to prolong his life, he might yet see
the downfall of his present enemies, and return to dedicate
Oaths made under Duress, void. 399
his last years to the defence and confirmation of the Gos-
pel.
To accomplish this, there was but one way open to him,
a pretended recantation. Doubtless, he was well aware
that such an act would give a dreadful shock to his friends,
and that the foes of truth would triumph for a season. But
he would have it in his power to rectify the evil, as soon as
he should gain a safe retreat. He could then declare to
the world the secrets of his prison-house, and justify his
course by the necessity of circumstances. Against the Ro-
manists he knew. that he could plead the example of Pope
Pascal, who, in A. D. 1111, made a treaty with the Em-
peror Henry V. in order to free himself from imprisonment,
which a Council held at Rome solemnly decided was not
binding on his conscience, because he was in durance at
the time.* He knew that the same principle was reassert-
ed in his own day, when Francis I., in order to regain his
liberty after the battle of Pavia, pledged himself to the Em-
peror Charles V., in an enormous ransom, which the Par-
liament of Paris, and all the casuists of France, held that
he was not, in conscience or in honor, obliged to pay. He
knew that the settled maxims of justice, in all civilized na-
tions, held it allowable to lie, for the purpose of saving life
or ending confinement, when the one was threatened, or the
other was inflicted, unlawfully ; that even the most solemn
bonds and oaths were reckoned null and void, if given to es-
cape from robbers or assassins. And thus there seemed to
be enough of authority to excuse, under his peculiar cir-
cumstances, an act of dissimulation.
But the case of Pope Pascal deserves a little more de-
* Flemy, Tom. 14, p. ,127.
400 Letter XXI.
tail, being the most in point. For the quarrel between him
and the emperor was about the right of investiture, which
had'"kept up a state of almost continual war from the time
of Gregory VII. And the Papal party had attached the
guilt of heresy to the imperial claims, and regarded their
own doctrine as absolutely essential to the proper inde-
pendence of the Church. Nevertheless, when Henry car-
ried off the Pope as his prisoner, along with several Cardi-
nals, and threatened them with death, or at least with mu-
tilation of their members, the Pope was entreated by those
around him to yield his claim, and consented to make a
treaty, granting to the sovereign the right of investiture, and
promising not only that he would never pronounce an ana-
thema against him, but that he would aid the king, in good
faith, to preserve his crown and empire. The solemn prom-
ise thus made by the Pope was subscribed by sixteen Car-
dinals.
To this treaty was added the formality of a Papal Bull,
regularly executed, and denouncing an anathema against all
who should presume to oppose it. The emperor was then
crowned in due form ; and at the celebration of the Mass
the Pope broke the Host in two, took one part himself, and
gave the other to the sovereign, saying : " As this particle
of the vivifying body is separated, even so may he be sepa-
rated from the kingdom of Jesus Christ, who shall violate
this treaty." The emperor made valuable presents to the
Pontiff, the Bishops, the Cardinals, and the rest of the
clergy, and returned to Germany. And thus a schism of
thirty-five years seemed to be terminated.*
Yet all this was nullified soon afterwards. The Pope
* Fleuiy, Tom. 14, p. 129-131.
Papal Deceit excused. 401
convened a Council at Rome, before which he related the
violence which had induced him to make promises and is-
sue a Bull against his conscience, professed his faith to be
unchanged on the subject of investitures, and submitted the
validity of his acts to the judgment of the Council. And
the Council published the following decree : " We all con-
demn, by the ecclesiastical authority and the judgment of
the Holy Ghost, the privilege extorted from Pope Pascal by
the violence of King Henry, and declare it utterly null and
void." The Pope, on his part, wished to resign his dignity,
judging himself unworthy to retain it on account of his con-
cession to the emperor. But the Council would not receive
his resignation, and obliged him to keep his office, turning
all their indignation against Henry V., who was declared
the enemy of the Church like his father.*
The famous Ivo de Chartres wrote in the name of the
French clergy belonging to the Archbishopric of Sens upon
the same subject, in the following terms : " That which the
Pope has done was constrained by necessity, but his will did
not approve it. This appears from the fact that as soon as
he was out of danger, he ordered and forbade what he had
ordered and forbidden before, 'although in the time of peril
he assented to some detestable writings. Thus Peter made
reparation for his three denials, by three confessions.
Thus Pope Marcellinus, seduced by the impious, offered ia-
cense before the idol, and a few days afterwards received
the crown of martyrdom, without having been condemned
by his brethren. God has permitted these falls in the great-
est men, in order that others might know their weakness,
that they may fear to fall in like manner, or may rise again
quickly."f
* Fleury, Tom. 14, p. 143-6. t Ib., 149.
402 Letter XXL
From these extracts we may see the judgment of Rome
upon, the principle, that imprisonment under a threat of death
may excuse AN ACT OF HERESY ; for the Pope and the Coun-
cil, with the great body of your Church, regarded the claim
of the emperor as a rank heresy, worthy of excommunica-
tion ; and Pascal himself was so well convinced of this,
that he tendered his resignation to the Council, as unworthy
to exercise the office of Pope, after the commission of such
a sin. Yet the Council, " by the ecclesiastical authority and
the judgment of the Holy Ghost" considered the violence un-
der which he had acted as a sufficient apology, and refused
to allow his resignation. The case of Marcellinus, quoted
by Ivo de Chartres, was indeed a fable, which your own
modern writers have given up, along with the false decre-
tals. But it was universally believed in that day, and an-
swers quite as well as if it were true, for the purpose of il-
lustrating the principle.
Thus Cranmer had a large amount of analogy and pre-
cedent to excuse his act of abjuration, as the only means of
escape from the misery of his situation, and especially from
the danger which the cause of truth must, incur if he should
die in confinement, without an opportunity to tell the world
his real sentiments. I am far from saying that he was JUS-
TIFIED. He did not JUSTIFY HIMSELF. But on the con-
trary, when he found that his artifice had failed, and that
his subtle and treacherous enemies had only been practising
upon his weakness, he acknowledged his sin before the vast
assembly, and declared his solemn resolution that the hand
which had signed his pretended abjuration should first perish
in the flames.
Strange and startling was the announcement of such a
purpose. And wonderful was the confusion and wrath ex-
Cranmer's Martyrdom. 403
cited in the ranks of Rome, when they saw that the victim
whom they had so cunningly fastened in the toils, had burst
through the net, and now stood, as of old, boldly proclaim-
ing the truth, and undertaking to perform an act of repent-
ance for his brief offence, which was almost supernatu-
ral."
What more the noble old man would have added, is un-
known, for as soon as his persecutors discovered that their
base management was fruitless, they interrupted him with
angry clamor, and commanded him to be led away to exe-
cution. Immense was the crowd that attended to see the
awful spectacle. His high rank in the Church, his long and
well-known pre-eminence in talent, his mild and generous
character, all concurred to make this the chief holocaust of-
fered to the supremacy of Rome. The people had heard
of his recantation, and expected it to be now confirmed ;
but the thousand ears which had heard his words in the
Church, dispersed them through the multitude, and tenfold
was the anxiety to see how he would conduct himself in the
hour of his fiery trial.
To speak after the manner of men, he made a foolish
vow, which no mortal could accomplish. The possibility
of doing it would hardly be allowed by the flames, which
usually enveloped the entire body, and scorched the lungs,
before the extremities were quite consumed. But even if
a wonderful exception should occur in this respect, who could,
hold his right hand firmly in the hottest fire until it was re-
duced to ashes'? Who could so conquer the untold agony
of such a death, and command the horrid sufferings of his
whole frame, writhing in the keenest torture, to execute the
judgment of his own free will on a single guilty member'?
Alas, .poor Cranmer ! Thou hast made an idle boast, which.
404 Letter XXL
thine enemies will dwell upon in mockery, as another in-
stance of reckless heretical presumption.
The terrible procession arrives at the appointed spot,
where all the preparations were made for the demoniac ex-
hibition. The soldiery are posted in their ranks to keep
off the pressing multitude. The outer garment's of the
doomed man are removed, and the iron chain is fastened
round his waist, and the faggots are piled thick and high,
while his eyes are lifted meekly up to heaven, and his lips
are moving in silent prayer. The fire is lighted at the
word of command, and ten thousand eyes are strained with
the intensest interest to mark the movements of the hapless
sufferer. Behold a wonder ! The flames curl up, as if to
spare his body, and form a fiery focus at his side. And he
thrusts his right hand into the midst, and holds it there, un-
moved, until it drops in ashes, beating his breast with the
left, and calling on Christ Jesus for mercy, and exclaiming,
from time to time, That unworthy hand I And so at last,
when the promised sacrifice was accomplished, the fire
turns in upon the holy victim, and his soul is released to
join the beloved companions of his labors, Hooper, and Rid-
ley, and Latimer, in the paradise of God.
Such was the glorious end of this noble martyr, sig-
nalized the more by his repentance for an act into which
the treachery of his enemies betrayed him, and which was
altogether excusable on their own principles of moral ac-
countability. You deny him, indeed, the title of martyr,
not only because he was the greatest English foe to Popery,
. but on the more plausible ground that he tried to avoid death
by his recantation. But he was a martyr in will and reso-
lution at the beginning of the work of blood, when he might
have escaped, as hundreds did, and refused the opportunity.
Cranmer a true Martyr. 405
He was a martyr in resolution during the two long years of his
cruel imprisonment, and boldly refused to yield before the tri-
bunal which condemned him. From the time of his public
degradation by the order of that court, up to the final act*
but ten days elapsed, during which the erroneous though
plausible idea of escape induced him to make his pretended
abjuration. Shall he be deprived of all his previous char-
acter of constancy and courage because he faltered during
those few days under the subtle arts of his betrayers 1 Or
can we refuse to grant, that the last sublime act of repent-
ance more than redeemed the transient error, and proved,
as if by a miracle of lofty heroism, that the spirit of a mar-
tyr was in him 1 For nothing is recorded in the various
histories of martyrdom more wonderful than this. And
after we have pondered upon their glorious details, and felt
that the power of divine grace was marvellously displayed
in each several victory, we may still turn to Cranmer, hold-
ing his own right hand to be consumed to ashes in the
flames, and be obliged to acknowledge that this was an ex-
ample of superhuman power and energy beyond them all.
There can be no room to doubt that the intelligence of
this cruel immolation, with its extraordinary attendant cir-
cumstances, produced a corresponding effect upon the pub-
lic mind throughout the nation. For so it was ordered, by
the overruling wisdom of Providence, that the temporary
fall of Cranmer gave to his last triumphant rise a deeper in-
terest than could have been secured in any other manner.
And thus it was that, like Samson, who, although the
Philistines had deprived him of his sight, and kept him as
their prisoner, yet slew, at his death, more of the enemies
of Israel than he had ever slain before : even so the martyr
Cranmer, by the mighty power of God, destroyed at the
406 Letter XXI.
stake more of the influence of Romanism over the hearts of
Englishmen than he had been enabled to abolish during the
whole of his previous lifetime.
The peculiar interest which I feel in the character of this
eminent Reformer has carried me into so much detail, that
I must dispatch briefly the remaining topics of Dr. Milner's
accusations. Happily, however, it will need but little space
to show their palpable absurdity.
Thus, he undertakes to say that, instead of the Reforma-
tion improving the morals of the people, they were greatly
changed for the worse. For this, he refers to certain com-
plaints made by the Lutherans in Germany, but I do not see
that he pretends to quote any similar declarations in Eng-
land. I have only a few short remarks to make in reply.
First, then, it is manifest that the results of religious
changes on the morals of a whole nation can only be ascer-
tained by time. The immediate effects of all change must
be more or less of confusion until the disturbed elements
settle down, and the regular fruits appear in their proper
order upon successive generations. To make a fair com-
parison, therefore, it is necessary to look at the acknowl-
edged state of moral corruption for centuries before the Ref-
ormation, and at the condition of public morals since, com-
ing down to our own day. Or, in order to bring the matter
to a still fairer issue, let any intelligent mind compare the
public morals of any country where Romanism rules su-
preme, with the public morals of England, and decide for
himself whether the result is not immeasurably in favor of
the Reformation.
Secondly, however, so far as the Church of Christ is
concerned, there is an old and a true adage, LIKE PEOPLE,
LIKE PJUEST. For the priesthood of Christ are the teachers
Fruits of the Reformation. 407
of morality, as founded upon religion. And the effect of the
teaching may always be safely inferred, as a general rule,
from the character of the teachers themselves. I speak not
of exceptions, but of the general rule, since I have so re-
peatedly admitted that the mercy of God has always kept
up, in the worst of times and corruptions, a few faithful men
to transmit sincere religion from generation to generation,
lest His Church should be altogether destroyed by the power
of the Evil One.
But now, let this maxim be applied to the priesthood, be-
fore and since the Reformation. Let it be applied at the
present day to the morals of the priesthood in Papal coun-
tries, and in England or the United States. Let the ex-
tracts from your own historian, Fleury, be read, and any or-
dinary mind of intelligence can answer the question, wheth-
er the same licentiousness, avarice, turbulence, and ambi-
tion, would now be tolerated among the clergy for a mo-
ment, which was formerly acknowledged to be almost uni-
versal. Is it not notorious, even now, that the priests of
Rome who live amongst Protestant communities are far
more correct in their deportment than their brethren in Spain,
Portugal, Italy, or South America ? Is it not notorious that
the moral character of your clergy grows worse in propor-
tion as they are at home, and better in proportion as they
are surrounded by those whom they call HERETICS ? Yet
how could this be so, unless the standard of morals had
been raised to a far higher mark, by the principles of the
Reformation I
Thirdly, the surest way to estimate the moral standard
of the Roman priesthood, would seem to be by direct refer-
ence to the head and centre of your religion, that great city,
whose sovereign is a Bishop, and all of whose rulers are
408 Letter XXL
consecrated men. Let me ask, then, what the people of
Rome think of their own pastors and guides, even in our
times ? Let me recall to your memory the late outbreak
in favor of political and religious liberty, when a republic
was established for a brief space, until it was put down by
the cannon of France. You know, Most Reverend Sir
that your Pope was forced to fly in disguise, and those peo-
ple who are so devoutly attached to their spiritual guides,
and so admirably .governed by their piety and wisdom, re-
proached them as a set of hypocritical tyrants, and rose up
against them in a spirit which almost threatened their ex-
termination. When and where have the members of a re-
formed Church thus denounced their clergy ? And what is
the morality of a system worth which sets at such mortal
variance the teachers and the taught, and is forced to rely
on foreign bayonets for the order which ought to be the
natural result of religious truth and practical piety in that
peculiar spot, whose government is administered solely by
the professed chief pastors of Christendom ?
And fourthly, let the internal working of Romanism be
judged by the disclosures made in the recent trial of Achilli
vs. Newman, or by the evidence of the thousands of Irish
who have left the Church of Rome for the Church of Eng-
land during the last few years, or by the comparative moral-
ity of those who come under the immediate observation of
the intelligent. We should be content even with this mode
of settling the question, notwithstanding the fact that the
moral influence of the Bible, through the principles ofthe Ref-
ormation, has spread more or less throughout the Christian
world. For in whatever way, or by whatever standard,
the matter is fairly examined, the result must be clear, that
there is nothing less favorable to morality than the Roman
Fruits of the Reformation. 409
confessional, and nothing so sure to strengthen and enlarge
morality as the open teaching and truly divine authority
of the Word of God.
The next head of Dr. Milner's accusation is, that the Ref-
ormation produced an enormous amount of civil war, rebel-
lions, and desolations, throughout Europe. And this I ut-
terly deny. It was not the Reformation that produced
those wars, but the grasping tyranny of Rome, which stood
up against liberty of conscience, and determined, every-
where, to dragoon mankind into submission, after her old
style for centuries, by fire and sword, since she could not
-govern them by truth or piety. The reformers on the Con-
tinent were forced to defend their rights against Roman des-
potism. As fast as those rights were secured, there was
immediate peace. And we may safely defy our accuser to
point to a single war amongst the nations since Romanism
has been disarmed, which could be properly called a war
for religion. The audacity of this charge is the more
astonishing, when every reader of history knows, that since
the time of Gregory VII., almost all the wars of Europe
were either originated or fomented by Popery. The city
of Rome itself has been taken and pillaged more frequently
than any other, and that by princes who professed the same
religion. Nor has the genius of effrontery ever published
a more unfounded assumption than that which connects war
with the spirit of the Reformation, or peace with the prin-
ciples of Rome.
Lastly, I come to the final impeachment of your most un-
scrupulous advocate, where he numbers an alarming list of
monasteries, hospitals, and colleges, suppressed or destroyed
in England, among the fruits of the Reformation. What
he intended his readers to understand by " 90 colleges, and
410 Letter XXI.
2,374 colleges, chapels or hospitals," I am unable to say.
He refers to no authority upon the number of the hospitals,
the character of the colleges, or the special acts or dates
to which he alluded. The charge is- one of those sweep-
ing accusations in which his volume abounds, and I have
shown already, as I shall often be obliged to show again,
that his assertions are often very wide of historical accuracy.
But if he intended, as I must presume, that his readers
should brand the Reformation with the design to injure the
interests of education, or humanity to the sick, the know-
ledge of all Christendom will revolt at the imputation. So
far is this from being true, that the constant effort to provide
for the education of the masses is a fixed character of the
reformed everywhere, and is exhibited above all other coun-
tries in England, Prussia, and the United States. And in
those countries, there is the same advance continually made
in the benevolence which takes thought for the sick and the
destitute. The Church of Rome, indeed, claims immense
credit to herself for the various Orders of the Sisters of
Mercy, Charity, &c., who make a business of philanthropy,
and assume to themselves a title which seems to appro-
priate the doing of good as their special prerogative. But
the fact is that your Church never suggested a single one of
them, nor have they any necessary connection with her
distinctive principles. They were, without exception, the
result of individual zeal, and the same zeal is at liberty
to establish institutions for similar objects in any re-
formed communion. That they sprang up in the Church
of Rome is true, and that the Pope gave them his sanction
is likewise true. And they may spring up in any other
Church and receive its sanction, without touching a single
point of controversy belonging to the Reformation. Whether
Monasteries. 41 1
they are expedient or desirable, on the whole, is quite an-
other question. But certain it is that they never had their
origin with either Pope or Council. And equally certain it
is that the principle for which they are to be praised, if
praised at all viz., the making a regular business of that
benevolence which should be performed as a duty of love
to Christ and to His people that principle is equally open
to all who choose to adopt it, without the slightest reference
to Romish faith or practice.
Thus much with regard to education and benevolence.
On the other remaining topic of the monasteries, it is an
historical fact that their suppression was begun by Henry
VIII. and Cardinal Wolsey, under the sanction of the Pope,
and that in France and Spain the same suppression has
been carried on, to a great extent, on grounds of simple po-
litical expediency. It is another indisputable fact that no
country can thrive where monasteries are numerous, because
it is the invariable tendency of such institutions to be op-
posed to all progress, and to sink down, after the zeal of
their first beginning, into an indolent, listless apathy, if not,
as they have done in so many deplorable instances, into li-
centiousness and vice. And it is a third unquestionable
fact that England, after she got rid of her monks and nuns,
advanced more rapidly in all the elements of human great-
ness than any other kingdom of Europe ; while those
countries which most swarm with monks and nuns have re-
mained stationary, or have gone backward, on the scale of
national distinction, even to our own day.
Much, I am aware, has been written, even amongst our-
selves, on the superior wisdom of the Church of Rome, in
securing to herself the various instances of individual zeal,
devotion, and fanaticism which have arisen in past ages, by
412 Letter XXI.
exalting the leaders to the rank of saints, and establishing
them as the heads of some monastic order. And the Church
of England has been blamed for her unyielding stiffness in
the case of Wesley, and many others,- whose ardor might
have been turned into a channel of great practical benefit
by an accommodating use of the Romis"h policy.
I acknowledge frankly, that there is not a little in this
aspect of the case which is specious and plausible.. But
yet, I am well persuaded that a deeper examination of the
matter would lead to a very different conclusion. It is cer-
tain that there were no orders of men in the ancient Church
of Israel. Individuals were allowed to become Nazarites
for a time, and prophets of extraordinary powers were sent
to warn the rulers and the nation. But none of these were
made the founders of an imperium in imperio, or the head of
a fixed and perpetual institution. And when a disposition
to band together, under special names, was manifested in
the Church of Corinth, St. Paul put it down at once, as the
result of a spirit of schism, asking, with indignant empha-
sis, Is CHRIST DIVIDED 1 Add to this that there was noth-
ing of the kind in the primitive Church until the fourth
century, and that its real beginning was not in the policy of
the ecclesiastical system, but in the necessity of private
Christians, who went out into desert places, during the
Decian persecution, in the latter part of the century pre-
ceding. Unfortunately, that which was commenced from
necessity, became a matter of choice, and in a little while,
erected itself as superior to the divine and commanded sys-
tem of the Saviour and His inspired Apostles. Monachism
took the reins of influence, and, in due time, lifted its
head of pride, by the Pharisaic ostentation of sanctity and
asceticism, above all the scriptural rules of the Gospel.
Dangers of Monachism. 413
And from that time, down to the period of the Reformation,
the history of the Church is full of proof that its results
were evil. Its tendencies were all in favor of superstition,
will-worship, and sanctimonious exhibitions of austerity,
borrowed, not from Scripture, but from the Dervishes and
Fakeers of the East. False miracles to make the vulgar
stare, false maxims to stimulate competition in torturing the
flesh, false penances to expiate transgression, the false
veneration of images, relics, and saints, the false virtue of
celibacy, the false doctrine of purgatory, the false neces- -
sity of auricular confession, the false duty of persecution
against heretics, and finally the cruel and bloody Inquisition,
may all be fairly ascribed to monkery. And in a regular
connection with these, came the habits of licentiousness,
as a natural reaction from an overstrained severity in self-
mortification. In a word, the genius of Monachism lay in
the effort to be religious beyond and independent of the Scrip-
tures. And hence, I cannot but regard it as a subtle device
of that spiritual adversary, who knows so well how to
make himself appear as an angel of light, to lure mankind
more surely into ruin.
For myself, therefore, I speak with the fullest conviction
when I say, that I thank God for having thus far kept the
Church of England and her offspring from the specious but
most perilous institution of Monachism. I rejoice that the
late movement in that direction, however well intended and
lawful in itself, is regarded with so little favor. And I trust
that we shall never be deluded into the fatal error of bor-
rowing from the policy of Romanism, in any form, an insti-
tution which takes another basis besides that of the Church,
and professes a higher rule of life than that of the Bible.
414 The End of Controversy, Controverted.
. LETTER XXII.
MOST REVEREND SIR :
THE 25th letter of Dr. Milner, together with the two fol-
lowing, is devoted to the third mark of the true Church,
viz., its Catholicity. And in support of his claim that this
can only be found in the Church of Rome, to the exclusion
of all others, he uses the arguments which I shall next con-
sider.
He first appeals to the current name allowed to Roman-
ists by general usage. As, where a man is asked, Are you
a CATHOLIC ? and he answers, No, I am a PROTESTANT !
although the individual professes to believe in the HOLY
CATHOLIC CHURCH. And this your ingenious author calls
a glaring instance of inconsistency and self-condemnation.
In truth, however, it is nothing of the kind, being
only an instance of the same word being used with
different meanings, which happens to be one of the
most common facts in the world. The Church of Rome
called itself, very justly, Catholic, in common with all the
other Churches of a sound faith, in the early beginning of
Christianity, when that term, which signifies universal, was
introduced to distinguish the orthodox from the heretics
since these were usually named after their leaders, as the
Valentinians, the Marcionites, the Arians, &c. Hence, by
long possession, it became, as it were, their current title,
and therefore, at the time of the Reformation, the term
Protestants grew into use, by wav of a convenient distinc-
Popular Meaning. 415
tion, meaning those who protested against the corruptions of
the Church -of Rome, while they claimed to be really more
Catholic than that polluted Church, because they held no
doctrines of faith except those which were in perfect con-
formity to the creed of primitive Christianity, at the period
when the term Catholic was first adopted. By modern cus-
tom, therefore, the word Catholic has become a sort of title
synonymoiis with Roman in the public mind, just as the
word Protestant is used to signify one of the reformed. But
this mode of employing the terms in common parlance has
no relation to the theological question, whether the true sys-
tem of the 'Holy Catholic Church is best represented by
Rome or England. That must be determined by a fair com-
parison with the primitive Church of the Apostles' planting.
To show how readily words come to assume a popular
meaning, much more restricted than their proper and origi-
nal signification, I shall content myself with two examples
out of a multitude.
Thus, the word Doctor, as every scholar knows, signified
originally, and still, in strictness, signifies, A TEACHER.
And therefore it has for ages been conferred on theologians,
as in the case of the Doctor of Divinity ; on musicians, as
Doctor of Music ; on lawyers, as Doctor of Laws ; as
well as on physicians, who are Doctors of Medicine. But,
in common popular usage, it is employed to signify the last,
almost exclusively. Suppose, then, according to Dr. Mil-
ner's mode of regarding the subject, that a clergyman who
has the title of Doctor of Divinity, calls on a sick parish-
ioner, and the servant at the door asks him, Are you a doc-
tor ? and he answers, No, I am a clergyman, would any one
be so silly as to call this a glaring instance of inconsistency
and self-condemnation ? As if the minister thereby gave up
416 . Letter XXII.
his right to be a Doctor of Divinity, because he was will-
ing to receive and answer the question according to the
manifest meaning of the inquiry, which he knew was made
in the popular sense, and no other ?
Again, the word soldier strictly signifies a person who is
enlisted, according to law, to fight, under the orders of his
commanding ofiicer, against the public enemy. And there-
fore, from the earliest ages, it has been used in the Baptis-
mal service, with perfect truth and propriety, to express the
enlistment of the Christian by the law of faith, to fight man-
fully under the banner of Christ against the world, the flesh,
and the devil. But in popular parlance, the word has only
its secular meaning, which, by common usage, is limited to
the soldier of the State or Commonwealth. Suppose, then,
that a baptized Christian is addressed with the question,
Are you a soldier 1 and he replies, No, I am a merchant,
could it be imagined that he intended, by this, to give up
his character as a soldier of Christ ? Would any man be
so absurd as to call such an answer, a glaring instance of in-
consistency and self-condemnation ?
There is, therefore, in this first argument of Dr. Mil-
ner, nothing better than a very small quibble derived from
popular usage, of which I should have supposed a theolo-
gian would have been ashamed. But I have learned that
he belongs to that school of theologians who are ashamed
of nothing which is likely, at whatever cost, to aid in ob-
taining a victory.
To the statement of the origin of the term Catholic, in
his 26th letter, and his quotations from the fathers, I have
no objection. He saith truly that the word did not occur
in the primitive form of the Apostles' Creed ; that the title
Catholic was applied to the Church to distinguish it from
Patristic Meaning of Catholic. 417
heretics and schismatics ; and that the term itself was de-
rived from the Greek fcatiohitcbg, which signifies universal.
And then he quotes St. Augustin and Vincent of Lerins in
two passages which I pray my readers to note particularly,
because they are material to a true apprehension of the
whole question.
" The Catholic Church," saith St. Augustin, " is so called,
because it is spread throughout the world. If your Church,"
he adds, addressing certain heretics, " is Catholic, show me
that it spreads its branches throughout the world, for such is
the meaning of the word Catholic."
Here, then, is a test which was conclusive in the days of
Augustin, but which ceased to be so ever since the ambi-
tion of Rome separated the Western from the Eastern
Churches in the ninth century. From that time the Cath-
olic communion of the Church was broken up, nor is it
likely that this branch of practical primitive Catholicity will
ever be restored, until the second advent of the great Re-
deemer. On this very ground, therefore, which Dr. Milner
himself assumes, we disprove the claim of the modern
Church of Rome to the title of Catholic, in the sense of St.
Augustin, because she does not extend her branches through-
out the world. The Church of Greece, the Coptic, the Ar-
menian, and the Russian Churches, disclaim her commu-
nion, as well as the reformed Church of England. And so
do the various Protestant Churches of Europe, Asia, Africa,
and the United States, notwithstanding they all agree in
holding the belief in the Holy Catholic Church, according
to the primitive Creed. To this test of Catholicity, there-
fore, your advocate appeals in vain. It has ceased to exist
for more than a thousand years, and any reliance which he
can pretend to place on that ground, is a manifest absurdity.
418 Letter XXIL
The only sense in which the character of Catholic can
now be claimed is, consequently, in the unity of doctrine,
worship, and discipline, with that primitive Church which
first adopted the title. And this principle is stated by Dr.
Milner himself in the following quotation from Vincent of
Lerins, which I commend to the special attention of the
reader :
" The Catholic or universal doctrine," writes St. Yincent
of Lerins, '' is that which remains the same through all
ages, and will continue so to the end of the world. He is a
TRUE CATHOLIC who firmly adheres to the faith which he
knows the Catholic Church has universally taught from the
days of old."
Here your favorite author quotes enough to justify our
claim to the term Catholic, because we reject the corrup-
tions of Papal Rome on the very ground that they are no
part of the faith which " the Catholic Church universally
taught from the days of old." And we hold ourselves able
to prove, that in all those points where we differ from your
modern Church, we are with the ancient true Catholics,
while you are against them. The testimony of Vincent, how-
ever, has been cited much more largely on page 284, and
the reader will do well to refer to the extracts there, in order
to refresh his memory.
The next branch of Dr. Milner's argument is the claim
to superior numbers, as if that could possibly establish the
title to Catholicity in those controverted points where we
charge your Church with heretical additions to the primi-
tive Catholic Creed. For what is the term Catholic worth,
in theology, unless it be understood as synonymous with THE
TRUTH ? And when was the truth of religious doctrine de-
termined by an appeal to NUMBERS ? How would such an
The Argument of Numbers. 419
argument have stood when Noah, with the seven members
of his family, were saved in the ark, while the deluge swept
away the multitude of the ungodly ? Or when Abraham
was caUed to be the father of the faithful ? Or when Moses
was sent to deliver Israel from Egypt ? Or when Elijah
thought himself the onlyprophet of God, while the prophets o-
Baal were four hundred and fifty men ? How should the ap-
peal to numbers aid in the settlement of the faith, when Lb \
Saviour Himself declares, that strait is the gate and narrow
the way that leadeth unto life, and few there be that find
it ?" And again : " Fear not, little flock, for it is your
Father's good pleasure to give you the kingdom ?" How
would the argument operate when the Redeemer was con-
demned by the general voice crying out that He should be
crucified, while His true disciples were but a handful of
persons, only amounting to one hundred and twenty 1 Nay,
even in the Church itself, after it had become diffused
through every land, and the term Catholic could be in all
respects applied to it, how would the argument of numbers
have stood the test in the days of Arianism, when the
phrase was adopted of ATHANASIUS AGAINST THE WORLD ?
I have already quoted a conclusive passage on this last
point from Vincent of Lerins, which I shall here repeat.*
" Thus," saith this eminent teacher, to whom Dr. Milner
himself appeals, " when the poison of the Arians contami-
nated, not a portion only, but almost the whole world, so
that the minds of nearly all the Latin Bishops were over-
spread with a certain darkness as to the course which
should be followed in such a confusion of things, even then,
whoever was a true lover and worshipper of Christ, profer-
* See page 286.
17*
420 Letter XXII.
ring the ancient faith to the new perfidy, was not spotted
with the plague of the contagion." *
Hence, the rule laid down by Vincent is altogether irre-
concilable with this boastful appeal to a majority. " He is
a true Catholic," saith the author, " who firmly adheres to
the faith which he knows the Catholic Clrarch has univer-
sally taught from the days of old." Or, as he elsewhere
states it,* " In the Catholic Church itself, we must be care-
ful to hold that which was believed EVERYWHERE, ALWAYS,
AND BY ALL. For this it is which is TRTJLY AND PROPERLY
CATHOLIC." Not what a majority may have held during
the comparatively modern history of Romanism, but what
all Christians held from the beginning.
Notwithstanding, therefore, the long and imposing list of
places which Dr. Milner sets forth to magnify the claim of
your Church to the term Catholic, his whole assumption is
totally at variance with the only true principle. But even
were it otherwise, it would be difficult, if not impossible, to
establish the fact which he assumes, namely, that your
Church does actually contain the majority of Christendom.
The statistics upon this point are by no means precise.
Taking the ordinary computation, however, as it is given,
we should have the following distribution : -
The Church of Rome, 128 millions.
The Protestant Churches, 61 millions.
The Greek, including the Russian Church, 70 millions.
If this be correct, there would be 259 millions in the Chris-
tianized portion of the world, of which Rome would claim
128 millions, and the rest would amount to 131 millions,
giving against Popery a majority of three millions. And
this majority would be much increased if we had the sta-
* See page 284.
Catholicity as expounded by the Fathers. 421
tistics of the Armenians, the Copts, and many others.
When we remember, however, the uncertainty of the data,
how few, amongst the mass of Romanists, know anything
about the questions in issue, and how totally impracticable
it must be to estimate the amount which ought to be sub-
tracted for positive infidelity, indifference, formality, and
superstition, it must be obvious that the appeal to numbers,
as a test of truth or real Catholicity, is altogether worthless
and vain.
But especially, on this point, I would beg my readers to
remember, that there is no promise in Scripture which en-
courages us to expect absolute imwcrsality for the Church of
God, until the second advent of the Divine Redeemer to
judge the world. Up to that period, though the Gospel
must be " preached as a witness to all nations," yet Satan
will continue to rule in the hearts of the vast majority of
mankind. The Lord has indeed established His Church,
His kingdom upon earth, and has promised that it shall
continue to the end, and that " the gates of hell shall not
prevail against it." But He has not promised that it shall
prevail universally against the gates of hell until the time
appointed for His great triumph, .when Satan shall be bound,
and Christ shall reign on the throne of David, and all the
nations shall behold His glory. Hence we see at this day
that the evil is mingled with the good, even in the Church
itself, while the whole of Christendom does not embrace
more than a fourth part of the human family, and all the rest
are still involved in the thick darkness of heathenism, or in
the unbelief of the Mahometan and the Jew. And this
brings us to consider the other meanings of the term Catho-
lic, in its position in the Creed, as it is expounded by the
ancient fathers, to whom Dr. Milner himself appeals.
422 Letter XXH.
Thus, Cyril, the Archbishop of Jerusalem, treating on the
very point, saith, that " the Church is called Catholic or uni-
versal^ because it is diffused through the whole world to the
farthest limits of the earth. Also, because it teaches uni-
versally and without defect all the doctrines which ought
to come under the notice of men, whether of things visible
or invisible, celestial or terrestrial. Likewise, because it
subjects every rank of mankind to a true piety (Gr. s
evcreQeiav], both princes and subjects, learned and simple.
And finally, because it cures and heals every kind of sin
which is perpetrated by the body and the soul, and pos-
sesses every kind of virtue, by whatever name it may be
called, in words and in deeds, and all sorts of spiritual
gifts."*
A similar view of the matter is presented by Isidore,
Bishop of Seville, where he saith, " The Church is called
Catholic, because it is instituted through the whole world ;
or Catholic, because there is in it the universal doctrine for
the instruction of mankind, concerning things terrestrial
and celestial ; or because it draws all men to itself in the
subjection of piety, princes and subjects, orators and un-
learned ; or because it cures all the sins of men which are
committed by the body and the soul."f
Such is the teaching of antiquity, as to the meaning of
the word Catholic, and you will at once perceive that out of
the four reasons here assigned, one only bears reference to
the universality of catholic communion, which was a fact
during the first seven centuries of the Christian era, but
ceased from the time when the schismatical ambition of the
papacy had driven away the Oriental Churches, although in
* S. Cyril. Hierol., Cat. 18, Be Ecc. Cath., p. 296.
. t Isidor. Hispal., p. 392, C.
Catholicity not decided 1y numbers, 423
the opinion of the English Reformers it continued still in a
modified sense, by reason of the relation which every branch
of the Church bears to Christ, in whom all true Christians
are One, even although they may not associate together.
And certainly, in so far as the faith of the Apostles remains
professed in the Creeds of all the Churches, notwithstand-
ing their dissensions in other matters, and that pure and
scriptural faith is received into the heart, and manifested in
the life, there is a real unity and a real Catholicity, which the
subtlety of Satan has indeed disturbed and troubled, and
yet not been permitted to destroy. For it is not because
Christians are brethren in the VISIBLE Church that they be-
come -the children of God, but it is rather because they are
the children of God that they are accounted as brethren.
Thus, in the relations of earth, the fraternity does not pro-
duce the parentage, but the parentage produces the frater-
nity. And hence the children of the same father are breth-
ren of necessity, however bitter their mutual dissensions
may be .; and remain one family still in respect of that which
made them brethren at first, even when the practical unity
of love is changed into strife and opposition.
We find, however, in the definitions which I have quoted
. from the fathers, no appeal to numbers, as the test of Catho-
licity, nor the least intimation that truth is to be determined
by a table of statistics, according to Dr. Milner's argument.
But on the contrary, the faith derived from the Holy Scrip-
tures, as it was held from the beginning, always, everywhere,
and by all, was the true test : equally true when the Church
was overrun by Arianism, as when it was first established
by the preaching of the inspired Apostles ; and equally true
at this day, even if the errors of Roman heresy were far
more extensive than they are ; yea, even if the advocates
424 Letter XXII.
of the primitive Gospel were again reduced to an Athana-
sius against the world.
But now I come to the more important argument of Dr.
Milner, in which he claims Catholicity with respect to time
as well as place. .And here he puts forth (p. 182) an inge-
nious but yet a very manifest sophism. " If ever," saith he,
" there was a period since her foundation, in which the
Church has failed, by teaching or promoting error or vice,
then the promises of the Almighty in favor of the seed of
David and the kingdom of the Messiah, in the Book of
Psalms, and in those of Isaiah, Jeremiah, and Daniel, have
failed ; then the more explicit promises of Christ concern-
ing this Church and her pastors have failed ; then the Creed
itself, which is the object of the present discussion, has
been false." A more perfect specimen of paralogism than
this can hardly be exhibited, and I think it will need but
a very small measure of solid reasoning to show its ab-
surdity.
For, in the first place, Dr. Milner confounds the failure
of the Church with its corruption. What sort of argument
is this ? Does the fountain of water fail, when it becomes
impure through some foreign intermixture ? Does language
fail, when it becomes corrupted by strange idioms ? Does
the atmosphere fail, when it becomes foul by noxious mias-
mata ? Does society fail, when it becomes infected with
crime and immorality ? Does a nation fail, when its rulers
become tyrannical, and its public teachers mingle falsehood
with truth ? The answer is manifest, and hence it must be
quite obvious that even though the Church becomes corrupt-
ed by the introduction of errors and superstitions, fraud and
despotism, yet she does not fail, so long as the principles
of the Gospel hold a place in her professed system. The
Corruption not Failure. 425
Church of Rome has kept those principles still, notwith-
standing her adoption of so many perilous and monstrous
innovations. And for that very reason it was that the Eng-
lish Reformers did not propose to establish a new Church,
but only to cut off the novel corruptions, and thus restore
the old Church to her primitive purity.
Secondly, the very prophecies to which Dr. Milner re-
fers are only to be rightly explained on the same ground of
consistency. For those prophecies all pledge the omnipo-
tence of the Lord for the perpetuity of ISRAEL, the chosen
people. Therefore Israel has not failed, and cannot fail,
because the power and truth of God have sustained and will
sustain her, until the promised inheritance of glory shall be
consummated in the last days. But who can deny that
Israel has been grievously corrupted that idolatry was in-
troduced and patronized by her rulers and priests for ages
that they made void the law of God by their traditions
that they were finally, with the exception of a faithful rem-
nant, seduced into the rejection and crucifying of their own
divine Messiah, and were broken off from the root of Abra-
ham, that the Gentiles might be grafted in their place ?
And yet we know by the express words of St. Paul, that
they are to be " grafted again into their owa olive-tree ;"
that the Lord will " turn away ungodliness from Jacob," and
that " all Israel shall be saved." And meanwhile they are
kept from failing, by the mighty power of the Most High.
Still, though sunk in the darkness of unbelief, they cling to
Moses an-d the prophets. Still they look forward to the Ad-
vent of Christ. Still they claim the same glorious prom-
ises. Still, though they have no faith in the Saviour who
has come, yet they perpetuate their old faith in a Saviour
who is coming. And therefore, the very passages of Scrip-
426 Letter XXII.
ture to which your Roman sophist so boldly refers, destroy
his whole argument, because they prove, in the strongest
conceivable form, how the ancient Chur.ch of God's chosen
people has been corrupted by a variety of the most awful
errors, and is still kept in being still preserved from fail-
ing until the promised time, when they shall be gathered
from the East and the West, the North and the South, into
the kingdom of their divine Redeemer.
' This wondrous mysterj r of the Lord's unfailing mercy is
most forcibly illustrated by those passages of the prophets,
where the Deity speaks of His having espoused Judah and
Israel to Himself, and then having put them away for their
adulteries, but with a solemn assurance that He would re-
store them to their privileges again.* And thus we see the
true aspect of the question in relation to the Church of
Rome. She was the Bride of Christ, like all the other
Churches of the Apostles' planting, when she received the
pure faith of the Gospel. She became adulterous, like
ancient Israel, by the introduction of corrupt doctrines, and
the toleration of iniquity, for ages together, as we have seen
in the extracts of your own historian, Fleury. And yet, as
Israel never renounced her original covenant, and was there-
fore still preserved, though in the midst of judgments and
calamities, so the Church of Rome has never renounced the
original creed of her first faith, and therefore still continued,
and now continues, in the covenant of the Gospel, though
judgments and calamities have marked her progress hither-
to, and heavier judgments and calamities are yet to come.
For she, too, is called a harlot, in the Book of Revelations,
as Israel is called by the ancient prophets ; and there is a
* Ezek. xvi., xxiii., xxxvi.
Rome a true and a false Church. 427
striking similarity in the denunciations of God against His
faithless Bride under both the dispensations ; the chief dif-
ference consisting in this : that a final restoration is prom-
ised to Israel, while Popery, the Christian Babylon, shall be
destroyed forever, at the Second Advent of the Almighty
King.
This scriptural term, an adulteress, explains clearly the
double aspect of your modern Church of Rome, which has
been a subject of so much difficulty to many minds. For,
as an adulteress is a true, that is, a real wife, (since, if she
were not a wife, she could not be an adulteress) and is at
the same time a false wife, by reason of her sin : so your
Papal Church is a true Church, by reason of her original
marriage covenant which she retains in the primitive Creeds,
while she is a false Church by reason of her manifold cor-
ruptions. As the adulteress is the friend of her husband,
on account of her unity of interest with him, and even by
some lingering feelings of affection ; and is yet to be con-
sidered as his worst enemy, through her criminal admission
of strangers to his privileges : so your Papal Church is the
friend of Christ, and yet an Anti-Christ, or enemy, through
her idolatrous adoption of other mediators, and the thousand
wounds she has inflicted on His people. As the adulteress,
so long as she is not formally divorced, has a legal right to
act with the authority of a lawful wife, and that authority
is not to be disputed, in those things which the known will
of her husband sanctions ; so your Papal Church has a le-
gal right to act in all those matters which the Saviour has
ordained, and thus possesses full power to perpetuate the
Gospel ministry, the sacraments, the worship and the dis-
cipline, established in the beginning. And as every wife,
whether faithful or faithless, is limited by the authority of
428 Letter XXIL
her husband, so that she has no right whatever to be obeyed
in contradiction to his will ; so your Papal Church has no
authority beyond the word of Christ, but whenever she pre-
sumes to teach and govern in opposition to His precepts,
should be resisted by all His faithful children.
The same course of reasoning furnishes a full reply to the
argument which Dr. Milner endeavors to rest on the text in
the 16th chapter of St. Matthew's Gospel. " On this rock
I will build my Church, and the gates of hell shall not pre-
f vail against it." The words MY CHURCH refer plainly to
the Church of Christ, and include the Churches of Greece,
Russia, Armenia, Abyssinia, and all the rest, as well as
the Church of Rome, so far as they are truly Churches of
Christ, that is, so far as they preserve the original Creed
and system of the Apostles' planting. Beyond this, how-
ever, they have no share in the promise, because, beyond
this, they are not Churches of Christ, but Churches of men,
deluded, too often, into gross error by the subtlety of Satan.
Nevertheless, the gates of hell have not prevailed against
any of them, because they have all retained the primitive
truths of the Gospel system, notwithstanding the corrup-
tions which, more or less, exist among them, and of which
your modern Church of Rome has by far the largest share.
And, therefore, the promise, has been fulfilled. Satan has
assaulted them, his arts have succeeded to a certain extent,
but so long as the scriptural creed is not utterly abandoned,
he cannot prevail. The truth still exerts somewhat of its
proper influence. Some souls, from age to age, are still
led to rely, in the simplicity of a heartfelt faith, on the Al-
mighty Saviour. And thus these Churches are like an an-
cient tree, which, though the trunk be all cankered and
foul with long decay, still sends up from the healthy root
Identity consistent with change. 429
some living sap, producing here and there a few scattered
fruits, to remind one of the plenteous harvest which adorned
its pristine vigor.
Hence, when Dr. Milner asserts the antiquity of his
Church, and wonders by what strange means so many mil-
lions could have been prevailed on to give up the pure re-
ligion of Christ, and to embrace a pretended new and false
system, which its adversaries call Popery, he wilfully pre-
sents what he must have known to be a false issue to his
readers. For no one denies that the Church of Rome was
established by the Apostles.. Nor does any one allege that
she has given up the original creed of the Gospel. On the
contrary, the whole controversy turns on the corruptions
which she has added to the faith. And it is absurd to argue,
that because we cannot prove the precise time and mode
when those corruptions were introduced, therefore they
were not introduced at all : because it is certain that such
changes must have been effected by slow and almost im-
perceptible gradations, from the manifest impossibility of
introducing them in any other way ; and therefore we admit
that twelve centuries at least elapsed before they were
brought to a climax. But are we at a loss to determine
that the cankered and decayed tree is changed, because no
man can tell when or how the disease began its ravages ?
If a fair and fruitful field becomes overrun with noxious
weeds, can we not ascertain the fact, without asking to be
informed when and how the first seeds of those intruders
took root there 1 Or if a human countenance be presented
to us, distorted, ulcerated, and foul with deformity, and it is
confessed on all sides that it was once radiant with health
and beauty,' must we doubt that it is changed because we
are ignorant of the day and hour when the system became
430 Letter XXII.
corrupt, or how the malady went on with ever-growing viru-
lence to its melancholy consummation ?
In like manner, we know what the Church of Christ was
in the beginning, from the testimony of its founders, the
blessed Apostles ; and next after them, from the writings of
the fathers. We know what it subsequently became, from
the testimony of your Roman historians themselves. The
change is thus demonstrated by the clearest proof, and it is
a mockery of common sense to evade it by insisting that it
is still the same Church that it was, to all intents and pur-
poses. We grant the identity in the point of historical suc-
cession, and in the continuance of the ancient Creeds ; but
we deny it in the matter of the subsequent corruptions of
faith and morals. The decayed tree is the same with the
healthy sapling, but yet has undergone a ruinous change.
The field which is overrun with noxious weeds is the same
which was once so fruitful, but yet it has suffered a sad de-
terioration. The deformed and bloated countenance is the
same face which was once so lovely, but yet it has become
loathsome and offensive. And the modern Church is the
same which was planted by apostolic hands, as the Church
of Israel was by the divine authority under Moses and
Aaron ; and yet, like that Church of Israel, it became filled
with idolatry, superstition, false traditions, and licentious im-
morality, all produced, in both cases, by their sad propen-
sity to corrupt the only sure system of the written Word of
God, through the subtle suggestions of their spiritual adver-
sary.
We may readily perceive, therefore, the true state of the
question, if this distinction is borne in mind. The Holy
Catholic Church may and must be admitted as universal in
point of time, provided we distinguish between THE CHURCH
What constitutes the Church. 431
properly so called, and the numerous corruptions which,
were subsequently grafted upon it, and which it was the ob-
ject of the English Reformers to cut away. But what is it
that confers the true being of the Church 1 Precisely the
faith and the ordinances instituted by Christ, her divine
Lord and Master, either immediately by His own command,
or mediately by His inspired Apostles, as we find them laid
down in the written record of the New Testament. It is by
virtue of these, and these alone, that THE CHURCH is UNITED
TO HER SAVIOUR. Not the worship of the Virgin and the
Saints not the belief of purgatory and indulgences not
the degrading confidence in the wonder-working power of
relics not the dogma of transubstantiation, by which one-
half of the holy Eucharist is taken away from the laity not
the priestly tribunal of auricular confession not the fig-
ment of works of supererogation not prayers in an un-
known tongue not monks, and nuns, and priestly celibacy
not masses for the dead not inquisitions, and anathemas, and
dungeons and the stake, assigned, in the bitterness of bloody
persecution, against all that priests call heresy not placing
a poor infirm mortal on the altar of God, and bowing down
before him, and kissing his feet, with the proud titles of
sole Vicar of Christ, and Monarch of Christendom, and all
the gorgeous magnificence of more than Oriental splendor
not the false miracles attributed to the images and pictures
of the saints, nor the imaginary feats of supernatural pow-
ers claimed for a few fancied favorites of heaven. None
of these things, nor all of them united, constitute THE
CHURCH. On the contrary, they have been her plague and
her calamity. We might as well suppose that the manhood
of a leper consists in his leprosy, as believe that the being
of the Church consists in those diseases and corruptions
432 Letter XXII.
which have so long infected her. We freely admit, there-
fore, that your modern Church of Rome is still a portion of
the Catholic Church, because she has not renounced the
original doctrines of the faith which gave her being ; and
the same is true of all the Churches of Christendom. The
e>
controversy is not about those doctrines which we hold
alike, but about her idolatry, superstition, and despotism,
which she insists on maintaining as essential to her exist-
ence, while we insist that they are a loathsome disease, which
should be totally cleansed away. The leper speaks truly in
one sense, when he asserts that he has always been the
same man, but he speaks falsely if he alleges that for this
reason he must have been always in the same condition.
And so the Church of Rome may truly claim that in one sense
s"he has always been the same Church, but she speaks most
falsely when she declares that, for this reason, she must
always have maintained her present faith and discipline.
I have dwelt the longer on this point because the whole
strength of your advocate's argument- lies in the sophistical
ingenuity with which it is mystified, and many writers have
thus been led quite astray. Some have conceived them-
selves obliged to resort to an invisible Church, existing se-
cretly through long ages, unknown to the world. While
others have fancied that a pure Church existed from apos-
tolic times, and that the Waldenses were entitled to claim
the special privilege of belonging to it. While a third
party have maintained that the Church had wholly failed
for many centuries, and had become altogether the syna-
gogue of Satan, notwithstanding the express promise of
our Lord to Peter that the gates of hell should not pre-
vail against it. The truth of the matter, however, is
perfectly plain, if it be regarded in the light of the scrip-
True Catholicity. 433
tural analogy presented by the case of the ancient Church
of Israel, and according to the principles of faith which
constitute the being of the Church, as distinguished from
all adventitious and extraneous additions. And thus under-
stood, there is no longer any difficulty in the question.
The closing passage of Dr. Milner's 26th letter is only
to be noticed for the bold assumption with which he states,
that " the most demonstrative proofs of the antiquity and
originality of our religion are gathered from comparing it
with that contained in the works of the ancient fathers." I
have already shown how false is this boast, on the funda-
mental doctrine of the RULE OF FAITH, and on some other
points in controversy, and I shall exhibit a similar contra-
riety, in the questions which yet remain to be examined.
For happily, notwithstanding the writings of the fathers"
have been most shamefully interpolated by the frauds and
forgeries of your monks and priests, as a multitude of your
own writers freely acknowledge, yet enough still remains
of the true records of Christian antiquity, to vindicate the Ref-
ormation of the English Church, and to establish the charge
of doctrinal innovation against the advocates of Romanism.
I conclude, therefore, by this general result of the whole
argument. We believe in the Holy Catholic Church, as
being the aggregate of all the Churches of Christendom,
all of which belong to it precisely so far as they maintain
the original faith, morals, worship and discipline established
by the authority of the inspired Apostles. We hold that it
was by virtue of these that they became true Churches of
Christ in the beginning, and that this is the only standard
by which they can continue true Churches to the end. We
hold that no Church has a right to add to that standard in
any essential point of faith or discipline, though all Church-
434 Letter XXII.
es have a right to establish rules of form and order, in sub-
ordination to the fixed principles of Apostolic precept and
example. We apply this test to your Church of Rome, and
acknowledge her to be a branch of the -Catholic Church, in
all those parts of her Creed, of her ministerial succession,
and her worship and discipline, which remain in confor-
mity with the primitive Church Catholic. But in her doc-
trine of pontifical power, in her worship of the Virgin, the
saints, their images and relics, in her system of purgatory,
indulgences and masses for the dead, in her priestly celi-
bacy, her service in an unknown tongue, and her enforced
auricular confession, in her transubstantiation and denial
of the cup to the laity, in her inquisitions, dungeons, and
persecutions unto death, in her monastic vows, false mira-'
cles, pious frauds and canonization, and in her toleration of
Jesuitical immorality, we hold her to be not only uncatholic,
but schismatical, heretical, and anti-Christian. We charge
her with being the great cause of the severance of the
Catholic Church in the ninth century, and of the worldli-
ness, impiety, and infidelity which characterize the religion
of all Christendom to this day. And while we confess our own
share in the prevailing deficiency of personal holiness, we
hold that our Reformed Church presents the nearest approx-
imation, on the whole, to the primitive Catholic system, re-
taining all the doctrines of Apostolic faith, in union with
Apostolic order, appealing to the divine Scriptures as our
constant rule, interpreting them in accordance with the
primitive Councils and Creeds, abjuring the novel dogmas,
the deluding superstitions, and the priestly despotism of
modern introduction, and thus, according to the rule of Vin-
cent, holding what was held ALWAYS, EVERYWHERE, AND BY
ALL, FOR THIS ALONE IS TRULY CATHOLIC.
The End of Controversy, Controverted. 435
LETTER. XXIII.
MOST REVEREND SIR :
I COME, at length, to the fourth and last mark of the true
Church, namely, her Apostolicity, as we profess in the Ni-
cene Creed : " I believe in One, Holy, Catholic, and Apos-
tolic Church." Dr. Milner enters largely into the proof that
the Apostles appointed those who should succeed them, in
the higher functions of government, ordination and disci-
pline, which belonged to their own office ; and that the Bish-
ops so constituted were to form the true Apostolical succes-
sion to the end of the world. In this there is no contro-
versy, for we hold the same. But he asserts that " our
Lord appointed Simon to be the centre of union and head
pastor over the other Apostles, charging him to feed His
whole flock, sheep as well as lambs, giving him the keys
of His kingdom of heaven, and changing his name into that
of PETER, or ROCK, adding, on this rock I will build my
Church. Thus dignified, St. Peter first established his See
at Antioch, and afterwards removed it to Rome, the capital
of Europe and the world. Here, having, with St. Pai;l,
sealed the Gospel with his blood, he transmitted his prero-
gative to St. Linus ;" and thus every Bishop of Rome claims
to be the essential head and chief pastor of all the Churches
in the world, so that unless they be in unity with him, they
cannot be the Churches of Christ, nor possess any warrant
of salvation.
18
436 Letter XXIII.
This assumption, on which rests the whole superstruc-
ture of Papal despotism, we hold to be directly at war with
true Catholic principle, false in all its parts, and subversive,
as your own history has proved, of the liberty, the purity,
and the proper influence of the Gospel. I shall proceed,
therefore, to prove, by plain evidence, that it is contrary to
the Scriptures, contrary to the fathers, contrary to the Coun-
cils, absurd in itself, and historically fatal to Christian
unity.
The passage of Scripture on which your Roman theolo-
gians rely, is in the Gospel of St. Matthew, xvi. 18, where
our Lord saith to the Apostles, " Whom say ye that I am ?"
And Simon Peter answered and said, " Thou art the Christ,
the Son of the living God. And Jesus answered and said
unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Bar-Jona, for flesh and
blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which
is in heaven. And I say also unto thee, that thou art Peter,
and upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates
of hell shall not prevail against it. And I will give unto
thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatsoever
thou shalt bind on earth, shall be bound in neaven ; and
whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth, shall ";e loosed in
heaven."
Here, then, the first question presented is, Whether the
ROCK on which the Church should be builded was CHRIST
Himself, as the Son of the living God, whom Peter had just
confessed ; or whether this rock was Peter, the Apostle 1
And we maintain that the rock was CHRIST, while you hold
that the rock was Peter.
The second Question is, Whether the promise of the keys
of the kingdom of heaven was intended to give Peter any
pre-eminence over the other Apostles 1 And the language
The Rock is Christ. 437
used by our Lord (Jo. xxi. 16), where He charges Peter to
" feed His sheep and His lambs," is to be taken in connec-
tion with this, as you rely on both for your scriptural evi-
dence.
Now with respect to the first point, viz., to whom the
word rock is to be applied, we charge your divines with a
manifest error. For you hold that the Saviour gave to Pe-
ter the very name ROCK, which, if it were true, would fur-
nish a strong support to your theory. But the word trans-
lated Peter, in the original Greek of St. Matthew, is TTKrpog, .
which signifies a stone, whereas the rock is Trerpa ; and
hence the two words are not the same, as vour writers as-
* f
sume, but are different in gender, in termination, and in
meaning.
To prove this assertion plainly, I shall first adduce a
number of passages from the Old Testament, in which the
word ROCK is figuratively applied to THE DEITY. But here,
I am sorry to say that I cannot have recourse to your Latin
Vulgate, nor to your Douay Bible, because they are not
faithful to the original Hebrew. I shall quote, therefore,
from our own far more reliable version, and shall add, in
every text, the Hebrew word, and shall append, besides, the
translation of your own eminent Pagnini, and Arias Mon-
tanus ; the first of whom, as you know, was a Dominican
friar of great celebrity, who spent twenty-five years, under
the patronage of Pope Leo X., in translating the Scriptures ;
and the second was a Benedictine monk, a member of your
Council of Trent, acknowledged as one of the most learn-
ed divines of the sixteenth century. The correctness of
our English Bible is thus attested unconsciously by the
highest authority amongst yourselves.
The passages are the following, viz. :
438
Letter XXIII.
Deut. xxx. 4. He is THE ROCK, His work
is perfect, a God of truth,
" " 15. He lightly esteemed THE
ROCK of his salvation, .
" xxxii. 18. OfTHERocKthatbegatthee
thou art unmindful,
" " 31. Their Rock is not as OUR
ROCK, our enemies them-
selves being judges,
" " 37. Where is THE ROCK in
whom they trusted 1
1 Sam. 2, 2 (called in the Vulgate and
Douay Bible 1 Kings).
Neither is there any
ROCK like our God,
2 Sam. xxii. 32. "Who is a ROCK, save our
God? .
" xxiii. 3. The God of Israel said, the
ROCK of Israel spake,
Psalm xxviii. 1. Unto Thee will I cry, O
Lord, my ROCK,
" xxxi. 3. For Thou art rny ROCK and
my fortress, .
" Ixii. 2. God only is my ROCK,
" Ixxiii. 2&. God is the ROCK of my
heart (Marginal Version),
" Ixxviii. 35. They remembered that God
was their ROCK,
" xcv. 1. Make a joyful noise to the
ROCK of our salvation, .
Isaiah, xxvi. 4. In the Lord Jehovah is the
ROCK OF AGES (Margi-
nal Version), ffifi'biS)
T
" xxx. 29. When one goeth to . the
ROCK of Israel (Marg. V.),
To these I shall add the text from
is your 2 Kings), " The Lord is my
if eft. Pagnini <$ Montanus.
"1*152 PETRA.
PETRAM.
PETRA.
"1*152 PETRA.
"1*152 PETRA.
"I*j52 PETRA.
"1*152 PETRA.
PETRA.
PETRA.
PETRA.
"1*152 PETRA.
"1*152 RUPES.
"1*152 PETRA.
FORTITUDINI.
"1*152 PETRA SECULORUM.
"1*152 PBTRA.
2 Sam. xxii. 2 (which
ROCK," this being the
The Rock is Christ. 439
only one where your own version agrees with ours, and
with the original Hebrew, on the point in question.
When we turn from the Old to the New Testament Scrip-
tures, we find two other passages applicable to the subject,
both from the Apostle Paul : 1 Cor. x. 4, " For they drank
of that spiritual ROCK that followed them, and that Rock
(n-erpa) was Christ." And again: 1 Cor. iii. 11, "Other
foundation can no man lay than that is laid, which is Christ
Jesus." In all of these texts, the word ROCK is applied to
the DIVINE NATURE, nor is it ever appropriated, in a
spiritual sense, to any mortal.
On the other hand, the word stone is employed frequently
to signify the faithful believers in Christ. Thus, 1 Pet. ii.
5, " Ye also, as lively stones, are built up a spiritual house."
1 Cor. iii. 12, " If any man build on this foundation precious
stones." Rev. xxi. 19, " The foundations of the wall of the
city were adorned with precious stones." Ib. v. 14, " And
the walls of the city had twelve foundations, and in them the
names of the twelve Apostles of the Lamb."
The word rrerpof, however, occurs but rarely in the Scrip-
tures of the Septuagint version. Nevertheless, its meaning
is perfectly clear and plain, as in the following passages :
2 Mac., i. 16. BaXAoi>j -rcTpov; cvvtKtpavvvtoa-av rov fiycji6va, " Cast-
ing stones, they slew the leader."
2 " iv. 41. ffwapirdcavTts '<" /**' rtrpovy, " Catching up stones."
Job, xlv. 20. xcrpovs a$sv56vTis, or, as the more common version
expresses it, TrsrpopdXov xoprov, a machine for throw-
ing stones.
The learned Trommius, the author of the Concordance of
the Septuagint, accordingly, gives Trerpa invariably the sense
of rapes, or ROCK, and -rrerpog the single meaning of lapis,
or STONE. And hence our translators were fully justified
440 Letter XXIIL
in their version of Trerpof in the decisive text of Jo. i. 42,
where the Saviour saith to Simon, " Thou shalt be called
Cephas, which is, by interpretation, A ST.ONE." Nor can the
authors of your Latin Vulgate and your Douay Bible be
easily excused for the art with which they evaded the whole
meaning of this passage, by employing the name Petrus, or
Peter, instead of giving the true sense of the Greek word
Trerpof. For it is manifest that the term had an interpreta-
tion, and that the inspired Apostle intended to give it. But
Petrus in Latin, or Peter in English, gives no interpretation
at all. And thus, by this ingenious but perfectly indefensi-
ble management, your Bibles have effectually mystified the
very text which, if fairly translated, would have settled the
whole question.
Let the reader now compare this signification with the
further commentary of the same inspired Apostle in the 1 9th
chapter of the Apocalypse, already quoted, where he saw, in
vision, that the walls of the heavenly city, the New Jerusa-
lem, were garnished with precious stones, that they had
twelve foundations, and that in them were the names of
the twelve Apostles of the Lamb, and he will see at once
the admirable agreement of the whole. For the -word foun-
dation is used in a double sense : one applicable to the ROCK
on which the whole edifice is built, and this is the foun-
dation to which St. Paul refers when he saith, " Other
foundation can no man lay than that is laid, which is Christ
Jesus." But the other sense is applicable to the stones
which are laid upon the rock, on which the superstructure
is to be erected. In that secondary foundation, rocks can
not be employed, but it must consist of stones, fitly prepared,
and accurately joined together. And therefore St. John
settles the whole dispute when he declares that these foun-
The Rock was Christ. 441
dations were garnished with precious stones, that they were
TWELVE in number, and that in them were the names of the
twelve Apostles. Your Romish notion of St. Peter's being
the one foundation, and the other Apostles being built on
him, is here utterly exploded. He was Trerpog-, a stone, not
-Tre-pa, the Rock. He was a precious stone, and one of the
twelve foundation stones, but the other eleven were precious
foundation stones as well as he.
Taking this unerring commentary of St. John for our
guide, therefore, we may thus paraphrase, with perfect cer-
tainty, the words of the Redeemer : " Blessed art thou, Si-
mon Bar-Jona, for thou hast acknowledged in me the divine
and Almighty ROCK OF ISRAEL. Flesh and blood hath not
revealed this unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven.
And I say unto thee that thou art A STONE, a living, precious
stone, which shall be set, along with thy fellows, in the
twelve foundations of my celestial city. For on the Rock
which thou hast confessed I will so build my Church, that
the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. And to thee
I will give the keys of the kingdom of heaven, for thou shalt
be the first to open the Church by the power of the Holy
Ghost on the day of Pentecost. And whatsoever thou shalt
bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatsoever thou
shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven. And on all
the other foundation stones in my heavenly city I will be-
stow the same high privileges. For on them, together
with thee, after my great sacrifice is accomplished, and I
have risen in triumph from the dead, I will breathe the
breath of my divine power, and then will I fulfil my prom-
ise, by saying to all my chosen Apostles, Receive ye the
Holy Ghost. Whosesoever sins ye remit, they are remitted
unto them; and whosesoever pins ye retain, they are retained."
442 Letter XXIII.-
That this is the true scope of the Saviour's words, con-
nected altogether, will be made manifest by the other testi-
mony of Scripture, and by the plain declarations of the an-
cient fathers. For we read in the Gospel narratives that
the Apostles disputed among themselves who should be the
greatest, and our Lord, instead of telling them that Peter
was already designated to be their prince and pastor, puts
aside the whole question in these remarkable words : " You
knoAV that the princes of the Gentiles lord it over them, and
they that are the greater exercise, power upon them. IT
SHALL NOT BE so AMONG YOU, but whosoever will be the
greater among you let him be your minister, and he that
would be first among you shall be your servant."*
The same inference follows irresistibly from the act of
the blessed Redeemer, when He had risen from the dead,
and gave the spiritual commission to His Apostles. f For
we read that He came into the room where they were as-
sembled together, and said to them, " Peace be to you. As
my Father hath sent me, I also send you. Receive ye the
Holy Ghost. Whose sins you shall forgive they are for-
given them ; and whose sins ye shall retain they are re-
tained." Here the Saviour makes no distinction whatever.
St. Peter had the first promise of the keys, because \ejlrst
acknowledged our Lord's divine character. But when the
time had come to fulfil that promise by the actual gift of
spiritual powers, all the Apostles are included together, and
not the slightest hint is furnished of Peter's supposed su-
premacy.
In the book of the Acts of the Apostles we find not a
trace of this fancied authority. On the contrary, Peter,
* Mat. rx. 25. See also Mat. ixiii. 8 ; Lu. is. 46, xxi. 24.
t Jo. xx. 22.
Testimony of St. Paul , 443
with John, was sent to the Samaritans (ch. viii. 14), and
in the Council of the Apostles which met at Jerusalem (ch.
xv.), about the question which Paul and Barnabas submitted
to them concerning the obligation of the Gentile converts to
keep the ceremonial law, Peter does not appear to have ex-
ercised any superior prerogative. He gave his opinion,
which was received favorably, but he did not summon the
Council ; and James presided, and proposed the formal de-
cree, which was sent forth in the name of the " Apostles
and Ancients, brethren," according to your Roman version ;
so that here we have a strong example directly in the face
of Peter's imagined superiority. Nor is it to be questioned
that if this inspired history be taken for our guide, the most
prominent name among the Apostles, especially where the
Gentiles are concerned, is not that of Peter, but of Paul.
Let us hear, however, the words of St. Paul himself in
relation to this matter, as they are given in his Epistle to
the Galatians (ch. i., v. 15), according to your own version,
the Douay Bible :
" When it pleased Him who separated me from my
mother's womb, and called me by His grace to reveal His
Son in me, that I might preach Him among the Gentiles,
immediately I conferred not with flesh and blood, neither went
I to Jerusalem to the Apostles who were before me, but I went
into Arabia, and again I returned to Damascus. Then,
three years after, I came to Jerusalem to see Peter, and
stayed with him fifteen days, but other of the Apostles I
saw none, except James, the brother of the Lord. Then,
fourteen years after, I went up again to Jerusalem with
Barnabas, taking Titus also with me. And I went up ac-
cording to revelation, and communicated the Gospel which
I preach among the Gentiles j but apart to them who
18*
444 Letter XXIII.
seemed to be something, lest perhaps I should run, or had
run, in vain. But neither Titus, who was with me, being a
Greek, was compelled to be circumcised, but because of
false brethren unawares brought in, who came in privately
to spy out our liberty which we have in Christ Jesus, that
they might bring us into bondage. To whom we yielded
not by subjection, no, not for an hour, that the truth of the
Gospel might continue with you."
" But of them who seemed to be something," continues
the Apostle, " (what they were some time, it is nothing to
me ; God accepteth not the person of man), for to me, they
that seemed to be something, added nothing. But on the
contrary, when they had seen that TO ME WAS COMMITTED
THE GOSPEL OF THE ITNCIRCUMCISION, AS TO PETER WAS
THAT OF THE CIRCUMCISION, (for He who wrought in Peter
to the apostleship of the circumcision, wrought in me also
among the Gentiles :) And when they had known the
grace that was given to me, JAMES AND CEPHAS AND JOHN,
WHO SEEMED TO BE PILLARS, gave to me and Barnabas the
right hand of fellowship, THAT WE SHOULD GO TO THE
GENTILES, AND THEY TO THE CIRCUMCISION. But when
Cephas was come to Antioch, I withstood him to the face,
because he was blamable. For before that some came
from James, he did eat with the Gentiles ; but when they
were come, he withdrew and separated himself, fearing
those of the circumcision.. And to his dissimulation the
rest of the Jews consented, so that Barnabas also was led
by them into that dissimulation. But when I saw that they
walked not uprightly unto the truth of the Gospel, I said to
Cephas before them all : If thou, being a Jew, livest after
the manner of the Gentiles, and not of the Jews, how dost
thou compel the Gentiles to follow the way of the Jews ?"
Testimony of St. Paul. 445
No ingenuity can reconcile this statement of St. Paul
with your Roman hypothesis of Peter's supremacy. For
not. only does he speak of Peter without the slightest note
of his supposed authority over the other Apostles, but he
names him along with James and John, placing James first,
and says of the whole three that they SEEMED TO BE PIL-
LARS. Next, he expressly states, that when they had seen
that to him was committed the Gospel of the uncircumcision,
they all concluded that they were to go to the circumcision
that is, the Jews while he and Barnabas should go to the
Gentiles. And in effect we find, in the Book of the Acts,
the extent of St. Paul's labors among the Gentiles, and par-
ticularly that the Lord sent him to Rome, where he founded
the Church, preaching for two years together in. that im-
perial city, while not a word is said of Peter's being there
at any time. Lastly, we see that St. Paul, at Antioch, was
obliged to rebuke St. Peter, who is spoken of as if he was
under the influence of St. James ; and it is plain that, in-
stead of permitting Peter to act with any authority over
him, he rather asserted his own authority against Peter's
dissimulation. It is impossible for any mind which is not
utterly blinded by determined prejudice, to believe that St.
Paul could have acted and written thus, if his divine Mas-
ter, who inspired him, had ever designed to confer on
St. Peter the sovereign chieftainship over the whole Church,
so boldly insisted vipon by your Papal hypothesis.
It is further worthy of remark, in this brief examination
of the scriptural proof, that only one of the four Evangelists
mentions the address of our Lord to Peter, on which the
claims of the Papacy are supposed to rest, whereas, if the
meaning of the passage were what your writers suppose^
we should naturally expect that it would be a prominent
446 Letter XXIII.
topic amongst them all. And in the two epistles of St.
Peter himself, where we might fairly look for his su-
premacy, if he believed that he had ever been invested
with it, there is not only a perfect want of the slightest
claim of the kind, but on the contrary, there is far less of
apostolic power intimated than there is in the epistles of St.
Paul and St. John. And yet, your Popes presume to make
their anti-scriptural dogma essential to the very being of
the Church, and even necessary to salvation !
To my own mind, however, the statement of St. Paul is
conclusive, to prove that he, and not Peter, was the chosen
Apostle of the Gentiles. For first, he goes upon his divine
mission without conferring with any of the other Apostles,
and spends three years in his work of conversion. Then
he visits Jerusalem to see Peter, but this interview does not
seem to have been satisfactory, because we must refer to
it the passage in the Acts (ix. 26), where it is said, " When
Saul was come to Jerusalem, he assayed to join himself to
the disciples, but they were all afraid of him, and believed
not that he was a disciple. But Barnabas took him, and
brought him to the Apostles, and declared unto them how
he had seen the Lord in the way," &c. For St. Paul
expressly refers his fellowship with Barnabas to his second
visit, fourteen years after the first, and there he states, that
" when the Apostles had seen that to me was committed the
Gospel of the uncircumcision, as to Peter was that of the
circumcision, and when they had known the grace that was
given to me, James and Cephas and John, who seemed to
be pillars, gave to me and Barnabas the right, hand of fel-
lowship, that we should go to the Gentiles, and they to the
circumcision." Thus, it is evident that the Apostles ad-
mitted his claims, on the ground that Christ Himself had
St. Paul's Testimony. 447
already committed to him the Gospel of the Gentiles, and
their assent was predicated on this divine call, which gave
him to be the chosen Apostle of the uncircumcised, and
limited Peter to be the Apostle of the Jews. But Rome is
a Gentile Church, as we are. And therefore this passage
alone seems decisive of the whole question about Peter's
imaginary supremacy.
448 The End of Controversy, Controverted.
LETTER XXIV.
MOST REVEREND SIR :
I HAVE promised to prove that the figment of St. Peter's
supremacy as the first Bishop of Rome, with the Papal au-
thority derived from it, not only stands opposed to the evi-
dence of Scripture, but also to the testimony of the fathers,
and to this I must now ask your attention. The negative
and circumstantial proof furnished from this source would
occupy a volume, and I have already written a book upon
it, as you know, because you honored me with a reply.* At
present, however, I shall confine myself to a few positive
and direct witnesses, which will be amply sufficient for the
purpose.
First, then, we find Irenasus, the Bishop of Lyons, about
A. D. 170, expressly stating that the Church of Rome was
founded and established by the blessed Apostles Peter and
Paul, who delivered to Linus the Episcopal right to govern
ifc.t Here is a positive contradiction to the assertion of
Dr. Milner, that St. Peter was himself the Bishop of Rome.
And, indeed, when we remember that the Saviour com-
manded the Apostles to go and teach all nations, so that
they were of necessity obliged to travel from country to
country in the performance of their mighty task of going
* The Church of Rome, &c.
t Irensus, Contra Haeres , Lib. 3, cap. Hi., $ 1.
frencens and Origen. 449
" into all the world" we see how utterly absurd must be the
hypothesis that any one amongst that little band could sit
down as Bishop of Antioch for seven years, and then plant
himself at Rome for twenty-five years more, as your writers
fancy to have been the fact in the case of the Apostle Pe-
ter. '
Next I shall quote the testimony of Origen, about A. D.
250, as follows : " If you suppose that the Church is
built by God upon one single rock (Peter), what do you say of
John, the Son of Thunder, and every one of the other Apos-
tles ? Or shall we say that the gates of hell were not to
prevail especially against Peter ? Were they, then, to pre-
vail against the other Apostles and perfect believers ? Or
was it to Peter alone that the Lord gave the keys of the
kingdom of heaven ? And if this is common to the others,
I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, how should
not those things which precede it, and which are evidently
connected with it, be common likewise 1 For here it
seems to be said to Peter, Whatsoever thou shah bind on
earth shall be bound in heaven, &c. ; but in the Gospel of
John, the Saviour, giving the Holy Spirit to the disciples
by breathing on them, saith, Receive ye the Holy Ghost ;
whosesoever sins ye remit they are remitted to them, and
whose you shall retain they arc retained."*
" But since there are some," saith Origen, a little farther
on, " who interpret this passage" (viz., Mat. xvi. 18) "of
the Episcopacy as being Peter, and teach that by the keys
of the kingdom of heaven, received from the Saviour, those
things which are bound by them, that is, condemned, are
bound in heaven, and those which are loosed on earth are
* Origen. Comment, in Mat., Tom. 1, p. 274.
450 Letter XXIV. '
loosed in heaven, it may be admitted that they speak truly,
if they have the quality on account of which it was said to
Peter, Thou art Peter, and if they are such that upon them
the Church can be built by Christ, and this privilege can
be justly granted to them. But if any one be not what Pe-
ter was, nor be possessed of those qualities which have been
mentioned, and yet thinks that he, like Peter, can bind upon
the earth, so that those things which he binds shall be also
bound in heaven, and that he can loose upon the earth, so
that whatever he looses shall be loosed also in heaven, that
man is proud, not knowing the sense of the Scriptures, and be-
ing lifted up with pride, he falls into the crime of the devil."*
The famous Cyprian, Bishop of Carthage, was cotempo-
rary with Origen, and appears to have adopted, to some ex-
tent, the notion which was now beginning to be maintained
in favor of Roman supremacy. But this doctrine was yet
in its infancy, and very far from being acknowledged by
any of the fathers of the third century in the form which it
afterwards assumed. Thus Cyprian, for example, speaks
upon the claim of primacy : " Peter, whom the Lord chose
first, and upon whom he built his Church, when Paul dis-
puted with him on the subject of circumcision, claimed
nothing insolently to himself, nor arrogantly assumed any-
thing. Nor did he say that he held the primacy, and that
he ought to be obeyed by those who were new, and subse-
quent to himself."f Throughout his epistles addressed to
the then Bishop of Rome, Cyprian calls him his li colleague,"
his " fellow-Bishop," or his " brother," in no instance giv-
ing him any title of superior respect or reverence. He ac-
knowledges the greater importance of the Roman Church,
* Origen. Comment, in Mat., Tom. 1, p. 279-280.
t Cypriani Epist. ad Quin., p. 140.
Cyprian and Euselius. 451
but rests it on the ground of secular influence, saying,
" Plainly, on account of its magnitude, Rome ought to pre-
cede Carthage."* And when a warm controversy arose
between himself and Stephen, the then Bishop of Rome,
about the validity of heretical baptisms, Cyprian maintained
his equality of rights, laying down this general law, " that
every Bishop exercises the free choice of Ms own will in the
administration of the Church, having to render an account of
his acts to the _L0nZ."f
I proceed next to Eusebius, the Bishop of Csesarea, who
flourished in the latter part of the third and the beginning
of the fourth century, and who is usually styled the father
of ecclesiastical history, having produced a celebrated work
on that subject, from the beginning of the Gospel to his own
day, well known to theologians. It is in this book that we
should unquestionably find your system of the Papacy, if
any such had been established, but throughout the whole
volume there is not only a perfect absence of everything
which could intimate it, but on the contrary, there is an
abundance of evidence circumstantially irreconcilable with
the Papal claim.
Thus, in the 14th chapter of his 2d book, Eusebius
speaks of Peter, the great and powerful Apostle, being con-
ducted to Rome to oppose Simon the Magician, and of Mark
being requested to put in writing what the Apostle had
preached there. But nothing is said about his being Bishop
of Rome, or claiming any authority over the other Apos-
tles. In the 3d book, chapter 1, the historian speaks of the
Apostles in the following terms : " The holy Apostles and
disciples of the Saviour, being scattered over the whole
* Cypriani Ep. ad Cornelium, p. 70.
t Ib. ad Stephanum, p. 142.
462 Letter XXIV.
world, Thomas, according to tradition, received Parthia as
his allotted region ; Andrew received Scythia, and John,
Asia ; where, after continuing for some, time, he died at
Ephesus. But Peter is supposed to have preached through
Pontus, Galatia, Bithynia, Cappadocia, and Asia, to the
Jews who were scattered abroad, who also, coming to Rome,
was crucified with his head downward, having requested, of
himself, to suffer in this way. But of Paul, who can suffi-
ciently speak, spreading the Gospel from Jerusalem to Illyri-
cum, and finally suffering martyrdom under Nero ?"
This primitive historian, in his next chapter, relates the
beginning of the Roman Episcopate in these words : " After
the martyrdom of Paul and Peter, Linus was the first that re-
ceived the Episcopate at Rome." Here his testimony con-
firms that of Irenaeus, and both of them are altogether irre-
concilable with the Papal assumption.
But let me now pass on to the testimony of the famous
Ambrose, the Bishop of Milan, who flourished in the follow-
ing century. " FAITH," saith this eminent father, " is THE
FOUNDATION OF THE CHURCH, for it was not said of the
Jiesh of Peter, but of his faith, that the gates of hell should
not prevail against it."*
Again : " Believe," saith Ambrose, " as Peter believed?
that you also may be blessed, that you may deserve to hear,
Flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father
who is in heaven. For WHOEVER. OVERCOMES THE FLESH is
A FOUNDATION OF THE CHURCH. "f
And again, saith Ambrose, " THE ROCK is CHRIST, for
they drank of that spiritual rock which followed them, and that
" S. Ambros. Op. Ed. Bened., Tom. 2, p. 711, De Incarn. Sacram.,
cap. iv., 34.
t Ib. Tom. 1, p. 1406.
Testimony of Ambr.ose. 453
rock was Christ. And He has not denied to His disciple
even the favor of this word, that he may be also a Peter,
because from the Rock he derives the solidity of perse-
verance and the firmness of faith.* Upon that rock thy
house is built, that it may be struck by no spiritual wicked-
ness. The rock is thy faith. Faith is the foundation of the
Church."^
" What is said to Peter," saith he elsewhere, " is said
to all the Apostles."^ " Nor is this operation of the Father,
the Son, and the Holy Spirit, found only in Peter, but the
same unity of the divine work is revealed in all the Apos-
tles, as the authority of the heavenly constitution. "
" Nor was Paul inferior to Peter, although the one was a
foundation of the Church, and the other a wise architect,
knowing hoAV to establish the steps of those who believed :
nor was Paul, I say, unworthy of the Apostolic College,
since he also may be compared with the first, and is second
to none. For he who does not acknowledge himself in-
ferior, makes himself equal. "]|
Once more, to show the independence of the fourth cen-
tury with respect to the Church of Rome, notwithstanding
Ambrose, being the Bishop of Milan, was so near a neigh-
bor to it, we find him employing this language : "-I desire
in all things to follow the Church of Rome ; but neverthe-
less, we men have sense also, and therefore whatever is
more correctly practised elsewhere, we are more correct in prac-
tising."^
* S. Ambros. Op., Ed. Bened., Tom. 1, $ 97, p. 1407.
t Ib. $ 98.
t Ib. Tom. 1, p. 858.
$ Ib. Tom. -2, p. 662.
II Ib. p. 664, $ 158.
IT Ib. p. 362-3.
454 ._ Letter XXIV.
These extracts might be greatly extended, but they are
more than sufficient to show that this celebrated father of
the fourth century held no such doctrine concerning St.
Peter and the Papacy, as your advocates would persuade us
to attribute to the primitive Church.
The next witness to whom I shall appeal is the famous
Jerome, who is a special favorite with your theologians, be-
cause he addressed a letter to Damasus, the Roman Bishop
of that day, in which he speaks in strong terms of the
chair of Peter, saying, that " on that rock he knows that
the Church is built, and that whoever eats the lamb out of
that house is profane." But there are other passages in his
works which must be taken into consideration before we
can ascertain his real sentiments, and to these I shall ask
my reader's attention. For in that letter it is manifest that
he was speaking with reference to the doctrines of the faith,
whereas tho point in question is one of government. And
here we shall find Jerome laying down principles quite ir-
reconcilable with your modern Papal system.
Thus, in his epistle to Evagrius, this eminent father
saith : " The Church of Rome is not to be thought one
thing, and that of the whole world another. Gaul, and
Britain, and Africa,, and Persia, and the East, and Judea,
and all the barbarian nations, adore also one Christ, and
observe the same rule of truth. If authority is sought for,
the world is greater than one city. Wherever there is a
Bishop, whether at Rome, or Eugubium, or Constantinople, or
Rhegium, or Alexandria, or Tanis, he is of the same excel-
lency, of the same Episcopate. The power of wealth and the
lowliness of poverty does not make a Bishop either less or
greater ; but they are all the successors of the Apostles.'
* Hieron. Op., Tom. 2. p. 221. Hieronymus Evagrio.
53*
Testimony of Jerome. 455
Again : " You 'assert," saith Jerome, " that the Church is
founded upon Peter, although the same thing is elsewhere done
upon all the Apostles, and all received the keys of the king-
dom of heaven, so that the strength of the Church is consoli-
dated upon them all alike ; nevertheless, on this account, one
is elected among the twelve, in order that a head being
constituted, the occasion of schism might be taken away."*
In his Commentary on the Gospel of St. Matthew, xvi., he*
saith, " On this rock the Lord founded His Church ; from this
rock, Peter obtained his name. The foundation which the
Apostle, as an architect, laid, is one, our Lord Jesus Christ.
Upon this foundation the Church of Christ is built."j
And again : " Peter, who received his name from the
firmness of his faith, in his epistle, saith, The presbyters
who are among you, I, who am your fellow-presbyter, be-
seech, feed the flock of the Lord among you, not as if by
constraint, but willingly. Here we show," continues Jerome,
" that with the ancients, presbyters and Bishops were the
same : but by degrees, in order that the plants of dissension
might be rooted up, the care of government was committed
to one. Therefore, as the presbyters know themselves to
be subject to him who may be set over them, by the custom
of the Church, so should Bishops know that they are su-
perior to the presbyters more by custom than by the truth
of the Lord's disposition, and that they ought to govern the
Church in common.":}:
From these extracts it is perfectly manifest that Jerome
was no believer in your modern Papal theory. For that
assumes an express grant of supremacy to Peter by Christ
* Hicron. Op. om., Tom. 2, p. 26, adversus Jovinianum.
f Ib. Op. om., Com. in Mat., cap. vii., v. 61.
$ Ib. Com. in Epist. ad Titum, cap. i.
456 Letter XXIV.
Himself, and to tlie Popes of Rome, as the Apostle's suc-
cessors, giving to the Church of Rome the title of mother
and mistress of all other Churches. Whereas Jerome treats
the headship of Peter as a measure of expediency, to guard
the better against schism ; considers the Bishop of Rome
to be of no greater authority than any other Bishop ; de-
clare^ that the rock on which the Church is built is Christ
tHimself ; and regards the superiority of Bishops over pres-
byters as a rule established rather by the custom of the
Church than of the divine arrangement. In this last point,
it is certain that Jerome was singular in his opinion, nor do
I profess to adopt it. But whether on that point he was
right or wrong, it is incontrovertible that he stood entirely
opposed to the modern claims of Romanism. Yet Jerome
stands on the list of your canonized saints, and the Canon
law of Rome calls him most blessed.
From Jerome I proceed to the still brighter name of St.
Augustin, and his testimony on the question before us will
be found particularly clear and decisive.
" I wrote a book," saith this prince of the fathers, " against
the epistle of Donatus, while I was a presbyter, in which I
said, in a certain place, concerning the Apostle Peter, that
the Church was built on him as on a rock. * * * But
I know that very frequently afterwards I expounded our
Lord's saying, Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will
build my Church, so that it might be understood to mean :
Upon him whom thou, Peter, hast confessed, saying, Thou art
Christ, the Son of the living God ; and so Peter, being
named from this rock, would represent the person of the
Church, which is built upon this rock, and received the keys
of the kingdom of heaven. For it was not said to him,
Thou art a rock, but Thou art Peter. THE ROCK WAS
Christ the Rock. 457
CHRIST, whom Simon having confessed, as the whole
Church confesses Him, was called Peter."*
The same true exposition is given by Augustine in many
other places. Thus, in his discourse upon the twenty-first
chapter of St. John's Gospel, he speaks as follows :
" Moreover, the Lord saith : Upon this rock I will build
my Church, because Peter had said, Thou art Christ, the
Son of the living God. Upon THIS ROCK, therefore, which
thou hast confessed, I will build my Church. For THE ROCK
WAS CHRIST ; upon which foundation Peter himself was
also built. For another foundation can no man lay besides
that which is laid, Christ Jesus. The Church, therefore,
which is built on Christ, received the keys of the kingdom
of heaven in Peter, that is, the power of binding aild loos-
ing sins."f
Again, Augustine expresses the same idea very forcibly in
these words : " And I say unto thee, Thou art Peter ; be-
cause I am a rock (petra), thou art Peter (Petrus), for the
rock is not from Peter, but Peter from the rock, as Christ
is not from Christian, but Christian from Christ. And upon
this rock I will build my Church : not upon Peter, which
thou art, but upon THE ROCK which thou hast confessed.
But I will build my Church ; I will build THEE, who in this
answer bearest the figure of the Church. "|
And equally conclusive against your Papal theory is the
comment of the same eminent father on the text in the Gos-
pel of St. John, Feed my sheep, which your modern Church
of Rome would persuade us to accept as a sufficient proof,
* S. Augustini Op. om., Ed. Benedict., Tom. 1, p. 23. Retract., 1, 1,
cap. xxi., 1.
t Ib. Tom. 3, Pars 2, p. 599.
$ Ib. Tom. 5, p. 764, E,
458 Letter XXIV.
that the whole Church, Apostles and all, were committed
to the pastoral care of St. Peter. " Feed my sheep" saith
Augustine : " I commit my sheep to thee. What sheep ?
Those which I have bought with my blood. I have died
for them. Dost thou love me ? Die, then, for them. And
truly as that hireling who was the servant of man should
give a price for the sheep that were lost, Peter gave his
blood for the sheep that were saved. But come, brethren,
I wish to say something for the present time. That which
was committed to Peter, that which he was commanded to
do, NOT PETER ONLY, BUT LIKEWISE ALL THE APOSTLES,
HEARD, HELD, AND KEPT, and chiefly that companion of his
martyrdom and of his natal-day, the Apostle Paul. They
heard these things, and transmitted them to us, that we
might hear them. WE FEED, THEREFORE, and are fed with
you. May God give us strength in such wise to love you,
that we also may be enabled to die for you, either in fact,
or in affection."*
The famous Chrysostom held the same doctrine with
Augustine, and likewise Isidore of Pelusium, with others, but
I shall not enlarge any further upon the evidence of the
fathers, since more than enough has been adduced to prove
their direct and positive incompatibility with the modern
claims of your Papal usurpation.
That those claims are entirely contrary to the early
Councils of the Church, it will be my next duty to estab-
lish. But it may be as well, before I proceed to this proof,
to remind you of the actual basis of your Roman supremacy.
For we have seen your own historian, Fleury, stating that
the Emperor Valentinian, A. D. 366, ordered that the Bishop
* S. Augustini Op. om., Tom. 5, p. 836, E. Serrno in Natali Apos-
iolomm Petri et Pauli.
Papal claims Condemned by the Councils. 459
of Rome, with his colleagues, should examine the causes of the
other Bishops* and this was the real commencement of the
power which afterwards grew up to such vast dimensions.
This very act, however, shows that the Church at large
could not at that time have acknowledged such a preroga-
tive ; since, if the Pope already possessed the right by a
DIVINE DECREE, as the successor of St. Peter, the imperial
mandate would have been quite unnecessary. I need iiardly
observe, that the appellate power is the chief branch of that
sweeping jurisdiction, which absorbs the whole authority of
the Church into the sovereignty of its Papal head, and
makes him, virtually, the Bishop of Bishops, and the king
of kings. And yet it is certain that the old Canons not only
yield it no support, but are altogether opposed to it.
Thus, in the ancient collection called the Apostolic
Canons, and also in the Apostolical Constitutions, there is
not a syllable recognizing your Papal- doctrine of the pri-
macy, but every Metropolitan Bishop is spoken of as the
equal of the rest. The general aspect of appellate jurisdic-
tion, even as late as the fourth century, is shown by the
Canons of the Council of Antioch, A. D. 341, as fol-
lows :
CANON XIV.
" If a Bishop be found guilty of crime, and it so happen
that the Bishops of his province differ, some holding him
to be innocent, and others guilty, the doubt shall be settled
by the Metropolitan of the neighboring province, who shall
call other judges to determine the controversy, and what-
ever shall seem just shall be approved by these and the
Comprovincial Bishops."
* Page 32.
19
460 Letter XXIV.
CANON XV.
" If any Bishop, accused of crime, shall be condemned by
all the Bishops of his province, so that all unite in the same
sentence against him, he shall not be judged by any others
in any manner, but the condemnation of the Bishops so
agreeing together shall remain firm."*
The Council of Sardica assembled six years later, and
there, for the first time, the old rule was attempted to be
changed, by giving a deposed Bishop a right to appeal to
the Bishop of Rome, who should direct a new trial, if he
thought proper. But the very language of this Council
shows that it was a novelty, introduced as a measure of ex-
pediency. And it was not even then proposed to make the
Pope a judge of the final decision, according to your mod-
ern system ; since the decree only put it into his power to
commit the case again to another set of Bishops taken from
a neighboring province.! The law of Valentinian, there-
fore, was the strongest basis for the Papal ambition to rest
on ; and hence, so far was the supreme judicial authority
of the Pope from having any claim to be considered as a
divine prerogative, in the general sentiment of the Church,
that it took its real rise from the secular power of the em-
peror.
Notwithstanding the act of the Council of Sardica, how-
ever, and the imperial grant of Valentinian, this novel as-
sumption was by no means acceptable to the Church, for
we find the first General Council of Constantinople, A. D.
381, passing a Canon, for the manifest purpose of curbing
the ambition of Rome, by confining the influential Bishops
of every diocese to their own jurisdiction. Thus it runs :
* Hardouini Concil. General., Tom. 1, p. 600. t Ib. 641.
Papal Claims condemned by the Councils. 461
CANON n.
" Diocesan Bishops shall by no means approach those
churches which are beyond the limits affixed to their dio-
ceses, nor confound them by their presumption ; but accord-
ing to the Canons, the Bishop of Alexandria shall rule only
those which are in Egypt, and the Eastern Bishops shall
only govern the East, those privileges being preserved
which the Canons of Nicea granted to the Church of An-
tioch. The Bishops of Asia also shall alone dispense those
things which belong to Asia, the Bishops of Pontus only
those which are in Pontus, and the Bishops of Thrace shall
govern those which are in Thrace."
" But Bishops who are not called shall not intrude to per-
form ordinations, nor to dispose of any ecclesiastical causes,
the rules being observed for each diocese which are above
written. For it is manifest that throughout all the prov-
inces the Provincial Synod should administer and govern
all things, according to the regulations of the Council of
Nicea." The Bishop of Constantinople ought to have the
PRIMACY OF HONOR with or after (Gr., fiera) the Bishop of
Rome, because that is the New Rome."*
The synodical epistle of this Council styled Jerusalem,
expressly, THE MOTHER OF ALL THE CHURCHES.! And
thus we see how the highest authority, namely, that of a
General Council, opposed the new assumption of appellate
power, sustained the independence of the provinces, and
even sought to keep down the arrogance of Rome by raising
the dignity of Constantinople.
I shall next notice the Council of Milevi, A. D. 402,
where the twenty-second Canon presents a similar check,
under a more stringent form.
* Hard. Concil. General., Tom. 1, p. 809.. t Ib. 826.
20*
462 Letter XXIV.
CANON XXII.
" If the presbyters, deacons, or other inferior clergy,
shall complain of the judgments of their Bishops, let the
neighboring Bishops hear them, and whatever may be liti-
gated among them, let it be concluded by these, with the
consent of their own Bishops. But if they desire to appeal
from this, let them not appeal, unless to the Councils of Africa,
or to the primates of their respective provinces. And if any
shall appeal to the transmarine Councils, let him not be re-
ceived intercommunion by any one in Africa."* Here we
have an express prohibition, evidently aimed at Rome, for
the Council was an African Council, and its president was
Aurelius, the Bishop of Carthage, and Italy was its nearest
transmarine diocese, where the energy of Papal ambition
was already beginning to be troublesome and dangerous.
In the year 419, we meet with the records of the sixth
Council of Carthage, held under Aurelius by 229 Bishops,
amongst whom was the Bishop Faustinus, the legate of the
Church of Rome . The proposition being made that the
Council should adopt the Creed and the Canons of the Gen-
eral Council of Nicea, and the Roman Legate having stated
to the assembly that he was instructed to request of the
Council this act of confirmation, the notary proceeded to
read the document which the Bishop of Rome had com-
mitted to the hands of his legate as the record of the Nicene
Council ; but instead of this, it proved to be the Canon of
the Council of Sardica, recommending an appeal in all cases
to the Bishop of Rome. The fraud was detected, however,
by Alypius, the Bishop of Tagasta, who said that he had
examined the Greek originals of the Council of Nicea, and.
* Hard. Concil. Gen., Tom. 1, p. 1221.
The Council of Chalcedon. 463
that no such Canon was found there. Therefore he prayed
that Aurelius might send to Constantinople for an authentic
copy of the acts of that Council, and that they should wait
until it arrived. This course was adopted, and so the trick
failed. But it is melancholy to see that, even at this early
period, so bold a scheme of pious fraud could be attempted
in the service of Papal ambition.*
We come now to the General Council of Chalcedon,
A. D. 451, where we find a declaration, unanimously adopted,
condemning, by anticipation, all the additions which were
afterwards brought into the Creed of Rome, and definitively
adopted in the Council of Trent, and the Creed of Pope
Pius IV., your modern standard. For after the Council of
Chalcedon had solemnly confirmed the symbols of Nicea,
Ephesus, and Constantinople, they passed the following stat-
ute :
" This holy and universal Council has decreed that no
one may profess, write, compose, or hold or teach to others,
any other Creed. And those who shall presume to compose
any other Creed, or profess, or teach, or deliver any other
symbol, if they be Bishops or clergy, they shall be strangers
from the Episcopate and the ministry ; and if they be monks
or laymen, they shall be anathematized."^
And in the twenty-eighth Canon of the same Council, we
read these words, which are perfectly conclusive against
the whole claim of your Papal supremacy :
" We determine and decree concerning the privileges of
the most holy Church of Constantinople, the New Rome.
For the fathers gave honor to the See of ancient Rome, be-
cause that was the imperial city. And one hundred and fifty
* Hard. Concil. Gen., Tom. 1, p. 1243.
t Ib. Tom. 2, p. 455.
464 Letter XXIV.
Bishops, beloved of God, moved by the same consideration;
have granted equal honor to the holy See of New Rome ;
rightly judging that the city which is honored by the em-
pire and the Senate, should enjoy equal privileges with the
ancient queen, Rome, in ecclesiastical matters also, and
should be extolled and magnified no otherwise than she is,
as the second after her, and that the Metropolitans of Pontus,
Asia, and Thrace, as well as the Bishops of those dioceses
which are among the barbarians, shall be ordained by the
said See of the most holy Church of Constantinople."*
Against this Canon, however, the legates of the Bishop
of Rome protested strongly, reading from their instructions
the express command of their master (who had good reason
to anticipate the course of the Council), that they should not
suffer his dignity to be violated or diminished in any wise.
Again, therefore, there was an attempt to impose a false
reading of the Council of Nicea. For the Papal Legate,
Paschasinus, recited what he called the sixth Canon of the
318 fathers, saying that the Church of Rome has always had
the primacy. And again, the attempted fraud was detected,'
and the true meaning given, which had no such words.
The decree was accordingly confirmed in .favor of the
Church of Constantinople, and we may readily imagine the
expressions of indignation and contempt with which the im-
pudent forgery was branded by the fathers. f But so little
do your rulers care for historical truth when it stands in the
way of their exclusive pretensions, that the same falsehood
is retained in your Canon law, in the name of the Council
of Nicea, to this day.
Let the reader now look at the contrariety between the
* Hard. Concil. Gen., Tom. 2, p. 612-13. t Ib. 638.'
Appeal to the Councils. 465
system of your Papal supremacy and the acts of these two
celebrated General Councils, the first of which was held in
A. D. 381, and the other in the middle of the fifth century.
Your writers maintain that the Pope is the supreme ruler of
the whole Church, by the appointment of Christ, as the
successor of St. Peter : whereas the Council of Chalcedon
declares that a primacy of honor was given to him by the
fathers, only because the city of Rome was the ancient me-
tropolis of the empire. Rome insists that this supremacy
is confined to the Pope : but both the Councils decree that
there is precisely the same reason for dividing it with the
Bishop of Constantinople. Rome claims that her superior-
ity is divine : the Councils declare that it is secular and
human. Rome calls herself the Mother of all the Churches :
the Council of Constantinople gives this title, with perfect
truth, to Jerusalem. Rome claims for the Pope a universal
appellate power : the Councils forbid appeals beyond the
Bishops of the adjoining province. Nay, we see by the
course of the Roman legates on two several occasions, that
the Bishop of that see did not even pretend, at that time, to
rest his assumed prerogative upon the grant of our Lord to
Peter, but only on the decrees of the first General Council
at Nicea, in A. D. 325, and therefore two fraudulent at-
tempts were made to impose false copies of that Council
upon the Councils of Carthage and of Constantinople, both
of which were detected and repelled. And yet your di-
vines pretend to appeal to the Councils' as well as to the
fathers, and continue to print the forgery of Nicea, in their
own copies of the ancient Canons, to the present hour !
Doubtless, however, this fact may suggest the charitable
hope that the mass of your clergy sin through ignorance
because they take the statements of their books for truth
466 Letter XXIV.
and have no access to the original documents of history.
They are blind leaders of the blind, and therefore they may
claim some palliation for their error. But many of your
leaders know better. And hence, I presume, the Jesuitical
rule, that the end sanctifies the means, is adopted through the
force of what they call necessity, and fraud and misrepre-
sentation seem to be pious, if they can be employed to se-
cure the yoke of the Papal system.
A few words must suffice to show the truth of my re-
maining charges, that the Papal claim is absurd in itself,
and historically fatal to Christian unity.
That one man should be placed over the whole world, to
be the judge, the ruler, and the sovereign dispenser of the
divine will to all mankind, as the vicar of Him who is
God as well as man, the true Head of the Church, the Lord
Jesus Christ, is a proposition which, properly considered, is
extravagant and incredible, because there is not, in the cir-
cle of mere human power, a possibility of fulfilling such a
multifarious and extended agency. Hence, even with the
assistance of seventy Cardinals, and limited to the concerns
of a single continent, the administration of the Papacy has
been*- constant course of delays, of injustice, of bribery, of
cruelty, of all manner of corruptions, as the pen of your own
Fleury has depicted it, anterior to the Reformation ; and
since then, its actual power has dwindled down to such a
trifle, that the comparison of its mighty claims with its ef-
fective performance has become simply ridiculous. In
point of fact, your Church has been regulated, for a long
season, by the local Bishops and priests, as fully, to all in-
tents and purposes, as if they had no superior. In point of
fact, these men are influenced by various and often con-
trary motives of expediency. In point of fact, the Pope
The Papacy fatal to Unity. 467
and his Cardinals have never been able to govern, in or-
dinary peace and constancy, for any considerable time, their
own city of Rome, nor to regulate by any available system
their fifteen principalities of Italy. And with all the ad-
vantages of cultivation and intelligence, high art, abundant
wealth, and controlling sacerdotal dominion, it is an un-
questionable truth that the territory of the Popes has been
one of the worst managed among all the States in Europe.
How preposterous, therefore, in itself, is the idea, that the
wisdom of God ever appointed such a power to govern the
world !
With regard to the last charge, that the Papacy, histori-
cally speaking, has been fatal to Christian unity, it is de-
monstrated beyond the reach of honest contradiction. It
was the Papacy which drove the Oriental Churches into
schism in the ninth century. Its path was marked ever
after by rebellions, insurrections, wars, persecutions, here-
sies, and hatred. Commissioned, according to its own the-
ory, to be the bond of peace and good-will to men, it was
usually occupied with the sword of slaughter, raised in the
defence of its temporal interests or its spiritual despotism.
And when the period of an extensive reformation came at
last, it was forced upon mankind, according to the acknowl-
edgment of your own chief friends, by priestly avarice,
priestly pride, priestly sloth, and priestly licentiousness.
All this has been shown sufficiently by the extracts from
your own historian ; and if the reader has forgotten them, he
must be thoroughly convinced by perusing the melancholy
details again.
And thus, I have assigned the evidence against this car-
dinal doctrine of Romanism. The Scriptures, the fathers,
the Councils, the character of the claim itself, and the voice
19*
468 Letter XXIV.
of history, concur in branding it with the title of Antichrist.
Nor is there a single quality connected with the Papal
usurpation, in its practical shape, which can recommend it
to the mind of any candid and enlightened man. Its theory
is specious, regarded as a centre of unity, in contrast with
the open strifes and dissensions of Christendom ; and. hence
. it is not wonderful that it has deluded a few credulous and
discontented proselytes from time to time. But when we
look into the facts of its history, through long ages of proof,
we find that, from the period when its- claims of domination
were consummated, there" has been no peace no real union.
On the contrary, war in all its forms, moral, intellectual,
and physical, has attended its fearful course ; and the worst
contentions of -th.e sec.ts, when contrasted with the career
of Popery, are seen to be no more than the angry disputes
of children, compared with the thunder of the battle-field,
and garments rolled in blood.
The claim of Rome, therefore, to apostolicity, grounded
on the PAPACY, is of all claims the most preposterous and
audacious. Your Church possesses this attribute in the
successions of her Bishops and her clergy, and in that por-
tion of her Creed which she derived from Scripture. And
that succession we also possess, purified from all corrupt
inventions, and restored to the standard of the primitive
Church. Hence we aver that we have this attribute of
apostolicity in a far higher degree than Rome, notwithstand-
ing the poor cavils which Dr. Milner raises against our
title. But these I shall reserve for my next letter.
END OF VOL. I.
.*V --^ r ir*
2- 11637
47 559 053
a
2-H637
Volun
ume 2
tlniversUv of Cbicogo
libraries
DURRETT COLLECTION
r
"THE END OF CONTROVERSY,"
CONTROVERTED.
OF
IN A SERIES OF LETTERS
ADDBESSED TO
THE MOST REVEREND FRANCIS PATRICK KENRICK,
Human Cattjoltt SlrcljiiisfiQji tf Sulttoare.
BY JOHN H. HOPKINS, D. D., LL. D.,
3SfsJ)op of
VOL. II.
NEW-YORK :
PUDNEY & RUSSELL, No. 79 JOHN-STREET.
STANFORD & SWORDS, 637 BROADWAY.
1854.
Entered, according to Act of Congress, in the year 1854, by
PUDNEY & RUSSELL,
in the Clerk's Office of the District Court of the United States for the Southern
District of New- York.
PUDNEY <fc RUSSELL, Printers, 79 John-Street, N. Y.
TABLE OF CONTENTS,
YOL. H.
LETTER XXV.
The validity of the Anglican Succession The Unchurching dogma
falsely assumed by Milner Episcopacy considered by the Reformers
and other standard divines of the Church of England as necessary, not
to the being but the well-being of the Church The necessity of circum-
stances Analogy of the Ten Tribes Milner's charge that the Church of
England denies the validity of lay-baptism Proved to be false The
consecration of Archbishop Parker Cranmer's private opinion of no
consequence The Nagg's Head fable The Episcopal character of
Bishop Barlow doubted The doubt refuted The whole of the four
consecrators of Archbishop Parker validly consecrated The- original
record The validity and regularity of this consecration acknowledged
by Fleury, Courayer, and Lingard,^all Romanists Milner's falsehoods
The mission of the English bishops denied Hilner claims that mis-
sion is voided by idolatry Corruption does not abolish lawful author-
ity The analogy of the bride Duty of faithful sons towards a faith-
less mother. Pp. 3 12.
LETTEE XXVI.
The story of Pope Joan Blondel and Bayle Examination of the
evidence for the story Similar cases of Eugenia, Theodora, and the
Chevalier d'Eon Evidence of the contemporary Anastasius, the libra-
rian Hincmar, Nicholas, Ado, the Bertinian Annalist, Photius, and
Metrophanes Agreement to suppress the fact "No conflict between
the witnesses Bower's inference from Hincmar inconclusive Evi-
iv Contents.
dence of the dates uncertain Positive evidence for the story Marianus
Scotus, Sigebertus, Martinus Polonus A Romanist should not doubt
the truth of oral tradition Local memory may suffice without a "writ-
ten record No possible motive for fabricating such a story two hun-
dred years after the time The first writer of the story an honest and
faithful monk No Protestants to gratify The statue erected The
processions avoided the spot The perforated chair General acquies-
cence for centuries in the truth- of the story Theodoric of Nerin
Another statue of Pope Joan in the Cathedral of Siena Still seen in
the time of Baronius Metamorphosed into Pope Zachary Removed
and broken up before 1677 Testimony of Antonius Pagi Testimony
of St. Antoninus, Archbishop of Florence Never questioned till the
time of Pius II. Sarau and Blondel "Why Pope Urban did not turn
away from the place Summary of the argument on both sides Pre-
ponderance of evidence in favor of the truth of the story No theologi-
cal importance to be attached to it Inconsistency of Milner in scout-
ing the story of Pope Joan, while he pretends to believe in the absur-
dity of tlie Nagg's-Head ordination. Pp. 13 23.
LETTER XXVII.
Missions Success or failure of modern missions has no proper place
in theological controversy Rapid spread of Mahometanism Rapid
progress of the Reformation Mormonism Milner's character of Romish
missionaries Carnal weapons employed to propagate Romanism
Policy of Jesuit missionaries Miner's objection that there are no mar-
tyrs among Protestant missionaries The apostles did not court mar-
tyrdom St. Augustine, of Canterbury, no martyr The monks of Ban-
gor The Jesuit martyrdoms in distant lands, if true, probably resulted
from the same causes that produced their expulsion in Europe Their
compromises with heathen idolatries Dissipation of their boasted con-
quests Expulsions, dissolution, and restoration of the order Milnei-'s
misrepresentation of the Society for the Propagation of the Gospel, and
the Moravian missions British and Foreign Bible Society "Work of
the S. P. G-. since its foundation, in 1701, in the colonies of North
America, the "West Indies, Newfoundland, Guinea, Sierra Leone, the
Canadas, Cape Breton, New Brunswick, New South "Wales, and Nor-
folk Island Also in India, China, and Australia, though Milner had
heard nothing of its doings Permanency of the work Operations of
the Bible Society The Scriptures early translated in the primitive
Church Rome has done comparatively nothing of this in modern days
Contents.
Summary of the defence of the Church of England The surest and
the safest "way of salvation. Pp. 24 35.
LETTER XXVIK
The true office of the Church as the interpreter Milner assumes it
to be impossible that she should inculcate idolatry, superstition, or
other error This argument refuted Analogy of the Church of Israel
Rome both a true Church and a false Church Milner's distinction
between articles of faith and scholastic opinions Authorized liturgy
and unauthorized devotions This rule must work both ways It neu-
tralizes Milner's attacks on the Church of England He declares that
the divines of the Church of England did not believe their own asser-
tions Archbishop "Wake and Dr. Dupin The whole story The con-
troversial works of English writers said never to unsettle the faith of
Romanists Because they are not allowed to read them Implicit con-
fidence in their priests Protestant violence procures some converts to
Rome A thousand times as many have left Rome for England Euro-
pean Romanists emigrating to America Dr. Milner preaching " Thou
ehalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor !" Pp. 36 42.
LETTER XXIX.
Examination of the doctrines rejected by the Church of England at
the Reformation Invocation of Saints Implied omnipresence of the
Saints Milner's explanation, from God's omnipotence His statement
of the Roman doctrine He withholds the real doctrine of Rome
This fully stated from their books of devotion True Piety, the Prayer
of St. Bernard, the Rosary of the Blessed Virgin The Assumption and
Coronation N~ovena to the Infant Jesus The image of the Bambino
at Rome The Immaculate Conception of the Blessed Virgin The
Devotion to the Sacred Heart of Mary An angelical exercise All
power both in heaven and earth said to be given to the Virgin Festi-
vals to the Virgin a parody on those to Christ Romish account 'of her
burial, preservation from corruption, and reception into heaven Our
Lady's Psalter Specimen of prayers to other Saints Prayer to St.
Aloysius The Litany of St. Joseph Bellarmine says the Saints are
gods by participation Divus The classic Apotheosis reproduced in
the modern Canonization Prayer to a guardian angel All this Milnor
denies to include any act of worship. Pp. 43 5Y.
71 ' Contents.
LETTER XXX.
Evidence of Scripture and the primitive Church concerning angel and
saint- worship Rome makes the Blessed Virgin a sharer, if not an ab-
solute rival, in the powers and graces of the Saviour and the Holy
Spirit This proved Borne carries it into every possible particular
Yet all this is called mere invocation Even if so, how can she hear so
many millions at once without ubiquity ? Said to be revealed to her
by God himself Analogy of an earthly king The Roman theory a
mere absurdity The popular idea attributes to the Saints a universal
presence, one of the attributes of God alone This is the first branch of
Roman idolatry The attributes of God are incommunicable The
angels not omnipresent Omniscience another attribute of God The
Virgin regarded as practically knowing all things This is the second
branch of Roman idolatry The third ascribes to her omnipotence, all
power both in heaven and earth Wot said to be inherent, but ac-
qtiired Yet she is believed to possess it Christ Himself possessed it
only by the hypostatic union of His human nature with the Eternal
"Word Miner's inconsistent rhapsody Sublime and consoling privi-
lege How many petitions the Blessed Virgin hears (or receives by
revelation) daily, hourly, momently The attributes of God alone suffi-
cient for this The true doctrine infinitely more sublime and consoling.
Pp. 5868.
LETTER XXXI.
The Apostles and the Fathers not on the side of Rome The whole
Scriptural proof claimed is from the Angelic Salutation "Full of grace,"
not so correct a translation as "thou that art highly favored" The Roman
translation of the same word fn another place agrees with ours
" Blessed among women" refers only to the Saints below The same said
of Jael, and of Israel As Mother of our Lord, we, also, call her Blessed
" All power, both in heaven and earth," is another thing Our Saviour
never calls his Mother by any title but woman " "What have I to do
with thee ?" Our version . again justified by the Romish in a similar
place The miracle at Cana Admitted harshness of our Lord's ex-
pression Our Lord foresaw the coming superstition Christ's tarrying
behind at Jerusalem His rebuke to Joseph and Mary Yet St. Joseph
is addressed by Rome as the ruler, governor, and saviour of his Lord
"Behold my Mother and my brethren" No special pre-eminence at-
tached to the earthly relationship "Rather blessed are they that hear
Contents. vii
the Word of God and keep it" " "Woman, behold thy son" Majesty
of the God in man, even in death Negative testimony of Scripture
The Blessed Virgin nowhere interferes, or- counsels Almost nothing
further recorded of her Milner's claim that the Roman doctrine came
immediately from the Apostles before the New Testament was written
The testimony of the primitive Church disproves this St. Augustine
In his time the Virgin not styled the " Mother of God" He held her
to be a sinner, needing to be saved by the death of her Son Difference
between honoring the Saints and worshipping them St. Basil Pope
Leo Pope Gregory the Great St. Epiphanius against the Collyridians
Against the Assumption also St. Isidore of Seville Superstition
already begun The ancient Liturgies The Clementine Liturgy The
Liturgy of St. James The Liturgy of St. Mark The Liturgy of St.
Chrysostom The Liturgy of St. Basil The Ethiopian Liturgy The
JSTestorian Liturgy The Liturgy of Severus St. James, the chief of
Bishops The old Roman Missal does less honor to the Virgiu than
some of the others ; no Sail Mary, nor is she entitled Immaculate The
Sacramentary of Pope Gregory the Great contains no address to the
Virgin or the Saints Service for the Festival of the Assumption-: Sum-
mary of proof drawn from all these quotations The Fathers held that
the Virgin was not Immaculate ; that Saints were to be honored, not
worshipped ; and that the story of the Virgin's death, resurrection, and
assumption, were unknown at the end of the fourth century Gradual
growth of superstition as proved from the Liturgies The primitive
Church prayed for the Virgin, not to her QedroKos, Deipara The Or a
pro nobis not adopted before the beginning of the seventh century
Differences between Roman doctrine then and now formal idolatry
not charged upon the Church of Rome Latria, Doulia, and Hyper-
doulia Idolatry in substance may exist without idolatry in form The
Church of England renders all due honor to the Virgin, acknowledges
her to be Blessed, and ectiroKo;, or the God-bearer, according to the
Council of Ephesus Milner's misrepresentations of the Fathers St.
Irenaeus St. Justin the Martyr St. Basil None of all these prove
Milner's doctrine The passages quoted by him critically examined
Irrelevancy False translation Spurious epistles referred to by him
as genuine Pious fraud Summary of Miner's patristic proof. Pp.
69101.
viii Contents,
LETTER XXXTL
Images and Relics Milner's statement of Roman doctrine, and his
proofs in support of it from Scripture, and the members of the Church
of England He claims only relative or secondary veneration for these
memorials of the Saints Historical use He acknowledges that the
memorials of religion form no essential part of it Milner's omissions in
stating the Roman doctrine supplied The doctrine as defined by the
Council of -Trent The Decree of the second Council of Nice in the year
'ZS'Z The representation given by JMilner proved from these to be
wrong, both in -what it asserts and what it omits Images required,
tinder anathema, to be adored -with kisses, incense, and lighted candles
Veneration for relics proved from the Breviary Relics of St. Isidore,
St. Ubald, St. Januarius, St. Francis Xavier, the images of the Virgin at
Ancona and Mercatello Milner's Scriptural proof examined The
corpse touching the bones of the Prophet Elisha A particular act of
Divine Power, not a standing system The reference to ancient Israel
unfortunate for Rome No images or relics of Moses, Elijah, Elisha,
Miriam, Deborah, Jael, and Hannah Nelmslitan Veneration not paid
to the Ark, but to the Shekinah upon the Mercy-seat The woman
healed of her issue of blood, not by Christ's garment, but by the Lord's
will and her own faith The use of aprons and handkerchiefs had power
"by the prayers of living Apostles Relics are only of the dead St.
Stephen carried by devout men to his burial, not preserved for relics
All this pretended Scripture proof weak and flimsy Bowing to the
throne in the English House of Lords The vacant throne not a relic
No prayers addressed to it, or benefit expected from it So of kneeling
to the Sovereign Royal etiquette Bowing at the name of Jesus The
name of Jesus not an image, or a relic Bowing the head is a true act
of worship to Christ himself Kissing the Bible, or a miniature, or a
letter In these cases no incense, no lights, no prayers, no hope of re-
ceiving benefits, or of deliverance from evils No fault found with paint-
ing and sculpture as memorials merely No objection to relics as simple
memorials of persons or events The primitive Church entirely hostile
to Rome on these points Clement of Alexandria Jerome The Council
of Eliberis Ambrose Augustine Epiphanius He tears the painted
veil at Anablatha Cyril of Jerusalem Optatus Pope Gregory the
Great patronizes images, but carefully prohibits their being worshipped
His letter to Serenus, who had destroyed the images Slow but steady
progress of image-worship and papal power together Gregory IIL
still stronger in favor of images Prayers addressed to the Saints
Contents. ix
Images, not as affor&ng instruction, but as exciting devotion The
Second Council of Nice in 787 decrees the very thing condemned by
Pope Gregory I., using the same word This Council not general Its
decision opposed to Scripture It did not truly represent the mind of
the Church The decrees of the Council at Constantinople in 754-, con-
sisting of 836 Bishops, and those of the Council of Frankfort in 794,
opposed to the Second Council of Nice The Caroline Books True
Catholicity condemns image-worship Practical abuses Relics in Eng-
land at the time of the Reformation The miraculous Rood of Grace
Comparison of offerings in Canterbury Cathedral to Christ, the Virgin,
and St. Thomas a Beckett The false skull of St. Thomas worshipped
The same traffic carried on at this day in Romish countries More
of Milner's misrepresentations Engraving of Christ, as the good
Shepherd, on ancient Chalices But it was not adored with kisses, salu-
tations, candles, aud incense The miraculous image of brass said to
have been seen by Eusebius The whole passage quoted The image
said by Eusebius to have been erected by the heathen, and he calls the
paying honor to it, a heathen custom Milner also interpolates the word
miraculous This is a testimony against, rather than for, Rome The
worship of the Cross not to be confounded with the use of the sign of
the Cross The Council of Trullo in 706 forbids crosses in floors
Omission of the Second Commandment in ordinary Romish Catechisms
Splitting the Tenth into two, to keep up the number Artifice of Mil-
ner's reply A mere trick The fact undeniable. Pp. 102 130.
LETTER XX
Transubstantiation Statement of the Roman doctrine Statement
of the true doctrine Milner claims that the Romanist cannot be guilty
of idolatry, even if Trnnsubstantiation be not true, because the object
of his worship is Christ His analogy of the mistaken courtier, and of
the people who thought John the Baptist to be the Christ These anal-
ogies shown to be incorrect and sophistical The argument itself an,
absurdity Placing idolatry not in the fact but in the intention, no
such thing as an idolater would be possible All idolaters intend to
worship a true God Transubstantiation more revolting to all ideas of
the proper majesty of an incarnate God, than any other form of idola-
try Idolatry a question of fact The golden-calf worshipped as the
true God The intention cannot save Transubstantiation from the
charge of idolatry Consubstantiation Silent change of doctrine
. VOL. IT. 1*
Contents.
among the Lutherans No worship of the elements practised Nothing
to fear, theologically or politically, from Consubstantiation The
alleged Transubstantiation at the marriage of Cana of Galilee A mira-
cle which contradicts the senses is an absurdity. Pp. 131 136.
LETTER XXXIV.
The doctrine of the Holy Eucharist, as stated in the catechism of the
Church of England The positions taken by 'Milner The charge of
disguising the real meaning is untrue The definition of a Sacrament
The outward part committed to the priest, the inward conferred by
Christ himself Neither contradiction nor inconsistency The word
Sacrament often used for the outward sign alone Carping at nothing
Milner's ridicule of the variations of. the English liturgy What are
they in comparison of the variations in the Roman liturgy ? Miloer's
justification of Eoman doctrine from the sixth chapter of St John's
Gospel Some of the most important verses omitted by. him St.
Augustine's Commentary Destroys the idea of Transubstantiation
Milner's argument from the words of Institution The Fathers in-
terpret these words figuratively and spiritually St. Augustine on the
similitude, which bears the name of the thing itself The analogy of
Baptism This applied by Augustine directly to the elements in the
Eucharist All the other Fathers teach the same Tertulliau Cyprian
on the signification of the mingled wine and water Irreconcilable with
Transubstantiation Jerome Dr. Milner claims Ignatius, Origen, Cyril
of Jerusalem, and Ambrose Multitudes of passages in apparent agree-
ment with Roman doctrine Explained by the received rule of lan-
guage Such passages determine nothing certainly Examination of
Milner's quotation from St. Ignatius From Origen Further testimony
from Origen Ambrose Conversion no Transubstantiation Extract
from the Liturgy as used in the time of Ambrose Cyril of Jerusalem
Full view of his doctrine inconsistent with Transubstantiation
Cyril's comment on the Liturgy Isidore of Seville on the water and
the wine His definition of a Sacrament Folly of the Roman analogy
of a masked prince The Second Council of Nice conclusive against
Rome The previous Council on images at Constantinople Paschasius
Radbert, about the year 859, first teaches Transubstantiation Opposed
by John Scot The work of Ratram Opinions allowed to fluctuate for
a couple of centuries Berenger compelled to recant in 1079 in a Coun-
cil at Rome He retracts his forced recantation The Council of Trent
Contents. xi
forbids the interpreting of Scripture against the unanimous consent of
the Fathers That consent is "with England, and against Rome. Pp.
137161.
LETTER XXXV.
Roman boast of literal adherence to Scripture A figure necessary,
nevertheless The literal expression not the real meaning The chalice
a figure, for what it contained So in the words, This Cup is the New
Testament in My blood This is My Body Representative meaning of
the verb to be Quotations from the Old and New Testaments in the
Douay version, in which the verb to be is acknowledged to have a figu-
rative, representative, or symbolical meaning Incongruity compels the
same interpretation here Divine omnipotence no fair solution of the
difficulty No spiritual advantage gained by the doctrine of Transub-
stantiation No greater validity given by it No Transubstantiation in
Baptism It adds to the priests, but not to the Sacrament Transub-
stantiation not a triumph of faith properly so called Faith reasonable
Faith above, but not in contradiction to, the senses Argument of
Tertullian Evidence of Transubstantiation is not in Scripture, nor in
the primitive Church, nor in the senses, nor in the reason, nor in its
utility, nor in analogy with Baptism ; in other words, belief in it is not
faith, but credulity The doctrine of the Real Presence In the proper
spiritual sense, the Real Presence never doubted The presence of
Christ none tiie less real because spiritual, but rather the more so
Milner's unfair quotations from English divines Hooker His full
view from the same book Statement of the doctrine as. taught by the
standard, divines of the Church of England Virtue of consecration
Milner's flimsy analogies The Jews not at all deceived by their
senses in regard to their unbelief of our Lord's deity What they
saw, they saw God could not be seen with the eye of sense The
patriarchs not misled by their senses The forms they saw were really
assumed The eyes of the disciples holden on the road to Emmaus
Milner says that there is no essential connection between our sensations
and the objects which occasion them Unreasonable and impious
Transubstantiation involves not a mystery, but a contradiction Not
necessary to know the essence of matter and space The Transfigura-
tion no proof of Transubstantiation, for it was apparent to the senses
Christ standing by St. Paul in the castle of Jerusalem Milner's last
argument, that God fills all space, and is whole and entire in every
particle of matter Pure Pantheism Destroys Transubstantiation in-
xii Contents.
stead of proving it Residence of the soul in the human body Food
transubstantiated into flesh and blood But not until evidenced to the
senses So with the change of the infant to the man, and the resurrec-
tion of the dead None of these arguments or analogies has the slight-
est weight. Pp. 162183.
LETTER XXXVI.
Communion in one kind Claimed to be a matter of changeable dis-
cipline The Church has authority as the interpreter of Scripture, only
as the whole Catholic Church, not a divided portion No action by the
whole since the great schism between the East and the "West The
whole Catholic Church has no power to change an express precept of
Christ Drink ye ALL of this The change sanctioned first by the Coun-
cil of Constance in 1415 The language of its decree The Council ac-
knowledges the primitive practice to have been otherwise Manicheans
refused the wine, and were condemned by Pope Leo the Great in 450
At the Council of Chalcedon, Bishop Ibas complained of for furnish-
ing an insufficient supply of wine for the people at the Eucharist The
Council of Bracara, in 675, condemns all irregularities in regard to the
wine The Council of Clermout, in 1095, requires both the elements to
be received separately The constitutions of Richard Poore, Bishop of
Salisbury, in 1217 New laws required by Transubstantiation Certain
dangers and scandals, occasioning the withdrawal of the Cup Sucking
the wine through a tube Milner's argument considered He acknowl-
edges the institution under both kinds The Eucharist said to be a
sacrifice, a victim, present, mystically immolated, and the priests alone,
as priests, were to drink, and not the laity The Eucharist a sacrifice
In what sense this is true The Roman theory requires the victim to
be only mystically immolated The true doctrine as taught by St. Au-
gustine The Eucharist a commemorative sacrifice We offer ourselves
That the Apostles were told to drink, all of them, as priests, cannot
be ; for by Roman usage all the priests present do not drink, but only
the consecrator Twelve persons cannot unite in consecrating " Break-
ing of bread" does not imply communion in only one kind Even on
Roman ground, there can be no Eucharist unless there be a consecra-
tion of both elements Milner claims St. Jerome, St. Augustine, and St.
Chrysostom as in favor of his opinion, but prudently gives no reference
He claims also our Lord's breaking of bread at Emmaus This was no
more sacramental than the miracle of the loaves The same language
used of both Dishonest reference to Bishop Porteus "Breaking of
Contents. xiii
bread" admitted to refer to the Eucharist, but not admitted to be a de-
scription of the mode in which it was celebrated Parallel between
Milner and Priestley The Socinian the more honest of the two Milner
imputes a heresy to the Apostles themselves Jesuitically conveying a lie
without absolutely telling it Whoever shall eat this Bread or drink
the Cup of the Lord unworthily Mere matter of discipline from primi-
tive times, not true The Bread alone taken home, not a Catholic, but a
local, custom Milner himself builds his argument on doctrine The
change of doctrine into Transubstantiation caused the change of disci-
pline None of the Oriental Churches denies the Cup The Sacrament
shows forth the Lord's death- 1 Therefore the elements must be received
separately Transubstantiation destroys the fundamental design of the
Sacrament The mode of administration naturally destroyed also The
command of Christ himself no matter of mere discipline Necessity no
law Martyrs saved, without Baptism, though Baptism with blood in-
stead of water is no true baptism Milner confounds the rule with the
exception The rule of the Church of England the same with that of
the Council of Clermont, in 1095, with Pope Urban II. at its head The
new rule of the Council of Constance a flat contradiction It contradicts
Popes and Councils, Fathers and Apostles, and even Christ himself Soli-
tary Masses Condemned in the Capitular of Theodulf, in 797 And in
a Council held by order of Charlemagne, in 813 And in another collec-
tion of Canons And in the Sixth Council of Paris, 'in 829, and many
others Yet the Council of Trent anathematizes all who say that they
are unlawful Dissolving views The clergy forbidden to take money
for Masses by the Councils of Clermont, Rome, Toledo, Rheims, two
Councils of London, the Second General Council of Lateran, and the
Council of Trent Yet payment universally required, even from the
poorest Purgatorian societies Personal incident If Masses are not
paid for, they do no good The Church of England truly catholic- The
sacraments given without money and without price. Pp. 184209.
LETTER XXXVLT.
The Mass considered as the sacrifice of the new law The doctrine of
Rome, that it is a true, proper, and propitiatory sacrifice offered by the
priest for the living and the dead, the Church of England calls " a blas-
phemous fable and a dangerous deceit" Milner's definition of a sacrifice
False and perilous definition Not Christian, but deistical Cain and
Abel -Scriptural use of the word sacrifice It includes every offering
xiv Contents.
of faith to God !N"ot confined to the immolation of animals or sensible
things It is granted that in the Eucharist there is a sacrifice, and a
true sacrifice, but not an animal sacrifice, or a propitiatory sacrifice, or
the sacrifice of a sensible thing It is a spiritual sacrifice The pro-
phecy of Malachi truly verified in the Christian Church The great
sacrifice under the new law The proof of the true interpretation of
Malachi, given from the Fathers Tertullian Clement of Alexandria
St. Augustine St. Augustine's beautiful sermon on Easter-day, ex-
planatory of the Eucharist and its elements Totally irreconcilable
with Transubstantiation St. Augustine's definition of sacrifice St.
Jerome St. Isidore of Seville on the sacrifice of the Eucharist His
explanation of the meaning of the elements No one denies the Eucha-
rist to be a sacrifice The question is, What kind of sacrifice ? Sursum
Corda The word Mass an innovation Dr. Milner claims all the Eastern
Churches as agreeing in this doctrine with Rome Assertion more easy
than proof Seven reasons showing that Eastern practice is no justifi-
cation of Rome Milner's attack upon the "inconsistencies" of the
Church of England She has priests, but no sacrifice ; altars, but no
victim ; an essential consecration of the elements, without any effect
upon them True meaning of the word priest It is both uptvs and
xpsirpvTcpos, both Sacerdos and Preabyter Sacrifice, properly under-
stood, renders the distinction unnecessary Sacerdotium and Sacerdotal
Altars do not necessarily imply a victim Altars of incense, altars
of memorial or testimony, altar in heaven Altar as defined by St.
Augustine, St. Jerome, and St. Isidore of Seville Ara and Altare
Milner's notion thus inconsistent with Scripture and the Fathers
Romanists themselves have no actual' victim The Council of Trent as-
serts Him to be only mystically immolated, and defines the Mass to be
that whereby Christ's " bloody sacrifice once to be perfected upon the
cross might be represented,' and its memory might remain to the end of
the world" Immolation is only represented, under visible signs But
this is not having a real victim Milner's reproach of " altars, but no
victim," therefore, recoils upon his own Church Consecration of the ele-
ments Before consecration they are common After consecration they
are the outward and visible signs of an inward and spiritual grace
Milner's charge not only false but absurd Analogy of holy water and
Chrism The doctrine of Rome a blasphemous fable and dangerous
deceit Blasphemous as injurious to the majesty of the Son of God, as
arrogating His authority for an act of profanity, and as subjecting the
glorious Saviour to the control of the priests All aggravated by curs-
ing those who hold the pure truth of the Holy Scriptures and the au-
Contents. xv
cient Fathers It is a deceit, as claiming an actual Victim, -while it pre-
tends only to a mystical immolation It is, moreover, dangerous both
to priests and people Language severe^ but necessary in answer to
such a coarse and unscrupulous libeller as Milner. Pp. 210 238.
LETTER XXXVIH
Auricular Confession Common ground of agreement Repentance,
confession, and absolution necessary to salvation Rome has added the
Sacrament of Penance Change of the Scriptural term repentance
The integral parts of Penance are Contrition, Confession, and Satisfaction
Contrition . alone blots out sin, but seldom sufficiently intense De-
ficiency of intensity made up by aid of the priest Confession as defined
by the Catechism of the Council of Trent Rules as to the age, the fre-
quency, the sins, the secrecy of Confession Satisfaction Prayer, fast-
ing, and alms-deeds Satisfaction by proxy The power of the priests
really to absolve from sin No pardon to be obtained, or even hoped for,
without Penance The 21st Canon of the Fourth Council of Lateran in
1215 Change of the form of Absolution The true point of controversy
Not in the necessity of contrition, confession, restitution Not as to
the power of remitting sins, an essential part of the inward and spiritual
grace of the two sacraments But in the private tribunal of compulsory
judgment The differences between Rome and England in ten points
Rome's idea of Christian liberty The Apostolic power of forgiving and
retaining sins to be exercised through the Sacraments The Apostles
held the keys of the kingdom of heaven Opening the door, and closing
it again The Apostles had no private confessional Testimony of the
Fathers The passage quoted by Milner nothing to the purpose Ter-
tullian proves nothing Nor Origen. Basil refers only to the Monks
St. Augustine spoke of public penitence, and public absolution The
true doctrine of the Fathers Tertullian Public penitence, and only
once Penitence of the heart Athanasius Augustine Three kinds of
penitence Condition of the Church then similar to the present No
compulsory private Confessional Fleury's acknowledgment that com-
pulsory Confession began with Chrodegang in 763 Absolution given
before penance fulfilled ; first by Boniface, the Apostle of Germany
Penitentials Commutation of penance for money Penitences rendered
impossible by cumulation Fleury condemns the Council of Trent The
old canonical rules utterly destroyed by the Crusades The Roman
system without warrant from antiquity Milner's boasting Transports,
xvi Contents.
joy, and comfort Pride of heart, or strength of intellect, no preservative
against error Influx of credulous barbarians Adoption of heathen
days and festivals Corruption not owing to any deliberate design on
the part of the clergy Pious frauds The world getting into the
Church The spirit of accommodation Public penance changed to
private The Fourth Council of Lateran was no shock to the mind of the
Church No resistance to it The Confessional no safeguard against any
sin, except leaving the communion of the Church of Rome Practical
working among the people How much time to each penitent to confess
a year's sins of thought, word, and deed No priest can do justice to all
his flock Strange and mournful mockery Impossible for the sinner to
remember a whole year's sins The system of the Church of England
-infinitely superior The discipline of the primitive Church retained
"What the Church of England does not do Excess of transport and joy
no proof of truth. Pp. 239272.
LETTER XXXIX.
Indulgences Milner declares it a sacrilegious crime in any person to
be concerned in buying or selling them Fleury says the Plenary In-
dulgence took the place of wages to the Crusaders Leo X. and St.
Peter's Indulgences notoriously a matter of open bargain and sale
throughout Europe Milner silent about all this Of this " sacrilegious
crime" Popes, Councils, Cardinals, and Bishops were all guilty for four
hundred years together Milner compares the selling of Indulgences
to Judas selling his Master He compares it with the selling of bene-
fices in England Milner always ready to strike boldly and confidently,
whether the spot be vulnerable or not Policy of this unscrupulous
Jesuitism Milner'a statement of the Roman doctrine Eternal and
temporal punishment both due to sin The former expiated by Christ,
the latter by Satisfaction as a portion of Penance The Church, spe-
cially the Pope, has jurisdiction over this satisfaction, and can remit
it in whole or in part by an Indulgence This statement entirely lame,
insufficient, and delusive Nothing said about purgatory, or the treasury
of works of supererogation Benefits expected from Indulgences Their
sale highly lucrative Public traffic only discouraged as too open a
scandal Milner talks of the Indulgences of the Church of England!
Canon of the Commutation of Penance Indulgences in the celebration
of marriage No commuting of penance without payment of fees Petty
and contemptible parallel for the enormities of Papal Indulgences The
Contents. xvii
Silk-worm a parallel for the Anaconda The true character of an In-
dulgence proved from the Pope's Bull for the jubilee of 1825 Here is
the whole matter Indulgences not granted for nothing Plenary In-
dulgence in this country may be had on nearly half the days in the year
It is always, however, a cash transaction How escape Milner's charge
of sacrilegious blasphemy ? The people give the gift ; the priest gives
the Indulgence Abundant supplies of Indulgences sold everywhere
Decree of the Council of Trent concerning Indulgences Moderation to
be observed Wicked merchandisings to be altogether abolished No
pains at all taken to prevent this detestable simony All who do not
agree to the Council's novelties are anathematized Leo X. naturally
confident as to the tenure of power The merchandisings not very
wicked, for none of the agents were ever punished for their faults in
selling then Forty-six years had elapsed since Tetzel's abuses until
the Council of Trent passed its decree Protestant censure has done
more to reform the Church of Eome than the Council of Trent. Pp.
273284.
LETTER XL.
Purgatory and prayers for the dead Milner's unwarrantable assump-
tion that the admission of the latter proves the former Purgatory in-
cludes prayers for the dead, but prayers for the dead do not include
purgatory The intermediate state Hell, or the place of departed
spirits Milner gives no definition of purgatory All that is "necessary
to be believed on the subject" purgatory, a well-known term Milner
dishonestly claims the Fathers, and all the Oriental Churches, as teach-
ing the Roman doctrine Material fire The first prayer-book of Ed-
ward VI. contained a special prayer for the departed Many Anglican,
divines in favor of such prayers Rhetorical flourish Faith rests not on
natural, but on revealed religion Examination of Milner's argument
in detail Full statement of the Roman doctrine of purgatory The
strongest basis of priestly power over the Laity No danger of any one
coming back from purgatory to disprove the Pope's claims Masses for
the dead pay better than for the living Scriptural proof Text from the
Second Book of the Maccabees Not canonical Scripture-^-The passage
proves too much for the Roman doctrine The slain soldiers died in the
mortal sin of idolatry, which would carry them past purgatory Sacri-
legious to pray for them at all " Baptized for the dead" in 1st Corin-
thians Marcionite heretics St. Chrysostom's interpretation The same
sviii Contents.
given by the Eomish annotator on Tertullian The Douay Bible gives
three explanations of the text, not one of -which is sustained by the
Fathers Yet Milner says that the case is " clear" from this test He
states that the Jews to this day pray for the dead Jews are no author-
ity for Christians Even so they do not believe in a purgatory Inter-
mediate state held by the Fathers from the Scriptures, and therefore
also by us " Till thou payesfc the very last mite" This is against the
Romish notion of purgatory, where the poor soul can pay nothing for him-
self, but all must be paid by others for him " Saved, yet so as by fire"
" The day of the Lord" is the Day of Judgment, before which time,
according to Roman doctrine, purgatory is to be closed The sentence
spoken of to be delivered after the resurrection St. Paul applies the
fire to men's works, Rome to their souls Saved " so as by fire," meana
"as a brand from the burning," with great difficulty "Saved" cannot
mean merelj' an alleviation or shortening of pain in one who was sure
of salvation at any rate St. Paul uses fire as a comparison ; purgatory
uses the fire itself "Not forgiven, either in this world or in the world
to come" Not implied in this that sin will be forgiven in the world to
come If this be implied, our Lord taught what Rome calls heresy It
is not sin, but only its temporal punishment, that is expiated in pur-
gatory Sin is forgiven by the priest's absolution in the Confessional
Roman distinction between the eternal and the temporal punishment
of sin List of texts quoted by Milner in favor of this notion The case
of Adam Of Israel and the Golden Calf Of David, both in regard to
Bathsheba and the Numbering of the People The incestuous Corin-
thian Contrast between St. Paul's action and that of the Pope The
Fathers Confession of the Benedictine editors of St. Ambrose Un-
certain, various, and inconsistent, for 1400 years Neither the Bible nor
the Fathers, Rome's real authority Development and the Modern
Church St. Chrysostom The quotation continued by way of answer
to Milner's use of it No disguise as to the opinion of the Fathers Two
remarks 1. The Liturgies of the fifth century pray/w the Virgin and
Saints ; was it to deliver them from the pains of purgatory ? 2. Love
of the brethren enjoined, and mutual remembrance, whether gone be-
fore or yet in the flesh This remembrance is refreshment and joy to
the blessed in Paradise Founded in the instincts of human nature
This commemoration retained in our Prayer for the Church Militant
This has nothing to do with purgatory Prayer for others does not imply
that they are in suffering Universal duty of prayer The connecting
of purgatory with prayer for the dead is at war with primitive practice
and the reason of mankind Tertullian Cyprian speaks of public
Contents. xix
penance, not purgatory Fleury's interpretation Augustine and his
mother Monica Not the slightest hint of purgatory Passages in Au-
gustine showing the beginning of the Roman notion Heathen or Pla-
tonic ideas Virgil Augustine never speaks of it as a Catholic truth
Augustine's comment on " saved yet so as by fire" He states the
notion of purgatorial fire as uncertain His doctrine as to the value of
prayers and offerings for the dead Contradicted by the Pope's Bull
Other proofs from the Fathers Irenseus Tertullian Ambrose
growth of the notion of purgatory The Summa of Aquinas The Coun-
cil of Florence Nothing then strictly defined Dispute as to fire
Forced consent of the Greeks at the Council of Florence in regard to
this matter Faithful conformity of the Church of England to Scrip-
ture, and the substantial practice of the primitive Church Com-
memoration of the dead in the communion and burial offices Specific
private prayers for the dead nowhere condemned How far such
prayers attain their object known only to God No certainty of the
result of prayers for the living Unauthorized superstition Satisfac-
tion derived from the sympathy of Christian affection The author no
advocate for the practice of prayer for the dead Objection to their re-
introduction. Pp. 285 326.
LETTER XLL
Extreme Unction See Letter XIX. Whether the Pope be Anti-
christ A question left by the Church of England entirely to the pri-
vate judgment of individuals Milher ridicules the idea that prevailed
among the Eeformers The character of Antichrist belongs pre-emi-
nently to the Papacy Milner's argument delusive and unsatisfactory
Variation among Protestants as to the time when Antichrist arose
A fact is none the less true, simply because the time when it
happened is not settled Pope Gregory the Great's opinion as to the
forerunner of Antichrist Arnulphus, Bishop of Orleans Fluentius,
Bishop of Florence The Abbot Joachim of Calabria Waldenses
Kings and Cardinals No invention of the Reformers The only question
is, "Whether. the Pope deserves the title? Milner argues the absurdity
of supposing Rome to have fallen away, while she maintains all the
Creeds The adulteress must be a true wife The " temple of God" to
be the seat of Antichrist The Pope's confessor The Pope not Anti-
christ as a man, but as a sovereign Proof that the marks of Antichrist,
as described in Scripture, are found in Popery 1. The "falling off"
xx Contents.
admitted by Fleury 2. The man of sin " revealed," or made manifest,
by plain acts of history 3. Antichrist " opposeth and is lifted up above
all that is called God, or that is "worshipped, so that he sitteth in the
temple of God, showing himself as if he were God," which is true of
Popery 4. Popery is " according to the working of Satan, in all power,
and signs, and lying wonders" 5. It " makes war with the Saints" 6.
It agrees with the mystical number, 666, Aarcfoof, Latin Not a topic
to be chosen Its discussion forced upon the author by what Milner had
written. Pp. 327334.
LETTER XLH.
The Pope's supremacy See Letters XXIII and XXIV. Milner
disclaims the idea that the Pope has any civil or temporal supremacy
No sucli jurisdiction is claimed by him beyond the States of the
Church Milner disguises the real claim of deposing princes and similar
acts as a branch of his spiritual supremacy " to feed and govern the
whole Church" with full power English Anti-Popery oath ingeniously
good for nothing Milner's idea of a Christian Republic, of which the
Pope is the head Contrary to facts, and to Papal principles also The
Church a republic in primitive ages, and with us it is so still The
Pope has nothing republican about him Pure despotism of Gregory
VII. Two great lights Kings and princes acknowledged the claims of
the Pope only when it suited them, or when they could not help it No
city in Europe so often taken and pillaged by Christian armies as Rome
Milner declares that, in later ages, the deposing power of the Pope
has been generally withdrawn Not withdrawn in lo'ZO Bull of Pope
Pius deposing Queen Elizabeth Nothing republican in the claim to be
a prince by divine right over all kingdoms and peoples, with plenary
authority The sun and moon, the Pope and Emperor The Roman
Canon Law as laid down by Boniface VIII. "Necessary to salvation"
for every creature to be subject to the Roman Pontiff "When or where
withdrawn? Not in 16S2, nor even in 1S09, when Pope Pius VII. ex-
communicated Napoleon Ultramontane and Cismontane Views Papal
infallibility stated by Milner to be merely a scholastic question
Whether the Pope is spiritual head of the Church, and centre of Catho-
lic unity? The title Papa, given originally to all Bishops Primacy of
honor conceded by certain eminent Protestant writers to the Pope, pro-
vided he held the truth, and regarded the rights of his brethren This
only an hypothesis A primacy of honor would never satisfy the Pope
Resemblance of the primitive Church to the constitution of the
Contents. xxi
United States Steps in the growth of Papal power Romish Repub-
licanism Appointment of Cardinals unrepublican Practical despotism
in Church affairs Nothing of old times lacking, but the power Our
Church truly a Christian Republic Construction of our Conventions,
diocesan and general Powers of the laity Our Bishops not lords over
God's heritage, but servants of Christ. Pp. 335349.
LETTER XLIIL
Bishop Kenriclrs book on the Primacy of the Apostolic See, in reply
to the author's work on the Church of Rome Roman view of " Thou
art Peter, and on this Rock I will build My Church" Mass of evidence
for the contrary view left untouched by Bishop Kenrick Certain that
St. Peter was not the Bishop of Rome at his death Testimony of Ire-
nasus that Linus was the first Bishop of Rome, and made so by St.
Peter and St. Paul Eusebius says the same Even if St. Peter pos-
sessed a primacy, it would not pass, by consecration merely, to Linus
Absurdity involved in the very idea St. John subject, on the Roman
theory, for thirty years, to the supremacy of Linus, Anaeletus, and
Clement St. John totally silent on any such authority over him The
theory of Rome disproved by history The primacy so essential to
the unity of the Church, has been the chief cause of disunion Only the
declension of the Papal power has produced more of peace among
Romanists since the Reformation The Fathers testify to nothing more
than a Primacy of Honor Very different from a supremacy of juris-
diction The evidence against Rome unshaken by Bishop Kenrick'a
book Small verbal criticisms upon translations Quotation from Ire-
nasus vindicated in a pamphlet The chain of proof necessary to sup-
port the claims of the Papacy St. Peter's supremacy of government
and jurisdiction over the other Apostles must be proved from Scripture,
which can never be done Primacy of Honor the most that can be in-
ferred from Holy "Writ West, it must be proved that St. Peter's seat
of government was at Rome, and that he transferred all his power and
prerogatives, by Divine command, to all his successors in that See,
which involves an absurdity, and is in direct contradiction to St. Paul
The Roman assumption, that St. Peter was for seven years Bishop
of Antioch, and then for twenty-five years Bishop of Rome, irreconcil-
able with Scripture Opposed also to the statements of the older
Fathers Lastly, the twenty-eighth Canon of the Council of Chalcedon
is fatal to the whole hypothesis The Pope's refusal to sanction it ia
xxii Contents.
no disproof, for no one ought to be the sole judge in his own cause
The Papal theory thus not only unproved, but disproved In making
it an .article of faith, Rome stamps herself as Antichrist Satan's
temptation of sovereignty over all the kingdoms of this -world, and the
glory of them Progress of Popery to power The gradual decay of
that power since the Reformation Steadily growing strength of the
Church of England. Pp. 850357.
LETTER XLIV.
The Liturgy in an unknown tongue Milner's justification, that it is
the people who have forgotten their ancient language This does not
apply to the Sclavonic, Teutonic, Celtic, and many other races The
high-priest going alone into the tabernacle is no model for the public
worship of a Christian congregation The translations used by the
laity only made since the Reformation The people not allowed to
respond St. Paul's denunciation of praying in an unknown tongue
Milner says that no allusion is made in the whole chapter to the public
Liturgy ! The empty pretence that an unknown tongue is necessary
for Uniformity, Decency, and Order Three arguments more 1. St.
Paul wrote an epistle to the Romans in Greek 2. The Jewish Liturgy
continued to be in Hebrew after Chaldaic became the vernacular The
Hebrew not properly a dead language 3. The Greek Church retains
the ancient Greek Liturgy, though not intelligible to the people The
ancient Greek not unintelligible True reason of retaining an unknown
language Omne ignotum pro magnifico Latin more acceptable to
God, as the language of the priests Mystery Babylon the Great
Aareivos The Liturgy of the Church of England is for the people
The Church of Rome undervalues the Scriptures, and prohibits the use
of them Milner calls this a wicked calumny Rome does not value
them as the complete rule of faith and morals Oral tradition substan-
tially destroys the proper authority of Scripture Rome teaches, b"e-
sides the gospel, "another gospel," notwithstanding St. Paul's ana-
thema This is the Usurpation of Antichrist Analogy of the judges of
the Civil Law Innovations established as articles of faith Milner as-
serts that the Scriptures are not prohibited to any of the laity who
can read them in their original tongues, or in the Latin Vulgate This
was a virtiial prohibition to the vast majority for a thousand years The
permission of the priest confessed to be necessary before reading the
Bible in the vernacular An attestation of piety and docility required
Contents.
Turning the reading of the Bible into poison Preaching open to the
same objection The priests have caused more scandals than the Bible
Restricting the use of the Word of God another claim to the name ot
Antichrist The real reason of this restriction omitted by Milner It
is the most perilous of all things to the falsities and corruptions of
Rome Burning the Bible Opposite course of the Church of England.
Pp. 358370.
LETTER XLV.
Various misrepresentations The intention of the priest essential to
the effect of the Sacrament Miner's inefficient defence Mimicking or
mockery of a buffoon Impious or irreligious priests The wickedness
of the ] nest does not destroy the validity of the Sacraments as to the
faithful receiver The intention of the priest a part of his personal
piety Celibacy of the Clergy The second Council of Carthage, Epi-
phanius, and St. Paul The true question The Rule laid down by St.
Paul, not-withstanding his personal preference This is the Divine Law
General clerical incontinence the result of its violation Celibacy a
state, not of greater perfection, but of greater temptation Some
amendment since the Reformation The " vile, hackneyed calumny"
about not keeping faith with heretics Proved by history Milner
says that more princes were deprived of the whole or a part of their
dominions by the Reformation, than the Popes had attempted to de-
pose during the preceding 1500 years Utterly false The wars on
the Continent caused by Rome's refusing liberty of conscience The
Reformers did not attempt to force their opinions by the sword The
Pope was the assailant in these wars for Christian liberty Specimen
of the Roman system in the Bull of the Pope deposing Queen Elizabeth
Milner tries to shift the responsibility from the Roman Church to the
personal account of individual Popes Absurdity of this The power
claimed as inherent in their office from the time of Gregory VII.
Declaration of the clergy of France in 1682 The claim never aban-
doned to this day. Pp. 3*71 378.
LETTER ZLVL
Miner's assertion that the Church of Rome expressly disclaims the
power to punish heretics with penalties, imprisonment, tortures, and
death He refers to Gregory I. and previous writers, in whose time his
xxiv Contents.
assertion was true ID the ninth century some heretics burned alive
This became the established law throughout Europe During this time
the Pope, Bishops, and Priesthood had the greatest influence in mak-
ing the laws Milner's attempt to get rid of the Fourth Council of La-
teran He says there were temporal persons present, who passed de-
crees of a temporal nature Reply to this contemptible quibble The
acts of the Council authorized by the votes of the prelates alone The
laity have no formal power in Romish Councils Milner says the main
work of the Council was to extirpate the Manichaean heresy ; that the
decree was never enforced, except against the Albigenses ; and that it
was never published or talked of in the British islands Hardly a word
of truth in this The true objects of the Council The third Canon
against every heresy Mosheirn's testimony unwisely referred to by
Milner No account of the Albigenses, except from Roman writers
True summary as to the Council ofLateran Action under the canon of
this Council in England The bones of Wickliffe and his followers
The Confessional enjoined by this same Council enforced in England
Smithfield in the reign of Queen Mary Milner " unanswerably demon-
strates" what is notoriously untrue Queen Mary was made a Perse-
cutor by her Church James II. did not lose his crown in the cause of
toleration, but in an attempt to restore the Papal bondage Milner says
that the Pope cordially receives Protestants No Protestant worship
allowed, nor any Protestant burial with religious rites permitted, in
Rome Milner's assertion that persecution was more generally prac-
tised and more warmly defended by Protestants than by the Church
of Rome Persecution a fixed principle with Rome Made obligatory
by Popes and Councils England long in discovering and practising on
full religious toleration Severe laws necessary, at first, in self-protec-
tion Dangers of England from Papal power and intrigue The Papal
deposition of the Queen, and absolving her subjects from their allegi-
ance All this concerned the secular government The Church could
not interfere No act of the Church of England ever authorized perse-
cution Enormous difference between the two Churches Comparison
of the two Romish persecution only needs the power to revive. Pp.
379391.
LETTER XLVn.
Summary of evidence brought forward in this work in favor of the
Church of England The true facts of the English Reformation as
proved by Romish writers Milner's axioms as to the rule of faith
Contents. xxv
accepted Scripture, as interpreted solely by private judgment, proved
not to be the rule of faith of the Church of England ; but Scripture, as
interpreted by the primitive Church The Church more of a living
teacher with us than with Rome Analogy of the corruption of the
ancient Church of Israel Similar corruption foretold by the inspired
Apostles Historical sketch of the actual progress of corruption from
Romish authorities The Rule of Faith Scripture as interpreted by the
Church The Canon of Scripture and the English version The Four
Notes of the Church All found more clearly in England than in Rome
i Worship of the Blessed Virgin and the Saints, relics, and images
Purgatory, indulgences, celibacy^ auricular confession Anti-Christian
papal sovereignty and persecution Holy Scripture and real Catholicism
.fully vindicated Dr. Milner's reputation committed to Archbishop
Kenrick, his special admirer His public call to us to read Milner's End
of Controversy Proof that we have read it Impossible to avoid strong
language Kindly personal feelings Rome not formally separated from
the original Catholic Church But schismatical and heretical in con-
demning and anathematizing us Rome has departed from the Apostolic
system, both by taking away from, and by adding to, the truth These
errors made articles of faith Errors in faith obstinately and pertina-
ciously maintained are heresies All refusing to accept them anathema-
tized No return to pure Apostolicity to be expected from Rome
Prophecy declares otherwise Crumbling away of Papal power towards
its end The Romish Laity becoming too enlightened for their priests
Thousands of Romanists would rejoice to see the Church of Rome
reformed after the model of the Church of England. Pp. 392 398.
VOL. n. 2
rf Cmtta&mg,
LETTER XXV.
MOST REVEREND SIR :
I HAVE now gone over the four marks of the Church, de-
rived from the Nicene Creed, where we profess to believe
in it as One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic. And I trust that
I have not only asserted, but proved, the superiority of our
claims, on every point, by evidence which any candid mind
will deem clear and incontrovertible. It remains that I
dispose of the arguments by which Dr. Milner, in his 29th
letter, attempts to impugn the validity of our succession ; and
this, as I believe, will be easily done, to the entire satisfac-
tion of the unprejudiced reader.
My first duty, however, must be to point out some gross
misrepresentations which your favorite author scatters, in
his usual style, on the track of his sophistry. Thus, on
page 201, he asserts that the Church of England unchurches
all other Protestant communions, which are without the
apostolical succession of Bishops. Whereas, on the con-
trary, not only does Hooker, whom he quotes on the previ-
ous page, but all the Reformers, together with Jewel, An-
drewes, Usher, Bramhall, and, in a word, the whole of her
standard divines, agree in maintaining that Episcopacy is
Letter XXV.
) not necessary to the being, but only to the well-being, of the
Church ; and hence they grant the name of Churches to _all
-^denominations of Christians who hold the fundamental doc-
- trines of the Gospel, notwithstanding the imperfection and
irregularity of their ministry. This imperfection and ir-
regularity arose, in the first place, from the calamity of the
times, since Luther, Calvin, and Zuinglius had no Bishops,
and were therefore compelled either to reform their respec-
tive Churches Avithout them, or not reform at all. While
Denmark and Sweden were favored with the means of con-
tinuing the apostolic element of Episcopacy, and England,
especially, enjoyed the privilege of counting her Bishops
amongst the leaders in the Reformation. And hence, the
Church of England excused the entrance of men into the
ministry in a novel form, from the supposed necessity of cir-
cumstances, and acknowledged them as ministers of Christ,
de facto, if not strictly de jure ; likening their case to the
condition of the ten tribes in the time of the Prophets
Elijah and Elisha, when the faithful worshippers of God
were still regarded as His people, although they were cut
off from the regular system of the priesthood and the taber-
nacle which were in Jerusalem. This allegation of Dr.
Milner, therefore, is founded on anything but truth. And
it is not easy to believe that he was ignorant of his error,
because the contrary is apparent in the Thirty-nine Articles
of our Church, and in the whole strain of her acts and his-
tory.
The next gross misrepresentation of your unscrupulous
advocate is on the same page, where he alleges that the
Church of England, in A. D. 1575, "unanimously resolved
that baptism cannot be performed by any but a lawful minis-
ter." The change to which he refers, however, was only
the omission of a direction, given in the Prayer-Book origi-
Validity of Lay-Baptism.
nally, that any of the laity might baptize, in case of neces-
sity ; and stating in the Rubric for the future, that a lawful
minister should be called to administer that sacrament, but
without pronouncing any opinion against the validity of lay-
baptism. On the contrary, the Church of England has al-
ways held the doctrine of the ancient fathers and Councils
on that point, that a baptism, performed with water in the
name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost,
is valid, although, with regard to the administration, it may
be irregular. Indeed, it is but a few years since this whole
question was brought up in England, in the celebrated case
of Mastin vs. Escott. A clergyman of the Established
Church refused to bury a child who had been baptized by
a Methodist minister, on the ground alleged by Milner,
that, according to the doctrine of the Prayer-Book, it was
not baptized at all. But the Ecclesiastical Court con-
demned the clergyman to be suspended, and vindicated the
true teaching of the Church, in precise accordance with
the old and settled law, which your own Church holds as
we do.
Passing by the quotations of Dr. Milner from Luther,
Wesley, &c., on the question of Episcopacy, with which
we have nothing to do, I come now to your author's pre-
tended doubts as to the consecration of Archbishop Parker
in the reign of Queen Elizabeth. The opinion of Cranmer
to which he refei-s is quite irrelevant to the point at issue,
because it is certain that it had no place in the system of
the Church, nor in any of her standard writings. It was
expressed in a private answer to a private question, and in-
volved, at most, an abstract notion as to what might be done
in case of necessity, and not what ought to be done in the
regular course of ecclesiastical order. But the facts which
your advocate alleges are important, and amount to an im-
Letter XXV.
peachment of Archbishop Parker's consecration, on the
ground that it was an irreverent act, performed at a tavern
in Cheapside, called The Nagg's Head, by men who were
not Bishops themselves, and by a defective form of conse-
cration ! This mean and ridiculous story was first hatched,
with a multitude of other lies, by the unprincipled Sanders,
and repeated, on his authority, by more respectable men,
who made a merit of using any means, however foul, to dis-
credit that Church which was the most formidable enemy
of Popery.
Dr. Milner, however, does not venture to endorse the
miserable falsehood altogether. He drops the story of the
tavern, and contents himself with doubting the Episcopal
character of Barlow, one of the four Bishops who officiated,
and the sufficiency of the form laid down in the Ordinal of
Edward VI. In answer to all such cavils, the following
statement will be a sufficient refutation :
First, then, it is absurd to imagine that Queen Elizabeth,
a sovereign who particularly observed magnificence and
state in all public transactions, would tolerate such a wanton
contempt of religious order in the consecration of the high-
est officer in her kingdom, the Archbishop of Canterbury,
and the Primate of all England. And no less absurd is it
to imagine, that the men whom she thought worthy to act
on such a solemn occasion could so far descend below the
level of common decency, and that, too, at a time when the
observant eyes of Rome, and I may add- of all Europe, were
fixed upon every step which they should take in the work
of Reformation. The very extravagance of the story refutes
itself. It is a gross and vulgar lie, framed by a gross and
vulgar mind, and intended to work upon the vulgar and ig-
norant mass of the population.
Secondly, two of the consecrating Bishops, Barlow and
Nagg's-Head Fable.
Coverdale, were Bishops in the reign of Henry VIII. , and
were consecrated by the form of the Church of Rome, so
that Dr. Milner can find no fault with their authority. This
fact is expressly stated by Bishop Burnet in his confutation
of Sanders. (Vol. 4, App., p. 471.)
Thirdly, the Ordinal of Edward VI. was sufficient, be-
cause the essence of ordination consists in the laying on of
hands for the office, and the other rites appended to it by
the Church are variable, and in effect have been often
changed, the Apostles having left no precept nor example
binding their successors beyond the requisites which I have
mentioned. The other two Bishops, therefore, had been
consecrated with perfect validity. And with respect to
Parker himself, it is plain that he was presented, in the words
of the record itself, to be consecrated Archbishop, and there
is no dispute that he received the imposition of hands. But
besides all this, the questions and answers of the Ordinal
which determined the office definitively, and the prayers
and suffrages, the exhortations, the administration of the
holy Eucharist all are set down, showing the utter empti-
ness and folly of the objection.
Fourthly, we have the original record of the transaction,
in Latin, drawn up with the utmost precision, showing that
he was consecrated on the Lord's Day, Dec. 17, 1559, in
his chapel at the Archiepiscopal Palace of Lambeth, which
was richly adorned for the occasion, and setting forth the
whole imposing ceremonial, from first to last, with all the
care of a practised notary.*
Fifthly, your own Roman historian, who was the continu-
ator of Fleury, though he notices in the margin the book of
Le Quien, written against the English ordinations, never-
* Bp. Burnet, Collection of Records, App. to History of Reforma-
tion, vol. 4, p. 432.
8 Letter XXV.
iheless accepts the record as worthy of all confidence, and re-
peats all its details precisely, without the slightest attempt
at depreciation.
Sixthly, Father Courayer, a learned and candid priest of
your own Church, who resided some time in England, took
the pains to investigate the matter, and published a volume
which vindicated the truth against the absurd and malignant
cavils of some amongst his brethren.
And seventhly, your Roman Catholic historian, Lingard,
not only stated the matter rightly in his elaborate work, but
afterwards published a separate account of the evidence, to
defend his own diligent research, and disabuse his fellow-
Romanists of the old imposition.
It is humiliating to se'e Dr. Milner, in the face of such
evidence, struggling to make out his objection by saying
that " the record of Barlow's consecration has been hunted
for in vain during two hundred years ;" that " the learned
Catholics," fifty years after the consecration of Archbishop
Parker, " universally exclaimed that the Register of that
transaction was a forgery, unheard of till that date ; and
that, admitting it to be true, it was of no avail, as the pre-
tended consecrator Barlow, though he had sat in several
Sees, had not himself been consecrated for any of them."
But the audacity of such falsehoods can impose on no one
who is not already predetermined to yield his reason to the
calumnies of any Romanist, without the slightest regard to
evidence or probability. Who ever heard before of people
that had been hunting for a record during two hundred years ?
And how should they expect to find the record of Barlow's
consecration in the time of Henry VIII. , after the reign of
the bigoted Queen Mary had put it in the power of the Ro-
man Bishops to destroy every trace of those private records
which, in their eyes, were only the monuments of heresy ?
Idolatry does not void Mission.
And when, since the world began, did it happen that a man
should be able to occupy several Episcopal Sees, without
ever being consecrated for any of them? Or by what rule of
proof shall the regularly enrolled record of Parker's conse-
cration be called a forgery, without the slightest attempt to
show who could have committed such a crime, why it should
have been committed, or how the imposture could have
availed to give him his public and acknowledged rank in
the face of the whole nation ? Truly, it is hard to say
whether an assault upon the facts of history like this, is
most to be admired for its amazing contempt of common
sense, or its audacious effrontery. The only apology which
I can imagine for the author is suggested by the fact that
he belonged to a class of men who are accustomed to ac-
cept, in its broadest signification, the maxim, " I BELIEVE,
BECAUSE IT IS IMPOSSIBLE."
The next argument of Dr. Milner is directed against our
ministry, on the ground that, even if they possess a valid or-
dination, yet they cannot have the apostolical succession of
mission or authority : first, because our Homily asserts that
" for eight hundred years, the laity and clergy, all sects and
degrees, were drowned in abominable idolatry ;" and if such
was the condition of the Church, she could not retain her
divine mission and jurisdiction during all this time, so as
to commission her ministry to preach. And secondly, be-
cause the Church could not possibly give jurisdiction and
authority to the English Reformers to preach against her-
self.
This argument is- ingenious, but totally unsound, since it
confounds the real authority of your Church, in those things
which vsrere good and true, with her pretended authority to
perpetuate corruption and idolatry. The answer^ therefore,
is very easy, when the distinction which I have already
VOL. n. 1*
10 Letter XXV.
explained in the previous volume is properly understood.
For the being, the duties, and the powers of the Church, are
neither more nor less than the Gospel of Christ has commit-
ted to her. I have said that the Church of Rome still retains
the true faith of the Scriptures, and by virtue of this, has
authority to commission the ministry for the purpose of
propagating the same faith to the end of the world. Thus
far she is a true Church, and thus far she could give mis-
sion and authority. But she never received from her di-
vine Lord and Master the right to preach falsehood, super-
stition, and idolatry, and therefore she never had His au-
thority to commission others to preach them. Her power
to act for Christ extends no farther than the word of Christ,
and when she opposes His word, directly or indirectly, she
does it not by right, but by fraud and unfaithfulness. Thus,
the adulteress has power to order her children according to
the known will of her husband, but she has no power to
command them to approve her crime against her marriage
vow, much less to insist that, because she is their mother,
they are bound to aid and defend her in her acts of infidel-
ity. And therefore when they discover that she is an adul-
teress, it is their duty to remonstrate with her, and endeavor
to persuade her to return to the path of rectitude. And
when they find her hardened and irreclaimable, asserting
her innocence in the face of the clearest proof, assaulting
her sons with violence, and driving them away with curses
from her table, do they any the less inherit the property
which the common ancestor of the whole family entailed to
his offspring forever ? Can she with any justice deny their
claims, only because they are faithful to the rights and
honor of their father ? Can .she say to them, ?' You charge
me with being unfaithful ; yea, some of you have said that I
was drowned in sin against my husband before you were
Duty of Children to a false Mother. . 1 1
born. If this be so, you cannot be my children at all.
For I would not have brought you into the world, and sus-
tained you up to manhood, in order that you should now ac-
cuse me of impurity ?" Such an argument, it is manifest,
would be an absurdity. The crime of adultery could not
prevent her being a mother, nor deprive her lawful offspring
of their rights. It could only operate on them by making
it their duty to stand by their father's authority, and justify
their separation from their mother by the necessity which
her sin and her cruel despotism had forced upon them.
Even so it was between the Church of Rome and the
English Reformers. She was the covenant bride of Christ
by virtue of the original faith of the Gospel, which she
had never cast away. As such, she had a right to bap-
tize her sons, and give them valid Orders and valid mis-
sion. But when they discovered that she was a spiritual
adulteress, by a recurrence to the Scriptures and the pure
days of primitive Christianity, they renounced, as in duty
bound, their participation in' the sin which they had ig-
norantly defended, and endeavored to bring back their
Mother to her first pure faith. Instead of acknowledging
her crimes, she boldly maintained them by appealing to
false traditions, threatened her reformed sons with her
vengeance if they dared to proclaim the truth, drove them"
from her communion by her anathemas, and brought as
many as she could lay hands on to the torture and the
flames. It was. beyond her power, however, to take from
them the authority which they rightfully possessed as the
commissioned priests and Bishops of the Church of Christ,
because it was conferred lawfully, in accordance with her
proper powers, and could not be nullified by the associa-
tion with corruptions and idolatries, the falsehood of which
was not known at the time. And therefore they continued
12 Letter XXV.
to exercise it none the less, but rather the more, since the
command of Christ, their Father and their Master, obliged
them to bear testimony against the notorious sins of their
mother, the Papal Church, as the only way by which the
whole family of Christ could be reclaimed to the truth and
simplicity of the Gospel, and guarded against her corrupt
and perilous influence.
The End of Controversy, Controverted. 13
LETTER XXVI.
MOST REVEREND SIR :
THE 30th letter of Bishop Milner is devoted to a brief
refutation of what he calls the exploded fable of Pope
Joan, and much more largely to the evidence in favor of
your Church, which he supposed may be fairly derived
from the great extent and vast success of her missionary
enterprises. These must, therefore, be my next topics of
consideration.
With regard to the first, viz., the history of Pope Joan, it
has become fashionable to call it a fable ever since the
Protestant Blondel, and the critic and philosoper, Bayle,
published their refutation. The story is, that in the earlier
part of the ninth century, an English girl, of twelve years
old, being seized with a strong passion for a young monk,
put on male attire, left her father's house, and obtained ad-
mission into the same monastery, where she became dis-
tinguished for her progress in learning, and all the outward
marks of sanctity ; that after some years she left the
monastery with her paramour, travelled extensively, greatly
increased her store of knowledge and her skill in disputa-
tion, and finally took up her residence at Athens, where
her lover died ; that from Athens she went to Rome, and
attracted universal applause by her talents and acquire-
ments, which were the more esteemed on account of her
remarkable zeal and piety; that here, having perfectly
preserved her disguise (which was the more easy because
n
L ' i ' , ' . ', / '^
14 Letter XXVI.
the ecclesiastics of Rome wore no beard whatever), she
was elected Pope by the name of John VIII. , after the
death of Leo IV., and held the See for two years and five
months ; that she was then discovered by the pains of labor
overtaking her, as she was walking in a public procession,
between the Coliseum of Nero and the shrine of St. Clement,
and there her child and herself died, or, as some authors as-
sert, the child alone, while the mother was consigned to a
dungeon ; that Benedict III. succeeded her, A. D. 855 ;
that her name was erased from the list of Popes and from
the contemporary chronicles, as the whole fact was so hu-
miliating to the dignity of the Papal office ; that in order to
guard against the possibility of such deception in future, the
rule was adopted and kept up for seven hundred years, that
every newly elected Pope should be placed in a perforated
chair, called stercoraria, and that his sex should be modestly
and quietly ascertained from the back of that chair by the
hands of the youngest Cardinal Deacon ; that a statue was
erected on the spot in detestation of the imposture ; and
that no Pope nor public procession ever passed over the
place where the catastrophe occurred until A. D. 1367,
when, as Fleury has already informed us, Pope Urban broke
through the custom, and destroyed it.
The evidence for and against this curious narrative is
worth examining, for I am by no means convinced that it
should be called a fable, if we are to be guided in history
by any of the usual rules of proof. Against it we are told,
first, that such a deception is impossible. That this, how-
ever, is an error, is easily proved by other cases of a -simi-
lar kind, the truth of which is not disputed. Thus, Eu-
genia, daughter of the Governor of Alexandria, in the reign
of Gallienus, disguised herself so as to gain admission to a
monastery of monks, and was even made their Abbot; and
Pope Joan. 15
she would have been undetected to the hour of her death, if
she had not revealed the truth, to save her character from
the charge of licentiousness with a woman of ill-fame, and
free her brethren from the scandal. So, too, Theodora of
Alexandria, having erred in her youth, resolved to conceal
the sex she had disgraced, and hide herself in a monastery.
She was admitted accordingly, and closed her days without
suspicion of disguise, till the truth was ascertained after her
dissolution. In modern times we have had a far more ex-
traordinary case, namely, that of the Chevalier d'Eon,
equerry to Louis XV., who, after passing the first forty-nine
years of his life with great eclat as an advocate, an author,
a military officer, and a diplomatist, the last fourteen of
which were spent in London, adopted the strange notion of
playing the woman, put on female attire, and wore it till his
death, in A. D. 1810, with the universal belief of the com-
munity that he was what he pretended. Yet the physicians
who dissected his body bore testimony that he was a man,
after all. A large number of similar examples might -be
furnished, of the first sort especially, and hence it is plain
that there is nothing in this objection.
Next we are told that the story cannot be true, because
the book of Anastasius, the librarian, who wrote the Pon-
tificate of Benedict III., and was living in Rome at the
time, says nothing of it, but states, on the contrary, that
Leo IV. was presently (mox} succeeded by Benedict.
With him agrees the testimony of Hincmar, Bishop of
Rheims, Pope Nicholas, the successor of Benedict III.,
Ado, Archbishop of Vfenne, the Bertinian Annalist, and
likewise the Greek writers, Photius and Metrophanes, all
of whom were contemporaneous, and precisely alike in the
statement of, the Papal succession.*
* Bower's History of the Popes, vol. 4, p. 241.
16 Letter XXVI.
This is the real point of argument in the case, and there
is no other. But it is answered by the allegation on the
contrary side, that it was agreed by the influential heads of
the Church to suppress all notice of the strange and dis-
graceful fact, because it could do no possible good to hand
it down to posterity, and would rather tend to the ridicule
of religion. That the impostor could not be entitled to a
place on the list of the Popes, because her sex disqualified
her. That this principle being admitted, there was no vio-
lence done to the truth of history in omitting her altogether.
That the two eminent prelates of the East, Photius of
Constantinople, and Metrophanes of Smyrna, could have no
interest in refusing to follow the lead of Rome on such a
subject, but rather avoided, as a matter of policy, inserting
a useless scandal, which would be taken as an offence, and
only serve to aggravate the growing discord between their
respective Churches. That, in fine, the testimony, prop-
erly considered, is no testimony at all, because it does not
meet the case. It only asserts that Benedict III. succeeded
Leo IV., which was true, on the proper hypothesis that
Joan was no real Pope, but an arrant impostor. And there-
fore there is no actual conflict, after all, between the wit-
nesses.
It is proper to state, however, that Bower, who is a per-
fect unbeliever in the history of this false Pope, regards the
evidence of Hincmar as conclusive. For he quotes that
Archbishop as saying, in a letter to Pope Nicholas, that he
had sent envoys to Rome, who, hearing on the road that Leo
was dead, pursued, nevertheless, their journey, and arriving at
Rome, obtained of Benedict the privilege which they were sent
to demand. From this, Bower argues that the woman Joan
could not have stepped in between Leo and Benedict for
two years and five months, unless the envoys of Hincmar
Pope Joan. 17
are supposed to have been all that time on their journey.
But this is a very hasty conclusion, because it takes for granted
the most unusual thing in the hictory of the Papacy, viz.,
that those envoys gained the assent of the Pope immediately
on their arrival, whereas there was no complaint so common
against the Popes, from the ninth Century and upwards, as the
long delays which elapsed before suitors obtained a deci-
sion. It cannot be forgotten that," at a later period, Henry
VIII. spent six years in trying to obtain the Papal judg-
ment, and was compelled to act without it at last. Hence
it is evident that this letter of I T incmar proves nothing of
the kind which Bower takes for granted, and therefore does
not in the least interfere with the answer given to this sec-
ond objection.
If the date were unanimously settled at which Leo died,
and also that at which Benedict was elected, it would be
the most satisfactory mode of ascertaining whether there
was any interval of time sufficient for the false Pope to
have come between them. But here there is a great dis-
crepancy, for Ranulphus allows only four years to the pon-
tificate of "Leo, while Platina and others make it eight
years and three months. Who shall decide between them ?
But now, on the other hand, let me examine the positive
evidence in favor of the story.
First, it is related by Marianus Scotus, in the eleventh
century, two centuries after the fact, by Sigebertus in the
twelfth century, and by Martinus Polonus in the thirteenth.
It is objected that these writers are too late, because they
could not have known what happened so long before they
were born. But this objection comes strangely from a Ro-
manist, who places such faith in the truth of oral tradition.
It is easy to conceive that as the lapse of time, during
which the heads of the Church had taken some pains to
18 Letter XXVI.
suppress the written record of the event, had passed away,
while yet the local memory of the matter in Rome was
likely to go down from generation to generation, the first
chronicler of it, Marianus Scotus, felt free to mention the
facts without any danger of offence, and therefore did so i
perfect honesty. But supposing it to have been a lie, then
^first invented, we are encountered at once by many greater
difficulties. For what could have been his motive ? He
had no possible interest to serve by such a fabrication.
There were no Protestants to gratify ; and if there had been,
he was himself a faithful and highly esteemed monk of
Fulda, attached, heart and soul, to Rome. Such a story
could bring no honor to the Popes, no credit to the priest-
hood, no gain to his monastery, no advantage to himself.
On the contrary, if it were a lie, his statement must have
raised a storm about" his ears which would soon have com-
pelled him to retract it. But instead of this, it appears
that his account was received with universal acquiescence
in its truth. The chroniclers who succeeded him repeat
the same, with further particulars ; especially, that a statue
was erected on the spot, that the processions went round about
to avoid passing over it, and that the perforated chair was
adopted to prevent the occurrence of a similar deception in fu-
ture. How would they have dared to assert such facts if
they were not perfectly secure from contradiction ? Surely
it must be manifest to the slightest reflection, that the pub-
lication of such things in the twelfth and thirteenth centu-
ries, when the power of the Papacy was at the highest
point, would have been treated indignantly as a gross scan-
dal upon the Holy See ; and hence the entire absence of
all censure against these authors, and the general acqui-
escence in the truth of what they declared, amounts to a
demonstration in their favor.
Pope Joan. 19
Secondly, we have the testimony of Theodoric of Nerin,
who was secretary to two Popes, that the statue of this fe-
male impostor was still extant in Rome at the time he
wrote, namely, in 1413. And Bower admits, in a note, '
that this statue represented a woman and a child, that it
stood on the spot where she was said to have been de-
livered, and that the story was universally believed at that
day.
Thirdly, we have the strong corroborating evidence of
another statue of this female, which stood among the statues
of the Popes in the great Cathedral of Siena, placed be-
tween those cf Pope Leo IV. and Pope Benedict III., with
this inscription Joan VIII., an English woman. In the
time of Baronius, this statue was still to be seen in that
cathedral ; but Cardinal Tarugi, Archbishop of Siena, ap-
plying to the Grand Duke, at his request the features were
altered, and the statue of Pope Joan was metamorphosed
into the statue of Pope Zachary. But this was not effect-
ual, as every one knew that it once represented the female
Pope, and therefore it was removed and broken up before the
year 1677'. And here I must quote the testimony of the
learned Romanist, Antonius Pagi, as given in a note of
Bower "That as he passed through Siena, in the year
1677, and was very desirous of being informed, upon the
spot, of every particular relating to the famous statue of the
she-Pope in that cathedral, he applied for information to
the religious of his own order, the Minorites ; but they, to
his great surprise, pretended never to have heard of such a '
statue. Hereupon, Pagi, finding that they, he knew not
why, avoided entering upon the subject, repaired to the
cathedral, and addressing the prebendaries as they came
out of the choir after Vespers, told them that he wanted to
see the statue of Pope Joan, and begged they would show
20 Letter XXVI.
it to him, as it might afford him some new light to confute
the fable and confound the heretics. But they all walked
off, without so much as deigning to return him an answer.
When they were all gone, a man advanced in years, ac-
costing him, told him that he had long belonged to that
cathedral, and that, as it was not to gratify his curiosity,
but, as he understood, for the good of the Church, he wanted
to be informed concerning the statue of Pope Joan, he
would give him the information for so good a purpose, pro-
vided he engaged never to discover the person who had
given it. With this condition Pagi readily complied, and
thereupon the good old man answered all his questions to
his full satisfaction, showed him the place where the statue
had stood, told him when it was changed into that of
Zachary, and when it was removed, viz., in the pontificate
of Alexander VII., a native of Siena," &c.
Fourthly, we have the direct attestation of the same story
from St. Antoninus, Archbishop of Florence,* besides the
general acquiescence of those who were the most zealously
attached to the Papal system, so that the first who appears
to have questioned its truth was Eneas Silvius, afterwards
Pope Pius II., in the fifteenth century, and he only went
so far as to say that the story was not certain. Afterwards,
as the reformers began to make it a subject of reproach,
many undertook to confute it, but none with better success,
saith Bower, than the two zealous Protestants, Sarau and
Blondel, whose arguments, in his opinion, are quite unan-
swerable. Certain it is, indeed, that it has been the fashion,
since their day, to treat it .as an exploded fable, so that Dr.
Milner triumphs, as well he might, in the force of this Prot-
* See the article "Joannes VIII.," in the Historia Ecclesiastica of
the Magdeburg Centuriators, Cent, ix, p. 500.
Pope Joan. 21
estant advocacy. Whether their opinion is based on any
just grounds, however, is altogether a different question.
Lastly, we have the statement of your historian, Fleury,
that Pope Urban, returning to Rome A. D. 1367, and riding
in state through the city, it was remarked that he did not
turn away from the spot where it was said that Pope Joan had
been delivered, as was the custom of some of his predecessors.
" And this shows," saith the historian, " that they had be-
gun to be disabused about this fable."* The facts, how-
ever, as stated by himself, are a complete proof that the
Popes, before this time, were accustomed to turn away from
that place, and that it was the current understanding in
Rome that it was the spot where the event had occurred. The
statue of Joan and her child, as we have seen, was still
extant in 1413, and, of course, it was standing in 1367,
when Urban rode through the city. But his going by the
place is not stated to have been by any special design. It
may have been by inadvertence. It may have been from
ignorance of the locality, as he was then a stranger in
Rome. Be this as it may, however, the remarks created
by his unusual course are perfectly inexplicable, unless
we admit the truth of the story. For who could have im-
pressed such a fact upon the public mind in Rome, and in-
duced the previous Popes to avoid the spot, in compliance
with the universal belief, if it were a mere fable ?
Thus, then, the reader has the whole argument fairly
placed, on both sides, before him. On the one side, we
have the silence of certain contemporary writers, which I
think may, without any difficulty, be satisfactorily explained.
The dates are not in the way, because the length of the
pontificate of Leo IV. is stated variously, and the chronicle
* See page 95.
22 Letter XXVI.
of Ranulphus allows sufficient time. On the other side, we
have the positive assertion of many writers of good credit,
who would not have dared to publish a disgraceful lie, with-
out any possible motive, and whose statements, instead of
being denounced at once, were received with universal ac-
quiescence. We have, besides, the erection of a statue,
the custom of avoiding that part of the city by the Popes
and the public processions, the erection of another famous
statue in the Cathedral of Siena, and the extraordinary
custom of the perforated chair, which remained in the cere-
monial of the Popes until the sixteenth century, and for
the introduction of which nothing but this story can account
historically. On the whole, therefore, I have no hesitation
in declaring that the evidence is decisive in favor of its
truth, Messrs. Bayle, Blondel, and Bower to the contrary
notwithstanding. And I am very confident that any candid
mind, accustomed to the weighing of evidence, will concur
in the result, and consider the proof amply sufficient to
establish any fact in history.
But although I have taken some pains to examine this
story, and have no doubt whatever of its truth, I do not
mean to be understood as attaching the slightest importance
to it as a point of theological controversy. It was no fault
in the clergy of Rome to have been deceived by an impostor
who possessed extraordinary learning and talent, and ap-
peared to lead a life of piety and devotion. Far more re-
proachful to your Church is the unquestioned fact that she
chose so many men to the Papal dignity, and endured them
so long, who were monstrous examples of licentiousness
and abomination. Indeed, so little value do I attach to the
case of Pope Joan, that I should not have mentioned it at
all, if Dr. Milner had not thought fit to introduce it with
such triumphant flippancy. Nevertheless, I must pray my
Pope Joan. 23
readers to weigh the easy self-complacency with which he
dismisses it, against his pretended doubts about the conse-
cration of Archbishop Parker. Let them look at the evi-
dence which he adduces in that, and compare it with the
evidence which I have quoted, from his own Church, in the
other. And then they will be able to estimate the measure
of candor and justice which he thought necessary for the
management of theological discussion.
24 The End of Controversy, Controverted.
LETTER XXVII.
MOST REVEREND SIR
THE 30th letter of Dr. Milner (p. 210) presents a strong
and very unfair attack upon the missionary work in the
Church of England, together with a most glowing and ex-
aggerated account of the Missions of the Church of Rome ;
and this calls upon me next for a brief consideration.
It should first be well noted, however, that the apparent
success or failure of the work of modern Missions has no
proper place in a work of theological controversy. Success
and victory, in the end, are certainly promised to the cause
of the Gospel ; but th i results of two or three hundred
years are not to be taicen as the measure of fulfilment, nor
as, in any proper sense, a test of truth. Thus, we know
that the religion of the false prophet, Mahomet, advanced
with marvellous speed and prosperity during the first three
centuries of its existence, until it n<jt only overran and
extinguished a multitude of Churches in Africa and Asia,
but made inroads upon Europe itself, and established its
rule over Moldavia, Servia, and Wallachia. Was that a
proof of its divine authority ? The Crusades were set forth,
at an enormous expense of blood and treasure, to reclaim
the Holy Land from the grasp of the infidels, and the Popes
and priesthood of those days confidently assured their peo-
ple that it was THE WILL OF GOD, believing, I doubt not
very sincerely, that the plan was conceived by actual in
Success no Proof of Truth. 25
&
spiration. This effort, too, was kept up for centuries ; and
although, for a little while, the arms of Christendom did
establish what they called the Kingdom of Jerusalem, yet
the end was a total failure, and the Crescent prevailed
against all the efforts of the Cross. Was that a proof that
Mahometanism was the true religion ? At the period of
the Reformation, nation after nation was recovered from Pa-
pal despotism, and the yoke of Rome was cast off victori-
ously, until the religion of the Bible became the religion of
millions who had once bowed in submission before the
monarch of the triple crown. Would Dr. Milner acknowl-
edge that wonderful success to be an argument in favor of
our principles 1 Nay, in our own day and country, the
new sect of the Mormons is increasing with astonishing
rapidity, and their missionaries succeed in making prose-
lytes amongst the nominal members of all the Churches in
Christendom. But what Romanist would allow that this
was any evidence in favor of their system ?
The whole of this elaborate portion of Dr. Milner's work
is, therefore, built upon a perfect fallacy. Even if his state-
ments were' all true, which they are very far from being,
still the conclusion would be an absurdity, opposed to the
Scriptures, to the voice of history, and to the present state
of the world. It is, indeed, only another shape of his argu-
ment for Catholicity, derived from numbers, the weakness
of which, I trust, has been already sufficiently exposed. Nev-
ertheless, since he has devoted so large a space to this fa-
vorite phantom of Romanism, I must add a few further re-
marks upon his alleged facts, to show the little confidence
to which they are entitled. -
I pass by his charges upon the supposed discrepancies
in religion amongst Protestant missionaries, upon their want
of a divine mission, and upon their defects of qualification,
VOL. II. 2
26 Letter XXVII.
partly because these points have been sufficiently treated,
partly because comparisons in personal attainments are in-
vidious and unprofitable, but mainly because I am only con-
cerned with the missionaries of the Church of England and
our own ; and any defence of them against his accusations
must be quite unnecessary. But he boasts that the Romish
missionaries have always been men of continency and self-de-
nial, who have had no other defence than their breviary and
crucifix, no other weapon than the sword of the Spirit, which
is the Word of God. And here I cannot help admiring his
effrontery. For your modern Church of Rome has made
more use of carnal weapons than any other branch of Chris-
tendom, and never fails to rely on the secular arm, when it
suits her policy. Bad your favorite advocate forgotten the
Bishops, Abbots, yea, Popes, who are recorded by your own
historians to have led their troops to battle in person, and
shed blood without scruple or censure 1 Had he forgotten
their reliance on fire and sword to convert or exterminate
the heretical Albigenses, Waldenses, and Henricians ? Had
he forgotten the tender mercies of the inquisitions in Spain
and Goa, and the tortures and the flames provided, as the
bulwarks of the faith, wherever your Papal Church ob-
tained an establishment 1 Or had he only counted largely
upon the ignorance or credulity of his readers ?
I do not, however, mean to deny that the Jesuit mission-
aries of Rome have gone upon their work among the hea-
then without arms or armies to protect them. This is
doubtless true enough ; but it is true, not from any rule of
Christian principle on the part of Rome, as is manifest from
her whole history, so much as from policy and necessity.
The same course has been followed by the missionaries of
tjxe Church of England, and by Protestant missionaries in
general. Nor is there any exception whatever, unless
Missions and Martyrs. 27
where the law of self-preservation, which your own casuists
do not pretend to invalidate, may have fully justified it.
The next fault found with our missionaries is, that there
have been, no martyrs among them. How this may be, is
a matter which depends, under God, not so much on the
missionaries themselves, as on the peculiar circumstances
which may rouse the hatred of the people against them.
But the spirit of a martyr must inspire the heart of every
true missionary among the heathen. And that spirit has
certainly been exhibited by very many, amongst the men
sent out by the Church of England, who have willingly
abandoned home, society, and friends, at the risk of health
and life, to convert the savages of Africa, the Hindoos of
the East, and the bushmen of Australia.
It is a false assumption, however, that the work of Mis-
sions to the heathen must necessarily be marked by actual
martyrdom. The Apostles Peter and Paul were preserved
throughout thirty-three years of the most extended and suc-
cessful labors. And so far were they from courting martyr-
dom, that they escaped their persecutors when they could,
in obedience to the precept of Christ, " When they perse-
cute you in one city, flee ye to another" Hence, it was not
so much by their proper work as missionaries that their
lives were at last sacrificed, as by the cruel policy of the
Emperor Nero, to turn upon the Christians the odium of his
own act, in the burning of Rome. The first martyr, St.
Stephen, and the second, St. James, were not the victims
of the heathen, but of the Jews. The rest of the Apostles,
whether they were martyrs or not, which is uncertain, un-
doubtedly labored during an average of from thirty to forty
years, before they were called to their reward. And the
last of that sacred band, St. John, was continued until near
the close of the first century, and then died in peace.
28 Letter XXVII.
With, these examples before our eyes, it is impossible to
suppose that actual martyrdom is to be taken as the regular
or the general end of the foreign missionary to the heathen.
It was assuredly not the end of that favorite missionary of
Dr. Milner, Augustin, who was sent to convert the Anglo-
Saxons, towards the close of the sixth century, and ended
his successful career in honor, as the Archbishop of Canter-
bury. Neither do we read of any martyrs among the forty
monks who accompanied him, although, unhappily, his. con-
verts had a hand, before many years, in the cruel slaughter
of twelve hundred British monks at Bangor. Indeed, if a
fair survey be taken of the various missionary conquests
among the heathen nations of Europe, martyrdom will be
found to be not the general rule, but the very rare excep-
tion.
Hence, if the accounts which the Jesuits have given to
the world about the wonderful and incredible number of
their martyrs in Japan, Turkey, Abyssinia, Siam, Tonquin,
Coehin-China, &c., be accepted as true, it would only
prove that they had not contented themselves with the
proper work of a Gospel mission, according to the Apos-
tolic pattern, but had provoked suspicion and hatred by those
odious acts of treachery, conspiracy, and ambition, which,
we all know procured their expulsion, twice and even thrice,
'by so many of the governments in Europe, and compelled the
Pope, however reluctantly, to abolish their order for a sea-
son. We know that the East Indies had a plain proof of
the tender mercies of Romanism in the abominable Inqui-
sition at Goa. And if the Jesuit missionaries, grown bold
by their first successes, manifested the same bloody spirit
of persecution elsewhere ; or if those heathen countries be-
came acquainted with the principles of Romanism, so as
to comprehend that the new religion made it a duty to tor-
Frauds of Jesuit Missionaries. 29
ture and burn all dissenters for the love of God ; or if they
only discovered those atrocious maxims of Jesuit morality
which Pascal so admirably exposed in his Provincial Let-
ters, and which are enough to destroy all confidence in
government, law, or virtue : it is not at all surprising that the
priests should have been sacrificed, not as Christian mis-
sionaries, but as the worst enemies of mankind. And in
such case, if they are to be called martyrs at all, it may
well-be doubted whether they were so much the martyrs of
God as martyrs of the devil.
But this is far from being the whole of the difficulties
which attended these boasted missionary triumphs. They
were attacked on every side by the other Orders in the
Church of Rome herself, on the ground that they were con-
ducted with the most shameful disregard of all really reli-
gious principle ; that the heathen converts were allowed
to continue their idol worship, provided they adored, men-
tally, Christ and the Virgin Mary ; that the missionaries
themselves were often examples of licentiousness, so that
the converted Iroquois Indians, in a treaty of peace A. D.
1682, stipulated for the removal of those libertine brethren
who did everything that Jesus did not do ; that it was evi-
dent they were not promoting virtue and religion, but their
own interests ; that their extensive traffic injured the mer-
chants ; that they were even prosecuted for their corrupt
management in Paraguay, and expelled from it in disgrace ;
that in the East Indies, Robert Nobili, their most cele-
brated leader after Xavier, gave himself out to be a Bra-
min, adopted the customs of that caste and thus endeavor-
ed to build up a surreptitious and false theory of the Gos-
pel, in order to proselyte the masses through the influence
of the Bramins, with the greater speed and certainty ;
finally, that of all these marvellous missionary successes,
30 Letter XXVII.
hardly anything remains at this day to prove their substan-
tial character. It was not thus that the Gospel was dissem-
inated by men who were real missionaries. The truth,
planted in the hearts of the heathen by genuine conver-
sions, has usually taken root, and continued to propagate the
Church for many generations. And even in those quarters
where the sword of Mahomet overcame it, a seed has re-
mained to manifest its vitality, as we see in the oppressed
Oriental Churches, under all the disadvantages of Turkish
despotism.
Volumes have been written on this subject by the various
parties in the Church of Rome, the accusers of the Jesuits
upon the one side, and the Jesuit apologists upon the other.
That the general judgment of Rome and all Papal Europe
has been against the Jesuits, is notorious. In 1759, they
were expelled from Portugal. In 1764, they were expelled
from France. In 1767, they were expelled from Spain,
and soon afterwards from Naples, Parma, and Malta. In
1773, Pope Clement XIV. was compelled, though sorely
against his will, to abolish the Order through all the States
in Christendom, notwithstanding they were the very best
soldiers of Popery. Yet their secret continuance was con-
nived at, until they were openly restored in 1814. And
they have been expelled again, in many Papal countries,
within our own day. All this, however, Dr. Milner keeps
back, and only boasts of their apparent successes, to prove
how " God bestows His grace to execute the work of the
Apostles, as well as to preserve their doctrine, their Orders,
and their mission !"
On the other hand, to show the reckless character of your
advocate in the work of scandal, he undertakes (page 210)
to enumerate the missionary associations of the Church of
England. Among the rest, he particularizes the Society
The Society for the Propagation of the Gospel. 31
for the Propagation of the Gospel in Foreign Parts, and
adds. I hear nothing of its doings. He mentions the Mora-
vian Missionary Society, which he admits to be more active
than the others, at the Cape, and in Greenland and Surinam ;
but he carefully avoids saying what had been achieved
there, although it furnishes, perhaps, the brightest page of
the missionary work, with the smallest means and the
largest personal sacrifices, since the days of the Apostles.
And then he sets down the British and Foreign Bible So-
ciety, at which he sneers with sovereign contempt, in the
true spirit of the Papacy.
Now I shall notice but two of these, in order that my
reader may have another plain evidence of this writer's de-
plorable obliquity. The Society for the Propagation of the
Gospel was founded in 1701. Missionaries were sent to the
American colonies and the Indian tribes, to the West In-
dies, to Newfoundland, to Guinea, and to Sierra Leone, to
the Canadas. Cape Breton and New-Brunswick, to New
South Wales, and Norfolk Island. And the permanency of
the work is shown at this day, by the fruits of established
dioceses, with their Bishops, their clergy, and their churches,
growing stronger and more numerous with the lapse of time.
In 1818, this Society took the charge of the East Indies,
and Dr. Milner's book bears date the same year, although
he had heard nothing of its doings. And yet, by the report
of those doings, published in 1851, the following aggregate
appears as the noble result : that in regions where, at the be-
ginning of its labors, not a dozen of the ministers of the
Church of England could be found, there are now 57 Bish-
ops, 2,750 clergymen, and three millions of the laity. Of
these, we have the following in the East Indies : The dio-
cese of Calcutta, established in 1813, five years before Dr
miner's work was printed, and having the noble institution
32 Letter XXVII.
of Bishop's College, where natives of the Island of Ceylon
are pursuing their studies for the work of the Gospel minis-
try. Next, the diocese of Madras, the diocese of Bombay,
and the diocese of Colombo. The last returns from the
diocese of Calcutta showed the present result with respect
to the heathen, viz., 113 villages of converted Hindoos, in
which were 2,451 persons baptized, 1,127 communicants,
and 26 houses of worship. In the single district of Tinne-
velly, four large and seven small churches, with accommo-
dation for 3,000 persons, had been erected ; besides four
central and ten village schools. A seminary at Tanjore con-
tained 50 native students, and another at Tinnevelly con-
tained 140. The diocese of Victoria has also been estab-
lished in China, and six dioceses in Australia, where the
conversion of the dark and degraded heathen is contem-
plated with great interest. And this single society had then
452 missionaries in the various settlements in the West In-
dies, Asia, Africa, and Australia, at an annual expenditure
of 375,000 dollars.
This is not, indeed, a matter of boast. On the contrary,
the Church of England, as well as our own, is quite con-
scious of the fact, that there is far less reason for boasting
that she has done so much, than for grieving that she has
done so little. Neither would it be just to hold Dr. Milner
accountable for omitting those results which have only
been attained since he passed away. But still, he is open
to grave censure in saying that, in 1818, he had heard noth-
ing of the doings of this Society, when, if he had taken any
trouble to inquire, he must have known that his covert re-
proach was perfectly unwarrantable. Still, he should have
had honesty enough to remember the vast differences in re-
sources between the Church of Rome and the Church of
England, in the main point of men willing to undertake the
Tlie. Bible Society. 33
work of foreign missions to the heathen, for which so few
are adapted. If it had not been for the establishment of the
new order of Jesuits, even Rome herself, notwithstanding
her mighty hosts of monks and priests, would have had but
little to claim in that direction. But yet, if a fair allowance
be made for the difference in numbers, I doubt whether the
Church of England has any cause to shrink from a com-
parison of results, even in quantity ; while, in the far more
important point of quality, she has the advantage immeasu-
rably on her side. What she has done she has done WELL
AND THOROUGHLY. Her missionaries have not been, like
the Jesuits, the objects of universal suspicion and hostility.
Her successes have not been violent, and sudden, and enor-
mous, beyond the bounds of credibility ; but neither have
they been purchased by the sacrifice of Christian principle,
by fraud or imposition. And therefore they have not melted
away, like snow before the sun ; nor have they been ac-
cused as dangerous to the welfare and peace of nations.
On the contrary, they stand at this day strong and vigorous,
the centres of order and true civilization, the bulwarks of
moral truth, and the friends of moral progress ; giving prom-
ise of the best result for the spiritual improvement and so-
cial elevation of all around them.
With regard to the Bible Society, it never was supposed
that it would do the work of missions ; but, as an auxiliary
to that work, its labors have been invaluable. It suited
well with Dr. Milner's object to deride its claims and dis-
credit its utility. And yet he ought to have remembered
that the translation of the Scriptures into the vulgar ton&ue
was one of the earliest products of Christian effort in the
primitive Church. He ought to have had honesty enough
to confess that the. early fathers urged their flocks to read
the Scriptures, and that no Church which was faithful to
VOL. n. 2*
34 Letter XXVIL
the primitive model could expect the Gospel to take root
and flourish amongst any people who were debarred from a
full and free access to the Word of God. In this respect,
however, Rome, in modern ages, has done nothing to be
compared with England. By the zeal and munificence of
the Bible Society, the missionaries of the cross throughout
the globe have been supplied with millions of copies of the
Holy Scriptures, in more than two hundred different lan-
guages and dialects. And the good work is going on, with
increasing proofs of its vast efficacy. Indeed, it would
seem to be the very madness of absurdity, even for a Ro-
manist, to doubt it. For suppose that your own Church
had no translation of the Bible, but was obliged to take it
as the priests could present its meaning from the original
Hebrew and Greek, who is so insane as to believe that they
would not soon lose every vestige of the Gospel ? A con-
sumptive patient may fret because the air cannot be breathed
without his lungs being painfully irritated ; but he must be
a lunatic to fancy, for that reason, that he could live better
without any air at all. And just so it is that your modern
Church of Rome is fretted by the reading of the Bible ; and
yet, if it were not for that, the life that still remains in
her would speedily end in total dissolution.
Having now gone through the letters of Dr. Milner to
the end of the 30th, where he sums up what he calls his
evidence in a postscript, I trust that I have fulfilled, thus
far, my promise, in the refutation of his claims. For I have
proved, by fair and competent testimony, that the Church of
England was compelled to the work of Reformation by the
highest duty of fidelity to the true Gospel of her Lord and
Saviour. That she existed and flourished ages before the
mission of Augustin to the pagan King of Kent, at the close
pf the sixth century. That her union with Rome was re-
^
Summary. 35
sisted by the British Bishops in the beginning, and was af-
terwards accomplished by the hand of power through Anglo-
Saxon domination. That she had a full right to cast off
the Roman yoke, when the subsequent corruption of the
Papacy, witnessed by the extracts from Fleury, made it in-
tolerable. That in accomplishing the mighty work, she
pursued the RULE OF FAITH as laid down by the fathers in
the primitive Church, taking THE HOLY SCRIPTURES for her
guide, but in accordance with the primitive Catholic in-
terpretation. That this interpretation has been embodied
in her Liturgy and Articles, so clearly and distinctly, that
every item of real Catholic truth is preserved and secured
from the possibility of serious departure. That on the four
notes of the Church, Unity, Sanctity, Catholicity, and Apos-
tolicity, her claims are far superior to those of your modern
Church of Rome, because she possesses all of which Rome
can boast, but purified from her corruptions, and restored to
the original standard of true Catholicism. And hence I
conclude, in direct opposition to Dr. Milner, that the evi-
dence is sufficient, and much more than sufficient, if fairly
weighed, to determine in her favor the choice of all who
desire the surest and the safest way of salvation.
My labor, however, is not yet completed, because your
favorite author proceeds to defend his Church against the
charges of her enemies, and tries to explain and justify her
unscriptural tenets with as much disingenuous art and bold-
ness as we have found him using against ourselves. On
all of those points, I am prepared to prove his gross perver-
sions of the truth, and to these, accordingly, I shall now ask
the serious attention of my readers ; confident, in the bless-
ing of Him who is the way, the truth, and the life, that the
result will be entirely conclusive and satisfactory.
36 "The End of Controversy, Controverted.
LETTER XXVIII.
MOST REVEREND SIR :
I AM not at all surprised that Dr. Milner, in his 32d let-
ter, takes the ground which has been common to all his
colleagues, especially since the time of Bossuet, the famous
Bishop of Meaux, namely, that as the Church is the inter-
preter of the Word of God, her decisions should be accepted
implicitly, without any further examination. That if we be
convinced that she is the One, Holy, Catholic and Apos-
tolic Church, it is utterly impossible she should inculcate
idolatry, superstition, or any other wickedness ; and that
those who believe her to be thus guilty, are, and must be,
in a fatal error. That, therefore, his Church cannot, strictly
and consistently, be required to vindicate the particular
tenets of their faith, either from Scripture or any other au-
thority, it being sufficient for them to show that they hold
the doctrine of the true Church, which all Christians are
bound to hear.
This argument, however, has been examined and ex-
posed sufficiently, I trust, in my 22d letter, where I proved,
from the Scriptures and the fathers, that just as the Church
of Israel was a divine institution, with the promise of per-
petuity forever, and continued to retain the doctrines of her
first faith, while yet she became awfully infected with idola-
try, false traditions, and licentiousness : even so the Church of
Rome, being apostolic and pure in the beginning, continued
|;p retain the true doctrine of the Gospel, and yet became
Preliminary Conditions. 37
corrupted from the same causes, and to a greater extent.
That, as the Scriptures of the Old Testament prophets, on
account of this very union of the false and the true, de-
nounced the Church of Israel as an adulteress : even so the
same Scriptures denounce the Church of Rome, in the
Apocalypse, by the correspondent name of harlot. That
this Church, therefore, is a true Church, so far as she has
kept the original faith, and a false Church, so far as she has
brought in her corrupt and idolatrous inventions. And that,
therefore, the object of the Reformers was not to found a
new Church, but to purify the old Church which had come
down from the beginning. Hence it is idle and absurd for
Dr. Milner to contend that his Church, if it be in any sense
a true Church, must therefore be incapable of error. Our
duty is to ascertain in what the characters of a true Church
consist ; and this we can only learn from the WORD OF
CHRIST, who alone- has power to constitute His Church.
And next to this supreme law, we consent to be guided by
the decisions of the primitive Church, as she was when she
issued, in her purest form, from the teaching of the inspired
Apostles.' All beyond this is the work of man, and not of
God ; and therefore it is to be likened to a disease, perilous
to her proper constitution, offensive in the sight of the di-
vine Redeemer, and to be abandoned, as soon as it is dis-
covered, by all His faithful people.
It is amusing enough, however, to see the conditions on
which your favorite author consents to discuss the claims of
Romanism. " I require," saith he, "that Catholics" (i. e.,
Romanists) " should be permitted to lay down their own prin-
ciples of belief and practice, and, of course, to distinguish
between their Articles of Faith, in which they must all agree,
and mere scholastic opinions, of which every individual may
judge for himself ; as likewise between the authorized Lit-
38 Letter XXVIII.
urgy and discipline of the Church, and the unauthorized devo-
tions and practices of particular persons" But this, it seems,
is not a rule which must be allowed " to work both ways."
In the whole of his wanton and malicious assaults upon the
Church of England, what has he been doing, all along, but
this very thing, against which he now guards himself so
carefully ? How has he confined himself to our Articles of
Faith and authorized Liturgy and discipline ? How, on the
contrary, has he sought to shelter his attacks under Watson,
Balguy, and a few other individuals, whom he knew per-
fectly well to be most untrue exponents of the Church's
teaching? How has he labored to prove, from the expres-
sions of these men, that we had no unity at all ? How has
he boasted that in his Church every priest, all over the
world, has always taught, and now teaches, the very same
doctrine 1 Here, then, every reader of common discern-
ment may detect at once the consciousness of a deceiver.
And yet, he is welcome to enjoy his conditions, since I
shall employ no arguments nor evidence which I do not be-
lieve fair and just, according to the universal course of ap-
proved and honorable disputation.
Dr. Milner next launches forth into a long list of quota-
tions from the writings of divines of the Church of England,
and then gravely informs his readers that the authors them-
selves did not believe their own assertions ! The modesty of
this is about equal to its logic. But he undertakes to ex-
emplify it, as he saith, in a note, saying that Archbishop
Wake, who had strongly condemned the Church of Rome in
his controversial works, accusing it of heresy, schism, and
idolatry, yet afterwards, having entered into a correspond-
ence with Dr. Dupin of the Sorbonne, in Paris, for the pur-
pose of uniting their respective Churches, etrployed the
following words in his last letter, viz. : " In dogmatibus
Archbishop Wake and Dr. Dupin. 39
prout a te candide proponuntur, non admodum dissentimus, in
regimine ecclesiastica minus, in fundamentalibus, sive doc-
trinam sive disciplinam spectemus, vix omnino." Here he
wishes the reader to infer that Archbishop Wake virtually
contradicted his own former opinions. Whereas, if he had
told the whole story, the absolute contrary would appear.
The very words he has quoted show that the Archbishop
was not speaking of the doctrines of Rome, but of the senti-
ments of Dr. Dupin. " In points of faith" (dogmatibus),
" AS THEY ARE CANDIDLY PROPOSED BY YOU, W6 do not dif-
fer greatly, in ecclesiastical order still less, and in funda-
mentals, whether we regard doctrine or discipline, scarcely
at all." The fact was that Dupin, and many others of the
French Church, were highly dissatisfied with Romanism at
the time, and were seriously meditating the propriety of fol-
lowing the example of the Church of England. In this
temper the correspondence was commenced, and the Arch-
bishop, hoping that it might lead to a happy result, en-
couraged it ; being led to believe, from the statements of
Dupin's own opinions, that he was in a fair way to see the
truth, and to follow it to the point of urging forward a real
reformation. It appeared, however, that the French clergy
were, not prepared to go to the full extent, and therefore the
correspondence ended. And this is the kind of evidence
which Dr. Milner ventured to impose upon his readers, as
an exemplificatioji of his charge, that the English clergy did
not believe their own statements concerning the corruptions of
the Church of Rome, although he quoted from the appendix
to Mosheim's Church History, vol. vi., p. 121, where he had
the whole story !
The next observation which Dr. Milner addresses to the
controversial writers of our Church is, that their writings
never unsettle the faith of a single individual, much less do
40 Letter XXVIII.
they cause any one to quit the Roman communion. The
assertion is doubtless true to a very great extent, but the
reason is because the priests of Rome forbid their people to
read what they "call heretical books, or listen on any occasion
to Protestant preaching ; while their private confessional
gives them complete power to enforce the rule. They have
no idea of exposing their flocks to the danger of examining
more than one side of the question. They prefer that their
laity should believe, with a blind faith, whatever their priests
tell them ; and the blinder the better, because it shows their
implicit confidence in their leaders, and gives no trouble. ' We,
on the contrary, desire that our people should be intelligent
and informed, not only as to what they believe, but also why
they believe it. And therefore there is no check whatever
placed in their way. Nor have we any fear that the examina-
tion which they may make of the grounds and principles of
the Reformation will fail to' strengthen and confirm their faith,
so long as it is conducted with prayer, and a religious rev-
erence for the supreme authority of the Holy Scriptures.
And this brings me to another suggestion of Dr. Milner,
viz., that the very violence of the controversial attacks upon
the Church of Rome constantly leads Protestants to join
her communion, and become the. most zealous in her pale.
That this has sometimes been the case, I freely admit ; but
I doubt not that in every instance it has arisen from such
individuals being deluded into a false idea of her unity, or a
weak admiration of her external sanctity or splendor,
coupled with a real ignorance of the true scriptural Church
of Christ, and a morbid impatience of the imperfections and
infirmities of their own reformed community. But how
strangely absurd was such an argument from Dr. Milner,
when, for every one thus perverted from the Reformed
Churches to Rome, he could have counted a thousand turn-
Which bears false Witness. 41
ing from Rome to England ! Surely, he must have forgot-
ten that the kingdoms of Europe who abandoned his Church
in the sixteenth century were all trained up in the lap of
the Papacy. He must have been ignorant- that of all the
European Romanists who emigrate to our American conti-
nent, a full third part, at least, leave their Church, to return
to it no more. And had he lived a few years longer, he
would have seen how sixty thousand of the warm-hearted
and devoted Irish, in their own fair land, have renounced
their priests, and sought the pure faith of the Gospel in the
Church of England, in despite of all that prejudice, and
menaces, and peril of life and limb, could do to prevent
them.
The concluding paragraph of this 32d letter, however, is
one of Dr. Milner's highest strains of dramatic piety, for
he gravely reminds his controversial accusers that they shall
answer at the tribunal of Christ for violating the command
of God, Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neigh-
bor. And this is from a man who stands pre-eminent above
the great majority of his brethren for the recklessness and
abundance of the most determined calumny ! Who abuses
systematically the characters, motives, and sacrifices of all
the Church of England; Bishops, priests, kings, queens, no-
bility, commoners, missionaries, societies, without one re-
deeming word of palliation or allowance ! Who does not
blush to charge the English clergy of his own day with
habitual hypocrisy in subscribing to articles which they do
not believe ! Who tells the English writers of controversy
that they are lying wilfully when they publish their charges
against the Papal system, and brands the very martyrs of
their Church with every possible charge of foul abomination
against the evidence of the most respectable historians of
his own communion ! But let it pass. I have already had
42 Letter XXVIII.
abundant work to answer his misrepresentations, and shall
have no difficulty in the remaining portion of my under-
taking. Meanwhile, much as I shall oppose his false facts
and false reasoning, I shall abstain from judging their author.
God alone can tell how far the deceiver was himself de-
ceived, or with how much personal sincerity he may have
prosecuted the work of delusion. I envy not his audacity
in claiming the power of reading the hearts of others, and I
would rather hope that he was really blinded by the long
course of his peculiar training, than assert that he was aware
of the truth, while he employed his ingenuity and talents in
the service of error.
The End of Controversy, Controverted. 43
LETTER XXIX
MOST REVEREND SIR :
WE come now to the specific examination of those other
doctrines which the Church of England rejected at the time
of the Reformation, and Dr. Milner commences the list with
what he calls the invocation, and what I hold to be the wor-
ship, of the saints. He denies that the Romanist prays to
the saints as to God, and quotes the Council of Trent on the
subject, as follows : " That the saints, reigning with Christ,
offer up their prayers to God for men ; that it is good and
useful suppliantly to invoke them, and to have recourse to
their prayers, help, and assistance, to obtain favors from God,
through his Son Jesus" Christ our Lord, who is alone our
Redeemer and Saviour." He compares this to the case of
mutual intercession amongst Christians upon earth, only
with this difference, that " as the saints in heaven are free
from every stain of sin and imperfection, and are confirmed
in grace and glory, so their prayers are far more efficacious
for obtaining what they ask for, than the prayers of us im-
perfect and sinful .mortals."
In answer to the objection that the praying to the saints,
whom we cannot see, involves, of necessity, a belief in their
omnipresence, which is a divine attribute, Dr. Milner employs
the following language : " How does it follow, from my
praying to an angel or a saint in any place, that I necessa-
- - 7 ~3 c~~?Z or saint to be in that place ? Was
44 Letter XXIX.
Elisha really in Syria when lie saw the ambush prepared
there for the King of Israel ? 2 Kings, vi. 9. BUT IT is
SUFFICIENT THAT GoD IS ABLE TO REVEAL TO THEM THE
PRAYERS OF CHRISTIANS WHO ADDRESS THEM HERE ON
EARTH."
Again, he asserts that " the Church derived her tenets, on
this and other points, immediately from the Apostles, before
any part of the New Testament was written ;" and he closes
his letter with these words : " How sublime and consoling !"
" how animating is the doctrine and practice of true Catho-
lics" (i. e., Romanists), " compared with the opinions of
Protestants ! We hold daily and hourly converse, to our un-
speakable comfort and advantage, with the angelic choirs,
with the venerable patriarchs and prophets .of ancient times,
with the heroes of Christianity, the blessed Apostles and mar-
tyrs, with the bright ornaments of it in later ages, the Ber-
nards, the Xaviers, the Teresas, the Sales ; they are all mem-
bers of the Catholic Church. Why should you not partake
of this advantage ? Your soul, you complain, is in trouble ;
you lament that your prayers to God are not heard : continue
to pray to Him with all the fervor of your soul : but why not
engage His friends and compeers to add the weight of their
prayers to your own ? Perhaps the Divine Majesty may hear
the prayers of the Jobs, when he -will not listen to those of an
Eliphaz, a Bildad, or a Zophar. You believe, no doubt, that
you have an angel guardian, appointed, by God to protect you,
conformably to what Christ said of the children presented to
Him : THEIR ANGELS DO ALWAYS BEHOLD THE FACE OF MY
FATHER WHO is IN HEAVEN. Mat. xviii. 10. Address your-
self to this blessed spirit with gratitude, veneration, and confi-
de?! ce. You believe also, that among the saints of God, there
is one of supereminent purity and sanctity, pronounced by an
.archangel to be not only gracious, but full of grace, the chosen
Worship of the Blessed Virgin. 45
instrument of God in the incarnation of His Son, and the in-
tercessor with this her Son, in obtaining His first miracle, that
of turning water into wine, at a time when His time for appear-
ing to the world by miracles was not yet come. IT is IMPOS-
SIBLE, as one of the fathers says, to love the Son without loving
the mother. Beg of her, then, with affection and confidence, to
intercede with Jesus to change your tears of distress into the
wine of gladness, by affording you the light and grace you so
much want. You cannot refuse to join with me in the angelic
salutation, HAIL, FULL OF GRACE, OUR LORD is WITH THEE ;
nor in the subsequent address of the inspired Elizabeth,
BLESSED ART THOU AMONG WOMEN, AND BLESSED is THE
FRUIT OF THY WOMB. Cast aside, then, I beseech you, pre-
judices, which are not only groundless, but also hurtful, and
devoutly conclude with me, in the words of the whole Catholic
Church upon earth : HOLY MARY, MOTHER OF GOD, PRAY
FOR US SINNERS, NOW, AND AT THE HOUR OF OUR DEATH.
AMEN."
Here, then, we have the most specious form in which this
perilous doctrine could be placed, tg beguile the simple and
credulous 'mind into the gulf of superstition. But first, I
have to charge on Dr. Milner a shameful withholding of the
real worship which the Church of Rome renders to the
Virgin and the saints. To show this as it is, I .shall be
obliged to ask your attention to the following extracts from
your authorized books of devotion :
" We fly to thy patronage, O holy Mother of God : despise
not our petitions in our necessities, but deliver us from all
dangers, O ever glorious and blessed Virgin."
" Holy Mother of God, Mother of divine grace, Mother of
our Creator, most powerful Virgin, most merciful Virgin, Mir-
ror of Justice pray for us. Seat of Wisdom, Cause of our
joy, Tower of David, House of Gold, Ark of the Covenant,
46 Letter XXIX.
Gate of Heaven, Morning Star, Health of the weak, Refuge
of sinners, Comforter of the afflicted, Help of Christians,
Queen of angels, Queen of patriarchs, Queen of prophets,
Queen of Apostles, Queen of martyrs, Queen of confessors,
Queen of virgins, Queen of all saints pray for us.*
" blessed Virgin, Mother of God : and by this august
quality worthy of all respect from men and angels, I come
to offer thee my most humble homage, and to implore the aid
of thy prayers and thy protection. Thou knowest, O blessed
Virgin, that from my tender years I looked up to thee as my
mother, my advocate and patroness : thou wert pleased to
consider me, from that time, as one of thy children, and
whatever graces I have received from God, I confess, with
humble gratitude, that it is through thee I receive them. Why
was I not as faithful in thy service as thou wert bountiful in
assisting me ? But I will henceforth serve, honor, and love
thee. Accept, O blessed Virgin, my protestations of fidelity.
Look favorably on the confidence I have in thee : obtain for
me, of thy dear Son, a lively faith, a firm hope, a tender,
generous, and constant love. Obtain for me a purity that
nothing can soil, a humility that nothing can elate, a patient
submission to the will of God, that nothing can ever dis-
turb. In fine, O glorious Virgin, obtain for me so faithful
an imitation of thy virtue in my life, that I may experience
the power of thy protection at my death. A.men."f
In the same authoritative book of Roman devotion, we
have what is called " A consecration of one's self to the
blessed Virgin," in the following words :
" Holy Mary, Virgin Mother of God, I this day choose
thee for my mother, queen, patroness and advocate, and firmly
* True Piety, New-York edition of 1826, p. 38-9.
t Ibid. p. 180.
The Rosary of the Blessed Virgin. 47
resolve never to depart either by word or action from the
duty I owe thee, or suffer those committed to my charge to
say or do anything against thy honor. Receive me, there-
fore, as thy servant forever, assist me in all the actions of
my whole life, and forsake me not in the hour of my death.
Amen."
Then follows " The prayer of St. Bernard to the blessed
Virgin," viz. : " Remember, O most pious Virgin, that it is
unheard of, through all ages, that any one who had recourse to
thee, implored thy aid, and legged the assistance of thy pray-
ers, ever was forsaken. Animated with the same confidence,
I fly to thee, O Virgin of virgins. Mother of my God, I
come to thee, and cast myself at thy feet, a wretched sin-
ner, groaning and weeping. O Mother of the Eternal Word,
despise not this my humble supplication, but graciously hear
and mercifully grant my request."*
The same book gives us what is called The Rosary of the
Blessed Virgin, in which it is ordered that for every single
repetition of the Lord's Prayer, there shall be ten repetitions
of the prayer to the Virgin called " Hail Mary." It is in this
favorite and universal exercise of the devout Romanists that
the use of their beads becomes so necessary ; telling their
leads being the common phrase for saying the Rosary.
This useful piece of mechanism keeps them right in the
number enjoined, because there is a large bead, followed
by ten small ones, upon the string ; and 'so the fingers re-
mind them when the requisite number of Hail Marys is
completed, and the Lord's Prayer comes round again. Alas
for the devotion which needs such helps as these !f
The third part of this Rosary calls upon the worshipper
of Mary to contemplate what is termed The Fourth Mystery,
in the following words :
* True Piety, p. 182-3. Ib., p. 275.
48 Letter XXIX.
" Let us contemplate, in this mystery, how the glorious
Virgin Mary, after the resurrection of her Son, passed out
of this world unto Him, and was by Him assumed into hea-
ven, accompanied by the holy angels." Then we have the
prayer, viz. :
" O most prudent Virgin, who, entering into the heavenly
palace, didst Jill the holy angels with joy, and man with hope,
vouchsafe to intercede for us, in the hour of death, that, free
from the illusions and temptations of the devil, we may
joyfully and successfully pass out of this temporal state to
enjoy the happiness of eternal life. Amen."
The fifth mystery, accordingly, is set forth, under the ti-
tle of
" The Coronation of the most Blessed Virgin Mary in Hea-
ven"
" Let us contemplate in this mystery how the glorious
Virgin Mary was, with great jubilee and exultation of the
whole court of heaven, and particular glory of all the saints,
crowned by her Son with the brightest diadem of glory." Af-
ter which, is another prayer :
" O glorious Queen of all the heavenly citizens, we be-
seech thee accept this Rosary, which, as a crown of roses,
we offer at thy feet. Hail ! holy Queen ! Mother of mercy,
our life, our sweetness, and our hope, to thee do we cry, poor
banished children of Eve ; to thee do we send up our sighs,
mourning and weeping in this valley of tears. Turn, then,
most gracious advocate, thine eyes of mercy toward us, and, af-
ter this our exile is ended, show unto us the blessed fruit
of thy womb, Jesus, O clement, O pious, O sweet Virgin
Mary."*
The reigning idea which runs through all this is evi-
* True Piety, p. 285.
The Infant 'Jesus. 49
dently the indispensable importance of the Virgin's author-
ity and influence in the salvation of mankind. And this is
in perfect agreement with another form of devotion, drawn
up for nine successive days, and called for this reason a
Novena, the whole of which is addressed to the Infant Je-
sus, as if the glorified Redeemer of the world had never
attained the fulness of manhood, but remains AN INFANT
STILL in the arms of his mother. In this surprising piece
of profanation, the Saviour is addressed by the title of in-
fant fifty times. As thus : " Infant, Jesus Christ, have
mercy upon us. Infant, Son of the Virgin Mary Infant,
strong in weakness Infant, treasure of grace have mercy
upon us. From the malice of the world deliver us, O In-
fant Jesus. From the pride of life deliver us, O Infant Je-
sus ;" and so throughout.* Here, therefore, we have the
absurd anti-Christian extravagance which meets us so con-
stantly in your favorite pictures, where the Virgin Mary is
represented as if in heaven, surrounded by the angelic host,
and holding the infant Saviour in her arms ; conveying to
the poor deluded worshipper the same idea set forth so plain-
ly in this Litany, that the mother has as much power over her
Son, as if He ivere a baby. And in perfect harmony with the
same profane abuse, it is notorious that the favorite image
of Christ in the City of Rome, and that which is believed
to have the largest power of miracles attached to it, is the
Bambino, that is, the BABY, a little image of a child ! O
marvellous infatuation ! Was it an infant that taught the
Saviour's doctrine, and worked mighty signs and wonders ?
Was it an infant that called the Apostles ? Was it an in-
fant that died upon the cross ? Was it an infant that rose
from the dead, and ascended up to heaven ? Is it an infant
* True Piety, p. 316.
VOL. II. 3
50 Letter XXIX.
that now sits at the right hand of God, until He shall come
again in glory to judge the world ? But such is Romanism,
holding in her left hand the ancient truth, while she offers
with her right hand the most transparent and degrading
falsehood.
In complete accordance with all that I have thus far set
before you, is the doctrine that the Virgin Mary was equal
to Christ in this, that she was free from all sin, original or ac-
tual. Thus, in one of the hymns appointed to be address-
ed to her, we read as follows :
" 'Twas meet Son so noble
Should save from stain,
Wherewith Eve's children
Spotted remain,
The maid -whom for mother
He had selected,
That she might be never
With, sin infected."*
Another hymn from the same office calls the Virgin
" Temple of the Trinity," and asserts that she was
" From sin original
Exempted solely."^
And again, in an anthem and prayer, to the repetition of
which Pope Paul V. granted a hundred days' indulgence,
we have this incontrovertible declaration of the same false
doctrine :
" This is the branch in which was neither knot of original,
nor bark of actual, sin found. In thy conception, O Virgin,
thou wast immaculate." Then follows the prayer :
" O God, who by the immaculate conception of the blessed
* True Piety, p. 289. t Ib. p. 290.
Mary the Refuge of Sinners. 51
f*
Virgin, didst prepare a fit habitation for thy Son, we beseech
thee, that as by the foreseen death of her same Son thou
didst preserve her pure from all spot, so likewise grant that
we, by her intercession made free from sin, may attain unto
thee, through our Lord Jesus Christ, thy Son, who, with thee
and the Holy Ghost, liveth and reigneth one God, world
without end. Amen."*
Extracts of a similar kind from the authorized devotions
of your modern Church of Rome might be multiplied to the
size of a large volume, but I shall pass on to what may be
considered the climax of Marialotry, namely, the favorite
formulary called The Devotion to the Sacred Heart of Mary.
In this we read as follows :
" As the adorable heart of Jesus was formed in the chaste
womb of the blessed Virgin, and of her blood and substance,
so we cannot, in a more proper and agreeable manner, show
our devotion to the sacred heart of the Son, than by dedi-
cating some part of the said devotion to the ever pure heart
of the mother. For you have here two hearts united in the
most strict alliance and tender conformity of sentiments, so
that it is not in nature to please the one without making
yourself agreeable to the other, and acceptable to both. Go,
then, devout client, go to the heart of Jesus, but let your way
be through the heart of Mary"
" Come, then, hardened and inveterate sinner, how great
soever your crimes may be. Come and behold. Mary
stretches out her hand, and opens her breast to receive you.
Though insensible to the great concerns of your salvation ;
though, unfortunately, proof against the most engaging invi-
tations and inspirations of the Holy Ghost, fling yourself at
the feet of this powerful advocate. Her throne, though ex-
* True Piety, p. 294-5.
52 Letter XXIX.
alted, has nothing forbidding, nothing dreadful ; her heart is
all love, all tenderness. If you have the least remains of
confidence and reliance on her protection, doubt not she will
carry you through her own blessed heart in the most speedy
and favorable manner, to the truly merciful and most sacred
heart of her Son Jesus."
We have next what is called " An Angelical Exercise :"
" I reverence you, O Sacred Virgin Mary, the Holy Ark
of the Covenant, and together with all the good thoughts of
good men on earth, and all the blessed spirits in heaven, do
bless and praise you infinitely, for that you are the great me-
diatrix between God and man, obtaining for sinners all that
they can ask and demand of the blessed Trinity."
Again : " I am the protectress of my servants, says the
glorious Mother of God. Give me your heart, my dear child,
and if it be as hard as a flint, I will make, it as soft as wax ;
and if it be more foul and loathsome than dirt, I icill render it
more clear and beautiful than crystal. My blessed servant,
Ignatius, gave me one day power over his heart, and I did
render it so chaste and strong, that he never after felt any
motion of the flesh all his life. Give me your heart, my
child, and tell me, in the sincerity of a true Son, how much
you love me, your chaste Mother ? Hail Mary."
" O my dear mother ! I love you more than my tongue can
express, or even my very soul conceive" &c.
As a further specimen of the various salutations offered in
this approved book to the Virgin, I add but this :
" Hail Mary, lady and mistress of the world, to whom all
power has been given both in heaven and in earth."
In harmony with this kind of teaching, your modern
Church of Rome has established as many festivals in honor
of the Virgin as in honor of the Saviour Himself. There is
one festival of her conception, another of her nativity, an-
Assumption of the Virgin. 53
other of her presentation in the temple, and another of her
assumption into heaven. A similarity, indeed, between her
and Christ is studiously affected. Her assumption into
heaven is not only made to parallel our Lord's ascension,
but her body is stated to have been, like His, preserved
from corruption. A whole week is devoted in honor of that
event, and on the fourth day, a lesson is read, which goes
far beyond the Scripture narrative with respect to the Sa-
viour. For thus it runs :
" At the time of her glorious falling asleep, all the Apos-
tles who were employed in their holy mission through the whole
earth, for the salvation of mankind, were in a moment carried
aloft through the air, and brought together at Jerusalem.
While they were there, they saw a vision of angels, and
heard the hymns of the hosts of heaven, and lo ! with divine
glory she delivered her soul into the hands of God. But her
body was taken amidst the songs of angels and of the Apos-
tles, and deposited in a coffin at Gethsemane, in which place
the melody of angels continued for three days. At the end of
those days the Apostles opened the tomb, to enable Thomas,
who alone had hitherto been absent, to fulfil a wish which
he felt, to adore that body which had borne the Lord. On
opening it, the body was nowhere to be found, but only the
grave-clothes in which it had been wrapped, and from them
issued an ineffable odor, pervading the atmosphere around.
So wonderful and mysterious an event astonished the Apos-
tles, who could draw from it but one conclusion that it had
pleased the Word of God that her immaculate body, by which
He was incarnate, should be preserved from corruption, and
should be at once translated to heaven, without waiting for the
general resurrection"
In the service of the fifth day is the following lesson :
" But who is sufficient to conceive how glorious on this
54 Letter XXIX.
day was the progress of the queen of the world ! With
what transport of devout affection the whole multitude of the
heavenly hosts went forth to meet her ! With what hymns
she was conducted to the throne of glory ! With how placid,
how serene an aspect, with what divine embraces she was
received by her Son, and exalted above every creature with
that honor which became so great a mother, and that glory
which befitted so great a Son !"
" Providing in all things, therefore, and through all things,
for the wretched, she consoles our fear, she excites our faith,
she strengthens our hope, she drives away our distrust, she
raises our pusillanimity. You feared to approach the Father ;
terrified at only hearing Him, you fled among the trees. He
has given Jesus Christ to you as a mediator. What cannot
such a Son obtain from such a Father ! He will be
heard for His own sake, for the Father loves the Son. But
perhaps you fear also in Him the divine majesty, because,
though He was made man, He was still God. Do you de-
sire to have an advocate with him ? Have recourse to Mary.
She also will be heard for her own sake. For the Son will
hear the Mother, and the Father will hear the Son."
I shall only observe, further, that Our Lady's Psalter is
an approved book in your modern Church of Rome, being
the work of the eminent Cardinal Bonaventura, and this is,
throughout, the same with the Book of Psalms in the Bible,
only with the substitution of Our Lady (the Virgin), in those
passages where the original uses the holy term, LORD.
The above extracts may have been tedious to the reader,
but they seemed absolutely necessary to show the true prac-
tical understanding of your Church in this important matter,
so vastly beyond what the cautious language of Dr. Milner
would intimate. But before I close this letter, it may be
well to quote a specimen of the prayers offered to the other
The SaintSyGods by Participation. 55
saints, and to the angels, from the authorized book already
cited so largely.
Thus we have an address to St. Aloysius in these words :
" O glorious St. Aloysius, appointed by the Church of
Christ as a worthy advocate for her children, intercede for
me, obtain for me what I ask, if it be for the glory of God,
and the good of my soul. Or, at least, O faithful servant of
God, direct my request that it may turn to the honor of my
dear and blessed Redeemer, that through thy patronage He
may see in me the effect of His sacred passion and blood."*
In the Litany of Saint Joseph, we have a string of titles
intended, I presume, as a sort of companion to those of the
Virgin, whose husband he was, as follows :
" St. Joseph, the Virgin Consort of a Virgin Mother,
pray for us. St. Joseph, Ruler of the Lord of the Uni-
verse St. Joseph, Governor of the Incarnate Wisdom St.
Joseph, Nursing Father of Him by whom all creatures live
St. Joseph, Saviour of the Saviour of mankind St. Jo-
seph, honored and served by the King and Queen of Heaven
St. Joseph, seated on a throne of glory near those of Jesus
and Mary, pray for us."f
The real doctrine which your modern Church imparts to
her people in such forms as these, is immensely beyond the
statement of Dr. Milner and the Council of Trent, and it is
much more fairly expressed by your celebrated Cardinal
Bellarmine, where he saith that vows made to the saints are
only proper because they -are "gods by participation. "$
And hence it has been common to prefix to the works of
the fathers the very word which the classical writers
* True Piety, p. 256.
t Ib. p. 172-3.
t Votum non convenit sanctis, nisi auatenus sunt Dii per participa*
tionem.
56 Letter XXIX.
among the Latins attached to their deified mortals, Divus.
Thus, as the old heathen Roman said Divus Augustus, the
god Augustus, when speaking of the deified emperor, so the
modern Christian Roman saith Divus Thomas, the god
Thomas, Divus Bernardus, the god Bernard, when speak-
ing of the canonized saints. The ancient apotheosis, in
which the deceased hero was enrolled among the gods by
the heathen, has been succeeded by the Papal canonization,
through which the deceased is supposed to become a law-
ful object of invocation in heaven. And thus the saints of
Rome occupy, in some important respects, the place of the old
Dii minorum gentium, being, according to Bellarmine, GODS
BY PARTICIPATION. But this language, though well known
to scholars, is never used towards the people, because it
would startle them, and give a handle to the heretics.
Lastly, I shall close with the following specimen of your
devotion to a guardian angel, viz. :
" O Holy Angel, to whose care God, in His mercy, hast
committed me, thou who assistest me in my wants, who con-
solest me in my afflictions, who supportest me when dejected,
and who constantly obtainest for me new favors, I return
thee now most sincere and humble thanks, and I conjure
thee, amiable guide, to continue still thy care, to defend
me against my enemies, to remove from me the occasion
of sin, to obtain for me a docility to thy holy inspirations, to
protect me, in particular, at the hour of my death, and then
conduct me-to the mansions of eternal repose. Amen."*
Here we have a prayer which asks an angel to do what
belongs to Christ and the Holy Spirit of God, without one
word of reference to the Redeemer ; and yet, it is not an
act of worship at all, saith Dr. Milner, but only an act qfin-
* True Piety, p. 167.
Saint-worship Idolatrous. 57
vocation. Yet higher, in some respects, are the favors ex-
pected from the saints, and especially from the Virgin, and
still we are assured that it is only the same thing which we
all allow when we ask the saints on earth to pray for us !
But that it amounts to idolatry, substantially if not formally,
I shall show, as I think, conclusively. And that it is quite
contrary to the teaching of the Scriptures, and to that of the
primitive Church, I hold myself fully prepared to prove by
evidence beyond the possibility of honest contradiction.
VOL. n. 3*
58 The End of Controversy Controverted.
LETTER XXX.
MOST REVEREND SIR :
IN entering upon the evidence of Scripture and the primi-
tive Church against your Roman doctrine of angel and saint
worship, it will be most advisable, for the sake of perspicuity,
to show, first, the contrast between the extracts which I
have exhibited, and the express teaching of the Word of
God, in reference, especially, to the claims set forth in fa-
vor of the Virgin Mary, from which it may be plainly seen
that your Church makes her a sharer, if not an absolute ri-
val, in the powers and graces of the Saviour and the Holy
Spirit.
Thus, Christ Jesus brought life and immortality to light,
saith the Scripture : and Mary brought life and benediction
to the human race, saith the Church of Rome. Christ is
our life and our hope, according to the Scripture : Mary is
our life, our sweetness, and our hope, according to the Church
of Rome. Christ is the blessed and only Potentate, the
King of kings and the Lord of lords, saith the Scripture :
Mary is the Queen of Heaven, the Queen of Angels, the Queen
of Patriarchs, the Queen of Prophets, the Queen of Apostles,
the Queen of Martyrs, the Queen of Confessors, the Queen of
all Saints, saith the Church of Rome. " All power is given,
to me in heaven and in earth," saith the glorious Redeemer :
Mary, the Advocate with God, 59
Mary, lady and mistress of the world, to whom all power
has been given both in heaven and in earth, saith the Church,
of Rome. " There is one God, and one Mediator between
God and man, the man Christ Jesus," saith the Scripture :
sacred Mary, I bless and praise you infinitely, for that you
are the great Mediatrix between God and man, saith the
Church of Rome. " Thou shalt love the Lord thy God
with all thy heart, and soul, and mind," saith the Scripture :
my dear Mother ! I love you more than my tongue can ex-
press, and more than my very soul can conceive, saith the
Church of Rome. " We have an Advocate with the Father,
Jesus Christ, the righteous," saith the Scripture : Hail,
Mother of Mercy, most gracious advocate, turn thine eyes of
mercy toward us, saith the Church of Rome. " Come unto
me," saith Christ, " all ye that travail and are heavy laden :"
Come, hardened sinner, saith the Church of Rome, come and
behold, Mary stretches out her hand and opens her breast to
receive you. " Greater love iiath no man than this," saith
our Lord, " that he lay.down his life for his friends." " Him
that cometh unto me I will in nowise cast out." And St.
John saith : " This is love, not that we loved Him, but that
He first loved us, and gave Himself for us :" But perhaps,
saith the Church of Rome to the sinner, you fear the divine
majesty in Christ, because, though He was made man, He was
still God. Do you desire an advocate with Him ? Have re-
course to Mary. She will be heard for her own sake. Her
throne, though exalted, has nothing forbidding, nothing dread-
ful. Her heart is all love, all tenderness. Thus, the Church
of Rome teaches, that when the 'sinner is afraid to rely on
the infinite and amazing love of Christ, he may still depend
for his salvation on the love of the Virgin !
The rivalry of Mary with the Holy Spirit is equally plain.
" My son, give_ me thy heart," saith the Lord in the Scrip-
60 Letter XXX.
ture,* " and I will give you a new heart, and put a new
spirit within you ; and I will take away the stony heart out
of your flesh, and will give you a heart of flesh."f But the
Church of Rome represents the Virgin as saying, Give me
your heart, my dear child, and tfit be as hard as flint, I will
make it as soft as wax; and if it be more foul and loathsome
than dirt, I will render it more clear and beautiful than crystal.
Another office of the Holy Spirit is claimed for her, since
our Lord expressly names Him " The Comforter? or the
Paraclete : But the Church of Rome calls the Virgin Mary
the comforter of the afflicted. " Every sin and blasphemy
shall be forgiven unto men," saith the great Redeemer,
" but the blasphemy against the Spirit shall not be forgiven :"
But the Church of Rome presumes to say to the hardened
and inveterate sinner, " Come, how great soever your crimes
may be, come and behold, Mary opens her breast to receive you.
Though insensible to the great concerns of your salvation ;
though, unfortunately, proof against the most engaging invita-
tions and inspirations of the Holy Ghost, fling yourself at the
feet of this powerful advocate .'"
It is painful to dwell on this wonderful delusion, which
thus exalts a mere mortal to the prerogatives of the Deity,
under the apology that she exercises them in a subordinate
capacity. But the ingenuity of Rome carries it into every
possible particular. If the Saviour of the world was " holy,
harmless, undefiled, and separate from sinners :" So, saith
the Church of Rome, was the Virgin, without the slightest
taint of sin, original or actual. If His blessed body saw no
corruption : Neither, saith the Church of Rome, did the body
of Mary. His resurrection and ascension are quite equalled,
if not excelled, by her resurrection and assumption into
* J?rov. xxiii. 26. t Ezek. xxxvi. 26, Douay Bible.
Invocation implies Ubiquity. 61
heaven. All the Apostles fly through the air from distant
parts of the earth to be present at her death. There is a
vision of angels, who sing hymns for three days. Thomas
desires to adore her body ; but the coffin, when opened, dis-
plays only the grave-clothes, which fill the air with an inef-
fable odor. The Apostles conclude that it must have been
translated to heaven. And the Virgin's assumption is
painted with the most glowing words. All the celestial
hosts go out to meet her, and she is crowned, with the
brightest diadem of glory, as the Queen yes, the QUEEN
OF HEAVEN !
And shall we be told, after all this, that the Romanist
does not worship the Virgin Mary, but merely asks her
prayers, just as he would do if she were again on earth,
and just as all Christians are told, by St. Paul, to ask the
prayers of each other ? Such is the statement with which
your favorite advocate would delude his readers, for it is
hard to believe that it could delude himself. But let me
examine this theory and note its consistency with reason
and with Scripture, on the moderate scale presented by the
favorite and constant prayer to the Virgin, which is called,
from the first words, The Ave Maria, or " Hail Mary," and
in which the worshipper saith, " Pray for us now, and at the
hour of our death."
First, then, I ask, How does the Virgin hear this prayer,
offered by 128 millions of worshippers all over the world,
unless she possesses the divine attribute, incommunicable to
any creature, of OMNIPRESENCE ? Dr. Milner replies that
God can reveal to the saints the prayers of Christians who
address them here on earth, and this, he saith, is SUFFICIENT !
But who ever seriously acted on such an argument as this ?
Who can suppose, for a moment, that the multitudes who
pray so constantly to the Virgin and the saints, would con-
62 Letter XXX.
tinue to do so, if they were frankly assured by their priests
that their prayers were not heard by those whom they were
addressing, but only came to their knowledge, in so far as
God might please to reveal them "? Is that the theory which
the Apostle sets before us, when he asks his brethren to
pray for him ? Suppose the Virgin were on earth again,
and I desired to have the benefit of her prayers, what Ro-
manist would tell me that I might address her directly with
just as good effect, whether she were piesent or absent, be-
cause God could reveal my prayers to her, though she were
a hundred miles away ? Let the statement be applied to any
human analogy, and its absurdity will bo at once apparent.
Thus, let me be conceived to have an earthly king, whose
subject I am, and of whom I am most anxious to obtain the
favor. He has .an only son, through whom he has ap-
pointed all my intercourse with him to be conducted. I am
assured that he has also many favorite courtiers, whose en-
treaties on my behalf, if I could secure them, would be likely
to prevail. His royal son, I know, is accessible to me at
all times, on my humble application ; because he has invited
me to come to him, with an assurance of a kind and gracious
hearing. The courtiers, on the contrary, are not accessible
to me at all. I know their names, but cannot gain admit-
tance to their persons. What is to be done ? Not satisfied
with the condescending kindness and promise of the prince,
I am resolved to have the aid of the courtiers also. And as
I cannot hold any direct intercourse with them, I follow the
plan marked out by Dr. Milner. I go into the presence of
the king, and I address myself, not to his royal majesty, but
to one whom I imagine to be the chief of his favorite cour-
tiers, and whom I know is not present to hear me. And I
tell this absent individual, as if she could hear me, although
I am conscious she cannot, that I know she possesses the
Idolatry of Saint-worship. 63
most absolute influence over the king's son, and that the
prince has all power with his father. And therefore I beg
most humbly that she will take me under her protection, and
obtain for me all I desire. And then I depart, quite satisfied
that the king will inform his absent favorite of my request,
that she will grant it, that the prince will be moved by her
prayer, and that the sovereign will fulfill my wishes !
Would such a piece of management be likely to avail 1 Or
would it not rather be set down as the conduct of a fool or
a madman ?
The theory of Dr. Milner, therefore, is a mere absurdity,
and cannot possibly be the practical idea of those who pray,
to the saints. They do, assuredly, suppose them, some how,
to be present ; and as the same belief is held by every wor-
shipper, and they have no doubt that the same prayers are
heard at once in every quarter of the world, it results,
in spite of every evasion, that they do, in the bottom of
their hearts, ascribe to the saints, and especially to the
Virgin, THE QUEEN OF HEAVEN, a universal presence, which
is the sole attribute of God, the Father, Son, and Holy
Spirit.
This constitutes the first branch of the idolatry, which
I consider inseparable from .the worship of the departed
saints. For the Almighty has called Himself " a jealous
God," and " will not give His glory to another." It is not
giving the name of God to a creature which constitutes the
sin of idolatry. This is certain from the Scriptures, for
our Lord Himself saith :* " Is it not written in your law,
I said, ye are gods ? If he called them gods, to whom the
Word of God was spoken, and the -Scripture cannot be made
void: Do ye say of Him whom the Father hath sanctified
and sent into the world, Thou blasphemest, because I said
* St. John, x. 34, Douay Bible.
64 Letter XXX.
I am the Son 'of God ?" Idolatry consists much more in giv-
ing the attributes of God to the creature, for it is these attri-
butes which make up the idea which we form, from His
own Word, of His essence and His powers. It is because
of these attributes that we worship and adore the Deity ; and
they cannot be communicated to a creature, no, not to the
highest archangel in heaven, because there must ever be, in
the nature of the case, an infinite distance between Him who
creates, and that which is created. Therefore, the Archangel
Gabriel is shown, in the Book of the Prophet Daniel, to
have been entirely destitute of this attribute of ubiquity, or
omnipresence.* For thus it is said expressly by the prophet,
" The man Gabriel, whom I had seen in the vision at the begin-
ning, FLYING SWIFTLY, touched me at the time of the evening
sacrifice." Even he, notwithstanding his pure spiritual na-
ture, could not communicate with Daniel, without flying
down from heaven. How, then, shall the Virgin communi-
cate at once with her 128 millions of worshippers, without
descending from her glorious throne at all, as they suppose,
unless, like GOD, she has the attribute of omnipresence ?
The second branch of this idolatry consists in the neces-
sary inculcation of the Virgin's omniscience. For her wor-
shippers are taught to regard her as knowing all their
hearts, all their wants, all their difficulties. She is asked
to follow them with her eyes of mercy through life, to be
with them as their protector in death, and to bring them in
safety to final happiness. She is believed to be able to do
all this, for all these millions, at the same time. And how
can she effect such a stupendous work, unless she has a
knowledge of their feelings and circumstances, which can be
in no respect distinguished, practically, from the knowledge
of God ?
*Dan. ix. 21.
Dr. Milner's Inconsistency. 65
The third branch of this idolatry meets us in the ascrip-
tion to the Virgin of omnipotence. For her worshippers are
told that she has all power in heaven and in earth. True,
this is said to be not inherent, but acquired. She has it,
not because it belongs to her, as it does to God, by her di-
vine nature, but because ijt has been bestowed upon her as
the reward of grace. Nevertheless, however it may have
been acquired, she is believed to possess it, and that, after all,
is the practical question. But this, too, we hold to be an
absurd and most impious ascription. Absurd, because no
created being can hold or exercise the power of the only
living Potentate, the uncreated and eternal God. And im-
pious, because the investing of His creatures with His attri-
butes is rightly and justly held to be the deepest offence
against His majesty. Christ Jesus Himself does not pos-
sess those divine powers, save only by the glorious hypo-
static union of His human nature with the ETERNAL WORD,
who is ONE IN SUBSTANCE WITH THE FATHER. In His
wondrous incarnation, God and man became united in One
Person. And, hence, He only could say with truth, All
power is given unto me, in heaven and in earth. Nor can that
majestic authority be ascribed, in any real sense, to a mere
creature, without involving a fearful idolatry.
But your favorite author claims a high superiority of
privilege for his Church, on account of this very idolatry.
" How sublime and consoling !" he exclaims ; " how animating
the doctrine and practice of true Catholics" (i. e., Romanists),
" compared with the opinions of Protestants ! We hold daily
and hourly converse with the angelic choirs, with the patriarchs,
the heroes of Christianity,'" &c. Here, by the way, he has
already forgotten his own statement, that the saints cannot
hear the prayers addressed to them, but only know them
by the revelation of God. For now he saith. We hold dailv
66 Letter XXX.
and hourly converse with them ! Such, indeed, as I have
shown, must needs be the general belief of your Church,
and he falls naturally into the usual, mode of expression.
Still it is an obvious abuse of words in him to tal{- of holding
converse with the saints, when, according to his own ac-
knowledgment, neither of the parties could hear the other.
And if Dr. Milner offered his prayers co the departed spirits,
in the expectation that God would deliver a message which
was not even committed to His majesty ; and then chose to
call it holding converse with these departed worthies, I can
only say that such an idea of conversing strikes my humble
judgment as very peculiar and original.
But this is a trifle in the list of inconsistencies. Let us
rather look at the sublime and consoling privilege which we
poor Protestants, though, as we claim, true Catholics have
cast away. Let my reader, then, consider the position in
which this notion places, for example, the supposed Queen
of Heaven, the Virgin Mary. Every Romanist is bound to
offer to her at least two prayers every day, morning and
evening. All who use the Rosary (and the more devout
are accustomed to that exercise) extend this number to 150.
Let us take into the calculation the seven canonical hours
of the monks and the nuns, and the daily Masses of the
priests throughout the world, and I presume that the aver-
age for the whole Church of Rome would be very moder-
ately stated at ten Hail Marys each day for every man, wo-
man, and child belonging to their communion. Now, there
are 128 millions of persons attached to that Church, to
say nothing of all the rest who, as they claim, ought to be
attached to it, and whom, because they are net so attached,
they charitably shut out from the hope of salvation. This,
of course, gives the Virgin Mary the privilege of hearing
(or having revealed to her, as the case may be) 1,280,000,000
Neither sublime nor consoling.' 67
petitions every day. Supposing the worship to be constant
and unceasing, each hour of the twenty-four would contain,
on the average, 53,333,333, or nearly fifty-four millions of
these petitions ; each minute would include about 889 hun-
dred thousand ; and each second, 14,814, or nearly fifteen
thousand. And as we have allowed ten Hail Marys for each
worshipper, the result would be that fifteen hundred souls
must pass in review before the Virgin Mary every second,
day and night, even if she had no other occupation but to
attend to them ; and of these, she is expected to know all
their wants, all their feelings, all their temptations, all their
sins, and to give them the benefit of her influence, her
protection, and her prayers, so as to secure their salva-
tion !
What wild absurdity to expect such a work as this at the
hands of a creature, unless we first contrive to believe that
creature to be invested with the attributes of God ! Against
Scripture, against reason, and, as I shall presently prove,
against the really Catholic Church, how wonderful the infat-
uation which Romanism has succeeded in establishing du-
ring the dark ages of European ignorance, and which the
assumed infallibility of your Church will not suffer her to
reform away, even in the light of the nineteenth century !
What is there, I ask, sublime or consoling in such a phantom
of extravagance ? What advantage could be gained to the
Church, even if it were possible that the Almighty should
have laid such a burden on the shoulders of the Virgin ?
How infinitely more sublime and consoling is it to know
that the mighty providence of God is exercised by Him
who alone can exercise it by Him who is indeed Omni-
present, Omniscient, Omnipotent by Him who beholds,
without effort, the past, the present, and the future by Him
who is the King Almighty, immortal and invisible, by whom
68 Letter XXX.
and for whom all things were created, and in whom all
things consist by Him who has promised that He will
never leave us nor forsake us by Him who is the true
Head of His Church the Lord Jesus Christ, God over all,
blessed forever !
The End of Controversy, Controverted. 69
LETTER XXXI.
MOST REVEREND SIR :
I COME now to consider the evidence of Scripture and
the primitive Church, from which it will be easily seen that
Dr. Milner's claim to have the Apostles and the fathers on
his side, is the actual reverse of the true state of the ques-
tion. And first, with respect to Scripture.
The whole proof which your modern Church of Rome
derives from the Word of God in favor of the Virgin's sup-
posed prerogatives, depends on the Address of the Angel
Gabriel, in the Gospel of St. Luke :* " Hail, full of grace,
the Lord is with thee : Blessed art tliou among women" taken
in connection with the fact itself, that she was chosen to
be the Mother of the great Redeemer.
We translate the text differently, " Hail, thou that art highly
favored;" and this version, we maintain, is much more
faithful to the Greek words, XaTpe, K%apira)/j.vri . Every
tyro in Greek, and especially every scholar, may perceive
at once that your Romish version is an unwarrantable gloss
upon the original. The word is the participle from the
verb Xaptroco, which signifies to make agreeable, or accept-
able, or lovely.^ And it occurs in the Epistle to the Ephe-
* Chapter i., v. 28.
t Thus, Donegan, in his Greek Lexicon, translates the word.
Schrevelius gives the participial form itself, and translates it gratia,
donatus, gratia ornatus, endowed with grace or favor, or adorned with
the same.
70 Letter XXXI.
sians,* iv y ^optraxrev r^iaq v ro5 ^yaTr^evw, where
your own Douay Bible translates it as we do, " by
which He made us ACCEPTABLE through His beloved o."f
Now, highly favored and acceptable accord well enough in
meaning ; whereas FULL OF GRACE and ACCEPTABLE are
manifestly phrases which express a wide difference in privi-
lege. There is no reason why we should translate the
same verb one way with respect to the Virgin, and another
way with respect to St. Paul and the Christians of Ephesus.
And hence, the Church of Rome herself justifies our ver-
sion, and proves that, instead of attributing too little force to
the term which the angel applied to the Virgin, our trans-
lators hare, in truth, given it as much as it will fairly bear.
The other part of the angel's address pronounces that the
Virgin is blessed among women. And she herself, in her in-
spired hymn, saith, Behold, from henceforth all generations
shall call me blessed.
This is, undoubtedly, a high honor to the Virgin ; but it
is limited plainly to the estimation of the saints below, and
conveys no intimation whatever of the celestial prerogatives
claimed for her as the Queen of Heaven, &c. In like man-
ner, we see that Jael, the wife of Heber the Kenite,|
is pronounced " Blessed among women." So the Lord de-
clares to Israel,^ " All nations shall call you blessed." Hence,
it is plain that the Scriptures, thus far, give no support
whatever to your Romish doctrine.
We come, lastly, to the only remaining argument, derived
* Chapter i., v. 6.
t Our English Bible reads, " Wherein He hath made us ACCEPTED in
the Beloved." This is closer to the Greek, but the meaning is the
same, precisely.
$ Judges, ch. v., v. 24.
6 Mai. iii. 12.
" Woman /" 71
from the simple fact thai the Virgin was the Mother of the
Redeemer. It is for this, undoubtedly, that she is accounted
Blessed among women. It is for this that all generations
shall call her Blessed, and we claim our full share in the
honor due to her, accordingly. But this eminent blessing
in the Church below is one thing, and all power in heaven
and earth is quite another. And hence, the enormous super-
structure which Romanism has built upon the' maternal re-
lation to our Lord is contradicted throughout, and most em-
phatically, by His own express teaching.
Thus, we find that the Saviour never calls her Mother at
any time, but Wowin. As, for example, at the marriage
feast of Cana in Galilee,* your Douay Bible reads as fol-
lows : " And the wine failing, the Mother of Jesus saith
to Him, They have no wine. And Jesus saith unto her,
Woman, what is that to me and to thee 1 My hour is not
yet come. Hn mother saith to the waiters, Whatsoever He
shall say to you, do ye."
Here, by the way, let me notice another discrepancy in
the translation of our English Bible, where your writers ac-
cuse us very unjustly. According to our version, the
words of Chrisc are, " What have I to do with thee ?" The
Douay Bible adopts the language which I have given above,
What is that to me and to thee ? The Greek original is, rl
{j-oi teal 001, literally, WHAT TO ME AND TO THEE ? Your
version would therefore seem to be nearer to the Greek ; and
yet it is not so, for the phrase is idiomatic, and signifies
precisely what our translators have given as its true mean-
ing. Of this we have full proof from your Douay Bible it-
self. Thus.f where the devils address to the Saviour these
words, " What have we to do with Thee, Jesus, Son of God,"
* St. John, ii. 3, 4, 5. f St. Matthew, viii. 29.
72 Letter XXXL
according to your own version (which, in this place, agrees
with ours), the original Greek gives the* very same form. Ti
fiiuv teal oot, literally, WHAT TO us AND TO THEE ? Thus,
we have another example, from your own undesigned ac-
knowledgment, of the superior fidelity of our English Bible.
But according to your Roman version, we have here an
expression, which the Douay commentators are obliged to
say, has been considered " as harsh" although they insist,
with Dr. Milner, that the Virgin " knew of the miracle
which the Saviour was about to perform, and that it was at
her request he wrought it." Assuredly, however, the sa-
cred history itself shows the very contrary. She merely
tells her divine Son of the fact that there was no wine, and
she does not presume to make any request whatever. What
was to be done, or how, she leaves entirely to His own dis-
cretion. She therefore tells the servants to follow His di-
rections, in the hope that He would, in His kindness, de-
vise some plan to meet the difficulty, while to Himself she
does not venture to make any reply. It is perfectly evi-
dent, therefore, that the miracle which He saw fit to per-
form was His own voluntary suggestion, and it is impossi-
ble to infer, from his language to the Virgin, that He wish-
ed to connect her in any way with the transaction. He
did not stand in need of her information, and evidently an-
swered as if to discourage her well-meant officiousness.
Instead, therefore, of affording any warrant for your Romish
doctrine that the Virgin is the very medium through whom
Christ bestows His gifts, it is, in reality, rather a warning
against it. For why this admitted harshness of expression 1
Why address her by the name of woman, instead of the en-
dearing title of mother ? Why disclaim her interference
rather than encourage it ? Manifestly, because our Lord
foresaw the evils which a superstitious worship of His
Rebukes of Christ. 73
mother would bring into His Church, and therefore, from
first to last, mercifully, though sternly, set His face against it.
In strict accordance with this, when He was but twelve
years old, and had tarried at Jerusalem, in the temple, and
Joseph and His mother sought for Him and found Him there,
she undertook, though very gently, to rebuke Him.* " His
mother said unto Him, Son, why hast thou so done to us ?
Behold, thy father and I have sought thee sorrowing. And
he said unto them, How is it that ye sought me ? Did you
not know that I must be about the things that are my Father's ?
And they understood not the word that He spoke unto them.
And He went down with them, and came to Nazareth, and
was subject to them. And Mary kept all these words in her
heart."
Here Ave see that the Saviour, young as he was, answers
the rebuke of his mother with another rebuke, far better
justified. For she had said, " Thy father and I have sought
thee sorrowing." Whereas she knew that Joseph was not
His father, and He reminds them both of His true pater-
nity by saying, " Do you not know that I must be about the
things that ' are my Father's ?" They ought not, therefore,
to have sought Him amongst " their kinsfolk and acquaint-
ance," as if He were a common youth, seeking to amuse
Himself, during the religious festival. They should rather
have taken it for granted that He was at the Temple, His
Father's house, employed in preparing for the fulfilment of
the high and holy purpose for which He had been sent into
the world. Hence, they were to blame, and He shrinks
not from telling them so. Nevertheless, He had no inten-
tion to withdraw from the ordinary fulfilment of His duties,
and therefore -He went down with them, and was subject
* St. Luke, ch. ii., v. 43, Douay Bible.
VOL. II. 4
74 Letter XXXI.
unto them, aiding them to the utmost of His power. But
He never departed from the sublime peculiarity of His na-
ture and office, as the Redeemer of the world. He was
the Son of Mary according to the flesh, and He was the
ward of Joseph, while, nevertheless, He was the divine
Lord and Saviour of them both. Hence, they seem to have
submitted to His rebuke without a murmur ; and though
they understood not His full meaning at the time, yet they
asked for no explanation, but Mary kept His words in her heart.
And yet, in the face of a narrative like this, your modern
Church of Rome does not shrink from saying, " St. Joseph
ruler of the Lord of the universe St. Joseph, Governor of
the Incarnate Wisdom St. Joseph Saviour of the Saviour
of mankind St. Joseph, honored and served ly the King and
Queen of Heaven .'" as if our Lord could have been RULED
and GOVERNED by the will of Joseph, like an ordinary child,
instead of being guided, in all things, by His own perfect
sense of duty. The principle is the same on which He af-
terwards submitted Himself to be baptized by John the
Baptist, not because He could be in any proper sense con-
sidered as John's disciple, but because of the rule He had
prescribed to Himself, " So it becometh us to fulfil all jus-
tice."* The distinction is of the highest importance, be-
cause it explains, throughout, the otherwise unaccountable
style of His language towards His mother.
The next part of the Gospel history which bears upon
this subject, is that conclusive passage, where we read,f
" As he was yet speaking to the multitudes, behold his
mother and his brethren stood without, seeking to speak
with him. And one said to him, Behold, thy mother and
thy brethren stand without, seeking thee.' But he, an-
* St. Mat., iii. 15, Douay Bible,
t St. Mat., xii. 46, Douay Bible.
St. Mary, one of the Redeemed. 75
swering him that told him, said, Who is my mother and
who are my brethren 1 And, stretching forth his hand to-
wards his disciples, he saitk, Behold my mother and my bre-
thren. For whosoever shall do the will of my Father who
is in heaven, he is my brother, and sister, and mother." It
may be observed that while the address of the Angel Ga-
briel occurs only in the Gospel of St. Luke, this passage is
recorded by St. Luke,* St. Mark,f and St. Matthew. And
it proves, most clearly, that the blessed Redeemer refused
to attach any spiritual pre-eminence to the earthly relation-
ship of His mother. This, indeed, would seem to result
necessarily from the unquestionable truth, that He was God
and man, in One Person. But the affinity to God must al-
ways depend on holiness. Hence, the Virgin. Mary could
claim no kindred to the divine nature of her Son simply be-
cause she was His earthly mother. That relationship is a
question of the body. The heavenly relationship is a ques-
tion of the soul. And therefore the Virgin mother, though
highly favored in being selected for such a purpose, and
being brought thereby so near to the Person of her divine
Son, during the years of His childhood and youth, was re-
garded by Him as only one of the innumerable multitude
which He came to redeem, and, like all the rest, obliged to
work out her salvation in the appointed way of living faith
and holy obedience. Christ Jesus, as a man, would doubt-
less have been subject, according to your Roman theory, to
all the usual partiality of ordinary human affection. But
Christ Jesus, as God, was raised infinitely above them.
And as, in Him, the human will was always in strict sub-
ordination to the divine, it is as GOD MANIFEST IN THE FLESH
that His whole conduct must be regarded.
In accordance with this decisive passage is another,
* St. Luke, viii. 20. f St. Mark, iii. 32.
76 Letter XXXI.
which, we read as follows :*. " And it came to pass as he spake
these things, that a certain woman from the crowd, lifting
up her voice, said to him. Blessed is the womb that bare
thee, and the paps that gave thee suck. But he said, Yea,
rather blessed are they that hear the word of God and keep it."
This woman from the crowd took the Romish view of the
subject, and it is in nowise extraordinary that a crowd of wo-
men should find it a very acceptable doctrine to this day. And
hence the frequent reference to the womb of Mary which we
meet with in the devotions of her worshippers. Neverthe-
less, it is a low and sensuous notion, and therefore con-
stantly opposed and discouraged by the divine Redeemer.
The last direct text bearing on this subject is the re-
markable passage of St. John's Gospel,! " Now there stood
by the cross of Jesus his mother, and his mother's sister,
Mary of Cleophas, and Mary Magdalene. When Jesus,
therefore, saw' his mother and the disciple standing, whom
he loved, he saith to his mother, Woman, behold thy Son.
After that he saith to the disciple, Behold thy mother. And
from that hour the disciple took her to his own."
Here we see, plainly, how our Lord regarded his earthly
relation to the Virgin. Though in the agony of death,
when the human heart is most apt to show the strength of
the natural feelings, and to utter, without disguise, the ten-
derness of its affections towards the beloved mother and
the cherished friends of its domestic life, yet the majesty
of THE GOD IN MAN towers above it all, in the example of
the Saviour. As at other times, so now, He calls her Wo-
man. His benevolence provides for her the special care of the
beloved disciple, St. John. But in the very words employ-
ed, we see a strong intimation of the idea already given,
* St. Luke vii., v. 27, Douay Bible,
t Chapter si., v. 25, Douay Bible.
The Blessed Virgin in Scripture. 77
that the relation between them, being only of earth, was
now transferred to another. The Saviour might have said
to St. John, " Take care of her for my sake, and remember
that she is my mother." And had he been an ordinary mor-
tal, such would have been, most probably, the form in which
the office of guardianship would have been imposed. But
instead of this, He saith, Woman, behold thy Son; and to the
Apostle He saith, Behold thy mother. As if He would in-
struct them, by a fresh and powerful lesson, that He who,
as God, had power to form this temporary relation with
Mary in the beginning, had the same power to transfer it
-to another at the end. of His earthly course ; so that hence-
forth, whatever affinity she might claim to the divine Re-
deemer of the world, must rest wholly on the spiritual ground
of that " HOLINESS, without which no man shall see the Lord."
No candid and intelligent mind, therefore, can fail to
perceive the contrast between the language of Christ and
your Romish theory. And we have reason to be thankful
for the divine care and wisdom with which the whole has
been recorded, so as to guard, if anything could have
guarded, His Church, from the subsequent influx of this
sensuous and alluring delusion. Nor is the negative testi-
mony of Scripture less, if it be not even more, conclusive.
For we nowhere find that the Virgin was suffered to inter-
fere with the Apostles, or give the slightest counsel or ad-
vice, on any subject whatever. We are told of the piety of
other women, but nothing is said of hers. She stood with
the rest at the cross, but nothing is related of her language,
her actions, or her feelings. Mary Magdalene and another
Mary go to the Sepulchre, biit it does not appear that the
Virgin Mother accompanied them. Mary Magdalene was
even favored with a special sight of her beloved Lord, after
His resurrection, but it does not appear that this favor was
accorded to the Mother. She is mentioned once in the first
78 Letter XXXI.
chapter of the Acts of the Apostles, as being with the rest
of the disciples in an upper room, but nothing more is re-
corded concerning her. How is it possible to reconcile all
this with your Romish hypothesis, that she was nevertheless
destined to be the Queen of Heaven, the Queen of Apostles,
patriarchs, prophets, angels, and saints ! That she was
to be the great Mediatrix between God and man ! Yea !
that all power should be given to her in heaven and in
earth !
But your ingenious advocate seems to have guarded
against this total want of support from the Holy Scriptures,
by asserting, that " the Church derived her doctrine imme-
diately from the Apostles, before any part of the New Testa-
ment was written" And yet it is very obvious that this
affords no imaginable reason why the Apostles should not
have inserted it along with the rest of their inspired instruc-
tions, after they began to write the Gospels and the Epis-
tles, for the standing memorials of the faith which they had
preached. Let us turn next, however, to the fathers, Coun-
cils, and Liturgies of the early ages of the Church ; and here
I shall furnish the plainest demonstration that the Apostles
could not have taught any such thing, since the modern
apotheosis of the Virgin Mary formed no part whatever of
the ancient primitive doctrine.
Thus we find the great Augustine, in the fourth century,
and towards its close, addressing himself to God. " Whom
may I find that will reconcile me to Thee ? Should I have
recourse to angels ? With what prayer ? With what sacra-
ments ? Many endeavoring to return to Thee, and not able
of themselves, have tried these things, as I hear, and have
fallen into the desire of curious visions, and were worthy of-
such illusions. But the TRUE MEDIATOR whom Thou by
Thy secret mercy hast shown to the humble, and hast sent,
St. Augustine's Testimony. 79
that by His example they might learn humility, is the Medi-
ator between God and man, the man Christ Jesus."*
That, in the time of Augustine, the Virgin Mary was not
called the Mother of God, seems very clear from the follow-
ing passage :
" Our Lord Jesus Christ was God and man. So far as
it concerned His Deity, He had no mother ; so far as it con-
cerned His humanity, He had. Therefore she was the
mother of His flesh, the mother of His humanity, the mother of
the infirmity which He took upon Him for us." " For the
Lord of heaven and earth came by a woman. As He was
the Lord of the world, the Lord of heaven and earth, He
was also the Lord of Mary. As He was the Creator of the
heavens and the earth, He was the Creator of Mary. But
as it was said that He was made of a woman, made under
the law, He was the Son of Mary."f
That Augustine held the Virgin Mary to be a sinner is
plain from these words in his Commentary on the 34th
Psalm : " Mary, from Adam, was dead because of sin, Adam
was dead because of sin, and the flesh of the Lord from
Mary was dead, to take away sin."|
The same doctrine is manifest from those passages in
which he sets forth Christ alone as without sin, since
this can never be made consistent with the Romish notion
that the Virgin was immaculate. This opinion of St. Au-
gustine is abundantly clear from the following discourse on
the eighth chapter of the Epistle to the Romans :
" He sent His Son in the similitude of the flesh of sin.
Not in the flesh of sin. In the flesh, truly, but not in the
flesh of sin. Therefore all the flesh of others is the flesh of
* Augustini Op., Tom. 1, p. 146, Confes. Lib. 10, 67-8.
t Augustini Op., Tom. 3, 2d Div., p. 260-1, 1) 9, Corn, in Johan.
Ev. cap. 1, Trac. 9.
t Ib. Op., Tom. 4, P. 1, p. 179, F.
80 Letter XXXI.
sin. His ALONE was not the flesh of sin, because His
mother conceived Him not by concupiscence, but by
grace."*
The distinction between honoring the martyrs and wor-
shipping them, is plainly pointed out by Augustine, in an-
other discourse, on the martyrdom of the Bishop Fructuo-
sus : " What was the answer of the holy deacon who suf-
fered and was crowned together with his Bishop ? The
judge said to him, Dost thou worship Fructuosus ? And
he replied,'! do not worship Fructnosus, but I worship God,
whom Fructuosus also worshipped. How does he admon-
ish us, that we should honor the martyrs, and worship God,
with them 1 For we ought not to be what we grieve to see
the heathen are. Since, truly, they worship dead men."^
The famous Basil must also be reckoned among those
who counted the Virgin among sinners, for he saith ex-
pressly that she doubted at the crucifixion. These are his
words : " According to the word of the Lord, AH shall lie
offended in me, Simeon prophesied of Mary herself, standing
at the cross and beholding the things which were done, and
hearing the expressions around her : After the testimony
of Gabriel, after the hidden knowledge of the divine con-
ception, after so many miracles performed, yet there will
be, saith he, in thine own mind, a certain fluctuation. And
therefore it was necessary that the Lord should taste death
for all, and that a propitiation should be made for the whole
world, and that ALL should be justified by His blood."t
Pope Leo the Great also expresses very clearly the doc-
trine of his day, which was still later than the former, being
in the 5th century, that the Virgin Mary was not free from
* Augustini Op., Tom. 5, p. 505, 8.
t Ib. Tom. 5, p. 771, 3.
Basilii Op., Tom. 3, p. 400, E.
St. Epiphamus against Mariolatry. 81
sin : " For the ground of human flesh," saith he, " which
was accursed in the first prevaricator, brought forth a
blessed scion in that only offspring of the blessed Virgin,
which was free from the vice of its stock.""*
So, too, Pope Gregory the Great asserts the same doc-
trine plainly, in his 4th Homily on Ezekiel, B. 2 : " Who,
therefore," saith he, " is without sin, but he who was con-
ceived without sin 1 for one is the Author and Redeemer
of the Holy Church, to whom and by whom all proceed
who know themselves to be sinners. "f
To these may be added the testimony of St. Epiphanius,
the Bishop of Cyprus, who flourished in the fifth century,
and who thus argues against the idolatry of the Virgin
Mary by a sect of heretics called the Collyridians : " I
acknowledge," saith he, " that Mary remained ever a Virgin,
but she never was proposed to us as an object of worship,
since she herself worshipped Him who was born of her
flesh, but who had descended from heaven and the bosom
.of the Father. Wherefore the sacred Gospel also admon-
ishes us, in which Christ saith, Woman, what have I to do
with thee ? my hour is not yet come. Here, He calls her
Woman, lest any one should suppose her to be of a superior
nature, and He used this word as if prophesying for the
refutation of those heretics which He knew would arise in
the world ; that no one should be led away by too great
admiration of the Holy Virgin, to adopt these puerile fol-
lies."J " Wherefore, truly, let Mary be honored, but let
the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost, be worshipped.
Let no one worship Mary."
* S. Leonis Magni Op., p. 76.
t S. Greg. Op., Tom. 1, p. 1350, 1-7.
t S. Epiphan., Tom. 1, p. 1061-2.
$ Ib., p. 1064.
VOL. II. 4*
82 Letter XXXI.
Again, we have in this ancient writer a conclusive tes-
timony against the vain and profane doctrine of Rome about
the Virgin's assumption into heaven. " The minds of men,"
saith Epiphanius, " can never rest, and always incline to
evil. But whether the holy Virgin died and was buried, so
that her death, being in honor and chastity, the crown of
virginity was granted to her ; or whether she was slain, as
the Scripture seems to indicate by these words, The sword
shall penetrate her soul also, and so she obtained the glory
and honor of the martyrs, and her sacred body, by which
light came into the world, was laden with all felicity ; or
whether, finally, she may not be still alive, for God is able
to do whatever He pleases, but nothing is known certainly
about her departure. Wherefore it is unlawful to honor the
saints beyond what is just, but the God of the saints is
to be honored."*
And in the following century, we have the testimony of
Isidore, the eminent Bishop of Seville, to the same effect.
" Some," saith he, " assert that Mary died by the passion,
of a bodily death, because the just Simeon, holding Christ
in his arms, had prophesied, saying, A sword shall pass
through thy soul also. But it is uncertain whether he spake
of the sword of martyrdom, or of the Word of God, stronger
and sharper than any two-edged sword. And it may be
observed, specially, that no history informs us of Mary hav-
ing perished by the vengeance of the sword, since her death
is mentioned nowhere, neither is her burial reported."!
We see, from the testimony of St. Augustine, as well as
of St. Epiphanius, that superstition had already begun to
display itself in this direction, but as yet it had obtained
* S. Epiph., Tom. 1, p. 1055.
t Isidori Hispal. de vita et morte sanct., p. 364.
The Clementine Liturgy. 83
no firm foothold in the Church, nor for a long period after
their day. But now let us look to the primitive Liturgies,
'and examine whether any trace can be discovered in them
to warrant the bold assertion of your advocate, that the
modern doctrine of Rome was taught by the Apostles.
First, then, we have the Clementine Liturgy, as it stands
in the 8th book of the so-called Apostolical Constitutions.
And here, there is not a trace of veneration to the Virgin
or the saints, but they are commemorated in the Eucharist
in these words :
" Farther, we offer to Thee for all the saints who have
pleased Thee from the beginning of the world ; the pa-
triarchs, prophets, righteous men, apostles, martyrs, confes-
sors, bishops, priests, deacons, sub-deacons, readers, sing-
ers, virgins, widows, laymen, and all whose names Thou
knowest. We farther offer to Thee for this people ; that for
the glory of Thy Christ Thou wilt render them a royal priest-
hood, a holy nation, for the virgins," &c. Here, we have
thp same language used with respect to the departed saints
and to the living, but no distinction of honor or authority,
no Hail Mary, no address to the Virgin, no asking for her
prayers ; in a word, not the slightest trace of anything re-
sembling this portion of your modern Roman Liturgy.
Next we come to the Liturgy of St. James, so called,
being the same which was used in the ancient Church of
Jerusalem, as given in the original Greek of the Bibliotheca
Patrum* And here we have the following words :
" Hail, Mary, full of grace, the Lord is with thee ; bless-
ed art thou among women, and blessed is the fruit of thy
womb, for of thee was born the Saviour of our souls."
" Then the priest says with a loud voice"
*Tom. 2. ,vv" -^
84 Letter XXXL
" But chiefly (be mindful, Lord), of our most holy,
immaculate, superlatively blessed and glorious lady, the Mo-
ther of God, and ever Virgin Mary."
" The Singers. It is meet that we should truly magnify
thee, the ever blessed immaculate parent and mother of
God, who art of more honor than the cherubim, and incom-
parably more glorious than the seraphim. Thee we extol,
who broughtest forth the Divine Logos .without corruption,
and art truly the parent of God."
" And again they sing, Thou, full of grace, art the joy
of the whole creation, both of angels and men, a temple of
holiness, a spiritual paradise, and the glory of virginity, of
whom the Deity was incarnate, and our God, whose being
was from eternity, was made a child. For thy womb was
his throne, Ihe seat of Him whom the heavens contain.
Thou, O full of grace, art the joy of the universe. Praise
be to thee."
. This Liturgy, which certainly was not published at an
earlier period than the 5th century, shows a large advance
towards your modern superstition, if, indeed, these passages
are not the work of still later ages, when the error had fas-
tened firmly upon the Oriental Church. But still the read-
er will observe that while there is abundance of praise, yet
there is no prayer to the Virgin. The Hail Mary stops
short without the subsequent addition, " Pray for us now, and
at the hour of our death" And therefore it proves that even
so late as the 5th century, the Liturgy was clear of anything
more than an extravagant rhetorical laudation of the Virgin,
which, nevertheless, prepared the way for further and more
perilous innovation.
We come next to the Liturgy of St. Mark, so called,
being that used in the Church of Alexandria, and translated
from the edition of your own Renaudot, at Paris, 1716.
Liturgy of St. Mark. 85
Here we have a commemoration of the departed, in these
words :
" Be mindful, O Lord our God, of our forefathers from
the beginning of the world, of the patriarchs, prophets,
apostles, martyrs, confessors, bishops, saints, just men, and
of the soul of every one who is gone before us in the faith
of Christ, especially of those whom we this day commemo-
rate, and of our holy father St. Mark, the apostle and evan-
gelist, who showed unto us the way of salvation."
" Hail, thou that art full of grace, the Lord is with thee :
. Blessed art thou among women, and blessed is the fruit of
thy womb, because thou broughtest forth the Saviour of our
souls. With a loud voice : Especially (be mindful, O Lord)
of the most holy, immaculate, blessed lady, the Mother of
God, and the ever blessed Virgin."
In this we see the same laudation of the Virgin, only a
little less amplified. But we must carefully remark that
the prayer is for her, i. e., "Be mindful, O Lord, of our
forefathers, the patriarchs, prophets, &c., especially of St.
Mark, and of the most holy Virgin" &c. Not a word is
said of their intercession for the Churcli, but the Church, on
the contrary, prays for them. Still, therefore, though we
behold an extravagant act of praise, yet no supplication
whatever is offered to the Virgin Mary.
The fourth of these old Liturgies old, but by no means
primitive in all their parts is that which bears the name of
St. Chrysostom ; and here we have substantially the same form
with the last, and I give the passage in full, for my reader's
greater satisfaction.
" We offer, moreover, this reasonable worship, for those
who are departed from us in faith, our forefathers, fathers,
patriarchs, prophets, apostles, preachers, evangelists, mar-
tyrs, confessors, chaste persons, and every spirit perfected
86 Letter XXXI.
in faith. With a loud voice : Especially the most holy, im-
maculate, blessed above all, most glorious lady, the Mother
of God, and ever Virgin Mary."
" The people sing : It is indeed meet to call thee blessed,
who art the Mother of God, most highly blessed forever,
beyond exception, more honorable than the cherubim, and
more glorious than the seraphim, who by an immaculate
conception didst bear God the Word : We magnify thee,
Mother of God."
Here, again, the Church intercedes for the patriarchs,
prophets, &c., and especially for the Virgin Mary, but does
not ask for her intercession, nor offer to her any word of sup-
plication. An allusion is made to her intercession, how-
ever, in another prayer, in these words : " Remit, pardon,
and forgive, O God, all the sins which I have committed
against thee, * * * according to thy goodness and pity forgive
them all, through the intercessions of thy spotless and ever
Virgin Mother" This is the whole on the subject in the
so-called Liturgy of St. Chrysostom ; and slight as it is, it
shows the natural progress of the error.
The Liturgy of St. Basil, so called, comes next in order,
as it is given by the same Renaudot, in the Paris edition.
And in this we have the following :
" Vouchsafe, O Lord, to remember those who have pleased
Thee from the beginning of the world, the holy fathers, pa-
triarchs, apostles, prophets, preachers, evangelists, martyrs,
confessors, and all just spirits, departed in the faith ol
Christ."
" Especially, the most holy, immaculate, blessed above
all, most glorious lady, the Mother of God, and ever Virgin
Mary."
" St. John, the glorious prophet, the forerunner of our Sa-
viour, the baptist and martyr."
Ethiopian and Nestonan Liturgies. 87
" St. Stephen, the first deacon and marty"."
" And our holy and blessed father, Mark the Apostle and
evangelist, and our holy father, Basil, the worker of mira-
cles."
" And all other Thy saints, for the sake of whose prayers
and intercessions have mercy upon us, and save us for the
sake of Thy holy name, which is called upon, on our behalf."
We may here observe, from the mention made of Basil,
who is called " the worker of miracles," that this Liturgy,
though bearing his name, could not have been his compo-
sition, but was subsequent to his day. He flourished, how-
ever, a little before the 5th century, and we all know that
400 years is more than enough to bring in a multitude of
changes in any institution placed under human guardian-
ship. Nevertheless, we have here, as before, a prayer to
God that He would remember the Virgin and the saints ;
and although there is a reference to the fact that they do
pray for the Church (which notion, in itself, is certainly
quite unobjectionable), yet there is, as before, not one
word of address to the Virgin, even in the rhetorical style
of some of the other Liturgies, much less is there any sup-
plication asking for her prayers.
The Ethiopian Liturgy enters more largely into the in-
strumentality of the saints, as in the following passage :
"We render thanks to Thee, O God, through Thine only be-
gotten Son * * * through Stephen the proto-martyr, Zachary
the priest, and John the Baptist, through all the saints and
martyrs, who are at rest in the faith of Christ ; through Mat-
thew, Mark, Luke and John, the four evangelists, and
through Mary, the Mother of God, hear us, O Lord. * * * May
all their prayers for us be accepted." But there is far less
laudation of the Virgin, and no address to her, of any sort
whatever.
88 Letter XXXI.
The Liturgy of Nestorius, who was condemned as a her-
etic by the Council of Ephesus, of which I shall speak by
and by, is perfectly clear of the Virgin's peculiar laudation,
and resembles, in this respect, the oldest Clementine Liturgy
first given.
Next we have the orthodox Liturgy of Severus, the pa-
triarch of Antioch, in the latter part of the fifth and the be-
ginning of the sixth century. And this is worthy of note
for two reasons. First, because there is no special com-
memoration of the departed saints, by name, excepting " St.
James, the chief of Bishops" a declaration directly at war with
your Romish doctrine that St. Peter was the chief of Bishops.
And secondly, that these words occur in one of the pray-
ers, " For our Lord and God, Jesus Christ, thine only be-
gotten Son, was the only person who was ever united to a
body of flesh, and entirely subdued all the sinful lusts thereof,
so as to leave no room for them to take hold of him." The
Virgin Mary, however, is called " the blessed Mother of
God and ever Virgin," in a passage which speaks of the
incarnation of the Saviour ; but there is no allusion, of course,
.to her being immaculate, which is plainly excluded by the
words which I have quoted. Neither is there any refer-
.ence to her intercession, nor the slightest approach to the
other points of your modern Roman doctrine.
But now we come to the old Roman Missal of your un-
changed and unchangeable Church herself, as printed at
Rome A. D. 1647, from the ancient manuscripts. And
.here, strange to say, there is less honor to the Virgin than
we have found in some of the other Liturgies. The follow-
ing extracts give the whole of the passages alluding to her :
" Commemorating and honoring the memory, in the first
place, of the glorious ever Virgin Mary, Mother of God and
our Lord Jesus Christ, as also of thy blessed Apostles and
The Sacramentary of Gregory the Great. 89
Martyrs, Peter and Paul, Andrew, James, &c., and of all
thy saints ; through whose merits and prayers grant that in
all things we may be defended by the help of thy protec-
tion, through the same Christ our Lord. Amen."
" Deliver us, we beseech Thee, Lord, from all evils,
past, present, and to come, and through the intercession of
the blessed and glorious ever Virgin Mary, Mother of God,
and of thy blessed Apostles, Peter, and Paul, and Andrew,
and all the saints, graciously give peace in our days * * *
through the same our Lord Jesus Christ."
Here we have the title, " Mother of God," and an allusion
to the merits as well as to the prayers of the Virgin and
the saints ; but there is no Hail Mary, even in the words of
Scripture, as we have seen in the Liturgies called by the
names of St. James and St. Chrysostom, no address to the
Virgin, of any sort whatever, and not the slightest intimation
that she was immaculate, much less that she could be a
proper object for the Church's invocation.
Lastly, I shall refer to the Sacramentary of Pope Greg-
ory the Great, belonging to the close of the sixth century, in
which we have the whole order of the prayers of the Church
of Rome, for every day in the year, filling 119 pages folio;
and from the beginning to the end, though her intercessions
are constantly referred to, yet not one address to the Virgin
or the saints can be found in the whole collection. The
following specimens are taken from the Festival of the As-
sumption of the Holy Virgin Mary :
" O Lord, pardon the sins of thy servants, and grant that
we, who are not able to please thee by our works, may be
saved by the intercession of the Mother of thy Son our
Lord."
" May the prayer of the Mother of God, Lord, aid thy
people, whom, although we acknowledge, that she has dp-
90 Letter XXXI.
parted through the condition of the flesh, yet we believe
that, in celestial glory, she prays for us : through the same
our Lord."
" Truly worthy and just it is, right and salutary, that we
should at all times and in all places give thanks to thee, O
holy Lord, Almighty Father, everlasting God ; and that we
should praise, bless, and confess thee in veneration of the
holy virgins with exulting minds ; among whom, the unde-
filed Mother of God,' the Virgin Mary, whose assumption
we this day celebrate, shines glorious, who also, by the
overshadowing of thy Holy Spirit, conceived the only be-
gotten Son, and the glory of Virginity remaining, brought
forth eternal light into this world, Jesus Christ our Lord."
" The Benediction"
" May God, who, by the offspring of the Blessed Virgin
Mary, deigned to redeem the human race, deign to enrich
you with his blessing. Amen. May you always and every-
where experience her patronage, from whose undefiled
womb you have merited to receive the Author of life. And
may you who have assembled this day, with devout minds,
to celebrate her festival, carry away with you the gifts of
spiritual joys and eternal rewards. Amen."
" Compline."
" Being made participants of the heavenly table, we im-
plore thy clemency, O Lord our God, that we who venerate
the festival of the Mother of God, may be freed from the
evils which hang over us : by her intercessions, through the
Lord."*
We may now see, without any difficulty, the plain ab-
surdity of your Roman assumption, that your modern doc-
* S. Gregor. Mag. Op., Tom. 3, p. 123, Liber Sacramentorum.
Summary of Liturgies. 91
trine concerning the worship of the Virgin aud the saints
was taught by the Apostles. For the quotations which I
have made from the fathers prove, 1st, that the Virgin was
not without sin, or immaculate ; 2d, that the saints and mar-
tyrs were to be honored, but not worshipped ; 3d, that the
story of the Virgin's death, resurrection, and glorious as-
sumption into heaven, was not received even in the time of
Epiphanius, which was the latter end of the fourth century.
And the Liturgies confirm all this, and conclusively prove
that the modern doctrine had no existence prior to the
first Council of Nice, which the Roman theologians them-
selves agree to have been the period when the oldest of
these Liturgies, viz., the Clementine, was published, where-
as the others did not see the light 'until a century after-
wards.
Thus, then, stands the evidence. The Clementine Lit-
urgy was by much the older Order for the public service
of the Church, and it does not contain the slightest trace of
your present Romish doctrine on the subject.
Next, we find the Liturgies called by the name of St. James,
St. Mark, St. Chrysostom, and St. Basil, as also the Ethiopic,
and the Old Roman, all distinguishing the Virgin, more or
less, and some of them in high terms of laudation ; but instead
of praying to her, they pray and offer the Eucharist for her,
as well as foi? the rest of the departed saints. The differ-
ence here is enormous, since the very act of praying for.,
her supposes that the Church then believed she was in
a state which might be improved to a higher blessedness. '
Happy she was, doubtless, in paradise, but not yet exalted
to a throne of glory in heaven. Hence the modern Ro-
manist could not possibly use those Liturgies with any pro-
priety. And hence, too, their language is entirely incon-
sistent with the epithets of your subsequent idolatry, Queen
92 Letter XXXI.
of Heaven, Queen of Angels, Queen of Apostles, Martyrs,
and all Saints, &c.
Still, however, even tlie advance made towards corruption
in these Liturgies was not universal ; for we see that not
only the Liturgy of Nestorius, but also the Orthodox Lit-
urgy of Severus, the Patriarch of Antioch, in the fifth cen-
tury, preserves the simplicity and pujgty of the Clementine
Liturgy, with the single exception of calling her the blessed
Mother of God, a phrase which came extensively into fash-
jon after the Council of Ephesus, and one which, at first
sight, seems susceptible of a perfectly sound and correct
meaning. For Christ Avas God, manifest in the flesh. And
Mary was the Mother of Christ. Therefore, as the Son
was God, why, it might be plainly asked, should not His
Mother be called the Mother of God 1 In strictness of lan-
guage, however, the decision of the Council did not author-
ize this conclusion, because it turned only on the propriety
of the term -&eoroKog, Deipara, or the GOD-BEARER, which
Nestorius denounced, and in defence of his censure, fell
into the serious heresy of dividing Christ into two Persons,
thereby depriving His righteousness and His atoning sacri-
fice of all the majesty and worth derived from the hypostatic
union of the divine with the human nature in ONE PERSON.
The Council condemned him for this, and justly. But there
is a difference, notwithstanding, between the Virgin's bring-
ing forth Deity, and her being the Mother of Deity, and
therefore the title Deipara or -&e6roKog did not strictly jus-
tify the other title, Mother of God. For it is evident that
the mere fact of bringing forth from the womb does not, of
itself, constitute the relation of mother. To constitute a
mother, the woman must produce a living creature which
has derived its nature and its qualities through her instru-
mentality, so that it is of the same race, and is truly her off-
No Mariolatry down to the Seventh Century. 93
spring or progeny. And therefore, although the Virgin
brought forth God, yet she was not the Mother of God ; but,
as St. Augustine (one of the canonized saints of Rome) most
truly saith. in the passage which I have quoted from him,
" Christ was God and man. So FAR AS IT CONCERNED
His DEITY, HE HAD NO MOTHER ; so far as it concerned
His humanity, He had. Therefore, Mary was the Mother
of His flesh, the Mother of His humanity, the Mother of the
infirmity which He took upon Him for us. For the Lord of
heaven and earth came by a woman. As He was the Lord
of the world, the Lord of heaven and earth, He was also the
Lord of Mary. As He was the Creator of heaven and earth,
He was the Creator of Mary. But as it was said that He
was made of a woman, made under the law, He was the
Son of Mary."* The common mind, however, did not thus
distinguish. Few had the acuteness of an Augustine. And
therefore, the authorizing of the term -&eoroKog or Dei-
para, through the condemnation of Nestorius, gave a new
impulse to the honor of the Virgin, by seeming to justify
the phrase, Mother of God ; and it was rapidly adopted
throughout the Church, doubtless, from a zealous desire
to show how orthodox men, everywhere, abhorred his
heresy ; and yet without the slightest apprehension of the
awful idolatry to which the novelty would in after ages ex-
tend.
But even if we take the Liturgies which I have quoted
as being all free from interpolation, the ;result is still con-
clusive against your modern Church of Rome. For they
prove, incontestably, that up to the commencement of the
seventh century, the Church had not adopted the Ora pro
nolis, " Pray for us," in any form whatever that the Hail*
* See page 79, ante, first foot-note.
94 Letter XXXI.
Mary had been introduced in some quarters, but without the
additional clause which supplicates the Virgin that the
Church prayed for her, instead of praying to her that she
had not received, anywhere, the magnificent titles of Queen
of Heaven, Queen of Angels, Queen of Patriarchs, &c.
that in the oldest of the Liturgies, the Clementine, she was
not specified by name at all and that although the ten-
dency to magnify her was manifestly growing, and had
already made a large advance, yet a vast change was still
required, before it was possible to elevate her to the idola-
trous majesty of power and privilege, presented in your
modern Papal system.
Nevertheless, I do not charge upon your Church a formal
idolatry in this matter. I know, perfectly well, your care-
ful distinction between the kinds of worship rendered to
God and to the Virgin and the saints. That the worship
of Latria is paid only to the divine persons in the Adorable
Trinity ; that the worship of Doulia, or service and honor, is
what you pav to the saints ; while the Virgin professedly
receives the worship of Hyper-doulia, or the highest kind
of the second sort, which is lawful to a creature. All this
I place to your credit freely and cheerfully. But I have
shown, as it seems to me, that although you do not worship
the Virgin nominally as a God, yet you must necessarily
assume that she possesses powers which can only be claimed
by the Deity, since otherwise you could not authorize the
praying to her everywhere at once, nor imagine that she is
able, in effect, to dispense, to all her worshippers through-
out the world, the care and government which can only
belong to the Providence of the Almighty. And hence,
while I wilLngly acquit you of idolatry in form, I cannot
acquit you of idolatry in substance. Even this allowance,
however, is only due to the popular belief, for we have seen
Due Honor to the Virgin. 95
that Cardinal Bellarmine, and other leaders in your Church,
do not scruple to go the whole way of formal idolatry,
boldly claiming for the saints that they are Gods by parti-
cipation.
Lastly, let me state, that while we utterly deny to the
Virgin Mary the extravagant and unauthorized powers
claimed for her by the modern system of Rome, yet we
hold her justly entitled to all the honor and regard which
the Angel Gabriel and her own prophetic hymn attribute to
her. We believe her to be " blessed among women." We
esteem her as " highly favored." We maintain that " all
generations should call her blessed." We venerate her
name and memory, with those of all the ancient saints and
martyrs. But we hold her to have been a sinner, needing
to be redeemed by her divine Son. We hold that she her-
self admitted the fact when she said,* " My soul doth mag-
nify the Lord, and my spirit hath rejoiced in God, MY SA-
VIOUR." For how could God be her Saviour, if, as your
modern Church asserts, she was perfectly free from sin,
whether original or actual ? And how can our interpretation
be doubted even by the Romanist himself, when it is so
manifest that all the primitive Church, including Pope
Gregory the Great, are with us in this doctrine ? We
hold further, with the Council of Ephesus, that she might
justly be called QeoroKog, or God-bearer, but we likewise
hold, with St. Augustine, that she cannot be called, in strict
propriety, the Mother of God. We admit, also, that all the
departed saints pray collectively, in their Paradise of rest
and peace, for the Church of Christ on earth ; and therefore
we do not question that they perform this duty as they did
before their departure, nor do we doubt that it is done with
* St. Luke, i. 46-7, Douay Bible.
96 Letter XXXI.
greater zeal and affection. And therefore we hold that the
Communion of Saints comprehends them, with ourselves, in
the bonds of faith, and love, and hope, in the Lord Jesus.
But we deny that they are appointed, before the Resurrec-
tion, to any special government on earth, that they are pres-
ent with us, that they can see our hearts, and hear our
supplications, or that they have any part assigned to them
in the providential government of the world. We deny,
likewise, that there is any power in the Church militant to
decide what individuals the Lord may have chosen to glorify
among them, and we dare not venture to intrude, as St.
Paul saith, into those tilings which we have not seen,* nor
legislate for the Almighty in the selection of His favored
ones. And in all of this, we claim the authority of Scrip-
ture, the course of the primitive Church, and the assent of
enlightened reason, as being plainly on our side : and charge
your modern Papal creed with a perilous, presumptuous,
and heretical innovation upon the true Gospel system.
Before I close this letter, however, I am bound to notice
some misrepresentations of the fathers, with which Dr.
Milner endeavors to sustain the modern doctrine of his
Church. " With respect to the earliest date of prayers
to the saints," saith he,f " I may refer you to the
writings of St. Irenasus, who introduces the blessed Virgin
praying for Eve ; so the apology of his contemporary, St.
Justin the Martyr, who says, ' We venerate and worship the
angelic host, and the spirits of the prophets, teaching others
as we ourselves have been taught ;' and to the light of the
fourth century, St. Basil, who expressly refers these prac-
tices to the Apostles, where he says, ' I invoke the Apos-
tles, prophets, and martyrs to pray for me, that God may be
* Col. ii. 18. t P. 241.
Evidence of St. Iren&us. 97
merciful to me, and forgive me my sins. I honor and
reverence their images, since these things have been or-
dained by tradition from the Apostles, and are practised in
all our Churches." Some time and trouble will be required
to rectify this delusive statement of your favorite advocate ;
but the truth is worth all the labor it may cost, to the faith-
ful and candid seeker.
Beginning, then, with Irenaeus, who was Bishop of Lyons
in the latter part of the second century, I would first observe
that the part of his work to which Dr. Milner refers, has
not reached us in the original Greek, but only in a very
unskilful Latin version. Such as it is, however, the passage
is as follows :
Presenting, to his readers a sort of parallel between the
Virgin Eve and the Virgin Mary, he saith, " As Eve was
seduced through the speech of an angel, that she might de-
part from God, and violate His word : so Mary was evan-
gelized through the speech of an angel, that she might
carry God, being obedient to His word. And though the
one was disobedient to God, yet the other was persuaded
to obey Him, so that the Virgin Mary might be made an ad-
vocate of the Virgin Eve. And as the human race was de-
voted to death through a Virgin, it is saved through a Vir-
gin, the disobedience of a Virgin being equally balanced by
the obedience of a Virgin. For even so the sin of the first-
made man received a remedy through the chastisement of
the First-born, and the subtlety of the serpent has been
conquered by the simplicity of the dove, those chains being
loosed by which we had been bound to death."*
* St. Irenan Op., Tom. 1, p. 316, Lib. 5, cap. six. The special
to ^ Dr " Mihier IS ' "'* *** **
VOL. II.
98 Letter XXXL
Here we have the whole passage, and the reader may
readily see that it is altogether wide of the point for which
your author ventures to quote this ancient father. Not one
word is said of the Virgin praying for Eve. She may have
done so, for aught I know ; but whether she did or not, is
nothing to the purpose. Because the question is not about
what the Virgin might voluntarily introduce into her pray-
ers, but about the authority which we have to pray to her, as
if she were present, and to rely on her intercession for each
individual soul, as if she were the appointed Mediatrix of
the world. Indeed, the whole paragraph is not so much a
statement of the doctrine or of the practice of the Church,
as a fanciful display of ingenuity, running a parallel between
Satan and Gabriel, between Eve's disobedience and Mary's
obedience, between Adam as the first made, and Christ as
the First or only begotten. So that, in sober truth, it has
not the slightest relation to the matter in controversy.
In order to make it applicable at all, look, I pray you, at
the process which would be necessary. Irenasus saith (or
his translator makes him say), that the Virgin Mary might
become an advocate of the Virgin Eve. What this was in-
tended to mean, is by no means a plain or easy question to
answer. But Dr. Milner desires us to understand that
Mary prayed for Eve. Now Eve was dead nearly 4000
years before Mary was born, and her condition must have
been fixed, so long previous to the existence of her advo-
cate. Probably, then, our author would have us suppose
that she was in purgatory, and that Mary prayed for the re-
lease of her soul. But where did she so pray ? While she
was on earth, or after her departure ? And why did she so
pray 1 Was it of her own spontaneous solicitude, or be-
cause Eve applied to her for an act of intercession ? And
in what character did she so pray ? Was it in. the charac-
Evidence of St. Justin Martyr. 99
ter of an obedient servant of the Lord, like any other ac-
cepted disciple, or was it as the Queen of Heaven, &c. ?
And if Dr. Milner be allowed to have manufactured a reply
to all these questions, satisfactory to himself, there is yet
another, namely, how are we to conclude that because Mary
prayed for one Eve our first mother therefore she is able
and willing to hear and answer the prayers, at the same
time, of 128 millions 1
But dismissing this specimen of irrelevancy, let us pro-
ceed to the second proof of your author, derived from the
alleged statement of the martyr Justin. And here, we find
the words of the original Greek susceptible of quite a dif-
ferent meaning : " We worship and adore Him, and His
Son," saith Justin, " who came out from Him (and hath-
taught us respecting these things, and respecting the host
of the other good angels who follow Him and are made
like unto Him), and the Prophetic Spirit, honoring them in
reason and in truth. And to every one who wishes to learn,
we freely deliver our opinions, as we have been taught."*
Now that this is the true meaning we maintain, not only be-
cause it is the only one consistent with the doctrine of the
primitive Christians, for several centuries after the time of
Justin, but also because it is the only one consistent with
other passages of the same father, in the very same book.
For thus Justin expresses his doctrine a little further on, in
terms which are not capable of misrepresentation :
* 'AXX' Ixtivov TZ, KOI rov wap' auroS itiov l\S6vru KOI S(Sd^<tvra fyay ravra
KOI rov rSv aXXcov liroplvwv Kal e^ojjtoiovfisveav dya$<3v dyy&uv arparov, Trvevu.a
T TO TTpoQlJTlKOV (TC/Jo'/wSa, Kal XpOITKVVOVptV, \6ycf KO.I (iX>jSia Tt/KJVTEJ. I
have inserted the ordinary parenthetic marks in my version, to show
that the parenthesis which the Romanist is obliged to admit in the
words K al SiSaavra fyaj ravra should be extended to include the dyysXaw
crpardv, and thus the meaning is perfectly clear.
100 Letter XXXI.
" We worship," saith he, " the Creator of this universe /
declaring, as we have been taught, that He requires not sac-
rifices of blood, and libations and incense ; and we praise
Him to the utmost of our power, with words of prayer and
thanksgiving, for all things which we enjoy. Again, we
have learned that He who taught us these things, and for
this end was born, who was crucified under Pontius Pilate,
the procurator of Judea, in the time of Tiberius Cesar, was
the Son of Him who is truly God, and we esteem Him in
the second place. And that we with reason honor the
Prophetic Spirit in the third place, we shall hereafter show."
And again Justin saith : " Wherefore we worship God only ;
but in all other matters we joyfully serve you" (namely,
the Roman emperor and Senate, to whom his apology was
addressed), " confessing that ye are kings and rulers, and
praying that ye may be found to possess, together with your*
royal power, a sound and discerning mind." Here, there-
fore, this witness to whom Dr. Milner so boldly appeals in
his support, is found to testify, when honestly quoted, di-
rectly against him.
And his third pretended authority from Basil, " the light
of the fourth century" is not a whit more reliable. For,
strange to say, the identical copy which he quotes, viz., the
Parisian edition of the Benedictines, places this epistle in
the third class, numbers it ccclx., and sets down the num-
ber 205, by which Bishop Milner chose to refer to it, with
an Alias, in the margin only, while the whole class of which
it forms a part is put out of the list of Basil's genuine writ-
ings, as dateless, doubtful and spurious, and the heading of
the very page on which it stands presents the title, Episto-
l(B Spurice ! And hence I was gratified to find that, in the
copious index which closes the volume, the learned editors,
though devoted to the Church of Rome, were too honest to
Irrelevancy, Falsity, Forgery. 101
insert the statements of this forgery amongst the sentiments
of St. Basil, but passed it wholly by, as unworthy of their
notice. Nor was I able, after the most careful searching
of the index, to discover the source of Dr. Milner's state-
ment anywhere, until, on recurring to the notes which I had
made for my own use, many years ago, upon this and the
other fathers, I found the reference, and then I turned to the
place and saw, with renewed surprise, that this Apostolic
Vicar had descended to cite the false and pretended testi-
mony of Basil, with the title Spurious Epistles staring him
in the face !
Such, then, is the value of your advocate's appeals to
Christian antiquity. Such is the Jesuitical morality which
deems it no sin to use a pious fraud, for the sake of prose-
lyting. And so powerful is the real evidence, both positive
*and negative, which the primitive Church pronounces
against your modern doctrine, in this important matter of
the Virgin and the saints, that the audacity which claims for
it an Apostolic origin can only be supported by an irrelevant
passage of one father, a false translation of another, and a
downright forgery of a third !
102 The End of Controversy, Controverted.
LETTER XXXII.
MOST REVEREND SIR :
THE next topic which Dr. Milner undertakes to clear
from misrepresentation, is the veneration which his Church
pays to images and relics, or, as he calls them, " the memo-
rials of Christ and his saints, viz., crucifixes, relics, pious
pictures and images." He quotes the Council of Trent,
Gother and Challoner, to prove that the Church of Rome
does not authorize prayer or worship to images ; and then
proceeds to show, from the Bible, the reverence which the*
religious Jews rendered to the Ark of the Covenant, how
the handkerchiefs and aprons were brought from the body
of St. Paul to heal the sick, and especially how a dead
man was restored to life, when the corpse was accidentally
brought into contact with the bones of the Prophet Elisha.
He endeavors, also, to prove that the members of the
Church of England do acts equally open to censure, on their
ground, with the alleged practice of Rome, by bowing rev-
erently at the name of Jesus, by kneeling to the king, by
bowing to the empty throne in the House of Lords, and by
kissing the Bible at the taking of an oath. And he con-
cludes by asserting that " the end for which pious pictures
and images are made and retained by Catholics is the same
for which pictures and images are made and retained by
mankind in general, to put us in mind of the persons and
things they represent. They are not primarily intended
for the purpose of being venerated ; nevertheless, as they
The Council of Trent on Relics. 103
bear a certain relation to holy persons and things, by rep-
resenting them, they become entitled to a relative or second-
aiy consideration." He also specifies an important use of
pious pictures, viz., " that they help to instruct the igno-
rant." " Still," continues he, " it is a point agreed upon
among Catholic doctors and divines, that the memorials of
religion form no essential part of it"*
The first duty which I have to discharge in reference to
the foregoing part of Dr. Milner's work, is to supply his
omissions as to the real doctrine of your Church, since that
which he has stated is so far below the truth, that if his
book had not been written for the purpose of deluding Pro-
testants, it would have been very likely to incur the Papal
censure. We have already seen how deceptive was his
representation on the subject of the Virgin Mary and the
saints, and he pursued precisely the same policy on the ob-
noxious point of the worship of images and relics.
The evidence on this part of the case shall be taken from
the Council of Trent, the second Council of Nice, and the
Roman Breviary, three sources which no Romanist can dis-
pute, for they are of the highest authority.
Thus, in the Twenty-fifth Session of the Council of Trent,f
we read as follows : " The holy bodies also of the martyrs
and others, living with Christ, are to be venerated by the
faithful, for they were, when living, the members of Christ,
and the temples of the Holy Ghost, and shall be raised again
and glorified ; and through them, many favors are bestowed
on man by the Almighty : so that those who affirm that ven-
eration and honor are not due to the relics of the saints, or
that it is useless for the faithful to honor these and other 'sa-
cred memorials, and that it is vain to visit the sepulchres of
237 ' t Har d- Concil. Gen., Tom. 10, p. 168.
104 Letter XXXII.
the saints in order to ask their help, are to be altogether con-
demned,, as the Church has already condemned, and does also
now condemn them."
" Moreover," continues this Council, " the images of
Christ, of the Virgin, the Mother of God, and of the other
saints, are to be had and retained, especially in Churches,
and due honor and veneration are to be rendered to them ; not
because it may be supposed that there is in them any divin-
ity or virtue on' account of which they are to be worshipped,
or that anything is to be asked of them, or that confidence
is to be placed in images, as was formerly the case amongst
the heathen, who rested their hope on idols : but because the
honor which is exhibited to them is referred to the prototype
which they represent ; so that through the image which we kiss,
and before which we uncover our heads and bow down, we adore
Christ, and venerate the saints whose similitude those im-
ages do bear. The same doctrine is sanctioned by the de-
crees of the Councils, especially the second Council of Nice,
against the opposcrs of images.'''' At the end; the Council
pronounces, " If any one shall teach or think contrary to
these decrees, let him be anathema."
I pass next to the second Council of Nice, which the
Council of Trent here endorses and ratifies, and this will
give us some further details upon the subject. The reader
will bear in mind, however, that the second Council of Nice
was held A. D. 787, more than four and a half centuries
later than the first Council of that name, and that the Church
had by this time admitted a large amount of unscriptural,
unprimitive and superstitious innovation. The Greek Em-
peror Leo, whom Roman influence stigmatized as the Icon-
oclast, or the Image-breaker, had warmly opposed the new
corruption of image worship a considerable time before, and
a Council had been called, A. D. 754, which unanimously
The Second Council of Nice on Images. 105
condemned it, in accordance with his opinions. The sec-
ond Council of Nice was summoned to sustain the popular
novelty, through the exertions of the Roman pontiff, who
stiffly maintained this attractive delusion, and the Roman-
ists claim for it the authority of a General Council. But
this we deny, not only because it is historically certain that
it did not express the sense of the Church in the East, but
further because it was afterwards condemned by the Coun-
cil of Frankfort, in the time of the famous Charlemagne, as
I shall prove specifically, by and by, from your own wit-
nesses.
Thus, then, speaks this second Council of Nice, as en-
dorsed by the authority of Trent, in the definitive decree :*
" Taught by the ancient fathers, we salute the venerable
images. Whosoever does not consent herein, let Mm be
anathema." " And we also salute the figure of the precious
and vivifying Cross, and the holy relics of the saints. More-
over, we honor and salute those precious and venerable im-
ages, and honorably adore them, namely, the image of the
humanity of our great God and Saviour, Jesus Christ, and
of our most holy and pure lady, the Mother of God, and of
the holy incorporeal angels, who appeared in human form
to the just. In like manner also, the figures and effigies of
the divine and most famous Apostles and Prophets, and of
the martyrs and holy men, since they are able by their pic-
tures to lead us to remember them, and draw us to the origi-
nals, and make us partakers of a certain sanctiftcation." " To
these," therefore, " kisses and honorable adoration shall be
rendered; but not that superior worship (latrid) which is
according to faith, and alone becomes the Divine Nature.
And to the precious figure of the vivifying Cross, and to the
* Hard. Concil. Gen., Tom. 4, p. 262 and 266.
VOL. II. 5*
106 Letter XXXII.
holy Gospels, and the other holy memorials, let the offer-
ing of incense and lighted candles be exhibited in their honor,
according to ancient custom. For the honor of the image
passes to its original ; and whoever adores the image, adores
in it the substance of the representation."*
" If any one does not admit the evangelical narrations
made by titles or pictures, let him be anathema."
" If any one does not kiss them, as made in the name of
the Lord and His saints, let him be anathema."^
" And forasmuch as many of the venerable temples have
been consecrated without the relics of the martyrs, we de-
cree that relics shall be placed in them according to the ac-
customed rule. And if, from the present time, any Bishop
be found to consecrate a temple without relics, let him be de-
posed, as one who transgresses the ecclesiastical tradition."^.
Here, then, we see plainly the exceeding unfairness of
Dr. Mflner, whose statement of his Church's doctrine is so
defective that no one could derive from it the real truth.
Thus, he tells us that the Church of Rome does not author-
ise prayer or worship to images, and that " it is a point agreed
on by Catholic doctors and divines that the memorials of re-
ligion form no essential part of it" But the Council com-
mands relics to be placed in every church ; that the images
shall be honorably adored, with kisses, and incense, and
lighted candles ; and that those who presume to omit this
duty shall be accursed, for such is the meaning of their re-
peated anathema. They could not pronounce a heavier sen-
tence on those who denied the highest doctrines of the
faith ; and yet your author coolly informs his Protestant
readers that these things are not regarded amongst the essen-
tials of religion !
Hard. Con. Gen., Tom. 4, p. 455. f Ib. 471. J Ib. 491.
Image-worship. 107
To show the extent of the superstition which your Church
attaches to the relics of the saints, a few extracts from your
own Breviary will be sufficient.
Thus, in the lesson appointed to be read on the Festival
of St. Isidore, we read, that his body was purchased at a
great price by Ferdinand I., King of Castile and Leon ;
" that a temple was forthwith built in his honor ; and that
there, distinguished by miracles, he is venerated with great
devotion by the people."
The same Breviary relates of St. Ubald, that " his body,
which remains uncorrupted after so many ages, is honored
with great veneration of the faithful in his country, which he
has more than once delivered from imminent danger."
We are also assured by the same authority that the body of
St. Januarius, at Naples, "formerly extinguished volumes of
flames breaking forth from Mount Vesuvius"
The body of St. Francis Xavier is said, in the same
Breviary, " to have extinguished a fierce pestilence in the
Malaccas."
Nay, since the year 1790, the Pope instituted a pious
fraternity in honor of the miraculous image of the Virgin,
at Ancona, which opened and shut its eyes on public occa-
sions. This image was solemnly crowned by Pope Pius
VII. on the 13th of May, A. D. 1814, an annual feast was
appointed in its honor, and a plenary indulgence was at-
tached to it. We have many accounts, of late years, of other
images, which are related to have shed tears, and winked
their eyes in the most edifying manner. An old picture of
the Virgin and Child, at Mercatello, even changed color,
and the infant was seen to bend forward, to signify the sat-
isfaction with which it received the devotions of the people !
Among Protestants, indeed, these things are prudently omit-
ted by your priests, for the most part ; but wherever
108 Letter XXXII
manism is at home, and your clergy act without constraint,
the extravagance of the faith placed in images and relics is
cherished as much as ever, and volumes would not contain
the details of the degrading superstitions continually prac-
tised in this fruitful and profitable branch of delusion.
Such, then, being a brief selection of the facts, in relation
to your doctrine, let us look at the effort which your advo-
cate makes to press the Scriptures into his service, and then
we shall advert to a few testimonies from the fathers.
The Book of Kings states that a dead man was -restored
to life, when the corpse touched the bones of the Prophet
Elisha. And this is the nearest approach which your
Church can make to a claim of scriptural authority. But
in truth, the sacred history proves the very reverse of your
doctrine, because it was evidently a special wonder, re-
garded by the Israelites as a single and peculiar display of
divine power, and not followed by any act of veneration to
the remains of the prophet. For, according to the Romish
view of the subject, they should have believed that the
bones of Elisha possessed an inherent and constant efficacy,
and they should have taken them from the sepulchre and
kept them in state, and exhibited them to the veneration of
the faithful. The sacred relics should have been enshrined
in gold and precious stones, and incense and lighted candles
should have been used in their honor, and miraculous cures
should have been performed by their touch from time to
time, and through them, Elisha should have protected the
nation from danger, healed the pestilence, delivered them
from their enemies, and manifested the same sort of power
which your people are taught to expect from the bones of
the saints to this day. But where is there a trace of any
such superstition among the Jews ? What honor did
they render to the skeleton of the prophet 1 Famous as he
No Worship of Israeli t ish Saints. 109
was, when living, for the working of miracles, when did
the Israelites ever look to him for miracles after he was
dead ? Prone as they were to all other kinds of idolatry,
they evidently had no idea of this degrading superstition.
They left the bones of Elisha to moulder into dust, and
hence they evidently regarded the wonder as a particular
act of divine power, instead of adopting it as an important
part of a standing system. And thus the case is so far from
justifying your doctrine of Rome, that it really administers
the strongest rebuke of your delusion.
Indeed, the reference of your author to the Church of an-
cient Israel was a most unfortunate one for his hypothesis.
For there we behold at once the most admirable materials
for the establishment of image and relic worship, together
with a strong tendency in the people to all idolatry. What
saints in the Roman calendar can be more lofty than Moses,.
who conversed with God as a man talketh with his friend^
and what relic so precious as the rod with which he per-
formed such stupendous miracles ! What a glorious line
of prophets succeeded him, whose bodies and garments
might have been so easily preserved ! What a splendid
relic would the mantle of Elijah have been, with which
Elisha smote the river Jordan, and the waters separated
immediately ! What images might have been made to rep-
resent the saints and heroes of the wondrous history, not
forgetting the female worthies, Miriam and Deborah, and
Jael and Hannah prophetesses and heroines, deserving of
all honor ! And yet, amongst all this treasury of objects so
admirably fitted to the purpose, we find no images whatever
of the saints, and only one example of veneration for a
relic, when the people began to burn incense to the brazen
serpent, which Moses had erected in the wilderness ; and
the good King Hezekiah, shocked at the idolatry, brake it
110 Letter XXXII.
in pieces, calling it Nehushtan a piece of brass, without
tlie least regard to the reverence due to a sacred memorial I
As to the veneration which the Israelites paid to the Ark,
your author quite forgets that the Almighty had conde-
scended not only to give the pattern and the command for
its construction, but had also granted the glorious Shekinah
the visible manifestation of His presence to rest upon
the mercy-seat between the Cherubim. The act of wor-
ship before the Ark was therefore an act of worship to the
Deity. What possible relation can any mind but that of a
Romanist discover between this and the veneration paid to
the fanciful products oT sculptors and painters to dead bones
and relics of men and women, who were no objects of wor-
ship when they were living, but who would have started
back, with holy indignation, from receiving the smallest
ortion of the idolatrous honor rendered to their fictitious
f
portraits and statues, their mouldering remains, and even
their very clothes, after they had departed to their reward !
Lastly, we come to the evidence which Dr. Milner seeks
to derive from the fact that the woman who touched our
Saviour's garment was healed of an issue, and that aprons
and handkerchiefs were brought from the body of St. Paul
to cure the sick. But did not our Lord know the humble
faith of the woman, and will her recovery 1 And did not St.
Paul's prayers attend the use of those aprons and handker-
chiefs ? And was not the result, in both cases, to be attri-
buted to the miraculous power which Christ dispensed of His
own divine and inherent right, and afterwards granted to His
chosen Apostles, during their living and personal ministry ?
What, then, have these facts to do with your Romish doc-
trine of relics ? For a RELIC (relicta) is something left be-
hind after the decease of the owner, and therefore the gar-
ments of the Redeemer and the handkerchiefs of the Apos-
Bowing to the Throne. Ill
tie could in no sense be called relics, while they were living
upon earth. But where do we read that these things were
laid up, as sacred memorials, to be venerated and relied upon
for the curing of diseases through all time to come 1 On
the contrary, do we not find that, under the very eyes of the
inspired Apostles, the first martyr, Stephen, was carried by
devout men to his burial ? Suppose your modern Church of
Rome had possessed a voice in that holy company, and St.
Peter had been told that the body of Stephen should not be
buried, but embalmed for preservation, put into a precious
case, have incense burned and candles lighted to its honor,
and be resorted to by all the faithful, with prayers and
prostrations, as a resource against diseases, earthquakes,
pestilences, and all calamities ! Would not the holy Apostle
have denounced such a suggestion as the device of Satan,
and probably visited upon the head of the proposer the sud-
den judgment which fell, for a far less perilous sin, upon
Ananias and Sapphira ?
Thus, then, stands the weak and flimsy attempt to gain
the Scriptures into the interests of this degrading sort of
superstition and idolatry. Let us next look at the effort of
your author to manufacture some analogy out of the practice
in England of bowing in the House of Lords to the empty
throne, and kneeling to the king, and the general custom of
bending the head at the name of Jesus, and kissing the
Bible when an oath is taken upon it.
The first of these English customs, viz., the bowing to
the empty throne, has nothing to do with the subject, being
a mere piece of monarchical etiquette, totally distinct from
any pretence of faith, worship, or religious veneration. I
doubt the fact, however, because, when I visited the House
of Lords some fourteen years ago, I saw nothing of the
kind, but on the contrary, the temporal peers, with the ex-
112 Letter XXXII.
ception of the Lord Chancellor, sat with their hats on, only
taking them off when they rose to address the woolsack.
But even if our author's statement be admitted, I cannot see
any foundation for the supposed analogy. For the vacant
throne is certainly not a relic, neither is it an image, neither
are prayers addressed to it, nor incense burned before it, nor
candles lighted in its honor, nor is any benefit expected from
the passing bow of royal etiquette. And the same remarks
apply to the custom of kneeling to the sovereign. Were
nothing more than this involved in the doctrine or practice
of Rome, Dr. Milner well knew that his Church would
neither have found the worship of images and relics so
profitable to the priests and monks of her communion, nor
should we have ever thought the question worth an argu-
ment.
The second pretended analogy is equally wide of the
mark, although the practice to which it refers stands on a
very different foundation. We bow our heads at the name
of Jesus, because we bow our hearts and knees to Jesus,
according to the precept of the Apostle, that at His name
every knee shall bow. But the name of Jesus is not an
image, nor a picture, nor a relic of a mortal saint. Our
reverent bending of the head is an act of true worship, and
it is done because He is the rightful object of our worship,
which none but God can be. If the same argument could
be pleaded for the images and relics of Rome, her advo-
cates might claim a sure and easy victory.
And the third illustration of your author, derived from
our custom of sealing a solemn oath by pressing the Bible
to our lips, is quite as little to the purpose. That this is a
token of reverent affection, is granted. That it is often a
dictate of natural love to kiss the miniature or the letter of
an absent friend, is granted also. But where is the incense ?
Relics unobjectionable as simple Memorials. 113
Where are the lights ? Where are the prayers of faith 1
Where is the hope of receiving important aids and bless-
ings ? Where is the association of the act with the alleged
cures, the miraculous deliverance from sickness, calamity,
and danger ? It is these which stamp the doctrine of Rome
with the brand of a perilous idolatry. It is for the sake of
these that the deluded multitude pay their offerings of silver
and gold, to touch the holy coat at Treves, to adore the
holy tooth of St. Peter, or to fall down before the winking
statue of the Virgin at Ancona. And hence, in the total
absence of all that marks the influence of superstition and
idolatry, the reference to our kissing the Bible, as affording
any analogy with the doctrine and practice of Rome, is
simply ridiculous.
Equally absurd is the evasion attempted by your author,
when he compares the Romish view of the subject with
the Protestant use of statues, pictures, &c., as memo-
rials merely. He knew, perfectly well, that all this was
only an ingenious effort to throw dust in the eyes of his
readers. No sensible man ever found fault with sculpture
or painting, as a memorial of past events, or of departed
friends, or as a tribute to peculiar greatness, either in Church
or State. No man of common feeling or reflection ever
censured the wish even to preserve a relic of remarkable
men or deeds, as an object of association which must inter-
est posterity. Thus, the sword of Goliah was laid up by
the priest of the sanctuary, as a memorial of the victory of
David. Thus the sword of Frederick the Great is pre-
served at Pottsdam. Thus the crozier of William of Wyck-
ham is kept at Oxford. Thus the chair of Edward I. is
exhibited in Westminster Abbey. As simple memorials, all
this is perfectly unobjectionable. And if Rome, beginning
with what is right, as in all other cases of her corruptions,
114 Letter XXXIL
had not gone on, adding more and more, until she converted
a wholesome truth into an enormous and idolatrous system
of imposture ; there would have been no place for this
branch of our controversy.
To prove that the primitive Church was entirely hostile
to the doctrine of modern Romanism on this whole subject,
will be an easy labor, and to this I shall now invite your at-
tention.
To begin with Clement of Alexandria, in the early part
of the third century, thus he speaks on the subject of
images made for the purposes of religion : " Those images
which are made by vile and sordid men, are made of vain
and useless materials ; hence they are also vain, useless,
material and profane. Therefore the works of art are by
no means to be esteemed sacred and divine."*
Jerome, repelling with indignation the charge of Vigilan-
tius, in the fourth century, when the veneration for the relics
of the saints first began to appear, saith : " We do not wor-
ship the relics of the martyrs, nor the sun and the moon, nor
angels nor archangels, no, not the cherubim and seraphim,
nor any name which is named either in the present or the
future, lest we might serve the creature rather than the Cre-
ator, who is blessed forever."f
Many years before Jerome, however, the Council of Eli-
beris, A. D. 313, in their 36th Canon, decreed : " That
there ought to be no pictures in the Church, lest that which
is worshipped and adored be painted on the walls. "^
The testimony of the famous Ambrose, Bishop of Milan
in the fourth century, is express to the same point, where
he saith that " The holy Rachel hid the images, that is, the
* Clem. Alexand. Stromata, Lib. vii., p. 714.
f S. Hieron. Op., Tom. 2, p. 82, c.
Hard. Concil. Gen., Tom. 1, p. 254.
SS. Augustine and Epiphanius. 115
Church, or prudence, because the Church knows nothing of
those empty ideas and vain figures of images, but acknowl-
edges the true substance of the Trinity."*
And Augustine, a little later, speaking of those professing
Christians in his day, whose faith and conversation were
alike defective and impure, mentions the worshippers of
sepulchres and pictures with strong disapprobation. After
challenging the Manicheans to compare their morals with
those of Christians, he guards against the evil example of
such as these, in the following words : " Do not collect to
me the professors of the Christian name, who neither under-
stand nor exhibit the proper power of their profession. Do
not reckon the crowds of the unskilful, who are either su-
perstitious in that which is the true religion, or so addicted
to their lusts, that they forget what they promised to God.
I know that many are worshippers of sepulchres and pictures ;
I know that there are many who drink to excess over the
dead ; and spreading their feasts before the corpses, bury
themselves over the buried ; and reckon their gluttony and
drunkenness for religion. I know that there are many who
have renounced the world in words, and yet choose to be op-
pressed by all the burdens of the world, and rejoice in their
oppression. Nor is this wonderful in so great a multitude
of people. But how vain are those things, how hurtful, how
sacrilegious /"f Here we see that the Church was beginning
to be infected by this superstition, while its great lights and
teachers condemned the rising abuse with strong and de-
cided censure.
The same view of the subject appears most clearly in the
statement of St. Epiphanius, one of whose epistles, ad-
* S. Ambros. Op., Tom. 1, p. 429.
t S. Augustini Op., Tom. l,p. 531, De Moribus Ecclesiro ,
116 Letter XXXII.
dressed to John, the Bishop of Jerusalem, and warning him
against the errors of Origen, was translated by St. Jerome,
and from this I make the following interesting extract :
" Travelling on a certain day," saith St. Epiphanius, " to
the holy place which is called Bethel, I came to the town
named Anablatha, where I saw a lamp burning as I was
passing by, and asked what place it was, and being told
that it was a church, I went in to pray. And there I found
a veil hanging over the doors, colored and painted, and hav-
ing an image as if of Christ or some saint. For I do not
well remember whose image it was. Therefore when I
saw this thing, an image of a man hanging in the Church of
Christ against the authority of the Scriptures, I TORE IT, and
told the wardens of the place to wrap it together and carry
it away from thence, as if it were a dead pauper. -And
they answered, murmuring against me : If he has chosen
to tear it, he ought to give another and a different one in-
stead of it. When I heard this, I promised that I would
do so."* Thus we have another proof that the corrupt in-
novation was growing, but was perfectly odious in the sight
of the eminent Bishops, whose names are distinguished by
a place in the calendar of the saints, and to whose doctrine
your modern Church of Rome pretends, with such marvel-
lous effrontery, to conform.
The next testimony to which I shall refer is that of the
famous Cyril, Archbishop of Jerusalem, in the fifth century,
who, explaining that clause of the baptismal covenant in
which the candidate was called upon to renounce Satan, his
pomp and his worship, uses these words :
" The worship of the devil is the supplication offered at
the shrines of idols, and those things which are djane to the
* S. Hieron. Op., Tom. 2, p. 110, E. F. Epistola Epiphajjii.
St. Optatus on Images. 117
honor of inanimate images, as the lighting of lamps, or the
burning of incense at fountains or rivers, so that some, being
deluded by dreams, or by the fraud of demons, come to these
waters, thinking that there they will obtain the cure of their
bodily diseases, and other things of the same kind. Be-
ware that thou hast no part in them. Augury, divination,
omens, amulets, and inscriptions, magical and other evil arts,
and everything of a similar character, are also the worship
of the devil. Flee, therefore, from them all. For if you
yield to them after you have renounced Satan, and joined
yourself to Christ, you will experience a more cruel tyran-
ny than ever."* Here is a description which contains
many of the elements of modern saint-worship the lifeless
images, the lighting of candles, the incense, the supplica-
tion, the holy wells of Ireland and other places, where the
poor devotees expect to be healed of their diseases, the
amulets and charms all classed together with a solemn and
fearful warning, that they must be shunned by every bap-
tized Christian.
From St. Optatus, the Bishop of Milevi, a little later, I
take a short passage, as follows :
" It was reported," saith he," " that Paul and Macarius were
to come at that time, that they should be present at the sacri-
fice, and, when the altars were solemnly prepared, that they
should bring forward an image, which they should first place
upon the altars, and so the sacrifice should be offered. When
our ears had heard this intelligence, our hearts were struck,
so that every one that heard it said, Whoever tastes that,
tastes of an accursed thing. And it was rightly said, if the
report had proved true,"f This shows plainly the horror
* S. Cyrilli Hierosol., Cat. xix., Mystagog. 1, p. 308-9.
t S. Optati, De Schism. Donatist., Lib. iii. p. 69.
118 . Letter XXXIL
with which the eminent and consistent Christians of the
fifth century regarded the connection of an image with the
worship of the true God.
The tendency towards the extravagant veneration of the
saints was so strong, however, that their images, and pic-
tures, and relics grew gradually into greater favor, until at
length, towards the close of the sixth century, we find Pope
Gregory the Great patronizing them as the regular orna-
ments of every Church, although still with a careful pro-
hibition of their being worshipped. To make this perfectly
clear, it will only be necessary to set before my readers his
letter to Serenus, the Bishop of Marseilles, who had seen
with indignation that the people were not to be restrained
from this degrading species of idolatry, and therefore had
broken the images and cast them out of the churches of his
diocese in the same spirit which we have observed in the
famous St. Epiphanius, a century and a half before. A
great complaint arose^ in consequence ; and the Pope re-
monstrates with him in the following terms :
" It has lately come to our ears that your Fraternity, behold-
ing certain persons adoring images (quosdam imaginum ado-
ratores), has broken those images, and cast them out of the
churches. And truly we have praised the zeal which you
have manifested to prevent the adoration of anything made
with hands ; but we declare that you ought not to have bro-
ken the images. For a picture is therefore exhibited in the
churches, in order that those who are ignorant of letters
may read, at least, by looking on the walls, what they can-
not read in books. Your Fraternity ought, for this reason,
to retain the images, and keep the people from adoring them,
so that those who are ignorant of letters may have some-
what to teach them the knowledge of history, and that the
people, at the same time, may NOT SIN BY THE ADORATION
St. Gregory II. and Gregory HI. 119
OF THE PICTURE" (et populus in pictures adoratione minime
peccaret)*
From a subsequent epistle of the pontiff to the same
Bishop, it appears that Serenus was by no means satisfied
with the counsel of the Pope, and therefore Gregory en-
larged upon the scandal which the breaking of the images
had occasioned, and reiterated his opinion. " For truly,"
saith he, " we have altogether commended you in FORBID-
DING THAT THEY SHOULD BE ADORED, but we have censured
you for breaking them."^ Here we see the slow but con-
stant advancement of images and of Papal power together.
The Council of Eliberis, A. D. 313, had expressly forbid-
den that pictures should be admitted into the Church. St.
Epiphanius, not quite a century later, had torn down a pic-
tured veil which he found at Anablatha ; and now, about two
centuries after that, Gregory undertakes to censure the
Bishop of Marseilles because he had done the same thing
as Epiphanius, yet still commends him for prohibiting the
adoration of images, and only pleads for them on the ground
of the instruction which they gave to those who were too
ignorant to read. We have already seen that the same emi-
nent Pope, in his famous Sacramentary of prayers for every
day in the year, referred constantly to the intercessions of
the Virgin and the saints, while he carefully abstained from
any addresses to them, and throughout directs his prayers
only to God. v
But when we come to the end of the next hundred and
thirty years, we find another Pope, Gregory III., writing to
the Emperor Leo Isaurus, strongly reprehending him for
his opposition to images, representing the prayers of the
* S. Greg. Mag. Epistola cv., ad Screnum, Op., Tom. 2, p. 1006.
t Ib. 110.0.
120 Letter XXXII.
Church as Rome uses them now, addressed directly to the
Virgin and the saints, and defending images, not on the old
ground of his predecessor, as affording' instruction to the ig-
norant who could not read, but on the new ground that
they excited the devotional feelings of all the faithful.* Be-
hold the change from A. D. 313 to A. D. 600, and from
A. D. 600 to A. D. 726, showing the slow and stealthy
progress of corruption, until we have it fully acknowledged
and prescribed as a law, in A. D. 787, at the second Coun-
cil of Nice, miscalled General, under the infamous Irene
and her son, Constantine, through the influence of Hadrian,
the Bishop of Rome. For this Council decrees the very
thing which Pope Gregory I., not two centuries before, had
expressly forbidden. " We honorably adore the precious
and venerable images." (Has pretiosas et venerabiles iconas,
honoramus et salutamus, ac honoranter adoramus.}^ I do not
wish you to understand, however, that this word adore is
here employed in the sense of divine worship, for your
Church always distinguished between the worship of Latria,
due only to God, and the worship of Doulia, given to the
saints. And the Synodical Letter of this very second
Council of Nice insists on the distinction very carefully.!
But I do expressly aver that the Latin translation of the
Council employs the very same ivord which the first Pope
Gregory employed, and it is to be supposed with the same
meaning ; and hence they stand in direct and palpable con-
tradiction. The images must be retained for the instruction
* Hard. Con. Gen., Tom. 4, Ep. Prima Greg, ad Leonem Imper. .
p. 3-14. The proof of the change in addressing the prayers to the
saints is on p. 7.
1- Ib. 266, c.
t Ib. 475.
T/ie Second Council of Nice not General. 121
of the ignorant, saith Pope Gregory, A. D. 600, but must
not be adored. The images must be retained to excite the
devotions of the faithful, saith the Council, A. D. 787; and
if any one refuses honorably to adore them, let him be
anathema.
I have said that this second Council of Nice was, in no
proper sense, entitled to the respect due to a General Coun-
cil of the Church. And I shall demonstrate the truth of
the assertion from these facts : First, that its decision was
.*
opposed to the Scriptures, and to the Catholic doctrine and
practice of the Church from the beginning. Secondly, that
it did not truly represent the sentiment of the Church, even
of its own age. This is manifest from the decrees of the
Council held near Constantinople, under the emperor, in
A. D. 754, and from those of the Council of Frankfort, held
in A. D. 794, which embraced the Churches of Saxony,
Germany, and France. Thirdly, that there were no repre-
sentatives of the West in the Council of Nice, except the
legates of the Pope. Of these reasons, the first is all-suf-
ficient in itself, because tho Holy Scriptures are above all,
and there can be no doctrine admitted as Catholic unless it
can be shown to have been held, in the words of Vincent
of Lerins, semper, ubique et ab omnibus. Nevertheless, I shall
prove the second and the third statements, for my reader's
satisfaction, from the testimony of your Roman historians
themselves.
The Council held in the East, A. D. 754, under the Em-
peror Constantine, according to your Roman historian,
Fleury, consisted of 336 Bishops, at the head of whom were
Gregory of Neocesarea, Theodosius, Bishop of Ephesus,
and Sisinnius, Bishop of Perga, in Pamphylia. They sat
during six months ; and finally, they decreed that every im-
age, painted in whatever manner, ought to be rejected by
VOL. n. 6
122 Letter XXXII.
the Church with abomination ; and they forbade all persons
to make, to adore, or to set up in the Church, any image
for the future, under the penalty of deposition to the clergy,
and anathema to monks and laymen. All the Bishops con-
sented, saying, Thus we all believe, and we have subscribed it
with joy. And'they return thanks to the emperors for hav-
ing banished idolatry.*
So much for the testimony of the Eastern Churches, only
thirty-three years previous to the second Council of Nice.
I come next to the great Council of Frankfort, held by the
order of the famous Charlemagne, A. D. 794, only, seven
years after the second Council of Nice, in which the sec-
ond Canon condemns the decrees of that Council in these
words :
" The question is brought before us concerning the new
Council of the Greeks, which they have raised about the
adoring of images at Constantinople, in which it is written,
that whoever shall not render, not only to the divine Trin-
ity, but also to the images of the saints, service or adoration,
shall be adjudged by anathema. But all our most holy
fathers, rejecting entirely such adoration and service, have dis-
dained this decree, and with one consent have condemned z."f
The third statement is taken from Fleury's account of the
Caroline Books, so called because they were prepared by the
Bishops of France, in the name of Charlemagne, to prove,
by argument and authority, the error of the second Council
of Nice. And here it is expressly objected that this
Council was not universal, not only because the decrees
which it passed were hostile to the doctrine of the universal
Church, but also because it was not assembled from all
* Fleury, Hist. Ecc., Tom. 9, pp. 334, 338, 339.
t Hard. Con. Gen., Tom. 4, p. 904.
Summary of Evidence against Images. 1 23
parts of the Church, no one being present from the whole
West except the Papal Legates.*
Such, then, is the ground on which we deny the author-
ity of this second Council of Nice, which your Council of
Trent has undertaken to ratify. True, indeed, it is, that
its doctrine at length became triumphant, because the tend-
ency of the Church was constantly increasing towards cor-
ruption. But that fact is no proof in favor of its claim to
Catholicity. Thirty-three years before, the Eastern Bish-
ops hadsubscribed the "direct contrary. Their number was
far greater, being 336 ; and their testimony as witnesses to
what they held to be the truth is as good as the testimony
of those who came after them. So, likewise, was the testi-
mony of the Council of Frankfort, with the Bishops of
France who drew up the Caroline Books, and therefore we
have two Councils, one East and one West, united
against the second Council of Nice. The only difference
in its favor, on your Romanist principles, is, that Pope Ha-
drian concurred in its decrees. But I have shown that
Pope Gregory the Great, in A. D. 600, gave the same de-
cision as the Council of Frankfort. The Church of Rome
herself holds Gregory to have been far the greater Pope of
the two ; and why, then, should his authority in this ques-
tion be less than the subsequent decision of Hadrian ? The
Church of Rome also allows that the older decisions are
the best ; and assuredly no good reason can be given for
the assumption that the Papal opinion of A. D. 600 should
be overruled by the Papal opinion of A. D. 787. Hence,
you have here another powerful evidence of the audacious
falsehood of your Roman claim to be unchanged and un-
changeable. You have Popes against the fathers, Pope
* Fleury, Hist. Ecc,, Tom. 9, pp. 520, 523.
124 Letter XXXII.
against Pope, and Council against Council. And any can-
did mind may see distinctly, that when our English Re-
formers cast aside the whole idolatrous superstition of im-
ages and relics, together with the worship of the saints,
they were justified by Scripture, by the primitive Church,
and by all the principles of true apostolic Catholicism.
The practical abuses to which this portion of Roman cor-
ruption led the priests, in order to extract money the more
readily from the deluded and credulous people, would far
exceed my limits. I shall only give a few specimens, taken
from Burnet's History of the Reformation. Among the relics
found at the suppression of the monasteries, were the wing
of an angel who had brought over the spear's head that
pierced the Saviour's side ; some of the coals that roasted
the martyr, St. Lawrence ; the parings of St. Edmond's
toes ; the boots and penknife of St. Thomas a Beckett ;
pieces of the True Cross more than sufficient to make a large
whole one ; a piece of St. Andrew's finger ; and a vial of
crystal, one side of which was quite thin and transparent,
but the other very thick and opake, which was filled with
the blood of a duck once a month. This the people were
assured was the blood of Christ, which they could see when
their sins were forgiven, but not otherwise. The vial- was
kept near the altar, with the thick side outwards, until the
priests were satisfied with the amount of the offerings which
the worshippers brought in, to obtain the divine favor: and
then the vial being turned round with the transparent side
towards the people, they received the miraculous proof of
their pardon with great joy, and went home, well satisfied
with their expense and trouble !
The most celebrated amongst the images, however, was
the crucifix of Boxley in Kent, commonly called the Rood
of Grace, to which pilgrimages were made from all parts^
Frauds in Images and Relics. 125
because it was observed to bow and lift itself up again, to
shake the head, the hands, and the feet ; to roll the eyes,
move the lips, and make other motions ; all which (like the
Virgin's images at Ancona and Mercatello in our own day)
were regarded by the absurd multitude as effects of the di-
vine power. But it was discovered to have been all done
by mechanical contrivances, springs, &c. The image was
publicly exposed to the people, and the cheat made openly
manifest ; and this did more to convince the popular mind
than a thousand arguments from Scripture, fathers, Councils,
or reason could have effected.
To show the immense attraction and profit produced by
this superstitious reliance on the saints, an extract was pub-
lished from the account books of Christ Church, Canterbury,
where the relics of Thomas a Beckett were exhibited to the
veneration of the people. There were three great altars in
this Church, one dedicated to Christ, one to the Virgin, and
the third to St. Thomas. And in one year it appeared that
there was not a penny offered at Christ's altar. At the Vir-
gin's only 4 Is. 8d. While at the altar of St. Thomas,
there was no less a sum than .954 6s. 3d. !*
Here, too, another imposture was discovered. The skull
of, St. Thomas was exhibited, and drew large crowds to
worship it. But on opening his grave, the true skull was
found along with the rest of his body. In a word, volumes
would not suffice to contain the multitude of priestly and
monkish falsehoods engrafted on your modern Roman system
of saint and relic worship. In Protestant countries, such
things would not be borne, and therefore your priests are too
politic to attempt them. But in Papal Europe, every intel-
ligent traveller knows that the same gainful superstition is
still carried on to this day. The results, however, are
* Burnet's Hist, of Reformation, vol. 1, p. 314-5-6.
126 Letter XXXII.
perfectly consistent with the doctrine. For the basis is
false, and the superstructure is naturally extended into all
imaginable fraud and imposition.
Before I conclude, I must expose a few more of Dr. Mil-
ner's misrepresentations, for nothing can exceed the bold
dexterity with which he contrived to manufacture evidence
to suit his purpose. Thus, on page 240, he tells 'us, on the
authority of Tertullian, that it was usual to represent our Sa-
viour in the character of the Good Shepherd, on the chalices
used in worship. And here, he purposely raises a false
issue to blind his readers, for he thereby insinuates that an
ornamental enchasement like this was objectionable accord-
ing to our principles, when he knew perfectly well that the
contrary was the fact. If the embellishment thus innocently
placed upon the chalice in the time of Tertullian had been,
according to the second Council of Nice, an image set up to be
worshipped with kisses, salutations, lighted candles and incense t
it would have been somewhat to the point. As it stands, it
is only another proof of our author's Jesuitical dexterity.
But a graver example of false dealing occurs directly
after. " We are informed," saith he," " by Eusebius, the
father of Church history, and the friend of Constantine, that
he himself had seen a miraculous image of our Saviour in
brass, which had been erected by the woman who was cured
by touching the hem of his garment, and also different pic-
tures of him and of St. Peter and St. Paul, which had been
preserved since their time." To prove the utter dishonesty
of your advocate, I shall place the whole passage from Euse-
bius before my readers, as follows :
* After stating that he had seen in the city of Paneas the
house said to belong to the woman who had been healed by
touching the garment of the Saviour, Eusebius goes on to
say, that " near the door of that house there was a brazen
The Image at Paneas. 1 27
statue of a woman, standing on a pedestal of stone, with
bended knees and outstretched hands, like one supplicating.
Opposite to this, there was an image of a man, composed of
the same metal, standing clothed decently in a cloak, and
extending his hand towards the woman ; at whose feet, from
the bottom of the pedestal, a certain unknown plant is said
to grow, which rises to the fringe of the brazen cloak, and
is an antidote for all diseases. They said that this statue
bore the likeness of Jesus Christ. Moreover, it remains to
our day, and we, having entered that city, beheld it. But
truly, it is not wonderful that the heathen, being benefited by
our Saviour, should have done this, since we have heard of
their keeping the images of the Apostles Peter and Paul,
within our memory, painted on tables, as well as that of
Christ. For it was the mode of the ancients, without dis-
crimination to pay such honor, by a certain heathen custom,
to those, as saviours, who had conferred benefits upon them."*
Now here we find that Eusebius is speaking, not of an
image erected by Christians, but of an image ERECTED BY
THE HEATHEN. So far from its being the custom of the
Church, he calls it expressly a HEATHEN CUSTOM. Dr.
Milner also styles the statue a miraculous image, which is
nowhere intimated by the historian. Our author, indeed,
would probably say that this must be inferred from the un-
known plant which sprung from the ground at the pedestal,
and grew till it reached the border of the cloak, and was an
antidote against all diseases. But what right had he to put
that inference in the mouth of Eusebius, who only states it
as" a report, and in no respect pledges himself, nor even in-
sinuates his belief, either that the plant possessed such,
medicinal powers, or that its growth or its qualities were
* Eusebii Pamph. Ecc. Hist., L. vii., c. 18, p. 216.
128 Letter XXXII.
occasioned by the image ? Thus, then, we see again, how
our author manufactures evidence, slipping in the word mirac-
ulous, which gives a totally different sense, representing
the whole story as if the statue were a Christian work, ap-
proved by the Church ; and speaking of the pictures of the
Apostles Peter and Paul, as well as those of Christ, as if
they were in the hands of Christians : when Eusebius ex-
pressly states the whole matter as a mark of heathen respect,
according to the heathen custom, by which the ancients were
used to commemorate the benefits of all who acted as their
saviours from sickness or calamity, " without discrimination."
So far, therefore, is the passage from yielding the small-
est support to your modern Romish doctrine, that it is, in
truth, rather a testimony against it. Nearly three hundred
years elapsed after the time of Eusebius, before Pope Greg-
ory the Great had gotten so far as to authorize the use of
images in the Church, even as memorials ; while the notion
of their being miraculous, or proper objects of adoration in
any sense, was entirely alien from the mind of Christian
teachers. And yet this most unscrupulous writer, by adding
to the narrative on the one side, and taking away from it
upon the other, would try to cheat his unsuspecting readers
into the belief that the modern Romish doctrine of image
worship had a decided supporter in " Euselius, the father
of Church history, and the friend of Constantine .'"
With regard to the worship of the cross, your author
tries to mislead us in the same way, confounding the cus-
tom of using the sign of the cross, to which Tertullian bears
testimony, with the acts of salutation, prayer and incense of-
fered to the IMAGE OF THE CROSS, which came in along with
the worship of other images. Thus the Council of Trullo,
held A. D. 706, forbade the introduction of the figure of the
cross, on the ground or the floor of churches, lest it might
The Second Commandment omitted. 129
be walked upon, which, seems to have been the practice of
many, previous to that time, without reprehension. Here,
therefore, we have another proof of the period when this
new superstition was introduced, viz., the eighth century.
The words of the Council are as follows :
" As the cross exhibits to us our life-giving salvation, we
ought to use all diligence that to it, by which we are re-
deemed from our ancient fall, we should render due honor.
Wherefore, giving to it adoration with the mind, with the
speech, and with the sense, we order that those figures of
the cross which have been made by some upon the ground
or the pavement shall be altogether destroyed, lest an injury
be done by the treading under foot the trophy of our victory.
Those also who hereafter construct the sign of the cross
upon the ground, we decree to be deposed."*
Lastly, I would briefly notice the way in which Dr. Mil-
nerf answers the charge that the priests of Rome, in their
ordinary Catechism for the people, leave out the Second Com-
mandment :| " Thou shalt not make to thyself a graven thing,
nor the likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or in the
earth beneath, nor of those things that are in the waters under
the earth. Thou shalt not adore them nor serve them. I am
the Lord thy God." While, in order to prevent the cheat
from being discovered, they split the Tenth Commandment
into two ! His reply is a beautiful specimen of his charac-
teristic artifice : " It is a gross calumny," saith he, " that we
suppress any part of the Decalogue, for the whole of it ap-
pears in all our Bibles, and in all our most approved Cate-
chisms." Here, as in a hundred other instances, he seems
to say what he carefully avoids saying. The charge is, that
* Hard. Concil. Gen., Tom. 3, p. 1687, Can. Ixxiii. f P. 236.
$ Exod. xx. 5. Douay Bible.
VOL. II. 6*
130 Letter XXXII.
you omit the Commandment against images in your ordinary
Catechisms ; which is notorious and undeniable. He cannot
summon candor enough to admit the fact, but he says it is a
gross calumny that they suppress it, because they have it in
their Bible and their most approved Catechisms ! The read-
er will perceive at once that this answer is a mere trick,
since it does not in reality meet the accusation at all. Dr.
Milner knew perfectly well that the mass of your people
never see the Bible nor the approved Catechisms. And yet,
while he totally evades the only question in the case, he af-
fects to regard the allegation as a gross calumny ; thus dex-
terously, and most dishonestly, making his adversaries ap-
pear to be false accusers, exclaiming, like an injured man,
against an, imputation which no one had made, but doing it
in such a shape as to make it pass for a defence against the
true charge, which he could not directly deny.
The End of Controversy, Controverted. 131
LETTER XXXIII
MOST REVEREND SIR :
THE next topic, namely, Transubstantiation, is one of vast
importance to your modern Roman Church, and many a
faithful martyr has she burned alive, for refusing to believe
it. Your favorite Milner, therefore, defends it with his
usual dexterity. And I shall endeavor to follow his princi-
pal arguments, as hitherto ; and I trust with the same con-
fidence in the victory of truth.
You are aware, of course, that your doctrine supposes
the bread and wine, which our Lord appointed as the em-
blems of His body and blood, to be so perfectly changed
by the words of priestly consecration, that nothing remains
of their former substance, but that Christ Himself, perfect
and entire, in His whole body, blood, soul and divinity, oc-
cupies their place ; and hence, the consecrated wafer, now
become the Deity incarnate under the appearance of the
bread, must be adored with the highest worship of latria,
as the "corporally and actually present God and Saviour of
the world. This is the change which your divines call
Transubstantiation .
Our reformed Church, on the contrary, holds that the con-
secrated elements of bread and wine become the body and
blood of Christ not corporally, actually, or really, but sacra-
mentally or symbolically only. That the true presence of
Christ is indeed granted in the reception of the sacrament,
but only to the faithful receiver, and only after a heavenly and
132 Letter XXXIII.
spiritual manner. And by necessary consequence, as the
substance of the elements, though consecrated, and endued
with symbolical solemnity, is not otherwise changed, they
are not the proper objects of divine worship, but that such
worship is an act of idolatry.
This introduces us, regularly, to the first argument of Dr.
Milner, in his 36th letter, where he insists that the Roman-
ist cannot be guilty of idolatry, even if he be mistaken in
his doctrine of Transubstantiation, because the object of his
worship is Christ ; and therefore, whether the Redeemer be
corporally and really in the consecrated wafer or not, the
worshipper is still mentally adoring Him who ought to be
adored, and consequently is in no proper sense open to the
charge of ido 1- worship . He complains, therefore, of the
injustice of our accusation. And by way of illustrating his
argument, he uses the following analogy :
" Let me suppose," saith 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 in
royal robes, and placed on the throne, would your heart re-
proach you, or would any sensible person reproach you with
the guilt of treason in the case ? Were the people who
thought in their hearts that John the Baptist was Christ,
and who probably worshipped Him as such, idolaters, in
consequence of their error ?"
These illustrations I shall answer in their order. And
with respect to the first, I reply, that a mistake made once
by the simplicity of an individual, who took a courtier or a
dressed-up image for the king, would doubtless be laughed
at and forgiven. But if a large and powerful body of the
king's subjects were to make a creed of their mistake, and
persisted in it against all the light and evidence which could
Idolatry is in Fact, not in Intention. 133
be given them, I doubt much whether the monarch would
not regard it as a very grave mockery of his majesty. And
if, instead of only mistaking a courtier for their sovereign,
or paying their respects to a figure dressed in the royal
robes upon the throne, they insisted that the seal appointed
by the king was the king himself, and carried it abroad in
open procession, and addressed their petitions to it, and
bowed down before it with all the respectful devotion which
the monarch's own presence could inspire, I doubt whether
the sovereign would not think the mockery quite too much
to bear. Nay, I believe it highly probable that he would
call them to a serious account, and hold them guilty of a
high contempt against his royal dignity.
And so, in the other illustration, I grant that one mistake
of John the Baptist for Christ might be quite pardonable.
But if the worshippers of John refused to believe him when
he said, " I am not the Christ," and persisted in their error,
and continued to worship John in the face of all the evi-
dence which could be asked to convince them of their sin,
I say, confidently, that they would have been idolaters, and
I doubt whether Dr. Milner himself could summon hardi-
hood enough to deny it.
This may suffice for our author's illustrations. As to the
argument itself, it amounts to a blank absurdity, because it
places the sin of idolatry, not in the falsehood of the fact,
but only in the falsehood of the worshipper's intention, and
therefore, if his hypothesis be correct, there never was an
idolater since the world began. For it is as certain that there
is a living and true God, as that there is a living and true
Christ. And who can deny that the heathen intend to wor-
ship the living and true God, when they bow down before
stocks and stones 1 Who supposes that any of them ever
worshipped their idol, with the belief that it was an idol ?
134 Letter XXXIIL
Who doubts that in their souls they suppose they are wor-
shipping the true object of worship, namely, the Supreme,
all-governing Intelligence of' heaven and earth ? And yet,
if they unite with this intention a false and unauthorized
association with the creature if, with the old Peruvians,
they imagine the sun to be that Supreme Deity ; or with
the old Persians, the fire ; or fancy, with the inhabitants of
Thibet, that He is incarnate in the Grand Llama ; or set
Him forth in the Trinity of the Hindoos ; or degrade His
divine attributes by presenting them in the thousand fan-
tastic forms of subordinate deities, with the ancient Egyp-
tians, Greeks, and Romans, instead of submitting all their
ideas concerning Him to the pure teaching of His own
word : it is not in the power of all the abstractions in the
world to save them from the sin of idolatry.
Like all other sins, however, the sin of idolatry contains
many varieties of aggravation. There is somewhat of the
sublime, notwithstanding the grossness of the error, in the
Pantheism of the old Egyptians, who held that God was the
soul of the world, and that all created things might be wor-
shipped, as the emanations of His wisdom and His power.
There was something yet more attractive in the idolatry of
the Aztecs, who believed the splendid orb of day to be the
visible glory of the Divinity. There was even somewhat
of plausibility in the supposed incarnation- of the Grand
Llama, in the hero-worship of the Greeks, and in the poetic
grandeur of the Scandinavian mythology. But in the whole
range of heathenism, there is nothing so revolting to the
proper majesty of an incarnate Deity, as the theory of tran-
substantiation. They were all abominable, all false, all
linked with more or less of cruel barbarism and moral licen-
tiousness. And yet the dogma which presents the ineffable
glory of the Son of God to the adoration of His worshippers
Consubstantiation. 135
in the form of a little piece of bread, that dogma which
grew into credit when the great mass of the priesthood were
sunk in the lowest depth of libertinism, that dogma which
massacred its hundreds of thousands in the service of reli-
gious persecution, and brought so many of the best and
purest Christians to the stake, seems the most inconsistent
kind of idolatry amongst them all, and the most degrading
to a proper conception of the Deity.
The true test of idolatry, therefore, is not a point of ab-
stract intention, but a question of fact. And hence the Is-
raelites were guilty of idolatry when they worshipped the
golden calf, although they intended to worship, in this form,
the true God who had brought them out of the land of
Egypt. Consequently, if the Romanist worships the conse-
crated symbols of Christ's body and blood, under the false
belief that they are Christ Himself, he does unquestionably
fall into the sin of idolatry. From this there is no escape,
except by proving that the dogma of Transubstantiation is
the truth. And, like every other article of the Christian
faith, this can only be done by the Scriptures, as interpreted
by the Catholic consent of the primitive fathers.
Your author next complains that although the Lutheran
doctrine of Consubstantiation is as objectionable to the
Church of England as the doctrine of Rome, yet the Eng-
lish Parliament has only legislated against the Romish
dogma, and has tolerated every other variety of opinion
upon the subject. But in declaiming upon this instance of
what he calls " disingenuity and injustice," he chose to ig-
nore altogether the reasons why the law of the land should
have guarded against the one error, and not against the
others. He chose to forget that the Lutherans, although,
they were at first misled into the idea of Consubstantiation,
yet, after the death of the great Reformer, gave it up, and
136 Letter XXXIIL
conformed quietly to the doctrine of Calvin. He chose to
forget that- Luther himself at no time allowed any act of
worship to the consecrated elements, as to the present
Christ, in which consists the sin of idolatry. But, above
all, he chose to forget the point which made the Romish
error a fit subject of parliamentary prohibition, namely,
that Rome had made Transubstantiation the test of faith,
and had punished those who disclaimed it, with the dungeon
and the flames. The English nation had nothing to fear
from the Lutheran error, which did not concern them. But
they had everything to fear from that Papal despotism
which enforced its creed with the arms of cruel persecu-
tion, and visited the effort to reform the Church from its
corruptions, with tortures and with blood.
The last remark of Dr. Milner, with which he concludes
his 36th letter, is, that " as transubstantiation was the first
of Christ's miracles, in changing the water into wine ; so it
may be said to have been his last during his mortal course,
by changing bread and wine into His sacred body and
blood."* To which I would reply by saying, that if our
Lord had changed the water into wine, at the marriage
supper, in no other way than the Romish priest changes
the bread and wine of the Sacrament, it would have been
no miracle at all, because the senses of the company would
have borne testimony that it was water still. Flesh and
blood are as much the objects of sense, as wine and water.
And a miracle which is so far from appealing to the senses
that all the senses refuse to acknowledge it, is a contradic-
tion in terms, and involves a perfect absurdity.
* Page 244.
The End of Controversy^ Controverted. 137
LETTER XXXIV.
MOST REVEREND SIR :
THE 37th letter of your favorite, Milner, opens with an
attack upon the Catechism of the Church of England, which
declares that the body and blood of Christ are verily and
indeed taken and received by the faithful, in the Lord's
Supper. This he calls a " disguising of our real tenets by
adopting language of a different meaning from our sentiments,
in consequence of such being the language of the sacred
text." Next, in a note, he sets down what he calls the
variations in the Liturgy upon the subject. Thirdly, he
quotes the scriptural argument on which his Church relies.
Fourthly, he cites some passages from the fathers. Fifthly,
he undertakes to press many English divines into his ser-
vice, amongst whom he particularly specifies Hooker. As
to his reference to Luther, I shall pass it by on the same
ground as formerly, being only called upon to vindicate the
truth of Christ, in reference to our own Communion. The
other topics I shall proceed to consider in the order pre-
sented.
With respect to the first charge, namely, the alleged dis-
guising of our meaning in the Catechism, it is like all the
other charges of your reckless author bold enough, but
totally wanting in fairness and candor. For the same
Catechism goes on to define a sacrament as consisting of
two parts the outward and visible sign, and the inward invisi-
ble grace. And the outward part or sign of the Lord's Sup-
138 Letter XXXIV.
per is declared to be Bread and Wine, which the Lord hath
commanded to be received, while the inward part or thing
signified is the Body and Blood of Christ, which are spiritu-
ally taken and received by the faithful in the Lord's Supper ..
Where is the disguise ? Where the inconsistency 1 The
spiritual reception of the body and blood of Christ, granted
by Himself to the faithful believer, is verily and indeed as
real and true, as a bodily or corporal reception from the hand
of the priest could be, were such a thing possible as the act
claimed by your Romish system. According to our doc-
trine, the consecrated symbols of the body and blood are
given by the priest, that is, the outward part of the sacra-
ment, or the bread and wine, which the Lord hath commanded
to be received ; but the inward part or thing signified is the
gift of Christ Himself to the faithful. According to the
Church of Rome, the priest has transubstantiated the ele-
ments ; the bread and wine are there no longer, but he holds
in his hands, and delivers over to the communicant, the ac-
tual body and blood, soul and divinity of the Lord Jesus
Christ, and there is nothing left to be done by the grace of
God, who is the sole Dispenser of every heavenly blessing.
No language could be more simply expressive of the enor-
mous difference between the two systems than the words
of the Catechism, taken together. Our author, indeed,
thinks fit to represent it as a contradiction. " It is saying,"
as he tells his readers, " you receive that in the sacrament
which does not exist in the sacrament" But, according to
the Catechism, a sacrament consists of two parts the out-
ward, which is committed to the priest, and the inward,
which is conferred by the Saviour. The divine gift, there-
fore, is in the sacrament, considered with respect to its
inward grace, and hence there is neither contradiction nor
inconsistency.
The Sixth Chapter of St. John. 139
It is true, however, that this word, Sacrament, is fre-
quently employed in the outward sense only, and rightly,
because such is the mode in which it was used by the
ancient fathers. But in undertaking to censure our Cate-
chism, Dr. Milner was obliged, in fairness, to notice the
definition given there ; and had he done so, he might per-
haps have spared his readers this very small display of his
disposition to carp at nothing.
His next exhibition of spleen is in the attempt to ridicule
the " variations" of the English Liturgy. But what are they
in comparison of the variations in the Roman Liturgy ?
And when it is considered that from the very nature of the
case, the English Reformers could not have completed so
vast a work immediately that their own views were ne-
cessarily progressive that it was only by degrees that
their eyes were opened to the full amount of the corruptions
of doctrine in which they had all been educated, and that
they were careful to make no changes until the fullest
examination and most satisfactory proof had satisfied them
with respect to each : the wonder will not be that some
amendments were found advisable, but rather that the task
of duty was completed so early and so well.
We come, in the third place, however, to the main point,
viz., the evidence on which your author undertakes to jus-
tify your modern Romish doctrine. And this he finds
abundantly, as he supposes, in the Gospels. First, he
quotes the 6th chapter of St. John's Gospel, where our
Lord saith, " / am the living bread which came down from
heaven. If any man eat of this bread, he shall live forever ;
and the bread that I will give is my flesh, for the life of the
world. The Jews therefore strove among themselves, saying,
ffow can this man give us His flesh to eat ? Then Jesus said
unto them : Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except ye eat the
140 Letter XXXIV.
flesh of the Son of Man, and drink His Hood, ye have no life
in you. For my flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink
indeed. Many, therefore, of His disciples, when they had heard
this, said : This is a hard saying. Who can hear it ? From
that time many of His disciples went back, and walked no more
with Him. Then Jesus said unto the twelve : Will ye also
go away ? Then Simon Peter answered Him : Lord, to
whom shall we go ? Thou hast the words of eternal life"
In this scriptural quotation, your author has omitted some
most important verses which are essential to our Lord's
meaning, and these, therefore, must be first supplied. Thus,
immediately after the words, " This is a hard saying. Who
can hear it <"' we read as follows :
" When Jesus knew in Himself that His disciples mur-
mured at it, He said unto them : Doth this offend you ? What
and if ye shall see the Son of Man ascend up where He was
before ? It is the Spirit that quickeneth ; the flesh proflteth
nothing. The words that I speak unto you, they are spirit and
they are life. But there are some of you that believe not. For
Jesus knew from the beginning who they were that believed not,
and who should betray him. And He said, Therefore said I
unto you, that no man can come unto me except it were given
him of my Father."
After these verses, we come to the concluding part of Dr.
Milner's quotation: "From that time many of His disciples
went back, and walked no more with Him."
Now here let us pause a little, that we may have the
benefit of St. Augustine's Commentary.* And this you are
perfectly aware that you are bound to respect, since your
Council of Trent forbids the Scriptures to be understood
except according to the unanimous consent of the fathers.
* S. Augustini Op., Tom. 5. p. 446.
Spiritual Interpretation. 141
Thus, then, this prince of the fathers expounds the pas-
sage, and my readers will find it, I trust, instructive and in-
teresting, notwithstanding it is directly in the face of the
carnal literal sense, for which Dr. Milner contends.
After quoting the words of the Saviour, Except ye eat my
flesh and drink my blood ye have no life in you, Augustine pro-
ceeds to say : " His disciples were offended not all, indeed,
but the greater part saying in themselves, This is a hard
saying. Who can hear it ? But when the Lord knew this
in Himself, and heard the murmurs of their thoughts, He
answered to the thinkers, who had not yet spoken, that they
might know that they were heard, and migSt cease to think
so. What then does He answer ? Doth this offend you ?
What and if you shall see the Son of Man ascending up where
he was before ? What doth He mean by the question, Doth
this offend you ? Do you think that I am about to divide
this body which you behold into parts, and cut my mem-
bers into pieces, and give them to you ? What, therefore,
and if you shall see the Son of Man ascending up where he
was before ? Certainly, He who could ascend entire could
not be consumed. Therefore, He gave us the salutary re-
fection of His body and blood, and resolved at once the
great question of His integrity. Let those eat who eat, let
those drink who drink, let them hunger and thirst : let them
eat life, let them drink life. To eat that, is to be renewed ;
but you are so renewed that the source of your renewal
may not be diminished. To drink this, what is it but to
live 1 Eat life, drink life, you shall possess life, and that
life is entire. Then the body and blood of Christ will be
life to every one of you, IP THAT WHICH is VISIBLY TAKEN
IN THE SACRAMENT shall be SPIRITUALLY EATEN AND SPIR-
ITUALLY DRANK IN THE TRUTH ITSELF. (Si quod in sacra-
mento msibiliter sumitur, in ipsa veritate spiritaliter manducetur,
142 Letter XXXIV.
spiritaliter bibatur.) FOR WE HAVE HEARD THE LORD HIM-
SELF SAYING, IT IS THE SPIRIT THAT QUICKENETH ; THE
FLESH PROFITETH NOTHING. THE WORDS WHICH I HAVE
SPOKEN UNTO YOU ARE SPIRIT AND LIFE."
Here we see that Augustine applies the language of the
Saviour to the Sacrament, so as perfectly to destroy the idea
of Transubstantiation. The flesh profiteth nothing. It is
the Spirit which quickeneth. And therefore, that eating
and drinking which is effectual is not corporal, but spiritual.
But the following passage will show his meaning yet more
clearly. " If a preceptive speech," saith this eminent
father, " either fSrbids a crime or a sin, or orders something
useful or beneficent, it is not figurative. But if it appears
to order a crime or a sin, it is figurative. Unless you shall
eat, saith our Lord, thejlesh of the Son of Man, and drink his
blood, ye have no life in you. Here He seems to order a crime
or an outrage, and therefore IT is A FIGURE, DIRECTING THE
COMMUNION OF OUR LORD'S PASSION, AND, THAT WE SHOULD
SWEETLY AND USEFULLY LAY UP IN OUR MEMORY THAT FOR
US HlS FLESH WAS CRUCIFIED AND WOUNDED."*
Thus we see that the 6th chapter of St. John's Gospel,
instead of bearing the carnal and literal meaning which the
modern Romanist puts upon it, was interpreted figuratively
by the greatest light of the primitive Church in the fourth
century. And the same result will be shown in reference
to the next scriptural proof, which your author cites from
the Gospels as follows :
" For," continues Dr. Milner, " whilst they were at supper,
Jesus took bread, and blessed it, and brake it, and gave it to
the disciples, and said, Take ye and eat : THIS is MY BODY.
* Augustin. Op., Tom. 3, p. 40, 24, De doctrina Christiana, L.
iii., Ed. Benedict.
St. Augustine. 143
An d taking the chalice, He gave thanks, and gave it to them,
saying, Drink ye all of this. FOR THIS is MY BLOOD OF THE
NEW TESTAMENT, WHICH SHALL BE SHED FOR MANY UNTO
THE REMISSION OF SINS. Mat. xxvi. 26-8. This account
of St. Matthew is repeated by St. Mark, xiv. 22-4, and
nearly word for word, by St. Luke, xxii. 19, 20, and St.
Paul, 1 Cor., xi. 23-5, who adds : Therefore, whoever shall
eat this bread, or drink the chalice of the Lord unworthily,
shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord, and eateth
and drinketh judgment to himself. 1 Cor., xi. 279."
Now, let us see how the fathers interpret this : whether
literally, with the modern Romanist, or figuratively and spiri-
tually, with the Church of England.
Thus saith the same great Augustine : " If the sacra-
ments had not a certain similitude of those things of which
they are the sacraments, they could not be sacraments at all.
But from this similitude, for the most part, they take the
names of the things themselves. Therefore, according to a
certain mode, the Sacrament of Christ's Body is the Body of
Christ, and the Sacrament of Christ's Blood is the Blood of
Christ ; and in like manner, the Sacrament of Faith" (mean-
ing Baptism) " is Faith. Hence the Apostle saith, speak-
ing of Baptism, We are buried by Baptism into death. He
does not say, We have set forth the Sign of burial, but He
saith, We are buried. He calls the SACRAMENT of the thing
BY THE WORD BELONGING TO THE THING ITSELF."*
Augustine, elsewhere, applies this directly as follows :
" Our Lord," saith he, " did not hesitate to say, This is my
body, when He gave them the sign of His body."^
The same interpretation precisely was given to the lan-
* AuguBtin. Op., Tom. 2, p. 203-3, 9.
t Ib. Tom. 8, p. 90, 3.
144 Letter XXXIV.
guage of our blessed Saviour by all the other primitive wit-
nesses. Thus, Tertullian saith : " The Lord, in the Gos-
pel, showed bread, calling it His Body, in order that you
might thence understand Him to have given to the bread
THE FIGURE OF His BODY."* And again : " Our Lord,"
saith he, " taking the bread, and distributing it to His dis-
ciples, made it His body by saying, THIS is MY BODY, that
is, the figure of my body."^ " And that you may recognize
an ancient figure of blood in wine," continues Tertullian,
" Isaiah will teach you, saying,^: Who is this that cometh
from Edom with red garments from Bozrah ? / have trodden
the wine-press alone, and their blood is sprinkled upon my
garments. And still more clearly in the Book of Genesis,
where Jacob, in the blessing of Judah, delineates Christ :
He washed His robe in wine, and His garment in the blood of
the grape, indicating His flesh in the clothing, and His blood
in the wine. Thus, now He consecrates His blood in wine,
as then He figured wine for His blood. "
Cyprian, the Bishop and martyr of Carthage, gives us
another plain proof of the same doctrine. It appears that
some foolish innovators, in his days, had undertaken to ad-
minister the Eucharist with water only, and he rebukes
them in the following terms : " I wonder greatly from
whence this novelty has arisen, in certain places, that
against the evangelical and apostolical discipline, water is
offered in the cup of the Lord, which can never, by itself,
express the blood of Christ." " For the water signifies the
people : as the divine Scripture declares in the Apocalypse,
The waters which thou sawest, upon which the harlot sat, are
peoples, and tribes, and nations, and tongues. Which thing
* Tertul. adv. Marcion, Lib. 3, p. 408. t Ib. Lib. 4, 457.
t Chap. 63. $ Ib. 458.
St. Cyprian. 145
we behold contained in the sacrament of the cup. For as
Christ carried us all by bearing our sins, we see that THE
PEOPLE are SIGNIFIED BY THE WATER, WHILE BY THE WINE
HE SHOWS THE BLOOD OF CHRIST. Therefore, when the
water is mixed with the wine in the cup, the people are
united with Christ, and the whole host of believers is con-
joined and incorporated with Him in Avhom they believe.
And thus it is manifest that, in consecrating the chalice or
cup, water alone cannot be offered, nor yet wine alone ; for
if any one offers wine alone, the blood of Christ begins
to be without us ; but if the water be alone, the people begin
to be without Christ : but when both are mixed together,
then the spiritual and celestial sacrament is perfected."*
Nothing can be more evident, from this decisive extract,
than the entire agreement of Cyprian with Tertullian and
Augustine. For he applies the same figurative language to
the Avater, as signifying the people, and to the wine, as sig-
nifying the blood of Christ. And hence it is manifest that
he could not have believed in Transubstantiation in the one,
any more than he believed it in the other.
But Cyprian .proceeds to speak of the other part of the
Sacrament, and it may be well to note his mode of explain-
ing it. " As the cup of the Lord," saith he, " is not water
only, nor wine only, but both united ; in like manner, the
body of the Lord is not flour alone, nor water alone, but
both united together, so as to form one solid mass of bread.
By which is also signified one people united together ; for, as
many grains of wheat collected, in one, and, ground and mixed,
make one bread, so in Christ, who is the bread from heaven,
we know there is one body, to tohich our assembly is united and
conjoined. ."f It seems too plain for argument that this prim-
* Cyprian. Ep. 118, p. 63. Ed. Rigaltii. f Ib.
VOL. II. 7
146 Letter XXXIV.
itive saint and martyr could never have used such words as
these, if the Church, in his time, had known anything of
the doctrine of Transubstantiation.
Let us* now turn to the eminent Jerome, who occupies so
high a place on the Roman Calendar, and we shall find him
using precisely the same language as the others. Thus,
speaking incidentally of the Sacrament in his epistle against
Jovinian, he saith : " He" (i. e. Christ) " offered not water,
but wine, as a type of His Hood."* So likewise, in his Com-
mentary on the very text in St. Matthew's Gospel, Jerome
speaks as follows : " After the typical Passover had been
fulfilled, and He had eaten the flesh of the lamb with the
Apostles, He took bread, which comforts the heart of man,
and proceeds to the true sacrament of the Passover, even
as Melchizedek, the priest of the Most High God, had done,
offering bread and wine, in prefiguration of Him, that he
also might represent the truth of His body and blood ."f And
again, in his Commentary on St. Mark's Gospel, Jerome
saith : " Jesus took bread, and blessed and brake it, trans-
figuring His body into bread, which is the present Church,
received in faith, blessed in number, broken in sufferings,
exhibited in examples, taken in doctrines ; forming His
Hood in the cup, mixed with wine and water, that by the one
we might be purged from our sins, and by the other, might
be redeemed from punishment. For by the blood of the
lamb the houses are kept from the stroke of the angel, and
by the water of the Red Sea the enemies are annihilated,
which are the mysteries of the Church of Christ."! Here
this eminent father clearly shows that Transubstantiation was
* S. Hieron., Tom. 2, p. 52, C.
t Ib. Tom. 9, Com. in Mat., p. 64.
t Ib. Tom. 9, p. 87, Com. in Marc.
Origen. 147
not yet dreamed of in the Church, of God. He speaks of
the consecrated elements as figures, types, representations of
the real Body and Blood of Christ ; and saith that our Lord
transfigured His tody into bread, which is the absolute con-
trary of the modern Romish doctrine, that He transubstan-
tiated the bread into His body, blood, soul and divinity.
But Dr. Milner adduces the authority of the fathers as
decidedly in his favor, and refers particularly to Ignatius,
Origen, St. Cyril of Jerusalem, and Ambrose. To these,
therefore, I must next invite your attention.
That there are multitudes of passages in those ancient
writers which, taken by themselves, agree apparently with
your doctrine, no divine of any patristic learning denies.
But the question cannot be settled by these, because Augus-
tine has already explained to us the established phraseology,
and justified it by a reference to St. Paul, saying, that " if
the sacraments had not a certain similitude of those things
of which they are the sacraments, they could not be sacra-
ments at all. But from this similitude, for the most part,
they take the names of the things themselves. Therefore, ac-
cording to a certain mode, the Sacrament of Christ's Body
is the body of Christ, and the Sacrament of Christ's Blood is
the blood of Christ, and in like manner, the Sacrament of
Faith" (i. e. Baptism) " is faith." " Hence," continues
Augustine, " the Apostle saith, We are buried by Baptism
into death. He does not say, We have set forth the SIGN of
Burial, but he saith, We are buried. He calls the sacra-
ment of the thing by the word belonging to the thing itself"
Such being the unquestionable rule of language, not only
in the Church, but, to a large extent, in all other depart-
ments of society, it is evident that we can only determine
the real doctrine on the subject by those passages which
go to the point of the distinction. When, therefore, Igna-
148 Letter XXXIV.
this, speaking of heretics, asserts that " they do do not ad-
mit of Eucharists and oblations, because they do not be-
lieve the Eucharist to be the flesh of our Saviour Jesus
Christ," his language, interpreted by the statement of St.
Augustine, affords no evidence at all with regard to the
doctrine in question, because the inquiry is not touched
Whether Ignatius meant the flesh of our Saviour, in actual
substance, or in symbol or figure ? But we know that the
most troublesome heretics of Ignatius' time were the Gnos-
tics, who maintained that Christ had no real human body at
all, but only presented a phantom of mortal shape to the
eyes of men. We know also, that the sacrament could not
be the figure or symbol of Christ's Body unless He had a
real body, because it is impossible to establish a, figure or
symbolical representation of that which is not believed to ex-
ist at all. And thus we see why the Gnostic heretics
should have abandoned the Eucharist, whether the doctrine
of Rome or of England were the doctrine of the Church,
because both doctrines equally require faith in the Saviour's
real humanity.
From Ignatius I pass to Origen, and here we have abun-
dant proof that Dr. Milner has entirely misrepresented this
eminent father. The words which he has quoted, indeed,
are plainly inconclusive : " 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." This we do not deny,
but maintain it, the question not being whether Christ gives
His flesh and blood to the faithful recipient of the Sacra-
ment, but whether He gives them after a heavenly and
spiritual manner, in connection with the faithful and devout
reception of the consecrated symbols of the outward and
visible sacrament ; or whether He gives them by transub-
stantiating the bread and wine, so that they are no longer
St. Ambrose. 149
figures, signs, or sacraments of His Body and Blood, but
really and actually converted into His true Body and Blood,
Soul and Divinity. Of this the passage says nothing, and
what it does say is quite as consistent with the one doc-
trine as with the other.
But now let us have some further testimony from Origen,
and it will appear very plainly that he agrees perfectly
well with the evidence of Tertullian, Cyprian, Augustine,
and Jerome.
Thus, for example, he saith : " There is in the New
Testament a literal interpretation (liter a) which killeth him
who does not spiritually apprehend those things that are
spoken. For if you follow according to the letter what is
said, Unless you shall eat my flesh, and drink my blood, this
letter killeth."*
And again, Origen delivers this conclusive statement :
" Since everything which enters into the mouth goes into the
belly and is cast out into the draught, so likewise the very
food consecrated by the word of God and prayer, insomuch
as it is material, goes into the belly, and is cast out into
the draught : . but insomuch as prayer is joined to it, ac-
cording to the proportion of faith, it becomes useful, and
causes the mind to become enlightened, looking to that
which profiteth ; nor is it the material bread, but the prayer
offered upon it which helps him, who, not unworthily of the
Lord, eats it. And thus much concerning the TYPICAL
AND SYMBOLICAL BODY."! It is impossible, as it seems to
me, that any man could have written thus who was a be-
liever in Transubstantiation.
Ambrose stands also on the list of Dr. Milner's witnesses ;
* Origen.., Horn. 7 in Levit.
t Origen., Com. in Matth&um, p. 254-.
150 Letter XXXIV.
and yet, when we look at the whole of his testimony, we
shall find no discrepancy. For his language, even as quoted
by your author, is easily made to agree with the doctrine of
the Church of England : " Perhaps you will say, Why do
you tell me that I receive the body of Christ, when I see
quite another thing ? We have this point, therefore, to
prove. How many examples do we produce to shov you
that this is not what nature has made it, but what the bene-
diction has consecrated it ? and that the benediction is of
greater force than nature, because, by the benediction, na-
ture itself is changed," &c. Such are the words of this
father, and all that we have to do is to take his own ex-
planation, as follows :
" That I may further answer thee," saith Ambrose, " it
was not the body of Christ before consecration : but, after
consecration, I tell thee it is the body of Christ. He said,
and it was done ; He commanded, and it was created.
Thou also wast ; but tJiou wast the old creature : after thou
wert consecrated, thou didst begi?i to be a new creature. Dost
thou desire to know how ? Every one, saith he, who is in Christ,
is a new creature."*
Here we have a sufficient key to the sentiments of Am-
brose. The doctrine of the Church, to which we fully as-
sent, was that the bread and wine were common, before
they were consecrated ; but after consecration, they be-
came converted, by the words of Christ's institution, into
the figures, symbols, or emblems of the body and blood
of Christ. This was a change, and one which seemed to
challenge the senses, because the spectator might have
said, according to the question put by the father, " Why do
you tell me that I receive the body of Christ, when I see
* S. Ambros. Op., Tom. 2, p. 369.
St. Ambrose. 151
quite another thing ?" That is, " Why am I to believe that
this bread, previously common bread, is now become the
figure of Christ's body, when I see nothing but bread, and
observe no change whatever in its appearance or its form 1"
The answer is, that it has become the figure of His body by
the word of His power who is Almighty. That it is now con-
secrated to bear the new emblematic and sacramental cha-
racter. That it is therefore invested with a new signifi-
cance and a new solemnity, as a representative image, sym-
bolically, of the Redeemer of the world. And that this must
be believed in faith, notwithstanding there was no more
outward resemblance to Christ than there was before.
To prove this, therefore, Ambrose illustrates it by the
change which consecration produces on the Christian :
" Thou wast the old creature, saith he ; but after thou wert con-
secrated, thou didst begin to be a new creature." And thus we
see plainly how far this venerable father was from teaching
Transubstantiation. For no one imagines that the Spirit of
God, in producing the new creature, through a change of
heart and the consecration .of Baptism, effects any change
in the material substance of the man. The change is a
change of character and relation. No illustration could de-
monstrate more plainly the meaning of the whole.
A little further on, however, Ambrose speaks yet more
clearly : " Perhaps, nevertheless," saith he, " you will say,
I do not see the appearance of blood. BUT IT HAS A SI-
MILITUDE :for as thou hast taken the similitude of death, even
so thou drinkest the similitude of precious blood, that there
may be no horror of blood itself, and yet the price of thy re-
demption might be available. And thus you have learned
that what you receive is the body of Christ."* Here we
* S. Ambros. Op., Tom. 2, p. 370.
152 " Letter XXXIV.
have the full development of his idea ; for instead of an-
swering the objection like a believer in'Transubstantiation,
he takes the true ground, that the thing which the eyes be-
held had a similitude. The modern. Romanist would have
replied by saying, that the objector must not trust his senses ;
that it was actual blood notwithstanding ; that it was not a
similitude, but a miraculous reality. And hence the mani-
fest incompatibility presented by the language of this cho-
sen witness, when compared with the doctrine which your
advocate would fain extract from his testimony.
One passage more from Ambrose must close this part of
our evidence, and this is taken from the words of the Litur-
gy, as established in his day : " Listen," saith he, " to the
celestial words of consecration. The priest saith, Make
this to us, O Lord, a chosen, allowed, reasonable and ac-
ceptable sacrifice, which is THE FIGURE of the body and.
blood of our Lord Jesus Christ."* Thus, then, we have
this highest proof, from the very language of the Church's
public service, that the consecrated elements were esteem-
ed, in the time of Ambrose, precisely what we hold them
to be, namely, the figure of the body and the blood ; and
hence we find no difference between this witness and the
others, notwithstanding the apparent confidence with which
Dr. Milner appeals to him.
We come now to the testimony of Cyril, the Archbishop
of Jerusalem, from whose mystagogical discourses your au-
thor has made an extract resembling that which we have
seen from Ambrose. But there are other passages in the'
works of this father which will furnish a much fairer view
of his doctrine.
Thus, warning the recently baptized against the use of
* S. Ambros. Op., Tom. 2, p. 371.
St. Cyril of Jerusalem. 153
those sacraments which, had been offered to idols, he speaks
as follows :
" For in like manner as the bread and wine of the Eu-
charist, before the holy invocation of the adorable Trinity,
were bare bread and wine, but the invocation being finished,
the bread became the body of Christ, and the wine the blood
of Christ : in like manner the meats belonging to the pomp of
Satan, though by their nature they were bare and common,
are rendered profane and contaminated by the invocation of
the demons."*
Here is a comparison which no believer in Transubstan-
tiation could think, for a moment, of making. The bread
and wine, consecrated by the invocation of the Trinity, to
be the emblems or symbols of the body and the blood of the
Saviour, might well enough be contrasted with the meats
which were contaminated by the invocation of devils. But
to compare the defilement of the one with the holiness of
the other, when that other was believed to be not a conse-
crated emblem, but Christ Himself, body, blood, soul and di-
vinity, would be a monstrous solecism, unworthy not merely
of the eloquent and pious Cyril, but of any man of common
sense.
This eminent father, however, makes another comparison,
no less fatal to your modern Roman hypothesis, where,
speaking of the chrism or holy oil which was introduced
very early into the Church, he employs these words :
" Beware that thou dost not think this ointment to be
naked or vile. For as the bread of the Eucharist, after the
invocation of the Holy Spirit, is no longer common bread,
but the body of Christ, even so this holy ointment is no
longer bare, or, if any one prefers so to call it, common
ointment, after the invocation, but it is the efficient gift of
* S. Cyrilli Op., p. 308, Ed. of Touttec.
VOL. II. 7*
154 Letter XXXIV.
Christ and the Holy Spirit, by the presence of His Deity.
"Which truly is applied symbolically on thy forehead, and thy
other organs of the senses. And while the body is anoint-
ed by the visible ointment, the soul is sanctified by the holy
and life-giving Spirit."*
Here, again, we have an illustration which proves incon-
trovertibly that Cyril's doctrine agreed with our own, and
was totally incompatible with that of modern Romanism.
For he compares the consecration of the Eucharist with the
consecration of the Chrism. In that, there was, confessed-
ly, no Transubstantiation. It remained, in substance, what
it was before, but in figure and in sanctity, it was esteemed
a holy thing, and when used symbolically, the presence of
Christ and the Holy Spirit gave sanctification to the faithful
soul.
I shall close the evidence of Cyril with his comment on
the language of the Liturgy, in which he saith expressly :
" For those who taste are not ordered to taste the bread and
wine, but the SIMILITUDE (Gr. dvrirvirov, similitude, figure,
or representation) OF THE BODY AND BLOOD OF CHRIST."!
If, instead of these plain and conclusive words, this emi-
nent father had said that they were not ordered to taste the
bread and wine, but to receive the real body, and blood, and
soul, and divinity of Christ Himself, Dr. Milner might have
appealed, with some honest confidence, to Cyril's testimony.
Having thus shown the doctrine of those fathers on
whom your author rests, I shall sum up the testimony of the
early writers with Isidore of Seville, who, like the others,
is one of the saints canonized by the rulers of the Church
of Rome.
* S. Cyrilli Op., p. 316-7, Ed. of Touttie.
t S. Cyril., Cat. xxiii., Mystag. v., 1) xx., p. 331.
St. Isidore of Seville. 155
Thus he adopts the language of Cyprian, directing the
water to be mixed with the wine in the administration of
the Eucharist, saying : " For if any one offers wine alone,
the blood begins to be without the people ; but if the water be
alone, the people begin to be without Christ"* This lan-
guage of itself suffices to prove the figurative character of
the consecrated elements, for no one denies that the water
could only have signified the people metaphorically, as the
wine signified the blood of the Saviour metaphorically or in
a figure, according to the language of Tertullian and the
other fathers. But St. Augustine plainly declares that the
custom was to call the representations by the names of the
things themselves, on the authority of the Scriptures. And
Cyprian, in this very passage, gives us a strong example of
the rule. As, therefore, when the people begin to be, we
know that it was not the people, but the figure which repre-
sented the people ; so, when the blood begins to be, it was
not really the blood, but the figure which represented the
blood. It must be evident, at a glance, that no believer in
Tr an substantiation could have adopted such a comparison as
this, and yet we see it fully endorsed by Isidore in the be-
ginning of the seventh century.
The same conclusion, however, is equally plain, from his
definition of the sacraments. . " A sacrament," saith he,
" is in a certain celebration, when the thing performed is
so done, that it is understood to signify something which is
to be accepted sacredly. And the sacraments are, Baptism
and Chrism, and the Body and Blood of Christ, which are
called sacraments on this account, because under the out-
ward covering of corporeal things, the divine virtue secretly
works the health of those sacraments, by reason of which
secret or holy virtues, they are termed sacraments."!
* S. Isidori Hisp. Op., p. 395, B. f Ib., p. 52, A. B.
156 Letter XXXIV.
Here, by the way, as I have already shown, we see that
Chrism, which is now called Confirmation, was raised to the
rank of a sacrament in the time of Isidore, while the other four,
which modern Romanism has since added to the list, had
not yet been so accounted, notwithstanding your boast that
the Church of Rome has always been unchangeable. But
we also see that by the very definition of a sacrament, the
consecrated elements must be taken as a corporeal figure,
signifying what is to be accepted. And hence it is manifest
that if the figure could be transubstantiated into the divine
reality, it would be a sacrament no longer.
And this is demonstrated by the very highest Romish
authority, in the face of the sophistry by which some of
your writers contend that it may be the figure and the real-
ity at the same time. As if a prince, say they, should put
on a mask, to hide his features, should we not have at once
a figure and the real prince together 1
This is ingenious, but totally inapplicable to the question.
For in the supposed analogy, the prince could only wear a
mask in order that he might not be known ; and if he put on
such a disguise, and at the same time proclaimed to every
one that he was the prince notwithstanding, we should all
agree that he was playing the fool. And yet such is the
illustration chosen by the advocates of this profane dogma.
Our Lord is supposed to present Himself under the mask of
a little wafer, while yet it is proclaimed to all the world
that He is actually present in His body, blood, soul and
divinity !
But let me now prove the absurdity of this evasion, by
your own highest testimony. In the second Council of
Nice, A. D. 787, which established the worship of images,
the acts of the previous Council were read, and condemned.
And amongst these acts we find the following : -
The Second Council of Nice. 157
" Let those rejoice and be glad, and let them act faith-
fully, who make with sincerest mind the true image of
Christ, and desire it, and reverence it, and offer it for the
salvation of the body and the soul ; which He our most
sacred sacrificer and God, * * * according to the time, deliv-
ered to His servants as a type and evident memorial of His
proper passion. For, being about to deliver Himself to His
memorable and vivifying death, He took bread into His
hands and blessed it, and giving thanks, He brake it, and
delivering it, said : Take and eat this for the remission of
sins. THIS is MY BODY. In like manner giving them the
cup, he said : THIS is MY BLOOD : Do this in remembrance
of me. As if there was no other species or imaginary form
chosen by Himself under heaven, representing His incarna-
tion. Behold, therefore, how this is preciously and honor-
ably made THE IMAGE OF His VIVIFYING BODY. * * * For this
is demonstrated to be the TRUE IMAGE of the dispensation
made in the flesh, namely, of Christ our God, which He
Himself, the true Maker and vivificator of nature, with His
own voice delivered."*
Here we have plainly set forth the old doctrine of the
primitive Church, in accordance with the united testimony
of the fathers. But the second Council of Nice, in its zeal
for the popular fashion of image-worship, flatly denied it
all. " These men," say they, " willing to demolish the
spectacle of the venerable images, have introduced another
image, which is not an image, but the body and the Mood. * * *
FOR IF IT BE THE IMAGE OF THE BODY, IT CANNOT BE THE
DIVINE BODY."f
Thus, then, a Council which all Romanists esteem to be
general and infallible, had settled the question in the latter
* Hard. Concil. Gen., Tom. 4, p. 367-8.
t Ib., p. 369, A.
158 Letter XXXIV.
part of the 8th century, that the consecrated elements could
not be both an image, or a figure, and likewise the reality.
The idea, indeed, is sufficiently absurd in itself, and has
evidently been adopted in the vain attempt to reconcile the
old fathers with their modern doctrine. But to you, most
Reverend Sir, it ought to be the argumentum ad hominem,
because it is the authoritative decision of what you hold to
be a General Council, to which you profess to submit your
faith in all things.
I shall not here repeat the evidence on which, in my
letter on image-worship, this second Council of Nice was
shown to be no true exponent of the primitive Church, nor
even of the prevailing opinions and practice of the age in
which it was holden. Certain it is, as we have just seen,
that the 336 Bishops of the Oriental Churches, who held
the previous Council, delivered their decrees against images,
and also against transubstantiation, expressly maintaining
that the Eucharist was the image, and the only authorized
image, of our Lord and Saviour. This proves conclusively
that so late as the latter part of the 8th century, the old
doctrine still existed, while the new and contrary opinion
was only partially sustained. But the tide was running
strongly in favor of superstition, and the victory was gained
in due season.
That it was not gained, however, soon, nor without seri-
ous opposition, is clearly proved by your own historian,
Fleury. He states that about the year 859, Paschasius
Radbert wrote a book, maintaining that the body of Jesus
Christ is the same in the Eucharist with that which was
born of the Virgin, and that it was reality and a figure both
together. The famous John Scot, who was confessedly
one of the lights of his age, published a treatise against this
doctrine, which was condemned at the Council of Verceil,
John Scot and Berenger. 159
nearly two hundred years after.* It does not appear that
his opposition to Paschasius brought him into any trouble
at the time, but another work, viz., a translation of Diony-
sius, the Areopagite, excited Pope Nicholas against him,
and Charles the Bald, instead of sending him to be tried
for this book, which favored the Greek Church and was
very obnoxious to the Roman hierarchy, allowed him to go
to England, where the famous Alfred placed him at the
head of the King's Hall, at Oxford, and there he lectured for
some years with great reputation. Fleury admits that
" Paschasius knew well that his doctrine was combated."
He also specifies the work of Ratram, monk of Corbie,
which was published against him, besides two other wri-
tings without name, and mentions that a certain Frudegard
and others had difficulties about his book. The book of
Ratram, in opposition to his doctrine, however, was one of
peculiar importance, being written by order of Charles the
Bald, and in that it was maintained that we must distin-
guish, according to the fathers, between the natural and the
eucharistic body. " That the body which our Lord took
of the Virgin ,Mary was a true body, visible and palpable,
while the body which is called the mystery of God is not
corporeal, but spiritual, and by consequence neither visible
nor palpable. "t
Opinions were allowed to fluctuate between these oppo-
site doctrines for a considerable time, nor was there any
attempt to settle the dispute authoritatively, until the year
1079, when Berenger, a celebrated theologian of France,
opposed the growing figment of transubstantiation, and was
compelled by a Council, held at Rome, to make his recan-
tation. Like Galileo, however, who was forced by the
* Fleury, Hist. Ecc., Tom. 10, p. 544-5. t Ib., p. 548.
160 Letter XXXIV.
same infallible authority to recant his astronomical discov-
ery that the earth moved round the sun, and just after he
rose from his knees, said to his friend, " It moves, not-
withstanding ;" even so Berenger remained of the same
mind, and when he returned to France, continued to incul-
cate his former doctrine. According to the truth of history,
therefore, it is impossible to assign the establishment of
the present teaching of your Church to an earlier period
than the eleventh century.
I have reversed my usual line of argument on this im-
portant subject, with express regard to the decree of the
Council of Trent, in its fourth session, which enacted that
" no one should dare, in those things which belong to faith and
morals, to interpret the Holy Scriptures against that sense
which Holy Mother Church has held and holds, OR AGAINST
THE UNANIMOUS CONSENT OF THE FATHERS."*
The sense which the Church has held, in primitive times,
I have proved from the Liturgies of Ambrose and Cyril,
ivhere the FIGURE of the body and blood of our Lord is
stated expressly as the object of sacramental consecration.
In this, therefore, the Church of England stands justified
by the oldest and truly Catholic authority. And the unani-
mous consent of the fathers I have also shown to agree with
the same interpretation. Your Council of Trent spake
well and wisely, in laying down the rule ; but when it is
alleged that the modern Church of Rome can demonstrate
her faithfulness in obeying it, we hold her claim to be a
bold pretence, opposed to the real evidence of antiquity in
this and every other point which was rejected by the prin-
ciples of the English Reformation.
My next letter will lead me back to the language of the
* Hard. Con., Tom. 10, p. 23, D.
Plain Speaking necessary. 161
Scriptures themselves, in connection with which I shall no-
tice the Jesuitical attempt of your favorite, Dr. Milner, to
enlist the divines of our Church in favor of your doctrine.
And I beg you to remember that, in refuting his book, I am
compelled to speak plainly, because it is, throughout, an
unscrupulous assault upon my own communion, and it is im-
possible to defend the purity of our system against such an
opponent without candidly expressing my sincere convic-
tion of its character. Most deeply do I lament the fatal
policy by which, I doubt not, he justified his course.
Most freely do I exonerate the deluded victims of his
misrepresentation from, the sin of wilful error. And as
I ask no one to credit me any farther than I prove what
I assert, I trust that the cause of divine truth will not suffer
in any mind by the frankness of its advocate.
162 The End of Controversy, Controverted.
LETTER XXXV.
MOST REVEREND SIR :
IN the arguments of your divines on the subject of Tran-
substantiation, they talk triumphantly of their faithful adhe-
rence to the very words of Christ ; and yet it is very plain
that they cannot interpret those words without admitting a
figure of speech, notwithstanding their boast that they take
the literal meaning.
Thus, when our Lord saith, This is My blood which is
shed for you, how does the literal meaning agree with the
unquestionable fact that His blood was not actually shed for
them until the following evening ? Hence the necessity of
understanding that it was then shed only in the divine de-
cree and in His own will, which, in the agony of Geth-
semane, He had submitted so absolutely to the will of His
Father. Here, then, clearly, the literal expression is not
the real meaning.
Again, we read, according to your Douay version, as
quoted by Dr. Milner, " Taking the chalice, He gave thanks,
and gave it to them, saying, Drink ye all of this." Not of
the chalice, certainly, but of WHAT THE CHALICE CON-
TAINED. But this is a, figure of speech beyond all contro
versy, and your divines are obliged to interpret it as a
figure, in despite of all their zeal for the strict literal
phraseology.
Scriptural Argument for Transubstantiation. 163
Again, St. LUKB states the words somewhat differently :*
" This cup is the NEW TESTAMENT in my blood, which is
shed for you." What will the literal meaning prove here ?
You do not pretend to maintain it ; and yet the language of
St. Paulf repeats the same expression, besides making an-
other slight variation in saying, " This is my body which is
broken" instead of " given," for you. Thus, then, it is im-
possible to interpret the meaning without admitting a figure
of speech. There was no literal covenant written in blood,
neither was it literally true that His sacred body was bro-
ken. But the cup might well be called a covenant, figura-
tively, because our Lord shed His blood to accomplish His
covenant promise of forgiveness and redemption to His peo-
ple. And His blessed body might well be pronounced bro-
ken by the same well-known figure of speech, in which we
say that the heart is broken, when it is tortured unto death
by grief and anguish.
Hence, it is surely manifest to the slightest attention, that
the argument derived from the strict letter of St. Matthew
cannot, of itself, decide the controversy. Two of the Evan-
gelists use one form of expression, St. Luke and St. Paul
employ the other. And the figurative meaning is absolutely ne-
cessary, to a greater or a less degree, in interpreting them all.
' But let us consider whether the doctrine of your modern
Roman Church is proved, even on your own ground. " This
is my body." What is the sense of the verb ? Does it
mean the actual being, or a representation of being ? For
it is undeniable that it is currently employed in both these
senses in every language under heaven, and throughout the
Bible, from Genesis to Revelation.
To test this assertion by an appeal to the fact, I shall first
* Chapter xxii. 20. t 1 Cor., xi. 24-5.
164 Letter XXXV.
ask your attention to a few texts in which the verb is used
in the representative or figurative sense confessedly. And
in order to exclude all doubt, I shall quote your own Douay
Bible. Thus :
Gen. xvii. 13. My covenant SHALL BE in your flesh, i. e., my
covevant shall be represented hy circumci-
sion.
" xl. 12. The three branches ARE yet three days, i. e., they
signify three days.
" " 18. The three baskets ARE yet three days, i. e., they
signify them.
" xli. 26. The seven beautiful kine and the seven full ears
ARE seven years of plenty, i. e., they signify
them.
'' is. gij' - y^ e seven i ean ] c i ne an ft tf ie seven thin ears
ARE seven years of famine, i. e., they signify
them.
" xlix. 14. Issachar SHALL BE a strong ass, i. e., like a strong
ass.
" " 17. Let Dan BE a snake in the way, i. e., like a snake
in the way.
Deut. xxviii. 23. BE the heaven that is over thee, of brass, i. e., like
"brass.
" " " And the ground thou treadest on, of iron, i. e.,
like iron.
" xxxii. 33. Their wine is the gall of dragons, i. e., like the
gall of dragons.
" xxxiii. 22. Dan is a young lion, i. e., like a young lion.
Josh, xxiii. 13. They SHALL BE a pit and a snare, i. e., like a pit
and a snare.
Psalm v. 11. Their throat is an open sepulchre, i. e., like an
open sepulchre.
" xiii. 3. The poison of asps is under their lips, i. e., their
words are venomous, like the poison of asps.
" Ivi. 5. The sons of men, whose teeth ARE weapons and
arrows, i. e., like weapons and arrows.
The Verb " To BE," as used in Scripture. 165
Psalm Iviii. 8. A sword is in their lips, i. e., their words pierce
like a sword.
Daniel ii. 38. Thou ART the head of gold, i. e., the head of gold
represents thy majesty.
" iv. 19. The tree which thou sawest it is thou, O King,
i. e., it represents thee.
" vii. 23. .The fourth least SHALL BE the fourth kingdom,
i. e., the beast is a symbol of the kingdom.
" viii. 20. The ram is the King of the Medes and Persians,
i. e., symbolically.
Zach. v. 2-3. I see a volume flying And he said, This is the
curse that goeth forth, &c., i. e., it is a symbol
of the curse.
These are but a few specimens from the Old Testament,
to show how the verb to be is employed in a figurative sense
of representation, similitude, or figure. The New Testament,
however, is more immediately adapted to the question, and
from this, therefore, I shall make a larger number of quota-
tions :
St. Matt. v. 13. You ARE the salt of the earth, i. e., like the salt.
" xvi. 18. Thou ART Peter (Gr.,^rpo s , a stone), i. e.,figura-
lively.
St. John vi. 70. Have not I chosen you tivelve, and one of you is
a devil ? i. e., like a devil, the enemy of Christ.
" x. 9. I AM the door, i. e., figuratively.
" " 34. You ARE gods, i. e., like gods, by receiving the
Word of God.
" xi. 25. I AM the Resurrection, i. e., the cause and the
power of the resurrection.
" xiv. 6. I AM the way, i. e., figuratively.
" xv. 1. I AM the true vine, i. e., figuratively.
Rom. vi. 4. We ARE buried together with Him by baptism,
i. e., figuratively.
" " 6. Our old man is crucified with Him, i. e., figura-
tively, or spiritually.
166 Letter XXXV.
1 Cor. x. 4. The Rock WAS Christ, i. e., a figure of Christ.
2 Cor. iii. 2. You ARE our epistle, i. e., figuratively.
Gal. iv. 24. These ARE the two testaments, i. e., allegorically.
1 Tim. iii. 15. TAe Church is the pillar and ground of the truth,
i. e,, figuratively.
Heb. v. 13. Every one that is a partaker of milk is unskilful
in the word of justice, for he is a little child,
i. e., spiritually.
" xii. 29. Our God is a consuming fire, i. e., Zi/te a consum-
ing fire to the impenitent.
St. James, iv. 15. What is your life'? It is a vapor, i. e., like a
vapor.
St. Judo, 12. These ARE sjwta in their banquets, clouds without
water, trees of the autumn, raging waves of the
sea, &e., i. e., figuratively.
Rev. i. 20. The seven stars ARE the angels of the seven
churches, and the seven candlesticks ARE the
seven churches, i. e., symbolically.
" xi. 4. These ARE the two olive-trees, and the two candle-
sticks, i. e., the olive-trees and candlesticks
were symbols or figures of them.
" xvii. 9. The seven heads ARE seven mountains, i. e., sym-
bolically.
" " 12. The ten horns ARE ten kings, i. e., symbolically.
" " 15. The waters which thou sawest ARE peoples, and na-
tions, and tongues, i. e., symbolically.
" " 18. The woman is the great city, a kingdom which
hath dominion over the kings of the earth, i. e.,
symbolically.
" xix. 8. The fine linen ARE the justifications of saints, i. e. t
symbolically.
Now here are nearly fifty texts, all taken from your own
Bible, in which, the verb to be is acknowledged on all sides
to signify a figurative, representative, or symbolical being.
When, therefore, our divine Lord takes bread and blesses
it, and breaks it, and gives it to His disciples, and saith,
God's Omnipotence no Explanation. 167
Take, eat, this is my body, by what law of interpretation do
you deny His meaning to have been, This REPRESENTS my
body, or this is a FIGURE or a SYMBOL of my body 1 Why
must the verb to be bear, in this text, the sense of actual
existence, involving the monstrous idea of Transubstantia-
tion, while yet your divines allow the same verb to signify
a figurative being in all the other passages which I have
quoted from the same word of God 1
You may say, indeed, that you adopt the figurative mean-
ing in those passages, because the other meaning would in-
volve a gross incongruity. But I beseech you to point out
a greater incongruity amongst them all, than the notion that
a morsel of bread can actually be changed into the INCAR-
NATE GOD, born of the Virgin the true, real body and Hood,
soul and divinity of the Lord Jesus Christ, while it continues,
to all appearances, just as it was before ! Or you may urge,
that in those various passages, the senses proved that no
change of substance was intended. But certainly this can
yield you no ground of argument, so long as the same senses
give a positive contradiction to the doctrine of Transubstan-
tiation.
I do not think it likely you would allege that the Almigh-
ty could not have changed Isaachar into an ass, or Dan into
a snake, or Nebuchadnezzar into a head of gold, or a beast
into a kingdom, or a ram into a king. Or that our Lord
could not convert Himself into an actual door, way, vine,
rock, or consuming fire. Or that He could not transubstan-
tiate stars into angels, and candlesticks into churches, or
waters into people, or heads into mountains, or a woman
into a city, if it pleased Him. For assuredly there is no
force in an objection addressed to Omnipotence. But there
is nothing more vast nor enormous in any of these changes
than the act which you suppose to transform your little wa-
168 Letter XXXV.
fers into the incarnate Deity. Indeed, the whole of these
wonders would sink into insignificance in comparison with
your doctrine that those little wafers are converted into the
actual body, soul and divinity of the Son of God in every
quarter of the world, and continually, so that your priests are
in this way working miracles all the while, far greater than
the most stupendous prodigies recorded in the Bible.
Perhaps, however, you may say that this change of the
consecrated elements is of more importance to the redemp-
tion of mankind, and is therefore more worthy of the exer-
cise of miraculous power. But this affords no reason for
your doctrine, since it is manifest that our views of the
subject are as high as yours, in the true spiritual incorpora-
tion of the soul with Christ. The supposed change of the
bread and wine into the real body and blood of the Redeem-
er, gives you no superiority in the essential privileges of
that blessed gift, and you gain nothing by it, beyond a dis-
play of what we cannot but regard as a sensuous and idola-
trous superstition.
But possibly you may suppose that Transubstantiation is
required to give greater efficacy to the Sacrament. If this
be your idea, we hold it to be another example of delusion.
The Sacraments are outward and visible signs of the grace
given by Christ Himself to the worthy receiver. And you
destroy the sacramental character, when you teach that the
sign is changed into the reality. Baptism is also a sacra-
ment, and no less necessary than the Eucharist, not to say
even more so, according to your own doctrine, because you
hold that infants cannot be saved without Baptism, although
they may be saved without the Eucharist. And yet, you
do not ask us to believe that there is any Transubstantia,'
tion of the element in Baptism. You do not consider it ne-
cessary that the water should be converted into the HOLY
Faith rests on the Senses and Reason. 169
GHOST, but regard it as quite sufficient that the blessing of
God accompanies its application. The true idea of sacra-
mental efficacy, therefore, instead of being a support, is
really fatal to your doctrine. That it adds to the dignity
and power of your priests, I doubt not ; but that it adds to
the efficacy of the Sacrament, is nothing better than a theo-
logical contradiction.
Lastly, you may allege that Transubstantiation yields the
most powerful testimony to the triumph of faith over the
senses, and therefore it deserves to be cherished so devoutly.
But permit me to remind you, most Reverend Sir, that FAITH,
as propounded by the divine Redeemer, is not a blind as-
sent to assertion without proof, but a spiritual and cordial
reception of the revealed Word of God, on the fullest evi-
dence. Hence, miracles and prophecy bore witness to the
truth of the Mosaic system. Hence, miracles and prophe-
cy bore witness to the Gospel of Christ, and the mission of
His Apostles. Hence, our Lord appealed to His works :
" If ye believe not me," saith He, " believe the works."*
" If I had not done among them the works which no other
man did, they had not had sin. But now they have both
seen and hated both me and my Father." Thus the appeal
which the great Redeemer made was addressed to the
senses and the reason of mankind. And what other course
would have been consistent with the laws of the human
constitution 1 Has He not created us with those senses and
that reason? And on what possible basis could our faith
in Him be placed, if the proofs of the Gospel were not
adapted to their testimony ?
In strict accordance with this indispensable principle,
therefore, the blessed Redeemer presented His divine truth
* John x. 37-8.
VOL. II. 8
170 Letter XXXV.
in constant harmony with the celestial exhortation delivered
through the Prophet Isaiah : " Come, now, let us reason toge-
ther, saith the Lord." All His instructions were addressed
to the reasoning faculty. All His parables and illustrations
were master-pieces of reasoning power. All His miracles
were adapted to the senses. Thus the basis of proof,
throughout the whole, was laid in the testimony of sense,
and the just exercise of the understanding ; and then, when
belief was authorized by sense and reason, the power of
divine grace built up the Church by the internal work of
repentance and faith, in a true spiritual conversion.
The result must surely be perfectly manifest, that there
is nothing in the Gospel of our Lord contrary to the senses
and reason of mankind. That it leads us to a sublime range
of truth which is entirely above and beyond our natural sense
and reason, is indeed most certain. But this is a very dif-
ferent thing from a contradiction to sense and reason. The
superstructure of a building is above the foundation, but it
is so far from being in contrariety or opposition to it, "that it
rests on that foundation for its whole security. The in-
habitants dwell in the upper rooms, and do not think of in-
specting the basement wall unless there be danger of its
failing. And so the Christian's faith dwells in the upper
regions of his spiritual house, and he rarely recurs, on his
own account, to the process by which it was erected. And
yet he knows full well, that if a successful breach could be
made in the evidence of sense and reason, on which the
Gospel system is founded, the whole edifice would fall, and
involve his hope of happiness in ruin.
But this argument will probably commend itself more fa-
vorably to your attention, in the words of the eminent
Tertullian. Thus, in his Treatise on the Soul, this cele-
brated light of the third century expresses himself :
Reason not to be contradicted. 171
" It is not allowable for us," saith he, " to cast doubt upon
the evidence of the senses, lest the facts of Christ's history
be destroyed, for it may then be said that He falsely saw
Satan fall from heaven, or that He falsely heard the voice of
the Father bearing witness of Him, or that He was deceived
when he touched the mother-in-law of Peter or that the
flavor was something 1 else than of wine, which he consecrated
in memory of His blood. But nature did not thus make a
mockery of the Apostles. Faithful was their sight and
hearing on the Mount : faithful their taste of the wine which
had been water, in the marriage of Galilee : faithful the
touch of Thomas, who was thereby made a believer. Read
the testimony of John : That which we have seen, saith he,
which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, and
our hands have handled of the Word of Life. But all this
testimony is false, if nature lies to us in the senses of the
eyes, and the ears, and the. hands."*
The same father pursues this argument in his treatise
against the heretic, Marcion, where he asks this significant
question : " Shall I believe the Lord concerning the interior
substance, who has deceived me concerning the exterior ?
If he is fallacious in what is manifest, how shall he be true
in what is concealed ?"f
Thus, then, we see that fait h can never be truly alleged
in that which, while it is, in itself, a proper object of the
senses, nevertheless contradicts their whole testimony. In
your supposed miracle of transubstantiation, your people
may have what you are pleased to call faith, but it is not
the faith of the Gospel, because this can only rest on the
Word of God, and is always consistent with the senses and
the reason of mankind. Instead of this, you insist on giving
* Tertul. de Anima, p. 276.
f Ib. adv. Marcionem, Lib. 3, p. 401.
172 Letter XXXV.
your own interpretation to the language of the Saviour,
which I have proved to admit of the representative or
figurative meaning by the usage of Scripture, and that
such was the doctrine of the primitive Church, according to
the fathers and the oldest Liturgies. But bread and wine
are the objects of sense, material things. And flesh and
blood are the objects of sense, material likewise. The sight
bears witness that the words are in the Scripture, but can-
not settle the meaning in which they should be understood,
until it beholds the subject of your supposed miracle. And
then the same sight which proves the words to be in the
Bible, also proves that the bread and the wine remain un-
changed in their material properties. While along with
the sight, there .is the touch, the taste, and the smell, all cor-
roborating its testimony.
Where, then, I pray you, is the evidence of your faith ?
Not in the Scriptures, which admit of a very different and
perfectly reasonable meaning. Not in the primitive Church,
for that is directly against you. Not in the senses, for four
out, of five testify the contrary ; and the fifth, that is, the
hearing, is incapable of judging whether the consecrated
element be flesh or bread. Not in the reason, since nothing
can be more absurd than the proposition that bread and
wine can be transubstantiated into flesh and blood, and yet
retain all the sensible qualities of their proper nature, just
as they were before ! Not in the utility of the supposed
miracle, because the true spiritual incorporation with Christ
is as well secured on our system as on yours : or rather, as
I should have said, much better ; for a false belief can expec*
no benefit from Him who is the truth itself. Not in the
analogy with the other Sacrament of Baptism, since it is
confessed by all your own divines that the ingrafting of the
penitent sinner into the body of the Saviour is accomplished
The Real Presence not Transubstantiation. 173
in that sacrament, without a change in the outward element
of water. In a word, your so-called faith in this monstrous
idea has no evidence at all. Your people take for evidence
the assertion of your priesthood, but that alone is no suffi-
cient authority. True faith demands the divine testimony,
addressed to the senses and the reason of mankind. Take
this away, and it is no longer faith, but simple credulity.
Your favorite advocate, however, thinks something may
be gained for his cause by proving that the divines of the
Church of England maintain the doctrine of the real pres-
ence ! But, in the proper spiritual sense, we have never
doubted it. He calls that, indeed, the main point under con-
sideration, and yet he could hardly have been ignorant that
it was not a point at all. Our Church, it is true, does not
employ the phrase, lest it might be misapprehended, but
she declares distinctly that the faithful receiver of the Eu-
charistic Sacrament does verily and indeed receive Christ's
body and blood, in a heavenly and spiritual manner, through
faith ; while she utterly and absolutely rejects and protests
against the gross, sensuous, and idolatrous dogma of Tran-
substantiation. This presence of Christ she holds to be
real, that is, true, and none the less real because it is spir-
itual, but rather the more so, since it is the divine nourish-
ment of the soul, which, being spiritual in its nature, could
not be strengthened by a partaking of actual flesh and blood.
Hence Dr. Milner raises here, as in many other places, a
false issue, to blind the eyes of his simple Protestant read-
ers, and all he quotes on that subject, to an intelligent Epis-
copalian, amounts precisely to nothing.
Even in this, however, his usual disingenuousness attends
him. The extracts he gives from the English divines are
garbled and unfair, stopping entirely short of their full
meaning. To prove my assertion, I will trouble you with
174 - Letter XXXV.
only one example, where he quotes him whom he justly
calls the profound Hooker, as follows :
" I wish men would give themselves more to meditate,
with silence, on what we have in the sacrament, and less
to dispute of the manner how. Sith we all agree that
Christ, by the sacrament, doth really and truly perform in
us His promise, why do we vainly trouble ourselves with
so fierce contentions, whether by consubstantiation, or else
by transubstantiation ?"
What simple-minded reader would not suppose, from this,
that Hooker was well disposed to both these carnal views
of the real presence, and was ready to assent to the proba-
ble truth of either I And yet, in the very same division of
the work from which Dr. Milner has so dexterously culled
this passage, the admirable author states the true doctrine
in these words :
" 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 with this
the very order of our Saviour's words agreeth ; first, Take
and eat ; then, This is my body which is broken for you : first,
Drink ye all of this ; then folio weth, This is my blood of the
New Testament, which is shed for many for the remission of
sins. I see not which way it should be gathered by the
words of Christ, when and where the bread is His body, or
the cup His blood, but only in the heart and soul of him which
receiveth them. As for the sacraments, they really exhibit,
but for aught we can gather out of that which is written of
them, they are not really, nor do really contain in themselves
that grace, which with them or by them it pleaseth God to
bestow."
" If on all sides it be confessed that the grace of Baptism
is poured into the soul of man, that by water we receive it,
True Doctrine of the Real Presence. 175
although it be neither seated in the water, nor the water
changed into it : what should induce men to think that the
grace of the Eucharist must needs be in the Eucharist, before'
it can be in us that receive it .<"'*"
Such is the doctrine of all our standard divines upon the
subject of the real presence ; not a corporeal presence on
the altar, and in the hands of the priest, but a spiritual pres-
ence vouchsafed by Christ Himself to the faithful soul.
The bread and the wine are changed by the prayer of con-
secration, so as now to represent what they did not represent
before, viz., the body and blood of the blessed Redeemer,
by virtue of His own appointment. By this, therefore, they
become the figure of His death and passion, in the words
of Tertullian, Jerome, and the Liturgies of Ambrose and
Cyril of Jerusalem ; or the sign of His body, in the words of
Augustine ; or the typical and symbolical body, in the words of
Origen. By this they become a Sacrament, for a Sacrament
is a sacred sign of the thing signified, and not the thing itself.
But when received with a faithful and a loving heart towards
the blessed Redeemer, with lively gratitude for His wondrous
sacrifice upon 'the cross, with charity towards all mankind,
and with an earnest desire to show our love towards our
crucified Lord, by forsaking all sin, and obeying His pure
commandments : then He bestows His real presence on the
soul, and strengthens and refreshes it in the life of holiness,
and draws it more and more to Himself in a true spiritual
and heavenly union.
The efforts of your favorite, at the close of his 38th letter,
to justify your dogma of Transubstantiation, are a display of
the most manifest sophistry. And yet, as he has evidently
thought his comparisons might impose upon the weak and
thoughtless reader, it may be my duty to consider them.
* Eccl. Pol., B. 5, ch. 67, $ 6, 3d vol. of Keble's Ed., p. 540.
176 Letter XXXV.
Thus, in replying to the conclusive argument derived
from the contradiction of the senses, he hesitates not to say,
that such a test " would undermine the incarnation itself.
With equal reason the Jews said of Christ, Is not this the
carpenter's son ? Is not His mother called Mary ? Hence
they concluded that He was not what he proclaimed Him-
self to be, the Son of God. In like manner, Joshua thought
he saw a man, and Jacob that he touched one, and Abraham
that he ate with three men, the different senses of the pa-
triarchs misleading them. Again, were not the eyes of the
disciples, going to Emniaus, held so that they should not know.
Jesus ? Did not the same thing happen to Mary Magdalene
and the other Apostles ? But independently of Scripture,
philosophy and experience show that there is no essential
connection between our sensations and the objects which
occasion them, and that, in fact, each of our senses fre-
quently deceives us. How unreasonable, then, is it, as well
as impious, to oppose their fallible testimony to God's infal-
lible word !"
Here we have a set of apparent analogies, put forth in
Dr. Milner's easy, dashing style, with as much apparent
confidence as if he thought they were really conclusive, in-
stead of being, in truth, totally inapplicable to the real ques-
tion.
Thus, in the matter of our Lord's divinity, how can it be
said that the Jews were deceived by their senses ? They
beheld a man of humble parentage, though truly descended
from David. They heard His holy doctrine, they saw His
wondrous works, and in all this there was no deception of
their senses, but the very contrary. Hence, the Saviour al-
ways appealed to the testimony of their senses, to prove
that He was divine. How ? Not because they could be-
hold His Deity, for they knew that No MAN HAD BEHELD
Dr. Milner' s sophistical Parallels. 177
GOD AT ANY TIME ; but because they saw Him do what
none but God could perform, and therefore were bound to
believe His Deity, as a certain conclusion from their rea-
son, guided by the predictions of their own prophets, which
they saw Him fulfilling before their own eyes. Nothing,
therefore, can be more untrue than that the Jews were de-
ceived by their senses. They were misled by an evil heart
of unbelief to attribute the miracles of Christ to the agency
of Satan, instead of to the power of God, and hence their
error was not an error of the sense, but of the reason.
What opinion of his reader's understanding could Milner
have entertained, to suppose that the sin of the Jews could
be confounded, by any mind of the most ordinary discern-
ment, with the argument against Transubstantiation !
Equally irrelevant is his reference to the patriarchs' being
misled by their senses, when it pleased the Lord to appear to
them in a bodily form. For their senses were not misled.
They saw what was presented to their eyes, correctly.
They heard what was presented to their ears, correctly.
There was no error in the senses. But whether the being
who addressed them was the Deity, or an angel, or a man,
was not a question for the senses to determine. And when
they were informed of His true character, the sense of
hearing did not oppose the sense of sight, but only gave the
information to their reason, or their intellect, that the form
which they beheld was assumed by the Divinity. Here .
therefore, there was no contradiction of the sense, because
the form assumed was really assumed, and the testimony of
the sense and the conclusions of the reason agreed perfect-
ly together. What imaginable connection is there between
this, and the monstrous idea of Transubstantiation 1
Still less, if possible, can Milner make a parallel out of
the fact that the disciples' eyes were held so that they should
VOL. n. 8*
178 Letter XXXV.
not know Jesus. For it is absurd to suppose that their want
of recognition was caused by the error of the senses. They
did not believe, as yet, that He could rise from the dead.
They could not suppose that it was Himself they beheld,
and therefore concluded that it must be some other. Hence,
they saw truly what was the subject of the sense, and in
the testimony of sense, therefore, there was no deception:
but their reason was not enlightened, until He opened the
eyes of their understanding. Had it been otherwise, in-
deed, what proof would the Church have had, that our Lord
had ever risen at all ? Let us only, to humor Dr. Milner,
give up the evidence of eyesight, and the whole Gospel
history may be resolved into an error of the senses, and thus,
to favor the absurdity of Transubstantiation, the sure basis
of our entire faith in Christ will be effectually overthrown.
And, to cap the climax of this preposterous sophistry,
your author coolly tells his readers that philosophy and ex-
perience show no essential connection between our sensations
and the objects which occasion them, and that, in fact, each of
our senses frequently deceives us. But how do men discover
when any of their senses seem to have erred ? Is it not,
in every instance, because these very senses correct the
false impres.sion, or because the senses of those around
them are enabled to decide that the deceived individual is
laboring under some disorder of the nerves or brain ? Sup-
pose, for example, that a man is deceived by an appearance
at night, which a superstitious fancy supposes to be super-
natural, and he exerts courage to go up to it, and convince
himself that he was mistaken. Are his senses deceived?
Not at all ; but on the contrary, the senses, when fully ex-
ercised, correct the error of the imagination. And if, in-
stead of using his senses, he flies away in terror, is it not
manifest that he is still not deceived by his senses, but by
The Testimony of the Senses. 179
his own weak and superstitious thought ? The only excep-
tions to the rule are those produced by disease and insanity.
And although these are apt to continue so long as their
causes are not removed, yet the rest of mankind are sure
to decide correctly, and therefore treat the case according
to the testimony of their senses, without doubt or hesitation.
What possible application can this bear to a doctrine like that
of Transubstantiation, which sets at naught the senses of the
whole world, and commands all mankind to acknowledge that
bread is flesh, and wine is blood, and that a little wafer,
when consecrated by the priest, is changed into the incar-
nate Saviour, and must be worshipped forthwith as a pres-
ent Deity ? And yet Dr. Milner gravely saith : " How un-
reasonable is it, as well as impious, to oppose the fallible testi-
mony of the senses to God's infallible word," as if any man
could know what is the Word of God except by using his
senses ! For the senses and the reason of man are the
work of the same Almighty Being who has given us His
word. Who, then, is the unreasonable and the impious, he
who sets the works and the word of the Deity in irrecon-
cilable opposition to each other, or he who reverences both,
and preserves them in the constant harmony which marks
the wisdom and perfection of the Creator, the Redeemer
and the Sanctifier, as the One living and true God 1
I have not yet arrived, however, at the end of Dr. Mil-
ner's irreverent and absurd paralogisms. In answer to the
question, How Transubstantiation can be true, he puts forth
what he intends his readers to understand as facts, present-
ing an equal amount of difficulty. And first, he saith that,
c< if we insist on using this How of the Jews with respect
to the mysteries revealed in Scripture, we must renounce
our faith in it." But what has that to do with Transubstan-
tiation ? This is not a mystery, but a CONTRADICTION. It
180 Letter XXXV.
is not a doctrine revealed in Scripture, but a dogma neither
revealed in Scripture nor anywhere else, until it was started
by the corrupt superstition of the eighth century, and adopt-
ed as a notion favorable to the power and influence of the
priesthood. 2dly, Dr. Milner informs us that we do not know
what constitutes the essence of matter and space. And what
then ? Does this prove that we do not know the difference
between bread and flesh, or wine and blood, or a conse-
crated symbol and the incarnate Deity 1
" I say 3dly," continues our author, " that Christ transfig-
ured His body on Mount Thabor, bestowing on it many of
the properties of a spirit, before His passion, and that after
He had ascended up to heaven, He appeared to St. Paul on
the road to Damascus, and stood by him in the Castle of Je-
rusalem." No one doubts these facts, but ivhat have they
to do with the question ? Because I. believe that our Lord
was transfigured on Mount Thabor, must I therefore believe
that a Romish priest can transubstantiate a little wafer into
His sacred bod} r , blood, soul and divinity 1 Because I be-
lieve that He appeared to St. Paul on the road to Damascus,
must I therefore believe that He is actually present where
He does not appear at all? Because I believe that He
stood by the Apostle in the Castle of Jerusalem, must I be-
lieve that He submits himself, in the disguise of a morsel
of bread, to be handled, broken, and offered up afresh by
the superstitious invention of men, on every altar in Chris-
tendom 1 Was that the form in which He appeared to His
true servants, to claim their faith and adoration ? Assured-
ly, if it were lawful to doubt Dr, Milner's earnest devotion
to his professed object, one would be tempted to believe that
by recurring .to such manifestations of Christ as these, he
must have intended, covertly, to show, in bolder relief, the
enormous absurdity of the Romish doctrine.
Omnipresence not Pantheism. 181
And lastly, your author asserts, " that God fills all space,
and is WHOLE AND ENTIRE IN EVERY PARTICLE OF MATTER."
The first part of this proposition is true, but the latter
clause is an enormous error, directly justifying the wildest
Pantheism. Nay, although it is evidently adopted to favor
the dogma of Transubstantiation, yet it destroys even this,
because if God be tvhole and entire in every particle of mat-
ter, He must be present before the act of priestly consecra-
tion, in the wafer ; and every other particle of matter, as well
as that, may lawfully receive the homage of our worship.
The defence which Dr. Milner would probably offer, is de-
rived from the argument that the Deity cannot be divided
into parts, and therefore, wherever He is, He must be whole
and entire ; from which it is plausibly inferred that as He
fills all space, He must be whole and entire in every atom.
But this is one of those so-called demonstrations of philos-
ophy, with which the faith of the Christian would seek
no fellowship whatever. Neither is it lawful thus to spec-
ulate upon a subject so awfully above our comprehension,
beyond the plain guidance of the Scriptures themselves.
That God is omnipresent, His own word declares : " Do NOT
I FILL HEAVEN AND EARTH 1 SAITH THE LORD." But the
proposition that He is whole and entire in every particle of
matter, is the deduction of fallible human reason, without
>
any warrant from revelation, and is moreover a perilous as-
sertion, because it affords a basis for one of the most fatal
errors in the theosophy of mankind. To my own mind, I
hesitate not to say that it is an absurdity. We might as well
say that because we cannot separate the sunlight into parts,
therefore the sun is whole and entire in every atom that it
illuminates. Or that because we cannot divide the ocean
into parts, therefore the ocean is whole and entire in every
particle of foam. If Transubstantiation stands in need of
182 Letter XXXV.
an argument like this, it is a very manifest sign of the em-
barrassment which the doctrine inflicts on its defenders.
Kindred to this is the next assertion of Dr. Milner, that
" my own soul is in my right hand and in my left, whole and
entire" which is an assumption incapable of proof, and at
war with the prevailing opinion that the soul resides in the
brain, and that the nerves convey its will to all the other
parts of the system, and carry the impressions of the senses
to the seat of the intellect. I cannot perceive^ therefore,
why your author should have supposed that such a proposi-
tion could help his cause, unless it can be shown that the
readiness of some men to adopt one notion without evidence
or reason, affords a good argument why all the rest should
hold another of a still more absurd and revolting char-
acter.
The concluding proposition of Dr. Milner, however, looks a
little more like a fair analogy. " The bread and wine," saith
he, " that I eat and drink, are transubstantiated into my own
flesh and blood. This body of mine, which some years ago
was of a small size, has now increased to its present bulk.
It will soon turn into dust, or perhaps be devoured by ani-
mals or cannibals, and thus become a part of their substance,
and nevertheless, God will restore it entire at the last day."
This is plausible, and yet does not at all meet the point of
difficulty. The bread and wine do not become transubstan-
tiated into my flesh and blood, while they retain the same ap-
pearance and sensible properties which they had before. On
the contrary, the change which they undergo has been traced
to a great extent by the senses, in the process of dissection ;
and when it can be traced no longer, nothing remains to con-
tradict the senses. This kind of transubstantiation, there-,
fore, is so far from aiding the doctrine of Rome, that it only
illustrates its absurdity.
Summary of Objections. 183
And the same observation may be applied to both the
' other supposed cases of analogy. The body of the infant
increases to the size of man, but we test the change by the
evidence of our senses, and no one pretends that the infant
can become a man, and yet look as much like an infant as it
did before. And even in the last wondrous change of the
resurrection of the dead, it was never dreamed of by the
mind of mortal that the dust of death could be quickened
into life, and yet remain dust to all appearance. Nor yet,
that the body which may have become a part of the sub-
stance of other bodies shall be called into a new and glori-
fied existence at the Almighty word of God, and still continue
to form a part of those other bodies as much as ever.
With all the ingenuity of your favorite Dr. Milner, there-
fore, we are quite safe in defying him or any other to pro-
duce a single argument of the slightest weight in support of
your doctrine of Transubstantiation. It has no evidence
from Scripture, when the language of Scripture is fairly un-
derstood ; but on the contrary, it undermines the whole tes-
timony of Scripture, and leaves the Gospel of Christ with-
out any foundation of sense or reason. It is opposed to the
teaching of the primitive Church. It contradicts all the
senses, though the subject-matter, bread and wine, and flesh
and blood, are the objects of the senses, and of the senses
only. In a word, it is the most enormous imposition on
the reason of mankind that was ever attempted or accom-
plished since the world began. And its necessary results
are, therefore, in direct hostility to the truth of God, inevita-
bly leading its unhappy victims either to idolatrous supersti-
tion on the one hand, or to total infidelity on the other.
184 The End of Controversy ', Controverted.
LETTER XXXVI.
MOST REVEREND SIR :
THE 39th letter of your favorite, Dr. Milner, is devoted
to the defence of your modern innovation, which he terms
Communion in one kind ; or, in other words, the administra-
tion of the Eucharist, to all except the officiating priest, with
the bread only depriving them of the wine under the pre-
tence, that as the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of our
Lord are perfect and entire under either species, the com-
munication of one is equivalent to both, and hence the
Church was competent to regulate it, according to her dis-
cretion, as a matter of " CHANGEABLE DISCIPLINE."
The mtroductory remarks of your advocate with respect
to the authority of the Church as the interpreter of Scrip-
ture, and the regulator of rites and ceremonies, have no
proper bearing on this point in our controversy. That we
admit the authority of the Church, has been already fully
shown in my letters on the Rule of Faith, where its proper
bounds and limits are defined. But we distinguish between
the authority of the whole Catholic Church and that of a di-
vided 'portion, on your own principle ; and we deny that
there has been, or could be, any action by the whole, since
the ambition of the Papacy consummated the great schism
which separated the East from the West in the ninth cen-
tury. We also deny that the Church has any power to
change the express precept of Christ, who is her divine
The Cup forbidden. 185
Head, Lord and Master. And therefore, when He, whose
sole prerogative it is to institute the Sacrament, gave the
positive command, " Drink ye ALL of this" and the whole
Catholic Church, for more than twelve centuries together,
interpreted it as including the laity : we utterly deny your
right to contradict both the Saviour and the Church by
taking one-half of the Sacrament away from the people.
It was not until the year 1415 that the Council of Con-
stance, which you hold to be General, and therefore infalli-
ble, ventured to legalize this crying innovation. The reader
will find a statement of your own historian, Fleury, on the
subject,* with some accompanying remarks ; but here I
shall set down the very language of the decree, by which it
will be plainly seen that the Council acknowledged the
change from the institution of Christ and the primitive sys-
tem :
"ALTHOUGH CHRIST INSTITUTED THIS VENERABLE SACRA-
MENT," saith the decree, " UNDER. BOTH THE SPECIES OF
BREAD AND WINE, AND ALTHOUGH IT WAS RECEIVED UN-
DER BOTH THE SPECIES IN THE PRIMITIVE CHURCH, never-
theless, in order to avoid certain dangers and scandals, it
was AFTERWARDS received by the administrators under both
species, and BY THE LAITY ONLY UNDER THE SPECIES OF
BREAD, as it is to be most firmly believed, and in nowise to
be doubted, that the whole body and blood of Christ are
contained as well under the species of bread as under the-
species of wine. Wherefore, as this custom has been rea-
sonably introduced, by the Church and the holy fathers, and
observed for a very long period (diutissime), it is to be taken
for the law, which must not be censured, nor changed with-
out the Church's authority. Therefore, it should be held
* Pages 174, 175.
186 Letter XXXVI.
erroneous to say that the observance of this custom is un-
lawful or sacrilegious ; and those who pertinaciously assert
the contrary to the premises shall be imprisoned as here-
tics, and heavily punished (tanquam h&reticii arcendi sunt et
graviter puniendi), by the diocesans of the places, or their
officials, or by the inquisitors of heretical pravity."* .
Thus, we have the distinct testimony of the Council of
Constance itself that the Eucharist was received in both the
species of bread and wine in the primitive Church. But after-
wards they say that the laity received it only under the spe-
cies of bread. It may be well to show how long afterwards
it was before the old rule was done away, and the new
change was introduced, which grew, by degrees, into a
custom.
Beginning about the year 450, we find Pope Leo the
Great severely censuring those who, being influenced by
the error of the Manicheans, received the Bread of the Sac-
rament, but refused the wine, because flesh and wine were
both forbidden by the discipline of those heretics. This,
by the way, is another proof that the Bread was not then
supposed to be transubstantiated into flesh, for otherwise
they would have refused that also. The other point, how-
ever, is the only one which concerns our present subject.
And here it is evident that the established rule of the
Church was to give both the species to the laity, since the
communicants whom the Pope reproves could not have been
exposed to censure for refusing the wine, unless it had been
offered to them.f
About the same time, viz., at the great Council of Chal-
cedon, A. D. 451, we have an interesting case of an
* Hard. Con., Tom. 8, p. 381." Concil. Constant., Sess. xiii.
t Leonis Op., p. 106. Serm. xli.
The Council of Bracara. 187
accusation brought by three Presbyters of the Church
at Edessa, against their Bishop, Ibas, in which the tenth
charge was, " that wine was not furnished to distribute
to the people at the sacrifice of the altar, except in very
small quantity, bad and muddy, as if it had been fresh from
the vintage ; that the clergy who were appointed to admin-
ister were obliged to bring from the tavern almost six
measures, which did not suffice them, so that those to whom
they gave the sacred body made signs and went out, be-
cause the blood was wanting."* This clearly shows that
the people not only received the wine, but expected to be
supplied well and liberally.
Again, in the Council of Bracara, held A. D. 675, we
have this full instruction on the subject :
" We have heard," saith this Council, " that certain men,
influenced by a schismatical ambition, offer milk instead of
wine in the divine sacrifices, contrary to the divine orders,
and the institutions of the Apostles ; that others give the
people a dipped Eucharist as the performance of the Com-
munion ; that some even do not offer expressed wine in the
sacrament of the dominical cup, but communicate the people
with the grapes. But how contrary this is to the evangel-
ical and apostolical doctrine, and to the custom of the
Church, is easy to prove from that fountain of truth, from
whom the mysteries of the sacraments have proceeded.
For when the Master of truth commended the true sacrifice
of our salvation to His disciples, we know that He blessed
and gave to them not milk, but bread and the cup, in this
sacrament. And as to those who in the performance of the
Communion give a dipped Eucharist to the people,' neither
does this accord with the testimony taken from the Gospel,
* Hard. Con. Gen., Tom. 2, p. 519, Con. Chalcedon.
188 Letter XXXVI.
for our Lord delivered both His body and His blood to the
Apostles, and the commendation of the body separately, and
of the blood separately, is recorded. But that the people
should communicate from the unexpressed grapes, is quite
disorderly. For, according to the rule which every teacher
sets forth, wine and water mixed together should be offered,
because we see the people to be understood by the water,
while the wine shows the blood of Christ. Therefore let
no one hereafter oifer in the divine sacrifices, except ac-
cording to the sentence of the ancient Councils, bread only,
and the cup of wine and water mixed ; and any who acts
otherwise than it is commanded, shall cease from sacrificing,
until, being corrected by the satisfaction of penitence, he
may return to the office which he had lost."*
Here we see, distinctly, that the primitive rule was in-
sisted upon, until near the 8th century ; but there are other
proofs that it continued much longer. For in the Council
of Clermont, A. D. 1095, the 28th Canon reads as follows :
" Let no one communicate at the altar, but in the body
separately, and the blood in like manner, except it be from
necessity and caution."!
This brings us to the llth century, and still we can carry
the testimony yet later. Thus, in the constitutions of Rich-
ard Poore, Bishop of Salisbury, in A. D. 1217, we have this
passage, addressed to his clergy :
" You ought, moreover, to instruct the laity how often
they should communicate, that they may not doubt in any
manner of the truth of Christ's body and blood. For with-
out doubt they receive, under the species of bread, that
which hung for us upon the cross : they receive from the cup
* Hard, Con., Tom. 3, 1032-3, Concil. Bracarense, cap. 2.
t Ib., Tom. 6, p. 2, 1719, Concil. Claramont., Can. xxviii.
Constitution of the Bishop of Durham. 189
that which was effused from the side of Christ ; they drink
that, believing, as said Augustine, which they had first shed
in rage."*
This was the period when Transubstantiation was fully
established as the prevailing doctrine of the Church, and
the danger of spilling any portion of what was now believed
to be the actual blood of the Redeemer, gave rise to some
new laws, of which the following is a specimen :
" "We command," saith the Constitution of Walter de
Kirkham, Bishop of Durham, A. D. 1255, " that if by neg-
ligence anything of the blood of Christ shall drop upon the
ground, it shall be licked up with the tongue, the table shall
be scraped on which it fell ; if there was no table, the place
must not be trodden, but scraped and consumed in the fire
and the ashes buried within the altar, and the priest shall
do penance five days."f
Thus we learn what the Council of Constance meant by
" certain dangers and scandals" having given rise to the
custom of withdrawing the cup from the laity entirely.
The danger and the scandal referred to the spilling of
the supposed actual blood of Christ, which was chiefly
to be apprehended in handing the wine to the people.
The necessity imposed upon the priest in such a case, re-
quiring him to lick up the consecrated wine from the ground,
was a new and by no means an acceptable sort of discipline,
and in order to avoid it, the custom was introduced, for a
time, of sucking the wine through a tube. But, finally, the
more complete remedy was adopted of giving only the bread
to the laity, and thus the superstitious and idolatrous figment
of Transubstantiation produced an inexcusable departure
from the primitive doctrine and practice, in open despite of
* Hard. Con., Tom. 7, p. 99. t Ib., Tom. 7, p. 493.
190 ' Letter XXXVI.
the institution of Christ, the authority of the Apostles, and
the voice of the whole Catholic Church, for at least twelve
centuries together.
' Having thus proved, from your own witnesses, that this
most serious depravation of the blessed Eucharist is a mere
novelty,, established without authority or excuse, in the very
wantonness of power, I return to the argument of your
favorite author, which is worthy of the cause and the
advocate.
He begins by acknowledging what it was impossible to
deny that our blessed Saviour instituted the Eucharist
under both the species of bread and wine ; " but it must be
observed," saith Dr. Milner, " that He then made it a sacri-
fice as well as a sacrament, and that He ordained His twelve
Apostles as priests, to consecrate this sacrament and offer
this sacrifice. Now for the latter purpose," continues he,
" namely, a sacrifice, it was requisite that a victim should be
really present, and, at least, mystically immolated, which was
then, and is still, performed in the Mass, by the symbolical
disunion or separate consecration of the body and the blood.
It was requisite, also, for the completion of the sacrifice,
that the priests who had immolated the victim, by mystically
separating its body and its blood, should consummate it in both
of these kinds. Hence it is seen that the command of
Christ, on which our opponents lay so much stress, Drink
ye all of this, regards the Apostles, as priests, and not the
laity, as communicants."
The chief points in this statement which call for notice
are : first, that the Sacrament of the Eucharist is a sacrifice ;
next, that a victim should really be present, and at least
mystically immolated ; and thirdly, that the Apostles were
the priests who immolated the victim, and therefore were .
told to Drink of the Cup, AS PRIESTS, which of course
The Commemorative Sacrifice. 191
deprives the words of Christ of all application to the
laity.
With respect to the first and. second of these points, I
grant that as the Eucharist was instituted in commemoration^
of our Lord's death, and as it is certain that His death was
the great sacrifice for the sins of the world, therefore, the
showing or representing of His death, must also be a show-
ing or representing of the sacrifice. But it has been fully
proved that as His death and sacrifice were consummated in
reality on Calvary, so they could only be eTshibiteA. figuratively
in the sacrament. And Dr. Milner himself is compelled to
admit the fact, since, while he is obliged, of course, accord-
ing to your novel doctrine of Transubstantiation, to contend
that the victim is really present, yet he only asserts that this
victim is mystically (that is, allegorically or emblematically)
IMMOLATED. It is very obvious, however, that a real host
(which word signifies a victim, from the Latin hostia) must
require a real immolation, because a victim who is not really
slain is a contradiction in terms. And hence, your doctrine
of the corporal presence, after all, leaves you to the com-
memorative and symbolical representation of the very point for
which the Eucharist was instituted, viz., the showing the death
of Christ until He come, in the words of the Apostle. For
although you insist that the Saviour is really present, in His
body, blood, soul and divinity, yet you do not pretend that
He is really sacrificed or offered up to His Father, except in
the mystical^ figurative, or symbolical interpretation, which
refers of necessity to His sacrifice upon the cross. And
hence, notwithstanding your imaginary Transubstantiation
of the elements, your sacramental theory claims no more
reality in the sacrifice of Christ, or the offering of His death
by the priest, than our own.
The true doctrine of sacrifice, however, is that which St.
192 . Letter XX XVI.
Augustine lays down so. clearly in his Commentary on the
130th Psalm. " If thou wouldst have sacrifices," saith the
Psalmist, " I would .give it,- but thou delightest not in burnt-
offerings. Therefore it was superfluous to seek either rams,
or bulls, or any similar victim, in. order to please God.
What means this, that God is not delighted with holocausts,
that He does not accept sacrifice, and is propitiated without
sacrifice ? If there be no sacrifice, there is no priest. But
we have a High Priest in heaven, who intercedes for us
with the Father : (for He entered into the Holy of Holies,
within the veil, where the High Priest in figure entered
once a year, as the Lord has been offered, once for all time.
HE OFFERED HIMSELF, HE is THE PRIEST, HE is THE VIC-
TIM, and He has entered in the most holy place once, and
dieth no more, nor has death any more dominion over Him.)
We are secure that we have this High Priest, and there let
us offer also our victim. And let us see what sacrifice we
ought to offer, since our God is not delighted with holo-
causts, as you hear in the Psalm. But there He showed
what He would offer. The sacrifice of God is a broken spirit ;
a broken and contrite heart, God does not despise."* And
again, saith the same great teacher, " What wilt thou offer
for thyself ? Offer thyself. What does the Lord ask of
thee, unless thyself ?"f " For we ourselves are the best
and most eminent sacrifice."!
This, therefore, is the sacrifice which we offer in the
Eucharist. We commemorate the atoning sacrifice of Christ,
once made for all, by the appointed symbols of His death
and passion, and we actually offer ourselves, saying, in the
true spirit of the primitive and Catholic Church : " And
here we offer and present unto Thee, Lord, ourselves,
* S. Aug. Op., Tom. 4, p. 1094. t Ib., Tom. 5, p. 288.
t Ib., 7, p. 431.
The Apostles did not partake <zs Priests. 193
our souls and bodies, to be a reasonable, holy, and living
sacrifice unto Thee."*
The third point of your favorite Milner's statement, viz.,
that the Apostles were told to drink of the cup, as priests, is
easily shown to be a mere specimen of sophistry, by his own
testimony. For he is careful to inform his readers, in a
note, that " neither priests nor Bishops receive under more
than one kind, when they do not offer up the holy sacrifice ;"
that is to say, there is no one, except the officiating minis-
ter, who does receive the mystical blood of Christ ; and all
the rest, though they be priests, or even Bishops, are placed
in the same category as the laity. How, then, does the ar-
gument apply, that our Saviour's language, Drink ye all of
this, regarded the Apostles as -priests, and not as laymen,
when the Church of Rome herself makes no difference be-
tween the priests and the laity in the act of communing,
and withholds the cup equally from both ? He insinuates,
indeed, that the Apostles " immolated the victim ;" but this,
whether in the Romish sense or in any other, is in the face
of the Scripture. For it is undeniable that our Lord Him-
self was the sole officiating priest on the occasion : more-
over, the institution was perfectly new to the Apostles, and
they could have been nothing more than receiving commu-
nicants : in addition to Avhich, it is obvious that the idea of
twelve persons uniting in the act of consecrating the ele-
ments, is at total variance with your own doctrine, as well
as with the universal practice of the Church, since there
can be only One who acts as priest, in the celebration of the
Eucharist, and all the other communicants receive alike,
without distinction. Thus, then, it is plain that our Sa-
viour's command, Drink ye all of this, could not possibly
* See the Prayer after the Consecration, in the American Liturgy.
VOL. n. 9
194 .Letter XXXVI.
have referred to the Apostles as priests. And were it other-
wise, it is equally plain that your Church would sin against
Milner's interpretation by not giving the cup to the priests
and Bishops who communicate, any more than to the laity.
The next argument ..presented by this writer appears in
the assertion that the scriptural phrase, " Breaking of Bread,"
implies the communicating with bread alone. And assur-
edly I cannot but marvel at its boldness and impiety. For
if such be the meaning of this expression, it 'must result that
the Apostles undertook to celebrate the Eucharist WITHOUT
THE WINE ! - And yet it is certain, by your own doctrine as
well as ours, that this would be an impossibility, for there
can be no Eucharist, unless the blood accompanies the body,
by the consecration of both the elements.
Your author does, indeed, assert that St. Jerome, St. Au-
gustine, and St. Chrysostom, were in favor of his opinion.
But I am sorry to say that such a statement will hardly pass
for evidence, in the total absence of any reference to their
writings, especially when I have detected, in so many pas-
sages, the unscrupulous liberty which he took in misrepre-
senting the fathers. He claims support, likewise, from the
text of St. Luke,* where it is said that our Lord took bread,
and blsssed and brake and gave it to Cleophas and the other
disciple, whose guest he was at Emmaus, It is. perfectly
manifest, however, that this act was in no respect of a
sacramental character. For in the miracle by which the
Saviour fed the multitudes with a few loaves and fishes, the
language is the very same. " He blessed, and brake, and
gave the loaves to His disciples," saith St. Matthew ;f and
St. MarkJ and St. Luke record the act in precisely a
* Ch. xxiv., 30. t Ch. xiv., 19.
I Ch. vi., 41. $ Ch. ix., 13.
Milner and Priestley. 195
similar way. And here, no one pretends that there was
any celebration of the Eucharist. Doubtless it was the
mode which our Lord pursued on all occasions when He
gave bread to His disciples, and therefore it was this, in
part, most probably, that opened the eyes of Cleophas and his
companion, because they had often seen Him do the same
thing before. Whereas, they were not present when He
administered the Eucharist, and could not have recognized
Him by an act ~of which, as yet, they knew nothing.
It is true, however, that the phrase, " Breaking of Bread,"
which subsequently occurs in the Book of ihe Acts, and
which your author sets forth as a proof that the Apostles
" were accustomed, sometimes, at least, to give the sacra-
. ment under one kind alone, though Bishop Porteus has not the
candor to confess it" has usually been admitted to allude, in
a brief way of speaking, to the Eucharist ; but it never was
supposed, by any theologian of any school, to be a descrip-
tion of the mode in which the Eucharist was celebrated ; and if
Bishop Porteus had confessed that it was, so that the sacra-
ment might be celebrated without the wine, his confession
would have been, as Dr. Milner well knew, not an act of
candor, but an act of heresy. His reference to such a text
for such a purpose is an exact parallel with the course of
Priestley, the English Socinian, who, in order to get rid of
the acknowledgment of the blessed Trinity in the Sacra-
ment of Baptism, thought fit to rest upon another passage in
the same Book of the Acts,* where it is said that St. Paul
had certain disciples " baptized in the name of the Lord
Jesus" This conduct of the Socinian was a perfect ab-
surdity, because he took the brief language of the historical
narrative, in which the mode of administering the Sacrament
* Ch. six., 5.
196 Letter XXXVI.
was not intended to be described, and made it control and
virtually nullify the positive command of the Saviour's institu-
tion. Yet, absurd as it was, Dr. Milner's argument is pre-
cisely the same. For look, I pray you, at the closeness of
the correspondence. Baptism is mentioned in the Book of
the Acts, as performed IN THE NAME OF THE LORD JESUS ;
therefore, says Priestley, as there is nothing here which
refers to the Trinity, the Apostles were accustomed, sometimes
at least, to give baptism in the name of Christ alone. The
Eucharist is mentioned in the same Book of the Acts, as
THE BREAKING OF BREAD ; therefore, says Milner, as there
is nothing here which refers to the wine, the Apostles
" were accustomed, sometimes at least, to give the sacrament .
under one kind only .'" A beautiful harmony of sentiment,
assuredly, between Priestley and Milner, in which the So-
cinian gets rid of Christian Baptism on the one hand, by the
very same logic which your favorite employs to mutilate
the Christian Eucharist upon the other !
But there was one great difference between these distin-
guished men, notwithstanding, which candor obliges me to
confess. The Socinian was honest in his error, because he
actually made it the basis of the form in which he adminis-
tered baptism. While Dr. Milner only intended to mystify
his simple Protestant readers, and knew that he was im-
puting a heresy to the blessed Apostles, in the understand-
ing of ninety-nine out of a hundred, who would never dream
of the subtle distinction which lurked under his employment
of the word GIVE instead of the word ADMINISTER. He
only wanted to impress them with the doctrine of the Coun-
cil of Constance, that the receiver of the Eucharist was just
as well provided for by taking the symbolic body of our
Lord without the blood, as with it. And provided he could
succeed in this, and so bring them blindfold into the Church
Breaking of Bread. 197
of Rome, there would be time enough to clear the fog from
their intellect afterwards, by showing them that he did not
say the Apostles administered the sacrament with bread
alone, but that they gave the sacrament under the form of
bread alone, the wine being offered and received, of course,
by the priest or the Apostle who officiated.
This is another specimen of the miserable juggling which
marks your order of Jesuits, where words are artfully used
on purpose to convey a lie, although they do not actually de-
clare it. And yet it is most evident that the texts quoted
are perfectly incapable of the only sense which your adroit
and unscrupulous advocate could maintain consistently with
your Church's doctrine. They merely state that the disci-
ples came together to break bread, and do not intimate, di-
rectly or indirectly, anything further. A single act is there-
fore mentioned, the breaking of bread ; and that single act
being an essential part of consecration, must have included
the whole administration of the sacrament. Yea, if there be
any difference, it is against the limitation which Dr. Milner
would maintain. Because the act of consecration, which
could not be performed without the wine, was the very act
which required the office of a priest or an Apostle ; while
the mere giving or distributing of the consecrated elements
might be as well committed to the deacons.
Your favorite author next proceeds to repeat his charge
against the rendering of and instead of or, in St. Paul's 1st
Epistle to the Corinthians, which I have treated in its
proper place, and shall not further notice, except by observ-
ing that the text has not the slightest bearing on the present
question. The language of the Apostle is : that Whoever
shall eat this bread or drink the cup of the Lord unworthily,
shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord. Most
manifest it is that if these words be taken to authorize the
198 Letter XXXVI.
reception of the bread without the cup, they must .be equally
taken to authorize the reception of the cup without the
bread. And this last, being an absurdity for which no man
ever contended, proves that the idea of Dr. Milner could
not possibly have been in the mind of the inspired writer.
We are next told that the Catholic Church, from the time
of the Apostles, regarded it as a mere matter of discipline
whether the sacrament was to be administered under the
species of bread or wine ; that the primitive custom in the
time of Tertullian, and during some centuries afterwards,
was to allow the Sacrament, under the form of bread, to be
taken home to the houses of the communicants, and eaten
in private ; while infants, on the other hand, received the
Eucharist by giving them a drop of wine.
All of this, however, in the construction for which Dr.
Milner contends, I deny confidently. The acts which he
alludes to are, indeed, mentioned by some of the fathers-, in-
cidentally, but never stated to be the custom of the Church
at large, or a Catholic custom. On the contrary, they rather
appear to have been cases of local and special allowance,
and hence they are never found in any Canon of a Council,
never recognized in connection with any ancient Liturgy,
and never sanctioned by the authority of the Church. If
it were otherwise, I ask how it has happened that the un-
changeable Church of Rome has not retained them any more
than ourselves? "Because it was a mere matter of disci-
pline" saith your author. And this answer, as I shall now
proceed to show, is neither true in fact, nor, if it were true,
is it, in any proper sense, satisfactory.
That it is not true in fact, is sufficiently obvious from the
simple statement of Dr. Milner himself, who rests his whole
argument on DOCTRINE. " The Catholic Church," saith he,
" from the time of the Apostles down to the present, EVER
Depriving the Laity of the Cup. 199
FIRMLY BELIEVING that the whole body, blood, soul and di-
vinity of Jesus Christ equally subsist under each of the species
or appearances of bread and wine, regarded it as a mere mat-
ter of discipline which of them was to be received in the
holy Sacrament." Here we have the direct avowal that the
question of discipline was made to depend solely on the
question of faith, and therefore the change of the discipline,
in truth, was neither more nor less than the practical result
of the change of doctrine.
For how else did this new discipline, which deprives the
laity of the cup, originate ? There is no intimation of it in
Scripture. There is no consistency in it with the institu-
tion nor the command of Christ, who expressly said, Take,
eat, this is my Body. Drink ye ALL of this, for this is my
Blood. There is no declaration resembling it in the primi-
tive fathers. There is not the slightest trace of it in the
Councils of the Catholic Church. In point of historical
fact, it came in subsequently to your modern heresy of
Transubstantiation, which I have proved to have been en-
tirely unknown before the eighth century, when the Coun-
cils ceased to be Catholic, and which was not fully estab-
lished before the twelfth, after the condemnation of Beren-
ger. To this day, all the Oriental Churches repudiate your
modern practice, for none of them presumes to deprive the
laity of the cup. Indeed, the whole evidence upon the sub-
ject demonstrates that your new discipline is essentially
connected with your new. doctrine. Neither the one nor
the other were ever Catholic, but ROMAN. They grew up
in the darkest ages of the Church's history, and bear no
more relation to the true faith of Christ than the poison-vine,
which is sometimes seen to overtop the branches of the
spreading oak, can be said to bear towards the noble trunk
that withers under its noxious vigor.
200 Letter XXXVI.
In marked contradistinction from both, therefore, the
apostolic system delivered to the Church in the beginning
was that which the Church of England restored at the time
of the Reformation, viz., that the consecrated Bread was
the appointed symbol or figure of the Body, and the conse-
crated wine, of the Blood of our Lord ; and this it was which
gave them the sacramental character, since a sacrament is
" an outward and visible sign of an inward and spiritual
grace." The question of discipline, as Dr. Milner calls it,
corresponded with this doctrine, because the design of our
Lord was, that His Church should commemorate His death
for the sins of the world ; and hence St. Paul saith so ex-
pressly, that as often as ye eat of this bread and drink of
this cup ye do SHOW (or REPRESENT) the Lord's death till He
come. Therefore, the sacrament required the emblem of the
body to be broken, and the emblem of the blood to be poured
out, because these acts were proper figures of His flesh
pierced, and His blood shed upon the Cross. By neces-
sary consequence, the Eucharist could never have been in-
tended to exhibit His blessed body, blood, soul and divinity,
united together, as in life, since death, for the time, dissolves
the union. And in the case of the Saviour, this separation
is specially noted, for it is recorded that He gave up the
ghost, that is, His soul left the body, and went into the place
of departed spirits, according to the Creed.
Thus, the novel doctrine of Transubstantiation brought
in a contradiction to the fundamental design of the sacra-
ment, and, with perfect consistency, Romanism, after hav-
ing destroyed the sublime simplicity of the Eucharistic
feast, next destroyed the original mode of administration, by
taking away from all but the officiating priest the emblem
of the shed blood of Christ, without which His death is not
properly shown by the receivers at all. Yet, St. Paul ad-
Changeable Discipline. 201
dressed his language to the whole body of the communi-
cants : " As often as YE eat of this bread and drink of this
cup, YE do show the Lord's death till He come." Why did
he not say, As often as THE OFFICIATING PRIEST EATS OF
THIS BREAD AND DRINKS OF THIS CUP, ye do show the Lord's
death till He come ? Because it was the gracious will of
the Saviour that all His people should unite in the same
memorial of His passion, since all had the same interest in
its celestial benefits. And hence the Church was bound to
preserve the discipline as well as the doctrine, and did, in
fact, preserve it until the doctrine was changed.
Thus, then, I prove that Dr. Milner misrepresented the
case most seriously in saying, that whether the laity receive
the sacrament in one kind or in both kinds, is a mere matter
of changeable discipline. For this phrase can never be
properly applied except to those things which are indiffer-
ent in themselves, and in which the Church is left free to
use her own discretion. But here the word of Christ com-
mands, the word of the Apostle repeats, the primitive Church
establishes, one and the same doctrine and practice. And
the modern priesthood of Rome, therefore, by tlus inexcusa-
ble novelty of communion in one kind, through which all
their laity are deprived of the power of receiving the Eu-
charist according to the appointment of the Saviour, stand
chargeable with a direct departure from true Catholic princi-
ple, and a wanton and tyrannical invasion of the most sa-
cred rights of the people committed to their care.
Your favorite author concludes his 39th letter on this
subject by an ingenious but perfectly idle argument, derived
from the fact, that Calvin and the English Parliament al-
lowed of communion without the wine, in case of necessity.
He favors his readers also with one of his choice quota-
tions from Luther, with which, whether it be true or false,
VOL. n. 9*
202 Letter XXXVI.
I have no concern. But so far as it respects the English
Church, I maintain that the principle of necessity is a law-
ful excuse in every duty, because the Lord asks no man to
do impossibilities. Hence the primitive Church never de-
nied the salvation of those who died in the faith without
Baptism, believing that they were to be considered as bap-
tized in yoto, though death overtook them before they could
receive the Sacrament. And the principle assumed the
most positive form in the case of the martyrs, many of
whom were unbaptized, for all allowed that they were to be
considered as baptized in their own blood. But Rome
maintains, as well as we do, that a baptism with blood in-
stead of water is no true Baptism. And therefore the act
of martyrdom could only have been held equivalent to a true
baptism, on the very ground of that necessity, which your
unscrupulous author affects to deride as a plea of no va-
lidity.
And this is the argument which he considers quite suffi-
cient to place us in a dilemma ! He even confounds the
allowance of an occasional exemption, from necessity, with
the principle of a changeable discipline : or, in other words,
he denies the difference between the rule and the exception !
He might as well have told his readers that the promise
of Christ to the penitent thief upon the Cross, This day shalt
thou be with me in paradise, was an allowance of a change-
able discipline in the law established by Himself, that Ex-
cept a man be born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the
kingdom of God. Baptism was the RULE ; the case of the
penitent thief, like that of the martyrs, was an EXCEPTION,
from necessity. And did Dr. Milner really expect such
weak sophistry as this to impose upon his readers ? Doubt-
less he did, or he would not have employed it. And his
book is full of proofs which show the same contempt for the
Canons of Clermont and Constance. 203
intellectual faculties of other men the same deliberate ef-
fort to delude tlie mind of the unsuspecting inquirer "with
fallacies which he knew to be worthless, while he trusted
that they might prevail.
But where is the resemblance which he affects to show-
between the course of the Churches of Rome and England ?
Let me remind you again, Most Reverend Sir, of the
Council of Clermont, already quoted in the commencement
of this letter,* whose 28th Canon is in these words :
" Let no one communicate at the altar but in the Body
separately, and the Blood in like manner, except it be from
necessity and caution."
What was the RULE which this great Council here af-
firmed in the year 1095 ? Was it not the very same with
that of the primitive Church Catholic, and the Reformed
Church of England ?
And what was the new RULE laid down by the Council
of Constance, A. D. 1415, but a flat contradiction, without
any pretence of necessity ? as indeed no such necessity could
exist for refusing, henceforth, to give the cup to the laity,
which had been their undoubted privilege for twelve centu-
ries together.
But the Council of Clermont was a Council in which
Pope Urban II. presided, and your Church, even so late as
the eleventh century, was orthodox and right in the old
Catholic mode of giving the cup to the laity. And hence,
Rome herself, of an earlier day, condemns the Rome of the
fifteenth century, and justifies the Reformed Church of
England, both in the rule and the exception. The maxim,
in all other matters, is, that the exception proves the rule.
* Page 188.
204 Letter XXXVI.
But your modern Church has changed the exception into
the rule, and the rule into the exception. True, indeed,
the Council of Constance refers to certain dangers and
scandals, as a reason for the innovation. And yet it is hard
to imagine that the laity could not be made to observe as
much propriety in the year 1415,' as they had for twelve
centuries together. This, therefore, was an excuse too
weak for their justification, and hence they must stand con-
demned for presumptuously contradicting Popes and Coun-
cils, Fathers and Apostles, and even Christ Himself, in the
exercise of their proud prerogative to change the original
law at their own mere will and pleasure.
This brings me to the end of your favorite author's letter.
But I may not conclude without adverting to two other
monstrous innovations and corruptions of modern Roman-
ism connected with the subject, which he very wisely
passed by, namely, your solitary Masses, where the priest
administers the Eucharist to himself alone, and your ex-
acting payment for the Sacrament ; the first being directly
in the face of the Saviour's institution, and the second as
plainly against His precept to the Apostles : " Freely ye
have received, freely give," while both are condemned re-
peatedly by the Canons of the Councils.
Thus, in the Capitular of Theodulf, the Bishop of Aure-
lia, A. D. 797, we find the following plain testimony against
solitary Masses : -
" The priest should by no means celebrate the Mass alone ;
because, as it cannot be celebrated without the salutation of
the priest, with the response of the people, so it ought not
to be celebrated by one. For there must be those around
him, whom he may salute, and by whom the response may
be given to him, and he must remember the saying of our
Canons of other Councils. 205
Lord : Wherever two or three are gathered together in my
name, there am I in the midst of them."*
Again, in a Council held by order of Charlemagne, A. D.
813, Canon xliii., we read these words :
" No presbyter, in our judgment, can rightly perform the
Mass alone. For how shall he say, The Lord lie with you,
or how shall he give the admonition, Lift up your hearts,
and many others similar to these, when there is no other
person present with him ?"f
Again, in another collection of Canons, we have the fol-
lowing :
" It is decreed that none of the presbyters shall presume
to celebrate Mass alone : because neither the words of our
Lord and Saviour, nor the writings of the Apostle Paul, de-
clare it, nor is it found in the Acts of the Apostles, that it
ought to be so done in anywise. This Custom, therefore,
so contrary to Apostolic and ecclesiastical authority, must
be eradicated, and thoroughly extirpated by the priests of
the Lord ; and if any one shall hereafter presume to do this
thing, he shall be liable to degradation."!
And again, in the 6th Council of Paris, held by the Bish-
ops of all the Provinces, A. D. 829, the 48th Canon re-
peats the same prohibition, decreeing, " that none of the
presbyters shall presume to celebrate the Mass alone ; and if
any should transgress this rule, he should be subject to
canonical correction. "
A multitude of similar proofs might be added, to demon-
strate that solitary Masses were held to be absurd and un-
lawful by the Church of Rome herself for at least nine cen-
turies. And yet, in the face of Scripture, reason and au-
* Hard. Con., Tom. 4, p. 914. t Ib., p. 1015.
t Ib., p. 1308. $ Ib., p. 1324.
206 Letter XXXVI.
thority, your last great Council of Trent passed the follow-
ing decree, in A. D. 1562 : *
" If any one shall say that Masses, in which the priest alone
communicates sacramentally, are unlawful and ought to be
abolished, LET HIM BE ANATHEMA."
So that here we have your unchangeable Church pronoun-
cing her solemn curse upon the very doctrine which she public-
ly maintained so late as the ninth century ! Is not this, most
Reverend Sir, another evidence of the candor with which
your writers boast of your unity ? Are the " variations of
Protestantism" more extraordinary than the variations of
Rome ? If your deluded but honest-minded laity knew the
history of their own Church, how soon would they insist
upon a thorough reformation, and abandon that figment of
infallibility which, when it is analyzed, resolves itself into
a set of dissolving views,' shifted at the dictate of expe-
diency !
I proceed, lastly, to the evidence of former ages, which
proves that the clergy were forbidden to take money for the
administration of the Sacrament. Thus, the 7th Canon of
the Council of Clermont enacted,
" That no one should sell the Eucharist, or Unction, or
Chrism, or Burial, to any one."f
Again, the 12th Canon of the 3d Council of Rome, un-
der Urban II., decreed as follows :
" This also we command, that for Confirmation, Baptism,
and Burial, nothing shall be exacted."!
Again, in the Council of Toledo, A. D. 1119, the 9tli
Canon sets forth the same prohibition.
* Hard. Con., Tom. 10, p. 129.
t Hard. Con., Tom. 6, P. 2, p. 1739.
t Ib., 1760.
$ Ib., 1979.
Canons of Rheims, London, and Trent. 207
The same appears again, in the 4th Canon of the Coun-
cil of Rheims, held about the same year.*
And in the Council of London, held A. D. 1125, the sec-
ond Canon reads as follows :
" We command that no price whatever be exacted for
Confirmation, for Unction, for Baptism, for Penance, for
the Visitation of the Sick, for the Communion of the body
of Christ, or for Burial."!
The same injunction is repeated again in another Coun-
cil of London, A. D. 1138, in the first Canon4 And we
meet it again in the second Canon of the Second General
Council of Lateran, A. D. 1138, where the practice is
called simoniacal ; and the giver, as well as the receiver,
is included in the censure.
The Council of Trent likewise added its prohibition, in
A. D. 1562,1| saying that " all conditions of reward, of any
kind, all agreements, and whatever is given for the cele-
brating of new Masses, as likewise all importunate and il-
liberal exactions, rather than requests, which are not far
removed from the sin of simony, should be entirely pro-
hibited."
And yet, in the face of all this, it is notorious that your
priests universally hold Masses to be of prime necessity, to
liberate the souls of your people from purgatory, and that
they never perform those Masses without the payment in
money of a stipulated sum ! That even the poorest per-
sons in your communion cannot enjoy this melancholy priv-
ilege, which they are taught to regard as a most sacred
* Hard. Con., Tom. 6, P. 2, p. 1984. t Ib., p. 1125.
$ Ib., p. 1204. $ Ib., p. 1208.
The pages of the last three are numbered erroneously in the volume.
II Hard. Con., Tom. 10, p. 130.
208 Letter XXXVI.
duty to the dead, without the cash : and hence we have
seen that one of the modern institutions in Ireland is that
of Purgatorian Societies, to raise the funds required for the
Eucharistic sacrifices which your own Church, in former
ages, so expressly required to be performed without money
and without price.
Whether you have any fixed tariff for such services, I
know not. But I know that I was applied to, many years
agQj= by a poor Irishman, who pleaded hard to be employed,
and to have a month's wages in advance ; and when I told
him that I did not need his labor, turned away with
a look of such distress, that I called him back, and inquired
what was the matter. He told me that his wife was dead,
and he wanted just ten dollars to pay the priest, for saying
Mass to take her soul out of purgatory. Surprised at the
amount, I asked him if the priest knew that he was a poor
man, and why he was not willing to do this service for
nothing ? And the answer made a deep impression on me.
He said the priest knew well enough that he was as poor
as he could be, and that his reverence would willingly say
the Mass for nothing, only that if it was not paid for, IT
WOULD DO NO GOOD !
How far this single case was to be taken as a fair speci-
men of the average, I have never tried to ascertain. But
I was well assured that the priest alluded to was a man of
more than ordinary standing for talents and respectability,
because I knew his character .some years before. And I
have had several cases since then, in which I have been
applied to for Baptism, by your people from Canada, for no
other reason, as they said, than their inability to pay the
price which the priest insisted on, before he would admin-
ister that sacrament to their children.
Thus, then, it is, that your united, unchangeable, and well-
The Profit of Purgatory. 209
ordered Church, tolerates the breach of her own professed
rule of giving the sacraments without money, and allows
her priests to make merchandise of the offering which the
poor man is taught to believe indispensable for the peace of
the departed parent, wife, or child. Thus the custom of
solitary Masses, which your former Church reprobated, as
an impious absurdity, is legalized by your modern Council
of Trent, sooner than give up such a profitable branch of
superstition, without which there would be small profit from
your imaginary purgatory. And thus, again, I claim for the
Reformed Church of England a true conformity to the
REALLY CATHOLIC RULES, which regard the Eucharist as a
Communion, not to be administered without three at the
least, besides the officiating priest, and command the sacra-
ments to be given, without money and without price, to all who
are otherwise qualified to receive them.
210 The End of Controversy, Controverted.
LETTER XXXVII.
MOST REVEREND SIR :
THE topic to which your favorite Milner next leads the
way is the Mass, which he considers as the Sacrifice of
the New Law. He begins by saying that Bishop Porteus
is brief on this subject, and evidently embarrassed. I do
not think that you will find me either the one or the other,
since there is abundance of testimony, and the result is so
clear, that the advocate of truth finds nothing to embarrass
his course, except the difficulty of making a topic, rather
dry in itself, interesting to the reader.
Your author presents the Mass, which is the Roman
word for the celebration of the Eucharist, under the aspect
of a true, proper, and propitiatory sacrifice, offered by the
priest for the living and the dead. And the Church of
England, in our 31st Article, calls this " a blasphemous fa-
ble, and a dangerous deceit." We shall see, in due time,
why this strong language is employed, and, if I am not
greatly mistaken, it will be found none too strong for the oc-
casion.
He commences by defining a sacrifice as " an offering up
and immolation of a living animal or other sensible thing to
God. in testimony that He is the Master of life and death,
the Lord of us and all things." And here, in the very be-
ginning, is a most false and perilous definition, because it is
perfectly destitute of every mark of a Christian faith, and at
open war with the Bible. According to the true and con-
What is a Sacrifice. 211
stant doctrine of the Church, animal sacrifices were ap-
pointed by the divine command after the fall, to typify Christ,
that promised "Seed of the woman" who should bruise the
serpent's head, and restore our ruined race to the happiness
which the sin of our first parents had forfeited. Hence it
was BT FAITH, as St. Paul expressly saith, that Abel of-
fered to God a more acceptable sacrifice than Cain. Because
Abel, believing in the promised Seed, brought the appointed
firstlings of his flock, the commanded sacrifice which typi-
fied the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world. While
Cain, in proud unbelief, refused to unite in the act, and
brought only the fruits of the ground. Yet there is no rea-
son to doubt that Cain was willing to acknowledge God as
" the Master of life and death, the Lord of us and all things,"
in the words of Dr. Milner ; because the very fact of making
his offering imported his belief in God ; and his subsequent
language to the Almighty is the language of fear and sub-
mission. In other words. Cain was a Deist, while Abel
was a Christian in his heart. The first rejected the prom-
ised Saviour, and therefore would not bring the appointed
memorial of Him. The other embraced the hope set before
him with sincerity, and offered his lamb in faith. In totally
omitting this essential connection of animal sacrifice with
Christ, therefore, Dr. Milner has put forth, not a Christian,
but a deistical definition.
But this is not his only error. For although the term sac-
rifice is properly applicable to the immolating of a living
animal or other sensible thing to God, yet he had no right
to confine the term to this, because it is also applicable to
many other offerings, some of a lower, and some of a far
more precious character, as the Scriptures abundantly tes-
tify. A few of the proofs shall be given from your own
Douay Bible to substantiate this assertion. Thus :
212 Letter XXXVII.
Lev. vii. 9. And every sacrifice of flour that is baked in the oven,
and whatsoever is dressed on the griddle or in the
frying-pan, shall be the priest's that offereth it.
Whether they be tempered with oil or dry, all the
sons of Aaron shall have one as much another.
This is the law of the sacrifice of peace-offering to
the Lord.
" " 13. Moreover, loaves of leavened bread with the sacrifice
of thanks, which is offered for peace-offerings.
Psalm iv. 6. Offer up the sacrifice of justice.
" xxvi. 6. I have offered up in His tabernacle a sacrifice of jubila-
tion.
" 1. 19. A sacrifice to God is an afflicted spirit.
" cvi. 22. Let them sacrifice the sacrifices of praise. Also, Psalm
cxv. 16.
" cxl. 2. Let the lifting up of my hands be as an evening sac-
rificc.
Amos, iv. 5. Offer a sacrifice of praise with leaven.
Rom. xii. 1. I beseech you, brethren, by the mercy of God, that ye
present your bodies a living sacrifice, holy, pleasing
to God, your reasonable service.
Phil. ii. 17. Yea, and if I be made a victim upon the sacrifice and
service of your faith.
" iv. 18. I am filled, having received from Epaphroditus the
things you sent, an odor of sweetness, an accept-
able sacrifice, well pleasing to God.
Heb. xiii. 15. Let us offer the sacrifice of praise to God continually,
that is, the fruit of lips confessing His name.
" xiii. 16. And do not forget to do good and to impart, for by
such sacrifices God's favor is obtained.
1 Pet, ii. 5. Be you also as living stones, built up, a spiritual house,
a holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices, ac-
ceptable to God by Jesus Christ.
Now here it is abundantly evident that the term sacrifice
is applied to every offering of faith to God. Not only to tlie
offering up and immolation of a living animal or other sensi-
ble thing, according to Dr. Milner's definition, but to the of-
fering of insensible things, such as the flour baked in the
The Prophecy of Malachi fulfilled. 213
oven, and "the other peace-offerings, under the Mosaic dis-
pensation, to the offering of thanks, of justice, of joy, of con-
trition, of praise, of prayer, of ourselv.es, of the gifts of
Christian charity, and of all holy devotion. The whole
basis, therefore, of your author's reasoning is overthrown by
the plain evidence of Scripture. For if we grant that there
is in the Eucharist, or the Mass, a sacrifice, and a true sac-
rifice, it does not follow that it is an animal sacrifice, or a
propitiatory sacrifice, or the sacrifice of a sensible thing : but
it may be, and, as I shall show in due time, it actually is, a
spiritual sacrifice of ourselves, our souls and bodies, in faith
and praise, and thanks, and holy obedience.
Your favorite author next proceeds to show that the pro-
phecy of Malachi has been truly verified in the primitive
Catholic Church. And we grant, most fully, his statement
that God has not left His people destitute of sacrifice under
the New Law. No true Christian ever doubted it. For
Christ, to whom all the typical animal sacrifices of the Old
Law pointed, has fulfilled them by His great sacrifice once
for all upon the Cross. And His Church commemorates
that blessed offering in the Eucharist, according to His
own command, Do this in remembrance of me, and accom-
panies the sacramental memorial of that only propitiatory
sacrifice by all the other spiritual sacrifices of praise, grati-
tude, and self-dedication, which are acceptable to God
through faith in the great Redeemer. " From the rising of
the sun" therefore, as saith the Lord by the Prophet Mal-
achi, " even to the going doiun thereof, my name is great among
the Gentiles ; and in every place there is sacrifice, and there
is offered to my name a clean oblation."* But all this is
plainly as applicable to our doctrine as to the system of
*i. 11.
214 Letter XXXVII.
Romanism, and far more so, by the testimony of Scripture,
and by the judgment of the truly Catholic Church, the
fathers being witness.
To them, therefore, I willingly appeal, not by assertion,
but by proof; and here you will find, most Reverend Sir,
that the Church, not of Rome, but of England, is faithful to
the really Catholic interpretation of Malachi, and all the
other Scriptures.
Beginning with Tertullian, we have a very express tes-
timony on the point before us. For this father, quoting the
very passage of the prophet to which Dr. Milner refers,
saith as follows :
" I will not receive sacrifice from your hands, for from the
rising of the sun even to the going down thereof, my name is
made great in all nations, saith the Omnipotent Lord. And in
every place clean sacrifices are offered to My name. * * * For
that God is not appeased by earthly, but by spiritual sacri-
fices, we thus read as it is written : A contrite and an hum-
ble heart is a sacrifice to God. And elsewhere : Sacrifice to
God the sacrifice of praise, and render your vows to the Most
High. Thus, therefore, the spiritual sacrifices of praise are
indicated, and a broken heart is shown to be the acceptable
sacrifice to God."* Again, this eminent teacher, in another
treatise, refers to the same text of Malachi. " In every
place," saith He, " sacrifice is offered to My name, and a
clean sacrifice, to wit, SIMPLE PRAYER FROM A PURE CON-
SCIENCE.''!
Clement of Alexandria gives us the same doctrine, as
follows :
" Therefore," saith he, " we must offer to God, not sump-
tuous and splendid sacrifices, but those which are pious and
* Tertul. adv. Judseos, p. 187-8.
t Tertul. adv. Marcion., L. 4, p. 414.
St. Augustine on Sacrifice. 215
acceptable to Him, ***** with a pure mind, a just and
true system of life, and the prayer of righteousness from
holy works."*
Thus, too, Augustine saith, " What sacrifices can you
offer to Him ? That you are not unmindful of His benefits?
is a sacrifice with which He is pleased. Bless the Lord,
O my soul! The sacrifice of praise shall glorify me.
Immolate to God the sacrifice of praise, and pay thy vows
to the Most High. God wills Himself to be praised, and
that in order that you may be profited, not that He may be
exalted."f
Again, " I have within," saith Augustine, " the victim
which I immolate ; within, I have the incense which I
offer ; within, I have the sacrifice by which I shall move
my God. The sacrifice of God is a troubled spirit."^
There is a very beautiful sermon of this pre-eminent
father addressed to the youth, on Easter day, which, though
it makes a long quotation for a work like this, I cannot
doubt will reward the reader for the time spent in the
perusal :
" I am. mindful," saith Augustine, " of my promise. I
promised to you, who have been baptized, a sermon, in
which I should expound the Sacrament of the Lord's table,
which now you behold, and of which you were yesternight
made the partakers. You ought to know what you have
received, what you are about to receive, and what you ought
to receive daily. This bread which you see upon the altar,
sanctified by the word of God, is the body of Christ. This
cup, or rather what the cup contains, sanctified by the word
of God, is the blood of Christ. By these our Lord Christ
* Clem. Alex. Strom., Lib. 7, p. 719.
t S. Augustin. Op., Tom. 4, p. 835, E*
t Ib., 272, $ 17.
216 Letter XXXVII.
commends His body and His blood, which for us He shed
in remission of sins. If you have received rightly, you ARE
WHAT YOU HAVE RECEIVED. For the Apostle saith, We
being many, are one bread and one body. Thus he expounds
the Sacrament of the Lord's table : We being many, are one
bread and one body. He commends to you in this bread
how you ought to love unity. For was this bread made
from one grain ? Were there not many grains of wheat ?
But before they became bread, they were separate : by
water they were joined together, and after a certain bruis-
ing. For unless the wheat is ground, and sprinkled with
water, it cannot take the form which is called bread. Thus
also you were after a manner ground by the humiliation of
fasting and the sacrament of exorcism. Then came bap-
tism and water ; you were as if sprinkled, and you. came to
the form of bread. But bread cannot yet be without fire.
What, therefore, signifies the fire ? That is chrism. For
the oil of our fire is the Sacrament of the Holy Spirit.
Take notice of this in the Acts of the Apostles, when it is
read. For now this book begins to be read. This day
begins the book which is called the Acts of the Apostles.
Whoever wishes to make progress, has it from thence.
When you come to the Church, put away vain fables, and
be intent upon the Scriptures. We are your books. Attend,
therefore, and see that the Holy Spirit is coming at Pente-
cost. And thus He will come : He shows Himself in
tongues of fire. For He inspires love with which we burn
towards God, and despise the world, and our stubble is
burnt up, and our heart is purged like gold. Thus the Holy
Spirit comes, the fire after the water, and you become bread,
which is the body of Christ. And so unity is signified in a
certain manner. You hold the Sacraments according to
their order. First, after prayer, you are admonished to lift
St. Augustine on the Holy Eucharist. 217
up your hearts. This becomes you as the members of
Christ. For if you are made the members of Christ, where-
is your HEAD ? The members have a head. If the head
does not precede, the members do not follow. Whither
has your Head gone ? What have you answered in the
Creed ? On the third day He rose from the dead, He as-
cended into heaven. He sits at the right hand of the Father.
Therefore OUR HEAD is IN HEAVEN. So when it is said,
Lift up your hearts, you answer, We have, to the Lord. And
this itself, that you have the heart lifted up to the Lord, you
may not attribute to your own powers, your own merits,
your own labors, because it is the gift of God to have the
heart lifted up, therefore the Bishop or the Presbyter who
offers, follows, and says, when the people have answered,
We have the heart lifted up to the Lord : LET us GIVE
J JL
THANKS TO OUR LORD GOD. that we have the heart lifted
up. Let us give thanks, because, unless He had granted
it, we should have our heart in earthly things. And you
bear your testimony, saying, It is just and right that we
should give thanks to Him who makes us to have our heart
lifted up to our Head. Then, after the consecration of the
sacrifice of God, because He wills us to be His sacrifice
which was demonstrated where that point Avas placed first,
that the sacrifice of God is also ourselves, that is, the sign
of the thing which we are behold, when the consecration is
completed, we say the Lord's Prayer, which you have re-
ceived and offered. After this it is said, Peace be with you,
and the Christians salute each other with a holy kiss.
This is the sign of peace ; as the lips show, so it should be
done in the conscience. That is, in like manner as your
lips approach the lips of your brother, so your heart may
not depart from him. Great, therefore, are the sacraments,
and very great. Would you know how they are com-
TOL. II. 10
218 Letter XXXVIL
mended ? The Apostle saith, " Whosoever eateth the body
of Christ, or drinketh the cup of the Lord unworthily, shall be
guilty of the body and blood of the Lord" What is it to re-
ceive unworthily ? To receive scoffingly, to receive dis-
dainfully. Let not that which you see, seem vile to you.
What you see passes away ; but what is invisibly signified,
does not pass away, but remains. Behold, it is received, it
is eaten, it is consumed. But is THE BODY OF CHRIST
CONSUMED ? Is THE CHURCH OF CHRIST CONSUMED ?
ARE THE MEMBERS OF CHRIST CONSUMED ? God forbid !
Here they are cleansed : there they are crowned. What
is signified, therefore, will remain eternally, although it may
seem to pass away. Thus, then, do you receive, that you
may think of yourselves, that you may have unity in your
heart, that you may have your heart lifted up always. Let
your hope be not in earth, but in heaven : let your faith be
firm in God ; let it be acceptable to God. For that which
here you believe, though you see it not, you shall see there,
where you shall rejoice forever."*
In this most interesting relic of the Church in the fourth
century, we have not only a valuable proof of the form and
order of the Liturgy, but a copious amount of instruction on
the Eucharist, which is totally irreconcilable with the
modern hypothesis of Romanism. I have translated the
whole discourse as closely as I could, that it might suffer
no mutilation. And it is as clear as the light, that no man
could have preached such a sermon, who believed in any
transubstantiation of the elements, or any sacrifice of Christ
Himself, as a real victim upon the altar. The bread and
the wine are treated as figures, emblems, or representations
only. Christ Himself is in heaven, and therefore the hdart
* S. Augustin. Op., Tom. 5, Sermo. 327, p. 667.
St. Augustine on true Sacrifice. 219
is lifted up to Him, THE HEAD. The real sacrifice is the
body of communicants. Nor is there any inconsistency
between the view which regards the consecrated bread as
a symbol of the body of Christ, broken upon the cross for
us, and that which considers it as a symbol of His collected
body, the Church, according to the foregoing sermon of
Augustine, because both are so closely connected that the
one necessarily suggests the other, since it was for the sake
of His body, the Church, that He gave Himself to be cruci-
fied, and it is for the sake of His atoning sacrifice that His
Church receives the blessed privilege of being accounted
His members. Both these significations, therefore, are
sanctioned by Augustine, and most of the early fathers.
Both are agreeable to Scripture. But both of them are
symbolical, and neither of them accords with the modern
doctrine of Rome, to which this sermon of Augustine does
not make the slightest allusion.
Let us next look at the definition of sacrifice given by
Augustine in the great work of his most mature age, The City
of God, where he treats it as follows :
" True sacrifice," saith he, " is every work which is done,
in order that we may inhere in God by a holy association,
having relation to that end of good, by which we may be-
come truly happy. Therefore, man himself, consecrated by
the name of God, and devoted to God, in so far as he
dies to the world that he may live to God, is a sacrifice.
Our body also, when we chasten it by temperance, in order
that we may not exhibit our members as arms for the sin of
iniquity, but as the arms of righteousness to God, is a sac-
rifice. If therefore the body, which the soul uses as an
inferior servant, or instrument, when its good and right use
is referred to God, is a sacrifice : how much more does the
soul itself when it refers itself to God, in order that, being
220 Letter XXXVII.
inflamed with the fire of His love, it may cast away the form
of worldly concupiscence become a sacrifice ? Hence, as
the true sacrifices are the works of mercy, either to our-
selves or to others, which are referred to God ; it results
that the whole redeemed City, that is, the congregation and
society of the saints, is offered as a universal sacrifice to
God, through that Great High Priest, who also offered Him-
self in His suffering for us, that we might be the body of
such a Head, according to the form of a servant. For this
form He took upon Him, in this He was offered, according
to this He is our Mediator, in this He is our priest, in this
He is a sacrifice. And therefore the Apostle exhorts us
that we render our bodies a living sacrifice, holy, accepta-
ble to God, which is our reasonable service that toe are
ourselves a well-pleasing, and perfect, and entire sacrifice. THIS
is THE SACRIFICE OF CHRISTIANS. Which also the Church
celebrates in that sacrament of the altar known to the faith-
ful, as it shows to her, that IN THE THING WHICH SHE OF-
FERS, SHE HERSELF IS OFFERED."*
And thus Augustine, in places almost without number,
speaks of the Eucharist as a memorial of the One true Sac-
rifice of Christ Himself upon the Cross. " Wherefore,''
saith he, " in the oblation and participation of the body and
blood of Christ, Christians celebrate the MEMORIAL OF His
FINISHED SACRIFICE ;"f and when he refers to the sacrifice
actually offered in the sacrament, it is in consistency with
the foregoing, as when he saith that the Church " immo-
lates to God the sacrifice of praise in the body of Christ. "J
But the modern notion of your Church, that the priest in the
Mass immolates Christ as a true, proper, and propitiatory
* S. Augustin. Op., Tom. 7, De Civ. Dei., Lib. x., cap. vi., p. 185.
t Ib., Tom. 8, p. 245, F.
t Ib., Tom. 8, p. 404.
St. Isidore of Seville. 221
sacrifice, has no countenance whatever from this eminent
doctor, nor can it be doubted that he would have regarded
it as a gross impiety.
From Augustine, I proceed to Jerome, who applies the
term sacrifice in the same way. The true worshipper, ac-
cording to this eminent father, " finds what he immolates to
God, that is, PRAISE. Hence he saith, I will immolate in
His tabernacle the sacrifice of shouting."* Indeed, it was
plainly impossible that Jerome should,have held the notion
of a propitiatory sacrifice in the Eucharist, when he so dis-
tinctly opposed the Romish sense of the real presence, and
maintained the true primitive doctrine, that the consecrated
elements were only types of the body and the blood.^
But not to detain the reader by a needless multiplication
of special quotations from the fathers, I shall pass finally
to Isidore of Seville, who belongs to the early part of the
seventh century, and whose writings show the transition
state of the Church, in several particulars. This author,
with many others, applies the word sacrifice to the Eucha-
rist, but in such terms as agree with us, and are quite irre-
concilable with your modern doctrine. I shall give his lan-
guage on the point, so as to prove this clearly :
" The sacrifice," saith Isidore, "which is offered by Chris-
tians to God, was first instituted by our Lord and Master
'Christ, when He commended His body and blood to the
Apostles before He was betrayed : as it is read in the Gos-
pel, Jesus took bread and the cup, and blessing, gave to them.
Which sacrament truly Melchizedec, the King of Salem,
first offered figuratively, as a type of the body and blood of
Christ, and first expressed the same mystery of such a sac
rifice in imagination (imaginarie}, exhibiting the similitude
* S. Hieron., Tom. 8, p. 31.
{ See quotation on p. 146.
222 Letter XXXVII.
of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, the eternal priest,
according to the order of Melchizedec. This sacrifice,
therefore, it is commanded that Christians should celebrate,
the Jewish sacrifices being finished and abandoned, which
were ordered to be offered in the servitude of the ancient
people."
" And the bread which we break is the body of Christ,
who said, I am the bread of life, &c. And the wine is His
blood, for this is what is written, / am the true vine. But
the bread is therefore called the body of Christ, because it
strengthens the body : and the wine, because it produces
blood in the flesh, is referred to the blood of Christ. And
these two are visible ; nevertheless, being sanctified by the
Holy Spirit, they pass into the Sacrament" (i. e., the sign,
according to Isidore and all the fathers), " of the divine body.
And for this reason, as holy Cyprian saith, the cup of the
Lord is offered of wine mixed with water, because we see
that by the water the people are UNDERSTOOD, and by the wine
is SHOWN the blood of Christ. And when water is mixed
with wine in the cup, the people are made one with Christ,
and the multitude of believers is incorporated and joined with,
Him in whom they believe. Which copulation and conjunc-
tion of the water and the wine is so mixed in the cup of
the Lord, that the mixture cannot be separated, as the Church
cannot be divided from Christ. But as the cup of our Lord
Jesus Christ cannot be water alone nor wine alone, unless
they are mixed together, so neither can the body of the Lord-
be flour alone nor water alone, unless each of these be
joined together and united, and the bread be thus made one
solid mass. By which sacrament" (or sign) " also, our peo-
ple is shown to be united, for in like manner as many grains ,
collected in one, and ground and mixed together, make one
bread, so in Christ, who is the heavenly bread, we know
Doctrine of the Fathers. 223
that there is one body to which our number is conjoined and
united."*
Thus, then, we see a plain and consistent testimony,
proving that even so late as the seventh century, there was
no such idea in the Church as the true, proper, and propi-
tiatory sacrifice of Christ Himself, in the Mass, notwith-
standing the apparent confidence with which your favorite
author claims the fathers as witnesses. Indeed, the pas-
sages which he sets down in a note from Justin, Irenseus,
and Cyprian, are nothing to the purpose, for they only as-
sert that the Eucharist is a sacrifice, which no one denies.
WHAT KIND OF SACRIFICE, is the question. Whether it be
a true, proper, and propitiatory sacrifice of Christ Himself,
by the act of the priest : or a sacramental, symbolical, and
commemorative sacrifice, according to our Lord's appoint-
ment. Whether it be an actual, present sacrifice of the Son
of God : or an actual, present sacrifice of His BODY, THE
CHURCH, who are bound to offer themselves to the Most
High, as a holy, living, and acceptable sacrifice. Whether
the hearts of the communicants are to be fixed upon the
transubstantiated ivafer, in the hands of the priest, adoring it
as the real body, blood, soul and divinity of the Redeemer : or
whether they are to be LIFTED UP (sursum corda), accord-
ing to St. Augustine, to contemplate Him as seated at the
right hand of the eternal throne. And we may confidently
defy the ingenuity of man to justify the modern system of
Rome by the fathers, if their whole testimony be honestly
taken together ; or to disprove, by that testimony, the sound-
ness and consistency of the doctrine laid down by the
Church of England.
But even the very name which you have chosen to adopt
for this solemn sacrament, is another innovation, which your
* S. Isidor. Hispal., DP Off., Lib. 1, Cap. xviii., p. 394-5.
224 Letter XXXVII.
own writers cannot trace to a period earlier than the latter
part of the fourth, or, more properly, the fifth century. The
word Mass is derived from the dismission of the catechu-
mens or the unbaptized, together with all the rest of the con-
gregation except the communicants, when the Liturgy ap-
pointed for the Eucharist was about to be commenced.
The deacons proclaimed aloud, lie, missa est, that is, De-
part ye, it is dismissed : meaning that the mixed assembly
of the Church (Ecclesia) was dismissed. The popular
sense, however, converting the participle of the verb into a
noun, conceived the term Missa to signify the Eucharist it-
self, and your Church, in due time, adopted the novelty with
her usual facility, and thus has arisen this unseemly epi-
thet, instead of the really primitive phrases, of the Lord's
Supper, the Eucharist, &c. Therefore this term Missa, or
the Mass, is not to be found in St. Augustine, St. Jerome, or
the fathers who preceded them. It is very old, I admit, but
the Church of Christ is more than four centuries older.
And hence, our English Reformers laid this, too, aside, and
restored, with perfect propriety, the original, correct, and ex-
pressive appellation.
I proceed now to the assertion of Dr. Milner, that " all
the Christians in the world, except the comparative few
who inhabit the North of Europe, hold the same doctrine,
as the Greeks, the Armenians, the Muscovites, the Euty-
chians, the Christians of St. Thomas in Africa, the Copts
arid Abyssinians in Africa, notwithstanding they have been
totally separated from the Church of Rome, some of them
eight hundred, and some fourteen hundred years."
To this I answer, first, that the assertion is more easy
than the proof. We are not by any means furnished with
accurate or reliable information concerning the peculiarities
of those various Churches. The accounts given to us by
Testimony of other Churches. 225
the Romish missionaries, who have been, for the most part,
Jesuits, are not trustworthy, by the repeated acknowledg-
ments of their own brethren. And Protestant missionaries
have not yet supplied the deficiency. But we know enough
to prove that Dr. Milner's statement affords no proper evi-
dence upon the question, for the following indisputable rea-
sons :
1st. Because those Churches have never withdrawn the
cup from the laity. Would your favorite author allow this
fact to prove that Rome is in the wrong "?
2dly. Because they deny the authority, and deride the
assumed infallibility, of the Church of Rome. Would he
admit this to be an evidence against her ?
3dly. Because some of their Patriarchs, as Fleury re-
lates, have^excommunicated her. Does this prove that the
excommunication was lawful 1
4th. Because the Roman missionaries have had hardly
any success in proselyting them. Does this look like agree-
ment in their doctrines 1
5th. Because the corruption of the Church had proceeded
to a considerable length before the great schism of the ninth
century, and most of these separated Churches had their
share in it previous to the separation, which was chiefly
produced by the overweening ambition of the Papacy.
What is the evidence worth, therefore, even if they were
found to agree ?
6th. Because the test of truth to which Dr. Milner would
here seem to appeal, is no test at all, upon his own princi-
ples. For the rule which Rome herself professes to ac-
knowledge is the Catholic rule of Vincent of Lerins, what
has been believed always, everywhere, and by all. And
hence she acknowledges, in theory at least, that every
question must be decided by the Scriptures and the fathers.
VOL. II. 10*
226 Letter XXXVII.
7th. Because it is preposterous to extract evidence from
Churches which Rome does not allow to be witnesses at
all. These Oriental Christians are excommunicated heretics,
according to the Roman system, and hence she holds their
testimony to be inadmissible. By what rule of justice or
of law, therefore, can Dr. Milner ask us to hear them on
the one side, while he refuses to hear them on the other ?
Your favorite author next presents to his readers what he
calls " the inconsistencies of the Church of England respect-
ing this point. She has priests, but no sacrifice ! She has
altars, but no victim ! She has an essential consecration of
the sacramental elements, without any the least effect upon
them !" To this flourish, which is certainly a good speci-
men of the ad captandum style, I make the following reply,
which will be sufficient to show, to any intelligent mind,
that the inconsistencies are on the side of Rome, and not
on that of England.
For, in the first place, the term priest has no necessary rela-
tion to the offering of sacrifice, in the Romish sense of the term.
I have proved at large, by your own version of the Scriptures,
and by the fathers, that sacrifice includes every offering of faith
and piety made to God, and that the best of them all is the liv-
ing sacrifice of ourselves to His service, in the words of St.
Augustine. I have also shown that the E'acharistic oblation
may be considered as a sacrifice, according to the fathers ;
not in your sense of a true, proper, and propitiatory sacri-
fice, but in the figurative, symbolical, and commemorative
acceptation. Moreover, Melchizedec is called a priest, al-
though he offered no sacrifice but bread and wine. It is,
therefore, a mere absurdity to limit the term priest to the
person who " immolates a living animal or other sensible thing
to God," or to confine the word sacrifice to the thing so im-
molated. And hence, in this assumption, Rome is incpn-
Sacerdos and Sacerdotium. 227
sistent with the Scriptures, with the fathers, and with the
true sense of the language which Dr. Milner employs in
his proposition.
In addition to this, however, many of our writers insist
that the word priest is used in a double sense in Scripture :
the Greek legevq and the Latin sacerdos, being applied to
the priesthood of the Mosaic dispensation, whereas the
Greek Trpecrfivrepof , and the Latin presbyter, are employed,
when we read of the corresponding ministry of the Gospel sys-
tem. From the Latin presbyter came the old French prestre,
and from that is derived our English word priest. Hence,
as this one English term is employed to signify both the
terms in the Greek and the Latin, it does not necessarily
import the function of animal sacrifice, which belonged to
the Levitical priesthood, but is rather to be held in the New
Testament sense of the Elder or Presbyter ; and several of
our most esteemed authors consider this as its only proper
meaning.
I state this, however, merely in deference to the opinions
of my brethren, who have adopted this view. For myself,
I do not consider it at all required to meet the supposed dif-
ficulty. 1st, Because it is certain that the fathers, univer-
sally, employ the word sacerdos, without scruple, when
speaking of the Christian priesthood. 2dly, Because the
true meaning of the term sacrifice, when properly under-
stood, renders the distinction quite unnecessary. 3dly, Be-
cause the word sacerdotium, considered etymologically, sig-
nifies no more than the office exercised by special gift con-
cerning holy things, being compounded of dos, a GIFT, and
sacer, HOLT. And 4th, Because, although we do not pos-
sess the noun in English, yet we retain the true enlarged
meaning, established firmly, in the adjective sa?ezdotal.
Doubtless, the fact stated with respect to pur English, term
228 Letter XXXVII.
priest being derived from the Latin presbyter, through the
French prestre (now modernized into pretre by dropping
the letter s), is perfectly true and indisputable. But I do
not use it in the present argument, believing that the real
merits of the question are more satisfactorily settled with-
out it, according to the genuine sense of antiquity.
I proceed, therefore, to the next alleged inconsistency,
viz., that the Church of England " has altars, but no vic-
tim." And here Dr. Milner has entirely overshot his mark,
although, to an uninformed or unreflecting mind, he may
seem to have hit it with singular precision. It will not be
a difficult task, however, to expose the fallacy. But I
must bespeak your attention, Most Reverend Sir, to the re-
marks which I shall offer, because I hold the point before
us to involve a most instructive example of theological jug-
gling.
When Dr. Milner reproaches us with having altars, but
no victim, he assumes, of course, that an altar must needs
be a place for the offering up of a victim, according to the
sacrificial theory, which I have already examined and dis-
proved. But this is a plain and manifest error, in the very
face of the Word of God, according to your own Douay
Bible. For there we read* of " the altars of incense," where
no other sacrifice was offered. Again, we read,f that the chil-
dren of Reuben, of Gad, and Manasses, when they returned
from the wars of Canaan, " built an altar immensely great
near the Jordan." And this altar was " not for holocausts,
nor to offer victims, but for a testimony. "J Hence, they
" called the altar which they had built, Our testimony, that
the Lord is God." Again, in the Apocalypse, || the Apos-
* Exod. xxx. 27. t Josh. xxii. 10.
t See v. 26-T. $ Verse 34.
H Chap. vi. 9.
Meaning of the Word Altar. 229
tie John saith, " I saw under the altar the souls ofltthem that
were slain for the word of God, and for the testimony which
they held." And your own commentators, in the note, say
that " Christ, as man, is this altar, under which the souls of
the martyrs live in heaven, as their bodies are here de-
posited under pur altars." In the same book,* we read fur-
ther, that " another angel came and stood before the altar,
having a golden censer ; and there was given unto him
much incense, that he should offer of the prayers of all
saints upon the golden altar, which is before the throne of
God. And again,f we read as follows : " I heard a voice
from the four horns of the golden altar which is before the
eyes of God."
Here, then, we see that the word altar does not neces-
sarily import a place to offer animal sacrifice, or to immo-
late a sensible victim, since the Scriptures speak of an
altar for offering incense, an altar erected for a memorial or
testimony, an altar as a symbol of Christ in reference to
the souls of the martyrs, and an altar at which the prayers of
the saints were offered by the angel before the throne of
God, &c.
And in like manner, Augustine saith, that " we can re-
ceive the altar spiritually in the inward temple of God (that
is, our heart), by receiving the faith itself, of which the visi
He attar is the sign."^.
So, Jerome, in his Commentary on the text in the 50th
Psalm, " Then shall they place young calves upon tliy altar"
saith. " THE ALTAR is FAITH, because whatever thou offer-
est, thou oughtest to offer through faith. The calves are
* Rev. viii. 3. ) Ib. i x . 13.
$ S. August., Tom. 3, p. 126, Pars. 2. And see, De Civit Dei, L.
10, cap. iii.
230 Letter XXXVII.
praises, df thoughts, or victims, to wit, that I should offer
myself as a living sacrifice, well pleasing to thee."*
And Isidore of Seville, defining the two words Ara and
Altare, both of which we translate Altar, saith, that " Ara
is said by some to be so named, because the incense of the
victim is burned there, while others say that it is so called
from the prayers which the Greeks call apof." " Altare"
he adds, " is so called from its height, as if we should say,
alta ara."\
Thus, therefore, Dr. Milner's Romish notion that there
can be no altar unless there be the immolation of an animal
or some sensible thing, is shown to be perfectly incon-
sistent with your own Scriptures, and the fathers. And
hence, though the Church of England " has altars, and no
victim," yet she is sustained by the highest authority to
which you profess to make your appeal. The altar of the
pure faith is there, the altar of the spiritual incense of prayer
and praise, the altar before which we devote ourselves, as
a holy, living sacrifice, acceptable to God, and along with
these, the altar of memorial or testimony, at which we offer
the figurative or symbolical body and blood of the blessed
Redeemer.
But what shall I say of the gross inconsistency with
which Dr. Milner claims a superiority for your Church, on
the ground that your altars have a victim, when it is certain
that your own doctrine stands opposed to the idle boast, and
shows it to be a pure delusion ? For although you tell us
that by virtue of your dogma of Transubstantiation, the con-
secrated bread and wine are changed into the actual Christ,
body, blood, soul and divinity, yet Dr. Milner knew, and
* S. Hieron., Tom. 8, p. 61, B., Com. in Psal. 4.
t Isid. Hispal. Originum, Lib. 15, c. 4, p. 131.
Immolation of a Victim. 231
you know, Most Reverend Sir, that your Council of Trent
did not presume to assert that the Saviour is actually immo-
lated in the Mass, but only mystically, that is, figuratively,
symbolically, or sacramentally. Read, I pray you, the
words of your Council, that in the last Supper, our Lord
and Saviour " left a visible sacrifice to His Church, by
which that bloody sacrifice once to be perfected upon the
cross MIGHT BE REPRESENTED, and its memory might re-
main to the end of the world." Relinqueret sacrificium visi-
bile, quo cruentum illud semel in cruce peragendum REPR^SEN-
TARETUR, ejusque memoiia in finem usque sozculi permaneret*
And again, " He instituted the new Pasch, that He Himself
should be immolated by the Church through her priests
UNDER VISIBLE SIGNS, in memory of His departure from this
world to His Father." Novum instituit Pascha, seipsum ab
Ecclesia per sacerdotes SUB SIGNIS VISIBILIBUS IMMOLANDUM,
in memoriam transitus sui ex hoc mundo ad Patrem.\
It was in accordance with this that Dr. Milner, in his
statement, used the language quoted on page 190. "For
this purpose, namely, a sacrifice," saith he, " it was requi-
site that a victim should be really present, and at least mysti-
cally immolated, which was then, and still is, performed in
the Mass." That is to say, the immolation, in the language
of the Council of Trent, is represented, under visible signs.
But this is not having a real victim. You would not, surely,
so mock the common sense of mankind as to contend that
there can be a real victim without a real immolation, because
it is the immolation which makes the victim. Hence, as
the immolation is only represented under visible signs, there
is only a representative or symbolical victim. And therefore,
* Hard. Con., Tom. 10, Con. Trident., Sess. xxii., cap. 1, p. 126.
tlb
232 ' Letter XXXVII.
even if your doctrine of Transubstantiation were true, and
Christ were really present, yet it would be perfectly absurd
to say, as Dr. Milner does, that a victim is really present,
when there is no real victim at all.
Thus, then, it is manifest, that when he reproaches us
with having altars, but no victim, he makes a charge which
rebounds upon his own Church, if he means a real victim.
And if he means the symbol or sacramental sign of a victim,
he asserts what is simply untrue, because the consecrated
elements, being the representative body and blood of Christ,
are the sacramental and visible signs of the real victim as
truly with us as with you. And therefore the inconsistency
is not in the Church of England, but in the Church of Rome.
Because we maintain that the proper meaning of altar agrees
perfectly well with our commemorative sacrifice of the ap-
pointed symbols, together with our real sacrifice of prayer
and praise, and of ourselves, according to the fathers.
Whereas Dr. Milner restricts the term altar to the immola-
tion of a real victim, while he is obliged to admit that the
sacrifice of that victim is only mystical, or, in the words of
your Council of Trent, merely represented, under visible
signs, or emblems. A grosser inconsistency than this can
hardly be found in the whole range of theology, and yet it
passes current with your most approved masters in Israel.
The last rebuke of your favorite author, on the score of
our alleged inconsistencies, is founded upon the accusation
that the Church of England has an essential consecration of
the sacramental elements, without any the least effect upon
them.
If he had said, without any change in their material sub-
stance, he would have stated the truth. But as he repre-
sents the matter, he has averred, first, what is false ; sec-
ondly, what is absurd ; and thirdly,, what implicates his own
The Change produced by Consecration. 233
Church to the same extent, in other parts of her doctrine.
Permit me, Most Reverend Sir, to demonstrate the correct-
ness of this assertion.
Before the elements are consecrated, they are common
bread and wine. After they are consecrated, we hold them
to have become, by our Lord's appointment, the symbolical
images or symbols of His body and blood, and by virtue of
this, that the faithful receivers are made, in the act of their
reception, the partakers of His blessed sacrifice in a heavenly
and spiritual manner. Is there no effect here ? Are not the
common bread and wine converted into a solemn sacrament,
and made the outward and visible signs of an inward and
spiritual grace ? Thus, then, I prove the falsehood of the
allegation.
Its absurdity is equally manifest. For if there were no
effect produced, why should they be consecrated 1 What
could be more absurd than to change them from a common,
to a .holy use, to change their names by a new and sacred
appellation, and to change their application from the ordi-
nary purpose of nourishing the body, to the religious end of
strengthening and refreshing the soul, through the grace
attached to their faithful reception, and yet, notwithstanding
all this, to maintain that no change at all has resulted from
the act of consecration ? Thus it is perfectly obvious that
Dr. Milner has charged us, not only Avith what is false, but
also with what imports a complete absurdity.
And thirdly, I have said that his accusation implicates
his own Church to the same extent, in other parts of her
doctrine. For tell me, I pray you, whether you would ven-
ture to say that when you consecrate the Holy Water, or
the Chrism in Confirmation, there is not any the least effect
produced upon them ? You know that you hold consecration
to be essential, in both these cases. And yet you do not
234 . Letter XXXVII.
pretend that the material substance of the water or the oil
undergoes any physical change. But you maintain that
notwithstanding this, they are changed by virtue of their
consecration, in their names, their uses, and their qualities,
so as to be effective instruments for spiritual purposes,
which they could not have been without it. With what
face, then, could Dr. Milner accuse the Church of England
of inconsistency, for holding consecration to be essential to
the Eucharistic elements, although there is not any the least
effect produced upon them in their material substance, when
your own Church holds the very same doctrine with respect
to two of her most cherished rites and usages ? I have
already proved that some of the ancient fathers compared
the change of the elements in the Eucharist to this very
change of the consecrated Chrism ; for the use of Chrism,
being derived from the Jewish law, was introduced into the
Church as early as the time of Tertullian, in the latter part
of the second century, although it can lay no claim to Apos-
tolic sanction. As to your Holy Water, however, I do not
find it mentioned by the fathers, nor is it easy to discover
any better paternity for it than the lustral water of Pagan
Rome.
And now, having noticed all the material allegations of
your favorite author, on the Sacrifice of the Mass, and
proved that there is not the slightest warrant for your doc-
trine in the Scriptures, or the primitive Church, I conclude
by showing the justice of the declaration in our Articles,
that it is a blasphemous fable and a dangerous deceit.
It is blasphemous, first, because it is injurious to the ma-
jesty of the Son of God to assert that He can be offered
up as a propitiation for the living and the dead, at the will
of an earthly priest, since that blessed offering is the sole
work of His own divine mercy. Thus He declares in ref-
A blasphemous Fable. 9 235
erence to His actual sacrifice :* No man taketli my life from
me, but I lay it down of myself. I have power to lay it down,
and I have power to take it again. Yet here is a class of
clergy who claim the power to hold in their hands the body,
blood, soul and divinity of the infinitely glorious and Sov-
ereign Lord of heaven and earth, and offer Him, in the guise
of 'a consecrated wafer, as a true, proper, and propitiatory sac-
rifice, on ten thousand altars every day ! Truly, it seems
impossible to imagine a more stupendous piece of blas-
phemous presumption.
It is blasphemous, secondly, because it arrogates the ex-
press authority of God Himself for this act of profanity, in
direct opposition to His declaration : I WILL NOT GIVE MY
GLORY TO ANOTHER. For how does the glory of God dis-
play itself most pre-eminently to our fallen race, but in the
marvellous act of His divine mercy in offering His only be-
gotten Son as a sacrifice for the sins of the world ? Did
not the angels, at the birth of Christ, proclaim on this ac-
count, GLORY TO GOD IN THE HIGHEST 1 Yet Rome pre-
tends to invest her priesthood with a similar majesty, giving
them authority to offer up the same Redeemer, in a true,
proper, and propitiatory sacrifice, and to apply this sacrifice,
at their pleasure, to the living and the dead ! And they
dare to assume this awful power, in the name of the Al-
mighty !
It is blasphemous, thirdly, because it subjects the glorious
Saviour of the world to the control of the priests, who are
only His servants. For they undertake to offer him up as
a true, proper, and, propitiatory sacrifice. But it is impossi-
ble to sacrifice anything which God has not placed in our
control, and made our special property. All the sacrifices
* John x. 18.
236 ^ Letter XXXVII.
of which we read, were thus subject to the will of the sac-
rificer. The lambs, the cattle, the doves, the flour, the
oil, which were offered to God in the Old Testament, were
in this way the property of those who brought them in sac-
rifice. The sacrifices of praise, of contrition, of obe-
dience of heart and life, were also under the control of the
sacrificer, and hence it is a perfect absurdity to say that any
man can sacrifice what is not given to him as his own, so
that it is strictly subject to his individual will and disposi-
tion. Therefore, if your priests have power to offer Christ
in sacrifice, it results of necessity, that Christ is subject to
them, and that they exercise dominion over the Son of God !
And how can we conceive a more awful blasphemy !
In these three respects, then, the denunciation of the
Church of England is fully justified. Your popular doc-
trine she holds to be a BLASPHEMOUS FABLE, because it de-
grades the majesty of Christ, because it usurps the author-
ity of God, because it treats the Sovereign Lord of heaven
and earth as if he were the property of His own servants.
And yet, we pronounce no curse upon you, notwithstanding.
It is YOTTR CHURCH, who, in her Council of Trent, commits
a further blasphemy by cursing, over and over again, in her
solemn Anathemas, ourselves, and all who hold, with us, the
pure truth of the Holy Scriptures, and the doctrine of the
primitive fathers ; thus daring to assume another divine pre-
rogative-^yea, overruling the Word of the Most Pligh, and
proclaiming their insane decree as the infallible standard
for the divine judgment !
But I have not yet done with this painful topic. The
Church of England pronounces your doctrine to be not only
a blasphemous fable, but a DANGEROUS DECEIT. I proceed,
therefore, to this charge, as a task of duty.
First, then, it is a deceit, because your Council evades
A dangerous Deceit. 237
the error of declaring that Christ is actually immolated in
sacrifice by the priests, and admits that His real sacrifice is
only represented under visible signs, while, nevertheless, they
maintain that He is offered as a real victim, in the Mass,
which is therefore a true, proper, and propitiatory sacrifice
for the living and the dead. But what is this fine distinc-
tion worth, in the general apprehension of your deluded
people ? What more could you say of the awful atone-
ment on the Cross of Calvary, than that it was a true, prop-
er, and propitiatory sacrifice for the living and the dead "?
And is there, in the history of human sophistry, a greater
deceit than this, which, while it carefully avoids declaring a
direct falsehood on the one hand, claims boldly the whole
practical effect of the falsehood on the other ?
Secondly, it is a dangerous deceit, because it chains your
priests to the continual maintenance of an awful imposture,
most perilous to their own souls ; because it deludes the
great majority of your people to a vain confidence in a false
assumption ; because it leads them to trust to your imagin-
ary prerogative, far more than to the true sacrifice of their
own hearts and lives to the service of the Redeemer ; be-
cause it tempts them to feel safe in the purchase of Masses,
instead of striving to work out their salvation by the fruits
of holiness ; in a word, because it virtually puts the priest
in the place of Christ, by making his sacerdotal will the
effectual arbiter of their eternal destiny.
I have now closed, Most Reverend Sir, this tedious exam-
ination of the grievous errors and corruptions of your mod-
ern Church, connected with your dogma of Transubstantia-
tion, and your Sacrifice of the Mass. Doubtless you will
think my language severe, and sadly deficient in courtesy.
But I hope you will remember that I am engaged in the
work of defending the doctrines of divine truth, against a
238 Letter XXXVIL
writer whose whole book is a constant, unsparing, and bit-
ter libel upon the Reformed Church of England, and upon
ourselves, who are her offspring. I hope you will remem-
ber that I am vindicating the genuine principles of the Gos-
pel, against a Church which gives us curses instead of
courtesy, and which, when she had the power, tortured our
forefathers in the dungeon, and burned them alive in the
flames. I hope you will remember that I make no attack
upon individual character, though Dr. Milner has assailed
our martyred reformers with the strongest and coarsest in-
vectives ; that on the contrary, I have allowed the virtue
and piety of a portion amongst the members and priesthood
of your Church, even in the darkest times of her acknowl-
edged licentiousness, and that I feel no other sentiment
towards them all, at this day, than that of the kindliest per-
sonal good- will. My sole motive, in my humble work, is
to contend earnestly for the truth once delivered to the saints,
not only according to the precept, but in the spirit, of the
Apostle ; determined to do it thoroughly, that there might
be no loop-hole through which error might escape expo-
sure ; and yet, I trust, with a constant recollection that for
all that I have written, as well as for the temper in which
I write, I have a solemn account to render to the Searcher
of Hearts, when you and I shall stand before His great tri-
bunal. Let it only be read in the same temper, and I ask
no more.
The End of Controversy, Controverted. 239
LETTER XXXVIII.
MOST REVEREND SIR :
THE doctrine of your Church in reference to your priest-
ly absolution, enforced by means of the private confessional,
forms the subject of your favorite author's forty-first letter ;
and here we have his usual ingenuity in the quotations of
the Scriptures, the reference to the fathers, and the claim-
ing of the Church and writers of England as being sub-
stantially on his side, while there is, of course, a careful
suppression of the true history of the matter, and a strong
statement of the great advantages and comforts derived from
this part of your discipline.
The clearest method of explaining the controversy be-
twixt our respective Churches in relation to this important
point, will be to show, first, the common ground in which
we agree, and then the contrasted particulars in which we
differ. After this will come the history of your Church's
innovations, with the proofs, and a few remarks on the al-
leged superiority of her system. The result will exhibit
another example of the antagonism of Rome, and the fidel-
ity of England, to the true scriptural and primitive rule.
Both Churches, in common with all the other Churches in
the world, agree in the necessity of repentance of sin, con-
fession of sin, and absolution from sin, without which (the
case of infants alone excepted) there can be no salvation.
240 Letter XXXVIII.
But Rome has erected uoon these what she calls the Sacra-
ment of Penance, and this, from the Catechism of the
Council of Trent, prepared for the instruction of your par-
ish priests, I shall now proceed to explain.
Penance includes, in the first place, repentance, accord-
ing to the ordinary scriptural and correct meaning, about
which there is no controversy. But we utterly deny the
authority of Rome to change the scriptural term of Re-
pentance into Penance, because on that change she has en-
grafted various corruptions of doctrine, which could not
have succeeded so readily in deluding mankind, if the true
term had been retained. Thus, for example, when our Sa-
viour saith, " Repent ye, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand"
your Douay Bible represents Him as saying : " Do PEN-
ANCE, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand." The perver-
sion of meaning is obvious here, at a glance, and your Bi-
ble repeats it in every place, where the structure of the
sentence made it possible.
But from penance, considered as repentance, and which is
rightly treated as an internal virtue of the soul, because it
is a godly sorrow for sin, attended by the resolution to for-
sake it, I pass on to what your Church, in her Catechism,
terms external penance, which constitutes her Sacrament of
Penance, and consists of certain sensible things significant
of that which passes in the soul. And its integral parts are
contrition, confession, and satisfaction.
Contrition is well defined as " a sorrow and detestation
of past sin, with a purpose of sinning no more." But your
Trentine Catechism, though it allows that contrition blots
out sin, yet asserts that " few reach the degree of ardor and
intensity which is necessary to make it effectual." And
hence, the aid is required which is furnished by the powei
of the priest, through which absolution may be obtained,
The Sacrament of Penance. 24-1
when, the sinner " does not bring with him that contrition
which may be sufficient of itself to secure his pardon."
Confession is next defined to be a " sacramental accusa-
tion of one's self, made to obtain pardon by virtue of .the
keys," that is, by virtue of the power of remitting sins with
which the priest is supposed to be invested. In the tribu-
nal of penance, therefore, the priest is the judge who ex-
amines the cause, in order to determine the condition of the
sinner. And " the voice of the priest," saith your Cate-
chism of Trent, " is. to be heard as that of Christ Himself,
who said to the lame man, Son, be of good cheer, thy sins
are forgiven thee."
The age at which confession of sins to the priest
should begin, is " as soon as children are able to discern
good from evil, and are capable of malice." And the times
of confession are at least once a year.
All mortal sins must be revealed to the priest, although
buried in .the darkest secrecy, and also sins of desire only,
together with all the accompanying circumstances. And
so important is this integrity to confession, that " if the
penitent wilfully neglects to accuse himself, or suppresses
any thing, that he ought to reveal, he not only fails to obtain
the pardon of his sins, but involves himself in deeper guilt."
" Secrecy must be strictly observed as well by the peni-
tent as by the priest, and therefore no one can, on any ac-
count, confess by messenger or letter."
The third part of your sacrament of penance is satisfac-
tion. And this word signifies " the compensation made ly
man to God, by doing something -in atonement for the sins
which he has committed."
It is granted in your Catechism that the first degree of
satisfaction, which stands pre-eminently above the rest, is
that for which we are indebted to Christ alone. But that
VOL. n. 11
242 Letter XXXVIII.
which constitutes a part of the Sacrament of Penance " must
be imposed by the priest, and be accompanied with a delib-
erate and firm purpose to avoid sin for the future."
Every species of this last kind of satisfaction is included
under the three heads of prayer, fasting, and alms-deeds.
And God has granted to our frailty, saith your Cate-
chism, " the privilege that one may satisfy for another."
If the penitent has been guilty of injuring his neighbor
in property or character, the priest should insist, before giv-
ing absolution, that he make restitution or reparation for the
injury. And in imposing penances, the confessor must be
guided by justice, prudence, and piety.
The power of the priests " is not simply to declare that
sins are forgiven, but, as the ministers of God, really to ab-
solve from sin : a. power which God Himself exercises
through their ministry."
" Humbled in spirit, the sincere penitent casts himself
down at the feet of the priest. In the minister of God,
who sits in the tribunal of penance as his legitimate judge,
he venerates the power and person of our Lord Jesus Christ,
for, in the administration of this, as in that of the other sac-
raments, the priest represents the character and discharges the
functions of Jesus Christ."
" To penance belongs, in so special a manner, the efficacy
of remitting actual guilt, that without its intervention," saith
your Catechism, " we cannot obtain or even hope for pardon."
These statements are taken direct from your Catechism
of Trent, and I shall only add to them .the 21st Canon of
your fourth Council of Lateran, which established your mod-
ern system in A. D. 1215, in these words :
" Every believer of either sex, after coming to years of
discretion, shall faithfully confess all his sins alone, at least
once a year, to his own priest, and shall endeavor, to the ut-
The true Point in Controversy. 243
most of his power, to fulfil the penance enjoined, receiving
reverently, at least at Easter, the Sacrament of the Eucha-
rist, unless, perhaps, through the counsel of his own priest,
for some reasonable cause, he should conclude to abstain at
that time from its reception : otherwise let him lie prohibited
from entering the Church while living, and dying, be deprived
of Christian burial. Wherefore, let this salutary law be
frequently published in the Churches, lest any one may
assume the veil of excuse from the blindness of igno-
rance."*
It was soon after this that the form of absolution was
changed from the ancient prayer, " May the Omnipotent God
grant to thee absolution and remission" to your modern form,
" I ABSOLVE THEE." This is admitted by all your really
learned and candid theologians, Morinus, Menard, &c.
And Thomas Aquinas himself, although he defends the
change as right and proper, does not deny that it was an
innovation.
This may suffice to show what is the point of controversy.
It is not about the duty of confessing our sins to God, con-
tinually, and beseeching Him, who alone has power, to for-
give us for the sake of His Son Jesus Christ. Neither is
it about the duty of genuine repentance and contrition for
our offences. Nor is it about the duty of confessing our
sins to any of our brethren whom we may have offended,
and making all the reparation in our power. These things
are admitted by all Christians, and there is no dispute about
their obligation.
Nor does the controversy involve any question as to the
power of remitting sins granted by our Lord to the Apos-
tolic office, and always believed to be an essential part of
* Hard. Con. Gen., Tom. 7, p. 35.
244 Letter XXXVIIL
the inward and invisible grace attached to the faithful recep-
tion of the Sacraments of Baptism and the Eucharist.
But the controversy turns on your modern act of priestly
despotism, in er-ecting a private tribunal of compulsory
judgment, before which all believers of either sex, in order
to obtain absolution from their sins, are forced to come, once
a year, and accuse themselves at the feet of the priest, and
submit their conscience to be questioned about every act
and even every thought of mortal sin, according to the priest's
good pleasure, and receive his mandate as to the works of
penance which he shall think fit to impose, as if it were
the voice of Christ Himself, under the awful penalty of
being excluded from the Church and the Sacraments while liv-
ing, and deprived of Christian burial when dead. And all
this, too, is done in secrecy, so that every priest is trusted as
if he were an infallible judge, and there is no remedy against
his mistakes, his ignorance, his licentiousness, or his pre-
sumption, although the whole arrangement is such as to ex-
pose him to the strongest temptations which can be held
out to human, infirmity.
In addition to which, we charge your modern Church
with error in making Penance a sacrament ; in changing the
ancient form of simple prayer, that God would mercifully ab-
solve the penitent, into the positive form of " I ABSOLVE
THEE ;" in the most superstitious and absurd doctrine, that
one man may perform satisfaction for the sins of another ; and
in the utterly false and unscriptural notion, that the sinner
may render compensation to God by doing something in atone-
ment for his sins.
The difference between the Churches of Rome and Eng-
land may therefore be stated as follows :
1. Rome exalts Penance, including private confession
and absolution to the priest, into a sacrament, necessary to
Differences as to Penance. 245
salvation. England allows repentance and faith to be thus
necessary, which are states of the soul, and denies that
Penance is a sacrament at all.
2. Rome exacts auricular confession and priestly absolu-
tion, as a distinct private preliminary to the reception of the
Eucharist. England requires only the uniting in the con-
fession and prayers of the Liturgy, submitting the sincerity
of the communicant to God, who reads the heart.
3. Rome makes the neglect of her modern imposition lia-
ble to the punishment of exclusion from the Church while the
party is living, and from Christian burial when dead. Eng-
land abjures the whole of this, as a cruel act of priestly
tyranny.
4. Rome imposes penance, as a satisfaction to the justice
of God, at the private dictation of the priest in the secret
tribunal. England gives no power to the priest to impose
penance at all, and condemns the doctrine that the sinner
can do anything to satisfy the divine justice, as an invasion
of the sole office of Christ, and destructive to the genuine
humility of the sinner.
5. Rome demands secrecy, not only from the priest, but
also from the penitent; so that if the priest should err, the
people have no remedy. England requires no secrecy from
the penitent, and every error of the priest is open to the
fullest detection.
6. Rome exacts a full confession to the priest of every
mortal sin, and even of the secret thoughts, without which the
penitent not only receives no absolution, but increases his
guilt. England exacts nothing, but only allows her priests to
hear what any one may seek to communicate, so far as his
own voluntary desire and sense of propriety may incline
him.
7. Rome begins her work of the confessional with young
246 Letter XXXVIIL
children, before they are admitted to confirmation or com-
munion. England limits her allowance to communicants
only.
8. Rome, in her Council of Trent, teaches that "the im-
perfect contrition which is called ATTRITION, since it is Com-
monly conceived either from the consideration of the infamy
of sin, or from the fear of hell and punishment, if it excludes
the intention of sinning, and has the hope of pardon," suf-
fices for absolution from the priest. England promises the
pardon of sin, on the contrary, only to a genuine contrition,
and holds the doctrine of Rome to be a dangerous delu-
sion. -
9. Rome commands the penitent to cast himself down at
the feet of the priest, and to listen to his voice as the voice of
Christ Himself. England condemns this abject slavery, and
remembers the conduct of the Apostle Peter, saying to Cor-
nelius, " Stand up, for I also am a man."
10. Rome holds that one man may satisfy God for the
sins of another. England condemns this, as a most false and
perilous impiety. In a word, the Church of England per-
mits any communicant who cannot have peace in his con-
science by his own prayers and pious exercises, to consult
his pastor, as his best and wisest friend and counsellor, and
open his grief in private, so far as he thinks fit ; and if he
desires it, he may receive not only comfort and advice, but
also the act of absolution, if his priest believes him to be
truly contrite for his sin. And even this allowance, though
only granted at the wish of the communicant himself, is
limited in our American Church, which has properly taken
away the Romish form of " I absolve thee," and allows of
no sentence of absolution except what is set forth in the
public Liturgy in connection with the Eucharist. Whereas
your modern Church lays upon all your people the yoke of
Forgiving and retaining Sins. 247
absolute bondage to the priest ; forcing them all, without
exception, to come up, whether willing or unwilling, and
bare their inmost thoughts to his inspection ; making him
the unlimited master of husband and wife, parent and child,
by his knowledge of their most secret faults, and even de-
sires ; delivering them, bound by the strongest kind of
slavery, to his secret disposal, and thus virtually putting
him into the place of God. And this, Most Reverend Sir,
is Rome's idea of Christian liberty !
I have now shown, as I trust sufficiently, the amazing ef-
frontery with which your favorite author mystifies the sub-
ject in his ingenious, but utterly uncandid, attempt to prove
that the doctrine of Rome is substantially justified by the
doctrine of England. And I shall next proceed to prove
that your modern system is entirely repugnant to the Scrip-
tures and the primitive Church, and is, like all the rest of
your corruptions, a pure innovation upon the Apostolic rule.
With respect to the Scriptures, we acknowledge, of
course, that our blessed Lord and Saviour, after His resur-
rection, " breathed upon His Apostles, and said to them : Re-
ceive ye the Holy Ghost: whose sins you shall forgive, they are
forgiven to them ; and whose sins you shall retain, they are re-
tained.'"* The question is, How did the Apostles exercise
this heavenly gift ? Was it only in connection with the ad-
ministration of the sacraments ? Or did they erect a distinct
tribunal of private confession and absolution besides, and
force every baptized man, woman, and child, to submit their
secret thoughts to secret priestly inspection ?
To this, every reader of the Acts, and other writings
of the Apostles, can easily furnish a decisive reply. These
inspired men required repentance towards God, and faith.
* St. John, xx. 22-3.
248 Letter XXXVIII.
towards our Lord Jesus Christ, and then administered Bap-
tism for the remission of sins* to those whom they judged
to be truly penitent and believing. Then came the laying
on of the Apostles' hands, or what is now called confirma-
tion, with the invocation of the Holy Spirit,! and then the
admission to the full fellowship of the holy Eucharist.^
Having thus become invested with all the privileges of the
members of Christ, they continued to enjoy them until death,
unless they committed some gross offence against the rule
of the Gospel precepts which called for discipline. In this
case, they were put away from the communion of the
Church, and not restored again until their repentance and
reformation were satisfactory to their brethren, jj
Now, it is certain that throughout the whole of this sim-
ple and beautiful system, the Apostles exercised their office
of remitting or retaining sins. For the sins of those whom
they judged fit were remitted in Baptism, while the sins of
those whonr they judged unfit were retained. The venial
sins of daily infirmity were forgiven by Christ, through daily
repentance, and confession, and prayer to Him. The gross
or mortal sins which scandalized the Church were only
those which called for discipline ; and that discipline was
administered by the judgment of the Apostles, who thus,
again, retained the sin, by putting away the transgres-
sor from the communion of the faithful. And when he
had given satisfactory evidence of his grief and reforma-
tion, they remitted his sins again, by restoring him to the
fellowship of the faithful. Thus, too, they held the keys of
the kingdom of heaven, that is, the Church, according to our
* Acts, ii. 38. t Acts, viii. 17.
Acts, ii. 42. $ 1 Cor., v. 13.
II 2 Cor., ii. 7.
Penance tested by the Fathers. 249
Lord's promise to St. Peter ; opening the door of admission,
and closing it again, as the case required. So that we have
the clearest proof in the New Testament of the mode in
which they exercised their sacerdotal power.
But all of this was open and public to the whole body of
the faithful. The Apostles had no private confessional, no
dark holes and corners, to conceal, in the deepest secrecy,
the judgments which concerned each individual soul. On
the contrary, St. Paul gives this charge to Timothy, the first
Bishop of Ephesus, " Them that sin, rebuke before all, that
others also may fear."* The assertion of Dr. Milner, there-
fore, that your modern Romish system is in accordance with
the gift of Christ to the Apostles, is a libel on them and on
the Scriptures. They were inspired, and could not have,
erred in their mode of performing their divine Master's com-
mission. And the fourth Council of -Lateran, which pre-
sumed, in the year 1215, to dispense, virtually, with the
apostolic rule of public discipline, and establish, instead of
it, the priestly bondage of the secret confessional, was guilty
of an awful act of rebellious contumacy.
Your favorite author next undertakes to prove his doc-
trine by the testimony of the fathers ! forgetting, or choos-
ing to ignore, the fact that the very decree of the Council
of Lateran proves the establishment of a compulsory private
confessional for all persons to have been a complete innova-
tion, since it commands that this " salutary law should be
frequently published In the Churches, lest any one may assume
the veil of excuse from the blindness of ignorance."
The passages which Dr. Milner artfully quotes from the
fathers may seem, to a careless or a shallow mind, to justify
his assertion, but in truth they are nothing to the purpose.
Thus he cites Tertullian, saying : " If you withdraw from
* 1 Tim., v. 20.
VOL. n. 11*
250 Letter XXXVIIL
confession, think of hell-fire, which confession extinguishes."
How, I pray you, Most Reverend Sir, does this show whether
the confession was to God, or to the priest ; in public or in
private ; voluntary or enforced 1
Again, he quotes Origen, inculcating the necessity of
confessing our most private sins, even those of thought, and
advising the sinner " to look carefully about him in choos-
ing the person to whom he is to confess his sins." One
would really suppose that Dr. Milner imagined his Salopian
friends to be arrant fools, if they were to take these words
as proof on his side, when they are plainly against him.
For Origen evidently considers that the confession of sins
to another was a question of expediency. " Look care-
. fully" saith he," " in choosing the person" Why should he
look carefully in choosing, if the Church had settled it ac-
cording to the Lateran rule, that he could have no choice
at all 1 Why should he be advised to choose " the person,"
if the Church had determined that he must confess to his own
priest 1 The passage proves, incontestably, therefore,- the
very reverse to the object of your author, because it shows
that Origen held the confession of sins to an individual as
a matter of voluntary discretion, and had never dreamed of
your modern compulsory and priestly system.
Again, he quotes Basil, in the fourth century, saying :
" It is necessary to disclose our sins to those to whom the
dispensation of the divine mysteries is committed." But
he forgot to inform his readers that this was a rule laid
down to the monks, of whom Basil had instituted a special
order, and had no relation whatever to the practice of the
ordinary laity, nor to the Church at large. And even as
respected the monks, there is not a word about secrecy, nor
about the administering of private absolution, nor about
penance or satisfaction dictated by a single priest alone
St. Augustine on Confession. 251
Again, lie tells us that St. Ambrose used to " weep over
the penitents whose sins he heard, but never disclosed them to
any but to God alone." Another proof of the effrontery with
which Dr. Milner reckons on the weakness of his readers.
For what does the passage testify to the points in contro-
versy ? Does it inform us whether the penitents who sought
St. Ambrose, came of their own free will, or in obedience
to a compulsory rule like that of your modern system ? And
would it have been worth while to mention that he never
disclosed their sins, if the law of the Church had then been
settled that he dared not? As to his weeping over the
penitents, it only serves to show that they were gross and
grievous sinners, and you will hardly say that your modern
system has any similarity to the tender sympathy of Am-
brose, either in precept or example.
And just as little has Dr. Milner's fourth and last quota-
tion from St. Augustine to do with the true question. " Our
merciful God wills us to confess in this world, that we may not
be confounded in the other." Who ever doubted that ? Else-
where, he says, Let no one say to himself, I do penance to
God in private. Is it, then, in vain that Christ has said,
Whatsoever you loose on earth, shall be loosed in heaven ?
Is it in vain that the keys have been given to the Church ?"
Your favorite advocate forgot, again, to let his readers under-
stand that St. Augustine was here speaking of public peni-
tence and public absolution, which was, as I shall show pres-
ently, the established rule in his day, and for centuries
afterwards. And this is intimated plainly in the very pas-
sage itself, where he saith, Let no one say to himself, I do
penance to God privately. Private penance would not an-?
swer where public penance was required. But this of itself
draws the line of broad distinction between modern Rome
and the primitive system. For, under your present disci-
252 Letter XXXVIII.
pline, the penance is enjoined by the priest in private.
The sinner performs it in private. And the mantle of
secrecy and deep concealment is imperatively commanded
to rest over the whole.
After this display of impotent sophistry, which would be
amusing if the subject were not of so serious a character,
let me refresh your memory, Most Reverend Sir, since Dr.
Milner is beyond my reach, with a few extracts from the
fathers which are to the point, and from which any intelli-
gent mind can see how faithfully the primitive Church pre-
served, for several centuries, the true Apostolic discipline.
Thus saith Tertullian : " The penitence which the grace
of God accords to Christians, and which recalls them to the
Lord, is allowed but once, and ought not to be permitted after
a repetition of the sin."*
Again, saith the same father : " The laver of baptism is
the seal of faith, which faith begins from penitence. We
are not washed in order that we may cease from sinning,
but because we have ceased, since we are already cleansed
in heart. A second penitence is opened to us in the porch of
the Church, but only once, because it is the second ; for oftener
than once, it would be vain."^
Here we" see that the Church, in the days of Tertullian,
contemplated no acts of penitence, after baptism, except the
public penitence attached to gross and serious sins, in which
the party was separated from the communion, and only al-
lowed to stand in the porch of the Church, until his brethren
and his pastor were satisfied that his repentance was sin-
cere. Then he was allowed to come into the Church, and
hear a portion of the service, being obliged to depart, how*
ever, before they proceeded to administer the Eucharist,
* Tert. de Poenitentia, <J 5, p. 133, B. t Ib., $ 6, and $ 7.
Eusebius on Confession. 253
And, in due time, he was received into communion again,
with great solemnity. But this process could only be gone
through once ; for if he became a second time guilty of any
transgression which required that he should be separated
from the Communion, he could be restored no more. It is
to this that Tertullian refers, when he saith that " a second
penitence is opened to us in the porch of the Church, BUT ONLY
ONCE, because it is the second ; for oftener than once, it ivould
be vain"
The same author describes the severity of this public
penitence in very graphic terms, saying, that the penitent
should wear sackcloth, fast, groan and weep ; and especially
notes that he shall "fall down before the Presbyters, and em-
brace the knees of those who are the beloved of God, beseeching
all his brethren to intercede for him."* Thus we see that
there was no secrecy, no private tribunal of the priest alone,
no discipline which was not equally noted by all the
faithful.
The other kind of penitence, which is the constant duty
of every believer, is also frequently spoken of by the fathers,
but in such a manner as perfectly to exclude the priest, be-
cause it was the exercise of the heart towards the Lord
only. Thus Eusebius, the Bishop of Csesarea, saith, in the
latter part of the third century, " The beginning of good is
to abandon the former evil by true penitence and confession,
which leads to a good end, namely, to God. For if there
is none good but God, the beginning of the best way leading
to God must be confession. Therefore it. is written, It is
good to confess to the Lord. Moreover, it is meet that we
utter our confession, not to men, but to God, who searches the
* Tertul. de Poenit., 9, p. 127.
t Euseb. Csesar. Com. in Psal , p. 608, C.
254 Letter XXXVIII.
In like manner, the famous Athanasius, about A. D. 340,
in answer to the question, " What law gives the pardon of all
sins ?" gives this reply :
" The law of the Lord, saying, Judge not, and ye shall not
be judged. And again, Forgive us our debts, like as we also
forgive our debtors. Hence it appears that not to judge our
neighbor gives pardon for all sins. The same applies to the
not remembering offences. Forgive, saith he, and you shall
be forgiven."*
And in answer to another question, viz., " If a man shall
have committed a very grievous sin, and repented, how shall we
learn whether he has been forgiven by God or no ?" The same
Athanasius replies as follows :
" This truly is made plain to few men upon earth ; never-
theless, even as it is between the master and the servant,
so is it between the conscience of a man and God. Thus,
as the servant who has offended may know, from the ges-
tures and language of his master, that he is not in the same
favor as he was before ; in like manner the sinner loses
the liberty of speaking which his conscience previously
possessed in his prayers. But when he has truly repented,
God grants to him again the liberty of speaking with Him,
which he had before his sin. And by this the man knows that
God has pardoned his sin."\ Here we see, distinctly, that
there could have been nothing in the fourth century at all
resembling your modern priestly confessional. When sin
was known, so that it gave scandal to the Church, it could
only be visited by public penitence, which was long and
severe, and continued till the Church as well as her priests
were satisfied. But when it was secret, the confession was
* Athan. Op., Tom. 2, p. 366, Qucstio 76,
t Ib., p. 367, Qusestio 77.
St. Augustine on Confession. 255
only made to God, and the sinner knew that he was for-
given, not by the sentence of the priest, but by the liberty of
prayer in his own conscience.
I proceed next to the statement of the great Augustine,
towards the end of the fourth century, which will clearly
show how the matter was held in his day.
" There are three kinds of penitence which your Eru-
dition recognizes as I do ; for they are familiar in the Church
of God. One is that which travails with the new man, un-
til, through saving baptism, the washing away of all past
sins takes place ; so that, as when a child is born, the pains
pass off by which the womb was urged to the birth, joy
may follow sorrow."*
" Another kind of penitence is that which is required in
the perpetual humility of supplication, through the whole
of this life which we pass in our fleshly tabernacle.
Whence also, when we pray, we say what through our whole
life we are bound to say, Forgive us our debts, as we also for-
give our debtors ."f
" The third kind of penitence is that which is to be per-
formed for the sins committed against the laws contained
in the Decalogue, and concerning which the Apostle saith :
For those who do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of
God. Being bound, therefore, by the chains of those dead-
ly sins let him come to the presiding ministers, by whom
the keys of the Church are applied and let him accept
the mode of his satisfaction from those who preside over
the sacraments, so that, being devout and suppliant in offer-
ing the sacrifice of a sorrowful heart, he may do what shall
not only be profitable to his own salvation, but shall also
serve for an example to others. To this end, if his sin be
* S. Augustin. Op., Tom. 6, p. 942, $ 2. t Ib., p. 945. $ 6.
256 Letter XXXVIII.
not merely to his own grievous injury, but is likewise a
cause of scandal to others, and if it shall seem expedient
for the good of the Church, in the judgment of the Bishop,
let him not refuse to exercise penitence in the presence of
many, or even of all the people : let him not resist, nor,
through shame, add inflammation to the mortal and deadly
wound."*
Augustine proceeds, in the following section, to another
statement, which shows very plainly that the state of the
Church in his days resembled precisely our own condi-
tion :
" Let no one think," saith he, " on account of these things,
that he ought to despise the use of this salutary penitence,
because he may, perhaps, observe and know that many
come to the sacrament of the altar, of whose crimes he is
not ignorant. For many are corrected, like Peter ; many
are tolerated, like Judas ; many are unknown, until the
coming of the Lord, who shall illuminate the hidden things
of darkness, and make manifest the thoughts of the
heart ; for most men are unwilling to accuse others, desir-
ing to be excused by them. And many good Christians are
silent, and suffer the sins of others which they know, be-
cause the testimonies are often wanting, and those things
with which they are themselves acquainted cannot be proved
to the ecclesiastical judges. For although certain things
may indeed be true, yet they are not to be easily credited
by the judge, unless they are substantiated by certain evi-
dence. But we cannot prohibit any one from the Communion
(although this prohibition is not yet mortal, but medicinal),
unless he be accused and convicted, either by his own voluntary
confession, or by some secular or ecclesiastical judgment. For
* S. Augustin. Op., Tom. 5, p. 945 and 947, $ 9.
St. Augustine on Sin. 257
who would dare to take it upon himself, that he should act
against any man both as accuser and judge ?"*
Here, therefore, we have the plain and irrefragable evi-
dence of the primitive Church, Most Reverend Sir, in the
very face of your whole modern system. There was no
compulsory private confessional, in which every soul must
pass under the personal inquisition of the priest, before he
could come to the communion. There was no secret des-
potism, by which sin was to be estimated, and absolution
conferred, and penance enjoined, once a year at least, in
order to receive the common privilege of the Sacrament, to
which every baptized and confirmed person was entitled.
And there was no evading of public penitence, by the substi-
tution of a secret and concealed process, which saved the of-
fender from the necessity of being made an example to his
brethren. On the contrary, although Augustine fairly ac-
knowledges the already relaxed severity of the ancient sys-
tem which Tertullian described, nearly three hundred years
before, yet he saith : " We cannot prohibit any one from the
Communion, unless he be accused and convicted, either by his
own voluntary confession, or by some secular or ecclesiastical
judgment."
One passage more may suffice to close this primitive tes-
timony : " These are not our only sins," saith Augustine,
" which are called crimes, such as adulteries, fornications,
sacrileges, thefts, robberies, false testimonies. To look
upon anything which you ought not, is sin ; to hear willing-
ly what ought not to be heard, is sin ; to think anything
which you ought not, is sin."f
" Wherefore, on account of those sins which are human
* S. Augustin. Op., Tom. 5, p. 948, 10.
t Ib., Tom. 7, De Civitate Dei., Lib. xx., c. x., p. 445.
258 Letter XXX VIII.
and tolerable, and so much the more frequent as they are
smaller, God has constituted in the Church, during the time
of obtaining mercy, the DAILY MEDICINE OF PRAYER, that
we may say : Forgive us our debts, as we also forgive our
debtors ; that our face being washed by these words, we may
go to the altar ; and our face being washed by these words,
we may communicate in the body and blood of Christ."*
Yet Rome, since the year 1215, suffers no one to go to the
altar until he has passed through the secret priestly inqui-
sition, and has received absolution from his father confes-
sor, before whose feet he must prostrate himself, and whose
voice he must listen to as to the voice of Christ Himself,
saying, Son, be of good cheer, tJiy sins are forgiven thee ! And
Dr. Milner has the effrontery to tell his readers that all this
is in accordance with the fathers !
But not to multiply this branch of evidence any farther,
I proceed to the honest acknowledgment of your learned
and usually faithful historian of the Church, Fleury. He
expressly states the commencement of compulsory confession
to have been the work of Chrodegang, Bishop of Metz, in
the year 763, who established the rule for his Canons res-
identiary, a sort of monastic institution, that confession
should be made twice a year, either to himself or to a priest
appointed by him. " This is the first time," saith Fleury,
" that I find confession commanded.^
The same historian states that the earliest instance of
giving absolution to penitents immediately after confes-
sion, without waiting until their penance was fulfilled, occur-
red in the rule established by Boniface, the famous Apostle
of Germany, as he was called, and a martyr. This was
A. D. 7504
* S. Augustin. Op., Tom. 5, p. 68. Sermo dc Decem Chordis, A.
t Fleury, Hist. Ecc., Tom. ix., p. 390. f Ib., p. 359.
Commutations for Canonical Penances. 259
In the ninth century, your historian states that the an-
cient Canons on the subject of penitence were abandoned
in many places, and the priests began to introduce, instead
of them, new and easy methods of obtaining absolution, by
pilgrimages, by commutations and other modes. These in-
novations appeared in certain little books called Peniten-
tials, which many of the Councils denounced strongly, but
the course of error went onwards, notwithstanding. Still,
however, we hear nothing of the secrecy of the confessional,
which came in, along with other abuses, at a later day.
The Council of Worms, saith Fleury, A. D. 1022, under-
took to legalize the commutation of penance for money :
" He that cannot fast," say they, " shall sing fifty psalms on
his knees in the Church for one day of fasting, and shall
feed one poor man for that day. One hundred genuflexions
shall be accepted instead of the fifty psalms, AND THE RICH
MAY REDEEM THEMSELVES FOR MONEY."*
" The Canonical penitences," saith the same historian
elsewhere, " were still in force at the end of the eleventh
century." " But they imagined, I know not on what ground,
that each sin of the same kind merited its penitence ; that
if, for example, a homicide ought to be expiated by a pen-
ance of ten years, it must require a hundred years for ten
homicides, which rendered penitence impossible, and the
Canons ridiculous."!
" After they rendered penitences impossible by thus mul-
tiplying them, they were obliged to come to compensations
and estimations, such as we see in the decree of Bouchard,
and in the -writings of Peter Damian. These consisted of
psalms, genuflexions, flagellations, alms, and pilgrimages ; all
* Fleury, Hist. Ecc., Tom. 12, p. 413.
t Ib., Tom. 13, Discours Preliminaire, p. xxxiv.
260 Letter XXXVIII.
acts which men could perform without being converted.
Penances rendered by .proxy were much less allowable, and
the castigation which a holy monk gave himself for the sake
of a sinner, was not a medicinal penance for that sinner : for
sin is not like a pecuniary debt, which any other person can
pay in discharge of the debtor, and in any sort of money
which is current, but it is a malady which must be cured in
the person of the sick."*
Here, by the way, your learned and honest historian, Ro-
manist as he was, directly impeaches the doctrine of your
Catechism of Trent, that one may satisfy for another. But
to proceed with his testimony :
" Another abuse," saith Fleury, " was the forced penances.
The Bishops, seeing many sinners who did not come to
submit themselves to penance, complained to the Parlia-
ments, and besought the princes to constrain them by the
temporal power. But this showed a great ignorance of the
nature of penitence, which consists in repentance, and in the
conversion of the heart."f
Finally, this candid author states, that the old canonical
rules of penitence were utterly destroyed by the Crusades.
" While these Crusades continued," saith he, " they took
the place of penitence, not only for those who assumed the
Cross voluntarily, but for all great sinners, to whom the
Bishops would give absolution only on condition that they
would perform in person the service of the Holy Land du-
ring a certain time, or would maintain for that purpose a
number of soldiers. It seemed, then, that after the end of
the Crusades, they ought to have returned to the ancient
penitences ; but the use of them was interrupted for two
* Fleury, Hist. Ecc., Tom. 13, Discours Preliminaire, p. xxxv
t Ib., p. xxxvi.
Dr. Milners Account. 261
hundred years at least, and the penitences had become ar-
bitrary. The Bishops scarcely any longer entered into the
details of sacramental administration ; the Mendicant Friars
were the most ordinary ministers of the sacraments, and
these transient missionaries could not follow long enough
the conduct of a penitent to examine the progress and so-
lidity of his conversion, as the proper pastors had formerly
done ; for these monks were obliged to dispatch sinners
promptly, in order to pass to others."
These proofs clearly demonstrate the vast revolution
which the lapse of ages of manifold and constantly grow-
ing corruption brought in upon the primitive system. The
specious hypothesis of Dr. Milner, that your modern rule
could never have been introduced if it had not been neces-
sary from the beginning, is thus shown to be utterly false,
because it is opposed to the whole testimony of history.
He tells his readers, indeed, that " the pride of the human
heart would at all times have revolted at the imposition of
such a humiliation as that of confessing all its most secret
sins, if Christians had not previously believed that this rite
is of divine institution, and even necessary for the pardon of
them." He further says that, even " supposing the clergy,
at some period, had fascinated the laity, kings and emperors,
as well as peasants, to submit to this yoke, it will still re-
main to be accounted for how they took it up themselves,
for monks, priests, and Bishops, and the Pope himself, must
equally confess their sins with the meanest of the people."
He boasts of the assent of the Oriental Christians to this
same discipline, which I simply repudiate, as being totally
destitute of proof. And finally, he claims for the members
of his Church the enjoyment of inconceivable transport, joy,
* Fleury, Hist. Ecc., Tom. 18, Discours Prelim., p. xxxiv.
262 Letter XXX VIII.
and comfort, in the persuasion that they possess such a
blessing. A few words on the more plausible parts of this
passage shall close this letter. .
To assert that the pride of the human heart, or the
strength of the human intellect, would never have admitted
your present doctrine on this subject if it had not been estab-
lished from the beginning, is simply absurd, ^because human
pride and human reason have been the slaves of error, since
the world began, in a thousand forms, and there is no pro-
tection against it, save the standard of the Word of God,
and the illuminating grace of His Holy Spirit. The cor-
ruptions of your Church were gradual, and had the most
complete field for the growth of superstition in all directions,,
because the middle ages of Europe were the darkest ages
of ignorance ; and the little knowledge that existed was
confined to the priests, who had the best possible excuse, as
well as the largest possible opportunity, for concentrating
all power in their own order.
To understand this fully, it is only necessary to remem-
ber that ancient Rome was subverted by barbarians from
every quarter, who were debased by heathenism, who de-
spised learning, and knew nothing of arts or letters, but who
were already prepared, by the habits of their minds, to be-
lieve anything wonderful or miraculous, and were accus-
tomed, in the prerogatives exercised by their own Druids
and pagan priests, to acknowledge many of those superior
powers which the policy of the Christian priesthood found
it expedient to apply to themselves. In laboring to convert
those barbarians, which was a task of duty as well as of in-
terest, it is perfectly conceivable that the priests of the
Church might readily avail themselves of all the reverence
and authority which their ignorant proselytes were willing
to accord to them, and indulge their converts in every su-
The true Account., 263
perstitious notion and practice which could, in any way,
be turned into the service of Christianity. And thus the
whole history of those ages shows how the Church prevailed
over heathenism, while a large, infusion of heathenism was
introduced into the. Church.
Hence the adoption of heathen days and festivals, by giv-
ing them a Christian appellation ; the ascription of the pow-
ers of the heathen deities to the Christian saints and mar-
tyrs ; the despotic authority of the Druids transferred to
the Christian priests ; the superstitious fables of heathen-
ism matched and exceeded by false miracles and impos-
tures ; the feudal system of the barbarians adopted by the
clergy; their admiration of warriors, leading priests and
Bishops to distinguish themselves in battle ; the heathen
ordeals of fire and water engrafted on the judgments of the
Church; their veneration for celibacy made a law for
priests and monastics ; while all their monstrous tales of
enchanters, necromancers, evil spirits, elves, fairies their
charms, and incantations, and amulets remained in the bo-
som of the Church, with no other change than the associ-
ating them, as much as possible, with sacred days and sea-
sons, Christmas, Halloween, &c.
I am very far, therefore, from imputing the corruption of
the Church to a deliberate design to do evil on the part of
the clergy. On the contrary, I doubt not that their inten-
tion was only to do the best they could under the difficult cir-
cumstances in which the universal ignorance and heathen-
ism of those ages had placed them. I doubt not that they
thought themselves excusable in accommodating the Gospel,
as much as possible, to the characters with whom they had to
deal, through a well-meant butperilous adaptation of St. Paul's
rule, " / am made all things to all men, that I might by all
means save some" Nor do I question that in the arrogating to
264 Letter XXXVIII.
their own order as much power as possible, they thought
themselves influenced by the purest motives of expediency.
For who should govern the ignorant and debased multitudes
but those who had the largest share of knowledge and of
virtue ? Who could harshly condemn the pious fraud which
was only practised for the ultimate benefit of mankind?
Who could blame the steadfast effort to concentrate all power
in the hands of those who could alone exercise it wisely ?
And if the only weapons with which the sword of bar-
barian violence could be opposed were those of super-
stitious veneration for the priesthood, who could wonder
that the priesthood were led to sanctify their natural love of
supremacy, by the belief that they were bound to use the
best instrument they had, in order to make the people, the
nobles, and the kings themselves, bow their untamed necks
to the obedience of the Gospel ?
That this, which I hold to be the true historical view of
the case, would operate, necessarily, upon the subject of
penitential discipline, must be obvious to the slightest re-
flection. In the first ages of the Church, while, for three
centuries, she was under persecution, the doctrine and prac-
tice of the pure apostolic system remained, in their original
form, though with diminishing vigor. When persecution
ceased, under Constantine, in the beginning of the fourth
century, and the Church was called to honor and to wealth,
while she was surrounded on all sides by the temptations of
heathenism in its most refined forms, the association began
to work, and the door was opened to many innovations.
And when, afterwards, the irruptions of the barbarian hordes
brought in another kind of heathenism, no worse in princi-
ple, but debased, ignorant, and ferocious, the Church was
encompassed with dangers and difficulties, which tempted
her priesthood more and more to the employment of a false,
The Council of Lateran. 265
th'ough seemingly judicious, spirit of accommodation. Hence,
as the cases of discipline multiplied, while the ancient faith
and piety decreased, and professed Christians would no
longer submit to the old public penitence, the priests grad-
ually fell into the custom of indulging offenders with a pri-
vate confession, made only to themselves, and the laity
willingly adopted a substitute which relieved them from the
disgrace of confessing before the brethren. Hence, for the
same reason, Vine public penance which was, required to satisfy
the Church in the days of Tertullian, was gradually ex-
changed for the private penance imposed by the priesthood.
Hence, though the early Councils, beginning with that of
Eliberis, A. D. 313, passed many stringent canons to en-
force the old rules, yet it was found so difficult to execute
them faithfully, that they were evaded more and more in
favor of the indulgent easiness of private priestly absolution,
until at length they fell into universal disuse, and the priests
came naturally into tne whole exercise of Christian disci-
pline, which they managed in the same accommodating spirit,
taking one thing when they could not get another, and
thinking that they did well when the duty of penitence
was performed in any way which was practicable, however
different from the ancient, pure, and apostolic system.
When, therefore, the fourth Council of Lateran, in A. D.
1215, passed the new and stringent law which forced all
Christians, whether they were penitents or not, to pass
through the secret tribunal of priestly confession and abso-
lution, it was not by any means a violent shock to the set-
tled habits of the time, for the Church had long before been
brought to the point of transacting the whole work of pen-
ance through the private dictates of the priesthood. And
the pretext of expediency was not wanting, because the
measure was professedly and really adopted as a necessary
VOL. II. 12
266 Letter XXXVIII.
safeguard against the spread of the heresies which were
then, with but too much reason, threatening the Church in
every quarter. Hence, there was no resistance to it, al-
though it was a perfect novelty to command that confession
should be made to the priests periodically by all, without dis~
tinction, as Fleury honestly acknowledges. The kings,
nobles and people all knew, perfectly well, that the priests
were as indulgent to their sins as they could possibly desire,
so long as they were faithful subjects of the Church ; and
therefore, though the law invested their spiritual guides
with a new and despotic power, yet the laity had nothing
to fear from its severity. And thus, as the thirteenth cen-
tury was the palmy period of Papal and priestly supremacy,
when the nations of Europe had no idea of any government
but that of force, and the powers of the kings and the pow-
ers of the Popes were linked most lovingly together, the in-
fluence of circumstances and the argument of expediency again
concurred to establish the perilous innovation.
And this, as it was the real motive for the establishment
of your modern system, is still, Most Reverend Sir, the
principle on which it is exercised. Not really, as a remedy
for sin, but as a safeguard against the one sin, the leaving
your Church for any other communion. The casuistry of
your Jesuits, and the Provincial Letters of Pascal, together
with the moral condition of the priesthood themselves, before
the Reformation, have long proved that with respect to sin,
as defined by the word of God, your confessional is no pro-
tection, but the contrary. But it is certainly well contrived
to keep your people from straying into forbidden pastures,
and to secure their subjection to yourselves. For that it
was intended, and no one can deny that it answers, to a
very great extent, the objects of its institution.
Before it is possible, indeed, to extend it into the ima-
Time allowed for Confession. 267
ginary region of benefit, on the broad ground which your
theory requires, we should ask for a little sober examina-
tion on the most favorable supposition of practical advantage
to your people. Thus, you have, I believe, about 1,200
priests, and about 1,800,000 people in the United States,
making an average of 1,500 persons to each priest, all of
whom must confess and receive private absolution individ-
ually, a little before Easter, every year. How much time,
at the rate of fifteen working hours each day, would it be
necessary for each priest to devote to that single duty ? I
do not affect to inform you, of course, because you know
the secret working of the confessional incompai-ably better
than I do. But I do desire to set my other readers on the
track of a fair consideration of your system.
Allow, then, only one hour to each person, in which the
mortal sins of act, word, and even of thought, during the
whole year previous, must be confessed with perfect sincerity
and integrity. And suppose that each priest could devote
fifteen hours every day to his flock of 1,500, which is the
average, and it would require 100 days to go through the
whole work, and then he must begin again, because the
sins committed since he commenced have to be confessed
and absolved before the party can be received to his Easter
Communion ! And yet I believe your practice is to get
over the whole of this weighty business during Passion
Week, in which your other duties do not allow of more than
seven or eight hours instead of fifteen ; and so a matter of
nearly four months, at the rate of fifteen hours each day,
and one hour to each confession, must be dispatched in six
days, at the rate of seven or eight hours, or, in other words,
1,500 hours' work disposed of in forty-eight hours only !
But you may find fault with my statistics. You may say
that no priest has 1,500 souls to examine. You may say
268 Letter XXXVIII.
that more than half your population do not come to confes-
sion at all. You may tell me that the greater part of those
Avho come, confess nothing beyond the mere words of the
formula. I do not doubt it in the least. Let us, then, cut
down our average, if you please, from 1,500 to 500. That,
I presume, you will allow to be a very moderate calculation.
And let us suppose that two weeks before Easter, instead
of one, are devoted to the work, at the rate of ten hours
a day : and stillj allowing one hour for each confession, only
one hundred and twenty out of the five hundred could be
submitted to your personal examination ; and nearly two
months, or fifty days, excluding Sundays, would be neces-
sary to go over the whole.
Remember, I pray you, Most Reverend Sir, that I am
discussing, not the opportunities which your priests may
take through the rest of the year, and in which they do not
pretend to have any advantage over other Churches : but
this peculiar, special and admirable advantage, as Dr. Mil-
ner considers it, of the confession and absolution which are
given as a necessary prerequisite for your Easter Sacra-
ment. And I think I have demonstrated, by a very simple
calculation, that no priest can possibly perform the duty with
any real knowledge of the state of his people. He may devote
a reasonable time to one, or two, or half a dozen special
favorites. He may take great pains with a recent proselyte,
in order to give him or her, as the case may be, a deep con-
viction of the comfort and superiority of the confessional.
But he owes them no more duty than he owes to the mean-
est of his flock. Nay, he owes the most of his time and
labor to the most ignorant ; the mass that cannot read, and
are therefore dependent entirely upon his instructions ; the
mass that cannot understand his Latin Liturgy, nor the por-
tion of the Latin Scriptures, which, if they were in English,
Impossible to confess all Sins. 269
might give them from Sunday to Sunday, as with us, some
knowledge of the Word of God. But this mass of igno-
rance he is obliged to dismiss, in the most summary style
which the brief formula of confession admits. Fifteen
minutes, on an average, is all he can possibly allow them.
And thus they go away, quite satisfied that they are forgiven
a multitude of sins which they have never confessed. And
the priest contents himself with absolving, one by one, a
crowd of poor deluded souls, of whose real spiritual state
he knows precisely nothing. Is this the Apostolic power
of the keys ? Or is it not, rather, a strange and mournful
mockery 1
But, although I have based my calculations upon the no-
tion that an hour, at least, should be allowed for the prac-
tical administration of your system, I should be sorry to
have you suppose that I consider that would be sufficient to
make it admissible. I have shown that the duty is impos-
sible to the priest, and I now proceed to show that it is
equally impossible to the sinner. For your Catechism of
Trent requires every one that undertakes this confession to
acknowledge, not only all the mortal sins, but all the wilful
thoughts of mortal sins, which have been indulged during
the past year ! What human being could do this ? And if
he could, would a week or a month suffice for the recital ?
It is no easy task for the best of men to recall, each night,
the sins of- the heart which the past day has witnessed.
And therefore, what must be the practical result of such a
system on the vast majority of your people, but the habit of
trusting to the supposed power of the priest, instead of the
real progress of the soul, .feeling perfectly easy about those
sins which they expect to be forgiven, although they cannot
even recall them to their memory ?
How infinitely superior is the system of the Church of
270 Letter XXXVIII.
England, which requires neither her priests nor her people
to perform impossibilities, nor claims for her ministry a power
which belongs to the Searcher of Hearts alone ! Which
gives her people, regularly, the teaching of the Scriptures
and the Liturgy, and tells them always to examine their own
consciences, and that not lightly, and after the manner of dissem-
blers with God. Which calls upon them solemnly to judge
themselves, that they be not judged of the Lord. And which
pronounces absolution only in the form of the declaration,
that GOD absolveth all those who truly repent and unfeignedly
believe His holy Gospel; or, at the Communion, directs her
priests to pray, in the words of the pure and primitive
Church, " Almighty God, our heavenly Father, who, of His
great mercy, hath promised forgiveness of sins to all those who,
with hearty repentance and true faith, turn unto Him ; Have
mercy upon you, pardon and deliver you from all your sins,
confirm and strengthen you in all goodness, and bring you to
everlasting life, through Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen."
Here, Most Reverend Sir, there is no false pretence, no
impracticable law, no absurd and delusive assumption. We
make no claim, indeed, to the rigorous severity of the an-
cient penitential system, which has passed away from all
Christendom for seven hundred years. But we allow all
communicants to approach, as did the Primitive Church, un-
less they be proved unworthy. We exercise the discipline
of St. Paul by putting away from the Sacrament those
whom we know to have offended ; and we receive them
again, after we have sufficient proof that they have repented
and reformed. We do it, too, like the Apostle, with the
knowledge of our brethren ; and, in conformity with his
precept to Timothy, we abjure the private and irresponsible
judgment of a secret priestly tribunal. We venture not to
lay upon the sinner any formal acts of penance, because, for
Transports no Proof of Truth. 271
such an exercise of priestly authority, there is not the
slightest warrant in Scripture. Neither do we flatter him
with the impious illusion that he can perform a work of sat-
isfaction, which your Trentine Catechism defines to be " a
compensation made by man to God, by doing something in
atonement for the sins which he has committed.'" Neither do
we presume to say, I ABSOLVE THEE, to men, of the reality
of whose repentance we know and can know nothing.
Neither do we dare to usurp the prerogatives of God, who
ALONE FORGIVETH SIN ; nor do we take to ourselves the
honor of Christ's own Majesty, by humbling our brother at
our feet ; nor do we tell him that he must receive our secret
sentence as if he heard the word of the Saviour Himself
saying to him, " Son, be of good cheer, thy sins are forgiven
thee." But on the contrary, we say to him that he cannot
have real pardon, except he seek it from the Lord, with a
contrite heart, a true repentance, and a lively faith. And if
he would know whether he is indeed forgiven, we do not
lead him to rest on the perilous delusion of priestly absolu-
tion, but we direct him, like the holy Athanasius, to dis-
cover it in the fact that the cloud of divine displeasure has
passed away from his conscience, and that he enjoys the
same liberty of addressing God in prayer which he had be-
fore.
As to the transport and excess of joy and comfort which
Dr. Milner, in a garbled extract from Chillingworth, arro-
gates to the private absolution of your confessional, I know
no more of it than Athanasius or Augustine knew, and that
is precisely nothing. But I know that as there may be a
false faith, so there may be a false peace, a false joy, and a
false consolation. And for myself, I would infinitely rather
go down to the grave a mourning penitent, looking in hum-
ble hope to the pardoning mercy of Christ, than seek relief
272 Letter XXXVIII.
in a baseless pretence of priestly power, or borrow trans-
port itself from a delusive superstition.*
* For a fuller examination and detailed account of this whole sub-
ject, I must refer the reader to my book on The History of the Con-
fessional.
The End of Controversy^ Controverted. 273
LETTER XXXIX.
MOST REVEREND SIR :
YOTJR favorite Milner devotes his forty-second letter to
the subject of Indulgences, and occupies a considerable
part of it in proving what an indulgence is not. Thus, he
saith that it is not a license to commit sin, nor a pardon for
future sins, nor a pardon for any sin at all, but only a remis-
sion of the temporal punishments annexed to sin. Neither
are indulgences to be considered as exempting men from
repentance. But especially he saith : " We hold that it
would be a sacrilegious crime in any person whomsoever, to
be concerned in buying or selling them."
The confidence due to these assertions will appear by
and by. In the first place, however, I must remind you of
the express statements of your own historian, Fleury, that
the plenary indulgence was introduced by Pope Urban II.,
to encourage the Crusade, at the close of the eleventh
century. He saith, moreover, that " the indulgence took the
place of wages to the Crusaders."* That it was afterwards
employed in the wars against the heretics, the Moors in
Spain, and generally,! of which he gives numerous in-
stances. It was also attached to the years of the Roman
Jubilee : and, finally, to any work of piety in which the
Popes took a special interest. That the last extensive and
* Fleury, Sixieme Discours Preliminaire, 2, Hist. Ecc., Tom. 18.
t Ib., $ 6.
VOL. II. 12*
274 Letter XXXIX.
public issue of Indulgences was by Pope Leo X., in order
to raise money for the completion of St. Peter's Church at
Rome, is notorious. As is likewise the fact that they were
a matter of open bargain and sale throughout all Europe, and
that the scandal produced by them in this form gave the
first impulse to the Reformation, through the bold and effec-
tive preaching of Luther in Germany.
Now, about all this Dr. Milner is as silent as the grave.
It did not suit his object to tell his simple and ignorant Sa-
lopian correspondents that Rome had introduced this dan-
gerous abuse in the eleventh century, and had practised it
until the Reformation. He calls it a sacrilegious crime for
any one to be concerned in buying and selling indulgences,
but did not choose to inform his friends that of this very
crime the Popes had substantially been guilty, with the
knowledge and assent of all their Councils, Cardinals, and
Bishops, for full four hundred years, until expediency, the
main principle of Roman policy throughout compelled
them to modify the operation. He does not deny, indeed,
that indulgences have been sold, but tells his readers of the
selling of Christ by Judas, and of the advertising of bene-
fices for sale in England ! As if the single act of the traitor
Judas, followed by suicide, had any relation to a, settled prac-
tice of Rome for centuries together ! Or as if the adver-
tising of a benefice was anything more than a public notice
that a certain parish was either vacant, or to be vacated, in
order that some clergyman, properly qualified, might apply
for the place, subject to the approbation of the Bishop, with-
out whose consent he could not be inducted.
This is the quality, doubtless, for which you value Dr.
Milner so highly, that he is not only a dexterous defender,
evading, withholding, and suppressing all the truth which is
inconvenient, but that he is, still more, a bold, unscrupu-
An Indulgence, according to Dr. Milner. 275
lous, and adroit assailant, always ready to strike at his an-
tagonist, without caring whether the spot is vulnerable or
otherwise. For his observation and experience had taught
him that in the battle of the pen, and in the battle of the
person, there is this great difference : In the contest of the
body, the blow which does not tell is counted for nothing
by the spectator, because he sees its failure at the time.
While, on the contrary, in the contest of books, a blow
which does not tell may pass for a very palpable hit, in the-
judgment of the reader, because he sees that it is intended
for a blow, but does not understand the subject sufficiently
to know whether it reaches the mark. Perfectly aware of
this, a writer of conscience considers it his duty to give
both sides of the argument fairly, and to use no reasoning
which he does not himself believe to be just and applica-
ble. But Dr. Milner, like a true Jesuit, seems to have given
his conscience up to the single object of the triumph of Ro-
manism, and therefore he never dreams of the duty of fair-
ness to his absent adversaries, gives only so much of his
own story as suits him, and invariably acts upon the maxim
that to strike at the Church of England is the surest method
of defending the Church of Rome.
I pass on next, however, to his account of what an In-
dulgence is. According to the doctrine of your Church, as
Dr. Milner states it, " The essential guilt and eternal pun-
ishment of sin can only be expiated by the precious merits
of our Redeemer Jesus Christ ; but a certain temporal pun-
ishment God reserves for the penitent himself to endure,
lest the easiness of his pardon should make him careless
about falling back into sin. Hence, satisfaction for this
temporal punishment has been instituted by Christ as a
part of the Sacrament of Penance. Nevertheless, as the
promise of Christ to the Apostles, and St. Peter in par-
276 Letter XXXIX.
ticular, and to their successors, is unlimited, WHATSOEVER
you shall loose on earth shall be loosed also in heaven, hence
the Church believes and teaches that her jurisdiction ex-
tends to this very satisfaction, so as to be able to remit it
wholly or partially, in certain circumstances, by what is
called an Indulgence. St. Paul exercised this power in be-
half of the incestuous Corinthian, at his conversion and the
prayers of the faithful,* and the Church has claimed and
exercised the same power ever since the time of the Apos-
tles down to the present."
That this statement is entirely lame, insufficient, and de-
lusive, is perfectly manifest to every man who knows the
true doctrine of your Church upon the subject. Not one
word does Dr. Milner utter about the real fact, that Indul-
gences are designed to remit to the sinner the torments of
purgatory, after he shall have passed away from the Church
on "earth. Not one word does he say about the treasure
from which the Popes pretend to dispense their power,
namely, in the words of Cardinal Wiseman, the infinite mer-
its of Christ, AND THE PENITENTIAL WORKS PERFORMED BY
THE SAINTS BEYOND WHAT THEIR OWN SINS MIGHT EXACT,
WHICH ARE AVAILABLE TO OTHER MEMBERS OF CHRIST'S
MYSTICAL BODY. This is your doctrine of works of super-
erogation, by which you maintain, that as one drop of the
blood of Christ was sufficient to redeem the world, and as
the saints fulfilled a vast amount of suffering and voluntary
pain, over and above what was required for their salvation,
all the rest of that precious blood and those meritorious
works compose an inexhaustible treasure, which is placed
at the disposal of the Pope, to apply, by his Indulgences, to
the wants of sinners ; so that, by this means, a true satisfao
* 3 Cor., ii. 10.
Indulgences in the Church of England ! 277
tion may be rendered to the justice of God for the purgato-
rial punishment which they would otherwise be obliged to
endure, and their souls may ascend immediately to heaven !
Who would not willingly pay a few shillings for such an
advantage as this ! Or how could any one be so hard-
hearted as to refuse purchasing such a happy release for
the suffering soul of his deceased father or mother ! No
wonder the Popes found this spiritual merchandise profit-
able. It helped to pay the armies of the Crusades. It
helped to extirpate the Albigenses and Waldenses. It
helped to enlist soldiers for many other wars of the Papacy.
It helped to draw enormous gain from the years of Jubilee.
It helped to complete the magnificent edifice of St. Peter's.
It helped to enable the Popes to support a state of more
than regal splendor, and to be the most munificent patrons
of artists, sculptors, poets, and musicians, in the world.
And finally, by the good providence of God, it helped to
bring on the true Reformation of the sixteenth century, by
creating such a scandal against your Church, that the Coun-
cil of Trent was constrained to discourage the public traffic,
although the doctrine itself, with all its other advantages,
remained as before.
I shall not here stop to notice the preposterous attempt of
Dr. Milner to make the restoration of the penitent Co-
rinthian, of whom St. Paul speaks, a warrant for your sys-
tem ; because the whole subject will come up again, in the
examination of your doctrine of Purgatory. But I cannot
pass over the conclusion of his 42d letter, in which he tries
to escape from any further discussion of the matter, by aim-
ing another blow against the Church of England, concern-
ing what he calls " their own Indulgences."
This is, truly, an amusing specimen of his characteristic
effrontery. For he applies the term indulgence to one Canon
278 Letter XXXIX.
which prohibited the commutation of penance, unless for very
weighty causes ; to another, which moderated certain in-
dulgences in the celebration of marriage ; and to a third,
which enacted that no chancellor, commissary, or official,
should commute any penance, without giving account to the
Bishop, who shall see that all such moneys shall be disposed of
for charitable and public uses according to law, saving always
to ecclesiastical officers their due and accustomable fees !
And this is the parallel which your author presents to
your Romish doctrine of Indulgences, notwithstanding there
is hardly a single element in common between them ! These
petty details, though never made a topic of controversy by
any one, are here paraded with a flourish of ridiculous im-
portance, as worthy to be placed in competition with a
spiritual claim of Papal power which set all Europe in a
flame ! which embraced the condition of every departed
soul ! which asserted the dominion of the Pope over the ap-
plication of Christ's blood and the superfluous good works
of the saints, so as to relieve the sinner from Purgatory, and
admit him at once to heaven ! which addressed itself to
every heart and purse in Christendom, and undertook to arm
warriors, and replenish exhausted treasuries, and, far be-
yond them all, to administer a false peace to the trembling
consciences of millions ! which assumed a higher efficacy
than all the appointed means of grace, and promised the
sinner, for a few shillings or crowns, and by a single sweep-
ing act of universal prerogative, a surer and speedier ac-
ceptance at the hand of God than he could gain by the or-
dinary faith and obedience of a lifetime !
We might well commiserate the understanding of any
man who should gravely compare the humble silk-worm of
our garden with the devouring anaconda of the East. And
the puerile sophistry of your favorite author is about equally
An Indulgence according to the Pope. 279
ifc,
respectable. I can only account for the fact that a writer
of his talents could descend to such trifling as this, by call-
ing to mind the associations of his priestly office, which led
him so constantly to expect his own flock to believe a vast
amount of marvellous absurdity, that even when addressing
the public, notwithstanding his peculiar art and tact, he
could not always preserve a decent regard for cjjpimon
sense and reason.
The best evidence which I can give my readers of the
true character of an Indulgence will be from the bull of the
Pope himself, published in A. D. 1825, for the Jubilee :
" During this year," saith this bull, " which we truly call
the acceptable time, and time of salvation, &c., we have
resolved, in virtue of the authority given to us by Heaven,
fully to unlock that sacred treasure, composed of the merits,
sufferings, and virtues of Christ our Lord, and His Virgin
Mother, and of all the saints, which the Author of salvation
has intrusted to our dispensation. We proclaim that the
year of atonement and pardon, of redemption and grace, of
remission and indulgence, is arrived ; in which we know
that those benefits which the old law, the messenger of
things to come, brought every fiftieth year to the Jewish
people, are renewed in a much more sacred manner by the
accumulation of spiritual blessings through Him by whom
came peace and truth. During which year of Jubilee, we
mercifully give and grant, in the Lord, a plenary Indulgence,
remission, and pardon of all their sins, to all the faithful of
Christ, truly penitent, and confessing their sins, and receiv-
ing the Holy Communion, who shall visit the churches of
llessed Paul and Peter, fyc., and shall pour forth their pious
prayers to God for the exaltation of the Church, the extirpa-
tion of heresies, the concord of Catholic princes, and the
safety and tranquillity of Christian people."
280 Letter XXXIX.
" But you, venerable brethren," continues the Pope, in
another part of the same bull, "Patriarchs, Primates,
Archbishops, Bishops, co-operate with these our cares -and
desires. To you it belongs to explain, with perspicuity,
the power of indulgences ; what is their efficacy, not only in
the remission of canonical penances, but also the temporal
punishment due to divine justice for sin ; and what succor
is afforded out of this heavenly treasure, from the merits of
Christ and His saints, to such as have departed real peni-
tents in God's love, yet before they had duly satisfied, by
fruits worthy of penance, for sins of commission and omission,
and are now purifying in the fires of purgatory, that an en-
trance may be opened for them into their eternal country,
where nothing defiled is admitted"
Here we have the whole view of the matter plainly de-
clared the' plenary Indulgence, remission, and pardon of
all their sins the remission of the temporal punishment
due to divine Justice the delivery of the souls of the de-
parted-faithful from the fires of purgatory, that an entrance
may be opened to their eternal country, where nothing de-
filed is admitted, that is, to heaven. But this is not granted
for nothing. It is necessary that they should visit the
churches of St. Peter and St. Paul, at Rome, besides offering
certain prayers, &c. And the privilege, in this form, is
confined to the year of Jubilee, which comes four times in
each century, and always brings a crowd of pious believers
in the Papal prerogative to receive the promised benefit,
and to dispense a vast amount of substantial treasure in re-
turn for the spiritual gift supposed to be conferred.
But the liberality of the Pope does not end here, for it
appears, from your book called True Piety, prepared ex-
pressly for your people in the United States, that a Plenary
Indulgence may be obtained without travelling so far, on
Indulgences sold, 281
the following days in every year: " 1st, From Christmas
Eve to Epiphany. 2d, From the first Sunday in Lent to
the second, inclusive. 3d, From Palm Sunday to Low
Sunday, inclusively, except Good-Friday and Holy Satur-
day. 4th, From Whit-Sunday to the end of the Octave of
Corpus Christi. 5th, On the five great festivals of the
Blessed Mary, with their Octaves. 6th, On the festivals of
St. Peter and St. Paul, of St. Michael the Archangel, and
within their Octaves."* Thus it appears that a plenary In-
dulgence, for any individual, or for the souls in Purgatory,
inay be had on nearly half the days in the year. And you
know, Most Reverend Sir, that they cannot be had without
the money. Neither promises nor credit will suffice. In
the words of the merchant, " It is a cash transaction."
Yet Dr. Milner presumes to say, " we hold that it would
be a sacrilegious crime in any person whomsoever to be con-
cerned in buying or selling them .'" How are we to under-
stand this ? Perhaps your people give the price, and the
priest gives the indulgence ; and so, as it is a gift on both
sides, there is no buying or selling in the case at all !
Certainly, that must be quite conclusive and satisfactory.
It is well known, however, that immense numbers of
ptenary indulgences are constantly exported to the Papal
States of South America, and as we cannot doubt the per-
fect impartiality of your Popes in the matter, we must take
it for granted that all the rest of your spiritual territories are
equally well supplied. Still, the Council of Trent, says
Milner, " used its utmost pains to prevent" the sale of indul-
gences. Was this really so 1 Let us look a moment at
the record itself, and it will be easy to answer the ques-
tion.
* True Piety, New- York Edition of 1826, p. 226.
282 Letter XXXIX.
" Decree concerning Indulgences."
" As the power of conferring indulgences has been granted
by Christ to the Church, and has been used from the most
ancient times, this Holy Synod teaches and commands that
it is to be retained in the Church, as highly salutary to
Christian people, and approved by the authority of the holy
Councils, and condemns with anathema those who either as-
sert that they are useless, or deny .that the Church has
power to grant them. It desires, nevertheless, that moder-
ation be observed in conferring them, according to the old
and approved custom of the Church, lest ecclesiastical dis-
cipline be weakened by too much facility. And this Synod,
desiring that the abuses which have broken in upon them,
and by occasion of which the excellent name of Indulgences
is blasphemed by heretics, should be amended and cor-
rected, ordains generally by this present decree, that all those
WICKED MERCHANDISINGS (pravos quosstus], in disposing of
them, from which the cause of abuses has flowed in upon
Christian people, be ALTOGETHER ABOLISHED. So that the
privilege of Indulgences may be dispensed piously, holily,
and uncorruptly to all the faithful."*
And these are the words by which the Council of Trent,
as Dr. Milner presumed to assert, " used its utmost pains to
prevent this detestable simony." And this is his authority for
telling his readers that you hold it to be a sacrilegious crime
in any person whomsoever to be " concerned in buying or
selling indulgences."
But did the Council say anything of the kind ? Not at
all. It only recommended the old moderation, and abolished
the wicked merchandisings which had caused scandal against
* Hard. Con., Tom. 10, p. 190 ; Con. Trid., Sess. 25, A. D 156a
cap. 1.
Wicked Mercliandisings. 283
the Church from the heretics, whom it condemned with a
curse, according to its usual charity. And therefore, Most
Reverend Sir, Indulgences are bought and sold as much as
ever, only it is done quietly and prudently, with how much
" piety, holiness and uncorruptness," is not for me to decide.
It may be said, indeed, that Leo X. erred in managing
the work with so much publicity, not only dividing Europe
into districts (which is done still), but appointing men like
Tetzel, who cried up the value of the article in foolish ser-
mons, and, by his extravagant commendations and impieties,
brought the whole matter into general contempt. Your
Church, however, was then triumphant. The followers of
Wickliffhad been imprisoned and burned alive in England.
Wickliff's bones had been dug up and consumed, and the
ashes scattered upon the water. Huss and Jerome had
been martyred in Bohemia. What had the Pope to fear,
that he should have used any special caution ? How could
he have foreseen that from this little cloud, no larger than a
man's hand, should come forth a storm which shook Europo
to its centre, and scattered the modern corruptions of Ro-
manism to the four winds of heaven ?
The Council of Trent, therefore, was hardly just in talk-
ing about wicked merchandisings. They could not have
been esteemed very wicked, since I cannot find that any of
the agents were punished for their faults. The scandal
raised by Tetzel's folly began in 1517, with the opposition,
of Luther, and the Council enacted its decree in 1563, after
forty-six years' experience of the consequences, when Sax-
ony, Germany, Switzerland, Denmark, Norway, Holland,
part of France, Ireland, and the whole *of England and
Scotland, had cast off their allegiance to the Papal crown.
And doubtless, if the Providence of God had not raised up
the men who were His instruments in opening the eyes of
284 Letter XXXIX.
Christendom to the crying corruptions of the Church, the
wicked merchandisings of Indulgences would have passed off
without any special notice, as many things far more wicked
had done before.
Such, then, Most Reverend Sir, as you well know, is the
true history and present state of your Indulgences. Such
is the evidence on which Dr. Milner rested his strong and
unqualified assertions. I leave it to your skill in Roman
casuistry to defend the veracity of your favorite in the best
way you can ; only regretting that the cause of your Church
should require the services of an advocate who was so
ready and dexterous a master in the school of misrepresen-
tation.
The End of Controversy, Controverted. 285
LETTER XL.
MOST REVEREND SIR :
IN the 43d letter of Dr. Milner, he presents yonr Church's
doctrine of Purgatory, and Prayers for the dead, which, as is
usual with all your writers, he considers so connected, that
the allowance of the latter proves the former of necessity.
This assumption, however, I shall plainly show to be quite
unwarrantable. It is true that the doctrine of Purgatory
includes prayers for the dead ; but it is perfectly untrue that
prayers for the dead necessarily include the doctrine of
Purgatory.
He also exhibits his usual skill in proving that there is
an intermediate state assigned to the departed soul, the same
which in the Apostles' Creed is called Hell, that is, the in-
visible place, or the place of departed spirits, as our Rubric
explains it. But who, belonging to the Church of England,
or to any other orthodox Church, doubts this ? And why
does he take such pains to prove it, as if it were a point in
controversy ? Was it in order to gain the advantage of
mystifying his reader's mind, by leading him to take the
evidence in favor of an intermediate state, as the evidence
for the peculiar kind of intermediate state expressed by the
term Purgatory 1
But as, in his previous letter, he took such excellent care
not to inform his readers what an Indulgence really signified,
so, in the present letter, he takes equally good care not to
say what Purgatory signifies. He merely quotes the Coun-
286 Letter XL.
cil of Trent, declaring that " there is a Purgatory, and the
souls detained there are helped by the prayers of the faithful,
and particularly by the acceptable sacrifice of the altar." And
this, he asserts, is all that is " necessary to be believed on the
subject."
Truly, if a question of religious doctrine were not in-
volved, this would be amusing. For when I ask, what do
you mean when you profess that there is a Purgatory 1 nei-
ther the Council nor Dr. Milner condescends to give me
any satisfaction. But would the Council of Trent have
used this word without defining it, if it had not already
been a well-known term in the Church, understood at that
day by all men \ And why did not your favorite author
give his readers the advantage of the explanation, unless it
were with the hope that inasmuch as many of them might
be simple-minded Protestants, knowing little or nothing of
the real system of Rome, they might be induced 10 believe
that there was very little difference, if any, betvreen their
own faith in an intermediate state, and the doctrine of Pur-
gatory ?
The next specimen of your favorite author's disingenu-
ousness appears in his assertion that the fathers taught your
modern Roman doctrine, and that all the Oriental Churches
hold the same. He says, indeed, that those Churches do
not believe the souls in Purgatory are punished with mate-
rial fire. And adds : " Neither does our Church require a
belief of this opinion, and accordingly, she made a union
with the Greeks in the Council of Florence, on their barely
confessing and subscribing the aforesaid two Articles."
Here, he uses a Jesuitical subterfuge by qualifying the word
" fire," with the adjective material, for it is incontroverti-
ble that your Church holds the punishment of the souls in
Purgatory by FIKE, although you do not say it is material
Prayer for the Dead.
287
fire, because that would not be consistent with the condi-
tion of the soul, in its disembodied state. How far your
favorite is reliable in his representation of the sentiments of
the Fathers and of the Oriental Churches, will be shown
presently.
Lastly, he winds up, as usual, by striking at the Church
of England, Luther, Calvin, &c. Of his charges against
others, I shall say nothing, because, as I have frequently
stated, my object is confined to the vindication of my own
communion. But with respect to his accusations against
ourselves, they have no bearing on the points at issue. It
is true, doubtless, that the first Prayer Book of Edward VI.
contained a special prayer for the departed. But Cranmer
became convinced of its inexpediency, and it was expunged.
It is true, likewise, that many of our old divines have
spoken favorably of such prayers, while they entirely con-
demned your doctrine of Purgatory. As to his other quota-
tions from later writers, I do not conceive myself obliged
to examine whether they are correctly made or not, since
it is plain, on his own statement, that they have no proper
relation to the points in controversy ; and even if they had,
I cannot allow the right of their authors to misrepresent
their Church, or advance their private speculation as a part
of her received doctrine.
His conclusion, that your purgatorial purification is con-
formable to the dictates of natural religion, and agreeable
to the distinction which the mercy and justice of God will
observe in rendering to every man according to his deeds, is a
mere rhetorical flourish, which has nothing to do with the
question. Our faith is to be regulated not by natural, but by
revealed religion not by the notions of " Plato, Virgil, or
Mahomet," but by the teaching of the Bible. And as to
the distinction necessary to be supposed, in the future state,
288 Letter XL.
between the various conditions of the redeemed, it is as
fully provided for without Purgatory as with it.
Having thus noticed the general heads of your favorite's
43d letter, I shall proceed to examine his argument in de-
tail ; but I must first supply his omissions by stating what is
your Church's doctrine on the subject of Purgatory, as
briefly and as fairly as I can.
You hold that after the penitent transgressor has received
the pardon of his sins, through the atonement of Christ, and
by the act of priestly absolution, there remains a debt of
temporal punishment due to the justice of God } which must be
strictly paid, either in this life, or in the intermediate state
beyond the grave. That penance is imposed by the priest,
in order to satisfy the divine justice for this temporal penalty .
That nevertheless, none but the most eminent saints are
able to satisfy it so completely as to escape a large amount
of suffering which still remains to be accomplished, and
therefore that all souls, except a very few, do certainly pass,
at death, into a PURGATORY, where they are TORMENTED BY
FIRE (not necessarily material fire, but fire notwithstanding),
until the debt be paid. That out of this purgatorial tor-
ment, the departed souls can do nothing to relieve them-
selves, but that they may be relieved partly by the prayers
of the Church on earth, especially by Masses, performed by
the priests for that express purpose, and by the plenary In-
dulgences of the Popes, who can apply for their benefit the
merits and sufferings of Christ, and the merits and suffer-
ings of the Virgin and the saints, which they are supposed
to have laid up, over and above what was required for their
own salvation, and of which those Popes are supposed to be
the sole dispensers. That this Purgatory must continue
until the end of the world, and will only cease when Christ
shall come again to judge the quick and the dead. That
Masses for the Dead.
289
its torture is intense beyond all bodily suffering. And
finally, that all who pass through it, or who are relieved by
the. Masses of the priest or the Indulgence of the Pope, go
straightway to heaven.
It is obvious, at the slightest glance, that this doctrine is
the strongest basis of your priestly power over the fears of
your people. It is the tei'ror of Purgatory which exalts
your imaginary dominion in the unseen world of departed
spirits. It is the terror of Purgatory which invests your
official sway Avith such tremendous influence. Yea, it is in
Purgatory that the priests and the Pope can reign without
control. In the present world, every one may see that your
Masses and your Indulgences are far inferior in effect to the
prayers of other Christians. But in the place of departed
spirits, you may claim the privileges of God, without the
danger of disproof, for no one can come from thence to con-
tradict you.
It is equally obvious that the doctrine of Purgatory is of
vast importance to your temporal support. Masses for the
dead are of far more pecuniary value than Masses for the
living. Indulgences, I grant, have sometimes been cheap
enough ; but on the whole, their price is a serious item of
the priestly and the papal income. Arid therefore, Most
Reverend Sir, it must be granted that your writers have
many cogent reasons for their zeal in defending your claims ;
and it is to be feared that there are very few amongst you
who refuse to sympathize with the Council of Trent, which
so emphatically pronounced its hearty anathema upon the
heretics, for daring to question their validity.
And now let me pay all due attention to your proofs,
which you profess to derive, first, from Scripture, secondly'
from the primitive fathers, and thirdly, from the ancient
practice of praying for the dead.
VOL. II.
13
290 Letter XL.
Your favorite author begins his Biblical evidence with a
passage from 2d Maccabees, which I have already demon-
strated in my 17th letter to be no part of the admitted
Canon of Scripture, since it was rejected by Origen, Je-
rome, Cyril, Epiphanius, Pope Gregory I., Pope Gelasius,
the Council of Rome, the Council of Laodicea, the Coun-
cil of Aix-la-Chapelle, and the so-called Apostolic Canons.
But let us see, nevertheless, what it is worth, in our present
subject of controversy. The statement of the historian is
the following, viz. : that Judas Maccabeus sent 12,000
drachmas of silver to Jerusalem for sacrifices, to be offered
for his soldiers, slain in battle, on which he makes this ob-
servation : " It is therefore," saith he, " a holy and a whole-
some thought to pray for the dead, that they may lie loosed
from their sins."
Unfortunately, however, for the doctrine of Purgatory,
this passage proves quite too much. For it appears that
those soldiers who had perished in the battle were found to
have had under their coats "some of the donaries of the
idols of Jamnia, which the law forbiddeth to the Jews, so
that all saw plainly that for this cause they ivere slain."* In
other words, they were cut off for the crime of IDOLATRY,
and died IN MORTAL SIN. But the Church of Rome holds
such to be damned, beyond recovery ; and, according to
your own doctrine, it would be utterly sacrilegious to pray
for them at all. The writer of the 2d Book of the Macca-
bees, therefore, whoever he was, shows himself to have been
altogether at fault in the religious aspect of the matter. The
probability seems to be, that Judas Maccabeus had, in his
own mind, the case of the army of Israel, who were de-
feated at Ai on account of the sin of Achan,f and that the
* 2 Mac. xii. 40.
t Joshua, ch. vii.
Baptism for the Dead. 291
money which, he sent for the offering of sacrifices was not
on behalf of the deceased idolaters, but on behalf of the living
array, lest they should be involved in the sin of their com-
panions. But be that as it may, the passage is perfectly
worthless to your cause, since, if we adopt the statement of
the historian, Judas committed a grievous mistake, accord-
ing to the judgment of Rome herself, by having sacrifices
offered for men who were, so far as human knowledge could
ascertain, utterly excluded from all hope of salvation.
Your author's next attempt to borrow authority from Scrip-
ture is equally unfortunate. " That the Jews," saith he,
" were in the habit of practising some religious rites for the
relief of the departed at the beginning of Christianity, is
clear from St. Paul's first Epistle to the Corinthians, who
mentions them, without any censure." And in the note, he
quotes the passage, " Else what shall they do who are bap-
tized for the dead, if the dead rise not at all ? Why are they
then baptized for them .?"* But this text, properly under-
stood, has no relation to the subject. I suppose he would
hardly contend for the interpretation of the Marcionite here-
tics, which Chrysostom describes in his 40th Homily, and
treats it with derision as an impious mockery. For those
heretics, when one of their catechumens died without bap-
tism, administered the sacrament to the senseless corpse, a
living man being hid under the bed, and making the re-
sponses of the baptismal office in the name of the departed.
Chrysostom himself, however, rightly explains the passage
as referring to the connection of Baptism with the funda-
mental doctrine, that as in Adam all died, even so, in Christ,
shall all be made alive. Hence, all who come to Baptism,
are obliged to PROFESS THEIR FAITH IN THE RESURRECTION.
* 1 Cor., xv. 29.
292 Letter XL.
Why, therefore, argues the Apostle, are they baptized for the
dead, if the dead rise not at all 1 That is, Why do they,
who are dead under the sentence of the law, receive Bap-
tism, if there be no Resurrection no remedy for death,
secured in the Gospel 1 Why are we, who are dead in
sin, baptized in order that we may rise again with Christ,
if the dead rise not at all ?* The same exposition is given, .
Most Reverend Sir, by your own annotator upon Tertullian,
who, in his Treatise on the Resurrection, likewise con-
demned this vicarious administration of Baptism, saying,
that the soul is ^sanctified, not by the washing, but by the an-
swer (of faith. )f But, above all, your own Douay Bible
furnishes a commentary, in which, there are no less than
three different meanings assigned to the text, plainly proving
how your own doctors differ, while not one of the whole
three is sustained by the fathers, to whose exposition the
Council of Trent professes to confine you ! And yet Dr.
Milner, with his usual confidence, saith that the case is
" dear" from a passage the true sense of which you refuse
to learn from your canonized Chrysostom, although you
have not settled upon any other sense among yourselves !
He next asserts that the Jews, to this day, " continue to
pray for their deceased brethren ;" as if the practice of the
Jews, unsustained by their own Scriptures, were a rule to
the Church of Christ ! It is a pity, however, since he
thought fit to refer to them at all, that he did not tell his
readers the whole story, by honestly stating, that although,
the Jews pray for the dead, yet they reject, as an utter
abomination, your doctrine of Purgatory. This, at least
would have been fair, and would have gone far, of itself, to
* S. Chrysostomi Horn. xl. in Ep. ad Corin., cap. 15.
t Tertul., p. 355, with the note.
Paying the last Mite. 293
show that there is no necessary connection between the
offering of prayer for the departed, and the belief in your
purgatorial torture.
The next two passages which Dr. Milner cites from the
New Testament are not liable to any objection, as he does
not pretend to infer from them anything more than the doc-
trine of an intermediate state for the disembodied spirits of
the just, which we hold in the same sense as the fathers.
But his quotation from St. Luke* is altogether irrelevant.
The passage, as given in your own Bible, reads as follows :
" When thou goest with thine adversary to the prince,
whilst thou art in the way, endeavor to be delivered from
him, lest perhaps he draw thee to the judge, and the judge
deliver thee to the exactor, and the exactor cast thee into
prison. I say to thee, thou shalt not go out thence, till thou
payest the very last mite"
He undertakes to assure his readers that the fathers in-
terpreted the prison, here mentioned, to be the place of de-
parted spirits. But he must have been aware that the fash-
ion which Origen introduced, of looking for mystical and
allegorical senses in every text, is no ground for any positive
article of doctrine. On the face of the passage, it is plain
that our Lord was not speaking of the state of the departed
at all ; His object being merely to enforce the same precept
of peace and non-resistance, which He laid down in His
sermon on the Mount.f And it is equally evident that if
the words were applicable to your Purgatory, it is so far
from being favorable, that it is rather a decisive proof
against you. For the Saviour saith, Thou shalt not go out
thence, till THOU HAST PAID THE VERY LAST MITE : while
you make it a point of faith, Most Reverend Sir, that the
* Chap, xii., 59. t St. Mat., v.*25, 39, &c.
294 Letter XL.
poor soul in Purgatory cannot possibly pay anything ! His
debt to the temporal justice of God must all be paid by
others for him, viz., by the priest, and the Pope, and the
friends whom he has left in the Church on earth. So that
here, as in many other places, the attempt of your unscru-
pulous advocate to make the word of Christ speak according
to your system, only serves to furnish a new testimony
against your error.
The main text, however, which Dr. Milner affects to rely
on, is in St. Paul's first Epistle to the Corinthians,* where
he saith, " The day of the Lord shall be revealed by fire, and
the fire shall try every man's work, of what sort it is. If any
man's work abide, he shall receive a reward. If any man's
work be burnt, he shall suffer loss, but he himself shall be saved,
yet so as by fire."
And here, again, the Sc- "'pture quoted is directly opposed
to your whole doctrine. For the day of the Lord is the day
of Judgment, the constant sense which the phrase bears in
the writings of the Apostle. Whereas Purgatory is sup-
posed to be the period of the intermediate state, comprising
thousands of years, and ending when the day of Judgment
begins. By what kind of transubstantiation do you convert
what St. Paul saith about the final Judgment, into what you
teach concerning a previous state, which must be closed
before ?
Again, the Apostle, in treating of the Judgment, speaks
of the great sentence to be delivered after the Resurrection*
when the whole man, body and soul, stands before the tri-
bunal of Christ. But your Purgatory supposes the condi-
tion of the soul in its separate state, and has no relation
whatf fer to the body !
* Chap, iii., 13-15.
Saved, so as by Fire, 295
Again, St. Paul, when he speaks of the fire (as he else-
where saith,* Our God is a consuming fire], applies it to the
works of believers. But Purgatory applies its fire to the
soul itself, and has no relation to the works at all.
And again, the Apostle declares, that the believer, even
though his work be burnt, and therefore he himself shall
suffer loss, by missing the rewards of an active faith, shall
nevertheless be saved, yet so as by (or through) fire. The
language plainly imports that the believer will thus be saved
with extreme difficulty, or, as it is elsewhere expressed, he
shall be plucked as a brand from the burning. But how does
this agree with your doctrine of Purgatory ? For you do
not pretend that the fire of Purgatory saves any one. You
hold, on the contrary, that every one who enters Purgatory
has already had his sins forgiven, and must undoubtedly be
saved at last. And the only use of your intermediate fire
is to provide a state of torture for the soul, out of which the
priest and the Pope can deliver him, so as to shorten his
term of suffering. But it is one thing to save the sinner.
And it is quite a different thing to alleviate the previous
chastisement which his sins have deserved. In addition to
which, the language of St. Paul opposes your doctrine in
this, that he saith, so as by fire, while your doctrine leaves
out the words so as, importing a comparison or similitude,
and makes your Purgatory consist of fire itself. Thus,
there is not a single item of the whole text which will
serve the purpose for which your favorite author advances
it so confidently. And I shall presently show that an au-
thority no less than that of Augustine himself entirely con-
demns your modern interpretation.
There is yet another passage, however, which Dr. Milner,
* Heb , xii. 29.
296 Letter XL.
in common with most of your theologians, cites from St.
Mat. xii. 32, where our Saviour, speaking of the blasphemy
against the Holy Ghost, saith that this sin shall not he for-
given either in this world or in the world to come. " These
words," saith your author, " clearly imply that some sins are
forgiven in the world to come." To which I answer that
they imply no such thing, but, on the contrary, state most
emphatically that this especial sin shall never be forgiven.
For were it otherwise, the blessed Redeemer would have
stated what your own Church holds to be a gross error.
You know, Most Reverend Sir, that yowc Purgatory is set
forth, not as a place in which sin can be forgiven, but only
as a place in which the temporal punishment due to the di-
vine justice may be remitted, after the sin has been fully par-
doned by the absolution of the priest in the tribunal of pen-
ance. What a strait you must be in for scriptural authority,
when your writers are not only obliged to put a false sense
upon the words of the Apostle, but even to force what you
hold to be heretical doctrine on the Saviour Himself!
I conclude the scriptural branch of the argument by re-
curring to the passages which Dr. Milher cited in the former
letter on the subject of Indulgences, where the same abor-
tive effort is made to sustain your modern fallacies by texts
which have nothing to do with your Church's doctrine.
Thus he saith, with admirable complacency : " I suppose
that no person who is versed in the Bible will deny that
many instances occur there of God's remitting the essential
guilt of sin, and the eternal punishment due to it, and yet
leaving a temporary punishment to be endured by the penitent
sinner. Thus, for example, the sentence of spiritual death
and everlasting torments was remitted to our first father,
upon his repentance, but not that of corporal death. Thus,
also, when God reversed His severe sentence against the
Temporal Punishment due to Sin. 297
idolatrous Israelites, he added, Nevertheless, in the day when
I visit, I will visit their sin upon them* Thus, again, when
the inspired Nathan said to the model of penitents, David,
The Lord hath put away thy sin, he added, Nevertheless, tfie
child that is born unto tfiee shall die.] Finally, when David's
heart smote him, after he had numbered the people, the Lord,
in pardoning him, offered him by his prophet, Gad, the
choice of three temporal punishments war, famine, and
pestilence."
Here is the whole list of texts, which Dr. Milner claims
as a justification of your doctrine that the Almighty exacts,
in every case, a debt of temporal punishment proportioned to
the sins which He has forgiven ; that this temporal punish-
ment must be strictly paid, either by penance in this world,
or by sufferings in the terrible fire of Purgatory ; and that
the Church on earth, through the Masses of the priest, or
the indulgence of the Popes, possesses the sole prerogative
of remitting the debt, and freeing the departed spirit from
its rigid exaction !
But how do these passages prove a single article of your
modern doctrine ? Adam, if he repented, was doubtless
forgiven, and yet he suffered the sentence of the fall. Dust
thou art, and unto dust thou shalt return, because the prom-
ised Gospel was never intended to supersede that sentence,
but to give man life from the dead. What has this fact to
do with Purgatory and Indulgences ?
Israel, on the intercession of Moses, was pardoned with
respect to the sin of idolatry in worshipping the golden calf,
yet the Lord said that when their other sins should provoke
His correction, He would chastise them for this among the
rest. What had this to do with purgatorial fire in the fu-
* Exod., xxxii. 34. t 2 Kings, xii. 14.
VOL. n. 13*
298 Letter XL.
ture world, and the power of priests and Popes to deliver
them from the divine decree ?
David, on his deep and sincere compunction of soul
under the faithful rebuke of the Prophet Nathan, was for-
given, yet he was chastened by the death of his child.
Does this prove that God exacted a debt of temporal punish-
ment proportioned to the enormity of the monarch's sins of
adultery and murder? Or can it be inferred from it that
David would otherwise have been obliged to pass, after his
own death, into purgatorial flames ?
Once more, the same David sinned by indulging the pride
of his heart in the increase of his people, and ordered a
census to be taken in opposition to the divine law. And
the Lord rebuked him, by the Prophet Gad, and decreed a
chastisement which should be as public as the sin, only giv-
ing him his choice whether it should be war, pestilence, or
famine. The penitent king immediately acknowledged his
offence, and chose pestilence, because he would rather fall
into the hands of the Lord, than into the hands of men, and
knew that God was very pitiful and of tender mercy. How
does this prove your doctrine of purgatorial agony beyond
the grave? Or what possible bearing has it on the power
of priests and Popes to remit it ?
But Dr. Milner tells us that " St. Paul exercised this
power in behalf of the incestuous Corinthian, at his conver-
sion and the prayers of the faithful.* And the Church has
claimed the same power ever since the time of the Apostles
down to the present." I would to God that the Church had
been content to exercise the power of the Apostle, since
about that there never was, and never could be, one word
of controversy. But what did St. Paul on that occasion 1
* 2 Cor., ii. 10.
The repentant Corinthian. 299
Precisely what we all do to this day. He directed the in-
cestuous Corinthian, in his first Epistle, to be put away from
the communion of the faithful ; and afterwards, when it was
ascertained that his repentance was sincere, and that " the
rebuke was sufficient? the Apostle, in his second Epistle,
tells the Corinthian Church that they should now "forgive
him, and comfort him, lest perhaps he be swallowed up with
overmuch sorrow."* Arid this restoration of the repentant
and reformed sinner is taken as an authority for the PAPAL
INDULGENCE ! Where, I pray you, Most Reverend Sir, is
the resemblance between them ? St. Paul gives directions
concerning a single penitent, of whose case he was fully
informed. The Pope issues millions of pardons to people
of whom he knows nothing. St. Paul recommends the
restoration of the reformed sinner to the communion of the
Church. The Pope issues his Indulgences to those who
are in communion already. St. Paul says not one word
about Indulgence, but evidently rests his advice on the
Christian duty of charity and reason, because the end of
discipline had been fully attained, and it was contrary to
the law of love that the Corinthians should suffer their
penitent brother to be swallowed up with overmuch sorrow.
The Pope tmlocks his special treasure of his own grace, and
connects it, not with the just claims of fraternal affection
and pity, but with the Crusades, or the war against the
Turks, or the extirpation, of heretics by fire and sword, or
the completion of St. Peter's, or the supplying of his OWB
coffers. St.. Paul limits his authority to the Church, on
earth. The Pope extends his sceptre over the place of
departed spirits. St. Paul desires to free the penitent from,
the suspension of his regular Christian privileges. The
Pope undertakes to free millions from the torments of Pur*.
* 2 Cor., ii. 6, 7,
300 Letter XL.
gatory. St. Paul seeks only to restore a single reformed
transgressor to the feast of the Christian Eucharist. The
Pope sends unknown multitudes straight to heaven ! St.
Paul gives his judgment without money and without price.
The Pope grants his Indulgence for " a consideration."
And yet you claim the act of the Apostle as a scriptural
warrant for the Papal prerogative ! Which shall we most
admire, the outrageous absurdity, or the cool effrontery of
such an argument ; which yet, by dint of priestly manage-
ment, united to the policy of princes, and operating on the
ignorance of your deluded people, has gained so extensive
a mastery over the sense and reason of mankind !
But now, having exhausted his Biblical evidence, Dr. Mil-
ner turns to the fathers, " on which head" he has the confi-
dence to say that we are " so unwise as to challenge" the
priesthood of Rome. Yet it will be easy to show that there
are few points in our controversy where the challenge may
be made with a greater certainty of victory for the truth.
And in order that my readers may be able to anticipate, as
it were, the true state of this sort of evidence, I shall pre-
mise the candid acknowledgment of your own celebrated
men, the Benedictine editors of the works of St. Ambrose.
" It is not surprising," say they, " that Ambrose should
have written as he has about the state of departed souls,
but it seems to be almost incredible how uncertain and how
various the holy fathers have been upon the same question,
from the very times of the Apostles to the Pontificate of
Gregory XL, and the Council of Florence, that is, the pe-
riod of almost fourteen hundred years. For not only does
one father differ from another, as, in questions not yet defined
by the Church, was likely to happen, but they are not even
found to be consistent ivith themselves."'*
* S. Ambros. Op., Tom. 1, p. 385, Admpnitio ad lectorem.
The Admission by the Benedictines. 301
Here, then, is an honest confession, forced by the neces-
sity of the case from those eminent scholars who are per-
haps the best qualified, among your whole body of divines,
to deliver a decisive judgment on the question. For I need
not tell you, Most Reverend Sir, that the Benedictines have
earned themselves a reputation beyond all others, in this
very field of patristic learning. Their editions of the fathers
are the most prized, for their accuracy, their critical dis
crimination, and the admirable fulness and fairness of the
copious index which invariably accompanies each volume.
And here you have the plain expression of their unhesitating .
opinion, that the fathers cannot be taken as a guide by your
Church, upon the state of departed souls, and that your doc-
trine in relation to the matter was not settled by yourselves
until the Council of Florence, in the fifteenth century !
There is no escape from this admission. It puts an end
to the absurd pretence that your Purgatorial system can be
founded on the Scriptures, on the tradition of the Apostles,
or on the faith of the primitive Church. You have, indeed,
been so long repeating the idle boast that the Christianity
of Rome has always been the same from the beginning
(since this only could be truly CATHOLIC), that your writers
labor, hard and ingeniously, to sustain the delusion, lest the
world should lose confidence in your infallibility. But the
learned amongst you know that this is all moonshine. And
when they speak their real sentiments, they are compelled
to abandon the absurd claim, and rest their faith (if faith it
may be called) either upon the doctrine of Development, or
upon the supposed authority of the Councils to establish such
articles of belief, from time to time, as they may find it ex-
pedient to sanction. In either form, you make the Church
an Autocrat. The Bible has long ceased to be your' guide.
The fathers have ceased to be your oracles. You cannot
* 302 Letter XL.
help, of course, the profession of the highest reverence for
both, and you give them their old titles of honor, for titles
of honor cost you nothing, when the ties of obedience are
broken. But your RULE OF FAITH is the modern Church,
and the appeal to the Scriptures and the fathers is only kept
up for the sake of the multitude.
Nevertheless, as I have undertaken the task of following
your favorite champion, Dr. Milner, through the whole of
his pretended proofs and specious sophistry, I shall proceed
to consider the evidence which he adduces from the fathers
in support of your Purgatorial system.
He begins by quoting Chrysostom, who properly belongs
rather to the fifth than the fourth century, as he died A. D.
407. " It was not without good reason," saith this father,
" ORDAINED BY THE APOSTLES, that mention should be made
of the dead in the tremendous mysteries, because they knew
that these would receive great benefit from it." But if Dr.
Milner had gone on a little farther, to see how Chrysostom
defends his assertion, he would have given his readers a
much fairer view of the testimony. Let me supply the
deficiency.
" For in that time," continues Chrysostom, " when the
whole people stand, with hands stretched out, with the com-
pany of priests, and that sacrifice, impressed with horror full
of veneration, how can we do otherwise than please God by
praying for the departed 1 But this truly concerns those
who have died in the faith. For the Catechumens are not
worthy of this consolation, but are destitute of all help ex-
cept one. And what is this 1 It is lawful to give alms to
the poor for them, and from this they receive some refreshment.
For God wills that we shoiild give help to each other.
Why else has He commanded that we should pray for peace,
and for the welfare of the world ? That we should pray
Prayers for the Dead. 303
for all men ? Amongst all these, there are thieves, sacri-
legious persons, robbers, and others scattering six hundred
evils, and yet we pray for them all ; because there may be
perhaps some conversion of them. Since, therefore, we
pray for the living, who differ in no respect from dead car-
casses, it is lawful to pray for these also"**
Here, then, we see that Chrysostom says not one word
about your imaginary oral tradition, delivered by the Apos-
tles, but infers his doctrine from the scriptural command to
pray for all men. Moreover, he gives it as his opinion that
the Catechumens (that is, the persons who were preparing,
by a course of instruction, to receive Baptism, but who had
died unbaptized) might derive some refreshment from the
charity of those who should give alms on their account to
the poor. But this your Church would hardly venture to
endorse as sound doctrine. The passage, on the whole,
however, proves nothing more than this : that it was lawful
and acceptable to God to pray for the departed saints, and
to give alms for the deceased Catechumens, and that such
acts of piety were believed, by Chrysostom, and doubtless
many others, towards the close of the fourth century, to
give consolation and refreshment to the disembodied souls.
On this opinion of the fathers, which I have no wish to
disguise, I must commend to your attention, Most Reverend
Sir, two remarks, as altogether necessary to a proper esti-
mate of the evidence.
First, that the Liturgies, which were published in the
fifth century, and have been quoted at large in my 31st let-
ter, p. 83-4, include the Virgin Mary, Apostles and martyrs,
with all the rest of the departed faithful, in these prayers
* S. Chrysostomi Op., Tom, 6, Homil. iii. in Epist. ad Philip., cap.
1, p. 83.
304 Letter XL.
which were offered at the altar. Take special notice of that
unquestionable fact, I beseech you, and tell me whether it
was then supposed, by any Christian man, that these emi-
nent saints were suffering the pains of Purgatory, or that
those prayers were offered, under the idea that they needed
them in order to be relieved from any sufferings whatever ?
And if it be asked, What, then, did Chrysostoni mean by
saying that the departed would receive benefit, consolation,
or refreshment from such prayers, the answer is ready ; and
I think that, to any reflecting mind, it will be satisfactory.
In the second place, then, I would observe, that next to
the supreme love which the Christian owes to God, the
love of the brethren is enjoined as the highest duty. St.
John even makes this the test of our spiritual character :
" We know" saith he, " that we have passed from death unto life,
because we love the brethren."* But if this feeling of spiritual
love begins in the Church on earth, we are assured that it
will not end there. On the contrary, we believe that it is
a heavenly affection, which abides throughout eternity, and
will even reach its highest point in the realms of celestial
glory.
Hence, when the saint passes away from his mortal state,
and is thus separated from the eyes of his brethren, no one
supposes that he is therefore to be separated from their mem-
ory or their feelings. He has only gone before, where they
are soon to follow. He is only separated from them for a
time, in order that he may be united to them forever. Do
they not, therefore, desire that he may remember them, when
he joins the blessed assembly of the spirits of the just made
perfect ? Do they not hope that the privilege of his prayers
to God, on their behalf, may still be continued to them, now
* 1 John, iii. 14.
Prayers for the Dead. 305
that lie is removed so much nearer to the fountain of all
grace and heavenly benediction 1 And does not he also
desire that his brethren may remember him, that the as-
sembled Church in which he was so long permitted to
stand, as a burning and a shining light, when they come
together to celebrate the feast of love, may still give him
the tribute of their prayers and their affections ? And does
not the thought that the departed saints are thus employed
in praying for their brethren here, give strength and comfort
to the Christian heart on earth 1 And would not the know-
ledge, that the Church, in her most precious and solemn
service, offered her memorials and her prayers for the de-
parted saint, give to the loving spirit of that saint a sweet
sense of refreshment and joy, in his peaceful paradise of pure
felicity ?
So simple, yet so strong, is the basis for this practice of
the Primitive Church, that even the yearnings of the nat-
ural heart are compelled to do it homage. For we know
how powerfully it operates on the worldly mind itself.
Can any one fail to see that the longing for posthumous
veneration forms one of the highest incentives to the acqui-
sition of fame ? Can any one doubt that the patriots of the
Revolution, for example, derived a true and intense satis-
faction from the knowledge that when the people, in after
ages, should come together to celebrate their national in-
dependence, their names would be commemorated with
grateful triumph, and thanks and praises in their honor
would be uttered from the lips of thousands of orators in
every quarter of the land for which they toiled and bled 1
And has not the same feeling animated the breasts .and
nerved the efforts of heroes and sages in all ages, since -
the world began 1
Nay, is there a man, however humble his sphere how-
306 Letter XL.
ever limited his circle that does not desire to be remem-
bered by his family and friends, after he has passed away ?
Does it not cast a deeper gloom over the hour of departure,
when death overtakes us among strangers and alone ? And
would it not add a sharp pang to the last agony, to be told,
by those we loved on earth, that in a little space we should
be entirely forgotten ?
Thus loudly does nature herself plead in behalf of this
universal feeling. It is the instinct of love. It is the wit-
ness of immortality, written on the heart, and no effort of
false philosophy can overcome it altogether. But the
Christian faith explains it, sanctifies it, ennobles it, and
gives it the only true and proper elevation. For here we
learn that death is no real separation to the children of God.
Here we imbibe the spiritual love that lasts forever. Here
we enter into the grand society which shall be united be-
fore the eternal throne. Why should the departed saint be
supposed to forget that Church, for which he toiled, and
prayed, and in which were formed, by the grace of the
Holy Spirit, the principles and the character of holiness ?
Why should the Church on earth be supposed to forget him,
who is an everlasting member of their own body 1 And
therefore, when they meet together, they take comfort in
knowing that he is still united to them in soul. And he
takes comfort in knowing that they never fail to commemo-
rate him in those precious words : " And we also bless Thy
holy name, for all Thy servants departed this life in Thy faith
and fear ; beseeching Thee to give us grace so to follow their
good examples, that with them, we may be partakers of Th*
heavenly kingdom."
Surely, then, we have here a rational foundation for the
custom of the primitive Christians, and the sentiments of
the early fathers, without being in any sense obliged to con-
Prayers for the Dead. 307
nect the consolation taken by the departed with the horrible
idea of Purgatory. The notion which your Church long
afterwards adopted, that we should only pray for the de-
ceased because they were in torment, is utterly at war with
Scripture, with primitive practice, and with reason itself.
And this I shall prove, conclusively, by authorities which
are indisputable, on the manifest ground that the motives
which induce us to pray for the dead must be the same as
those which govern us in prayer for the living.
Thus St. Paul saith :* " Brethren, pray for us, that the
Word of God may run and be glorified, even as among you."
Again,f the same Apostle saith . " Pray for us ; for we
trust that we have a good conscience."
Again,:): " Brethren, pray for us."
Again, " I make mention of you always in my prayers."
Again,]) " I trust that through your prayers I shall be
given unto you."
Again,fl " Strive with me in your prayers to God for me."
A multitude of other texts might be cited to prove that the
duty and. pr. : <dlege of prayer were not confined to the idea
that the subject of the prayer must be in a state of suffering,
much less of torment, at the time. And when it is remem-
bered that the blessing and guardian care of God are equal-
ly necessary for the happy and for the miserable, equally
essential to the joy of the most eminent saint, and to the re-
lief of the most dejected sinner, it must be manifest that if
there be a duty which is strictly universal, under all states
and all circumstances, that duty is prayer ; because it is in
prayer that we acknowledge our dependence on Christ, and
* 2 Thes. iii. 1. + Heb. xiii. 18.
i I Thes. v. 25. $ R om . i. 9.
H Philem. 22. ' ^ R om xv 30
308 Letter XL.
confess that we, and all His people, are only safe in His
protection.
That your system of connecting the prayers of the Church
for the departed with the doctrine of Purgatory is at war
with the whole primitive practice, I have already shown by
the fact, that the earlier Liturgies offered these prayers for
the Virgin, the Apostles, and even the martyrs themselves,
though there was no doubt that their souls were in the para-
dise of joy and peace, instead of being in a state of fiery
torment.
And that your modern principle is equally at war with
the reason of mankind, is manifest. For what Christian
parent would be satisfied to pray for his children, or what
Christian child would pray for his parents, only when they
were in a state of agony or suffering 1 Prayer, at such
times, may be more intense, on account of the excitement
of the feelings, but it is equally felt to be a duty at all
times, for the plain reason that "we are always equally in
need of the divine care and blessing.
With these remarks on the primitive opinion and prac-
tice, I recur to the other testimonies of Dr. Milner, the next
of which is a quotation from Tertullian, who, speaking of a
Christian widow, saith : " She prays for the soul of her hus-
band, and begs refreshment for him." There is evidently
nothing in this, beyond the general custom of prayer for the
dead, which I have fully explained.
After this, however, he gives his readers a passage from
Cyprian, which he claims as a direct proof of Purgatory.
" It is one thing," saith this father, " to stand for pardon
(ad veniam stare), another to attain to glory ; one thing to be
sent to prison, not to go thence till the last farthing is paid,
another to immediately receive the reward of faith and vir-
tue ; one thing to suffer lengthened torments for sin, and to
St. Cyprian ignorant of Purgatory. 309
be cleansed and purged a long time in the fire (emundari et
purgari diu igne], another to have cleansed away all sins by
suffering, namely, by martyrdom." Here, Milner undertakes
to decide that Cyprian was speaking of " the difference be-
tween some souls, lohich are admitted into heaven, and others
which are detained in Purgatory." But the fact is, that he
was treating of quite a different matter.
In order to understand the case aright, it must be ob-
served that Cyprian lived at a period when the ancient dis-
cipline of public penance a long and very severe process
was exposed to a dangerous relaxation. A pernicious cus-
tom had come in, which gave him serious trouble. For,
under the Emperor Decius, a furious persecution had arisen
and many Christians were in prison, because they openly
confessed the truth, and refused to burn incense before the
idols of Paganism. These faithful men, being condemned
to death, and considered as martyrs already, were induced
to give letters of intercession to many of the weaker bre-
thren, who had yielded to temptation, requesting that their
act of outward compliance with the heathen might be for-
given, and that they might be again admitted to communion
without the public penance which their sin deserved. And
the veneration entertained for these prospective martyrs in-
duced the priests to comply, so that the rules of Church
discipline were in danger of being quite overthrown by this
novel kind of intercession.
Now, the passage which Dr. Milner quotes occurs in con-
nection with this, and both from what precedes and what
follows, it is manifest that the language of Cyprian could
have no application to the subject of Purgatory. The apos-
tates who claimed the right to be received to the Commu-
nion in this summary way, did it by the favor of the mar-
tyrs ; and therefore Cyprian argues that there was a vast
310 Letter XL.
difference between the privileges of a martyr and theirs.
" It is one thing," saith he, " to stand" (as they should do
according to the ancient rule of penance, in the outward
porch of the Church, of which Tertullian speaks), " in or-
der to obtain their pardon, and another thing to obtain the
glory of a martyr. One thing to be placed in the prison
(of penitence), and remain there until the last farthing was
paid (by undergoing its full infliction), and another thing to
secure by martyrdom the immediate rewards of faith ; one
thing to suffer a lengthened torment for their sin, and to be
cleansed and purged in the fire (of penance), and another
thing to have all their sins cleansed away by a martyr's suf-
ferings."
That such is the only rational interpretation of the pas-
sage, is further proved, first, by the fact that your own histo-
rian, Fleury, who gives a condensed translation of the epis-
tle in which it occurs, at great length,* does not notice this
sentence at all, which he certainly would have done if he
supposed that it gave any support to your system. And sec-
ondly, by the perfectly conclusive testimony which Cyprian
himself elsewhere bears against your purgatorial doctrine.
For thus speaks this eminent martyr and Bishop : " When
we depart hence, there is no more place for penitence, no more
effect of satisfaction ; here, life is either lost or gained ; here,
provision is made for eternal salvation by the worship of
God, and the fruits of faith. Let no one be kept back from
securing salvation, either by his sins or by his years. To
him who is still remaining in this world, penitence is never
too late. Thou mayest ask pardon for thy sins, even al-
though it be in the last hour of thy temporal life, and thou
mayest implore the only and true God, in confession, and in
* Fleury, Hist. Ecc., Tom. 2, pp. 255-8.
St. Cyprian ignorant of Purgatory. 311
the faith of his acceptance. Pardon is given to him who
confesses his sin, and the saving indulgence is granted to
the believer, by the divine goodness, and he passes, in death
itself, to immortality. This grace Christ imparts, this gift
of His mercy He bestows by the trophy of His Cross
which overcame death, redeeming the believer by the price
of His blood, reconciling man to God the Father, giving
life to the mortal by celestial regeneration. Let us all (if
possible) follow Him, let us be valued by His sign and
sacrament. Here, He opens to us the way of life ; here,
He brings us back to paradise ; here, He leads us to the
kingdom of heaven. With Him we shall always live, being
made by Him the sons of God. With Him we shall al-
ways exult, being healed by His blood. We shall be
Christians, glorious together with Christ, blessed by God
the Father, always rejoicing in perpetual pleasure in the
sight of God, and always giving thanks to Him. For it is
not possible that he should be otherwise than always grate-
ful and joyTul, who, although he was once subject to death,
is made secure of immortality."*
The real sentiments of Cyprian, Most Reverend Sir, are
set forth in this eloquent passage, \vith the utmost clear-
ness, showing, beyond cavil, that he knew nothing of your
pui'gatorial system. No contradiction of that monstrous
doctrine could be more positive. For Purgatory is the very
place, according to the modern teaching of Rome, for com-
pleting the measure of penitence and satisfaction which are
due to the temporal justice of God, after the present life is
ended. But Cyprian saith expressly, that " When we de-
part hence, there is no more place for penitence, no more effect
of satisfaction" And the same sentiment occurs again,
* Cypriani Ep. ad Demetrianum, p, 240.
312 Letter XL.
where he urges the duty of public penance upon those
Christians who had lapsed, or fallen away in the persecu-
tion. <; Let each one confess his crime, beloved brethren,"
saith he, " while he who has sinned is in this present life, while
his confession may be admitted, while the satisfaction and re-
mission made through the priests is acceptable to the Lord.
Let us be turned to the Lord with our Avhole mind, and ex-
pressing our penitence for the crime with real sufferings, let
us invoke the mercy of God. Let the soul prostrate itself
to Kim, to Him let sorrow be satisfactory, on Him let all
our hope rely. And how we ought to supplicate, He tells
us : Return to me, saith he, with all your heart, and with fast-
ing and weeping and mourning, and rend your hearts and not
your garments" &c.* Thus we see how emphatically the
whole work of penance and satisfaction is limited by Cyp-
rian to this life, and nothing is left which your Purgatory
professes to accomplish, in the life to come.
The only authority which Dr. Milner specifies particu-
larly after Cyprian, is Augustine, and here he states, truly
enough, that Augustine's mother, Monica, entreated that her
soul might be remembered at the altar, and that he per-
formed this duty, and prayed that God would pardon her
sins. But your favorite does not tell his readers that in the
whole long account which this eminent father left on record
concerning the matter, in his Confessions, there is not the
slightest hint of Purgatory. He prayed for his mother after
she was dead, precisely as any Christian would have prayed
for her, while she was living. And there is not a single
expression in the minute and interesting statement, which
can be twisted into a proof that the Church had yet adopted
your modern doctrine. f Indeed, it is apparent that the con-
* Gyp. de Lapsis, p. 203.
t S. Augustini Op., Tom. 1, Confes. Lib. ix., cap. 27-37, p. 122-4.
St. Augustine on Purgatorial Fire.
313
duct of Augustine was the result of his feelings, rather than
of his theology, in accordance with the view which I have
already given, that Christian love was the real basis of the
primitive custom, to remember the departed saints in prayer,
and at the sacrament of the Eucharist.
Nevertheless, I freely admit that there are several pas-
sages in St. Augustine which prove the beginning of your
present system. Thus, for example, he saith, in one place :
" After the death of this body, truly, until the final day of
damnation and reward, following the resurrection, if the
souls of the departed are said to suffer this sort of fire in
that interval of time, which those do not feel who have not
built the wood, hay, and stubble of earthly morals and af-
fections (upon the true foundation) in this life ; but which
others feel who have carried with them this kind of build-
ing, whether this suffering is to be endured there only, or
both here and there, or whether here, that it be not there,
our worldly, although venial, sins, find a burning fire of tran-
sitory tribulation, all this I do not contradict, because, PER-
HAPS, IT is TRUE."* Non redargue, quia forsitan verum est.
Here, it is evident enough that the existence of your pur-
gatorial fire was favored by some, even in the fourth cen-
tury ; and no wonder, because it had been long taught by the
heathen poets and philosophers, many of whom had united
with the Church of Christ, and, though believers in the es-
tablished doctrines of the Creed, continued to hold their for-
mer opinions on a variety of questions which were not pos-
itively settled by the authority of Scripture. Augustine
himself, in the same famous work Of the City of God, saith
the followers of Plato, or the Platonists, held that all sins
would be punished, either in the present life or in the life
* S. Augustini Op., Tom. 7, De Civitate Dei, Lib. xxi., c. 26, p. 490.
VOL. ii. ' 14
314 Letter XL.
to come, but also held that such punishment was only for
correction. And he quotes the well-known lines of Virgil,
in the 6th Book of the ^Eneid, where the poet describes the
torments of the infernal regions, remarking that " those
who think thus, insist that there are no punishments after
death except such as are purgatorial."* From the heathen
philosophers, therefore, this, and many other doctrines,
might be naturally derived, which after ages chose to at-
tribute to the more respectable source of Apostolic tradition.
But it is certain that your purgatorial system, though begin-
ning to be broached in the days of Augustine, was far from
being then acknowledged as a Catholic truth, by any one.
We may see this plainly by another passage, where the
Bame father explains the textf on which Dr. Milner mainly
relies, without the least hint of a purgatorial fire. " The
fire," saith he, " of which St. Paul speaks in this place,
ought to be so understood, that both may pass through it, viz.,
he who builds upon this foundation gold, silver, precious stones,
as well as he who builds wood, hay, stubble. Since the
Apostle adds, that thejire shall try every man's work, of what
sort it is. If the work of any man abide, which he shall
have built upon it, he shall receive a reward. If any man's
work be burnt, he shall suffer loss, but he himself shall be saved,
yet so as by fire. The fire, therefore, will prove the work of
both, and not of one only."! Here we have the interpreta-
tion of Augustine, cutting up by the root your main scrip-
tural reliance, on the clearest evidence of the text itself.
He then proceeds to explain the fire as being the tribula-
tion of the present life, saying : " There is a certain fire,
* De Civitate Dei, Lib. xxi., cap. 13, p. 478-9.
t 1 Cor. iii. 13-15.
$ S. Augustini Op., Tom. 6, p. 93-4, De Octo Dulcitii quaestioni-
bus, si.
St. Augustine on Purgatorial Fire.
315
the trial of tribulation, of which it is plainly written in an-
other place, The furnace proves the vessels of the potter, and
the trial of tribulation proves the just* This fire, in the
present life, performs what the Apostle saith, if it happens
to two believing men : to the one, namely, who thinks of
those things which are of God, how he shall please God,
that is, building upon Christ, the foundation, gold, silver,
precious stones ; and to the other, who thinks of those
things which are of the world, how he shall please his wife,
that is, building on the same foundation, wood, hay, stubble.
The work of the first is not burnt, because he did not love
those things by the loss of which he is afflicted ; but the
work of the other is burnt, because THOSE THINGS DO NOT
PERISH WITHOUT GRIEF, which were possessed with the love of
them. Nevertheless, the alternative being proposed, since
he would rather want them than Christ, and does not desert
Christ from the fear of losing them, although he grieves at
their loss, he is saved indeed, yet so as by fire, because his
sorrow for those perishable things which he had loved, burns
him, but does not consume nor subvert him, being fortified
by the stability and incorruption of the foundation."
Such are the words of Augustine's own explanation. Yet,
in the very next paragraph, he alludes to the purgatorial no-
tion of others, as a possible thing, saying : " It is not in'
credible that something of the same kind may take place also
after this life ; and whether it be so, may be matter of in-
quiry. That some of the faithful are saved through a cer-
tain purgatorial fire, more slowly or more speedily, accord-
ing to their greater or less love for perishable goods, may
be either found, or it may lie hidden."
It is thus manifest that the doctrine of your purgatorial fire
* Ecclus, xxvii. 6.
316 Letter XL.
was not adopted by Augustine, nor regarded by him as a
doctrine of the Church in his day, but merely as an idea
which he would not condemn, because it was not incredible,
and might, perhaps, be true. How vast the change which
your modern system established, Most Reverend Sir, when
Purgatory was not only recognized, with all its appendages^
as a fixed point of faith, but your Council of Trent even
fulminated its formal curse against all who refused to be-
lieve it !
I shall close the testimony of this eminent father with
one quotation more, in which the precise statement is made
of the practice and importance of the prayers and offerings
for the faithful departed in his day :
" It is not to be doubted," saith he, " that the dead are
aided by the prayers of the Holy Church, by the salutary
sacrifice, and by alms-deeds offered for their souls, that the
Lord may deal with them more mercifully than they have
deserved. For this custom, delivered by the fathers, the
whole Church observes, that for those who are deceased in
the communion of the body and blood of Christ, when they
are commemorated in their place at that Sacrament,
prayer is made, and for them also the Sacrament is offered.
It is therefore not to be disputed, that these things are prof-
itable to the deceased, but only to those who have so lived
before death, that such services can profit them after death.
For as to those who have departed this life without the faith
which worketh by love, and its sacraments, these offices of piety
are useless ; since, while living, they received not the grace
of God, or received it in vain, and thus laid up for them-
selves wrath instead of mercy. HENCE NO NEW MERITS
ARE PROVIDED FOR THE DEAD, WHEN THEIR GOOD BRETH-
REN PERFORM ANYTHING FOR THEM, but those things which
are consequent to their preceding lives are rendered to them.
St. Augustine and the Pope.
317
For nothing is effected, unless they had lived so that these
services might profit them when they cease to live here.
And thus WHOEVER. FINISHES THIS LIFE, CAN HAVE NOTHING
U=^
AFTER IT, EXCEPT WHAT HE MERITED IN IT.
Compare, now, I pray you, the language of the Pope
with the words of Augustine. This eminent father saith,
that no new merits are provided for the departed soul, beyond
those of his own life on earth. The Pope, on the contrary,
by his indulgence, "unlocks the sacred treasure, composed of
the merits, sufferings, and virtues of Christ and his Virgin
Mothjer, and of all the saints committed to his dispensation,
and applies them to the full "remission of the temporal pun-
ishment due to divine justice for sin, on behalf of the souls
PURIFYING IN THE FIRES OF PURGATORY, that an entrance
may be opened for them into their eternal country, where no-
thing defiled is admitted."^
Here is a downright contradiction, which no subterfuge
can reconcile. Augustine says not one word about the de-
parted soul being in a state of suffering, not a word about
Purgatory, much less of fires, nor yet about opening the
entrance to heaven, when he speaks of the Catholic prac-
tice of prayer, and offerings for the dead ; but he ' confines
the whole benefit to what the deceased Christian had al-
ready merited in his lifetime. But the Pope undertakes to
pay the whole debt of temporal punishment due to the divine
justice for sin, on account of which he declares that the
departed soul is purifying in the Jires of Purgatory ! And
he does this by unlocking the sacred treasure committed to his
dispensation, consisting of the merits and sufferings of
Christ, the Virgin and the saints ! And the effect is to be,
* S. Augustini Op., Tom. 5, p. 576, Sermo clxxii., 2.
t See the Papal Bulls on p. 279-80.
318 Letter XL.
the opening to the soul, in the anguish of this fiery torment,
AN ENTRANCE INTO HEAVEN ! Yet Dr. Milner gravely
assures his readers, that the modern doctrine of Rome is
the same with the faith of Augustine !
I shall only add to this examination of those fathers
which your favorite author himself has quoted, a few ex-
tracts from those who lived at an earlier period.
Thus Irenaeus, Bishop of Lyons, about A. D. 170, writes
upon the state of the departed : " Since the Lord himself
obeyed the law of death, that He might be the first-born
from the dead, and remained until the third day in the lower
parts of the earth, and afterwards arose in the flesh, so that
He showed the very marks of the nails to His disciples, and
thus ascended to the Father ; how should they not be con-
founded, who say that these lower regions are only this
world, according to the present bodily state, but that the in-
ternal man, as soon as it leaves the body, ascends immedi-
ately to heaven ? For even the Lord went into the midst
of the shadow of death, where the souls of the dead were ;
and after His resurrection, ascended up to heaven. And,
therefore, it is manifest that the souls of His disciples, for
whom the Lord did these things, will likewise depart into
the invisible place, appropriated to them by the Deity, and
will there remain until the resurrection ; expecting the
hour when they shall receive their bodies again, and, ris-
ing in their perfect state, that is, corporeally, as the Lord
Himself arose, will thus come to the vision of God."*
In like manner, Tertullian, about A. D. 200, speaks
upon the same subject : " Our lower regions," saith he,
" are not a naked cavity, nor yet a certain drain of the
world under the waters, but they are a profound and vast
* Iren. Cont. Hseres., Lib. 5, cap. 31, p. 331.
No Primitive Purgatoiy. 319
space, in the inmost bowels of the earth. Therefore we
read that Christ wa.s in the heart of the earth, during the
three days of His death, that is, in the internal recess, in-
closed within its lower abysses. But if Christ, our God,
because He was also man, being dead and buried according
to the Scriptures, satisfied also this law of human death
amongst these lower regions, and did not ascend to the
highest heavens, until He had first descended to the lowest
parts of the earth, in order that He might make the patriarchs
and prophets His companions, you must needs believe that
these regions are subterranean, and drive far from you those
who proudly imagine that the souls of the faithful are not
to enter these lower regions ; thus placing the servants
above their Lord, and the disciples above their Master, and
despising the privilege of Abraham's bosom, where they
might enjoy the privilege of looking forward to the resur-
rection. For- not yet has the trump of the archangel been
heard. Not yet has our Lord come to meet us in the air,
along with those who shall first arise at His advent.
Heaven is discovered to none as yet; the earth is still shut
up, nor will the heavens be opened until the world passeth
.away."* " Into these lower regions, therefore," saith Ter-
tullian, in another place, " all souls are taken. And there
are both punishments and pleasures, as you read in the
parable of the rich man and the beggar. "f
In neither of these primitive witnesses, therefore, Most
Reverend Sir, do we find the least trace of purgatorial lire,
or purgatorial punishment. But their belief concerning the
state of the departed is simply based upon the knowledge
communicated by the Scriptures, especially in the narrative,
* Tertulliani De Anima Liber, p. 303, D., $ lv.
tlb.,p. 306.
320 Letter XL.
furnished by the Saviour himself, of Abraham's bosom, into
which the soul of Lazarus was taken, being the same with
the paradise which our Lord promised to the penitent thief
upon the cross : separate from which, and across an impass-
able gulf, was the region of the lost, where we read, in-
deed, of torment and of flame, but with no indication what-
ever of an intermediate place of purgatorial punishment be-
tween them.
The language of the famous Ambrose, Bishop of Milan,
who was the instructor of Augustine, is equally hostile to
your modern system. " Death," saith he, " is the separa-
tion of the soul and the body ; but this dissolution is not
evil, because to be dissolved and be with Christ is far better.
The Scripture calls death sleep, according to that passage :
" Our friend Lazarus sleepeth ; I go that I may waken him."
But sleep is good, because it is rest : as saith the Scripture,
" I laid me down and took my rest ; I rose up, for the Lord
sustained me." Sweet, therefore, is the sleep of death.
But at length the Lord wakens those who are thus resting,
because the Lord is the Resurrection."*
Elsewhere, the same Ambrose speaks in the following
strain : " Let us fearlessly go to our Redeemer, Jesus ;
fearlessly to the assembly of the patriarchs ; fearlessly let
us depart to our father Abraham, when the day approaches ;
fearlessly let us proceed to the congregation of the saints, to
the convention of the righteous. For then we shall go to
our fathers, we shall go to our instructors in the faith, and
although our- works may be deficient, yet faith will assist,
-that our inheritance may be preserved to us. We shall go
where the holy Abraham opens his bosom, in order that he
* S. Ambros. Op., Tom. 1, p. 404. De bono Mortis, c. viii., <J 33
and 34.
Growth of the Notion of Purgatory. 321
may receive the poor, even as lie received Lazarus, in
whose bosom they repose who in this life endured calamity
and sorrow."*
Much more of the same evidence might be added, if it
were necessary, but these extracts must be abundantly suf-
ficient to satisfy any candid mind, that the claim of Dr.
Milner to the authority of the fathers is in the face of all
historical truth and honesty.
The opinion of the heathen poets and philosophers, how-
ever, to which Augustine refers, that there was a purgatorial
fire allotted to men beyond the grave, gradually increased in
favor, along with all the rest of the superstitious additions
to the pure and scriptural faith of the primitive Church.
The priesthood were disposed to favor it, because it was a
powerful argument in aid of penance and pious works, be-
sides the encouragement which it administered to valuable
legacies for religious uses. And it grew until, as we have
seen in the extracts from your historian, Fleury,f it ob-
tained the positive sanction of a dream from the monk
Guetin, in the ninth century, followed by other marvel-
lous revelations which your famous Bellarmine recounts,
all of which were published far and wide, and believed
with entire conviction. In due time, the schoolmen re-
duced your modern system of penance and satisfaction
into regular shape ; so that in the thirteenth century, the
Summa of your celebrated angelic doctor, Thomas Aquinas,
with its Supplement, exhibited the whole of your doctrine
in its present form, and no change has since been made in
it, notwithstanding the extremely moderate and vague terms
in which Dr. Milner and many other of your controvertists
express themselves.
* S. Ambros. Op., Tom. 1, p. 411, cap. xii., 1.
t Letter v., voi. i., p. 73. '
VOL. II. 14*
322 Letter XL.
As to the Council of Florence, to which your favorite re-
fers, the definitive decree was drawn up with the intention
of effecting a union with the Greek Church, the representa-
tives of which, notwithstanding the utmost efforts of Pope
Eugenius, and his Bishops, assisted by the Greek Bessarion
(who was made a Cardinal for his devotion to the Papal in-
terests), resisted to the last the admission of a purgatorial
fire. They consented, however, with one honest exception,
Mark, the Bishop of Ephesus, to subscribe these words, on
the point before us : *
" If those who are truly penitent depart this life in the
love of God, before they have satisfied for their sins of com-
mission and of omission by fruits worthy of repentance, their
souls are purged after death by punishments ; and in order
that they may be relieved from these punishments, the suf-
frages of the faithful living profit them viz., the sacrifices
of Masses, prayers, and alms, and other offices of piety
which the faithful are accustomed to perform for other faith-
ful persons, according to the established customs of the
Church."*
Here it is evident that there is nothing strictly defined.
The souls are said to be purged by punishments (pcenis), but
by what sort of punishments, whether with fire or without it,
is left undecided. Dr. Milner endeavors to mystify his
readers by foisting in the word material before the word
fire. But it is simply untrue that this word material was
introduced into the controversy. The fact is, that the Ro-
mans insisted, for a long while, that the punishments of pur-
gatory should be admitted to be by fire. And the Orientals
steadily refused. Hence the decree of union was so drawn
up as to leave the point undecided. Yet, even soothe
* Haid. Con., Tom. 9, p. 422.
The Councils of Florence. 323
Greeks, when they were called to account at home for their
conduct, excused themselves for yielding to the claims of
Rome by saying that they were constrained by the emperor,
and deceived by the hope of aid, as well as by the fear of
being deprived of the means of returning to their own coun-
try. The words of your own record are, " Fatentur se coac~
tos ab imperatore, et spe auxilii deceptos, et ne expensis rede-
undi in patriam privarentur, subscripsisse."*
The truth is, that the common artifice of your writers, in
appealing to your Councils of Florence and Trent as con-
taining all that you hold on this subject, is wholly inexcu-
sable. Of course, you have a right to appeal to those Coun-
cils on every point which they defined. But who will say
that your doctrine of Purgatory was really defined at Flo-
rence or at Trent ? And as it is undeniable that the union
patched up with the Greeks at Florence was repudiated by
the Greeks themselves, as soon as they returned to their
own country, and that they even charged the Pope and the
Roman clergy with deception and fraud, and denounced
their colleague Bessarion as a traitor, and in their Synod at
Constantinople specified no less than twenty-five particulars
in which they held the Church of Rome to be censurable,!
I should really suppose that the less you say about the defi-
nitions of that Council, the better.
To conclude, then, Most Reverend Sir, I claim for the
Church of England a faithful conformity with the teaching
of the Scriptures and the substantial practice of the primir
tive Church, on the state of the departed ; and charge your
modern system with an extensive and dangerous innovation
upon the Catholic truth, which was held from the beginning.
Your present doctrine was not concocted until the thirteenth
* Hard. Con., Tom. 9, p. 1356, f Ib., 1357, cap, 4.
324 Letter XL.
century, tlie age of your most celebrated schoolmen. The
primitive principle of commemorating the faithful 'dead, we
have retained in the prayer for Christ's Church Militant,
which forms a part of our Communion Office, in agreement
with the earliest Liturgies. Beyond this simple commem-
oration, it has been judged expedient not to go, because
of the superstitions which your Church unhappily connected
with the subject. Enough is said to answer the purpose of
Christian unity and affection, and anything beyond this is
but a question of expediency. The same principle is ob-
served in one of our prayers in the Burial Service ; and if
individuals in private choose to add specific petitions in the
manner of Tertullian and Augustine, as was the custom of
Dr. Johnson for his departed wife, and has been probably
the case of many others, our Church, like the primitive
Church, though she does not either enjoin or recommend
the practice, yet nowhere condemns it.
It ought, however, to be carefully remembered, that we
have no right whatever to attach to such prayers the prom-
ise of any positive or specific effect upon the subject of
them, for this is more than we can undertake by any act of
supplication for others. We are commanded in Scripture
to pray for all men. The Apostles prayed for their people,
and charged the people to pray for them. But how far
such prayers do really obtain their object, must be, in every
case, a question which God alone can answer, and therefore
we hold it to be a dangerous impiety to attach a positive
result to any efforts in our power, with respect to the dead,
when we never can be sure of any similar result with
respect to the living. I have already admitted that it must
yield a certain comfort and satisfaction to our Christian
feelings to think that the departed saints pray for us in the
spiritual world, and that it must give them comfort and
Purgatory not Catholic. 325
satisfaction to believe that we remember them with cordial
affection. But to suppose that we may go farther, and
make it a point of faith that we do certainly receive specific
advantages from God through their prayers, or that they
can receive specific benefits from ours, we altogether con-
demn, as an unauthorized and dangerous superstition.
Certain it is that Augustine, who advocates so strongly
the offering of prayers, &c., for the departed, expressly de-
clares that they receive no benefit from them beyond what
they merited when living. And this is precisely equivalent
to saying that they receive no benefit at all, except the sat-
isfaction derived from the sympathy of Christian affection.
For it cannot be supposed that God, who is infinitely just
as well as merciful, would deprive the departed soul of any
blessing which he deserved to receive on his own account,
through Christ, merely because his friends on earth had
neglected to ask for it. It is an absurdity to believe that
the Lord would make one of his people suffer, after death,
on account of the omission of others, who were yet living.
And therefore, when we come to the substantial meaning
of the primitive practice, we find that it is sufficiently pre-
served by the passages which I have quoted from our Com-
munion and Burial Offices, while the testimony of the fathers
is hostile, throughout, to your whole figment of purgatorial
punishment, and there is not a shred of evidence to show
that it was ever held as a Catholic doctrine.
I take leave to add, that although I have set forth the ar-
gument in favor of prayers for the departed, not only as a
matter of justice to the primitive Church, but also as due to
the first Prayer-Book of our Reformers, and to the known
sentiments of many of our greatest divines, yet. I do not
mean to be reckoned among the advocates for the practice.
Certain it is, that there is no injunction and no example of
326 Letter XL.
it in the whole range of Scripture. On this point, there-
fore, the office of the primitive Church, as the best inter-
preter of Scripture, fails, for the very plain reason that there
is no Scripture to interpret. And hence, while I cannot con-
demn the practice as a positive error, I fully approve the
omission of such prayers from the subsequent Prayer-Book
of our Mother Church and of our own, and should assuredly
object to their re-introduction.
The End of Controversy, Controverted. 327
LETTER XL I.
MOST REVEREND SIR :
THE subject of Milner's 44th letter, Extreme Unction, is
based upon the text in the Epistle of St. James,* and I have
already answered all the argument which he adduces, in my
19th letter, vol. L, p. 362-4, to which I must refer my
readers.
His 45th -letter is devoted to a much more important
question, .Whether the Pope be Antichrist. And I might
pass this question by altogether, because it is but a ques-
tion of opinion, which the Church of England leaves en-
tirely to the individual judgment of her priests and people.
Hence it has no place in our Articles, Offices, or Liturgy.
Hence, too, our own writers are at perfect liberty to specu-
late about it, along with many other questions of prophetic
interpretation. And therefore, in strictness, it does not be-
long to the controversy between our respective Churches,
which only embraces the points brought to a positive issue.
Nevertheless, as Dr. Milner labors so strenuously to cast
ridicule on the opinion which certainly prevailed amongst
the Reformers of our Church upon this interesting subject,
and as I have no hesitation in avowing my own conviction
that the character of Antichrist belongs pre-eminently to the
Papacy, it becomes my duty to notice his track of argument,
and to show why I consider it perfectly delusive and un-
satisfactory.
* Chap, v., 14, 15.
328 Letter XLL
He commences by asking at what period the grand apos-
tacy took place, and shows how various the calculations of
Protestant writers have been, in reference to that matter.
But it is evident that this, like every other corruption in re-
ligion, could not have been otherwise than gradual and slow,
because no sudden change would have been possible in a
question which involved the assent of millions, scattered
over the whole European continent. The main point is to
determine the fact, whether an antichristian power has
arisen in the Church of God, and this can never be evaded
by showing how authors have differed about the time when
it first appeared. Who ever applied the same sort of cavil
to any other great truth of history 1 Take, for example,
the undoubted fact that the languages of Italy, Spain, and
Portugal were formed from the corruption of the Latin.
Can this be disputed because the date cannot be agreed on
when the corruption began ? Take the undoubted fact that
the irruption of the barbarians into the old Roman Empire
produced the decay of the civil law, and established, in-
stead of it, the customs of feudalism. Can this be denied,
because it is impossible to fix the precise beginning or the
successive steps of the important change ? Indeed, the ar-
gument of Dr. Milner would be found an absurdity on any
. subject whatever. If a government be tyrannical, can the
fact be impugned by a difference of opinion about the time
when it first became so ? If the body be diseased, can the
fact be set aside by a dispute about the commencement of
the symptoms 1 If darkness covers the heavens, must I
doubt the fact because there may be various opinions about
the exact moment when the light of day disappeared from
the horizon ?
The work of your favorite author, Right Reverend Sir, is
full of this sort of paralogism, which deserves", in truth, no bet
Antichrist before the Reformation.
329
ter name than that of the baldest sophistry. It may impose
upon the weak, but it is an insult to any intellect of fair ca-
pacity. Dr. Milner, however, took care to give his readers
only the notions of certain Protestant interpreters. Why
did he not tell them the calculations of his own school 1
Why, especially, did he not communicate the declaration of
Pope Gregory the Great, who, addressing the Emperor
Maurice, A. D. 595, against the ostentation of John, the
Patriarch of Constantinople, expressly saith : " I assert con-
fidently, that whoever calls himself the universal Bishop, or
desires to be so called, is the forerunner of Antichrist in his
pride, because he exalts himself proudly above others."*
Why did he pass over the fact that Arnulphus, the Bishop
of Orleans, when sitting as president of a Council, in the
tenth century, applied the term Antichrist to the Pope of
Rome 1 That Fluentius, Bishop of Florence, in the twelfth
century, taught publicly that Antichrist was born and come
into the world ; that Joachim, the famous Abbot of Cala-
bria, asserted the same fact, and added that Antichrist would
be exalted to the Popedom ? That not only did the Walden-
ses hold it as a settled doctrine, but that the term was cur-
rently used all along in the Church of Rome itself, when-
ever Kings or Cardinals were roused to resist the Papal
despotism ? It was therefore no invention of the English
Reformers, nor of any other reformers in the sixteenth cen-
tury. On the contrary, it was familiar both in the Church
of Rome, and amongst all her opponents, from an early pe-
riod. And the only true question is the simple matter of
fact, whether the system of your modern hierarchy, with
the Pope at its head, deserves the title.
The next argument of your favorite is derived from the
* Greg. Mag. Op., Tom 2, p. 881, D., Ep. 33, Ad Mauiicium Aug.
330 Letter XLL
supposed absurdity of the notion that the " falling off," or,
as some translate the word, " apostacy," which St. Paul de-
clares to be the forerunner of Antichrist, could be asserted
of the Church of Rome, when she maintains all the creeds
and doctrines of the primitive faith unchanged. But it is
evident that in this there is no inconsistency whatever.
For the adulteress may continue to be the spouse of her
husband, and does usually so continue, professing the old
faith of her marriage covenant, long after she has " fallen
off," or " apostatized" from her allegiance, by reason of her
sin. And the Church of Israel, when the prophets called
her by this very name, was still, by her profession, the
Church of God, though she had become a harlot, through
her idolatry. The Apostle intimates the same thing when
he declares that Antichrist should " sit in the temple of God,
showing himself that he is God"* And thus we see, dis-
tinctly, that this impious opposer is to be looked for in the
Church itself, proving, beyond all honest doubt, that the
temple of God, or the Church, was to be the very seat of
Antichrist.
Dr. Milner next attempts to prove that the second char-
acter of St. Paul's description, viz., that Antichrist "oppos-
eth and is lifted up above all that is called God, or that is
worshipped,"! cannot apply to the Pope, because he has his
private confessor, and confesses his sins in private, like any
other member of your Church. This, however, is a mere
subterfuge, since no one ever applied the term Antichrist to
the Pope as a man, but as a tyrannical Sovereign ; and it is
only a trifling with the question to turn off the inquiry into
the character of his official acts, by telling us about his^?n-
vate practice as an individual sinner.
* 2 Thes.il t 2Thes.il. 4.
The Man of Sin. 331
The only way to -prove rationally that Popery is Anti-
christian, is to show its accordance with the description
given by the Scriptures, and I freely grant that the burden
of proof lies on those who make the charge. Thus, then,
I establish it as a just and incontrovertible accusation.
First, the Apostle declares that there should be a "fall-
ing off," or an " apostacy." And I have shown, from the
pages of Fleury, that this is clearly admitted by your own
writers. Your historian states expressly that the purity of
the Church passed away with the first six centuries, and the
old fathers lament its growing corruption, long before. I have
shown that the primitive Catholic faith drew all its Articles
from the Scriptures, and that your modern system added
new doctrines, unknown to the -Apostolic ages, and founded
on a false tradition ; while licentiousness and ambition came
into the Church like a flood, so that the Popes and the
Kings, and the Councils themselves, were often afterwards
forced to declare that the Bishops and the priests were bring-
ing the world to ruin. Certainly here was an awful falling
off, or apostacy from scriptural faith and Christian practice.
Secondly, the Apostle declares that after this falling away
" the man of sin should be revealed" or made manifest.
And the Papacy was in due time made notoriously mani-
fest by the plain acts of its history.
Thirdly, St. Paul asserts that Antichrist " opposeth and
is lifted up above all that is called God, or that is worship-
ped, so that he sitteth in the temple of God, showing himself
as if he were God." And this I maintain to be precisely ap-
plicable to your modern system of Popery. For it opposes
God, when it sets up another standard of faith besides His
Word. It opposes all that is worshipped, when it estab-
lishes new objects of worship, and sets up a rivalry to
Christ, in the power and grace attributed to the Virgin Mary,
332 ' Letter XLL
telling the sin'ner that even when the Saviour and the Holy
Spirit are indifferent to his prayers, yet Mary is still able
and willing to save him. It lifts itself above God, when it
contradicts His Word in the celibacy of priests, in the wor-
ship of images, in adding to His sacraments, in the as-
sumed power of deciding upon the satisfaction required for
sin, of declaring it to be forgiven by the act of the priest,
. and of freeing the departed soul from the punishment de-
manded by divine justice. It sits in the temple of God,
because it is the ruling power in the Church, and because
the new Pope is actually seated upon the altar, and adored
by the Cardinals who have elected him. And it " shows
itself as if it were God," when it makes its decrees the ab-
solute and final source of all truth and authority, independ-
ent of, and often contrary to, the Bible.
Fourthly, the Apostle declares that the coming of Anti-
christ is " according to the working of Satan, in all power,
and signs, and lying wonders." And your modern Papal
system tallies with this throughout. It is " according to
the working of Satan," because it is false, deceptive, and
perilous to the souls of men, yet always cunningly disguised
under the aspect of zeal for their welfare, as Satan prom-
ised oiir first parents an increase of knowledge and of priv-
ilege, from their act of disobedience, and still deceives them
in the appearance of an angel of light. It is " in all power,"
because it succeeded in arrogating to itself the entire and
despotic control of faith, and office, and honor, and liberty,
and life itself, bringing kings before the Pope's footstool, and
punishing all rebellion against its dictates by the dungeon and
the stake. And it is displayed " in signs and lying wonders,"
because it deals in the assumption of continual miracles, by
relics, and pictures, and images, and marvellous impostures,
all directed to the increase of its own profit and dominion.
The Antichrist.
333
Fifthly, it " makes war with the saints," according to St.
John. Because it has sacrificed hecatombs of Christian
men, whose consciences refused to obey its dictates rather
than the Bible ; and, during those long ages when it had the
power, its constant remedy against all its opponents was the
sword of exterminating slaughter, and the tortures of the
inquisition.
Sixthly, it agrees with the mystic number of 666, stated
in the Book of the Revelations, not by the " ingenious efforts
of Protestant expounders" only, but by the express opinion
of Irenseus, the Bishop of Lyons, in the year 170, who
makes Lateinos, or LATIN, the exponent of that. name. St.
John wrote in Greek, and the letters forming this word, in
that language, amount precisely to the number 666. But
this corresponds most accurately with Popery, because it is
Latin in its Roman origin, Latin in its language, Latin in
its laws, Latin in its superstitions, Latin in its dress, Latin
in its architecture, Latin in its imperial ambition, so that
no one word could be chosen to express its name and char-
acter so comprehensively. ' Very true it is that the same
number of 666 has been applied to other names, as "your
favorite author has stated, but there is not one amongst
them all which corresponds like this with the other parts
of the Apostolic prediction, and with all the facts of
history.
Thus, then, Most Reverend Sir, I state the principal
reasons for my own opinion, which agrees with the prevail-
ing sentiment of the English reformers, that Popery is the
ANTICHRIST of Scripture. It is not a topic which I should
have chosen, of myself, to introduce into the discussion.
But it has been forced upon me by your favorite author, and
if it jars unpleasantly upon your feelings, you must ascribe
it to the necessity dictated by his course, rather than by
334 Letter XLI.
mine. The topic of the Pope's supremacy comes next in
order, and in this I shall endeavor to fulfil my promise of
replying, though briefly, to your own elaborate work upon
the same subject, in the full confidence that the truth is
mighty, and will prevail.
1
The End of Controversy, Controverted. 335
LETTER XLII.
MOST REVEREND SIR :
. IN answering the 46th letter of Milner, upon your doc-
trine of the Pope's supremacy, I shall endeavor to follow
the track of his argument as usual, and show the irrelevancy
of his proofs as I pass along. But as I have already de-
voted the 23d and 24th letters of this series to the same
topic, I must refer my readers to these, for a large portion
of the evidence, and content myself with noticing here those
matters which have not been disposed of previously.
He commences by informing his Salopian correspondent
what the faith of the Church is not. And here he expressly
disclaims the idea that the Pope " has any CIVIL OR TEM-
PORAL SUPREMACY, by virtue of which he can depose princes,
or take away the property of other persons out of his own
domain." But in this, he artfully disguises the -whole ques-
tion, for no one, properly instructed, ever supposed that
the Pope claimed a civil jurisdiction beyond the States of
the Church. The right to depose princes, make war
upon heretics, and confiscate their property, has always
been treated as a branch of his spiritual prerogative " to
feed and govern the whole Church" with full power, 'ac-
cording to "the Council of Florence. And therefore the
oath of the English and Irish Romanists, which was so in-
geniously worded to gull the British Parliament, is in real-
ity no protection at all against the largest claims of Papal
power, because that oath only denies his " civil jurisdiction,
power, superiority, or pre-eminence, directly or indirectly,
336 Letter XLIL
within the realm," and this is a kind of jurisdiction which
was never demanded by the highest advocate of Ultramon-
tanism.
Your dexterous advocate next defends the exercise of
this deposing power, by representing the kingdoms, princi-
palities, and States of Europe, as " a Christian Republic, of
which the Pope was the accredited, head." As " the duty
of civil allegiance and submission," continues he, " cannot
extend beyond a certain point, and they ought not to sur-
render their property, lives, and morality to be sported with
by a Nero, or a Heliogabalus, instead of deciding the point
for themselves, when resistance becomes lawful, they thought
it right to be guided by their chief pastor. The kings and
princes themselves acknowledged this right in the Pope,
and frequently applied to him to make use of his indirect
temporal power, as appears in numberless instances. In
latter ages, however, since Christendom has been disturbed
by a variety of religions, this power of the pontiff has been
generally withdrawn." And then he quotes Sir Edward
Sandys, saying, that " the Pope was the common father,
adviser and conductor of Christians, to reconcile their en-
mities, and decide their differences."
Now this is a very pretty theory, Most Reverend Sir,
and it is a pity that it is entirely irreconcilable, not only
with historical fact, but even with the avowed principles of
the Papal assumption. But this contrariety I shall show to
the 'satisfaction of any candid reader.
In the first place, the notion of the whole Church being a
Christian republic, of which the Pope was the accredited
head, and. that he only interfered upon the application of
the people, is a perfect misrepresentation. The Church
was a Christian republic in the primitive ages, and with us
it is so still. But with you, since, the twelfth century, there
The Popedom a Monarchy. ' 337
has been nothing republican about it. The Pope claimed
that his office invested him with the sovereignty of the
world as the vicar of Christ by the divine decree, and not
by the will of princes or people. Gregory VII. was the
leader in the matter, and he rested his right to depose the
Emperor of Germany on this ground alone, as the successor
of the Apostles Peter and Paul. And the cause of the dif-
ficulty had nothing to do with any allegation of tyranny or
despotism nothing to do with the rights of the people
nothing to do with their morality, liberty, or lives nothing
to do with the case of a Nero or a Heliogabalus. It was
simply a struggle between the Pope and the emperor for
the right of investiture, in which the monks and the great
body of the clergy took the Papal side, because they sym-
pathized in the object, which they knew would result in a
vast aggrandizement of the power of the priesthood. And
so far were the Popes from being the friends of republican
principle, that all of them, for centuries in succession, held
the same doctrine that the Papal and the kingly powers
were the two great lights of the world, to which all others
should be in subjection.
That the kings and princes acknowledged the claims of
the Pope, and frequently applied to him to exercise them,
is another assertion which is far from being generally true.
For history shows that they only applied to him when it
suited their interest, and, for the most part, their wars and
their politics were managed with no regard to his opinion,
except as an ally or confederate on the one side or the
other. Indeed, it will be found that there were few wars
in Europe, after the power of the Pope became established,
in which he was not a party. And hence, there is not a
capital city on the whole of that large Continent, which has
been so often taken and pillaged by Christian armies as
VOL. IT. 15
338 Letter XLIL
Rome itself, nor one from which the sovereigns have been
so often expelled by Christian kings and princes.
The third statement of your favorite author is equally de-
ceptive, viz., that " in latter ages, this power of the pontiff
has been generally withdrawn." What he means by the
latter ages must be explained by his own language, that the
change has taken place " since Christendom has been dis-
turbed by a variety of religions." As if Christendom had
not been much more disturbed by the quarrels, the schisms
and the wars, fomented by the Papacy during the ages be-
fore the Reformation ! But to show at once, by a decisive
proof, the error of your author's whole statement, I shall ap-
peal to the Papal bull put forth by this republican pastor,
A. D. 1570, for the purpose of deposing Queen Elizabeth,
and to this authoritative document I shall ask ray reader's
best attention :
" Pius, Bishop, Servant of the Servants of God."
" In perpetual memorial of the matter, HE THAT REIGN-
ETH ON HIGH, to whom is given all power in heaven and in
earth, hath committed His one Holy Catholic and Apostolic
Church, out of which there is no salvation, to ONE ALONE
upon earth, namely, to Peter, the chief of the Apostles, and
to Peter's successor, the Bishop of Rome, to be by him GOV-
ERNED WITH PLENARY AUTHORITY. Him alone hath He
made prince over all people and all kingdoms, TO PLUCK UP,
TO DESTROY, TO SCATTER, TO CONSUME, to plant and to
build, that he may preserve his faithful people (knit together
in the bond of charity) in the unity of the Spirit, and pre-
sent them spotless and unblamable to their Saviour. In
discharge of which function, we, who are, by God's good-
ness, called to the government of the aforesaid Church, do
spare no pains, laboring with all earnestness that unity and
the Catholic, religion (which the Author thereof hath, for
The Bull of Pope Pius. 339
the trial of His children's faith, and for our amendment, suf-
fered to be tossed with so great afflictions) might be pre-
served sincere.
" But the number of the ungodly hath gotten such power,
that there is now no place in the whole world left which
they have not essayed to corrupt with their most wicked
doctrines ; and amongst others, Elizabeth, the pretended
Queen of England, the servant of wickedness, lendeth
thereto her helping hand."
Then follows a long enumeration of charges against
Elizabeth, after which, this Papal bull concludes in these
words :
" Being, therefore, supported by His authority, whose
pleasure it was to place us (though unable for so great a
burden) in this supreme throne of justice, we do, out of the
fulness of our Apostolic power, pronounce the said Elizabeth
to be a heretic, and the favorer of heretics, and her adhe-
rents in the matters aforesaid to have incurred the sentence
of excommunication, and to be cut off from the unity of the
Body of Christ. And moreover, we do declare her to be
deprived of her pretended title to the kingdom aforesaid, and of
all dominion, dignity, and privilege whatsoever, and also the
nobility, subjects, and people of said kingdom, and all others
who have in any sort sworn allegiance unto her, to be for
ever absolved from any such oath, and all manner of duty, do-
minion, allegiance, and obedience. And we also do, by au-
thority of these presents, absolve them, and do deprive the
said Elizabeth of her pretended title to the kingdom, and all
other things before named. And we do command and charge
all and every the noblemen, subjects and people, and others
aforesaid, that they PRESUME NOT to obey her, or her orders,
mandates, or laws ; and those who shall do the contrary, WE
DO INCLUDE IN THE SAME ANATHEMA."
340 Letter XLII.
Here then, Most Reverend Sir, we have the genuine
character of your true system. There is not one word about
Dr. Milner's Christian republic; not one allusion to the
Pope, as the father of Christendom, deciding the point that
resistance became lawful on the part of the people, when they
were oppressed by the despotism of a Nero or Heliogabalus ;
nor yet the slightest reference to his power being given
by general consent, as the accredited head of this same
republic. But on the contrary, there is the distinct claim
of a divine right, conferred by Christ Himself, and therefore
quite independent of human consent, to pluck up, to destroy,
to scatter, to consume, as a PRINCE over all kingdoms and all
people, WITH PLENARY AUTHORITY. Truly, one cannot
help admiring the notions of government which could con-
nect the term Christian republic with such a sweeping des-
potism.
But this was only a consistent adherence to the whole
modern history of your Papal system. For Pope Innocent
III. expressed the true theory of your Church, long before,
in these words : " In the firmament of heaven, viz., of the
Universal Church, God made two great lights, that is, He
instituted two great dignities, the authority of the Pope, and
othe power of kings.. But that which rules over the day,
namely, in spiritual things, is the greater, and that which
rules over carnal things, is the lesser. So that THE DIF-
FERENCE BETWEEN PONTIFFS AND KINGS may be understood
to be as great as BETWEEN THE SUN AND MOON."
Nay, the principle is laid down in your Roman Canon
Law, on the authority of Pope Boniface VIII. : " All the
faithful of Christ are of necessity of salvation under the Ro-
man Pontiff, who has both swords, and judges all men, but
is judged by none. We are instructed by the Gospel that
in the power of the Pope there are TWO SWORDS, the spir-
Modern Papal assumption. 341
itual and the temporal. The one to be used, for the Church,
the other by it ; the one by the priest, the other by the hand
of kings and soldiers, but at the nod and sufferance of the
priest. For one sword ought to be under the other, and the
temporal authority to be subjected to the spiritual. Finally,
we declare, say, define, and pronounce, that it is NECESSARY
TO SALVATION FOR EVERY' CREATURE TO BE SUBJECT TO
THE ROMAN PONTIFF."
.Such is, and such has been, since the twelfth century,
the claim of your Papal supremacy. But Dr. Milner saith
that in these later ages, meaning since the Reformation,
" it has been generally WITHDRAWN." When ? Where ?
On what occasion ? I have set forth the very words of the
bull in which the Pope assumed the power to depose Queen
Elizabeth. How has it been abandoned ? Is it not a no-
torious fact that the clergy of France denounced this claim
of the deposing power in their celebrated " Declaration,"
A. D. 1682 ? And is it not equally notorious that 'this act
was condemned by Pope Innocent XL, and afterwards by
Pope Alexander VIII. ? Even so late as the present cen-
tury, did not Pope 'Pius VII. absolve all Frenchmen from
their obedience to Louis XVIII. , and authorize an oath of
allegiance to Napoleon Bonaparte ? And in A. D. 1809,
did not the same Pope excommunicate the same Napoleon,
because he invaded the Papal dominions ? The language
of this last bull breathes the old spirit. " Let our persecu-
tors learn once for all," saith the pontiff, " that the law of
Jesus Christ has subjected them to our authority and our throne.
For we also bear the sceptre, and we can say that our power
is far superior to theirs. Already have so many sovereign
pontiffs been forced to proceed to similar extremities against
rebellious princes and kings, and SHALL WE BE AFRAID TO
FOLLOW THEIR EXAMPLE ?"
342 Letter XLII.
Thus, then, I show the utter delusiveness of Dr. Milner's
statement. True, indeed, it is, that the Romanists of France,
of Germany, England, and the United States, refuse to al-
low that this Papal dominion is the doctrine of your Church ;
but equally true it is that the Popes themselves, who are
theoretically the ultimate judges in all your controversies,
have claimed the power from the time of Gregory VII., and
have invariably exercised it whenever they were able. It is
positively, therefore, a fraud upon the ignorance and sim-
plicity of the public mind to pretend that Dr. Milner's ac-
count of the matter is either fair or candid. He ought to
have set forth the true views of the Papacy which divide
your Church, the ultramontane and the cismontane, as they
are termed in Europe. He ought to have stated that the
Italians, the Spanish, the Portuguese, and the Jesuits
everywhere, maintain, to this day, the same prerogatives of
the Pope which we have seen claimed by all your Pontiffs
even so late as the nineteenth century. He ought to have
stated that on this vitally important subject there is no real
unity amongst you. And instead of leading his readers to
suppose that there is anything republican about your idea of
the Church, even on the most moderate ground, he should
have honestly repudiated such a notion as abhorrent from
your whole system.
Your favorite author next notices the dogma of Papal in-
fallibility, but only to pass it over by saying that he has
nothing to do with it, as being merely a scholastic question.
This was wisely done, inasmuch as he could not have de-
nied it, without giving offence to the Pope, the ultramontane
party, and the whole Jesuit school. And he could not have
admitted it, without alarming his Protestant readers, and
thwarting his main object of making Popery look as mild
and moderate as possible. But in truth, if he had thought
Primacy of Honor. 343
that honesty was his best policy, he would have set forth
the two theories which divide your Church in this matter
also. These theories I have already explained in my ob-
servations on the extracts from Fleury. Your Ultramon-
tane, or High Church party, claim infallibility for the Pope,
whenever he speaks of the doctrines of faith officially, or
ex cathedra : while your Cismontane, or Low Church party,
only predicate infallibility of the decisions of a General
Council. For to this day, your Church has not discovered
whether the Pope is superior to a General Council, or a
General Council to the Pope. So far are you from having
any real unity, even in this fundamental point of your Pa-
pal system.
Dr. Milner proceeds, however, to what he calls " the
question itself, which is, whether the Bishop of Rome, who,
by pre-eminence, is called Papa (Pope or father of the faith-
ful), is, or is not, entitled to a superior rank and jurisdic-
tion, above other Bishops of the Christian Church, so as to
be its spiritual head here upon earth, and so that his See is
the centre of Catholic unity ?"
Now here, I must observe, by the way, that this title of
Papa, or father, which your modern Church has confined to
the Pope, was given in the primitive Church to all Bishops
equally. But with respect to the string of proofs, which
your favorite gives from Scripture and the fathers in favor
of the Pope's supremacy, I must refer my readers to the
23d and 24th letters, where he will find them all answered
by authorities which no sophistry can overthrow.
The concluding portion of Dr. Milner's 46th letter is de-
voted to a statement of the sentiments of certain eminent
Protestant writers, some of them being men of high repu-
tation in the Church of England. And here there is no
difficulty whatever, when the true character of such con-
344 Letter XLII.
cessions is properly understood. For the amount of all
these opinions is precisely this : that those writers would
have made no serious objection against granting a certain
primacy of honor to the Bishop of Rome, provided his of-
fice and influence were only used in the service of truth
and holiness, with due regard to the doctrines of the Scrip-
tures, as held by the primitive Catholic Church, and to the
rights of his brethren. Not because he is entitled even to
this, by any divine rule, or by any apostolic precept. But
because, in consideration of unity and peace, thus much
might be conceded to the established habits and feelings of
a large and powerful portion of Christendom, if such a con-
cession would restore the Church of Christ to harmony, and
put an end to dissension and strife.
This, however, was only put forth as an hypothesis. In
point of fact, none of our writers ever supposed that a
primacy of mere honor would be enough to satisfy the am-
bition of your pontiffs, or that the attendant conditions of a
return to scriptural and primitive truth could be accepted by
a Church which has boasted so long and so loudly of her
unchangeableness and infallibility. The prevailing senti-
ment amongst our divines has been the very contrary.
There was much ground for hope that the principles of the
Reformation, in the early part of the sixteenth century,
would have operated to purify the whole mass of your mod-
ern corruptions, but the slavish subjection to the Papacy
which your great Council of Trent displayed, seemed to
rivet the bondage of your Church more firmly than ever.
And I believe that I speak the general opinion when I say,
that Popery will never be done away until the second ad-
vent of the Redeemer, when the kingdom of Antichrist, ac-
cording to the language of prophecy, shall be " destroyed
by the brightness of His coming."
GrowtJi of Papal Power. 345
Most true it is, indeed, that the primitive Church was
really a Christian republic, resembling, in many respects, the
Constitution of the United States. For every Bishop was
elected, not by the fiat of the Pope, but by the voice of the
clergy and the people ; and his office, in point of govern-
ment, was like that of the Governor of each State, whose
main duty it is to see that the laws are obeyed, and that the
internal administration proceeds with regularity. Every
Bishop, too, like the Governor, might be impeached, and
deposed, not by the sentence of the Pope, but by a Coun-
cil of his brethren. After the first three centuries of per-
secution had passed away, the unity of the Church at large
was exhibited by the General Councils of Bishops, the pow-
er which executed their decrees being the religious con-
science of Christians, which, in case of violent opposition,
was sustained by the laws of the State, as it still is amongst
all civilized communities. But there was no supremacy of
jurisdiction given to the Bishop of Rome until the Emperor
Valentinian granted to him the prerogative of hearing ap-
peals from his brother Bishops, A. D. 366. The Council
of Sardica had recommended the same kind of appeal some
years before, but only to the extent of authorizing the Pope
to commit the cause to a new tribunal of Bishops, which of
course did not vest in the pontiff the right of pronouncing
a final decision. Even this, however, was more than the
Church was willing to allow, as I have .proved in the 24th
Letter, by the testimony of Jerome and the decrees of subse-
quent Councils. And a long period elapsed before the Pope
rose to the eminence of undisputed supremacy over the
Churches of Europe ; while the Oriental Church steadily
and constantly resisted, contending that an equal jurisdic-
tion should be allowed to the Bishop of Constantinople.
The result was a gradual concentration of power, a total
VOL. n. 15*
346 Letter XLIL
destruction of the original republican principle which main-
tained the official equality of all Bishops, an incurable
schism between the East and the West, and a final substi-
tution of monarchical and feudal law, on the pretended
foundation of divine right, derived from a false interpreta-
tion of the words of Christ addressed to the Apostle Peter.
And thus the THRONE AND THE SCEPTRE, of which Pope
Pius VII. spake so strongly in his Bull against Napoleon,
in the year 1809, took the place of the original Apostolic
system, and the kingdom of Antichrist was established over
the Church of God.
Where, then, Most Reverend Sir, do you find a trace of
this Christian Republic in your modern Church 1 Since
the twelfth century, the election of your Pope is confined
to the College of Cardinals, and these Cardinals are all
appointed by the mere will of the reigning pontiff. Thus,
each Pope has the monstrous power of limiting the choice
of his successor to a very small and partial circle, and the
rest of the Bishops, the clergy and the people, are totally
disfranchised, and have no voice whatever in the election
of the monarch of Christendom > Do you call this repub-
licanism 1*
The style in which your Pope has used this prerogative
of appointing the Cardinals, from whom alone his successor
could be elected, was worthy of the kingdom of Antichrist,
for they were usually his own devoted partisans, elevated to
this high dignity by motives of personal partiality, or policy,
or caprice. Mere boys and children were sometimes nom-
inated, of which Fleury gives many instances, and Pope
Julius III., even during the Session of the Council of Trent,
gave his own Cardinal's hat to a man who had been pre-
* Letter VI., vol. L, p. 110.
Our System truly Republican. 347
viously the keeper of his monkey ! Since the Reforma-
tion, I grant that these matters are managed with far more
prudence and discretion, but there is as little republicanism
about them as ever.
And what is the condition of your Church under this an-
tichristian despotism, which Dr. Milner presumes to call a
Christian republic ? The Pope appoints the Bishops, the
Bishops appoint the priests. The priests are absolute over
the people. Have your congregations any power to elect
their own pastors ? Have the clergy and the people any
voice in the electing of their own Bishop 1 Have the Bish-
ops, clergy, and people any voice in electing the Pope ?
Can there be a greater outrage on the meaning of words
than the calling of such a government republican in any-
thing 1 True, the history of your Church, as I have shown
by the extracts from Fleury, exhibits an abundance of com-
plaint, resistance, schisms, bloody wars, mutual hatred among
contending parties, cruelties, tortures and blood the natural
appendages of an antichristian tyranny. True, also, that
the salutary loss of Papal power has been succeeded by a
far milder administration, through necessity, and policy, and
fear. But your system remains to this day, as it has been
for seven centuries, a pure, unmitigated despotism. And
you lack nothing but a restoration of the element of power,
to display the old fruits, in all their former atrocity. Alas
for the principles of Christian republicanism, for Christian
liberty, for the personal right to read even the Word of God,
if ever the judgment of the Most High, in punishment for
our sins, should bring us to behold that day !
In perfect contrast to your whole system, our own branch
of the Holy Catholic Church is indeed a Christian republic,
respecting the rights of all our clergy and laity, from first to
last, ill our whole system. Qur highest legislative Council
348 Letter XLIL
is the General Convention, in which no law can be estab-
lished or changed, without the free consent of a majority of
Bishops, priests, and laymen, in strict accordance with the
decree of the first Apostolic Council, which was published
in the name of " the Apostles, elders, and brethren."* The
Bishops sit in this assembly in a separate body, like the
Senate of the United States, but with equal powers, as in the
primitive Councils. The House of Clerical and Lay Depu-
ties, like the House of Representatives, sit together in an-
other body, but vote, when it is required, in separate orders ;
so that the laity alone, if so disposed, can nullify the action
of the clergy and the Bishops : proving the care with which
the rights of our people are guarded from invasion. These
clerical and lay deputies, moreover, are all freely elected in
the previous Conventions of every diocese, the members of
which are the Bishop, the clergy, and the delegates from
each parish. These delegates, again, are elected by the
vestrymen of the parishes. And the vestries are elected
annually by the free votes of the parishioners themselves.
Thus the republican principle is carried out from first
to last. Our Bishops are elected by the concurrent
votes of the clergy and the laity in every diocese ; and
when consecrated, they can exercise no arbitrary power.
They cannot ordain, without the consent of the Standing
Committee, who are themselves elected to their office by
the clergy and laity. They cannot appoint a rector to the
smallest parish, without the free election of the vestry, who
are laymen elected by the parishioners. They cannot de-
pose a clergyman, or excommunicate a layman, without a
fair trial and a verdict by his peers. They cannot separate
a pastor from his flock, without the consent of the parties,
* Acts, xv. 28.
The true Christian Republic. 349
unless there be a trial and a sentence for some delinquency.
And thus we claim the privileges of a Church which is em-
phatically a Christian republic, where we are governed by
the LAW AND ORDER established by common consent, and in
which, nevertheless, the clergy and the Bishops, though all
equally subject to the laws, enjoy as much influence and
power as are consistent with the true nature of their office.
For we desire to remember that we are appointed, not to be
LORDS OVER OUR BRETHREN, but to be the servants of 'Christ,
to lead them to Him, who is their Master and ours, in the
unity of faith, and love, and holy obedience, as members,
each in his own order, of that Church, which is His body,
the fulness of Him that filleth all in all.*
* Eph., i. 23.
350 The End of Controversy r , Controverted.
LETTER XLIII.
MOST REVEREND SIR :
I HAVE promised, before I close my humble work, to de-
vote a little space to your book on the Primacy of the Apos-
tolic See, written in reply to my volume on the Church of
Rome, in the year 1837. And here I must content myself
with a few remarks on the general course of your argu-
ment, not wishing to repeat what has been proved already.
In the first place, you labor very ingeniously to sustain
the Roman sense of our Lord's address to Peter, Thou art
Peter, and on this rock I will build my Church, fyc. But
you have left untouched the large amount of evidence which
I adduced from the Scriptures, proving, conclusively, that
your doctrine is perfectly inconsistent with the language
and conduct of the other Apostles, and of St. Peter himself.
Not one sentence can be found in the Gospels or the Epis-
tles to favor the idea that he was invested with a supremacy
over the rest, and the whole strain of the subsequent history
is at war with your position. I must refer to my book itself
for the various passages, and shall only observe here, that
in the interpretation of the Scriptures, the first great rule is
to give them the sense which makes them consistent with
themselves, instead of deriving, from a single text, found
only in St. Matthew, a meaning which involves a host of
other and clearer passages in confusion and perplexity.
Secondly, I would observe that your hypothesis requires
not only the supremacy of Peter over the other Apostles,
St. Peter not the first Bishop of Rome. 351
but further, that he was the Bishop of the. Church of Rome
at his death, and that his successors in office were intended
to continue the same supremacy to the end of the world.
But it is historically certain that Peter was not the Bishop
of Rome, for Irenaeus, the oldest witness on the point, posi-
tively declares, A. D. 170, that the Church of Rome was
founded by the two most glorious Apostles, Peter and Paul,
and that they DELIVERED TO LINUS THE EPISCOPAL RIGHT
OF GOVERNING IT. To HIM SUCCEEDED ANACLETUS ; AFTER
HIM, IN THE THIRD PLACE FROM THE APOSTLES, CLEMENT
is CHOSEN, &c. Eusebius, the father of Church history,
adopts the same statement in the following century : " LINUS
WAS THE FIRST," saith he, " THAT RECEIVED THE EPISCO-
PATE AT ROME." It is demonstrably evident, however, that
even if Peter had been Bishop of Rome, and had also pos-
sessed the supremacy which you claim for him, it could not
have passed to Linus without a special grant of authority
over the whole world, which was quite distinct from the
Episcopate. For the headship which your theory sup-
poses, being personal to himself, not as a Bishop, but as an
Apostle, remained in him as much after as before the con-
secration of Linus ; and hence your notion that it devolved
on Linus by the mere act of consecration, is a pure absurd-
ity : since, in that case, Linus, the Pope, would have be-
come immediately the superior of Peter the Apostle.
But there is a further absurdity attendant upon your doc-
trine, derived from the unquestionable fact that the Apostle
John lived more than thirty years after the Apostles Peter
and Paul became martyrs under the tyrant Nero. On your
hypothesis, therefore, he must have been subject to Linus,
Anacletus, and Clement, by virtue of St. Peter's supposed
supremacy ! And yet St. John does not even mention that
part of our Lord's address to Peter, on which you rest your
352 Letter XLIII.
whole Papal claim. His writings were published towards
the close of the first century, long after the establishment
of the Roman Church, which you call the Mother and Mis-
tress of all the Churches. But neither in his Gospel, nor in
his Epistles, nor in his Apocalypse, does this inspired
Apostle give the least hint of this supremacy, which, as
you would fain persuade the world, was not only an au-
thority above himself, but the very foundation of the whole
Church, and the essential bond and centre of Catholic
unity !
Thirdly, your theory fails when it is brought to the test
of history. Your hypothesis is, that the Papal supremacy
was a divine appointment, essential to the unity of the
Church, because the Pope is the centre of unity. But it is
certain, from the testimony of your own historian, Fleury,
that unity was not attained by this supposed enactment of
the Saviour. On the contrary, the claims of the Pope pro-
duced the great schism of the Oriental Churches in the
ninth century. Disputes, wars, contentions, persecutions,
and, abore all, a frightful declension into licentiousness and
immorality, marked the whole course of the Papacy, ante-
rior to the Reformation. The order, of the Jesuits, which
is distinguished, above all others, by its devotion to the
Pope, has been expelled over and over again from all the
Papal territories of Europe. And it is only since the
Reformation that the declension of this very Papal power
has produced a better and more peaceful state among your-
selves. How, then, I pray you, could that have been in-
tended as a centre of unity, which has been the chief cause
of destroying unity ? And \yhy is not the profession of the
same primitive creed, protected, as at first, by the Councils
of Bishops, a far safer and more effectual preservative than
the maintenance of an irresponsible monarchical power,
Primacy of Honor. 353
which nothing short of a continual miracle could possibly
keep from degenerating into a corrupt and irritating des-
potism ?
Fourthly, you have adduced, from many of the fathers,
expressions of high, and sometimes very rhetorical, respect
towards the See of Peter and the Bishop of Rome, as if they
were proofs of your Papal theory, when, at the most, even
if those passages are genuine, they could only be taken as
indicating a primacy of honor. But this is a very differ-
ent thing from the supremacy of jurisdiction. The one is
the language of reverence the other is the acknowledg-
ment of rightful power. The pre-eminent importance and
influence naturally attached to the wealthiest and greatest
of the primitive Churches,may easily account for these words
of deference. While, at the same time, the very same
fathers and Councils plainly demonstrate, not only by other
declarations, but by public acts, that they held no such
principles of Papal domination as were afterwards estab-
lished and maintained. The proofs are given at large in
my 24th Letter, where Irenseus, Origen, Cyprian, Eusebius,
Ambrose, Jerome, Augustine, and also the Council of An-
tioch, the first General Council of Constantinople, the Coun-
cil of Milevi, the sixth Council of Carthage, and the Gen-
eral Council of Chalcedon, are cited in full on the point in
controversy, and in language which no general expres-
sions of compliment to the See of Peter or the Bishop of
Rome can do away, in the judgment of any intelligent and
candid reader. For words of praise and outward rever-
ence to men in high official station cost nothing. It is only
when the point of direct interpretation, or of positive jurisdic-
tion, is presented, that the true opinions of the primitive
fathers can be correctly ascertained.
Tried by this sound rule, Most Reverend Sir, I hesitate
354 Letter XLIII.
not to say, that your able and elaborate reply has not in the
least shaken the evidence against your system. You have
favored me with several small verbal criticisms upon my
translations, for which I thank your superior accuracy. But
I am happy to see that even your microscopic eye has found
nothing in them all which affects the substantial truth and
correctness of my statements. The most important one
among the whole, viz., my quotation from Irenasus, was vin-
dicated fully in our pamphlet correspondence some years
ago. Nor could I fail to derive from your volume the most
satisfactory conviction of a success which I hardly ventured
to anticipate, when I saw that your eminent ability, united
with ingenious talent and research, had labored in vain.
Let me now briefly state the chain of evidence which
your Papal hypothesis would strictly require before it could
deserve the assent of a sound judgment, in the face of its
antecedent improbability, and its historical failure as a cen-
tre of unity to the Christianity of the world.
It should be clearly shown from Scripture, as the only
proper basis, that a supremacy of government and jurisdic-
tion over the other Apostles was conferred on St. Peter.
But this can never be shown, because it is plainly incon-
sistent with all the other Scriptures. Peter never claimed
it. The Apostles nowhere acknowledged it. And the Sa-
viour Himself invariably put down the inquiry which they
frequently raised among themselves, Who should be the
greatest? by saying: " One is your Master, even Christ, and
all ye are brethren." Neither can such a doctrine be sup-
ported from the fathers, as I have clearly proved already.
Their laudatory language of St. Peter as the chief, the
prince, the key-bearer of heaven, the rock of the Church,
&c., is manifestly insufficient to prove an official right of
superior jurisdiction, although it may pass well enough for a
St. Peter not the Bishop of Rome. 355
primacy of honor. But this kind of primacy would yield
no support whatever to the Papal superstructure.
Next, it should be clearly proved, not only that St. Peter
established the seat of his spiritual government as Bishop
at Rome, but also that he transferred his apostolic supremacy,
whole, entire, and unconditionally, to all his successors in
that See, by inspired command, to the end of the world.
But this can never be shown, because it involves, as I have
proved, an absurdity ; and further, because it is in direct
contradiction to St. Paul's claim, in the Epistle to the Gala-
tians, of having, the Gospel of the Gentiles specially commit-
ted to himself, as the Gospel of the Jews was to Peter : a
claim assented to by Peter and all the rest, and acted upon,
as we see in the narrative of the Acts, where St. Paul's
journey to Rome, and his preaching successfully for two
years together, are expressly related, without one word
about St. Peter. The same appointment is further proved
by St. Paul's Epistle to the Romans, since this, like his
Epistles to the Corinthians, the Galatiaris, the Ephesians,
the Philippians, the Colossians, and the Thessalonians,
naturally suggests his relation to the Church of Rome as its
founder ; while, if St. Peter was actually the Bishop of
Rome at the time, according to your hypothesis, it would be
utterly unaccountable that St. Paulshould have written such
an epistle without taking any notice of his brother laborer,
with whose diocesan rights he was thus so strangely inter-
fering. In truth, -however, your whole assumption that St.
Peter was for seven years Bishop of Antioch, and then, for
twenty-five years more, Bishop of Rome, is perfectly irre-
concilable with the scriptural record. It is opposed also,
as I have shown, to all the statements of the more ancient
fathers, and deserves no confidence whatever from _any
mind which values the rules of historical evidence.
356 Letter XLIIL
Lastly, you should be able to get rid of the positive and
plain contradictions to the Papal claims, which stand on the
face of.the early Councils as I have cited them. The 28th
Canon of the General Council of Chalcedon, alone, is per-
fectly fatal to your whole hypothesis. It is no answer to
this Canon that the Pope refused to adopt it, although he
assented to all the other acts of the Council : because that
special Canon concerned his own official prerogatives, and
it was against the first principles of justice that he should be
the only judge in his own cause. And hence, your Papal theory
stands not only unproved, but distinctly disproved, so late
as the fifth century, by the highest testimony in the Church,
the voice of one of the four General Councils, to which all
Christendom was bound to render the strongest confidence
and veneration.
I shall not spend any further time upon this fundamental
point, which has been more than sufficiently established by
all the evidence which the Scriptures, the fathers, and the
Councils, could furnish. In presuming to make it an arti-
cle of faith, necessary to be believed in order to salvation,
your Papal Church has stamped upon her brow the char-
acter of ANTICHRIST, and has brought upon the whole cause
of Christianity a complicated mass of corruption and calam-
ity, most clearly foretold in the divine prophecies, and
mournfully exemplified in the past history of the world. The
whole foundation of the monstrous doctrine was in the pride
of earthly ambition. Satan beguiled your Popes, as he
tried to tempt the Saviour, by the glittering bait of promised
sovereignty over " the kingdoms of this world and the glory
of them ;" and they did not see that before they could attain
the splendid prize, it would first be necessary that they
should " fall down and worship him." Policy, expediency,
and interest, became their real guides, under the specious
Decline of Papal Power. 357
name of religion. Policy, expediency, and interest, have
continued to be their guides to this day. But their course
throughout the palmiest ages of Popery was marked with
wars and dissensions, plots and intrigues, licentiousness and
immorality, persecutions, cruelty, and blood, until at length
the sceptre of their despotism was broken. And now look,
I pray you, at the downward progress of Papal influence
and power since the English Reformation. What country
on the globe cares one straw for pontifical interdicts or ex-
communications ? Where is the old majesty of the triple
crown, before which, four centuries ago, the nations trem-
bled? What monarch values the alliance of the Pope, or
dreads his enmity ? And how manifestly, in every quarter,
has his usurped dominion dwindled away ! While the re-
formed Church of England, strong in the word of God, is
growing, without effort or ambition, far beyond her own an-
ticipation ; gaining, quietly and steadily, a foothold in every
land ; dispersing the blessed Scriptures of divine truth in
all directions ; enlightening the barbarians and the heathen
in China, Africa, Australia, and the East Indies, in union
with civilization and the arts ; reclaiming a multitude in
Ireland to the knowledge of the pure Gospel, and maintain-
ing her unbroken apostolic unity, in connection with liberty,
gentleness, and perfect toleration, and in favor with God
and man.
358 The End of Controversy^ Controverted.
LETTER XLIV.
MOST REVEREND SIR :
I NOW return to your favorite, Dr. Milner, whose 47th let-
ter is devoted to the defence of your Church, in retaining
her Latin Liturgy all over the world, notwithstanding there
has not been, for nearly a thousand years, a single nation
upon earth, the mass of whose people could understand the
worship which your priests set before them.
His justification of this absurdity affords an amusing
specimen of his peculiar talent and sophistical dexterity.
First, he saith that it is not the Church which has introduced
a foreign language, but it is the people who have forgotten their
ancient language." This assertion of your author, however,
is not relevant, and it is not true. It is* not relevant, because
it is the duty of the Church to accommodate her worship
to the understanding of the people ; and for that end, to trans-
late the Liturgy as well as the Scriptures, everywhere, into
the tongue of the country. And it is not true, because the
Latin was not the universal language, even of Europe, at
any time. It was more general, doubtless, than any other,
during the old Roman Empire. But it never was the com-
mon language of England, Ireland, Germany, Gaul, or Scan-
dinavia. And hence it never was the proper medium of
worship among the numerous races of Sclavonic, Teutonic,
or Celtic origin.
Next he informs us, that " the High Priest, under the Mo-
saic law, went into the tabernacle alone to make the atone-
The Liturgy in Latin. 359
ment, and Zachary offered incense in the temple by himself,
while the multitude prayed without." Suppose they did,
what then ? Are these parts of the old Jewish economy
set forth as models for the public worship of a Christian con-
gregation ?
Thirdly, he saith, that the use of the Latin tongue is " no
detriment to the faithful, because they have translations of
the Liturgy in their hands, by means of which they can
unite with their priests." But he forgot to state that these
translations have only been made since the Reformation :
that they are of no use to those who cannot read : that in
point of fact, the people are not allowed to make a single re-
sponse^ although the Liturgy is full of responses which were
originally intended for them ; whereas, for many centuries,
all these responses are taken out of their mouth, and en-
tirely confined to the boys or men who minister as the
priest's assistants at the altar. Moreover, it is perfectly ob-
vious that since your Church has been compelled to allow
translations for the use of the people, there is no reason why
the same translations cannot be used by the minister, if you
really mean that they should unite in the same worship in-
telligently.
Your ingenious advocate comes next to the 14th chapter of
St. Paul's first Epistle to the Corinthians, in which'the Apos-
tle condemns so strongly the use of unknown tongues in the
worship of God, and here he tries to escape from the diffi-
culty by boldly declaring that no allusion is made in the whole
chapter to the public Liturgy ! An admirable distinction,
truly ! As if the prohibition of an unknown tongue inpub-
lic prayer did not cover the whole question. For what is
the Liturgy, but the established form of public prayer ?
Fifthly, Dr. Milner defends your Church's rule on the
ground that it is necessary for uniformity of worship, for
360 Letter XLIV.
decency and order. But this is mere trifling. The laws of
every land are in the common language of each nation. So
is the public administration of justice. So is your own
preaching. Are not conformity, decency, and order required
in them all?'. Must the language of worship be in Latin,
in order that it may be uniform ? Or is it consistent with
the very nature of a living worship, that the language of it
should be dead and unintelligible ?
Sixthly, your indefatigable sophist edifies his readers
with three arguments more, as follows: 1st, that St. Paul
wrote an epistle to the Romans in Greek. I answer, so he
did ; and the Romans lost no time in translating it into Lat-
in, which was then the common language of the people.
If the Apostle had ordered them to read the original Greek
to a Latin congregation, it would have been a case in point
for Dr. Milner ; but as the matter actually stood, the old
Church of Rome, in this, as in many other things, gave an
open and direct rebuke to the practice of her modern suc-
cessor.
2. Your favorite tells us next, that the Jews continued
to perform their Liturgy in the Hebrew language, " after they
had exchanged their original Hebrew for the Chaldaic tongue,
during the Babylonish Captivity, though the vulgar did not un-
derstand it;" and that " our Saviour and His Apostles attended
this service in the temple and the synagogue without ever cen-
suring it." But where did your learned advocate find out that
the Hebrew language was lost in the Babylonish Captivity 1
Did he not know that the Chaldaic was a dialect of the
Hebrew, and bore to it a very close affinity ? Certain it
is that when Pontius Pilate placed the inscription on the
Cross, it was written in Latin, Greek, and Hebrew, which
it would hardly have been if the Hebrew had become un-
intelligible to the mass of the Jewish population. Certain
Worship in an unknown tongue. 351
it is, moreover, that when the Apostle Paul addressed the
" multitude of the people" in Jerusalem, in order to defend
himself from the accusation of his enemies that he was hos-
tile to the Jewish law, " he spake to them in the Hebrew
tongue." " And when they -heard that he spoke to them in
the Hebrew tongue, they liept the more silence."* Certain it
is, likewise, that Origen, and others of the old fathers, held
that St. Matthew's Gospel was first published in Hebrew,
and from thence translated into Greek. Nay, it is certain
that the Jews have not lost the knowledge of the Hebrew
to this day. Hence, your favorite author is again found
making his facts to suit his argument. He refers to Wal-
ton's Polyglot and Key for his authority, indeed, without
specifying the page. But St. Paul knew better than any
modern philologist what language was understood by his
countrymen in Jerusalem. And the simple fact that he
chose the Hebrew in which to make a popular address to
the multitude, is decisive of the whole question.
Lastly, your favorite advocate asserts that " the Greek
Churches in general, no less than the Latin, retain their
original Greek tongue in their Liturgy, though the common
people have forgotten it, and adopted different barbarous di-
alects instead of it."* And here, too, he misrepresents the
main fact ; for the modern Greek, or Romaic, retains the
main body of the ancient language, so that it is still sub-
stantially intelligible to the mass amongst their people.
And if it were otherwise, on what ground does Dr. Milner
seek to justify Rome, by appealing to a Church which you
denounce as heretical ?
Such is the specimen of argument by which your subtle
apologist tries to justify your practice of holding all your
* Acts, xxi. 40, ixii. 2, Douay Bible.
VOL II. 16
362 Letter XLIV.
public worship in the Latin tongue, although it is self-evi-
dent that in doing so you oppose the maxim of the Apostle,
run counter to the whole primitive Church, your own among
the number, deprive your people of their unquestionable
right and privilege, shut up from them effectually the teach-
ing of the Liturgy, and shock the common sense and rea-
son of mankind. But, nevertheless, I doubt not that you
have a motive for your course, which your prudent advo-
cate does not mention. You secure the superstitious vene-
ration of the mass, who are led to imagine that the Latin
is more acceptable to God than any other language, because
it is the language of the priests. You probably prefer it,
too, because, to the common mind, there is always a touch
of the sublime about what is unintelligible. You under-
stand perfectly the value of the maxim, omne ignotum pro
magnifico est, and you are quite aware that, in your Church,
ignorance is the mother of devotion.
Such reasons as these, however, did not suit the policy
of Dr. Milner, although, to my humble judgment, they are
much more likely to be the true ones, than those which he
thought proper to assign. You do not, of course,' see any-
thing to apprehend from the affectation of mystery, because
you do not apply to the Papal Antichrist the prophetic lan-
guage of St. John : " Mystery, Babylon the Great." Nei
ther do you care for the interpretation which Irenaeus, in A. D
170, gave to the mystical number, 666, kareivog, or Latin,
and which your Church so singularly fulfils in her worship,
as well as in her whole history.
But in this, as in every other feature of her reformation,
thephurch of England takes the SCRIPTURES and the prim-
itive rule for her guide. Her Liturgy is intended for the
instruction and edification of her people, and all is plain, sim-
ple, and intelligible. And the two systems are well ar-
Undervaluing and prohibiting the Bible. 363
ranged for their respective objects, for we only seek to make
men depend on Christ, while the great end to which modern
Romanism seems adapted is to keep them dependent on the
priesthood.
Your author next discusses what he calls the " wicked
calumny that the Catholic" (i. e., Roman) " Church under-
values the Scriptures, or prohibits the use of them." Here
are two denials the first, of the charge that your Church un-
dervalues the Bible ; and the second, that you prohibit its use.
I shall briefly remark on each in their respective order.
I maintain that the Holy Scripture, as St. Paul saith, " is
divinely inspired," and " is profitable to teach, to reprove,
to correct, to instruct in justice, that the man of God may be
perfect, furnished unto every good work."* This is the lan-
guage of your own version, and you cannot dispute its
truth.
In precise accordance with it is the doctrine of the
Church of England, as I have shown already in my 2d
Letter. And in the same accordance was the doctrine of
the primitive Church, as proved abundantly by the extracts
from all the eminent fathers, establishing the Holy Scrip-
tures as the complete RULE OF FAITH AND MORALS, on the
express authority of God. Therefore we value them as
such, and deny that any other rule of faith can be set up
beside them.
In direct opposition to the Apostle and the primitive
Church, which was truly Catholic, your Papal Church sets
forth a set of doctrines in addition to the scriptural rule of
faith, on the ground of what she calls " Apostolical tradi-
tions," and calls them the " unwritten word of God," and
commands them to be received under the penalty of her
* 2 Tim., iii. 16, Douay Bible.
364 Letter XLIV.
anathemas. These traditions I have examined and dis-
proved, by the authority of Scripture, and also by the best
testimony of the fathers and Councils, and we reject them
as false, heretical, antichristian, and perilous to the soul.
On that strong and irrefragable ground stand the DUTY and
the WARRANT of the English Reformation.
Now, therefore, we maintain that your Church does ne-
cessarily undervalue nay, she utterly destroys the proper
character of the Holy Scriptures, because she deprives them
of their great office as the perfect rule of faith and morals,
and proclaims her own teaching in their place. St. Paul
saith, the " divine Scripture is profitable to teach, to reprove,
to correct, to instruct in justice, that the man of God may
be perfect, furnished unto every good work." Your Church
insists that the man of God cannot be perfect from its teach-
ing, because it is not capable of teaching the whole faith :
that the man of God cannot be furnished unto every good work
by its instruction, because there is a large amount of good
works of which it makes no mention whatever. And herein
lies your fearful exposure to the condemnation invoked by
the Apostle, where he saith, " Though we or an angel from
heaven preach a gospel to you beside that which we have
preached unto you, let him be anathema."* Herein lies the
awful usurpation of the Papal dominion, as the predicted
Antichrist, who, sitting in the Temple of God, should show
himself that he is God, by prescribing another imperative
law of saving faith and obedience to Christ's flock and peo-
ple, in entire independence and contempt of the divine
record of the Lord's perfect will.
That Dr. Milner did not see this subject in its true light,
I am very willing to believe, and as willing to make all al-
*Gal., i..8, Douay Bible.
The Bishops as Judges. . 365
lowarice for every man who is subject to the same delusion.
But the real nature of such a claim is easily shown by an
obvious analogy.
Suppose that all the judges in the State should adopt the
notion that the existing laws of the legislature were just
and binding as far as they extended, but that they ought to
be greatly enlarged, in compliance with the wishes of the
citizens ; and thereupon should undertake to give their own
official sanction to a variety of popular measures, from time
to time, a^nd should resolve, at last, that their decisions
should be taken for the only law, independent of, and en-
tirely superior to, the acts of the legislature, and should
proceed accordingly to enforce their assumed powers, even
to imprisonment and death, against all who presumed to
dispute their authority. Would not the combined act of
such judges amount to treason 1 For it would be virtually
setting aside the true legislature, and assuming an irre-
sponsible mastery over liberty and life which did not belong
to them, and thrusting themselves into the supreme seat of
government, instead of being content to administer the law
as it was laid down by the proper authority. And hence it
is obvious that those judges would not only be liable to im-
peachment, but must actually be condemned for the gravest
offence against the duties of their office ; since they whose
express function it was to execute the law laid down to
them by the real legislature, were the very men who had
set the authority of that law aside, and presumed to usurp
the whole sanction of the law-making power, for new and
unauthorized acts of their own dictation.
Such has been, in effect, the course of your Papal system.
Your Bishops were commissioned to administer, as the judges
of the Church, the laws of faith and morals laid down in
the Bible, by the inspired messengers of the " Only Law-
366 Letter XLIV.
giver, who is able to save and to destroy." Superstition
came in, after some centuries, and was patronized exten-
sively by the monks and the idolatrous tendencies of the
people. And the Bishops, after vainly trying to check and
to rebuke, gave themselves up to indulging it, and, by and
by, submitted to the Papacy, undertook to establish the pes-
tiferous innovations as articles of faith, and persecuted, even
unto death, those who refused to receive their law from
anything except the original Scriptures, which were the
only true records of the divine legislation. And thus was
finally set up the Antichrist of Papal power, which dared to
exert the prerogative of Christ in the Church of God, to
supersede entirely the authority of the sacred records, and
to consummate, with a high hand, this act of treason
against the word of the Redeemer.
. Dr. Milner next asserts that your Church never prohibited
the reading of the Scriptures to the laity, while he is obliged
to confess that she " required, by way of preparation for
this most difficult and important study, that they should
have received so much education as would enable them to
read the sacred books in their original language, or in that
ancient and venerable version, the fidelity of which she guaran-
tees to them" But this was a virtual prohibition to the vast
majority for the last ten hundred years. Your own historian,
Fleury, expressly states that no restriction of the kind was
passed by any Canon, until the thirteenth century. And it
is notorious that the primitive Church of Rome had the
Scriptures as well as the Liturgy in Latin, at the time
when Latin was the common spoken language of the peo-
ple, and read the Scriptures in her public service, and en-
couraged all others to read them, as we do.
Your subtle apologist proceeds to state, that " in case the
laity are desirous to read the Scriptures in a modern tongue
Reading the Bible restricted. 367
they must be furnished with, some attestation of their
piety and docility, in order to prevent their turning this
salutary food of the soul into poison, as it is univer-
sally confessed so many thousands constantly have done."
Here, we have an admission of the fact that your laity
must have the permission of the priest to read the Bible,
as if the right to read the revealed word of God was not
strictly a universal right, to every human being. And
the priest must limit his permission to those who furnish
an attestation of piety and docility, that is, to those who
are in no danger of taking the Bible for the RULE OF
FAITH, but merely peruse it as an interesting and divine
history : while it is to the unwritten word of Church tradi-
tion, as laid down by the priest, that they look for all their
religious doctrine.
But here your apologist states by the way, quite incident-
ally, according to his' usual habit, how it is " universally
confessed" that thousands have constantly turned the reading
of the Bible into poison. And this is assigned among the
reasons for restricting the sacred volume to those who
are properly prepared ! And then he proceeds to set
forth the mischief which an indiscriminate reading of
Scripture did in the case of Hugh Peters, Oliver Crom-
well, Swedenborg, Joanna Southcote, " hot-brained dissent-
ers" in general ; and in particular, the advocates of the Bi-
ble Society !
The whole of this, however, is absurd and irrelevant.
He might as well pretend to restrict preaching to those who
can give attestations of piety and docility, because thousands
turn it into ridicule, and treat it with contempt. And vet,
it was the commission of Christ to his Apostles, that they
should " go into all the world, and preach the Gospel to
every creature." Why should the Bible, which is the writ-
368 Letter XLIV.
ten message of God to mankind, be more restricted ihan the
ministry who are commanded to deliver the same message
orally 1 That men in general are more disposed to turn the
Scriptures into a cause of scandal than they are the priests,
is notoriously untrue, for it is admitted by your own histo-
rians that for long ages before the Reformation, it was not
the Bible, but the priesthood, that scandalized all Europe, and
made the whole Church a by-word and a hissing in the
mouths of multitudes. It was not the Bible, but the priests,
that gave point to the ridicule of Voltaire and Rousseau.
And in our own day, it is not the Bible, but the priests, that
are despised in South America and the States of Papal
Europe. It is not the Bible, but the Pope, and the Cardi-
nals, and the Bishops, and the clergy, that are hated by
thousands in the city of Rome. And even in Protestant
countries, it is well known that for one tongue which is
moved against the Bible, there are hundreds employed
against the worldliness, the formalism, and the inconsisten-
cies of the preachers.
Hence, Most Reverend Sir, I maintain that your ingeni-
ous advocate has totally failed in his attempt to justify you
in restricting the reading of the Scriptures. You have no
right whatever to shut them up, directly or indirectly, by
any kind of management, from the universal and free access
of all mankind. You might as well presume to forbid the
light and air of heaven, until the individual has first obtained
a priestly license. For, like the air and the light, they are
intended for the whole human family. They are the re-
corded wisdom and truth of the same God who made the
sun and the atmosphere. In them, the soul breathes the
breath of spiritual life. In them, the soul beholds the Sun
of Righteousness. And the Church which seeks to restrict
them to a favored few of her own " docile" adherents, and
Unrestricted Use of the Bible: 369
gives them only to those who are sure to regard them
as an imperfect and insufficient Rule of Faith, only vindi-
cates by her course another of her claims to the name of
Antichrist.
And this brings me, in conclusion, to the real reason for
your restriction, which Dr. Milner, as in the case of your
Latin Liturgy, takes good care, like an adroit advocate, to
keep entirely back from his simple Protestant readers. It
is, then, precisely, because the reading of the Bible is the most
perilous of all things to the false doctrine, the idolatries and
superstitions, of the Papal Church of Rome. Therefore it
was that the first care of all the great Reformers was to
translate the Scriptures into the vulgar tongue, in order to
make them accessible to the people. Therefore it is that
the great instrument in the conversion of the sixty thousand
Irish Romanists, within the last ten years, is known to be
the Irish version of the Bible. Therefore it is that you re-
gard, with such pious horror, the work of the Bible Society,
and that your priests burn the Bible, when they dare, with
so much zealous exultation.
Thank God ! the Church of England pursues in this the
very opposite course, because she reveres the written Word
of God, as the great constitution given by the divine Law-
giver, to be the unerring standard of faith and practice to His
people. On it she rests for all her teaching and all her
principles. Whenever she authorizes the act of public wor-
ship, she commands its solemn and simple records to be
read in the ears of all. She places it in the schools of the
young, according to the express precept of the Almighty to
His chosen Israel. She urges its diligent study upon the
old, to be their daily and nightly meditation. She ap-
peals to it as the supreme rule of belief, of feeling, and
of conduct, through the whole course of life. She re-
VOL. n. 16*
370 Letter XLIV.
coils, as against a deadly heresy, from all which contra-
dicts, or presumptuously dares to add to, its perfect doc-
trines. And she adopts to its full extent the counsel of the.
holy Jerome : " Love the Scriptures, and Wisdom will love
thee."
The End of Controversy, Controverted. 371
LETTER XLV.
MOST REVEREND SIR :
THE 48th letter of Dr. Milner is occupied with a defence
of his Church against what he calls " various misrepresen-
tations." There are many among these topics which have
been fully discussed already, and a repetition of the argu-
ment would be equally tiresome and useless. I shall only
notice, therefore, those subjects which now occur for the
first time.
The first of these is your doctrine that " the intention of
the priest is essential to the effect of the sacrament." And
your advocate remarks on this, that every sensible person
must see the essential difference " between an action that is
seriously performed, and the mimicking or mockery of it by a
comedian or buffoon."
Certainly this a very light and shallow mode of treating
a very important question. The statements of your own
historian clearly prove that, for many centuries before the
Reformation, the Church supported an immense number of
priests who were licentious, immoral, and even a cause of
extensive public scandal. During those ages, too, there
was abundant proof that the heathen philosophy of Aristotle
infected, to a fearful extent, the very schools of theology,
especially the famous University of Paris. Yet all these
priests were constantly engaged in administering baptism
and the Eucharist. Bishops, of like sentiments and life,
372 Letter XL V.
were performing ordination, which you hold to be a sacra-
ment. It is, therefore, a very grave inquiry, whether the
efficacy of their acts with respect to others depended on the
integrity of the actors' intention. They may not have per-
formed their official duties like a comedian or a buffoon, be-
cause an open mockery would not have been borne by the
people. And yet it is impossible to suppose that such men
could have had the intention which the solemn nature of re-
ligious acts requires, when they were living, in all other re-
spects, a life of open abomination. If, then, the intention of
the priest is essential to the effect of the sacrament, the con-
sequence inevitably follows, that multitudes who thought
themselves baptized were not baptized at all ! That multi-
tudes who supposed they had received the Eucharist, re-
ceived nothing ! That, in a word, there could be no cer-
tainty that there was any visible Church remaining, since
all agree that there can be no visible Church without the
sacraments.
Now your Church, in this matter, has needlessly put
forth a very dangerous doctrine. It is perfectly hostile,
moreover, to another part of your system, where you teach,
as we also do, that the wickedness of the priest does not
destroy the validity of the sacrament with respect to the
faithful receiver. For the intention of the priest is a part of
his piety. He sins, undoubtedly, if he lacks the true inten-
tion which belongs to his office, and for that sin he will be
condemned. But he sins, likewise, if he lacks the piety
belonging to his office ; and for that, too, he will be de-
stroyed. Nevertheless, the grace of God is not withheld
from the faithful receiver of his priestly acts because the
priest himself is destitute of a pious intention, nor even if
he should be destitute of piety altogether ; for this would
be to make one man suffer spiritually for the sin of an-
Priestly Celibacy. 373
other, which, is quite opposed to the principles of the
Gospel, and even to the fixed maxims of justice and
equity.
Next, your favorite advocate tries to justify your Church
in her rule of taking none for her clergy, except those who
voluntarily embrace celibacy. And he quotes the expres-
sion of the English statute to prove that this is " better for
the estimation of the priesthood." He also declares, in a
note, that the second Council of Carthage and St. Epipha-
nius trace the discipline of sacerdotal continence up to the
Apostles, and that St. Paul and the Saviour Himself gave
it a preference over matrimony, as " a state of greater per-
fection."
The question, however, is not whether it would be better
if priests were continent, nor whether, in such case, they
would enjoy a higher estimation, nor whether continence is
a state of greater perfection. But it is whether the Lord,
who instituted marriage in paradise before the fall, and who
commanded the priests of the Mosaic dispensation to marry,
thought fit to order the very contrary to his Christian min-
istry. And here we have the direct rule laid down by the
inspired St. Paul, notwithstanding his own personal prefer-
ence of celibacy, in the 3d chapter of his 1st Epistle to
Timothy: *
"It behoveth a Bishop to be blameless, the husband of
one wife, one that ruleth well his own house, having his
children in subjection with all gravity. But if a man know
not how to rule his own house, how shall he take care of
the Church of God ?" " Let deacons be the husbands of one
wife, who rule well their children and their own houses."
And again the same Apostle saith,f " Marriage" (is) " honor-
* Douay Bible. f Heb. xiii. 4.
374 Letter XL V.
able in all, and the bed undefiled. For God will judge for-
nicators and adulterers."
There is the DIVINE LAW. Who gave your Church the
right to violate it ? And what did she gain by the viola-
tion ? Let the reader recur to the extracts from your own
historian, and see the horrible consequences of the Anti-
Christian scheme which refused to let the priesthood have
lawful wives, but allowed them to indulge in the most shame-
ful and public concubinage ; so that from the Pope on his
throne of pride, down to the humblest sub-deacon, the gross-
est licentiousness was the general rule, and chastity was
the rare exception ; and that for at least sevSn hundred
years together, during the whole of which there was a vain
outcry for priestly reformation.
Very certain it is, therefore, that if clerical celibacy is to
be adopted as a state of greater perfection, the style in which
your Church kept it up made it a state of dissolute de-
pravity. But where does the Scripture call it a state of
greater perfection. Nowhere. To most men, on the contrary
it is a state of greater temptation ; and I doubt not that your
priesthood find it so even now, notwithstanding the im-
proved sense of morals, established through the Reforma-
tion in the sixteenth century, makes it impossible for any
class of Christian ministers to live, as the great majority of
your clergy were accustomed to live through all Europe,
four hundred years ago.
From this, your favorite author turns to another " vile
hackneyed calumny" about your not keeping faith with her-
etics, if the promise made is to the prejudice of the Church.
But although he repels this charge with a show of virtuous
indignation, it is too well established by multiplied facts in
your history to allow any intelligent mind to doubt its truth.
Nor do I regard it as by any means the worst or most dan-
Protestant Wars. 375
gerous feature in your system. I have already examined
the matter, however, largely enough, and shall not here
enter into it again. As to the power assumed by your Popes,
to absolve the subjects of heretical sovereigns from their
oath of allegiance, and give away their thrones to any Ro-
man monarch they please, which your advocate very prop-
erly connects with the former subject, he thinks it enough
to tell his readers that " more princes were actually dispos-
sessed of the whole or a large part of their dominions, by
the pretended Gospel reformation, within the first fifty years
after it was proclaimed, than the Popes had attempted to
depose during the preceding fifteen hundred." And here,
he not only asserts what is wholly false, but he endeavors
to mislead his readers into a kind of comparison which has
not the slightest relation to the question.
For, in the first place, there would have been no wars at
all on the Continent, produced by the movement of the Ref-
ormation, if your Church had been willing to allow mere
liberty of conscience. Her despotic tyranny, which deter-
mined to extirpate the* heretics in her old style, by fire and
sword, as she was unable to put them down by fair argu-
ment, was the real cause of all those civil commotions. She
denied them their right to take their religion from the Word
of God, and to cast off the accumulated frauds and impo-
sitions of centuries. And if Rome would have remem-
bered the Saviour's declaration, " My kingdom is not of this
world," and have followed the command of our Lord to Pe-
ter, " Put up thy sword into the sheath, for all that take the
sword shall perish by the sword," she would have saved
herself from the guilt of lighting those flames of religious
persecution, and again steeping her hands in blood.
Those wars, therefore, on the part of Protestants, were
wars of defence for Christian liberty, while they were wars
376 Letter XL V.
of tyrannical and impious aggression on the part of the
Papacy. It is notorious to all the world that such was their
history. The Pope was the assailant, and your Church,
therefore, must take the responsibility. Point out, if you
can, a single instance, in which a reformed State or King-
dom made an attack on any other, for the purpose of for-
cing its own religion down their throats. There is no such
instance, and Dr. Milner knew it well. But this despotic
violence had been the policy of Antichrist for many centu-
ries. In the same style, precisely, your Papal Church had
devastated Europe in the wars about investitures, in the
wars against the Paulicians, the Henricians, the Albigenses,
the Waldenses, the Bohemians, and others. In the same
spirit she established the laws throughout Europe, which
punished all that she called heresy with flames, and gave
existence to her favorite engine, the nefarious Spanish In-
quisition. In the same spirit the Pope offered a Te Deum
and struck medals in honor of the horrible butchery of St.
Bartholomew's. And in the same spirit, I doubt not, Rome
would again proselyte the world, if God had not, in mercy,
broken the yoke of her proud and implacable dominion, and
cast her fierce and despotic empire to the ground.
"With respect to England, I have already stated the mode
in which this characteristic of pontifical paternity was ex-
hibited when your Pope Sixtus V. fulminated his Bull
against Queen Elizabeth, deposed her from her throne, ab-
solved her subjects from their allegiance, gave away her
kingdom to Philip II. of Spain, and commanded every one
to obey the invader. In a word, it is your PAPAL SYSTEM.
Dr. Milner says, indeed, that " some Popes may have beea
too free in pronouncing such dispensations. Should this
have been the case, they alone personally, and not the Cath-
olic" (i. e., Roman) " Church, were accountable for it, both to
The Deposing of Princes by the Pope. 377
God and man." But this I aver to be a most uncandid and
palpable evasion.
What ! the Popes personally accountable for a preroga-
tive which they claimed by virtue of their office, and which
they exerted without scruple or remonstrance from any of
their own Councils since the time of Gregory VII., in the
eleventh century ! During these 500 years, in which the
Papal Antichrist reigned in his maturest vigor, there were
many Popes accused by Councils for high crimes and mis-
demeanors, and yet the assumption of this deposing power
was never named amongst their transgressions. Was this
because it was a trifling or unimportant matter? What
could be of more grave and even fearful significance than
a claim of divine right to depose sovereign princes, absolve
their people from their oaths of allegiance, transfer their
dominions, and light up the flames of war, at the Papal will
and pleasure ? Yet the rulers of your Church sustained it,
proclaimed it, defended it, and, by its means, kept Europe
in an almost constant fever of agitation, until the Refor-
mation of the sixteenth century. The clergy of France,
under the eminent Bossuet, in 1682, were the first who
openly attacked the principle, and that was more than an
hundred years after the Council of Trent, which had not
lisped one word against it. And those French ecclesias-
tics were immediately assailed by a storm of invective from
their Ultramontane brethren, in which they were stigma-
tized as heretics, traitors, and enemies of the Holy See.
Nay, Pius VII. tried to exercise his prerogative again,
against Napoleon, in the early part of our own century, as
I have already shown. And yet your favorite coolly tells
his readers, that it was only a matter for which the Popes
were personally accountable, and that your Church has
nothing to do with the responsibility, although all your
378 Letter XL V.
priesthood maintained it either tacitly or openly until the
Gallican declaration of 1682, and not one of your Popes,
your Jesuits, or your Ultramontane party have given it up to
this day !
The End of Controversy, Controverted. 379
LETTER XLVI.
MOST REVEREND SIR :
THE 49th letter of Dr. Milner is devoted to the defence
of his Church on the subject which I have just been occu-
pied in noticing, and his argument is worthy of attention as
an admirable specimen of the most specious sophistry and
the boldest art ; put together with so much skill as to im-
pose, without difficulty, on the ignorant or thoughtless
reader.
He begins his defence with a positive assertion that your
Papal Church, so far from " maintaining a claim to punish
heretics with penalties, imprisonment, tortures and death, actu-
ally disclaims the power of so doing." And this he under-
takes to prove by referring to Pope Leo, St. Ambrose, and
St. Martin, Tertullian, and Gregory I., in whose times the
Church did certainly disclaim the whole work of persecu-
tion. But these writers all flourished before the end of the
sixth century, while the Papacy was still unformed, and not
one of the more serious errors against which the English
Reformation was directed was yet established. What did
those witnesses know of your subsequent career ? Nay,
what have we been doing, all along, but proving, from the
authority of the early ages, how greatly your modern Church
differs from her own primitive original 1 The adulteress
might as well attempt to establish her innocence, by appeal-
ing to the first innocent years of her marriage union ; or
380 Letter XL VI.
the murderer, by calling witnesses to testify that his boy-
hood was unstained with blood : as your Papal Church
might vindicate her present character, by showing what the
original faith of Rome had once been, before Antichrist pol-
luted her.
But when the time arrived that the Church became di-
vided, and the Papal power grew to such a height that its
true dominion could be displayed, how did it operate ? So
early as the ninth century, we find some heretics burned
alive ! This new and horrible punishment became univer-
sal through all the countries in Europe, by established law.
Who were the men that had the greatest influence in
making the laws during the whole period of the dark ages ?
The Popes, the Bishops, and the priesthood. The little
learning that remained was all in their hands. The gov-
erning and commanding power was in their hands. The
extracts from your own historian show how it was exer-
cised, and the cruel spirit of your Papal Church is .written
on the annals of seven centuries of religious despotism, in
a series of systematic acts which have no parallel since the
world began.
Your apologist next passes to the fourth Council of Late-
ran, A. D. 1215, which your Church holds to be one of the
General Councils, and here he cannot deny that the perse-
cution of heretics was enjoined on all temporal rulers 'and
magistrates, even to the fearful extent of exterminating them :
under the penalty that if the lay lords and magistrates neg-
lected this new duty, they should be excommunicated, and
their property and dominions should be confiscated to the
sovereign ; while the Bishops and clergy should be deposed,
and their goods should be taken into the revenue of the
Church.
Dr. Milner's attempt to get rid of this is simply prepos-
The Fourth Council of Lateran. 381
terous. " It must first be observed," saith he, " who were
present at this Council, and by whose authority these decrees
of a temporal nature were passed. There were then present,
besides the Pope and the Bishops, either in person, or by
their ambassadors, the Greek and the Latin Emperors,
the kings of England, France, Hungary, the Sicilies, Ar-
ragon, Cyprus, and Jerusalem ; and the representatives of
a vast many other principalities and States ; so that, in fact,
this Council was a Congress of Christendom, temporal as
well as spiritual."
Now, suppose it was, what then ? Was it the less a
Council of your Church ? Was it not summoned by Pope
Innocent III. ? Was it not attended by a larger number of
patriarchs, Bishops, and abbots, than any other ever holden
before or since 1 Were not the votes confined to the ecclesi-
astical members, as in all your other Councils ? Did it not
deal, throughout, with excommunications, which belong to the
sole province of the Church ? Did it not establish the ob-
ligation on all Archbishops and Bishops to search out the
heretics, by a regular visitation of their dioceses once or
twice a year, and give them the power of compelling the
laity to swear whether they knew of any heretics or secret
conventicles among them, and of bringing the accused persons
before them, who should be punished if they failed to clear
themselves of the imputation ? Did it not also establish the
compulsory private confessional, by which every individual
of the laity was compelled to pass the regular annual in-
spections of the priest, under the penalty of being pro-
nounced excommunicate, and deprived of Christian burial ?
And when, in the 3d Canon of the whole 70 enactments,
this famous Council fastened the duty of exterminating here-
tics upon all the lay princes, governors, lords, and magis-
trates, in Europe, was there the slightest mark of difference
382 Letter XL VI.
to distinguish this act from the rest, as if it were the sepa-
rate work of the laity ?
Indeed, the very suggestion of your crafty apologist in-
volves a total absurdity, on your own principles. For, in
no case whatever have you ever allowed the laity a distinct
voice in your Councils. They are the sheep, committed,
along with the whole Church, to the supreme pastor, the
successor of St. Peter, the vicar of Christ, the king of
kings and lord of lords, the POPE ! And if their chief
pastor should play the wolf instead of the shepherd, it does
not belong to the sheep to rebel against his unquestionable
authority. The Cardinals may try to call him to account, if
they are able. But it is the duty of the laity to submit and
obey.
Hence, the numerous attendance of the princes on this
occasion, as on others, was not intended to be any check
upon the Pope and the clergy. It was only to give the
Council a larger measure of eclat, and of influence. And
truly there never was a Council in your Church which was
so terribly effective. It gave new sanction, new principles,
and new powers to the horrid work of persecution in every
quarter ; and henceforth, the obligation to hunt out and ex-
terminate the poor heretics, by confiscations, and fire, and
sword, and imprisonment, and torture, and every form of
studied cruelty, became engrafted on the Gospel of Christ,
as a primary work of piety and devotion.
The next effort of your dexterous but most unscrupulous
apologist, is, to show that the principal business of this great
Council was to defend the common cause of Christianity and
human nature, by the extirpation of the Manichean heresy,
which he proceeds to describe in the most revolting terms.
The decree of the Council, he saith, " regarded only the
prevailing heretics of that time, who were all tied together
The Canon of Lateran concerning Heretics. 383
in the same bond of Manicheism. Nor was this "extermi-
nating Canon ever put in force against any other heretics
except the Albigenses : it was never so much as published or
talked of in these islands : so little have Protestants to fear,
by reason of the third Canon of the Council of Lateran."
Now it so happens that there is hardly a word of truth in
this whole argument. The objects for which the Council
was assembled were set forth in the circular epistles of the
^KS>
Pope. The first was for the recovery of the Holy Land ; the
second, for the reformation of the Church ; the third, for the
extirpating heresies generally, without one word of specifi-
cation about the Manichees. And in the third Canon itself,
the language is as follows :
III. CONCERNING HERETICS.
" We excommunicate and anathematize every heresy rais-
ing itself against this holy orthodox and Catholic faith, which
we have set forth above ; condemning all heresies, by what'
ever name they may be called ; for they have different faces,
but their tails are tied mutually together."
Your advocate refers, very unwisely for his cause, to the
testimony of " the Protestant historian, Mosheim," in a note,
and therefore I shall transcribe from this authority some
further proof upon the subject.
" During the whole of this (i. e., the 13th) century," saith
Mosheim, " the Roman Pontiff carried on the most bar-
barous and inhuman persecution against those whom they
branded with the denomination of heretics, i. e., against all
those who called their pretended authority and jurisdiction in
question, or taught doctrines different from those which were
adopted and propagated by the Church of Rome. For the
sects of the Catharists, Waldenses, Petrobrussians, &c.,
gathered strength from day to day, spread imperceptibly
384 Letter XLVL
throughout all Europe, assembled numerous congregations
in Italy, France, Spain, and Germany, and formed by de-
grees such a powerful party as rendered them formidable
to the Roman Pontiffs, and menaced the Papal jurisdiction
with a fatal revolution. To the ancient sects new factions
were added, which, though they differed from each other in
various respects, yet were all unanimously agreed in this
one point, viz. : That the public and established religion
was a motley system of errors and superstition ; and that
the dominion which the Popes had usurped over Christians,
as also the authority they exercised in religious matters,
were unlawful and tyrannical."*
With respect to the Albigenses, the term was applied
generally to a great variety of heretics by the Papal wri-
ters, as we know from the express testimony of Petrus Sar-
nensis, who, in his book on the subject, addressed to this
same Pope, Innocent III., divides them into various sects,
and even counts the Waldenses amongst them. It is true,
however, that many of the Albigenses were supposed to be
strongly inclined towards the Manichean system, and these
were known by the names of Catharists, Publicans, Pauli-
cians, and Bulgarians.! But it is necessary, in mere jus-
tice, to remember, that we have no account of them except
from the Papal writers,*whom Dr. Milner himself warrants
us in saying could hardly be trusted implicitly, when the
opponents of Romanism were to be held up to reprobation.
Certain it is, that if those authors exhibited no more regard
for truth in the case of the Albigenses, than he has mani-
fested towards the English Reformation, the chance of a
fair judgment from posterity was hopeless indeed.
* Mos. Ecc. Hist. 3, 259.
t Mos. in note 3, 266.
The Canon of Lateran in England. 385
Thus, then, stands the evidence, in perfect contradic-
tion to your reckless advocate's assertions. The fourth
Council of Lateran was a regular General Council of your
Church. All that was done in it was by your. Church au-
thority. It was called for three objects : the Crusade against
the Turks, the reformation of the Church, and the extirpa-
tion of heretics. And the Manichean heretics were not
once specified : but all heretics, of whatever name, who op-
posed the Roman system, were excommunicated and cursed,
and were consigned to the sword of persecution, to be exter-
minated without distinction.
As to the averment of Dr. Milner, that the decree of this
Council " was never so much as published or talked of in Eng-
land," it is simply ridiculous. For England, like all the
rest of Europe at that time, was under the Papal Antichrist.
It was to this very Pope Innocent III. that the infamous
King John surrendered his crown. England had the same
laws as all other countries, for punishing heretics with the
flames. The Archbishops and Bishops of England were
obliged to the same duty of hunting for heretics, which the
Council imposed on all other prelates. And the followers
of the celebrated John Wickliff, long afterwards, were the
victims of the very process set forth by this Council of
Lateran. They were imprisoned, condemned, and burned
alive, without, even a pretence that they held any Manichean.
doctrine. The bones of Wickliff himself were dug up from
the grave and burned for the same crime of heresy. The
system of the compulsory confessional, established by the
same Council, was in as full operation in England as any-
where else. And yet Dr. Milner asks us to believe that
the third Canon of the Council was never so much as pub-
lished or talked of in these islands !
He proceeds next, however, to the Smithfield fires of
VOL. u. 17
386 - Letter XL VI.
Queen Mary's reign, and here tie saith, " I have unanswer-
ably demonstrated elsewhere, that if Queen Mary was a
persecutor, it was not in virtue of the tenets of her religion
that she persecuted." But it is impossible that Dr. Milner
could unanswerably demonstrate this proposition, because it
is manifestly untrue. It was her religion, and nothing
else, that made Mary a persecutor. For, first, she had the
fourth General Council of Lateran, which is the highest
authority in your Church, commanding it as a duty to exter-
minate heretics. Secondly, she had the example of all the
most eminent Popes and Bishops of her Church for more
than three hundred years before. And thirdly, she could
look to the special case of the Holy Inquisition in Spain,
established under the express Papal sanction, and com-
mended to her reverence by her own immediate ancestors,
Ferdinand and Isabella, where she knew that heretics were
imprisoned, tortured, and then burned alive, year by year, in
the presence of the king and all the great ecclesiastics, with
the most constant and admirable spirit of pious devotion, FOR
THE GLORY OF GOD ! How, then, I ask, could Queen Mary
have done otherwise, on the principles of her Church ? .It
is impossible to blame her for a faithful adherence to the
rules in which she had been trained, however we may be
inclined to execrate the false system which set at naught
the plainest precepts of Christ and the Apostles, while it
claimed the sole prerogative of infallible guidance to the
kingdom of heaven.
Your unscrupulous apologist passes on from this to an-
other plain violation of historical fidelity, where he saith
that James II. "lost his crown in the cause of toleration"
But all the world knows that this monarch was a declared
Romanist, and had formed a regular plan to bring England
back to her old subjection under the Papacy. His tolera'
Protestant Persecutions. 387
tion had no other aim than this, and hence it was not the
spirit of religious liberty, but the manifest determination to
restore the Papal bondage, which roused the nation against
him, and forced him to abdicate the throne.
The next argument of Dr. Milner is really amusing. He
tells his readers, gravely, that the gentlemen who travel to
Rome are as cordially received by the Pope himself in the
character of English Protestants, as if they were the most
zealous members of his own communion ! Truly, a won-
derful proof of Papal toleration, that the Pope should be
willing to enrich his people by the influx of Protestant for-
eigners, when he allows even the fixed residence of Jews.
But what has this to do with his religious policy ? Are
Protestants allowed to worship God according to their con-
sciences within the walls of Rome ? Are they even able
to commit their dead to the ground with the rites of Chris-
tian burial I You know, Most Reverend Sir, that they are
not; and your favorite apologist knew it also.
But now he comes to his main defence, which consists in
an elaborate display of recrimination. He says that he knows
of but " one argument to stop the mouths of accusers,"
which is, to prove to them that " persecution has been more
generally practised " and " more warmly defended and sup~
ported" by Protestants than by the Church of Rome ! Then
follows a long enumeration of instances, set forth with
skilful art and misrepresentation, with just enough of truth
to give plausibility to error. It would be an interminable
task to follow him in detail, and as wearisome to the reader
as to myself, even if I were to undertake the labor. Nor
is it necessary. The whole matter is reducible to a very
narrow compass, and the result, to any candid mind, must
be perfectly conclusive.
Let it be remembered, then, that with the Church of
388 Letter XL VI. '
Rome, persecution of all heretics unto death was a fixed
principle. We have seen this in her whole history for five
hundred years together. We have seen it in the positive
enactments of her fourth General Council of Lateran ; in
her crusades against the Albigenses and Waldenses ; in
the laws for burning heretics throughout all Europe ; in the
establishment of the Inquisitions of Spain, Portugal, and
Goa ; in the strenuous efforts of the Popes, which your
own historian mentions, to establish the same nefarious tri-
bunal everywhere else ; in the persecution of the followers
of WicklifF in England, and in the martyrs of Queen Mary's
reign. We have seen it in the massacre of St. Bartholo-
mew's, for which the Pope offered a Te Deum, and struck
medals of commemoration in Rome ; and we know that, to
the present hour, your Church has repudiated everything
like toleration in every part of the world where she holds
the sway. These facts are indisputable.
Now I have not the slightest wish to disguise the truth,
that it took many years for England to discover and reduce
to practice the principle of religious toleration. But she
did discover it, and acted on it, to the full extent of all
the Protestant Dissenters, in the reign of William and
Mary ; and the course of her legislation has been such,
even in the case of Romanists, that they have been, for
many years, admitted even as members of Parliament, and
enjoy the entire exercise of their religion as freely and pub-
licly as the Established Church herself.
That the laws passed in the reign of Queen Elizabeth
against Popish recusants were exceedingly severe, is cer-
tainly true. But the claims and acts of Rome made them neces-
sary, in self-protection. For the Pope had excommunicated
the queen and all her supporters, had undertaken to absolve all
her subjects from their allegiance, had transferred the king-
The Church of England no Persecutor. 389
dom to Philip II. of Spain, and had induced that powerful
monarch to make a warlike attack, which was defeated by
the destruction of the Spanish Armada. The same danger
continued to hang over the head of England, and, accord-
ing to your Papal theory, may be brought down upon her
at any moment when the Pope has the power which he
once possessed, and hopes to possess again. The right
which he professes is based upon a divine authority to reign,
in undisputed supremacy, over all the kingdoms of the earth.
And England could not exercise her Christian liberty, nor
hope to preserve it, if she did not regard the Pope as the
enemy of the State, as well as of the Church. For, as the
sole vicar of Christ, that paramount master of the world
claims, in his own person, the authority of God, and
saith, " By me, kings reign, and princes execute judg-
ment."
But all this concerns the secular government of England,
with which the Church of England does not and cannot in-
terfere. By what act .of that Church is persecution author-
ized ? When and where did she pronounce anathemas
against Romanism, or any other form of religious error ?
When did she make it the duty of her Archbishops to hunt
out heretics, in their visitations every year ? When did she
affix the penalties of her severest discipline to the neglect
of this active barbarity ? In what part of her standard sys-
tem does she recommend that heretics shall be exterminated
by direct attacks upon their liberty and life 1 In what act
of hers will you find a Te Deum ordered to celebrate the
butchery of Romanists ? When did her clergy publish
such nefarious rules of moral abomination as your Jesuits,
or direct the assassin's knife against the persons of kings ?
When did they hold up, as glorious martyrs, the perpetra-
tors of such deeds as those of Jacques Clement and Ra-
VOL. n. 17*
390 Letter XL VI.
vaillac, in France ; and raise religious murders to the rank
of the loftiest virtue ?
The difference, therefore, between the two Churches of
Rome and England is enormous. Your Papal system had
fastened upon all Europe, for centuries, the positive obliga-
tion and duty to exterminate all heretics, by the laws of every
land, by crusades, by fire and sword, by inquisitions, dun-
geons, tortures, and death by flames. And yet, in the very
reign of Elizabeth herself, the Parliament confined the punish-
ment of heretics to those who should oppose the decrees of
the first four General Councils, by which an immense num-
ber of those whom your Church brands with that odious
name were set free from the terrible penalties which were
executed upon them in the reign of Mary. And in a little
more than one century, all Protestant Dissenters were toler-
ated by law ; and in a little more than two centuries, all the
hardships of Romanists themselves were gradually removed,
with the approbation of the majority of the Bishops. For
a long series of years, the Government has even supported
your Irish Seminary at Maynooth, while an English Car-
dinal, and all your accustomed array of Bishops, priests,
and convents, have been allowed to sustain your religious
principles, without let or molestation.
On the other hand, your Church stands precisely where
she placed herself, on principle, in the fourth General Coun-
cil of Lateran. She curses with her multiplied anathemas,
all heretics ; and she holds all to be heretics who oppose
her awful assumption of universal sovereignty. She has
never retracted a single one of her antichristian claims,
and cannot consistently retract them, so long as she main-
tains that she is infallible, unchangeable, and has, on her
side, the direct warrant of a divine and universal supremacy,
as the mother and mistress of all Christendom. She has
Persecuting Principles unchanged. 391
lost her power, indeed, and even allows her priests and Bish-
ops, in Protestant countries, to gull their ignorant and sim-
ple dupes, by such artful sophistry as that of your favorite,
Dr. Milner. But in all this your Popes and Bishops are
only biding their time. Your supposed rights, privileges, and
authority are just what they have been since the days of
Gregory VII., in the eleventh century. And the fourth
General Council of Lateran is the law of your Papal Church,
carried out, whenever you had the power, throughout your
whole history ; and certain to be carried out in all its old
atrocity, if your Popes and priesthood should ever have the
same power again.
392 The End of Controversy, Controverted.
LETTER XLVII.
MOST REVEREND SIR :
I HAVE now gone through the skilful, but most deceptive,
work of your favorite, Dr. Milner ; and as he has summed
up, in his last and 50th letter, the whole of his supposed
demonstration in support of the Church of Rome, I shall
follow his example by setting before my readers a general
statement of the evidence in justification of the Church of
England, and of our own, which is descended from her,
arid forms a branch of her great and rapidly growing com-
munion.
I began by showing the true historical facts of the Eng-
lish Reformation, in opposition to the absurd and false state-
ments of our adversary ; and proved the real state of the
case by the highest testimony, from your own most respect-
able and authoritative writers.
The first axioms of Dr. Milner, that Christ has appointed
some rule or method of learning His revelation ; that this rule
must be an unerring one, and that it must be adapted to the
capacities and situation of mankind in general, I willingly
accepted, precisely as he laid them down ; because they
are just and reasonable.
His accusation against Protestants, that they held the
Holy Scripture to be that rule, according to each individual's
conception of its meaning, I proved to be in no respect ap-
plicable to the Church of England, because our Articles
and whole system, while they maintain the Bible as THE
General Summary. 393
RULE OF FAITH, carefully protect it from the abuses of pri-
vate judgment, and define the true interpretation of the Word
of God according to the fixed sense of pure Christian an-
tiquity. I agreed, likewise, to his statement that the Gos-
pel provided not only for the law of faith, but also for the
commissioned ministry, whose office it was to apply it, in
the actual work of the Church, to the end of time. And I
showed that the authority of the Church, as the living in-
terpreter, was secured to a vastly greater extent and more
practical efficiency by the Church of England, than by the
Church of Rome, since with you, the Church only teaches
the priests, while with us, the people as well as the priests
HEAR THE CHURCH continually.
I proved next, however, that the ancient Church of Israel
was also a divine institution, founded by the express au-
thority of God, in the midst of signs and wonders, with its
inspired Scriptures as the rule of faith and practice, and its
commissioned priests as judges and interpreters, and a sure
promise of perpetuity forever. That notwithstanding all
this, that divine Church became awfully corrupted by false
worship and idolatry, in the course of time. That this cor-
ruption, together with the judgments of Heaven consequent
upon it, was all predicted by Moses and the other prophets,
as were, likewise, the reformation of Israel and their rein-
statement in the divine favor, in the last days. And I then
proved that the Church of Christ, under the Gospel dispen-
sation, had also become corrupted. That this corruption
was, in like manner, foreseen and plainly foretold by the
inspired Apostles ; so that if, in point of fact, it had con-
tinued united and pure up to the present period, that alone
would constitute a ground of doubt, as to the prophetic cer-
tainty of the New Testament Scriptures.
I then proceeded to give a regular statement of the his-
394 Letter XLVIL
tory and progress of corruption in the Church of Christ, in
which I took for my basis, as to the facts, the authority of
the fathers, the Councils, and your own historian, Fleury ;
thus assuming nothing but what was distinctly proved by
your own witnesses, and clearly showing that there was a
general complaint of flagrant corruption throughout all Eu-
rope, and an urgent call for Reformation on all sides, for
seven centuries together, before any real reformation was
effected.
This series of historical testimonies being closed, I re-
curred to the argument of Dr. Milner, and proved from all
the primitive fathers that the rule of faith in the early Cath-
olic Church was the WRITTEN WORD OF GOD, OR THE HOLY
SCRIPTURES, and that the only place allowed by them to
tradition was in the office of interpretation; which great prin-
ciples our Church has most carefully preserved and embodied
in her whole system. And hence it resulted that the notion
of an unwritten Word of God, on which Rome founds her
rule of faith in all those points which are not in the Bible,
was in truth uncat holic, false, and substantially heretical.
My next labor was to justify the Church of England
against the allegations of your favorite- author, with respect
to her version of the Bible, her Canon of Scripture, and her
historical independence of the Church of Rome.
And then, I considered the great question, " Which is the
true Church ?" according to your author's own characteristic
notes- of Unity, Sanctity, Catholicity, and Apostolicity, and
proved that by the principles of Scripture, of the fathers,
and of right reason, the Church of England had the advan-
tage, in all these respects, over the claims of the Church of
Rome.
In answer to the third series of Dr. Milner's letters, I
exhibited the true scriptural and Catholic doctrine against
Dr. Milner's Reputation. 395
your corrupt worship of the Virgin and the saints, of relics
and images ; your purgatory, indulgences, celibacy, and
private and compulsory confessional ; your antichristian
Papal sovereignty, your laws against heretics, and your
system of persecution. And throughout the whole, I trust
that I have fully vindicated the honor of God's own word,
THE HOLY SCRIPTURES ; the character of His Church, ac-
cording to the ancient rule of real Catholicism ; and the
irrefragable authority by which our own Communion is
entitled to claim the highest place in Christendom, as the
faithful exponent of the original, divine, pure and Apostolic
system.
And now, Most Reverend Sir, I commit the care of Dr.
Milner's reputation to you, as his special admirer and friend.
You remember that you called upon us, by a public printed
circular, to read Milner's End of Controversy, and come at
once into your Church, lest our flocks should come before us.
And I trust these volumes will prove that some of us have
read the book; thus endorsed and recommended, and that
we are compelled to arraign it before the public as a work
which, though it do.es indeed abound in talent and dexter-
ity, is yet totally unworthy of any confidence for justice,
for candor, or for truth.
I have done what I could, in answering its calumnies, its
perversions, and its sophistry, to keep my own pen within
the bounds of Christian moderation. But it was totally im-
possible, on such a subject, and dealing with a writer so
utterly reckless and abusive, to avoid strong and plain lan-
guage, which will probably jar very painfully at times upon
your nervous system. Still, I cannot think that I have gone
farther, on any topic, than the vast importance of the ques-
tion demands, and the facts of incontrovertible history most
fully justify. My personal feelings towards yourself, and
396. Letter XL VII.
the members of your Communion generally, are of the
kindliest character. I do not doubt that your people are
very honest and sincere in their delusion. I do not doubt
that even those among you who ought to know the truth,
have some mode by which you reconcile the defence of
error to your conscience. And my prayer for you all is,
' that the Lord, in His infinite mercy, may lead you to the
genuine source of all religious knowledge, the INSPIRED
SCRIPTURE'S, as your only rule of faith, and thus bring you
back to .the divine principles of that ORIGINAL CATHOLIC
CHURCH, which taught, in simplicity and purity, the celes-
tial way of salvation.
I do not mean, by this,' as I have fully shown elsewhere,
that you have formally separated from that original Catholic
Church, or that you are no longer entitled to a place in the
comprehensive body of the Church Catholic or universal.
For you have retained the Scriptures, and the ancient
creeds, and the sacraments, and the Apostolic ministry, and
I doubt not, will retain them to the end. . Neither do I
mean that you should leave your own Church, and come to
ours. But I do mean that, instead of vilifying and misrep-
resenting the Church of England, you should rather imitate
her example, by casting away the multiplied innovations
and corruptions which deform and oppose the true Apostolic
system. That system is fairly represented in our Church,
and you are both schismatical and heretical in presuming
to condemn and anathematize it. You have taken away
from that Apostolic system on the one side, by robbing
the Scriptures of their prerogative as the rule of faith ; by
robbing the laity of the imposition of hands in Confirma.
tion, of the chalice in the holy Eucharist, of worship in the
vulgar tongue, and of the free access to the sacraments
without money and without price ; by robbing your priests
The Church of Rome heretical. 397
-._-, - __ifT__n_ -L ' .
and Bishops of the right to marry, or to elect their own
Episcopal head ; and by robbing both priests and laity of
all voice in your ecclesiastical legislation. You have added
to it, on the other hand, by a fearful mass of errors the
worship of the Virgin, of saints, of images and relics ; pur-
gatory and indulgences ; enforced auricular confession and
private absolution ; solitary Masses for the dead, incense,
chrism and holy water, baptism of bells ; compulsory mo-
nastic vows of poverty, celibacy, and obedience, the Papacy,
with its tremendous powers of persecution, anathema, and
interdict ; and the enormous figment of oral Apostolical tra-'
dition and consequent infallibility, by which the whole false
and perilous structure of imposition is sustained. Many of
those errors you have made articles of faith, and your Coun-
cils and your Popes have excommunicated and anathema-
tized, as heretics, all who would not subscribe to them. If,
therefore, they are false additions to .the true Apostolic
creed, as they surely are, they are heresies on your own
principles. Our 19th Article does not, indeed, employ the
term " heresy" in speaking of your Church, merely declar-
ing that " the Church of Rome hath erred, not only in their
manner of living and ceremonies, but also in matters of
faith." Yet it is Certain that " error in matter of faith"' is
heresy, if it be maintained obstinately and pertinaciously.
And no obstinacy can be equal to that of your priestly
rulers, in proclaiming their, infallibility in these very errors,
anathematizing the maintainefs of the truth, and even de-
stroying them in multitudes, by the Inquisition, by the Cru-
sades, and by the stake, for centuries together.
All this antichristian mass of heretical pravity, therefore,
we would gladly see you cast away, with the loathing it
deserves, that you might return to your " first love," and to
the pure Apostolic Church from which you sprang, and
VOL. n. is
398 Letter XLVIL
from which, in these respects, you have so awfully departed.
BUT YOU WILL NOT ! Prophecy declares that Antichrist is
to be destroyed by the brightness of the Saviour's coming.
And therefore your Papal system will remain until the end
of the present dispensation. Let us be content and thank-
ful that its strength is broken. Your old power has passed
away. Your laity are fast becoming too enlightened for
their priests. Excommunications, racks, and inquisitions
have lost their terrors. In vain may you struggle to regain
your dominion. In vain may writers like Dr. Milner be
cherished and sustained, in the hope of restoring that anti-
christian supremacy which is gone forever. There are
thousands, I doubt not, among your ranks at this moment,
who think as we do. There are tens of thousands who
would rejoice to purify their Church after the English
model, if they had the power. And if only for their sakes,
we will still pray that the reforming light of Truth, and the
sanctifying grace of the Holy Spirit, may be poured in mer-
ciful abundance upon your Church and people.
THE END.
UNIVERSITY OF
47 559 046
2-11637
1
Live Music Archive
Librivox Free Audio
Metropolitan Museum
Cleveland Museum of Art
Internet Arcade
Console Living Room
Books to Borrow
Open Library
TV News
Understanding 9/11