/2 . oS,
from f 0e feifirarp of
(professor ^amuef (tttiffer
m QUemorp of
3ubc$e J^amuef (M^tiffer QSrecftinribcje
(preeenfeb 61?
^amuef (Jtliffer QBrecftinribge feong
to f($e feifirarp of
(prtnceton Cfleofogtcaf ^emtnarg
BX 1765 .F2 L4
Traevern, J. F. M. 1754-
1842.
An answer to the Rev. G. S
Faber's Difficulties of
SOL
ANSWER
TO THE
DIFFICULTIES OF ROMANISM.
AN
aif^W^!
TO THE
REV. G. S. FABER'S
DIFFICULTIES OF ROM ANIS3I,
BY THE
Right Rev. J. F. M. TREVERN, D. D.
BISHOP OF STRASBOURG,
LATE BP. OF AIRE.
TRANSLATED BY THE
REV. F. C. HUSENBETH.
" Qui estis? Unde vcnistis? .... llabeo origincs lirmas nb ipsis autoribus
quorum res fuit: Ego sum hares Apostolorura .... vos exhaercdave-
runt semper et abdicaverunt ut extraneos, ut inimicos."
Tertullian. L. dc Prescript, c. 37.
Baltimore:
PUBLISHED BY F. LUCAS, Jr. 138 MARKET STREET.
Tenenda nobis est Christiana religio, et ejus Ecclesiae commu-
nicatio, quae Catholica est, et Catholica nominator, non solum a
suis, verum etiam ab omnibus inimicis.
8. Augustin, de vera Relig. Cap. VIL
lucas fc D«aver, print*
INTRODUCTORY NOTICE.
In presenting the following work to the public, it
may be requisite to state the circumstances which
have led to its*:composition. They are briefly these.
Some years ago the Abbe Trevcrn, formerly Vicar-
general of Langres, being an emigrant to England in
consequence of the French Revolution, published in
London a French work, in two volumes, entitled "Dis-
cussion Amicale sur UEglise Anglieane, et en general
sur la Reformation, dediee au clerge de toutes les Com-
munions Protestantes" When the London edition of
this work was exhausted, its learned and highly re-
spected Author, being then in France, and raised to
the episcopal see of Aire, published a second edition
of it in Paris, in the year 1824. An English transla-
tion of this valuable work has not yet appeared, but
one is on the point of. being published by the Rev.
Wm, Richmond, of Swinnerton Park.
It was not till the year 1826, that any attempt was
made to refute the above masterly composition. In
that year there appeared a work from the pen of a
clergyman of the Church of England, of well known
talent and erudition, the Rev. G. S. Faber, B. D.
Rector of Long Newton, bearing for title " The Diffi-
culties of Romanism." No sooner did the worthy
vi INTRODUCTORY NOTICE.
prelate become acquainted with this work — which
professes to adopt his Lordship's Discussion Amicale
as a text-book, and to furnish a refutation of it, than
he applied himself with indefatigable exertion to vin-
dicate his own book, and answer the alleged Diffi-
culties of Mr. Faber's — and this amid the confusion,
anxiety, and pressure of affairs of every kind atten-
dant upon his Lordship's being translated from the see
of Aire to that of Strasbourg. The good bishop trans-
mitted his work in M. S. as he wrote it, to the transla-
tor, who now confidently presents it to the public.
CONTENTS.
PACE
Introduction, ------ _ - - 5
PART FIRST.
Oil the first three Letters of the Discussion Amicale.
The first Letter, 13
Ths second Letter, - - - - - - - -15
The third Letter, 20
PART SECOND.
On the Holy Eucharist.
Chapter the first, _--__---().">
Chapter the second — Proofs from Scripture, - 74
Chapter the third — Proofs from Tradition, - - - - v 84
First General Proof — the Discipline of the Secret. - - 91
Second General Proof from the Liturgies, - 117
Extracts from the Liturgies. ------ 12$
General Proof from the Catecheaes.
Chapter the fourth — Particular Proofs from the Fathers, - 14^
St. Clement of Alexandria, ------ 166
Theodoret, -_-_--.-- 168
St. Chrvsostom and Sr. Ausustin, ----- 1 7-i
>iil CONTENTS.
PART THIRD.
PAGB
Succinct Review of the Difficxrfties of Romanism, - - 193
Introductory Statement, ------ 199
Celibacy, 202
Tradition, 203
Real Presence, --------- 206
Characters of the first Reformers, - 216
Confession, -- 225
Satisfaction, - - - - - - - - 230
Indulgences, --------- 234
Prayers for the Dead — Purgatory, - 239
Invocation of the Saints, - - - - - -249
Relics, --------- 253
Sign of the Cross, - 254
Church of England, ------- 256
Supremacy, --------- 258
Re-union, --------- 261
Inquisition, --------- 266
Intolerance, 271
Recapitulation, - 275
Conclusion, _---,.__- 37G
ANSWER
TO
FADER'S DIFFICULTIES
OF
ROMANISM.
My dear sir,
You have so earnestly requested me to reply to
the work lately published by the Rev. G. S. Faber,
B. D. against my Discussion Jlmicale, that I should be
truly deserving of reproach if I refused to comply.
The only difficulty attending your request arose from
my finding it impossible to reconcile the labour re-
quired, with the occupations of governing a diocese.
My necessary resolve was to interrupt the latter for
a time, when I reflected, on the one hand, that the re-
futation had appeared to you peremptory and conclusive,
and understood, on the other, that my silence would be
interrupted by your countrymen as the tacit avowal of
a defeat. You assure me that the attack directed in
my person against the doctrine I profess, issued from
a celebrated pen, from the first even of your contro-
vertists. Well, sir, I rejoice with you for it: the
reputation and talents of such an antagonist will only
add greater splendour to the truth. I trust that ere
long you will see the arguments of your renowned
theologian fall before you, one after another, without
force or effect; and the proofs developed in my work
remain still unshaken after the appearance of his.
And then I hope you will yourself conclude that the
2
10 ANSWER TO THE
Faith of the Catholic Church is impenetrable to the
shafts of its enemies.
In the first letter you did me the honour to address
to me, I was informed that your learned friend had
engaged to refute my work; that he purposed follow-
ing me step by step, and shewing on each point that I
had uniformly built upon a vain illusion, by believing
myself always supported by the Scriptures and the
Primitive Church. This plan was certainly the only
methodical one, and at the same time the fairest and
best calculated to exhibit the truth with the strongest
evidence. You assured me that such was the plan to
be adopted by my antagonist. Imagine then my sur-
prise, my dear sir, when as I looked over his refuta-
tion, I found that instead of proceeding step by step
after me, instead of adhering to the arrangement,
which I had adopted for the various questions, he had
preferred abandoning it altogether, displacing the
questions, and putting those in front, which ought only
to have appeared in the rear. A writer of the pene-
tration you profess to find in him, ought undoubtedly
to have been sensible how much strength is acquired
by proofs when properly connected with each other,
and how much they lose by being separated.
Although Mr. Faber and myself are widely divided
in opinion, the same motive has led each to take up
the pen — that of convincing your countrymen: our
great opposition is in our respective objects. Mine
was to make them sensible of the reasons, which ought
to lead them back to unity; his on the contrary, was
to exhibit those, which might still farther remove them
from it. I strive to persuade to re-union: he endea-
vours to perpetuate dissension. I consider that you
would gain every thing by becoming again what }Tou
once were; he thinks on the contrary, that you have
every thing to lose, if you do not remain what you
are. Which of us has the more effectually pleaded
his cause, or rather your cause? Our judges are those
DIFFICULTIES OF ROMANISM. H
for whom we have written. Our books are the cause
to be tried. Let them not consider their authors, but
weigh well their respective arguments.
In the comparison I solicit, I see at once that my
antagonist has a powerful advantage over me; he ex-
presses himself in the language of the interested party,
while I write in a language to which the greater num-
ber are strangers. I entreat those nevertheless who
understand both, to compare the Discussion Amicale
with the Difficulties of Romanism, and impartially to
weigh our proofs. This labour will no doubt cost
them application and patience. I solicit them to be-
stow it for the honour of truth, in the name of their
dearest interests, of their happiness in this world and
the next.
Do not expect me, sir, to enter at length upon all
the questions, which divide us; upon the motives, which
establish the truth of the Catholic faith; its conform-
ity, whether with the natural light of human reason, or
with the text of Holy Scripture, or the doctrine and
practice of the primitive Church: consequently the
necessity of adopting it, namely, of renouncing a pre-
tended reformation, equally null in its establishment,
and erroneous in its doctrine. This would be a labour
far exceeding the leisure allowed by my habitual oc-
cupations; and would be to recommence what I have
already published, and transcribe the Discussion ^mi-
celle almost throughout. It is a more simple plan to re-
fer you to that work, by pointing out the volume and
page* You will there find the proofs I have deve-
loped on the contested points; I make bold to assure
you that they still remain in all their strength, and
that the Difficulties of Romanism, however specious it
may have appeared to you, has not made any real at-
tack upon them.
•These will be cited from the more correct edition, published in
Paris, by Potey, No. 46. Rue du Bac. 1824.
12 ANSWER TO THE
I shall confine myself, therefore, to placing again
before your view some of the more important articles,
with an analysis of the proofs and objections, which
the Rev. Mr. Faber brings against them. To this I
shall dedicate the first and second parts of his Reply,
they will suffice, I trust, to justify my assertions, to
rectify the judgment you have formed of them, and
to confirm the triumph of the Catholic Creed. In the
third part, I shall take a review of the false supposi-
tions, wrong interpretations, mistakes, reproaches, dis-
position to ill-humour, and hostile indications, which I
have unfortunately, but too frequently, met with in
The Difficulties of Romanism.
DIFFICULTIES OF ROMANISM. 13
PART THE FIRST.
ON THE FIRST THREE LETTERS OF THE DISCUSSION
AMICALE.
The first Letter places before the reader an histori-
cal summary of the establishment of the Church ol
England. It exhibits Elizabeth, authorized by her
Parliament, driving out of their sees those Bishops who,
with a single exception, opposed her assumptions; and
replacing them with men servile and accommodating,
chosen from the second order of the clergy. Dux
femina facti. It is nevertheless incontestable that
Jesus Christ confided the government of his Church, as
well as the teaching of his doctrine, to the Apostles
and their successors, and by no means to the potentates
of the earth. It is true therefore that a radical defect
of competent authority rendered null the work of Eli-
zabeth, and her two houses of parliament, who formed,
if you will, a parliamentary and royal church, but as-
suredly not one canonically Christian.*
Apply again with me, sir, to the unhappy schism
of 1559, what your learned doctor wrote against that
of 1689, and which ought, with much greater reason,
to have disgusted him with the assumption of Elizabeth.
Listen to this able theologian: "A decree was made by
a senate of laymen, that the bishops who refused to
take the new oaths should be ejected out of their
places. The time for taking them being expired, and
these fathers refusing them, they are deprived of their
palaces, revenues, in short of all rights annexed to their
* Humanam conati suntfacere Ecclesiam, would be here repeated
by St. Cyprian. (Ep. 52.)
14 ANSWER TO THE
episcopal office. Hitherto we complained not. Let
the secular hand reassume, if it pleases, what it has
bestowed upon the Church. This may hurt the tem-
poral estates of the bishops, but can never affect the
consciences of subjects: for Christ has laid no obliga-
tion upon us to assert the legal rights of bishops, in
opposition to the magistrate; but certainly he has
obliged us to assert those rights, which he bimself be-
stowed upon the Church, in order to preserve it under
persecution; and which no earthly power ever gave, or
was able to give. And yet the violence of our adver-
saries proceeded so far! Our reverend fathers were
driven at last from the very cure of souls; altars oppo-
site to theirs erected, and bishops, of an adverse party,
thrust into their places. Though they were alive,
their seats were filled, and filled by colleagues, before
they were vacant, before their predecessors were de-
prived of episcopal power by bishops, who had au-
thority to do it. Upon this account we looked upon
the obedience we owed them to be still valid, nor
could we transfer it to their successors, who had de-
parted from Catholic unity, from Christ himself, and
all his benefits, according to the doctrine of St. Cy-
prian's age"*
Such is, word for word, the history of the deplora-
ble overthrow effected in 1559: and thus ought all those
to have spoken respectfully, but firmly, whose misfor-
tune it was to witness it. Such is the language of
every man of enlightened understanding, who knows
what are true canonical principles — the distinction of
the two powers, and their boundaries — what belongs
to the one and to the other. It will ever be the mani-
fest condemnation of Elizabeth and her parliament.
Mr. Faber appears to have been sensible of this, since
he has not attempted to contradict it. He has done
honour to his judgment and prudence, by keeping si-
•Dodwell on the late Schism. London, 1704, pp. 4, 50
DIFFICULTIES OF ROMANISM. 15
lence upon the conclusions at the end of my first letter.
Those alone ought to suffice at this day to bring back
England to unity. The establishment of Iter Church,
once found to be null in its origin, will be null for ever.
Two centuries and a half have already passed over
the actual state of things: ten more might pass, but
they would never render that valid and legitimate,
which was not so the first day of its existence. There
is no prescription against Heaven.
After having related the origin of your Established
Church, and shewn its essential defect, I pass in my
second Letter to the examination of its doctrine. The
end of my whole discussion is to shew — 1st. That an
absolute necessity, stronger than every obstacle and
repugnance, renders it obligatory to put an end to the
schism, by returning to the mother Church. 2dly. To
prove that all the pretexts and grievances alleged to
justify separation from that church, or to retain people
at a distance from it, far from being founded on scrip-
ture or primitive tradition, are most certainly in oppo-
sition to them I begin then by demonstrating — and
there is no exaggeration in the expression — that the
Church is essentially one, that there can never be a
motive for breaking unity with her, and that to depart
from unity, is by the very act, departing from the
Church of Jesus Christ. Here proofs of every kind
combine to exalt to the highest degree of certainty,
this fundamental truth, entirely decisive between our
separated brethren and ourselves: both the natural
light of the human mind, and the design and precepts
of our Saviour, the Father and Creator of this light; the
doctrine of all the apostles* and their disciples, doctors
or bishops, as well in their particular writings, as in
their decisions in council; the practice of the Church,
* God is not the God of dissension, but of peace: as also I teach in all
the churches. 1 Corinth, xiv. 33. And all the Apostles like St.
Paul, since their teaching was the same, and upon this point St,
Jude testifies it expressly of all.
16 ANSWER TO THE
and the order of its government pursued from the be-
ginning; and finally, the testimonies even of those, who
broke unity in the 16th century, and of those, who in
support of that particular reformed party in which they
were born, never ceased to thunder against those, who
dissented from them.*
I have collected in my second Letter a number of
texts on this great question, which appear to me well
calculated to make an indelible impression upon my
readers. Yes, sir, if I do not deceive myself, who-
ever among your countrymen is faithfully in search of
the truth, will there clearly see, as I venture to assure
him, that truth can never be found in schism and sepa-
ration. Shall I only recall to your remembrance those
words twice repeated by our Divine Saviour in the
admirable prayer which he made to his Father in the
midst of his Apostles, the. evening before his passion?
"That they all may be one," said he, "that the world
may believe that thou has sent me. That is to say,
*I have quoted these various authorities in my second letter
from page 53 to 60. I will here add the following to the celebrat-
ed Theologians of your church: "The King'1 (says Casaubon of
James the First) "plainly believes, without fallacy or deceit, that
there is but one true church, called Catholic or Universal, out of
which he holds that no salvation is to be expected. He detests
those who in old times and afterwards either departed from the
faith of the church, and so became heretics; or departing from
her communion became schismatics." How was it possible to
speak so well, and yet not apply his principles to the transactions
of the preceding reign? How was it that James the First was not
sensible of the strict obligation of honestly labouring to bind again
the bond of unity? What did it profit him to wear so rich and
noble a crown during a mortal life in the midst of the schism, if he
knew it to be such? "The ark out of which all perished," says
Mr. Perkins, "was an emblem of the church militant, out of which
all are condemned: out of the militant church there being no means
of salvation, no preaching, no sacraments; and by consequence no
salvation." On the Revelation, p. 308.
"If the Church of Rome," says Tillotson (T. 6, p. 245J be the
Catholic Church, it is necessary to be of that communion; because
out of the Catholic Church there is no ordinary possibility of sal-
vation."
DIFFICULTIES OF ROMANISM. 17
that all those who may hereafter believe my word,
and the preaching of my Apostles, may be one among
themselves, as thou and I, Father! are one: in order
that by the agreement of their faith, by their adherence
to the same pastors, their perseverance in the same
Church, they may prove to all the faithful that my
mission came from thee. For thou alone, O Father!
canst command the minds and hearts of men; thou
alone canst bring them to uniformity of belief, and
retain them in it. At this spectacle, hitherto unknown
upon the earth, the infidels will feel thy power and
thy sweet influence, and will come to adore thee at
the feet of the same altars. Let them be one, that
the world may know that thou hast truly sent me!"
Tell me, sir, can you ever be persuaded that any
man can love our amiable and adorable Saviour, and
remain insensible to this moving prayer? That any
one can be zealous for his glory, and yet be pleased
with divisions, and oppose the accomplishment of his
wishes? That it is possible to desire the extension of
his kingdom, and yet arrest its progress by word and
example? To wish that his divine mission should be
displayed in the intimate union of all his followers, and
yet by laborious efforts to retain Christians at a dis-
tance from one another, and by rash and often calum-
nious accusations prevent them from religiously giving
each other the hand, and becoming again among them-
selves what they were in the days of peace and con-
fraternity?
I seriously invite my reverend antagonist to weigh
in his heart and before God the considerations which
arise from the sublime prayer of our Saviour. I en-
treat him moreover to dwell some moments on these
words of the celebrated Protestant Claude, to Dr.
Henchman, Bishop of London, in 1 680, on occasion of
the Dissenters in that extensive diocese: "Evidently,"
he wrote, "their conduct is equivalent to a positive
schism, a crime detestable in itself both to God and man.
13 ANSWER TO THE
Those who are guilty of it, whether by first establish-
ing it themselves, or continuing to enforce it among
others, must expect to have a terrible account to ren-
der at the great day of judgment." Claude did not
perceive that he himself was at the head of a party of
Dissenters whose origin and schism came from Calvin!
He was not sensible that he himself was continuing to
maintain this schism among his partizans! and he did
not apply to himself what he said with so much justice
of his imitators present and future, that they must expect
to have to render a terrible account! What astonish-
ing blindness! How can we consider it but as a just
visitation from above? But why should this unhappy
Claude find imitators even in our days? Why must we
even now have the pain of witnessing an able writer
sharing his inconsistency; proclaiming like him the
enormity of schism, and like him taking up his pen or
raising his voice to attach the people to it more firmly?
Let him prove then at the same time either that Eliza-
beth and her clergy did not break unity; or that out of
unity, and in schism, we can secure our salvation.
Neither he, nor any one in the world, will ever prove
either.
I must however remark, to his praise, — and it is a
consolation to me to make it public, — that he appears
to have felt the force of the proofs, which filled my
second Letter. Had he found them defective, he
would not have hesitated to object to them. I take
authority from his silence to say, that on the decisive
question of unity we are both agreed. What I truly
deplore is, that while he admits the principle with all
the Protestant communions, he rejects with them its
essential and immediate consequence, though he prides
himself on logical exactness. This consequence ought
long ago to have led him and them to that tribunal of
Divine creation, which Jesus Christ has erected in his
Church, to preserve the faithful in unity. The estab-
DIFFICULTIES OF ROMANISM. 19
lishment of this tribunal, and the obligations of sub-
mitting to it, are the subjects of the Letter following.
When it is once demonstrated, and acknowledged
on all sides that the precept of unity is indispensable,
and of rigorous obligation upon all Christians, it must
be believed that our Divine Legislator has given us
the means of observing it. Now this means, since per-
sonal inspiration has ceased, can be no other for us all,
than the establishment of a supreme tribunal, which
has the right of declaring what is revealed, and what
is not; and which, itself secured from error, will also
preserve us from it while subject to its decisions. If
such a means does not exist, then we have no means
whatever of obeying Jesus Christ on this essential
point. Without this tribunal, it is impossible for us
ever to remain united; with it, we can never be other-
wise. If the New Testament had never been written,
we ought still to have believed in the institution of this
ancient authority, and admitted it as the necessary ef-
fect of a known cause, and the evident consequence
of an acknowledged principle. Both are inseparably
bound by a chain, impalpable, but indestructible.
This method of reasoning is not at all to the taste of
Mr. Faber. There was one way, and only one of re-
futing it: he should have proved that without acknow-
ledging an infallible authority, Christians can always
remain in unity of faith. But neither he, nor any other
upon earth, will discover such a proof. The passions
of men and the experience of ages will eternally ap-
pear in opposition to it. What then is his resource to
furnish a refutation? At first he professes not to per-
ceive the intimate relation and connexion between the
precept of unity, and the necessary existence of an
infallible tribunal. He takes infallibility separately,
as if persuaded that by keeping it apart from unity, he
can attack it with greater advantage. He therefore
passes over my second Letter like the first, and enters
at once into discussion with the third. Wc shall soon
20 ANSWER TO THE
see whether his attempt is crowned with success; but
it is curious enough to observe how, after so often re-
peating that he would take my work for his text, he
passes over in silence the first hundred pages!
It is true, however, that farther on he glances at the
first argument of my third Letter — and at page 39 he
has chosen to say a few words upon it without finding
fault. Here however he appears to disapprove of the
observation I made in these words, "God commands
us to preserve unity in religion; therefore he has fur-
nished us with the means of so doing." This mode of
concluding a priori appears to him too hazardous, too
bold and venturesome. And yet no one more freely
yields than himself to the dictates of his own reason.
He very often delights in putting whole pages of my
book into form, into syllogisms suitable to his purpose,
and intentionally so turned as to introduce what he
intends to object to me. Nay more; in the same chap-
ter, page 38, he forgets what he has just blamed, and
pleads himself in favour of theological reasoning: "we
shall introduce," says he, "an universal scepticism, if
we deny the right of forming a private judgment upon
perfectly unambiguous propositions In these
matters, and in various others which might easily be
specified, I hold private judgment to be strictly legi-
timate; and I feel persuaded that the Bishop of Aire
will not disagree with me." Well, sir, do you find
any ambiguity in the propositions which I have advanc-
ed, on the absolute necessity of a supreme authority?
Are they not on the contrary as clear as the light? I
had a right then, according to Mr. Faber himself, to
use them, and he was wrong in censuring me for it.
After declaring what reason suggests on the neces-
sity of a supreme tribunal, I come to the authorities,
which demonstrate its real existence. It is Jesus
Christ who teaches it; his apostles and their succes-
sors; the conviction which ever animates the Church,
and directs her dogmatical decisions in councils.
.DIFFICULTIES OF ROMANISM. 21
These proofs brought together demonstrate that in
fact this tribunal, the propriety of which good sense
alone had ascertained, was positively established by
Jesus Christ. I beg those who have at bond the
Difficulties of Romanism, to compare the 2d chapter
of the first book with my third Letter. Mr. Faber saw
very plainly the force and development of (he proofs
which I there adduced, and he docs not even endea-
vour to destroy them! He contents himself with ad-
vancing that I do not reason according to the promis
and expressions of our Lord, but from the mterpn
tions, which I give to them. Judge, sir, between us-,
are not the following words clear and positive declara-
tions— uGo ye therefore and teach all nations: teach-
ing them to observe all things whatsoever 1 have com-
manded you: and behold I am with you all dayt
to the consummation of the world?"* What need h< <
of arbitrary interpretations? How can these wo]
be susceptible of opposite expositions?! Jesus Christ
promises his and their successors to the end of the
world that he will assist them, when they shall teach
the precepts, which he has given them. Can it enter
any sensible head, that error can corrupt that teaching.
which is directed by our Saviour himself? And when
be says to them, UI will ask the Father, and he will
give you another Paraclete: when he shall come, the
spirit of truth, he shall teach you all truth." Can
there be any fear of pernicious mixture in doctrine,
where the Holy Spirit resides, and teaches all truth?
What is wanting to the clearness of these magnificent
promises? What need have they of any interpretation2
And above all, bow can they be interpreted in an op-
posite sense? Truly there are certain unfortunate
minds, for which no human language is sufficiently
plain. Tell them further with St. Paul that the Church
•St. Matt, xxviii. 19,20.
t See Bossuet, Corollaire de la Defense du Clcrge Gall, parae;. 6 ,
and Dissertation Prelimin. parag. 21.
3
22 ANSWER TO THE
of God is the pillar and ground of truth; they will
reply that doubtless it was so in the time of the
apostles, but that in our days we behold this pillar on
the contrary surmounted by a group of errors. Have
then the gates of hell prevailed against the Church?
Has Jesus Christ ceased to be with her? Has he
withdrawn his Holy Spirit, and failed to accomplish his
word? No, no, my dear sir, far be such blasphemy
from us; we know that the world will pass away, but
that his word will not pass away. Let us hold fast
his brilliant promises; and pity every communion, which
rejects them, which prides itself on having no con-
nexion with them, and by that alone cuts itself off
from the body of Jesus Christ. Let us deplore the
blindness of those who invent interpretations opposite
to the promises given to the Church, only because they
are determined, in spite of every proof, never to re-
enter her bosom.
"That the privilege of infallibility resides in the
Catholic Church," says Mr. Faber at the beginning of
his discussion, page 10, "is strenuously maintained:
but as to the precise quarter where it is to be found,
there is not the same unanimity." He goes on to say,
that some hold it to reside in the Pope and others in a
general council: and adds, page 12, "Under such cir-
cumstances, if the prerogative of infalibility belong to
the church, we must seek its residence elsewhere than in
the person of the Pope." A truth too striking for me
to wish to dispute. But let him listen to one reproach
which he very often deserves. He sets out with say-
ing, and repeats again and again, that he chooses the
Discussion Amicale for his text, and that it is his in-
tention to comment upon it from beginning to end.
And yet at page 224 of the 1st volume, I insert this
objection at length, and give its solution: he takes no
notice of this whatever. He forgets his engagement
with the public and with myself. I can no longer dis-
cover his purpose. He must be satisfied with my re-
DIFFICULTIES OF ROMANISM. 23
ferring both himself and his readers to my book. I
will here only sum up my answer in a few words.
"The general acceptation of the bishops dispersed
over the world assures us that a council is really
oecumenical or universal: by them also are we made
certain that the Pope has pronounced ex cathedra.
Thus we Catholics agree perfectly in the same princi-
ple*, and in reality we on both sides attach the seal of in-
fallibility to universal consent." This, I conceive, is all
that needs be said in reply to this formidable objection.
The opinion of those who place infallibility in a
general council, appears best to suit the taste of
Mr. Faber. But unluckily, says he, "from faithful
history we learn, that general councils, upon points
both of doctrine and practice; have decided in plain
and avowed opposition to each other.'" He is not the
first, who has made this assertion: but certainly if he
had been able to prove it, he would have been the
first, who had succeeded in so doing. It is curious to
observe how he proceeds in his demonstration. He
takes two councils, one of which was from the begin-
ning rejected by the whole of the West, and soon after
by the universal Church: and the other immediately
approved by it. He wonders to find them teaching
opposite doctrines, as if he had honestly expected to
find them unanimous. Truly I lament that this pitiful
objection should be revived in these days. There is
not a student in our seminaries who does not know that
the Conciliabulum of Constantinople in 754 was never
acknowledged .* Every difficulty, once solved, should
*:'How could it be a general council, when it was neither re-
ceived, nor approved, but on the contrary, anathematized by the
bishops of other churches — when neither concurred in by the
Pope, nor by the bishops about him, nor by legates, nor by a cir-
cular letter according to the usage of councils? Which had not
the consent of the patriarchs of the East, of Alexandria, Antioch,
or Jerusalem, nor of the bishops dependent upon them.'1' Extract-
ed from the Refutation of this Conciliabulum, read in the 6th session
of the 2d Council of Nice. See Fleury's Church Hist. vol. 6th,
book 44, § 36, of the quarto edition, printed at Caen.
24 ANSWER TO THE
be consigned to oblivion: it is unworthy of a man of
learning to mention it again. It may deceive the illite-
rate; but in the end it will disgrace that man in the
eyes of both parties, who flattered himself that he
could still turn it to the credit of his own.
In support of the pretended opposition between
general councils, of which he has selected such an un-
lucky example, I find him inserting long historical
notes., which, I am sorry to say, are complete in every
thing except applicability and truth. Mr. Faber disco-
vers in the South of Spain, in the small town of Elvira,
a council of nineteen bishops, who forbid painting the
Godhead on the walls of the ir churches; and by a very
illogical way of arguing, concluding twice from par-
ticulars to universals, he deduces from this prohibition
two false conclusions. The first, that it was forbidden
to paint on the walls any kind of pictures: the second,
that in the first ages of Christianity not only was the
veneration of images and pictures unknown, but even
that their introduction into the churches was forbidden.
Mr. Faber would have reasoned otherwise if he had
taken St. John Damascen for his guide, who was so
famous in the grand dispute about images: "We
know.*' says he, "what can, and what cannot be rep-
resented by images. How can an image be made of
Him, who has no body? But since he became man,
you may make a representation of his human form, of
his nativity, of his baptism, his tranfiguration, his cross,
His burial, his resurrection, or ascension. Express all
these by colours as well as by words; be not afraid."
The first consequence deduced by Mr. Faber from
the council of Elvira is therefore false. Must we say
the same of the second? Let us refer it to the deci-
sion of St. Basil. "I receive the apostles," he wrote
to Julian, "the prophets and the martyrs. I invoke
them to pray for me, and that by their intercession,
God may be merciful to me, and forgive my trans-
gressions. For this reason I revere and honour their
DIFFICULTIES OF ROMANISM. 25
images-, especially since we are taught to do so (this
is addressed at once to Mr. Faber) "by the tradition of
the holy apostles; and so far from these being forbid-
den us, they appear in our churches."* Mr. Faber
read this passage, with many others, in the Discussion
.Imicale, vol. 2. page 364; but he passes them all over
in silence, and is unwilling to make them known to
those whom he undertakes to instruct.
The following is of the highest antiquity; and I wish
to retrace it before my readers, first, because he has
considered it prudent to withhold it from his; and
secondly, because when we undertake to enlighten
mankind, there is no need of concealing from them the
truth. Tertullian, when driven to the excess of rigour
by tlie inflexibility of his character, reproached the
Catholics with having absolved adulterers, and defend-
ed such indulgence by the words of the good Shepherd
represented in painting, or in relief upon the clialices.
"Let us now," he resumes, "produce the pictures upon
the chalices."f It was at the close of the second cen-
tury that he spoke thus of this figure painted or en-
graved, as of a common ornament. Would it be an
unwarrantable presumption to attribute its origin to the
days of the apostles? In the stormy centuries of re-
viving persecutions, the Church possessing neither tem-
ples, nor oratories, had not been able to fix pictures or
images on the walis or altars, in the same manner as
she did later. But she had portable ones on the cha-
lices, such as alone were suitable to her uncertain and
fluctuating situation. This sentence of Tertullian, let
*In 814 Leo, the Armenian, at that time the disguised patron of
the Iconoclasts, assembled several bishops in order to induce them
to break pious images. Euthymius, metropolitan of Sardes, thus
addressed him: "Know, sire, that for 800 years and more since
Jesus Christ came into the world, he has been painted and adored
in his image. Who will be bold enough to abolish so ancient a
tradition?"— Who? the Rector of Long Newton.— See Heury, vol.
7. b. 46. § 13. Quarto edit, of Caen.
fLe de Pudic. ch. 7.
3*
26 ANSWER TO THE
iall by the way, and without any regular design, ap-
peared to me in 1812, a ray of light for our cause. I
have since had the satisfaction to see the same view
of it taken by Leibnitz, the most penetrating and uni-
versal genius of the reformation.*
I again feel compelled against my inclination to re-
establish a fact mutilated by the faithful and modest
pen of my antagonist, who thinks himself justified in
praising a Bishop of Marseilles for what St. Gregory
the Great found worthy of censure, and in blaming
With contempt the decision of one of the greatest
lights, who have governed the Church. Such a forget-
fulness of all that is becoming would cause disgust, if
it were not still more calculated to excite pity. Read
what follows, sir, I beseech you, and say if you think
me too severe: — "I have learnt," writes this great
Pope to Serenus, "that seeing some persons adore the
images in the Church, you have broken them: I com-
mend your zeal for preventing the adoration of things
made by the hand of man. But I am of opinion that
you ought not to have broken these images; for pic-
tures are placed in the churches (observe the general
custom) in order that those, who cannot read, may see
upon the walls what they cannot learn in books. You
ought therefore to have preserved them, and deterred
the people from sinning by adoring the 'painting."
And in a second letter, "Shew the people by the Holy
Scripture, that it is not lawful to adore what has been
made by the hand of man; and add, that seeing the
lawful use of images turned into adoration, you be-
came indignant and broke them. If you will, you can
further say — I willingly allow you to have images in
*Et quanquam sub initio Christianismi, aut nullas aut perraras
fuisse imagines, probabilius videatur, (unius enim imaginis Christi,
sub habitu boni pastoris ovem errantem requirentis, sacris calici-
hus insculpti mentio reperitur apurl Tertullianum) paulatim tamen
fuisse receptas ncgari non potest. — Syst. Theolog. p. 132. Ed'U,
P*ris. 1819.
DIFFICULTIES OF ROMANISM. 27
the church for your instruction, for which purpose
they were made tn former days If any one
wishes to make images, do not hinder him: only forbid
the adoration of them. The sight of the historical re-
presentations ought to move them to compunction; but
they ought only to how down to adore the Holy Tri-
nity. I say all this to you out of the love I have for
the Church; not to weaken your zeal, but to encourage
you in your duty.*" Could any one convey a more
sensible admonition, or one at the same time more pa-
ternal? And yet the Rector of Long Newton does not
blush to call this a decision wretchedly injudicious!
I am happy to be able to present to him a judge
whom doubtless he will not refuse. Leibnitz himself
shall speak: I regret that I cannot give at length the
judgment of this great man on the subject of images. f
"As to the veneration of images, it cannot be denied
ihat the Christians abstained from it a long time through
fear of superstition, while they were mixed with the
Pagans. But at length when the worship of demons
was destroyed in the greater part of the known and
civilized world, even grave men found no longer any
reason for excluding images from being used in the
worship of the true God, since they are the alphabet
of the unlearned, and a powerful motive to excite the
common people to devotion. It must be observed that
a double honour is paid to images: one 4dnd which
belongs to the image, as when it is placed in a remark-
able and honourable situation, set off with ornaments,
surrounded with lighted tapers, or carried in proces-
sion; and in this I see no great difficulty. The other
kind of honour is that which is referred to the original.
When for example, it is kissed, when people uncover
their heads before it, or bend their knees, or prostrate,
or offer prayers, or vows, or praises or thanksgivings:
♦The first letter of St. Gregory the Great to Serenus, Bishop of
Marseilles, in the year 599. the second hi 600.
tSee his Syst. Ttieol. p. 121.
2S ANSWER TO THE
but in reality, although they are accustomed to talk of
paying homage to the image; it is not the lifeless thing
incapable of honour, but the original which they honour
before the image.* No one with sound sense will
say and think, 'grant me, O image, what I ask; and
to thee, O marble or wood, I return thanks;' but 'it
is thou O Lord, whom I adore, and whose praises
1 publish.' .... I see no evil in prostrating before
a crucifix, and when looking upon it, honouring him,
whom it represents. But the advantage of it is evi-
dent; since it is incontestable that this action won-
derfully excites the affections; and we have seen that
it was customary with St. Gregory the Great." (We
have seen it too with St. Basil.) "Those who fol-
low the confession of Augsbourg are not entirely op-
posed to this custom: and certainly if we did not
know that there were formerly great abuses in the
t veneration of images, which have rendered suspicious
a thing good in itself; if we did not know the animat-
ed disputes which have arisen on this point, and even
in our own days; no one perhaps would have thought
of suspecting any concealed evil in the veneration
paid before an image, or any danger, or cause of
scruple; so innocent is the thing considered in itself,
I will say even so reasonable and praiseworthy." O
that the Protestant communions, who will not own a
supreme tribunal created by our Divine Legislator,
would at least submit to the authority of superior men
of disinterested minds ! O that they would be per-
suaded by a Grotius or a Leibnitz ! Their schisms at
length would cease to divide the kingdom of Jesus
Christ. Will they ever find safer guides, or judges
*"If it were possible in human language to express ourselves
with rigorous precision, instead of the veneration of images, we
should say veneration of Saints before their images." See Disr
cussion Amicale, vol. 2, p. 348. Let any one be at the pains of
comparing my 16th letter with Leibnitz, and they will see that I
have had the happiness of falling in exactly with that profound
thinker.
DIFFICULTIES OF ROMANISM. 29
more unexceptionable than these two geniuses; both
nurtured and rendered illustrious in the bosom of the
reformation, both surmounting' by profound research
the prejudices of birth, and the habits of life, and
consigning, in their immortal testaments, the triumph
of Catholicity?*
I was far from expecting, from the opinion you had
given me of the author, that I should see figuring in
the Difficulties of Romanism, the apparent contradic-
tion between the Fathers of the second council of
Nice, and those of Frankfort and Paris. It is pain-
ful to have to explain again what has been explained
so often. O that this at least may be for the last
time ! No doubt you have seen in the commerce of
life, friends or families who lived in union, disagreeing
all at once through a mere misunderstanding. Com-
plaints are made on both sides; they avoid each other
and condemn each other. The separation and dissen-
sion last as long as the error from which they arose.
At last comes an explanation: the mistake is discover-
ed, and the falsity of the reports, which had circulated:
they regret that they ever believed them, acknow-
ledge their faults, and on both sides return with plea-
sure to their former sentiments of esteem and concord.
Now this is precisely the history of the temporary mis-
understanding on the subject of images, between the
East and the Gauls, at the time of which we are
speaking. Alarming reports of the sentiments and de-
cisions of Nice give occasion to the convocation of
the council of Frankfort. An unfaithful translation of
the Greek acts unluckily comes to confirm these re-
ports, and leaves no room to doubt that absolute ado-
ration has been impiously given to images. "The
question proposed," say the fathers at Frankfort, "is
that of the recent council of the Greeks for the ado-
* Votum pro pace, and Systema Ttieolog. productions of the two
first heads of the reformation. •
30 ANSWER TO THE
ration of images; in which it is written, that whoever
will not render to the images of the saints service and
adoration as to the Divine Trinity, shall he considered
anathema." Thirty years afterwards the council of
Paris still attributed the same sentiments to the fa-
thers of Nice, and pronounced their condemnation,
after the example of Frankfort and the Caroline
books, and under the same erroneous impression. In
course of time the truth came to light. Correct ver-
sions were spread about, the mistake was acknow-
ledged, and justice was done to the Eathers of Nice.
How indeed could such justice have been refused,
since in the second session the patriarch Tarasius was
found approving of Pope Adrian's letter, and adding,
"I am of the same belief, that images are to be adored
with a relative affection, reserving to God alone the
faith and worship of t, atria:" and all the council
loudly proclaiming itself of the same opinion. When
also in the fifth session this passage came from the
Bishop of Thessalonica in reply to a Pagan: "We
do not adore the images, but what they represent;
and even then we do not adore them as gods; God
forbid ! but as the servants and friends of God, who
pray to Him in our behalf." And this passage of a
dialogue where the Christian replies to a Jew, who is
converted, but scandalized at images: "The scripture
forbids us to adore a strange God, and to adore an
image as God. The images, which you see among us
serve to remind us of the incarnation of Jesus Christ,
by representing his face; those of the saints represent
to us their combats and their victories. When we
venerate them, we invoke God. "Blessed be thou O
God of this saint, and of all the saints." Finally,
when at the last session, these words were read in the
decision of the council: "To images are to be render-
ed the respect and adoration of honour; hut not true
latria, which our faith requires, and which belongs
solely to the Divine nature. But incense and lights
DIFFICULTIES OF ROMANISM. 31
are to be used before these images, as is customary
with regard to the cross, and the gospels, all after the
pious customs of the ancients: for the honour paid to
the image is referred to the original; and he who
adores the image, adores the "subject which it repre-
sents." These latter expressions are cited by Mr.
Faber, while he suppresses the preceding ones, and
takes care not to give the passages mentioned above,
nor the following pronounced by the Bishop of Ancy-
ra in the first session: "I receive the venerable images
of Jesus Christ inasmuch as he became man for our
salvation; those of his holy mother, the angels, the
apostles, the martyrs, and all the saints. I kiss them,
and give them the adoration of honotir. I reject with
all my heart the false council called the seventh, as
contrary to the whole tradition of the Church.n He
himself has subscribed for fear of persecution: but re-
morse brought him with many others to a solemn re-
tractation.
It is well known that the word adoration was in
use in the East to signify a simple testimony of sub-
mission and respect; whilst in Gaul it was used solely
to express the homage rendered to the Supreme Being.
Is it not an absurd injustice to give it only the latter
signification in the mouth of the Orientals? Is it to no
purpose then that they themselves distinguish two
kinds of adoration, that of /iono?<r, and that of latria?
To no purpose that they proclaim that the former is
for the images of the saints, and the latter for God
alone? It is in vain for them to declare that the ho-
nour and adoration pass from the image to the origi-
nal: they cannot persuade certain obstinate and preju-
diced minds. These will maintain, in spite of their
declarations, that the word adore is only susceptible
of one signification, and that consequently they cannot
attach to it any other: these will maintain that when
they pray before an image or picture, (for they must
know better than the others) they only pray to the
32 ANSWER TO THE
marble, the wood, or the canvass, that they have no
thought beyond these, and consequently that they
have been, are, and will be forever idolaters, both
they and their adherents ! What then is to be done?
What course must we take? Pity these peevish and
contentious spirits, and leave them to themselves.
To sum up — the Fathers of Nice, those of Paris,
and those of Frankfort, agreed without being aware of
it, in the self-same doctrine. The opinion of the Ori-
entals, falsely interpreted for some years, but better
understood afterwards, was found conformable to that
of Gaul, Germany, Italy, and ancient tradition: and in
the end it reigned exclusively in the East, under the
rule of the Empress Theodora. Here is precisely
what should be thought of the vicissitudes, occasion-
ed by the Iconoclast Emperors. I am sorry for Mr.
Faber's sake, after all the pleasure he has felt in
enumerating the pretended variations of a Church,
which believes itself, with reason, unchangeable in
faith, and which even by its Divine constitution, can-
not be otherwise.
After attempting to shake our infallible tribunal by
exhibiting councils opposed to each other, and com-
pletely failing in this first attempt; is it likely that Mr.
Faber will be more successful in opposing them by
turns to the primitive Church, and the sacred scrip-
tures? He has persuaded himself that he should
triumph over the fourth council of Lateran, held in
1215, under Innocent III. He takes offence at the
word transubstantiation, employed in the first chapter,
to express the change of substance, in the Eucharist
He pronounces that the word and the thing are in
manifest opposition to the belief and doctrine of the
first five centuries. He expresses himself in a deci-
sive and dogmatical tone, like a man sure of what he
asserts; and he little suspects that he is all the while
completely in error. He will see positive proof of
his being in error in the next chapter. I shall there
DIFFICULTIES OF ROMANISM. 3$
establish the proposition precisely contrary to his; that
is to say, the exact conformity of the doctrine of the
first five centuries with that of the fourth council
of Lateran. You will, I flatter myself, agree with
me, that Mr. Faber has not discovered the spirit and
doctrine of the Fathers upon the Eucharist, that he
takes their doctrine in an inverted sense; as do Tillot-
son and all the sacramentarians — whence it follows
that he thinks them contradictory to each other and
even to themselves. I will throw new light on this
subject; and the result will necessarily be, that what
he calls my "shrewd arguments," furnished in rigo-
rous truth, the only key, which can lay open the
opinion of the fathers, and acquit them of the charge
of being at variance with themselves and one another.
At present I pass on to the pretended opposition oi
our general councils to the sacred scriptures. But
previous to replying to the examples of it which he
produces, it will be necessary to shew him again, since
he does not know it, or pretends not to know, by what
marks the (Ecumenicity, or universality of councils be-
comes acknowledged, as well as their decisions of
doctrine, or other regulations. It is strange that pro-
fessing to refute my work step by step, he leaves it
continually, and flies oft', no one knows where, to rind
something to sift and dispute. I have undoubtedly a
right, when he professes to attack me, to require him
to do so upon my own principles, and not upon those
of others. Now I have laid down as a fundamental
principle, with all our able theologians, that the gene-
ral acceptation of the bishops dispersed oveF the
world, the judges of faith, could alone make known
to us whether such a council was really oecumenical,
or such a decree of a Pope pronounced ex cathedra;
and consequently whether the decision of the council
or Pope appertained to faith. Upon this principle, it
is easy for you, sir, to judge, that the whole of what
Mr. Faber adduces from Ins second chapter to the end
4
34 ANSWER TO THE
of page 17, is entirely foreign, and inapplicable to the
Catholic doctrine. He would have done very wisely,
if he had spared himself the trouble of swelling out
his book with it, and us the labour of reading articles
which do not in any way interest us.
We should be greviously mistaken, if like Mr. Fa-
ber, we were to take for decisions and articles of faith,
all that we found in the decrees, chapters, or canons
of general councils. We often find in them sentences
introduced to serve for explanation, or to prevent a
difficulty; others hardly touched upon, and merely
given en passant, which therefore do not belong to the
main subject of the decision. Tkese incidental sen-
tences do not in any way concern faith, and impose
no obligation of belief or assent* If you please, we
will take, as an example, one of the canons brought as
an objection by Mr. Faber, page 2 3 — the sixth canon
of the second council of Laleran, in the year 1139,
that we may discuss the second council before the
third with the Rector's permission, though he takes
them the other way. "Decernimus ut ii qui in ordine
subdiaconatus et supra uxores duxerint, aut concubi-
nas habuerint, officio atque ecclesiastico beneficio
careant." This is the whole decree of discipline.
Let us observe what follows: "Cum enim ipsi tem-
plum Dei, vasa Domini, sacrarium Spiritus Sancti de-
beant esse et dici, indignum est eos cubilibus et im-
munditiis deservire." This passage follows the deci-
sion, and does not belong to it: it is added in the way
of explanation to justify the prohibition and obviate
objections. In a word, it is a reflection, and not a
decree. This, I imagine, should be enough to pacify
the mind of Mr. Faber, which has taken fire at the
reflection of the fathers of Lateran. Let him then
cool down, and not imagine that if he became a Ca-
*See Melchior Canus de locis Theol. a celebrated theologian of
tbe council of Trent.
DIFFICULTIES OF ROMANISM. 35
tholic, he would be obliged to admit as an article of
faith, what appears to have given him so much of-
fence.
I do not see, however, that he ought to feel any
great difficulty in adopting it, if lie reflected ever so
little. If in the law of Moses, the man who had car-
nally cohabited with his wife was considered unclean,
and could not on the same day even enter the sanctu-
ary, is it not very congruous that the priest of the
new law, obliged as he is every day to administer the
sacraments or celebrate the sacred mysteries, should
absolutely refrain from conjugal obligations? Let the
Rector only take a review of the distractions, disqui-
etudes, and other consequences, entailed by the nup-
tial union; let him reflect on the first bower of man-
kind, and I cannot think he will find any exaggeration
in the words employed by the council to justify the
prohibition of marriage for ecclesiastics. Neverthe-
less, however rigorous and general it appears, there
might be circumstances in which, with the hope of
promoting greater good, the Church might judge it
right, as at Nice, to leave to priests both the condi-
tion and use of marriage. For the rest, Mr. Faber is
wrong in imputing to us the prohibition of marriage
in general. He ought to know that it is more honour-
ed by the Catholic Church, than by his own. With
him and every other Protestant, matrimony is merely
a civil ceremony; witli us, this civil ceremony is ex-
alted by the Sacrament of matrimony.
It is ridiculous to behold, at pp. 27 — 28, the imagi-
nary triumph of the Rector, and to pursue the pom-
pous chain of syllogisms and dilemmas, which he un-
rols in order to place the council in evident contradic-
tion with the scripture. When Luther formerly
sought to prove that good works availed little lo sal-
vation, he advanced on the authority of St. Paul, that
man was justified by faith alone. People cried out
on all sides, that the word alone was not in the apos-
36 ANSWER TO THE
tie's text. In reality it never was there; but it re-
mains in Luther's quotation to lead astray the simple
and ignorant who may read it. After the example of
the veracious patriarch of the reformation, Mr. Faber
will also quote St. Paul, (Heb. xiii. 4) with equal
fidelity. "Scripture declares," says he, "that mar-
riage is honourable in all men, ivhether they be
clerks or laics." Would you not suppose, sir, that
this text, distinguished by italics and capitals, was
really St. Paul's? Divide it in two, however, and be
so kind as to return the larger half to our good Rector.
Of the twelve words in italics, the seven concluding
ones are his own; St. Paul only says, "marriage hon-
ourable in all:" Ti^iog 6 Td^og iv faffi.
I understand the text to mean, "let marriage be
honourable;" and not "marriage is honourable," as
Mr. Faber translates it. He will say that his English
bible translates as he does: let it be so; but then I find
two in fault instead of one: they are both wrong. In
that chapter the apostle is giving precepts of morality,
and all in the imperative mood; as verse 1st, Let fra-
ternal charily, fyc. — v. 5, Let your manners, tyc. — ver.
7. Remember, fyc. — v. 9, Be not led away, fyc. and so
on in verses 13, 15, 17, 18, 21, 22, 23, 24; and in the
last verse, we have Grace be ivith you, even in your
bible, where the Latin is merely, Gratia Dei vobiseum.
Therefore the text in question ought to be understood,
Let marriage be honourable in all. What completes
the proof is, that by translating, Marriage is honour-
able in all men, the proposition thus put forth in the
affirmative and general sense, would be untrue: for
certainly marriage is neither honourable nor honoured
in those spouses who break their mutual engagement.
I have dwelt a long time on the monosyllable is; but I
considered it necessary to furnish you with the means
of judging if Mr. Faber had any right to conclude as
lie does; "Hence it is evident," — "and hence also it
is evident .... by the indisputable fact, &c." Lan-
DIFFICULTIES OF ROMANISM. 37
guage has nothing stronger, and yet more foolishly pa-
raded than the word evident. Now judge, if you
please, where is the double evidence of Mr. Faber, in
his critique upon the second council of Lateran. I
flatter myself that, at least in your opinion, certitude
is on my side.
It appears that my antagonist has a particular dis-
like to all that was formerly transacted in the ancient
basilic of Lateran. We shall have hereafter to de-
fend the fourth council from his attacks. Here he
falls upon the third; and in what manner do you think?
You will soon admire with me the most generous and
magnanimous exertions of good faith and zeal for the
truth. In fact, he lights upon the 16th chapter,
chooses out and places by itself the following passage:
"for those are not oaths, but perjuries, which are
made against the utility of the Church, and the insti-
tutions of the holy fathers." It is easy to see how
this passage, thus insulated, will provoke a zealous
comment from the indignation of the Rector. His
tact is chiefly conspicuous in his having detached it
from what preceded and followed it; and thus given
it a general and indefinite sense, which is far from the
intention of the council. I must give you the whole
of the 16th chapter, entitled, "Of the regulations of
Churches." "Since in all churches, what has been
approved by a majority of the ancient brethren should
be observed without delay; those deserve to be repri-
manded, who, few in number, and less influenced by
reason than caprice, oppose what has been decided by
the majority, and thus disturb the course of ecclesias-
tical government. Wherefore we decree by these
presents, that except in cases where reason and truth
are on the side of the minority, the determination of
the more numerous and wise portion of the chapter
shall be put in execution, notwithstanding any appeal.
And let not this our decision be evaded, even if any
one of the members should maintain that he is obliged
4*
38 ANSWER TO THE
by oath to support such or such a custom of his church.
For tlwse are not oaths, but perjuries, which are made
against the utility of the Church, and the institutions of
the holy Fathers. And if the member persists in de-
spising decisions conformable to reason and holy insti-
tutions, let him be subjected to a suitable penance, and
so long deprived of the participation of the body of
our Lord." It is plain that this regulation regards the
canons of cathedrals, where the capitular statutes are
made by the majority; and it supposes a case where
the wish of the majority is to abolish a custom become
prejudicial. One of the members chooses to oppose
the measure, under the pretext that he has sworn to
observe the usage or custom which the majority wish
to abolish. uYou swore to keep it," they tell him,
"when it was in full force; but now the authority
which established it, is resolved upon its abolition. —
This at once annuls the obligation of your former
oath. To persist in defending it, would be going
against the statutes of our fathers, and against the
utility of the church: your oath would become a per-
jury." Nothing can be more simple and true than
'this.
But how does Mr. Faber proceed? He picks out
a sentence to his liking; he presents it in an insulated
"form; for cathedral churches he substitutes the Catho-
lic, church, and puts its rulers in place of the canons
of chapters. From this he sets off heroically to de-
claim against the political and ambitious views of
Rome ! You will allow, sir, that his favoured
hands do not change lead into gold.
His violent sally against the policy and projects of
aggrandizement used by the court of Rome, is led on
by a pompous display upon the sacred inviolability of
aii oath, of whatever kind it may be: for he makes no
exceptions^ not even of one made against the interests
of an individual, of a family, or against the rules of a
society. If he does not go thus far,, he argues away
DIFFICULTIES OF ROMANISM. 39
from the question, and says nothing that will avail;
since the council only declares those oaths to he per-
juries, which are made against the utility of the
churches and the statutes of the holy fathers.
Little would the reader here expect to see poor
John Huss hrought on the stage. The Rector, after
his ingenious comment on the 16th chapter, brings
forth the faggot of this unfortunate man, as a conse-
quence of the doctrine, which he pretends to have
there discovered. According to his account, the Em-
peror had sworn to preserve the life of John Huss; but
this oath being considered contrary to the interests of
the Church, was annulled, he says, by the fathers of
Constance. Well, sir, would you wish to know the
truth of this affair? Sigismund had taken no oath at
all; and consequently the council did not annul any.
The Emperor had directed a safe-conduct to be given
to John Huss, who wished to defend his doctrine at
Constance. There his doctrine was condemned; and
the man declared a heretic for his obstinacy in not
renouncing his errors. The law, unhappily in force
on the Continent at that time, as well as in England,
was put in execution against him. Sigismund was so
far from having sworn to preserve his life, that he de-
clared in the council itself, that if Huss did not retract,
he himself would be the first to set fire to his pile.* I
must say, that if it be disgraceful in a controvertist to
repeat an objection, a hundred times solidly refuted,
it is fatiguing to me to have again to write its refuta-
tion, as if it were for the first time.
How unpleasant and painful indeed is the task, to
have%again to expose the false exhibition, which Mr.
Faber makes of the 27th chapter of the same council.
Where are we henceforth to look for equity and good
• The Protestant historian of the council of Constance informs
tis that John Huss, and Jerome of Prague, were delivered up to
the flames by order of Sigismund himself. — L'Enfant, bock 3, § 43.
40 ANSWER TO THE
faith, if they are no longer in the mouth, and under the
pen of a clergyman? The Rector has the effrontery
to advance, that by this 27th canon, the obligation of
destroying heretics, was imposed upon the faithful, who
are bound, as he would have it, even in these days,
either to fulfil this obligation, or to reject the infalli-
bility of the Church. And yet he cannot be ignorant
of the difference, which we make between dogmatical
decisions, which command the faith of Christians for
ever, and ordinances of discipline, which change with
the circumstances, which gave them birth. The Rec-
tor could not have been ignorant, that at the period of
which he speaks, the two powers acted in. concert;
and that the council did no more than support the tem-
poral authorities, by pressing the people at their re-
commendation, to march against certain barbarous and
formidable sects. He must have known that the coun-
cil, so far from ordering the destruction of heretics in
general, marks out most distinctly those of whom it
has been informed, and distinguishes by name the Al-
bigenses, Bulgarians, Cathari, Publicani, sprung from
the Eastern Manicheans, and the excesses and rava-
ges committed by them in Italy, throughout the South
of France, and even in Spain. "They exercise,"
says the council, in the same 27th canon, "such cru-
elty upon the Christians, that without regard to church-
es or monasteries, they spare neither widows, orphans,
old men or children, age or sex; but destroy and lay
waste all before them, like the Pagans." In fine, Mr.
Faber must have been aware, that against every other
kind of heretics, the Church has never known, and ne-
ver will know, any other arms than persuasion" and
prayer.
In truth, sir, I cannot forget the assurance with
which Mr. Faber takes to himself the praise of having
supported, upon facts, his arguments against the infal-
libility of the Church. Unquestionably his "naked
facts," as he calls them, have all their merit intrinsical-
DIFFICULTIES OF ROMANISM. 41
ly in themselves; they have nothing to do with extrane-
ous ornaments. Nevertheless, their nudity has need of
some covering, and this indispensable covering is truth.
You have seen that truth is essentially wanting, to
what he has, with a semblance of candour, presented
you as "naked facts." You have seen the arguments
which he has professed to deduce from them, disap-
pear along with them, upon the slightest examination.
Really, if I were a member of your church, I am sorry
to say that I should feel obliged to petition for an in-
junction, to forbid any apologist to undertake her de-
fence with such weapons: for it is manifesting to the
world, that there are no solid arms to be found for
your cause.
Reading, at page 31, these words of Mr. Faber:
"The Bishop lastly argues, &c." I expected that the
Rector was about to mention and refute my final proofs
of the infallibility. Not at all: he says nothing about
them; he conceals them from his readers, and gives in-
stead of them, arguments drawn from I know not
where. This leads me to make an observation, which
is but too applicable elsewhere. When he chooses
to sum up in a few lines, whole pages of my work, —
my ideas, words, and proofs are completely metamor
phosed beneath his pen: — I no longer recognise my-
self; it is not me, but some other, whom he appears to
attack. This obliges me to beg of my readers to do
me the justice to confront my text with what he im-
putes to me. I particularly request them in this place,
to compare my third letter with his second chapter.
They will then be convinced that instead of producing
my proofs, he suppresses the most striking among
them, and imputes to me what are not mine. I can
solemnly declare, that if the reader only knows my
work by the Difficulties of Romanism, he will have
42 ANSWER TO THE
but an incomplete and often false idea of the Discus-
sion Jlmicale.
In every question treated in that work, the plan,
which I have constantly followed, has been to prove
our doctrine by the holy scriptures, and by the tra-
ditions of the primitive Church; as these two princi-
ples are generally admitted and acknowledged by
Protestant theologians. I cannot answer for their be-
ing so by Mr. Faber; for, on the subject of tradition,
he appears hardly to know what to hold. Sometimes,
he seems sufficiently disposed to admit it, and some-
times to reject it altogether. At page viii. of his pre-
face, he requires us to produce, from period to period,
an uninterrupted chain of witnesses, up to the apos-
tles themselves: in other places he persuades himself
that he can shew us to be in opposition to the primi-
tive Church, by some detached passages from the
third or the second century. At page 33, he tells us,
that if the Christians of the second century, could
easily join with those of the first; we can no longer do
the same, separated as we are from the apostles' time,
by too great a distance, to pass safely over the space
of eighteen centuries, and join the last link of the
chain to the first. But from page IT to 18, he quotes
against us several passages from Fathers, of whom St.
Clement of Alexandria, is the most ancient. At page
35, he will admit no doctrine which is not clearly
founded on the holy scripture; and at page 49, he
maintains that the precept of St. Paul, "Hold the tra-
ditions which you have learned, whether by word, or
by our epistle,"* was not binding, except about the
period when he inculcated it to the Thessalonians.
But at page 1 8, he labours hard to prove, that the first
five centuries are against transubstantiation. At page
32, he approves of the argument of prescription of
Tertullian and St. Irenaeus, which we still use to shew
the apostolicity of any dogma or custom.
•Thcss. ii. v. 14.
DIFFICULTIES OF ROMANISM. 43
Among the doubts and variations of Mr. Faber, he
will not object to my adopting, that as his opinion,
which is the most favourable to tradition. I am the
more inclined to do this, as it will be the means of
reconciling his sentiments, with those of the most ce-
lebrated theologians of his church, who profess an
entire deference for the fathers and councils of the
first five centuries,* and with the great lights, the
learned personages of that admirable and pious epoch.
I have quoted many testimonies from them in the
fourth letter of the Discussion Amicale. There, you
may see, my dear sir, several passages to which it
* "Let us stand to the judgment and decision of antiquity, and
embrace that saying of the Nicene Fathers, as if it came from an
oracle, let the ancient customs be observed." — Bp. Montague
Pre/, to App. ad orig. Ecclcs.
"Whilst men do labour to bring into discredit the ancient Fa-
thers and primitive Churches, they derogate from themselves such
credit as they hunt after, and as much as in themlieth, bring many
parts of religion into wonderful uncertainty. — Bp. OveraVs Convo-
cation Book, p. 191.
"Although scripture is the most certain and safe rule of belief,
yet there being no less veracity in the tongues than in the hands,
in the preachings than the writings of the apostles: nay prior scrmo
quam liber, prior senilis quam stylus, saith Tertullian, the apos-
tles preached before they writ, planted Churches before they
addressed epistles to them; on these grounds I make no scruple to
grant that apostolical traditions, such as are truly so, as well as
apostolical writings, are equally the matter of that Christian's
belief, who is equally secured by the fidelity of the conveyance,
that as one is apostolical writing, so the other is apostolical tra-
dition."— Dr. Hammond's Disc, of Heresy.
"If any other matters not yet received or practised in our
Church, should be found to be of equal antiquity and universality,
I declare it to be my hearty desire that they also maybe restored:
for I am well assured, that from the beginning of the gospel of
Christ, to the time of the council of Nice, and long after, during
the fourth century, the Catholic Church all over the world was
united in one holy doctrine, discipline, and manner of worship." —
Dr. BreWs Introduction to his Independency of the Church, p. 7.
"During the first five centuries, the Church then pure and flour-
ishing, taught unmixed the faith which the apostles had preached."
Ulntaker on Antichrist, p. 51.
44 ANSWER TO THE
would have been easy to add a hundred more, from
St. Augustine, St. Vincent of Lerins, the 318 bishops
of the great council of Nice, St. Chrysostom, St. Epi-
phanius, St. Clement of Alexandria, Tertullian, St.
Irensus, all decisive upon the authority of tradition.
Let us stop at the second century; and shew by
contemporary writers, that the doctrine and practice
of the Church at that period, were the same as those
of the first century.* St. Clement of Alexandria, tes-
tifies that "Some of those who had immediately suc-
ceeded the apostles, and preserved the tradition of
their doctrine, had lived even to this time, in order to
"This general consent of our so profoundly judicious Protes-
tants, in appealing unto the primitive Church for the space of the
first four hundred and forty years after Christ, thus acknowledged
by our adversaries, may well serve for a just reproof of their
slander, who usually upbraid Protestants with contempt of all
antiquity: for here even old Rome is commended Protestants
are so far from suffering the limitation of the first 440 jears, that
they give the Romanists the scope of the first 500 or 600 years, as
our adversaries themselves do acknowledge." — Morton's Catholic
ilppealc for Protestants. Edit. London, 1610, book 4, chap. 30, page
573.
"It cannot be doubted,1' says the learned Usher, "that St.
Patrick had a peculiar veneration for the church of Rome, whence
he had been sent to labour in the conversion of our island; and I
myself had I lived at that time, should have submitted as willingly
to the judgment of that church, as to that of any other in the
world: so sacred is the esteem which I cherish for the integrity
of that church in those happy days." (At the end of Usher's Reli-
gion of the Irish, p. 87, of the 5th century — epoch of St. Patrick.
These will suffice: but you may find thirty other authorities in
Wix's Reflections, 2d edition, London, 1319.
®It would be easy to prove, from your best divines, that the
doctrine of the apostles was taught in its integrity, down to the
5th century inclusively. Besides the passages of Usher, Morton,
and Whitaker just quoted, I could cite many others produced by
Mr. Wix. The common opinion of your able theologians is, that
the first four general councils ought to be received, and the doc-
trine of the same space of time considered as apostolical. This
observation overturns the first principle laid down by Mr. Faber in
his preface, where he requires in proof of apostolicity, a chain
of witnesses uninterrupted up to the apostles themselves. I could
DIFFICULTIES OF ROMANISM. 45
scatter and cultivate the seed of the true faith." What
St. Clement testified with regard to Egypt, analogy-
allows us to suppose for several other churches; such
for instance, as that of Smyrna, whose bishop, St.
Polycarp, martyred at the age of a hundred, in 166,
had actually been a disciple of St. John. "God," as
I observed in the Discussion Amicale, v. I. p. 194,
in his designs of protection for his Church, permitted
that in the midst of persecutions and dangers, some
few of these primitive and holy bishops, should have
their career protracted to a very advanced age; and
as heretofore in the beginning of the world, the pa-
triarchs by means of their long lives, transmitted more
easily to posterity what they had learned from their
fathers of the creation of the world, the dogmas of re-
ligion, and the principal traits of the antediluvian his-
tory, so in the Christian dispensation, these venerable
old men served to bear witness that their faith was
exactly the same, which they had received trom the
apostles or their immediate disciples." Tertullian in-
forms us by what means the doctrine of the apostles
was preserved in the various churches. I cannot help
placing before you a very curious passage on this sub-
ject. u According to the order prescribed for all the
churches, councils are assembled in certain parts of
Greece, where the most important affairs are discus-
oblige him, by the superior authority of his own masters in theo-
logy, from the first apologist of your reformation Jewel, down to
the doctors of our own times, to admit as apostolical the doctrine
of the 3d, 4th, and 5th centuries. But I will not rigorously assert
my rights, and he ought to thank me for my forbearance. I at-
tach myself to one of his opinions, page 32, where he acknow-
ledges that the doctrine of the second century was truly that of
the apostles: let us be satisfied with this, and endeavour to make
him also satisfied. Among the witnesses of the 2d century, I
reckon St. Cyprian, born about the year 190, converted by the
aged Cecilius— Origen, born about 165 — Tertullian, born about
160 — St. Clement of Alexandria, about 151 — St. Irenaeus, about
120— Theophilus of Antioch, about 115— St. Justin in the year
103.
5
46 ANSWER TO THE
sed in common; and this representation of the whole
Christian name obtains among us the greater* venera-
tion."* From this institution resulted that kind of
consanguinity in doctrine, which existed, as he says
in his usual energetic manner, among all the churches,
of the Christian world. Does he not likewise refer
those, who wished to know the tradition of the apos-
tles, to the churches founded by them, such as Cor-
inth, Ephesus, &c. See, he adds, what Rome has
learned, "what she teaches, and the perfect harmony
between her doctrine, and that of the churches of Af-
rica." "It is asked," says he in another place,
whether no tradition is to be admitted but what is
written" — this is precisely the idea sometimes affected
by Mr. Faber; and here follows its refutation — "To
begin with baptism; when we go down into the water,
we protest in the Church and under the hand of the
bishop, that we renounce Satan, his pomps and his
angels: then we are plunged three times, answering
something more than our Saviour prescribed in the
gospel. When we come out of the water, we taste
a mixture of milk and honey; and from that time we
abstain for a week from our daily bath, The Sacra-
ment of the Eucharist, ordained by our Saviour at sup-
per, and for all, we take in our assemblies before day-
light, and only from the hand of him who officiates;
we offer for the dead; we celebrate annually the na-
tivities of the martyrs. You ask me some law of the
scriptures for these usages and others like them; you
will find no such law. But we produce you tradition
which adds them, custom which confirms them, and
faith which practices thcm."f
- No doubt Tertullian extolled with reason the faith
of the churches founded by the apostles, when he
•Treatise on Fasting, ch. 13. To these councils here spoken of
by Tertullian, our learned Usher refers with equal sagacity and
justice the most ancient apostolic canons. See what he says of
them in Cotelier, No. 8, T. 1, p. 430.
t Lib. de Corona, n. 3, 4.
DIFFICULTIES OF ROMANISM. 47
directed persons desirous of knowing what doctrine
had been revealed, to such of the churches as were
nearest to him. But St. Irenaeus, before him, had ren-
dered the most glorious homage to the see of St.
Peter; eminent above all others, when he declared*
"that all the churches in the world should be in good
understanding and accordance with that of Rome,
where the tradition derived from the apostles is pre-
served in its integrity." Thus the particular councils
which, according to the first quotation from Tertullian,
were held in Greece, according to the rule establislied
from the time of the apostles, and the teaching of the
Roman Church, the centre of all churches, according
to St! Irenasus, were the powerful motives which pre-
served all the faithful in unity of faith and episcopal
government.
I will conclude this digression on the second century
by Hegesippus, who in his old age wrote at Rome, in
176, under Pope Eleutherius. That Pope succeeded
Soter, and Hegesippus had seen him the deacon of
Anicetus. Hegesippus had travelled- from Jerusalem
into Greece and the islands, had conversed with a
great number of bishops, and testifies in a fragment
preserved by Eusebius, (Hist. Eccl. lib. 4,) "that in
every Church* was held the self-same doctrine, which
is contained in the law, in the prophets, and in the
preaching of our Saviour.
Although Mr. Faber, p. 32, acknowledges the doc-
trine of the second century to be apostolical, I have
thought myself bound to place again before you, de-
cisive proofs and undeniable testimonials of it. I have
thought it the more necessary to fix your ideas, and
confirm them upon this important point, as those of
the Rector are wavering; and if he appears, at p. 32,
to admit the authority of the second century, he seems
elsewhere to reject altogether the tradition of the
•Lib. 3, contra Haeres, ch. 3.
48 ANSWER TO THE
primitive Church. Without looking farther than page
35, he will hear nothing of decisions, either of Rome
or of any other councils. He will have the Holy
Scriptures to be the sole judge of controversies. —
uAs no one pretends," says he, "that we possess
any other written, and therefore any other certain
revelation; we must evidently begin with rejecting
every doctrine and every practice built upon such
doctrine, which have clearly no foundation in Holy
Scripture." Thus apostolical tradition in this place
goes for nothing: but to whom does it belong to in-
terpret the Holy Scripture? Is it to be delivered up
to private judgment, to the insulated opinion of each
individual? This was Luther's resolution: he proclaim-
ed for all, the liberty which he had claimed for him-
self. Without such liberty indeed his reformation
would never have advanced a step. But he was not
long without tasting the bitter fruits, which it brought
him. He thundered and blushed at the divisions
among his followers; but did not put a stop to them.
They have never ceased to succeed one another, and
tear Protestantism to pieces. All have sprung from
the same principle, and keep continually issuing from
it, like mushrooms from the earth, as Mr. Faber him-
self expresses it. In a word, this principle, which
gave life and increase to the reformation, has progres-
sively brought on its decline; and will infallibly cause
its death. Mr. Faber sees it, and curses its fatal and
inevitable eifects: let us mark well this acknowledg-
ment. Would Heaven, that his brethren and supe-
riors would lift up their voices with him to sound the
same warning throughout England! But when a prin-
ciple is acknowledged to be thus monstrously abusive,
it is not enough to deplore it; they should have courage
enough to renounce its consequences. The first of
these, not to mention others in this place, was schism.
Let then the Established Church return without delay
DIFFICULTIES OF ROMANISM. 49
to unity. This must be; or the sects she lias produced
will soon be the death of their mother.
Mr. Faber assures us that the principle of private
judgment was not that of Parker and his colleagues.
How then did they raise themselves to the head of
the ecclesiastical government? Was it not in opposi-
tion to the discipline universally established; in oppo-
sition to their spiritual superiors, and in open revolt
against them, and the canons of the Church? It was
then by exalting their private opinions above the doc-
trine universally received. The Rector calls those
reformers wise and venerable, whom he beholds ne-
vertheless enthroned in sees, which were not vacant,
but occupied by a right, which violence could neither
give nor take away, by bishops who sacrificed their
temporal interests to the duties of conscience, and the
divine and ecclesiastical laws of episcopal govern-
ment. Mr. Faber is in admiration at the conduct of
these intruders, p. 40— he proposes it as a model in
preference to the decrees of general councils.* A
miserable and anticanonical convocation of certain
minds groveling before the temporal power, and in re-
bellion against the Church constitutes an authority
with him; and all the bishops of the Catholic Church
in his eyes possess none ! Can you conceive, sir, a
blindness, a delirium equal to this? Can the perver-
sion of reason go farther? How strong then must
be the power of early education, of self-love, party
spirit and prejudice, even in minds of superior cul-
tivation ! But O God ! what will those ministers an-
swer at thy tribunal on a future day, who have led
their people astray by such instructions !
However, let us see what these "wise and venera-
ble reformers," these great models of Mr. Faber's,
did at their convocation in 1562. According to him,
•"Nothing ought to be more venerable upon earth than the de-
cision of a true oecumenical council." — Leibnitz, Letter to the
Dutchess of Bmnswick, July 2, 16U4.
5*
50 ANSWER TO THE
when the Holy Scriptures did not give them sufficient
light, they had recourse to the primitive Church. I
know perfectly wTell that they did no such thing; but
let the Rector's assertion pass: and since he recom-
mends the imitation of this pretended example, here
we are once more led back by himself to the primi-
tive Church. Now at least let us endeavour to keep
him to it. After the repugnance he has but too often
manifested towards it, he seems now to return to it in
good earnest, against, his will it would appear, but
carried on by a force which is irresistible. At page
42, he mentions among the doctors of the primitive
Church, Justin, Clement of Alexandria, Tertullian,
Origen and Cyprian; and adds as follows: "The se-
veral writers here enumerated, though but few out of
many, form a chain, which reaches up to St. John and
the apostles. Hence, if we can be morally certain of
any thing, we may be sure,* that, in their exposition of
scripture, so far as the great leading doctrines of
Christianity are concerned, they would proceed,
either on direct apostolic authority, or at least accord-
ing to the then universally known analogy of apostolic
faith." And further on, he says, "Where in her yet
existing documents, the primitive Church is explicit,
we must, so far as I can judge, on the principles of
right reason, submit ourselves to her decision."
Then it is proved, agreed, and decided between us
that the doctrine of the second century was conforma-
ble to that of the first, and is known to us by the
writings of St. Cyprian, Origen, Tertullian, St. Cle-
ment of Alexandria, St. Irenaeus and St. Justin. This
is amply sufficient, sir, to enable you to pronounce
with safety upon the questions between us. For if
you will be at the pains of looking once more into my
Discussion Jlmicale, you will see that the traditionary
proofs of dogmas and practices, which I defend, reach
up at least to the second century, by means of one or
other of the very writers whom the Rector has just
DIFFICULTIES OF ROMANISM. 51
selected, and whom I regard as well as himself as un-
deniable witnesses of all that was believed and prac-
tised in their times. From this you will conclude,
that if he had reasoned consistently with himself, he
would have found himself obliged to agree with my
book; since he acknowledges that every doctrine or
practice which ascends to the second century, without
any known origin posterior to that period, must be
apostolical.
But pray explain to me, my dear sir, what Mr. Fa-
ber means, for I cannot understand him, when he pre-
tends that the proof of tradition, aas employed by the
Bishop of Aire is a mere fallacy, the detection of
which is not very difficult" — page 33 — and when he
supposes that "I would carry the chain down to the
present time," through a space of nineteen centuries:
page 45. I confess that he is here quite incompre-
hensible. Nothing can be more simple than my rea-
soning, which is absolutely the same as his own, and
that of every man of sense. In fact what have I to
prove? The conformity of any given doctrine with
that of the primitive Church; for instance, praying for
the dead, confession, satisfaction, or the sign of the
cross. Well, sir, am I to lose my time in extracting
and accumulating testimony upon testimony, from age
to age, from our own up to the apostles? Certainly I
shall do no such thing; and for two reasons: 1st, be-
cause the belief of the last fourteen and fifteen centu-
ries is not disputed, but rather accused of novelty and
corruption. 2dly, because my proofs do not derive
force from the intermediate generations, but power-
fully from the primitive ages. My belief ought to be
founded upon that of the apostolic times; and the cer-
tainty that they could not have been deceived is also
my security. Leaving therefore what is not disputed,
I proceed straight to the fifth century, and by the fa-
thers who attest the doctrine of their time, I prove
that such an article was then taught and believed. In
52 ANSWER TO THE
the same manner I pass to the fourth century, which
abounds like the fifth with ecclesiastical documents,
Following the same method, I arrive at the third cen-
tury, and take advantage of similar authorities which
I find there, and which, though less numerous, are
sufficiently so for my purpose. Thus I come to St.
Cyprian, Origen, Tertullian, St. Clement of Alexan-
dria, St. Irenaeus, St. Theophilus of Antioch and St.
Justin; and supported by these eminent personages, I
enter triumphantly the second century, and repose at
length with the Rector at the fountain of pure and
apostolic doctrine. What can he discover in such a
progress, which is unfair and fallacious?* If in my
Discussion Jimicale I have often quoted testimonies
from the fifth, fourth, and third centuries, it was be-
cause I was reasoning at the time with able theolo-
gians of your communion, who comprise the first five
centuries in the primitive Church. The Rector of
Long Newton has chosen to mutilate and confine it by
his own private authority to the second century. I
now accommodate myself with as good grace as pos-
sible to this new fancy of the Rector's, though I see
what has led him to it very clearly. He was no
doubt sharp-sighted enough to perceive, and I confess
such perception was just — that he would be more vio-
lently overthrown by the whelming force of the autho-
rities which would crowd upon him from the centuries
he has lopped off, in favour of the Catholic faith and
in opposition to his own opinions.
This brings us to the third chapter; in which Mr.
Faber proposes to answer two of my letters; and after
all, answers neither. He gives a summary of certain
arguments, which he supposes to be mine, but which
•"In this manner we can reason even at this day; and can there-
by make Irenaeus1 and Tcrtullian's argument our own, provided
we have first proved that the faith we contend for is the very
same that obtained in the churches of that age." Waterland on
Holy Trin. p. 380.
DIFFICULTIES OF ROMANISM. 53
are foreign to my meaning. If I sought to exhibit all
his deficiencies in this chapter* it would be necessary
to consume a hundred pages, to expose the five of
which it consists. I will confine myself to the defence
of what I wrote upon the sixth article of the convoca-
tion of 1562. He takes up its cause; and forgetting
once more that he has just acknowledged the authority
of apostolical tradition, at least to the end of the se-
cond century, he maintains here, with those whom he
styles his profound and wise reformers, that the Holy
Scripture contains all that is essential to salvation. If
this be so — since 1 am compelled to use repetitions —
what becomes of the necessity of baptism for infants,
and the sanctification of Sunday? The Scripture says
nothing about either; and yet the Rector admits both,
equally with ourselves. What becomes even of the
authenticity of Scripture? For this can only be prov-
ed by the testimony of the primitive Church; and you
will soon see the Rector compelled, in spite of himself,
to own it; thus, in the same page, he admits tradition;
and rejects it, in favour of the sixth article of his pro-
found and wise reformers.
It is the misfortune of those who take up a false po-
sition, to find themselves unavoidably assailed on all
sides by difficulties. Tradition presented inextrica-
ble difficulties to the chief reformers; they exclaim,
"Away with tradition! The Bible! the Bible alone!"
and drew up their sixth article. They did not see,
and the Rector who defends them does not see, that
new and insoluble objections are the only result. In
fact, they there lay down as a fundamental principle,
that the scriptures contain all that is necessary for
salvation. This principle, unless they drew it gratui-
tously from their own heads, ought to have been deriv-
ed from the Scripture. If so, let the Rector prove it
to us: let him produce one. single text, whe/e any one
of the inspired writers teaches that we may confine
ourselves, both for faith and practice, to what is writ-
54 ANSWER TO THE
ten; one solitary place, where he declares that the
Scripture delivers all that the apostles taught; or if
you will, all that is essential to salvation. But where
will he meet with such a passage, since we find one
absolutely contrary, word for word. "Stand fast; and
hold the traditions which you have learned, whether
by word, or by our epistle." 2 Thess. ii. v. 14. You
see the apostle distinguishes his verbal, from his epis-
tolary instructions: he prescribes to the Thessalonians,
to keep both equally; to observe the doctrines which
he had given them in words, and those which he had
delivered in writing.
The Rector replies that this held good at the time;
for, "when that epistle was written, most certainly not
all the four gospels had been published It is no
very chimerical supposition, that the matters, verbally
delivered by St. Paul, were afterward, in the course
of God's providence, committed to faithful writing.
Whence it would follow, that the position contained in
the sixth article of the angelican Church, though not
strictly true when the apostle wrote his second letter
to the Thessalonians, may yet, in the sixteenth centu-
ry, have been an incontrovertible verity." This sub-
terfuge is not without subtility, and even address, if
you would so have it * It is only a pity that it wants
solidity: it betrays the Rector's embarrassment, and
but helps him a little out of it, to throw him into con-
tradiction with the Fathers, with the best theologians
of his own Church, and even with himself.
The holy Fathers had the New Testament in their
hands, as well as ourselves; and yet they did not cease
to insist on the necessity of admitting the apostolical
traditions, and to establish the obligation of so doing,
t
•It is borrowed from Stillingfleet's Scripture and Tradition Com-
pared; from Dr. Patrick, Bishop of Ely, Discourse on Tradition; and
from Dr. Williams, Bishop of Chichester, Exam, of Texts, &fc —
See {Preservative against Popery, vol. I. Edit. London, in folio—
1738.
DIFFICULTIES OF ROMANISM. 55
upon this very passage of St. Paul to the Thessaloni-
ans. St. Chrysostom comments upon it thus: "We
see by this that the apostles did not write every thing;
but taught many things by word of mouth only. But
whatever way they come to us from them, we are
equally obliged to believe them. Let us believe the
tradition of the Church; it ought to be enough to move
us to believe — to know that it is a tradition."* "I
should consume the whole day," says St. Basil,
"were I to recount to you all the mysteries transmit-
ted to the Church, without the Scripture. . . * . Among
the dogmas of the Church, there are some contained
in the Scriptures, and others come from tradition; and
both liave equal force, with regard to our pious vene-
ration. For it would be mortally wounding the gos-
pel, to regard traditions as things of little authority. "f
Yet, this Mr. Faber does; according to St. Basil, he
mortally wounds the gospel, by rejecting all that is not
written. "We do not rind all in the Scripture," says
St. Epiphanius, "because the apostles, who have left
us many things in writing, have also left us others by
tradition. "J St. Epiphanius, then, was far from teach-
ing that all verbal instructions were finally record-
ed in the New Testament; and among others, those
which were to be observed, according to the precept
of St. Paul. Call to mind in this place, sir, the most
illustrious example of anitiquity, that of the council of
Nice. Eusebius, who had been a member of it, tes-
tifies, "that the bishops opposed the false subtilities
of the Arians, by the grand truths of the Scriptures,
and the ancient belief of the Church, from the Jlpostles
to that time." And Gelasius informs us, that after having
a long time, maturely and fully considerecf this adorable
* St. Chrysost. Serm. on the 2d Ep. to the Thess. ch. 2.
f On the Holy Spirit, ch. 27, on the same passage of St. Paul.
\ Heres. 75, where you see verbal traditions distinguished from
written traditions, long after the publication of the New Testa-
ment.
56 ANSWER TO THE
subject — the divinity of Christ — it appeared to all ours
at once, that the consubstantiality of the Word ought
to be defined as of faith, in the same manner as this
faith had been transmitted to us by our holy Fathers
after the Jlpostles.
The Rector and his sixth article, are no better in
accord with your learned theologians, than with the
318 bishops of the council of Nice. He that will not
submit to the current evidence of the ancient liturgies,
Fathers and councils, may bring into controversy, not
to mention other things received by the Church in all
ages, the divine authority of the inspired writings, in-
fant baptism, episcopacy, the Lord's day, and even
the divinity of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ; and
so, at once blow up the Catholic faith and Church."*
In ecclesiastical history, and there only, I may say,
is the decision of all controverted points in divinity, ei-
ther as to doctrine or discipline. For every one of
them must be determined by matters of fact. It is not
refining, and criticisms, and our notions of things, but
what that faith was, which at the first was delivered
to the saints. This is matter of fact, and must be de-
termined by evidence. And where any text of the
New Testament is disputed, the best evidence is from
those Fathers of the Church, who lived in the apostolic
age, and learned the faith from the mouths of the apos-
tles themselves, such as St. Clement, Ignatius, Poly-
carp, &c. These must best know the sense and
meaning of the words delivered by the apostles. And
next to them, they to whom they did deliver the same,
and so on through the several ages of the Church, to
this day. And those doctrines, and that government
of the Churcfi, which has this evidence, must be the
truth. And they who refuse to be determined by this
rule, are justly to be suspected; nay, they give evi-
dence against themselves, that they are departed from
*Dr. Hicks on the Christian Priesthood, vol. I, p, 145.
DIFFICULTIES OF ROMANISM. 57
the truth."* Those who admit the canon of Scrip-
ture, upon the testimony of the Fathers, will find them-
selves hard put to it for a reason why they reject tlie
very same testimony in the case of church government.
For, to admit their testimony in one case, and to reject
it in another, equally^clear and universal, is to play fast
and loose, and to act upon no principles at all."t "As
to the matter in hand, the defender's persuasion is this:
1 . Where there is any plain opposition between Scrip-
ture and tradition — there, the Scripture must be fol-
lowed. 2. That no such plain contradiction is to be
found, where tradition appears early and general. 3
That tradition is necessary to explain some passages of
Scripture, ichere the sense is not clear and indisputable,
(and what is there that men will not dispute?) and that
without this supplemental assistance, neither the ne-
cessity of infant baptism, nor the obligation to keep
Sunday, can be made out. 4. That without tradition,
we cannot prove the Old and New Testament to be the
word of God," &C.J "The admitting such a second-
ary proof, (tradition,) in this case, is not derogating
from Scripture authority, but is confirming and strength-
ening it in more views than one."§ uThere would
scarcely be the smallest doubt that this doctrine of
the Scripture, on the sacrifice, came down from the
apostles, and that, consequently, it was necessary to
hold to it, even though we should find not a word for
it in the writings of the phrophets and apostles; for the
precept of St. Paul is universal — My brethren, stand
firm, and hold fast the traditions which you have learn-
ed, whether by word of mouth, or by our epistles."||
I am happy in being able to quote to the Rector of
*Mr. Leslie Dis. concern. Eccl. Hist. p. 2 and 3.
t -Mr. Reeve's Pref. concerning the right use of the Fathers, rol. 1 ,
p. 16.
X Collier's Vindication, part 1, p. 2 and 3.
\ Waterland on the H. Trinity, p. 401.
(I Dr. Grabe on a passage of St. Irenaus.
58 ANSWER TO THE
Long Newton, the very doctor from whom he has bor-
rowed what I have called a subterfuge. You shall
hear, then, Dr. Patrick, Bishop of Ely. The following
is from his discourse on tradition: "For in all this
Christians are agreed, that whatsoever was delivered
by Christ from God the Father, or by the apostles
from Christ, is to be embraced and firmly retained,
whether it be written or not written; that makes no
difference at all, if we can be certain it came from
him or them. For what is contained in the Holy
Scripture hath not its authority because it is written,
but because it came from God. If Christ said a thing,
it is enough; we ought to submit to it: but we must
first know that he said it; and let the means of knowing
it be what they will, if we can certainly know he said
it, we yield to it."* And at the end of the first part
of his discourse:
"Whatever is delivered to us by our Lord Jesus
Christ and his apostles, we receive as the word of
God, which we think is sufficiently declared in the
Holy Scriptures. But if any one can certainly prove
by any authority equal to that which brings the Scrip-
tures to us, that there is any thing else delivered by
them, we receive that also. The controversy will
soon be at an end: we are ready to embrace it, when
any such thing can be produced.
"Nay we have that reverence for those who suc-
ceeded the apostles, that what they have unanimously
delivered to us as the sense of any doubtful place, we
receive it and seek no farther.
"In short, traditions we do receive, but not all that
are called by that name. Those, which have sufficient
authority; but not those, which are imposed upon us
by the sole authority of one particular church, as-
suming a power over all the rest.f3
* Introduction, parag. iv. p. 8
|End of 1st part, parag. viii. p. 26 and 27.
DIFFICULTIES OF ROMANISM. 59
It is easy to see that this last stroke is directed against
the particular Church of Rome, "with which, never-
theless, St. Ireneeus declares, that all others ought to
agree, on account of its acknowledged preeminence
and authority." But Rome is not concerned here
alone; and Dr. Patrick might well have abstained from
wrongfully shewing hostility and injustice towards her.
He requires, before he considers himself obliged to
admit any tradition, the proof of its being apostolical;
here he is right. And the proof which Tertullian, St.
Basil, St. Augustin, and St. Vincent of Lerins, gave to
the heretics of their times, we also give to our separat-
ed brethren in England and elsewhere. When they
saw an article of faith, of discipline, or practice gener-
ally established in the Church, they attributed its origin
to the teaching of the apostles; provided, however,
that no more recent beginning of it was known. In
fact, it is impossible to assign any other cause to such
unanimity.
Mr. Faber is so good as to make me the following
"large concession," as he terms it: "Let his Lordship
prove that the traditions of the modern Latin Church,
are the identical verbal traditions of St. Paul, and the
Anglican Church, I feel assured, will forthwith re-
ceive them." He must allow me to tell him, that such
a sentence leads me to wish that he possessed a fund
of sounder theology. First, because the present La-
tin Church does not, and even cannot, admit of any
other apostolical traditions, than those, which were
admitted in the age of St. Augustin. Secondly, be-
cause it is not according to right notions of theology,
to distinguish in the preaching of the apostles, the
teaching of St. Peter, of St. Paul, of St. Matthew, or
of any others in particular. Let him consult his an-
cient masters; and he will learn from Dr. Stillingfleet,
among others, that "We have all the reason in the
world to believe that the apostles delivered one and
the 6ame faith to all the churches, having the same
60 ANSWER TO THE
infallible spirit to direct them."* This sameness of
teaching, is the source of oral and apostolical tradi-
tions; to that must be attributed, all that is uniformly
found in all the Christian liturgies of the fifth century,
prayer for the dead, confession, satisfaction, &c. I
have developed the proofs of this, in my Discussion
Amicale.
Allow me to present you one more quotation at the
end of those already drawn from your own theolo-
gians. It may perhaps be a little bitter to you to hear
the first of your apologists, the celebrated Jewel, thus
express himself on the subject of tradition. "Although
we have departed from that Church, which they call
Catholic; .... it is sufficient for us that we have de-
parted from that Church, .... which with our own
eyes we plainly saw had deviated from the holy Fa-
thers, and from the primitive and Catholic Church. —
But we have approached, as near as possible, to the
Church of the apostles of the ancient Catholic Bishops
and Fathers, which we know was sound, and, as
Tertullian says, a spotless virgin, "f
From this passage it follows that your Established
Church separated from ours; that it made a schism
between us; and why? Because according to Jewel,
our Church had visibly departed from the Holy Fa-
thers and the primitive Church. Then according to
him, as well as in my belief, we must attach ourselves
not to the Scriptures alone, but also, and according to
the precept of St. Paul, to the oral traditions known
by the teaching of the Holy Fathers; we must sepa-
rate from those who separate from the faith and prac-
tice of the primitive Church. This is precisely what
I maintain against Mr. Faber, whilst he holds against
Bishop Jewel and myself, that it is sufficient to be
guided exclusively by the Scripture.
* Stillingfleet's Sermon on Tradition.
•\JeweVs Jlpology, section x. — CampbeWs Translation*
DIFFICULTIES OF ROMANISM. 61
In his celebrated sermon at St. Paul's Cross in
1550, three years before the publication of his Apo-
logy, Jewel exclaimed thus: aO Gregory ! O Augus-
tin ! O Jerome ! O Chrysostom ! O Leo ! O Diony-
sius ! O Anacletus ! &c If we be deceived
herein, ye are they that have deceived us. You have
taught us these schisms and divisions, you have taught
us these heresies.'" After this, enumerating at length
the controverted points on the Eucharist, he denies
that in the first six centuries, the real presence, the
change of substance, the adoration of Jesus Christ
present under the species of bread and wine were
ever taught; and continues in these words: "If any
man alive were able to prove any of these articles,
by any one clear or plain clause or sentence, either of
the Scriptures, or of the old doctors, or of any old
general council, or by any example of the primitive
Church I speak not this in vehemency of spi-
rit, or heat of talk, but even as before God, by the
way of simplicity and truth; .... if any one of all our
adversaries be able to avouch any one of all these ar-
ticles, by any such sufficient authority of Scriptures,
doctors or councils, as I have required, as J said be-
fore, so say I now again, I am content to yield unto
him, and to subscribe." Is this, I beseech you, the
language of a man who believes that the Scriptures
contain all that is necessary to salvation? Will Mr.
Faber hold such language? Will he who has read in
the Discussion Amicale texts so clear and numerous
on the real presence, the change of substance and the
adoration, engage with me to subscribe upon one sin-
gle testimony of the Fathers, to all the rest of the Ca-
tholic doctrine? In the place of Bishop Jewel would
not he have expressed himself rather as follows: —
"Leave all your troublesome quotations from the Fa-
thers: shew me your Eucharistic mysteries in the Bi-
ble. You will not find a syllable about them in the
whole New Testament. Tm> utter eilenca prove*
6*
62 ANSWER TO THE
two things; first, that you are wrong in your ideas of
the real presence, since these immediate consequences
of it are no where to be found; secondly, that they
cannot in any case claim our assent, since all articles
of faith ought to be found in the Scriptures, and there
they are not." But Jewel holds quite another lan-
guage. A Catholic Doctor could not express himself
more energetically on a subject of pure oral tradition,
or with more veneration on the authority of the Holy
Fathers. He was not therefore of the opinion of
those, who two years later drew up the sixth article.
Jewel, it is trwe, had a seat in their assembly: he
ought even to have been the soul of them, as he was
the ablest of them all. How then came he to permit
such an article to be composed? How came he still
further to subscribe it? It is no business of mine to
make him appear consistent with himself;* but I flat-
*Mr. Faber is much dissatisfied with the anecdote I have re-
lated of Bishop Jewel in the Discussion Amicale, vol, 2, p. 135.
He does not consider it worthy of credit. I will remark, that it is
related by Dr. Smith, Bishop of Chalcedon, who printed it in
1654, at the age of 87 years, and who therefore was born in 1567,
three years at least before the death of Jewel, which took place
September 22d, 1571. This Dr. Smith venerated by all who knew
him, after a long and saintly career, left behind him a singular
reputation for virtue and piety. Such a character could not be
suspected of falsehood. He had printed the anecdote first in
1614, when the two Catholic Lords were still living from whom
he had received it, and also the physician, Dr. Twin, who had
told it to these two Lords, as he had heard it from Genebrand,
the chaplain of Jewel, to whom the Bishop when dying had con-
fided it.
In 1614 it would have been easy and natural to contradict this
narration. But Mr. Faber comes too late at this time of day to
call it in question. He has no proofs whatever to weigh against
the authority of the pious and venerable Dr. Smith, and justify
him in accusing the good Bishop either of imposture or credulity
in believing or publishing such a calumny. For the rest, Jewel,
brought up a Catholic, became a concealed Protestant under Henry
Till, a declared friend of the Zwinglian Peter Martyr, under Ed-
ward VI. a Catholic under Mary for a short time, a Zwinglian during
his stay in Germany, and Episcopalian in fine under Elizabeth,
from whom he did not scruple to accept the see of Salisbury —
DIFFICULTIES OF ROMANISM. 63
tcr myself that neither Mr. Faber nor any other will
henceforth attempt to defend the sixth article, and
support its doctrine.
What appears particularly to embarrass and cha-
grin Mr. Faber, is that he finds himself compelled to
have recourse to tradition at the very time when he
has just pronounced it of no use. For being soon
obliged to express himself upon the canon of the
Scriptures, he speaks thus; page 51 — "In the judg-
ment of the Bishop, tradition is of such vital impor-
tance, that the very canon of Scripture itself depends
upon it. By renouncing, therefore, the tradition of
the Latin Church, we effectively invalidate the autho-
rity of the canon of Scripture." Admire the candour
of the Rector. Without appearing so to do, he dex-
terously makes me substitute the tradition of the
Latin Church, which I never once mentioned, for the
universal tradition, which is the sole subject of the
present question. "One might almost imagine," he
adds, "that our Latin brethren deemed us altogether
ignorant of the very existence of the early ecclesiasti-
cal writers." No, sir, we imagine no such thing;
they are in your hands: we only lament that you after
all abandon them. Is not primitive tradition com-
posed in fact from their writings and testimonies?
Did you not receive from their hands the canon of
the Scriptures? You are ready yourselves to assure
us that you did so: "we resort not to the naked dog-
matical authority of the see of Rome" — you tell us
with a tone of harshness, and a want of politeness
more in character with the sixteenth and seventeenth
centuries than with our own — "but to the sufficient
evidence borne to that effect in the yet existing docu-
He was possessed of much information considering the age in
which he lived, and the shortness of his life. It has been said of
him, from his writings and conduct, that he had a good memory,
but little judgment.
64 ANSWER TO THE
ments of the primitive Church." Undoubtedly, and
this is what I have often represented to you. You
ought then in prudence to have given up your sixth
article: you ought not to have set out with declaring
the Scripture alone sufficient for salvation; and that
the instructions verbally given by the apostles had
been afterwards inserted in the writings subsequently
published by them. You ought not to have said, at
the very time when you were forced to observe your-
self the precept of St. Paul, that it did not apply to
us, and was even inapplicable very soon after it was
given. In fine, you ought not to have maintained with
so much assurance that the Scripture was all-suffi-
cient, at the moment when you were seeking for
apostolical instructions in the Fathers, and apart from
the Scripture, to prove even its authenticity. Save
yourself, if you can, from the charge of self-contra-
diction; and look out, if you please, some other than
me to make you consistent with yourself.
DIFFICULTIES OF ROMANISM. 65
PART THE SECOND.
ON THE HOLY EUCHARIST.
CHAPTER THE FIRST.
When I received a letter addressed to me by the
Rev. G. S. Faber, Dec. 20, 1825, I imagined that I
should find him a man of learning well versed in theo-
logical science, in the reading and doctrine of the
Fathers of the Church; an ecclesiastic the friend of
peace, deploring like myself the fatal separation ef-
fected in the sixteenth century, by a policy as blind
as it was interested; a pastor disposed to unite his
efforts with mine to re-unite Christians but too long
separated, and to bring back to the bosom of unity,
hearts formed for a mutual good understanding, for
loving each other, and conjointly strengthening upon
earth the kingdom of our divine Saviour. O flatter-
ing hopes and charitable anticipations, why did you so
quickly vanish? Why at the very first reading did
my antagonist's work present only a mass of imagina-
ry Difficulties, laid to the charge of what he chooses
to call Romanism? Why so much gall discharged
upon the Discussion Amicalc, and mixed with so many
unmerited praises of its author, whom he does not
know? That Mr. Faber is an able writer, I am quite
disposed to think; that he is much followed as a
preacher, I can readily believe; but that he is a
judicious and pacific controvertist I can boldly deny;
and, sir, you will soon be of my conviction by pursu-
ing with me his discussion on the Holy Eucharist.
66 ANSWER TO THE
I. He begins by laying down the question as he
understands it; page 52. — "The disagreement be-
tween the Church of England and the Church of
Rome, in regard to the doctrine of the Holy Euchar-
ist, chiefly respects the supposed process denominat-
ed transubstantiation Here, if I mistake not, is
the main disagreement between the two churches.
With respect to the doctrine of the real presence,
they both hold it." If the Rector were speaking of
the doctrine taught in England for one hundred years,
or thereabouts, from the reformation of Elizabeth
down to 1662, I should be entirely of his opinion; for
during that time the real presence was the most pre-
valent doctrine. "The King," as Bishop Andrews
testifies in his answer to Card. Bellarmine's Apology,
"the King (James 1st) acknowledges Jesus to be
truly present, and truly to be adored in the Eucharist."
I also with St. Ambrose "adore the flesh of Christ
in the mysteries." (Bishop Andrews, ch. 8, p. 1 94. )
Would Mr. Faber hold such language ? "The most
sensible Protestants," says Bishop Forbes, (de Eucha-
ristia I. 2, c. 2, § 9,) "do not doubt that Christ is to be
adored in the Eucharist. For in the reception of the
Eucharist, Christ is to be adored with the true worship
of latria. 'Tis a monstrous error of the rigid Protes-
tants, who deny that Christ is to be adored in the Eu-
charist, except only with an inward adoration of the
mind, but not with any outward act of adoration; as
kneeling or other like posture of the body." Yet is
not Mr. Faber obliged by the existing rubric, to teach
this monstrous error?
"I suppose," says the learned Mr. Thorndike,
(Epil. I. 3, c. 30, p. 350.) "the body and blood of
Christ may be adored, wheresoever they are; and
must be adored by a good Christian, where the cus-
tom of the Church, which a Christian is obliged to
communicate with, requires it. And is not the pre-
sence thereof in the Sacrament of the Eucharist a
DIFFICULTIES OF ROMANISM. 67
just occasion presently to express, by that bodily act
of adoration, that inward honour which we always
carry towards our Lord Christ, as God? Mr. Fabcr
would exclaim, take care how you hold such an
opinion."
I might here also quote Ridley, Hooker, Casaubon,
Montague, Taylor, and Cosin.* Such was at that
time the doctrine of the most celebrated theologians of
the Church of England: they adored Jesus Christ
in the Eucharist, because they believed him there
present.
II. With the year 1662 we are introduced to a
new epoch. We find your church solemnly proscrib-
ing the adoration of the Eucharist.f By a necessary
consequence of this sacrilegious proscription, the Cal-
vinistic opinion is introduced into the kingdom, it
*reaches through the schools, and is heard in the
pulpits of the established Church. And in fact, if the
adoration necessarily supposes the presence; explain
it as you will, the presence obliges also the adoration.^
*See the Discussion Amicale, T 1. pp. 314, 315, 316, and Essay
towards a proposal for Catholic Communion, chap. 5.
fSee the concluding notice of the Communion Service in the
Book of Common Prayer.
JChristum in actione coenae vere et substantialiter praesentcm,
in spiritu et veritate adorandum, nemo negat nisi qui cum sacra-
mentariis vel negat, vel dubitat de pnesentia Christi in ccena.
Kemnitius T. 2, Edit. Francofurt. p. loO, No. 4 Exam. Cone. Trid.
In 1G70 the ministers of Strasbourg presented in a body to the
magistrates a request by ■which they demanded, among other
articles, that all who approached to the Lord's Supper should
be required to receive it kneeling; they instanced the example of
the Church in Saxony, and gave as a motive the faith of the real
presence, adding that if, according to the expression of St. Paul,
"every knee should bow at the name of Jesus," much more should
it be done before his sacred person.
Zwinglius could not comprehend how those who believe Jesus
Christ to be present, can escape the guilt of sin in not adoring him
(In Exer. Euch. ad Luther.) Calvin declares loudly, and Beza after
him, that it always appeared to him most conclusive to say, that if
Jesus Christ be present in the bread, he is there to be adored. Ao«
68 ANSWER TO THE
From the moment it is forbidden to adore, it is equally
unlawful to believe Jesus Christ present in the Eucha-
rist. We must then pass with Mr. Faber to that
kind of change, which he presents us with so much
self-complacency, that moral change, which conse-
crates the bread and wine, it is true, for a religious
ceremony, but leaves them untouched in their sub-
stance. Thus the Sacrament will exhibit nothing but
empty and material symbols, and we must only speak
of it as an inanimate figure without any reality; for, I
beseech you, what is a figurative presence, but a real
absence? /
You who have rejected with your Church, the adora-
tion of Jesus Christ in his Sacrament; you, who with her,
condemn it as a shameful idolatry, how can you come
forth and tell us, that you are agreed with us on the
real presence? Ah! sir, if you were convinced of this
holy presence, you would be seized with awe and
trembling on approaching the holy table; you would
annihilate yourself before your God, veiled under the
sacramental species, but revealed to your faith; you
would receive him with every testimony of profound
and lively adoration; and after the humble centurion of
the gospel, you would say with your forefathers, with
ours, and with us, "O Lord, I am not worthy that thou
should st enter under my roof; but say only the word,
and my soul shall be healed." This was the language
of your country, for eleven hundred years. You can
no longer hold and pronounce it with the sentiment
and attitude of adoration! Alas ! for you it exists no
longer — I do not say upon the altar, since you pro-
scribe the very name and idea, but upon the table of
semper sic rationati sumus: si Christus est in pane, esse sub pane ador-
andum. (con. Luther.) But neither Calvin and his disciples, nor
Mr. Faber and the modern Church of England men, adore Christ in
the Sacrament: therefore they do not believe him there present,
however strong, and as it were, Catholic, may be the expressions,
which they often affect to use.
DIFFICULTIES OF ROMANISM. 69
the Lord's Supper, — you have nothing but bread and
wine. The body of Jesus Christ, you say, is become
a stranger to earth and her forsaken inhabitants, since
it has been in heaven. Adoration, therefore, in you,
would be real idolatry. Tims, Mr. Faber is mistaken
when he assigns transubstantiation as the fundamental
point of opposition between his Church and ours. He
ought to have assigned the doctrine of the real pre-
sence, by reducing the first and principal question be-
tween Catholics and modern members of the Church
of England, to the following terms: Is the body of Christ
really present in the Eucharist, or is it not? This
question, moreover, holds the first rank, fiom its very
high importance. In fact, the conviction of the real
presence, gives to the faith of the true Catholic, an
impulse perfectly sublime; and then it calls him bark
to the acknowledgment of his own lowliness, of his
profound unworthiness, and concentrates all his pow-
ers in silent adoration. To him, it is a source of the
most delightful emotions, and at the same time a prin-
ciple of spiritual strength, of love, joy, consolation and
hope: in fine, it transports him above all terrestrial
things; and in some measure, deifies him upon earth.
Tell, me, candidly, sir, has the cold and lifeless opi-
nion of the figure ever produced, or can it ever pro-
duce any thing like this?
It is sufficiently strange that a man persuaded of the
real absence of the body of Jesus Christ from the sa-
crament, should take any great interest in the transub-
stantiation. Does any one torment himself to discover the
mode of a thing's existence, which he does not believe
to exist at all? To what purpose would a man dispute
of the manner in which the prodigy of the real pre-
sence is effected, if all the while he disavowed the
belief of a real presence? Even if the Rector should
successfully demonstrate to Catholics, that the change
of substance in the Eucharist is inadmissible, he would
not thereby prove that the reality of the presence is
7
70 ANSWER TO THE
also inadmissible. He would still have to combat and
overturn the Lutheran opinion. For the real presence
is understood in two ways; either by the change of the
substance of bread, into the substance of Christ's body,
as the Catholics hold; or by the junction or union of
the .two substances, as the Lutherans contend. On
the other hand, the same proofs which establish the
doctrine of transubstantiation, demonstrate that of the
real presence. As soon as the substance of the sa-
cred body has taken place of the substance of bread,
we must necessarily believe and adore Jesus Christ,
under the figure and form of bread, under the sensible,
qualities of a substance which no longer exists. You
perceive, sir, that the principal difference, and the
greatest opposition between our Church and yours, is
in the real presence. Transubstantiation is but second-
ary. It springs from the doctrine of the reality, but it
follows, and never precedes it. By placing it in the
foremost rank, the Rector has made a mistake very
surprising in a theologian. He has badly stated the ques-
tion, because he has erroneously conceived concerning
the Holy Eucharist. He appears to have but confused
ideas of our mysteries: and hence he has not perceived
the principal opposition of the two churches, where it
really exists; but has placed it where it is not.
III. At last, I arrive at two consoling pages, full of
wise and judicious reflections.* I have read them,
and read them again with great satisfaction; and I feel
much pleasure in thus openly making the acknowledg-
ment. Why are such pages so rarely found in the
work to which I am replying? If it be truly painful,
when we are labouring to reconcile two parties at va-
riance, to find in one, hostile dispositions and difficul-
ties raised in an arbitrary manner, it is delightful to
hear both express the same sentiments on any ques-
tion. Here Mr. Faber unites with us in censuring the
temerity of those theologians, who inflated with vain
*pp. 54, 54.
DIFFICULTIES OF ROMANISM. 71
science, and imposed upon by presumptuous sugges-
tions of reason, imagine consequences absurd and con-
tradictory in the doctrines of the real presence and
transubstantiation * He appears to address such vain
and restless minds in these words of Ditton — "They
must leave off this quibbling and disputing, and take
whatever they find revealed in the gospel; remember-
ing that the infinite wisdom and goodness can never
possibly oblige them to believe any thing that is really
' absurd and contradictory, .... yet they may be oblig-
ed to believe many things which unconquered preju-
dice may tell them are absurd and unreasonable,
and which they may think to be so, by using them-
selves to judge of the ways of God too much by hu-
man rules and measures."!
With Cosin, Bishop of Durham, Mr. Faber ac-
knowledges the possibility of the presence in several
places, and with Forbes that of a change of substance.
The first expresses himself as follows : "We confess
with the Holy Fathers, that the manner is ineffable
and unsearchable, that is, not to be enquired and search-
ed into by reason, but to be believed by faith alone.
For although it seems incredible, that in so great a dis-
tance of place, Christ's flesh should come to us to be-
come our food; yet we must remember, how much the
power of the Holy Spirit is above our understanding,
and how foolish it is to measure his immensity by our
capacity. But what our understanding comprehends
not, let faith conceive."!
Now you shall hear the second: "Many Protestants
too boldly and dangerously deny that God has power
to transubstantiate the bread into the body of Christ.
* It is plain that he alludes to several writers well known in
Englaud, among others to Tillotson.
f Discourse concerning the Resuirect. of Jesxcs Christ. — London,
1714, 2d Edition, Part I. sec. 4, p. 15.
X Cosin Hist. Transub. p. 36, sect. 5, n. 4.
72 ANSWER TO THE
'Tis true all own that what implies a contradiction
cannot be done. But because, in particular, nobody
certainly knows what is the essence of every thing,
and consequently what implies a contradiction, and
what not; 'tis, without question, a rashness in any to
put limits to God's power. I approve the opinion of
the divines of Wittenberg, who assert the power of
God to be so great, that he can change the substance
of the bread and wine into the body and blood of
Christ."* These principles, which are equally those
of the Rector, and Bishops Forbes and Cosin, are
also quite conformable to those of Grotius, Leibnitz,
Molanus, and your most learned countrymen, who
would all have repeated that beautiful invocation of
one of your bishops: aO God incarnate, how thou
canst give us thy flesh to eat, and thy blood to drink!
How thy flesh is meat indeed! How thou who art in
heaven, mi present on the altar! I can by no means ex-
plain. But I firmly believe it all, because thouhast said
it; and I firmly rely on thy love; and on thy omnipo-
tence to make good thy word, though the manner of
doing it I cannot comprehend. "f
Since the time of this religious and truly philosophi-
cal invocation, theology has sustained a terrible shock
in your Church. Bishop Ken and Mr. Faber were
brought up in quite opposite doctrines on the subject
of the Eucharist; the former in the principle of reality,
the latter in that of figure, which so far from inspiring-
its cold partisans with the sublime faith of the Bishop,
would not even allow the Rector to admire it. Still
let us congratulate him on his having rejected as rash
and presumptuous the consequences, which many of his
brethren have imputed to the Catholic doctrine, and
censured the declamations with which their pulpits
have been made to resound in that positive and deci-
* Bp. Forbes De Euch. 1. 1, c. 2.
•f Z)r< Ken, Bishop of Bath and Wells. — Eocposition, 1685.
DIFFICULTIES OF ROMANISM. 73
sive tone, which imposes on minds imcapable of fathom-
ing metaphysical questions.
Mr. Faber, as I feel happy again to acknowledge,
beheld the difficulty with a great deal of just discrimi-
nation when he reduced it to this simple question of
fact: "Was transubstantiation revealed by Jesus
Christ or not?" But he soon after without being aware
of it, substitutes the dogma of the real presence for that
of transubstantiation; for the greater part of his argu-
ments are directed against the reality. I am induced
to remark this, not so much to reproach him with it
as to exhibit the want of accuracy in his ideas. For
after all it is evident, that if there be no real presence,
there can be no transubstantiation in the Eucharist.
Let us now examine his proofs against the real pre-
sence. Hitherto it has been the usual course of di-
vines to examine the promise made by Jesus Christ,
before its accomplishment. Such is not the plan of
the Rector: he returns to his usual method of inverting
the order of his ideas. He enters upon the discussion
of the scripture proofs by the words of institution-,
taking care however to discourse later of the promise
which our Saviour had made long before hand. He
must allow us to bring back things to their natural
order: we will follow him afterwards in the inverted
march, which he has chosen to adopt.
74 ANSWER TO THE
CHAPTER THE SECOND.
PROOFS FROM SCRIPTURE OF OUR DOCTRINES ON THE
HOLY EUCHARIST.
I. I think you will not require me to repeat to you
at length the arguments developed in my first volume,
from p. 250 to 279. Be so kind as to read again this
portion of the Discussion Jhnicale. I content myself
with presenting you a summary sketch of the argu-
ments which prove that Jesus Christ had promised to
give us, not the figure, but the reality of his sacred
body.
1 . He begins by reminding the Jews of the great
miracle of the multiplication of the loaves, which had
taken place before their eyes the preceding day, and
which alone ought to have gained him their entire
confidence. He reproaches them with their back-
wardness in confiding in him, and establishes his claim
their confidence. What is the meaning of this ex-
ordium, and this manner of opening himself to them
imperfectly and by degrees? Whence comes it that
la-, reminds them at every turn of the necessity of faith
due to his character, his miracles, his heavenly origin
and divinity? What is the object of these recommen-
dations, precautions and preliminaries? What end
has he in view, and what does he intend to propose
to them? Certainly something extraordinary, and ex-
tremely difficult to receive. Let us attend to his
words: "I am the living bread .... if any man eat of
1his bread he shall live for ever: and the bread that I
will give, is my flesh for the life of the world."* A
*St. John xl v. 51, 52.
DIFFICULTIES OF ROMANISM. 75
declaration so strange, so far removed from human
ideas, could not relate to a figurative eating, which is
simple enough. The natural sense of the words as
the Jews have just heard them, astonishes and con-
founds their minds. They judge it impossible for
them to eat the flesh of Jesus. The carnal manner,
which they conceive inseparable from this manduca-
tion, evidently supposes the reality; and no less evi-
dently excludes the figure. It was the reality, there-
fore, which they understood.
2. So far from undeceiving them, or explaining his
words in the figurative sense, our Lord subsequently
repeats no less than six times his first declaration
with expressions every time stronger. The energetic
words in which he expressed himself even shocked
several of his disciples; they declared that they were
too hard for them to bear. They must then have
conveyed the sense of the reality, incomprehensible
to the human mind; and not the figurative sense,
which is so conformable to our ideas.
3. Jesus adds, that if they are scandalized at what
he has now told them, they will be much more so
when they see him ascend where he was before: that
is, that the accomplishment of his promise will appear
to them much more incredible, when he shall no longer
be present before their eyes. But a figurative man-
ducation becomes still more easy after his ascension,
that splendid proof of his divinity; whereas the real
manducation is far more incredible, for you gentle-
men especially who are forever repeating to us, that
his body is as far from our altars as heaven is from
earth. Therefore it was not a figurative, but a real
manducation which our Saviour had announced.
4. Nevertheless, in order to remove from their
imagination the crudity of a carnal manducation, Jesus
adds, that his words are not to be estimated according
to human reason, but according to the enlightening
grace of the Holy Spirit. For "it is the spirit that
76 ANSWER TO THE
quickenetb: the flesh" (or human intelligence) "profit-
eth nothing."* But no, exclaims Mr. Faber: "our
Lord teaches us, that his language is to be interpreted
figuratively, not literally." And I rejoin that it is not
so; and cannot be so. For if by this sentence, our
Lord had given them to understand • that his discourse
was to be interpreted in a figurative sense, those Jews
who had revolted at the gross idea of a real manduca-
tion, and those of his disciples who had found his
words a hard saying beyond bearing, would immedi-
ately have been pacified; they would have been re-
conciled to the discourse of their master, and more
* Spiritus est qui vivificat, caro nonprodest quidquam: quod indicat
ista Spiritus Sancti auxilio intelligi oportere. Carnem enim, hoc
est rationem humanan in hisce divinis rebus nihil prodesse, hoc
est, caligare et ineptire. — Centur. Lutheran. Cent 1, c. 4. Mr. Fa-
ber would have it that the ancient fathers understood this 64th
verse, as he does. He says at p. 87, "that it may be more dis-
tinctly seen how widely the ancients differed from the Bishop of
Aire, I subjoin, as a specimen, the gloss of Athanasius:" and then
he gives a translation worse than incorrect, as will be readily seen
by the Latin version of the Learned Benedictines, as follows:
"De seipso dixit Christus, filius hominis et Spiritus, ut ex illo, quce
cwpus suum spectarent; ex Spiritu vero, spiritualem suam et intelligibi-
lem, verissimamque divinitatem declararet, (and after quoting verses
62, 63, and 64) nam hie etiam utrumque de se dixit, carnem et spiri-
tual: etspiritum a came distinxit, ut non solum quod apparet, sed etiam
quod invisibile est credentes discerent ea quae ipse loqueretur non esse car-
nalia sed spiritualia. Quot enim hominibus corpus satis esset ad esum, ut
Mud totius mundi jieret alimentum? Sed ideo meminet ascensionis Filii
hominis in cczlum, ut a corporali cogitatione ipsos retraheret, atque hinc
ediscerent carnem, de qua, locutus fuerat, cibum e supernis, cczlestem et
spiritualem alimoniam ab ipso dari: nam quce locutus sum vobis, inquit,
S]jiritus et vita sunt: quod perinde est ac si diceret: quod ostenditur et
datur pro mundi salute caro est, quam ego gesto: sed hoec vobis cum
ejus sanguine a me spiritualiler esca dabilur: ita ut haec spiritualiter
vnicuique tribuatur, et fiat singulis tutamen in resurrectionem vitoi
ceternce." Ep. 4, ad Serap. Episc. Thmuitanum;
Observe these word s ; but this flesh with its blood shall be given to
you by me in a spiritual manner; this is precisely our doctrine. —
There is a wide difference between saying that the flesh and blood
are given in a spiritual manner, and saying that they are given in
figure only. A body in figure is not a body; but a spiritualized
body is a real body still. It is such as the bodies of the elect will
DIFFICULTIES OF ROMANISM. 77
attached to him than ever. And yet it was immedi-
ately after this last sentence that they withdrew,
abandoned their master, and walked no more with
him ! Therefore this last declaration did not indicate
the figurative sense.
5. Jesus reproaches the disciples with not believing
his word: "there are some of you that believe not."
But if he had explained himself in the figurative
sense, these would have believed; none would have
merited the reproach of incredulity. He adds, that
no one can believe in what he has said, unless it be
given him by the Father. But to believe in a figura-
tive manducation, there is no need of any particular
grace.
6. The doctrine of Jesus on the promised mandu-
cation prevented many Jews from believing in him;
and induced many disciples to forsake him. Now
our doctrine on this point prevents many Christians
from adopting our creed, and causes some to abandon
it; whereas the present doctrine of your Church in
general attaches its members to it, and withholds
those who would otherwise come over to us. Our
be in heaven. Semintur corpus animate, surget corpus spirituals
The Rector has taken the passage of St. Athanasius in a wrong
sense from beginning to end.
In the Discussion Amicale, pp. 263, 264, vol. 1, I said, Christ
when he announced his ascension, insinuated to his disciples, and
gave them sufficiently to comprehend, that in the manducation of
his flesh, the senses would have no share, as they had imagined,
and that his presence would be neither palpable nor visible; since
according to this natural presence, they would see him disappear
and ascend into heaven. He further instructed them that they
ought not to judge of his body as of other human bodies, incapa-
ble of themselves of a similar ascension: that his would prove to be
divinely constituted; his flesh, that of the Son of God, upon which
he could stamp an almighty power, and which he could easily
change and give in a supernatural state." I thank Mr. Faberfor
having shewn me that without being aware of this passage of St.
Athanasius, I had been so fortunate as to light in part upon the
ideas of that great Prelate.
78 ANSWER TO THE
doctrine therefore, and not yours, is conformable to
that of Jesus Christ.
7. Lastly; and I beg you to attend well to this final
observation. Several disciples chose to withdraw
from their master, even after the declaration he had
just made, rather than rely on his word for the man-
ner of accomplishing what he promised: — but the
apostles remain attached to him; and building on his
divinity, depend upon his power for the execution of
his promise. But the former would not have abandon-
ed such a master through unwillingness to believe so
simple a thing as a manducation explained in Mr.
Faber's way, in a figurative sense: nor would the
latter have needed to rely for their belief, upon his
diyinity and omnipotence. Therefore neither party
could have understood this manducation in the figura-
tive sense of the Rector: and therefore I conclude that
the true sense is that of the real presence; that being
the only sense which can explain the opposite conduct
of the disciples who departed, and the apostles who
remained.
II. I now ask you, sir, if the long and memorable
scene at Capharnaum must not have made a deep and
indelible impression upon the apostles? In how great
expectation must they have been held by a promise
so extraordinary and wonderful, that it could have
been conceived and proclaimed by none but God him-
self! It must have required no less than the miracles
which they witnessed every day, and the full convic-
tion of the divinity of their master, to keep them in the
assurance that he would one day realize his promise,
however unintelligible to them was the manner in
which he would execute it. This unheard-of scene
must have frequently returned to their minds; but
especially at the memorable time, when, after the
paschal supper, and the washing of their feet, being
again seated at table by his order, and seeing him
take bread in his venerable hands, bless it, and lift up
DIFFICULTIES OF ROMANISM. 79
his eyes to heaven in prayer — they heard him solemn-
ly pronounce those words, take and cat, this is my body.
These words dart light at once into their minds; their
expectation is accomplished, their hope and faith are
crowned: and even we ourselves, sir, though at so
great a distance from this grand event, assist at it in
imagination, and partake of the banquet oi0 our Sa-
viour. We can imagine that we have just heard him,
as we heard him before in the synagogue of Caphar-
naum. Here as on the former occasion, we enter into
the sentiments of the apostles: with them we perceive
in a moment the manifest connexion between the pro-
mise of this great favour, and its accomplishment; be-
tween the food promised, and the food bestowed; the
flesh which the Lord was to give them to eat, and that
which he actually gives them to eat. We compare
the narrative of St. John with those of the other
evangelists: these words of the former, "the bread
which I will give is my flesh for the life of the
world,'" with the words of St. Luke: "This is my
body which is given for you." In both, the subject
is the same; there, as here, the same meaning, the
same mystery, the same truth. We further remark
that this great miracle, designated beforehand in terms
precise and expressive, is now announced in the most
clear and. simple terms which language can furnish;
and we say, Jesus Christ pronounced the words of in-
stitution in the same sense as those of the promise; but
we have just seen that he certainly pronounced the
words of promise in the sense of the real presence.
Moreover, the apostles must have given to the words
of institution the same sense in which they had taken
the words of promised but that sense was assuredly
that of the real presence: therefore in the same sense
they understood the words of institution.
III. If notwithstanding, it will afford you satisfaction
for me to resume the retrograde movement of Mr.
Faber, and go back from the institution to the promise;
80 ANSWER TO THE
be it so, I am quite willing. But what advantage will
the Rector gain for his opinion of a figurative presence?
This we shall soon see. Whether the words of
promise are placed first, or introduced after those of
institution, I see no difference, except in the subver-
sion of natural order. The intimate relation between
them renders them inseparable. They admit not of
being insulted, they demand comparison and juxtapo-
sition: so close is their natural union. This Mr.
Faber ought to admit; for he himself makes use of
the 64th verse of the vi. ch. of St. John, to endeavour,
if possible, to explain the words, " This is my body"
in a figurative sense. He cannot therefore dispute my
right to employ the same chapter, to shew that the
words of institution import the real presence.
It is indeed the indispensable duty of every com-
mentator to bring together the ideas, which must at
that time have occupied together the minds of the
apostles. Who can doubt that the astonishing scene
at Capharnaum was at this moment present to their
memory? Certainly we have sound reason to believe
that so extraordinary a discourse as the one held by
our Saviour on that occasion, followed up and incul-
cated by him with equal force and perseverance, ad-
dressed first to the Jews, then to the disciples, and
always with particular energy, must have left a deep
impression on the minds of the apostles. Judge of
this, sir, by St. John. About seventy years had rolled
by, when he retraced this scene with so animated a
pen, so much circumstantial precision and such confi-
dent recollection, that when you read it, you seem to
see it passing before your eyes. How much more
strongly then must it have been remembered by the
apostles at the end of a few months; and especially
when being prepared for something extraordinary, and
all their attention fixed, and rivetted upon their master,
they heard these words from his mouth: Take, eat:
this is my body which shall be delivered for you! We
DIFFICULTIES OF ROMANISM. hi
may well suppose them exclaiming at that moment;
"Behold now the accomplishment of what he had
promised us! This is the bread of which he spoke to
us; the bread, which came down from heaven to give
life to the world: this is the reality of that mysterious
declaration; Amen, amen, I say unto you: except you vat
the flesh of the Son of *Uan, and drink his blood, you
shall not have life in you .... He that eateth my flesh
and drinketh my blood, hath everlasting life: .... My
flesh is meat indeed; and my blood is drink indeed . . .
He that eateth my flesh, arid drinketh my blood, abideth
in me, and I in him. These words must then have
loudly echoed in the ears of the apostles: and I beg
you, sir, to tell me honestly, whether such language as
this, and affirmations thus repeated can be reconciled
with a metaphorical sense; or if they do not neces-
sarily exclude a figurative acceptation? Is it not true
that the words my flesh is meat indeed, rigorously ex-
press the reality? For after all, flesh in figure would
be at most but figurative nourishment; it never could
be meat indeed. It is therefore manifest, that the
words of promise import the reality; and since the
words of institution cannot be susceptible of a differ-
ent signification, we must acknowledge in them also
th e real presence.
Need I go farther? I am willing certainly, if it be.
required, to separate the words, this is my body; and
to consider them by themselves. I maintain that they
must always exhibit to us the real presence. Other-
wise instead of interpreting the words of Jesus Chi
we must change them; we must make him say the
very reverse of what he did say. For if he only left
us the figure, it follows that what he declared to be
his body, is not his body; inasmuch as the sign of a
tiling is not the thing itself, but only a representation
of it. Then instead of these positive words, this is my
body, we must make him say, at least in equivalent
words, this is not my body, but only the figure of it.
8
82 ANSWER TO THE
Moreover, would he not himself have led us astray, if
the words we read in his Testament, the living bread, the
bread, which came down from heaven — the jlesh,meat in-
tieed — the body, which shall be delivered, express only a
wrong idea; while the words sign and figure, which
we do not find at all, are the only ones which will open
to us the true meaning of the Scriptures?*
IV. Mr. Faher with a good grace, surely, represents
me as an enemy to metaphors, ready to "make short
work with the whole family of them!" No, sir, I am no
*I observed at page 293 of my first volume, "that before the
institution of the Eucharist, bread had never been taken in the
ordinary usage of language, as a sign of any thing whatever," Mr.
Faber replies, that in the Old Testament bread is sometimes men-
tioned as a sign of the body of Jesus Christ. I know it is; and
the Rector must also know that a sign exhibited in some parts of
the Old Testament is not therefore proved to have been employed
in common use, in the language of conversation and the ordinary
intercourse of life. This was what I said, and all that it waa
necessary to say; particularly when we reflect that before the
descent of the Holy Ghost, poor Galileans as the apostles were,
could not have been familiar with the books of the Old Testament.
The Rector observes in a note, p. 92, that according to the
ancient fathers, bread and wine in the Old Testament are signs
and figures of our Lord's body and blood. And he thence con-
cludes that they must be so in the New Testament. But any one
would have inferred that they could not be so in the New
Testament. For the figures of the Old Testament were not re-
peated, but fulfilled by our blessed Saviour. If bread and wine
are still only figures in the New Testament, the Rector with such
ah opinion, ought to have said, that in the Old Testament they
were figures of the figure of the body and blood of Jesus Christ.
1 say the same of the loaves of proposition, figurative of the
bread consecrated upon our alters. If ours is no more than it was
heretofore, there is nothing but figure in both Testaments, and
reality in neither. I conclude then, that on the one hand, the
passages of the Old Testament were bread is given as a figure
of Christ's body, do not prove that it was so considered in the
ordinary use of language, which was all that I advanced: but on the
other hand, they'prove that the bread, which prefigured the body of
Jesus Christ in the Old Testament, was to become and did become
his real body in the New Testament. And thus, sir, you behold
the pretended objections of the Rector become, in reality, fresh
proofs of the truth of the Catholic faith: sagitta parmdorum factte
sunt plagce eorum!
DIFFICULTIES OF ROMANISM. 83
enemy to them; I know too well their value in writing
or speaking-, to wish to banish them. But because
they are to be welcomed when they appear in features,
which are readily acknowledged, docs it follow that
wc must admit them, when no such features appear:
I can see metaphors in the words, J am a door, or /
am the vine. The explanations, which immediately
follow them unfold the metaphors, which otherv,
were not altogether new. But the words, this is my
body, are not followed by any explanation: so that to
find their interpretation we must recur to the sixth
chapter of St. John; and we have seen that so far
from giving any idea of a figure, that chapter visibly
imports the reality.
This I think will suffice upon the arguments for,
and against the real presence, drawn .from the New
Testament; particularly if taken in conjunction with
those, which I have developed in the sixth and seventh
letters of the Discussion Jlmicale. To me every
difficulty appears cleared up on this subject3 the ques-
tion decided, and the real presence solidly established
by the Sacred Scripture-
84 ANSWER TO THE
CHAPTER THE THIRD
PROOFS OF OUR DOCTRINE ON THE EUCHARIST FROM
TRADITION.
I. A divine, a philosopher — every man accustomed
to order in his ideas, will never fail to arrange them
on paper with the same attention to method and per-
spicuity. Mr. Faber however disdains to follow ser-
vilely in the train of the learned writers who have
preceded him. He departs from the beaten track,
and opens for himself a new one, just as his ideas
bear him along from one subject to another. After
trying in his fourth chapter to explain in a figurative
sense the words of our Saviour, which with sublime
simplicity express his real presence; he leaves the
Gospel all at once; passes unceremoniously to the
writings of the Holy Fathers, which he abandons in
the chapter following to resume the Holy Scripture,
leaving this again altogether at chapter sixth, where
he returns to the examination of the Fathers, which he
had begun without being able to finisji. I cannot ad-
mire such disorder; I shall pursue the regular course
which I have prescribed to myself. I have said
enough to establish the truth of our doctrines by the
Holy Scripture; I now enter upon tradition, and the
proofs, I shall deduce from it will fill this third chap-
ter. In the third part of this work, I purpose to col-
lect the mistakes, contradictions, studied suppressions,
infidelities and false imputations, which are scattered
through the whole of the Rector's production. I shall
pass over these various matters as cursorily as possi-
DIFFICULTIES OF ROMANISM. 35
ble, as being of minor importance, and for the most
part regarding me personally.
I must own, sir, I had flattered myself that my
three letters on the general and particular proofs
from tradition would have found some favour with
Mr. Faber. ' But he professes to discover nothing in
them but an ingenious and subtile argumentation, and
certain captious approximations, capable of deceiving
none but the most unenlightened. They have not
been elsewhere so esteemed, by able divines of vari-
ous communions, and even of his own. It shall be
my object to compel him to the same avowal as his
brethren, or at least to silence. And I am sure of
success, if I can present these proofs to his view,
with the force and clearness which are so peculiarly
their own. I begin by exhibiting to him and to you
an anal}~sis of the three letters, such as it appeared in
a French paper at the time when the Discussion Ami-
cale was brought over from London to Paris.
II. aThe secrecy universally observed during the
first live centuries on the mysteries of the altar, is the
principal point on which the labours of the author turn,
on the subject of the Eucharist; and may be called
the pivot of his demonstration. He beheld the com-
mand of this carried so far, that the Fathers did not
hesitate to declare that it was better to shed their
blood than to publish the mysteries; and that in fact
several did shed their blood, rather than reveal them.
He saw that this discipline must of necessity be traced
up to the apostles; and after establishing this point of
history beyond a doubt, he asks himself this question:
What then was concealed beneath this secrecy rela-
tive to the mysteries of the altar? It must have been
either the figure of the Sacramentarian, or the real
presence of the Catholic. In the first supposition,
there could be no reason for keeping silence; because.
with a figure there is no mystery; and the law of se-
crecy would in that case have been established not
8*
86 ANSWER TO THE
only without any substantial motive, but even in oppo-
sition to the most cogent reasons for speaking freely.
The assemblies of the Christians were calumniated;
they were charged with unheard-of crimes; the faith-
ful were put to the torture to force from them the
avowal of what passed clandestinely among them. —
Why not then throw open every door? Why not ex-
pose to the light the innocence of their religious rites?
And why did they not invite the Pagans to come and
be convinced with their own eyes, that they took
nothing but a little bread and wine, as a sign of mutu-
al fellowship, and a memorial of their Saviour? Rea-
son, charity, and self-interest, would have obliged
them to do this. The secrecy then which they per-
sisted in keeping is absolutely incompatible with the
belief of the Sacramentarian.
aIn the belief of the Catholic, on the contrary, who
does not see the propriety and even necessity of this
discipline? The exalted dogmas of our faith are so
far above human understanding, that at the first men-
tion of them, the Pagans would have derided them as
foolish and extravagant, and uttered against them a
thousand insults and blasphemies. Their prejudices
would have been strengthened against that religion, to
which nevertheless, they were by degrees to be en-
ticed. Thus on the one hand, the respect due to the
mysteries of our Lord, and on the other, the regard,
which charity would suggest for the weakness of the
Pagans, sufficed to command in the Catholic belief, a
careful silence on such doctrines, and not to make
them known till after a lengthened course of instruc-
tions preparatory to baptism. After this, read the
Fathers; read the motives which they assign for the
law of secrecy; and you will confess that they are
precisely such as I have just mentioned. Conformity
of reasons demonstrates conformity of belief. We
earnestly exhort our readers to follow up in the eighth
letter this first general proof assigned by the author.
DIFFICULTIES OF ROMANISM. 87
In the development of this interesting discussion, they
will at once be convinced of the connexion and evi-
dent agreement;between the discipline of the secret,
and the Catholic doctrine of the real presence; and no
less evidently will they see its incompatibility with
the figure of the Sacramentarians.
For the rest, what to certain prejudiced minds
might appear in the eighth letter no more than an in-
ference, drawn with more dexterity than certainty,
becomes, in the letter following, a positive fact, and
thus acquires a force that is irresistible. What in-
deed was concealed in part by the secrecy of the
Christians? That which was practised in their reli-
gious assemblies, and performed at the altar. And
what was this? Interrogate the liturgies; they are
ready to answer you. About the time of the council
of Ephesus they are for the first time produced in
open light; previous to that time they had been con-
fided to the memory of the bishops and priests; for
the danger of the secrets' being betrayed had forbid-
den their being committed to writing. But at that
period, Christianity having taken the lead, and having
nothing more to fear from Paganism, every church
committed its liturgy to writing. And what is the
information they give you? All, without exception,
present to us the altar, the oblation of sacrifice, the
real presence by the change of substance, and the
adoration.
Nestorians, Eutychians, Jacobites, are here agreed
both among themselves and with Catholics, all, not-
withstanding schism and heresy; in spite of distance
and separation, in spite of the difference of rites,
prayers and solemnities; all in Italy, Africa, Spain,
Gaul and Great Britain, as well as in Greece and its
islands, in Asia Minor, the Indies, Egypt and Abyssi-
nia; all describe to us the same mysteries, the same
dogmas; all profess the same faith, and proclaim the
same doctrine. An agreement so wonderful, an uni-
88 ANSWER TO THE
formity so admirable could only proceed from one and
the same cause; and that cause would be sought for
in vain elsewhere but in the teaching of the apostles.
Such is the substance of the second general proof
drawn out before us in the ninth letter.
Its connexion with the preceding proof is this. The
secrecy of the Christians concealed the mysteries of
the altar. The written liturgies disclose them; they
display to us the real presence, transubstantiation and
the adoration. Therefore these mysteries were really
enveloped in the secret. The facts speak for them-
selves, and the primitive liturgies demonstrate by their
mutual agreement, the correctness of our views and
argumentation. But the secret is traced back to the
apostles; the essential part of the liturgy comes
equally from them, and both were common to all the
churches in the world. Here, then, are two general
and certain proofs of the apostolicity of our doctrine
on the Holy Eucharist.
This is not all: the particular proofs are admirably
connected with those which are general. For in fact,
what the faithful celebrated at the altar, what they so
carefully concealed from the non-initiated, was made
known for the first time to the neophytes just after
their baptism, and before they approached to the Holy
Communion. They were detained, that what till then
had been withheld, and what they were soon to re-
ceive, might be explained to them. And what was
then explained ? What dogmas, what doctrine did
they then hear? Was it the^wre of the Sacramenta-
rian, or the reality of the Catholic? Let us open the
catecheses; they will point out the instructions, which
were then given. All these so plainly exhibit our
mysteries, that it would be impossible at the present
day to express in terms more clear, precise, and ener-
getic, the oblation of sacrifice, transubstantiation, and
the real presence, with the adoration, which it de-
mands. Thus then we are assured a second time by
DIFFICULTIES OF ROMANISM. 89
the cateclieses* that it was this sublime belief, which
was concealed beneath the discipline of the secret.
"Whoever searches for it, and wishes to see it in the
ancient Fathers, must always bear in mind that they
spoke or wrote uniformly under the law of the secret;
that in discourses pronounced before the uninitiated, in
writings destined for the public, always in fine when
there was danger of betraying the discipline, they
were under the necessity of using obscure and ambi-
guous expressions: that consequently whoever is de-
sirous of forming clear and certain ideas of what they
believed and taught on the Eucharist, should not depend
on writings of this kind; because good sense would
dictate that clearness is not to be sought, where obscu-
rity was commanded. This observation suffices to put
to silence every objection drawn from various passages
of the Fathers. But when they addressed the faithful
only, or wrote for them alone, then freed from re-
straint, they could speak of the mysteries without dis-
guise; they were obliged by their ministry, to speak so,
whenever they had to instruct the newly baptized.
These are the discourses and writings, which we ought
in these days to consult, in order to become acquainted
with their real sentiments, and their inward belief on
the mysteries; and in these we find openly, and at
every word, our genuine doctrine on the Holy Eu-
charist. "
III. Thus all is explained and understood, all is
connected in these three dissertations. FrOm the triple
alliance of the secret, the liturgies and the catecfieses,
results a complete harmony, and an irrefragable proof
of the apostolicity of our doctrine on the Eucharist.
The Rector, who appears to have felt and dreaded
the force of this triple alliance, attempts to weaken,
and, if possible, to break it. He separates the three
parts, and attacks them in succession. It becomes
then my business to strengthen them one by one, and
90 ANSWER TO THE
draw closer the cords, which unite them : funiculus
triplex difficile rumpitur*
IV. He begins by condemning, as I did, the extra-
vagant opinion of those, who date the origin of the
secret discipline from the fourth century. How in
fact could it be imagined, that the Church would un-
dertake to deprive, in one day, all who were not Chris-
tians of the knowledge of mysteries universally diffused
the day before? How are we to suppose that such an
undertaking could be carried into effect? Mr. Faber
acknowledges with me the folly of such a supposition:
but soon after, by some unaccountable caprice, while
he owns that the secret, as regarded the Pagans, was
to be traced up to the apostles, he confines its esta-
blishment with respect to the catechumens, to the
middle of the second century. What fact, what de-
cree, or what monument does he produce in proof ?
None at all. In what place, by what order was the
knowledge previously communicated to the catechu-
mens, withheld from them? The Rector says not a
word. He gives us in the outset his own conjecture,
without supporting it by a single testimonial. He
imagines that St. Paul, full of admiration for the secret
mysteries of the Pagans, had some idea of placing
under a similar safeguard, those of Christianity; and
that a hundred years afterwards, the Church pre-
scribed such a law of secrecy with regard to the cate-
chumens. He refers to certain passages of St. Paul's
Epistles, without quoting them, which appear to him
to prepare the way for this discipline. I have verified
these passages; and there is not one among them
which can justify his conjecture.
But it must be further observed that the catechu-
mens before baptism, were only either Jewish or
Pagan unbelievers, who came of their own accord
to submit to probation, and demand the instructions
*Eccle$iastes iv. Y. 1SJ.
DIFFICULTIES OF ROMANISM. 91
which they were required to go through, before they
could be judged worthy of baptism. If there had
been no secret with regard to them, before this period,
it must follow, that in the primitive days, the Church,
forgetful of the precept received from her divine legis-
lator, cast the precious pearls of her doctrine before
swine. For according to the language of tradition,
the pearls are the mysteries, and the swine designate
the unbelievers. In fine, those who in this glorious
century became Christians, had commenced by being
catechumens; and the number of these latter from the
days of the apostles to the middle of the second centu-
ry is incalculable. Among so great a multitude, it is
morally impossible that several attracted at first by cu-
riosity, and even by better dispositions, should not
have been disgusted, and abandoned the austere and
fatiguing course of probation and instructions, to re-
turn to the religion of their Fathers. They would then
have carried away with them into the world the know-
ledge of the mysteries; they would have communica-
ted it to their relations and friends, and to all who
cared to be informed of it. There would in such a
case have been no longer any secret for the catechu-
mens, or even for the Pagans. So far, sir, are we led
by the arbitrary and ill-digested supposition of Mr.
Faber. Let us leave it then for what it is worth; and
consider it as never proposed: for what settles the
question against the Rector in one word, is, that all the
ancient liturgies exclude the catechumens before the
celebration of the mysteries. This rule is general:
therefore apostolical.
FIRST GENERAL PROOF— THE DISCIPLINE OF THE
SECRET.
I. I now pass on to the general proof, which I ex-
tracted from the discipline of the secret; not however
that I ever insisted that the Eucharist was its sole, ex-
clusive, or even principal object. The Rector makes
92 ANSWER TO THE
me assert this in his book, though he knows that I ne-
ver said it in mine; he repeats it to satiety, as if to
shew me up to his readers as in error, and enjoy a vic-
tory as easy as it is imaginary. Let him exult; I offer no
interruption: I shall not disturb his triumph; I am ambi-
tious of one more real and substantial; I will establish
it upon incontestable monuments. Without producing
them all, I will present you with several; and if I
fatigue you with their number, you must blame the
man who compels me to it. You shall see the disci-
pline of the secret in vigour, from the epoch of the
council of Ephesus in 431, up to the days of the
apostles.
II. Century 5th. I begin with the celebrated presi-
dent of the above mentioned council: these are the words
of St. Cyril of Alexandria in his seventh book against
Julian. He does not notice the objections of that empe-
ror against baptism, but contents himself with saying,
that "these mysteries are so profound, and so exalted,
that they are intelligible to those only, who have faith;
that therefore he shall not undertake to speak on what is
most admirable in them, lest by discovering the myste-
ries to the uninitiated, he should offend Jesus Christ,
who forbids us to give what is holy to dogs, and to
cast pearls before swine." Observe, sir, that ac-
cording to this learned Patriarch, the precept of the
secret discipline comes from Jesus Christ himself: and
pray bear in mind this important testimony, which will
furnish later the solution of a difficulty, which the
Rector imagines to be insoluble. After saying some
little of baptism, he adds: "I should say much more,
if I were not afraid of being heard by the uninitiated:
because men generally deride what they do not under-
stand; and the ignorant, not even knowing the weak-
ness of their minds, despise what they ought most to
venerate."
"It is requisite," says St. Isidore, of Pelusium, to
have in the heart zeal, and the love of virtue, in order
DIFFICULTIES OF ROMANISM. 9$
to eat worthily the true and divine passover. They
fully comprehend my meaning, who folio wing the sane-
tion of the Legislator, have been initiated in the mys-
teries."" It was therefore by order of the divine Le-
gislator that they spoke clearly of the mysteries on-
ly to the initiated; and the mysteries of the Eucharist
were comprehended in the number.
Innocent first wrote thus to the Bishop Decentius:
"I cannot transcribe the words (the form of confirma-
tion) for fear of appearing rather to betray, than reply
to your consultation". . . .and farther on; . . . ."as to
those things which it is not lawful to write, I can
tell you them when you arrive."
In the first of his three dialogues, Theodoret intro-
duces Orthodoxus speaking thus: "Answer me, if you
please, in mystical and obscure words; for perhaps
there are persons present who are not initiated in the
mysteries. Eranistes — I shall understand you, and
answer you with the same precaution;" and farther on,
"You have clearly proved what you intended, though
under mystical terms." In the second dialogue, Era-
nistes asks: "How do you call the gift which is offered
before the invocation of the priest? We must not
mention it openly," replies Orthodoxus, "because we
may be overheard by persons, who are not initiated.
Therefore speak in disguised and enigmatical terms;
a food made of such a seed." The same Theodoret
in his preface to Ezechiel traces up the secret disci-
pline to the precept of Jesus Christ. "The divine
mysteries are so august, that we are bound to keep
them with the greatest caution: and to use the words
of our Lord, these pearls ought never to be cast be-
fore swine. For indeed men finish with despising
what they have obtained without difficulty."
St. Augustin in his discourses before catechumens,
or in such writings as might fall into their hands, never
failed to conceal from them the mystery of the Eucha-
rist. His ordinary expession was, uthe faithful kno\»
9
94 ANSWER TO THE
it." In his fourth sermon on Jacob and Esau, speak-
ing of this mystery, he does not venture to call it the
sacrament of the body and blood of Jesus Christ, but
only "the sacrament known to the faithful, made from
corn and wine." In his epistle to the catechumen
Honoratus, he says, "We render thanksgiving to the
Lord our God in the great Sacrament, in the sacrafice
of the new law: when once you have been baptized,
you will know where, when, and how it is offered.'''
Speaking of the manna in the 12th treatise on St. John;
"We know what the Jews received; and the catechu-
mens do not know what the Christians receive." And
in the preceding treatise: "Ask a catechumen if he
eats the flesh of the Son of man, and drinks his blood;
he does not know what you mean; .... the catechu-
mens do not know what the Christians receive ....
the manner in which the flesh of our Lord is received,
is a thing concealed from them." "What is there hid-
den from the public in the Church?" he says in his first
discourse on the 103d psalm. "The sacraments of
Baptism and the Eucharist. The Pagans see our good
works, but not the sacraments. But it is precisely
from those things, which are concealed from their
sight, that those spring, which cause their admiration."
And in the 10th sermon on St John, "Those who
know the scriptures, understand perfectly what Met-
chisedech offered to Abraham; we must not here
make mention of it, because of the catechumens:
nevertheless the faithful are acquainted with it."
III. Fourth century. — St. Chrysostom takes occa-
sion from baptism to express himself as follows, on the
secrecy of the mysteries in general: Homil. 40 on 1
Corinth. aI wish to speak openly, but I dare not, on
account of those who are not initiated. These persons
render explanation more difficult for us; by obliging us
either to speak in obscure terms, or to unveil the things
which are secret: yet I shall endeavour as far as possi-
ble to explain myself in disguised terms." "Take care
DIFFICULTIES OF ROMANISM. 95
not to give that which is holy to dogs, and to cast pearl
before swine," says he in his first book on compunction
of heart. He takes occasion from this divine precept
to declaim against the abuses of granting baptism to
catechumens not properly disposed, and admitting to
the holy table impure and corrupt Christians. In the
letter in which he informs the Sovereign Pontiff, Inno-
cent the First, of the tumult excited against him in his
Church, he relates that the seditious persons, among
wlwm were many of the uninitiated, forced a passage
to the place where the sacred things were deposited:
that they saw every thing there, and that the most holy
blood of Jesus Christ was spilt upon their garments.
Palladius giving an account of the same sedition in his
life of St. Chrysostom, says only that the symbols
were spilt. You see here the difference of expression:
the Patriarch uses no circumlocution in a confidential
letter to the head of the Church; but Palladius speaks
with reserve, and in disguised terms in a history in-
tended for the public. For the sake of brevity, I will
repeat to you the words of your learned Casaubon.
"Is there any one so much a stranger to the reading
of the Fathers, as to be ignorant of the usual form of
expression, which they adopt when speaking of the
sacraments, the initiated know what I mean? It occurs
at least fifty times in the writings of Chrysostom alone,
and as often in those of Augustin."
:I am ashamed," said St. Gregory of Nyssa, to an
aged catechumen, "to see that after having grown old
in probation, you still suffer yourself to be sent out
with the catechumens, like a little weak boy who
does not know how to take care of what is entrusted
to him; join yourself to the mystic people, and become
at length acquainted with our secret dogmas."
St. Gregory Nazianzen says that the greater part
of our mysteries ought not to be exposed to strangers;
and further, that "we ought rather to shed our blood
than publish them." Orat. 42, et 35.
96 ANSWER TO THE
"We receive," said St. Basil, "the dogmas trans-
mitted to us by writing-, and those which have de-
scended to us from the apostles, beneath the veil and
mystery of oral tradition — the words of invocation in
the consecration of the bread, and of the Eucharistic
chalice; which of the saints have left us them in wri-
ting ? The apostles and fathers, who prescribed from
the beginning certain rites to the Church, knew how to
preserve the dignity of the mysteries by the secrecy
and silence in which they enveloped them. For what
is open to the ear and the eye can no longer be mys-
terious. For this reason several things have been
handed down to us without writing, lest the vulgar, too
familiar with our dogmas, should pass from being ac-
customed to them, to the contempt of them. A dogma
is very different from a sermon Beautiful and
admirable discipline! For how could it be proper to
write or circulate among the public, what the uniniti-
ated are forbidden to contemplate?" (On the Holy
Ghost, c. 27.)
Listen to the synod of Alexandria, speaking of the
Eusebians, enemies of St. Athanasius, in 340. "They
are not ashamed to celebrate the mysteries before the
catechumens, and perhaps even before the Pagans,
forgetting that it is written, that we should hide the
mystery of the King; and in contempt of the precept
of our Lord, that we must not place holy things before
dogs, nor pearls before swine. For it is not lawful to
shew the mysteries opeyily to the uninitiated; lest through
ignorance they scoff at them, and the catechumens be
scandalized through indiscreet curiosity."*
St. Epiphanius (Anchor. No. 37) wishing to prove
that the allegories of Origen were to be rejected, and
that we must believe things without always seeing the
* These motives were no less strong in the first century, in which
the Rector gratuitously conjectures that the mysteries were
open to the catechumens. The synod was accountable to all the
Bishops for the catholicity of its condemnation of the Eusebians.
DIFFICULTIES OF ROMANISM. 07
reason for them, quotes the Eucharist as an example.
"We see that our Lord took a thing into his hands, as
we read in the gospel, that he rose from table, that he
resumed the things, and having given thanks, he said,
this is this of mine. Hoc meam est /ioc." This singu-
lar turn of expression and reservation conveyed no
meaning to those who are uninitiated. But ought it not
to speak very loudly to Mr. Faber? What think jou,
Sir? Does it favour the opinion of a figurative pre-
sence? And do you not at first sight penetrate the
meaning of the enigma?
St. Jerome replying to Evagrius, who had consulted
him on an obscure passage of the apostle, touching the
sacrafice of Melchisedech, says: "You are not to
suppose that St. Paul could not easily have explained
himself; but the time was not come for such explana-
tion: he sought to persuade the Jews, and not the
faithful, to whom the mystery might have been deliver-
ed without reserve."
St. Cyril of Jerusalem, expresses himself as fol-
lows, (Catech. 6, No. 29) — "We do not speak clearly
before the catechumens on the mysteries, but are
obliged often to use obscure expressions, in order that
while we are understood by the faithful who are in-
structed, those who are not so may suffer injury."
And in Catech. 18, No. 32, 33, "at the approach of
the holy festival of Easter, — you shall be instruct-
ed, with God's grace, in all that it is proper for you
to know; with what devotion, and in what order you
are to enter the laver of regeneration, with what
reverence you must proceed from baptism to the holy
altar of God, to taste the spiritual and heavenly mys-
teries which are there dispensed after the holy
and salutary day of Easter, you shall hear, if it
please God, other catechetical instructions and
on the mysteries of the New Testament which are
celebrated upon the altar, and had their beginning in
this city, all that is taught of them by the Divine
9*
98 ANSWER TO THE
Scriptures, as also what is their force and power; in
ike, how you are to approach to them; and when,
and how they are to be celebrated. " Nothing marks
more forcibly the importance of the secret, than the
notice placed by St. Cyril at the end of the preface at
the head of his catecheses; the last five of which
disclose the mysteries of Baptism, Confirmation, and
the Eucharist. It is as follows: "Give these cate-
cheses, made for their instruction, to be read by those
who approach to baptism, and by the faithful who
have already received it. But as for the catechumens,
and those who are not Christians, take care not to
communicate them to such. Otherwise take notice,
you will be accountable to God. If you transcribe a
copy of them, do it I conjure you, as in the presence
of the Lord.'1
St. Gaudentius, Bishop of Brescia, contemporary
with St. Cyril, speaking to the neophytes on their
return from baptism, said to them; "In the lesson
which you have just heard from Exodus, I shall choose
such parts as cannot be explained in presence of
catechumens, but which it is necessary to disclose to
neophytes." In another place he proclaims; "that
the splendid night of Easter requires him to confess
less to the order of the text, than to the wants of the
occasion; so that the neophytes may learn the esta-
blished rule for eating the paschal sacrafice, and the
faithful who are instructed may recognize it." (Trea-
tise 5 on Exodus.)
St. Ambrose, in his book on the mysteries, c. 1 , n. 2,
says — "The time admonishes us to treat of the myste-
ries, and to explain the meaning of the sacraments. If
before your baptism and initiation we had thought of
sneaking to you on these subjects, we should have
appeared rather to betray than explain them."
"It is not given to all to contemplate the depth of
our mysteries. Our Levites exclude from them at
rirst, that they may not be seen by those who ought
DIFFICULTIES OF ROMANISM. 99
not to behold them, nor received by those who cannot
preserve them." In his book, De Olliciis, "Every
mystery should remain concealed, and covered by
faithful silence, lest it should be rashly divulged -to
profane ears." And upon this verse of psalm 118, /
hare hidden thy words in my soul, that I may not sin
against tlice: "he sins against God, who divulges to the
unworthy, the mysteries confided to him. The danger
is not only of telling falsehoods, but also truths, if
persons allow themselves to give hints of them to those,
from whom they ought to be concealed." And he
opposes such indiscretion by the words of our Saviour.
"Beware of casting pearls before unclean animals.'"
IV. Third century. — Zeno, Bishop of Verona, in a
discourse on continence, exhorts the Christian woman
not to marry an infidel, for fear she might betray to
him the law of secrecy, ne sis proditrix legis. And he
adds, "Know you not that the sacrifice of the unbe-
liever is public, but yours secret? That any one may
freely approach to his, while even for Christians, if
they are not consecrated, it would be a sacrilege to
contemplate yours?" In a discourse on the 126th
psalm, we read these words. — "Custom has given the
name of the house of God, or temple, to the place of
our assemblies, which are surrounded with walls, in
order to secure the secret celebration of our sacra-
ments."'
St. Cyprian thus begins his book against the pro-
consul of Africa: "Till now I had despised the impie-
ties and sacrileges which thy mouth discharged inces-
santly against the only true God;" he adds, that if he
had been silent, it was not without the command of his
Divine Master, "who forbids us to give that which is
holy to dogs, and to cast pearls before swine." He
contents himself with establishing the unity of God,
without saying a word on the Trinity, or the sacra-
ments of the Church.
100 ANSWER TO THE
Origen, in his 13th homily on Exodus, preparing to
treat of the mystery of the Eucharist, says: "I am
afraid and doubt much if I shall find suitable hearers,
and that I shall be demanded an account of the pearls
of the Lord; where, how, and before whom I have
produced them." And in a homily on Leviticus, "Do
not stop at. flesh and blood, (the lambs and goats
spoken of by Moses) but learn rather to discern the
blood of the world; hear what he himself says: This
is my blood which shall be shed for you. Whoever is
instructed in the mysteries knows the flesh and the
blood of the Word of God. Let us not dwell on the
subject, which is known to the initiated, and which
the uninitiated ought not to know."
The very ancient author of the Apostolic Constitu-
tions, book 3, ch. 5, admonishes, "that in speaking of
mystic things, care must be taken not to be indiscreet,
and to express one's self prudently, bearing in mind the
wrords of our Saviour, cdo not cast pearls before
swine, lest they trample them under foot.' "
St. Clement of Alexandria,, in the first book of his
Stromata, says — "I pass over intentionally several
things, fearing to commit to writing what I took great
care not to say, lest those who read these waitings
should take my words in an improper sense, and we
should be accused, as the proverb says, of putting a
sword into the hands of a child. There are certain
tilings which the Scripture will showr me, though they
are not there openly expressed .... there are some
which it will only touch upon; but it wrill endeavour to
say them under a veil, to disclose them while it con-
ceals them, and to shew them while it is one's self."
Tertullian seeking to deter his wife from marrying
an infidel if she should survive him, says to her
among other reasons: uYou would thereby fall into
this fault, that the Pagans would come to the know-
ledge of our mysteries Will not your husband
know what you taste in secret, before any other food;
DIFFICULTIES OF ROMANISNf. 101
and if he perceives bread, will he not imagine that it
Is that so much spoken of?" Therefore secrecy co-
vered the mysteries of the Eucharist.
In the liturgy called that of the apostles, and later
of St. John Chrysostom, the priest and deacon bow-
ing down, and each holding a part of the sacred host,
make together an admirable confession, which begins
thus: "I believe O Lord, and confess that thou art the
Christ, the 'Son of the living God, who didst come
into the world to save sinners, of whom 1 am the chief;
let me partake of thy mystical supper. I will not re-
veal the mystery to thine enemies." Therefore the
Eucharistic mysteries were covered by secrecy.*
The author of the Recognitions, which are very an-
cient, since they were translated by Rufinus in the
fourth century, proves as follows, the difficulty of
preaching before a multitude: "For what is, cannot
be said to all as it is,f on account of those who give a
captious and malignant ear. What tlien icill he do icho
imparts the word to a erowd of people unknown? Will
he conceal the truth? But how then can he instruct
those who are deserving? If however he exhibits the
clear truth before those who are indifferent about sal-
vation, he is wanting to him, by whom he is sent, and
from whom he has received orders not to cast the
pearls of doctrine before swine and dogs, who would
be furious against it by arguments and sophisms,
envelope it in the mire of their sordid and carnal under-
standing, and by their barking and disgusting replies
would tear and fatigue the preachers of God."
*This liturgy is still followed by all the Greeks, who are in the
West, at Rome, in Calabria and Apulia, by the Georgians, the
Bulgarians, the Russians, and Muscovites; by all the Christians,
the modern Melchites under the patriarch of Alexandria, resident
at Cairo, under the patriarchs of Jerusalem and of Antioch, resi-
dent at Damascus — Set P. It Brun Ceremonies of the Mast, T. 4,
in Svo.
fBook 30.
102 ANSWER TO THE
V. Second and first centuries. — The secrecy of the
first Christians on the Eucharistic dogmas is demon-
strated from the unworthy calumnies spread and be-
lieved in the pagan world against their assemblies; by
the punishments employed to extort from the Chris-
tians an avowal of what they practised, and by the
origin of these calumnies and cruelties which dates
from the first century.
Tertullian, in his Apology, exclaims wh*en repelling
the accusations of infanticide and impurities; "Who are
those who have made known to the world these pre-
tended crimes? are they those who are accused? But
how could it be so, since it is the common law of all
mysteries to keep them secret? If they themselves made
no discovery, it must have been made by strangers.
But how could they have had any knowledge of them,
since the profane are excluded from the sight of the most
holy mysteries, and those are carefully selected who
are permitted to be spectators?" The Pagans then
were ignorant of what passed in "the assemblies of the
Christians; and this ignorance evidently pre-supposes
the secrecy preserved by the faithful. The object of
this secrecy was the Eucharistic bread; the mysteries
of the altar. For these alone could have given rise to
the calumnies, while at the same time the sight of
them was forbidden to the profane, and permitted
solely to chosen spectators. These reports indicate
manifestly the Sacrament of the body and blood of
Jesus Christ.
Let us hear the Pagan Cecilius, in the curious and
interesting dialogue of Minutius Felix, which I recom-
mend you to read: "Shall we allow men of an infamous
and desperate faction to attack the Gods with impuni-
ty; and gathering together an ignorant rabble and cre-
duluos women, instruct them for a profane society, not
to say a conspiracy, which is not done by any holy
ceremony, but by sacrileges, nocturnal assemblies,
solemn fasts and horrible meats: people who love
DIFFICULTIES OF ROMANISM. 103
darkness and fly from the light; who say nothing in
public, and talk incessantly when assembled together
— -this evil sect increases every day; wherefore wc
must endeavour to extirpate this execrable society.
They know one another by certain secret signs, and
love one another almost before they are acquainted.
Lust forms a part of their religion: they commonly call
themselves brothers and sisters, to make simple forni-
cation become incest by this sacred name; so much do
these wretched people indulge in crimes. Certainly
if there were not such crimes among them, there
would not be so loud a cry against them. The cere-
mony which they observe, when they admit any one
to their mysteries, is not less horrible because it is
public. They place before the new comer an infant
covered with paste, in order to conceal the murder
which they will have him commit. At their bidding
he gives it several stabs with a knife. The blood runs
on all sides; they eagerly suck it up; and the common
crime is the common pledge of silence and secrecy.
Their banquets are also known; and our Cirtensis
makes mention of them in his harrangue. They all
assemble on a solemn day, men, women, children,
brothers and sisters of all ages and both sexes; and
after having well eaten and drunk, as the heat of the
wine and the meat begins to provoke them to lust,
they throw something to a dog who is tied to a chan-
delier, and throw it so far that he cannot reach it, on
purpose that in springing forward he may overturn
the lights. Thus having got rid of the sole witness of
their crimes, they are guilty of promiscuous inter-
course; and by this means are all incestuous in will, if
not in effect, since the sin of each one is the wish of
the whole company. I pass over many things design-
edly; and indeed here are already too many. And
truly the darkness, which they seek for their myste-
ries, are sufficiently evident proof of all we say, or at
least the greater part of it. For why conceal all that
104 ANSWER TO THE
they adore? We are not afraid to publish what is
proper: crimes only demand secrecy and silence."
Mr. Faber could have no motive to make him
afraid of communicating openly to Cecilius his opin-
ion of a figurative manducation, of a moral change in
the substance of the bread, of the real absence of
Jesus Christ. The Christian Octavius has no such
replies to make. He does not disclose what is believ-
ed, nor what is done: he contents himself with repel-
ling the infamous calumnies. "I would now," he re-
plies, "address myself to those who say, or who
oelieve that the murder of an infant is the ceremony
of introduction to our mysteries. Do you then think
it possible that a poor infant, a little body so tender is
destined to die beneath our violence; and that we shed
the blood of a being newly born, as yet of imperfect
form, and scarcely a human being? Let those believe
it, who could be cruel enough to perpetrate it. You
indeed expose your children to savage beasts, and
birds, as soon as they are born, you strangle and suf-
focate them: there are even some who by cruel po-
tions murder them in their wombs, and kill them
before they see light. This you have learned from
your Gods. . . . Nor are those far removed from
such a crime, who feed on savage beasts just come out
of the ampitheatre, all bloody and full of those whom
they have just devoured. As for us, we are not allow-
ed to see murders, nor to hear them; and blood so fills
us with horror, that we do not even eat that of
animals. As to the incestuous banquet, it is a calum-
ny invented by the devils to sully the glory of our
chastity, and deter men from our religion by the
horror of so great a crime. What your orator Cir-
tensis has said is rather an injurious accusation than a
testimony. And truly you are far more guilty of in-
cest than we .... and thus you accuse us of false
incestuous actions, while you have little remorse in
committing real ones. But the Christians do not place
DIFFICULTIES OF ROMANISM. 105
chastity only in the exterior, they place it in the mind,
and do not so much study to appear chaste, as to be
60 in reality: .... and if we are chaste in our assem-
blies, we are no less so in all other places. Many
preserve the holiness of celibacy even until death,
without any boasting: and so far are we from incest,
that some are ashamed even of lawful pleasures."
"If our accusers are asked," said Athenagoras, "if
they have seen what they assert, there will none be
found impudent enough to say that they have. How
can they accuse those of killing and eating human
beings, who, it is well known, cannot bear the sight of
a man put to death even justly? Men like us, who
have renounced the spectacles of gladiators and wild
beasts, believing that there is little difference between
seeing a murder and committing one?"
"Those," said St. Justin,* "who accuse us of these
crimes, commit them themselves, and attribute them to
their Gods. For our part, as we have no share in
them, we do not distress ourselves, having God for
the witness of our actions, and thoughts. . . . We
entreat you that this request may be made public ....
that it may be known what we are, and we may be
delivered from these false suspicions, which expose us
to punishment. It is not known that we condemn
these infamous deeds which they proclaim against us,
and that for this very reason we have renounced those
Gods who have committed such crimes, and require
such. If you command it, we will expose our maxims
to the world, that, if possible, it may be converted."
Observe, he does not say, we will expose our mysteries
to the world.
VI. Punishments employed to extort from the Chri$~
tians the secret of what passed in their assemblies.
Eusebius has preserved for us the admirable letter
which the Churches of Lyons and Vienne wrote to
"Second apology addressed to If. Aurelius in 16f.
10
106 ANSWER TO THE
those of Asia and Phrygia, on the persecution, which
they had just suffered in Gaul. We find in it the fol-
lowing passages. uThey took some of our servants,
who were Pagans, and being filled with the spirit of
the devil, and apprehensive of the torments, which
they had seen the faithful suffer, deposed falsely,
through the violence of the soldiers, that we made
feasts like Thyestes, that we indulged in the pleasures
of (Edipus, that we committed abominations, which it
is not lawful to think or speak of; and of which we
Cannot believe that any one ever would have been
guilty. When these black calumnies were spread
among the public, every one rose up with such fury
against us, that our neighbours, who had previously
treated us with some moderation; became the most
enraged. . . . The number and cruelty of torments,
which the holy martyrs suffered are beyond all that
we can express. . . . This happy woman (the heroic
servant Blandina) felt new strength as often as she
renewed her profession of faith, and found relief and
pleasure in repeating — 'I am a Christian and no evil is
committed among us.' Sanctus also supported the tor-»
meuts with a constancy more than human; and when in
the midst of the most cruel punishments, the impious
wretches interrogated him in the hope of extorting from
him by the violence of pain some word unworthy of him ,
instead of replying to their questions .... he answer-
ed nothing else, but CI am a Christian' .... The
devil, who thought he had overcome Bibliada, be-
cause she had renounced the faith like certain others,
was desirous of crowning her condemnation by calum-
ny; and caused her to be tormented afresh, in order
that, weakened as she was by her fall, she might
depose against us. But this violence served only to
rouse her from her profound lethargy. The punish-
ments which the executioners exercised upon her, mad©
her remember the fire of hell, and she said to them —
'-How shovld the Christians devour infants, when they
DIFFICULTIES OF ROMANISM. 107
are not even permitted to eat the blood of beastsV She
then confessed that she was a Christian, and was
numbered with the martyrs .... Those who had
renounced the faith were shut up in prisons, as well
as those who had confessed it: so far from deriving
any benefit from their apostacy, they were arrested as
criminals and murderers, and tormented more cruelly
than the others. . . . They were moreover despised
by the Pagans as cowards who had renounced the
glorious character of Christians to become their own
accusers of murder. . . . Attalus having been placed
upon the iron chair and burnt, said to the people in
Latin, pointing to the intolerable smoke which rose
from his body, 'it is truly eating men to do as you do:
but for our part, we do not eat them, nor commit any
other crime.' "*
•Besides this letter written by witnesses, who had still before
their eyes the bloody but glorious tragedy, I had quoted a sbort
fragment from St. Irenasus, preserved by (Ecumenius, an author
of the tenth century. Mr. Faber attaches himself exclusively to
this fragment, and for reasons best known to himself, says not a
word on the original letter of the Churches of Lyons and Vienne.
I here subjoin the ancient Latin version of the fragment, that by
comparing it with that of the Rector; a judgment may be formed
of his rare talent for translation, and his extreme exactness even
fn the smallest tilings. It is as follows: "Cum Grseci servos horum
Christianorum in divinis mysteriis edoctorum apprehendissent,
deinde vim inferrent, ut videlicet arcanum quidpiam ab his de
Christianis discerent; cum hi servi non haberent quomodo vim
infercntibus ad delcctationemet gratiam loquercntur, prseterquam
quod a dominis audierant divinamparticipationem esse sanguinem
et corpus Christi; existimantes ipsi quod vere sanguis etcaroesset,
hoc responderunt inquirentibus. llli vero id sumentes tanquam
reipsa hoc perageretur a Christianis, id aliis quoque manifesta-
bant Graecis; et martyres Sanctum et Blandinam tormentis id
fateri cogebant. Quibus libere et scite Blandina locuta est,
dicens: quomodo hoc fcrrent, qui ob divinum studium et medita-
tionem ne concessis quidem carnibus vescuntur?"
The fragment and letter both speak of the same persecution;
the letter names in detail several martyrs: the fragment only
Sanctus and Blandina. The information in both comes from
servants; the inculpations are for a similar crime; here it is
human blood, human flesh; and there, feasts like that of Thyestes.
F
108 ANSWER TO THR
In the second apology which St. Justin addressed
in 166 to Marcus Aurelius, I read as follows: "But
kill yourselves then, all of you, you will say; and you
will thus find God, without troubling us with your per-
sons any longer." St. Justin tells them in reply, that
the faith which the Christians have in Providence does
not permit them so to do; and he adds that to justify
the calumnies propagated against the Christians, they
put to the torture slaves, children, and women; they
made them suffer horrible torments to extort from
them a confession of the incests and banquets of human
flesh, of which the Christians were accused. They
who accuse us of these crimes, commit them them-
selves, and attribute them to their Gods. For our
part, as we have no share in such horrid crimes, we
do not give way to uneasiness, having God to witness
all our thoughts and actions."
The answers breathe the same sentiments, and the like horror.
"How should they do what you say," says Blandina, "who through
piety and having God before their eyes, abstain even from lawful
meats?'1 "How," exclaimed Bibliada, "how should the Chris-
tians devour infants, when they are not even permitted to eat the
blood of beasts? And Attalus: "for our part, we do not eat men,
nor commit any other crime."
Now let us come to the translation: Existimantes ipsi (not the
Greeks, but the servants,) quod vere sanguis et caro esset, says
the Latin Version. The tormentors, says Mr. Faber, fancying thut it
was literal blood and flesh, (literal blood, literal flesh, literal body
occur incessantly in his book: we can say with propriety that any
word is taken to the letter, or literally; we speak of a literal ex-
plication; but who ever heard of a literal foot, a literal hand, heart
of literal blood or flesh? I know of no language which admits of
such an expression. But let us pass on to the other words,)
quibus libere ac scite Blandina locuta est; Blandina readily and
boldly answered— boldly is not the. meaning of scite. What St.
Irenseus admires in the answer is not the boldness, but the pru-
dence, the wisdom which while it repels the accusation, takes
care not to disclose the secret. Ask your Rector what scite means;
press him to give you its real sense: he will not be able to give it;
for, to adopt his style, if the Christians at that time eat only literal
bread and drank only literal wine, Blandina ought to have so de-
clared without disguise; and in not doing so, she would have re-«
plied, non scite, sed stolidc*
DIFFICULTIES OF ROMANISM. 109
Pliny the younger, governor of Bithynia, giving an
account of the Christians to Trajan, occasioned by the
reports which had gone abroad against them, says that
he had determined to take proper measures for ascer-
taining the truth. "This made me consider it the
more necessary to extort the truth by the force of
torments from the female slaves, who were said to
belong to the ministry of their worship: but I dis-
covered nothing except a bad superstition carried to
excess."
VII. These calumnies and cruelties take their origin
from the first century. Celsus, who writing icith grey
hairs in the first years of Adrian, must have been
born between the years of seventy and eighty at the
latest; begins with the reproach of clandestine practi-
ces, which he often repeats against the assemblies of
the Christians. Origen replies that the doctrine of the
Christians was better known than that of the philoso-
phers. "It is true nevertheless," he adds, "that there
are certain points not communicated to every one: but
this is so far from being peculiar to the Christians, that
it was observed among the philosophers, as well as
ourselves. . . . Celsus therefore attempts in vain to
decry the secret kept by the Christians, since he does
not even know in what it consists.* One would think
that Celsus sought to imitate the Jews, who when the
gospel began to be preached, disseminated false reports
against those who had embraced it: that the Christians
sacrificed a little child, and eat its flesh together; that
to do works of darkness, they extinguished the lights,
and then abandoned themselves to impurity indiscrimi-
nately."f
"For my part," says St. Justin, "when I, who am a
disciple of Plato, heard the Christians denounced in so
unworthy a manner, and saw them walking with such
•On?. Book 1, No. 7— Edit. Bened. T. 1.
tlbid, Book 6, No. 28.
110 ANSWER TO THE
intrepidity to death, and to all that was terrible; no,
said I to myself, it is impossible that such men should
live in the depravity of vice, and the pursuit of infa-
mous pleasures. Is there in fact a man so enslaved to
voluptuous gratifications, or of such outrageous intem-
perance as to find supreme luxury in a banquet of
human flesh; and who at the same time will run gaily
to punishments, and throw himself into the arms of
death, to deprive himself voluntarily of what he
loves?"
From the testimony of Eusebius, Saturninus and
Basilides sprung from Menander, who himself sprung
from Simon; uThe devil," he adds, who has no
pleasure but in evil, made use of these monsters ....
to give occasion to the infidels to cry down our reli-
gion. . . . Thence came those black calumnies that
the Christians committed incests with their mothers
and sisters, and eat abominable meats."*
"We are traduced," exclaimed Tertullian,t as the
most wicked of men; bound to each other by an
oath of infanticide; guilty of regaling ourselves upon
the flesh of the infant which wre have just slain;
and afterwards abandoning ourselves to incest, after
the dogs who are accomplices in our debauchery have
procured for us, by overturning the lamps, the protec-
tion of darkness, and the effrontery of crime. . . .
The imputation of these works is dated, as I have
said, from the reign of Tiberius. Hatred of the truth
began with it; it was detested as soon as produced to
the world."
Finally, we learn from Tacitus, speaking of the
burning of Rome, that Nero accused people of it who
were odious by their crimes, and called Christians. . .
"They first apprehended those who confessed; after-
wards a great multitude were convicted upon their
*Eus. IRst. Eccl. Book 4, chap. 7.
]Jipol. ch. 7.
DIFFICULTIES OF ROMANISM. 1 1 1
information, not so much of the burning of Rome, as
of hatred of the human race."* He afterwards speaks
of them as criminals deserving of death. Could we
conceive that a society of men so pure and perfect
could have been devoted to the hatred of mankind, if
we were not informed by Eusebius and Tertullian of
the abominable calumnies which the emissaries of the
Jews had spread abroad against them as early as the
reign of Tiberius?
VIII. If, sir, you have paid attention to the passages
from the Fathers, which I have now laid before you
relative to the affecting and admirable discipline of the
secret, you can no longer entertain a doubt on either of
the following points — 1st. That the origin of this dis-
cipline is to be dated as early as the preaching of the
gospel, and that it was in vigour in all ;the Churches
during the first four centuries — 2dly, that the Euchar-
istic dogmas were concealed beneath the secrecy ob-
served during this long period.
1. In fact, either we must attribute the discipline of
secrecy to apostolic institution, or say that the Church,
after having delivered the mysteries to the public dur-
ing a century, more or less, decided all at once upon
depriving them of the knowledge of these mysteries.
To impute to her such a decision, would be to charge
her with a conduct most absurd and extravagant; or
rather to accuse ourselves of absurdity, and lie open
to just reproach. The secret so religiously observed
in the fourth century, demonstrates, by the very fact,
that it must necessarily have been so observed up to
the days of the apostles.f Positive proof of this is
furnished by the testimonies which have just passed in
review before us. You must have remarked that the
greater number of the Fathers, whose words I have
* Annul y Book 15.
f You will find the proof of this fully developed in the 1st vol. of
the Discussion Amicale, p. 350, et seq.
112 ANSWER TO THE
cited, many more of which I could have produced,
trace the discipline of secrecy up to the precept of Je-
6us Christ: "take care not to cast pearls before swine."
We have seen, moreover, that the atrocious calumnies
spread abroad against the Christians, arose from the
privacy of their assemblies, and the inviolable secrecy
as to what was done in them; and we learned at the
same time that these calumnies began even in the
reign of Tiberius. In fine, it is here that the solid-
ly true axiom of St. Augustin becomes applicable:
"Whatever the universal Church holds, and has
always held, ivithout its having been established by any
council, is to be justly considered to have come down
from apostolical tradition" We know of no council
which established the discipline of secrecy; and we
are sure that it was observed in all the churches in
Christendom. Our witnesses are — for Rome and the
whole of Italy, Julius the First and Innocent the First
— for the Milanese, Ambrose — for Aquileia, Rufinus —
for Dalmatia, Jerom — for Brescia, Gaudentius — for
Verona, Zeno — for Carthage, Tertullian and Cyprian
— for Hippo and all Africa, the great Augustin — for
Alexandria, Clement and his disciple Origen, and the
patriarchs Athanasius and Cyril, and the synod of that
famous metropolis in its encyclical letter to all the
bishops of the world — for Jerusalem and Palestine,
the celebrated catechist Cyril — for Cyprus and the
islands of the Archipelago Epiphanius — for the coun-
try about the Euphrates, Theodore t — for Antioch, the
queen of oriental cities, Chrysostom — for the towns of
Nyssa and Nazianzum, the two Gregories — for Cap-
padocia and Pontus, Basil — for Helenopolis, Palladius
and Sozomen — for Constantinople, Isidore of Pelusium.
In a word, if the discipline of secrecy had been dis-
regarded in one single church of consequence, it soon
must have ceased every where else. Suppose that at
the end of the first century, some one of the churches
founded by the apostles had not conformed to this dis-
DIFFICULTIES OF ROMANISM. H3
cipline: what would have been the result? The mys-
teries would have been divulged from one to another
by persons travelling from that diocese in the neigh-
bouring countries, and in a short time the secret would
have been published every where. Put these various
considerations together, and you will agree with me
that the apostolicity and universality of the discipline
of secrecy are of the number of facts the best attested
in history.
2. It is no less certain that the dogmas of the
Eucharist were concealed beneath the secret. Mr.
Faber would maintain the contrary. He must forgive
me if I prefer the testimonies of contemporary Fathers
to his views and opinions. You have read them;
almost all declare it in terms so positive, that it is im-
possible to be mistaken. They even go so far as to
name among the mysteries concealed from the profane,
the Eucharist, the Christian Passover, the sacrifice of
bread and wine, prefigured by that of Melchisedech.
And in fact, what could be the object of the infamous
calumnies spread against our brethren from the birth
of Christianity, but the Eucharistic mysteries? To
what could they allude by their tales of infants mur-
dered, their flesh served up as meat, and their blood
as drink — of banquets of Thyestes, &c. if not to the
dogma of the real presence, to the manducation of the
body of Jesus Christ? And is it not clear that these
abominable imputations were grafted on the commu-
nion of the faithful, and ridiculed in the most revolting
manner by the Jews, in order to excite the hatred and
horror of mankind against the rising Church?
IX. And now, sir, that you see these two points
solidly established; and the apostolicity of this disci-
pline followed in all the churches during the first four
centuries; and the Eucharistic dogmas concealed be-
neath the secret; address yourself, I pray you, to the
Rector of Long Newton. Ask the teacher of a moral
change, of a figurative presence, of a real absence,
114 ANSWER TO THE
the champion of literal bread and literal wine, and the
adversary in consequence of the adoration of Jesus
Christ in the Eucharist — ask him how an opinion so
simple as his own, so conformable to our natural ideas,
could have been ranked by antiquity among the mys-
teries? how the Fathers could have taught the faithful
of their time that they must rather shed every drop of
their blood than divulge it? how the numerous martyrs
of Lyons could suffer themselves to be tormented and
torn in pieces, rather than loudly declare it? and how
the reply of the magnanimous Blandina has excited, and
will excite the admiration of every age?
What, sir! are we to imagine that while the most
horrid calumnies were disseminated on all sides
against the primitive Christians; while they were ac-
cused of murdering new-born infants in their secret
assemblies, of feeding upon their palpitating flesh, and
intoxicating themselves with their blood — and of
abandoning themselves like blind furies to excesses
unheard of upon the earth; while they were devoted
as a race accursed to the execration of mankind, and
to atrocious tortures; that they would not open their
mouths to declare their innocence? At least for the
purpose of charitably saving the magistrates and the
multitude from the horror of commanding or contem-
plating so many barbarous and protracted massacres?
From what motive could they have forbidden them-
selves an innocent and natural defence? Why at least
did they not say to their fellow citizens: "Come then
to our assemblies; see what passes their amongst us;
we take a little bread and wine in memory of our
good Master, who delivered us from sin and opened
for us the way to virtue. He himself commanded us
to use this simple and affecting ceremony: come, and
you will learn to know us better3 and understand what
we really are?"
X. Nay more; if the faith and practice of the first
Christians had corresponded with the belief of Mr.
DIFFICULTIES OF ROMANISM. . H5
Faber; if the Eucharist had been viewed in the same
light by them, as it is by him; not only would it never
have formed a part of the discipline of secrecy, but it
never would have occasioned the malignity of their
cruel enemies, who so far from believing their unwor-
thy calumnies, would never even have thought of
inventing and propagating them.*
I assert, sir, with full and ehtire conviction, that in
this ancient discipline of secrecy, there is a certain
mute, but perpetual and decisive evidence in favour of
the real presence. It is in vain for the Rector to con-
tend; he will always find himself borne down by its
irresistible force; and struggle as he may, he will
never rise from his overthrow. I say the same of your
whole Church; let her assemble all her champions;
let her put forth through them every resource of wit
and learning — and undoubtedly she possesses much of
both — she can never account for the establishment of
secrecy with regard to the Eucharist. It will ever
be to her a problem, whose existence will be as
incontestable, as its solution will remain impossible.
To discover it, recourse must of necessity be had to
Catholic principles; and she must behold with us, in
the primitive Church, the belief of the real presence
of our Saviour in his Sacrament, the heavenly, the
ravishing object of our faith and adoration. Then it
will be readily conceived that by divulging the mys-
tery so exalted and inaccessible to reason, scandal
would have been given to the pagans and catechu-
mens; and railleries provoked, which would infallibly
have been poured forth by men, who were not Chris-
tians, since you hear them incessantly even now from
the mouths of your theologians and preachers. Then
we can conceive that by speaking openly of the real
•See page 363, vol. 1, of the Discussion Amxcah — the fine theo-
ry of the two Anglican Bishops, Pearce and Hoadley, and of Pre-
bendary Sturges, on the manner of presenting the Eucharist.
116 ANSWER TO THE
presence, and of the change of substance, they would
nave shocked the imagination of the Pagans, and kept
those at a distance from the religion, whom it was
their duty to attract to it. Then we can understand
the precept of Jesus Christ, and the prohibition of
the primitive Church, "to cast pearls before swine."
Then also we can well conceive, that through obedi-
ence to the law of their divine Legislator, and the
command of his Church, the faithful would rather shed
their blood than betray the secret. Then are we in
admiration at the faith and heroism of those martyrs,
who without revealing the secret, were contented
modestly to reply in the midst of torments, "there is
no evil committed among us." Then in fine every
thing is understood and explained in those illustrious
ages; the rule of the Church — the exact conduct of
the faithful — the self-devotion of her martyrs — and the
frightful calumnies and atrocious torments, of which
they were the glorious victims.
I finish with one final conclusion. The discipline
of secrecy in the first four centuries is evidently in-
compatible with the actual doctrine of your Church;
but perfectly conformable with that of ours. I had
reason therefore to say, that it was a general proof
that in the first four centuries, the Christians believed
what the Catholics have believed, still believe, and
will ever believe, the reality of the presence of our
divine Saviour in the most holy and most adorable Sa-
crament of the Eucharist.*
• On the subject of the atrocious crimes attributed to the first
Christians, the Rector furnishes us with a striking proof of the
candour of his soul, and the rectitude of his mind. He knows
perfectly well that when we approach to the Holy Table, we are
persuaded, as the persuasion generally was among you, up to the
reign of Charles II. that we receive, under the sensible appear-
ance of bread, the body of Jesus Christ present in a supernatural
manner, a body spiritualized, invisible, inaccessible to all the senses.
Such is the mystery which we believe on the word of our God-
Saviour. Now listen to the reasoning of Mr. Faber: "the pagans
DIFFICULTIES OF ROMANISM. 117
SECOND GENERAL PROOF OF THE CATHOLIC DOCTRINE
ON THE EUCHARIST, TAKEN FROM THE ANCIENT
LITURGIES.
1. When I perceived at my second reading of The
Difficulties of Romanism, the title of the seventh chap-
ter, I laid down the book upon my table, and asked
myself these questions: "What will the Rector say
here? What part will he take with regard to our an-
cient liturgies?" They all speak uniformly, and in
expressions the most energetic of our doctrines. All
proclaim with one voice the altar, the oblation, the
unbloody sacrifice of the new covenant, the real pre-
sence of the victim, the change of substance, and in
fine, the adoration. We see by them that all the
Christians in the world, at the moment of communion
fancied that the early Christians literally devoured human flesh
and literally drank human blood .... Now they could not with
truth have denied the existence of such abomination, if they had
held the doctrine of the real presence: for in that case, they must
have been conscious, that according to their full knowledge and
belief, they were in the constant habit of literally devouring human
flesh and of literally drinking human blood. Yet under the most
severe torments, they invariably and totally denied the fact.
Therefore by denying the fact, they of necessity, denied also the
doctrine of the real presence." Is it possible thus to keep those
in the dark whom it is a duty to enlighten? Where is the Catho-
lic in the whole world who can recognise his sentiments in tnose
attributed to him by Mr. Faber?* Which among us would not feel
horror-struck at the idea of them? His language answers to th«
notion of the men of Capharnaum; and one might imagine him to
have just arrived among us from their synagogue.
In quoting Mr. Faber's words, I have purposely substituted the
real presence for the word transubstantiation, which he employs; and
my object was to shew you and make you sensible that his reason-
ing bears in the most direct manner, and in the first instance,
against the doctrine of the real presence. He generally affects
to reason only against the change of substance; because having
set out with assuring us that our respective churches are agreed
as to the real presence, he is afraid of appearing to contradict
himself. But I beseech you only to pay attention, and you will
see that he combats the real presence almost wherever be names
transubstantiation.
11
1 1 8 ANSWER TO THE
heard from the mouth of the deacon these words, the
body of Jesus Christ, and they replied, it is true. This
Amen repeated by innumerable lips during a succession
of generations and centuries, is an admirable confes-
sion of faith, which will resound from the primitive
Church even to the end of the world, in proof of the
real presence.*
Would the Rector in those days have been daring
enough to oppose his voice to that powerful and uni-
versal testimony; and instead of Amen, replied, "I see
nothing but a figure?" The liturgies agree in present-
ing us with lively invocations to beg of God to send
his Holy Spirit upon the gifts offered, in order that the
bread may become*the body of Jesus Christ, and what
is in the chalice may become his blood, by his changing
them through the virtue of his Holy Spiritf . Would
Mr. Faber have raised his discordant voice to explain
these invocations in his favourite language of a moral
change? and will he still maintain before us now, that
in imploring the Divine Omnipotence to descend upon
the gifts, it was merely to change them from common
and domestic use, to a service symbolical and religious?
The liturgies represent to us the clergy and people by
turns in fear and trembling, in the attitude of profound
adoration, when they partake of the Eucharist; and
put into their mouths at that time the most lively con-
fessions of faith in a presence, which commands the
sovereign worship of the latria. What then would
have been the expression of the Rector's countenance
in the midst of these fervent assemblies? Would he
have shared the ardent devotion, the religious awe of
those humble adorers of Jesus Christ? or rather will
* Habet cnim magnam voccm Christi sanguis in terra, cum eo
accepto, ab omnibus gentibus respondetur Amen. August, contra
Faustwn. Lib. 12.
fThe liturgy, called that of the apostles — transmutet etperficiat —
Lit. Syri. translated by Renaudot. — Transmutante in te. Lit. Nest.
translated by Renaudot.
DIFFICULTIES OF ROMANISM. 119
he not be ready to involve them with us in the guilt of
idolatry? Will he not accuse them together with us
of rendering sacrilegious worship to material things,
and to speak in his own language, to a morsel of literal
bread?
After revolving these reflections in my mind for
some time, I resumed the book, and read with avidity
the chapter on the liturgies. What reply then does
the Rector make to their decisive authority? None
whatever, sir — to my utter astonishment, none. He
would have done better therefore if he had not men-
tioned the liturgies in the title, since he says not a
word of them in the chapter. Doubtless it is wise to
keep silence about proofs, which we are not prepared
to combat; but it would have been wiser, more candid,
and more courageous to surrender to their victorious
power. I will endeavour again to confront the Rector
with the liturgies. When he looks them a second
time full in the face, perhaps he will receive a more
favourable impression. I even augur it from his silence.
For if he could have pounced upon them in any part,
he would certainly have done it, with the laudable
zeal that animates him. Being unwilling however to
interrupt the reflections, which I am compelled to sub-
mit to you, I shall place my extracts from the liturgies
at the end of them. I regret that I am obliged to revert
to them, and to swell out my reply to his book by a
long addition, which he might have spared me the
trouble of doing, if he had pleased.
II. It must have been proved to a demonstration to
you, sir, that the discipline of secrecy covered with
a mysterious and impenetrable shade the assemblies
of the Christians, the dogmas therein professed, the
prayers there made to God, and the rites there prac-
tised. These rites, prayers and dogmas, so long un-
known to the profane, the liturgies revealed to the
world, as soon as they were committed to writing.
We have the good fortune to possess a great number
120 ANSWER TO THE
of them, and from almost every country where Chris-
tianity reigned in the fifth century. They do not leave
a shadow of doubt of the consequences, which we
have deduced from the discipline of the secret, by the
aid of simple reasoning: they confirm their justice and
truth, and establish our first assertions. They intro-
duce us to the interior of the oratories, where the early
faithful assembled. We see them placed there in
perfect order; the men on one side, the women on the
other; the children nearest to the sanctuary. There
we behold the catechumens, here the penitent; and
the bishop advancing to the altar preceded by his
clergy. With them we assist at the divine worship,
the same in every country, at least as to every thing
essential. With them we partake in the prayers, and
lectures from the Old and New Testaments. Shortly
after we hear the officiating deacon raise his voice
and say, "depart in peace," addressing the catechu-
mens*
Then it was that the divine office began, the cele-
bration of the holy mysteries. They disposed them-
selves for the sacrifice by preparatory prayers : the
bread and wine were removed from the credence table
to the altar. The graces and blessings of God were
invoked upon the assembly of the faithful, upon the
Catholic Church, the sovereigns, and magistrates, upon
the army, the bishops and clergy, upon every class of
the faithful, enemies and persecutors, the Christians
who were in prison or condemned to the mines, for the
conversion of the gentiles, the return of schismatics and
heretics, for the salubrity of the air, and the preserva-
tion of the fruits of the earth. They commemorated
the patriarchs, prophets, apostles, martyrs and confes-
* Litur. of the Apost. Constit. — '•Catechumens, retire; let no one
t emain here." Lit. of Constantinop. "Let there be no catechu-
mens any longer, nor any of those who are not initiated in the
mysteries." "Let each one be known, and the doors carefully
kept." Lit. of St. James,
DIFFICULTIES OF ROMANISM. 121
sors; and prayed for all who had departed this life in the
faith.* Then came the preface, the beginning and end
of which are the same at this day. It was the intro-
duction to the principal action of the sacrifice, which
we call now, as formerly, the canon; in which they
never failed to repeat the words of the institution of
the Eucharist in the same terms as those of the evan-
gelists. To these were added, particularly in the
East, admirable invocations to beg of God to send
upon the gifts his Holy Spirit, the witnesses of the
sufferings of our Lord Jesus, that by his presence and
power the bread and wine might be changed into the
body and blood of Jesus Christ. The Lord's Prayer
and the Apostle's Creed were commonly recited after
the canon. The fervour excited by the approach of the
consecration was kept alive after it: it even increased
and became profound adoration, when the deacons
distributing to the faithful both species, said to each
one, u This is the body, this is the blood of Jesus Christ."
The receiver answered "Jlmen." This affecting spec-
tacle of love and devotion, worthy of the regard of
heaven and the admiration of earth, concluded with
lively acts of thanksgiving.
III. Such, in the primitive church, was the order of
the divine service, which the Christians celebrated with
the doors shut, and which they kept secret every where
else with a fidelity which nothing could overcome.
We have seen them suffering torments and death,
rather than divulge what passed in their pious assembles.
* From the birth of the Church to the sixteenth century no
liturgy was ever known without a commemoration of the saints,
and prayers for the dead. "We make memory of the patriarchs,
prophets, apostles and martyrs, that by the merit of their prayers,
God may favourably receive ours: we pray afterwards for the
holy fathers and bishops, and in fine for all departed in our com-
munion, believing that their souls receive great relief from the
prayers which we offer for them at the moment when the holy
and awful victim lies upon our altars." — S. Cyril of Jerusalem
Cat. J\Iyst. 5 — ^&b uno disce omnes.
11*
122 ANSWER TO THE
The liturgy was the faithful representation in detail of
their worship. You will therefore readily imagine that
it was not committed to writing. The secret would
have been exposed to too many risks, if each Church
had written its own. From the beginning they had
adopted the only means of avoiding accidents, and
concealing the knowledge of the mysteries from the
profane. It had been determined that the prayers of
the liturgy and consecration should be confided to the
memory of the priests and bishops, as also the creed
to the memory of the faithful* This salutary precau-
tion continued as long as the apprehensions which had
rendered it necessary. But at length Christianity
having gained the ascendancy, there was no longer
any hesitation in publishing the mysteries. This happy
period was about the time of the general council of
Ephesus, in 431. It is even fair to presume that this
determination was taken by the fathers of that council;
for then the liturgies began to be written every where
all at once. The Nestorians and Eutychians soon
imitated the example of the Catholic Church; and in a
short time, every Church in the East had its liturgy
written.f
IV. But here, sir, you will be inclined to ask, how
are we sure that liturgies written three centuries and
a half after the apostles' time, came originally from
them? In this manner: it cannot be reasonably doubted,
* "The symbol of our faith and hope comes to us from the apcs-
tlea, and is not written.— St. Jcrom. Ep. ad Pam. No one writes
the creed; it cannot be read; repeat it to yourselves everyday,
when you lie down and when you rise. Let your memory be
your book." — Sit vobis codex vestra memoria. — & Jlug. ad Caiech.T. 6,
p. 548.
f We or.ly know of two liturgies written previous to the council
of Ephesus; that which I have quoted of St. Cyril, and that of
the anonymous author of the Apostolic Constitutions; and both
contained a strong prohibition to communicate them to the unini-
tiated, because of the sacred things they contain. Hence at the
time when they were written, the discipline of secrecy was still
ia vigour.
DIFFICULTIES OF ROMANISM. 123
that the earliest liturgy was drawn up by the apostles,
conformably with the instructions of their Master, and
celebrated by them in those daily assemblies which
they held at Jerusalem before they separated. Of
this indeed we have positive evidence. St. Irenaeus,
a disciple of St. Polycarp, assures us of it in these
words: "Our Lord taught the new oblation of his New
Testament: the Church has received it from the apOs-
tles, and presents it to God in every part of the wrorld.*
This declaration establishes the fact decisively: and
we naturally conceive that the apostles departing
singly from Jerusalem would give the same liturgy,
\vhich they had there composed together, to the
churches founded by them in the course of their preach-
ing the gospel.
St. Epiphanius, though born" in 310, two hundred
and ten years after St. John, is nevertheless a valua-
ble witness in this matter, because he united with the
virtues of a great prelate, the science of a consum-
mate theologian. Observe what he says after repeat-
ing the names of the twelve. "They were all elected
apostles, to preach the holy gospel over the world,
with Paul, Barnabas, and the rest; and they were the
institutors of the mysteries, with James the brother of
our Lord, and first bishop of Jerusalem."t We dis-
cover in Pliny some confused traces of the liturgy,
which the Christians celebrated under his govern-
ment.;]; St. Justin represents it to us more distinctly
in the account which he thought it a duty to give to
the Emperor Antoninus, of what the Christians did in
their secret assemblies. The description which he
gives corresponds precisely with the liturgies.|| I
have adduced other authorities in my ninth letter and
its appendix at the end of the 1st vol. of the Discus-
sion Amicale; I beg to refer you to it
*Adi\ Hares. Lib, 4, cap. 32. \ Letter to Trajan,
f Hares. 79, No. 3. y 1st Apol.
124 ANSWER TO THE
V. I see plainly enough you will reply, that the
apostles composed a liturgy together; I conceive too,
that they would communicate it to the churches, which
they founded: but where are we to find this apostolic
liturgy in these days? We have a great number
which differ from each other considerably. If we
suppose that these were traced upon the model of the
primitive liturgy drawn up at Jerusalem, by what
mark are we to distinguish what comes from the apos-
tles, from what does not? I have laid down the cer-
tain and indubitable mark of distinction in my ninth
letter, where you may see it solidly proved. The
finger of the apostles is manifest wherever the various
liturgies all unanimously agree. This apostolic mark
has been acknowledged and described by eminent
men in your Church: and persuaded as I must be, that
their judgment will have more weight with you than
mine, I will here present you with it. "It was highly
unreasonable to suppose," says Dr. Water-land, "that
those several churches, very distant from each other
in place, and of different languages, .... should all
unite in the same errors, and deviate uniformly from
their rule at once. But that they should all agree in
the same common faith, might easily be accounted for,
as arising from the same common cause, which could
be no other but the common delivery of the same uni-
form faith and f^^Mne to all the churches by the
apostles themselves. Such unanimity could never
come by chance, but must be derived from one com-
mon source; and therefore the harmony of their doc-
trine was in itself a pregnant argument of the truth
of it."*
Archbishop Wake says; "As for the liturgies
- ascribed to St. Peter, St. Mark, and St. James, there
is not I suppose any learned man, who believes them
written by those holy men, and set forth in the manner
• Importance of the doctrine of the Holy Trinity, pp. 372, 373.
DIFFICULTIES OF ROMANISM. 125
they are now published. They were indeed the an-
cient liturgies of the three, if not of the lour patriar-
chal churches — viz. the Roman (perhaps that of An-
tioch too) the Alexandrian, and Jerusalem Churches,
first founded, or at least governed by St. Peter, St.
Mark, and St. James. However, since it can hardly
be doubted, but that these holy apostles and evange-
lists did give some directions for the administration of
the blessed Eucharist in those churches, it may rea-
sonably be presumed, that some of those orders are
still remaining in those liturgies, which have been
brought down to us under their names; and that those
prayers wherein they all agree (in sense at least, if
not in words) were first prescribed in the same or like
terms by those apostles and evangelists; nor would it
be difficult to make a further proof of this conjecture
from the writings of the ancient fathers, if it were
needful in this place to insist upon it."*
"I add to what hath been already observed," says
Bishop Bull,t "the consent of all the Christian Church-
MQi8e$V,rse before his translation of the apostolical fathers, p. 102.
~\ Sermons on Common Prayer. Serm. 13, vol. 1, new edit. I had
remarked that if Bishop Bull had with just reason concluded from
the liturgies thececessity of acknowledging the unbloody sacrifice
of the new law, a man so well informed ought equally to have in-
ferred the necessity of helieving the real presence of the divine
victim, the change of substance and adoration; since the liturgies
are no less unanimous on these dogmas than on the sacrifice. I
had quoted previously the following truly orthodox words of the
3ame bishop: "If it be imagined that all the pastors could have
fallen into error and deceived all the faithful, how can the word
of Jesus Christ be defended, who promised his apostles, and their
successors in their persons, to be always with them? A promise
which would not be true, since the apostles were not to live so
long a time, if their successors were not here comprehended in
the persons of the apostles themselves." I had added, that with
such accurate reasoning, he ought to have come over to the Catho-
lic Church. What does Mr. Faber say in reply to my reflections?
He observes that Bishop Bull, notwithstanding died in the bosom
of the Church of England. This I well knew, and deplored his
inconsistency. Let the Rector explain it as he pleases; I can
126 ANSWER TO THE
es in the world, however distant from each other, in
the prayer of the oblation of the Christian sacrifice in
the Holy Eucharist, or sacrament of the Lord's Sup-
per; which consent is indeed wonderful. All the an-
cient liturgies agree in this form of prayer, almost in
the same words, but fully and exactly in the same
sense, order and method; which whosoever attentively
considers, must be convinced, that this order of prayer
was delivered to the several churches in the very first
plantation and settlement of them."
I conclude with Grotius, who is honoured by all
parties as he deserves: "I find," says he in his Votum
pro pace, win all the liturgies, Greek, Latin, Arabic,
Syriac, and others, prayers to God, that he would
consecrate by his Holy Spirit the gifts offered^ and
make them the body and blood of his Son. I was
right therefore in "saying that a custom so ancient and
universal that it must be considered to have come
down from the primitive times, ought not to have been
changed."
"In the matter of worship," say the ministers of
Neuchatel, in the preface prefixed to their liturgy,
dedicated to the King of Prussia in 1713, "great re-
gard must be had to what was the practice of the first
ages of the Church; and it must be acknowledged that
we find in the prayers of the ancients a very peculiar
simplicity and unction. Besides, who can doubt that
what was done in those times, and established by the
successors of the apostles, was most conformable to
the spirit of the gospel, and deserving of respect from
all Christians? It is true that the usages of churches
varied considerably afterwards .... but it is certain
only lament over it, and leave the judgment to Him who searches
the reins and the consciences of men.
For the rest, I find, on the subject of the liturgies, men of your
Church equally clever and more consistent than Bishop Bull.
Whiston, Stephens, and Grabe, composed liturgies in which they
included the unbloody and rational sacrifice, the real presence, change
of substance and adoration — See Discussion Amicale, yoI. 1, p, '426,
DIFFICULTIES OF ROMANISM. 127
that the foundation and essence of the ancient worship
has been preserved hi almost all the liturgies; and that
if, without regard to what is peculiar to each liturgy,
and what was added in proportion as ignorance, error
and superstition found their way into the Church, we
retained ichat icas of ancient and general use, and what
all liturgies agree in within a very little, we should
have the true form of worship among the primitive
Christians. Such also would be one of the best means
of arriving at that uniformity, so necessary for the
peace and edification of the Church."*
VI. If then it should happen that in the midst of
variations unavoidable in the lapse of so many cen-
turies, so many events, idioms and Churches of differ-
ent kinds, nevertheless all the. liturgies agreed in the
sense of those prayers which precede, accompany and
follow the consecration; and if those prayers clearly
expressed the real presence, transubstantiation, adora-
tion and sacrifice, we must conclude that such uni-
formity, while it designated the esence of the liturgy,
denoted also its apostolic origin. For it were impos-
sible to suppose any other cause of such uniformity.
We can find no other sufficiently preponderating and
universal to unite in this manner all the Churches in
the world in one spirit, one perfect adherence to these
same dogmas, and one attention alike scrupulous to
* It i3 impossible to think on this subject more sensibly than
Messrs. Waterland, Wake, Bull, and those ministers of Neucha-
tel. They agree in theory, as your doctors do, that all that ought
to be retained, in which all the liturgies agree! You say this, you
teach it, and still you do not practise it ! All the liturgies have
exhibited and will here exhibit to you the altar, the unbloody sa-
crifice, the real presence of the divine victim, the change of sub-
stance, the adoration, and prayers for the dead; and you do not
retain these sublime doctrines, but trample them under foot ! You
have pronounced your own condemnation. And your contradic-
tions do not open your eyes ! Nor the eyes of those who hear you!
What? so many lights to distinguish what is good, and so much
obstinacy in rejecting it.! Great God ! will they never recover
from such blindness?
]2Q ANSWER TO THE
profess them in the same circumstances. There is no
council to which this singular unanimity could be attach-
ed; and indeed the most oecumenical council would not
have sufficed; because the heretics would never have
followed its decisions, and the schismatical commu-
nions of the fourth and fifth centuries, being as inimical
to each other, as to the mother Church, would never
have agreed together to adopt the forms of prayer and
professions of faith drawn up by the council. Noth-
ing then but the institution and authority of the
apostles, held by all equally sacred, can adequately
acount for such uniformity, if it really exists in the
Christian liturgies written in the fourth and fifth cen-
turies. Now I pledge myself to convince you in the
most palpable manner, that all the liturgies of those
times, in use not only in the Catholic Church, but even
among the schismatics and heretics, unanimously agree
in the prayers, which precede, accompany and follow
the consecration; and that they express in the clearest
and most energetic manner the belief of sacrifice, of
the real presence, of transubstantiation and adoration.
The fact in question is most easy to demonstrate, and
established by authentic quotations extracted from all
these liturgies. I will collect them for you, and let
them pass in review before your eyes.
EXTRACTS FROM THE VARIOUS LITURGIES.
"We offer to thee who art King and God, this
bread and this chalice, according to the order of our
Saviour; returning thee thanks through Him, for hav-
ing vouchsafed to permit us to exercise the priesthood
in thy presence. We beseech thee to look down
favourably upon these gifts in honour of Jesus Christ,
and to send down upon this sacrifice thy Holy Spirit,
thelwittness of the sufferings of our Lord, Jesus Christ,
that he may make this bread become the body of thy
Christ, and this chalice his blood; we offer to thee,
DIFFICULTIES OF ROMANISM. 129
&x."# The prayers are long and very beautiful. At the
moment of communion, the people exclaim; "Hosanna
to the son of David, blessed be the Lord God, who
cometh in the name of the Lord, and has shewn him-
self to us." The rubric adds: "The Bishop gives the
Eucharist with these words: It is the body of Jctus
Christ. The receiver answers; Amen. The Deacon
gives the chalice, saying: It is the blood of Jesus Christ,
the cup of life. The receiver answers; Amen. And
after the communion, the Deacon begins the thanks-
giving, saying: after having received the precious body,
and the precious blood of Jesus Christ, let us give
thanks to Him, who has made us partake of his myste-
ries." The Bishop concludes it by a noble prayer.
In the liturgy, rather alluded to than reported in the
second book, we read simply as follows: "The bene-
diction is followed by the sacrifice, during which all the
people should remain standing and pray in silence; and
after it is offered, each one, in order, should receive
the body and blood of the Lord, and approach to it with
the fear and reverence due to the body of the King."
"We beseech thee, O God, to cause that this obla-
tion may be in all things blessed, admitted, ratified,
reasonable and acceptable, that it may become for us
the body and blood of thy well beloved Son, our Lord,
Jesus Christ. . . ." And after the consecration: "We
offer to thy supreme majesty, of thy gifts and benefits,
a pure host, a holy host, an unspotted host, the holy
bread of eternal life, and the chalice of everlasting
salvation." And at the moment of communion, the
Priest bowing down in sentiments of profound adora-
tion and humility, addresses himself to Jesus Christ
present in his hands, and says to him three times:
"Lord, I am not worthy that thou shouldst enter under
my roof; but say only the word, and my soul shall be
*Liturgy taken from the 8th Book of the apostolic Constitutions,
written in the 4 th century.
12
130 ANSWER TO THE
healed." And giving the communion, as in receiving
it himself, he declares again that it is the body of our
Lord , Jesus Christ*
Such were the expressions of the liturgy introduced
into the British isles in the year 595, and which was
universally celebrated till the sixteenth century in the
three kingdoms of England, Ireland, and Scotland, as
it has been for many centuries in France, Germany,
Spain, and every country in the world, where there
are Latin priests. It would be superfluous to produce
in this place the ancient liturgy of Spain, since we
know from the learned St. Isidore among others, who
succeeded his brother St. Leander in the see of Seville
in 600, that it was conformable to the Roman liturgy,
of which we have just given an extract, in the canon
and essential parts of the mass.
Unfortunately we have no manuscript or monument
to inform us of the ancient liturgy of Gaul, in its full
extent and without any mixture of others. There
remains an abridged exposition of the mass, composed
by St. Germanus of Paris, in the middle of the sixth
century. By the help of this small treatise, and of
what we find in the works of St. Gregory of Tours, a
few years after St. Germanus, we learn however
accurately enough the ancient order of the Gallican
mass, and the learned discover in it more analogy with
the oriental liturgies, than with the Roman.
St. Germanus, speaking of the gifts placed upon the
altar, says; u The bread is transformed into the body,
and the vine into the blood. The Lord having said of
the bread, this is my body, and of the wine, this is my
blood. The oblation is consecrated upon the paten.
The angel of God descends upon the altar as upon the
monument, and blesses the host. "When the fraction
takes place, the clergy, in a suppliant posture, will sing
the anthem: Vouchsafe, we humbly beseech thee, to
' Tlie Roman Liturgy, according to tlic sacramentary of Gelaslus.
DIFFICULTIES OF ROMANISM. 131
receive this sacrifice, to bless it, and sanctify it, that
it may become for us a lawful Eucharist in thy name,
and that of thy Son, and of the Holy Spirit, being
transformed into the body and blood of our Lord, Jesus
Christ,"*
"May the spirit, the comforter of thy blessing, thy
co-eternal co-operator descend, O my God, upon these
sacrifice?, that .... this aliment being* transformed
into flesh, this chalice into blood, what we have offered
for our sins, may save us by his merits. Ut translata
fruge in corpore, calice in cruore, proficiat meritis
quod obtulimus pro delictis."t
''•Beseeching by our fervent supplications, that he
who changed water into wine would change into blood
the wine which we ofter."J
The Gothico-Gallican Missal of the end of the
seventh century contains a prayer to God in form of
an invocation. "That thou wouldst vouchsafe to look
down with an eye of mercy upon these gifts brought to
thy altar, and that the Holy Spirit of thy Son would
cover them with his shadow." As also this prayer
after the consecration: "Being mindful of the passion
and resurrection of our most glorious Lord, we offer
to thee, O God, this spotless host, this reasonable host,
this unbloody host." Again the following prayer be-
fore the communion: '-Accomplishing the sacred solem-
nities, which we have offered to thee according to the
rite of the high-priest Melchisedech, we devoutly be-
seech thee, O eternal Majesty, for grace to receive
this bread, changed into flesh by the operation of thy
power; this drink, changed into blood, and to drink
from the. chalice the same blood, ichich ran from thy
side upon the cross."
The priest takes the bread, and says of Jesus
Christ: | "Taking the bread in his holy, spotless,
* Gallican Liturgy — Mass of the Circumcision.
t Mass of the Assumption.
X On the Epiphany.
|| Liturgy of St. John, or of Jerusalem.
132 ANSWER TO THE
and immortal hands, lifting up his eyes to heaven,
shewing- it to thee, O God, his Father, giving thanks
to thee, sanctifying it, and breaking it, he gave it to
us, his disciples and his apostles, saying: take and eat,
this is my body, which is broken for you, and for the
remission of sins." (They answer amen.) "In like
maimer after he had supped, taking the chalice and
mixing water with the wine, looking up to heaven,
shewing it to thee, O God, the Father, and giving
thanks, sanctifying it, blessing it, filling it with the
Holy Spirit, he gave it to us his disciples, saying:
Drink ye all of it; it is my blood of the New Testa-
ment, which is shed for you and for many, and which
is given for' the remission of sins:5' and afterwards;
"We offer to thee, O Lord, this awful and unbloody
sacrifice." And again; "His vivifying spirit, who
reigns with thee, O God, the Father, and with thy only
Son, who spoke in the law and in the prophets, and in
thy New Testament, who appeared and rested in the
form of a dove upon Jesus Christ, our Lord in the fiver
of Jordan, who descended in the form of fiery tongues
in the supper-room of the holy and glorious Sion; send
down now this Holy Spirit upon us, and upon these
gifts, that by his holy, beneficent, and glorious pre-
sence, he may make this bread tlie sacred body of Jesus
Christ, Amen; and this chalice the precious blood of
Jesus Christ , Amen" Before communion, the priest
thus addresses himself to Jesus Christ upon the altar:
uO Lord, my God ! who art the bread of heaven, and
life of the world, I have sinned against heaven, and
against thee: and I am not worthy to partake of thy
most pure mysteries: but through thy divine mercy,
grant that, without incurring condemnation, thy grace
may make me worthy to receive thy sacred body and
thy precious blood, for the remission of my sins, and
life eternal." At the communion of the people, the
deacon says: "Approach with fear, with faith, and with
DIFFICULTIES OF ROMANISM. 13c*
love." The people answer: "Blessed is he that
cometh in the name of the Lord."
"Receive us at thy holy altar," says the priest mak-
ing the oblation, "according to thy great mercy, grant
that we may be worthy to offer thee this rational, un-
bloody sacrifice, for our sins, and for all the ignorances
of the people."* Then after the words of institution,
which are not omitted in any liturgy with which I am
acquainted, the priest bowing down says in secret:
"We offer to thee this rational and unbloody worship;
and we beseech, we pray and entreat thee, to send down
thy Holy Spirit upon us, and upon these offerings: ....
make indeed this bread the precious body of thy Christ;"'
The deacon, answers "Amen;" And what is in this
chalice, "the precious blood of thy Christ;" The
deacon, Amen;" " Changing them by thy Holy
Spirit." The deacon, "Amen, Amen, Amen." After
several prayers, addressing himself to Jesus Christ,
the priest says: "Look down on us, O Lord Jesus
Christ, our God, from thy holy dwelling,°and from the
throne of the glory of thy kingdom, and come to
sanctify us, thou, who sittest together with the Father
in the highest heavens, and art here invisibly present
with us; and vouchsafe, with thy powerful hand, to
impart to us thy immaculate body and thy precious
blood, and by us to all the people." The priest and
deacon in adoration say each three times: "Have mercy
on me a poor sinner." The people adore in like
manner. Before the communion, the priest says to
the deacon: "Draw near " The deacon bows reverent-
ly before the priest, who holds a part of the sacred
host. The deacon says: "Give me, O Lord, the pre-
cious and holy body of our Lord, God and Saviour.
Jesus Christ." The priest gives it into his hand say-
ing: "I give to thee the precious, and holy, and pure
body of our Lord, God and Saviour Jesus Christ." —
Then the priest and deacon bowing down and holding
*Liturgy of Constantinople, called that of the Apostles, and later,
that of St. Chrysostom.
12*
134 ANSWER TO THE
the sacred host, make together an admirable confes-
sion of faith, which begins thus: "I believe, O Lord,
and I confess, that thou art the Christ, the Son of the
living God, who didst come into the world to save
sinners, of whom I am the chief; make me a partaker of
thy mystical supper. I will not reveal the mystery to
thy enemies', nor will I give thee a kiss like Judas; but
like the good thief, I confess what thou art." I re-
gret that I cannot here transcribe the whole of this
confession, which ends with these words: "O Lord our
God, forgive me all my sins, thou who art goodness
itself; and by the intercession of thy immaculate Moth-
er, ever a Virgin, grant that without incurring condem-
nation, I may receive thy precious and most pure body"
Then the priest presents the chalice to the deacon, who
says: "Behold I come to the immortal King: I believe,
O Lord, and confess thou art the Christ, the Son of the
living God." The priest says to him, "Servant of
God, Deacon N. thou dost communicate of the pre-
cious, and holy body, and blood of our Lord, and
Saviour Jesus Christ, for the remission of thy sins, and
everlasting life."
The deacon going to communicate the people says:
"Approach to God with fear and faith; the choir an-
swers, Amen, Amen, Amen; blessed is he that cometh
in the name of the Lord." — Receiving the consecrat-
ed species of bread and wine in a spoon, the commu-
nicant says: "I believe, O Lord, and confess that thou
art truly the Son of the living God." The deacon says
to him: "Servant of God, receive the most holy body and
the precious blood of our Saviour Jesus Christ."
This liturgy is followed by all the Greeks who are
in the West, at Rome', in Calabria, in Apulia; by the
Mingrelians, Georgians, Bulgarians, Russians, and
Muscovites; by all the modern Melchite Christians
dependant on the patriarch of Alexandria residing at
Cairo, on the patriarch of Jerusalem, and the patriarch
of Antioch resident at Damascus.
DIFFICULTIES OF ROMANISM. \So
Those from which we shall now give extracts are*
the liturgy of St. Mark, called that of St. Cyril; that
of St. Basil and that of St. Gregory of Nazfanzen.
The Jacobite Coptic Christians opposed to the council
of Chalcedon in 451 have continued to make use of
them, and have done so for 1200 years.
In the preparatory prayer, the priest says: "O
Lord, do thou make us worthy, by the power of thy
Holy Spirit, to perform this ministry, that Ave may
not incur judgment before the throne cf thy glory, and
may offer thee this sacrifice of blessing.'" Some of
the words of the oblation: "O Lord Jesus Christ, only
begotten Son, word of God the Father, consubstan-
tial and co-eternal with Him and the Holy Ghost . . .
look down on this bread and on this chalice, which
we have placed on this thy sacerdotal table; bless
them, sanctify them, and consecrate them; change them,
so that indeed this bread may become thy holy body;
and that which is mixed in this chalice, thy precious
blood. " After having religiously recited the words
of institution, the priest continues: "We adore thee,
according to the good pleasure of thy will, and we
entreat thee, O Christ, our God, we sinners and thy
unworthy servants, that thy Holy Spirit may come
down upon us, and upon his proposed gifts, to sanctify
them, .... and to make of this bread the holy body of
our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ himself, who is
given for the remission of sins and everlasting life to
him, who shall receive him." The people answer,
Amen. "And of this chalice to make the precious blood
of the New Testament of our Lord, God and Saviour
Jesus Christ himself, who is given for the remission of
sins and everlasting life to him, who shall receive him."
The people answer, Amen. At the breaking of the
host the priest says, "O Lord, our God, .... thou, who
hast sanctified these oblations placed before thee, by
* Liturgy of Alexandria.
136 ANSWER TO THE
making thy Holy Spirit descend upon them." At the
approach of the communion, the Deacon gives notice
by these words; "be attentive and trembling before
God." The people: "O Lord, have mercy on us."
^ hen the priest taking in his hand the larger part of
the host, elevates it, and then bows down and exclaims
with a loud voice: "Holy things for holy persons."
The people prostrate uith their faces to the ground.
Then comes the profession of faith, which the priest
makes in these terms: " The holy body, and precious,
pure, true blood of Jesus Christ, the Son, our God.
Amen. The body and blood of Emmanuel, our God,
this is in real truth. Amen. I believe, I believe, I
believe, and confess, to the last breath of my life, that
this is the life giving body of thine only begotten Son,
our Lord God, and Saviour, Jesus Christ. He receiv-
ed it from the Lady of us all, the Mother of God, the
sacred and holy Mary, and made it one with his divi-
nity, without confusion, without mixture or alteration.
He gave of himself a good testimony before Pontius
Pilate, and delivered himself for us to the tree of the
holy cross, by his only will, and for us all. I believe
truly that his divinky was never separated from his
humanity, not an hour, not the twinkling of an eye.*
He delivered up his body for the salvation, remission
of sins and eternal life of those, who shall receive him.
Thus I believe in exact truth."!
* These words convey a sense perfectly Catholic; they mark
union and not mixture; they do not confound the two natures as
the Eutychians did. And in fact the Jacobites attached to Dios-
corus, rejected, it is true, the council of Chalcedon, which had
condemned him; T)utJ they equally anathematized Nestorius and
Eutyches, according to the edict of union of the emperor Zeno,
which they always received.
t We are indebted for the information acquired upon the subject
of the Coptic Jacobites, to the travels, intelligence and labours
of the learned Vansleb, born at Erfurt. He studied the Ethiopian
language under M. Ludolff, who induced the Duke of Saxony to
send him to the Levant, and into Ethiopia, iu the hope of his
DIFFICULTIES OF ROMANISM. 1 37
The liturgies of Ethiopia or of Abyssinia so much
resemble those of the Coptic Jacobites, that it will
suffice to quote some passages peculiar to them. The
liturgy instituted by the 318 Fathers expresses the
invocation in the following manner: "We beseech thee
therefore and entreat thee, O Lord, graciously to send
thy Holy Spirit, and to cause him to descend, to come
and diffuse his light over this bread, that it may be-
come the body of our Lord, and that what is contained
in this chalice may be changed and may become the
blood of Jesus Christ.* Another liturgy translated
into Latin by Mr. LudolfF, a Lutheran, speaks thus:
"We beseech thee, O Lord, and entreat thee, to send
thy Holy Spirit and his power upon this bread, and
upon this chalice, that he may make of them the body
and blood of our Saviour Jesus Christ, our Lord for
ages of ages."
The liturgy called of the Apostlesf after the words
of our Saviour, continues thus: "The people say;
Amen, Amen, Amen; we believe it, we are certain
of it, we praise thee, O Lord, our God. It is truly
thy body, ice believe it to be so; and after the words over
the chalice, the people say Amen, it is truly thy blood,
we believe it." Here we see before the communion
that lively and strong profession of faith, which I have
making discoveries there favourable to Lutheranism. Not being
able to reach Ethiopia, Vansleb applied himself to the Jacobite
liturgies, examined them thoroughly, was convinced by them of
the errors of his own communion, became a Catholic, and after-
wards a Dominican at Rome. He came into France, and was
graciously received by M. Colbert. This great minister, who
sought nothing so eagerly as men capable of seconding his va~t
aud noble designs, sent him back to the Levant, with orders to
purchase all the oriental JMSS. which he could find. Vansleb
sent more than five hundred to the Bibliotheque du Roi. After
vainly attempting to penetrate into Ethiopia, he returned in 1676
into France, where he died a few years afterwards.
■ Translation of Vansleb, History of Alexandria, Chapter on Tran-
substantiation.
t Latin translation of Renaudot.
133 ANSWER TO THE
copied from the Coptic liturgy; it stands here with the
same expressions. The Priest gives the communion
to the people with these words: "This is the bread of
life which comes down from heaven, truly the precious
body of Emmanuel, our God." The communicant
answers, "Amen," The deacon presents the chalice,
saying: "This is the chalice of life, which comes
down from heaven, and which is the precious blood of
Jesus Christ." The communicant answers, "Amen,
Amen."
The liturgies were much more multiplied among the
Syrians, than among the other Christian Churches.
That of St. James is considered by them as the most
ancient, the most common, and that which contains
the whole order of the Mass, to which all the others
have a reference. I have already quoted some portions
of it from the Greek version. I will now produce
others from Syriac. At the preparation of the sacra-
flee, the deacon says: "O God, who in thy mercy didst
accept the sacrifices of the ancient just, accept also
in thy mercy our sacrifice, and vouchsafe to accept
our prayers." Between the words of institution, and
those of invocation, which are the same here as in the
Greek version, the deacon announces the descent of
the Holy Ghost upon the gifts, by a very striking ad-
monition. "How terrible, O my brethren, is this hour,
how awful is this moment, when the holy and life-
giving Spirit is about to descend from the highest
heavens, and bow down upon this Eucharist placed in
the sanctuary, and sanctify it; be ye therefore in fear
and trembling; keep yourselves in prayer; may peace
be with you, and the security of God, the Father of us
all. Let us exclaim three times, "Kyrie efcison." Then
follows the invocation, the same as in the Greek version.
The deacon makes afterwards a very beautiful prayer
in a loud voice: "Bless us again and again, O my God,
by this holy oblation, by this propitiatory sacrifice,
which is offered to God, the Father, which is sanctified,
DIFFICULTIES OF ROMANISM. 139
completed, and perfected by the descent of the Holy
Ghost, the life-giver. ... Ye ministers of the Church,
tremble; for you administer a burning fire: the power
which is given you is greater than that of the Sera-
phim. Happy the soul who presents herself with
purity at this altar! For the Holy Ghost inscribes
her name, and carries it to heaven. Tremble deacons,
at the sacred hour when the Holy Ghost descends to
sanctify the body of those, who receive him Be
mindful of the absent, O my God! take pity on us.
Peace and repose to the souls of the departed: pardon
the sinners at the day of judgment: tbose, who are de-
parted and separated from us by death; O Christ place
their souls in peace, with the pious and the just: let thy
cross be their support, thy baptism their garment: let thy
body and blood be to them the guide to conduct them
to thy kingdom." The deacon addressing himself after-
wards to the people, says : "Bote down your heads be-
fore the God of mercies, before the propitiatory altar,
and before the body and blood of our Saviour." At
the fraction, and communion of the priest, it is always
the body of Jesus Christ, which was broken and
sprinkled witb his blood; the holy body, the life-giving
body which he receives. The deacon administering
it to the people, says: "My brethren, the Church cries
out to you: receive the body of the Son, drink his
blood with faith .... this is the chalice which our Lord
mingled upon the tree of the cross; approach mortals,
drink of it for the remission of your sins."
The following is the invocation of the Syriac liturgy,
called that of St. Maruthas, Metropolitan of Tagrit in
Mesopotamia, and a friend of St. Chrysostom V, *
"Have mercy on me, O my God, who lovest mankind,
send upon me, and upon this holy oblation the Holy
Ghost, who proceeds from thee, who receives of thy
Son and perfects all the mysteries of the Church, who
* From the Latin of Renaudot.
140 ANSWER TO THE
reposes upon these oblations and sanctifies them."
The people, "pray:" the priest: "Hear me, O my
God:" the people thrice; "Kyrie eleison:" the priest,
raising his voice; "that he may make this mere bread
by transmutation (transmutet atque efficiat) the very
same body, which was immolated upon the cross, the
same body, which rose again with glory, and never
knew corruption ! the body, which prepares life ! the
body of the word himself, God, of our Saviour Jesus
Christ, for the remission of sins (the people, "Amen,")
and the mingled wine which is in the chalice, he may
make by transmutation (transmutet et perficiat) the very
same blood, which was shed on the summit of Golgotha!
The same blood, which streamed down upon the earth,
and purified it from sin ! The same blood, which pre-
pares for life, the blood of the Lord himself, of the
word of God, and of our Saviour Jesus Christ, for the
remission of sins and eternal life to those, who shall
receive him.
At the offertory the priest says;* "May Christ,
who was immolated for our salvation, and has com-
manded us to commemorate his death and resurrection,
may Christ himself receive this sacrifice presented
by our unworthy hands!" And as he had desired the
concurrence of the people, they answer: "May the
Lord gratiously hear thy prayers, may he be pleased
with thy sacrifice, and vouchsafe to accept thy obla-
tion, and honour thy priesthood !" The priest says:
"May thy Holy Spirit come, O my God, and repose
upon the oblation of thy servants; may he bless it, and
sanctify it !" In this M. S. the prayers for the conse-
cration are wanting; but at the breaking of the host, at
the mingling of the species, the liturgy speaks only of
the body and blood of Jesus Christ, the precious
blood, the life-giving body. At the communion, the
*Nestorian Liturgies — that called of the apostles, from the Latin
of Rinaudot.
DIFFICULTIES OF ROMANISM. 141
<ieacon exclaims : "Let us all approach with tremb-
ling." And again, "My brethren, receive the body of
the Son — the voice of the Church — and drink his
chalice with faith." And in an act of thanksgiving,
the priest says: "Christ our God, Lord, King, Saviour,
and giver of life, has graciously made us worthy to
receive his body and his precious and sanctifying'
blood."
"With hearts filled with fear and veneration,* let
us all approach to the mystery of the body and pre-
cious blood of our Saviour, — and now, O Lord,
that thou hast called me to thy holy and pure altar to
offer thee this living and holy sacrifice, make me
worthy to receive this gift with purity and sanctity."
And again the priest says at the communion: "O
Lord, my God, I am not worthy, and it is not right that
I should receive thy body, and. the blood of propitia-
tion, nor even that I should touch them; but let thy
word sanctify my soul, and heal my body?" And in
the thanksgiving after communion, the priest says :
"Strengthen our hands, which have been stretched out
to receive the Holy One repair by a new life
those bodies which have tasted thy living body God
has filled us with blessings by his living Son, who for
our salvation bowed down from the highest heaven,
put on our body, and gave its his own, and mingled his
venerable blood with our blood, a mystery of propitia-
tion
After the words of institution, the deacon says
aloud:f "Silence and trembling!" Then comes the
invocation, which the priest commences thus, in an in-
clined posture; "may the grace of the Holy Ghost
come down upon us, and upon this oblation; may he
dwell aud infuse himself on the bread aud on the chalice;
may he bless and sanctify them: .... may the bread, by
the virtue of thy name, this bread, I say, be madethe holy
* Liturgy of the Nestorians of Malabar.
]Liturgy of Theodorus, of Mopsuestia, translated by Renaudot.
13
142 ANSWER TO THE
body of our Lord, Jesus Christ: and this chalice, the
blood of our Lord, Jesus Christ."
The invocation is expressed as follows:* "O my
God, may the grace of the Holy Ghost come, and
dwell, and rest on this oblation, which we are offer-
ing before thee; may he sanctify it, and make it, that
is, this bread and chalice, the body and blood of our
Lord, Jesus Christ, thou transmuting them (transmu-
tante ea te,) and sanctifying them, by the operation of
the Holy Ghost."
In all other parts, this liturgy of Nestorius and the
preceding one of Theodorus, resemble the first insti-
tuted by the apostles.
At the oblation of the mass for the dead,f we find
these words: "Holy Father, lover of mankind, re-
ceive this sacrifice in memory of the dead: place their
souls among the saints in the heavenly kingdom: may
thy divinity be appeased by this sacrifice, which we
offer thee with faith, and grant the repose of their
souls!" At the canon, the priest says of our Saviour,
"taking the bread in his divine, immortal, spotless
hands, which have also the power of creating, he blessed
it, gave thanks, broke it, &c O God send upon us,
and upon these gifts thy holy, co-eternal and con-sub-
stantial Spirit:" [Here the deacon bows down at the
corner of the altar:] "that thou mayest make this blessed
bread the body of our Lord and Saviour, Jesus Christ;"
and holding the host over the chalice, he adds, "that
thou mayest make this blessed bread and wine, the true
body and very flesh, and the true blood of our Lord and
Saviour, Jesus Christ, changing them by thy Spirit."
.... The priest adores thrice, and kisses the altar, and
from that time he does not any more raise his hands
above the offerings. Now fixing his eyes upon them
he adores them as God, and represents to him his
* Lit. of Nestorius, from the Latin of Renaudot.
t Armenian Liturgy, from the Latin of Mr. Pidou de Saint Olon,
Bp. of Babylon, and the French of P. Le Brun.
DIFFICULTIES OF ROMANISM. 143
desires with tears Towards the communion, the
priest adores, and kisses the altar; taking the sacred
body, he dips it entirely in the precious blood, saying:
aO Lord, our God .... we beseech thee to. make us
worthy to receive this sacrament for the remission of
our sins." The priest with humility elevating from
the holy table the sacred body and blood of our Lord,
and Saviour, Jesus Christ, turns towards the people, and
exhibits them, saying: "Let us taste in a holy manner
of this holy, sacred, and precious body and blood of
our Lord, and Saviour, Jesus Christ, who descending
from the heavens is distributed among us." He says
afterwards, "I confess and believe that thou art the
Christ, the Son of God, who didst bear the sins of the
world O Jesus Christ, my God ! / taste with
faith thy holy and life-giving body for the remission of
my sins. O my God, Jesus Christ, I taste with faith
thy purifying and sanctifying blood for the remission of
my sins." Then making upon his mouth the sign of the
cross, he says these words of St. Thomas the apostle;
"may thy incorruptible body be in me for life, and thy
sacred blood for the propitiation and remission of sins!"
Then turning towards the people with the chalice:
"Approach with fear, with faith, and communicate in a
holy manner." During the communion of the people, a
canticle is sung with these words: "This bread is the
body of Jesus Christ; this chalice is the blood of the
New Testament: the hidden sacrament is made manifest
to us, and thereby shews himself to us; here is Jesus
Christ the Word of God, who is seated at the right
hand of the Farther — he is sacrificed in the midst of
us," &c.
VII. After the extracts you have now read, per-
mit me, sir, to conclude the subject of the liturgies by
a two-fold supposition, which will personally concern
you, inasmuch as it will place your existence about
the year 256, under Decius. I will suppose then that
in the middle of the third century, certain motives of
144 ANSWER TO THE
curiosity or business had led you into different coun-
tries, and had afforded you opportunities of assisting
at the divine worship. You would have found in the
several countries, in substance, the same liturgy. At
Rome, at Carthage, or Alexandria; at Jerusalem,
Ephesus, or Antioch; at Corinth, or Athens; in Spain,
or in Gaul, you would have heard the same prayers
recited, the same invocations, at least in signification,
to obtain the change of bread and wine into the body
and blood of Jesus Christ; the same professions of
faith in the real presence of the divine victim; you
would have adored him upon the altar, receiving him
with your brother Christians; and with them you would
have derived from these sublime dogmas an angelic
fervour, and sentiments above the terrors of this world,
a courage unshaken and super-human in the fire of
persecution, at the glare of the faggot, and the sight
of the sword.
I will suppose in the second place, that at the end
of your travels, arriving in some great city, you fell in
with some Christian congregation, which however
would have been impossible at that period, where you
heard some venerable ecclesiastic explain to the peo-
ple that what was elsewhere called an unbloody sacri-
fice was no more than a pious chimera; that the altar
of the Christians was an altar without a victim; that
every thing there was in figure; that the presence of
our Saviour was only a fiction, since his body had been
long ago in heaven, and could not at the same time be
found upon earth; that the change effected in the offer-
ings by the Omnipotence of the Holy Ghost, consisted
in making a religious emblem of a domestic aliment;
that after the consecration, the substances offered
were what they had been before, literal bread and
literal wine; and that consequently the adoration of
Catholicism was gross idolatry. What then would
have been your sentiments? Allow me, sir, to ask you:
would you not have left this congregation with perfect
DIFFICULTIES OF ROMANISM. 145
horror? Would you not have fled with precipitation
from such a preacher? Doubtless you would from that
time have been even more ardently attached to the
doctrine of the universal Church. Well then, my
dear sir, what you would have done then, do, I be-
seech you, now. The ancient liturgies are still those
of the Catholics; your own is new, national, and dis-
cordant. The language of ^ the supposed heterodox
preacher is precisely that of the Rector of Long New-
ton. Both declaim against the faith of the primitive
Church! both are at open war with the teaching of the
apostles, with the oblation transmitted by them to the
Church. Return, sir, I conjure you, to the doctrine
and practice of the beautiful ages of antiquity. It is
not you alone, nor the laity only, to whom I now most
solemnly appeal. I appeal to all those to whom I
dedicated my Discussion Amicale; I appeal especially
to the Rev. G-. S. Faber, to the doctors of your univer-
sities, to those of every communion, holding, like your
own, opinions manifestly opposed to that apostolical
tradition, which is imprinted on all the ancient litur-
gies, in characters uniform and indelible.*
*I cannot too strongly recommend to my readers the very curious
work of1 P. Le Brun, where all the liturgies, ancient and modern
are exhibited. This work is indispensable for the young clergy,
who are applying to theology in the universities of Oxford and
Cambridge. I invite them to take with it the dissertation of
Schelestadt De disciplina arcani. In these two works they will find
most solid and essentially necessary information on the history and
doctrine of the primitive Church.
13<
146 ANSWER TO THE
CHAPTER THE FOURTH.
GENERAL PROOF OF OUR DOCTRINE ON THE EUCHAR-
IST FROM THE CATECHESES.
Particular Proofs from the Fathers.
I. Every one who has studied the monuments of
tradition on the subject of the Eucharist, must have
remarked a singular difference in the expressions of
the Fathers, when they speak of the sacrament of the
altar. Sometimes they explain themselves with all
imaginable clearness, on the reality of the presence
of Jesus Christ under the species, and on the change
of substance. At other times they designate the
gifts offered, by the expressions of symbols, types,
signs, figures, representations, or allegories of the
body and blood of Jesus Christ. This diversity
of language, occurs not only among different doctors,
but often even in the same Father, for example, in St.
Chrysostom, or St. Augustin. The Catholics with
good reason attach themselves to the passages of the
former kind, while they give the most satisfactory ex-
planation of the others. The Protestant sacramenta-
rians build upon the passages of the latter kind, which
suit their opinions; and at the same time, glide hastily
over those of the first description, which overthrow
their system. Both parties, agree that the Fathers are
not to be accused of being contradictory to one another,
and still less to themselves. But, as far as 1 know,
neither Catholics nor Protestants have ever yet asked
themselves the cause of this difference of language on
the same subject? Why the Fathers, after having
spoken entirely in the sense of the real presence, ap-
DIFFICULTIES OF ROMANISM. 1 47
pear in other places to express themselves in that of
a figurative presence. It is however a duty to make
sucli enquiry, and this is the precise point to be inves-
tigated and cleared up, in order to dissipate the slightest
cloud, and bring forth in the full blaze of day the true
doctrine of the Fathers — the real belief of the primi-
tive Church.
II. The answer to this important question is by no
means difficult; and 1 am persuaded, sir, that you have
not arrived thus far, without foreseeing it yourself,
without my suggestion. The Fathers, as you know,
lived under the discipline of the secret^ and observed
it so strictly that they were ready to shed their blood,
as were the faithful after their example, rather than
violate it by betraying the mysteries; and among others,
that of the Eucharist. They could speak openly of it,
without fear, to the faithful, either in their family
circles, or in the church in discourses delivered be-
fore them exclusively: they were obliged to expose them
with all possible clearness to the neophytes, previous
to admitting them to communion and on the following
days.* On the contrary, in presence of the unbaptiz-
ed the secret was scrupulously kept. And you will
readily conceive, that if it were prohibited to confide
the least portion to a single individual uninitiated, it
must have been much more so to speak openly of the
*"On the eve of the great day of Easter and of your regenera-
tion, we shall teach you with what devotion you must come forth
from baptism, approach the altar; and partake of the spiritual
and heavenly mysteries, which are there offered, that your souls
being enlightened by our instructions and discourses, each one of
you may know the greatness of the presents, which God gives
him." (S. Cyr. of Jcruc. Catteh. 18.) "We shall only speak now
of things, which cannot be explained before catechumens, but
which it is necessary nevertheless to lay open to those, who have
been recently baptized." (St. Gaudcntius to the Xcoph.) "In this
paschal solemnity," said St. Augustin, (Serin, on the 5//i day after
Easter,) "these first seven or eight days are devoted to the instruc-
tion of the children, (the newly baptized) upon the sacraments."
148 ANSWER TO THE
mysteries in writings intended for public circulation.
"How could it be allowed," says St. Basil, "to publish
written explanations, of what the uninitiated are for-
bidden to contemplate?'1
III. What then, in these days, has he to do, who
would understand clearly the sentiments of the Fathers
on the Eucharist? What course will he take to attain
his object? It would be the height of folly to seek
their belief in writings where they were not permitted to
divulge it; in those, for instance, which they published
against the pagans and heretics of their, times: or in
discourses pronounced with open doors before catechu-
mens and gentiles. Any sensible man wishing to learn
in the school of the Fathers what has been revealed
on the subject of the Eucharist, will open those
instructions, which they gave to the newly baptized.
He will take his place, not among the catechumens,
before whom they concealed the mysteries; but among
the neophytes, to whom it was a necessary duty to
display them. These are, in the outset, the writings,
which any man of sincerity will consult, when desirous
of knowing with certainty, the doctrine of the Fathers;
but the catecheses before all, and even them alone, if
he would spare himself much labour and research.
For with them, he is sure to discover what the Fathers
believed, and what they taught: and by consequence,
with them he may save himself all farther trouble.
Nevertheless I would advise him to consult another
kind of monuments, from which he will derive parti-
cular edification without any trouble, and a firmness in
faith most valuable in the evil days in which we live.
I allude to the liturgies, which are so evidently con-
nected with the catecheses. In fact, what did these
latter teach the neophytes? They taught what passed
at the altar. And what else do the liturgies describe?
Both then necessarily contain the same mysteries, the
same doctrine, the same creed What the catecheses
put forth in theory, the liturgies exhibit in action.
DIFFICULTIES OF ROMANISM. 149
There are the principles, motives and reasons for be-
lieving: here the sentiments of gratitude, love and
adoration which faith inspires. If a more extensive
knowledge were desired, it might be found in the
sermons preached before the faithful exclusively, for
then the orator felt no restraint in expressing himself
openly, whenever his subject led him to speak on the
Holy Eucharist.
IV. But at our distance from the primitive times,
how are we, in these days, to distinguish among so
many homilies and sermons, those at which none as-
sisted but the initiated, from those attended by other
persons? How, after so many centuries, are we to
understand, whether the audience was composed pure-
ly of the faithful, or was made up of the faithful and
the profane, attracted perhaps by the reputation and
eloquence of the orator? We shall be supplied in this
case with certain rules by sound criticism. If the lan-
guage of the sermon accords with that of the catecheses,
if the preacher speaks of the Eucharist as openly as
the catechi;#,Mve may conclude with certainty that
the auditory was wholly Christian. But when the
preacher premises, like Theodoret in his first dialogue,
that he shall express himself "in mystic and obscure
terms, because perhaps he is speaking before persons
uniniatiated;" when he testifies, like St. Cyril of Alex-
andria, "a fear of discovering the mysteries to the un-
initiated;"— when he declares, like St. Clement of
Alexandria, that he will "endeavour to say certain
tilings under a veil, and to shew them, while he is, in a
manner, silent upon them;" or when he uses that ex-
pression, so common to S. Chrysostom and S. Augustin:
the "initiated understand ?ne, the initiated know it;n
or finally, when he seems to use expressions contradic-
tory to those which he has elsewhere employed before
the faithful ; — then, and in aU such cases, we are per-
fectly assured that there were some of the profane
among his hearers.
150 ANSWER TO THE
V. These preliminary observations will not appear
to you, sir, as I love to believe, inspired by prejudice;
but rather dictated by the spirit of impartial criticism:
and if you are desirous of acquiring an exact and
thorough knowledge of the primitive doctrine on the
sacrament of our altars, you will doubtless seek out in
the first place, the elementary discourses still extant,
for the instruction of neophytes; then the ancient litur-
gies of the Christian churches, and finally the dis-
courses composed exclusively for the faithful. As to
the sermons addressed indiscriminately to Christians
and others, as also those works intended for the public ;
knowing that the discipline of the secret required the
mysteries to be concealed, you will not think of seek-
ing for them in writings of that kind: and when you see
your own divines attaching themselves by choice to
such works, and quoting passages from them with self-
complacency, you will say to yourself: "What can they
mean -by such a method? Why enquire of the Holy
Fathers their sentiments on the Eucharist, in circum-
stances in which they were obliged to efticeal them ?
What they said at those times was never intended by
them to guide us in this matter. To persist in taking
them for judges contrary to their known intention, is
willfully to deceive one's self and others." This is en-
tirely my opinion. To seek to discover what the Fa-
thers thought on the Eucharist, in writings where they
were obliged to conceal their sentiments; and not in
those where duty made it a law to expose them openly,
is assuredly following a method totally opposed to the
dictates of common sense.*
•Here observe that your divines, when combatting the real pre-
sence, transubtantiation, or the adoration of Jesus Christ in the
blessed sacrament, never reason from the catecheses, the liturgies,
or the sermons preached before the faithful exclusively. At most
they will quote a few insulated phrases from them, carefully con-
cealing what proceeds and follows them. You will soon see more
than one example of this.
DIFFICULTIES OF ROMANISM. 151
VI. Open then with me the instructions addressed
to the neophytes; read again the extracts, which I shall
point out to you; and remark, if you please, their con-
formity in doctrine with that of the liturgies. The
venerable patriarch St. Cyril, addressing the neophytes
of Jerusalem, thus expresses himself:* "As then
Christ, speaking of the bread, declared and said, this
is my body, who shall dare doubt it? And as speak-
ing of the wine, he positively assured us; and said, this
is my blood, who shall doubt it and say, that it is not
his blood ?"(Who ? Mr. Faber would reply to St. Cyril,
I shall doubt it.) "Formerly at Cana in Galilee, Jesus
Christ changed water into wine by his will only; and
shall we think it less worthy of credit, that he changed
wine into his blood ?f ... .Wherefore with all confi-
dence, let us take the body and blood of Christ. For
in the type or figure of bread his body is given to thee,
and in the type or figure of wine, his blood is given; that
so being made partakers of the body, and blood of
Christ, you may become one body and one blood with
him. Thus the body and blood of Christ being distri-
buted in our members, we become Christophori, that
is, we carry Christ with us; and thus, as St. Peter says,
*Catech. Mystag. iv. No. 1 and 2.
fAfter quoting thus far, the Rector stops short, and says in a
note, page 68; "I have selected this passage, because, so far as I
know, it is the strongest which can be produced from antiquity in
favour of the Latin doctrine of transubstantiation.'" What an ap-
pearance of candour ! How could it fail to deceive his readers r
He knows that the very contrary to what he says is the fact. For
he sees in the same page, and he has seen in my book, the words I
have cited in continuation ; and yet he has the effrontery to sup-
press them! I blush to record so unworthy an artifice. How can
a man pretending to prove to his countrymen the truth, conceal it
thus willfully from their sight ? I am at a loss for expressions,
which, without incurring impoliteness, might inflict well merited
correction on this shameful want of good taith. I defy any one,
and above all, the champion of figure and moral change, to ex-
press transubstantiation more clearly than St. Cyril doe9, in the
words Mr. Faber has artfully suppressed.
]52 ANSWER TO THE
we are made partakers of the divine nature.*....
Wherefore I conjure you, my brethren, not to consi-
der them any more as common bread and wine, since
they are the body and blood of Jesus Christ according
to his words; and although your sense might suggest
that to you, let faith confirm you. Judge not of the
thing by your taste, but by faith assure yourself, with-
out the least doubt, that you are honoured with the
body and blood of Christ. This knowing, and of this
being assured, that what appears to you bread, is not
bread, but the body of Christ, although the taste judges
it be bread; and that the wine which you see, and which
has the taste of wine, is not wine, but the blood of Christ ."f
And in the succeeding catechesis, where he describes
the liturgy of St. James, in use in his time in Jerusa-
lem, St. Cyril prescribes the manner of receiving the
chalice, in these words: "After having thus received
the body of Jesus Christ, approach to the chalice of
his blood, not extending your hands, but bowing in an
attitude of homage and adoration, and answering —
Jlmen.^X
VII. St. Ambrose said to those about to partake of
the sacred mysteries: "Water flowed from a rock for
the Jews; but for you, the blood of Jesus Christ him-
self flows But you may say: I see somewhat
else; how do you assert that I shall receive the body
of Christ? — This remains to be proved Moses
held a rod; he cast it on the ground; and it became a
serpent. ... If now the blessing of men was powerful
enough to change nature, what must we not say of the
divine consecration, when the very words of our Lord
operate? For that sacrament, which you receive, is
*Catech. Myst. No. 3.
jCatcch. Jlfyst. No. 6-»9.
• \Catech. Myst. y. No. 22. This adoration is the same which we
have seen in the liturgies rendered to Jesus Christ, under the spe-
cies, and consequently the adoration of latria.
DIFFICULTIES OF ROMANISM. 153
accomplished by the word of Christ.* The word of
Christ, which could draw out of nothing what was not,
shall it not be able to change the things that are, into
that ichich they were iwt? For it is not a less effect of
power, to give new existence to things, than to change
the natures tliat icere.-f. . . . Was the order of nature
followed, when Jesus was born of a virgin? Plainly,
not. Then why is that order to be looked for here?
It was the true flesh of Christ, which was crucified,
which was buried; and this is truly the sacrament of
his flesh. Our Lord himself proclaims: this is my bo-
dy. Before the benediction of the celestial words, the
bread (species) is named; after the consecration the
body of Christ is signified. He himself calls it his
blood. Before consecration it has another name; af-
terwards it is denominated blood. And you answer
Jlmen, that is, it is true. What the mouth speaks, let
the internal sense confess: what the words intimate,
let the affection feel. By these sacraments Christ feeds
his Church, and by them is the soul strengthened. It is
a mystery, whichj you ought to keep carefully within
yourselves .... for fear of communicating it to those,
who are unworthy of it, and of publishing its secrets
before infidels, by too great levity in speaking. There-
* According to Mr. Faber we should say: Moses knew how to
change physically his rod into a serpent; therefore much more can
Jesus Christ change morally the bread into a figure of his body;
which signifies in plain English — if Moses being only a man did
what was greater, Jesus Christ, a fortiori, can do what is less!
flf the word of Jesus Christ could, out of nothing, produce what
before did not exist, why should it not be able, in- certain circum-
stances, to substitute for the common use of bread, a distinction
wholly religious? Thus ought those to reason from the great mi-
racle of the creation, who in the Eucharistic bread admit only
the moral change of Mr. Faber. The absurdity of such reasoning
is palpable. St. Ambrose afterwards compares the miracle of the
production of Christ's body in the sacrament, with that of his birth
from a virgin. While Mr. Faber admits the miracle of his birth,
will he inform us where is the miracle of the production of his
body in the sacrament? This real and physical figure was certain-
ly miraculous : but how can a moral and figurative production be so ?
14
154 ANSWER TO THE
fore you must watch with great care .... in order to
keep the fidelity of your secret."*
VIII. St. Gaudentius, bishop of Brescia, will repeat
to you what he said to his newly baptized Christians:
a Among all those things, which are marked out in the
Book of Exodus, on the celebration of the Passover,
we shall only now speak of such as cannot be explained
before the catechumens, but which it is nevertheless
necessary to make known to those, who have been newly
baptized. In the shadows and figures of the ancient
passover, they did not kill one lamb only, but several,
one in each house; because one alone would not have
sufficed for all the people, and because this mystery
was only the figure, and not the reality of our Lord's
passion. For the figure of a thing is not the reality,
but only the image and representation. But now, when
the figure has ceased, the one that died for all, immolated
in the mystery of bread and wine, gives life through all
the Churches, and being consecrated, sanctifies those that
consecrate. This is the flesh of the Lamb, this is his blood:
for the bread that came down from heaven said: the bread,
which I shall give you, is my flesh for the life of the world.
His blood is rightly expressed by the species of wine,
because when he says in the gospel, / am the true vine,
he sufficiently declares all wine, which is offered in
the figure of his passion, to be his blood. And he who
is the Creator and Lord of all natures, who produces
bread from the earth; of the bread makes his men
proper body, (for he is able, and he promised to do it;)
and who of water made wine, and of wine his blood ....
It is the pasch, he says, that is, the passover of the
Lord; think not that earthly, which is made heavenly by
him, who passes into it, and has made it his body and
bloody You ought not then to reject the mysteries of
* I ask again in this place — where is the mystery, and the ne-
cessity of keeping any secret in the system of figure and moral
change?
t In what St. Gaudentius here tells you, you look in vain, I
imagine, for the moral change of Mr. Faber. What follows is
not in the least, more like it.
DIFFICULTIES OF ROMANISM. 155
our Saviour's passion, by considering this flesh as if it
were raw, and this blood as if it were raw, as the
Jews did, nor say with them: how can he give us his
fiesh to eat? Neither ought you to consider this sacra-
ment as any thing earthly; but rather you should firm-
ly believe that by the fire of the Holy Ghost, this sa-
crament in effect is what the Lord assures you that it is.
Believe what is announced to thee; because what thou
receivest, is the body of that celestial bread, and the blood
of that sacred vine;* for when he delivered consecrated
bread to his disciples thus he said: This is my body;
this is my blood. Let us believe Him, whose faith
we profess; for truth cannot lie. . . .Receive then with
us, with all the holy eagerness of your heart, this sa-
crifice of the passover of the Saviour of the world
.... ichom ice believe to be himself present in his stucra-
ments." Do you think, sir, that the Rector of Long
Newton ever delivered a discourse like this to any
he prepared for the sacrament? No; no more than he
did like those of St. Ambrose and St. Cyril. Such
language can no where be found but in the mouth of
a Catholic pastor.
IX. St. Gregory Nazianzen, addressing his neo-
phytes^ applies to the Eucharist the precepts of Mo-
ses on the celebration of the passover. uThelaw puts
a staff into your hand, that you may not stagger in
your soul, when you shall hear of the death of God.
Eat the body much more without any hesitation, and
drink the blood if you sigh after life. Never doubt of
what you hear concerning his flesh; be not scandalized
at his passion. Keep firm, aud resolved not to let
yourself be shaken by the discourse of your adversa-
ries, nor carried away by their efforts; with your foot
upon the rock, and your body resting on the column of
* In the system of a moral change, there is no living and ecclesias-
tical bread; it is only earthly, terrestial, and inanimate.
| Second Disc, on the Passover, Orat. 45.
J 56 ANSWER TO THE
temple, remain immoveable on the pinnacle which you
occupy." How strange must language like this sound
to the ear of Mr. Faber? What can these precautions
and admonitions signify? What hesitation or doubt
could arise from a figurative manducation? Is there
any thing to terrify the imagination in a moral change?
Or any room for fear at the sight of literal bread?
X. It would be too long to quote the catechetical
discourse composed by St. Gregory of Nyssa in forty
chapters for the instruction of his neophytes: I will
however present you with a few passages. "When
persons, who have taken poison, wish to destroy the
mortal violence of the poison by a remedy, which will
counteract it, this counter-poison must enter into their
bodies, as the poison did before it, that it may diffuse
and insinuate its virtue in all parts, where the venom
has penetrated. In like manner, after taking the fatal
poison of sin, which destroys our nature, it is absolute-
ly necessary for us to take a remedy to re-establish
what was corrupted and changed, that this powerful
antidote, being within us, may drive away and repair
by its contrary virtue, the evil which the poison caused
in our bodies by its malignity and contagion. But what
is this medicine? That body, which was shewn to be
more powerful than death, and was the beginning of
our life; and which could not otherwise enter into our
bodies than by eating and drinking."* The body
then which we eat is that which suffered death, and
triumphed over it by the resurrection. But would it
not suffice, according to St. Gregory of Nyssa, to eat
this divine body by faith? Judge for yourself from the
following words of that great prelate: "Now we must
consider, how it can be, that one body, which so con-
stantly, through the whole world, is distributed to so
many thousands of the faithful, can be whole in each
receiver, and itself remain whole." A question totally
• Orat. Catech. ch- 3T.
DIFFICULTIES OF ROMANISM. 157
absurd, if there were no mandueation but by faith.
Surely you have never either heard or read it in your
Church; and certainly it will never enter Mr. Faber's
mind to propose it to you. "The body of Christ, by
the inhabitation of the Word of God, was transmuted
into a divine dignity: and so I now believe, that the
bread, sanctified by the word of God, is transmuted
into the body of Christ. This bread, as the apostle
says, is sanctified by the Word of God and prayer, not
that, like food, it passes into his body, but that it is
instantly changed into the body of Christ, agreeably to
what he said, this is my body .... By the dispensation
of his grace; he enters, by his flesh, into the breasts of
the faithful, commixed and contempered with their
bodies, that by being united to that which is immortal,
man may partake of incorruption. This is the gift
whichvhe bestows upon us, when, by the virtue of
the benediction, he changes or transforms into his body
the nature of the visible species. Virtute benediclionis
in illud corpus transelementatd eorum quce apparent
natural These are expressions which would appear
to me very strong, if I beheld in the Eucharistic bread
nothing more than a simple transportation from the
kitchen to the Lord's table, and from the commonest
use, a religious change or emblem. In truth, Mr. Faber
must be greatly scandalized at the doctrine taught by
the ancient Fathers of the Church, to their neophytes;
or rather he ought to abandon his own and adopt theirs.
XI. Let him listen attentively with us to the instruc-
tions of St. Chrysostom: "The statutes of sovereigns
have often served as an asylum to men who took
refuge near them; not because they were made of
brass, but because they represented the figure of
princes. Thus the blood of the Lamb saved the Isra-
elites, not because it was blood; but because it pre-
figured the blood of our Saviour, and announced his
coming. Now therefore if the enemy perceived, not
the blood of the figurative Lamb marked upon our
14*
158 ANSWER TO THE
doors, but the blood of the truth shining in the moutlis
of the faithful, he would much more speedily depart
from them. For if the angel passed over at the sight
of the figure, how much more would the enemy be
terrified at the sight of the reality! .... Consider with
what food he nourishes and fills you: he himself is for
us the substance of this food."1' (Therefore the sub-
stance of bread is no longer there.) "He himself is
our nourishment. For as a tender mother moved by
natural affection, is eager to support her child with all
the abundance of her milk, so Jesus Christ feeds with
his own blood those whom he regenerates." Could the
real presence be described or rendered by any com-
parison more touching and energetic*
Let us then, in all things, obey God.f Let us not
contradict him, even when what he tells us appears
repugnant to our ideas, and to our sight. Let his word
be preferred before our eyes and our thoughts. Let
us apply this principle to the mysteries. Let us not
regard what is exposed to our sight, but rather his
word. For that is infallible, whereas our senses may
deceive us. Since then the word has said; this is my
body, let us obey, let us believe, and behold this body
with the eyes of the soul. For Jesus Christ has given
us nothing sensible; but under sensible things, objects
which are only discernible by the spirit. For if you
were without body, the gifts which he has given you
would have been simple; but because your soul is uni-
ted to a body; under sensible things, he presents you
such as are not sensible. How many persons are heard
to say: I would willingly behold his figure, his shape,
his attire! But thou seest him, thou touchest him, thou
receivest him info thy breast. Yet thou desirest to see
his garments. He gives himself to thee, not to be look-
* Horn, to the neophytes, and nearly the same in a homily on St.
John, in the 60th to the people of Antioch.
\ Horn. QOth, to the people of rfntioch.
DIFFICULTIES OF ROMANISM. 159
cd on only, but to be touched, to be eaten, to be ad-
mitted into thy breast ! . . . . The treason of Judas, the in-
gratitude of those who crucified him made the most
holy body of our Lord suffer death; and thou, dost
thou receive him with a soul impure and defiled, after
receiving from him so many favours? For not con-
tent with becoming man, with suffering ignominies, he
would also mingle himself and unite himself with thee,
so that thou mightest become one same body with him,
and not only by faith, but effectively and in reality."
Do you hear any thing like this, sir, in your churches?
Do your preachers use any such language? They tell
you that you receive Jesus Christ by faith only; and St.
Chrysostom teaches that we receive him not only by
faith, but in effect and reality. Listen yet farther, I pray
you, to the admirable orator of Antioch. "How pure then
ought he to be who partakes of such a sacrifice! Ought
not the hand dividing this flesh to be more resplendent
than any ray of the sun? The mouth which is filled
with this spiritual fire, and the tongue which reddens
with this most tremedous blood? Think by what an
honour thou art distinguished, at what kind of table
thou art made a partaker. What the angels tremble
to behold, and do not indeed dare freely to look upon
o n account of the splendour which blazes forth from it,
with this we are fed, to this ice are united, and are made
one body and one flesh of Christ. Who shall speak the
power of the Lord, and make all his praises heard?
What shepherd feeds his sheep with his own blood?
Shepherd do I say? There are even many mothers
who after the pains of child-birth, deliver their chil-
dren to other nurses. But this he would not permit;
hut feeds us himself with Ids own blood, and unites us
with himself in every thing."
"He who did these things at that time, at that sup-
per, is the same who performs them now. We hold the
places of his ministers, but it is He himself who sanc-
tifies and changes them." Here, sir, you recognise the
1G0 ANSWER TO THE
language of the catecheses, and the liturgies; these are
in the same terms the very mysteries which they con-
cealed from the uninitiated: therefore there were none
in the audience whom St. Chrysostom here addressed.
To what class of the faithful was he speaking ? Hear
what he says:
"I say these things to those, who communicate, and
to you, who minister And thou, O laic, when
thou beholdest the priest offering, do not consider the
priest doing this, but the hand of Christ invisibly ex-
tended. For he who has done more, that is, placed
himself upon the altar, will not disdain to present you
his body."
We have none of those dogmatical instructions ex-
tant, which undoubtedly St. Augustin gave to his neo-
phytes between their baptism and their communion; uin
order" says Hesychuis, uto make them sensible of the
greatness of the gifts which God was about to bestow on
tltem, and preserve them from the ignorance of which
those are guilty, who partake of the body of Jesus
Christ without knowing that it is in truth the body of
Jesus Christ" We have several of his discourses to
the newly baptized, to whom lie explains the disposi-
tions, which they ought to bring to the holy table, the
moral significations or relations between bread and
wine, and the mystical body of our Lord. Sometimes
however he introduces the Eucharistic dogmas; and
among others, in the following passage: "J engaged to
deliver a discourse to you who have been baptized, to
explain to you the sacrament of the altar, which you
now behold, and of .which you have been partakers this
last night. You ought to understand what you have
received; what you are about to receive; and what
you ought every day to receive. The bread, which
you behold on the altar, sanctified by the word of God,
is the body of Christ. That cup — that which the cup
contains, sanctified by the word of God, is the blood
of Christ." Here we have the doctrine of the real
DIFFICULTIES OF ROMANISM. 161
presence, which St. Augustin recalls to the minds of the
neophytes, who must already have known it, because
they had communicated on the preceding night.
XII. The quotations you have read, though by no
means numerous, will suffice. One thing appears to
me absolutely incontestable: — in the primitive age there
were no churches without catechumens, and conse-
quently none without catechistical instructions. It was
necessary to teach the religion to those adults, who sig-
nified a wish to embrace it. They could not be admit-
ted to baptism and the other sacraments, until they had
been duly instructed in their greatness and importance.
It was therefore necessary to make them pass through
a course of preparatory proof, to be assured of their
progress, dispositions and piety, to make them sensible
of the necessity of grace, and describe its advantages,
previous to opening its channels in their favour. These
various instructions formed what we call catecheses. It
is clear that it could no more be permitted to commit
them to writing than the liturgies, as long as the disci-
pline of the secret was in vigour. Since both contained
the same doctrine and the same mysteries, the danger of
betraying them would have been the same, if by wri-
ting they had been exposed to the risk of falling into
the hands of infidels. Thus wTe see St. Cyril of Je-
rusalem take the precaution of placing at the begin-
ning of his catecheses an admonition of the most se-
rious character, and almost like that with which the
ancient author of the apostolic constitutions terminates
his liturgy and performance. We may therefore con-
sider it ascertain, that in ancient times all the churches
had their catecheses, which were learned and explain-
ed from memory, like the liturgies, and for the same
length of time. Of those written in the fifth century,
very few have come down to us. But by the small
number, which Providence has preserved for us, we
may fairly judge of all the rest; in the same manner as
we judge of the liturgies lost, by those still in our pos»-
Ig2 ANSWER TO THE
session. These, that remain agree with each other in
every thing essential, and must equally have resembled
those, which are unknown to us. For whatever was
the difference of language, expressions and ceremo-
nies of the various countries, they were every where
employed to arrive at one and the same end, the one
only sacrifice of the new law. This reasoning is of it-
self applicable to the catecheses, which having been
only used to explain the Christian doctrine, must ever
have traced out the same dogmas, the same precepts,
under whatever form, and in what language soever
they were expounded. The experience of our own
times will suffice to convince us of this. Collect any
number of Catholic catechisms, written in English or
Celtic, French, German, or Portuguese, Spanish,
Greek, or Latin, or any idiom spoken upon the globe:
compare them with each other, and you will find per-
fect uniformity in all dogmatical points. Then compare
them with the remains of antiquity; and you will find
them in perfect conformity in all the essential articles.
But to any man of learning it will be unquestionable
that the catecheses of S S. Cyril and Ambrose, the two
Gregories, S S. Gaudentius, Chrysostom and Augus-
tin, were the same in every thing essential, with all
that were known to the primitive Church. It is incon-
testable that the catecheses of the first three centuries
were in substance conformable to those of the fourth
and fifth, in whichwe read the same dogmas, the same
doctrine which we read in our own — the altar, sacri-
fice, presence of the victim, change of substance and
adoration. Therefore these dogmas were transmitted
to the Church by the apostles; and consequently they
were revealed by our Lord Jesus Christ. In a word,
all Catholic catechisms agree on the Eucharistic dogmas
with those of the fifth and sixth centuries. But these
latter necessarily agreed on the same points with the
catechisms of the first three centuries. Therefore ours
agree equally with them; and our doctrine on the Eu-
DIFFICULTIES OF ROMANISM. 163
charist is primitive and apostolical. Or again; since
the Rector is so fond of the syllogistic form — the cate-
cheses of the first three centuries certainly agreed with
those of the fourth and fifth on the subject of the Eu-
charist. But ours agree with these latter on this
subject. Therefore ours agree with the primitive cate-
cheses. The major and minor are incontestable, after
all that I have thus far written upon the Eucharist: and
the consequence results inevitably from the well-known
axiom: Quce sunt eadem uni tertio, sunt eadem inter se.
Therefore the argument is incontestable.
XIII. To the authority of the catecheses, and to
the arguments, which they had suggested to me, in my
Discussion Jlmicale, what reply does Mr. Faber make?
The same which he had made to me on the discipline
of the secret, and on the liturgies; little, or rather noth-
ing, that can deserve notice. I had asked, and I here
ask again, how the Church could have prescribed
such rigorous secrecy on a thing so simple as a figura-
tive manducation? I had asked, and I here repeat the
demand, how the Church, if she only admitted a moral
change in the bread and wine, came to invoke in her
liturgies the descent of the Holy Ghost upon the obla-
tions, "in order to change them and transform them into
the body and blood of Jesus Christ?*" How it was
that she commanded the faithful to adore Him in the
sacrament, particularly at the moment of the Holy
Communion? I had asked, and I now ask again, how
the Fathers, if they beheld nothing in the bread but
some type, or emblem, or sign of Jesus Christ absent,
could have said in their instructions to those newly
baptized, that what was bread before consecration,
became after it the body of Jesus Christ; that it was
to be received as such, whatever it might appear to
the senses; because it is just and reasonable to depend
on the word of the God-man, rather than on a judgment
founded on the testimony of the sight and taste? I
defied and I again defy any one to produce a single
164 ANSWER TO THE
dogmatical instruction from the first five centuries,
in which the catechist teaches the newly-baptized, that
after the consecration, the bread and wine remain
essentially what they were before; that the invocations
of the Holy Ghost have no other object but to obtain
a moral change of the bread and wine, and to transfer
them from common use to a religious destination; or
that bread and wine, which were figures of the body
and blood of Jesus Christ in the Old Testament, are
so in the same sense in the New; or that the body of
Jesus Christ, being in heaven, cannot be here below;
and that consequently the adoration paid to Jesus
Christ in his sacrament would be gross idolatry. To
all these demands, what has Mr. Faber replied? He
appears not even to have received them; he takes no
notice of them, but loses himself in conjectures quite
foreign to my queries. He endeavours to counter-
act the incontestable proofs of the secret, the litur-
gies and the catecheses, by certain testimonies from
the Fathers, which he might have multiplied without
any more advancing his cause, if he had been inclined
to draw from the source which I had myself pointed
out to him. These passages are for the most part,
taken from writings published against the Jews and
Pagans, or from homilies pronounced before the unini-
tiated. In such circumstances, the Fathers not being
allowed to express themselves clearly, considered the
eucharistic bread and wine in their relation to the
senses, and denominated them types, emblems, images,
allegories, figures, and sacraments, without adding that
these visible appearances covered the body and blood
of Jesus Christ; which would have been at once dis-
covering and betraying the secret*
•On this occasion the Rector does me the honour to express
himself as follows: "I have rarely met with a more singular ex-
periment upon the presumed obtuse intellect of a simple laic,
than this which has been adventured by the learned Bishop of
Aire. An acknowledged symbol or image of a thing, if we may
DIFFICULTIES OF ROMANISM. 165
XIV. I will afford you, sir, satisfactory proof of
what 1 advance, by giving you to understand more ex-
actly than Mr. Faber has done, the principal pas-
sages quoted by him. The two first which I shall
bring forward, are from St. Clement of Alexandria
and Theodoret, who both give us notice that they are
obliged to conceal their sentiments on the subject of
the mysteries. Since their pens were guided by this
principle, you will doubtless conceive, sir, that it
would be unreasonable to look in their writings, for a
clearness of expression on the eucharistic dogmas,
which they themselves inform us that they professedly
avoid.*
credit a very able divine of the Latin Church, may be at once both
a symbol of the thing in question, and yet the identical thing itself whick
it is employed to symbolize! pp. 131 and 132. To imagine, that a man
of the Bishop's superiour attainments could himself admit such a
tissue of rhetorical absurdities, .... is perfectly out of the ques-
tion." P. 134. Undoubtedly these are absurdities palpable
enough ; and such as I could not have imagined entering into any
man's head. The Rector would make it appear that he has seen
them in my book. I can assure you, on my side, that such are only
to be found in 77k Difficulties of Romanism. That Mr. Faber
should have been able to conceive them, and pursue them through
four consecutive pages of dulness, is a feat of strength, of which
I should not have imagined him capable, or a delirious illusion of
which I charitably lament to find him susceptible.
•Tertullian is of this number: I have quoted testimonies enough
from him on the secret of the eucharistic mysteries. St. Cyprian,
in the passage brought forward by Mr. Faber, says nothing more
than we ourselvcS would say. It is astonishing to see the Rector
claiming for his side St. Cyril of Jerusalem; such boldness is per-
fectly astounding. It is true, however, that at page 114 he quotes
those words of his which I reproached him with suppressing iu
the place, where candour and equity called upon him to bring
them forward. For the rest, he is satisfied at p. 114, that they
would appear indeed to establish transubstantiation. Having
said this, he quits the perplexing St. Cyril, and goes off to another
more accommodating.
15
166 ANSWER TO THE
ST. CLEMENT OF ALEXANDRIA.
XV. "I pass over several things, fearing to commit
to writing what I was afraid to say, and because I
fear that those who may read these writings, may
take my words in a wrong sense, and fall into error,
and I may be accused, according to the proverb, of
putting a sword into the hands of children for their
destruction There are certain things which the
Holy Scriptures will shew me, although they are not
openly expressed. There are others, upon which
they will insist. There are others in fine, which they
will only touch upon slightly: but they will endeavour
to speak them, while they conceal them, and to shew
them while they keep silence."*
What is most remarkable in the quotations here
opposed to us by Mr. Faber, is the rare and particular
candour, which has presided over their arrangement.
He presents them in a line, one immediately following
the other. It is true, the references at the end of each,
might sufficiently admonish the attentive and practised
reader. But the greater portion not being of this des-
cription, must imagine that the texts are connected,
and all come together in the originals. Yet this is by
no means the case. Between the first and second, I
reckon ten lines: between the second and third, fifty
pages; between the third and fourth, a page and a
half. Here then we have sentences detached from
their proper places, and artfully reported side by side;
so as to present a meaning sufficiently connected and
natural. What makes the allusion pass off still better
is that the sentences are found connected by the con-
junctive adverbs for or then, as if they were proof
or consequence of the preceding phrase. No doubt
you would have suppressed them. Mr. Faber has
* Strom, liber 1.
DIFFICULTIES OF ROMANISM. 167
judged it more useful to preserve them: his intention is
manifest. In the first text, he translates autem by
therefore; in the second, St. Clement says, "Nc quis
vero alienum existimet quod nos sanguinem Domini lac
allegoric^ dicamus, annonvinum quoque allegoric^ dici-
tur? Qui lavat inquit, in vino vestem suam, ct in san-
guine uvce vestimentum suum" (Gen. 49.) Mr. Faber
translates thus: "Nor let any one think that we speak
strangely, when we say, that milk is allegorically
called the blood of the Lord: for is not wine like-
wise allegorically called by the very same ap-
pellation?" p. 75. And I translate word for word as
follows: "But lest any one should think it strange that
we call the blood of the Lord allegorically milk, is it
not also allegorically called wine? 'Who washeth,'
it says, 'his robe in wine, and his garment in the blood
of the grape.' " Ask the Rector, if you please, why
he abruptly cuts the passage short, by retrenching the
proof from Genesis. I will give you the reason pre-
sently. "The scripture then," continues he fiercely,
as if these two passages followed each other connect-
edly, although they are fifty pages asunder! St. Cle-
ment proves by the text from Genesis that wine was
there a figure of the blood of Jesus Christ. Mr. Faber,
who, by the expression, "the scripture then," leaves
us to conclude that it was in the scripture, and
perhaps even in the New Testament, makes it appear
as if he did not see the text from Genesis. Let us
leave him to argue at his ease, with his suppressions
and conjunctions; and let us conclude from the very
passage objected by him that wine having been in the
Old Testament a figure of the blood of Jesus Christ,
was to become really his blood in the New Testament,
which has fulfilled and realized the figures of the Old.
You have seen Mr. Faber suppressing the text from
Genesis: now you shall see him making us some
amends by shewing in the fourth quotation that he
knows equally well how to add as well as suppress,
168 ANSWER TO THE
when it will serve his purpose, as in these words; "the
consecrated liquor therefore" consecrated, and therefore
are his own exclusively. He has not taken them from
St. Clement, but from his own head. I cannot help
observing that all this petty contrivance to adapt St.
Clement of Alexandria to his own ends, discovers a
deep fund of cunning in the author, which will cause
less surprise in England than elsewhere.
THEODORET.
XVI. In his first dialogue, he introduces Orthodoxus
expressing himself as follows: "Answer me, if you
please, in mystical and obscure words: for perhaps
there are persons, here who are not initiated in the mys-
teries. Eranistes: I shall understand you, and answer
you in the same vie\f ." And further on, the same
character says: "You have clearly proved what you
desired, though in mystical words."
The Rector of Long Newton seems never able to re-
present things as they really are; either he suppresses,
or he adds, or gives a sense to terms which they
cannot have. He has passed over in silence the above
extract from the first dialogue, and half of what you
shall now read from the second. — "Eranistes: Tell
me therefore; what do you call the gift that is afforded
before the priest's invocation? Orthodoxus: This must
not be said openly; for some may be present who are
not initiated. Eran: Answer then, in hidden terms.
Orth: We call it an aliment made of certain grains.
Eran: And how do you call the other symbol? Orth:
We give it a name that denotes a certain beverage.*
Eran: And after the consecration what are they called?
Orth. The body of Christ, and the blood of Christ.
* Do you remember, sir, that at p. 115 the Rector maintains, in
spite of what he quotes from St. Cyril, that the change of substance
had nothing to do in the mysteries: not even as the very smallest
and least important secret?"
DIFFICULTIES OF ROMANISM. 169
Eran: And you believe, that you partake of the body
and blood of Christ? Ortk. So I believe. Eran: As
the symbols then of the body and blood of Christ were
different before the consecration of the priest, and
after that consecration are changed; in the same man-
ner we (Eutychians) say that the body of Christ after
his ascension, was changed into the divine essence.
Orth: Thou art taken in thy own snare; for, after the
consecration, the mystical symbols lose not their proper
nature: they remain in the shape and form of the for-
mer substance, to be seen, and to be felt, as before; but
they are understood to be what they have [been made;
this they are believed to be; and as such they are
adored."* The reasoning of Orthodoxits is not that
■In this passage three small artifices are to be charged on Mr.
Faber. 1st, he carefully avoids quoting the words of the first dia-
logue, and those of the second, which shew the embarrassment of
Theodoret. and his fear of betraying the secret, as also the agree-
ment between the two speakers, to express themselves in hidden
term9. He lets no part of them appear; but begins his quotation
from the two final sentences. 2dly, he makes Theodoret say
that the bread and wine retain after consecration, their original
substance; page 140. Original is here unworthily substituted by
the candid and impartial bachelor of divinity. Theodoret says
former (toporipacr) ; a decisive Word, which evidently supposes
that a second substance has taken the place of the first, and thus
authorises the more intelligible translation which I have given, and
of which the Greek text is perfectly susceptible. 3dly, instead of
as such they are adored, the bachelor translates, venerated; without
considering that the liturgies, St. Ambrose, St. Augustin, Sac. tell
us that after the consecration, they paid the supreme adoration of
lalria, and therefore adored in the full energy of the word. And
what did they adore? Certainly not the visible species, nor the
substance of bread; but the body of Jesus Christ concealed under
the visible qualities of bread.
It is amusing enough to compare in this place Mr. Faber and
Dr. Cosin. We cannot but admire the dexterity of both. Dr.
Cosin more ready in expedients, suppresses without ceremony the
words, as such they are adored: but Mr. Faber more considerate,
instead of the word which annoys him, puts another which quite
alters the sense. On which I have but one simple question to put
to you; which of these two worthies appears to you to exhibit the
greater candour and good faith?
15*
170 ANSWER TO THE
attributed to him by the Rector. Thou art taken,
says he, in thy own snare: there is certainly a change
in the bread, but not in its sensible and outward nature:
for it retains its figure, its form, colour, taste, and all
the qualities of its former substance (tfporspas.) Yet
we conceive it to have become what it is made, the
body of Jesus Christ, of which I told thee that we par-
take, and which consequently is essentially there pre-
sent: we believe it to be there present, though invisible,
and as such we adore it. This answer demolishes
Eutychianism triumphantly. It shews that the bread
is changed, not into the divinity, as Eranistes imagined;
but from its corporeal substance into the substance of
the body of Jesus Christ: in a word, both interlocutors
admitted a real change in the Eucharist; Orthodoxies,
that of bread into the body of Jesus Christ, since oth-
erwise he could not have partaken of that body in the
sacrament; Eranistes, that of bread into the divinity,
because as an Eutychian he acknowledged that only
in Jesus Christ, since his human nature had been ab-
sorbed by his divine nature after his ascension.
I allow, without difficulty, Orthodoxies and Eranis-
tes mutually kept their agreement. They had engaged
to make use of obscure expressions, and such their
expressions are at first sight. But with some atten -
tion, those who are initiated into the mysteries, as
they both were, can penetrate the hidden sense of their
dialogues. Mr. Faber, who is not thus initiated, has
read all, heard all, and understood all in a wrong
sense; like those who obstinately remained among the
catechumens, who neither knew the motives, nor the
objects of the discipline of the secret, and who in con-
sequence had never assisted at the liturgy, nor the mys-
tagogic catecheses, nor at the sermons delivered be-
fore the faithful exclusively.
Besides, the metaphysics of former days had a lan-
guage now no longer in use. For example, they at-
tach to the words natura, substantia, stfia, <pu<f»s, a dif-
DIFFICULTIES OF ROMANISM. 171
ferent sense from what we give to substance and iia-
ture. St. Peter Chrysologus, speaking of a body be-
coming glorious, says: ut hoc sic mutassc substanliam,
no)i mutdsse personam; and St. Augustin alluding to
the fall of man, says: per iniquitatem homo lapsus est a
substantia in qua factus est. We might further quote
Aristotle on the word substance, as for the word nature;
also Cicero, Virgil and Horace, who often use it for
the qualities and properties of beings. -'Substance"
says Tertullian, "is one thing, the nature of substance
is another. Stone andiron are substances, their hard-
ness is the nature of their substance: aliud est substantia,
aliud natvra substantia. Substantia est lapis, ferritin;
duritia lapidis ct Jerri natura substantia." (Lib. de
anima, c. 32.) Mr. Faber presents these words to his
readers in their modern signification. But, if you
please, let us appeal to the judgment of the celebrated
Leibnitz. "Gelasius, the Roman pontiff, gives us to
understand that the bread is changed into the body of
Christ, whilst the nature of the bread remains; he
means its qualities or accidents. For in those days
they did not express themselves with perfect preci-
sion and metaphysical accuracy. In the same sense
Theoderet says, that in this change, which he calls
fxeraboXr], the mystic symbols are not deprived of their
proper nature." (Sys. Theol. p. 227.) The Orthodox-
ies of Theodoret explains himself in the same terms:
"The bread and wine lose not their proper nature;
they retain their form, figure, and visible and palpable
qualities." The explanation of the word nature once
admitted, all difficulty vanishes in the passages from
Gelasius and Theodorus quoted by the Rector. There
only remains that kind of mysterious cloud thrown in-
tentionally, and by mutual consent, between Orthodox-
us and Eranistes. Far from being surprised at meet-
ing with this slight obscurity; it would be surprising in-
deed if it were not met with, after they had given no-
tice that they should thus obscure their discourse, in
172 ANSWER TO THE
order to conceal their mysteries from the uninitiated.
What appears to me here exceedingly unreasonable,
and I may even say absurd, is to pretend in our days
to discover clearly the doctrine of an author by those
dialogues, in which he has forewarned us that he could
only declare it under hidden terms.
ST. CHRYSOSTOM AND ST. AUGUSTIN.
XVII. These, as Casaubon acknowledges, have
more than forty times declared their embarrassment
in explaining the Eucharist in presence of the uniniti-
ated. Every time that they spoke to the faithful alone,
they expressed themselves with energy in the Catholic
sense. After what I reported in my Discussion Ami-
cule from these two great prelates, I should not have
expected to find them among the authorities opposed to
me by Mr. Faber. I cannot conceive that he could
persuade himself that they were not both against him;
since to give them an Anglican appearance, he has
been obliged to mutilate quotations, suppress phrases
before and after, and mangle the passages unmerciful-
ly. I am aware that I here bring against him a seri-
ous charge: but it is one most easy to establish. I
have only to restore the mutilated passages to their
integrity.
At page 76 Mr. Faber quotes a passage from the
discourse of St. Chrysostom on the treason of Judas;
and like myself he read in the same discourse the fol-
lowing words, which he has carefully withheld from
his readers; "When I hear the body of Jesus Christ
mentioned, I understand what is said in one way, and
the infidel in another Although these unbeliev-
ers hear it spoken of, it does not seem as if they heard
it. But the faithful possess the intelligence given by
the Holy Ghost, and know the virtue and the power of
the tilings there concealed He that was present at
the last supper, is the same that is now present and
DIFFICULTIES OF ROMANISM. 173
consecrates our feast. For it is not man who makes
the things lying on the altar become the body and blood
of Christ; but that Christ who was crucified for us.
.... He said: This is my body: these words make the
change." We find the same train of thought in his
83d homily on St. Matthew, aWe behold the order
of ministers; but the sanctifier and changer of them is
himself."* Would Mr. Faber tell us that this change
is no more than a moral change? Would the inter-
vention of Jesus Christ be necessary to operate a
mere moral change? Would not the power of his
ministers suffice to give a pious destination to bread
and wine? Does not Mr. Faber do this by himself
when he administers the sacrament to his parishioners?
But is not his moral change incompatible again with
the following passages?
"Consider, O man? the royal table is spread. The
angels serve it: the King himself is there present: and
dost thou remain in stupid indifference! Thy gar-
ments are defiled, and thou dost not grieve! But they
are pure, you will say. Then adore and communicate:"
(Horn. 45.) "This body lying in the manger, the wise
men reverenced They came from distant lands,
and adored Him with great fear and trembling
Thou dost not see him in the manger, but on the altar.
.... Let us then shew him a veneration far above
that of those barbarians." (Horn. 24.) "Go then to
Bethlehem, to the house of spiritual bread .... pro-
* I really pity your Bachelor of Divinity when I find him pick-
ing out these words; "for the Eucharist is a spiritual food," in order
to turn St. Chrysostom against us, and against himself. Why did
he not also .select the following: "Go then to Bethlehem, to the
house of spiritual bread?" These expressions are quite Catholic;
we make use of them every day, and in the mouth of St. Chrysos-
tom they have the same sense as in ours: they mean that the spiri-
tualized body of our Saviour is communicated to us to be the nou-
rishment, not of our bodies, but of our souls, ut anima it Deo sagi-
netur, says Tertullian. Therefore this nourishment is a spiritual
food.
174 ANSWER TO THE
vided however that you approach to adore, and not to
trample under foot the Son of God take care not
to resemble Herod, and say like him, "tliat I also may
go and adore Him; and go not to put him to death
"Let us tremble to appear as supplicants and adorers,
and yet to shew ourselves the contrary by our works."
(Horn. 7 on St. Matt.) I content myself with quoting
these few passages, because they can leave no doubt
in any impartial mind on the sentiments of St. Chrysos-
tom, and of the Church. The adoration alone, so for-
cibly required by the eloquent patriarch, utterly de-
molishes the opinion of a figurative presence, or a moral
change; demonstrates the doctrine of the real presence,
and by a further consequence, that of transubstan-
tiation.
XVIII. I am perfectly astonished at the intrepidity
of Mr. Faber. He brings against me one of the dis-
courses of St. Augustin, which I quoted in proof of our
doctrines. And how does he set about it? Still by
the help of the same stratagem, which assuredly he
would find most disreputable in any other. He selects
two or three passages, and exhibits them detached
from those which precede and follow. United in
their proper order, they exclude the actual doctrine
of the Church of England; separately, they might ap-
pear to favour it. Let us place the passages together,
and the illusion produced by their insulated appear-
ance, will at once vanish. You have seen the same
thing in St. Cyril of Jerusalem, and St. Chrysostom;
you shall now witness it in St. Augustin. uBut how
adore the earth, when the Scripture says positively,
the Lord thy God shalt thou adore? and yet it says
here, adore his footstool?* But in explaining to me
what his footstool is, he says: the earth is my footstooV
(Isaias lxvi. v. 1.) "I hesitate in uncertainty; I fear to
adore the earth, lest I find myself condemned by Him
• In Psalm xcviii.
DIFFICULTIES OF ROMANISM. 175
who created the earth and the heavens. On the
other hand, I fear, if I do not adore the footstool of my
God, because the psalm says to me, adore his footstool-
.... In this perplexity, I turn towards Christ, be-
cause it is He whom I seek here, and I find in what
manner the earth is adored without impiety, and how
his footstool is adored without impiety. For he took
upon him earth from the earth; because flesh is from
the earth, and he took flesh from the flesh of Mary:
and because he here walked in this flesh, even this
same flesh he gave to us to eat for our salvation;
but no one eateth this flesh, without having first ador-
ed it. By this we discover how the footstool of
the Lord is adored; and not only we do not sin by
adoring, but we even sin by not adoring it. But
is it the flesh that quickeneth? The Lord even, in
exalting this earth to us, informs us, that it is the spirit
that quickeiieth, and that the flesh prqfitcth nothing.
Wherefore in abasing yourself and in casting yourself
down before any earth, consider it not as earth, but
consider in it that Holy One, of whom what you adore,
is the footstool. For it is for his sake that you adore it.
.... The disciples thought it very hard to hear him
say; unless you eat my flesh you shall not have eternal
life; they understood it stupidly, and conceived it car-
nally, imagining that he was going to cut off pieces of
his body, and give to them : . . . . but our Saviour in-
structed his apostles; (here begi?is Mr. Faber^s quota-
tion) the words that I have spoken to you are spirit and
life. Understand spiritually what I have saicL It is
not this body which you see, that you will eat; nor that
blood which they will shed, who will crucify me, that
you will drink. I have commended to you a certain
sacrament; spiritually understood it will give you life:
though it must be celebrated visibly, it must be con-
ceived of as invisible. Exalt ye the Lord our God,
and adore his footstool for it is holy?'' Mr. Faber has
thought it prudent to quote no more than the six or
176 ANSWER TO THE
eight last lines of the text:* they serve as a commenta-
ry on the words which our Saviour had just spoken to
his apostles. After the example of St. Augustin, I
will give a commentary, but a very short one upon the
same words. The flesh profiteth nothing, it is the spi-
rit which quickeneth. Understand spiritually what I
say to you. It is not this body, such as you see it,
that you shall eat; you feel shocked at the idea: but
this body such as you do not see it. It shall be pre-
sented to you under a certain sacrament, which I have
in view. Thus you shall eat it: and without that, you
shall not have eternal life in you. Taken invisibly in
a visible sacrament, it shall be to your souls a spiritu-
al food, which you shall not take without having first
adored it.
XIX. The modern Church of England man no longer
acknowledges the body of Jesus Christ in the sacra-
ment: therefore he no longer receives it there. For
eating in imagination, in figure, in empty shadow, is
after all, not eating. Hence he has suppressed the
adoration. Where nothing is seen but material bread,
to adore would be to commit idolatry. The Catholic
confiding more in Jesus Christ, than in himself, be-
lieves in the word of his Saviour without hesitation,
and in his invisible presence without comprehending it;
he adores him veiled beneath the appearance of bread,
receives and eats his body in reality; certainly not in
a raw and Caphamite manner, but heavenly and spiri-
tual. For there is no other way of eating a body im-
palpable, invisible and spiritualized.
XX. Mr. Faber would not fail to cry victory, if I
were not to answer the objection suggested to him by
the silence of Julian. As a last resource in a despe-
•I must observe that in the translation, these words, as if he
had taid — identical, twice — on the contrary — do not belong to St.
Augustin, but to the inventive and fertile Bachelor of Divinity.
They add to the text without any way increasing the difficulty.
This is becoming an unfaithful translator to no earthly purpoie.
DIFFICULTIES OF ROMANISM. 177
rate cause, he calls to his aid that famous renegade
uas an unexceptionable witness.'''' Proud of the impe-
rial majesty on which he leans, he comes to us with
the air and tone of triumph. Would not any one sup-
pose that he had in his possession the grand work ot
that emperor against the Christian religion, and in de-
fence of paganism? Would not any one say that he had
read it from beginning to end, when he is heard assert-
ing in such an affirmative tone that Julian has not said
a word about the real presence, and the change of sub-
stance? Well sir, would you wish to know how much
truth there is in this boasted objection? The truth is,
that neither the Rector of Long Newton, nor any one
in the world possesses, or has read the work, in which
he has thus blindly placed his confidence. It \
composed by Julian and the philosophers who follow-
ed him into Persia, in that expedition, which put an
end to his projects, his reign and his life. Some have
conjectured that it was divided into seven books,
others, into three. We know no more of it now than
those quotations from the first book, for which we are
indebted to the refutation of them written by St. Cyril,
of Alexandria, fifty years after the death of the apos-
tate* It may be easily supposed that the author had
* "Fifty years after the chath of the renegado, St. Cyril replied
to a work, which Julian wrote in three books against the Christian
religion, of which the saint has preserved the first .... We have
no more of the work of Julian against the Christians, than what
St. Cyril has quoted in order to refute it." Titlcmont Hist, des
Emp.
"During this journey into Persia, Julian wrote his grand work
against the Christian religion . . . . It was divided into seven books,
or according to others, into three. . • . St. Cyril has preserved a
great part of it, inserted in the reply which he afterwards made to
it." Fleury Hist. Eccl. T. 4. "Julian died before there was tinu-
to reply to his sophistry. . . . Nothing would have been left us of
them, if St. Cyril of Alexandria, having undertaken to refute
them fifty years afterwards, had not thus preserved a consider-
able portion." Le Beau Hist, du bos Emp. T. 3. "Julian wrote
an elaborate work against the truth of Christianity: of which
16
178 ANSWER TO THE
deferred speaking of the Eucharist till the second or
third book; and then of course it would be no wonder
to find nothing of it in the first. But farther: if it be
insisted that he ought to have spoken of it in the first
book; he may still have done so; and no one can now
prove that he did not. All we know of his book is
from its refutation; and we are very much inclined to
think that St. Cyril would take great care not to give
greater publicity to the raillery of Julian against the
Holy Eucharist. How indeed could he have reported
them, or could he have defended our dogmas, without
attracting the notice and attention of the pagans to our
mysteries, and by such indiscretion injured the disci-
pline of the secret, as well as the precept of our divine
Legislator? This is not merely a conjecture thrown out
at hazard: it comes from Julian himself; hear what he
says about baptism: "But. this grave philosopher affects
to laugh at what ought rather to be to him a source of
self-congratulation: he is utterly ignorant of the effi-
cacy of the sacred water of baptism; he is pleased to
ridicule what is the most holy thing in the world; and
congratulate those who having believed in Jesus
Christ, have had the happiness to find a miraculous
water, which removes every stain, and has cleansed
them from head to foot. He adds other insipid jokesy
and old nurses'1 tales; and he says afterwards that this
lustral water is without power, or virtue against bodily
diseases. But know, O wise and illustrious teacher!
that we do not apply the virtue of baptism to the cure
some fragments only have come to modern times." Recs' Cyclope-
dia. Art. Julian.
"The elaborate work, which he composed amidst the prepara-
tions of the Persian war, contained the substance of those argu-
ments, which he had long revolved in his mind. Some fragments
have been transcribed and preserved, by his adversary, the vehe-
ment Cyril of Alexandria; and they exhibit a very singular mix-
ture of wit and learning, of sophistry and fanaticism." Gibbon's
Decline and Fall, chap, xxiii. Fabricius and Lardner have com-
piled fragments extant of Julian.
DIFFICULTIES OF ROMANISM. 179
of the body, nor to things perceptible by the senses.
The mystery of Christ requires an intelligence, of
which those are not susceptible, who are plunged in
errors. It is faith, which opens to us the entrance and
knowledge of the divine mystery. Lut in the fear of
offending Jesvs Christ, who forbids us to give that
which is holy to dogs, and cast pearls before swine,
by presenting to profane ears wliat ouglti to remain
hidden, I shall pass over all that requires a high and
sublime intelligence." And after touching upon some-
thing of the power and miracles of our Saviour, he
adds: "I could say much more, and should have very
certain proofs to produce; if I were not apprehensive
of exposing myself to profane ears. For people gen-
erally deride what they do not understand; and the
ignorant, not even perceiving the weakness of their
minds, despise what they ought most to admire."
You see then, sir, that St. Cyril does not inform you
of all that Julian had written against baptism. His
replies are fully sufficient to refute the feeble objec-
tions, which he reports. There must have been others,
which he deemed it more prudent to pass over than to
publish. He clearly alludes to them when he talks of
the "insipid jokes, and old nurses' tales," which he
passes over for fear of infringing the law of secrecy.
We know nothing of these; we should not even suspect
their existence, if St. Cyril had not made the observa-
tions, which you have just read. Are we then to con-
clude, because he is silent upon the Eucharist, that
Julian had not turned its dogmas into ridicule? No,
sir, the silence of that great patriarch is no proof that
the emperor had been silent. If the Christian apolo-
gist considered himself obliged to be so reserved on
the subject of baptism, how much more ought he to
have thought himself so bound on the dogmas of the
Eucharist, the sublimity of which wrould have been
much more open to the derision of the profane! Be-
sides, what passed at the altar in the assemblies of the
180 ANSWER TO THE
Christians, was, as you know, what the pagans most
eagerly sought to discover, and even to extort by pun-
ishments; and it was also what the faithful concealed
with the greatest care, perseverance and intrepidity,
even under the most cruel sufferings: you have seen
this abundantly proved.
I am tempted to retort the Rector's argument upon
himself. It is a fact that Julian says nothing of the
resurrection of Jesus Christ. Certainly, I may as
justly say to him, this lover of derision would not have
denied himself the gratification of turning that into
ridicule, if the Christians in his time had believed in
it. What reply would the bachelor of divinity make?
That no doubt he had amused himself in so doing at
the expense of the credulous Christians, in one or
other of the two books, which have never come down
to us. Let him not then take it amiss, that I give him
a similar answer on the Eucharist. When I hear Mr.
Faber so loudly extol the pretended silence of Julian;
when I hear him conclude his redoubtable argument in
these words, page 121 — "I may be mistaken in esti-
mating the strength of this argument; but it strikes
upon my own apprehension, as being perfectly irresis-
tible." I must say that one thing only astonishes me;
the assurance to which he abandons himself in termi-
nating his episode. I am of opinion that it will give
you little confidence in Mr. Faber's judgment.
XXI. I believe I have now sufficiently replied to the
quotations on the Eucharist, scattered up and down in
the Difficulties of Romanism. Mr. Faber might have
increased the list, by consulting the Perpctuite de la
Foi.* I contented myself with referring to that work
in my Discussion ,/)micale: and indeed to what purpose
should I have accumulated them? And what will it
avail Mr. Faber to make a lengthened display of them?
* The celebrated work of two of the ablest French controvert-
ists; always excepting him, to whom none can be compared, the
most brilliant genius that has appeared in the Church, Bossuet.
DIFFICULTIES OF ROMANISM. 181
Tliey arc taken from writings made for the public, or
discourses preached before the uninitiated, to whom
the Fathers addressed themselves more frequently
than to the faithful alone. Thus the obligation of con-
cealing the mysteries was more frequent than that of
manifesting them. Candour and good faith therefore
would direct us to put aside those texts, which present
intentional obscurity. But in place of these texts and
incidental expressions, let one single catechesis be final-
ly produced against us. Then the objection would
have some weight. For every one knows and acknow-
ledges that instructions must have been clear and ex-
plicit, which were made to the newly baptized, on the
subject of the sacrament of the altar, which they
were about to receive. There, and there only, will at
any time be found without obscurity, and treated ex
professo the true doctrine of the Fathers on the Eucha-
rist. Let only one of these catecheses be produced,
where the neophytes are instructed to see nothing in
the offerings after consecration, but mere signs, simple
types and figures of Jesus Christ absent, as Mr. Faber
affirms, without being able to give any proof of it;* let
such a document be produced, and then we shall have
really to solve a serious difficulty. But to go in search
of the real sentiments and belief of the Fathers in dis-
courses and writings where they could not disclose
them, where they themselves apprize us of their diffi-
culty in expressing themselves, this I must denounce aa
♦After saying at page 129 that I copiously adduce passages on
the change of the elements into the body and blood of Christ, the
Rector reproachfully adds, that I say nothing of those, "in which
tliis change is declared to be purely moral, in which the elements
are pronounced to be mere symbols," though these passages "fulry
explain all passages of the former description." My reply is sim-
ple enough. 1 have not indeed cited a single passage which de-
clares, that there is nothing effected but a moral change, that the
emblems are mere symbols or emblems: for in truth I know of no
such passages, and the Rector knows none either. He produce*
none, and will never be able to bring forward any such passage.
16*
192 ANSWER TO THE
a proceeding analogical, unreasonable and absurd.
That it should be pursued without reflection, and by
mere routine, as your divines have formed a habit of
doing since 1662, I can conceive: but that, after hav-
ing been admonished by a series of convincing proofs,
they should still obstinately pursue the same method,
and point it out to others as the true one, is assuredly
preferring error to truth, and being disposed to go
wilfully astray, and draw others into their own aber-
rations.
XXII. I beseech you, sir, to consider seriously the
method adopted by Mr. Father, and the consequences
resulting from it. To the instructions exposed with
the greatest clearness in the catecheses on the real pre-
sence, change of substance and adoration, what an-
swer does he give? The same as to our arguments
from the discipline of the secret, and from the liturgies.
He does not enter straight forward upon the discus-
sion: he bewilders his reader, and leads him out of the
way by irrelevant quotations; he opposes his quotations
to mine, and pretends that his own sufficiently explain
those, which I had previously cited against him* Your
dogmas, says he, could not have been either the ob-
ject of the secret , or the doctrine of the liturgies and
catecheses, if it be true that they were unknown to the
primitive Church. And it is precisely from the secret,
the liturgies, and the catecheses, that irrefragable
proofs crowd upon us, of the universality and apostol-
icity of our dogmas. But he, being unable to refute,
and unwilling to admit them, turns away his eyes, goes
out of the straight path, and imagines that he shall de-
stroy them, or at least counterpoise them, by shewing
what we do not dispute, that the Fathers in several
places have designated the offerings even after conse-
cration by the words, bread, wine, sign, sacrament,
type, emblem, figure and memorial; that they have
* Passages of this latter description, .... fully explain all pas-
sages of the former description, &c. p. 130.
DIFFICULTIES OF ROMANISM. 183
spoken of them as spiritual aliments, and beverage,
and mentioned mandueation with faith and by faith.
These expressions prove nothing against our belief,
since we often use them ourselves.* They were the
more familiar to the Fathers of the Church, as, with-
out injury to their faith, they happily promoted their
views, by designating the mystery by its external ap-
pearance only. The uninitiated conceived no idea be-
yond; while the faithful easily penetrated the veil, and
from the sensible appearance, were led to the reality,
which does not appear.
For the rest, sir, if you will be at the pains of ex-
amining, you will find that these expressions chiefly
belong, as I must once more observe, to those writings
which the Fathers gave to the public, and the dis--
courses which they pronounced before the uninitiated.
In seeking the true sense of the catecheses in writings
of this kind, Mr. Faber must suppose that the Fathers
expressed themselves more openly on the Eucharist
before the catechumens, Jews and Pagans, than before
the newly-baptized at the moment of their first com-
munion! According to him then, the Church must
* We say, the sacrament of the Eucharist; we say the type, the sign,
but the visible sign of the invisible body is understood: in the canon
of the mass, and even after the consecration, we say: panem sanc-
tum vitcc a:tern<x et caliccm salutis pcrpetuce: before receiving the pre-
cious blood, the priest says: calicem salutaris accipiam ; we sing panls
angelicusfit panis hominum; dot paais adieus figuris tcrminum: we
oppose to the idea of the Capharnaites a spiritual mandueation.
It is done w*ith us by faith; with you, not at all. For what great
act of faith must be made, I pray you, to remember Jesus Christ
at the sight of bread and wine placed on the communion table in
memory of his death? Much the same as we make to remind us
of the Blessed Virgin, his mother, when we hear the Angelus-bell
ring. But we must have a lively and firm faith in the word of our
Saviour, to believe him present under the outward species, net-
withstanding all that is suggested by taste, colour, and smell. This
is so true, that the Sacramentarians rejected our doctrine, because
they could not bring themselves to make such an act of faith, and
they oppose incessantly the authority of the senses, to our confi-
dence in the word of Jesus Christ.
184 ANSWER TO THE
have prcscibed greater reserve before the latter, and
kept her most intimate confidence for the former! But
she orderd precisely the contrary; you have seen it al-
ready demonstrated. It is therefore evidently false rea-
soning to wish with the reverend Bachelor to interpret
the doctrine which was of necessity to be exposed as
clearly as possible to the neophytes, by that which
was as necessarily to be concealed before unbelievers;
to explain what must have been manifest, by what
must have been intentionally hidden; that is, what is
clear, by what is obscure — light, by shade. This is a
first consequence of the method which I oppose.
XXIII. In the second place, admit for one moment
the principles and argumentation of Mr. Faber, and
you will be forced to conclude that the primitive
Church never knew any uniformity in her doctrine; that
she at this day presents nothing but a discordant scene
of opposite and contradictory opinions, a succession of
bishops in intestine war about doctrines, teaching pro
and contra, some the real presence and transubstan-
tiation, others a figurative presence, a real absence, a
moral change, the bread and wine retaining their own
substance with their sensible qualities, and only pas-
sing from ordinary use to a religious distinction. Among
the latter you must enumerate, if you believe Mr.
Faber, St. Clement of Alexandria, Tertullian, St. Cy-
prian, &c. while among the former we cannot but
reckon St. Ignatius of Antioch, St. Cyril of Jerusalem,
S S. Ephrem, Ambrose, Zeno, Gaudentius of Brescia,
&c. whose testimonies we have seen, leaving not a
shadow of doubt on the Catholic belief. This is a
second consequence.
XXIV. Thirdly, not only will the Fathers be found
in contradiction with each other, but even contradic-
tory to themselves. For example: according to Mr.
Faber, page 68, there is nothingp/w/sicaiinthe change
of the bread and wine spoken of by St. Cyril of Jeru-
salem, (Catech. Myst. 4) every thing there is moral;
DIFFICULTIES OF ROMANISM. 185
and consequently it proves neither the real presence of
Jesus Christ in the sacrament, nor a chan§ e of substance.
But St. Cyril, who apparently knew what he was a
ing, explains himself in these words in the same cate-
chetical instruction: uBelieve thai what appears to yon
bread, is not bread, but the body of Christ, although
the taste judges it to be bread; and that tiie wine whieh
you see, and which Ins the taste of wine, is not wine,
but the blood of Christ.'5 According to Mr. Faber,
St. Chrysostom acknowledges no more than a moral
change in the Eucharist, because he calls it spiritual
food, which after all is quite a Catholic expression; but
besides that in the same homily on the treason of Judas,
and in a hundred other places, several of which 1 have
already quoted, he clearly establishes our doctrines, it
will suffice to inform you in this place that he is con-
sidered among the learned as having been raised up by
the Almighty to exalt and extol in the Church the gran-
deur and sanctity of the Holy Eucharist. None ever
discoursed upon it with so much pomp and eloquence as
this great patriarch. If we are to believe Mr. Faber,
St. Augustin teaches simply a moral change in the
Eucharist, when he declares that the words of Jesus
Christ to bis disciples are to be understood spiritually.
But if we must attach the sense of Mr. Faber to this
expression, St. Augustin contradicts what he had just
established a little earlier in the very same discourse.
For he had just been proving that we not only may adore
Jesus Christ, when we receive him in the Eucharist,
but even that we should sin if we did not there adore
him. Here then we should have the real presence
demonstrated by the adoration, and rejected a few lines
farther on by the assertion of a simple moral change!
The same reasoning must be applied to Theodoret.
Indeed it is impossible for the Fathers to escape the
charge of self-contradiction, if you adopt the method of
Mr. Faber. On the contrary, that which we have de-
duced from the secret, the liturgies and the catceheses
186 ANSWER TO THE
Bare them from all contradiction with each other
and with themselves. They uniformly express them-
selves as they ought; openly, when they could; ob-
scurely, when they found it necessary; clearly, before
the faithful, dogmatically explicit before the newly-
baptized; but reservedly and in hidden terms before
the unbelievers. The error of Mr. Faber and all
the sacramentarians, is in looking for the doctrine
of the Fathers where it was necessarily involved in
obscure terms; instead of seeking it where it ought in-
dispensably to have been explicit.*
XXV. Fourthly, it is highly important to observe,
that Mr. Fabcr's method would convict the Fathers of
farther and still more fatal contradiction. Opposed to
each other, and at variance with themselves in their
instructions, they would have been still more so in their
conduct; their teaching would have condemned their
practice, and the doctrine which they taught in the pul-
pit, must have destroyed that which they professed at
the altar. Those apostolic men, those pious and learn-
ed bishops celebrated the divine mysteries as often as
circumstances permitted, at the head of their flocks.
There united in profound recollection, pastors and
people humbled before the majesty of God, addressed
to heaven prayers animated with the fire of charity.
There when profound silence announced the approach
* The Rev. Bachelor, at page 135, makes me say that on the one
hand, the Fathers communicated to the mystic the grand secret of
transubstantiation, while on the other, they declared to the unin-
itiated that the elements of bread and wine were only types, vr
figures, or representations of the body and blood of Christ. "By
this contrivance,'" he adds, '* and at no greater expense than that of
a direct falsehood, every thing continued as it ought to be." Now
here is a twofold und gross falsehood. It exists in the word only,
which he palms upon us, but which never came from the mouths of
the Fathers, nor from mine, when speaking of the sacrifice of the
new law. Take away this only, as truth, honour and good faith
demand and then are we all absolved — the Fathers and myself,
from falsehood, and Mr. Faber from imposition.
DIFFICULTIES OF ROMANISM. 187
of the holy sacrifice, the celebrant offered to heaven
those sublime prayers, in which he invoked the descent
of the Holy Ghost upon the offerings, that he would
come to change and transform by his omnipotence the
bread and wine into the body and blood of Jesus Christ
There before communion, each one made aloud a
fervent profession of faith in the presence of our Saviour
by the change of substance. There in fine, advancing
in turns towards the holy table, bowing down in silent
adoration, they received with love and trembling the
body of our divine Saviour veiled beneath the species.
These things, sir, you have seen in the ancient liturgies
of all the Christian churches. The Rev. Bachelor
must have read them. Finding it impossible to answer
them, he has turned away from them in sorrow. I do
not blame him for his silence, for neither he, nor any
one else wilfever obscure the unalterable splendour of
the liturgies. What I blame in him, is his not having
the candour and courage to acknowledge it and sur-
render himself to it; I blame him for having persisted
in his method, for continuing to suppose the Fathers
of the primitive Church contradictory to themselves in
instruction and practice; disclosing the mystery with-
out disguise to the uninitiated, and concealing it from
the neophytes; teaching the nations that in the new law
as in the old, the bread and wine are only signs and
figures of Jesus Christ absent, and at the same time
inviting the faithful by their example to adore Jesus
Christ as present under those signs, emblems and
figures. I accuse him in fine, of supposing the Fath-
ers to have been alternately Sacramentnrians in theory
and Catholics in the sacred functions of the priesthood;
advocates of a moral change in their writings and
sermons, after having shewn themselves at the altar
intimately persuaded of a change of substance; de-
claiming out of doors against the idolatry of paganism,
and in their secret assemblies erecting a new system
of idolatry for the faithful, and obliging them by their
138 ANSWER TO THE
own example to -prostitute their vows and adoration to
mere material substances.
XXVI. I figure to myself that numerous and vene-
rable train of pontiffs and doctors, the witnesses of the
apostolical doctiines, and our true masters in faith — I
imagine those holy and illustrious personages, shaking
off the dust of the tomb, returned to life, placing them-
selves between us and the Sacramentarians, and ad-
dressing all those who share the profession and theolo-
gy of Mr. Faber in the following wrords: — "You, who
seem to attach such value and authority to the uniform
traditions, which we bequeathed to you; and who only
need, as you say, to know them, to induce you to adopt
them; how came you to misunderstand those, which
we faithfully transmitted from the apostles to our vari-
ous Churches, concerning the most august of all the
sacraments? How came you not to understand what
we so often expressed in our writings, and what we
shall now briefly repeat to you? We admonished you
that "the sublimity of the Eucharist so far surpassed
the limits of the human understanding, that it would
have been folly in us to believe it, if it had not come to
us from the very mouth of our divine Founder. He
lias said, my flesh is meat indeed, my blood is drink in-
deed. He leaves no room to doubt of the reality of
his flesh and blood. Is not that the pure truth? Let
those only account it false, who deny Jesus Christ to
be the true God."#
XXVII. "In vain do you seek to persuade us that
you would not be staggered by mysteries, but would
admit the real presence and transubstantiation, if it
were proved to you that ice had ourselves admitted
them. You have abundant proofs that we did so; there-
fore you deceive yourselves. The truth is, that your
reason seeks to sound and penetrate every thing; and
because it cannot fathom the mystery, it imagines a
* St. Hilary, Book 8, on the Trinity.
DIFFICULTIES OF ROMANISM. 189
certain moral change, and certain empty signs to evade
our testimonies, and strive to reconcile faith with your
senses."
"What do you attempt, O daring mortals! Is it not
an excess of folly and temerit) m you, who are but a
little dust kneaded together, to presume to sound this
abyss? Partake of the immaculate body and blood of
the Lord, with a most full faith."* "Why do you at-
tempt to fathom what is unfathomable? Why do you
6eek to comprehend things incomprehensible; and to
penetrate what is impenetrable? Let us believe God
in all things, and not contradict him, although what he
tells us should appear to us contrary to our thoughts,
and to our sight. Since it is his word which says to
us: this is my body, let us be convinced of it, let us be-
lieve it, and behold it with an eye of faith, "f "I ask
no reason of Jesus Christ .... Therefore let no one
talk to me of argument, when I am required to have
faith: let reasoning be silent in the schools. Place
your hand upon your mouth; it is not lawful to dive in-
to mysteries."! "The mere animal and indocile mind,
when any thing is beyond its reach, rejects it as an
extravagant notion, because it surpasses its capacity.
Its ignorant temerity leads it to extreme pride ....
The Jews ought to have received the words of our
Saviour without hesitation, as they had often admired
his divine virtue, and invincible power upon earth
And vet behold them coming forth against God with
that senseless how: — How can this man give us hisjlesh
to eat? As if they were not sensible how blasphemous
was such a manner of speaking, since in God resides
the power of doing all without difficulty .... If thou
persistest, O Jew, in advancing this how — I will ask
thee, in my turn, how the rod of Moses was changed
into a serpent? How were the waters changed into
* St. Ephrem, Against curiosity infaViomingMyst.
f Si. Clirysostom, Horn. 23, on St. John.
j St. Ambrose, on Abraham.
r 17
190 ANSWER TO THE
blood? It behoves thee then much more to believe in
Christ and give credit to his words .... As for you, when
you receive the divine mysteries, have faith free from
all curiosity. — This is what is required; and we must
not oppose a hoiv to the words which are there said."*
Candidly, gentlemen, do you find this doctrine at all
in unison with yourowrn? Do men express themselves
in this way,w7hen they behold nothing in the Eucharist
but your inanimate signs, your lifeless figures? Does
this vehemence of language suit your moral change;
or this elevation of sentiments, your pitiful transition
from a domestic use of the bread 1o a religious use?
Would ideas so gross and material as these have in-
spired what you have just heard, and what yet re-
mains to be presented to your attentive consideration?
XXVII. "A man may well be carried in the hands
of another, but no. ope, in his own hands; we cannot
therefore understand these words literally of David;
(he was carried in his hands)f but we see how that
may be understood of Jesus Christ to tfie very letter.
For when, committing to us his body he said: this
is my body, Christ was held in his own hands. He
bore that body in his hands." Jesus Christ drank
himself of his chalice, lest his apostles, hearing him
6ay these things, should say to themselves: what then.
Do we drink blood, and eat flesh? and should be trou-
bled. For when he spoke of these mysteries, many
were scandalized. In order therefore that they might
not then be troubled, he himself gives them first the
example, thus inviting them to partake without trouble
of the mysteries: therefore it was that he drank of his
own blood.""]; Do not deceive yourselves, gentlemen;
these ideas and comments are evidently incompatible
with your systems of a figurative presence, and a mo-
ral change.
* St. Cyril of Alexandria, B. 4 on St. John.
t St. Jlugustin, on the title of Ps. 33, according to the Septuagint
\St. Chrysost. Horn. 71.
DIFFICULTIES OF ROMANISM. 191
XXVIII. One single word ought to have sufficed to
convince you that the real presence of the body and
blood was always the object of our belief. This word
cannot have escaped your notice; so often is it repeat-
ed in our writings; it is this, once again: u adore and
communicate"* ''After having communicated of the
body of Jesus Christ, approach to the chalice of his
blood, not extending your hands, but bowing down in
(he attitude of homage and adoration, saying, Jlmen.-\
Mary adored Jesus Christ, the Apostles also adored
him, and the angels even adore him, according as
it is written; let all the angels of God adore him.
But they not only adore his divinity, but also his foot-
stool, because it is hoi v. If the heretics denv that the
mysteries of his incarnation arc to be adored .... they
may read in the scripture that the apostles also adored
him, when he was risen with a body clothed in glory.
For we ought not to consider this foot-stool of his ac-
cording to the common use of men. Moreover we
ought not to adore any but God. . . . Therefore we
must examine more particularly what this foot-stool is,
which is beneath the feet of the Lord. For we read
elsewhere: the heaven is my throne, and tlie earth my
footstool. But we must not adore the earth, because
it is but a creature. Let us take notice however if
the earth which the prophet would have us adore, be
not that earth with which the Lord Jesus was clothed
in his incarnation. — We must say therefore that the
footstool is the earth; and by this earth, is to be un-
derstood the very flesh of Jesus Christ, which we still
adore in our holy mysteries,l and which the apostles
adored in his person."
The adoration spoken of here, and in several other
texts, and which we render to him in his sacrament,
• St. Chrys. Horn. 71.
] St. Cyril, Horn. 4, Mystajj.
\ St. Ambrose, B. 3, of the II. Ghoet.
192 ANSWER TO THE
cannot be reduced to a mere profession of honour, or
a simple feeling of respect. You have just seen that
it was precisely the same which he had received
from Mary, and the wise men in the manger, from
the apostles before and after his resurrection, from
the angels at his birth, and at his baptism, the same
spoken of by St. Paul, when he tells us that before
him every knee should bow, in heaven, on earth, and
under the earth; that adoration in fine which is due to
God alone. It was therefore the worship due by all
men to the supreme majesty of their Creator, the
worship of latria.
XXIX. But, gentlemen, you who speak in admira-
tion of the primitive Church, and boast of having
revived the beauty and purity of her doctrine, you
have basely rejected the adoration which she held due
to Jesus Christ in the Eucharist. You attempt to
justify yourselves before the people, and in your own
eyes, by bringing together those passages of our
writings, where we designate the offerings by the
names of signs, types, emblems, representations, figures
and memorials. But in the first place, you ought to
know that these expressions do not exclude the invisi-
ble presence of the body of our Saviour: you find our
successors in the ministry, and in doctrine, making use
of the same before your eyes: we ourselves also occa-
sionally used them before the faithful, to shew them
the agreement of both testaments, the connexion be-
tween the old and new laws, the figure and the reality,
the promise and its accomplishment. We expressed
ourselves thus: "The sacrifice offered by our Lord to
his Father is the same as that which Melchisedech
had offered in the figures of bread and wine. Jesus
Christ rendered present the truth of his body and of
his blood."* "After the manducation of the typical
passover, Jesus Christ proceeded to the true sacra-
* St. Cyprian, Ep. 53, to Cecilius.
DIFFICULTIES OF ROMANISM. 193
ment of the true passover; and as Mclchisedech had
offered in the figure of bread and wine, Jesus Christ
rendered present the truth of his body and of his
blood. "* There is no less difference between the
loaves of proposition and the body of Jesus Christ, than
between the shadow and the body, the image and the
truth, the figures of things to come, and what was re-
presented by those figures."f Every time that we ap-
proaeh to the body and blood of Jesus Christ, and
receive him in our hands, we believe that we become
flesh of his flesh and hone of his bone, as it is written.
— For Jesus Christ did not give to this body the name
of figure or appearance, but he said: this is truly my
body, this is my blood.^l The faithful who knew per-
fectly well that Jesus Christ came to fulfil the figures,
as well as the prophecies of the old law, understood
without difficulty the relation between the figures of
his body, and reality of his presence.§
In fine we made frequent use of the words, signs,
types, figures, &c. and with a very different intention.
You are not ignorant that we lived in the midst of
Jews and Pagans; that our divine Legislator had ex-
pressly forbidden us to disclose our mysteries to them.
Place yourselves in our situation: what would you have
done, if from the pulpit you had discovered, as was
often our case, some of those profane persons in the
assembly of the faithful? Would you not then have
made choice of the vague, ambiguous, and indefinite
expressions which you often meet with in our dis-
courses and homilies? Would you not have equally
employed them in writings intended for public circula-
• St. Jerom. Ep. to Hedilia.
f Ibid, Ep. to Heliodorus.
J St. Maridhas, Bp. of Tagrit, Bibl. Orient. T. I, p. 179.
§ It was reserved for Mr. Faber and his masters since the year
1662, to imagine that all the figures of the Old Testament had not
been fulfilled in the New, and to inform us that bread was nothing
more for Christians than for Jews; still continuing the perpetual
figure of the body of Jesus Christ.
17*
194 ANSWER TO THE
tion. And what would you say in these days to per-
sons pretending to judge of your real sentiments, after
the lapse of so many centuries, by passages which
you found yourselves obliged to disguise? This point
we especially recommend to your notice; and may you
never forget it! If our belief on the sacrament of the
altar had been like yours, we should have had no
motive to conceal it; but on the contrary the most
urgent reasons for its manifestation.
XXX. Would you know in exact truth what we
concealed with so much care, concerning the Eucha-
rist; what we did in the divine service; and in what
that service consisted. You have only to open our
liturgies, and you will see these things faithfully de-
tailed. By our practice you will become thoroughly
acquainted with our belief. The connexion between
both is so evident, that we were commanded to with-
hold both alike from the knowledge of Jews, pagans,
and catechumens; but to shew them openly to the
newly-baptized. We faithfully discharged this two-
fold obligation. We scrupulously excluded the unini-
tiated at the moment when the sacrifice was about to
commence; and when we had to speak on the Eucha-
rist in their presence, we confined ourselves to the
exterior qualities of bread and wine. With the
neophytes we went further; we proceeded from the
appearance to the reality of the body which they were
about to receive, and explained to them the order of
the divine service, at which they were, for the first
time, about to assist.
Providence ordained that by exception from the
general prohibition, some few of our catecfwses should
be committed to writing, and descend even to you.
They suffice to give you a knowledge of all the rest;
for in every thing essential, they were alike in all the
churches of Christendom: those which you have ex-
hibit the universal doctrine of the first five centuries.
During that long period of fervour, there was not a
DIFFICULTIES OF ROMANISM* 195
single Christian who heard from our mouths any other.
We instructed our adults, as you instruct your chil-
dren; except that we developed our dogmas more
fully, because their more enlarged understanding ren-
dered them capable of receiving them so developed.
Had you lived in our times, you would have received
the lessons which we gave to them; you would have
had the same doctrine delivered to you; and if it be
true, as you constantly declare, that you are anxious to
live and die in their communion, adopt we entreat you,
their faith and their works: believe and practice, on
the most important subject of the Eucharist, what
they believed and practised.
XXXI. Alas ! why is it not possible for us to
assure you, that you may safely persevere in the
opinions which you have received from childhood, and
which you preach so zealously! For we should be
delighted to speak to you none but pleasant things;
God is our witness! Yet at the hazard of displeasing
you, we love rather to render you a solid service. We
tell you therefore plainly; your belief is not that of the
primitive Church; we never knew such a creed. Com-
pare our catechisms with your own, on the subject of
which we treat; compare the explanations which you
give of them, with those which you read in our
catecheses. How remarkable is the difference! Yet
you must choose; and to which will you give the pre-
ference? You cannot hesitate without contradicting
yourselves; since, by your own acknowledgement, the
first five centuries breathed the true, pure doctrine of
the apostles.
XXXII. Jesus Christ has said to us; Jlmen^ Amen, I
my unlo you: except you eat the flesh of tlie Son of
JWan, and drink his blood, you shall not have life in
you. And you gentlemen, say; eat the type of his flesh,
and it is enough; we then promise you life. The
intention of Jesus Christ was to communicate himself to
all his followers, and thus to procure for them a fore-
1 96 ANSWER TO THE
taste of heaven by a sacrament which no mortal could
conceive, much less invent. And this heavenly and
mysterious communication you reduce to the manduca-
tion of mere animal and sensible matter, and a re-
membrance which leaves the heart cold, and the
soul empty, and without nourishment. Jesus Christ
said; this is my body, no, you reply in equivalent terms,
it is only the figure of your body; the bread has only
undergone a moral change; and since its own substance
is still there, yours is not there at all. Our Church
taught by the apostles, invoked throughout the universe
the descent of the Holy Spirit, to change by his grace,
to transform and transubstantiate the bread into the
body of Jesus Christ: but if we are to listen to you,
this change, transformation or transubstantiation is no
better than a polluted source of idolatry and supersti-
tion.
XXXIII. But O friends and separated brethren! If
you knew how afflicting to us is the boldness of your
thoughts; if you knew how much we lament the endless
evils which it entails on yourselves and on your people;
if you could conceive the resources, the consolations
and delights, of which you deprive so many souls
redeemed by the blood of Jesus Christ, and disposed to
consecrate themselves to him and receive him with
love, if they were otherwise instructed! Forgive these
admonitions, dictated solely by a regard for your inter-
est, and drawn from us by alarm but too well founded
for your security; return to the creed of your fore-
fathers, to that received by all the Christians of the
first five centuries: believe henceforth with them, and
according to our uniform teaching, "that after con-
secration, what appears to your eyes bread, is not
bread, though your taste judges it to be so; but that it
is the body of our divine Redeemer."
XXXIV. Unhappy is he, who having heard the
truth, persists in rejecting it! But more unhappy he,
who after having discovered his errors, obstinately
DIFFICULTIES OF ROMANISM. 1 97
continues to impose tliem upon his people! There are
countries, as we see but too often, where it is deemed
honourable to disfigure the truth, and to embelish error
and falsehood; where at the expense of so doing, men
obtain applause and emolument. But to advance in
life, and soon after to have to appear before the last
awful tribunal, laden with this fatal applause, this
perfiduous. emolument; — great God! how can such a
thought be endured, without trouble and terror?
193 ANSWER TO THE
PART THE THIRD.
SUCCINCT REVIEW OF THE "DIFFICULTIES OF RO-
MANISM.
I. I enter with painful feelings upon this last and
unpleasant portion of my defence. How sorrowful is
the task which remains for me to fulfil! Instead of the
pleasure and consolation which I should have found in
praising the accuracy, uprightness, and candour of an
antagonist, I find myself condemned to point out the
faults with which his production swarms; sometimes
infidelity in quotations, or design in suppressions; at
other times falsehood in allegations: in this place, hostile
disposition under the assumed tone of regard and po-
liteness; in that — treachery, speaking the language of
simple ingenuousness; and in a third, malevolence and
ill-will, evaporating, in calumniatory imputations. I
have already had occasion to exhibit several reprehen-
sible defects, and I have sometimes chastised them
with severity, because in a religious controversy I re-
gard them as disgraceful prevarications. I shall now
recommence a rapid review of the pretended Diffi-
culties of Romanism, and shall more or less lightly visit
upon what 1 find blameabie.
I have dwelt at length upon the questions which
occupy my first and second parts; because they are of
general interest to Protestants and Catholics, and are
decisive against the Reformation. As to those faults
of the author, which I now proceed to notice, as they
more personally concern him, I am aware that they
may be hut of feeble interest to the public. 1 should
on this account have spared myself the unpleasant
DIFFICULTIES OF ROMANISM. 199
task of bringing them forward, had I not feared the
dangerous impressions which they might have made
on readers of moderate imformation. My natural in-
clination, in accordance with charity, would have led
me to throw a veil over them: but the interests of truth,
and zeal for the salvation of souls, impose on me the
duty of producing them to the light.
II. In the preface, page x, line 17 — I read as fol-
lows: uTo charge a Latin (he means a Catholic) with
what he holds not, and then gravely to confute opinions
which all the while he strenuously disclaims, is alike
unfair and unprofitable." A maxim which is admir-
able, because it is just. If it were honourable to ad-
vance it, it was surely the contrary to forget it and
contradict it, as Mr. Faber has done in his attacks on
Satisfaction — Invocation of Saints, and Veneration of
Images and Relics.
INTRODUCTORY STATEMENT.
HI. At page 6 "of this work (Discussion Jlmicale)
the main object is evidently the proselytism of the
English laity." This reproach is for ever in the mouth
of the author: it is repeated "usque ad nauseam" from
beginning to end of his work. My object is, as he would
represent it, to deceive the English laity and families
travelling on the Continent, ineapable from circum-
stances of discovering the falsity of my assertions and
proofs. But it happens that this work destined thus
to effect conversions on the Continent was first prin-
ted in London, and in great measure sold in that ca-
pital. But what is most surprising is, that m the same
page the author had just made this observation: "In an
epistle prefixed to it, this important work is dedicated
to the clergy of all the Protestant communions." In
fact, the epistle begins thus; "Gentlemen, I cannot
consent to give the publicity demanded of me to a
discussion undertaken and conducted in the secrecy of
confidence, without wishing to address it directly to
200 ANSWER TO THE
you. It appears to me just that I should present it in
the first place to those of the Reformed communions,
who with more interest to become acquainted with it,
have also more right to decide upon it. Let it go
forth then, and arrive where I desire; let it be exam-
ined by you, and receive from you its first judgment."
And in several places I refer my supposed corres-
pondent to the doctors of his own Church. Take as
an instance, the following, at page 8, vol. 2d, u Your
divines, as well as ourselves, have the catecheses at
hand; but I imagine, they have never appeared very
anxious to make you acquainted with them. Ask
them to communicate these to you, and tell you what
they think of them. You will see that they will not
comply with your request with a very good grace:
and in truth, to speak to you sincerely, they cannot do
it." Or another: "For the rest, I am far from wish-
ing to take your religion by surprise. If your doubts
are not yet dissipated — if there remains in your mind
any uncertainty as to the doctrine of the Fathers con-
cerning the Eucharist, you are at perfect liberty to
communicate this letter, as well as those preceding, to
such of your doctors as you may please to consult."
And at page 409, vol. 2, I address myself exclusively
to the established Church throughout two whole
pages; so that my discussion begins and ends by ex-
citing the attention and provoking the judgment of
your doctors.
This, I am of opinion, is a sufficient answer to the
narrow-minded views, the miserable artifice which
Mr. Faber would impute to me, when he supposes my
object to have been to cast dust into the eyes of read-
ers incapable of judging accurately. I could here
adduce twenty persons among your countrymen, whom
I have requested at various times to submit my work
to the examination of your leading divines. I have
always wished it, and I wish it still : and were I not
fearful of acting imprudently, I could name in the
DIFFICULTIES OF ROMANISM. 201
church of England persons of extensive erudition, and
possessing a zeal for re-union, alas ! too rarely met
with, who have expressed a wish that my Discussion
Amicale were dispersed all over England. For my
owu part, so far from fearing any thing from real
intelligence, I have appealed to the enlightened, and
now appeal to them again, provided they be accompa-
nied with good faith.
IV. At page 20, Mr. Faber introduces to us for the
first time his favourite chimaera of a moral change of
the Eucharistic bread, which returns a hundred times
upon the stage, always with a bad grace, and ever
exciting the pity of men of information. The learned
Bachelor, delighted with his moral change in the Eu-
charist, undertakes to prove its apostolic origin from
the anited testimonies, as he says, of St. Clement of
Alexandria, Tertullian, St. Cyprian, St. Augustin, St.
Athanasius, St. Gregory of Nyssa, Theodoret, Pope
Gelasius, Facundus, and St. Ephrem: and thus he
ranges them with, some small deviation from chronolo-
gical order; but no matter. I have demonstrated pre-
cisely the contrary assertion, as you know, by the
authority of the very same Fathers, as I may here
observe by the way; for this is not what I wish to
remark upon just at present. Th#se same Fathers
arc clear, express, and conclusive, upon the invoca-
tion of saints : consequently on that question, I quote
them with confidence. And what reply does Mr.
Faber make to this at the bottom of p. 238? "The
bishop cannot produce a single authority, for the invo-
cation of the saints, however modified from the two
first centuries." This sentence stands triumphantly
in small capitals. I perfectly understand the tactics
of the Rector: the Fathers of the third and fourth
centuries are irrefragable witnesses, when he thinks
them favourable to his opinions. But if they are
opposed to him, they are no longer of any value — then
18
£02 ANSWER TO THE
he must have apostolic Fathers ! Behold the admira-
ble equity and logic of this gentleman !
CELIBACY.
V. He has devoted pp. 25, 26, and 27, to the refu-
tation of the prohibition for priests to marry. This
time the Bachelor cannot keep his temper; he is quite
warm, and for three deadly pages in succession, he
vents his fire and bile against the right reverend Fa-
thers of the second council of Lateran. He attempts
no less a task than to prove them to be in opposition to
St. Paul. I have already proved that they were not
But I will here go farther, and in one word exhibit the
conformity between the strongest expressions of the
council, and those of the sacred scripture. They are
these : "indignum est eos (sacerdotes) cubilibus et im-
munditiis deservire:" these are words which provoked
Mr. Faber so furiously against the Lateran Fathers.
But let him cool a moment, if possible. I beseech
him and his readers to cast their eyes upon the first
four verses of the 14th chapter of the Apocalypse.
St. John enraptured with the admirable harmony he
has just heard, informs us that the celestial canticle
was sung by 144,000 voices, and could be sung by no
others. The Rector and many others with him, would
have attempted it in vain. But from what mouths did
these harmonious sounds proceed? Of what kind was
this class of privileged singers? Observe well, Mr.
Faber : uThese are they who were not defiled with
women: for they are virgins." Hi sunt qui cum muli-
erihus non sunt coinouinati: virgincs enim sunt.
Now cry out loudly against St. John. For you see
that he has divided mankind into two classes, that of
virgins, and that of persons defiled. You must take
your choice: if you are no longer of the first, you
must of necessity belong to the second. Well then,
would it not have been better to have spared yourself
DIFFICULTIES OF ROMANISM. 203
a sally so virulent and scandalous? Would it not
have been wiser to have held your tongue and respect-
fully bowed your bead before your superiors of Late-
ran, who so far surpassed you in knowledge?
TRADITION.
VI. In chapter third, on Tradition, page 46, the re-
proach is personally addressed to me. uNo accurate
investigator can read the bishop's remarks on these
topics, without being struck with the singular fallacies
which pervade them:" and he cites my fourth letter,
wherein I establish the necessity of tradition by the
doctrine of the primitive Church. Now what course
does the Batchelor take? For the primitive and uni-
versal Church, of which I speak, he substitutes the
Latin church, which is here out of the question. He
sets out with this ingenious amendment to argue more
at his ease against the reasoning, which he imputes to
me. Open my fourth letter, sir, I entreat you: you
will see that I draw my proofs from St. Clement of
Alexandria, St. Basil, and St. Chrysostom, as well as
from Tertullian, St. Cyprian, St. Augustin, and St. Vin-
cent of Lerins; and in the first rank from the 318
bishops of the first council of Nice in the affair of
rebaptization, and the condemnation of Arius. Let
me ask you, if the universal and primitive Church
could be marked out more magnificently than by that
grand ancient council, accepted at the time by all
Churches, and celebrated ever since by every age of
Christianity. And yet Mr. Faber has the effronte-
ry to insinuate that my proofs are confined to the
Latin Church! And in his pretended answers, he see*
nothing but the Latin Church, which he ridicules with
so much taste and good manners. Thus by fraudulent-
ly substituting a word, he deceives his readers, and
6ets himself to refute what I never said. I have seen
you persuaded that Mr. Faber was a formidable theo-
204 ANSWER TO THE
logian. Now judge of him by this single trait, and
rest assured that he is not even an honest, fair-dealing
man. This is not the language of politeness, I am
truly grieved to own it: but. if you can, pray tell me
how to expose politely so disgraceful a manoeuvre.
In the same place, No. 1 , you read as follows: "The
Latin Church, as we all know, has handed down to
the present time various doctrines and various prac-
tices. Some of these are received by Protestants;
others of them are rejected. Now this electric process
is censured by the bishop; and he requires us, as we
value the praise of consistency, either to receive the
whole mass or to reject the whole mass." So the
Bachelor makes me say: and it is always the Latin
Church, instead of the universal Church. The follow-
ing is what I really said, p. 196, vol. 1, referred to by
him. "Many already perceived (in the early contro-
versies) that in the violence of party spirit, things had
been carried too far. They began to compound for
the principle, being ready to admit tradition on cer-
tain points, and yet rejecting it on others, in honour of
the reformation. These first concessions led the way
for others more free and less circumscribed Wise
and enlightened minds,, considering calmly the precepts
of the apostle, the spirit of the primitive Church, and
the confidence, which must be yielded to the piety and
fervour of the primitive ages, to the deposition and
testimonies of all those holy bishops, and illustrious
martyrs of Jesus Christ, have felt the irresistible force
of the proofs, and have freely adopted the ideas and
language of antiquity on the subject of tradition."
Now do I speak in this passage of the Latin Church
Sk§ne, as the Bachelor would have his readers believe?
Do I not speak in express terms of the apostle, the
primitive church, and the first ages? And in express
terms of all their holy bishops, and their illustrious
martyrs? Do you see nothing in all this but the Latin
Church? And could any one, without the most disgrace-
DIFFICULTIES OF ROMANISM. 205
ful falsity, pretend to see her only, who is neither named
nor designated exclusively? Was I not right in affirm-
ing that the authority of the primitive ages, as I de-
scribed them, ought to be admitted in every question;
and that it could not be lawful to reject it on some
points of doctrine, when it was necessarily admitted
on others?
VII. You shall now see another specimen of bad
faith exhibited by the Rector at page 51 — uIn the
judgment of the bishop, tradition is of such vital im-
portance, that the very canon of scripture depends
upon it. By renouncing, therefore, the tradition of the
Latin Church, we effectively invalidate the authority
of the canon of scripture." But who has said a word
to him about the tradition of the Latin Church? I have
only spoken of universal and primitive tradition. My
words are these, p. 177, vol. 1 — "Most positively you
are indebted to tradition for the scriptures, you have
them from the hand of tradition, and without that, you
would not know how to proceed to demonstrate their
authenticity: for it can only be proved that such a
book is of such an apostle or evangelist, by its having
been received and read as such in the Churches."
This is a general expression, comprehending at once
all the Churches founded by the apostles and their
successors, those of the East, no less than those of the
West, the Churches in fact of all Christendom. It is
clear that upon their testimony I build the authentici-
ty of our scriptures, and not on the single authority of
the See of Rome, as my truth-telling antagonist makes
me do, "on the naked dogmatical authority of the See
of Rome." He knew full well that such was not m\
opinion, for my book was before his eyes; but it suited
his purpose to make those believe it, who are unable
to read my work. This is the third time in the same
chapter that he deceives his readers by a most odious
artifice. If I have not formed an erroneous estimate
of the English character, Mr. Faber will gaiu no cre-
18*
J06 ANSWER TO THE
dit among his countrymen by methods 60 dishonoura-
ble, and proceedings so far below a man of real recti-
tude.
REAL PRESENCE.
VIII. In the fourth chapter, p. 56, Mr. Faber
teaches that the words, this is rriy body, may be under-
stood in the sense of the Catholic Church, and in that
of the Church of England; in the literal sense on the
principles of grammar, and in the figurative sense on
the principles of rhetoric; and thereupon he goes into
confused attempts at explanation. A body present
only in figure, is absent in reality. But according to
the sense of your Bachelor, the body of Jesus Christ is
present in the Eucharist only in figure. Therefore
according to him, it is absent in reality; and he every
where labours to prove it so. So far so good. But
since he possesses so much penetration, as to perceive
clearly in the words, this is my body, the real absence
of that body, how could he begin his chapter by telling
us that the two Churches, ours and his own, both admit
the doctrine of the real presence? "The disagreement
between the Church of England and the Church of
Rome, in regard to the doctrine of the Holy Eucharist,
chiefly respects the supposed process denominated
transubstantiaiion .... With respect to the doctrine
of the real presence, they both hold it." What! one
believes in the real presence of her Saviour, the other
in his real absence, and yet both hold the same doc-
trine! The Catholics reject the figure, to embrace the
reality, the modern Anglicans have set aside the reality,
to attach themselves to the figure; and yet both are
said to maintain the dogma of the real presence, each
party remaining on their own side! What an extrava-
gant assertion! What surpassing absurdity! Was
ever any thing like it thought or said before? Can a
DIFFICULTIES OF ROMANISM. 207
man be permitted thus to eontradict himself, and trifle
to this degree with his readers?
IX. At p. 66, it is curious to hear him again: "If,
during the term of several centuries, we shall find that
the figurative interpretation was the interpretation
adopted by the early Catholic Church, we shall possess
a moral certainty of its truth." You see plainly what
Mr. Faber wishes to find in the primitive Church; he
is running after his figurative sense; he would prove it
morally certain. Then he did not speak truth; when
he declared that he maintained like ourselves, the dog-
ma of reality. Here he extends the primitive Church
to a "term of several centuries," and he is right in so
doing. In other places he confines it to the second cen-
tury, and there he is wrong. You see, sir, we have
only to confront him with himself, to exhibit endless
contradiction between the opposite notions, which he
alternately adopts.
X. In the note at p. 71, the passage of St. Gregory
of Nyssa presents some examples of internal changes
were none appears outwardly: such as the stones of
consecrated altars, which still preserve the same qual-
ities apparent to the senses: such as the laic, who by
consecration and unction of the holy oil is changed into
a priest, without his ceasing to appear the same as he
was externally: such is the Eucharist, in which the
change of the bread is not preserved outwardly.
Under this relation, it is most justly, classed with the
other examples; and yet, because differently from the
other changes mentioned, that of the Eucharistic bread
affects the substance, St. Gregory is careful to declare
that expressly; fearing no doubt, that some on seeing
nothing more in that than in the other objects brought
in comparison, might wrongly interpret his opinion. —
And this is precisely what has happened to Mr. Faber,
and he would have escaped it, if he had weighed
attentively these words, which he transcribed without
understanding them; "but, when it has been consecra-
208 ANSWER TO THE
ted in the holy mystery, it becomes, and is called the
body of Christ^ Mr. Faber traced this sentence with
his hand; but his tongue would not pronounce it. If
he consent to do so, God be praised! I ask no more of
him in this place. For the rest, I thank him for hav-
ing furnished me with a proof, in the very passage,
which he deemed favourable to his own opinion.
XL I know not, dear sir, if you will agree with me,
but I am convinced that in the important concerns of
salvation, it is highly criminal to present falsehood to
one's readers' with the confidence with which an hon-
ourable man would present truth. Open Mr. Faber's
work at p. 73 and read at the top the following dog-
matical sentence of two members; "Whenever the
Fathers descend to the strictness of explanatory defini-
tion, they plainly tell us, again and again, that the
consecrated elements are only the types, or figures, or
syvibols, allegorical images of the body and blood of
Christ: (first member of the sentence) and, not unfre-
quently, as if anxious to remove all possibility of mis-
apprehension, they assure us in express terms, that ice
do not eat the literal body, and that we do not drink the
literal blood of Christ, when we participate of the
blessed Eucharist." (Second member.) To eat the
body and drink the blood in the literal sense; is to eat
and drink according to the gross idea of the Caphar-
naites; a carnal and barbarous manducation, which all
ages and all Christian people have held in horror; and
of which consequently there can be no question
between us. But how can the Fathers be said to have
taught that after consecration there is" nothing but types
and figures in the Holy Eucharist; they who inform us
that it was adored by ail the faithful previous to their
receiving it? They who have told us that not to adore
it would be a sin? They who adored it as often as they
celebrated the liturgy at the head of the faithful? You
have seen, sir, multiplied and demonstrative proofs of
the belief of the Fathers in the reality of the body and
DIFFICULTIES OF ROMANISM. 209
blood in the sacrament of the altar. The truth then is,
that in their catccheses they taught it with as much en-
ergy and clearness as we could do, and that they spoke
of it without disguise, when they could do so without
betraying the secret. But it is falsehood to assert that,
even when they concealed the mystery, they ever
went so far as to say that there was nothing in the con-
secrated elements but types, or figures, or symbols of
the body of Jesus Christ. Never, never did such ex-
pressions exclusively negative proceed from their lips;
never did their hands write them. But assuredly they
would have written and spoken them a thousand times,
had they corresponded with their belief. Then Mr.
Faber might have victoriously brought forth the numer-
ous passages. But neither he, nor any other has ever
discovered them: they have not produced, nor will they
ever produce a single one. And yet this unfortunate
man has dared to affirm to his countrymen, and before
God, that the writings of the Fathers were full of pas-
sages of that description. How much do I feel for his
readers! For they naturally give credit to the minister
who defends their creed, and presents them, with the
greatest assurance, assertions which they can neither
suspect nor discover to be false. O! if I could make
my voice be heard over all England, I would^say to its
generous people: "Be you our judges! Pronounce
between one doctrine, which can only be attacked by
continual outrages'against truth, and another, which can
only be defended by such disgraceful artifices."
XII. If Mr. Faber is so little scrupulous with the
Holy Fathers, and takes the liberty of making them
say what they never said nor thought, I need not be
surprised to find him allowing himself the liberty with
me to suppress and change my words, and to put his
own into my mouth. It is true that to give currency
to this habitual species of impoliteness, he takes care
to associate with it immediately some complimentary
epithet: or else to add, as at page 100, that my argu-
210 ANSWER TO THE
ment appears to him managed "with no small dexter-
ity;" while it appears to me, in his exposition of it,
insupportably clumsy and ill-managed. I have fre-
quently had occasion to notice parts of my book,
which he has metamorphosed in his own peculiar
manner. It would be tedious to follow him in all his
turns, and to expose all the artifices which he allows
himself in this way; it is a poor and pitiful resource for
those, who are determined at all hazards to defend a
desperate cause, and who would have no rational
reply to make, were they not to begin by disfiguring
the arguments, which they undertake to refute.
XIII. One of his ar/ifices however richly deserves
to be exposed; for I must own that the bold mendacity
which distinguishes it would make it of itself suffice to
establish its author's reputation. "The theory of the
bishop," says he, p. 98, as might be anticipated from
the purport of his work, is this. The secret discipline
of the primitive Church had for its sole cause the
doctrine of transubstantiation: for, in the very nature
of things, it could not possibly have had any other cause
than that which is thus assigned to it. Hence it will
follow, that the grand and exclusive and special secret
of the Christian mysteries was the doctrine of transub-
stantiation." Here are as many falsities almost as
words. I speak of the real presence, Mr. Fa-
ber puts in place of that, transubstantiation. h say
that the secret discipline relative to the Eucharist
had no other, and could have no other cause than
that of the real presence: he makes me say that
the "secret discipline of the primitive Church had for
its sole cause the doctrine of transubstantiation." After
advancing this in my name, he makes me conclude
that "the grand, and exclusive, and special secret of the
Christian mysteries was the doctrine of transubstantia-
tion." This last word occurs twice in his two senten-
ces, while it is only found once in my whole chapter,
I confine myself to the mystery of the Eucharist, and
DIFFICULTIES OF ROMANISM. 211
he represents me us taking in all the mysteries of
Christianity.
Mr. Faber addressing himself particularly to those
of his countrymen who are ignorant of French, affects
great impartiality in quoting a passage of my book,
which proves that I speak truth, and he falsehood.
He adduces it as follows in a note at p. 98: aOr je me
flatte a present, Monsieur, que vous voyez clairement
que la discipline du secret sur PEucharistie a eu effec-
tivement le dogme de la realite pour cause, et n'a pu
en avoir cPautre." I appeal to any one who knows
French, whether this passage is susceptible of the
sense given to it by Mr. Faber. Who could discover
in it transubstantiation? I am only speaking of the real
presence; and who could find there the mysteries of
Christianity? I speak only of the real presence; I give
that as the cause of the secret discipline on the sub-
ject of the Eucharist. For all that is exalted in this
august sacrament arises from the reality of the pre-
sence. But whence did the Rev. Bachelor draw the
conclusion which he attributes to me, if not, like the
rest, from the delirium of a capricious and over-heated
imagination?
There only could he further have read that the real
presence was the sole cause of the secret discipline.
This assertion is not mine. I distinctly wrote the
contrary assertion, vol. 1, p. 344, in these words: ul
purpose to examine thoroughly with you, the discipline
regarding the inviolable secrecy, which all the faithful
observed on the sacraments, and especially on the
sacrament of the altar." I knew well at the same time
that this secret discipline concealed from the pagans
the mysteries of the Trinity and Incarnation. I might
have said therefore, that it extended to both these
mysteries, as well as to all the sacraments. I did not
say it, for the obvious reason that I was not writing the
general history of the discipline in question. My sole
object being to consider it exclusively in relation to
212 ANSWER TO THE
the Eucharist, my duty was to confine myself to my
subject; and not to run out unseasonably into a diffuse
digression on the several other subjects comprised under
the law of secrecy.
XIV. At page 100, the Bachelor returns to the
charge that all my argument is built upon the ruinous
foundation, that "the true doctrine of the Eucharist was
the exclusive secret of the Christian mysteries." He
supports the contrary with perfect justice: but how
does that affect me? Whom is he combating? I never
advanced any such thing. He goes on further to maintain
that "the true doctrine of the Eucharist was neither
the exclusive secret of the mysteries, nor yet even
their principal secret." How again am I concerned
in this? Whom is he attacking now? There is not a
syllable of all this in any part of my book. It appears
to have suited his purpose to impute to me the expres-
sions exclusive and principal secret: but once again, I
disclaim them, they are not mine. They belong ex-
clusively to the Difficulties of Romanism, not to the
Discussion Jlmicale; and for Heaven's sake, let eacli
keep his own property where he finds it!
XV. Mr. Faber here enters upon the exposition of
the catecheses of St. Cyril; of which the first eighteen
are for the catechumens, the five last for the neophytes.
The former often speak upon the Trinity, and present
but one short though powerful allusion to the Eucha-
rist,* which was developed at a later period to the
* It X9 as follows: "If the Lord shall deem thee worthy, thou
ihalt hereafter know, that the body of Christ, according to the
gospel, sustains the type of bread." Mr. Faber declares it diffi-
cult to say what these words can mean, unless "that the bread is
a type, or symbol, or figure, or representation of Christ's body."
But this is precisely reversing the declaration of St. Cyril. The
sentence is quite clear to any one initiated: the divine substance
sustains the appearance of bread, its qualities, apparent to the
senses, sustain the figure, or type, or representation of bread. In
St. Cyril, it is the body of Jesus Christ which represents the image
of bread: in Mr. Faber, it is the bread which represents the body
of Jeeus Christ.
DIFFICULTIES OF ROMANISM. 213
newly-baptized in two of the five cateclieses, which
were intended for them. Every one knows that bap-
tism is conferred in the name of the most Holy Trini-
ty. This established, the observation of the Rector
becomes absolutely silly. He is quite surprised that
the doctrine of the Trinity should be so often discussed
before those who were to be baptized in the name of
the Trinity! And he appears to wonder that there
should be but a single short hint of the Eucharist, be-
fore those from whom the law required it to be con-
cealed till after their baptism! But we have a new
proof of his erudition in another way. The Bachelor
remarks that in the last of the cateclieses, mention
is made of prayers for the dead: "which," he most
learnedly observes, "had then begun to be partially
introduced, which Cyril owns were objected to by
many, &c." He was not aware then that this practice
is in all the liturgies; a certain proof of its apostolicity.
As to the great opposition made to it in the fourth
century, that is a pure fiction. For we cannot make
any account of such men as Aerius and Vigilantius,
who were condemned at the time by all the churches
in the world.
XVI. After a long digression on the doctrine of the
Trinity, which is no way connected with my Discus-
sion Amicale, Mr. Faber triumphantly concludes that
the Eucharist was neither the exclusive nor the princi-
pal secret of the Christians. I wish him joy of his
discovery; I am noway concerned with the ten deadly
pages of this dissertation. But at page 115 he at
length arrives at the point; he announces his intention
to prove that the real presence — transubstantiation
according to him, for he always uses one word for the
other — "was not taught at all in the mysteries, even
under the form of the very smallest and least important
secret." O ! now I feel interested. I trust you know
by this time what to believe on this question : and I
am convinced that the Bachelor will proceed more
19
214 ANSWER TO THE
carefully, if he returns to the subject. I give up my
proofs to him, to the divines of his Church, to all those
of the • Protestant Communions who accord with him
in opinion against the real presence of our divine
Saviour in his most holy sacrament of the altar. They
will labour in vain to demolish them.
Mr. Faber exhibits and admires with reason the
secret discipline, as one of the most curious subjects
of ecclesiastical antiquity. Yet he does not appear to
have searched it deeply. Had he done so, it would
have suggested to him very dhTerent reflections. I
even suspect that before the appearance of the Dis-
cussion Jlmicale, he was very little acquainted with
that venerable and ancient law of secrecy, sealed by
the blood of many martyrs; which is a mine rich in
proofs on the most important points called in question
by the ignorant temerity of these latter ages. I am
far from having exhausted it: others will penetrate yet
further into it. I applaud their success beforehand,
happy in having pointed out the opening, and put them
in the way.
XVII. In my Discussion Jlmicale I seriously chal-
lenged all the Sacramentarians, and I now challenge
them again, with Mr. Faber at their head, and with
him all his brethren of the Church of England since
the year 1662, to declare to us plainly why the primi-
tive Church ordained an inviolable secrecy on the sub-
ject of the Eucharist. Let us allow them time to con-
sider their answer well. They will take a long time,
I am afraid, before they produce one satisfactory.
Every one knows that the primitive Church had
strictly enjoined to conceal from the infidels what was
said and done in her assemblies, from which the pro-
fane were excluded. After the lapse of so many
ages, how are we to discover what the faithful prac-
tised there among themselves for so long a period,
unknown to the uninitiated? When the liturgies ap-
peared in open day, they made it known to the whole
DIFFICULTIES OF ROMANISM. 215
world. They displayed to the eyes of all, the interior
of these holy assemblies. They indicate even at this day
the prayers, the acts of faith, hope, and charity, the
thanksgivings, which preceded, accompanied, and fol-
lowed the bloodless sacrifice of the new covenant. I
have given abundant details of these things in my ninth
letter, from p. 388 to p. 445 of my first volume. Mr.
Faber makes mention of this letter, he must at least
have gone through it, and yet, what does he say of it?
Nothing, sir: he does not dare to look steadily upon
the liturgies, their brilliancy dazzles his visionary or-
gans, he turns away from them, and runs for refuge to
mere common-place observations. You have seen
these refuted in the second part of the present work.
XVIII. I had remarked that the Fathers laid open
the mystery clearly to the faithful, while they con-
cealed it from the uninitiated. Mr. Faber, at p. 135,
reproaches me with having attributed duplicity to the
Holy Fathers, both in principle and practice : he ac-
cuses me of having represented them as guilty of
direct falsehood. "To the mysta, they declare, with-
out reserve, the grand secret of transubstantiation :"
(he ought to have said, of the real presence; he regu-
larly uses the wrong word in this matter,) "to the pa-
gans and catechumens, they propound the symbolical
or allegorical nature of the consecrated elements;
assuring them, that these elements are only types, or
figures, or representations of the body and blood of
Christ." This assertion is completely false; the great
falsehood lies in the word only inserted by Mr. Faber:
I have shown this repeatedly. I will merely in this
place justify the process of the Holy Fathers, and ac-
quit them of falsehood with the support of a decision
of St. Augustin, who was apparently quite as well
versed in morality as the Rector of Long Newton.
"He who seeks simplicity of heart, ought not to con-
sider himself culpable, if he conceal something which
the man from wrhom he conceals it, could not under-
216 ANSWER TO THE
stand. Nor is it hence to be inferred that it is lawful
to lie. For it does not follow that we speak false-
hood, when we conceal the truth. "* This is precise-
ly the case with the ancient Fathers. They had no
need of reserve or caution with regard to the faithful;
therefore they spoke the whole truth to them openly.
But it was quite otherwise with respect to the unin-
itiated, to whom it was forbidden to reveal the mys-
tery, therefore before them they confined themselves
to the exterior part of the Eucharist. They said then
that it was the sign, the figure, the sacrament of the
body of Jesus Christ : but they never said that it was
only the figure of the body, as Mr. Faber loudly de-
clares, and wishes to persuade his readers. Thus did
the Fathers fulfil all justice; strong nourishment for
grown up men; milk for children and the infirm.
What Mr. Faber calls "contrivance," "dexterity,"
"falsehood," was no more than prudence, charity,
and obedience to the divine and ecclesiastical law.
The Catholic finds every thing intelligible, connected,
and consistent in this method of the Holy Fathers ; but
to the Sacramentarian all is confusion, embarrassment,
and contradiction : a proof that the belief of Catholics
is true, and that of the Sacramentarians false.
CHARACTER OF THE FIRST REFORMERS.
XIX. Passing on to p. 150 I find another reproach
which Mr. Faber thinks proper to bring against me
with his usual rectitude of mind. He accuses me of
being "superfluously copious," because I exposed Lu-
ther, Zwinglius, and Calvin at open war with each
other. But how could I pass over in silence the three
•"Qui simplex cor habere appetit, non debet sibi reus videri,
si aliquid occultat quod ille, cui occultatur, capere non potest.
Nee ex eo arbitrandum est licere mentiri. Non enim est conse-
quens, ut cum verum occultatur, falsum dicatur." — S. Jlugust.
contra Mendaciwn. Cap. x.
DIFFICULTIES OF ROMANISM. 217
champions of the reformation in a work on the Church
of England in particular, tfnd the Reformation in gen-
eral? I am perfectly aware that you do not recognize
the spiritual supremacy of any one of these three: but
if you acknowledge no. one of them as a Father, all
three must feel pride in claiming you as their children.
And for this reason : you have borrowed from one and
the other, and from their several contributions arose
your body of doctrine, which you have worked up
and established under the form which suited your con-
venience* You are not properly speaking, a Luthe-
ran, nor a Zwinglian, nor a Calvinist in particular, but
in a general point of view, you are all three — Luthe-
rans, Zwinglians, and Calvinists. Not so ; exclaims
Mr. Faber, "we are Catholics of the Anglican Church,
no less than the bishop of Aire (Strasbourg) is a Ca-
tholic of the Gallican Church." This was very true
before the fatal introduction of your King Henry to
Ann Boleyn; since that, your situation is altered. A
man is no longer a Catholic when he departs from
unity. You say in the creed, " I believe in one ....
Catholic Church." Return then to this one Catholic
Church, if you wish to be Catholics in England, as we
are in France.
XX. "Certainly," continues our author, "we honour
Luther and Calvin and Zwingle for their works' sake"
"without feeling ourselves pledged to act as um-
pires between these three enwient foreigners." It be-
comes then incumbent on me to give the reader a just
idea of these three heroes, on whom he respectfully
•I do not even except the episcopacy among you. The name
is of little consequence; the superintendants of Germany, and the
bishops of Sweden, Denmark, and England, are in reality on a
similar footing. They labour under the same doubts as to the
validity of their ordinations, the same certain nullity of their
spiritual jurisdiction. For schism has abrogated that every where
alike; in the same manner as the revolt of every embassador or
minister puts an end to the power which he held from his sove-
reign.
19*
g[g ANSWER TO THE
bestows the title of eminent. This may lead me to
some length, but it is necessary. Luther claims the
first place; UI burn," says he, "with a thousand fires
in a flesh untamed. I feel excited towards women
with a fury which borders upon madness. I, who
ought to be fervent in spirit, am only fervent in impu-
rity."* "Strong in my knowledge, I would not yield
either to Emperor, King or Devil: no, not even to the
whole universe."t His cherished disciple informs us
that Luther knew his immorality so well, that he wish-
ed to be removed from the ministry of preaching. J "I
tremble," wrote Melancthon," when I think of the pas-
sions of Luther; they do not yield in violence to the
fury of Hercules."§ uThis man," says one of his con-
temporaries of the reformation, "is absolutely furious.
He does not cease to combat the truth against all jus-
tice, and even against the cry of his own conscience. "||
"He is inflated with pride and arrogance, and seduced
by Satan."^f "Yes Satan has so made himself master
of Luther, as to make us believe that he is determined
to possess him entirely. "## "He has written all his
books by the impulse and under the dictation of the
Devil, with whom he had an interview, and who in
the struggle appears to have overthrown him with
victorious argument."ft "Truly," said Calvin, "Lu-
ther is very wicked. Would to God that he had taken
care to put more restraint upon the intemperance which
rages on all sides of him! Would to God that he had
thought more of gaining a true knowledge of his vices."JJ
O what an honourable and eminent personage!
* Luther's Tahle-Talk.
}His reply to the King of England.
XSleiden,bookxi. an. 1520.
^Letter to Theodore.
\\Hospinian.
^(Ecolampadius.
**Zwinglius.
]\The ch. of Zurich against the Confess, of Luther, p. 61.
X\Qu>oted%n C. Schlussenberg.
DIFFICULTIES OF ROMANISM. 219
XXI. Now let the second appear on the stage.
Zwinglius speaks thus of himself: "I cannot conceal
the fire which burns me, and urges me to incontinen-
cy; since it is true that its eilccts have brought upon
me already but too many disgraceful reproaches
among the- churches."* Luther declared openly that
Zwinglius was the progeny of hell (what an origin for
the honourable and eminent personage of Mr. Faber!)
an associate of Arius, a man not deserving to be pray-
ed for by any one.f "Zwinglius" Luther wrote, "is
dead and damned, wishing like a thief and a seditious
man to force others by arms to follow his error."!
Brentius, whom Bp. Jewell called the grave and learn-
ed old man, declares that "the doctrines of Zwinglius
are diabolical, full of impieties, depravity and calum-
nies; that the error of Zwinglius on the Eucharist (that
of a figurative presence, so dear'to Mr. Faber,) led to
many others still more sacrilegious."§ ''Blessed is the
man who hath not gone into the council of the Sacra-
mentarians (the partisans of the figurative sense, such
as the modern Anglicans) blessed is the man who hath
not stood in the way of the Zwinglians, nor sat in the
chair of Zurich! You understand what I mean."j|
Such in doctrine and deeds was that Zwinglius, in these
days so honourable and eminent in the eyes of Mr.
Faber!
XXII. Let us complete the sketch of this noble and
pious triumvirate by a few traits of Calvin. uDo not
scruple," he wrote to one of his powerful friends, "torid
the country of those zealous fanatics, who would
represent our belief as a reverie. Such monsters ought
to be smothered, as I did in the execution of the Span-
iard, Michael Servetus. For the future, I do not ima-
*Jn Parenes. adHelvet. fol. 44.
fTome 2, fol. 36, quoted in Floyimond.
\Ibid.
^Brentius in rtcog. Proph. et Jlpost. in fine.
]\Luther. Ep. and Jacob, presb.
£20 ANSWER TO THE
gine that any one will do such a thing." "Calvin, I
know, is violent and perverse; so much the better.
That is the man we want to promote our cause."*
"Calvin," said Bucer, "is a real mad dog. That man
is bad; and judges of people, according to his own
love or hatred of them." In 1588 there appeared in
London a writing approved by the Anglican bishopsf
against the Calvinist sect. Calvin and Beza. are there-
in represented as proud, intolerant men, who, by open
revolt against their lawful prince, had established their
gospel, and assumed the government of the churches
with a tyranny more odious than that, with which they
so often reproached the sovereign pontiffs. The Eng-
lish bishops protest before Almighty God that among all
the texts of scripture cited by Calvin or his disciples in
favour of the Church of Geneva against the Church of
England, (which at that time believed in the real pre-
sence) there is not one which is not distorted to a sense
unknown to the Church and the Fathers from the days of
the apostles.J So that were they to return to life,
they would be astonished that there should be found in
the world a man of such extravagant audacity as to dare
thus to abuse the word of God, himself, his readers, and
the whole world. "Happy," exclaims Bishop Bancroft,
"a thousand times happy had it been for our island, if
no Englishman or Scotchman had ever set his foot in
Geneva, if he had never known a single one of these
Genevese doctors !" Calvin declared that Luther had
done nothing of any value .... that people were not
*The German Wolmar, who while he gave him lessons at Bour-
ges in Greek and Hebrew, had filled him with the new doctrines of
Germany.
f"w3 Survey of the pretended Holy Discipline, by Bishop Bancroft."
At this period, the Church of England professed the doctrine of
the real presence, which she did not abandon till seventy-four
years afterwards.
Jit is remarkable that the Fathers quoted by Bishop Bancroft are
precisely those whom Mr. Faber has been bold enough to adduce
in favor of his moral change, his allegorical and purely figurative
sense: they are S S. Ambrose, Jerome, Augustin, Chrysostom, &c.
DIFFICULTIES OF ROMANISM. 221
to amuse themselves with following his footsteps, and
being half-papists; but that it was far better to build
a new Church altogether.*
By this time, sir, you will know what opinion to
form of these famous triumvirs. They aimed at the
same point, each in his own way: they understood each
other thoroughly. It would therefore be the highest
injustice to call in question the judgment they have
passed upon each other and upon themselves. Our
Rev. Bachelor particularly cannot but believe his hon-
ourable and eminent personages: he could not refuse
them credit, without contradicting himself. Let him
reconcile, as he thinks proper, his opinion of these gen-
tlemen with the characters they have left us of them-
selves. As for you, sir, I flatter myself that after
acknowledging the justice, which they have mutually
rendered to each other, you will so far do them justice,
as not to consider them worthy of credit on any other
subject.
XXIII. Thus when they tell you that Jesus Christ
did not establish the apostles and their successors to
preserve the faithful in the unity of his doctrine and of
his Church; that he did not promise to be with them
and direct their teaching till the end of the world; you
will not believe them. When they tell you that the
right of interpreting this Testament was left by Jesus
Christ to the faithful individually, or even to some par-
ticular teachers, you will not believe them: and you will
be the less disposed to give them credit, as you see in
your own country at this day, Christianity torn in pie-
ces and laid waste by a multitude of sects, all sprung
out of this absurd presumption.
If they shall tell you that in the most Holy Eucha-
rist, there is no change of substance, or that our Saviour
is not there really present, but that there is only a type,
* See the Appendix, p. 77, of my 1st vol. where will be found
what the early reformers thought and wrote in all truth.
222 ANSWER TO THE
an emblem or figure of his body, you will not believe
them. When they tell you that confession to a priest,
though useful in some cases, is never necessary in any;
and that you can always obtain pardon of your sins,
without recourse to the ministry of those, to whom
alone Jesus Christ gave the power of remitting them,
you will refuse to believe them. When they say that
our Divine Saviour's satisfaction exempts you from any
personal satisfaction in this world, or the next, you
will not believe them. When they shall tell you that
at the moment of death, souls still defiled with those
smaller stains, which heaven cannot, admit, will be at
once cast into hell, you will refuse to believe them.
When in fine, they shall tell you that prayers for the
dead, in use from the first beginning of Christianity,
cannot afford them any comfort, you will not believe
them.
XXIV. "But," you will exclaim, "all these points
of doctrine are exactly our own: did they really come
to us from such depraved men?" If you consult Mr.
Faber, he will tell you that however great a resem-
blance may be found between the doctrine of the Church
of England and that of the three reformers, the utmost
that can be discovered is an imperfect family likeness.
For the established Church acknowledges none for its
progenitors, and heads, but those sages, those venera-
ble bishops, who in the convocation of 1562 modelled
their doctrines upon the antiquity, the faith, and prac-
tice of the primitive Church. Certainly it is not well
to deny our parentage. We may blush at what our
fathers were, but we ousrht not to disown them. With
history in our hands, let us compel Mr. Faber to carry
up his pedigree a step higher, though it will not there-
by be more ennobled. Ask him from what source
Queen Elizabeth's bishops derived their reformed the-
ology. The new doctrines had for more than forty
years been accredited in Switzerland and Germany;
irona those countries they had been introduced into
DIFFICULTIES OF ROMANISM. 823
France and Holland. In the time of Henry VIII. they
had clandestinely found their way into England with
the most Rev. Dr. Cranmer and his wife; and under
the youthful Edward they spread abroad their sweet
odours more freely. When Mary came to the throne,
those ecclesiastics who were seduced or infected,
sought asylums at Geneva, in Switzerland, and various
states of Germany. Hence, after long draughts at the
fountains of Luther, Zwinglius, and Calvin, they return-
ed to their country, quite full of the new opinions,
which they afterwards produced in the form of the 39
articles; and seasoned to the taste of the country in the
holy and venerable convocation of 1562. Such is the
historical fact: such is the cause of that filial resem-
blance, which you judiciously observed between the
Fathers of the famous convocation and the immortal
triumvirate of the Continent. I am sensible how
humiliating is such a descent to the Church of England:
but there is still a way of escaping; it is to destroy it,
and retreat from it with all expedition.
XXV. At the end of the same note, Mr. Faber ap-
pears to find fault with my having adduced, p. 333.
vol. 1 — Forbes, Montague, Thorndyke, and Parker,
as favourable to transubstantiation. He alleges that
they only maintain what, the Church of England has
ever maintained, and what he himself has said. It is
true that Mr. Faber has expressed the sentiment
which I quoted from Forbes, and that I signified" my
satisfaction thereupon. But would he also consent to
say with the celebrated Thorndyke, that "the ele-
ments are really changed from ordinary bread and
wine, into the body and blood of Christ, mystically
present, as in a sacrament; and that, in virtue of the
consecration, not by the faith of him that receives?"*
Would he declare with Bp. Montague, after S S.
Cyprian, Cyril of Jerusalem, Basil and Ambrose, that
* Epilogue, b. 3, ch. 5.
224 ANSWER TO THE
the change caused by the consecration of the ele-
ments is called a transmutation and transelementation?*
Would he acknowledge with Bp. Parker, that, "the
ancient Fathers, from age to age, asserted the real
and substantial presence, in very high and expres-
sive terms? The Greeks and Latins styled it conver-
sion— transmutation — transformation — transfiguration
— transelementation, and, at length, transubstantiation;
by all which they expressed nothing more or less than
the real and substantial presence in the Eucharist."f
Let Mr. Faber honestly adopt the doctrine and lan-
guage of these learned divines; and I shall then quote
him at the end of them, with much more joy than I
felt pain in refuting his pitiful invention of a moral
change, and the opinion of a figurative presence, which
he affects to discover in antiquity, with the moderns
of the Church of England, since the year 1662.
They borrowed it genuine from the schools of Zwing-
lius and Calvin.
Mr. Faber concludes his long note by shewing
great indignation at a liberty, which every contro-
vertist of good sense would have taken equally with
myself — that of producing against him his own divines,
Montague, Thorndyke, and Parker, who were so fa-
vourable to transubstantiation. So natural and just a
proceeding he denounces "a stratagem unworthy of
the Bishop of Aire," (Strasbourg): and particularly
as lie observes aIn a work professedly addressed to
the "English laity. " The Rector must have a very
short memory : he continually forgets that he himself
represented my Discussion Amicale as not addressed
to the laity, but to the clergy of all the Protestant
communions, in a dedicatory epistle at the head of the
work.J
* Appeal, ch. 1.
f Reasons for abrogating the Test, p. 13
X See Difficulties of Romanism, page 6.
DIFFICULTIES OF ROMANISM. 225
COxNFESSION.
XXVI. In his ninth chapter, on Confession, Mr. Fa-
ber scarcely touches the proofs developed by me in
sixty-six consecutive pages. Since he has found it
convenient to leave my arguments and authorities un-
refuted, I shall content myself with entreating his
readers to compare my eleventh letter with his ninth
chapter. I shewed by reasoning suggested to me by
texts from the New Testament, and by testimonies
furnished by the Fathers of Antiquity, that auricular
confession is of divine institution; that it is indispen-
sably necessary, in act or desire, to obtain pardon for
our faults, and that it requires the enumeration of all
grievous sins of which we feel ourselves guilty. Mr.
Faber has read these arguments and testimonies : and
yet it seems that he wishes to ask me of what kind of
auricular confession I would be understood to speak?
Whether of that obliging to a special enumeration of
sins, or that which requires no more than a general
acknowledgment of our having sinned? Surely he
might have spared himself such a question, superflu-
ous to say the least, after my discussion of this impor-
tant matter.
He comes next to compare our confession made in
detail, with that of his own Church made only in gen-
eral terms: and, as would be readily presumed, gives
the preference to the latter. It is curious to see the
reason on which he builds his preference. He has
discovered with singular penetration, and rare saga-
city, that with the most exact detail, a hypocrite may
deceive his confessor as to the actual dispositions of
his mind. Assuredly, his supposition will not be dis-
puted; for no man can clearly read the heart of an-
other: but have I not the same right to suppose that
the sinner whom Mr. Faber represents "without a
single specification in detail," may be equally a hypo-
crite when he chooses to conceal his actual disposi-
20
226 ANSWER TO THE
tions? He will even find it the more easy to succeed
in his deception, as he will have no probation to un-
dergo, fewer facts to declare, and fewer words to
speak. But what avail these poor attempts, and what
can be inferred from these imaginary suppositions,
against the habitual and voluntary course of the tribu-
nal of penance?
XXVII. Mr. Faber makes small account of entire
confessions. It is enough for him if the sinner ac-
knowledges in general terms that he has deeply sinned
against God, and declare himself repentant from the
bottom of his soul. He seems to have no true idea
of the ministry of a confessor. This does not solely
consist in granting or refusing absolution, but in decid-
ing upon it judiciously from an accurate knowledge of
the case. This, you will at once conceive, obliges
the priest to study the actual disposition of his peni-
tent, to feel assured, before he absolves him, that his
repentance is true, and not merely the effect of some
transitorv emotion: therefore he will have recourse to
delay of absolution and to suitable probations. In the
mean time, he will summon him from time to time, ex-
amine his predominant inclinations, and fortify him
against those temptations, to which he finds him most
exposed. He will insist, incase the sinner has injured
his neighbour, on the necessity of his making good
the injury he has caused to his neighbour's fortune or
reputation. In fine, it is his duty to exhibit towards
him the solicitude of a father, the tenderness of a
friend, and the prudence of an enlightened judge : or
if you prefer considering him under a more striking
image, I will tell you that the art of a spiritual direc-
tor is to apply to withered and languishing souls suita-
ble remedies and succours, with the same zeal and
attention with which a skilful physician applies them
to bodily diseases. The justice of this comparison
will become more evident from the following supposi-
tion; for which I crave your indulgence.
DIFFICULTIES OF ROMANISM. 227
XXVIII. I mil suppose, which God forbid — that
Mr. Faber is seized with some serious attack of
illness. The physician is sent for, and attend-.
"What ails you, my good sir? You seem greatly re-
duced: where do you feel pain?" "O I am very ill, my
suffering is excessive." "How did it begin? Where
do you feel it particularly?" "O, sir, 1 have aeted
very wrong, I acknowledge; and I am truly sorry for
it: if you did but know what I suffer !" "But tell me
then; is it in your head, or stomach, or side? let me
know where your pain lies." My pain weighs heavily
upon me; it is intolerable; I can tell you no more.'"
In vain does the physician persist in endeavouring to
obtain some further information, some particular
avowal of his real situation; he can elicit none. Not
knowing therefore what remedies to prescribe, and
fearful of bringing on his death, instead of promoting
his recovery, quod enirn ignored, medica non curat, he
leaves the patient to himself, and to his friends, who
are driven to despair by his obstinacy, which is so
likely to cost him his life. But be well assured, sir,
that Mr. Faber would never adopt for the cure of his
body, the plan of proceeding which he recommends
you to follow for that of your soul. He would conceal
nothing from his physician, he would tell him at once
the cause, the seat and the nature of his disorder; and
he would scrupulously confess the smallest circum-
stances, however slightly they might appear to aggra-
vate his distemper. Accurately informed by his ac-
count, the physician would act directly upon the evil,
and triumph over it by suitable remedies. Perhaps
Mr. Faber might relapse from time to time, but he
would be re-established by speedy recourse to the
physician, whose excellent treatment would long pre-
serve him to his family, his friends, and his deal
parishioners. I shall not be surprised if, after reflect-
ing on his own experience, he finds it not so objection-
able a plan to compare the confessor to the physici;*^
228 ANSWER TO THE
the sinner to the patient, and the infirmities of the sou!
to those of the body; and perhaps even ends by mak-
ing trial upon his own soul of that very process of cure,
which he at present so unreasonably condemns in the
practice of Catholics.
XXIX. I have been most struck in Mr. Faber's
work, with a certain peculiar method, which I find
him constantly pursuing. When he applies himself to
refute any one of my arguments, instead of bringing it
forward in my own words, he sums it up in his own
fashion, and says, that my whole proof, reduced to
regular form, would run as a syllogism thus — or words
to the same effect. Then he attacks his own syllogism,
of course with ample success; but leaves my real
argument untouched. If I produce the belief of the
primitive and universal Church, he very soon substi-
tutes for it the Latin Chvrch: and by this manoeuvre,
escapes the former, and insults the latter as he pleases.
Am I reasoning on the real presence? He makes me
argue on Transubstantiation, which pre-supposes it
certainly, yet is not identical with it. Speaking of
that part of the secret discipline, which regarded the
Eucharist, I say that the real presence was the sole
cause of the secrecy concerning the Eucharist; but Mr.
Faber declares to his readers, that, according to my
account — First, Transubstantiation was the sole cause
of the secret discipline. Second, that it was the sole,
exclusive cause of the secrecy observed upon the mys-
teries, and that Third, it was the principal cause of
the general discipline of the secret. Then he goes
into a long refutation of these allegations attributed to
me, but of which you will not find one syllable in eith-
er of my volumes.
At page 115 he pretends that the "five first centu-
ries recognised no change save a moral change in the
consecrated elements" — an expression unknown before
his own time — and that the Church "esteemed the
bread and wine to be only types, orjigvrcs, or symbols^
DIFFICULTIES OF ROMANISM. 229
or images of ... . the literal body and blood of Christ.."
Now lie has not only quoted no Father, nor can quote
any, who has made use of these negative and exclu-
sive expressions of the real presence; but it is a fact
on the contrary, that all the Fathers have professed
their belief of the real presence. I have placed be-
fore you proofs of this; and assuredly, if they are not
demonstrative, there are none such in questions of evi-
dence and history. At page 133 he makes me, and
even Bossuet say, that the figure of a thing may be at
the same time the thing itself: an absurdity created
only in his own brain. For I merely said that a thing
may be a sensible sign, a sign apparent to the senses,
of another thing, which is not so: I said that the visible
and material species concealed the spiritualized and
invisible body of our Saviour.
XXX. Now, sir, be pleased to interrogate Mr.
Faber: call upon him most seriously to explain clearly
to you by what right he has chosen to alter my
expressions, and put his own in their place; to impute
to me opinions, which are foreign to me* and personal
to himself: Ask him if such a mode of refuting an
antagonist be that of an honorable man: or if he
would be satisfied to have such a method employed
against himself. I appeal to your exalted mind and
rectitude of soul: I feel assured that you will agree
with me, that in a matter of indifference such jugglery
could be considered no better than low cunning, but
that in religious controversy it is a crime. Is it not
true moreover, does it not appear to your eyes as
clear as to mine, that had he detected me in any false
reasoning or quotation, he would have exhibited my
false assertions, just as I had written them? That he
would have exposed my argumentation and testimo-
nials exactly in my own words? Instead of recurring
to his usual skill in metamorphosing and condensing my
passages unfaithfully, he would have refuted what he
had read in my work, and not what he had been un-
20*
230 ANSWER TO THE
able to find there? From this disgraceful manoeuvring".
I conclude that he found it impossible to reply to the
arguments I used, and the authorities I quoted: I con-
clude that he would have had nothing specious to
write against either, had he not substituted his own
words for mine, and falsely represented the Fathers
of antiquity in contradiction to each other and to
themselves: I conclude in fine, that the Difficulties of
Romanism is the most flattering eulogium upon the
Discussion Jlmicale, and a new triumph for the Catho-
lic faith?
SATISFACTION.
XXXI. In his chapter on Satisfaction, I detect your
Bachelor again; and there you will see him relapsing
into his habitual sin, his ruling infidelity. I entreat
you to read this chapter X: he is prodigiously wrath
with me for the merit which, he says, I attach to
works of satisfaction. He makes a great stir to shew
that neither I, nor any one can call them meritorious: at
every page he reproaches me with this epithet, which,
he assures his readers, is given by me to the satisfac-
tion of the penitent.* I dare say, sir, you are quite
convinced that I do in fact speak of the merit of our
satisfactions, that the expression — meritorious works
— occurs in my book frequently. Well, sir, only be
at the pains of looking over my 12th letter, vol. 2,
and to your great surprise, you will neither find the
merit of our satisfactions, nor satisfactory works. These
words, merit and meritorious^ for which Mr. Faber so
sharply reproves me, are not to be found at all in my
* "The bishop, not content with gratuitously carrying it (the
temporal punishment) into the next world, seems evidently to
consider it in the light of a meritorious expiation made on our part
when we either devoutly submit to it as sent from God, or when
.we freely and artificially inflict upon ourselves" — p. 168; and
at the bottom of the following page — "The bishop clearly deems,
them meritorious." — Et passim.
DIFFICULTIES OF ROMANISM. 231
letter, applied to our personal satisfactions; no, not in
a single instance. What I here declare may appear
bold, but it is perfectly true. Where then has Mr.
«Faber found these expressions? How comes it that
he incessantly attributes them to me, and takes occa-
sion thence to reproach me? "What does he mean by
this mode of replying to what I have never advanced;
and appearing to disregard what I have said? I defy
him to answer these questions satisfactorily. No
doubt it would have pleased him to find me really at-
taching a proper, independent merit to our satisfactory
works, as he represents me to have done. But fatally
for his honour and good faith, I have done no such
thing; but have written precisely the contrary. My
words are these, p. 215, vol. 2 — aIs it undervaluing
the merit of the cross, to acknowledge that without
the particular application of its infinite merits to us, it
is impossible for any one to derive benefit from it; that
this application nevertheless requires our co-operation,
because he who created us without our concurrence ,
will not save us without our concurrence; and that
still our personal and satisfactory works are no more
in themselves than dead icorks, but that by being united
to those of our Saviour, by approaching his cross, and
touching the sacred and life-giving wood, they derive
life, strength, and value, as they are then offered by
Jesus Christ to his Father, and in Jesus Christ, are
accepted by the Father?* Is it derogatory to the
merit of the cross of Jesus Christ, to become his imi-
tators, as far as possible; to punish ourselves for our sins
after his example, as he was pleased that they should
be punished in his holy and divine person; to unite a
feeble and inefficacious satisfaction to that, which he
fully and abundantly paid for us with his blood? Tell
me: is it not our duty to imitate as closely as possible.
Him, who came to be our model, and who said: lIf any
* Council of Trent, sect. xiv. ch. xviii.
232 ANSWER TO THE
man will come after me, let him take up his cross and
follow me?" And is it not manifest that so far from
being derogatory to the merits of our Saviour, or in-
compatible with his suffering's, our temporal satisfac-
tions are absolutely inseparable from them? What
then? Because we cannot offer sufficient satisfaction,
are we to offer none? Are we exempt from all ex-
piation, because we cannot carry it to an infinite
extent? And because we are unable to pay the
whole debt, are we dispensed with from all efforts
to pay according to our means?"* Such is the pas-
sage of which Mr. Faber has quoted some few words.
Do you find in it a single expression objectionable?
Do you see there the merit of our satisfactions, and
our meritorious works? I say on the contrary that our
works are only in themselves dead works, and our
satisfaction a feeble and inefficacious satisfaction. But
it is not the less necessary on our part. Still the ob-
ligation of satisfying, and the merit of it are different
things! Mr. Faber has thought proper to be silent
upon the words above in italics, and to withhold them
from his readers by a perfidious suppression. In place
of them he brings forward what he wished to attack,
and what is not there to be found — the merit of our
wrorks, our meritorious satisfaction. O equity! O can-
dour! I look for you in my antagonist, but I cannot
find you!
In proof of the necessity of satisfaction, I quoted the
testimonies of Tertullian, St. Cyprian, St. Ambrose,
and St. Augustin. — These are the very Fathers to
* I will here call to my support a grand and noble authority:
"Without the penance of our divine Saviour, yours would be un-
Jruitful: without yours, his would remain without effect. It is his
which gives value to yours, yours alone can give effect to his. Let
the sight of his satisfaction support and direct yours ; let it be its en-
couragement and pattern: let it teach you both the necessity and the
method of putting it in practice." The immortal Card. De la
Luzerne in his pious and profound Considerations on the Passions,
p. 328.
DIFFICULTIES OF ROMANISM. 233
whom Mr. Faber himself appeals at page 1 9, though
certainly most unwarrantably, in favour of his moral
change, and whose authority he there exalted to its
deserved height. But what does he say of them here?
At first he does not know well how to understand the
very clear passages by me adduced- but be the case
as it may, he adds: "If they use the term in his lord-
ship's apparent sense, I shall have no hesitation in sav-
ing, that their grossly unscriptural language merely
shews how soon and how easily a specious and flatter-
ing corruption crept into the Church." So modest a
declaration suggests to my mind a parallel sufficiently
rich between Mr. Faber and his eminent foreigner
Calvin. "I am little moved," says Calvin, "with what
we find at every step in the writings of the ancients
concerning satisfaction. I see that the greater part,
or, to speak more explicitly, almost all those whose
works remain to us, have either positively erred on this
subject, or have spoken upon it too severely." The
reformer candidly allows that almost all the ancient
Fathers taught the necessity of satisfaction. Our
reformed author does not dare to make the like avowal;
he still doubts: but in his hypothetic conclusions, he
agrees with his honourable patron; and it is easy to see
that the spirit of the sire has descended unimpaired to
his very distant progeny. Both are decisive in their
decrees against the Fathers, and have no hesitation in
arraigning of ignorance and error the most enlightened
geniuses of Christianity. What blindness and effront-
ery, not to discover in themselves the ignorance, which
they have the audacity to attribute to the great lumina-
ries of antiquity! Who can refrain from indignation,
or at least pity, to see both coming forward to dictate,
on an article of revelation, to illustrious doctors, who
received it from the disciples of the apostles, and taught
it with so much glory, in times, it is universally ac-
knowledged, that faith shone in all its primitive splen-
dour-
234 ANSWER TO THE
XXXIII. Passing in fine, from speculution to prac-
tice, I exhibited the doctrine of the Fathers put in
operation in the canonical penances, so generally
established under the persecution of Decius; a striking
and incontestable monument of the universal belief of
the necessity of making satisfaction to Almighty God.
At the sight of this austere and imposing discipline,
Mr. Faber remains dumb. He finds no answer to make,
and is silent. I applaud his silence; why did he not
keep silent on all that preceded: He would have
saved himself the displeasure, which he has forced me
to give him, and me the sad and truly painful duty of
exposing his theological disqualifications, and his con-
tinual forgetfulness of good faith and probity in contro-
versial discussion.
INDULGENCES.
XXXIV. Whoever rejects with Mr. Faber the pre-
cept of satisfying God by works of penance, must,
with him and Calvin, not only accuse the Fathers of
error and severity in their teaching, and by an inevita-
ble consequence, the primitive Church of injustice in
the institution of canonical and satisfactory penalties;
but disdainfully refuse the helps and favours, which the
Church offers, and adds to the insufficiency of our
satisfactions. He must dismiss with the multitude of
fabulous inventions, the belief of a place of expiation,
between heaven and hell, and send without mercy to
eternal torments those souls who carry into the next
world any stains contracted in this. He must consider
all communication with his departed friends cut off- —
renounce the consolation of interesting himself for their
happiness, and regard the practice of praying for them
as vain and superstitious, since our prayers arc alike
unprofitable to them, whether their abode is with the
elector with the damned, with angels or devils. Thus
Mr. Faber will hear nothing about indulgencies, or
DIFFICULTIES OF ROMANISM. 035
purgatory, or prayers for the dead. He reasons con-
sistently, I acknowledge, but as he sets out with a false
principle, his conclusions are equally erroneous.
9 XXXV. The twelfth letter of my Discussion Amicalc,
established the precept of satisfaction to the divine
justice: the thirteenth solidly proved the existence in
the Church of right and power to grant indulgences,
as also their utility and importance to sinners. Mr.
Faber attempts in his eleventh chapter to invalidate my
proofs; but in vain. You may judge by comparing our
respective writings. I need not observe, that in this
eleventh chapter he incessantly puts into my mouth
the merit of our satisfactions, our meritorious works
and meritorious expiations. It is clear that he is de-
termined to palm these expressions upon me, though
they never proceeded from my pen: but if he repeat
them a hundred times in succession, so many times shall
I reply that what he says is untrue. He maintains that
to attribute to the Church the power of granting indul-
gences, is as much as conceding to her the privilege of
depriving the divine justice of a part of the expiations
otherwise due; and this idea appears to him so luminous
and well imagined that he repeats it in the next para-
graph. But who was it that invested the Church with
this high prerogative? Was it not our Saviour himself?
Who then can restrain the exercise of a right, which
our Saviour promised her by those solemn words:
"whatsoever you shall loose upon earth, shall be loosed
in heaven?" 1 perceive also in page one hundred and
seventy-nine, that he would make you believe that this
right belongs to every priest. This is another notion
entirely his own. Yet he ought to know that priests
never make use of it but by delegation from bishops in
the extent of their jurisdiction; and that the power of
communicating to the whole earth the benefit of indul-
gences belongs only to the supreme head of the univer-
sal Church.
236 ANSWER TO THE
XXXVI. I know not, or rather I can pretty well
guess, why he has chosen to misrepresent the affair
of the incestuous Corinthians, at p. 180. "The Corin-
thians, as St. Paul expresses himself, had deliver-
ed an incestuous member of their community unto
Satan," &c. — So says Mr. Faber, but in chap. 5,
of the 1st epistle, the apostle reproves them for hav-
ing kept him in their community: "I indeed, absent in
body but present in spirit, have already judged .... to
deliver such a one to Satan Your glorying is not
good. Know you not that a little leaven corrupteth
the whole lump?" And in chap. 2d, of the 2d epistle:
"To him that is such a one, this rebuke is sufficient,
that is given by many: so that contrariwise, you
should rather forgive him, and comfort him lest per-
haps such a one be swallowed up with overmuch sor-
row. Wherefore I beseech you that you would con-
firm your charity towards him and to whom you
have forgiven any thing, I also." Therefore it was
St. Paul who punished and who relaxed the punish-
ment. According to Mr. Faber the faithful chastised
and afterwards pardoned: "satisfied" he says, "of the
sincerity of the man's contrition, they pardoned him
the disgrace which he had brought upon the church,
and re-admitted him to the enjoyment of his former
privileges as a baptized Christian. The circumstance
and ground of his re-admission were communicated to
St. Paul; and St. Paul, in reply, informs them, that aa
they had forgiven the offender, so likewise did he foik
their sakes in the person of Christ."* Would not any
one really say that it was decreed that this unfortunate
Bachelor should spoil every thing he touched, and never
represent things as they really are?
XXXVII. "The bishop," he goes on p. 182, "has
no hesitation in pronouncing, with or without the con-
sent of his Church, that the validity of indulgences . . .
entirely depends upon the dispositions of thesinner?*
Why should Mr -Faber raise a doubt on this h«ad;
DIFFICULTIES OF ROMANISM. 237
after reading the admirable dogmatical letter of the
learned and pious pontiff who now fills3 in so worthy a
manner, the chair of St. Peter? The principle is there
most clearly developed.* The Rev. Bachelor pa
next to those abuses, which in the 16th century refli
ed dishonour on the publication of indulgences; am
may well be supposed that under his pen, these ab,
would lose nothing of their enormity. "What,-" says
he, with much warmth, "what was the crying abom-
ination, which first roused the indignant spirit of
great and much-calumniated "Luther?" No, Mr. Fa-
ber; calumniated is not the right word. No one has
painted this great Luther in more odious colours than
himself, and his associates in the work of the reforma-
tion, Zwinglius and Calvin, those two eminent persona-
3, who composed with Luther the honoured trium
rate of the Rector of Long Newton. No one has*
ter informed us of his passions and fury than his inti-
mate, but timid friend, Melancthon, who complained
of having received blows from him, and I engage, •
were none of the lightest.f To judge by the original
portrait, which I have seen in the temple of Wittem-
berg, the vigorous reformer must have had a he
hand. Taking altogther what we find in these fourco-
temporarv authors concerning Luther, of the impetu-
osity of his passions, and his unbounded pride, we must
feel convinced that this great, honourable, and eminent
man has left nothing even for calumny itself to invent
against him.
To return to the abuses spoken of by Mr. Fabe .
the publication of the indulgences of Leo X; an im-
partial and honourable writer would not have failed to
observe that the councirof Lateran, under Innocent III.
*I have lately read with fresh admiration this encyclical letter
to all the bishops of the Catholic world. I wish it were known to
Protestants: it would make on many a very different impression
from what Mr. Faber appears to have felt from its perusal :
t"Ab ipso colaphos accepi." Epist. ad Tlieodor.
21
238 ANSWER TO THE
in 1215, and that of Vienne under Clement V. in 1311,
had previously fulminated against the greater part of
the same kind of abuses; and that the council of Trent,
grieving to find that the prohibitions of those councils
had not been effectual in eradicating the abuses in ques-
tion, considered it necessary to cut to the quick, and
suppressed the employment of questors, abolished their
very name in detestation of their scandals, and ordain-
ed that in future indulgences should be published by
the bishops.*
XXXVIII. On the subject before us, allow me, sir,
to place again before you a passage in my Discussion
Jlmicale, vol. 2, pp. 232, 234: "If Luther, supported by
the councils of Lateran, Vienne, and Trent, and by the
concurrent sentiments of the most able divines, of such
a man, for instance, as Cardinal Cusa, who gained the
admiration of Germany in the legation, which he per-
formed, and in which he published the indulgence of
the jubilee in 1450; if Luther had only risen up against
the ignorance of the preachers in his time, and the
disgraceful traffic, which wras made of indulgences, he
would have merited the applause of the Church, and
of all succeeding ages. But this man of violent pas-
sions neither knew how to master himself, nor curb the
impetuosity, which urged him, step by step, to rebel-
lion. The consequences of that too celebrated dis-
pute are well known, as also how, passing on from the
abuse to the principle, he went so far as to deny that
the Church had any power to grant indulgences to
penitents.
" 'Give rather to the poor,' he exclaimed again and
again to his hearers, 'give for the love of God, to the
poor the money which is demanded of you for the
building of St. Peter's.' Who ever doubted that we
ought to give to the poor? How often have Churches
given up their vessels of gold and silver, their orna-
ments and jewels to feed the poor? But does charity
•See Discussion .imicale, vol. 2, p. 231.
DIFFICULTIES OF ROMANISM. 239
towards our indigent brethren forbid extraordinary
succour for the erection of a temple to the Lord, par-
ticularly in the mother-church? If the abuses in col-
lecting alms in Luther's time are to be condemned,
where is the man of sense and good taste who could
blame the intention of those alms? Surely none of those
who have visited and admired that Church, the most
worthy monument, which men ever erected with their
feeble hands to the supreme majesty of God.11
Mr. Faber interprets in his own way my silence on
the subject of the riches, which constitute the inexhaust-
ible treasure of indulgences. It is clear however that
I had no need to repeat what is written in all the jubi-
bulls, and in every elementary book on indulgences.
This treasure is composed of the merits of Jesus Christ,
with which are associated those of such holy persons,
who by an especial grace, led upon earth a life of in-
nocence and purity. Their charitable and angelic
works, ever united to those of our divine Saviour, de-
rived- during this life all their merit from their union
with our Saviour's merits, in the same manner as after
death, they derive all their merit from the infinite merits
of the God-man. What can be objected to in this doc-
trine? In iruth, to find any thing here which we should
blush to acknowledge, can only be done by a head de-
plorably disordered by prejudice. He that would
5t ridicule on this pious and ancient -belief, would
only bring derision upon himself.
PRAYERS FOR THE DEAD— PURGATORY.
XXXI X. I had joined Purgatory and Prayers for
i1ilj dead in one article; because the custom of praying
for the dead evidently pre-supposes the belief of a
middle place between heaven and hell; and because
when we shew this practice in the primitive Church,
we, by this single fact, demonstrate her belief in this
middle state, where souls are purified from every stain,
before they are admitted to the abode of innoce
240 ANSWER TO THE
either preserved or recovered. Now what does Mr.
Faber? He separates prayers for the dead from pur-
gatory, in order to deprive them of their natural sup-
port, and attack them singly with greater advantage,
You will see that he succeeds none the better. But it
must be acknowledged that these two chapters dis-
play more of the artful sophistry, which he habitually
exercises, and uniformly with a tone of assurance, cal-
culated to impose upon readers unable to detect it.
He sets out in his usual manner with making me say
what I never did say, and even affecting to compli-
ment me. "The bishop fairly and honestly confesses,
that we have received no revelation concerning it
from Jesus Christ." No, sir, I have no claim to the fair-
ness and honesty of such a confession, for I never made
it: and he who would compliment me, ought to know
that I maintain precisely the contrary, in the follow-
ing words, p. 248, vol. 2: "Let us go farther, and bold-
ly assert that Jesus Christ did himself approve and re-
commend this practice to his disciples," (praying for
the dead.) I said, "There must remain for the most
part, much to expiate in the other world. But where:
In what place and manner? Had it been necessary for
us to be informed on these points, doubtless Jesus
Christ would have revealed them to us. He has not
done so: and therefore we can only form more or less
probable conjectures." Here Mr. Faber omits the in-
terrogations, and after reporting only the answer, he
concludes thus: "The doctrine, then, of purgatory is
confessedly not a matter of revelation: whether it be
true or false, we confessedly cannot ascertain from any
thing that Christ has said on the subject." (P. 186.)
Thus he makes me speak of the existence of purgato-
ry, when I am only treating of its locality. In his note
at the next page, he does pretty nearly the reverse. I
observed in a note, p. 243, v. 2, as follows: "You ad-
mit limbo, because its existence is proved to you, al-
though its situation remains unknown. Let it equally
DIFFICULTIES OF ROMANISM. 241
satisfy you to be assured of the existence of purgatory,
without troubling yourself to discover its local po-
sition." But Mr. Faber distorts my reasoning in this
manner: "You believe the existence of such a place,
though its local position is unknown to you. Rest
then assured of the existence of purgatory, though he
may not be able to define its strict local position.1' Is
this what I said? Would any man of good sense have
reasoned in such a manner? Mr. Faber gravely re-
minds his countrymen that "the point at issue is not
the locality but the existence of purgatory;" as if I had
spoken of the former only and not of the latter! I hope,
sir, you will pity the unfortunate lot of the Discussion
Amicale to have fallen into hands so little disposed to
be amicable.
XL. In the succeeding page I find again his meri-
torious expiation. He repeats it for ever; persuading
himself, no doubt, that by continuing to impute it to
me, he shall at last succeed in making it pass as mine;
and by perseverance in bringing it forward, from
false, he shall render it authentic. How pitiful are all
such artifices! And how necessary is patience to en-
dure such a tissue of false imputations, joined to infi-
delities so often repeated! With a candid and able
antagonist, I should have had, no doubt, points of eru-
dition to clear up, and important difficulties to resolve.
But assuredly I should not have found what I have had
to expose in this third part of my answer. We are
not yet at the end of these unpleasant subjects: there
are many more to claim our attention.
XLI. I shewed that the practice of praying for the
dead was anterior to Christianity by the book of
Macchabees, which is deutero-canonical, but not, as
Mr. Faber. would have it, apocryphal. For the third
Council of Carthage, resting on tradition, St. Augustin,
Innocent I. and Gelasius, with seventy bishops, place
it in the rank of divine Scripture. I said, that though
its canonicity had been doubted for a time, its historical
21*
242 ANSWER TO THE
truth had never been questioned. This ought certainly
to suffice to shew that praying for the dead was in use
among the Jews before our Saviour, who would not
have failed to turn them from it, if he had judged the
custom bad and superstitious.
I afterwards shewed in concert with celebrated
doctors of your own, that this practice prevailed in
the primitive Church, from the testimonies of Tertul-
iian, S S. Cyprian, Chrysostom, Epiphanius, Jerome
and Augustin; I shewed that Origen, St. Cyril of Jeru-
salem, and St. Gregory of Nyssa,had acknowledged by
name a middle place, where souls must he purified from
all defilement before they could enter heaven. What
reply does Mr. Faber make? First, He opposes to
them the silence of the apostolic Fathers, as if in the
small number of their writings which have come down
to us, they had been able to treat of every point of
doctrine, and their negative testimony could overturn
the positive atttestation of the others. Secondly, He
observes that the oldest of my authorities goes no far-
ther back than the end of the second century, namely,
Tertullian; who, he says, was too far from the apostles,
to justify us in grounding upon him an apostolical tra-
dition. I will just observe, in my turn, that Mr. Fa-
ber himself brought Tertullian against me, when he
believed that Father's testimony in favour of his cause:
then he was represented as close to the days of the
apostles. But it is not the authority of Tertullian to
which I wish in this place to appeal, but solely to his
evidence. Tertullian, who died in 216, at the age of
84, must have been born in 1 32. He was brought up at
Rome, where he studied the law, leading at that time
a dissolute lifer and ridiculing the Christians, as he
himself informs us. He entered upon the examination
of Christianity, through mere curiosity, embraced it,
became its illustrious defender against pagans and
heretics, and found himself involved in the great affairs
of the Church. What better informed or more strictly
DIFFICULTIES OF ROMANISM. 243
upright witness of what was then practised in the
churches could be desired? He speaks of praying for
the dead as a universal practice, and ranks it with the
points taught by tradition. Now what think you of a
practice universally established and come down by
tradition, less than 72 years after St. John? Can it, I
ask you, be other than apostolical? Will there be a
man of sense among us, who will be persuaded by the
assertion of Mr. Faber, and contrary to that of so
grave a witness of the second century, that this prac-
tice so far from belonging to tradition, proceeded from
an error newly broached at a period when, as the re-
formed churches acknowledge, doctrine flourished in
its native integrity and purity?
XLII. But let us come to an argument, which wili
cut short all the entangled confusion in which Mr.
Faber envelopes his readers and himself, and demon-
strate that praying for the dead is not, as he calls it,
a crude phantasy started by the "imaginative" Tertul-
lian. All the liturgies published from the Council of
Ephesus to the sixteenth century, Catholic, Nestorian,
Eutvchian, Malabar, Chaldean, Egyptian, Abyssinian,
and Ethiopian; those of Constantinople, of the Greeks,
Syrians, whether Orthodox or Jacobites; those of St.
Basil, St. Chrysostom, St. James, explained in the
fourth century by St. Cyril of Jerusalem; that, in fine,
of the apostolic constitutions written before the others
in the third century — all are uniform on this subject of
praying for the dead. I have given extracts from them
in my Appendix, vol. 2, p. 259. Mr. Faber does not
say a word about them: lie would make it appear that
he did not observe them. But pray ask him to ac-
count for this uniformity in the Liturgies of churches
separated in the fifth century. If he fail, all well in-
formed divines will answer you in the words of your
own Bishop Bull: "Ail the Christian churches in the
world, however distant from each other, agree in the
prayer of the oblation of the Christian sacrifice in the
244 ANSWER TO THE
Holy Eucharist, or Sacrament of the Lord's Supper;
(and the same applies to the prayers for the dead)
which consent is indeed wonderful. All the ancient
liturgies agree in this form of prayer, almost in the
same words, but fully and exactly in the same sense,
order, and method; which whoever attentively consid-
ers, must be convinced, that this order of prayer was
delivered to the several churches in the very first plan-
tation and settlement of them."*
Mr. Faber, fond of harping at words, will say that
the liturgies did not suppose souls to be in wiiat we
understand by purgatory. But let him cavil as he
pleases against our denomination of purgatory, it is
certain that the ancients did not pray for the inhabi-
tants of heaven, nor of hell. Where then dwelt the
souls for whom they prayed? In what place? He
may call it by what name he chooses; we dispute not
about the name, but the thing. Let him pray in the
style of the ancient liturgies, and say with the aposto-
lic constitutions: "Vouchsafe, O God, to look upon thy
servant whom thou hast made to pass into another
state. Pardon him if he has sinned wilfully, or invol-
untarily. Place him in the bosom of the patriarchs,
prophets, apostles, and all those who had the happiness
to please thee here below." Let him make such a
prayer in all sincerity: we shall for the present require
no more of him.
XLIII. The Rev. Bachelor, at page 191, brings
against me a passage from St. Cyprian, and at p. 200
a sentence from Tertullian. The latter is as follows:
"On a certain annual day we make oblations for the
dead and for nativities." Mr. Faber has very justly
observed that the nativities indicate the days on which
the departed saints dying to the world, were born to
immortality. But he did not observe that Tertullian
has distinguished the dead from the nativities; that is,
*Bp. Bull on Common Prayer, sermon 12, vol. 1
DIFFICULTIES OF ROMANISM. 245
those, who had died a natural death, from those, who
had lust their Uvea to receive the crown of martyrdom.
The, oblations were the game, says Mr. Faber. Un-
doubtedly they were; for it waft, and always will be,
the oblation of the sacrifice of the new law, bloody
upon the cross, but unbloody upon our altars. It is
therefore necessarily one and the same. But the
prayers which accompany it were, and always will be
different for the saints, and for the common faithful
departed. They made commemoration of the elect of
both testaments, to thank and glorify God in their
persons; and generally of all that died, to beg of God
to pardon them, and fix them in a place of light, repose
and happiness. This, all the liturgies of antiquity
uniformly shew. Would Mr. Faher wish for a proof
from Tertullian himself? Let him read No. 10 of his
book of Monogamy. Tertullian speaking of the ^\
who survives her husband, desires that thenceforth in
her widowhood uShe should pray for the soul of her
husband, solicit for him refreshment, and offer on the
anniversaries of his death." uPro aninui ejus (mariti)
oret, refrigerium interim adpostulet, et offerat diebus
dormitationis ejus." Bonnitationes expressed natural
deaths ; natulitio, the birth of the martyrs and saints
to immortality. Doubtless Mr. Faher will now re-
proach himself with having made Tertullian contra-
dict himself, as well as the liturgies, which certainly
he constantly frequented after his conversion to Chris-
tianity.
I trust he will find equal reason to reprove himself
with regard to St. Cyprian, who in the passage quoted
at p. 191 begins with these words: "When once de-
parted this life, there is no longer any place for repen-
tance, nor for satisfaction." The last word must have
cost Mr. Faber a great deal; Ids hand must have
trembled as he wrote it. I am sorry to have again to
bring it before him: "What do they mean," said this
Father, to those who reconciled sinners before the
246 ANSWER TO THE
time, "but that Jesus Christ shall be less appeased by
prayers and satisfactions? But that sins shall no more
be redeemed by just satisfactions? .... Let every
deep wound have long and careful treatment: let not
the penance be less than the crime."* And again:
"Behold the greatest wounds of sin, behold the great-
est transgressions; to have sinned, and not to satisfy:
to have offended, and not to weep." But I am fa-
tiguing Mr. Faber's ear too much with the disagreeable
words, satisfy and satisfaction. Let us return to the
contradiction which would result from the passage
quoted and explained by Mr. Faber, and that adduced
by me in the Discussion Jlmicale. Mine is as follows:
'•Our predecessors prudently advised that no brother
departing this life, should nominate any churchman his
executor; and should he do it, that no oblation should
be made for him, nor sacrifice offered for his repose."
And he adds that Victor having contrary to this law,
nominated the priest Faustinus his executor, unon est
quod pro dormitione ejus apud vos fiat oblatio, aid
deprecatio aliqua nomine ejus in ecelesiii frcqiientehir"
It is evident that this law, and its application to Victor,
suppose the custom of praying for the dead anterior to
St. Cyprian. But Mr. Faber would have it, that
according to the doctrine of that illustrious primate,
there were only heaven or hell to be expected after
death. Were that the qase, it would be alike evident
that this great man contradicted himself.
But let us comfort ourselves for the honour of St.
Cyprian, with the assurance that the contradiction is
entirely the act of his interpreter. The works of
penance and satisfaction belong only to this life; they
are strangers to the other world: purgatory knows
them not. That is the abode of sorrowful expiations:
there purification is effected by suffering. Yet who
* Let. 55 to Pope Cornelius. "Ecce majora peccati vulnera,
ecce majora delicta; peccasse, -nee satisfacere; deliquisse, nee
flere."
DIFFICULTIES OF ROMANISM. 247
would not think himself happy in this life, if he were
certain of going thither at his death? St. Cyprian then
would have had reason to say, that even when satis-
faction remains to be made in the next world, we pass
from this life to a blessed immortality. But must he
by this blessed immortality have meant heaven? Even
so it is unquestionable, that after we have done, as he
requires elsewhere and supposes here, penance pro-
port'oiable to the sins, which it has been our misfor-
tune to commit, we pass immediately from death to
eternal happiness. But what I have here said regards
only Christians, and I acknowledge that St. Cyprian in
this place is not addressing them. He is writing to a
pagan named Demetrianus. What then is the case?
He seeks to attract him to Christianity; he exposes
the danger of deferring his conversion, and places be-
fore his eyes the salutary effects of faith, which from
repentance and confession necessarily leads to bap-
tism, and thus opens the gate of heaven to those, who
have just received the grace of regeneration.
You see that the passage brought against me is by
no means incompatible with purgatory, and that admit-
ting this abode of temporary expiation, St. Cyprian
might well express himself as he did, whether you ex-
den this expressions to Christians, who had or had not
entirely satisfied the divine justice in this life; or con-
fine them to the pagan Demetrianus; and since it can-
not be doubted, after what I have quoted from St.
Cyprian, that in his time, and long before, praying for
the dead was in use, that explanation must absolutely
be admitted, which makes the saint consistent with
himself, with the practice of the Church, and with the
apostolic liturgies.
Mr. Faber looks well indeed, when at p. 204 h e
tells us with perfect satisfaction at his performance:
aCyprian I have already disposed of."*
* Epilogue, p. 337.
248 ANSWER TO THE
XLIV. Enquire, I entreat you, sir, of your learned
Thorndyke; he will tell you : "One subject of refor-
mation, in my opinion, would be to re-establish prayers
for the dead, according to the primitive sentiment of
the universal Church: and I maintain that the suppres-
sion of such prayers, was not retrenching an abuse,
but cutting to the very quick." Listen to Bishops
Forbes, Barrow, Sheldon, Blandford, &c.* Compare
your modem divines with their predecessors; and you
will see that instead of returning to antiquity, they
every day depart more widely from it. They have
taught you to believe that death breaks off all commu-
nication between those, who remain upon earth, and
those, who have quitted it. Thus you have accompa-
nied your relations and friends with tears to the grave:
but the stone once closed down upon them, you have
left them to their fate. You have hoped; it is true,
that they were happy, but without daring to pray for
their happiness to the sovereign Judge. I am well as-
sured that your affection for them was not extinguish-
ed with their life: but it remained sterile and unprofit-
able to them. Educated in the unhappy principles of
a gloomy and discouraging creed, you have never yet
known the secret calm and resignation infused by
the thought that we can benefit our friends beyond
the tomb. Enter at least now upon this solid and
consolatory belief. Were it imaginary, were it an
illusion, it would still be delightful; and cruel is that
reformation, which presumes to forbid it. But it is in-
contestable, and a matter of primitive tradition; you
have seen that it is built upon the teaching of the
apostles, and consequently upon that of their divine
Master. Hearken then no more to those ignorant and
unfeeling sophists, who strive to deprive you of a re-
source so precious to those, whose lot it is to survive.
Practice it henceforth; betake yourselves to it with
♦Sec Discussion Jlmicak, vol. 2, pp. 254, 255, 256.
DIFFICULTIES OF ROMANISM. 249
confidence; I venture to affirm that you will find
it a source of hope, of tender feelings and pious
emotions.
INVOCATION OF SAINTS.
XLV. Mr. Fabcr's chapter XV. is a succession of
faults, mistakes, and infidelities, which it would be
too long and tedious to exhibit piece by piece. He
had just before blamed me for adducing Tertullian as
a witness of the primitive faith; and here he himself
would have this primitive doctrine estimated by the
single testimony of St. Epiphanius, who lived two cen-
turies later! I had said that Asterius implored of
Phocas that intercession, which he himself had solicit-
ed and obtained of the martyrs; and he makes me say
— p. 227 — that Asterius begged "that Phocas, in the
ple7iitude of his power, (these words are an addition of
Mr. Faber's) would give to his survivors those bles-
sings, which he himself possessed!" I quoted in favor
of the Invocation of Saints, St. Irenaeus, Origen, StJ
Athanasius, Eusebius, St. Ephrem, St. Augustin, St
Ambrose, and the Councils of Ephesus and Chalcedor,
that is to say, the brilliant ages of the Church, admitted
as such by the most able Protestants; and this man re-
proves me for so doing! He does not then comprehend
now these great doctors, these learned bishops, revered
as saints even by the followers of the reformation, could
have been other than Idolaters! Nor does he blush to
charge them with idolatry, by attributing sentiments
to them, which they never entertained! Let it suffice
for me to reply that the testimonies of these great per-
sonages of antiquity will undoubtedly weigh a little
more towards establishing the apostolicity of any dog-
matical usage, than the high authority of the Rector of
Long Newton, towards overturning it.
XLVI. He next proceeds to shew, p. 231, that the
idolatry of the early ages has passed down from hand
to hand in the Catholic Church, where it still holdg
22
250 ANSWER TO THE
sovereign sway. He quotes from the Hours accord-
ing to the use of Salisbury, and draws his proofs from
the comments upon them, left us by the learned and
truth-telling Burnet. • He sets out with informing us
that these Hours were even printed at Paris in 1 520;
and with powerful logic he concludes from their Pari-
sian date, that it seems abundantly evident, that they
met with very general acceptation among what the
bishop styles the Catholic body. Let us not disturb
him in the "abundant evidence" of his splendid con-
clusion. Without taking the trouble to search out the
old rubric of Sarum, he need only have opened our
breviaries and the liturgical books in daily use among
us. He would have found there the same hymns, the
same invocations to the blessed Virgin and the Saints;
and with the honest and charitable industry, which he
is so fond of exercising, he might have easily changed
our prayers into acts of detestable idolatry.
Would you wish to know, sir, how he proceeds to
convert our devotions into idolatry? He separates
certain passages, certain words, suppresses those that
precede or follow, and thus by a very honest process,
he succeeds in giving them a sense, which they were
never meant to convey. In the hymn to the blessed
Virgin, which so particularly offends him, he suppres-
ses this verse: Monstra te esse matrem, Sumat per te
preces, Qui pro nobis natus, Tulit esse tuus. Show
thyself a mother, and let him, who for. us deigned to
become thy Son, through thee, hear our prayers. As
also the words, bona cuncta posce, obtain for us all good
things, and consequently all those, expressed in the insu-
lated verses produced by Mr. Faber. In this manner
those words, which serve to explain all the rest, are
adroitly concealed by him. He only exhibits such
passages as he chose to extract, in imitation of his
master the faithful Burnet; and thus the hymn appears
entirely covered with a shining varnish of idolatry.
DIFFICULTIES OF ROMANISM. 251
You will readily conceive that Mr. Faber has taken
good care not to let those versicles and prayers appear
which follow the above hymn, and all those which we
address to the blessed Virgin. One of the versicles is
as follows; "Pray for us, O holy Mother of God; that
we may he made worthy of the promises of Christ."
In the subsequent prayers, you will find the interces-
sion expressed in direct terms: "intercedentc sanctissi-
ma Dei genitrice. — Beatce Virginis JWaricz interccssio
gloriosa nos protegat; Genetricis Filii tui intercessione
sahemur, fyc" Mr. Faber would have apparently
required that the word intercession should be repeated
in every verse. I fear Mr. Faber is no poet; if he is,
he must know that the measure would not admit of all
this dogmatical exactness, and that the short lines of
our hymns reject words of live syllables. Let him
not then be so hard upon our sacred poets, but allow
them some license in favour of metre and precision;
and instead of interrupting their free and rapid course,
assist their words by supposing throughout, what they
every where wish to be understood.
But on the contrary, he is so blinded by the mania
of viewing us as absolute idolaters, that he does not
observe the intercession of Mary traced by his own
hand in the very prayers, which he quotes, and in
which he pretends that we invoke her as omnipotent.
P. 232 — uBxj thy pious intervention wash away our
sins." "Have me excused with Christ thy Son" P.
233. — Pray for the people, interpose on behalf of the
clergy, intercede for tlie devout female sex" He gravely
attributes the prayer containing these last words to
the Church of Salisbury, and little suspects that it is
taken word for word from St. Augustin, from an ad-
mirable prayer composed by that splendid genius, and
which the Bachelor would not repeat, or report without
horror.
For our part, sir, we have been taught by pious and
learned antiquity to invoke the most holy of creatures,
252 ANSWER TO THE
Mary, mother of our Saviour, and all the Saints; and
they solicit in our behalf. Our invocation is made
upon earth; their intercession, in heaven. Thus a
continual religious intercourse is kept up between the
inhabitants of both worlds, between the blessed, who
enjoy the happiness of heaven, and mortals exposed
to the dangers of a life of storms and tribulations.
This is what we call the Communion of Saints, a con-
soling doctrine, a source of charming and pure delights
of which you would partake with us, if your dry and
gloomy doctrines had not taught you to dread it as a
fanciful bug- bear.
XLVII. We have told your divines a hundred times,
and we will not cease to tell them, till at last we drive
it into their heads, that idolatry is no less odious to us,
than to them; that we reject the very idea of it far
from us in our prayers; that we should hold it blasphe-
my to say to the most holy of creatures what we
address to Jesus Christ, and blasphemy to address
Jesus Christ as we do holy creatures. Witness our
litanies, where we repeat to the blessed Virgin Mary
and the Saints: "pray for us;" but to Jesus Christ,
uhave mercy on its — deliver us — graciously hear us"
In a word, however strong may be the poetical ex-
pressions in our hymns, intercession is always under-
stood by us of necessity and right, whenever it is not
repeated. Mr. Faber had very judiciously observed,
p. x. of his preface, that "to charge a Latin (a Catho-
lic) with "what he holds not, and then gravely to con-
fute opinions which all the while he strenuously dis-
claims, is alike unfair and unprofitable. And here he
is employing this unfair and unprofitable method him-
self! Ex ore tuo tejudico! Let him cease therefore
to contradict himself, to condemn himself, and to bring
against us a charge of idolatry, which we shall never
cease to repel with all the energy in our power.
For the rest, be it known to him, for he has forgot-
ten what he must have read in the book, which he
DIFFICULTIES OF ROMANISM. 2.53
professed to adopt as a text for his refutation — be it
Known to him that though we admit the invocation of
Saints as useful and profitable, we do not hold it to be
absolutely necessary, acting according as the Council
of Trent has decided. What does he mean then by
the conclusion of his note at p. 234, and the quotation
which overturn his thesis instead of supporting it?
What signifies the question proposed with such assur-
ance to his readers, with an emphatical tone complete-
ly ridiculous? "When such rituals were approved
and commonly used in the Latin Church of the West,
was, or was not, a reformation necessary?" In my
turn, I have a question to put to him, resting on a very
different foundation. Let him produce an answer.
"All that uproar and overthrow of every thing reli-
gious and political, was it, or %vas it not necessary to
abolish that, which was never held to be necessary?"
RELICS.
Let us endeavour to come to a conclusion: for in
truth, disgust makes the pen drop out of my hand; and
yet the most odious parts would remain to be refuted,
were I as much affected at the insults offered to me,
as at those directed against truth and religion. I will
confine myself now to a few passing reflections, short
and rapid. And first, on the subject of Relics, I must
observe, what I have alreadv had to remark over and
over again, that the Bachelor makes me still say what
I never did say, and even the very opposite to my own
words; and that he delights in repeating it, in order to
impress it upon his readers. The following are. my
words at the bottom of p. 309, vol. 2. "They talk of
the erroneous and superstitious notions, which people
have often entertained on the subject of relies; I do
not deny that such has been the case."* Mr. Faber
» On parle dc notions, erronecs, superstitieuscs, que les peuples
ont sou Tent prises, sur les reliques; ju u'tn disconviendrai pa*.
254 ANSWER TO THE
gives my sentence as follows: "Men talk of erroneous
and superstitious notions, which ive have often taken
up concerning relics: but I have never been able to dis-
cover them" — page 245. You see he exhibits through-
out, the same tactics, the same upright and honourable
proceedings!
The Rev. Bachelor next affects the esprit fort on the
subject of miracles wrought by occasion and in pre-
sence of relics: he will not even listen to those r which
he finds solemnly attested by such illustrious men as
St. Cyril of Alexandria, or St. Cyril of Jerusalem, St.
Ambrose, an eye-witness equally with St. Augustin,
who was then at Milan. See Discussion Amicale, vol.
2, p. 315. Let us congratulate the Bachelor on his
high opinion of his own wisdom, and the perfect self-
confidence, which he perpetually exhibits. Rest assur-
ed, sir, that he knows much more about what took place
at Milan nearly 1 500 years ago, than the learned and
holy archbishop of that metropolis; who when he learned
that certain Arians in that city called in question the
miraculous cure of a blind man, of which he himself
had been an eye-witness, mounted the pulpit the fol-
lowing day, and publicly proved the fact before an
immense assembly.
THE SIGN OF THE CROSS.
But the powers of vision possessed by the oracle seat-
ed in Durham, penetrate still farther into the darkness
of remote ages. Go and consult him at Long Newton;
ask him why the Christians in the second century
gigned their foreheads with the sign of the crossr
when they rose in the morning, when they lay
down at night, before work, before and after meals,
&c. Ask him the reason; he will tell you, and be
sure to rely on his word, do not listen to such a
man as Tertullian. This Father acknowledges that
such a custom observed so faithfully did not come
from any gospel precept, but solely from tradition.
DIFFICULTIES OF ROMANISM. 255
You will perfectly understand what must have been
the source of a custom established by tradition in the
second century. But Mr. Faber decidedly pronounces
that it did not come from tradition; he understands and
maintains that it is no older than Tertullian; that the
custom and the Father entered the world much about
the same time — p. 286. It is evident that his ideas
must be more correct than those of the learned Afri-
can, as to what was believed and practised seventy
years after St. John the Evangelist. Happy is the
Church of England to foster in her bosom so bright
and even miraculous a luminary! Really the more I
think, the more I am persuaded that this gentleman
must be inspired: and here is my proof. — If he were
not, could he himself go so far as to imagine that he
knows the second century better than the most ad-
mired man of that period? Would he dare to give
the lie to that celebrated personage, and on a fact
in its nature so notorious, since the old men of that
time must have known perfectly well, whether when
they were young people they made the sign of the
cross? How then stands the case? Tertullian attests
that the practice of signing the cross on the forehead
came from a custom more ancient and handed down by
tradition-, and here Mr. Faber says to him in equiva-
lent terms: "It is not so; but the practice began in your
own time; you saw its beginning; and 1 am even tempt-
ed from your evident peevishness when asked for a
scriptural proof of its obligation, to suspect that you
may have been the author of it yourself." This lan-
guage proves indisputably one of these two things;
either inspiration, or a certain degree of folly. But
assuredly a grave and learned Rector could not be ac-
cused of the latter. Therefore we must acknowledge
his inspiration.
I observe that towards the end of the Difficulties of
Romanism, Mr. Faber no longer admits any authority
but Scripture. If he does not find there every letter of
256 ANSWER TO THE
what you maintain against him, he accuses you with-
out ceremony of gross ignorance, and mere unscriptu-
ral superstition. At the beginning he was more polite,
and more respectful towards oral and primitive tradi-
tions. He did homage to them; he acknowledged their
authority: several times he attempted to support him-
self upon them against my assertions; and it has been
seen with what success. However, I content myself
here with observing that on the Invocation of Saints,
Relics, and the Sign of the Cross he pays no longer
any regard to primitive traditions, and those authori-
ties, which he delighted to quoterwhen he conceived
them favourable to his cause. This contradiction of
mind and opinion is not exactly insanity; it would be
wrong to pronounce it so: it is only caprice, and versa-
tility of principle.
THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND.
L. By beginning his refutation with my third Letter,
after announcing in his preface that he should follow
me step by step, Mr. Faber led me to believe that he
considered it most prudent not to enter upon the dis-
cussion of the two preceding Letters. I had no ex-
pectation of what I discovered as I advanced further
in my reply, that he had deferred the examination of
the first to the second Chapter of his Book II. page
309. He has nothing to say against the historical
summary of the establishment of the Anglican Church,
at the l>eginning of my work. He attacks the conse-
quences which I deduced from it, but he does not in
the least invalidate them. They remain strictly cor-
rect, and my arguments retain all their strength.*
•Mr. Faber has no just idea of the jurisdiction and character of
a bishop. He confounds the one with the other in what he calls
the power of order. Consecration Lrives the character: mission im-
parts jurisdiction, which is lost by schism, while the character re-
mains, because that is indelible. If the consecration of Parker had
been valid, he would have received the character, but not jurisdic-
DIFFICULTIES OF ROMANISM. 257
I argued the nullity of your church establishment,
not from the character of Elizabeth, as Mr. Faber sup-
poses, but from licr radical defect of competency.
The only method by Which he could refute me, would
have been to prove that Elizabeth had a right to bring
about the change, which she effected by violence; and
this he has not even attempted to demonstrate. On the
contrary, you shall see how he himself furnishes me
with a fresh proof of the incompetency of that Queen.
"Suppose," says he, p. 314, "that we were deprived
of our present legal establishment: what would be the
consequence? Should we lose our spiritual authority as
bishops or as presbyters? Such, I apprehend, would
by no means be the result .... The spiritual power of
order we assuredly derived not from Elizabeth: hence,
of that power no present or future Sovereign of Eng-
land can deprive us." It is certain that temporal rulers
have only a right to take away what they gave. It is
equally certain that they never could give spiritual au-
thority; nor in consequence, take it away. Therefore
Elizabeth could not take away sprit ual authority from
the Catholic bishops, who occupied their sees, before she
occupied her throne. Therefore they preserved their
authority: therefore the successors she gave them were
mere intruders, without power and without jurisdic-
tion. In a word, Elizabeth had undoubtedly a right to
deprive the Catholic bishops of their palaces, their
revenues, and their places in parliament: for they held
these temporal advantages from the Crown, but their
spiritual power came not from the Crown as Mr.
Faber has so justly maintained. I was right then in
saying, and he must from his own principles acknow-
ledge it; that "without a right to throw down, and
tion; which the four consecrutors, heing in open revolt against the
Church, could not have, and of course could not impart to him. —
When speaking of the submission due to the successor of St. Peter,
and head of the universal Church, Mr. Fab r allows himself to
designate him disdainfully as "an Italian prelate," "a bishop of
Italy," he only adds a pitiful insult to his bad defence of a worse
cause.
253 ANSWER TO THE
without a right to re-build, her (Elizabeth's) underta-
king was null from the beginning."*
SUPREMACY.
LI. In chapter III. page 319, Mr. Faber enters
upon a long dissertation, which corresponds to no part
of my work. He directs it against the primacy of the
holy see, and begins by justifying the separation under
Elizabeth, by the right, which he attributes to every
national Church to choose such a form of government
for herself, as she shall think proper; as if it could be
proper to choose for herself any other, than the one
which Jesus Christ himself traced out for the universal
Church. Bp. Jewel in his apology, justifies the schism
by the necessity of departing from a Church degen-
erated, and disfigured by her innovations, her idolatry,
and her errors, on the subject of the real presence;
thus designating as innovations, errors and idolatry,
the dogmas, which you have seen taught and practised
by the primitive Church.
Mr. Faber proceeds next to the supremacy; against
which he renews old attacks, a hundred times repel-
led, and with which, for that reason, I shall not here
occupy my attention. I shall only make some rapid
reflections on certain allegations contained in this
chapter.
According to this author, and in opposition to the
universal belief of all parties, St. Peter is not to be
considered as the first Bishop of Rome, but St. Linus.
The proof he adduces is precisely the proof of the
contrary. For he insists that St. Linus was chosen
by the common consent of St. Peter and St. Paul.
But before the arrival of St. Paul, at Rome, St. Peter
* See vol. 1, p. 11, of the Discussion Jlmicale,2i very striking pas-
sage from Dod well quoted in a note. It seems to have been written
expressly to demonstrate the nullity of your ecclesiastical constitu-
tion through the incompetency of the Queen and her parliament.
It is also quoted in the 1st part ch. 1, No. 2, of the present Answer^
DIFFICULTIES OF ROMANISM. 259
had founded the Church there, and governed it lor
some years. Therefore he was its first Bishop; and
St. Linus was called in the same manner as St. Ignatius
was of Antioch, the first Bishop of that See after St.
Peter. For this reason, St. Irenaeus speaking of St.
Clement's elevation to the See of Rome, styles him
the third Bishop from the death of the apostles.*
St. Irenaeus thus expresses himself on the See of
Rome: "Ad banc ecclesiam, propter potentiorem prin-
cipalitatem, necesse est omnem convenire ecclesiam;
hoc est, eos qui sunt undique fideles." Mr. Faber
thus translates the passage in a note at p. 345: "To
the Roman Church, on account of its more potent
principality, it is necessary that every Church should
resort; that is to say, those of the faithful who dwell
on every side of it." The text does not say, those of
the faithful who dwell on every side of it; but the faith-
ful who are on every side. He had just said every
Church; therefore he adds likewise, all the faithful.
And in fact, in the time of St. Irenaeus, the Churches
of Smyrna and Corinth had already recurred to
Rome in affairs of importance. It is to be observed
that the word resort, which Mr. Faber prefers to
agree with, which we commonly employ, renders very
energetically the pre-eminence of the Roman see: for
people only resort to superior authority .f
* Post Jnacletum tertio loco ab apostolis, episcopatum sortitur Cle-
mens. Iren. adv. Haer. lib. III. c. 3, § 2, quoted by Mr. Faber.
t In a note, p. 346, Mr. Faber supposes that in the above pas-
sage St. Irenaeus recommends the circumjacent churches to resort
to Rome partly to inspect the autographs of the apostles, in case
of any doctrinal difficulty. Let him attend on this subject to the
following admirable observations of a celebrated German divine:
"Qui ecclesiam sine litteris scriptis fundavit, rnultisque annis con-
servavit, ipse etsine autographis veram in ea fidem, ac puram doc-
triuamconservavit servatque. Nee unquam Jesus Christus dixe-
rat, qui non legerit codicem sacrum, sed quinon audieret ecclesi-
am, sis quasi ethnicus et publicanus; nee unquam S. Paulus suis
mandavit, et codicem aut epistolas custodirent; bene tamen deposi-
tum fidei, quod tradidit ipsis."
B interim Epist. Cath. de lingua originali A*. Test. — Note of the
Translator.
260 ANSWER TO THE
Tertullian, who was converted at Rome, towards
the middle of the- second century, and who lived af-
terwards under the primates of Africa, gives to the
bishop of Rome, the same title, which we give at this
day, that of sovereign pontiff. This Mr. Faber admits:
but he wrangles about St. Cyprian, and proves no-
thing after all, but that this learned and illustrious pri-
mate of Carthage admitted no infallibility in the Pope,
no more than Firmilian, the churches of the islands,
and of Africa. It is utterly false that St. Cyprian ever
opposed or disputed that Pope St. Stephen was the
successor of St. Peter. St. Cyprian wrote as follows
to Antonianus: "Cornelius has just been made bishop
of Rome, the place of Fabian, that is, that of Peter,
and the step of the sacerdotal chair having become
vacant." Nothing certainly could be more clear and
precise.
The passage of St. Cyprian, which Mr. Fab^r would
turn against the holy see, becomes even stronger in
its favour and more decisive, by his own explanation
of it. You will see this by the note at p. 348 of Mr.
Faber's book; "Cyprian speaks of one chair founded
upon Peter by the voice of the Lord By this chair,
he meant, not the see of Rome in particular, but tlie
chair of the collective united episcopate in general. " If
this be the case, it is most evident that not only the
chair of Rome, but all the episcopal chairs in the
world are founded upon Peter, and consequently upon
his successors. It is impossible to say more for the
universal supremacy of the see of Rome: see then how
error betrays itself!
The Greeks acknowledged the primacy of jurisdic-
tion in the Holy Father at the Council of Florence, and
more remotely in that of Lyons, as they had done from
the beginning of Christianity to the time of Photius.
On that acoount the deputies of the holy see presided
by universal "consent at the first Council of Nice, at
that of Constantinople, &c. For that reason St. Poly-
DIFFICULTIES OF ROMANISM. 261
carp, at ninety years of age, crossed the seas, and went
to render an account to Pope Anicetus of the reasons
which attached the churches of Asia to the custom of
celebrating Easter on the 14th day of the moon: it was
moreover on that account that the Corinthians sent a
deputation, not to St. Clement, who was not then in
the chair of St. Peter, as Mr. Faber seems to suppose,
but to St. Anacletus, to induce him to interpose his au-
thority to repress the schism, which threatened their
Church.
LII. 1 must beg Mr. Faber to explain, why, in his
discussion of the claims of the holy see to supremacy,
from the Holy Scriptures, he chose to pass over in
silence the celebrated text; feed my lambs — -feed my
lambs, — feed my sheep. Here are most certainly uni-
versal superintendance and jurisdiction given to St.
Peter, and in his person to his successors. If Mr. Fa-
ber has any desire to be comprised in the flock of Je-
sus Christ, he must acknowledge the shepherd placed
at the head of it by our divine Saviour. If he persists
in refusing to acknowledge him, he voluntarily sepa-
rates himself from the sheep and lambs of Jesus Christ.
I seriously invite him, his readers and mine, to medi-
tate on this awful consequence, and apply it in earnest
to themselves.
PROJECT FOR RE-UNION.
LIII. To my great surprise, Mr. Faber appears at
p. 355 to represent me as a kind of plenipotentiary to
the Anglican Church to bring about a reconciliation
between her and ourselves. I am represented as un-
dertaking to promise for the Catholic Church, and
propose concessions on the one hand and adoptions on
the other. This reminds me of what Lord Chester-
field writes to his son, which I also recommend to
Mr. Faber: "See what you see; read what you read."
He did not read what he read; he read what he did
23
262 ANSWER TO THE
not and could not read in my book, for I have written
no such thing. Nevertheless I can hardly find fault
with Mr. Faber, since some of my own countrymen
have given into the same mistake, if I may credit re-
ports which I have heard. 1 must rectify the error of
both parties. I did then advance that though faith is
unchangeable, discipline is not so; and that if conces-
sions on the former were impossible, they might be
made on the latter. I named some of these possible
concessions, after the example of Bossuet, choosing,
as he did, such as would be best relished by Protes-
tants.
But it is one thing to say that such or such conces-
sions might be made, and another, to promise that
they will be "freely conceded." Here are two
questions: the first may be decided by any individual;
the second, by the Church alone. What are the arti-
cles of discipline susceptible of change? All. What
are those which it would be expedient to change, for
obtaining the return of a separated people? To the
Church alone belongs the right to answer.
For many years have I ardently desired the return
of the nations departed from unity. For many years
it has appeared to me that it would not be impossible
to bring them back: and my reading and reflections,
no less than my desires, have spontaneously turned to
an object so much wished for by all good men.
I have thought that the period in which we live,
presented more favourable chances of re-union among
Christians than any time preceding. On the one hand,
three centuries of commotions, of overthrows, of ani-
mated controversies, of intestine and cruel wars, have
fatigued the earth: on the other, the world is terrified
at the number of sects which the leading principle of
the reformation has produced, and after them, the in-
credulity, which has already caused so many revolu-
tions, and threatens nations and sovereigns with yet
DIFFICULTIES OF ROMANISM. 263
more.* It must be evident that if temporal interests
formerly induced princes to adopt the reformation,
temporal interests of a higher nature involving their
very existence ought in these days to convince them,
that there can be no repose and no security for them,
but under the guardianship of unity, and of one su-
preme authority in matters of revelation. I have said
to myself many times, will not Christians at length listen
to their own experience? Will they condemn them-
selves to pass their days in dissentions and troubles; and
leave the same inheritance to their posterity? Re-
deemed by the same blood, regenerated by the same-
baptism, called to the same hopes, to the happiness of
another world, will they never give each other the
hand of union in this? Will they be forever seen se-
parated in communion, prayer, and worship? God our
Saviour declared that he would have on earth but one
sheepfold, one flock, one shepherd; and can they in
defiance of the order by him established, feel assurance
and delight in a multitude of flocks and sheepfolds?
No; there must either be a speedy end of this disorder,
or the termination of all human things.
In the midst of these reflections, I became very sen-
sible that to lead mankind to one belief, the first step
must be to prove its truth. I was perfectly aware of
the difficulty of such an undertaking; nor should I
have attempted to surmount it, had I reckoned solely
upon my own ability. My only confidence was in
Him, who had so long inspired me with the thought
and resolution. I never ceased to implore his assis-
tance and all-powerful grace in the course of my
researches and labours. Subsequently, the result was
•"Divisions in religion when multiplied, are sources of athe-
ism:" so said Bacon; and never was the assertion so fatally verifi-
ed as it has been in our days.
"By so many paradoxes, the foundations of our religion are shak-
en, the principle articles are called in question, heresies enter in
crowds into the churches of Christ, and the road is thrown open to
atheism." Sturmer, Ratio ineundce concordia An. 1579, p. 2,
264 ANSWER TO THE
submitted to enlightened friends: I wished it to be
placed before well informed persons of other commu-
nions. It was so; and not always without approbation,
and some effect. An antagonist has at length arisen,
who certainly is not wanting in penetration of mind,
facility of language, or elegance of style; why am I
not permitted to add, in sincerity, love of union and
experience in matters of theology! By turns he extols
the character of the author, with whom he is unac-
quainted, and abuses the book which is before him.
He is wrong in both: in his commendations,- which un-
happily the author does not in any degree deserve:
and in his critique upon the Discussion Amicale, which
this answer will, I flatter myself, have placed above
the reach of his censures. He decomposes my proofs,
adds or retrenches, changes my words, palms upon
me his own, substitutes his own reasoning for mine,
and what is still more culpable, is equally unceremo-
nious with the ancient Fathers. With a boldness
hitherto unheard of, he makes them say what they do
not say, and even the very opposite to what they do
say; yes, the very opposite; I am truly sorry to have
to* reproach him with such conduct. I should never
have expected to detect such proceedings in an Eng-
lishman. I knew a great many during a residence of
thirteen years among them; but I never met with one
of this stamp. The most intellectual writer may un-
doubtedly be allowed to be no theologian; but never
to act dishonourably.
At page 370, Mr. Faber attempts to show that my
attacks upon the reformation would equally fall upon
Christianity itself, and does not perceive that his own
parallel between them is very closely allied to blas-
phemy. Yet he knows that the Christian revelation
came to us from heaven; that it presented itself to the
world with proofs of its divinity; that the apostles,
their disciples and their proselytes attracted mankind
by their virtues and heavenly doctrines;, that they suf-
DIFFICULTIES OF ROMANISM. 265
fered with resignation, without inflicting suffering on
any, that they shed no blood but their own, and pray-
ed for their persecutors; he knows, in fine, that the
preaching of the gospel was by the command of God,
and the establishment of the Church was a Work
purely divine. But what were the reformers? They
have answered the question themselves. Was it — I
will not say by the command of God — but purely for
his glory that they announced their doctrines? "This
quarrel did not begin for the honour of God; nor will
it end by it," said Luther on one occasion.* Did they
bear contradictions with Christian humility, and pray
for those, who condemned their preaching? Luther
exhausted his threats and imprecations against the
holy see and the Church in communion with Romef.
Calvin called those monsters who opposed his doc-
trines, and wished them to be treated as he had treat-
ed Servetus.f Zwinglius at the head of his troops
received that death which he would have dealt upon
his enemies. And what was the tendency of their
* At the dispute at Leipzig, in 1519, by order of Prince George of
Saxony, between Eckins of Ingolstatt, Carlostadt and Luther. See
Hist, of 70 years, dating from 1500, by Laurence Surius, the Carthu-
sian translated by Estourmeaux. 2d edit. 1572; Paris. Emser an
auricular witness reproached Luther with this, and he did no de-
ny it.
f "By my hand his death-blow shall be given," Luther wrote in
1520; "my doctrine shall prevail, and the Pope shall fall. — He
has refused peace, therefore he shall have war; we shall see who
will be tired first, the Pope or Luther .... Let us assail, assail
with all sorts of arms which wc can devise, this master of perdi-
tion, these Popes, cardinals and. all this Roman rabble of ordure:
let us wash our hands in their blood.'''' — And in his epistle to the peo-
ple of Strasbourg he testifies, that he did not engage so deeply in
this quarrel for the love of Christ, but through his hatred of the
Pope, against whom he proclaims a war of fire and blood."
J Call to mind here his letter to the Marquis of Poet, quoted
already. — "Calvini discipuli, ubicunque invaluerunt, imperia tur-
bavere:,; says Grotius against Rivet. "Calvanism must necessarily
produce civil wars, and shake the foundations of states .... there
is no country where the religions of Luther and Calvin have ap-
peared, without causing an effusion of blood." Voltaire Siecle de
Louis XIV. ch. 33.
23*
266 ANSWER TO THE
principles? To ruin our mysteries, and overturn reli-
gion* Wljo then was the real instigator of the refor-
mation, and whose work must we all call it? I leave
you to answer.
THE INQUISITION.
L1V. I know nothing worse than a man of genius
without good faith: he poisons what lie touches at
pleasure, and presents to his readers, under the at-
tractive air of truth, what he knows himself to be false.
How often has it pained me to apply this reflection to
the Rector of Long Newton? He undertakes at p.
372, No. II. to represent me to his countrymen as a
friend and partisan of the inquisition; and that they
may not doubt his sincerity, he appears to translate a
note which I beseech you to read in my 2d. vol. p p.
416, 417. He suppresses and adds, as he pleases, so
that the words which he attributes to me express suffi-
ciently well the very opposite to what I declared. "I do
not undertake," said I at the beginning, "to justify the
tribunals of the "inquisition in theory and principle."
He certainly read this first sentence carefully, because
he has taken good care to suppress it; and although I
there give notice that I am not going to defend the in-
quisition, he represents me as its defender. "They
are accused (and would to God it were with less
•"From thy doctrine and that of all thy accomplices and follow-
ers, all the condemned heresies receive, and the whole service of
God is repudiated. At what period were there ever more sacri-
leges of men consecrated to God, than under thy gospel? When
was rebellion against the magistracy more frequent than during
thy gospel? When have there been seen more pillage of churches,
more larceny and robbery? At what time had Wittemberg more
unfrocked monks than at present? When were wives taken from
their husbands to be given to others, as under thy gospel? When
did men commit more adulteries, than since thou wrotest that if a
man can hope for no issue by his wife, he may take another, and
that her husband is obliged to support the offspring which may
follow; and that a woman may act the same in the like case, &c
&c." Reply of Prince George of Saxony to Luther in 1526.
DIFFICULTIES OF ROMANISM- 267
reason!) of having carried severity to injustice and
cruelty!" Is this the exclamation of a man applauding
the severities, the injustice and cruelty of those tribu-
nals, or of one deeply lamenting them? Is it taking up
their defence to consider them in such a light? Or is
it not rather condemning them with feelings of pain
and disapprobation? "Why did they not imitate those
of Italy? — Without defiling themselves with innocent
blood, they would have obtained the success which sover-
eigns expected from their vigilance.'*'' The Rector read
this sentence, and suppresses it! But is it defending
the Spanish inquisition, to reproach it as I have done
above? Could Mr. Faber have expressed his disap-
probation more forcibly than I have done by those
words which he has purposely suppressed; "without
defiling themselves with innocent blood?" After observ-
ing with writers worthy of credit that the number of
innocent victims had been much exaggerated, I add:
"had this not. been the case, Spain, while she re-
proached herself with all these cruel and unjust execu-
tions, would not have to regret the lot of other states,
where religious wars have shed a deluge of human
blood, &c." The Rector makes me say: "But Spain,
blessed with the inquisition, has been happily exempt."
This little interpolation is very ingeniously put in, to
keep in countenance the accusation, which the Bachelor
wishes to bring against me, and at the same time to
stand as evidence of his own candour.
He would have me clearly point out what I mean
by innocent and guilty victims. But surely I was
nowise obliged to do this. He may divide them as he
pleases; I have no objection. The discrimination is
no part of my concern: I am not writing the history of
the inquisition. I gave notice that I should defend nei-
ther its tribunals, nor its unjust and cruel executions;
that I confined myself to the consideration of its gene-
ral consequences relative to the condition of Spain, as
the English author whom I quoted had done before
268 ANSWER TO THE
me. During my long residence in England, I never
met with any man of information and good faith, who
would undertake to justify the revolution of 1688 in
its principles and the means by which it was effected;
but I met many who rejoiced at its results, on account
of the actual prosperity of the country. While they
considered it unjust in its origin, they held it to be ad-
vantageous in its effects. This is very much the view
which I have taken of the inquisition, which by pre-
serving Spain in unity of faith, has saved it in our days
from certain and total ruin.
"I may be mistaken;" says Mr. Faber, p. 374, but I
have always understood, that the special object of the
inquisition was to take cognizance of what the Latin
Church (he means no doubt the Catholic Church) pro-
nounces to be heresy?'' He will be very glad, I imagine,
to learn what we are informed on this subject by a man
to whom we may all refer, the Abbe Fieury, (Instit. au
droit Can. v. 2, 12mo. p. 86, and 90 Paris 1763.) "The
origin of the inquisition is traced up to Theodosius the
Great, against the Manicheans. His law of the year
382 is addressed to the prefect of the East. In 1224,
the emperor Frederick 2d issued four edicts with
orders to the secular judges to pursue and punish by
tire obstinate heretics condemned by the Church ....
In France, it began against the Albigences at Tou-
louse in 1229; in Arragon, in 1233, but very feebly,
until Ferdinand, having expelled the Moors, and wish-
ing to confirm the pretended conversions of the Moors
and Jews, who obtained leave to remain in Spain by
becoming Christians, solicited of Pope Sixtus IV. in
1483, a bull to nominate Cardinal Turre-cremata
grand inquisitor and president of the council of the
inquisition .... It is this council which makes regula-
tions, decides differences between particular inquisi-
tions, punishes their faults and those of the inferior
ministers, and receives all appeals. This council is
exclusively dependent on the king."
DIFFICULTIES OF ROMANISM. 269
Were I a member of the Spanish Church, which
Mr. Faber is so zealous in stigmatizing, I should ad-
dress him thus: uBe so good sir, as to look a little
more at home. Think of the pious and illustrious
foundress of your Church by law established, to the su-
preme governess in things spiritual as well as temporal:
think of the mild and gentle laws,' which she published
against such of her subjects as would not join her in
renouncing the religion of their fathers: think of the
searches, the domiciliary visits, made by her orders to
discover the smallest traces of the Catholic worship
and ministry; of the savage cruelty with which the
priests were pursued, of the barbarous joy even in the
capital when any had been discovered under their dis-
guise, or in their secret hiding-places. Think of the
instruments of torture, which awaited them in their pri-
sons, and the ingeniously contrived machines* employ-
* Atrociora poenaruin ingenia." Tertull. de rcsur. carnis. c. 9.
The following were the kinds of torture chiefly employed in
the Tower.
1. The rack was a large open frame of oak, raised three feet
from the ground. The prisoner was laid under it, on his back,
on the floor: his wrists and ancles were attached by cords to two
rollers at the ends of the frame: these were moved by levers in
opposite directions, till the body rose to a level with the frame.
Questions were then put;"and, if the answers did not prove satis-
factory, the sufferer was stretched more and more till the bones
started from their sockets.
2. The scavenger's daughter was a hoop of iron, so called, con-
sisting of two parts, fastened to each other by a hinge. The pri-
soner was made to kneel on the pavement, and to contract himself
into as small a compass as he could. Then the executioner,
kneeling on his shoulders, and having introduced the hoop under
his legs, compressed the victim close together till he was able to
fasten the extremities over the small of his back. The time al-
lotted for this kind of torture was an hour and a half, during
which time it commonly happened that from excess of compres-
sion the blood started from the nostrils; sometimes, it was believed
from the extremities of the hands and feet. See Bartoli, 250.
3. Iron gauntlets, which could be contracted by the aid of a
screw. They served to compress the wrists, and to suspend the
prisoner in the air, from two distant points of a beam. He was
270 ANSWER TO THE
ed with cold ferocity to punish them. Think of the
cries of pain, the lengthened groans of innocent and re-
signed victims; of the streams of blood, which gushed
out beneath the pressure of iron, from their dislocated
members; and after those horrible tortures, think of, the
execution which terminated their martyrdom and ffaeir
life; when they were dragged from prison to the place
of execution, and the hangman after letting them hang
placed on three pieces of wood, piled one on the other, which,
when his hands had been made fast, were successively withdrawn
from under his feet. "I felt," says F. Gerard, one of the suffer-
ers, "the chief pain in my breast, belly, arms and hands. I
thought that all the blood in my body had run into my arms, and
began to burst out of my finger ends. This was a mistake; but
the arms swelled, till the gauntlets were buried within the flesh.
After being thus suspended an hour, I fainted: and when I came
to myself, I found the executioners supporting me in their arms:
they replaced the pieces of wood under my feet; but as soon as I
was recovered, removed them again. Thus I continued hanging
for the space of five hours, during which I fainted eight or nine
times." Apud Bartoli, 418.
4. A fourth kind of torture was a cell called "little ease." It
was of so small dimensions, and so constructed, that the prisoner
could neither stand, walk, sit, or lie in it at full length. He was
compelled to draw himself up in a squatting posture, and so re-
mained during several days.
I will add a few lines from Rishton's Diary, that the reader
may form some notion of the proceedings in the Tower.
Dec. 5, 1580. Several Catholics were brought from different
prisons.
Dec. 10. Thomas Cottam and Luke Kirbye, priests (two of the
number,) suffered compression in the scavenger's daughter for
more than an hour. Cottam bled profusely from the nose.
Dec. 15. Ralph Sherwine and Robert Johnson, priests, were
severely tortured on the rack.
Dec. 16. Ralph Sherwine was tortured a second time on the
rack.
Dec. 31. John Hart, after being chained five days to the floor,
was led to the rack. Also, Henry Orton, a lay gentleman.
1581, Jan. 3. Christopher Thompson, an aged priest, was brought
to the Tower, and racked the same day.
Jan. 14. Nicholas Roscaroc, a lay gentleman, was racked.
Thu9 he continues till June 21, 1585, when he was discharged.
See his Diarium,at the end of his edition of Sanders. Rev. Dr.
LingariTs History of England, vol. viii. 8vo. Note U. p. 521.
DIFFICULTIES OF ROMANISM. 271
a moment on the gallows, cut them down while still
alive, opened their bodies, tore out their palpitating
bowels and threw them into a cauldron in the sight and
amid the furious acclamations of an exulting populace.
Read the history of this period so faithfully written by
your immortal Lingard, whom you have reason to
place at the head of your historians; or in the Memoirs
of Missionary priests by the venerable Challoner.
Come, sir, read these works, and be in future at least a
little more reserved in your declarations against for-
eigners. But no; rather unite with me in drawing a
veil over these scenes of horror; let us sigh over our
ages of barbarism, and the errors of human nature.
Where is the nation that has not had to lament her own
share of them? The inquisition of France after being
softened down for a long time, disappeared altogether.
Your own has much relaxed in rigour of late years: let
it then disappear entirely; and restore to repose, to
happiness and to their country eight millions of your
fellow-subjects, whom you have deprived of these
blessings for near three centuries, for no other crime
than their unshaken devotedness to the religion of your
fore-fathers.
INTOLERANCE.
LV. — In the last article, and in twenty others before
it, you must, sir, have admired the dexterity with
which Mr. Faber changes, turns and distorts my ex-
pressions, gives them any sense he pleases, and sub-
stitutes for what I say, what he wishes to make me say.
He possesses this art in a superior degree: I cannot
cease to wonder at it, for never should I have looked
for such a talent in England; and I am willing to believe
that you could not find such another specimen in your
country. In the concluding pages of his book par-
ticularly he quite surpasses himself. For instance, he
has chosen to exhibit me to his countrymen as intole-
272 ANSWER TO THE
rant; and you shall see how he proceeds; p. 378. "The
bishop having thus censured the reformation and vin-
dicated the inquisition, nothing more was wanting to the
rotundity of his system than that he should bear his
testimony against freedom of religious worship." And
then he goes on with an air of great seriousness and in
a very angry manner to refute an opinion which he at-
tributes to me without the least reason upon earth. For
he well knows in soul and conscience, that I do not
say a syllable about "freedom of religious worship;"
so far am I from imputing it as a "crying abomination"
to his Church.*
He has too mnch penetration not to perceive the
difference between this sentence: "The adder, which
the Church thus warms only for the purpose of sting-
ing herself to death, is freedom of religious wor-
ship:" and the following: " I see that the Established
Church carries in her bosom the principle of her de-
struction in that liberty of making a religion and
form of worship for themselves, which she can-
not now deny to any, after claiming it herself." The
latter sentence is mine; the former belongs to Mr.
Faber, who artfully substitutes it for mine, that he may
ground an accusation against me. But let me beg of
him to take back his own; I have certainly no wish to
deprive him of his property. I much doubt however,
if his cunning will do him any honour in your eyes, and
before a nation so universally upright and generous as
his own.
Mr. Faber very loudly proclaims the tolerance of
his Church. It is true that it extends far to those
sects which like that Church herself have proceeded
from the fundamental principle of preferring private
interpretation to the authority of the universal Church;
a principle, which I have designated as the cause of
• See Discussion Amkule, vol. ii. pp. 409, 410, and vol. i. pp.
149, 150, 162, 163.
DIFFICULTIES OF ROMANISM. 273
inevitable destruction to your Church. But even to
the present day her tolerance has been little better
than a name towards Catholics, that heroic race of
confessors of the faith, who for three centuries have
suffered so many evils from father to son, and still en-
dure so many privations for having constantly refused
to sacrifice unity to the anti-christian principle of
schism and divisions. Even when in 1791 the Eng-
lish government was willing to allow them to celebrate
their worship with open doors, it took care to punish
them another way, by a refusal indefinitely prolonged
to restore their ancient civil and political rights. Has
my own country, France, though represented as so
intolerant by Mr. Faber, thus treated, or does it thus
treat its Protestant subjects? Call to mind Sully, Tu-
renne, Marshal Saxe; and in our own days you will
find Protestants of various communions admitted to
every post in her army, navy, and administration; sit-
ting in both chambers of parliament and even in the
king's privy-council. If Mr. Faber would see com-
plete toleration, let him come over to France. Truly
it is something more than logical unskiifulness to exalt
his own country at the expense of ours, on the score
of toleration.
The established Church, who in despite of her
thirty-nine articles, royal proclamations and acts of
parliament, cannot prevent sects from swarming around
her to her own cost, can claim no merit for leaving
them freedom of religious worship. They have
sprung, like herself, from one and the same principle,
though at various periods. They form together one
same family, and are all sisters. It is true that they
wage deadly war against her who is the most favoured
and exalted, for which I cannot commend them; for I
dislike hostilities, and above all intestine hostilities.
Yet I cannot lose sight of the rights and titles, which
they all derive from one common origin; they are such
as cannot be justly contested by the Church by law estab-
*24
274 ANSWER TO THE
lished. They exercise them, and will exercise them;
— they undermine her, and they will undermine her,
as I see great reason to fear; until they see her expire
in the midst of them through exhaustion and ina-
nition.
This freedom of religious worship, which "the
bishop censures in the Church of England," continues
Mr. Faber, "is a principle, which the Church of Rome
has ever abhorred." It is written then that the Rector
of Long Newton shall be wrong even to the end. Let
him attend to the following: "above all things, never
force your subjects to change their religion. No
human power can force the impenetrable intrenchment
of liberty of heart. Compulsion can never persuade
men; it only makes hypocrites. When kings interfere
with religion, instead of protecting, they enslave it.
Grant to all civil toleration; not approving all as indif-
ferent, but suffering with patience what God permits,
and endeavouring to bring men back by gentle persua-
sion." This advice given by an illustrious Catholic
bishop to the Pretender, son of James II. would be
given at this day by the bishops of France, if -any oc-
casion required the expression of their sentiments. I
know not one among them who would not feel it an
honour to subscribe to such an advice. But were Mr.
Faber called to discuss the Catholic question on the
episcopal bench, would he adopt the decision you have
just read? Would he express himself in such terms
in favour of his oppressed countrymen, the Catholics
of the three kingdoms? Or if he were consulted by
the bench of bishops at the next session, would he
counsel them to hold such language fearlessly in the
house of peers? Let his readers judge by his Difficul-
ties of Romanism. Then let him no longer raise a
trophy with his pretended toleration: but let him
openly confess that Protestants have found, and still
find from our bishops that ample toleration, which the
DIFFICULTIES OF ROMANISM. 275
Catholics have never yet obtained from the olergy of
the Church of England.*
RECAPITULATION.
LVI. — At length Mr. Faber proceeds to sum up at
the end of his work. But in what terms? My pen
transcribes them with horror and indignation. The
bishop, says he, p. 382, ''calls upon us to unite, or
rather to submit, to his Church: and as the consistent
advocate of that Church, he vindicates idolatry, stig-
matizes the reformation,! patronises the eve of St.
Bartholomew,]; lays the blame of persecution upon the
persecuted, .... and censures freedom of religious
worship." There is not one of these lines which does
not contain a most splendid falsehood. Every one of
these accusations is diametrically opposite to my prin-
ciples, sentiments and expressions. In truth it is a
cruel thing to be thus depicted in such odious colours
before a nation which I honour, and from which I
ever received marks of esteem, protection, and bounty.
* Many affect to apprehend what the Catholics would do, if
they were once emancipated. Independent of their protestations
so often and solemnly repeated on this head, it is difficult to con-
ceive what great influence or authority they could derive from
emancipation. But if you really wish to be more secure from
their future dispositions, I say, prove yourselves just towards them
in the first place; restore their rights which you have so long with-
held. Then be generous, and make them some amends for the
past. You will have a far better hold on them by kindness than
by cruelty; you will bind them in the bonds of gratitude. It is of
sovereign efficacy in noble hearts, born in privation, and long fed
with humiliation and bitterness.
f She has stigmatized herself, I had only to let her speak her
own language.
I Speaking of calamities which Europe would never have known
but for the reformation, I said, vol. ii. p. 414: "Nor would France
have had the shame of that frightful night of the St. Bartholo-
mew;" and the charitable Rector of Long Newton purposely puts
a misconstruction on these words, to change an expression of hor-
ror into an apology for a massacre executed under favour of
darkness.
276 ANSWER TO THE
Yet I shall make but one reply to the calumnies of Mr.
Faber; it shall be briefly this: I beseech his readers
and mine to forgive him, as I freely forgive him my-
self before men, and before God.
CONCLUSION.
LVII. — And now, sir, I have finished the task
which I undertook at your solicitation. You are now
enabled to form a judgment of my antagonist, in whom
you had placed confidence. He stands before you,
not, I feel assured, such as he at first appeared in your
estimation, but such as he is in reality. You will now
know how to appreciate his merit in theological know-
ledge, his veracity in quotation, his accuracy in reason-
ing, his love of truth, his inclination for peace, his
desire of re-union, his sincerity in praising, and his
fidelity in accusing. Grant him, if you will, ease and
address in the use of his pen; allow him, with all my
heart, the skill to mutilate a passage, to substitute his
own ideas for those of his opponent, and by this hon-
ourable process to bring odium against his person, and
deprive him of the estimation of the public; and in fine,
the art of colouring falsehood and decorating error
with the ornaments of truth. Add to these, if you
will an affectation of candour even at the moment when
he himself disregards it; a habit of disguising a pre-
meditated insult by empty compliment; assurance in
his pretensions, and a tone of decision in assertions
of the most palpable mendacity. This judgment
will result from the answer you have now read; and
I do not conceive it possible to allow him any other
merit, without attributing what does not belong to him.*
Nevertheless I beseech you to bear in mind that I
only speak of the writer, and not of the person: it is only
my province to judge of the author of the Difficulties of
* I am sometimes tempted to think that he has served an ap-
prenticeship in the school of Voltaire.
iDIFFICULTIBS OF ROMANISM. 277
Romanism, and by no means of the reverend pastor of
Long Newton, to whom I am far from wishing to deny
pastoral and affectionate zeal, and every amiable and
social quality. But why have I not the same happiness
as his parishioners, that of finding these in his book, as
they may enjoy them in his discourses, and to observe
that sincere and tender interest for the Mother-Church,
which he, no doubt, testifies for his Church at Long
Newton! Perhaps in writing for his cause, he may
have thought it a duty to dissemble his real sentiments
on the solidity of my proofs. Can he have so far
honoured the Discussion Amicale, as to consider it
dangerous to his party, and therefore conclude that it
was necessary to discredit the work and its author in
public opinion?
However this may be, I found myself compelled in
my reply to defend the Catholic doctrine against his
unjuSt attacks:and this could not be done without pro-
ducing his false allegations, unfaithful quotations, false
reasoning, cunning and unworthy artifices. Why did
he stoop to employ them? I have been obliged, against
my inclination, to exhibit them in open day. But I
have discharged this painful duty without passion or
animosity; rather indeed with an uniform feeling of
pity. How much has my patience been tried? — the
whole task appeared to me ungrateful and revolting?
I have endured it once, disgusting as it was; but I
could not support it a second time. And I declare be-
forehand that let him write henceforth what he pleases,
I shall not read a line of his production. I have taken
advantage of the opportunity which he has afforded
me, and have proved the errors of his creed, and the
apostolicity of ours. I have insisted more plainly and
forcibly upon our Eucharistic dogmas, because, he
represented them as the principal subject of division
between us. From the conformity of our faith with
that of the primitive ages you must have concluded
the doctrine of your Church is essentially opposed to
♦24
278 ANSWER TO THE
that of the primitive Church, to that of the apostles,
and of Jesus Christ.
LVIII. — Well then, you may say then, what am I to
do, and all those of my communion, who value, above
every thing else, the salvation of their souls? I will
answer you candidly and with perfect conviction.
Had there existed a single reason to justify the sepa-
tion in the sixteenth century, or did there exist one to
justify the actual separation and schism of the various
societies of Protestants, I should say to you — remain
in your own. But I say — not only do I know of none,
but I see most clearly there could have existed none.
Bring together all the writings published by the re-
formed communions for these three centuries; congre-
gate all the enlightened men who exist in these com-
munions; you will never extract from either any one
available and peremptory cause, to authorize at the
time the original schism, or its continuation in our Tlays.
Therefore, sir, go out from it. You are now too well
admonished, and too enlightened to be excusable if
you continue therein. With great reason do you at-
tach the highest importance to the salvation of your
soul. Well, sir, I declare to you distinctly, that you
must secure its salvation in unity, in the Mother Church,
the faithful guardian of the primitive faith, the sole
heiress of the promises, ever pure in her doctrine, in-
corruptible in her dogmas, and pious in her worship.
If you have detected some abuses in her children; —
and where will not some abuses be found? — be assured
that if they were pernicious, she herself would be
the first to condemn them; if not pernicious, she
tolerates them for the sake of peace. Do you in
like manner, and do not imagine it obligatory to ob-
serve certain minute practices, which she never com-
manded, but which she suffers without either approv-
ing or prohibiting them. Do not suffer yourself to
be withheld by such unimportant matters; look to
what is essential. Return to unity: for without that
DIFFICULTIES OF ROMANISM. 279
even martyrdom would not save you. — Believe me,
sir, vou have no room for hesitation. Were I to
hold a different language, I should belie my own con-
science, and deceive yours.
LIX. But, sir, I am far from requiring you to de-
pend solely on my opinion. I am prepared to offer
you, if you please, authorities more worthy of your
regard and better calculated to bring you to a determi-
nation. I will choose them from the very bosom of the
Reformation. I know of none that can be opposed,
on the questions of which we treat, to Grotius and
Leibnitz, the honour and admiration of their age, as
they are of our own, and will be of posterity. You
may absolutely consider them as the two wisest heads
of Protestantism. Educated in the prejudices of their
Communions, attached for a length of years, the for-
mer to Calvanistic oppinions, the latter to those of the
Lutherans, they emancipated themselves by the force
of genius. The one was long engaged in the warmth
of religious disputation, the other in grave theological
discussions; both made controverted points their pro-
found study, looking with a curious and penetrating
eye into Christian antiquity; and both ended by erect-
ing immortal monuments to the truth of our doctrines.
In his Votum pro pace , the last of his polemic produc-
tions, the incomparable Grotius concludes on every
article which divides us, in favour of the Catholic
doctrine: and Leibnitz in his admirable Systema Theo-
logies, the fruit of thirty years of research and reflec-
tion as he himself wrote to his intimate friends, proves
and establishes the Catholic faith on the same subjects,
with a degree of erudition, depth, and accuracy which
could only have belonged to himself or Bossuet. Af-
ter these illustrious defenders furnished even by the
Reformation to the Catholic Church, no more human
authorities need be investigated. Where could you
find any to outbalance these two men of transcendant
genius? Go then and stand by their side: think as they
280 ANSWER, &c.
thought; believe as they believed; and more happy
than either of them, begin to practise before death
overtakes you.
This is not my counsel alone, though in perfect con-
formity with mv principles. It comes to you even
from another Protestant, very celebrated in these
latter times, and worthy to walk, though at a great
distance, in the train of the two preceding. "Since it
is impossible," says the Baron de Starck, "to extricate
Protestantism from its ruins, as I have demonstrated,
what will remain for those, who have preserved any
attachment to Christianity .... but to re-unite with the
Catholic Church, which, as even Protestants acknow-
ledge, is the preserver of the principal and fundamen-
tal truths of Christianity? This Christianity being
totally destroyed among Protestants, those who still
love and desire it, are absolutely obliged to seek it in
the only asylum where they are still sure of finding it."*
* Entretiens Philosophiques sur la Reunion des differentes Commu-
nions Chreliennes; p. 286, of De Kentz' French Translation, and
p. 220, of the Original German.
THE END.
CATHOLIC BOOKS
Published and for sale by
F. LUCAS, JR.
1\T0. 133 MARKET STREET,
iStTlttmorc.
THE CATHOLIC MANUAL, containing a selection
of Prayers and Devotional Exercises, for the use of Chris-
tians in every state of life.
"Aslc and it shall be given rjou." — Matthew vii. 7.
Price, neatly bound in sheep, $1.
This popular manual was prepared by the direction, and under
the superintendance of the late Archbishop Marechal. It is print-
ed with accuracy and elegance, and embellished with four engrav-
ings; among which, is one giving a view of the grand altar of the
Cathedral; and another, of the admired picture of the "Descent
from the Cross," which was presented to the Cathedral by Louis
XVI.
THE CHRISTIAN'S GUIDE TO HEAVEN; a Manu-
al for Catholics; with the evening Office of the Church,
in Latin and English; and a selection of Pious Hymns —
embellished with six beautiful engravings.
Price 62§ cents, in neat plain binding.
This prayer book was compiled under the inspection of Archbi-
shop Carroll. The present edition has been much improved, by a
difference of arrangement in part of the contents, as well as by the
correction of many errors that had crept into former editions, and
also by some additional matter; and may now be fairly estimated
as a most perfect pocket manual for Catholics.
THE PATH OF PARADISE; a selection of Prayers
and Devotions for Catholics — embellished with five beau-
tiful engravings.
"0/ praise ye the Lord, for he is good; for his mercy endureth for-
ever."— Psalm cxvii. 29.
Price 374 cents per copy, in sheep binding, lettered.
2
This neat little pocket volume, as it may be truly so called, has
been compiled with great care. Independently of its convenient
form, it will be found to combine a judicious selection of matter,
withb«auty of execution and cheapness of price.
THE SOUL UNITED TO JESUS in his adorable sa-
crament; or, a Devout Method of Hearing Mass before
and after Communion, &c.
Price 374 cents, neatly bound in sheep.
This very excellent little work is printed on beautiful paper,
and makes a volume of the same size as the "Path to Paradise,"
and is recommended to the pious a3 worthy of their acceptance.
THE PIOUS GUIDE TO PRAYER AND DEVO-
TION; containing various practices of Piety, calculated
to answer the demands of the devout members of the
Roman Catholic Church; embellished with neat engrav-
ings.
"Let my prayer be directed as incense in thy sig-M."
Psalm cxi. 2.
Price 75 cents, in neat sheep binding.
TRUE PIETY; or, The Day well spent; a manual of
fervent Prayers, pious reflections, and pious instructions,
calculated to answer the use of the members of all ranks
and conditions of the Roman Catholic Church; embel-
lished with engravings.
"Ask and you shall receive, that your joy may be complete. ,"
John vi. 24.
Price 75 cents, in neat sheep binding, lettered.
A SHORT CATECHISM for the use of the Catholic
Church in the United States of America — published with
the approbation of the Most Rev. Archbishop Marechal.
Price 6i cents single — by the gross $4.50.
A CATECHISM OF THE ROMAN CATHOLIC
FAITH; published for the use of Young Children, Ser-
vants and others of small capacities or limited time, in
his diocess — by the Rt Rev. John England, Bishop of
Charleston.
Price 6i cents single — by the gross, $4.50.
THE MOST REV. DR. JAMES BUTLER'S CATE-
CHISM; enlarged, improved, and recommended by the
four Roman Catholic Bishops of Ireland.
Price 9 cents single — $6.00 per gross.
A COMPARATIVE VIEW OF THE GROUNDS OF
THE CATHOLIC AND PROTESTANT CHURCHES
— by the Rev. John Fletcher, D. D.
"Look at the rock from ivhich you
"have separated.'1'' — Isaiah.
Price $1, in neat plain sheep.
FATHER ROWLAND, a North American Tale.
"Who would and then fairly represent
"Must study well his character and manners."
Price 50 cents, in extra boards.
THE FOLLOWING OF CHRIST, in four books—
by Thomas A. Kempis, with reflections at the conclusion
of each chapter, by the Abbe F. de la Mennais, translated
from the French for this edition.
Price, neatly bound in sheep, 87 i cents.
It were superfluous to bestow commendations on the "Following
of Christ." We shall merely mention that the notes of the Abbe
de la Mennais, have been translated expressly for this edition.
The enlightened reader cannot but be pleased to see with what
sentiments the perusal of this inimitable work inspired a man not
less venerated for his piety, than admired for his unrivalled elo-
quence.
THE OFFICE OF THE HOLY WEEK, according
to the Roman Missal and Breviary, in Latin and English.
Second American edition.
Price $1, neatly bound in sheep.
An attempt has been made to present this work under an im-
proved form; many inaccuracies of expression have been corrected,
the translation has been thoroughly revised, and the volume re-
duced to a more convenient size.
THE DEVOUT COMMUNICANT— embellished with
a neat engraving of the last Supper, and also of the Cruci-
fixion—by the Rev. P. Baker, O. S. F.
Price £2 i cents, in neat plain binding.
THE SPIRITUAL COMBAT; to which is added the
Peace of the Soul and the Happiness of the Heart, which
dies to itself in order to live to God, embellished with an
engraved frontispiece of Christ bearing the cross.
"The life of man on earth is warfare.'''' — Job vii. 1.
Price 62 k cents in sheep binding, lettered.
AN ABRIDGEMENT OF THE CHRISTIAN DOC-
TRINE—by the Rt. Rev. Bishop Hay.
Price single 37 J cents — by the dozen, $2.50.
A HISTORY OF THE CHURCH— by the Reverend
Charles Constantine Pise.
4 vols, boards — price $8. $f- Vol. 5 is in press.
THE LENTEN MONITOR— by the Rev. P. Baker.
"Behold, now is the acceptable time — now is the day of salvation.''''
2 Cor. vi. 8.
Price $1, bound in sheep.
A HISTORY OF THE ^PROTESTANT "REFOR-
MATION" IN ENGLAND AND IRELAND.
lvol. 12mo. neatly bound in sheep — price 62£ cents.
A DEFENCE OF CATHOLIC PRINCIPLES.
Price 37£ cents, in half binding.
THINK WELL ON'T; or, Pious Reflections, &c
Price 37i cents, in neat binding.
PRINCE HOHENLOE'S PRAYER BOOR.
Price 75 cents — neatly bound in sheep, and lettered.
LETTER TO A CONVERT; to which is added A
NET FOR THE FISHER'S OF MEN.
Price 25 cents, in sheep filleted binding.
DOWAY BIBLES, in 4to and 8vo.
DOWAY TESTAMENTS, various sizes and binding.
In Press, and will be soon Published.
AN AMICABLE DISCUSSION with the Church of
England, &c By the Rev. J. F. M. Trevern, D. D.
2 vols. 12mo. neatly bound — price $2.
BOURDALOUE'S SPIRITUAL RETREAT.
1 vol. 18mo. neatly bound in sheep — price 75 cents.
Princeton Theological Seminary-Speer Library
1 1012 01131 2214
,