Skip to main content

Full text of "A reply to the End of religious controversy, as discussed in a correspondence between a supposed society of Protestants and the Rev. John Milner;"

See other formats 


-pp 


"^m 


m 


■■f6»': 


f!^^ 


3y» 


I 


THE  LIBRARY 

OF 

THE  UNIVERSITY 

OF  CALIFORNIA 

LOS  ANGELES 


M 


REPLY 


TO    THE 

"END  OF  RELIGIOUS  CONTROVERSY;" 

AS  DISCUSSED  IN  A 

Corre0pontrence 

BETWEEN 

A  SUPPOSED  SOCIETY  OF  PROTEST AISTS, 

AND   THE 

Rev.   JOHNMILNER,   D.D.  F.S.A. 

UISHOP    OF    CASTABALA,    6cC. 


BY  THE 

Rev.  RICHARD  GRIER,  A.M. 

VICAK     OF      TEMPLEBODANE,     IN     THE     DIOCESE     OF     CLOYNE, 
AND    CHAPLAIN    TO    HIS    EXCELLENCY 

EARL  TALBOT, 

LORD    LIEUTENANT    OF    IRELAND. 


pOVCrn-  "  that  baffled  system  of  superstition  and  iniquity,  wliicii  hath 
been  confuted  a  tliousand  times,  and  wliich,  |)erlia|)s,  no  autiioi  (  ver  at- 
tacked without  giving  it  a  mortal  wound." 

JoRTiN  ON  EccL.  HiST.  Vol.  iii.  p.  208. 


LONDON: 

PRINTED  FOR  T.  CADELL,   IN  THE  STRAND; 

R.  MILIKEN,    DUBLIN;    EDWARDS    AND    SAVAGE,    CORK  J    AND 
W.  BLACKWOOD,    EDINBURGH, 

1821. 


J.M'Cfeery,  Tooks  Court, 
Cliaocery  Lane,  Lomdon. 


to    THE 

RIGHT  HONOURABLE 


} 


LORD  VISCOUNT  SIDMOUTH, 


SECRETARY  OF   STATE  FOR  THE  HOME  DEPARTMENT. 


My  Lord, 

If  a  devoted  attachment  to  the 
Estabhshed  Rehgion   of   the   State ;    if  a 
deep  interest  about  its  most  important  con- 
cerns ;  if  high  station  and  high  character ; 
and  if  talent  united  to  integrity — point  out 
one  individual  more  than  another,  whom  1 
could  with  the  greatest  propriety  address  in 
the  present  instance,    I  humbly  conceive 
your   Lordship   to  be   that    individual. 
Impressed  with  this  idea,  I  feel  anxious  to 
acquire  for  the  following  pages,  upon  which 
I  have  expended  some  portion  of  time  and 
thought,  all  the  credit  to  be  derived  from 
the  sanction  of  your  Lordship's  name. 


i-vjv-r<"3 


DEDICATION. 

It  cannot  have  escaped  your  Lordship's 
observation,  that  Popish  writers  have  of 
late  3^ears  manifested  an  increased  activity 
in  the  diffusion  of  their  principles;  that 
they  have  assumed  a  loftier  tone  and  used 
a  bolder  language,  than  they  have  been 
accustomed  to  do ;  and  as  this  may  more 
particularly  be  said  of  the  Rev.  Doctor 
Milner,  a  temperate  Refutation  of  the  per- 
nicious errors,  which  he  has  sent  abroad  in 
his  latest  publication,  appeared  to  me  to 
be  not  only  expedient,  but  nectamry. 

But,  feeling  as  I  do  my  own  inability 
to  accomplish  my  design  to  the  full  extent 
of  my  wishes,  1  beg  leave  respectfully  to 
appeal  to  your  Lordship's  candour  for  in- 
dulgence on  the  occasion  ;  while  I  offer  up 
a  fervent  prayer,  that,  as  our  pure  Church, 
with  the  existence  of  which,  vital  piety  and 
true  religion,  no  less  than  the  public  good, 
are  intimately  connected,  has  withstood  to 
this  day  the  assaults  of  infidelity  and  irre- 
ligion  ;  of  superstition  and  enthusiasm  :  so 


DEDICATION. 

it  may,  by  the   Divine    blessing,  be  pre- 
served for  ages  yet  to  come. 

I  have  now  the  honour  to  entreat  your 
Lordsliip's  acceptance  of  this  humble  tri- 
bute of  my  respect,  and  that  your  Lord- 
ship will  believe  me  to  be,  with  grateful 
acknowledgments  for  past  instances  of  con- 
descension and  kindness. 

My  Lord, 
Your  Lordship's  most  obliged. 
And  very  humble  Servant, 

RICHARD  GRIER. 


Midkton,  May  1,  1821. 


CORRIGENDA. 

Page  Liue 

69  26,  read  have. 

99  11,  lead  compels, 

160  28,  supply  the  word  mentio.  »;♦• 

197  27,  read  administraverit.  « 

204  13,  supply  llie  words,  it  to.  «-. 

205  15,  supply  llie  word,  to. 
243  16,  read  ccepit. 

a70  10,  dele  the  word,  not. 

397      8,  read  Hibernian  Bible  Society. 


PREFATORY  REMARKS. 


When  1  first  conceived  the  idea  of  vindi- 
cating the  exposition  given  of  certain  texts 
in  my  Answer  to  Ward's  Errata  of  the 
Protestant  Bible,  from  Doctor  Milner's 
animadversions ;  my  thoughts  did  not  ex- 
tend beyond  the  individual  point.  But 
having  accomplished  my  design  in  this  re- 
spect, in  a  manner  at  least  to  satisfy  my- 
self, other  objects  presented  themselves  to 
my  view,  without  the  attainment  of  which, 
what  I  had  done,  seemed  to  be  incomplete. 
Possessed  with  this  feeling,  I  was  insen- 
sibly led  on  to  the  production  of  the  fol- 
lowing Reply. 

I  am  perfectly  aware  of  the  responsibi- 
lity incurred,  when  1  descend  into  the  con- 
troversial arena  with  a  disputant  so  versa- 
tile and  long  practised  as  this  gentleman 
undoubtedly  is;  but  I  ecjually  well  know, 
that  I  sustain,  at  the  same  time,  the  cause 
of  truth  ;  that,  by  the  ardent  prosecution 
of  it,  I  best  redeem  the  solcnui  pledge  by 

b 


11  PREFATORY   REMARKS. 

whicli  I  bound  mj^self  on  entering  into  the 
ministry  of  the  Church ;  and  that,  should 
the  attempt,  which  I  make,  prove  unsuc- 
cessful, its  failure  will  not  involve  any  con- 
sequences prejudicial  to  the  cause  itself. 
For,  since  1  only  profess  to  speak  my  own 
sentiments,  I  alone  am  chargeable  with 
any  errors,  into  which  I  may  have  been  in- 
advertently betrayed. 

If  TRUTH  be  the  end  oi  controversy. 
Doctor  Mihier  could  not  have  selected  a 
title  less  expressive  of  such  an  object;  nor 
of  the  means  used  to  attain  it,  than  that, 
which  he  has  prefixed  to  his  last  publica- 
tion. The  work  to  which  I  allude,  assumes 
the  specious  name  of  The  End  of  Reli- 
gious Controversy  ;  but,  were  it  his  de- 
sign to  establish  the  very  opposite  to  what 
he  professes  to  do,  he  could  not  have  pur- 
sued a  course  better  calculated  to  effect 
his  purpose,  than  that,  which  he  lias  taken 
on  the  present  occasion.  In  vain  may  the 
reader  expect,  on  opening  the  pages  of 
this  veteran  Polemic,  to  meet  with  what 
should  always  characterize  controversial 
writing — courteousness,  good  temper,  can- 
dour towards  an  adversary,  and  modera- 


PREFATORY    REMARKS.  ill 

tion  in  defence  of  the  writer's  own  opinions. 
In  vain  may  he  look  lor  impartial  decisions 
on  the  merits  of  conflicting  opinions ;  for 
candid  inquire,  for  fair  argument,  or  for 
fair  representation.  Such  hopes  would  be 
illusor}'  in  the  extreme;  since,  in  almost 
every  page,  he  will  find  passages  perverted 
from  their  original  meaning,  misquotations, 
garbled  extracts  from  the  fathers,  lying 
legends,  the  false  miracles,  and  arrogant 
pretensions  of  the  Church  of  Rome,  and 
the  jargon  and  sophistry  of  the  schoolmen  ; 
together  with  a  revival  of  all  the  calumny, 
falsehood,  and  abuse,  which  Gregory  Mar- 
tin in  the  sixteenth,  and  Thomas  Ward 
in  the  seventeenth,  centuries,  have  heaped 
on  the  Church  of  England,  its  Clergy, 
and  its  Ordinances.  When,  in  addition 
to  this,  it  is  considered,  that  he  commences 
and  concludes  his  book  with  an  attack  on 
our  Prelacv,  far  exceeding  in  virulence 
that  of  Chaloner,  Walmsley,  Ilawarden, 
Plowden,  Drumgoole,  or  Gandolphy  ;  and 
that  the  intermediate  parts  correspond  with 
the  extremes,  we  can  have  no  hesitation  in 
pronouncing  upon  the  cndy  which  he  had  in 
view,  and  in  saying,  that  he  could  not  have 

ba 


iv  PREFATORY    REMARKS. 

adopted  a  less  appropriate  Title  for  his 
precious  Digest,  than  that  which  he  has 
given  it. 

His  Book,  which  consists  of  Jite  hundred 
and  Jifty-Jlve  pages  of  imperial  octavo,  di- 
vided into  three  parts,  has,  according  to 
his  own  account,  lain  dormant  during  twice 
the  period  prescribed  by  the  poet,  within 
the  Fenetrale  of  his  study,  receiving  each 
day  such  embellishments  from  his  master- 
hand,  as  might  exhibit  his  Portraiture  in 
its  most  attractive  form.  Nor  has  it  been 
among  the  least  artful  of  his  devices,  to 
set  up  a  fictitious  society  of  Protestant 
Correspondents,  and  to  have  shaped  the 
Letters  ascribed  to  them  in  such  a  way,  as 
to  make  his  own  replies  appear  triumph- 
ant. 

It  is  admitted,  that  the  coarse  and  ribal- 
drous  trash  to  be  met  with  in  Martin's  Dis- 
coverie,  and  Ward's  Errata,  finds  no  place 
in  Doctor  Milner's  pages ;  yet  we  can  trace 
in  his  specious  and  sophistical  language, 
and  more  polished  style,  the  same  unmiti- 
gated severity  towards  the  Established 
Church,  and  the  identical  ultramontane 
principles,  which  characterize  their  works. 


PREtATORY    REMARKS.  V 

and  which,  during  their  banishment,  im- 
pelled the  *  one  to  recommend  assassi- 
nation, and  the  -f  other  to  foment  treason, 
in  their  native  country.  Such  diabolical 
acts  are  not,  to  be  sure,  attributable  to  this 
gentleman  ;  but  how  can  he  be  answerable 
for  the  .consequenCiCs,  which  a  work  under 
the  magic  of  his  name,  will  have  produced 
among  every  class  of  the  Popish  community? 
And,  when  he  so  blends  politics  with  pole- 
mical discussion,  as  to  induce  those,  who 
are  hostile  to  the  Church  of  England  to 
believe,  that  the  wholesome  restraint,  which 
the  Laws  necessarily  impose  on  them  for  its 
preservation,  is  a  direct  persecutipn  ;  and 
this  at  a  time,  when  he  furnishes  in  his  own 
person  a  practical  comment  on  the  tolerant 

•  FouLis  states,  "that  the  better  to  procure  Queen 
Elizabeth's  ruin,  there  was  a  little  book  composed,  and 
called  a  Treatise  of  Schism,  which  amoug  other  things  ex- 
horted the  women  at  Court  to  act  the  same  part  against  the 
Qiiceu,  us  Judith  had  done,  with  commendations,  against 
Ilolofernes.  The  author  of  this  pernicious  pamphlet  was 
one  Gregory  Martin"  p.  338.  Cambden  testifies  to  the 
same  effect. —  Hist,  of  Eliz.  1>^S4. 

f  Ward  kept  up  a  treasonable  correspondence  with  the 
rebels  at  the  period  of  the  Revolution  in  England.  See 
Prrskkvative  against  Popeky,  vol.  iii.Tit.  ix.  p. 38. 


vi  PREFATORY    REMARKS. 

spirit  of  the  age ;  I  ask,  must  he  not  be 
aware  of  the  fatal  consequences  likely  to 
result  from  the  exercise  of  such  mischievous 
ingenuity  ? 

The  exclusion  of  Roman  Catholics  from 
power,  offices,  and  emoluments,  furnishes 
Doctor  Milner  with  a  grand  topic  for  decla- 
mation. Thus,  he  says,  *  "  that  a  civil  in- 
capacity amounts  to  a  real  persecution ;" 
and  that  this  is  doubly  severe,  as  it  arises 
from  **a  belief  in  a  particular  doctrine." 
But  he  here  misstates  both  cause  and  effect. 
He  misstates  the  cause;  for  he  must  be 
conscious,  that  the  doctrine  of  Transubstan- 
tiation,  to  which  he  alludes,  is  not,  at  this 
moment,  the  reason  why  Roman  Catholics 
are  excluded  from  political  power.  It  ori- 
ginates in  a  very  different  cause  ;  in  a  cause, 
which  diminishes  their  loyalty  to  their  legi- 
timate Sovereign  ;  while  it  proclaims  their 
devotedness  to  a  foreign  Ecclesiastic.  I 
mean  the  Supremacy  of  the  Pope.  But 
Transubstantiation  is  the  touchstone  of  Po- 
pery ;  it  is  the  test  by  which  a  rigid  adhe- 

*  End  of  Religious  Contuoversy,  Letters  xxxvi. 
and  xlix. 


PREFATORY   REMARKS.  VII 

rent  to  the  Church  of  Rome  can  be  found 
out;  and  therefore,  the  Legislature  have 
determined,  that  the  abjuration  of  it  shall 
constitute  the  eligibility  of  persons  to  sit  in 
Parliament,  and  to  possess  honours  and 
emoluments.  Taken  by  itself,  this  doctrine 
is  perfectly  harmless,  as  far  as  the  State  is 
concerned,  because  it  is  of  a  speculative  na- 
ture, like  prayers  for  the  dead,  ending  where 
it  begins,  in  the  mind,  and  consequently  is 
not  subject  to  political  cognizance ;  but  it 
is  inseparably  connected  with  other  doctrines, 
which  are  not  so.  It  is,  in  short,  the  best 
criterion  that  could  be  devised  to  discover 
diluted  loyalty.  If  we  look  to  the  practice 
of  the  Romish  Church,  we  shall  find  most 
of  its  other  doctrines  operate,  only  as  it 
were,  partially  and  occasionally.  There  is 
no  absolute  compulsion,  in  theory  at  least, 
to  worship  images  and  relics  ;  and  monastic 
vows  are  generally  at  the  option  of  the  in- 
dividual. ButTransubstantiation  is  always 
a  prominent  part  of  Popery.  It  was  the 
test,  by  which  Protestants  were  discovered 
in  Queen  Mary's  reign  ;  and  which  was  pro- 
posed to  the  martyrs  and  exiles  in  France, 
and  to  all  the  victims  of  the  Inquisition. 


Vlli  PREFATORY    RKMARKS. 

As  therefore,  it  has  been  at  all  times,  the 
grand  *  [>oint  of  distinction  between  Pro- 
testants and  Roman  Catholics  ;  and  as  it  is 
that,  which  is  of  perpetual  recurrence,  per- 
haps the  only  one  which  is  so,  in  the  Church 
of  Rome  ;  the  Legislature  have  acted  wisely 
in  constituting  it  a  test  of  Popery,  as  the 
Popish  Church  had  before  made  it,  a  test 
of  Protestantism. 

Doctor  Milner  also  misstates  the  effect." 
For  in  the  first  place,  f  civil  disability  and 
persecution  are  not  convertible  terms.     To 
say  that  they  are  so,  is  to  confound  things, 
which  are  in  their  own  nature  perfectly  dis- 

*  In  that  admirable  Epitome  of  clerical  duty,  Bishop 
Mant's  primary  Charge  to  his  Clergy;  after  adverting  to 
the  consequences  to  which  the  doctrine  of  Christ's  corporeal 
presence  in  the  Sacrament  led  in  the  sixteenth  century,  his 
Lordship  extends  his  observations  to  every  point,  which  af- 
fects the  well-being  of  our  National  Church.  Thus,  while 
he  stimulates  his  clergy  to  use  every  mild  endeavour  to  dis- 
sipate the  delusion,  under  which  the  modern  Romish  pro- 
fessor lies,  he  cautions  them  against  opening  a  door  to  the 
extravagances  of  the  enthusiast,  (pp.  43,  52.)  His  re- 
marks are  urged  with  such  unaflfected  modesty  and  good 
sense,  that  I  cannot  but  hail  his  advancement  to  the  Epis- 
copal Bench,  as  another  splendid  accession  to  the  talents, 
learning,  and  orthodoxy  of  the  Irish  Prelacy. 

t  See  Chap,  xvi,  p.  356. 


PREFATORY    REMARKS.  IX 

tinct.    Secondly,  persecution  enforces  a  re- 
nunciation of  religious  principles,  and  the 
adoption  of  a  particular  creed,  at  the  risk 
of  libert\%  propert}^  or  life  itself;  while  ex- 
clusion from    power  only    debars  persons 
from  filling  certain  offices,  without  trench- 
ins:  on  liberty  of  thouoht.     It  may  hence 
be  fairl}^  inferred,  that  the  political  disa- 
bilities of   the   Roman   Catholics,   do  not 
wkly  arise,  as  Doctor  Milner  avers,  from 
their  belief  in  Transubstantiation ;  but  be- 
cause they  divide  their  allegiance  between 
their  own  King  and  a  foreign  Jurisdiction. 
In  a  word,  their  disabilities  are  only  such 
as  the\    choose  to  impose  on  themselves. 
As  a  further   proof,   that  the   doctrine   in 
question  has  no  operative  effect ;  and  that 
it  is  not  raised  by  the  Popish  Church  itself 
as  an  insurmountable  barrier  to  accommo- 
dation ;  it  may  be  observed,  that  the  Pope 
proposed  to  sanction  the  English  Liturgij, 
and  the    use  of    the  Communion   in    both 
kinds,  (and  would  repeat  his  proposal   to- 
morrow, were  it  iikelv  to  be  accepted  on 
the  same  terms)  [)rovided  *  Queen  Elizabetfi 

•  That  wiie  Princess  well  knew,  had  she  admitted  the 
Pope's  Supremacy,  that  he  would  have  denied  her  Legiti- 


X  PREFATORY    REMARKS. 

would  acknowledge  his  Supremacy.  The 
fact  is,  that  the  behevers  in  Transubstan- 
tiation  *  conformed  to  the  Church  of  Eng- 
land for  the  first  ten  years  of  her  reign, 
before  they  formed  distinct  congregations. 
Doctor  Milner  says,  that  as  Roman  Ca- 
tholics *'  have  abjured  the  Pope's  jurisdic- 
tion in  all  civil  and  temporal  cases,"  they 
should,  therefore,  be  admissible  to  offices 
and  power.  However,  the  policy  of  such 
a  measure  is  more  than  questionable.  They 
admit,  it  is  true,  that  obedience  in  tempo- 
ral matters  is  due  to  the  King ;  but  then, 
as  they  acknowledge  a  foreign  Head  in  ec- 
clesiastical affairs,  there  can  be  no  doubt, 
when  their  civil  allegiance  to  the  former 
interfered  with  their  spiritual  allegiance  to 
the  latter,  which  duty  would  f  yield  to  the 

macy.  See  Shepherd's  Introduction  to  the  Book 
of  Common  Prayer,  p.  Ixiv, 

•  Heylin's  Reform,  p.  503.  and  Bishop  of  Win- 
chester's Elem.  of  Theol.  vol.  ii.  p.  26.  Doctor  Je- 
remy Taylor  says,  "  from  primo  of  Elizabeth  to  undecimo, 
the  Papists  made  no  scruple  of  coming  to  our  Church," 
&c.  as  in  note  :|:,  Chapter  vi.  p.  142. 

•f  BcLLARMiNE  says,  "  that  when  the  jus  divinum  and 
the  jus  humanum  are  opposed  to  each  other,  the  latter 
must  be  sacrificed  to  the  former." — De  Romano  Pontifice, 
lib.  V.  c.  7. 


PREFATORY    REMARKS.  XI 

other.  History  and  experience  shew,  that 
it  is  not  always  possible  to  distinguish  be- 
tween civil  and  religious  concerns.  It  was 
from  this  conviction,  that  resistance  was 
given  to  the  Papal  encroachments  in  Eng- 
land by  Popish  Kings  and  Popish  Parlia- 
ments, even  before  the  era  of  the  Refor- 
mation. It  is  to  this  we  owe  the  statute  of 
the  30th  of  Charles  the  Second,  that  fence 
and  safeguard  of  our  lives  and  liberties. 
And  it  was  this  conviction,  operating  on 
the  mind  of  the  distinguished  character, 
who  framed  the  Roman  Catholic  Bills  now 
under  discussion  in  Parliament,  which  in- 
duced him  to  devise,  what  he  conceived, 
adequate  *  securities,  as  substitutes  for  those 
;ibout  to  be  given  up. 

*  One  Titular  Bishop  says,  the  security  Bill  should  be 
indignantly  rejected;  another,  that  it  would  go  to  deca" 
llio/tcize  Irelat)(l  ;  while  Mr.  O'Conuel  compares  it  to 
the  Infernal  Machine!  In  this  way  do  the  Irish  Roman 
Catholics  receive  the  boon  which  the  first  men  of  the  age 
liave  designed  for  them.  The  fact  is,  that  no  political  re- 
gulation, consistent  with  the  safety  of  our  Church,  can,  in 
the  nature  of  things,  satisfy  them.  We  should,  therefore, 
make  our  stand,  and  not  relinquish  the  'vantage  ground  on 
which  we  have  been  happily  established  by  the  Constitu- 
tion. 


Xll  PREFATORY    REMARKS. 

Sluill  I  not  add  the  former  instance  of 
the  refusal  of  the  veto  to  our  King,  in  the 
appointment  of  their  Bishops,  as  a  proof 
how  strongly  the  spiritual  jurisdiction  of 
the  Pope  clashes  with  the  temporal  con- 
cerns of  this  Empire.  In  truth,  it  would 
defy  the  most  subtle  casuist  always  to  draw 
a  line  of  distinction  between  them.  I 
therefore  conclude,  that,  as  the  Pope  is 
known  to  possess  unbounded  influence  over 
his  Episcopal  Clergy,  who,  in  their  turn, 
have  no  less  influence  over  their  subordi- 
nates; and  these  again  over  their  respec- 
tive flocks  :  were  Roman  Catholics  vested 
with  power  on  the  terms  prescribed  by 
Doctor  Milner,  or  even  on  those  laid  down 
in  the  Bills  now  before  Parliament;  they 
must  anxiously   seek  the  *  subversion   of 

"  *  We  are  not  left  to  conjecture,  or  to  rational  inference 
on  this  head  ;  since,  in  Doctor  Milner's  THEoLOGiCAli 
Judgment  on  the  Bills  pending  in  Parliament,  not  only 
is  the  doctrine,  which  relates  to  the  deposition  of  Princes 
recognized,  but  an  explicit  avowal  set  forth,  that  the  Roman 
Catholic  Clergy  of  the  United  Kingdom  cannot  forego 
such  communications  with  the  Pope,  as  have  either  a  di- 
rect, or  indirect  tendency  to  overthrovv our  Church.  First, 
says  he,  "  we  declare,  that  it  is  contrary  to  the  doctrine  of 
the  (Roman)  Catholic  Church  to  condemn  upon  oath  the 


PREFATORY    REMARKS.  Xlll 

what  they  deem  an  heretical  establishment, 
and  the  substitution  of  that  religion,  out 
of  which  they  believe  no  person  can  be 
saved ;  and  that  the  more  conscientiously 
they  are  impressed  with  this  idea,  the  more 
desirous  they  must  be  to  effect  their  wishes. 

mere  deposing  doctrine,  as  daimiahh  and  heretical."     Se- 
condly. "  We  cannot  bind  ourselves  never  to  have  any 
communication  with  the  Pope,  tending  directly  or  indirect- 
ly io  overthrow,  or  disturb  the  Protestant  Church;  as  all 
our  preaching,  writing,  and  ministring  tend  indirectly  to 
this  effect."     The  manly  candour  of  this  language  reflects 
the  highest  credit  on  Doctor  Milner.     Here  is  no  mincing. 
We  are  told  distinctly,  and  by  the  first  authority  too,  that 
every  thought,  word,  and  act  of  the  Roman  Catholic  priest- 
hood have  a  reference  to  this  one  fixed  object,  the  extinc- 
tion of  the  Protestant  Religion  ;  and  that  to  this  end,  all  the 
energies  of  their  souls  are  directed.     Shall  not  tlie  solemn 
intimation  here  given   be   attended  to   by  the   Legislature, 
while  it  produces,  as  the  natural  result,  on  the  part  of  the 
Estabhblied  Clergy,  a  corresponding  vigilatice,  activity,  and 
zeal  iu  defence  of  what  is  so  dear  to  them,   as  men  and  as 
Christians  ;  and  while  it  convinces  them,  that  the  machina- 
tions  of  their  adversaries  for  its  annihilation,  although   un- 
seen and  unnoticed,  are  nevertheless  carried  on  with   a   de- 
gree of  sleepless  perseverance,  which  would  do  credit  to  a 
better  cause  ? 

Since  the  preceding  note  was  commilled  to  the  printer's 
han<ls,  the  l*«jpish  iJills  have  been  rejected  in  the  House  of 
Lords,  by  a  niajuiity  strikingly  remarkable,  on  account  of  its 
coincidence  with  ihe  number  of  the  Articles  of  oui  Cluucii  ! 


XIV  PREFATORY    REMARKS. 

I  am  aware,  bow  unpalatable  language  of 
tbis  kind  will  be  to  my  Roman  Catbolic 
friends  and  neigbbours,  and  tbat  1  sball 
probably  incur  tbe  charge  of  bigotry,  if  not 
of  something  worse.  But  such  a  charge,  if 
made,  will  be  unsupported  by  a  shade  of 
truth.  If,  indeed,  to  be  faithful,  sincere, 
and  unwavering  ;  if  to  "  hold  fast  the  form 
of  sound  words,"  inculcated  by  the  Church 
to  which  I  belong;  and  if  to  maintain  my 
faith  with  integrity — be  bigotry,  I  must 
plead  guilty  to  the  charge  ;  but  in  no  other 
case  whatever.  But  I  shall  hope  for  better 
things  at  their  hands.  Among  the  Roman 
Catholic  gentry,  I  know  many  estimable 
characters,  and  most  anxiously  do  I  desire 
to  reciprocate  with  them  offices  of  kindness 
and  good-will.  And  although  my  disposi- 
tion towards  several  of  their  clergy  be  the 
same  ;  yet  I  fear,  that  so  long  as  the  ex- 
clusive character  hangs  about  them,  it  is 
vain  to  expect  belief  for  my  professions,  or 
credit  for  my  sincerity.  Notwithstanding 
this,  I  claim  the  indulgence,  to  which  they 
shall  in  turn  be  entitled ;  of  expressing  my 
sentiments  without  restraint. 

Were  I  to  hazard  a  word  of  advice  to 


PREFATORY    REMARKS.  XV 

my  Roman  Catholic  countrymen,  it  would 
be  this.  That,  as  the  Parliament  of  the 
United  Kingdom  must,  on  the  rational 
principle  of  self-preservation,  inviolably 
maintain  the  bulwarks  raised  by  the  consti- 
tution against  the  superstition  and  idolatry 
of  the  Church  of  Rome,  in  its  *  Corpora- 
tion and  Test  Acts,  they  should  abjure  a 
point,  which  restrains  them  in  the  exercise 
of  many  natural,  civil,  and  religious  duties. 
I  allude  to  the  ecclesiastical  supremacy  of 
the  Pope.  They  are  called  on  to  do  so,  by 
the  laws  of  their  country,  by  the  repeal  of 
penal  statutes,  by  the  concession  of  several 
valuable  privileges,  and  by  the  enjoyment 
of  the  most  enlightened  -f- Toleration.   May 

*  Blackstone  calls  them  "two  bulwarks  erected 
against  perils  from  non-conformists  of  all  denominations." 
By  the  former,  the  oath  of  Supremacy  is  enjoined,  and  by 
the  latter,  the  declaration  against  Transubstantialion  is 
required,  vol.  iv.  p.  58. — See  also  Burn's  Eccl.  Law, 
vol.  iii.  p.  17. 

f  It  should  rather  be  called  Encouragement — witnessihc 
rich  endowment  of  Maynooih  College  by  our  Protestant 
Parliament;  the  establishment  of  Popish  seminaries  under 
the  direction  of  Jesuits  ;  the  erection  of  splendid  edificea 
in  our  Metropolis,  and  in  our  large  lowns>  for  Roman  Ca- 


XVI  PREFATORY    REMARKS. 

this  invitation,  which  makes  so  forcible  an 
appeal  to  their  reason  and  good  sense,  be 
accepted  by  them  ;  and  may  the  only  eman- 
cipation their  wants  require,  be  effected  by 
themselves — an  emancipation  from  spiritual 
bondage  and  tyranny. 

As  connected  with  this  subject,  I  feel  it 
necessary  to  lay  before  the  reader  a  few  ex- 
tracts from  the  Notes  to  the  Rhemish  Testa- 
ment, which  every  true  Roman  Catholic 
regards  as  of  equal  authority  Avith  the  text; 
inasmuch  as  they  express  the  sentiments  of 
the  one  infallible  Church.  But  were  they 
even  not  considered  so,  the  effects  would 
be  the  same ;  since  the  Scripture  is,  as  it  is 
interpreted,  not  only  to  the  lower,  but  to 
such  of  the  higher  classes,  as  either  cannot, 
or  will  not  judge  for  themselves. 

I.  The  Note  on  Deut.  xvii.  12,  inti- 
mates, "  that  the  church  guides  of  the  New 
Testament  ought  to  punish  with  death  such 
as  proudly  refuse  to  obey  their  decisions  on 
controversial  points."     2.  Matt.  xiii.  29, 

iholic  worship;  and  of  chapels  without  number  throughout 
this  country :  the  chief  contributors  to  all  which,  are 
members  of  the  Established  Church. 


PREFATORY    REMARKS.  XVll 

"  the  good  must  tolerate  the  evil,  when  it 
is  too  strong,  &c.  otherwise  heretics  ought 
to  be  chastised  or  executed^  3.  That  on 
John,  xv.  7,  says,  **  the  prayer  of  a  Protes- 
tant cannot  be  heard  by  heaven."  4.  Acts, 
X.  9.  *'  The  Church  service  of  England 
being  in  heresy  and  schism,  is  therefore  not 
only  unprofitable,  but  damnable."  5.  Ibid. 
xxxviii.  22.  *'  The  Church  of  God,  viz. 
that  of  Rome,  calling  the  Protestants'  doc- 
trine heresy y  in  the  worst  part  there  can  be, 
and  in  the  worst  sort  that  ever  was,  doth 
rightly  and  most  justly.''  6.  First  of  TiM. 
iii.  12.  **  The  speeches,  preachings,  and 
writings  of  Protestants  ixve pestiferous,  conta- 
gious, and  creeping  like  a  cancer,  and  there- 
fore never  to  be  heard."  7.  Heb.  v.  7. 
**  The  translators  of  the  English  Protestant 
Bible  ought  to  be  abhorred  to  the  depths  of 
hell."  8.  Ibid.  "A  Catholic  man  should 
give  the  curse,  the  execration,  and  the  ana- 
thema to  heretics,  though  they  were  his  pa- 
rents." 

.*8urh  arc  some  of  the  milder  sj)ecimens 

•  A  Letter  has  been  lately  publihiitd  and  addressed  to 
His  Majesty,  the  King,  containing  a  judicious  selection 
of  sixty-one  of  those  dangerous  and  uncharitable  notes.— 

c 


Xt'lll  PREb'ATUKV    REMARKS'. 

of  Roman  Catholic  affection  for  their  Pra-' 
testant  brethren,  and  such  the  pious  ancf 
orthodox  annotations  with  which  *  Doctor 
Milner  says,  the  Enghsh  Bible  of  his  Church 
is  enriched!  But  to  me,  they  appear  to 
breathe  a  spirit,  which  is  not  only  a  re- 
proach to  the  present  enhghtened  age  ;  but 
Avhich  would  have  disgraced  the  darkest 
and  most  bigotted.  Here  it  is  openly 
avowed,  that  the  clergy  of  the  Church  of 
Rome  have  a  right  to  inflict  death  on  those, 
who  are  disobedient  to  their  decrees  ;  that 
Protestants  are  to  be  tolerated  from  prudent- 
tial  motives,  not  from  principle;  and  that 
they  must  not  be  too  suddenly  extirpated, 
but  that  the   tares  shall  be  permitted  t^. 

Stockdale,  1820.  At  the  last  Popish  Board  held  in  Dub- 
lin, Mr.  O'Connel  denounced  "  the  doctrines  contained 
in  the  Rhemish  Annotations  as  damnable,  &c."  and  declared, 
that  he  would  not  remain  one  hour  longer  a  Roman  Ca- 
tholic, if  he  thought  it  essential  to  the  profession  of  the 
R.  C.  faith,  to  hold  them.  With  a  display  of  liberality 
equally  affected,  the  Board  appointed  a  Committee  to  pre- 
pare a  disavowal  of  the  offensive  notes;  but  before  this 
object  was  accomplished,  it  very  wisely  dissolved  itself! 
The  fact  is,  they  dare  not  disclaim  them ;  as  their  church 
expressly  forbids  the  interference  of  the  laity  touching  eccle- 
siastical affairs. — See  Lab.  Concil.  Gen.  torn.  ii.  p.  6 17. 

*  See  his  Life  of  Bishop  Chaloner,  p.  1 9- 


PREFATORY   REMARKS.  XlX 

grow  until  thej'^  can  be  conveniently  eradi- 
cated from  the  soil.  I  should  add,  that 
Mr.  Gandolph}'-  too,  after  justifying  the  In- 
qifisition,  says  in  the  same  gentle  spirit  with 
the  notes  ;  *  "  that  a  Protestant  iias  no  re- 
ligious principle  at  all !" 

While,  therefore,  the  Roman  Catholic 
Clergy  of  the  present  day  maintain  an  ex- 
position of  the  Scriptures  so  worthy  of  the 
Priests  of  Bonner's  school  ;  while  they 
publicly  instruct  their  flocks,  that  (heir 
Protestant  neighbours  are  the  objects  of 
divine  vengeance,  and  describe  the  offices 
of  charity  which  they  perform,  as  insidious 
snares  to  entrap  the  inexperienced  to  sin 
against  heaven  ;  while  such  grave  authority- 
declares  our  English  Version  of  the  Scrip- 
tures to  be  false  and  blasphemous  interpre- 
tations of  God's  Holy  Word,  contrived  for 
the  wicked  purpose  of  destroying  Christi- 
anity, and  extinguishing  the  light  of  the 
Gospel,  and  designed  for  the  propagation 
of  opinions  in  direct  opposition  to  Christ's 
Revehition  :  while,  I  say,  the  Roman  Ca- 
tholic Pastor  commuiucatcs  such  instruc- 

*   Defence  of  the  Ancient  railb,  vol.  iv.  p.  '2oo. 

C    '2 


XX  PREFATORY    REMARKS. 

tion  to  his  flock,  can  we  be  surprised,  that 
they  should  look  on  their  Protestant  coun- 
trymen with  distrust  and  aversion  ?  In 
truth,  as  long  as  such  a  state  of  things 
continues  to  exist,  I  shall  never  admit  the 
policy  of  investing  them  with  either  legis- 
lative or  executive  authority.  This,  I  be- 
lieve, to  be  the  general  feeling  of  Protes- 
tants, and  I  consider  it  a  signal  instance  of 
the  interposition  of  Providence,  that  the 
bigotry  and  intolerance  of  the  republishers 
of  those  notes  should  rouse  them  to  a  sense 
of  their  danger,  and  point  out  the  increased 
necessity  of  abiding  by  the  securities  which 
have  hitherto  protected  them ;  not  from 
creeds  and  theories,  which  they  deride, 
but  from  unrelenting  hatred  and  avowed 
anathema.  But  I  feel,  I  have  fallen  into 
a  devious  track  by  at  all  adverting  to  the 
Roman  Catholic  question ;  and  if  I  must  ex- 
culpate myself  for  having  done  so,  be  it  my 
apology,  that  I  have  only  followed  whither 
Doctor  Milner  has  led  me,  and  that  1  should 
have  considered  my  reply  defective,  were 
I  to  have  left  his  observations  on  this  head 
unnoticed. 
'  In  making  these  prefatory  remarks,  an 


PREFATORY   REMARKS.  XXl 

allusion  to  the  introduction  of  the  Jesuits 
into  the  United  Kingdom  cannot  be  avoid- 
ed. *  Two  rich  seminaries  of  this  intriguing- 
order  of  men  are  established  among  us. 
Their  influence  is  gradualh^  altliough  in- 
sensibly gaining  ground;  and  if  not  checked, 
will  soon  betray  itself  in  its  effects.  Their 
former  devotion  to  the  pecuhar  interests  of 
the  Pope  acquired  for  them  the  title  of  his 
BODY  GUARD,  and  when  animated  bv  the 
same  principles  and  in  pursuit  of  the  same 
object  as  before,  they  will,  as  they  gain 
strength,  be  seen  to  adopt  the  same  course 
of  action,  and  to  render  themselves  deserv- 
ing of  the  same  distinctive  appellation. 
As,  however,  the  political  circumstances, 
which   led  to   their  establishment  in  this 

*  At  Stonyhurst,  in  Lancashire,  and  at  Mount  Browne, 
in  the  county  of  Kildare.  The  Bishop  of  Chester,  in  his 
luminous  and  argumentative  speech  on  the  Popish  question, 
April  iG,  1821,  staled,  lliat  several  Jesuits  had  lately  ar- 
rived in  his  diocese  from  Lirge,  and  held  an  ordination  of 
their  order,  suh  titulo  patipertatis.  These  are  alarming 
facts,  and  richly  deserve  the  attention  of  Protestant  England. 
It  were  well,  indeed,  for  the  interests  of  true  religion,  that 
the  fate  predicted  by  Archbishop  Browne,  awaited  them  ; 
but,  alas !  their  revival  among  us,  at  a  time  in  which  they 
are  expelled  from  Russia,  only  aggravates  the  evil,  which 
we  already  so  deeply  deplore. 


XXII  PREFATORY    REMARKS. 

country  cannot  be  now  controlled ;  it  is 
imperative  on  our  governing  powers  to 
watch  with  suspicious  vigihince  these  men 
and  their  cause ;  to  attend  with  minute  cir- 
cumspection to  their  machinations  for  the 
diffusion  of  Poper}^  and  as  they  will  to- 
lerate a  confederacv  thus  leagued  against 
our  Established  Religion,  at  least  to  guard 
against  the  further  increase  of  Popish  in- 
fection. I  feel  the  more  earnest  in  pressing 
the  consideration  of  this  subject  on  their 
attention,  as  I  view  the  existence  of  the 
Jesuits  in  the  British  isles,  as  among  the 
most  awful  of  the  signs  of  the  times.  But 
to  return  to  Doctor  Milner. 

When  this  gentleman  objects  to  us  the 
extravagancesof  Luther  and  Zuinglius,  the 
blasphemies  of  Paine,  and  the  impious  re- 
veries of  Joanna  Southcote,  I  feel  myself 
no  way  called  on  for  a  vindication.  If  Lu- 
ther *  travestied  parts  of  the  Bible,  and 
could  not  divest  himself  of  his  wild  no- 
tions about  exorcisms  and  the  adjurations 
of  devils  ;  and  if  Zuinglius,  even  after  he 
threw  off  the  shackles  of  Popery  still  con- 

*  See  Chap. vi,  p.  14 J. 


PREFATORY   REMARKS.  XXIII 

sidered  himself  under  the  protection  of  his 
guardian  angel ;  such  things  do  not  affect 
the  question  between  us  and  Roman  Ca- 
tholics. Those  Reformers  did  not  found 
our  Church  ;  nor  are  we  led  by  their  ipse 
dixits.  To  objections  like  these,  Doctor 
Milner  seems  to  attach  great  consequence  ; 
but  how  weak  must  be  the  cause,  which  re- 
quires such  miserable  support?  But  were 
it  essential  to  the  point,  what  an  infinitely 
greater  number  of  impieties,  blasphemies, 
and  absurdities  could  be  brought  home  to 
the  legendary  heroes  of  bis  own  Church  ; 
without  a  reference  either  to  the  *  Liber 
Aureus  of  St.  Francis,  or  the  Alcoran  of  the 
Franciscans. 

I  can  feel  little  surprise  at  his  attack  on 
the  characters  of  Cranmer,  Latimer,  and 
Ridley,  and  at  the  intemperance  with  which 
he  assails  the  Church  of  England,  on  its 
first  emergence  from  Papal  darkness,  when 

*  This  rare  and  curious  little  Book  is  iutiiled,  Liber 
AtUEUS  iuscriptus  Liber  Conformitatum  Hta  S.  Fran- 
cisci:  but  having  been  successfully  burlesqued  in  the  Al- 
<:oranu8  Franciscorum,  the  Popish  Church  got  ashamed 
of  it,  and  issued  orders  for  its  suppression,  as  far  as  was 
possible ! 


XXIV  PREFATORY    REMARKS. 

1  see  him  pouring  out  all  the  virulence  of 
his  fury  on  several  of  our  most  distin- 
guished Prelates.  As  to  the  venerable 
Fathers  of  the  Reformation,  if  their  opi- 
nions on  doctrinal  points  were  erroneous, 
and  if  they  even  betrayed  an  intolerance 
of  spirit ;  it  should  be  recollected,  that  they 
were  candid  enough  to  retract  their  errors, 
and  that  their  intolerance  was  mainly  at- 
tributable to  the  Church,  which  they  had 
abandoned.  But  why  reproach  the  Church 
of  England  with  its  earliest  frailties  ? 
When  struggling  with  the  colossal  power, 
which  would  fain  have  strangled  it  in  its  cra- 
dle ;  it  would  have  been  surprising  indeed, 
if  it  did  not  betray  the  weakness  and  imper- 
fection of  infancy.  But  let  it  be  viewed  in 
its  present  matured  state,  and  it  will  be 
found  minutel}'^  to  accord  with  its  beautiful 
model — the  primitive  Church  of  Christ :  in 
its  Faith  and  Practice ;  in  its  Rites  and 
Ordinances ;  in  the  character  of  its  Clergy  ; 
and  in  the  pure  and  Apostolic  form  of  its 
Doctrine.  And  if  it  even  have  thrown  open 
the  door  to  Sectarianism,  as  Doctor  Milner 
so  repeatedly   objects  ;   the  greatest  evils, 


PREFATORY   REMARKS.  XXV 

with  which  that  is  attendant,  are  as  nothing 
compared  with  the  spiritual  slavery,  which 
Popery  imposes  on  its  votaries. 

When  he  taunts  us  with  the  extravagant 
conceits  of  those  few  of  our  hrethren,  whom 
he  denominates  *  Evangelical ;  can  he  se- 

*  As  an  orthodox  member  of  the  Church  of  England, 
I  do  not  hesitate  to  say,  that  the  principles  of  the  Evange- 
lical, or,  as  they  may  more  properly  be  called,  of  the  cahi- 
nian-methodistical  preachers  of  the  present  day,  are  as  in- 
compatible with  the  sound  Apostolic  doctrine  of  the  Estab- 
lished Church,  as  the  corruptions  of  Popery.  If  the  tenet 
of  exclusive  salvation  be  found  among  the  latter,  do  not  the 
former  hold  that  of  Election,  and  its  tremendous  conse- 
quent, of  which  the  author  himself  was  forced  to  say, 
"  horribile  fateor  decretuni"  If  the  one  proclaims  the  su- 
perior merit  of  works,  the  other  dwells  upon  that  oi  faith. 
And  if  the  Roman  Catholic  decries  reason,  can  those  be 
said  to  make  a  proper  use  of  it,  who  subject  it  to  their  feel- 
ings, or  their  fancies  ?  1  shall  not  pursue  the  parallelism 
farther,  but  content  myself  with  noticing  the  justness  of 
Swift's  homely  siutilitudc  of  the  two  pair  of  compasses ; 
that  if  a  leg  of  each  bo  held  together,  while  the  others  are 
equally  widened,  alilioiigli  they  seem  at  first  to  go  off  in  ad- 
verse directi<jn«,  they  will  iiltimauly  meet  at  the  opposite 
side!  riius,  while  Popery  luid  Calvinism  are  performing 
their  aemivolutions,  and  as  it  wtit;  tilting  against  each  other 
at  stated  intervals,  the  Chinch  "f  England,  preserving  the 
golden  mean,  abides  at  the  centre  iiuinoveably  iixed. 

With  respect  to   Regeneration  and   Election,  on  which 


3^2>:>i  I'KliFAToRY    KEiMARKS. 

rioLislv^  expect,  that  we  should  enter  on  a 
justification?  The  aberrations  of  those 
gentlemen  from  the  orthodoxy  of  our 
Church,  are  like  spots  on  the  sun  ;  they  are 
either  lost  in  the  halo  of  its  brightness,  or 
are  only  known  to  exist,  when  their  eccen- 
tricity forces  therrj  into  notice. 

As  little  are  we  concerned  aboijt  "  the 
numerous  sects,  into  which,"  he  says,  "the 
Reformed  Church  have  divided  themselves." 
But  when  Doctor  Milner  raises  an  objection 
on  this  head,  he  seems  to  forget,  how  much 
greater  and  more  violent  divisions  and  dis- 
sensions have  prevailed  in  the  Church  of 
Rome,  and  continue  to  this  day  to  distract 
it,  notwithstanding  all  its  boasted  unity  of 
faith,  than  any  that  have  occurred  within 
the  bosom  of  the  Church  of  England  :  wit- 
ness, the  eternal  war  carried  on  between 
the  Franciscans  and  the  Dominicans;  the 

points  our  Evangelical  Praters  think  proper  to  be  dissenti- 
ent from  our  venerable  Church ;  I  shall  only  remark,  that 
by  doing  so,  they  hold  out  every  encouragement  to  the 
ravings  of  fanatics  about  the  pan^a  of  the  tiew-birth,  as 
well  as  to  all  their  sudden  impulses,  itluminations,  assur- 
aiiceSf  and  convictions ! 


PREFATORY   REMARKS,  XXVll 

Scotists  and  the  Thomists ;  and  still  later, 
between  the  Jesuits  and  the  Jansenists,  &c. 
&c.  on  subjects  of  doctrine  and  discipline; 
and  at  all  times,  between  the  Popes  and  the 
Bishops,  on  points  of"  authority  and  juris- 
diction ! 

If"  we  refer  to  the  schisms,  which  arose 
irt'the  Church  of  Rome,  from  the  seventh 
century,  when  Popery  was  firmly  estab- 
lished, to  the  fifteenth  inclusive,  not  to 
,speak  of  *  those,  which  were  antecedent  to 
the  former  period :  we  shall  find  no  less 
than  twent}j-three  grand  ones,  according  to 
^one  authority  ;  and  twenty-six  according 
to  \  another  ;  and  that  within  the  same  pe- 

♦  MosH.  EccL.  Hist.  vol.  iv.  p.  222 — 240.  Sec 
also  Hickes's  account  of  nine  principal  schisms  in  the 
Church  of  Rome;  2nd  Ed.  1706. 

•f- See  Panvinius's  Chronicon,  Ed.  1568,  subjoined 
to  Platina's  History  of  the  Lives  of  the  Popes.  In  the 
series  of  Schisms  and  Popes  cited  by  the  Bishop  of  St. 
David's  from  this  author,  I  have  omitted  the  first  seven 
Schisms  which  took  place  from  the  year  232,  to  537  inclu- 
sive ;  and  also  the  first  six  schisnialical  Popes,  who  flou- 
rished within  llic  same  period  ;  as  it  was  not  before  the 
seventli  century  (A.  D.  6')'^)  that  Phocas  had  conferred  the 
title  of  Universal  Bishop  on  ihe  Pope. 

;|:  Petayii  Tabula  Chronologica  Schi^matum  ct  Anti- 
paparnm,   Efl.  1724. 


XXVlll  PREFATORY    REMARKS. 

riod,  there  were  no  less  than  *  thirty-two 
usurping  and  schismatical  Popes!  But 
should  Doctor  Milner  overlook  all  these 
well-attested  facts,  can  he  forget  the  severe 
language  of  rebuke,  which  was  indirectly 
addressed  to  himself  on  tliis  very  subject, 
by  a  late  Roman  Catholic  Divine?  In- 
deed, I  may  say  personally  addressed,  be- 
cause the  object  of  Doctor  O'Conor  seems 
at  all  times  to  have  been,  to  correct  the  er- 
rors and  -f  misrepresentations  of  his  friend 
the  Bishop  of  Castabala.  Has  the  seventy 
years'  residence  of  the  Popes  at  Avignon 
escaped  Doctor  Milner's  recollection  ?  Does 
he  forget,  too,  that  after  a  short  interrup- 

*  Panvinius  ut  supra. 

f  "  I  once  asked  the  Bishop  of  Castabala,"  says  Doctor 
O'Conor,  "how  he  had  nerves  strong  enough  to  refer  in 
his  Winchester  for  the  history  of  King  Arthur  to  Gildas, 
who  never,  even  once,  mentions  his  name.  He  replied, 
Gildas  CERTAINLY  rfoesw^n^eow  his  name.  Wehappened 
to  be  at  the  time  in  a  large  and  splendid  library;  I  took 
down  Gale's  edition.  He  turned  over  leaf  after  leaf,  but 
in  vain." — Columbanus  ad  Hibernos,  Letter  iii.  p.  50. 

Doctor  M.  having  thus  confounded  Gildas,  who  speaks 
of  the  Battle  of  Bath,  (Mons  Badonicus)  with  W.  of 
Malmsbury,  the  historian  of  the  young  hero  Arthur's  ex- 
ploits ;  attempts  in  his  present  work,  but  unsuccessfully,  to 
make  his  critics  participate  in  the  bhmder. 


PREFATORY   REMARKS.  XXIX 

tion,  the  papal  throne  was  re-estabhshed 
there,  and  that  a  schism  o^  fifty  years  du- 
ration ensued  ;  during  which,  the  Christian 
world  was  so  divided  between  Popes  and 
Aiiti'Popes,  that  it  was  not  possible  for  the 
most  learned  and  pious  men  of  the  day  to 
*  determine  between  the  two  opposite  lines 
of  succession,  who  was  the  legitimate  pos- 
sessor of  the  papal  chair?  But,  when  we 
read,  not  merely  of  Antipopes,  but  Anti- 
Cardinais  and  Anti-Councils,  I  would  ask 
him,  whether  the  Roman  Communion,  when 
rent  asunder  by  their  contentions,  and  when 
the  people  were  divided  into  separate 
churches,  had  been,  during  that  period,  the 
centre  of  Unity.  On  the  contrary,  did  not 
this  phantom  of  external  unity,  which  is 
the  princi[)le  of  its  consistence,  as  an  eccle- 
siastical body,  disappear  amidst  those  con- 
ihcts?  Did  not  that  one  schism,  of  which 
I  have  spoken,  commonly  called  the  Great 
Western  Schism,  also  destroy  all  its  preten- 
sions to  sanctity  and  infallibility  ?  And 
have  not  the  heresies,  which  it  adopted  at 
its  last  general  Council  of  Trent,  by  remo- 
ving it  far  from  the  standard  of  the  (ios[)el, 

•  See  MosH.  Eccl.  Hist.  vol.  iii.  p.  S'l7. 


XX x:  Piua-'ATOKV  hemakks. 

weakened,  if  not  inviilidatcd,  its  claim  to 
the  title  of  Apostolical ;  still  more,  to  the 
exclusive  character  of  Apostolicity  ?  With 
all  these  facts  on  record,  it  is  most  unac- 
countable, liow  he  could  bring  himself  to 
upbraid,  not  merely  the  Church  of  Eng*? 
land,  but  in  short,  any  other  Church  with 
schism.  ^» 

Our  Episcopal  Clergy  are,  in  general 
objects  of  Doctor  Milner's  severest  attack;* 
and  according  as  he  advances  in  his  work^ 
he  cuts  at  them  right  and  left.  But  the 
Bishop  of  St.   David's  he  *  singles  out  as 

*  See  Address  to  ihe  Bishop  of  St.  David's,  prefixed 
to  ihe  End  of  Religious  Controversy,  pp.  8,  9,  10,  and 
Postscript  to  the  same,  p.  202.  In  1814,  a  pamphlet  unj- 
der  the  title  of  a  Political  Catechism,  was  published  in 
Cork  by  the  Rev.  Mr.  England,  P.  P.  Its  tendency  was  to 
exasperate  the  minds  of  adult  Roman  Catholics,  (as  it  was' 
far  beyond  the  capacity  of  youth,  for  whose  use  it  pro-: 
fessed  to  be  designed)  against  the  Laws  and  Religion  of  the 
State,  by  ascribing  every  suffering  of  theirs,  from  the  era  of 
the  Reformation  to  the  present  time,  to  religious  perse- 
cution. To  counteract  the  effects  of  that  mischievous  per-^ 
formance,  the  Bishop  of  St.  David's  shortly  after  produced 
his  Protestant's  Catechism  on  the  Origin,  &,c.  of 
Popery.  And  most  completely  would  it  have  answered  its 
end,  had  every  mind  which  imbibed  the  poison  received  its 
corrective.  To  this,  and  other  publications  of  this  learned 
and  indefatigable  Prelate,  are  we  to  attribute  the  scurrility 


PREFATORY    REMARKS.  XXXI 

the  victim  of  his  most  inveterate  rancour. 
When  he  calls  him  a  paradoxical  and  a  bur- 
lesquing Prelate,  and  sneeringly,  a  modern 
Prelate ;  ironical  wit  of  this  kind,  consi- 
dering the  sort  of  warfare  in  which  he  is 
engaged,  might  pass  unnoticed.  But  when 
he  accuses  his  Lordship  with  being  of  an 
acrimonious  and  malignant  spirit ;  with  the 
advocacy  of  persecuting  and  sanguinarij 
measures  ;  and  in  broad  terms,  with  "  being 
bent  on  the  persecution  of  the  (Roman) 
Catholics."  When  he  can  thus  coolly  and 
deliberately  express  himself  in  the  face  of 
the  Legislature,  at  a  time,  that  he  is  asking 
for  power  from  the  very  person,  whom  he 
thus  calumniates  and  insults  ;  we  may  form 
a  j)retty  fair  estimate,  how  conscientiously  he 
would  use  that  power  for  the  extirpation  of 
heresy,  were  he  once  invested  with  it.  But 
the  grossness  of"  his  language,  and  the  per- 
sonalities to  which  he  has  descended,  have 
only  produced  their  natural  consequence, 
that  of  a  dignified  fori )eara nee  on  the  part 
of  his  Lordship. 

wilh  wliitli  his  Lordship  has  been  treated  by  Doctor  Mil- 
uc\.—  I  line  ((n/iiymcr  ! 


XXXll  PREFATORY    REMARKS. 

It  will  be  seen,  in  the  following  pages, 
with  what  address  Doctor  Milner  brings 
forward  some  of  the  ablest  writers  of  the 
Church  of  England  in  controversion  of 
their  own  principles.  The  contrivance,  al- 
though novel  and  ingenious,  has  not  suc- 
ceeded, as  I  have  generally  demonstrated 
the  sense  of  the  authors  to  be  at  variance 
with  the  detached  parts  cited  by  him,  a 
circumstance  not  very  creditable  to  the 
candour  and  impartiality  of  which  he 
boasts.  And  although,  in  some  one  or 
two  instances,  as  in  the  case  of  Thorndyke 
and  Montague,  he  seems  to  be  warranted 
in  what  he  says  ;  yet  their  authority  is  not 
sufficient  to  bear  down  the  unaltered  senti- 
ments of  our  Church,  since  the  Reforma- 
tion. In  fact,  the  exception  of  these  two 
but  goes  to  establish  the  rule  of  general 
consent  among  Protestant  writers  on  the 
main  points.  This  was  the  opinion  of  Bi- 
shop Stillingfleet  himself,  who  expressly 
oames  Thorndyke  and  Montague,  and  point- 
edly censures  their  vanity  in  setting  up  their 
**  singular  fancies"  in  opposition  to  the  doc- 
trine and  practice  of  the  Church  of  Eng- 


PREFATORY   REMARKS.  XXxili 

land,  which  is  not  now  to  he  *  "  new-mo- 
delled by  the  caprichios  of  superstitious  fa- 
natics.  ....  such  as  these;  we  rather  pity," 
adds  he,  *'  their  weakness,  than  regard  their 
censures,  and  are  onl}^  sorry,  when  our 
adversaries  make  such  properties  o{  ihexn, 
as  bv  their  means  to  beoet  in  some  a  dis- 
affection  to  our  Church."  Here  we  find 
StilHngfleet,  upwards  of  a  century  ago,  con- 
demning a  Popish  artifice,  to  which  Doctor 
Milner  is  not  above  resorting  at  the  present 
day,  when  he  reproduces  the  rejected  au- 
thorities of  such  men,  as  though  they  bad 
never  been  so  much  as  questioned. 

Doctor  Milner  adds  the  name  of  Jeremy 
Taylor,  Bishop  of  Down,  to  his  hstof  Pro- 
testant divines,  who  palhate,  if  not  defend, 
the  Popisli  worship  of  images,  &c. ;  but 
with  what  justice  may  be  judged  from  the 
retractation  of  liis  arguments  in  favour  of 
Popery,  or  rather  in  favour  of  the  lives 
and  liberties  of  its  j)rofcssors.  For  the  cause 
of  Popery  itself  he  never  advocated,  as  I 
have  shewn  at  largo  in  the -|- sequel.     He 

*  Sec  Conclusion  of  liisliop  Stillingneel's  Preface 
to  his  Discourse  on  the  Idolatry  of  the  Chinch  of  Rome. 

•\  SeeCHAP.v.  p.  131  —  l.'-J-J-.  ;  and  Chap,  x v.  note  *, 
p.  329. 


XXXIV  PKEIATORY    REMARKS. 

disclaims  every  intention  of  saying,  that  the 
Popish  rehgion  is  a  true  religion,  and  dis- 
tinctly states,  that  he  merely'argued  for  To- 
leration, in  his  Liberty  of  Prophecy  ;  but 
that  every  thing  else  which  he  advanced, 
"was  vain  flourish,  nothing  but  *  "  wooden 
daggers ;  tinsel,  and  pretence ;  imageri/y  and 
whipt  cream."  Indeed,  as  if  he  himself  had 
a  forecast  of  the  abuse  to  which  his  autho- 
rity would  be  subject,  he  prophetically 
says,  f  "  I  know  no  reason,  but  it  may  be 
possible,  that  a  witty  man  may  pretend, 
when  I  am  dead,  that  in  this  discourse  I 
have  pleaded  for  the  doctrine  of  the  Roman 
Church."  If  ever  the  epithet  witti/  applied 
to  any  person,  who  has  made  an  unfair  use 
of  Bishop  Taylor's  name,  surely  we  cannot 
be  mistaken  in  saying,  that  that  person  is 
Doctor  Milner. 

Archbishop  Wake  too  comes  in  for  his 
share  of  misrepresentation.  "  This  Prelate," 
says  :j:  Doctor  Milner,  "  after  all  his  bitter 
writings  against  the  Pope  and  the  (Roman) 
Catholic   Church,  coming  to    discuss   the 

*  Preface  to  Dissuasive  against  Popery,  second  part, 
f  Treatise  on  the  Real  Presence,  p.  26 1,  note  28. 
%  Letter  xlvi.  p.  143. 


PREFATORY   REMARKS.  XXXV 

terms  of  a  proposed  union  between  this 
Church  and  that  of  England,  expressed 
himself  willing  to  allow  a  certain  superio- 
rity to  the  Roman  Pontiffs."  But  this  cet'- 
tain  superiorit}^  the  Doctor  afterwards  de- 
clares to  be  "  a  supreme  authority,''  which  is 
as  essential  to  a  Christian  Church  as  to  a 
political  state.  Thus,  according  to  him, 
the  Archbishop  conceded  the  point  of  Papal 
supremacy,  so  great  was  his  desire  to  effect 
an  *  union  between  the  Churches  of  Eng- 
land and  Rome.  Now,  in  the  first  place, 
the  proposed  union  was  not  between  those 
Churches,  but  between  the  former  and  the 
Galilean  Church.  And,  in  the  next  place, 
it  was  not  even  with  the  Gallican  Church, 

*  The  hopelessness  of  the  Rev.  Mr.  Wix's  project  of 
a  union  between  the  Churches  of  England  and  Rome,  so 
long  as  the  latter  continues  in  its  unreformed  state,  and  so 
widely  separated  from  the  former  in  Jioidamentals,  is  most 
ably  proved  by  the  Bishop  of  St.  David's,  in  his  Letter  of 
Reply  to  that  gentleman,  as  well  as  in  that,  which  his  Lord- 
ship addressed  to  Lord  Kenyon.  The  present  Pope  has  set 
the  question  of  union  at  rest  in  his  instructions  to  his  Bishops, 
as  he  says,  that  "  la  religion  Calholique,  Apostolique,  et 
Romaine,  parce  qu'cllc  est  diviuc,  est  n^cessairement  scale, 
et  unique,  et  par  li  NE  prut  faiiie  d'alliance  avec 
AUCUNE  autre." — RELATION  de  06  qui  b'est  passe  A 
Rome,  vol.  i.  p.  193. 

d2 


XXXVl  PREFATOl^Y    REMARKS. 

Avhile  ill  connexion  with  the  Church  of 
Rome,  but  with  the  GaUicaii  Church,  se- 
parated and  independent  from  that  Church, 
and  purged  from  every  thing  which  distin- 
guished it  from  the  Church  of  England. 
If  Mosheim  misconceived  the  object  of 
Archbishop  Wake's  correspondence  with 
the  Doctors  of  the  Sorbonne,  this  cannot 
be  the  case  with  Doctor  Milner,  as  he 
must  have  benefitted  by  Maclaine's  expo- 
sure of  Mosheim's  error.  He  is,  therefore, 
convicted  of  a  wilful  misrepresentation.  He 
quotes,  it  is  true,  part  of  the  Primate's  let- 
ter to  Doctor  Du  Pin  ;  but  he  does  not 
quote  enough  of  it,  as  in  candour  he  was 
bound  to  do.  The  passage  which  follows, 
not  to  speak  of  the  strong  language  which 
goes  before  his  quotation,  in  rejection  of 
the  Papal  Supremacy,  qualifies  the  word, 
QUALICUNQUE,  from  the  use  of  which.  Doc- 
tor Milner  insinuates,  that  the  Archbishop 
acknowledged  the  Pope's  jurisdictio?i,  as 
well  as  his  precedence.  But  how  unfairl}, 
the  reader  may  judge,  by  referring  to  the 
Archbishop's  own  words,  as  contained  in 
the  *  note. 

*   III  a  strain  of  eloquence  worthy  of  the  Roman  orator, 


PREFATORY    REMAUKS.  XXXVII 

A  difference  of  opinion  having  arisen  be- 
tween two  learned  Prelates  of  our  Church 
respecting  the  exposition  of  the  words, 
*  "  thou  art  Peter,  and  upon  this  Rock  I 
will  build  my  Church :"  Doctor  Milner 
hails  it  as  a  matter  of  joy,  exclaiming,  that 
f  "  Landaff  was  from  remote  ages  a  thorn 
in  the  side  of  Menevia,"  meaning  St.  Da- 
Archbishop  Wake  thus  addresses  the  Bishops  of  the  French 
Church: — "  Expergiscimini  itaque  viri  erudili,  et  quod  ra- 
tio postulat,  nee  refragatur  religio,  strenue  agite 

Excutite  iandemjugum  istud,  quod  nee  patres  vestri,  nee 

vos  ferri  potuistis Ex  nobis  promplum  ac  paratum 

cxemplum  ;  quod  sequi  vobis  gloriosum!    Quo  solo 

irridere  valeatis  bnita  de  Yaiicano  Jul mina."  Tlien,  after 
remarking,  that  though,  on  the  dissolution  of  the  Roman 
Empire,  the  Pope  lost  any  privilege,  which  might  have  been 
conceded  to  him,  as  the  Bishop  of  a  place  which  was  the 
seat  of  government ;  yet,  provided  they  could  agree  about 

fundamentals,  he  was  indifferent  about  emptj/  titles 

"  raodo  in  ceteris  conveniatur  (then  comes  what  Doctor 
Milner  cites),  per  me  licet,  suo  fruatur  qualicunque 
Primatu  :  non  ego  illi  locum  primum^  non  iyiauem  honoris 
titulum  invideo,  &c."  The  admission  of  even  a  shadow  of 
authority,  much  less  of  a  certain  defined  one,  is  not  implied 
in  these  words. — SeeTiinu)  Appendix  to  Mosh.  Eccl. 
Hist.  vol.  vi.  pp.  107—1 10. 

♦  Matth.  xvi.  IB. 

-}•  Addukss  ut  supr.  p.  xiv. ;  the  translation  of  Bishop 
Marsh  to  the  See  of  Pctei borough,  has  put  aw  end  to  this 
fanciful  coincidence. 


XXXVIU  PREFATORY    REMARKS. 

vid*s.  But,  whether  we  determine  with 
*  Bishop  Marsh,  on  the  one  hand,  that  the 
word  Rock  refers  to  St.  Peter,  and  that  our 
Saviour  argued  from  the  name  to  the  mean- 
ing  of  the  name  ;  i.  e.  from  Cepha  or  nEXPor, 
to  what  corresponded  with  the  office  of  the 
Apostle  ;  or  with  the  substantial  services, 
which  our  Lord  foresaw  he  would  render 
the  Church  ;  and  that  we  thus  identify  the 
faith  with  the  person  of  the  Apostle,  because 
his  faith  operated  through  his  person  :  or, 
whether  we  coincide,  on  the  other  hand, 
with  the  -|- Bishop  of  St.  David's,  that  the 
Rock  alludes  to  Christ,  and  to  the  con- 
fession, not  of  St.  Peter  individually,  but 
of  the  other  Apostles  united  with  him  ;  that 
is,  to  their  doctrine — the  Messiahship  of  Je- 
sus, on  which,  as  on  a  foundation,  the 
Christian  Church  is  built ;  and  that  we 
cannot  argue  from  the  name  to  the  meaning 
of  the  name.  I  say,  in  whatever  light  we 
view  their  opinions,  resulting  as  they  do 
from  the  deepest  philological  research,  and 

*  Appendix  to  Comp.  View  of  the  Churches  of  Eng- 
land and  Rome,  pp.  273 — 286. 

•f  Tracts  on  the  Origin  and  Independence  of  the  an- 
cient British  Church,  &,c.  pp.  10 — 21. 


PREFATORY    REMARKS.  XXXIX 

to  whichsoever  side  we  attach  ourselves,  we 
can  discern  no  accession  of  strength  to  Doc- 
tor Milner's  cause ;  for  both  agree,  that  Pe- 
TRUS  has  a  relative  signification,  as  they  also 
agree,  that  the  *  Supremacy  of  the  Pope  is 
discountenanced  as  well  by  the  Scriptures, 
as  the  primitive  History  of  the  Church. 

f  Doctor  Milner  having  complained  that 
Protestant  writers  are  in  the  habit  of  ap- 
plying the  term  Papist,  in  the  offensive 
sense,  and  having  in  his  present  work  inti- 
mated his  wish  on  this  head ;  I  have  through- 
out these  pages,  cautiously  abstained  from 

*  Doctor  Milner  imagined,  that  the  argument  for  Papal 

Supremacy   was  strengthened    in  consequence  of    Bishop 

Marsh  having  asserted,  that  the  words  in  Matt,  xvi,   18, 

have  the  same  import,  as  if  we  said  in  EngHsh  to  a  person, 

whose  name  was  Rock;  "Thou  art  Rock  in  name,  and 

shalt  be  Rock  in  deed ;  for  on  thee,"  &.c. :  and  because  his 

Lordship  illustrated  the  Syriac  words  used  by  our  Saviour 

by  the  French  translation,  "Tu  es   Pierre,  et   sur  cette 

Pierre,  8cc. ;"  the  corresponding  Cepha  and  Pierre  being 

both  a  proper  name,  and  an  appellative  in  their  respective 

languages.     But  how  vain  is  the  conjecture  f     For  if  the 

mere  circumstance  of  St.  Peter's  presiding  over  the  Church 

of  Rome  (granting  that  ho  did  so)  entitled  it  to  Supremacy  ; 

it  would  follow,  that  everi/  ol/icr  Church  over  which  he  or 

St.  Paul  presided,  would  be  likewise  enUllcd  to  Siiprcmary. 

t  Letters  to  a  Prebendary,  p.  .'J. 


kI  prefatory  remarks. 

the  use  of  it.  Not  that  1  consider  it  in  its 
a|)pro[)riate  meaning  as  more  than  designa- 
ting a  sectary ;  namely,  a  person  devoted 
to  the  Pope  :  just  as  the  adjuncts,  hutheraiiy 
Calvinkt  and  Avian,  jjoint  out  the  particular 
sect,  to  which  individuals  respectively  be- 
long. To  the  term  Papist,  strictly  speak- 
ing, Doctor  Milner  should  not  object,  hav- 
ing its  root  in  Papa,  and  because  both  it 
and  the  word  Romanist  were  used,  as  may 
be  seen  in  Bishoj:>  Jewell's  works,  long  be- 
fore pains  and  penalties  were  enacted  against 
the  members  of  the  Church  of  Rome. 
This  very  circumstance  sets  aside  his  charge, 
***that  these  terms  were  invented  in  the 
time  of  persecution,  to  serve  as  a  cloak  for 
the  exercise  of  it."  Indeed,  were  Pro- 
testant writers  to  use  the  term  Papist,  there 
might  be  some  ground  for  objecting  to  it  as 
an  offensive  term ;  since,  like  its  correla- 
tives, Pope  and  Popery,  it  might  be  said  to 
spring  from  \  Popa,  a  word  descriptive  of  a 
person  every  way  contemptible  and  mean. 

*  Ibid. 
•\  PoFA  signilied  one  of  the  lowest  and  most  degraded 
class.     ^^  Pupa,  nescio  quis  de  circo  niaximo." — Cic.  pro 
Milone,  Sect.  24.     On  this  passage  the  Annotator  Asco- 


PREFATORY   REMARKS.  xU 

But  while  Doctor  Milner  is  thus  particu- 
lar on  the  score  of  epithets  as  apphed  to 
those  of  his  own  Communion  ;  he  seems  to 
feel  perfect  indifference,  to  say  the  least  of 
it,  about  those,  which  he  applies  to  the 
members  of  the  Established  Church,  He 
tauntingl}'^ calls  them  Anglicans,  Church-of- 
England  men,  Frotestant  Christians,  &c. ; 
and  frequently  brands  them  with  the  odious 
names  of  heretics,  and  schismatics.  Not- 
withstanding this,  in  the  following  pages,  I 
shall  not  be  tempted,  in  imitation  of  him, 
to  depart  from  that  line  of  moderation  and 
civility,  which  1  prescribed  to  mj^self  from 
the  outset,  and  which  I  deem  perfectly 
compatible  with  the  interests  of  truth. 

The  term  Catholic,  as  exclusively  applied 
to  members  of  the  Church  of  Rome,  I  do 

nius  observes,  "  Popa  est  sacronim  administer,  qui  victi* 
mas  immolal."     The  Rev.  Mu.  Roberts  sliiewdly  con- 
jeclures,   that  llie  title  of  Pope  was  probably  given  by  the 
Gentiles,  when  the  Masa  came  to  be  represented  as  a  sacri- 
Jice ;  but  that  the  Pope  disHkin;,'  if,  substituted  Papa,  Fa- 
ther, in  opposition  to  our  Lord's  injunction  to  his  disciples — 
"call  no  man  your   FatJier  upon  earth,  for  one  is  your 
Father,  which  is  in  heaven." — Matt,  xxiii.  {).     See  Mr. 
KOIJFirrS's    Review   of  Popery,   p.   HI,   and   CuiTo's 
Letter   to  Mr.  Gandolphy,   Protestant  Adv.   Sept.    1815, 
p.  542. 


xlii  PREFATORY   REMARKS.! 

not  use,  for  the  very  reason,  on  account  of 
which  it  is  adopted  hy  Doctor  Milner ;  as  it 
would  he  assuming,  that  they  wei'Cf  and  that 
we  were  notf  true  members  of  the  Church  of 
Christ.  There  is  no  doubt,  that  the  *  early 
Christians  were  unwilling  to  grant  the  ap- 
pellation of  Catholic  to  the  heretics  of  their 
time.  But  will  he,  therefore,  pretend  to 
say,  that  the  members  of  the  Church  of 
Rome,  to  whom  alone  he  gives  this  appel- 
lation, hold  that  pure  and  unadulterate  faith 
demanding  universal  credit  and  belief,  which 
those  early  Christians  did :  or,  that  we  of 
the  Church  of  England  resemble  those  he- 
retics in  disclaiming  all  dependance  on  Christ 
and  God?  If  he  cannot,  then  the  infer- 
ence is  plain,  -f  "  Of  what  Church  are  you," 
said  Tolemo,  his  judge,  to  an  ancient  martyr. 
Pionius  replied,  "  1  am  of  the  Catholic 
Church,  for  Christ  has  no  other.**  When 
I  myself  aver  the  same  thing,  and  in  jus- 

*  Some  excellent  observations  on  -the  scrupulousness  of 
the  prinoitive  Christians  in  this  respect,  are  given  by  the 
Rev.  Dr.  Nares  in  his  elaborate  Discourses  on  the  three 
Creeds.     See  particularly  Sermon  1,  p.  J2,  Ed.  18 ly. 

•f  Cujus,  inquit  Polenio,  es  Ecclesiae  f  Respondit  Pio- 
nius, Catholica:  nulla  enini  est  alia  apud  Christum." — 
Act.  Pionii  apud  Baron,  an.  254. 


PREFATORY    REMARKS.  xliii 

tice,  concede  to  Doctor  Milner  the  privilege 
of  Catholicity,  I  must  necessarily  protest 
against  his  arrogant  assumption  of  a  term, 
to  which,  in  his  use  of  it,  excliisiveness  is 
attached. 

Should  I  appear  either  too  minute,  or  too 
diffuse  in  my  references  to  the  ancient  fa- 
thers, this  must  be  my  apology ;  that  it 
arises  from  the  numerous  and  varied  ci- 
tations produced  by  Doctor  Milner.  I  was 
determined  to  deprive  him  of  the  adventi- 
tious aid,  which  he  derived  from  this  source, 
and  therefore,  1  have  attentively  explored 
it  through  all  its  branches.  By  these  means, 
the  reader,  who  has  neither  time,  nor  incli- 
nation to  consult  the  originals,  will  have 
the  opportunity  of  judging  with  accuracy 
and  satisfaction,  what  violence  is  done  to 
the  early  writers  in  being  pressed  into  the 
service  of  Popery. 

With  respect  to  both  ancient  and  mo- 
dern authors,  I  may  say,  that  as  1  considered 
it  indispensable  to  quote  their  own  words, 
so  I  have  [)ointe(l  to  the  original  with  the 
most  scrupulous  exactness,  and  have  nei- 
ther left  my  reader  in  doubt  or  displeasure 
at  nnanthenticatod  assertions.    I  have  done 


xliv  PREFATORY    REMARKS. 

SO,  both  because  they  express  their  own 
thoughts  better  than  I  could  j30ssibly  do, 
and  because  it  enabled  mc  to  direct  the 
reader's  attention  to  places,  whence  he 
might  derive  further  information  on  the 
subject  under  discussion.  In  general,  I  can 
conscientiously  declare,  that  truth  has 
been  my  sole  object,  and  that,  for  the  at- 
tainment of  this  honest  and  honourable 
end,  1  have  only  had  recourse  to  corre- 
sponding means.  1  have  stated  nothing  as 
a  fact,  but  what  I  believed,  and  almost 
uniformly  proved,  to  be  one ;  nor  have  I 
deduced  a  single  inference,  which  I  was  not 
persuaded  to  have  fairly  resulted  from  the 
premises. 

I  have,  as  I  conceive,  noticed  all  Doctor 
Milner's  principal  arguments,  and  have  dis- 
tinctly placed  them  and  my  answers  toge- 
ther under  the  reader's  view ;  so  that  he 
can  at  once  decide  on  the  merits  of  the  case. 
And  if  I  have,  in  any  instance,  drawn  a 
false  conclusion,  or  have  been  inadvertent- 
ly betraj^ed  into  a  warmth  of  expression,  1 
furnish  a  corrective ;  as  I,  at  the  same  mo- 
ment, exhibit  the  grounds  on  which  I  build 
my  argument,  or  throw  out  an  imputation. 


PREFATOEY    REMARKS.  xlv 

And,  however  some  persons  may  think, 
that  the  single  objection  to  Poper}^  arising 
from  its  idolatry,  is  in  one  word  an  Answer 
to  the  whole  of  Doctor  Milner's  Hiud  of 
ReligioKs  Controversii,  every  other  supersti- 
tion being  either  included  in  it,  or  of  minor 
consideration ;  yet  the  necessit}^  of  still 
continuing  to  refute  that,  which  in  defiance 
to  refutation,  is  with  confidence  upheld, 
appeared  to  me  absolutel}^  indispensable. 
Arguments,  however  weak,  should  be  an- 
swered, and  calumnies,  however  ground- 
less, should  be  exj)osed ;  lest,  in  the  opi- 
nions of  ignorant  and  superficial  observers, 
weakness  should  be  mistaken  for  strength, 
and  wicked  and  false  assertions  should  be 
admitted  as  truths,  because  not  disputed. 

I  have,  ill  the  last  place,  to  observe,  that 
it  is  an  incontrovertible  proof  of  the  sound- 
ness of  our  cause,  that  the  arguments  of 
our  ablest  Divines  can  bear  to  be  brought 
forward  again  and  again  in  opposition  to 
the  exploded  objections  of  Popery ;  as  often 
as  the  temerity  of  our  adversaries  call  for 
their  reproduction.  Of  those  adversaries 
themselves,  I  can  only  say,  that  they  ma- 
nifest no  symptoms  of  thai  infa]hl)le  prin- 


xlvi  PREFATORY   REMARKS. 

ciple,  which  they  claim  for  the  Church,  to 
which  they  helong.  Levity,  fallacy,  and  fol- 
ly, minutely  characterize  them,  and,  while 
they  seem  to  forget  the  humiliating  defeats, 
which  Popery,  in  all  its  forms,  has  sus- 
tained since  the  era  of  the  Reformation, 
the}^  daily  appear  to  court  fresh  disaster 
and  multiplied  disgrace.  In  a  word,  while 
the  champions  of  our  Church  have,  from 
the  time  of  Jewell  to  the  present  day,  heen 
uniformly  triumphant,  their  opponents  only 
live  in  the  praises  of  such  men  as  Gregory 
Martin,  Thomas  Ward,  and 

The  Reverend  Doctor  Milner. 


CONTENTS. 


CHAPTER  I. 

PAGE 

The  Scripture  Canon  of  the   Church  of  England 

vindicated • 1 

CHAPTER  n. 

The  variance  of  the  XI  Vth  Psalm,  as  it  stands  in 
our  Authorized  Translation  of  the  Bible  and 
Book  of  Common  Prayer,  accounted  for 34 

CHAPTER  III. 

The  genuineness  of  the  Text  of  the  three  heavenli/ 

Witnesses  inquired  into 42 

CHAPTER  I\^. 

Our  Authorized  Translation  of  the  Bible  vindicated ,  .  60 

CHAPTER  V. 

The  Doctrine  of  Transubstantialion,  a  Papal  Novelty.  109 

CHAPTER  VI. 

The  Real  Presence  of  Christ  in  the  Sacrament  ....  139 

CH7\I>TER  VII. 

The  Suppression  of  half  the  Eucharist,  sacrilegious  ..189 

CHAPTER  VIII. 
The  Sacrifice  of  the  Mass,  impious 239 

CHAI*TER  IX. 
Absolution  from  Sin 245 


CONTENTS. 

PAGE 

CHAPTER  X. 
Indulgoices » 265 

CHAPTER  XI. 
Purgatori/    277 

CHAPTER  Xn. 
Extreme  Unction 294 

CHAPTER  Xni. 

The  Invocation  of  Saints,  and  Worship  of  Images, 

blasphemous  and  idolatrous 298 

CHAPTER  XIV. 
Antichrist 31? 

CHAPTER  XV. 
The  Supremacy  of  the  Pope    326 

CHAPTER  XVI. 
Toleration     351 

CHAPTER  XVII. 
Popish,  or  false  Miracles 36 1 

CHAPTER  XVIII. 
Prai/ers  in  an  j^nknown  Tongue    381 

CHAPTER  XIX. 
Prohibition  of  the  Scriptures     .  .  , 391 

CHAPTER  XX. 
The  CelibaCT/  of  the  Clergy 400 

CHAPTER  XXI. 
Exclusive  Catholicity 407 


SCRIPTURE  CANON, 


CHAPTER  I. 

THE  SCRIPTURE  CANON  OF  THE  CHURCH  OF 
ENGLAND  VINDICATED. 

Preparatory  to  the  charge  which  Doctor 
Milner  makes  on  our  received  English  version 
of  the  Scriptures,  he  passes  some  remarks  on 
*  "  the  vain  confidence  of  the  Protestant,"  who 
adheres  to  the  Bible  alone,  as  his  rule  of  faith, 
and  who  disregards  the  two-fold  rule  or  law, 
by  whicii  the  f  (Roman)  Catholic  Church  is 
guided,  and  of  which  it  is  constituted  an  inter- 
preter or  judge.     *'  Supposing  then,"  says  he, 

•  Enj)  of  Religious  Contuoveksy,  Letter  IX.  p.  67. 

t  When  Doctor  Miliicr  makes  mention  of  the  Catholic 
Church,  Ik;  \h  to  be  understood  as  speaking  ot"  the  Church  of 
Rome.  Hut  to  (;uard  against  mistake,  the  term  Roman  is 
generally  prefixed  to  it  in  a  parenthesis^  where  his  own  words 
are  cited. 

1) 


2  SCKIFTUKE    CANON    Ol"    THE 

addressing  himself  to  his  correspondent,  *'  you 
to  be  the  Protestant  I  have  been  speaking  of,  I 
ask  you,  liow  you  have  learnt  what  is  the 
Canon  of  Scripture ;  that  is  to  say,  which  are 
the  books  that  have  been  written  by  divine  in- 
spiration ;  or,  indeed,  how  have  you  ascertained 
that  any  books  at  all  have  been  so  written?" 

1  shall  then,  for  a  moment,  put  myself  in  the 
place  of  his  correspondent,  and  reply,  that  1 
need  not  refer  to  a  living,  speaking  authority, 
such  as  that  which  exists  in  the  Church  of 
Rome,  to  tell  me  in  what  the  Canon  of  Scripture 
consists.  *Our  Saviour  said,  that  the  law, 
and  the  prophets,  and  the  Psalms,  testified  of 
Him  ;  and  his  words  are  true.  Thus,  then,  the 
Scriptures  themselves,  the  ivritlen  word,  tell  me 
where  the  Canon  of  Scripture  is  to  be  found. 
Those  I  believe,  while  I  reject  tradition,  which 
Doctor  Milner  receives  with  sentiments  of 
f  equal  piety  and  reverence ;  nay,  as  possessing 
even  superior  authority  to  the  Scriptures  them- 
selves. Let  me,  however,  be  here  understood 
as  drawing  a  distinction  between  tradition  as  a 
rule  of  faith,  and  all  other  kinds  of  it;  and  that 
when  I  say  generally  1  reject  tradition — the  un- 
written ivord,  the  tota  doctrina  non  scripta — it 

*  Luke,  xxiv.  44. 

t  Tridentina  Synodus -  -  pari  pictatis  affectu  ac  re- 

verentid  suscipil  et  veneratur.      Sess.  IV.  p.  11.    Ed.  Soteal. 
Ijbl. 


CHURCH    OF    ENGLAND    VINDICATED.  3 

does  not  follow,  that  I  reject  that  *  species  of 
it  which  proves  the  genuineness  of  the  New 
Testament.  This  is  tradition  of  testimony,  and 
is  no  way  whatever  connected  with  tradition  of 
doctrine ;  but  is  applied  to  the  ivritten  word. 
So  that,  when  we  speak  of  tradition  of  tesii- 
mojiy,  tradition  of  ceremonies,  and  tradition  of 
interpretation,  we  must  take  care  not  to  con- 
found any  of  them  with  that  sort  of  tradition 
which  is  to  the  Church  of  Rome  a  rule  of 
FAITH,  and  which  is  exclusively  applicable 
to  the  univritten  ivord.  Indeed,  if  this  dis- 
tinction be  not  observed,  as  any  thing  whatever 
delivered  from  one  person  to  another  may  be 
called  tradition,  endless  confusion  must  be  the 
consequence. 

I  say  then,  that  on  the  Scriptures  themselves, 

*  According  to  Bellarmine,  there  are  three  kinds  of  Tra- 
diliun.  The  first  is  divine  tradition,  relating  to  doctrines 
delivered  by  Christ  to  his  apostles ;  and  though  taught  by 
thenn,  left  unrecorded.  The  second  is  apostolical  tradition, 
relating  to  doctrines  also  taught  by  the  apostles,  and  also  letl 
unrecorded ;  yet  as  they  have  been  dictated  by  the  Holy 
Spirit,  tlicy  also  have  received  the  epithet  divine.  These  two 
kinds  cutii^lilute  with  Ikilannine  tlic  unwritten  word  of  Qoi\ , 
and  are  always  comprehended  in  the  term  tradition.  Tlie 
third  kin<l,  which  he  mentions,  is  of  human  origin,  and  relates 
to  church  ceremonies,  &c. ;  this  is  called  tradition  of  the 
church,  or  kcclesiasticai.  tradition.  Sec  Bishop  Marsh's 
Comparative  View  of  the  Chuichc-j  of  England  and  Rome, 
pp.  6— b. 

IJ    2 


4  SCRIPTURE    CANON    OF    THE 

the  certainty  respecting  the  Canon  of  the  Old 
Testament  is  founded;  for  the  Scriptures, 
uhicli  Christ  sanctioned  are  the  very  ones 
which  are  now  contained  in  the  HeUrew  Bible, 
and  which,  in  the  GUI  Testament  constitute 
the  Canon  of  the  Church  of  Enghuid  ;  while 
the  Canon  of  the  Old  Testament  adopted  by 
the  Ciuirch  of  Rome,  received  neither  the  sanc- 
tion of  Christ  nor  of  his  apostles.  What  those 
books  are,  as  well  as  their  exact  number,  is 
certified,  in  the  first  place,  by  Josephus,  himself 
too  a  Jewish  Priesl,and  likewise  contemporary 
vs^ith  *  some  of  the  apostles ;  next,  by  Melito, 
Bishop  of  Sardis,  in  the  second  century ;  and 
lastly,  by  Jerome,  in  the  fourth  century. 

The  first  of  these  writers  says,  f  "  we  have  not 
thousands  of  books,  discordant  and  contradict- 
ing each  other,  but  we  have  only  tiveyity-tivo  ; 
which  comprehend  the  history  of  all  former 
ages,  and  are  justly  regarded  as  divine."  The 
Jewish  historian  then  proceeds  to  divide  the 
entire  number  into  three  classes,  and  to  give 
a  detail  of  the  subjects  treated  of  in  each 
class— the  law  occupying  the  first;  the  pro- 
phets, the  secotid;  and  the  hagiographa,  the 

*  SS.  Paul,  PuiEa,  and  John, 
^(iyi.iym  AYO  AE  MONA  HPOS  TOIS  EIKODI  BIBAIA,  ra  irx»- 


CHURCH    OF    ENGLAND    VINDICATED.  5 

third  class.  In  this  last  class,  the  Psalms  oc- 
cupy the  Jirst  place.  Melito  only  differs  from 
Josephus  in  his  omission  of  the  Book  of  Esther, 
which  is  an  oversight,  as  it  is  not  found  in 
Origen's  catalogue.  And  Jerome  agrees  with 
Josephus,  not  only  as  to  the  three-fold  division, 
but  as  to  the  books  themselves,  and  the  num- 
ber of  them  ;  holding  in  common  with  him  the 
books  of  the  law  to  be  five,  but  *  varying  from 
him  as  to  the  point,  which  divides  the  remain- 
ing seventeen  into  the  second  and  third  classes. 
The  coincidence  between  the  number  of  the 
books  of  which  the  Canon  of  the  Old  Testa- 
ment consists,  and  the  number  of  the  letters  in 
the  Hebrew  alphabet,  viz.  tiveniy-two,  although 
probably  designed,  was  regarded  by  f  Jerome 
as  something  mysterious.  From  this  it  ap- 
pears, that  the  Church  of  Ji^ngland  has  adopted 
in  its  Canon  of  the  Old  Testament  precisely 
the  same  Books,  whirh  the  Hehreiv  Bible  con- 
tained, when  Jerome  translated  it;  and  that  its 

*  Thus  Joseplius  and  Jerome  afjrced  ahnut  tlic  nmTiI)er  of 
the  books  of  which  lh(;  first  class  consisted  ;  Iml  diflcrcd  in 
this  nnanner  respecting  the  others. 

Josepliiis'g  Bccond  class  J  ,  „  •      .  Jerome's  spcond  class  ) 

consisted  of S  consistod  of \   «  ""o^s. 

• third  ditto     ..    4  third  ditto     ..    <J 

17  17 

t  Viginti  dun  volimiina  siippntanliir,  (piil)us,  (piasi  liinis, 
exordiis  in  Dei  doctrinA,  tenera  adhiic  et  hictrns  viri  jusli 
eruditur  infanlia.     JriioME,  Prologus  galcatiis. 


b  SCRIPTURE    CANON    OF    THE 

Canon  is  the  zV/ew//r«Z  one  Nvhich  was  sanctioned 
by  our  Saviour. 

Ilow  diftereutly  circumstanced  is  Doctor 
Milner's  mjallihle  church,  wliich  possesses  a 
Canon,  that  neither  Christ  nor  his  Apostles  au- 
thorized. It  is  true,  they  say,  it  was  handed 
down  by  apostolical  tradition  ;  but  it  is  as  true, 
that  this  living,  speaki^ig  authority,  by  which 
the  Word  of  God  itself  is  reduced  to  a  state  of 
tutelage  and  subserviency,  was  guilty  of  an 
egregious  error  in  the  very  outset,  in  determin- 
ing its  Canon  from  an  *  interpolated  Greek  copy 
of  the  Bible,  and  making  it  to  consist  not  only 
of  those  books,  which  the  Church  of  England 
retains  as  being  referred  to  by  Christ;  but  of 
others,  wliich  not  only  were  not  alluded  to  by 
Him,  but  which  the  concurrent  voice  of  antiquity 
rejects,  for  the  vei^y  reason  of  their  not  being 
alluded  to  by  Him,  as  apocryphal.  It  is  well 
known,  that  the  council  of  Trent  has  ratified  this 
corrupt  Canon,  and  that  it  has  attached  equal 
reverence  and  esteem  to  the  books  of  which 
it  is  composed  indiscriminately.  By  doing  so, 
however,  it  was  well  aware  that  it  upheld  such 

*  "  They  were  not  out  of  the  Hebrew  fountain  (we  speak  of 
the  Latin  Translations  of  the  Old  Testament),  but  out  of  the 
Greek  stream;  therefore  the  Greek  being  not  altogether 
clear,  the  Latin  derived  from  it  must  needs  be  muddy." 
Preface  or  Epistle  to  the  reader  by  the  translators  of  our 
Bible,  in  1611. 


CHURCH    OF    ENGLAND    VINDICATED.  7 

of  the  corruptions  of  Popery,  as  derived-counte- 
nance  and  support  from  the  apocryphal  books. 
The  difference  between  the  Canons  of  the 
two  Churches  marks  the  difference  between  the 
sources  whence  they  are  derived.  We  know 
that  the  Septuagint  version  of  the  Scriptures 
was  made  at  the  instance  of  Ptolemy  Philadel- 
phus,  nearly  .300  years  before  the  birth  of 
Christ ;  and  that  the  books  which  that  version 
contained  in  addition  to  the  writings  of  the  He- 
brew Bible,  were  written  at  a  period  not  more 
remote  than  two  centuries  before  that  event. 
To  the  Greek  Jews  resident  in  Egypt  may 
be  ascribed  the  insertion  of  those  additional 
books  among  their  Scriptures ;  yet  without 
their  having  acknowledged  them  to  be  canoni- 
cal. This  appears  to  be  the  case  from  the 
testimony  of  Philo,  an  Egyptian  Jew  of  the 
lirsit  century.  Unable  to  discriminate  between 
the  books  whicli  were  of  Hebrew,  and  those  of 
Greek  origin,  the  author  or  authors  of  the 
*  Latin  version  translated  all  the  books  of  the 
Septuagint  without  distinction  into  Latin  ;  and 
without  distinction  all  were  pronounced  by  St. 

*  The  most  notcfl  of  the  earliest  Latin  versions  is  that  called 
the  old  Jtalic,  Of  this  version  there  are  thr»c  varieties,  the 
oldest  of  which  is  represented  as  being  most  beautiful,  being 
written  on  purple  vellum,  in  silver  cliurnctcrs,  and  preserved  at 
Hrescia  in  Italy.  See  >.oi,AN'b  Integnly  of  the  Greek  Vulgate, 
pp.  39,  60. 


8  SCRIPTURE    CANON    OF    THE 

Augustine  as  of  canonical  authority.  Such  is 
the  source  from  which  the  Cliurch  of  Rome 
derives  its  Canon  of  the  Old  Testament. 

On  the  other  hand,  we  find,  that  Jerome,  al- 
though he  attempted  at  the  request  of  Pope 
Damasus  to  revise  the  discordant  Latin  ver- 
sions, which  existed  in  liis  time,  from  the  Sep- 
tuagint ;  yet  he  relinquished  this  attempt,  and 
formed  a  new  Latin  version  of  the  Old  Testa- 
ment early  in  the  fifth  century  ;  not  like  the 
other  Latin  versions  derived  from  the  Septua- 
gint,  but  from  the  Hebrew,  the  original  inspired 
text.  This  he  was  enabled  to  do,  as  he  did 
not  confine  his  reading,  like  *  Augustine,  to 
w^orks  in  his  native  language,  being  intimately 
versed  both  in  Greek  and  Hebrew.  But  such 
books  as  were  not  in  the  Hebrew  Bible,  he 
marked  down  as  apocryphal.  This  is  the 
source  from  which  the  Church  of  England 
derives  its  Canon  of  the  Scriptures ;  and 
such  is  the  view  taken  by  our  ablest  divines  of 
the  Canons  of  the  respective  churches.      The 

*  "Augustine  wished  to  dissuade  Jerome  from  translating 
the  Scriptures  of  the  Old  Testament  out  of  the  Hebrew 
Tongue ;  whose  reasons,  as  they  are  but  frivolous,  are  de- 
rided by  Jerome,  who  being  learned  in  the  Hebrew  and 
Chaldee  tongues,  refused  to  be  taught  by  Augustine,  that  was 
ignorant  in  tliem,  what  was  to  be  done  in  translations  out  of 
them."  Fulke's  Defense  of  the  sincere  and  true  Transla- 
tions of  the  Holie  Scriptures,  p.  22.     Ed.  1583. 


CHURCH    OF    ENGLAND    VINDICATED.  9 

reader  may  now  judge  whether  the  Church  of 
Rome  be  warranted,  as  Doctor  Mihier  con- 
tends, in  rejecting  Jerome's  Canon  ;  in  attempt- 
ing to  degrade  that  which  was  the  only  Canon 
of  our  Saviour  Jesus  Christ,  by  calling  it  the 
Canon  of  the  *  Scribes  and  Pharisees ;  and 
finalh%  in  ratifying  Augustine's  corrupt  Canon. 
To  pronounce  with  confidence  what  books 
of  the  Canon,  or  parts  of  books,  are  inspired, 
and  what  not,  may  consistently  belong  to 
Doctor  JMilner,  as  being  a  member  of  a  church 
which  lays  claim  to  infallibility;  but  certainly 
not  to  a  member  of  the  Church  of  England. 
So  that,  when  he  asks,  how  tve  have  learned 
what  books  "  have  been  written  by  divine  in- 
spiration," or  how  we  have  ascertained  that  any 
books  at  all  have  been  so  written?  we  may  an- 
swer, that  where  the  Holy  Scriptures  declare, 
that  they  set  forth  a  divine  Revelation,  or  that 
they  express  the  word  of  God,  we  believe 
them  to  do  so.  But  as  to  the  fact  of  their  in- 
spiralion,  we  must  with  awe  and  humility 
decline  to  say,  what  we  believe  no  church,  an- 
cient or  modern,  can  ever  attest.  In  respect 
to  the  use  of  Scriptur<',  wherever  we  conceive 
our  authorized  English  version  to  be  inaccurate, 
and   what   human   production   can   claim   per- 

*  See  Bishop  ChaloncrV  noie,  prefixed  to  the  First  Book  of 
Maccabees. 


10  SCRIPTURE    CANON    OF    THE 

feet  exemption  from  error,  we  are  at  liberty  to 
appeal  to  the  original  ?  In  this  point,  we  difl'er 
from  the  practice  of  the  Church  of  Rome, 
which  ascribes  to  the  Latin  vulj^ate,  its  autho- 
rized translation,  even  higher  authority  than  it 
does  to  the  inspired  originals  themselves  ;  and 
in  its  last  general  council  directs,  **'  that  it  shall 
be  esteemed  authentic,  and  that  no  person, 
under  any  pretence  whatever,  shall  presume  to 
reject  it."  Doctor  Milner  knows  too,  that  we 
do  not,  like  the  Church  of  Rome,  affect  to 
expound  the  Scriptures  under  the  influence 
of  the  Holy  Spirit,  and  that  we  are  satisfied 
to  interpret  them  by  the  aid  of  reason  and 
learning. 

But  here  Doctor  Milner  urges,  that  Hooker, 
"  our  great  authority,"  shews,  that  Scripture 
cannot  bear  testimony  to  itself.  Hooker's  opi- 
nion would  certainly  carry  great  weight  with  it 
in  deciding  any  point,  but  on  the  present  one 
he  is  silent ;  for  in  the  place  to  which  Doctor 
Milner  refers,  he  discusses  a  different  branch 
of  the  subject :  viz.  by  what  authority  the  Ca- 
non of  Scripture  is  determined.  But  were  he 
to  have  thus  expressed  himself,  his  opinion 
would  be  far  outweighed  by  that  of  the  most 

*  Ut  hsEC  ipsa  vetus   et  vulgata  editio ---.  pro 

aulhentica  habeatur,  ut  nemo  illain  rejicere  (juovis  pratextn 
audeal  \t\  prcesumat. — Concil.  Trid.     Sess.  iv.  p.  14. 


CHURCH    OF    ENGLAND    VINDICATED.         1  I 

enlightened  divines  of  the  Church  of  England, 
\vho  have  declared  with  one  voice,  that  the 
*  inspiration  of  Scripture  is  not  cognizable  by 
/f «/;//«»  observation;  that  it  is  what  human  evi- 
dence ca7inot  attest ;  that  it  cannot  be  deter- 
mined except  by  divine  testimony,  and  there- 
fore, only  by  Scripture  itself. 

t  Doctor  INJilner  next  says,  that  we  have  no 
authority  for  receiving  the  Gospels  of  SS.  Mark 
and  Luke,  who  were  not  apostles,  as  canonical, 
and  rejecting  an  authentic  work  of  great  ex- 
cellence, the  Epistle  of  St.  Barnabas,  who  is 
termed  in  Scripture  an  apostle.  In  a  word,  that 
we  have  no  authority  for  asserting,  that  the 
sacred  volumes  are  the  genuine  composition 
of  the  holy  persons,  whose  names  they  bear, 
*'  except  tradition,  and  the  living  voice  of  the 
church.'' 

1  need  not  here  remind  Doctor  Milner,  that 
the  rejection  of  tradition  as  a  rule  of  faith 
constituted  the  vital  principle  of  the  Reforma- 
tion, and  that  although  we  receive  as  canonical 
the  Gospels  of  SS.  Mark  and  Luke,  as  we  do 
ancient  interpretations  of  them,  by  what  in  a 
certain  sense  may  be  called  tradition ;  yet  we 
do  so  at  our  owji  discretion.  So  that,  when  he 
insinuates,  that  the  Churches  of  England  and 

*  See  parliciilarly  CoMi'.  View,  p.  147. 
t  Lettf.r  ix.  p.  6S. 


12  SCRIPTURE    CANON    OF    THE 

Rome  agree  about  tradition,  it  must  be  ob- 
served, that  the  word  is  used  by  him  in  a  sense 
different  from  tliat  in  which  we  understand  it. 
Tradition,  in  this  general  sense,  as  it  applies  to 
the  umvritten  word,  will  not  prove  that  the 
sacred  writings  are  the  genuine  productions  of 
those,  whose  names  they  bear.  A  proof  of  this 
kind,  must  be  established  by  a  different  sort 
of  tradition — the  tradition  of  testimony.  This 
latter  kind,  therefore,  which  applies  to  the 
written  tvord,  should,  as  I  have  already  ob- 
served, not  be  confounded  with  tradition  as 
a  rule  of  faith,  and  which  applies  exclusively 
to  the  umvritten  ivord.  To  shew  how  well 
this  distinction  is  preserved  by  our  church,  as 

*aWITNESS  AND  KEEPER  OF  HoLY  WrTT,  let  the 

very  Gospels  of  St.  Mark  and  St.  Luke,  which 
Doctor  Milner  speaks  of,  be  those,  the  genuine- 
ness of  which,  we  are  about  to  establish.  The 
process  to  be  observed  is  similar  to  that,  which 
would  be  used  in  determining  the  genuineness 
of  any  profane  work,  such  as  tliat  of  Virgil,  or  of 
Horace ;  since  it  makes  no  difference  so  far  as 
the  discovery  of  the  author  is  concerned,  that 
the  former  are  inspired  writings,  the  latter,  not. 
Thus,  we  have  passages  from  those  Gospels  in 
ecclesiastical  writers,  as  may  be  seen  in  a  Catena 
Patrum  and  in  Pole's  Synopsis,  from  the  present 

*  Article  xx. 


CHURCH    OF    ENGLAND    VINDICATED.  13 

time,  nearly  to  that  in  which  those  Gospels  were 
written,  when  the  authors  of  them  must  have 
been  known.  This  certainly  is  tradition;  because 
the  evidence  is  *  conveyed  down  to  us  from  the 
earliest  ages  ;  but  it  is  a  tradition  o(  testimony y 
and  is  no  way  connected  with  tradition  of 
doctrine. 

'vVith  respect  to  St.Barnabas's  Epistle,  which 
Doctor  Milner  pronounces  to  be  an  authentic 
work  of  great  excellence,  there  were  not  the 
same  grounds  for  receiving  it  into  the  Canon 
of  the  Church  of  England,  as  for  receiving  the 
Gospels  just  spoken  of,  and  therefore  the 
framers  of  that  Canon  wisely  rejected  it.  For, 
in  llie  first  place,  doubt  and  uncertainty  affect 
the  testimonies  of  the  different  writers,  who 
have  made  quotations  from  the  Epistle  of  this 
father.  Jn  the  next  place,  it  is  not  found  in  any 
of  the  ancient  Canons.  And  lastly,  it  was  not 
acknowledged  as  Scripture  by  any  very  early 
writer.  But,  for  the  purpose  of  coming  to  the 
point,  I  shall  meet  Doctor  Milner  on  ground 
of  his  owi)  choosing,  lie  first  refers  to  Cote- 
lerius,  ;is  fiiniisliiiig  evidence  that  the  Epistle 
ascribed  to  Barnabas  is  "  authentic,"  {genuine^ 
I  suj)pose  he  means)  and  next,  to  Grabe's 
Spicilegium. 

1  am  willing  to  admit,   that  JJoctor  Milner 

*  See  BisHOf  Buknet'b  Expos,  of  ihe  Sixth  Article,  p.  72. 


14  SCRIPTURE    CANON    OF    THE 

has,  in  the  present  instance,  forgot,  that  the 
Council  of  Trent  has,  in  its  fourth  Session, 
enumerated  in  its  Canon  of  the  New  Testament, 
the  very  books  which  we  adopt  in  ours.  But 
that  he  should  quote  Cotelerius,  as  aftbrding 
evidence  of  Barnabas  being  the  author  of  the 
Epistle  ascribed  to  him,  is  not  a  little  surprising. 
For,  in  that  author's  *  Syllabus  of  Letters, 
which  relate  to  the  Apostolic  Fathers,  the  first 
is  that  of  t  Archbishop  Laud  to  Menard,  in 
which  he  says,  [  grant  that  Barnabas's  Epistle 
is  sufficiently  ancient,  hninot  canonical.  Next, 
X  Eusebius,  in  his  Ecclesiastical  History,  ob- 
serves : — "  moreover,  let  that  Epistle,  which  is 
reported  to  belong  to  Barnabas,  be  ranked 
among  the  spurious  books  of  the  New  Testa- 
ment." §  RuflSnus  too  enumerates  it  among 
those  productions,  about  which  there  is  the 
greatest  doubt.  ||  Clemens  Alexandrinus  speaks 
of  it  as  being  among  those  writings,  to  w^hich 
objections  are  made.  He  specifies  those  objec- 
tionable writings  to  be  the  Epistles  of  Clemens 

*    COTELER,,    p.  4. 

t  Barnabae  Epistolam  satis  antiquam  agnosco,  non  ca- 
nonicam. 

t  E»  To»?  N0©0ir  x«T«T£Tap(;Ow  xa»  rw>  n«t^A8  Trpx^euv  ii 
ypu^t) xai  71  ^ipojjiftT)  Bapawa  iTrtroXi). 

§   De  fjiiibtK  (/nam  maxinie  duhitatiir. 

II    ArT^^lyo/xl^aJ»    yp»<pur    Trjf     Ttr   BAPNABA,    y.cn     K^))/Ae»TOf, 

Kxt  I«5«.     Lib.  vi.  c.  13. 


CHURCH    OF    ENGLAND    VINDICATED.         15 

Romauus,  Barnabas ^  and  Jude.  *  He  again 
says,  that  he  does  not  omit  in  his  account  of 
the  Scriptures  those  books  about  which  there 
is  any  doubt,  and  expressly  names  the  Epistle 
of  St.  Barnabas  as  one  of  them.  This  fatiier's 
testimony,  as  far  as  it  goes,  it  is  true,  leads  to 
the  rejection  of  the  Epistle  of  Jude,  which  we 
deem  canonical.  Doctor  Milner  seems  to  have 
this  circumstance  in  view,  when  he  proclaims 
the  uncertainty  of  the  Church  of  England,  about 
the  formation  of  its  Canon,  and  its  want  of  au- 
thority to  determine  what  books  are  genuine, 
and  what  not.  But  his  observation,  if  it  have 
any  force,  applies  equally  to  the  Church  of 
Rome.  Thus,  f  says  he,  "numerous  apocry- 
phal prophecies,  and  spurious  Gospels  and 
Epistles,  under  the  same  or  equally  venerable 
names,  were  circulated  in  the  Church,  during 
its  early  ages,  and  accredited  by  different 
learned  writers,  and  holy  fathers  ;  while  some 
of  the  really  canonical  books,  were  rejected  or 
doubted  by  them."  All  this  is  true,  and  the 
prtjsent  is  a  casein  point,  where  the  evidence  of 
Clemens  Ah-xaiidrinus  impeaches  the  genuine- 
ness of  the  Epistle  ascribed  to  .hide.  However, 
to  rescue  this  |)articular  Epistle  from  the  im- 
putation cast  on  it  by  this  father,  w(i  must  pre- 

*    M»)  di  Ta{  afTtAiyo^t^af   nxfih^u* t»)»  tu  BAPNABA. 

t    Lt-.TTEIi  IX.    |>.  OS. 


Id  SCRIPTURE    CANON    OP    THE 

serve  the  course  employed  in  establishing  the 
spuriousness  of  the  Jilpistle  ascribed  to  Barna- 
bas. When  there  are  conflicting  testimonies ; 
the  number,  credibility,  and  skill  of  the  wit- 
nesses on  both  sides,  must  be  taken  into  ac- 
count, and  the  matter  be  decided  as  those 
preponderate,  for  or  against.  To  this  process 
alone,  had  our  reformers  recourse,  when  they 
settled  our  Canon,  without  requiring  the  aid  of 
a  living,  speaking  authority,  to  guide  them  in 
the  selection  of  the  books  of  which  it  consisted. 
It  should  be  remarked  too,  that  *  Jerome,  in 
his  catalogue  of  Greek  writings,  sets  down 
Barnabas's  Epistle  as  among  the  apocryphal 
Scriptures.  And  Coteleriuss  own  argument, 
after  combatting  the  opinion  of  Bede,  about  the 
time  at  which  Barnabas  entered  on  his  disciple- 
ship,  is  of  an  hypothetical  nature,  beginning 
with  a  certk  vix  credi  potest.  He  says,  that  on 
the  score  of  authority,  there  is  a  difference  be- 
tween the  Epistles  of  Clemens  and  Barnabas ; 
ffor,  that  the  Epistle  of  the  former  obtained 
greater  celebrity.     '\,  Cotelerius  likewise  adds, 

*  CoTELER.  Monumen.  Graec.  Eccl.  p.  5. 

t  Cujus  Epistola  tantum  famm  non  est  consecuta,  ac  ilia 
dementis.     Ibid. 

X  Earn  saltern  a  multis  Catholicis  admissam  -  -  -  ex  quibus 
omnibus  conficitur,  non  admodum  clarum  utrum  prajsentetn 
Epistolam  adjudicare  debemus  Barnabas  Apostolo,  an  alteri 
homini  apostolico,  qui  autBarnabae  nomen  assumpsit,  &c.  &c. 
Ibid. 


CHURCH    OF    ENGLAND    VINDICATED.         17 

that  it  has  been  received,  at  least  by  many 
(Roman)  Catholics;  and  concludes  with  ob- 
serving, that  "  it  is  not  very  evident,  whether  we 
ought  to  ascribe  the  present  Epistle  to  Barna- 
bas, the  apostle,  or  to  some  apostolic  person 
who  assumed  his  name."  It  certainly  is  not 
surprising,  that  so  ancient  a  fragment,  whether 
genuine  or  not,  should  be  held  in  high  estima- 
tion by  Cotelerius;  the  surprise  rather  is,  that 
Doctor  Milner  could  quote  this  Doctor  of  the 
Sorbonne  as  doing,  what  in  fact,  he  does  not, — 
namely,  give  the  least  evidence  towards  esta- 
blishing the  genuineness  of  Barnabas's  Epistle. 
It  appears  from  what*Lardner  says  on  the 
subject,  tliat  Barnabas's  Epistle  was  not  reck- 
oned a  book  of  authority,  or  part  of  the  rule 
of  faith,  by  those  ancient  Christians,  who  have 
taken  the  greatest  notice  of  it ;  as  Clemens 
Alex.,  Origen,  or  Eusebius  in  his  Ecclesiastical 
History.  Nor  is  it  ranked  as  such,  by  those 
wlio  have  given  catalogues  of  the  books  of  the 
New  Testament ;  as  Athanasius,  Cyril  of  Jeru- 
salem, tipiph;inius,  Gregory  Nazianzen,  Amplii- 
locliius,  Jerome,  HiilTinus,  and  Augustine.  It 
also  apjX'ars,  that  JJaruabas  was  not  one  of 
ChriKt's  twelve  aposth^s,   and  that  he  was  not 

•  See  Bishop  Watson'8  Collection  of  Tracts,  vol.  ii.  p.  14, 
for  Lardner's  Ilifitory  of  tlie  Apostles  and  Kvangelisls. 

C 


18  SCRIPTURE    CANON    OF    THE 

chosen  one  instead  of  Judas;  for,  if  he  were, 
St.  Paul  wouhl  liavc  said  us  in  the  *  Epistle, 
which  he  addressed  to  the  Galatians,  where 
he  twice  uses  the  word  me.  f  Mosheim,  on 
the  authority  of  Tillemont  and  Ittigius,  accounts 
for  the  Epistle  in  question  being  the  production 
of  some  Jew  of  the  second  century,  from  the 
superstitions  attachment  which  it  shews  to 
Jewish  fables.  On  the  whole,  therefore,  it  ap- 
pears, that  the  Church  of  England  is  warranted 
in  the  decision  it  has  come  to  respecting  the 
reputed  Epistle  of  Barnabas ;  and  that  it  has 
been  guided,  as  it  should  be,  by  that  kind  of 
tradition  which  we  call  tradition  of  testimony ; 
but  by  no  means,  by  tradition  in  the  popish 
sense,  as  Doctor  Milner  would  lead  his  readers 
to  suppose  was  the  case.  As  to  JGrabe,  the 
second  writer  referred  to  by  Doctor  Milner,  he 
only  gives  fragments  of  the  Epistle  ascribed  to 
Barnabas ;  while  in  his  Index,  he  inserts  the 
saint  himself  as  one  of  the  apostolical  fathers. 
No  farther  does  his  testimony  extend. 

It  is  not  by  popish  authorities  alone,  that 
Doctor  Milner  supports  his  arguments  ;  he  has 
enlisted  under  his  banner  a  still  greater  number 
of  Protestant  writers.  If  this  be  a  novel  course 
for  a  popish  polemic  to  take,  it  certainly  is  not 

*  ii.  9  t  Eccl.  Hist,  vol.i.  J).  113. 

\  See  SpiciLEGiuM. 


CHURCH    OF    ENGLAND    VINDICATED.  J 9 

an  unwise  one,  being  designed  as  the  means  of 
confirming  the  bigotry  of  his  Roman  Catholic 
readers,  who  will  receive  at  his  hands  his  por- 
traiture of  heresy,  with  as  much  reverence  as 
they  receive  the  Gospel  itself,  on  the  supposi- 
tion that  he  con\icts  his  adversaries  by  their 
own  testimony.  To  disabuse  such  persons,  I 
have  principally  directed  my  research  to  those 
Protestant  works  on  which  Doctor  Milner  has 
laid  so  much  stress ;  and  as  often  as  I  could 
discover  the  passages  to  which  he  refers,  I  have 
been  almost  uniformly  successful,  as  these  pages 
will  shew,  in  detecting  error,  or  misrepresenta- 
tion. I  say,  as  often  as  I  could  discover,  since 
his  references,  whether  from  accident  or  design, 
al*e  seldom  correct. 

*  Doctor  Milner  proceeds  to  say,  ''  that  the 
genuine  Canon  of  Scripture  was  fixed  in  the 
fourth  century  by  the  tradition  and  authority 
of  the  church,  declared  in  the  third  Council 
of  Carthage,  and  by  a  decretal  of  Pope  Inno- 
cent tlic;  First;  and  tiiat  it  is  so  clear,  that  the 
Canon  is  built  on  tlie  tradition  of  the  church, 
that  most  learned  Protestants,  with  Luther  him- 
self, have  been  forced  to  acknowledge  it  in  terms 
as  strong  as  those  in  the  well-known  declaration 
of  St.  Augustine." 

In  the  first  place,  the  assumption  with  respect 

*  Letteu  ix.  J).  6S. 
c   2 


20  SCRIPTURE    CANON    OF    THE 

to    Luther  is   quite  gratuitous;  for  as  to  bis 
confessious,     retractations,    or    inconsistencies, 
with   which  Doctor  Milner  constantly  taunts 
the  Church  of  England,  they  go  for  nothing. 
What  have  the  errors  of  Luther,  or  of  this  apos^ 
tate  monk,  as  he  calls  him,  to  do  with  the  ques- 
tion at  issue?     If,  in  the  body  of  his  doctrine, 
defects  can  be  discovered,  we  know  that  the 
greatest  lights  of  the  church,  and  in  the  purest 
timesof  it,  were  not  agreed  in  all  their  opinions; 
and  if,  in  his  character,  failings  are  discernible, 
we  equally  know,  that  an  apostle  himself  was 
not  free  from  reproach.    But  were  they  as  glar- 
ing as  Doctor  Milner  represents  them  to  be, 
they  were  counterbalanced  by  great  virtues  and 
high  endowments  of  mind,   which  appeared  as 
constellations  in  the  dark  expanse  which  sur- 
rounded them.     The  wonder,  then,  should  be, 
not  that  he  had  imperfections;  but  that  he  had 
so  few.     To  expect  that  Luther  should  not  be 
tossed    about  by   the  tempest   which   agitated 
Europe  in  his  time,  and  which  he  himself  may, 
in  a  manner,  be  said  to  have  created,  would  be  to 
suppose  him  more  than  mortal. 

Doctor  Milner  confronts  us  with  the  testimony 
of  the  judicious  Hooker,  another  of  those 
learned  Protestants,  who,  he  says,  are  compel- 
led to  acknowledge,  that  the  Canon  of  Scrip- 
ture is  built  on  the  tradition  of  the  church. 
What  this   acknowledgment  is,   we  shall  pre- 


CHURCH    OF    ENGLAND    VINDICATED.         21 

«eutly  see.  *  Hooker  argues  thus.  After  ob- 
serving, that  it  is  bj^  some  childishly  demanded, 
what  Scripture  can  teach  the  authority  of  Scrip- 
ture, he  goes  on  to  say,  that  certainly  it  is  not 
a  self-evident  proposition,  that  the  Scriptures 
are  the  oracles  of  God;  for  then,  that  every  per- 
son who  heard  them  would  as  readily  assent  to 
them,  as  to  the  axiom,  that  the  whole  is  greater 
than  a  part.  Therefore,  that  some  knowledge 
must  be  presupposed,  by  which  we  know  them 
to  be  divine.  "  So  that  the  thing  to  be  ascertain* 
ed  is,  whence  comes  our  instruction?  Some 
answer  from  tradition;  (observe  he  does  not 
expressly  give  this  as  his  own  answer).  Is  this 
enough  ?"  He  then  adds,  that  we  should  not 
reject  the  lessons  of  experience,  as  by  it  we 
know,  *'  that  the  first  outward  notice,  which 
leads  men  to  esteem  the  Scriptures  is  the  autho- 
rity of  God's  church.  For,  when  we  know, 
that  the  vjhole  Church  of  God  has  that  opinion 
of  the  Scriptures,  we  judge  it,  even  at  the  first, 
an  impudent  thing  for  any  man  bred  and 
brought  up  in  the  church,  to  be  of  a  contrary 
mind  without  cause."  What  is  this  but  the  lan- 
guage of  sonje  of  our  ablest  commentators, 
whose  opinions  confirm  the  right  of  private 
judgment,  whihi  they  recommend  a  distrust  in 
our  own  understanding,  and  a  resj)ectful  defer- 

*  EccLEiiASTicAL  PoLiTV,  book  Hi.  sccl.  vii'i.  p.  77, 


22  SCRIPTURE    CANON    OF    THE 

ence  to  the  judgment  of  our  superiors — the 
governing  members  of  the  church,  when  we 
think  differently  from  them  in  any  particular 
point.  This  surely  is  not  ascribing  to  the 
church  that  infallible  authority,  with  which 
Doctor  Milner  invests  the  Church  of  Rome. 

But  to  proceed  with  Hooker.  *  '*  If,"  says 
he,  "  I  believe  the  Gospel,  reason  is  of  singular 
use  in  confirming  my  belief.  Again;  exclude 
the  use  of  natural  reason,  about  the  sense  of 
the  Holy  Scriptures,  concerning  the  articles  of 
our  faith,  and  then,  who  can  assure  us  that  the 
Scriptures  doth  concern  the  articles  of  our  faith  ? 
Can  christian  men  perform  what  Peter  requires, 
and  be  able,  ivithout  the  use  of  reason,  to  ren- 
der a  reason  sound  and  sufficient,  to  answer 
them  that  demand  it.  And  for  that  cause,  it  is 
not  said  amiss,  touching  ecclesiastical  canons, 
that  by  instinct  of  the  Holy  Ghost,  they  have 
been  made  and  received  by  the  reverend  accepta- 
tion of  the  world"  It  may  be  seen  from  this, 
that  Hooker  ascribes  a  due  reverence  to  the 
church,  and  argues,  that  it  should  not  be  with- 
held from  it  without  sufficient  cause.  But  he 
is  far  from  laying  down  any  such  position  as 
that  attributed  to  him  by  Doctor  Milner;  or 
acknowledging  that  the  Canon  of  Scripture  is 
built  on  the  tradition  of  the  church.     On  the 

*  Ecclesiastical  Polity,  book  iii.  sect.  viii.  p.  77. 


CHURCH    OF    ENGLAND    VINDICATED.  "23 

contrary,  he  dwells  too  largely  on  the  use  of 
reason,  to  admit  of  such  a  conclusion  ;  for  rea- 
son must  be  discarded,  if  the  authority  of  the 
church,  in  the  popish  sense,  be  admitted. 

How  stands  the  case  with  respect  to  Lard- 
NER,  whom  Doctor  Milner  puts  down  as  agree- 
ing with  Hooker,  and  consequently  with  him- 
self, respecting  the  foundation  on  which  the 
Canon  of  Scripture  is  built?  We  find  his  evi- 
dence very  full  on  this  subject,  and  to  the  fol- 
lowing effect: — *  "  That  the  number  of  the 
books  to  be  received  as  canonical,  had  not  been 
detennined  hy  the  authority  of  any  council^  as 
appears  from  the  different  judgments  among 
Christians  concerning  divers  books ;  particu- 
larly the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews,  and  the  Reve- 
lations, which  some  received  as  canonical,  others 
not."  Is  this  a  forced  acknowledgment  in  fa- 
vour of  Doctor  Milner's  argument?  On  the 
contrary,  the  testimony,  as  far  as  it  goes,  refutes 
it;  while  it  calls  his  candour  in  question.  But 
further;  the  Doctor  contends,  that  the  Canon 
was  finally  fixed,  by  the  tradition  and  authority 
of  the  church,  declared  in  the  third  Council  of 
Carthage:  while  (  Lardner,  to  whom  he  appeals, 
says  *'  that  the  third  Council  of  Carthage  only 
ordains,  that  nothing;  but  canonical  Scripture  be 


*  See  Bishop  Watson's  Collection  uf  Tracts,  vol.  ii.  p.  20. 
t  1bii>. 


24  SCRIPTURE    CANON    OF    THE 

read  in  the  cliurcli,  luider  the  name  of  divine 
Scripture."  But  the  council  does  not  pro- 
nounce, wliat  books  were  canonical,  and  what 
not ;  although  it  appears  that  some  were  con- 
sidered canonical  at  that  time.  Lardner  further 
states,  that  the  Council  of  Laodicea,  which  pre- 
ceded that  of  Carthage,  held  the  same  language. 
But  he  has  only  stated,  what  every  ecclesiastical 
historian,  before  his  time,  has  done — namely,  that 
the  books,  of  which  the  Canon  consists,  were 
known  to  be  the  genuine  writings  of  the  apostles 
and  evangelists,  as  we  know  the  works  of 
Caesar  and  Cicero;  and  that  in  all  ages,  chris- 
tian people  and  churches  had  a  liberty  to  judge 
according  to  evidence.  Lardner  then  draws 
his  observations  on  the  subject  to  a  close,  after 
decidedly  rejecting  tradition  in  the  sense  at- 
tached to  it  by  Doctor  Milner;  no  less  than  the 
authority  of  the  church  itself,  as  the  basis  of 
the  Canon.  *  '*  In  fine,"  says  he,  "  the  writings 
of  the  apostles  and  the  evangelists  are  received, 
as  the  works  of  other  eminent  men  of  antiquity, 
upon  the  ground  of  general  consent  and  tes- 
timony.'' Does  this  language  express  any  thing 
like  a  forced  acknowledgment  respecting  the 
basis  on  which  the  Canon  rests;  an  acknow- 
ledgment, which  Doctor  Milner  affirms,  has  been 
made  on  the  part  of  the  most  learned  Protest- 

*  Ibidem. 


CHURCH    OF'  ENGLAND    VINDICATED.  26 

ants,  in  terms  equally  significant  with  those  in 
the  celebrated  declaration  of  *St.  Augustine, 
who  would  not  believe  the  Gospel  itself,  if  the 
authority  of  the  Catholic  church  did  not  oblige 
him  to  do  so?  Does  it  not  rather  point  out  the 
criterions  by  which  the  genuineness  of  the  in- 
spired originals  may  be  ascertained,  and  the 
sufficiency  of  reason  and  learning  in  the  appli- 
cation of  those  criterions  ? 

The  observations  of  the  great  Selden,  as 
having  the  same  bearing  with  those  of  Lardner, 
richly  deserve  our  attention,  f  "  It  is,"  says 
this  writer,  "  a  great  question,  how  we  know 
Scripture  to  be  Scripture,  whether  by  the 
church  or  man's  private  spirit.  Let  me  ask, 
how  1  know  any  thing?  How  I  know  this 
carpet  to  be  green  ?  First  because  somebody 
told  me  it  was  green  :  that  you  call  the  church 
in  1/our  way.  Thus  after  I  have  been  told  it  is 
green,  when  I  see  the  colour  again,  I  know  it 
lo  be  green,  my  own  eyes  tell  me  it  is  green : 
that  you  call  the  private  spirit.''  Here  the 
senses  give  evidence  to  the  truth  of  previous  in- 
formation respecting  a  particular  colour,  and 
may  be  considered  analogous  to  reason  and 
learning,   by   the   aid   of  which,   the  testimony 

*  Ego  Evangelic  non  credcrem,  nisi  me  commovcret  Ec- 
clesiae  auctoritas. — Epist.  contra  Fundam. 
t  Table  Talk,   J).  2010. 


26  SCUIPTUKE    CANON    OF    THE 

handed  down  to  us,  that  is,  the  tradition  oi  tes- 
timony, can  be  rendered  serviceable  in  deter- 
mining- what  Scripture  is  canonical  and  what 
not,  contrary  to  the  dogma  of  the  popish 
church. 

But,  *  Doctor  Milner  contends,  that,  as  we 
admit  "  that  the  unwritten  word  was  the  first  rule 
of  Christianity,  it  is  incumbent  on  us  to  demon- 
strate, and  this  by  no  less  an  authority  than 
that  which  established  the  rule,  at  what  precise 
period  it  ivas  abrogated"  It  is  true,  that  the 
doctrines  which  Christ  taught  during  his  mi- 
nistry were  traditional,  and  that  those,  which  his 
apostles  subsequently  taught,  under  the  direction 
of  the  t  Holy  Spirit,  were  likewise  traditional; 
as  neither  were,  as  far  as  we  can  know,  com- 
mitted to  writing  precisely  at  the  time  in  which 
they  were  delivered.  But,  although  this  be  the 
case,  yet  when  he  insists  that  the  authority, 
which  the  unwritten  word  then  had,  was  not 
abrogated,  because  the  written  word,  as  he  im- 
plies, was  added  to  it,  his  argument  carries 
with  it  its  own  confutation  ;  since  it  supposes 
a  point  to  be  proved  which  cannot  be  urged 
against  those  who  deny  it.  The  precise  period, 
therefore,  at  which  those  traditions,  whether 
divine  or  apostolical,  were  abrogated,  was,  tvhen 

*  Letteii  xi.  p.  106. 

t  See  Bellarmine's  distinction,  Note  (*)  p.  3. 


CHURCH    OF    ENGLAND    VINDICATED.         27 

they  were  recorded:  the  former,  in  the  Gospels  • 
the  latter,  in  the  Epistles. 

It  is  further  argued,  by  *  Doctor  Milner,  that 
when  St.  Paul  wrote  to  the  Thessalonians,  it 
was   against  "  the  superstitions  and  vain  spe- 
culations" of  the  Jews  and  Pagan  philosophers 
that  he  warned  them ;  and  not  against  apostO' 
lical  traditions,   which  he  strongly  recommend- 
ed.    This,  again,  is  for  the  purpose  of  proving 
that  the  whole  of  God's  word  is  not  contained 
in  Scripture,   and  that  the  unwritten  part  of  it 
is  no  less  to  be  received  than  the  written.    Ac- 
cording to  the  Rhemish  version,  St.  Paul  says, 
f'hold  the  traditions  which  ye  have  learned, 
whether  it  be  by  word,  or  our  epistle."     And 
our  authorized  version  also  reads,  "hold  the 
traditions,  &c."  This  passage  is  decisive  on  the 
point,  in  Doctor  Milner's  opinion.  But  I  should 
wish  to  ask  him,  what  St.  Paul  understood  by 
those  traditions;  and  particularly,  whether  he 
designated  by  them  those  traditions  which  are 
known  to  be  the  constituent  parts  of  the  Popish 
Rule  of  Faitli.  If  this  cannot  be  proved  to  be  the 
case,  it  follows,  that  the  traditions  of  that  church 
have  only  an   imaginary  existence.     \V  hatever 
facihty  i\\v-  proof  might  derive  from  the  traditio 
of  tlie  Vulgate  is  entirely  done  away,  by  refer- 
ring to  the  original  Greek  word,  va^d^oaK;,  which 

*  Letter  xi.  p.  124.  \  2  Thessal.  ii.  15. 


28  SCRIPTURE    CANON    OF    THE 

is  more  extensive  in  its  signification ;  and  may 
imply  *a  precept,  an  instruction,  ordinance,  &c. 
&c.  Now  as  those  Trapa^otre.?  wcFC  partly  oral, 
partly  written,  they  might  as  well  have  referred 
to  discipline  as  to  doctrine.  This  appears  from 
his  commanding  them  afterwards  to  withdraw 
themselves  f  "  from  every  brother  that  walketh 
disorderly,  and  not  (xaT»  t»)*  Trapa^o^rnr)  after  the  tra- 
dition which  he  received  of  us."  So  far  Doc- 
tor Milner  accompanies  me  in  the  quotation  of 
the  apostle's  words.  Now  let  the  reader  refer 
to  the  four  next  verses  ;  and  he  w^ill  find  that 
the  apostle  more  fully  explains  himself,  and 
shews,  that  he  had  in  contemplation  the  disci- 
pline and  personal  conduct  of  individuals ;  as 
he  desires  them  not  to  walk  disorderly,  not  to 
eat  the  bread  of  idleness,  and  to  follow  his  ex- 
ample. I  therefore  maintain,  from  this  view  of 
the  passage,  taken  by  the  apostle  himself,  that 
those  TrapaJoau?,  or  traditions,  as  we  have  it,  mean 
nothing  more  than  precepts;  and  that  even  the 
whole  of  it,  but  particularly  the  part  cited  by 
Doctor  Milner,  is  altogether  irrelevant,  and  fo- 
reign to  the  purpose  for  which  he  produced  it. 
This  was  the  opinion  of  Coverdale,  when,  in 
allusion  to  similar  strictures,  he  thus  expressed 

r  doctrines  and  precepts  of  God.   Macknight 
*   Traditions  <      in  loc. 

'doctrines  and  injunctions.  Parrhuiist, 
t  2  Thejsal.  iii.  6. 


CHURCH    OF    ENGLAND    VINDICATED.         29 

himself:  *  "  If,"  says  he,  "we  were  not  de- 
ceaved  by  men's  traditions,  we  should  find  no 
more  diversitie  between  these  terms,  than  he- 
iween  fourpence  and  ^  groats 

Were  it  granted  that  TrapaJoo-ti?  imply  doc- 
trines, yet  Doctor  Milner  would  gain  nothing 
by  the  concession,  unless,  as  f  Fulke  says,  this 
be  his  argument,  "  that  as  all  was  not  written 
in  the  Epistle  to  the  Thessalonians,  ergo,  it  is 
no  where  written,  or  set  down  in  the  Holy  Scrip- 
tures." Or,  for  the  sake  of  explanation,  as  on 
the  grounds  of  that  concession,  there  were  doc- 
trines delivered  by  St,  Paul  to  the  Thessalo- 
nians, which  w^ere  not  specified  in  the  epistle 
which  he  addressed  to  them,  I  say  he  would 
derive  no  advantage  from  the  concession,  unless 
it  followed  that  they  were,  therefore,  7iot  re- 
corded in  any  of  his  Epistles  to  the  other 
chiirches,  or  many  of  the  Epistles  of  the  other 
Apostles,  or  even  in  the  Gospels  themselves.  But 
as  -d  jjossibilitt/  exists  of  their  being  so  record- 
ed, then  those  m-afaSoaui  cease  to  be  apostolical 
traditions,  and  the  argument  in  favour  of  their 
present  existence  falls  to  the  ground. 

But  were  their  existence  certain,  a  difliculty 
would  .still  arise,   how  to  know  the  j)earl  when 

•  See  Dedication  of  his  Bible  to  King  Henry  VIII. 

t  See  Confutation  of  the  Uhemibts,  on  text  2Cor.  ii.  16. 


■  )()  SCRIPTURR    CANON    OF    THE 

we  have  found  it.  This  difficulty,  Doctor  Milner 
will  tell  us,  that  the  flithers,  and  particularly 
the  precious  annotations  to  the  Rhemish  Testa- 
ment, which  contain  their  sentiments,  have  re- 
moved. With  respect  to  the  fathers,  if  they 
speak  of  traditions,  it  is  in  the  most  compre- 
hensive sense,  including  written  as  well  as  un- 
written doctrines.  [n  fact,  the  doctrines  of 
which  they  treat  are  those  which  are  princi- 
pally found  in  the  New  Testament.  And  as  to 
the  Rhemish  Annotators,  their  observations  are 
not  confined  to  doctrines ;  they  also  extend  to 
customs  and  ceremonies.  The  *  fathers  some- 
times call  the  Scriptures  themselves  by  the 
name  of  tradition  ;  or  else  they  speak  of  doc- 
trines contained  in  them,  though  not  set  forth  in 
express  terms,  as  the  Trinity,  the  Baptism  of 
Infants,  &c.  Thus  when  St.  Jerome  treats  of 
i\\e  Sacraments  ?Ln{\  Ceremonies  oiihe  church  in 
his  time,  he  refers  the  former  to  the  Scriptures, 
and  the  latter  to  the  tradilion  of  the  bishops ; 
but  is  altogether  silent  about  doctrines  supposed 
to  have  been  delivered  by  the  Apostles,  that  are 
no  where  recorded,  and  yet  necessary  to  salva- 
tion. The  bare  possibility,  therefore,  which  ex- 
ists, of  doctrines,  which  were  first  unwritten^ 
being  afterwards  embodied  in  the  written  word, 

*   Annot.  on  Rhem.  Test.  p.  663. 


CHURCH    OF    ENGLAND    VINDICATED.  31 

is  sufficient  to  defeat  Doctor  Milner  s  appeal  to 
the  Scriptures  on  the  agitated  point. 

But,  continues    he,   it   is    unwarrantable   in 
those  Protestant  Prelates,  Bishops  Porteus  and 
Marsh,  to  compare  the  essential  traditions  of 
religion  with  ordinary  stories ;  and  that  *  "  the 
Catholic  Church  (that  of  Rome,  of  course)  has 
always  guarded  them  as  the  apple  of  her  eye." 
Here  again  is  the  petitio  pj'i7icipii ;  the  thing  as- 
sumed, which  is  to  be  proved.    We  do  not  find 
in  the  Scriptures,  the  doctrines  of  transubstan- 
tiation,  the  worshipping  of  the  host,  the  propi- 
tiatory sacrifice  of  the  mass,   the  communion 
under  one  kind,   the  grant  of  indulgences,  the 
praying  of  souls  out  of  purgatory,  the  invoca- 
tion of  saints,  and  the  remission  of  sin  through 
their  intercession  and  merits.     Neither  do  we 
find  those  doctrines  recorded  by  any  father  of 
the  first  four  centuries ;  and   yet  we  are  told 
that  they  are,  and  ever  have  been,  the  doctrines 
of  the  church.  INow,  as  Doctor  Milner  has  not 
specified  the  precise  point  of  time  when  those 
doctrines  had  a  begiiuiing,   and  as  we  have  suf- 
ficient evidence  that  they  were  not  in  existence 
for  four  centuries,  at  least,  after  Christ ;  we  may 
safely  coiicliKh',  first,  that  tin-  Church  of  Home, 
which  now  teaches  those  doctrines  as  apostoli- 
cal traditions,  docs  so  on  the  sole,  but  compre- 

•  Letter  xi.  p.  107. 


32  SCIUPTUKE    CANON    OF    THE 

hensive  principle  of  its  infallibility.  Secondly, 
that  the  Church  of  England  has  had  sufficient 
grounds  for  refusing  to  receive  them  as  doc- 
trines having  an  apostolical  origin,  from  the 
mere  circumstance  of  the  ignorance  which  ex- 
ists  among  the  advocates  of  the  rival  church, 
about  u'here  or  when  they  had  a  beginning,  not 
to  speak  of  its  own  conviction  about  the  mat- 
ter. And,  lastly,  that  it  is  extremely  improba- 
ble, as  *  Bishop  Marsh  most  sensibly  observes, 
*'  that  an  all-wise  Providence,  imparting  a  new 
revelation  to  mankind,  would  suffer  any  doc- 
trine or  article  of  faith  to  be  transmitted  to  pos- 
terity by  so  precarious  a  vehicle  as  that  of  oral 
tradition." 

Throughout  the  Letters  in  which  he  treats  of 
the  "  True  and  False  Rules,"  Doctor  Milner 
affords  repeated  instances  of  the  Popish  mode 
of  arguing  in  what  is  termed  a  vicious  circle. 
With  him,  the  church  unerringly  determines  the 
authority  of  Scripture ;  while  the  authority 
of  Scripture  deternjines  the  inerrability  of  the 
church.  He  was  sensible  that  the  objection 
had  before  been  successfully  made  by  Protes- 
tant writers,  and  as  if  it  were  in  anticipation  of 
its  recurrence,  he  endeavours  to  elude  its  force 
in  this  fanciful  way  : — he  supposes  that  a  per- 
sonage calling  himself  the  King's  delegate,  and 

*  CoMP.  View,  p.  67. 


CHURCH    OF    ENGLAND    VINDICATED.         33 

whom,  from  circumstances,  he  believed  to  be 
really  such,  had  presented  him  with  a  letter,  in 
which  the  King  expressed  his  wish  that  the  same 
credit  should  be  given  his  messenger's  declara- 
tions as  would  be  given  his  own.  Here,  we 
may  perceive,  that  the  delegate  represents  the 
church,  and  the  letter  the  Scriptures.  He  (that 
is,  the  church,)  decides  infallibly  on  the  autho- 
rity of  the  letter,  i.  e.  the  Scriptures  ;  while 
their  authority  confirms  his  infallibility.  I  here 
ask  Doctor  Mihier,  whether  this  case  be  like 
that  of  the  Baptist  bearing  testimony  to  Christ, 
and  Christ  bearing  testimony  to  the  Baptist? 
Or  whether,  when  *  he  says  "  that  the  (Roman) 
Catholic  Church  follows  the  right  rule,  and  the 
right  rule  infallibly  leads  to  the  (Roman)  Ca- 
tholic Church,"  he  can  deny  that  this  is  a  mu- 
tual testimony  which,  as  running  in  the  vicious 
circle,  is  destructive  of  itself  For,  when  he 
believes  the  Scriptures,  because  the  church 
bids  him,  and  believes  the  church,  because  the 
Scriptures  bid  him  ;  what  is  it  but  arguing  in  a 
circle,  and  proving  tin;  thing  by  itself?  But  I 
shall  not  weary  the  reader's  patience  with  fur- 
ther [)roofs  of  such  fatuity. 

•  Letteii  L.  p.  Ht2. 


D 


34  XlVril    PSALIM    IN    OUK    RECEIVED 


CHAPTER  II. 

THE  VARIANCE  OF  THE  XIVTH  PSALM,  AS  IT 
STANDS  IN  OUR  AUTHORIZED  TRANSLATION 
OF  THE  BIBLE  AND  BOOK  OF  COMMON  PRAYER, 
ACCOUNTED    FOR. 

I  SHALL  not  follow  Doctor  Milner  into  his  la- 
byrinth, as  he  appropriately  calls  it,  of  biblical 
criticism ;  but  notice  his  leading  objections  to 
our  authorized  translation  of  the  Bible,  as  they 
present  themselves.  One  of  these  objections  is 
directed  against  the  difference  which  is  found 
to  exist  between  our  Book  of  Common  Prayer 
and  our  English  Bible,  with  respect  to  the 
Fourteenth  Psalm.*  "  Look,"  says  he,  "at 
Psalm  xiv.  as  it  occurs  in  the  Book  of  Com- 
mon Prayer,  to  which  your  clergy  swear  their 
assent  and  consent;  then  look  at  the  same 
Psalm  in  your  Bible :  you  will  find  four 
ivhole  verses  in  the  former,  which  are  left  out  in 
the  latter.  You  must  here  say  that  your  church 
has  added  to,  or  else  that  she  has  taken  away 
from,  the  words  of  this  prophecy." 

An  inquiry  into  the  cause  of  this  difference 
between  the  existing  English  Translations  of  the 

*  Leiteh  ix.  p.  70. 


TRANSLATION    NOT    DEFECTIVE.  35 

fourteenth  Psalm,  as  well  as  into  the  motives 
by  which  the  reviewers  of  our  Liturgy  in  IGGl 
were  influenced,    when    they    retained    in   the 
Book  of  Common  Prayer  the  original  English 
version  of  it,  will  shew  the  futility  of  Doctor 
Miluer's  animadversions.     If  we  go  so  far  back 
as  the  period  when  Jerome  commenced  his  bib- 
lical labours,  we  shall  find  him  urged  to  them 
by  the  multiplicity  of  the  Latin  versions  of  the 
Bible  then  extant,  and  by  the  confusion  which 
prevailed  among  them.     He  began  by  correct- 
ing the  Psalms  ;  but  the  people  at  large,  being 
accustomed  to  their  old  version,  (viz.  the  Italic,) 
could  not  he  induced  to  lay  it  aside  in  favour  of 
one  of  his  substitution.     He,   therefore,   pub- 
lished another  edition,  with  few  alterations  in 
the  text,  but  marked  where  it  differed  from  the 
Septuagint  or  the  Hebrew.  From  this  *last  edi- 
tion, and  the  old  Italic,  is  formed  the  vulgate 
edition  of  the  Psalms  now  used  in  the  Roman 
Catholic  Church. 

We  come  next  to  speak  of  the  Psalms  as  they 
appear  in  English,  in  what  is  called  Cranmer's, 
or,    from    its  size,  the  f^R^AT  Bible.     The 

*  See  Blackwall's  Sacred  Classics,  vol.  ii.  p.  341. 

t  III  Craflon  and  Wliitclmrch's  edition  of  this  Bible  in 
1.540,  tlie  four  verses  aliiidc<l  to  by  Doctor  Milner  are  incor- 
porated with  tlie  text,  but  in  a  lesser  type— a  circumstance 
that  most  sironi^ly  proves  the  integrity  of  our  earliest  trans- 
lators. 

D    2 


S6        xivTH  Psalm  in  orn  received 

English  Translation  of  the  Psalms,  as  they  stand 
in  the  Great  Bible,  was  *  exclusively  made  by 
Coverdale;  for  neither Tyndal,  nor  Rogers,  (with 
whose  joint  assistance  he  executed  the  English 
version  of  the  entire  Bible,)  took  a  part  in  trans- 
lating the  Psalms.  Coverdale,  in  the  execution 
of  his  work,  derived,  as  every  translator  must, 
important  aid  from  the  Seventy  and  the  La- 
tin vulgate  ;  but  he  disclaims  the  unlimited  use 
of  them,  particularly  of  the  latter.  I  mention 
this  circumstance,  to  shew  Doctor  Milner  the 
value  attached  to  the  Latin  vulgate  by  our 
translators.  From  Coverdale's  Bible,  then,  the 
Psalms  were  inserted  in  Edward  the  Sixth's 
Book  of  Common  Prayer,  by  the  f  compilers 
of  our  Liturgy  in  1548;  and,  for  good  reasons, 
which  1  shall  presently  assign,  were  retained  by 
the  reviewers  of  it  in  1661,  when  it  was  last  re- 
vised. 

As  J  Jerome  yielded  to  the  public  feeling  in 
giving  a  second  edition  of  the  old  Italic  version 
of  the  Psalms,  it  is  probable  that  the  reviewers 
of  our  Liturgy,   in   1661,  were  similarly  inflii- 

*  See  Shepherd  on  Common  Prayer,  vol.  i.  pp.  127,  128, 

t  Ibid,  Introd.  p.  xlii. 

X  BcTLER,  in  his  Horce  Biblicce,  xiv.  2.  observes,  "  that  Je- 
rome began  by  correcting  the  Psalms;  but  the  people  at  large 
being  accustomed  to  their  old  version,  could  not  be  induced  to 
lay  it  aside,  in  favour  of  St.  Jerome's.  He  therefore  published 
another  edition." 


TRANSLATION    NOT    DEFECTIVE.  37 

diced,  and  that  they  too  consulted  the  public 
tastein  retaining  the  old  English  Translation  of 
them  made  b\  Coverdale.  But  in  doing  so,  it  is 
more  than  probable,  that  they  conceived  what 
is  now  generally  admitted  among  the  learned, 
that  the  old  translation  is  preferable  to  the  new. 
*  First,  because  it  is  not  fettered  with  the  idiom 
of  the  Hebrew ;  and  next,  because  it  is  expres- 
sed with  greater  freedom  and  a  more  perfect 
accordance  to  the  genius  of  our  own  language, 
than  the  last  translation,  which,  from  too  close 
an  adherence  to  the  original,  is  often  more  harsh 
iu  its  constructions,  and  less  harmonious  in 
its  periods.  It  is  acknowledged,  that  obsolete 
words  and  ])hrases,  are  to  be  met  with  in  the 
old  translation ;  but  blemishes  of  this  kind  are 
not  immerous,  and  when  they  do  occur,  they 
are   sufficiently    compensated    by    the   general 


*  In  his  Introduction  to  Morning  and  Evening  Prayer, 
Reeves  accounts  for  tiie  preference  given  the  old  Englisb 
Translation,  from  the  circumstance  of  its  having  "  feuer  He- 
braisms in  the  style,  which  causes  the  language  to  be  consi- 
dered plainer  and  smoother."  Shepueud's  observations,  in 
the  places  already  cjuoted,  have  the  same  tendency.  And 
Knox  rcconiujcnds  the  adopted  version  of  the  Psalms,  with 
all  the  persuasiveness  of  his  elo(|uence,  as  abounding  "  with 
passages  exquisitely  beautiful,  and  irresistibly  transporting. 
Even  when  the  sense  is  not  very  clear,  nor  the  connexion  of 
the  ideas  obvious  at  first  si^ht,  the  mind  is  soothed,  and  the 
car  ravished,  wiih  the  powerful  yet  unafllctcd  charms  of  style.'' 
Essays  Literary  and  Mural,  No.  xlix. 


;jy  \1VTH    1»SALM    IN    OUK    KECLIVEU 

merit  of  the  work.  So  that,  in  vindicalion  of 
tlie  reviewers  of  our  liturgj'  in  1001,  who  have 
been  inijustly  cen8ure(J,  it  may  be  asserted,  that 
they  sliewed  both  taste  and  judgment  in  retain- 
ing, in  our  Book  of  Common  Prayer,  Cover- 
dale's  translation  of  the  Psalms.  For,  had  they 
not  been  influenced  by  the  conviction,  that  it  is 
much  better  adapted  to  public  worship  than 
any  other  which  appeared  in  the  English  lan- 
guage, it  may  be  reasonably  inferred,  that  they 
would  have  taken  the  Psalms,  as  they  did  the 
lessons,  epistles,  and  gospels,  from  King  James's 
translation  of  1011. 

The  preceding  paragraph  will  have  shewn 
Doctor  Milner  the  motives,  by  which  the  com- 
pilers and  reviewers  of  our  Liturgy  were  actua- 
ted, in  making  the  selection  they  did,  and  at 
the  same  time  account  for  the  variance,  which 
he  notices  between  the  number  of  verses  con- 
tained in  the  fourteenth  Psalm,  as  inserted  in 
our  Book  of  Common  Prayer,  and  our  autho- 
rized translation  of  the  Bible,  Nor  is  it  more 
difficult  to  prove  that  the  Church  of  England 
has  neither  "  added  to,  nor  taken  away  from 
the  word  of  prophecy."  Doctor  Milner's  main 
argument  to  establish  this  charge  rests  on  the 
circumstance  of  the  four  verses  in  question 
being  quoted  by  St.  Paul  in  his  Epistle  to  the 
Romans,  iii.  13.  It  is  true,  St.  Paul  does  quofce 
those  four  verses ;  but  it  does  not  necessarily 


TRANSLATION    NOT    DEFECTIVi:.  39 

Ibllow  tliat  he  refers  to  the  fourteenth  Psahii. 
His  allusions  are  to  Psalms,  v.  9. — cxl.  3.  and 
X.  7.  Prov.  i.  16.  Isaiah,  lix.  7,  8,  and  Psalm 
\xxvi.  1.  It  should  be  observed  too,  that  the 
iifty-third  Psalm  is  in  a  manner  the  same  as  the 
fourteenth,  except  as  to  a  slight  difference  in 
the  sixth  verse,  and  that  it  does  not  contain 
\ersesji/th,  sixth,  and  seventh,  as  not  being  in 
the  Hebrew.  J t  is  on  this  account  that  *  Byth- 
nar,  where  he  analyzes  the  fourteenth  Psalm, 
docs  not  notice  those  verses.  This  will  more 
fully  appear,  by  referring  to  Archbishop  Park- 
er's, or  as  it  is  more  usually  called,  the  Bishop's 
Bible,  which  was  published  in  1568.  In  this 
Bible,  the  several  additions  taken  from  the  vul- 
gar Latin,  and  which  are  inserted  in  a  smaller 
ti/pe  in  the  Great  Bible,  are  omitted,  particularly 
the  three  verses  which  were  inserted  in  the 
fourteenth  Psalm,  t  In  Barker's  edition  also  of 
the  Englisji  Bible,  in  1583,  there  is  a  note,  set' 
ting  fortl),  tliat  the  Jifth,  sixth,  and  seventh 
verses  of  the  fourteenth  I*salm  of  the  connnon 

*  Lyha  Prophetica,  p.  96.  See  also  Lewis's  History  of  the 
Eiiglisli  TraiiHlatiuiis  of  the  Bible. 

t  There  are  apparently /oar  verses  more  in  the  version  of 
the  fourteenth  Paalm,  in  the  Book  of  CominoN  Prayer,  than  in 
that  of  the  Bible;  but  only  iliree  in  reality,  as  \.\\i;  first  verKC 
in  the  latter  is  diviiJed  into  two  \(r>k:6  in  the  former.  Doclor 
Milner  thinks  proj)cr  to  overlook  this  circmnstance,  and  to 
rest  his  charge  on  the  oniisi^ion  of  "four  ■whole  teises/" 


40  XIVTH    PSALM    IN    OUK    RECEIVED 

translation  are  not  in  the  same  Psalm,  in  the 
liebrew  text ;  and  that  they  were  rather  put  in 
"  the  more  fully  to  exjDress  the  manners  of  the 
wicked:"  that  they  are  found  in  the  Ji/th,  one 
liuudred  and  fortieth,  and  tenth  Psalms,  and  in 
ihe  Jijhj-ninth  chapter  of  Isaiah,  as  also  in  the 
thirty-sixth  Psalm;  and  that  they  are  alleged 
by  St.  Paul,  and  placed  together  in  the  third 
chaj)ter  of  his  Epistle  to  the  Romans.  Now, 
what  can  so  clearly  convey  an  idea  of  the  can- 
dour and  judgment  of  the  more  ancient  and 
venerable  *  Translators  of  our  Bible,  as  this  very 
note;  or,  more  distinctly  shew,  as  their  suc- 
cessors can  plead  the  benefit  of  it,  that  the  au- 
thorized translation  of  the  Bible  is  not,  as  Doc- 
tor Milner  pronounces  it  to  be,  defective;  and 
that  St.  Paul's  quotation,  though  not  in  the 
fourteenth  Psalm,  is  taken  from  the  places  al- 
ready pointed  out? 

For  the  reasons  assigned,  it  appears  also, 
that  the  cause  of  the  omission  of  which  Doctor 
Milner  complains,  was  the  very  best,  in  fact  the 
only  one,  that  could  warrant  it ;  namely,  that 
the  Psalms  in   the  Book  of  Common   Prayer 

*  The  curious  reader  would  be  abundantly  rewarded  for 
his  trouble,  had  he  it  in  his  power  to  consult  the  different 
translations  and  editions  of  the  English  Bible  themselves,  an- 
tecedent to  the  year  1611,  on  this  subject.  Sets  of  those 
Bibles  enrich  the  splendid  Library  of  Tkinity  College, 
Dublin. 


TRANSLATION    NOT    DEFECTIVE.  41 

were  translated  from  the  Septuagint  and  the 
Latin  Vuhatc :  whereas  the  version  of  them  in 
our  English  Bible,  was  made  from  the  original 
Hebrew.  And  lastly,  it  appears,  as  the  Douay 
version  of  the  Psalm,  which  agrees  with  our 
*  fourteenth,  corresponds  in  substance,  though 
not  in  the  fnumber  of  the  verses,  with  the  version 
of  the  same  Psahn,  as  it  stands  in  our  Book  of 
Common  Prayer,  that  Doctor  Milner  must  ad- 
mit, at  least  m  Joj-o  conscientia,  notwithstand- 
ing the  denunciation  of  the  council  of  Trent, 
that  the  Church  of  Rome  is  not  justified  in 
sanctioning  this  very  Douay  version,  as  not 
being  made  from  the  original  language  itself ; 
and  that  if  we  be  wrong  in  retaining  the  inter- 
polated verses  in  our  Prayer  Book,  that  Church 
would  be  involved  in  greater  error,  did  not  its 
infaUil)ility  interi)ose  to  justify  the  retention  of 
those  very  verses  in  its  own  authorized  Bible. 

•  This  is  the  thirteenth  Psalm  in  the  Sixtine  Clementine 
edition  of  the  Vulgate.  It  is  the  thirteenth,  in  the  first  Douay 
version  of  1610,  vol.  ii.  p.  33,  as  it  is  also  in  Doctor  Troy's  last 
approved  edition  of  the  Douay  Bible,  piil)li.'«hcd  by  Coyne, 
Dublin,    ISIG. 

t  The  4lh,  5th,  Glh,  and  7th  verses  in  our  Book  of  Common 
Prayer,  constitute  the  3d  verse  in  the  Douay  version.  The 
same  exactly  occurs  in  the  Septuagint,  and  in  tijeLatinVulgate, 


42  TEXT    OF    THE    THREE    HEAVENLY 


CHAPTER  III. 

THE  TEXT  OF  THE  THREE  HEAVENLY 
WITNESSES. 

Having  disproved  the  ch^LVge  of  defectivetiess, 
which  Doctor  Mihier  has  brought  against  our 
English  Bible  respecting  the  fourteentli  Psalm, 
1  proceed  to  consider  one  of  an  opposite  de- 
scription, which  he  has  preferred  under  the 
sanction  of  Bishop  Tomline's  name,  viz.  that  of 
redundance/,  as  to  a  particular  text.  *'  The 
Bishop  of  Lincoln"  (now  of  Winchester)  says 
*  Doctor  Milner,  "  has  published  his  convic- 
tion, that  the  most  important  passage  in  the 
New  Testament,  I  John,  v.  7,  for  establishing 
the  divinity  of  Jesus  Christ,  is  spurious."  It  is 
true,  that  his  lordship's  opinion  is,  that  the  con- 
tested passage  is  spurious,  for  which  reason  he 
omits  it  in  the  enumeration  of  proofs  from  the 
New  Testament  towards  establishing  the  doc- 
trine of  the  Trinity :  because,  as  he  says,  it 
would  be  improper  to  produce  a  doubtful  text 
in  support  of  "  so  important  a  doctrine."  But, 
it  is  not  true,  that  he  attaches  any  value  to  the 

*■  Letter  ix.   \>.  70. 


WITNESSES,    1  JOHN,   V.  7.  43 

text  itself  (as  Doctor  Milner  contrives  to  make 
hiin  appear  to  do  by  the  artful  connexion  he 
forms  between  his  own  opinion,  and  the  Bishop's 
conviction);  consequently,  it  is  not  true,  that  lie 
considers  it  the  most  important  passage  in  the 
New  Testament  for  establishing  a  particular 
doctrine;  nor  does  he  express  regret  at  the 
absence  of  the  text  in  question,  as  affording 
further  confirmation  of  that  doctrine.  In  short, 
he  does  not  say  one  word  about  its  importance. 
In  his  *  Exposition  of  the  First  Article,  he 
confirms  the  proofs  from  the  Old  Testament  in 
support  of  the  doctrine  of  the  Trinity,  by  such 
convincing  ones  from  the  New  Testament — 
such  as  our  Saviour's  commission  to  the 
apostles  as  recorded  by  t  St.  Matthew,  the 
doxology  of  St.  Paul  in  his  J  Second  Epistle 
to  the  Corinthians,  and  the  benediction  in  the 
beginning  of  the  1|  Revelations,  &c.  &c.  &c. — that 
he  could  well  dispense  with  other  aid.  For, 
he  well  knew,  that  the  text  contains  nothing 
but  what  is  abundantly  asserted  in  other  places, 
both  with  respect  to  the  Trinity  in  general,  and 
this  their  divine  testimony  in  particular.  This 
too  was  Bisliop  Burnet's  opinion.  §  "  There 
is  no  need  of  it,"  says  that  prelate ;  "  for  this 
matter  is  capable  of  a  very  full  |)roof,  whether 
that  passage  is   believed  to   be  a  part  of  the 

♦  Elem.  of  Tluol.  vol.  ii.   p.  90.  t  xviii.  19. 

t  xiii.  1  \.  il  I.  4.  §  Article  I. 


44  TEXT    or    THi:    THKEI:    HliAVKM.Y 

Canon,  or  not/'  When  tliis  is  the  simple  state- 
ment of  the  fact,  what  sliall  be  said  of  Doctor 
Milner,  who  thus  makes  assertions,  which  a  re- 
ference to  the  authority,  to  which  he  appeals, 
proves  to  be  unfounded.  But  even  if  he  did 
not  know  that  they  were  so,  will  ignorance 
justify  error? 

The  text  in  the  First  Epistle  of  St.  John,  re- 
specting the  three  heavenly  witnesses,  has  di- 
vided the  opinions  of  many  of  the  ablest  divines, 
and  most  eminent  critical  scholars  of  the  pre- 
sent and  past  century ;  but  as  their  opinions 
have  not  been  given  as  incontrovertible,  the 
matter  still  lies  open  to  discussion.  We  find  a 
sharp  controversy  on  this  subject  carried  on  be- 
tween Archdeacon  Travis  and  Professor  Por- 
son,  originating  in  the  letters  of  the  former  to 
the  sceptical  *  Gibbon.  Porson,  no  less  than 
Gibbon,  although  with  very  opposite  feelings, 
maintains  that  the  passage  is  spurious.  To 
them  '("  Griesbach  lends  the  weight  of  his  testir 

*  The  following  paragraph  in  Gibbon's  History  led  to  the 
series  of  letters  which  Travis  wrote  to  him  on  the  subject. 
"  The  three  witnesses  have  been  established  in  our  Greek 
Testaments  by  the  prudence  of  Erasmus;  the  honest  bigotry 
of  the  Complutensian  editors;  the  typographical  fraud  or 
error  of  Robert  Stephens  in  placing  a  crotchet ;  and  the  de- 
liberate falsehood,  or  strange  misapprehension  of  Theodore 
Beza." — Decline  and  Fall,  vol.  ii.  p.  292. 

f  Griesbach  thus  briefly  sums  up  the  history  of  the  text, 
I  John,  V.  7.     The  Complutensian  editors  first  published  tjiat 


WITNESSES,    I    JOHN,  V.  7.  45 

niony ;  as  he  says  that  it  was  an  interpolation 
from  the  Latin  vulgate  in  the  Jifteenth  or  six- 
teenth century,  and  that  there  are  but  two  ma- 
nuscripts extant,  which  possess  the  1  John,  v. 
7  ;  viz.  the  *  Montfort  one  belonging  to  Arch- 
bishop Usher's  collection  in  Dublin  College, 
and  the  Berlin  or  Ravian  one,  which  is  an 
apograph  or  transcript  from  the  Complutensian 
edition.  He  lays  great  stress  on  the  silence  of 
theGreek  fathers,  and  adds,  that  in  one  hundred 
and  thirty-two  Greek  MSS.  which  he  had  ex- 
amined, the  seventh  (comma)  verse  was  not  to 
be  found ;  and  that  if  so  precious  and  desirable 

verse;  next  Erasmus,  in  his  third  or  last  echtion;  from  these 
it  was  transferred  into  Stephens's  editions;  thence  into  those 
of  Beza,  and  lastly  into  those  of  Elzevir, — Appendix,  Dia- 
tribe in  loc   1  Joann.  v.  7,  8. 

*  The  Montforlian  Greek  MS.,  which  is  preserved  in  the 
library  of  Trinity  College,  Dublin,  though  in  other  respects 
valuable  ;  yet,  it  must  be  admitted,  bears  evident  marks  of  a 
modern  date.  It  is  on  glazed  paper,  not  parchment,  and  on 
close  inspection  exhibits  a  water-mark  in  parallel  rij^lil  lines, 
which  the  Revekend  Doctok  Bauret,  the  learned  Vice- 
Provost  of  our  University,  ascribes  to  the  reign  of  Edward 
the  Fourth.  Candour  obliges  me  to  declare  that  these  cir- 
cumstances bear  Griesbach  out  in  \vliat  he  says  respecting 
the  Montfort  MS.  I  should  further  observe,  that  this  great 
critic  infers  the  identity  of  the  British  Cpdex,  cited  by  Eras- 
mus, with  our  Dublin  one,  in  cotisecpn  nee  of  there  not  being 
the  minutest  difference  {nc  unicn  ijuidcm  lilcrnla)  between  them 
rtsjucting  the  verse  in  riuislioii. 


4()  TKX'T    OF    Tin:    TIIKF.i:    HF.AVKNLY 

a  treasure  could  any  wliere  be  discovered,  it 
would  loug  since  have  l)een  brought  to  light. 
Notwithstanding  all  this  mass  of  evidence 
against  it,  and  that  Bishops  Toniliue  and  Marsh 
have  strengthened  it  by  their  powerful  support; 
yet  as  I  see  such  invincible  arguments  brought 
forward  on  the  opposite  side  by  the  Rev.  Mr. 
Nolan,  which  are  also  supported  by  ^  other 
auth6rs  of  high  established  reputation,  1  feel 
compelled  to  abandon  my  former  prejudices 
against  it,  and  to  think  that  a  person  should  al- 
most as  soon  doubt  the  genuineness  of  the  rest 
of  St.  John's  Epistle  as  that  of  the  disputed 
passage.  This  able  f  writer  exhibits  the 
strongestprobabilities  that  Eusebius,  who,  at  the 
instance  of  Constantine,  had  prepared  fifty 
written  copies  of  the  Scriptures,  had  expungedy 
rather  than  that  the  orthodox  had  inserted  this 
passage  in  the  sacred  text.  Thepotverw'\i\\  which 
the  emperor's  order  had  invested  Eusebius,  his 
inclination  to  exercise  that  power  in  the  sup- 

*  Bishop  Manx  and  iheRev.  Mr.  D'Oyley  liave,  in  their  Fa- 
mily Bible,  supplied  u*  with  the  testimonies  of  Bishops  Hall, 
Beveridge,  Home,  and  Horsley,  in  favour  of  the  genuineness 
of  1  John,  V.  7.  This  circumstance,  connected  with  the  tem- 
perate and  impartial  view,  which  the  learned  editors  them- 
selves take  of  the  subject,  fully  expresses  their  own  opinion 
about  the  matler. 

t  See  Nolan's  Inquiry  into  the  Integrity  of  the  Greek 
Vulgate,  pp.  96,  27. 


WITNESSES,   1   JOHN,   V.  7,  47 

pressiou  of  tliat  particular  verse,  and  the  *  un- 
limited sway  of  Arianisra  over  the  church  from 
the  reign  of  Constantine  to  that  of  Theodosius, 
during  a  period  of  forty  years,  after  he  had 
made  his  revision ;  the  edition  thus  altered 
being  "peculiarly  accommodated  to  the  opinions 
ofthe  Arians  ;  the  f  error*  into  which  his  hatred 
to  the  peculiar  notions  of  Sabellius  betrayed 
JEusebius  ;  and  lastly,  the  evidence  in  favour  of 
the  contested  passage  aflbrded  by  the  §  African 
Church,  to  the  integrity  and  purity  of  which,  Eu- 

*  Pole  says,  "  Et  sane  cum  Ariani  essent  et  Impcraiores, 
Conslaiitiiis,  Valens,  &c.  et  Episcopi,  qui  pulsis  orthodoxis, 
totum  pene  Orbeni  occuparunt,  facile  illud  effectum  dare potuc- 
runt." — Synops.  in  loo.     See  also  Nolan's  Inquiry,  pp.28,  29. 

t  Ibid,   p.  40. 

X  As  Sabellius  held  that  the  Father,  Word,  and  Holy  Spirit, 
were  three  energies  in  the  Divinity,  {r^nc,  tn^ynon  u  rr, 
©ioTi)T») ;  so  he  held,  that  these  three  energies  were  one  person, 
and  thus  confounded  i\\t  persons  of  the  Trinity.  Marcellus, 
therefore,  and  others  who  leaned  towards  his  error,  would 
not  quote  1  John,  v.  7,  as  this  text  contained  the  term  t^e*?, 
which  made  against  their  confounding  the  persons.  On  the 
other  hand,  Eusebius  would  not  ap])eal  to  it,  on  account  of  its 
containing  the  term  i»,  which  made  asmucli  againsthisdivid- 
ing  the  substance.  As  neither  parly,  llierefore,  speak  of  it 
during  their  controversy,  Mr.  Nolan  justly  concludes,  that  its 
unsuitablcness  to  their  respective  purposes,  was  the  cause  why 
one  expunged  the  text  from  his  edition  of  the  New  Testament, 
and  the  other  acfpiicsced  in  its  suppression.  Ibid,  jip.  305, 
528—539,  and  56.3. 

§  Gibbon  is  forced  to  acknowledge,  that  this  text  was  al- 
leged by  the  Catholic  Bishops,  whom  Ilunneric  convened  to 


40  TEXT    OF    THE    THREE    HEAVENLY 

sebiiis  liiinself  lias  borne  the  strongest  testinion y^ 
present  more  than  presumptive  proof  that  it  is 
genuine.  Mr.  Nolan  thus  concludes  his  most 
useful  and  elaborate  work. — *"  Were  the  Greek 
Church  the  only  witness  of  the  integrity  of  the 
Greek  text,  or  guardian  of  its  purity,  the  ob- 
jection that  this  verse  is  wholly  lost  in  the 
Greek  Vulgate  would  be  of  vital  importance. 
But  in  deciding  the  present  question,  the  Afri- 
can Church  is  entitled  to  a  voice  no  less  than 
the  Byzantine;  and  on  its  testimony  we  receive 
the  dis()uted  passage.  In  fact,  as  the  proper 
witnesses  of  the  inspired  word  are  the  Greek 
and  Latin  Churches,  they  are  adequate  wit- 
nesses of  its  integrity  :  so  that  the  general  cor- 
ruption of  tlie  text  received  in  these  churches, 
in  the  vast  tract  of  country  from  Armenia  to 

ft/ 

Africa,  was  utterly  impossible."  But  what  par- 
ticularly decides,  that  the  African  Church  pos- 
sessed this  text  in  the  fifth  century,  is  the  very 
circumstance  alluded  to  bv  Gibbon:  viz.  that 

•/  / 

400  bishops,  who  liad  been  summoned  to  Car- 
thage by  Hunneric,  an  Arian  king,  to  defend 
their  doctrine,  had  distinctly  referred  to  its  au- 
thority. And  it  is  not  a  little  remarkable, 
that  that  text,  whose  existence  at  that  period  is 
now  so  warndy  denied,  is  the  very  one  which 

the  Conference  ofCarthajje,  and  that  tliey  styled  hluce  clarius. 
Decline  and  FaCl,  vol.vi.  p.  292. 
^  Nol«in's  Inquikv,  p.  573. 


WITNESSES,     J    JOHN,    V.  7.  4.0 

was  then  best  autlieiiticated.  In  a  word,  no 
other  controverted  verse  has  been  supported  by 
so  many  bishops  of  the  priniiti\e  church. 

Although  Erasmus  at  first  doubted  the  ge- 
nuineness of  the  British  codex,  which,  accord- 
ing to  Griesbach,  is  no  other  than  the  Mont- 
fort  one;  yet  we  afterwards  find  him  esteeming 
it  of  such  high  autliority  on  account  of  its  an- 
tiquity, that  he  restored  this  verse  in  a  subse- 
quent edition  of  his  INew  Testament,  which,  to 
leave  no  ground  of  complaint,  he  had  omitted 
in  a  preceding  one.  These  words,  ne  cut  sit 
causa  calumniandi,  and  others  expressive  of 
Erasmus's  doubts,  are  dwelt  on  by  Griesbach, 
to  shew  that  Erasmus  attached  no  importance 
to  the  passage ;  whereas,  on  the  contrary,  Eras- 
mus conceived  that  it  shoidd  be  read  by  the 
faithful.  J  should  not  omit  to  speak  of  the  still 
stronger  attestations  of  Ximenes,  Laurentius 
Valla,  and  Robert  Stephens.  Of  sixteen  Greek 
codices  wliich  the  last  author  inspected,  this 
verse  was  lost  only  in  seven;  he  followed  the 
authority  of  the  other  nine. 

If  wr  MOW  refer  to  an  old  work,  but  yet  one 
of emiiMiit  autliority,  Pole's  Critical  Synopsis, 
we  shall  lind  Mr.  jNolan's  highest  degree  of  pro- 
bability strengtiicned,  if  not  advanced  to  abso- 
lute certainty,  respecting  the  genuineness  of  the 
passage  in  (picNtion.  First,  *  he  says,  that 
•  Pom  Synopsis  CuiTiroRtM  in  1  I'pist.  .loli.,  v.  7. 

E 


60  TEXT    OV    THE    TilKEE    HEAVENLY 

*  Jerome  in  his  Prologue  to  theCatbolicEpistles, 
which  he  inscribed  to  Eiistochium,  complains 
that    this    verse    concerning   the    unity  of  the 

*  Mr.  Nolan  here  also  supplies  valuable  information,  con- 
necteil   with  the  edition  of  the  Old  Italic  Vulgate,  to  which 
Pole   equally  refers.     He  observes,  and  most  certainly  with 
justice,  that  of  the  two  editions  of  that  ancient  version  made 
by  Jerome,  one  only>  viz.  that  dedicated  to  Eustochium,  and 
intended  for  private  use,  possesses  the  1  John,  v.  7.     In  the 
other,  designed  for  general  circulation,  and  which  he  under- 
took at  the  request   of  Pope  Damasus,  he  omitted  it  on  the 
authority  of  the  Greek  text,  from  which  Eusebius  had  removed 
it. — See  Inquiry,  pp.  562,   563.     There    is  likewise  an   old 
French  version  in  existence   made  by  the  Waldenses,  which 
retains  the  text  of  the  heavenly  witnesses,  with  the  variation 
of  lefilz  for  vcrbian,  as  in  the  Italic  version  ;  but  which  vari- 
ation corresponds  with  the  confession  of  faith  used  by  them. 
It  runs  thus,  "  Trois  choses  qui  donnent  tcsmoing  an  ciel,  U 
pere,  lefili,  et  le  sainct  espent,  et  ces  trois   sont  une  chose." 
From  this  coincidence,  as  well  as  the  collateral  circumstance 
of  the  French  version  in  the  Lord's  Prayer,  "  ne  nous  mene 
mye  en  temptacion,"  being  the  same  with  that  in  the  old  Italic 
one,  ne  inducas  nos  in  templationem;  we  may  conclude,  that 
1  John,  v.  7,  existed  in  that  old  Italic  version,  from  which  the 
Waldenses  made  their  translation,  and  that  it  was  remotely 
adopted  from  Cyprian  by  Eusebius  Vercellensis,  who  revised 
that  version  ;  and  consequently,  that  it  existed  previously  to 
the  introduction  of  either  of  Jerome's  two  editions  of  the  Vul- 
gate spoken  of  above.    Ibid.  Pref.  p.  xix.     The  Waldenses  oc- 
cupied the  very  district,  which  was  formerly  called  the  Italic 
diocese.    To  that  people,  therefore,  we  owe  the  preservation 
of  this  important  text,  no  less  than  the  first  risings  of  that  spirit 
of  resistance  to  Papal  tyranny  and  usurpation,  which  after  a 
lap&e  of  ages,  has  been,  through  the  blessing  of  God,  instru- 
mental in  establishing  our  civil  and  religious  liberties. 


WITNESSES,    1   JOHN,    V.  7.  51 

Trinity  was  omitted  (infidelihus)  bj'  the  Arian 
interpreters;  and  then  argues  on  the  giounds 
subsequently  stated,  that  one  or  other  of  two 
things  must  have  happened,  *  either  that  the 
verse  was  removed  by  them,  or  added  by  the 
orthodox ;  but  that  of  the  two,  the  former  was 
by  far  the  most  probable.  Pole  next  alludes 
to  the  periods,  when  Tertullian,  Cyprian,  and 
Athanasius  cited  it;  and  states,  that  Idacius  in 
the  reign  of  Theodosius,  A.  D.  380,  produced 
it  against  the  Arians.  His  own  arguments  on 
this  subject  are  quite  conclusive.  He  contends 
that  the  Arians  must  have  cancelled  the  seventh 
verse  rather  than  the  orthodox  forged  it ;  be- 
cause, if  genuine,  it  convicted  them  of  heresy, 
if  fabricated,  the  doctrine  of  the  Trinity  is 
abundantly  proved  from  other  parts  of  Scrip- 
ture. I  shall  content  myself  with  noticing  the 
argument  which  he  derives  from  the  internal 
evidence  of  the  thing  itself,  viz.  of  the  context, 
and  the  end  which  St.  John  had  in  view  when 

*  Pole's  words  are  :  Scopus  E|>istolae  Generalis  est  vcrae  dc 
Christo  floctrina*  confirmatio,  idqiie  contra  Ebioiu-m  et  Cerin- 

thum,  qui  Deitatrm  Christi  nc;;abant hoc  imprimis 

credenchim  docet,  quod  Jesus  sit  Christus.  i.e.  verus  Deus,  ct 

verus  Homo qu;i;   etiam  probarc  voluit  .Johannes 

per  testes  ct  divinus  ct  hinnanos,  de  quibus  omnibus  conjunctim, 
V.6. — dp  divinia,  hocvcrsu,  7. — de  liumanis,  v.S.  deiude  addit, 
V.  9.  "  .Si  testiinnniKm  hnminum  rccipianiux,  testimonium  Dri 
mnjus  est."  Kxpiicat  manifcste,  quod  dc  sex  tc.Mibus  dixeraf, 
tres  seorsim  carlo,  ires  lerrae  tribuens. — Crit.  Synops.  in  loo, 

E  2 


52  TEXT    Oi-    THL    THREE    HEAVENLY 

he  \viote  the  epistle.  St.  Johii*s  object,  as 
*  Pole  justly  observes,  was  to  oppose  Ebion 
and  Ceriiillius,  who  denied  the  divinity  of 
Christ,  and  consequently,  to  establish  it  as  an 
article  of  faith,  that  Jesus  was  the  Christ, 
TRUE  God  and  true  Man,  by  witnesses  hu- 
man and  divine.  As,  therefore,  it  treats  of  a 
two-fold  description  of  witnesses,  if  we  acknow- 
ledge the  seventh  as  genuine,  no  chasm  will  oc- 
cur by  the  absence  of  the  divine  testimony;  and 
the  eighth  speaks  of  that  which  is  human.  The 
apostle  then  adds  the  ninth  verse,  which  has  as 
evident  reference  to  the  seventh,  as  to  the  sixth 
verse;  for  he  says,  "  if  we  receive  the  witness 
o^men,  the  witness  of  God  is  greater,"  and  thus 
demonstrates,  that  he  had  spoken  of  the  '\six 
witnesses : — three  distinct  ones  in  lieaven,  and 
three  on  earth.  To  direct  us  therefore  to  judge 
between  the  value  of  the  proofs  brought  forward 
on  the  one  side  by  Griesbach,  and  on  the  other 
by  Pole,  their  internal  evidence  at  once  shews, 

*  See  note,  p.  51. 

t  Bishop  Horsley  judiciously  observes,  that  St.  John  "de- 
scribes the  unity  of  the  testimony  of  the  three  celestial,  and 
the  three  terrestrial  witnesses,  in  different  terms  ;  I  conceive 
for  this  reason  :  of  the  latter  more  could  not  be  said  with  truth, 
than  that  they  agree  in  one;  but  the  three  in  Heaven  being  in 
substance  and  in  nature  one,  he  asserts  the  agreement  of  their 
testimony  in  terms  which  predicate  their  substantial  unity ; 
that  he  might  not  seem  to  lower  his  own  doctrine."  (See 
Bishop  Mamt's  Family  Bible  in  loc.)  Thus  does  this  great  cri-. 
tical  scholar  assert  the  genuineness  of  the  text  in  question. 


WITNESSES,     I   JOHN,    V.  7.  63 

iliat  error  lies  on  the  side  of  the  former,  that 
is,  ou  the  side  of  the  Greek  Church ;  as  the  tes- 
timony which  it  affords  is  not  so  full  as  that 
afforded  by  an  equally  competent  witness — the 
*  African  Church;  and  as  such  testimony  is 
Fiot  consistent,  when  considered  by  itself.  No- 
thing-, therefore,  can  be  more  evident,  from 
every  view  of  the  case,  than  that  this  passage, 
if  it  be  genuine,  is  neither  decisive;  nor  is  it, 
as  Doctor  INIilner  says,  the  most  imporlant  in 
the  New  Testament  towards  establishing  the 
Divinity  of  Christ.  If  it  be  genuine,  I  main- 
tain, that  it  is  not  in  any  respect  a  corner-stone 
of  the  Tenij)le.  If  it  be  spurious ;  it  is  only  a 
heivn-stoHe. 

It  is  now  hoped,  that  the  reader  has  been 
satisfied  by  the  preceding  illustration,  that 
Doctor  Milner's  charge  of  redundancy  respect- 
ing the  text  of  the  Heavenly  Witnesses,  against 

*  Mr.  Nolan,  having  traced  the  history  of  the  disputed 
text,  through  the  Saljellian  and  Eutychian  controversies,  and 
blaled  the  probable  causes  of  its  omission  in  the  Greek  manu- 
script?, and  in  tiic  writincjs  of  the  Greek  fathers  ;  and  having 
assigned  the  reason,  why  Jerome  inserted  it  in  one,  and  omit- 
ted it  in  the  oilier,  of  his  editions  of  the  I/atin  Vulgate,  (see 
note  *  p.  50)  presents  his  reader  with  an  niduction  of  the  most 
conclusive  arguments  in  support  of  its  genuineness.  "  The 
objections,"  he  says,  "  raised  against  that  tcXt,  ww  perfectly 
consistent  with  that  strong  evidence  in  its  favour,  which  is 
deducible  from  ihe  inlcuirtl  evidence  and  the  external  tistimony 
of  the  African  Clturc.lt." — Inquiuy,  p..')64. 


64  TEXT    OF    THE    THREE    HEAVENLY 

our  authorized  English  version  of  the  Bible, 
merits  the  fate  of  that  preferred  against  it  on 
the  score  oi defect ivcuess,  in  the  case  of  the  four- 
teenth Psalm. 

Although  there  be  no  connexion  whatever 
between  the  subject  matter  of  Bishop  Watson's 
Charge,  and  the  text  of  the  heavenly  witnesses, 
yet  as  Doctor  Milner  has  thought  proper  to 
blend  them  together  in  the  same  letter,  I  shall 
not  attempt  to  separate  them.  Next  to  Bishop 
Tomlinc,  that  prelate  comes  under  his  animad- 
versions. *  According  to  him,  nothing  but 
doubt  and  uncertainty  hang  over  the  days  of 
our  greatest  divines,  and  most  profound  scrip- 
tural students;  if  reference  be  had  to  their  pub- 
lications. And,  as  if  to  prove  the  truth  of  his 
assertion,  he  cites  tivo  ivhole  sentences  from  the 
Bishop  of  Landaff's  Charge  to  his  Clergy  in  1795! 
But  before  the  reader  knows  what  this  proof  is, 
he  must  be  prepared  to  be  horror  struck  at  the 
address  of  this  protestant  bishop,  who  after  ex- 
ploring the  depths  of  scripture  to  the  utmost 
extent  of  reason,  and  all  the  commentators  who 
have  written  on  it,  acknowledges  that  his  mind 
is  unsettled  about  the  doctrines  of  Christianity. 
After  a  preparation  to  this  efiect,  Doctor  Mil- 
ner introduces  the  bishop,  on  the  topic  of  the 

*  Letter  ix.  p.  78. 


WITNESSES,     1    JOHN,    V.   7.  55 

Christian  doctrines,    as  saying,    *  "  1  think  it 
safer  to  tell  you,  ivhere  they  are  contained,  than 
ivhat  they  are.     They  are  contained  in  the  Bible, 
and  if  in  reading  that  book,   your  sentiments 
concerning  the  doctrines  of  Christianity,  should 
be  different  from  those  of  your  neighbour,  or 
from  those  of  ike  church,  be  persuaded  on  your 
part,  that  infallil)ility  appertains  as  little  to  you, 
as  it  does  to  the  church."     These  certainly  were 
the  words  of  that  learned  and  intelligent  bishop, 
but  a  little  enquiry  will  satisfy  us,  that  they  by 
no  means  shew,  as  Doctor  Milner  asserts,  how 
far  removed  his  lordship  was  from  the  assurance 
of  faith ;  nor  how  fallacious  the  rule  of  the  mere 
Bible  must  be.     It  will  further  satisfy  us,  that 
no  reader  should,  without  investigation,  express 
surprise,  much  less  "  shudder,''  at  the  perusal 
of  a  partial  and  isolated  extract,    and  that  it 
would  not  involve  the  Cliurch  of  England  in 
either  shame  or  disgrace,  as  Doctor  Milner  in- 
sists it  would,  if  it  even  proved,  that  it  led  to 
a  diversity  of  sentiments  among  its  members. 

1  am  far  from  being  an  apologist  of  this  pre- 
late's general  character ;  because  I  consider  it, 
whether  it  relates  to  the  consistency  of  his  con- 
duct, or  the  orthodoxy  of  his  principles,  as  al- 
together mdefciisiblc.  But  candour  obliges  me 
to  declare,    that  if  I   can   believe  the  evidence 


56     TEXT  or  THE  THKEE  HEAVENLY 

Avhich  now  lies  brfore  nie,  I  must  believe,  that, 
if  any  man  knew  wliat  the  Christian  doetrines 
were  ;  who  was  capable  not  merely  of"  ascertain- 
ing, but  of  accurately  defining  them,  and  into 
whose  vigorous  and  intuitive  mind,  doubt  and 
error  were  little  likely  to  enter;  that  person  was 
Doctor  Watson.  So  that,  to  determine  what 
the  opinion  of  that  eminent  divine  was,  respect- 
ing the  Bible  as  a  rule  of  faith,  and  the  doetrines 
which  it  contains,  we  must  enlarge  the  view, 
which  Doctor  Milner  has  given  us,  and  collect 
it  from  the  scope  of  his  entire  charge,  and 
not  confine  ourselves  to  a  detached  passage. 
*'  When  we  speak,"  says  Bishop  Watson,  "  con- 
cerning the  truth  of  revealed  rebgion,  we  include 
not  only  the  certainty  of  the  divine  missions  of 
Moses  and  Jesus,  but  tlie  nature  of  the  several 
doctrines,  promulgated  by  them  to  mankind. 
Now,  you  ujay  ask  me  what  those  doctrines  are? 
I  know  ivlial  they  are  to  me,  but  pretending  to 
no  degree  of  infallibility,  1  think  it  safer  to  tell 
you  where  they  are  contained,  than  what  they 
are."  And  so  on  to  the  end  of  Doctor  Milner's 
quotation,  as  already  given. 

I  now  ask  Doctor  Milner,  in  the  name  of 
candour  and  honest  dealing,  whether  he  has 
done  justice  to  Bishop  Watson,  in  citing  a 
garbled  extract  from  his  charge;  and  not  rather 
grossly  misrepresented  him,  where  he  said,  that 
liis  lordship  was  forced  publicly  to  confess  to 


WITNESSES,     1   JOHN,    V.  7.  57 

his  assembled  clergy,  that  he  could  not  tell  them, 
what  the  doctrines  of  Christianity  were  ?  Bishop 
Watson  not  able  to  tell  what  they  were  I — and 
yet  but  seven  words  intervene,  between  Doctor 
Milner's  q notation,  and  the  Bishop's  emphatic 
declaration  ! — /  knoiv  uhat  they  are  to  me.  Is 
this  the  language  of  doubt  and  uncertainty? 
Does  it  not  rather  express  the  strength  of  his 
conviction,  and  the  fulness  of  the  assurance  of 
his  faith? 

If  we  now  consider  the  occasion  on  which 
this  prelate  spoke,  we  shall  have  reason  to  ad- 
mire his  prudent  reserve,  as  much  as  the  sen- 
tentious bre\ity  of  his  language.  AVere  he  de- 
livering a  lecture  as  professor  of  divinity,  he 
might,  and  no  doubt  would,  point  out  and  de- 
fine the  Christian  doctrines;  but  in  an  episcopal 
charge,  he  more  properly  stimulated  the  industry 
of  his  clergy  to  explore  the  sacred  source  itself, 
whence  those  doctrines  were  derived.  With 
that  becoming  diffidence  so  peculiar  to  the  di- 
vines of  the  Church  of  England,  he  stated,  that 
In-  knew  what  they  were  to  himself;  but  as  he 
pretended  to  mo  drgrcc  of  infallibilily,  and  as 
he  knew  that  his  opinion  wns  lia/jle  to  error,  he 
encouraged  each  individual  of  his  chirgy  to  the 
active  exercise  of  his  reason;  to  prosecute  vigo- 
rous iucpjiry;  to  disclaim  all  authority;  and  to 
rest  satisfied  with  nothing  short  of  what  he  con- 
scientiously believed  to  be  the  truth.  Such  seems 


58     TEXT  or  THE  THREE  HEAVENLY 

to  me  to  be  the  tendency  of  this  distinguished 
prelate's  advice;  suc:h  is  the  sj3irit  of  Protestant- 
ism, and  in  such  a  sj)irit  was  the  work  of  the 
reformation  acliieved.  When,  therefore,  Doctor 
Mihier  sjjeaks  of  the  doubt  and  uncertainty  of 
the  Protestant  clergy,  about  doctrinal  points  of 
divinity,  he  cannot  expect  to  be  believed  except 
by  Popish  readers.  For  he  well  knows,  that 
the  privilege  which  we  exercised,  o^  judging  for 
ourselves,  when  we  withdrew  from  the  Church 
of  Rome,  we  must  consistently  extend  to  those 
of  our  own  communion  ;  otherwise,  we  should 
act  as  reprehensibly  as  that  church,  in  setting 
ourselves  up  as  infallible  judges;  and  that  al- 
though, from  the  latitude  thus  allowed,  some 
of  our  clergy,  or  laity,  may  separate  from  us, 
who  have  not  what  we  had  to  urge,  when  our 
separation  from  the  former  took  place ;  viz.  the 
jjlea  of  conscience ;  yet,  the  greatest  evil  result- 
ing from  the  abuse  of  this  liberty  is  a  very  trifle, 
vi\\en  compared  with  the  evil  of  a  restraint, 
which  controls  the  will  and  enslaves  the  con- 
science. 

I  shall  now  close  my  defence  of  Bishop  Wat- 
son, by  presenting  the  reader  with  the  conclud- 
ing part  of  that  paragraph  in  his  charge,  from 
which  Doctor  Milner  has  made  his  mutilated 
extract.  It  goes  to  confirm  the  justice  of  the 
observations,  which  I  have  offered ;  while  it  re- 
moves from  us  the  imputation  of  doubt  and  ua- 


WITNESSES,    1   JOHN,    V.  7.  59 


certainty  about  matters  affecting  our  salvation. 
After  recommending  those  graces,  which  adorn 
the  Christian  character — respect  and  reverence 
towards  the  church,  and  towards  individuals, 
"  charity  of  thought  and  courtesy  of  conduct," 
the  bishop  thus  proceeds,  "  many  learned  men 
have  bestowed  mucli  useless  labour,  in  defining 
what  are  the  fundamental  verities  of  the  Chris- 
tian religion ;  useless  I  esteem  it,  because  the 
same  things  are  not  fundamental  to  all  men, 
and  there  is  no  iiifallible  ]\\(\^e  of  controversy 
to  settle  the  disputes  which  may  arise.   A  Papist 
believes  the  doctrine  of  transubstantiation,    of 
worshipping  of  images,  of  invocation  of  saints, 
of  purgatory,  of  the  insalvahility  (if  the  word 
may  be  admitted)  of  heretics,  and  of  the  infal- 
libility of  Popes,  councils,  and  churches,  to  be 
fundamental  doctrines.    A  I^rotestant  does  not 
believe  any  of  those  doctrines  to  be  fundamen- 
tal.    Protestants  differ  from  each  other  in  their 
sentiments  concerning  the  Eucharist;  concern- 
ing the  Trinity  ;    concerning  satisfaction  ;  con- 
cerning original  sin  ;    and   personal   predestina- 
tion— but  the  wisest  among  them  do  not  esteem 
any  particular  oj)inion  concerning  any  of  those 
points  to  be  so  fniKlamcnhilly  rii^/il,  llial  salva- 
lioH  will  not  belong  to  those,  who  think  other- 


wise ^ 


(SO  OUK    AUTHORIZED    TRANSLATION 


CHAPTER  IV. 

OUR   AUTHORIZED  TRANSLATION    OF  THE  BIBLE 

VINDICATED. 

1  HEY,  who  executed  the  authorized  and  re- 
vered translation  of  our  Bible,  anticipated  sucli 
uncharitable  imputations  as  those  cast  on  it  by 
Doctor  Milner.  They  well  knew,  when  evea 
*Jeronie  did  not  escape  censure  for  what  he  had 
so  ably  performed  ;  that  however,  f  "  the  inno- 
cencie  of  a  good  conscience,"  might,  at  the  time, 
have  "  supported  "  them  under  the  obloquy  of 
"  selfe-conceited  brethren;"  yet  that  it  would 
shield  neither  themselves,  nor  their  labours  from 
future  aggression.  Of  the  justice  of  these  anti- 
cipations, we  have  a  memorable  instance  in  the 

J:  END  OF    RELIGIOUS  CONTROVERSY.      "  Had   the 

Protestants,"  says  Doctor  Milner,  "  demonstra- 
tive evidence,  that  the  several  books  in  their  Bible 

*  Ruffin,  Augustin,  and  other  learned  men,  vilified  both 
Jerome  and  his  labours ;  and  "interpreted  his  Latin  transla- 
tion of  the  Bible  as  done  {in  contuinellam  jm  h)  to  the  dis- 
paragement of  the  seventy."  See  Walton's  Considerator 
considered,  p.  3,  edit.  1659. 

t  The  Epistle  Dedicatorib  of  the  Translators  of  the  Bible, 
in  1611,  to  King  James. 

♦  Letter  ix.  p.  70. 


OF    THE    BIBLE    VINDICATED.  61 

were  canonical  and  aiitlientic  {genuine  he  must 
again  mean)  in  the  originals,  it  would  still  re- 
main doubtful,  that  they  are  faithfully  translated 
in  their  English  copy;  a  consequence  of  their 
rejecting  the  great  universal  church,  and  build- 
ing upon  that  of  some  obscure  translator  in  the 
reisfn  of  James  T."  He  further  observes,  *'  that 
the  Bibles  of  Tindal,  Coverdale,  and  Queen 
Elizabeth's  bishops,  were 50  wo/onow^/y  corrupt, 
as  to  cause  2i geiieral  outcry  lA^diinsi  them,  among 
learned  Protestants,  as  well  as  among  (Roman) 
Catholics,  in  which  King  James  himself  joined  ; 
and  according v,  that  he  ordered  anew  version, 
that  now  in  use,  to  be  made.  And  that  though 
the  new  translators  corrected  many  wilful  errors 
of  their  predecessors;  yet,  that  a  sufficient  num- 
ber remain  behind,  for  which  their  advocates 
offer  no  excused 

Here  is  a  series  of  charges  levelled  at  the  in- 
t('o-rity  and  skill  of  our  translators,  and  at  the 
fidelity  of  our  translation.  Frequently  as  they 
have  been  made  by  popish  divines  they  have 
never  been  preferred  with  a  greater  air  of  super- 
ciliousness ;  nor  with  less  pretensions  to  truth, 
tlinn  in  the  present  instance.  Ignorant  of  the 
Hebrew,  and  i)nt  imperfectly  acquainted  with 
the  Greek  language,  according  to  his  own 
avowal,  Doctor  Milncr  delivers  an  opinion, 
which  can  only  be  sustained  by  a  perfect  know- 
ledge of  l)oth  languages.     If  Mr.  Bellamy,  and 


62     OUR  AUTHOR  I  ZED  TRANSLATION 

Sir  James  Bland  Burs^es  have,  in  tlieir  late 
*  publications,  had  tiie  hardihood  to  condemn 
the  received  Translation  of  our  English  Bible,  as 
imperfect,  and  its  authors,  as  incompetent  to  exe- 
cute so  imjiortant  a  work;  their  opinions,  how- 
ever precipitate  and  erroneous,  are  entitled  to 
a  certain  degree  of  deference.  The  attempt, 
which  the  former  gentleman  has  made  to  super- 
sede our  present  English  Translation,  by  what 
he  calls  a  neiv  and  more  perfect  one  of  his  own, 
even  though  such  an  attempt  has  been  unsuc- 
cessful, bespeaking  as  it  does  great  proficiency 
in  the  original  languages,  claims  indulgence, 
even  commands  a  respect,  compared  with  what 
the  arrogant  dogmas  of  a  superficial  critic  de- 
serve. . 
Doctor  Milner,  indeed,  may  be  competent  to 
pronounce  an  opinion  on  the  merits  of  a  trans- 
lation made  from  the  Latin  Vulgate  solely;  but 
no  farther  can  he  go.  The  consequence  of  this 
disparity  between  his  and  Mr.  Bellamy's  know- 
ledge, is  this;  that  while  equal  violence  is  ma- 
nifested by  both  assailants,  the  mode  of  assault 
on  our  authorized  English  Bible  varies.  The 
one  objects,  that  it  is  not  translated  according 
to  the  Hebrew,  in  the  Old,  and  to  the  original 

*  The  Holy  Bible  newly  translated  from  the  original  He- 
brew, with  notes  critical  and  explanatory  by  John  Bellamy  ; 
and  Reasons  in  favour  of  a  New  Translation  of  the  Holy 
Scriptures,  by  Sir  James  Bland  Burges,  Baut. 


OF    THE    BIBLE    VIXDICATED.  (J3 

Greek  in  the  INevv,  Testament;  but  that  it  is 
derived  from  the  Septiiagint  and  the  Latin  Vul- 
gate. The  other  tries  its  merits,  if  not  by  the 
Septuagint,  at  least  by  the  Latin  Vulgate,  and 
is  equally  loud  in  its  dispraise,  as  not  being 
conformable  thereto.  Both  are  wrong.  Mr. 
Bellamy  is  so;  because  the  translators  of  1611, 
although  they  did  not  disdain  the  use,  either  of 
the  Seventy,  orofthe  Latin  Vulgate,  and  although 
they  even  occasionally  consulted  our  early  Eng- 
lish versions ;  yet  they  looked  to  nothing  as  au- 
thority, but  the//eir<?26"  text  of  theOLD,  and  the 
original  Greek  of  the  New,  Testament.  For, 
as  they  express  themselves  in  their  ^preface  or 
epistle  to  the  reader  ;  if  you  ask,  what  they  had 
before  them,  "  truely  it  was  the  Hebrew  text 
of  the  Olde  Testament,  the  Grecke  of  the  New. 
These  are  the  two  golden  pipes,  or  rather  con- 
duits, where-through  the  olive  branches  cniptie 
themselves  into  the  golde.'  But,  Doctor  Milner 
is  still  more  in  error,  in  setting  up  the  Latin 
Vulgate  as  a  standard  by  which  our  insulted 
version  is  to  be  tried.  It  was  in  this  way  that 
^Racine  judged  of  Milton,  and  in  which  Vol- 
taire criticised  Shakspeare;  not  viewing  them 
as  they  should  have  done,  in  the  original  Eng- 
lish, but  probably  through  an  imperfect  French 

*  Translators'  Preface  to  Kinp;  James's  Bible  of  1611. 
t  See  Geddes's  Prospect,  p.  92. 


04      OUR  AUTHORIZED  TRANSLATION 

or  Latin  inedium.  But  if  the  opinions  of  these 
critics  must  liave  necessarily  been  erroneous, 
how  much  less  to  be  rci^arded  uiust  Doctor  Mil- 
uer's  criticism  be  ;  when  he  judges  of  our  Eng- 
lish Bible,  not  by  that  from  M'hich  it  is  derived  ; 
but  by  one,  which  neither  is,  nor  can  be,  a  fair 
representation  of  it,  inasmuch  as  it  does  not 
flow  purely  from  the  source  itself?  For  as  the 
*  translators  say,  the  Latin  is  not  "  the  precedent 
or  originall  tongue ;"  nor  "  the  fountain,"  whence 
the  stream  of  living  water  first  issued.  What 
they  afterwards  add  is  alike  applicable  to  both 
those  gentlemen,  and  confirms  the  truth  of  what 
I  have  here  stated,  f  "  The  credit  of  the  olde 
bookes,  according  to  Gratian,  is  to  be  tried  by 
the  Hebrew  volumes;  so  of  the  new,  by  the 
Greek  tongue,  he  meaneth  the  original  Greek. 
If  a  trueth  be  to  be  tried  by  these  tongues,  then 
whence  should  a  translation  be  made,  but  out  of 
them.  These  tongues,  therefore,  the  Scriptures, 
we  say,  in  these  tongues,  were  set  before  us  to 
translate,  being  the  tongues  wherein  God 
WAS  pleased  to  speake  to  his  Church  by 
HIS  Prophets  and  Apostles."  In  such  em- 
phatic terras  is  that  standard,  by  which  Doctor 
Miln(  r  would  try  our  authorised  translation  of 
the  Bible,  comparatively  lowered  by  those  vener- 
able persons. 

*  Preface  to  the  Bible  of  1611.  f  Ibid. 


OF    THE    BIBLE    VINDICATED.  (Jo 

Mr.  Bellamy  I  now  resign  to  the  literary  casti- 
gations  of  *Mr.  Whittaker,  as  well  as  to  those  of 
the  f  Quarterly  and  J  British  Critic  Reviewers, 
from  whom  he  has  already  experienced  not  un- 
merited treatment ;  while  1  confine  myself  to  the 
consideration  of  Doctor  Milner's  charges.  As 
this  gentleman  possesses  both  rank  and  influ- 
ence in  the  Roman  Catholic  Church,  which  im- 
part an  air  of  candour  and  truth  to  every  thing- 
he  says,  it  is  for  me  to  shew  to  what  purposes 
he  perverts  those  advantages,  and  with  what 
gross  injustice  he  vilifies  our  received  Trans- 
lation of  the  Bible,  no  less  than  its  learned 
and  pious  authors. 

It  has  been  the  lot  of  our  industrious,  zealous, 
and  truly  learned  Translators,  to  have  their  la- 
bours undervalued  and  their  characters  aspersed 
by  Popish  writers  for  the  last  two  centuries; 
yet  the  Church  of  England  has  called  their 
work  blessed,  and  has  uniformly  paid  their 
memories  the  triljute  of  its  veneration  and  era- 
titude.  And,  aHliough  they  have,  like  other 
men,  descended  to  the  grave,  and  are  nowequally 
insensible  to  the  voice  of  calunmy  or  |)raise, 
their  n'pntation  for  learning  will  never  die  but 
with  the  decay  of  the  J'^nglish  langnagc.  It  is, 
therefore,  little  to  be  regarded  that  an  individual 

*  Sl'c  liis  Hi>.T()i(icAL  and  CiinirAi.  Ivnqiikv  into  tin  lu- 
ll rprtlation  of  llic-  Iltbrew  SS. 

1  Sec  Numbirs  37  and  3^.     ;  Sec  Niiuibir  \\n  April    I^JO. 

|- 


00     OUR  AUTHORIZEU  TRANSLATION 

like  Doctor  Milner,  who  cannot  stand  a  com- 
petition with  even  tlie  obscurest  of  them  on  the 
score  of  learning  nncl  talents,  .should  occasionally 
^^tep  forward  from  the  pale  of  his  infallible 
Church,  to  impeach  their  motives,  or  deny  their 
competence  for  an  undertaking,  which  they  have 
so  happily  accomplished.  That  they  were  pos- 
sessed of  every  qualification  suited  to  their  task, 
the  world  of  letters  abundantly  testifies.  Their 
contemporaries  paid  them  due  honours  when 
alive;  and  since  their  death  their  memories 
have  been  esteemed  in  j)roportion  to  the  increase 
of  sound  learning ;  and  I  trust  that,  for  genera- 
tions to  come,  their  wisdom  and  knowledge 
will  be  lauded  in  the  congregation  of  the  people. 
The  language  of  congratulation  addressed  by 
the  learned  Fulke  to  the  British  nation  on  the 
production  and  effect  of  the  first  English  Ver- 
sions of  the  Bible,  is  still  more  applicable,  in 
reference  to  the  treasure  which  these  our  last 
Translators  have  bequeathed  us.  *'*  Happy, 
and  thrice  happy,"  says  that  venerable  advocate 
of  our  Church,  "  hath  our  English  nation  bene, 
since  God  hath  given  learned  translators  to  ex- 
j)ress  in  our  mother  tongue  the  heavenly  mys- 

*  "  A  Defense  of  the  sincere  and  true  translations  of  the 
holie  Scriptures  into  the  English  tong,  against  the  manifold 
cavils,  frivolous  quarrels,  and  inijradent  slaunders  of  Gregory 
Martin,  one  of  the  readers  of  Popish  Divinitie  in  the  trayterous 
Seminarie  of  Rheims,  by  William  Fclke,  D.  D.,  and  Master  of 
Pembroke  Hall,  Cambridge."     Ed.  15S3. 


OF    THE    BIBLE    VINDICATED.  67 

teries  of  his  holy  worde,  delivered  to  his  Church 
in  the  Hebrew  and  Greek  languages.  Who^ 
although  they  have  in  some  matters  of  no  im- 
portance unto  salvation,  as  men,  bene  deceived, 
yet  have  they  faithfully  delivered  the  whole 
substance  of  the  heavenly  doctrine,  conteyned 
in  the  Holy  Scriptures,  without  any  hereticall 
translations,  or  wilful  corruptions.  And  in  the 
whole  Bible,  among  them  all,  have  commited  as 
few  oversights,  for  any  thing  that  you  can  bring, 
and  of  less  importance  than  you  have  done  only 
in  the  JNew  Testament." 

Notwithstanding  Dr.  Milner's  reproach,  the 
curious  reader  will  perceive  that  there  was  not 
an  obscure,  by  which,  of  course,  he  means  an 
illiterate  individual  among  the  *  forty-seven 
translators  of  our  Bible,  named  in  the  original 
list,  and  approved  by  King  James  the  First,  if 
he  only  consult  (Mr.  Todd's  late  vindication 
of  it.  So  much  achlitional  information  to  that 
already   recorded    has   been    supplied    by   this 

*  According  to  llic  Fifteenth  Rule  laid  down  by  the  King', 
and  to  be  observed  by  the  Translators,  seven  ol'  the  most 
ancient  and  grave  divines  of  Oxford  and  Cambridge,  were 
appointed  overseers  of  tiie  Translation,  which  increased  the 
number  to  ^/y-/o«;-;  allhongh  Doctor  Mihier  will  not  allow 
that  so  many  were  engaged  in  the  work.  See  Buunkt's  Mist, 
of  the  Reform.  Coll.  Vol.  ii.  P.  ii.  p.  3(i4. 

t  Vindication  of  our  aiitliorize<l  'I'raiislatioii  and  Transla- 
tors of  the  liiblc,  by  the  Rev.  II.  I.  Todd,  Kecjur  of  the  Arch- 
bishop of  Canterbury's  Records,  pp.  49—65. 


<i8  OUR    AUTHORIZED    TRANSLATION 

geiiUemau's  industry,  from  the  Lambeth  MSS. 
that  there  remain  but  few  of  the  learned  charac- 
ters concerned  in  framing  our  authorized  Trans- 
lation, about  whom  something  is  not  known. 
It  is  true,  that  they  did  not  all  attain  an  equal 
degree  of  celebrity;  nor  were  they  all  equally 
fortunate  in  leaving  after  them  a  biographer  to 
procure  them  a  posthumous  reputation.  Some 
of  them  were  secluded  scholars,  enjoying  the 
shade  of  academic  retirement,  while  others  were 
engaged  in  the  humble  discharge  of  their  pas- 
toral duties,  and  had  never  attained  that  emi- 
nence in  the  church,  which  would  have  attracted 
public  attention.  It  is  only  on  grounds  such 
as  these,  that  Doctor  Milner  can  object  to  us 
the  obscurity  of  those  learned  and  estimable  men. 
To  Mr.  Todd's  research  are  the  public  also 
indebted  for  a  more  circumstantial  list  of  the 
Translators  than  that  published  either  by  Burnet 
or  Lewis,  and  for  important  information  respect- 
ing some  of  them,  not  generally  known.  So 
completely  has  he  filled  up  the  biographical 
chasm  which  existed,  iha-tjive  only  of  the  en- 
tire number  remain,  with  whose  characters  and 
attainments  we  are  unacquainted  :  viz.  Doctors 
Hutcheson  and  Spenser,  Mr.  Fenton,  Mr.  Rab- 
bett,  and  Mr.  Sanderson.  By  the  way,  an 
opinion  has  been  hazarded,  that  the  Mr.  San- 
flerson,  who  was  advanced  to  a  fellowship  in 
Lincoln  College,  in  1G06,  and  afterwards  to  the 


OF    THE    BIBLE    VINDICATED.  69 

Bishopric  of  Lincoln ;  the  author  of  Episcopacy, 
and  the  reputed  author  of  that  inimitable  prayer 
in  onr  Liturgy,  the  *  General  Thanksgivins^, 
was  the  last  of  the  five  mentioned.  His  literary 
rank  qualified  liim  for  the  office  of  a  Translator, 
and  what  makes  it  probable  that  he  was  one  of 
them,  is,  that  the  business  of  translation  was 
not  set  about,  until  the  beginning  of  1607.  How- 
ever this  be,  the  five  already  spoken  of  were  in 
what  was  called  the  second  division  of  the 
Westminster  Class,  to  which  also  belonged 
tDakins,  a  Professor  of  Divinity  in  Gresham 
College,  and  Barlow,  the  historian  of  the  Confe- 
rence at  Hamj)ton  Court.  It  may,  therefore,  be 
fairly  presumed,  that  even  these  hvo,  who  ranked 
so  high  for  scholarship,  although  there  were  710 
general  conference,  no  supervision  of  the  entire 
translation  ;  would  have  taken  care  to  preserve 
the  version  of  the  Epistles,  which  was  consigned 

*  As  llic  i/ianksqwing  was  not  ackletl  to  our  Liturgy  until 
1661,  il  remain's  a  qucv^slion,  ulutlur  llic  Sanderson  who  was 
said  Ic)  \)r  it*.  ;iulhor,  could  have  been  the  same  Sanderson 
who  was  eniia<red  forty-four  years  before  that  period  intrnii^- 
lalinp  our  Bible.  Tlie  opinion  of  my  late  esteemed  Diocesan, 
Bishop  Bennf.t,  as  appears  from  his  MS.  notes  on  our  Book 
of  Common  Prayer,  which  haj.  lately  come  into  my  hand^, 
determints   in    llie    nrgalirc,    in   which    he  is    supported    by 

WhEATLEY,  ShEI'HCRD,  &c. 

t  Ward,  in  his  Lives  of  the  Professors  of  Gresham  (Jollc<;«', 
says,  that  Dakins  was  employed  in  this  work  on  arcomil  of 
his  skill  in  the  original  langudges,  p.  46. 


70      OUR  AUTHORIZED  TRANSLATION 

to  tliein,  free  from  error.  In  addition  to  this, 
we  can  form  a  favourable  estimate  of  the  talents 
and  learning  of  the  five  in  question,  from  what 
is  known  of  the  great  body  of  their  associates. 
This  we  are  further  assisted  in  doing-  by  tlie  te- 
nour  of  the  King's  commission,  *  "  authorizing 
forty-seven  dignitaries,  and  eminent  cliurchmen, 
and  scholars,  to  meet,  confer,  and  consult 
together,  so  that  nothing  should  pass  without 
a  general  consent:"  also,  by  the  purport  of  his 
Majesty's  declaration  at  Hampton  Court,  about 
one  uniform  translation,  t"  to  be  done  by  the 
best  learned  in  both  universities  ;  after  them  to 
be  reviewed  by  the  bishops,  and  the  chief  learned 
of  the  Church :"  and,  lastly,  by  what  his  Ma- 
jesty says  in  his  letter  to  Bancroft,  Bishop  of 
London,  about  promoting  those  meritorious 
persons,  viz.  that  J"  whereas,  we  have  ajjpoint- 
ed  certain  learned  men  to  the  number  oi  four 
and  fifty  for  tlie  translating  of  the  Bible,  and 
that  in  this  number,  divers  of  them  have  either 
no  ecclesiastical  preferment  at  all,  or  else  so 
very  small,  as  the  same  is  far  unmeet  for  men 
of  their  deserts.  We,  therefore,  ordain,  &c. 
&c."  So  that,  whether  the  Translators  be  con- 
sidered individually,   according   to   their   divi- 

*  FuLLEn's  Church  History,  p.  40. 

t  Sum  and  Substance  of  the  Conference  at  Hampton  Court, 
liyDr.  Barlow,  Dean  of  Chester,  p.  46. 

\  See  Appendix  IV,,  to  Todd's  Vindication. 


OF    THE    BIBLE    VINDICATED.  71 

sions,  or  in  their  collective  capacity;  Doctor 
Milner's  charge,  that  the  translation  of  any  par- 
ticular text,  is  that  of  some  obscure,  or  un- 
known, or  illiterate  Translator;  that  it  is  noio- 
riously  corrupt,  and  one,  on  which  it  is  danger- 
mis  to  rely,  is  directly  refuted  ;  inasmuch  as  the 
whole  English  version  is  a  joint  production, 
the  work  of  one  being  the  wTjrk  of  all ;  what 
each  did  separately,  was  revised,  corrected,  and 
approved  only  '^  by  general  consent'' 

The  most  interesting  and  inij)ortant  editions 
of  the  Eno-lish  Bible,  which  were  antecedent  to 
our  authorized  one,  are  those  mentioned  in  the 
following   page.     Before  it  arrived  at  its  pre- 
sent state,  it  may  be  said  to  have  passed  through 
several  stages,  and  at  each,  to  have  acquired  a 
degree  of  improvement,  which  was  itself  sur- 
passed by  a  succeeding  revision.     Thus,  in  the 
space  of  seventy  years  preceding  the   date  at 
which  the  last  was  undertaken  by  command  of 
King  James  the  First  ;  our  English  Bible  was 
revised  at  several  distinct  i)eriods.     As,   there- 
fore,  the   correctness   of  this  last  version,   its 
beauty   of  language,  and  sinif)licity   of  style, 
have  not  been  superseded  by  any  successful  at- 
tempt at  further  improvement,  it  is  to  be  hoped, 
before  any  future  revision  takes  place,  that  its 
necessity  will  Ix;  clearly  established. 

Before  I  enter  more  fully  into  this  subject,  it 
becomes   necessary  to  inrpiire,  with  what  jus- 


I  JL 


I  OUH    AUTHORIZED    TRANSLATION 


tice  Doctor  Miliicr  asperses  even  the  Eiiglisli 
versions  of  tlic  Bible,  which  jireceded  this 
hist  one;  those,  for  instance,  of  Tyndal,  Cover- 
dale,  and  Queen  Elizabeth's  bishops,  which  he 
says,  were  also  notoriously  corrupt ;  and  to  as- 
certain the  grounds,  on  which,  he  alleges,  that 
an  outcry  was  raised  against  them. 

We  know,  that  WicklifT  published,  in  the 
fourteenth  century,  a  translation  of  the  whole 
Bible  in  the  English  then  spoken  ;  but,  that  it 
was  suppressed  at  the  instigation  of  those, 
*"  who  were  for  taking  away  the  key  of  know- 
ledge," by  the  13th  Rich.  IJ.  And  with  re- 
spect to  Tyndal's  partial  translation  of  the 
Scriptures,  the  first  Protestant  English  one 
made,  we  find  Geddes  himself,  whose  authority 
will  not  be  very  acceptable  to  Doctor  Milner, 
in  his  prospectus  of  a  new  translation  of  the 
Bible,  speaking  of  it  in  high  terms;  and  that 
though  far  from  being  a  perfect  one,  yet  few 
first  translations  would  be  found  preferable  to 
it.  It  is  astonishing,  he  observes,  f"  how  little 
obsolete  the  language  of  it  is,  even  at  this  day ; 
and  in  point  of  perspicuity  and  noble  simpli- 
city, propriety  of  idiom,  and  purity  of  style, 
no  English  version  has  yet  surpassed  it." 
Asain  he  says,  had  he  been  inclined  to  make 
any   English   version   the  ground- work  of  his 

*  Lewis's  History  of  the  Translations  of  the  Bible,  p.  25. 
t  Ibid. 


OF    THE    BIBLE    VINDICATED.  73 

own,  it  would  certainly  have  been  ^Tyndal's. 
Such  was  the  judgment  of  that  very  eminent 
scholar  about  the  matter,  and  willingly,  or  not, 
Doctor  Milner  must  bow  to  an  authority,  which 
Archbishop  Newcome  acknowledged  as  deci- 
sive, when  he  cited  it. 

Of  Coverdale's  Bible,  we  have  the  distinct 
admission  of  Gardiner  himself,  as  recorded  by 
fhe  learned  ftulke,  that  it  could  not  be  notori- 
ously corrujDted,  as  it  set  forth  no  heresies.  "  I 
myself,"  says  that  able  vindicator  of  the  Eng- 
lish translations  of  the  Bible,  "  did  heare  that 
reverend  father,  M.  Doctor  Coverdale,  of  holie 
and  learned  memorie,  in  a  sermon  at  St.  Paul's 
Crosse,  upon  occasion  of  some  slaunderous  re- 
portes,  that  then  were  raised  againste  his  trans- 
lation, declare  his  faithful  purpose  in  doing  the 
same,  which,  after  it  was  finished  and  present- 
ed to  king  Henry  the  Eight  of  famous  memo- 
rie, and  by  him  committed  to  diverse  bishops 
of  that  time  to  peruse,  of  which,  (as  I  remem- 

*  I^win,  when  spcakinpc  of  Tyndal's  qualifications  as  a 
translator,  expressly  asserts,  that  he  rendered  the  Scriptures 
"  from  the  original  Ilcbrnv  and  Greek  into  Enghsh." — Ibid. 
In  his  Prologue  to  the  Translation  of  the  Pentateuch,  Tyndal 
affirmH,  what  he  could  not  have  said,  had  he  translated  solely 
from  the  Latin.  "  They  that  konne  well  the  sentence  of  holy 
writ,  and  I'.nglish  together,  and  wolen  travaile  with  Godis 
grace  thereahout,  mounc  make  the  Bible  as  true  and  as  open, 
yea  and  openlier  it)  English,  than  it  is  in  I/tlyn." 

t   DEfENSE  ut  supr.  p.  4. 


74  OUR  AUTHORIZED  TRANSLATION 

ber,)  Steven  Gardiner  was  one;  after  they  had 
kept  it  long  in  their  hands,  and  the  king  was 
diverse  times  sued  unto  for  the  publication 
thereof,  at  the  last,  being  called  for  by  the  king 
himself,  they  redelivered  the  book ;  and  being- 
demanded  by  the  king,  but  are  there  any 
heresies  mayntained  thereby  ? — they  answered, 
that  there  were  no  heresies,  that  they  could 
linde,  maintayned  thereby.  If  there  be  no  here- 
sies, said  the  king,  then  in  God's  name,  let  it 
go  abroad  among  our  people."  This  single  ad- 
mission of  Gardiner  speaks  volumes,  and  if  to 
it,  and  the  direct  evidence  of  Fulke,  be  added 
the  testimony  of  *Mr.  Whittaker,  in  behalf  of 
Coverdale's  Bible,  its  merit  will  be  put  beyond 
any  question. 

The  passages  in  which  Coverdale  forsook  both 
the  Septuagint  and  the  Vulgate  are  numerous. 
His  policy  in  not  openly  declaring  this,  was 
wise,  as  he  would  thereby  have  endangered  his 
personal  safety  without  promoting  the  sacred 
cause  in  which  he  was  engaged.  To  this, 
probably,  we  have  to  attribute  his  escaping 
the  fateof  Tyndal  ;  for  when  both  himself  and 
his  Bible  were  seized  on  in  Paris  by  the  offi- 
cers of  the  Inquisition,  the  latter  only  was 
committed  to  the  flames.  But  it  is  more  than 
probable,  had  Coverdale  followed  the  old 
Latin  text  word  for  word,  that  Doctor  Mil- 
*  See  Critical  Enquiry,  p.  51 — 56. 


OF    THE    BIBLE    VINDICATED.  75 

ner  would  not  have  so  violently  exclaimed 
against  his  translation.  The  reason  for  his  not 
having  done  so,  is  thus  admirably  stated  in  his 
*  Dedication  to  the  King :  *'  as  though  al  were 
not  as  nye  the  truth  to  translate  the  Scripture 
out  of  other  languages,  as  to  turne  it  out  of 
Latyn  :  or  as  though  the  Holy  Goost  were  not 
the  authoure  of  his  Scripture  as  well  in  the 
Hebrew,  Greke,  French,  Dutche,  and  English, 
as  in  Latyn."  However  this  be,  the  objections, 
w  hich  Doctor  Milner  now  raises  to  Coverdale's 
translation,  were  not  such  as  to  deter  Roman 
Catholics  from  continuing  to  join  in  the  com- 
munion of  the  Established  Church,  in  the  early 
part  of  queen  Elizabeth's  reign.  I  may  specify 
Coverdale's  Bible,  as  the  alterations  peculiar  to 
Cranraer's  edition  were  few  and  unimportant. 

We  come  next  to  consider  Doctor  Milner's 
charge  as  it  bears  against  the  ^Bishops'  Bible. 
;|;Selden,  whom  §  Cud  worth  styles  the  glory  of 
the  English  nation  for  oriental  literature,  and 
who  is  known  to  have  been  no  way  partial  to 
the  Church  of  England  ;  likewise  a  man,  who 

*  See  Hoi.LYBUsn's  rjuarto  edition  of  the  New  Testament, 
1538.     See  also,  Lewis's  Hist,  of  iuig.  Transl. 

t  So  called,  because  of  the  majority  of  the  persons  engaged 
in  it  being  of  Episcopal  rank,  viz.  Abps.  Sandys  and  Grin- 
dal  ;  Bp«.  Alley,  Davies,  I^nthani,  (lox,  and  Hornc. 

t  Table  Talk,  p.  .'i.  Kd.  1710. 

§  Disc,  on  the  Lord's  Supper,  p.  Ki, 


76  OUK  AUTHOR  IZKl)  TRANSLATION 

ill  forming-  his  opinions,  was  seldom,  if  ever, 
guided  by  the  judgment  of  others,  represents 
"  tlie  English  translation  of  the  Bil)le,  as  the 
best  in  the  world,  and  which  renders  the  sense 
of  the  original  best ;  taking  in  for  the  English 
translation,  the  Bishops'  JBible,  as  well  as  king 
James's."  Thus,  in  the  opinion  of  this  inde- 
pendent man,  and  profound  scholar,  the  Bi- 
shops' Bible  ranks  equally  high  as  a.  transla- 
tion with  King  James's ;  and  if,  as  is  univer- 
sally admitted,  his  judgment  be  decisive,  that 
either  of  these  is  the  best  translation  in  the 
world  :  it  follows,  that  the  Bishops'  Bible  is  at 
least  as  free  from  heresy,  as  Coverdale's  was 
pronounced  to  be  by  Gardiner ;  and  therefore, 
not,  as  Doctor  Milner  says,  notoriously  cor- 
rupt. My  argument  here,  is  grounded  on  Sel- 
den's  attestation  to  the  excellence  of  the  Bi- 
shops' Bible  as  a  translation,  and  the  answer 
given  Henry  VIII.  by  Gardiner,  respecting 
Coverdale's  Bible,  as  already  stated.  But  it  is 
further  strengthened  by  the  fact,  that  the  Bi- 
shops made  the  preceding  English  versions  of 
Tyndal  and  Coverdale,  the  models  ;  and,  as  it 
were,  the  basis  of  their  own.  Again,  Fulke, 
whom  1  have  already  represented  as  the  first 
and  ablest  advocate  of  our  English  versions, 
bears  direct  testimony  here  also,  to  the  zeal, 
the  talents,  and  the  learning  of  the  Bishops 
employed  in  the  work  ;  and  while  with  candour, 


OF    THE    BIBLE    VINDICATED.  77 

he  admits  the  possible  existence  of  such  imper- 
fections as  cannot  always  be  guarded  against ; 
yet  he  successfully  vindicates  the  faithfulness 
of  the  Translation,  no  less  than  the  honesty  of 
the  Translators.  *'*  That  some  error,"  says  he, 
addressing  himself  to  the  Rhemish  doctors, 
"  may  bee  in  translation,  although  by  you  it 
cannot  be  shewed,  [  will  not  deny ;  but  that 
any  shameless  translations,  or  ivilful  corrup- 
tions can  be  found  of  purpose  to  draw  the 
Scriptures  to  any  hereticall  opinion,  all  the 
Papists  in  the  ivorld  shi\\\  never  be  able  to  make 
demonstration."  If  this  opinion  of  Fulke,  and 
that  of  King  James's  Translators,  be  deemed 
decisive ;  the  reputation  of  the  Bishops'  Bible 
will  not  have  been  endangered  by  Doctor 
Milner's  censures.  Those  Translators,  speaking 
of  the  English  versions  antecedent  to  their  own, 
say,  t'*tli'*tall  is  sound  for  substance,  in  one 
or  other  of  our  editions,  and  the  worst  of  ours 
is  far  better  than  the  authentick  vulgar  of  the 
Papists."  As  for  the  estimation,  in  which  King 
.lames  himself  held  the  Bishops'  Bible,  it  may 
br  collected  from  the  first  of  his  instructions  to 
\hv  translators,  where  he  orders,  J"  that  the 
ordinary  Bible  read  in  llie  Church,  commonly 

'    JSfc   iJMENbt,    i>|).  :i\0,   521—624,  and   pp.    i^),  46,  •>( 

I'l.l  F\<  E. 

i    I'hi.pacf.,  or  I--pislU  lo  ilit  Krudcr,  'I'raiibl.  ol"  Kil  I. 
I    BuiiiLl's  Mi>.t.  o(  llie  lUforni.,  vol.  ii.  I'arl  ii.  p.  .^(>S. 


78      OUR  AUTHORIZED  TRANSLATION 

called  the  Bishops'  Bible,  be  followed,  and 
as  little  altered,  as  the  truth  of  the  original  will 
permit."  Such  are  the  memorials  of  the  earliest 
of  what  Doctor  Milner  calls  our  notoriously 
corrupt  English  versions. 

"  But,"  continues  Doctor  M.,  "  there  was  an 
outcry  raised  against  those  Bibles  among  learn- 
ed Protestants  and  (Roman)  Catholics,  in  which 
King  James  himself  joined."  When  he  speaks 
of  learned  Protestants,  he  would  lead  his 
reader  to  suppose,  that  he  meant  learned  divines 
of  the  Church  of  England,  as  objecting  to  the 
English  versions  of  the  Bible;  whereas  he,  in 
fact,  alludes  to  the  Puritans.  Now,  that  the 
Puritans  did  not  raise  this  alleged  outcry 
against  our  biblical  corruptions,  as  he  calls 
them,  appears,  in  the  first  place,  from  this  one 
circumstance,  that,  at  the  Conference  held  at 
Hampton  Court,  where  their  complaints  would 
have  been  attended  to,  there  was  no  discussion 
whatever,  on  any  subject  of  the  kind.  And  in 
the  next  place,  instead  of  an  outcry,  a  petition 
was  presented  to  the  King  by  the  non-conform- 
ists, desiring  reformation  of  sundry  ceremonies. 
But  most  certainly,  there  was  no  outcry,  and 
but  an  accidental  mention  of  a  revision  or  cor- 
rection of  the  English  Bibles,  at  the  Conference. 
Their  object  was  to  discuss  matters  respecting 
the  doctrine  and  disciplitie  of  the  Church  ;  and 
it  was  for  this  purpose  exclusively,  that  it  was 


OF    THE    BIBLE    VINDICATED.  79 

held.  The  substance  of  the  petition  or  remon- 
strance, which  they  then  presented  to  his  Ma- 
jesty, proves  this  to  be  the  case.  It  was  drawn 
up  under  the  following  heads  :  1.  *The  Service 
of  the  Church.  2.  Church  Ministers.  3.  The 
Livings  and  Maintenance  of  the  Church.  And 
4thl/.  The  Discipline  of  it.  The  historian  re- 
lates, that  the  petitioners  were  unsuccessful  in 
obtaining  what  they  had  in  view,  f "  They 
sped  no  better,"  says  Heylin,  "  in  relation  to 
the  forms  of  worship,  than  they  had  done  in 
reference  unto  points  of  doctrine."  It  is  true, 
the  same  writer  adds,  "  somewhat  also  was  ob- 
served, touching  some  errors  in  the  old  transla- 
tion of  the  English  Psalter,  as  also  in  the 
Gospels  and  Epistles,  as  they  stood  in  the 
Liturgy.  But,  their  objections  were  so  stale, 
and  so  often  anstvered,  that  the  bishops  and 
conformable  party  went  away  with  an  easy 
victory."  But  surely,  an  allusion,  which  was 
thus  incidentally  made  to  some  alleged  mis- 
translations in  certain  parts  of  the  Liturgy,  as 
ill  the  Psalter,  the  Epistles  and  Gospels ;  as 
well  as  the  complaints,  which  were  preferred 
by  the  disappointed  party,  but  not  until  (he 
object  of  their  petition  was  defeated,  cannot  br 
considered  what  Doctor  Milner  calls  "  an  oiU- 
cry'  against  the  English  versions  of  the  Bible. 

*  Heylin's  History  of  the  Prcbhytcrians,  p.  370. 
I  Ibiu.  p.  373. 


80  OUR    AUTHORIZED    TRANSLATION 

The  Kiiiir  himself  states  the  causes  of  the  coin"* 
plaints,  which  gave  rise  to  the  conference ;  viz. 
such  as  dissensions  in  the  church  ;  disobeilience 
to  the  laws ;  and  a  great  falling  away  to  Popery. 
His  purpose,  therefore,  was  *"  like  a  good  phy- 
sician, to  examine  and  try  the  complaints,  and 
fully  to  remove  the  occasions  thereof."  Not 
the  remotest  allusion  to  complaint  against  any 
English  translation  occurs  in  the  Royal  state- 
ment. It  seems,  indeed,  that  on  that  occa- 
sion. Doctor  Reinolds,  one  of  the  petitioners, 
t  '*  moved  his  Majesty,  that  there  might  be  a 
new  translation  of  the  Bible ;"  assigning  as  a 
reason,  that  the  English  versions  then  extant, 
"  were  not  answerable  to  the  truth  of  the  origi- 
nall."  But  this  request  was  not  made  by  hini 
until  the  second  day  of  the  conference,  as  the 
historian  says,  after  they  had  been  speaking 
upon  several  other  subjects.  The  Translators 
themselves,  in  their  preface  or  epistle  to  the 
reader,  echo  the  words  of  the  King.  J  *'  The 
very  historical  truth,"  say  they,  "  is,  that  upon 
the  importunate  petitions  of  the  Puritans  at  his 
Majesty's  coming  to  this  crown,  the  conference 
at  Hampton  Court  having  been  appointed  for 
hearing  complaints,  when  by  force  of  reason, 
they  were  put  from  all  other  grounds,  they  had 

*  Baulow's  Sum  and  Substance,  &c.  ut  supr.  p.  5. 
t  Ibid.  p.  46. 
1   Bible  ofl  611. 


OF    THE    BIBLE    VINDICATED.  81 

recourse  at  the  last  to  this  shift,  that  they  could 
not  with  good  conscience  subscribe  to  the  Com- 
munion Book,  since  it  maintained  the  Bible,  as 
it  was  there  translated,  which  was,  as  they  said, 
a  most  corrupted  translation.     And   although, 
this  was  judged  to  be  but  a  poor  and  empty 
shift;  yet  even  hereupon,  did  his  Majesty  be- 
think himself  of  the  good,  that  might  ensue  by 
a  new  translation,  and  presently  gave  order  for 
THIS   TRANSLATION,  which    IS   uow  presented 
unto  thee."     But  what  further  proves,  that  the 
complaints  against  the  English  versions   were 
groundless,  that  it  really  was  an  "  empty  shift," 
a  mere  shallow  pretence  of  the  Non-conformists, 
who  only  condemned  them,   as   Doctor  Milner 
knows,  after  their  objects  in  other  points  were 
defeated,  is  this  ;  that  they  neither  collectively 
nor    individually   attempted   to   supersede   the 
versions  then  extant  by  one  of  their  own :  nor 
have  those,  who  succeeded  them,  to  this  clay,  sup- 
plied, or  attempted  to  supj)ly,  the  place  of  our 
existing  version,  although  the  passages  at  first 
objected  to,  have  continued  in  it  ivithout  altera- 
tion.   In  fact,  the  attempts  at  a  new  one,  which 
have  been  made  from  other  quarters,  have  been 
uniformly  misuccessfnl,  and  have  consequently 
added  to  the   n'j)utalion   of  this   our  standard 
English  version  of  1011. 

That  the  Puritans,  when  driven  to  the   last 
extremity,  put  in  a  plea  for  certain  alterations 

o 


82  OUR    AUTHORIZED    TRyVNSLATION 

in  the  Comnmnion  Book,  and  that  pitiful  as  it 
was,  it  led  to  our  present  English  version  of 
the  Bible,  is  here  conceded  ;  but  that  they  raised 
an  outcry  in  the  way  spoken  of  by  Doctor 
Milner,  is  contradicted  by  the  very  nature  of 
the  thing,  and  by  the  principle  on  which  they 
acted.  These  sectaries,  as  their  name  imports, 
affected  greater  ptiriti/  in  tlie  service  of  God, 
than,  they  allege,  *  "  is  set  forth  in  the  Book 
of  Common  Prayer  ;"  and  carried  on  their  hos- 
tility against  the  rights  and  usages  of  the  Rom- 
ish Church,  farther  than  was  consistent  with 
the  moderation  of  the  Church  of  England.  It 
is  therefore  conceivable  enough,  why  Doctor 
Milner  should  feel  anxious  to  conceal  the  name 
of  Puritan  under  that  of  Protestant,  by  which 
the  members  of  the  Church  of  England  are  now 
exclusively  designated ;  but  it  is  difficult  to 
conjecture,  why  he  should  say  generally,  that 
there  was  an  outcry  among  the  most  learned 
Protestants,  against  the  English  Bibles,  unless 
he  expected,  that  his  readers  would  be  of  such 
a  class  as  would  receive  every  thing  he  said, 
without  further  inquiry,  as  the  truth  itself. 
When  it  is  admitted,  therefore,  that  the  Puri- 
tans in  King  James's  time,  cavilled  at  certain 
passages  in  the  then  received  English  version  of 
the  Bible  ;  it  must,  at  the  same  time,  be  reraem- 

*  Heylin's  Hist.  p.  3S6. 


OF    THE    BIBLE    VINDICATED.  83 

bered,  that  no  hishop^  no  king,  was  their  *  mot- 
to;  aud  that   consistently  with  the   levelling 
principle,  which  such  a  motto  indicated,  their 
objections,  originating-  as  they  must  have  done, 
in  fanatic  zeal,  were  little  likely  to  impeach  the 
accuracy  of  the  Authorized  Translation  ;    still 
less,  to  sanction  those  advanced  by  Popish  ca- 
villers.    Had  our  Authorized  Translation,   in- 
deed, been  a  negligent  or  an  ill-executed  one, 
there   would  no  doubt,   have   been  an   outcry 
raised  against  it  by  learned   Protestants ;   nor 
could  it  possibly  have  maintained  the  high  cha- 
racter it  has  done  for  two  centuries,  amidst  the 
numerous  religious  parties  which  have  sprung 
up  within   that  period.     But,  as  those   parties 
have  never  substituted  a  new  one  in  its  place, 
and  as  the  attempts  of  individuals  have  always 
failed,  we  may  conclude,  that  nothing  can  more 
clearly  demonstrate  its  purity  and  excellence. 
Moreover,  although  various  motives  may  have 
of  late  years  urged   the  different  denominations 
of  J>issenters  to  unite  in  affording  it  the  most 
general  and  wide-spread   circulation,  when  not 
imi)ell(d    to    do   so   by   any   partiality  for  the 
Church   which  gave   it  birth  ;  yet,  we   may  be 
certain,  that  a  sincere  admiration  of  its  excel- 

*  Duriiifi  the  discussion  at  Hampton  Court,  King  James 
observed,  that  "  if  the  liislmps  were  out,  and  (he  Puritans  in,  he 
knew  what  would  become  of  his  supremacy." — Shepherd's 
Inlrod.  to  Com.  Prayer,  p.  Ixv. 

G    2 


Q4  OUR  AUTHORIZED  TRAMSLATTON 

lence  was  a  leading  one.  It  is,  therefore,  not 
going  too  far  to  say,  that  not  only  the  members 
of  the  Church  of  England,  but  those,  who  have 
detached  themselves  from  it,  regard  this  version 
of  God's  Word  as  an  invaluable  possession,  and 
that  the  veneration  for  it  is  universal. 

We  shall  now  find  the  case  reversed,  when 
we  consider  the  outcry,  which  Doctor  Milner 
says  existed  "  among  learned  (Roman)  Catho- 
lics." On  this  point,  I  most  cordially  acquiesce 
with  him.  There  are  numerous  testimonies  to 
prove,  that  t/iei/  were  incensed  beyond  measure 
at  every  attempt,  which  had  been  made  to  sup- 
ply the  people  with  the  Scriptures  in  their  mo- 
ther tongue.  Thus,  Tonstall,  Bishop  of  Dur- 
ham and  Sir  Thomas  More,  are  said  to  have 
been  *  *'  soj-e  aggrieved*^  at  Tyndal's  transla- 
tion of  the  New  Testament  being  published ;  to 
have  purchased  as  many  copies  of  it  as  they 
could  procure,  and  to  have  them  burnt  at  St. 
Paul's  Cross.  The  former  complained  that  he 
found  no  less  than  2000  corruptions  in  the  first 
English  Bible;  and  Bishop  Bedell  observes, 
that  the  latter  also  pretended  to  have  discovered 
errors  in  Tyndal's  New  Testament:  for  f  *'  that 
there  he  found  and  noted  wrong,  and  falsely 
translated,  above  a  thousand  texts  by  tale."  But 

*  Stkype's  Cranmer,  Book  i.  ch.  21, 

f  Burnet's  Life  of  Bishop  Bedell,  p.  386. 


OF    THE    BIBLE    VINDICATED.  85 

the  Bishop  afterwards  assigns  the  true  cause  for 
this  pretended  discovery  of  faults ;  inasmuch  as 
*  "  men,"  (scil.  the  Popish  Bishops),  "  were 
loth  these  books  should  be  read.  The  sub- 
stance of  them  was  such  as  could  not  be  con- 
trolled. The  next  remedy  was  to  forestal  the 
readers'  minds  with  a  prejudice  oi  falsification^ 
that  so  they  might  not  regard  them,  but  cast 
them  out  of  their  hands  of  their  own  accord.'* 
When  Tyndal's  New  Testament  was  brought 
into  England,  the  Popish  clergy  were  highly 
enraged  ;  some  said  f  "  that  it  was  not  possible 
to  translate  the  Scriptures  into  English ;  some 
that  it  was  not  Icnvful  for  the  laity  to  have  them 
in  their  wjoMer  tongue ;  and  some,  that  it  would 
make  them  all  heretics,  and  produce  rebellion." 
X  Lewis,  speaking  of  the  English  translation  of 
the  Bible  directed  to  be  made  by  King  Henry 
the  Eighth,  in  1542,  says,  "  that  it  was  cer- 
tainly the  greatest  eye-sore  to  the  Popish  party, 
and  that  which  they  knew  would  most  effec- 
tually beat  down  all  their  projects.  But  there 
was  no  opposing  it  directly,  for  the  king  was 
fully  resolved  to  have  it.  Therefore,  the  way  they 
took  was  this;  they  loaded  the  translation  with 
as  many  faults  as  they  could,  and  complainecj 

*  Ibid. 

t  Bishop   Watson's  Coll.  of  Tracts,  vol.  iii.  p.  70. 
X  HisTOKY  of  the  English  Translations  of  the  Bible,  pp.SS*^, 
335. 


rr 


86  OUR    AUTHORIZED    TRANSLATION 

of  it  as  being  very  erroneous  and  heretical.  They 
likewise  represented  to  the  king,  the  allowin 
the  people  the  free  use  of  it,  was  a  means  of  in- 
creasing faction  and  parties,  and  destroying  the 
peace  of  the  kingdom ;  that  the  common  jieople 
disputed  of  the  Scriptures,  and  quarrelled  about 
tliem  in  taverns,  and  ale-houses,  calling  one 
another  papist  and  heretic."  The  same  histo- 
rian informs  us,  that  Archbishop  Parker  was 
more  successful  in  effecting  an  English  transla- 
tion of  the  Bible,  than  his  predecessor  Cranmer. 
*  "  The  Popish  party,"  says  he,  "  having  done 
their  utmost  to  argue  and  force  the  Protestants 
out  of  their  religion,  and  nothing  able  to  gain 
their  end,  they  had  recourse  to  jest  and  ridi- 
cule." 

Both  t  Johnson  and  \.  Lewis  represent  Bishop 
Gardiner  to  be  no  less  severe  in  his  censures 
on  the  English  versions,  than  Doctor  Milner 
is  at  the  present  day ;  and  that  when  his  anger 
was  assuaged,  he  was  content  to  propose  a  list 
of  words  amounting  to  ninety-nine  in  number, 
which  he  had  collected  from  the  New  Testa- 
ment, alleging,  that  ||  "■  they  should  on  account 

*  Ibid. 

t  History  of  the  Translations  of  the  Bible  by  Anthony 
Johnson. 

X   Ut  supra. 

II  Viz.  Ecclesia,  Pamitentia,  Pontifex,  Confiictationes, parabola, 
panis  propositionis,  zizania,  olocaustu,  idolum,  apostolatus,  pas- 
cha,  Ifc. 


OF    THE    RIBLE    VINDICATED.  87 

of  the  majesty  of  the  matter  signified  by  them, 
either  be  left  untranslated,  or  Englished  with  as 
little  variation  as  possible."     And,  on  the  ap- 
pearance  of  our  received  English  version,  we 
find  the  outcry  thus  raised,  kept  up  with  un- 
abated violence.     Johnson   relates,  *  '-  that  the 
Romanists   much   excepted    liereat  ;    (viz.    the 
translation  of  1(311).    Was  their  translation,  say 
they,  good  before?    Why  do  they  now  mend 
it  ?  Was  it  not  good  ?  Why  was  it  obtruded  on 
the  people?"  Again,  he  says,  "  besides  this,  the 
Papists  take  exception;    because  in  our  new 
translation,  the  various  senses  of  the  words  are 
set  in  the  margin ;  this  they  conceive  a  shaking 
of  the    Scriptures,    such    variations    being    as 
suckers  to  be  pruned  oflT,  because  they  rob  the 
stock  of  the  text  of  its  due  credit  and  reputa- 
tion."    We  shall  find  a  still   later  period  dis- 
graced by  the  f  coarsest  invective  against,  and 
most  vulgar  abuse  of,   our  Authorized  Trans- 
lation of  the  Scriptures,  in  what  is  pompously 
styled,  the  Errata  of  the  Protestant  Bible;  and 
which  ;};  J)octor  Milner  dignifies  with  the  title 
of  Mr.  Ward's  learned  Polyglott.    In  verse  too, 
this  his  favourite  author,  vents  his  rage  in  his 

*  Watson's  Coll.,  vol.  ii.  p.  97. 

f  For  instances,  see   Preface  to  my  Answer   to  Ward's 
Errata  of  the  Protestant  I'iMc,  p.  xvii. 

J  See  his  Inquiry  into  certain  vulgar  opinions,  pp.  337,  31 1 . 


88      OUR  AUTHORIZED  TRANSLATION 

*  Satire  on  the  Reformation,  in  the  following 
way  : 

III  short,  this  last  translation  still 

Is  false,  coiTupt,  almost  as  ill 

As  those  crooked  rules  of  faith  they  had 

In  days  of  Elizabeth  and  Ned. 

It  would  be  an  endless  task  to  enumerate 
the  instances  of  Popish  abuse  and  calumny, 
which  have  been  heaped  on  our  received  Trans- 
lation, written  or  verbal,  from  Ward's  time  to  the 
present  day  ;  all  which  would  go  to  prove,  that 
the  spirit  of  rancorous  opposition,  which  was 
given  to  the  blessed  work  of  our  Reformers  at 
the  outset,  and  which  was  continued  to  their 
successors,  has  not  yet  died  away.  Indeed, 
when  we  call  to  recollection  the  tragical  end 
of  Tyndal,  who,  after  encountering  all  the  evils 
of  poverty,  exile,  and  imprisonment,  was  strang- 
led and  burnt;  as  well  as  the  various  dangers 
attendant  on  the  first  attempts  of  other  learned 
men  to  effect  an  English  Translation  of  the 
Scriptures  ;  when,  at  an  earlier  period,  we  find 
the  Church  of  Rome  wreaking  its  vengeance  on 
the  very  bones  of  Wickliff,  for  the  same  reason  ; 
and  when  we  connect  with  all  this,  the  eternal 
f  sameness  of  Popery  and  its  boasted  unchange- 

*  Ward's  Reformation,  Canto  iv.  p.  87. 
t  "  Semper  eadem  is  more  emphatically  descriptive  of  our 
religion  than  our  jurisprudence." — Plowden's  Case  Stated. 

Doctor 


OF    THE    BIBLE    VINDICATED.  89 

ableness;  should  we  be  surprised  at  the  virulence 
with  which  our  English  Bible  is  assailed  by  the 
Romish  clergy  of  the  present  day?  When,  there- 
fore, Doctor  Milner  affirms,  that  the  Roman  Ca- 
tholics raised  an  outcry  against  the  early  English 
versions  of  the  Bible  in  use,  on  the  accession  of 
King  James  I.,  I  entirely  concur  with  him  in 
opinion,  from  the  evidence  adduced. 

But,  says  Doctor  Milner,  the  King  himself 
''joined  in  the  outcry,  and  accordingly  ordered 
a  new  English  version  of  the  Bible  to  be  made." 
We  shall  presently  see  how  far  this  is  true  by 
reverting  to  the  subject  of  the  conference  at 
Hampton  Court.  I  should  first  observe,  that 
Doctor  Milner  makes  no  express  mention  of 
this  conference,  when  he  speaks  of  the  outcry ; 
but  that  he  evidently  alludes  to  it,  may  be  col- 
lected from  its  connexion  with  the  subjects  of 
which  he  treats,  as  well  as  from  the  arguments 
he  uses  in  his  other  publications.  For,  in  his 
Inquiry  into  certain  vulgar  opinions  respecting 
Ireland,  he  introduces  Ward  as  saying,  *"  that 
when  the  growing  sect  of  Puritans  began  to  turn 
these  corru|)tioiis,  (alluding  to  certain  texts  in 
the  Bibles  of  Henry  VJII.,  Edward  VI.,  and 
Elizabeth),  against  the  nieinbers  of  the  Church 

DocTou  TiioY  also  says,  "  The  rclif,Mous  opinions  of  Roman 
Catholics  being  uncfianf^cuiilc,  arc  applicable   to   all  limes." — 
Pastoral  Ltttcr,  Dublin,  17  93. 
*  Page  342. 


90     OUR  AUTHORIZED  TRANSLATION 

of  England,  particularly  at  the  famous  confer- 
ence of  Hampton  Court,  in  the  beginning  of 
the  First  James's  reign;  at  last  you   thought 
proper   to    correct  them."      *  [    have  already 
shewn,   that  the    conference  was  not   held  as 
Ward  and  Doctor  Milner  would  lead  a  person 
to  suppose,  for  the  discussion  of  biblical  cor- 
ruptions ;  but  for  matters  ^vhich  related  to  the 
doctrine  and  discipline  of  the  church :  that  the 
subject  of  a  new  translation  of  the  Bible  was 
no  more  than  introduced ;  and  that  the  men- 
tion of  it  seemed  to  arise  from  accident,  rather 
than  from  design.     And  as  to  the  general  cen- 
sure, which  Barlow  reports  King  James  to  have 
thrown  on  the  English  translations  of  the  Bible 
then  extant,  when  Doctor  Reinolds  moved  his 
Majesty,  that  there  might  be  a  new  one  made ; 
a  little  explanation  will  divest  it  of  the  severity 
which  Doctor  Milner  attaches  to  it.     On  the 
representation  being  made,  his  Majesty  expres- 
sed  a   wish,    t  *'  that  some   especiall   paines 
should  be  taken  in  that  behalf  for  one  uniform 
translation;  professing,  that  he  could  never  yet 
see  a  Bible  well  translated  in  English  ;  but  the 
worst  of  all  his  Majesty  thought  the  Geneva  to 
be."     Now,  in  order  that  the  King  should  pre- 

*  See  page  79. 

•f-  Sum  and  Substance  of  the  Hampton-Court  Conference, 
p.  46. 


OF    THE    BIBLE    VINDICATED.  91 

serve  consistency,  between  what  he  is  reported 
to  have  said  respecting  the  English  versions  of 
the  Bible,  and  the  First  and  Fourteenth  of 
the  rules  laid  down  for  the  learned  men,  whom 
he  appointed  to  execute  a  new  translation  ;  the 
expression  "  well  translated  in   English,"  can 
only  be  supposed  to  mean,  that  he  had  never  yet 
seen  an  English  Bible,  in  which  there  were  not 
passages  capable  of  being  better  translated.    A 
reference  to   the   rules   themselves  will  prove 
this.     For,   the  first  of  them,    according  to 
*  Burnet,  directs,  that  "the  Bishops'  Bible  be 
followed;  and  as  little  altered  as  the  truth  of 
the   original    will    permit ;"    while    the    Four- 
teenth prescribes,  "  that  the  following  trans- 
lations be   used,  when  they  agree  better  with 
the  text,  than  with  the  Bishops'  Bible."  viz, 
-)  Tyndal's, 
Matthew's, 
Coverdale's, 

Whitchurch's,  better  known   by  the 
name  of  Archl)ishop   Cranmer's,  or 
the  Great  Bible  ;  and 
The  Geneva. 
And,  when  tiie  king  pronounced  the  Geneva 
Bible,  which  had  been  translated  by  the  Eng- 
lish refugee  Calvinists  resident  in  that  city  the 

*  History  of  the  Reform.,  vol.  ii.  Part  ii.  p..%8. 
t  Ibid. 


92     OVU    AUTHORIZED  TRANSLATION 

worst  of  all ;  it  appears,  that  political  causes, 
which  were  totally  unconnected  with  its  merits 
as  a  translation,  induced  him  to  say  so.  His 
Majesty  contended,  that  some  of  the  notes  an- 
nexed to  the  Geneva  Bible  were  *'*  very  par- 
tial, untrue,  seditious,  and  savouring  too  much 
of  dangerous  and  traitorous  conceits ;"  and 
supported  his  opinion  from  the  marginal  note, 
**  Exodus,  i.  19,  which  alloiveth  disobedience 
to  the  king ;"  and  from  the  marginal  note,  *'  2 
Chronicles,  xv.  16,  which  taxeth  Asa  for  de- 
posing his  mother  only,  and  not  killing  her.'' 
His  Majesty  only  contended  publicly  against 
the  notes  of  the  Geneva  version.  But,  that  he 
became  better  informed  about  its  true  charac- 
ter, is  evident,  from  his  having  pointed  it  out 
to  the  new  translators  as  one  to  be  followed. 
What  their  opinion  of  it  was,  and  the  com- 
parative estimation  in  which  they  held  even  it, 
contrasted  with  the  Douay  Bible,  I  have  al- 
ready had  occasion  to  state. 

I  have  thus  disposed  of  the  royal  censure  in 
all  its  bearings,  and  trust  I  have  shewn,  that 
His  Majesty  did  not  consider  even  the  worst 
English  Bible  that  he  had  ever  seen,  in  the  way 
described  by  Doctor  Milner.  On  the  whole, 
therefore,  I  conclude,  as  the  Kings  instructions 

*  Sum  and  Substance,  ut  supra,  pp.  47,  48. 


OF    THE    BIBLE    VINDICATED.  9$ 

were,  that  the  Translators  should  use  the  above- 
named  six  versions,  but  particularly  Arch- 
bishop Parker's,  commonly  called  the  Bishops' 
Bible;  that  His  Majesty  no  more  censured  the 
English  versions  then  extant,  than  he  joined  in 
an  ''  outcry"  (which,  except  among  the  Popish 
party,  did  not  exist,)  under  the  idea  of  their 
being  "  notoriously  corrupt." 

The  general  charge,  therefore,  against  our 
Authorized  Translation  of  the  Bible  being  now 
disproved  ;  we  next  proceed  to  consider  the 
nature  of  the  particular  one  preferred  against  it 
by  Doctor  Milner. 

This  Gentleman  says,  *  *'  though  these  new 
translators  have  corrected  many  wilful  errors 
of  their  predecessors,  most  of  which  have  been 
levelled  at  (Roman)  Catholic  doctrines  and  dis- 
cipline ;  yet  they  have  left  a  sufficient  number 
of  these  behind  ;  for  which,  1  do  not  find,  that 
their  advocates  offer  any  excuse."  For  these 
errors,  he  refers  to  the  learned  Gregory  Martins 
Treatise  on  the  subject,  and  to  Mr.  Ward^s 
Errata  of  the  Protestant  Bible,  ft  is  strange, 
that  he  defends  generally  the  criticisms  of  the 
latter,  although  some  of  the  texts  which  he 
vindicated,  stand  altered  in  the  last  published 
Douay  edition  of  the  Old  Testament;  and  it  is 
still   more  strange,  that  he  should  approve  of 

*  Letter  ix.  p.  72. 


9-k  OUR  AUTHORIZED  TRANSLATION 

them,  for  no  other  reason,  than  because  of  the 
virulence  with  which  they  are  drawn  up.  But, 
to  what  a  low  and  degraded  state  must  biblical 
criticism  be  reduced  in  the  Romish  Church, 
when  Doctor  Milner,  one  of  its  most  learned 
divines,  sets  up  two  such  men  and  their  miser- 
able performances,  in  opposition  to  the  united 
talent  and  learning  of  Protestant  Europe  since 
the  Reformation  ?  For,  according  to  him,  all 
the  errors  which  they  have  pointed  out  remain 
uncorrected  in  our  Bibles  to  this  day,  for  which 
no  excuse  has  been  offered  !  And  yet,  at  the 
moment  he  utters  those  words,  he  alludes  to 
the  late  Doctor  Ryan's  Analysis  of  the  Er- 
rata, and  makes  express  mention  of  the  An- 
swer I  sent  forth  in  counteraction  of  Ward's 
misrepresentations,  as  containing  something 
more  than  an  excuse.  Doctor  Ryan's  Review 
of  Popish  cavils  is  decisive  to  the  extent  it  goes  ; 
and  with  respect  to  my  own  Answer  to  Ward, 
were  I  to  say,  that  I  only  palliated  errors,  in- 
stead of  repelling  charges,  I  should,  as  one  of 
the  humblest  advocates  of  our  English  versions, 
thereby  admit  the  justice  of  Doctor  Mtlner's 
imputation.  But,  I  will  say  more,  and  I  trust,  the 
readers  of  my  Answer  will  credit  the  truth  of  the 
assertion,  that  my  publication,  comprising  as  it 
does  the  ablest  arguments  of  our  most  learned 
divines,  contains  a  full  and  victorious  refutation 
of  pernicious  error ;  and  that  I  have  success- 


OF    THE    BIBLE  VINDICATED.  95 

fully  established  the  superior  merit  of  our  stand- 
ard English  text,  no  less  than  its  fidelity  to 
the  original,  iu  the  passages  criticised.  In  their 
hands  I  rest  my  cause,  while  [  join  issue  with 
Doctor  Milner  respecting  the  vindication  I  have 
given  of  two  passages  in  particular ;  the  one  re- 
lating to  the  celibacy  of  the  clergy,  and  the 
other  to  the  doctrine  of  Communion  under  one 
kind,  which,  on  the  authority  of  Martin  and 
Ward,  he  reproduces  as  erroneously  translated 
in  our  English  Bible. 

The  passages,  to  which  I  allude,  are  1  Cor. 
xi.  27,  and  Matt.  xix.  11.  These  very  ones  he 
has  spoken  of  in  his  *  Inquiry  as  "still  dis- 
figuring" the  Protestant  Bible.  In  his  present 
t publication,  he  says,  that  "though  these  cor- 
ruptions stand  in  direct  opposition  to  the  ori- 
ginal, as  the  Rev.  Mr.  Grier  and  Doctor  Ryan 
themselves  quote  it,  yet  these  writers  have  the 
confidence  to  deny,  that  they  are  corruptions  ; 
because  they  pretend  to  prove  from  other  texts, 
that  the  cup  is  necessary,  and  that  continency  is 
not  necessary y  In  my  Answer,  I  have,  as  I 
conceive,  satisfactorily  proved,  that  the  render- 
ing of  » 7ra»Tn  x'^pao-i,  Matt.  xix.  11,  is  j)C'rfectly 
correct  in  our  Authorized  V^ersion  of  the  Bible; 
as  being  most  agreeable  to  the  original,  as  well 
as   to  the  sense  in  which   SS.  Augjistine  and 

•  Page  346.  t  Letter  ix.  ut  supra.  , 


96      OUR  AUTHORIZED  TRANSLATION 

Jerome  understood  it.  T  liave  there  been  obli- 
ged to  convict  Doctor  Milncr  of  gross  igno- 
rance of  the  Greek,  no  less  than  of  a  fraudulent 
application  of  the  Latin  language,  in  which  he 
is  so  deeply  versed ;  and  have  proved  to  de- 
monstration, that  the  Rhemish  version  of  this 
very  text,  as  well  as  of  n  Si  »k  tyy.fXTivovrui,  1  Cor. 
vii.  9,  which  he  considers  of  "such  importance 
towards  settling  the  disputes  concerning  the pos- 
sibiUty  of  leading  a  continent  life"  is  erroneous. 
Should  the  reader  refer  to  the  *  pages  of  my 
Answer  pointed  out  below,  1  entreat  him  to 
notice,  whether  I  have  expressly,  or  by  implica- 
tion, said,  or  pretended  to  prove,  that  continency 
is  not  necessary.  In  truth,  the  abstract  ques- 
tion, whether  the  continency  of  the  clergy  was, 
or  was  not  necessary,  was  but  a  secondary  ob- 
ject with  me ;  my  chief  design  being  to  shew, 
that  an  ordinance  respecting  their  celibacy,  was 
rather  of  human,  than  of  divine  institution.  But, 
as  I  have  devoted  a  separate  f  chapter  to  this 
subject,  I  shall  not  now  further  enlarge  on  it. 

As  to  the  text,  1  Cor.  xi.  27,  on  which  the 
Romish  church  grounds  its  sacrilegious  prac- 
tice of  suppressing  half  the  Eucharist,  the  reader 
will  find  it  also  amply  treated  of  in  a  subse- 
quent J  chapter.  To  the  Protestant  interpreta- 
tion of  both  texts.   Popish  writers,  it  is  true, 

*  Pages  33,  55,  and  92.  f  xx.  %  Viz.  vii. 


OF    THE    BIBLE    VINDICATED.  97 

have,  from  the  peiiod  of  the  Reformation  to 
the  present  time,  made  objections;  but  these 
are  futile,  and  few,  compared  to  the  solid  rea- 
sons which  exist  for  our  preserving  them  un- 
altered. As  bearing  on  this  point,  I  may  be 
allowed  to  relate  an  anecdote  told  of.  Doctor 
Kilbie,  one  of  the  venerable  translators  of  our 
Bible.  *"  Doctor  Kilbie  and  Mr.  Sanderson 
going  together  to  that  parish-church  where  they 
were,  found  the  young  preacher  to  have  no 
more  discretion,  than  to  waste  his  time  in  ex- 
ceptions  against  the  late  translation  of  several 
words,  (not  expecting  such  a  hearer  as  Doctor 
Kilbie)  and  shewed  three  reasons,  why  a  parti- 
cular word  should  have  been  otherwise  trans- 
lated. When  evening-prayer  was  .  ended,  the 
preacher  was  invited  to  the  Doctor's  friend's 
house,  where,  after  some  other  conference,  the 
Doctor  told  him,  he  might  have  preached  more 
useful  doctrine,  and  not  have  filled  his  audi- 
tors' ears  with  needless  exceptions  against  the 
late  translation  ;  and  for  that  word,  for  which 
he  ofi'ered  to  that  poor  congregation  three  rea- 
sons why  it  ought  to  have  been  translated  as  he 
said,  he  and  others  had  considered  all  of  them, 
and  found  thiktken  more  considerable  reasons 
why  it  ic((s  translated  as  noa;  jninted.^  To 
Doctor  Milner  1  leave  the   apj)lication  of  tiie 

-  Watson's  Coll.  vol.  iii.  p.  9S. 
U 


98     OUR  AUTHORIZED  TRANSLATION 

foregoing  anecdote ;  for  it  certainly  affords  an 
useful  hint  to  a  self-confident  critic. 

If  we  now  direct  our  attention  from  the  con- 
sideration of  those  few  words  to  which  our  ad- 
versaries object,  as  being  erroneously  translated, 
to  the  merit  of  our  Translation  itself;  we  shall 
find,  that  for  the  three  critics,  viz.  Gregory  Mar- 
tin, Thomas  Ward,  and  Doctor  Milner,  who 
have  heaped  on  it  every  species  of  vitupera- 
tion and  abuse ;  not  merely  three,  but,  1  might 
almost  say,  three  hundred  of  the  soundest  di- 
vines, and  most  profoundly  learned  biblical 
scholars  might  be  enumerated,  who  have  ad- 
mired it  for  its  general  faithfulness,  the  severe 
beauty  of  its  language,  and  the  simplicity  of  its 
style  ;  and  have  pronounced  it  one  of  the  grand- 
est efforts  of  human  skill  and  industry.  That 
they  are  borne  out  in  the  high  encomiums  they 
have  passed  on  it,  will  appear,  if  we  but  advert 
to  the  peculiarly  happy  circumstances,  under 
which  it  was  executed  ; — the  flourishing  state  of 
the  Hebrew,  and  the  wholesome  vigour  at  which 
the  English  language  had  at  the  time  arrived. 
Every  prudent  and  wise  precaution  was  taken, 
in  employing  the  most  learned  men  of  the  day, 
and  in  laying  down  strict  rules  for  their  ob- 
servance ;  and,  as  the  same  may  be  said  with 
respect  to  those  who  prepared  the  version, 
which  immediately  preceded  it,  the  circum- 
stance of  our  last  English  Bible  being  a  revision 


OF    THE    BIBLE    VINDICATED.  99 

thus  derived,  is  an  advantage  in  itself  of  the 
greatest  value.  In  short,  executed  as  it  was, 
when  the  English  language  was,  as  I  have  al- 
ready observed,  fresh  in  its  native  simplicity 
and  vigour,  it  will  ever  be  esteemed  as  classical, 
and  regarded  with  awful  respect. 

Among  the  eminent  literary  characters  who 
have  given  their  attestations  in  favour  of  our 
Authorized  Translation  of  the  Bible,  the  follow- 
ing a|)pear  conspicuous.  Their  high  authority 
compel  us  to  believe,  that  it  is  a  faithful  ver- 
sion of  the  original  text,  and  that  one  more  per- 
fect, every  thing  considered,  is  neither  necessary, 
nor  expedient.  Most  of  them  are  to  be  found  in 
Archbishop  IVewcome's  and  Mr.  Todd's  lists  ; 
and,  although  Sir  James  B.  Burges  has  at- 
tempted, in  his  Reply  to  the  latter  gentleman's 
vindication  of  our  received  English  Bible,  to 
throw  discredit  on  many  of  the  authorities  here 
referred  to,  because  of  the  deistical  Geddes,  as 
the  worthy  baronet  styles  him,  being  associated 
with  ihem  ;  yet  Mr.  Todd  may  rest  secure  from 
censure  for  having  cited  Geddes,  since  the  Arch- 
bishoj)  did  not  hesitate  to  cjuote  his  opinion  on 
the  nierits  of  our  translation,  much  as  he  dis- 
approved of  his  religious  |)rin(ipl<;s. 

1.  As   to  Selden's  testimony,    *r   have  al- 
ready had   occasion  to  advert    to   it,  when  ic- 

*  See  page  75. 
11    -1 


100  OUR    AUTHORIZED    TRANSLATION 

pelling-  Doctor  Mil  tier's  attack  on  the  Bishops' 
Bible.  He  speaks  in  high  terms  of  the  process 
adopted  by  the  translators  in  forming  our  re- 
ceived version ;  and  surely,  his  opinion  of  the 
result  of  that  process  ought  to  have  great  weight. 
In  one  place,  he  says,  that  *"  there  is  no  book 
so  translated  as  the  Bible,"  and,  in  f  another, 
'*  that  the  last  English  translation  is  the  best  in 
the  world." 

2.  J  Fuller,  after  censuring  the  cavils,  which 
were  raised  against  our  English  Bible,  as  not 
being  furnished  with  the  notes  of  the  Geneva 
one,  commends  the  translators  in  these  para- 
phrased words  of  Scripture.  "  Wheresoever 
the  Bible  shall  be  preached  or  read  in  the  whole 
world,  there  shall  also  this,  that  they  have 
done,  be  told  in  memorial  of  them." 

3.  II  Walton  says,  in  the  Prolegomena  to 
his  Polyglott  Bible,  "that  among  the  Euro- 
pean translations  of  the  Scriptures,  King  James's 
one  (emmet)  stands  conspicuous."  And  again, 
in   his  §  Defence  of  his  Polyglott,  he  affirms, 


*  Table  Talk,  sect.  ii.  p.  2009.  f  Ibid,  p.  5. 

X  Church  History,  Book  x.  p.  59,  not  cited  by  Archbishop 
Kevvcome. 

II  "In  omnes  fere  Europae  hnguas  bodie  eloquia  sacra  tra- 

ducta  sunt --.-.  inter  omues   vero  eminet  Anglicana' 

Jacobi  Regis  auspiciis  multorum  virorum  doctorum  studiik 
claborata." — Prolegom.,  p.  5. 

§  CoNsiDEBATOR  Considered,  Preface,  p.  3. 


OF    THE    BIBLE    VINDICATED.  101 

•'  that  the  last  English  translation  made  by  di- 
verse learned  men  in  1611,  nmj  justlt/ co7itend 
with  any  now  extant  in  mii/  other  language  of 
Europe."  It  will  hardly  be  expected,  that 
Walton,  after  expressing  himself  in  this  de- 
cided manner  respecting  the  King's  Bible,  in- 
tended to  say,  that  the  church  of  Rome  was  ex- 
clusively the  true  church  of  Christ;  inasmuch 
as  it  has  denounced  as  heretical  and  corrupt 
this  very  version  of  the  Scriptures  which  he  ex- 
tols ;  yet,  strange  as  it  may  appear,  he  is  made 
to  do  so ;  since  Doctor  Milner  quotes  him  to 
this  effect,  in  the  following  passage.  ''"'The 
word  of  God  does  not  consist  in  mere  letters, 
whether  written  or  printed,  but  in  the  true 
sense  of  it,  which  no  one  can  interpret  better 
than  the  true  church,  to  w^hich  Christ  com- 
mitted this  sacred  deposit."  But,  that  this  Pro- 
testant Prelate  did  not  solely  mean  the  church  of 
Rome,  when  he  spoke  of  the  true  church,  ap- 
pears no  less  from  this  extract,  than  from  his 
general  reasoning. 

4.  tLiGHTiooT  remarks,  "with  what  sweet- 
ness and  harmony  the  New  Testament  doth 
follow  this  Translation,  .sometimes  even  besides 
the  letter  of  the  Old,  to  shew  that  He  that  gave 

*  IniD.   p.  34. 

t  Miscellanies,  Christian  and  Judaical,  p.  65. 


102  OUll    AUTHORIZED    TKANSLATION 

the  Old,  may  and  can  best  expound  it  in  the 
New." 

5.  *  Pole,  in  the  Prefiice  to  his  Synopsis, 
acknowledgjes  the  greatest  obligations  to  our 
English  Bible,  for  the  aid  which  it  afforded 
him  in  his  critical  labours,  and  speaks  of  it  as 
possessing  the  highest  merit. 

0.  t  PococK,  Hebrew  Professor  at  Oxford, 
in  1076,  says,  "  that  we  deservedly  follow  that 
translation  of  our  own,  it  being  such  and  so 
agreeable  to  the  original,  that  we  might  well 
choose  among  others  to  do  so,  were  it  not  our 
own,  and  established  by  authority  among  us." 

7.  X  LowTH  esteemed  the  English  transla- 
tion of  the  Bible,  "  the  best  standard  of  our 
language'^ 

8.  II  Swift  says,  "that  no  translation  our 
country  ever  yet  produced,  hath  come  up  to 
that  of  the  Old  and  New  Testament." 

9.  §MoNBODDo's  testimony  is  similar  to  that 
of  Lowth. 

*  "  In  qua  plurima  occurrunt  magna  eruditionis  peritiaijue 

in  Unguis  originariis quaeque  mihi  baud  raro  in  dif- 

hcillimis  textibus  maximo  erat  adjwnento  et  usui." — Page  5. 

t  PuEFACE  to  a  Commentary  on  tbe  Propbet  Micab. 

X  Introduction  to  Englisb  Grammar,  p.  93. 

|]  Proposal  for  improving  tbe  Engbsb  Tongue,  vol.  iv. 
p.  48. 

§  Okigjn  and  Progress  of  Language,  vol.  ii.  p.  141. 


OF    THE    BIBLE    VINDICATED.  103 

10.  *DuRELL,  after  observing-  that  our  Eng- 
lish translation  is  closer  to  the  original  than  any 
preceding  one,  as  hevn^^  free  from  the  affectation 
of  sublimity,  no  less  than  vulgarity  of  expres- 
sion, remarks,  "that  it  preserves  a  due  me- 
dium between  the  Geneva  and  Roman  versions, 
equally  avoiding,  on  the  one  hand,  the  scrupu- 
losity of  the  Puritans,  who  prefer  their  new 
terms,  such  as  luashing,  and  congregations  to 
the  old  ecclesiastical  ones,  baptism^  and  church\ 
and  on  the  other  hand,  the  obscurity  of  the 
Papists,  in  not  translating  such  words  as  azyme^ 
holocaust,  pasche,  <^c." 

Jl.  fGEDDES  speaking  of  the  high  estima- 
tion, in  which  the  translation  of  James  I.  is 
held  both  at  home  and  abroad,  says,  "  if  accu- 
racy, fidelity,  and  the  strictest  attention  to  the 
letter  of  the  text,  be  supposed  to  constitute  the 
qualities  of  an  excellent  version,  this  of  all  ver- 
sions must  be  accounted  the  most  excellent. 

12.  JGray  considered  it  one  of  unrivalled 
excellence,  lie  calls  it  *'  a  inost  wo?iclerJul  a?id 
incomparnhle  work,  equally  remarkable  for  the 
general  fidvlil If  of  its  construction,  and  theviag- 
nijiccnt  simpluiti/  of  its  language," 

J 3.  §  Professor  White  says  *'  as  the  style  of 

*  CniTirAL  Remakks  on  Jol),  Pref.  p.  6. 
t  PiiosPEc.TUS  of"  a  new  TraiLslalioi),   p.  92. 
X  Key  to  llie  Old  Teslarnetit,  Introd.  p.  43. 
§  Sermons^  pp.  8,  D.    Ed.  1779. 


104  OUK    AUTHORIZED    TRANSLATION 

the  vulgar  translation  is  not  only  excellent  in  it- 
self, but  has  taken  possession  of  our  ear,  to 
have  endeavoured  to  vary  from  it,  with  no  other 
design  than  that  of  giving  something  new  in- 
stead of  it,  would  be  to  disgust  the  reader." 

14,  15,  10.  *  Bishop  Bagot,  f  Lesley,  and 
J  Wakefield,  speak  of  our  authorised  trans- 
lation in  the  highest  terms  of  commendation ; 
although  writers  of  opposite  characters  and  de- 
nominations. 

17.  §Waterland  says,  *'  it  is  with  a  just 
veneration  to  the  memory  of  our  learned  and 
judicious  translators,  that  I  acknowledge  their 
version  in  the  main  to  be  faithful,  clear,  and 
solid." 

18.  II  Rennell  observes,  "  that  our  received 
version  exhibits  a  more  perfect  specimen  of  the 
integrity  of  the  English  language,  than  any  other 
writing  which  that  language  can  boast."  And 
*•  that  the  industry,  the  learning,  and  abilities, 
which  have  been  sedulously  exerted  in  collect- 
ing the  mistakes  and  inaccuracies  said  to  exist 
in  it,  have  scarcely  been  able  to  produce  a  single 
error,  by  which  any  material  fact  or  doctrine  is 
affected." 

19.  ^  Middleton  speaks  of  the  style  of  our 
present  version  as  being  "  simple,  harmonious, 

*  Charge,  p.  33.  f  Transl.  of  the  N.  T.,  Pref.  p.  5. 

+  Pref.  to  N.  T.,  p.  4.    §  See  Nf.wcome's  Hist.  View,  p.  396. 
II  DiscouKSE,  ix.  ^  Essay  on  the  Greek  Article,  p.  32. 


OF    THE    BIBLE    VINDICATED.  105 

and  energetic  ;  and  which  is  of  no  small  import- 
ance, use  has  made  it  familiar,  and  time  has 
rendered  it  sacred." 

20.  *  Knox  contends,  "  that  our  present 
translation  should  be  retained  in  our  churches, 
for  its  intrinsic  beauty  and  excellence.  The 
poetical  passages  of  Scripture  are  peculiarly 
pleasing.  The  language,  though  it  is  simple 
and  natural,  is  rich  and  expressive." 

21.  t  Archbishop  Newcome,  notwithstand- 
ing his  prejudices  in  favour  of  an  improved  ver- 
sion of  the  Scriptures,  observes,  "  that  that 
now  in  use  leaves  nothing  necessary  to  salva- 
tion in  doubt  or  uncertainty.  And  that  ?io 
translation,  even  of  a  single  book,  has  yet  ap- 
peared preferable  on  the  whole  to  the  received 
one." 

22.  J  Mr.  Whitaker  has  enhanced  the  value 
of  his  testimony  in  its  favour,  by  having  sunk 
beyond  the  possibility  of  recovery  Mr.  Bel- 
lamy's 7ieiv  version  in  the  estimation  of  the 
learned,  lie  thus  expresses  himself,  "  Our 
authorized  version  of  the  Bible  may  be  com- 
pared with  any  translation  in  the  world  without 

fear  of  inferiority ;  it  has  not  shrunk  from  the 
most  rigorous  examination,  it  challcmres  inves- 
tigation, and   in  spite  of  numerous  attempts  to 

*  Essays,  Literary  and  Moral,  No.  XLIX. 

t  Hist.  View,  p.  296. 

X  HisToniCAL  AND  CRITICAL  Enquiky,  pp.  93,  94. 


lot)         OUR    AUTHORIZED    TRANSLATION 

supersede  it,  has  liitherto  remained  unrivalled 
in  tlie  aflectioMS  of  the  country. " 

I  shall  content  myself  with  adding  the  tes- 
timonies of  two  other  distinguished  Divines — 
Bishops  Horsley  and  Magee.  The  former, 
in  the  Preface  to  his  translation  of  the  Prophet 
Hosea,  modestly  says,  "  I  desire,  that  it  may 
be  distinctly  understood,  that  1  give  my  trans- 
lation, not  as  one  that  ought  to  supersede  the 
use  of  the  public  translation  in  the  service  of 
the  church."  And  the  latter  of  those  learned 
Prelates  has  presented  us  with  such  a  mass  of  in- 
valuable criticism  on  a  *new  translation  of  the 
Book  of  Job,  and  such  incontestable  proofs  of 
its  erroneousness,  that  our  regard  for  our 
standard  version,  which  great  learning,  attested 
by  the  seal  of  episcopal  authority,  was  calcu- 
lated to  chill ;  has  been  quickened  into  affec- 
tion. Bishop  Stock,  the  author  of  the  new 
translation  of  that  ancient  book,  unwisely  pro- 
duced it  as  one,  which  ought  to  supersede  the 
translation  in  public  use.  I  say  unwisely^  be- 
cause he  acted,  in  this  instance,  so  unlike  the 
learned  Horsley ;  and  because  had  he  not  put 
forward  his  translation,  with  such  vain  preten- 
sions to  superiority,  it  might  have  slept  in  harm- 
less repose,  and  have  escaped  the  critical  acu- 

*  The  Book  of  Job,  newly  translated  by  the  Right  Rev.  J, 
Stock,  Bishop  of  Killala. 


OF    THE    BIBLE    VINDICATED.  107 

meii,  which  explored  its  unsoundness.  The 
Bishop  of  Raphoe,  thus  finally  dismisses  his 
subject  with  saying,  *  "  that,  in  his  opinion, 
the  necessity  for  a  new  English  version  of  the 
Book  of  Job  (if  any  be  supposed  previously  to 
have  existed)  has  in  no  particular  been  dimi- 
nished by  that,  which  has  been  given  to  the 
world  by  the  Bishop  of  Killala." 

Were  it  necessary  to  add  any  thing  to  evi- 
dence so  irresistible,  I  should  speak  of  the  esti- 
mation, in  which  our  Authorized  Translation  of 
the  Bible  has  been  held  by  all  sects,  who  have 
forsaken  our  church ;  and  that  when  church 
and  state  were  overthrown,  and  the  established 
religion  underwent  the  most  rancorous  persecu- 
tion, it  survived  the  general  convulsion,  and 
met  with  universal  respect  from  all  parties.  Of 
late  too,  the  strongest  testimony  in  its  favour 
has  been  manifested  by  every  denomination  of 
Protestants  in  their  desire  to  give  it  the  greatest 
publicity  and  most  wide-spread  circulation. 

Lastly.  If  the  reader  will  only  contrast  the 
foregoing  attestations,  with  the  puny  efforts 
which  have  been  made  to  impeach  its  fidelity; 
he  will  have  no  less  reason  to  admire;  this  glo- 
rious work,  than  the  talents  aiitl  integrity  of 
those  who  consummated  it.  lie  will  have  ad- 
ditional reason  to  bless  God,  that  he  has  been 

*  See  Discourses  on  the  Scriptural  Doctrines  of  Atonement 
and  Sacrifice,  vol.  ii.  pp.  132,   199. 


108   OUR  AUTHORIZED  TRANSLATION,  &C. 

rescued  from  the  horrors  of  Papal  darkness 
and  superstition,  by  their  labours,  as  well  as  by 
those  of  their  immediate  predecessors  ;  and  that 
a  direct  communication  has  been  laid  open  be- 
tween him  and  the  divine  fountain  of  truth  it- 
self For,  to  use  the  strong  and  appropriate 
language  of  our  translators;  *  "  how  shall  men 
meditate  in  that  which  they  cannot  understand? 
How  shall  they  understand  that,  which  is  kept 
close  in  an  unknown  tongue?"  Then,  after  pro- 
claiming the  triumph  they  obtained  through 
their  labours  over  their  Popish  adversaries,  they 
thus  conclude: — "  Translation  it  is,  that  open- 
etli  the  window  to  let  in  the  light;  that  breaketh 
the  shell,  that  we  may  eat  the  kernel ;  that 
putteth  aside  the  curtaine,  that  we  may  looke 
into  the  most  holy  place;  and  that  remooveth 
the  cover  of  the  well,  that  wee  may  come  by 
the  water." 

*  Preface  or  Epistle  to  the  Reader,  Transl.  1611. 


109 


CHAPTER  V. 

THE  DOCTRINE  OF  TRANSUBSTANTIATION  —  A 
PAPAL  NOVELTY. 

The  doctrine  of  Transiibstantiation,  like  every 
other  innovation  in  the  church,  was  gradual  in 
its  growth  and  progress  from  its  earliest  rise, 
until  its  final  adoption.  It  was  not  heard  of 
before  the  year  787,  at  the  second  Council  of 
Nice;  when  it  was  originally  introduced.  The 
period  in  which  it  was  first  proposed  in  set 
terms  was  peculiarly  favourable  to  its  reception. 
When  newly  invented  rites,  and  superstitious 
ceremonies  increased  in  number,  and  assumetl 
so  much  consequence  as  to  throw  the  vital  doc- 
trines of  Christianity  into  the  shade ;  it  was 
natural,  that  the  merit  and  importance  of  those 
few  simple  rites,  which  could  without  difliculty 
be  traced  to  our  Saviour's  connnands,  should 
be  extolled  in  the  most  extravagant  terms. 
I^angiiago,  which,  if  ajjpiicd  to  recent  institu- 
tions, might  not  have  been  listcncjd  to,  was  re- 
ceived wilh  so  much  the  greater  satisfaction  ; 
because,  if  it  elevated  th<:  dignity  of  tliost,'  holy 
mysteries,  it  contribuUMi,  at  the  same  time,  to 
exalt  the    character  of  the   priesthood.     The 


no  TRANSUBSTANTIATION, 

opinion  entertained  about  Transubstantiation 
was  conceived  to  be  so  powerful  an  engine  for 
effecting  this  purpose,  that  when  once  set  on 
foot,  it  could  not  but  be  favourably  received  by 
all  those,  who  sought  every  possible  pretext  to 
advance  their  credit  and  authority.  The  con- 
sequence was,  that  the  artifice  employed  for 
this  purpose,  became  ultimately  successful,  for, 
as  they  blasphemously  expressed  it — what  was 
impossible  for  those  to  do,  who  could,  by  utter- 
ing a  few  words,  make  God  ?  And,  as  one 
error  generally  produces  another;  the  error  in 
faith,  that  the  consecrated  bread  and  wine  were 
literally  the  body  and  blood  of  Christ,  led  to 
the  error  in  practice,  of  worshipping  them  as 
such.  The  clergy  also  were  so  numerous,  and 
their  contrivances  so  well  suited  to  the  credulity 
of  the  age,  that  they  easily  imposed  on  the 
weak  and  ignorant  multitude.  Besides,  the 
prevailing  taste  of  those  times  was  that  of  pomp 
and  pageantry ;  and  having  lost  the  beauty  of 
religion,  they  wished  to  compensate  for  the  de- 
fect by  outward  shew  and  ceremony. 

Such  was  the  state  of  things  in  the  eighth 
century,  at  which  time  the  sentiments  of  Chris- 
tians concerning  the  nature  of  Christ's  presence 
in  the  sacrament  were  various  and  contradic- 
tory: neither  Bishop  nor  Council  having  pre- 
viously determined  that  important  point.  But 
in  the  beginning  of  the  next  century,  the  doc- 


A    PAPAL    NOVELTY.  Ill 

trine  of  the  church  on  tliis  head  appeared  to 
assume  a  settled  shape,  at  the  hands  of  *  Pas- 
chasius  Radbert,  who,  at  least,  affected  to  ex- 
plain it  with  precision,  if  not  decide  on  it  with 
certainty.  This  view  of  the  subject  varies  little 
from  that  taken  of  it  by  the  late  f  Bishop  Por- 
teus,  the  present  J  Bishop  of  Winchester,  and 
by  other  writers,  who  have  preceded  them  on 
the  same  ground.  So  that  were  Doctor  Mil- 
ner  to  make  good  his  charge  against  these  mo- 
dern bishops,  as  he  styles  them,  on  the  score 
of  ignorance,  it  would  lie  with  equal  force 
against  Usher,  Claude,  Burnet,  and  others  of 
equal  eminence,  as  shall  be  now  shewn. 

Thus,  to  begin  with  §  Usher.  He  maintains, 
*'  that  Paschasius  was  one  of  the  first  setters 
forward  of  this  doctrine  in  the  west,"  and 
grounds  his  assertion  on  antecedent  authorities, 
to  which  he  refers.  ||  Claude  observes,  *'  that 
that  monk  j)roposes  his  opinion  in  the  way  of 
paradox,  as  if  he  were  about  to  say  something 
extraordinary  and  surj)rising  by  the  words,  et 
ut  mirahilins  lofjuar,  i^c.  ;  yet  he  never  vaunt- 
ed, that  his  doctrine  was  that  of  the  church, 

♦  See  MosH.  Eccl.  Hist.  vol.  ii.  p.  340. 

f  Confutation  of  the  Errors  of  tlie  Church  of  Rome,  p.  3S. 

I  Elf.m.  of  Thf.ol.,  vol.  ii.  p.  4S0. 

§  Essay  on  the  Real  Presence,  p.  SO. 

II  DocTKiNE  OF  THE   EucnAiusT,   Book  vi.    pp.  i314,    224c. 
Ed.  I6b4. 


J  12  TRANSUBSTANTIATION, 

and  frankly  acknowledges,  tbafj  before  his  time, 
men  were  ignorant  of  it."   *  Burnet  affirms,  that 
antecedent  to  the  year  754  of  the  Christian  era, 
the  Sacrament  of  the  Lord's  Supper  "  was  not 
considered  to  be  any  thing  else,  than  ihejigure 
or  image  of  Christ's  body."     Mosheim's  testi- 
mony has  the  same  bearing,   and,  according  to 
Doctor    Milner,    his   evidence,    as   being   that 
of  a  fair  historian,  is  admissible.     And  even 
t  Sirmond  the  Jesuit,   in  his  life  of  Radbert, 
relates,  "  that  this  monk  was  the j^r5^,  who  ex- 
plained the  genuine  sense  of  the  Catholic  church 
in  this  mystery."     I  might  enlarge  this  cata- 
logue by  the  names  of  J  Bramhall,   Laud,  An- 
drews, &c.  &c.     By  such  high  authorities,  are 
Bishops    Porteus   and    Tomline   borne  out  in 
what  they  say  respecting  Radbert  being  the^V*^ 
ivriter  who  started  this  doctrine ;  and  yet  are 
they  exclaimed  against  by  Doctor  Milner,  as 
if  no  historical  record  of  what  they  relate  were 
in    existence.     It   is    truly   tender  in    him,    no 
doubt,  to  express  his   apprehensions,  lest  the 
character  of  the  Church  of  England  for  eccle- 
siastical   literature    should    suffer   throughout 
Europe,  should  it   be  said,  "  that  such  posi- 
tions respecting  Radbert,  had  been  published 
by  one  or  two  of  its  most  celebrated  Prelates." 
But  let  me  speak  peace  to  the  gentle  Doctor's 

*  Article  xxviii.  t  Vita  Pasch.  Radbert. 

X  See  Chap.  vi.  in  loc. 


A    PAPAL    NOVELTY.  113 

fears  on  this  head,  as  those  Prelates  ground 
their  statements  not  only  on  the  positive  evi- 
dence of  tliose  to  whom  I  have  referred  ;  but 
on  the  negative  evidence  to  be  derived  from  the 
silence  of  the  ancient  fathers,  councils,  and  his- 
torians on  the  subject ;  and  unless  he  confines 
knowledge,  as  he  does  salvation,  to  those  of 
his  own  communion,  he  must  admit,  that  the 
most  learned  Protestant  Divines  of  the  present 
day  have,  like  them,  declared  Transubstantia- 
tion  to  be  of  modern  invention,  a  novelty,  and 
a  heterodoxy  of  the  Church  of  Rome. 

Transubstantiation    has    always    constituted 
the  leading  point  of  controversy,  as  being  that 
which  forms  the  chief  difference  between  the 
Churches  of  England  and  Rome.     It  is   that 
which  recurs  every  day  in  the  Romish  Cluirch. 
Most  of  its  other  doctrines  are  not  indis[)ens- 
able  in  their  operation  ;  but,  an  attentiance  at 
mass,  said  as  it  is  daily  at  every   altar,  is  en- 
joined, if  not  enforced,  as  a  regular  part  of  de- 
votion: while  the  celebration  of  it  is  esteemed 
one  of  the  most  prominent  acts  of  tiic  Popish 
clergy.     As,   therefore,  our  denial  of  Transub- 
stantiation is  tlie  cliief  heresy,  which  they  ob- 
ject to  us,  so  it  is  against  their  faith  and  prac- 
tice respecting   this  important  tenet,    that  we 
enter  our  most  solemn   protest;  because,  that 
next  to  its  doctrine  of  infallibility,  it  is  what 
the  Church  of  Rome  most  highly  values  ;  as 

1 


114  TRANSUKSTANTIATION, 

constituting  the  sul)limest  part  of  its  worship, 
and  the  chief  subject  of  its  devotions;  as  inte- 
resting in  a  greater  degree  both  clergy  and 
laity  in  its  support,  than  any  other;  and  as 
being  more  the  object  of  their  study,  and  for 
which  they  so.  confidently  appeal  to  the  primi- 
tive fathers  and  to  the  Scriptures. 

The  Church  of  Rome  has  declared,  by  more 
than  one  solemn  act,  that,  in  the  Sacrament 
of  the  Eucharist,  the  bread  and  wine  are  so 
changed  into  the  body  and  blood  of  Christ, 
that  their  substance  is  wholly  annihilated  ;  that 
the  accidents  or  species,  (i.  e.  the  appearances,)  of 
those  elements  alone  remain,  and  that  their 
substance  is  the  very  body  and  blood  of  Christ, 
even  that  very  body  which  suffered  upon  the 
cross.  When  Berenger  was  forced  to  retract 
his  heretical  opinions  respecting  the  Eucharist, 
the  doctrine  of  Christ's  corporal  presence  in  the 
sacrament  was  first  pronounced  an  article  of 
faith,  in  a  council  held  at  Rome  by  Pope  Ni- 
cholas II.,  A.  D.  1059;  but  was  not  generally 
acknowledged  as  such  by  the  Church.  This 
council  declared,  that  after  the  consecration  of 
the  bread  and  wine,  the  true  body  and  blood 
of  Christ  were  in  reality,  and  according  to  the 
testimony  of  the  senses  (sensualiter),  *  ^^ handled 
by  the  priests,  and  broken  and  crushed  by  the 

*  Sacerdotum  manibm,  tractari,  frangi,  et  fiddium  dentibus 
utteri. — Gratian.  De  Consecrat.  Dist.  ii.  c.  42. 


A    PAPAL    NOVELTY.  il5 

teeth  of  the  faithful^  This  doctrine  was  sub- 
sequently asserted  with  greater  effect,  by  the 
*fourth  council  of  Lateran,  A.  D.  1216,  which 
set  forth,  that  f  "  the  bread  is  transubstantiated 
into  the  body,  and  the  wiue  into  the  blood  of 
Christ;"  thus  preserving  a  distinction  between 
the  bread  and  wine,  and  the  body  and  blood. 
The  council  of  Florence,  in  1439,  added,  J"  that 
the  ivhole  Christ  is  contained  under  the  species 
of  the  bread,  and  the  whole  under  the  species 
of  wine ;  and  that  in  every  particle  of  the  con- 
secrated wafer,  and  of  the  consecrated  wine, 
whenever  a  separation  takes  place,  there  is  the 
whole  Christ.''  But  its  final  confirmation  was 
reserved  for  the  famous  council  of  Trent  in  the 
sixteenth  century,  which  unequivocally  affirms, 
§  *'  that  in  the  blessed  Sacrament  of  the  Eucha- 
rist, after  the  consecration  of  the  bread  and 
wine,   our  Lord   Jesus  Christ  is   tr%ily,  really, 

*  "In  this  council,"  says  Gibbon,  "Innocent  III.  may 
boast  of  the  two  most  sitjnal  triumphs  over  sense  and  huma- 
nity :  the  estahlishnient  of  Trunsubstantiation,  and  the  origin  of 
the  inquisition." — Dfxline  and  Fall,  vol.  ii.  p.  152. 

t  "  Traii'>ub>taritiatis  pane  in  corpus,  ct  vino  in  sanguinem 
j)Otestate  <livinil." — Cauasslt.  IIi!<l.  Concil. 

X  "  Sub  qudlibct  rpioque  parte  ho8ti<x>  consecrata;,  et  vini 
conaecrati,  separatione  facii,  totua  est  Chri.-^tus." — Binnii  Con- 
cil., lorn.  V.  pars  I.  [».  (ill. 

§  "  Dom.  N.  I.  C.  vere,  realitcr,  ac  substanlialitcr,  sub  specie 
illarum  rcrum  sensibiliujn  contineri." — luiu. 

I   '2 


116  TRANSUBSTANTIATION, 

and  sxihstavtinlli/  contained  under  the  appeaf- 
ances  (species),  or  accidents  of  the  sensible 
things."  It  further  dechires,  *'' i\i?d  ihe  whole 
substance  of  the  bread  is  converted  into  the 
body,  and  the  ivhole  substance  of  the  wine  into 
the  blood  of  Christ ;  and  that  the  most  holy 
Sacrament  is  to  be  honoured  with  the  highest 
degree  of  worship,  even  that  expressed  by  La- 
TRiA  ;"  and  f'that  itis  wo^  the  less  to  be  adored 
for  having  been  instituted  by  oiir  Lord  in  order 
to  be  taken."  AH  this  doctrine  is  enjoined  by 
the  council,  under  the  penalty  of  the  accus- 
tomed anathemas,  as  its  J  Canons  shew. 

So  much  for  the  doctrine  of  Transubstanti- 
ation  and  its  consequents,  as  laid  down  by  the 
council  of  Trent.  To  them  are  opposed  the 
official  declarations  of  the  Church  of  England; 
1  speak  of  its  xxviiith,  xxixth,  xxxth,  and 
xxxist  Articles.     On  comparing  those  docu- 

*  "  Per  consecrationem  panis  et  vini  conversionem  fieri 
<ofms  substantiae  panis  in  substantiain  corporis  Christ),  D.N. 
et  totius  substantiae  vini  in  substantiam  sanguinis  ejus." — Ibid. 

•\  "  Neque  idea  minus  est  adorandum,  quod  fuerit  a  Christo 
Donriino  ut  sumatur  institutum." — Ibid. 

:|:  Canon  I. 
"  If  any  one  shall  deny,  that  in  the  most  holy  Sacrament 
of  the  Eucharist,  there  is  truly,  really,  and  mbstantially  con- 
tained the  body  and  blood  of  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  together 
•with  his  soul  and  divinity,  and  consequently  the  whole  Christ ; 


A    PAPAL    NOVELTY.  J 17 

inents  with  each  other,  it  will  be  at  once  per- 
ceived, that  although  both  churches  agree  about 
Christ's  real  presence  in  the  Sacrament;  yet 
that  thej'  possess  a  different  idea  of  that  pre- 
sence. In  fact,  the  great  dispute  between  them 
relates  to  the  nature  of  it.  They  say,  that 
Christ  is  present  substantially ;  after  the  manner 
of  a  body  :  we  maintain,  that  He  is  only  spiri- 
tually present.  Neither  of  us  can,  therefore, 
use  the  words  real  presence  as  descriptive 
of  our  differences,  or  of  our  peculiar  opinions, 
without    further    illustration;   unless    through 

but  shall  say,  that  he  is  in  it  only  as  in  a  sign  or  by  a  figure, 
or  virtually  J  let  him  be  accursed." 

Canon  II. 

Or;  "that  the  substance  of  the  bread  and  wine  remains 
together  with  the  body  and  blood  of  Christ,  or  that  a  miracu- 
lous conversion  of  them  takes  place  /•*  Anathema. 

Canon  III. 
Or;  "  that  the  whole  Christ  is  contained  under  each  specie, 
and  under  every  individual  particle  of  each  specie ;"  Ana- 
thema. 

Canon  IV. 
Or ;  "  that   in   the  particles   consecrated,   which   are   re- 
served after  the  communion,  the  true  body  of  our  Lord  does 
not  remain  ;"  Anathema. 

The  sixth  Canon  enforces  the  worship  and  procession  of 
the  host  ;  and  the  eighth  denounces  thosr  who  say,  that 
Christ  is  calen  after  a  spiritual  manner,  and  not  really. 


ll»  TRANSUBSTANTIATION, 

ignorance,  or  with  an  intention  to  deceive.  But, 
as  I  resume  this  subject  in  the  next  Chapter,  I 
shall,  for  the  present,  pursue  it  no  farther. 

It  is  not  possible,  either  that  Doctor  Milner 
believes  it  himself,  or  expects  that  others  should 
believe,  that  the  divines  of  the  Church  of  Eng- 
land have  recourse  to  *'' disingenuous  artijice" 
whenever  they  discuss  the  subject  of  the  Eucha- 
rist ;  because  he  must  be  conscious,  that  no- 
thing distinguishes  them  so  much  from  their  ad- 
versaries, as  candour  and  fair  dealing.  If  they 
use  stronger  language  in  condemning  those  un- 
scriptural  doctrines  of  the  Romish  Church, 
which  he  enumerates  ;  namely,  those  relating 
to  "the  veneration  of  saints,  pious  images,  in- 
dulgences, and  purgatory,"  than  what  they  ap- 
ply to  similar  conundrums  of  that  church : 
they  are  neither  guilty  o^faheliood,  nor  do  they 
betray  a  malevolent  spirit  towards  their  Roman 
Catholic  brethren:  inasmuch  as  they  only  ex- 
press what  they  are  bound  to  do : — the  senti- 
ments of  the  church,  to  which  they  belong,  on 
these  points.  In  proof  of  this,  if  we  refer  to  our 
LITURGY,  ARTICLES,  and  HOMILIES,  we  shall 
find,  that  they  contain  more  emphatic  terms  than 
any  we  use  in  our  ordinary  writings  against  the 
usages  and  doctrines  of  the  Church  of  Rome; 

*  Letter  xxxvi.  p.  39. 


A    PAPAL    NOVELTY.  119 

such  as  anti-christian,  heretical,  idolatrous. 
riiey  condemn  "  the.  fond  things  vainly  invented'' 
by  that  church,  which  are  as  ^'repugnant  to  the 
word  of  God,  as  they  are  to  Christ's  ordinance 
and  commandment."  They  censure  its  "  blas- 
phemous fables  and  datigerous  deceits,^  and  ac- 
cuse it  of  "  arrogance  and  impiety."  By  our 
ordination  vows,  upon  the  faith  of  which  we 
have  been  received  into  the  ministry  of  the 
church,  it  becomes  our  bounden  duty  *"to  be 
ready  with  all  faithful  diligence  to  banish  and 
drive  away  all  erroneous  and  strange  doctrines 
contrary  to  God's  word  ;"  and,  if  in  the  fulfil- 
ment of  those  vows,  we  manifest  a  feeling  cor- 
respondent to  the  importance  of  our  obliga- 
tions, due  allowances  should  be  made.  Zeal, 
and  the  warmth  of  our  language,  should  be  as- 
cribed to  the  proper  motive,  and  never  be  said 
to  originate  in  malevolence  towards  our  Roman 
Catholic  brethren. 

Dr.  Milner's  next  accusation  is,  that  we  mis- 
represent Roman  Catholics,  j  "  as  worshippers 
of  bread  and  wine,  in  the  sacrament,  and  there- 
fore as  idolaters  ;"  at  the  same  time  that  we  are 
aware,  that  they  firmly  believe,  "  that  there  is 
710  bread,  nor  wine ;  but  Christ  alone,  true  God 
as  well  as  man,  jiresent  in  it."     He  then  adds, 

*  Ordemng  of  Pbiusts.  |-  Lettlk  xxxvi.  p.  .19. 


I'lO  TRANSUBSTANTIATION, 

"  granting  that  we  are  mistaken  in  this  belief, 
the  worst  we  could  he  charged  ivith  is  an  errors 
in  supposing-  Christ  to  be  where  he  is  not;  and 
nothing  but  imcharitable  calumny  could  accuse 
us  of  the  heinous  crime  of  idolatry."  His  illus- 
tration  of  this  point  is  very  remarkable.  *  "  Let 
us  suppose,"  says  he,  "  that  being  charged  with 
a  loyal  address  to  the  sovereign,  you  presented 
it  by  mistake  to  one  of  his  courtiers,  or  even 
to  an  inanimate  figure  of  him,  which  for  some 
reason  or  other  had  been  dressed  up  in  royal 
robes,  and  placed  on  the  throne,  would  your 
heart  reproach  you,  or  would  any  sensible  per- 
son reproach  you  with  the  guilt  of  treason  in 
this  case?" 

It  is  much  to  be  lamented,  that  a  gentleman 
like  Dr.  Milner,  who  possesses  such  a  versati- 
lity of  talent,  so  much  learning  and  such  acute 
observation  on  every  other  subject,  should  ap- 
pear to  betray  symptoms  of  an  impaired  intellect 
in  religious  concerns  alone.  He  affords  a  con- 
vincing proof  to  what  a  low  ebb  a  man's  reason 
may  be  degraded,  whose  mind  is  overcast  by 
the  mists  of  superstition.  1  should  wish  to  know, 
from  him,  what  similitude  exists  between  his 
error,  in  supposing  a  courtier,  or  an  inanimate 
figure  decked  out  in  the  robes  of  royalty,  to  be 

•  Letter  xxxvi.  p.  40. 


A    PAPAL    NOVELTY.  J  21 

the  sovereign,  and  in  consequence  of  that  sup- 
position, in  his  presenting  either  of  them  with 
an  address  intended  for  the  sovereign  himself; 
and  a  solemn  act  of  religious  worship  ?     There 
can  be  no   resemblance  discovered   between  a 
solitary  mistake  produced  by  a  person's  agita- 
tion in  the  bustle  of  a  court,  and  the  regular 
and  systematic  observance  of  a  rite  deliberately 
adopted,  and  pertinaciously  defended,  during  a 
succession  of  ages.     Besides,  no  two  things  can 
be  more  unlike,  than  homage,  or  civil  worship, 
to  man,  and   adoration  to  God.     But,   let  us 
suppose,  that  the  person  charged  with  the  ad- 
dress, after  having  been   made  personally  ac- 
quainted with  his  sovereign,  and  his  own  duty 
as  a  subject,  and  further  told  that  the  sovereign 
was  jealous  about  the  honour  and  respect  due 
to  him  ;  should  his  subject,  1  say,  after  this, 
still   jjersevere  in  paying  the  courtier,   or   the 
senseless  statue  in  the  niche,  the  homage  due 
to  the  other ;  could  he,   in  such  a  case,   plead 
ignorance  as  his  excuse,  or  exculpate  himself 
from  the  suspicion,   if  not  from  the  charge   of 
disloyalty  r     When   Sysigambis,   the  Queen  of 
Darius,  fell  at  the  feet  of  lirpha;stion,  whom 
she  mistook  for  Alexander,  she  was  not  by  that 
one  error  guilty  of   treason.     80,  neither  were 
the  people,  who,  while* in  doubt,  probably  wor- 


#  <t 


And  all  men  tnused  in  their  hearts  of  John,  whether  he 


122  TRANSUBSTANTIATION, 

shipped  John  the  Baptist  as  Christ,  to  be  coH' 
sidered  as  idolaters,  in  consequence  of  their 
mistake.  One  overt  act  committed  in  this  way 
will  not  constitute  an  offence  of  the  kind  ;  but 
a  deliberate  and  determined  repetition  of  it, 
after  it  had  been  forbidden.  So,  with  regard  to 
such  a  sin  as  idolatry,  a  man's  misconception  of 
it,  may  with  a  merciful  God,  who  is  slow  to 
anger,  and  ready  to  pardon,  operate  in  his  fa- 
vour; but  it  never  can  make  that  innocent,  which 
is  in  itself  sinful. 

But,  observes  Doctor  Milner,  "  our  adversa- 
ries are  perfectly  aware,  that  we  believe  as  an. 
article  of  faith,  that  there  is  no  bread  nor  wine, 
but  Christ  alone,  true  God,  and  true  man," 
present  in  the  sacrament.  By  this,  he  means, 
that  the  members  of  his  church  inwardly  wor- 
ship  no    creature,    and    pay   divine   adoration 

were  the  Christ,  or  not."i — Luke,  iii.  15.  The  Rev.  Mr.  Le 
Mesurier  exposed  this  plea  when  urged  by  Mr.  Fletcher,  in 
his  Remarks  on  the  Bishop  of  Durham's  Grounds  of  separa- 
tion from  the  Church  of  Rome.  Harding,  the  Jesuit,  at  the 
time  of  the  Reformation,  relied  on  a  more  curious  instance,  in 
his  controversy  with  Bishop  Jewell,  viz.  "  that  Jacob  was  not 
guilty  of  adultery,  when  he  was  put  to  bed  to  Leah,  thinking  her 
to  be  Rachel." — See  Jewell's  Reply,  p.  30.5.  It  is  admittech 
that  Jacob  was  imposed  on  ;  would  Doctor  Milner.  therefore, 
allow,  that  the  people  are  equally  deluded  in  the  celebration 
of  the  mass  ?  However,  we  see,  that  every  illustration,  argu- 
ment, or  remark  used  by  him,  has  had  its  parallel  in  some  of 
the  antiquated  works  of  former  controvertists. 


A    PAPAL    NOVELTY.  123 

only,  as  they  conceive,  to  God.  But,  how  can 
the  sincerity  of  their  behef,  that  the  bread  and 
wine  are  really  God,  lessen  the  idolatry ;  inas- 
much as  it  is  in  the  error  of  the  belief,  as  well 
as  in  the  falsehood  of  the  doctrine,  that  idola- 
try consists  r  Were  sincerity  of  belief  a  palli- 
ation, it  is  such  as  the  ignorant  Egyptian  might 
urge,  since  he  is  as  firmly  persuaded  about  the 
divinity  of  the  crocodile,  as  the  Roman  Catho- 
lic is  respecting  his  breaden  God. 

Besides,  on  Doctor  Milner's  principle,  no 
reason  can  be  assigned  for  any  external  sign,  or 
act  of  worship;  nor  had  the  Almighty  any  rea- 
son for  attaching  such  importance  to  acts  and 
signs,  as  we  find  He  has  done  in  his  law  ;  nor 
for  directing  that  they  should  only  be  exhibited 
in  honour  of  Himself;  nor  for  his  issuing  the 
second  commandment.  All  these  co!isidera- 
tions  are  thrown  aside  by  the  Doctor,  as  if  the 
adoration  of  the  bread  and  wine  in  the  Eucha- 
rist was  only  an  act  of  the  mind,  and  that  bow- 
ing down  before  them  was  not  idolatry  in  the 
outward  ticX.  J5«llarmine  declares,  *"  that  ado- 
ration belongs  even  to  the  symbols  of  bread  and 
wine,  as  being  oik"  with  Christ  whom  they  con- 
tain."    Another  writer  of  the  same  class  ob- 


*  Atlorationem  ad  symhula  cliatii  panis  et   viiii  iitrtiiRTC- 
Df.  Eucm.  lib.  iv.  c.  2y. 


124  TRANSUBSTANTIATION, 

serves,  * "  that  the  council  of  Trent  does  not 
say,  that  the  Sacrament  is  to  be  adored  with 
Latria,  but  Christ  in  the  Sacrament."  And  a 
third,  t "  that  not  only  Christ,  but  the  whole 
visible  Sacrament  must  be  adored  by  one  and 
the  same  worship ;  because  it  is  one  consisting 
of  Christ  and  the  species."  Thus,  on  their  own 
shewing,  the  Latria,  which  is  the  highest  pos- 
sible worship,  is  offered  to  the  external  and  visi- 
ble, as  well  as  to  the  internal  part  of  the  Sacra- 
ment. The  propriety  of  this  is  defended  by 
Bellarmine,  on  the  ground,  J  "that  they  who 
adored  Christ  when  on  earth,  adored  not  only 
Himself,  but  after  a  certain  manner,  the  gar- 
ments which  He  wore."  It  cannot  here  escape 
notice,  that  Bellarmine's  argument  proves  too 
much ;  for,  according  to  it,  the  ||  wise  men  must 
have  been  justified  in  worshipping  the  very 
clothes  in  which  he  was  wrapped,  as  well  as 
the  child  Jesus    Himself  when   lying   in   the 

*  Non  dicit  Concil.  Triden.  Sacramentum,  sed  Christum  in 
Sacramento,  Latria  adorandum. — St.  Clara  de  Grat.  p.  308. 

•f  Non  solum  Christum,  sed  totum  visihile  Sacramentum, 
unico  cultu  adorari,  quia  est  unum  constans  ex  Christo  et 
speciehus. — Suarez  in  Theol.  Quest.  79. 

X  Qui  Christum  in  terris  vestitum  adorabant,  non  ipsum 
solum,  sed  etiam  vestes  quodam  tnodo  adorabant, — De  Euch, 
Venerat. 

II  See  that  invaluable  Repository  of  Popish  confutation,— 
the  Preservative  against  Popery,  Tit.  vii.  c,  y.  p.  342. 


A    PAPAL    NOVELTY.  125 

manger.     The  people  must  have  been  so  too, 
in  worshipping  the  ass,  on  which  Christ  rode, 
as  well  as  Christ  Himself;  not,  to  be  sure,  on 
account  of  the  animal,  but  of  the  burthen  which 
he  bore ! !     The  sentiments  of  those  expositors, 
and  the   reasonableness    of  the   worsliip,  had 
been,  about  the  same  time,  oflScially  declared* 
by  the  council  of  Trent  (sess.   13,)  with    the 
usual   ANATHEMA  agaiust  those,  who   thought 
or  spoke  differently.    If,  therefore,  we  only  bear 
in  mind,  that  idolatry  is  the  believing  that  to 
be   God,  and   bowing  down  to   that   as  Giod, 
which  is  not  God;  we  must  be  convinced,  that 
neither  firmness  of  persuasion,  nor  sincerity  of 
belief,  can  extenuate  the  idolatry  of  such  wor- 
ship ;  and  that,  whether  the  bread  and  wine  be 
worshipped  as  God,   or  God    be  worshipped 
under  the  form  of  bread  and  wine ;  it  is  as  much 
a  violation  of  God's  commandment  to  bow  down 
to  an  image  of  bread,  as  it  is  to  one  of  brass  or 
wood. 

"  The  worst'''  we  can  be  charged  with,  says 
Doctor  Milner,  is  '*  only  aw  error"  in  suppo- 
sing Christ  to  be  where  he  is  not.  Might  not 
the  idolatrous  Jews,  who  worshipped  the  molten 
calf  have  excused  themselves  in  the  same  way  ? 
By  such  worship,  they  did  not  intend  to  withdraw 
their  allegiance  from  the  true  God,  who  brought 
them  out  of  the  land  of  Egy|)t;  nor  did  they 
conceive  the  gold,  which  they   adored,  to   be 


126  TRANSUBSTAMIATION, 

God,  as  the  *  feast  appointed  to  the  Lord  testi- 
fies. The  same  thing-  may  be  said  of  the  Ma- 
nichaeans,  who  adored  the  f'sun  and  moon,  al- 
though Christ  was  the  declared  object  of  their 
worship.  These  visionaries  absurdly  supposed, 
that  Christ  had  placed  his  tabernacle  in  the 
sun,  and  that  what  appeared  to  be  the  sun,  was 
not  so  in  reality.  But,  to  go  a  step  farther,  is 
it  not  such  a  plea  as  the  Heathens  might  urge, 
and  such  as  their  philosophers  have  often  urged  ? 
Even  the  anti-christian  Celsus  apologizes  for 
the  idolatrous  Egyptians  on  the  same  ground ; 
that  they  did  not  worship  their  brute  creatures 
but  only  as  they  were  '^.symbols  of  God.  As, 
therefore,  the  Jews  conceived,  that  after  Aaron's 
consecration  of  the  golden  calf,  the  accidents 
or  species  of  the  gold  alone  remained,  while  the 
substance  of  it  was  annihilated,  and  that  under 
those,  God  Himself  was  present;  and,  as  the 
Manichaeans  wildly  imagined,  that  the  body  of 
the  sun  had  been  converted  into  Christ's  glori- 
ous body ;  and  lastly,  as  the  unenlightened 
Pagans  have  taken  their  idols  for  the  Gods 
themselves  :  will,  I  say,  their  misconceptions 
have  excused  their  idolatry?  According  to 
Doctor  Milner's  reasoning,  they  all  stand  wide 

*  ExoD.  xxxii.  5. 

t  Solem  etiam  et  Lunam  adorant. — August.  Epist.  94,  ad 
Deuter. 

X  Etvctt  «t/T«  x«(  0»t»  ©■k/aC«x«. — Orig.  contra  Cels.  lib.  iii. 


A    PAPAL    NOVELTY.  127 

of  this  great  offence;  but  the  Heathens  most  of 
all,  because,  apparently,  most  in  error. 

At  the  worst  ive  are  only  in  error.  But,  what 
■will  Doctor  Milner  say,  should  any  of  those 
things,  which  the  church  of  Rome  esteems  es- 
sential, be  absent;  the  mere  want  of  which 
would  nullify  the  consecration?  A  variety  of 
causes  may  contribute  to  this  end;  such  as  the 
bread  not  being  of  a  proper  kind  ;  nor  properly 
made ;  or  the  wine  sour ;  or  the  forgetful ness  of 
the  priest  to  consecrate  the  bread  and  wine  ;  or 
the  consecration  being  unduly  performed;  or 
the  absence  of  the  priest's  intention  ;  or,  should 
the  intention  be  right,  but  that  through  inad- 
vertence, he  consecrated  suppose  thirty,  instead 
of  twenty  wafers  prepared  for  the  purpose ;  or 
that  he  distrusts  his  power  to  transubstantiate; 
then  there  is  no  consecration :  but  that  which 
is  adored  is  a  little  bread  or  wine.  Again, 
should  the  priest  not  have  been  regularly  bap- 
tized or  ordained  ;  to  ascertain  which,  it  would 
be  necessary  to  trace  the  priestly  oflice  from 
hini  to  every  other  priest,  through  whom  it  de- 
scended, up  to  the  apostolic  age.  Even  a  sin- 
gle link  in  the  chain  being  wanted,  or  the  lea»t 
defect  in  these  particulars,  according  to  the 
principles  of  the  Church  of  Rome,  as  it  affects 
the  consecration,  leaves  the  elements  of  the 
bread  and  wine  unchanged.  Shoidd  a  man  oi 
connnon  sense,  therefore,  run  a  risk  in  a  matler 


128  TRANSUBSTANTIATION, 

of  such  importance,  and  which  depends  on 
sucli  extreme  contingencies  ?  Where  there  is 
go  much  uncertainty,  the  goodness  of  the  in- 
tention cannot  be  taken  into  account,  except  it 
can  at  the  same  time  be  said,  that  it  will  not 
only  excuse  what  Doctor  Milner  may  probably 
suppose  to  be  au  error;  but  what  may  possi- 
bly, on  his  own  principle,  be  an  heinous  sin — 
that  of  paying  adoration  to  the  mere  elements. 
For  he  himself  admits,  that  if  the  doctrine  of 
Transubstantiation  be  false,  the  members  of  the 
Church  of  Rome  are  in  that  case  the  greatest 
idolaters. 

Doctor  Milner  has  so  contrived  to  mix  up 
political  with  polemical  matter,  in  the  discus- 
sion of  every  subject,  that  it  is  often  difficult  tO 
decide,  in  what  character  he  wishes  to  be  consi- 
dered ;  whether  in  that  of  the  politician,  or  of 
the  religious   disputant.     This  is  particularly 
the  case  in  the  present  instance.     But,  as  I  de- 
precate political  warfare,  1  shall  barely  offer  a 
passing  remark,  that  nothing  can  be  more  un- 
candid,  nor  untrue,  than  that  the  charge  of  ido- 
latry, which  he  says  has  been  "  vociferated  by 
Bishop  Porteus  and  Protestant  writers  in  gene- 
ral against  his  brethren,  is  perpetuated  by  the 
legislature,  for  the  purpose  of  defeating  their 
civil  claims."     Because,  it  is  not  on  account  of 
their  belief  in  Transubstantiation,  which  is  only 
a  speculative  error ;   nor  on   account  of  their 


A   PAPAL    NOVELTY.  129 

adoration  of  the  host,  which  is  the  practical  re- 
sult of  that  error,  that  Roman  Catholics  are 
subject  to  disabilities;  but  because,  as  I  have 
*elsewhere  observed,  they  divide  their  allegi- 
ance between  their  rightful  Sovereign  and  a 
foreign  Ecclesiastic. 

Among  those  Protestant  Prelates,  who,  un- 
like Bishop  Porteus,  and  other  ilUherals  of  his 
stamp,  have  acquitted  Roman  Catholics  of  the 
charge  of  idolatry.  Dr.  Milner  mentions  the 
learned  Gunning,  Bishop  of  Ely,  and  Jeremy 
Taylor,  Bishop  of  Down  :  the  former,  he  says, 
reprobated  the  Declaration  against  Popery  when 
it  was  brought  into  the  House  of  Lords,  f  *'  pro- 
testing, that  his  conscience  would  not  permit 
him  to  make  it."  Here  Doctor  Milner  tells  the 
truth,  but  not  the  whole  truth  ;  for,  although 
Gunning  at  first  maintained,  that  the  Church 
of  Rome  was  not  idolatrous,  his  subsequent 
conduct  shewed,  that  he  thought  it  so  :  because, 
as  Burnet  tells  us,  %  "  after  the  law  was  passed 
for  the  Test  against  Popery  to  be  taken  by 
both  Houses,  in  which,  not  only  Transubstan- 
tiation  was  renounced,  but  the  worship  of  the 
Virgin  Mary  ;  he  look  it  in  the  crowd  with  the 
rest,  though  he  scrnpUd  at  first."    Thus,  instead 


•  See  Pheface. 
+   Letteh  xxxvi.  p.  41. 
X  History  of  his  own  Times,  vol.  i.  p.  24G. 

K 


130  TKANSUBSTANTIATION, 

of  vindicating-  Roman  Catliolics  from  the  charge 
of  idolatry,  Bishop  Gunning  seals  his  conviction 
with  the  solemn  sanction  of  an  oath,  *"  that  in 
the  Sacrament  of  the  Lord's  Supper,  there  is 
not  any  Trans ubstantiation  of  the  elements  of 
bread  and  wine  into  the  body  and  blood  of 

Christ and   that   the   sacrifice  of  the 

mass,  as  it  is  now  used  in  the  Church  of  Rome, 
is  siiperstilious  and  idolatrous."  t  Cunning  is 
further  stated  to  have  been  J "  a  very  honest 
and  sincere  man,"  and,  like  the  Reverend  Mr. 
VVix  of  the  present  day,  intent  on  reconciling 
the  Church  of  England  to  Popery  in  some  points. 
But  enough  has  been  said  to  enable  us  to  ap- 
preciate the  value  of  his  support  to  Dr.  Milner's 
cause. 

Never  was  authority  more  misapplied  than 
Bishop  Taylor's ;  for  when  he  appears  to  vindi- 
cate Roman  Catholics  from  the  charge  of  idol- 
atry, he  does  so  from  motives  different  from 
tliose   ascribed   to  him  by  Dr.  Miiner.     After 

*  For  Declaration  against  Popery,  see  Burn's  Eccl.  Law, 
vol.  iii.  p.  151. 

f  According  to  both  Wheatlj'  and  Shepherd,  Bishop  Gun- 
ning was  considered  the  author  of  the  Prayer — "  Foi-  all  con- 
ditions of  men ;"  at  least,  in  St.  John's  College,  Cambridge,  to 
which  he  belonged.  I  mention  this  as  an  additional  proof, 
that  his  prtjudices  were  not  of  the  complexion  represented 
by  Dr.  Miiner. 

X  Burnet's  Hist.,  ut  supra,  p.  102. 


A    PAPAL    NOVELTY.  131 

speaking  of  the  pertinacity,  with  which  they 
fasten  the  name  of  heretic  and  schismatic  on  all 
who  disagree  with  them,  he  remarks,  *"  that 
in  no  sect  of  men  do  they  with  more  ease  and 
cheapness  reconcile  a  wicked  life  with  the 
liopes  of  heaven,  than  in  the  Roman  commu- 
nion." Then,  having  contrasted  Transubstan- 
tiation  with  their  other  doctrines,  he  says,  "  il 
is  harder  to  be  judged  of;  if  false,  as  upon 
much  evidence  we  believe  it  is,  then  is  it  accused 
of  idolatry."  And  again,  "  t/iei/  have  done  vio- 
lence to  all  philosophy  and  the  reason  of  man, 
and  undone  and  cancelled  the  principles  of  two 
or  three  sciences  to  hrinsr  in  this  article  of 
Transubstantiation."     On   tlie   words,    "  This 

IS    MY    BODY,    WHICH    IS    IIKOKEN,    &C.    he    thuS 

comments,  f  "  we  are  to  understand  them  in  a 
sense  not  natural,  but  spiritual,  that  is,  truly 
sacramental;  and  all  this  is  besides  the  plain 

demonstrations  of  sense the  natural 

sense  not  oidy  being  unreasonable  and  impossible, 
but  to  Jio  purpose  of  the  spirit,  or  any  way 
perfective  of  tlie  soul."  After  this  view  of  that 
Prelate's  sentiments,  how  can  it  be  said  that  he 
acfpiitted  Koman  Catholics  of  the  charge  of 
idolatry,  and  }et  accused  them  of  perverting  a 

*  See  LiBEKTY  OF  PnoPHEsYiNG,  scct.  XX.  pp.  357 — 359, 
366,  et  seq. 

t  Dissuasive  fiom  Popery,  \)\i.  36,  39,  -16,  cl  passim. 

K  2 


l.'J'i  TKANhUBSTANTIATION, 

text  ill  Scripture,  and  of  violating  reason  by  the 
introduction  of  the  doctrine  of  Transubstantia- 
tion,  which  produces  the  occasion  of  that  charge; 
except  by  supposing,  that  while  he  was  con- 
vinced of  the  erroneousness  and  absurdity  of 
their  faith,  he  still,  through  a  charitable  motive, 
gave  them  credit  for  the  sincerity  of  their  pro- 
fessions ? 

But,  to  return  to  his  Liberty  of  Prophesying. 
From  this  work  of  the  celebrated  Bishop  of 
Down,  Dr.  Milner  derives  an  argument,  which, 
as  shall  be  presently  shewn,  imparts  to  his  cause 
but  imaginary  support,  and,  as  far  as  [  can 
see,  by  no  means  acquits  Roman  Catholics  of 
the  charge  of  idolatry.  I  give  the  Bishop's 
words,  as  cited  by  him  : — *  **  The  object  of 
their  adoration  in  the  Sacrament  is  the  only 
true  and  eternal  God,  hypostatically  united 
with  his  holy  humanity,  which  humanity  they 
believe  actually  present  under  the  veil  of  the 
Sacrament.  And  if  they  thought  him  not  pre- 
sent, they  are  so  far  from  worshipping  the  bread, 
that  they  profess  it  idolatry  to  do  so.  This  is 
demonstration,  that  the  soul  has  nothing  in  it, 
that  is  idolatrical;  the  will  has  nothing  in  it  but 
what  is  a  great  enemy  to  idolatry''  It  is  ad- 
mitted, that  the  Bishop  made  this  declaration  ; 
but  he  afterwards,   like   Bishop  Gunning,   re- 

*    LlBLRTY    OF    PitOPH.   SCCt.  XX.  p.  366. 


A    PAPAL    NOVELTY.  133 

traded  it  with  derision  and  contempt,  and  there- 
by proved,  that  he  viewed  the  doctrine  of  Tran- 
substantiation  in  the  same  light  with  all  those, 
who  considered  it  absolute  idolatry.  His  desire 
was  to  secure  toleration  to  the  persons  of  the 
Roman  Catholics  ;  and  although  he  wished  that 
their  doctrine  should  be  discountenanced  "  by 
all  means,  human  and  divine,"  yet  he  contend- 
ed, that  they  themselves  "  should  be  tole- 
rated eatenus,  because,  by  their  good  lives, 
they  confute  their  doctrines."  But,  to  effect 
this,  he  defended  their  belief  in  Transubstan- 
tiatioii  with  fictitious  arguments,  which  he  call- 
ed "  wooden  daggers,  intended  to  represent  how 
the  poor  men  are  cozened  by  themselves." 

It  has  been  the  fate  of  Jeremy  Taylor  to 
be  held  forth  by  Roman  Catholics  as  being 
favourable  to  their  tenets,  from  the  moment  he 
published  his  Liberty  of  Prophesying  to  the 
present  day.  Both  a  Popish  manual  and  cate- 
chism, which  now  lie  before  me,  proclaim  this 
Protestant  Bishop  as  a  supporter  of  Transub- 
stantiation,  while  his  advocacy  is  more  than 
once  relied  on  by  Doctor  Milner  to  the  same 
eflfect.  But  never  was  autliorily  more  shame- 
fully misrepn^scnted;  because,  if  he  pleaded  for 
toleration,  he  did  not  palliate  error.  This  most 
distinctly  appears  in  his  Dissuasive  from  Vo- 
pery ;  in  the  Preeace  of  which  work  he  says, 
"  [  did  not  intend  to  make  tliat  harangue  to  re- 


I  ."34  T  K  A  N  SU  J  J  ST  A  N  T I  AT  I O  N , 

present,  tliat  the  Roman  religion  had  probabili- 
ties of  being  true,  biit^;/'oZ>a/y//i7/e5  that  tlie  religion 
might  be  tolerated."     He  afterwards  adds,  "  but 
now,  in  my  conscience,  this  was  unkindly  done  ; 
that  when  I  had  spoken  for  them  what  I  could, 
that  they  should  take  the  arms  that  I  had  letii 
them  for  their  defence,  and  throw  them  at  my 
head.     But  the  best  of  it  is,  that  the  weapons 
themselves  are  wooden  daggers,  intended  to  re- 
present how  poor  men  are  cozened  by  them- 
selves.    And  though  what  I  have  said  was  but 
tinsel  and  pretence,  imagery  and  whipt  cream, 
yet  I  could  not  be  blamed,  to  use  no  better  than 
the  best  their  cause  would  bear ;  yet,  if  that  be 
the  best  they  have  to  say  for  themselves,  their^ro- 
uahilities  will    be    soon    overbalanced    by  one 
Scripture  testimony  urged  by  Protestants  ;  and 
thou  shalt  not  worship  any  graven  images,  will 
outweigh  all  the  best  and  fairest  imaginations  of 
their  Church."    When  the  reader  considers,  that 
too  much  of  this  great  and  learned   Prelate's 
sentiments  cannot  be  known,  particularly  when 
they  are  contradictory  to  his  former  opinions, 
on  which  Popish  writers  so  eagerly  fasten,  he 
will  the  more  readily  excuse  so  long  and  in- 
teresting an  extract  as  the  preceding. 

Were  it  necessary  to  add  another  word  in 
proof,  that  the  support  which  he  gave  this  ques- 
tion was  hollow, — mere  empty  bravado;  I  might 
refer   to  the  way  in    which   he  argued :    e.  g. 


A    PAPAL    NOVELTY.  105 

They  profess  it  to  be  idolatry,  says  he,  to  wor- 
ship the  bread;  ergo,  the  soul  has  nothing  in  it 
that  is  idolatrical  !     Weak  as  this  argument  is, 
it  is  the  best,  as  he  says  himself,  that  he  could 
advance,  or  that  their  cause  would  bear.     And 
certainly  he  is  not  to  be  charged  with  the  in- 
sufficiency of  an  argument,  wiiich  he  afterwards 
disclaimed.     But,  as  if  to  put  it  beyond  doubt, 
that  he  thought  the  doctrine  false,  and  the  wor- 
shipping the  bread  and  wine  idolatrous,  he  thus 
expresses  himself, — ^"  We  know  idolatry  is  a 
damnable  sin,  and  we  also  know  that  the  Ro- 
man Church,  with  all  the  artifices  she  could 
use,  never  can  justify  herself,  or  acquit  the  com- 
mon practices  from  idolatry."     Which  is  to  say, 
that  tiie  practices  of  the  Church  of  Rome,  not- 
withstanding all  its  contrivances  to  disguise  and 
envelope  it's  doctrine,  partake  of  the  guilt  of 
idolatry.     In  truth,  by  once  admitting  that  the 
doctrine  of  Transubstantiation  is  false,  he  dis- 
closes his  real  sentiments ;  while  he  dissipates 
into  air  the  phantom  of  defence  he  set  up  for 
it  by  his  pretended  rhetoric. 

To  Thorndyke's  opinion  1  attach  but  little 
importance,  for  the  '|  reasons  already  stated. 
But  even  his  authority  is  misrepresented  by 
Doctor  Mibier;  and  although  he  asks,  \''  will 

»  luiD.  t  ^^^  Preface. 

X  Just  Weights  and  Measuues,  c.  xix.  ji.  M7. 


136  TKANSUBSTANTIATION, 

any  Papist  acknowledge,  that  he  honours  the 
elements  of  the  Eucharist?  will  common  sense 
charge  him  with  honouring  that  in  the  Sacra- 
ment which  he  does  not  believe  to  be  there?" — 
yet  his  subsequent  *  explanation  shews,  as 
Bishop  Taylor's  did  in  his  own  case,  that,  al- 
though he  had  peculiar  ideas  on  the  subject, 
they  were  very  different  from  those  ascribed  to 
him. 

If  Bishop  Cosin  be  not  held  forth  as  an  apo- 
logist for  Popish  idolatry,  he  is  at  least  repre- 
sented as  maintaining,  f  "  that  Christ  is  i\eaHy 
and  substantially  present  in  the  Eucharist." 
I  disjoin  the  words,  "  by  an  incomprehensible 
mystery,"  from  ihe  preceding  sentence,  because 
Doctor  Milner  esteems  them  of  no  force;  al- 
though, in  my  mind,  they  qualify  the  nature 
and  manner,  in  which  the  Bishop  conceived 
Christ  to  be  present  in  the  Sacrament.  But, 
instead  of  dissenting  from  the  Church  of  Eng- 
land, he  fully  expresses  her  sentiments  on  this 
important  point.  For,  after  stating  the  benefits 
of  a  worthy  reception,  and  observing  that  the 
elements  are  by  the  power  of  God  raised  to  a 
higher  dignity  in  the  Sacrament  than  their  na- 
ture bears,  he  goes  on  to  say,  J"  but  that  Christ, 
as  the  Papists  affirm,  should  give  his  flesh  and 

*  See  Preservative  against  Popery,  vol.  ii.  Tit.  vii.  p.  332. 
t  HisT.  OF  Tkansub,,  p.  44.  X  Idid.  p.  56. 


A    PAPAL    NOVELTY.  137 

blood,  to  be  received  with  the  mouth  and  ground 
with  the  teeth,  so  that  not  only  the  most  wick- 
ed and  infidels,  but  even  rats  and  mice  should 
swallow  him  down,  this  ourivords  mid  hearts  do 
utterhj  deny."  Immediately  after,  he  says,  "  we 
deny  that  we  may  avoid  all  ambiguity,  that  after 
the  words  of  prayer  and  consecration,  that  the 
bread  should  remain  bread  no  longer,  but  should 
be  changed  into  Christ's  Body."  He  then  con- 
cludes with  pronouncing  the  Roman  doctrine, 
"  so  strange  and  monstrous,  that  it  exceeds  the 
nature  of  all  miracles."  From  the  extracts  here 
adduced,  it  may  be  seen,  how  unfairly  Doctor 
Milner  has  acted  in  torturing  a  solitary  passage 
from  that  Prelate's  writings  into  the  Popish  ac- 
ceptation, with  utter  disregard  to  his  general 
reasoning.  But  this  is  not  all ;  for,  as  if  he 
had  convinced  his  reader  that  the  Bishop  was 
an  advocate  for  the  corporeal  j)resence,  he  thus 
artfully  connects  his  name  with  the  doctrine 
in  question.  *  "  Transubstantiation,"  says  he, 
"  according  to  Bishop  Cosin,  was  the  first  of 
Christ's  miracles,  in  changing  water  into  wine ; 
so  it  may  be  said  to  have  been  his  last,  during 
his  mortal  course,  by  chaFii^ing  bread  and  wine 
into  his  sacred  body  and  bh)od."  The  antithe- 
sis, no  doubt,  is  lively  and  ingenious ;  but  I 
see  no  analogy  between   the  miracle  performed 

*  LETTLn  XXXVI.  p.  44. 


138  THANSDBSTANTIATION,    &C. 

at  the  marriage  feast,  which  was  attested  by  the 
evidence  of  the  senses,  and  one  given  out  as 
such  on  the  authority  of  the  Romish  Church. 
For,  as  *  Tertullian  remarks,  that  which  yir5^ 
tasted  like  water,  after  the  miracle  was  per- 
formed, tasted  like  tvine.  But  can  this  be  said 
of  the  sacramental  wafer  ?  The  contrivance, 
however,  is  not  always  without  its  use;  al- 
though, in  the  present  instance;  it  has  not 
escaped  detection. 

< 

»  "  Fidelis  et  gustus  vini  illius,  licet  aquae  ante  in  nuptiis 
Galilaeae  ;  fidelis  et  tactus  exinde  creduli  Tliomae." — De  Ani- 
md,  c.  xviii. 


lay 


CHAPTER  VI. 

THE    REAL    PRESENCE    OF    CHRIST    IN    THE 
SACRAMENT. 

A  COMPARISON  of  the  first  four  *  Canons  of 
the  Council   of  Trent,  with  the  corresponding 
Articles  of  our  Church,  will  satisfy  the  reader, 
that  both  Churches  agree,  that  Christ  is  present 
in  the  Sacrament,  and  that  they  only  difler  about 
the  nature  of  that  presence.     When,  therefore, 
Doctor  Milner,  in  speaking  of  our  differences, 
uses  the  words  real  presence  as  expressive 
of  the  opinion  of  the  Church  of  Rome  without 
further  explanation,  his  object  cannot  be  mis- 
taken.    He  is  perfectly  sensible,  that  Transub- 
stantiation  and  Real  Presence,  in  the  Popish 
sense,  imply  the  same  thing,  and  that  if  he  only 
used  the  former  term,  he  would  avoid  the  am- 
biguities and   equivocations,  to  which  the  use 
of  the  latter  j)hrase  gives  rise.     He,  therefore, 
shrewdly  keeps  that  word,  which  points  out  the 
subject  of  dispute,  in  the  back  ground.     Tran- 
substantiatiou  is  a  term  indicative  of  its   own 

*  Sec  pages  116,  117. 


140  THE    REAL    PRESENCE    OF 

ineaiiiiig.  In  the  jiulgment  of  the  Trent  Fa- 
thers, it  is  clear,  appropriate,  and  what  should 
render  it  unobjectionable  to  him,  it  is  purely  of 
Popish  origin ;  he  should  consequently  adopt  it. 
Protestants  believe  Christ  to  be  really  present 
in  the  Sacrament,  because  they  believe  in  his 
ubiquity  ;  but  ubiquity  is  not  Transubstanti- 
ation. 

I  would  here  ask  Doctor  Milner,  what  the 
Church  of  England  has  to  do  with  the  doc- 
trine of  Consubstantiation,  or  the  errors  and 
extravagancies  of  Luther,  which  he  so  unne- 
cessarily introduces  into  this  discussion?  His 
adjurations  of  devils,  his  exorcisms,  and  the 
like,  to  which  Luther  had  been  habituated 
when  a  member  of  the  Church  of  Rome,  na- 
turally betrayed  him  into  the  grossest  absur- 
dities, after  he  had  withdrawn  from  its  commu- 
nion. These  fooleries  make  nothing  for  Doctor 
Milner's  argument ;  while  the  stress  he  lays  on 
them  betrays  the  weakness  of  his  cause.  Nei- 
ther is  the  coarse  and  vulgar  language,  which 
that  Reformer  applied  to  those,  who  denied  the 
corporeal  presence,  and  of  which  Doctor  Milner 
has  so  industriously  given  us  *  specimens,  im- 
putable to  us.  And  if,  in  the  heat  of  contro- 
versy, he  compared  the  glosses  of  Zuinglius, 

*  Such  as  a  damned  sect,  lying  heretics,  soul-destrot/crs,  &c.  &c. 
Letter  xxxvii.  p.  53. 


CHRIST    IN    THE    SACRAMENT.  141 

to  his  own  blasphemous  parody  on  the  *  first 
verse  of  Genesis;  the  Church  of  England,  pu- 
rified as  it  is  to  the  perfection  of  its  apostolic 
model,  is  in  no  respect  accountable  for  such  in- 
discretion and  violence.  We  do  not  repose  our 
faith  on  Luther ;  nor  do  we,  to  use  Doctor 
Milner's  courteous  and  conciliating  language, 
esteem  him  the  father  of  our  pretended  Re- 
formation. It  was  not  he,  who  founded  our 
Church ;  as  its  foundation  was  partly  laid  be- 
fore his  time.  In  fact,  the  grounds  of  its  sepa- 
ration from  the  Church  of  Rome  existed  long 
antecedent  to  that  memorable  era. 

Doctor  Milner  next  alleges  the  alterations, 
which  have  been  made  in  our  Liturgy  in  the 
course  of  a  century,  as  a  proof,  that  our  Church 
has  varied  in  its  sentiments  respecting  the  cor- 
poreal presence  of  Christ  in  the  Eucharist.  We 
shall  now  see  how  this  matter  stands.  The 
Church  of  England  maintained  the  same  opi- 
nion on  this  subject  during  the  above  period  ; 
but  her  governing  members  were  obliged  to 
yield  to  circumstances,  over  which  they  had  no 
rotitroi.  It  is  i^rantcd,  that  our  first  Liturgy  in 
154B,  expressed,  as  might  naturally  be  expected, 
the  Popish  idea  of  the  real  presence.     But  in 

*  In  principio  Dens  crcavit  cculum  et  terrain. — In  the  l)c- 
giiming  the  cuckoo  cat  the  .iparrow  and  his  feathers  ! — Deftns. 
Verb.  Dom. 


142  THE    REAL    PRESENCE    OF 

its  next  reviyion  in  1552,  a  Rubric  was  added, 
expressly  *  denying  this  tenet.  Queen  Elizabeth, 
however,  who  had  not  yet  imbibed  the  pure  spirit 
of  Christianity,  which  had  guided  her  youthful 
Predecessor,  and  the  venerable  Cranmer,  ex- 
punged it  in  1559 ;  f  "  her  design  being  to  unite 
the  nation  in  one  faith."  The  contrivance  had 
the  desired  effect,  as  the  Popish  laity  con- 
tinued in  connexion  Avith  the  Church  of  Eng- 
land for  J  ten  years,  and  only  broke  off  when 
she  refused  to  acknowledge  the  Pope's  Supre- 
macy. In  1661,  after  the  Restoration,  the  old 
antipopish  Rubric  of  King  Edward's  second 
book  was  restored,  and  holds  its  place  in  our 
Liturgy  without  alteration  to  this  day.  These 
stages  mark  the  successive  improvements  which 
it  received  ;  and  although  I  mention  but  a  vari- 
ation on  the  point  alluded  to  by  Doctor  Milner, 
yet  I  may  add,  that  each  subsequent  revision 
brought  the  whole  of  it  nearer  to  that  state  of 
perfection,  for  which  we  now  so  justly  admire  it. 

*  See  Shepherd's  Introd.  to  Com.  P.  p.  Ixiii.,  and  Bishop 
Tomline's  Theol.  Elem.,  vol.  ii.  pp.  25,  26. 

t  Buunkt's  Hist,  of  the  Reform.,  vol.  ii.  part  ii.  p.  390. 

X  Bp.  Taylor  says,  "  from  primo  of  Elizabeth  to  undecimo, 
the  Papists  made  no  scruple  of  coming  to  our  churches;  re- 
cusancy was  then  not  so  much  as  a  c/irysome,  not  an  embryo. 
But  when  Pius  Quinlus  sent  forth  his  Breves  of  excommuni- 
cation and  (Itposiiion  of  the  Queen,  then  first  they  forebore 
to  pray  with  us,  or  to  have  any  religious  communion." — Fifth 
or  NovEMBEii  Sermon,  p.  23. 


CHRI&T    IN    THE    SACRAMENT.  143 

Doctor  Milner  next  *  argues,  that  the  Esta- 
blished Church  itself  appears  to  hold  the  real 
presence^  since  it  declares  in  its  authorized  cate- 
chism, "  that  the  Body  and  Blood  of  Christ  are 
verily  and  indeed  taken  and  received  by  the 
faithful  in  the  Lord's  Supper."     Here  again  is 
the  equivocal  use  of  the  wGrds  real  presence ; 
equivocal,  I  say,  as  they  imply  a  sense  which 
we  admit,  as  well  as  another,  which  we  reject. 
We  acknowledge,  that  Christ  is  sjnritually  pre- 
sent to  the  true  believer;  but  we  deny  that  he 
is  present  in  any  bodily,  transubstantiated  shape. 
To  say,  therefore,  that  we  receive  in  truth  and 
mjacl  in  the  Sacrament,  what  we  acknowledge 
to  be  there  after  a  spiritual  manner,  is  to  speak 
conformably  to  the  sound  doctrine  of  our  church. 
Moreover,  were  Christ  present  in  a  bodily  shape; 
unbelievers  as  well  as  the  "faithful"  would  be 
partakers  of  his  Sacrament.     But  our  xxixth 
Article  declares,  that  "  such  as   be  void  of  a 
lively  faith,  in  no  ivise  arc  partakers  of  Christ." 
Here  the  Article  interprets  the  language  of  the 
catechism  ;  while  it  completely  overturns  Doc- 
tor Milner's  argument. 

t"  We  maintain,"  says  the  venerable  Bishop 
of  Duriiam,  "  that  to  eat  Christ  is  an  act  of  th(; 
mind  ;  of  faith,  not  of  the  Body  ;  and  (hat  what 

•   Lltter  xxxvii.  [).  It. 

t  Sermon*  by  Sliutc,  Bp.  of  Durliam,  |).  Ii2. 


144  THE    REAL    PRESENCE    OF 

is  (lone  spiritually  is  done  verily ^  Or  as  Seeker 
expresses  it,  *  "  we  firmly  believe  the  union  with 
Christ,  to  be  not  only  represented,  but  really 
and  spiritually  communicated  to  the  worthy  re- 
ceiver." To  the  eye  of  faith,  Christ's  real  pre- 
sence is  disclosed,  and  in  this  light  we  consider 
it.  But  this  will  not  satisfy  our  Popish  adversa- 
ries, unless  we  believe  what  contradicts  the  tes- 
timony of  our  senses,  our  reason,  and  the  Scrip- 
tures themselves.  We  must  not  only  believe,  as 
we  do,  ihe  real  presence  of  what  is  not  visible  to 
the  eye  of  the  body  ;  but  we  must  even  believe 
the  real  absence  of  what  we  see,  touch,  taste, 
and  smell.  Jeremy  Taylor  remarks  f  "  that 
Christ's  Body  is  in  the  Sacrament  really,  but 
spiritually.  The  Papists  say  the  same.  Where 
now  is  the  difference?  Here;  by  spiritually 
they  mean  present  after  the  manner  of  a  Spirit ; 
by  spiritually,  we  mean  present  to  our  spirits 
only:  that  is,  so  as  Christ  is  not  present  to  any 
other  sense,  but  that  of  faith  or  spiritual  sus- 
ception."  Again,  *'  Christ  is  no  way  present  in 
the  Sacrament  as  to  his  human  nature;  he  is 
present  there  by  his  divine  power,  &c.,  but  for 
any  other  presence  it  is  idolum,  it  is  nothing  in 
the  world."  I  refer  the  more  willingly  to  Bishop 
Taylor,  because  of  the  gross  misapplication, 
which  Doctor  Milner  has  made  of  his  autho- 

•  Sermons,  vol.  vi.  p.  84. 

t  See  Preserv.  against  Popery,  vol.  ii.  Tit.  vii.  p.  321. 


CHRIST    IN    THE    SACRAMENT.  14o 

rlty,  as  I  have  shewn  in  the  preceding  *  chapter. 
Let  it  hencefortli  not  be  forgotten,  that  he  con- 
sidered the  Popish  real  presence  as  a  figment,  a 
non-ens,  a  mere  idolum. 

After  this  exposition  of  tlie  antepenultimate 
answer  of  our  church  catechism,  1  should   be 
glad  to  know,  how  it  involves  a  contradiction 
to  say,  that  verily  and  indeed  refer  to  a  spiritual, 
rather  than  to  a  corporeal  participation  of  the  Sa- 
crament, when  the  word  juilhjul  most  empha- 
tically makes  it  to  be  of  that  nature.     Doctor 
Milner  has,  however,  discovered  a  direct  vari- 
ance,  which   he  thus  illustrates  :    i  "  You  re- 
ceive," says  he,  "  that  in  the  Sacran)ent,  which 
does  not  exist  in  it;  it  is  like  tlie  speecli  of  a 
debtor,  wiio  siiould  say  to  his  creditor,  1  hereby 
verily  and  indeed  pay  you  the  money  1  owe  you, 
but   I  have  not  verily  and  indeed  the  money 
wherewith  to   pay   you."     As  far  as  I  can  per- 
ceive, there  is  no  discoverable  analogy  between 
the  two  cases,  and  1  question  much,  but  this 
was  Doctor  Alihior's  own  opinion,  wlicn  he  had 
recourse  to  tliis  fanciful  illustration     If  he  have 
gratified  himself  by  playing  oH"  his   wif,   lie  has 
done  so  at  the  expense  of  his  judgment.     Now 
for  the   proof  of  this.      WImii,    in   obedience  to 
Christ's  commands,  I  receive  the  blessed  Sacra- 
ment of  his  Jioily  and   Blood,  I  do  so    because 

*  See  |j.  131  — 133.  i    Lun  i;k  xvxvii.  p.  45. 

L 


140  THE    REAL    PRESENCE    OF 

he  orders  it ;  I  claim  no  merit  for  the  perform- 
ance of  the  act ;  nor  do  I  set  any  value  on  it : 
on  the  contrary,  1  conceive  it  to  be  my  **  houn- 
den  duty  and  service,"  and  1  am  fully  sensible, 
that  after  my  utmost  efforts  to  please  God,  I 
am  still  an  "  unprofitable  servant."  How,  there- 
fore, can  it  be  said  of  me,  that  I  pay  my  kind 
creditor  a  debt,  when  according  to  my  own  ac- 
knowledgment, the  return  1  make  is  of  no  esti- 
mation ?  Let  us  now  view  Doctor  Milner  in 
the  light  of  the  debtor,  and  see,  whether  the 
language,  which  he  has  applied  to  the  members 
of  the  Church  of  England,  be  not  strictly  ap- 
plicable to  himself.  Is  he,  or  is  he  not,  one  of 
those  who  contend,  that  the  mere  receiving  of 
the  Lord's  Supper  procures  a  remission  of  sins 
ex  opere  operato,  as  it  were  mechanically  ?  Does 
he  not  set  a  value  on  the  performance  of  the 
work  ;  on,  1  say,  the  opus  operatum ;  on  the 
mere  observance  of  Christ's  command  ?  If  1 
can  form  any  opinion  of  the  estimate  of  human 
merit  in  the  Church  of  Rome,  all  this  is  criti- 
cally the  case.  As,  therefore.  Doctor  Milner 
can  thus  cancel  the  obligation,  which  he  owes 
his  heavenly  creditor,  he  may  very  consistently 
address  him  after  this  manner.  '  [  herehy  verily 
and  indeed  i)ay  you  the  debt  I  owe  you ;'  and 
he  may  with  as  much  propriety  add,  '  but  [  have 
not  verily  and  indeed  that,  wlierewith  to  pay 
you !' 


CHRIST    IN    THE    SACRAMENT.  147 

Doctor  Milner  lays  great  stress  on  the  mi- 
racle of  the  loaves,  as  recorded  by  St.  John, 
vi.  r3.  ;  because  Christ  fed  the  multitude,  who 
followed  him.  This,  he  insists,  is  an  "  evident 
sign  of  the  future  multiplication  of  his  own 
person,  on  the  several  altars  of  the  world."  But 
did  not  Christ  bid  the  multitude  to  *  "  labour 
not  for  the  meat  which  pcrisheth,  but  for  that 
which  endureth  to  eternal  life?"  And  again, 
t "  my  Father  giveth  you  the  true  bread  from 
heaven."  Now  were  the  Sacrament  implied  by 
these  words,  or  were  they  to  be  understood  li- 
terally, we  must  conclude,  not  that  bread  was 
converted  into  Christ's  Body,  but  his  Body  into 
the  bread.  So  that  the  whole  passage  appears 
but  a  figurative  mode  of  pointing  out  that  those 
benefits,  which  the  soul  derives  from  his  death, 
are  much  more  valuable  than  what  the  body 
receives  from  its  daily  food.  I  should  add  that 
although  Doctor  Milner  gives  the  sacramental 
construction  to  the  vith  chapter  of  John,  f  Po- 
pish writers  may  be  adduced,  who  reject  it  and 
apparently  for  good  reasons;  hecause  if  inter- 
preted directly  of  the  Eucharist,  it  would  fur- 
nish one  strong  argumriit  for  Infant  Connnu- 
nion,  which  thtir  church  has  discontinued,  and 

*  John,  vi.  27.  1    Iinn.  vi.  32. 

t  Viz.  Bi«  I,  Cii>ann.s,  Tiipptr,  Ilcs>Lliiis,  aiidJanscniu-,  -.ly 
llial  the  vitli  r)r  .liihii  dors  vol  re  late  to  ihc  K(i(li;iri>t. 


I.    '1 


IJ8  THE    REAL    PRESENCE    OF 

another  aoainst   (lie  denial    of  the  Cup  to   the 
Laitv,  uhich  it  maintains. 

At  the  Institution  of  the  Eucharist,  our  Sa- 
viour expressly  said,  this  is  i\iy  body  ;  and 
THIS  IS  i\iY  BLOOD.  The  questiou  then  is,  in 
what  sense,  and  after  what  manner,  must  the 
i)read  and  wine  be  conceived  to  be  his  Body 
and  Blood.  Doctor  Milner  says,  *  '*  that  the 
native  evidence  of  those  texts  goes  to  establish 
the  literal  meaning."  Well;  the  original  Greek 
is  Taro  ir»  TO  au^cc  ^a,  aiid  if  hc  bc  corrcct  in  what 
he  says,  the  T-aTo  must  refer  to  what  is  contained 
under  tiie  species  of  the  bread.  Not  to  say, 
that  grammar  forbids  this  apjjlication  of  the 
pronoun  demonstrative;  it  is  highly  absurd  to 
afhrm  that  it  can  be  thus  applied.  For,  what 
is  contained  under  the  species,  or  accidents  of 
bread,  must  refer  either  to  the  bread  itself,  or  to 
the  Body,  or  to  the  species.  It  would  not  ex- 
actly suit  him  to  admit  that  it  referred  to  the 
bread.  t«to  does  not  refer  to  the  Body  ;  for  it 
would  be  supposing  that  present,  which  is  not 
yet  present :  as  he  himself  admits,  that  the 
change  in  the  bread  does  not  take  place,  until 
after  the  consecration.  Nor  can  raro  refer  to 
tlie  species ;  because,  until  there  be  such  a 
conversion,  they  continue  in  the  bread  and  are 
one  with  it.     It  may  therefore,  be  reasonably 

*  Lettek  xxxvii.  p.  4b. 


CHRIST    IN    THE    SACRAMENT.  149 

asked,  what  that  thing  is,  wliich  tsto  expresses, 
Avhich  is  neither  bread,  nor  body,  nor  accidents? 
In  the  embarrassment  in  which  this  subject  for- 
merly involved  Popish  Controvertists,  *  Bishop 
Jewell  relates  the  cnrious  expedient  to  which 
they  had  recourse  for  the  purpose  of  extrica- 
ting; themselves.  They  said,  that  it  referred  to 
some  individnum  vagnm,  some  creature  of  the 
brain,  which  they  could  not  tell  !  But  the  diffi- 
culty will  be  avoided  by  taking- raro  as  it  stands 
in  the  proposition,  This  is  my  J^odij  iu  a  de- 
terminate sense.  Let  it  be  resolved  thus.  This, 
namely  this  thing,  referring  to  the  bread,  which 
Christ  was  before  said  to  have  taken,  blessed, 
aiid  broke.  Body  properly  refers  to  Christ's 
Body.  Therefore,  the  copula,  to  speak  logi- 
cally, which  unites  two  things  of  such  opposite 
natures  as  bread  and  the  Body  of  Christ,  must 
necessarily  have  the  force  of  to  signify  or  to 
represent:  for  they  themselves  admit  that  dis- 
paratuni  de  disjjarato  non  proprie  predicalnr. 
Therefore,  Christ  must  have  spoken  /tquntdveh/, 
when  he  caHed  the  bread  his  Body,  they  being 
disparates,  and  consecjucntly,  of  opposite  na- 
tures. Ilcncc  tlic  words,  "  "^riiis  is  my  Body," 
imply,  '  This  represents  my  Hody  :'  as  this  is 
Caesar, '  this  represent sCdisiW.'  But,  l»esides,  this 

*  Reply  to  Iiar(liii;,s  Art.  21.     Sec  also  Presf.uv.  against 
Pop.  Tit.  vii.  cli.  iv.  j).  289,  ;md  Le  Mesuu.  I'^ucli.  pp.  .')9,  (iO. 


lOO  THE    REAL   PRESENCE    OF 

exjiosition  is  perfectly  accordant  to  the  genius 
of"  the  Syio-Chaldaic,  the  langnai»e  spoken  by 
our  Saviour.  In  that  lan<;«iai;v,  there  is  no 
term  expressive  of  to  mean,  to  denote,  to  signify  ; 
and  therefore,  the  Jews  always  say  *  it  is^  in- 
stead of  it  signifies. 

We  perceive  the  Jewish  idiom  frequently  oc- 
curring in  the  Scriptures ;  as  f  "  the  seed  is  the 
word,"  J:  "  I  am  the  door,"  §  "  I  am  the  true 
vine,''  II  "  the  seven  kine  are  seven  years,"  and 
^  "  it  is  the  Lord's  Passover,"  Here  we  may 
observe  that  the  eating  of  the  paschal  lamb  is 
metonymically  called  the  Passover.  Doctor 
Milner,  it  is  true,  admits  that  the  paschal  lamb, 
was  "  a  mere  figure,  and  an  incitement  to  faith  ;" 
yet,  because  there  are  not  as  heavy  denuncia- 
tions against  the  profaners  of  it,  as  against  the 
unworthy  communicants  of  the  Lord's  Supper, 
he  therefore  infers,  that  this  was  in  consequence 
of  Christ  being  present  in  the  Eucharist;  where- 
as he  was  only  represented  by  the  paschal  lamb 
in  the  Passover.  But  he  should  at  the  same 
time  recollect,  that  were  the  Jews  commanded 
to  drink  wine  at  the  Passover,  there  would  no 

*  The  Rev.  Mr.  Warnek's  Chronolog.  Hist,  of  our  Lord 
.lesus  Christ,  Ed.  1819,  and  Ahp.  Usheii's  Discourse  on  the 
Rehgion  of  the  Ancient  Irish,  p.  38,  will  be  advantageously 
consulted  on  this  subject. 

t  Luke,  viii.  11.  X  John,  x.  7.  §  Ibid.  xv.  1. 

11  Gen.  xli.26.  f  Exod.  xii.  II. 


CHRIST    IN    THE    SACRAMENT.  151 

doubt  have  been  as  heavy  denunciations  uttered 
against  drunkenness,  or  any  other  profanation 
of  that  Sacred  Feast,  as  were  against  indecency 
of  conduct,  or  unworthy  communication  at  the 
Table  of  the  Lord. 

But  further,  if  we  only  consider  the  nature  of 
the  festival  among  the  Jews ;  of  what  it  was 
commemorative  ;  and  to  what  it  was  in  every 
particular  allusive  ;  and  next  the  nature  of  the 
Institution,  which  was  to  supersede  it,  we  must 
conclude,  that  our  Saviour  designed,  and  that 
the  Apostles  understood  it  to  have  a  typical 
signification.  As  Jews,  they  knew  w  ell,  of  what 
the  eucharistical  sacrifice  of  the  lamb,  and  the 
cup  of  blessing  were  typical,  and  must  neces- 
sarily have  understood  our  Saviour's  expres- 
sion, when  he  called  the  bread  his  Body,  nay, 
his  Body  hrokcn,  at  the  moment  he  was  present 
with  them,  as  typical  also.  But,  besides,  can  it 
be  supposed,  that  the  Apostles,  who  were  slow 
to  comjnehend  difiicult  things,  and  forward  to 
ask  questions,  understood  our  Saviour  to  have 
taken  his  own  Body,  into  his  own  hand,  and 
then  to  have  distributed  that  very  Body  to  each 
of  the  twelve  at  the  same  time;  and  that  each 
of  theui  believed,  that  he  bruised  his  Master's 
Body  with  his  teeth,  and  swallowed  him,  al- 
though sitting  at  the  table  with  them  at  the 
same  time?  "^riie  suj)|)Osition  is  monstrous  and 
unnatural.      Most    cordiallv    do   I    agree   wilh 


152  THK    REAL    PRESENCE    OF 

Doctor  Milncr,  tliat  our  Saviour  did  not  intend 
to  deceive  liis  Apostles,  wijen  lie  instituted  the 
Sacrament,  and  \vas  on  tlie  point  of  leaving 
them,  and  bequeathing  them  the  legacy  of  his 
love.  For,  *  "  He  who  ditl  no  sin,  neither  was 
guile  found  in  his  mouth,"  could  not  practise 
deception.  We  must  be  perfectly  convinced, 
that  lie  only  designed  by  this  ceremony,  that 
they  should  remember  Him,  and  His  Body 
broken  for  them  :  as  thev  had,  bv  a  corres- 
ponding  one,  before  that  time,  remembered  the 
thread  of  aflHiction,  which  their  Fathers  eat 
in  Egypt.  This  analogy  of  the  Eucharist  to 
the  Fassover,  was  noticed  long  before  the  Re- 
formation by  the  Jews  tliemselves.  They  ob- 
jected to  the  literal  interpretation  of  the  words 
as  being  contrary  to  the  intention  of  our  blessed 
Lord ;  no  less  than  to  the  belief  of  His  Apos- 
tles, who  were  well  versed  in  the  paschal  forms. 
AVhile  on  the  other  hand  %  St.  Austin  observes, 
that  the  phrase,  This  is  my  Body,  is  the  same 
as  if  we  were  to  say,  this  is  Christmas  day;  or 
Good  Friday;  or  Easter  day:  not  that  they 
were  the  very  days  which  they  express;  but 
that  they  were  the  return  or  remembrance  of 
them. 

*  1  Peter,  ii.  22. 

f  Deut.  xvi.  3.     See  Preserv.  against  Popery,  vol.  ii.  c.  iv, 
p.  306,  and  Abp.  Seeker's  Sermons,  vol.  vi.  p.  82. 
\  Epist.  xxiii.  ad  Bonifac,  Optr.  vol.  ii.  p.  29. 


CHRIST    IN    THE    SACRAMENT.  153 

In  tlie  preceding"  chapter,  I  have  shewn  on 
Avhat  grounds  the  origin  of  Transubstantiation 
is  ascribed  to  the  ninth  century,  and  the  ^V*^ 
mention  of  it  to  Paschase  Radbert.  With  re- 
spect to  tliose  writers,  who  followed  up  the 
idea  of  the  bodily  presence  in  the  Sacrament, 
in  the  ninth,  tenth,  and  eleventh  centuries,  their 
authority,  although  relied  on  by  Doctor  Mil- 
ner,  is  to  be  disregarded,  as  no  other  sources 
of  information  were  open  to  them,  than  those 
•which  we  now  possess.  But  as  he  appeals  to 
the  early  fathers  to  prove  its  existence  in  the 
primitive  ages  of  the  Church,  I  am  contented 
to  let  the  question  be  decided  by  those  of  his 
own  selection,  after  having  premised  a  few  gene- 
ral observations. 

It  is  remarkable,  that  although  the  fathers  are, 
generally  speaking,  unanimous,  respecting  those 
doctrines  which  are  held  in  common  by  the 
Churches  of  England  and  Home,  such  as  those 
of  the  Trinity,  the  Atonement,  &c. ;  yet,  that 
the  points  about  which  they  differ,  are  the  very 
ones,  about  whirh  those  Churches  are  notagreed; 
but  that,  as  to  the  doctrine  of  the  corporeal 
presence  in  the  Sacrament,  they  had  no  thought 
of  it  at  the  time,  'riirrc  is  no  douht,  that  they 
use  very  forcible  language, and  apparently  speak 
ill  direct  terms  of  it ;  but  tliis  is  not  irreconcile- 
ablc  with  the  original  aj)plication  of  their  words 
in   a   figurative  sense.     Because,  as  they  have 


154  THi:  ri:al  prksenck  of 

all  admitted  the  fimirative  meaning  of"  the  Words, 
TAKE,  eat;  this  IS  My  Body;  their  reasoning 
on  thorn,  in  this  sense,  might  proceed  to  an  in- 
dclinite  lengtli.  They  might  amphfy  their  ex- 
pressions to  any  extenton  this  principle,  altliough 
in  language  apj)licable  to  the  actual  eating  of 
Christ's  Body.  When  it  has  been  once  admitted, 
that  Christ's  words  have  a  metaj)horical  bearing, 
it  entirely  does  away  the  idea,  that  they  can  be 
afterwards  understood  in  a  literal  sense,  [t  is 
the  very  property  of  a  figure,  that  things  are 
spoken  of,  as  being  different  from  what  they  are. 
Thus,  when  a  father  calls  the  sacramental  l)read 
and  wine,  a  type  or  representation  of  Christ's 
Body  or  Blood  ;  to  make  him  consistent  with 
himself,  we  must  consider  him,  when  he  again 
makes  mention  of  Christ's  Body  and  Blood,  to 
mean,  that  they  are  only  there  typically,  or 
figuratively.  In  other  words,  if  he,  like  the 
Roman  Catholics,  believed,  that  the  natural 
Body  and  Blood  of  Christ  were  really  in  the 
Sacrament,  he  could  never  again  consistently 
call  the  Bread  and  Wine,  the  symbols  of  Christ's 
Body  and  Blood. 

I  must  premise  too,  that  of  the  ancient  fathers, 
to  whose  writings  Doctor  Milner  directs  my  at- 
tention ;  some  lived  in  the  very  infancy  of  the 
Church,  and  had  either  known  our  Lord  Him- 
self, or  conversed  with  his  Apostles.  It,  there- 
fore, cannot  be  supposed,  that  such  men  should 


CHRIST    IN     THE    SACRAMENT.  155 

be  unacquainted  with  the  true  interpretation 
of  Scripture.  Of  this  description  of  persons 
is  Ignatius,  one  of  the  apostohc  fathers,  to 
whose  authority  Doctor  Mihier  makes  his  first 
appeal. 

1.  Ignatius,  speaking  of  certain  heretics  of 
the  day,  remarks,  *"  that  they  do  not  admit  of 
Eucharists  and  oblations,  because  they  do  not 
believe  the  Eucharist  to  be  the  flesh  of  our 
Saviour,  Jesus  Christ,  who  suffered  for  our 
sins."  Here  Doctor  Milner  stops,  but  the 
father  adds,  "  and  which  was  raised  from  the 
dead ;  they,  therefore,  resisting  the  grace  of 
God,  die  in  their  disputes."  The  Greek  word 
vfocnvxrK;,  which  the  Doctor  renders  ^oblations, 
signifies  prayer.  Ikit  his  motive  for  thus  mis- 
translating is  evidently  for  the  purpose  of  raising 
in  the  reader's  mind  the  idea,  that  Ignatius  con- 
demned those  heretics  for  abstaining — from 
what?     Not  from   the  Eucharist   and  prayer, 

■'  Ei;;^«g»r»«?  ^«  nPDl^EYXHi;  a.'niycina.i,  Sta.  to  jw,»)  o^o^oyskv  T>;i' 

Epist.  adSiiiyiii.   c  vii. 

t  Dr.  Milner  must  surely  have  overlooked  iheoriQinal,  and 
taken  the  father's  meaninqf  from  a  Latin  version.  I^^tanccs 
of  a  .similar  kind  are  so  numerous  throughout  his  Work,  that  a 
person  is  ahno»l  tempted  to  helievc  him  to  be  in  the  same 
iiappy  state  with  the  Neapolitan  Jesuit,  who,  we  are  some- 
where told,  fjravely  returned  thanks  to  Heaven,  that  he  Avas 
ignorant  of  the  Greek  language,  for  that  the  knowledge  of  it 
was  a  sure  sifrn  of  heresy  ! 


150  THE    REAL    PRESENCE    01' 

but  the  Eucliarist  and  oblations;  tliat  is,  from 
the  Eucharist  and  the  sacrifice  of  Christ's  Body 
and  Blood  ! 

We  must  recollect,  that  the  f  Doceloi,  against 
whom   Ignatius  wrote,  were   those   visionaries 
who  conceived,  that  the  Birth,  Passion,  &c.  of 
Christ,  were  imaginary;  and  who,  impressed  with 
the  conviction  of  Christ's  aerial  form,  refused  the 
Eucharist,  because  it  was  said  to  be  His  Body. 
The  father,  therefore,  argues^  that,  as  the  ele- 
ments  of  bread  and  wine  are,  by  a  just  con- 
struction, the   Body  and   Blood   of  Christ,  he 
must  have  had  a  real  body.     Without  this  sup- 
position, the  Eucharist  was  no  Eucharist  at  all ; 
it  was  a  representation  of  nothing,  or  a  false 
representation.      "  Ignatius,"   says   Waterland, 
"  could  not  imagine  that  the  symbols  were  lite- 
rally flesh   and   blood ;    but  if  they  were  con- 
structlonally  or  interpretatively  so,  it  was  all  his 
argument  required."     He  did  not  suppose,  that 
there  was  a  natural  body  locally  present,  and 
also  a  sacramental  body ;  but  that  all  was  one 
symbolical  body.    Of  this,  those  unbelievers  were 
perfectly  sensible,  and,  therefore,  they  abstain- 
ed from  the  Eucharist,  and  the  accompanying 
prayer,  as  being  founded  on  the  doctrine  of  our 
Lord's  real  humanity. 

Lastly,    even    supposing    Ignatius   to    have 

f  Review  of  the  Doct.  of  the  Euch.  ed.  1737,  p.  215. 


CHRIST    IN    THE    SACRAMENT.  157 

spoken  of  the  substance  of  Christ's  flesh  as 
present  in  the  Eucharist,  he  is  entirely  silent 
about  the  change  of  the  substance  of  the  bread 
into  that  of  Christ's  Body  ;  the  very  point  which 
Doctor  Milner  undertakes  to  prove  from  his 
writings.  In  the  very  Epistle  under  considera- 
tion, he  makes  express  mention  of  the  proof 
which  Christ  afforded  His  disciples,  who  sup- 
posed him  to  be  a  spirit :  *  "  Handle  me  and 
see  ;  for  a  spirit  hatli  not  Jiesh  and  hones  as  ye 
see  me  have."  It  therefore  follows,  that  Igna- 
tius could  not  have  held,  that  the  real  Body  of 
Christ  was  in  the  Eucharist,  when  it  could  not 
be  judged  of  by  the  senses;  as  he  would,  in 
that  case,  iiave  weakened  the  force  of  his  for- 
mer argument. 

2.  Justin  Martyr  is  next  adduced  by  Doc- 
tor Milner.  On  examination  it  will  be  seen, 
that  this  father's  testimony  is  as  adverse  to  the 
Popish  doctrine  as  that  of  Ignatius,  while  he 
speaks  the  language  of  the  Church  of  England 
on  the  subject.  In  truth,  it  is  not  possible  to 
form  a  conjecture,  how  any  reader  of  the  origi- 
nal Greek  could  wrest  Justin's  meaning  into  one 
favourable  to  the  Homish  Chur('h,  since  lie  ex- 
pressly says,  that  th<'  consecrated  elements  are 
nutritive  of  our  bodies  Wka  oilier  food.     Doctor 

*  Luke,  xxiv.  ;iy. 


150  THE    KKAL    PKESENCE    OF 

Milner  barely  mentions  his  name,  leaving  the 
reader  to  infer,  that  his  testimony  has  the  same 
bearing  as  that  he  ascribed  to  Tgnatins.  But 
the  father  must  speak  for  himself,  f  "  We  do 
not,"  says  he,  "  take  these  as  common  bread, 
or  as  common  drink,  but  we  consider  the  food 
so  blessed  through  the  prayer  of  the  Word, 
(which  came  from  Him,  by  which  our  flesh  and 
blood  are  nourished  by  its  conversion  into  them) 
to  be  the  Body  and  Blood  of  that  Jesus,  who  be- 
came incarnate."  He  then  proceeds  to  say,  that 
the  Apostles  relate,  that  when  Jesus  had  taken 
the  bread  and  given  thanks,  he  said,  Do  this, 
6K  TJii-  ANAMNHsiN  MOT.  What  Justiu  has  written 
to  this  effect  is  too  long  for  insertion ;  but  enough 
is  given  to  shew  the  gross  misapplication  which 
is  made  of  his  language.  The  elements,  after 
consecration,  are  called ybo«?,  and  although  not 
considered  common  bread  and  wine;  yet  they 
are  called  so  by  these  names,  and  are  said  to 
nourish  our  flesh  and  blood,  and  are  only  un- 
derstood in  the  very  acceptation  which  we  take 
them,  that  is  symbolically,  to  be  the  Body  and 
Blood  of  Christ. 

3.  IreN;Eus,  who  comes  next  in  order,  also 

*   Ci/   yuf  u<;  KOINCN  ctproi'  sJs   KOINON    Tru/Act  rccvrcc  >^cif^- 
Qxtmm,    ------  BTw?    xai     rrtv    o»     ^v^r,q     Xoya     ru     Trap      ocvth 

ivyjcf^fUffut  Tpo!pr,ir  ES    HX  ctt/jiic  KOCi  aufy.si;  kuIcc  ^ETaboAvjn  TFE- 
<J>0NTA;   xfAut,   tec.  wcc. — A  POL.  .i.   ad  Anlt.iiin.    |).  l'-2b. 


CHRIST    IN    THE    SACRAMENT.  159 

believed,  that  the  eucharistic  elements  *m- 
creased  our  bodies  like  other  food,  and  conse- 
quently, that  they  retained  their  nature  as 
bread  and  wine,  only  in  a  more  exalted  degree, 
and  as  if  endued  with  certain  heavenly  virtues. 
In  his  arguments  against  the  Marcionite  here- 
tics, he  says,  *'  when,  therefore,  the  mixed  cup 
and  the  bread  become  the  Eucharist  of  the 
Body  and  Blood  of  Christ,  -(  by  which  the  sub- 
stance of  our  flesh  is  increased;  how  can  they 
deny,  that  the  flesh,  which  is  nourished  by  the 
Body  and  Blood  of  Christ,  receives  the  gift  of 
God  ?"  In  both  editions  of  Irenaeus's  works,  of 
1702,  and  1710,  1  found  the  respective  editors, 
Grabe  and  Massuet,  labouring  to  prove  Tran- 
substantiation  from  the  words  of  that  father, 
and  to  do  away  the  effect  of  this  and  similar 
passages.  They  argue,  that  if  the  elements  be 
not  transubstantiated,  then,  that  Christ  Mas  a 
phantom:  this  is  what  the  heretics  affirmed,  and 
the  very  opposite  to  what  Irenaeus  had  esta- 
blished. In  fact,  according  to  them,  that  fa- 
ther must  have  considered  the  bread  and  wine 
in  the  Eucharist  to  be  stihstanlialli/  tiie  body 
and  blood  of  Christ.     This  exactly  suits   I)oc- 

*  'a^'  b  Tat  *)/>tiTi(j«  AYHEI  cufj.u.Tu. — luiA.  advcrs.  IhiTo. 
Ill),  iv.   1-.  '>.  |..  306. 

i  Ek  TUTut  it  AYS£1  x«»  ai/nr«Tai  »)  xr,?  ara^xo^  rijAUv  viro- 
r»fft;. —  liiiit. 


1(30  THE    REAL    PRESENCE    Ol 

tor  Milner,  and  he  accordinj^ly  assumes  the 
point,  as  we  may  suppose,  on  their  authority. 
But  let  the  meaning-  be  elicited  from  tlie  original, 
and  it  will  be  seen,  that  from  any  snp|)osition  of 
Transubstantiation,  the  arguments  of  Irenaius 
and  the  orthodox  must  have  yielded  to  those  of 
the  heretics. 

4.  St.  Cyprian's  Epistle  to  Cornelius  is  the 
fourth  reference  made  by  Dr.  Milner.  After  a 
most  attentive  perusal  of  that  epistle  in  the  ori- 
ginal work,  I  could  not  discover  a  single  pas- 
sage which  glanced  at  Transubstantiation  ;  ex- 
cept it  be  supposed,  that  the  father  alluded  to 
it  where  he  asks,  "  how  can  we  make  those  fit 
to  taste  the  cup  of  martyrdom,  if  we  do  not  first 
admit  them  to  communicate  in  the  cup  of  the 
Lord?"  I  should  not  quote  words  so  inappro- 
priate to  such  a  meaning,  did  T  not  perceive 
from  a  note  on  them,  that  some  writer  like 
Doctor  Milner,  whom  Cyprian's  annotator  re- 
proves, fancied  he  saw  the  doctrine  of  the  cor- 
poreal presence  established  by  them !  Pamelius, 
the  person  1  allude  to,  thus  comments  on  this 
passage  ;  *  "  there  is  no  mention  here  of  con- 
comitance, of  Transubstantiation,  of  the  adora- 
tion of  the  signs,  or  of  carrying  them  about." 
Cyprian  speaks  of  the  Body  of  our  Lord  in  the 

*   Nulla  hie  concomitaiiU;c,  Iraiisubslanlialiunis^  manduca- 
lion'iJ-  oralis. — Pamel.  in  loo. 


CHRIST    IN    THE    SACRAMENT.  161 

Eucharist  not  only  as  bread,    but  as  *  being 

composed  of  flour  and  water,  and  representing 

the  union  of  the  Church  with  Christ.     Of  the 

wine,  he  says,  f  "  when  it  is  mixed  with  water, 

the  people  is  united  with  Christ."     Throughout 

the  epistle,  quoted  by  Dr.  Milner,  he  refers  to 

the  real  substance  of  bread  and  wine  ;  while  he 

diverts  our  attention  from  the  body  of  Christ. 

'  This  is  one  of  the  ways  familiar  to  the  ancient 

fathers,  when   speaking  of   the  elements,  and 

which,   as   much    as    any  other,  negatives  the 

doctrine  of  Transubstantiation. 

5.  Origen's  evidence  is  equally  at  variance  with 
thedoctrine,  which  he  is  said  to  support.  In  truth, 
were  not  Dr.  Milner's  judgment  under  a  most 
unnatural  bias,  he  would  admit,  that  whatever 
virtue  was  attributed  by  this  ancient  writer  to  the 
elements  after  consecration,  he  considered  their 
material  substance  to  remain  unaltered^  and  to 
contribute  to  the  support  of  our  bodies,  like  any 
common  food.  Thus,  he  says,  '*  even  the  meat, 
which  is  sanctified  by  the  word  of  God  and  by 

•  Nam  quando  Dominus  corpus  suum  panem  vocat,  de 
multoruin  frranorurn  aduiiatione  congestum,  po|)uIum  nos- 
trum qucm  porlabat  indicat  adunatum. — Epist.  Ixxvi.  sect.  4. 
p.  133. 

t  duando  in  calico  vino  aqua  miscetur,  Christo  populiis 
adunatur. — Epist.  Ixiii.  sect.  10.  p.  lOS. 

M 


162  THi:    RKAL    PRESENCE    OF 

prayer,  *  as  toucliini;-  llie  material  part  thereof, 
goeth  into  the  helly,  and  is  voided  into  the 
dramrht.'  He  tlien  acids,  f**  it  is  not  the  mat- 
ter of  the  bread,  but  the  word  that  is  said  over 
it,  that  profits  him  who  eats  it  not  unworthily 
of  the  Lord."  And  concludes  in  this  decisive 
manner,  J"  and  these  things  I  speak  of  the 
ti/pic(d  or  symholic(d  body."  Here  are  epithets 
apphed  to  the  elements,  which  are  quite  irre- 
concileable  with  the  idea  of  Transnbstantiation. 
Doctor  Milner  imj)eaches  Bishop  Tomline's 
judgment  for  appealing  to  Origen's  authority  in 
his  exposition  of  the  xxviiith  article,  when  he 
affirms,  that  the  passage  cited  by  his  Lordship 
§  "  is  nothing  at  all  to  the  purpose."  The  Bishop, 
after  observing  that  more  than  twenty  fathers 
understood  our  Saviour's  words  in  2i  Jigurative 
sense,  without  one  support  on  the  opposite 
side,  rests  his  cause  on  Origen's  single  testi- 
mony in  the  Greek,  where  he  says,  || "  that  the 
understanding  our  Saviour's  words,  of  eating 

*  K«t'  uvto  fxi*  TO  vMhov  tt;  T^r  KOIAIAN  X*^**'  "*•  **'> 
AOEAPONA  txCaXXtrai. — Orig,  in  Matl.  xv.  15. 

t  Kai  ax  i  'YAH  t«  u^ruj  a'Kh  h  iir  otvro  £»gDji*Ejio;  >koyo5,  &C. 
— Ibid. 

t  Ka»  ravrac  /ai»  wtgi  tu  TYniK.OY  Ka»  lYMBOAIKOY  aufAX- 
Toj. — Ibid. 

§  Letter  xxxvii.  p.  50. 

II   Elem.  of  Theol.,  vol.  li.  p.  48S. 


CHRIST    IN    THE    SACRAMENT.  163 

his  flesh  aud  drinking  his  blood  according  to 
the  letter,  is  a  letter  that  kills."  This  passage 
not/ling  to  the  purpose  !  Well,  let  us  see  what 
Dr.  Milner  cites  from  the  father  as  being  to 
the  purpose.  *  "  Manna  was  formerly  given  as 
a  figure;  but  now  the  flesh  and  blood  of  the 
Son  of  God  is  specifically  given,  and  is  real 
food."  I  must  here  observe,  that  I  have  not 
been  able  to  discover  this  passage  in  Origen's 
seventh  homily  on  Leviticus,  after  a  most  pa- 
tient search  for  it  in  Genebrard's  edition.  How- 
ever, granting  that  it  escaped  my  notice,  I  see 
nothing  in  it  which  disproves  what  the  Bishop 
says  ;  as  the  father,  having  once  admitted  the 
figure,  might  consistently  expatiate  on  the  real 
signification  of  his  words  to  any  extent  he 
pleased.  Thus,  to  the  question,  "j  "  how  can 
he  give  us  his  body?"  he  replies,  "  believe  it, 
because  those  ave  J/gures  which  are  written  in 
the  divine  volumes."  Against  the  Marcionites 
he  urges,  J"  if  Christ  were  without  body  and 
blood,  of  what  kind  of  flesh,  or  of  what  kind  of 
body,  or  of  wliat  kind  of  blood,  did  he  give  the 
bre«id    and    the  cup   to    be    images;    when   he 

*  HoM.  vii.  in  Levit. 

f  Q.u\n  fii^urcB  sunt,  qurc  in  divinis  voluminibus  scripta  sunt. 
Jhid. 

J    El  y  J;  «Toi  <pa,a-i»,  uffoc^KOi,  »t«»  a»ai/xot   »"»    iroiot(  <rapxof,  ri 

fiof,  &c. — Orig.  Dialog,  iii. 

M    "2 


104  THE    REAL    PRESENCE    OP 

commanded  his  disciples  to  make  a  cammemo- 
ration  of  him  by  them?"  His  distinction,  too, 
between  the  eating  the  typical  and  the  true  body 
of  Christ  is  thus  clearly  drawn.  *"  That  which 
is  sanctified  by  God  and  by  prayer,  does  not  of 
its  own  nature  sanctify  him  that  useth  it;  for  if 
that  were  so,  it  would  sanctify  him  that  doth  eat 
unworthily  of  the  Lord."  This  is  exactly  con- 
formable to  our  xxixth  article;  while  it  explains 
the  language  of  our  Church  Catechism,  and  is 
incompatible  with  the  doctrine  of  Transubstan- 
tiation,  according  to  which  '\  "  the  wickedy  and 
such  as  be  void  of  a  lively  faith,"  partake  of 
the  Sacrament  of  the  Lord's  Supper.  It  is  un- 
necessary to  add  another  proof  how  fully  the 
Bishop  of  Winchester  was  borne  out  in  saying, 
that  Origen  only  understood  our  Saviour's 
words  in  a  figurative  sense. 

Although  apprehensive  that  I  shall  have  ap- 
peared too  minute  in  the  foregoing  references, 
yet  I  must  entreat  the  reader's  further  indul- 
gence, while  I  briefly  state  a  few  of  those 
J  "  heautifid  testimonies  for  the  (Roman)  Ca- 
tholic doctrine,"  to  which  Dr.  Milner  barely 
adverts.  It  were  unpardonable,  after  his  par- 
ticular commendation  of  them,  to  leave  them 
unnoticed. 

*  Id.  in  Matt.  xv.  f  Article  xxix. 

X  Letteh  XXXV ii.  \K  50. 


CHRIST    IN    THE    SACRAMENT.  165 

6.  Basil  says,  "  we  have  often  observed, 
that  the  operations  of  the  mind  are  called  by 
the  same  names  as  those  of  the  ontvt'ard  mem- 
bers. But,  as  our  Lord  is  the  true  bread,  and 
his  flesh  is  the  true  meat,  it  is  necessary  tliat 
the  delightful  pleasure  which  we  receive  from 
that  bread  should  be  conveyed  to  us,  *  by  our 
tasting  it  spiritually.'" 

7.  Chrysostom  asks,  "f""  for  if  Jesus  be  not 
dead,  whose  symbols  are  they  which  are  offered  ?" 
He  then  adds,  "  since,  therefore,  the  word  says, 
This  is  my  body,  let  us  both  obey  and  believe, 
and  look  upon  it  with  the  eyes  of  the  understand- 
ing. For  what  Christ  delivered  has  nothing  to 
do  with  the  senses ;  but  although  joined  with 
sensible  objects,  all  is  spiritual." 

8.  Jerome  says,  J"  in  the  type  of  his  blood, 
he  offered  not  water,  but  wine." 

9.  Austin  remarks,  §"  how  the  signs  are 
varied,  faith  remaining  the  same ;  in  the  wil- 
derness, the  Rock  was  Christ ;  to  us  that  which 
is  placed  on  the  altar  is  Christ," 

10.  Cyril's  sentiments  on  this  subject  are 
put  beyond   the;  possibility  of  doubt,     lii  his 

*   Ai«  yjt/ffiw?  iif*i»  NOHTHI  lyyuiffSdci. — In  Ps.  xliv.  6, 

t  NOHTOIi;  oLvro  /3^iww^i»  o^9aAp.ot;  ....  -rrottret  it  NOHTA. 
— In  Matt.  Horn,  ixxxii. 

I  Advers.  Jovin.  lib.  ii.  p.  198. 

§ Ibi  Pctra  Christus,  nobis  ChristiM  quod  in  nltari 

Dei  ponitur. — In  Johan.  Beet.  xii. 


16(3  THE    REAL    PRESENCE    OF 

reasoning  on  tlie  fi2:urative  acceptation  of  the 
VI  til  of  Jolin,  he  refers  to  what  Christ  told  the 
Jews,  that  unless  they  eat  his  flesh  and  drank 
his  blood,  they  had  no  life  in  them.  "  But 
lhey,"*says  he,  "not  understanding  these  things 
which  were  spoken  spiritually,  went  back, 
thinking  that  he  invited  them  to  an  eating  of 
his  flesh." 

Were  I  to  name  one  of  those  early  writers 
more  than  another,  to  whom  the  most  flagrant 
injustice  has  been  done,  I  should  particularize 
Cyril.  The  passage  from  this  father's  writings, 
which  Dr.  Milner  has  quoted,  is  precisely  the 
same  as  that,  which  Ward,  above  a  century  ago, 
published  in  a  mutilated  state,  as  expressive  of 
his  sentiments,  after  so  much  had  been  taken 
out  of  the  context  as  would  have  determined 
its  meaning.  The  re-production  of  it  now  is 
the  more  inexcusable ;  as  the  Doctor  should 
have  assigned  some  reason  for  following  in 
Ward's  track,  after  the  detection  and  exposure 
of  the  fraud  in  my  f  strictures  on  that  author. 
I  have  there  exhibited  in  its  true  colours,  his  dis- 
ingenuous attempt  to  palm  on  the  public  the  pas- 
sage in  question  as  the  unbroken  narrative  of 
Cyril,  after  he  had  pared  it  down  to  suit  his 


*   Exityot  fAw  anfiKoorti  IlNEYMATIKfiS  rut  Xtyoixtnun  carnXdtp. 
— Caleches,.  Myst.  iv.  p.  293. 

t  See  Answer  to  Ward's  Errata,  p.  123. 


CHRIST    IN    THE    SACRAMENT.  1(J7 

particular  purpose.  Nor  can  I  now  condemn 
in  less  severe  terms  the  artifice  to  which  his 
servile  imitator  has  had  recourse. 

11.  Ambrose's  testimony  is  the  last  in  Doc- 
tor JVIilner's  catalogue.  This  father  compares 
the  change,  which  takes  place  in  the  elements 
of  the  Eucharist,  to  the  regeneration  of  a  man 
in  baptism.  But  as  this  change  is  of  a  spiritual 
nature,  he  could  not  illustrate  the  point,  if  he 
considered  such  change  in  the  elements  as  of 
a  material  or  corporeal  one.  Thus  he  says, 
*  "thou  thyself  did  exist  but  as  an  old  creature. 
After  you  were  consecrated,  you  began  to  be 
a  new  creature."  Again,  f  "  the  priest  says, 
make  this  oblation  applicable,  rational,  accept- 
able, which  is  the  figure  of  the  Body  and 
Blood  of  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ."  There  is  not 
the  slightest  countenance  given  here  to  Tran- 
substantiation  ;  even  the  very  passage,  on  which 
Doctor  Milner  relies,  is  no  less  adverse  to  it. 
I  shall  now  produce  it,  still  advising  the  reader 
to  bear  in  mind,  that  a  figure  once  admitted, 
the  subsequent  discussion  may  consist  of  real- 
ities. The  unconnected  form  into  which  he  has 
thrown  it,  precludes  the  possibility  of  my  detect- 

*  Tu  ipse  eras,  set!  eras  vetus  crealura  ;  post([uam  conse- 
cratiis  e? ;  nova  crealura  esse  cccpisti. — De  Sacram.  lib.  iv. 
c.  4. 

t  Fac  nobis  banc  oblationem  ascriptam  .  .  .  quod  est  _/!^«ra 
I)om.  N.  I.  C. — Ibid.  Lib.  iv.  c   3. 


l68  THE    REAL    PRESENCE    OF 

ing  any  operation  of  the  pruning  knife  such  as 
that  performed  on  Cyril.  The  J)octor  has  there- 
fore all  the  advantage  which  this  circumstance, 
and  his  own  arrangement  can  give  him.  *"How 
many  examples  do  we  produce  to  shew  you, 
that  this  is  not  what  nature  made  it,  but  what 
the  benediction  has  consecrated  it ;  and  that 
the  benediction  is  of  greater  force  than  nature, 
because  by  the  benediction  nature  itself  is 
changed."  Then  after  speaking  of  the  miracle 
performed  on  Moses's  rod,  the  father  is  made 
by  Doctor  Milner  to  say  ;  *'  Thou  hast  read  of 
the  creation  of  the  world :  if  Christ  by  his  word 
was  able  to  make  something  out  of  nothing, 
shall  he  not  be  thought  able  to  change  one 
thing  into  another  ?"  The  father  says  nothing 
more,  nor  less,  than  that  the  elements  after  con- 
secration are  endued  with  more  heavenly  graces 
than  they  had  before  it ;  but  that  they  retain 
their  properties  unchanged.  But  although 
Christ's  power  to  perform  the  miracle  spoken 
of,  be  unquestioned,  and  although  the  Gospel 
may  seem  to  say  that  he  wrought  one  at  his 
last  Supper  ;  where,  I  would  ask,  is  it  even  re- 
motely intimated  in  Scripture,  that  he  delegated 
such  power  to  the  priests  of  the  present  day.f^ 
I  therefore  infer,  from  every  view  of  the  subject, 
the  insufficiency  of  those   '*  beautiful  testimo- 

*  Ambros.  de  hi3  qui  Myst.  Init.  c.  ix. 


CHRIST    IN    THE   SACRAMENT.  169 

nies'  alluded  to  by  Doctor  Milner,  to  establish 
the  Popish  doctrine,  or  *  "  to  refute '  what  he 
calls,  *'  the  rash  assertions  of  two  Protestant 
Bishops."  Other  passages  from  the  fathers,  of 
the  same  tendency,  could  be  multiplied  to  an 
indefinite  amount ;  but  enough  has  been  pro- 
duced to  shew  the  gross  perversion  to  which 
their  authority  has  been  subjected. 

By  the  way,  1  cannot  avoid  noticing,  that 
Tertul Han's  name  does  not  appear  in  Doctor 
Milner'y  list.  The  omission  is  the  more  remark- 
able, as  that  father  stands  foremost,  when  he 
labours  to  establish  other  points,  which  the 
Church  of  England  does  not  deny.  But  as 
Tertullian's  wntings  are  necessarily  included 
among  the  "  numberless  documents,"  which 
"  all  the  fathers"  furnish  in  support  of  the 
Doctor's  opinions,  I  shall  give  a  few  specimens 
of  the  kind  of  support,  which  he  derives  from 
this  parricular  source,  as  he  has,  for  reasons 
perfectly  obvious,  not  done  so  himself. 

**  We  ought  not,"  t  «ays  he,  **  to  offer  unto 
God  earthly,  but  spiritual  sacrifices,  as  it  is 
written,  the  sacrifice  of  God  is  an  humble  and 
eotUritc  spirit ;  offer  also  unto  God  the  sacrijice 

*  Letter  xxxvii.  p.  51. 

f  "  Noil  tcrrenissacrificiis,  scd  ,^jr//Mrt/j7>JMlitandum 

cor  contribulatum  tt  luimiliatnm  hostia  Deo  est ;"  et  alibi, 
"  sacrifica  Deo  sacrificiwn  lauclis." — Tf.rtui..  adversus  Jud.  c.  v. 
p.  188. 


1)70  THE    KEAL    PRESENCE    OF 

of  praised  Again,  *"  Christ  made  the  bread 
his  Body,  by  saying.  This  is  my  Body  ;  that 
is,  tlie  Jigure  of  my  Body."  His  arguments 
against  the  Academics  are  such  as  might  with 
propriety  be  urged  against  tlie  Romish  Doc- 
tors, who,  like  those  heretics,  discredit  the  tes- 
timony of  the  senses.  After  stating  the  extent 
to  which  their  evidence  was  applied  during  our 
Lord's  ministry,  lie  thus  concludes  :  "  Neither 
was  nature  abused,  as  far  as  the  Apostles  were 
concerned:  "^  faithful  ■dX^o  was  the  taste  of  that 
wine,  which  had  before  been  water  at  the  mar- 
riage of  Galilee:  Thomas's  touch  -wa.^  faithful." 
I  would  here  inquire,  whether  the  sacramental 
bread  has  a  different  taste  after,  from  what  it 
had  before,  consecration  ;  as  the  fluid  had  at 
the  marriage  feast,  after  the  performance  of  the 
miracle  ?  Does  it  resemble  flesh  in  taste,  or 
any  other  substance,  rather  than  bread?  And 
is  not  the  whole  representation  an  act  of  the 
mind  and  of  faith?  Let  Doctor  Milner  an- 
swer these  questions,  if  he  can.  However,  I 
trust  1  have  assigned  satisfactory  reasons,  why 
he  has  in  the  present  instance,  omitted  to  men- 
tion a  name,  which  on  other  occasions  he  holds 

*  "  Corpus  ilium  suum  fecit,  hoc  est  coui'Li  melm  di- 
cciido,  id  est,  figura  corporis  niei." — Id.  contra  Marcioii.  \\h. 
iv.  c.  40. 

t  See  Note(*)   p.  138. 


CHRIST    IN    THE    SACRAMENT.  \7\ 

up  as  of  paramount  authority  :  while  I  have  oa 
the  whole  of  the  evidence  brought  forward,  fully- 
proved,  *'  that  all  the  fathers,  and  the  whole  se- 
ries of  ecclesiastical  history,"  instead  of  being 
"  on  his  side,"  as  he  so  positively  asserts,  are 
in  direct  opposition  to  him. 

We  shall  now  see,  how  he  gets  over  the  diffi- 
culty, which  our  Saviour's  words,  at  the  very 
institution  of  this  Sacrament,  produce,  on  the 
supposition  of  his  being  corporeally  present  in 
it.     Those  words  are,  do  this  in  remembrance 
of  me:  in  which.  Doctor  Milner  says,  there  is 
no  contradiction;  *"  for  the  Eucharist  is  both 
a  memorial  of  Christ   and  the  real  (viz.    cor- 
poreal)   ju-esence  of  Christ.    When    a   persoti 
stands  visibly  before  us,  we  have  no  need  of 
any  sign  to  call  him  to  our  memory;  but  if  he 
were  present  in  such  a  manner  as   to  be  con- 
cealed  from  our  senses,  we  might,  without  a 
memorial   of  him,    as   easily  forget   him  as  if 
he  were  at  a  great  distance  from  us."    1  ask,  in 
the  name  of  common  sense,  what  are  we  to  sup- 
pose that  the  memorial   of  a  person  implies? 
It   cannot  surely  be  the  very  person  himself; 
but   something  or  other,  which   represents  him 
in    his    absence.       'J'his    is    the    declared    opi- 
nion of  the  fath( MS,   \\\\v\\   they  speak  of  what 
the  Eucharist  was  designed  to  commemorate; 
which  he  caimot,  as  a  mend)er  of  a  Church, 

*  Letter  xxxviii.  p.  59. 


172  THE    REAL    PRESENCE    01 

which  bends  so  much  to  authority,  refuse  to 
acknowledge.     Thus  says — 

Tertullian. — *  "  The  image  cannot  be  every 
way  adequate  to  the  truth ;  for  it  is  one  thing 
to  be  according  to  the  truth,  another  to  be  the 
truth  itself y  Again  :  t  *'  No  person  intending 
to  shew  a  man,  produces  a  helmet  or  a  mask." 

Athanasius.  —  J  "  That  which  is  like  an- 
other thing,  is  not  the  thing  itself  to  which  it  is 
like." 

Hilary  and  Ambrose. — 1|  *'  Neither  is  any 
one  an  image  of  himself." 

Gregory  Nyss. — §  "  The  original  is  plainly 
seen  in  the  likeness  of  it." 

Chrysostom. — %  "  A  sign  is  inferior  to  that 
of  which  it  is  a  sign." 

Jerome. — **  "  He  left  us  a. commemoration  or 

*  "  Imago  veritati  non  uaquequaque  adaequabitur." — Contra 
Marcion.  lib.  ii.  c.  9. 

f  "  Nemo  ostendere  volens  hominem,  cassidem  nut  personam 
introdtrcit." — De  Came  Christi,  c.  ii. 

t  To  ofAoto*  Tim,  «K  ir»  AYTO  EKEINO  u  o^oierai. — Con- 
tra Hypocr.  Milet. 

II"  Nequeenim  sibi  ipsi  quisquam  imago  est." — DeSynodis 
et  De  Fide. 

§  To  apx^rvirov  tvxfyui;  tv  r»  ^niA7nt.tt.7t  xaSogao-fiai.  —  In 
Cant.  Horn.  xv. 

%   KATAAEEETEPA    laoy    oynt,t\o»    rs    «"pay/*«To;    uirt^  if» 

**  "  Ultimam  nobis  commemorationem  sive  ynanoriam  dere- 
liquit."— Oper.  Tom.  v.  p.  998. 


CHRIST    IN    THE    SACRAMENT.  173 

memory  of  himself.  As  if  one  going  abroad 
should  leave  some  pledge  to  a  person  whom  he 
loves,  that  as  often  as  he  sees  it,  he  may  remem- 
ber both  his  benefits  and  his  friendship."    And 

Austin,  who  is,  and  always  has  decidedly 
been,  the  greatest  favourite  in  the  Romish 
Church,  says,  *  "  no  person  remembers  any 
thing,  but  such  as  is  not  present'' 

The  reader  now  sees  how  successful  Doctor 
Milner  has  been  in  his  appeal  to  the  fathers: 
that  which  he  makes  to  the  eminent  bishops 
and  divines  of  the  establishment  in  this  coun- 
try will  next  claim  our  attention.  He  express- 
ly names  Laud,  Andrews,  Cosin,  and  Bram- 
HALL,  with  five  or  six  others ;  and  adds  the 
justly  esteemed  divine,  Hooker,  f  Their  testi- 
monies for  the  Real  Presence,  he  says,  ;|; "  are 
as  explicit  as  Roman  Catholics  themselves  can 
wish  them  to  be."  As  a  Catholic,  I  subscribe 
to  their  opinions;  but  1  shall  prove,  from  their 
own  lips,  that  their  sentiments  are  most  ad- 
verse to  the  Popish  idea  of  the  Real  Presence. 

To  begin  witli  ||  Laud.  In  this  Prelate's 
Conference  with  Fisher  the  Jesuit,  he  first 
states,  that  Bellarmine  held  "  that  the  conver- 

*  "  Nemo  reconlatur  nisi  quod  in  prascntiu  non  est  positum. 
Oper.  torn.  iv.   p.  220. 

t  It  is  deserving  of  notice,  that  JtweH's  name  is  suppressed 
in  this,  as  Tertulhan's  was  in  the  fo)-mer  catalo£i;iie. 

X  Lettefi  xxxvii.  p.  53.  ||  Page  286. 


171  tHE    REAL    PRESENCE    OF 

sion  of  the  bread  and  wine,  into  the  Body  and 
Blood  of  Christ,  is  substantial,  but  after  a 
secret  and  ineffable  manner."  Now,  says  the 
wVrchbishop,  "  if  he  liad  left  out  conversion,  and 
only  affirmed  Christ's  Keal  Presence  tiiere,  after 
a  mysterious  and  ineffable  manner,  no  man  could 
have  spoken  better."  He  then  shews,  from  a 
comparison  of  two  passages,  wliere  that  writer 
contradicts  himself;  that  though  he  affirms  in  the 
one  a  corporeal  Presence  of  Christ  in  the  Sacra- 
ment; yet,  in  the  other,  he  denies  that  it  is  corpo- 
raliter,  i.  e.  "  after  the  manner  in  which  bodies 
naturally  exist."  Laud  next  alludes  to  the  clear 
manner  in  which  Cranmer  speaks  on  the  subject, 
* "  If  you  understand  by  their  word  really, 
reipsd,  that  is,  in  very  deed  and  effectually,  so 
Christ,  by  the  efficacy  of  his  passion,  is  indeed 
and  truly  present ;  but  if  you  understand  cor- 
poraliter,  in  His  natural  and  organical  Body, 
under  the  form  of  Bread  and  Wine,  it  is  con- 
trary to  the  Word  of  God."  He  next  quotes 
Ridley  to  the  same  effect,  and  adverts  to  the  re- 
cantation of  Berengarius,  who  admitted  there- 
by the  oral  manducation  of  the  real  Body  of 
Christ,  at  which  the  learned  f  Averroes  took 
such  offence.  But  why  multiply  instances  to 
shew  the  nature  of  the  Real  Presence  held 

*  Page  259. 

t  Mundum  peragravi,  et  uon  vidi  secfam  deterioreiii,  et 
magis  faluam  Chrihtiaii4,  quia  Dtum  (jueni  culuiit,  dentibus 
c/«oran<.— Oper.   Vol.  i.  p.  68.     Ed.  1608. 


CHRIST    IN    THE    SACRAMENT.  175 

by  Laud.  Indeed,  so  explicit  is  he  on  this 
point,  that  it  is  wonderful  how  Doctor  Milner 
could  have  confidence  enough  to  quote  him  as 
an  advocate  for  the  Popish  doctrine. 

Andrews,  Bishop  of  Winchester,  comes  next,^ 
and  distinctly  pronounces  Transubstantiation 
to  be  a  "  modern  invention,"  not  having  been 
named  for  above  twelve  hundred  years  after 
Christ.  *"  I  agree,"  says  he,  "  with  Gregory 
of  Nyssa,  that  the  nature  of  the  bread  and 
wine  is  changed  ;  yet,  that  neither  them,  nor  us 
is  transubstantiated."  After  stating  the  opi- 
nions of  several  fathers,  the  Bishop  concludes 
with  observing,  f  "  that  the  change  in  the  Sa- 
crament is  not  substantial.''  He  then  says,  that 
St.  Austin  divided  the  Eucharist  into  two  parts  ; 
viz.  the  Sacramentum,  and  the  res  Sacramenti. 
J"  That  Christ,  the  subject  (res)  of  the  Sacra- 
ment was  to  be  adored,  but  not  the  Sacrament 
— namely  the  earthly  part,  as  Irenaeus  expres- 
ses it ;  or  that  which  is  exposed  to  the  sight, 
as   August! n  says."    Can  any  thing,  therefore, 

*  Et  nos,  cum  Nysscno  crtdinuis,  virlute  heiiedictioi;l$, 
panii  et  viiii  iiaturam  immutari,  nee  tamen  vel  i/)«a,  vel  rio.t 
iransubslantiari. — Answer  to  Bellarmine,  p.  192. 

t  SuhsUmliakm  non  esse,  quae  in  Sacramento  fit,  transmuta- 
tioneni.  —  Ihid.  p.  195. 

I  (Ihnalufi  Sacramenti  res  adorandus  est ;  al  7ion  Sacratiicn- 
iwn,  terrcna  scdictt  pars,  ut  Irciiuus  ;  vibibilis,  ut  Augusti- 
nus. — Ibid. 


176  THE    REAL    PRESENCE    OP 

be  plainer  than  the  injnstice  done  to  Bishop 
Andrews,  when  he  is  said  to  have  "  firmly  be- 
lieved" the  corporeal  presence  of  Christ  in  the 
Eucharist. 

Havinj?  vindicated  Bisliop  Cosin,  in  the  con- 
cluding part  of  the  last  chapter,  from  the  foul 
imputation  of  advocating  the  Popish  doctrine 
of  the  corporeal  Presence ;  I  pass  on  to  the 
equally  abused  authority  of  Archbishop  Bram- 

HALL. 

In  his  Answer  to  Le  Militiere,  he  says,  *  *'  7 
find  not  one  of  your  arguments,  that  comes  home 
to  Transuhstantiationy  but  only  to  a  true,  real 
presence,  which  no  genuine  son  of  the  Church 
of  England  did  ever  deny,  no,  nor  your  adver- 
sary himself.     Christ  said,   this  is  my  Body; 
what  he  said,  we  do  stedfastly  believe,  he  said, 
[not,  after  this  manner,  or  that  manner,]  neque 
con,  neque  suh,  neque  trans  ;  and  therefore  we 
place  it  among  the  opinions  of  the  schools,  not 
among  the  articles  of  our  faith."     In  order  to 
make  the  preceding  passage  speak  the  language 
of  the  Church  of  Rome,  Doctor  Milner  leaves 
out  the  first  clause,  which  is  put  in  italics,  and 
then  transposes  the  second  one.     He  likewise 
omits  the  words  within  the  brackets.     By  this 
contrivance,  the  distinction,   which   the  Arch- 
bishop drew  between  Transubstantiation  and 

*  Bramhall's  Answer,  Fol.  Ed.  D.  15. 


CHRIST    IN    THE    SACRAMENT.  177 

"the  true  real  presence,"  by  Avhich  he  evidently 
meant  the  spiritual  presence,  being  done  away  ; 
the  words  '  real  presence,'  are,  from  their  am- 
biguity, necessarily  made  to  imply  the  corporeal 
presence ! 

But  the  Archbishop  has  put  it  beyond  the 
reach  of  sophistry  to  make  him  even  appear 
friendly  to  this  monstrous  doctrine.  He  speaks 
of  the  *  "  fatliers  seeing  Christ  in  the  Sacra- 
ment, fastening  their  teeth  in  his  flesh,  and  mak- 
ing their  tongues  red  in  his  blood."  .  .  .  .  "  They 
never  meant,"  says  he,  "  by  these  forms  of 
speech,  the  manner  of  the  presence ;  but  to  raise 
the  devotion  of  the  hearers."  Again,  "  Transub- 
stantiation  was  not  an  old  article  of  faith  :  it 
was  not  well  digested,  nor  rightly  understood 
above  a  thousand  years  after  Christ."  Then, 
after  enlarging  on  the  miraculous  conversion  of 
the  water  into  wine  at  the  marriage  feast,  and 
of  Moses's  rod  into  a  serpent,  he  reverts  to  the 
subject  of  Transubstantiation,  "  The  substance 
of  the  elements  is  not  converted,  for  that  is  sup- 
posed to  be  destroyed  ;  the  accidents  are  not 
converted,  but  remain  the  same  they  were. 
It  is  no  adduction  at  all,  when  the  Body  of 
Christ  (which  is  the  thing  suj»j)ose(l  to  hv  ad- 
duced) remains  still  in  Heaven,  where  it  was 
before."     Lastly,   he  says,   |"?r^;  have  rejcclcd 

*   liiii).  y.  17.  I    Iiui).  |).  .'{f). 


178  THE    REAL    PRESENCE    OF 

Tiaiisubstantiation  deservedly  from  being  an 
article  of  our  Creed ;  but  if  we  had  rejected 
it  400  years  sooner,  that  had  been  a  miracle : 
(Bramhall  was  born  A.  D.  1593),  it  was  not  so 
soon  hatched.  To  find  but  the  word  Transub- 
stantiation  in  any  old  author  were  sufficient  to 
find  him  a  counterfeit."  I  fear,  I  shall  have  ap- 
peared somewhat  tedious  in  ray  quotations ;  but 
1  set  too  high  a  value  on  the  authority  of  those 
eminent  Prelates  to  allow  garbled  statements 
to  go  forth  as  expressive  of  their  opinions, 
when  they  stand  in  direct  contradiction  to  their 
real  sentiments. 

Doctor  Milner's  treatment  of  Hooker  does 
not  correspond  with  the  respect  he  professes  to 
entertain  for  that  profound  writer.  What  will 
the  reader  say,  when  he  is  told,  that  two  folio 
j)ages  intervene  between  the  two  sentences 
which  Doctor  Milner  has  joined  together,  and 
cited  as  if  they  stood  so  in  the  original  ?  Might 
not  the  Scriptures  themselves  be  thus  made  to 
speak  contradictions,  absurdities,  and  false- 
hoods? 

*  Hooker  thus  expresses  himself  on  this  im- 
portant question  :  "  As  touching  a  literal,  cor- 
poral, and  oral  manducation  of  the  very  sub- 
stance of  Christ's  flesh  and  blood,  this  is  surely 
an  opinion  no  where  delivered  in  holy  Scripture." 

*  EccL-  Polity,  book  v.  sect.  67.  p.  560. 


CHRIST     IN    THE    SACRAMENT.  179 

Immediately  after  he  says,  *  "  in  a  word,  it  ap- 
peareih  not,  that  of  all  the  other  ancient  fatliers 
of  the  Church,  any  one  did  ever  conceive  other 
than  only  a  mystical  participation  of  Christ's 
both  Body  and  Blood  in  the  Sacrament."  He 
uniformly  dwells  on  this  point,  *'  that  the  real 
presence  of  Christ's  most  blessed  Body  and 
Blood  is  not  to  be  sought  for  in  the  Sacrament, 
but  in  the  worthy  receiver  of  the  Sacrament." 
And,  lastly,  "  there  is  no  sentence  in  holy  scrip- 
ture, which  saith,  that  we  cannot  by  this  Sa- 
crament be  made  partakers  of  his  Body  and 
Blood,  except  they  be  first  contained  in  the  Sa- 
crament, or  the  Sacrament  ^;\s^  converted  into 
them."  Such  are  the  sentiments  of  that  judicious 
writer;  although  Doctor  Milner  affects  to  say, 
that  on  the  part  of  the  Church  of  England, 
he  is  "  as  explicit  as  (Roman)  Catholics  can 
wish  him  to  be,"  in  favour  of  the  corporeal  pre- 
sence of  Christ  in  the  Sacrament !  Thus  we  see, 
notwithstanding-  all  his  empty  flourishes,  that 
he  is  unsupported  either  by  ancient  or  modern 
authority,  respecting  the  Popish  interpretation 
of  the  real  presence. 

Christ's  bo<ly  is  present,  says  Dr.  Milner, 
though  concealed  from  our  senses.  \\\  other 
words,  his  very  flesh,  which  was  nailed  on  llie 
cross,  is   present,  although  we  do  not   perceive 

*  Ibid.  p.  "2(il. 
N   2 


180  •    THE    REAL    PRESENCE   OF 

it;  although  the  other  senses  bear  testimony, 
that  there  is  no  delusion  of  the  sight ;  and  al- 
though the  early  fathers  never  made  Christ's 
body  invisible,  but  because  he  was  absent.  But 
Dr.  Milner  tells  us  what  they  do  not,  that  the 
body  lying  before  us  is  invisible;  although  its 
invisibility  demonstrates  its  absence !  that  is, 
we  are  told,  that  its  presence  demonstrates  its 
absence ;  or,  what  is  no  less  absurd,  that  its 
absence  demonstrates  its  presence !  Besides, 
where  is  the  proof  of  this  corporeal  presence, 
except  the  mere  assertion  of  the  Church  of 
Rome  ?  None  whatever.  We  know  that  God 
is  present  in  all  his  creatures  ;  but  were  he  pre- 
sent after  the  manner  alleged  by  that  Church, 
he  would,  no  doubt,  make  a  sensible  manifes- 
tation of  himself,  as  he  did  to  Moses  by  his 
*Shekinah,  or  glory.  As,  therefore,  we  per- 
ceive no  alteration  in  the  eucharistic  elements 
either  at,  or  after  the  time  of  consecration,  we 
may  safely  infer,  that  they  are  not  the  habita- 
tion of  his  corporeal  presence.  This  is  what 
1  contend  for,  and  I  defy  Dr.  Milner  to  dis- 
])rove  the  truth  or  justice  of  my  arguments. 

Again,  Doctor  Milner  insists,  that  our  chief 
objections  against  this  doctrine  f  "  is  the  testi- 
mony of  the  senses  ;  and  that  though  this  be  a 

*  See  Preserv.  af^ainst  Pop.,  Tit.  vii.  ut  supra. 
I  Leitek  xxxviii.  p.  j9. 


CHRIST    IN    THE    SACRAMENT.  181 

good  topic  for  pulpit  oratory,  it  will  not  stand 
the  test  of  Christian  Theology.  It  would  un- 
dermine the  incarnation  itself.  With  equal  rea- 
son the  Jews  said  of  Christ,  Is  this  the  carpen- 
ter s  son  P  Hence,  they  concluded,  that  he  was 
not  what  he  proclaimed  himself  to  be.  The  Son 
of  God."  For  ray  part,  I  can  see  no  likeness 
between  the  two  cases  ;  because  my  senses  give 
evidence  to  the  fact  in  the  one,  that  what  has 
the  properties  of  bread,  is  bread  ;  but,  in  the 
other,  although  my  senses  may  testify  the  ac- 
tual existence  of  a  certain  individual,  they  nei- 
ther can  tell  the  relation,  which  that  individual 
bears  to  other  persons  ;  nor  of  themselves  deter- 
mine the  truth  of  what  he  says.  The  senses 
of  the  Apostles  bore  evidence  to  the  truth  of 
Christ's  miracles,  and  those  miracles  proved  the 
truth  of  his  professions  ;  but  the  truth  of  his  pro- 
fessions could  never  have  been  ascertained  by 
the  testimony  of  the  senses,  without  the  inter- 
vention of  miracles. 

It  is  further  urged  by  Doctor  Milner,  that 
our  senses  are  not  to  be  relied  on,  for,  *  "  that 
Joshua  thought  he  saw  a  man,  and  Jacob  that 
he  touclnMl  one,  and  Abraham  that  he  eat  with 
three  men  ;  when,  in  all  these  instances,  there 
were  no  real  men,  but  unembodied  spirits,  the 
different  senses  of  those  patriarchs  misleadiug 


IblD. 


182  THi:    REAL    PRESENCE    OF 

them.'  Neither  here  do  I  discover  any  simili- 
tude ;  because,  if  thej^  were  deceived  in  sup- 
j)Osiiig  aerial  forms  ofluiman  shape  to  he  real 
men,  the  delusion  was  such  as  might  he  ex- 
pected. In  none  of  the  cases  mentioned,  could 
the  senses  be  brought  into  play,  as  there  were 
not  subjects  on  which  to  exercise  them  ;  they 
consequently  could  not  be  said  to  mislead.  For, 
it  was  an  avgel  which  appeared  to  *  Joshua ; 
it  was  an  angel  that  wrestled  with  "f  Jacob ;  and 
they  were  three  angels,  whom  :{;  Abraham  enter- 
tained. But  let  Doctor  Milner  furnish  an  in- 
stance, where  both  sight  and  touch  have  at  the 
same  time  been  so  imposed  on,  that  shadows 
should  seem  to  possess  what  they  had  not,  the 
properties  of  bodies,  their  solidity  and  sub- 
stance ;  and  then,  the  appositeness  of  his  parallel 
Avill  be  acknowledged.  But  as  for  visions, 
dreams,  and  the  like,  they  are  totally  inap- 
plicable. 

Again. — How  can  the  reliance  we  repose  on 
our  senses,  undermine  the  Incarnation  itself,  it 
being  a  mystery ;  while  in  Transubstantiation 
there  is  no  mystery  at  all?  We  can  as  clearly 
comprehend  the  most  palpable  falsehoods,  as 
we  can  the  most  evident  truths.  In  the  Incar- 
nation, we  can  see  nothing  false,  or  contrary 
to  our  reason  ;  but  this  is  not  the  case  in  Tran- 
substantiation.    The  former,  we  believe  to  be 

*  Chap.  V.  13.  f  CuN.  wxii,  24.  X  Ibiu.  xviii.  S. 


CHRIST    IN    THE    SACRAMENT.  183 

a  truth,  on  the  express  declaration  of  the  Word 
of  God  ;  the  latter,  we  consider  a  falsehood,  be- 
cause unaccompanied  b}'  those  si^ns  and  tokens 
which  distinguish  the  miracles  of  Christ. 

From  Scripture,  Doctor  Milner  appeals  to 
philosophy  and  experience  to  prove,  that  each 
of  our  senses  frequently  deceives  us.  On  this 
point,  there  can  be  but  one  opinion.  But  the 
thing  for  him  to  shew  is,  that  all  our  senses  at 
any  time  deceive  us  in  matters  cognizable  by 
them.  He  instances  a  setting  sun,  which  is 
below,  at  the  moment  it  appears  to  be  above, 
the  horizon.  True: — there  is  an  optical  delu- 
sion there.  But,  if  for  this  we  substitute  Au- 
gustin's  example,  which,  like  Doctor  Milner's, 
depends  on  the  laws  of  refraction,  we  shall  find 
two  senses  brought  to  bear  on  the  same  object, 
and  one  of  them  rectifying  the  mistake  of  the 
other.  *  "  If,"  says  Austin,  "  one  thinks  that  an 
oar  is  broken  in  the  water,  and  when  it  is  taken 
out  of  the  water  made  whole  again,  he  has  not 

a  bad  reporter,  but  he  is  a  bad  judge 

For,  if  the  air  be  adiflerent  medium  from  waler, 
it  must  be  perceived,  one  way  in  air,  and  an- 

♦  "  Si  qiiis  remum  frangi  in  a(iu&  opiriatur,  cl  ciini    inilt; 
aufcrtur  iiitegrari,  noti  liahtt  malum  iiilcrmincium,  srH  mains 

rst  judex si  cnim  aliiid   i-st  acr,  nlmd   aqua,  jiisUmi  ni 

aliter   in  acre,    alitor    in    aqua  scntiatur." — Dc   Vera    Rclig. 
c.  xx.xiii. 


184  THE    REAL    PRl^SENCE    OF 

of/ier  in  water."  Here  the  sight  itself  detects, 
and  tl)e  toiicli  confirms  the  error;  which  conid 
not  ha))pen  in  the  case  of  the  setting  snn. 

His  proof,  that  we  are  deceived  by  the  sense 
of  touch,  and  that  we  cannot  trust  more  to  it 
than  to  any  other  sense,  is  quite  amusing.  *"  Let 
any  person,"  says  he,  "  cause  his  neighbour  to 
shut  his  eyes,  and  then  crossing  the  two  first 
fingers  of  either  hand,  make  him  rub  a  pea,  or 
any  other  round  substance,  between  them,  he 
will  then  protest,  that  he  feehttvo  such  objects." 
But  let  the  person  submit  this  puerile  trick  to 
the  test  of  vision,  and  his  error  will  be  instantly 
removed.  Thus  it  appears,  that  it  is  only  by 
the  evidence  of  our  senses  that  we  know  any 
thing.  To  say,  that  the  substance  of  the  bread 
does  not  exist  in  the  Sacrament,  when  all  its 
pro})erties  appear,  and  that  the  substance  of  the 
flesh  is  there,  although  without  the  f  appearance 
of  any  of  them,  is  a  monstrous  contradiction ! 
Jt  is,  as  J  one  father  says,  to  suppose  the  Al- 
mighty to  do  what  is  absurd  {urotro*) ;  and  as 
§  another  says,  what  is  contrary  to  nature  (Tra^a 
(pviTn>)  and  impossible.     It  is  to  suppose  God  to 

*  Letter  xxxviii.  p.  60. 

t  When  Doctor  Milner  uses  the  word  species,  he  considers 
it  to  be  an  accident,  which  inheres  in  no  substance,  but  sub- 
sists by  itself.     Matter  without  primary  quahties  ! 

t  Cf>em.  Alex.  Strouiat.  lib.  iv.  c.  26. 

§  Orig.  contra  Cels.  lib.  v.  sect.  23. 


CHRIST    IN    THE    SACRAMENT.  185 

pursue  a  course  contrary  to  what  he  has  done 
in  every  other  instance,  where  the  miracle 
wrought  derived  its  effect  from,  and  is  expressly 
submitted  to,  the  senses. 

How,  therefore,  can  Doctor  Milner  come  to 
such  a  copclusion  as  this;  that,  because  each  of 
our  senses  frequently  deceives  us,  (not  observe 
constantly,  but  now  and  again,)  that  they  must 
all,  therefore,  often  deceive  us  in  matters  cog^- 
nizable  by  them?  Or,  how  can  he  say,  that  I 
oppose  their  fallible  testin)ony  to  God's  infallible 
Word,  if  I  submit  that  bread  on  which  the 
reputed  miracle  is  wrought  to  the  judgment  of 
my  senses;  when  I  perceive,  that  all  the  mira- 
cles, which  Christ  performed  when  on  earth, 
were  not  only  submitted  to  the  senses  of  His 
disciples,  but  most  pointedly  referred  to  them? 
Doctor  Mihier  may  believe  all  he  says,  if  he 
can ;  but  as  for  the  poor  laity,  when  they  are 
thus  *instructed  and  invited  to  cozen  themselves, 
can  we  wonder  at  their  besotted  adherence  to 
the  Church  of  Rome? 

I  shall  add  but  a  few  words  more.  The  lite- 
ral acceptation  of  the  phrase,  this  is  My  Body, 
is  inadmissible;  because,  the  miracle,  which 
Doctor  Milner  says  they  imply,  cannot  be  re- 

*  In  their  Mas-;  Book,  the;  laity  arc  required  individually 
to  make  this  declaration,  "  Herein  I  utterly  renounce  the  judg- 
ment of  my  sense."!,  and  all  human  understundinv^" — English 
Manual,  Ed.  1725,  p.  409. 


18()  THi:    KKAL    PRESKNTE    OF 

conciled  with  the  instructions  of  our  Lord  to 
his  disciples  at  Capernaum,  that  they  were  to 
understand  what  he  said  about  eating  His  flesh, 
not  literally,  but  spiritually.  It  is  further  in- 
admissible, because  it  is  not  only  repugnant  to 
the  evidence  of  the  senses,  as  I  haye  proved, 
but  likewise  to  the  laws  of  nature ;  that  Christ 
should  have  held  His  Body  in  His  own  hand, 
thereby  making  the  transubstantiated  bread  to 
exist  under  two  dislinct  shapes,  its  natural  and 
assumed,  at  one  and  the  same  time.  Moses's 
rod  was  turned  into  a  serpent;  yet  the  rod  and 
the  serpent  did  not  co-exist  under  two  different 
forms,  as  the  Body  of  Christ  and  the  Bread 
which  He  blessed  must  have  done.  The  diffi- 
culty is  further  increased;  if,  as  the  Romish 
Church  says,  Christ  be  considered  *  whole  and 
entire,  within  the  contracted  dimensions  of  a 
wafer.  For,  if  He  be  whole  and  entire  in  one 
wafer,  He  cannot  be  ivhole  and  entire  in  another 
wafer,  or  in  a  thousand  others,  at  the  same  in- 
stant, which  would  be  to  make  two  bodies,  or 
a  thousand  bodies,  ivhole  and  entire,  of  Christ, 
all  co-existent.  On  this  t  supposition,  the  same 
body  might  be  far  distant  from  itself,  come  and 
meet  itself,  be  at  rest  and  in  motion  at  the  same 
time,  which  are  direct   contradictions!      This 

*  "  Totus  et  inlesrer  Christus  est  sub  qudlibet  quoque  parte 
hosline  consecrala?." — Binnh  Concil,  vol,  v.  pars  1  ma.  p.  614. 
t  See  Secker's  Seumons,  vol.  vi.  p.  80. 


CHRIST    IN    THE    SACRAMENT.  187 

line  of  argument  will  equally  apply,  whether 
Christ's  Body  be  considered  in  its  "  glorified 
state,"  as  Doctor  Milner  says,  "  on  Mount 
Tabor ;"  or  in  its  natural  state,  when  he  insti- 
tuted the  Er.charist.  For  whether  spiritual  or 
natural,  it  cannot  be  whole  and  entire,  in  two 
different  places,  at  the  same  moment  of  time; 
because  God  can  do  nothing,  which  is,  in  its 
own  nature,  impossible  or  absurd.  1  say 
spiritual,  for  a  spiritual  body  is  as  subject  to 
the  same  impossibility,  in  this  respect,  as  a  na- 
tural body ;  and  because  Christ's  appearing  to 
St.  Paul  on  the  road  to  Damascus,  after  His 
Ascension,  as  urged  by  Doctor  Milner,  is  no 
proof,  that  His  spiritual  Body,  which  is  tvhole 
and  entire  at  His  Father's  right  hand  in  Heaven, 
can  be  whole  and  entire  within  the  narrow  com- 
pass of  a  piece  of  bread  on  the  altar,  at  the 
same  time. 

The  last  point,  on  which  Doctor  Milner  relies, 
is  this,  * "  That  God  fills  all  space,  and  is 
whole  and  entire  in  every  particle  of  matter; 
and  that  his  own  soul  is  in  his  right  hand  and 
in  his  left,  whole  and  entire."  This  objection 
I  have  met  in  the  preceding  paragraph;  I  shall, 
therefore,  simply  remind  him,  that  Omnipre- 
sence is  not  Transubstantiatiori.  1  sincerely 
believe  the   Real  I^resencf.  of  Christ  in  the 

*  Letieu  x\\'\  ill.   p.  61. 


188   THE  REAL  PRESENCE  OF  CHRIST,  &C. 

Sacrament  after  a  spiritual  manner;  because,  I 
believe  His  Presence  to  be  universal,  immu- 
table, Tiud  always  subsisting ;  but  the  doctrine 
of  Transubstantiation  requires  me  to  believe, 
that  the  elements,  which  /  see,  are  converted 
into  a  Body,  which  I  do  not  see;  and  therefore, 
I  as  sincerely  reject  it. 


189 


CHAPTER  VII. 

THE    SUPPRESSION    OF    HALF    THE    EUCHARIST, 
SACRILEGIOUS. 

Were  it  not  to  shew  the  high  authority,  which 
Tradition  holds  in  the  Church  of  Rome,  it 
would  have  been  unnecessary  for  Doctor  Mil- 
ner  to  preface  his  Letter  on  the  subject  of  half 
communion,  with  an  allusion  to  Infant  Baptism. 
*  "  Protestants,"  he  says,  "are  forced  to  have  re- 
course to  the  Tradition  of  the  Church  on  doubt- 
ful points,  with  respect  to  the  two  Sacraments, 
which  they  acknowledge  ;  thus  Christ  was  bap- 
tized in  a  river,  and  the  Egyptian  eunuch  was 
led  into  the  water,  and  infants  also  are  suscep- 
tible of  baptism,  who  are  incapable  of  making 
an  act  of  faith."  The  t  advocates  of  the  Church 
of  Rome.',  ill  imitation  of  the  :f  Council  of  Trent, 
uniformly  re|)resent  Infant  Baptism  as  an  apos- 
tolical tradition.     When  they  do  this,  they  con- 

*  Letter  xxxix.  p.  62. 

f  BhLLxnMiNE  says,  "  Parvulos  baptizaiidos,  vocalur  (la- 
ditio  apnslulica,  non  scripta." — Dc  Vtrbo  Dei,  lib.  iv.  c.  '2. 

X  "  El  trudidonc  Apostolornm  ctiam  parvuli 

vcracitcr  baplizanlur,  ut  in  eis  regcneratione  inuiulctur,  tjuotl 
gciieralioiic  contraxcnuil." — Concil.  Triuent.,  St-ss.  vii. 


lf)0  COMMUNION 

sider  it,  as  a  doctrine  at  least,  in  reference  to 
its  inward  grace ;  but  with  respect  to  its  out- 
ward and  visiWle  sign,  as  a  ceremotif/.  But  since 
the  Clinrch  of  England  uses  its  oirn  discretion 
with  respect  to  ceremonies,  though  it  uniformly 
rejects  doctrines,  wliich  have  no  other  foun- 
dation tlian  tradition,  it  may  on  the  same  prin- 
ciple be  fairly  inferred,  that  the  ceremony  of 
Infant  Baptism  has  been  observed  in  the  Chris- 
tian Church  from  the  earliest  ages.  This,  be- 
sides the  agreeableness  of  the  practice  to  Christ's 
Institution,  furnishes  an  additional  reason  for 
our  adoption  of  it.  When,  therefore,  Doctor 
Milner  says,  that  Protestants  have  recourse  to 
tradition  in  certain  cases,  he  *  confounds  tradition 
of  doctrines  with  tradition  of  ceremonies ;  and 
consequently  represents  the  Church  of  England, 
as  similar  in  this  respect  to  the  Church  of  Rome, 
when  they  are  altogether  different. 

Thus  he  may  be  supposed  to  argue :  the 
Church  of  England  professes  to  reject  tra- 
dition of  doctrines,  while  it  adopts  ceremonies, 
which  are  derivable  from  no  other  source,  than 
tradition :  therefore,  as  tradition  in  the  one 
case,  is  tradition  in  the  other,  it  necessarily  fol- 
lows, that  its  members  must  have  recourse  to 
Iradilion  for  determining  doubtful  points.  This 
is,  however,  false  reasoning.  Our  vith  Article 
rejects  tradition  of  doctrines,  iuasmuch  as  it 

*  See  p.  3. 


UNDER    ONE    KIND.  U)  1 

rejects  "  whatsoever  is  not  read  in  Holt/  Scrip- 
tures, nor  proved  thereby  ;"  and  it  should  be  ob- 
served, that  in  this  rejection  of  tradition  as  a 
Rule  of  Faith  consists  the  vital  principle  of  the 
Reformation.  The  xxxivth  Article  no  less 
rejects  the  sole  authority  of  tradition  in  re- 
gard to  ceremonies.  If,  therefore,  the  Church 
of  Enj^land  retains  some  ''^ceremonies,  which 
have  no  other  foundation  than  tradition,  it  does 
so  for  this  substantial  reason,  not  because  they 
are  supported  by  tradition ;  nor  even  because 
they  are  not  contrary  to  Scripture ;  but,  because 
they  possess  this  positive  quality,  that  they  tend 
to  edijication.  It  speaks  in  the  last-mentioned 
Article,  of  its  not  being  "  necessary  that  tra- 
ditions and  ceremonies  be  in  all  places  one,  or 
utterly  like ;  for  at  all  times  they  have  been  di- 
verse and  may  be  changed  ;  so  that  nothing  be 
ordained  against  God's  word."  The  conclud- 
ing part  of  the  Article  says,  that  "  every  par- 
ticular or  national  Church  hath  authority  to 
ordain,  change,  and  abolish  ceremonies,  or  rites 
of  the  Church,   ordained  only  by  man's  autho- 

*  Bishop  Mar&ii  thus  marks  the  difltreiice  between  tra- 
dition of  ceremonies,  and  tradition  oi  doctrines  :  "the  tra- 
dition of  tlic  latter  is  oral,  and  going  from  moutli  to  mouth 
must  be  perpetually  sulyect  to  nUcration.  But  the  tradition 
of  the  former  is  ocular  tradition,  and  may  be  preserved  unal- 
tered through  a  succession  of  ages,  though  never  committc<l  u< 
writing." — C^omw.  Virw,  p.  144. 


J  92  COMMUNION 

rity,  so  that  all  things  be  done  lo  edifying  ^ 
From  this  it  appears,  that  Doctor  Milner,  at 
the  very  outset,  presents  his  reader  with  a  gross 
misrepresentation. 

Tradition  as  it  regards  the  doctrine  of  Infant 
Baptism,  is  inapplicable  to  the  Church  of  Eng- 
land, which  expressly  states  in  her  xxviith 
Article,  that  "  the  Baptism  of  young  children 
is  in  any  wise  to  be  retained  in  the  Church,  as 
most  agreeable  with  the  Institution  of  Christ." 
Here  is  no  acknowledgment  of  tradition.  On 
the  contrary,  it  is  disclaimed ;  while  the  sanc- 
tion of  the  practice  is  traced  to  the  example  of 
our  Blessed  Lord  Himself,  and  to  His  Holy 
Word.  If  our  Saviour  encouraged  those  who 
brought  little  children  to  Him,  He  likewise 
said  to  His  disciples,  *  "  Go  ye,  and  teach  all 
nations,  baptizing  them  in  the  name  of  the  Fa- 
ther, and  of  the  Son,  and  of  the  Holy  Ghost." 
Thus  He  gave  them  a  general  precept,  without 
the  least  restriction  whatever  as  to  age ;  whe- 
ther young  or  old,  infants  or  adults,  they  were 
to  be  equally  the  objects  of  Baptism. 

In  like  manner,  with  respect  to  the  Eucha- 
rist, our  Church  retains  what  is  essential  to 
that  Sacrament,  while  it  has  wisely  omitted  such 
circumstances  as  would  be  useless,  inconve- 
nient, or  impossible  to  be  complied  with,     it 

*  Matt,  xxviii.  19. 


UNDER    ONE    KIND.  193 

performs  the  sacramental   action,  in   the  way 
commanded    bv  Christ,    when   he  said,    ''  do 
THIS ;"  by  blessing  bread  and  eating  it,  and  by 
blessing  wine  and  drinking  it,  in  remembrance 
of  Him.     In  this   consists   the  essence  of  the 
Sacrament  of  the  Eucharist,  and  to  the  punc- 
tual observance  of  it,  the  Church  of  England  is 
scrupulously  attentive,  while  it  omits  circum- 
stances in  themselves  indifferent,  such   as  the 
*  washing  of  feet ;   the  time,  place,  and  manner 
of  receiving,  &c.  &c.     The  charge  of  inconsis- 
tency, therefore,   which   Doctor  Milner  brings 
against  it,  falls  to  the  ground,  since  it  has  been 
as  little  intiuenced  by  Tradition,  when  it  agreed 
with  the  Church  of  Rome,  in  the  omission  of 
the  latter  points,  which  are  unessential ;  as  it 
was,  when  it  rejected  the  doctrine  and  practice 
of  tliat  church  in  the  remaining  particulars  of 
this  institution.     In  short,  the  Church  of  Eng- 
land never  took  Tradition  at  all  into  considera- 
tion on    the  subject  in   question.     The   same 
may  be  said  of  it  with  respect  to  Baptism.     The 

•  Doctor  Milner  sayt!,  "  that  Christ  enjoined  this  ceremony 
with  tht;  utmost  strictness,  and  that  Protestants  in  rcjectin<j  it 
are  puided  by  tradition."  But  this  is  not  the  fact.  The 
Church  of  Kntjlaiid  perceived  thai  there  was  no  command 
given  on  tiie  .suhjccl,  and  that  our  Saviour  only  profesbcd  to 
>et  an  example,  as  may  be  collected  fronj  John,  xiii.  15  ; 
where  he  says,  "  I  have  given  you  an  example"  &c.  This 
clearly  shews,  from  the  nature  of  the  thing,  that  he  did  not 
intend  that  it  should  he  strictly  followed, 

O 


IJ>4  COM ]M  UN  ION 

manner  ot'  using  the  watei",  whether  by  *imm«r- 
sioii,  or  asi)crsion,  is  set  forth  in  the  Rubrics ; 
while  an  indifference  is  observed  about  the 
quantity  or  quabty.  But  our  Church  retains 
the  use  of  water  generally,  which  alone,  witli 
the  prescribed  form  of  words,  is  essential  to 
Baptism  as  a  Sacrament,  and  is  also  an  \\n- 
alterable  circumstance  attending-  it. 

Doctor  Milner  admits,  that  our  Saviour  in- 
stituted the  Eucharist  under  two  kinds ;  but 
that  t  "  he  then  made  it  a  sacrifice,  as  well  as  a 
sacrament;  that  he  ordained  Priests,  namely 
his  twelve  Apostles,  to  consecrate  the  one,  and 
to  offer  up  the  other ;  that,  for  the  purpose  of 
making  it  a  sacrifice,  the  victim  should  be 
really  present,  and,  at  least,  mystically  immo- 
lated ;  and  that  this  is  effected  in  the  Mass,  by 
the  separate  consecration  of  the  elements ;  and 
finally,  that  to  complete  the  sacrifice,  the  Priests, 
who  had  immolated  the  victim,  should  consum- 
mate it  in  both  kinds,  agreealjly  to  the  divine 
precept,  which  was  addressed  to  the  Apostles 
as  Priests,  and  not  to  the  laity  as  communi- 
cants." Thus  does  this  gentleman  prepare  his 
reader  for  what  he  has  to  advance  in  support  of 
a  practice  in  the  Church  of  Rome,  which  ex- 

*  Our  Church,  at  its  own  discretion,  directs  in  its  Baptismal 
Rubrics  to  "  dip  the  child  in  the  water  discreetly,"  &c.  ;  or 
"  to  pour  the  water  upon  it;"  according  to  circumstances. 

t  Letts  u  xxxix.  p.  63. 


UNDER    ONE    KIND.  1 9o 

dudes  its  laity  from  an  essential  part  of  Christ's 
ordinance;  and  both  in  his  present  and  *  former 
publications,  assert,  that  it  has  been  from  the 
apostolic  age  "  a  mere  matter  oi changeahle  disci- 
pline:" whereas  he  sees  it  to  be  so  intimately 
connected  with  the  lofty  pretensions  of  his 
Church ;  with  her  doctrines  of  Transubstanti- 
ation  and  Infallibility  ;  and  with  her  consequent 
desire  to  exalt  the  priesthood  at  the  expense  of 
the  laity — that  he  could  not  give  up  a  part  with- 
out abandoning  the  whole,  in  order,  therefore, 
to  decide  the  question  at  issue,  I  shall,  in  the 
progress  of  the  discussion,  state  the  respective 
doctrines  of  the  Churches  of  England  and 
Rome,  not  on  the  authority  of  individuals,  but 
on  that  of  their  official  declarations. 

It  would  appear,  that  our  blessed  Lord  Him- 
self laid  greater  emphasis  on  the  participation 
of  the  cup,  by  enjoining  them  all  to  drink  of  it, 
than  on  that  of  the  bread,  which  he  distributed, 
not  with  a  general  injunction,  such  as  "  take 
you  all  and  eat;"  but  with  this  simple  precept, 
"  take,  eat."  Jf  St.  Matthew  reports  him  to 
have  said,  "  drink  ye  all  of  this  ;"  St.  Mark 
relates  that  "  they  all  drank  of  it;"  which  shews 
the  strict  observance  of  the  connnand,  and  the 
importance  attached  to  it  in  the  minds  of  the 

*  Viz.  Letters  to  a  I'rtbeiulary,  p.  110;  mid   Inquiuy, 
&c.  p.  147. 

<)  2 


11K>  COMMUNION 

Apostles  :  an  importance  which  they  evidently 
did  not  attribute  to  the  receiving  of  the  bread. 
So  that,  in  their  narrative,  they  appear  to  have 
been  under  the  unerring  guidance  of  the  Holy 
Spirit  Himself,  who,  in  His  infinite  wisdom, 
foresaw  the  errors  and  abuses,  which  were  to 
arise  in  His  Church  in  after-ages,  in  this  par- 
ticular, as  if  with  a  view  to  their  prevention. 

But  the  Church  of  Rome  has  its  strong  rea- 
sons to  advance  for  so  wide  a  departure  from 
the  letter  and  spirit  of  the  divine  command. 
These  also  I  shall  state  with  fairness  and  candour, 
after  1  have  made  some  observations  prepara- 
tory to  their  introduction;  and  then  proceed  to 
advance  proofs,  which  will  appear  no  less  strong 
because  of  their  being  supported  by  Scripture 
and  the  usage  of  the  primitive  Church:  **'  that 
the  cup  of  the  Lord  ought  to  be  ministered  to 
ALL  Christian  men  alike." 

Two  centuries,  at  least,  before  the  doctrine 
of  Communion  in  one  kind  became  established 
by  a  decree  of  a  general  council  as  a  tenet  of 
the  Romish  Church,  it  began  to  be  agitated  by 
the  clergy.  Towards  the  middle  of  the  thir- 
teenth century,  Aquinas,  so  distinguished  for 
his  scholastic  subtleties,  reduced  it  to  a  tangi- 
ble shape,  and  first  pro])Osed  the  question,  as  a 
subject  of  disputation;  viz.  f"  whether  it  were 

*  Article  xxx. 
t  Utruui  liceat  suiucre  corpus  Christi  sine  sanguine  ----- 


UNDER    ONE    KIND.  197 

allowable  to  take  the  body  of  Christ,  wiifhovf 
the  blood,  as  it  was  customary  with  mani/ 
Churches  to  do  so."  Yet,  at  the  same  time,  he 
admitted,  that  *''  accordinj^  to  the  custom  of 
the  ancient  C/hurch,  all  persons,  as  they  partook 
of  the  body,  so  they  also  partook  of  the  blood" 
Thus  it  appears,  that  the  innovation  was  gradual 
in  its  progress,  from  the  first  faint  mention  of  it 
in  the  schools,  until  it  was  finally  ratified  by 
the  Council  of  Constance,  A.  D.  1414.  How- 
ever, this  very  Council  itself,  which  first  com- 
manded the  partial  administration  of  the  Sacra- 
ment, decreed,  under  pain  of  excommunication, 
t"  that  though  Christ  instituted  and  adminis- 
tered this  venerable  Sacrament  to  his  disciples 
in  both  kinds  of  bread  and  wine,  and  though  it 
was  received  in  both  kinds  in  the  primitive 
Church,  by  the  faithful,  yet,  that  this  custom 
was  fitly  introduced  for  the  avoidance  of  some 
dangers  and  indecencies."  But,  notwithstand- 
ing this  acknowledgment,  it  grounds  its  decree 

ut  erat  nmltarum  ecclesiarum  usiis. — TnoM.  Aquin.,  pars  iii. 
Qu.  80.  Art.  12. 

*  Sccunrlum  an^Vywa  Ecclesiae  consuetiidinem,  omnes  sicut 
commiinicabant  corpore,  ita  e\.  cnniinnuicabant  sanguine. — lern. 

t  Licet  Cliristus  post  ccriiam  imtiluerit,  et  siiis  discipulis 
adminislravit  ct  sub  utrdcjuc  specie  paiiis  et  vini  hoc  venerahile 

Sacramcntum et  in  primitivd  rcclcsid  hujusmodi  Sii- 

crumenlum  reripcreiur  a  fdctilms  sub  utraque  specie,  tameii 
liECC  consueludo  ad  cvitanduvi  aliqua  pericula  ct  Kcandnla,  est 
ratioiiabliller  introducta. — CoNcii..  Constant.     Spss.  13. 


I.*'8  COMMUNION 

neither  on  Scripture,  nor  Tradition.  The  sic 
volo  of  the  Council  nullifies  a  divine  command, 
while  its  authority  abolishes  a  long  established 
usage.  About  the  middle  of  the  following  cen- 
tury the  Council  of  Trent  further  sanctioned  this 
sacrilegious  act,  and,  like  its  predecessor,  with- 
out appealing  either  to  Scripture,  or  Tradition, 
rested  its  decision  on  its  own  unsupported  au- 
thority. *  "  Wherefore,"  says  their  decree,  *'  holy 
mother  Church,  acknowledging  its  own  author- 
ity in  the  administration  of  the  Sacraments  ; 
and  although  from  the  commencement  of  the 
Christian  religion,  the  use  of  it  under  both 
kinds  tvus  not  infrequent ;  yet  that  the  custom 
having  now  widely  changed  in  the  lapse  of  time, 
the  Church,  induced  by  just  and  grave  causes, 
has  approved  and  decreed  as  a  law,  the  custom 
of  communicating  under  o/ie  kind."  Here  is  an 
admission  of  the  frequency  (non  infrequens 
usus)  of  the  administration  of  the  Sacrament  in 
both  kinds  in  the  primitive  Church;  yet  so 
guarded  is  the  expression  by  the  context,  that 
the  reader  is  led  to  infer,  that  the  common 
practice  was  administration  under  one  kind, 
and  that  the  use  of  both  kinds  was  the  excep- 

*  Quare,  agnoscens  sancta  mater  ecclesia  hanc  suam  in  ad- 
ministratione  Sacramentorum  auctoritalan,  licet  ab  initio 
Christianae  religionis  non   infrequens   utriusque   speciei    usus 

fuisset  - hanc  consuetudinem  sub  altera  specie  commu- 

nicandi  approbavit. — Sess.  xxi.  Canon  ii.  p.  204. 


UNDER    ONE    KIND.  190 

tio?t,  contrary  to  what  was  the  fact.  The  coun- 
cil further  declares,  *  "  that  although  our  Re- 
deemer instituted  this  Sacrament  V7ider  two 
kinds,  in  that  last  Supper,  and  gave  it  to  the 
Apostles  ;  nevertheless,  it  must  be  allowed,  that 
the  whole  and  €?itire  Christ,  and  a  true  Sacra- 
ment is  received,  even  luider  one  kind  only." 
From  this  extract  it  appears  that  the  assumption 
implied  by  the  words  fatendum  esse  is  gratui- 
tous, and  that  the  only  reason  assigned  for  its 
decision,  is  the  mere  jylacuit  EcclesicB. 

If  we  now  compare  the  following  passage  of 
the  decree  made  at  the  thirteenth  Session, 
relative  to  Transubstantiation,  with  the  last 
cited  one  of  the  twenty-first  Session,  we 
shall  see  the  glaring  inconsistency,  which  ex- 
ists between  the  two  declarations.  It  says, 
(seepage  110,)  |"  that  by  the  consecration  of 
bread  and  wine  a  conversion  or  change  takes 
place  of  all  the  substance  of  the  bread  into 
the  substance  of  the  Body  of  our  Lord  Jesus 

*  Quamvis  Rcdemplor  nosier,  hoc  Sacramentum  in  duabus 
speciebus  inslitiierit,  ct  Aposlolis  tradidcrit,  tamcn  fatendum 
esse  etiam  sul)  alterd  tantum  specie,  iotum  alquc  intcgnim 
Christum,  verumque  Sacramentum  sumi. — IiiiD. 

f  "  Per  consecrationem  panis  ct  vini  convcrsionem  fieri 
totius  substantia?  panis  in  sub.stanliam  corporis  Christi  Domini 
Noslri,  et  lotius  substantia,'  vini  in  substantiam  sanguinis  ejus, 
«|u;l'  convcrsio  convenienter  et  j)ropric  a  sancia  Catbolica  V.c- 
clesia  Transubslantiutio  est  appellata." — Sess.  xiii.    »:lin}».  1. 


1200 


COMMUiNION 


Christ ;  and  of  all  the  substance  of  the  wine 
into  tlie  substance  of  His  Blood,  which  conver- 
sion is  properly  called  Transuhstantiation,  by 
the  Catholic  Church."  According  to  this,  the 
bread  alone  becomes  the  Body  of  Christ ;  it 
being  declared,  that  there  is  a  total  and  entire 
change  of  the  bread  into  the  substance  of  His 
Body;  it  cannot,  therefore,  for  a  moment  be  sup- 
posed, that  there  is  a  conversion  of  any  the 
smallest  part  of  the  bread  into  any  other  sub- 
stance, as  for  instance,  into  that  of  the  Blood: 
consequently,  to  receive  the  Bread,  is  to  receive 
the  Body  of  Christ,  and  the  Body  only — a  con- 
clusion quite  at  variance  with  the  decree  rela- 
tive to  half  communion,  which  says  that  the 
receiving  of  the  bread  alone  is  the  receiving  of 
both  Body  and  Blood  ! 

So,  in  like  manner,  respecting  the  wine.  Its 
conversion  is  declared,  as  above,  to  be  wholly 
changed  into  the  Blood  of  Christ,  and  into  the 
Blood  only;  for  so  totius  substantia  implies. 
Accordingly,  to  receive  the  consecrated  wine  is 
literally  (vere,  realiter,  et  substantialiter)  to  re- 
ceive the  Blood  of  Christ.  But  here  again, 
the  decree  on  communion  under  one  kind,  de- 
clares the  receiving  of  the  wine  alone,  to  be  the 
receiving  of  both  Body  and  Blood  !  This  be- 
trays the  same  inconsistency  as  the  former  case, 
as  well  as  the  weakness  of  the  pretensions  to 
"  inerrancy"  set  up  by  Popish  writers,  in  behalf 


UNDER    ONE    KIND.  201 

of  the  decisions  of  the  Council  of  Trent.     For, 
were  it,  as  Doctor  Mihier  says,  "inerrant,"  how 
could  the  twenty-first  Session,  under  Pius  IV., 
have  so  completely  overlooked  the  letter  and 
spirit  of  the   decree  passed  by  the  thirteenth 
Session,  under  Julius  III.?     Though  the  Body 
and  Blood  of  Christ,  therefore,  should  be  re- 
ceived under  one  kind  ;  yet  as  *  Durandus  says, 
"  since  the  Blood  is  not  eaten,  nor  the  Body 
drank,  so  neither  is  drank  vnider  the  species  of 
bread,  nor  eaten  under  the  species  of  wine." 
To  receive  the  eucharistic  elements  sacramen- 
tally  there  must  be  eating  and  drinking,  as  both 
those  acts  belong  to  the  Sacrament ;  but,  this 
could  not  be  the  case,  if  either  the  bread  or 
the  wine  were  alone  administered.     To  such  in- 
consistency and   error,   the  Church  of  Eng- 
land opposes  her  xxxth  Article,  founded  on 
the  Institution  of  Christ  Himself,  as  well  as  on 
the  practice  of  the  apostolic,  and  the  succeed- 
ing ages  of  the  primitive  Church. 

Various  reasons  have  been  assigned  for  the 
practice  of  denying  the  cup  to  the  laity,  some 
of  which  are  futile  in  the  extreme,  otiiers  little 
founded  in  fact.     Bellarmine  alleges  as  an  ex- 

*  Quia  sicut  nee  sanguis  comcdilur,  nee  corpus  bibitur  ; 
ita  neu.iium^\i\i  specie  panis  bibitur,  aut  iub  specie  vini  comc- 
dilur.— Dl'Ra.nu.  Rational,  bb.  iv.  c.  42. 


202  COMMUNION 

cuse,  *  "  that  the  inconvenience  became  more 
and  more  apparent  as  the  multitude  of  commu- 
nicants increased,  and  so  tlie  custom  of  commu- 
nicating under  both  species  gradually  ceased.'' 
And  Bona  admits,  f "  that  from  the  origin  of 
the  Church  to  the  twelfth  age,  Christians  at  all 
times  and  in  every  place^  communicated  under 
the  species  of  head  and  ivine.'*  Such  are  the 
admissions  of  two  of  the  most  eminent  writers 
of  the  Romish  Church,  in  the  seventeenth  cen- 
tury ;  both  cardinals  and  nearly  contempora- 
ries. Some  also  of  its  advocates  say,  that  the  Sa- 
crament v/as pa)'tialli/  administered  in  every  age 
of  the  Church,  and  that  it  was  optional  with 
the  communicants  to  receive  either  or  both 
kinds ;  others,  that  the  cup  was  withheld  to 
avoid  the  risk  of  spilling  the  wine  ;  or  the  inde- 
cency,  which  arose  by  the  communicants  dip- 
ping their  beards  in  it ;  or  probably  to  accom- 
modate the  custom  to  countries  not  productive 
of  wine ;  or  lest  the  wine  kept  for  the  sick  should 
turn  sour ;  or  lest  some  persons  should  not  be 
able  to  bear  its  smell  or  taste.     Trifling  as  these 

*  "  Crescente  autem  multitudine  magis  et  magis  apparuit 
incommodum,  et  sic  paulatim  desiit  usus  sub  ulraque  specie." 
De  Euchak.  lib.  iv.  c.  4. 

t  "  Semper  enim  et  uhique  ab  Ecclesiae  primordiis  usq>ie  ad 
saeculum  duodecimum,  sub  specie  panis  et  vini  communicA- 
runt." — Bona,  Rer.  Liturg.  lib.  ii.       18. 


UNDER    ONE    KIND.  203 

excuses  are ;  yet  it  maybe  easily  conceived  that 
a  dark  and  superstitious  age  would  have  re- 
course to  them  to  justify  a  departure  from  pri- 
mitive usage.     The  doctrine  of  Transubstan- 
tiation   had   taught  them,  that  the  sacramental 
bread  and  wine,  were  actually  converted  into 
the  real  Body  and  Blood  of  Christ ;  and  tlie 
apprehensions,  that  any  part  of  them  should  be 
lost  or  wasted,  produced,  as  its  natural  conse- 
quence,  the  practice  of  denying  the  cup  to  the 
laity.      Expedients   were   adopted   to   prevent 
this  loss   and  waste ;    the  bread  was  adminis- 
tered in  the  form  of  wafers,  and  the  wine  con- 
veyed through  *  tubes   into  the  mouths  of  the 
communicants.     The  bread  was  even   steeped 
in   wine  as   a  preventive  of  accidents ;  still  as 
they  occurred,  it  was  finally  agreed  on,  that  the 
officiating  priest  only  should  partake  of  both 
kinds.     From  a  consideration  of  all  the  reasons 
taken  tosrether,  two  are  discoverable  as  influ- 
encing  the  Ciiurch  of  Home  in  this  decision  : 
one,  that  the  cup  is  superfluous  and  not  an  essen- 
tial part  of  the  Sacrament,  as  the  tolus  ct  inte- 
ger  Christus  is  contained   in   the  transul)stan- 
tiated  bread  ;  and  the  other,  that  the  Comrau- 

♦  The  Pope's  practice  of  drinkinf^  the  wine  through  a  gold 
pipe,  chalumcau  d'or.  (termed  l)y  Cassandcr,  pu^illarisj  is  cir- 
cumstantially related  in  Pk  aut'h  f;ercmonial  of  High  Mass.— 
ReligieuscsCeremonieg  des  Cathol.  Rom.,  vol.  i.  p.  94. 


204  COMMUNION 

nion  in  one  kind  has  been  established  by  Us 
otvn  authority,  ^vhicll  is  necessarily  paramount 
to  Scripture  itself!  Such  are  the  reasons  as- 
signed for  this  sacrilegious  practice  by  the  sup- 
porters of  the  doctrine ;  but  whether  they  be 
weighty  and  just  ones,  (graves  etjustcE,)  as  the 
decree  professes,  the  reader  may  judge. 

But  let  us  hear  Doctor  Milner's  scriptural 
justification  of  the  practice  of  half  communion. 
1.  *"  Our  Saviour,"  says  he,  "  after  his  resur- 
rection, took  bread,  and  blessed  and  brake,  and 
gave  it  to  them,  Luke,  xxiv.  30,  which  shews 
he  communicated  them  under  the  form  of  bread 
alone.  2.  That  it  is  recorded  in  the  Acts,  ii. 
42,  that  the  baptized  converts  at  Jerusalem  con- 
tinued stedfastly  in  the  Apostles'  doctrine,  and 
fellowship,  and  in  breaking  of  bread  and  prayer. 
3.  And  again,  upon  the  first  day  of  the  week, 
when  the  disciples  came  together  to  break  bread, 
Acts,  xx.  7,  without  any  mention  of  the  other 
species ;  which  circumstances  prove,  that  the 
Apostles  were  accustomed  to  give  the  Sacra- 
ment under  one  kind  alone."  A  little  consider- 
ation will  shew,  what  a  weak  sanction  those 
passages  afford  Doctor  Milner's  doctrine.  For, 
extraordinary  as  it  would  be  in  the  Apostles, 
CD  the  first  occasion  of  their  administering  the 
Sacrament,  (taking  for  granted  that  it  was  the 

•  Letter  xxxix.  p.  65. 


UNDER    ONE    KIND.  205 

sacramental  bread,  which  was  broke  at  their 
meetings  on  the  Lord's  day,)  to  depart  from 
Christ's  Institution,  and  to  violate  his  command 
about  it ;  it  would  be  much  more  strange,  that 
Christ  himself  should,  on  the  day  of  his  resurrec- 
tion, give  the  Sacrament  in  a  manner  different 
from  what  he  had  done  three  days  previously. 

It  is  true,  that  the  words  quoted  in  the  Jirst 
text  are  the  same  as  those  which  occur  in  the 
account  given  of  the  last  Supper ;  but  although 
they  be,  it  does  not  hence  follow,  that  Christ 
distributed  the   Sacrament  as  often  as  he  took 
bread,  and  blessed  and  brake  it,  and  gave  it  to 
others.     For  thus,  it  would  have  been  a  Sacra- 
ment, when  on  one  occasion,  he  performed  the 
astonishing   miracle  of  feeding   five   thousand 
with   five  loaves,  and  two  fishes ;    as   he  then 
looked  up  to  heaven,  and  *  "  blessed  and  brake 
the  loaves  and  gave  them  to  his  disciples."     St. 
Mark  records,  that  our  Saviour  acted  in  a  like 
manner  on  a  similar  occasion,  when  he  filled  the 
multitude  of  four  thousand  with  seven  loaves ; 
for  f  "  lie  took  them  and  gave  thanks  and  brake 
and  gave  to  his  disciples,   to  set  before   Ihemy 
If  then,  it  must  be  conceded  Doctor  IVJilner, 
that  Christ  administered  the  Sacrament  at  Em- 
maus,  on  tiie  day  of  His  Resurrection  ;  it  must 
be  done,  not  only,  without   any  authority,  but 

*  Mark,  vi.  II,  and  MaU.  XIV.  H>.  i    Mark,vin.6. 


206 


COMMUNION 


without  any  reason.  To  break  bread  was  a 
phrase  familiar  to  the  Jews,  and  implied  the 
distribution  of  it,  and  though  singly  expressed 
here,  it  means  nothing  more  than  that  He  sat 
at  meat  with  them ;  His  object  being,  that  they 
should  be  satisfied  with  the  truth  of  His  Resur- 
rection. 

As  to  the  second  and  third  texts,  what  more 
can   they  imply,  than  that  those  meetings  were 
designed  for  the  purpose  of  prayer  and  refresh- 
ment in  the  same  house,  and  that  an  eucharistic 
form  of  words,  similar  to  our  Grace  at  the  time 
of  eating,  vt'as  adopted  by  those  assembled? 
AH  kinds  of  food  essential  to  life  have,  in  all 
countries,  been  signified  by  Bread  ;  thus,  when 
we  pray  for  our  "  daily  l)read,"  we  surely  mean 
more,  than  that  single  article  of  nourishment. 
And  when  *  "  Christ  went  into  the  house  of  one 
of  the  Chief  Pharisees  to  eat  bread  on  the  Sab- 
bath day,"  it  is  to  be  inferred,  that  he  intended 
to  drink  also.   When  Joseph's  brethren  f  "heard 
that  they  should  eat  bread  with  him,"  they  must 
have  expected   also  to  be  regaled  with  drink. 
But,  in  addition  to  the  second  and  third  texts, 
I  shall  supply  Doctor  Milner  with  a  fourth  to 
the  same  effect.     J  *'  And   they  breaking  bread 
from  house  to  house,  did  eat  their  meat  with 
gladness  and  singleness  of  heart."     His  motive 

*  Luke,  xiv.   I.  f  Genesis,  xliii.  25.  X  Acts,  ii.  46. 


UNDER    ONE    KIND.  207^ 

in  overlooking  this  text,  although  only  three 
verses  intervened  between  it  and  one  of  those 
cited  by  him,  and  although  the  act,  by  which 
he  would  establish  his  Half-Communion,  viz. 
the  breaking  of  bread,  is  expressed  in  it  also  ; 
is  very  evident.  On  the  whole,  therefore,  we 
cannot  but  perceive,  from  the  frequent  use  of 
this  Hebrew  idiom,  that  to  break  bread  directs 
the  mind  to  its  correlative  act,  that  of  drinking. 
Otherwise,  if  the  texts  produced  prove  Com- 
munion in  one  kind,  they  prove  too  much  for 
Doctor  Milner's  purpose ;  for  they  prove,  that 
there  was  consecration  only  in  one  kind,  and 
reception  in  owe  kind,  even  by  the  Priest  who 
consecrated !  But  this  is  contrary  to  what  he 
says  about  the  injunction,  drink  ye  all  of  thiSj 
regarding  "  the  Apostles  as  Priests,  and  7iot  the 
laity  as  communicants." 

Doctor  Milner  next  adduces  what  he  con- 
siders a  still  more  important  passage  for  Com- 
munion in  either  kind  ;  where  the  Apostle  saysy 
"Whosoever  shall  cat  this  Bread,  or  drink 
this  Chalice  of  the  Lord  unworthily,  shall  be 
guilty  of  the  Body  and  Blood  of  the  Lord.' 
In  his  observations  on  this  text,  he  says,  |  "  that 
tlieliEV.  Mr.  Grier,  who  has  attempted  to  vin- 
dicate the  purity  of  tlio  English  IVotestaut 
Bible,  has  nothing  else  to  say  for  tiiis  alteration 

•  1  Cor.  xi.  27.  Rbcm,  Traiisl.  I  Li/nru  xxxix.  p.  «5: 


* 


200  COMMUNION 

of  St.  Paul's  Epistle,  than  in  what  he  falsely 
calls  the  parallel  texts  of  Lnke  and  Matthew, 
the  conjunctive  and  occurs." 

My  Answer  to  Ward's  Errata  of  our  Re- 
ceived  English  Version  of  the  Bible  was  oc- 
casioned by  the  re-publication  of  that  mis- 
chievous production,  enlarged  as  it  was  by 
matter  most  highly  offensive  to  our  Established 
Clergy,  by,  it  is  supposed,  Mr.  Lingard.  As 
it  appeared  to  me  a  new  proof  of  the  rancorous 
disposition  of  Popery,  I  spared  no  pains  to 
repel  the  foul  accusations  which  it  contained. 
But  the  readers  of  that  Answer  are  competent 
to  decide  how  far  ''my  attempt "  to  defend  the 
purity  of  that  Version  has  been  successful.  To 
their  opinion  I  respectfully  defer.  It  is  not  for 
me  to  go  farther  than  to  say,  that,  while  I  feel 
myself  sustained  by  the  approbation  of  some 
of  the  most  eminent  among  the  English  and 
Irish  Prelates,  and  many  other  characters  dis- 
tinguished for  their  learning  and  talents,  as  welt 
as  by  the  consciousness  of  having  performed  a 
duty;  I  can  have  no  great  difficulty,  either  in 
reconciling  myself  to  Doctor  Milner's  displea- 
sure for  what  I  have  done,  or  in  calling  it  down 
on  me  hereafter  with  aggravated  force  for  what 
I  now  do. 

However,  to  return  to  the  subject  more  im- 
mediately under  consideration.  Doctor  Mil- 
iier alleges  my  inability  to  stateawy overground 


UNDER    ONE   KIND.  209 

for  "the  alteration  "  in  St.  Paul's  Epistle,  than 
what  is  ''falsely"  called  the  parallel  texts  of  Luke 
and  Matthew,  in  which  the  conjunctive  and 
occurs.  To  me,  there  does  not  appear  a  more 
decisive  way  of  ascertaining  the  sense  in  which 
the  Greek  particle  q  should  be  taken,  than  by 
those  very  parallel  passages  to  which  he  objects. 
In  *  one  of  them,  St.  Luke  says,  "  by  what 
authority  doest  thou  these  things?  or,  who  gave 
thee  this  authority  ?"  And,  in  the  f  other,  St. 
Matthew  repeats,  "  by  what  authority  doest 
thou  these  things?  and  who  gave  thee  this  au- 
thority?" The  passages  in  the  original  are  cri- 
tically the  same,  with  the  exception  of  the  7, 
and  ««.;  while  the  translation  of  those  two 
words  correspond  in  the  Protestant  and  Rhe- 
mish  Versions.  So  that,  if  due  regard  be  had 
to  the  genius  of  the  Greek  language,  as  well 
as  to  the  import  of  the  questions  asked,  it  is 
impossible  for  any  sound  or  unprejudiced  critic 
to  deny,  thnt  the  «*»  determines  the  sense  of 
the  «,  ratljer  than  the  "  tl);it  of  the  x«« ;  parlieu- 
iarly  as  there  are  two  distiiirt  (piestions  asked, 
one  relatini^  to  the  tliiufr — iiamdv,  the  aulhoritv; 
anfi  the  other  to  {\\v.  person,  in  th(  pronoun  ulm. 

But  had  St.  Paul,  in  the  circumstantial  :|;  ac- 
count which  he  gives  ot"  the  Lord's  Supper, 
and  of  its  commemorative  tendency,  introduced 

*  Chap.  XX.  2.        t  Chai..  .\xi.  23.        I   I  Cor.-xi.  'ICy—'Z'i). 


210  COMMUNION 

»  instead  of  k«i,  into  the  26th  verse,  and  said, 
"  as  often  as  ye  eat  this  bread,  (.»)  or  drink  this 
cup,"  as  he  does  into  the  one  in  question  ;  and 
had  he  again  used  the^  in  tlie  28th  verse,  and  not 
the  »«.;  and  liad  he  moreover  introduced  it  ttvice 
into  the  29th  verse,  as  thus,  "  for  he  that  eateth, 
(„)  or  drinketh  unworthily,  eateth  or  drinketh 
damnation  to  himself,"  instead  of  inserting  a  ncn 
in  each  place.  Had  St.  Paul,  I  repeat  it,  in- 
troduced the  disjunctive  into  the  ^bwr  places, 
which  I  have  enumerated,  as  he  did  (and  let  it 
be  remembered,  that  he  has  done  so  only  once) 
into  the  27th  verse  ;  or,  had  he  even  introduced 
it  into  two  of  the  four  passages,  that  read  «<«• ;  as 
this  would  give  the  greater  number  of  readings 
favourable  to  the  Rhemish  Version  of  the  «  in 
the  27th  verse:  I  do  conceive,  that  the  stick- 
lers for  that  Version  would  have  the  argu- 
ment for  Communion  under  one  kind  decidedly 
in  their  favour,  quoad  the  same  27th  verse,  and 
partially  so  in  the  latter.  But,  how  they  can 
bend  the  signification  of  the  ^,  (which  is,  on  all 
hands,  admitted  to  be  variable,  like  the  Hebrew 
])artic]e  *),)  from  the  conjunctive  meaning,  and 
do  this  contrary  to  the  legitimate  rules  of  criti- 
cism, which  require  the  sense  of  the  *  fewer 
l)assages  to  be  regulated  by  that  of  the  greater 
number,  is  most  unaccountable.     It  is  equally 

*  "  Opor'.c!  secundum  plura  intelligi  pauciora." — Tertul. 
adv.  Harrct. 


UNDER    ONE    KIND.  211 

SO,  even  on  their  own  principles,  by  any  possi- 
bility, *  **  to  shew  forth  the  Lord's  death,"  ex- 
cept we  both  "  eat  of  that  bread  and  drink  of 
that  cup."  Indeed,  of  the  two,  the  taking  of 
the  cup  is  more  strongly  enforced  than  that  of 
the  other.  It  is  called,  f  the  Cup  of  the  New 
Testament  in  His  blood,  as  if  in  it  consisted 
the  very  essence  of  the  New  Covenant ;  and  the 
injunction,  j:"  drink  ye  a// of  this,"  is  used,  as 
if  to  obviate  the  supposition,  that  some  might 
omit,  or  be  ckyiied  it. 

Should  Doctor  Milner  refer  to  Rosemniiller, 
on  whose  authority  I  relied,  when  preparing  my 
Answek  to  Ward  for  publication;  he  mustad- 
mit,  how  well  1  was  supported  by  that  author 
in  my  exposition  of  ^  ^n**? ;  although  I  barely  ad- 
verted to  him  at  the  time.  His  excellent  com- 
ment runs  thus,  §  "  as  to  the  particle  ^  (in  the 
words  r,  w-.»«)  it  is  without  reason,  that  the 
Paj)ists  rely  ujjon  it,  as  shewing  that  both 
species  are  not  absolutely  necessary.  For,  first, 
there  is  a  variety  of  reatling,  (as  some  use  x«i) 
and  also,  it  is  very  common  with  the  Greek  in- 
terpreters of  the  O.  "^J".  to  put  y.cn  for  »,  as  in 
(jEN.  iii.  'J2  ;  Synnnachus  has  x«^c»  »  ircnpo,,  and 
other  translators,  naXo,  xa^  vo»r,fbK  IJcsidcs  this, 
any  one  of  tin?  (Corinthians  nii^ht  take  the  rup 

*  1  Cor.  xi.  27.  t  L»'kf.  xxii.  ^20.  ♦  :\Inft.  xxvi.  27. 

§  RoiCli.   vol.  iv.   |i.   I.'il. 

v2 


•21-2  COMjMUNION 

uiivvortliily,  a5  by  drinking  of  it  to  intoxication, 
although  in  eating  no  indecency  had  been  com- 
mitted.'      From   the  clear    manner    in    which 
this  commentator  states  the  subject,  it  is  sur- 
jnising  that  any  difficulty  should  arise  about  it. 
Two  things  are  proposed  to  be  done,  and  both 
guilt  and  consequent  punishment  are  to  be  in- 
curred by  the  non-performance  of  either.     It  is 
further  to  be  observed,  respecting  the  variety  of 
reading  in  the  old  Greek  copies  alluded  to  by 
Rosenmiiller,    that    *  Griesbach    presents   his 
reader  with  no  less  than  fifteen  MSS.,  including 
the  Alexandrine  and  Clermont  ones,  which  have 
Kdi.     f  Wolff' also,  another  learned  collator,  enu- 
merates no  fewer  than  thirty  of  the  oldest  copies 
of  the  Vulgate,  in  which  et  is  the  translation 
of  t).     The  objection,  I  should  observe,  which 
is  made  to  the  translation  of  this  particle  in  the 
Protestant  Bible,    is  far  from  being  new ;  it  is 
quite  traditional,  being  as  old  as  the  Reforma- 
tion itself.      It  was  first  started   by   Gregory 
Martin,  and  from  him  transmitted  by  Harding 
and  Ward  to  the  present  age,  and  has  now  ac- 
quired fresh  vigour  for  further  transmission  from 
Doctor  Milner's  pen.     The  specimen  of  scholar- 
ship connected   with  it  distinctly  shews,  that 
there  has  been   no  advance  whatever  in  Scrip- 

*  Nov.  Test.  Gu-tc.  vol.  ii.  p.  265. 
t  CuR«  Philolog.  vol.  iii.  p.  492. 


UNDER    ONE    KIND.  213 

ture  criticism  among  Roman  Catholic  divines- 
for  the  last  three  centuries ;  and,  if  the  progres" 
sive  growth  of  Biblical  learning,  and  the  vast 
accessions  which  have  been  made  to  it  by 
Protestant  writers  within  that  period,  be  taken 
into  account,  the  Popish  Church  will  have  ap- 
peared to  retrograde  in  this  particular,  and  to  be 
HOW  sunk  into  a  state  comparatively  more  de- 
graded, than  what  it  had  been  in,  at  the  com- 
mencement of  the  Reformation. 

Jewell's  *  Reply  to  Harding  is  likewise  very 
much  to  the  point,  and  contains  such  forcible 
reasoning,  and  unanswered,  because  unanswer- 
able, argument;  that  I  cannot  forbear  pressing 
Doctor  Miliier  with  it  in  the  present  instance. 
The  Bishop,  after  some  pointed  animadversions 
on  Harding,  proceeds  to  say,  f*'  that  sometimes 
disjunctives  stand  instead  of  copulatives,  some- 
times copidatives  instead  of  disjunctives.  But  if 
he  have  so  good  an  eye  to  one  little  disjunctive, 
and  mean  uprightly,  why  doth  he  so  blindly 
pass  by  so  many  coj)uhitives  in  the  selfsiuue 
place  altogether?"  I^rom  every  view  of  the 
case,  therefore,  which  I  have  been  able  to  take 
of  it,  and  after  the  most  deliberate  consideration 
of  the  arguments  advanced  on  both  sides,  1  Wwd 

•  P.  95. 

t  "  Sa;pc  ita  coniparatiini  est,  ut  et  disjuncla  pro  conjunclis 
accipianlur,  et  conjuncla  pro  diftjiinctis." — Dc  verb,  rt  rcr,  sii^- 
nificulione. — I  did. 


•214  COMMl'MON 

SO  many,  and  such  convincing-  ones/or  its  being 
and;  and  so  many  against  its  being-  or,  that  a 
shadow  of  doubt  does  not  remain  on  my  own 
mind  of  the  correctness  of  the  former  version. 
The  similarity  of  the  cases  is  so  striking,  that 
I  cannot  here  resist  admonishing  Doctor  Milner 
in  the  language  of  rebuke  addressed  by  Doctor 
Kilbie  to  the  young  preacher,  as  *  before  re- 
lated. 

It  was  reserved  for  the  Doctors  of  the  Po- 
pish Church  to  make  a  discovery,which  escaped 
the  acuteness  of  the  primitive  Christians — that 
a  tiling  is  different  from  itself.  This  appears 
in  reference  to  the  Eucharist,  which  Doctor 
Milner  says,  was  made  "  a  Sacrifice,  as  well 
as  a  Sacrament.''  A  Sacrament  to  those  who 
communicate  in  one  kind,  and  a  Sacrifice  to 
the  officiating  priest,  who  in  offering  it  receives 
both  bread  and  wine.  On  this  very  principle 
Pope  Pius  v.,  in  his  instructions  to  parish 
priests,  observes,  that  although  the  Eucharist  is 
always  a  Sacrifice  after  consecration,  yet  that 
it  does  not  continue  one,  as  when  it  is  brought 
to  the  sick,  or  kept  in  the  pyx  (dum  in  pyxide 
continetur),  it  is  then  only  a  Sacrament.  More- 
over, he  says,  f**  as  a  Sacrament  it  brings  with 

*  See  p.  97. 

f  "  Ui  Sacramentum  est meriti  causam  aftert;   ul 

aulcm  eacrificium  est,  noii  merendi  solum  aaiisfacicndi  fju0(juc 
cjjicaciatn  continct." — Stcl.  78. 


UNDER    ONE    KIM).  215 

it  the  ground  of  merit;  but  as  a  Sacrifice  it 
satisfies  for  sin."  Reader,  observe,  that  as  the 
Sacramental  merits  are  here  distinguished  from 
the  SACRIFICIAL  ones,  they  must  necessarily  be 
unconnected  witli  those  of  Christ! 

This  is  a  refined  distinction,  no  doubt,  and 
one,  although  beyond  ordinary  conception,  for 
which  Bellarmine  assigns  as  a  reason,  *"  that 
it  is  chiefly  done  for  the  integrity  of  the  Sacri- 
fice, and  not  of  the  Sacrament."  I  the  more 
readily  adduce  the  Cardinal's  words,  because 
Doctor  Milner  leaves  us  in  the  dark  as  to  the 
grounds  of  the  distinction  being  evidently  aware 
that  any  attempt  at  explanation  would  but 
involve  the  subject  in  greater  obscurity.  The 
learned  Usher,  after  incontestably  proving  that 
the  Sacrifice  of  the  primitive  Christians  was 
every  way  unlike  that  in  the  Church  of  Rome; 
and  that  in  their  use  of  the  Sacrament,  they 
received  both  the  bread  and  wine,  concludes 
with  saying,  that  they  knew  no  difference  be- 
tween the  Sacrifice  and  the  Sacrament:  f"  for, 
that  they  were  not  so  acute  as  to  discern  between 
the  things  that  belonged  unto  the  integrity  of 
the  Sacrifice  and  of  the  Sacrament,  because,  in 
very  trutli,  they  took  the  one  to  he  the  other.'' 

*  "  Id  fit  potissimum  ob  Sacrificii,  non  ob  Sacramenti  inlegri- 
tutem." — De  Sacram.  Euch.  lib.  iv.  c.  22,  in  fine. 

f  Abp.  Uuber's  Discourse  on  the  Religion  anciently  pro- 
fessed by  the  Irish. — c.  iv.  p.  36. 


-1^  COMMUNION 

Im'ohi  this  fanciful  distinction,  Doctor  Milner 
proceeds  to  say,  *  "  that  the  command  of 
Clirist,  on  which  our  opponents  hiy  so  much 
stress,  drink  ye  all  of  this,  regards  the  Apostles 
•ds  priests,  and  not  the  laity  as  communicants." 
Bossuet's  language  is  the  same,  as  is  that  of 
Boileau  ;  we  may  therefore  take  it  to  express 
the  sentiments  of  the  Popish  Church  in  general. 
The  latter  remarks,  f"  that  the  words  of  the 
command  respect  no  man  whatsoever,  but  the 
twelve  Apostles."  Now,  according  to  this,  the 
Apostles,  and  the  Apostles  only,  without  refe- 
rence to  succession  in  the  ministry,  were  en- 
joined to  drink  the  cup ;  an  inference,  which  is 
every  whit  as  defensible,  as  that  the  Apostles 
only  drank  it  in  the  capacity  of  priests.  But 
this  difficulty  is  got  over  by  their  considering 
the  Apostles  in  a  twofold  light :  one,  as  repre- 
senting all  Christian  priests  by  their  participa- 
tion of  the  cup;  and  the  other,  as  representing 
all  the  laity,  by  their  participation  of  the  bread. 
So  then,  according  to  the  reasoning  of  the 
Popish  Doctors  themselves;  the  Apostles,  who 
sat  down  with  Christ  to  celebrate  his  last  sup- 
per as  laymen,  and  who,  as  laymen,  partook  of 
the  bread,  were  instantaneously  impressed  with 

*  Letter  xxxix.  p.  63. 

t  "Jgilur  haec  verba,  bibite  ex  hoc  ouines,  neminem  praeter 
cluodtcim  Apostolos  spectant  aut  attinerit."— Boileau.  De 
Praicep.  Divin.  p.  188. 


UNDER    ONE    KIND.  217 

the  indelible  character  of  the  priesthood,  by 
virtue  of  the  words,  hoc  facite,  which  were 
spoken  to  them  after  he  had  given  them  the 
bread.  Hence,  also,  it  inevitably  follows,  that 
Christ  appointed  at  his  last  supper,  not  one 
alone,  but  two  of  their  Sacraments,  that  of 
Orders,  as  well  as  the  Eucharist.  But,  unfortu- 
nately for  them,  this  new  character  would  in 
this  case  be  too  hastily  acquired ;  for,  as  yet, 
they  were  not  constituted  pastors  of  his  Church, 
as  Christ  had  not,  until  after  his  resurrection, 
*"  breathed  on  them,"  nor  imparted  to  them 
the  Holy  Spirit.  Besides,  there  was  the  ab- 
sence of  every  form  peculiar  to  an  occasion  of 
the  kind  ;  for  neither  word  nor  action  purported 
any  thing  like  ordination.  The  injunction 
"  DO  THIS,"  also  followed  without  interruption, 
the  words,  take,  eat,  this  is  my  body.  So 
that,  whether  Christ  gave  the  bread  to  each  of 
them  separately,  or  whether  they  took  it  as  it 
lay  on  the  table,  the  expression  do  this  must 
have  been  uttered  he/ore  they  received  it. 
Wherefore,  it  is  as  natural  to  suppose  that  the 
Apostles  eat  the  bread  as  priests,  as  that  they 
drank  the  wine;  as  such  ;  a  supposition  that 
will  go  to  take  away  tlie  bread,  and,  by  conse- 
quence, the  entire  Sacrament  from  the  people, 
and  thus  make  it,  as  some  of  tin;  Jewish  Sacri- 

•  John,  xx.  22. 


'218  (OMiVlUMON 

fices  were,  peculiar  to  the  priests.  On  the 
whole,  therefore,  the  matter  is  reduced  to  this 
alternative;  if  the  effect  and  virtue  of  the  Sacra- 
'  nient  depend  on  Christ's  institution,  then  both 
bread  and  wine  are  essentially  necessary:  but, 
if  the  effect  and  virtue  may  be  had  without 
adhering  to  the  institution,  then  neither  is  so. 
The  Sacrifice  of  the  Mass,  ideal  manducation, 
or  some  other  substitute,  need  only  be  provided, 
and  both  the  symbols,  as  much  as  one,  may  be 
dispensed  with. 

Again  :  not  one  of  the  fathers,  who  have 
written  on  the  Sacrament,  ever  entertained  such 
a  notion,  as  that  the  Apostles  were  made 
Priests  by  the  words  *  hoc  facite ;  or,  that 
they  received  the  cup  only  as  such.  Even 
some  Popish  writers  are  unwilling  to  adopt 
this  sophistical  evasion,  such  as  Suarez  and 
Alfonsus  a  Castro ;  while  t  Estius  admits,  that 
hoc  facite  refers  to  the  common  people  eating 
and  drinking  this  Sacrament.     In  making  this 

*  The  observance  of  the  command  is  imperative  on  all 
Christians,  unless  we  say  with  some  Socinians,  that  the  Sacra- 
ment was  a  mere  temporary  rite,  which  exclusively  belonged 
to  the  Apostles;  but  which  was  neither  to  continue  in  the 
Church,  nor  be  observed  in  all  future  ages. — See  DiscounsEs 
on  Atonement  passim,  and  Presehv.  against  Pop.,  Tit.  vii. 
p.  106. 

t  "  Et  Paulus,  1  Cor.  xi.  illud  facere  etiam  ad  plebem  re- 
fert  edentem  et  bibentem  de  hoc  Sacramento,  quando  ait,  hoc 
facite  quotiescunque." — See  Pol.  Synops.  in  loc. 


rXDliU    ONE    KIND.  21  J> 

admission,  he  judged  wisely,  being  aware  of  the 
difficulty,  which  would  arise,  whenever  the  use 
of  the  cup  was  allowed,  should  he,  like  Doctor 
Milner,  have  asserted,  that  Christ's  cominaQd 
regarded  the  Apostles  as  Priests,  and  not  the 
laity  as  communicants.  For,  on  this  principle, 
those  very  instances  of  special  favour,  which 
the  Doctor  speaks  of,  as  being  shewn  to  the 
Hussites,  the  Eniperor  Ferdinand,  the  Kings  of 
France,  and  the  monastic  order  of  Cluni,  by 
the  Church  of  Rome,  in  conceding  to  them  the 
use  of  the  cup,  are  but  so  many  condemning 
proofs  of  the  inconsistency  of  that  Church. 

But  further;  if,  as  Doctor  Milner  says,  the 
command  regards  the  Apostles  as  Priests,  why 
is  there  so  glaring  a  contradiction  between  the 
Popish  practice  and  its  profession,  as  that  the 
Minister  cimjiciens,  the  Priest  who  consecrates, 
let  ever  so  many  Priests  be  present,  is  the  only 
one,  who  receives  the  cup?  If  the  Apostles 
received  the  cup  as  Priests,  and  that  they  re- 
presented  the  Christian  priesthood  in  ctlernum ; 
why  slu)uld  not  all  the  attendant  Priests  enjoy 
the  privilege  as  well  as  the  consecrator?  lint,  if 
he  be  the  only  one  to  partake  of  the  cup,  for  no 
other  Priest  would  dare  incur  the  *  anathema; 

*  "  Si  quis  (lixerit,  saDclam  Mcclosiam  Catliolicam  von  ju.Uit 
c«U9is  et  ralioiiilMiK  adductam  fiiiHSC,  ut  lairos  aUnie  etiani 
riciirns  non  rovlirienlfs.  siih  pnms  tfintwnmorlo  specie  conimu- 


220  COMMUNION 

then,  by  this  rule,  the  Apostles  should  not  have 
received  it  at  the  Institution,  as  they  did  not 
consecrate  !  On  that  occasion,  Christ  was  the 
31inister  conficiens,  and  accordingly,  He  only^ 
and  not  the  Apostles,  should  have  received  it. 

Again,  as  it  is  most  probable,  that  Christ 
Himself  received  neither  the  bread  nor  the 
wine,  the  Tridentine  Synod,  should,  agreeably 
to  their  principle,  have  laid  it  down,  that  the 
Minister  coiificiens  was  not  to  receive  at  all, 
but  to  consecrate,  and  to  give  to  the  other 
Priests  who  were  present !  But  moreover,  if 
the  Apostles  were  made  Priests  by  the  words 
*  hoc  facile,  then  they  were  made  Priests  twice 
at  that  time ;  since  our  Saviour  uttered  those 
words,  not  only  after  he  gave  the  bread,  but 
likewise  after  he  administered  the  wine ;  and 
had  thus  not  only  imparted  to  them  a  double  con- 
secration, but  a  two-fold  impression  of  the  sa- 
cerdotal character !  Thus  we  see  what  a  string 
of  absurd,  contradictory,  and  inconsistent  con- 
clusions we  arrive  at,  in  arguing  from  Doctor 
Milner's  assumption  to  the  basis  of  it — the  fore- 
mentioned  decree  of  the  Council  of  Trent. 

I  should  not  omit  to  state,  that  Doctor  Mil- 

nicaret,  aut  in  eo  errasse  ;  Anathema  sit." — Trid.  Concil.  Sess. 
xxi.  Can.  2. 

*  Facae  has  been  made  to  sij^nify,  to  sacrifice, —  See  Pre- 
sERV.  against  Popery,  Tit.  vii.  p,  109. 


UNDER    ONE    KIND.  221 

ner  introduces  Barclay,  the  acute  Apologist  of 
the  Quakers,  as   observing  how  inconclusively 
Protestants  argue  from  the  words  of  the  Insti- 
tution.    This  animadversion  is  of  course  ren- 
dered available  to  the  Popish  cause.     Nothing 
indeed,   was   more  natural,   than  that  Barclay, 
as  the  defender  of  Mysticism,  should  find  fault 
both   with  the  time  and  manner  of  eating  the 
sacramental  bread,  and  therefore,  that  he  should, 
in  the  spirit  of  cavil,  apply  the  words  do  this, 
not  merely  to  the  taking  and  eating  the  bread ; 
but  likewise  to  the  blessing  and   breaking  it  at 
supper.     But,  if  his  argument  have  any  force, 
it  is  applicable  to  every  denonn'nation  of  Chris- 
tians,   *  "  who"   as   he  says,    "  have   not   yet 
obeyed   this  precept,   nor  fulfilled  this  Institu- 
tion."     Barclay,   after  noticing  the  differences 
between  the   Lutherans,  wlio  used   the  unlea- 
vened, and  the  Calvinists,   who  used  the  lea- 
vened bread  ;  then  says,  i  "  ^''^^  by  these  un- 
certainties, the  Protestants,  (observe,  he  means 
particularly  the  Lutherans  and  Calvinists,  with 
whom   Doctor  Milner  as  usual  confounds  the 
members   of  the   Church   of   England)  open  a 
door   to   the    Papists    for   their    excluding    the 
people  from  th«^  cup,  and  that  they  are  no  more 
justified  in  dispensing  with  the  manner  a\u\  time 

*   Barclay's  A [)olo^y  for   lljc   Quakers,   Prop.  xiii.  Srrl.  7. 
p   470. 
t  Ibid. 


'22'2  COMMUNION 

in  which  Christ  performed  the  sacramental  act, 
t/tau  the  Papists  are  to  dispense  ivith  the  other.' 
He  tiien  asks,  as  Doctor  Mihier  states,  how 
Protestants  ascertain  from  tiie  words  uo  this, 
the  respective  part  which  botii  Clergy  and  Laity 
are  required  to  take  on  the  occasion?     But,  for 
the    avoidance  of  this    uncertainty,   he  recom- 
mends  tiiem   *  "  no   longer  to  cling    supersti- 
tioiisly  to  this  ceremony,  but  to  lat/  it  aside,  as 
thev  have  done  others  of  a  like  nature."    These 
last   words  distinctly   shew  the   object  which 
Barclay  had  in  view.     They  are  such  as  are 
natural  for  a  writer  of  his  class  to  use,  who  at- 
tached   every   importance  to   the  inward   ope- 
rations of  the  spirit,  and  none  to  the  outward 
signs  of  the  Sacraments.     But  for  Doctor  Mil- 
ner  to  quote  them  as  authority  against  the  faith 
and  practice  of  the  Church  of  England,  respect- 
ing the  Eucharist,  is  passing  strange ;  inasmuch 
as  Barclay's  arguments   come  with  redoubled 
force   against  the  Church  of  Rome  :    witness 
what  he  says  about  Protestants  opening  a  door 
to  the  Papists  for  excluding  the  people  from  the 
cup,  &c.  &c. 

Doctor  Milner  again  produces  the  fathers 
to  prove  that  t  "  f^'O'"  the  Apostolic  age,  the 
Church  regarded   half-communion    as   a  mere 

'   Ibid. 

!    Letter  xxxix.  p.  66.     See  also  his  Inquiry,  p.  147. 


UNDEU    ONE    KIND.  223 

matter  of  variable  discipline."  Tertullian,  who 
stands  foremost  on  his  list,  does  certainly  state, 
that  the  primitive  Christians,  after  they  had 
partaken  of  the  holy  Sacrament,  carried  some 
home  and  preserved  it  for  private  communion  ; 
but  this  they  did,  for  reasons  and  under  cir- 
cumstances very  different  from  those  assigned 
by  Doctor  Milner.  The  storm  of  persecution, 
which  consigned  thousands  of  the  unoffending 
Christians  to  torture  and  to  death,  during  the 
reigns  of  Nero  and  Domitian,  continued  to  rage 
with  unabated  fury  in  the  second  century  also, 
under  Adrian  and  Marcus  Aurelius.  *  Mos- 
heim  informs  us  of  the  sanguinary  laws,  which 
were  enforced  against  them,  and  |  Gibbon  him- 
self, who  never  loses  an  opportunity  of  sneer- 
ing at  the  popular  superslition,  proclaims  their 
hardsliips;  for  that  none  except  themselves  expe- 
rienced the  injustice  of  Marcus.  In  those  pe- 
riods, therefore,  of  which  Tertullian  is  the  his- 
torian, and  in  the  reign  of  this  Emperor,  of 
whom  lie  was  a  contemporary,  the  Clirislians 
seldom  met  for  the  purpose  of  devotion,  and 
then  onl>  l>y  night ; — \vitn<;ss  their  antelucan  as- 
semblies, of  which  X  l^li'iy  tlitj  younger  speaks. 

*  FxcL.  Hist.  vol.  i.  p.  157.  et  stq. 

t  "  Marcus"  says  Giblion,  "  despised   the  Christians  as  a 
philosopher,  and  puni.ihed  them   a<;   a   SovcrciLjri." — Drcune 

AND  FaI.C,   vol.  li.   |).    146. 

5   L.F1ST.  ad    Tiaj. 


•224  coMMUNroN 

Can  it  then  be  wondered  at,  that  they  should 
cherish  and  preserve  what  was  so  precious  to 
them,  and  which  sustained  them  under  their 
afflictions? 

Let  it  then  be  conceded  to  Doctor  Mihier,  that 
the  Sacrament  was  taken  home,  and  that  those 
who  partook  of  it  in  a  secret  manner  enjoyed 
a  perfect  Communion  of  the  Body  and  Blood 
of  Christ ;  still,  what  advantage  would  he  derive 
from  the  concession,  unless  he  could  prove,  that 
after  the  faithful  had  communicated  in  both 
kinds  publicly,  they  had  carried  home  and  re- 
served only  one  species  for  private  Communion. 
*  Bossuet,  where  he  treats  of  this  very  subject, 
admits,  that  the  faithful  were  allowed  to  take 
away  the  Blood  also,  if  they  required  it ;  but 
that  they  were  not  anxious  for  the  wine,  as  it 
could  not  be  preserved  for  any  length  of  time 
without  change.  This  may  be  Doctor  Milner's 
opinion  too;  but  experience  proves  how  erro- 
neous it  is,  as  the  bread  suffers  from  length  of 
time  sooner  than  the  wine.  The  fact  is,  they 
took  home  not  one,  but  both  species ;  and  this 
appears  on  the  evidence  of  Tertullian  himself. 
Bossuet  grants  this  also,  but  says,  that  it  was 
done  immediately  after  consecration  ;  as  if  it 
made  any  difference,  whether  it  was  soon  or 
not,   when  the  question   at  issue  is,    whether 

*  De  Commun.  p.  112.  t  Ibid    p.  113. 


UNDER    ONE    KIND.  225 

the  primitive  Christians  preserved  the  blessed 
Sacrament,  as  Doctor  Mihier  insists,  under  the 
form  of  Bread  only  for  private  Communion. 
But,  to  come  to  the  point  respecting  TertuUian's 
testimony.  This  father,  speaking  of  the  resur- 
rection, says,  *  "  our  flesh  is  fed  with  the  Body 
and  Blood  of  Christ."  And  in  his  Address  to 
his  wife,  to  which  Doctor  Mihier  particularly 
alludes,  he  urges  her,  in  two  separate  places, 
t  to  take  the  cup,  with  earnestness  of  soul ; 
which  proves,  that  the  Sacrament  of  the  Lord's 
Supper  was  received,  in  his  time,  under  both 
kinds. 

St.  Cyprian  and  St.  Dennis  of  Alexandria 
come  next  in  succession ;  but  their  evidence  is 
of  the  same  general  nature  and  tendency  as  that 
of  Tertullian.  The  J  former  pleads  forgiving 
the  Communion  to  the  lapsed,  in  order  to  pre- 
pare them  for  further  trials ;  while  the  latter 
barely  relates,  that  Serapion,  who  had  sacrificed 
to  idols,  prayed  for  the  comfort  of  the  Eucha- 
rist, as  a  token  of  reconciliation  to  the  Church, 
when  he  found  his  end  approaching;  and  that 
the  priest  sent   him    by  tin-  yonnj;   man,    who 

*  "  Caro  corpore  ct  samfuine  Cliri>ti  vfscilur." 
t  "  De   cujus  maim  dcsidcrabil }   dc  ci'Jus  poculo  partici- 
pahit  ?"  And  again — "  Dc  cibo,  dr  poculn  invadere,  doidcrarc, 
in  ineuto  habere." — .\d  Uxoh.    I,iI).  li.  c.  iv  ct  vi. 
:  Sec  |..  160. 

Q 


t>J(]  COMMUNION 

delivered  the  message,  *  "  a  small  portion  (0fax") 
of  the  Eucharist,  enjoining  him  to  moisten  it, 
and  so  to  pour  it  into  the  old  man's  mouth." 
But  it  is  not  to  be  inferred,  because  of  the  small- 
ness  of  the  quantity,  that  the  bread  only  was 
sent.  For  it-x*g«ria  implies  the  sacramental 
food  (j^otpn)  under  both  kinds,  according  to  t  Jus- 
tin Martyr;  while  J  St.  Jerome  tells  ofthe^Body 
of  our  Lord  being  carried  in  a  basket,  and  the 
Blood  in  a  glass  vessel,  to  relieve  the  poor."  So 
that  we  must  conclude,  that  a  small  portion  of 
both  the  bread  and  wine  was  sent,  and  that  the 
injunction  to  moisten  it  (||  «7roC§E|a»)  before  he  put 
it  into  the  mouth  of  the  dying  Serapion,  related 
to  his  dipping  the  bread  in  the  wine;  a  practice 
under  the  title  of  Intinction,  well  known  in 
the  early  ages  of  the  Church. 

Descending  the  stream  of  time,  I  next  accom- 

*  ^S^X"  "^^^  £yp^agtr»«?  iTTtSuxiv  t«  ircn^ot^nj,  AnOBPESAl 
v.i\tvax<;,  xai  tw  -Tr^u^vrrt  nurx  ra  r^i^uToi  Eni2TASAI. — 
Lib.  vi.  c.  44.  apud  Ertseh. 

\  Kat  yi  r^o(p*i  avrv  v.a.>.nTon  irotf  iii*i*  tvy^ups-ix. — JusT. 
Mart.  Apol.  i.  p.  95. 

I  "Qui Corpus  Domini  canistro  vimineo,  Sanguincm  portat 
in  vitro." — Epist.  ad  Rustic.  Monacli. 

II  Bishop  Andrews,  in  his  Answer  to  Bellarmine,  p.  192, 
contends,  "that  the  bread  was  not  separately  brought  to  Sera- 
pion ;  because  the  bread  could  not  be  said  to  he  poured,  cer- 
tainly not  to  be  moistened  without  something  liquid.  The  Eu- 
charist was,  therefore,  either  mixed  there,  or  reduced  to  a 
liquid  state." 


UNDER    ONE    KIND.  227 

pany  Doctor  Mihier  to  the  fourth  century,  when 
SS.  Basil    and   Chrysostom   flourished.      Tlie 
former  says    in   the  very  epistle   cited    by  the 
Doctor,  *"  that  it  is  good  and   profitable  to 
partake   every  day  of  the   blessed   Body  and 
Blood  oi  Christ."     And  where  he  treats  of  the 
peculiar  virtues  of  Christians,  he  asks,  t"  what 
is  proper  to  those,  that  eat  the  bread  and  drink 
the  cup  of  Christ?"  As  for  the  latter,  he  draws 
no  distinction  between  the  priest  and  the  laity ; 
when  we  come  to  J"  partake  of  the  divine  mys- 
teries, for  we  are  all  admitted  to  them  alike." 
And  again,  it  was  not  lawful  under  the  old  dis- 
pensation, for  the  people  to  ])artake  of  the  same 
things  with  the  priest,  but  not  so  now,  §'*  for  to 
ALL  one  body  is  offered,  to  all  one  cup."    Now 
is  it  possible  to  find  language  more  adverse  to 
Doctor  Milner's  cause;  or  which  expresses  in 
more  direct  terms  the  usage  of  the  Church  in 
their  days,  respecting  the  Eucharist  ?     I  should 
add,   that  Justin  Martyr  also  says  expressly, 
that  the  deacons  took  the  wine,  as  well  as  the 

*  MiTaXa/x.Cani»  tm  iyi«  a»/**Tot  xm«  ctif*.a,Toi  X^»r«. — Epist. 
ad  Cicsar. 

•f  T»  iJtor  Tuf  itr^ntTu*  apron  xai  vtntiDTUt  'I'O  IIOTHFION  tm 
0IH. — Ibiu.    Moral. 

I  'O/A0t«{  yap  riANTES  «^itff*i6«  ruf  uvruir. — Tom.  X.  p.  ."ifiO. 

\  AXXa  riAXIN  in  aufxa  wpxiiTa*.  k«»  to  •»  7ro1>)pto/. — IruD. 
Iloin.  xxiii.  in  1  Cor. 


o   2 


228  COMMUNION 

bread  to  tliose  *wlio  were  absent,  after  they  had 
distributed  both  elements  to  each  person  pre- 
sent. 

As  a  further  proof,  that  there  was  only  com- 
munion in  one  kind  in  the  primitive  Church ; 
Doctor  Milner  says,  t"  that  the  blessed  Sacra- 
ment was  administered  to  mere  infants,  by  a 
drop  out  of  the  Chalice,"  and  appeals  to 
Cyprian  s  authority  in  confirmation  of  this  prac- 
tice. The  story  told  by  that  father  relates  to 
an  infant,  who  after  having  taken  bread  and 
wine  in  a  Pagan  temple,  was  afterwards  brought 
to  a  Christian  assembly,  where  the  priest  forced 
a  little  of  the  wine  into  its  mouth,  when  dis- 
tributing the  cup  ;  a  circumstance,  which,  if  it 
prove  any  thing,  proves  too  much  : — namely, 
that  as  no  mention  is  made  of  the  bread,  all 
present  must  necessarily  have  only  received  the 
cup  ! 

The  hacknied  passages  from  the  ordinances 
of  Leo  and  Gelasius,  in  support  of  half  com- 
munion, are  :j:reproduced  by  Doctor  Milner  as 

*  AtJoacrm  txaj-w  Tfv  "jrufovruv  /AfTaXatim  otvo  t»  •vpgapjriOf- 
T«;  afTd  xat  omv  xai  v5aT0?>  xcti  toij  Ot  riAPOTSIN  a'jr»(ptfttff\f. 
— Apol.  2. 

t  Letter  xxxix.  p.  67. 

t  Harding  the  Jesuit,  Bossuet,  and  last  of  all,  Mr.  Fletcher, 
urged  the  same  authorities  for  half-communion  ;  but  they 
were  met  and  successively  refuted  by  Bishop  Jewell,  Mr. 
Payne,  and  the  present  Bishop  of  Durham. 


UNDER    ONE    KIND.  -229 

though  they  had  never  before  been  so  much 
as  challenged.  "  On  the  same  principle,"  says 
he,  "  that  the  Manichaean  heretics  at  Rome 
objected  to  the  sacramental  cup,  Pope  Leo 
ordered  them  to  be  excluded  the  communion 
entirely."  There  is  no  doubt,  that  such  an 
order  was  made;  but  no  evidence  is  afforded 
by  the  document  spoken  of  to  prove,  that  it 
was  the  practice  of  the  Church  in  Leo's  time 
to  distribute  the  bread  only,  or  that  the  practice 
was  to  be  varied  on  that  occasion  by  the  addi- 
tion of  the  cup.  The  contrary  appears  to  have 
been  the  case,  and  that  it  was  the  settled  cus- 
tom to  receive  the  cup  as  well  as  the  bread ; 
otherwise,  Leo  would  not  have  pointed  out  the 
refusal  of  those  persons  to  partake  of  the  wine 
as  the  surest  mark  of  distinction  between  them 
and  the  orthodox ;  nor  would  he  have  been 
entirely  silent  on  the  subject,  had  it  been  an 
abolished  or  a  suspended  usage,  which  was,  in 
this  instance,  restored  for  the  purpose  of  expos- 
ing the  heretics.  He  presses  on  the  notice  of 
his  congregation  the  objections  of  those  persons, 
*"  that  so  they  might  by  this  evidence  be  dis- 
covered, and  their  sacrih-gious  dissiiiiuhition  be 
detected."  In  a  word,  if  the  dishibufion  of 
the  cup  were  not  an   »stal»Iishcd   ordiniinc**  of 

*  Srrtn.  iv.  ih-  UiKidrn'^.  p.  .18. 


230  COMMUNION 

the  Cliurcl),  vvliy  should  lie  call  the  violation  of 
it  sacrilegious  ? 

Doctor  Milner  next  assumes,  that  the  Chris- 
tians of  the  fifth  century  were  in  the  habit  of 
communicating  only  in  one  kind,  when  he  as- 
serts, that  "  Pope  Gelasius  required  all  his 
flock  to  receive  under  both  kinds."  But  that 
this  too  is  a  gratuitous  assumption,  will  appear 
by  considering  the  words  of  the  decree  and  the 
motive,  which  existed  for  his  making  it.  He 
merely  follows  up  the  example  set  him  by  Leo, 
in  excommunicating  those  superstitious  per- 
sons who  partook  of  the  bread,  but  who  de- 
clined the  cup.  This  practice  he  also  deemed 
sacrilegious,  which  is  the  only  motive  assigned 
for  so  rigid  an  exercise  of  his  authority.  *' We 
find,"  says  he,  "  that  some  persons  receiving 
only  the  portion  of  the  sacred  Body  abstain 
from  the  sacred  Cup,*  who  should,  without 
doubt,  either  take  the  Sacraments  entirely,  or  be 
wholly  kept  from  them ;  because,  the  division 
of  one  and  the  same  Sacrament  cannot  take  place 
WITHOUT  GREAT  SACRILEGE."  Here  we  see, 
that  the  sacrilegious  suppression  of  part  of  the 
Sacrament  was  the  cause,  and  the  only  cause 

*  "Qui  aut  Integra  Sacramenta  percipiant,  aut  ab  integris 
arceantur,  quia  divisio  unius  ejusdemque  mysterii  sine  grandi 
sacrilegio,  non  potest  pervenire." — Gratian.  Decret.  pars  iii. 
dist.  2. 


UNDER    ONE    KIND.  231 

for  passing  the  decree.  But  it  does  not  hence 
follow,  as  Doctor  Mihier  insinuates,  tliat  it 
was  previously  the  practice  to  communicate  in 
one  kind  alone.  No.  The  decree  was  not  made 
to  regulate  the  practice  of  the  faithful,  but 
was  levelled  for  the  particular  reason  assigned, 
against  the  superstitious  persons  then  at  Rome. 
Cassauder  thought,  and  his  authority  should 
have  great  weight  with  Doctor  Milner,  that  the 
testimonies  of  Leo  and  Gelasius,  instead  of 
favouring,  condemn  this  practice.  In  reply  to 
a  half-communionist,  he  says,  '*  that  it  is  very 
evident,  that,  during  their  Pontificates,  Com- 
munion in  hoth  kinds  was  usual  in  the  Church ; 
otherwise,  how  could  the  Manichaeans  be  de- 
tected, unless  the  Cup  of  Christ's  Blood  hatl 
been  offered  to  all  in  the  Church?"  He  then 
concludes  with  observing  *"  ihat  a  new  decree 
was  not  necessary  for  the  Catholics,  who  reli- 
giously adhered  to  the  established  custom  of  re- 
ceiving (inlegra  sacramcnta)  the  Sacrament  in 
both  kinds."  Thus  it  appears,  that  Conmm- 
nion  in  one  kind  was  not  the  usage  of  the  primi- 
tive Church,  whether  it  regarded  domestic  |)ur- 
poses,  the  sick,  or  injanls ;  that  it  is  not  coun- 
tenanced by  the  decrees  of  Leo  and  Gelasius; 
and    that  the  indulgence  of  a  partial    admini- 

*  "Nam  Calliolicls  nf»vo  dccn  to  iioii  opus  crat,  tjui  riciplain 
intrpra  sacramcnta  pcrcipicndi  consucliidiiipm  rcligiow-  ner- 
vabant." — De  Commun.  sub  vitra(|ii( ,  p.  I '26. 


232  COMMLiMON 

stratioii  of  the  Sacrament,  in  times  of  persecu- 
tion and  in  cases  of  necessity,  was  no  violation 
of  the  general  rule. 

From  the  fifth,  Doctor  Milner  passes  on,  per 
saltum,  to  the  usage  of  the  twelfth  century, 
when  he  says,  *  "  that  only  the  officiating  Priest 
and  infants  received  under  the  form  of  wine, 
which  discipline  was  confirmed  at  the  begin- 
ning of  the  fifteenth  century,  by  the  Council  of 
Constance,  on  account  of  the  profanations  and 
other  evils  resulting  from  the  general  reception 
of  it  in  that  form."  The  reader  has  only  to 
bear  in  mind,  what  I  have  proved  to  have  been 
the  practice  of  the  Church,  relative  to  the  Eu- 
charist, to  the  time  ofGelasius,  and  also  to  take 
into  account  the  total  want  of  evidence  to  the 
point,  from  that  period  to  the  twelfth  century  ; 
and  he  must  conclude,  that,  before  this  latter 
period,  there  appears  no  authority  to  counte- 
nance \\\^Vo^\^  innovation.  The  first  attempt 
at  a  change  in  the  important  ordinance  of  the 
Lord's  Supper  seems  to  have  been  made  at 
that  time,  although  Aquinas  speaks  of  it  in  the 
thirteenth  century,  as  being  then  only  an  in- 
cipient custom,  t  "  I"  50>we  churches,"  says 
he,  "  it  is  observed,  that  the  Priest  alone  par- 
takes of  the  Blood,  but  the  rest  of  the  Body." 
In  q^iihusdam,  and  in  aliquibus  Ecclesiis  shew, 

*  Letter  xxxix.  p.  67.  f  Comment,  in  Johan.  vi.  53, 


1 


UNDER    ONE    KIND.  '233 

that  it   was  in  his  day  very  far  from  being  a 
general  observance  in  the  Latin  Churches. 

The  Council  of  Constance  openly  opposed 
its  authority  to  that  of  the  Divine  Founder  of 
the  Institution.  It  set  out  vrith  acknowledg- 
ing, *  "  that  Christ  instituted  and  administered 
this  blessed  Sacrament  to  His  disciples  in  both 

kinds  of  bread  and  wine and  that  in  th 

primitive  Church  the  faithful  received  it  in  hot 
kinds ;  yet  a  practice  being  reasonably  in- 
troduced to  avoid  some  dangers  and  scandals, 
they  appoint  the  custom  of  consecrating  in  both 
kinds,  and  of  giving  to  the  laity  only  in  one 
kind ;  since  Christ  was  truly  and  entire  under 
each  kind."  13ut  this  acknowledgment  does  not 
render  tlie  decree  a  whit  the  less  reprehensible; 
and  althoiij::h  the  Council  alleged  some  pericula 
and  scandala,  those  weighty  reasons,  f  already 
spoken  of,  as  the  grounds  of  its  decision,  yet 
the  weakness  and  folly  of  such  excuses  betray 
themselves,  when  the  magnitude  and  importance 
of  the  command,  which  is  thereby  violated,  are 
considorrd.  This  was  the  feeling  of  Burnet 
on  the  subject,  who  ascribed  this  viohition  to 
Transubstantiation,  as  to   \\\v   true  cause  from 

•  "  Licet  Chrislus  post  cccnam  iiistilucnt  hub  utraijue  specie 
panis  ct  vini  hoc  vcntraljilc  sacramnilunj  ....  Kl  in  primi- 
tive F,cclesi4  (jusmodi  Sacramcnlum  rccipcrrlur  a  fidelibus 
%\ih  utraijuc  specie." — CoNciL.  Constant.  Scss.  12. 

t  See  p.  202. 


234  COMMUNION 

which  it  emanated,  and  by  which  the  belief  is 
inculcated,  that  * "  as  Christ  was  in  every 
crumb  of  bread,  it  was  thought  needless  to  give 
the  Sacrament  in  both  kinds." 

As  for  the  indulgence  in  the  use  of  the  cup, 
which,  Doctor  Milner  says,  was  extended  by 
the  Popes  to  certain  individuals  in  the  six- 
teenth century,  or  to  some  of  the  regular  or- 
ders of  the  Clergy,  that  goes  for  nothing,  after 
the  arbitrary  proceeding  of  the  Council  of  Con- 
stance ;  as  the  power  which  could  bring  itself 
to  suspend  or  to  abolish  an  established  custom, 
in  opposition  to  the  concurring  testimony  of 
every  ecclesiastical  writer  from  the  Apostolic 
age  to  that  of  Thomas  Aquinas,  and  to  the  ge- 
neral usage  of  the  primitive  church,  no  less 
than  to  the  Scriptures  themselves ;  could  feel 
little  hesitation,  about  an  occasional  departure 
from  its  own  decree. 

Doctor  Milner  concludes  his  letter  on  this 
subject,  with,  what  he  calls,  evidence,  which, 
t  "  after  all  the  Bishop  of  Durham's  Anathe- 
mas against  his.  party,  will  demonstrate,  either 
that  the  point  at  issue  is  a  mere  matter  of  dis- 
cipline, or  that  the  three  principal  denomina- 
tions of  Protestants  are  inconsistent  with  them- 
selves."    His  first  reference  is  to  Luther's  Let- 

*  Hist,  of  the  Reform,  vol,  ii.  p.  42. 
t  Letter  xxxix.  p.  6S, 


UNDER    ONE    KIND.  235 

ter  to  Carlostad  ;  his  next  to  the  decree  of  the 
French  Cahinists  ;  and  his  third  to  the  sepa- 
rate English  Acts  of  Parliament,  which,  though 
they  establish  communion  in  both  kinds,  yet 
make  exceptions  "in  cases  of  necessity'' 

To  speak  of  the  "  Anathemas"  of  a  Protes- 
tant Bishop,  whose  acknowledged  moderation 
and  forbearance  accord  with  the  unassumins: 
and  tolerant  spirit  of  that  Church,  of  which  he 
is  an  ornament,  is  truly  ridiculous;  but  parti- 
cularly so,  when  such  is  used  by  the  Doctor  of 
a  Church,  which,  with  unmitigated  severity, 
thunders  fortli  its  execrations  against,  and  con- 
signs to  perdition,  those,  who  deny  its  infalli- 
bility. 

When  Doctor  Milner  tells  us,  that  Luther  in 
his  correspondence  with  Carlostad,  reproached 
him  with  "  having  placed  Christianity  in  things 
of  no  account,''  such  as  communicating  under 
both  kinds ;  or,  when  he  objects  to  us,  that  by 
a  decree  of  the  Calvinistic  Synod  of  Poictiers, 
"  the  use  of  the  wine  was  to  be  dispensed  with :" 
he  must  be  aware,  that  we  neither  profess  the 
creed  of  Luther  or  Calvin.  Had  those  Uefor- 
mers,  actuated  as  they  were  by  a  feeling  of  op- 
position to  the  Church  of  IJoiih  ,  and  infected 
as  they  must  have  been  by  its  errors,  either  dis- 
continued sno  marte  the  receiving  of  both  kinds, 
or  admitted  but  of  one ;  it  can  only  be  said, 
that  such  is  not  the  doctrine  of  our  Qhurch  at 


236  COMMUNION 

the  present  day  :  nor  does  it,  in  the  remotest  de- 
gree, countenance  any  departure  from  the  ori- 
ginal institution.  It  is,  however,  but  a  justice 
due  to  the  Reformed  Churches,  to  state ;  that 
they,  but  more  particularly  the  Lutheran,  to 
which  Doctor  Milner  alludes,  and  which  held 
the  doctrine,  that  is  so  nearly  allied  to  Tran- 
substantiation,  have  restored  the  cup  to  the 
laity. 

Lastly.  Doctor  Milner  should  know,  that 
when  the  doctrines  of  the  Church  of  England 
are  concerned,  Acts  of  Parliament  are  simply 
declaratory,  and  require  nothing  more  than  a 
conformity  to  them.  With  respect  to  the  Act 
of  Edward  the  Sixth,  of  which  he  speaks,  and  in 
which  an  exception  is  made,  when  necessity  re- 
quires ;  he  cannot  but  know,  that  it  is  inope- 
rative— a  mere  dead  letter,  although  unrepealed. 
That  Statute  says,  that  "  it  being  more  agree- 
able to  Christ's  first  institution,  and  the  practice 
of  the  Church  for  500  years  after  Christ,  that 
the  Sacrament  should  have  been  given  in  both 
kinds  of  bread  and  wine,  rather  than  in  one 
kind  only :  therefore,  it  was  enacted,  that  it 
should  be  commonly  given  in  both  kinds,  ex- 
cept necessity  did  otherwise  require  it.^^  From 
this  last  clause  he  argues,  that  the  Church  of 
England  did  not  at  first  conceive  the  wine  to 
be  an  essential  part  of  the  Sacrament;  "  for," 
says  he,   *'  if  it  did,  no  necessity  could  ever 


UNDER    ONE    KIND.  237 

plead  in  bar  of  the  Sacrament,  and  men  might 
as  well  pretend  to  celebrate  the  Eucharist  *ivith- 
out  bread  as  without  wine."  Now  in  the  Jirst 
place,  had  Doctor  Milner,  who  refers  expressly 
to  Burnet's  History  of  the  Reformation  as  bear- 
ing him  out  in  this  argument,  only  carried  his 
eye  to  the  bottom  of  the  page,  he  would  see 
that  the  Act  in  question  was  one  of  great  con- 
sequence, since  it  reformed  two  abuses  whicli 
had  crept  into  the  Church : — f  "  the  one  was 
denying  the  cup  to  the  laity  ;  and  the  other,  the 
priests'  communicating  alone"  And  in  the 
next  place,  had  he  only  called  to  recollection, 
that  Queen  Mary,  on  her  accession,  repealed 

*  Doctor  Milner  says,  "  that  he  has  heard  of  British  made 
wine  being  frequently  used  by  Church  Ministers  for  reulwme, 
and  of  the  Missionaries  to  Otaheite  using  the  bread  fruit  for 
real  bread." — Letter  xxxix.  p.  69.  There  is  no  doubt,  but  that 
tuch  bread  and  wine  should  be  substituted  in  the  absence  of 
real  bread  and  wine.  Those  aliments  nourish  and  sustain  the 
body,  when  the  others  cannot  be  procured  ;  why,  therefore, 
may  they  not  be  as  eflicaciouily  used,  as  those  others,  to  con- 
vey the  spiritual  nourishment,  which  is  imparted  by  the  Sa- 
crament of  the  Lord's  .Supper  r  Whether  Christ  broke  lea- 
vened, or  unleavened  bread  is  not  clearly  ascertained;  as  little 
known  is  the  particular  sort  of  wine,  which  lie  blessed. 
These  are  mere  contingencies,  and  as  well  as  the  manner  of 
receiving,  are  not  essential  to  the  Eucharist.  Hut  the  parti- 
cipation of  6o</*  bread  and  wine,  is  indispensable;  because 
without  them,  wc  cannot  do  what  Christ  did  and  comniandrd 
to  be  done. 

^   Ilivt.  fip  iiir.  RrroRM.,  vol.  ii.  part  2.  |ip.  11.  12. 


'238  COMMUNION    UNDER    ONE    KIND. 

this  very  Act,  he  would  have  concluded,  that 
she  did  not  consider  it  a  sanction  to  the  prac- 
tice of  communion  in  one  kind  ;  to  uphold 
which  her  clergy  strenuously  lahoured  at  the 
time.  But,  besides,  concurrent  with  this  statute 
of  Edward  the  Sixth,  was  the  unanimous  vote 
of  the  Convocation  held  in  the  first  year  of  this 
young  King's  reign,  that  the  Sacrament  of  the 
Lord's  Supper  should  be  received  in  both  kinds 
by  the  laity  as  well  as  the  Clergy.  So  that,  al- 
though it  may  be  sound  Popish  doctrine  to  con- 
sider the  cup  an  unessential  part  of  the  sacra- 
ment, it  certainly  was  abhorrent  from  the  feel- 
ings, both  of  the  framers  of  the  Statute  and  of 
the  Articles  of  our  Church.  And  with  respect 
to  the  exception,  which  the  act  makes  in  cases 
of  necessity,  such  as  sickness,  or  age,  it  may 
be  said  to  be  done  away  in  1562,  the  fourth  of 
Elizabeth,  by  our  thirtieth  Article,  inasmuch  as 
it  is  entirely  silent  about  half-communion  many 
case  whatever. 


239 


CHAPTER  VIII. 

THE    SACRIFICE   OF    THE    MASS,    IMPIOUS. 

Had  the  Doctrine  of  Transubstantiatioii,  al- 
though abounding  with  contradictions  and 
absurdities,  terminated  where  it  began,  in  the 
mind  ;  the  Church  of  Christ  would  not  have 
to  lament  those  sins  and  abominations,  which 
have  been  so  fatal  to  its  purity  and  innocence. 
But,  as  error  in  faith  leads  to  error  in  practice, 
so  the  belief,  that  the  bread  and  wine  are  by 
consecration  converted  into  the  real  Body  and 
Blood  of  Christ,  produced  as  its  natural  re- 
sult,— idolatry  and  sacrilege  :  the  former,  by  the 
adoration  of  the  elements ;  and  the  latter,  by 
the  denial  of  the  cup  to  tlie  laity.  These  prac- 
tices, sinful  as  they  are,  are  obstinately  de- 
fended in  "  THE  End  of  Religious  Contro- 
versy." 

But,  besides  the  iclohitry  and  sacrilege,  lo 
which  TraMsubstuntiatioii  gav(!  birth,  may  be 
added,  the  gross  impidy  wliich  arose  out  of  it, 
in  the  sacrifice  of  the  Mass ;  by  which  the 
sufficiency  of  our  Saviour's  Sacrifice  (mcc  of. 
fered  is  roundly  denied.  For  according  to  it, 
tlu'    (Jlinrrh    of    rjonic    coiisi^lcis     ihr     Lord's 


240  THE    SACRIFlcr. 

Supper,  both  as  a  memorial  of  Christ's  death, 
and  as  a  sacrifice  actually  offered  up  to  God  ; 
and  that  it  is  not  only  commemorative,  but  joro- 
pitiatofi/,  both  for  the  living  and  the  dead  ! 
The  Eucharist  is,  no  doubt,  a  sacrifice  in  a 
figwative  sense,  as  when  we  call  it  a  sacrifice 
of  praise  ;  but  no  authority  exists  for  calling  it 
a  sacrifice  in  the  sense  in  which  Christ  is  said 
to  be  one.  It  is  also  appropriately  called  a 
*  "  feast  upon  a  sacrifice,"  at  which  we  pro- 
fess our  belief  in  the  death  of  Christ,  and  renew 
our  baptismal  covenant  with  him.  Because, 
if  after  having  made  our  humble  |  sacrifice  of 
prayer  and  praise,  "  we  partake  of  the  material 
feast;"  we  may,  also,  be  understood  "to  partake 
of  the  spiritual  benefits  of  the  sacrifice."  So  that, 
although  we  neither  admit  a  substantial  change, 
nor  the  reality  of  the  victim,  our  feast  is  not,  as 
Doctor  Milner  represents  it;  "  an  imaginary 
banquet  on  an  ideal  viand."  In  conformity 
with  this  exposition,  the  Table  of  the  Lord  is 
an  altar,  on  which  is  offered   the  type  of  the 

*  See  Burnet,  Article  xxxi.  p.  351,  and  the'BiSHOP  of  Win- 
chester's Elem.  of  Theol.,  vol  ii.  p.  511.  Bishops  Warbur- 
ton  and  Cleaver  too  call  the  participation  of  the  Lord's  Sup- 
per, "  a  feast  upon  a  sacrifice."  However,  Cudworth  seems  to 
have  been  the  first  who  distinctly  treated  of  this  subject,  al- 
though the  idea  of  it  may  be  traced  in  the  fathers. 

t  See  Psalm  li.  17,  and  cxli.  2.  Also,  the  Communion 
SaKVicE. 


OF    THE    MASS.  241 

great  Sacrifice  of  Christ  Himself;  while  they 
who  serve  at  it,  discharging-  the  priestly  offices 
of  consecration  and  absolution,  are  properly 
called  priests.  Where,  then,  is  the  inconsist- 
ency, with  which  the  Church  of  England  is 
chargeable  respecting  this  point  ?  "  For, "  *  says 
he,  "  she  has  priests,  but  no  sacrifice;  altars, 
but  no  victim ;  and  an  essential  consecration 
of  the  sacramental  elements  without  any  the 
least  effect  upon  them."  No  certainly :  she 
has  no  supposititious  carnal  sacrifices,  nor  vic- 
tims, like  those  of  the  Church  of  Rome;  be- 
cause she  is  too  scriptural  to  maintain  what  is 
in  its  nature  contradictory  and  impossible. 

The  Church  of  Rome  esteems  the  |  sacrifice 
of  the  Mass,  as  1  have  observed,  to  be  expi- 
atory, an  alonemeut  for  sin,  and  a  means  of  re- 
conciling to  God  those  for  whom  it  is  oU'ered ; 
whether  on  earth,  or  in  purgatory.  Rut  the 
Scriptures  do  not  warrant  our  calling  it  a  sa- 
crifice;  nor  <lo  the  records  of  the  primitive 
Church  furnish  us  with  any  document  for  con- 
sidering it  one.      In   fact,  if  the  f;>tiirrs  thou<;ht 

*   I.ETTF.n  xl.  j).  77. 

t  In  Kinjj  Kdwriril's  First  P.ook,  1319,  this  od'n'c  is  styliil 
the  Supper  of  the  I.ord,  (I  Cor.  xi.  20.)  nml  ihc  Ilnly  Corn- 
munion,  (1  Cor.  x.  16.)  commonly  called  the  Mans.  At  the  Re- 
view oftljis  Book  ill  l.').5'2,  these  latter  words  were  expunged  ; 
althoiitrh  it  is  [)lain,  that  when  they  were  fir«l  inserted,  the 
term  Mats  was  uudcrsl'.iod  m    lis  primitive  aeceptalioii. 

K 


242  THE    SACRIFICE 

it  such,  they  wouhl  liavo  called  it  so  ;  and  wheu 
the  heathens  ohjccted  to  them,  that  they  ])08- 
sesscd  a  religion  ivilkoul  a  sacrifice,  they  ne- 
ver called  the  Sacrament  of  the  Lords  Snpper 
the  Sacrifice  of  the  Eucharist. 

Usher,  in  his  Religion  of  the  ancient  Irish, 
remarks  *  "  that  the  ])ublic  liturgy  or  service  of 
the  Church  was  of  old  named  Mass,"  even  so 
early  as  the  sixth  century  among  that  people ; 
and  that  it  was  in  those  days  applied  to  the  ad- 
ministration of  the  Lord's  Supper.  He  refers 
toAdamnanus,  a  writer  of  the  seventh  century, 
who  both  called  the  evening  prayer  the  f  Vesper 
Mass  of  the  Lord's  day,  and  took  "  the  sacred 
ministry  of  the  Eucharist,  and  the  solemnities 
of  the  Mass  for  the  same  thing."  The  learned 
Primate  likewise  quotes  Gildas,  as  saying, 
J"  that  the  Britons  were  contrary  to  the  whole 
world,  and  enemies  to  the  Roman  customs,  not 
otily  in  the  Mass,  but  in  the  Tonsure." 

^  Bingham  assigns  three  different  significa- 
tions to  the  word  Missa,  to  shew  that  it  was 
anciently  a  general  name  for  every  part  of  the 

*  Discoinst;,  c.  iv.  p.  3i.  Ed.  1&15. 

t   Vcsperlinalis  Missa. — IniD. 

X  "  Britones  toti  mtindo  contrarii,  moribus  Romanis  iriimici 
noil  solum  in  Missd,  sed  etiam  in  lonsura." — Inin.  Appendix, 
p.  142. 

§  EccL.  Antiq.  vol.  i.  book  xii.  p.  556.  See  also  Shepherd's 
Elucid.  vol.  ii.  p.  149. 


OF    THE    MASS.  5-i3 

divine  service.  It  sometimes  sionified  the  Les- 
sons;  sometimes,  the  Collects  or  Prayers;  and 
sometimes,  the  dismission  of  the  people ;  in  which 
third  sense,  he  says,  *'  is  the  original  notation 
of  the  word."  It  has  been  attempted  by  Ba- 
ronius  and  other  Popish  writers  to  derive  Missa 
from  the  Hebrew ;  but  Bingham  overthrows 
this  conceit,  by  observing  th^t  no  Greek  writer 
before  the  tentli  century,  retained  it  in  their 
language,  as  they  do  the  words  hosannn,  sah- 
baoth,  &c.  and  therefore,  that  it  could  not  have 
been  of  Hebrew  derivation.  If  we  look  to 
more  ancient  authority,  we  shall  find  Ambrose 
to  be  the  earliest  writer,  who  makes  mention 
of  the  word  Mass,  in  the  emjihatical  sense, 
when  he  says,  *  3IissamJacereccpi.  The  3Iissa 
Catechumcnorum,  and  the  Missa  Fidclium,  also 
denote  a  \ariation  in  the  sense  dilli  rent  from 
thai,  in  wliich  it  is  now  understood  in  the  Po- 
pish Church. 

I  therefore  contend,  that  tiie  doctrine,  which 
relates  to  the  sacrifice  of  the  Mass,  \\\\d  lo 
which  Doctor  S  ihier  attaches  so  much  im|)or- 
tance  as  to  make  it  the  subject  of  a  separate 
Letter,  is  of  modern  growth,  and  was  unknown 
to  the  early  Christians;  and  that  it  is  unscrip- 
tural,asa,)pearseven  from  his  (»u  ii  oltseiire  refe- 
rences to  the  O.  'J\,  no  less  than  from  thiscircum- 

*  Epist.  XX.  ad  Marcellin.  p.  BS.'i.  r.<l    Bnifd. 
R    2 


244  THE    SACRIFICE    OF    THE    MASS. 

stance,  tlmt  tlie  *  Council  of  Trent  made  no  ap- 
peal to  Scrij)ture  for  the  purpose  of  establisliing 
this  doctrine;  but  merely  declared  it  to  be  ac- 
cording  to  Apostolic  "^JVadition — -juxta  Apos- 
tolorum  Tradilionem.  Suffice  it,  therefore,  to 
say  with  our  xxxist  Article,  that  *'  the  Sacrifices 
of  Masses,  in  the  which  it  ivas  commonly  said, 
that  the  Priest  did  offer  Christ  for  the  quick 
and  the  dead,  to  have  remission  of  pain  or  guilt, 
were   blasphemous  fables,  and  dangerous 

DECEITS." 

*  The  decree  of  the  twenty-second  Session  is  entitled, 
Doclvina  de  sacnficio  MisscE,  in  which  the  Council  urges  the 
daily  sacrifice  of  the  Mass  as  an  unbloody  one,  and  as  propi- 
tiatory for  the  sins  of  the  living,  as  well  as  of  the  dead  in  pur- 
gatory !  To  this  decree  our  thirtt-fiust  Article  was  wisely 
opposed. 


245 


CHAPTER  IX. 


ABSOLUTION    FROM    SIN. 


As  1  have  already  so  fully  treated  of  the 
Popish  doctrines  of  Absolution  from  sin,  Indul- 
gences, Purgatory,  Extreme  Unction,  the  Invo- 
cation of  Saints,  and  worship  of  Images,  or,  as 
Doctor  Milner  tenderly  expresses  it.  Religious 
Memorials,  in  my  Answer  to  Ward  ;  and  as 
the  sense  of  the  Established  Church  on  these 
points  is  so  well  and  so  generally  known;  I 
shall  merely  confine  myself  to  a  Refutation  of 
the  charges,  direct  or  imjjlied,  against  our 
clergy,  or  our  forumlaries,  with  wliicii  he  has  in- 
terspersed the  Letters  devoted  to  the  above  sub- 
jects. And  in  the  very  outset,  \  must  disclaim 
all  concern  with  the  ribaldrous  trash  and  ex- 
travagances of  Martin  l^ullur,  on  which  Doctor 
Milner  dwells  with  snrli  apparent  pleasure. 
He  is  not,  what  the  Doctor  wishes  to  make 
him,  the  Representative  of  tln^  C-hurch  of  l:^ng- 
land  ;  nor  are  tiny  his  doctrines,  which  it 
sanctions. 

*  He  first  arraigns   Bishojt  l*orteus  for  being 

*  Letter  xli.  p.  S'.i. 


24(j  ABSOLUTION 

"  cliiefly  bent  on  disproving"  the  necessity  of 
sacramental  confession,  and  in  dejiriving  the 
sacerdotal  Absolntion  of  all  efficacy  whatso- 
ever;" and  for  saying,  **  that  Christ  did  not  give 
his  Apostles  any  real  power  to  remit  sins,  but 
only  a  power  of  declaring  who  were  trnly  peni- 
tent, and  of  inflicting  miraculous  punishments 
on  sinners ;  as  likewise  of  preaching  the  word 
of  God."  But,  let  a  full  and  fair  hearing  be 
given  the  Bishop,  and  his  arguments  will  be 
found  to  be  incontrovertible.  It  is  true,  *he 
strenuously  denies  that  our  Saviour's  words, 
whatsoever  ye  shall  bind  on  earth,  6fc.  imparted 
a  discretionary  power  of  pardoning,  or  refusing 
to  par(ion,  persons  without  distinction,  whether 
right  or  wrong  ;  and  maintained,  that  though 
they  possessed  great  powers  by  virtue  of  those 
words,  namely,  "  the  power  of  discerning  by 
the  spirit,''  and  of  declaring,  "  who  tvere  peni- 
tent and  pardoned,  and  who  ivere  not;''  and 
that  likewise  *'  of  inflicting  miracidous  punish- 
ments  on  wicked  persons,  which  is  binding  their 
sins,  and  of  removing  such  punishments,  which 
is  loosing  their  sins :" — powers,  to  which  the 
Church  of  Rome  can  no  more  lay  claim  than 
ourselves ;    yet,    with   all    this,    he    contends, 

*  Confutation  of  the  Errors  of  the  Church  of  Rome,  pp. 
44,  45. 


FROM    SIN.  -247 

*'  that  the  Apostles  could  not  use  the  keys  of 
the  kingdom  of  Heaven  further  than  it  pleased 
the  Searcher  of  Hearts  to  permit  them." 

In  such  strong  and  emphatic  language  does 
the  learned  Prelate  expound  the  commission  of 
the  keys,  ascribing  to  it,  as  our  Church  pro- 
perly does,  neither  more  nor  less  authority  than 
it  really  imparts ;  while  Doctor  Milner  classes 
him  among  those  who  consider  that  commission 
as  nugatory  and  void.  But,  however  unfairly 
he  has  represented  him,  by  the  suppression  of 
part  of  his  statement,  he  has  performed  a  still 
more  unmerciful  operation  on  the  author,  whom 
he  has  produced  against,  what  he  calls,  *"  the 
Bishop's  vague  and  arbitrary  gloss,  on  the  deci- 
sive passage,  John,  xx.  22,  23."  His  motive 
for  not  arguing  the  case  himself  is  not  a  little 
remarkable;  it  is  because  the  renowned  Pro- 
testant Champion,  Cliillingworth,  renders  any 
effort  of  his  own  unnecessary ;  he  having  so 
successfully  advocated  the  Roman  Catholic 
doctrine.  Yes!  Cliiliiiigworlh,  niiihiatrd  and 
cut  down,  expresses  the  lan;;uage  of  l*opery,  as 
Porteus  is  niadt*  to  use  flial  oT  Dissmt.  lUit 
it  is  in  tliat  way,  and  in  that  way  oiiIn,  llial  he 
can  be  made  to  apprar  favouraljlc  to  a  connnu- 
nion,  into  which  Ik-  was   b(.'trayr(l,   no  less  by 

•  Letter  xli.  p.  81. 


248  AHSOLUTION 

Jesuitical  artifice  than  juvenile  indiscretion  ; 
and  from  which  he  disengaged  lunisolf,  when  a 
matured  jud^iuent  and  more  enhirgcd  experi- 
ence enabled  him  to  see  his  error. 

In  order  to  give  an  adequate  idea  of  Doctor 
Milners  expertness  in  the  art  of  garbling,  it  is 
necessary  to  exemplify  his  skilful  reduction  of 
more  than  a  folio  page  of  matter  to  something 
about  the  size  of  half  an  octavo  page,  in  the  fol- 
lowing way.  I  should  j)remise,  that  the  sen- 
tences within  the  brackets  are  those  of  his 
selection;  while  the  others  are  those  which  he 
has  suppressed.  The  former  should  be  read 
first,  and  then  the  entire  statement,  as  it  stands. 
But,  for  the  purpose  of  more  clearly  compre- 
hending Chillingworth,  we  must  take  him  a 
little  higher  up  than  the  place,  at  which  Doctor 
Milner  begins;  for  instance,  where  he  refers  to 
*  Archbishop  Usher,  as  conveying  his  own  ideas 
on  the  subject,  f"  ^^  '^  known  to  our  adver- 
saries of  Rome,  that  the  thing  we  reject,  is  that 
new  pick-lock  of  confession,  obtruded  upon 
mens  consciences  as  a  matter  necessary  to 
salvation,  by  the  Canons  of  the  Conventicle  of 
Trent."  Chillingworth  having  thus  identified 
the  Primate's  sentiments  with  his  own,  respect- 

*  Aiip.  UbHEu's  Answer  to  the  Jesuit ;  Chap,  of  Confession. 
+    Chillingworth's    Religion    of    Protestants,    Serm.  vij. 
p.  63. 


FROM    SIN.  249 

ing  the  neiv  picklock,  as  he  calls  it,  proceeds  to 
ask  : — "  [Can  any  man  be  so  unreasonable  as 
to   imagine,    that  when  our  Saviour]  after  his 
resurrection,  having  received,  as  himself  saith, 
all  power  in  heaven  and  earth,  having  led  capti- 
vity captive,  came  then  to  bestow  gifts  upon 
men :  when  he,  1  say,  [in  so  solemn  a  manner, 
having  first  breathed  upon  his  disci[)les,  thereby 
conveying  and  insinuating  the  Holy  Ghost  into 
their  hearts,  renewed  unto  them,  or  rather  con- 
firmed that  glorious  comniission,]  which  before 
he  had  given   to  Peter,  sustaining,  as  it  were, 
the  person  of  the  whole  Church,  [whereby  he 
delegated  to  them  an  authority  of  binding  and 
loosing  sins  upon  earth,]  with  a  promise  that 
the  proceedings  in  the  Court  of  Heaven  should 
be  directed  and  regulated   by  theirs  on  (;arth  ; 
[can   any  man,    I  say,  think   so   unworthily  of 
our  Saviour  as  to  esteem  these  words  of  His  for 
no  better  than  compliment,]    for  nothing  but 
court  holy  icuterT' 

Chilling  worth  afterwards  proceeds  to  say — 
"  Yet  so  impudent  ha\c  f)iir  adversaries  oi 
Rome  been  in  tlieir  dealings  with  us,  that  they 
have  dared  to  lay  to  onr  charge,  as  if  wv  had 
SO  mean  a  conceit  of  our  Saviour's  gift  of  the 
keys,  taking  advantage,  indeed,  from  the  un- 
wary expressions  of  some  particidar  divines, 
who,  out  of  too  forward  a  zeal  against  the 
Chnrch  of    Rome,   have  bended    the  statl'  to<> 


250  ABSOLUTION 

much  the  contrary  way ;  and,  instead  of  taking- 
away  that  intolerable  burden  of  a  sacramental, 
necessary,  universal  confession,  have  seemed  to 
void  and  frustrate  all  use  and  exercise  of  the 
keys." 

The  reader,  on  casting  his  eye  over  this  long 
extract,  will  at  once  perceive,  that  so  far  from 
Chillingworth   contravening  what  Bishop  Por- 
teus  advances  on  the  subject,  as  Doctor  Mil- 
uer  says,  or  from  expressing  himself  differently 
from   the  Church  of  England ;  that  his  argu- 
ments have  the  same  tendency  as  those  used 
by  both.     Let  him  observe;  Chillingworth  com- 
plains, that  the  Church  of  England  is  confound- 
ed with  those,  who,  out  of  violent  opposition  to 
the  Church  of  Rome,  "  have  bended  the  staff 
too  much  the  contrary  way,  and  seemed  to  void 
and  frustrate  all  use  of  the  keys,"  by  the  en- 
tire rejection  of  Absolution  ;  instead  of  render- 
ing it  available  to  the  purposes  for  which  it  was 
designed  :  while  the  *  Bishop  recommends  the 
acknowledgment  of  our  errors,  and  a  disclosure 
of  the  state  of  our  souls  to  the  ministers  of 
God's  word,  for  "  that  their  opinion,  their  ad- 
vice,   and    prayers,   may  be   extremely  useful, 
sometimes  necessary."   Chillingworth  condemns 
"  the  intolerable  burden  of  a  sacramental,  neces- 
sary, universal  confession ;"   Porteus  does  the 

*    CONFUT.   p.  46. 


FROM    SIN.  2^)1 

same,  when  lie  says,  that  Scripture  no  where 
makes  Absolution  "  necessary,''  and  that  the 
chief  text,  which  the  Church  of  Rome  pleads 
for  this  purpose,  viz.  *  confess  your  faults 
ONE  TO  ANOTHER,  "  no  morc  obliges  the  people 
to  confess  their  sins  to  the  priest,  than  the  priest 
to  the  people."  And,  lastly,  Chillingworth  up- 
holds the  authority,  which  Christ  deputed  to 
his  ministers  to  release  from  sins,?/y;ow  an  unfeign- 
ed repentance  and  contrition ;  the  Bishop  says 
no  more,  when  he  remarks,  "  that  it  is  not  the 
priest's  knowledge  of  a  person's  sins  which  can 
qualify  him  to  grant  Absolution,  but  knowing 
that  he  hath  repented  of  them."  To  say,  there- 
fore, that  those  two  great  divines  entertained 
discordant  opinions  on  the  subject,  is  not  to 
state  the  fact;  as  there  is,  on  this  point,  the  most 
perfect  harmony  between  them. 

Thus  is  Chillingworth  represented  and  mis- 
represented. In  the  former  case,  he  argues 
against  sacramental  confession;  that  is,  against 
confession  considered  as  an  essential  part  of  a 
Sacrament  instituted  by  Christ,  and  liniits  the 
exercise  of  tlu'  minister's  authority  to  thr  vn- 
feigncd  contrition  of  \\\v,  penitent,  and  thus 
coincides  with  Bishop  l*orteus ;  in  the  latter 
case,  Doctor  Milner  ujakes  him  argue  for  the 
wece55iVy  of  sacramental  confession,  and  attrilmte 

*  .Fames,  v.  16. 


2>2  ABSOLUTION 


to  sacerdotal  Absolution,  all  possible  efficacy; 
and  consequently,  makes  him  disprove  every 
argument  advanced  by  the  Bishop  of  an  oppo- 
site bearing.  In  fact,  so  mutilated  and  dis- 
torted is  Chillingworth,  by  suppression  and 
curtailment,  that  were  Doctor  Milner  to  treat 
Bishops  Magee  and  Tomline  in  a  similar  way,  he 
might  exhibit  the  one  as  a  staunch  Unitarian, 
and  the  other  as  a  rank  Calvinist. 

But  although  I  rescue  Chillingworth's  au- 
thority from  the  degradation  to  which  Doctor 
Milner  has  so  shamefully  reduced  it;  yet  1 
must  in  candour  declare,  notwithstanding  the 
high  estimation  in  which  he  is  so  generally  and 
so  deservedly  held,  that  I  do  not  regard  him 
"  our  most  renowned  champion."  He  was  first 
a  Protestant;  afterwards,  at  the  age  of  nine- 
teen, conformed  to  Popery;  and,  lastly,  became 
an  Antipapist.  As,  therefore,  his  Protestantism 
was  Protestantism  in  the  abstract,  he  may  be 
said  to  have  been,  in  his  latter  days,  what  has 
been  properly  icYiuGd^t.  generalizing  Protestant, 
rather  than  a  Protestant  of  the  Established 
Church  ;  or  even  than  what  Doctor  Milner  so 
insidiously  calls  him. 

It  will  not,  I  trust,  be  objected  to  me,  that 
I  have  dwelt  too  long  upon  so  plain  a  case, 
when  it  is  considered,  what  extraordinary  pains 
Doctor  Milner  has  been  at  to  misstate  Chilling- 
worth's  sentiments,    and    that   without  an  en- 


FROM    SIN.  253 

larged  view  of  the  subject,  such  deliberate  per- 
version and  misrepresentation  as  those  of  which 
he  has  been  guilty,  could  not  have  been  suffi- 
ciently exposed. 

Supported,  as  he  conceives  himself  to  be,  by 
the  weiglit  of  Chill ingworth's  nanie,  Doctor 
Milner  next  appeals  to  Luther's  *  Catechism, 
and  Cranmer's  Order  of  the  Holy  Communion, 
for  determining  the  point  concerning  sacerdotal 
Absolution,  in  his  favour.  With  respect  to 
Luther,  I  willingly  concede  to  him  all  tiie  benefit 
which  can  be  derived,  either  from  his  primary 
Confession  of  Faith,  or  from  his  Apology  for 
that  Confession.  Both  those  documents  would 
have  no  weight,  were  he,  even  as  Doctor  Mil- 
ner calls  him,  the  Patriarch  of  the  Church  of 
England  ;  as  they  were  drawn  up  innucdiately 
after  he  had  shaken  off'  the  papal  yoke,  and  be- 
fore he  had  entirely  divested  himself  of  his  early 
prejudices.  In  what  relates  to  Cranmer,  I  join 
issue  at  once  with  him  on  the  subject. 

He  sets  out  with  attempting  to  prove,  that  the 
Church  of  JMigland,  in  l^dward  the  Sixth's 
reign,  hehl,  that  particular  Absolution  was  ne- 
cessary \\\  Confession,  and  that,  <ven  in  \\\c pre- 
sent day,  its  ministers  maintain  a  doctrine  in 
conformity   with    this   tenet.       For  the  former, 

•    The  forgiveness  of  the  priest   is  the  forgivenesi  of  (Jod. — • 
This  i»  rank  Fopcry. 


*2o4  ABSOLUTION 

*  he  refers  (o  the  admonition  in  the  Order  of 
Communion,  conij)osed  by  Cranmer,  and  pub- 
lished by  King  Edward  ;  and  for  the  latter,  to 
the  Ruhrick,  immediately  before  the  Absolution, 
and  to  the  Absolution  itself,  in  our  Office  for 
the  Visitation  of  the  Sick.  It  will  be  seen, 
that  he  fails  in  both  attempts.  The  passage, 
which  he  cites  from  the  Order  of  Communion, 
is  to  tlie  following  effect:  f  "  And  if  there  be 
any  of  you  whose  conscience  is  troubled  and 
grieved  in  any  thing,  lackyng  comforte  or  coun- 
sayll,  let  him  come  to  me,  or  to  some  other 
discrete  and  learned  prieste,  taught  in  the  lawe 
of  God,   and  confesse  and  open  his  sinne  and 

griefe  secretly that   of  us  he  may 

receyve  comforte  and  ahsolucion,'  &c.  But  the 
very  sentence  which  immediately  precedes  this 
extract,  and  which  Doctor  Milner  has  prudently 
withheld,  shews  on  what  terms  our  distinguished 
Reformer  considered  absolution  to  be  effica- 
cious. It  is  this :  "  For,  (i.  e.  unless  restitu- 
tion be  made  to  your  neighbour,  &c.  &c.) 
neyther  the  ahsolucion  of  the  prieste  can  any 
thing  avayle  them,  nor  the  receyving  of  this 
Holy  Sacrament  doth  any  thing  but  increase 

♦  Letter  xli.  pp.  85  and  86. 

t  This  is  part  of  the  on/y  exhortation  which  was  inserted 
in  King  Edward  the  Sixth's  First  Book,  Whitchurch's  Edi- 
tion, and  is  in  a  very  different  form  from  that  in  his  Second 
Book,  and  in  our  present  Book  of  Common  Prayer. 


FROM    SIN.  2i)) 

their  clnvuiation."  On  tliese  very  words  taken 
in  connexion  with  those  cited  by  Doctor  Milner, 
I  rest  mv  defence  of  Crannier's  Order  of  Com- 
munion,  tliat  it  does  not  command  confession ; 
nor  pronounce  absolution  Hecessary ;  but  leaves 
every  person  to  act  as  he  pleases.  In  the  pre- 
ceding part  too,  of  the  same  exhortation,  the 
minister  admonishes  those,  who  are  conscious 
of  any  crime,  to  repent,  to  confess  to  Almighty 
God,  &c.  In  short,  although  it  be  transposed 
and  very  much  altered  in  our  present  Commu- 
nion Office,  it  is  in  substance  the  same,  and 
consequently  cannot  be  perverted  to  uphold  a 
Popish  doctrine. 

The  confessions  which  our  Church  enjoins 
are  of  a  general  nature,  in  which  the  priest 
unites  with  the  congregation ;  and  although  it 
recommends  special  confession,  under  certain 
limitations,  as  in  times  of  sickness,  and  when 
exhorting  to  attend  the  Sacrament;  yet  it  is  dis- 
cretionary witli  the  person  himself,  whether  he 
confess  or  not.  In  our  Book  of  ('ommon  Pray- 
er, what  corresponds  with  that  c\Ua\  by  Doctor 
Milner,  runs  thus;  *'  if  then;  be  any  of  you, 
who  by  this  means  cannot  quir't  his  own  con- 
science herein,  but  re(jiiir(tli  further  comfort  or 
counsel,  let  him  come  t(»  iim-,  or  fo  some  other 
discreet  or  learned  ministrr  of  ( iod's  word,  and 
open  his  grief"  Here  is  no  connnand  that 
private  confession  of  sins  shoiild    be   made  ;  as 


256  ABSOLUTION 

the  exhortation  refers  only  to  cases  where  a 
person  cannot  quiet  his  ouu  conscience,  and 
ofl'ers  relief  to  such  only  as  are  disj)osed  to  seek 
it. 

How  different  this  from  that  whole  and  ab- 
solute confession,  extending  even  to  mortal  sins, 
which  the  Church  of  Rome  requires  to  be  made 
once,  at  least,  every  year  (*  saltern  semel  in 
anno),  in  private  to  the  priest,  and  which  con- 
stitutes so  essential  a  part  of  its  sacrament  of 
penance.  Not  only  must  the  members  of  that 
Church  confess  tiieir  sins  at  stated  intervals, 
but  confess  them  without  reserve;  thus  sub- 
njitting  themselves  to  a  species  of  religious 
slavery,  to  the  endurance  of  which,  the  youthful 
mind  is  habitually  trained,  and  to  which,  when 
it  is  advanced  to  maturity,  it  submits  without  a 
murmur.  It  is  a  duty,  we  know,  imperative  on 
us  all  to  confess  our  sins  to  God  ;  but  to  be 
obliged  to  make  an  aimual  confession  to  a 
priest,  and  to  be  told  that  the  concealment  of 
even  a  mortal  sin  from  him  is  fa  lie  to  the  Holy 
Ghost,  is  the  grossest  insult  that  can  be  offered 
to  the  reason  of  man. 

*  CoNciL.  Triden.  Sess.  xiv.  ]).  136. 

t  Douay  Catech.     It  is  also  asked  in  Butler's  Catechism, 
p.  49  :— 
-  S. — What  do  you  think  of  those  who  conceal  a  mortal  sia 
in  confession  ? 

A. — They  commit  a  most  grievous  sin,  by  telling  a  lie  to 
the  Holy  Ghost. 


FROM    SIN.  257 

Doctor  Milner  next  passes  on  to  onr  Office  for 
the  Visitation  of  the  sick,  to  which  he  refers,  as 
being  in  conformity  with  the  exhortation  to  the 
Sacrament  on  the  subject  of  confession,  and 
consequently  as  proving  that  the  Churches  of 
England  and  Rome  ag7'ee  in  this  particular. 
The  expression  on  which  he  grounds  his  proof, 
is  the  very  one  on  which  all  the  Popish  advocates 
exclusively  rely,  as  implying  a  command,  at 
least  something  more  than  a  simple  recommen- 
dation to  the  confession  of  sin.  The  following 
is  the  Rubric  cited  by  him.  "  Here  the  sick 
person  shall  he  moved  to  make  a  special  confes- 
sion of  his  sins,  if  he  feels  his  cojiscience  troubled 
with  any  iveighly  matter.  After  which  confes- 
sion the  priest  shall  ai)solve  him,  if  he  humbli/ 
and  heartily  desire  it,  after  this  sort 

*I     ABSOLVE     THEE     FROM     ALL     THY    SINS,     IN 
THE    NAME    OF    THE    FaTHER,    &C.  &C." 

*  This  Absolution  is  often  quoted,  in  order  to  shew  the 
similarity  of  the  Church  of  England  to  the  Church  of  Rome  ; 
but  this  is  what  has  never  yet  been,  indeed  what  never  can  be, 
made  out.  The  Rev.  Mr.  Gandolphy  lias  had  recourse  to  a  like 
expedient  in  the  Popish  prayir-bo()k,  which  he  eilitcd  some 
years  ago.  So  ingeniously  arc  the  titles  of  ihe  iliflcrf  nt  ofllccs 
drawn  up,  that  the  dincrrncc  between  it  and  our  Rook  of 
Common  Prayer  is  not  at  first  sight  discoverable.  Thus,  in  the 
ordinary  of  the  Mass,  he  speaks  of  The  Lord's  Supper  Inirether 
with  the  Holy  Communion,  &c.  Now  what  will  the  reader  think 
of  this  gentleman,  who,  when  charged  in  the  n.  <■,  Orthodox 
Journal  of  October,  1816,  with  abandoning  the  word  Mas», 


'258  ABSOLUTION 

Let  it  be  observed,  that  the  sick  man  is  here 
moved  to  confess;  but  in  the  Rubric  iimnedi- 
ately  preceding,  he  is  earnesLly  moved  to  be 
Uberal  to  the  poor.  Now,  if  it  cannot  be  said 
that  he  is  commanded  to  dispose  of  his  property 
as  the  minister  directs  ;  it  will  be  still  less  in- 
sisted on,  tliat  lie  is  commmidedto  confess,  where 
the  expression  is  simply  "  moved,"  and,  of 
course,  less  forcible  than  in  the  other  case, 
where  it  is  "  earnestly  moved."  And  further, 
the  words,  '*  i/^he  feels  his  conscience  troubled," 
shew,  that  it  is  *  optional  with  the  sick  man, 
whether  he  confess  or  not;  as  the  words,  "  if 
he  humbly  and  heartily  desire  it,"  shew,  that  he 
may,  if  he  choose,  dispense  with  the  Absolu- 
tion. Every  thing  is  discretionary  on  the  part 
of  the  sick  [>erson ;  indeed  so  much  so,  that  if 
he  give  no  intimation  on  these  points,  and  ask 
for  no  relief,  the  minister  is  neither  directed  to 
enforce  confession,  nor  of  himself  to  absolve 
him.  Here  then  is  the  simple  course  to  pursue. 
The  minister  is  to  intreat  the  patient  to  confess 
his  sins,  if  his  conscience  be  disquieted.     If  this 

declares  "  his  sole  intention  in  joining  another  expression  (viz. 
the  Lord's  Supper,  &c.)  was,  to  reconcile  Protestants  to  the 
mystery  ?" — Surely  such  a  nnolive  would  do  credit  to  Loyola 
himself. 

*  The  Church  of  En<;land  neither  commands  nor  forbids 
private  confession  and  absolution.  "  It  recommends  both,  but 
does  not  enjoin  citlier." — Shephekd,  vol.  ii.  p.  486. 


FROM    SIN.  259 

appeal  be  unnoticed,  he  passes  over  the  remain-- 
ing  directions  in  the  Rubric.     But  should  the 
patient  indicate,  that  his  conscience  is  troubled 
uith  some  weighty  matter ;  then  the  minister  is 
to  advise  him  to  state  the  cause  of  his  uneasi- 
ness, as  the  most  certain  M'ay  of  affording  him- 
self relief.     And,  without  some  indication,  how 
is  his  spiritual  state  to  be  known  ?     Even  then 
the  minister  does  not  pronounce  the  Absolution ; 
nor,  when  desired  to  do  so,  would  any  well-in- 
formed Protestant  clergyman  consider  himself 
as  granting  the  positive  form,   such  as,  in  the 
Church  of  Rome,  affects  to  convey  a  phnarif 
remission  of  sin,   and  not  the  ministerial  and 
declaratory  one.     It  is,  as  our  Morning  Service 
expresses   it,   "  tlie  power   and  commandmeni 
given  by  God  to  liis  ministers,  to  declare  and 
pronounce  to  his  people,  being  penitent,  the  ab- 
solution and  remission  of  their  sins."     Lastly. — 
If  any  tiling  can  decide  the  sense  of  our  (/hurcli 
on  this  head,  that  it  neither  considers  the  abso- 
lution used  in  our  Visitation  OHire,  essentially 
necessary   to   salvation ;    nor,    that    the   priest's 
pronouncing  it  r;m  of  itself  (  tiict  the  remission 
of  sins,  itis  tliis  ;  tlial  in  llic  collect  which  inune- 
diately  follows  thrit  form,  the  minister  imjilores 
(Jod  "  to  oj)en  his  eye  of  mercy  on  this  his  ser- 
vant, who  earnt'stly  (h'sireth  y>»a/Y/c;/t  \i\u\Jori(irc- 
ncss,    &c. ;"'    which    prayer    would    b<'  grossly 
absurd,  were  the  absolution  employed  plenary, 

s  2 


-1)0  ABSOLUTION 

and,  according  to  Doctor  Milner,  judicial:  as 
it  would  be  asking  God  to  give  the  sick  per- 
son what  he  had  alreaxly  obtained! 

The  *  Council  of  Trent  anathematizes  those,' 
who  say,  that  it  is  a  ministerial  and  not  2i  judi- 
cial did.  Accordingly,  the  judicial  absolution 
is  the  one  in  common  use  in  the  Church  of 
Rome,  and  is  given  to  persons  in  healthy  as 
well  as  in  sickness,  after  confession  and  the 
performance  Of  the  prescribed  penance.  The 
form,  however,  used  by  it  for  those  at  the  point 
of  death  is  also  judicial,  but  more  "j"  concise 
than  the  ordinary  one. 

On  this  point,  therefore,  a  wider  difference 
exists  between  the  two  Churches,  than  Doctor 
Milner  seems  to  have  thought  of,  when  he  assi- 
milated them.  As  in  the  one,  Confession  is 
voluntary;  in  the  other,  compulsory.  h\  the 
one,  it  rarely  happens;  in  the  other,  it  is  of 
perpetual  recurrence.  In  the  Church  of  Eng- 
land, no  abuse  can  arise  from  it ;  while,  in  the 
Church  of  Rome,  it  is  capable  of  being  con- 
verted into  an  engine  of  spiritual  dominion, 
from  the  power  possessed  by  the  priest  to  mea- 

*  *•  Si  quia  dixerit  Absolutionem  sacramentalem  sacefdotiit, 
non  esse  actum  judiciakm,  sed«nudum  ministerium  pronunci- 
andi  et  declarandi  remissa  esse  peccata  confitenti  j  anathema 
^iT." — Sess.  xiv.  Can.  9. 

f  *'  Ego  te  ahsolvo  ab  omnibus  censuris  ttpeccatis  in  nomine 
Patris,  Filii,  et  SS/'— Rituale  Roman.  Ed.  1625.  p.  58. 


FROM    SIN.  261 

feuie  out    to   the   oftender   the   (les:ree  of    his 
penance. 

Should    Doctor   Mihier  be  now  asked,    to 
what  cases  does  the  Church  of  Rome  limit  the 
exercise  of  this  species  of  absolution ;  he  must 
reply,  that  it  is  used  on  all  occasions,   whether 
emergent,  or  ordinary.     The  Council  of  Trent, 
he  must  add,  has  decreed,  that  the   power  of 
remitting  sins  is  vested  in  the  priest  himself;  and 
that  he  possesses,  as  it  were,  ex  officio,  a  judi- 
cial power ;  and  therefore,  that  it  is  fitly  exer- 
cised in  every  possible  case,  which  may  occur. 
But  can  any  thing  be  more  presumptuous  and 
absurd,  or    more  repugnant  to  Scripture  and 
reason,  than  to  claim  such  a  power?    As  if  the 
Almighty's  will  were  to  depend  on  the  decision 
of  a  fallible  creature,  and  his  justice  to  be  dis- 
pensed at  the  discretion  of  man  !     It  is  certain, 
that  after  the  effusion  of  the  Spirit  on  the  day 
of  Pentecost,   that  a  j)Ower  of  this  kind   was 
vested  in   the  Apostles,  and  that   they  besides 
had  *  "  the  discerninir  of  spirits,'^  and  couhl  dis- 
cover fthe  inmost  thoughts  of  the  heart.   They 
could  also  judge  with  certainty,  wlio  were  for- 
given, and  who  not.     lint  no  such   power  cai) 
be  claimed   for  their  successors,  who,   uiiaidrd 
by  inspiration,  and    liable   to  error,  might  by 

••  I  Cor.  xii.   10.  ^  Arts,  ».  JJ.  9.  and  viii.  1\.  iJ. 


'i(i2  ABSOLUTION 

possibility   remit,    or  retain  sins,    contrary   to 
what  it  pleased  God  to  do. 

I  have  only  one  word  to  add  on  the  *  .shorter 
form  of  absolution.  It  was  unknown  in  the 
Church  for  the  first  twelve  centuries;  therefore, 
the  compilers  of  our  Liturgy  prudently  prefixed 
some  words  of  prayer,  or,  as  it  is  called,  the 
^precatory  form,  and  thus  combined  the  two 
forms  into  one,  as  it  stands  in  our  Office  for  the 
visitation  of  the  sick.  The  words,  te  ah  omni- 
bus censuris  ahsolvo,  exemplify  the  act  oi  judi- 
cial power  in  the  relaxation  of  ecclesiastical 
censures;  but  it  is  impious  to  say,  that  the 
priest  can  exercise  a  judicial  power  in  the  re- 
mission of  sin,  as  it  is,  in  effect,  clothing  him 
with  an  J  attribute  of  the  Deity. 

*  See  note  (f),  p.  260. 

f  Shepherd  specifies  a  variety  of  absolutions  in  the  Romish 
Church,  all  running  in  \.he  precatory  form. — Vol.  ii.  p.  480. 

There  are  three  forms  of  absolution  in  our  service,  which 
are  thus  admirably  illustrated  in  Bishop  Mant's  Book  of  Com- 
mon Prayer:  "  1.  When  a  person  says,  by  virtue  of  a  com- 
mission granted  to  me  under  the  Prince's  hand  and  seal,  I 
release  this  prisoner.  2.  The  prince,  who  hath  given  me  this 
commission,  he  pardons  you.  3.  Prince  !  Pardon  and  deliver 
you ; — the  Prince  then  standing  by  and  confirming  the  word 
of  his  servant.  All  these  are  but  several  expressions  of  the 
$ame  thing." 

J  In  a  book  published  by  Keating  and  Co.  entitled,  Missce 
piopricc  ordinis  Francisci,  &c.,  the  importance   of   those  pie- 


FROJI    SIN.  203 

Following  up  the  attack  on  our  Visitation 
Office,  Doctor  Milner  refers  to  the  113lh  Ca- 
non of  the  Church  of  England,  which,  he  says, 
*"  encourages  tlie  secret  confession  of  sins,  and 
requires  her  ministers  not  to  reveal  the  same." 
But  where  is  the  inconsistency  in  t4iis?  By  the 
]09th  Canon,  the  Churchwardens  or  Quest-men 
are  required  "  faithfully  to  present  all  often ders 
to  their  Ordinaries;"  but  when  they  forbear  to 
discharge  this  duty  through  negligence,  the 
Parson,  Vicar,  or  Curate  is  required,  by  the 
113th  Canon,  to  supply  the  defect.  Now,  as 
confession  to  a  minister  is  alloivedy  though  not 
commanded,  by  the  exhortation  to  attendance 
at  the  Lords  table,  ^'H>beJ'ore  observed  ;  it  would 
be  absurd,  indeed,  were  no  difl'erence  to  be 
placed  between  those,  who  accepted  this  invita- 
tion of  their  own  accord,  and  whose  sins  were 
only  known  to  themselves ;  and  those,  whose 
"  scandals"  were  notorious.  The  provision  in 
the  113th  Canon,  relating  to  Alinislers,  who 
present  notorious  offenders  to  the  (K^clesiastical 

nary  indulgences  in  urticulo  mortis,  and  of  the  alisolulion  to 
which  tlicy  lead,  is  fully  set  forth.  The  plenary  indiil;rrnce 
granted  to  the  memhers  and  retainers  of  llu    fortgoinj;  order 

at  the  point  of  death,  is  thus  expresned Kt  rcidluo  te 

illi  statui  innoccnticc  in  (juo  eras,  (juanilo  hnptizalits  fuisti ;  in 
nomine  Palris,  &c.  &r. !  In  bober  sadness,  1  a>k  Doctor  Mihur, 
is  there  nothing  blasphemou!*  in  this  arrogant  aosumplion  of 
divine  power  ? 

*  Letter  xli.  p.  86.  , 


264  ABSOLUTION    FROM    SIN. 

courts,  is  to  this  intent : — **  Provided  always, 
that  if  any  man  confess  his  secret  and  hidden 
sins  to  the  minister,  for  the  unburdening  of  his 
conscience,  and  to  receive  spiritual  consolation 
and  ease  of  mind  from  him ;  we  do  not  any  way 
bind  tlie  said  minister  by  this,  our  constitution, 
but  do  straightly  charge  and  admonish  him, 
that  he  do  not  at  any  time  reveal  and  make 
known  to  any  person  whatsoever  any  crime  or 
offence  so  committed  to  his  trust  and  secrecy," 
&c.  This  Canon  is,  as  I  have  already  said,  in 
exact  accordance  with  the  second  exhortation 
in  the  communion  service,  and  demands  no 
other  defence  than  that  given  in  the  wise  pro- 
vision just  recited,  which  forbids  what  would 
constitute  the  basest  treachery — that  of  reveal- 
ing secrets,  which  are  disclosed  as  a  relief  to  a 
troubled  conscience. 

Thus  it  appears,  that  our  Church  is,  in  her 
every  act,  consistent;  while  no  grounds  whatever 
exist  for  instituting  a  parallel  between  it  and 
the  Church  of  Rome  on  the  subject  of  Abso- 
lution, 


2G.5 


CHAPTER  X. 


INDULGENCES. 


Bishop  Porteus  having,  in  his  Confutation  of 
the  Errors  of  Popery,  treated  of  Purgatory, 
before  he  entered  on  the  subject  of  Indulgences, 
Doctor  Miiner  speaks  of  his  "  reversing  the  pro- 
per order,"  and  affects  to  pity  him,  on  account 
of  "  the  confusion  of  his  ideas,  and  his  very  im- 
perfect knowledge,"  concerning  both  subjects  ! 
This,  no  doubt,  is  extremely  tender  in  the  Doc- 
tor. But  it  so  happens,  that  the  Bishop  has 
been  most  judicious  in  proceeding  in  tiie  ordey 
he  has  done ;  because,  by  having  proved  the 
place  of  a  temporary  punishment  to  be  a  creature 
of  the  imagination,  repugnant  to  Scripture  and 
to  every  dictate  of  reason  and  connnon  sense, 
he  thereby  weakened  one  of  the  strongest  argu- 
ments in  favour  of  Indulgences.  For,  as  the 
Komish  Doctors  do  not  pretend  to  release  the 
suffering  spirit  from  a  more  rigid  bondage  than 
that  of  Purgatory,  the  proof  of  its  non-existence 
would  determine,  tliat  Indulgences  were  oidy 
applicable  to  this  present  life,  and  would  ron- 
sequenlly  diminish,   if  not   destroy,  both  their 


•i(»0  INDULGENCES. 

power  and  profit.  Snob  aj)pears  to  me  to  Iiave 
been  the  Bishop's  motive,  and  a  most  sensible 
one  it  unquestionably  was,  for  reversing",  what 
Doctor  Mihier  calls,  the  proper  order.  But  I 
am  not  left  to  unsupported  conjecture  on  the 
point,  as  Bishop  Jewell,  that  good  old  father  of 
our  Church,  establishes  the  justness  of  my  ob- 
servation, and  puts  to  silence  every  cavil  on 
the  subject.  In  fact,  it  is  more  than  probable 
that  Bishop  Porteus  had  his  reasoning  in  view, 
when  he  adopted  the  course  he  pursued.  Thus 
Jewell,  after  observing,  that  it  is  not  quite  clear 
by  whom  Indulgences  were  first  granted,  goes 
on  to  say,  *"  that  among  the  ancients  there  is 
no  mention,  or  certainly  very  little,  of  purgatory. 
But  as  long  as  there  was  no  care  about  purga- 
tory, no  man  sought  after  Indulgences  ;  for  the 
whole  credit  of  Indulgences  depends  upon  pur- 
gatory. Take  aivay  purgatory,  and  what  need 
is  there  of  Indidgences  ?  Indulgences  began 
when  men  came  to  tremble  at  the  torments  of 
purgatory." 

In  the  primitive  ages  of  the  Church,  long  and 
severe  penances  were  imposed  upon  those,  who 
had  been  guilty  of  public  or  private  sins;  but 
were  afterwards  mitigated  when  the  offenders 
appeared  to  deserve  it  by  their  contrition  and 
repentance.      This  relaxation  of  ecclesiastical 

*  Bishop  Jewell's  Defence  of  his  Apology,  p.  486. 


INDULGENCES.  267 

discipline  was  called  an  Indulgence,  and 
when  wisely  exercised  was,  no  doubt,  promotive 
of  religion  and  piety.  But  the  Popish  Indul- 
gence is  of  a  different  description.  It  supposes 
a  treasure  in  the  Church,  consisting  of  the  in- 
finite merits  of  our  blessed  Redeemer,  and  of 
*"  the  ovetylus  of  the  goodness  of  the  Saints 
made  transferable  by  the  ministry  of  the  Pope, 
for  the  purpose  of  remitting  the  sins  of  those, 
who,  while  on  earth,  perform  certain  prescribed 
acts  ;  or  whose  friends  will  perform  them  after 
their  death."  The  dispensation  of  this  treasure 
was  arrogated  by  the  Roman  Pontifl's,  in  the 
eleventh  century,  who  thus  perverted  into  an 
instrument  of  their  ambition  and  avarice,  that 
power  which  the  Church  had  at  first  discreetly 
exercised  for  the  maintenance  of  its  discipline. 
During  thenextfour  centuries,  the  clergy  abused 
it  l>y  licentiousness  and  tyranny;  and  instead  of 
allowing  the  voluntary  and  open  confession, 
which  formerly  prepared  the  work  of  reconcilia- 
tion to  the  Church,  they  became  incjuisitors, 
interrogating  the  ofl'ender,  and  compelling  him 
to  account  for  his  thoughts,  words,  aiul  actions. 
lint,  in  tJMj  beginning  of  the  sixteenth  century, 
the  misrule  of  the  Church  had  arrived  at  the 
highest  pitch  of  infamy  and  llagitiousness,  as 

*  Confutation  of  Popish  Errors,  p.  53. 


2(38  INDULGENCES. 

the  commission  giftiited  to  *  Tetzel  most  fully 
demonstrates.  This  audacious  monk  publicly 
proclaimed  that  the  Indulgences,  with  the  sale 
of  which  Leo  X.  exclusively  entrusted  him, 
iu)parted  to  the  purchaser  the  remission  of  all 
sins,  past,  present,  and  to  come;  and  even  went 
so  far  in  his  impiety  as  to  derogate  from  the  all- 
suflScient  merits  of  Christ,  and  to  extend  the 
remission  of  divine  punishments  inflicted  on 
offenders,  to  a  future  state.  It  was  at  that 
period,  as  in  his  own  appointed  time,  that  God 
put  a  stop  to  all  these  enormities.  It  was  at 
that  period,  that  our  Patriarch  Luther,  as 
Doctor  Milner  sneeringly  calls  him,  single- 
handed  opposed  the  ambition  and  despotism  of 
the  lordly  Pontiffs,  and  who  ultimately  suc- 
ceeded in  humbling  their  grandeur,  and  in 
eclipsing  their  glory.  And  lastly,  it  is  to  that 
period,  that  the  Roman  Catholics  of  this  Em- 
pire should  in  justice  and  gratitude  ascribe  their 
comparatively  happy  state  to  what  those  enjoy, 
who  live  in  countries  purely  Popish.  Of  Luther 
it  is  not  necessary  for  me  to  say  much.  A 
genius  great  and  unparalleled ;  a  memory  vast 

•  In  describing  the  efficacy  of  these  Indulgences,  Tetzel 
used  to  boast,  "  that  he  had  saved  more  souls  from  hell  by  their 
means  than  St.  Peter  had  converted  to  Christianiti/  by  his  preach- 
ing."— MosH.  EccL.  Hut.  vol.  iv.  p.  30 — 33. 


INDULGENCES.  2G1> 

and  tenacious ;  an  incredible  patience  in  the 
endurance  of  labour;  a  mind  not  easily  subdued, 
and  extensive  learning;  seem  to  have  marked 
him  out  as  one  of  those  great  characters,  whom 
Providence  in  its  wisdom  employs  at  distant 
intervals,  to  effect  some  great  purpose  or  other. 
But,  whatever  his  defects  and  weaknesses  may 
have  been,  (although  I  consider  him  worth  ten 
thousand  of  such  persons  as  those,  who  revile  his 
memory;)  the  glorious  cause  of  the  Reformation 
is  in  no  manner  affected  thereby,  but  stands  on 
the  ground  of  its  own  intrinsic  merits. 

Since  the  era  of  the  Reformation,  reserved  as 
the  Romish  Church  has  been  about  the  sale  of 
*  Indulgences,  instances  are  not  wanting  where 
perfect  strangers  have  obtained  them  from  the 
Holy  See.  A  remarkable  one  is  related  by 
Jiishop  Porteus  of  a  plenary  Indulgence  having 
been  purchased  at  Rome,  in  the  year  1745. 
But,  because  he  does  not  tell,  who  granted  it, 
Doctor  Milner  insinuates  a  doubt  of  its  exist- 
ence. But  surely  the  Bisliop's  asseveration,  that 
it  not  only  existed,,  but  that  it  was  in  hia  actual 
possession  at  the  time  he  wrote,  sufficiently 
authenticates  the  fact.  It  was  drawn  up,  his 
Lordship  says,  not  merely  in  favour  of  the  person 

*  When  the  Council  of  Trent  (Sew.  xxv.)  passed  the  decree 
about  Indulj^ciices,  no  reference  whatever  waB  made  to  Scrip- 
ture to  support  it.  The  power  of  the  Church,  divinely  handed 
do-wn  to  it,  {divinilui  sibi  traditaj  wa»  ita  lo/c  baaia. 


•270  INDULGENCES. 

to  wlioin  it  was  given,  but  also  *  "  of  his  kin- 
dred to  the  third  degree,  and  to  thirty  persons 
more,  for  whose  name  a  proper  blank  is  left  in 
the  instrument."  When  it  is  considered  what 
a  door  is  here  thrown  open  to  sin,  can  Doctor 
Milner  deny,  that  fMrs.  Hannah  More,  when 
she  describes  Roman  Catholics  as  "  procuring 
indemnity  for  future  gratifications,  by  tempo- 
rary abstractions,  and  Indulgences  purchased 
at  the  Court  of  Rome,"  is  not  fully  justified  in 
saying  so?  Will  he,  after  this,  deny,  that  Indul- 
gences have  only  a  reference  to  canonical  pe- 
nance, and  only  absolve  from  the  censures  of  the 
Church  ?  But  should  he  attempt  to  do  so,  let 
him  account  for  a  plenary  J  Indulgence,  which 
the  present  Pope  granted  to  the  faithful  of  both 
sexes,  in  a  certain  district  in  England,  in  the 
year  1808,  who  should  utter  a  short  form  of 
prayer  therein  contained.  The  Indulgence  I 
speak  of  was,  after  certain  repetitions  of  that 

*  CoNFUT.  of  Popery,  p.  55.  In  an  admirable  little  work 
published  in  Glasgow,  and  now  reprinting  in  Cork,  there  is  a 
concise  yet  circumstantial  account  of  an  Indulgence  granted 
as  a  special  mark  of  favour,  to  persons  of  the  name  of  Rose,  at 
Kilravack  in  Scotland.  It  contains  a  remission  of  all  their 
sins,  to  all  the  branches  of  that  family,  from  the  time  of  granting 
it,  to  a  period,  of  which  there  still  remain  sixty  years  unex- 
pired ! — See  The  Protestant,  pp.  7  and  26. 

t  Strictures  on  Female  Education,  vol.  ii.  p.  248. 

X  See  the  Laity's  Directory,  for  1821,  published  by  Keat- 
ing, London. 


INDULGENCES.  "271 

prayer,  extended  to  the  living  and  the  dead, 
and  also  to  the  hour  of  dissolution.  Here  also,  let 
Doctor  Milner  honestly  say,  what  means  a  ple- 
nary Indulgence  in  articulo  mortis  ;  and  how 
the  remission  of  canonical  penance  is  eftected 
by  it;  or,  how  canonical  penance  is  applicable 
to  the  dead,  so  as  to  be  removeable  only  by  the 
intercession  of  friends. 

But,  to  come  lower  down,  let  Doctor  Milner 
explain  the  nature  of  the  Indulgence,  which 
the  See  of  Rome  granted  to  the  late  Doctor 
Moylan,  titular  Bishop  of  Cork,  on  the  com- 
pletion of  his  Cathedral  Chapel  in  that  city. 
And  let  l»ini  deny,  if  he  can,  that  the  solemn 
plenary  '^Indulgence  in  question  only  absolved 
from  ecclesiastical  censure. 

In  the  document  to  which  I  allude,  a  great 
deal  is  said  about  penance,  and  but  little  of  re- 
pentance. But  the  principal  stress  is  laid  on  the 
Indulgence,  which,  through  the  act  of  the  church, 
procures  the  forgiveness  of  sin.  It  is  l>y  the 
Indulgence,  and  the  indulgence  alone,  the  man 
is  saved.  Let  us  now  see  what  entitles  the  pe- 
nitent to  obtiiin  the  benefit  of  this  act  of  Grac4». 
*'  A.  i(ood  Coiifeasion,  assistini^  lU  least  ei^hl  limes 
at  lite  iiislrHclious,  unci  pious  exercises  of  the 
holif  mission;   a  visit   lo  the    Cuthedral;    vwv. 

*  llie  Bum.  was  dated  May,  WM),  hut  was  not  acted  on  l>y 
Doctor  Movlan  untd  Novcmbrr,  iSl.l. 


27'i  INDULGENCES. 

PATERS,  hhVE  AVES,  AND  A  CREED,"  wiU  fulfil  flie 

obligation ! !  If  this  be  not  indulgent,  and  an 
CJisy  way  of  blotting  out  sin,  it  is  difficult  to  say 
what  is.  The  treatment  of  the  devotee  resem- 
bles that  of  a  sick  man,  who  first  acknowledges 
his  disease,  and  after  his  recovery,  must  attri- 
bute his  cure  to  the  nostrum  he  had  taken. 
What  can  the  observance  of  those  things  amount 
to,  if  not  to  superstition  ?  Is  it  not  making  re- 
ligion to  consist  chiefly  in  form,  and  holding 
out  an  encouragement  to  sin  ?  For,  when  a 
person  obtains  his  Indulgence,  confesses,  and  is 
absolved,  he  heedlessly  contracts  new  debts, 
knowing  how  easily  he  can  afterwards  discharge 
them.  Nothing  more  is  requisite  to  entitle  him 
to  return  to  confession,  than  to  perform  the  new 
penance  assigned  him  ;  his  absolution  the  second 
time  is  the  immediate  consequence. 

Here  we  are  told  by  the  first  authority,  "  that 
the  priest  is  ready  to  ease  the  sinner  of  the  bur- 
den of  sin.*'  And  again,  "  that  he  is  authorized 
to  absolve  from  all  sins  and  censures  reserved  to 
the  Holy  See  and  to  us,"  viz.  to  Doctor  Moylan. 
So  that  when  Doctor  Milner  so  confidently  as- 
serts, that  an  Indulgence  is  a  relaxation  of  ca- 
nonical penance,  and  that  when  *"  the  pardon 
of  sin  is  mentioned  in  any  Indulgence,  this 
means  nothing  more  than  the  remission  of  the 

•  Letter  xlii.  p.  96. 


INDULGENCES.  273 

temporary  punishmetiis  annexed  to  such  sin  ;" 
I  would  remind  him  of  the  Absolution  given 
by  the  priest,  wliich  is  evidently,  (tam  a  pcEtu'i 
quam  a  culpa,)  as  well  from  the  punishment  as 
the  guilt;  and  1  should  then  call  on  him  to  re- 
concile such  Absolution  with  his  theory.  But 
this,  1  am  satisfied,  he  could  never  do. 

Although  I  have  considered  the  Indulgence 
granted  to  the  late  Doctor  Moylan,  only  in  a 
religious  light;  yet  we  should  never  forget,  that 
transactions  of  this  kind  have  always  a  refer- 
ence, mediate  or  immediate,  to  our  ecclesiastical 
establishment.  Indeed,  except  on  such  a  sup- 
position, it  would  be  impossible  to  account  for 
the  pomp  and  parade,  which  attended  llie  open- 
ing of  this  new  Cathedral,  in  opposition  to  the 
true  and  proper  Cathedral  of  the  established 
Church ;  accompanied  as  it  was,  by  all  that  so- 
lemnity, which  the  Church  of  Rome  reserv«  s 
for  the  most  important  occasions. 

Towards  the  concluding  |)art  of  his  Letter 
on  Induli^ences,  Doctor  MilmM-,  by  way  of  re 
crimination,  urges,  that  we  too  have  our  Indul- 
gences;  for  *  •'  that  Luther,  in  conjunction  wilh 
Bucer  and  Melancthon,  granted  one  to  Philip, 
l^andgrave  of  Hesse,  to  liavi  two  wivrs  at  the 
same  time,  and  that  he  preache'd  up  adidtery; 
robbery,  and  murdtr,  in  his  public  sermons.  "   1 

*    luiD.    p.    10S. 

I 

i 


•274  INDULGENCES. 

have  more  than  once  had  occasion  to  say,  that, 
admitting  liUther  to  have  deserved  all  tlie  op- 
probrium heaped  on  his  character  by  Popish 
writers,  still  we  should  not  be  bound  to  defend 
him.  If  we  pinned  our  faith  on  his  sleeve;  if 
we  esteemed  him  infallible  in  faith  or  in  prac- 
tice, then  he  would  be  entitled  to  our  advocacy. 
But  as  we  think  him  to  have  been  a  fallible 
man,  though  not  less  infallible  than  the  Pope, 
we  are  no  way  answerable  for  his  mistakes. 
The  man  who  was  liberated  from  the  darkness 
of  the  Bastile,  after  a  forty  years'  confinement, 
did  not  all  at  once  recover  the  distinctness  of 
his  vision  :  so  it  was  with  Luther ;  his  mental 
eye  was  still  bedimmed,  even  after  he  had  torn 
off  the  Popish  film  which  obscured  it.  If  he 
granted  the  *  Indulgence  of  which  Doctor  Mil- 
ner  speaks,  and  acted  so  unworthily  of  the 
great  cause  in  which  he  was  engaged  ;  yet  shall 

*  Will  Doctor  Milner  believe,  that  Pope  Clement  VII. 
made  the  offer  of  an  indulgence  to  King  Henry  VIII,,  through 
Gregory  Cassalis,  his  ambassador  at  Rome,  that  he  might 
have  tivo  wives  ?  The  letter  slates,  "  superioribus  diebus, 
Pontifex,  secreto,  veluti  rem  quam  magni  faceret,  mihi  pro- 
posuit  conditionem  hujusmodi,  concedi  posse  vestra  Majestati 
ut  duos  uxores  habeat." — Loud  Herbert's  History  of  the  Life 
and  Reign  of  Hen.  VIII.,  p,  330,  British  Museum  Library. 
The  historian  adds,  "  that  no  effect  followed  thereof,  as  the 
King  forbade  purchasing  or  publishing  any  bull  from  the 
court  of  Rome  ;  and  thus  began  to  shake  off  the  Romish 
yoke."— P.  331. 


INDULGENCES.  275 

he  not  derive  some  palliation  for  his  conduct, 
from  the  peculiar  circumstances  in  which  he 
was  placed  ?  Besides,  we  must  remember,  if  he 
gave  way  and  fell  in  the  moment  of  temptation, 
that  he  was  at  the  same  time  surrounded  by 
malignant  enemies;  while  he  was  fearful  of 
risking  the  loss  of  a  powerful  friend,  who  would 
probably  have  increased  their  strength  in  the 
event  of  a  refusal.  But,  what  is  this  isolated 
instance,  which  only  forms  a  single  exception 
to  the  manner  in  which  the  Reformers  proceed- 
ed, to  the  numberless  Indulgences  winch  have 
been  granted  by  the  Bishops  of  Rome  ?  How- 
ever, be  it  admitted,  that  his  conduct  wns,  in 
this  respect,  inexcusable;  still,  we  cannot  but 
draw  a  broad  line  of  distinction  between  it  and 
a  power  claimed,  and  systematically  exercistMl, 
by  the  Head  of  a  Church  arrogating  to  himself 
the  attribute  of  infallibility,  and  sacrificing 
every  moral  obligation  to  his  individual  anjbi- 
tion  or  avarice.  As  lo  what  Doctor  Milner 
says  about  LutluT's  preaching  u|)  adultery,  it 
is  to  be  utterly  disregarded  ;  ("or  often  as  the 
imputation  has  been  repeated,  it  never  yet  came' 
forward  substantiated  by  an  iota  of  evidence. 

1  cannot  conclude  this  ch:ij»(er  without  ex- 
pressing my  commendation  of  Doctor  .Vlilner's 
delicacy  in  not  retorting  on  us  the  advertise- 
ments he  frecjuently  sees  in  the  newsj)apers, 
"  about  hnyinff  and  selling  benefices'  with   (he 


1   2 


276  INDULGENCES. 

cure  of  souls  annexed  to  them  in  our  Church." 
He  knows  the  cases  are  not  most  distantly  ana- 
logous, and  he,  therefore,  very  discreetly  in- 
deed, forbears  to  compare  them.  For  what 
proportion  can  one  simoniacal  act,  even  if  it  be 
committed  and  escape  detection,  bear  to  the 
myriads  of  sins,  of  which  Indulgences,  Confes- 
sions, and  Absolutions  are  productive? 


277 


CHAPTER  Xf. 


PURGATORY. 


The  inveteracy  of  the  Popish  religion  is  in  no 
instance  more  distinctly  seen,  than  in  that  tenet 
which  respects  Purgatory,  or  a  temporary  state 
of  punisliment  in  another  life.  The  same  con- 
fident and  authoritative  tone  with  which  it  was 
officially  declared  an  article  of  faitli  by  the 
Council  of  Trent,  characterizes  the  dill'erent 
writers  who  have  since  supported  it ;  hut  not 
one  in  a  more  distinguished  degree  than  Dr. 
Milner.  With  whatever  arrogance  or  self-suffi- 
ciency Bellarmiiie  or  Bossuet,  the  Rhemish  Je- 
suits, or  Thomas  Ward,  may  have  pronounced 
their  dogmas  ;  of  this  I  am  perfectly  satisfied, 
that  not  an  iudiNidual  among  them  has  astsauit- 
ed  his  opponent  with  greater  rudeness  and  in- 
temperance than  Doctor  Milner  has  ihe  late 
excellent  and  learned  Bisho|)  Porteus.  Ah, 
however,  that  distinguished  Pk  late's  ehararter 
stands  too  high  in  j)ul)lic  opinion  to  b(;  allecled 
by  any  thing,  which  he  can  say,  I  shall  confuu- 
myself  to  what  is  more  inunedialely  the  obj)  (  t 
of  these  pages. 


•278  PURGATORY. 

The  learned  Bishop  argues,  *  "  that  there  is 
no  Scripture  proof  of  the  existence  of  Purga- 
tory ;  otherwise,  that  Christ  would  not  have 
concealed  it  from  us,  and  that  we  read  of  hea- 
ven and  hell  perpetually  in  the  Bible;  but  Pur- 
gatory lie  never  meet  tvit/i."  To  this  conclusive 
and  most  convincing  argument,  what  does 
Doctor  Milner  oppose?  Indeed,  a  parallel  one 
respecting  the  sanctification  of  the  Sabbath,  or 
Saturday;  but  that  we  never  meet  with  the 
Sunday  as  a  day  of  obligation ;  although,  if 
there  were  such  an  obligation,  Christ  vs^ould 
not  have  concealed  it  from  us.  This  also  is  one 
of  the  many  cases  adduced  by  Doctor  Milner, 
between  which  and  the  Bishop's,  we  have  no 
more  than  a  glimmering  of  analogy.  But,  if 
Christ  did  not  speak  about  keeping  the  first 
day  of  the  week  holy ;  yet,  by  his  selection  of 
that  day  for  his  resurrection  from  the  dead,  he 
furnishes  a  sufficient  reason  for  making  it  a  day 
of  obligation;  particularly,  as  on  that  day  he 
completed  that  dispensation,  which,  in  every 
part,  superseded  the  Jewish  one,  that  antece- 
dently existed.  This  very  distinction  marked 
the  Sunday  as  the  new  Sabbath,  and  the  prac- 
tice of  the  Apostles  meeting  and  breaking  bread 
on  that  day,  above  any  other,  no  less  than  the 
sacredness  with  which  it  was  kept  by  the  pri- 
mitive  Christians,  decidedly  proves,  that  they 

*    CONFUT.    p.   48. 


PURGATORY.  279 

considered  such  to  be  the  intention  of  their 
blessed  Master.  Our  Saviour's  example,  there- 
fore, and  the  imitation  of  it  by  his  Apostles, 
and  the  first  Christians,  speak  volumes  for  the 
sa7ictiJication  of  the  first  day  of  the  vi^eek,  and 
for  its  appointment  as  a  day  of  obligation.  Now, 
as  we  have  not  so  much  as  an  mtimatioii  from 
our  Saviour,  no  precept  from  the  Apostles,  and 
no  mention  respecting  Purgatory  in  the  Creeds 
of  the  early  Christians;  and  as,  moreover. 
Doctor  Milner  does  not  seem  to  lay  much  stress 
on  his  parallel,  and  as  I  myself  cannot  see  the 
bearing  points  in  either  case,  which  could  be 
made  to  meet,  I  the  more  readily  accompany 
him  to  what  he  calls  his  Scripture  proofs  from 
the  Old  and  New  Testament,  of  tiie  existence 
of  this  middle  state. 

Let  us  first  see  what  the  Council  of  Trent 
says  in  its  decree,  relating  to  Purgatory. — 
*"  Since  the  Catholic  Church,  instructed  by 
the  Holy  Ghost,  out  ojthc  sacred  writings,  has 
taught  that  there  is  a  Purgatory,  tliis  holy 
Council  comniaiids  Ihr-  r.ishoj)s  to  do  tlirir 
diligent  endeavours,  thai  i\u:  snuud  docd  inc  of 
Purgatory,  as  handed  down  bj/  t/u  Juth/  i\i- 
thcrs    and    the   sacred     Councits,    he    bi'lir\«(l, 

*  "  Cum  Catliolica  Ixclcsia,  Bpirilu  sanclo  cdocla  oxsacris 

literis  docuerit,  Purgatorium  esse pr.Tcipit  saiicta  Sy- 

iiodus  Episcoi)i»,  ci  sanam  dc  Purgalorio  doclriiiain  u  tututis 
Putribua  ct  sacrit  concUiis  tradilam,  a  Christ i  fidclibii^  crrdi 
diligeiiter  stiideant." — Siss.  xxv. 


•280  PIRGATOKY. 

rtlaiued,  taught,  and  every  where  preached,  by 
tlie  faithful  in  Christ."  It  is  remarkable,  that 
the  decree  introduces,  but  does  not  end  with, 
an  appeal  to  the  Scriptures.  It  is  further 
remarkable,  that  there  is  no  allusion  whatever 
to  Scripture,  in  the  decree  about  the  Sacrifice 
of  the  Mass,  in  which  the  mention  of  Purgatory 
also  occurs.  This  decree  says  of  the  Host, 
that  it  is  duly  offered,  according  to  the  tra- 
lition  of  the  Apostles,  not  only  for  the  sins,  &c. 
of  the  livitig,  but  also  for  those  who  are  deceased 
in  Christ,  and  are  not  yet  fully  purged  of  their 
sins.''  So  total  a  f  silence  respecting  Scripture, 
in  my  mind,  completes  the  proof,  that  the  Trent 
Fathers  were  conscious,  that  it  afforded  them 
no  support  on  the  subject  of  Purgatory.     But 

*  "Quare  non  solum  pro  fidelium  vivorum  peccatis,  poenis. 
Sec.  sed  pro  defunctis  in  Cliristo,  nondum  ad  plenum  purgatis,  rite 
juxta  Apustolorum  Traditionem." — Sess.  xxii. 

t  The  Bishop  of  Winchester  having  remarked,  in  his 
Elements  of  Theology,  vol.  i.  p.  279,  "  that  the  Epistles  arc 
not  to  be  considered  as  regular  treatises  upon  the  Christian 
religion  :"  the  expression  is  laid  hold  of  by  Doctor  Milner, 
Us  if  it  afforded  a  countenance  to  tradition.  But  had  he  com- 
pleted the  sentence  by  adding,  "  though  its  most  essential 
doctrines  are  occasionally  introduced  and  explained,"  and  told 
his  reader,  that  the  Bishop's  general  arguments  on  the  Canon 
of  the  New  Testament,  go  to  prove  the  perfectness  of  the 
Christian  scheme,  as  detailed  in  it;  the  idea  that  his  Lordship 
admitted  the  necessity  of  collateral  aid  to  supply  a  supposed 
deficiency,  would  have  been  removed. — But  fairness  of  this 
kmd  is  not  to  be  expected  from  Doctor  Milner. 


PURGATORY.  281 

to  supply  this  deficiency,  Doctor  Milner  at- 
tempts more  than  they  themselves  have  done: 
first,  bv  a  reference  to  the  second  book  of 
Maccabees,  which  he  considers  an  integral 
part  of  the  Old  Testament;  and  secondly,  to 
certain  passages  in  the  New  Testament.  Thus 
in  the  very  outset,  Ave  differ  about  the  value  of 
the  authority  quoted. 

The  Church  of  Rome  has  declared  the  two 
first  books  of  the  Maccabees  canonical.  In 
conformity  with  this  declaration,  the  Transia- 
tors  of  the  Douay  Bible  say,  *  "  that  the 
Canon  of  the  Christian  Catholique  Church  is  of 
sovereigne  auctoritie,  though  the  Jewes'  Canon 
have  them  not."  On  the  other  hand,  we  have 
seen  that  the  Church  of  England  esteems  those 
books  canonical,  and  those  only,  of  which  our 
Saviour  made  express  mention  after  his  Resur- 
rection. But,  as  this  |)oint  has  been  tfib'«-ady 
discussed,  I  shall  now  inquire  whether  the 
passage  in  question  gives  any  support  to  the 
doctrine  of  Purgatory. 

It  is  stated,  J:"  that  Judas  Maccainus  sent 
a  collection  of  money,  whirli  he  tnadf,  to  Jeru- 
salem, for  a  sacrifice'  to  br  offj-n-d  ffir  simn-. 
well  and   religiously   thinking  of  llic  n-sunrc- 

*   DoLAY  Preface  to  ihe  two  first  Books  of  MaccabcM. 

t  See  p.  2,  et  seq. 

t   II.   Matcal).  XII.    M).      Doiay  Thansi.   Ld.  1610. 


282  PURGATORY. 

tion."  If  we  now  connect  this  passage  with  the 
mention  made  in  a  preceding  one,  *  "  that  they 
found  under  the  coates  of  the  slayne,  some  of 
the  ■\donaries  of  the  idols,  that  were  in  Jamnia, 
from  which  the  lawe  forbiddeth  the  Jewes;" 
we  shall  see  the  reason  for  which  the  sin-offer- 
ing was  made  by  tlie  pious  general.  He  enter- 
tained a  proper  sense  of  the  danger  to  which  he 
had  been  exposed  by  the  sin  of  those  men,  and 
prayed  to  God,  that  if  might  not  be  imputed  to 
the  people ;  offering  at  the  same  time  a  sacrifice 
for  sin,  according  to  the  law :  "  because  he 
perceived  that  there  was  great  favour  laid  up 
for  those  that  died  godly."  But  the  men,  who 
were  slain,  died  in  a  mortal  sin ;  viz.  the  sin  of 
idolatry.  Now,  as  according  to  the  Popish 
idea,  those  who  are  guilty  of  a  mortal  sin, 
cannot  go  to  Purgatory ;  it  follows,  that  those 
could  not  be  relieved  by  the  prayers  of  the 
living  from  a  place  to  which  their  guilt  debarred 
their  admission.  And  besides,  if  we  take  the 
account  of  what  Judas  did,  as  it  stands  in  the 
apocryphal  book  referred  to  ;  its  immediate  rela- 
tion is  not  to  the  dead,  and  by  consequence, 
not  to  Purgatory.  But  supposing  that  the  dead 
are  alluded  to,  the  allusion  is  to  their  future 

*  Ibid. 

t  "  Things  consecrated  to   the   Idols'* — Our  Authorized 
Transl. 


PURGATORY.  283 

resurrection,  and  not  to  their  present  punishment. 
From  all  which  it  is  clear,  that  Doctor  Milner's 
quotation  from  Maccabees  is  irrelevant  to  the 
subject  of  Purgatory.  When  to  the  reasons 
assigned  for  the  rejection  of  this  book,  is  added 
the  circumstance  of  its  not  being  once  mentioned 
by  any  of  the  writers  of  the  New  Testament, 
or  cited  as  an  inspired  book,  by  any  ecclesias- 
tical author  of  the  three  first  centuries;  we  may 
safely  conclude,  that  Purgatory  is,  as  our 
twenty-second   Article  says,  "  a  fond  thing, 

VAINLY  INVENTED,  AND  GROUNDED  UPON  NO 
WARRANTY  OF  ScRIPTURE,  1$UT  RATHER  RE- 
PUGNANT   TO    THE    WORD    OF    GoD." 

Doctor  Mihiers  references  to  the  New  Tes- 
tament are  the  trite  ones  made  use  of  by  every 
supporter  of  this  foolish  and  unscrij)tural  con- 
ceit. I  shall  not,  therefore,  follow  him  in  the 
stupid  track,  which  he  has  marked  out,  but 
content  myself  with  noticing  some  one  or  two 
points  as  I  pass  along. 

Bishop  Porteus's  gloss  on  the  text,  *  "  Jf  any 
mails  work  shall  be  burned,  he  shall  suffer  loss ; 
but  he  himself  shall  be  saved,  yet  so  a>  ii\  fire,"« 
is  almost  "  too  feeble  and  insignilirant"  to  merit 
even  being  nxiitioiu'd  by  J^octor  iMilmr.  Sut- 
fice  it,   however,   to  say,  lliat  that  Pnlate   has 

•  I.  (or.  iii.  15. 


284  PURGATORY. 

followed  Seeker  and  the  otlier  learned  Com- 
TDentators,  who  have  discovered  no  sanction  for 
Purgatory  in  this  passage  of  St.  Paul ;  but  an 
allusion,  either  to  the  fiery  trial  of  persecution, 
or  rather,  to  the  final  judgment  of  God,  when 
both  danger  and  difficulty  would  attend  an 
escape.  But  to  let  this  pass,  in  order  that  we 
may  arrive  at  Doctor  Milner's  proof  positive 
from  Scripture,  of  the  existence  of  Purgatory, 
in  Christ's  denunciation  concerning  blasphemy 
against  the  Holy  Ghost ;  namely,  that  this  sin 
*  "  shall  not  he  forgiven,  neither  in  this  world, 
neither  in  the  loorld  to  come."  The  f  Doctor 
says,  that  these  words  "  clearly  imply,  that 
some  sins  are  forgiven  in  the  world  to  come." — 
A  proof  by  implication  is  a  strong  one  certainly, 
for  establishing  an  Article  of  Faith ;  yet  such 
is  the  nature  of  that  used  by  him  in  the  present 
instance.  But  to  shew  how  erroneously  he 
infers  Purgatory  from  those  words,  I  shall  first 
briefly  observe  with  Bishop  Porteus,  hxa  feeble 
antagonist,  that  they  denounce  punishment, 
both  here  and  hereafter,  for  the  sin  of  blasphemy 
against  the  Holy  Ghost,  and  that  it  would 
never  be  forgiven :  or  next,  with  %  Mr.  Wake, 
that  some  sins  ^//a/Z  assuredly  be  forgiven  in  the 
world  to  come,  even  all  those  that  are  forgiven 

*  Matt.  xii.  32.  f  Letter  xliii.  p.  107. 

X  PhEsERVATivE  against  Popery,  vol.  ii.  Tit.  vii.  p.  119. 


PURGATORY.  ^85 

in  this,  and  for  which,  therefore,  God  will  not 
call  us  to  an  account  at  the  last  day.  In  no 
sense,  therefore,  can  "  this  comfortable  doc- 
trine," as  Doctor  Milner  calls  it,  be  derived 
from  the  text  spoken  of 

The  most  palpable  absurdities   follow  from 
the  supposition,  that  such  a  place  as  Purgatory 
exists.    For,  according  to  the  Popish  argument, 
those  only  shall  be  forgiven,  who  die  in  venial 
sin.     But,  first,  what  has  Purgatory  to  do  witli 
remission  of  sin,  being  a  place,  not  where  sins 
are  remitted,  but  where  they  are  punished  with 
extreme  rigour,  after  they  are  remitted ;  and  wliat 
is   still  more  extraordinary,   punished  because 
they  are  remitted?     And  secondly,  if  the  guilt 
were  not  remitted,  the  sinner  would  be  excluded 
Purgatory.     To   say,  therefore,  that  God   for- 
gives the  guilt  of  sin,  and  yet  that  the  obligation 
to  punishment  remains,  is  in  eflbct  to  say,  tliat 
God  forgives  the  guilt,  and  does  not  forgive  it, 
at  the  same  time— which  is  highly  absurd  !     So 
that,  in  every  view  of  the  case,  it  is  worse  than 
ridiculous   to  conclude,  that   there  is  a  plaie, 
where  every  the  least  sin  is  severely  pmiishrd, 
and    where    the  sufferings    of   the   siuner    can 
be   mitigated   by  thf  prayers  of  the   living;   by 
the  intercession  of  saints;  but   particularly  by 
the    Sacrifice    of  the   Mass;    iiid(|Knd»-ntly    of 
the   death    and    merits   of  Christ.      Indeed,    .so 
tndy  nonsensical  is  the  idea  respecting    Purga- 


*286  PURGATORY. 

tory,  that  it  must  have  long  since  been  aban- 
doned, did  not  interested  motives  stand  in  the 
way. 

Having  demonstrated  how  completely  Doctor 
Mihier  has  failed  in  his  Scripture  proofs  for 
establishing  the  doctrine  of  Purgatory,  I  feel 
but  little  disposed  to  trespass  on  my  readers 
patience  by  enlarging  on  the  sense  of  the  early 
Fathers,  whose  authority,  on  this  subject,  he 
grossly  misapplies ;  and  still  less  to  excuse 
*Calvin,  fPriestley,  and  others,  for  holding  what 
he  terms  a  general  Protestant  Purgatory.  The 
authority   of  the   Fathers  I   deem  respectable, 

*  Doctor  Milner  repeats  the  charge  of  blasphemy  against 
Calvin,  which  Ward  advanced  upwards  of  a  century  ago. 
Although  it  was  foreign  to  the  object  of  my  Answer  to  his 
Errata  to  vindicate  any  other  tenets,  than  those  of  the  Church 
of  England  ;  yet  a  regard  to  truth  induced  me  to  give  a  cor- 
rect statement  of  Calvin's  view  respecting  Christ's  descent 
into  hell,  for  the  purpose  of  shewing  the  gross  injustice  which 
had  been  done  him.     See  Answer  to  Ward,  p.  76. 

t  The  Bishop  of  Raphoe,  where  he  argues  against  Doctor 
Priestley's  idea  of  substituting  a  Purgatory  in  place  of  an 
eternal  punishment,  says,  "  if  the  idea  of  punishment  for 
that  which  was  the  result  of  inevitable  necessity,  be  repug- 
nant to  the  essential  nature  of  Justice,  it  must  be  equally  so, 
whether  that  punishment  be  of  long  or  short  duration."  Dis- 
courses on  Atonement,  &c.  Tol.  ii.  p.  397.  I  may  add  that  it 
is  equally  repugnant  to  right  reason  to  suppose,  that  a  God 
of  infinite  mercy  and  goodness  should  punish,  merely  for  the 
sake  of  punishing,  those,  who  are  justified  in  his  sight,  through 
the  blood  of  his  only  Son,  Jesus  Chpist.  % 


PURGATORY.  28? 

but  not  decisive ;  and  it  is  with  this  feehng  I 
contend  with  Doctor  Milner  about  its  pos- 
session. Origen,  Cyprian,  and  Tertullian,  speak, 
it  is  true,  of  a  Purgatory.  The  first  conceived 
that  there  were  no  pains  at  all,  but  those  of 
Purgatory  after  this  life.  This  notion  was  con- 
demned by  the  fifth  General  Council  as  here- 
tical ;  yet  without  mentioning  any  other  Pur- 
gatory in  contradistinction  to  it.  The  second 
applied  it  to  the  penance  inflicted  on  those  who 
had  lapsed  in  times  of  persecution.  And  the 
third,  to  Christ's  millenary  kingdom.  But  how 
different  is  this  from  the  Poi)ish  Purgatory,  as 
defined  by  the  Council  of  Trent?  When  to 
this  is  added  a  perfect  silence  respecting  this 
doctrine,  in  the  Creeds,  catechetical  Discourses, 
and  Decrees  of  their  times,  I  must  set  it  down 
as  one  of  the  novelties  of  the  Churci)  of  Rome, 
and  not  as  an  article  of  Faitli  in  the  primitive 
Catholic  Church. 

The  unfairness  with  whicii  Doctor  Milner 
treats  Archl)ishop  Usher,  compels  me  to  rescue 
his  great  name  from  thr  olilocpiy  in  whirh  h«^ 
has  involved  it.  Of  ei[::ht  Divines  of  the  Church 
of  England,  whom  he  expressly  menti(ms  aH 
believing,  that  "  tli<!  dead  ought  to  be  prayed 
for,"  I  can  only  speak  decidedly  of  one,  name- 
ly, the  Arelil>ish(;p.  JJut  shoiihl  I  make  it  ap- 
pear, that  that  illustrious  individual  among 
tliem,  to   whose  works  aloii«-  I  have  uit  present 


•288  PURC.ATORV. 

access,  and  who  is  in  himself  a  host,  condemns 
this  very  practice  of  praying  for  the  dead  as  a 
"  monstrons  foolery  ;"  J  shall,  at  least,  have  cast 
a  suspicion  on  Doctor  Milner's  candour,  as  to 
the  use  he  makes  of  the  remaining  seven. 

*  Archbishop  Usher  begins  with  observing, 
that,  in  the  book  ascribed  to  St.  Patrick,  detrl- 
hus  hahitaculis,  there  is  no  mention  of  any  other 
place  after  this  life,  but  of  these  two, — Heaven 
and  Hell;  and  that  he  leaves  it  to  the  judg- 
ment of  any  indifferent  man,  whether  it  accords 
with  "  what  the  Romans  teach  concerning  Pur^ 
gatory  at  this  day.  There  are,"  he  adds,  "  three 
habitations  under  the  power  of  Almighty  God. 
The  highest  is  called  the  kingdom  of  Heaven, 
the  lowermost  is  termed  Hell,  the  middle  is 
named  the  present  ivorld.  Of  which  the  ex- 
tremes are  altogether  contrary  to  each  other; 
but  the  middle  has  some  similitude  with  the 
extremes.  For  in  this  world,  there  is  a  mixture 
of  the  bad  and  of  the  good  together.  Whereas 
in  the  kingdom  of  God,  there  are  none  bad,  but 
all  good  ;  but  in  hell  there  are  none  good,  but 
all  bad.  And  both  these  places  are  supplied 
out  of  the  middle."  From  this  language  may 
be  collected  what  the  sentiments  of  the  Irish 
Clergy  respecting  Purgatory  were  in  the  begin- 
ning of  the  fifth  century  ;  while  the  manner,  in 

*  Discourse  on  the  Religion  of  the  ancient  Irish,  p.  ^4. 


PURGATOPvY.  20f) 

>vhich  the  Archbishop  introduced  it,  sliews  wliat 
he  himself  thought  on  the  subject.  But  the 
question,  whether  the  sins  of  the  dead  could  be 
redeemed  by  the  prayers  of  their  friends  in  life, 
he  treats  with  derision. 

The  Archbishop  then  proceeds  to  say,  *"  that 
in  those  elder  days  it  was  an  usual  thing  to 
make  prayers  and  oblations  for  the  rest  of  those 
souls  which  were  not  doubted  to  have  been  in 
glory  ;  and,  consequently,  that  neither  the  com- 
memoration, nor  the  prai/m<r  for  the  dead,  nor 
the  requiem  masses  of  that  age,  have  any  neces- 
sary relation  to  the  belief  in  purgatory."  He 
then  concludes,  from  Jerome,  tiiat  "  while  we 
are  in  this  present  world,  we  may  be  able  to 
help  one  another,  either  by  our  prayers  or  our 
counsels;  but  when  we  shall  come  brforc  (he 
judgment-seat  of  Christ,  neither  Job,  nor  Da- 
niel, can  intreal  for  any  one;  but  each  niu^i 
bear  his  own  burdens."  And,  laslly,  |  "  that 
in  hell  no  need  can  be  stipplicd,  no  pnif/cr  he 
heard."  After  this  iiii|)artial  statement  of  Arch- 
bishop Usher's  sentiments  on  this  point,  I  shall 
leave  it  to  the  discretion  <tf  liic  rr:»d(  r  to  pro- 
nouiice  that  scnterH'e  on  Doctor  Milticr.  whirli 
his  misrepresentation  of  an  i  lumciil  author 
loudJN  <;»lls  for. 

As  It  uoul  I  be  painful  to  me  to  mark,  \\\  ap- 
pro])riale   language,    my   sense  of  the   outrage 

*  Iiiib,  p.  29.  t  Iun>/  p.'30. 

u 


•2iK)  PURGATORY. 

committed  by  Doctor  MHikm"  on  one  of  the  es- 
teemed Prelates  of  our  Church  of  the  present 
day;  I  shall  simply  state  the  particulars  of  it.  His 
assaults  on  Bishops  Tomline  and  Burgess  may 
possibly   find   some  extenuation  in    their  pub- 
lished sentiments;  but  the  violence  done  to  the 
present  *Bishop  of  Lincoln  is  without  excuse. 
His  Lordship  is  represented,  by  Dr.  Milner,  to 
have   ''published  a  sermon,"  when   Bishop   of 
Exeter,  in  which  "  he  prays   for   the    soul 
of  our  poor  Princess  Charlotte,  as  far  as  this  is 
lawful  and  profitable."    The  rank  Popery  of 
this  language  excited  my  suspicions  and  inqui- 
ries; and  the  result  has  been  the  discovery,  that 
although  the  then  Bishop  of  Exeter  preached  in 
his  Cathedral  on   the  great  national  loss  sus- 
tained by  the  death  of  that  lamented  Princess ; 
yet,  that  he  not  only   did  not  publish,  but 
never  so  much  as  expressed  a  sentiment,  which 
could  be  tortured  into  any  thing  of  the  kind !!! 
As  I  speak    from   authority,  I    invite  Doctor 
Milner  to  investigate  the  truth   of  what  I   say. 
For  the  present,  I  add  another  leaf  to  his  laurels. 
We  are  next  confronted  with  the  authority  of 
the  celebrated  Doctor  Johnson,  for  the  neces- 
sity of  offering  up  prayers  for  the  dead ;  as  if 
the  morbid  melancholy  inherent  in  the  consti- 
tution of   that  great  man,     and    the  f  terrific 

*  The  Hon.  and  Right  Rev.  Dr.  Pelham. 
t  Hawki.ns's  Life  of  Johnson,  p.  316, 


PURGATORY.  291 

dreams  with  which  he  was  haunted,  and  which 
scarcely  afforded  him  a  liope  that  his  deceased 
wife  was  in  a  state  of  happiness,  did  not  suffi- 
ciently account  for  the  agitation  of  his  mind, 
and  for  the  gloomy  notions  entertained  by  him 
about  a  future  life.  Yet,  with  all  his  peculia- 
rity of  thought  on  this  head,  *  his  middle  state 
was  not  one,  on  which  he  looked  with  horror  ; 
but  only  as  not  being  the  most  blissful.  But 
such  wayward  conceptions,  although  urged  by 
Doctor  Milner  as  a  proof,  that  we  have  a 
Purgatory  of  our  own,  fall  equally  under  the 
censure  of  our  Church  with  the  Popish  doc- 
trine, as/bwd'  things,  vainly  imagined,  and  not 
only  not  supported  by,  but  directly  opposed  to, 
the  Word  of  God. 

One  concluding  observation  will  suffice,  ei- 
ther on  Doctor  Milner's  want  of  taste,  or  on  his 
proneness  to  detraction  ;  when  he  calls  our  Bu- 
rial Service,  *'  a  cold  and  disconsolate  ceremony.' 
Here  1  would  ask,  what  service,  not  merely  in 
our  book  of  Conunon  Prayer,  but  in  the  Litur- 
gical Offices  of  the  Greek  or  Latin  Cliurches, 
can  stand  a  competition  with  it  in  beauty  of 
language,  piety  of  sentiment,  and  sul)limity  of 
thought?  Are  the  inspired  passages,  witli  which 
it  begins,  cold  and  disconsolate;  and  not  rather 
calculated  to  cheer  and  animate?     Are  the  me- 

*  See  Boswell's  Life  of  Johnson,  vol.  i.  p.  196. 

u  2 


"292  PURGATORY. 

ditatious  ami  prayers,  \vith  which  it  closes,  of  a 
chillinj^  nature?     Are  they  not  on  the  contrary, 
})ious,  affectins;,  and  tnl!  of  consoldtion?     But, 
in  what  terms  shall  1   join   in  the  admiration, 
which  the  elegiac  strains  of  David^  and  one  of 
the  grandest  specimens  of  St.  Paul's  eloquence 
have  always   acquired  for  it?     In  short,  whe- 
ther our   Service  for   the  dead   be  taken  as  a 
whole,  or  viewed   in  detached   parts  ;  nothing 
can  less  deserve  to  be  called  "  cold  and  discon- 
solate.'    For,  as  the  Resurrection  of  the  dead 
is  the  foundation  of  our  faith,  and  the  pillar  of 
our  hope ;  so,  by  this  Service  is  our  faith  strength- 
ened  and  our  hope  encouraged,  that  by  well- 
doing here,  we  shall  be  happy  hereafter.     And 
while  it  instructs  us  not  to  be  sorry  as  those, 
**  who  have  no   hope,"  it  tends  to  soothe  our 
anguish  for  our  departed  friends.     Our  Service, 
it  is  true,   does  not  prescribe   the  use  of  holy 
water,  and  incense  at  the  grave  ;   a  benediction 
over  it,  or  intercession  for  the  dead  :  but  with 
justice,  because  such  ceremonies  are  vain  and 
superstitious.     But,  instead  of  them,  it  supplies 
us  with  beautiful  illustrations  of  the  shortness 
and  uncertainty  of  life  ;  it  teaclies  us  to  repose 
our  dependence  on   God  ;    to  confess   that  by 
our  sins  we  have  offended  Him;  and,  in  a  word, 
to  turn  our  whole  attention  to  the  state  of  our 
own  souls.     It  is  thus  we  show  a  regard  for  our 
departed  friends,  and  not  as  Doctor  Milner  im- 


PURGATORY.  293 

putes  to  us,  *  "  hy  cosily  pomp  and  feathered 
pageantry ;"  it  is  by  the  regard  we  shew  our- 
selves. And  it  is  thus,  while  the  Compilers  of 
our  Liturgy  have  guarded  us  on  the  one  hand, 
from  gross  superstition,  and  on  the  other,  from 
gloomy  despondency;  that  they  have  bequeathed 
us  a  Service,  which  breathes  the  very  fervour  of 
piety,  consistent  with  reason,  and  sanctioned  by 
Scripture. 

*  Letteu  xliii.  p.  114. 


294 


CHAPTER  XII. 


EXTREME    UNCTION. 


1  SHOULD  not  here  advert  to  the  doctrine  of 
Extreme  Unction,  but  leave  it  as  it  had  been 
determined  by  Bishops   Burnet,   Porteus,  and 
Tomline,  as  relating  to  the  miraculous  restora- 
tion of  the  sick  to  health,  were  it  not  for  the 
misapplication,  which  Doctor  Milner  makes  of 
our  Church  Catechism.    The  reader  must  know 
that  the  passage  by  which  the  Popish  Church 
establishes  its  sacrament  of  Extreme   Unction, 
occurs  in  St.  James's  Epistle  General,  and  is 
to  the  foUowitag  effect. — *  "  Is  any  sick  among 
you?      Let   him    call    for   the   elders   of    the 
Church,  and  let  them  pray  over  him,  anointing 
him  with  oil,    in  the  name  of  the  Lord.     And 
the  prayer  of  faith  shall  save  the  sick  :" — that  is, 
the  recovery  of  health  will  be  the  consequence 
of  the  appointed  prayers.     Accordingly,  we  see 
that    the   act  of  anointing,    spoken    of  in    the 
Gospel,  was  only  one  of  those  circumstances 
attendant  on  the  performance  of  a  miracle ;  as 
when  our  Saviour  f  *'  anointed  the  eyes  of  the 

*  James,  v.  14,  15.  f  John,  ix.  6. 


EXTREME    UNCTION.  21)5 

blind  man  with  clay :"  whereas  it  is  never  pro- 
ductive of  such  a  consequence  in  the  Popisli 
Church,  and  is  but  seldom  resorted  to  by  it, 
except  when  all  hopes  of  recovery  are  at  an  end. 
This  marks  the  wide  difference  between  the 
Apostolic  and  the  Popish  practice,  and  their 
effects. 

But  to  come  to  the  question  of  Extreme  Unc- 
tion being  a  Sacrament.  There  being  a  sym- 
bolical action,  that  is,  the  "  outward  visible 
sign,"  it  necessarily  follows,  in  Doctor  Milner's 
opinion,  that  there  is  an  accompanying  "  inward 
spiritual  grace;  which  is,"  he  says,  *"  all  that 
is  requisite,  according  to  the  English  Protes- 
tant Catechism,  to  constitute  a  Sacrament." 
All  that  is  requisite  !  Well:  before  we  proceed 
further,  let  us  inquire,  where  is  the  proof  of 
this  "  inward  spiritual  grace?"  Doctor  Milner 
will  reply,  in  "  the  saving  of  the  sick,  and  the 
forgiveness  of  his  sins."  But  this  is  assertion, 
and  not  [)roof ;  first,  because  the  recovery  of  the 
sick,  which  the  words,  "  saving  of  the  sick," 
imply,  does  not  immediately  follow  the  applica- 
tion of  the  oil;  and  secondly,  because  the  for- 
giveness of  sins  can  be  as  well  had  by  (he 
absolution  of  the  priest ; — circumstances  which 
directly  negative  his  as.sertion. 

The  answer  which  our    Church    Catechism 

*  Letter  xliv.  ]).  1 16. 


296  EXTREME    UNCTION. 

gives  to  the  question  respecting-  tlie  meaning  of  the 
word  Sacrament,  is  next  to  be  considered.    By  it 
■\ve  are  to  understand,  that  it  is  not  only  "  an  out- 
ward and  visible  sign  of"  an  inward  and  spiri- 
tual grace;"  but  further,   that  it  is   "ordained 
by  Christ  himself."    I  have  admitted,  that  there 
is  an  outward  sign,  and   proved,  from   Doctor 
Milner's  own  explanation,  that  the  second   re- 
quisite is  absent.     But  there  is  still  a  grand  ob- 
stacle to   be   overcome,  even   supposing,    that 
Extreme  Unction  possesses  both  the  fore-men- 
tioned   essential  requisites  of  a  sacrament;  I 
allude  to  that  part  of  the  answer,  which  speaks 
of  tlie  "  sign"  being  "  ordained  hy  Christ  Him- 
self."   This  difficulty  Doctor  M.  endeavours  to 
get  rid  of,  first,  by  paraphrasing  these  last  words 
thus:  "  there  is  the  ordination  of  Christ,  as  the 
means  by  which  the  same  is  received  ;^  and  next, 
by  attaching  a  new  import  to  this  paraphrase, 
quite  opposite  to  the  sense  in  which  the  Church 
of  England   understands  the  original  words  in 
the   Catechism.     "  There  is  the  ordination  of 
Christ,"  says   he ;  that   is,    as   St.  James   was 
ordained    to    the   Apostolic    office,    he   conse- 
quently had  ihepower  to  institute  a  Sacrament! 
This  is  what  I  understand  him  to  mean,  when, 
after  the  last  cited  words,  he  adds,  "  unless  it 
be  alleged,  that  the  holy  Apostle  fabricated  a 
Sacrament,   or    means   of  grace,    without   any 
authority  for  this   purpose  from  his  heavenly 


EXTREME    UNCTION.  *297 

Master."  Thus  it  turns  out,  notwithstanding 
the  ingenuity  of  the  Paraphrast,  that  the  Popish 
sacrament  of  Extreme  Unction  has  not  all  that 
is  requisite  to  constitute  a  Sacrament,  according 
to  our  catechism ;  because,  it  wants  that  indis- 
pensable requisite,  the  sanction  of  Christ  Him- 
self; because  it  is  of  human,  and  not  of  di\ine 
institution;  and  has  not,  as  our  twenty-fifth 
Article  expresses  it,  "  any  visible  sign  or  cere- 
njony,  ordained  of  God." 


2<)8 


CHAPTER  XIII. 

THE    INVOCATION  OF    SAINTS,    AND  WORSHIP  OF 
IMAGES, — BLASPHEMOUS  AND  IDOLATROUS. 

Doctor    Milner   says   with   truth,    * "   that 
the  first  and   most  heavy  charge  which  Protes- 
tants bring*  against  (Roman)   Catholics  is  that 
of  Idolatry  ;"  for,  of  all  controversial  points, 
this  is  one  of  the  most  important,   and   what 
places  us   at  the  farthest  distance  from  each 
other.     We  may,  in  this  particular,  indeed,  be 
said  to  be  in  opposite  hemispheres.     On  other 
occasions,    the   Council   of   Trent  appeals    to 
Scripture  and  tradition  conjointly ;  sometimes 
to  tradition  alone ;  but  if  it  founded  its  decree 
about  Relics  and  Saints  on  tradition  only,  it  is 
on  such  tradition  as  the  Council  does  not  even 
call  apostolical.     This,    therefore,    marks    the 
broad   distinction,   which    exists    between    the 
Churches  of  England  and  Rome ;   inasmuch 
as  the  doctrine  which  the  one  has  established  on 
such  insufficient  grounds,  is  necessarily  reject- 
ed by  the  other,  '*  as  a  foolish,  vain,  and  false 
invention !" 

*  Letter  xxxiii.  p.  14. 


INVOCATION    OF    SAINTS,    &C.  299 

As  it  is  alleged  by  Doctor  Milner,  that  the 
charge  of  idolatry  has  caused  Protestant  con- 
trovertists  to  oppose  and  misrepresent  the  doc- 
trine of  his  Church,  and  that  "  in  fact,  their 
cause  has  not  a  leg  to  stand  on,"  if  misrepre- 
sentation be  taken  away ;  I  shall,  for  the  pur- 
pose of  removing  every  ground  of  complaint  on 
his  part,  defer  with  him  to  the  expressed  and 
implied  sense  of  those  very  documents,  to  which 
he  so  confidently  appeals.  1  allude  to  the  Trent 
decree  about  Relics  and  Saints ;  the  Catechism 
published  by  Pope  Pius  V. ;  and  the  first 
Popish  Catechism  which  appeared  in  English.- 

First,  the  decree  says,  *  "that  it  is  good  and 
useful  supplianlly  to  invoke  the  Saints,  and  to 
have  recourse  to  their  prayers,  help,  afid  assis- 
tance to  obtain  favours  from  God,''  &c.  The 
words  in  italics  are  not,  as  the  reader  per- 
ceives, in  the  original.  But,  be  this  as  it  may, 
the  Doctor  argues  from  this  passage,  that  the 
Council  only  teaches,  that  it  is  ''good  and  pro- 
fitable'io  invoke  the  saints;  but  that  it  does 
not  insist  on  the  iiecessity  of  invoking  them, 
"  there  being  no  positive  law  of  the-  Church 
incumbent  on  all  her  children  to  pray  to  them." 
But,  Invocation  is  said  to  be  more  than  simply 
good   and  i)roritab!e ;  it  is  pr<filable  according 

*  "  Bonum  atfjue  u/i/e  suppliciter  cos  invocare ;  et  ob  bcnc- 
ficia  impelranda  a  Deeper  Filium  ejus."— Ses\xx\.  <le  Invoc. 


300  INVOCATION    OF    SAINTS, 

to  Doctor  Milner's  gloss,  "  to  have  recourse  to 
their  prayers,  help,  and  assistance ;"  and  it  is 
further  profitable  *'  to  obtain  favours  from  God, 
through  his  Son,  Jesus  Christ ;"  that  is,  the  In- 
vocation of  Saints  is  ])rotitable  to  bring  about 
man's  salvation!  Now,  if  this  be  not  making- 
it  an  article  of  faith,  and  a  positive  law  of  the 
Church,  I  cannot  see  what  an  article  of  faith 
means. 

Again,  the  part  of  the  decree  relating  to  In- 
vocation consists  of  four  mandates ;  the  first, 
which  regards  the  Invocation  of  Saints,  ends 
with  a  condemning  clause  (*impie  sent  ire) ;  the 
second,  about  the  honour  due  to  the  relics  of 
Saints,  ends  with  a  condemning  clause  (dantfiat 
ecclesia);  the  third,  about  the  veneration  of 
images,  ends  with  an  admonition  (esse  sanci- 
tum);  and  the  last  division  about  the  use  of 
images  and  pictures,  concludes  with  a  cursCf 
that  should  f  "  any  one  teach  or  thi7ik  contrary 
to  this  decree,  let  him  be  anathema."  When, 
therefore,  it  is  imperative  on  the  Bishops  and 
Priests,  by  virtue  of  this  ordinance,  to  teach, 
that  the  Saints  should  be  invoked,  and  curses 
those  who  should  inculcate  any  thing  contrary 
thereto ;  the  Council  must  have  considered  such 
Invocation  as  necessary  to  salvation. 

*    SesS.  XXV. 

t  "  Si  quis  autem  his  decretis  contraria  docuerit  di\xi  senscrit , 
Anathema  sit." — Ijiid. 


AND    WORSHIP    OF    IMAGES.  301 

When  Doctor  Milner  says,  that  it  is  not  in- 
cumbent on  any  Roman  Catholic  to  pray  to  the 
Saints  ;  he  adds,  *  "  nevertheless,  what  member 
will  fail  to  communicate  with  his  brethren  of 
the  Church  triumphant?"'  But,  he  should  have 
said,  what  member  dare  fail  to  communicate 
with  it.  For,  as  I  understand  the  decree,  it  is 
not  left  to  the  discretion  of  the  individual, 
whether  he  abstain  from  a  duty  which  it  pro- 
nounces to  be  useful,  to  obtain  favours  from 
God  (ob  henejicia  impetranda),  throui^h  his 
Son  ;  nor  does  it  exempt  from  its  operation 
those  sober  interpreters — Fetavius,  Suarez,  Wal- 
lenburg,  &c.,  who  have  inferred,  that  there  is 
no  positive  law  of  the  Church,  obligatory  on 
its  children  to  pray  to  the  Saints  ;  for  the  Ana- 
thema is  levelled  as  much  against  those,  who 
do  not  lliiiik  in  conformity  with  the  decree,  as 
against  its  direct  opposers. 

Secondlij,  the   Catechism  of  Pope    Pius  V. 
is  a  mere  echo  of  thcTridentine  decree,  f"  We 

•  Letter  xxxiii.  p.  22. 

t  On  the  decree  are  founded  the  eighth  and  ninth  articles 
of  the  Trent  Crted.  Thus,  "  the  saints  who  reipn  together 
with  Chri'^t  are  to  be  venerated  and  invoked,  and  as  tluyq/Tfr 
prayers  for  us  to  God,  their  relics  are  to  be  venerated." — And 
"  tlie  images  of  Christ,  and  the  ever-Virgin  Mother  of  God, 
as  also  of  the  other  haintc,  are  to  l»e  had  and  retanicd  ;  and 
that  (hie  honour  and  veneration  are  to  be  bhewn  to  them." 
This  profession  of  faith,  out  of  which  no  man  can  be  saved,  each 
Roman  Catholic  clergyman,  when  bciaficcd,  is  pound  to  8ub- 


302  INVOCATION    OF    SAINTS, 

beg  of  the  Saints,  because  tlioy  are  pleasing  to 
God,  that  they  wouhl  be  our  advocates,  and 
obtain  from  God  wliat  we  stand  in  need  of." 
This  is  a  direct  admission  of  the  mediation  of 
the  Saints ;  profitable,  as  in  the  former  case,  to 
obtain  favours  from  God,  and  profitable  also 
for  an  end,  which  is  mainly  conducive  to  man's 
salvation. 

Lastly,  the  first  English  Catechism  of  the 
Popish  Church  says,  *  "  we  are  to  honour  saints 
and  angels  as  God's  special  friends  and  servants, 
but  not  with  the  honour  which  belongs  to  God." 
This  is  somewhat  milder  than  the  Pope's  Cate- 
chism ;  but  any  one  of  the  three  documents 
produced  by  Doctor  Milner,  inculcates  doc- 
trines and  rules  of  worship  in  a  more  decent 
manner,  than  what  appear  in  the  Roman  Mis- 
sal. So  that  it  is  not  from  the  public  formu- 
laries of  the  Church  of  Rome,  that  we  can  de- 
rive the  justest  notions  of  its  doctrines;  but 
from  its  daily  practice  and  its  general  obser- 
vances. Accordingly,  the  Collects  in  the  Mis- 
sal rest  the  hope  of  salvation  on  the  merits  and 
intercession  of  the  Saints,  rather  than  on  the 
merits  and  mediation  of  Christ.  Thus,  on  the 
appropriate  day  of  the  tutelary  Saint  of  Ireland, 
God  is  entreated  "  to  grant,  that  by  his  inter- 
scribe,  and  sworn  to  uphold,  to  the  last  moment  of  his  ex- 
istence ! 

*  Letter  xxxiii.  p.  16. 


AND    WORSHIP    OF    IMAGES.  303 

cession  and  merits,  we  may  through  his  mercy 
be  enabled  to  perform  what  he  commands." 
Tliomas  i\  Becket's  merits  seem  not  only  to  have 
exceeded  those  of  the  other  Saints,  but  to  have 
superseded  those  of  Christ  himself. 

*  Doctor  Milner  himself  recommends  a  spe- 
cial devotion  to  the  Virgin  Mary.  Other  in- 
stances of  the  kind  are  too  numerous  for  inser- 
tion here.  From  all  which  we  may  perceive, 
that  the  Saints  are  not  merely  invoked  as  inter- 
cessors ;  they  are  directly  addressed  for  grace, 
assistance,  and  safety,  which  God  only  can  be- 
stow. Now,  would  a  Saint  be  addressed  in 
prayer,  if  he  were  thought  unable  to  give  that 
assistance  for  which  he  was  asked ?  We  may 
fairly  suppose— not.  Our  Homilies,  therefore, 
.say,  that  it  is  in  this  faith,  in  which  the  blasphemy 
of  such  Invocation  consists.  That  on  prayer 
directs  f  "  that  we  must  only  and  solely  pray 
unto  God  ;  for  to  say,  that  we  should  believe  ei- 
ther in  Angels  or  Saints,  or  in  any  other  living 
creature,  were  most  horrible  blasphemy  against 
God  and  his  holy  word."  Hence  it  appears^ 
that  liovvever  plausible  the  theory,  and  with 
whatever  art,  the  doctrine  about  the  Invocation 
of  Saints  and  the  worship  of  Images  and  Relics 
is  laid  down  and   defined  in  the  Trent  Canons 

•  Pastoral  LeUcr,  1803. 
i  Uook  of  Homilies,  p.  273,  Oxford  Ed.<1602. 


.304  INVOCATION    OF    SAINTS, 

and  Catechism  ;  yet  it  is  from  the  practical  ap- 
plication of  the  rules  alone,  tind  from  the  cus- 
toms, institutions  and  observances,  which  are  in 
common  use  in  the  church  of  Home,  that  we 
can  understand  the  true  import  of  the  terms 
employed  in  those  rules.  It  was  thus,  that  the 
framers  of  those  Canons  endeavoured  to  avoid 
the  imputation  of  Idolatry  in  the  *  philosophical 
sense  of  the  word,  as  they  could  not  do  so  in 
the  scriptural  sense.  However,  the  practice  is 
idolatrical  as  much  in  one  sense,  as  in  the  other. 
If,  as  the  above-cited  Homily  says,  Invocation 
be  a  thing  proper  to  God,  it  must  be  absolute 
Idolatry,  however  explained  and  recommended 
by  the  Trent  Canons,  to  give  to  the  creature  that 
honour,  which  is  only  due  to  the  Creator.  Nor, 
can  all  the  sophistry  of  the  church  of  Rome, 
nor  all  the  address,  with  which  it  disguises  its 
doctrines,  justify  the  common  practices  of  in- 
dividuals in  this  respect.  So  that,  supposing 
such  men  as  Doctor  Milner  to  be  able  to  pre- 
serve the  nice  metaphysical  distinction,  which 
is  so  artfully  drawn  between  the  honour  due  to 
God  and  his  Saints,  or  their  Images  ;  yet  it  is  not 
to  be  expected,  nor  indeed  does  it  ever  happen, 
that  the  unlettered  peasant  will  carry  his  thoughts 
beyond  the  Saint  he  invokes,  or  the  material  oh- 
ject  to  which  his  devotion  is  directed.     Will  he 

*  MosH.  Eccl.  Hist.  vol.  iv.  p.  213. 


AND    WORSHIP    OF    IMAGES.  3(J5 

not  rather  imagine,  when  he  prostrates  himself 
before  the  images  of  the  Saints,  that  they  are,  as 
it  were,  the  places  of  their  habitation  ?  Does  he 
in  this  respect  differ  from  the  poor  heathen, 
who,  guided  only  by  the  light  of  nature,  adores 
his  image  of  wood,  or  stone  ?  But,  although  I 
say  this,  I  am  far  from  supposing,  that  the 
learned  and  acute  Doctor  is  more  exempt  from 
the  charge  of  Idolatry,  than  the  ignorant  and 
besotted  devotee ;  because  my  Church  informs 
me,  that  there  can  be  wo  distinction.  Indeed, 
if  there  be  an  exception,  it  must  be  in  favour  of 
the  latter.  *  "  INot  only,"  says  the  Homily 
against  the  peril  of  Idolatry,  "  the  unlearned 
and  siin[)ie,  but  the  learned  and  ivise ;  not  the 
people  only,  but  the  Bishops;  not  the  sheep, 
but  also  the  Shepherds  themselves,  who  should 
have  been  lights  to  shine  in  darkness,  being 
blinded  by  the  bewitchings  of  images,  as  blind 
guides  of  the  blind,  fell  both  into  the  pit  of 
damnable  itiolatry." 

It  is,  therefore,  idle  in  Doctor  Milner  to  con- 
tend, that  he  himself  restricts  dirinc  adoration 
to  God,  and  that  he  merely  honours  the  Saints 
and  pious  images  wilii  a  relative  or  secondary 
worship  ;  or,  to  carp  at  the  |  liishop  of  Durham 
for  preferring  a  charge  of  blasphemy  against 
the  Church  of  Rome,   for  invoking  the   media- 

*HoM.  |)201.  t  ScrraonB,  p.  44?. 


S06  INVOCATION    OF    SAINTS, 

tion  of  Saints.  The  act  of  invocation  is  in  itself 
idolatrous;  and  therefore  hlasphemouSy  because 
it  is  idolatrous :  however  intended  by  himself, 
or  modified  by  his  Church.  Belief  in  the 
efficacy  of  invoking  Saints  may  be  a  delusion ; 
yet  that  does  not  remove  the  Idolatry  incurred 
by  the  Invocation.  Thus  our  Church  further 
declares,  *'*  that  idolatry  standeth  chiefly  in 
the  mind,  that  our  image  maintainers  have  had, 
and  have  the  same  opinions  and  judgments  of 
Saints and  that  they  use  the  same  out- 
ward rites  and  manner  of  worshipping  their 
images,  as  the  Gentiles  did  use  their  idols  ;  and 
that,  therefore,  they  commit  idolatry,  as  well 
inwardly  and  outwardly,  as  did  the  wicked 
Gentiles  Idolaters." 

But,  as  the  ability  of  the  Saints  to  hear  all 
those,  who  invoke  their  mediation,  implies  the 
attribute  oi  universal  presence,  and  as  there  is 
no  possibility  of  knowing,  or  cause  for  thinking, 
that  they  possess  any  such  power;  Doctor 
Milner,  in  order  to  extricate  himself  from  this 
difficulty,  asks  by  way  of  recrimination, — since 
f "  it  appears  that  our  Church  believes  in  the 
existence  and  efficacy  of  sorcery,  enchantment, 
and  witchcraft ;  whether  we,  therefore,  ascribe 
the  divine  attribute  of  universal  presence  to  the 
devil  ?"     Here  is  the  misstatement  of  a  fact,  no 

*  HoM.  p.  187.  t  Letter  xxxiii.  p.  20. 


AND    WORSHIP    OF    IMAGES.  307 

less  than  a  perversion  of  the  very  authority 
referred  to  in  support  of  it.  Because  the  belief 
of  the  Church  of  England,  on  this  head,  is  the 
very  opposite  to  that  ascribed  to  it  by  Doctor 
Milner;  while  both  the  *  Articles  and  Injunc- 
tions issued  by  Queen  Elizabeth,  instead  of 
countenancing,  expressly  condemn  those  de- 
moniacal conceits.  Thus  the  37th  Article,  or 
subject  of  inquiry,  to  be  made  by  the  clergy 
in  their  respective  parishes,  was  to  ascertain, 
**  whether  you  know  any  that  do  use  charms, 
enchantments,  witchcraft,  &c."  in  order  to  their 
prevention;  while  the  32nd  Injunction  desires, 
"  that  no  person  shall  at  any  time  resort  to  the 
same  (viz.  charms,  &c.)  for  counsel,  or  for  help." 
How  Doctor  Milner  could  find  nerve  to  bring 
forward  these  documents,  in  proof  that  our 
Church  believes  in  the  efficacy  of  sorceries,  and 
the  like,  is  more  than  I  am  able  to  account 
for! 

Doctor  iNIilner's  other  objections  respecting 
Queen  I'^lizalieth's  retaining  the  crucifix  in  her 
chapel,  the  elevation  of  the  cross  at  the  top  of 
St.  Paul's,  and  carved  images  in  Westminster 
Aijbey,  are  scarcely  deserving  of  noticr.  He 
might,  if  he  pleased,  have  added,  that  the 
I  historians,   wlio  sprak   of  the  crucifix,  tell  us 

*  See  Bishop  Spaiikow's  Colk'Ction  of  Arlicles  and  Iiijiiiic- 
tions,  published  in  1jj9,  pp.  7Saiid  ISO. 

t   Strype  and  Blrnet.  , 

A       Am 


308  INVOCATION    OF    SAINTS, 

tliat  lier  Majesty  likewise  observed  another 
Popisli  custom — that  of  having  lighted  tapers 
Oil  the  altar,  during-  divine  service.  We  per- 
ceive too  that  she  had  so  strong-  *a  predilection 
for  images,  that  it  was  with  difficulty  subdued 
by  Archbishop  Parker  and  the  other  Prelates. 
But  this  shews  nothing  more  than  the  influence 
of  Popish  prejudices  on  her  mind,  and  that  she 
had  not  proceeded  on  the  same  pure  principles 
of  Christianity,  by  which  the  conduct  of  the 
pious  and  enlightened  Edward  had  been  regu- 
lated. However  all  this  has  nothing  to  do  with 
the  agitated  point.  For  Doctor  Milner  must 
know,  that  it  is  not  the  having  images  in 
churches  and  chapels,  which  is  forbidden  by 
the  commandment,  but  the  conversion  of  them 
to  a  religious  use ;  and  that,  as  far  as  Protes- 
tants are  concerned,  they  may  remain  in  harm- 
less repose  in  their  niches,  only  to  be  gazed  on 
by  the  curious,  either  as  models  of  ancient 
sculpture,  or  as  giving  uniformity  to  the  vene- 
rable fabrics,  in  which  they  were  originally 
placed. 

But  neither  is  our  Church  silent  about  the 
consequence  of  permitting  Images  to  remain  in 
places  of  divine  worship.     The  Homily,  so  of- 

*  The  35th  Injunction  forbade  "  images  and  other  monu- 
ments of  Idolatry  to  be  kept  in  houses  ;"  which  accords  with 
the  bias  of  the  Queen's  mind,  about  retaining  them  in  places 
of  public  worship. 


AND    WORSHIP    OF    IMAGES.  309 

ten  quoted,  says,  *  "  if  it  should  be  admitted, 
that  although  Images  were  suffered  in  Churches, 
yet  might  idolatry,  by  diligent  and  sincere 
preaching  of  God's  word,  be  avoided."  Here  is 
Doctor  M ilner's  objection  anticipated.  But  the 
same  Homily  explains  it  away,  and  shews  that 
no  two  cases  ever  bore  less  resemblance ;  for 
it  subsequently  adds,  f  "  that  Idolatry  cannot 
•possibly  he  separated  from  Images  any  long  time ; 
but  that,  as  an  inseparable  accident,  or  as  a  sha- 
dow followeth  the  body  when  the  sun  shineth, 
so  idolatry  followeth  and  cleaveth  to  the  public 
having  of  injages  in  temples."  Here  it  is  stated 
that  the  having  of  images  in  temples  is  not 
idolatry  ;  but  that  their  continuance  for  religious 
purposes  '*  cannot  be  without  idolatry."  But 
what  else  is  this  idolatry,  but  the  invocation 
of  the  images  themselves,  or  of  the  saints  repre- 
sented by  them  ?  Jn  this  decided  tone  do  those 
venerable  Reformers,  who  composed  our  Homi- 
lies, speak  of  the  perils  of  idolatry.  They  had 
been  themselves  members  of  the  church  of 
Rome,  and  although  intimately  acquninlrd  both 
with  its  i)recepts  and  practice,  aiul  nitli  the 
doctrine  of  the  Invocation  as  recomniended  and 
intended  by  it,  they  yet  admitted  no  distinction  ; 
but  condemned  both,  in  tlie  most  unqualified 
terms,  as  equally  idolatrous.     Our  own  exprri- 

*  HoM.  against  the  peril  of  Idolatry,  p.  199. 
t  Ibid.  • 


310  INVOCATION    OF    SAINTS, 

dice  can  fully  appreciate  the  value  of  their 
authority ;  for  what  Popery  was  in  their  time, 
it  continues  to  be  at  the  present  day,  as  the  bar, 
which  the  practice  of  Invocation  interposes  to 
the  admission  of  Roman  Catholics  to  Parlia- 
ment, sufficiently  testifies. 

As  if  to  justify  the  Popish  custom  of  kneel- 
ing and  prostration  before  the  images  of  the 
Saints,  and  praying  to  them  in  those  postures, 
Doctor  Milner  objects  to  us  the  ceremony  in 
our  Church  of  kneeling  at  the  altar.  He  asks, 
whether  we  do  not  oblige  those  who  frequent 
the  Sacrament,  *  "  to  kneel  and  prostrate  them- 
selves before  it,  at  which  time  it  is  to  be  sup- 
posed they  lift  up  their  eyes  to  it,  and  say  their 
prayers."  Protestants  kneel,  but  there  is  no 
jyrostratiou ;  because  kneeling  is  a  reverential 
way  of  acknowledging  the  benefits  derived  from 
the  death  and  passion  of  our  Redeemer.  If, 
when  we  knelt  at  the  altar,  we  thought  we 
thereby  worshipped  the  consecrated  bread  and 
wine,  the  practice  would,  no  doubt,  be  idola- 
trous, and  in  that  respect  both  churches  would 
be  on  a  level.  But,  since  the  adoration  of  the 
Host  rests  on  the  belief,  that  as  soon  as  the 
elements  are  consecrated,  Christ  is  present,  as 
well  after  a  corporeal  as  a  spiritual  manner,  and 
as  our  Church  entirely  rejects  this  tenet ;  our 
kneeling  has  no  resemblance  to  the  kneeling  in 
*  Letter  xxxiv.  p.  28. 


AND    WORSHIP    OF    IMAGES.  311 

the  Church  of  Rome.     There  can,  therefore,  be 
no  ground  for  Doctor  Milner's  insinuation,  that 
because  we  may  lift  up  our  eyes  to  the  Sacra- 
ment, we  therefore    worship    the    consecrated 
elements.    Besides,  he  well  knows  that  even  the 
Popish  Churcli  itself  never  affected  to  worship 
the  mere  bread  and  wine,   detached   from   the 
corporeal   presence.     Neither  is  our  kneeling 
at  the  Sacrament  a  superstitious  ceremony  ;  un- 
less it  should  be  impiously   said,  that  Christ 
himself  was  guilty  of  superstition,  when,  after 
he  had  instituted  it,  he  withdrew  from  his  apos- 
tles, * '*  and   kneeled    down   and  prayed;"  or, 
M'itliout  imputing  superstition  to  f  Saints  Peter 
and  Paul,  as   well   as  to   the   prophets   of  the 
Old  Testament.    It  is  equally  frivolous  in  Doc- 
tor Milner  to  object,  on  the  part  of  the  Dissent- 
ers, that  when  the  name  of  Jesus  is  pronounced 
in   any  lesson,  we  revere  it  J:  '*  with  all  lowli- 

*  Luke,  xxii.  41.  t  Acts,  ix.  40;  and  xx.  36. 

\  This  expression  in  the  Injunctions  of  1559  (No.  52.),  is 
fully  explained  by  our  18lh  Canon,  which  says,  "  when  in 
time  of  Divine  Service  the  Lord  Jesus  shall  be  mentioned,  due 

and  lowly  reverence  shall  be  done  by  all  persons  present 

testifying,  by  these  outward  gesture?,  their  inward  humility, 
Chriitian  resolution,"  &c.  I  have  cited  the  Injunctions  and  the 
IBth  Canon  particularly  ;  because  Doctor  Milntr  aftccls  to 
say,  that  these  documents  furnish  grounds  for  the  outcry 
raised  by  the  Dissenters,  on  the  score  of  Idolatry,  against  the 
Established  Church  !  But,  afl'ording  to  the  objections  of  our 
Protestant  brethren  their  full  wcif^ht,  they  neither  imj)eath 
the  Church  of  England  on  this  head  ;  nor  warrant  the  infer- 


312  INVOCATION    OK    SAINTS, 

iiess  of  courtesie  and  uncovering  the  heads;'* 
inasmuch  as  *  St.  Paul  has  declared,  that  it  is 
an  act  of  reverence  to  our  Blessed  Lord,  that 
at  the  mention  of  his  name,  *'  every  knee  should 
bow:' 

t "  It  is  a  gross  calumny,"  says  Doctor  Mil- 
ner,  "  to  pretend  that  ive  suppress  any  part  of 
the  Decalogue ;  for  the  whole  of  it  appears  in 
all  our  Bibles,  and  in  all  our  most  approved 
Catechisms."  With  respect  to  the  Bible,  it 
may  be  put  entirely  out  of  the  question,  inas- 
much as  that  is  a  sealed  book  to  the  Popish  laity. 
But  what  will  the  reader  think  of  this  positive 
assertion,  to  deny  which  is  a  gross  calumny ; 
when  he  is  told,  that  the  J  Catechism  in  great- 
est circulation  in  this  country,  is  one,  in  which, 
after  being  revised^  enlarged,  approved,  and  re- 

ence  drawn  of  a  similarity  of  practice  existing  between  it  and 
the  Church  of  Rome.  So  consistent  is  our  Church  through- 
out, that,  in  the  Rubric  at  the  end  of  the  Communion  service, 
it  tells  us,  that  kneeling  "  is  meant  for  a  signification  of  our 
humble  and  grateful  acknowledgment  of  the  benefits  of  Christ ; 

and,  lest  it  should  by  any  persons  be  misconstrued  and 

depraved,  it  is  declared,  that  thereby  no  adoration  is  intended  ; 

• and  that  therefore,  the  elements  are  not  to  be  adored, 

for  that  were  idolatry  to  be  aijhorred  of  all  faithful  Christians." 
The  act  of  kneeling  is  therefore  simply  prescribed,  as  being 
most  congenial  with  those  feelings  of  humility,  which  our 
prayers  are  calculated  to  inspire. 

*  Phil.  ii.  10.  t  Letter  xxxiv.  p.  31. 

X  By  the  most  Rev.  Dr.  James  Butler,  titular  Archbishop 
of  Cashel,  Cork  edit.  1810.  p.  23. 


AND    WORSHIP    OF    IMAGES.  Slo 

coiDmended  by  the  four  titular  Archbishops,  as 
a  general  Catechism  for  Ireland,  the  second 
commandment  is  suppressed,  and  the  tenth  di- 
vided into  two  parts?  The  Decalogue  also  may 
be  preserved  entire  in  the  Trent  and  Douay 
Catechisms ;  but  even  that  will  not  profit  the 
Irish  people.  Will  it  not  rather  be  productive 
of  the  greatest  mischief,  that  the  idolatry  of 
their  Church  should  be  screened  by  so  impor- 
tant an  omission  as  that  of  a  commandment, 
and  themselves  imperceptibly  led  away  from 
the  worship  of  God  to  the  worship  of  images; 
or,  as  it  is  tenderly  called  by  Doctor  Milner,  to 
the  relative  or  secondary  veneration  of  them  ? 
Here  is  additional  proof,  that,  however  guarded 
and  defended  by  decrees ;  or,  however  enve- 
loped and  disguised  by  explanations;  notwith- 
standing all  its  artifice  and  contrivance,  the 
common  practices  and  usages  of  the  Church  of 
Rome  are  idolatrous. 

The  plea  which  he  sets  up  for  the  division  of 
the  tenth  commandment  is  this;  that  in  the  ori- 
ginal Hebrew,  there  was  *"wo  mark  of  sepa- 
ration between  one  commandment  and  anofhcr  ; 
so  that  there  were  no  rules  by  which  to  be  gui- 
ded, but  the  sense  of  the  context."  But  the  fu- 
tility of  this  plea  is  evident  on  his  own  state- 
ment; because,  in  the  absence  of  every  kind  of 

*  Letter  xxxiv.  p.  'M. 


314  INVOCATION    OF    SAINTS, 

distinguishing  mark  between  the  command- 
ments, no  otlier  rule  could  exist  for  determining, 
whether  there  sliould  be  any^  and  what  division 
of  the  context,  than  its  own  meaning.  To  il- 
lustrate this  in  English. 

*'  Thou  shalt  have  no  other  Gods  before  me 
thou  shalt  7iot  make  to  thee  ani/  graven  image  or 
any  likeness  of  any  thing,  Sf^c.  ^c." 

"  Thou  shalt  not  covet  thy  neighbours  house 
thou  shalt  not  covet  thy  neighbour  s  wife,  Sfc. 

As  the  *  context  is  here  given  without  mark 

*  The  late  Granville  Sharp,  in  his  elaborate  Remarks  on  the 
Irish  Roman  Catholic  Catechism,  p.  24 — 47,  specifies  the  year 
1530  as  the  precise  period,  at  which  the  original  Hebrew  of 
the  decalogue  was  tampered  with.  "At  that  time,"  he  ob- 
serves, "  that  a  full  stop  was  placed  after  the  second  command- 
ment, and  not  after  the  first,  in  order  to  warrant  its  omission 
in  the  Popish  catechisms.  A  full  stop  was  also  placed  after 
\ht  first  clause  of  the  tenth  commandment,  as  it  stands  in  Deu- 
teronomy ;  thus  affording  a  colour  for  completing  the  numbers 
rendered  deficient  by  the  suppression  of  the  second.  But,  as 
this  division  was  not  made  in  the  corresponding  text  in  Exo- 
dus, the  interpolation  became  more  palpable And 

thus  the  providential  variation  of  expression  in  the  two  paral- 
lel texts,  has  rendered  the  division  of  the  tenth  commandment 
into  two,  a  matter  of  impossibility."  Such  are  the  operating 
causes  of  Doctor  Milner's  forced  appeal  to  the  sense  of  the 
Hebrew  context,  and  of  his  consequent  acknowledgment  of  a 
standard,  which  has  been  shewn  to  militate  against  the  sup- 
-  pression  of  the  second,  and  the  division  of  the  tenth  coip- 
mandment.  Yet,  his  is  but  the  admission  of  an  individual ; 
and  although  every  member  of  the  Roman  Catholic  Hierarchy 


AND    WORSHIP    OF    IMAGES,  315 

or  stop,  it  is  submitted  to  the  reader's  judgment, 
whether  it  does  not  rather  demand  a  separation 
between  those  clauses,  wliich  forbid  different 
things,  than  that  it  should  take  place  between 
those,  which  referred  to  one  and  the  same  thing. 
That  is,  that  the  clause  which  related  to  '  other 
Gods,'  should  form  a  distinct  commandment 
from  that,  which  related  '  to  graven  images,'  on 
account  of  the  variance  in  the  expressions,  thou 
shalt  HAVE,  and  thou  shalt  not  make  ;  while  the 
clauses,  which  relate  to  coveting  generally, 
should  form  one  indivisible  commandment,  as 
one  and  the  same  verb  is  used  in  both. 

But,  besides,  let  the  reader  compare  Exodus, 
XX.  17.  with  Deuteronomy,  v.  21.  and  he  must 
consider  the  *  variation  between  them  to  have 
been  wisely  designed  by  Providence  for  the  ex- 
posure of  the  fraud,  which  has  been  since  prac- 
tised. Thus,  in  Exodus,  the  clause  relating  to 
the  neighbour's  wife  occurs  second,  and  in  Deu- 


in  the  United  Kingdom  sliould  individually  admit  the  same 
thing,  it  would  not  be  received  as  the  voice  of  the  Church, 
Init  as  go  many  distinct  opinions.  The  second  command- 
ment would  not,  on  that  account,  be  restored  to  tlic  (Cate- 
chetical Decalogue,  nor  would  "pious  images"  cease  to  be 
worshipped  by  Roman  Catholics! 

*  The  Council  of  Trent,  aware  of  the  difliculty  arising  from 
this  circumstance,  gave  that  which  stands  as  our  tenth  com- 
mandment, the  common  title  of  the  ninth  and  tenth  Com- 
mandments !—Remahk8  ut  supra. 


31(3  INVOCATION    OF    SAINTS,  &C. 

teronomy,^/'5^,  in  order.  Can  there  be  a  plainer 
proof  than  this,  that  God,  foreseeing  the  perver- 
sion of  his  commands,  intended  that  there  should 
be  no  division  in  that  which  relates  to  covetingy 
but  that  it  should  form  one  distinct  command- 
ment ;  while  that  which  relates  to  a  graven 
image;  or,  as  the  Douay  Version  has  it,  a  gra- 
ven thing,  (as  if  an  image  were  not  a  thing,  and 
therefore  that  making  an  image  was  not  prohi- 
bited by  the  commandment)  should  neither  be 
suppressed,  nor  yet  moulded  into  the  command 
about  having  no  other  than  the  true  God  ? 
Reader,  examine  and  judge ! 


317 


CHAPTER  X[V. 


ANTICHRIST. 


What  Doctor  Milner  calls  "  contradictions'' 
among  learned  Protestants,  should  be  rather 
called  disagreements,  about  the  period  of  the 
rise  of  Antichrist;  since  all  are  agreed  in  one 
particular  point — namely,  that  the  Pope  is  that 
character.  Apostacy  is  the  Jirst  Antichristian 
mark,  which  accompanied  the  revelation  of  the 
*  man  of  sin.  The  second  mark  of  Antichrist, 
St.  Paul  likewise  says,  is,  that  he  f  "  opposeth 
and  exaltcth  himself  above  all  that  is  called  God, 
or  that  is  worshipped ;  so  that  he,  as  God,  sitteth 
in  the  Temple  of  God,  shewing  himself  that  he 
is  God.''  And  the  third  n)ark  relates  to  his 
being  one,  ^  *'  whose  coming  is  after  the  working 
of  Satan,  with  all  powers  and  sigjis,  and  lying 
wonders''  Those  three  characteristic  marks  of 
Anticlirist,  whicii  Protestant  writers  have  inva- 
riably ascribed  to  the  ciiicf  Pastor  of  the  church 
of  Rome,  are  declared  by  Doctor  Milner  to  be 
totally  inapplicable  to  hiu),  and  to  be  descrip- 
tive rather  of  %  "  that  class  of  religionists,"  allu- 

*  2  TiiESi.  II.  J.  t  In'D.  ii.  4. 

♦  Iduj.  ii.  y.  \  Letter  xIv,  p.  125. 


318  ANTICHRIST. 

ding  to  the  members  of  the  Church  of  England, 
"  who  have  fallen  off  from  the  true  church."  But 
in  what  does  this  imputed  apostacy  of  our  church 
consist?  In  its  abandonment  of  a  corrupt  church? 
This  is  not  apostacy,  for  apostacy  implies 
sin;  whereas  it  would  have  been  sinful  to  have 
continued  in  connexion  with  a  church,  which 
had  itself  fallen  off  from  the  truth;  when  an 
opportunity  for  leaving  it  occurred.  It  there- 
fore follows,  that  the  Church  of  England  has  no 
Antichristian  mark,  and  that  it  is  not  that  Aiiti- 
christian  power  to  which  the  prophetic  marks 
peculiarly  belong;  and  as  they  all  exclusively 
apply  to  the  Pope  and  the  Papal  Church,  their 
united  character  must  be  St.  Paul's  Man  of 
Sin,  that  is,  the  Antichrist. 

It  is  unnecessary  to  prove  here,  that  the  church 
of  Rome  has  apostatized  and  departed  from 
*"the  faith  once  delivered  to  the  Saints;"  as 
every  page  of  this  book  is  replete  with  evidence 
to  that  effect.  I  therefore  consider  the  appli- 
cation of  the  first  Antichristian  mark  to  that 
church  as  established.  The  self-abasement  which 
the  Pope  observes  in  the  performance  of  his  re. 
ligious  exercises,  and  which  Doctor  Milner 
brings  forward  as  a  proof  of  the  second  Anti- 
christian mark  being  inapplicable  to  him,  is 
perfectly  compatible  with  that  lordly  pre-emi- 

*  JUDE,  3. 


ANTICHRIST.  319 

nence,  which  he  arrogates  to  himself  over  the 
Christian  Church.  Is  not  the  assumption  of 
universal  dominion  over  kingdoms  and  nations 
an  act  of  Antichristian  arrogance,  whether  ex- 
ercised by  a  *  Hildebrand,  or  a  Pius  the  Seventh, 
and  does  it  not  exactly  accord  with  what  St. 
Paul  says  of  him,  "  who  opposeth  and  exalteth 
himself  above  all  that  is  called  God  ?"  This 
second  Antichristian  mark,  therefore,  applies  to 
Papal  Rome  equally  with  the  first.  And,  as  I 
conceive,  that  there  are  no  true  miracles  wrought 
in  the  Church  of  Rome,  1  may  as  a  member 
of  the  Church  of  England,  safely  acquiesce  in 
its  judgment,  when  speaking  of  the  pretended 
miracles  of  its  corrupt  sister  ;  that  f  "  the  Scrip- 
tures have  for  a  warning  hereof  foreshewed, 
that  the  kijigdom  o/'  Antichrist  shall  be  mighty 
in  miracles  and  tvonders,  to  the  strong  illusion 
of  all  the  reprobates.''  Hence  it  inevitably  fol- 
lows, that  this  third  Antichristian  mark  is 
equally  descriptive  of  the  same  character. 

But  it  is  not  in  apostacy,  pride,  and  false  mi- 
racles alone,  that  the  Church  of  Rome  is  Anti- 

*  The  German  Clcrj^y,  A.  D.  1080,  accused  this  <le.spotic 
Pope  will)  being  an  apostate  Monk  and  a  sorcercT ;  whicli  ap- 
pellations imply  two  of  ihc  Anticbrhlian  marks.  The  words 
they  used  were  "/alms  monachus,  ditinaculus,  somniorum  prodi- 
giorumque  conjector,  manifestus  necromanticus." — Villersou  the 
Reformation,  p.  465. 

t  Homily  against  peril  of  Idolatry,  p.  195. 


320  ANTICHRIST. 

christian;  ii  is  equally  so  in  its  imag-e  worship, 
and  in  its  sitperjiuous  decking  of  churches,  which 
our  Church  also  pronounces  *  "  to  be  a  token 
of  Antichrists  kingdom ;  who,  as  the  prophet 
foresheweth,  shall  worship  God  with  such  gor- 
geous things."  Here  too  are  we  authorised  to 
consider  the  Pope  Antichrist,  and  the  Church 
of  Rome  the  Aniichristian  power. 

In  one  point,  Doctor  Mihier  and  I  are  agreed  ; 
namely,  that  the  Socinian,  who  denies  the  Mes- 
siahship,  or  the  Divinity  of  the  Son  of  God,  is 
an  Antichrist.  St.  John  says,  that  he  "f  *'  who 
confesseth  not  that  Jesus  Christ  is  come  in  the 
flesh,  is  a  deceiver  and  an  Antichrist :"  and  that 
;|;  "  he  is  Antichrist,  that  denieth  the  Father 
and  the  Son.''  We  find  the  Antichristian  cha- 
racter ascribed  to  Simon  Magus  at  a  very  early 
period  of  Christianity.  He  is  said  to  have  been 
honoured  by  many  as  God,  and  to  have  given 
himself  out  as  being  the  Son,  among  the  Jews; 
the  Father  in  Samaria;  and  that  he  descend- 
ed from  Heaven  among  the  Gentiles  as  the 
Holy  Ghost.  But  those  individuals  are  not  the 
only  Antichrists,  or  enemies  to  Christ  and  his 
religion;  for,  Antichrist  and  his  ministers  are 
not  the  open,  but  concealed  foes  of  Christ,  who, 
in  his  name,  give  him  opposition  ;  and  while 
only  one  of  the  prophetic  marks  applies  to  each 

*  IiifD.  p.  214.         t  2  Episile,  7.         +  1  Epistle,  ii.22. 


ANTICHRIST.  321 

of  those  alluded  to,  we  may  perceive  a/Zattacli 
to  the  Pope,  as  the  3Ia?t  of  Si7i,  and  to  the 
Church  of  Rome,  as  the  Antichristian  power. 

With  respect  to  the  Pope's  temporal  power, 
Doctor  Milner  is  very  reserved  in  his  observa- 
tions; but  we  may,  however,  collect  his  opinion 
from  what  Bellarmine,  the  great  oracle  of  his 
Church,  advances  on  the  subject.  Speaking; 
of  the  Pope,  he  says,  that  as  the  *  "  delegate 
of  Christ,  he  obtains  jurisdiction  over  all  Em- 
perors and  Kings."  In  the  Commentaries  on 
the  Canon  Law,  corrected  and  edited  under 
the  auspices  of  Pope  Gregory  XIII.,  -he  is  called 
-\  our  Lord  God.  Downham,  after  relating  this 
circumstance,  adds,  that  the  Pope  "  receives 
adoration  of  which  St.  Peter  would  not  accept." 
The  usual  titles  of  the  Pope  are  the  :j:  Vicar  of 
God,  the  Vicar  of  Christ,  the  Vicar  General  of 
God  on  earth,  and  Head  of  Christendom.  He 
also  declares,  in  his  common  rescripts  and  bulls, 
that  God  has  appointed  him  supreme  Kuhr 
over  the  whole  Ciiristian  Church.  "  lie  truly 
sets  himself  up  as  God,"  says  §  Sim[)lirins, 
"  who  boasts  that  he  rules  the  Church  at  ///,v 
own  discretion,  enacts  laws,  and  dissolves  those 

*  Pol.  Symops.  in  loc. — Ihiu.  vol.  iv.   I'ars  posterior,  p.  !»S(i 
ud  calc. 

t   Ibid.  p.  9S7, 

\  Vkarius  Dei;  Vic.  Christ i ;  Vic.  Gen.  Dei  in  terris,  &c. — In. 

§   Ibiii.  in  Them.  p.  988. 

Y 


3*22  ANTICHRIST. 

of  divine  origin,  ami  shuts  or  opens  the  gates 
of  heaven  as  he  pleases;  that  he  cannot  err,  who 
is  daily  called  our  most  holy  Lord,  with  no  less 
impiety  than  what  was  formerly  said  of  Domi- 
tian,  our  Lord  God  ordered  it  to  he  done  thus" 
The  blasphemous  salutations  with  which  the 
Italian  populace  greeted  the  present  Pope  on 
his  way  to  Savonne  plainly  shew,  that  there 
has  been  no  abatement  in  pontifical  pride.  For, 
he  gave  them  his  benediction,  as  the  narrator 
states,  *  "  amidst  acclamations  oilong  Z^'ve  Jesus 
Christ  and  his  representative  on  earth." 

The  Scriptures  inform  us,  that  t "  the  Lord 
only  is  Holy ;"  yet,  in  opposition  to  this  sacred 
authority,  does  the  Pope,  as  if  he  possessed 
the  highest  degree  of  all  holiness,  assume  the 
blasphemous  and  high-sounding  titles  of  most 
holy  Lord,  most  Holy  Father,  Ruler  of  the 
ivorld.  Father  of  Piinces  and  Kings.  But, 
in  the  assumption   of  his  other  title  of  J  Pon- 

*  Plus  de  16,000  individus  de  tout  sexe  et  de  tout  age  s'e- 
taient  rendus  en  cet  endroit  pour  jouir  du  bonheur  de  voir  sa 
Saintete,  lorsqu'a  6  heures  elle  a  paru  et  donne  sa  benediction 
aux  acclamations  de  Vive  Jesus  Christ,  et  son  representant  sur  la 
terre ! — Relation  de  ce  qui  s'est  passe  a  Rome,  &c.  Vol.  iii. 
p.  122. 

t  Revel.  XV.  4. 

X  The  origin  of  the  word,  Pontifex,  has  been  traced  by  the 
ingenious  Mr.  Bryant  (Analysis  of  Ancient  Mythology,  vol. 
iii.  p.  121.)  to  the  words  Panti,  or  Pond,  in  the  Amoniaii 
language.  Mr.  Granville  Sharp  has  further  refined  on  his 
principle  by  discovering  its  root  to  lie  in  a  Greek  or  Latin 


ANTICHRIST.  323 

TiKEx  Maximus,  we  can  find  little  difficulty  in 
perceiving  the  resemblance  between  him  and 
the  prophetical  character  of  Antichrist. 

As  connected  with  the  subject  of  the  Anti- 
christian  character  of  Papal  Rome,  it  only  re- 
mains for  me  to  advert  to  the  mysterious  num- 
ber 666,  which,  Doctor  Milner  says,  *"many 
Protestant  expounders  have  endeavoured  to  ex- 
tract from  the  name  or  title  of  certain  Popes ; 
but  which  ingenious  (Roman)  Catholics  have 
extracted  from  3Iartinus  Lutlierus  and  David 
Chrijtli(eus."  It  is  true,  that  that  exact  number 
has  been  found  in  several  names;  but  no  name, 
although  it  may  possibly  include  it,  can  be  the 

soil.  Thus,  says  he,  "  the  Latins  might  have  conceived  that 
Ponti  had  some  allusion  to  Pons,  a  bridge,  which  might 
occasion  the  ludicrous  inauguration  of  the  ancient  Pond/ex 
Maximus  under  a  wooden  bridge,  built  over  a  dry  ditch  near 
Rome,  and  bored  full  of  holes." — Remauks,  p.  70.  But, 
whichsoever  be  right,  it  appears  certain,  that  the  Pontificate 
was  alone  held  by  the  Roman  Emperors,  from  the  time  of  Au- 
gustus to  that  of  Auguttukis ;  that  it  was  annexed  by  the 
former  to  the  imj)f  rial  titles  of  the  Roman  Ca.'sars,  and  only 
became  extinct  when  this  last  of  thr  Western  Emperors  ceased 
to  reign.  So  that,  towards  the  conclusion  of  the  fifth  century, 
and  not  before,  was  this  Pagan  title,  this  cliuractaktic  mark 
of  the  iJ/«n  of  Sin,  this  fatal  distinction  tA' pat^an  apostacy, 
and  idoialrotis  pre-eminence,  claimed  by  the  IJishopg  of  Rome, 
as  may  he  seen  in  Pope  Gelasius't  letter  (Vanualb's  Diskeiit. 
ix.  p.  192.)  to  the  (ircek  Emperor  Anastasius,  in  which  he 
speaks  of  the  sacred  authority  of  the  Poncijfs. — See  aUo  1)e- 
cLit<E  and  I'all,  vol.  iii.  p.  '2bl. 

•  Letter  xIv.  p.  \2'J. 

Y    -)  • 


324  ANTICHRIST. 

apocalyptic  name  of  the  beast;  unless  it  corre- 
spond in  all  other  respects  to  the  prophetic  de- 
scription of  that  name.  Thus,  Martin  *  Lauter 
not  Lutherus,  as  Dr.  Milner  has  it,  produces 
the  number  in  Saxon ;  David  Chitraeus  and  Beza 
antitheus  in  Greeks  and  John  Calvin  in  Hebrew. 
But  as  the  other  particulars  of  the  beast  are  not 
discovered  in  those  names,  the  resemblance  is 
lost.  The  number  660  lias  been  discovered  in 
two  of  the  Papal  titles,  viz : 

V  t  c  ar  I  V  s     f  j  l  i  i     d  e  i, 

6"  T  100       T    5"  T  6  0    1   T     Too    T  =  66     and 

V  I  c  ar  I  V  s    generai^i  s  De  i   in  terr  i  s. 

r 'i   100      T    r  Yo'i     Too  ~[  T  T::^«6« 

But  neither  of  these  can  be  the  name  intended 
by  the  Apostle,  because,  -\ neither  of  them  is  the 
name  of  the  temporal  beast;  neither  of  them  is 
the  proper  name  of  a  man:,  diWd  neither  of  them  can 
be  obviously  borne  by  each  individual  Roman 
Catholic.  The  Hebrevi^  word  n^'on  Romiith  has 
been  discovered  to  contain  the  same  number 
if  QQiJ  ;  but  this  is  as  inapplicable  as  either  of  the 
two  former,  and  for  the  reasons  which  I  have  al- 
ready stated.  Hence,  Doctor  Milner  may  per- 
ceive that  the  talents  of  the  expounders  on  both 

*  Lowman's  Paraph,  in  Foe. 

t  See  Faber  on  the  Prophecies,  vof.  ii.  p.  33. 

1  The  apocalyptic  number  has  been  thus  explained  ;  666=^ 
1453 — 787,  namely,  the  period  at  which  the  second  Council 
of  Nice  established  Image  worship.  See  Rev.  Dr.  Bauret's 
Letter  on  the  Hebrew  Medal  found  near  Cork. 


ANTICHRIST.  325 

.sides  of  the  question  have  thus  far  been  exer- 
cised in  vain.  But  the  idea  has  been  suggested, 
and  that  by  *a  Protestant  writer,  that  xaTfi^os 
is  the  name  of  that  particular  man,  in  whose  ap- 
pellative is  found  the  same  number  as  the 
name  of  the  beast ;  for, 

t  A      A   _T_   E      X_    N_    0_    S 

30         1     300     6       10     50     70     2  00  =  666 

is  at  once  the  name  of  a  man,  the  title  of  an 
Empire,  and  the  distingiiishiiig  appellation  of 
every  individual  in  that  Empire.  The  Apostle 
wrote  in  Greek;  it  is  therefore  morally  certain, 
that  he  intended,  that  the  calculation  should  not 
be  made  in  a  different  language.  As  it  will 
baffle  the  ingenuity  of  Doctor  Milner  tp  brin^ 
home  so  many  and  such  strong  distijiguishing 
marks  of  an  Antichristian  character,  against 
Martin  Lautcr,  with  all  "  his  anagrams  and 
chronograms,"  we  must  unavoidably  conclude 
that  the  Pope  is 

Antichrist. 

*  See  Granviu.e  Shahp's  Appendix  to  three  tracts,  p.  126. 

t  Doctor  More  says,  "the  Papists  latinize  in  every  ihijig, 
IMa»s,  prayers  hymns,  litanies,  canons,  decretals,  hulls  are 
conceived  in  iMtin.  The  Papal  Councils  speak  in  Latin.  The 
women  j)ray  in  Latin.     Nor  is  the  Scripture  read  in  any  other 

language  than  Latin In  short,  all  things  are  Latin  ; 

the  Pope  having  communioaled  hib  language  to  the  people 
under  his  dominion,  as  the  mark  un«l  character  of  his  Empire.'* 
Mystery  of  Iniquity,  part  2,  book  i.  c.  15. 


n2n 


CHAPTER  XV. 

THE    SUPREMACY    OF    THE    POPE. 

However  ofTensive  it  may  be  to  Doctor  Mil- 
iier,  I  cannot  but  subscribe  to  Archbishop  Til- 
lotson's  opinion,  *  *'  that  the  Pope's  supremacy 
is  not  only  an  indefensible,  but  an  impudent 
cause  ;  and  that  while  there  is  not  one  tolerable 
argument  for  it,  there  are  a  thousand  invincible 
reasons  against  it."  It  is  a  part  of  the  Ecclesi- 
astical polity  of  the  Cliurch  of  Rome,  but  no 
part  of  the  Popish  religion.  Scripture,  reason, 
and  antiquity,  oppose  it,  while  a  solitary  pre- 
text, a  specious  but  remote  one,  alone  remains 
to  uphold  its  existence;  namely,  the  necessity 
of  a  visible  head  over  the  whole  Church,  for 
the  preservation  of  its  unity. 

The  pre-eminence  ascribed  to  the  Bishop  of 
Rome  by  Doctor  Milner,  according  to  which, 
he  is  entitled  to  rank  and  jurisdiction,  dig- 
nity and  potver  superior  to  other  Bishops  of 
the  Church  of  Christ,  so  as  to  be  f  "  its  spiritual 

*  Vid.  Adfiress  to  the  reader,  prefixed  to  Barrow's  Treatise 
on  the  Pope's  Supremacy, 
t  Lettek  xlvi.  p.  134. 


THE    SUPREMACY    OF    THE     POPE.  327 

liead  here,  and  his  see  the  centre  of  (Roman) 
Catholic  unity,"  is  grounded  by  him  on  the 
following  declaration  of  our  Lord,  *  "  Blessed 
art  thou,  Simon  Bar-jona ;. . .  and  I  say  unto  thee, 
that  thou  art  PETER,  and  tipon  this  ROCK 
/  will  build  my  Church,  and  the  gates  of  hell 
shall  not  prevail  against  it''  Doctor  Milner 
thus  argues,  that,  as  St.  Peter  was  the  Rock 
on  which  the  Church  was  built,  it  proves,  that 
a  special  dignity  and  charge  was  conferred  upon 
him  by  our  Lord  in  preference  to  the  other 
Apostles  ;  and  that,  as  the  Pope  is  the  repre- 
sentative of  St.  Peter,  who  was  constituted  chief 
of  the  Apostles,  {Princeps  Apostolorum,)  he  must 
consequently  be  Chief  over  all  Bishojis;  whence 
it  is  further  inferred  by  him,  that  the  Pope 
possesses  spiritual  jurisdiction  over  all  Bishops, 
and  that  he,  therefore,  possesses  it  in  the  Uni- 
versal Church.  But  this  argument  is  more 
shewy  than  solid.  Because,  although  Peter 
had  been  the  Rock  on  which  the  Church  was 
built,  yet  that  Church  was  not  the  Church  of 
Rome,  but  the  Church  oi  Jerusalem.  This  was 
the  mother  of  all  Churches;  and,  if  Dortor 
Milner's  positions  were  tenable,  if  might  chiim 
to  be  mistress  of  all  (jhurrrhes.  But  the  Church 
of  Rome  was  neither  the  one  nor  the  other.  It 
was  (prima  inter  pares) first  among  equals,  bnl 

*   Mall.  XVI.  18. 


:\-lS  THE    SUPREMACY 

nothing  more.  And,  as  to  the  preference,  which 
he  says  was  conferred  on  St.  Peter  above  the 
other  Apostles,  i/iat  St.  Paul  positively  denies^ 
when  he  speaks  of  himself  as  not  being  *"a 
whit  behind  the  very  chiefest  Apostles,"  and 
of  his  withstandina-  Peter  to  his  face,  |  "  ^^- 
cause  he  was  to  be  blamed."  And  when,  at 
the  last  supper,  there  was  a  strife  among  the 
Apostles,  as  to  J  "  which  of  them  should  be 
accounted  the  greatest;"  it  is  evident,  that  this 
could  not  have  happened,  had  they  supposed 
that  St.  Peter  possessed  a  supremacy  over 
them.  And  it  is  further  evident,  that  they  had 
not  recognized  such  supremacy,  when  they  ^sent 
him  with  John  to  settle  the  Church,  and  when 
they  subsequently  \\  called  him  to  an  account 
about  his  ministry.  But,  that  neither  he,  nor 
they  could  have  entertained  any  such  notion, 
appears  from  our  Saviour's  observation,  which 
was  so  well  calculated  to  put  down  £^11  worldly 
distinction  and  pride.  ^  "  He  that  is  greatest,'' 
says  he,  '*  among  you,  let  him  be  ^5  theyounger; 
and  he  that  is  chief,  as  he  that  doth  serve'' 

With  respect  to  the  repetition  of  our  Saviour's 
question  to  Peter,  **  *'  lovest  thou  me?" — this, 
according  to  Doctor  Milner,  marks  a  distinc- 
tion  in  consequence   of  Peter's    being    called 

*  2  Cor.  xi.  5.  f  Gal.  ii.  11.  %  Luke,  xxii.  24. 

^  Acts,  viii.  14.         1|  Ibid.  xi.  2,  3.         %  Luke,  xxii.  36. 

**  John,  xxi.  15. 


OF    THE    POPE.  329 

upon  by  Christ  to  declare  three  several  times 
that  he  loved  him,  and  even,  that  he  loved  him 
more  than  his  fellow  Apostles.  He  says,  that 
Peter  was  further  distinguished  by  being  charged 
io  feed  Christ's  lambs  ;  and,  at  length,  *  *' to  feed 
his  sheep  also,  whom  the  lambs  are  used  to  fol- 
low." In  short,  that  f*  this  Apostle  was  to  act 
the  part  of  a  shepherd,  not  only  with  respect 
to  the  flock  in  general,  but  also  with  respect 
to  the  pastors  themselves"  But  these  questions 
and  injunctions  rather  imjily  a  distrust  in  Pe- 
ters constancy  ;  for  we  find  that  he  was  grieved, 
because  Clirist  said  unto  him  the  third  time, 
*'  lovest  thou  me?"  while  the  charge  to  feed 
Christ's  flock  implied  the  care  which  was  re- 
quired as  the  proof  of  his  love,  and  not«  com- 
mission  to  exercise  supreme  authority.  And, 
although  Doctor  Milner  enumerates  diflerent 
points,  in  which  Peter  had  the  precedence;  such 
as  being  the  first  on  the  list  of  the  Apostles  ;  the 
first  to  confess  his  faith  in  Christ;  the  first  to 

*  "  If  it  be  asked,"  says  Bishop  Taylor,  "  why  the  Bishop 
of  Rome  calU  himself  Universal  Bishop  ?  Pasce  ovfs  is  his 
warrant.  Why  he  jjrctends  to  a  power  of  deposing  Princes  ? 
Viiscc  oves,  said  Clinst  to  Peter,  a  second  time.  If  it  he  de- 
manded, why  also  he  pretends  to  a  power  of  authorizing'  their 
suhjccls  to  kill  them  ?  Pasce  agnos,  said  Christ,  the  third  time  : 
thus,  pasce  is  doce,  pasce  is  impera,  and  pasce  is  occidc." — l)i»- 
snasive  a^^ainst  Popery,  p.  \.i7. 

I  Letteu  xlvi.  p.  135. 


330  THE    SUPREMACY 

whom  Christ  appeared  after  his  Resurrection  ; 
and  the  Jirst  to  preach  the  belief  of  this  to  the 
Apostles;  yet,  such  precedence  does  not  imply 
Supremacy.  The  contrary  instances,  which  may 
be  adduced,  namely,  of  his  fallen  state  after 
his  unhappy  denial  of  his  Loid ;  his  infirmity 
in  not  watching,  even  so  much  as  one  hour; 
the  severe  rebuke,  which  he  drew  from  our  Sa- 
viour, when  he  said,  * "  Get  thee  behind  me^ 
Satan;"  and  the  want  of  faith  M'ith  which  Christ 
upbraided  him,  when  )  "  he  walked  on  the  wa- 
ter," and  began  to  sink,  &c.  &c. — tend  to  shew, 
that  no  precedence,  implying  power  and  supreme 
government  in  the  Church,  was  intended.  And 
further,  were  I  to  concede,  which  I  do  not, 
that  St.  Peter  founded  the  Church  of  Rome, 
and  hnparted  to  his  successors  this  precedence 
of  which  Doctor  Milner  speaks ;  yet  such  pre- 
cedence or  primacy  is  nothing  more  than  what 
those  Bishops,  who  succeeded  to  an  Apostolic 
chair  in  Asia  and  Greece,  had  as  just  a  right 
to  claim  as  the  Bishops  of  Rome. 

Doctor  Milner  contends,  that  the  Popes,  as 
successors  of  St.  Peter,  possess  the  same  supe- 
riority over  all  other  Bishops,  which  he  did  over 
the  other  Apostles.  But,  if  this  assertion  be 
disproved,  his  principal  argument  in  favour  of 
the  Pope's  Supremacy,  is  invalidated. 

*  Matt.  xvj.  23.  t  Ibid.  xiv.  29, 


OF    THE    POPE.  331 

In  the  first  place,  then,  the  Acts  of  the  Apos- 
tles, as  well  as  St.  Peter's  Epistles,  afford  no 
distinct  evidence  of  his  having*  ever  been  at 
Rome;  although  there  are  strong  grounds  for 
supposing  that  he  was  there  the  year  preceding 
bis  martyrdom.  And  secondly,  wlien  St.  Paul 
wrote  to  the  Romans,  he  sent  no  salutation  to 
St.  Peter  in  his  Epistle,  which  it  may  be  pre- 
sumed he  would  do,  were  he  at  Rome.  Nor, 
in  the  *  different  Epistles,  which  he  addressed  to 
the  churches  in  Asia  from  Rome,  does  he  oiice 
speak  of  St.  Peter  being  with  him.  But  in  ad- 
dition to  this  negative  proof,  there  is  direct  testi- 
mony from  St.  Paul's  own  words  to  the  Christian 
converts  in  that  city,  to  the  same  effect.  For  had 
a  church  been  established  among  them  by  an 
Aposllc,  he  would  not  have  said,  that  he  '\  "  so 
strived  to  preach  the  Gospel,  not  where  Christ 
was  named,  lest  1  should  build  on  another  mans 
foundation."  Neither  does  he  make  the  remotest 
allusion  to  the  alleged  superiority  of  St.  Peter ;  a 
further  proof,  that  he  did  not  understand  our  Sa- 
viour s  words  to  convey  any  such  superiority. 
Moreover,  he  expressly  says,  that  f"  tlie  Gospel 
of  the  nncircumcision  was  committed  nnto  me; 

•  Vi/.  to  l!ic  Colossians,  Ephesi<ms,  Pliilijypians  and  Jlrhrrivs. 
St.  Pavil  also  wrote  to  Vhilemon,  anil  liis  second  Epistle  to  Ti- 
mothy FROM  Rome;  yet  never  once  mcntioHH  St.  Peter's  name. 

t  W«  //»)  iit'  AAAOTPION  9i/<iA»«r  oiK9f»/*«. — RoM.  XV.  20. 

X  Gal.  II.  7. 


33*2  THE    SUPREMACY 

as  the  Gospel  of  circumcision  was  unto  Peter." 
These  words  go  to  prove,  that  if  ever  Peter  were 
Bishop  of  Rome,  it  was  only  perhaps  of  the 
Jewish  Christians  resident  there. 

In  anticipation  of  the  negative  and  direct  evi- 
dence here  offered,  Doctor  Milner  flies  to  the 
authority  of  Irenaeus,  who  wrote  in  the  latter 
part  of  the  second  century,  and  who  is  the^r*^ 
to  make  mention  of  St.   Peter's   co-operation 
with  St.  Paul  in  founding-  the  Church  of  Rome. 
That  father,   referring  to  the  tradition  of  the 
Apostles   preserved   in   that   Church,    calls  it 
*  "  the  greatest,  most  ancient,  and  most  univer- 
sally known,  as  having  been  founded   by  St. 
Peter  and  St.  Paul,  to  which  every  Church  is 
bound  to  conform  by  reason  of  its  superior  au- 
thority.''    However,  on  closely  examining  the 
value  of  his  testimony,  we  shall  find,  that  the 
piecedence  diud  jurisdiction,  which  Doctor  Mil- 
ner says,  he  ascribes  to  the  Church  of  Rome, 
depended  on   mere  contingencies,    and    could 
only  be  said  to  have  continued  so  long  as  the 
causes,  which  produced  them,  existed  ;  and  also, 
that  as  Irenaeus  asserts,  in  one  part  of  his  evi- 
dence on  this  subject,  what  is  false,  it  destroys  the 


*  "Maxima;  et  antiquissimae  et  omnibus  cognitae  a  glorio- 
sissimis  duobus  Apostolis,  Petro  et  Paulo  Romae  fundatae  et 
constitutae  ecclesiae,  ad  quam  convenire  necesse  est,  omnem 
ecclesiam  propter  potiorem  principalitatem." 


OF    THE    POPE.  333 

credit  due  to  the  remainder.  First,  as  the  city 
of  Rome  was  the  capital  of  the  Roman  Empire, 
it  followed,  that  the  Church  of  Rome  would 
acquire  an  ascendancy  among  the  Churches  of 
the  Empire,  and  be  naturally  deferred  to,  prop- 
ter potiorem  principalitatem.  This  one  instance 
too  would  lead  to  its  being  called  the  maxima 
ecdesia.  But  where  was  the  fitness  of  the  ap- 
pellation, when  the  Roman  Empire  became  ex- 
tinct ;  inasmuch  as  the  Church  of  Rome  could 
not  be  said  to  have  retained  its  pre-eminence, 
after  that  event  took  place?  Secondly,  we  have 
Irenaeus  versus  Irenajus  ;  for  if  he  asserted  what 
is  true,  in  calling  the  Church  of  Rome  the 
greatest  in  the  Roman  Empire,  he  has  asserted 
what  is  false,  in  saying  it  was  the  most  ancieiit ; 
because  the  establishment  of  the  Church  of  Je- 
rusalem was  antecedent  to  that  of  the  Church 
of  Rome.  And  as  St.  James  was  the  tirst  of 
the  Apostles,  who  presided  in  a  Christian  as- 
sembly, discharging  in  a  manner  the  office  and 
duty  of  a  Bishop ;  he,  and  not  St.  Peter,  was  the 
first  Christian  Bishop.  Hence  it  follows,  that  our 
Saviour's  words  do  not  imply,  that  the  Church 
was  found<,'d  exclusively  on  St.  Peter,  and  that 
as  they  have  no  reference  either  to  power  or  au- 
thority,  they  cannot  mean,  that  any  particular 
Church,  or  Bishop  of  such  Cimrrli,  possessed 
such  authority  or  suprema<^y  over  all  other 
Churches.     And  thus  the  entire  argument  for 


334  THE    SUPREMACY 

the  Supremacy  of  the  Pope,  resting-  as  it  does 
on  a  misinterpretation  of  Scripture,  falls  to  the 
ground.  I  should  observe  that  TertuUian,  Cy- 
prian, and  the  other  writers  quoted  by  Doctor 
Milner,  have,  like  Irenaeiis,  declared  that  St. 
Peter  was  concerned  in  establishing  the  Church 
of  Rome.  But  their  opinion,  in  all  probability, 
depended  on  the  authority  of  Irenseus.  How- 
ever this  may  be,  since  there  is  no  possibility  of 
reconciling  what  he  says  with  St.  Luke's  narra- 
tive respecting  the  Apostles,  or  with  the  passages, 
which  1  have  adduced  from  St.  Paul's  Epistles  ; 
either  Scripture  or  tradition  must  give  way  ;  for 
when  they  are  contradictory,  both  cannot  be  true. 
But,  the  Supremacy  of  the  Pope  is  not  only 
unsupported  by  Scripture,  it  is  also  contra- 
dicted by  the  evidence  of  the  primitive  fathers 
of  the  Church.  One  testimony  out  of  many 
will  suffice  to  ])rove  this ;  that  of  the  great 
Chrysostom,  who,  in  speaking  of  St.  Pauls 
unbounded  authority  over  the  Church  of  Christ) 
thus  expresses  himself:  *"  to  St.  Paul  was  com- 
mitted the  whole  world.  St.  Paul  had  an  anx- 
ious solicitude  for  all  the  Churches  throughout 
the  world."  Again  he  says,  '|  "  iw  one  is  greater 
than  St.  Paul ;  no  one  is  equal  to  him.  If  he 
laboured  more  abundantly  than  the  rest  of  the 

*  De  laudibus  Pauli. — Oper.  vol.  ii.  p.  485. 
t  Ibiu.  vol.  i.  pp.  171,517, 


OF    THE    POPE.  335 

Apostles,  he  will  be  more  abundantly  rewarded. 
And  as  he  is  greater  than  they,  (xax£»*w» /*£»^w»)  it 
is  evident,  that  he  will  enjoy  the  highest  honour 
^ndjirst  seat  (t»?  a*uTUTu  n/x)]?,  x«»  Trfos^pa?)  among 
them."  St.  Paul's  superiority  is  asserted  here 
in  very  strong  terms ;  yet  with  such  superiority 
and  with  such  general  solicitude  about  all  the 
Churches,  as  is  ascribed  to  him,  St.  Peter's 
Supremacy  and  that  of  the  Popes,  his  reputed 
successors,  is  wholly  incompatible. 

But,  continues  Doctor  Milner,  the  Churches 
of  England  and  Home  agree,  that  "  Bishops,  in 
general,  succeed  to  the  rank  and  functions  of 
the  Apostles;  so,  by  the  same  rule,  the  succes- 
sor of  St.  Peter,  in  the  See  of  Rome,  succeeds 
to  his  primacy  and  jurisdiction."  We  are  now 
first  to  consider  in  what  light  the  Popes  can  be 
said  to  be  the  successors  of  St.  Peter;  whether 
as  Apostles,  or  as  Bishops.  Not  certainly  as 
Apostles ;  because  they  neither  inherit,  nor  af- 
fect to  inherit  the  miraculous  gifts  of  the  Apos- 
tles;  but,  if  as  Bishops,  (Biwhops  being  often 
said  to  succeed  the  Aposlh's  as  chief  pastors  in 
the  Church,)  it  is  on  tlir  siipp();-)itioii  that  St. 
l^eter  bore  the  title  of  one.  'J'herefore,  as  they 
rio  not  succeed  St.  Peter  in  that  sense  alone,  in 
which  they  could  be  strictly  said  to  be  his  suc- 
cessors; namely,  in  llial  r)f  possessing  the  (jua- 
iities  of  iw.sy>i;t'(/ Apostles  ;  I  conclude  that  the 
rule  of  analogy  does  not  apply.     Again,  as  uo 


3.'3()  THE    SUPREMACY 

evidence  exists,  thai  tlie  title  of  Bishop  was 
borne  by  St.  Peter;  and  as  Irenaius,  on  the  joint 
authority  of  SS.  Peter  and  Paul,  testifies,  that 
it  was  first  conferred  on  Linus ;  it  follows,  that 
the  Bishops  of  Rome  are  the  successors  of  Li- 
nuSy  and  not  of  St.  Peter.  Irenaeus's  words  are, 
*  "  The  blessed  Apostles,  (he  f  subsequently 
makes  express  mention  of  their  names)  after 
they  had  founded  and  built  the  Church  of  Rome, 
committed  the  office  of  Bishop,  or  the  admini- 
stration of  the  Episcopacy,  (m?  ETno^xewj)?  XnTa^yKnr,) 

to  Linus."  This  father's  authority  is  decisive  on 
the  point,  and  cannot  consistently  be  objected 
to  by  Doctor  Milner,  after  admitting  it  in  a 
former  instance. 

Although  Doctor  Milner  does  not  say  ex- 
pressly totidem  verbis,  that  the  Church  of  Rome 
is  the  Mother  and  Mistress  of  all  other 
Churches,  yet  he  does  so  totidem  Uteris,  by  the 
frequent  repetition  he  makes  of  its  greater  anti- 
quity and  superiority.  These  titles,  which  oc- 
cur in  J  one  of  the  heterodoxical   articles  of 

l)(lt^t){7ta»  Aim  TUf  T»?  EniDK-OriHS  AuTa^yjac  £«;^stf*)i7a».' — 
Iren.  lib.  iii.  contra  Heraes.  c.  3. 

\  riiTgM  x«t  TB  Ila.v'Ka  If  'Pufji.yt  ivotyyi'Ki^of/.uuv  xcn  Ge/xe^iac- 
ru»  T»)»  l)tx^^|c^i«»  ? — luiU. 

X  "  Viz.  I  acknowledge  the  Holy,  Catholic,  and  Apostolic 
Church  of  Rome  to  be  the  Mother  and  Mistress  of  all 
Churches." 


OF    THE    POPE.  337 

Pope  Pius  the  Fifth's  creed,  are  formally  assert- 
ed by  the  Council  of  Trent,  and  sworn  to  by  the 
beneficed  Clersfv  of  the  Church  of  Rome.  Now, 
that  the  Church  of  Rome  is  "  the  Mother  of 
all  Churches,"  is  manifestly  untrue;  as  appears 
from  *  various  passages  in  the  Acts  of  the  Apos- 
tles, which  speak  of  a  Church  at  Jerusalem 
so  early  after  our  Lord's  Ascension  as  the  day 
of  Pentecost.  It  was,  therefore,  through  this 
Church,  which  was  the  Mother  of  all  Churches, 
and  not  tlirough  that  of  Eiome,  that  the  [)ro- 
phecy  of  our  Saviour  was  conveyed  to  Christian 
churches  in  general.  Besides,  it  was  in  the 
Church  of  Jerusalem,  and  not  in  the  Church  of 
Rome,  that  our  Saviour's  prophecy  respecting 
the  Church  being  built  on  St.  Peter  as  on  a 
rock,  was  fulfilled.  As  to  the  Church  of  Jiome 
being  "  the  Mistress  of  all  Churches,'  it  is  equally 
untrue;  for,  if  we  look  back  to  the  ])riniitivc 
ages,  we  shall  find  that  the  See  of  Rome  had  no 
universal  supremacy.  When  it  was  stated  to 
the  first  Council  of  Nice,  that  jMehtius,  a  Rishop 
of  Egyi)t,  ordained  Bishops,  without  the  consent 
of  the  metrojioiituii  Uislioj)  of  Alexandria;  it 
thus  expressed  itself  in  its  sixth  Canon  :  |' "  Let 
the  ancient  customs  prevail  that  are  in  J^lgypt, 
Lybia,  and  Pentapolis,  that  the  Rishop  of  Alex. 

•  Acts,  ii.  4,  14,  41,  47.     luin.  v.  11.  lu.  viii.  1.  In.  xv.  1. 
t  Sec  Pp.  of  St.  D.-ivid's  Ciiunc  mman  armed,  vol.  ii.  p.  IHI. 


33H  THE    SUPREMACY 

aiidria  have  the  power  over  them  all,  as  the 
Hisliop  of  Rome  also  hath  the  like  custom."  A 
short  period  l)efore  this  Council  was  held,  we 
find  Cyprian  maintaining  a  controversy  with 
Stephen,  Bishop  of"  Rome,  about  the  baptism  of 
heretics,  in  which  he  treated  that  haughty  Pre- 
late with  the  greatest  contempt,  and  would  only 
allow  him  a  pre-eminence  of  ot'der  and  associ- 
ation'., not  of  POWER  and  authority.  Yet 
*  Doctor  Milner  ascribes  this  assertion  of  his 
rights  to  **  the  mistake  of  Cyprian,"  in  not  think- 
ing the  Pope's  authority  superior  to  general  tra- 
dition ;  which  is,  in  fact,  conceding  the  point. 
But,  as  if  he  felt,  that  he  had  gone  too  far,  he 
says,  that  Cyprian  admitted  Stephen's  authority 
to  a  certain  extent,  "  by  advising  the  same  Pope 
to  depose  Marcian,  a  schismatical  Bishop  of 
Gaul,  and  to  appoint  another  Bishop  in  his 
place;"  whereas,  this  only  shews,  that  Cyprian 
thought  that  Stephen  had  power  over  a  Bishop  of 
Gaul,  who  had  derived  his  mission  from  Rome. 
So  that  the  case,  quoad  Marcian's  affair,  rests, 
as  Doctor  Milner's  concession  left  it. 

The  instances  which  the  Doctor  adduces,  of 
Athanasius,  Chrysostom,  and  other  Bishops, 
who  had  been  deposed,  being  restored  to  their 
respective  Sees,  through  the  mediation  of  the 
Popes,  do  not  in  the  least  degree  tend  to  settle 

*  Letter  xlvi.  p.  139. 


OF    THE    POPE.  339 

the  question  of  Supremacy.  Because,  as  often 
as  any  of  the  eastern  Bishops  were  *  forced  to 
yield  to  the  stronger  party;  they  sought  redress 
in  a  quarter  where  it  was  readily  granted.  The 
Bishop  of  Rome  took  tliem  one  after  the  other 
under  his  j)rotection,  and  thus  acqiiired  for  the 
Roman  See  new  degrees  of  influence  and  power. 
For,  if  the  appeal  of  the  exiled  Bishops  to  him, 
was  politic  and  wise,  as  through  his  interpo- 
sition, they  obtained  in  the  eastern  Emperor, 
more  than  a  counterbalance  to  their  domestic 
enemies  ;  it  was  equally  politic  and  wise  in  the 
Pope  to  espouse  their  cause,  as  it  tended  to 
raise  his  consequence  and  authority  in  the  eyes 
of  the  eastern  Church,  and  thus  imj)erc('ptibly 
to  establish  his  Supremacy. 

Doctor  Milner  also  lays  great  stress  on  the 
authority  of  the  Council  of  Sardis,  which,  he 
says,  I  "  confirmed  the  Bishop  of  Uome  in  the 
right  of  receiving  apj)eals  from  all  the  Churches 
in  the  worhl."  But,  were  I  to  admit  this,  which 
1  do  not,  because  the  authority  of  tliat  Council 
is  consider<(l  dubious,  and  its  laws  spurious, 
by  the  most  ciiiiueMt  writers:  still,  llic  j)lea  lor 
assuming  a  supreme  jurisdiction  in  I  lie  univer- 
sal Church,  nmst  be  very  weak,  which  only  de- 
pends on  the  deeree  of  our  obscure  (Viuiieii. 


*  Mosu.  EccL.  H18T.  vol.  ii.  p.  'J*>. 

t  Lettek  xlvi.  |i.  140. 

/.  '2 


340  THE    SUPREMACY 

It  is  true,  as  Doctor  Milner  observes,  that 

*  Gregory    the   Great    rebuked    the    pride    of 
John,   Patriarch  of  Constantinople,    for    "  as- 
suniing  to  himself  the  title  of  cecumenical  or 
universal  Bishop."    Yet,  suspicious  as  were  the 
time  and  manner  of  John's  lordly  pretensions 
on   this  head,  the  counter-pretensions  of  Gre- 
gory were  still  more  so.     But,  notwithstanding 
the  ambitious  designs  of   the    latter,   and   the 
pomp  and  splendour   with  which  the    see  of 
Rome  was  then  surrounded,  it  was  reserved 
for  the  succeeding  age  to  see  the  unprincipled 
Phocas,  after  the  murder  of  his  master,  trans- 
fer the  title  of  f  universal  Bishop  from  the  East- 
ern Patriarch  to    the  Roman   Pontiff.     After 
this  manner,  was  this  spiritual  tyranny,  which 
sprang  from  a  misinterpreted  text  of  Scripture, 
and  with   which  the   pontifical  character  was 
first  invested    by   an  inhuman  monster,  intro- 
duced and  established.     From  that  tyranny  we 
were  happily  released   at  the  ever-memorable 
era  of  the  Reformation,  and  we  must  always 

*  Gregory  thus  writes  to  the  Emperor  Maurice  about  John  : 
— "  Ego  autetn  fidenter  dice,  quia  quisque  se  universakm  sa^ 
cerdotem  vocat,  vel  vocari  desiderat,  in  elatione  sua  Antichris- 
turn  prcpcurrit,  qxxisL  iuperbiendo  se  cajteris  praeponit." — Lib.  W. 
Ep  30. 

t  "  The  title  of  Universal  Bishop,  which  had  been  given 
by  Lto  and  Justinian  to  the  Patriarchs  of  C.  P.  was  not  at- 
tended with  any  accession  of  power." — Mosh.  Eccl.  Hist. 
Vol.  ii.  p.  112. 


OF    THE    POPE.  341 

be  on  our  guard  against  its  return.  For 
* ""  as  God  has  appointed  no  universal  Mo- 
narch, neither  has  he  an  universal  Bishop. 
And  all  the  arguments,  which  an  universal 
Bishop  could  use  for  unity  and  peace  to  end 
controversies,  might  be  used  by  an  univei-sal 
Monarch,  and  both  prove  fallacious,  to  the 
greater  disturbance,  rather  than  settlement  of 
that  peace."  We  should,  therefore,  dread  an 
universal  Bishop,  as  much  as  an  universal  Mo- 
narch ;  the  one  being  no  less  an  enemy  in  tem- 
poral affairs,  to  civil,  than  the  other  is  in  spiri- 
tual concerns,  to  religious,  liberty.  But,  the 
very  thought  about  such  a  chiim  as  that  of  s})i- 
ritual  dominion  being  set  up,  is  sufficient  to 
excite  both  our  surprise  and  indignation ;  for 
we  may  rest  assured,  tliat  when  one  Church 
affects  a  control  over  another,  it  will  never 
want  the  inclination,  if  it  have  the  power,  to 
exercise  its  authority. 

Towards  the  conclusion  of  his  letter.  Doctor 
Milner  tiirows  off  all  restraint,  and  indulges  in 
a  virulence  of  huignage,  not  erpiaMed,  certainly 
not  surpassed,  by  Ward,  Chaloner,  or  (iandol- 
phy,  against  the  first  Protestant  Monarchs  of 
this  n^ahn,  and  (heir  successors.  "  If/'  Ka\s  he, 
t  *'  they  could  succeed  in  j)roving,    that   Christ 

*  Leslie's  Case  slated,  vol.  i.  p.  468.     t  LETTEn  xlvi.  p.  Hi. 


342  THE    SUPREMACY 

had  not  built  his  Church  on  St.  Peter  and  the 
Popes,  it  ^vould  still  remain  for  thcni  to  prove, 
that  he  founded  any  part  of  it  on  Henry  VIII., 
Edward  VI.,  and  the  Protestant  Monarchs  who 
succeeded  them."     He  then  institutes  a  compa- 
rison between  those  Princes,  including,  of  course, 
our  present  Gracious  King,  and  Tiberius,  Pi- 
late, and  Herod,  as  to  their  power  over  a  Chris- 
tian Church  :  he  even  travels  farther,  as  he  ex- 
tends his  parallel  to  the  Great  Turk   and  the 
Lama  of  Thibet!    When  I  meet  with  passages 
even  more  aspersive  than  this,  of  the   Royal 
Guardians  of  our  Church,  and  find  them  classed 
with  Simon   Magus,    Mahomet,  Voltaire,  and 
Robespierre,  as   chief   heretics    and    schisma- 
tics of  their  respective  ages ;  and  not  only  thus 
classed,  but  represented  on  what  Doctor  Mil- 
ner  calls  the  Apostolical  Tree,  as  *  branches 
cast  forth,  withered,  and  Jit  only  to  be  thrown 
into  the  fire.    When  I  hear  him  speak  of  conci- 
liation, and,  in  the  same  breath,  tell  those  to 
be  conciliated,  that  they  are  heretics  and  schis- 
viatics ;  I  feel   at  a  loss  how  to  reconcile  such 
language  with  the  principles  of  reason  or  com- 
mon sense. 

To  the  reader  who  may  not  have  seen  his 
Aj)ostolical  Tree,  a  few  words  descriptive  of 

♦  John,  XV.  6. 


OF    THE    POPE.  343 

it,  may  not  be  unacceptable.     The  Tree  is  sup- 
posed to  be  the  vine ;  the  root  of  it  represents 
Christ;  while  its  trunk  exhibits  the  succession 
of  the  Roman  Pontiffs,  to  the  present  day.   On 
the  parts  of  the  branches  immediately  attached 
to   the  trunk,  at  each  side,  are  engraved  the 
nations  which  first  embraced  Christianity ;  while 
the  fruit,  on   the    more  remote   parts   of  each 
branch,  demonstrates  the  saints  and  pious  per- 
sonages of   their  respective    ages.     So   far,  so 
good  :  but  then  come  the  withered  and  broken 
off  limbs,  which  designate  the  Heretics  and 
Schismatics  ;  the  greater  ones,  such  as  Simon 
Magus,  Mahomet,  Henry  VHL,  Edward  VI., 
Elizabeth,  as  above  enumerated,   with  many 
others,  on  the  one  side;  and  the  /fAArr  lieretics, 
such  as   EI)ion,  Gotcscalc,  Wicklilli-,   Luther, 
and  Wesley,  .&c.  kc.  on  the  other. 

This  s|)ecious  but  unjust  re[)resentation  of 
Christ's  Universal  Church,  according  to  whicli 
Doctor  Milner  assiunes  the  main  stem  and  trunk 
to  be  the  Roman  Church,  whence  the  Apostolic! 
juice  llowed  to  all  otiier  (Jliurches,  may  be 
met  by  tli(.'  following  simple  statement,  as  il- 
lustrative of  tlie  in(lei)enden(M'  of  the  diflerent 
Apostolic  Churches  fruni  one  another.  The 
reader  may  |)er  'cive,  that  then-  is  more  than 
one  main  conduit  conveying  the  stream  of  lile 
from  the  J)iviNr  I'orNTAiN  to   tlir   nations   of 


344  THE    SUPREMACY 

the  earth.     The   *  selection    of  a  few   out  of 
many  instances  will  suffice. 

THE  ROCK, 

€])ou  art  €Ijri.st,  tJ)c  .^on  of  tijc  Eibing  ^oD. 


^} 

Oi 

Ox 

4^ 

CO 

to 

)— > 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

no 

o 

C/5 

Hi 

> 

IT" 

D3 

o 

e-i 
w 

ET 

H 

o 

H 

s 

B 

U) 

> 

> 

> 

w 

en 

S 

>• 

w> 

55 

i-i 

> 

*♦ 

^ 

^ 

s 

9 

H 

a* 

cr 

M^ 

*TS 

en 

2 

c 

v; 

• 

> 

—1 

o 

H. 

S 

C 
en 

• 

H 
o 

s 

^-1     • 

c- 

u 

cr 

5' 

cr 
a 

tad 
•1 

22 

cr 

«!-( 

i. 

{» 

CO 

T» 

v<; 

^ 

m 

CB 

" 

r^ 

>■ 

a^ 

CD 

C/2 

• 

c 

a. 

w 

• 

r 

^ 


After  this  artless  representation,  I  may  ask, 
what  becomes  of  the  exclusive  Apostolicity,  &c. 
of  the  Church  of  Rome? 


The  very  nature  of  the  charge  which  Doctor 
Milner  urges  against  the  principle  of  the  Re- 
formation, defeats  itself;  when  he  infers,  that 
because  Cranmer's  notions  respecting  the  King's 

**  The  authorities  by  which  I  have  been  guided  are,  Hart- 
inanu  dc  rebus  Christianorum,  and  Fabricius's  Lux  EvangeUi. 


OF    THE    POPE.  345 

Supremacy  were  at  one  time  unsettled,  he  there- 
fore constantly  held,  that  the  Monarch  could 
make  Bishops  by  his  proclamation,  or  even 
"  by  the  bill  of  the  town-crier."  But  what  ex- 
cuse can  he  offer  for  repeating  the  vile  fabrica- 
tion of  the  Nag's-head  affair  ?  There  may  be 
some  palliation  for  Ward's  virulence  and  false- 
hoods, when  he  said,  that  during  the  reigns  of 
the  first  Protestant  Monarchs  the  Church  of 
England  had  no  Episcopal  Consecration,  and 
that  our  Bishops  were  made  by  Letters  Patent^ 
because  he  was  then  in  exile,  enduring  hardship 
and  want;  but  there  can  be  no  apology  for 
Doctor  M liner's  treading  in  his  steps,  when  in 
the  full  enjoyment  of  the  blessings  of  Tolera- 
tion, and  of  ail  the  rights  and  privileges  of  a 
British  subject. 

As  to  the  despotic  power,  which  he  alleges 
Queen  Elizabeth  to  have  exercised  over  the 
Church,  it  went  no  farther  than  to  appoint 
Bishops  to  sees,  where  they  were  to  discharge 
episcopal  functions  after  tliey  were  duly  conse- 
crated. That  wise  Monarch  well  knew  that 
Letters  Patent  could  not  give  validity  to  conse- 
cration or  ordination;  nor  invalidate  them  when 
they  possessed  the  re<^inisitc  essentials.  Farther 
than  this  she  neither  went,  nor  affected  to  go. 
Do  we  not  fmd,  that  tin;  Emperors  formerly 
exercised  a  similar  jurisdiction  within  their 
dominions,  and  sometimes  extended  it  to  the 


34(J  THE    SUPREMACY 

appointment  of  the  Popes?  Can  we  forget, 
that  it  was  the  edicts  and  laws  of  Constantiue 
in  favour  of  the  Christian  religion,  which  caused 
persecution  against  its  professors  to  cease,  and 
which  established  Christianity  as  the  religion 
of  the  Empire?  Can  we  either  forget  what 
Clovis  did  in  France,  or  Ethelbert  in  England  ? 
We  know  that  the  temporal  power  has,  in 
every  age  and  in  every  country,  exercised 
authority  over  the  concerns  of  the  Church; 
and  that  it  is  in  consequence  of  such  interfe- 
rence that  Kings  and  Queens  have  been  ap- 
propriately called  its  "  nursing  fathers  and 
mothers." 

But  we  shall  be  told,  that  the  Anathemas  of 
the  Council  of  Trent  are  mere  hruta  fulmina, 
and  that  it  is  idle  at  the  present  day  to  speak 
of  a  controlling  power  in  the  Church  of  Rome 
over  other  countries  ;  or  that  it  now  claims  to 
be  Mistress  of  all  Churches.  Thanks  to  the 
strong  arm  of  the  law,  and  to  the  wholesome 
restraints  imposed  on  Popery,  that  those  denun- 
ciations are  inoperative.  Yet  if  our  lives  be  not 
at  stake,  the  truth  of  the  Gospel  is,  and  conse- 
quently, the  Protestant  religion.  But  that 
the  principle  continues,  and  that  the  claim  for 
exercising  spiritual  jurisdiction  over  those,  who 
have  withdrawn  from  its  communion,  is  upheld 
as  vigorously  as  ever,  is  beyond  all  controversy. 
It  is  so  declared  in  the  Trent  catechism,  which 


OF    THE    POPE.  347 

has  always  been  a  standard  for  doctrine  in  the 
Popish  Church,  that  heretics  and  schismatics, 
who  have  abandoned  the  Church,  are  still  in 
its  poiver,  *"  as  persons  liable  to  be  called  by 
it  to  judgment,  punished,  and  doomed  by  ana- 
thema to  damnation^'     And  it  is  further  taught 
in  the  theological  lectures  in  Maynooth,  that 
the  Church,  viz.  that  of  Rome,  t "  retains  its 
jurisdiction    over   all    apostates,    heretics,  and 
schismatics,  although  they  may  not  belong  to 
its   body."     When  with   this  is   connected  the 
doctrine  of  exclusive  salvation,  and  the  dogma, 
that  the  Romish  Church  is  exclusively  Holy, 
Catholic,    and    Apostolic  ;    and    when    the 
thousand  expedients   are   considered,   (witness 
Doctor  Milners   ingenious   delineation   of  the 
Apostolical  Tree,)  which  are  artfully  contrived 
by  the  Popisii  clergy  to  make  their  laity  think 
as  they  themselves  do; — I  must  candidly  express 
my  ap])rehensions  about  the  fate  of  our  Protes- 
tant Church   ill   this  part  of  the   Unittnl  King- 
dom, should  unqualified  political  power  be  put 
into   the   hands  of  men,    who  conscientiously 

*  "  Herelici  vero  tt  scliisinatici,  qui  ab  licclcsiA  descivcrunt 

non    iicgandiim   tarncti   <niiii    in    Ecclesia'  poteslutc 

sint,  ut  qui  ab  e4  in  judicium  voctntur,  puniantur,  et  analhc- 
mate  damnentur." — Catucii.  Kom.   p.  7M.     ¥A.  1587. 

t  "  Ecclesia  iuam  retinot  jurisdiclioncm  in  omnt-s  Apostutas. 
Hcreticos,  et  .Sc/iismaticos,  (|uanquarn  ad  illud  corpus  nonjavi 
periineani."—l)f.  rA  IIogue  de  Eccl.  Cliristi,  p.  394. 


o4Q  THE    SUPREMACY 

believe  it  to  be  involved  in  heresy  and  schism,  and 
consequently  an  object  of  divine  vengeance.  If 
the  Cli  n  rch  of  Rome  be  resolved  to  uphold  a  title, 
to  \vhich  it  has  no  just  claim,  and  if  conformably 
with  its  pretensions  of  being  Mother  and  Mis- 
tress of  all  other  Churches,  it  claims  a  spiritual 
jurisdiction  over  their  members  as  deserters  from 
itself; — our  Legislature  will,  I  trust,  in  their 
wisdom  guard  us  against  the  recurrence  of 
those  evils,  which  the  exercise  of  spiritual 
power  has  so  often  produced  in  this  coun- 
try, should  they  carry  into  effect  their  pre- 
sent intentions  respecting  the  Roman  Catholic 
Body. 

We  have  already  seen  that  the  Church  of 
Jerusalem,  and  not  the  Church  of  Rome,  is  the 
Mother  of  all  particular  Churches,  that  is,  of 
the  Church  Universal :  and  as  it  might  claim 
to  be  Mistress  of  all  Churches,  on  the  very 
same  principle  as  that  set  up  for  the  supremacy 
of  the  Roman  Church ,  it  incontrovertibly 
follows,  that  the  Pope  is  not  the  Head  or 
Governor  of  Christ's  Church  universal.  Be- 
sides, it  was  laid  down  by  the  first  Councils 
of  JNice  and  Ephesus,  that  every  metropolitical 
Church  was  independent  from  the  other.  The 
ancient  British  and  Irish  Churches  too,  were 

independent,  as  appears  from  their  observance 

♦  See  Bp.  or  St.  David's  Second  Letter  to  his  clergy  on 


# 


OF   THE    POPE.  349 

of  Easter  being  different  from  that  kept  up  in 
the  Church  of  Rome ;  while  they  agreed  with 
the  Oriental  Churches  in  this  particular,  no  less 
than  in  their  f  rejection  of  the  Papal  Supremacy. 
It  is  unnecessary  to  add,  how  the  intruder's 
conduct  is  viewed  at  the  present  day  by  our 
own  national  Church, 

Thus  is  the  Supremacy  of  the  Pope  discar- 
ded by  every  authority,  ancient  and  modern.  I 
have  also  proved  that  it  is  antiscriptural ; — that  it 
is  not  borne  out  by  any  thing,  which  St.  Peter 
says  of  himself; — nor  by  any  thing,  which  St. 
Paul  says  of  him  ; — nor  by  any  superior  respect 

this  subject.  Blackstonf  says,  "  that  the  ancient  British 
Church  was  a  stranger  to  the  Bishop  of  Rome,  and  all  her 
])retended  authority." — Vol.  iv.  p.  105.  Alp.  Usher  proves 
to  conviction,  that  "  the  Pope  had  no  jurisdiction,  spiritual 
or  temporal,  in  Ireland,  before  the  twelfth  century." — Dis- 
course,  &c.  c.  viii.  p.  74. 

f  Bp.  Jewell,  speaking  of  the  Eastern  Patriarchs,  says 
that  ihey  will  not,  "  in  any  wise,  yield  to  his  authority,  nor 
give  any  manner  of  honour  or  reverence  to  his  person,  no 
more  than  to  Mahomet." — Defence  of  his  Apol.  p.  714.  Dr. 
Buchanan  shews,  that  the  same  feeling  exists  among  the  present 
race  of  Christians  in  India.  "  Whence  do  you  derive  your 
ordination?"  said  the  chaplains  of  the  Syrian  Bishop  to  him : 
"  From  Home.  You  derive  it  from  a  (.'hurch,  which  is  our 
ancient  enemy,  and  with  which  wc  never  would  unite." — 
Christian  Researches,  p.  \i\.  Mii.  I..  Fosteu  gives  farther 
confirmation  to  this  account,  as  he  has  "  heard  more  than  one 
Greek  Prelate  pronounce  the  Po|)«;  to  be  marly  as  great  a 
deceiver  as  Mahomet  himself" — Speech  on  the  II.  C.  Qucj.1. 
1813.  p.  32. 


350  THE    SUPREMACY    OF    THE    POPE. 

shewn  Saint  Peter  on  the  part  of  the  other 
Apostles  ; — nor  by  any  of  the  recorded  oc- 
currences of  St.  Peter's  life; — nor  by  any 
special  authority  delegated  to  him  by  our 
Saviour. 


351 


CHAPTER  XVI. 


TOLERATION. 


Doctor  Milner  has  devoted  the  longest  Let- 
ter in  his  End  of  Controversy,  to  the  subject 
of  religious  persecution,  and  appears  to  treat  of 
it  with  more  than  ordinary  satisfaction.  Fires, 
stakes,  faggots,  axes,  knives,  halters,  gibbets, 
racks,  and  tortures,  meet  the  eye  in  every  page. 
The  reformed  Churches  on  the  Continent,  and 
the  Protestant  Princes  of  the  English  Reforma- 
tion, with  those  highest  under  their  authority, 
alone  ai)plied  those  instruments  of  death,  im- 
pelled by  the  fiery  spirit  of  persecution,  and  an 
unmitigated  rancour  against  the  nnoffending 
membersof  the  Church  of  Rome:  while  he  never 
once  glances  at  the  intolerance  of  Charles  IX. 
and  Lewis  XIV.,  or  the  bloody  tribuiiul  of  the 
Duke  of  Alva!  When  speaking  of  (^ueen 
Elizabeth,  Ik  details  with  circumstantial  mi- 
nuteness, the  cruelties  she  indicted  *  "  on  two 
hundred  (Roman)  Catholics,  whom  she  got 
hanged,  drawn,  and  quarten'd,  for  the  mere 
exercise  of  tlu-  relit:;i<)ii  of  fhrir  ancestors:" — 

*  Lktter  xlix.  i>.  ISI 


352  TOLERATION. 

although  he  is  conscious  that  those  persons 
suffered,  not  because  of  their  belief  in  Popish 
doctrines,  but  because  their  zeal  to  restore 
Popery  led  them  to  rebel  against  her  govern- 
ment. But,  if  he  speaks  of  Queen  Mary  and 
her  partisans,  it  is  for  the  purpose  of  palliating 
the  faults  into  which  their  anxiety  about  the 
welfare  of  Christ's  Church  on  earth  betrayed 
them !  Over  the  disgusting  subject,  which  re- 
lates to  their  times,  I  willingly  draw  a  veil, 
while  I  ardently  wish,  that  so  much  of  this 
narrative  of  human  infirmity  and  wickedness, 
as  Doctor  Milner  has  detailed,  was  struck  out 
of  the  page  of  history ;  or,  at  least,  that  it 
should  never  re-appear  in  print.  As  we  have 
escaped  the  storm  of  persecution,  and  have  not 
witnessed  the  tremendous  trials  to  which  those, 
who  went  before  us,  were  exposed ;  we  should 
rather  cultivate  the  feelings  of  mutual  charity 
and  forbearance,  than  exasperate  each  other  by 
charge  and  recrimination.  Let  Doctor  Milner 
speak,  not  of  what  was,  but  what  is,  the  state 
of  the  Roman  Catholics  of  the  British  Empire; 
and  instead  of  dwelling  as  he  does,  on  irritating 
topics,  let  him  rather  bespeak  their  friendly 
•affections  on  the  part  of  the  British  Constitu- 
tion, and  laud  it  for  the  blessings  which  they 
now  enjoy  under  it.  This  is  what  would  be- 
come a  good  subject,  and  a  good  Christian. 
There  are  two  points,  and  two  only,  in  Doc- 


TOLERATION.  353 

tor  Milner's  letter  on  Persecution,  to  which  I 
shall  advert.  The  one  respects  what  he  calls 
the  "  unintelligible  Declaration  against  Po- 
pery," and  the  other,  the  "  impracticable  Test 
Act;"  by  both  of  which,  he  says,  the  exclu- 
sion of  Roman  Catholics  from  political  power 
is  effected. 

He  affirms,  that  we  rigidly  adhere  to  the  De- 
claration against  Popery,  under  the  groundless 
pretext  of  its  being  necessary  for  the  support  of 
the  established  Ciiurch,  although  it  be  undeni- 
able, *  "  that  that  Church  flourished  more  ])e- 
foi'e,  than  after  the  passing  of  that  law."  If 
we  only  consider  tlie  (precise  period,  at  which 
that  statute  was  called  into  existence,  we  shall 
have  reason  to  admire  the  wisdom  and  policy 
of  its  enactment.  Indeed,  were  it  not  for  the 
impregnalile  barrier,  which  it  reared  at  that 
time,  in  defence  of  our  established  Church,  we 
should  not  now  have  a  Church  to  defend. 
Every  <la}'s  ;|;experi(;nceproves,  that  neither  the 
tone,  nor  the  temper  of  the  Church  ol"  Uomc  to- 
wards   heretics    and    schismatics,    are  dillerenl 

*  Letteu  xlix.  J).  167.  I  -^0  Charles  II. 

\  The  rc!>it*taiice  given  l)y  Doctors  INIilner,  Coppiu^'cr,  and 
Murphy,  Friar  Hayc8,  Mr.  O'Comiel,  and  other  zealots,  to  the 
intercourse  with  Rome  Hill,  demonstrates  the  increased  neces- 
sity of  not  Pxi;osin}(  the  I'.st.ihhshed  Churcli  to  the  mildpcrsvti- 
ninns,  which  lhos(;  hbcr;il  chararlcr^  would  employ  in  its  ov<  i- 
throw. 

•1   A 


3d4  TOLERATION. 

now  from  what  tliey  were  in  the  sixteenth  cen- 
tury ;  witness,  the  deliberate  and  published  sen- 
timents of  Gregory  Martin,  Ward,  Chaloner, 
Walmsley,  Plowden,  Gandolphy,  and  though 
last,  not  the  least  violent,  of  Doctor  Milner 
himself,  respecting  the  Church  of  England. 
Do  not  those  writers  consider  our  Church  here- 
tical and  schismatical ;  our  authorized  version 
of  the  li\h\e  notoriously  *  corrupt  and  erroneous ; 
our  form  of  Consecration  and  Ordination  null- 
the  acts  of  our  Ministry  invalid^  and  ourselves 
doomed  to  inevitable  damnation?  May  I  not 
add,  that  the  present  Pope  himself  reprobates 
t "  intermarriages  with  heretics  as  sacrilegious^ 
criminal,  and  odious,"  and  points  out,  in  language 
not  to  be  mistaken,  those  meant  by  this  oppro- 
brious title?  Yet,  with  these  facts  staring  us  in 
the  face,  are  we  told,  that  we  continue  the  De- 

*  See  the  Letter  of  the  present  Pope,  as  published  in  the 
Dublin  Journal  of  October  IS,  1820. 

t  When  the  Pope  pronounces  an  union  of  Roman  Catholics 
with  heretics  detestable,  he  does  so  in  consequence  of  an  ab- 
horrence of  all  connexion  wilh  the  Church  to  which  they  be- 
long. "  Les  memes  lois,"  says  he,  "  qui  I'oiit  porte  a  defendre 
aux  Chretiens  de  se  marier  avec  les  infideles,  Tont  aussi 
determine  a  prohiber  les  noces  sacrileges  des  Catholiques  avec 
les  Itereliqucs.     Aussi  nous  devons  etre  amerement  affliges  .  .  . 

• de  trouver  des  Catholiques  epris   d'une  passion   si 

criminelle,  que  de  ne  pas  avoir  en  horreur,  et  de  ne  pas  se 
faire  un  devoir  de  s'abstenir  de  ces  delestables  Mnzona."— Re- 
lation de  ce  qui  s'est  passe  a  Rome,  vol.  ii.  p.  109. 


TOLERATION.  355 

rlaration   against   Popery    under  a  groundless 
pretext. 

As  the  die  is  not  yet  cast,  which  is  to  unset- 
tle the  existing  order  of  tilings,  I  would  respect- 
fully entreat  those  distinguished  advocates  for 
Popish  aggrandizement,  who  have  joined  Doc- 
tor Milner  in  denouncing  the  Parliamentary  De- 
claration against  Popery  as  unnecessarily  severe 
and  insulting;  to  consider,  that  every  argument 
which  (an  be  urged  against  it,  bears  with  greater 
force  against  the  very  formularies  of  our  Church. 
Thus,  if  it  be  compared  with  our  tuenlij- second 
and  Iwentij- eighth  Articles,  whicli  pronounce 
the  doctrines,  of  which  they  speak,  superstitious 
and  false,  and  as  being  "  repugnant  to  tiie  Word 
of  God  ;"or,  with  the  Homily  which  teaches,  that 
the  Invocation  of  Saints  is  gross  Idolatry,  "as 
well  inwardly  as  outwardly,  like  that  of  the 
Gentiles  ;*'  or,  with  the  Uuimic  annexed  to  the 
Communion  Service,  which  declares  the  doctrine 
of  Transubstantiation  to  be  false,  and  the  wor- 
ship of  the  Sacramental  bread  and  wine,  ido- 
latrous, and  lo  he  abhorred  of  all  faithful  Chris- 
tians'^  or,  witli  the  general  language  of  our 
Chuicli,  which  spraks  of  the  arrogance  aiul  /;/?- 
pieli/  of  the  Chui'ch  of  Rome,  no  less  tli:ui  of 
her  hlaspheuwus  f'(d>les  and  dangerous  deceits: 
we  shall  lind,  that  the  obnoxious  statute  is 
couched  in  language  hss  forcible,  and  less  sig- 
nificant  of   the   abominations   of  Popery,  than 

2  A  2 


ti-JO  TOLERATION. 

that  used  in  tliose  formularies.  Unless,  there- 
fore, our  Legislators  be  prepared  to  new-model 
then),  I  see  not  how  they  can  consistently  can- 
cel this  salutary  enactment. 

We  come  now  to  the  second  point — the  ex- 
clusion of  Roman  Catholics  from  political  power, 
which  Doctor  Milner  says,  is  enforced  under 
another  groundless  pretext  (viz.  the  Test  Act) 
of  being  essential  to  the  support  of  the  Esta- 
blished Church.  He  sets  out  with  assuming,  that 
exclusion  from  power  and  religious  persecution, 
are  one  and  the  same  thing.    But  no  two  things 
are  more  opposite  in  their  nature.    For,  *  perse- 
cution is  positive ;  while  exclusion  from  power  is 
negative  in  its  effects.  Persecution  interferes  with 
personal  liberty,  on  speculative  grounds;  while 
exclusion  from  power  is  consistent  with  Tole- 
ration in  the  most  extensive  sense  of  the  word. 
Persecution  is  the  offspring  of  intolerance;  while 
exclusion  from  power  is  the  dictate  of  nature's 
first  law,   that  of  self-protection.     Thus  it  is, 
that  Doctor  Milner  confounds  things  which  are 
totally  distinct.     It  is  thus,  that  Popish  writers 
have  always  confounded  them,  in  their  earnest- 
ness to  remove  those  Tests,  which  have  been 
enacted    for  the  stability  and   permanence   of 
the  Established  Church. 

1  can  readily  conceive  why   Doctor  Milner 

*  See  Preface. 


TOLERATION.  357 

pays  such  deference  to  Hume's  opinion  re- 
specting those  statutes  which  are  so  obnoxious 
to  him.  Prejudiced  as  that  writer  was  in  fa- 
vour of  the  House  of  Stuart,  and  indifPerent 
to  every  principle  of  religion  ;  it  was  natural  to 
expect,  that  he  would  represent  them  as  our 
greatest  national  disgrace.  But  it  is  beyond 
my  conjecture,  how  he  could  bring  himself  to 
do  Swift  such  palpable  injustice,  as  to  make 
him  appear  favourable  to  emancipation,  in  the 
Popish  sense  of  the  word,  and  to  ascribe  to  him 
language,  which,  i/heever  used  it,  was  spoken 
for  a  purpose  different  from  that  to  which  it  is 
applied. 

Doctor  Milner  makes  Swift  to  say,  *  *'  that 
an  incapacity  by  law  for  any  man  to  be  made  a 
judge,  or  a  colonel,  merely  on  a  point  of  con- 
science, is  a  negative  discouragement,  and  con- 
sequently a  real  persecution."  iNow,  there  were 
only  two  parties,  viz.  the  Presbyterian  and  lh«' 
Popish,  in  favour  of  one  or  other  of  wliich, 
Dean  Swift  could  have  thus  ex|)ressed  hiuisi-If, 
These  we  shall  examine  sc|)arat('ly,  and,  iIm  re- 
fore,  first  begin  with  llic  case  of  (lie  Presby- 
terians. 

That  lie  was  hostile  to  the  ;itt<iiipts  iiuuh'  in 
Ireland,   to  take  off   llie   Jest,   as  a  kind  i\\'  pre- 

*  Doctor  Milnrr's  rcfennci;  \«  to  vol.  vm.  p.  ,'»<»,  nl  SwifiV 
Works,  where  no  hucli  words  as  those  aitnltiited  to  ihal  author 
are  to  be  found,  at  least  not  in  NichoU's,  or  Scott's  editions. 


358  TOLKKATIUN. 

paratory  step,  to  make  it  j)alatable  in  England, 
may  be  collected  from  his  tract  entitled  the 
Presbyterian's  Plea  of  Merit.  In  this  he 
observes,  that,  *  "  if  once  their  light  (viz.  that 
of  the  Presbyterians)  would  so  shine,  the  Pa- 
pists, delighted  with  the  blaze,  would  all  come 
in  and  {lance  about  it."  Again,  when  bespeaks 
of  the  great  objection  of  the  Presbyterians, 
about  making  the  blessed  Sacrament  a  kind  of 
Test,  before  admittance  into  any  employment; 
(although,  by  the  way,  he  believes,  that  f  "  they 
would  scruple  it  as  little  as  a  long  grace  before 
and  after  a  good  dinner,  which  they  can  say 
without  bending  a  knee:")  yet  he  proposes,  that 
"  before  the  repeal  of  the  Test  Act,  one  equivalent 
to  it  may  be  substituted,  and  that  no  man  shall 
receive  any  employment  before  he  swears  him- 
self a  true  member  of  the  Church  of  Ireland,  in 
doctrine  and  discipline."  And,  lastly,  "  that 
if  the  gate  be  thrown  wide  open,  without  any 
Test  at  all,"  to  those  who  profess  "  an  utter  ha- 
tred to  kingly  government,"  the  consequence 
may  be  easily  foreseen.  It  is  hence  evident, 
that  Dean  Swift  did  not  use  the  words  as- 
cribed to  him  by  Doctor  Milner,  in  favour  of 
the  Presbyterians  ;  or  that,  if  he  did,  it  must 
have  been  in  his  usual  ironical  style. 

*  Swift's  Works,  Nichols's  edit.  vol.  viii.  p.  375. 
i    Ibid.  pp.  394,  ^j'db. 


TOLERATION.  359 

But  that  he  had  neither  Popery,  nor  its  pro- 
fessors at  heart,  can  also  be  abundantly  proved 
from  his  writings. 

As  to  Popery  in  general,  which  has  *  "  for 
a  thousand  years  past  been  introducing  and 
multiplying  corruptions  both  in  doctrine  and 
discipline,"  he  remarks,  *'  I  look  upon  it  as  the 
most  absurd  system   of  Christianity   professed 

by  any  nation and  that,  if  it  had  been 

thought  fit  to  abate  of  the  law's  rigour  against 
Popery  in  this  kingdom,  it  was  done  for  very 
wise  reasons."  In  another  place,  he  speaks  of 
the  wisdom  of  keeping  Popery  in  check,  and 
*'  thanked  God,  that  it  was  daily  growing  less 
and  less  by  the  just  severity  of  the  laws,  and 
the  utter  aversion  of  our  pcojdc  from  that  idola- 
trous superstition^  And  again,  he  expresses 
his  belief,  f  "  that  Presbytery  is  not  above  one 

third  as  bad  as  Popery that  there  is  no 

doubt,  that  Presbytery  and  a  commonwealth 
are  less  formidable  evils  than  Popery,  slavery, 
and  the  Pretender;  for,  if  the  fanatics  were  in 
power,  he  shouhl  be  in  niort'  apprclu'nsion  of 
being  starved,  than  burned."  But  it  is  unneces- 
sary to  trouble  tin;  reade-r  willi  ("ml her  jmooI"  of 
Swift's  feelings  Ixing,  not  <nily  not  favourable, 
but  dire(  tiy  iiostile  l<>  any  (he  least  encourage- 
ment being  extended  to  Popery.      Indeed,  were 

*  Idii).  i)|>.  388,  3S9.  I   Imu.  vol.  v,  pp.  88,  89. 


'^00  TOLERATION. 

he  now  alive,  and  to  get  the  credit  of  hiiiguage 
at  such  variance  with  his  real  sentiments,  as 
that  attributed  to  him  by  Doctor  Milner,  he 
would,  with  his  usual  point,  observe,  as  he  did 
on  a  similar  occasion,  when  he  was  set  down 
as  friendly  to  the  repeal  of  the  sacramental 
Test ;  *  "  that  it  was  his  misfortune  to  be  treated 
like  a  sober  ma7i  tvith  a  drmtken  face,  to  have 
the  SCANDAL  oj  the  vice  ivithout  the  satis- 
faction ! " 

*  Ibid.  vol.  x.  p.  761. 


361 


CHAPTER  XVII. 

POPISH,    OR    FALSE    MIRACLES. 

It  is  painful  to  think,  tliat  in  the  present  en- 
iightened  age,  a  gentleman  like  Doctor  Milner, 
who  displays  learning  in  almost  every  depart- 
ment of  science ;  who  possesses  experience,  in- 
telligence, and  taste ;  who  writes  well,  and  rea- 
sons acutely — should  be  so  besotted,  as  not  only 
to  believe  himself,  but  to  attempt  to  induce 
others  to  believe,  all  the  stupid  legends  of  the 
dark  ages,  and  the  modern  fabrications  of  the 
same  stamp.  Such  fatuity  would  be  a  miracle 
in  itself,  were  it  not  known  how  superstition 
debases  the  reason,  when  it  has  gained  the 
ascendant  over  the  mind. 

In  tlie  lett(;r,  which  he  has  devoted  to  the 
j^ubject  of  Miracles,  he  argues,  ***that  if  the 
Roman  Catholic  Church  were  not  the  ow/y  true 
Churcli,  God  would  not  have  given  any  attes- 
tation ill  its  favour."  Thus  h«'  (hriy^es  a  new 
proof  frr)in  false  Miracles,  of  I  he  Church  of 
Rom(;  being  the  only  true  Church.  Vov,  when 
once  a  strong  faith   admits  tin-  r«'ality  of  thoso 

*  liCtter  xxiii.  p.  72.  Sec  also  his  Lrttf.U!*  to  n  Prrbendary  ; 
Inquiry  into  certain  opinions,  &r.  &r. 


362  POPISH,  OR  falsi:  miracles. 

Miracles,  it  concludes  at  once,  that  as  none  but 
members  of  the  Church  of  Rome  can  perform 
them,  that  Church  must  be  the  07il^  true  Church. 
"  Having  demonstrated  the  distinctive,"  by  which 
he  means  the  exclusive  holiness  of  the  Roman 
Catholic  Church,  he  professes  himself  *  '*  pre- 
pared to  shew,  that  God  has  borne  testimony 
to  that  holiness,  by  the  many  and  incontestable 
Miracles  he  has  wrought  in  her  favour,  from  the 
age  of  the  Apostles  down  to  the  present  time." 
These  incontestable  miracles,  he  afterwards 
states  to  be  cures  of  a  miraculous  nature,  per- 
formed on  different  persons  ;  as  if  such  cures 
could  be  admitted  as  evidence  of  the  truth  of 
doctrines  entertained  by  the  persons  relieved; 
inasmuch  as  they  are  not  confined  to  the  Ro- 
mish Church,  but  are  found  in  communions  di- 
rectly opposed  to  each  other. 

Our  blessed  Lord  did  not  confine  the  power 
of  working  Miracles  to  himself,  or  to  his  own 
time.  If  he  promised  this  power  to  his  Apos- 
tles, he  confirmed  his  promise  in  their  respective 
persons.  It  is  no  where  said  in  Scripture,  that 
a  miraculous  event  should  not  take  place  out  of 
the  true  Church ;  and  if  it  be  not,  then  it  fol- 
lows, that  such  an  event  cannot  be  regarded  as 
a  proof  of  the  truth  of  any  particular  Church. 
This  t  St.  Paul  determines  to  be  the  case ;  for 

*  Ibid.  f  2  Thess.  ii.  7. 


POPISH,    OR    FALSE    MIRACLES.  363 

when  speaking  of  the  "  Mystery  of  Iniquity,*' 
he  says,  that  his  *  "coming  wouhl  be  after  the 
working  of  Satan,  with  all  powers  and  sigiis, 
and  lying  wondersT  In  fact.  Doctor  Mihier 
himself  seems  to  be  reserved  in  putting  in  too 
great  a  claim  to  supernatural  agency  in  favour 
of  the  Church  of  Rome;  when  he  admits  thai 
it  "  never  possessed  miraculous  powers,  so  as  to 
be  able  to  effect  cures,  or  other  supernatural 
events  at  her  mere  pleasure"  When  the  zeal  is 
so  great  as  to  discover  a  miracle  in  every  extra- 
ordinary event,  for  the  purpose  of  strengthening 
the  feeble  arguments  put  forward  in  favour  of 
the  exclusive  sanctity  of  the  Ronush  Church, 
the  number  of  miracles  said  to  exist  cannot  ex- 
cite surprise;  and  when  those  only,  who  are  in- 
terested in  pronouncing  such  events  miraculous, 
are  present  during  their  performance;  it  cannot 
much  promote  Doctor  Milner's  views,  were  all 
the  miracles  reported  to  have  been  wroughl 
since  the  age  of  the  Apostles,  conceded  to  his 
Church,  since  the  advantage  to  be  derived  from 
the  concession  is  only  such  as  any  otlur  Church 
would  disdainlnily  reject. 

He  begins  with  what  Ignatius  relates  about 
fhe  wihl  beasts,  which  were  let  loose  u])()n  the 
martyrs,  being  frecjiK'iitiy  restrained  by  a  <livine 
power  from    hurting    tin'm.     On    this   head,   n 

*  linn.  II.  9. 


:iC)4  POPISH,    OR    FALSE    MIRACLES. 

single  observation  will  suffice.  This  Father's 
words  are,  "  ne  sicut  in  aliis,  territce  sint  et  non 
COS  tetigenint,"  and  imply,  that  the  fierce  animals 
did  not  behave  as  in  ordinary  cases,  but  that 
being  terrified  at  the  sight  of  the  surrounding 
spectators,  they  refused  to  fight.  Ignatius  con- 
sidered the  occurrence  purely  accidental  and 
natural ;  otherwise,  he  would  have  given  the 
glory  to  God,  and  have  besought  him  not  to 
repress  their  fury.  And  as  to  the  *  Miracle 
which  deterred  the  Apostate  Julian  from  re- 
building the  Temple  of  Jerusalem,  it  must  of 
necessity  have  occurred ;  or  the  f  prophecy 
which  related  to  it  could  not  be  fulfilled.  In  its 
exact  completion,  I  perfectly  agree  with  Doctor 
Milner,  and  for  the  very  reason  assigned  by 
Gibbon  himself;  that  if  it  were  not  verified, 
J  "  the  Imperial  sophist  would  have  converted 
the  success  of  his  undertaking  into  a  specious 
(he  should  have  said  solid,)  argument,  against 
the  faith  of  prophecy,  and  the  truth  of  Reve- 
lation." But,  I  am  not  equally  disposed  to  ad- 
mit, that  there  were  other  as  extraordinary  mi- 
racles, beside  the  one  mentioned,  since  the 
Apostolic  age;  or  if  there  were,  that  they  were 
performed  for  the  purpose  alleged  by  him. 

*  Marcellinus,  a  contemporary  of  Julian,  aUests  the  fact  of 
fiery  eruptions  and  other  convulsions  of  nature  taking  place, 
when  the  Apostate  attennpted  to  rebuild  Jcrupalem. 

t  Daniel,  ix.  27.         |  Decline  and  Fall,  toI.  iv.  p.  104. 


POPISH,    OR    FALSE    MIRACLES.  365 

The  miracle  to  which  he  alludes,  as  having 
taken  place  at  Tipasa  in  Africa,  consisted  in 
this,  that  those  Christians,  whose  tongues  were 
cut  out  by  order  of  the  Arian  Hunneric,  in  the 
fifth   century,    were    enabled  to   speak   as  dis- 
tinctly as  they  did  before  this  barbarous  ope- 
ration was  performed.     It  is  true,  as  the  Doctor 
says,  that  some  learned  Protestants,  as  Abbadie 
and  Dodwell  have  admitted  this  miracle;  but 
he  is  far  from  correct,  when  he  sets  down  Mos- 
heim  as  its  advocate.     This  correct  writer  states 
the    circumstances   as   transmitted   to    him   by 
Procopius  and  others;  but  his  own  opinion,  he 
thus  ex[jresses  :  *  "  whether  it  is  to  be  attributed 
to  a  supernatural  and  miraculous  power  is  a 
matter  not  so  easily  decided,  and  which  admits 
of  viiick  dispute.'     His    able   Translator,    like- 
wise,  after  presenting   his  reader  with   a  clear 
and  concise  view  of  the  arguments  advanced  for 
and  against  the  miracle  by  Dodwell  and  Toll, 
seems  to  feel  the  smne  doubts,  which  IMosheim 
did,   about   its   existence.     According    to    him, 
Dodwell   considered   the  occasion  of  sullicient 
importance  to  n'fjiiirc  the  diviiu*  interposition; 
whih-  '^I'oll  niiiiiitained,  that  as  it  was  not  w  rought 
to    convert   intidcls    to    (.'hri^f iiinity,    biil    ;ij»j>a- 
rently    lor    tin-    pnrpoK(r    of   making    proselytes 
from  Arianism  to  the  Athanasian  i'aitii,  the  di 

•  MosH.  Ecct.  HiiT.  vol.  ii.  p.  63. 


.'](J(i  POPISH,    OH    FALSE    MIRACLES. 

vine  interposition  was  not  necessary.  Between 
tliese  conflicting-  opinions,  Maclaine  takes  a 
middle  course,  neither  denying  the  power  of 
God  on  the  one  hand,  nor,  on  the  other,  admit- 
ting the  necessity  of  its  exercise.  He  observes- 
that  the  case  of  the  two  who  remamed  dumb, 
(of  whom  it  should  be  remarked,  Doctor  Mil- 
ner  makes  no  mention)  "  furnishes  a  shrewd 
presumption,  that  all  did  not  equally  undergo 
the  same  operation."  When  I  say,  I  admit  the 
full  force  of  this  observation,  I  wish  to  be  un- 
derstood, not  as  arguing  against  the  possibility/ 
of  such  a  miracle  having  occurred ;  God  for- 
bid !  but  the  probability,  against  which  I  see 
such  strong  objections  to  exist.  But,  were  I  to 
acknowledge  the  miracle  to  the  fullest  extent  of 
Doctor  Milner's  wishes,  I  conceive  that  my  ad- 
mission would  be  more  prejudicial,  than  ser- 
viceable to  his  cause;  since  the  Church,  in 
whose  favour  the  miracle  is  reported  to  have 
been  performed,  is  rather  to  be  considered  the 
prototype  of  the  Church  of  England,  than  that 
of  the  Church  of  Rome. 

I  should  not  omit  to  mention,  that  the  scepti- 
cal Gibbon  relates  the  accounts  transmitted  to 
us  of  the  miracle  in  question  by  the  foremen- 
tioned  historians,  with  circumstantial  accura- 
cy; but,  in  such  a  way,  and  with  such  a  sneer 
against  the  Christians,  that  Doctor  Milner  can- 
not, in  the  next  Edition  of  his  Book,  consist- 


POPISH,    OR    FALSE    MIRACLES.  367 

ently  refer  to  the  authorities,  to  which  his  atten-- 
tion  has,  in  the  present  instance,  been  directed 
by  this  fascinating,  but  prejudiced  writer. 

There  still  remain  two  of  the  many  remarkable 
instances  of  supernatural  agency  spoken  of  by 
Doctor  Milner,  to  which  I  shall  now  advert. 
The  one  relates  to  St.  Augustine,  "  the  Apostle 
to  England,"  in  the  sixth,  and  the  other  to  St. 
Xavier,  the  Popish  missionary  to  the  Indies,  in 
the  sixteenth,  century.  The  question,  which 
relates  to  the  planting  and  propagation  of  Chris- 
tianity in  England  before  Augustine's  mission 
into  that  country,  and  the  independence  of  the 
British  Church  from  that  of  Rome,  is  happily 
set  at  rest  by  the  learned  labours  of  the  Bishop 
of  St.  David  s,  and  the  Rev.  Doctor  Hales. 
On  this  point,  therefore,  it  is  unnecessary  for 
me  to  enlarge  ;  but  I  would  ask  J>r.  Milner, 
whether  the  miracle  of  restoring  sight  to  the 
blind,  (which,  on  the  authority  of  Bede,  he  al- 
leges Augustine  to  have  wrought)  convinced 
the  British  Bishops;  or,  whether  they  did  in 
consequence  admit  the  jurisdiction  of  the  Bishop 
of  Rome?  VVi*  know  that  tln-y  did  not;  and 
that  tiiey  (.(lually  resist<-(l  tin;  threats  and  pro- 
mises of  liis  missionary. 

As  to  Xavier;  it  niiL;hl  hav<*  b«,'cn  expected 
that  tin-  I)(i(  tor  would  have  been  more  reserved 
in  ascribing  miraenloiis  powers  to  one,  who  lived 
-o  mu(  li   nearer  our  own  times,  than  to  those 


368  POPISH,    OR    lALSE    MIRACLES. 

of  more  distant  ages :  because,  the  means  of  de- 
tecting imposture  is  more  within  our  reach  in 
the  former,  than  in  the  latter  case ;  and  because, 
if  it  be  found,  that  recourse  has  been  had  to  fa- 
brication with  respect  to  accounts  of  modern  date, 
it  sinks  into  disrepute  those  of  earUer  origin. 

Of  Xavier's  miracles,  which.  Doctor  Milner 
says,  *  "  consisted  in  foretelling  future  events, 
speaking  unknown  languages,  calming  tempests 
at  sea,  and  raising  the  dead  to  life;"  t  Acosta,  a 
contemporary  writer,  a  Jesuit,  and  a  Missionary 
also,  makes  no  mention.  But  had  those  singu- 
lar occurrences  taken  place,  he  must  have  no- 
ticed them.  And,  with  respect  to  the  gift  of 
tongues,  which  is  ascribed  to  him  in  a  superna- 
tural degree,  it  is  certain  that  he  himself  deeply 
lamented  in  one  of  his  letters,  his  deficiency  in 
this  very  particular !  Now,  where  he  wanted 
a  requisite  which  would  have  been  so  essential 
to  the  cause  of  proselytism  among  the  pagans ; 
it  is  highly  improbable  that  his  saintship  should 
have  been  vested  with  any  other.  Indeed,  hi& 
simple  acknowledgment  on  this  one  point  throws 
discredit  on  the  other  marvellous  stories  told  of 
him.  But  Doctor  Milner  adds,  that  Xavier's 
miracles  "  were  verified  soon  after  the  saint's 
death  by  virtue  of  a  commission  from  John  III. 
King  of  Portugal."     Here  again,  the  silence  of 

*  Lr.TTf.R  xxiii.  p.  SI.        t  De  Procurandd  Indortim  salute. 


POPISH,    OR    FALSE    MIRACLES.  36^ 

Acosta  about  those  alleged  miracles  meets  him; 
and  not  only  this,  but  the  express  assertion  of 
this  writer,  that  no  miracles  whatever  were  per- 
formed in  India.  And,  as  Acosta's  account  was 
not  published  for  nearly  forty  years  after  Xavier's 
death,  it  is  evident  that  that  space  of  time  at  least 
elapsed,  before  his  miracles  were  thought  of. 
This  is  *  Bishop  Douglas's  opinion  on  the  sub- 
ject ;  and  although  Doctor  Milner  attempts  to 
invalidate  it  by  a  reference  to  Acosta's  work, 
yet  the  very  f  place  referred  to  establishes  its 
correctness.  That  writer  barely  says,  "  that 
great  signs  were  reported  of  Xavier  by  numerous 
and  credible  witnesses."  But  Dr.  M.  goes  iwr- 
ther,  since  he  says,  that  they  not  only  "  vie  in 

*  See  Criteuion  of  Miracles,  p.  84.  Doctor  Biicliai):in  tells 
of  his  havin<T  observed  to  the  Archbishop  of  Goa  "'  that  Xavier 
was  an  eminently  great  man;  but  that  what  others  have  writ- 
ten/or him  and  of  him  tarnished  his  fame,  by  makm{r  him  the 
inventor  of  fables.  To  which  the  chief  Inquisitor  candidly 
signified  his  assent."  .Sec  Christian  Researches,  p.  162.  Tliis 
anecdote  is  the  more  valuable,  both  as  it  records  the  admission 
of  a  Popish  ecclesiastic  of  liijjh  rank,  resident  on  the  very  thea- 
tre of  Xavier's  ministry,  and  consc()ucntly  ac(|Uainlfd  with 
every  act  of  his;  and  as  it  exhibits  the  liollow  pretensions  set 
up  for  this  saint  by  Doctor  Milncr,  on  the  score  of  miraculous 
agency. 

t  . .  .  .  "  quod  miraculorum  nulla  facultas  sit,  qutr  ApoitoH 
plurima  perprlrArunt." — Dt  Procur.,  &r.  L.  ii.  c.  S.  Mere 
Acosta  denies  that  the  missionaries  had  any  power;  but  ])oc- 
tor  M.'s  gloss  is,  "  that  they  only  had  not  the  same  fucHity  ati 
the  Apostles."  FA(i;i.TA9—/rtci7/(y,  secundum  Milner! — Sci- 
Lettlr  xxiv.  p.  9{). 

2   B 


S70  POIMSII,    OU    FALSE    MIRACLtS. 

number,  splendour,  and  publicity  with  the  mr- 
racles  of  St.  Bernard ;"  but  appear  to  equal 
those  of  our  Saviour  Himself! ! 

1  must  necessarily  pass  over  the  claims  to 
supernatural  agency,  put  forward  for  St.  Fran- 
cis of  Sales,  and  others,  whose  performances. 
Doctor  Milner  tells  us,  extended  even  to  the 
resurrection  of  the  dead;  because  they  rest,  at 
best,  but  on  doubtful  authority,  and  are  i\ot 
acknowledged  by  some  of  the  most  eminent 
writers  of  the  Popish  communion  !  But  the 
miracles  of  recent  date,  with  which  "  God  has 
illustrated  the  (Roman)  Catholic  Church,"  are 
beyond  all  suspicion;  inasmuch  as  those  which 
Doctor  Milner  did  not  witness  himself,  have 
*'  had  the  most  respectable  attestation"  to  their 
genuineness!  Those,  which  he  specifies  are 
the  cures  of  Joseph  Lamb,  *'  who  conceived 
that  the  spine  of  his  back  was  broken;"  of 
Mary  Wood,  who  had  received  "  a  desperate 
wound  in  her  hand ;"  and  of  Winifred  White, 
whose  disease  was  "  a  curvature  of  the  spine^ 
which  produced  a  hemiplegia,  or  palsy."  The 
circumstances  attendant  on  the  recovery  of 
those  persons  are  detailed  with  such  laboured 
minuteness,  and  are  in  themselves  so  marvel- 
lously ridiculous,  that  I  should  dismiss  the 
subject  as  beneath  serious  notice,  were  it  not 
for  the  importance  attached  to  it  by  Doctor 
Milner. 


POPISH,    OR    FALSE    MIRACLES.  371 

t 

Whether  we  consider  a  miracle  to  be  *  a  sus- 
pension of  the  laws  of  nature,  or  t  ^"  effect 
above  human  |)o\ver  to  produce,  in  attestation 
of  some  truth  ;  or  :[:  an  extraordinary  work,  in 
which  the  interposition  of  a  supernatural  power 
is  indisputable;  we  shall  not  tind  the  cases  re- 
ported by  Doctor  Milner  as  coming'  imder  any 
one  of  those  definitions.  In  them,  we  can  per- 
ceive no  alteration  in  the  course  of  nature  ;  no 
effect  above  human  means  to  accomplish ;  and 
no  evidence  of  a  divine  agency:  we  can  trace 
them  all  to  their  natural  causes.  With  resj)ect 
to  Joseph  Lmnh,  whom  Doctor  Milner  reports, 
from  actual  knowledge,  to  have  derived  relief 
from  the  [ij)plication  of  §  "  a  dead  maii^  hand" 

*  Locke.  f  Bentley.  \  Bishop  Douglas, 

§  The  wonderful  cures  reported  by  Doctor  Milner  to  have 
been  wrought  by  the  hand  of  Father  Arrowf>inilh,  find  a  pa- 
rallel in  those  performed  by  the  hands  and  arms  of  Oswald,  as 
recorded  by  William  of  ISIalmsbury.  This  historian  (see 
Sharp's  Transl.  p.  53.  London  edit.  ISlG.)  says,  "  that  those 
precious  relics  remain,  according  to  the  testimony  of  Bcde, 
through  the  power  of  Cod,  without  corruption."  It  must  be 
observed,  that  l'<  dc  flourished  within  less  than  one  century 
of  Oswald's  reign,  and/c/ur  centuries  before  William  of  Malms- 
bury  lived.  So  that,  taking  for  granted,  (hat  Hcde's  account 
of  Oswald's  handx,  &c.  being  without  cnrrvptirm  at  the  tiiuc  Jie 
wrote,  is  correct  ;  still,  the  nnraeleof  their  preservation  is  in- 
ferior to  that  related  by  Diictor  iMilner  (I.nrr.K  xxiii.  p.  HG.) 
respecting  Arrowsrnith's  hand,  which  is  "  j)reRervcd  to  ilii^ 
day  entire  at  Wigaii,"  after  a  lapse  of  nearly  two  cenlurie«'. 

2   K  2 


:572  I'Ol'ISH,    OR    FALSE    MIRACLES. 

(that  of  priest  Arrowsmith)  to  his  diseased 
l>ack  ;  what  more  can  be  said,  than  that  his 
iinai2:iMatioii  hud  been  so  povverfnlly  worked 
upon,  and  so  strongly  excited,  as  to  bring-  him 
relieC?  To  this  circumstance  his  cure  is  to 
l)e  attributed ;  there  being  no  evidence  by 
revelation,  tliat  it  was  brought  about  through 
divine  interposition,  and,  in  the  absence  of 
such  evidence,  we  camiot  go  beyond  bare  con- 
jecture, that  his  cure  was  miraculous,  were 
we  even  disposed  to  think  it  so.  The  power  of 
imagination,  in  the  cure  of  agues,  and  of  the 
evil  l)y  the  Royal  touch,  is  known  to  be  most  as- 
tonishing. The  *  fear  of  becoming  a  prisoner  to 
Marshal  Turenne,  suddenly  cured  an  Austrian 
general,  who  was  crippled  from  the  gout;  and 
Young,  the  tourist,  mentions,  that  the  terror  of 
falling  into  the  sea,  or  of  being  devoured  by 
birds  of  prey,  changed   the  '\  colour  of  a  per- 

*  Mead,  in  his  Medica  Sacra,  p.  70,  says,  subitus  terror 
multos  interemit. 

t  The  occurrence  took  place  in  the  county  of  Clare,  where 
a  lad  descended  an  eyry,  which  overhung  the  sea.  The  rope 
by  which  he  was  held  becoming  entangled,  caused  him  to 
despair  of  safety ;  and  before  it  was  disengaged,  the  extraor- 
dinary change  spoken  of  took  place. 

Should  I  omit  to  mention  the  surprising  effects  of  Haygarth'g 
metallic  tractors  on  rheumatic  affections,  or  the  no  less  sur- 
prising cures  performed  by  the  once  noted  Maineduc,  of  Cork  ? 
This  person  had  wound  up  public  credulity  to  such  a  pitch, 
that  the  patient,  who  submitted  to  his  treatment,  as  he  called  it. 


POPISH,  OR  FALSE  MIRACLES.      373 

son^s  hair  from  black  to  white,  within  the  few 
minutes,  durin«^  which  he  reckoned  on  death 
as  inevitable.  Here  are  instances,  not  merely 
of  the  power  of  the  imagination,  Imt  of  the 
violence  of  the  passions,  producing-  wonderful 
effects  on  the  human  frame.  Can  we,  therefore,* 
be  at  a  loss,  to  what  the  supposed  miraculous 
cure  of  Joseph  Lamb  is  to  be  attributed? 

As  to  the  cures  of  Mary  Wood  and  Winifred 
White,  which  Doctor  Milner  sets  down  as  mi- 
raculous, we  shall  find,  that  they  were  pro- 
duced by  the  regular  operations  of  nature;  and 
where  we  can  do  so,  reason  points  out  to  us 
this  general  rule,  that  we  should  never  ascribe 
any  event  to  miraculous  interposition. 

Of  the  former,  he  says,  *"  that  beiug  unable 
to  use  her  hand,  she  had  recourse  to  God, 
through  the  intercession  of  St.  Winifred,  by 
prayers  for  nine  days ;  that  siie  put  a  piece  of 
moss,  from  the  Saint's  well,  on  her  wounded 
arm,  continuing  recollected  and  praying;  when, 
to  her  great  surprise,  the  next  morning,  sh« 
found  \\cvinM perfectly  curctiy  Of  flu-  lalter,  (  he 

has,  when  placed  hy  him  m  a  certain  position,  from  no  <ithcr 
assignable  rau»c  than  the  mere  force  of  ima^^ination  and  an 
ardent  faith  in  the  powcrftof  ihf  operator,  derived  the  Nought- 
for  reli<r  The-  deiiision  sc»  in*,  lo  originale  in  this  circnm- 
»lancc,  that  where  there  cxistK  a  prcdiR()osition  to  helieve,  no 
impo&tiire  will  be  too  gross  to  be  swnlliiwrd. 

*   Lr.TTER  xxiii.    p.  *^^.  t   Ikih.   p.  S9. 


374      POPISH,  OR  FALSE  MIRACLES. 

remarks, "  that  her  disease  was  a  curvature  of  the 
spine;  that  this  produced  a  palsy  on  one  side, 
so  that  she  couhl  feebly  crawl,  and  that  having 
performed  certain  acts  of  devotion,  and  having 
bathed  in  the  fountain,  she,  in  one  instant  of 
time,  on  the  28th  of  June,  1805,  found  herself 
freed  from  all  her  pains  and  disabilities,  and 
was  enabled  to  cany  a  greater  weight  on  the 
arm  which  was  diseased,  than  on  the  other!" 

In  the  first  place,  then,  the  waters  of  *  St. 
Winifred's  well  in  Flintshire,  to  which  Doctor 
Milner  alludes,  have  been  discovered  to  possess 
medicinal  properties  of  the  highest  degree. 
"Their  green  and  sweet  scented  moss,"  says 
t  Doctor  Linden,  "is  frequently  applied  to  w/- 
cerated  wounds,  with  signal  success."  This  he 
ascribes  to  "  a  vegetating  spirit  in  the  water, 
which  is  clear  of  all  gross  earth  and  mineral 
contents."  Hence,  we  may  perceive,  that  had 
that  physician  lived  to  see  the  cure  of  Mary 
Wood's  arm,  he  would  have  said,  that  the  ap- 
plication of  the  moss  to  the  wound  was  attended 

*  The  author  of  Columbani;s  denies  the  existence  of  such  a 
Saint  as  St.  Winifred,  and  observes,  "that  the  monks  of  Holy- 
well applied  in  1380  to  Gilbert  de  Stone,  to  write  the  Life  of 
St.  Winifred.  Stone  asked  for  materials,  which  could  not  be 
procured.  No  matter,  said  he,  I  shall  compose  her  life  without 
qaaterials  !" — See  Letter  iii.  p.  79,  and  Warton's  Hist,  of  Eng. 
Poetry,  vol.  ii.  for  a  further  account  of  this  imaginary  saint. 

t  Linden  on  Chalybeate  Waters,  Lond.  1748,  p.  126. 


POPISH,    OK    FALSE    MIRACLES. 


375 


with  signal  success,  but  would  never  have  pro- 
nounced the  cure  itself  miraculous. 

Again,  when  Doctor  Linden  speaks  of  those 
waters  being  "  a  most  powerful  cold  bath  of  the 
first  rank,  having  in  their  favour  a  variety  of  au- 
thentic cures,  worked  upon  the  most  stubborn 
and  malignant  diseases  ;  such  as  leprosy,  weak- 
ness of  nerves,  Sec.  &c."  does  he  not  enable  us  to 
account  for  the  recovery  of  Winifred  White  also 
on  natural  principles?  In  her  case,  we  see 
everj"^  thing  proceed  according  to  the  established 
laws  of  nature.  We  see  a  relaxed  frame  re- 
lieved, and  finally  cured  by  an  immersion  in 
cold  water ;  whence,  we  may  reasonably  ascribe 
the  recovery  of  the  patient,  (which  Doctor  Mil- 
ner  says,  was  eflected  in  one  instant  of  time, 
that  is,  viiracnlously)  to  the  suddeimess  and  vi- 
olence of  the  shock  on  her  frame.  He  remarks, 
it  is  true,  that  the  physicians  gave  "  no  hope  of 
a  perfect  cure"  in  either  case.  But  will  it  be 
said,  because  the  diseases  baHled  their  skill, 
that  they  were,  therefore,  beyond  reuicdy?  If 
so,  the  argument  will  stand  thus.  Th«;  diseases 
were  incurable,  but  they  were  inslanlatieimsly 
removed  ;  therefore,  the  cures  were  supernatural! 
Or,  to  put  the  argument  in  riiiotli<  r  form,  the 
cure  was  deenH;d  imj)ossible;  but  it  was  cU'ected 
**m  one  instant  of  time  ;'  therefore,  it  was  ?/i;ra. 
culous.     Again,  "  Winifred  \\  liite  had  recourse 


S76  POPISH,  OR  FALSE  MIRACLES. 

to  God, through  St.  Winifred  by  a  *Novena ;"  but 
she  had  a  stronu:  faith  iu  the  Saint's  intercession  ; 
therefore,  St.  Winifred  effected  her  cure!  He 
must  be  an  expert  logician,  that  could  discover 
the  connexion  between  the  conclusion  and  the 
premises.  Such  is  Doctor  Milner's  reasoning 
on  the  point,  which  if  it  be  not  the  most  logical, 
will,  at  least,  be  allowed  the  merit  of  novelty. 

But,  further,  Doctor  Milner  seems  to  have 
forgotten,  in  1819,  what  he  admitted  in  1805, 
when  he  published  his  observations  on  Winifred 
White's  cure  ;  namely,  that  she  remained  a  fort- 
night at  Holywell,  to  bathe  by  the  advice  of  her 
friends.  This  single  circumstance  throws  discre- 
dit on  the  reputed  miracle;  inasmuch  as  it  shews 
their  apprehensions  of  a  relapse,  which  they 
would  not  have  entertained,  were  they  satisfied 
of  her  perfect  restoration  to  health.  We  may  be- 
sides collect  from  Doctor  Milner's  account,  that 
she  was  grossly  superstitious  ;  when  he  speaks 
of  her  setting  out  for  Holywell,  ■\ "  with  an 
humble  confidence,  that  God  was  both  a^/eand 
willing  to  work  a  miracle  in  her  behalf."  On 
her  arrival  there,  we  perceive  her  mind,  which 
was  prepared  for  this  event,  enlivened  to  the 

*  Certain  prayers  continued  during  nine  days.  See  Doc- 
tor Milner's  Authentic  Documents  relative  to  the  cure  of  W. 
White,  of  Wolverhannpton,  &c.  p.  34. 

t  IniD. 


POPISH,    Oil    FALSE    MIRACLES.  377 

greatest  degree.  She  goes  through  her  stated 
rounds  of  devotion.  She  sees,  or  thinks  she 
sees,  her  malady  all  but  removed.  As  those,  who 
associate  spectres  with  darkness,  are  said  never 
to  be  disappointed  in  their  ajipearance;  so  it  is 
with  such  as  look  for  a  miracle.  We  can  easily 
conceive,  therefore,  what  her  imagination,  exci- 
ted as  it  was  by  superstition,  cherished  by  igno- 
rance, and  stimulated  by  her  spiritual  direc- 
tors, was  capable  of  effecting  on  her  enfeebled 
frame. 

And  lastly,  when  Doctor  Milner  confidently 
declares,  that  Winifred  ^^  bite's  cure  is  superna- 
tural, his  decision  is  grounded  on  the  .strength 
and  accuracy  of  his  own  judgment,  in  oppo- 
sition to  an  liijunclion  of  the  Council  of  'I'rent, 
which  desires,  *  "  that  liishops  shall  7iot  decide 
without  calling  a  Council  of  the  Clergy  to  de- 
termine, whether  the  supposed  miracles  might 
not  be  the  effect  of  natural  causes."  This  col- 
lision between  his  dictum,  and  llic  riilo  |)re- 
scribed  by  the  Council,  I  uk  rely  allude  (<»,  for 
the  purpose  of  shewing  how  authoritatively  he 
pronounces  an  opinion,  to  which  the  members  of 
his  own  CommiHiion  are  in  no  respect  bound  to 
defer. 

We   may    further   observe,    that    both    Mary 
Wood   and    W.    White,    were   j)ers()ns   of  livel\ 

*  Ses.s.  XXV.  Df  Jnvoc.  SS. 


378  POPISH,    OR    FALSE    MIRACLES. 

imaginations,  and  had  wrought  themselves  into 
a  firm  persuasion,  that  by  praying  to  the  tutelary 
Saint  of  the  Well,  their  diseases  would  be  re- 
moved ;   and  moreover,  that  their  ])rayers  had 
consequently  excited  in  them  a  degree  of  en- 
thusiasm.     When,  therefore,   we  connect  with 
those  circumstances  the  medicinal  qualities  of 
the  waters,   we  should   not  be  surprised,  that 
nature  should  be  restored  to  its  proper  tone. 
The  story  of  Madame  de  la  Fosse's  recovery, 
as  told  by  Bishop  Douglas,  strongly  resembles 
those  related  by  Doctor  Milner.     Being  a  per- 
son of  a   warm,   fanciful    temper,   her   prayers 
produced    in    her,    says   tlie    Bishop,    *  "  such 
phrenzy  as  that  of  a  lunatic,  or  the  wildness  of 
a  drunkard,  so  as  to  cause  such  a  contraction 
of  her  blood-vessels,  as  led  to  her  cure."     He 
further    adds,    that    '*  the   accelerated    motions 
communicated  to  the  nervous  system   by  sur- 
prise and  joy  have  removed  the  most  obstinate 
maladies."    As  therefore,  there  can  be  no  reason 
for  doubting,  that  those  excited  in  Doctor  Mil- 
ner s  patients  by  the  warmth  of  their  devotion, 
might  not,  with  other  co-operating  causes,  such 
as  the  application  of  the  moss,  and  the  use  of 
the  cold  bath,  produce  their  respective  cures 
also ;  we  can  feel  no  hesitation  in  pronouncing 
what  he  attempts  to  palm  on  the  public  as  "  evi- 

*  Criterion  of  Miracles,  p.  232. 


POPISH,  OR  FALSE  MIRACLES.      370 

dent  miracles,"  to  be,  at  best,  but  surprising 
cures,  brought  about  by  natural  causes. 

The  miraculous  restoration  of  speech  to  a 
person  at  Killesandra,  in  the  Diocese  of  Kil- 
more,  through  the  agency  of  his  parish  Priest, 
is  so  worthy  of  being  associated  with  Doctor 
Milner's  miracles,  that  I  cannot  forbear  calling 
the  reader's  attention  to  it.  While  we  admire 
the  address  of  the  impostor,  in  duping  his  su- 
perstitious neighbours,  and  of  the  Priest,  who 
affected  to  exercise  a  supernatural  power  on  the 
occasion ;  we  cannot  but  applaud  the  talent, 
with  whicli  the  cheat  and  the  artifices  of  its 
contrivers  have  been  exposed.  Tiie  7no(Ius  ope- 
randi adopted  by  the  Priest  is  not  a  little  cu- 
rious. He  first  *  "  read  some  prayers  over  the 
dumb  man,  and  next  gave  him  holy  water  to  sup 
three  times;  on  swallowing  which,  he  found 
something  stirring  in  his  stomach,  whicli  ascen- 
ded by  his  throat,  (risum  teneatis  ?)  and  he  in- 
stantly spoke!!"  It  is  scarcely  necessary  to 
add,  that  the  man  evinced  his  gratitude  to  his 
benefactor  by  ceasing  to  be  a  Iicretic,  and  adop- 
ting the  creed  of  his  I*opish  wife. 

Doctor  Milner  may,  if  he  please,  add  to  (his 

*  Sec  Inuciuy  iiilo  llic  r<|)orlt(l  miraculous  curt-  of  Matthew 
Breslin,  by  tlic  lU.v.  John  Cotsiss,  Curate  to  the  Hev.  Doctor 
Hales,  with  tlie  aflidavils  of  credible  witnenstu  aiincxctl,  that 
Brcslin  spoke  within  the  five  days,  during  which,  il  was  said, 
he  had  losl  the  faculty  of  speech. 


380  POPISH,    OK    FALSE    MIRACLES. 

his  other  divine  attestations  in  favour  of  the  ex- 
clusive hohness  of  the  Church  of  Rome;  but 
let  him  recollect,  that  by  giving  currency  to  this 
and  similar  delusions,  he  does  a  greater  injury 
to  the  frish  people,  than  any  they  sustain  by 
the  want  of  education  ;  because,  he  obstructs, 
to  the  degree  his  influence  extends,  the  growth 
of  vital  piety  and  religion,  and  contributes  to 
perpetuate  among  them  ignorance,  superstition, 
and  error. 


;jai 


CHAPTER  XVIII. 

PRAYERS    IN    AN    UNKNOWN    TONGUE. 

Notwithstanding  the  express  opinion  which 
*  St  Paul  has  pronounced  in  conclenuiation  of 
the  practice  of  praying-  in  an  unknown  tongue, 
and  at  a  time  too,  when,  in  consequence  of 
the  miraculous  gift  of  tongues,  men  prayed  in 
strange  languages  ])y  inspiration ;  Doctor  Mil- 
ner  alleges  Ids  authority  for  this  very  j)ractice 
in  the  Church  of  Rome;  for,  that  he  addressed 
an  Epistle,  which  forms  part  of  tiu-  liturgy  of 
all  Christian  churches,  to  the  Romans,  fin 
the  Greek  language,  although  they  themselves 
made  use  of  the  Latin."  As  it  appears  to  me^ 
there  is  no  analogy  whatever  hetween  the  two 
cases;  between  St.  Paul's  addressing  a  Church 
in  a  language  generally  known  at  that  time, 
and  the  Clergy  of  that  Church,  after  a  lapse 
of  many  centuries,  praying  in  a  language  not 
to  the  edification  of  th(^  peoph-.  \\\\\  Ixsides, 
his  argument  proves  too  much;  for,  if  the  I'2pis- 
tle  to  the  Romans  justify  the  use  nf  a  strange 
tongue   in    the   Roman  Catholic  Church   at  the 

*    1  Cor.  xiv.  +   l.KTTKu  xlvii.  y.  \V.). 


382  PRAYERS    IN 

present  day,  it  would  follow,  that  the' service 
intended  for  the  use  of  that  Church  should 
have  been  drawn  up  in  Greek,  as  soon  after 
the  period  in  which  the  Epistle  was  written,  as 
Liturgical  Offices  were  composed,  although  not 
understood  by  the  people.  Or,  as  that  Epistle 
was  written  to  the  Roman  Church  when  Latin 
was  the  vernacular  tongue  of  the  western  world, 
by  parity  of  reasoning,  whenever  that  language 
ea  sed  to  exist,  the  praying  in  it  should  have 
ceased  also.  The  similitude,  therefore,  does 
not  hold. 

Had  the  Roman  Pontiffs  allowed  divine  wor- 
ship to  be  celebrated  in  the  language  known  to 
the  people,  when  the  decline  of  the  Roman 
Empire  had  brought  on  the  extinction  of  the 
Latin  language,  and  had  not  been  influenced 
by  a  superstitious  veneration  for  it,  because  it 
Lore  the  stamp  of  antiquity;  or  by  other  mo- 
tives less  worthy :  they  would  not  have  incurred 
the  Apostolic  censure.  What  St.  Paul  says  on 
the  subject  to  the  Corinthians,  is  so  pointedly 
directed  against  the  usage  of  the  Popish 
Church,  that  it  is  surprising  how  Doctor  Milner 
could  have  imagined,  that  the  circumstance  al- 
ready stated  afforded  it  a  sanction.  We  should 
recollect,  that  the  Corinthian  Church  princi- 
pally consisted  oi  Jews,  and  that,  although  the 
service  was  divided  between  two  or  three  offi- 
ciating ministers  ;  they  still  retained    the   use 


AN     UNKNOWN    TONGUE.  383 

of  the  Hebrew,  to  which  they  were  familiarized. 
To  this  St.  Paul  does  not  object,  provided  an 
mXej:\n'eiev  be  present.  The  Apostle  thus  rea- 
sons : — *  "  If,  then,  I  know  not  the  virtue  of 
the  voice,  I  shall  be  to  him  to  whom  I  speak, 
barbarous  ;  and  he  that  speaketh,  barbarous  to 
me.  But,  if  thou  bless  in  the  spirit,  he  that 
supplieth  the  place  of  the  vulgar,  how  shall  he 
say  Amen  upon  thy  blessing,  because  he  know- 
eth  not  what  thou  sayest?'  From  this  passage, 
indeed,  as  well  as  from  the  whole  of  the  chap- 
ter in  which  it  occurs,  it  may  be  collected,  that 
the  Corinthian  Church  had  fallen  into  the  prac- 
tice of  the  Jewish  synagogue;  in  short,  that  it 
had  tjiMfZaecef/ in  this  particular,  and  had  there- 
fore excited  the  Apostle's  displeasure. 

Doctor  iNIilner  grounds  a  second  argument  in 

•  Rhemish  Version,  1  Cor.  xiv.  11,  16.  In  conformity  wiili 
this  reasoning,  St.  Paul  is  said  (Acts,  xxi.  40.)  to  have  addressed 
the  Jews  of  Jerusalem,  tr  'L^^uiSt  3i«Xi>tTw. 

t  LicHTFOOT,  in  his  Hor<E  Ilebraica;,  observes,  "  Quamvrs 
autem  tarn  utilis  forct  lintjuoe  Hebra-a:  ugus  apud  lios  niinistros, 

crat  tanifcu  tt  abuxxu  aliquis  <jucm  caatii^ut  Aj>ostolu9 

buspicor  eos  in  hAc  rtjudaizassc  attjue  usuni  lingua;  Ilebrsea, 
quamvis  vul;^o  ignotce,  in  l'".cclesi4  retinuisse,  consucludnicni 
MfiuutoH  Synaqoffcc." — Vol.  ii.  p.  *)1S,  in  Epist.  1  ad  Corin. 
The  same  author  again  says,  "  Memini  magnam  partem  Eo- 
ctesiee  Corinlhiaca*  coiutitiise  ex  Juditis,  non  possum  non  %\\»- 

picari   ct  ininistros  eorum  c4«lcm  lingui  u»o» <juam 

rem  nuidcm  tolerat  Apostolus,  viodo  aUsit  Interpies,  uli  ttiam 
111  Synagogis  est  factum." — Ibid.   p.  9\\h 


384  PRAYERS    IN 

favour  of  the  Popish  practice,  on  the  attendance 
of  Christ  at  the  Jewish  service  in  the  Temple, 
and  ill  the  Synagogue.  He  says,  *  "  that  al- 
though that  service  was  performed  in  a  language 
which  the  vulgar  did  not  understand,  yet  that 
our  Saviour  never  censiired  it."  But  this  argu- 
ment is  of  the  same  description  as  that  derived 
from  the  Epistle  to  the  Romans,  having  been 
written  in  Greek.  It  is  true,  that  Christ,  but  with 
different  motives  from  those  of  approbation  or 
disapprobation  of  what  was  going  forward, 
joined  with  the  Jews  in  their  religious  worship, 
being  that  in  which  he  was  bred  up.  For  f  St. 
Luke  tells  us,  that  our  Lord  read  to  the  people 
part  of  Esaias,  which  was  prophetic  of  himself; 
and  that  after  preaching  to  them,  "  the  eyes  of 
all  them  in  the  Synagogue  were  fastened  on 
him  ;"  and  "  that  all  bare  him  witness."  Now, 
how  could  they  have  done  so,  or  have  "  won- 
dered at  the  gracious  words  which  proceeded 
out  of  his  mouth  -^  had  they  been  unacquainted 
with  the  language  in  which  he  spoke  ?  And  if, 
on  the  sabbath  days,  "  they  were  astonished  at 
his  doctrine  ;"  we  must  equally  conclude,  that 
he  addressed  them  in  the  language,  which  they 
understood. 

On  referring  to  :j:  Basnage's  continuation  of 

*  Letter  xlvii.  p.  149.  f  IV.  17,  22,  32. 

\  Book  v.  p.  456. 


AN    UNKNOWN    TONGUE.  ,'J85 

Josephus,  we  may  perceive  the  foundation  of 
Doctor  Milner's  argument  laid  in  a  conjecture 
of  Voisin  ;  but  which  that  author  does  not  sup- 
port. *  "  They  pride  tliemselves,"  says  he,  "  at 
Rome,  in  the  conformity  of  this  Churcli  with 
the  Synagogue,  about  the  Jews  praying  in  a 
strange  tongue;  for  as  they  perform  their  ser- 
vice in  Latin,  by  order  of  the  Pope,  the  Jews 
make  their  prayers  in  Uebrcir,  which  is  the 
language  of  the  great  Sanhedrim."  But  Bas- 
nage  remarks,  that  this  conformity  is  quite  clii- 
merical,  as  the  Jews  neitlier  performed  tlieir 
service  in  an  mtknoicn  tongue;  nor  was  tliere 
a  decree  of  the  Saidiedrim  to  tliat  effect.  He 
admits,  no  doubt,  *'  that  they  do  not  all  under- 
stand Hel)re\v,  but  they  have  forms  of  prayer  in 
the  language  they  understand.  There  needs  but 
little  use  and  custom  to  prevent  being  mistaken, 
and  to  answer  Amen  with  nnderstandhig'  as  St. 
Paul  recpjires."  He  afterwards  adds,  (hat  th(> 
Hebrew  language  was  not  extinct,  "  since  the 
Jews,  at  this  day,  write  their  Itdoks  and  con- 
traets,  and  journals,  in  the  language  of  the 
llabbies,  and  that  those  of  the  .Morea  wsv  il 
generally  f<»r  every  thing."  It  is  therefore  evi- 
tlent,  to  (hiuonstration,  lli;it  Doclor  Milnei 
overstrains  Hie  parallel,   whi<  h  lie  institutis  be. 

*  N'oiMN  —  I'u^jiia  li'!<  I,  I'.  I"^<. 


38(5  PRAYERS    IN 

tween  the  Jewish  and  Romish  Churches,  so  far 
as  their  respective  Liturgies  are  concerned.      ♦ 

Besides,  he  is  aware,  that  portions  of  the 
Scripture  were  read  to  the  people  in  the  Syna- 
gogue from  the  Hebrew  Bible  ;  that  these  were 
afterwards  expounded  to  them  *  verse  by  verse, 
in  the  language  which  they  understood ;  that  the 
attention  of  Ezra  and  Nehemiah  was  specially 
directed  to  this  point;  that  the  Levites  f  "gave 
the  sense,  and  caused  them  to  understand  the 
reading ;"  and,  that  if  from  the  length  of  their 
captivity,  they  nearly  lost  the  knowledge  of  the 
Hebrew,  and  acquired  the  Chaldee;  yet,  that  this 
was  rather  a  variation  of,  than  a  different  lan- 
guage from  the  other.  Every  thing  that  was 
done,  had  a  reference  to  the  instruction  of  the 
people.  Is  it,  therefore,  natural  to  suppose,  that 
when  such  pains  were  taken  to  make  them  ac- 
quainted with  the  Scriptures,  that  they  should 
be  left  in  utter  ignorance  about  the  meaning  of 
their  prayers? 

JLightfoot  tells  us,  that  "every  Synagogue 
had  its  own  interpreter  to  translate  into  the  ver- 

*  "Nee  licet  lectori  praeire  interpreti  plures  versus  quam 
unum" — VixniNGA.  de  Synagoga  vetere,  cap.  xii.  p.  1019. 

t  Nehemiah,  viii.  8. 

+  "  Unaquaique  Synagoga  interpretetn  saum  sortita  est, 
qui  iu  vernaculam  linguam  redderet  qusecunque  ex  lege  aeu 
propbetis,  secundum  autographa,  periegi  solebant." — Vol.  ii. 
p.  135. 


AN    UNKNOWN    TONGUE.  387 

nacular  language,  whatever  was  usually  read 
from  the  law,  or  the  prophets,  according  to  the 
autogi-aphs."  Besides,  the  elders  required  every 
man  to  have  the  original  Scriptures  as  well  as 
the  Targums,  which  would  enable  him  to  under- 
stand them.  But  he  is  equally  satisfactory  on 
the  subject  of  their  prayers,  when  he  says, 
"that  they  were  composed  in  the  Chaldee  lan- 
guage, *  that  all  might  understand."  And 
fPrideaux  informs  us,  that  ihc  Prayers  of  Ezra, 
which  eveiy  age  and  sex  were  required  to  :{: re- 
peat three  times  a  day,  were  deemed  a  "  funda- 
mental and  principal  part  of  their  Oflices.  But, 
if  we  refer  to  the  testimony  of  ||  Nehemiah  him- 
self, our  doubts  must  vanish ;  for  the  Levites, 
according  to  him,  used  to  cry  out  with  a  loud 
voice,  "  stand  up  and  bless  the  Lord  your  God 
for  ever  and  ever.'  This  single  circumstance 
J  shews,  that  the  people  knew  both  tlu-  forms  of 
1  prayer  and  the  language  in  which  they  were  re- 
quired to  bless;  while  it  rationally  accounts  for 
the  passivene«ss  of  our  Saviour  on  the  occasion. 
Indeed,  were  this  not  the  case,  were  no  inter- 

*  "  Ut  omiies  intcUigercnt." — Iniu.  p.  9lV.  Sec  aUo  Pni- 
vzwx,  ut  supra. 

f  Vol.  ii.  part  li.  p.  411. 

X  "  Every  private  person  amonfj  the  Jcw»,"  >nyH  Basfinj^e, 

"  ii  obliged  to  repeat  a  hundred  hcncdictions  a  day." — Hi»t.  »>I 

the  .Tews,  hook  v.  p.  454. 

II  IX.  h. 

2  (   2 


3BB  PRAYERS    IN 

preter  to  explain,  and  no  instruction  imparted; 
were  there  nothing  but  idle  shew  accompanied 
with  unintelligible  sounds,  as  in  the  Church 
of  Rome  at  the  present  day  ;  instead  of  a  tacit 
acquiescence  in  what  took  place  in  the  Temple 
and  the  Synagogue;  there  can  be  no  doubt, 
but  that  our  Lord  would  have  been  more  deci- 
ded in  his  condemnation  of  it,  than  St.  Paul  af- 
terwards was  in  the  case  of  the  Corinthian 
Christians. 

1  therefore  conclude,  that  no  plea  is  reserved 
to  Doctor  Milner  for  justifying  the  custom 
which  prevails  in  the  Romish  service.  Had  the 
Apostles,  indeed,  been  influenced  by  such  a  de- 
sire as  he  seems  to  have,  of  praying  in  a  tongue 
not  to  the  edification  of  the  people,  and  had 
they  accordingly  adopted  either  the  old  or  new 
Hebrew  in  their  forms  of  prayer,  then,  indeed, 
the  resemblance  would  have  been  most  marked  ; 
but  as  the  matter  stands,  there  is  none  whatever. 

We  find  Origen,  in  the  third  century,  ob- 
serving, that  every  person  prays  to  God  in  his 
own  tongue ;  * "  that  the  Greeks  used  the 
Greek,  and  the  Romans,  the  Roman  language, 
in  their  prayers."  The  f  history  of  the  sixth 
century  tells  us,  that  when  some  of  the  super- 

*  Elf  Tat5  eup^ai?  o»  f^i>  t'Khnni;  EAAHNIKOIS  ^^uvyon,  ot  is 
fw^atot  PilMAlKOlS. — Orig.  cotitra  Cels.  Lib.  viii.  p.  402. 

t  See  Bingham's  Antiquities,  Book  xiii.  chap.  iv.  p.  580. 
Also,  BtKNET,  Art.  xxiv. 


AN    UNKNOWN    TONGUE.  389 

stitious  Jews  wished  the  Law  to  be  read  only 
in  the  Hebrew,  then  not  understood  hy  tl\e 
people;  while  others  contended  for  its  being 
read  in  Greek,  or  in  any  other  language  kiiotcfi 
to  them,  the  wise  Justinian  decided  in  favour 
of  the  latter,  and  thus  at  once  checked  the  in- 
novation as  soon  as  it  was  perceived  to  be 
gaining  ground  in  the  Jewish  synagogue.  At 
that  period  the  Christian  Church  was  free  from 
this  corruption.  So  late  as  the  seventeenth  cen- 
tury, the  state  of  the  Jews  in  Barbary,  no  less 
than  their  customs,  secular  and  religious,  is  mi- 
nutely detailed  by  Doctor  Addison.  *  "Those," 
he  remarks,  '*  which  cannot  read  the  service  in 
the  Hebrew,  who  are  but  Jew,  arc  bound  when 
to  learn  to  say  Amen."  And,  if  we  look  to 
the  existing  custom  of  even  tlm  Romish  ciiurches 
in  the  province  of  Madura,  we  shall  iun\,  that 
f  *'  the  priest  reads  the  Si/rian  mass,  instead  of 
the  Latin,  which  he  does  tiol  understuudy 

Doctor  Milners  ////;y/ argument  is,  "  tliat  tin- 
Greek  churches,  like  the  J^atin,  retain  tlicir 
original  (ircek  in  tli<  ir  Liturgy,  although  tlM" 
comuHJU  people  liav(,'  forgotten  it."  ^^  lieti  Ik 
referred  to  },  Mo>lieiiii,  lur  ilie  usages  ol'  llie 
Eastern  (christians,  lie  .^lioiiid  in  candour,  have 
prefaced  his  reference  willi  the  severe  censure 

*   IjOndoi)  rdit.  IfiTG. 

t    Pi:ar»on's  Memoirs  of  DocTon  Hue  iunan,  vol.  ii.  p.  Ifi. 

i  Vol.  li.  p.  3iry. 


390     PRAYERS    IN    AN    UNKNOWN    TONGUK. 

pronounced  by  that  historian  on  *'  the  Uonuui 
Pontirts,  who,  with  the  most  senseless  obsti- 
nacy, retained  the  use  of  the  Latin  language 
in  the  celebration  of  divine  worship,  even  ivhen 
it  was  no  longer  understood  by  the  people."  Had 
Doctor  Milner  done  so,  he  might  then  have 
added,  "  that  the  same  absurd  principle  on 
M'liich  the  Popish  Church  acts,  produced  a  si- 
milar effect  among  the  Egyptian  Christians, 
wlio  perform  their  religious  service  in  the  an- 
cient Coptic  language ;  among  the  Nestorians, 
who  use  the  Syriac;  and  among  the  Abyssi- 
nians,  who  adopt  the  old  Ethiopic;  although 
these  languages  have  been  long  unintelligible  to 
the  people."  But,  how  can  the  prevalence  of 
a  practice,  which  is  inconvenient  and  absurd 
in  principle,  justify  a  continuance  of  it,  when 
Scripture,  reason,  and  common  sense,  condemn 
it;  and  when  history  attests,  that  every  Chris- 
tian Church  originally  had  a  Liturgy  in  its  na- 
tive tongue? 


!i 


30] 


CHAPTER  XTX. 

PROHIBITION    OF    THE    SCRIPTURES. 

Xo  the  unrestricted  use  of  the  Scriptures, 
Doctor  Milner  takes  all  the  exceptions  which 
were  laid  down  by  the  Council  of  Trent.  While 
he  admits,  that  the  revealed  truths  of  the  Bible 
are  to  be  made  known  as  much  as  possible, 
yet,  he  says,  that  it  does  not  hence  follow,  that 
***«// are  to  read  the  Scrij)tures ;"  that  this  in- 
dulgence is  only  to  be  extended  to  those  who 
adduce  "  some  attestation  of  their  piety  and 
tlocility;"  and  that,  for  the  use  of  persons  so 
disposed,  "  the  Enj^lish  version  of  tlx;  Itoniish 
Bible  is  exposed  to  sale  in  all  si/es  —  folio, 
quarto,  and  octavo;"  against  which,  Jlisljoj) 
Tomline  has  no  other  objection  lo  make,  "  ex- 
cept that  it  is  loo  literal,  that  is,  to(t  laitlifiil." 
Here  is  an  explicit  avowal,  tiiat  the  Church  of 
Rome  does  not  |)ermit  its  laity  to  read  the  Bible 
in  their  mother  tont^nH-,  \\itliout  sjxcial  penms- 
sion  to  do  so.  This  admission  is  the  more  \a- 
Inabh',   considering;  thr  aiifhorily  ot   the  person 

*   LETTr.n  xlvii.  p.  I.'>2. 


oi)J.  PHOlilBlTlON    OF 

who  makes  it;  since  it  has  been  erroneously 
supposed,  that  tliat  Church  has  relaxed  in  its 
opposition  to  the  ditrusion  of  the  Scriptures. 
INo;  the  spirit  in  wliicli  tlie  rule  prohibiting 
the  use  of  the  Scrijitures  was  conceived  and 
puhbshed  by  Pins  IV.,  in  whose  Pontificate  the 
Council  of  Trent  tinished  its  sittings,  continues 
in  full  force  to  this  day.  It  is  Ihia  Rule,  which 
Poj)ish  writers  give  as  the  apology  of  their 
Church  for  the  rigorous  enforcement  of  its  de- 
crees. 

The  reader  will  perceive,  as  it  stands  in  the 
*  original,  that  the  license  must  be  in  writing, 
and  that  it  relates  to  the  Bible  simply.  Another 
liule  ordains,  that  whoever  dared  to  read,  or 
possess  a  Bible  without  this  licence,  and  did 
not  surrender  it  to  his  Ordinary,  could  not  re- 
ceive Absolution.  This  power  of  granting  li- 
cences was  afterwards  wholly  withdrawn  by 
the  Church  of  Home,  and  if  restored,  it  was 
Avith  a  still  greater  limitation  than  that  laid 
down  in  the  original  Ride,  viz.  that  the  editions 
of  the  Bible  should   be  subject  to  the  fappro- 

*  "  Eis  concedere  possint,  quos  parochi  vel  confessarii,  in- 
lellexerint  tx  hujusmodi  leclione,  non  damnum,  sed  fidei  at- 
que  pietatis  augtncntum  capere  posse ;  quam  faciiltatem  in 
saiptis  habeaiit." — Regula  IVtu  P.  Pii  IV. 

t  "  (iuod  si  hujusmodi  Bibliorum  versiones  vulgari  lingua, 
fuerint  ab  Apostolica  Sede  approbatae,  auteditue  cum  annola- 
tionibus  desumptis  ex  Sanctis  patribus,  vel  ex  doctis  catholi- 
cisque  viris,  concedunlur." 


THE    SCRIPTURES.  393 

bation  of  the  Holv  See.  These  rules  extend 
to  books  of  *  controversy.  When,  therefore. 
Doctor  Milner  speaks  of  *'  the  vulgar  transla- 
tions of  the  whole  Scripture  being  itpon  sale, 
and  ojien  to  every  one,''  it  is  mere  idle  talk,  as 
long  as  such  Rules  as  these  are  in  existence,  and 
enforced  with  rigour;  inasmuch  as  that  does 
not  prove  that  everi/  Roman  Catholic  is  per- 
mitted to  read  them.  And,  even  before  w^e  can 
form  an  opinion,  that  any  particular  man  will 
be  allowed  this  indulgence,  wc  should  know 
what  his  confessor's  judgment  is  on  the  subject ; 
as  it  is  both  in  his,  and  in  his  Bisho()'s  |)ower, 
to  lock  tliem  up,  or  to  make  them  a  sealed  vo- 
lume to  any  iiidividiial  they  think  proper.  From 
what  we  know  of  the  lower  orders  of  the  Ro- 
man Catholics  iu  this  country,  wc  may  safely 
aver,  that  the  Scriptures  are  to  thum  a  (hnul 
letter,  and  as  little  known  as  if  they  never  ap- 
peared in  print. 

With  respect  to  what  IJislioj)  Tnndine  says 
about  the  J)ouay  Old,  ;ui(l  the  RiMinish  New 
Testaments,  1  cannDt  tliiiik  it  possible  tli;it  Doc- 
tor Milner  could  li;i\e   had   his  Lordshi|>s    VAo- 

*  "  Lil)ri  de  controvcrsiis non  passim  pcrmittuuiur,  »cd 

idem  dc  iis  srrvetur,  (jiiod  dr  Hiljhit*  viil|;ari  liiiguA  Kcripli*  sla- 
lulutii  (St."  hi  illuhlralioii  of  tliiH  ndr,  I  may  s|>(  c  ify  the  Dr- 
fence  of  the  Ancient  Faith,  l>y  tlic  Rev.  1'i.ri  n  d animh  imiy,  n 
work  which  WAt  at  first  approved  l»y  the  Papal  .St<-,  but  after - 
war<ls,  ihroii^di  Doctor  Poynlcr'n  innticiice,  coiidiiiintd,  iinld 
the  author  made  humhlc  submisttioii  lo  that  Uiyht  Hcv.  Vicar 
Apostolic. 


394  PROHIBITION    OF 

ments  of  Theology  before  him  when  he  quoted 
him,  not  as  disapproving,  but  as  highly  com- 
mending those  versions  of  the  Scriptures.  He 
represents  that  Prelate  as  saying,  "  that  they  are 
too  literal,''  an  expression  bespeaking  their  me- 
rit, as  it  implies,  "  that  they  are  too  faithful,'' 
which,  in  the  Doctor's  mind,  constitutes  the 
excellence  of  a  translation.  But  so  far  is  his 
Lordship  from  saying  any  thing  commendatory 
of  the  English  Bible  of  the  Church  of  Rome,  that 
he  pointedly  censures  it;  or  rather,  on  the  au- 
thority of  Fuller,  denies  that  it  is  a  translation 
at  all.  The  translators,  says  he,  *  "  retained  in 
it  many  Eastern,  Greek,  and  Latin  words,  and 
contrived  to  render  it  unintelligible  to  common 
readers."  Now,  as  by  possibility.  Doctor  Mil- 
ner  may  hold  up  as  admirers  of  that  version, 
those  who  agree  in  opinion  with  his  Lordship ; 
as  one  of  them,  I  most  distinctly  declare,  that 
I  not  only  concur  with  the  Bishop  of  Winches- 
ter in  what  he  has  said  on  the  subject,  but  that 
I  subscribe  to  the  opinions  delivered  by  Fulke, 
Fuller,  and  Johnson,  as  w^ell  as  by  the  vener- 
able translators  of  our  own  authorized  Trans- 
lation, respecting  it. 

*  Bishop  of  Winchester's  Elem.  of  Theol.  vol.  ii.  p.  16. 
Fulke,  Fuller,  Lewis,  Johnson,  Archbishop  Newcome,  and 
Geddes,  no  less  than  our  own  authorized  Translators,  pro- 
nounce the  Douay  Bible,  a  barbarous  translation  from  the 
Vulgate  before  its  last  revision,  accompanied  with  acrimo- 
nious and  injurious  annotations. 


THL    SCRIPTURES.  3i)o 

But,  much  as  I  lament  to  see  the  Scriptures 
veiled  iu  obscurity,  and  rendered  unintelligible 
to  commoQ  readers,  my  regret  is  heightened  by 
the  republication  of  the  ofl'ensive  and  unchari- 
table *  notes,  \vhich  tirst  accompanied  the  Khe- 
mish  Testament.  Were  it  ever  once  supposed 
that  the  Church  of  Rome  had  abandoned  its 
bigotted  and  unchristian  dogmas,  the  last  Dub- 
lin edition  of  the  English  Bible,  published 
under  the  auspices  of  Doctor  Troy,  would 
produce  conviction  on  the  mind  of  every  unpre- 
judiced person,  of  tint  hopeless  fallacy  of  such 
a  supposition.  This  volume,  when  the  Church 
of  Rome  interprets  it  according  to  its  own  tra- 
dition, is  held  forth  as  containing  the  rule  of 
faith  and  practice,  and  as  uniting,  at  the  same 
time,  scripture  and  trailHion;  the  former  in  the 
text,  and  the  latter  in  the  notes.  \\  h<ii  I  con- 
sider this,  and  the  high  authority  under  which 
it  circidates  among  the  Irish  public;  an<l  llial 
it  unfolds,  in  its  \o\\^,  pious,  and  oiric/iiiii^'  anno- 
tations, as  they  are  called  in  (he  K.C.  Orlliodox 
Journal  ol  October,  IH17,  (he  conipreliensive' 
principle  of  the  infallibility  of  Pof>ish  <-onncils 
and  (heir  decrees;  1  cannot  l»ii(  feel  alarmed 
at  the  rniscliievons  tendency  of  ijio'sc  selfsame 
pious  and  curieJiinj^  notes,  :iii(i  ;il  the  spirit  *>( 
persecution  which  pervades  (hem. 

If  we  refer  to  recent  occurrences,   wr  shall 

•     SfC   pRErATOHV    KeMAHK«,    J».    XVII. 


39(>  PROHiniTlON    OF 

see  the  present  Supreme  Pontiff,  notwithstand- 
inj^  the  niiklness  of  his  character,  denouncing' 
Jti  his  *  Letter  to  the  Titular  Bishops  of  Ire- 
land, what  lie  calls  "  Bible  Schools,"  and  stig- 
uializing  our  Received  Version  of  the  Scriptures, 
as  "  abounding  with  errors,"  and  our  Bible  So- 
cieties, as  endeavouring  to  infect  our  peasantry 
"with  the  fatal  poison  of  depraved  doctrine:" 
when  we  see  in  the  f  Brief  recently  trans- 
mitted from  Rome,  a  repetition,  if  not  of  the 
same  language,  at  least,  of  the  same  sentiments  : 
when  we  see  those  Titular  Bishops,  in  their  col- 
lective capacity,  coming  to  a  J  Resolution, ''  that 
the  New  Testament,  or  any  part  of  the  Scrip- 
ture, with,  or  without  note  or  comment,  is  not  a 
fit  or  proper  book  to  be  used  in  schools :"  when, 
II  individually,  they  act  up  to  this  Resolution  in 
their  respective  dioceses :  and  lastly,   when  we 

*  This  Letter,  dated  September  18th,  1819,  and  signed  by 
Cardinal  Fontana,  is  referred  to  by  Mr.  Brougham  in  his 
eloquent  speech  on  National  Education,  June  28th,  1820. 

t  The  Brief  is  addressed  to  the  R.  C.  Prelates  of  Ireland 
by  the  Holy  See,  dated  August  IJth,  1820,  and  signed  by 
Cardinal  Somaglia.  It  represents  our  Bible  as  "pregnant 
with  errors"  and  the  Bible  Society  as  tainting  the  indigent 
classes  "  with  the  deadly  poison  of  perverse  doctrine." 

X  See  Dublin  Journal  of  February  7th,  1820. 

U  The  R.  C.  Bishops,  Coppinger,  Kelly,  Doyle,  &c.  &c.  have, 
in  their  respective  Pastoral  Letters  and  Sermons,  also  forbidden 
their  Congregations  to  read  the  Scriptures,  ivith,  or  without 
notes ! ! 


THE    SCRIPTURES.  39? 

see  the  *  Bishop  of  Castabala  himself  apphiiul- 
ing  this  whole  affair,  can  we  be  surprised  at  the 
little  progress  of  religious  knowledge  among 
our  lower  orders ;  or,  that  iVJr.  Brougham,  \vhen 
he  developed  his  admirable  system  of  Education, 
should  have  considered  it  inapplicabk'td  Ireland. 
And  here  I  must  take  leave  to  make  an  ol> 
servation  on  the  Hibernian  Society,  and  its 
Auxiliary  Branches,  as  at  present  constituted. 
I  do  so  solely  from  a  regard  to  my  own  |)rinci- 
ples  as  an  orthodox  clergyman  of  the  Estal>- 
lished  Church.  Much  as  1  condemn  the  r<v 
strictions  imjjosed  by  the  Church  of  Rome  oi» 
the  free  circulation  of  the  Scriptures;  and  al- 
though it  be  an  object  nearest  my  own  heart,  to 
aflbrd  them  the  widest  dissemination  possible; 
yet  I  must  declare,  that  I  am  far  from  being  in- 
difterent  about  the  medium,  through  which  this 
is  to  be  carried  into  effect.  It  is  urged,  and 
with  justice,  that  an  Association  composed  of 
Churchmen,  and  all  denominations  of  Disseu- 
ters,  has  a  necessary  tendency  to  produce  an 
apathy  about  the  vital  doctrines  of  Christianity 

*  Doctor  Milncr,  V.  A.  lor  tin-  luiddK  dislrici  of  Kntjlaml, 
speak*  tlius  in  Ins  I'asloral  Ix.Uit  of  ISOJ.  "  Tlii»  »l»i(ly,  in- 
deed, (tliat  of  the  Holy  .SrnpUircb)  \»  not  rc«|uircd  of  all  tlic 
faithful  indiscnnnnatcly,  as  the  Church  h(u  declared,  bccauw: 
there  arc  in  tln-^  in>>tcriou!»  Code  thinni  hard  to  he  uudrr- 
slood,  wlncli  llie  unlearned  and  unstable  utkhI  to  tlicir  own 
de»lruclion,  and  aif  to  receive  the  ivurd  of  God  broken  and  pin- 
puredjoi  their  dufestion  ul  the  hand  of  their  I'culon." 


398  I'KOHIBITION    OF 

in  our  Churcli ;  that  tliose  persons,  whose  prin- 
ciples may  not  be  fixed,  are  more  likely  to  be- 
come a  prey  to  false  opinions,  in  consequence  of 
this  heterogeneous  mixture;  and  that  *  Dissent- 
ers will  undoubtedly  follow  up  the  circulation 
of  the  Scriptures,  with  all  their  influence,  for  the 
})urpose  of  propagating  their  peculiar  tenets. 
As  I  feel  the  full  force  of  these  objections,  for 
one  I  should  be  happy  to  see  the  dissolution  of 
this  unnatural  connexion  taking  place,  and  the 
Churchmen,  who  are  members  of  this  Society, 
either  attaching  themselves  to  the  Parent  Associ- 
ation, that  for  discountenancing  Vice;  or  form- 
ing a  distinct  one  of  Churchmen  with  Church- 
men, and  leaving  the  Dissenters,  if  they  please,  to 
imitate  their  example.  Were  this  to  take  place, 
and  were  the  new  Society  to  accompany  the  dis- 
tribution of  the  Bible,  with  a  t  -Prayer  Book, 

*  Under  the  denomination  of  Dissenters,  I  class  our  Evange- 
lical clergy,  who  only  adhere  to  our  church,  because  of  the 
consequent  adhesion  of  ecclesiastical  benefits  to  themselves. 
But  with  what  inconsistency,  to  say  the  least  of  it,  do  they  act, 
in  thus  engrossing  emoluments,  and  at  the  same  time,  in  vio- 
lating the  terms,  on  the  faith  of  which  the  Church  of  England 
conferred  them. 

t  It  is  not  a  little  gratifying  to  me  to  find  my  own  opinion 
on  this  subject  fortified  by  such  high  authority  as  that  of 
Bishop  Mant.  His  Lordship  also  recommends,  a  diligent, 
but  judicious  distribution  of  the  Holy  Bible,  accompanied  by 
the  Book  of  Common  Prayer ;  while  tie  disapproves  of  a 
boundless  circulation  of  it  without  regard  to  circumstances. 
Charge,  pp.  48,  49. 


THE    SCRIPTURES.  399 

as  a  safeguard  against  the  delusions  of  Calvin- 
istic  interpretation  ;  we  should  see  the  same 
blessed  effects  follow  from  the  proposed  altera- 
tion in  the  frame  of  our  Hibernian  Bible  So- 
ciety, as  have  been  so  fondly  anticipated  from 
the  new-modelling  of  the  British  and  Foreign 
Bible  Society,  by  some  of  the  most  orthodox 
and  learned  Divines  of  the  present  day. 


400 


CHAPTER  XX. 

CELIBACY    OF    THE    CLERGY. 

I  SHOULD  not  have  adverted  to  this  subject, 
had  not  Doctor  Miliier,  by  a  misstatement  of 
the  fact,  thought  proper  to  involve  me  in  a  se- 
rious  contradiction.     Speaking  of  the  text  of 

ot.  IVJattneVi'',  (      ov  ntuvvtc,  yu^wcn  rov  Myot  tovtoi,    iVlatt. 

xix.  11.)  he  says,  that  when  cannot  is  put  for 
do  not  in  the  translation,  the  sense  of  the  pas- 
sage is  altered;  and  that,  although  this  corrup- 
tion stands  in  direct  opposition  to  the  original, 
t "  as  the  Rev.  Mr.  Grier  himself  quotes  it, 
yet  this  writer  has  the  confidence  to  deny,  that 
it  is  a  corruption ;  because  he  pretends  to  provCy 
from  other  texts,  that  continency  is  not  7ieces- 
saryT  It  would  be  painful  to  me,  to  designate 
this  representation  by  the  title  it  deserves.  I 
shall,  therefore,  content  myself  with  barely  re- 
peating, that  it  is  a  misstatement.  I  have  not 
proved  it,    either  directly,  or  by  implication ; 

*  Doctor  Milner  renders  it,  "  All  men  do  not  receive  this 
saying."  In  the  Rhem.  Translation,  it  is,  "  Not  all  take  this 
word."  Our  authorized  Eng.  Transl.  has  it,  "  Ail  men  can- 
not receive  this  !-aying." 

f  Letter  ix.  p.  72. 


CELIBACY    OF    THE    CLERGY.  401 

nor  have  I  affected  to  prove,  that  continency  is 
iiot  necessary.  This  I  can  affirm  with  the  ut- 
most confidence,  as  I  have  re-examined  the  ar- 
guments, which  I  advanced  on  tiie  suhject,  with 
the  closest  attention.  \\\  fact,  the  contested 
point  between  Ward  and  me,  did  not  refjuire 
either  of  us  to  come  to  the  decision  about 
continency  being,  or  not  being  necessary  ;  inas- 
much as  it  is  on  all  hands  admitted  to  be  an 
ornament  and  grace  of  the  sacerdotal  character. 

The  question  is  simply  this,  whether  our  Sa- 
viour's words,  as  above  stated,  make  it  im|)e- 
rative  on  the  ministers  in  his  Church  to  lead  a 
life  of  celibacy,  or  not.  Had  Doctor  Milner 
only  substituted  ce/j^acj/ f<jrcoiitinency,  1  should 
readily  plead  guilty  to  the  charge,  eitlur,  that 
I  proved,  or  atteujpted  to  prove,  that  celibaci/ 
was  not  necessary.  A  reference  to  the  *  iiook  it- 
self will  satisfy  the  reader,  that  in  llu'  nfuta- 
tion  of  the  objection  to  our  K('(«MV(<i  \  rrsion  <»t' 
the  above  text,  1  have  involved  any  future  ones, 
which  may  be  raised  against  its  correctness.  In 
truth,  Doctor  Milrier's  cavil  is  in  substance  the 
same  as  Ward's,  and  only  \arirs  from  it  as  briiii; 
couched  in  a  more  artfid  form  of  »\|)r<SNi(»M. 

But,  neitlnr  tlie  text  (jiiohd  by  Ward  from 
St.  Matthrw,  nor  that  adducid  by  Dorfor 
Milner  from  St.  I^aui,   dctcriniTus   cithrr  ;!•-   to 

*   Sec  .\N<>%vtit  III  W.ird,   ]>|i.  XS  aixl    i 
■1   f) 


•102  rtLlBAL\     01     THE    CLERGY. 

tlie  possibility  or  impossibility  of  leading  a  life 
of  continency;  and  when  I  thus  explicitly  say 
so,  I  trust,  I  shall  not  be  again  represented  by 
Doctor  Milner  as  pretending  to  prove,  "  that 
continency  is  not  necessary."  The  fact  is,  that 
it  is  no  where  stated  in  Scripture,  that  conti- 
nency proceeds  from  man's  free  will ;  while  it 
makes  express  mention  of  it  here,  and  in  other 
texts,  as  being  the  gift  of  God.  It  were,  in- 
deed, superfluous,  even  for  the  best  men,  to 
ask  it  as  a  divine  favour,  if  they  could  impart 
it  to  themselves.  Besides,  that  which  every 
man  may,  by  ordinary  means,  obtain,  cannot 
be  called  a  special  gift ;  that  is,  a  gift  proper  to 
some,  which  the  words,  "  to  whom  it  is  given," 
imply. 

Not  to  speak  of  St.  Peter's  being  a  *  married 
man,  and  that  our  Saviour  did  not  consider  this 
circumstance  as  a  disqualification  to  his  be- 
coming an  Apostle,  we  have  abundant  proof 
afforded  us  by  Archbishop  Usher,  that  celibacy 
was  not  generally  imposed  upon  the  clergy  in 
ancient  times.  Even  from  the  Irish  records, 
he  produces  a  manuscript  containing  St.  Pa- 
trick's confession,  that  f  "  his  father,  Calphur- 
nius,  was  a  deacon,  and  his  grandfather,  Poti- 

*  Mati.  viii.  14. 

t  "  Patrem  habui  Calphurnium  Diaconum  filium  quondam 
Polili  Presbyteri." — Archbishop  Usher's  Discoukse  on  the  Re- 
ligion of  the  Ancient  Irish,  p.  145. 


CELIBACY    OF    THE    CLERGY.  403 

tus,  a  priest ;''  and  quotes  Gil  das,  a  writer  of 
the  sixth  century,  as  censuring  the  Bisho[)s  in 
the  British  Church,  "  that  tliey  were  not  con- 
tent to  be  the  Inisband  of  one,  but  many  wives ; 
and  that  they  had  corrupted  their  children  by 
their  evil  example."  *  He  likewise  informs  us, 
on  the  authority  of  Giraldus  Camlirensis,  that, 
in  the  twelfth  century,  the  British  and  >\  elsh 
clergy  contrived  to  make  their  sons  succeed 
them  as  well  in  their  spiritual  as  in  tlieir  tem- 
poral estates.  In  the  beginning  of  the  thir- 
teenth century,  the  letters  of  Pope  Imiocent 
the  Third,  to  his  Cardinal  Legate,  shew,  that 
this  abuse  prevailed  even  to  a  greater  degree  in 
Ireland.  Here  is  a  mass  of  testimony  to  prove, 
that,  although  that  imperious  Pontifi",  (Gregory 
VII.,  had  subjected  the  Church  to  the  Pa|)al 
See,  by  enforcing  the  celibacy  of  the  clergy  on 
the  continent;  yet  that,  for  uj)wards  of  a  cen- 
tury after  his  time,  f"  ^^^^'^  ^'*<^  grandchildn'ii 
used  to  succeed  their  fathers  and  grandfathers 
in  their  ecclesiastical  henejiccs,'^  in  these  islands. 
Finding  evidence  so  strong  agaifist  him,  Doc- 
tor Milner  attem|)ts  to  invalidate  ii,  by  impeac  Ii- 
intr  Archbishop  Usher's  character,  on  the  uroutid 
of  unfairness  in  suppressing  what  he  should 
have  told.  Thus,  [says  he.  "  if  the  learned 
Primate    had   ;ict( d  Jairb/   by    Ins    r«-ader^,    In 

*   Ibid.   p.  b\.  \    Imn.   p.  bS.  \    K'ji  irv.   y.  I4'i. 

2  i>  '2 


40-1  CELIBACY    OF    THE    CLERGY. 

would  have  informed  them,  that  the  same  au- 
thor, who  mentions  tiiese  particulars,  concern- 
ing St.  Patrick's  family,  expressly  tells  us,  that 
the  children  of  Calphnrnius  and  Potitus  were 
born  previonslf/  to  their  father  s  ordination^  It 
is  true,  were  this  charge  fully  established  against 
the  Archbishop,  it  would  lessen  the  *  reliance 
placed  on  his  general  accuracy  and  candour. 
But,  Doctor  Milner  has  not  only  miserably 
failed  in  his  attack  on  that  great  man,  but  has 
been'  unable  to  sustain  what  he  asserts  on  the 
authority  of  Joceline  himself,  weak  as  his  au- 
thority is  considered  to  be.  For,  in  the  first 
place,  it  may  be  seen  from  the  preceding  para- 
graph, that  Usher  d-oes  not  refer  to  Joceline, 
but  to  the  Manuscript  containing  the  confession 
of  St.  Patrick.  So  that,  although  Doctor  Milner 
were  correct  in  what  he  gives  as  Joceline's  words, 
still  bis'  charge  against  Usher  would  be  un- 
founded. And  secondly,  Doctor  Milner  is 
unable  to  point  out  the  place  where  Joceline 
"  expressly  tells  us,"  that  St.  Patrick  was  born 
before  the  ordination  of  his  father,  Calphnrnius; 

*  Doctor  O'Conor,  who  was  eminently  qualified  to  pro- 
nounce upon  the  accuracy  of  Archbishop  Usher's  quotations, 
thus  expresses  himself. — "  Having  diligently  perused  all  the 
printed  works  and  many  of  the  MS.  Letters  of  that  great  man, 
I  can  with  truth  declare  for  him,  what  I  cannot  with  truth  say 
for  the  Bishop  of  Castahala,  that  I  never  yet  discovered  a  false 
reference  to  any  MS,,  or  to  any  printed  book,  in  any  of  his 
vritings." — Colimbanus  ad  Ilibernos,   Letter  iii,  p.  50. 


CELIBACY    OF    THE    CLERGY-  lO/) 

as  that  author  onlv  savs,  that  *  "  his  Parents 
relinquished  the  use  of  the  niarriage-betl,  and 
died  hohly  in  the  lord.*'  This  does  not  deter- 
mine the  ordination  of  Calphnrnius  to  have 
taken  place  after  his  separation  from  his  \vife, 
as  Doctor  Milner  insinuates ;  it  rather  goes  to 
prove  that  Calphurnius  was  a  deacon  when  St. 
Patrick  was  begotten.  On  the  whole,  therefore,^ 
it  appears,  that  the  accusation  brought  against 
Usher  is  not  sustained  by  historical  evidence, 
and  that  Joceline's  testimony,  poor  as  it  is, 
which  Doctor  Milner  has  cited  for  the  pnrpose 
of  disparaging  a  married  life,  justifies,  so  far  as 
it  goes,  the  account  given  by  Usher  of  celibacy 
among  the  clergy  being  unkiiuwn  in  the  early 
ages  of  the  church. 

If  we  must  determine  the  origin  of  this  inno- 
vation, we  shall  have  to  trace  it  to  the  monkery 
of  the  dark  ages.  To  the  andjitious  llilde- 
l)rand,  (Gregory  VII.)  are  we  to  attribute  its 
^establishment.  Indeed  to  such  a  man  could  it 
alone  b(?long  to  subjert  the  Church  to  the  See 
of  Rome,  and  then  to  compel  leMip(»r;il  J*iincrs 
to  submit  to  the  Church.  We  know,  gi- 
;rantic  as  the  enterpri/e  waw,  how  Huccessfnily 
it  was  executed.     l>y  <'mancii)i»tiiii;  lln"  Church 

*  "  Castitati  htudueruul  p-ir.  iiUsSli  I'alricii,  ii^ni|H'  (;»l|»luir- 
iiiuB  el  Couquoba  ;  Cal|)liui  riuj'.  auleiii  /»rjf/t  i/i  Duiconatu  <li- 
ulius  Domino  saxivit,  j>oi.lromo  in  prrshyleiutu  vilam  fiiiivit." 
•locELiN.  Vila  Sli.  Pal.  c  1. 


40(»  CELIBACY    01"    THi:    CLERGY. 

from  the  tcinporal  power,  this  haughty  Pontirt" 
was  enal)le(l  to  destroy  the  dependence  of  the 
Ecclesiastics  on  their  respective  Sovereigns,  and 
thus  to  turn  the  mental  energies  of  that  vast 
body  of  men  to  the  exclusive  advancement  of  his 
individual  interests.  To  no  purpose  did  the 
German  and  French  Bishops  denounce  the  pa- 
pal decree,  as  requiring  what  was  repugnant  to 
the  word  of  God,  and  the  doctrine  of  the  Apos- 
tles. And  in  vain  did  they  urge  their  liability 
to  the  same  temptations  and  infirmities  as  other 
men.  Gregory  was  inflexible,  and  their  resist- 
ance but  rendered  his  triumph  more  complete. 
He  deprived  them  of  their  benefices,  excommu- 
nicated them,  pronounced  their  children  bast- 
ards, and  their  wives  concubines :  and  thus 
gaining  the  ascendant  over  every  finer  feeling  of 
the  heart,  he  might  boast,  that  shame,  fear,  and 
avarice,  reduced  the  clergy  to  his  subjection, 
rather  than  a  sense  of  duty.  This  state  of 
things,  after  a  duration  of  more  than  four  cen- 
turies, was  happily  terminated,  wherever  the 
blessings  of  the  Reformation  were  felt,  and  an 
ecclesiastical  polity  established,  which  was 
more  consonant  to  the  early  usages  of  Christi- 
anity. 


407 


CHAPTER  XXr. 

EXCLUSIVE    CATHOLICITY. 

Having  *already  discussed  the  subject  of  the 
baneful  schisms,  which,  for  upwards  of  half  a 
century,  disgraced  the  Church  of  Rome  in  the 
very  seat  of  its  pretended  sanctity  and  infalli- 
bility ;  and  having  proved  from  the  existence  of 
those  t  schisms,  that  if  unity  be  a  mark  of  the 
true  Church  of  Christ,  the  Romish  Church  is 
7iot  that  true  Church  ;  it  only  remains  for  me 
to  observe  with  respect  to  the  other  exclusive 
characteristics,  which  Doctor  Milner  claims  for 
it,  that  history  attests,  that  it  is  not  the  most  an- 
cient, while  it  destroys  its  pretensions  to  holi- 
7iess ;  and  that  the  novelties  and  heterodoxies  in 
its  faith,  with  which  it  is  encumbered,  dt;mon- 
strate,  that  it  is  not  apostoiicai,  except  au  to  it*^ 

*  See  Prefatoiiy   Remarkh,   p.  xxvi — xxix. 

t  Tliat,  distinpuiiilicd  by  the  luimc  of  llic  (treat  Hejtrrm 
Schisvi,  l)r^,'aii  iii  137S,  aflir  the  litiitb  of  (irrgory  XI.,  and 
ended  in  1429.  For  ^//j^  yrars,  durinj;  which  iIun  dis»rn»ion 
was  fomented  with  such  fatal  »uccf»«,  tlic  Church  of  Romr 
had  two  or  three  difFi-rcnt  hracU  at  the  »ninr  lime ;  a  circiim- 
Ntance,  which  does  away  all  ilt  claimn  to  t  'uly,  SanctUy,  n\\<\ 
Infallihility. — Mosii.  EctL.  Ilr^T.  vol.  m.  p.  .ilfi— .i2S. 


408  EXCLUSIVE    CATHOLICITY. 

origin  and  form  of  Govenmient;  \\h'\\e  a  refer- 
ence to  geography  will  prove,  that  it  is  not 
Catholic,  or  Universal. 

On  looking  to  the  extent  of  the  See  of  Rome, 
or  the  Pope's  jurisdiction,  about  the  time  of  the 
Reformation,  when  Popery  was  most  general, 
we  shall  find,  that  it  did  not  occupy  more  than 
onfe'fourth  part  of  Christendom.  If  his  Supre- 
njacy  extended  at  that  time  over  Great  Britain 
and  Ireland,  and  several  states  of  the  Continent 
of  Europe,  it  was  excluded  from  the  Russian 
Empire,  and  not  acknowledged  by  the  Greek, 
Syrian,  and  Armenian  Churches,  and  other 
branches  of  the  Asiatic  and  African  Churches. 
But  from  the  view  wliicli  Doctor  Milner  give$ 
of  *  "the  present  diffusiveness  of  (Roman)  Ca- 
tholics," although  greatly  abridged  since  the 
above  period;  his  reader  would  be  led  to  ima- 
gine, that  in  Europe  alone,  they  were  to  Protes- 
tants in  the  proportion  of  sia.'  to  one;  and  that 
they  were  almost  the  only  Christians  to  be  found 
throughout  the  other  quarters  of  the  world.l 
Here,  however,  his  usual  disregard  to  accuracy 
Ijctrays  itself;  since,  according  to  a  correct 
i  statistical  account  lately  published  in  France, 
of  the  population,  and  of  the  different  denomi- 
nations of  Christians  in   Europe,   the  Roman 

■*  Letter  xxvi.  p.  109. 

i  See  Schoell's   Tableau,  Sec,    as  quoted    in    The  Dublin 
Journal,  Nov.  17,  1619. 


EXCLUSIVE    CATHOLICITY.  400 

Catholics  are  to  the  Protestants  of  (hft'ereiit 
Coniinunions,  in  a  ratio  of  somewhat  less  than 
tivo  and  a  half  to  two;  the  former  being  stated 
atone  hundred,  and  the  latter  2it  forty-two  mil- 
lions. Now,  if  to  these  forty-two  millions  be 
added  thirty-two  millions  of  whatthe  French 
calculator  calls  schismatic  Greeks;  meaning 
those  not  in  communion  with,  or  under  the  ju- 
risdiction of  the  Papal  See;  and  likewise  up- 
wards of  half  a  million  of  Christians  of  other 
denominations,  including  Herndiutters,  Meno- 
nists,  kc.  &c.  who  equally  protest  against  Po- 
pish errors  ;  the  gross  number  of  all  those  sects 
dissentient  fiom  the  Church  of  Rome,  would 
amount  to  somewhat  more  than  seventy  four 
millions  and  a  half  According  to  which  calcu- 
lation, the  proportion  of  Roman  Catholics  in 
Jiurope,  to  other  Christians  of  dift'erent  deno- 
minations, would  be  somewhat  less  than  ojir 
und  a  third,  to  one. 

Again,  were  I  to  admit  that  the  Christian 
converts  and  settlers  in  North  and  South  Amc 
rica,  are  in  connnunion  with  the  See  of  Rome; 
yet  what  becomes  of  i)o(  tor  iVIilner's  exclusive 
Catholicity  with  reference  to  the  (Churches  in 
Africa  and  Asia?  If  wcMlircct  our  atl<iition  to 
the  oriental  ones  alone,  we  shall  find  rven  on 
the  coast  of  Malabar,  •one  hundred  Christian 

*  III  Doctor  Buchanati's  acconnl  ».f  llic  Syrian  riiurchc*, 
\vc  fnid  ilial  in  llic  region  of  tliiidohtaii  alour,  there  arc  ./f/Vy- 


410  EXCLUSIVE    CATHOLICITY. 

Churches,  with  the  purity  aud  simplicity  of 
whose  worship,  Doctor  Buchanau  informs  us, 
the  Portuguese  adventurers  were,  on  their  first 
visit,  offended.  Here  we  find  a  race  of  Chris- 
tians maintaining  the  order  and  discipline  of  a 
regular  Church  under  Episcopal  jurisdiction, 
and  enjoying  a  succession  of  Bishops  appointed 
by  the  Patriarch  of  Antioch  for  thirteen  centu- 
ries before  those  freebooters  came  among  them. 
Will  Doctor  Milner  allow,  that  those  Christians 
were  Catholic,  before  the  terrors  of  the  Inqui- 
sition reduced  them  to  submission  to  the  church 
of  Rome ;  or,  that  those  of  them  are  Catholic, 
who  have  since  resumed,  under  British  pro- 
tection, the  exercise  of  their  own  pure  and  una- 
du Iterate  religion? 

* "  The  Syrian  Churches,"  said  Vasco  de 
Gama,  "  belong  to  the  Pope.  Who  is  the  Pope, 
asked  the  natives:  we  7iever  heard  of  him  ?  We, 
added  they,  are  of  the  true  faith,  whatever  you 
from  the  West  may  be ;  for  we  come  from  the 
place  where  the  followers  of  Christ  were  first 
called  Christians."  The  same  may  be  said  of 
the  Asiatic  Christians  in  general,  who,  not  only 
were  not  subject  to  the  Pope,  but  who  never 

^Ave  Churches  agreeing  in  essential  points  with  those  of  the 
Church  of  England.  They  have  the  Bible  and  a  Scriptural 
Liturgy,  which  have  preserved  the  vital  spark  of  Christianity 
among  them. — See  Christian  Researches,  p.  117. 

*  Ibid.  p.  107. 


EXCLUSIVE    CATHOLICITY.  411 

SO  much  as  once  heard  his  name  mentioned. 
This  was  the  state  of  things  in  l-50;>,  when  the 
Portuguese  first  visited  the  East;  and  even 
when  Doctor  Buchanan  wrote  his  account  of 
the  Syrian  Churches  in  India,  they  were  inde- 
pendent from  the  Papal  See,  and  disclaimed  a 
connexion  with  it,  with  the  exception  of  such  as 
were  under  the  control  of  Portugal  and  Spain. 
*  And  if,  as  has  been  shewn,  the  Syrian  Church 
be  a  distinct  and  an  independent  branch  of  the 
Catholic  or  universal  Ciiurch  of  Christ,  what 
exclusive  pretensions  to  Catholicity  can  the 
Roman  Cliurcli  have,  since  both  are  equally  of 
Apostolical  foundation?  It  follows,  therefore, 
as  an  inevitable  consequence,  that  the  Clinrch 
of  Rome  is  not  only  not  cxclusiveli/  C'atholic, 
but  that,  were  the  Syrian  Church  to  put  forward 
like  pretensions  to  Catholicity,  tiicy  would  be 
equally  well  founded.  They  are  both  brancheH 
of  Chri.st's  (Catholic  or  Universal  Church;  and 
are  each  independent  from  the  other.  The 
same  may  be  said  of  the  Creek  and  Britiwh 
Churches,  &c.  &c. 

In  justice  to  the  character  of  Doctor  liucha- 

•  According;  to  Doctor  Biicljanan,  Clirioliamly  iii  the  Ro- 
mitti  Province*  in  tlic  Kaitt,  m  in  tlie  lumi  «l«'t;ra(lfil  »tatf,  ow 
ingtollic  corrnpuons  of  I'«.|»»ry.  Of  llu-  Primt*.  hr  tayi, 
"  tliat  tli<  y  arc-  in  general  tx-llrr  ac<]\inimr<l  with  thr  Vrda  nj 
Bralima,  than  with  the  (;o«|»<l  of  riiri»l.  In  M)nic  p1ac««. 
the  «loclrinci»  of  both  arc  blended." — Uid.  p.  163. 


412  EX(LU6lVi:    CATHOLK  ITY. 

nan,  I  am  compelled  to  notice  a  misiepiesciii' 
tation  made  by  Doctor  Milner  of  what  that 
writer  says  respectinG;  the  ))ower  of  the  Romish 
Church  in  India.  I'he  number  of  the  Roman 
Catholics,  did  not,  as  Doctor  Milner  aversj' 
*  '*  excite  either  the  jealousy,  or  the  complaints 
of  that  celebrated  Missionary."  Not  a  word  of 
complaint,  nor  an  expression  of  jealousy  occurs 
in  the  place  quoted ;  nor  is  there  even  an  al- 
lusion in  it  to  the  number  of  Roman  Catholics 
resident  in  the  Peninsula  within  the  Ganges. 
Doctor  Buchanan's  sole  object  was  to  secure 
the  co-operation  of  the  Syrian  Church,  in  order 
to  counteract  the  influence  of  the  See  of  Rome, 
and  if  possible,  to  effect  an  union  of  that 
Church  with  the  Church  of  England.  This 
was  all  he  aimed  at.  But  it  suited  Doctor 
Milner's  purpose  to  misre[)resent,  even  at  the 
risk  of  detection,  and  accordingly,  he  has  mis- 
represented. 

But,  as  Doctor  Buchanan  has  been  quoted' 
for  what  he  has  not  said,  I  shall  take  leave  to 
state  what  he  has  said,  in  the  page  referred  to 
by  Doctor  Milner.  The  passage  could  not  have 
escaped  his  notice ;  as  it  contains  an  interesting 
conversation  on  the  subject  of  an  union  between 
the  Syrian  and  British  Church.  The  Chap- 
lains of  the  Syrian   Bishop  asked,  f  "  Whence 

*  Letter  xxvi.  p.  111. 
t  Chutstian  Researches,  p.  131. 


EXCLUSIVE    CATHOLICITY.  413 

do  you  derif e  your  ordination  ?  From  *  Rome. 
Yon  derive  it,  said  they,  from  a  Cliurch  wliicli 
is  our  ancient  enemy,  and  witli  which  we  would 
never  unite."  They  fnrther  remarked,  that,  ad- 
mitting: that  the  same  ordination  witli  their  own 
had  descended  from  theApostles  of  that  Church; 
yet,  that  "  it  had  departed  from  lUe  faith.'  Sucli 
was  the  opinion  of  some  of  the  members  of 
that  pure  and  ancient  Church,  whose  Scrip- 
tures, doctrines,  and  language;  in  short,  whose 
very  existence,  are  standing  memorials  of  its 
Apostolic  origin  :  which  never  was  in  connec- 
tion with  the  See  of  liome,  and  which,  wiitn 
an  unioLi  was  i)roi)Osed  to  it,  rejected  it  with 
indignation  and  scorn. 

One  or  two  of  J)octor  Milners  arguments  in 
favour  of  liis  exclusive  Catholicity,  remain  to 
be  noticed,    which,    if  they    do    not   convince,; 

*  The  late  piihlications  of  ihc  Bishop  of  St.  David's,  and  df 

tlie  Kov.  Doctor  Halts,  on  the  Oripin  ami  IiKUpendcnccof  thf 

T^iliuh  an<l  Irisli  Chnrches  from  the  ("iiurcli  of  Roinr,  unont 

8ali^factory  proof,   that  ilriliih  Ordination  wa»  dcrivcil   from 

Si.  Paul,  and  descended  in  the  Uritish  Church,  in  direct  »uc- 

cession,  to  the  bc;;inniiij;  of  the  twelfth  century.     Anil.  «1- 

thouMi   the  Saxon   Church   derived  ordination    from    Uome, 

lllronph  AuMin,  the  fir»l  Archhihhop  of  Canterbury,  and  that 

the  Hritish  <  hnrch,  on  its  xuhniiKMon,  win  united  v»ith  it  al 

that  pertoil  under  the  common   liilt    of  the  Church   of  Kng- 

land  ;   yet,   had  Doctor  liuehanan   been  ac<|uaintrd   with  the 

former  cireumxtance,  m)  (.atinfarlorily  proved  by  the   obovr 

named  diviiKH,  he    need   n«»t   have   al   oil  alarmed  the  Syiian 

clerfjy  uiili  iIh    mnUion  of  the  Church  of  Koine. 


414  EXCLUyiVK    CATHOLICITY. 

will  at  least  amuse  the  reader.  "  When,"  says 
he,  "  a  Protestant  repeats,  I  believe  in  the  Ca- 
tholic Church,  should  J  ask  him,  are  you  a 
Catholic?  He  is  sure  to  answer  me,  No,  I  am 
a  Protestant."  Again,  "  were  a  stranger  to  ask 
his  way  in  London  to  the  Catholic  chapel,  no 
sober  Protestant  would  direct  him  to  any  other 
place  of  worship  than  ours."  These  are,  ac- 
cording to  him,  "  glaring  instances  of  Protestant 
inconsistency  and  self-condemnation."  But 
such  reasoning,  if  reasoning  it  can  be  called, 
carries  with  it  its  own  refutation.  As  no  well- 
informed  Protestant  ever  supposes  the  Catholic 
Church,  in  which  he  expresses  his  beliefs  to  be 
any  other  than  Christ's  Church  Universal. 
And  if,  in  the  ordinary  intercourse  of  life,  Pro- 
testants unguardedly  speak  of  the  Catholic  cha- 
pel, the  Catholic  question,  or  the  Catholic  po- 
pulation, they  use  that  term,  if  they  attach  any 
meaning  at  all  to  it,  not  in  reference  to  its  ec- 
clesiastical sense,  but  as  a  synonyme  of  Roman 
Catholic.  The  advantage,  however,  which  Po- 
pish writers  take  of  this  indifference,  and  the 
additional  claim  to  exclusive  Catholicity,  which 
they  affect  to  establish  on  this  verbal  inaccu- 
racy, would,  if  duly  considered  by  the  Pro- 
testant community,  lead  to  the  total  disuse  of 
the  word  *  Catholic  in  the  May  spoken  of     lo 

*  I  have  already  had  occasion^  to  protest  against  Doctor 
Milner'n  rigbt  to  apply  the  term  Catholic  exclusively  to  the 


EXCLVSIVE    CATHOLICITY,  4\'> 

truth,  were  tliat  epithet  acknowledged  to  be 
appropriate  to  the  Church  of  Rome,  and  con- 
tradistinguished in  meaning  to  that  of  Protest- 
ant, it  wouhl  inevitably  follow,  that  the  Pro- 
testant Church  was  not  within  the  pale  of  the 
Catholic  Church  of  Christ;  a  consequence  which 
even  many  of  our  liberalists  would  be  reluctant 
to  admit. 

Towards  the  conclusion  of  his  Letter  on  Ca- 
tholicity, Doctor  Milner  remarks,  that  Pro- 
testants have  wo  ivay  of  accounting  for  the 
change  of  the  pure  religion  of  the  primitive 
ages,  for  the  new  and  false  system,  whi(?h  they 
call  Popery,  at  whate\er  period  it  may  be  tixed, 
"  but  by  supposing,  tluit  the  whole  collection 
of  Cliristians,  on  some  one  niglit,  went  to  bed 
Protestants,  and  awoke  the  next  morning  Pa- 
pists !"  "^J'his  is  wit  with  a  vtngeance.  The 
facetious  Doctor  reminds  me  of  those  persons 
who  draw  on  their  memories  for  that  article,  as 
they  do  on  their  imaginations  for  argununl  ;  for, 
poor  as  the  joke  w,  it  has  not  •  \('n  the  merit  (if 
originality,      lint   surely    the    idea   was     iiev«r 

■icinberg  of  ihe  Church  of  Rome,  in  my  ninarka  on  hi*  nr- 
riion  preached  at  the  coiuccratioii  of  ihc  Fopinh  church  of  St. 
(.'had's  in  the  town  of  Hirniiti;;iiani,  in  1S09.  Tlic  quiliblci 
» liich  he  thtii  |»nl)lishctl  on  ihr  subject,  clo»fly  re»rml)lc  thn»r, 
uhich  appear  in  bin  Endqf  ('onlrovrrty  — .Sec  Ak^meu  to  \Vnr«l. 
J'rtfari-,  p.  xxxiv.  ;  and  Prcf.T"'-  fo  tbi^  Work,  t"WJirdii  ihc 
end. 


4i(3  KXCLL'SIVE    CATHOMCTTY. 

once  entertained,  that  the  corruptions  of  Chris- 
tianity were  of  instantaneons  growth,  or  that 
the  Church  of  Rome  liad  contracted  them  in  a 
clay,  a  year,  or  even  in  a  century.  Be  this  as 
it  may,  my  wish  isy  that  all  the  members  of  its 
communion  may,  after  their  next  night's  sleep, 
awake  Protestants,  and  that  the  Church  to 
which  they  belong,  may  imitate  the  modest  and 
unassuming  demeanour  of  the  Church  of  ling- 
land,  and  ever  feel  itself  under  the  influence 
of  that  meek  and  tolerant  spirit — that  genuine 
Christian  charity,  which  is  the  unerring  mark 
and  criterion  of  the  true  Church  of  Christ. 


ITNIS. 


J.  M'Creery,  Tooks-Court, 
Chancery-Laoa,  LoodoD. 


UNIVLRSITV  OF  CALIFORNIA   LIUKAKY 

Los  Angeles 

Tliis  book  is  DUE  on  the  last  date  stamped  below. 


Form  L9-Series  4939 


BX1731.        M636EZG 


AA    000  632  341     4