'wS^ww
S^wwW^
SPECIAL COLLECTIONS
t)OUQLAS
LibRAR:?
queeN's UNiveRSiiy
AT klNQSrON
Presented by
Dr. A.R.M. Lower. 19o5-
kiNQSTON ONTARIO CANADA
SECOND LETTER
TO THE
REV. HERBERT MARSH, D.D. F.R.S.
Margaret Pro/csso?' ofDivinily in the University of Cambridge ;
CONFIRMING THE OPIXIOIf
THAT
THE VITAL PRINCIPLE
OF THE REFORMATION
HAS BEEN LATELY CONCEDED BY HLM
TO THE
CHURCH OF ROME.
BY THE REV. PETER GJISIDOLPHY,
Priest of the Catholic Clmrch.
1813.
ftC^<^' /^'3.
A LETTER, &c.
Rev. Sir,
1 H E polite answer you liave published to the
Congratulatory Letter I had the lienor of addressino to
you, on the subject of your Imquiry, calls upon me to acknow-
ledge that every line therein exhibits evidence of having been in-
scribed by the pen of the scholar and the gentleman. I feci moreover
rather compelled again to obtrude myself upon your attention, be-
cause you appear completely to have mistaken the circumstance
that occasioned my Conguatulatory Letter to you, and I
should be extremely sorry were it believed, that I had imputed to
you any sentiment which your own language does not convey to the
reader. You seem to think that I was referring to a defence of
religion against Dissenters, when I extolled the good sense of
those arguments urged by you, in favor of a distribution of the
Liturgy. — By no means. — Your Sermon at St. Paul's, your
Inquiry, your Letter to Mr. Vansittart, all clearly
proved to me, that you were reasoning with Protestants of the
Established Church, and labormg to convince them, that if they
sincerely wished their children io profess the same religion as
themselves, if they were desirous of imparting to the rising genera-
tion the doctrines of the Church of Engl;nid, as they had been
received from the Reformers, they must acconipauy the distribu-
tion of the Bible, with the distribution of the Liturgy. You
399
asserted in your Inquiry, (No. I. p. 113.) that such were the rery
principles of ''your Reformers ;" — " those Priests who composed
the Liturgy and Articles ;" — that by " this c7«e, their disciples
would be led in safety through dark and intricate passages, where
many a pilgrim had lost his \\ay" without it. You stated (No. 1. p.
100.) that the Poor of the Establishment, could not be pre-
served in the religion of their fathers, if they were not provided
with this "safe-guard against the delusions of false interpretations."
— You also say (No. I. p. 104.) that the Book of Common
Prayer is necessary to prevent " the Poor of the Establishment y^
from being seduced from the religion of the Established Church,
although they have the Bible as a safeguard.
1 am truly sorry then to perceive that you have so completely
mistaken the circumstance that induced me to address to you the
Co \G[iATULATORY Letter. — Nothing was ever more foreign
from my thoughts, than to compliment you, for appealing to an
authority, whilst arguing with the Dissenter, M'hich the Dissenter
does not admit. — I should first endeavour to convince him of the
necessity of admitting that authority; — which was my real motive
for inscribing to you The Sermon on the Inadequacy of
THE Bible to be an exclusive Rule of Faith. — For
admit but the principle of authority^ and you must either be a
Catholic, or what you have defined a Generalized Protest a) it.—'
Thus Catholics' in contending against Dissenters never appeal to
tradition, but to the Bible only, because the Bible only is the rule
of faith for the Dissenters. But if the Dissenters appeal from or
over the Bible to Luther or to Calvin, then I conceive the Catho-
lic is also justified in appealing to authorities not less respected by
hiui. On this account, when I observe that you so strongly urged
the necessary distribution of the Liturgy with the Bible, to the
Members of the Establishment, I insisted that as your
principle was ours, so had I a right to look forward to the hap-
piest result; viz the fiTll acknowledgment of the
SOUNDNESS OF OUR Catholic PRINCIPLE. For principles
are as efficient in establishing other principles, as causes in gene-
rating effects. Fairly then did 1 conclude, that by insisting on the
necessity of " this ilue, which would lead the members of the
Estabhshment in safety," (No. I. p. 113.) you were fast approxi-
400
mating to our principle of TrADiTioN, if not directly advocating
that point of Catholic doctrine.
To this conclusion, however, you now say, you had no inten-
tion of proceeding — but, Sir, as you well know, principles will
carry us along with them in spite of ourselves : and a good logician
sees no other alternative than to renounce the principle, or follow
it through its long train of consequences. You must, therefore,
either admit that the " poor of the Eslab/ishmcnt do not require
the Commou Prayer Book, to keep them in the religion of their
fathers, and secure diem against ' the delusions of false interpret
tations,' " whilst they have the Bible, or acknowledge that another
evidence, another authority or clve is necessary, and that is, what
is styled in the Catholic Church Tradition ; the WORD, un-
written in the Scriptures. Else whence do you maice a distinction
of orders in the hierarchy of your Church ? Else how do you
justify the practice of baptizing infants who have no actual faith ?
Else how do you dispense with the obligation of washing one
another s feet '^ Else why do you keep holy the first day of the
week instead of the Sabbath day ? Else why do ycu ever venturo
to eat blood or strangled meats r Else how do you justify in a
minister of Christ, the possession of gold and silver, and rich
livings ? Else how do you justify the tendering and taking of
oaths ? In all these points the Bible is either against your prac-
tice or silent. Have you then presumed to add to the text, or
have you admitted Tradition, as " a clue ^o lead the members of
the Establishment i)i safeti/ T'
But you express a serious complaint against me for placing be-
tween inverted commas a proposition not to be found in your
works, viz. " true religion cannot be found by the Bible alone,'' and
saying that it is a principle for which you contend. It was far
from my intention, Sir, to impute to you a sentiment which either
you had not written, or \\ as not a direct inference from your prin-
ciples. You are not unacquainted tvith the universal principle in
logic, qu(& sunt eadem uni tertioj sunt eadem inter se : and there-
foie I did conceive, that I had ascribed to you no more than
yourself had contended for, in different words only ; and 1 cannot
therefore believe, that 1 have imposed upon my readers, nay I
still maintain it to be your principle that, '' true religion cannot
401
be found by the Bible alone" For you affirm that the religion of
the Church of England is the most correct system,— the correct sys-
tem of rehgion, (Inquiry, No. I. p. 107. Serm. p. 77) the true sys-
tem of reho-ion, (No. 1. p. 100.) but that those who have the Bible
alone, cannot find it, (Inquiry, No. I. pp. 100, 104, 107, 124.) there-
fore this most correct, this correct, this true system cannot be found
by the Bible alone — therefore, " true religion cannot be
FOUND BY the Bible alone." Indeed if the religion of the
Church of England be true, and if you beheve that it can be found
by the Bible alone, I cannot conceive what is the real object of yoiu:
writings on this subject : you speak throughout of the necessity of
accompanying the Bible with the Prayer Book, — you speak of the
Bible alone leading to abstract or generalized Protestantism (Note,
No I. p. 1 19.) — in short, if expressions are sentiments, and if a true
syllogistic conclusion is always identijiable with the premises, 1 still
conceive that I did not deviate from the truth, when I affirmed that
a Margaret Professor was contending for this principle that " true
religion cannot be found by the Bible alone." For you even acknow-
ledge in the plainest language, that men may therein seek in vain
for the essentials of Christianity ; — " that even in the essentials of
Christianity very different conclusions have been drawn from the
Bible, and by men of whom it would be very unjust to say that
they had not studied it clevoutli)" (Note, No. I. p. 125.)
After what, you have already said, 1 still apprehend that you
will deny the justness of my position — you will distinguish bfetvveea
thenar? of finding the true religion of the Church of England by
the Bible alone, and the •possibility — but surely, Sir, this would
amount to a mere quibble of distinction — for what is only morally
possible, may be in a variety of circumstances morally impossible,
and is absulutely improbable. For it must be dependent upon
such an extraordinary coincidence of coniingents, that no prudent
and sensible man would be justified in calculating upon it. We
are therefore authorized to say, that what is only morally possible
to some persons, is to many others morally impossible. Conse-
quently, if you mean to infer that it is morally possible to find the
religion of the Church of England by the Bible alone, you equally
negative the proposition, and assert the moral impossibility. — To
sum up this argument in a very few w ords, 1 acknowledge 1 was
402
unintentionally incorrect, in placing the words " true religion can-
not be found by the Bible alone" between inverted commas, which
denoted them to be your precise expression ; and for that I most
readily make you an apology. But 1 cannot persuade myself to
admit that there was any want of correctness as to the sense of
those words : because you declare, that in your belief the tme re-
lioion and the esfab/is/ied religion of this country are the same.
Now you contend that the established religion cannot be found by
the Bible aloue. The conclusion therefore is, if ever conclusion
was fully evident, that true religion cannot ee found
BY THE Bible alone.
However, although I complimented you, in my first Letter, on
the manly manner in which you liad surrendered this vital principle
of Protestantism, I observe that you are still wavering between
the right and the wrong — still hesitatiiig before you finally re-
nounce the untenable principle of your church. You seem to have
cloathed yourself in Catholic armour, unconscious of the banners
under which you were fighting. But let us take courage in con-
sistency, and our cause w ill never fail to triumph — having thrown
away your own arms, as it is a Catholic weapon that you have
seized, it is from a Catholic you should learn how to manage it.
This recals to my recollection an anecdote of a brother clergy-
man of your church at Paris, who was visiting the lions of that
famed metropolis^ in the society of an English Catholic Priest,
and aiibther countryman of ours, who happened to be a dissenting
minister. As they visited the different churches, and paid a parti-
cular attention to all the forms and ceremonies of the national re-
lioion, freely expressing their opinions upon every point, the
Church of England clcroyman was perpetually engaged in sup-
porting either the arguments of the Catholic priest, or those of the
Dissenting minister. When the propriety of a liturgy — ritual ob-
servances, or ecclesiastical institutions, and the sinfulness of schism
and heresy were discussed, the Church of England Protestant im-
mediately dressed himself out in the full livery of the Catholic
priest, and argued most earnestly against the simplifying doctrine
of the Dissenter, But as soon as the Dissenter began to main-
tain the right of private judgment in matters of faith, and the suf-
ficiency of the scriptures, — as soon as he began to inveigh against
403
the Bishop of Home, the authority of the Church, and her ecume-'
nical decrees, he immediately stood up in defence of the Dis-
senter's arguments, and contended, that as they were two to one,
tlie Calhohc Priest was in the mmority, and therefore he oa-jht to '
surrender at discretion. As the conversation, however, was carried
on with that freedom and good humor which should distinguish all
religious controveisies, the Catholic Priest and the Dissenting
Minister, knowing the consistency of their own prnic.iples, and
seeing at the same time the inconsistency of those professed by the
Clergyman of the Establishment, observed to him, " We acknow-
ledge, Sir, that you have sliown much courage in this controversial
contest, but you have fought on both sides, and you have fought
with weapons which were not your own — have you, then, none to
arm yourself with, which are really i/ours'f" " None ! ! !" *' Realljr
then you are to be pitied; for what would you do in your defence
if we both should come against yon, clad in the armour of those very
arguments in, w hich you conceive yourself victorious ? unarmed and
defenceless, you would be under the necessity of surremlering to
one or the other."
Now, Sir, I consider this atiecdote very applicable to our present
controversy, and entertain the hope that in this story you perceive
a miniature description of the future struggles of the Established
Church, against her numerous adversaries. I certainly think, with
many others, that the time is come, when the Church of England
must choose between an approximation to the Catholics or the
Dissenters, — A middle course is no longer possible, and you must
either agree to maintain the Christian Hierarchy by a re-union with
the Church of Rome, and a concordatum with the Papal See,
grounded upon mutual concessions, or you must be prepared to see
the whole religious establishment of this empire absorbed in that
overwhelming current which, as you are so well aware, is fast
undermining its foundations. To withstand the torrent which is
now set in against this fabric, it should have been built upon a rock,
which it is not ; it must, therefore, pass away, like all estab-
lishments raised on a sandy foundation. Mi/ Church , said Jesus
Christ, is built upon a rock and against her the gates of hell shall
never prevail.*
• I shall perhaps be answered in this manner. If the Protestant Estab-
lished Church be swept away, be pleased to recollect that the Church of
404
There is another position in your letter to me (No. III. p. 78.) which
I cannot pass by without an observation. Do you. Sir, as Margaret
Professor in the University of Cambridge, as one of the Theological
Doctors of your Church, assert that," without the Bible indeed we
cannot be Christians f— I really do not pretend to understand this
sentence — but surely, when a Doctor of Divinity writes upon
so grave a point, 1 think he should write with precision. These
words, Sir^ imply that Baptism does not make us Christians — they
imply, that men cannot be Christians, till they are made so by the
jBible. — Are then all infants, all those who cannot read or procure
a Bible, non-Christians'? Were not you, Sir, a Christian, till you
had read the Bible ? Were then the three thousand souls who were
added to the Church in one day, by St. Peter, non-ChristianSy
because they had no Bibles .^ Were all the primitive disciples of the
apostles non-Christians, the wiiole Church non-Christian, because
the New Testament had not then been written ? Really, Sir, unless
you explain yourself more precisely, the reflection you have drop-
ped must create great uneasiness in the minds of many of your
readers; for it is a sentiment which will descend to posterity,
stamped with the authority of a Margaret Professor.
After writing, therefore, the foregoing pages, I do not see, Sir,
why you should tell me, '' that I congratulate myself in vain on the
similarity of our opinions ;" adding, " unless I am prepared to let
the Bible without tradition, as you are to let the Bible without the
Liturgy and Articles, be the rule for deciding controversies
between your church and mine." (Letter to the Rev. P. G. No. III.
p. 82.) Sir, I profess to deal out to others in the same measure, in
which I deal out to myself; and my only complaint against you is
that you decline this just principle. I conceive. Sir, that religion
should be taught as it has been learnt — and that it should be main-
tained and defended by the same means by which it has been found
and acquired. On this account, when controverting with a Dis-
senter, we appeal to the Bible alone, because he does not, like us
Rome oncemeta similar fate. She is therefore not built upon a rock. — To this
plausible objection I would make this reply. The Church ol" England exists
in this country as a whole ; and thus it may be entirely subverted. But the
Roman Catholic Church when established in this country, was only a partoi
a whole; and when subverted, it fell as a principal limb of a great tree. But
the tree itself continued to stand firmly rooted.
405
churchmen, admit a church authority (see Article 20th among the
39) ; but we always tell him that no controversy can be finally
settled without the aid of tradition. i\nd we even charge him with
the j9rfft'^/a// admission of it, although he theoreticullij exclude it
from his principles. And for the justice of this assertion 1 can
quote a Protestant writer. Nightingale, in his Portraiture of the
Catholic Religion, says: "the Bible! the Bible only! is the
religion of Protestants !" exclaims good William Chillingworth. —
" Very true," says the judicious Hooker, in his Ecclesiastical
Polity ; " but then you must submit to receive the Bible from the
hands of Churcli-of-£ngland men." — " Certainly, the Bible, by all
means," adds the learned Margaret Professor; "yet the Bible is
nothing without the Book of Common Prayer." — '■' Nay, nay, the
Bible is not the thing you want, unless you discover in it all the
great and precious truths contained in the Assembly's Catechism,
and can submit to the wholesome discipline of the Directory,"
replies the pious and sober Presbyterian. " No, no, no," savs the
zealous Methodist ; " it is the Bible collated with Mr. Wesley's
Sermons and Mr. Fletcher's Checks, that is the religion of
Protesti.nts." — " And thou mayest read the Bible and the checks
till Doomsday, friend, to no purpose, unless thou hast the light of
the spirit," adds the modest Quaker. — " A truce with your spirit !"
exclaims the Swedenborgian; " why dont you read the works of
the highly illuminated Baron, wherein are answered all questions,
be they high as heaven or deep as hell ?" — ^' You all are right, and
all are -wrong," rejoins the Rev. Dr. Sturges, the Prebendary of
Winchester ; " provided * the magistrate chooses' to say so ; for it is
his province to decide which shall be the national religion."
You perceive. Sir, that you are not the only one, who denies in
theory what he admits in practice. I must therefore again beseech
you to recollect, that my observations respect the means of learning
and teaching religion, not the mode of defending it against those
who dissent from us. I hardly think that \ have once even glanced
at this extraneous question in my Congratulatory Letter to
you. I see not then how you can consistently challenge me to meet
you with the Bible alone, whilst you hold the Liturgy and Articles
in your hand, or as a defence keep them hidden in your bosom.
But if it really be your intention fanly to come forth m the presence
406
of the whole university of Cambridge, armed with the Bible
ONLY, and dash on the floor the gamitlet of defiance, I'll not de-
cline the challenge, but take it up and face you in single combat on
equal terms.
>Jo\v, Sir, joking apart, as you well know, were we to meet on
this ground, at the end of the contest our general appearance would
be so completely metamorphosed, onr whole aspect so perfectly
new, and sui generis, so perfectly different from any thing that ha»
hitherto been seen in Christendom, that we should neither be known
by a Catholic, a Church of England Protestant, a Dissenter, or
^lethodist. We should return into the world as a liisus natunSf
some monster in religion, which would be both the pity and the
vonder of men. Amphibious in our relations to the old and new
law, we should walk through life like the camelion, showing some
new shade and color in every diversity of circunjstance. Oh then
what solicitude would be expressed by our respective friends that we
should re'urn from this heterogeneous condition to civilized society,
that you should resume your Liturgy and Articles, and I my
Traditions, and that we should together confess the folly of
aspiring to true virtue and discreet religion in the savage state of an
unregulated, emancipated mind.
If then you acknowledge the wildness of this scheme which you
have proposed, and, re-entering into your more iust reflections»
think you may venture to descend into the arena as a Church of
England Protestant, girded with the Liturgij and Articles, again I
declare my readmess to meet you.' liJay, ere many weeks have
elapsed you shall behbld a hostile shield, against which, unless your
courage fail you, yon may break a spear : and it is this very circum-
stance which has necessarily drawn off my attention from your
Letter to me, v/hich otherwise 1 should have had the honor of
sooner replying to.
You have most sensibly and happily admitted, that " true religion
and established religion," are distinct things, (Letter to the Rev. P.
G. No. in. p. 74.) ; and you very properly add, " that if the terms
were synonymous, truth would be often at variance with itself ; it
would apply, or not apply, to the very same thing according to mere
accident." 1 shall take the liberty then of placing myself upon this
* A Defence of the ancient Faith, in four volumes.
407
cardinal principle, and my object shall be to show, that although
the Catholic Religion is not ihe established religion of this
country, it is nevertheless the true religion. Yourscli" having ad-
mitted the possibi/ifi/ ol' this case, my endeavour shall be to prove
the Jact. Your own distinction relieves me from all squeamishness
on this subject ; for you say, tJMt " the establishment of rel.gion in
any country fas both Bishops Warburton and Dr. Paley have clearly
shown), is not founded in the consideration of its truth; — this
question lies zcithout the province of the legislature : it is a question
of theology, and not of civil government." — I then shall undoubt-
edly argue, not as a civil lawyer, or legidator, but as a theologian^
acting within my own just province ; and I cannot hesitate in sup-
posing, that all Protestant theo/cgimis w ill express an eternal grati-
tude to me, if my humbIe^,etforts should throw some new light upon
the subject, and enable them to discover a mistake in their theoltgi-
Crt/ calculations.
But in your letter to me (p. 7.) ^ notice another proposition, to
which I cannot by any means subscribe, and my only surprise is,
that you should have left your readers in any doubt whether you
subscribe to it yourself. 1 think, Sir, it almost contains a libel
upon the virtues and the consciences of men. You say, " the truth
of a religion may operate, remotely or indirectly, on the decision of
the legislature. But the immediate and direct motive which operates
ii) the establishment of religion, is its utility to the state." — I say, Sir,
God forbid that I should ever subscribe to this principle, or charge
it against any ciiristian government. IVlahomet indeed is accused of
having made his religion purely subservient to the state, but I will
not confound ISlahometan principles with those of Christians ; 1 will
not place the Koran in society with the Bible. H o\\ ever, is not the
veryadmission which you havemade of this governing principle suffi-
cient to shake that misplaced confidence which so many repose in a
religion because it is established. I conceive that as true religion is
anterior in point of date to the establishment of every christian
government in Europe, the very circumstance of a religion being
formally introduced by a legislature as the established religion of any
country, strongly militates against its claim to originality. To the
Church might very properly be applied the armorial motto of one
of our noble families:
408
Reges ex nobis, non nos ex regibus orti.'
But yoit observe moreover in the same page, " that Protestantism
became the established rehgion of this country, because the great
body of the people agreed to profess Christianity under that form,
and it would cease to be the established religion, if at any time the
great body of the people should determine to profess Christianity
under another form." But, Sir, unless you intend to measure for
your neighbours by a ^lifFerent standard than that by which you
square for Englishmen, how will you reconcile this principle with
the justice of the penal laws in Ireland for the last two centuries,
or with the objections you express in your postscript, to the eman-
cipation of the GREAT BODY OF THE* PEOPLE OF IrELANO,
who have not so much as even hinted a wish that their religion should
be made the established religion of Ireland r You were not aware
then I dare say, when you wrote that postscript, of the principle
you had advanced in the body of your letter. But now that you
have reconsidered yourself, 1 think the Catholics of Ireland have
good grounds for expecting, that with your own pen you will
cancel those " Remarks" which your postscript contains, ''on
the consequences which must result from the concession of the
Catholic claims." I am confident they zvoidd not ask you to carry
your consistency farther, though they evidently might.
You say, page 82 of your Letter to me, " that I agree with
other writers of my community in making Tradition Xhe paramount
authority, by which the truth or falsehood of Christian doctrines
is to be decided." I must then notice a little error in the propo-
sition you have stated. We do not say that Tradition is a para-
mount authority — or that Tradition is to decide the truth or false-
hood of Christian doctrines, any more than wc say, that legal
evidence is a paramount anthoritj/, and decides on a civil trans-
action in a judgment given by the twelve judges, I conceive the
language would be more legal, to say, that the twelve judges
decide on any civil transaction, by the statute and common law of
the land, and the evidence adduced. In the same manner also, I
would reverse your proposition and say, that the catholic CHURCH
decides on the truth and falsehood of religious doctrines, by the
strength of those written and unwritten evidences which have been
handed from father to son, through succeeding generations, which
409
evidences are generally styled Tradition. It is not Tradition
therefore, but the Church, that decides by the testimony of Tiadi-
tion, and SHE is i\\e paramount authority. With this explana-
tion I admit your statement ; yet perhaps, Sir, you will feel sur-
prise when I tell you, that I mean to place a similar account at
your own door, and instead of admitting the justice of your re-
mark, in your Letter to me, p. 81, Pamph. No. HI, viz. *^ that as
my basis is false my superstructure falls at once to the ground " —
I mean to prove to you that as you have placed your very Bible
upon the basis of Tradition, so the whole superstructure you have
raised is grounded on Tradition.
Since I had the honor of addressing to you my Congratula-
TOEY Letter, I have had the great satisfaction of perusing your
two Coursed of Lectures on Divinity. They have fully established
in my mind the opinion 1 had conceived of your extensive reading,
your learning, and solid judgmentj and this opinion is particularly
strengthened by observing these Lectures universally inculcate the
necessity of Tradition ; and I may add, the necessity, by inference,
of a supreme defining authority. I conceive. Sir, it is impossible
for any Christian, any Theolov:;ian to hear, or peruse your Lec-
tures, and not to feel discouragement, if not absohite dismay, at
the Herculean work your labors have cut out for him. At it I
tliink the very bravest and most undaunted will stand appalled.
1 OM can best tell the difficulties of the course you have run, and
the obstacles to be encountered. You can say how much farther
you are now advanced towards certitude in biblical knowledge,
than you were at the commencement of your career. I only feel
confounded at my own con)parative in^igniticance, and am forced
to look towards heaven, to know how, with the inexperience, the
youth and feebleness of a David, I can possess sufficient fortitude
to match myself against a Goliah in Biblical Theology. Surely,
you will say, there must be operating some potent principle which
can render me, without the armour of your learning, so perfectly
fearless and composed. There is, I avow it ; and as the Hero of
Israel confided in his sling and pebbles, so you will see yourself
defeated by Tradition, and perceive that you have only armed
yourself to fall by your own weapon.
Vol. II. Pam. No. IV. 2 C
410
1 trurft, Sir, I shall not offend you by the strength of this figu-
rative hmguage, since I assure you I intend nothing disrespectful
by it. But the Lectures contained in your two first Courses of
Divinity, all point at the necessity of studying and colhiting the
criticisms of the Bible ; and as 1 wish to build my assertion on a
very solid foundation, I shall be under the necessity of placing be-
fore you some very considerable extracts.
" ' Your Lectures," you say, " may be compared with a map
and a book of directions, from wluch the traveller may learn the
road which he must take, the stages which he must go, and the
places where he must stop, in order to arrive with the greatest
ease and safety at his journey's end. Descriptions of this kind arc
fio less useful in travelling through the paths of knowledge than in
travelling over distant lands. And it is a description of this kind,
Avhich will be attempted in these Lectures."
" Here it may be asked, zchat is the end of the journey to which
these Lectures are intended to lead ? Is it the object of elements,
thus general and comprehensive, to generalise Christianity itself,
to represent it in the form of a general theorem, from which indi-
vidual creeds are to be deduced as so many corollaries ? Or is it
tlieir object to maintain one particular creed to the exclusion of all
others? The latter may appear to be less liberal than the former,
but it is only so in appearance ; while the advantages ascribed to
the former, are as imaginary, as those possessed by the latter ar«
suhstantiaL It is diliicult to conceive any thing more painful or
more injurious to the student in divinity, than to be left in a state
of uncertain ti/y what he is at last to believe, or disbelieve. Where
no particular system of faith is inculcated, where a variety of ob-
jects is represented without discrimination, the minds of the hearers
must become so unsettled, they must become so bewildered in
regard to the ciioice of their creed, as to be in danger of choosing
none at all. The attempt to generalise Christianity, in order to
embrace a variety of creeds, will ultimately lead to the exclusion of
all creeds ; it will have a similar effect wiUi Spinosa's doctrine of
Pantheism ; it will produce the very opposite tO' that, which the
name itself imports. And as Pantheism, though nominally the
' Part I. p. 8.
411
reverse, is in reality but another term for Atheism, so Christianity,
when generalised, is no Christianity at all. Tlie very essentials of
Christianity nnist be omitted, before we can obtain a form so
general, as not to militate against any of the numerous systems,
which in various ages have been denominated Clnistian. Some
particular system, therefore, must be adopted, as the object and
end of our theological study. What particular system must be
the object and end of our theological study, cannot be a question
in this place ; it cannot be a question with men who are studying
with the very view of tilling conspicuous stations in the Church of
England. That system, then, which was established at the Re-
formation, and is contained in our Litingi/, our Articles, and our
Homilies, is-lhe system, to which all our labors must be ultimately
diiected."
" If it be objected, that the student will thus be prejudiced in
favor of a particular system before he has had an opportunity of
comparing it with others, one answer to the objection has been
already given, namely, that however specious the plan of teaching
Christianity on a broad basis, it is incapable of being reduced to
practice ; that, if various systems be taught, they must be taught,
not in union, but in succession ; and consequently, that at least in
point of time some one system must have the precedence."
" * That theological learning is necessary to make a good divine
of the Church of England, is a position, which a learned audience
will certainly be disposed to admit. And this position will ap-
pear still more evident, when we consider what it is which consti-
tutes the chief difference between the learned and the unlearned in
theolosrv. It is not the abilitv to read the New Testament in
Greek, which makes a man a learned divine, though it is one of
the ingredients, without which he cannot become so. The main
difference consists in this, that while the unlearned in divinit) ob-
tain only a knowledge of what the truths of Christianity are, the
learned in divinity know also the grounds on which they rest. And
that this knowledge ought to be obtained by every man who as-
sumes the sacred office of a Christian teacher, nothing but the
blindest enthusiasm can deny. If St. Peter, in addressing himself
' Part I. p. 12.
412
to the numerous converts of Pontius, G alalia, Cappadocia, Asia^
Bithjnia, required that they should be alv.ays ready to give a rea-
son of the hope that was in them, how much more necessary must
he have thought this abihty in those who were set apart to be
teachers of the gospel r"
" But ask any one of those illiterate teachers m ith which this
country unfortunately abounds, ask him why he is a Christian and
not a JSIahometan ; ask him why he believes that Christianity is a
real revelation, and Mahometanisni only a pretended one ? He
Mould answer either with a vacant stare, or with a reproach at the
impiety of the question, as if it had been proposed with any other
vievv' than to try his knowledge. Kot so the learned divine. He
would enter into those historical and critical arguments, of which
the unlettered enthusiast has no conceptioti, but by which alone
the authenticity of the gospel history can be established, by which
alone the miracles recorded in it can be confirmed, by which alone
the claims of Christianity to a divine origin can be proved legiti-
mate."
" There is no ground then for that distinction between science
and religion, that the one is an object of reason, the other an ob-
ject of faith. Religion is an object of both ; it is this very circum-
stance which distinguishes the unlearned from the learned in divi-
nity ; while the former has faith only, the latter has the same faith
accomparried with reason. The former believes the miracles and
doctrines of Christianity, as being recorded in the New Testa-
ment ; the latter also believes the miracles and doctrines recorded
in the New Testament, and he believes them, because by the
help of his reason he knows what the other does not, that the re-
cord is true."
" But is not religion, it may be said, a matter of general im-
port ? Does it not concern all men, the unlearned as well as the
learned ? Can it be true then that such a literary apparatus is
necessary for the purpose of religion ? and would not at least nine-
tenths of mankind be, in that case, excluded from its benefits ?
certainly not from Its practical benefits, which alone are wanted,
as they alone are attainable by the generality of mankind. Men,
whose education and habits have not prepared them for profound
inquiry, whose attention is wholly directed to the procuring of the
413
necessaries of life, depend, and must depend, for the truth of the
doctrnies which are taught them, on th^ authority of their teachers
znd preachers, of whom it is taken for granted^ that they have in-
vestigated and really know tlie truth. But is this any reason why
men, who are set apart for the ministry, should likewise be satis-
fied with taking tilings upon trust ? Does it follow, because a
task is neglected by those who have neither leisure nor abilitif to
undertake it, that it must likewise be neglected by those who
possess them both ? Ought we not rather to conclude, that in
proportion to the inahiUti/ of the hearers to investigate for them-
selves, in proportion therefore to the confidence which they must
place in their instructor, their instructor should endeavour to con-
vince/«/;?i5e// of the truth of his doctrines ? And how is this con-
viction, this real knowledge of the truth, to be attained without
learning T'
" * We have every reason, therefore, to persevere in the study
of divinity : there is none whatever to dissuade us from it. We
have every reason to applaud the wisdom of our illustrious foun-
ders, who were not of opinion that it is easier to become a good
divine than a good mechanic ; who w ere not of opinion, that the
head requires less exercise than the hands ; or that, if a seven
years' apprenticeship is necessary to learn the manual operations of
a common trade, a less time is requisite for the intellectual attain-
ments of a Christian teacher. No ; they required a two- fold ap-
prenticeship to divinity : a seven years' study of the liberal arts,
as preparatory to the study of divinity, and another seven years'
study of divinity itself before the student was admitted to a degree
in that profession."
" * When we attempt to expound a work of high antiquity,
which has passed through a variety of copies, both ancient and
modern, both written and printed ; copies which differ from each
other in very numerous instances, we should have some reason to
believe, that the copy, or edition, which we undertake to inter-
pret, approaches as nearly to the original as it can be brought by
human industry or human judgment. Or, to speak in the techiii-
cal language of criticism, before we expound an author, we should
* Part I. p. 17. ' Part I. p. 24,
414
procure the most correct text of that author. But in a work of
such importance as the Bible, we shoiild confide in the bare asser-
tion of 7io man, with respect to the question, in what copy or edi-
tion either the Greek or the Hebrew text is contained most cor-
rectli/. We should endeavour to obtain sufiicieut information on
this subject to enable us to judge for ourselves ; and the informa-
tion which is necessary for this purpose, may be obtained eveu
before we are acquainted with any other branch of theology. Por
when a passage is differently worded in different copies ; or, to
speak in technical terms, when it has various readings, the question,
which of those readings is iprohabhj the original, or genuine read-
ing, must be determined by authorities and by kules similar
to those which are applied to classic authors. The study of sacred
criticism, therefore, as far as it relates to the obtaining of a correct
text, may precede the study of every other branch : but, if it maxjy
there are obvious reasons why it should. And, if that department
of it which relates to the genuineness of whole books belongs on
one account to a later period of theological study, it may still on
another account be referred even to the first. Though the appli-
cation or the practice of it requires the assistance of another
branch, yet a knowledge of its principles may be previously ob-
tained. Now the study of sacred criticism produces a habit of
accurate investigation, which will be highly beneficial to us in our
future theological inquiries. Its influence also is such, that it per-
vades every other part of theology ; and, as our notions in this part
are clear or obscure, our conclusions in other parts will be distinct
or confused. In short, it is a branch which affords nutriment and
life to all the other branches, which nnist become more or less
vigorous, in proportion as this branch either florishes or decays.
To sacred criticism, then, the foremost rank is due."
" The reproaches which have been made, and the dangers which
have been ascribed to it, proceed only from the want of knowing
its real value. It is not the object of sacred criticism to expose
the word of God to the uncertainties of human conjecture ; its
object is not to weaken, and much less to destroy the edifice which
for ages has been the subject of just veneration. Its primary ob-
ject is to show the firmness of that foundation, on which the sa-
cred edifice is built, to prove the genuineness of the materials, of
41j
Mliich the edifice is constructed. It is employed in the confutation
of objections, m hich, if made by ignorance, can be removed only
by knowledge. On the other band, if in tbe progress of inquiry
excrescences should be discovered, which violate the symmetry of
the original fabric, which betray a mixture of the human witli the
divine, of interpolations, which the authority or artitice of man
has engrafted on the oracles of God, it is the duty of sacred criti-
cism to detect the spurious, and remove it from the genuine. For
it is not less blameable to accept what is false, than to reject what
is true : it is not less inconsistent witli the principles of religion to
ascribe the authority of Scripture to that which is not Scripture,
than to refuse our acknowledgment, where such authority exists.
Nor should we forget, that, if we resolve at all events to retain
what has no authority to support it, we remove at once the crite-
rion, which distinguishes truth from falsehood, we involve the
spurious and the genuine in the same fate, and thus deprive our-
selves of the power of ever ascertaining what is the real text of the
sacred writings."
" ' But the qualification next to be mentioned, as necessary for
a good interpreter of the Bible, is not of so easy attainment,
namely, the knowledge of some fixed rule or principle, by \^ hich
we may direct our judgments, amid the discordant interpretations
of biblical commentators. That all men should agree in adopthig
one rule of interpretation is no more to be expected, than that all
men should agree in one religious creed. The very first principle
of interpretation, namely, that the real meaning of a passage is
its literal or grammatical meaning, that, as the writer himself in-
tended to apply it, so and no otherwise the reader must take it,
this principle, from which no expounder of any other work would
knowingly depart, is expressly rejected by many commentators on
the Bible, not only among the Jews, who set the example hi their
Targums, but also cmong Christians, who have followed that
example in their comments and paraphrases. It would be foreign
to the present Lectures to discuss the question, whether it is al-
lowable in our interpretation of the Bible, to depart in sonie casos
from the principle just mentioned. But if it be allowable, this
' Part I. p. 29.
416
departure must be made at least with consistency ; it must not be
made, till the divine authority of the Bible, is already established,
for on that ground only can we defend the adoption of other
rul<^s."
" ' When by the means above-mentioned we have acquired due
information in respect to any portion of Scripture, for instance,
the Five Books of Moses, or the Four Gospels, we are then
qualified, if not to investigate for ourselves, at least to study the
investigations which have been made by others, in respect to the
authenticity of those books, that is, whether they were written by
the authors, to whom they are ascribed. This is the plain ques-
tion which we must ask before we go further. Did such a person
write such a book, or did he not ? It is a mere historical question,
which must be determined, partly by external, and partly by in-
ternal evidence. But great confusion has taken place on this sub-
ject, by intermixnig matter, with which it has no necessary con-
nexion. VVI.en the fact, that the first of our Four Gospels, for
instance, was written by St. Matthew, has been once established,
by historical and critical arguments (w/tich historical and critical
arguments must he applied preciselij as zee ziould apply them to a
pioJa)ie author) it will follow of itself, that tbe Gospel was hispired,
wht a we come to the Suliject of inspiration, and show, that the
author, whose works we have already proved it to be, had received
the promise of the Holy Spirit. But if we investigate the two sub-
jects at the same time, if we intermix the question of inspiration
w ilh {.he question of authenticity, we shall probably establish neither.
In fact, the two questions are so distinct, that we cannot even begin
witii the one, till we have ended with the other. Before the point
has been ascertained, whether this Gospel was written by St.
Matthew, or by an impostor in his name, there is no ground even
for asking, whether it was written by inspiration ; for in the latter
case it would not be Scripture. It is obvious therefore, that in
our inquiries into the authenticity of the sacred writings, the sub-
ject of inspiration must be left for future discussion."
" When we have established the authenticity of the sacred
writings, that is, when we have established the historical fact, that
« Part I. p. 31.
417
they were written by the authors, to whom they are ascribed, the
next point to be ascertained is, the credit due to their accounts.
And here we must be careful to guard against a petitio principii,
to which very many writers on this subject have exposed them-
selves. If we assert, that tlie narratives, for instance, in the New
Testament are therefore intitled to credit, because the writers
were prevented by divine assistance from falling into material error,
we assert indeed what is true ; but it is a truth, which we can no
more apply in the present stage of our inquiry, than we can apply
the last proposition of a book of Euclid to the demonstration of
the first. For what other arguments can we produce, to show
that tliose writers Iiad such assistance, than arguments deduced
from the writings themselves ? And does not this argumentation
imply, that the truth of those writings is already established ? It
must be established therefore without an appeal to inspiration, or
it cannot be established at all. For as long as this truth remains
unestablished, so long must inspiration remain unproved. The
credibility, therefore, of the saci'ed writers, must be estimated, in
the first instance, as we would estimate the credibility of other
writers. We must build on their testimony as human evidence,
before we can obtain the privilege of appealing to them as di-
vine."
But in order to obtain both a firm conviction, and a clear
perception of the Christian doctrines, we must be content to travel
through the paths of Theology, without departing from the road
which lies before us. We must not imagine, that any particular
branch may be selected at pleasure, as it may happen to excite in
us a greater degree either of interest or of curiosity ; for if this
were allowable, where would be the utility of theological order '^
We must study the criticism of the Bible, before we can be quali-
fied, or at least before we can be well qualified to study the inter-
pretation of the Bible. And we must obtain a knowledge of the
Bible, before we can e\en judge of the arguments which are al-
leged for its authenticity and credibility. But till these points
have been established, we have established nothing in a religious
view ; and consequently, if we undertake the latter branches of
' Part I. p. 39.
418
Tlieology before we have gone through the former, Ave shall not
only build the doctrines of Christianity, but Christianity itself, on
a foundation of sand. In short, whoever undertakes to study
Tlieology, without preparing himself for the latter branches by a
knowledge of the former, undertakes as desperate a task, as a stu-
dent in mathematics, who should venture upon Newton's Prin-
cipia, before he had leaint eidier the properties of conic sections,
or even the elements of plain geometry."
" 1 am well aware, that a numerous sect of Christians in this
country have a much more easy and expeditious mode of studying
divinity. JSo lilerati/ apparatus is tlibie iiecessan/, eidier for the
intevpretation of the Bible, die establishment of its truth, or the
elucidation of its doctrines. Inward sensation supplies the place of
outzrard argument, divine communication supersedes' theological
learning, lint as 1 am not able to teach divinity in any other way
than I have been able to learn it, as my own conviction of the
truth of Christiiuiity is the result, not of sudden impul-e, but a
long and laborious investigation, as I have no other knowledge of
its doctrines than that which is founded on the Bible, interpreted
by human learning, my hearers must be satisfied, if they continue
their attendance, to follow with patience and perseverance in all
the portions of Theology through which it iS prepared to lead
them."
'' As a reason for reconmiending so laborious a pursuit, v.hich
perhaps to many persons will appear unnecsssaiy, it may be ob-
served, that the obj<^ct of these lectures is to form a theologian,
who shall be dioroughly acquainted with his ground from the com-
mencement to the close of his theological career, A\'ho, in the in-
terpretation of the Bible, shall never refer to a fact in the criticism
of the Bible, with v.hich he is not previously acquainted, nor be
compelled when he is searching the doctrines of the Bible, to
adopt a rule of interpretation, without perceiving the foundation
on which it rests."
'^ To those especially, who seek for conviction in certain inward
feelings, which the warmth of then- imaginations represents to them
as divine, I would recommend the serious consideration of this
important fact, diat die foundation which they lay for the Bible,
is no other than what die Mahometan is accustomed to lay for the
419
Koran. If you ask a ISIahometan wliy he ascribes divine autliority
to the Koran, his answer is, because, when I read it, sensations
are excited, which could not have been produced by any work
that came not from God."
'^ But do we therefore give credit to the Mahometan for this
appeal .'' Do we not immediately perceive, when tiie Mahometan
thus argues from inward sensation, that he is meiely raising a
phantom of his own imagination? and ought not tliis example,
when we hear a similar appeal from a Christian teacher, to make
us at least distrustful, not indeed with respect to Christianity itaelf,
but with respect to his mode of proving it ? He may answer, iu-
deed, and answer with truth, that his sensations are produced by a
work which is rcaUy divine, while the sensations excited in the
^laliometan, are proiiuced by a work which is only tliought so.
But this very truth will involve the person who thus uses it in a
glaring absurdity. In the first place he appeals to a criterion
which puts liie Bible on a level with the Koran : and then to ob-
viate this objection, he endeavours to show the superiority of his
own appeal, by pre-siipposuig the fact which he had undertaken
to prove."
" ' The criticism of the Greek Testament is a subject of the
very Jirst importance to every Christian ; and though a knowledge
of the language in which it was written is necessary for the exer-
else of that criticism, yet even w'ithout such knowledge some no-
tion may be formed of the efforts of the learned to place the docu-
ments of Christianity on a firm foundation. The importance of
this subject must be manifest to every one, who considers, that
the criticism of the Greek Testament contains the efements of that
analysis, by which we gradually discover the truth of our reli-
gion."
" To determine the mode of analysis which is necessary for this
purpose, of analysis which shall bring with it conviction, let us
suppose a man of liberal education, of sound understanding, and
of serious disposition, who in his religious opinions, for want of
proper instructions on that subject, has remained unsettled, but
would willingly assent to the truth of Christianity, provided certain
I Tart I. p. 8?.
420
propositions, necessary to establish that truth, were clearly ex-
plained to him. A man of this description, if a person endeavoured
to convince him from the New Testament, would argue in the
following manner : ' The book which you lay before me professes
indeed to contain a faithful -account of what was done and taught,
both by the Founder of Christianity, and by others who assisted
in the propagation of it. But you cannot expect that 1 should
allow its pretensions to be valid, till you have assigned sufficient
reasons that they are so ; and these reasons involve several propo-
sitions, which must be distinctly stated and distinctly proved. That
our attention may not be distracted by discussing different subjects
at the same time, let us, in the first instance, confine ourselves to
the epistles which you ascribe to St. Paul, who, as you assure me,
not only became a zealous promoter, from a zealous enemy of
Christianity, but was Vested even with divine authority for that
purpose. On this divine authority you found a set of doctrines,
which you require me to receive through the medium of your in-
terpretation, and declare at the same time that if I do not receive
them, the consequences will be the most dreadful that imagina-
tion can conceive. Now I am perfectly willing (the supposed
person might continue to say), I am perfectly willing to assent to
truths of such importance, but I must previously know that they
nre truths, or 1 have no foundation for my assent. For the pre-
sent 1 will waive the question, whether your interpretations be
right or wrong ; though I am well assured that something more is
requisite to a right understanding, of those Epistles, than is pos-
sessed by many who venture to explain them. But whatever be
their meaning, you must first convince me that St. Paul was the
author of them, or you leave them devoid of all religious obliga-
tion. And 1 expect that your proof be conducted, not with lofty
declamation, or deep denunciation against unbelief ; but by sober
sense and plain reason. For though I am ready to place im-
plicit confidence in St. Paul, as soon as you have proved that he
was a teacher sent from God; though I am ready to have un-
bounded faith in divine doctrines, as soon as I know that they are
divine ; yet I cannot transfer this unbounded faith to any modern
preacher of the gospel, however great his pretensions, whether
from learning or from sanctity. When you, therefore, assure me^
421
that St. Paul had a divine commission, and that he wrote the
Epistles in question, I expect these assertions, on your part, to be
supported by argument ; for your authority goes as far as your
arguments go, and wo farther.' "
" If the theologian, to whom this supposed person addressed
himself, were a man accustomed to biblical investigation, andjiad
sought a basis for his faith, such theologian would reply : ' 1 will
undertake to produce arguments, which shall convince any reason-
able man, that Paul, the apostle of Jesus Christ, was really the
author of the Epistles ascribed to him : and when this point has
been established, we have then o. foundation, on which our super-
structure may rest without danger.' But before you undertake this
task, the objector may still reply, there are certain prelimiuaries,
which must be settled between us, or we shall never come to a
definite conclusion. You must not take the English translation,
as the work, which is to be proved authentic ; for the term au-
thentic translatioii is a term without meaning. You may sav a
correct translation, or a faithful translation ; but the term authen-
tic applies only to the original, it applies only to the Greek
Epistles, as written, or alleged to be written, by St. Paul him-
self. Now that the Greek manuscripts of those Epistles very fre-
quently differ, as well from each other, as from the printed edi-
tions, is a fact, which it \^ould be useless to deny, and absurd to
overlook. Which therefore of the Greek manuscripts will you
take into your hand, when you assert, ' these are the Epistles,
which proceeded from the pen of St. Paul.' This is no easy mat-
ter to determine ; and yet it tnusi be determined, if the question of
authenticity be examined with that precision, which the impor-
tance of the subject demands. This supposed conversation will
render our present subject familiar to every hearer : it will show
him, where, and what is the key-stone of the arch, which supports
the fabric of Christianity."
" The tirst operation, therefore, in respect to the Greek Testa-
ment, wiiich must be performed by a theologian, who intends to
build his faith on a firm fouyidation, is to ascertain what copy of
the Epistles ascribed to St. Paul, what copy of an Epistle ascribed
to any other apostle, what copy of a Gospel ascribed to this or
that Evangelist, has the strongest claim to be received by us, as a
' 422
true copy of the author's own manuscript ; whoever the author,
or authors, may really have been, -which must be left to future
inquiry, or we shall again take for granted the thing to be proved.
Now the investigation of this previous question is a work of em-
vierise labor. The Greek manuscripts of St. Paul's Epistles (or
as we should rather say in the present stage of our inquiry, of the
Epistles ascribed to St. Paul) amount, as far as we know them,
to more than a hundred and fifty: and the Greek manuscripts of
the Gospels, with which we are acquainted, amount to more than
three hundred and fifty. But among all these manuscripts there is
none, which is so far intitled to precedence, as to be received for
the true copy, of which we are in search. In fact, the truth lies
scattered among them all ; and in ordef to obtain the truth, we
must slather from them all. Nor is an examination of these manu-
scripts, numernns as they are, alone sufficient for the object vhich
we have in view. 'Y\\e quotations from the Greek Testament in
the voluminous writings of the Greek fiithers, must likewise be ex-
amined, that we may know, what theij found in their Greek manu-
scripts. The ancient versiotis must also be consulted, in order to
learn nkat the writers of those versions found in their copies of
the Greek Testament. When all these collections from manu-
scripts, fathers, and versions, have been formed, and reduced into
proper order, we have then to determine in even/ single instance,
which among the various readings la probabl'/ the genuine reading.
And that we may know horv to deterniine, we must establish laws
of criticism, calculated to counteract the causes, which produced
the variations, and, by these means, to restore the true coi)y, of
which we are in search." ^
" Now it cannot be supposed that labors, for which, when taken
collectively, no single life is sufficient, would be recommended
even by a zealot in his profession, as forming a regular part of
theological study. Those labors are unnecessary for us : they have
been already undertaken, and executed with success. But if the
industry of our predecessors has removed the burdeti from our
shoulders, we must not, therefore, become indifferent spectators,
imconcerned whether the burden be well or ill supported. We
must at least infomi ourselves of the nature, and extent of those
labors ; or we shall never know, w hether the object has been 06-
423
tained, for which they were wideiiahen. yS'c must make otir-
sclves acquahited with the causes which })ioduced tlie variations in
question, or we shall never know, whether tlic laws of criticism,
which profess to remedy that evil arc founded in frufh or falsehood.
We must inquire therefore, — first, into the causes of the evil, and
then — into the remedies, wiiich have been applied to it ; remedies
whicli we shall lind hereafter to have been applied with great
success.'
**Thc manuscripts of the Greek Testaments during; the fourteen
hundred years which elapsed from the apostolic ages to the inven-
tion of prrnting, were exposed, like all other manuscripts, to mis-
takes in transcribing: and as every copy had unavoidably S07ne
errors, those errors multiplied with the multiplication of the
copies. Letters, syllables, words, were added, omitted, or trans-
posed, from mere carelessness in writing, Mlrether the writer tran-
scribed from a manuscript before him, or wrote, as was frequently
the case, from the dictation of another. In the latter case, his
ear might be deceived by a similarity in the sound of different
Mords ; in the former case, his ei/e might be deceived by a simi-
larity in their ybrm, by different words having the same final sylla-
ble, or by different sentences having the same final word. At
other times, a transcriber misunderstood the manuscript from
which he copied, either falsely interpreting its abbreviations, or
falsely dividing the words, where they were written (as in the most
ancient manuscripts) without intervals. Or the fault might be
partly attributable to the manuscript itself^k in cases where its let-
ters Mere wholly or partially effaced or faded."
*^ But the greatest variations arose from alterations made by Je-
sign. The transcribers of the Greek Testament were not bound,
like the transcribers of the Hebrew Bible, by rules prescribed to
them in a Masora, or critical law book. Hence they often took
the liberty of improvwg, as they supposed, on that manuscript, of
which it was their business, to give only a copy ; a liberty similar
to that, which is now taken in a printing office, where a compo-
sitor often improves on the manuscript of an author. — Hence, a
native of Greece, accustomed to hear his own language without an
admixture of oriental idioms, and regarding therefore a Hebraism
er a Syriasm, in the light of a solecism, would accordingly cor-
424
rect it, not considering or not knowing, that these Hebraisms and
Syriasms are the very idioms, which we shouki expect from Greek
^vriters, who were born or educated in Judea, idioms therefore
which form a strong argument for the authenticity of their writings.
At other times, these same improvers, when they remarked that
one Evangelist recorded the same thing more fully than another,
(a circumstance again of great importance, as it shows there was
no combination among the Evangelists) regarded this want of per-
fect coincidence as an imperfection, which they deemed it neces-
sary to remove, by supplying the shorter account from the longer.
Nor did they spare even the quotations from the Old Testament,
whether those quotations were transcripts from the Septuagint, or
translations from the Hebrew by the author himself. If they only
differed from the transcribers Septuagint, he concluded, that they
were wrong, and required amendment."
" But the most fruitful source of designed alteration, was the
removal of marginal annotations into the text. Indeed to this cause
may be ascribed the alterations from parallel passages whenever
those parallel passages had been written in the margin. Other mar-
ginal notes consisted of explanations, or applications of the adjacent
text • and, when a manuscript w ith such notes, fell into the hands
of a transcriber, he either supposed, that they were parts of the
text, accidentally omitted, and supplied in the margin, or considered
them as useful additions, which there would be no harm in
adopting. In either cases he took tliem into the text of that
manuscript, which he himself was%wrjting."
" The latter case may indeed be referred to that class of various
readings, which derive their origin from v ilful corruption, being
introduced for the sole purpose of obtaining support to some par-
ticular doctrine. That such things have been done, and done by
all parties, is not to be denied : tor we have examples on record.
But as we have received our manuscripts of the Greek Testament,
not out of the hands of the ancient heretics, but frcm the orthodox
members of the Greek Church, we have less reason to apprehend,
that they have sutiered, in point of doctrine, from heretical m-
fluence."
Now, Sir, after cursorily reviewing the copious extracts I have
made from your printed Lectures, it appears that you consider
425
fixed principles m Theology highly important, and even necessary
to every one who aspires to a correct understanding of llie Bibhi
(see quotation in page 415.) — Secondly, you maintain that upon
Protestant principles, prohabilUy is the ne plus ultra of suc-
cessful research in Divinity, and that no one can be assured of
the positive correctness of any particular reading of Scripture, al-
though they employ all the pains you have bestowed upon that
branch of theology (see quotations in pp. 414,42'2.) Thirdly, you
assert every line of the inspired writings, and consequently the
sense which the language conveys, absolutely rests on the evidence of
human criticisms — that these evidences are your rule of faith, and
the basis of that trust which you repose in the Bible (see particu-
larly quotation in p. 417) Fourthly, that the private study of the
criticisms of the Bible, is the only means Protestants possess, of
discovering a probably — correct or a probably — true or a probable
reading of the Bible. I refer you particularly to your third and
fifth Lectures (see quotation in p. 417.).
I do indeed then perfectly concur with you in sentiment, that
fixed principles are not only important but necessary to every one
who desires not^o be tossed to and fro by every wind of doctrine;
but am at a loss to conceive what in your opinion will constitute
that steadiness of principle which you so forcibly recommend to the
theologian. If it be true, as you say, (Part I. p. 14.) that " Men
whose education and habits have not prepared them for profound
inquiry, whose attention is wholly directed to the procuring of the
necessaries of life, depend, and iMUst depend, for the truth of the
doctrines which are taught them, on the authority of their teachers
and preachers, of whom it is taken for granted, that they have in-
vestigated, and really know the truth," 1 am of opinion that such
persons have a far more fixed principle than those who, with you,
launch into the study of sacred criticism. For where the ground
on which they tread, is so uncertain, so unsteady and variable, how
can any fixed or steady principle be established upon it .' As you
confess that certitude enters not into your scheme of theology, and
that your disciples must be satisfied to range in the wide field of
probabilities; so you admit that all their labors are to terminate
at a probably genuine reading of Scripture, and consequently,
Vol. Ih ram. No. IV. . 2E '
426
that the doctrine or instruction, or word of God contained in such
reading, is merely prohahly geuitine ; for you very properly say,
(Part II. p. 50.) " We shall frequently be obliged to determine
the true reading of a passage, before we can determine its true
meaning."
I have taken the pains. Sir, to number some of the authorities
and works to which you refer in your two tirst courses of Lectures,
and have computed them at about thirty-seven thousand. Now as
truth is one, ^and error always various, and as any one of these au-
thorities may possibly be right, I shall only be surprised if your
readers do not feel an alarm and anxiety similar to that which, you
say, struck many Protestants when Dr. Mill published his edition
of the Greek Testament, and which, it should be observed, is
only a very small part of the zvhole Bible. " ' We are greatly in-
debted," you say, " to Dr. Mill for having supplied us with such
ample means of obtaining a more correct edition of the Greek
Testament. But his labors were misunderstood and misrepre-
sented by his contemporaries. The appearance of so many thou-
sand various readings (they are said to amount to thirty thousand)
excited an alarm for the New Testament : and those very mate-
rials, which had been collected for the purpose of producing a
correct, an unadulterated text, were regarded as the means of un-
dermining its authority. The text in daily use, originally derived
from modern manuscripts, and transmitted through Stephens and
Beza into the Elzevir editions, Mas at that time supposed to have
already attained its highest perfection, and was regarded in 'the
same light, as if Erasmus had printed from the autographs of the
sacred writers. Tire possibility of mistakes in transcribing the
Greek Testament, the consequent necessity of making the copies
of it subservient to mutual correction, and hence the inference,
that the probability/ of obtaining an accurate copy is increased by
the frequency of comparison, did not occur to those who were
offended at Dr. Mill's publication. They were not aware that
the genuine text of the sacred writers could not exclusively be
found in any modern manuscript, from which the first editor of a
' Part II. p. 10.
427
Greek Testament might accidentally print : they were not aware
that the tiuth lies scattered among them all, and must'he collected
from them ail."
\i then, '' trutli lies scattered among them all, and must be col-
lected from them all," every addition of fresh material to the pre-
sent stock, by the discovery of some concealed ancient manu-
script, must awaken in Protestants a painful curiosity to ascertain
whether it confirm or contradict that reading which they hope to
be genuine.
Now, unless men are willing to rely upon the iradilion of
others, some notion of the labor for which they should be prepa-
red, may be gathered from tiie industry of an individual, which I
will describe in your own words, (Part II. p. 34.) " But after
all, the materials collected for the purpose of obtaining a correct
edition of the Greek Testament, materials for which all the known
libraries in Europe had been searched, and which it had employed
nearly three centuries to obtain, there was still wanted an editor
of sutificient learning, acuteuess, industry, and impartiality, in the
weighing of evidence, to apply those materials to their, proper ob-
ject. Dr. Griesbach, by \nsjirst edition of the Greek Testament,
had already afforded convincing proofs of his critical ability ; and
hence the learned in general, especially in his own country, re-
garded him as the person who was best qualified to undertake this
new revision of the Greek text. Indeed the subject had formed the
business of his life. Like Wetstein, when he had finished his aca-
demical studies, he travelled into France and England for the pur-
pose of collating manuscripts of the New Testament. But as the
stock of materials was iheti very considerably larger than when
IVetstein commenced his literary labors, it was not so much his
object to increase, as to revise the apparatus already provided.
For this purpose he re-examined the most ancient manuscripts,
wherever doubts might be entertained, and it was important to
ascertain the truth. The peculiar readings, which distinguish one
class of manuscripts from another, and are the basis on which that
classification is formed, were likewise objects of particular atten-
tion. But he in general disregarded the mass of readings which
are common to most manuscripts, as serving rather to encumber
than to improve our critical appaiatus. At the same time, when-
428
ever uncolluted manuscripts presented themselves to his notice, he
neolected not to extract what u as worthy of attention. The fruits
of his researches, with liis remarks on the examined manuscripts,
he pubhshcd in two octavo vohunes, printed at Halle, in 1785 and
1 793, under the following title : St^mbolcB Critica', ad Supphndas
et Corrioeudas varianini Novi Testamcnti leciionuin Col/ectiones:
accedit maltonim Nuvi Tcstameuli codicmn Grccconim descriplio
et examen. This work contains the principles on which Griesbach
has founded his critical system, and consequently should be studied
by every man who attempts to form an estimate of his critical
merits."
'^ As the quotations from the Greek Testament, which are scat-
tered in the writings of the most ancient Greek Fathers, are of
great importance in ascertaining the genuineness of disputed pas-
saf^es. he undertook a new and complete collation of the works of
Ori,2,en, which he also published in his Sj/mbolce Criticce, accom-
panied with the quotations of Cleinent of Alexandria, which dif-
fered from the common text."
" Further, as the testimony of the most ancient Latin version,
such as those which have been published by Blanchini and Saba-
tier, are, in many cases, important to the Greek text, he under-
took a new edition of those ancient versions. Of the Sahidic ver-
sion, or the version in the dialect of the Upper Egypt, he quoted
the readings which had been furnished by Woide, Georgi, and
Munter. Of the Armenian version a new collation was made for
him by Bredenkamp of Bremen : and the Slavonian version was
collated for him, both in manuscript and in print, by Dobrowsky,
at Prague. Nor must we neglect to mention the fragments of
two very ancient Greek manuscripts, preserved at Wolfenbuttel,
which Knittel had published with his fragment of the Gothic ver-
sion."
" Such were the materials which Griesbach applied to liis se-
cond and last edition of the Greek Testament, in addition to the
apparatus which was already contained in Wetstein's edition, and
Avhich was subsequently augmented by the editions described in
this lecture."
Now, Sir, 1 may possibly be asked, how any thing I have ex-
tracted from your Lectures can support the charge 1 have formally
429
made against you, of acceding to the Cntliolic principle of Tradi-
tion. I answer then by saying, that it is iinot; tlie Catliolic ground
of your taking every tiling upon the authority of others, that is,
upon the authority of Tradition. I own that you betray a vast
deal more mislnist than the Catholic, in the authorities on wiiicli
you have chosen to repose your laith, and you profess a caution,
that nearly amounts to absofute hidecis'ton. But do you say, that
the individual who simply enters a shop, purchases and reads his
Bible, is able so to recognise (he word of God, in every page^, in
every sentence, that he can groiuid an act of divine faith upon the
reading before hrni ? No, you affirm, that this. is only to be as-
certained by studying the criticisms of the Bible — and what are
these criticisms ? why no other than the aufhoiities who had pre-
viously examined and made report - they are human evidences
built one upon another, and thus reaching up to the apostles —
they form the basis of that superstructure wliich you consider so
immovable; in shorty your maxim must be, nil acceptum,
OUOD NON TRADITUM.
I do not, however, mean to insinuate, that because j/our faith
like our's, is built upon Tradition, therefore your faith is not in
the word of God. I can easily perceive that when you believe a
scriptural sentence t6 be the word of God, though you only dis-
cover this truth by the means of biblical criticisms, your faith will
really repose upon the testimony of God. Yet these criticisms
will still be the grouncl-wor/c and rule of your faith. And the only
diiference between the igiiora/it and the /earned Christian, will be,
that the foimer, (who you say must depend upon the authority of
another for the truth of the doctrines which are taught him) re-
poses on the criticistu of onk or nfew, whereas the other builds
his acquiescence on the more discordant criticisms of a great many:
and the only real distinction between a Catholic and a Church of
England disciple of your's on this principle, is ihut the one retains
a Latin term, whilst tlie other prefers a Greek expression, — the
one makes Tradition a rule for explaining as Avell as receiving the
Bible, the other dues both, but professes the reverse. The true
diiference, therefore, between your criticism and our tradition, is,
that the former signifies a report made, and the latter ah evidence
received. And to show you how exactly tjiey accord, it will only
430
be necessary to quote the following passage from your seventh and
ninth Lectures.
" ' If the best Greek manuscripts, with the most ancient fathers
and versions, agree in supporting any particular reading, we must
conclude that it is the genuine reading, whether that reading were
coniained, or not, in the nmnuscript of Erasmus or the Complu-
tensian Editors, whether that reading were contained or not, either
in their editions, or in any which succeeded them. But such was
the importance, which a reading was then supposed to derive
from having been once in print, and so necessary did this stamp
of authority appear, in order to legalize its claim to admission,
that no reading was adopted by Bengelius, however great its criti-
cal authority, unless it had already received the sanction of the
press. He himself says, / zcill not admit into the text a syllable
which has iiot been before received, though a thousand manuscripts,
a thousa)ul critics, say it should be. Ae sijllubani (juide)n, etiamsi
mille manusciipli, mille crilici juberent, antehac non receptam,
adducar ut recipiam."
" ^ Even that portion of sacred criticism, which in its applica-
tion belongs to the third branch of divinity, or the authenticity of
the Bible, is in its principles, so connected with verbal criticism,
that the basis, on \\ hich they rest, is nearly one and the same. From
the criticism of xi'ords we ascend to the criticism of sentences, from
the criticism of sentences to the criticism of chapters, and from the
criticism of chapters to the criticism of whole books. To illustrate
this ascent, an example of each will be sufficient. If we turn to
Griesbach's Greek Testament at Matt, xxviii. 19. we shall find
the passage thus worded : IIopsuUvTsg /xaflrjTsucraTg Travra t« eSv*),
^onrTi^ovTsg avTovg eij to ovofxa TOii UocTghg, x«i tou Tlov, xa) tou dylou
nv:6[j,uTog, wheie the whole difference from the common text con-
sists in the omission of the particle ovv. This omission is founded
on the authority, not only of many ancient Greek manuscripts,
but of the ancient Greek Fathers, Origen, Athanasius, Basil,
Chrysostum, and Cyril, who are expressly quoted for this purpose.
From the criticism of the particle o5v, which is probably spurious,
we ascend to the criticism of the whole passage, which is un-
' Part II, p. 17. * Part II. p. .53.
431
•loubtedly genulije. Tor if Origen, who was born in the century
after that in which St. Matthew wrote, found the passage in fiis
manuscript of the Gospels, with the exception of only a particle,
and the Greek Fathers of the fourth century found it worded in
the same manner in their manuscripts, we have as strong a proof
of its authenticity, as can be given or required in works of anti-
quity."— " From the criticism of sentences, we ascend to the criti-
cism of chapters. It is well know n, that attempts have been made
to invalidate the testimony which the two first chapters of St.
Matthew's Gospel bear to the doctrine of the incarnation, by con-
tending, that those chapters were not original parts of St. Mat-
thew's Gospel, but were prefixed to it by some other person, at
some later period. Now, if we turn to tlie second volume of
Griesbach's Symbol* Criticae, where he quotes the readings of the
Greek Testament from Clement of Alexandria and Origen, we
shall find a quotation from the first chapter of St. Matthew's
Gospel, and reference to the second, made by Celsus, the Epicu-
rean philosopher, which quotation and reference are noted by
Origen, who wrote in answer to Celsus : * Hinc patet (says Gries-
bach, very justly) duo priora Matthaei capita Celso nota fuisse.*
Now if Celsus, who wrote his^ celebrated work against the Chris-
tians in the time of Marcus Aurelius, and consequently little more
than a hundred years after St. Matthew himself wrote, yet found
the two first chapters in his manuscript of St. iSIattliew's Gospel
those chapters must either have been original parts of St. Mat-
thew's Gospel, or they must have been added at a time so little
antecedent to the age of Celsus, that a writer so inquisitive, so
sagacious, and at the same time so inimical to Christianity, could
not have failed to detect the imposture. But in this case he would
not have quoted those chapters as parts of St. Matthew's Gospel.
Consequently the truth must lie in the other part of the dilemma ;
namely, that those chapters are authentic."
1 now, Sir, think it full time to bring this Letter to a conclu-
si^n; and m winding it up feel much disposed again to congratu-
late with you on the close approximation of our principles. God
grant that we one day congratulate each other on a peifect union
and fellowship in religion, for which these common principles so
completely dispose us. I conceive, then, that 1 have justihed
432
myself in attribuliug to you the sentiment, that admitting the reli-
gion of the Church of England to be true, another authority he-
sides the Bible is necessary for "continuing that religion in its
present establishment." And though you may consider this autho-
rity as distinct from the religion thus inculcated, and rather as a
human institution; yet it is the channel by which you acknow-
ledge the religion of the establishmeut is to be continued, and no
otherwise differs from the voice of our tradiliou, Catholic ecclesi-
astical authority, than inasnmch as the decrees of the one are the
acts of a lay parlianjeniary tribunal, deciding by the human rules of
state politicians, whilst the other is the voice of assemblies com-
posed of the successors of the apostles, acting within iheir own
province, and conscientiously giving evidence of what had been
transmitted to them. Quod acceptnm, hoc traditum. The one
is an unnatural assiunption of auUiority, the other a lawful exercise
of invested power. The one is to confound Me ^//?V/gs zi'hich art
C(esars, with the things zehirh are God's, tlie other is to follow the
line of distinction. With evejy respect,
Rev. Sir,
I have the honpr to be,
Your obedient humble servant,
PETER Gx\NDOLPHY.
POSTSCRIPT.
The generous manner in which you have recalled your asser-
tion, which stated that Catholics withhold the sacred Scriptures
from the people, will justly intitle you to the esteem of all honor-
able men, while it has my fullest acknowledgment. 1 think it
433
really to be regretted, that, in general, men should take such pains
to misunderstand each other, instead of exerting themselves to
modify and explain their opinions in that way which would admit
bodi harmony and charity. The reproaches which have been cast
upon the Catholic Priesthood, for not consenting to what even
many prudent Protestants disapprove of, I mean an indiscriminate
distribution of the Bible, have been both severe and unmerited. I
have clei>rly shown in my Congratulatory Letter and
Sermon addressed to you, that before the accidental invention of
printing, Bibles, like other books, were within the reach of a very
few, and that the Catholic clergy were as little amenable to blame
on that account as the Protestant clergy at present, because pearls
are not as plenty as oysters, or diamonds as numerous and as
large as horse beans, or gold as common as iron. Now, should a
future generation discover the art of making diamonds, pearls, and
gold, would it be either fair or honest for men to tell an ignorant
multitude, that the present Protestant Bishops and Protestant
Clergy had kept the secret of this art to themselves, lest the people
should become as rich as the whole clergy of England — and that
they may thank Providence for haviug emancipated them from the
mean necessity of using iron and earthenware, and for giving them
the opportunity of becoming as rich as English lords and Indian
kings ? — 1 ask if this language would be fair and honest ? — Cer-
tainly not — yet I have witnessed something very similar in several
of the circular letters of the Bible Societies, and which nothing but
an ignuruace of the very grossest species can excuse. In these cir-
culars 1 have seen it asserted, that in the dark ages the Papal
priesthood had suppressed v hat never existed, and had prohibited
m n from reading, who had never known how to use a book. You
are aware that the benefit of clergy was anciently a privilege ex-
clusively limited to those who had learnt to read. Now as late as
the reign of Edward the Sixth, it was found, that in criminal
cases, the Peers of Parliament were often unable to take
advantage of this privilege, and therefore it was enacted by a sta-
tute, (I Edvv. VI. c. 12.) " that Lords of Parliament and Peers of
the Realm, may have the benefit of their Peerage equivalent to that
of Clergy (although ihey cannot read, and without being
burnt in the hand) for all offences then clergyable to commoners.
434
and also for the crimes of housebreaking, highway robbery, horse-
stealing, and robbing of chnrches." (Blacks. Com. Vol. iv. c. 28.)
Surely then some allowance might be made for that difTerence of
circumstances which improvement and education have occasioned
in the space of three hundred years ; and it might be supposed,
that as men are at present more enlightened by information and
science, they would be governed by a different treatment. I ques-
tion much if education is not necessary to a certain degree, even
to trust a man with a fowling-piece — surely then to commit to him
a book of sublime theology. 1 have recorded in a note below, a
curious account extracted from the Morning Chronicle of October
19, 181], of a man that was tried at Leeds ' for adhering too
* At the Leeds Sessions held last week, John Burnley, weaver, of Beet-
son, was brought before the Court on a charge of deserting his family, and
leaving them chargeable to the township. When he was placed at the bar,
he was interrogated in the following terms ;
Court. What reason have you to assign for deserting your family ? — Prjj.
I was called by the Word of God so to do.
Court. Where have you lived since, and what have you done ? — Pris. I
have lived at Potovens, near Wakefield, and have worked at my business
as a weaver.
Court. What can you earn a week, upon an average? — Pris. From 18s.
to 20s. per week.
Court. And how do you dispose of it ? — Pris. After supplying my own
necessities, I distribute the rest among my poor neighbours.
Court. But should not your wife and children be the first object of your
care and bounty ? — 'Pris. No ; unless they are in greater distress than all
others.
Court. The Scripture, which you prefess to follow, says, speaking of the
relation of man and wife, that they shall be one flesh ; of course you are
under as great an obligation to maintain her as yourself. — Pris. The Scrip-
ture saith, whom God hath joined together let no man put asunder; but
God never joined me and my wife togethei*.
Court. Who then did ? — Pris. I have told you who did not, you may easily
judge who did.
Court. We suppose you are as much joined together as other married
people are. — Pris. My family are now no more to me than any other per-
sons.
Court. The laws of your country require that you should maintain your
family, and if you neglect or refuse so to do, you become liable to a serious
435
closely to the letter of the Scripture : and who, notwithstanding
the remonstrances of the Court, like a consistent man, persisted
punishment. — Fris. I am willing to sufF<;r all you think proper to inflict ; I
expect to suffer persecution, for the Scripture says, those tiiat live godly in
Christ Jesus, must endure persecution. I regard the laws of God only, and
do not regard any other laws.
Court. You seem to have read the Scripture to very little profit, or you
would not have failed in so plain a duty as that of providing for your own
household. — Pi in. The Scripture commands me to love my neighbour as
myself, and I cannot do that if I suffer him to want when I have the power
to relieve him. My wife and children have all changes of raiment, but I
see many others that are half naked. Should I not, therefore, clothe these
rather than spend my money on my family ?
Court. But your family cannot hve upon their raiment; they require also
victuals. — Pris. They are able to provide for their own maintenance ; and
the Gospel requires me to forsake father and mother, wu'e and children.
Indeed it was contrary to the Gospel for me to take a wife, and I sinned in
so doing.
Court. Have you any friend here .? — Pris. I have only one friend, who is
above.
Court. Is there any person here who knows you? — Pris. Mr. Banks
knows me.
Mr. Banks being called upon, stated, that he should suppose from the
recent conduct of the prisoner, that his mind was not in a sane state.
Formerly he was an industrious man ; of late he understood that he had
read the Bible with uncommon assiduity and fervency. He would absent
himself whole days together, and retired into the woods and fields for the
purpose of reading it. After some time spent in this manner he went away
from his family, and refused to contribute to their support. His familj' con-
trived to carry on the business, and he bought of them what pieces they
made. He understood that what the prisoner had said of giving away his
earnmgs to objects of distress was correct.
The Court made another attempt to convince this deluded man of the
impropriety of his conduct, but without the least effect; he replied to all
their reasonings by quoting appropriate texts of Scripture. — Nor would he
even promise to permit his employer to- pay to his family the small sum of
five shillings weekly. He dared not, he said, make any promises or en-
gagements of any kind. Nor was the attempt to work upon his feelings
more successful ; his fanaticism had, apparently, rooted from his heart all
the tender charities of domestic life. When it was intimated to him that
one of his children was in a decline, he seemed perfectly unmoved ; nor
did the tears of his wife, who implored him only to assist in paying the
436
in rejecting the authority of that Tradition M-hich the Judge
most sensibly, but cutholically urged him to admit. I consider
this as an anecdote which should bring many to tlieir better senses.
For never was the triumph more complete of ignorance over sense,
of folly over prudence, of fanaticism over religion.
But to convince you how wrongly Protestants harp upon this
subject, I can assure you^ that although for many years I have
had the direction of a flock, consisting of some thousands of souls,
I do not recollect that I ever interfered with, or expressed the
smallest objection to any individual's practice of reading the Scrip-
tures. Indeed, Sir, the Scriptures lie about in our Catholic
families like any other book, for any one to open, and our Missals
debts contracted before he went away, in the least affect him. He coldly
repHed, that the landlord might distress for his rent.
The Court asked some questions of the Overseers as to the affairs of the
family, the answers to which the writer of this did not hear; but they con-
firmed what Mr. Banks had said as to the manner in which he disposed of
his surplus earnings ; and exprcsstd an opinion, that no benefit was likely
to result by sending him again to the House of Correction. After some
consultation with the Bench, the Recorder addressed him to the following
effect —
" John Burnley the Court are disposed to deal leniently with you, in
hopes that better consideration will remove the delusion you labor under.
For this purpose T would advise you to read your Bible with still greater
attention, and ask the advice of ?omc intelligent friends, particularly the
Minister you attend upon. I would also beg of you seriously to consider,
tliat all the rest of the wo.Id think it their duty to provide, in the first
place, for their families ; and you, surely, cannot suppose that they are
all neglecting the care of their souls, and in thcroad to eternal destruction.
This consideration should induce you to distrust your own judgment, and
if you have any humility, and humility is a Christian virtue, you will con-
clude, that it is more probable that you should be mistaken than that all
the rest of mankind should be wrong. Your wife has strongly expressed
her wish that no severity should be used towards you. Influenced by these
considerations, the CoMrt has ordered that you should be discharged." —
l^ris. The Scripture saith, that darkness covers the earth, and gross dark-
ness the people. And again, in another place, that the whole world lieth
in wickedness. I know that the way of duty is in the path of suffering ; b.ut
it is the path which our Leader trod* and wc must follow his steps.
43?
and Common Prayer books as you know, arc full of Scripture. 1
ran, moreover, inform you, that since writing the last sentence, I
liave purposely interrupted this postscript to inquire of three other
Catholic clergymen, (two of whom have superintended large con-
gregations for near forty years, and the third for more than twenty)
whether in the course of their ministry they ever interdicted any
person from reading the Scriptuies. You will not doubt then the
word of a clergvinan, M'hen I tell you that they all answered in
the negative, adding, that in tlieir opinion, there is not a priest
living in England, who has ever prohibited any one. Surely then,
1 think this brond and open declaration sufficient to shake Protes-
tant prejudice ; at least I am free to assert, that whenever Pro-
testants return to cool reflection and calm inquiry, it will be to
express their asfouishment at the misconceptions they formed of
the whole Catholic religion. Indeed they continually ask us, have
you not changed ? No, we answer, but you have.
There remains one more observation of your's to which I must
reply before I withdraw — and which 1 think you have gone out of
the way to make, for in my opinion it has as little to do with the
theological question at issue between us, as with the discharge of
the national debt, or the opening of the Indian trade. — You ac-
knowledge that Cadiolics '' constitute a respectable and loyal body:
that they are attached to their sovereign and their countiy." But
their intentions must perpetually be checked by the intervention of
that external allegiance they bear to the Pope, the head of their
church. " The strength of that allegiance, and the warmth still
excited by the object of it in the hearts of his true disciples, /
■myself, you say, have displayed, by exhibiting the Pope at the
head of my pamphlet." Therefore, you conclude, " the guidance
of the constitution cannot be safely entrusted to those who profess
such allegiance.''
My only motive. Sir, for placing the portrait of the Pope at
the head of my Congratulatory Letter, was to show to
you the point to v^hich your principle would ultimately leqd. But
when you tell me that this is clear evidence of the external alle-
giance I bear to his person, 1 must be allowed to express my
surprise, that a Margaret Professor of Divinity, at this time of
438
day, should need common information on the subject. I will not
certainly attempt with yOu to weigh the comparative goodness and
utility ©f Catholics and Protestants ; I rest satisfied with your ad-
mission, that we are good zndufieful subjects. Yet I will not tamely
allow any man to tell me, that I have divided my allegiance be-
tween my sovereign and another. Sir, you shoidd have known
that Catholics have renounced upon oath the recognition of any
temporal authority of the Bishop of Rome in this empire, and
consequently, whatever is commonly understood by external alle-
giance is solemnly disclaimed by us.
Therefore, though I have placed the portrait of the Pope at
the head of my pamphlet, as I conceive you might exhibit the pic-
ture of Luther or Calvin without bringing your loyalty under sus-
picion, I neither owe the Pontiff, nor will 1 pay him, the homage
of any external allegiance. And though I acknowledge in him the
spiritual character of Chief Bishop, and Supreme Pastor of
Christ's Church, surely that is easily distinguished from the cha-
racter of a Sovereign, of a Prince, or of a Civil Legislator. In
the same manner, the Catholics admit a spiritual brotherhood and
fellowship between themselves and the Catholics of other countries;
for instance, those of France, and believe that even those who die
in arms against us, as children of the same spiritual mother, are
intitled to and benefited by those prajers, which in the same spirit
of charity we offer for our enemies as well as our friends. — But
has any one heard that this principle ever led to any confusion in
battle, and that the privilege of church fellowship was pleaded by
Catholics, to persuade Catholics not to fight and kill their Catho-
lic opponents? Has Lord Wellington ever found by experience
that his Catholic soldiers were influenced in their duty by their re-
ligious principles, and that it was suflScient " perpetually to check
their best intentions?" I can assure you, then, that as it is easy
for a man in battle to distinguish between the character of a soldier
and a spiritual brother, so it is as easy for Catholics to distinguish
between the temporal and spiritual authorities of Popes and
Councils, and to act upon the principle of that distinction. Till
the year 1471, all Scotland was subject to the Metropolitan See
of York — ^yet bloody wars had frequently been waged between
439
the Scotch and English — and during the Heptarchy, the authority
of the See of Canterbury was acknowledged in many hostile king-
doms, without any inconvenience to the temporal authorities.
(See Wilkin's Councils, Vol. iii. p. 606.) You were wrong,
then, in confounding things which are so perfectly disthict in
themselves.
London, March 20th, 1813,
^aK^v,- , .. ^-»
■'"*,
sv^^^
Live Music Archive
Librivox Free Audio
Metropolitan Museum
Cleveland Museum of Art
Internet Arcade
Console Living Room
Books to Borrow
Open Library
TV News
Understanding 9/11