/ 
 
 r 
 
 I THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY, | 
 Princeton, N. J. '^ % 
 
 BR 377 .H8 
 
 Hopkins, John Henry, 1792 
 
 1868. 
 Sixteen lectures on the 
 
 causes, principles, and 
 
 "> 
 
SIXTEEN LECTURES 
 
 CAUSES, PRINCIPLES, AND RESULTS, 
 
 BRITISH KEFOSMATION. 
 
 BY 
 
 JOHN HENRY HOPKINS, D.D. 
 
 Bishop of the Protestant Episcopal Church, in the Diocese of Vermont. 
 
 PHILADELPHIA: 
 
 JAMES M. CAMPBELL & CO, 
 
 SAXTON & MILES, NEW YORK. 
 
 1844. 
 
Entered, according to Act of Congress, in the year 1844, by 
 
 James M. Campbell & Co. 
 
 in the Clerk's office of the District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. 
 
 John C. Clark, Printer. 
 
PREFACE. 
 
 The following lectures were written in A. D., 1840, and 
 were delivered in the parish of the author, St. Paul's Church, 
 Burlington, on the evenings of sixteen successive Sundays, to 
 the apparent satisfaction of a large and somewhat promiscuous 
 congregation. 
 
 Being unexpectedly obliged to visit Philadelphia, for the 
 purpose of correcting the press, in the publication of his re- 
 cent letters to the bishops, clergy and laity of his own commu- 
 nion, the author conceived that he should be performing an 
 acceptable service to the cause of truth, if he availed himself 
 of the opportunity to preach these lectures in that city. And 
 although he foresaw that there might be considerable difficulty 
 in making any arrangement, by which sixteen discourses on tb*^ 
 Reformation could be brought within the t.>^--- ^'"'^^^ required 
 for his own specific business, yet he resolved at least to make 
 the proposal to his brethren, the rectors of the city Churches, 
 and let them decide whether such an effort would be useful. 
 
 The result was a very interesting expression of sound views, 
 and fraternal feelings, on the part of the clergy at large. An 
 arrangement was made, by which five of the principal Churches 
 should be occupied in rotation, on the evenings of three suc- 
 cessive weeks, so as to complete the whole course within the 
 period allotted to the author's stay. The following Sunday 
 night was fixed for the introductory lecture, the notices were 
 
IV PREFACE. 
 
 prepared by a prominent clergyman for the public press, and 
 numerous friendly tongues had already diffused the intelli- 
 gence far and wide, not merely exciting a certain measure of 
 natural anticipation, but, as the author would fain believe, 
 drawing forth, from many a Christian heart, an offering of 
 gratitude to God for another testimony against error, and a 
 prayer in behalf of the humble instrument by whom it should 
 be given. 
 
 It was at this stage of the matter, that the bishop of the 
 Protestant Episcopal Church, in the diocese of Pennsylvania, 
 thought fit to address a letter to the author, earnestly and ur- 
 gently requesting the abandonment of the whole design. 
 
 Of this very singular act, there is no desire, on the author's 
 part, to speak unkindly. He has indeed, both in his written 
 answer to. the bishop, and in his intercourse with others, de- 
 nied, as he still denies, the right and the expediency of the in- 
 terference. But he yielded to it, for the sake of his brethren 
 of the clergy, whose prompt and generous conduct on the oc- 
 casion well deserved, that he should make any sacrifice of his 
 personal feelings, rather than be the means of raising the 
 ^^^--^^c^nixoia. between them and their diocesan. 
 And he takes this opportunity to record u« conviction, in the 
 most explicit terms, that while he considers the course of his 
 respected colleague as being a manifest error in every possible 
 aspect of the question, yet he doubts not that it was dictated 
 by the purest motives, and intended for the best. 
 
 The immediate effect, however, was the expression of a ge- 
 neral and strong desire, that the lectures, intended to have been 
 preached, should at least be published without delay. With this 
 desire, after some reflection, the author thought it his duty to 
 comply; although he would have preferred, so far as he was 
 
personally concerned, to have occupied some months in pre- 
 paring an improved copy for the press; with the addition, (ac- 
 cording to his custom in his other humble publications) of the 
 original notes, referred to as authority, and of a supplementary 
 lecture or two upon the subject of justification by faith, as con- 
 tradistinguished from the Tridentine doctrine. 
 
 Such being, briefly, the simple history of the present work, 
 the author can only say, that he has done what he could, un- 
 der the circumstances, to render his references satisfactory. 
 For many of the passages, especially those taken from the an- 
 cient fathers, he has cited his former book on the Church of 
 Rome, because it is more accessible than the originals them- 
 selves, and contains copious extracts from them, made with 
 car^and accuracy. For others, he has referred to a very use- 
 ful English work. Finch on the Roman controversy, which 
 ought to be, if it is not, in general circulation. And he has 
 made several quotations from the admirable Letters of Dr. 
 Philpots to Butler, worthy, in every respect, of the reputation 
 which the distinguished writer has long enjoyed, as bishop of 
 Exeter. But for the substantial truth and correctness of the 
 
 _^ , dUCt 
 
 whole, the author considers himself direct »r - 
 
 ^ ^^^^ ground which he has occupied 
 stands prepared to df'*^- ' - & , , i 
 
 in any form of equal controversy, excepting always the utterly 
 inconclusive and objectionable one of newspaper discussion. 
 
 On the propriety, the expediency, the right, and-more than 
 all-(fe soUmn duly of defending the principles of the Refor- 
 mation against the constant assaults of the Church of Rome, 
 the author feels quite persuaded that there can be, amongst 
 Protestant Christians, but one opinion. The legitimate modes 
 „f performing this duty, so far as the ministry of our Church 
 are concerned, are three: by public disputation, by the pulpit. 
 
VI PREFACE. 
 
 and by the press. By these, the truth was established. 
 By these, the same truth must be maintained. And woe be to 
 the Church, if the fear of excitement, or the apprehension of 
 consequences, directly or indirectly, should ever be allowed to 
 silence the tongue of the advocate, who seeks, in the old and 
 regular forms of ministerial action, with sufficient preparation 
 and in a Christian spirit, to discharge his share of this sacred 
 responsibihty. 
 
 Whether the author has erred in supposing himself called 
 to labour in this trying and ungrateful department of the mi- 
 nisterial office ; whether the zealous studies of eighteen years 
 have failed to qualify him in any reasonable measure for the 
 task, and whether he was altogether mistaken in the idea, that 
 the following course of lectures, under the divine blessing, 
 might have borne a useful testimony on behalf of our Protes- 
 tant truth against Roman error, especially adapted to these 
 times, are all questions which he willingly submits to the judg- 
 ment of his brethren. Should that judgment be against him, 
 he will pray for the grace of resignation, and endeavour to 
 obey the Saviour's precept: Go, and sin no more. 
 
TABLE OF CONTENTS. 
 
 FIRST LECTURE. 
 
 ^ Page 
 
 The Reformation — its results— plan of the course, - - 1 — 10 
 
 SECOND LECTURE. 
 
 The Rule of faith, as stated by the Church of England, - 11 — 25 
 
 THIRD LECTURE. 
 
 The Rule of faith, as maintained by the Church of Rome, 26 — 40 
 
 FOURTH LECTURE. 
 
 Roman doctrine of tradition and infallibility, - - ■ - 41 — 61 
 
 FIFTH LECTURE. 
 
 Roman doctrine disproved by Scripture and the fathers, - 62 — 87 
 
 SIXTH LECTURE. 
 
 The Roman doctrine of papal supremacy, - . . 88 — 114 
 
 SEVENTH LECTURE. 
 
 The doctrine of papal supremacy disproved by the fathers, 115 — 142 
 
 EIGHTH LECTURE. 
 
 The history of papal supremacy, 143 — 167 
 
 NINTH LECTURE. 
 
 The Roman doctrine of anathema and persecution, - - 168^ — 195 
 
 TENTH LECTURE. 
 
 The Roman doctrine of celibacy, and sketch of monachism, 196 — 226 
 
Vm TABLE OF CONTENTS. 
 
 ELEVENTH LECTURE. 
 
 The Roman doctrine concerning the worship of the virgin 
 
 and the saints, - 227—262 
 
 TWELFTH LECTURE. 
 
 The Roman doctrine concerning the worship of relics, 
 
 images, &c. 263 — 238 
 
 THIRTEENTH LECTURE. 
 
 The Roman doctrine of purgatory, satisfaction, and indul- 
 gences, - - 290—313 
 
 FOURTQEENTH LECTURE. 
 
 The history and present state of the doctrine of purgatory 
 
 and indulgences, 314 — 344 
 
 FIFTEENTH LECTURE. 
 
 The Roman doctrine of transubstantiation — its history, &c. 345 — 361 
 
 SIXTEENTH LECTURE. 
 
 The same refuted from the fathers — recapitulation — con- 
 clusion, 362—397 
 
LECTURE I. 
 
 JuDE 3. — Ye should contend earnestly for the faith which was once 
 delivered unto the saints. 
 
 Three hundred years, my brethren, have nearly rolled 
 away, since the glorious Reformation worked so vast a change 
 in the character of Christendom. Liberty of thought, liberty 
 of speech, liberty of action, were established, where despotism 
 the most absolute had for centuries prevailed. The rights of 
 conscience, after a long and fearful struggle, triumphed over 
 the force of superstition. The marvellous empire of the Pa- 
 pacy, which had attained a height far above the loftiest earthly 
 throne, lost its dazzling lustre, and the iron rod of its dominion 
 was broken, as it was fondly hoped, to bruise no more. 
 
 I shall not occupy your time by an attempt to develop the 
 results of the revolution, which this great event accomplished 
 in the civil and the mental history of man. How the hard- 
 won jewel of religious freedom glanced its varied light upon 
 every other subject, and gave a portion of its own hue to all 
 the processes of thought; — how every region of philosophy 
 felt the inspiring influence, and intellectual life, in all its 
 freshness and its energy, burst forth, rejoicing, from the tram- 
 mels which had fettered it so long; — how civil despotism, and 
 every form of prescriptive injustice, were compelled to listen 
 to the voice of bold remonstrance, until, one after another, the 
 hoary abuses of time-honoured tyranny were abandoned, and 
 government was acknowledged to be, not a prerogative insti- 
 
 B 
 
a INTRODUCTORY REMARKS. 
 
 tuted for the aggrandizement of the few, but a solemn trust 
 held for the benefit of the many ; — how these and similar ad- 
 vantages in the whole complicated frame-work of society were 
 the consequences, directly or indirectly, of the Reformation, 
 has been often proved by far more eloquent tongues than 
 mine ; and it is no part of my present purpose to repeat the 
 demonstration. Rather let me confine myself to the track 
 which belongs to my office, and inquire what has been the 
 result upon those interests which so far transcend the high- 
 est aims of earthly sagacity — the interests of the Church of 
 God. 
 
 And here, my brethren, a field opens upon us, vast in ex- 
 tent, and pre-eminently worthy of examination. To traverse 
 it, however, in the hope of making a perfect and complete sur- 
 vey, would need a knowledge of the past and present state of 
 Christendom which no one man possesses. All that I can pre- 
 tend to perform must be a far more humble undertaking. The 
 corruptions, doctrinal and practical, which were the exciting 
 causes of the Reformation, the principles on which it was con- 
 ducted, especially in our mother Church of England, and the 
 effects produced upon the Church of Rome, and upon those 
 leading Protestant communions with which we are best ac- 
 quainted, will form a circle of topics quite large enough for 
 our contemplated course; and of these, the first only will de- 
 mand an elaborate consideration. 
 
 But I beg leave to premise — and I trust the unavoidable 
 egotism of the statement may be pardoned — that although 
 these lectures will, of necessity, bear somewhat of a contro- 
 versial aspect, yet are they commenced in no spirit of unkind- 
 ness to the Church of Rome, or to any other Church of Chris- 
 tendom. I do indeed profess myself a firm believer in the one 
 Catholic or Universal Church of the Redeemer, which forms a 
 distinct article of the primitive creed ; but I have long che- 
 rished the opinion that all orthodox believers are members of 
 
OBJECT OF CONTROVEKSY. 3 
 
 that Church, whatever may be the diversities of their particu- 
 lar communion. The cardinal truths which form that simple 
 creed, and in which all Christians concur, seem to my mind 
 greatly to outweigh the minor points on which they differ; 
 and, therefore, while I desire to hold the truth on every sub- 
 ject, and regard every distinction which tends to divide the 
 followers of Christ as a sore evil, yet would I endeavour, at 
 all times, to remember the far weightier matters in which they 
 agree, and thus realize a measure of Christian charity, even 
 when compelled to utter the language of reprehension. 
 
 It is, I am aware, supposed by many, that such an acknow- 
 ledgment renders controversy unnecessary, because if men 
 may be saved whether they are in all respects right or wrong, 
 the attempt to set them right in non-essential matters is hardly 
 worth the trouble. But no one argues thus on any thing else 
 except religion. All men, for example, belong to the same 
 human family, and agree in the great essentials of their na- 
 ture ; and yet, since none can be perfect, either in body, or in 
 mind, or in circumstances, the whole labour of life is directed 
 to improve them. For who would say that the healthy man 
 has no superiority over the diseased? that the man with all 
 his bodily members possesses no advantage over him who is 
 maimed or mutilated? or that the man of education and re- 
 finement has no better lot than the ignorant and debased? 
 Nay, to what is the entire range of human science and indus- 
 try directed, if it be not to elevate the social and individual 
 condition of those who are yet admitted to be the children of 
 the same common father? Indeed, so far is it from being 
 true, that because my neighbour is a man as well as 1, there- 
 fore it is not worth my while to rectify his mistakes and en- 
 large his knowledge, that the direct contrary would be my 
 proper rule of duty. It is precisely because he is my fellow, 
 that I am bound to lead him out of error, and do him all the 
 good I can. Now, surely, on the same principle, my ac- 
 
4 OBJECT OF CONTROVERSY. 
 
 knowledging all Christians as members of the same spiritual 
 household, which is the Catholic or Universal Church, does 
 by no means require that I should justify the errors of their 
 system, but the contrary ; since the more disposed I feel to re- 
 gard them as belonging to the great family of Christ, the more 
 anxious I must be to behold them united in sentiment. Be- 
 sides which, all error is dangerous, even though it be not 
 fatal. Truth alone is safe. Most absurd, then, would it 
 seem, to contend for the better health of the body, and yet be 
 silent as to the diseases of the soul. Most preposterous to be 
 sensitive to all the disorders of the civil government, and yet 
 be indifferent to the errors of any portion of the Church of 
 God; for these errors, and the strifes growing out of them, 
 form a constant theme of reproach against religion, and not 
 only hinder the peace of Christians themselves, but are a 
 standing obstacle to the diffusion of the gospel. 
 
 We are far, however, from admitting, that the divisions of 
 Christians ought to liave an effect so injurious to the progress 
 of Christianity. However hostile they must needs be to the 
 full joy and comfort of spiritual life, we cannot see any force 
 in the infidel assumption, that if the Bible were divine, there 
 could be but one mind amongst all that receive it. For it is 
 obvious, that the corruption of human nature, which con- 
 verts the very gospel of peace into an instrument of discord, is 
 equally active in perverting and abusing every other gift of 
 God. Is not the blessed sun in the heavens the work of an 
 Almighty hand, and yet does not man compel it, as it were, 
 to look on deeds of darkness? Is not human reason a gift of 
 God, and are not men continually degrading it in the defence 
 of folly? Are not our bodies the workmanship of God, and 
 are they not, nevertheless, given over, too oflen, to the service 
 of iniquity? What gift of divine goodness docs not man per- 
 vert and abuse as well as religion ? On what science or art 
 are men universally agreed any more than on religion? Most 
 
MOTIVES TO CONTROVERSY. 5 
 
 confidently may it be answered, None, if the numbers engaged 
 in them, and the subject matter, be taken respectively into 
 consideration. It is, therefore, after all, no more than what 
 ought to be expected, that religion, though indeed divine and 
 perfect in its unity, so far as God, its glorious author, is con- 
 cerned, should be subject to the universal calamity of human 
 nature, partial misapprehension, division and strife, on the 
 side of man. 
 
 And may we not further remark, in the analogy before us, 
 that the goodness of God does not immediately withdraw his 
 gifls even when men abuse them. The sun does not refuse 
 to shine upon those who pervert the blessing. The faculty of 
 reason is not overthrown as soon as it is prostituted to the de- 
 fence of evil. The springs of life and health are not forthwith 
 dried up, because the libertine and the profligate pollute them 
 by iniquity. And just so is it in religion, that the mercy of 
 God continues to vouchsafe the revelation of his truth and the 
 influences of his Spirit to the children of men, notwithstanding 
 their sad propensity, in every age, to adulterate the pure gold 
 of divine authority with the miserable dross of human inven- 
 tion. Wretched, indeed, would be our lot, if the rule of hea- 
 venly compassion were less indulgent than it is; for if the 
 Lord were strict to mark every transgression, if every devia- 
 tion from his truth worked a forfeiture of the whole, what 
 Church or what man could stand before Him? 
 
 But — to return from what may seem to be a digression — there 
 are in my mind some especial reasons, why I should select the 
 causes, principles and results of the Reformation, as the pecu- 
 liar subject of our Christian interest at the present time. 
 First, because the aspect of the religious world, at this mo- 
 ment, presents the very same elements of controversy, only 
 under varied forms of practical application, which agitated all 
 Europe three hundred years ago. The Church of Rome then 
 insisted that her system was the only exponent of the faith 
 
 b2 
 
6 MOTIVES TO CONTROVERSY. 
 
 once delivered to the saints by the inspired apostles of Christ. 
 The Reformers, on the other hand, denied the truth of this as- 
 sumption, and averred that the primitive system had become 
 changed, deformed and corrupted in her keeping. The Church 
 of Rome claimed the exclusive title of Catholic, and branded 
 all without her pale as cut off from Christ as heretics, guilty 
 of mortal sin. The Reformers denied that she had the exclu- 
 sive right to the name of Catholic, or Universal, maintained 
 that the term Catholic grew into use amongst the primitive 
 Christians in the second and third centuries, and that they 
 themselves were in far truer agreement with Christianity, as 
 it was then understood by the Church of Rome herself, than 
 the modern Church of Rome under the Papal system. Now 
 these contrarieties are still asserted as strongly as ever, and 
 therefore the necessity for defending the ground taken by our 
 forefathers, is in no respect done away. 
 
 Secondly, however, the peculiar position of our own Church 
 seems to call for a much more general and complete discus- 
 sion of this controversy on our part, in justice to others as 
 well as to ourselves. For in the wilderness of jarring opi- 
 nions throughout the Christian world, we regard our Church 
 as placed between extremes, far removed from the Church of 
 Rome on the one part, not a little from many of the various 
 modern Churches on the other, and therefore liable, of course, 
 to be misunderstood and misrepresented by all. But if this 
 be, in some respects, a disadvantageous position, in other re- 
 spects we should regard it as a privilege which involves a spe- 
 cial responsibility, because the voice of truth, coming from the 
 centre, is more likely to be heard on either side; and thus, 
 under God, we might hope that it would produce a better and 
 a holier influence. 
 
 And thirdly, I must acknowledge — though with much re- 
 gret — that the difficulty of finding a thorough, and yet tempe- 
 rate and friendly discussion of this deeply important subject. 
 
MOTIVES TO CONTROVERSY. 7 
 
 has been my strongest motive to the work of controversy. 
 The Roman priesthood, ever since the days of Bossuet, have 
 pursued a course in all Protestant countries, which makes it 
 by no means easy, even for a cuUivated intellect, to understand 
 their real principles. Adopting the words of the apostle, 
 Being crafty, I caught you with guile, they have applied 
 them to a totally different purpose, by presenting their doc- 
 trines and their history under a modern and specious garb, far 
 more inviting and plausible than truth would sanction ; and 
 thus they have prevailed on many an ardent and noble mind, 
 to think them a sadly misrepresented and persecuted people. 
 With such admirable agreement and adroitness have they pur- 
 sued this plan, that even our own peace has been somewhat 
 disturbed by it. Even some churchmen of unquestionable 
 learning and talent, as well in England as amongst ourselves, 
 yielding to a generous though misguided feeling, have devoted 
 themselves to the defence of Rome, as of an injured party, 
 and openly maintained that there was far less need of the 
 Reformation, and far less benefit derived from its success, than 
 was commonly supposed; that strictly considered, there was but 
 little substantial difference between the Roman and the Angli- 
 can systems, and that re-union with Rome, even as she now is, 
 was not impossible. The startling demonstrations of this 
 strange hypothesis during the last few years, in our mother 
 Church especially, have excited a fresh interest in the real 
 merits of the controversy ; and have made it necessary for all 
 men who would not be deficient in Christian intelligence, to 
 ascertain, with candour and with fairness, the precise limits of 
 truth. To minister to this necessity, with honesty and frank- 
 ness, but without prejudice or asperity, and thus supply an ac- 
 knowledged defect of satisfactory information, is a main object 
 of the" following course. I trust, therefore, that in these lectures, 
 you will find truth and kindliness linked faithfully together. 
 The spiritual interests of the Christian are never advancing, 
 
8 PLAN PROPOSED. 
 
 when the intellect triumphs at the expense of the heart; for, 
 as sailh the apostle, knowledge pt/ffeth vp, but charity 
 
 EDIFIETH. 
 
 The plan of our course may next demand a brief explana- 
 tion. It will be the same in substance, as that which has been 
 pursued by the learned Dr. Wiseman, whose lectures in defence 
 of the Church of Rome are the most recent, and perhaps I may 
 add, the most plausible of the present day. The writer, for 
 some years, filled the honourable post of Rector of the English 
 College at Rome, where he attained a distinguished rank 
 amongst the accomplished scholars of Europe. His lectures 
 were delivered in London, first in 1835, and again in 1836. 
 They were published soon afterwards in England, and repub- 
 lished in the United States; and their importance has been en- 
 hanced by the appointment of their author to be one of the 
 papal Vicars Apostolic, with the title of Bishop, in partihns 
 injidelium. 
 
 I do not design, however, to content myself with merely 
 taking the statement of Roman Catholic doctrine from this 
 writer, nor from any of the controversialists of the present 
 age ; because it is a part of my design to show the change 
 which the Reformation has wrought in the Church of Rome 
 herself: and therefore I shall set before you the acts of their 
 councils, the dogmata of their schoolmen, the declarations and 
 bulls of the Popes, their canon laws, their authorized forms of 
 worship, their catechisms, their breviary, the statements of 
 their historians, and of their distinguished bishops; pursuing 
 in every instance, the rule laid down by the courts of justice 
 in all civilized nations, viz: that the best evidence of which 
 the nature of the case admits, shall be given. On our side we 
 shall adduce, first, the authority of the Scriptures, and next 
 the testimony of the earlier fathers which the Church of Rome 
 has herself handed down to us, whose names are placed upon 
 her list of saints, and inscribed with honour in her canon law. 
 
SPIRIT OF CONTROVERSY. 
 
 9 
 
 And I trust, my brethren, that the result of the whole will be 
 not only a reasonable measure of important religious know- 
 ledge, but an increase of your gratitude to God for the privi- 
 leges which yonr own branch of the Universal or Catholic 
 Church secures to you, and a correspondent increase of your 
 zeal for "the faith once delivered to the saints." Yet along 
 with these, I would fain hope that one of the fruits of our labour 
 may be an increase of charity towards those who differ from 
 us; that charity which willingly thinketh no evil, and rejoiceth 
 only in the truth. If I had not this hope, I should lose all 
 relish for the work I have undertaken. Controversy, God 
 knows, has had too much to do with the carnal weapons of 
 acrimony, and sarcasm, and slander, and a studied effort to 
 put every thing connected with the adversary in the most odious 
 light. Be ours the endeavour, made at least in humble sin- 
 cerity, to use only the spiritual weapons of candour, sobriety 
 and moderation. Thus only can our task be approved by 
 the Prince of peace. Thus only can we ask that the God 
 of truth and love will grant it his blessing. 
 
 In concluding this introductory discourse, my beloved bre- 
 thren, I have two requests to make, which I trust you will not 
 deny me. The one is, that you will not expect the discussion 
 to be enlivened by any of those tales of pious frauds, of inqui- 
 sitorial cruelty, of monastic atrocity, and conventual abomina- 
 tion, which multitudes have been in the habit of connecting 
 with all their ideas of the Church of Rome, but which fair and 
 candid minds dismiss at once, as having no proper place in 
 well regulated controversy. I do not mean to question the 
 truth of the facts which historians relate in connexion with 
 these subjects. The Church of Rome has held the most pro- 
 minent place in the Christian world ever since the days of the 
 apostle Paul, and it would be strange indeed if many abuses 
 could not be found in her history, especially as several centuries 
 of that history were passed among the dark ages of feudal 
 
10 DEPENDENCE ON PRAYER. 
 
 tyranny and ignorance. But principles and doctrines arc the 
 most proper topics of religious discussion. Practices which 
 did not necessarily flow from principles, and errors which 
 are lamented as grievous abuses by Roman Catholics them- 
 selves, and which are confined to particular persons or grew 
 out of particular circumstances, may indeed furnish very inte- 
 resting materials for the poet, the novelist, or the historian, 
 but deserve no serious notice in our contemplated undertaking. 
 My other request is founded upon a high authority, the 
 example of the great apostle, when he said to his Thessalo- 
 nian converts, brethren, pray for us. (1 Thes. v. 25.) 
 Who giveth wisdom, knowledge, sound discretion, patient 
 research, and that peculiar power which penetrates the veil of 
 ingenious sophistry, and discovers the hidden truth, but God 
 alone? Grant me then, my beloved brethren, what none can 
 need more than I do, the aidof your prayers; that the humble 
 enterprise commenced in the service of the Church of Christ, 
 may have the guidance of his grace, and be made an instru- 
 ment, in some small degree, for the promotion of his glory. 
 
LECTURE II. 
 
 1 Tim. iii. 15. — The Church of the living God, the pillar and ground 
 of the truth. 
 
 In entering, my beloved brethren, upon the course of lec- 
 tures to which I pledged myself, under favour of Divine Pro- 
 vidence, in my last discourse, the first subject which demands 
 our attention is the fundamental question of the kule or 
 faith; or, in other words, hy what authority our faith must 
 he governed; whether by the Holy Scriptures, or by the tra- 
 dition of the Church. This forms the leading topic of the Ro- 
 man controversy in our own day, as it did at the period of the 
 Reformation. 
 
 Perhaps no question has ever given rise to more argument 
 than this, or has been liable to more ingenious sophistry and 
 mystification, on account of the various senses in which its 
 terms have been understood, and the skill with which the ad- 
 vocates of the Church of Rome have mingled truth and error. 
 In order, therefore, that we may form a clear conception of 
 the whole argument, it will be necessary, as a preliminary, to 
 fix in our minds a distinct idea of what we mean by the Holy 
 Scriptures and the Church. 
 
 By the Holy Scriptures, or the Bible, we understand a col- 
 lection of sacred books, put forth from the days of Moses until 
 the latter j^ears of the apostle John, at the suggestion or com- 
 mand of God himself, by various holy men, whom the Spirit 
 of God guided and superintended in such wise, that the 
 
12 SCRIPTURE AND THE CHURCH. 
 
 writings thus produced were perfectly free from all error, and 
 therefore were justly entitled to be' received, not as the work 
 of man, but as the recorded word of God. In this state- 
 ment there is an universal agreement amongst all Christians ; 
 and the only point of serious difference between the Church of 
 Rome and ourselves, is confined to the question, whether cer- 
 tain books, which we esteem of doubtful inspiration, should 
 have been included with the rest in the sacred Canon, by the 
 Council of Trent which sat in the sixteenth century, against 
 the authority of the ancient fathers and councils of a much 
 earlier day. 
 
 The other term, Church, is not susceptible of being de- 
 fined with equal simplicity. The word itself, in the original 
 languages in which the Bible is written, signifies the assembly, 
 or the congregation; and it is applied to the sam.e subjects in 
 various relations, two only of which, however, it will be ne- 
 cessary to set forth on the present occasion. 
 
 The first of these is the Church Catholic, or Universal, 
 being the whole body of the professed people of God, from 
 righteous Abel down to the last believer, who shall be alive 
 when the trumpet of the Archangel summons the entire family 
 of man before the judgment seat of Christ. Of this Church 
 we read, under many dispensations; the patriarchal, the Mo- 
 saic, and the New Testament, or Christian dispensation as it 
 is commonly called, although, in fact, these three are only the 
 stages of its development; the successive unfoldings of the 
 truth, manifested in the beautiful order established by the di- 
 vine wisdom, while the substance of that truth was still the 
 same. To satisfy the reflecting mind of this substantial unity, 
 it is only necessary to remember, that the promise of Christ, 
 and the institution of sacrifice as a type of the Lamb of God 
 which should take away the sins of the world, were given im- 
 mediately after the fall. Hence the Redeemer is called, the 
 Lamb slain from the foundation of the world. Abel, the son 
 
THE TERM CHURCH. 13 
 
 of Adam, is adduced by St. Paul as an example of faith. 
 Enoch was translated in proof of a higher and immortal state, 
 and prophesied, according to St. Jude, of the future judgment. 
 Noah was a preacher of the righteousness of faith, and the 
 ark that saved him from the waters of the deluge was a sym- 
 bol of the Church of God ; while Melchisedec was an emi- 
 nent and peculiar type of the eternity, sovereignty, and priest- 
 hood of Jesus Christ, and Abraham was called the friend of 
 God and the father of the faithful. Throughout the subse- 
 quent, or the Mosaic dispensation, all was arranged with re- 
 ference to Christ. Israel was the Church, and the prophets 
 foretold, with increasing clearness, the calling of the Gentiles 
 at the coming of Him who was to be the Light of the Gentiles 
 and the glory of his people Israel. And, therefore, in strict 
 accordance with this unity, St. Paul tells the Romans that 
 they were grafted on the stock of Abraham, that Israel was 
 the root, that the Gentibs were grafted upon that root instead 
 of the natural branches, and that the time should come when 
 those natural branches, which had been cut off by reason of 
 unbelief, should be grafted in again, and all be one in the Re- 
 deemer. Hence the phrase Catholic Chvrch, or Universal 
 Church, taken in its widest latitude as comprehending the 
 body of Christ, includes, properly, all who embraced the cove- 
 nant of grace, under each successive dispensation, from the 
 beginning of the world : and although, for ordinary purposes 
 and in common parlance, it is usual to apply this phrase to 
 the whole Church under the present dispensation only, since 
 the former dispensations, having fulfilled their part, are done 
 away, yet there are many passages of the Book of God, and 
 many doctrines and usages of the Church, which cannot be 
 properly understood, without a clear idea of its real and com- 
 prehensive signification. 
 
 The second application of the word Church, is to a part 
 of the universal body, whether that part be greater or less* 
 
 c 
 
14 THE TERM CIimCH. 
 
 A iJdw examples of both these significations will explain the 
 distinction clearly. 
 
 Thus, for instance, our Saviour saith, (Matt, xviii. 15 — 17) 
 "If thy brother shall trespass against thee, go and tell him his 
 fault between thee and him alone : if he shall hear thee, thou 
 hast gained thy brother. But if he will not hear thee, then 
 take with thee one or two more, that in the mouth of two or 
 three witnesses every word may be established. And if he 
 shall neglect to hear them, tell it unto the Church,- but if he 
 neglect to hear the Church, let him be unto thee as an heathen 
 man and a publican." Here it is evident that our Lord does 
 not mean, that the Universal or Catholic Church was to be told 
 of every offence which an individual might commit against his 
 brother, for this would be equally absurd and impossible. But 
 the word Church means the assembly or congregation to 
 which the parties belonged ; that is, a very small, but yet dis- 
 tinctly organized fraction of the whole. 
 
 On another occasion, however, our Lord saith, (Matt. xvi. 
 18) "On this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of 
 hell shall not prevail against it." Now here we are bound to 
 give to the word that wide scope of meaning, which compre- 
 hends the final victory of the Universal or Catholic Church 
 over the powers of darkness. 
 
 Again, when St. Stephen, (Acts vii. 38) in his last disputa- 
 tion with the Jews, just before his martyrdom, saith ; "This is 
 that Moses that was in the Church in the wilderness with the 
 angel which spake to him in Mount Sinai and with our fa- 
 thers," it is manifest that he applies the word Church to an- 
 cient Israel, the Church under the Mosaic dispensation. But 
 when St. Paul saith, (Eph. v. 25) that "Christ loved the 
 Church, and gave himself for it," and again, (Col. i. 18) that 
 "He is the head of the body, the Church," and again, in the 
 words of our text, when he speaks to Timothy of " the Church 
 of the living God, which is the pillar and ground of the truth," 
 
THE TERM CHURCH. 15 
 
 we are to understand the whole Church, the Church Catholic 
 or Universal. 
 
 From this necessary latitude in the meaning of the word 
 Church, we should expect to find it often mentioned merely in 
 respect to its locality. Thus we read, in the first epistle of 
 St. Peter, (v. 13) of the Church at Babylon. St. Paul speaks 
 of the Church of Laodicea, (Col. iv. 16) the Church at Cen- 
 chrea, (Rom. xvi. 1) the Church of God at Corinth. (1 Cor. i. 
 2.) Nay, he diminishes the term so far as to address himself 
 to the Church in the house of Philemon. (Phii. 2.) In like 
 manner, we find the Spirit of God in the Book of Revelations, 
 addressing the Church of Ephesus, of Smyrna, of Pergamus, 
 of Thyatira, of Sardis, of Philadelphia, of Laodicea. And it is, 
 accordingly, the current style of the apostles to speak of 
 Churches in the plural number. "The Churches of Christ 
 salute you," saith St. Paul. (Rom. xvi. 16.) "So ordain J," 
 saith he elsewhere, (1 Cor. vii. 17) "in all the Churches." 
 He speaks of the Churches of Asia, (1 Cor. xvi. 19) the 
 Churches of Galatia, (1 Cor. xvi. 1) the Churches of Macedo- 
 nia, (2 Cor. viii. 1) the Churches of Judea. (Gal. i. 22.) And 
 in the same strain we read, (Rev. ii. 7) "ife that hath an ear, 
 let him hear what the Spirit saith unto the Churches,'''' It 
 may perhaps seem to you, my brethren, that I am taking 
 needless trouble to prove a very simple proposition. But you 
 will find, before the conclusion of these discourses, that the 
 sense in which this word is to be understood, has a very im- 
 portant bearing, not only on the doctrine of our rule of faith, 
 but on many other points involved in the Roman contro- 
 versy. 
 
 Having thus shown the meaning of the terms employed in 
 the statement of our rule of faith, I shall now proceed to the 
 rule itself, as it is expressed in the Articles of the Church of 
 England, and in those of the Protestant Episcopal Church la 
 the United States. 
 
16 THE ARTICLES. 
 
 The sixth Article has for its title, " The svfficiency of tlie 
 Holy Scriptures for sahation,^^ and is in the following 
 words :— 
 
 " Holy Scripture containeth all things necessary to salva- 
 tion, so that whatever is not read therein, nor may be proved 
 thereby, is not to be required of any man that it should be be- 
 lieved as an article of the faith, or be thought requisite or 
 necessary to salvation. In the name of the Holy Scripture 
 we do understand those canonical books of the Old and New 
 Testament, of whose authority was never any doubt in the 
 Church." 
 
 Here, you peixjeive, is a direct reference to the Church, and 
 that in a comprehensive sense, including the whole Church 
 under the Christian dispensation. But there are other Articles 
 which expressly treat of the Church and its authority; and 
 these it will be necessary to cite, in order that the whole 
 standard of our faith may be placed before you. 
 
 The 19th Article defines the Church in the following words: 
 " The visible Church of Christ is a congregation of faithful men, 
 in the which the pure word of God is preached, and the sacra- 
 ments be duly ministered according to Christ's ordinance, in 
 all those things that of necessity are requisite to the same." 
 
 In this definition it does not appear that the Universal or 
 Catholic Church was in view at all, but rather that which 
 should constitute a Church in any particular part of Christ's 
 kingdom, as for example, the Church of a single city, or pro- 
 vince, or nation. 
 
 The 20th Article sets forth the authority of the Church in 
 these words : 
 
 " The Church hath power to decree rites or ceremonies, and 
 authority in controversies of faith, and yet it is not lawful for 
 the Church to ordain any thing that is contrary to God's Word 
 written, neither may it so expound one place of Scripture that 
 it be repugnant to another. Wherefore, although the Church 
 
THE ARTICLES. 17 
 
 be a witness and a keeper of Holy Writ, yet as it ought not 
 to decree any thing against the same, so, besides the same, 
 ought it not to enforce any thing to be beUeved for necessity 
 of salvation." 
 
 U we suppose that a provincial or national Church were 
 intended in the 10th Article, then nothing hinders us from ap- 
 plying the same sense to the word Church in the 20th ; al- 
 though it would as well justify the more comprehensive signiti- 
 cation of the Church Universal. There are yet two other 
 Articles, however, which bear upon the point in question. 
 
 The 21st, treating of the authority of General Councils, saith, 
 that " when they be gathered together, forasmuch as they be an 
 assembly of men, whereof all be not governed by the Spirit 
 and Word of God, they may err, and sometimes have erred, 
 even in things pertaining unto God. Wherefore things ordained 
 by them as necessary to salvation have neither strength nor 
 authority, unless it may be declared that they be taken out of 
 Holy Scripture." 
 
 Here we have a strong denial of any authority in General 
 Councils, independent of the written Word of God. The respect 
 due to them as expounders of the Scriptures, is a totally differ- 
 ent question, which we shall have occasion to consider more 
 at large by and by. It is proper to observe, however, that 
 the whole of this Article was omitted in the American Church, 
 although not for any reason which would affect its general 
 doctrine. 
 
 Lastly, the 34th Article, speaking of the traditions of the 
 Church, uses these words : 
 
 " It is not necessary that traditions and ceremonies be in all 
 places one, and utterly like, for at all times they have been 
 divers, and may be changed according to the diversities of 
 countries, times, and men's manners, so that nothing be or- 
 dained against God's Word. Whosoever, through his private 
 judgment, wiUingly and purposely, doth openly break the tra- 
 
 c2' 
 
18 THE FATHERS. 
 
 ditions and ceremonies af the Church, which be not repugnant 
 to God's Word, and be ordained and approved by common 
 authority, ought to be rebuked openly, (that others may fear 
 to do the Hke,) as he that offendeth against the common order 
 of the Church, and hurteth the authority of the magistrate, 
 and woundelh the consciences of the weak brethren. Every 
 particular Or national Church hath authority to ordain, change 
 and abolish, ceremonies or riles of the Church ordained only 
 by man's authority, so that all things be done unto edifying." 
 
 In this Article there is an express limitation upon the exer- 
 cise of private judgment, coupled with as express a declaration 
 of the power of a particular or national Church over rites and 
 ceremonies; yet here, as every where else, there is the utmost 
 deference inculcated towards the Bible. 
 
 There is a part of the English law, however, although it is 
 not expressed in the Articles, and has no formal recognition in 
 the system of the American Church, which I consider import- 
 ant to a perfect understanding of our doctrine concerning the 
 rule of faith. And this is the provision, that Scripture shall be 
 expounded according to the sense of the ancient fathers. The 
 same principle indeed appears throughout the Homilies, and is 
 plainly set forth in the Preface to the English Book of Common 
 Prayer. And although our Church in the United States, whe- 
 ther considered politically, or ecclesiastically, is a distinct and 
 independent body, yet the religious principles of the Church of 
 England are for the most part so identified with ours, that the de- 
 fence of one is the defence of both. This, unity is well expressed 
 in the Preface to our American Book of Common Prayer, where 
 it is said, that our Church is far from intending to depart from 
 the Church of England in any essential point of doctrine, dis- 
 cipline, or worship, or further than local circumstances require. 
 
 The limits of this discourse will only allow of a very brief 
 discussion of some of the more important questions arising out 
 of those Articles, and essential to a proper understanding of the 
 
OBJECTIOINS. 19 
 
 Roman controversy. But that we may proceed as far as prac- 
 ticable without trespassing too long, I shall ask your attention 
 while I state the objections made to our rule of faith by Dr. 
 Wiseman, and his brother advocates of the Church of Rome. 
 
 They strongly object that the right of private judgment, by 
 which every man is at liberty to gather his own faith out of 
 the Scriptures, is productive of endless diversity, confusion, 
 and error in religion ; and they point triumphantly to the num- 
 ber of sects which distract the Protestant part of Christendom, 
 as proof positive of the assertion. 
 
 They say that we are indebted to them for the very Bi- 
 ble on which we rest our faith, and that it is unreasonable 
 to trust them for this, and yet trust them no farther. 
 
 And they insist that there is no other practicable mode 
 of attaining Christian unity, than that laid down in their own 
 S5^stem. • 
 
 Now, in order to appreciate the force of these objections, 
 we shall have to ask your attention to several lectures, in the 
 course of which they shall be fully discussed. For the pre- 
 sent, however, we shall only briefly examine the following 
 topics, all of which, as you will readily perceive, bear upon 
 the line of the Roman argument. 
 
 First then, let us consider the right and absolute necessity 
 of the exercise of private judgment, or in other words, the exer- 
 cise by every individual of his own faculties in the question of 
 religion, upon the truth propounded to him from the Word of 
 God. 
 
 Secondly, the degree of credit due to the Church in faith- 
 fully handing down to us the volume of inspiration. 
 
 Thirdly, the authority to be conceded to the primitive 
 Church, in the character of judges or interpreters of the sense 
 of Scripture. 
 
 And fourthly, the restriction of the right of private judgment 
 to the duty of selecting, each man for himself, that Church 
 
20 PRIVATE JUDGMENT. 
 
 which appears to have retained most faithfully the distinguish- 
 ino- marks of Scriptural or Apostolic Christianity. 
 
 I doubt not, my brethren, that you will find this course of 
 argument somewhat trying to your patience, and yet I fore- 
 warn you, that throughout our whole contemplated series as 
 well as here, the establishment of truth can only be fully 
 attained by close and thorough reflection. A vague and super- 
 ficial notion of religion may indeed be acquired without the 
 trouble of thought, but clear and distinct views absolutely 
 demand, as they most richly repay, persevering and laborious 
 investigation. 
 
 First then, as to the right and necessity of private judgment, 
 I aver that the Lord himself addresses his sacred truth to no 
 other principle. *' Come now, and let us reason together," is his 
 language. " Turn ye, for why will ye die," is his expostulation. 
 "Unto you, O men, I call," saith the wisdom of heaven, " and my 
 voice is to the sons of men." " Come unto me," saith the com- 
 passionate Redeemer, "all ye that are weary and heavy laden, 
 and I will give you rest." To what are all these and thousands 
 of similar passages directed? Is it not to the private judgment, 
 the individual powers of sensation and thought which the hand 
 of God has bestowed upon us? True, these faculties are not 
 sufficient to bring men to repentance and faith without the 
 operation of the Holy Spirit, but with that influence to open 
 the eyes which are blind, and the ears which are deaf by 
 nature, is it any thing else which prepares the sinner for the 
 service of God, but the reception of the Word of God. by his 
 own individual assent to its truth and power? 
 
 I do not deny that the imposing spectacle of the Church, 
 visibly and prosperously established before men, with her 
 ministry, her order, and her mighty sway, is calculated to 
 attract attention and excite respect, and thus become a motive 
 for the examination of the divine proclamation of mercy, pro- 
 pounded to mankind upon the authority of God's own Word. 
 
PRIVATE JUDGMENT. 21 
 
 But when Abel yielded his heart in faith — when Noah prepared 
 the ark— -when Abraham left his kindred to be an exile in the 
 land of Canaan — when Moses went back to Egypt as the de- 
 liverer of Israel — when Elijah thought himself alone in the 
 midst of idolatry and profanation — when the apostles saw their 
 hopes quenched in the darkness of their beloved Master's se- 
 pulchre — when St. Paul wandered about from city to city, dis- 
 puting in the markets, teaching in the synagogue, or leading 
 the Athenians on Mars Hill to contemplate the attributes of the 
 unknown God — where, in all these instances was the Church, to 
 aid the private judgment of the individual in deciding upon the 
 truth of the word of inspiration ? Nay, is it not demonstrable, 
 from the necessity of the case, that the Word of God, embraced 
 through the operation of his grace by the private judgment, 
 must be anterior to the Church, since the Church consists of a 
 company or society of believers, and in the nature of things, 
 individual belief must go before the formation of any such 
 society 1 
 
 But to us who live after the full organization of the 
 Church, it may be said that the order of the whole question is 
 changed, because we are now obliged to take, through the me- 
 dium of the Church, what was originally received by an extra- 
 ordinary communication. This, however, only alters our mode 
 of arriving at the standard of our faith, without at all affecting 
 the standard itself; since it is 9bYious that whether the will of 
 God be delivered to me by the word or by the pen of the in- 
 spired instrument, I am equally bound to receive it. And 
 whether the word of God be delivered to me by evangelists and 
 apostles in person, or be transmitted in writing through the 
 channel of the Church, its authority and my submission to it 
 must be the same, and the exercise of private judgment in either 
 case must be equally indispensable. 
 
 Here, however, two questions arise, in which correct ideas 
 of the Church become of the highest importance. One of them 
 
22 CLAIM OF THE CHURCH, 
 
 respects her credit, as the witness and keeper of Holy Writ, 
 the other regards her claim to be its best interpreter. 
 
 The first question resolves itself into the simplest form, 
 when it is considered that the Church, or the body of Christ's 
 faithful people, must of necessity, be the only safe guardian of 
 the Scriptures, because none but the Church could have had any 
 serious motive for their preservation, and to her they were the 
 very charter of all her hope. It is saying nothing to the pur- 
 pose, therefore, to tell us that we are indebted to the Church 
 for the Bible, since the Bible could have descended to us in no 
 other way ; and in receiving it from the Church we have all 
 the evidence that the case allows, and can ask no more. The 
 first Churches obtained their Canon of Scripture from apos- 
 tolic authority, and handed it down with religious care to each 
 succeeding generation, so that by this simple yet necessary 
 principle of transmission, we have the very word of inspira- 
 tion in its own integrity, whatever else may have been liable 
 to change-. 
 
 The second question, namely, the claim of the Church to 
 be the interpreter of Scripture, is a totally different matter, 
 and yet it is one which, to a reflecting and unprejudiced mind, 
 could never have been made the subject of a doubt, with re- 
 gard to those points in which the judgment of the Church has 
 been harmonious. For all must allow that the first Chris- 
 tians, who had the privilege of the inspired apostles' teaching 
 for years, possessed advantages altogether superior to our- 
 selves in ascertaining the mind of the Spirit. Titus, the first 
 bishop of Crete, for example, and Timothy, the first bishop of 
 Ephesus, were instructed by St. Paul for the express work of 
 the ministry. Who would refuse them a peculiar veneration 
 for that very reason, if it were possible to hear their preaching 
 at the present day? Or if their favourite disciples, to whom 
 they had communicated the results of their familiar intercourse 
 with the great apostle, were now before us, who could per- 
 
AS THE INTElirRETEK. 23 
 
 suade us that they were not the safest guides for the soul ? It 
 is not, therefore, an assumption without argument, but a plain 
 deduction of common sense, that the nearer we can approach 
 to the apostolic fountain, the more highly we must esteem the 
 opinions or judgment of the Church. But the first generation 
 of teachers after the apostles were too much occupied in doing 
 and suffering, to leave many written memorials behind them. 
 And the remains even of the second are not numerous. As 
 the progress of the Church advanced, indeed, they multipliod, 
 and highly do we estimate them all. But we find a want of 
 unanimity amongst them, which totally forbids that we should 
 think them free from error. So early as the second century, 
 for instance, soon after the death of the apostle John, we be- 
 hold them disputing about the time for holding the festival of 
 Easter. Further dissensions concerning the baptism of here- 
 tics spring up in the third century, and in the beginning of the 
 fourth, the first General Council is summoned by the Emperor 
 Constantino, to compose the strife which convulsed the Church 
 upon the all-important subject of the Trinity, and the divinity 
 of our Lord Jesus Christ. In all their disputations, however, 
 we find them unanimous in appealing to the Scriptures as the 
 standard of faith. Tradition, indeed, was sometimes called 
 upon in the way of corroborative interpretation, but the deci- 
 sive evidences of truth were only sought for in the Bible. 
 Nothing, therefore, can be more manifest to the unprejudiced 
 student of antiquity than this: that the primitive Christians 
 made the Bible their infallible rule of faith, as we do, and used 
 the help of tradition on the very same ground that we our- 
 selves allow, namely, as being entitled to the highest respect 
 in the interpretation of the Bible, but nothing more. 
 
 From this brief statement, which we shall have to en- 
 large on and verify in a fixture discourse, it results undenia- 
 bly, that the claims of the Bible to be received above all other 
 rules or standards of faith as alone infallible, are sustained not 
 
24 LIMITATION OF 
 
 only by the fact that it is the sure record of the Word of God, 
 but by the unanimous consent of the primitive fathers. So 
 that when we rest our faith on the same foundation, we are 
 justified, first, by the reason of the thing itself, and, secondly, 
 by the concurrent admission of those who had the advantage 
 of living so much nearer than ourselves to the apostolic day. 
 And the authority which should be conceded to the primitive 
 Church, in the character of judges or interpreters of Scripture, 
 is readily resolved in the same way. For surely the reve- 
 rence which we jdeld to the ancient fathers cannot, in justice, 
 go beyond the reverence which they claimed for themselves, 
 or which they accorded to each other. As judges and inter- 
 preters of the Written word of God, they have our absolute 
 confidence wherever they are unanimous. But where they 
 are not unanimous, we are compelled to do as they did — com- 
 pare their discordant sentiments with Scripture, and adopt that 
 sense which seems most conformable to the language of inspi- 
 ration. 
 
 In determining the last question, as to the obligation rest- 
 ing on all men, according to their light and opportunity, to 
 select their Church for themselves, we can be at no loss to 
 discover the argument furnished by the same recurrence to 
 antiquity. For since, in some things, the infallible standard 
 of the Scriptures has been interpreted by different portions of 
 the Church in different ways, so that in agreeing with one 
 party, we must perforce differ from another; what have we 
 but our own judgment, under God, to decide for us between 
 them? Or who shall deprive us of the privilege of obeying 
 the apostles' precept — " Prove all things, hold fast that which 
 is good 1" 
 
 I may not, however, conclude even this cursory view of the 
 principles set forth by our Articles on the rule of faith, without 
 directing your attention to the wholesome limits provided for 
 this exercise of private judgment. It is the plain doctrine of 
 
PRIVATE JUDGMENT. 25 
 
 our Church, that those things which are necessary to salvation 
 are not only declared in Scripture, but are settled of old in the 
 interpretation and judgment of the primitive Church, as by the 
 several creeds, which are accordingly laid down as immov- 
 able landmarks in our system. Those points which are not 
 essential to salvation, and which different portions of the Uni- 
 versal Church have settled differently, are nevertheless to be 
 received and followed for the sake of peace and order by the 
 members of each particular Church, just as that Church to 
 which they belong has seen good to direct them. Allowance, 
 therefore, is given to private judgment, to choose which 
 Church it will adopt; but no allowance is given to differ from 
 all for the sake of setting up a novelty, and thereby casting a 
 new brand of dissension into Christ's kingdom, on account of 
 some comparatively trifling matter which belongs not to the 
 integrity of the faith. Here then, you perceive, we allow all 
 Christian liberty, but no licentiousness; the right to purify 
 the old temple, but not to build a new one ; the privilege and 
 even the duty of bringing the Church as nearly as possible to 
 the apostolic standard of the early faith of Christendom, but 
 no privilege for the tongue of censorious non-conformity, or 
 the hand of wanton innovation. 
 
 I have only to add, my brethren, that the subject before us 
 has been handled but slightly in many respects, because it is 
 so complicated with that of our next lecture — the rule of faith 
 propounded by the Church of Rome— that the discussion of 
 their doctrine will necessarily throw additional light and evi- 
 dence upon our own. Meanwhile, may the Spirit of the only 
 living and true God direct and sanctify you, that you may not 
 merely acknowledge the standard of the faith, but may appro- 
 priate the faith itself, so as to know by your own experience 
 how it works by love, and purifies the heart, and overcomes 
 the world. 
 
LECTURE III. 
 
 1 Cor. ill. 3. — For ye are yet carnal: for whereas there is among' 
 you envying and strife and divisions; are ye not carnalj and walk as 
 
 The subject of our last discourse, my brethren, was the 
 Rule of Faith, which, in contradistinction to the modern 
 Church of Rome, was established by the Church of England 
 at the Reformation ; and which, as you will probably remem- 
 ber, reduced the whole of the faith required for salvation, to 
 the Bible alone. We explained what we understood by the 
 Holy Scriptures, and then stated some of the various senses in 
 which the term Church was to be received. We asserted the 
 right and the necessity of the exercise of private judgment, as 
 the unalienable privilege and obligation of every individual; 
 since, without it, neither repentance, nor faith, nor obedience, 
 nor any other commanded duty, could be possible to man. 
 We stated, nevertheless, that wherever the judgment of the 
 Church was unanimous on any point of Christian faith or 
 practice, no individual opinion could be allowed to have any 
 weight; but, that, wherever the judgment of the Church was 
 not unanimous, the appeal to Scripture, and the humble and 
 faithful use of our own faculties, with a submissive reliance on 
 the aid of the Holy Spirit, was the only resource of those who 
 were the appointed guides of their brethren. We cited, at 
 large, those Articles of our Church which had a bearing on the 
 subject, and we then left the further discussion of it to the 
 present lecture, where, in examining the Roman rule of faith, 
 
ROMAN RULE OF FAITH. 27 
 
 the difference between the two systems would be more appa- 
 rent, and therefore better understood. We are now, according 
 to our proposed arrangement, to enter upon this subject, and we 
 ask your attention to a plain examination of it, in the full confi- 
 dence that you will need no other stimulus to your interest 
 than the recollection, that it is a doctrine on which hangs the 
 whole religious system of more than one hundred millions of 
 the Christian world. 
 
 The rule of faith in the Church of Rome, professes, like our 
 own, to be the Word of God, and of course, it includes the 
 Holy Scriptures. But they maintain that, besides the Scrip- 
 tures, there was an oral delivery of divine truth to the Church, 
 which is equally obligatory on every believer; of which un- 
 written Word, the Church is the sole depository, and in the 
 safe preservation of which, as well as in her power of inter- 
 preting the written Word, she cannot err, being absolutely 
 infallible. 
 
 It is a source of much satisfaction to find the late distin- 
 guished advocate of the Church of Rome, Dr. Wiseman, 
 resting the whole of this doctrine on the Scriptures, since thus 
 the quality of the evidence is brought into a much more intel- 
 ligible compass. The following is his language, and we beg 
 that you will mark it, my brethren, with especial care. (p. 51, 
 Vol. I. Am. ed.) "We believe," saith he, "that there is no 
 other ground-work whatever for faith, except the written Word 
 of God ; because we allow no power in religion to any living 
 authority, except inasmuch as its right to define is conferred 
 in God's written Word. If, therefore, you hear that the 
 Church claims authority to define articles of faith, and to 
 instruct her children what they must believe, you must not for 
 one moment think that she pretends to any authority or sanc- 
 tion for that power, save what she conceives herself to derive 
 from the clear, express, and explicit words of Scripture. 
 Thus, therefore, it is truly said, that whatever is believed by 
 
28 
 
 BIBLE AND TRADITION. 
 
 US, although not positively expressed in the written Word of 
 God, is believed, because the principle adopted by us is there 
 expressly revealed." 
 
 "By the unwritten Word of God then," continues Dr. Wise- 
 man, "we mean a body of doctrines, which in consequence of 
 express declarations in the written Word, we believe not to 
 have been committed to writing, but delivered by Christ to his 
 apostles, and by the apostles to their successors. We believe 
 that no new doctrine can be introduced into the Church, but 
 that every doctrine which we hold has existed and been taught 
 in it, ever since the time of the apostles, and was handed 
 down by them to their successors, under the only guarantee 
 on which we receive doctrines from the Church, that is, 
 Christ's promise to abide with it for ever, to assist, direct and 
 instruct it, and always teach in and through it. So that, 
 .while giving our explicit credit, and trusting our judgment to 
 it, we are believing and trusting to the express teaching of 
 Christ himself,'^'' 
 
 Here then we have the plain declaration of this learned and 
 ingenious defender of the Church of Rome, that the Scriptures 
 require us to believe the voice of the Church to be the voice of 
 Christ, the unwritten Word delivered by the Church to be equal 
 to the Scriptures in point of authority, and the infallible truth 
 of the Church to be the same in substance as the infallible 
 truth of the Bible; and therefore the Roman rule of faith 
 includes the Scriptures, together with the decisions of the 
 Church, attributing as much unerring assurance of divine 
 truth to the one, as to the other. 
 
 But we are not only indebted to this distinguished writer for 
 the foregoing statement of the Rule of Faith. He gives us 
 also a very candid declaration of the consequences, to any one 
 belonging to his Church, that presumes to doubt it. "For the 
 moment any Roman Catholic doubts," saith he, (p. 65,) "not 
 alone the principles of his faith, but any one of those doctrines 
 
RESULT OF THE RULE. 29 
 
 which are thereon based — the moment he allows himself to 
 call in question any of the dogmas which the Church teaches, 
 as having been handed down within her — that moment the 
 Church conceives him to have virtually abandoned all con- 
 nexion with her. For she exacts such implicit obedience, 
 that if any member, however valuable, however he may have 
 devoted his early talents to the illustration of her doctrines, 
 fall away from his belief in any one point, he is cut off without 
 reserve; and we have, in our times, seen striking and awful 
 instances of the fact." We shall have occasion to show you, 
 brethren, in a future discourse, that the effect of this is to 
 place the authority of the Church above the authority of the 
 Bible. 
 
 But before we examine the Scriptural proofs relied on for 
 this vast prerogative on behalf of the Church, which will form 
 the subject of our next lecture, we are bound to notice one 
 general argument, by which Dr. Wiseman, and all other writers 
 of the Church of Rome, endeavour to demonstrate the reason- 
 ableness and the necessity of such an infallible authority in the 
 Christian system. 
 
 And here, they draw their strongest proof from the deplor- 
 able fact, that Protestants, professing to make the Bible their 
 rule of faith, are so divided into jarring and discordant sects, 
 that there is no unity amongst them. And therefore they 
 insist upon the experience of the last three hundred years, as 
 affording the clearest evidence of the superior advantages, 
 credit and safety of their rule of faith, since it excludes all the 
 irregular action of private judgment in the interpretation of 
 Scripture, and brings all minds to the same infallible standard 
 of decision. 
 
 The fact here stated, my beloved brethren, is too glaring to 
 be denied. Awful, shameful, and ruinous to the best interests 
 of Scriptural Christianity, have been the dissensions and strifes 
 
 d2 
 
30 PROTESTANT DISSENSIONS. 
 
 of that portion of Christendom which we call reformed. 
 The spiritual despotism of Rome, once broken, has been fol- 
 lowed by total licentiousness of opinion, and the sin of schism 
 has lost its terrors, until Christians have imagined that division 
 was a blessing, which fulfilled the double purpose of keeping a 
 wholesome guard upon the encroachments of error, and of 
 indulging the tastes of mankind with a useful variety of reli- 
 gious entertainment. 
 
 Seated in conscious security upon the throne of her domi- 
 nion, the Church of Rome has looked in derision and in scorn 
 at the discordant hosts of Protestant Christians, who, instead 
 of uniting their arms against her errors, have been struggling 
 to beat down one another. And the unbelieving world, the 
 Jew, and the Mahometan, have learned to mock at the whole; 
 taught by Rome that there could be no truth where there was 
 no unity, and taught by the quarrels of Protestants that there 
 was no certainty of the truth to be obtained at all. Respect 
 for the authorized priesthood — the ministry of Christ — has 
 been trodden to the ground : reverence for antiquity has been 
 denounced, as a weak superstition : the discipline and govern- 
 ment of the Churches have been delivered up to the influence 
 of wealth and popularity : the very edifices erected for the 
 worship of God have been held ready for the accommodation 
 of any worldly exhibition : and all the solemn characteristics of 
 the high and holy privilege, by which man — sinful and 
 unworthy — is admitted to hold communion -with the Majesty 
 of the invisible Creator, through the atonement and righteous- 
 ness of the divine Redeemer — all the sanctity — all the awe — 
 all the signs of outward humility — all the appendages of out- 
 ward devotion — have been denounced under the common and 
 undistinguishing cry of Popery and Priestcraft. 
 
 The fearful consequences of this sad desecration are begin- 
 ning to be apparent to the most careless observer, who will 
 but pause to contemplate the present state of the Christian 
 
PROGRESS OF ROME. 31 
 
 world. There is a tendency amongst the thoughtful and re- 
 flecting, in many quarters, to grow weary and sick of the 
 endless confusion around them, and to look for order and for 
 peace wherever it can be found. The apparent union and ve- 
 nerable antiquity of Rome attract them, and they feel strongly 
 inclined to overlook her corrupt doctrines, for the sake of her 
 magnificent ritual, and her solemn repose. And thus, of late 
 years, converts, as they are called, of learning, of rank, and 
 of much influence, on the continent of Europe, and in England 
 herself, have come forth to prove the power of the temptation, 
 and to show to the jarring communions of Protestants the force 
 of St. Paul's admonition : — " If ye bite and devour one another, 
 take heed that ye be not consumed one of another." (Gal. v. 
 
 15.) 
 
 The most extraordinary manifestation of this tendency, 
 however, is in the wonderful change exhibited by England 
 within our own time. England, which gave to the principles 
 of the Reformation their most effective support, and their fair- 
 est promise of prosperity — England, whose statute books were 
 marked with the strongest Knes of antipathy to Rome and ha- 
 tred to Popery — England, whose apprehensions and precau- 
 tions seemed to be justified by the martyr-fires which were 
 kindled to sustain the Roman doctrine of transubstantiation — 
 whose queen had been excommunicated by Pope Sixtus V., 
 and her crown attempted to be transferred by his usurped 
 power to the king of Spain, in punishment for her refusal to 
 return under the Papal domination — England, whose establish- 
 ed Church was bound to commemorate, by a solemn yearly 
 service, the gunpowder plot, which was alleged to be another 
 work of Popish treason, — whose functionaries of State, in their 
 oaths of office, were obliged to swear that they held the doc- 
 trine of Rome to be a damnable idolatry, and whose very so- 
 vereigns, in their coronation oath, were bound to vow the 
 maintenance and support of the Protestant religion — this very 
 
32 ANGLICAN RULE OP FAITH. 
 
 England, to the amazement of the Christian world, has admit- 
 ted the Roman Catholics to her Parliament — opens her trea- 
 sures to sustain their theological seminaries, priests and 
 bishops — allows the free and complete toleration of their wor- 
 ship — listens to their arguments with growing inclination and 
 favour, — and stands at this hour in such a position, that it is 
 a grave question amongst reflecting minds whether the Church 
 of Rome may not yet regain the complete ascendency over 
 England herself, before the end of the present generation. 
 
 A fair counterpart to this picture is exhibited in the United 
 States; where it is unquestionable that the condition and pros- 
 pects of the Roman Church are in a course of rapid advance- 
 ment. Union is their strength, division is the weakness of 
 those that stand opposed to them. And therefore, in their 
 controversy with us about the rule of faith, it is always a 
 prominent and a favourite argument, that they can point so 
 triumphantly to the contrast exhibited in the state of the reli- 
 gious world; and thus, seeming to have the practical proof 
 altogether on their side, they plausibly contend, that the rule 
 which works confusion instead of unity, must be an insuffi- 
 cient rule — that the rule which works harmony and peace, 
 must be the rule which Christ intended for his people. 
 
 Brethren, I know, too well, the force of this practical argu- 
 ment; and no words of mine can do justice to the anxiety 
 which I have long felt, that all Christians who hold the blessed 
 Scriptures to be the true rule of faith, would give their minds 
 solemnly and prayerfully to the examination of the only princi- 
 ple which could counteract its influence. This principle I 
 will proceed to explain, so as to show, that the Articles of the 
 Church of England, understood according to their application 
 in her own system, point out the true course, by which the 
 errors of the Church of Rome must be abandoned on the one 
 hand, without any risk of confusion or strife upon the other. 
 
 You may remember, that in our last discourse, I set forth 
 
ANGLICAN RULE OF FAITH. 33 
 
 the language of several of those Articles, in which the follow- 
 ing propositions were clearly asserted : — 
 
 First, that the Holy Scriptures were the true standard of 
 faith. 
 
 Secondly, that the Church had authority in controversies 
 of faith, but yet had no power to exert this authority in con- 
 trariety to Scripture. 
 
 Thirdly, that the Church, whether acting in General 
 Councils or otherwise, was not infallible, but had a right to 
 claim obedience only so far as her decisions were conforniable 
 to the written Word of God. 
 
 And fourthly, that no man should be allowed to set his 
 private judgment in opposition to the Church, so long as the 
 Church was not plainly in opposition to Scripture. 
 
 Now, if you will put these propositions carefully together, 
 you will find them result in this : — that the Scriptures are the 
 rule of faith, and that the Church holds the office of interpre- 
 ter. Or in other words, the Scriptures lay down the law of 
 faith, and the Church is the Judge to expound the law, and 
 apply it to the cases of individuals. And when we ask what 
 Church shall exercise this power of interpretation, we reply, 
 that although, for the sake of peace and order, the smallest 
 body of Christians, to whom the word Church can be applied, 
 is better than a single man — although the importance of the 
 term Church rises with the magnitude and official responsibi- 
 lity of its character — although, when it reaches the dignity of 
 a national Church, it must be a case of plain contrariety to 
 the Supreme Lawgiver, which would justify any individual in 
 opposing it — yet, in the principles we are considering, there is 
 a still more sublime aspect of the Church which belongs to 
 the subject, namely, the Church Catholic or Universal; 
 such as it was at the time when the epithet Catholic became 
 in current use — such as it was at the time when it settled the 
 canon of Scripture — while yet it remained in the comparative 
 
34 THE PRIMITIVE CHURCH. 
 
 purity of its primitive state, and long before the Church of 
 Rome assumed the title of the " Mother and Mistress of all 
 the Churches.'''' And if you ask me for the chronology of 
 this period, I shall reply, that until A. D. 312, the date as- 
 signed for the conversion of the Emperor Constantino, the 
 Church was subject to successive persecutions from the hea- 
 then, some of which were dreadfully severe; that the bitter 
 sufferings endured at these times must, under God, have kept 
 Christianity unpolluted and clear of corruption, since all ex- 
 perience shows that chastisement and trial are the friends of 
 faith, while prosperity and power are its worst enemies : that 
 when the Church was lifted up by the favour of the imperial 
 throne, then came her time of worldly ease and of spiritual 
 declension, so that the brightness of her primitive faith began 
 to wane about the middle of the fourth century. And there- 
 fore, whenever we can have access to the interpretations, cus- 
 toms, worship, and discipline of the Church Catholic or Uni- 
 versal up to this period, we have the highest and safest autho- 
 rity of judgment, upon the rule of faith exhibited to us in the 
 written Word of God. 
 
 You will not understand me, however, as asserting, that 
 even the primitive Church Catholic is to be held infallible, nor 
 that her judgment is to be placed upon an equality with the 
 sacred Scriptures. God forbid! Even amongst men, we dis- 
 tinguish carefully between the authority of ih^ judge, and the 
 authority of the law. The representative wisdom and power 
 of the whole commonwealth, address us in the language of the 
 legislature ; while the office of the judge is ancillary and sub- 
 ordinate. He cannot make the law, nor supply its defects, 
 nor alter its provisions; and yet his office is not the less im- 
 portant on this account; since he is appointed to settle its 
 construction, to declare its true intent, and to pronounce the 
 sentence which its authority sanctions. If every man were at 
 liberty to construe the law of the land for himself, we should 
 
THE CHURCH IS THE JUDGE. 35 
 
 have law enough perhaps, but little justice. Hence it is easy 
 to see, why tlie judicial office, though quite distinct from the 
 legislative function, and inferior to it, is a necessary part of 
 every system of earthly government. And yet who would 
 be so absurd as to say, that the judges were infallible ? 
 
 Now the same relation which the judge bears to the law, the 
 Jewish priesthood bore to the law of Christ as it was then es- 
 tablished, and the Christian priesthood bears to the whole 
 system of faith, as it is committed to the full records of the 
 Gospel. The authority of the earthly judge controls the pri- 
 vate judgment of advocates and suitors in the interpretation 
 of human law, without any idea of his infallibility. Judges 
 may err, and judges have erred ; but their errors must be rec- 
 tified by those that come after them, and do not interfere with 
 the exercise of their official function at the time. So too, the 
 Jewish priests might err, and did err — yea, even to the rejection 
 of the blessed Son of God. Yet this did not hinder our Lord 
 from saying to his disciples, (Mat. xxiii. 2,) " The Scribes and 
 Pharisees sit in Moses' seat, all therefore whatsoever they bid 
 you observe, that observe and do ; but do not ye after their 
 works; for they say, and do not :" so far was the great Re- 
 deemer from countenancing any want of respect for the judicial 
 powers which his own Word had established. And in like 
 manner the successors of the apostles might err, and did err ; 
 and yet they held the place of the living authority by Christ's 
 own appointment; and therefore, unless in the case of an open 
 and plain opposition to his Word, the judgment of individuals 
 might not lawfully oppose them. 
 
 Thus far, then, my brethren, you perceive, that the principle 
 which adopts the Scriptures as the rule of faith, by no means 
 excludes the idea of official interpretation. On the contrary, this 
 principle rather assumes, that where there is a written rule, 
 there must be a class of authorized interpreters. And there- 
 fore it results that the Article which asserts this fundamental 
 
36 MISTAKE OF THE REFORMERS, 
 
 principle is in perfect harmony with the other Article which 
 declares, that "the Church hath authority in controver- 
 sies OF FAITH ;" while, nevertheless, just as the earthly judge 
 can only interpret and apply, without presuming to make or to 
 alter the law, so the Church, as the Article expresses it, may not 
 lawfully ordain any thing that is contrary to GocFs Word 
 written; neither may the Church so expound one place of 
 Scripture that it be repugnant to another ; neither ought the 
 Church to decree any thing against the Scriptures^ nor enforce 
 any thing besides the same to be believed for necessity of sal- 
 vation. All which expressions are in the strictest accordance 
 with the proper discharge of the judicial function. 
 
 When we come to apply these principles to the case of the 
 Reformation, we shall see a strong and marked distinction in 
 the course of the several reformers, which clearly accounts for 
 the difference in the result. The living, judicial authority of 
 Christ's Church, once Catholic, and if not absolutely, yet rea- 
 sonably unanimous, ceased to be so in a few centuries after the 
 time of Constantine. The Greek and the Roman Churches 
 separated, in consequence of Roman innovation ; and the in- 
 fluence of error, throughout the whole of Europe, increased, 
 until it was time, in the order of divine Providence, to teach 
 the judges of the Church to respect the Bible, and to compel 
 them to abandon that usurped prerogative o[ legislating for the 
 faith, which they had been, for so long a time, unlawfully 
 taking upon them. 
 
 In rectifying the evil, Luther went to work in too much con- 
 fidence of private judgment ; Zuinglius did the same; Calvin 
 did the same. Provoked and excited by the usurpations of 
 the Roman priesthood, they did not pause to separate the use 
 from the abuse — the usurpation, from the real judicial authori- 
 ty, committed to the pastors of the Church by Christ himself. 
 Hence they overthrew the whole system of ecclesiastical 
 government, assumed the dangerous principle that the great 
 
ON THE CONTINENT. 37 
 
 Head of the Church had not appointed any specific kind of 
 government for it, and that any form at all was equally accept- 
 able in his sight, so that the Scriptures held their proper rank 
 as the rule of faith to his people. The sad result of this error, 
 my beloved brethren, is the wretched state of strife and dissen- 
 sion to which we have already alluded. Heresy, in its deadliest 
 form, has swept through the Lutheran Churches and the Uni- 
 versities of Germany. The very pulpit of Calvin at Geneva 
 has been long occupied by men, who preach the doctrine for 
 which Calvin condemned Servetus to the stake ; and still the 
 disorganizing principle runs throughout the land, that the 
 government of Christ's Church is a thing of indifference, but 
 that, as a matter of high expediency, if there be any govern- 
 ment at all, the more modern it is, the better. 
 
 Now I beseech you, mark the difference in the mode of con- 
 ducting the Reformation in England. In the first place, we 
 find, that although it was undertaken by sovereigns, yet they 
 committed it to those who held the official right of judges in 
 the Church of God, by regular succession from the apostles. 
 In the second place, we see that they conducted it in the man- 
 ner of judges, who, having to correct a series of erroneous 
 decisions, take up the law, and carefully consult the expositions 
 of their predecessors. And in the third place, we find that 
 they paid especial regard to those predecessors who, living 
 nearest to the time when the law was established, were most 
 likely to have understood its true meaning. Amongst these 
 English reformers^ therefore, all reverence was yielded to the 
 authority of those precedents, which the judicial authority of 
 the Church had established in the primitive day. They de- 
 sired to exercise no other judgment but that which had been 
 exercised at the beginning; and they proceeded in the order 
 most consistent with this sacred and solemn design, holding 
 frequent councils, making thorough investigations into the rich 
 though complicated records of antiquity, clearing away, by 
 
 E 
 
•38 REFORMERS OF ENGLAND. 
 
 slow degrees, the novelties that had been brought in upon the 
 system of truth, and making no changes but those which the 
 written rule of faith and the primitive decisions under it, seem- 
 ed to require. Hence, no one man gave his name to the Eng- 
 Hsh Church : no one man presumed to fashion it after his 
 fancy. Many divines there were — Bishops and eminent cler- 
 gymen, bearing the regular commission of judges in the house 
 of God — who were united in the mighty undertaking. Many 
 martyrs there were, who sealed the sincerity of their labours 
 in their own blood. But not one amongst them desired to do 
 aught in the pride of his private judgment, nor to inscribe his 
 own name on the restored and purified temple of the Lord of 
 Hosts. 
 
 Here, then, is the great difference between the Church of 
 England, on the one hand, and the German, the French, and 
 the Swiss reformers, on the other. They all agreed that the 
 Holy Scriptures were the Rule or Standard of faith ; but all, 
 except England, assumed the absurdity, that every man was 
 equally authorized to interpret that rule in his own way : that 
 the same God who had given the written law to his Church 
 amongst the Jews, and along with this written law had solemn- 
 ly established the priesthood as its only ordinary interpreters, 
 had wholly neglected to provide his far more perfect Church 
 with any officers to exercise the judicial function : so that 
 while care was taken to furnish a rule, no care was taken to 
 secure its administration. On her guard against this vain and 
 perilous hypothesis, and guided by the favouring Providence of 
 God, England pursued the true track of Christian obligation 
 in both particulars ; fully asserting the supremacy of the 
 written law of the Lord's Gospel, and as clearly recognizing 
 the ministry appointed to interpret and apply it. The result 
 has signally proved the wisdom of the principle. For while 
 confusion and strife have followed in the train of the first three 
 
ROMAN RULE. 39 
 
 reformers, order and unity continue with the Church of Eng- 
 land to this day. 
 
 And the great difference between the Churches of Rome and 
 of England upon the subject, consists in this. That both 
 admit the appointment, by Christ, of a living authority to inter- 
 pret and apply his Word in the Church, even to the end of 
 the world. But the Church of England holds this living 
 authority to be confined to the interpretation of the Scrip- 
 tures in points of necessary faith and order, and to be liable, 
 besides, to err. And hence, it is competent to their succes- 
 sors, holding the same official rank and authority, to compare 
 their decisions with the written Word and with ancient prece- 
 dent, and rectify the error. Whereas the Church of Rome, 
 besides the priestly offices of rulers and judges in the Church, 
 imagines that another doctrine of the faith was delivered to 
 them in addition to that which is contained in Scripture; and 
 also maintains that their judgments are absolutely infalli- 
 ble, and therefore irreformable; since it is very plain that 
 where no error can possibly exist, there can be no call for 
 reformation. 
 
 You perceive, therefore, my brethren, T trust, the truth of 
 what we advanced in our introductory discourse, that the 
 Church of England and the Protestant Episcopal Church in 
 the United States, are in some respects midway between the 
 Church of Rome upon the one hand, and many of the secta- 
 rian Churches on the other. And I am not a little solicitous 
 that our position might be fairly and fully understood, because 
 I am thoroughly persuaded that it occupies the only ground, 
 on which a hope of general Christian unity amongst all Chris- 
 tians can ever rest. 
 
 But as the case now stands, we have at least the comfort of 
 knowing, that the strifes and dissensions of Christendom have 
 not been the offspring of our principles. Reverencing the 
 blessed Bible as the recorded rule of our faith, and paying all 
 
40 CONCLUSION. 
 
 due respect to the primitive Church Catholic, in whose author- 
 ized judges we recognize the highest human interpreter, we 
 would lead all men to the same tribunal of judgment, and give 
 to all the same benefits of order, and unity, and peace. We 
 neither desire to invent novelties ourselves, nor to adopt the 
 novelties of others, because we value the security and stability 
 of settled law, far more than the giddy and fluctuating charms 
 of modern fancy. And had the other branches of the Refor- 
 mation pursued the same principle — had they united themselves 
 together with England on the primitive ground, and avoided 
 all the deplorable schisms and strifes which now distract the 
 ranks called Protestant, I doubt whether the course of the 
 glorious Reformation would have had any check or stay, until 
 every abuse in Christendom had been abolished, and Rome 
 herself had resumed the robe of youthful purity which she 
 wore, when the apostle wrote his thanks to God, that " her 
 faith was spoken of throughout the whole world." 
 
LECTURE IV 
 
 Matt, xxviii. 18, 19, 20. — And Jesus came and spake unto them, 
 saying, All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth. Go ye, 
 therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the 
 Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost; teaching them to 
 observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you : and, lo, I am 
 with you alway, even unto the end of the world. Amen. 
 
 There are few things, my beloved brethren, more difficult 
 in the management of a theological discussion, than to sim- 
 plify the argument so as to render it at all acceptable to ordi- 
 nary minds, however intelligent ; the majority of whom, most 
 probably, have never reflected upon the subject before. And 
 this difficulty belongs, more especially, to the topic introduced 
 in our last, and continued in the present lecture ; namely, the 
 rule of faith ; because, in its nature, it is abstruse and unin- 
 viting; and it is seldom that we can hope to see so close an 
 application to a series of discourses on a dry and complicated 
 point, as is necessary for those who would become familiar 
 with the whole chain of reasoning and evidence belonging 
 to it. 
 
 Under such circumstances, our only reliance must be placed 
 upon the strength of that religious sense of duty, which impels 
 every conscientious mind to search for truth, without regard 
 to the unattractive character of the argument. But should 
 you, my brethren, belong to that privileged, though not nu- 
 merous class, who prefer instruction to mere entertainment, I 
 
 e2 
 
42 ROMAN DOCTRINE 
 
 can at least promise that your interest will not lessen as we 
 advance; since I feel perfectly safe in asserting, that the sub- 
 ject of the present, and a few of the ensuing lectures, is the 
 least inviting of the course, although, perhaps, the most im- 
 portant to be fully understood. 
 
 You probably recollect, that our last lecture set forth the 
 rule of faith professed in the Church of Rome, according to 
 the statement of Dr. Wiseman, in which he admitted that the 
 Scriptures alone must yield the proof of the infallibility claimed 
 for the doctrines of their Church, by virtue of which infalli- 
 bility they assert an equal certainty of divine truth in their 
 traditions and in the Bible; the one being, indeed, written, and 
 the other unwritten; but both, as they say, being alike the 
 Word of God. The proofs alleged on behalf of the traditions 
 thus exalted by the Roman doctrine to an equality with Scrip- 
 ture, and the infallibility of their Church, form the topics which 
 we promised to discuss in the ensuing lecture. We proceed, 
 accordingly, to consider the arguments which they advance in 
 favour of tradition, and shall then take up their doctrine of in- 
 fallibility. 
 
 They usually commence their defence of tradition by show- 
 ing, that the first communications of divine truth were deli- 
 vered orally to the Patriarchs, beginning with Adam; and 
 that from his time down to the deluge, the same truth could 
 only have been transmitted by tradition from generation to 
 generation. And this is undoubtedly correct ; but it should 
 always be added, that the result yields us an awful proof of 
 the insufficiency of tradition alone for the preservation of re- 
 ligion, since the whole race of mankind became utterly cor- 
 rupt, and was destroyed, in consequence, by a universal de- 
 luge, which spared none but Noah and his family. It may be 
 said, indeed, that the knowledge of Noah, at least, was pure; 
 and therefore that his case demonstrates the unalloyed trans- 
 mission of the patriarchal doctrines through a period of more 
 
EXAMINED. 43 
 
 than two thousand years ; but this inference we utterly deny 
 for a double reason. First, because it cannot be shown that 
 Noah had no other basis for his faith than that of tradition. 
 And, secondly, because the contrary may well be presumed 
 from the brief outline of the sacred history, since it is certain 
 that this eminent patriarch had many particular revelations of 
 the divine will vouchsafed to him, some before the flood, and 
 some after it. It is surely unnecessary for me to prove, that 
 he to whom the Almighty condescends to commit his truth by 
 direct communication, must be quite above the necessity of 
 depending upon human tradition. 
 
 The advocates of the Church of Rome resume their argu- 
 ment by telling us, that after the flood, the truth was again 
 handed down from Noah to Abraham in the same way ; thus 
 demonstrating again the principle, that the transmission of re- 
 ligious doctrines by oral tradition is agreeable to the will of 
 God. And to this, likewise, we willingly assent, if it be added 
 — as it must be, in accordance with the sacred history — that 
 again, and in the comparatively short period of five hundred 
 years, the posterity of Noah had corrupted their traditionary 
 faith, and had become worshippers of idols: so that the Lord, 
 in mercy to mankind, raised up a new man, Abraham, to be 
 the father of the faithful ; and sent him away from his kindred 
 and his home, to be a pilgrim and a stranger in the land of 
 Canaan. Here, then, we behold a second proof of the small 
 dependence to be placed upon tradition. 
 
 A little further on, in the record of the Scripture history, 
 we find the sons of Jacob, with Jacob himself, settled in 
 Egypt, where their posterity increase and multiply for another 
 period of four hundred years, the latter portion being passed 
 under a bitter bondage, from which Moses is commissioned to 
 deliver them. And how did their traditionary faith stand 
 during all this time, notwithstanding they had a separate part 
 of the country, called the land of Goshen, assigned to them; 
 
44 INSUFFICIENCY OF 
 
 and were in a great measure kept distinct from the Egyptians, 
 as well by the rite of circumcision, as by the antipathy of the 
 Egyptians themselves? Why truly, it had become so corrupted, 
 that even after they were delivered from bondage, by signs 
 and wonders of the most astonishing sublimity and grandeur, 
 they forced Aaron to make them a golden calf, and danced and 
 shouted before the idol. Here, then, we have a third proof of 
 the insecurity of tradition. 
 
 But now a new dispensation is ushered in, by the establish- 
 ment of a written record to be the future depository of religious 
 truth. The Deity himself vouchsafes to exemplify the impor- 
 tant principle, which was henceforth to be the safeguard of the 
 faith. He pronounces the words of the decalogue from Mount 
 Sinai, in the hearing of the multitude, and then writes them 
 on two tables of stone. In pursuance of the new decree, 
 Moses records every communication of the divine AVord, along 
 with every remarkable circumstance in the wonderful history 
 of Israel, during the forty years spent in the wilderness; and 
 the whole of his five books are laid up in the Ark, to be a 
 memorial for ever. 
 
 It is worthy of great observation, my brethren, that the 
 committing the precepts of religion, along with the history of 
 the Creation, the fall, the deluge, and all that had previously 
 taken place from the beginning, to the written record of the 
 Word of God, was simultaneous with the establishment of the 
 priesthood, to be the official interpreters and instructors of the 
 people. Before this, there were priests, and there were reve- 
 lations from time to time. The revelations were committed to 
 no one form of preservation, and the priesthood was committed 
 to no one class, tribe or family. But now, a new principle is 
 introduced in both respects. The revelations of the Deity are 
 committed to writing by his appointed instrument, and the 
 sacred books, together with the tabernacle, the sacrifices, and 
 the whole order of religion, are committed to a peculiar class 
 
ORAL TRADITION. 45 
 
 of men, the priesthood; whose office is no longer to be exer- 
 cised at every man's pleasure, but only according to that order 
 which the voice of the Most High commands. We perceive, 
 therefore, that the authority which established the written 
 Word, and that which established the peculiar priesthood to be 
 its guardians, judges and interpreters, are one and the same, 
 namely, the authority of the Lord God of Israel. 
 
 But here we meet with a bold assertion on the part of our 
 learned advocate, Dr. Wiseman, and his brethren of the 
 Church of Rome, that " although in the Mosaic law, we have 
 the characteristics of a written code, and although we have 
 an express injunction to note down whatever was to be taught, 
 yet there is no doubt whatever," saith our author, " that by 
 far the most important doctrines were not committed to writing; 
 that among the Jews there was a train of sacred tradition, 
 containing within itself more vital dogmas than are written in 
 the inspired volume." — " The few," continues Dr. Wiseman, 
 " who take the requisite pains to trace the doctrine of the Jews 
 in this regard, will find, that from the very beginning, from 
 the delivery of the law to Moses, there was a great mass of 
 precepts, not written, but committed to the keeping of the 
 priesthood, and by them gradually communicated or diffused 
 among the people, but yet hardly alluded to in the writings of 
 the Sacred Books." This statement, it must be confessed, is 
 somewhat startling ; and since the learned advocate of tradi- 
 tion undertakes to give examples in proof of its truth, we are 
 bound in justice to examine them. 
 
 His first reference is to the work of the celebrated Warbur- 
 ton, who, in his learned treatise called "The Divine Lega- 
 tion," maintained that there was no sufficient evidence in the 
 books of Moses, or of the earlier Jews, either of the soul's 
 immortality, or of a future state. Now it is very true that 
 Warburton maintained this notion, and it is equally true, as 
 Dr. Wiseman takes care to inform his readers, that Warbur- 
 
46 THE SCRIPTURES 
 
 ton was a bishop of the Church of England ; but he forgot to 
 add, that the hypothesis of the bishop was universally dis- 
 owned, that it was censured by his brethren at the time, and 
 has ever since been regarded, in his own Church, as one of 
 those wild and dangerous fancies, which intellectual men are 
 sometimes permitted to indulge, in order perhaps to show how 
 little confidence can be reposed in human genius, when it 
 becomes an admirer of its own powers. 
 
 Our author, after laying the foundation of his argument in 
 the exploded notion of Warburton, proceeds to state, what no 
 one will deny, that the Pharisees in our Saviour's days, 
 believed these doctrines of the immortality of the soul and the 
 resurrection of the body ; and hence he draws the strange 
 conclusion, that neither of these doctrines are recorded in the 
 Old Testament Scriptures, having only been handed down by 
 tradition delivered to the Priesthood. But had Dr. Wise- 
 man forgotten the speech of the prophet Balaam, " Let me die 
 the death of the righteous, and let my last end be like his?" Or 
 the declaration of King David, " As the hart panteth after the 
 water brooks, so longeth my soul after thee, O God."—" When 
 I awake up after thy likeness, I shall be satisfied." Or the 
 prophet Isaiah, (xxvi. 19) where he expressly saith, " Thy dead 
 men shall live, together with my dead body shall they arise. 
 Awake and sing, ye that dwell in dust, for thy dew is as the 
 dew of herbs, and the earth shall cast out the dead?" Had he 
 forgotten that most remarkable vision of the valley of dry 
 bones, recorded in the prophecy of Ezekiel, (ch. xxxvii.) where 
 we read: "Thus saith the Lord God; Behold, O my people, I 
 will open your graves, and cause you to come up out of your 
 graves, and bring you into the land of Israel?" Or the prophe- 
 cy of Daniel, (ch. xii. 2) declaring, "Many of them that sleep 
 in the dust of the earth shall awake, some to everlasting life, 
 and some to shame and everlasting contempt. And they that 
 be wise shall shine as the brightness of the firmament, and 
 
MISREPRESENTED. 47 
 
 they that turn many to righteousness, as the stars for ever and 
 ever?" Surely some strange hallucination must be upon the 
 minds of such reasoners, as would endeavour, with passages 
 like these before their eyes, to deny that the doctrine of a fu- 
 ture immortality is contained in the Old Testament. But still 
 more does it astonish us to see them distorting the testimony 
 of our blessed Lord himself, when he showed the Sadducees 
 their error with regard to the resurrection ; (Mat. xxii. 29, &c.) 
 " Ye do err," saith the divine Teacher, " not knowing the 
 Scriptures, nor the power of God." Nothing can be more 
 hostile to Dr. Wiseman's theory than this ; for the Sadducees 
 could not err by not knowing the Scriptures, in regard to a 
 doctrine which was not contained in Scripture, but only handed 
 down by tradition. " But as touching the resurrection of the 
 dead," continues our blessed Redeemer, " have ye not read that 
 which was spoken unto you by God, saying, I am the God of 
 Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob? God 
 is not the God of the dead but of the living." Here then is the 
 most direct appeal for this very doctrine to the books of Moses, 
 by Jesus Christ himself; and yet the advocates of Roman tra- 
 dition would persuade us that the doctrine cannot be found 
 there ! 
 
 The next example of a reference to oral tradition, as Dr. 
 Wiseman chooses to call it, occurs in the 24th Chapter of the 
 Gospel according to St. Luke. " Our Saviour," saith this 
 author, (p. 62) " tells us that Moses bore testimony of him ; 
 and in conversing with his two disciples on the road to Em- 
 maus, quoted the authority of Moses for the necessity of his 
 suffering, and so entering into his glory. And yet you will in 
 vain search the books of Moses to discover this important dog- 
 ma of the necessity of the Messiah's dying to redeem his people. 
 Where then," asks Dr. Wiseman, " had these points been pre- 
 served, save in the traditions of the Jews?" 
 
 Now here is truly a strange mystification of the testimony 
 
48 THE SCRIPTURES 
 
 of Scripture. The passage itself is as follows, and I quote it 
 in full ; in order to show a specimen of the kind of argument 
 which, I am sorry to say, occurs but too frequently amongst 
 writers on the Roman side of this question. 
 
 "O fools," said our Lord to the two disciples on the road to 
 Emmaus, (Lu. xxiv. 25) " and slow of heart to believe all that 
 the prophets have spoken ! Ought not Christ to have suffered 
 these things and to enter into his glory ? And beginning at 
 Moses and all the prophets, he expounded unto them in all the 
 Scriptures the things concerning himself." 
 
 Mark here, my brethren, I beseech you, a threefold error on 
 the part of the Roman advocate. For, in the first place, Dr. 
 Wiseman confines our Lord's quotation to the books of Moses, 
 whereas St. Luke saith, that the Saviour referred to all the 
 prophets, "and beginning at Moses and all the prophets, he ex- 
 pounded unto them in all the Scriptures the things concerning 
 himself." 
 
 Secondly, Dr. Wiseman asserts, that we should in vain search 
 the books of Moses to discover the important dogma of the ne- 
 cessity of the Messiah's dying to redeem his people. Whereas, 
 to say nothing of the first promise of the Seed of the woman, 
 nor of the representation of the mystery of redemption under 
 the command given to Abraham to slay his only son, it is cer- 
 tain that St. Paul, in his epistle to the Hebrews, argues the 
 whole subject of the atonement from the priesthood of Mel- 
 chisedec, the tabernacle service, the office of the high priest, 
 and the great principle of the Levitical law, that without shed- 
 ding of blood there could be no remission of iniquity, while yet 
 it was evident that the blood of hulls and goats could never 
 take away sins. So that even if our Lord, in illustrating the 
 subject to the disciples on the road to Emmaus, had confined 
 himself to the books of Moses, it would be perfectly erroneous 
 to say, that the doctrine of Christ's death for his people could 
 not be found there, in the most expressive types and allegories. 
 
MISREPRESENTED. 49 
 
 And thirdly, Dr. Wiseman asks the question, as if in tri- 
 umph, " Where had these points been preserved, save in the 
 traditions of the Jews?" whereas St. Luke expressly declares, 
 that our Saviour, beginning at Moses and all the prophets, ex- 
 pounded unto them in all the Scriptures, the things concern- 
 ing himself. I must honestly confess my astonishment at this 
 palpable misrepresentation; for it is plainly impossible that our 
 Lord's expounding to his disciples in all the Scriptures the 
 things concerning himself, should mean, that he explained what 
 was not in the Scriptures at all, but only in the doctrines of 
 tradition ! 
 
 There is yet one instance more, however, which our learned 
 advocate brings forward as a proof in behalf of his favourite 
 tradition. The passage is as follows; "When our Saviour," 
 saith he, (ib.) "proposed to Nicodemus the doctrine of a spirit- 
 ual birth, and he truly or affectedly understood it not, he re- 
 proved him in these words: Art thou a Master in Israel, and 
 knowest not these things? What does this rebuke imply," 
 continues Dr. Wiseman, "but that a teacher among the Jews 
 ought to have been acquainted with this important doctrine, 
 from his very office as a teacher ? Yet tell me where it is ever 
 taught in the old law, or whence could he have possessed it, 
 except among the traditional lore preserved among the priests 
 and learned?" 
 
 Now truly this is marvellous, for the doctrine of this very 
 birth of water and the Spirit is set forth with more or less plain- 
 ness in many parts of the Old Testament. Let the prophecy 
 of Ezekiel suffice ; (xxxvi. 25, &c.) " Then will I sprinkle 
 clean water upon you, (saith the Lord) and ye shall be clean : 
 from all your filthiness and from all your idols will I cleanse 
 you. A new heart also will I give you, and a new spirit will 
 I put within you, and I will take away the stony heart out of 
 your flesh, and I will give you an heart of flesh. And I will 
 put my Spirit within you, and cause you to walk in my statutes, 
 
 F 
 
50 THE SCRIPTURES 
 
 and ye shall keep my judgments and do them." Here we 
 have all the elements of Christian regeneration in the clearest 
 terms. The sprinkling with clean water, the cleansing from 
 sin, the giving a new heart and a new spirit, the putting the 
 Holy Spirit of God within us, so that the old nature, called the 
 heart of stone, shall be changed into the new nature, called the 
 heart of flesh, and our will shall thenceforth be to keep the 
 ways of the Lord, — what more just and comprehensive state- 
 ment of the doctrine held forth to Nicodemus could be devised, 
 than is contained in this passage of the prophet, with which every 
 master in Israel was bound to be familiar ? It seems, however, 
 that we have to this day masters in Israel, that cannot find the 
 doctrine in the Old Testament any more than Nicodemus, and 
 therefore would have us believe that it was taught by tradition. 
 And yet I do not see how that would lessen their difficulty, 
 since it is plain that Nicodemus knew as little of this imaginary 
 tradition, as he did of the Scripture itself. 
 
 Having thus disposed of the cases cited by Dr. Wiseman, 
 let us turn to a part of our blessed Redeemer's instructions, in 
 which he does refer to the Jewish traditions plainly ; but not in 
 a manner which is at all reconcilable to the Roman hypothesis. 
 The whole narrative is in the 7th Chapter of St. Mark's Gos- 
 pel, and I shall quote it in full. 
 
 " Then came together unto him the Pharisees, and certain of 
 the Scribes which came from Jerusalem. And when they saw 
 some of his disciples eat bread with defiled, that is to say, with 
 unwashen hands, they found fault. For the Pharisees and all 
 the Jews, except they wash their hands oft, eat not ; holding 
 the tradition of the elders. And when they come from the 
 market, except they wash, they eat not. And many other 
 things there be which they have received to hold, as the wash- 
 ing of cups, and pots, and brazen vessels, and tables. Then the 
 Pharisees and Scribes asked him, Why walk not thy disciples 
 accordinsr to the tradition of the elders, but eat bread with un- 
 
MISREPRESENTED. 51 
 
 washen hands? He answered and said unto them, Well hath 
 Esaias prophesied of you, hypocrites, as it is written, This 
 people honoureth me with their lips, but their heart is far from 
 me. Howbeit in vain do they worship me, teaching for doc- 
 trines the commandments of men. For laying aside the com- 
 mandment of God, ye hold the tradition of men, as the washing 
 of pots and cups : and many other such like things ye do. 
 And he said unto them. Full well ye reject the commandment 
 of God, that ye may keep your own tradition. For Moses said, 
 Honour thy father and thy mother, and whoso curseth father or 
 mother, let him die the death : But ye say. If a man shall say 
 to his father or mother. It is Corban, that is to say, a gift, by 
 whatsoever thou mightest be profited by me, he shall be free. 
 And ye suffer him no more to do aught for his father or his 
 mother ; making the Word of God of none effect through 
 your tradition, which ye have delivered : and many such like 
 things do ye." 
 
 Now here, as well as in many other places of the Gospels, 
 where the traditions of the Jews are spoken of by our Lord, it 
 is with strong reprehension ; clearly proving to us, that even 
 after they had the written standard of divine truth establish- 
 ed before them, there was the same tendency of the human 
 heart to corrupt the Word of God, and substitute in its stead, 
 the weak and delusive maxims of the natural understanding. 
 But nowhere does the Saviour mention their traditions with 
 approbation ; nowhere does he intimate, that there was any 
 doctrinal truth delivered by Moses to the priesthood, distinct 
 from the written Word of God : and therefore we cannot hesi- 
 tate to say, that the whole of the hypothesis framed by the 
 advocates of the Church of Rome, in order to sustain the co- 
 ordinate authority of their traditions, appears thus far totally 
 unsupported by any thing that we can recognize, as worthy of 
 the slightest respect or consideration. 
 
 2. We have now, brethren, examiined the subject of tradi- 
 
52 INFALLIBILITY. 
 
 tion, as it is presented in the sacred history up to the period of 
 our Lord's offering himself for his Church; where we must 
 leave it for the present, although it will recur, under another 
 form, in a subsequent lecture. 
 
 We come next to consider the main question, on which all 
 the rest depend, namely, the doctrine of the Church's infallibil- 
 ity. For you must bear it in mind, that the principal reliance 
 of the Church of Rome is on this assumption. If Scripture 
 proves that the Church is infallible, then it is of small impor- 
 tance whether the particular traditions which she teaches be 
 found in Scripture or not, because this attribute of infallibility 
 cures all other defects, and makes the authority of the Church 
 equal to the authority of Scripture. Now the passage which 
 Dr. Wiseman and his brethren consider conclusive on this 
 point, is the same which we have selected for our text, being 
 the address made by our blessed Lord to his apostles after his 
 resurrection, and just before his ascension into heaven, as re- 
 corded at the close of St. Matthew's Gospel : " All power is 
 given unto me in heaven and in earth. Go ye, therefore, and 
 teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, 
 and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, teaching them to ob- 
 serve all things whatsoever I have commanded you, and lo, I 
 am with you alway, even vnto the end of the world.'''' "Here," 
 according to our author, (p. 83,) " a promise is clearly given 
 by our blessed Redeemer, that he would assist his Church even 
 to the end of time, so as to prevent the possibility of her fall- 
 ing into error, or allowing any admixture thereof with the 
 truths committed to her charge." 
 
 We have no dispute with the Church of Rome upon the 
 question, whether this promise was designed to embrace the 
 successors of the apostles to the end of time ; for such we 
 think is its fair and obvious meaning. Neither have we any 
 hesitation in saying, that it is a most precious security for the 
 general success, the perpetuity, and final victory of the Church 
 
INFALLIBILITY. 53 
 
 over every opponent. But we utterly deny that it pledges to 
 the Church an absolute infallibility, or perfect freedom from 
 error. This is the fundamental question of the controversy, 
 by the decision of which the whole doctrine of the Church of 
 Rome, so far as it varies from or adds to the doctrine of Scrip- 
 ture, must stand or fall. The text asserts that Christ will be 
 present with his Church; that is undeniable. The inquiry 
 then must be, whether this presence of Christ was designed to 
 warrant the Church's infallibility. The negative, we think, 
 will be clearly proved, if we consider the import of the pro- 
 mise according to the hght of Scripture; and this we shall 
 endeavour to do in four different aspects; first, with regard to 
 individuals; secondly, with regard to ancient Israel ; thirdly, 
 with regard to the apostles ; and fourthly, with regard to the 
 Christian Churches even of the apostolic day. 
 
 And here, I am happy to assert the concurrence of Dr. 
 Wiseman himself, in the only sound principle of interpreta- 
 tion. " On examining the practice of Scripture," saith he, 
 (p. 87,) " we find that wherever God gives a commission of 
 peculiar difficulty, and one which, to those that receive it, ap- 
 pears almost, or indeed entirely beyond the power of man, the 
 way in which he assures them that it can and will be fulfilled, 
 is by adding to the end of the commission, / will he with 
 you. As if he should thereby say, The success of your 
 commission is quite secure, because I will give my special 
 assistance for its perfect fulfilment." Now if we apply this 
 principle of Dr. Wiseman's own stating to the various in- 
 stances in which such a promise occurs, we shall be satisfied, 
 that in none of them does it involve a security against error, 
 or a teaching and believing only what is infallibly true. 
 
 First then, as to the cases of individuals, we meet with manv 
 examples of this promise. Thus, (Exod. iii. 12) when Moses, 
 alarmed at the difficulty of the enterprise which he was com- 
 manded to undertake,, saith unto God, "Who am I, that I 
 
 f2 
 
54 THE DlviJfE PRESENCE 
 
 should go unto Pharaoh, and that I should bring forth the 
 children of Israel out of Egypt :" the answer is, " Certainly 
 / will be with thee.'''' And again, (Exod. iv. 15) we read 
 that the Lord said to him, " Is not Aaron the Levite thy bro- 
 ther ? I know that he can speak well. And also he cometh 
 forth to meet thee. And I will he with thy movth and with 
 his mouth, and will teach you what ye shall do." Here we 
 have an express promise of the presence of God with Moses 
 and Aaron, and with their mouths to teach them. And yet, 
 who ever supposed that this made them incapable of speaking 
 or of acting erroneously ? Substantially and completely was 
 the promise of the Lord fulfilled, for he was with them, and 
 with their mouth, and spake through them to his people Israel. 
 But he had not promised that they should never be permitted 
 to speak their own words, and indulge their own infirmities ; 
 and therefore we find Moses often murmuring and complaining, 
 and carrying his unadvised language so far, on one occasion, 
 that the Lord would not allow him to enter the promised land, 
 as a memorial of his sin. So Aaron not only yielded to the 
 idolatrous folly of the people in making the golden calf, but 
 afterwards united with Miriam in assaulting the authority of 
 his brother. Plainly, therefore, the promise of God to be with 
 these two most eminent men, and with their mouth to teach 
 them, was not intended to confer upon them any infallible 
 preservative from error, either in speech or in conduct. It 
 only applied to those occasions in which they were the ap- 
 pointed organs of God ; speaking the immediate revelations of 
 his word, and acting by his direct and express authority. 
 
 We find another, and an inestimable promise of God's pre- 
 sence, made to the individual believer, where St. Paul, (Heb. 
 xiii. 5) saith, "Let your conversation be without covetousness, 
 and be content with such things as ye have; for he hath said, 
 / will never leave thee nor forsake thee: so that we may boldly 
 say, The Lord is my helper, and I will not fear what man 
 
GIVES NO INFALLIBILITY. 65 
 
 shall do unto me." But nothing of this description can exceed 
 the beautiful language of Christ himself, in St. John's Gospel; 
 (ch. xvii. 20, 21) where he saith, " Neither pray I for these 
 alone, but for them also which shall believe on me through 
 their word. That they may all be one : as thou Father art 
 in me, and I in thee, that they also may he one in us. — I in 
 THEM, AND THOU IN ME, that they may be made perfect in 
 one ; and that the world may know that thou hast sent me, 
 and hast loved them, as thou hast loved me." No promise of 
 the divine presence can be more express than this, yet who 
 ever supposed that it conferred infallibility on every individual 
 believer 1 &. 
 
 In the second place, we are to consider the operation of the 
 presence of God in the case of ancient Israel. Thus, in the 
 book of Genesis, the patriarch Jacob on his death bed saith, 
 (ch. xlviii. 21) "Behold I die, but God shall be with you.'''' 
 Again, in the Book of Exodus, in reference to the establish- 
 ment of the tabernacle, the Almighty saith, (ch. xxix. 45) " 1 
 will dwell among the children of Israel, and will be their 
 God." Again, in Leviticus, (xxvi. 44) the Lord saith, " I will 
 not cast them away, neither will I abhor them to destroy them 
 utterly and to break my covenant with them, for I am the 
 Lord their God." Again, in Deuteronomy, (ch. iv. 31.) " The 
 Lord thy God is a merciful God, he will not forsake thee." 
 And again, in the prophecy of Isaiah, (ch. xli. 8. 10) "Thou, 
 Israel, art my servant, Jacob whom I have chosen, the seed of 
 Abraham my friend. Fear thou not, for 1 am with thee ; be 
 not dismayed, for I am thy God: I will strengthen thee; yea, 
 I will help thee ; yea, I will uphold thee with the right hand 
 of my righteousness." Now it is impossible to imagine 
 stronger language than this, to assure Israel of the divine 
 presence. Nay, they had the visible manifestation of the fact, 
 in the pillar of the cloud and of the fire, and in the glory, or 
 SHECHINAH, which filled the most holy place of their taberna- 
 
56 THE APOSTLES FALLIBLE. 
 
 cle, and afterwards the corresponding part of Solomon's tem- 
 ple. Besides which, the priesthood had the power of con- 
 sulting God, and obtaining direct answers to any question of 
 high importance to their Church or nation ; and yet, who be- 
 lieves that they were infallible ? The successors of that priest- 
 hood were the men whom the Redeemer charged with making 
 void the law of God by their traditions. Yea, the same high- 
 priest, who was enabled to utter a prophecy concerning the 
 death of Christ, (Jo. xi. 49) is also recorded to have charged 
 our blessed. Saviour with blasphemy, because he called himself 
 the Son of God. Clearly then, the divine presence, glorious 
 as the privilege was, conferred no infallibility on Israel. 
 
 3. We have, in the third place, to consider the effect of the 
 presence of Christ in the case of the apostles. And here it is 
 obvious to remark, that our Lord was actually and bodily with 
 them, for several years. They were his chosen companions by 
 night and by day. He gave them power over unclean spirits 
 and to heal diseases. He sent them forth to preach the king- 
 dom of God; he taught them, and called them his friends and 
 brethren; but did this, his gracious presence, and favour, and 
 instruction, make them infallible? So far from it, that we 
 find them disputing who should be the greatest; for which they 
 were reproved. Again, they rebuke those that brought the 
 infants, whereat their blessed Master was " much displeased." 
 Again, they ask, whether they should call down fire from hea- 
 ven to consume those who refused to give them hospitality on 
 the way to Jerusalem, and their Lord replies, " ye know not 
 what manner of spirit ye are of." Again, they desire to for- 
 bid one that cast out devils in their Master's name, because he 
 followed not with them; on which occasion Christ said, " for- 
 bid him not." Lastly, they all forsake him in the night 
 wherein he was betrayed, and Peter denies him before morn- 
 ing. These facts show us, distinctly, that even in the case of 
 the apostles, the presence of Christ was not intended to confer 
 
THE CHURCHES FALLIBLE. 57 
 
 infallibility. And the argument stands thus: the Saviour 
 passed three years with his apostles during his earthly minis- 
 try ; and after his resurrection, and before his ascension, he 
 promised to be with them always, even to the end of the world. 
 But if his being with them, during the first, did not make them 
 infallible, his being with them during the second, does not make 
 them infallible; so that we have here the clearest demonstra- 
 tion, that whatever infallibility we allow to the instructions of 
 the apostles, was not the result, simply, of the presence of 
 their Lord, but belonged to a totally distinct matter, viz : the 
 descent of the Holy Ghost upon them on the day of Pente- 
 cost, according to the tenor of the Saviour's command ; " Tarry 
 in Jerusalem, until ye be endued with power from on high." 
 It was this inspiration that stamped infallibility upon the doc- 
 trines of the apostles, so that their writings are received as the 
 Word of God, and not the word of men. But this has no 
 relation to the promise of the text. Inspiration is one thing, 
 and the presence of Christ is another. 
 
 Lastly, we were to consider the fact, that the Churches of 
 Christ, even during the apostolic day, were not infallible; and 
 this we learn with the clearest evidence, from the Book of 
 Revelation. There we behold the glorious Redeemer repre- 
 sented as walking in the midst of the seven golden candlesticks, 
 which are the seven Churches of Asia, presided over by their 
 respective angels or bishops. And the apostle John receives 
 the command to write to each, a solemn message of admoni- 
 tion. From these I shall proceed to make a kv^ quotations. 
 " To the angel of the Church of Ephesus write; These things 
 saith he, that holdeth the seven stars in his right hand, who 
 walketh in the midst of the seven golden candlesticks. I know 
 thy works, and thy labour, and thy patience, and how thou 
 canst not bear them that are evil ; and thou hast tried them 
 which say they are apostles, and are not, and hast found them 
 liai's. Nevertheless I have somewhat against thee, because 
 
58 
 
 THE CHURCHES FALLIBLE. 
 
 thou hast left thy first love. Remember, therefore, from 
 whence thou art fallen, and repent, and do the first works; or 
 else I will come unto thee quickly, and will remove thy candle- 
 stick out of his place, except thou repent." 
 
 "And to the angel of the Church in Pergamos write; These 
 things saith he, which hath the sharp sword with two edges: 
 I know thy works and where thou dwellest, even where Satan's 
 seat is; and thou holdest fast my name, and hast not denied 
 my faith. . . . But I have a i^ew things against thee, because thou 
 hast there them that hold the doctrine of Balaam, who taught 
 Balac to cast a stumbling block before the children of Israel. 
 So hast thou also them that hold the doctrine of the Nicolai- 
 tans, which thing I hate. Repent, or else I will come unto 
 thee quickly, and fight against them with the sword of my 
 mouth." 
 
 " And unto the angel of the Church in Thyatira, write ; 
 These things saith the Son of God, I know thy works, and 
 charity, and service, and faith, and thy patience, and thy 
 works. Notwithstanding I have a few things aojainst thee, 
 because thou sufTerest that woman Jezebel, which calleth her- 
 self a prophetess, to teach and to seduce my servants to com- 
 mit fornication, and to eat things sacrificed unto idols. But 
 unto you I say, and unto the rest in Thyatira, as many as 
 have not this doctrine, and which have not known the depths 
 of Satan as they speak, I will put upon you none other burden. 
 He that hath an ear, let him hear what the Spirit saith unto 
 the Churches." 
 
 The greater part of these solemn addresses, brethren, are in 
 a similar strain; all shewing, that although the Lord was pre- 
 sent with them, walking in the midst of these Churches, yet 
 more or less error, some practical, some doctrinal, — yea, the 
 depths of Satan, — were found amongst them; a plain evidence 
 that his presence with his Church in this imperfect state did 
 not confer infallibility. We shall have occasion, in a future 
 
MEANING OF THE PROMISE. 59 
 
 discourse, to show you many more awful proofs of the same 
 truth, when we come to examine the history of the Councils, 
 and the claims of papal supremacy. But so far as we have 
 gone, and judging on Scriptural grounds, nothing seems neces- 
 sary to be added to the proof, that the language of the text 
 yields no support to the Roman doctrine. 
 
 Having thus, as I trust, established the negative, I shall de- 
 tain you but a few moments in showing the positive sense of 
 the promise, that Christ would be with the apostles and their 
 successors to the end of the world. And here, we have only 
 to apply the rule of interpretation furnished by Dr. Wiseman 
 himself. "Wherever," saith he, "God gives a commission 
 of peculiar difficulty, and one which to those that receive it 
 appears almost, or indeed entirely, beyond the power of man, 
 the way in which he assures them that it will be fulfilled, is 
 by adding to the end of the commission, I will be with you." 
 Now this furnishes the simple key to the meaning of the pro- 
 mise in the text. Christ was with the apostles, in the power 
 of the Holy Ghost, with signs, and miracles, and supernatural 
 strength, and the truth which flows from immediate inspira- 
 tion. Of these, miracles and signs were necessary to the ful- 
 filment of their peculiar part of the commission, to plant the 
 Gospel in the face of persecution, and danger, and death; and 
 inspiration was necessary to enable them to complete the writ- 
 ten record of the Word of God, to be a standard of faith to all 
 future ages. And Christ has been with their successors ever 
 since, though not with tongues, nor in miracles, nor in inspira- 
 tion, but in the secret succours of his grace, and the guiding 
 hand of his providence, carrying forward the mighty purposes 
 of his divine mission, in despite of all opposition, and in the 
 midst of every difficulty, to the day of the final victory. Nor 
 is the gracious assurance confined to the apostles and their 
 successors. For Christ is as truly present at this moment 
 with every heart, which humbly and faithfully seeks to know 
 
^ CONCLUSION. 
 
 and serve him; he will never leave them or forsake them; he 
 will accomplish all his merciful designs in them on earth, and 
 he will bring them at last to his heritage of glory. But all 
 this is a very different thing from the infallibility of the Church 
 of Rome, which Christ never promised, and therefore could 
 not be expected to bestow. He did not say that his Church 
 should never err in doctrine, but on the contrary warns and 
 admonishes them, lest they should fall into error. We may not 
 trespass upon you, however, by entering now upon this branch 
 of the argument, but shall reserve it, along with the other texts 
 alleged by our Roman brethren, for the next lecture. 
 
 But we may not conclude, without an expression of devout 
 gratitude to God, that the presence of Christ is promised and 
 granted, where there is no claim to infallibility. For if it were 
 otherwise, my beloved brethren, what hope could we cherish of 
 the presence of the Saviour with any soul? If our compas- 
 sionate Redeemer dwells with no intellect that is fallible — in 
 no heart that is not liable to err — where could be his abode 
 amongst us? Alas! nowhere. Nay, on such a theory, the 
 presence of God might be denied even to the celestial hier- 
 archy; for we know from the express authority of his own 
 Word, that the very heavens are not clean in his sight, and 
 that he chargeth his angels with folly before him. 
 
 Be ours, then, the humble and the watchful spirit, which be- 
 comes those who are exhorted to work cut their salvation with 
 fear and trembling. Let us respect the judgment of the primi- 
 tive saints who followed next in the track of the apostles, but 
 let us allow of no infallibility except what flows from direct 
 inspiration, and is alone recorded in the written Word of the 
 unerring, the omniscient, the eternal God. And thus, my be- 
 loved brethren, even while following the course of a perplexed 
 and tedious controversy, we shall be enabled to shun the folly 
 of dogmatism, and the pride of opinion. With the love of 
 truth for our motive, with the Holy Scripture for our guide, 
 
CONCLUSION. 61 
 
 with the temper of charity for our constant companion — may 
 each successive step of our investigation serve to strengthen 
 our convictions, to increase our thankfulness, and to give fer- 
 vour to our prayers, that all who profess and call themselves 
 Christians may hold the faith, in the unity of the Spirit, and 
 the bond of peace. 
 
LECTURE V. 
 
 2 Thes. ii. 15. — Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the tradi- 
 lions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle. 
 
 You are invited once more, beloved brethren, to resume the 
 examination of the principles of that Church, which claims to 
 herself the prerogative of infallibility, and places her traditions 
 upon an equality with the blessed Word of God. We have 
 seen, already, some specimens of the skill and subtilty, with 
 which her advocates defend her pretensions; and we shall 
 have abundant occasion to admire their ingenuity, while we 
 lament its misapplication, before our labours are closed. Re- 
 garding the Church of Rome, as I regard every Church in 
 Christendom, with kindliness and esteem for the Redeemer's 
 sake, and anxiously desirous to conduct even the work of 
 controversy so as to subserve the great cause of Christian 
 unity and peace, I have no wish to keep back any portion of 
 their arguments, but rather a disposition to place them all in 
 their strongest light, because in no other way could I do them 
 justice — in no other way could I bring each several question 
 fairly up to the standard of truth — in no other way could I 
 hope to be of any real service in the warfare against error — 
 and above all — in no other way could I pursue my humble 
 undertaking in the fear of God, or obtain for it the guidance 
 and safeguard of his blessing. 
 
 But in addition to these conclusive reasons for the mode in 
 which I have resolved to treat this important controversy, I 
 
THE ROMAN ARGUMENT. 63 
 
 rejoice in the conviction, that in no other way could I promise 
 myself the desired measure of success. And I hail it as a sign 
 of an improving spirit in our age, when calm and temperate 
 and thorough examination of the most abstruse and uninviting 
 points of theological discussion, is more welcome to the minds 
 of all discerning and reflecting men, than bitter invective, 
 exaggerated misstatements, or noisy and tumid declamation. 
 
 Our last lecture was occupied, as you will probably recol- 
 lect, by the proofs alleged on the part of the distinguished 
 Roman Catholic, Dr. Wiseman, in favour of their fundamental 
 doctrine of the rule of faith, which asserts not only the author- 
 ity of the Scriptures, as the written Word, but also the equal 
 authority of their traditions, as being the unwritten Word of 
 God, handed down from the apostles themselves, through the 
 infallible instrumentality of the Church. We considered, at 
 large, the evidence which the Scriptures furnished on the inse- 
 curity of all tradition, up to the days of our blessed Redeemer. 
 We examined fully the import of the text, in which He prom- 
 ises to be with his apostles and their successors to the end of 
 the world; and we showed how inconsistent it was with the 
 whole tenor of the Word of God, that the presence of Christ 
 should be interpreted as being a warrant for the Church's 
 infallibility. The further discussion of the Roman claim was 
 reserved for the following lecture; in which we hope, by the 
 aid of Him, who is the way, the truth and the life, to dispose 
 of the remaining arguments adduced upon this subject. 
 
 The first statement which meets us, in this part of the dis- 
 cussion, is calculated to make considerable impression on an 
 incautious mind. It is briefly, as follows: that our Saviour 
 sent forth his apostles with authority; "As my Father hath 
 SENT ME, so SEND I YOU:" that they accordingly preached 
 the Gospel with all authority : that they required assent to the 
 things which they spake, without referring their hearers to the 
 Scriptures; nay, that when they preached to the Gentiles, 
 
64 THE ROMAN ARGUMENT 
 
 they did not even intimate that there was such a Book : that 
 instead of this, they ordained ministers wherever they went, 
 and commanded the people to listen and to obey them that had 
 the rule over them, saying every where, as to the Thessalo- 
 nians in the text — "Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold 
 the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, 
 or our epistle." To this our learned advocate adds the lan- 
 guage of the apostle to Timothy, (2 Tim. i. 13) "Hold fast 
 the form of sound words which thou hast heard of me, in 
 faith and love which is in Christ Jesus. That good thing 
 which was committed unto thee, keep by the Holy Ghost 
 which dwelleth in us;" in which passage, it is plain that there 
 is something else alluded to, besides the Scriptures. In ano- 
 ther place, the same eminent apostle saith to Timothy, "The 
 things which thou hast heard of me by many witnesses, com- 
 mit thou to faithful men, who shall be fit to teach others also." 
 "Here then," to use the words of Dr. Wiseman, "St. Paul 
 does not say, 'Treasure up this my epistle as a part of God's 
 holy Word, and give copies of it to tliose whom you have to 
 instruct;' and this surely would have been the safest way of 
 preserving the doctrines he had delivered; but he tells Timo- 
 thy to choose faithful or trustworthy men, and to confide the 
 doctrines he had received to their hands, that they, in turn, 
 might communicate them to others. Is not this," saith Dr. 
 Wiseman, "clearly assuming oral teaching as the method to 
 be established and pursued by the Church of Christ?" 
 
 Now in all this, my brethren, there is much that we cheer- 
 fully acknowledge; but it is so ingeniously applied to a most 
 mistaken inference, that it will take us some time and attention 
 to disentangle the truth from the accompanying error. 
 
 It is true that the apostles wore sent forth with authority to 
 teach; and that their teaching, as we are assured, was "with 
 the demonstration of the Spirit, and with power." From the 
 time when the Holy Ghost descended upon them on the day 
 
EXAMINED. 65 
 
 of Pentecost, they had the infallible authority of inspiration, 
 together with the visible seal of heaven to that authority, in 
 the working of miracles, casting out devils, healing the sick, 
 conferring supernatural powers such as the gift of tongues, 
 raising the dead, and thus exhibiting what St. Paul, in his epis- 
 tle to the Corinthians, calls "the signs of an apostle." 
 
 It is true likewise, that the apostles ordained men to be their 
 successors, in preaching the Gospel and governing the 
 Churches when they should be no more ; but the Church of 
 Rome herself does not pretend that these successors of the 
 apostles were intended to possess either their inspiration, or 
 their miraculous powers, or their ability to confer superna- 
 tural powers on others. I do not indeed forget, in making 
 this assertion, that the Church of Rome claims the continuance 
 of miracles within her communion, and tells a prodigious 
 number of wonderful things about particular saints, which 
 every man is at liberty either to believe or not, just as he may 
 think proper. But this is altogether wide of the present sub- 
 ject, because they have never advanced the idea, that the 
 successors of the apostles, as such, received the communication 
 of the powers which we have enumerated. Every bishop in 
 the Universal or Catholic Church, for instance, is a successor 
 to the office of the apostles, in the authority to teach, to ordain, 
 and to govern. Such, precisely, were Timothy and Titus. 
 But the Church of Rome has not yet maintained the absurdity 
 that her bishops, archbishops, or even the pope himself, suc- 
 ceeded to the apostolic powers of inspiration, miracles, and the 
 supernatural faculty of imparting the gift of tongues to others 
 by the imposition of their hands. Of course, then, they cannot 
 deny that the preaching and teaching of the apostles stood 
 upon an independent basis, peculiar to themselves ; and, in the 
 nature of the case, totally inapplicable to those who should 
 come after them. 
 
 It was perhaps in this very respect, that the Saviour's ad- 
 G 2 
 
DO THE ROMAN ARGUMENT 
 
 dress to his apostles may best be understood, " As my Father 
 hath sent me, even so send I you." For as he appealed to his 
 wonderful works, in proof of his divine character and mission, 
 saying " Believe me for the very works' sake," (John xiv. 11) 
 so he promised to his apostles the same kind of attestation, 
 (ib. 12 V.) "Verily, verily, I say unto you, he that believeth 
 on me, the works that I do shall he do alsoJ'^ Hence the 
 apostles were entitled to an implicit acquiescence, on a pecu- 
 liar ground, which none that came after them could rightly 
 pretend to occupy; and hence we may distinctly see, that 
 their personal authority and that of the Church are of a 
 very different description. To prove the oral teaching of the 
 apostles, there were inspiration and miracles; consequently, 
 whatever the Thessalonians or Timothy heard them say, was 
 to be believed with as much reverence as what they received 
 in writing; and the assent of the mind in both cases was to 
 be of that absolute sort, which is called, in the language of 
 theology, implicit faith. But to prove the oral teaching of 
 the apostles' successors, or the Church, there is neither inspi- 
 ration nor miracles, and therefore the Church is bound to refer 
 all she teaches to the authority of the apostles. For as in the 
 case of the apostles, the doctrine of God, and the authority of 
 God went together, so in the case of the Church, the authority 
 of the apostles, and the doctrine of the apostles must go together. 
 Surely, then, it must be plain, that the grounds on which we 
 assert the apostles' infallibility, are in no respect applicable to 
 their successors. That the traditions delivered by the apos- 
 tles themselves, whether by word or by their epistles, were 
 infallible, we freely grant; because the power of miracles and 
 inspiration proved their infalHbility ; but that the Church is 
 infallible in handing down to us that apostolical tradition, is a 
 totally different matter. 
 
 This might be a sufficient answer to the argument on the 
 other side; but we should do great injustice to the subject it 
 
EXAMINED. 67 
 
 we failed to take notice of two other modes of understanding 
 the passages on which the Roman argument is supported, which, 
 to some minds, may be more satisfactory. 
 
 Let it then be noted, in the second place, that at the time 
 when St. Paul wrote his epistles, the New Testament, as we now 
 possess it, was not in existence. The Old Testament indeed 
 was in the hands of the Jews, and by means of the Septuagint 
 version into Greek, was made accessible to the Gentiles. But 
 the New Testament was not recorded at all, except in scat- 
 tered parts, some of the most important of which, namely the 
 Gospel of St. John and the Book of Revelation, were certainly 
 not written, until after St. Paul's martyrdom ; and it is alto- 
 gether doubtful whether any of the other three Gospels were 
 in being, at the time when he wrote the language of the text. 
 In the very necessity of the case, therefore, the whole of what 
 we now have from the pen of inspiration, viz : the generation, 
 the life, the doctrine, the sufferings, the miracles, the death, 
 resurrection and ascension of our Lord and Saviour, — all, in 
 a word, that forms the four Gospels, must have been first de- 
 livered orally by the apostles, as the Word of God ; just as the 
 communications of the Lord to Moses were received by the 
 Israelites, before the Scriptures of the Old Testament were 
 recorded. But these communications to Moses, being after- 
 wards committed to writing for the purpose of safe transmis- 
 sion, we find the prophets and apostles, and especially Christ 
 himself, always appealing to the Scriptures, and never to the 
 oral tradition which preceded the Scriptures, when a question 
 arose as to what God had said by the mouth of Moses. And 
 precisely in like manner should we appeal to the Scriptures of 
 the New Testament, for the record of those things which the 
 apostles delivered orally ; since it is evident that we occupy 
 the same relation to the New Testament, that the Jewish 
 Church in our Saviour's days occupied with regard to the Old 
 
68 THE SCEIPTURE IS THE LAW. 
 
 Testament, and the Scriptures of the one must be presumed to 
 be as complete and infallible a guide, as those of the other. 
 
 In the third place, however, it must be remembered, that 
 our rule of faith does not exclude tradition, in those things 
 which belong to interpretation, or form, or discipline; and if 
 St. Paul is understood to speak of these in the text addressed 
 to the Thessalonians, as he certainly did in the text addressed 
 to Timothy, there would be no room for controversy remaining. 
 For I have been careful to state, that while we look only to 
 the Scriptures in all points which belong to faith, and like- 
 wise in all points which involve the principles even of forms 
 and discipline; yet we regard with reverence the testimony of 
 tradition, in questions of interpretation, as well as in matters 
 of practical detail. And here, I shall probably be more intel- 
 ligible if I recur to the doctrine of our third lecture, where I 
 argued from the familiar analogy of worldly things in the 
 case of the judges and the law. The rule of faith which we 
 acknowledge, is the law of the Gospel dispensation, recorded 
 in the Scriptures, which, like every other work of its great 
 Author, we believe to be sufficiently comprehensive and com- 
 plete, to answer all the purposes of salvation for which it was 
 given. Now surely it is inconceivable that an earthly legisla- 
 ture could commit such a pre-eminent absurdity, as to put forth 
 a system of law, of which part should be recorded in writing, 
 and another eqvally important part should only be delivered 
 ORALLY TO THE JUDGES, to bc by them handed down to those 
 who should come after them, in the same loose and uncertain 
 way. And we think it still more inconceivable, that the All- 
 wise Lawgiver of the Church should have furnished his rule of 
 saving faith and obedience in such a shape, that only part of 
 it was committed to the written record, while the equally or 
 still more important part, was to be entrusted by oral tradition 
 to the judges of the Church, who should succeed the apostles, 
 as the interpreters and administrators of the system, for all 
 
THE CHURCH IS THE INTERPRETER. 69 
 
 time to come. Here is a dilemma out of which the ingenuity 
 ot^the Church of Rome has never been able to extricate them. 
 They admit, with us and the whole Christian world, that the 
 Scriptures were written by the Express inspiration of God. 
 But if tradition is as safe and as infallible a repository for di- 
 vine truth as Scripture, why were the Scriptures written at all? 
 Why was not the whole of that truth left to the sole custody 
 of tradition? On the other hand, if tradition is not as safe and 
 as infallible a repository for divine truth as Scripture, why 
 was only a part of that truth committed to Scripture, and the 
 rest left to the more uncertain mode of preservation? For 
 manifest it is, that no reason can ever be assigned why part 
 of the rule or law of faith should have been written, which 
 will not necessarily include the whole. 
 
 But in the administration of earthly law, though the legisla- 
 ture leaves no part of the law unrecorded, yet the interpreta- 
 tion of the law is committed to the judges, and passes down 
 from court to court, making a rule of judicial tradition, which 
 is not indeed considered as infallible, nor ever confounded 
 with the law itself, but is yet regarded with high respect, and 
 never departed from without the strongest evidence of error. 
 And besides this office of interpretation, there are the various 
 forms of law, and the rules of pleading, comprising very many 
 points of practice necessary to the order of judicial proceedings, 
 in which the judges are left free to adopt their own ideas of 
 propriety, in the first place; but which, when once established, 
 constitute the rules of Court; and thus become another branch 
 of judicial tradition, handed down from age to age with much 
 regard, and although liable lo alteration, yet never altered 
 without great cause, and on weighty and sufficient reasons. 
 
 Now here we have a simple illustration of what we under- 
 stand to be the office of the Scripture and the office of tra- 
 dition. The Scripture contains the perfect, unerring, and di- 
 vine law or rule of faith ^ committed to the judges and officers 
 
70 
 
 THE SCRIPTURE IS THE LAW 
 
 of the Church, for their administration. The apostles, as the 
 lawgivers of the Church, to whom was entrusted the most diffi- 
 cult part of the great work which was to establish the govern- 
 ment or kingdom of heaven amongst men, were endowed with 
 inspiration, and were therefore infallible. And as being the 
 first judges, they laid down the rules of Scriptural interpreta- 
 tion, the forms of worship, the modes of discipline, the manner 
 of administering the sacraments, with many other details, 
 which make, indeed, no part of the rule of faith itself, but 
 which are indispensable to its proper and orderly operation, in 
 the hands of those who were appointed to succeed them in the 
 government of the Church of God. Hence, therefore, when 
 we read the charge of St. Paul to the Thessalonians in the 
 text, to hold fast the traditions which they had learned of him, 
 whether by word or by his epistle, we are under no necessity 
 of supposing him to allude to any doctrine which formed a 
 part of the great rule or law of faith, and which might be 
 readily collected in writing even from his own epistles ; but 
 only to those points of Church order and discipline, for which 
 we find him making a temporary arrangement in his epistle 
 to the Corinthians. And in like manner, when he charges 
 Timothy to hold fast the form of sound words which he had 
 heard, we understand him to mean, not as the Church of 
 Rome would fain persuade us, some of her doctrines of purga- 
 tory, or invocation of saints, or transubstantiation, but those 
 forms of worship, the creed, and the liturgy, which we find 
 to have been adopted by all the primitive Churches, and which 
 have descended in their more important parts even to our own 
 day. We see, then, that the language of the text yields no 
 support to the Roman traditions, first, because the authority 
 of inspiration was confined to the apostles; secondly, because 
 the very rule of faith itself was of necessity delivered orally, 
 before the Gospels were written; and thirdly, because the 
 
THE CHURCH IS THE INTERPRETER. 71 
 
 words of St. Paul may be as fairly applied to points of or- 
 der or practice, as to points of faith. 
 
 The next argument of Dr. Wiseman will not need more 
 than a very brief examination. He refers to a custom which 
 seems, for a time, to have existed in some parts of the primi- 
 tive Church, called by theologians the discipline of the secret, 
 according to which it appears, that candidates for admission 
 into the Church were kept in ignorance of the more important 
 doctrines of the faith, until after Baptism. And he quotes a 
 passage from the works of Rev. Mr. Newman, of the Church 
 of England, to show, that although the Scriptures were open 
 to every one who chose to consult them, yet, in point of fact, 
 " the fully developed doctrines of the Trinity and the incarna- 
 tion, and still more, the doctrine of the atonement as once 
 made upon the cross, and commemorated and appropriated in 
 the Eucharist, were not learned from Scripture, but from the 
 Church." " From the very first," saith Mr. Newman, " the 
 rule has been for the Church to teach the truth, and then ap- 
 peal to the Scripture in vindication of its own teaching." 
 Strangely enough, according to my poor judgment, Dr. Wise- 
 man conceives that this statement warrants his doctrine of tra- 
 dition and infallibility, whereas nothing can be farther from 
 the mark. For it is evident that the Scriptures could no more 
 be intended to supersede the active duties of the ministry, than 
 the written laws of the land could be understood to supersede 
 the office of the judge. Indeed a similar principle runs 
 throughout all the arts and sciences. There are books pub- 
 lished upon them all, and yet hardly any one learns them 
 until he has the advantage of personal teaching. But must 
 the sick man suppose his physician to be infallible, because he 
 trusts implicitly to his skill ? Must the accused criminal sup- 
 pose his lawyer to be infallible, because he confides in his su- 
 perior professional knowledge? Must the apprentice to an or- 
 dinary trade believe that his master is infallible, because he 
 
72 TESTIMONY OF THE FATHERS. 
 
 submits his ignorance to the master's instruction? Does the 
 pupil in any of the branches of customary education hold the 
 infallibility of his teachers, as a necessary justification of his 
 placing himself under their tuition, instead of undertaking to 
 teach himself? The answers to such questions are so ob- 
 vious, that any child can make them. There is surely, then, 
 nothing strange nor peculiar to religion in the fact, that while 
 the rule of faith is indeed the Bible, yet no man learns that 
 faith or is intended to learn it, from the Bible alone. The Bi- 
 ble is to the ministry, what the law is to the judge, what the 
 science of medicine is to the physician, or what the established 
 text book is to the teacher. And in the primitive days, before 
 the Church was so sadly divided as it has since become, there 
 was still less danger that those who desired to be instructed in 
 religion should distrust the clergy; because there was compa- 
 ratively but little difference of opinion amongst them: and yet 
 the confidence placed in their instructions afforded no proof, 
 that either they or their converts ascribed absolute infallibility 
 to any thing except the inspired Word of God. 
 
 The third argument of our learned advocate is derived from 
 the testimony of those primitive Christian writers, whose 
 works have come down to our own day, and who, from the 
 custom of the Church, are commonly known by the name of 
 the fathers. And on this score I am quite sure that our cause 
 has nothing to fear, when their testimony is fairly stated, and 
 properly understood. 
 
 The first name which our learned advocate brings forward, 
 is that of Auguslin, the bishop of Hippo in Africa, who lived 
 in the 4th century, and was the favourite author with Luther, 
 the great German reformer. In his book against the Mani- 
 chees, Augustin expressly saith, " I should not have believed 
 the Gospel, if the authority of the Catholic Church had not 
 moved me." "This little sentence contains at once," says 
 Dr. Wiseman, " the principle on which Augustin believed. 
 
AUGUSTIN. 73 
 
 This greatest light of the century in which he hved, declares, 
 that he could not have received the Scriptures, except on the 
 authority of the Catholic Church." (p. 114.) 
 
 Now although it is quite evident, that our learned advocate 
 regards this statement of Augustin as a very important piece 
 of evidence, yet there is really nothing in it to which we have 
 the slightest objection. 
 
 The Scriptures are dictated by the Spirit of God, for the 
 standard of the Church's faith, and are committed to the safe 
 keeping of the officers of the Church, through whom they are 
 made known to the world. As the Books of Moses were 
 placed in the ark under the care of the priesthood, so the New 
 Testament, along with the Old Testament, making the com- 
 plete record of heavenly truth, were placed in the Church, 
 under the care of the Christian priesthood. The authority of 
 the Jewish Church, therefore, was the only authority which 
 could move an inquirer to confess the writings of Moses and 
 the Prophets. And in like manner, the authority of the Chris- 
 tian Church was the only authority which could move St. Au- 
 gustin to acknowledge the writings of the evangelists and 
 apostles. And as the Jewish Church could not possibly be 
 mistaken about the first, so neither could the Christian Church 
 be mistaken about the second. But what has this to do with 
 the infallibility either of the Jewish Church or the Christian 
 Church, when they talk to us about traditions of the faith 
 which are not in Scripture ? 
 
 J^et us try to make this matter clear by a simple analogy. 
 The laws of the legislature, in every civilized country, are 
 committed to the custody of certain officers, and the originals 
 are kept under their care in a place appointed for the purpose, 
 called, in England and in some of the United States, the office 
 of the rolls. Now suppose a foreigner, moved by the high 
 character of any of these countries to inquire into its laws, 
 should be assured by the officers who have them in custody, 
 
 H 
 
74 # AUGUSTIN. 
 
 that the records which they exhibited were the true transcripts 
 of the acts of the legislature, doubtless he would at once be- 
 lieve them with the most implicit reliance ; first, because these 
 were the persons appointed for the guardianship of the records ; 
 and secondly, because these same laws, having been already 
 copied, published, and dispersed far and wide through the 
 land, any interpolation or forgery would be impracticable. 
 To admit such records, therefore, demands no belief of the 
 officers' infallihility, but only a confidence that they have 
 used reasonable diligence and care, in a very simple matter. 
 
 But now suppose that these officers, after having the full ac- 
 quiescence of the stranger in the truth of these records, should 
 undertake to tell him, that the legislature had passed many 
 other resolutions which were equally binding with the written 
 law, but which were ?iot to be found recorded, being only- 
 committed to the memory of their predecessors, and intended 
 to be handed down as the laws of tradition, from one set of 
 officers to the other, would the stranger be justified in believ- 
 ing such an assertion? And suppose that these officers should 
 say, " Sir, we are the appointed keepers of the records of the 
 legislature, and you acknowledge that the writings we have 
 shown you are the real laws of the land. If we are trust- 
 worthy in keeping the books, why do you not admit that we 
 are infallible in handing down the tradition 1 You have no 
 right to believe the one, unless you are prepared also to believe 
 the other." What would any reasonable mind think of such 
 an argument 1 Could any thing be more absurd than to insist, 
 that a legislative body would lay down half its laws in wri- 
 ting, and the other half in verbal tradition, and that an honest 
 safeguard of the one, proved an infallible correctness about 
 the other, merely because the present keepers of the legisla- 
 tive records thought fit to say so 7 
 
 Now such is the precise position in which the Church of 
 Rome places herself, by this, one of her most common and 
 
IRENJEUS. 75 
 
 plausible arguments. They say that the Church has been a 
 faithful keeper and witness of Scripture — the written records 
 of the faith — and we willingly grant it. And then they tell 
 us, that if we allow them to have handed down faithfully the 
 records of the apostles, therefore we must allow that they 
 have handed down, with perfect infallibility, the sayings of 
 the apostles, and that their report of these sayings shall be 
 considered as much a part of our faith as the ivritten records 
 themselves. Surely, my brethren, there never was a plainer 
 instance of false logic than this. Very different, when fairly 
 understood, is the declaration of St. Augustin, that he could 
 not have received the Scriptures, except on the authority of 
 the Catholic Church; since this is precisely equivalent to our 
 saying, that we could not receive the laws of the land, except 
 on the authority of the officers appointed to publish them. 
 Both these assertions are equally true, but neither of them has 
 the slightest connexion with the infaUibility of the Church in 
 questions of oral tradition. 
 
 The next quotation which our author makes is from an earlier 
 writer, Irenseus, the bishop of Lyons, who flourished in the next 
 generation after the death of St. John. And his language, 
 according to the translation of Dr. Wiseman, is as follows: 
 "To him that believeth there is one God, and holds to the 
 Head, which is Christ, to this man all things will be plain, if 
 he read diligently the Scripture, with the aid of those who are 
 the priests in the Church, and in whose hands, as we have 
 shown, rests the doctrine of the apostles." Here, truly, is a 
 passage which the learned advocate would hardly have chosen, 
 if it were not so impossible to find any writer of an early date, 
 whose language could be brought even into seeming accord- 
 ance with the modern doctrine of his Church. The words 
 themselves express the very principle which we maintain ; and 
 cannot, without violence, be made to inculcate any other. 
 For Irenseus simply asserts that all things will be plain to him 
 
76 TERTULLIAN. 
 
 that believes in God, and holds the Head, that is Christ, if he 
 reads the Scriptures with the aid of the priesthood. I have 
 expressly stated, more than once, that the priesthood, being 
 the successors of the apostles, are, to the Scriptures, what the 
 judges are to the law. And just as he who would understand 
 the law, must not only read the law itself but also the con- 
 struction of the judges, so likewise must he who would under- 
 stand the Scriptures, not only read the Scriptures themselves, 
 but also have the interpretation of those, to whom the office of 
 instruction and of government in the Church has been commit- 
 ted. What is there in this, to prove the infallibility of tradi- 
 tion? Manifestly nothing whatever. 
 
 Our author's third quotation is from TertuUian, who flourished 
 in the next generation after Irenseus ; and, as before, I shall 
 take his own translation. " What will you gain," saith this 
 eminent father, " by recurring to Scripture, when one denies 
 what the other asserts ? Learn rather who it is that possesses 
 the faith of Christ; to whom the Scriptures belong; from 
 whom, by whom, and when that faith was delivered, by which 
 we are made Christians. For where shall be found the true 
 faith, there will be the genuine Scriptures, there the true inter- 
 pretations of them, and there all Christian traditions. Christ 
 chose his apostles, whom he sent to preach to all nations. 
 They delivered his doctrines and founded Churches, from which 
 Churches others drew the seeds of the same doctrine, as new 
 ones daily continue to do. Thus these, as the offspring of the 
 apostolic Churches, are themselves esteemed apostolical. Now 
 to know what the apostles taught, that is, what Christ revealed 
 to them, recourse must be had to the Churches which they 
 founded, and which they instructed by word of mouth and by 
 their epistles. For it is plain, that all doctrine which is con- 
 formable to the faith of these mother Churches is true ; being 
 that which they received from the apostles, the apostles from 
 
TERTULLIAN. 77 
 
 Christ, Christ from God ; and that all other opinions must be 
 novel and false." 
 
 " Is not this," saith Dr. Wiseman, " precisely the very rule 
 which the doctrine of the Catholic Church," (meaning the 
 Church of Rome) "proposes at the present day?" I answer 
 confidently that it is not; although it may be so applied as to 
 look like it, to an ill-informed or careless reader. On the con- 
 trary, it is in exact conformity with the principle, that the rule 
 of faith is in the Scriptures, while the guardianship of the Scrip- 
 tures, the interpretation of them, the forms and practices con- 
 nected with worship and the sacraments, and the details of 
 discipline, were committed to the Church. To understand the 
 passage aright, therefore, it should be noted, first, that it occurs 
 in a book which Tertullian wrote against the Gnostic heretics 
 of his day, who mutilated the Word of inspiration, in order 
 that they might deny the faith, in the all-important doctrines 
 of the divinity, humanity, and sacrifice of Jesus Christ. They 
 virtually destroyed the testimony of the Scriptures, by wanton- 
 ly casting aside every part of the gospels and epistles which 
 did not suit them. They abolished the Old Testament, under 
 the blasphemous notion that the Jewish dispensation was es- 
 tablished, not by the Supreme God, but by an evil being whom 
 they called the Demivrgus, and whom it was the chief design 
 of the Gospel to overcome. They taught that Christ vvas not 
 God, but one of thirty celestial beings whom they called (Bons, 
 and that he had no human nature, but only assumed the form 
 of man to deceive the Jews. They said that he was not cruci- 
 fied at all, but that this also was a delusion. And along with 
 these impieties, they indulged themselves in many practices of 
 the most shocking immorality ; so that to them, chiefly, were 
 imputed the scandalous reproaches, so often made among the 
 heathen against the Christian name. 
 
 You will now be able, my brethren, to understand aright the 
 argument presented by Tertullian, knowing against whom, and 
 
78 TERTULLIAN. 
 
 for what purpose, the passage was written. It is evident, that 
 in arguing against these flagitious heretics, there was nothing 
 to be gained by reasoning from Scripture, because they denied 
 the true Scriptures, and endeavoured to set up false ones in their 
 stead. Hence, the first step was to bring them, as it were, to 
 the very birth-places of Christianity, to induce them to recur to 
 the Churches planted by apostolic hands, that from their testi- 
 mony they might learn which the real Scriptures were, and 
 how the successors of the apostles interpreted them. In Ter- 
 tullian's days, this was easily done ; because he lived only one 
 century later than the apostle John, and there was not time for 
 any apostolic Church to have become much changed, or at all 
 corrupted. And therefore he tells the heretics to go to these 
 places where the Gospel was first planted; to Corinth, or to 
 Ephesus, or to Rome, because there they would find the true 
 Scriptures, the pure faith, the correct interpretation, and all 
 those Christian traditions of forms, discipline and worship, 
 which belonged to the practical administration of the Gospel 
 system. Surely it is manifest that the passage, thus explained, 
 is consistent and clear ; and that in arguing wdth such men, no 
 other course could have been taken. But it results, incontro- 
 vertibly, that the language of Tertullian has no bearing upon 
 the points under consideration, namely, the authority oi" tradi- 
 tion in adding to the doctrines of faith things not contained in 
 Scripture, and the infallibility in pronouncing upon these tra- 
 ditions, claimed by the Church of Rome. The traditions 
 mentioned by Tertullian may be understood much more reason- 
 ably as referring to points of practice, rather than points of 
 faith; and as to infallibility, he does not say one word about 
 the matter. 
 
 Our author adds some other extracts from Origen, Cyprian, 
 Chrysostom, and Epiphanius: but as they are not so strong as 
 those which I have just examined, I shall not detain you by 
 
AUGUSTIN. 79 
 
 commenting on them. Rather let me proceed to show you 
 how these same fathers speak, upon our side of the question. 
 
 To begin with Augustin. In a set of most interesting medi- 
 tations, being the 11th book of his Confessions, (1 Vol. 147, 
 § 3) this language occurs, relative to the Scriptures. "O Lord 
 my God, hasten to my prayer, and let thy mercy hearken to 
 my supplication. Let thy Scriptures be my pure delight; may 
 I neither be deceived in them, nor deceive others from them." 
 Again, in his epistle to the Donatists, who had separated from 
 the Church schismatically, although otherwise orthodox, he 
 saith, (2 Vol. 228, § 14) "In the Scriptures we learn Christ, 
 in the Scriptures we learn the Church. Those Scriptures we 
 have in common: Why do we not hold together in them, in 
 Christ, and the Church." (§ 17) "If in Christ, of whom you 
 only read without seeing him, you nevertheless believe, by 
 reason of the truth of the Scriptures, why do you deny the 
 Church, which you both read and see?" And again, speaking 
 of the Donatists in his epistle to Boniface, (2 Vol. 490, § 2} he 
 repeats the sentiment in still stronger words. "Let us pray 
 for them," saith he, " that the Lord may open their minds to 
 understand the Scriptures. Because in the sacred books, 
 where our Lord Christ is manifested, there also is his Church 
 declared. But wonderful is their blindness, since, while they 
 cannot know Christ himself, except by the Scriptures, never- 
 theless they do not acknowledge the Church by the authority 
 of the same Scriptures." Here you perceive, brethren, that 
 while Augustin appeals to the authoritative testimony of the 
 Church, in one place, for the purpose of ascertaining which 
 are the Scriptures, yet after that point is established, he looks 
 to the doctrine of the Scriptures for the knowledge both of 
 Christ and the Church. 
 
 Again, in his epistle to Consentius, (2 Vol. p. 584, § 3) 
 warning him to be content with the simple words of Scripture 
 on the subject of Christ's resurrection, Augustin says, "Christ 
 
80 TERTULLIAN. 
 
 added no more; therefore let us inquire no farther." — "For 
 whatever any one may add to the Scripture, let him take heed 
 that he adds not corruption, lest he contaminates the purity 
 and health of his faith.'''' And once more, in another epistle to 
 the same, (2 Vol. p. 266, § 13) Augustin expressly declares, 
 that heresy arises out of the misunderstanding of the Scrip- 
 tures. "For all heretics," saith he, "who receive the Scrip- 
 tures as authority, seem to themselves to be following the 
 Scriptures when they are following their own errors; and 
 therefore they are heretics, not because they despise the Scrip- 
 tures, but because they do not understand them.'''' Surel}^, 
 brethren, these ^ew extracts must suffice to show, that this 
 witness of Dr. Wiseman's own selecting, regarded the Scrip- 
 tures as the true rule or faith, while he looked to the 
 Church for the safe guide of interpretation. 
 
 Let us next hear Tertullian, another of the witnesses already 
 referred to on the Roman side of the argument. In the same 
 book cited by Dr. Wiseman, (207) he calls the Scriptures the 
 "letters of faith," and repeating the heretic's favourite 
 maxim, "Seek and you shall find," he saith, (p. 205) "I wil- 
 lingly grant that it is said to all ; Seek and you shall find. 
 Nevertheless, it is expedient that the true sense of Scripture 
 should be sought under the government of interpretation.'''' 
 This is precisely the view we have taken of the whole subject. 
 The Scriptures furnish the law or rule of faith ; and the Church, 
 in her authorized priesthood, furnishes the interpreter. Again, 
 the same father^ alluding to the apostolic Churches, saith, that 
 "they still retained the very chairs which the apostles occu- 
 pied, and their authentic epistles, sounding the voice and repre- 
 senting the countenance of each one," (p. 215) and he proceeds 
 in these words, speaking of a believer who should have gone 
 over all these Churches : " Let us see what he would have 
 learned, and what he should be prepared to teach. He 
 acknowledges one God, the Creator of the universe, and Jesus 
 
IREN^US. 81 
 
 Christ, born of the Virgin Mary, the Son of God the Creator, 
 and the resurrection of the body. He unites the law and the 
 prophets with the Scriptures of the Evangelists and Apostles^ 
 and from thence he drinks his faith: he signs it with water, 
 he clothes it with the Holy Spirit, he feeds it with the Eucha- 
 rist, he exhorts it to martyrdom, and he receives no one who 
 opposes this sacred institution." In the following page, he 
 speaks of the Scriptures in these words : "Wherever a diversity 
 of doctrine is found, there also is the adulteration of the 
 Scriptures, and of the interpretation of them. For those 
 who purpose to teach a different doctrine, are forced by neces- 
 sity to alter the instruments of doctrine." Here he calls the 
 Scriptures by their true title, the instruments of doctrine^ 
 which is precisely equivalent to their being the rule of faith. 
 Again, describing their assemblies for worship, in his cele- 
 brated apology, written to influence the Roman Emperors to 
 cease their persecution, he saith, "We meet together, (p. 31) 
 to be refreshed in our minds by the Holy Scriptures. We 
 feed our faith by the divine Words, we elevate our hope, we 
 estabHsh our confidence." Again, saith he, (35) " We have 
 now shown our whole condition, and in what manner we can 
 prove that it is as we have declared it, namely, by the faith 
 and antiquity of the divine Scriptures." A volume might 
 be written, brethren, filled with extracts from these authors, 
 all going to the same point; but our limits force me to be 
 brief, and thei'efore I pass on to another of Dr. Wiseman's 
 witnesses, whose testimony you will find in no respect at vari- 
 ance with what has been already laid before you. 
 
 Irenseus (p. 156) saith, "The Scriptures truly are perfect, 
 because they are dictated by the Word and Spirit of God." 
 And again, "We have known the plan of our salvation," saith 
 he, (p. 173) "only through those by whom the Gospel was 
 delivered to us, which truly they preached, but which after- 
 wards, by the will of God, they delivered to us in the Scrip- 
 
82 CYPRIAN. 
 
 TURES, to be the foundation and the pillar of our faith. For 
 after our Lord rose from the dead, and they were clothed with 
 the power of the Holy Ghost descending upon them from 
 heaven, they were filled with all spiritual gifts, and had perfect 
 knowledge ; and thus they went forth to the ends of the earth, 
 announcing celestial peace to men, and each having committed 
 to him the Gospel of God. Accordingly," continues Irenseus, 
 "Matthew set forth his Gospel, about the time when Peter and 
 Paul preached at Rome, and founded the Church there. And 
 after their departure, Mark, the disciple and companion of 
 Peter, delivered in writing those things which were preached 
 by Peter. And Luke, the follower of Paul, set down in a book 
 the Gospel as it was preached by Paul. And afterwards John, 
 the disciple of the Lord, who reclined on his breast, published 
 his Gospel during his abode at Ephesus. And all these deli- 
 vered unto us the one God, Maker of heaven and earth, 
 announced by the law and the prophets, and one Christ the 
 Son of God." Here, brethren, we have the simple doctrine 
 of the primitive Church, for L-enseus was the bishop of Lyons 
 in the next generation after the death of the apostle John, and 
 he states that the Scriptures contained the whole of the apos- 
 tles' preaching, and that they were delivered to the Church, 
 by the will of God, to be the ground and pillar of the faith. 
 Nothing can be more direct to the point, nothing more con- 
 clusive. 
 
 Let us next hear Cyprian, the celebrated bishop of Carthage, 
 who flourished in the next century after L^enceus, and who is 
 also one of Dr. Wiseman's chosen witnesses. In the dispute 
 between him and Stephen, then bishop of Rome, of which we 
 shall have occasion to speak more fully hereafter, Cyprian 
 argues against the authority of the tradition which Stephen 
 had adduced, touching a matter, however, which was rather a 
 point of discipline than a doctrine of faith, namely, whether 
 the baptism performed by heretics should be repeated by the 
 
CYRIL. 83 
 
 Catholic Church or not. Nevertheless, although it was only 
 a point of discipline, mark how Cyprian speaks of the princi- 
 ple. " Whence," says he, " is this tradition?" (Ch. of Rome, 
 p. 129, Am. ed.) "Is it that which descends from the author- 
 ity of our Lord and of his Gospel, or which comes to us from 
 the precepts of the apostles and their epistles? For those 
 things which are written are to be done, as the Lord testifies 
 and proposes to Joshua, saying, ' This book of the law shall 
 not depart from thy mouth, but thou shalt meditate therein day 
 and night, that thou mayest observe to do all things which are 
 written therein.' In like manner, the Lord, sending his apos- 
 tles, commands them to teach and baptize the nations, that 
 they may observe all things which were commanded them. 
 If therefore," continues Cyprian, " it is either directed in the 
 Gospel, or contained in the epistles of the apostles or in the 
 acts, let this divine and holy tradition be observed. 
 But how great is this obstinacy, how bold this presumption, to 
 place this human tradition before the divine sanction, forgetting 
 that God is always indignant and wrathful, whenever human 
 traditions are exalted above his precepts." I think, brethren, 
 that no one who reads this passage can be in doubt, whether 
 Cyprian held the Scriptures to be the rule of faith, for the 
 nature of the dispute proves, that he not only held them to be 
 the rule of faith, but the rule of practice also. 
 
 Cyril, the archbishop of Jerusalem, is another witness cited 
 by the advocate of tradition, and therefore let us listen to his 
 testimony, which will not detain us long, and is directly to the 
 purpose. " The faith," saith he, " which the Church delivers 
 to you in the form of the Creed, to be embraced and learned 
 and professed, is fenced all around by the Scriptures. For 
 as all cannot read the Scriptures, and some are hindered from 
 a proper knowledge of them by unskilfulness, and others by 
 press of occupation, we comprehend the universal system of 
 faith in a few verses, lest the soul of any should perish by 
 
84 VINCENT. 
 
 ignorance. Retain this faith in your memory, and as you 
 have opportunity, take the contents of each head from the 
 holy Scriptures. For this summary of the faith was not 
 composed according to the fancy of men, but the most impor- 
 tant heads were selected from the whole Scripture to perfect 
 and complete the one doctrine of faith. And in hke manner 
 as a grain of mustard seed contains many branches in a Httle 
 space, so does this faith involve within it all the knowledge 
 of piety contained in the Old and the New Testament. Be- 
 hold therefore," saith Cyril in conclusion, " and hold these tra- 
 ditions which you now receive, and write them on the tables of 
 your hearts." Surely, my brethren, nothing can exceed the 
 force and plainness of this testimony, that the rule of faith 
 in the primitive Church, was the rule which we profess — the 
 Holy Scriptures. 
 
 In another part of his celebrated books, the same Cyril has 
 this observation, (p. 155) "Since there are many things in 
 Scripture which we do not fully understand, why should we 
 trouble our minds with what is not in Scripture ?" 
 
 Again, (p. 170) he asks, "Are not the divine Scriptures 
 our salvation?" 
 
 And again, (p. 244.) "The Holy Ghost," saith Cyril, 
 "dictated the Scriptures — Let us say therefore those things 
 which were spoken by Him: whatever He has not said, we 
 dare not." 
 
 To conclude the testimony of the fathers upon this impor- 
 tant point, brethren, I shall cite but one passage more, and 
 this shall be from Vincent of Lerins — a witness whose evi- 
 dence Dr. Wiseman calls triumphant, although he does not 
 quote his words. In answer to the question. How, in reading 
 the Holy Scriptures, the true Christian shall be directed against 
 the danger of misconstruction, Vincent replies, that " the sacred 
 Scriptures must he interpreted according to the sense which 
 Ecclesiastical tradition in the Catholic and apostolic Church 
 
CONCLUSION. 85 
 
 shall sanction, always observing the rules of universality, an- 
 tiquity and consent." (p. 360.) Or, as the same author 
 has elsewhere expressed it, " In the Catholic Church herself 
 we must take care to hold only that which has been beheved 
 every where, and always, and by all. For this alone is truly 
 and properly Catholic." And such, brethren, is the rule we 
 have been all along defending : the Scriptures as the written 
 law, interpreted by the Church, when the Church was justly 
 called Catholic, that is, general or universal. And therefore 
 we are always ready to have our doctrine tried by this stand- 
 ard, and join most willingly in the appeal to the interpretation 
 of the primitive fathers, because we know that the nearer their 
 writings come to the pure beginning of Christianity, the more 
 they will be found to justify us in our controversy with the 
 Church of Rome. For the very design and object of the 
 English Reformation, was to bring back the Church of Christ 
 to the original standard of primitive Christianity ; and the fun- 
 damental complaint made against the Church of Rome was, 
 that she had brought in novelties upon the original system, 
 and that she defended them, not by arguments drawn from 
 Scripture, according to the interpretation of the primitive 
 Church, but by relying on the assumption that she was infalli- 
 ble, and could not go astray, and that therefore all her doc- 
 trines must be placed on an equality with the Gospel. 
 
 But here, my beloved brethren, we must release you from 
 a series of argument and proof, which I fear you have found 
 too long and too dry to be otherwise than uninteresting, but 
 which I knew not how to abbreviate in justice to the truth. Our 
 next topic, namely, the Papacy, together with the subject of 
 the Councils, will occupy several discourses, every portion of 
 which will have a direct bearing on the points we have been 
 discussing, and the evidence to be adduced will accumulate as 
 we go on, so as to demonstrate, more and more clearly, the 
 fallaciousness of the claim, which the Church of Rome has for 
 
 I 
 
86 CONCLUSION. 
 
 centuries advanced, to be called infallible and Catholic. Ah ! 
 were she indeed entitled to these epithets, what miseries and 
 wretchedness might have been spared to the Christian world ! 
 Had she indeed been possessed of such attributes, how absurd 
 would it have been to make any attempt at Reformation ! To 
 her innovations upon that primitive Church which was truly- 
 Catholic, the necessity of the Reformation must be imputed ; 
 and if that Reformation has brought along with it the inevitable 
 evils of disunion, it is not so much to be charged upon the re- 
 formers, as upon the awful degeneracy, which was not only 
 the sole plea for their perilous task, but which could alone, 
 under God, have made such an enterprise successful. Nor 
 are the modern relaxations of all religious discipline, and the 
 prevailing indifference to ecclesiastical authority, effects for 
 which the cause assigned is not abundantly sufficient, on the 
 most familiar principles of human action. The fetters of spi- 
 ritual despotism once broken, licentiousness of course would 
 follow. Excess of form and ceremony once exposed, con- 
 tempt of all form would be likely to succeed it. The claims 
 of infallibility once proved to be an usurpation, a disregard of 
 all authority above that of private judgment would prevail. 
 Indulgences and superstitions made profitable to the priest- 
 hood, once brought down from their unjust elevation, would be 
 necessarily replaced by the cry of priestcraft against the whole 
 theory and practice of true religion ; the name of saint, once 
 honourable, would become a byword of derision ; and all the 
 bands of veneration for the decision of the Church, in her an- 
 cient and her better days, would be cast aside, as part and par- 
 cel of popery. Thus has it always been, that one extreme 
 produces its opposite; and such was the working of the princi- 
 ple in the progress of the Reformation, that nothing but the re- 
 straining hand of God himself could have kept it within any 
 moderate bounds, and brought out of the chaotic elements of 
 that tremendous conflict, a result which, on the whole, has been 
 
CONCLUSION. 87 
 
 so pure and beneficial. To the rule of faith set up by the 
 Church of Rome, may be fairly ascribed all the evil. To the 
 rule of faith which restored the Bible to its primitive ascend- 
 ency should be attributed all the good, and to the Lord alone 
 should be ascribed all the " glory and the praise, for his mercy 
 and truth's sake." 
 
 May the influence of that only infallible standard be mani- 
 fested more and more, my beloved brethren, until the Church 
 of Rome herself shall have returned to her own first profes- 
 sion; and every discordant portion of the Church Universal 
 shall be united once more, in Catholic harmony and peace. 
 
LECTUEE VI. 
 
 Matt. xvi. 15, 16, 17, 18, 19. — Jesus saitli to them: But whom do you 
 say that I am ? Simon Peter answering, said : Thou art Christ, 
 the Son of the living God. And Jesus answering, said to him : 
 Blessed art thou, Simon Bar-jona; because flesh and blood hath 
 not revealed it to thee, but my Father who is in heaven. And I 
 say to thee : That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build 
 my Church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it: And 
 I will give to thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven ; and what- 
 soever thou shalt bind upon earth, it shall be bound also in heaven: 
 and whatsoever thou shalt loose upon earth, it shall be loosed also 
 in heaven. 
 
 The words which I have read to you, my brethren, are 
 taken from the Doway Bible, that is, the translation of the 
 Scriptures allowed and approved by the Church of Rome, to 
 which, in all questions of controversy between them and us, 
 we are perfectly willing to appeal, so far as any mere transla- 
 tion is entitled to confidence. The passage itself is of cardi- 
 nal importance to their claims, since on it, chiefly, they rest 
 their distinguishing tenet of faith, viz : that the Pope or bishop 
 of Rome, as the successor of the apostle Peter, is the earthly 
 head of the Catholic or Universal Church, throughout the 
 world; and that communion with him is necessary to salva- 
 tion. The consideration of this article of the Roman creed 
 forms the subject of the following lecture, and will probably 
 require two lectures more in order to complete even a con- 
 densed discussion of it. For independently of the general 
 
PAPAL SUPREMACY. 89 
 
 order of evidence and argument belonging to the tenet itself, it 
 is rendered particularly difficult, notonly because of the variety 
 of sentiment existing with regard to it in the Church of Rome, 
 but especially because no article of their creed has undergone 
 a more serious change through the influence of the Reforma- 
 tion. 
 
 That we may explain it to you, brethren, with as much 
 clearness and simplicity as we can, we shall first examine 
 the scriptural evidence of the doctrine as it is set forth by Dr. 
 Wiseman, in its modern and popular form; secondly, state 
 the doctrine as it was professed before the Reformation, and 
 as it continues to be held by the Popes to the present day; 
 and thirdly, point out its influence upon the past history of the 
 world : from which may be fairly inferred what its influence 
 would probably be upon its future history, if ever, in the pro- 
 vidence of God, it should again be suffered to prevail. Of 
 these three topics, the first alone will be amply sufficient for 
 the time allotted to the present lecture. 
 
 We shall now, therefore, without further preface, enter upon 
 our allotted task, by stating Dr. Wiseman's definition of the 
 doctrine. "What," saith he, "do Roman Catholics mean by 
 the supremacy of the Pope?" And the following is his -an- 
 swer: — "It signifies that the Pope or bishop of Rome, as the 
 successor of St. Peter, possesses authority and jurisdiction in 
 all things spiritual over the entire Church, so as to constitute 
 its visible head, and the vicegerent of Christ upon earth. 
 The idea of this supremacy involves two distinct, but closely 
 allied prerogatives: the first is, that the Pope is the centre of 
 unity; the second, that he is the fountain of authority. By 
 the first is signified that all the faithful must be in communion 
 with him, through their respective pastors, who form an un- 
 broken chain of connexion from the lowest member of the 
 flock, to him who has been constituted its universal shepherd. 
 To violate this union and communion constitutes the grievous 
 
90 THE CHURCH OF ROME 
 
 crime of schism, and destroys an essential constituent princi- 
 ple of Christ's religion." (P. 216, Vol. 1.) 
 
 " We likewise," continues our author, " hold the Pope to be 
 the source of authority, as all the subordinate rulers in the 
 Church are subject to him, and receive, directly or indirectly, 
 their jurisdiction from and by him. Thus the executive power 
 is vested in his hands, for all spiritual purposes within the 
 Church ; to him is given the task of confirming his brethren 
 in the faith ; his office is to watch over the correction of abuses 
 and the maintenance of discipline; in case of error springing 
 up in any part, he must make the necessary investigations to 
 discover and condemn it, and either bring the refractory to 
 submission, or separate them, as withered branches, from the 
 vine. In cases of great and influential disorder in faith or 
 practice, he convenes a General Council of the pastors of the 
 Church, presides over it in person or by his legates; and 
 sanctions, by his approbation, its canons or decrees." (P. 
 217.) 
 
 "This supremacy," adds Dr. Wiseman, "is of a character 
 purely spiritual, and has no connexion with any temporal ju- 
 risdiction. The sovereignty of the Pope over his own domi- 
 nions is no essential portion of his dignity; his supremacy was 
 not the less before these dominions were acquired, and should 
 the unsearchable decrees of Providence, in the lapse of ages, 
 deprive the Holy See" (that is, the Church of Rome) "of its 
 temporal sovereignty, as happened to the 7th Pius, through 
 the usurpation of a conqueror, its dominion over the Church 
 and over the consciences of the faithful, would not be thereby 
 impaired." (P. 218.) 
 
 Let us here pause a moment, brethren, and contemplate the 
 idea of the Church of Christ, presented to us by the system of 
 our Roman Catholic brethren". You perceive that it is a per- 
 fect monarchy, of which the Pope is the head, under the name 
 of Christ's vicegerent, but with an extent of empire and pre- 
 
A MONARCHY. 91 
 
 rogative far beyond those of any other potentate. And that I 
 may not be supposed to speak without authority, I quote, once 
 more, the words of our learned advocate. "The Church of 
 Christ has been presented to you," saith he, in the opening of 
 the same discourse, "under the form of a sacred kingdom, 
 wherein all the parts are cemented and firmly bound together, 
 in unity of belief and practice, resulting from a common prin- 
 ciple of faith, under an authority constituted by God . . . The 
 tendency of every institution in the Church to produce and 
 cherish this religious unity .... will lead us naturally to sup- 
 pose, that the authority which principally secures it must like- 
 wise be convergent in its exercise towards the same attribute. 
 We saw," continues he, "how, in the old law, the authority 
 constituted to each, narrowed in successive steps, till it was 
 concentrated in one man and his line; we saw how all the 
 figures of the prophets lead us to expect a form of government 
 justly symbolized as a Monarchy; and although God is to be 
 its ruler, and the Son of David its eternal Head, yet as their 
 action upon man is invisible and indiscernible, while the ob- 
 jects and ends held in view, such as unity of faith, are sensible 
 and dependent on outward circumstances, we might naturally 
 hope to find some such vicarious or representative authority 
 as would, and alone could, secure them in the Church." (215, 
 6.) I have troubled you, brethren, with this passage, simply 
 for the purpose of proving, by Dr. Wiseman's own plain ad- 
 mission, that the form of government in the Church of Rome 
 is a monarchy, of which Christ is truly the eternal King, but 
 of which the Pope, as Christ's vicegerent, is the earthly or 
 temporal sovereign. Now in contradistinction from this, we 
 maintain that the Church is indeed a kingdom in its spiritual 
 relation to Christy but in no other respect whatever; that in 
 its earthly organization it is designed to form, not a kingdom, 
 but a vast republic, the Scriptures containing its constitution 
 and its laws, the bishops and the clergy in their several dis- 
 
92 EVIDENCE 
 
 tricts being the instructors and the judges, while the rights of 
 the people are secured by the universal principle, that no one 
 can be appointed either as instructor or judge, until he is freely 
 approved by themselves. I mention this strong distinction now, 
 because it forms the great dividing line between the two sys- 
 tems, so far as the mere question of government is concerned. 
 The error of the Roman doctrine becomes of far more serious 
 consequence, when it is considered as a point of faith, essential 
 to salvation. 
 
 We are next to enter upon the evidence which our learned 
 advocate relies on, to justify his definition. " The pre-emi- 
 nence claimed by Roman Catholics for the bishop of Rome or 
 the Pope," saith he, " being based upon the circumstance that 
 he is the successor of St. Peter, it follows, that the right where- 
 by that claim is supported must naturally depend upon the 
 demonstration, that the apostle was possessed of such a supe- 
 rior authority and jurisdiction. First, then, we must examine 
 whether St. Peter was invested by our Saviour with a superi- 
 ority, not merely of dignity, but of jurisdiction also, over the 
 rest of the apostles; and if so, we must further determine, 
 whether this was merely a pei^onal prerogative, or such as 
 was necessarily transmitted to his successors to the end of time." 
 
 According to this division of his argument. Dr. Wiseman 
 proceeds to allege the text, as proof that the authority in 
 question was conferred by our Saviour on St. Peter. " Whom 
 say ye that I am?" saith our Lord to his apostles. "Simon 
 Peter answering said. Thou art Christ, the Son of the living 
 God. And Jesus answering, said to him : Blessed art thou, 
 Simon Bar-jona, because flesh and blood hath not revealed it to 
 thee, but my Father who is in heaven. And I say to thee, 
 that thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church, 
 and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. And I will 
 give to thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven; and whatso- 
 ever thou shall bind upon earth, it shall be bound also in 
 
EXAMINED. 93 
 
 heaven, and whatsoever thou shalt loose upon earth, it shall be 
 loosed also in heaven." It may be proper to repeat, brethren, 
 by the way, that not only this passage, but every other quota- 
 tion from Scripture in this lecture, is taken from the Roman 
 version, commonly called the Doway Bible. 
 
 There is another text referred to, in addition to this, where, 
 according to the Gospel of St. John, our Saviour, after his 
 resurrection, asked Peter three times whether he loved him, 
 and three times gave him a charge to feed his sheep and his 
 lambs; meaning, as the Church of Rome professes to believe, 
 the whole flock — apostles and all. Some considerable patience 
 and attention will be necessary to understand the argument, 
 which, out of these materials, professes to construct the mighty 
 fabric of papal supremacy. 
 
 The first branch of the evidence is derived from the name 
 Peter, given by our Lord to the apostle. Our learned ad- 
 vocate asserts that it signifies the same thing as the rock on 
 which the Saviour promises to build his Church, because the 
 language spoken by our Lord was Syriac; and in that lan- 
 guage, there is but one word to signify the name of the apostle, 
 and a rock or a stone. So that the translation, according to 
 this notion, should be. Thou art a rock, and on this rock I 
 will build my Church, Hence Dr. Wiseman concludes, that 
 the rock on which the Church was to be built, was Peter, per- 
 sonally and individually; and this he calls the first prerogative 
 of the apostle. 
 
 Now in answer to this, I would observe, in the first place, 
 that we do not know whether our Saviour spake in Syriac, or 
 in Chaldee. If in the latter, then there are two words, {kiph 
 and kipha) instead of one, just as there are in the original 
 Greek, and likewise in their own Latin Vulgate. It may next 
 be observed, that the assertion is made in the very face of the 
 Greek original, as well as their own Latin version, where the 
 word signifying Peter, and that which signifies the rock, are 
 
94 THE SCRIPTURAL ARGUMENT 
 
 indeed from the same root, but vary nevertheless both in gender 
 and in termination. The word translated Peter, means properly 
 a stone, and we grant, most readily, that the apostle was 
 a principal foundation-stone in the building of the Church. 
 But the rock on which Peter himself, together with the whole 
 Church, was built, is the Rock of ages, the rock Christ, the 
 rock which Peter confessed, when he said "Thou art Christ, 
 the Son of the living God." 
 
 In order to understand this matter thoroughly, however, it 
 must be observed, that the passage is figurative, or metaphori- 
 cal ; and therefore, according^to the cardinal rule of interpre- 
 tation, it must be interpreted in strict consistency with the 
 subjects of the Saviour's promise, which are two ; namely, 
 Peter and the Church. With regard to the Church, it is often 
 called in Scripture, a spiritual temple, a building fitly framed 
 together in the Lord. Being a divine structure, it can stand on 
 none other than a divine foundation, upon the rock of God's 
 own infinite love and mercy in Christ. " Therefore, behold," 
 saith the Lord by the prophet Isaiah, " I lay in Zion for a 
 foundation a stone, a tried stone, a precious corner stone, a 
 sure foundation." (Is. xxviii. 16.) Which text the Roman 
 expositors allow to mean none but the Redeemer. " No one 
 can lay another foundation but that which is laid," saith St. 
 Paul, (1 Cor. iii. 11,) "which is Christ Jesus." "Be you," 
 saith St. Peter himself, "as living stones built up, a spiritual 
 house, a holy priesthood." (1 Pet. ii. 5.) In these pas- 
 sages we see the Church, the spiritual temple, constructed of 
 all the people of God as living stones, and resting upon Christ, 
 the eternal rock, as their sure foundation. Thus far the figure 
 is consistent and plain. Now when we look from the Church, 
 to the individual case of Peter, it is obvious that he must have 
 been himself one of these lively stones in this spiritual house: 
 for otherwise, being personally a sinner like the rest, he could 
 not have been a partaker of Christ's salvation. But surely it 
 
EXAMINED. 95 
 
 would be absurd to say, that the foundation on which a build- 
 ing stands, can be, at the same time, a stone in the wall of the 
 building. And therefore we may perceive, that it is totally in- 
 consistent with the figure which our Lord employed, to regard 
 Peter as being a lively stone in the edifice of the Church, and 
 at the same time to consider him as the rock which sustained 
 the whole. In a secondary sense, however, the word founda- 
 tion is applied to signify the lower parts of a building; those 
 which are first laid down, and on which the superstructure is 
 designed to be erected. And in this sense it would be totally 
 irreconcilable with the correct structure of the metaphor, to 
 talk of but one stone for the whole building. The principal 
 foundation was one, for it was the Rock — Christ Jesus. But 
 the secondary foundation could not be one stone, but many. 
 Hence we read that Abraham, the father of the faithful, "looked 
 for a city that hath foundations,''^ (Heb. xi. 10,) viz: the 
 heavenly Jerusalem, whose builder and maker is God. And 
 accordingly the wall of this new Jerusalem is described in the 
 book of the Revelations, (xxi. 14,) as having " twelve founda- 
 tions, and in them, the twelve names of the twelve apostles of 
 the Lamb." Now here we have the very word applied by St. 
 John himself, not to Peter only, but to the whole twelve of 
 the apostles; and ahhough it may be readily allowed that 
 the honour of being the first stone laid in the foundation 
 belongs to Peter, yet that is a very difierent matter from having 
 the whole Church, apostles and all, built upon him alone. 
 
 Thus much may suffice, for the present, upon the text, so 
 far as it regards the name of Peter, and the rock of his faith 
 and confession, Christ. There are other considerations to be 
 mentioned by and by, which will show that this is the only 
 consistent meaning. But let us pass on to examine the next 
 prerogative granted to him; "I will give to thee," saith our 
 Lord, " the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatsoever 
 thou shalt bind on earth, it shall be bound also in heaven ; and 
 
96 THE SCRIPTURAL ARGUMENT 
 
 whatsoever thou shalt loose upon earth, it shall be loosed also 
 in heaven." 
 
 Our learned advocate takes considerable pains to prove, that 
 this text imports certain powers of authority and government 
 over the Church. And we dispute it not. The words are too 
 strong and clear to admit of controversy. But whether these 
 powers were peculiar to Peter, and especially whether they 
 were designed to give him a supremacy over the other apostles, 
 are very different things, which can by no means be proved 
 by the passage in question. For we must carefully observe 
 that our Saviour does not say " I give thee," but *' I will give 
 thee," plainly marking a promise to be fulfilled at some future 
 time. A grant, precisely similar in substance, is made by 
 our Lord a little afterwards to all the others, (xviii. ch. of 
 Matt.) in these words; "Amen, I say unto you, whatsoever 
 you shall bind upon earth shall be bound also in heaven; and 
 whatsoever you shall loose upon earth, shall be loosed also in 
 heaven." And the fulfilment of these promises is recorded by 
 all the evangelists, although the promise made to Peter is men- 
 tioned by St. Matthew only. And here, brethren, I must ask 
 your particular attention to a fact commonly overlooked in 
 this argument, and yet in my mind conclusive as to the true 
 sense of the Scriptures. It is the fact that our Saviour's per- 
 sonal ministry was of necessity confined to the Jews, until the 
 offering of his great atonement for the whole world. Hence 
 he declares so clearly : " I am not sent but to the lost sheep of 
 the house of Israel." And consequently, in the first commis- 
 sion given to his apostles he expressly saith, (Matt. x. 5.) 
 " Go not into the way of the Gentiles, and into the cities of the 
 Samaritans enter not. But go rather to the lost sheep of the 
 house of Israel; and going, preach, saying. The kingdom of 
 heaven is at hand." But after his precious sacrifice was com- 
 pleted, and he had arisen in triumph from the dead, the field 
 was gloriously enlarged. " All power," saith he to his apos- 
 
EXAMINED. 97 
 
 ties, " is given to me in heaven and in earth." And the full 
 commission is now hestotced upon them which had been p?'o- 
 mised long before, " Go ye into the whole world and preach 
 the Gospel to every creature." We see from this, distinctly, 
 that the words addressed to Peter in the first instance, could 
 not have been intended to confer upon him at that time any 
 immediate privilege of government in the Catholic or Univer- 
 sal Church, because the Church in its enlarged and Catholic 
 aspect was not committed to them until after the Saviour's 
 resurrection. And hence it follows, that as the promise must 
 of necessity be referred to a subsequent fulfilment, the fulfil- 
 ment itself must be taken as its only certain interpreter ; for 
 that which Christ did^ we may be quite sure, was the very 
 thing which he had promised to do. 
 
 Now although, as I have stated, the actual fulfilment of the 
 promise by the grant of the apostolic commission, is carefully 
 recorded by all the evangelists, yet its detail is most complete 
 ■in the Gospel of St. John. And there we read it in the fol- 
 lowing terms : " As the Father hath sent me," saith the Sa- 
 viour, " I also send you. When he had said this, he breathed 
 on them; and he said to them. Receive ye the Holy Ghost: 
 Whose sins you shall forgive, they are forgiven them. And 
 whose sins you shall retain, they are retained.'^'' Here then, 
 we have the whole extent of the high and holy authority which 
 constituted the apostles the ambassadors of heaven. " As the 
 Father hath sent me, I also send you." Not a promise for the 
 future, " / ivill send,^^ or " / will give,''^ but " I do send, 
 NOW." And the power is forthwith conferred, without which 
 the commission could never have been executed. He breathes 
 on them and saith: ^^ Receive ye the Holy Ghost,''"' The 
 spiritual work requires the spiritual faculty, and both are pro- 
 vided for in their appointed season. We see therefore in this, 
 the whole explanation of the matter. No separate commission 
 is granted to Peter. The promise was made at one period to 
 
 K 
 
98 THE SCBIPTURAL ARGUMENT 
 
 him, and at another to his brethren, but all are united in the 
 ONE FULFILMENT, all receivc the same authority, all become 
 foundations in the spiritual building — the Church of God. 
 
 As for the other text, where our Lord asks Peter three times, 
 whether he loves him, and receiving each time an affirmative 
 answer, (John xxi. 15, &c.) charges the penitent apostle 
 thrice, to feed his sheep and his lambs, there really seems to 
 be nothing in it, on which it would be possible to found an ar- 
 gument for Peter's supremacy. And yet the advocates for the 
 prerogatives of the pope imagine, that in these words our Lord 
 committed the whole Church, apostles and all, to the peculiar 
 care of Peter. It is not a little interesting to observe how very 
 different a construction Peter himself puts upon his office, when 
 giving, in his first epistle, (v. ch. 1, 2, 3,) a similar charge. 
 " The ancients therefore," saith he, " that are among you, I 
 beseech, who am myself also an ancient, and a witness of 
 Christ, as also a partaker of that glory which is to be revealed 
 in time to come, feed the flock of God which is among you, 
 taking care thereof, not by constraint but willingly, according 
 to God, neither for the sake of filthy lucre, but voluntarily; 
 neither as domineering over the clergy, but being made a pat- 
 tern of the flock from the heart. And when the Prince of pas- 
 tors shall appear, you shall receive a never fading crown of 
 glory." Here the apostle, according to the Roman Catholic 
 theory, and the practice of the popes who call themselves his 
 successors, ought to have reminded the elders of his sovereign 
 authority. Instead of saying, "I beseech you, who am also 
 an ancient and a witness of Christ," he should have said: " I 
 exhort you, who am the supreme ruler and vicegerent of Christ, 
 to whose charge and government you are all committed." 
 Setting aside the forced and unnatural construction, however, 
 which Dr. Wiseman and his brethren endeavour to put upon 
 the narrative of St. John, the peculiar circumstances of St. 
 Peter at the time will readily point out the true meaning. He 
 
EXAMINED. 99 
 
 had thrice denied his Master — the only one of the eleven who 
 had so deeply disgraced his apostolic character. And his com- 
 passionate Lord kindly affords him the opportunity to make 
 three professions of his love, in order to wipe out the humilia- 
 tion of his three denials. And still farther to show that the 
 Saviour had fully restored him to favour, He gives him the 
 apostolic charge to feed his sheep, which is the indispensable 
 duty of every pastor. As to the expression from which our 
 learned advocate would fain draw an inference of favour, 
 "lovest thou me more than these?" it is surely enough for us 
 to remember the principle laid down by the Redeemer, in the 
 case of another flagrant but penitent transgressor : " Many 
 sins are forgiven her, because she hath loved much.'''' (Luke 
 vii. 47.) 
 
 There are a number of minor arguments which our Roman 
 advocates are in the habit of advancing in favour of St. Peter's 
 supremacy; and although at the risk of wearying you, my 
 brethren, I am desirous to examine them all, before I turn to 
 the decisive contradiction which other portions of the Sacred 
 Volume seem to furnish against the papal doctrine. One of these 
 arguments is derived from the statement of St. John, that our 
 Saviour gave St. Peter a new name when he was first brought 
 to him by his brother Andrew: (John i. 42) "Thou shalt be 
 called Cephas, which is interpreted, Peter." And Dr. Wiseman 
 ingeniously compares it to the cases of Abram and Jacob, be- 
 cause the new name given to the first, imported, that Abraham 
 . should be the father of many nations, and the appellation con- 
 ferred upon the second signified, that the patriarch should be a 
 prince with God. And hence, if his readers could be induced 
 to think that Peter's name was intended to signify that he 
 should be the spiritual father of the world and the prince of 
 the whole Church, it would undoubtedly be a great point 
 gained towards the doctrine of the pope's supremacy. 
 
 But the simple truth is, that in Scripture, the giving a new 
 
100 THE SCRIPTURAL ARGUMENT 
 
 name is only the designation of the character, according to the 
 design of God, whether it be for honour or dishonour. Thus 
 in the book of Hosea, (i. 4, 6, 9,) we read that The Lord gave 
 names to the three children of the prophet. His wife bore 
 a son, "And the Lord said to him, call his name Jezrahel, for 
 yet a Httle while and I will visit the blood of Jezrahel upon 
 the house of Jehu, and I will cause to cease the kingdom of 
 Israel." Again she bore a daughter, and he said to him, "Call 
 her name Lo-ruhamah," (which signifies, without mercy,) 
 " for I will not add any more to have mercy on the house of 
 Israel, but will utterly forget them." And again she bore a 
 son. "And he said, call his name Lo-ammi," (which signifies, 
 not my peo^Ze,) " for you are not my people, and I will not be 
 your God." We see from this, of which there are many other 
 examples, that the giving of a name is not always an indication 
 of privilege or favour, but sometimes the very contrary; and 
 therefore it results, that each case must be viewed in connexion 
 with its own circumstances, and be interpreted accordingly. 
 Now in compliance with this plain rule of justice, let the name 
 given to Peter be considered in the light of his ov/n Gospel, 
 that is, the Gospel of St. Mark, for I have already had occa- 
 sion to mention, that this Gospel was universally regarded by 
 the ancient fathers as being the substance of the preaching of 
 St. Peter, as the Gospel of St. Luke was of the preaching of 
 St. Paul. In the 3d ch. of St. Mark's Gospel, then, we have 
 it written, with great brevity and simplicity, (v. 16, 17) that 
 our Lord "gave to Simon the name of Peter; and James, the 
 son of Zebedee, and John, the brother of James, he named 
 Boanerges, which is The sons of thunder,''^ Here, therefore, 
 brethren, we have St. Peter's own account of this matter. On 
 his own name he does not dwell, nor does he even mention its 
 meaning. While he seems desirous to pay special regard to 
 James and John, not only stating that our Lord also gave 
 them names, but adding the sublime signification. And surely 
 
EXA31INED. 101 
 
 it is obvious, that if any thing of supremacy or power is to be 
 gathered from names merely, their names were far more likely 
 to bear that character than Peter's. To be o. foundation stone 
 in the spiritual building of the Church, was indeed honourable 
 and important, but the thunders were the appropriate tokens of 
 God's own presence on Mount Sinai, and were never appointed 
 to wait upon any inferior being. Indeed their most common 
 association in Scripture, is with the Word of God and the 
 power of God. Thus, in the book of Job, (xxvi. 14) "Who 
 shall be able to behold the thunder of his greatness?" Again, 
 in the Psalms, (civ. 7) "At thy rebuke, (O Lord) they flee, at 
 the voice of thy thunder they shall fear." Again, in the 
 Apocalypse, St. John, beholding in vision the throne of God, 
 (iv. 5) saith, that "from the throne proceeded lightnings and 
 voices and thunderings." And again, (x. 3) the mighty Angel 
 whose description is such as can only belong to Christ him- 
 self, (xi. 3) is said to " come down from heaven clothed with a 
 cloud, and a rainbow upon his head ; and his face was as the 
 sun, and his feet as pillars of fire, and he had in his hand a 
 little book open ; and he set his right foot upon the sea, and 
 his left foot upon the land; and he cried out with a loud voice, 
 as when a lion roareth, and when he had cried out, seven 
 thunders uttered their voices." If, therefore, the circumstance 
 of our Lord's giving names to his apostles, be indicative of 
 privilege or favour, we see that he conferred a name on James 
 and John as well as on Peter ; and if power or authority is to 
 be inferred from the signification of the names, it seems abun- 
 dantly manifest that the supremacy would be, not on the side 
 of him who was called a foundation stone, but rather on that 
 of the sons of thunder. 
 
 Another class of passages is often adduced by the ingenious 
 advocates of Roman supremacy, in which Peter appears the 
 first to speak and to act, as if he were a kind of leader amongst 
 the apostles. Now it is very true that he was the most for- 
 
 k2 
 
102 THE SCRIPTURAL ARGU3IENT 
 
 ward, ardent, and hasty of the apostolic company, on many 
 occasions. Some of these instances are to his praise, and 
 some the contrary. As for example, that noted instance of 
 his rashness, (Mat. xvi. 22, 23) where he undertook to rebuke 
 his Lord, contradicting the express prediction of the Saviour 
 by saying : " Lord, be it far from thee; this shall not be unto thee. 
 But he, turning, said unto Peter: Go after me, Satan, thou art 
 a scandal unto me, because thou dost not relish the things that 
 are of God, but the things that are of men." In this text, 
 truly, the Roman expositors of the Doway Bible admit that the 
 language might be translated, "Begone from me," or as our 
 version has it, " Get thee behind wie," instead of " Go after 
 me, Satan." I quote their own Scriptures, however, as I have 
 promised, in order to do their argument all the justice in my 
 power. But even when the passage is thus softened, it is 
 abundantly plain that St. Peter acted with singular temerity, 
 and received a proportionate rebuke. Nor was the besetting 
 sin of the warm-hearted apostle cured, even by this sharp 
 reproof. For again, in the night before the crucifixion, when 
 our Lord kindly predicts Peter's approaching denial, he refuses 
 to believe the warning, and proud in his own self-confidence, 
 falls into the snare of the tempter, at the very time when he 
 thought himself ready to go with his divine Master to prison 
 and to death. 
 
 That St. Peter, therefore, should be a kind of leader amongst 
 the rest, is nothing strange, when we behold these proofs of 
 his ardent temper, and remember that he is also supposed to 
 have been the oldest of the band, and perhaps the only one 
 who was at that time married. But if this were all for which 
 our Roman brethren contended, we should not think it worth 
 while to dispute the matter. Any one that carefully reads the 
 Gospels will see, indeed, that there was no regular leader, no 
 appointed spokesman, and nothing like an order of rank or 
 precedency established amongst the apostles, while their Lord 
 
EXAMINED. 103 
 
 was with them. And yet, if it had been otherwise, what 
 would it prove for Peter's supremacy? Absokitely nothing. 
 He that occupies the first place amongst his equals, surely 
 does not thereby assert that he has any authority over them. 
 What dominion has the presiding judge of a court, or the fore- 
 man of a jury, or the chairman of a committee, or the file- 
 leader of a band of soldiers, over those who act with them? 
 Manifestly none whatever. Questions of authoritative rule and 
 government are never placed on such a trifling ground as mere 
 precedency, even in the offices of earth. How much less 
 should we be willing to admit so weak an evidence of supre- 
 macy, amongst the apostolic ministry of the Gospel ! 
 
 The next argument of Dr. Wiseman has more apparent 
 force, namely, that our blessed Saviour promised to Peter the 
 keys of the kingdom of heaven, that this promise imports 
 dominion, and that it was given to him alone. 
 
 To this we answer, that the kingdom of heaven of which 
 our Lord promised Peter the keys, signified the Church mili- 
 tant on earth, which is indeed the kingdom of heaven, because 
 it consists of those who acknowledge the King of heaven for 
 their Sovereign, whose Son is their Redeemer, whose Spirit is 
 their Sanctifier, whose Word is their law, and whose promised 
 glory is the recompense of their celestial reward. And thus 
 we read of the application of the phrase continually. The 
 kingdom of heaven is compared to ten virgins who took their 
 lamps to meet the bridegroom, and five of them were wise, and 
 five were foolish. Again, the kingdom of heaven is like unto 
 a net cast into the sea, in which were bad fish as well as good. 
 Again, the kingdom of heaven is like unto a field, in which an 
 enemy sowed tares among the wheat ; in all which compari- 
 sons our Lord plainly points out the Church on earth, which 
 contains the good and the evil, the true and the false; whereas 
 the Church above, the new Jerusalem, will contain none but 
 the holy and the pure. Again, the kingdom of heaven is 
 
104 THE SCRIPTURAL ARGUMENT 
 
 likened to a grain of mustard-seed, which, when it is sown, is 
 the least of all seeds, but afterwards becometh a great tree, so 
 that the fowls of the air can lodge amono- the branches : which 
 points out the small beginning of the Church in the hands of 
 the apostles, and its subsequent increase to its present magni- 
 tude. But neither the keys of the kingdom of heaven in the 
 future world, nor yet the keys of the bottomless abyss, have 
 ever been consigned to mortal hand. Hence, in our Lord's 
 own description of the final day of account, it is not St. Peter 
 but himself that occupies the throne of judgment; and the divi- 
 sion of mankind into the two great ranks of the sheep and the 
 goats, or the righteous and the wicked, is not made by the 
 apostle, but by the angels of God. And in like manner we 
 read in the x\pocalypse, that St. John, in vision, beheld the 
 Saviour, (1 ch. 17) and heard him saying, "Fear not, I am 
 the First and the Last, and alive and was dead, and behold I 
 am living for ever and ever, and have the keys of death and 
 of hell,'''' Again we read, (ch. iii. 7) " These things saith the 
 Holy One and the True One, who hath the hey of David: 
 He that openeth and no man shutteth, shutteth and no man 
 openeth.^^ Here then, we see, that the keys promised to Peter 
 could only have been the keys of the Church below — the 
 kingdom of heaven upon earth ; since about sixty years after 
 our Lord's resurrection, as all agree, the Saviour expressly 
 declares to St. John, that the keys of death and hell, and the 
 key of David, which is the key of heavenly glory, are in his 
 own hands. 
 
 This being distinctly understood, we are prepared to inter- 
 pret, without any danger of error, the precise character of the 
 keys promised to Peter. For it is exactly tantamount to the 
 apostolic power of establishing the Church, by preaching the 
 faith, on which, as on a rock, the Church was founded; pre- 
 scribing its laws, rules, forms, and discipline; opening the door 
 of the Church in baptism, shutting it in excommunication, and 
 
EXAMINED. 105 
 
 regulating it in every point of order which its prosperity re- 
 quired ; tor all of which, as has been already stated, the apostles 
 had the special gifts of the Holy Ghost; and in all of which, 
 although St. Peter and St. Paul undoubtedly held a certain 
 pre-eminence, yet the power of the keys and the authority of 
 the apostolate was one and the same. 
 
 The last allegation that requires notice, brethren, is the pro- 
 mise of our Lord, that the gates of hell shall not prevail against 
 the Church, taken in connexion with the promise to build that 
 Church on the rock — which rock our Roman Catholic advo- 
 cate imagines to be the person of the apostle Peter, instead of 
 the faith which he possessed. But it is perfectly obvious, that 
 these words cannot afford any aid in settling the point in con- 
 troversy. We all acknowledge that while the Church is built 
 upon the rock, the gates or the powers of hell shall not prevail 
 against it. The question whether the rock is Christ, or Peter, 
 is the point at issue, and remains just as it was before. 
 
 I have now discussed the evidence of Scripture, on which 
 Dr. Wiseman, in common with every Roman Catholic, rests 
 the claim of St. Peter to be considered the prince, the pastor, 
 and the ruler of the other apostles and of the whole Church 
 of Christ. And the remainder of our lecture will be devoted 
 to another class of passages, which to my mind, seem at war 
 with their doctrine. I am, indeed, by no means free from fear, 
 brethren, that so minute and prolonged an examination may 
 weary you ; but it should be remembered that the question is 
 vital to the Church of Rome. In their esteem, this doctrine 
 constitutes a point of faith, which cannot be rejected tvithout 
 peril of damnation. And therefore, in love to them, and in 
 Christian affection for their spiritual welfare, as well as in 
 justice to our blessed reformers, we ought to feel a lively inte- 
 rest in all that belongs to the discussion. 
 
 In the first place then, we remark, that if the Church of 
 our Lord was really designed to be founded on the person of 
 
106 SCRIPTURAL EVIDE]VCE 
 
 Peter, so that on this depended the fiilfih-nent of the promise, 
 that the gates of hell should not prevail against it, we should 
 expect to find the doctrine often repeated, placed in the clearest 
 and the strongest light, and especially set forth by Peter him- 
 self and the other apostles. 
 
 Instead of which, the text which is mainly relied upon is 
 a single text, occurring only in St. Matthew's Gospel, and not 
 adverted to by Mark, Luke or John ; nor is there any refer- 
 ence to the doctrine in all the acts of the apostles, nor any in 
 the fourteen epistles of St. Paul, the general epistle of St. 
 James, the two epistles of St. Peter himself, the epistle of St. 
 Jude, the three epistles of St. John, and the Apocalypse or 
 book of the Revelations. I do not say that the text is the less 
 true, because it occurs but once. God forbid ! But I do say, 
 that whereas the article is maintained to be a cardinal part of 
 the faith, and one which must have been brought into constant 
 practical operation if the Roman view of it be true, it is unac- 
 countable that we should never see it stated but once, and that, 
 as I trust I have shown, in a manner which admits of a very 
 different explication. 
 
 Manifest it is, that if the Saviour designed St. Peter to have 
 been the prince, ruler and governor of the other apostles and 
 of the whole Church, St. Peter himself must have known the 
 fact, and felt it to be his solemn duty to make it known to 
 others. How is it, then, that in St. Mark's Gospel — the Gos- 
 pel which is universally acknowledged to contain the preach- 
 ing of St. Peter — there is not one word about the matter? 
 Again, we have two epistles of St. Peter's own writing, in 
 which ingenuity itself cannot find one word that can be twisted 
 into the shape of superior authority. The first begins thus : 
 " Peter, an apostle of Jesus Christ, to the strangers dispersed 
 throughout Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia and Bilhynia." 
 The second commences in a similar style : "Simon Peter, a 
 servant and an apostle of Jesus Christ, to them who have 
 
AGAINST Peter's supremacy. 107 
 
 obtained equal faith with us," addressed, doubtless, to the same 
 persons as the former one, because, in the 3d cliapter of it he 
 saith, "Behold, this is the second epistle I write to you, my 
 dearly beloved." In contrast with this, we have a Catholic 
 or general epistle from the pen of the apostle Jude, and ano- 
 ther from the apostle James. Why, if Peter supposed himself 
 the ruler of the whole Church, did not he leave behind him at 
 least some Catholic or general epistles? St. John, the other 
 son of thunder, addresses Christians by the name, sometimes, 
 of Little chilch'en, sometimes, Infants, sometimes. Fathers; 
 but his favourite title is Little children. Whereas St. Peter 
 only uses one appellation, and that is. Brethren. St. Paul 
 speaks strongly of discipline, of the delivering of men unto 
 Satan that they may learn not to blaspheme, and of his apos- 
 tolic rod; but there is not a word of all this in the two epistles 
 of him, who is imagined to be the prince, the ruler, the very 
 VICEGERENT OF Christ. How could this be so, if St. Peter 
 were what the Church of Rome supposes? 
 
 But this is far from being the whole of the Scriptural evi- 
 dence against this claim. For we read, in the Gospels, of 
 many occasions, on which the apostles disputed who should 
 be the greatest; from which it is manifest, that this very ques- 
 tion of supremacy was frequently discussed amongst them, 
 and in every instance our blessed Lord discouraged it, and in- 
 culcated an humble equality. Thus, (Matt. xx. 25) when the 
 mother of James and John desired a superior place for her 
 children, and the other apostles were moved with indignation, 
 we read, that "Jesus called them to him and said; you know 
 that the princes of the Gentiles lord it over them; and they 
 that are the greater exercise power upon them. It shall not 
 he so among you; but whosoever will be the greater among 
 you, let him be your minister; and he who would be the first 
 among you, shall be your servant." 
 
 Again, (Matt, xxiii. 8) warning his apostles against the love 
 
108 SCRIPTURAL EVIDENCE 
 
 of superior station, he saith : " Be ye not called Rabbi : for 
 one is your Master, and all ye are brethren,'''' 
 
 Again, (Luke ix. 46) we read, that "there entered a 
 thought into them, which of them should be the greater. But 
 Jesus, seeing the thoughts of their heart, took a child and set 
 him by him; and said to them; Whosoever shall receive this 
 child in my name, receiveth me; and whosoever shall receive 
 me, receiveth him that sent me. For he that is the least 
 among you all, he is the greatest." 
 
 Again, (Luke xxi. 24) "There was a strife amongst them, 
 which of them should seem to be the greater. And he said to 
 them: the kings of the Gentiles lord it over them, and they 
 that have power over them are called benefactors. But you 
 not so: but he who is the greatest among you, let him be as 
 the least, and he that is the leader as he that serveth. For 
 which is greater, he that sitteth at table or he that serveth? 
 Is not he that sitteth at table? But I am in the midst of you 
 as he that serveth ; and you are they who have continued with 
 me in my temptations; and I appoint unto you, as my Father 
 hath appointed to me, a kingdom. That you may eat and 
 drink at my table in my kingdom, and may sit upon thrones, 
 judging the twelve tribes of Israel." 
 
 Now all these instances of the apostles' solicitude upon the 
 point of supremacy, are quoted from the Roman Catholic ver- 
 sion, called the Doway Bible, and they are all related as 
 having occurred after the promise of the keys, with the assu- 
 rance that the Church should be built upon the rock, which 
 every Roman theologian supposes to signify the grant of 
 this supremacy to Peter. So that neither Peter nor his breth- 
 ren could possibly have understood our Saviour's words ac- 
 cording to the doctrine of the Church of Rome, for if they 
 had, they surely would not afterwards have disputed which of 
 them should be the greatest. That point, at least, they must 
 have looked upon as settled in Peter's favour, and have treated 
 
AGAINST Peter's supremacy. 109 
 
 him with deference accordingly. Neither does it seem to me 
 that the various reproofs of our Lord are consistent with the 
 Roman interpretation; for on that ground, would he not have 
 rebuked their want of acquiescence in his declared will, and 
 have reminded them that he had constituted Peter their gover- 
 nor and chief already? 
 
 Passing on from the Gospels to the Acts of the Apostles, 
 Peter appears prominently on several important occasions, as 
 a speaker, a preacher, and a worker of miracles; but in no 
 instance does he assert or exercise any superior power or do- 
 minion. So far from it, that on some of these, he looks hke 
 one more ruled than ruling. Thus, when the conversion of 
 the Samaritans, through the ministry of Philip, was made 
 known to the apostles who were in Jerusalem, (Acts viii. 14) 
 ''Hhey sent to them Peter and John.^^ Here is an inversion of 
 authority. Instead of Peter sending the other apostles, they 
 send him. Again, (Acts xi. 2) when Peter returned from the 
 conversion and baptism of Cornelius, and was "come up to 
 Jerusalem, they who were of the circumcision disputed against 
 him :" and Peter explains the whole matter, concluding by 
 saying, "Who was I, that I could oppose God?" Neither he 
 nor his accusers on this occasion, seem to have had any notion 
 of his superior dignity, as the prince of the apostles and vice- 
 gerent of Christ. 
 
 Again, (Acts xv.) we read, that the apostles and elders 
 came together to consider the question, whether the Gentile 
 converts should be bound by the ceremonial law. And this 
 is what the Roman Catholic doctors call the first Apostolic 
 Council. But it certainly does not appear that Peter sum- 
 moned this Council, nor that he presided over it, nor that he 
 opened the proceedings, nor that he framed its definitive de- 
 cree, nor that he performed any act of distinct approbation; 
 nearly all of which would have belonged to his office, accord- 
 ing to the Roman theory. "The apostles and elders came to- 
 
 L 
 
110 SCRIPTURAL EVIDENCE 
 
 gether," saith the Scripture. "When there was much dis- 
 puting, Peter rose up," and delivered his opinion. After he 
 had concluded, Barnabas and Paul related "what great signs 
 and wonders God had wrought among the Gentiles by them." 
 "And after they had held their peace, James answered, say- 
 ing; men, brethren, hear me. Simon hath told in what man- 
 ner God first visited the Gentiles, to take out of them a people 
 to his name. And to this agree the words of the prophets." 
 "Wherefore I judge," continues the apostle James, "that 
 they who from among the Gentiles are converted to God, are 
 not to be disquieted." .... "Then it pleased the apostles and 
 ancients, with the whole Church, to choose men of their own 
 company, and to send them to Antioch, with Paul and Barna- 
 bas, Judas who was surnamed Barsabas, and Silas, chief men 
 among the brethren, writing by their hand: The apostles and 
 ancients, brethren, to the brethren of the Gentiles, greeting," 
 &c. Now throughout this whole important transaction, it is 
 impossible to reconcile the facts with the Roman doctrine. 
 For had St. Peter been then acknowledged as the ruler and 
 chief, the vicegerent of Christ, to whose care the whole 
 Church, apostles and all, had been committed, his single judg- 
 ment would have been sufficient without any council ; or at 
 least, when the council assembled, he would have presided in- 
 stead of James, and in the final decree, his name would have 
 been specially set forth as the authoritative ruler of the whole 
 matter. 
 
 But the evidence of Scripture does not rest here. We find 
 the whole of the remaining portion of the book of the Acts, 
 which is much the greater part, devoted chiefly to the labours 
 of St. Paul, and Peter is hardly named again. Nor, if we 
 take the sacred record in its own integrity, does there seem 
 any room to doubt, that if the supremacy of one apostle over 
 the others had been a part of the divine system, the claim of 
 St. Paul to that supremacy would stand on by far the stronger 
 
AGAINST Peter's supremacy. Ill 
 
 ground. Peter was indeed called first, and Paul last; but it is 
 altogether consistent with many other parts of the divine eco- 
 nomy, that the last should be first, and that the elder should 
 serve the younger. The call of Peter was like that of the 
 other apostles; but Paul was the subject of prophecy, he was 
 converted by a vision, and was chosen in connexion with a 
 miracle. His labours, his giits, his sufferings, his share in 
 the Scriptures of the New Testament, of which his writings 
 form a larger portion than half the other authors put together, 
 — his comprehensive, deep, and wonderful knowledge of divine 
 truth — his being raised up into heaven, where he heard things 
 not lawful for man to utter — take the whole of this together, 
 brethren, and surely it cannot be disputed, that the weight of 
 Scriptural evidence is greatly in his favour. 
 
 I shall add but two observations more to this protracted ex- 
 amination of the Word of God, upon the point before us. The 
 one is, that St. Paul himself allows no supremacy to Peter. 
 For this is his language in his epistle to the Galatians: — 
 "James and Cephas and John, who seemed to be pillars, gave 
 to me and Barnabas the right hand of fellowship, that we 
 should go to the Gentiles and they to the circumcision." Now 
 here, brethren, we have Peter or Cephas named along with 
 James and John, but not named first, nor with any kind of 
 distinction. St. Paul merely says of the whole three, that 
 they seemed to be pillars; and then expressly asserts, that he 
 and Barnabas were to go to the Gentiles, and Peter to the cir- 
 cumcision. Where is Peter's supremacy, his government over 
 the wliole Church, his prerogative of authority as the vice- 
 gerent of Christ? Only imagine the Pope of Rome to be 
 placed in this unceremonious style between two other bishops, 
 and the contrast presented by his assumption of dignity on the 
 one hand, and the unpretending equality of the apostle whose 
 successor he calls himself on the other, will be manifest and 
 plain. 
 
112 
 
 INCONSISTENCY 
 
 The last point which I design to notice, is the clear proof 
 afforded by the Acts of the Apostles, that St. Paul was expressly- 
 designed, in the order of Providence, to establish the Church 
 at Rome ; whereas St. Peter's being there would seem to have 
 been merely incidental. So that, on a survey of the whole 
 Scriptural evidence, we may surely conclude, that the doctrine 
 of St. Peter's supremacy, together with the founding upon it 
 the dominion of the Pope, and the making this dominion an 
 article of faith necessary to every man's salvation, presents a 
 combination of mistaken argument and melancholy intolerance, 
 of which the history of the Christian Church affords no paral- 
 lel, and which it is impossible to reflect upon without the 
 strongest emotions of astonishment and sorrow. 
 
 You have probably anticipated the avowal, however, that 
 the kind of evidence on which the advocates of Roman su- 
 premacy most confidently rely, is not derived from the Scrip- 
 tures, but from the fathers. And to this branch of testimony, 
 brethren, I am ready to appeal, and trust we shall be able to 
 dispose of it satisfactorily, in our next lecture. We shall 
 close the present by a brief recurrence to Dr. Wiseman's own 
 argument on another point of his case, in order to show the 
 manifest inconsistency of his premises with his conclusion. 
 
 Contending for the superiority of the Christian over the 
 Jewish dispensation, in which we distinctly concur, and design- 
 ing to derive from this an argument for the Church's infalli- 
 bility, which we as distinctly deny, he observes, (p. 19) "the 
 prophets in the first place, were the types of Jesus Christ, and 
 we see Jesus Christ himself come and take their place, assum- 
 ing here their ministry, promising to remain with his new 
 kingdom, teaching therein always to the consummation of the 
 world." 
 
 You perceive, brethren, that our learned advocate here as- 
 serts the abiding presence of Christ with the Church. In this 
 we agree; but I ask for what purpose, then, serves the doctrine 
 
OF THE PAPAL CLAIM. 113 
 
 of the pope's vicegerency ? A vicegerent amongst earthly 
 governments is one who holds the place and discharges the 
 functions of an absent monarch. But Christ, our King, is not 
 absent. His own gracious promise was given, to be with his 
 apostles and their successors always. Wherever two or three 
 are gathered together in his name, he is pledged to be in the 
 midst of them. To use the expressive figure of the book of 
 Revelation, "He walketh among the seven golden candle- 
 sticks," He unites with the assemblies of his people in his sanc- 
 tuaries; yea, He enters into the secret chamber of their inmost 
 thoughts. He searcheth the hearts and trielh the reins of the 
 children of men. And does He stand in need of a vicegerent 1 
 And shall a poor, infirm mortal, talk of being the vicar of the 
 divine, the omnipresent, the omnipotent Son of God? Alas! 
 which of the acts of Christ can this imaginary vicar perform ? 
 Can the pope of Rome say to each sorrowing heart throughout 
 the world, " Thy sins be forgiven thee?" Can he watch over 
 us in the hour of temptation? Can he hear and answer our 
 prayers? Can he strengthen and protect our weakness? Can 
 he mark our secret guilt in the book of his remembrance? Can 
 he favour and bless our humble resolutions of repentance and 
 amendment? O how strange, how strange; to admit that 
 Christ is present, and yet to treat him as if he were absent, 
 and needed a vicegerent! How strange, to acknowledge Christ 
 as God, and yet suppose that a frail man can be his substitute! 
 How strange, to adore Christ as the glorious King of heaven, 
 and yet imagine that the blessed privilege of admission to his 
 presence, is only to be granted through one weak mortal hand 
 on earth ! 
 
 Let us then, beloved brethren, rest satisfied and thankful in 
 the enjoyment of that Scriptural religion, which beholds the Re- 
 deemer with the eye of faith, and receives his promises in their 
 own beautiful simplicity, and seeks his blessing, not in the 
 communion of a supposed earthly vicegerent, but in the living 
 
 l2 
 
114 CONCLUSION. 
 
 presence of his Spirit in our souls. Our blessed Lord has 
 built his Church upon himself, the Rock of ages. He has givea 
 unto us the ministry of reconciliation. Let all our hearts unite 
 in the confession of the apostle, which acknowledged him to be 
 the Christ, the anointed Saviour, the co-equal Son of the 
 eternal Father; and then shall we be accounted the true citi- 
 zens of the heavenly Jerusalem, — the eternal city, against 
 which the gates of hell cannot prevail, whose maker and builder 
 is God over all, blessed forever! 
 
LECTURE VII. 
 
 Mat. xvi. 15, 19. — Jesus saith to them, But whom do you say that 
 I am ? Simon Peter answering said, Thou art Christ, the Son of the 
 living God. And Jesus answering, said to him : Blessed art thou, 
 Simon Bar-jona j because flesh and blood hath not revealed it to thee, 
 but my Father who is in heaven. And I say unto thee that thou art 
 Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of 
 hell shall not prevail against it. And I will give to thee the keys 
 of the kingdom of heaven; and whatsoever thou shalt bind upon 
 earth, it shall be bound also in heaven; and whatsoever thou shalt 
 loose upon earth, it shall be loosed also in heaven. 
 
 The text which I have just repeated, my brethren, was the 
 theme of our last lecture, in which we commenced the exami- 
 nation of the cardinal principle of the Roman Catholic faith, 
 the supremacy of the pope, or bishop of Rome, as the source 
 of unity, the fountain of authority, the ruler and pastor of the 
 whole Church throughout the world, holding the dominion of 
 Christ's vicegerent upon earth, to whom obedience and sub- 
 mission are due by every soul, under the penalty of damnation. 
 You recollect that these prerogatives, with many others neces- 
 sarily implied in them, were attributed to the papacy in sub- 
 stance by Dr. Wiseman, the late and popular advocate of the 
 Roman claims. But that you may the better understand the 
 meaning of the doctrine, I shall here add the still more posi- 
 tive language of the Canon Law, established many centuries 
 ago by the authority of the popes, and designed to furnish tlie 
 entire legislative system of the Church of Rome, in distinct 
 terms, for general observation. 
 
116 CANON LAW. 
 
 " The Pope," saith this Canon law, " by the Lord's appoint- 
 ment, is the successor of the blessed apostle Peter, and holds 
 the place of the Redeemer himself upon the earth." 
 
 "The Roman Church, by the appointment of our Lord, is 
 the mother and mistress of all the faithful." 
 
 " The Roman Pontiff bears the authority, not of a mere 
 man, but of the true God upon the earth." 
 
 "The Pope holds the place of God in the earth, so that he 
 can confer ecclesiastical benefices without diminution." 
 
 "Christ, the King of kings and Lord of lords, gave to the 
 Roman Pontiff, in the person of Peter, the plenitude of power." 
 
 "Wherever there is any question concerning the privileges 
 of the apostolic chair, they are not to be judged by others. 
 The Pope alone knows how to determine doubts concerning 
 the privileges of the chief apostolic seat." 
 
 "It was becoming, since the chief Pontiff represents the 
 person of Christ, that as during Christ's earthly ministry the 
 apostles stood round him, so the assembly of the cardinals 
 representing the apostolic college, should stand before the 
 Pope: but the rest of the bishops, scattered abroad every 
 where, represent the apostles sent forth to preach the gospel."* 
 
 These extracts from the Canon law of the Church of Rome, 
 brethren, will explain more clearly the doctrines of Dr. Wise- 
 man; for although there is no real difference between them, yet 
 his phraseology is not so well adapted to convey distinct ideas 
 of papal supremacy to those who have not had some previous 
 familiarity with the subject. 
 
 Now the first evidence relied on to prove his doctrine, as 
 you may remember, was that of Scripture, chiefly consisting 
 of the language of the text. And I showed, as I trust suffi- 
 ciently, that the Roman exposition of the passage was not 
 consistent with the nature of the metaphor, nor with the other 
 
 * Church of Rome, 19, &c. 
 
RECAPITULATION. 117 
 
 evidence of the divine record: that Peter was indeed a founda- 
 tion-stone in the spiritual edifice of the Church, but that Christ 
 was the Rock on which the whole Church could alone be 
 founded: that the privileges promised to Peter were afterwards 
 promised to the other apostles, although not actually conferred 
 upon any of them until the resurrection of Christ: that the 
 personal ministry of our Lord, and also of his apostles up to 
 this period, was confined to the Jews, and that it was necessary 
 to offer up the great sacrifice of atonement for the whole world, 
 before the Gospel could consistently be extended to the Gen- 
 tiles : that the commission actually conferred by the Redeemer 
 just before his ascension into heaven, was the only fulfilment 
 of the promise which he had made before to Peter, and to the 
 other apostles: that this commission was not given in one 
 form to Peter and in another form to the rest, but was a joint 
 authority, given alike to all without the slightest distinction; 
 and that the subsequent history of the acts of the apostles, and 
 the epistles as well of Peter as of Paul, clearly show, that they 
 did not accord to him, nor did he claim, the smallest superiority 
 over them. And having thus gone carefully and largely into 
 the Scriptural evidence, we deferred until the present occasion 
 the examination of the fathers, in which we shall find a strong 
 corroboration of the views which have been set before you. 
 
 Let us then, brethren, proceed to the hearing of these primi- 
 tive witnesses and interpreters of Scripture, and thus obtain 
 the opinion of those to whom the Church of Rome so confi- 
 dently appeals. Before commencing our examination, how- 
 ever, it may be as well to mention a few matters, necessary to 
 be borne in mind, in order that we may properly appreciate 
 the nature and importance of this kind of testimony. In the 
 first place, then, let it be observed, that the earliest or oldest 
 writers are always the best witnesses of facts belonging to the 
 apostolic age, because they lived nearest to the times when the 
 facts occurred, while those who come after them cannot have 
 
118 THE FATHERS. 
 
 an equal opportunity to test the truth or falsehood of their 
 allegations. And as, amongst the writers called the fathers, we 
 have the names of eminent men who lived in different centu- 
 ries, we must carefully distinguish between their evidence on 
 this very ground; always remembering that the earliest wit- 
 nesses must be the most trustworthy, not because of their 
 greater integrity, but because the apostolic doctrine must needs 
 have been best known to those who lived nearest to the apos- 
 tolic day. 
 
 Let me next call to your recollection the statement of Dr. 
 Wiseman, that, in order to establish the doctrine of Roman 
 supremacy, they are bound to show, first, that Peter was 
 made the ruler over the other apostles and the whole Church; 
 next, that he established himself as the bishop of Rome; and 
 lastly, that he left his prerogatives to his successors, who, by 
 virtue of his rights, are to be acknowledged as the vicege- 
 rents of Christ himself throughout the world. 
 
 Now the testimony of the fathers after the 4th century may 
 be cifed on both sides of the argument, which very diversity 
 proves that the doctrine itself was not established even at that 
 period. But we shall prove to you, that however the later 
 fathers may be found to vary from each other, the earlier 
 fathers do all, for the first four hundred years of the Christian 
 era, testify distinctly against the present doctrine of the Church 
 of Rome, and the greater part interpret the proof-texts on 
 which the doctrine of the papacy relies, not according to the 
 Roman explanation of them, but according to our own. 
 
 Having premised these general observations, I proceed to the 
 proof adduced from certain chosen witnesses of our author, 
 and will commence with those passages on which he professes 
 to place his chief dependence. 
 
 He begins by quoting Irena^us, the bishop of Lyons, who 
 lived in the next generation after the apostle John, to prove the 
 episcopate of St. Peter and the superior spiritual headship of 
 
IRENiEUS. 119 
 
 the Church of Rome; although, in truth, the evidence proves 
 neither the one nor the other. It is as follows : " As it would 
 be tedious," saith Irenseus, "to enumerate the whole list of suc- 
 cessors, I shall confine myself to that of Rome, the greatest, 
 and most ancient, and most illustrious Church, founded by the 
 glorious apostles Peter and Paul, receiving from them her doc- 
 trine, which was announced to all men, and which through the 
 succession of her bishops, is come down to us. To this 
 Church, on account of its stronger principality, every other 
 Church must resort, that is, the faithful round about from 
 every quarter. They, therefore, having founded and instructed 
 this Church, committed the episcopal administration thereof to 
 Linus, to him succeeded Anacletus, then in the third place 
 Clement, to Clement succeeded Evaristus, to him Alexander, 
 and then Sixtus, who was followed by Telesphorus, Hyginus, 
 Pius, and Anicetus. But Soter having succeeded Anicetus, 
 Eleutherius, the twelfth from the apostles, now governs the 
 Church." (p. 232.) 
 
 This passage is one of the most valuable remnants of anti- 
 quity, greatly relied upon by the Church of Rome, and triumph- 
 antly repeated by all her writers: and yet, when carefully and 
 accurately examined, I have no hesitation in saying that it is 
 utterly hostile to their claims. Let me ask your attention, 
 brethren, to a brief analysis of the case, as presented by this, 
 their own chosen witness. 
 
 First then, the Church of Rome asserts, that St. Peter was 
 bishop of Rome for twenty-five years, and left his prerogative 
 to his successor. But Irenseus says that this Church was 
 founded by St. Peter and St. Paul, and that they committed 
 the episcopal government of it to Linus. Now observe, here, 
 that Irenpeus not only says nothing of Peter's being the first 
 bishop himself, but states what is totally inconsistent with 
 such a supposition. For the Church of Rome allows that there 
 cannot be two bishops at once in the same city or in the same 
 
120 IREN^US. 
 
 diocese; and therefore, since Irenseus expressly declares that 
 both Peter and Paul founded the Church of Rome, and com- 
 mitted the episcopal charge of it to Linus, thereby uniting the 
 two apostles in the whole work, it results manifestly, either 
 that they both acted as the bishops of Rome; which, by their 
 own rule, is impossible; or that they acted in the matter, not as 
 bishops^ but as apostles^ which is indeed the truth. But if this 
 be the truth of Irenseus' testimony, it establishes our position, 
 that neither Peter nor Paul was the first bishop of Rome, but 
 Linus; and this fact alone is fatal to the claims of papal supre- 
 macy, since it places its whole argument upon the assumption 
 that St. Peter was the first bishop of Rome, and that the popes 
 are his successors. 
 
 In the next place, the greatness of the Church of Rome is 
 here spoken of by Irenseus in strong terms; and he tells us that 
 the whole Church, that is, the faithful from every quarter, must 
 resort to that Church, on account of its stronger principality. 
 Now our ingenious advocate for papal supremacy would have 
 us suppose, that the principality here mentioned is the pre-emi- 
 nence which Rome enjoyed by reason of her having been the 
 see or bishoprick of Peter, who was the prince of the apostles. 
 But our witness, Irenseus, says no such thing. The word 
 principality is not, as we all know, a term which properly 
 belongs to the authority of Churches, or the government of 
 bishops. A bishop is an overseer, not a prince, in the true 
 meaning of his office. And the circle of his jurisdiction is a 
 diocese, not a principality. Therefore we perceive that the 
 stronger principality which, according to Irenseus, gave pre- 
 eminence to the Church of Rome in the second century, was a 
 superiority derived from the prince, and not from the bishop. 
 Rome was then the political mistress of the world, because it 
 was the seat of the imperial government. In it was the royal 
 palace of the Cesars, and the capitol from which the decrees 
 of the senate went forth throughout the globe. Within its 
 
IREN^US. 121 
 
 walls were concentrated all the wealth, the learning, the am- 
 bition, ihe pleasures, and the interests of millions. It was at 
 once the head and the heart of the most mighty empire on 
 which the sun had ever shone, and the Church established 
 there, must, for these reasons, have attracted the eyes of all 
 Christendom. The faithful resorted to it from every quarter, 
 as their duties, their curiosity or their connexions led them to 
 visit the vast metropolis, and it must have been the richest, 
 the greatest, and the most influential of all the Churches, 
 through the political and earthly principality of its location. 
 
 Thus understood, the language of Irenseus is clear and 
 consistent; but were we to adopt the hypothesis of Roman 
 supremacy founded upon the episcopate and pre-eminent pre- 
 rogatives of Peter, we should find it contradictory and unac- 
 countable. For if this primitive witness believed as they 
 imagine, why did he not say that Peter established himself as 
 the first bishop of Rome, instead of saying that Peter and 
 Paul founded that Church jointly, and delivered the episcopal 
 government to Linus? And in the other part of the passage, 
 why does he not say that the faithful from every quarter must 
 necessarily resort to the Church of Rome, on account of its 
 having been the diocese of Peter, instead of saying on account 
 of its stronger principality ? When fairly examined, therefore, 
 brethren, we see distinctly that Irenceus does not only omit 
 what the doctrine of the Church of Rome requires, but 
 actually sets down what cannot be fairly reconciled with it. 
 
 We are happy in possessing another passage of the works 
 of Irenseus, however, which places the subject in a still 
 stronger light. There was a controversy in his time about 
 the proper day for keeping the festival of our Lord's resurrec- 
 tion ; the eastern Churches universally observing it on one 
 day, and the western Churches on another. Victor, the bishop 
 of Rome, being desirous to bring about a general consent upon 
 the subject, found the eastern bishops unwilling to change their 
 
 M 
 
122 IREN^US 
 
 rule, and thereupon undertook to pronounce against them a 
 sentence of excommunication. The consequence was, that 
 the other bishops of the west censured him severely, and 
 amongst the rest, Irenseus, who was the bishop of Lyons, 
 wrote him a letter of expostulation, of which the following is 
 a part: 
 
 " These bishops," saith Irenseus, addressing himself to 
 Victor, " who formerly governed the Church of Rome over 
 which you now preside, neither observed the. eastern custom 
 about the feast of Easter themselves, nor allowed those who 
 were with them to observe it. And yet they preserved peace 
 with those Churches in which it was observed. And when 
 the blessed Polycarp (bishop of Smyrna) came to Rome in the 
 time of Anicetus, (who was then the Roman bishop) there was 
 a little controversy between them upon other matters as well 
 as this, and yet they embraced each other with the kiss of 
 peace, not being disposed to contend any further about the 
 question. For Anicetus could not persuade Polycarp to change 
 his custom, because he had lived familiarly with the apostle 
 John, the disciple of our Lord, and with the other apostles, 
 and observed their rule continually. Nor, on the other hand, 
 could Polycarp persuade Anicetus to conform, because he said 
 that he retained the custom of the elders who were before 
 him. Under these circumstances, they communed together. 
 And Anicetus, the Roman bishop, yielded to Polycarp, as ^a 
 token of respect, the office of consecrating the Eucharist in 
 the Church; after which they departed from each other in 
 peace, each retaining, in mutual allowance, their former cus- 
 tom." 
 
 Now here, brethren, we have, not a few words of uncertain 
 and controverted meaning, but a plain historical fact, which 
 clearly demonstrates the equal rights of the primitive bishops, 
 and utterly destroys the foundation of Roman supremacy. 
 Irena3us, the bishop of Lyons, rebukes Victor, the bishop of 
 
AGAINST PAPAL SUPREMACY. 123 
 
 Rome, for breaking the peace of the Church by excommunica- 
 ting the eastern Churches. This shows us two points of great 
 importance. First, it shows how early the notion of dominion 
 over the other Churches began to be manifest in the bishops 
 who occupied the great metropohs of the world. And secondly, 
 it shows us, that at this time the other bishops had no idea of 
 suffering such an assumption, but, on the contrary, highly 
 disapproved the arrogance and pride of the Roman pontiff. 
 We see, in the next place, that Irenasus relates to Victor the 
 condition of the Churches in the generation which had just 
 passed over them; when the very same controversy arose 
 between the celebrated bishop of Smyrna, who had been the 
 scholar of St. John, and Anicetus, the then Roman bishop. 
 He states expressly that neither would yield to the other, 
 because each considered himself justified by the custom of the 
 apostles; and yet so far was the Roman bishop from pretend- 
 ing to any supremacy over the bishop of Smyrna, that he 
 gave him the post of honour in his own Church, and parted 
 from him in peace and charity. Where was then the doctrine 
 of Peter being the prince of the apostles, the pope holding the 
 place of Christ upon the earth, the Church of Rome being 
 the mother and mistress of all the Churches, the bishop of 
 Rome being the fountain of all authority and the centre of 
 unity? Ah, brethren! these were the comparatively pure 
 days of simplicity, and apostolic truth and order. All bishops 
 were equal, all held a perfect parity of rights and privileges, 
 as the apostles had done before them. In this interesting nar- 
 rative, therefore, we have what may well be called an histori- 
 cal demonstration, that the vast prerogative of Roman supre- 
 macy had no real sanction in the will of Christ, nor in the 
 doctrine of the apostles, nor in the practice of the primitive 
 Church, but was the result of power and policy at a much 
 later day. 
 
 Thus much may suffice for the testimony of Dr. Wise- 
 
124 TERTULLIAN. 
 
 man's oldest witness among the fathers. Let us pass on lo 
 the evidence of the next, TertulHan, who flourished within 
 thirty or forty years after Irena^us. Our ingenious author 
 quotes a sentence here, in which TertuUian, teUing Christians 
 to settle their controversies by applying to the nearest apos- 
 tolic Church, saith, " If you are in Africa, Rome is not far, to 
 which we can readily apply. Happy Church ! to which the 
 apostles gave their whole doctrine with their blood." Now 
 you will perceive at once, brethren, that this, although it seems 
 to flow well enough in the general channel of Dr. Wiseman's 
 argument, in reality proves nothing to the purpose. Let me 
 quote a little more from the same witness, and you will have 
 a far more complete view of his testimony. 
 
 ''• Come then," saith TertulHan, " you who wish to exercise 
 your curiosity to good advantage in the concerns of your sal- 
 vation, go through the apostolic Churches, amongst which the 
 very seats of the apostles continue in their places and their 
 original epistles are recited, sounding forth the voice and repre- 
 senting the countenance of each one. Is Achaia near to you ? 
 You have Corinih. If you are not far from Macedonia, you 
 have Philippi, you have Thessalonica. If you cannot go 
 throughout Asia, you have Ephesus. But if you are con- 
 venient to Italy, you have Rome, whence authority for us is 
 nigh at hand. How happy is this Church to which the 
 apostles gave their whole doctrine with their blood." Here, 
 brethren, you have the introductory passage, together with the 
 part on which our learned advocate relies; and you see how 
 vain must be the attempt to draw from it any proof of supre- 
 macy or superior dominion for the Church or pope of Rome. 
 For TertulHan refers the Christian to all the apostolical 
 Churches, evidently placing them on an equality : He mentions 
 first, Corinth, Philippi, Thessalonica, which were of St. Paul's 
 planting. Then he mentions Ephesus, which was of St. John's 
 planting. He mentions Rome last, and says that her authority 
 
TERTULLIAN. 125 
 
 is nigh at hand, because he lived at Carthage, which was not 
 very distant from Rome. And when he calls her, Happy- 
 Church ! instead of giving the reason which would suit Dr. 
 Wiseman's hypothesis, namely, because Rome was the dio- 
 cese of the apostle Peter, and on that account was appointed 
 to be the mother and mistress of all the other Churches, and 
 to have her bishop exalted to the seat of absolute supremacy 
 as the vicegerent of Christ — instead of all this, our witness 
 simply refers to the circumstance, that at Rome the apostles 
 Peter and Paul had suffered martyrdom, and therefore had not 
 only given to this Church their doctrine, but also their blood. 
 That this was an interesting fact to the Church of Rome may 
 be readily admitted, but it is obvious that it was one which 
 had nothing whatever to do with the question of government 
 or supremacy. 
 
 There is another part of TertuUian's testimony, however, 
 which is more express than this, showing the rise of the sub- 
 sequent doctrine relative to priestly absolution, and arguing 
 against it in terms which clearly prove that he was no advo- 
 cate for the supremacy of Peter, and still less for the deriva- 
 tion of that supremacy to the bishops of Rome. 
 
 "From your own argument," saith he, "I would know 
 from whence you derive this right (of absolution) which you 
 claim for the Church. If from our Lord's saying to Peter; 
 Upon this rock f will build my Church : To you I will give 
 the keys of the kingdom of heaven, or. Whatsoever you shall 
 bind or loose on earth, shall be bound or loosed in heaven; do 
 you therefore presume that this power of binding and loosing 
 descended to thee, that is, to the whole Church which is related 
 to Peter? If so, you are overturning and changing the mani- 
 fest intention of our Lord, who conferred this on Peter indi- 
 vidually. Upon thee, he says, I will build my Church ; and 
 to thee I will give the keys, not to the Church; and what- 
 soever thou shalt loose or bind, not whatsoever they shall 
 
 m2 
 
126 TERTULLIAN 
 
 loose or bind. So likewise the event teaches us. On him the 
 Church was built, that is, throvgh him: he furnished the key; 
 behold what key. *Ye men of Israel, hear these words: Jesus 
 of Nazareth, a man destined for you by God,' and so on," (al- 
 luding to the first sermon preached by St. Peter on the day of 
 Pentecost). " He too," continues Tertullian, " first, in the bap- 
 tism of Christ," (administered on that same day to three thou- 
 sand Jews, and afterwards to Cornelius, being the first exam- 
 ple among the Gentiles) " unlocked the gate of the celestial 
 kingdom — and he bound Ananias with the chain of death, and 
 he loosed the impotent man from his lameness. Likewise in 
 that dispute which occurred about keeping the Mosaic law, 
 Peter, first, being filled with the Spirit, foretold the calling of 
 the Gentiles. The decree which followed both loosed the 
 things of the law which were omitted, and bound those which 
 were retained." — "What now," concludes Tertullian, "has 
 all this to do with the Church, and especially with yours, O 
 thou carnal man? According to the person of Peter, this 
 power will suit spiritual men, such as an apostle or a prophet. 
 For the Church properly and principally is the temple of that 
 Spirit in whom is the Trinity of one Deity, the Father, the 
 Sou and the Holy Ghost. When thus constituted, the Church 
 may forgive offences; but this is the Church in which is the 
 Spirit by spiritual men, not the Church which is the number 
 of bishops. For this is the prerogative and will of the Master, 
 not of the servant; of God himself, and not of the priest." 
 
 This, brethren, is a long quotation, but I think you will 
 agree with me in considering it a most interesting relic of an- 
 tiquity. I do not mean to touch the question at present, whe- 
 ther TertuUian's doctrine as to the power of the keys was 
 right or wrong; this is no proper occasion for that investiga- 
 tion, which will call for its own appropriate argument in due 
 season. But as a witness brought before us by the Church of 
 Rome, for the express purpose of sustaining her claims as the 
 
AGAINST PAPAL SUPREMACY. 127 
 
 mother and mistress of all other Churches, and tlie claim of 
 her bishop as the vicegerent of Christ, and supreme ruler over 
 the whole territory of Christendom, I consider it only just to 
 hear all that he has to say upon the point in question. 
 
 Observe then, brethren, that according to Tertullian, the 
 privilege of absolution granted to Peter was confined to Peter, 
 and to such as he was, an apostle and a prophet, or at the 
 least, if there be any descent of this prerogative to the Church; 
 it must, says he, be a Church in which the Spirit speaks in 
 spiritual men, and not the Church composed simply of the 
 number of bishops. Secondly, Tertullian explains the power 
 of the keys granted to Peter, to have been the spiritual faculty 
 of preaching the Gospel, conferring baptism, pronouncing cen- 
 sures of authorit}'-, such as that on Ananias and Sapphira, &c., 
 without one word of supremacy or superior dominion over the 
 rest of the apostles or the whole Church. In both of which, 
 this witness of Dr. Wiseman is directly opposed to the doc- 
 trine of the Church of Rome, and furnishes positive evidence 
 against the apostolic derivation of their system. 
 
 The third witness to whom our author appeals is Cyprian, 
 the famous bishop of Carthage, who, about fifty years later 
 than Tertullian, writing against the attempts of certain schis- 
 matics to disturb the Church of Rome by unlawfully setting 
 up another person instead of Cornelius, their bishop, used this 
 language: "Having chosen a bishop for themselves, they dare 
 to carry letters from schismatics and profane men to the chair 
 of Peter and to the principal Church whence the sacerdotal 
 unity took its rise, not reflecting that the members of that 
 Church are Romans, whose faith was praised by Paul, to 
 whom perfidy can have no access." 
 
 Now here we have, certainly, a beginning of the doctrine 
 of the Church of Rome, showing to us what we anticipated 
 when examining the evidence of Irenseus, namely, how early 
 the bishops of Rome endeavoured to secure dominion and su- 
 
123 CYPRIA.N 
 
 premacy. The influence of their efforts, too, we find first 
 showing itself in the neighbourhood of Rome, for Carthage, 
 where Cyprian was bishop, lay within a moderate distance 
 from the imperial city. Let it be granted, then, that in the 
 year 250, about a century and a half later than Polycarp, a 
 century later than Irenseus, and fifty years later than Tertul- 
 lian, the doctrine was partially admitted that Peter had been 
 bishop of Rome, and that the unity of the Church took its rise 
 in the see or diocese of Peter. But this you will find, breth- 
 ren, carries us but a very small way towards the point of the 
 pope's supremacy; and a little further examination of this very 
 witness will show that he believed no more in that supremacy 
 than I do. 
 
 To understand the views of this distinguished father, it will 
 be necessary to make several other extracts, and to take some 
 little time for the purpose of combining them together; but the 
 result, I may venture to say, will be distinct and satisfactory. 
 He thus states his general system: — 
 
 "As there is only one Church of Christ," saith Cyprian, 
 "divided into many members throughout the whole world, in 
 like manner there is but one episcopate, diffused by the har- 
 monious host of many bishops: and this, according to the tra- 
 dition of God, is the connected unity of the Catholic Church." 
 
 Again, "the episcopate," saith he, "is one, of which a part 
 is held by each bishop, with an interest in the whole. The 
 Church also is one, which is extended more widely by the in- 
 crease of its fecundity ; in like manner there are many rays 
 of the sun, but one light; and many branches of the tree, but 
 one strength founded in the firm root: and though many rivu- 
 lets flow from one fountain, and although the number of these 
 streams is diffused in the extent of overflowing abundance, 
 nevertheless unity is preserved in the origin." 
 
 Thus far then, brethren, we may see, that while Cyprian 
 agreed to the proposition that the promise made to St. Peter 
 
AGAINST PAPAL SUPREMACY. 129 
 
 was the commencement of episcopal unity, and that Peter oc- 
 cupied the episcopal chair of Rome, which for that reason he 
 calls the seat of Peter, from which the sacerdotal unity took its 
 rise; yet he maintained that the bishops were every where 
 equal, like the rays from the sun, and the branches from the 
 tree, and the streams from the fountain. " The episcopate 
 being one, of which a part is held by each bishop, with an inte- 
 rest in the whole." Assuredly these comparisons could never 
 have been chosen by Cyprian, if he had held the Roman doc- 
 trine of papal supremacy; for here he undertakes to set forth 
 the very part of Christianity, which would have imperatively 
 obliged him to mention the powers of the chief ruler, the vice- 
 gerent of Christ, had such a monarchy as the pope asserts 
 formed any part of his system. 
 
 To prove this, however, with the strongest evidence, we 
 must ask your attention to a kw other passages. The greater 
 part of the works of Cyprian consists of letters addressed by 
 him to the bishops and clergy. Many of these are written to 
 the bishops of Rome, and in all of them the appellations given 
 to the Roman bishop are perfectly fraternal and unceremo- 
 nious, indicative of the doctrine of entire equality, but totally 
 inconsistent with the form afterwards established in the papal 
 monarchy. For this is his invariable style of address: My 
 colleague, my fellow bishop, my brother; but he never adds 
 any title of superior respect or deference. 
 
 Again, Cyprian assigns the reason why Rome takes pre- 
 cedence of Carthage, and here he must surely have referred to 
 the papal doctrine of supremacy, if that doctrine had been ap- 
 proved in his day. But instead of this, he puts it entirely on 
 the ground of the secular or temporal superiority of Rome, as 
 the metropolis of the world, according to the principle which I 
 have already explained. His words are these: " Plainly, there- 
 fore, on account of its magnitude, Rome ought to precede Car- 
 thage." 
 
130 CYPRIAN 
 
 But nothing tries the question of comparative authority so 
 conclusively, as the occurrence of a dispute or controversy. 
 And here we have the irresistible evidence of the real state of 
 Church government in the days of Cyprian. 
 
 The case was as follows : Stephen, the bishop of Rome, next 
 but one after Cornelius, maintained that the administration of 
 baptism by the hands of heretics and schismatics, was vahd, 
 notwithstanding the heresy and schism of the administrators; 
 and therefore, that when persons so baptized came to desire 
 admission into the Catholic Church, they should not be re- 
 baptized, but be received with the imposition of hands and 
 prayer, upon an open acknowledgment of their error. Cy- 
 prian, the primitive witness whose testimony is before us, 
 together with Firmilian, the bishop of Cappadocia, and all the 
 bishops of Africa, warmly opposed the doctrine of the Roman 
 bishop; insisted that such baptisms were altogether void and 
 worthless, and that the persons thus applying for admission 
 amongst the orthodox or Catholic Church, must first receive 
 baptism in the Church, since their former baptism was, in 
 effect, no real baptism, but merely, as they called it, a "stain- 
 ing with profane water." It may perhaps be proper to state, 
 that the doctrine of Stephen was, long afterwards, established 
 by a general council, so that Cyprian and his colleagues did 
 not prove to have had the right side of the controversy ; and 
 this serves to demonstrate, the more clearly, the exercise of 
 their independence in the matter. 
 
 Now you remember, brethren, that nearly a century before 
 the time of Cyprian, Victor, the then bishop of Rome, pre- 
 sumed to excommunicate the eastern bishops, because they 
 would not change their custom about the festival of Easter, for 
 which he was universally censured and reproved. But here 
 was a much morn serious question, touching the validity of one 
 of the sacraments, and occurring at a period when the Church 
 of Rome had made some little beginning towards her subse- 
 
AGAINST PAPAL SUPREMACY. 131 
 
 quent dominion. It is obvious that the contest, under such 
 circumstances, must call out the whole strength of the Roman 
 claims, and that in the discussion of it we should be able clearly 
 to ascertain how far those claims had advanced and were 
 acknowledged. The result was, that Cyprian and his col- 
 leagues asserted their independence and maintained their 
 ground, although the bishop of Rome, notwithstanding the fail- 
 ure of his predecessor Victor, had again tried the force of his 
 ecclesiastical excommunication. 
 
 Now, had the doctrine of the Church at that time been the 
 same with the subsequent system of papal supremacy, one of 
 these two results must have followed the resistance of Cyprian. 
 Either he and his African colleagues must have submitted to 
 the bishop of Rome, or they must have been cut off as obsti- 
 nate schismatics. But neither of these results were appre- 
 hended, 'nor did either take place. Cyprian did not submit, 
 but severely censured Stephen for his tyrannical course, and 
 continued to deny the truth of the Roman tradition. And yet 
 so far was he from being condemned for his independence, that 
 he stands upon the Roman Calendar as a saint, and is termed 
 the blessed Cyprian by their canon law. Nothing could more 
 clearly demonstrate the strenuous efforts of the bishops of 
 Rome for supreme dominion on the one hand, and the perfect 
 independence of the bishops in Cyprian's day upon the other. 
 
 I proceed to verify this statement, brethren, by the words of 
 Dr. Wiseman's own witness. 
 
 The epistle written by Cyprian and his colleagues, after the 
 first council of Carthage, to Stephen, bishop of Rome, furnishes 
 our first authority. 
 
 " In order to correct and dispose certain matters," saith he, 
 " by common consent, we found it necessary, most dear bro- 
 ther, to collect together many bishops, and celebrate a council. 
 In which various points were proposed and decided ; but that 
 about which we chiefly desired to confer with your gravity 
 
132 CYPRIAN 
 
 and wisdom, and which concerns most nearly the authority of 
 the priesthood, and the unity and honour of the Cathohc Church, 
 was the subject of those who are baptized without the Church, 
 stained with profane water amongst heretics and schismatics. 
 When such as these come to us and to the Church, which is 
 one, we judged it fit that they should be baptized, because we 
 think it little worth to give them the imposition of hands for 
 the reception of the Holy Spirit, unless they have first received 
 the baptism of the Church." After this introduction, Cyprian 
 proceeds to explain his doctrine at large, and then concludes 
 as follows: 
 
 " These things we have addressed to your conscience, dear- 
 est brother, for the common honour and for sincere love — but 
 we know that certain men are unwilling to lay aside any opi- 
 nion which they have once expressed, and while the bond of 
 peace and concord among their colleagues is preserved, they 
 continue to retain their own sentiments. In which matter we 
 neither give law nor offer violence to any one. Since every 
 bishop exe?'cises the free choice of his own will in the admin- 
 istration of the Church, having to render an account of his 
 acts to the hord.^"* 
 
 Here, then, you have the plain doctrine of Cyprian addressed 
 to the bishop of Rome himself, in which you perceive how he 
 alludes to the opposite opinion of Stephen, and points out the 
 proper course to be taken, namely, that if he would not be con- 
 vinced of his error, he should keep the peace of the Church, 
 and follow his own plan within his own jurisdiction. And the 
 concluding sentence is particularly strong, because Cyprian 
 there lays down the great rule of the episcopate to the bishop 
 of Rome himself, that every bishop exercised his own free 
 choice in the administration of the Church within his district, 
 being accountable to God alone. Where was the doctrine of 
 the subjection of the other apostles to Peter, and the consequent 
 subjection of all other bishops to the pope, when this epistle 
 
AGAINST PAPAL SUPREMACY. 133 
 
 was written? Where was the article of the faith, as Dr. Wise- 
 man would call it, that the Church of Rome is the mother and 
 mistress of all the Churches, that the pope is the fountain of 
 all authority, and occupies the place of Christ himself upon the 
 earth? Plainly, brethren, there could have been no such no- 
 tion established in the days of Cyprian. 
 
 But we add a i'ew extracts from the fathers, written after 
 Stephen had rashly and tyrannically endeavoured to excom- 
 municate Cyprian and his colleagues. Thus, for example, 
 Firmilian, the bishop of Cappadocia, addresses Cyprian upon 
 the subject: " Those who are of Rome," saith he, "do not in 
 all things observe what was delivered from the beginning, and 
 they pretend, but vainly, to have the authority of the apostles. 
 Every one knows, that with respect to the day for keeping 
 Easter and many other rites of religion, there are diversities 
 among them, nor do they observe all those things which are 
 observed at Jerusalem. The same diversity may be seen in 
 many of the provinces. Many things are varied through the 
 changes of times and language, and yet there is no departure 
 on this account from the peace and unity of the Catholic 
 Church. But Stephen, the bishop of Rome, has presumed to 
 disturb this concord and vmity, breaking towards you the peace 
 which his predecessors always maintained, and defaming the 
 blessed apostles Peter and Paul, as if they had delivered his 
 doctrines." 
 
 In another epistle of Cyprian to one of his African col- 
 leagues on the same subject, he says: "Since you have de- 
 sired, most dear brother, to know what our brother Stephen 
 returned in answer to our letter, I have sent you a copy of his 
 reply, in which you see more and more his error, in endeavour- 
 ing to sustain the cause of heretics against the Church of God. 
 Many are the proud and irrelevant things, — many the con- 
 tradictions, which he has unskilfully and thoughtlessly written. 
 
 N 
 
134 ORIGEN 
 
 How great is this obstinacy, how bold this presumption, to 
 place human tradition before the divine authority."* 
 
 We have now closed the evidence of Dr. Wiseman's third 
 witness, brethren; and I trust you have no difficulty in per- 
 ceiving, thus far, how perfectly the testimony of the fathers 
 substantiates our doctrine, against the modern creed of the 
 Church of Rome. But I am not willing to rest this part of our 
 evidence upon the few names which he has selected from the 
 earlier writers; and therefore I must trespass a little longer, in 
 order to show, that the texts of Scripture on which the doctrine 
 of Roman supremacy is supposed to rest, were interpreted by 
 the primitive Church in the same manner that we have already 
 set before you. 
 
 Origen, a celebrated cotemporary with Cyprian, but belong- 
 ing to another region of the Church, gives the following 
 commentary on the address of our Lord to Peter. " If we also 
 shall say, as Peter did: Thou art the Christ, the Son of the 
 living God, not as if it had been revealed to us by flesh and 
 blood, but by the light shining in our hearts from the Father 
 which is in heaven, we shall become as Peter, and it may be 
 said by the Word unto us also: Thou art Peter; with what 
 follows. For every disciple of Christ is a rock from whom 
 they drank who drank of the spiritual rock that followed them, 
 and on every such rock every ecclesiastical word is builded, 
 and the system of life instituted accordingly; and on every 
 such perfect rnan, having the combination of precepts perfecting 
 holiness, the Church is inwardly built by God. But if you 
 suppose that the Church is built by the Lord upon Peter only," 
 continues Origen, "what do you say of John, the son of thun- 
 der, and every one of the other apostles? Or shall we say 
 that the gates of hell were not to prevail specially against 
 Peter? Were they then to prevail against the other apostles 
 
 * See the author's " Church of Rome," for the original. 
 
AGAINST PAPAL SUPREMACY. 135 
 
 and perfect believers 1 — Or was it to Peter alone that the Lord 
 gave the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and did none other of 
 the blessed receive them ? But if this passage be common to 
 the others : I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, 
 *t is manifest that those things which precede it, and are evi- 
 dently connected with it, must be common also." 
 
 "We see by all this," continues Origen, a little farther on, 
 "how it may be said to Peter, and to every one who resembles 
 Peter, I will give thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven. 
 For these words are to be taken in connexion with the passage : 
 The gates of hell shall not prevail against it; since he who is 
 defended against the gates of hell, so that they prevail not 
 against him, is worthy to receive from the divine Word him- 
 self the keys of the kingdom of heaven as a reward — that he 
 might open to himself those gates which are shut to all others. 
 And thus the key of chastity admits him into the gate of chas- 
 tity, and the key of righteousness into the gate of righteousness, 
 and so of the other virtues. — For each virtue may be a kingdom 
 of heaven; and the whole together is the kingdom of the hea- 
 vens, so that he who lives according to these virtues is already 
 in the kingdom of the heavens. For Christ, who is all virtue, 
 declares that the kingdom of heaven is not here or there, but is 
 within us." 
 
 One extract more, brethren, will suffice, from this most in- 
 teresting witness of primitive antiquity. " There are some," 
 saith he, " who interpret this passage of the episcopacy as 
 being represented by Peter, and they suppose that by the keys 
 of the kingdom of heaven received from the Saviour, those 
 things which are bound by them on earth are bound also in 
 heaven, and those which are loosed on earth, are loosed also 
 in heaven. And it must be confessed that they say truly, if 
 they have the quality on account of which it was said to Peter, 
 Thou art Peter, and if they are such that upon them the Church 
 can be built, and this privilege can be justly granted to them. 
 
136 EUSEBIUS. 
 
 But the gates of hell ought not to prevail against him who 
 would bind and loose ; for if he is bound by the cords of his 
 sins, he binds and looses in vain. Therefore, if any one be 
 not what Peter was, nor possessed of those qualities which 
 have been described, and yet thinks that he, like Peter, can 
 bind and loose upon the earth, so that his judgment shall be con- 
 firmed in heaven, that man is proud, not knowing the sense of 
 the Scriptures, and being lifted up with pride he falls into the 
 snare of the devil."* 
 
 Surely, brethren, it is impossible to ask for language more 
 plain than this, to prove that the doctrine of papal supremacy 
 had not reached the ears of Origen, although, as Dr. Wiseman 
 elsewhere declares, (p. 116,) "he was one of the most learned 
 men who existed in the early ages of Christianity, and of the 
 most philosophical mind." He treats the text in a professed 
 commentary on the Gospels; he speaks of the notion of some, 
 who applied it, as Cyprian did, to the episcopacy at large ; but 
 he seems utterly unconscious that it had ever been distorted 
 into such a form as to sustain Peter's government over the 
 other apostles, much less the government of the bishop of 
 Rome over the whole Church, as the vicegerent of Christ upon 
 earth, endued with the plenitude of power. 
 
 But our limits are nearly exhausted, and therefore I must 
 hasten briefly over the other testimonies of the fathers, having 
 space only for a few out of many which I had noted for 
 insertion. 
 
 Eusebius, the learned bishop of Cesarea, was the author of an 
 ecclesiastical history of the first 320 years of the Christian 
 era. In this work he expressly declares, with li-enseus, that 
 Linus, and not St. Peter, was the first bishop of Rome; but of 
 the doctrine of supremacy he says not one word, while his 
 whole book furnishes the most conclusive circumstantial evi- 
 
 * Church of Rome, &c. 
 
AMBROSE. 137 
 
 dence against it. This kind of evidence, however, is too tedious 
 for an occasion Hke the present, and therefore I pass it by.* 
 
 Let us next hear Ambrose, the celebrated bishop of Milan, 
 who flourished about the end of the fourth century, when the 
 influence of Rome had made some progress towards the 
 achievement of her subsequent conquests over the liberties of the 
 Churches. Yet notwithstanding this fact, and notwithstanding 
 his contiguity to Rome, we shall find his testimony valuable. 
 Thus, speaking of the interpretation of the text, Ambrose saith, 
 ^^ Faith is the foundation of the Church, for it was not said of 
 the flesh of Peter but of his faith, that the gates of hell should not 
 prevail against it, but the confession of faith overcame hell." 
 
 Again, this witness saith, addressing himself to Christians 
 generally: "Believe as Peter believed, that you also may be 
 blessed, that you may deserve to hear : Flesh and blood hath 
 not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven. 
 For whosoever overcomes the flesh, is a foundation of the 
 Church. If he cannot equal Peter, he can imitate him ; for the 
 gifts of God are great, since he has not only repaired in us what 
 is ours, but has even vouchsafed to grant us what is his own." 
 
 Again, "The rock," says Ambrose, "is Christ, for they 
 drank of that spiritual rock which followed them, and that rock 
 was Christ. And he has not denied to his disciple even the 
 favour of this word, that he also may be a Peter, because from 
 the rock he derives the solidity of perseverance and the firm- 
 ness of faith. Strive, therefore, that thou mayest also be a rock. 
 And look for that rock not without thee, but within. The rock 
 is thine action, the rock is thy mind. Upon that rock thy house 
 is built, that it may be struck by no spiritual wickedness. The 
 rock is thy faith : faith is the foundation of the Church." 
 
 The mode in which Ambrose speaks of the apostles, shows 
 him to be an advocate for the equality of their office, and 
 
 * Church of Rome. 
 
 n2 
 
138 JEROME. 
 
 therefore no believer in the supremacy of Peter, and of the 
 pope of Rome. Thus in one place he saith, "To thee, said 
 our Lord, I will give the keys of the kingdom of heaven, that 
 thou mayest loose and bind. Novatian did not hear this, but 
 the Church of God heard it. What is said to Peter is said to 
 all the apostles." 
 
 Again, "For as Peter, James and John seemed to be pillars 
 of the Church, so also whoever shall overcome the world be- 
 comes a pillar of God." 
 
 And again: "Paul w^as not inferior to Peter," saith Am- 
 brose, " although the one was a foundation of the Church, and 
 the other a wise master builder. Nor was Paul unworthy of 
 the apostolic college, since he also may be compared with the 
 first, and was second to none. For he who does not acknow- 
 ledge himself inferior, makes himself equal."* 
 
 From the testimony of Ambrose, I turn to another witness, 
 who is also one of Dr. Wiseman's own choice, the famous and 
 learned Jerome. In his epistle to Evagrius, he thus speaks of 
 the comparative authority of the Churches and the bishops. 
 "The Churcli of Rome," saith he, " is not to be thought one 
 thing, and that of the whole world another. Gaul and Britain, 
 and Africa and Persia, and the East, and Judea, and all the bar- 
 barian nations, adore also one Christ, and observe the same 
 rule of truth. If authority is sought for, the world is greater 
 than one city. Wherever there is a bishop, whether at Rome, 
 or Eugubium, or Constantinople, or Rhegium, or Alexandria, 
 or Tanis, ho is of the same excellency, of the same episcopate. 
 The power of wealth and the lowliness of poverty does not 
 make a bishop either less or greater. But they are all the 
 successors of the apostles." 
 
 Again: "You say," saith Jerome, "that the Church is 
 founded on Peter, although the same thing is elsewhere done 
 
 * Church of Rome. 
 
AUGUSTIN. 139 
 
 upon all the apostles, and all received the keys of the kingdom 
 of heaven, so that the strength of the Church is consolidated 
 upon them all alike." 
 
 That Jerome interpreted the text as we have done, is abun- 
 dantly certain. Thus, in his commentary on the very passage, 
 he saith, "On this rock the Lord founded his Church; from 
 this rock the apostle Peter obtained his name." Again: "The 
 foundation which the apostle, as an architect, laid, is one, our 
 Lord Jesus Christ. Upon this foundation the Church is built."* 
 
 The great Augustin, bishop of Hippo in. Africa, must close 
 this hasty sketch of the fathers' testimony; and you will find, 
 brethren, that his interpretation of the chosen texts of our Ro- 
 man advocate is particularly clear and decisive. 
 
 "The Lord," saith this eminent father, "declared, 'Upon 
 this rock I will build my Church,' because Peter had said, 
 *Thou art Christ the Son of the living God.' Upon this rock, 
 therefore, which thou hast confessed, I will build my Church. 
 For the rock was Christ, upon which foundation Peter himself 
 also was built. For another foundation can no man lay, be- 
 sides that which has been laid, Christ Jesus. The Church 
 therefore, which is built on Christ, received the keys of the 
 kingdom of heaven in Peter, that is, the power of binding and 
 loosing sins." 
 
 Again, saith this eminent master in Israel, "What does this 
 saying mean: Upon this rock I will build my Church? Upon 
 this FAITH, upon that which was spoken: Thou art Christ, 
 the Son of the living God^ 
 
 Upon the other text in St. John's Gospel, where the apostle 
 Peter is told by our Lord to feed his sheep, the same great 
 teacher saith as follows : "Feed my sheep, I commit my sheep 
 to thee. What sheep? Those which I have bought with my 
 blood. I have died for them. Dost thou love me? Die thou 
 
 * Church of Rome. 
 
140 REFLECTIONS. 
 
 for them also. And truly, brethren," continues Augustin, 
 "Peter gave his blood for them. But that which was committed 
 to Peter, that which he was commanded to do, not Peter only 
 but likewise all the apostles, heard, held and kept. — They 
 heard these things, and transmitted them to us that we might 
 hear them. We feed, therefore, and are fed with you. May 
 God give us strength in such wise to love you, that we also 
 may be enabled to die for you, either in fact or in affection."* 
 
 But here, brethren, I must close this slight enumeration of 
 the primitive witnesses, to which the advocates of the Church 
 of Rome, confiding I presume in our ignorance, are always in 
 the habit of appealing with apparent triumph, when nothing 
 can be more certain than the fact, that their testimony, fairly 
 and thoroughly examined, is decidedly adverse to the Roman 
 doctrine. We have yet to lay before you the history of the 
 actual rise and progress of the papal dominion, the height to 
 which it had attained before the Reformation, its influence upon 
 the kingdoms of Europe, its subsequent reduction to its modern 
 form, and the varieties of construction now existing with regard 
 to its true extent and character ; all of which we shall endea- 
 vour to bring within the compass of the next lecture. Mean- 
 while, we may find it profitable to suggest a few reflections, 
 which naturally arise from the subject before us. 
 
 And first, let us take from it a lesson on the selfish tenden- 
 cies of human nature, which even amongst the holiest and 
 the best of men, are so apt to lead to corruption. The efforts 
 of the primitive bishops of Rome, to accumulate power — their 
 desire to attach the supremacy of the Roman government to 
 the rights of the Roman Church — their ingenuity in fastening 
 a forced and erroneous meaning upon Scripture to support 
 their pretensions; and the evident commencement of their 
 unfounded claims, although but a commencement, even in 
 
 * Church of Rome. 
 
CONCLUSION. 141 
 
 that early period, when the Church was still groaning under 
 the iron rod of persecution — all this shows us, as in a faithful 
 mirror, the infirmities of poor human nature; and the ease 
 with which the demon of ambitious self-aggrandizement, can 
 appear to be an angel of light. And yet many of these men 
 were unquestionably eminent for piety and zeal ; nor do I 
 doubt their sincerity in believing that their supremacy over the 
 Church, if once established, would tend powerfully to preserve 
 it in unity and peace. But they erred in imagining that any 
 human invention could be a real improvement upon the system 
 of God, established by the inspired apostles; and therefore 
 they stand as a warning to the Church not to place confidence 
 in man, however exalted in station or eminent in character. 
 There is nothing infallible, but the Word of God. 
 
 In the second place, my brethren, we may here learn a 
 lesson of admiring confidence in the Providence of the Al- 
 mighty Ruler, that the very writings of the primitive fathers 
 should be handed down to us by the Church of Rome herself, 
 not indeed in their perfect integrity and purity, for many of 
 their own writers acknowledge that they have been grievously 
 interpolated, but yet so far genuine, as to afford us the clearest 
 proof of the state of the primitive Church, and the most satis- 
 factory evidence that its original government was altogether 
 changed into a totally opposite system ; the vast republic of 
 the Catholic Church (see Laud's Conf. with Fisher, 166) con- 
 verted into a stupendous monarchy — the various dioceses v/ith 
 their bishops, once equal and independent, debased into infe- 
 rior jurisdictions, subject to the arbitrary dominion of a single 
 head — so that no two things bearing the same name can be 
 more difTerent, than the free and moderate episcopacy of the 
 time of Cyprian, and the despotism which afterwards super- 
 seded it in the supremacy of the pope of Rome. True indeed 
 it is, that these writings of the fathers afford abundant material 
 in support of the Roman doctrines, after the first four cen- 
 
142 CONCLUSION. 
 
 turies passed away. True likewise, that an ingenious appli- 
 cation of certain passages in the earlier fathers can be made 
 to look like Romanism, as you have doubtless perceived, my 
 brethren, in the course of these lectures. But we have great 
 reason to be thankful, that a thorough examination of these 
 primitive witnesses will be rewarded by so much that is pure 
 and Scriptural; and that in this way, the very authorities to 
 which the Church of Rome appeals in support of error, can 
 be made tributary to the establishment of truth. 
 
 Lastly, we should surely rejoice in the especial goodness 
 and mercy of God, that after centuries of darkness and delu- 
 sion, our forefathers were enabled to regain so happily the 
 faithful likeness of the ancient Church of Christ, and perpetu- 
 ate it in the leading doctrines, government, and worship of the 
 Church of England. For you perceive, beloved brethren, 
 that every examination we make into the authority of Scrip- 
 ture, the great rule of faith, and into the interpretations and 
 practice of primitive Christianity, only serves to corroborate, 
 more and more, the truth and correctness of her religious 
 principles. Those principles, freed from every political ad- 
 mixture, have descended to us, and form the most precious 
 part of the many privileges derived from our father-land. 
 May we cherish the doctrines thus inherited, with increasing 
 devotion. May we, in our turn, hold up the lamp of sacred 
 instruction, to all who need its blessed light. May we watch 
 over our own ways, under the humbling conviction, that our 
 responsibility before Christ must be in proportion to our ad- 
 vantages; and earnestly seek that grace, through which alone 
 we can hope that our labour will not be in vain. And may we 
 live to see the day, when the Church of Rome, which we de- 
 sire to love notwithstanding all her errors, shall adopt the 
 writings of those fathers which she professes to venerate, and 
 find her way back again to the primitive pattern of apostolic 
 truth and order. 
 
LECTURE VIII. 
 
 John, xviii. 36. — Jesus answered; my kingdom is not of this world. 
 
 Our two last discourses, my brethren, were occupied by 
 that cardinal doctrine of the Church of Rome, which asserts 
 the supremacy of the pope, as the vicegerent of Christ himself, 
 the head of the whole Church, at once the centre of unity and 
 the fountain of authority; and makes this proposition an article 
 of faith, necessary to every man's salvation. The first of these 
 two lectures was devoted to the examination of the Scriptural 
 evidence, on which the advocates of Roman supremacy rely ; 
 and the second, to the testimony of the earlier fathers. We 
 proved, as I trust, conclusively, that the claims of this univer- 
 sal monarchy over the Church universal, were contrary to the 
 plain and repeated testimonies of the sacred volume; and 
 further, that the texts to which its advocates were accustomed 
 to appeal, were interpreted by the fathers, not according to the 
 Roman doctrine, but according to our own. We stated that 
 the first germ of the papacy was indeed to be found very- 
 early, in the history of the attempts made by the bishops of 
 Rome to govern the other bishops with a high hand. We 
 showed that their pretensions grew out of the superior wealth 
 and influence of the great metropolis, ancient Rome, which 
 was, at the time when Christianity found a place within it, 
 and for several centuries afterwards, the acknowledged mistress 
 city of the world. And we promised, in the present lecture, 
 to set forth the rise, progress and extent of the papal dominion, 
 
144 RISE OF THE PAPACY. 
 
 prior to the Reformation, and the condition in which it stands 
 at the present day. To these topics I shall now invite your 
 attention, and shall state those facts only which the unques- 
 tionable authorities of the Church of Rome herself will fully 
 justify. You will then be enabled to see the striking contrast 
 between the doctrine of the papacy, and the declaration of our 
 blessed Saviour in the text, which I have set down in the words 
 of the Roman Catholic version, called the Doway Bible : 
 "Jesus answered, my kingdom is not of this worlds For 
 you will behold the pope claiming a kingdom over the whole 
 earth, wielding his authority over all other monarchs, not only 
 becoming a temporal prince in his own dominions, but bringing 
 every other European sovereign in homage to his feet. 
 
 To show the progress of this extraordinary history the more 
 clearly, I shall state first, the condition of papal power between 
 the beginning of the 4th and the 8th century ; secondly, its 
 condition from the 8th to the 16th century, which was the 
 period of the Reformation; and thirdly, its condition from that 
 time to the present: all of which will be important to those 
 who desire to estimate correctly the character of this funda- 
 mental article of the Roman Catholic faith. 
 
 At the time when Constantino the great became a convert to 
 Christianity, which was about the year of our Lord 312, the 
 Roman empire might be said to embrace the whole civilized 
 world. In its political division, it included several extensive 
 districts, which were then called dioceses, and the emperor 
 conformed the government of the Church to the same limits. 
 The chief political ruler of each of these large dioceses was 
 called Exarch, and the chief ecclesiastical ruler was the Patri- 
 arch. Every patriarchate contained several provinces, and the 
 chief bishop of a province was called the metropolitan. Every 
 province contained several parishes, or, as we now call them, 
 dioceses, over each of which a bishop presided, under whom 
 were the inferior clergy. Amongst all these there was a regu- 
 
RISE OF THE PAPACY. 145 
 
 lar system of subordination, gradually rising from the lowest 
 ecclesiastic to the patriarch. But amongst the patriarchs there 
 was no subordination, for all were equally supreme. The only 
 distinction among them was the order of honour, or precedence, 
 derived from the customary respect paid to their respective 
 sees; and the highest honour was naturally and properly ac- 
 corded to the patriarch of Rome, because Rome was the impe- 
 rial residence, the mistress city of the whole. 
 
 This condition of the government of the Church, brethren, 
 as you will at once perceive, was partly of apostolic and partly 
 of human authority. The original three orders of the ministry, 
 the bishops, priests, and deacons, continued to be the only orders 
 acknowledged universally as of indispensable obligation. To 
 these the Church by degrees appended others. The subdeacon, 
 the reader, the door-keeper, the acolyth, were below the order of 
 deacon, and were designed to assist in the various offices of 
 the house of God. The archdeacon, and archpriest or dean, 
 were posts of distinction among the deacons and priests, calcu- 
 lated to aid the bishop in the discharge of his duties; and the 
 metropolitan or archbishop, and the patriarch, were distinc- 
 tions amongst the bishops themselves, intended to be useful 
 auxiliaries in the work of government. All these, however, 
 were of simply human device, and the higher ranks proved, in 
 the end, liable not only to the abuses which pollute even the 
 ordinances of God when ministered by man's infirmity, but to 
 those peculiar dangers of ambition and pride, which belong, 
 more or less, to every scheme of mortal invention, in the arduous 
 and tempting field of authority and power. 
 
 It was not long after his conversion to Christianity, before 
 the emperor Constantino formed the plan of transferring his 
 imperial residence to that celebrated city which bears his 
 name, Constantinople. Raised by the immense treasures 
 which he had at his command, to a surpassing height of gran- 
 deur, and made the seat of one of the great patriarchates, it 
 
146 PROGRESS OF THE PAPACY. 
 
 was soon recognized as the rival of Rome, and contended, 
 with various success, for absolute superiority. The Church 
 was, at this time, grievously troubled by heresies. At no pe- 
 riod, indeed, was she perfectly free from them, but they as- 
 sumed a far greater magnitude when the religion of the Gos- 
 pel became adopted by the State; because the zealous libe- 
 rality of the emperor, and the ignorant ardour of the patrician 
 host, held out to every ingenious innovator the hope of patron- 
 age from the great, and support from the powerful. Hence 
 the calling of General Councils, to debate upon and settle the 
 true Christian faith, became necessary. Some smaller Coun- 
 cils we read of previously, such as those of Carthage in the 
 time of Cyprian. But the collecting of large Councils, in 
 which the bishops should come together from distant parts, 
 and continue long in session, required the action of the go- 
 vernment: and we find, accordingly, that the first extensive 
 assemblage of that kind was summoned at Aries by Constan- 
 tine, and the first General Council which was held at Nice, in 
 Bithynia, on the subject of the Arian heresy, was stated by 
 the emperor himself, in his speech to the Council, to have 
 been his own plan, as it certainly could only have been 
 brought about by his own authority.* 
 
 You are all aware, brethren, of the well known historical 
 fact, that before the close of the century which saw Chris- 
 tianity established, the vast empire of Rome was divided into 
 two parts, the eastern and the western. Constantinople was 
 the seat of the eastern, and for the most part, Ravenna, and 
 not old Rome, became the seat of the western ; so that the ab- 
 sence of the emperor naturally threw more and more influence 
 and power into the hands of the popes, or bishops of Rome. 
 It was almost equally a matter of course, that in the holding 
 of Councils, the eastern branch of the Church should take the 
 
 * Church of Rome. 
 
PROGRESS OF THE TAPACY. 147 
 
 lead in the east, and the western in the west ; so that the two 
 great patriarchates of Rome and Constantinople, by degrees, 
 divided the whole power of the Church between them. But 
 the scale of their respective claims inclined more and more in 
 favour of the popes, because the east was torn and distracted 
 by dissensions in the fundamental points of faith, such as the 
 Trinity, and the nature and person of Christ. While Rome, 
 maintaining these steadfastly, as she does to this day, gained 
 that increasing measure of confidence, which firmness and 
 consistency never fail to secure, when contrasted with anar- 
 chy and confusion. 
 
 I have not space, nor would it be interesting, to dwell on 
 the various turns of history between the division of the em- 
 pire, and the second period marked as the time of Charle- 
 magne, or Charles the great. The irruptions of the barba- 
 rians, the extinction of the western empire, the passage of the 
 Roman sceptre to the east, the establishment for a time of the 
 kingdom of the Lombards in Italy, were all events of import- 
 ance. But in reference to our particular subject, the power of 
 receiving appeals, granted to the pope by the emperors Valen- 
 tinian in the west, and Marcian in the east, was a more import- 
 ant step towards the papal dominion, than any other event be- 
 longing to this part of history. The elevation of the murderer 
 and tyrant Phocas to the imperial throne, in the sixth century, 
 was also made tributary to the honour of the Roman Church, 
 inasmuch as this emperor granted to the pope the title of uni- 
 versal bishop. The dreadful dissensions of the east about the 
 worship of images in the seventh century, still further tended 
 to increase his influence and power; but we pass over these, 
 in order to mark the temporal glory and substantial territory 
 acquired in the eighth century, which forms the second era of 
 the papal supremacy. 
 
 The story is as follows: The kingdom of the Franks was 
 under the feeble government of the last descendant of Clovis, 
 
148 PROGRESS OF THE PAPACY. 
 
 the weak Childeric; while all the real prerogatives of royalty 
 were exercised by Pepin, the mayor of the palace. The no- 
 bles, as well as himself, were bound by the ties of allegiance 
 to their phantom of a king; and they applied to pope Zachary 
 to know how far they might lawfully have these ties dissolved, 
 so as to place Pepin on the throne. The pope decided, that 
 under such circumstances, Childeric might be deposed and 
 sent to a monastery; and that Pepin, who already had the 
 power, might assume the name of king. Accordingly, Pepin 
 and his adherents gladly received the accommodating decision, 
 and on the strength of the pope's high authority, the revolution 
 was at once effected. 
 
 Rome was at this time in peril from the Lombards, who 
 possessed what was called the kingdom of Italy, and had often 
 assaulted and ravaged the ancient city. On the application of 
 the pope, Pepin came to its succour, forced Astolphus, the 
 Lombard, to resign his prey, and in his gratitude to the Ro- 
 man pontiff for affording him a plausible title to the throne of 
 France, he made a donation of the exarchate to the pope and 
 his successors, as the patrimony of St. Peter. This donation 
 was enlarged and confirmed by his son, Charles the great; 
 who retained it, nevertheless, under his jurisdiction and protec- 
 tion with the title of patrician and patron : and thus the former 
 ecclesiastical possession of farms and houses, (Gibbon, v. 92) 
 was transformed into cities and provinces, and the pope be- 
 came the wearer of a princely crown, notwithstanding we are 
 told that he is the vicar of Him who said, "My kingdom is 
 not of this world." 
 
 The successful conqueror who thus became the strongest 
 earthly support of the papal supremacy — since, in sustaining 
 the papacy, he was justifying his own right to the throne of 
 France — was soon afterwards declared emperor of the Ro- 
 mans by pope Leo III. and publicly crowned in the Church 
 of St. Peter. And thus Rome was finally detached from the 
 
ESTABLISHMENT OF THE PAPACY. 149 
 
 eastern empire, and a distinct western empire was formally 
 established by the sword of Charlemagne, and the policy of 
 the pope. (Gib. v. 102.) It is easy to see how an example 
 which resulted so prosperously in the case of Pepin and his 
 son, would be adopted by other sovereigns in the difficulties of 
 the European states, and how the papal authority to dispose of 
 crowns and sceptres, which formed the basis of the most pow- 
 erful empire of the age, would become a standing prerogative 
 of the papacy, allowed by the following ages, and openly de- 
 fended by popes and kings, as their various interests might 
 best incline them. 
 
 There was still, however, one defect in the papal monarchy, 
 which lasted long after the time of Charles the great, namely, 
 that the election of the popes was not complete, until it was 
 approved by the emperor. And this badge of subjection con- 
 tinued for nearly two centuries later, when pope Gregory VII. 
 succeeded, after many years of conflict, in settling the founda- 
 tions on which the whole papal system has ever since been 
 built, and on which it is still maintained, not indeed by the 
 general admission of Roman Catholics in Germany, France, 
 and Great Britain, but assuredly by the popes themselves, 
 who are, according to the acknowledged doctrine of their 
 Church, the only proper judges of the question. 
 
 This brings us, brethren, to the third period, that of the 
 Reformation; since which there has been manifested, through- 
 out the Church of Rome, in all the countries I have mentioned, 
 a strong disposition to deny the temporal part of the papal 
 prerogative, namely, that which warrants the pope to depose 
 sovereigns, grant kingdoms, and be the supreme arbiter of all 
 human governments, throughout the globe. The first system- 
 atic attack upon this prerogative was made in A. D. 1682, by 
 the famous Declaration of the French Clergy, in the reign of 
 Louis the XIV. Since which, almost all their modern contro- 
 versialists, when writing for the eyes of Protestants, and Dr. 
 
 o2 
 
150 DICTATES 
 
 Wiseman amongst the rest, agree to make light of it, as being 
 the product of the middle ages— not the doctrine of the Church 
 of Rome at all, but merely the well-meant imposition of the 
 popes themselves, to check the warlike temper of European 
 potentates in feudal times, by obliging them to respect some 
 superior power. And thus has been revived a more moderate 
 doctrine, which was attempted to be established in the century 
 before the Reformation, by the Councils of Florence and 
 Basle, viz : that the pope is inferior to a General Council, and 
 that the infallibility of the Church is not placed in the office 
 of the pope, but in the decisions of the Church at large. Now 
 these doctrines do indeed detract immensely from the powers 
 which the popes had openly claimed and exercised for more 
 than five hundred years together : but neither of them, T am 
 sorry to say, have yet been sanctioned by the only tribunal 
 competent to settle the controversy, since they have never 
 been adopted by the popes themselves, and in their last Coun- 
 cil of Trent, the whole subject was passed over. 
 
 Having thus, brethren, set before you a brief history of this 
 remarkable and important article of the Roman creed, I pro- 
 ceed to state my evidence, which you will find to be far 
 stronger than my language has been. And in this evidence 
 you will bear in mind that I quote from those books only 
 which the Church of Rome has produced, and therefore is 
 bound to admit as good authority. 
 
 I commence with the famous Dictates, as they are called, 
 of Pope Gregory VII., extracted from the collection of the 
 Councils, published by the Roman Catholics of France, and 
 edited by the Jesuit Hardouin ; and I beg your particular atten- 
 tion to them, as being the fundamental maxims of the papacy, 
 from the beginning of the 11th century, that is, in its modern 
 form. (Hard. Con. 6 vol. part 1, p. 1304.) 
 
 " 1 . That the Roman Pontiff alone is lawfully called 
 the Universal Bishop, 
 
OF GREGORY VII. 151 
 
 2. That he alone can depose or reconcile the other bishops. 
 
 3. That his legate takes precedence of all bishops in 
 council, and may pronounce sentence against them. 
 
 4. That the Pope can depose those who are absent, 
 
 5. That no one ought even to remain in the same house 
 with any person excommunicated by the Pope. 
 
 6. That to him alone it belongs, in cases of exigency, to 
 make new laws, to congregate new people, to divide a rich 
 bishoprich, or to unite poor ones. 
 
 7. That he alone can use the ensigns of imperial gov- 
 ermnent. 
 
 8. That all princes should kiss the feet of the Pope only. 
 
 9. That his name only shall be recited in the Churches. 
 
 10. That his name is alone, throughout the world. 
 
 11. That it is lawful for him to depose emperors, 
 
 12. That it is lawful for him to transfer bishops from 
 diocese to diocese. 
 
 13. That he may ordain any one in any Church he 
 thinks ft. 
 
 14. That no council ought to be called general, without 
 his order. 
 
 15. That no chapter, nor any book, be esteemed canonical 
 without his authority. 
 
 16. That his sentence can be withdrawn or reversed by 
 no one, and that he himself alone has authority to make such 
 retractation. 
 
 17. That he cannot be judged by any. 
 
 18. That no one should dare to condemn the Apostolic 
 See. 
 
 19. That the weightier questions should be referred to 
 him, by every Church. 
 
 20. 2'hat the Roman Church never has erred, and ac- 
 cording to the testimony of Scripture, it never will err. 
 
 21. That the Roman Pontiff, if he has been canonically 
 
152 PRACTICAL OPERATION 
 
 ordained, is beyond doubt made holy by the merits of blessed 
 Peter. 
 
 22. That no man shall be held for catholic, who does 
 not agree with the Church of Rome. 
 
 23. That the Pope can absolve the subjects of wicked 
 princes from their allegiance,'''' 
 
 Now here, brethren, we have a code of the most absolute 
 despotism, and yet nothing more than what fairly exhibits the 
 practical administration of the papacy for many ages, and 
 what, as I shall presently prove, has never been relinquished 
 to this day. To show, however, in what manner it was ac- 
 tually carried out, I must ask your attention to some passages 
 from the papal history. 
 
 Henry IV., who was emperor of Germany and king of 
 the Romans at the time of pope Gregory's election, and who 
 had confirmed it, refused to give up the right of investing his 
 own bishops, and the pope excommunicated him accordingly. 
 The effects of this papal sentence were so serious, in com- 
 pelling his friends and subjects to withdraw from him, that he 
 found himself obliged to seek a reconciliation with the incensed 
 pontiff, and came to Italy, having previously tried in vain to 
 procure his absolution, by messengers and presents. Now 
 the following passage is extracted from the letter of the pope 
 himself, addressed to the German subjects of the emperor, 
 and giving an account of Gregory's own course upon this 
 remarkable occasion. " The king came," says the pope, 
 " with a very few attendants, to the city of Canusium, where 
 I was at that time residing, and there he presented himself 
 before the gate for three entire days, in a wretched condition : 
 all his royal apparel being laid aside, clothed in woollen, and 
 barefoot, he ceased not to implore, with much weeping, the 
 aid and consolation of our apostolic mercy, so that all those 
 who were present, and to whom the report came, were moved, 
 with pity and compassion; and interceding for him with many 
 
OF PAPAL SUPKEMACY. 153 
 
 tears and prayers, were astonished at our unusual hardness of 
 heart, crying out, that we did not exhibit so much the gravity 
 of apostoHc judgment, as the cruelty of tyrannical ferocity. 
 At length we yielded, being overcome by his compunction and 
 the supplication of the rest, and the chain of our anathema 
 being loosed, we re-admitted him into the bosom of the holy 
 mother Church, having first received from him the following 
 security." Here, brethren, we have an oath set forth on the 
 part of king Henry, which I add in full, because it sheds 
 much light on the character of the whole transaction. (Hard. 
 Cone. 6 vol. 1 part, p. 1355.) 
 
 " The oath of Henry,'' 
 
 King of the Germans. 
 "I, Henry the king, promise, with respect to the murmurs 
 and dissension, which the archbishops and bishops, the dukes, 
 counts, and the other princes of the Germans, now have against 
 me, that I will pursue the course which my lord pope Gregory 
 shall lay down, that I will seek justice according to his judg- 
 ment, and concord according to his counsel, unless some im- 
 pediment shall prevent either myself or him, which impedi- 
 ment, being removed, I will be ready to perform the same. 
 Likewise, if the same lord pope Gregory shall desire to pass 
 beyond the mountains, or to go to any other part of the world, 
 he shall be secure on my part from all injury of life and limb, 
 or captivity, and also those who shall accompany him, and 
 those whom he shall send, or those who shall be going to him 
 from any part of the world ; and this security shall be for the 
 time of their going, remaining and returning: nor shall any 
 hinderance be given them by my consent, which may be con- 
 trary to his honour. And should any other attempt his in- 
 jury, I promise to help him with all my power." 
 
 This is the whole, brethren, of king Henry's oath or secu- 
 rity; turning, you perceive, solely upon the disputed question 
 of internal government, extending to the point of personal 
 
154 
 
 DEPOSITION OF KING HENRY. 
 
 assistance, but not having one line in it which refers to the 
 Gospel, or to the spiritual discipline, which could alone serve 
 even as a pretext for the pope's severity. 
 
 In the progress of the history, however, it appears, that 
 although the king submitted, he did not remain long satisfied, 
 and therefore took up arms against the pope, to vindicate what 
 he claimed to be his right in the investiture of the bishops, 
 notwithstanding the want of the pope's sanction. After the 
 war had lasted for some time, we meet with another oath which 
 the pope tendered to Henry, as the condition of peace. It is 
 as follows : 
 
 "From this hour and thenceforward, I will be faithful with 
 good faith to the blessed apostle Peter and to his vicar pope 
 Gregory, who is now living. And whatsoever the pope him- 
 self shall command me under these words. By true obedience, 
 I will faithfully observe, as it becomes a Christian. But with 
 regard to the ordinances of the Churches, and the lands or the 
 tribute which Constantino the emperor, or Charles, have given 
 to St. Peter, and of all the buildings and property which at any 
 time have been given by men or women to the holy see, and 
 which are or shall be in my power, I will so agree with the 
 pope that I shall not incur the danger of sacrilege and the 
 perdition of my soul. And I will render all due honour and 
 service to God and to holy Peter, Christ helping me; and on 
 that day when I shall first see the pope, I will faithfully, by 
 my own hands, become the soldier of St. Peter and himself." 
 
 Here again, we have a most emphatic assertion of the charac- 
 ter of the pope's dominion: his spiritual excommunication 
 being*used to promote his temporal interests, and the strength- 
 ening of his earthly kingdom being always a prominent object 
 of the exacted submission. 
 
 The sentence of king Henry's deposition, and the transfer 
 of his empire to duke Rudolph, which the pope delivered in 
 full council at Rome, will close our citations from his testi- 
 
HIS KINGDOM GIVEN AWAY. 155 
 
 mony. (Hard. Con. Vol. 6, part 1, p. 1590.) And you 
 will observe that Gregory, throughout the whole of this extra- 
 ordinary document, addresses himself to the apostles Peter and 
 Paul, instead of to the Deity. The language is as follows: 
 
 "O blessed Peter, prince of the apostles, and thou blessed 
 Paul, teacher of the nations, vouchsafe, I pray you, to incline 
 your ears to me, and hear me graciously. Since you are the 
 disciples and lovers of truth, help me that I may speak the 
 truth to you, that my brethren may the better acquiesce in my 
 judgment, and that they may know and understand how in 
 your trust and confidence, after the Lord and his ever virgin 
 mother Mary, I resist the evil and the wicked, and render help 
 to all who are faithful to you." In the same strain the pope 
 proceeds, relating king Henry's disobedience and duke Rudolph's 
 merits to St. Peter and St. Paul, at considerable length, and 
 thus he concludes, still addressing the apostles as before. " Oa 
 which account, confident in the judgment and mercy of God, 
 and of his most pious mother the ever virgin Mary, and en- 
 dued with your authority, I subject to excommunication, and 
 bind with the chains of the curse, the aforesaid Henry, whom 
 they call king, and all his abettors; and on the part of the 
 omnipotent God, and on your part, (blessed Peter and Paul) I 
 interdict to him the kingdom of Germany and Italy, and take 
 away from him all royal dignity and power, and I forbid every 
 Christian to obey him as a king, and I absolve from their oath 
 of allegiance all who have promised or shall promise obedience 
 to him. And I declare that the said Henry and his abettors 
 shall have no strength for the war, and that in his life-time he 
 shall gain no victory. And, further, I give, grant and agree, 
 on the part of your faithfulness (O blessed St. Peter and St. 
 Paul) that Rudolph, whom the Germans have elected for their 
 king, shall rule and govern the kingdom of Germany : and to 
 all who shall faithfully adhere to him, I, relying on your 
 support, do grant the absolution of all their sins, and your 
 
156 UNIVERSALITY OF THE PAPAL CLAIM. 
 
 blessing in this life, and in the life to come. For as Henry, 
 for his pride, disobedience and deception, is justly deposed 
 from the royal dignity, so do we grant to Rudolph the same 
 dignity, for his humility, obedience and truth." 
 
 "I pray you, therefore, O most holy apostles, fathers and 
 princes, that all the world may understand and know, that, as 
 you are able to bind and loose in heaven, you are also able 
 upon the earth to take away and to grant, according to their 
 respective merits, empires and kingdoms, principalities and 
 dukedoms, marches and counties, and the possessions of all 
 men. For oft-times you have taken away patriarchates, 
 primacies, archbishopricks, and dioceses, from the wicked and 
 unworthy, and have given them to the faithful and the pious. 
 If, therefore, you can judge spiritual dominions, how much is 
 it to believe that you can do the same with temporal: and if 
 you shall judge the angels who govern all proud princes, what 
 can you not do to their servants? Let kings now learn and all 
 the princes of the world, how great you are, O blessed Peter and 
 Paul, how much you can perform, and let them fear to make 
 light of the commands of your Church: and especially inflict 
 your judgment on the aforesaid Henry so speedily, that all 
 may know his fall to be by your power, and not by chance. 
 May he be confounded to repentance, that his spirit may be 
 saved in the day of the Lord." 
 
 Here, brethren, is a document, extracted from the records of 
 the Church of Rome, and translated as closely as possible, 
 which exhibits fully and fairly what very few amongst Roman 
 Catholics themselves are aware of, in the comparatively mode- 
 rate notions promulgated about the pope's authority at the pre- 
 sent day. The case is the more worthy of notice, because it 
 was the first example of the kind; although the claims of the 
 popes had been, for a long period before, gradually coming up 
 to the mark of this stupendous dominion. And being the first, 
 it is no wonder that it was not acquiesced in. So far from it 
 
DESPOTISM OF THE PAPACY. 157 
 
 indeed, that it produced a long and bloody war, gave rise to 
 the parties of the Guelphs and Ghibellines, and desolated the 
 land for more than a century. It is further interesting, be- 
 cause it is so strongly characterized by the superstition of that 
 age, namely, the 11th century, than which perhaps none have 
 been darker. The pope addresses himself to St. Peter and 
 St. Paul, he calls himself their vicar, he relies on their power 
 in heaven and on earth, he pronounces his anathema not only 
 against the king, but against the thousands of his unknown 
 subjects who might, however innocently and loyally, adhere 
 to him. And with equal liberality, he pledges the absolution 
 of all their sins, together with the blessing of the apostles here 
 and hereafter, to all who should sustain Rudolph, without con- 
 cerning himself about their having any other good quality 
 whatever: so that nothing can give a clearer idea of the sys- 
 tem of the papacy, with its attendant despotism, superstition 
 and servility, in the days of this most distinguished and suc- 
 cessful conqueror over the liberties of Christendom. 
 
 Not quite two centuries elapsed after this example of Gre- 
 gory, when we find pope Celestine III. exhibiting his suprema- 
 cy in an improved style towards another Henry, the 5th of the 
 name, and also emperor of Germany ; who, with his empress 
 Constantia, came to receive their crown at the hands of the 
 pope, after the reconciliation of a quarrel between them. The 
 manner in which the pontiff performed this duty is thus nar- 
 rated by the Roman historian Baronius. " Our lord the pope 
 was seated," saith the historian, (An. Baron. Tom. 12, p. 
 841,) " in the pontifical chair, holding the golden crown of the 
 empire between his feet, and the emperor, bending down his 
 head, received the crown, and the empress in like manner, 
 from the feet of our lord the pope. But our lord the pope 
 immediately struck the emperor's crown with his foot, and 
 threw him on the floor, in order to signify, that he had the 
 power to cast him from the empire if he should prove unde- 
 
158 EXTERMINATION OF HERETICS. 
 
 serving. And then the cardinals, picking up the crown, placed 
 it upon the head of the emperor." This insulting freak would 
 induce one to suppose, that the pope must have been one of 
 those young and undisciplined persons, who were, in some in- 
 stances, strangely elected to that high dignity. But the fact is 
 that Celestine, who thus obliged an emperor and an empress to 
 receive their crowns from his feet, and then kicked off the im- 
 perial diadem, and overset the wearer, was eighty-five years 
 old (ib. p. 839, § 1,) at the time of his consecration. These 
 instances are only specimens out of a large list of cases, where 
 the power of the pope is placed high above that of every 
 earthly potentate. 
 
 We shall have no difficulty, with these facts before us, bre- 
 thren, to be prepared for the broad principle laid down in the 
 great council of Lateran, summoned by pope Innocent III., 
 and consisting of more than 1200 bishops, in which it was de- 
 clared, (Philpot's Letters to Butler, I. 275,) that "the secular 
 powers should be admonished, and if necessary, be compelled 
 by ecclesiastical censures, to make oath that they will, to the 
 utmost of their power, strive to exterminate from their territory 
 all heretics declared to be such by the Church; and further, 
 that if any temporal lord, being required and admonished by 
 the Church, shall neglect to purge his territory from all taint 
 of heresy, Tie shall be excommunicated by the metropolitans 
 and other provincial bishops, and if he contemptuously omit to 
 give satisfaction within a year, it shall be signified to the holy 
 pontiff, in order that he may thenceforth proclaim his vassals 
 absolved from fealty to him, and may expose to catholics his 
 territory to be occupied by them, who, having exterminated 
 the heretics, may possess the same without contradiction." 
 Here, brethren, we have the same tremendous supremacy as- 
 serted by the largest council that ever met together, and 
 openly connected with the principle of persecution in its worst 
 form. 
 
DESPOTISM OF THE PAPACY. 159 
 
 Our next evidence shall be from an epistle of this pope Inno- 
 cent III. to the eastern emperor of his day, where we read as 
 follows ; " You ouglit to have known the prerogative of the 
 priesthood from its being said by God, not to a king but to a 
 priest, not to one descended from royal, but priestly parentage: 
 See! I have set thee up over the nations and over the king- 
 doms, to root up and to pull down, and to destroy and to throw- 
 down, to build and to plant. Besides you ought to know, that 
 God made two lights in the firmament of heaven, the greater 
 light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night — 
 both great, but one greater. In the firmament of heaven, 
 therefore, that is, of the Universal Church, God made two great 
 lights — that is, instituted two great dignities, which are, the 
 authority of the pope and the power of kings. But that which 
 rules over the day, that is, in spiritual things, is the greater; 
 and that which rules over carnal things, is the lesser. So that 
 the difference between pontiffs and kings may be understood to 
 be as great as between the sun and the moon." (Philpot's 
 Letters to Butler, I. 279.) This was the pontiff, brethren, 
 whose name was rendered so famous in English history by 
 his triumph over the contemptible king John. But Otho, one 
 emperor, and Frederick, another, were treated by him with 
 quite as little ceremony. 
 
 Again, saith the Roman canon law, on the authority of pope 
 Boniface VIII., (ib. p. 278.) " All the faithful of Christ are of 
 necessity of salvation under the Roman pontiff, who has both 
 swords, and judges all men, but is judged by none. We are 
 instructed by the Gospel, that in the power of the pope there 
 are tw^o swords, the spiritual and the temporal. The one to 
 be used jTor the Church, the other hy it — the one by the priest, 
 the other by the hand of kings and soldiers, hut at the nod and 
 svfferance of the priest. But one sword ought to be under 
 the other, and the temporal authority to be subjected to the 
 spiritual. Finally, we declare, say, define, and pronounce, 
 
160 PAPAL SUPREMACY 
 
 that it is of necessity of salvation to every creature, to be 
 subject to the Roman pofit iff. ^^ 
 
 But enough, and perhaps more than enough of evidence, 
 brethren, has been exhibited, to prove the enormous height and 
 unparalleled power of the papal dominion, as it was set forth 
 and practised over all Europe from the end of the 10th to the 
 16th century, which brings us to the era of the Reformation. 
 The remaining branch of our proof is in relation to the ques- 
 tion, whether the popes have really resigned their pretensions 
 since that time, as Dr. Wiseman, and every other Roman 
 Catholic advocate, in Great Britain and the United States es- 
 pecially, profess to believe. And on this part of the case, 
 facts are the best ground for argument. 
 
 In the year 1570, some time after the Reformation, 
 pope Pius V. published his sentence of excommunication 
 against queen Elizabeth, and endeavoured to excite her 
 subjects to revolt, and deprive her of her kingdom. Sub- 
 sequently to this, Pope Sixtus V. renewed the attempt by 
 a solemn bull, in which he styles Elizabeth an usurper, a 
 heretic, and an excommunicate, gives her throne to Philip II. 
 of Spain, and commands the English to join the Spaniards in 
 dethroning her. Every reader of history knows that this act 
 of the pope produced the Spanish invasion, at which time their 
 famous armada was totally destroyed, and their whole object 
 defeated; so that this tyrannical effort of the pope to break 
 down the English Church, only established it more firmly than 
 before. (Philpot's Supplement, p. 475.) . The same pope pro- 
 ceeded in the same way against Henry king of Navarre, the 
 prince of Conde, and all their adherents; pronouncing them 
 heretics, declaring their dominions and estates forfeited, ab- 
 solving their subjects from their allegiance, and charging them 
 not to obey their princes under pain of the greater excommu- 
 nication. 
 
SINCE THE REFORMATION. 161 
 
 The famous declaration of the French clergy already referred 
 to, which is currently stated to be now the standard doctrine, 
 and in which the power of the pope in temporal matters is 
 wholly denied, was passed in the year 1682. But it was con- 
 demned by pope Innocent XL, and afterwards by Alexander 
 VIII.; and all the power of Napoleon Bonaparte could not pre- 
 vail on pope Pius VII. to acknowledge its doctrine, even when 
 a prisoner at Savona, so late as the year 1811, only thirty-two 
 years ago. It is certain, besides, that both the French bishops 
 and the king himself, who were concerned in framing that 
 declaration, were obliged to apologize to the then pope, before 
 he would consent to the institution of the divines, whom the 
 monarch had named to fill the vacant bishoprics ; (ib p. 478.) 
 so that it is evident there was no amelioration of the former 
 despotic claim, so far as the popes were concerned. 
 
 But not to consume time with other instances, let us come 
 to those later examples which have occurred within our own 
 day. In A. D. 1800, pope Pius VII. addressed Louis XVIII. 
 as lawful king of France, and made to him, as such, the usual 
 communication of his election to the papacy. In the following 
 year, on 10th April, 1801, the same pope entered into a Con- 
 cordat with Bonaparte, which instrument not only suppressed, 
 at one stroke, one hundred and forty-six episcopal and metro- 
 politan sees, and dismissed their bishops without form or trial, 
 but also absolved all Frenchmen from their oaths of allegiance 
 to their sovereign, Louis XVIII., and authorized an oath of 
 allegiance to the First Consul. (See Philpot's Letters to But- 
 ler, quoting Butler's own authority for the above, p. 302.) 
 
 And in A. D. 1809, the same pope issued his bull, excom- 
 municating and anathematizing the same Napoleon Bonaparte, 
 and all who adhered to him in the invasion of the papal do- 
 minions. The language of this bull is worthy of especial 
 notice. It is as follows : " Let our persecutors then," says the 
 pope, "learn once for all, that the law of Jesus Christ has 
 
 p2 
 
162 
 
 CEREMONIES 
 
 subjected them to our authority and to our throne. For we 
 also hear the sceptre^ and we can say that our power is far 
 superior to theirs, — already have so many sovereign pontiffs 
 been forced to proceed to similar extremities against rebellious 
 princes and kings, and shall we be afraid to follow their ex- 
 ample ?" (ib.) Here then, brethren, we behold a direct claim 
 of the temporal sword, and a positive application of its use, 
 within our own recollection, in the midst of the boasted illumi- 
 nation of the nineteenth century; clearly demonstrating, that 
 whatever the advocates of the Church of Rome may think it 
 expedient to say about the matter, the prerogatives of the pope 
 are held as high as ever they were, in Rome itself; and the 
 popes are as ready to exercise them, if the temper of the age 
 would bear it. 
 
 A kw words upon the ceremonies of the pope's installation 
 may be desirable, as shedding light upon the proper character of 
 this important doctrine, and these shall be extracted from a 
 standard work upon the subject. " The pope, after his election, 
 is adored three times. First, in the chapel where the election is 
 held, the dean of the cardinals, and after him the other cardi- 
 nals, adore him on their knees, kiss his foot, and then his right 
 hand. The second time he is placed on the altar in the chapel 
 of Sixtus, where the cardinals come and adore him in the same 
 manner. And again, the pope is carried in his pontifical chair 
 under a grand canopy of red, fringed with gold, to the Church 
 of St. Peter, where he is placed upon the grand altar, and the 
 cardinals adore him for the third time, and after them, the 
 ambassadors of princes." 
 
 "At his coronation, he is seated on his throne, and an anthem 
 is sung, the words of which are the prophecy of the Psalmist 
 relative to Christ: "Thou shalt set a crown of pure gold upon 
 his head." The second cardinal deacon takes the mitre from 
 him, and the first puts the tiara on his head, saying: Receive 
 this tiara which is adorned with three crowns, and forget not, 
 
OF THE PAPAL CORONATION. 163 
 
 in wearing it, that you are the father of princes and of kings, 
 the ruler of the worlds and on earth the vicar of Jesus Christ 
 our Saviour.''^ It may be observed, by the way, that the 
 pope, in wearing three crowns, whereas all other monarchs 
 wear but one, is supposed to refer to his three kinds of sove- 
 reignty. The first, over his own dominions; the second, over 
 the kings and princes of the whole earth ; and the third, over 
 the Church. The first instance of the pope wearing any crown 
 was in the case of Damasus II. in A. D. 1048, and the three 
 crowns were not adopted till the time of Urban V. The trea- 
 sures employed in this extraordinary display may be imagined 
 from the fact, that the value of the tiara worn by pope Clement 
 VIII. was estimated at 500,000 pieces of gold, equal to several 
 millions of dollars. (Ch. of Rome, 884, &c.) The splendour 
 and costly magnificence of this ritual, however, in itself, would 
 be of small importance. It is when it stands connected with 
 the claims of the pope to be the vicar of Christ, the father of 
 kings and princes, the ruler of the world, the dispenser of 
 thrones, the absolver of oaths of allegiance, the breaker-down 
 and builder-up of governments, whose feet must be kissed by 
 those who approach him, who is placed upon the altar of God 
 and adored by the cardinals upon their knees, who is the dis- 
 penser of pardon, and grace, and benediction, so that it is of 
 necessity of salvation to every creature to be subject to him, — 
 it is in connexion with these marvellous, stupendous claims, 
 that the ceremonies of his coronation are interesting, because 
 we thus see the consistency of the whole mass of superhuman 
 powers which the superstition of the dark ages has heaped 
 upon the Roman pontiff, and are the better enabled to estimate 
 the infallibility, the unchangeableness, the concord and the 
 purity, which the Church of Rome would fain persuade us are 
 all her own. 
 
 Let us then, beloved brethren, in conclusion, sum up the 
 topics of these last three lectures, by showing you their bearing 
 
164 MODERN POSITION 
 
 not only on the principle of Roman infallibility, but also on the 
 general proposition, that the Reformation has exerted a power- 
 ful influence, even on the Church of Rome herself. 
 
 1. We have seen the equality of the apostles, the equaUty 
 of the primitive bishops, and the total absence of any thing 
 that looked like a temporal dominion. Now I would ask, if 
 the Church of Rome were incapable of erring, why did she not 
 continue in her primitive simplicity? Why did she avail her- 
 self of the ignorance of those barbarian nations which she 
 converted to the faith, by teaching them to add to that faith an 
 acknowledgment of the pope's dignity and power, such as was 
 utterly unknown for more than six centuries of the Christian 
 era? But again, if the Church of Rome was from the begin- 
 ning, as they say, tenacious of the apostolic system, I ask, 
 how is it that we find her bishop become a mighty sovereign, 
 keeping kings standing barefoot for three days before his cas- 
 tle gate, compelling emperors and empresses to receive their 
 crowns from his feet, and making the proudest monarchs 
 tremble before him? For how can any man believe that this 
 was the system of the apostles? Can any one be persuaded 
 that such was the administration of that Saviour, who said, 
 " My kingdom is not of this world ?" And can it be questioned, 
 for a moment, that an abuse so flagrant as this, even if there 
 had been no other, did of itself call loudly for the work of 
 reformation? 
 
 2. But we have also seen the contrast between the claims 
 of the popes since the period of the Reformation, and the doc- 
 trine of their bishops and their clergy. Two successive popes 
 excommunicated queen Elizabeth, and absolved her subjects 
 from their allegiance, and one of them commanded those sub- 
 jects to join the king of Spain. But no one in Great Britain 
 obeyed them. These very powers were openly denied by the 
 king and clergy of France, and the pontiff' was obliged to be 
 content with an evasive apology. The pope absolved the French 
 
OF THE DOCTRINE. 165 
 
 nation from their allegiance to Louis XVIII. in favour of Na- 
 poleon, then he excommunicated him in turn, and in neither 
 case was the slightest effect produced by acts, which prior to 
 the Reformation, would have kindled a civil war in any part of 
 Europe. Behold, then, brethren, a specimen of the unity and 
 concord of which our Roman brethren boast so confidently. 
 The head commands, and tlie members disobey. The vicar 
 of Christ exercises his old prerogatives, and his own people do 
 not mind him. And Dr. Wiseman himself, after beholding 
 and rejoicing over the magnificent coronation of the pope, and 
 echoing the proclamation which styles him the father of kings 
 and the ruler of the world, goes over to England, and gravely 
 assures his auditory, that the temporal exercise of papal sove- 
 reignty is no longer a part of the Roman Catholic system. 
 
 3. But lastly, what shall we say to the candour and the 
 frank dealing of those, who, like Dr. Wiseman, undertake to 
 declare the real doctrines of the Roman Church to the world? 
 How are we to account for their repeating continually that 
 they are unchanged, and vnchangeable, and all united in sen- 
 timent, when the plainest historical evidence, furnished by the 
 popes themselves, stands openly against them? How shall we 
 explain this strange contradiction: the popes saying one thing, 
 the bishops and the priests saying the very opposite, and yet 
 both agreeing to keep the peace? It is said by many, that this 
 is done for the purpose of regaining their lost influence and 
 power, by an accommodation of their doctrines to the temper 
 of the age, until they feel strong enough to enforce their for- 
 mer dominion. It is supposed that the popes renew their 
 claims from time to time, for the sake of consistency; and 
 that the priests are suffered to teach the very contrary for the 
 sake of policy, until the nations who have burst their chains 
 are again bound with them, and the rulers of states and king- 
 doms shall again be compelled to bow before the universal 
 monarch of the triple crown. For myself, brethren, unwilling 
 
166 
 
 CONCLUSION. 
 
 as I should be to impeach the candour of any man, I must ac- 
 knowledge that it is difficult to account for the strange anoma- 
 ly on any other hypothesis. For the facts are undeniable, 
 and must lead to one of these conclusions. Either the unity 
 of the Church of Rome in this fundamental point exists no 
 longer, or the popes and the priesthood must have a secret 
 understanding, which resolves this open diversity into the 
 necessity for a temporary disguise. Doubtless, they imagine 
 it to be all right, and think their despotism quite preferable 
 to our freedom. But for us, who desire to judge according 
 to the only infallible standard, the written Word of God, the 
 counsel of the great apostle should be our guide: "Stand fast 
 in the liberty wherewith Christ hath made you free, and be 
 not entangled again with the yoke of bondage." 
 
 The subject allotted to our next lecture, and which is directly 
 connected with the present, is the principle of anathema and 
 persecution, which is unhappily engrafted upon the Church of 
 Rome as an article of faith, and which perhaps, more than 
 any thing else, renders her power an object of fearful appre- 
 hension to the rest of the Christian world. This subject shall 
 be treated as fairly and as kindly as possible, brethren, because 
 it is no part of my desire to present painful facts, any farther 
 than they are necessm-y for the understanding of established 
 principles. My object is to set before you the doctrines of 
 the Church of Rome, not the vices, the cruelties, or the enor- 
 mities, which may have been exhibited by individuals amongst 
 her priesthood or her people. And therefore, as, in the present 
 lecture, I have been silent on the point of the lives of certain 
 popes, so, in the next, 1 shall not promise to enter, needlessly, 
 into the details of the inquisition, or any other variety of mode 
 in which the coercion or punishment of heretics was attempted. 
 Believing, in my conscience, that the principles of the Reforma- 
 tion, particularly as established in the English branch, are the 
 pure and essential principles of Christianity, and regarding the 
 
CONCLUSION. 167 
 
 Church of Rome with none but the kindest feelings, it has long 
 been my heart's desire and prayer for them, that they might 
 understand and forsake the errors of their system. I have no 
 sympathy with those who wish to see that Church destroyed, 
 or oppressed, or treated in any way unjustly : God forbid ! for 
 it is of apostolic origin, it continued long pure in faith, and it 
 still retains the fundamental doctrines of the true Christian 
 creed, notwithstanding its manifold corruptions. But I would 
 help them, if I could, to discover the perilous changes, which 
 the love of priestly power, and the superstitions of the darker 
 ages, brought in upon them ; and I should rejoice with joy un- 
 speakable, if I might be permitted to behold the day, which 
 should bring them and every other part of Christendom, with- 
 in the blessed circle of primitive unity, according to the pure 
 standard of the Gospel of peace. But although I may not 
 live to see so happy a consummation, may the Lord hasten it 
 in his own good time, and to his great and ever blessed name, 
 the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost, be all the glory. 
 
LECTURE IX. 
 
 Rom. xii. 14. — Bless and curse not. 
 
 Such, my brethren, was the solemn injunction of the great 
 apostle of the Gentiles to the Church of Rome; an injunction 
 so characteristic of that Gospel which is the message of peace 
 and good will to men, and so plainly in accordance with the 
 sacred mission of that Redeemer who was the Prince of peace, 
 that there is nothing in the entire circle of her errors which 
 seems to me more awfully inconsistent with the Word and 
 Spirit of God, than her open and declared opposition to it. I 
 speak not of the acts of her pontiffs, her bishops, or her peo- 
 ple; but I speak of the principle which she has incorporated 
 into her very creed, as an article of faith, by which the 
 solemn pronouncing of a curse, in the form of anathema, 
 against all who refuse to adopt her whole system, is made the 
 duty of every soul belonging to her. In direct connexion with 
 this, stands the doctrine of persecution and extirpation of here- 
 tics, so long practised by the Church of Rome, and enjoined 
 as a work of the highest merit. And to the same principle, 
 only a little farther extended, we are obliged to trace the hor- 
 rible institution of the Inquisition. For although this has been 
 abolished within the last thirty years — nay, although many 
 deny that it could ever have been justly charged upon the 
 Church of Rome, yet we shall find it to have been the positive 
 work of her pontiffs, adopted and cherished by multitudes of 
 her priesthood, so that the question will remain to be decided: 
 
PfilNCIPLES OF PERSECUTION. 169 
 
 Who are the best authorities for the real doctrine of the Roman 
 Church — the popes, and the whole of Italy, Spain, and Portu- 
 gal, including, at one period, a portion of France herself; or 
 the modern Roman Catholics of France, Germany, and Great 
 Britain? But be this point settled as it may, one fact must be 
 established by every fair examination of the subject : namely, 
 that religious intolerance is the genius of the Roman Catholic 
 Church, while toleration has been purely, under God, the work 
 of the reformers. 
 
 In order, however, that we may discern how far the princi- 
 ple of persecution has been engrafted on the creed of the 
 Church of Rome, and how much of it remains at the present 
 day, I shall begin by considering the anathema, or solemn 
 curse, denounced upon heretics by the creed of pope Pius IV., 
 which is the acknowledged creed of all Roman Catholics with- 
 out exception. 
 
 Secondly, I shall explain the proper meaning of the term 
 anathema, as practically understood by the Church of Rome, 
 and the extent and mode to which it has been applied by the 
 Council of Trent. 
 
 Thirdly, I shall set forth some of the acts of popes and 
 councils, in procuring what they called a holy war upon here- 
 tics, in order to destroy them by open violence. 
 
 Fourthly, I shall present a sketch of the rise, progress and 
 authority of the Inquisition, which was intended to extirpate 
 heretics by process of law, just as the holy wars were intended 
 to extirpate them by the sword. 
 
 And lastly, I shall state the present position of the whole 
 doctrine. 
 
 I need scarcely say, my brethren, that no subject belonging 
 to the Roman controversy is more painful, and none needs to 
 be handled with greater caution and fairness than this : while, 
 on the other hand, there is nothing of which a thorough un- 
 derstanding is more vitally important to the peace and secu- 
 
170 PRINCIPLES OF PERSECUTION. 
 
 rity of Christendom. The Roman Catholics themselves are 
 as deeply interested in this matter as any other body of pro- 
 fessing Christians whatever; because they are scattered all 
 over the world, and live under a variety of governments, the 
 rulers of which, although Christians, by no means agree 
 with them in religious sentiment. Hence it is notorious, that 
 in many parts of Switzerland and Germany, in Prussia, Den- 
 mark, and Sweden, in the East and West Indies, in England, 
 Ireland, and Scotland, in the province of Canada, and in the 
 United States, the members of the Church of Rome are in- 
 debted for all their Christian liberty to the doctrine of tole- 
 ration. But if toleration amongst Christians be right, per- 
 secution must be wrong; and the argument which belongs to 
 the discussion of the point is of such deep practical import- 
 ance, that all should be ready to lay aside their prejudices and 
 passions, in order to examine it according to the light of truth 
 and reason, in just subordination to the authority of the Word 
 of God. 
 
 1. I proceed then, brethren, according to the course pro- 
 posed, to show, that the pronouncing a positive anathema^ or 
 solemn curse, upon all heresies, is a part of the modern creed 
 of the Church of Rome : and for this purpose, I shall quote the 
 formulary universally acknowledged amongst all Roman Ca- 
 tholics, viz: the creed of Pope Pius IV., in the latter clause of 
 which we read as follows: "I profess and undoubtedly re- 
 ceive all things delivered, defined, and declared, by the sacred 
 Canons and General Councils, and particularly by the holy 
 Council of Trent; and I also condemn, reject, and anathema- 
 tize all things contrary thereto, and all heresies whatsoever, 
 condemned and anathematized by the Church." A little far- 
 ther on, the creed declares this to be a part of that "true Ca- 
 tholic faith, out of which none can he saved.'''' 
 
 Here, then, we see that each individual member of the 
 Church of Rome is bound to unite with the Councils, and es- 
 
THE ANATHEMA. 171 
 
 pecially the Council of Trent, in pronouncing this anathema, 
 or solemn curse. And of so much importance is this princi- 
 ple held, that the famous Delahogue, in the treatise now used 
 as the class-book in the Irish Roman Catholic college at 
 Maynooth, includes it in his formal definition of the Church. 
 " The Church of Christ," says he, " is a Church, teaching, 
 judging, and anathematizing.'''' "This supposes," continues 
 the author, " that the subjects of the Church are bound to obey 
 her voice, and that if they prove rebellious, she can cast them 
 out of her bosom." . . . "Therefore it is necessary to acknow- 
 ledge, that all those heretics which the Church casts out, no 
 longer belong to her. And on this very account, they can 
 have no hope of salvation.'''' (Tract, de Ecc. p. 15.) "It is 
 manifest," saith he elsewhere, " that in this sentence of eter- 
 nal death, we must include not only those whom the Church 
 has cast out, but those also who have left he7\" (lb. p. 16.) 
 Mark, brethren, I pray you, that the Church's anathema is 
 here called, in a book of established modern authority, a 
 *' sentence of eternal death;'''' and with this we shall find the 
 constant usage of the Church of Rome to be in full accord- 
 ance. 
 
 Thus, for example, pope Gregory VII., who dealt very 
 extensively in ecclesiastical censures, expresses himself. 
 Speaking of a bishop whom he had anathematized, and warn- 
 ing the inferior clergy to have no communion with him, he 
 saith, " we have excommunicated him, and have separated 
 him from the body of holy Church. For which reason we 
 order you, by our apostolical authority, to shake off his yoke 
 from your necks, lest you should also be made the servants 
 of the devil, whose member he has now become." (Greg. 
 Epist. 18. Hard. Cone, Tom. 6. pars 1. p. 1361.) 
 
 Again :," Separate them," saith the same pope, (ib. 1275, E.) 
 " from the body and communion of the Church, by our apos- 
 tolical authority, as stricken by the sword of anathema." 
 
172 
 
 THE ANATHEMA. 
 
 Again, the same pope threatens the obnoxious Carthagenians 
 in these words : "If you do not perform this precept, I will 
 strike you justly with the sword of anathema, and send forth 
 against you the curse of St, Peter, and my ownJ'^ (lb. 
 1215. A.) 
 
 Again, speaking of the clergy of Ravenna, he saith : " We 
 Xiut them off with the sword of anathema, and cast them, as 
 putrid members, out of the whole body of Christ, which is 
 the Catholic Church." 
 
 And again, speaking of another obnoxious person, pope 
 Gregory saith, (ib. 1418. D.) "which, if he shall refuse, he 
 will provoke against himself i/te anger and fury of Almighty 
 God, through our apostolic excommunication,'''' Now, in 
 these various passages, we have the^ authority of the pope 
 himself, for the meaning of the sentence of anathema. For 
 he considers it plainly to be cutting men altogether off, as 
 mortified members, and as with a sword, from the body of 
 Christ; the giving them over as members of Satan, and the 
 bringing down upon them the wrath and fury of God. What 
 more grievous curse could possibly be allotted to man than 
 thisi 
 
 I have been thus particular, brethren, to explain the meaning 
 of the term, because modern Roman Catholics are in the habit 
 of softening it down, so as to make it signify nothing more than 
 the ordinary excommunication practised amongst other Church- 
 es. Whereas, in the Church of Rome, there is the lesser ex- 
 communication, and the greater excommunication, and the ana- 
 thema is held to be the highest of all. Perhaps, however, 
 the most satisfactory evidence of the character of this sen- 
 tence will be found in the form of its administration, which 
 is as follows, in the words of the Roman pontifical. (Philpot's 
 Let. to Butler, Supplement, p. 558.) " By the judgment of 
 God the Father Almighty, the Son, and the Holy Ghost, and 
 of St. Peter, prince of the apostles, and all the saints, and by 
 
THE ANATHEMA. 173 
 
 the power of binding and loosing in heaven and in earth, con- 
 ferred by God upon us, we separate this man from the recep- 
 tion of the precious body and blood of the Lord, and from 
 the society of all Christians, and exclude him from the 
 thresholds of holy mother Church in heaven and in earth, and 
 we decree him to be excommunicated and anathematized, and 
 adjudge him to be damned with the devil and his angels and 
 all reprobates, to eternal fire; until he recover from the snares 
 of the devil, and return to amendment and repentance, and 
 satisfy the Church which he has injured ; delivering him to 
 Satan for the destruction of the flesh, that his spirit may be 
 saved in the day of judgment." 
 
 The effect of this sentence is supposed to be, that Satan 
 immediately takes possession of his prey ; for the form ap- 
 pointed to restore him to the Church contains an exorcism for 
 the purpose of expelling the evil spirit. Thus, after the party 
 has professed his belief in the articles of the creed, kneeling 
 on his knees, the pontiff, wearing his mitre, rises from his 
 seat, and says over him, still kneeling, these words : " I ex- 
 orcise thee, O unclean spirit, by God the Father Almighty, 
 and by Jesus Christ his Son, and by the Holy Ghost, that 
 thou depart from this servant of God, whom God and our 
 Lord vouchsafes to rescue from thy errors and deceits, and to 
 recall to the holy mother, the Catholic and apostolic Church." 
 (lb. 559.) The light, therefore, in which those are regarded, 
 who are under the anathema of the Church of Rome, is that 
 of persons cut off from the Church, condemned to final dam- 
 nation, and possessed by Satan even in the present life, unless 
 they seek, by penitence and submission, to be reconciled to 
 her. 
 
 You would probably infer, brethren, that however vast and 
 awful the power of pronouncing this sentence of anathema 
 may be, it is at least one which the Church of Rome does not 
 pretend to exercise upon any but those who belong to her own 
 
 U2 
 
174 ANATHEMAS OP 
 
 communion. In this, nevertheless, I am sorry to say, you 
 would be quite mistaken. The Church of Rome considers 
 herself the rightful head and mistress of the whole world, and 
 therefore all who refuse to adopt her faith, and to bow to her 
 authority, are styled heretics, and have the accumulated 
 horrors of all anathemas poured down upon them. In proof 
 of this assertion, I quote the declaration of the Council of 
 Trent, in her catechism drawn up for universal parochial 
 instruction : " Heretics and schismatics," says this catechism, 
 " belong to the Church, only as deserters belong to the army 
 from which they have deserted. It is not, however, to be de- 
 nied, that they are still subject to the jurisdiction of the 
 Chu?'ch, inasmuch as they are liable to have judgment past 
 on their opinions, to be visited with spiritual punishments, 
 and denounced with anathema.''^ (p. 94 of Am. edition of 
 Cat. of Coun. of Trent.) And as a proof of the terrible abun- 
 dance in which the Church of Rome dispenses her maledic- 
 tions, the single Council of Trent passed no less than one 
 hundred and twenty-six distinct anathemas, of which every 
 Christian denomination amongst the reformers was designed 
 to have a considerable number, and our own Church would 
 come in for no small share. Perhaps a ^q\y of these anathe- 
 mas may as well be translated for your information, from 
 which you may readily infer the character of the rest. 
 
 "VII. SESS. CANON I. (p. 27.) 
 
 " If any one shall say, that the sacraments of the new law 
 were not all instituted by Jesus Christ our Lord, or that they 
 are more or less than seven, viz : baptism, confirmation, the 
 eucharist, penance, extreme unction, orders, and matrimony; 
 or that any of these is not truly and properly a sacrament, 
 let him be anathema.'' Here, brethren, there are three 
 assertions which we maintain, all visited with this tremendous 
 sentence, a three-fold curse in one. 
 
THE COUNCIL OF TRENT. 175 
 
 " XIII. SES. CAN. I. 
 
 Again : " If any one shall deny that in the most holy 
 sacrament of the eucharist, the body and blood of our Lord 
 Jesus Christ is truly, really, and substantially contained, to- 
 gether with his soul, and divinity, and consequently all of 
 Christ, but shall say that they are in it only in sign, or in 
 figure, or in efficacy, let him be anathema.'''' 
 
 CANON II. 
 
 Again : " If any one shall say, that in the holy sacrament of 
 the eucharist, the substance of the bread and wine remains, 
 together with the body and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ, and 
 shall deny that wonderful and singular conversion of the whole 
 substance of the bread into the body, and of the whole sub- 
 stance of the wine into the blood, the appearances of bread and 
 wine alone remaining, which conversion truly the (Roman) 
 Catholic Church most aptly calls transubstantiation, let him be 
 anathema.^'' 
 
 CANON III. 
 
 Again : " If any one shall deny, that in the venerable sacra- 
 ment of the eucharist, the whole of Christ is contained under 
 either kind, and in all the parts of either kind after the separa- 
 tion is made, let him be anathema.'''' 
 
 CANON VI. 
 
 And again : " If any one shall say, that in the holy sacra- 
 ment of the eucharist, Christ, the only Son of God, is not to be 
 adored with divine worship, even externally, and that he is 
 not to be venerated by a peculiar festive celebration, nor car- 
 ried about in public procession, according to the laudable and 
 universal rite of the Church ; or that he is not to be publicly 
 held forth to the people to be worshipped, and that his adorers 
 are idolaters, let him be anathema.^'' 
 
176 PERSECUTION ENJOINED 
 
 Now in these four canons, there are contained nine distinct 
 propositions, ot" which our Church holds eight, and the Lu- 
 theran Church holds the whole, each of which propositions is 
 subjected to the awful sentence of the curse. And you will 
 observe, brethren, that the anathema is not pronounced upon 
 the doctrine, but upon the persons tcho hold the doctrine; so 
 that in this small portion of the acts of this last council, you 
 and I, with millions more of professed Christians, are under 
 eleven distinct anathemas, three belonging to the canon first 
 quoted, and eight belonging to the four others. There are. as 
 I have said, one hundred and twenty-six of these anathemas, 
 explicitly put forth by this council; and nearly all of them are 
 like those which I have cited in this respect,' that each anathe- 
 ma is declared at the end of several propositions, to every one 
 of which it is grammatically applicable. So that it is probable, 
 were we to count the separate propositions, we should find 
 that not one hundred and twenty-six, but nearly three hundred 
 of these solemn and awful curses have been fulminated by the 
 Church of Rome against the rest of Christendom. Now, when 
 you recollect the effects supposed to follow one single anathema, 
 pronounced by one single bishop, and then remember that the 
 concluding session of this famous council was attended by 
 two hundred and sixty-five of the highest dignitaries of their 
 Church, and that the whole was afterwards solemnly ratified 
 and confirmed by the pope himself, you will have some faint 
 idea of the horrible condition in which a sincere and intelligent 
 Roman Catholic believes us all to be plunged, by our daring to 
 worship God according to the pure light of his own Word, and 
 the doctrines of the primitive fathers. And you will thus be 
 prepared, brethren, to understand the next step in our melan- 
 choly history, namely, how naturally the sivord of anathema 
 stands connected with the sword of persecution,*^ 
 
 * For authorities against the temporal sword, see Picart, Tom. 2, 
 Memoires Historiques concernant I'Inquisition, p. 4, &c. 
 
BY A GENERAL COUNCIL. 177 
 
 I shall not occupy your time by noticing the advances made 
 towards the principle of religious persecution, prior to the 13th 
 century, but shall come at once to the doctrine laid down by 
 the great council of Lateran, A. D. 1215, under pope Inno- 
 cent III., which fixes the principle upon the Church of Rome in 
 the most direct and unquestionable terms, inasmuch as this 
 was not only a general council, but the very largest that ever 
 assembled together. The language of this decree on the sub- 
 ject of heretics will require some patience, brethren, for it is 
 somewhat long; but if you desire a thorough understanding o^ 
 the point before us, you will find it well worth attention; it is 
 as follows: (Hard. Con. Tom. VII. p. 19, D.) 
 
 "We excommunicate and anathematize every heresy which 
 lifts itself up against the holy, orthodox, and Catholic faith, 
 condemning all heretics by whatever name they are known." 
 
 " And those whom we have condemned are left to the secu- 
 lar princes and their officers, to be punished by the penalty 
 due; the clergy being first degraded from their orders, in such 
 wise that the properly of those who are thus condemned shall 
 be confiscated, if they be laymen, but if they are of the clergy, 
 their property shall be applied to those Churches from which 
 they have received their stipends." 
 
 " And whoever shall be found under suspicion only, if they 
 cannot prove their innocence by a satisfactory purgation ac- 
 cording to the quality of the person and the character of the 
 suspicion, they shall be struck with the sword of anathema, 
 and shall be avoided by all, until they make due satisfaction ; 
 and if they remain thus excommunicated for one year, then 
 they shall be condemned as heretics." 
 
 " And the secular powers shall be admonished and exhorted, 
 and if necessary, they shall he compelled by ecclesiastical 
 censure, whatever offices they fill, if they desire to be them- 
 selves respected and held faithful, publicly to take an oath for 
 the defence of the faith, that they will, bonajide, endeavour to 
 
178 PERSECUTION ENJOINED 
 
 exterminate from the lands subject to their jurisdiction, accord- 
 ing to their power, all heretics denounced by the Church; 
 and let every one, without exception, entering upon any office, 
 whether spiritual or temporal, be held to confirm this regulation 
 by oath." 
 
 " But if the temporal lord, being required and admonished 
 by the Church, shall neglect to purge his territory from this 
 heretical uncleanness, he shall be bound with the chain of 
 excommunication by the metropolitan and the other provincial 
 bishops. And if he does not render satisfaction within a year, 
 let it be reported to the sovereign pontiff, in order that he may 
 declare his subjects absolved from their allegiance to him, and 
 may expose his territory to be occupied by Catholics, who, 
 after the heretics are driven out, may possess it without con- 
 tradiction, and preserve it in the purity of the faith. The 
 rights of the sovereign lord, however, shall not be prejudiced 
 herein, provided he puts no obstacle nor any impediment in the 
 way. And the same law shall be kept in the case of those 
 who have no chief lords above them." 
 
 " Those Catholics, who, under the character of crusaders, 
 have taken up arms to exterminate heretics, shall enjoy the 
 same indulgence, and the same sacred privileges as those who 
 have gone to the succour of the holy land." 
 
 " And we further decree, that the believers, the receivers, 
 the defenders and the favourers of heretics, be subjected to 
 excommunication; and that after any such shall be notified of 
 his excommunication, if he fail to render satisfaction within 
 one year, he shall forthwith be declared infamous, incapable 
 of holding any public office, as well as of electing others 
 thereto, and also incapable of giving testimony. And he 
 shall further be declared incapable of making his will, and 
 shall neither be allowed to give away his property by will, 
 nor to receive any property by inheritance from others^ 
 
 " Moreover, if such person be a judge, his sentence 
 
BY A GENERAL COUNCIL. 179 
 
 shall have no force, nor shall causes he any longer tried 5e- 
 fore him. If he be an advocate, his exercise of ojlce shall 
 not be admitted. If he be a notary, the instruments drawn 
 up by him shall be of no weight, but shall be condemned with 
 their condemned author. And in all other like cases, we 
 command that the like rule be observed. But if he be of the 
 clergy, let him be deposed from all benefit and exercise of his 
 office, in order that where the guilt is the greater, the penalty 
 may be the more severe." 
 
 "And to these pestilent heretics, the clergy may not 
 
 administer any of the sacraments, neither may they presume 
 to give them Christian burial, neither may they receive of 
 them any offerings or alms ; otherwise such clergy offending 
 herein shall be deprived of their office, to which they shall 
 never be restored but by the special grace of the apostolic 
 
 " And inasmuch as some of these heretics, under the mask 
 of piety, but, as saith the apostle, denying the power thereof, 
 pretend that they have authority to preach ; notwithstanding 
 the apostle saith : How shall they preach unless they be sent ; 
 therefore all who presume to usurp the office of preacher, 
 either publicly or privately, being either prohibited, or not 
 sent by the authority of the pope or of the Catholic bishop of 
 the place, shall be bound by the chain of excommunication; 
 and unless they speedily repent, shall be visited by the other 
 pains and penalties." 
 
 "And we add further, that every archbishop or bishop, by 
 himself or by his archdeacon, or other fit and honest persons, 
 shall go round his own diocese, wherever it is reported that 
 there are any heretics, twice or at least once in every year, 
 and shall compel three or more men of good standing, or if he 
 think it expedient, even the whole neighbourhood, to make 
 oath, that if any of them shall know of heretics in that place. 
 
180 FERSECUTION ENJOINED 
 
 or others holding secret conventicles, or dissenting in faith or 
 morals from the common conversation of the faithful, he will 
 take care to inform the bishop concerning them. And the 
 bishop himself shall call the accused before him, and if they 
 shall fail to purge themselves from the crime, or after their 
 purgation shall relapse into their old perfidy, let them be pun- 
 ished according to the canon. And if any, through their cul- 
 pable obstinacy, reject the obligation of such an oath, and re- 
 fuse to take it upon them, let them, on this very ground, be 
 taken for heretics." 
 
 "Therefore we decree and order, and in virtue of obedience 
 strictly command, that the bishops diligently look to these re- 
 gulations being strictly observed throughout their dioceses, if 
 they would themselves avoid the vengeance of the canon. For 
 if any bishop shall prove negligent or remiss in the duty of 
 purging his diocese from the leaven of heretical pravity, and 
 this can be proved by sufficient testimony, let him be deposed 
 from the episcopal office, and a fit man be put in his place, 
 who both can and will confound all heretical wickedness." 
 
 I am afraid, brethren, that you have found this extract te- 
 dious, but I knew not how to abbreviate or omit any part of 
 it, in justice to the subject; since it is the great document of the 
 Roman Catholic Church, upon the point of persecution. And 
 you perceive, that by the highest authority of their system, that 
 of a General Council, consisting of twelve hundred prelates 
 under the immediate presidency of the pope himself, all here- 
 tics are not only denounced with the tremendous sentence of 
 anathema, but are further made liable to be stripped of their 
 property, driven from their homes by violence, pronounced 
 infamous, made incapable of giving testimony, and of either 
 bequeathing property to others, or receiving any inheritance 
 themselves. The heretical judge shall no longer hear causes, 
 the heretical lawyer shall no longer be allowed to plead. The 
 heretical notary even destroys the force of the instruments 
 
BY A GENERAL COUNCIL. 181 
 
 which concern the rights of others. VoKinteers are encou- 
 raged to take up the sword against them by the promise of pe- 
 cuhar privileges ; princes and rulers are compelled to swear 
 that they will exterminate them ; and bishops and archbishops 
 are obliged to perambulate their dioceses every year for the 
 purpose of inquiring after them, under the penalty of losing 
 their own offices, if they presume to show the smallest indul- 
 gence, or even remissness, in the work of persecution. 
 
 The zeal of this famous Council, and the vigorous efforts of 
 the pope, however ill directed, were not, it must be granted, 
 without cause; for it appears that there were immense num- 
 bers and many denominations of what they called heretics, at 
 the time. Of their tenets, indeed, it is difficult, if not impossi- 
 ble, to speak precisely ; because the writers on their side have 
 not come down to us; and those on the side of the Church of 
 Rome are not in the position of disinterested witnesses. The 
 Albigenses, the VValdenses, and the poor men of Lyons, oc- 
 cupy the most prominent place in the chronicles of that age. 
 And if the account which the modern Waldenses give of the 
 matter be worthy of credit, we should all agree, that what the 
 Council of Lateran stigmatized as heresy, was a far purer 
 faith than their own. 
 
 But be this as it may, vast efforts were thought necessary 
 for their suppression. Armies were raised against them at the 
 earnest exhortations of the pope, the soldiers of which wore 
 the sign of the cross. The holy crusade of the Church against 
 the heretics, was preached from the pulpits with the utmost ve- 
 hemence and ardour; and as an incentive to the courage of 
 the recruits, the Roman Catholic historian, Baronius, relates, 
 that the pope gave them "a full remission of all their sins." 
 (Baron. 13, 121.) 
 
 The same author details many facts as to the mode of con- 
 ducting this war against the heretics, which would shock our 
 modern notions of humanity. In one instance, for example, he 
 
182 RISE OF THE INQUISITION. 
 
 mentions the case of 180 men, who, he says, "preferred being 
 burned aHve, rather than think rightly." (lb. 156.) So large 
 was the scale on which this work of heretical ejxtermination 
 was conducted, that the army of the crusaders under Simon 
 de Montfort, amounted at one time to 300,000 men; and there 
 is not a page in the history of the world more deeply stained 
 with cruelty, barbarit}^, and foul excess, than that which has 
 commemorated these wars miscalled holy; when fanaticism 
 and superstition, beneath the banner of papal supremacy, re- 
 velled in pillage and in blood, under the outraged name of the 
 Prince of peace. 
 
 Besides these crusades against the heretics, however, the 
 pope found that some other plan must be devised in order to 
 carry out the resolutions of the Council of Lateran. For the 
 latter part of the canon which I have cited, in which the 
 bishops and archbishops were commanded to become inquisi- 
 tors of heresy, and to perambulate their dioceses every year for 
 the purpose of discovering all that were suspected to hold he- 
 retical sentiments, was not obeyed with any thing like the 
 vigour which the case required. In order to remedy this de- 
 fect, the pope undertook to appoint inquisitors of his own, and 
 to send them into the suspected districts, to hunt the heretics 
 out of their concealments, and subject them to those punish- 
 ments which had already been established, through the influ- 
 ence of the Church of Rome, in every part of Europe. And 
 this was the next step towards the establishment of the Inqui- 
 sition. 
 
 To show how this part of the work was carried on, we find 
 Baronius stating, in one place, that there were various heretics 
 of both sexes in Germany, France, and Italy, who were appre- 
 hended and burned alive. In ihe city of Argentine, more than 
 eighty were arrested in A. D. 1215, of whom very {ew were 
 found innocent. "And these," saitli the historian, with admi- 
 rable simplicity, "brother Conrad of Marpurg, who was the 
 
RISE OF THE INUUISITIOX. 183 
 
 apostolic inquisitor, was accustomed to prove, by obliging 
 them to take hold of red hot iron, if they denied their heresy. 
 And as many of them as were burned by the iron, he con- 
 demned as heretics, and delivered them to the secular judg- 
 ment to be burned to death. Hence, with few exceptions," con- 
 tinues Baronius, " all tvho ivere once accused, and were led to 
 his tribunal for examination^ were condemned to the fames.'''' 
 (lb. p. 230.) 
 
 Nay, so extreme was the indignation of these inquisitors 
 against heretics, that their very bones were not suffered to rest 
 quietly in their graves. Thus, the historian relates, that one 
 Al marie, a learned Parisian doctor, who had many followers, 
 died of grief, because the bishops condemned his doctrines. 
 His disciples were burned alive, and their ashes were scattered 
 on the dunghill. But this did not suffice; for the body of 
 Almaric was taken out of the grave, and burned also. (lb. 
 225.) This became afterwards a very general custom with 
 the Inquisition. 
 
 The complete establishment of this tremendous tribunal, 
 however, was reserved for pope Gregory IX. who, A. D- 
 1233, perfected the work which his predecessors had success- 
 fully begun, by setting up regular pernmnent inquisitors in 
 France, Spain, and Italy. A specimen of the course taken by 
 the inquisitors of Thoulouse, as given by Baronius, may be 
 not uninteresting. 
 
 "Just after the celebration of mass, by Raymond the bishop 
 of Thoulouse, as he was sitting down to table in the refectory," 
 says the historian, "it was told him that a certain matron of 
 the city, surrounded by her sons, brethren and friends, was 
 dying in the hands of heretics, being one of them herself, near 
 the house of the inquisitors. He ran to the house immediately, 
 and found the fact to be as it was reported, by the confession 
 of the dying woman herself, who chose to die and be saved in 
 her heresy. Accordingly, he condemned her forthwith, and 
 
184 THE I^'QUISITION 
 
 delivered her to the secular court, the officers of which took 
 her in the bed as she lay, carried her to the fire, and burned 
 her joyfully.''^ These, brethren, are the very words of the 
 historian, without a single remark of disapprobation or sur- 
 prise. Alas! who can wonder enough at the spectacle of 
 Christian priests, condemning a woman for heresy on her very 
 death-bed, and joyfully anticipating the stroke of nature, by 
 committing her, in this condition, to the flames! 
 
 But I may not dwell any longer on these historical notices. 
 Rather let me hasten to the last and worst form of this inquisi- 
 torial power, established in Spain under Ferdinand and Isa- 
 bella, a few years before the time when Columbus discovered 
 our new world. There was a good deal of objection made 
 by the pope to this institution, at first ; not, I am sorry to say, 
 because of its cruelty, or its unchristian character, but because 
 too much power was thrown by its constitution into the hands 
 of the Spanish sovereigns, and too little into those of the pope. 
 These objections, however, were overcome; and in A. D. 
 1483, pope Sixtus IV. formally acknowledged the celebrated 
 Dominican, Torquemada, as Inquisitor General of Spain, and 
 empowered him, by a bull, to establish inferior courts. In a 
 few years, this tremendous tribunal prospered to such an ex- 
 tent, that it numbered twenty thousand spies and informers, 
 and held the most uncontrolled and absolute empire over the 
 whole nation. Any person accused of heresy was liable to be 
 seized without the possibility of redress, and without knowing 
 what was his crime, or who was his accuser. He was hurried 
 away from home and kindred, and consigned to a cell in 
 which was scarcely admitted a ray of light. He was not 
 allowed books, conversation, or any visits from his nearest 
 relations or friends, but was compelled to sit motionless and 
 silent, and was sometimes detained in this deplorable condition 
 for years, without being allowed any trial. When brought, at 
 last, before the tribunal, he was not suffered to know who 
 
ESTABLISHED IX SPAIN. 185 
 
 accused him, or of what he was accused; but was obliged to 
 answer, on oath, whatever questions the inquisitor should put 
 to him, and was usually compelled, in this way, to go over the 
 history of his whole life ; the great point aimed at in the exa- 
 mination, being to make him accuse himself. If nothing 
 heretical could be discovered by this process, he was next 
 taken to a room fitted up for the purpose of torture. And 
 three kinds of torment were there employed to force a confes- 
 sion. The place in which it was administered, was a deep 
 subterranean grotto, so deep that the horriblo cries of the un- 
 happy wretch coiild not be heard. It was illuminated only by 
 two torches which cast a feeble light, just sufficient to enable 
 the culprit to discern the instruments of torture, with as many 
 executioners as they needed to apply them. The executioners 
 themselves were clothed in black, the head and the face being 
 quite covered with a hood, which had holes in it for the eyes, 
 the nose, and the mouth ; so that a shapeless figure of black 
 was all that could be seen. The inquisitors were always 
 present, exhorting the poor wretch to confess, and if he still 
 denied his heresy, the work of cruelty began. 
 
 The first kind of torment was called the torture of the cord. 
 The accused person had his arms tied behind him, and was 
 raised by a pulley to the ceiling, kept suspended there for 
 some time, and then suddenly let down half way to the floor, 
 with a shock which dislocated the joints, and forced him to 
 shriek aloud with agony. This torture was endured for an 
 hour or more, according to the judgment of the inquisitors, if 
 the strength of the sufferer was able to bear it. 
 
 If no sufficient confession was produced by this, the torture 
 of water was employed. The mode of administration was to 
 pour water through a funnel into his throat, and then lay him 
 on a hollow bench, constructed so as 4o close and press the 
 body as much as they thought proper. Across this bench 
 was a small piece of timber, laid so as to suspend him by the 
 
 R 2 
 
186 THE iNQuisiTio:^" 
 
 spine of the back, which dislocated it with the most incredible 
 torment. 
 
 The third kind of torture was called the torture by fire, and 
 was the most dreadful of all. They kindled a large fire, they 
 next rubbed the soles of the culprit's feet with lard, or other 
 similar substances. They then laid him on the pavement 
 with his feet towards the fire, and burned him in this manner, 
 until he confessed all that they desired to know. These two 
 kinds of torture lasted also an hour, and sometimes longer; 
 and after it was over, the poor wretch was taken back to his 
 cell, to suffer the excruciating consequences, until his firmness 
 and constancy were quite destroyed. 
 
 When at last the tribunal had decided upon the guilt or 
 innocence of their prisoners, the sentence was pronounced. 
 Those who were discharged as innocent, were usually dis- 
 figured or crippled for life ; and their property was dissipated, 
 as well by the fact that the inquisitors seized upon it to support 
 the expenses of the owner while in prison, as by the waste 
 and rapacity of others, when the care of the lawful possessor 
 was withdrawn. Some were admitted to confession and re- 
 pentance, and thus escaped death ; but were not only con- 
 demned to walk in the public procession on the great day of 
 execution, but to submit to scourging, fines, imprisonment, or 
 to wear a peculiar garment called the sail benifo. Besides 
 which, they were declared infamous, and their children and 
 grand-children with them. Those who were condemned to 
 death were delivered over to be first strangled, and afierwards 
 burned, or otherwise to be given up to the secular judge, in 
 order to be burned alive, according to the degrees of their 
 heretical guilt and obstinacy. And wonderful to tell, after all 
 this dreadful barbarity had been exercised upon them, the 
 grand inquisitor, in handing them over to the secular judge, 
 recommended them to mercy in a set form : thus rendering 
 still more revolting, the awful system, which engrafted such 
 
ESTABLISHED IN SPAIN. 187 
 
 horrible and atrocious cruelty upon the compassionate religion 
 of the Gospel. The day of execution itself was invested 
 with all the solennn magnificence and terror, which the united 
 powers of Church and State could confer. The sovereigns, 
 the nobility, and the judges, attended in pomp. The grand 
 inquisitor was seated on the highest throne, and surround- 
 ed by all the clergy and the officials of this vast institu- 
 tion. And the previous night having passed with psalmody 
 and chanting, and masses being said at day-break, and all the 
 bells of the cathedral being sounded, a grand procession was 
 formed from the principal Church; and when the king and 
 queen, and the ladies of the court, and all the other dignita- 
 ries, and the host of the priests, and the criminals with their 
 attendant officers, were in their places, a sermon was delivered 
 in praise of the inquisition, representing it as the great instru- 
 ment to preserve the purity of the Church; after which, the 
 sentences were read, the punishments inflicted, the fires were 
 hghted, and the miserable victims perished in the flames. 
 Thus was the whole atrocious exhibition covered with the 
 mantle of religion, and even its public and established title 
 was the auto da fe, that is, the act of faith ! 
 
 Brethren! although these statements are made from the 
 most unquestionable authorities, and are as certain as any 
 facts recounted in history, yet our minds experience some dif- 
 ficulty in believing that such enormities could ever have been 
 perpetrated under the sanction and by the instrumentality of 
 the ministers of the Gospel, yea, under the express govern- 
 ment and through the zealous labours of those very popes, 
 who called themselves the vicars of Christ Jesus. But such 
 was the aspect of religious persecution for ages. And al- 
 though the Reformation struck it with a powerful blow, al- 
 though the indignation of Roman Catholics themselves was 
 roused to resistance, so that the cruel system, notwithstanding 
 the efforts of the popes, could never take root effectively, ex- 
 
188 THE R03IAN CHURCH ACCOUKTABLE 
 
 cept in Spain and Portugal, yet it remained in existence until 
 the year 1808; and then it was destroyed, not by the pope, 
 nor by the Church of Rome, but by Napoleon Bona- 
 parte, against whom the pope fulminated a bull of excom- 
 munication the year after, for daring to invade St. Peter's 
 patrimony. 
 
 The estimate of Llorente, who had been himself connected 
 with this horrible institution, gives us the most authentic ac- 
 count of the number of sufferers in the Inquisition of Spain 
 alone, from the time of its establishment in A. D. 1481, to its 
 abolition in A. D. 1808. The whole amounted to 341,021. 
 Of these, 31,912 were burned; 17,659 who had either es- 
 caped, or died under imprisonment, were burned in effigy ; 
 and 291,456 were subjected to severe penance. We see, 
 therefore, that the reign of the Inquisition, in its last and most 
 formal shape, continued for 325 years. And as the whole 
 number of its victims amounted to 341,000, we behold a 
 frightful average of more than a thousand per annum, in the 
 single nation of Spain, and for this single religious crime, 
 called heresy; that is, the crime of believing that there was 
 any error in the religion taught by the authority of the pope 
 of Rome. Now you must add to this, a reasonable propor- 
 tion for the Inquisitions of Portugal and of Goa ; and then 
 add the victims of the holy wars waged by the pope against 
 the heretics from the early part of the 13th century; and then 
 make a further allowance for the innumerable condemnations 
 which must have taken place, under the horrible injunctions 
 of the council of Lateran, by which something, more or less, 
 must have been done, in every diocese and by every bishop, 
 although not enough to satisfy the exterminating zeal of the 
 sovereign pontiff; and then add to all this, the widows and 
 the orphans, the infamy and the distress, which even extended, 
 through two generations, to the children and grandchildren of 
 the unhappy sufferers, — and the aggregate, brethren, will be 
 
FOR THE INQUISITION. 189 
 
 enough to make one stand aghast at such an enormous mass 
 of complicated misery and torment, — all inflicted by the highest 
 judgment of that Church which calls herself infallible, and 
 all in the abused name of the Saviour of mankind. 
 
 But now arises the important question, what has all this 
 cruelty to do with the real doctrine of the Church of Rome? 
 Do not the Roman Catholics themselves regard it just as we 
 do? Do they not strongly condemn the conduct of their 
 popes, and distinctly declare, that all these horrible abuses 
 grew out of the darkness and superstition of the middle ages, 
 and formed no part of their Church's system? And why, 
 therefore, should there be a recurrence to the past, for what is 
 acknowledged upon all hands to have been an abomination, 
 and which ought, if only for the sake of Christian charity, 
 to be consigned to utter oblivion ? 
 
 Such is the appeal, brethren, often heard in our liberal 
 days, upon this serious subject. And to much of it, I gladly 
 subscribe. I rejoice to do this justice to the Roman Catholics 
 of France, Germany, Switzerland, Ireland, England, the Ca- 
 nadian provinces, and especially the United States, that I am 
 fully persuaded of their accordance with ourselves in utter 
 and absolute detestation of the principle of religious persecu- 
 tion, as manifested in the crusades against the heretics, and 
 especially in the atrocious tribunal of the Inquisition. But 
 this does not settle the question. I wish from my heart that 
 it could. Unhappily, however, it will be seen, by a brief ex- 
 amination, that the creed of their Church, as they all ac- 
 knowledge it, MAKES THE POPE THE SUPREME JUDGE, whether 
 
 with or without a general council. And by that creed, either 
 the determination of the point must be clearly against them, 
 or the claims of their infallibility must be cast away forever. 
 Let us, however, examine the question in both ways: first, as 
 it would stand on the simple prerogative of the pope, and se- 
 condly, as it would stand on the doctrine of the councils. 
 
190 
 
 THE ROMAN CHURCH 
 
 With respect to the prerogatives of the pope, every Roman 
 CathoHc who understands his own system, acknowledges the 
 sovereign pontiff to be the head of the Universal Church, the 
 vicar of Christ, and the judge in the last resort of all ecclesias- 
 tical questions. Who then, shall pronounce him in error? 
 Who, in the Church of Rome, shall undertake to correct the 
 repeated decisions, public acts, and most zealous labours of 
 the whole train of pontiffs, from the time of Gregory VII. 
 in the beginning of the 11th, down to Pius VII. in the be- 
 ginning of the 19th century, a period of full 700 years, in 
 the whole of which the principle of religious persecution was 
 avowed as a duty of conscience, a necessary act of Christian 
 faith, and a prominent w^ork of priests and princes throughout 
 all Europe, by pope after pope, without one solitary exception? 
 We say then, that granting the change of sentiment among 
 Roman Catholics themselves, in all those countries which are 
 under the influence of the Reformation ; yet their system does 
 not allow the people, nor the body of the priesthood, to think 
 for themselves, in this or any other point, lohere their Church 
 is concerned. The popes are the judges. The vicar of Christ, 
 as they esteem him, is the centre of unity and the fountain of 
 authority. And until the judgment of the pope can be shown 
 to have changed with respect to the question, the system of 
 their Church must be taken to be just what it was, notwith- 
 standing the acknow^ledged improvement in the opinions and 
 feelings of her people. 
 
 But in the second place, let us try the point upon the other 
 ground, namely, on the authority of the councils. And here, 
 I have quoted to you, brethren, at large, the conclusive evi- 
 dence of the great council of Lateran, where not only is the 
 hunting out of heretics commanded imperatively of every 
 prince, and lord, and bishop, and archbishop, in order that they 
 may be exterminated, but especially, where the crusaders, who 
 have taken up arms against the heretics, are rewarded with 
 
ACCOUNTABLE FOR THE INQUISITION. 191 
 
 the I'emission of sins. Nothing can be more manifest than the 
 perfect agreement in this matter, between the pope and this 
 great council ; and if we examine the acts of the general coun- 
 oils which came afterwards, it is impossible to discover the 
 slightest intimation of any other principle. 
 
 Amongst these, however, the council of Florence stands dis- 
 tinguished ; because the English and American Roman Catho- 
 lics in our day, appeal to the decree of this council, as being 
 the only true declaration of doctrine concerning the power of 
 the pope. It is in the following words : 
 
 " We also define, that the holy apostolic see, and the Roman 
 pontiff, hold the primacy through the whole world, and that the 
 Roman pontiff is the successor of blessed Peter, the prince of 
 the apostles, and the true vicar of Christ, and the head of the 
 whole Church, and the father and teacher of all Christians ; 
 and that to him in blessed Peier, full power is given by our 
 Lord Jesus Christ, to feed, to rule and to govern the whole 
 Church, in like manner as the same is contained in the acts of 
 general councils, and in the sacred canons,'''' (Hard. Con. 
 Tom. 9, p. 986.) 
 
 Now here, brethren, is the decree passed by this celebrated 
 general council under pope Eugenius, in A. D. 1439, when 
 two hundred and twenty-four years had elapsed after the 
 great council of Lateran, during the whole of which period the 
 holy wars and the pope's inquisitors had been carrying on the 
 work of exterminating heretics in the face of all Europe, with 
 universal consent and approbation. And what do this council 
 enact upon the subject? Do they say one word to restrain 
 the pope's prerogative? Do they insinuate that he had taken 
 too much upon him? Do they question the correctness of his 
 doctrine, or deny that the duty of exterminating heretics with 
 fire and sword had been truly set forth as a part of the Christian 
 faith? So far from it, that the pope is declared to have full 
 power, not only to feed, but to rule and govern the whole 
 
192 THE ROMAN CHURCH 
 
 Church. He is said to be the vicar of Christ, and to be the 
 father and teacher of all Christians. And therefore we have 
 another general council, setting its seal, in large terms, to 
 the widest extent of the papal supremacy, with the pope's 
 theory and practice of religious persecution for more than two 
 centuries standing before them. But truly it seems almost a 
 mockery to refer us to this council, for an amelioration of the 
 pope's authority in the point of persecution, when it was one 
 of their acts to justify the emperor Sigismund in violating his 
 own safe conduct, for the purpose of delivering John Huss, 
 the Bohemian reformer, to the flames. 
 
 Lastly, let us ask the council of Trent, whether they un- 
 dertook to lay down a different doctrine; and we shall receive 
 for answer, that although they knew the indignant censures of 
 the reformers on this point perfectly well, and also knew" the 
 strong disapprobation which many of their own Church, espe- 
 cially in France, had manifested towards the Inquisition, yet 
 they passed the whole subject by, notwithstanding the very 
 object of their assembling was avowed to be a general refor- 
 mation of the Churchy both in the head and the members. 
 But although they avoided saying any thing on the direct point 
 of persecution, they recorded a longer list of anathemas or 
 solemn curses against the heretics, than had ever been exhibited 
 before; and in their Catechism they took care to have it uni- 
 versally proclaimed, that heretics are under the jwisdiction 
 of the Church of Rome, in the same manner as deserters are 
 considered to belong to the army from ichich they have de- 
 serted. Add to all this the fact already mentioned, that the 
 Inquisition was not suppressed until 1808, and then not by the 
 Church of Rome, but by Napoleon Bonaparte, and the evidence 
 seems to my mind, conclusive; although the reign of the Eng- 
 lish queen Mary, and the revocation of the edict of Nantes, 
 and the awful tragedy of St. Bartholomew's day, would of 
 themselves furnish proof more than enough to fill a volume. 
 
ACCOUNTABLE FOR THE INaUISlTION. 193 
 
 But passing by these events, which our hmits will not allow 
 me to detail, and resting merely on the very imperfect sketch 
 I have exhibited, no honest Roman Catholic can say that his 
 Church has abandoned the principles of the Council of Lateran, 
 or that her rulers have changed one article of that cruel and 
 sanguinary system which, for the last seven centuries, has en- 
 deavoured to protect her creed, by the terrors of the rack and 
 the prison, the sword and the flames. 
 
 But, blessed be God! a mighty change has indeed been 
 wrought by the glorious Reformation, although popes and 
 councils, the creed and the rulers of the Church of Rome, are 
 still what they were in the dark ages. Her people, far and 
 wide, have begun to think and to feel rightly upon this subject; 
 her champions themselves struggle hard to cast off the very 
 imputation of her persecuting principles; they strive to bury in 
 utter oblivion the records of the past, and when they are 
 obliged to recall them, they exert their utmost skill to make 
 their greatest severities look like a benevolent anxiety for the 
 salvation of mankind. The truth appears to be, that the 
 Church of Rome is in a transition state, to do justice to which 
 requires careful discrimination. We should gladly distinguish 
 between the system of Rome, and the people who so often 
 profess it, without being fully aware of its obnoxious princi- 
 ples. We doubt not that there are multitudes, even among 
 her priests, who are strangers to many important portions of 
 their own history; and who, in simplicity and sincerity, be- 
 lieve and teach doctrines, which, if they had lived in Italy, or 
 Spain, only one hundred years ago, would probably have 
 brought them to the tortures of the Inquisition. Widely dif- 
 ferent from the condition of these, however, is that of the better 
 informed, who know the truth, but have too little moral courage 
 to confess it; who employ their talents in an ingenious attempt 
 to mystify the facts, by distorting the testimony of history; and 
 who thus hope to move along in harmony with the liberal 
 
194 CONCLUSION. 
 
 maxims of the age, without giving up their professed confidence 
 in their Church's infaUibility. May the Spirit of Christ give 
 them boldness to follow out their convictions, honestly to op- 
 pose what they know to be erroneous, and thus bring their 
 Church home to her first love, according to the pure doctrines 
 of the written Word, and the mild and gentle temper of the 
 Gospel. 
 
 Meanwhile, my brethren, it is vain to hope that the complete 
 regeneration of the Church of Rome can ever be brought about 
 by any other ordinary means, than the increased spirit of in- 
 quiry amongst the honest-hearted of her priests, and the intel- 
 ligent portion of her laity. It is in originating and fomenting 
 this spirit of inquiry, that the Reformation has already done 
 them so great a service; and we humbly trust that the pro- 
 gress of light and knowledge will advance amongst them with 
 accelerated speed, until the time shall come for another coun- 
 cil, far more general than that of Trent, whose decrees shall 
 openly rebuke the cruel despotism of the dark ages, and re-esta- 
 blish the mild government of the primitive Church once more : — 
 a council which should take the precept of St. Paul for their 
 motto: Bless and cvrse not; which should grant to others 
 the toleration which they claim for themselves, and leave to 
 Him who is the only unerring judge, the awful work of con- 
 demnation. 
 
 Having now finished the first part of our series, embracing 
 the preliminary subjects of the rule of faith, the papal supre- 
 macy, and the intolerance, anathemas, and cruel persecution 
 connected therewith, I design, by the favour of Providence, to 
 commence the next series with the topic of celibacy, which, 
 in her priesthood, and her hosts of monks and nuns, forms so 
 important a peculiarity of the Church of Rome. And in con- 
 clusion, my beloved brethren, let me beseech you to unite with 
 me in practising that precept of our divine Master, which saith, 
 " Bless them that curse you, and pray for them which despite- 
 
CONCLUSION. 195 
 
 fully use you and persecute you." If the Church of Rome, 
 in her Council of Trent, and her creed of pope Pius IV., 
 pours her anathemas upon us, let us pray for a blessing upon 
 her in return. If her rulers had the power, we have every 
 reason to believe that they would indeed despitefully use us 
 and persecute us, and think, as their predecessors did in the 
 destruction of our forefathers, that they were doing God ser- 
 vice. But be it our place to pray the Father of mercies to heal 
 their blindness, to reform their errors, and to turn their hearts. 
 And while we praise him with adoring gratitude for the pre- 
 cious jewel of our own Christian liberty, let us do our utmost 
 to extend the privilege to every other portion of the Universal 
 Church, earnestly beseeching the omnipotent Redeemer to 
 hasten the time, when all shall worship the only true God in 
 the unity of the Spirit, and every man shall sit under his 
 own vine and his own fig-tree, with none to make him 
 afraid. 
 
LECTURE X. 
 
 1 Tim. iii. 4, 5, 6, together with 12th verse. — ■' It behoveth, therefore, 
 a bishop to be blameless, the husband of one wife, sober, prudent, 
 of good behaviour, chaste, given to hospitality, a teacher, not given 
 to wine, no striker, but modest, not litigious, not covetous, but one 
 that ruleth well his own house, having his children in subjection 
 with all chastity. But if a man know not how to rule his own 
 house, how shall he take care of the Church of God. Let deacons 
 be the husbands of one wife, who rule well their children, and their 
 own houses." ( Doway Version.) 
 
 These words, brethren, which I have set down precisely as 
 they stand in the Roman Catholic version of the Scriptures, 
 commonly called the Doway Bible, are invested with peculiar 
 interest, on account of the extraordinary fact, that the Church 
 of Rome has set up a doctrine directly contrary. For, as you 
 must be aware, she does not suffer her bishops, priests, and 
 deacons, to have wives or children at all; so that on this point, 
 the Word of God and the word of that Church stand in the 
 most manifest opposition. " Let the bishop be the husband of 
 one wife," saith the Scripture. Nay, saith the Church of 
 Rome, the bishop shall not marry. " Let the bishop rule his 
 own house well," saith the Scripture, "having his children in 
 subjection." Nay, saith the Church of Rome, he shall have 
 no children. "If a man know not how to rule his own house," 
 saith the Scripture, "how shall he take care of the Church of 
 God?" An idle argument, saith the Church of Rome, for the 
 
JEROME ON CELIBACY. 197 
 
 government of a man's own house and the care of the Church 
 of God, should not he united in the same hands. " Let the 
 deacons be the husbands of one wife," continues the Word of 
 God, " who rule well their children and their own houses." 
 By no means, replies the Church of Rome, the deacons must 
 he like the bishops, having no wives, no children, no houses 
 to rule. You perceive, therefore, brethren, that the denial 
 of the rule of Scripture could not be more positive — the con- 
 tradiction to it could not be more glaring: so that the mind, 
 accustomed to the simple authority of the Bible, is amazed 
 at the boldness of this flagrant opposition, and wonders how 
 it can admit of palliation or excuse. 
 
 Let us, then, examine the argument by which this strange 
 and most unscriptural regulation is maintained, and connect 
 with it the kindred topics of monastic life and sanctity, as pro- 
 fessed in the Church of Rome. The principle of voluntary 
 mortification is the common basis of this part of their system, 
 and it assumes the utmost importance when it is considered as 
 resulting in the worship of the saints, and the doctrine of 
 works of supererogation. 
 
 The argument in favour of celibacy has been set forth by 
 St. Jerome with more zeal than any other of the ancient fa- 
 thers, and nothing has been added since his day to the logic of 
 the matter, although a great deal has been added to its vows 
 and compulsory restrictions. I shall state his views, there- 
 fore, in order to yield to the other side all the weight which 
 belongs to his distinguished name, and to the comparatively 
 early period at which he flourished, viz: the latter part of the 
 fourth, and the beginning of the fifth century. 
 
 His first argument is derived from St. Paul's epistle to the 
 Corinthians, in which the apostle plainly gives the preference 
 to celibacy over marriage ; and in estimating its comparative 
 excellence, Jerome considers marriage as silver, and celibacy 
 as gold. (Jer. adv. Jovin. op. om. Tom. 2, p. 16, 17.) 
 
 s 2 
 
198 JEROME 
 
 2d. He next argues, that on the authority of the same apos- 
 tle, matrimony prevents, by its unavoidable cares, the entire 
 devotion of the soul to the service of God. (lb. 21.) 
 
 3cl. He adduces the examples of Elijah and Elisha, John 
 the Baptist, John, the beloved disciple, and Christ himself, as 
 being all in favour of a single life; and urges that this must 
 needs be the superior state, because, in heaven, they neither 
 marry nor are given in marriage. 
 
 4th. He insists on one passage in the epistle of St. Jude, 
 and another in the Book of Revelations, strongly inferring the 
 superiority of celibacy, (lb. 34.) 
 
 5th. He derives an argument of expediency from the high 
 respect in which celibacy was held by the heathen. (lb. 35.) 
 
 6th. And lastly, he cites from Theophrastus, a long and 
 amusing list of the risks, the disappointments, the troubles, 
 and the inevitable trials of the marriage state. 
 
 In answer to all this it is sufficient for us to say, that the 
 controversy is not about the comparative merits or privileges 
 of the two states of life. Doubtless, each has its advan- 
 tages. The question, however, turns upon the rule laid down 
 for the ministry by the Word of God, and upon the right of 
 the Church of Rome to destroy that rule, by confining the 
 priesthood to those who abjure matrimony; thus opposing the 
 authority of the Holy Spirit, and putting a yoke upon the 
 clergy, which the almighty Lawgiver had decreed they should 
 not bear. 
 
 We have already shown the total contrariety of this yoke, 
 to the positive directions of St. Paul to Timothy. Those di- 
 rections he gives, as the commandments of Christ himself; 
 whereas, in the other passages, he expressly declares that he 
 does not speak in his usual strain of authority, because he had 
 received no commandment upon the subject of celibacy, and 
 therefore that what he was about to say was only his own pri- 
 vate judgment. Besides which, he evidently intends his ad- 
 
ON CELIBACY. 199 
 
 vice, not so much for a permanent^ as for a temporary pur- 
 pose, because he recommends it as being ^^ good for the pre- 
 sent distress,''^ that those who were unmarried should remain 
 so. The meaning of this language is well understood on all 
 sides, since it was a time of grievous persecution, when Chris- 
 tians did not know at what moment they might be called to 
 abandon home, property, nay, life itself, in order that they 
 should be faithful to the Gospel. And in addition to this, it 
 should be considered conclusive, that when St. Paul recom- 
 mends celibacy in preference to matrimony, he is not refer- 
 ring to the clergy at all, but speaks generally about what 
 seemed to him expedient, at that time, for all Christians, 
 without the slightest allusion to bishops, priests, or deacons. 
 Whereas, when he writes by inspiration to Timothy upon the 
 very subject of the ministry, he specifies bishops and deacons; 
 and plainly lays down the general rule for them, that they 
 should be the husbands of one wife, ruling their own children 
 and households well. In the application of Jerome's argu- 
 ment, therefore, to the clergy, the Church of Rome has com- 
 mitted three fatal mistakes. First, they strain St. Paul's ad- 
 vice, intended for the time of persecution, into a standing law. 
 Next, they apply to a particular order what the apostle 
 meant for all. And lastly, they deprive that order of the very 
 rule which the apostle laid down for them. 
 
 I shall now proceed to show, that in obedience to this apos- 
 tolic authority, the primitive Church for many centuries left 
 the ministry their Scriptural liberty in the matter; so that the 
 restriction established subsequently by the influence of Rome, 
 was an innovation, not only upon the Word of God, but also 
 upon the practice of Christian antiquity. And this we shall 
 demonstrate by the acts of Councils, and the testimony of the 
 fathers, including Jerome himself. Of course, brethren, you 
 understand, that we do not refer to the evidence of the primi- 
 tive Church, either for the purpose of weakening or super- 
 
200 TERTULLIAN ON CELIBACY. 
 
 seding, in any respect, the supreme and only infallible law of 
 Scripture; but we do it on the "principle explained in a former 
 lecture, that the sense of antiquity is the best rule in the con- 
 struction of Scripture ; and in all questions belonging to the 
 Roman Catholic controversy, we do it with the greater care, 
 for the sake of those whose errors we are discussing, because 
 tradition is, in their judgment, equally binding with the writ- 
 ten Word of God. 
 
 To begin, then, with Tertullian, whose testimony comes 
 within one hundred years of the apostle John, — we find him ex- 
 pressly giving his interpretation of St. Paul's language in these 
 words : "The apostle," saith he, "although he prefers the vir- 
 tue of continence, yet permits marriage to be contracted and 
 used; and argues in favour of retaining rather than of sepa- 
 rating from a wife. And it is plain, that while Moses allows 
 divorces, Christ forbids them." (Ter. adv. Mar. lib. v. p. 
 469.) 
 
 Again he saith: "It was lawful for the apostles to marry, 
 and to lead their wives about with them. And it was lawful 
 for them to live or be supported by the Gospel. But he who 
 did not use this right, provokes us to imitate his example on 
 the ground, that the license furnishes an opportunity to show 
 the trial of our abstinence." (lb. de Exhort. Cast. p. 522.) 
 
 Again, saith Tertullian, "Christ fully and precisely declares 
 that those who enter into the episcopal office should be the 
 husbands of one wife. — And we shall err greatly if we think 
 that what is not lawful for the priests, is lawful for the people." 
 (lb. 522, A.) 
 
 And again : " We never read of marriage being forbidden," 
 saith he, "for it is good. But we learn from the apostle what 
 is better than good, pei'miiting to marry, but preferring to 
 abstain ; the first on account of temptation, the second on ac- 
 count of the affliction of the times.'''' 
 
 Let us next listen to Clement of Alexandria, on the subject 
 
CLEMENT OF ALEXAIVDRIA. 201 
 
 of celibacy. "The apostle saith, it is good neither to eat flesh 
 nor to drink wine, if any one eateth with offence. And again, 
 it is good to remain unmarried, even as I. But nevertheless," 
 continues Clement, "he who uses these things, giving God 
 thanks, and he who uses them not, giving God thanks, do 
 both live rightly, if governed by moderation and temperance." 
 (Clem. Alex. Strom, lib. iii. p. 462.) 
 
 Again, saith this eminent father, " The apostle plainly allows 
 every one to be the husband of one wife, whether he be a 
 priest, or a deacon, or a layman, so that he use marriage 
 without reprehension." (lb. 464.) 
 
 Again, opposing the error of the Gnostic heretics, Clement 
 saith, "Do these men not hesitate to reprove even the apos- 
 tles? For Peter and Philip had sens, and Philip (the deacon) 
 gave his daughter in marriage. And Paul certainly does not 
 blush to call her his wife in a certain epistle, whom, neverthe- 
 less, he did not lead about, because she could not aid him in 
 the work of his ministry. Therefore, he saith in this epistle, 
 Have not we power to lead about a wife who is a sister, like 
 the rest of the apostles'? But these, indeed, as was suitable to 
 their ministry, did not lead about their partners so much in the 
 capacity of wives, as sisters; for their wives exercised a useful 
 ministry themselves among the women that remained at home, 
 so that in the most private apartments of the females, the doc- 
 trine of the Lord was brought without censure or suspicion." 
 (lb. 448.) 
 
 Again: "There are certain persons," saith Clement, (ib. 
 446) "who openly say, that matrimony is sinful;" (fornica- 
 tion) "and glorify themselves by pretending that they imitate 
 our Lord, who neither was married, nor possessed any earthly 
 goods, boasting that they understand the Gospel better than 
 others. But they are ignorant of the reason why the Lord did 
 not marry. First, then, let them remember, that he has his 
 own spouse, which is the Church. Next, that he was not a 
 
202 
 
 CELIBACY NOT ESTABLISHED 
 
 comman man, who needed a helpmate according to the flesh. 
 Neither was it necessary for him to marry, who can create, 
 and who is eternal, being born the only Son of God." 
 
 And once more: Clement tells an interesting anecdote of St. 
 
 o 
 
 Peter, which is worthy of commemoration. "They relate," 
 saith he, "that the blessed Peter, when he saw his wife led to 
 death, rejoiced that she was called, and was about to return to 
 her home; and when he had exhorted and comforted her, he 
 finally addressed her by name, and said, O thou! remember 
 the Lord. Such," observes Clement, " was the marriage of 
 these saints, and their perfect affection." (lb. 756.) 
 
 Now, in these extracts, brethren, you plainly perceive, that 
 the disposition to depreciate marriage, and to make celibacy the 
 law of the clergy at least, began, like every other corruption 
 of primitive Christianity, to show itself very early; and at 
 length it gained the victory, and maintains it in the Church of 
 Rome to this day. But I shall next show you, from the works 
 of Jerome himself, that it had not in his time become the 
 established law, even in Rome: and you will remember, that 
 he died, A. D. 422, so that he belongs to the latter part of the 
 fourth and the beginning of the fifth century. 
 
 Thus, for example, in his epistle to Nepotian on the life of 
 the clergy, he tells him, "that the preacher of continence 
 ought not to seek marriage. For since it is he," saith Jerome, 
 "who reads the apostle, saying: 'It remains that those that 
 have wives should be as those that have none,' why should he 
 prevail upon a maiden to marry him?" This language, breth- 
 ren, is only consistent with the fact, that a clergyman in Je- 
 rome's days might enter into matrimony if he pleased; for no 
 such exhortation would be needed after a positive law of the 
 Church had taken the liberty away. 
 
 In his first book against Jovinian, however, he speaks still 
 more plainly. "If Samuel, nourished in the tabernacle, took 
 a wife," saith Jerome, "what does that prove against celibacy? 
 
IN THE TIME OF JEROME. 203 
 
 As if there were not, in our own day also, many priests who 
 are in the married state, and the apostle himself describes a 
 bishop as the husband of one wife, having his children in sub- 
 jection with all gravity." (Tom. II. Op. om. Hieron. p. 25, D.) 
 
 Again, Jerome expressly saith, "I do not deny that married 
 men are chosen for bishops, because there are not as many 
 single as are necessary for the priesthood." " But how hap- 
 pens it, you will say, that frequently in the sacerdotal order, 
 the single man is passed by, and the married man is elected? 
 Because he may be wanting in the other qualities which the 
 sacred office requires." (lb. p. 30, E.) 
 
 Nothing can be plainer, brethren, than these passages, to 
 prove that Jerome, with all his zeal for celibacy and antipathy 
 to marriage, was still surrounded by married clergy; and that 
 as yet the Word of God had not been overborne, in this 
 respect, by the wisdom of men. 
 
 To show still more clearly, however, how far Jerome's doc- 
 trine was, from being the established opinion of his day, I shall 
 quote a passage from his epistle to Pammachius, where he 
 thanks his friend for having bought up the books which he 
 wrote in depreciation of matrimony, and regrets that it was too 
 late. "I am well aware," saith he, "of what you have pru- 
 dently and affectionately done, in withdrawing from circula- 
 tion the copies of my little work against Jovinian. But your 
 diligence has profited me nothing, for I am informed that the 
 book has been in circulation at Rome, and as you have 
 yourself read: *the word once uttered, cannot return.'" (lb. 
 p. 81, D.) 
 
 Our next evidence upon the subject is extracted from Gela- 
 zius of Cyzicen's history of the great council of Nice, which 
 met in A. D. 325, upon the subject of the Arian heresy, at the 
 summons of Constantine, the Roman emperor, a few years 
 before Jerome was born, and consisted of three hundred and 
 eighteen bishops. 
 
204 COUNCIL OP NICE. 
 
 "It was proposed," says the historian, "in this council, to 
 declare, that it was not fit for ecclesiastical persons, whether 
 bishops, or presbyters, or deacons, or sub-deacons, or any 
 others of the sacred order, to live with the wives whom they 
 had married when they were laymen. And, as they were 
 about to pass this rule accordingly, the holy Paphnutius, 
 rising in the full council of the bishops, said with a loud voice; 
 ' Forbear, brethren, to lay this heavy yoke upon ecclesiastics. 
 For marriage is honourable among all, (saith the apostle,) and 
 the bed undefiled. Do not, therefore, injure the Church, by 
 the unreasonable excess of so severe a law, for all cannot bear 
 that mode of life which allows nothing to the human affections. 
 In my judgment, none (of us) will be saved in love, if (we de- 
 cree) that husbands shall separate themselves from their wives. 
 I hold that marriage deserves to be esteemed the best conti- 
 nence, nor can we separate the woman whom God has joined 
 to her husband, when he was a reader, or a singer, or a lay- 
 man.' Thus," continues the historian, "did the great Paphnu- 
 tius argue, although he was himself an unmarried man, and 
 had been educated in a monastery from his childhood. And 
 accordingly, being persuaded by his counsel, the whole assem- 
 bly of the bishops held their peace, and left it to the free will 
 of the married clergy to act as they thought proper." (Mansi 
 Concil. Tom. ii. p. 759.) 
 
 Another very direct and strong proof of the state of the 
 matter in the early part of the fourth century, is furnished by 
 the Council of Gangris, which was, indeed, a provincial coun- 
 cil, but approved by pope Leo IV. The following canons will 
 show this distinctly. 
 
 "CANON IV. 
 
 "If any one shall contend that a priest, who has married a 
 wife, is therefore not fit to celebrate the sacred rites, and offer 
 the holy eucharist. Jet him he anathema.^^ 
 
COUNCILS OF NICE AND TRULLO. 205 
 
 "canon X. 
 
 *' If any one of those who have professed cehbacy for the 
 Lord's sake, shall insult over those who have taken wives, let 
 him he anathema.''^ 
 
 Here we see, at once, both the boastful pride of the advo- 
 cates for clerical celibacy, and the vigorous determination of 
 the council to protect the rights of the married clergy; plainly 
 showing that two parties were already formed in the Church, 
 of whom the innovators grew stronger, until they gained 
 their point. But not without many struggles and much oppo- 
 sition was this done, even in the Church of Rome, while the 
 great Council of Trullo, so late as A. D. 706, recorded this 
 solemn condemnation of the new doctrine, in their thirteenth 
 canon; the language of which is as follows: 
 
 "Forasmuch as we are informed, that the Roman Church 
 has put forth a canon, ordering that all those who are to be 
 promoted to the office of deacon or priest, shall profess that 
 they will no longer live together with their wives: we, on the 
 contrary, keeping the rule of apostolic perfection and order, 
 decree, that the legitimate marriages of all persons in holy 
 orders shall be held firm and established, by no means dissolv- 
 ing their union with their wives, nor depriving them of any 
 matrimonial privilege. Wherefore, if any one be found worthy 
 to be ordained a subdeacon, or a deacon, or a presbyter, let 
 him by no means be prohibited from that sacred order because 
 he cohabits with his lawful wife. Nor shall he be asked at 
 the time of his ordination, whether he intends to separate from 
 his wife. For otherwise we should do injury to that marriage, 
 which God has constituted, and blessed by his presence. The 
 voice of the gospel exclaims, Those whom God hath joined to- 
 gether, let no man put asunder. The apostle teaches, that 
 marriage is honourable and the bed undefiled: and again he 
 
 saith, ' Art thou tied to a wife? Seek not to be loosed.' If 
 
 any one, therefore, shall dare, against the apostolic canons, to 
 
 T 
 
206 ORIGIN OF THE DOCTRINE 
 
 incite those who are in holy orders, whether subdeacons, dea- 
 cons, or priests, to separate from their wives and deprive them 
 of their society, let him he deposed.'^'' (Hard. Con. Tom. III. 
 p. 1666.) 
 
 This testimony, brethren, is sufficiently distinct, so far as 
 the matrimonial rights of the presbyters and inferior clergy are 
 concerned; but the influence of the new doctrine was so pow- 
 erful at this time, that the previous canon of the same council 
 requires the bishops to separate from their wives, expressly 
 declaring, however, that this was not on the ground of any 
 principle of divine truth, or ecclesiastical authority, but solely 
 in regard to the opinions of the people. And such is the rule 
 of the Greek and Russian Churches to the present day, their 
 bishops being single men, but all the rest of the clergy being 
 free to marry. But you will naturally inquire, what could 
 have induced the Church to bring in this doctrine of celibacy, 
 so opposite to the whole strain of the Mosaic dispensation, and 
 to the plain language of the New Testament. And this, bre- 
 thren, we shall endeavour to explain, on the surest ground of 
 historical fact, and ecclesiastical policy. 
 
 Long before the time of our blessed Saviour, there were, as 
 you all know, a variety of heathen philosophers in the world, 
 who were celebrated for their supposed superiority over the 
 rest of mankind. Of these, all the most distinguished sects 
 contributed, more or less, to the triumph of the gospel, inas- 
 much as many of their disciples became convinced of the truth 
 of Christianity, and devoted to that divine truth, their learning 
 and their zeal. But, as might be naturally expected, a large 
 proportion of these converts were disposed to modify the reli- 
 gion which they embraced, by as much of their former phi- 
 losophy as they could conveniently combine with it ; and thus 
 arose the enormous variety of heresies which distracted the 
 primitive Church, and which might, for the most part, be traced 
 to the prevailing influence of some philosophical sect or party. 
 
OF PRIESTLY CELIBACY. 207 
 
 Amongst these systems of ancient philosophy, however, 
 none were more remarkable than that of the Gymnosophists, 
 or Brachmans of India. Of their particular doctrines, indeed, 
 we know much less than we do of the philosophy of Greece, 
 but we know that they were distinguished by their constant 
 warfare upon the appetites of the flesh, seeking by continual 
 meditation, and the severest austerities, to overcome all sen- 
 suality, and thereby, as they conceived,' unite themselves with 
 the Deity. So far did they carry this notion, that they some- 
 times burned themselves alive, in order to be purified the 
 sooner; of which two noted instances are mentioned, that of 
 Calanus in the presence of Alexander (he great, and the other 
 of Xarimarus at Athens, before Augustus the Roman emperor. 
 (Am. Ency. Art. Gymnosophists.) 
 
 You will at once be reminded, brethren, by this brief out- 
 line, of the superstitions of the Bramins, who form the priest- 
 hood of the Hindoos to this day, and who trace their descent 
 from a very remote antiquity, being, in all probability, derived 
 from the stock we have just described. The principle of reli- 
 gion with both seems to have been the same, namely, the effort 
 to unite the soul to the Deity by the practice of the most rigor- 
 ous abstinence, and painful austerities. Thus among the Bra- 
 mins, flesh and eggs are forbidden food, and rules of purifica- 
 tion, fasting, penances, and ablutions are strictly required, as 
 preservatives from sin. There are four stages marked out for 
 them, in the third of which they become Vana Prasthas, or 
 inhabitants of the desert. They then retire to the forest, live 
 on roots, green herbs, and water, and practice the most rigor- 
 ous mortification. " Let the Vana Prastha,^^ says Menou, in 
 the Institute, " slide backwards and forwards on the ground, 
 or stand the whole day on tiptoe, or continue rising and sitting 
 down alternately; in the hot season let him sit exposed to 
 five fires, in the rain let him stand uncovered, in the cold sea- 
 son let him wear wet garments ; then having stored up his 
 
208 ORIGIN AND PROGRESS 
 
 holy fires in his mind, let him live without external fire, with- 
 out a sheltq^r, wholly silent, and feeding on roots and fruit. 
 When he shall have thus become void of fear and sorrow, and 
 shaken off his body, he rises to the divine essence." In the 
 fourth state, they are called Sannyasi, and new and still more 
 severe penances are performed ; all for the same purpose of con- 
 quering the flesh, and becoming exalted to a participation of 
 the divine nature. The honours formerly paid to these devo- 
 tees were almost unbounded. Kings and people rendered them 
 the highest reverence, and the severity of their self-torment 
 was the unfailing measure of their influence and their fame. 
 
 The accounts we have of the modern Fakirs are sufficiently 
 known, to furnish the details of this last stage of Hindoo su- 
 perstition. They retire from the world and give themselves up 
 to meditation, practising, meanwhile, the most cruel penances. 
 Some roll themselves constantly in the dirt. Others hold one 
 arm raised in a fixed position so long, that it becomes wither- 
 ed, and remains immovable for life. Others keep their hands 
 clasped, until the nails grow into the flesh and come through 
 on the other side. They make a vow of poverty, live at the 
 expense of the community wherever they appear, and are vene- 
 rated by the people with the deepest devotion. 
 
 The identity of the country, the name of Brachman, and the 
 perfect similarity of the principle, warrant the belief, that the 
 philosophy of the ancient Gymnosophists, otherwise called the 
 oriental philosophy, and what we now call Hindooism, were 
 substantially the same system. But however this may be, it 
 seems sufliciently certain, that the earliest and most obstinate 
 of the heresies which infested the primitive Church, under the 
 name of Gnosticism, was the result of the endeavour to en- 
 gross the oriental philosophy upon the pure doctrines of the 
 Word of God ; and that to this we may trace, not only the 
 rule of clerical celibacy, but the rise of monks and nuns, to- 
 gether with the whole train of self-tormenting penances which 
 
OP PRIESTLY CELIBACY. 209 
 
 we shall have occasion to present to you, from the lives of the 
 canonized saints in the Roman Calendar. 
 
 This heresy of the Gnostics was divided into several sects, 
 of which the Valentinians and the Marcionites were the most 
 numerous and influential. It was a common doctrine with 
 them all, however, that matter was eternal, and was essen- 
 tially evil; and that the soul could only^ become united to 
 Christ by combating this evil during its abode in the body, and 
 having as little to do with the indulgence of every appetite as 
 possible. Hence they avoided flesh, wine, and marriage; gave 
 themselves up to religious contemplation, and practised austeri- 
 ties on principle ; looking down with the utmost contempt on 
 the catholics or orthodox Christians, because they were what 
 they called carnal and ignorant men, and valuing them- 
 selves as the only possessors of spiritual knowledge and illu- 
 mination. 
 
 Against these, the early fathers were constantly engaged 
 in controversy. Irenseus composed his whole work for the 
 purpose of combating their errors, which were by no means 
 confined to their austerities, but extended to the subversion of 
 almost every other principle of Christianity. Tertullian wrote 
 largely against them ; so did Clement of Alexandria; and in 
 a word, we meet with continual reference to them, in all the 
 writers of the Church, until the fifth century ; after which 
 they disappeared, as a distinct sect, although they left impres- 
 sions on the Christian system which perhaps may last until 
 the end of the world. 
 
 There was yet another quarter, from which a strong influ- 
 ence in favour of clerical celibacy operated on the Church of 
 Rome ; and that was the institution of the vestal virgins, 
 which were held, since the days of Numa Pompilius, in such 
 high regard; and to which the heathen, in their disputations 
 with Christians, were apt to refer, with especial pride and satis- 
 faction. It was also one of the Roman laws, that the heathen 
 
 T 2 
 
210 THE MONASTIC SYSTEM. 
 
 priests should only be allowed to marry once; a rule to which 
 TertuUian, and afier him Jerome, never failed to have recourse, 
 when arguing against matrimony. 
 
 Here then, brethren, we may readily perceive the origin 
 of the pernicious law which the Church of Rome adopted. 
 Many of her priesthood having been themselves disciples of 
 the eastern philosophy, all of them being often taunted and 
 provoked to a kind of emulation by the superior austerities of 
 the Gnostic heretics, and being abundantly convinced, through 
 the blind admiration of the multitude, that a large increase of 
 influence was likely to be gained in favour of the truth, by the 
 adoption of every thing which savoured of self-denial, they 
 would be induced, from motives of Christian zeal in the first 
 place, and from an honest belief of its real advantages as they 
 went on, that it was expedient to bind this yoke upon them- 
 selves; and once introduced, — the reverence of the people 
 once manifested in favour of what they would call a higher 
 character of devotedness, — it is evident that it would go on,. 
 hand in hand, with every other branch of superstition, until 
 it reached an excess, which doubtless none of its first advo- 
 cates could have anticipated. 
 
 But this brings us to the chief development of the princi- 
 ple in the monastic system, which we shall find establishing 
 itself in the Church of Rome through the influence of the 
 same Jerome^ after it had been practised for a considerable 
 period in Egypt and Syria. The idea of leaving the world 
 for solitude, giving up the whole life to religious contemplation, 
 and mortifying the flesh by all imaginable penances and self- 
 denial, has been already stated as familiar to the Orientalists^ 
 long before the coming of our blessed Redeemer. The date 
 of its formal introduction amongst Christians, however, is set 
 down to the year 305, when Anthony, frequently styled the 
 great, collected a number of hermits in the deserts of Upper 
 Egypt, where they built their huts close together, and per- 
 
THE MONASTIC SYSTEM. 211 
 
 formed their devotions in common. One of his disciples, 
 named Pachomius, formed a still more compact society upon 
 the island of Taberna, in the Nile, about the middle of the 
 fourth century, where they were brought under the observance 
 of a strict rule, and were governed by a prior. x\nd so rapidly 
 did this new institution increase, that at the death of Pacho- 
 mius, his colony of monks amounted to 50,000 persons. 
 Basil, the celebrated bishop of Cesarea, next distinguished 
 himself by founding convents for females on a similar plan, 
 to which he prescribed a stricter rule, which was extensively 
 observed and highly reverenced. But the making a public 
 profession^ and taking irrevocable voids for life, was not 
 established, until the time of St. Benedict, in the sixth century, 
 at his monastery called Monte Casino, near Naples; from 
 which period the character of the monastic institution was 
 more powerfully marked than before. Its influence upon the 
 Church in discipline, doctrine, and government, was indeed 
 very perceptible so early as the fourth century ; but it became 
 almost absolute during the dark ages, and, notwithstanding 
 the check given to it by the Reformation, is operating far and 
 wide upon the world at this very hour. 
 
 A few extracts from Jerome, who was himself a monk, 
 with the liberty, however, that characterized monachism in his 
 day, may be acceptable, as showing the spirit and the rise of 
 this remarkable institution. 
 
 " To me," saith Jerome, " the city is a prison, and the de- 
 sert is a paradise." (Op. Om. Tom. I. p. 29.) Then, com- 
 mending the monastery for its spiritual discipline, he says, 
 " There you live under the government of one father, in the 
 company of many ; that of one you may learn humility, of 
 another, patience. This brother will teach you silence, that 
 brother will teach you meekness; you cannot do as you 
 would, you eat what you are ordered, you wear what is given 
 to you, you accomplish the allotted task of your labour, you 
 
212 THE MONASTIC SYSTEM. 
 
 are subjected to what you like not, you come weary to your 
 pallet, you sleep as if in haste, and before your sleep is fin- 
 ished, you are compelled to arise. You say the appointed 
 psalm in your heart, in which not the sweetness of the voice 
 but the affection of the mind is required ; you serve your 
 brethren, you wash the feet of the guests, you suffer reproofs 
 in silence, you fear the president of the monastery as the 
 Lord, you love him as a father. You believe whatever he 
 orders will be useful to you, nor do you judge the opinion of 
 your superiors, since it is your office to obey and perform 
 whatever they order you. Occupied by all these, you will 
 have no leisure for idle thoughts; and while you pass from 
 this to that, labour follows labour, and you will only retain 
 in your mind what you are obliged to do." (lb. p. 30. F.) 
 " Go therefore, and live in a monastery, that you may be 
 worthy to be admitted among the clergy." (lb. p. 31. B.) 
 
 In this description of the duties and character of a monk, 
 there is no vow of perpetual celibacy, poverty, and obedience 
 to the end of life, nor any obligation laid upon the individ- 
 ual to stay in the monastery longer than he was so disposed. 
 These vows, which, when once taken, could never be recalled, 
 were the great characteristics of the institution at a later day, 
 and probably were productive of the worst evils which grew 
 out of the system. 
 
 In another letter of Jerome, addressed to the virgin Prin- 
 cipia, and giving an account of the piety of Marcella, a noble 
 widow of Rome, who was the first, through his advice, to 
 profess herself a follower of the monastic institution in that 
 city, he states as follows: "At this time," saith he, "none of 
 the noble ladies of Rome knew any thing of the monastic life, 
 nor did they dare to assume the name, because it was then a 
 new thing, discreditable and vile in the eyes of the people. 
 The bishops of Alexandria, Athanasius, and afterwards Peter, 
 obliged to fly from the persecution raised against them by the 
 
ST. MACAKIUS. 213 
 
 Arian heretics, came to Rome, having learned the history of 
 the hlessed Anthony who was still living, and that of the mo- 
 nasteries established in Egypt by Pachomius, with the disci- 
 pline of the widows and virgins. Nor did they blush to 
 acknowledge what they had known to be acceptable to Christ. 
 It was several years afterwards, before Sophronia and others 
 imitated the example." Here then, brethren, we have the rise 
 of this whole institution clearly referred to the fourth century, 
 and therefore, in Jerome's own time, it was confessedly a 
 novelty. 
 
 The shape which piety soon began to assume under the 
 influence of this new institution, accommodated itself with the 
 utmost readiness to the principles of penance and austerity, 
 which the oriental philosophy engrafted on the Gospel. And 
 hence we find the distinguished saints, whom the Church of 
 Rome lias thought fit to honour by a place in her calendar, are 
 described, with very few exceptions, as having devoted them- 
 selves to celibacy, to poverty, and to a life of the most cruel 
 and unceasing mortification. The history of these saints which 
 modern Roman Catholics are most willing to acknowledge, 
 may be found in the Roman Breviary, and the work of the 
 Rev. Alban Butler, in which the sagacious author has omitted 
 the most extravagant parts of the old chronicles, as being 
 rather too strong for the taste of the nineteenth century. 
 From these I shall extract a few specimens, which will clearly 
 show the character of the system. 
 
 St. Macarius the younger, spent upwards of 60 years in the 
 deserts of Upper Egypt, in the exercise of fervent penance and 
 contemplation. He lived some time under St. Anthony, but 
 aimed, if possible, at still greater perfection. As an instance 
 of his austerities, it is related, that he passed the whole season 
 of Lent, forty days and nights, standing in a corner, making 
 baskets of palm-leaves, without eating any thing except a few 
 raw cabbage-leaves on Sundays. At another time he hap- 
 
214 ST. SIMEON STYLITES. 
 
 pened inadvertently to kill a gnat, which was biting him in 
 his cell, but reflecting that he had thus lost the opportunity of 
 suffering that mortification, he hastened from his cell to the 
 marshes of Scete, which abounded with a sort of flies, whose 
 stings are insupportable even to wild boars. There he con- 
 tinued six months exposed to these insects, and to such a degree 
 was his whole body disfigured in consequence, by sores and 
 swellings, that when he returned he was only to be known by 
 his voice. (Butler's Lives, Vol. I. 55.) 
 
 Another of these saints was St. Simeon Stylites, who was 
 a subject of astonishment, not only to the Roman empire, but 
 to many barbarous and infidel nations. In his tender youth 
 he was taken into a monastery, where he made it his practice 
 to eat once only in the week, and that on Sundays. The 
 rough rope made of twisted palm-leaves, which they used for 
 drawing water, seemed to him to be a fit instrument of pen- 
 ance; and therefore he tied it round his body and kept it there, 
 until it had eaten into his flesh, and was cut out with the great- 
 est anguish. After his recovery, he resolved that he would 
 keep the whole of Lent without either eating or drinking, and 
 actually did so for the following forty years. He remained in 
 a hermitage three years, then built himself an inclosure of 
 stones, without a roof, on the top of a mountain, fastening his 
 leg to the rock with a great iron chain. But being too much 
 distracted from his contemplation by the crowds of people 
 that came from all parts to receive his blessing, he erected a 
 pillar of nine feet high, on which he remained four years. On 
 a second, eighteen feet high, he lived three years. On a third 
 pillar, thirty-three feet high, he continued ten years; and on a 
 fourth, built for him by the people^ of sixty feet high, he spent 
 the last twenty years of his life. His pillar was only three feet 
 in diameter at the top, so that he could not lie down on it, 
 neither would he allow himself a seat. Twice a day, he ex- 
 horted the people. His garments were the skins of beasts. 
 
ST. PAULA AND ST. PAUL. 215 
 
 and he wore an iron collar round his neck. But he never 
 suffered any woman to come within the enclosure where his 
 pillar stood. His miracles were said to be very numerous, 
 and the attraction of his singular mode of life was beyond 
 example. (lb. 65.) 
 
 A third instance is that of St. Jerome's particular friend 
 Paula, who, after the death of her husband, resolved to devote 
 herself to penance and devotion. She abstained from all flesh, 
 meat, fish, eggs, honey, and wine; used oil only on holy days, 
 lay on a stone floor covered with sackcloth, renounced all 
 visits and amusements, put aside all costly garments, and gave 
 all she had to the poor. Prayer, pious reading and fasting 
 were her occupations, and finally she left her children at Rome, 
 took up her abode at Bethlehem, built several monasteries, 
 and passed the rest of her days in mortification. (lb. 78.) 
 
 Another example is that of St. Paul: not the apostle, indeed, 
 whose life was of a very opposite description, but St. Paul, the 
 first Christian hermit. This man fled into the desert from the 
 Decian persecution in A. D. 250, and chose for his dwelling a 
 cave, near to which were a palm-tree and a clear spring. The 
 leaves of the tree furnished him with clothing, the fruit with 
 food, and the spring supplied him with water. Thus he lived 
 for 21 years, and from that time till his death, about 70 years 
 after, he was miraculously fed by a raven, who brought him 
 half a loaf of bread every day. He was found dead by St. 
 Anthony, another celebrated hermit, after he had paid him a 
 visit by revelation; and although dead, the body was on the 
 knees, and the hands stretched out as if in prayer. St. Anthony 
 was greatly at a loss to know how he should bury the body, 
 because he had no proper instruments for digging a grave. 
 But two immense lions came up, and tearing up the ground, 
 made a hole large enough for the purpose; then, making evi- 
 dent signs of mourning for Paul, and licking the feet of Antho- 
 
216 ST. GERMANUS AMD IGNATIUS. 
 
 ny, they went quietly away. (lb. 103, and also St. Jerome's 
 Life of Paul, Tom. I.) 
 
 We may next turn to the case of St. Germanus, bishop of 
 Auxerre in the fifth century, who separated from the society of 
 his wife, distributed all his property to the Church and the 
 poor, and embraced a life of poverty and austerity. Until the 
 day of his death, for 30 years together, he never touched 
 wheaten bread, wine, vinegar, oil, pulse or salt. He began 
 every meal by putting a little ashes into his mouth, to renew 
 the spirit of penance, and took no other sustenance than barley 
 bread, made of grain which he threshed and ground with his 
 own hands. He never ate oftener than once a day, sometimes 
 once in three days, often only once a week. His dress was 
 mean, the same in summer and winter, and he always wore a 
 hair shirt next his skin. His bed was strewed with ashes, 
 without a bolster, and covered with sackcloth and a single 
 blanket. He washed the feet of the poor, and served them 
 with his own hands, while he himself was fasting. (lb. 238.) 
 
 The founder of the famous order of the Jesuits, St. Ignatius, 
 is one of the most glorious of these saints, in the estimation of 
 the Church of Rome, as might naturally be expected. Of him 
 it is related, that through the week he always fasted on bread 
 and water, but on Sundays he added a few boiled herbs, sprin- 
 kled over with ashes. He wore an iron girdle, a hair shirt, and 
 lay on the ground; 'and his acts of austerity were carried to 
 the highest possible point of endurance, if not, indeed, far be- 
 yond it. (lb. 260.) 
 
 St. Clare was another saint, who instituted an order of 
 nuns in the 12th century. She wore neither shoes nor stock- 
 ings, lay on the ground, observed a perpetual abstinence, 
 and never spoke but when obliged by charity or necessity. 
 She always wore next her skin a rough garment, made of 
 bristles. Sometimes, considering the ground too pleasant a 
 resting place, she strewed it all over with twigs, and placed a 
 
ST. MARTIN AND ST. PATRICK. 217 
 
 wooden block for her bolster. She was afflicted with con- 
 tinual diseases and pains for eight and twenty years, yet 
 would allow herself no other indulgence than a little straw to 
 lie on. (lb. 302.) 
 
 In the biography of St. Martin it is said, that near the time of 
 his death he had a fever ; nevertheless, he spent the night in 
 prayer, lying on ashes and hair cloth. His disciples intreated 
 him to allow at least a little straw under him. But he replied: 
 It becomes not a Christian to die otherwise than upon ashes. 
 I shall have sinned if I leave you any other example, (lb. 
 65.) 
 
 These instances, however, are exceedingly mutilated, when 
 compared with the full accounts of the original records; be- 
 cause the writer of the book, as I mentioned, omitted designed- 
 ly all that he conceived likely to shock and disgust the taste 
 of the age. I shall therefore, in order to give you a full pic- 
 ture, brethren, be obliged to have recourse to a less fastidious 
 authority, but the most unquestionable, namely, the Roman 
 breviary, and that too, in its most improved form. 
 
 Thus, in the life of St. Patrick, (Brev. Rom. Pars Verna, 
 p. 501,) we read the following account of his devotional exer- 
 cises, in the lessons appointed for the 17th of March, common- 
 ly called St. Patrick's day. " They say that he was wont to 
 repeat daily the whole Psalter, together with the Canticles, 
 and two hundred hymns and prayers ; three hundred times on 
 each day to worship God on his knees, and in each canonical 
 hour of the day, to sign himself one hundred times with the 
 sign of the cross. Dividing the night into three portions, he 
 spent the first in running through one hundred psalms, and in 
 two hundred genuflexions ; the second, in running through the 
 other fifty psalms, immersed in cold water, with his heart, 
 eyes, and hands raised to heaven. But the third part he gave 
 to a slight slumber upon the bare stone." 
 
 There was a saint placed in the calendar of the Church of 
 u 
 
218 ST. ALPHONSO DE LIGOUIO* 
 
 Rome so lately as the year 1830, only thirteen years ago, by 
 the name of Alphonso Maria de Ligorio, of whose austerities 
 and self-inflicted penances his confessor gave the following ac- 
 count to the pope : — " I know for a certainty," saith the con- 
 fessor, "that this servant of God constantly scourged himself 
 unbloodily and bloodily, and besides the unbloody scourgings 
 enjoined by the rule of his order, he was wont to punish him- 
 self every day in the morning before the usual hour of rising, 
 and in the evening after the signal for repose. On Saturdays 
 he scourged himself till the blood flowed, and these scourgings 
 were so violent, and caused so much blood to gush from his 
 limbs, that not only was his linen always covered with it, but 
 you might see even the walls of his small room stained, and 
 the very books which he kept were sprinkled with it." 
 
 "And further, from what I have seen with my own eyes," 
 continues the confessor, "and have heard declared by certain 
 fathers who are worthy of credit, I know that this servant of 
 God macerated his body with hair-cloth containing sharp 
 points, and with chains as well on his arms as on his legs, 
 which he carried with him till dinner time, and these were for 
 the most part so armed with sharp points, that they filled with 
 horror all who ever saw them. I have heard say, also, that 
 he had a dress filled with a coat of mail with iron points, that 
 he had bandages of camel's hair, and other instruments of 
 penance were casually seen by me and by others of my com- 
 panions, notwithstanding his zealous and circumspect secrecy." 
 (Finch, Vol. I. 266.) 
 
 One example more, brethren, shall close this list of distress- 
 ing self-tormentors, and that is the instance of St. Rose or 
 Rosa, a nun of the Tertian order of St. Dominick, at Lima, 
 who was canonized by pope Clement X., A.D. 1673, since the 
 Reformation. The account was published at Rome in the 
 collection of the Constitutions of Canonization, in the early 
 part of the last century, and is as follows : — 
 
ST. ROSE OF LIMA. 219 
 
 «'When St. Rose was still a little child, and ignorant of the 
 use of whips, she changed the stones and crosses with which, 
 when going to prayer, her maid Marianne used to load her, 
 into iron chains, which she prepared as scourges, with which, 
 after the example of St. Dominick, she offered herself every 
 night, a bloody victim to God, to avert his just anger, even to 
 the copious effusion of streams of blood, either for the sorrows 
 of the holy Church, or for the necessities of the endangered 
 kingdom, or of the city of Lima, or for compensating the 
 wrongs of sinners, or for making an expiation for the souls of 
 the dead, or for obtaining divine aid for those who were in 
 their last agonies; the servants being sometimes horror-struck 
 at such dreadful blows of the chains. And when the use of 
 these was forbidden her, she privately encircled her waist with 
 one of them bound three times around her, so that it never was 
 apparent that she wore it, except when she was under the tor- 
 tures of the sciatica. Lest any part of her innocent body 
 should be free from suffering, she tortured her arms and limbs 
 with penal chains, and stuffed her breast and sides full, with 
 handfuls of nettles and small briars. She increased the sharp- 
 ness of the hair-cloth, which reached from her neck beneath 
 her knees, by needles mixed up with it, which she used for 
 many years, until she was ordered to put it off on account of 
 the frequent vomiting of blood. When she laid this aside, 
 however, she substituted another garment, less injurious to her 
 health, but not less troublesome, for beneath it every move- 
 ment gave her pain. From these sufferings, in order that her 
 feet might not be free, she either hit them with sharp stones, 
 or burned them in an oven, that they might have their share 
 of torture. Upon her head she fixed a tin crown with sharp 
 nails in it, and for some years never put it on without being 
 wounded. When she grew older, this was replaced by one 
 which was armed with ninety-nine points." 
 
 *' As to her bed, she desired that the hardness of it should 
 
220 ST. RAYMOND. 
 
 drive away rather than invite sleep, so that it should also serve 
 as an instrument of torture. Her pillow was either an un- 
 polished trunk, or stones concealed for that purpose, and she 
 filled her bed with sharp pieces of tiles and triangular frag- 
 ments of broken jugs, disposed in such a manner that the 
 sharp points should be next her body ; nor did she try to sleep 
 until she had embittered her mouth with a draught of gall." 
 (Finch, Vol. I. p. 266.) 
 
 Here, brethren, we have a full length portrait of that as- 
 tonishing and cruel superstition, of which celibacy was only a 
 part, and monasticism was the completion; but which, instead 
 of tracing its derivation from the pure Gospel of Christ, plainly 
 descended from the practices of the ancient Gymnosophists, 
 brought into the Church through the Gnostic heretics, and 
 finding no parallel but with the Hindoo penances of the pre- 
 sent day. But of such saints the Roman calendar is full. 
 There is not a day in the year that is not dedicated to them. 
 The miracles attributed to them are innumerable: and their 
 power with God seems always to be computed by the measure 
 of their voluntary torments. Numerous and strange are the 
 accounts of their conflicts with Satan, and their victories over 
 his arts, chiefly by making the sign of the cross. And it is 
 common to find their devotions represented to be so fervent, 
 that they were lifted up from the earth, remained suspended 
 in the air, and had their countenances irradiated with a divine 
 glory. 
 
 Of the miracles related of the saints, a volume might be 
 compiled, which would at least excite astonishment if it did 
 not produce edification. A very few must suffice us, for our 
 tipie is nearly exhausted. 
 
 St. Raymund, of Pcnnafort, is related to have visited the 
 island of Majorca with the king, in the year 1256, where he 
 had occasion to rebuke the monarch for his licentiousness. 
 Not finding any reformation follow the rebuke, he asked per- 
 
ST. AGATHA. 221 
 
 mission to leave the island, and return to his convent at Barce- 
 lona. But this the king not only refused, but forbid any one 
 to convey him out of the island under penalty of death. Upon 
 this the saint, full of confidence in the Deity, said to his com- 
 panion, 'A king of the earth endeavours to deprive us of the 
 means of retiring, but the King of heaven will supply them.' 
 He then walked boldly to the sea shore, extended his cloak 
 upon the waves, tied up one corner of it to his staiF for a sail, 
 and having made the sign of the cross, stepped upon it without 
 fear, whilst his companion stood trembling and wondering on 
 the beach. " In this new kind of vessel," continues the histo- 
 rian, " he was wafted with such rapidity, that in six hours he 
 reached the harbour of Barcelona, sixty leagues distant," being 
 at the rate of about thirty miles an hour. (Butler's Lives, I. 
 p. 133.) 
 
 We are told in another part of the history of the saints, that 
 the veil worn by St. Agatha, and taken out of her tomb for 
 that purpose, had several times driven back the torrent of 
 burning lava which issued from Mount ^tna, and threatened 
 to overwhelm the city of Catana. The relics of St. Januarius 
 are confidently said to have frequently saved the city of Na- 
 ples from the same fate, during the eruptions of Mount Vesu- 
 vius, (lb. Vol. 11. p. 411.) 
 
 The five wounds of St. Fi*ancis are another instance of a 
 very peculiar kind. For after the saint had been favoured 
 with a vision of Christ, or, as some of those writers seem to 
 consider it, after he had been transformed into Christ, his 
 body was found to have received the image of a crucifix. His 
 hands and his feet seemed bored in the middle with four 
 wounds, and the holes seemed to be pierced with nails of hard 
 flesh. The heads were round and black, and appeared be- 
 yond the skin on the other side, and were there turned back 
 as if clenched with a hammer. There was also in his side a 
 
 u 2 
 
222 ST. FRANCIS. 
 
 red wound, like one made by the piercing of a lance. (lb. 
 457.) 
 
 An example of miracles occurs in the case of St. Rose, the 
 same already mentioned, which is thus related ; — " On her 
 death-bed she invited the inanimate plants, after an unheard-of 
 fashion, to praise and to pray to God, pronouncing the verse, 
 'Bless the Lord, all ye things which bud on the earth:' and 
 she so visibly persuaded them, that the tops of the trees 
 touched the earth, as if adoring their Creator." (Finch, Vol. 
 I. 268.) 
 
 But perhaps all these cases yield to the example recorded 
 by Baronius, (Vol. XIII. p. 512) when six of the monks who 
 belonged to the order of preaching friars, were beheaded by 
 the command of the Count of Thoulouse, the protector of the 
 Albigensian heretics. But behold, after they were dead, the 
 whole six took up their own heads, and carried them straight- 
 way to the convent, a light sent from heaven going before 
 each one. 
 
 "The same wonder occurred," remarks Baronius, "to Dio- 
 nysius, the Areopagite, at Paris, and to Proculus, at Bononia, 
 who carried their own heads, by a miracle, to a considerable 
 distance from the place where they had been cut off; thus fur- 
 nishing to the world not only a proof of their innocence, but 
 also of the truth of that faith for which they suffered." Mul- 
 titudes of such narratives are scattered through the writings of 
 the Church of Rome, some far more preposterous than any I 
 have mentioned ; for my desire is not to provoke a smile at 
 those superstitions, which ought rather to inspire us with com- 
 miseration, but to particularize those facts alone which are 
 necessary to a fair development of principles, and thereby at- 
 tain to a correct estimate of the necessity, the importance, and 
 the actual results of the Reformation. 
 
 At this point in our course, then, brethren, let us pause to 
 survey the spectacle presented by the Church of Rome, which 
 
RECAPITULATION. 223 
 
 calls herself, remember, unchanged and unchangeable, the in- 
 fallible preserver of the truth taught by the apostles. Yet she 
 abrogates the marriage of the clergy, which the Word of God 
 had expressly approved; she takes away the liberty which the 
 Lord had established for his ministry, and puts her own re- 
 strictions in its place; she introduces a new order of the laity 
 founded on the principles of celibacy, retirement from the 
 world, and mortification, which had its model in heathenism 
 and not in Christ or his apostles; she exalts her own new rule 
 of celibacy as high above marriage as gold is above silver; she 
 sets up a new kind of holiness and virtue, in the cruel scourg- 
 ings, and chains, and fastings, by which her admired saints 
 obtained such distinction, not one item of which can be found 
 in the life of Christ or his apostles, or any of the holy men 
 recorded in the Scriptures; she grants to her popes the privi- 
 lege of declaring who of these saints shall be canonized, and 
 thus be publicly set forth as worthy to receive prayers and 
 offerings. She undertakes not only to tell us of the miracles 
 which these saints performed in their life-time, but to assure us 
 that their relics and their very garments can stop the raging 
 pestilence, extinguish the devouring flame, and arrest the tor- 
 rent of the burning lava. She warns her people of the danger 
 to be incurred by their reading of the Bible, while she prepares 
 the lives of these saints for general circulation, puts them in 
 her breviary, and commends them as the great examples of 
 holiness to every soul of her communion; and while it can be 
 distinctly shov/n that neither clerical celibacy, nor the monas- 
 tic system, nor retirement to religious solitude, nor self-inflicted 
 penances, nor abstinence from all the common comforts of life, 
 nor irrevocable vows, nor holiness founded upon austerity, had 
 become engrafted upon the Gospel of Christ, until several hun- 
 dred years after the apostolic day ; nevertheless, the Church 
 of Rome gravely reiterates her assertion, that she is unchanged 
 
224 SALUTARY INFLUENCE 
 
 and infallible, and asks us what cause there was for the 
 Reformation ? 
 
 It is indeed true, however, that an awkward attempt has 
 been often made to justify the monastic system by the exam- 
 ples of John the Baptist, Elijah and Elisha, the sons of the 
 prophets, and the family of Jonadab, the son of Rechab; (Hie- 
 ron. ad Paulinum, de Instit. Mon. Op. om. Tom. I. p. 67, C. 
 D.) not one of which, as it is easy to prove, can yield to it the 
 slightest support or semblance of authority. But the simple 
 and the conclusive argument is derived from the great princi- 
 ple of the Gospel, that the Word of Christ is our rule, and the 
 hfe of Christ, so far as our circumstances make it applicable, 
 and especially as it is illustrated by his apostles, is our exam- 
 ple. Hence the precept of St. Paul, "Be ye followers of me, 
 as I also am of Christ," furnishes, at once, the law and the 
 commentary. And every attempt to introduce a higher, a 
 stricter, or a more expedient rule, not only involves the peril 
 of religious truth, but is sure to prove, in the end, how far the 
 wisdom of God excels the inventions of men. 
 
 The doctrine of celibacy and the institution of the monastic 
 system, brethren, furnish, on this very point, the most instruc- 
 tive lessons. Nothing could be more corrupt, nothing more de- 
 based, nothing more licentious, than the morals of the clergy 
 and the lives of the monks generally became, from the period 
 of their complete establishment to the time of the Reformation. 
 And although it gives me pleasure to say, that since that glo- 
 rious Reformation, the morals of the Roman priesthood, and the 
 character of the monastic and conventual institutions, in all 
 those countries where the reformed religion is known, are as 
 pure and blameless as those of other Christians, yet historical 
 truth compels us to attribute the improvement, not to the effi- 
 cacy of celibacy or monachisrn, considered in themselves, but 
 to the watchfulness made necessary by the neighbourhood of 
 opposing sects, the higher tone of public sentiment, and the 
 
OF THE REFOEMATIOIV. 225 
 
 greater diffusion of knowledge and intelligence throughout the 
 mass of the community. 
 
 The influence of the Reformation is likewise manifest on the 
 whole process of superior sanctity, as carried on in the darker 
 ages. The lives of the saints prepared by Rev. Alban Butler 
 for modern use, and from which I have made the greater part 
 of my extracts, is quite a moderate and rational set of biogra- 
 phies, when compared with the original documents themselves. 
 The cruel penances, the bloody scourgings, and the more ex- 
 travagant and puerile miracles, are either omitted altogether, 
 or so softened down, as to present a very different and assu- 
 redly much more creditable history; although enough still 
 remains of the characteristic error to make it a dangerous 
 book to a young and ardent mind. This emendation also is a 
 fruit of the Reformation. Enlightened Roman Catholics them- 
 selves cannot believe the mass of venerable superstitions and 
 absurdities which their own records furnish; and hence the 
 universal and increasing disposition among them — thank 
 God ! — to reduce the credit of the saints, to say comparatively 
 but little about their miracles and merits, to cast a mantle of 
 kindly oblivion over their austerities, and to preach and to 
 write more and more in accordance with the simple and only 
 effective doctrines of the everlasting Gospel. 
 
 Our next lecture, brethren, will present that doctrine of the 
 Church of Rome which stands in direct connexion with our 
 last subject, namely, the worship, or veneration, as it is now 
 more frequently called, of the virgin Mary and the saints. 
 And as it will require but a few more lectures to carry us 
 through our intended course, I trust you will feel sufficient 
 interest in them to continue your attention. After all, my 
 beloved brethren, what ought to engage us more earnestly, 
 next to the securing our own hope in Christ, than the condi- 
 tion of that Church, which not only unites so many claims of 
 antiquity, of former power, and of historical importance, but 
 
226 CONCLUSION. 
 
 which numbers, in our own day, so vast a proportion of the 
 Christian world, and is steadily gaining ground in our own 
 country? How grateful should we be to the providence of that 
 gracious God, who dissipated the darkness which brooded over 
 Europe before the sixteenth century, and who has so ordered our 
 own lot, that we enjoy the utmost allowance of Scriptural light 
 and Gospel liberty! And how deeply concerned and affection- 
 ately solicitous should we be for the increase of the same light 
 and liberty, amongst that immense portion of the Christian 
 family, who are yet clinging so fondly to their errors under 
 the mistaken notion of infallibility, and who, although they 
 know it not, are dependent upon the very Reformation which 
 they despise, for the comparative purity, moderation and peace 
 of their practical system. Let us then cherish more and more, 
 the spirit of love towards them, and towards every other divi- 
 sion of the Universal or Catholic Church. Not the weak and 
 foolish love which is blind to every fault, and deaf to every 
 suggestion of error ; but the true Christian love which strikes 
 to benefit, which rebukes to instruct, which wounds to heal. 
 And may the prayer of faith and charity rise upwards on the 
 wings of hope, that the mighty power of the Holy Spirit may 
 reduce the conflicting elements of modern religion into har- 
 mony and order, that infidelity and superstition may alike 
 submit to the Word of God, and the whole earth be filled with 
 his glory. 
 
LECTURE XI. 
 
 The Apocalypse, xxli. 8, 9. — And after I had heard and seen, I fell 
 down to adore before the feet of the angel who showed me these 
 things, And he said unto me : See thou do it not : for I am thy fel- 
 low servant, and of thy brethren the prophets, and of them who 
 keep the words of the prophecy of this book : Adore God. (Doway 
 version.) 
 
 The subject appointed for the following lecture, my brethren, 
 will again bring us into communication with Dr. Wiseman, 
 from whom I have been obliged to depart for two lectures 
 past, because the important matters discussed in them, namely, 
 the doctrine of anathema and persecution, and the system of 
 celibacy, penance and mortification, which form the essential 
 elements of sanctification in the Church of Rome, are totally 
 passed by in his course, either because he thought that even 
 his ingenuity could not give them an acceptable aspect to an 
 English audience, or because he concluded that the less there 
 was said about them, the better. But on the veneration and 
 worship of the angels, the virgin Mary, and the saints, our 
 author Is strong and eloquent, and therefore I shall quote from 
 his volumes, as I have done before. 
 
 " The Catholic doctrine," saith he, " regarding the saints, 
 is twofold. In the first place, it teaches that the saints of 
 God make intercession before him for their brethren on earth. 
 In the second place, it teaches that it is lawful to invoke their 
 intercession : knowing that they do pray for us, we say it 
 must be lawful to turn to them, and ask and entreat of them 
 
228 INTERCESSION OF THE SAINTS. 
 
 to use that influence which they possess, in interceding on our 
 behalf." (Vol. II. p. 80.) 
 
 " If you ask a Catholic," continues our author, "what he 
 means by the communion of saints, he tells you at once, that 
 he understands by it an interchange of good offices between 
 the saints in heaven, and those who are fighting here below 
 for their crown, whereby they intercede on iheir part on our 
 behalf, look down on us with sympathy, take an interest in all 
 that we do and suffer, and make use of the influence they 
 necessarily possess with God, towards assisting their frail and 
 tempted brethren on earth. And to balance all this, we have 
 our offices towards them, inasmuch as we repay them in 
 respect, admiration and love, with the feeling that those who 
 were once our brethren, having run their course, and being in 
 possession of their reward, we may turn to them in the confi- 
 dence of brethren, and ask them to use that influence with 
 their Lord and Master which their charity and goodness 
 necessarily move them to exert." (P. 81.) 
 
 Proceeding to show how this idea is founded upon the 
 doctrine, that the departed saint cannot have forgotten his 
 personal associates when he leaves this world, our author asks 
 the question : " Who will for a moment imagine — who can 
 for an instant entertain the thought, that the child which has 
 been snatched from its parent by having been taken from a 
 world of suffering, does not continue to love her whom it has 
 left on earth, and sympathize with her sorrows over its grave ? 
 Who can believe that when friend is separated from friend, 
 and when one expires in the prayer of hope, their friendship 
 is not continued, and that the two are not united in the same 
 warm affection which they enjoyed here below ? And if it 
 was the privilege of love on earth — if it was one of the holiest 
 duties, to pray to the Almighty for him who was so perfectly 
 beloved— can we suppose that this holiest, most beautiful and 
 most perfect duty of charity, hath ceased in heaven 1 Can we 
 
ROMAN ARGUMENT. 229 
 
 believe that God would deprive charity of its highest preroga- 
 tive, when he has given it its brightest crown V (lb. 82, 83.) 
 Our author passes on from this eloquent interrogation to 
 exhibit some Scriptural evidence on this branch of the argu- 
 ment. " We have the plainest and strongest assurances," 
 saith he, " that God does receive the prayers of the saints 
 and the angels, and that they are constantly employed in sup- 
 plications on our behalf. For we have the belief of the 
 universal Jewish Church, confirmed in the new law. The 
 belief of the old law is clear, for we find that the angels are 
 spoken of constantly as in a state of ministration over the 
 wants and necessities of mankind. In the book of Daniel, 
 for instance, we read of angels sent to instruct him, and we 
 have mention made of the princes, meaning the angels of 
 different kingdoms. — Our Saviour speaks of this as a thing 
 well understood — ' Even so,' saith he, ' there shall be joy in 
 heaven over one sinner that repentelh, more than over ninety 
 and nine just persons that need no repentance.' — We are else- 
 where told that the saints of God shall be like his angels. 
 We have also the angels of individuals spoken of, and we are 
 told not to offend any of Christ's little ones, or make them 
 fall, because their angels always see the face of their Father 
 who is in heaven. — But in the Apocalypse, we have still 
 stronger authority, for we there read of our prayers as being 
 perfumes in the hands of angels and saints. One blessed 
 spirit stood before a mystical altar in heaven, having a golden 
 censer, and there was given unto him much incense, that he 
 should ofl^er the prayers of all saints upon the golden altar, 
 which is before the throne of God. And the smoke of the 
 incense of the prayers of the saints ascended up before God, 
 from the hand of the angel. And not only the angels but 
 the twenty-four elders, cast themselves before the throne of 
 God, and pour out vials of sweet odours, which are the 
 prayers of the saints." (lb. p. 83, 4, 5.) 
 
 X 
 
230 ROMAN ARGUMENT. 
 
 "From all this," continues Dr. Wiseman, "it is proved 
 that the saints and angels know what passes on earth, that 
 they are aware of what we do and suffer, that they actually 
 present our prayers to God and intercede in our behalf with 
 him. Here then is a basis, and a sufficient one for our 
 belief; that prayers are offered for us by the saints, and 
 therefore that we may apply to them for their supplications." 
 (lb. 85.) 
 
 In these quotations, brethren, we see a specimen of the 
 whole system of the Church of Rome, which, beginning in 
 truth, goes on with inference after inference, until the result 
 becomes a dangerous error. The communion of saints, the 
 fact that the departed spirit continues to love and pray for 
 its individual friends and family ; that the angels are minister- 
 ing spirits sent forth, as St. Paul declares, to minister to those 
 that shall be heirs of salvation; that through the intelligence 
 given by these ministering angels, the departed saints are pro- 
 bably informed of all that interests them on earth, and that the 
 progress and prosperity of the whole Church, as well as the 
 happiness of their individual friends, are the constant subject of 
 their supplications; that in heaven, the four and twenty elders, 
 with the cherubim, offer up golden vials full of odours, which are 
 the prayers of saints, and that the communion of the whole is 
 thus sustained in affection, sympathy, and supplication for us 
 by the departed saints, and in love, and remembrance, and 
 desire to enjoy their society on our part, below — all this we 
 grant and believe as fully as the Church of Rome, because we 
 have the testimony of the Word of God in its favour. On 
 this true basis, however, they have erected a lofty structure of 
 superstition, and I fear I must add, impiety, in no part of which 
 can we discern any real authority of Scripture or right reason. 
 We deny utterly, therefore, the inference of Dr. Wiseman, 
 that because we believe the departed saints remember and pray 
 for us, therefore it is right that we should pray to them. We 
 
THE VIRGIN MARY. 231 
 
 deny that there is any knowledge or power in the Church on 
 earth to pronounce upon the salvation, much less upon the 
 glorification of any particular saint. We may hope and trust, 
 and feel a happy persuasion of their bliss, but the Lord alone can 
 pronounce an authoritative judgment. We also deny that the 
 angels are to be worshipped or addressed in prayer, and the 
 whole mass of worship established by the Church of Rome in 
 honour of the virgin Mary and the saints, we hold ourselves 
 prepared to prove to be unscriptural, unknown to the primitive 
 Church, and utterly unfavourable to the best interests of the 
 gospel. 
 
 These are strong assertions, brethren, but not stronger, I 
 trust, than the evidence will fully justify. I should not under- 
 take, however, to prove the correctness of our doctrine, if I 
 were confined to Dr. Wiseman's statement of the other side. 
 He tells us, indeed, that the Church of Rome thinks it right to 
 apply to the departed saints for the benefit of their supplica- 
 tions; but he does not inform us how the application is made, 
 what sort of power is attributed to the saints, and in what terms 
 of honour, praise, and invocation, this portion of their worship 
 is conducted. These defects I must supply in the first place, 
 by setting before you a pretty copious selection from the stand- 
 ard books of the Church of Rome, and then, brethren, you will 
 be prepared to understand the importance of this portion of our 
 controversy. 
 
 To begin, then, with the virgin Mary: the catechism of the 
 Council of Trent declares that ''• she is truly and properly 
 called Mother of God and man," and 'Immaculate,' that is, 
 without spot or slain, (p. 47.) As the apostles sometimes call 
 Jesus Christ the second Adam, so "the virgin mother we may 
 also," continues this catechism, " compare to Eve." — " By be- 
 lieving the serpent. Eve entailed malediction and death upon 
 mankind; and Mary, by believing the angel, became the instru- 
 ment of the divine goodness in bringing life and benediction to 
 
232 WOKSHIP OFFERED TO 
 
 the human race. From Eve we are born children of wrath, 
 from Mary we have received Jesus Christ, and through him 
 are regenerated children of grace. To Eve it was said, in 
 sorrow shalt thou bring forth children: Mary was exempt from 
 this law, for preserving her integrity inviolate, she brought 
 forth Jesus the Son of God without experiencing any sense of 
 pain." (lb. 49.) 
 
 In another part of this catechism, on the subject of prayer, 
 we read as follows: "To the duty of thanksgiving belongs 
 the first part of the angelical salutation. When we say by 
 way of prayer: 'Hail Mary, full of grace, the Lord is with 
 thee, blessed art thou among women ;' we render to God the 
 highest praise and return him most grateful thanks, because 
 he accumulated all his heavenly gifts on the most holy virgin; 
 and to the virgin herself, for this her singular felicity, we pre- 
 sent our respectful and fervent congratulations. To this form 
 of thanksgiving the Church of God has wisely added prayer 
 to, and an invocation of, the most holy mother of God, by 
 which we piously and humbly fly to her patronage, in order 
 that, by interposing her intercession, she may conciliate the 
 friendship of God to us miserable sinners, and may obtain for 
 us those blessings which we stand in need of in this life, and 
 the life to come. Exiled children of Eve, who dwell in this 
 vale of tears, should we not earnestly beseech the mother of 
 mercy, the advocate of the faithful, to pray for us? Should 
 we not earnestly implore her help and assistance? That she 
 possesses exalted merits with God, and that she is most desi- 
 rous to assist us by her prayers, it were wicked and impious 
 to doubt." (Tb. 4.35.) 
 
 To have a distinct idea, brethren, of the quality of the wor- 
 ship thus enjoined, we must look at the language which the 
 Church of Rome puts into the mouth of the worshipper. 
 
 Thus the angelical salutation, or Hail Mary, as it is often 
 called, is as follows: 
 
THE VIRGIN MARY. 233 
 
 " Hail Mary, full of grace, the Lord is with thee, blessed art 
 thou among women, and blessed is the fruit of thy womb, 
 Jesus. Holy Mary, mother of God, pray for us sinners, now, 
 and in the hour of our death. Amen." (True Piety, p. 23-4. 
 New York edition of 1826.) 
 
 We may next cite the language of their confession. 
 
 " I confess to Almighty God, to blessed Mary, ever a virgin, 
 to blessed Michael the archangel, to blessed John the Baptist, 
 to the holy apostles Peter and Paul, and to all the saints, that I 
 have sinned exceedingly in thought word and deed, through 
 my fault, through my most grievous fault. Therefore I be- 
 seech the blessed Mary ever a virgin, the blessed Michael the 
 archangel, the blessed John the Baptist, the holy apostles Peter 
 and Paul, and all the saints, to pray to the Lord our God for 
 me." (lb. 24.) 
 
 The invocation of the virgin, the guardian angel, and the 
 patron saint, enjoined on every worshipper, is as follows: 
 
 " O holy virgin, mother of God ! my advocate and pa- 
 troness! pray for thy poor servant, prove thyself a mother 
 to me. And thou, O blessed spirit, my guardian angel, whom 
 God in his mercy hath appointed to watch over me, intercede 
 for me this day, that I may not stray from the paths of virtue. 
 Our glorious apostle St. Patrick, and thou, also, O happy saint, 
 whose name I bear, pray for me that I may serve God faith- 
 fully in this life as thou hast done, and with thee glorify him 
 eternally in heaven. Amen." (lb. p. 25.) 
 
 From the Litany of the blessed virgin, I shall next extract 
 some of the prayers and titles addressed to her. 
 
 " We fly to thy patronage, O holy mother of God, despise 
 not our petitions in our necessities, but deliver us from all 
 dangers, O ever glorious and blessed virgin." 
 
 " Holy mother of God, mother of divine grace, mother of 
 our Creator, most powerful Virgin, most merciful Virgin, 
 mirror of justice — pray for us. Seat of wisdom, cause of our 
 
 X 2 
 
234 WORSHIP OFFERED TO 
 
 joy, Toiver of David, House of Gold, Ark of the covenant, 
 Gate of heaven. Morning Star, Health of the weak. Refuge of 
 sinners, Comforter of the afflicted. Help of (Christians, Queen 
 of angels. Queen of patriarchs, Queen of prophets. Queen of 
 apostles. Queen of martyrs, Queen of confessors. Queen of 
 virgins. Queen of all saints, — pray for us." (lb. 38-9.) 
 
 Here is a marvellous collection of glorious titles, brethren, 
 to offer to any creature; but perhaps there is still more force in 
 the following prayer. 
 
 "O blessed Virgin, mother of God: and by this august 
 quality worthy of all respect from men and angels, I come to 
 offer thee my most humble homage, and to implore the aid of thy 
 prayers and protection. Thou art all powerful with the Al- 
 mighty, and thy goodness for mankind is equal to thy influence 
 in heaven. Thou knowest, O blessed Virgin ! that from my 
 tender years I looked up to thee as my mother, my advocate 
 and patroness; thou wert pleased to consider me, from that 
 time, as one of thy children, and whatever graces I have 
 received from God, I confess with humble gratitude that it is 
 through thee I receive them. Why was I not as faithful in 
 thy service, as thou wert bountiful in assisting me! But I will 
 henceforth serve, honour and love thee. Accept, O blessed 
 Virgin, my protestations of fidelity; look favourably on the 
 confidence 1 have in thee; obtain for me, of thy dear Son, a 
 lively faith, a firm hope, a tender, generous, and constant love. 
 Obtain for me a purity that nothing can soil, a humility that 
 nothing can elate, a patient submission to the will of God, that 
 nothing can ever disturb. In fine, O glorious Virgin, obtain 
 for me so faithful an imitation of thy virtue in my life, that I 
 may experience the power of thy protection at my death. 
 Amen." (lb. 180.) 
 
 A little farther on in this authoritative book of Roman Catho- 
 lic devotion, we find what is called a " Consecration of one's 
 self to the blessed Virgin.'''' 
 
THE VIRGIN MARY. 235 
 
 "Holy Mary, virgin mother of God, I this day choose thee 
 for my mother, queen, patroness and advocate, and firmly re- 
 solve never to depart either by word or action from the duty I 
 owe thee, or suffer those committed to my charge to say or do 
 an}^ thing against thy honour. Receive me therefore as thy 
 servant for ever, assist me in all the actions of my whole life, 
 and forsake me not in the hour of my death. Amen." (lb. 
 182-3.) 
 
 After this follows the "prayer of St. Bernard to the blessed 
 Virgin." 
 
 "Remember, O most pious virgin, that it is unheard of, 
 through all ages, that any one who had recourse to thee, im- 
 plored thy aid, and begged the assistance of thy prayers, ever 
 was forsaken. Animated with the same confidence, I fly to 
 thee, O virgin of virgins, mother of my God ! I come to thee 
 and cast myself at thy feet, a wretched sinner, groaning and 
 weeping. O mother of the eternal Word, despise not this my 
 humble supplication, but graciously hear and mercifully grant 
 my request." (lb. 183.) 
 
 In the introduction to another form in this same book of 
 devotion, namely, the Rosary of the blessed virgin, the prayer 
 called Hail Mary, is commended in these words : " It was com- 
 posed in heaven, dictated by the Holy Ghost, and delivered to the 
 faithful by the angel Gabriel, St. Elizabeth, and the Church of 
 Christ." And afi;erwards we find that in this Rosary, for 
 every single repetition of the Lord's prayer, it is ordered that 
 the prayer to the Virgin shall be said ten times; from which 
 we learn that the supplications addressed to her in this favourite 
 form of devotion, are beyond all reasonable allowance, more 
 frequent than those made to the Almighty. (lb. 275.) 
 
 The third part of this Rosary presents to the worshipper 
 what is called the fourth and fifth glorious mysteries, being 
 there placed in company with the resurrection and ascension 
 
236 WORSHIP OFFERED TO 
 
 of Christ, and the descent of the Holy Spirit. The following 
 are the words of the fourth mystery :— 
 
 "Let us contemplate, in this mystery, how the glorious vir- 
 gin Mary, after the resurrection of her son, passed out of this 
 world unto him, and was by him assumed into heaven, ac- 
 companied by the holy angels." Then follows the prayer: 
 (lb. 285.) 
 
 "O most prudent virgin, who, entering into the heavenly 
 palace, didst fill the holy angels with joy and man with hope, 
 vouchsafe to intercede for us in the hour of death, that, free 
 from the illusions and temptations of the devil, we may joy- 
 fully and successfully pass out of this temporal state, to enjoy 
 the happiness of eternal life. Amen." 
 
 The fifth mystery is thus set forth under the title of — 
 
 "TAe Coronation of the Most Blessed Virgin Mary in 
 Heaven.'''' 
 
 " Let us contemplate in this mystery how the glorious vir- 
 gin Mary was, with great jubilee and exultation of the whole 
 court of heaven, and particular glory of all the saints, crowned 
 by her Son with the brightest diadem of glory." After which 
 there is another prayer : — 
 
 "O glorious queen of all the heavenly citizens, we beseech 
 thee accept this Rosary, which, as a crown of roses, we offer 
 at thy feet, and grant, most gracious lady, that by thy inter- 
 cession, our souls may be inflamed with so ardent a desire of 
 seeing thee so gloriously crowned, that it may never die in us, 
 until it shall be changed into the happy fruition of thy blessed 
 sight. Amen." 
 
 " Hail ! holy queen, mother of mercy, our life, our sweet- 
 ness, and our hope, to thee do we cry, poor banished children 
 of Eve: to thee do we send up our sighs, mourning and weep- 
 ing, in this valley of tears. Turn, then, most gracious advo- 
 cate, thine eyes of mercy toward us, and after this our exile is 
 
THE VIRGIN MARY. 237 
 
 ended, show unto us the blessed fruit of thy womb, Jesus, O 
 clement, O pious, O sweet virgin Mary." 
 
 These extracts from the worship which the Church of Rome 
 has dictated to her people, brethren, contain but a small part 
 of the devotion addressed to the virgin Mary. And I ask you, 
 is it worship, or is it merely veneration and respect, as Dr. 
 Wiseman would fain persuade us? Does not the whole strain 
 and character of it place the virgin in the highest scale of au- 
 thority? Is she not effectually made the most important ob- 
 ject of the heart's affections, so that the sinner who secures 
 her advocacy and patronage has nothing to fear? Does she 
 not occupy the station of mother of the Divinity of Christ, 
 rather than mother of his humanity, whose wishes are abso- 
 lute, whose influence is omnipotent, and who, although she is 
 not called indeed a goddess, nevertheless has the almighty 
 power of God at her disposal? Nay, is not the Roman Ca- 
 tholic taught to regard Christ as an infant under the govern- 
 ment and authority of his mother, not simply in their popular 
 prints and pictures, but in some of their most solemn services? 
 Let me appeal for my evidence to another and a most extra- 
 ordinary set of devotions, drawn up for nine successive days, 
 and for this reason called a Novena, and addressed to the In- 
 fant Jesus, as if the glorified Redeemer of the world were an 
 INFANT STILL. In this most singular piece of profanation, the 
 Saviour is addressed by the title of infant fifty times. As 
 thus: "Infant, Jesus Christ, have mercy upon us. Infant, 
 Son of the Hving God — Infant, Son of the virgin Mary — In- 
 fant, strong in weakness — Infant, treasure of grace — have 
 mercy upon us. From the malice of the world deliver us, O 
 Infant Jesus. From the pride of life deliver us, O Infant Je- 
 sus;" and so of the rest. (lb. 316.) What is the meaning of 
 addressing Christ under this appellation. Infant, unless it be 
 to aid in fixing upon the minds of the worshippers the control- 
 ling power and influence of his mother? And when we con- 
 
238 
 
 THE VIRGIN MARY 
 
 sider that the epithet is appUed to that glorious Saviour, who, 
 eighteen centuries ago, ascended up to heaven in the full per- 
 fection of his divine person, both God and man — is it too much 
 to say that such language is nothing better than downright 
 impiety? 
 
 Another part of this sad corruption, brethren, consists in 
 their doctrine, that the virgin Mary was perfectly pure, both 
 from original and actual sin. And this is not only found fre- 
 quently asserted in the service, called the office of the blessed 
 virgin Mary, but there is at the end an anthem and prayer de- 
 claring the same, to the repetition of which pope Paul V. 
 granted an hundred days of indulgence. A few extracts may 
 be necessary to prove the fact. Thus, for instance, one of the 
 appointed hymns addresses the virgin :• 
 
 " Hail, ark of the Covenant 
 
 King Solomon's throne 
 
 Bright rainbow of heaven 
 
 The bush of vision. 
 
 The fleece of Gideon 
 
 The flowering rod 
 
 Sweet honey of Samson 
 
 Closet of God. 
 
 Twas meet Son so noble 
 
 Should save from stain 
 
 Wherewith Eve's children 
 
 Spotted remain, 
 
 The maid whom for mother 
 
 He had elected 
 
 That she might be never 
 
 With sin infected."— (lb. p. 289.) 
 
 The poetry is none of the best, but that is a matter of no 
 importance. The doctrine inculcated is the only point in 
 question. 
 
 Another hymn from the same office, may exhibit the doc- 
 trine more plainly. 
 
IMMACULATE. 289 
 
 "Hail mother and virgin 
 Of the Trinity 
 Temple; joy of angels 
 Seal of purity. 
 Comfort of mourners 
 Garden of pleasure 
 Palm tree of patience 
 Chastity's measure. 
 Thou land sacerdotal 
 Art blessed wholly 
 From sin original 
 Exempted solely."— (Ih. 290.) 
 
 The anthem and prayer which the pope distinguished by the 
 one hundred days' indulgence, is as follows : 
 
 "This is the branch, in which was neither knot of original, 
 nor bark of actual sin found. In thy conception, O virgin, 
 thou wast immaculate. Pray unto the Father for us whose 
 Son thou didst bring forth." And next follows the prayer : 
 
 " O God, who by the immaculate conception of the blessed 
 virgin, didst prepare a fit habitation for thy Son, we beseech 
 thee, that as by the foreseen death of her same Son, thou didst 
 preserve her pure from all spot, so likewise grant, that we, by 
 her intercession made free from sin, may attain unto thee, 
 through our Lord Jesus Christ, thy Son, who with thee and 
 the Holy Ghost, liveth and reigneth, one God, world without 
 end. Amen." (lb. 294-5.) 
 
 Here, therefore, we perceive that the virgin Mary is declared 
 not to have been a sinner, and therefore it results, that to her, 
 Christ was not a Saviour, but only a Son. For Christ saith 
 himself, that he came " not to call the righteous, but sinners to • 
 repentance. The whole need not the physician, but they that 
 are sick." But, according to their doctrine, she needed no Sa- 
 viour. Her humanity was as pure as his own, her claims of 
 perfect obedience to the law of God as high, her right to the 
 kingdom of heaven by her own merits as absolute. So that, 
 
240 PRAYER TO ST. ALOYSIUS. 
 
 although the Church of Rome has indeed lell uncorrupted the 
 great articles of the Christian faith which concern the divinity, 
 the incarnation, the spotless purity, the perfect obedience and 
 the infinite merits of the Redeemer, yet she has brought for- 
 ward, in the person of Mary, an object of faith and confidence 
 as pure, as obedient, as meritorious and as powerful, but by 
 reason of her sex, more compassionate and merciful, and 
 therefore more ready to succour the sinner. 
 
 But let me pass from the subject of the virgin, for a while, 
 in order to present a specimen of the devotion offered to the 
 other saints and angels. Of the first, a prayer to St. Aloy- 
 sius, united with Mary, will be perhaps sufficient. 
 
 " O glorious St. Aloysius, appointed by the Church of Christ 
 as a worthy advocate fouher children, intercede for me, obtain 
 for me what I ask, if it be for the glory of God and the good of 
 my soul. Or, at least, O faithful servant of God, direct my 
 request, that it may turn to the honour of my dear and blessed 
 Redeemer, that through thy patronage he may see in me the 
 effect of his sacred passion and blood." 
 
 "Omnipotent and eternal God of heaven and earth, who hast 
 been pleased to adorn the ever glorious virgin Mary with the 
 treasures of heaven, making her a fit habitation for thy divine 
 Son, permit thy servant to offer to thee those virtues which 
 rendered her most pleasing in thy sight ; accept in my behalf 
 her pure virginity, her perfect obedience and humility, her 
 poverty and sufferings, together with the innocence, penance 
 and perfect resignation of thy worthy St. Aloysius. I beseech 
 thee grant me a true compunction of heart, give me a true 
 spirit of mortification and humility, that I may despise all 
 worldly things and rest in thee alone. Grant me my petition 
 to thy great honour and glory." (lb. 256.) Here, brethren, 
 the worshipper offers to God, not the atonement and merits of 
 Christ, but the virtues, the perfect obedience, and sufferings of 
 
PRAYER TO ST. JOSEPH. 241 
 
 the virgin, together with the innocence, penance, and resigna- 
 tion of St. Aloysius ! 
 
 Somewhat of the hke description we shall find in the prayer 
 to a guardian angel. (lb. 162.) 
 
 "O holy angel, to whose care, God, in his mercy, hath 
 committed me, thou who assistest me in my wants, who con- 
 solest me in my afflictions, who supportest me when dejected, 
 and who constantly obtainest for me new favours, I return 
 thee now most sincere and humble thanks, and I conjure thee, 
 O amiable guide, to continue still thy care, to defend me 
 against my enemies, to remove from me the occasion of sin, to 
 obtain for me a docility to thy holy inspirations, to protect me, 
 in particular, at the hour of my death, and then conduct me to 
 the mansions of eternal repose. Amen." (lb. 167.) 
 
 From the Litany of Saint Joseph, I quote a few sentences. 
 "St. Joseph, the virgin consort of a virgin mother, pray for us. 
 St. Joseph, ruler of the Lord of the Universe — St. Joseph, 
 governor of the Incarnate Wisdom — St. Joseph, nursing father 
 to him by whom all creatures live — St. Joseph, saviour of the 
 Saviour of mankind — St. Joseph, honoured and served by the 
 King and queen of heaven — St. Joseph, seated on a throne 
 of glory near those of Jesus and Mary— pray for us." (lb. 
 172-3.) 
 
 What sort of epithets are these, brethren, to lavish on any- 
 mortal man ? Does not the Church of Rome, in all this, pay the 
 saints a worship as substantial and as true, if not quite as ele- 
 vated, as any that they give to God himself? Hear what the 
 great Bellarmine, one of their most learned and accomplished 
 champions, acknowledges, when defending the propriety of ma- 
 king vows to the saints. "A vow," saith he, "does not suit the 
 saints,* unless inasmuch as they are gods by participation; 
 
 * Votum non convenit Sanctis, nisi quatenus sunt Dii per partici- 
 pationem. 
 
 Y 
 
242 THE WOBSHIP OF THE VIRGIN 
 
 and we know for certain that saints reigning with Christ are 
 really such.'''' (Phil pot's Lett, to Butler, 33.) Here is an 
 honest confession of the only doctrine that can justify such 
 devotional forms as these, and although the name of gods is 
 not currently given to them, yet I confess I do not see how 
 they can be otherwise regarded than as a sort of inferior di- 
 vinities, upon the Roman Catholic system. 
 
 But tedious as our extracts, I fear, have been, from the de- 
 votions of the Church of Rome to the virgin Mary, I must 
 state a ^qw additional circunnstances in order to do justice to 
 the true state of her worship at the present day. There are, 
 then, be it noted, as many festivals to her honour, as to the 
 honour of Christ himself. Besides the festival of her concep- 
 tion, there is one of her nativity, another of her presentation 
 by her parents in the temple, and another of her assumption 
 into heaven. A similarity, indeed, between her and our 
 blessed Lord, is studiously affected. Not only is the assump- 
 tion of her body into heaven made to parallel our Lord's 
 ascension, but her body is stated, like his, to have been mirac- 
 ulously preserved from corruption. A whole week is devoted 
 to the honour of that event, and on the fourth day a lesson is 
 read, in which the narrative of Scripture on the subject of 
 Christ is fairly left in the shade. Thus it runs : " At the 
 time of her glorious falling asleep, all the apostles who were 
 employed in their holy mission through the whole earth, for 
 the salvation of mankind, were in a moment carried aloft 
 through the air and brought together at Jerusalem. While 
 they were there, they saw a vision of angels, and heard the 
 hymns of the hosts of heaven, and lo ! with divine glory she 
 delivered her soul info the hands of God. But her body 
 was taken amidst the songs of angels and of the apostles, and 
 deposited in a coffin at Gethsemane,in which place the melody 
 of the angels continued for three days. At the end of those 
 days the apostles opened the tomb, to enable Thomas, who 
 
AS PROFESSED AT THIS DAY. 243 
 
 alone had hitherto been absent, to fulfil a wish which he felt, 
 to adore that body which had borne the Lord. On opening 
 it, the body was no where to be found, but only the grave- 
 clothes in which it had been wrapped, and from them issued 
 an ineffable odour, pervading the atmosphere around. So 
 wonderful and mysterious an event astonished the apostles, 
 who could draw from it but one conclusion, that it had pleased 
 the Word of God that her immaculate body, by which he was 
 incarnate, should be preserved from corruption, and should be 
 at once translated to heaven, without waiting for the general 
 resurrection." 
 
 In the service of the next day is the following lesson : 
 " But who is sufficient to conceive how glorious on this day 
 was the progress of the queen of the world ! With what 
 transport of devout affection the whole multitude of the 
 heavenly hosts went forth to meet her! With what hymns 
 she was conducted to the throne of glory! With how placid, 
 how serene an aspect, with what divine embraces she was 
 received by her Son, and exalted above every creature, — with 
 that honour which became the worth of so great a mother, 
 and that glory which befitted so great a Son." (Philpot's Let- 
 ters to Butler, 41, 42.) 
 
 " Providing in all things, therefore, and through all things, 
 for the wretched, she consoles our fear, she excites our faith, 
 she strengthens our hope, she drives away our distrust, she 
 raises our pusillanimity. You feared to approach the Father ; 
 terrified at only hearing him, you fled among the trees ; He 
 has given Jesus Christ to you as a Mediator. What cannot 
 such a Son obtain from such a Father? He will be heard 
 for his own sake, for the Father loves the Son. But perhaps 
 you fear also in him the Divine Majesty, because, though he 
 was made man, he was still God. Do you desire to have an 
 advocate with him 1 Have recourse to Mary. — She also will 
 be heard jfor her own sake* For the Son will hear the 
 
244 DEVOTIONS TO 
 
 mother, and the Father will hear the Son." (Finch, Sup- 
 plement, p. 186,) 
 
 But one set of extracts more, brethren, shall be imposed 
 upon your patience, and that is taken from a form of devotion 
 now used by the Roman Catholics of England, called the 
 Devotion to the sacred heart of Mary ; I transcribe it because 
 I think it may be called the climax of this idolatry. It is as 
 follows : 
 
 " As the adorable heart of Jesus was formed in the chaste 
 womb of the blessed virgin, and of her blood and substance, 
 so we cannot, in a more proper and agreeable manner, show 
 our devotion to the sacred heart of the Son, than by dedicating 
 some part of the said devotion to the ever pure heart of the 
 mother. For you have two hearts here united in the most 
 strict alliance and tender conformity of sentiments, so that it 
 is not in nature to please the one, without making yourself 
 agreeable to the other, and acceptable to both. Go then, 
 devout client, go to the heart of Jesus, hut let your way he 
 through the heart of Mary, — Presume not to separate and 
 divide two objects so intimately one or united together, but 
 ask redress in all your exigencies from the heart of Jesus, 
 and ash this redress through the heart of Mary.''"' 
 
 " This form and method of worship is the doctrine and 
 very spirit of God's Church, it is what she teaches us in the 
 unanimous voice and practice of the faithful, who will by no 
 means that Jesus and Mary should be separated from each 
 other in our prayers, praises, and affections." (Philpot's Let- 
 ters to Butler, Sup. p. 387.) 
 
 " Come then, hardened and inveterate sinner, how great 
 soever your crimes may be. Come and behold, Mary stretches 
 out her hand, and opens her breast to receive you. Though 
 insensible to the great concerns of your salvation, though, 
 unfortunately, proof against the most engaging invitations 
 and inspirations of the Holy Ghost, fling yourself at the 
 
THE SACRED HEART OF MARY. 245 
 
 feet of this powerful advocate. Her throne, though exalted, 
 has nothing forbidding, nothing dreadful : her heart is all love, 
 all tenderness. If you have the least remains of confidence 
 and reliance on her protection, doubt not she will carry you 
 through her own blessed heart in the most speedy and favour- 
 able manner, to the truly merciful and most sacred heart of 
 her Son, Jesus." 
 
 Here follows, brethren, what is called an angelical exercise : 
 
 "I reverence you, O ^acred virgin Mary, the holy Ark of 
 the Covenant, and together with all the good thoughts of good 
 men upon the earth, and all the blessed spirits in heaven, do 
 bless and praise you infinitely, for that you are the great 
 mediatrix between God and man, obtaining for sinners all 
 that they can ask and demand of the Messed Trinity,'''' (lb. 
 388.) 
 
 Again : " I am the protectress of my servants, says the 
 glorious mother of God. Give me your heart, my dear child, 
 and if it he as hard as a flint, I will make it as soft as 
 wax, and if it be more foul and loathsome than dirt, I will 
 render it more clear and beautiful than crystal. My blessed 
 servant Ignatius gave me one day power over his heart, and 
 I did render it so chaste and strong, that he never after felt 
 any motion of the flesh all his life. Give me your heart, my 
 child, and tell me, in the sincerity of a true son, how much 
 you love me, your chaste mother ? Hail Mary." 
 
 " O my dear mother ! I love you more than my tongue can 
 express, and more than my very soul can conceive. And I 
 reverence you, O sacred virgin Mary, and together with the 
 Holy Trinity bless and praise you infinitely, for that you are 
 worthy of so many praises as none can, no, not yourself, con- 
 ceive. I praise and magnify you a thousand thousand times; 
 and ten thousand times I bless that sacred womb of yours 
 which bore the Son of the eternal Father. Hail Mary." 
 
 To wind up the whole, I add one out of many of the 
 y2 
 
246 ARGU3IENT PROVING 
 
 various salutations and benedictions offered in this devotional 
 book to the virgin ; " Hail Mary, lady and mistress of the 
 world, to ivhom all power has been given both in heaven and 
 in earth:' (lb. 392, 3.) 
 
 And now, brethren, what are we to think of the moderate 
 statement of Dr. Wiseman, upon the veneration and invocation 
 of the saints in the Church of Rome? Is not the charge of 
 idolatry so often brought against her, unhappily but too well 
 sustained 1 For while the only living and true God is indeed 
 confessed, and the only Saviour and Mediator is acknowledged, 
 and the only Holy Spirit is worshipped, in the fullest terms of 
 orthodoxy, yet is there not a host of other mediators intro- 
 duced, which must inevitably draw away the attention and de- 
 votion of the people, and especially is not the Virgin made the 
 most prominent and efficient instrument of salvation? 
 
 The Roman Catholic, indeed, exclaims loudly against this 
 charge of idolatry, because the virgin and the saints are not 
 called gods, nor regarded as divine beings, in the same sense as 
 the Creator, but as creatures deriving all their power and influ- 
 ence from the Almighty, who alone is the First and the Last, 
 the eternal, living and true God. But there can be no greater 
 error than to suppose, that we cannot commit idolatry unless 
 we imagine the object of our devotion to be the uncreated Deity. 
 The language of the first and second commandment is express 
 upon the principle: "Thou shalt not have strange gods before 
 me. Thou shalt not make to thyself a graven thing, nor the 
 likeness of any thing that is in heaven above or in the earth 
 beneath, nor of those things that are in the waters under the 
 earth; thou shalt not adore them nor serve them. I am the 
 Lord." (1 Exod. xx.) Here is the very case contemplated and 
 expressly prohibited, the having, along withy or before the true 
 and supreme God, -other objects of worship and devotion, taken 
 from the things of heaven and earth. The angels are worship- 
 ped by the Church of Rome, and here are the things of heaven. 
 
THAT SUCH WORSHIP IS IDOLATRY. 247 
 
 The saints are worshipped, their images and their relics, and 
 these are the things of earth. The commandment, therefore, 
 forbids the creatures being worshipped as creatures, and by 
 those who knew they were creatures ; and with this agrees the 
 description which St. Paul has recorded in the 1st ch. of his 
 epistle to the Romans, where, speaking of the heathen, he 
 saith, " that they worshipped the creature more than the Crea- 
 tor, who is blessed for ever." If such were not the design of 
 the great commandment of the law, it would have had no 
 practical application. For it is worthy of great observation, 
 that this is precisely the character of all idolatry — to take 
 the creature and place it in the rank of divinity, only in a 
 subordinate position to the supreme Deity. Is it not familiar 
 to every well instructed child, that the Roman emperors were 
 generally canonized by a decree of the senate, and were from 
 that time counted among the gods? But did any of their wor- 
 shippers think, for all that, of confounding them with the supe- 
 rior deities? Nay, were not these superior deities themselves 
 believed to have been once human beings, who, on account of 
 their great achievements, were taken into heaven? Here, 
 then, was the very principle of idolatry, the giving or ascribing 
 to creatures acknowledged to be such, a seat among the celes- 
 tial host, making them the objects of prayer, and supposing 
 them capable of hearing and favourably answering the suppli- 
 cations of their worshippers; and so true is the application of 
 this principle to both these kinds of idolatry, that the very 
 same Latin word which was attached to the old Roman empe- 
 rors after canonization, is to this day used before the names of 
 the Roman Catholic saints. Divus Augustus, the god Augus- 
 tus, said the old heathen Roman, speaking of the deified empe- 
 ror; Divus Thomas, the god Thomas, Divus Bernardus, the 
 god Bernard, says the modern Christian Roman, speaking of 
 the canonized saints. This language, indeed, we do not find in 
 the English, because the writers of the Roman Church know 
 
248 ARGUMENT PROVING 
 
 that it would be inexpedient, but in the Latin it is familiar. 
 You remember, brethren, the extract from their most learned 
 controversialist, Bellarmine, in which he candidly avows that 
 the canonized saints are gods by participation ; so that nothing 
 can be more exact than the correspondence "between the rank 
 which the old heathen Romans assigned to their inferior dei- 
 ties, and that which the Roman Catholic Church assigns to 
 her saints. And yet, no one will pretend to say that the wor- 
 ship paid to the inferior gods of the heathen was not idolatry, 
 because the worshipper acknowledged that they were only 
 canonized men. The result of the argument seems to my 
 mind clear: that if we worship any other than the one living and 
 true God, we are not the less idolaters, because we know the 
 object of our worship to be a creature, and confess it to be in- 
 ferior in some respects to the supreme and self-existent Deity. 
 It is enough to constitute this deadly sin, if we ascribe any of 
 the attributes or render any of the homage to creatures, which 
 belongs only to Him ; for the commandment is express : " Thou 
 shalt worship the Lord thy God, and him only shalt thou 
 serve." 
 
 Hence, it may be safely inferred, that the Church has no 
 authority to sanction the offering of prayer to the saints, or even 
 to the angels, for the offering of prayer is an act of worship, 
 due to the Creator alone. It is indeed advanced as a specious 
 apology by the Church of Rome, that they only ask the 
 angels and the saints to pray for them; and that, as Christians 
 are directed to ask this of one another, while on earth, much 
 more may they solicit the prayers of the faithful who are in 
 heaven. We have seen, brethren, how far beyond this is the 
 truth of the matter. But granting, for the sake of argument, 
 that it was so, the difference between the cases would still be 
 such, as to destroy the application of the supposed analogy. 
 It is indeed true that we are told to pray for one another, and 
 that the effectual prayer of the righteous man availeth much. 
 
THAT SUCH WORSHIP IS IDOLATRY. 249 
 
 It is true that St. Paul, in many parts of his epistles, asks the 
 brethren to pray for him. Neither do we doubt, that when the 
 righteous departs to the world of spirits, his soul continues to 
 remember and to pray for the Church on earth. But we who 
 remain, cannot, without a positive miracle, converse with the 
 departed saint in language ; and although, by possibility, it 
 were revealed to us, that, like Elijah, he was taken into heaven 
 before the general resurrection, even in such a case he could 
 not be present with us to hear our prayers, unless he enjoyed 
 the incommunicable attribute of God himself, which is to be 
 present every where at once. From this very principle we 
 know that the Saviour must be the true God and eternal life, 
 because he promised what none but God could perform when 
 he said : " Wherever two or three are gathered together in 
 my name, there am I in the midst of them," and " Lo, I am 
 with you always, even to the end of the world :" and again, 
 " Whatsoever ye shall ask of the Father in my name, I will 
 do it." For none but he who is essentially God, can possiblj'' 
 possess the power of hearing, every where at once, the mil- 
 lions upon millions of prayers that are offered to him; so that 
 here is the first branch of the sin involved in the worshipping 
 an invisible and departed saint, that the very act of our addres- 
 sing him when he is not within the reach of our senses, can 
 only be justified, by supposing him to be invested with one of 
 the attributes of God : and this is idolatry. 
 
 But there is a second charge belonging to this deplorable 
 corruption necessary to be considered : which is, that the de- 
 parted saint must not only be supposed capable of hearing all 
 these millions of prayers at once, but also of complying with 
 them; and this, to a created being, is equally impossible: for 
 none but God is possessed of the marvellous power of attend- 
 ing, at once, to the desires of innumerable petitioners; and if 
 we suppose any creature to be capable of this, we ascribe to 
 
250 THE VIRGIN MARY 
 
 that creature another of God's incommunicable attributes: and 
 here is the second branch of this idolatry. 
 
 These deplorable departures from the plain command of 
 the Most High apply to the whole subject of prayers to angels 
 and saints; but there is a peculiar and almost incredible ag- 
 gravation of the sin, when we examine the supremacy given to 
 the virgin Mary, and perceive how completely the system of 
 modern Romanism assigns to her the titles and the offices of 
 Christ and the Holy Ghost, and bestows upon her the omnipo- 
 tence of the blessed Trinity. A melancholy list of instances 
 might here be readily made out, of which I shall only take a 
 few of the more obvious, suggested by the extracts which I 
 have already placed before you. 
 
 Christ is the only begotten Son of God, saith the Scripture, 
 and Mary is currently called the mother of God by the Church 
 of Rome. He brought life and immortality to light, saith the 
 Scripture; and Mary hrovght life and benediction to the hu- 
 man race, saith the Church of Rome. Christ is our life and 
 our hope, according to the Scripture. Mary is our life, our 
 sweetness and our hope, according to the Church of Rome. 
 Christ is the blessed and only Potentate, the King of kings and 
 Lord of lords, saith the Scripture. Mary is the Queen of 
 heaven, the Queen of angels, the Queen of patriarchs, the 
 Queen of prophets, the Queen of apostles, the Queen of 
 martyrs, the Queen of confessors, the Queen of all saints, 
 saith the Church of Rome. "All power is given to me in hea- 
 ven and in earth," saith the glorious Redeemer. Hail, Mary, 
 lady and mistress of the world, to whom all power has been 
 given both in heaven and in earth, saith the Church of Rome. 
 "There is one God, and one Mediator between God and man, 
 the man Christ Jesus," saith the Scripture. O sacred Virgin 
 Mary, I bless and praise you infinitely, for that you are the 
 great mediatrix between God and man, saith the Church of 
 Rome. "Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart 
 
MADE EQUAL TO CHRIST. 251 
 
 and soul and mind," saith the Scripture. O my dear mother! 
 I love you more than my tongue can express, and ?nore than 
 my very soul can conceive, saith the Church of Rome. "We 
 have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous," 
 saith the Scripture. Hail, mother of mercy, most gracious 
 advocate, turn thine eyes of mercy towards us, saith the 
 Church of Rome. "Come unto me," saith Christ, "all ye 
 that are weak and heavy laden." Come, hardened sinner, 
 saith the Church of Rome, come and behold, Mary stretches 
 out her hand and opens her breast to receive you. "Greater 
 love than this hath no man," saith our Lord, "that he lay 
 down his life for his friends," and the Scripture speaks of our 
 knowing "the love of Christ that passeth knowledge," and 
 again, "This is love, not that we loved him, but that he loved 
 us, and gave himself for us." But perhaps, saith the Church 
 of Rome to the sinner, you fear the divine majesty in Christ, 
 because, though he was made man, he ivas still God. Do you 
 desire an advocate with him? Have recourse to Mary. She 
 will be heard for her own sake. Her throne, though exalted, 
 has nothing forbidding, nothing dreadful. Her heart is all 
 love, all tenderness. 
 
 "My Son, give me thy heart," saith the Lord in the Scrip- 
 tures, " and I will give you a new heart, and put a new spirit 
 within you, and I will take away the stony heart out of your 
 flesh, and will give you a heart of flesh." (Ezek. xxvi. 26.) 
 But the Church of Rome represents the virgin Mary as saying, 
 Give me your heart, my dear child, and if it be as hard as 
 flint I will make it as soft as wax, and if it be more foul and 
 loathsome than dirt, I will render it more clear and beautiful 
 than chrystal. Another office of the Spirit is claimed for her: 
 for our Lord calls him the Comforter; but the Church of 
 Rome calls the virgin Mary the comforter of the afflicted* 
 "Every sin and blasphemy shall be forgiven unto men," saith 
 the great Redeemer, (Mat. xii. 31,) " but the blasphemy against 
 
252 THE AWFUL PROFANATION 
 
 the Spirit shall not be forgiven. And whosoever shall speak 
 a word against the Son of man it shall be forgiven him, but he 
 that shall speak against the Holy Ghost it shall not be forgiven 
 him, nehher in this world, nor in the world to come." In no 
 respect alarmed by this awful denunciation, the Church of 
 Rome presumes to say to the hardened and inveterate sinner, 
 Come, how great soever your crimes may be ; come and he- 
 hold, Mary opens her breast to receive you. Though insen- 
 sible to the great concerns of your salvation, though, unfor- 
 tunately, proof against the most engaging invitations and in- 
 spirations of the Holy Ghost, fing yourself at the feet of this 
 powerful advocate. Here, brethren, — with the feeling of pro- 
 found grief I say it, — this Church holds up the virgin Mary as 
 having not only more love and tenderness than the Saviour, 
 but more effectual power over the heart than the Holy Ghost. 
 The sinner who doubts the love of Christ, is told to have no 
 doubt of her compassion — the sinner who is so hardened that 
 he is proof against the most engaging invitations and inspira- 
 tions of the Holy Ghost, is still told to cast himself at her feet. 
 O how wonderful the blindness of the human understanding — 
 how subtle the devices of Satan, — when a Church, retaining all 
 the formal doctrines of Scriptural truth, can yet be led to place 
 her confidence in such deep and awful profanation ! 
 
 It is painful to dwell any longer upon this sad attempt to 
 provide a parallel to Christ in the virgin mother. But the in- 
 genuity of the Roman Church has carried it into every possible 
 particular. If he was holy, harmless, undefiled and separate 
 from sinners — so, says the Church of Rome, was she, without 
 the slightest taint of sin, original or actual. If his blessed 
 body saw no corruption, — neither, says the Church of Rome, 
 did the body of Mary. His resurrection and ascension are 
 outdone by her resurrection and assumption into heaven. For 
 in the narration given of this latter event, there is a plain de- 
 termination to make it exceed the simple history of Scripture. 
 
OP THE ROMAN DOCTRINE. 253 
 
 All the apostles fly through the air from distant parts of the 
 earth to be present at her death. There is a vision of angels 
 to honour her. Thomas desires to adore her. The angels 
 sing hymns for three days. Sweet odours impregnate the grave 
 clothes, but the body is gone to heaven, and all the celestial 
 hosts go out to meet her, and she is crowned with the brightest 
 diadem of glory. Alas! what a bold and daring enter- 
 prise is here, to invent such a tale, and force mankind, under 
 peril of their curse, to believe it as firmly as the Gospel. 
 And when the poor Roman Catholic obeys the commands 
 of his Church, and flings himself, to use their own language, 
 at the feet of this advocate, who has all power in heaven and 
 in earth, and whom he implores to have mercy upon him by 
 the titles of mother of God, refuge of sinners, queen of heaven, 
 comforter of the afflicted, his life, his sweetness, and his hope, 
 — when he is told in substance that she is more loving and 
 compassionate than Christ, and that when the Holy Ghost can 
 do no more for him, she is able to save, — shall we be deceived 
 by the assertion that the deluded believer does not worship 
 her? that he only asks her to pray for him, as he would ask 
 a pious Christian to do on earth? Shall we be told that there 
 is no profanation in attributing to a creature the omniscience 
 and omnipresence of God, without which she could not hear 
 and answer the prayers of her innumerable worshippers? that 
 there is no idolatry in raising a mere mortal to the throne of 
 omnipotence in heaven? that there is no blasphemy in attri- 
 buting more efficacy to her than to the Spirit? no perilous im- 
 piety in giving her the first and warmest place in the love of 
 the heart, and the confidence of the soul? 
 
 The Scriptural argument which belongs to the question, my 
 brethren, is easily stated; since not only is the whole Bible 
 destitute of a single passage, which ingenuity itself can warp 
 into the shape of prayers or worship offered to a departed 
 saint, but we have several pointed reprehensions of all ap- 
 
 z 
 
254 THE SCRIPTURAL EVIDENCE 
 
 proach to creature-worship. Thus the homage rendered to 
 our blessed Saviour was given and received as due to his di- 
 vine nature, as the Son of God. His mother was so far from 
 any share in it, that he seems studiously to avoid even the or- 
 dinary appearance of regard; doubtless, as we may reverently 
 believe, because he would not afford the slightest excuse for 
 the subsequent corruption, which he foresaw would come upon 
 his Church from that quarter. And well did the blessed vir- 
 gin understand the high and holy distance thus placed between 
 them. When at the marriage supper, in Cana of Galilee, she 
 wished the necessities of the party to be supplied, she does not 
 presume to ask him for any direct action, but merely saith to 
 him; They have no ivine. And his answer is; Womarij what 
 have I to do with thee ? When, on another occasion, a female 
 lifted up her voice and cried ; Blessed is the womb that bare 
 thee, and the paps which thou hast sucked, he replied; Yea, 
 rather blessed are they that hear the Wo7'd of God and keep 
 it. At another time, we read that one told him, saying; Thy 
 mother and thy brethren stand without, desiring to speak with 
 thee. And he answered and said ; Who is my mother, and 
 who are my brethren ? And he stretched out his hand to- 
 wards his disciples and said ; Behold my mother and my 
 brethren: for whosoever shall do the will of my Father which 
 is in heaven, the same is my brother, and my sister, and my 
 mother. And lastly, when, on the cross, he saw his mother 
 standing together with St. John, he saith to the apostle ; Be- 
 hold thy 7nother: and to the virgin Mary he saith; Woman, 
 behold thy son! Here we see a striking departure from the 
 usual language of filial respect and affection, which can only 
 be accounted for satisfactorily by these two peculiarities. 
 First, that our Lord intended the fact of his incarnation to be 
 understood as the mere necessity imposed by the great design 
 of his obedience and atonement for our ruined world, and not 
 by any means as a personal privilege to the virgin, which 
 
AGAINST CllEATURE-WORSHIP. 255 
 
 should exalt her beyond the rest of his disciples. And, se- 
 condly, that he mercifully judged it right to give no encou- 
 ragement to the idolatry which he foreknew would take its rise 
 from this very source. Hence he nowhere calls her mother. 
 At his death, he transfers her character of mother to St. John, 
 and it is remarkable that throughout the whole of the book of 
 the Acts, the fourteen Epistles of St. Paul, the two of St. Peter, 
 the Epistles of St. James and St. Jude, and the three Epistles 
 of St. John, her name is not once mentioned. As to the Apo- 
 calypse, St. John saw the heavens, the throne of God and of 
 the Lamb, and the worship of all the celestial host; but this 
 imaginary queen of heaven, and the throne of St. Joseph, 
 which the Church of Rome declares to be near to the thrones 
 of Jesus and Mary, he saw not. How, indeed, should he have 
 seen what even the Church of Rome did not dream of, until 
 many centuries after the pure days of primitive Christianity 
 had passed away ! 
 
 But these are not the only proofs which the Scripture af- 
 fords, as if to leave the Church of Rome without excuse. 
 When St. Peter came in to Cornelius the centurion, "he fell 
 down at his feet and worshipped. But Peter said, Stand up, 
 for I also am a man.'''' And yet the very thing which St. 
 Peter would not allow on earth, is supposed to be acceptable 
 to him in heaven. Lastly, the text furnishes a conclusive tes- 
 timony against this deplorable abuse, for we read, near the 
 end of the Apocalypse, the following words: "And after 1 had 
 heard and seen," saith the apostle John, "I fell down to adore 
 before the feet of the angel who showed me these things, and 
 he said unto me: See thou do it not: for I am thy fellow-ser- 
 vant, and of thy brethren the prophets, and of them who keep 
 the words of the prophecy of this book : adore God." Here it 
 might perhaps be supposed, that St. John was offering to the 
 angel that worship which belongs to the Almighty; but this is 
 exceedingly improbable, because he was thoroughly instructed 
 
256 EVIDENCE OF THE FATHERS. 
 
 in religious truth; and there is nothing about the passage indi- 
 cating that he regarded the sublime creature who had been his 
 interpreter in any other light than as an angel. Neither does 
 the word which the translator has rendered adore, make any 
 difference; because it is the same word in the original which is 
 elsewhere termed worship, and which is occasionally applied 
 to acts of reverence that had nothing of a religious character. 
 We see, therefore, how carefully the Scripture guards against 
 every approach to creature-worship, even when applied by the 
 purest of the apostles to the highest angels in heaven, where 
 there was the least possible danger of its abuse. How incon- 
 ceivable then, is it, that the worship, the prayers, the litanies, 
 the rosaries, the novenas, the incense, the love, faith, confi- 
 dence, and devotion inculcated by the Church of Rome upon 
 her muhitudes, without the slightest check, and indeed with 
 every encouragement to idolize the saints and angels, and es- 
 pecially the virgin Mary, could be acceptable to the Almighty 
 King? 
 
 But Dr. Wiseman, with every other advocate of his system, 
 although the Scripture be conclusive against him, feels strong 
 in the fathers. And here, brethren, as in the other points of 
 our discussion, we have reason to be thankful for the evidence 
 of truth. Even amongst his chosen witnesses, there is enough 
 to prove, that the corruption we are opposing was unknown to 
 primitive Christianity, and came in by degrees, after the Ro- 
 man government adopted the Church, and brought upon it the 
 temptations of ease, and affluence, and power. I am con- 
 scious, indeed, that you must be wearied by the length of our 
 discussion, and would willingly spare you any further cita- 
 tions of authority : but believing that you would rather bear 
 with me a little longer, than have the subject dismissed with- 
 out a full examination, I must present a few of those passages, 
 in which it will be seen that the earlier witnesses of Rome tes- 
 tify in our favour. 
 
CHRYSOSTOM AND AUGUSTIN. 257 
 
 We shall commence with the celebrated Chrysostom, or- 
 dained bishop of Constantinople, A. D. 398, who will give us 
 a very clear opinion on the general principle of intercessors 
 between us and the Lord, which is the basis of all saint and 
 angel worship. 
 
 " When we want any thing of men," saith this eminent fa- 
 ther, "we have need of cost and money, and servile adulation, 
 and much going up and down, and great ado. For it falleth 
 out oftentimes, that we cannot go straight to the lords them- 
 selves, and present our gifts and speak unto them, but it is ne- 
 cessary for us first to procure the favour of their ministers, 
 and stewards, and officers, — and then, by their mediation, to 
 obtain our request. But with God it is not thus ; for there is 
 no need of intercessors for the petitioners, neither is he so 
 ready to give a gracious answer, when entreated by others, as 
 by ourselves praying unto him." 
 
 Again, saith the same eminent teacher; " Mark the philo- 
 sophy of the woman of Canaan. She entreats not James, she 
 beseeches not John, neither does she come to Peter, but she 
 breaks through the whole company of them, saying : I have 
 no need of a mediator, but taking repentance with me for a 
 spokeswoman, I come to the Fountain itself. For this cause 
 did he descend, for this cause did he take flesh, that I might 
 have boldness to speak unto him. I have no need of a me- 
 diator : Have thou, O Lord, mercy upon me." (Finch, L 
 178.) 
 
 From Chrysostom, brethren, we pass to Augustin, another 
 of the favourite witnesses of the Church of Rome. " Mary," 
 saith this father, "was more blessed in adopting the faith of 
 Christ, than in conceiving his flesh. For when some one said 
 to him. Blessed is the womb that bare thee, he answered; Yea, 
 rather blessed are they that hear the Word of God and keep 
 it. Thus her maternal relationship would have profited her 
 
 z2 
 
258 GREGORY, ATHANASIUS, THEODORET. 
 
 nothing, if she had not borne Christ more blessedly in her 
 heart than in her flesh." (lb. 162.) 
 
 Let us next hear the sentiment of Gregory Nyssen, a bishop 
 in the same century, but a little earlier. "The Word of 
 God," saith this father, "hath ordained, that none of those 
 things which have their being by creation shall be worshipped 
 by men, as we may learn out of nearly all the divinely in- 
 spired Scriptures. Moses, the tables, the law, the prophets; 
 afterwards, the Gospel, and the decrees of all the apostles, 
 equally forbid our looking to the creature." (lb. 210.) 
 
 A little earlier still, but in the fourth century, Athanasius, 
 the bishop of Alexandria, saith: "Peter, the apostle, admo- 
 nished Cornelius, who desired to worship him, saying, 1 also 
 am a man. The angel in the Apocalypse admonished John 
 who desired to worship him, saying; See thou do it not; I am 
 thy fellow-servant, and of thy brethren the prophets, and of 
 them that keep the sayings of this book. Worship God. 
 Therefore it appertains to God only to be worshipped, and the 
 angels themselves are aware of this ; for although they surpass 
 others in glory, they are all creatures, and are not beings to 
 be worshipped, but beings who worship the Lord. The angel, 
 therefore, admonished Manoah, the father of Sampson, who 
 wished to sacrifice to him, saying; Offer not to me, but to 
 God." (lb. 192.) 
 
 Theodoret, bishop of Cyprus in Syria, flourished in the fifth 
 century: and he gives testimony in favour of the same princi- 
 ple. "Because," saith he, "they commanded men to worship 
 angels, he enjoins the contrary, namely, that they should 
 adorn their words and actions with the commemoration of our 
 Lord Christ. Send up thanksgiving, he says, to God the 
 Father through him, (that is Christ) and not through angels. 
 But this evil practice continued in Phrygia and Pisidia for a 
 long time, for which cause the Council of Laodicea forbade 
 them by a law to pray to angels." (lb. 208.) 
 
EPIPHAN1US4 250 
 
 Lastly, let us hear Epiphanius, the bishop of Cyprus, who 
 lived in the same century, arguing against the idolatry of the 
 virgin Mary, by a sect of heretics called the Collyridians. " I 
 acknowledge," saith he, " that the body of Mary was holy, but 
 nevertheless she was not a god. And she remained ever a 
 virgin, but she never was proposed to us as an object of wor- 
 ship, since she herself worshipped him who was born of her 
 flesh, but who had descended from heaven and the bosom of 
 the Father. Wherefore, the sacred gospel also admonishes us, 
 in which Christ saith, ' Woman, what have I to do with thee? 
 My hour is not yet come.' Here he calls her woman, lest any 
 one should think her to be of a superior nature, and he used 
 this word as if prophesying for the refutation of those heresies 
 which he knew would arise in the world; that no one should 
 be led away by too great admiration of the holy virgin, to 
 adopt those puerile follies." (Epiph. Tom. I. p. 1061-2.) 
 
 " Wherefore, truly, let Mary be honoured, but let the Father, 
 the Son and the Holy Spirit be worshipped. Let no one wor- 
 ship Mary:' (lb. 1064.) 
 
 There is another part of this ancient writer's work, however, 
 which 1 consider particularly interesting; because it directly 
 proves that the vain and presumptuous story of the virgin's 
 assumption into heaven, which 1 have quoted to you from the 
 Roman Breviary, was not in existence in the fifth century. 
 You will remember, brethren, that Epiphanius was a distin- 
 guished bishop of that age, the author of two learned volumes 
 against heresies, and honoured besides with a place on the list 
 of canonized saints in the Church of Rome. Thus, therefore, 
 he speaks on the subject of the virgin's death, in an argument 
 against another set of heretics, one of whose errors it was to 
 depreciate her character below the mark of Scripture. " The 
 minds of men," saith Epiphanius, " can never rest, and always 
 incline to evil. But whether the holy virgin died and was 
 buried, so that her death, being in honour and in chastity, the 
 
260 JEROME, AND LEO. 
 
 crown of virginity was granted to her; or whether she was 
 slain, as the Scripture seems to indicate by these words. The 
 sword shall penetrate her soul also, and so she obtained the 
 glory and honour of the martyrs, and her sacred body was 
 laden with all felicity, by which light came into the world; or 
 whether, finally, she may not be still alive, for God is able to 
 do whatever he pleases, bvt nothing is hnoicn certainly about 
 her departure,'^'' Here, then, we have a positive contradiction 
 to the whole story of the virgin's death, burial, resurrection, 
 and assumption, as related in the Roman Breviary. The truth 
 is, that it was one of the pious fictions prepared to edify the 
 multitude in the dark ages, for not a trace of it can be found 
 until the ninth century. To this I will add the testimony of 
 St. Jerome, who, in his first book against the Pelagians, ex- 
 pressly declares that no mortal was or could be free from sin, 
 except Christ alone: which his commentator, Erasmus, re- 
 marks, as being opposed to the universal sentiment concerning 
 the virgin Mary. (Jerome vol. II. p. 2071.) And Leo, the 
 great, declares in many places, that " the soil of human nature, 
 which was exposed to the curse through the first Adam, in 
 the single instance of Christ had produced a blessed germ, free 
 from the vice of its parent stock." (Op. p. 76.) And again, 
 "Christ took our nature, but not its sinfulness, from his mo- 
 ther." (lb. 72.) Here we have another plain contradiction of 
 the modern Church in the doctrine that the virgin was free 
 from sin. 
 
 We have now closed, brethren, a very painful part of our 
 promised series of lectures ; and yet one, with many others, of 
 which it is absolutely necessary to have a thorough understand- 
 ing, if we would know the true character of the Roman sys- 
 tem. For in connexion with this doctrine of the virgin and 
 the saints, stands the worship of their images and relics, and a 
 whole train of superstitions, ending in purgatory and indul- 
 gences. Of these, images and relics will form our next sub- 
 
CONCLUSION. 261 
 
 ject, and will present to us an abundance of facts, proving the 
 corrupt state of the Church and the urgent necessity which 
 called for the Reformation. 
 
 Tiie hour will not permit me to detain you, brethren, by any 
 reflections on the subject of our discourse. But while we bless 
 God that we enjoy the pure worship of his Church, — while 
 we are content to love the memory of his saints, without 
 either speculating about their present state, or attempting to 
 hold with them any direct communication, — while we utterly 
 abjure the notion of any mediator, advocate, or intercessor, 
 besides the blessed Son of the Highest, or any sanctifier, 
 save the Holy Spirit, — let us never forget, that an enlightened 
 opposition to the dangerous corruptions of the Church of 
 Rome, must be united with the kindest feelings of charity 
 towards her people; and let us earnestly implore the Giver of 
 every good and perfect gift, that the pure truth of his own 
 sacred Word may open their eyes to see their errors, and 
 enable them to put their whole trust and confidence in Christ 
 alone. 
 
 And for ourselves, beloved brethren, let us be admonished 
 of another kind of idolatry, not less perilous, although it be, 
 indeed, not the doctrine of our Church, but the fruit of our own 
 worldly and unholy temper. Let us look within, and search the 
 secret chambers of our hearts, lest the creature should be suf- 
 fered to occupy the throne of love and honour which belongs of 
 right to the Creator. The worship and service of our appetites 
 and passions, the idolatry of wealth, and pride, and pleasure, 
 are yet more fatal to the soul than even the servile supersti- 
 tions which have formed the subject of our lecture. Our hearts 
 must be given to God, our souls must be devoted to the Re- 
 deemer, or the sentence of destruction will await us. For it is 
 written: " If any man love not the Lord Jesus Christ, let him 
 be anathema, maranatha." May the powerful grace of the 
 Holy Spirit arouse and quicken us : may the infinite compas- 
 
262 CONCLUSION. 
 
 sion of the divine Saviour rest upon us: may the blessing of 
 our Father in heaven guide and direct us, that we may avoid 
 the snares of all idolatry, and be brought at last, in safety, to 
 the mansions of eternal peace and joy. 
 
LECTURE XII. 
 
 ExoD. XX. 4. — Thou shalt not make to thyself a graven thing, nor the 
 likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or in the earth be- 
 neath, nor of those things that are in the waters under the earth. 
 Thou shalt not adore them, nor serve them. (Doway version.) 
 
 These words, my brethren, are a part of the divine law, 
 pronounced on mount Sinai, by the voice of the eternal and 
 invisible God, in the hearing of all the host of Israel. Sad 
 and strange is the history of the disobedience, which the chosen 
 people displayed towards this commandment. But yet more 
 wonderful and melancholy is it to see, how the Christian 
 Church, the spiritual Israel, despising the threatenings and 
 warnings of Scripture, fell into the same corruption; and even 
 consecrated the awful error by a solemn and perpetual de- 
 cree, so that the absolute reverse of the celestial precept was 
 set forth as an important part of the service of God, and the 
 curse which he proclaimed upon the worshippers of images, 
 was formally denounced against those that worshipped them 
 not. 
 
 There is no part of the modern doctrine of the Church of 
 Rome, however, which has been more influenced by the spirit 
 of the Reformation in Protestant countries, than that which 
 regards the worship of relics, images, and the cross. And 
 therefore, in order to place you in full possession of her sys- 
 tem, I shall first state the form which it assumes in the hands 
 
264 THE ROMAN DOCTRINE CONCERNING RELICS. 
 
 of Dr. Wiseman; secondly, give you the authoritative decrees 
 of the Councils of Nice and Trent; thirdly, answer the argu- 
 ments on which our ingenious author relies; and lastly, pre- 
 sent some facts, which will exhibit the practical operation of 
 the doctrine in our own day, in those parts of the world where 
 the sovereignty of the Church of Rome exists in full perfection. 
 
 According to this arrangement of our subject, we are to 
 commence with the statement of Dr. Wiseman, which is in the 
 following words : 
 
 "The Roman Catholic believes," saith he, "that any thing 
 which has belonged to men, distinguished by their love of God, 
 and by what they have done and suffered in his cause, de- 
 serves that respect and honour which is constantly shown, in 
 ordinary life, to that which has belonged to any great, or cele- 
 brated, or very good man." — "They believe that they please 
 God by showing respect to those objects, and that by honour- 
 ing these relics of the saints, they are incited to imitate their 
 example." (Vol. II. p. 96-7.) "They further believe, that it 
 has pleased God to make use of such objects, as instruments 
 for performing great works and imparting great benefits to his 
 people ; that they are to be treated with respect, and with an 
 humble hope, that as God has been pleased often to employ 
 them, so he may again; and thus they are considered as pos- 
 sessing symbolic virtue. Now we do find," continues our 
 author, "that God has made use of such instruments before. 
 In the Old Law, he raised up a dead man by his coming in 
 contact with the bones of one of his prophets. The moment 
 he touched the holy prophet's bones, he arose, restored to life." 
 "We read that upon handkerchiefs which had touched the 
 body of St. Paul being taken to the sick, they were instantly 
 restored to health ; and these were relics in the Catholic sense 
 of the word. We read that a woman was cured, who only 
 touched the hem of our Saviour's garment; that the skirts of 
 his raiment were impregnated with that power which issued 
 
THE ROMAN DOCTRINE CONCERNING IMAGES. 265 
 
 from him, so as to restore health without his exercising any 
 act of his will. Here is the foundation of our practice," saith 
 Dr. Wiseman, " which excludes all idea of superstition. Those 
 examples prove that God makes use of the relics of his saints 
 as instruments for his greatest wonders, — and consequently 
 there can be no superstition in the belief that he may do so 
 again." (lb. 99.) 
 
 On the other point of the worship rendered to images and 
 pictures of the saints, our learned advocate contents himself 
 with saying, that "the Council of Trent defines two things as 
 the belief of the Roman Catholic Church; first, that it is whole- 
 some or expedient to have pictures, or images, and represen- 
 tations of the saints; in the second place, that honour and 
 respect are to be paid to them. This," saith he, "is therefore 
 the whole of our doctrine." (lb. 105.) "We agree that no 
 image should be made for adoration or worship. But the sim- 
 ple making of them is not sinful, for it was prescribed by God. 
 In the tabernacle, there were cherubim in the holy of holies, 
 and the two walls of the temple were sculptured with graven 
 images." — "The whole question, then, turns upon this: whe- 
 ther Roman Catholics are justified in making use of them as 
 sacred memorials, and in praying before them, as inspiring 
 faith and devotion. I may be asked," continues he, "what 
 warrant there is in Scripture for all this? I might answer, that 
 I ask none; for rather I might ask, what authority is there to 
 deprive me of these objects? because it is the natural right of 
 man to use any thing towards promoting the worship of God, 
 which is not in any way forbidden." (lb. 106.) "If I find 
 that a picture, or representation of our Saviour, or of his bless- 
 ed mother, or of his saints, acts more intimately on my affec- 
 tions, and excites warmer feelings of devotion, I am justified 
 and act well, in endeavouring so to excite them." 
 
 There are errors enough, brethren, in this argument of Dr. 
 Wiseman, which I shall notice by and by; but I must pre- 
 
 2 A 
 
266 COUNCIL OF TRENT ON KELICS. 
 
 viously rectify the greatest error of all, namely, the holding 
 hack the full extent of his Church's doctrine, while he expressly 
 declares that he sets forth the whole. Let me therefore, in 
 the next place, show the real state of the case, by going to 
 what the Church of Rome admits to be the fountain head, the 
 solemn and authoritative decrees of the General Councils — the 
 second Council of Nice being the great authority for image wor- 
 ship, and the Council of Trent having pronounced its decision 
 upon the entire subject, images, relics and all; and that too, 
 since the Reformation. When we have learned from these the 
 doctrine of the Roman Church, we shall be prepared to test 
 the candour of our learned advocate, and to discuss the argu- 
 ment as he presents it, on the ground of Scripture and the tes- 
 mony of the fathers. 
 
 Of these two Councils, I shall first cite the Council of Trent, 
 in the 25th session of which, (Hard. Cone. Tom. X. p. 168) 
 after enjoining upon all bishops and priests the diligent instruc- 
 tion of the people in the duty of venerating and invoking the 
 saints, and denouncing, as impious, those who deny that such 
 supplications, " whether by the voice or by the mind," should 
 be rendered to them, the Council proceeds to the point which 
 more immediately concerns our present subject, in these words : 
 
 "The holy bodies also of the martyrs and others, living 
 with Christ, are to be venerated by the faithful ; for they were, 
 when living, the members of Christ, and the temples of the 
 Holy Ghost, and shall be raised again and glorified, and 
 through them many favours are bestowed on man by the Al- 
 mighty : so that those who affirm that veneration and honour 
 are not due to the relics of the saints, or that it is useless for 
 the faithful to honour these and other sacred memorials, and 
 that it is vain to visit the sepulchres of the saints in order to 
 ask their help, are to be altogether condemned., as the Church 
 has already condemned, and does also noio condemn them.^^ 
 
 "Moreover," continues the Council, "the images of Christ, 
 
COUNCIL OF TRENT ON IMAGES. 267 
 
 of the virgin, the mother of God, and of the other saints, are to 
 be had and retained, especially in Churches, and due honour 
 and veneration are to be rendered to them ; not because it may- 
 be supposed that there is in them any divinity, or virtue, on 
 account of which they are to be worshipped ; or that any thing 
 is to be asked of them, or that confidence is to be placed in 
 images, as was formerly the case amongst the heathen, who 
 rested their hope on idols; but because the honour which is 
 exhibited to them, is referred to the prototype, which they 
 represent; so that through the images which we kiss, and before 
 whom we uncover our heads and bow down, we adore Christ, 
 and venerate the saints whose similitude these images do bear. 
 The same doctrine is sanctioned by the decrees of the Coun- 
 cils, especially the second Council of Nice, against the oppo- 
 sers of images.^'' 
 
 "Let the bishops diligently teach, that the people are to be 
 instructed and confirmed in the assiduous commemorating and 
 cherishing of the articles of the faith, through the mysteries of 
 our redemption, expressed historically in pictures or other 
 similitudes ; for great benefit is received from all sacred ima- 
 ges, not only because the people are thereby adm.onished of the 
 blessings and gifts which they have received from Christ, but 
 also, because, through the saints of God, miracles and whole- 
 some examples are placed before the eyes of the people, in 
 order that they may return thanks to God for them, may con- 
 duct their own lives in imitation of the lives of the saints, and 
 may be excited to the adoration and worship of God, and the 
 cultivation of piety. But if any one shall teach or think con- 
 trary to these decrees, let him he anathema^ 
 
 In this decree of the Council of Trent, brethren, you per- 
 ceive that distinct reference is made to the second Council of 
 Nice, and therefore I shall proceed to set before you the defi- 
 nitive action of that celebrated Council, only premising, that it 
 sat in A. D. 787, after the introduction of images had been for 
 
268 SECOND COUNCIL OF NICE 
 
 a long time the exciting cause of the most distressing tumults 
 and confusion ; and especially after a previous Council, called 
 by the Greek emperor, had decided against images, in the 
 strongest and plainest terms. In this quarrel about images, 
 the Church of Rome took one side, and the Church of Greece 
 took the other; and the second Council of Nice was called and 
 sustained through Roman influence. 
 
 The definitive decree of this Council is as follows: "Taught 
 by the ancient fathers, we salute the venerable images. — Who- 
 ever does not consent herein, let him be anathema. — We salute 
 the words of the Lord, of the prophets and apostles, by which 
 we have learned to honour and magnify, in the first place, her 
 who is truly and properly the mother of God, and superior to 
 all celestial powers ; and then the holy and angelic powers, 
 and the blessed and glorious apostles, the prophets and noble 
 martyrs who fought for Christ, and the holy and god-bearing 
 masters, and all holy men; whose intercessions Ave seek, as 
 able to render us acceptable to God the King of all, keeping 
 his commandments, and diligent to live in virtue. And we 
 salute also the figure of the precious and vivifying cross, and 
 the holy relics of the saints. Moreover, we honour and salute 
 these precious and venerable images, and honourably adore 
 them, namely, the image of the humanity oi' our great God 
 and Saviour Jesus Christ, and of our most holy and pure lady 
 the mother of God, — and of the holy incorporeal angels, who 
 appeared in human form to the just. In like manner also, the 
 figures and effigies of the divine and most famous apostles 
 and prophets, and of the martyrs and holy men, since they are 
 able by their pictures to lead us to remember them, and draio 
 us to the originals^ and make us partakers of a certain sanc- 
 tification:' (Ilard. Con. Tom. 4. p. 262, & p. 266.) 
 
 "To these," therefore, ^^ kisses and honourable adoration 
 sRall be rendered, but not that superior worship, (latria) which 
 is according to faith, and alone becomes the diyiae xiature. 
 
ON IMAGES. 
 
 269 
 
 And to these, namely, the precious figure of the vivifying 
 cross, and to the holy gospels, and the other holy memorials, 
 let the offering of incense and lighted candles be exhibited in 
 their honour, according to ancient custom. For the honour of 
 the image passes to its original, and whoever adores the image, 
 adores in it the substance of the representation.^'' (lb. 455.) 
 
 "If any one does not admit the evangelical narrations made 
 by titles or pictures, let him be anathema.^^ 
 
 "If any one does not kiss them, as made in the name of the 
 Lord and his saints, let him be anathema." (lb. 471.) 
 
 This Council, however, brethren, was not content with 
 these decrees in favour of images, relics, and the sign of the 
 cross. They even went so far as to oi-der, that no Church 
 should be erected without some relics of the saints being depo- 
 sited therein, as if the Lord could have no earthly sanctuary, 
 separate from the bodies of the martyrs. 
 
 " Forasmuch as many of the venerable temples," saith the 
 Council, "have been consecrated without the relics of the mar- 
 tyrs, we decree that relics shall be placed in them according to 
 the accustomed rule. And if, from the present time, any 
 bishop be found to consecrate a temple without relics, let him 
 be deposed, as one who transgresses the ecclesiastical tra- 
 dition:' (lb. 491.) 
 
 From these extracts, you may readily perceive how very 
 much diluted and moderated is the representation of Dr. 
 Wiseman. He says nothing of the word adore — nothing of the 
 kiss, the uncovering of the head, and the prostration of the 
 vv^orshipper before the holy images — nothing of the burning of 
 incense and lighting of candles in their honour — nothing of the 
 decree that no Church should be consecrated unless the relics 
 of the martyrs were placed in it,- and especially nothing of the 
 repeated anatheinas pronounced against all who should pre- 
 sume to dissent from the doctrine. Here, therefore, we have 
 another proof of the influence of the Reformation upon the 
 2 A 2 
 
270 THE ROMAN ARGU31EXT 
 
 Church of Rome, in all those countries where it has estabhshed 
 its Scriptural principles. Notwithstanding their confident boast 
 of infallibility and unchangeableness, we find a manifest shrink- 
 ing, in several respects, from their own standards of doctrine ; 
 and an evident effort to keep their more objectionable features 
 in the shade. And we thank God for it, and earnestly pray 
 that the process of amelioration may go on, until they shall 
 openly free themselves from all that they cannot justify, and 
 exchange the idle claim of infallibility for the substantial bene- 
 fits of truth. 
 
 But 1 am now, in the third place, to examine the arguments 
 adduced by our learned author in favour of the Roman doctrine : 
 and this, as in all other cases, involves first, the testimony of 
 Scripture, and secondly, the testimony of the fathers. 
 
 On the subject of relics. Dr. Wiseman adduces one remarka- 
 ble example from the Old Testament, and several from the 
 New. The resurrection of the dead man, whose body was 
 unintentionally brought in contact with the bones of the pro- 
 phet Elisha, the healing of the woman who touched the hem 
 of our Saviour's garment, the curing of the sick by the hand^ 
 kerchiefs and aprons brought to them from the person of St. 
 Paul — all prove, according to the Roman doctrine, that it has 
 pleased God to use the relics, and other things belonging to 
 the Saviour and the saints, as instruments whereby he worked 
 wonders; and therefore the Church of Rome believes, that 
 what he has done once by such instrumentality he may do 
 again; and this, our learned author seems to think, is a suffi- 
 cient justification. 
 
 But nothing can be more fallacious than this reasoning, 
 brethren, although it looks specious, and has, in fact, deluded 
 many a weak mind. The question is not whether the Al- 
 mighty has chosen to employ those various kinds of instrumen- 
 tality in the working of wonders, and whether, as he has 
 sometimes done so, it may not please him to do it again. On 
 
EXAMINED. 271 
 
 such a proposition there can be no dispute, for every believer 
 in the Bible must at once accede to it. But the question is, 
 whether these occasional and extraordinary manifestations 
 were erected into a systematic doctrine for the Church, and 
 handed down as a part of her creed with the same solemn and 
 abiding authority, as the acknowledgment of the Trinity, the 
 incarnation, and the atonement, and the sacraments, and the 
 ministry, and in a word, the principles of regular and constant 
 belief and practice; so that Christians are hound always to ex- 
 pect miracles from the hones and handkerchiefs of the saints, 
 and are authorized to fulminate anathemas against those who 
 think such wonders were only intended to be rare and occa- 
 sional. 
 
 The distinction, brethren, is all-important, and therefore I 
 am anxious to make myself perfectly understood. Permit 
 me, therefore, to enlarge upon the idea, by a brief sketch of 
 the divine dispensations, with relation to the point before us. 
 
 In the infinite wisdom and goodness of God, the glorious 
 gospel of his salvation, through our Lord Jesus Christ, was 
 provided for our fallen world ; and the knowledge of his truth 
 was given at various periods of the history of man, marking 
 what maybe called epochs, or dispensations; to each of which 
 a system was attached, forming successive developments of 
 the same great plan, and suited to the various stages of the 
 mighty work, which the Almighty, by his own right hand 
 and holy arm, stood pledged to perform. 
 
 Of these dispensations, the patriarchal was the first, lasting 
 from the fall of x\dam until the deliverance of the Israelites 
 from Egypt. The Mosaic dispensation was the second, lasting 
 from the giving of the law and the erection of the tabernacle 
 in the wilderness, until the organization of the Church of 
 Christ on the day of Pentecost. The Christian, or Gospel 
 dispensation, so called by way of eminence, was the third and 
 the last, which is to continue until the second coming of our 
 
272 THE ROMAN ARGUMENT 
 
 Lord, and is now supposed, by many, to be near its termina- 
 tion. In each of these dispensations, there was the same 
 fundamental truth, and the same gracious purpose. The 
 difference lay in the various degrees of their development. 
 And perhaps nothing can so beautifully express their unity 
 and their distinctness, as the language of our blessed Saviour, 
 where he compares them to the blade, the ear, and the full 
 corn in the ear, carrying on the analogy to the time of his 
 second advent, by saying: "afterwards he putteth in the 
 sickle, for the harvest is come." 
 
 Now, each of these dispensations had its wonders, and its 
 SYSTEM. The wonders were granted in order to demonstrate 
 that the system was of divine obligation, worthy of all faith 
 and confidence ; but the system was the regular instruction in 
 truth, both theoretical and practical, by which mankind were 
 to be brought out of darkness into light — out of the bondage 
 of Satan, into a blessed subjection to their heavenly King. 
 The system of the patriarchal stage was very simple. The 
 revelation was handed down by oral communication from 
 father to son : the eldest of the family was charged with the 
 ofhce of priest and judge: the only preparation for religious 
 rites was an altar, and the only ordinances were sacrifice and 
 prayer, to which, in the time of Abraham, was added circum- 
 cision. But the wonderful works of God in that first stage 
 of the world's history, were doubtless abundant ; although 
 the brief outline of Scripture mentions but a ^ew. The judg- 
 ment of Cain, the translation of Enoch, the building of the 
 ark, and the miraculous obedience of the wild beasts enclosed 
 in it, the dreadful deluge, the destruction of Babel, the confu- 
 sion of tongues, the conflagration of Sodom and Gomorrha, 
 with other miraculous events, formed no part of the system 
 which we call patriarchal, but were occasional exhibitions of 
 the tremendous power of God, granted in order to awaken 
 
EXAMINED. 273 
 
 men from their awful lethargy, and lead them to seek the 
 truth, which could alone make them wise unto salvation. 
 
 The same distinction is plainly shown, in the second, or the 
 Mosaic dispensation. The wonders that attended its first 
 establishment were stupendous, for not only Egypt and the 
 surrounding nations, but Israel also was sunk in idolatry, and 
 needed the manifestation of all these wonders, to convince 
 them, that the God of Israel was the only living and true God, 
 whose was the kingdom, the power, and the glory. The 
 system as now instituted, had the immense superiority of a 
 written record of the divine Word, instead of the former 
 uncertain oral tradition ; together with a special tribe and 
 family for the priesthood, and a magnificent tabernacle for the 
 worship of God, and a multitude of ceremonial rites, full of 
 a spiritual meaning, and calculated to prepare the Jewish 
 people, and through them, the world, for the still distant day 
 of the promised Messiah. After the system was perfectly 
 established, the wonders ceased; although we find them par- 
 tially and rarely recurring, the most remarkable period of 
 miracles being allotted to the ten tribes, during the ministry of 
 Elijah and Elisha. These ten tribes, you remember, had sepa- 
 rated from Judah and Benjamin. They thus deprived them- 
 selves of the advantages which belonged to the regular system, 
 and fell into awful idolatry ; and we may reverently imagine 
 that this may have been in part the reason, why they had so 
 much more of the extraordinary manifestations of divine 
 power, because, being destitute of the authorized priesthood 
 and tabernacle, their deplorable condition needed them so 
 greatly. 
 
 Precisely on the same principle, the Christian dispensation 
 was established in the midst of wonders, commanding, as 
 before, the assent and obedience of mankind to the system of 
 the Church. And now the ordinances of circumcision and 
 sacrifice were changed into baptism and the holy eucharist, the 
 
274 THE ROMAN ARGUMENT EXAMINED. 
 
 restriction of the priesthood was removed, and the office was 
 put under a spiritual law suited to all families and all nations; 
 to the written revelations of the Old Testament, were added 
 the inspired histories, epistles and prophecies of the New ; Jew 
 and Gentile found the partition wall broken down from be- 
 tween them; and from the elementary rudiments of the Mosaic 
 dispensation, was produced the finished and complete system 
 of the Gospel. 
 
 And here, by the way, brethren, from the Saviour's com- 
 parison of the various developments of his Church, to the 
 growth of the wheat, we may learn the character and value 
 of religious forms and ordinances. It is true, indeed, that 
 after our world has accomplished its present course, these 
 forms and ordinances will give place to a still more spiritual 
 system. It is equally true, that even here, if taken by them- 
 selves, they are of no more importance than the chaff which 
 is separated from the grain in the threshing-floor. But while 
 the Church is still on earth, still growing and ripening for the 
 heavenly harvest, she can no more attain her proper maturity 
 without forms and ordinances, than the grain in the ear can 
 grow without its husks. They may be counted as chaff by 
 and by, but in our present state they are an indispensable part 
 of the divine system. 
 
 But this is a digression, for which I should crave your 
 pardon. Let us recur to the main argument, in which I de- 
 signed to explain clearly the difference, between the systems 
 which the Lord had mercifully granted to mankind, and the 
 wonders which were performed in the establishment of those 
 systems. For nothing is more necessary to a clear idea of 
 the Roman Catholic error, in this and many other points, than 
 a just apprehension of the fundamental distinction, which I 
 have been endeavouring to explain. And you will readily see 
 its importance, when we come to apply it to the cases recorded 
 in the sacred history. 
 
THE BRAZEN SERPENT. 275 
 
 You remember, for instance, the marvellous occurrence 
 which took place during the passage of the Israelites through 
 the wilderness, when a brazen serpent was made by the divine 
 command, and put upon a pole, and every one that looked on 
 it was healed of the bite of the fiery flying serpents. Now we 
 find that this very image was carefully preserved until the 
 days of the good king Hezekiah, who broke it to pieces, be- 
 cause the children of Israel burnt incense to it. And he called 
 its name Nehushtan, (4 Kings xviii. 4) which signifies, a piece 
 of brass. Why did the pious monarch condemn the conduct 
 of the people, and destroy the image? Because its history 
 belonged, not to the system of religious truth, but only to the 
 wonderful events by which that system was established. He- 
 zekiah drew the distinction well and wisely. The works of 
 God were to be reverenced as He would have them reverenced, 
 and not in some other way of man's devising. And the system 
 of God's truth is to be preserved as he has delivered it, and 
 not to be either enlarged or diminished, to humour human in- 
 difl^erence, or human superstition. And therefore when the 
 people took the brazen serpent, which belonged to the miracu- 
 lous establishment of the Mosaic dispensation, into the forms 
 of worship which belonged to the system itself they sinned 
 grievously, and the king did most rightly in taking the temp- 
 tation away. 
 
 The same principle, brethren, will apply to the case which 
 Dr. Wiseman has brought forward, as a justification for the 
 relic-worship of the Church of Rome. "Eliseus," (or, as we 
 usually call him, Elisha,) "died, and they buried him, and the 
 rovers from Moab came into the land the same year. And 
 some that were burying a man, saw the rovers, and cast the 
 body into the sepulchre of Eliseus, and when it had touched 
 the bones of Eliseus, the man came to life, and stood on his 
 feet." (4 Kings xiii. 20, 21.) The uses of this miracle we 
 are not told. How far it instructed Israel and even Moab, 
 
276 THE BONES OF ELISHA. 
 
 and tended to bring them to the knowledge and worship of the 
 true God — how 'far it stopped the predatory warfare carried on 
 at that very time, or in how many various w^ays it might have 
 been eminently beneficial — it is impossible for any one to say. 
 But it is certain that the fact belonged to the ivonders of their 
 history, and not to the system of their religion, just as in the 
 case of the brazen serpent. And hence they suffered the body 
 of the prophet to continue as before, without worshipping his 
 relics, or appearing to look upon it in any other light than as a 
 solitary miracle, such as had never taken place previously, and 
 might never take place again. Had the Israelites in those 
 days regarded it in the same light as the modern Church of 
 Rome, they would have inscribed the prophet's name in the 
 calendar to be worshipped, set a day apart in his honour, en- 
 shrined his relics in gold and silver, given them a place in their 
 temple, pronounced an anathema against every one who re- 
 fused to do them reverence, and looked to them as one of the 
 regular parts of the divine institution, for the healing of dis- 
 eases, raising the dead, and every other miraculous instrumen- 
 tality. But nothing of the kind was done. There were no 
 relics known to the Jewish system. And therefore, in our Sa- 
 viour's time, the Pharisees showed their ostentatious piety, by 
 adorning the sepulchres and tombs of the prophets; but rijling 
 them of their contents, and converting the mouldering hones 
 into objects of worship, was reserved for the wayward super- 
 stition of a far later day. 
 
 I come next, however, to the examples which our ingenious 
 author presents to us from the New Testament; where the 
 woman was healed of a hoemorrhage by touching the hem of 
 the Saviour's garment ; and handkerchiefs, taken from the body 
 of St. Paul, cured the sick. And here, brethren, I marvel 
 greatly to find Dr. Wiseman asserting, that in the first of 
 these cases there was "no exercise of the Saviour'' s will.'''' 
 Where did he make that discovery? Even his own theory does 
 
SUMMARY OF SCRIPTURE. 277 
 
 not regard the relics of the saints as instrumental in doing 
 wonders by any inherent efficacy, but only on the ground that 
 it pleased God to use them for such purpose. Surely, there- 
 fore, it is highly presumptuous in any one to say, that when 
 the woman touched the Saviour's garment, her cure was with- 
 out any exercise of his will. He who knew all things, even 
 the secret thoughts of every heart, must have known the whole 
 circumstances and have willed the result, else his own doctrine 
 would be strangely falsified, that "even the sparrow doth not 
 fall to the ground without our heavenly Father." 
 
 But in all these cases, the distinction applies. These mira- 
 cles belonged to the iconders which attended the history of 
 the Gospel dispensation in its establishment; and were no more 
 intended to belong to its regular system than the brazen 
 serpent, or the case of Elisha's bones, or any of the mighty 
 works of God in ancient Israel, were intended to belong to the 
 regular system of the Mosaic dispensation. The touching of 
 our Saviour's garments, therefore, did wonders, ivhen he 
 pleased to have the wonders done, and at no other season. 
 We do not read of their being adopted as a part of the regular 
 ordinances of God, neither do we find those garments working 
 miracles after the soldiers had stripped them from his sacred 
 body. And so, likewise, in the case of the handkerchiefs 
 which were taken from the person of St. Paul, it is probable 
 that his prayers accompanied their application ; and that apart 
 from this, they would have had no efficacy whatever. But 
 had it been a part of the divine system, that such things should 
 be held in honour by the Church for ever, and be laid up and 
 reverenced as the regular instruments by which health, and 
 deliverance, and blessings innumerable should be dispensed to 
 the end of the world, we should -surely have had the apostles 
 making presents to the Churches of their garments as well as 
 their epistles; and instead of St. Stephen, the first martyr, 
 being carried by devout men to his burial, we should read 
 
 2b 
 
278 SUMMARY OF SCRIPTURE. 
 
 of his being embalmed for the purpose of preserving his relics, 
 and every article belonging to his person, down to the shoe 
 latchet, would have been distributed by the order of St. Peter 
 with as much care as the popes, who call themselves his suc- 
 cessors, employ, when they send presents of much meaner 
 relics than those of St. Stephen, in our own day. If then it be 
 admitted, as it must needs be, that the duty of the Church is to 
 be regulated by the precepts and example of Christ and his 
 apostles, and neither precept nor example can be found for the 
 veneration of relics, it manifestly results, that the Church of 
 Rome has incurred an awful hazard by her decrees in behalf 
 of such a doctrine, and especially by pronouncing her anathe- 
 mas on all who differ from her. I shall only observe, in con- 
 cluding this branch of our subject, that Dr. Wiseman has taken 
 a most unwarrantable liberty with the meaning of words, where 
 he says, that at the time the miracles were wrought by the 
 garments of Christ and the handkerchiefs of St. Paul, they 
 were "relics in the Catholic sense of the term.^^ They were 
 not relics at all, during the life of their respective wearers, and 
 yet it was only during their life, and doubtless, by their desire, 
 that the miracles were effected. But in order to entitle them 
 to the appellation of relics, they must be taken after the death 
 of the former wearers, for the word relic comes from relicta, 
 signifying what is left behind, and therefore it is never applied 
 by the Church of Rome to the garments of any saint, while he 
 is yet in being. Hence it results, that there is no example in 
 Scripture of the case which Dr. Wiseman's doctrine requires, 
 namely, of a miracle being effected by the garments or other 
 things which had belonged to a deceased saint, after the de- 
 cease of the owner. The single instance which can properly 
 be called a miracle by relics, is that of Elisha; and the argu- 
 ment already delivered on that instance is sufficient, I trust, to 
 show, that it is directly hostile to the doctrine for which it is 
 cited. 
 
THE WORSHIP OF IMAGES. 279 
 
 On the other point of controversy, namely, the worship of 
 images, our author seems to give up the Scriptural argument 
 altogether. He tells us, indeed, that the mere making of them 
 cannot be unlawful, because the Lord commanded them to be 
 placed on the ark, and in the tabernacle; and he grants that 
 they ought not to be made for adoration or worship. "And 
 the question," saith he, "is therefore whether the Roman 
 Catholic is justified in praying before them, and using them as 
 memorials, inspiring faith and devotion." "I may be asked," 
 continues our author, " what warrant there is in Scripture for 
 all this. I might answer that I ask none, for rather I might 
 ask what authority there is to deprive me of these objects? 
 because it is the natural right of man to use any thing towards 
 promoting the worship of God, which is not in any way 
 forbidden." 
 
 Now here, brethren, is the direct avowal of a most corrupt 
 principle, sufficient of itself to sanction a thousand follies and 
 superstitions, and, as it appears to me, utterly unsustained by 
 any argument, either of faith or reason. I refer to Dr. Wise- 
 man's assertion that it is the natural right of man to use any 
 thing he pleases in the worship of God, provided it be not for- 
 bidden. For what natural rights have we, where the wor- 
 ship of God is concerned? We are utterly condemned, as sin- 
 ners, by nature and by practice, and all our rights in religion 
 are conferred not by nature^ hut by grace, and must therefore 
 be regulated by his Word, and not by our imagination. A 
 similar error, although exhibited in a different way, was that 
 of the Pharisees, who added an immense number of tradition- 
 ary observances to the divine law, intending thereby to increase 
 their devotion. But listen to the judgment of Christ concern- 
 ing them: "In vain do they worship me," said the Saviour, 
 " teaching for doctrines the commandments of men." 
 
 In the next place, however, it seems to my mind that our 
 author's own concesssion utterly disproves his Church's doc- 
 
280 ROMAN ARGUMENT DISPROVED. 
 
 trine. For while he contends that the mere making of images 
 cannot be sinful ; since the Lord himself commanded the figures 
 of cherubim to be placed in his temple ; he nevertheless grants, 
 expressly, that images ought not to be madeybr adoration or 
 worship. But what then, I would ask Dr. Wiseman, are those 
 acts which the councils order in honour of images? The un- 
 covering the head, the falling prostrate, the kisses of devout 
 affection, the burning of incense, and the lighting of candles 
 before the holy images, as the second Council of Nice constantly 
 calls them — what are all these, if they be not acts of worship? 
 In the case of the brazen serpent, we only read of the people 
 burning incense to it, and the Roman Catholic commentators 
 admit that this was an act of idolatry which justified king 
 Hezekiah in destroying it. But here we have the kisses, the 
 incense, the lighting of candles, and prostration, all together. 
 And besides this, what are we to understand by the express 
 words of that very council, decreeing that "the honour of the 
 image passes to its original, and whoever adores the image, 
 adores in it, the substance of the representation?" It is not 
 possible, brethren, to reconcile all this with the principle ad- 
 mitted by Dr. Wiseman. The true meaning of it, however, is 
 well expressed by a far greater authority in the Roman Church 
 than any living man, namely, the famous Thomas Aquinas, 
 whom they call the angelical Doctor, and who stands on their 
 Calendar as a canonized saint. For he says expressly, that 
 "as Christ himself is adored with the highest worship, (latria) 
 so his image is to be adored with the same." (Th. Aquin. 
 Sum. Theol. Par. 3. Qusestio 25. Art. 3. p. 53.) He gives 
 the very same decision as to the worship of the cross, that 
 "because Christ was suspended on it, and he stained it with his 
 precious blood, therefore not only the original cross, but every 
 image of it, no matter of what material, should be adored with 
 the same kind of worship, which is due to Christ himself." 
 (lb. Art. 4.) It seems a mere trifling with language, therefore. 
 
LACTANTIUS AND ORIGEN. 281 
 
 to deny that worship is expressly ordered by the Church of 
 Rome, to images; — the highest worship, which they call la- 
 tria, to the images of Christ and the cross; and to the images 
 of the saints, the worship which they call dulia; namely, the 
 same sort of worship which they render to the saints them- 
 selves. What that is, we saw sufficiently, brethren, in our 
 last lecture. 
 
 Having thus disposed of the other authorities of our learned 
 advocate, I have next to set before you the testimony of the 
 fathers, which will satisfy you that an ample number of wit- 
 nesses may be appealed to, in proof that these doctrines could 
 never have been approved by the primitive Church. 
 
 Thus, for example, Lactantius writes, A. D. 320 : "There 
 is no religion wherever there is an image. For if religion 
 consists in divine things, and there is nothing divine but in 
 heavenly things; images, therefore, are without religion, for 
 there can be nothing heavenly in that which is earthly." 
 (Finch, 232.) 
 
 About a century earlier, the celebrated Origen saith : "Who 
 in his senses would not smile to see a man, after his brilliant 
 and philosophical disputations upon God, or upon the gods, 
 turn his eyes to statues, and either offer prayers to them, or 
 endeavour hy contemplating them, as some conspicuous sign, 
 to raise his mind to the conception of the intelligent DeityJ''' 
 (lb. 188.) 
 
 And again: "Christians and Jews," saith Origen, "refrain 
 from these on account of that precept of the law, ' Thou shalt 
 fear the Lord thy God, and him only shalt thou serve.' Also 
 upon account of that commandment, 'Thou shalt have none 
 other gods but me ; thou shalt not make to thyself an image, 
 or the likeness of those things that are in heaven or on earth ;' 
 which so prohibits to us altars and images, that we ought to 
 die rather than contaminate our faith to God with such im- 
 pieties.^'' (lb.) 
 
 2 b2 
 
282 EARLY COUNCILS AND FATHERS. 
 
 And again: "The images that are to be dedicated to God, 
 are not the works of artists, but what are wrought and formed 
 within us by the Word of God, namely, virtues in imitation of 
 HIM who was the Jirst-horn of every creatitre.^^ (lb.) 
 
 The next testimony, brethren, is taken from the Council of 
 Eliberis in Spain, held about the year 300, which resolved as 
 follows : 
 
 *' It seemed good to us that pictures ought not to be in the 
 Churches, lest that which is worshipped or adored, be paint- 
 ed upon the walW (lb. 256.) 
 
 Again, the eminent Epiphanius, A. D. 366, writes thus, in a 
 letter which Jerome translated, and doubtless, therefore, fully 
 approved. Speaking of his visit to a certain Church : " I found 
 there," saith he, "a veil hanging at the door of the Church, 
 dyed and painted, and having the image as it were of Christ or 
 of some saint; for I do not rightly recollect whose image it 
 was. When, therefore, I saw, that contrary to the authority 
 of the Scriptures, the image of a man was hung up in the 
 Church of Christ, I cut it, and counselled the guardians of the 
 place that they should rather use it as a winding sheet for 
 some poor man's burial." (lb. 244.) 
 
 In like maner, St. Augustin saith; "This is the chief cause 
 of this mad impiety, that a figure resembling a living form 
 operates more forcibly upon the feelings of these wretched men, 
 than its being manifest that it is not living, and therefore that 
 it ought to be despised by the living.''' (lb. 158.) 
 
 Lastly, St. Ambrose, the preceptor of Augustin, saith, "Ra- 
 chel hid the sacred images, signifying the Church, or prudence, 
 because the Church knows nothing of these empty ideas and 
 vain figures of images, but acknowledges the true substance 
 of the Trinity." (Tom. I. p. 429. § 27.) 
 
 We see here, brethren, sufficient proof, that the worship of 
 images was a complete innovation upon the early and purer 
 doctrine of the primitive Church, although, after many violen 
 
MODERN STATE OP THE DOCTRINE. 283 
 
 Struggles, it finally gained the ascendency, and was established 
 about 700 years after the sacrifice of the Redeemer, in the se- 
 cond Council of Nice, whose decrees have been cited. 
 
 The other corruption, respecting ihe worship of relics and 
 the cross, appears to have had its first rise in the veneration 
 with which the martyrs were regarded. It became a custom 
 for Christians to hold a yearly service at their tombs or sepul- 
 chres, on the day of their martyrdom, which was called their 
 birth-day, (natalitia) because it was believed that they then 
 entered into heavenly glory. When the Gospel of Christ be- 
 came the established religion of the Roman empire, Churches 
 \wQi:e built over these tombs or sepulchres wherever it was 
 convenient; and where it was not, the remains of the martyrs 
 were transferred to the altar of the new edifice, and their day 
 was kept with more pomp and solemnity than ever; discourses 
 being pronounced annually in their praise, which led to a very 
 pernicious display of laudatory exaggeration. From praying 
 for tliem, the Church next began to pray to them; and as the 
 influence of superstition, once excited and approved, never fails 
 to increase with vast rapidity, the reports of miracles per- 
 formed by their means, and the rivalry between the altars of 
 different Churches, produced a constant effort to exalt the vahie 
 of relics and the merits of the saints, until it reached the high- 
 est extravagance. The extent to which it is carried in Roman 
 Catholic countries, even at this day, must be witnessed before 
 it can be believed ; but a few extracts from the Breviary and 
 other books of authority, may give you some idea of it. 
 
 Thus, in the lesson appointed to be read on the Festival of 
 St. Isidore, we find the following passage: " His body, which 
 was at first laid, according to his own injunctions, between his 
 brother Leander and his sister Florentine, was afterwards 
 translated to Leon by Ferdinand I., king of Castile and Leon, 
 who purchased it at a great price from Henetus, the Saracen, 
 then reigning in Seville. A temple was forthwith built in his 
 
284 ROMAN STATEMENTS 
 
 honour, and there, distinguished by his miracles, he is vene- 
 rated by the people with great devotion." (Finch, Supple- 
 ment, p. 196.) 
 
 Of St. Ubald, the same infallible authority relates, that "his 
 body, which remains uncorrupted after so many ages, is ho- 
 noured with the great veneration of the faithful in his country, 
 which he has more than once delivered from imminent dan- 
 ger:' (lb. 196.) 
 
 Of St. Januarius, the Breviary declares as follows: "The 
 Neapolitans, admonished by the Lord, carried away the body 
 of St. Januarius, which being first conveyed to Benevento, 
 thence to the monastery of the Virgin's Mount, and lastly 
 transferred to Naples, and placed in the principal Church, 
 was renowned for many miracles. But the miracle which is 
 chiefly to be commemorated is, that it formerly extinguished 
 volumes of flames breaking forth from Mount Vesuvius, and 
 diffusing the fear of devastation not only in the neighbourhood 
 but even in distant regions. This also is remarkable, that his 
 blood, which is preserved coagulated in a glass vial, when it 
 is placed in sight of the head of the same martyr, is even at 
 the present day seen to liquefy and boil in a wonderful man- 
 ner, as if it were only recently shed." (lb. 200.) 
 
 Of St. Francis Xavier, the same Breviary saith, that "his 
 body, twice covered over with quick-lime for several months, 
 but quite uncorrupted, exuded sweet odour and blood; and 
 when it was carried to the Malaccas, it immediately extin- 
 guished a fierce pestilence.^' (lb. 202.) 
 
 Of St. Peter Chrysologus, we read, that "his sacred body 
 is even to this day religiously venerated, but one of his arms, 
 being ornamented with gold and gems, and carried to Raven- 
 na, is venerated in the Ursian Church." (lb.) 
 
 And of St. Andrew Corsini it is said, in the same book, that 
 "his body reposes at Florence in the Church of his order, and 
 is reverenced with the greatest veneration of the citizens, to 
 
SINCE THE REFORMATION. 285 
 
 whom, more than once, it has been a protection in imminent 
 danger:' ([b. 204.) 
 
 These ^iiw specimens, brethren, are taken from the standard 
 devotional book of the Church of Rome, called the Breviary; 
 and show distinctly the religious veneration rendered, and the 
 extraordinary miracles attributed to the relics of the saints. 
 The wonderful appearances related of images, pictures, cross- 
 es, &c., would quite exceed my limits and your patience. But 
 it is necessary to add, that the intelligence of the age has 
 made no difference in these superstitions, wherever the autho- 
 rity of Rome is supreme. Thus, for example, since the%ear 
 1790, publications have been made of the miraculous image of 
 the virgin at Ancona, opening and shutting its eyes on public 
 occasions. In consideration of which miracle, the pope insti- 
 tuted a pious fraternity in honour of the image, under the 
 name of the sons and daughters of Mary. The opening, and 
 shutting, and turning of the eyes of the image, still continuing, 
 at intervals, for some years, Pius VII., in person, crowned the 
 miraculous image on the 13th of May, 1814, fixed the annual 
 feast in its honour for the second Sunday of the same month, 
 and attached to it the power of a plenary indulgence, (Phil- 
 pot's Let. to Butler, Supp. 402, 3.) 
 
 At Torricella, about the same time, we are gravely assured 
 that a torrent of tears was shed by a wooden image of the vir- 
 gin. And at Ancona, a picture representing St. Anne teach- 
 ing the virgin Mary to read, was seen to be animated, so that 
 the two faces turned their eyes towards the spectators. (lb. 
 p. 411.) But at Mercatello, a still more wonderful occur- 
 rence was said to have taken place. "A very ancient pic- 
 ture of the virgin and child was there, on an altar in the Col- 
 legiate Church; when it was observed that the countenance 
 assumed a brilliant tint, the eyes became lively, and the fea- 
 tures, which had become almost effaced, again became dis- 
 tinctly visible. The countenance of the infant Jesus, which 
 
286 INFLUENCE OF THE REFORMATION. 
 
 the mother held in her arms, changed colour; and several 
 times was the divine infant seen to bend towards the glass 
 which covered the picture, to signify, as it were, how accept- 
 able was the devotion of the pious multitude that was present 
 at the spectacle." (lb. p. 411.) 
 
 In Roman Catholic countries, there seems to be no end to 
 these marvellous tales, nor has the long-cherished confidence 
 of the people, in images and relics, become at all lessened. 
 But it is said that there are many minds of superior culture 
 amongst them, who look down upon all this as a collection of 
 absift-dilies, which they tolerate only because they see no way 
 of breaking it down, without destroying all respect for rehgion 
 along with it. How far this assertion is true, we have no 
 means of ascertaining ; but it is manifest, that in those coun- 
 tries where the Reformation has taken root, the champions of 
 the Church of Rome, like Dr. Wiseman, pass over the whole 
 of the subject in terms as general and slight as possible, and 
 plainly show, that if it were practicable, they would gladly 
 consign it to oblivion. 
 
 Let me now, brethren, in conclusion, ask how far we have 
 discharged our own Christian duty in this matter — how far 
 have we laboured to promote the salutary influence of Scrip- 
 tural truth, amongst the multitudes who are in bondage to this 
 yoke of superstition ? Have we thought of them with kind- 
 ness and good will — prayed for them with zeal and earnest- 
 ness — and been careful to recommend our own purer system 
 of Gospel truth, by a life of higher morality and more fervent 
 devotion? 
 
 It is an age of effort for the cause of missions, and immense 
 works are undertaken, and prosecuted with ardour, for the 
 conversion of the distant heathen. Nor is it often, I trust, 
 that the ministers of Christ, amongst the various Protestant 
 Churches, ofTer up their public supplications to the throne of 
 grace, without remembering the condition of those benighted 
 
THE DUTY OF PROTESTANTS. 287 
 
 nations who are still sitting in the region and shadow of death. 
 And this is all right, assuredly ; for it well becomes the fol- 
 lower of Christ, who knows that He died for the sins of the 
 whole world, to be constantly mindful of his blessed purpose, 
 that the Gospel should be preached to every creature. 
 
 But brethren, I beseech you to say, whether the unity and 
 well-being of the Church of God is not still more imperatively 
 the object of our labours and our prayers. And believing that 
 wherever the fundamental doctrines of the Christian creed are 
 held, there must be a portion of that Church — believing there- 
 fore, that the Church of Greece, although greatly corrupted, 
 is a branch of the Church Universal — that the Churches of 
 Abyssinia, and Armenia, and Syria, are likewise branches of 
 the same — that the Church of Rome, although the most cor- 
 rupted of them all, is a most extensive and important part of 
 the same Church Catholic or Universal ; and that we are con- 
 sequently bound to acknowledge them as members of the great 
 family of Christ — are we at liberty to feel indifferent to their 
 errors, to forget their dangers, to look upon them with ridicule 
 or contempt, or to discharge ourselves of all responsibility with 
 regard to them, as if we were quite sure that not the 'Reforma- 
 tion^ but the destruction of that Church, is the proper object of 
 our hopes, and that to pray for them, or labour in order to 
 convince them of their errors, forms no part of our Christian 
 duty? 
 
 Let us acknowledge, in humility, before the great Searcher 
 of hearts, my brethren, that we are guilty in this thing. True, 
 we may have nothing in our power. True, our lectures, and 
 our kind wishes, and our prayers, may have no influence 
 whatever. But what then? Was it not good for the apostle 
 to long for the salvation of the Jews, since they were his bre- 
 thren according to the flesh, although they had rejected and 
 crucified the Lord of hfe and glory? Nay, did not his fervent 
 zeal in their behalf induce him to say, that he could even con- 
 
288 CONCLUSION. 
 
 sent to be accursed after the manner of Christ, that is, actually 
 crucified, if he could thereby become the means of their salva- 
 tion? How much more should we feel for the various Churches 
 of Christ, who are our brethren through the principles of that 
 faith which we hold in common? If they have added the cor- 
 rupt doctrines of human invention to the sacred articles of the 
 eternal Gospel — if those additions be full of impiety and peril — 
 if they need to be enlightened, instructed, and led back to the 
 pure fountains of unerring truth, and to the primitive Church 
 of which they once formed so bright a portion — let us pray 
 for them, with something like the spirit of the apostle, even if 
 we fall immeasurably behind him in zeal. And let us not 
 doubt, that if it should please the all-wise and all-powerful God 
 to carry the principles of the Reformation into the Church of 
 Rome, and through her extensive instrumentahty, into the 
 Church of Greece, the unity of Christendom would go farther 
 to secure the conversion of the heathen, and the universal 
 influence of holiness and virtue, than all the separate efl?brts of 
 jarring and discordant sects can ever effect, though they could 
 be multiplied an hundred-fold. 
 
 But no more. Our next subject, brethren, will be the doc- 
 trines of purgatory and indulgences, in addition to which, a 
 {ew lectures more will bring us, I trust, to the close of the 
 series. May the blessing of the King, eternal, immortal, and 
 invisible, rest upon you; and may his Word go forth in its 
 might, conquering and to conquer, until every form of error is 
 banished from his Universal Church, until "the heathen shall 
 be given to him for his inheritance, and the uttermost parts of 
 the earth for his possession." 
 
LECTURE XIII. 
 
 Luke xvi. 22, 23. — And it came to pass that the beggar died, and he 
 was carried by the angels into Abraham's bosom. And the rich 
 man also died, and he was buried in hell. And lifting up his eyes 
 when he was in torments, he saw Abraham afar off, and Lazarus in 
 his bosom. (Doway version.) 
 
 Amongst all those doctrines which are regarded as corrupt 
 abuses in the Church of Rome, my brethren, there are none 
 possessing greater interest, and none of higher practical im- 
 portance to their system, than the doctrines of purgatory, 
 satisfaction, and indulgences. To understand them aright, 
 will require more than ordinary attention from those who have 
 not already some familiarity with the controversy; but I shall 
 take all the pains in my power to make my statements per- 
 spicuous and plain. To this end, I shall discuss the subject 
 in the following order : first, the theoretical doctrine of purga- 
 tory; secondly, the doctrine of satisfaction; thirdly, the doc- 
 trine of indulgences. I shall next examine the arguments 
 adduced from Scripture to sustain these articles of their creed, 
 and demonstrate, as I trust, their utter insufficiency. The 
 translation used, will of course be understood to be their own 
 Doway Bible, and their doctrines shall be stated from their 
 own books of authority. 
 
 " Five receptacles are enumerated for the disembodied souls 
 of the dead," saith the learned author who finished the Theo- 
 logical Summary of Thomas Aquinas, " in which they are 
 
 2 c 
 
290 DOCTRINE OF PURGATORY. 
 
 received according to their respective states; namely, paradise, 
 the limbus of the fathers, purgatory, hell, and the limbus of 
 children." (Sup. 3, p. 269, Art. 7.) 
 
 " These abodes," saith the Catechism of the Council of 
 Trent, " are not all of the same nature." Gehenna, the bot- 
 tomless pit, or what is strictly called hell, "is that most loath- 
 some and dark prison in which the souls of the damned are 
 buried with the unclean spirits in eternal and unextinguishable 
 fire." Next is "the fire of purgatory, in which the souls of 
 just men are cleansed by a temporary punishment, in order to 
 be admitted into their eternal country, into which nothing de- 
 filed entereth." (Cat. Trident, p. 63.) 
 
 And this punishment, though not eternal, is by fire, which, 
 saith the Church of Rome, "is painful in a wondrous degree; 
 surpassing every punishment which any one ever suffered in this 
 life." (Philpot's Letters to Butler, 117.) Here then we see, 
 that purgatory is not only a state, but a place of punishment 
 for the departed soul : that the punishment is hy jire, and that 
 it exceeds all the pains known or ever experienced by the 
 body. 
 
 It is to be especially observed, in order to a proper under- 
 standing of the doctrine, that the souls thus tormented in this 
 purgatorial fire, are not the souls of the wicked, for they are 
 consigned to the eternal fire of hell ; but the souls of pious 
 persons. The Council of Trent calls them "the souls of truly 
 penitent and justified sinners ;" and the Council of Florence 
 pronounces them to be "the souls of those who, having truly 
 repented, die in the love of God." (Tb.) You will not under- 
 stand, however, that the Church of Rome condemns all de- 
 parted souls to this purgatory. For persons of uncommon 
 holiness, especially the apostles, martyrs, confessors, and saints, 
 are placed, according to their doctrine, immediately in heaven; 
 and made participators of the glory of Christ, without waiting 
 for the resurrection of the body in the day of judgment. But 
 
DOCTRINE OF SATISFACTION. 291 
 
 these form a comparative few ; so that the great mass of de- 
 parted Christians are believed by them to be necessarily obHged 
 to spend a longer or a shorter period in the dreadful torments 
 of these purgatorial flames, until satisfaction is rendered to the 
 justice of God for their venial sins, as well as for the temporal 
 punishment due to their mortal sins, after their guilt has been 
 absolved and forgiven. 
 
 This brings us, brethren, to the doctrine of Satisfaction ; a 
 doctrine peculiar to the Church of Rome, out of which is con- 
 structed the marvellous system of works performed by the 
 living for the benefit of the dead, and applied to them in certain 
 forms by the priests, the bishops, and the saints, but most ex- 
 tensively by the popes in what are usually termed Indulgences. 
 
 The explanation of this doctrine I shall give you in the 
 words of Dr. Wiseman: 
 
 "We believe," saith he, "that upon the forgiveness of sins, 
 that is, after the remission of that eternal debt, which God, in 
 his justice, awards to transgressions against his law, he has 
 been pleased to reserve a certain degree of inferior or tempo- 
 rary punishment, appropriate to the guilt which had been in- 
 curred, and it is on this part of the punishment, according to 
 the Roman Catholic doctrine, that satisfaction can be made to 
 God." — " Herein consists that self-sufficiency , that poiver of 
 self-justification, which has been considered sufficient to ac- 
 count for the Roman Catholic's subjecting himself to the pain- 
 ful work of repentance, (or rather penance,) imposed upon 
 him by his religion." (Vol. II. 31.) 
 
 "This," saith our author a little farther on, "is the basis of 
 the system known by the name of the penitential canons; in 
 which those who had transgressed were condemned to diiferent 
 punishments, according to the measure of their offences; some 
 being obliged to lie prostrate for a certain term of months or 
 years before the doors of the Church, after which they were ad- 
 mitted to different portions of the divine service ; while others 
 
292 DOCTRINE OF INDULGENCES. 
 
 were often excluded through their whole lives from the liturgi- 
 cal exercises of the faithful, and were not admitted to absolution 
 until they were at the point of death." — "And what is all this," 
 asks Dr. Wiseman, "but the doctrine of satisfaction, the 
 belief in the power of man to make some reparation or atone- 
 ment to God, hy his own voluntary sufferings?'''' Mark this, 
 brethren, I beseech you, because it is a clear avowal of the 
 principle, which is elsewhere ingeniously concealed. We 
 shall show, I trust, the utterly dangerous and unscriptural na- 
 ture of this principle by and by: but we wish you, meanwhile, 
 to carry it in your memory, as the fundamental error which 
 supports the whole. And we shall now proceed to the mode, 
 in which, according to our author, this is applied to the doc- 
 trine of Indulgences. 
 
 " What then," asks Dr. Wiseman, "is an indulgence? It 
 is no more than a remission by the Church, in virtue of the 
 keys, or the judicial authority committed to her, of a portion, 
 or the entire of the temporal punishment due to sin. The 
 infinite merits of Christ form the fund whence this remission 
 is derived : but besides this, the Church holds, that by the 
 communion of saints, penitential works performed hy the 
 just, beyond what their own sins might exact, are available 
 to other members of Chrisfs mystical body; that, for instance, 
 the sufferings of the spotless mother of God, afflictions such 
 as probably no other human being ever felt in the soul — the 
 austerities and persecutions of the Baptist, the friend of the 
 Bridegroom, who was sanctified in his mother's womb, and 
 chosen to be an angel before the face of Christ — the tortures 
 endured by numberless martyrs, whose lives had been pure 
 from vice and sin — the prolonged rigours of holy anchorites, 
 who, flying from the temptations and dangers of the world, 
 passed many years in penance and contemplation — all these, 
 made consecrated and valid through their union with the merits 
 of Christ's passion, were not thrown away, but formed a store 
 
DOCTRINE OF INDULGENCES. 293 
 
 of meritorious blessings^ applicable to the satisfaction of 
 vther sinners" Here, brethren, we have, what in the language 
 of divines is called, the doctrine oi'tcorks of supererogation ; 
 that is, the notion that the saints did and suffered a vast deal 
 which was not required for their own sake, but which forms 
 a sort of stock of merits, for the benefit of others, of which 
 the pope has the supreme right of disposing to those believers 
 who have not si^fficient merits of their own ; thus enabling 
 them to satisfy the justice of God for all the temporal punish- 
 ment which remains due to their sins, after the eternal pun- 
 ishment has been forgiven. 
 
 But still we have not arrived at the link in the doctrine, 
 which connects the temporal satisfaction for sin, and the indul- 
 gence by which it is discharged, with purgatory. And therefore 
 you must further observe, that this punishment, although 
 called temporal, and in the case of the penitential discipline of 
 the primitive Church always ended at death, has yet been 
 carried beyond the gmve by the Church of Rome, and 
 extended to the whole period of the intermediate state, up to 
 the day of judgment; so that whatever portion of this temporal 
 satisfaction the believer may leave unpaid in this life, he must 
 pay to the full, by suffering in purgatory. The Church 
 of Rome however asserts, that this apphcation of the super- 
 abundant merits of Christ and the saints may be made after 
 death as well as before ; and that the amount of the satisfac- 
 tion thus rendered, will relieve the suffering soul from an 
 equivalent amount of purgatorial torment. So that the power 
 of the pope and the priesthood, is thus marvellously carried 
 beyond the limits of the Church on earth, into the unseen 
 world of spirits ; and is even believed to exert there ^ its most sur- 
 prising and important efficacy. This is evident from the simple 
 consideration, that whereas the utmost stretch of ecclesiasti- 
 cal favour on earth, could only relieve from the satisfactory 
 penances or punishments of the sinner's life-time, the Church 
 2 c 2 
 
294 DOCTRINE OF SATISFACTION 
 
 of Rome undertakes to commute, by her indulgeaces, the far 
 more excruciating torments of the fire of purgatory, for hun- 
 dreds and thousands of years, and even to put an end to 
 them altogether by what she terms a plenary indulgence, or 
 satisfaction in full. 
 
 The precise details and actual operation of these doctrines, 
 brethren, must be reserved for another lecture; but I shall 
 now proceed to examine the arguments by which they are 
 sustained, commencing with their notion of satisfaction for sin, 
 which Dr. Wiseman has well called the poiver of selfjustif- 
 cation. 
 
 " The doctrine which is collected from the Word of God,'* 
 saith our learned author in relation to this subject, " is reduci- 
 ble to these heads. 1. That God, after the remission of sin, 
 retains a lesser chastisement in his power, to be inflicted oa 
 the sinner. 2. That penitential works, fasting, alms-deeds, 
 contrite weeping, and fervent prayer, have the power of avert- 
 ing that punishment. 3. That this scheme of God's justice 
 was not a part of the imperfect law, but the unvarying ordinance 
 of his dispensation, anterior to the Mosaic ritual, and amply 
 confirmed by Christ in his Gospel. 4. That it consequently 
 becomes a part of all true repentance to try to satisfy this 
 divine justice, by the voluntary assumption of such penitential 
 works, as his revealed truth assures us have efficacy before 
 him." 
 
 You will observe, brethren, as the great characteristics of 
 this whole scheme, these two most objectijonable propositions: 
 First, that the satisfaction rendered to the divine justice is 
 divided between Christ and the sinner; — the Saviour takes 
 the eternal portion of this satiisfaction, but the temporal portion 
 is to be rendered by man. Secondly, that this satisfaction is 
 not to be made by obeying the commands of God and sub- 
 mitting to his chastisements, but by voluntary works and 
 sufferings, undertaken by the sinner. Both of these posi- 
 
EXAMINED. 295 
 
 tions we hold to be altogether opposed to Scripture, and with- 
 out any authority amongst the best writers of the primitive 
 Church. Our learned author, however, undertakes to sustain 
 his doctrine, as usual, both by Scripture and tradition. And 
 his Scriptural proofs are as follows : — That Moses and Aaron 
 were not permitted to enter the promised land. That David 
 was temporally punished for his sin, as well by the death of 
 his child as by other calamities, notwithstanding the sin itself 
 was forgiven. That Job, after he had transgressed, humbled 
 himself in dust and ashes. That the men of Nineveh pub- 
 lished a general fast for three days, from the king on his 
 throne to the beasts in their stalls, saying : Who can tell if 
 God will turn and forgive, and will turn away from his fierce 
 anger, that we perish not. Nay, Dr. Wiseman even refers 
 to our first parents in paradise as an example, because he 
 says that their sin was forgiven, and yet the most bitter con- 
 sequences were entailed on them and their posterity. 
 
 The passages from the New Testament which our author 
 cites in justification of his doctrine, are partly negative, and 
 partly positive. Assuming that his system was the existing 
 system of the Mosaic dispensation, he argues, that our Saviour 
 introduced no change in this respect, but rather recommended 
 penitential works, such as fasting, both by precept and exam- 
 ple. And St. Paul, writing to the Colossians, declares, " I now 
 rejoice in my sufferings for you, and fill up those things which 
 are wanting of the sufferings of Christ, in my flesh, for his 
 body which is the Church." " What is wanting of Christ's 
 sufferings?" exclaims Dr. Wiseman, "and this to be supplied 
 by man and in his flesh! What sort of doctrine call we this? 
 Is it in favour of the completeness of Christ's sufl^erings, as to 
 their application ? Or rather does it not suppose that much is 
 to be done by man, towards possessing himself of the treasures 
 laid up in our Saviour's redemption; and that svffering is 
 the means whereby this application is made?" Here, brethren, 
 
296 DOCTRIIVE OF SATISFACTION 
 
 our learned author really seems to think that his argument is 
 triumphant, since he imagines it clearly manifested in Scrip- 
 ture. Whereas, I am much deceived, if a little, and but a little 
 sober examination will not fully prove, that the testimony he 
 has alleged is either wholly irrelevant, or else positively against 
 him. But before I enter upon the particular passages relied 
 on, let me premise a general remark, applicable to the whole 
 subject, namely, that we hold it altogether contrary to the ho- 
 nour of the Gospel to consider our temporal afflictions as being, 
 in any degree or sense whatever, a satisfaction to the justice 
 of God. That can be rendered by nothing but the atonement 
 and righteousness of our blessed Redeemer, applied to the 
 believer by repentance and faith, after suitable acts of confes- 
 sion, humiliation, and prayer. Neither do I see how Dr. 
 Wiseman's doctrine can be supported by any analogy with the 
 acts of earthly governments. He observes, indeed, that where 
 the law " would inflict the severest punishment, mercy steps in 
 and pardons ; but some slight and passing chastisement is im- 
 posed, as a satisfaction to public justice." (P. 36.) Of such 
 a mode of granting pardons, brethren, we know nothing. And 
 if it has been practised by the absolute governments of Europe, 
 which I greatly doubt, yet sure I am that it never could have 
 been viewed in the light of a satisfaction to the government. 
 Such a commutation of punishment may have been imposed, 
 as a satisfaction to what Dr. Wiseman calls public justice, 
 meaning, I presume, public feeling or opinion. But there is 
 no way of satisfying public justice that ever we heard of, by 
 pardoning an acknowledged offender ; although cases may be 
 imagined in which the public sympathies would be satisfied by 
 an exchange of a heavier for a lighter sentence. Surely, how- 
 ever, it requires no argument to show, that to talk about satis- 
 fying justice by any thing else than a full equivalent for the 
 sentence pronounced, is a mere darkening of counsel by words 
 without knowledge. And if we may not trifle thus with the 
 
EXABIINED. 297 
 
 principles of earthly justice, how much more are we bound not 
 to trifle with the justice of God ! 
 
 There is, therefore, only one view of the subject, in which 
 the use of the phrase satisfaction is at all appropriate; namely, 
 when the interests of society, of the Church, and of our fellow 
 sinners, are considered. This was, doubtless, the main ground 
 of the old penitential canons, which prohibited offenders from 
 entering the Church, and inflicted public penance upon them 
 for months, for years, or even for life, according to the enor- 
 mity of their transgression. It was not that they thought sin- 
 ners were able, in this way, to satisfy even the temporal require- 
 ments of the justice of God, as Dr. Wiseman would persuade 
 us ; but it was in order to satisfy the Church on earth, to have 
 proof of the sinner's thorough repentance and amendment, to 
 vindicate the holiness of the gospel in the eyes of the heathen 
 around them, and to deter others from sin by these spectacles 
 of salutary public humiliation. And hence we find a perfect 
 contrast in the mode of proceeding, when we compare the 
 system of the ancient, with that of the modern Church of 
 Rome. For the ancient Church never pronounced the absolu- 
 tion of the sinner until the -period of this discipline teas ended, 
 unless the penitent was at the point of death. Whereas, the 
 modern Church of Rome pronounces the absolution imme- 
 diately on receiving the confession ; appoints her light and 
 trifling penances to be performed afterwards, at the option of 
 the ofTender ; and then tells us that the measure of temporal 
 punishment, actually due to the unsatisfied justice of God, will 
 be exacted after death in the fires of purgatory. Now, it is 
 perfectly incomprehensible to me, how, under such circumstan- 
 ces, any intelligent mind could imagine, that the penitential 
 canons of the primitive Church were based on the same prin- 
 ciples as the modern Roman theory. 
 
 But it is time that we attend to the authorities which our 
 ingenious advocate thinks he has alleged from Scripture. Com- 
 
298 DOCTRINE OF SATISFACTION 
 
 mencing with Adam and Eve, Dr. Wiseman informs us, that 
 after their sin was forgiven, God inflicted temporal punish- 
 ments on them and their posterity. In this hypothesis, how- 
 ever, there is an assertion that cannot be proved, namely, that 
 the sin of Adam and Eve was forgiven. This part of the case 
 is pure conjecture. We do not read of their confession, nor of 
 their repentance, nor of their faith in the promised Redeemer. 
 The first believer mentioned by St. Paul is Abel, their son ; 
 and therefore, if there were no other objection, it is clear that 
 this citation can have nothing to do with the Roman doctrine. 
 Independently of this difficulty, however, there is another, still 
 greater. For our learned author's theory requires not only 
 the fact, that the Lord forgives the sinner, and afterwards pun- 
 ishes the sin in the present life ; but that this temporal punish- 
 ment extends beyond the grave, and that although the departed 
 soul can do nothing in its suffering state to help itself, yet satis- 
 faction may be rendered by the Church on its behalf, by pen- 
 ances, alms, masses, prayers, and especially by indulgences. 
 How many of these points, in honesty, does our author think 
 he can prove by the case of Adam and Eve ? 
 
 The instance of Moses and Aaron, deprived, for a compara- 
 tively light transgression, in Dr. Wiseman's esteem, of the 
 privilege of entering the land of Canaan, labours under equal 
 difficulties, although not precisely of the same description. 
 For I suppose our ingenious arguer would hardly consider the 
 peaceful and blessed death of these saints, full of years and 
 glory, as a temporal punishment for their sin, when contrasted 
 with the cares, and strifes, and hardships, of the government of 
 Israel. True it was, indeed, that the denial of Moses' request, 
 and the giving the honour of his commission to Joshua, just 
 on the borders of the promised land, was a proof to all Israel 
 that God is no respecter of persons ; and the recital affords a 
 further proof of the admirable integrity of the record, in which 
 Moses himself erects the perpetual memorial of his own shame. 
 
EXAMINED. 299 
 
 But it must be a pure effort of the imagination, as it seems to 
 me, that can discover in this narrative any thing Uke a temporal 
 punishment awarded to the patriarch, in order to satisfy the 
 justice of the Almighty. 
 
 The third case cited by Dr. Wiseman is that of David, in 
 which, after the confession and repentance of the royal Psahn- 
 ist, the prophet saith to him, " The Lord also hath put away 
 thy sin. Nevertheless, because, by this thing thou hast caused 
 the enemies of the Lord to blaspheme, the child that is born 
 unto thee shall surely die." We read that David wept and 
 fasted, and lay all night upon the ground, trusting that the 
 Almighty would yet take pity on him, and revoke his sentence 
 by sparing the life of the child. And these acts Dr. Wise- 
 man considers as an offering of satisfaction to the justice of 
 God in one kind of suffering, in the hope that this might be 
 accepted instead of the other. But there is no such idea 
 intimated in the sacred history. Nor do I see how the royal 
 penitent could be acquitted of the charge of impious presump- 
 tion, if he was capable of seriously proposing to give the Lord 
 a certain portion of weeping, and fasting, and watching, as an 
 equivalent for the life of his child, which God had resolved 
 to take away. No two things can be more oppposite, in my 
 apprehension, than the theory of the king, and that of our 
 Roman advocate. The sorrowful monarch's prayers and 
 supplications were addressed, not to the justice of the Deity, 
 but to the LOVE of his heavenly father — to Him that was 
 "merciful and gracious, slow to anger, and of great kindness, 
 and that repenteth him of the evil." But Dr. Wiseman would 
 have the whole brought into the commercial form of a commuta- 
 tion of punishment, a barter and exchange of one kind of suf- 
 fering instead of another, addressed, by way o^ satisfaction, to 
 the justice of God. Surely it is manifest that the sacred 
 record gives no countenance to such an interpretation. 
 
 The fourth example is that of Job, which is supposed to be 
 
300 DOCTRINE or SATISFACTION 
 
 in point, because the patriarch humbled himself, and repented 
 in dust and ashes. But look at the whole case, and it will 
 furnish an instance which is the very reverse of the Roman 
 theory. For what our author has to prove, is, that after the 
 sin is forgiven, the penitent is teni'porally punished, not only 
 here, hut hereafter. Whereas, in the case of Job, as soon as 
 he repented, he was restored forthwith to all his temporal pros- 
 perity. Wealth flowed back upon him, his friends flocked 
 around and gave him presents, he had again seven sons and 
 three daughters ; and the Lord blessed the latter end of Job 
 more than his beginning. Nothing, therefore, can be more 
 emphatically opposed to Dr. Wiseman's object, than the his- 
 tory of Job, when the whole is taken together. 
 
 The next attempt of our ingenious advocate to find Scrip- 
 tural authority for his doctrine of penal and commutative 
 satisfaction to the justice of God, is drawn from the history of 
 the Ninevites, who, when the prophet Jonah proclaimed that 
 in forty days their city should be destroyed, proclaimed a fast, 
 humbled themselves, and even obliged the beasts in the stalls 
 to partake of their voluntary mortification, by depriving them 
 of food for three days together. In compassion and mercy, 
 God allowed them a respite, and postponed the destruction of 
 their idolatrous and wicked city, until the cup of its iniquity 
 was filled by the next generation. How does this prove the 
 Roman doctrine of satisfaction? Where is their fundamental 
 proposition, that God forgives sin as to its eternal conse- 
 quences, and afterwards inflicts temporal punishment upon the 
 sinner? Can Dr. Wiseman prove that the sins of the Nine- 
 vites were forgiven at all ? For certainly their alarm and their 
 manifestation of sorrow do not amount to a proof, that they 
 became proselytes to the worship of the God of Israel. Or 
 can he seriously suppose, that three days' fasting of the Nine- 
 vites was such a satisfaction to the justice of God, that he 
 accepted it as a sort of commutation for the destruction of their 
 
EXAMINED. 301 
 
 city ? Is it possible for any one to help seeing, that this was 
 one of the innumerable examples in the Bible, where the tender 
 compassion of that God whose name is Love, suspends the 
 stroke of his justice, even although it is sure to descend at 
 last? Alas! brethren, can any error in doctrine be more 
 pernicious than this, which turns the very pity of the Lord 
 into an imaginary judicial calculation, and makes three days' 
 suffering of penance in fasting and sackcloth, a discharge in 
 full of the temporal debt due to that fearful and tremendous 
 attribute — the justice of Almighty Got>? 
 
 But our author, having thus closed his list of proofs from 
 the Old Testament, thinks that he finds corroboration in the 
 encouragement given by our blessed Redeemer to fasting. 
 Here, however, is the radical error of all such reasoning. Fast- 
 ing and abstinence, with every other act of self-mortification 
 mentioned in Scripture, such as wearing sackcloth, or covering 
 the head with ashes, may be used and often have been used, 
 for reasons which had not the slightest reference to the 
 Roman doctrine of satisfaction. First, as an exercise of 
 authority by the soul over the body, according to St. Paul. 
 " I keep my body under," saith he, " and bring it into subjec- 
 tion ;" the believer designing in this way, to confirm, as it 
 were, by habit and practice, the dominion of the spirit over 
 the flesh. Secondly, as a useful act of self-denial, to conquer 
 certain common propensities to sin. As, for example, intem- 
 perance in eating and drinking, or the sin of gluttony, was 
 directly combated in the act of fasting; while vanity and 
 pride in personal appearance and apparel, were directly com- 
 bated in the wearing of sackcloth and the covering of ashes. 
 And thirdly, these acts of mortifying discipline might be 
 designed as an open acknowledgment of the penitent's share 
 in the common guilt and danger, which was the principle of 
 those public and general acts of humiliation of which we read 
 in Scripture. Now here are three motives for these penitential 
 2d 
 
302 DOCTRINE OF SATISFACTION 
 
 observances, sufficient in themselves, and yet perfectly distinct 
 from the strange corruption of the Church of Rome, which 
 can see nothing in them but a satisfaction or discharge of a 
 certain portion of the debt due to God'^s justice; thus convert- 
 ing the very discipline of our fleshly appetites into a claim of 
 merit, and persuading the sinner that he has done something 
 towards the stupendous work of atonement for sin, which the 
 infinite love and majesty of the Lord Jesus Christ were alone 
 able to perform. 
 
 While, therefore, we can thus assign valid and sufficient 
 reasons for the occasional austerities of the Old Testament 
 saints, we deny that there was any thing in their lives like the 
 Roman notion of satisfaction, where every voluntary act of suf- 
 fering is regarded as a positive payment of so much of the debt 
 due to God's justice, either for themselves or for others. Hence, 
 too, in the instructions of our blessed Lord, while the whole 
 weight of his authority is directed against the Pharisaical prac- 
 tice of fasting for ostentation and display, he adds no new 
 day of fasting to the Mosaic ritual ; he gives no precept in 
 favour of sackcloth or ashes, nor does he prescribe a single 
 rule of bodily suffering or self-mortification. Nor is there one 
 of his apostles who recommends any regulation of the kind, 
 as a law to be bound upon the Church. But if the Roman 
 doctrine be true — if penitential voluntary works, performed 
 by the sinner himself during life, or by the Church after his 
 death, were necessary to discharge the temporal debt due to 
 God^s Justice^ over and above the atonement of Christ, — and 
 if, for want of these, temporal afflictions in this world, and the 
 excruciating fires of purgatory beyond the grave up to the 
 very day of judgment, might be the lot even of the righteous, 
 how does it happen that the blessed Saviour and his inspired 
 apostles should have left so much of all other doctrine to the 
 (Jhurch, without saying one word on so important a matter? 
 
 But let me not forget, brethren, that Dr. Wiseman gives us 
 
EXAMINED. 303 
 
 one other passage from Scripture, which he seems to think 
 conclusive in his favour, and therefore it must be considered 
 with all due attention. It is the passage in which the great 
 apostle, writing to the Colossians, declares: "1 now rejoice in 
 my sufferings for you, and fill up those things which are want- 
 ing of the sufferings of Christ, in my flesh, for his body, which 
 is the Church." Now this text, hke a very large portion of 
 St. Paul's writings, is elliptical and somewhat obscure; remind- 
 ing us of what St. Peter records, when he saith, that in his 
 beloved brother Paul's epistles, " there are some things hard 
 to be understood, which the unlearned and unstable wrest, as 
 they do also the other Scriptures, to their own destruction." 
 Nevertheless, there is ^nothing in it which at all militates 
 against our doctrine, or lends any support to the theory of 
 human justification, which our learned advocate would rest 
 on its authority. Let us examine it thoroughly, and I trust 
 you will see that it teaches a very different lesson. 
 
 Three propositions are distinctly marked in the sentence : 
 first, that the apostle rejoices in his sufferings; secondly, that 
 he calls these sufferings a fiUing-up of those things which are 
 wanting of the sufferings of Christ in his flesh; thirdly, that 
 this is for the benefit of Christ's Church, which is his body. 
 
 On the first point there can be no room for cavil. Our 
 gracious Redeemer himself said: "Blessed are ye when men 
 shall revile you and persecute you, and shall say all manner 
 of evil against you falsely for my sake. Rejoice and be ex- 
 ceeding glad, for great is your reward in heaven." In per- 
 fect agreement with this, we find that the apostles, when they 
 had been scourged and imprisoned for preaching Christ, "re- 
 joiced that they were counted worthy to suffer shame for his 
 name." And St. James has recorded the same principle 
 where he saith: "Beloved, count it all joy when ye fall into 
 divers trials, knowing that the trial of your faith worketh pa- 
 tience, and patience hope." Here we have a general princi- 
 
304 DOCTRINE OF SATISFACTION 
 
 pie, lying at the very root of all religion. We must sow in 
 tears, if we would reap in joy. "Through tribulation," saith 
 Christ, "ye must enter into the kingdom of heaven." "If we 
 suffer with Christ," saith St. Paul, " we shall also reign with 
 him." And again: "Our light affliction, which endures but 
 for a moment, worketh out for us a far more exceeding and 
 eternal weight of glory." 
 
 Thus far, the meaning of the passage is sufficiently plain. 
 But now comes the second proposition, that the apostle calls 
 his sufferings, " a filling up of those things which are wanting 
 of the sufferings of Christ in his flesh." Here, it is evident, 
 that the words, taken by themselves, might be thought to 
 signify a deficiency in the amount of Christ's sufferings, 
 which was to be supplied by St. Paul. But this is an absurdity 
 which the Church of Rome would by means tolerate. So far 
 from it, that she undertakes to pronounce, as you will see by 
 and by, that our Lord suffered much more than was necessary, 
 for one drop of his blood was sufficient to atone for the sins 
 of the whole world ; and therefore the rest, as they imagine, 
 has been laid up along with the superfluous good works of the 
 saints, as a treasure to supply the deficiencies of merit in 
 Christians at large. It is plainly impossible, therefore, for 
 Dr. Wiseman to ask, that we shall believe that there was a 
 deficiency in Christ's sufferings, since clearly there cannot be, 
 at the same time, a superabundance and a deficiency of the 
 very same thing. This interpretation, therefore, being dis- 
 carded by both sides, we must look for another ; and that 
 brethren, we can readily find in the beautiful and affecting 
 announcement of the same apostle, where he saith to the 
 Hebrews, " We have not an High Priest who cannot be 
 touched with a feeling of our infirmities, but was tempted in 
 all points like as we are, and yet without sin." Christ Jesus, 
 our great High Priest, although the atoning sufferings of his 
 own sacred Person are over, still sympathizes with the suffer- 
 
EXAMINED. 305 
 
 ings of his people, and considers them his own. It is one 
 of the precious privileges resulting from the completeness of 
 our union with him, from which union flows our only hope of 
 salvation. To express this most essentia] principle of the 
 believer's life, every metaphor and allegory of language are 
 exhausted. If he is the vine, we are the branches. If he is 
 the rock, we are the living stones built upon it. If he is the 
 Bridegroom, his Church is the Bride. He gives us his flesh 
 to eat, his blood to drink ; he enters into our hearts by his 
 Spirit, and dwells there that we may be one with him. In 
 his own description of the judgment day, he accounts every 
 act of kindness performed for the least of his people, a charity 
 done to his own person ; every injury and neglect, a wrong to 
 himself: "Verily, I say unto you, inasmuch as ye did it to 
 the least among my brethren, ye did it unto me." But none 
 of these metaphors is more full of expression than that which 
 St. Paul so often uses, and especially in the passage before us ; 
 where Christ is the head, and his Church is the body, and 
 each particular Christian is a member of that body. Here, 
 then, we have a simple key to the whole of this seeming 
 mystery. Christ, in his own glorious Person, God and man, 
 satisfied all the claims of divine justice against our ruined 
 race, by his precious and perfect obedience and death. To 
 that end, his sufferings were all sufficient, and no creature is 
 entitled to share with him in the very least portion of that 
 mighty and stupendous redemption. But his people can only 
 be made partakers of the immortality and bliss thus purchased 
 for them, by becoming united with him ; and this union re- 
 quires not only the powerful and regenerating influence of the 
 Holy Spirit to change their hearts, but also the discipline of 
 trials and suflierings, that they may learn to know, and love, 
 and resemble Him, in holiness and virtue. Understanding, 
 therefore, to what end this discipline is appointed, his saints 
 rejoice in it. That very suflTering over which the worldly 
 
 2 d2 
 
306 DOCTRINE OF SATISFACTION. 
 
 heart laments and mourns, gives them an occasion of thanks- 
 giving, because they are not alone. Christ looks on their 
 sufferings with tender compassion. Christ appoints those 
 sufferings for their good. Christ is touched with a feeling of 
 their very infirmities. Does the fond mother feel no emotion at 
 the pains of her beloved child? Does not every moan of its 
 anguish, every cry of its agony, produce an answering pang 
 at her very heart-strings? Yet the love of Christ is stronger 
 than this strongest of human affections : " When thy father 
 and thy mother forsake thee, the Lord taketh thee up." Nay, 
 there is a peculiarity in the case of the Christian's relation to 
 his Saviour, to which no earthly relationship can afford a 
 parallel. For he is a member of that body of which Christ 
 is the head. And can the member suffer, without the head ? 
 Even though the actual seat of the pain be in the farthest 
 extremity of the body, can the head avoid feeling as if it were 
 its own? And while the body or any member of it continues 
 to suffer, is there not truly something remaining for the head 
 to suffer with it ? 
 
 Thus then, brethren, the doctrine of St. Paul, in this second 
 proposition, is seen to be a consistent, pure and inestimable part 
 of the Christian's consolation, during his earthly pilgrimage, 
 without the slightest approximation to the unhappy error which 
 the Church of Rome seeks to render plausible, under its sup- 
 posed authority. And the third point in the text presents still 
 less difficulty, namely, where the apostle saith, that his suffer- 
 ings are for the Church ; that is, on account of the Church, 
 or for the Church's benefit. That the persecutions, stripes, 
 imprisonment, and final martyrdom of the apostles, were on 
 account of the Church, is sufficiently plain from the simple 
 fact, that they were all endured in the work of preaching the 
 gospel of salvation to every creature. That they were all for 
 the benefit of the Church is equally plain; because it was 
 chiefly through them, that the power of divine grace was dis- 
 
DOCTRINE OF PURGATORr. 307 
 
 played in so irresistible a manner, that Jews and Gentiles were 
 alike compelled to acknowledge the work to be of God. And 
 they were equally beneficial to the Church in the edifying ex- 
 ample thus placed before believers, for nothing could brino- 
 Christians so effectually to the necessary practice of self-denial ; 
 nothing induce them so powerfully to live above the world, to 
 take joyfully the spoiling of their own goods, to bear patiently 
 the cross of persecution, to remember that on earth they were 
 but strangers and pilgrims, seeking an eternal and celestial 
 habitation, and thus to show forth their own light before men, 
 so that they, seeing the good works of the faithful, might be 
 led to seek their Father in heaven — nothing, in a word, could 
 have a happier influence upon the whole course of the Church 
 at large, than the spectacle of the apostles, forgetting self in 
 the promotion of the common welfare, and even rejoicing in 
 sufferings for the flock committed to their care. What is there 
 in all this that looks like the Roman Catholic doctrine of satis- 
 faction to the justice of God by voluntary acts of penance and 
 suffering, performed after sin is forgiven, in order to avoid the 
 infliction of temporal chastisement in this life, or the torment 
 of fire in the life to come 1 
 
 Having thus examined at length, brethren, the Scriptural 
 evidence adduced for the doctrine of satisfaction, because I 
 hold it to be of such high importance among those errors which 
 we are obliged to charge upon the Church of Rome, I have next 
 to present to your attention the proof which our learned author 
 adduces on the subject o^ purgatory. And here, he begins with 
 the custom of prayers for the dead, citing, for proof, the second 
 book of Maccabees, which, as Dr. Wiseman justly observes, is at 
 least entitled to respect as a history of the Jewish people, anterior 
 to the coming of the Saviour. The passage is in the 12th 
 chapter, and gives an account of a battle fought by Judas 
 Maccabeus, the commander of the Jewish army, against Gor- 
 gias, the governor of Idumea, in which some of the Jews 
 
808 PRAYERS FOR THE DEAD, 
 
 were slain, although Judas obtained a splendid victory. The 
 day after the battle, he came with his soldiers to bury his dead; 
 "and they found," saith the historian, "under the coats of the 
 slain, some of the (donaries) or things consecrated to the idols 
 of Jamnia, which their law forbiddeth to the Jews; so that all 
 plainly saw that for this cause they were slain. Then they 
 all blessed the just judgment of the Lord, who had discovered 
 the things that were hidden ; and so betaking themselves to 
 prayers, they besought him that the sin which had been com- 
 mitted might be forgotten. But Judas sent 12,000 drachms of 
 silver to Jerusalem for sacrifice, to be offered for the sins of 
 the dead, thinking well and religiously concerning the resur- 
 rection. It is therefore a holy and wholesome thought to pray 
 for the dead, that they may be loosed from sin." 
 
 Now there is one serious difficulty about this whole matter, 
 namely, that the book in which it is contained possesses no 
 canonical authority, because it was never reckoned amongst 
 their inspired writings by the Jews themselves, who are the 
 only proper judges of the Scriptures belonging to the Old Tes- 
 tament. Neither was it so reckoned in the best catalogues of 
 the primitive Church. Therefore, the reflections of the histo- 
 rian upon the conduct of Judas Maccabeus, have no ibrce be- 
 yond the notions of any other nameless author. The facts, 
 however, in the main, we suppose to be correctly stated. 
 That the battle was fought, that the victory was gained, and 
 that the slain Jews were found to have been secret idolaters 
 by the consecrated things discovered on their persons, may all 
 be admitted. Neither do we deny the probability, at least, 
 that Judas and his company prayed for the dead, and sent 
 money to have sacrifices offered on their behalf at Jerusalem. 
 But the inference which Dr. Wiseman would draw from it, 
 that such was the doctrine of the Jews in our Saviour's days, 
 and that he never reproved it, is entirely unwarrantable. For, 
 in the first place, our Lord did reprove them sharply, for 
 
WITHOUT SCRIPTURAL AUTHORITY. 309 
 
 making void the law of God by their traditions, of which 
 he stated one or two instances, saying, in conclusion, " and 
 many other such like things ye do;" from which we learn that 
 there were a variety of corruptions which the Saviour did not 
 then specify; and it is at least likely that this was amongst 
 them, since it is very certain that the law of Moses gave no 
 authority nor sanction to sacrifices for the dead. There is 
 another argunnent, however, which ought to be conclusive with 
 Dr. Wiseman : namely, that the doctrine of the historian on 
 whom he relies, is not in agreement with the Church of Rome 
 at all; although the passage is so constantly quoted in her fa- 
 vour. For there can be no question that these Jews, whose 
 story is related in the book of Maccabees, died in idolatry; 
 and that the Church of Rome holds this to be a mortal siuy 
 the commission of which, if not renounced by repentance and 
 confession, certainly takes the soul, according to their own 
 doctrine, not to purgatory, hvt to hell, out of which there is 
 no redemption. It results, therefore, that the Church of Rome 
 could not justify the doctrine of this book of Maccabees on her 
 own principles. Consequently, the case proves quite too much 
 for their purpose ; and hence, by the rules of logic, it must be 
 taken to prove nothing. 
 
 Our author's next quotation is from the passage where our 
 Lord, speaking of the sin against the Holy Ghost, saith; "it 
 shall not be forgiven, neither in this world, nor in the world 
 to come:" from which he concludes that there are some sins 
 which may he forgiven in the future state. In answer to this 
 it is surely enough to observe, that it can have no possible 
 bearing on their doctrine of purgatory, understand it how we 
 may. Because we have seen that the Church of Rome as- 
 signs purgatory, and voluntary penances, and prayers for the 
 dead, to those ivhose sins are forgiven in this life; but who 
 have to satisfy the justice of God as to the temporal penalty 
 due to them, after the eternal penalty is completely remitted in 
 
310 DOCTRINE OF PURGATORY 
 
 absolution. Hence they utterly deny that the relief of the 
 souls in purgatory is by way of fo?'gii}€ness or absolvtion of 
 sin, and insist that it is solely by way of satisfaction or pay- 
 ment; the superabundant merits of Christ and the saints, 
 which constitute the treasure of the Church, being applied to 
 the debt which the departed soul owes to the divine justice, 
 and thus extinguishing it in the manner of an offset, in the 
 business of men. Hence it is manifest, that this text is as lit- 
 tle suited to their doctrine as any thing can be, even if we 
 granted, what is more than doubtful, that their interpretation 
 was correct. 
 
 There is one passage more, in which St. Paul speaks of the 
 believer's having built upon the true foundation, gold, silver, 
 precious stones, wood, hay, stubble. (1 Cor. iii. 13.) "Every 
 man's work," saith the apostle, "shall be made manifest, for 
 the day of the Lord shall declare it, because it shall be revealed 
 by fire; and the fire shall try every man's work, of what sort 
 it is. If any man's work abide which he hath built thereupon, 
 he shall receive a reward. If any man's work burn, he shall 
 suffer loss; but he himself shall be saved, yet so as by fire." 
 From this, our Roman advocates gather the doctrine of purga- 
 tory with more confidence, than from any thing else in Scrip- 
 ture. And yet, brethren, there are several arguments against 
 such an interpretation, which appear to my mind perfectly 
 irresistible. For, in the first place, the apostle speaks of the 
 fire, as trying everi/ man's work, as well the gold, silver, and 
 jewels, as the wood, hay, and stubble. This cannot therefore 
 be the fire of ptirgatory, which never detains the saints, but 
 only the ordinary believers. Secondly, the apostle speaks of 
 the fire as revealing the quality of our works in connexion with 
 the day of the Lord, that is, as all agree, the day of judgment, 
 when the souls of men, re-united to their bodies, shall stand 
 before the tribunal of Christ. But this cannot be the purga- 
 torial fire of the Church of Rome, which has always been 
 
CONTRARY TO SCRIPTURE. 311 
 
 burning, as they say, for the punishment of souls without bo- 
 dies, and shall continue to burn until the day of judgment, at 
 which time it is to cease. Thirdly, the apostle applies the fire 
 of which he speaks to the works of men. But the Church of 
 Rome applies her purgatorial fires to the souls themselves. 
 Fourthly, the effect of the fire mentioned b)'' the apostle is to 
 burn the wood, the hay and the stubble, that is, to consume 
 the vain and worthless doings of the earthly minded, the hol- 
 low pretences of our own imaginary zeal or orthodoxy, as well 
 as all the superstitious inventions which Christians may have 
 built upon the true foundation of Christ. But the purgatorial 
 fire of \the Church of Rome is designed to torture^ not to con- 
 sume. And lastly, the effect of the fire of which the apostle 
 warns us, depends upon the quality of our own works, but the 
 fire of purgatory is influenced, according to the Church of 
 Rome, not by our own works, but by the works of others; for 
 while the departed soul is perfectly incapable of doing any 
 thing to help himself, the Church on earth can assist him, by 
 masses and prayers, and the pope is able to relieve him en- 
 tirely, by the application of the treasure of the Church; so that 
 the merits of the saints, united to the superfluous merits of Christ, 
 shall straightway bring him to the mansions of glory. We 
 see, therefore, brethren, that it is not possible, by any fair in- 
 terpretation, to suppose that the apostle, in this passage, alluded 
 to the doctrine long afterwards introduced, and finally used for 
 so many important purposes by the Church of Rome. The 
 truth is that this celebrated text is probably descriptive of the 
 divine judgment. "Our God," saith the same apostle in his 
 epistle to the Hebrews, "is a consuming fire." "He shall 
 sit," saith the prophet Malachi, " like a refiner's fire and like 
 fuller's soap :" (Mai. iii. 2.) the fire representing the con- 
 suming of what should be destroyed, the soap representing the 
 cleansing of what should remain. Again : " Are not my words 
 as a fire," saith the Lord by the prophet Jeremiah, (xxiii. 29.) 
 
312 DOCTRINE OF PURGATORY 
 
 And the day of judgment is always presented in this con- 
 nexion; St. Peter declaring, that "the earth and the works 
 that are therein shall be burnt up;" (2 Pet. iii. 10) and St. 
 Paul, that "the Lord Jesus shall be revealed in a flame of fire, 
 giving vengeance to them who know not God." (2 Thes. i. 
 8.) How clear and consistent, therefore, is the interpretation 
 which is suggested by these and similar passages, that the fiery 
 judgment of the great day shall burn all the earthly works, 
 and thoughts, and inventions of Christians, which, like so much 
 wood, hay and stubble, they shall have foolishly and sinfully 
 built upon the foundation of Jesus Christ; while, nevertheless, 
 if they have held that sure foundation, they shall be saved, yet 
 so as by fire, like brands plucked from the burning. And on 
 the other hand, that those who have built upon that foundation, 
 gold, silver, precious stones, that is, who have laid up their 
 treasures in heaven, and honoured the Lord with all their fa- 
 culties, and means, and powers, shall receive a reward, and 
 shall shine as the stars for ever. For there is, doubtless, an 
 ascending and a descending scale prepared for the tremendous 
 and glorious manifestations of that awful day, by which the 
 happiness of the redeemed and the misery of the lost will be 
 graduated with the utmost precision. "In my Father's house," 
 saith Christ, "are many mansions." And "one star differeth 
 from another star," saith St. Paul, " in glory." 
 
 Seeing, then, brethren, that the passages cited by the Church 
 of Rome from the Word of God, when fairly examined, lend 
 no support whatever to her doctrine of purgatory, let us turn 
 to the positive testimony of our blessed Saviour, in our text; 
 where, speaking on the very point, in the beautiful and most 
 instructive parable of the rich man and Lazarus, he describes 
 to us two states for the departed soul, and two only. "For it 
 came to pass," saith our Lord, " that the beggar died, and was 
 carried by the angels into Abraham's bosom. And the rich 
 man also died, and was buried in hell. And lifting up his 
 
CONTRARY TO SCRIPTURE. 313 
 
 eyes when he was in torments, he saw Abraham afar off, and 
 Lazarus in his bosom." Here we have paradise on the one 
 hand, with the spirits of the just, in peace, in comfort, and in 
 joyful expectation of the day of glory. And hell upon the 
 other hand, with the spirits of the lost, the unbelieving, the 
 earthly, the sensual, the proud, who cared for nothing but to 
 be clad in purple and fine linen, and fare sumptuously every 
 day. But our Lord tells us nothing of purgatory, although 
 the Church of Rome pronounces her anathema upon us, for 
 not believing it. Ah, brethren! when he shall come again, 
 in flaming fire, to take vengeance on his enemies, shall we 
 have any cause to fear his censure, because we rested our 
 faith upon his own Word, refusing either to add to it, or to take 
 away? I trow not. 
 
 But we must release you now, from any farther discussion 
 of these important articles of the Roman Catholic creed. The 
 testimony of the fathers, and the history of the rise and pro- 
 gress of purgatory and indulgences, together with the position 
 in which the doctrines stand at the present day, must be post- 
 poned until our next lecture. Meanwhile, beloved brethren, 
 let us increase in the ardour and constancy of our prayers, if 
 not for the dead, who need them not, yet for the living who are 
 still in the flesh, surrounded by temptation. And especially on 
 behalf of the Universal or Catholic Church, let us earnestly 
 beseech the God of all grace to hasten the time, when his own 
 perfect and unerring Word shall be the only standard of faith 
 throughout the length and breadth of Christendom; when truth, 
 and unity, and peace, and love, shall break down every par- 
 tition wall of heresy and schism, and the. whole host of his now 
 divided and contending followers shall realize the blessedness 
 of being but one fold, under the one divine Shepherd of 
 Israel. 
 
 2e 
 
LECTURE XIV. 
 
 Luke xvi. 22, 23. — And it came to pass that the beggar died, and he 
 was carried by the angels into Abraham's bosom. And the rich 
 man also died, and he was buried in hell. And lifting up his eyes 
 when he was in torments, he saw Abraham afar off, and Lazarus in 
 his bosom. (Doway version.) 
 
 Our last lecture, beloved brethren, was devoted to the 
 examination of the doctrine of purgatory, in connexion with 
 the theory of satisfaction to the temporal justice of God, and 
 the prerogative of discharging the soul of the departed believer 
 from this debt of justice, which the Church of Rome asserts in 
 the granting of indulgences. A brief recapitulation of the 
 heads of that lecture may be necessary, in order to refresh 
 your memory, and to enable me to resume the line of argu- 
 ment and evidence which was then commenced, and which I 
 purpose to complete on the present occasion. 
 
 You will bear in mind, then, that the Church of Rome 
 teaches the necessity of satisfying the justice of the Almighty, 
 with respect to a certain measure of punishment, which, ac- 
 cording to their doctrine, continues due in this life, after a full 
 forgiveness of our sin has been obtained through the atone- 
 ment and merits of Christ Jesus; for although they allow that 
 the application of this atonement remits the eternal penalty of 
 sin, yet they contend that there is a temporal penalty besides, 
 which must be paid by the sinner himself, or by the Church 
 
RECAPITULATION. 315 
 
 for him. The mode of rendering satisfaction for this debt of 
 temporal justice, according to their creed, is by penitential 
 works, fasting, mortification, alms-deeds, and prayers. And 
 all the trials and afflictions of the present life are supposed to 
 be available to the same purpose. But if the Christian departs 
 without having fully paid the amount of penance and suffering 
 which this debt of temporal justice requires, his soul must be 
 tormented in the fire of purgatory until satisfaction is com- 
 pletely rendered. They hold, however, that the Church has 
 an inexhaustible treasury of merits, which can be so applied as 
 to extinguish this claim of God's temporal justice; and thus 
 either shorten the suflferings of the soul in purgatory, or relieve 
 it altogether. This treasury consists of the superfluous merits 
 and sufferings of Christ, and of the saints: and thus the devo- 
 tions, and masses, and offerings for the dead, operate with more 
 or less efficacy upon these purgatorial punishments. While 
 the pope has the most unlimited power, by his indulgence, to 
 give the suflfering soul the benefit of a satisfaction either for a 
 part, or for the whole : the partial satisfaction, amounting to an 
 acquittance of so many days, or months, or years, of the allotted 
 period of torment ; and the total satisfaction, which they call 
 a plenary indulgence, being available to cancel the entire debt, 
 and transfer the soul to heaven. 
 
 The passages of Scripture alleged as proving these doc- 
 trines, brethren, I considered at large; and showed, as I trust, 
 sufficiently, that none of them could be truly interpreted in 
 their favour; that a portion of them were quite irrelevant, and 
 that others taught the very contrary. I then cited the text which, 
 you are aware, forms a part of the narrative of the rich man 
 and Lazarus ; and stated, upon the authority of our blessed 
 Redeemer, that there were but two conditions for the disem- 
 bodied spirit; that of torment, with the lost, or that of refresh- 
 ment, peace, and happiness with the redeemed, in the bosom 
 of Abraham. I also endeavoured to explain the true design and 
 
316 ARGUMENT FOR PURGATORY 
 
 character of our earthly afflictions and trials, in order to prove 
 that they were not in the nature of penal satisfaction in any 
 case, but rather in that of a kind and paternal discipline, for 
 the purpose of instructing us in the knowledge of ourselves, 
 and in the character of that holiness without which none can 
 see the Lord ; weaning us from the love of earth and earthly 
 things, and enabling us to realize the truth, that we are pil- 
 grims and strangers here, whose hearts should be set upon 
 our eternal home in heaven. It was left for the following dis- 
 course to complete this part of our discussion, by examining 
 the next branch of the evidence on which the Church of Rome 
 relies, namely, that of the ancient fathers; and by stating the 
 history and progress of these doctrines prior to the Reforma- 
 tion, and their condition and influence in our own day. That 
 1 may do this with the greater perspicuity, I shall first notice 
 the inference which they draw from the ancient custom of 
 praying for the dead ; next, their popular argument founded 
 upon the use and necessity of an intermediate state; thirdly, 
 the authority of the fathers; and fourthly, the statements of the 
 modern champions of the Church of Rome, together with the 
 present position of the whole question. 
 
 First, then, we are to notice the inference which they draw 
 from the fact, that the ancient Church always included a prayer 
 for the departed in their liturgies, so that it was a regular part 
 of the communion service. It also appears to have been the 
 usage of the Jews; and from the history of the Maccabees, 
 which is supposed to be a true history, although not a part of 
 the inspired and canonical Scriptures, this custom seems to 
 have existed a considerable time before our Saviour's advent. 
 Let these facts be granted therefore, since the evidence is cer- 
 tainly in their favour. But the inference derived from them 
 by the Church of Rome is altogether a different matter. For 
 they argue, ingeniously enough, that unless the departed soul 
 were supposed to be in a suffering state, there was no occasion 
 
DERIVED FROM PRAYERS FOR THE DEAD. 317 
 
 for such prayers, nor could there be any possible use in offering 
 them ; and hence, concluding that the practice of praying for 
 the dead must have grown out of the belief that their souls 
 were in purgatory, they claim the benefit of all the proof which 
 can be adduced in favour of the one, as being equally conclu- 
 sive in favour of the other. 
 
 In this, however, as it appears to me, they commit an egre- 
 gious mistake, since their whole argument turns upon the erro- 
 neous position, that there can be but one reason for praying on 
 behalf of another, namely, because he is in a state of suffering 
 from which we desire him to be relieved. Now, if this position 
 be true, as respects prayer for the dead, it must be equally 
 true as respects prayers for the living ; and therefore we should 
 not offer prayers for any of our brethren on earth, unless we 
 believed them to be in a state of torment. But no allegation 
 can be more absurd than this. The first great reason why we 
 pray for others, is the imperative one, because it is a part of 
 the divine commandment; and when we come to discuss the 
 subordinate reasons which may be assigned for it, we find that 
 they are various. One reason, indeed, accords with the Roman 
 hypothesis, that our prayers, through the mercy of God, may 
 relieve the subjects of them from pain and danger. Thus saith 
 the apostle James: "Is any sick among you? Let him call for 
 the elders of the Church, and let them pray over him, anointing 
 him with oil in the name of the Lord. And the prayer of faith 
 shall save the sick, and the Lord shall raise him up, and if he 
 have committed sins they shall be forgiven him." And St. John 
 saith, " If any one see his brother sin a sin which is not unto 
 death, let him ask, (or pray) and life shall be given to him." 
 Here is the principle which approaches most nearly to the ar- 
 gument of the Church of Rome, because it contemplates the 
 benefit obtained by our prayers for those who are suffering un- 
 der pain, and the consequences of sin. But there is a very 
 different kind of benefit suggested by St. Paul, where he tells 
 2 E 2 
 
818 ARGUMENT FOR PURGATORY 
 
 the Ephesians to persevere in prayer and supplication for all 
 the saints, (Eph. vi. 19, 20,) and for me," saith he, especially, 
 "that speech may be given me, that I may open my mouth 
 with confidence, to niake known the mystery of the Gospel,— so 
 that therein I may be bold to speak, according as I ought." Here 
 we perceive another sort of advantage expected from prayer ; — 
 not a relief from suffering, but an increase of ministerial graces. 
 Thus far, therefore, we have plainly set before us three rea- 
 sons for this duty : First, because it is the will of God ; second- 
 ly, because our brethren are in affliction; and thirdly and 
 chiefly, because their condition admits of an increase in holi- 
 ness, in zeal, or in felicity. Now, of these three reasons, one 
 only can possibly be applied to the doctrine of purgatory ; and 
 we shall see presently, when we examine the sort of prayers 
 which the ancient Church offered for the departed, that they 
 will not accord so well with this as with the others. 
 
 There is, however, a fourth reason why we should pray for 
 our brethren, quite independent of any benefit which they may 
 derive from our prayers; and this is, because, by such prayers, 
 we cherish and increase, in our own souls, the graces of faith, 
 hope, and charity. Our faith is increased, because we are 
 reminded of the promises of that blessed Gospel which binds 
 the whole Church to Christ, and connects our individual salva- 
 tion with the accomplishment of the stupendous plan, which 
 shall bring myriads to everlasting glory. Our hope is in- 
 creased, because the very act of praying for the various por- 
 tions of the universal Church, strengthens our longing for that 
 communion of saints, which shall be perfected in the world to 
 come, although here, it is liable to such constant interruption, 
 and is, at best, so poorly realized. And it increases, above 
 all, our charity, or love to the brethren, because the act of 
 prayer for them enkindles our spiritual affections on their be- 
 half, and draws our souls towards them in the temper and dis- 
 position, which is our best preparative for heaven. Here then, 
 
DERIVED FROM PRAYERS FOR THE DEAD. 319 
 
 we have a most important reason for the precept to pray for 
 each other, which regards chiefly the progress of our own 
 sanctification ; so that of the four motives assignable for such 
 prayers, we perceive one only which can be made at all sub- 
 servient to the Roman hypothesis, while the other three con- 
 tinue in full force, without the possibility of linking them to 
 the doctrine of purgatory. In speaking thus, however, you 
 will not understand me, I trust, as being an advocate for the 
 practice of the ancient Church in this particular. The princi- 
 ple I have so often had occasion to set before you in religion, 
 is to look for all truth in the written Word of God, as the law, 
 and to take the primitive Church as the best expounder or 
 judge of the sense of Scripture. But when the Scripture is 
 perfectly silent, and neither in the Old Testament nor in the 
 New, can a single authoritative sentence be found in favour of a 
 practice, which appears, at best, to be of doubtful expediency, 
 I have no idea of tying our faith to the custom of the ancient 
 Church, as being a sufficient substitute for the Bible. For even 
 with regard to the authority of the Church, we must distinguish 
 carefully between the ancient and the primitive Christians, in 
 an argument where we have no Scripture to guide us: and we 
 must remember, especially, that none of the primitive liturgies 
 have come down to us without many additions; that they were 
 not published until the fifth century ; that although all the 
 Churches had liturgies, without any exception, and these were 
 in harmony, as respected their principal parts, yet they differed 
 considerably in their details, and that the earlier were confess- 
 edly the more simple.* Hence, while I fully approve the wis- 
 dom of our Reformers, who neither retained the prayers for the 
 departed in our liturgy, on the one hand, nor pronounced any 
 censure upon the ancient Church for using them, on the other, 
 I desire to show you that the very ground on which the Church 
 
 * See Toutt6e, Preface to Cyril of Jerusalem, 23. Cat. p. 323-4. 
 
320 PRAYERS FOR THE DEAD 
 
 of Rome rests her argument, can avail her nothing; and that 
 such prayers, however unauthorized and inexpedient they may 
 have been, might have been tolerated for reasons totally dis- 
 tinct from the doctrine of purgatory. 
 
 That you may distinctly see how far the ancient Church 
 seems to have carried the practice of praying for the departed, 
 I shall now present to you an extract from the Alexandrian 
 liturgy, which bears the name of the celebrated Basil, bishop 
 of Cesarea, and is printed with his works, although it is ac- 
 knowledged to be of a later day. (Basil, Op. Tom. II. 676-80.) 
 
 First, we meet with it in the prayer which preceded the kiss 
 of peace, where the officiating priest, speaking in reference to 
 the symbols of our Lord's body and blood, saith, "Receive, O 
 Lord, these holy gifts from our hands, although we are sinners, 
 through thy goodness; and grant that they may be accepted, 
 and sanctified by thy Holy Spirit, to the expiation of our sins, 
 and the ignorances of thy people, and to the rest of those souls 
 who have departed this lifey 
 
 The second appearance of the practice is much more in de- 
 tail, and immediately preceded the diptychs, or sacred lists of 
 the departed saints, which were constantly, in those days, read 
 at the altar. The language is as follows: 
 
 " Remember, O Lord, those who now offer these precious gifts 
 to thee, and those from whom, on account of whom, and through 
 whom, they have been brought in. Grant unto them all, their 
 heavenly reward ; and according to the precept of thine only 
 begotten Son, make us to communicate in the memory of the 
 saints. Vouchsafe, O Lord, to remember those, who from the 
 beginning, have pleased thee, the holy fathers, patriarchs, 
 apostles, prophets, preachers, evangelists, martyrs, confessors, 
 and every righteous soul who has finished his course in the 
 faith of Christ." 
 
 "Chiefly the most holy, most glorious, immaculate, and 
 most blessed Mary, the ever virgin mother of God." 
 
IN THE ALEXANDRIAN LITURGY. 321 
 
 "The holy and glorious prophet, precursor, and martyr, 
 John the Baptist." 
 
 "The holy Stephen, the first of the deacons and the first of 
 the martyrs." 
 
 " Our holy and blessed father, Mark, the apostle and evan- 
 gelist, and our holy and wonder-working father Basil." 
 
 "The holy saint, (N.) whose memory we celebrate this 
 day, and the whole company of thy saints, by whose prayers 
 and intercessions also we pray thee to have mercy upon us, 
 and save us for the sake of thy holy name which is invoked 
 upon us." 
 
 Here the deacon reads the diptychs, that is, the lists of the 
 departed faithful; and then the priest proceeds with the fol- 
 lowing prayer: 
 
 "In like manner, O Lord, remember all of the priesthood 
 who have gone before, and those who were of the laity. 
 Grant that all their souls may rest in the bosoms of our holy 
 fathers Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. Lead and gather them to- 
 gether in the green pastures, upon the river of rest, in the 
 paradise of pleasure, from whence grief, sorrow, and sighing, 
 shall flee away in the light of thy holy ones." 
 
 "And to those, O Lord, whose souls thou hast received, 
 grant rest therein, and vouchsafe to transfer them into the 
 kingdom of the heavens. And preserve us who are still in 
 this world, in thy faith, and lead us to thy heavenly kingdom ; 
 granting to us thy peace at all times, so that, together with 
 Jesus Christ and the Holy Ghost, thy most holy, glorious, and 
 blessed name may be glorified, exalted, praised, blessed and 
 hallowed, now and for ever." 
 
 This is the whole, brethren, of the Alexandrian Liturgy, 
 bearing the name of Basil, in which there is any reference to 
 the saints, and to the departed. And I must beg of you to 
 observe the following facts, in connexion with it. 
 
 First, you perceive, that there is not the slightest allusion to 
 
322 rURGATORY DISPROVED 
 
 the idea of a purgatory, nor the least intimation that the de- 
 parted souls were suffering any pain, torment, or punishment 
 whatever. 
 
 Secondly, you perceive, that although the first place among 
 the saints seems clearly to be granted to the virgin Mary, by 
 her title, the mother of God, yet there is no invocation nor 
 address to her. 
 
 Thirdly, that although it is assumed that the virgin and the 
 saints offer prayers and intercessions for the Church, yet none 
 of them are asked to pray for us; instead of which, the Church 
 prays for them, beseeching God to remember them ; clearly 
 proving, that even so late as the fifth century, the Church of 
 Christ had not departed so far from the primitive purity as to 
 offer public worship to the saints. 
 
 Fourthly, that the very same supplication which is offered 
 for these most eminent saints, namely, that God would remem- 
 ber them, is likewise offered for the souls of all the faithful 
 departed. Hence you perceive, that if simply praying for them 
 proves that the Church supposed they were in purgatory, the 
 virgin, and the apostles, and all the most eminent martyrs, 
 must have been in purgatory too; which the Church of Rome 
 would esteem, as well as ourselves, to be a most extravagant 
 absurdity. 
 
 And fifthly, that the Church plainly held our doctrine on the 
 state of the departed, that is to say, that they were in paradise 
 with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, that paradise in which our 
 Lord promised to be with the penitent thief in the day of his 
 crucifixion, and in which he represented the soul of Lazarus 
 to have been carried by the angels; a place of rest and plea- 
 sure, from which they looked forward to be transferred to the 
 kingdom of heaven intended for their eternal habitation, after 
 the resurrection of the body, at the final day. Fairly exa- 
 mined, therefore, nothing can more fully prove the novelty of 
 the Roman Catholic doctrines, on the subject of saint- worship 
 
BY THE ALEXANDRIAN LITURGY. 323 
 
 and purgatory, than the language of this Liturgy, although it 
 is not to be doubted, that the form in which it has come down 
 to us is considerably different from that which it exhibited at 
 an earlier period. 
 
 The most plausible argument, however, which the Church 
 of Rome can present for her doctrine of purgatory, is that 
 which urges the necessity of some intermediate place for those 
 who are indeed Christian believers, but who, nevertheless, die 
 in a state not pure nor holy enough for the kingdom of heaven 
 into which nothing undefiled can be allowed to enter. And 
 hence they sometimes gain assent as to the probability of a 
 certain measure of punishment, in order to complete that sanc- 
 tification which was left imperfect in the present life. Now it 
 may well be granted, that such an intermediate place for the 
 departed soul is necessary; but it will by no means follow that 
 purgatory, as they define it, is calculated for the purpose. So 
 far from it, that I think a little reflection will show the very 
 reverse of such a conclusion. For, according to the Scriptural 
 account of the happy side of the region of departed spirits, 
 it is a paradise, a place of rest and refreshment, inhabited by 
 all the holy and the just who have ever lived upon the earth, 
 visited by the angels, and even by Christ himself; while yet it 
 is in sight of the regions of the lost, from which it is separated 
 by an impassable gulf, across which, however, as the narra- 
 tive of the rich man and Lazarus informs us, conversations 
 
 may be held together. Suppose, then, the soul of a believer, 
 
 such an one as, according to the Roman Catholic system, must 
 be consigned to the excruciating torments of purgatory, up to 
 the very day of judgment, — suppose him to depart this life, 
 and to be taken to this holy and blessed society; having indeed 
 the true principle of faith, but yet far from that perfect holi- 
 ness which is necessary for the judgment day, which, I ask, is 
 the better place to improve and sanctify him? the purgatorial 
 flames of excruciating anguish, or the peaceful paradise of the 
 
324 TESTIMONY OF THE FATHERS. 
 
 spirits of the just? Surely it must be manifest, that the mere 
 suffering of agony cannot teach, nor sanctify, nor exalt the 
 thoughts and affections of the sinner. When the soul of the 
 believer leaves the body, it has done with the temptations of 
 the fiesh, with the assaults of Satan, with the corrupt allure- 
 ments of the world. Where can it increase its holiness, en- 
 large its divine knowledge, cherish the truth of God, adore his 
 mercy in Christ, and thus become purified from all the stains 
 and defilements of its earthly course, if not in the society of 
 patriarchs, prophets and apostles, with the spectacle of the lost 
 in view, the glory of heaven in prospect, and every motive and 
 stimulus imaginable to help it forward, that it may be ready in 
 the great day? W^hile, on the other hand, all that we know of 
 the effects of intense suffering is directly opposed to improve- 
 ment. To hurn the soul into goodness, to scorch it into wis- 
 dom, to rack it into knowledge, to torture it into the love of 
 God, — who can listen to such a proposition without a mixture 
 of wonder and indignation at the system, which talks of fire 
 and flames as the means of spiritual sanctification? Most 
 manifest then, it seems, to my mind, that the whole force of 
 this most plausible argument of the Church of Rome, is direct- 
 ly hostile to their purgatorial theory; although it might well 
 agree with the account which Scripture gives us of the place 
 of departed spirits, in which the souls of the redeemed await 
 the day of resurrection. 
 
 But we proceed, secondly, to the testimony of the fathers, 
 in which we shall see, in the very evidence which is commonly 
 adduced to sustain this invention, a clear proof that it was 
 a novelty, unknown to the purer days of primitive Chris- 
 tianity. 
 
 Beginning with Irenceus, the bishop of Lyons, A. D. 170, we 
 have a distinct corroboration of the true doctrine. " Since, 
 therefore," saith he, (Lib. v. Cont. Hasr. cap. 31, p. 331,) 
 "the Lord himself obeyed the law of death, that he might be 
 
IREN.EUS AND TERTULLIAN. 325 
 
 the first born from the dead, and remained until the third day 
 in the lower parts of the earth, and afterwards arose in the 
 flesh, so that he showed the very marks of the nails to his dis- 
 ciples, and thus ascended to his Father, how should they not 
 be confounded that say that these lower regions are only this 
 world, according to the present bodily state, but that the inter- 
 nal man, as soon as it leaves the body, ascends immediately to 
 heaven? For even the Lord went into the midst of the shadow 
 of death, where the souls of the dead were ; and afterwards 
 rose again in his body, and after his resurrection ascended up 
 to heaven. And therefore it is manifest that the souls of his 
 disciples, for whom the Lord did these things, will likewise 
 depart into the invisible place, appropriated to them by the 
 Deity, and will there remain until the resurrection ; expecting 
 the hour when they shall receive their bodies again, and rising 
 in their perfect state, that is corporeally, as the Lord himself 
 arose, will thus come to the vision of God." Here, brethren, 
 we have a faithful statement of the doctrine of antiquity. 
 Irenseus believed in no ascension to heaven for any saint, before 
 the day of resurrection, and no purgatory nor punishment for 
 the redeemed in the place of departed spirits ; and therefore he 
 did not agree, in either point, with the modern innovations of 
 the Church of Rome. 
 
 Let us next hear Tertullian, in A. D. 200, on the same sub- 
 ject. 
 
 " Our lower regions," saith he, (De Anima, p. 303) speaking 
 in reference to the notions of the heathen philosophers, " are 
 not a naked cavity, nor yet a certain drain of the world under 
 the waters; but they are a profound and vast space, in the in- 
 most bowels of the earth. Therefore we read that Christ was 
 in the heart of the earth, during the three days of his death, 
 that is in the internal recess, enclosed within its lower abysses. 
 But if Christ our God, because he was also man, being dead 
 and buried according to the Scriptures, satisfied also this law, 
 2 F 
 
326 ORIGE^'s IDEA 
 
 according to the rule of human death, amongst these lower 
 regions, and did not ascend to the highest heavens, until he 
 had first descended to the lowest parts of the earth, in order 
 that he might make the patriarchs and prophets his compa- 
 nions, you must needs believe that these regions are subterra- 
 nean, and drive far from you those who proudly imagine that 
 the souls of the faithful are not to enter these lower regions; 
 thus placing the servants above their Lord, and the disciples 
 above their Master, and despising the privilege of Abraham's 
 bosom, where they might enjoy the consolation of looking for- 
 ward to the resurrection. — For not yet has the trump of the 
 archangel been heard, not yet has our Lord come to meet us in 
 the air, along with those who shall first arise at his advent. 
 Heaven is discovered to none as yet, the earth is still shut up ; 
 nor will the heavens be opened until the world passeth away. 
 
 Into these lower regions therefore," saith Tertullian in 
 
 another place, "all souls are taken. And there are both pun- 
 ishments and pleasures, as you read in the parable of the rich 
 man and the beggar." (P. 306.) 
 
 In this passage, brethren, we have another very clear proof 
 of the ancient faith upon this interesting subject, perfectly in- 
 consistent with the doctrine of purgatory, and the supposed 
 assumption into heaven of the virgin and the saints. Else- 
 where, indeed, Tertullian allows this distinction to the martyrs; 
 but to all others he applies the rule you have heard, that the 
 place of departed spirits must be the habitation of the soul, until 
 the resurrection. 
 
 Next to Tertullian, we shall present the testimony of Ori- 
 gen, which th^ Church of Rome claims as being in her favour, 
 but not by right. The passage is as follows : (Orig. in Jer. 
 Horn. 1, p. 67,) "If any one shall preserve the baptism of 
 the Holy Ghost, he communicates in the first resurrection. 
 But if any one is kept until the second resurrection, he is a 
 sinner, who needs the baptism of fire, and is purified by burn- 
 
OF PURGATORY. 327 
 
 ing, that the fire may consume whatever he may have of the 
 wood, hay and stubble. Wherefore, as we perceive that such 
 may be our lot atler death, let us be diligent in the knowledge 
 of the Scriptures, and lay them up in our hearts, and strive to 
 live according to their precepts; so that before the day of our 
 departure, if possible, we may be cleansed from the filth of 
 our sins, and be saved together with the saints in Christ 
 Jesus." 
 
 In this passage, brethren, we have the earliest intimation of 
 a purgatorial fire, namely, in A. D. 250, from a writer of 
 great reputation for learning, genius and zeal, but yet reputed 
 by the Church of Rome herself to be full of heretical notions. 
 Whatever the soundness or unsoundness of his opinion might 
 be, however, considered in itself, it will be sufficient on the 
 present occasion to show you, that it has no accordance what- 
 ever with the modern form of the Roman doctrine. For, in 
 the first place, we see that Origen's fiery purgation is express- 
 ly referred to the day of judgment, consequently, it could not 
 be the purgatorial fire of the Roman Church, which is sup- 
 posed to last until that day, and is then extinguished. In the 
 second place, this fire of Origen's affects not only the soul, but 
 the body also, being after the resurrection. But the Roman 
 purgatory torments the soul alone. Thirdly, the prevention 
 proposed by Origen is to lay up the knowledge of the Scrip- 
 tures, and live according to their precepts, without one word 
 of penance, mortification, voluntary sufferings, or indulgences. 
 Whereas, the Church of Rome discourages the study of the 
 Scriptures among the mass of her people, and teaches the be- 
 nefit of penitential works, while living, and indulgences after 
 death, as the only way to escape purgatory. And lastly, 
 Origen contrasts the baptism of the Spirit with the baptism of 
 fire; contemplating the application of this fire as a quick and 
 powerful product of the judgment day. Whereas, the Church 
 of Rome talks of the agonies of purgatory for hundreds and thou- 
 
328 CYPKIAN AND JEROME. 
 
 sands of years together, although never extending them beyond 
 the day of judgment. Hence, although Origen speaks of fire, 
 and of purgation after death, as does also the Church of Rome, 
 yet in every particular, essential to the Roman doctrine, they 
 are found to differ. Indeed, the doctrine of Origen would not 
 be esteemed worth contending about on their part ; nor, pro- 
 pounded merely as a matter of speculative interpretation, as 
 was the fact in his case, should I think it deserved any serious 
 discussion upon ours. 
 
 In the works of Cyprian, bishop of Carthage, there is no- 
 thing that looks in the least like the modern Roman doctrine; 
 but on the other hand we find him declaring, in more than one 
 place, that " no satisfaction can be rendered for sin, after the 
 present life." (Cyp. De Lapsis. § 14. De El. et Bon. Op. § 2.) 
 Whereas, it is the peculiar characteristic of the Roman Catho- 
 lic system, that satisfaction can be made to the justice of God, 
 so far as its temporal claims are concerned, as well after death 
 as before, by masses, alms, prayers, and penances, performed 
 by the Church on behalf of the departed, and especially by 
 indulgences. 
 
 The numerous writings of the celebrated Jerome belong to 
 a much later period of the Church, and yet even these do not 
 furnish any sanction for the purgatorial doctrine. On the con- 
 trary, he lays down the principle, in his commentary on St. 
 Matthew, (Tom. 4. p. 26) " that the soul will be punished, and 
 will feel its sufferings, when it shall have received its former 
 body, in order that the companion of its sin may also be the 
 companion of its punishment." And on the famous text of St. 
 Paul, which, in our last lecture we found Dr. Wiseman press- 
 ing into the service of purgatory, the explanation of Jerome is 
 explicitly hostile to the Roman creed, (Tom. 4. p. 244) for he 
 asserts the destruction of the wood, hay, and stubble, which 
 any one may build upon the foundation of Christ, while he 
 himself shall be saved, yet so as by fire, to be the work of the 
 
AMBROSE AND AUGUSTIN. 329 
 
 day of judgment; and thus excludes, by necessary implication, 
 the whole purgatorial theory. 
 
 The language of Ambrose, the bishop of Milan, is equally 
 irreconcilable with the Roman system. " Death," saith this 
 eminent father, " is the separation of the soul and the body ; 
 but this dissolution is not evil, because to be dissolved and be 
 with Christ is far better. — The Scripture calls death sleep, 
 according to that passage: Our friend Lazarus sleepeth, I go 
 that I may waken him. But sleep is good, because it is rest, 
 as saith the Scripture, I laid me down and took my rest, I 
 rose up. for the Lord sustained me. Sweet, therefore, is the 
 sleep of death. But at length the Lord wakens those who are 
 thus resting, because the Lord is the resurrection." (Tom. 
 1. p. 404.) 
 
 And again, this eminent father delivers the following animat- 
 ing exhortation. (lb. 411.) "Let us fearlessly go to our 
 Redeemer Jesus; fearlessly to the assembly of the patriarchs; 
 fearlessly let us depart to our father Abraham, when the day 
 approaches; fearlessly let us proceed to the congregation of 
 the saints, to the convention of the righteous. For then we 
 shall go to our fathers, we shall go to our instructors in the 
 faith, and although our works may be deficient, faith will as- 
 sist, that our inheritance may be preserved to us. We shall go 
 wiiere the holy Abraham opens his bosom, in order that he 
 may receive the poor, even as he received Lazarus, in whose 
 bosom they repose, who in this life endured calamity and sor- 
 row." Here, brethren, we have another plain declaration of 
 the Scriptural doctrine, without one word that even leans to- 
 wards the modern creed of the Church of Rome. 
 
 We come now, however, to a witness on whose testimony 
 they place great reliance, namely, the scholar of Ambrose, the 
 distinguished Augustin, in some of whose very numerous works 
 there are considerable approximations to their system, which 
 are, nevertheless, more than neutralized, when we look at the 
 
 2 f3 
 
330 augustin's doctrine 
 
 whole. I shall give you a specimen of both sorts of passages 
 from this author. 
 
 " Some there are," saith he, " who suffer temporal punish- 
 .ments in this life only, some after death, and some both now 
 and then, but previous to that last and most severe judgment. 
 But all who suffer temporal punishments after death, do not 
 become subject to eternal punishment. For to some, what is 
 not remitted in this life, is rejnitted in the next, in order that 
 they may not be punished eternally." (Aug. De Civ. Dei, 
 Lib. 21, Cap. 13, p. 1432.) Now this looks very like the 
 doctrine of the Church of Rome, and yet opposes it in two 
 most important particulars. First, that Augustin speaks of 
 sin being remitted after death, which they positively deny; 
 for according to their system, the remission of the sin must 
 take place in the present life, and the temporal pains of purga- 
 tory cannot be remitted, but must heiwe full payment, either in 
 the sufferings of the soul, or in an equivalent amount of the 
 merits of Christ and the saints, placed to his credit by the 
 Church, and especially by indulgences. The difference between 
 them is precisely the same as there is between the forgiving 
 a debt, and the paying it; so that the opinion of Augustin 
 would now be heresy in the judgment of the Church of Rome. 
 Secondly, Augustin does not say one word about this Roman 
 doctrine of satisfaction, nor the treasure of the Church from 
 which this satisfaction is made, nor of the pope's authority in 
 making it: in all which respects he would be regarded as 
 heretical as ourselves. But now let me proceed to show, by 
 other passages, hov/ Augustin expressed himself in reference 
 to the opinion we have quoted; and we shall see most clearly 
 that in his days, the doctrine now maintained was neither set- 
 tled nor received by the Church.* 
 
 " It is not to be doubted," saith he, " that the dead are aided 
 
 * See the whole of Augustin to Evodius, vol. II. p. 436. 
 
OF THE INTERMEDIATE STATE. 331 
 
 by the prayers of the holy Church, by the saUitary sacrifice, 
 and by alms-deeds offered for their souls, that the Lord may 
 deal with them more mercifully than their sins have deserved. 
 For this custom delivered by the fathers, the whole Church 
 observes ; that for those who are deceased in the communion 
 of the body and blood of Christ, when they are commemo- 
 rated in their place at that sacrament, prayer is made, and the 
 sacrament is also offered. It is therefore not to be disputed 
 that these things are profitable to the deceased, but only to 
 those who have so lived before death, that such services can 
 profit them after death. For as to those who have departed 
 this life without the faith which worketh by love, and its sacra- 
 ments, these offices of piety are useless ; since, while living, they 
 received not the grace of God, or received it in vain, and thus 
 laid up for themselves wrath instead of mercy. Hence, no 
 new merits are provided for the dead, when their pious 
 friends perform any thing on their behalf, but only the fruits 
 consequent upon their own previous lives are rendered to them. 
 For nothing is effected, unless they had lived so that these ser- 
 vices might profit them when they should have departed. And 
 thus no one can receive after death any thing but what he 
 merited before death." (August. Op. Tom. V. p. 576, A.) ^^ 
 Again, sahh St. Augustin, " Those things which the Church 
 celebrates in her commemoration of the dead, are not opposed 
 to the apostle's declaration, where he saith, ' We must all ap- 
 pear before the judgment-seat of Christ, that every one may 
 receive according to the works done in the body, whether it 
 be good or evil,' because every one prepares for himself this 
 privilege, while he lives in the body, that such services may 
 profit him. For they do not profit all; and wherefore do they 
 not, unless it be on account of the difference of life which 
 each has led in the body? When therefore sacrifices, either 
 of the altar, or of certain alms-deeds, are offered for all who 
 have died after baptism, these may be considered a returning 
 
332 augustin's doubts 
 
 of thanks for the very good ; for those who were not very 
 wicked, they are propitiations ; and for those who were very 
 wicked, although they cannot help the dead, they may afford 
 some comfort to the living. And to those who are benefited 
 by them, the profit is either that they may have a full remis- 
 sion, or that their damnation may be rendered more tolerable." 
 (lb. Tom. VI. p. 95, 6.) 
 
 Now, in these passages we have Augiistin plainly opposing 
 the doctrine by which the Church of Rome imagines that she 
 can free the soul from purgatory ; for he expressly says that 
 no merits can he obtained for the deceased soyl, hut those of 
 his own life while on earth ; whereas the entire operation of 
 the Roman system consists in granting to the departed soul 
 the swperfuous merits of Christ and the saints, so as to form 
 an offset or satisfaction in the way of payment, for the 
 suffering due to his transgressions. Here again, it is impos- 
 sible to protect Augustin from the charge of heresy, according 
 to the modern doctrine of that Church, which yet would 
 persuade us that she follows his authority. 
 
 Again, this eminent father, and favourite witness of the 
 Roman Church, declares that " AVhatever soul shall depart 
 from the body, at whatever age, without the grace and the 
 sacrament of the Redeemer, will be forthwith in punishment; 
 and in the final judgment will receive the body again for 
 eternal punishment. But if, after the human generation 
 which it has received from Adam, it is regenerated in Christ, 
 and helongs to his society, it icill enjoy rest after the death 
 of the hody, and will receive the hody again for glory. 
 These doctrines concerning the soul," adds Augustin, " I hold 
 most firmly." (Tom. II. p. 445, 13.) And well might he 
 hold them firmly, brethren, because they are the doctrines of 
 the Scriptures, and of all the fathers ; while the other notions, 
 respecting a purgatorial fire, were but the unsettled conjectures 
 of a few. 
 
CONCERNING PURGATORY. 33^ 
 
 Once more, let us hear the same distinguished father ex- 
 pressing his idea upon the doctrine of a purgatorial fire, and 
 we shall see the contrast between the firm articles of his faith, 
 and the doubtful conjectures of opinion. 
 
 " After the death of this body, truly," saith he, (De Civit. 
 Dei, Lib. 21, Cap. 26, p. 1456,) "until the final day of 
 damnation and reward, after the resurrection, since the souls 
 of the departed are said to suffer this sort of fire in that 
 interval of time, which those do not feel who have not built 
 the wood and hay and stubble of earthly works and affections 
 (upon the true foundation) in this life ; but which others feel 
 who have carried with them this kind of building, whether 
 this suffering is to be endured there only, or both here and 
 there, or whether here, that it be not there, our worldly, 
 although venial sins, find a burning fire of transitory tribula- 
 tion, all this I do not censure, because, perhaps^ it is true." 
 Mark this language, brethren, I beseech you, " the souls of 
 the departed," saith Augustin, " are said to suffer this sort of 
 fire," and " 1 do not censure," continues he, " because per- 
 haps it is true." See how strongly he speaks of the Scrip- 
 tural doctrine, which he declares that he holds most firmly^ 
 and then listen to him on the purgatorial notion, which he 
 says he does not censure, because perhaps it is triie^ and 
 tell me, brethren, whether any thing can more plainly show 
 the commencement of this corruption, the perfect mistake of 
 those who fancy it to have been the doctrine of the primitive 
 creed, and the awful responsibility which the Church of Rome 
 has incurred, by presuming to pronounce a curse on those 
 who refuse to believe it. 
 
 From the testimony of Augustin I proceed to that of pope 
 Leo the great, A. D. 452, which is of itself decisive upon 
 the question. 
 
 "The manifold mercy of God," saith this distinguished pon- 
 tiff; " has so provided for human frailty, that not only by the 
 
334 LEO THE GREAT. 
 
 grace of baptism, but also by the medicine of penitence, the hope 
 of eternal life may be restored. — But the guards of the divine 
 goodness are so ordered, that the indulgence of God cannot 
 be obtained unless through the supplications of his priesthood. 
 For the mediator between God and man, Christ Jesus, gave 
 this power to the rulers of the Church, that to those who con- 
 fessed their sins, the act of penitence should be given, and 
 that being purged by salutary satisfaction, they should be 
 admitted through the door of reconciliation to the communion 
 of the sacraments." — " But if," continues Leo, "there be any 
 of those, for whom we supplicate the Lord, who is prevented 
 by some obstacle, and falls away from the grace of this present 
 indulgence, and before he can reach the constituted remedies, 
 closes his temporal life according to the law of mortality, that 
 which he has not received in the body, he cannot receive 
 when he has put off the body. Nor is it necessary for us 
 to discuss the merits or the actions of such as depart in this 
 manner, since the Lord our God, whose judgments are incom- 
 prehensible, ivill reserve to his own justice that which his 
 priests have not fuJJilledy Now ?iere, brethren, Leo ex- 
 pressly declares, that the departed soul cannot receive after 
 death the benefit w-hich the use of the appointed remedies 
 before death w^ould have obtained for him. Yet he declares, 
 and most truly, that the justice of God ^vill supply the lack 
 of the priesthood, and therefore such a soul would be precisely 
 in the condition to which the modern doctrine of the Roman 
 Church applies her purgatory, out of which purgatory he could 
 at once be taken by a plenary indulgence. But Leo, the pope 
 or bishop of Rome in A. D. 452, says not one word about 
 either purgatory or indulgences for the departed soul ; thus 
 again proving, most clearly, that in his time, no such doctrines 
 were fastened upon the Church, although some floating ideas 
 had been put forth by a ^q\w individuals, which long afterwards 
 were strained into an appearance of authority. 
 
GREGORY AND THE BENEDICTINES. 335 
 
 To this pope, I will add the testimony of another, namely, 
 Gregory the great, in order to show the state of the pur- 
 gatorial theory from A. D. 452 to A. D. 590. Describing 
 the place of departed spirits, (Tom. I. 397. E.) he saith, 
 " When we say that the souls of the just descend to the lower 
 regions, or hell, we do not mean that they are detained in a 
 place of punishment. But we believe that hell consists of 
 two parts, the upper or superior, and the lower or inferior, 
 and that the just enjoy their rest in the superior part, while 
 the wicked are tormented in the inferior or lower portion. 
 And thus we understand the Psalmist, where, by reason of the 
 preventing grace of God, he saith : ' Thou hast delivered my 
 soul from the lowest hell.' Here we have a clear and con- 
 sistent statement of this point, agreeing, in the main, with 
 the older fathers. 
 
 I shall close these extracts from the fathers, brethren, by 
 the candid though reluctant confession of the Benedictine edi- 
 tors of the works of Ambrose, (Tom. I. 385) in these words : 
 "If it is not surprising that Ambrose should have written as 
 he has done about the state of departed souls, it seems to be 
 almost incredible how uncertain and various the holy fathers 
 have been upon the same question, from the very times of the 
 apostles to the pontificate of Gregory II. and the Council of 
 Florence, that is, the period of almost fourteen hundred years. 
 For not only does one father differ from another, as in ques- 
 tions not yet defined by the Church was hkely to happen, but 
 they are not even found to be consistent with themselves." 
 Observe this acknowledgment, brethren, and see how it agrees 
 with the marvellous doctrine of the Church of Rome, that all 
 her traditions are apostolical, and that her creed has been the 
 same from the beginning, that it is at this day. 
 
 But it is hio-h lime that we turn from these most uncandid 
 pretensions, to the real foundations of purgatory, which are 
 neither in the Scriptures nor in the fathers, but in the super- 
 
336 bellarmine's account 
 
 stitious visions of the dark ages, cultivated diligently by the 
 priesthood, so as to enlarge and fortify their power over the 
 fears and terrors of mankind. And here I shall quote from 
 the famous cardinal Bellarmine his account of the matter, 
 which will show you, on the highest modern authority, the 
 evidence as well as the position belonging to the doctrine. 
 The extract must be long, brethren, but you will find it, I 
 doubt not, more than usually interesting. 
 
 "Since many persons," saith Bellarmine, "will not believe 
 what they have never seen, it has pleased God sometimes to 
 raise his servants from the dead, and to send them to announce 
 to the living what they have really witnessed." (Philpot's Let- 
 ters to Butler, p. 121, &c.) "A pious father of a family in 
 
 Northumberland died, but came to life again at the dawn 
 
 of the foUov/ing day. All but his faithful and affectionate wife 
 fled at the sight of him, and to her he communicated the pecu- 
 liar circumstances of his case, that he had indeed been dead, 
 but was permitted to live again upon earth, though by no 
 means in the same manner as before. In short, he sold all 
 his property, divided the produce equally between his wife, his 
 children, and the poor, and then retired to the monastery at 
 Melrose. He there lived in such a state of unexampled morti- 
 fication, as made it quite evident, even if he had not said a word 
 upon the subject, that he had seen things — which no one else 
 had been permitted to behold. He explained it all, however, 
 in the following manner: — One, said he, whose aspect was as 
 of light, and his garment glistening, conducted me to a valley 
 of great depth and width, but of immeasurable length; one 
 side of which was dreadful beyond expression for its burning 
 heat, and the other as horrible for its no less intolerable cold. 
 Both were filled with the souls of men, which seemed to be 
 tost, as by the fury of a tempest, from one side to the other; 
 for being quite unable to endure the heat on the right hand, 
 the miserable wretches kept throwing themselves to the oppo- 
 
OF PURGATORY. 337 
 
 site side into the equal torment of cold, and thence back again 
 into the raging flames. This, thought I, must be hell ; but 
 my guide answered to my thought that it was not so. This 
 valley, saith he, is the place of torment for the souls of those, 
 who, after delaying to confess and expiate their sins, have at 
 length, at the moment of death, had recourse to penance, and 
 so have departed. These, at the day of judgment, will all be 
 admitted into the kingdom of heaven, by reason of their con- 
 fession and penance, late as it was. But, meanwhile, many 
 of them may be assisted and liberated before that day, by the 
 prayers, alms and fastings of the living, particularly by the 
 sacrifice of the mass." 
 
 From this narrative, in which cardinal Bellarmine states 
 his full belief, he proceeds to another of a higher claim, be- 
 cause it is the history of St. Christina, one of the saints placed 
 in the dark ages upon the Roman calendar, where she is called 
 a virgin and a martyr, and has a festival appointed in her 
 honour on the 24th of July. The learned cardinal gives the 
 relation in the words of St. Christina herself, (Philpot's Let- 
 ters to Butler, p. 125) as follows: — 
 
 "Immediately upon my departure from the body," saith she, 
 "my soul was received by ministers of light and angels of 
 God, and conducted to a dark and horrid place filled with the 
 souls of men. The torments which I there witnessed are so 
 dreadful, that to attempt to describe them would be utterly in 
 vain; and there I beheld not a few who had been known to 
 me when they were alive. Greatly concerned for their hap- 
 less state, I asked what place it was, thinking it was hell ; but 
 I was told that it was purgatory, where are kept those who in 
 their life-time had repented indeed of their sins, but had not 
 paid the punishment due for them. I was next taken to see 
 the torments of hell, where also I recognized some of my 
 former acquaintances upon earth. Afterwards I was trans- 
 lated to paradise, even to the throne of the divine Majesty ; 
 
 2g 
 
338 STORY OF ST. CHRISTINA. 
 
 and when I saw the Lord congratulating me, I was beyond 
 measure rejoiced, concluding, of course, that I should hence- 
 forward dwell with him for evermore. But he presently said 
 to me, ' In very deed, my sweetest daughter, here you shall be 
 with me ; but for the present I offer you your choice. Will 
 you stay for ever with me now? or will you return to the 
 earth, and there, in your mortal body, but without any detri- 
 ment to it, endure punishments, by which you may deliver out 
 of purgatory all those souls whom you so much pitied, and 
 may also, by the sight of your penance, and the example of 
 your life, be a means of converting to me some who are yet 
 alive in the body, and so come to me at last with a great in- 
 crease of your merits?' I accepted, without hesitation, the re- 
 turn to life on the condition proposed ; and the Lord, congratu- 
 lating me on the promptitude of my obedience, ordered that 
 my body should be restored to me. This is an account of my 
 death and my return to life. I am recalled to life for the cor- 
 rection and improvement of men ; I entreat you, therefore, not 
 to be disturbed at what shall happen to me. I say this, be- 
 cause the things which you shall see wrought in me by the 
 will of God, will far exceed human comprehension." 
 
 These were her own words. The author of her biography 
 adds his account of the manner in which her enterprise was 
 conducted. She walked into burning ovens, and though she 
 was so tortured by the flames that her anguish extorted from 
 her the most horrible cries, yet when she came out, there was 
 not a trace of any burning to be found upon her body. Again, 
 during a hard frost, she would go and place herself under the 
 frozen surface of a river, for six days and more, at a time. 
 Sometimes she would be carried round by the wheel of a 
 water-mill, with the water of the river, and after having been 
 whirled round in a horrible manner, she was as whole in body 
 as if nothing had happened to her — not a limb was hurt. At 
 other times she would make all the dogs in the town fall upon 
 
STORY OF ST. LUDGARDIS. 339 
 
 her, and would rim before ihem like a hunted beast ; and yet, 
 in spite of being torn by thorns and brambles, and worried 
 and lacerated by the dogs to such a degree that no part of her 
 body escaped without wounds, there was not a weal nor a 
 scar to be seen. And this mode of life she endured for forty- 
 two years, " during which time," saith the historian, " she 
 brought many sinners to repentance, and wroug4it many 
 miracles after her death." 
 
 There is yet a third example related by this celebrated 
 Roman Catholic author, which he quotes from the Life of St. 
 Ludgardis, written at the same period and by the same illus- 
 trious person who wrote the other. " About this time," saith 
 he, " Innocent III. after having held the Lateran Council, 
 departed this life, and shortly afterwards appeared to St. Lud- 
 gardis. She, as soon as she beheld him encircled with a vast 
 flame, demanded who he was, and on his answering that he 
 was pope Innocent, she exclaimed with a groan, 'What can 
 this be ? How is it that the common father of us all is thus 
 tormented?' 'The reasons of my suffering thus,' he an- 
 swered, ' are three in number, and they would have consigned 
 me to eternal punishments, had I not, through the intercession 
 of the most pious mother of God, to whom I founded a monas- 
 tery, repented in my last hour. As it is, though I am spared 
 from eternal suffering, yet I shall be tortured in the most 
 horrible manner to the day of judgment ; and that I am now 
 permitted to come and pray for your suffrages, is a favour 
 which the mother of mercy has obtained for me from her 
 Son.' With these words he disappeared. Ludgardis not only 
 communicated to her holy sisters the sad necessity to which 
 the pope was reduced in order to obtain their succour, but she 
 also submitted to astonishing torments on his account." 
 
 Here then, brethren, we have the real mode of sustaining the 
 Roman doctrine of purgatory, not by Scripture, nor yet by the 
 records of the primitive Church, which are speciously, indeed, 
 
340 INDULGENCES. 
 
 but most unwarrantably appealed to for the purpose, but by 
 the influence of marvellous, horrible and absurd stories, gotten 
 up in the dark ages, and greedily swallowed by the people, at a 
 period when the popular credulity was sufficient for any thing. 
 For these were the ages of the wildest romance, when all 
 imaginable and monstrous tales of enchanters, giants, wizards, 
 genii, arfd fairies, together with the daring extravagances of 
 knight-errantry, were in full vogue ; when the middling and 
 lower classes of society were slaves to their lords, and when 
 the higher orders divided their lives between war, love, and 
 superstition. 
 
 The doctrine of indulcrences took its remilar form at the 
 same time, and was an important part of the system, which ex- 
 tended the power of the priesthood over the unseen world, and 
 promised its most certain and wonderful effects in that spiritual 
 state from whence no counter-evidence could be brought to con- 
 tradict them. Their first appearance in history was on the 
 occasion of the crusades in the eleventh century; when the 
 popes, for the encouragement of warriors to undertake the 
 recovery of the holy land, proclaimed remission of all their 
 sins to the soldiers of the cross. The great Council of 
 Lateran, in the 13th century, applied them to the warriors 
 who engaged to extirpate heresy by tire and sword; and after 
 some time they became so extended, that very trifling sums of 
 money, or personal services, were sufficient to obtain them. 
 It was this which, under God, led to the Reformation. For 
 Leo X. being desirous of raising a large sum of money in or- 
 der to complete the magnificent Church of St. Peter at Rome, 
 followed the advice of one of his cardinals; and, as a Roman 
 Catholic historian expresses it, " spread throughout the world 
 the amplest indulgences, not only for the benefit of the living, 
 but also with power to loose the souls of the dead from purga- 
 tory ; which things, having in themselves neither probability nor 
 authority, it being notorious that they were granted solely to 
 
MODERN STATE OF THE DOCTRINE. 341 
 
 extort money from those who had more simplicity than pru- 
 dence, and being besides, exercised most imprudently by the 
 commissioners, the greatest part of whom purchased from the 
 court the power of exercising them, had excited in many 
 places great indignation and scandal, especially in Germany, 
 where faculties for liberating the souls of the dead from purga- 
 tory were sold at a trifling price, or made the stakes of gam- 
 bling in taverns." (Philpol's Letters to Butler, 182 to 185.) 
 This extract, brethren, which is in the words of their own 
 writer, fully justifies the indignant zeal of Luther, when he pub- 
 licly attacked these indulgences at Wittemberg : and thus was 
 the excess of this modern corruption made the instrument of 
 restoring the true doctrines of the Gospel, and bringing back the 
 long neglected system of the Word of God. 
 
 Since the Reformation, an immense reduction has certainly 
 been practically and theoretically effected in this matter. The 
 assumed infallibility of the Church of Rome, however, pre- 
 vents an open avowal of the improvement; and indeed the sub- 
 stantial errors of these three connected corruptions, satisfac- 
 tion, purgatory and indulgences, are still maintained, although 
 to a very different degree of extravagance, both in the papal 
 dominions, and in countries where the Reformation has been 
 successful. To show the existing state of the matter in our 
 own day, the best evidence I can set before you is the bull of 
 the pope, published in A. D. 1825, for the last jubilee. 
 
 "During this year," saith the pope, "which we truly call 
 the acceptable time and the time of salvation, &c., we have 
 resolved, in virtue of the authority given to us by heaven, fully 
 to unlock that sacred treasure, composed of the merits, suffer- 
 ings and virtues of Christ our Lord, and of his virgin mother, 
 and of all the saints, which the Author of human salvation has 
 entrusted to our dispensation. We proclaim that the year of 
 atonement and pardon, of redemption and grace, of remission 
 and indulgence, is arrived : in which we know that those bene- 
 2 G 2 
 
342 THE PAPAL BULL. 
 
 fits which the old law, the messenger of things to come, 
 brought every fiftieth year to the Jewish people, are renewed 
 in a much more sacred manner by the accumulation of spirit- 
 ual blessings, through Him, by whom came peace and truth. 
 ■During which year of the Jubilee, we mercifully give and 
 grant in the Lord, a plenary indulgence, remission and pardon 
 of all their sins, to all the faithful of Christ, truly penitent and 
 confessing their sins and receiving the holy communion^ who 
 shall visit the Churches of blessed Peter and Paul, &c., and 
 shall pour forth their pious prayers to God for the exaltation of 
 the Church, the extirpation of heresies, the concord of Catholic 
 princes, and the safety and tranquillity of Christian people." 
 
 " But you, venerable brethren," continues the pope, in ano- 
 ther part of the same instrument, "patriarchs, primates, arch- 
 bishops, bishops, co-operate with these our cares and desires. 
 To you it belongs to explain with perspicuity the power of in- 
 dulgences ; what is their efficacy, not only in the remission of 
 canonical penance, but also of the temporal punishment due to 
 divine justice for sin ; and what succour is afforded out of this 
 heavenly treasure, from the merits of Christ and his saints, to 
 such as have departed real penitents in God's love, yet before 
 they had duly satisfied, by fruits worthy of penance, for sins of 
 commission and omission, and are now purifying in the fire of 
 purgatory, that an entrance may be opened for them into their 
 eternal country, where nothing defiled is admitted. Courage 
 and attention, venerable brethren, for some there are, follow- 
 ing that wisdom which is not from God, and covering them- 
 selves under sheep's clothing — who, under the usual pretence 
 of a more refined piety, are now sowing amongst the people 
 erroneous comments on this subject." (Philpot's Let. to But. 
 Sup. p. 428.) 
 
 We see here, brethren, that the theory of this matter is 
 stated in strong and plain terms under the very authority of 
 the pope himself, while, with regard to the practice, the book 
 
CONCLUSION. 343 
 
 called True Piety, prepared expressly for the Roman Catholics 
 of this country, informs us, that a plenary indulgence may be 
 obtained in the United States on the following days: "1. From 
 Christmas Eve to Epiphany. 2. From the first Sunday in 
 Lent to the second inclusive. 3. From Palm Sunday to Low 
 Sunday inclusively, except Good Friday and Holy Saturday. 
 4. From Whitsunday to the end of the Octave of Corpus 
 Christi. 5. On the five great festivals of the blessed virgin 
 Mary, with their Octaves. 6. On the festivals of St. Peter 
 and St. Paul, of St. Michael the archangel, and within their 
 Octaves." (True Piety, New York ed. of 1826, p. 226.) From 
 which it appears, that the American Roman Catholic can have 
 a plenary indulgence, either for himself or for the souls in pur- 
 gatory, on nearly half the days in the year. The fee paid for 
 them I have no means of ascertaining, but I am well assured 
 that they cannot be had without money and without price, 
 however poor the man, and however pressing the supposed 
 necessity. 
 
 And now, brethren, aUhough I have wearied myself and 
 you with this long discussion, I feel that it would be due to the 
 occasion to speak of the result of these perversions, if a better 
 opportunity were not at hand on the closing of the series. I 
 shall only therefore, add, that our next and last subject will be 
 the doctrine of the eucharistic sacrament, including transub- 
 stantiation and the sacrifice of the mass. The labour neces- 
 sary in the preparation of these discourses, on my part, and 
 the close attention demanded on yours, will not be without 
 fruit, if they aid in strengthening our gratitude to God for the 
 light of that Reformation, which has freed us from the yoke of 
 this spiritual bondage. O ! that the millions of our fellow 
 Christians, who are still lying under it, might learn to know 
 their error, and return to the Scriptural truth of that Gospel 
 which alone can make them free. The Church of Rome was 
 once the first amoncr the Churches. St. Paul himself bore 
 
344 CONCLUSION. 
 
 testimony, that their faith was spoken of throughout the whole 
 world. God grant that it may yet be brought back to the 
 same pure and apostolic standard, when every invention of 
 men, every trace of superstition, every relic of a dark and bar- 
 barous age, every perilous dependence upon the exercise of 
 priestly power in the unseen world, which God has made sub- 
 ject neither to our observation nor to our control, — when all, 
 in a word, which has defiled and deformed the religion of the 
 glorious Redeemer, shall be swept away from the Universal 
 Church; when the faith that was once Catholic shall be 
 Catholic again, and the blessed Word of God shall go forth to 
 the ends of the earth, conquering and to conquer. 
 
LECTURE XV. 
 
 1 Cor. xi. 29. — For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth 
 and drinketh judgment to himself, not discerning the body of the 
 Lord. — (Doway Version.) 
 
 The topic on which we are about to enter, my brethren, 
 is one of the most important points in our controversy with 
 the Church of Rome, and has given rise to more subtle dis- 
 putation than almost any other, amongst Protestants them- 
 selves. It»is the question of the presence of Christ in the 
 administration of the holy Eucharist, commonly called the 
 Lord's Supper. There are four or five varieties of opinion 
 upon this subject, amongst orthodox Christians, of which, 
 however, it does not fall within our proposed range to treat 
 particularly; our design being chiefly to set forth the error 
 which our own branch of the Reformation has condemned 
 in the Thirty-nine Articles, under the well-known name of 
 Transubstantiation. 
 
 This doctrine may be briefly stated as follows: The 
 Church of Rome holds, that in the Sacrament of the Lord's 
 Table, or of the Altar, there is a true, proper, and propitia- 
 tory sacrifice of the actual flesh and blood of the Lord Jesus 
 Christ, under the appearance of bread and wine ; and that 
 by virtue of the priestly prayer of consecration, the elements 
 are so changed, that nothing remains of their former sub- 
 stance but only the outward appearance, which they call 
 the species ; the whole of the bread being transmuted into 
 the actual flesh, and the whole of the wine into the actual 
 
346 ROMAN DOCTRINE OF THE EUCHARIST. 
 
 blood of Christ, and each believer receiving, from the hand 
 of the priest, the entire body, blood, soul, and divinity of 
 the Saviour. They further contend, that the whole of Christ 
 is contained in either form, so that it is not necessary to par- 
 take of both the bread and the wine as Christ himself ap- 
 pointed. And hence, for many centuries, they allow the 
 laity only to receive the bread or wafer, and confine the 
 use of the wine to the priests alone. This latter change in 
 the administration of the sacrament they call a matter of 
 discipline, and acknowledge that there is no authority for it 
 in Scripture or the fathers, but justify it, as they suppose, 
 by the argument, that as there can be no human body with- 
 out blood, therefore, in receiving the body of Christ, they 
 necessarily receive the blood also. The main doctrine of 
 Transubstantiation they defend from the positive words of 
 our Lord, " Take, eat, this is my body which is given for 
 you.^^ — " Drink ye all of this, for this is my blood of the 
 New Testament which is shed for many for the remission 
 of sins,''"' (Matt. xxvi. 26,) as also from the declaration of the 
 Redeemer in the sixth chapter of St. John's Gospel, " Unless 
 you eat of the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, 
 you shall not have life in you. He that eateth my flesh 
 and drinketh my blood hath everlasting life, and I will 
 raise him up at the last day.'''' 
 
 In contradistinction from the Roman doctrine, amongst 
 others, is that which our Church maintains, together with 
 the Church of England, from which we derived it. And 
 here our Articles teach, that there is indeed a partaking of 
 the body and blood of Christ in the Sacrament of the holy 
 Eucharist, when received with a lively faith. But that this 
 presence of Christ is after a heavenly and spiritual man- 
 ner, and not according to the earthly notion of a gross mate- 
 rial substance: that therefore, there is no change of the sub- 
 stance of the bread and of the wine, but only a solemn con- 
 secration of them to a sacred use, which does truly change 
 
ANGLICAN DOCTRINE. 
 
 347 
 
 their character and their name, but not their material nature. 
 And hence our Articles condemn the Roman Catholic tenet 
 of Transubstantiation, declaring that " ^7 cannot be proved 
 by Holy Writ, but is repugnant to the plain words of 
 Scripture, overthrowcth the nature of a Sacrament, and 
 hath given rise to many superstitions.'''' 
 
 We further deny that in the Sacrament of the Holy Eu- 
 charist there is a true, proper, and propitiatory sacrifice of 
 Christ. For Christ hath once suffered for sin, saith the 
 Apostle, and there remaineth no more sacrifice for sin, but 
 only a commemoration of that which is made already. The 
 only sacrifice we acknowledge, therefore, is the sacrifice of 
 praise, the offering to God the sacred elements, as we do all 
 our other worship, and the holy, reasonable, and living 
 sacrifice of ourselves, our souls and bodies, to be his forever. 
 
 In examining the argument belonging to our subject, we 
 have to inquire, 1st, What say the Scriptures? 2dly, What 
 say the fathers'? and 3dly, What is the history and present 
 state of the Roman doctrine. 
 
 First then, the Church of Rome insists that Scripture, in 
 its literal sense, is decisive in her favour. This is my body, 
 saith Christ : This is my blood. But to this we reply, that 
 the literal meaning of Scripture is not always the true one. 
 It is, indeed, the sound and acknowledged rule of interpre- 
 tation, that the literal sense is to be received, unless it in- 
 volves an absurdity or a contradiction. And we allege that 
 the language of our Lord must be understood figuratively, 
 and not literally, by virtue of this very rule; since it is one 
 of the instances to which the saying of the Apostle applies : 
 The letter killeth, it is the Spirit that giveth life. 
 
 I shall endeavour to justify this allegation, by referring 
 to those texts of Scripture, in which a similar use of meta- 
 phorical or figurative terms is acknowledged on all hands; 
 and shall then prove, as it seems to me, that the essential 
 
348 TEANSUBSTANTIATION 
 
 principles of all religious evidence oblige us to construe the 
 words relied on in the same manner. 
 
 Our blessed Lord saith, for instance, / am the door, 
 I am the vine, I am the way. Thus also, the apostle saith, 
 The rock was Christ: all of which, with a multitude of others, 
 are admitted to be figurative expressions, although full of 
 truth and meaning. But we cannot prove them to be figura- 
 tive by any other mode, than by showing the incongruity or 
 absurdity of their literal signification. And this cannot be 
 shown by doubting, whether the omnipotence of Christ could 
 assume the appearance of these various forms; for how 
 can we place limits to the Almighty? It does not become us 
 to define what shall be impossible with God. For aught 
 we know, Christ could have taken the aspect of a vine, 
 or a way, or a rock, if it had pleased him. But such a 
 transformation could have answered no purpose that we can 
 conceive; neither is it mentioned in the sacred history as 
 having been either intended, or as having taken place; and 
 hence it is agreed, with perfect unanimity, that these expres- 
 sions were figurative, designed for a spiritual and not a literal 
 interpretation. I am aware, indeed, that our Roman brethren 
 are shocked at such an argument, and think that it is char- 
 acterized by gross irreverence. But they must permit me 
 to retort the charge upon themselves. For if it be irreverent 
 to imagine that the divine Redeemer should appear in the 
 form of a vine or a rock, how much more irreverent must 
 it be to teach, that he presents himself in the shape of a 
 wafer? 
 
 With perfect consistency, therefore, as we maintain, we 
 apply the same reasoning to the subject of the Eucharist. 
 Our Lord had previously declared in the sixth chapter of St. 
 John's Gospel, / am the living bread that came down from 
 heaven, if any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever, 
 And the bread that I will give is my flesh, which I will give 
 for the life of the world. He that eateth my flesh, and 
 
DISPROVED. 349 
 
 drinheih my blood, hath eterjial life; and I ivill raise him 
 up at the last day. For my flesh is meat indeed, and my 
 blood is drink indeed. Now in these expressions, the literal 
 sense was totally repugnant, because it would contemplate 
 the most revolting act of cannibalism, in the very face of the 
 Mosaic law. And therefore, as it is manifest that our Lord 
 could not have designed the literal eatinoj and drinking of his 
 flesh and blood, the flgurative and spiritual sense was neces- 
 sarily the only one to be adopted. His whole meaning 
 indeed was not yet clear, even to his apostles. The careless 
 and unbelieving crowd turned away at what they called a 
 hard saying. It was their duty to have waited in humility, 
 and asked for an explanation. Instead of which, they 
 condemned him at once; and probably concluding that there 
 was some ground for the slander of his enemies, that he had 
 a devil and luas mad, walked no more with him. The 
 apostles had faith enough, however, to know, that all their 
 divine Master's words must be susceptible of a wise and 
 consistent meaning, and therefore they patiently received his 
 declaration, and waited until they should have it fully 
 explained. Accordingly, in the night in which he was 
 betrayed, he tells them the mystery of his sacrifice for the 
 sins of the world ; he shows them that union with him was 
 the appointed way of salvation ; that as the common bread of 
 life nourished the body by becoming incorporated with it, 
 so he would be the bread of life both to the body and the 
 soul. And then he institutes this affecting sacrament, break- 
 ing the bread, and saying. Take, eat: this is my body ivhich 
 is given for you; and delivering to them the cup, saying, 
 Drink ye all of this, for this is my blood of the New Testa- 
 ment, which is shed for you and for many, for the remis- 
 sion of sins. How beautifully the mystery of redeeming 
 love is here both figuratively and spiritually set before them! 
 that in the faithful reception of those consecrated emblems, 
 Christ would unite himself with them so perfectly, that his 
 2h 
 
850 TRANSUBSTANTIATION 
 
 body should be accounted one with their body, his blood 
 with their blood, his soul with their soul, that the atonement 
 of his blessed sacrifice and the obedience of his perfect 
 righteousness should thus be secured to them, and the power 
 of his Divinity should be pledged on their behalf, to cleanse, 
 and sanctify, and make them more and more fit for his eter- 
 nal society in heaven! 
 
 Here then, the apostles had the former mysterious decla- 
 ration explained. The bread of heaven, which is spiritual, 
 was represented by the bread of earth, which is natural, in 
 order to show how the Redeemer's love could unite the 
 earthly offspring of the first Adam, to that second Adam 
 who was the Lord from heaven. And although the sym- 
 bols of this precious mystery were fitly appointed to com- 
 memorate the body that was broken and the blood that was 
 shed, because his obedience unto death was the meritorious 
 ground of our redemption, yet the blessing promised, and de- 
 signed to be bestowed, was the incorporation not literally 
 with his natural but with his spiritual body, the Bread from 
 heaven, in order that his elect might form that mystical 
 body which is the blessed company of all faithful people — 
 that body of which he is the Head and the Spouse, the New 
 Jcrusalem-^the Church of God. 
 
 To my mind, any other construction than this would in- 
 volve us in the very absurdity, which the Roman Catholic 
 expositors acknowledge must be avoided In the sixth chapter 
 of St. John's Gospel, where the Jews are said to have mur- 
 mured, asking, How can this man give us his fesh to eat. 
 For they all connect that chapter with the institution of the 
 Eucharist, and, to a certain extent, we have no objection to 
 this interpretation. They also acknowledge that the literal 
 eating of our Saviour's body and blood, according to the 
 mistaken notion of those disciples who turned back and 
 walked no more with him, would have been a horrible and 
 atrocious wickedness. And yet they imagine that the bread 
 and the wine are transubstantiated in the sacrament so per- 
 
DISPROVED. 351 
 
 fectly, as to be corporeally and literally^ the very same 
 flesh and Mood which were sacrificed upon the cross^ the 
 difference being in the outward appearance merely. But is 
 not this a manifest trifling with their own rule of interpreta- 
 tion? Is it not rejecting the literal sense in one place, while 
 they contend for it in the other place, although in both, our 
 Lord is speaking of the very same thing? Is it not further 
 liable to the fatal objection, that the right and the wrong — 
 the propriety or the abomination of a literal eating and drink- 
 ing human flesh and blood, — is made to turn, Jiot upon the 
 siihstantial reality^ but on the mere outward disguise ? So 
 that while they acknowledge it would be atrocious to eat our 
 Lord's flesh, if it looked like fleshy the sin becomes piety, 
 when it is his flesh under the outward appearance of 
 bread! Surely, however, it must be manifest, that the out- 
 ward appearance cannot change the quality of the act, 
 when the doer of the act professes to know that it is only 
 an outward appearance ; and therefore they are involved in 
 the strange absurdity of asserting, that the eating and drink- 
 ing human flesh and blood, which is confessed to be an atro- 
 cious barbarity in one chapter, becomes an act of the highest 
 religion in the other. 
 
 Out of this difiiculty I can see no way of escape. For if 
 they allege that our Saviour's body and blood were in the 
 one case natural, whereas in the case of the Eucharist they 
 are produced by miracle, it will be plain that it is no answer, 
 for two reasons. First, because our Saviour's natural body 
 and blood were as perfectly the product of a miracle as 
 his sacramental body and blood can be; and secondly, be- 
 cause it is their own doctrine that they are the same. 
 Listen to the prayer at the Mass, directed to be ofi^ered by 
 the people, when the Host is lifted up; that is, the conse- 
 crated bread of the sacrament, which they call the Host, 
 from the Latin word hostia, signifying the victim, or the 
 sacrifice. The bell is rung to give notice to the congrega- 
 
352 TRANSUBSTANTIATION 
 
 tion, the priest lifts up the consecrated wafer or Host on 
 high, all the people fall on their knees, and this is the 
 prayer addressed to it: 
 
 " Hail, O victim of salvation ! eternal King I incarnate 
 Word ! sacrificed for me and all mankind. Hail ! precious 
 body of the Son of God. Hail ! sacred flesh, torn with nails, 
 pierced with a lance, and bleeding on the cross for us poor 
 sinners." (True Piety, p. 61.) 
 
 In like manner, at the elevation of the chalice with the 
 consecrated wine, there is a similar address to it. 
 
 " Hail, sacred blood I flowing from the wounds of Christ, 
 and washing away the sins of the world. O cleanse, sanc- 
 tify and preserve my soul." (lb. 62.) 
 
 Thus, too, in one of the acts directed before communion, 
 (True Piety, p. 122,) the communicant uses these words: 
 "Yes, my dear Saviour, I openly confess, and am inwardly 
 convinced, that it is thou thyself I am going to receive ; thou 
 who for my sake wast born in a manger; thou who for my re- 
 demption didst die on a cross, and who, though now gloriously 
 seated on thy heavenly throne, still continvest on earthy un- 
 der the sacramental veils, to feed and nourish the souls of 
 men. Were I to behold thee with my corporeal eyes, and 
 examine the impressions of the wounds thou didst receive 
 in thy sacred hands and side, as St. Thomas did, still I 
 could not say with more confidence than I do now, that thou 
 art my Lord and my God. Though my senses may tell 
 me it is nothing but mere bread, yet submitting them entirely 
 in obedience to divine faith, I answer, it is thy real body and 
 blood, accompanied by thy sold and divinity.'''' Here, 
 brethren, it is perfectly plain, that the sacramental body and ^ 
 the natural body are regarded as precisely identical in sub- 
 stance and reality ; and therefore the eating and drinking 
 must be substantially and really the same act in the one 
 case, that it would be in the other. Consequently the neces- 
 
DISPROVED. 353 
 
 sity for abandoning the literal sense, for the figurative and 
 spiritual, must be the same in both. 
 
 This brings me to the second argument, namely, that the 
 doctrine of the Church of Rome obliges us to contradict the 
 evidence of the senses, in a matter which is the proper ob- 
 ject of sense; and thus to cast aside the highest testimony 
 which God himself has committed to his creatures. True, 
 indeed, they try to evade this argument by telling us, that 
 it is as contrary to reason that God should be Three and 
 One, as it is contrary to sense that flesh should exist with 
 the appearance of bread, and blood with the appearance of 
 wine. But this appears to me to be a mere sophism. In 
 receiving the doctrine of the Word of God concerning the 
 Trinity, we are not called upon to contradict our reason. 
 The calumny sometimes heard against the Trinity, that the 
 proposition is contradictory, arises from the ignorance of the 
 objector. For we do not hold that God is Three, in the 
 same resyect as he is One, but that he is Three m personality, 
 and One in essence or in substance, which, however it may 
 be above our reason, can never be justly said to be contra- 
 dictory to it. Indeed, so far is religion from demanding a 
 contradiction either to sense or reason, that all its evidences 
 appeal directly to the senses, and through them to the reason. 
 When our Saviour performed his wonderful works, he ad- 
 dressed himself to the senses, in proof of his doctrine. When 
 he changed the water into wine, how did his disciples know 
 the fact ? By their senses. When he fed the thousands with 
 a few loaves and fishes; when he walked on the water; 
 when he raised Lazarus from the dead ; when he healed the 
 deaf, the blind, the halt and the maimed ; when he cast out 
 devils, and said to the raging billows, " Peace^ be still ;" how 
 did the apostles know what was done? By their senses. 
 When he bowed his sacred head upon the cross, arose from 
 the dead, and ascended into heaven, how did they learn these 
 truths ? By the senses. And therefore we see that the whole 
 2h2 
 
354 TRANSUBSTANTIATION 
 
 HISTORY OF THE GOSPEL, the divinity, the humanity, the 
 miracles, and the sacrifice of our Lord, derived their testi- 
 mony from sense, and from sense alone. 
 
 Perfectly regardless of all this, the doctors of Rome tell 
 us, when arguing about their dogma of transubstantiation, 
 that we must not trust our senses to inform us whether a 
 certain substance is bread or flesh, and whether a certain 
 other substance is wine or blood. Christ said so, they ex- 
 claim, and therefore it must be true. The question, however, 
 is not, what did our blessed Lord say, but how are we to un- 
 derstand him ? For his words admit of two interpretations ; 
 one of which is consistent with the senses and reason, while 
 the other grossly contradicts them both. The Church of 
 Rome insists that we shall take the contradictory interpre- 
 tation, because it suits best, as they think, with the words 
 of the Gospel. But how do we know the words are in the 
 Gospel ] By our senses. Our eyes testify that the language 
 is recorded. And how do we know that the substance of 
 the bread and of the wine remain unchanged by the prayer 
 of consecration ? Bt/ our senses. The same eyes that bear 
 the one testimony, bear also the other. The Church of 
 Rome, therefore, places herself in this dilemma, that the 
 same eyes which she commands us to believe one moment, 
 she requires us to disbelieve the next. Neither is this the 
 whole extent of the absurdity. For we have only the sense 
 of sight to satisfy us that the words are in the Bible, but we 
 have the sight, the smell, the taste, and the touch, all testi- 
 fying that the bread is not flesh, and that the wine is not 
 blood. And yet the Church of Rome commands us, under 
 pain of damnation, to disbelieve the whole four senses, 
 in order to comply with her claim of infallibility. Truly, 
 my brethren, it is hard to know which we should most ad- 
 mire in such a doctrine, the boldness which demands the 
 acquiescence of mankind under the penalty of a curse, or 
 
DISPROVED. 355 
 
 the infatuation which has bowed the intellect of millions to 
 such a monstrous proposition. 
 
 Now these arguments we think amply sufficient to show, 
 that when our Lord uttered the words : " This is my body 
 which is broken for you, this is my blood of the New Tes- 
 tament which is shed for you," he designed not to establish 
 transubstantiation, but to set forth figuratively and spiritually 
 the great truth on which rests the whole application of the 
 Gospel system, namely, that his sincere and faithful people 
 must be incorporated with him in body and soul, in order 
 to their redemption ; and therefore that in this blessed sacra- 
 ment he would give himself to them, and unite himself to 
 them, mystically and spiritually, though really, for that gra- 
 cious and glorious purpose: while, in the bread and wine, 
 appointed as the outward symbols of this spiritual mystery, 
 he designed to exhibit, not his actual flesh and blood, but 
 an expressive ^^wre or emblem of them. For otherwise, in 
 adopting the literal sense, so as to imagine a total change of 
 the substance of the bread into Christ's natural flesh, and the 
 substance of the wine into his natural blood, we contradict 
 the divine system given to the Israelites, to which the notion 
 of feeding upon human flesh and blood would have been 
 utterly abhorrent; we contradict the evidence of the senses 
 in the proportion of four out of five; we contradict the order 
 of faith, since faith cometh by hearing, that is, by the sense, 
 which is the only avenue to the mind. And this compli- 
 cated contradiction of Scripture, sense, and reason, is to 
 serve no end; because the incorporation of the faithful with 
 Christ, both in body and soul, and his presence in the sacra- 
 ment for that purpose, is provided for as perfectly by our 
 doctrine as by theirs, and in a manner which we think 
 much more suitable to the character of the Christian system. 
 For this view of the subject presents a true analogy with the 
 other great sacrament of Baptism. " Except a man be born 
 of water and the Spirit,^'' saith our Lord, " he cannot enter 
 
356 THE TRUE DOCTRINE. 
 
 into the kingdom of God.''^ Here the connecting the out- 
 ward symbol of water which cleanses the body, with the 
 inward grace of the Holy Spirit which cleanses the soul, 
 demands no change in the natural properties of the water. 
 The minister prays that God would sanctify this water to 
 the mystical washing away of sin, and refers to the piercing 
 of the Saviour's side on the cross, and the water flowing 
 from it. But the consecrating of the portion applied in the 
 performance of this solemn ordinance, involves no transub- 
 stantiation of it into the very water which issued from the 
 sacred body of Christ, although the express command of our 
 Redeemer makes the water indispensable to the sacrament. 
 So in the other case, precisely. The same blessed Redeemer 
 connects the outward symbols of bread and wine with the 
 inward grace, which incorporates him mystically, though 
 most truly, with his faithful people, thus rendering them one 
 with his spiritual body. " JPo?' there is a natural bodyj" 
 saith St. Paul, ^' and there is a spiritual body. As it is 
 icritten, the first Adam was made a living soul, the second 
 Adam was made a quickening Spirit^'' And our Lord 
 himself declared to the objectors against his doctrine: "It 
 IS THE Spirit that quickeneth, the flesh profit- 
 ETH NOTHING." But the transubslantiatino; the outward 
 emblems of bread and wine would avail no more to our 
 union with this spiritual body, than the transubstantiating 
 of the water in baptism would avail to our spiritual birth- 
 right. They are both expressive figures or emblems of the 
 spiritual benefit, conveyed in the faithful use of the sacra- 
 ments. The water cleanses the body by washing away 
 impurity. So doth the Spirit of Christ cleanse the soul by 
 washing away our sin. Bread and wine continue and 
 support our bodily life, by entering into and becoming a 
 part of our carnal substance. So doth the Spiritual Body 
 of Christ continue and support our spiritual life, by enter- 
 ing into and becoming incorporated with all the aflections, 
 
HISTORY OF THE ERROR. 357 
 
 faculties and powers of the soul. The real force and beauty 
 of this divine arrangement is not improved but marred by 
 the idea of transubstantiation, and neither the proper defi- 
 nition nor the design of a sacrament will apply to it any 
 longer. 
 
 As the testimony of the fathers, which belongs to every 
 point in the Roman Catholic controversy, is reserved for our 
 next and last lecture, I shall occupy the brief remnant of 
 this discourse by a condensed statement of the rise and pro- 
 gress of the doctrine. 
 
 The unhappy tendency to degenerate, which has always, 
 since the fall, been characteristic of mankind, was stimulated 
 by the peculiar circumstances of the Church in the dark ages 
 of Europe, and by the subtlety of her spiritual foe, until it 
 produced an immense variety of superstitions. Thus the 
 Bible was used to determine future conduct and events, by 
 opening it, after prayer, and drawing an augury from the 
 first verse on which the eye might fasten. The water of 
 Baptism was applied as a charm; the bread and wine of the 
 Eucharist were mixed with poultices,* to increase their 
 efficacy; the sign of the cross was supposed to put de- 
 mons to flight, and by degrees an imaginary power and 
 constantly increasing exaltation of dignity were connected 
 with the martyrs, with the saints, with pieces of the true 
 cross, with relics, pictures, images, holy water, and, in a 
 word, with every thing belonging to the ceremonials of re- 
 ligion, which were increased inordinately from time to time. 
 I am far from attributing all this to any deliberate intention of 
 the priesthood to impose upon the people ; so far, indeed, 
 that I do not design to cast the slightest shade upon the sin- 
 cerity of the main body of the priests themselves. It was 
 the taste and temper of the countries and the times, imbibed 
 by all men from their early education in the days of healhen- 
 
 ^ See Bishop Burnet's Expos, of Thirty-nine Art. p. 340. 
 
358 HISTORY OF 
 
 ism, following them into their profession of Christianity, and 
 insensibly debasing and corrupting the whole system, from 
 the period when the Church began to practice on the dan- 
 gerous principle of expediency, without asking for any war- 
 rant from the Word of God. 
 
 It is obvious that while such a process was going on in 
 every other quarter, the highest sacrament of the Gospel 
 would feel its influence most sensibly, so that the true doc- 
 trine of Christ's spiritual presence in the holy Eucharist, 
 would readily suggest a superstitious veneration of the ele- 
 ments themselves, until, at length, the corporal presence of 
 Christ in these elements was made a point of faith, and they 
 were even commanded to be adored with the highest worship. 
 
 It took many centuries, however, to establish the whole 
 of this corruption. The first author who openly taught the 
 corporal presence, was Paschase Radbert, Abbot of Corby, in 
 France, in the 9th century. And he was opposed by almost 
 all the distinguished men of his time. The dispute sub- 
 sided, and little was said about it during the 10th century, 
 which is usually looked upon as the darkest and the worst 
 in ecclesiastical history. But about the middle of the 11th 
 century it was again revived, with a strong increase of 
 favour on the side of superstition. The famous Beren- 
 garius arose at this time, and wrote against it. He was 
 answered by Lanfranc and others, and many councils were 
 held upon the point. But at length Berengarius was con- 
 demned, and as by this time it had become the law through- 
 out Europe that heretics should be burned alive, the fear of 
 this co-operated with the general appetite for the marvellous, 
 and the new doctrine rapidly gained ground until it was 
 thoroughly confirmed. 
 
 Honorius IV. was the first pope who ordered the ele- 
 ments to be adored. Gregory IX. afterwards directed 
 that a bell should be rung to give the people notice of the 
 elevation. The Schoolmen next took up the doctrine, and 
 
TRATsSUBSTAXTIATION. 359 
 
 refined it into its present shape by the aid of the Aristotelian 
 philosophy, which was then the great systena of metaphysics, 
 to which every thing was submitted, as to a touchstone. 
 The term transubstantiation was applied to it by the 4th 
 Council of Lateran, and the body of Amalric, who had 
 written against it some years before, was taken up and 
 burned ; for such was now the horror with which the Church 
 regarded heresy, that the very bones of a heretic could not 
 be suffered to moulder quietly in their grave. 
 
 The next memorable event in the history of the doctrine, 
 was the establishment of the great festival of Corpus 
 Chrisii, which is related in the following manner. A cer- 
 tain nun of Liege, named Juliana, in the year 1230, had a 
 vision of the full moon, which seemed to have a gap in its 
 circumference; and was told by a special revelation from 
 heaven, that the moon signified the Church, and the gap 
 signified the want of a certain festival in honour of the body 
 of Christ, which she was to commence and announce to the 
 world. Some remarkable miracles occurred about the same 
 time, to help forward the doctrine. They relate, for ex- 
 ample, that while a certain priest, who did not believe in 
 transubstantiation, was going through the ceremonies of the 
 Mass, drops of blood fell vpon his surplice, and when he 
 endeavoured to conceal them in the folds of his garment, 
 they formed bloody images of the consecrated wafer all 
 over it. In another quarter it was reported, that certain 
 unbelieving Jews carried away the Host, (that is, the con- 
 secrated wafer or bread of the sacrament,) and beginning to 
 pound it in a mortar, found, to their dismay, that blood 
 issued from it, and that the blows seemed to be upon flesh. 
 And again, we are told, by the same Baronius (Tom. 13, p. 
 579.) that some thieves, having robbed a Church, threw 
 away the Host into a pool, where it kept the water from 
 freezing all the next winter; and a neighbouring deacon, 
 who did not know what the reason could be until after the 
 
360 FESTIVAL or CORPUS CHEISTI. 
 
 thieves had confessed iheir crime, observed a constant shining 
 light hovering over the spot every night. This miracle was 
 forthwith published, greatly to the credit of the new doctrine, 
 and the wonderful Host was carried in solemn procession 
 to the principal Church. Soon afterwards, pope Urban IV. 
 decreed the festival called Corpus Christi, in which the 
 same procession is still kept up every year, with the utmost 
 magnificence, in Roman Catholic countries ; every one 
 being compelled to kneel down as the sacred Host passes 
 by; and lights, and incense, and music, and beautiful chil- 
 dren dressed as angels, with banners, flags, and every other 
 splendid appendage, render it the most imposing spectacle 
 among their ceremonies. 
 
 The last finish was given to this subject at a still later 
 period. For the apprehension of spilling or wasting the 
 smallest portion of the consecrated wine, which they sup- 
 posed to be the actual blood of Christ, became so great, that 
 they began to draw it into the mouth with quills and pipes; 
 and at last the Council of Constance,* in A. D. 1415, took 
 the cup from the laity altogether ; thus assuming to be wiser 
 than Christ, and making it exceedingly doubtful, to say the 
 least, whether the laity receive the sacrament at all. For after 
 they have wantonly taken away one half of this divine institu- 
 tion, how do they know that the other half will profit them ? 
 
 But thanks be to God, my brethren, that our lot has been 
 cast in an age and a country, where we are relieved from 
 the yoke of this comparatively novel superstition ; and 
 where the Church of Rome herself does not attempt to cele- 
 brate those public processions, which, in other quarters, 
 remind the traveller so strongly of the compulsory genius of 
 her system. Thanks be to God, for the return of that pure 
 
 * Hard. Con. Tom. 8. p. 381. The decree acknowledges that Christ 
 Jesus ordained, and that the primitive Church administered in both 
 kinds, and yet orders those to be punished as heretics^ who hold the 
 change to be unlawful! 
 
CONCLUSION. 361 
 
 and primitive faith, which places the sacraments before us 
 as our Lord himself appointed — which holds forth every 
 profound and affecting principle of our divine Saviour's doc- 
 trine, without a superstitious exaltation of the outward em- 
 blem, — without a perilous worshipping of consecrated bread, 
 under the notion that it is transformed into a present Deity. 
 Let us never forget, however, that there is a presence of 
 Christ Jesus granted to every faithful receiver of that blessed 
 sacrament; since to all such, our Lord, with the consecrated 
 symbols, does truly give the inestimable benefit of his body 
 and blood, not after a corporeal, but after a spiritual and 
 heavenly manner, to be the support, and nourishment, and 
 strength of their souls. And while we fervently seek, by 
 confession and penitence before the Searcher of hearts, by a 
 lively exercise of faith and pious thankfulness, and by the 
 grace of charity, manifesting itself in every good word and 
 work, to prepare ourselves, through the power of the Holy 
 Spirit, for the due reception of the sacrament, let us also pray, 
 with zealous earnestness, for the welfare of the Holy Catho- 
 lic Church, whether they be Greeks, Romans, or any other 
 branch of our Christian brethren; that every superstitious 
 invention of man may be banished from among them, that 
 every change brought in upon the Gospel of Christ, may be 
 done away, and that the whole world may be united in the 
 pure worship of Him who can alone make us wise unto 
 salvation. 
 
 2i 
 
LECTURE XVI. 
 
 1 Cor. ii. 29. For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth 
 and drinketh judgment to himself, not discerning the body of the 
 Lord. (Doway Version.) 
 
 Such of you, my brethren, as I had the pleasure of ad- 
 dressing at the delivery of our last lecture, will remem- 
 ber that we treated the doctrine of Transubstantiation as held 
 by the Church of Rome ; that is to say, the change which 
 they believe takes place in the bread and wine of the holy 
 Eucharist, by which, immediately upon the priest's pro- 
 nouncing the words of consecration, the bread becomes tran- 
 substantiated into the actual flesh of our blessed Redeemer, 
 and the wine into his actual blood — the self-same flesh and 
 blood which he sacrificed upon the cross, and along with 
 them, his soul and his Divinity ; so that they hold it to be 
 an act of faith to fall on their knees before the bread and 
 wine, thus consecrated, and as they suppose, converted into 
 the Saviour himself; and adore them under this belief, as if 
 the Lord Jesus Christ was presented to them, in the outward 
 form of bread and wine. We explained on the other hand, 
 the doctrine of our Church, which teaches that the body and 
 blood of Christ are indeed received hy the faithful in the 
 Lord's Supper, but only in a heavenly and spiritual manner, 
 and that the bread and the wine in this sacrament, like the 
 water in the sacrament of baptism, are not changed in their 
 material nature, but only consecrated, as sacred emblems, 
 to a holy and religious use. We showed that the figurative 
 
SUMMARY OF THE ARGUMENT. 363 
 
 language of our Lord was admirably calculated to set forth 
 the cardinal doctrine of the Gospel, that our incorporation 
 with him was essential to our justification and redemption; 
 and that this blessed sacrament was mercifully ordained, not 
 only as a sign but as a means of grace, to promote the work 
 of this incorporation, that Christ might be in us, and we in 
 him. We proved, as I trust sufficiently, that the Roman 
 Catholic interpretation was inconsistent with Scripture, and 
 at war with sense and reason ; because we could only have 
 the testimony of our eyes to prove that the words spoken by 
 our Lord — This is my body — this is my blood — were in the 
 Bible ; and we had the testimony of the same eyes, with the 
 touch, the taste, and the smell besides, to prove that the 
 bread continued to be bread and not flesh, and that the wine 
 continued to be wine and not blood, so that before we could 
 believe their doctrine we must cease to believe our senses — 
 or rather, what is still more absurd, we must believe one 
 sense, in order to know that the Redeemer uttered the words 
 at all, and we must contradict four senses in order to receive 
 the Roman interpretation. We presented a slight sketch of 
 the rise and history of this doctrine of transubstantiation in 
 the last portion of our discourse, and we promised to take 
 up the evidence of the fathers on the present occasion, so as 
 to show, conclusively, from the witnesses to which the 
 Church of Rome most confidently appeals, that the writers 
 of the primitive and ancient Church held not their interpre- 
 tation, but our own. 
 
 To this portion of our undertaking, brethren, I would 
 now invite your attention, only reminding you that we never 
 place the testimony of Christian antiquity upon an equality 
 with the only infallible rule or law of faith, the written 
 Word of God ; but consider it in the same light as we do 
 the opinions of the judges in construing the laws of the land, 
 liable indeed to error, yet, amongst human opinions, entitled 
 to the highest respect. I would further request you to bear 
 
364 THE FATHERS, IREX.EUS, 
 
 in mind, that in consulting the opinions of the primitive 
 Church, we are under the disadvantage of taking only those 
 authors which the Church of Rome has herself thought fit 
 to hand down, for the rest are lost to us. Yet, amongst 
 those very works, we can find evidence enough to demon- 
 strate clearly, that the doctrine before us is no offspring of 
 those purer and better ages of the Church, but, in truth, an 
 absolute innovation. 
 
 I commence with Irenaeus, the bishop of Lyons, A. D. 
 170, who speaks of the sacrament of the Lord's Supper, or 
 the Eucharist, in these words : 
 
 " We offer to him, therefore, those things which are his 
 own, proclaiming the communication and the unity of the 
 flesh and the spirit. For in like manner as the bread which 
 is from the earth, receiving the invocation of God, is no 
 longer common bread, but the Eucharist, consisting of two 
 things, the earthly and the heavenly, so our bodies, receiv- 
 ing the Eucharist, are no longer corruptible, having the hope 
 of the resurrection."* Here we perceive, brethren, with 
 considerable clearness, that Irenceus considered the heavenly 
 gift granted in the Eucharist lo be the immortal life of the 
 body from the grave. But the passage furnishes proof in 
 two respects, that he could not have believed in transubstan- 
 tiation ; for first he tells us, that the bread, after the invo- 
 cation of God, is no longer common bread, but the Eucharist, 
 consisting of two things, the earthly and the heavenly; 
 whereas, upon the Roman Catholic hypothesis, he should 
 have said that it was no longer bread at all, but under the 
 veil or appearance of bread, was transubstantiated into the 
 body and blood, soul and divinity of the Lord Jesus Christ. 
 And secondly, he makes a comparison which is totally hos- 
 tile to their doctrine. For as the bread, after consecration, 
 saith IrensBus, is no longer common bread, but the Eucha- 
 rist, consisting of two things, the earthly and the heavenly, 
 
 » See Iren. Tom. i. p. §51. 
 
TERTULLIAN. 365 
 
 even so our bodies receiving the Eucharist, are no longer 
 corruptible, having the hope of the resurrection. Now here 
 he plainly compares the change which takes place in the 
 bread, to the change which takes place in the body of the 
 receiver, which is manifestly not a change of substance, but 
 a spiritual quality, to be developed in the last day. 
 
 Our next witness, however, the famous Tertullian, about 
 thirty years later than Irenaeus, will yield us an abundant 
 expression of sentiment upon the subject. And first, let us 
 hear him upon the great principle of adherence to the testi- 
 mony of the senses. 
 
 " It is not allowable for us," saith he, " to cast doubt 
 upon the testimony of the senses, lest the facts of Christ's 
 history be destroyed, for it may then be said that he falsely 
 saw Satan fall from heaven, or that he falsely heard the 
 voice of the Father bearing witness of him, or that he was 
 deceived when he touched the mother-in-law of Peter — or 
 that thefiavour was something else than of wine, which he 
 consecrated in memory of his blood. For thus it is that 
 the heretic Marcion wishes to believe that he was a phan- 
 tasm, despising the verity of his whole bodily nature. But 
 nature did not thus make a mockery of the apostles. Faith- 
 ful was their sight and hearing on the mount ; faithful their 
 taste of the wine which had been water, in the marriage of Ga- 
 lilee; faithful the touch of Thomas who was thereby made a 
 believer. Read the testimony of John : ' That which we 
 have seen,' saith he, ' which we have heard, which we have 
 seen with our eyes and our hands have handled, of the Word 
 of life. But all this testimony is false, if nature lies to us 
 in the senses of the eyes, and the ears, and the hands.'' " 
 (Tert. de Anima, p. 276.) 
 
 Again, pursuing the same argument against the heretic 
 Marcion, Tertullian asks this significant question. " Shall 
 I believe the Lord concerning the interior substance, who 
 has deceived me concerning the exterior? If he is fallacious 
 
 2 I 2 
 
366 TERTULLIAN. 
 
 in what is manifest, how shall he be true in what is con- 
 cealed?" (Tert. adv. Mar. Lib. 3, p. 401.) Here, brethren, 
 we have a forcible rebuke of the absurd pretence, which 
 demands the utter subversion of the testimony of our senses 
 in the question of the bread and wine in the holy Eucharist. 
 For if our blessed Redeemer requires us to believe, that after 
 the prayer of the priest, a little wafer has become transub- 
 stantiated into his own body, soul and divinity, and that 
 under this appearance, he designs himself to be actually 
 taken into the mouth and swallowed by every communicant, 
 while the eyes, and the sense, and the touch, and the taste, 
 all testify that it is but a wafer still, there is an end at once 
 of reliance upon the senses, and there is no test remaining 
 by which it is possible to distinguish between truth and 
 error. 
 
 But on the express point of the Eucharist itself, we find 
 Tertullian using language totally at variance with the Church 
 of Rome: " The Lord in the Gospel," saith he, (Tert. adv. 
 Mar. Lib. 3, p. 408,) " shewed bread, calling it his body, in 
 order that you might thence understand him to have given 
 to the bread the figure of his body." Again, (adv. 
 Mar. Lib. 4, p. 457,) " Our Lord," saith Tertullian, " taking 
 the bread and distributing it to his disciples, made it his body 
 by saying, This is my body, that is, the figure of my bodyj'^ 
 " And that you may recognize an ancient figure of blood, in 
 wine," continues Tertullian, " Isaias will teach you saying, 
 (63 ch.) ' Who is this that cometh from Edom, with red 
 garments from Bozrah — I have trodden the wine-press alone, 
 — and their blood is sprinkled upon my garments, and I 
 have stained all my apparel.' And still more clearly in 
 the book of Genesis, where Jacob in the blessing of Judah, 
 delineates Christ : ' He washed his robe in wine, and his 
 garment in the blood of the grape ;' indicating his flesh in 
 the clothing, and his blood in the wine. Thus now he con- 
 secrates his blood in wine, as then he figured wine for his 
 
CYPRIAN. 367 
 
 blood." (i&. 458.) Here we have the plainest declaration of 
 the true scriptural doctrine, that the bread is the figure of 
 the body, and the wine the figure of the blood of Christ ; and 
 that these figures were not instituted for the first time when 
 our Lord administered the sacrament, but were established 
 in the language of prophecy long before. 
 
 I shall add but one other passage from this celebrated wit- 
 ness of Christian antiquity ; and that is in reference to the 
 sacrifice of which the prophet Malachi speaks, and which 
 the Roman Church interprets to be the sacrifice of Christ 
 himself upon the altar. " From the rising of the sun unto 
 the going down of the same," saith the prophet, *' my name 
 shall be glorified, and in every place sacrifice shall be offered 
 to my name, and a clean sacrifice, namely," saith Tertullian, 
 " the simple prayer of a pure conscience.'''' (Tert. adv. 
 Marc. lib. iv. p. 413, 414.) 
 
 Thus, then, brethren, we have the voice of the primitive 
 Church, so early as A. D. 200, strongly insisting on the 
 evidence of the senses, which transubstantiation would de- 
 stroy, saying that Christ consecrated the wine in memory 
 of his blood, and the bread as a figure of his body, and de- 
 claring that the sacrifice of the altar which the transubstan- 
 tialist would call the offering of Christ himself, is the offer- 
 ing of prayer from a pure heart.* 
 
 Let us next inquire what testimony the distinguished 
 Cyprian, bishop of Carthage and a martyr, will give ; and 
 we shall find him furnishing a very interesting confutation 
 of the Church of Rome, in the whole of her modern doc- 
 trine. It appears that some foolish persons, in Cyprian's 
 days, had undertaken to administer the Eucharist with water 
 only, without wine. In reproving them, he quotes the apostle 
 Paul's declaration to the Corinthians, where he says that he 
 had received from the Lord that which he had also delivered 
 
 * IrensBus also interprets tlie incense mentioned by Malachi to be 
 the prayers of the saints, p. 249, § 6. 
 
368 CYPRIAN. 
 
 unto them, and adds the strong expression of the apostle to the 
 Galatians, jy t/je, or an angel from heaven, preach any other 
 Gospel than that ye have received, let him he accursed. 
 "Since, therefore," saith Cyprian, (ep. 118, p. 63,) "nei- 
 ther the apostle nor an angel from heaven could teach other- 
 wise, than Christ had once taught, and his apostles had deliv- 
 ered, I wonder greatly from whence this novelty has arisen, 
 in certain places, that against the evangelical and apostolical 
 discipline, water is offered in the cup of the Lord, which can 
 never, by itself, express the blood of Christ." — " For the water 
 signijies the people: as the divine Scripture declares in the 
 Apocalypse, The waters which thou sawest, upon which the 
 harlot sat, are peoples, and tribes, and nations, and tongues. 
 Which thing we behold contained in the sacrament of the cup. 
 For as Christ carried us all by bearing our sins, we see that 
 the people are signified by the water, while by the wine he 
 shows the blood of Christ. Therefore when the water is 
 mixed with the wine in the cup, the people are united with 
 Christ, and the whole host of believers is conjoined and in- 
 corporated with him in whom they believe. Now this com- 
 mixture and conjunction of the water and the wine, in the 
 chalice of the Lord, is so intimate, that they can never be 
 separated from each other; and hence we learn that the 
 
 Church can never be separated from Christ. And thus 
 
 it is manifest, that in consecrating the chalice or cup, water 
 alone cannot be offered, nor yet wine alone, ybr if any one 
 offers wine alone, the blood of Christ begins to be without 
 us; but if the water bealone, the people begin to be ivithoiit 
 Christ; but when both are mixed together, then the spiritual 
 and celestial sacrament is perfected. And as the cup of 
 the Lord is not water only, nor wine only, but both united, 
 in like manner the body of the Lord is not flour alone, nor 
 water alone, but both united together, so as to form one solid 
 mass of bread. By which is also signified our people united 
 together, /or as many grains of wheat collected in one, and 
 
CYPRIAN. 869 
 
 ground and mixed, make one breads so in Christ, who is 
 the bread from heaven, we know there is one body, to which 
 our assembly is united and conjoined. Now," continues 
 Cyprian, " that Christ alone is to be heard, even the Father 
 himself declared from heaven, saying, This is my beloved 
 Son, in whom I am well pleased, hear him. Wherefore, if 
 Christ is to be heard, we ought not to heed what any others 
 before us may have thought proper to be done, but what 
 Christ, who is before all, authorized. Nor is it fit that we 
 should follow the custom of men, but the truth of God, as 
 God himself declares by the prophet Isaiah, In vain do they 
 worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of 
 men ; which the Lord repeats in the Gospel, saying. Ye 
 reject the commandment of God that ye may keep your 
 own tradition." (lb. 120.) " But all the discipline of re- 
 ligion and truth is subverted, unless that which is spiritu- 
 ally commanded is faithfully retained." This long extract, 
 brethren, from one of the most distinguished of the fathers, 
 gives us the voice of the primitive Church in the year 250; 
 and you perceive how distinctly it declares, that the bread 
 and the wine were not regarded as transubstantiated into 
 the actual flesh and blood of Christ, but as figures or em- 
 blems merely. This is most manifest from the mixture 
 of the water with the wine, which Cyprian insists upon so 
 strongly, because he uses the very same words in reference 
 to the figurative character of both, the wine signifying the 
 blood, and the water, the people. Nothing can more fully 
 prove that Cyprian had no idea of any change like transub- 
 stantiation ; for the same principle which called for the con- 
 version of the wine into the actual blood, would have called 
 for the conversion of the water into the company of be- 
 lievers ; and so the cup would contain, not only the blood of 
 the Redeemer, but the whole host of the redeemed. 
 
 This is a difficulty which should, of itself, have put an 
 end to the attempt to establish this most unhappy and mon- 
 
370 AMBROSE AGAINST 
 
 strous innovation. For the Church of Rome still retains the 
 ancient custom of mingling a little water with the wine, and 
 if we ask them what becomes of the water, when the wine is 
 changed into the blood, and the bread into the flesh of the 
 Redeemer, there is no answer ready which can at all con- 
 sist with the doctrine of transubstantiation. 
 
 But the most striking point of contrast between this vene- 
 rable martyr and them, is shown in their boldly taking the 
 cup away from the people altogether,, as if it were a mere 
 superfluity. Alas I how strange an inconsistency with the 
 authority of that very apostolical tradition which they pro- 
 fess to venerate. Cyprian, one of their own most esteemed 
 saints, with the whole primitive Church upon the one hand, 
 carefully guarding the rule laid down by Christ, and ex- 
 claiming strongly against any innovation; and the modern 
 Church of Rome, in the Council of Constance, so lately as 
 A. D. 1415, on the other, ordering that the laity should not 
 receive the cup at all, and that those who presumed to con- 
 demn this change should be punished as heretics, — yes, 
 heretics! if they dared to prefer the example of Christ, and 
 the practice of the Church for fourteen hundred years togeth- 
 er, to the decrees of the pope and the Council. Who can 
 avoid the emotions of astonishment and grief, at such a com- 
 ment upon the claims of infallibility! 
 
 But let us summon for our next witness the admirable 
 Ambrose, bishop of Milan, another of the saints canonized 
 by the Church of Rome, in whose testimony we shall find 
 several sentences which strongly resemble the Roman doc- 
 trine, while nevertheless we shall see, when we have the 
 whole, that he is decidedly opposed to it. 
 
 "The Lord Jesus himself proclaims: This is my body," 
 saith Ambrose. " Before the benediction of the celestial 
 words, it is called another thing; after consecration it signi- 
 fies his body. He declares his blood. Before consecration 
 it is a different thing, after consecration it is called his blood. 
 
TRANSUBSTANTIATIOIV. 371 
 
 And thou sayest Amen : that is, It is true. What thy mouth 
 hath spoken, let thine inward mind confess: what thy speech 
 pronounces, let thine affections feel." (Amb. op. Tom. ii. 
 p. 339, 340. § 54.) 
 
 *' Again," saith Ambrose, " Who is the author of the 
 sacraments, but the Lord Jesus? From heaven the sacra- 
 ments came, for all his counsel is of heaven. But thou 
 perhaps wilt say. My bread is common bread. And so it 
 is, before the sacramental words. When consecration comes, 
 then of the bread is made the flesh of Christ. But how can 
 that which is bread become the body of Christ? By conse- 
 cration. And by whose words is this consecration? By 
 those of the Lord Jesus. For all the rest are said by the 
 priest: praises are given to God, prayer is offered for the 
 people, for kings, for others; but when he comes to prepare 
 the venerable sacrament, the priest no longer uses his own 
 words, but the words of Christ. Therefore the word of 
 Christ makes the sacrament." (Ibid. 368.) 
 
 Now thus far, brethren, although the language of Am- 
 brose is susceptible of a very sound interpretation, yet it 
 must be confessed that the general strain of it seems rather 
 favourable to the doctrine we are opposing. But we next 
 present to you the key of his meaning, which will explain 
 those expressions clearly. 
 
 " That I may further answer thee," saith Ambrose, " it 
 was not the body of Christ before consecration, but after 
 consecration 1 tell thee that it is the body of Christ. He 
 said, and it was done; he commanded, and it was created. 
 Thou also wast; but thou wast the old creature: after 
 thou wert consecrated thou didst begin to be a new creature. 
 Dost thou desire to know hoiv ? Every one, saith he, who 
 is in Christ, is a new creature,''^ (Ibid. 369.) 
 
 Here we perceive how far this venerable father was from 
 teaching transubstantiation, since he compares the change 
 which consecration produces on the bread and wine, to the 
 
372 AMBROSE AGAINST 
 
 change which a similar consecration produces on the be- 
 liever. But no one supposes that the Spirit of God, in 
 making the new creature, through a change of heart and 
 the sacrament of baptism, effects any thing like transubstan- 
 tiation. The believer retains the same soul and the same 
 body which he had before. The change is a change of 
 character and not of substance^ so that no analogy could 
 more clearly prove how well the doctrine of this witness 
 accords with that of the other, and how completely it stands 
 opposed to the subsequent innovation. 
 
 He passes on to several other illustrations of the power 
 of God, in not one of which is there the slightest pre- 
 tence of transubstantiation, (p. 370,) and then proceeds as 
 follows : 
 
 " Perhaps, however, you will say, I do not see the appear- 
 ance of blood. But it has a soiilitude : for as you have 
 taken the similitude of death, even so thou drinkest the 
 similitude of precious blood, that there may be no horror 
 of blood itself and yet the price of your redemption might 
 be available. And thus you have learned that what you 
 receive is the body of Christ." Here we see a still further 
 development of his idea, for instead of answering the ob- 
 jection like a believer in transubstantiation, he takes the 
 true ground, that the thing which the eyes beheld was only 
 a similitude, or a figure. His doctrine was, that by the 
 power of Christ after the words of consecration, the bread 
 and wine became the body and blood of Christ in a symbolical 
 sense, and that he who faithfully received them was made par- 
 taker of the Saviour's body and blood, after a heavenly and 
 spiritual manner. The objector is supposed to answer, that 
 he could not understand how this could be so, because he 
 saw no appearance of blood in the cup. Does Ambrose re- 
 ply that it was actual blood notwithstanding? that the 
 appearance was only a veil? that he must not credit his 
 senses? or does he urge a single argument that resembles the 
 modern reasoning of the Church of Rome? Not at all. On 
 
TRANSUBSTANTIATION. 373 
 
 the contrary, he replies, that the object which he saw had a 
 similitude^ that as he had undergone the similitude of death 
 in baptism, so he drank the similitude of Chrisfs blood in 
 the sacrament, and that nothing more than a similitude was 
 intended by the outward symbol or sign, because real blood 
 tvould affect him with horror. What can be less like the 
 reasoning of a transubstantialist than this? and what can 
 better accord with our doctrine, that the communication of 
 the body and blood of Christ is not after a carnal but 
 after a heavenly and spiritual manner ? 
 
 I shall notice but one testimony more, from the writings 
 of Ambrose; but it is one of far higher importance than his 
 individual opinion, because it gives us the language of the 
 liturgy used in his time, in the very prayer of consecration. 
 
 " Listen," saith he, " to the celestial words of consecra- 
 tion. The priest saith, ' Make this to us, O Lord, a chosen, 
 allowed, reasonable and acceptable sacrifice, which is the 
 figure of the body and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ.' (p. 
 371.) And again, after consecration, the priest continues his 
 prayer in these words: ' Therefore, O Lord, being mindful 
 of his most glorious passion and his resurrection from the 
 dead, and his ascension into heaven, we offer to thee this 
 immaculate sacrifice, this reasonable sacrifice, this unbloody 
 sacrifice, this holy bread and cup of life eternal^ and we 
 pray and beseech thee that thou wouldst receive this offer- 
 ing on thy sublime altar by the hands of thine angels, as 
 thou didst vouchsafe to receive the gifts of thy righteous 
 servant Abel, and the sacrifice of our patriarch Abraham, 
 and that which the highest priest, Melchisedec, offered to 
 thee.' " (pp. 372, 380, 381 ; as also Tom. i. p. 1411.) 
 
 Now here we have the strongest testimony of the wor- 
 ship of the Church in the days of Ambrose; and in it the 
 Lord is besought to make the bread and wine become the 
 figure of Christ's body and blood, which word figure is an 
 absolute proof against the whole Roman doctrine. And in 
 
 2k 
 
374 AUGUSTIN AGAINST 
 
 complete accordance with the same idea, it is called, after 
 consecration, the holy bread and cup of life eternal. So 
 that the whole testimony here afforded to us, as to the main 
 point, is distinctly in favour of the Scriptural doctrine, and 
 totally incompatible with transubstantiation. 
 
 We pass on next to Augustin, the bishop of Hippo, who 
 was the scholar of Ambrose, but went far beyond his teacher 
 in learning and in talent. The great number of his writings, 
 and the uncommon importance of his authority in the judg- 
 ment of the Church of Rome, will call for a correspondent 
 attention to his declarations. 
 
 To commence with an interesting statement on the sacra- 
 ments in general, Augustin saith, " If the sacraments had 
 not a certain similitude of those things^ of which they are 
 the sacraments, they could not be sacraments at all. But 
 from this similitude, for the most part, they take the names 
 of the things themselves. Thus, therefore, according to a 
 certain mode, the sacrament of Christ'' s body is the body of 
 Christ, and the sacrament of Chrisfs blood is the blood of 
 Christ, and in like manner, the sacrament of faith, (mean- 
 ing Baptism) is faith. — Hence the Apostle saith, speaking 
 of Baptism, we are buried by Baptism into death. He does 
 not say, We have set forth the sign of burial, but he saith, 
 We are buried. He calls the sacrament of the thing by the 
 v^ord belonging to the thing itself^ (Aug. op. Tom. ii, 
 p. 202, 3, § 9.) Here our author gives us the sound rule 
 which governs the name applied to the blessed Eucharist, but 
 which is totally hostile to the Roman doctrine. It is called 
 the body and blood of Christ, saith the Church of Rome, 
 because the bread and wine are actually transubstantiated 
 into Christ's flesh and blood. Nay, saith Augustine, but 
 because they have a certain similitude to Chrisfs body and 
 blood, therefore they are called by the name of those things 
 which they represent. The opposition is plain and pal- 
 pable. 
 
TRANSUBSTANTIATION. 375 
 
 Again, let us take the great rule of Scriptural interpreta- 
 tion from Augustin's comment on the sixth chapter of St. 
 John's Gospel, where it is usually understood, by the di- 
 vines on both sides, that our Lord was speaking of the 
 Eucharist. " If a preceptive speech," saith Augustin, 
 either forbids a crime or a sin, or orders something useful 
 or beneficent, it is not figurative. But if it appears to order 
 a crime or a sin, or to forbid something useful or beneficent, 
 it is figurative. Unless you shall eat, saith our Lord, the 
 flesh of the son of man, and drink his blood, ye shall have 
 no life in you. Here he seems to order a crime or an out- 
 rage, and therefore it is a figure, directing the communioji 
 of our Lord''s passion, and that v)e should sweetly and 
 usefully lay up in our memory, that for us his flesh was 
 crucified and wounded.^'' (lb. Tom. iii. p. 40, § 24.) We 
 perceive, brethren, in this passage, that the modern Church 
 of Rome and St. Augustin are completely at issue; for 
 they insist that our Lord meant to be understood literally] 
 whereas Augustin expressly saith, as we do, that he spake 
 figuratively. 
 
 Again, " The Lord," saith Augustin, " being about to 
 give the Holy Spirit, saith, that he is the bread which cometh 
 down from heaven, exhorting us to believe in him. For 
 to believe in him, is to eat the living bread. He who believes, 
 eats, he is invisibly nourished, because he is invisibly regene- 
 rated." (Tom. iii. par. ii. p. 358. § 1.) 
 
 Again, " Augustin repeats the language of our Lord, This 
 is the brecul which cometh dowji from heaven, that if any 
 one eat thereof, he shall not die^ " But this," observes our 
 author, " belongs to the virtue of the sacrament, not to the 
 visible sacrament ; the promise is to him who edits inwardly, 
 not outwardly ; not to him who presses with his teeth, but to 
 him who eats in his heart.'"' (lb. § 12.) 
 
 Again, in a very interesting little discourse to the young, 
 Augustin saith : " I promised to you who are newly bap- 
 
376 AUGUSTIN AGAINST 
 
 tized, a sermon in which I should explain the sacrament of 
 the Lord's table, which you now behold, and of which you 
 were, last night, made partakers. You ought to know what 
 you have received, what you are hereafter to receive, what 
 you should receive daily. The bread which you see upon 
 the altar, sanctified by the Word of God, is the body of 
 Christ. The cup, or rather that which the cup contains, is 
 the blood of Christ. By these things the Lord Christ designs 
 to commend his body and blood, which he shed for us in 
 the remission of our sins. If you have partaken of them 
 rightly, you are what you have received. For the 
 apostle saith, H^e being many, are one bread and one 
 body. He thus expounds the sacrament of the Lord's table: 
 We being many, are one bread and one body. In this 
 bread, therefore, is commended to you how you ought to 
 love unity." (lb. p. 677-8 § 1.) 
 
 Here, brethren, is another plain proof that Augustin was 
 no believer of transubstantiation. " You are^^ saith he, 
 *' what you have received.'''' This is easily understood i 
 an orthodox sense, if we remember that the consecrated 
 bread and wine are the body and blood of Christ figura- 
 tively and mystically^ because the Church is also the body 
 of Christ, figuratively and mystically. But if the bread 
 and the wine were transubstantiated into his natural flesh 
 and bloody as the Roman Catholic system declares, St. Au- 
 gustin's language would be absurd; for no one imagines 
 that the whole company of the faithful become the body of 
 Christ in a carnal sense like this. 
 
 He proceeds, however, ta make his meaning still more 
 clear: "These mysteries or sacraments," saith he, "are 
 great; yea, very great. Therefore the Apostle saith, Who- 
 soever eateth and drinketh unworthily, shall be guilty of the 
 body and blood of the Lord. What is it to receive unwor- 
 thily 1 To receive in mockery, to receive in disdain, or dis- 
 regard. Let not that seem to you mean or vile, which you 
 
TRANSUBSTANTIATION. 377 
 
 behold. What j^ou see passes away ; but what is signified, 
 invisible, does not pass away, but remains. Behold, the one 
 is received, is eaten, is consumed ; but is the body of Christ 
 consumed? is the Church of Christ consumed? are the 
 members of Christ consumed? God forbid. Here they are 
 cleansed; there they are crowned. That which is signified 
 therefore remains eternally, although that which is seen 
 passes away. So do ye then receive, that you may have 
 unity in your heart : let your hearts remain lifted up, let 
 your hope not be in earth, but in heaven." (lb. 678.) 
 
 After this beautiful and strong passage, I shall add but 
 little more from Augustin, but that little is decisive, even if 
 we had nothing besides. "Our Lord," saith he, "did not 
 hesitate to say. This is m,y body, when he gave them the 
 sign of his body." (Tom. viii. p. 90, § 3.) Once more, 
 treating of an objection foolishly raised against the applica- 
 tion of marriage by St. Paul, to the union between Christ and 
 the Church, Augustin says : " The sacraments or mysteries 
 are sacred signs,^^ and as an illustration he turns to the 
 Lord's supper ; " Thus we acknowledge," continues he, 
 " the mediator between God and man, the man Christ Jesus, 
 giving to us his flesh to eat and his blood to drink ; and we 
 receive it with faithful heart and mouth, although it would 
 seem more horrible to eat human flesh than to perish, and 
 to drink human blood than to be destroyed; and in like 
 manner, through all the holy Scriptures, according to the 
 rule of the true faith, if any thing is said or done in a figure, 
 and the exposition is drawn from those words and things 
 which are contained in the sacred pages, let us listen wisely 
 and not disdainfully; and let us leave this talker of empti- 
 ness, who really knows not what he says, in his unskilful 
 handling the quality o^ figures of speech.'' (Tom. viii. p. 
 425, § 33.) 
 
 To these conclusive and multiplied testimonies from this 
 most distinguished of the fathers, brethren, a few short ex- 
 2k2 
 
378 CYRIL AND LEO. 
 
 tracts from some other great authors may perhaps be joined, 
 although it be unnecessary. 
 
 Cyril, the bishop of Jerusalem, is often quoted by the wri- 
 ters on the other side as favourable to their doctrine, but I 
 shall present to you a passage from his works which I think 
 clearly decisive against them. 
 
 Speaking of the vow in Baptism, to renounce Satan and 
 all his pomps, he includes within the meaning of this vow 
 the bread and flesh which the heathen were accustomed to 
 devote to their idols on their festivals ; and then he makes 
 this comparison: "For just as the bread and wine of the 
 Eucharist, before the sacred invocation of the adorable 
 Trinity, were mere bread and wine, but after this invocation 
 the bread becomes the body of Christ, and the wine the 
 blood of Christ, so, and in the same manner, the articles of 
 food belonging to the pomps of Satan, although by their 
 nature they are common, are rendered profane and conta- 
 minated by the invocation of demons^ (Cyr. Hier. Cat. 
 xix. Mystag. i. p. 308.) I do not see, brethren, how such a 
 comparison could ever have been made by a transubstan- 
 tialist; for certainly, just as St. Paul sets the table of the 
 Lord in opposition to the table of devils, Cyril sets the Eu- 
 charist in opposition to the bread and flesh offered in the 
 idol feast. But surely he would not have done this if he 
 had believed, that the bread and wine of the Eucharist had 
 vanished in the prayer of consecration, and that in their 
 place was the body and blood, soul and divinity, of the Lord 
 Jesus. 
 
 In the following century, namely, the fifth, we find pope 
 Leo the great, strongly condemning the error of some who 
 refused the wine in the sacrament of the Lord's Supper. 
 " They receive the body of Christ," saith he, " with unwor- 
 thy mouth, but they altogether decline receiving the blood of 
 our redemption. Wherefore we make it known to you, that 
 men of this description, whose sacrilegious hypocrisy is de- 
 
SUMMARY OF THE ARGU3IENT. 37$ 
 
 dared by such signs, be driven by the authority of the 
 priesthood from the society of the faithful." (Leon. Mag. 
 Tom. i. p. 106.) How wonderful the change, brethren, that 
 the sacramental blood which pope Leo in the fifth century, 
 expelled these men for refusing to take, the Church of Rome, 
 some nine centuries afterwards, and ever since, should refuse 
 to give them. 
 
 But here we must close our extracts from the fathers, 
 although a large mass of testimony remains behind. Enough, 
 however, I trust, has been cited, to prove that the primitive 
 Church of Christ knew nothing of this doctrine, which has 
 become, in modern days, so prominent a peculiarity of the 
 Church of Rome; so that we are again compelled to accuse 
 her of a total disregard to every principle of authority, whe- 
 ther divine or human, in her wilful determination to raise 
 her own notions of expediency above the Word of God, the 
 voice of Christian antiquity, the testimony of sense, and the 
 judgment of right reason. 
 
 For what, I beseech you, becomes of her reverence for 
 the authority of our Lord, when she dares openly to forbid, 
 to all her laity, the sacred cup of the Sacrament, which He 
 commanded to be received; and even fulminates her curse 
 against those, who presume to prefer the precept of Christ 
 before the decree of her miscalled General Council? 
 
 What becomes of her boasted agreement with the fathers, 
 when their uniform judgment, pronouncing the consecrated 
 elements to be only a type and a figure, is distorted from its 
 true meaning; while she proclaims another solemn curse 
 against the doctrine of the very saints whom she has placed 
 upon her own calendar? 
 
 What becomes of her regard to the testimony of the senses, 
 when her doctrine of transubstantiation, entering by one 
 sense, is made to bear down and destroy the evidence of 
 four senses, pronouncing the very contrary? 
 
 What becomes of her respect for the judgment of right rea- 
 
380 GENERAL SUMMARY. 
 
 son, when she asserts a miracle without an atom of the only 
 evidence to which all other miracles appeal, namely, the evi- 
 dence of the senses, and commands a species of idolatry more 
 revolting than any which the world has ever known ? Absurd, 
 indeed, was the heathen belief, that a Deity was inclosed 
 within the sun, the moon, and the stars — or within the body 
 of some living animal — or within an image, whether framed 
 by the exquisite art of the Grecian sculptor, or roughly 
 hewn by the hand of barbarian skill. But no heathenism has 
 ever so outraged all right reason, as the doctrine which 
 invests a little wafer, in the hands of a priest, with the incar- 
 nate majesty of the Son of God, and denounces the eternal 
 anathema of the Almighty upon all who refuse to fall down 
 and worship it. And if the blessed Reformation had been 
 excited by no other cause, than this fearful corruption and 
 mutilation of the truth and integrity of the great Christian 
 Sacrament, that alone would have been an ample justification. 
 Nor would the glorious company of our martyrs have needed 
 a better argument for departing from the communion of 
 Rome than the simple fact, that it was no longer possible to 
 enjoy, in her maimed and superstitious ritual, the Eucharistic 
 feast, AS IT WAS comjianded by the Saviour. 
 
 And now, my beloved brethren, as I design to continue 
 this course of lectures no further, you will indulge me with 
 a few concluding observations, to sum up the whole. Many 
 and most serious, indeed, are the topics which I have left 
 untouched. The Roman doctrine of Justification, their priestly 
 powers of absolution, their system of the confessional, their 
 works of penance, their maxims of morality, especially as 
 they are presented by their distinguished Jesuits, their mode 
 of religious teaching, so disconnected from the Scriptures, 
 the privileges granted to their monastic orders, the effects 
 attributed to the baptism of bells, and the sign of the cross, 
 and the aspersion of holy water, with a considerable list of 
 kindred subjects, would furnish a large scope for important 
 
GENERAL SUMMARY. 381 
 
 and interesting discussion. But my object has not been so 
 much to attempt a full and complete examination of their 
 entire system, as to select a few of the more prominent points 
 which their modern advocates are in the habit of defending ; 
 and to show, by a thorough examination of these alone, the 
 absolute necessity which called for the Reformation, the 
 principles upon which it was conducted in our mother Church, 
 and its great results in purifying the whole religious atmos- 
 phere of Europe, including even the practical aspect of 
 Rome herself, at least in Protestant countries. 
 
 With this design, I have passed in review the subject of 
 the rule of faith, embracing the comparative rights of the 
 Bible and tradition ; the claims of celibacy in the priesthood, 
 the monks and the nuns ; the supremacy of the pope ; the 
 worship of the virgin and the saints, of relics and of images; 
 the doctrines of persecution, purgatory, satisfaction and 
 indulgences, and lastly transubstantiation. In all of these 
 we have seen a certain portion of truth, exaggerated, dis- 
 torted, and deformed, until it ended in the most extravagant 
 error; and in every single item of the melancholy list, we 
 have found sufficient cause for the work of the Reformation ; 
 while the aggregate forms a mass of superstition and abuse, 
 which only excites the deepest regret and astonishment that 
 such a Reformation should have been so long delayed, and 
 that the light and knowledge brought in by its instrumentality, 
 should have still left so much darkness and ignorance remain- 
 ing, throughout the great body of Christendom. 
 
 We have also seen, in some measure, how we might ac- 
 count for these various corruptions of the Church. Multi- 
 tudes of her converts had been heathen, of talents, learning, 
 and philosophical reputation. These naturally inclined to 
 indulge their old habits of thought, by engrafting them, as 
 much as possible, upon the pure Gospel: and this was one 
 source of error. Multitudes of others were politicians, cour- 
 tiers, men of the world ; who, when the conversion of the 
 
382 GENERAL SUMMARY. 
 
 Roman emperor Constantine, in A. D. 312, made Christian- 
 ity the established and the fashionable religion, exerted all 
 their influence to invest it with every attraction which might 
 serve to gratify and please the bulk of the people : and here 
 was a kind of policy which proved another source of error. 
 
 Then came the temptation of the love of power, which 
 made the superior orders of the clergy too often forget the 
 proper duties of their sacred ofRce, in the paramount object 
 of securing the empire of the Church, by which was really 
 meant, their own. While the fierce rivalry, the unhallowed 
 contentions, and the lordly claims of these worldly-minded 
 prelates, gave increasing influence to the opposite class of 
 mystic and contemplative pietists, who withdrew from the 
 world and the public glare of ostentation, to bury themselves 
 in a gloomy seclusion ; and thus, the power of superstition, 
 and mortification, and self-imposed austerities, established a 
 false but most impressive kind of sanctity, which led man- 
 kind still further away from, the precepts and example of the 
 Saviour. 
 
 And then, the most powerful, perhaps, of all second causes, 
 the decline and fall of the Roman empire, ushered in the 
 long ages of barbarism, ignorance, feudal servitude, and 
 bondage, both of mind and body, which offered the strongest 
 inducements to the spiritual despotism of the popes, and even 
 recommended every ingenious contrivance, by which the wild 
 license of warriors, barons, and belted knights, should be 
 held in check, through the force of pious frauds, and salu- 
 tary terrors. And thus, stage after stage, the immense fabric 
 of ecclesiastical dominion was carried to such a height, that 
 the pope became the master of kings and emperors; the 
 priests became the sovereigns of the people ; the mild Gospel 
 of mercy became associated with the tortures of the inquisi- 
 tion; the sword, and the prison, and the stake, became the 
 converters of heretics and the guardians of the faith ; until, 
 at last, the name of a priest, or a monk, was almost a con- 
 
GENERAL SUM3IARY. 383 
 
 vertible term for immorality and abomination. The worse 
 the Church became, the more she insisted on her infalUbi- 
 lity ; and thousands of the better and more reflecting class 
 began to think, tliat the Temple of God had indeed become 
 the synagogue of Satan. 
 
 At length came the hour of successful resistance — the 
 struggle of the Reformation. The holy Scriptures were re- 
 stored to their rightful ascendency, the testimony of the 
 earlier fathers was set against the corrupt innovations of 
 later times — the Church in many quarters was cleansed 
 from the accumulated pollution of centuries — the Gospel of 
 truth was proclaimed with honest zeal by a great company of 
 fearless preachers — and a large proportion of Europe shook 
 off the yoke of papal usurpation, to be oppressed by it no 
 more. Bright was the prospect which cheered the hopes of 
 the reformers at this mighty change, and vast has been the 
 advantage to all the best interests of the civilized world. 
 But alas! after three hundred years have rolled away, the 
 result is far from being so complete as might have been anti- 
 cipated. Liberty has brought along with it careless neglect. 
 Freedom from the yoke has multiplied dissensions. The 
 chains of superstition are converted into the bondage of the 
 world, and the Church of Rome, with improved morals and 
 more moderate claims, derives an argument of increasing 
 strength from the divisions of Protestants, talks of regaining 
 her old dominion, and looks forward to the ultimate consoli- 
 dation of the whole earth beneath her sceptre. 
 
 Under such circumstances, brethren, it must surely be 
 admitted, that those who are the descendants of the reform- 
 ers should look well to their Christian privileges, and to 
 their Christian responsibility. Reproachful and dangerous 
 as it is, at all times, to be ignorant or careless about our 
 religious principles, it is doubly so at a time like this. The 
 cause of the Reformation is the cause of God, because it as- 
 serts the rightful supremacy of the Bible — the word of God— 
 
384 CONCLUDING OBSERVATIONS. 
 
 over the false, the superstitious, and the debasing scheme of 
 human, or worse than human invention. And if the suc- 
 cess of the Reformation has not been such, as its pure and 
 sacred system would liave led us to anticipate, let us remem- 
 ber that the same remark is yet more applicable to the Gos- 
 pel itself. Shall men be allowed to say that the Reforma- 
 tion is a failure, because strife and dissension abound 
 amongst the ranks of Protestants, and even our own beloved 
 and well-ordered Church is not wholly at rest ? Shall they 
 be allowed to say that the Reformation is a failure, because 
 the Church of Rome still stands in strength and majesty, 
 proclaiming her unchangeableness, and predicting her final 
 victory ? As well may they tell us that Christianity has been 
 a failure, because Christendom itself is in subjection to the 
 world, and the hearts of men are still corrupt and selfish, and 
 infidelity walks side by side with faith, and the Church Uni- 
 versal is rent into hostile divisions, and darkness still shrouds 
 the sight of Israel, and the false prophet still keeps millions 
 in bondage, and paganism still holds down more than half 
 the race of man, although eighteen centuries have rolled 
 their round, since the sublime commencement of the apos- 
 tolic Church on the day of Pentecost. 
 
 But false, and ungrateful, and absurd would it be es- 
 teemed by every candid mind, to argue thus with respect to 
 Christianity. Incalculable arc the blessings which the world 
 owes to the Gospel, notwithstanding the prevalence of evilj and 
 if it has not effected all that might have been anticipated, the 
 fault is not in the Gospel, but in those who refuse to adopt it. 
 Precisely in the same manner may we decide the question 
 concerning the good effects of the Reformation. Its great 
 leading principle was, the re-publication of the Book of God, 
 which, for ages, had been thrust aside to make way for the 
 authority of the Church, and the heavy yoke of human tra- 
 dition. And vast have been its blessed results in every 
 quarter of Christendom. It has disarmed the ecclesiastical 
 
CONCLUDING OBSERVATIONS. 385 
 
 oppressor, restored the primitive faith, overthrown the Inqui- 
 sition, burst the captive's chains, opened the prison doors, 
 quenched the flames of torture, established the claims of 
 conscience, purified the lives of the priesthood, diffused use- 
 ful knowledge, restrained the tyranny of monarchs, and 
 recognized, on the broad scale of the divine judgment, the 
 temporal and eternal rights of man. Nay, the Church of 
 Rome herself has felt the benign influence, which, although it 
 has indeed changed none of her dangerous and anti-Christian 
 principles, has yet, wherever she comes into contact with 
 Protestants, modified and improved their practical applica- 
 tion. No man of intelligence and observation can be igno- 
 rant, that a purer standard of morals, a higher mark of gen- 
 eral intelligence, a more elevated tone of instruction, and a 
 serious decrease of superstition, distinguish the Church of 
 Rome, in Protestant countries, from the same Church else- 
 where. So that if she dare be just, without regard to policy, 
 even Rome herself would be compelled to acknowledge the 
 benefits of the Reformation. 
 
 Far be it from us, however, to presume on the righteous- 
 ness of our cause, as an excuse for sloth or negligence. It 
 is a time, not for pride and boasting, but for repentance and 
 humility — not for blind confidence and apathy, but for watch- 
 fulness and prayer. It is a time when the true-hearted sons 
 of the Reformation should cast away their prejudices, and 
 strifes, and divisions ; seek for the things that make for 
 peace, and, firmly united among themselves, contend for the 
 faith once delivered to the saints — not in bitterness, nor in 
 wrath, nor in evil-speaking, but in soundness of speech, and 
 ripeness of knowledge — meekly instructing all who oppose 
 the truth, and especially laboring for the benefit of that 
 Church of Rome, which it is our duty to regard with the 
 love of benevolence, notwithstanding all her grievous errors, 
 for the sake of the multitudes who belong to her corrupt 
 communion. The Reformers themselves, with millions of 
 
 2l 
 
396 OBJECTION FROM PROPHECY. 
 
 their countrymen, were once involved in the same darkness. 
 Why, then, should we despair of the further progress of the 
 Reformation 1 Why may we not hope that the Church of 
 Rome might yet be led to see her errors, and be restored to 
 her original purity ? Why should we not make it, so far as 
 we have opportunity, a subject of our efforts, our wishes, 
 and our supplications ? Are we content to be of the number 
 whose strength is to sit still ? Are we willing to expose 
 ourselves to the woe pronounced against those who are at 
 ease in Zion 1 
 
 But prayers and efforts in behalf of Rome may be deri- 
 ded by some, on the strength of prophecy. Is not Rome 
 Babylon? Is not the pope Antichrist? And must not 
 Babylon fall ? And shall not Antichrist be destroyed by the 
 brightness of the Redeemer's coming? Assuredly, my 
 brethren, Babylon must fall, and Antichrist must be destroy- 
 ed, for the mouth of the Lord hath spoken it. But may 
 not Babylon signify her princely dominion, her pomp and 
 pride? May not Antichrist signify her anathemas, her per- 
 secution, her idolatry, her assumed infallibility, her papal 
 despotism ? And is it not possible that the Church of Rome 
 — such as she was when planted by apostolic hands, and 
 such as she continued for the first few centuries — might 
 again arise, when Babylon and Antichrist are both cast down 
 forever? Is it inconsistent to think, that the awful corrup- 
 tions figured by these names might all be cleansed away, 
 while the ancient principles of faith, government and wor- 
 ship should remain ; and thus while Popery should indeed 
 be overthrown, the primitive Church of Rome might be 
 raised again to life amidst the ruin? 
 
 It is no part of my design, however, to enter upon the 
 discussion of the prophecies connected with our subject. 
 However we may interpret these Sacred Oracles, beloved 
 brethren, we cannot err in humbly looking forward to the 
 unfolding of those great events, which may, even now, be 
 
CONCLUSION. 387 
 
 nigh at hand. We cannot err in diligently striving to 
 watch and labor, as good stewards, in our respective voca- 
 tions. We cannot err in offering to the throne of grace the 
 fervent and the constant prayer, that the pure faith of the 
 Gospel may be established without any alloy of human inven- 
 tion — that the Church of Rome herself may be brought 
 back to her own original standard — that the dissensions of 
 Christendom may all be healed — that the kingdoms of our 
 world may become the kingdoms of our Lord and of his 
 Christ, and that the whole earth may be filled with 
 
 mS GLORY. 
 
 THE END. 
 
DATE DUE 
 
 
 Mi 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 CAVLORO 
 
 
 
 l»«lNTCO IN U.S.*. 
 
Princeton Theological Seminary-Speer Librar' 
 
 1 1012 01145 1491