■ ■ ■'■■ * 
 
 : • v ? •> ■ ■ ;■ ,.- fr ■' „-' |g|g|g|! 
 
 : i ; * T; ^ 
 
 -S^mss, i 5 
 
 f.. 
 
 ’* j ’ ,§ ^ ^ y ■* ** m si 
 
 . 
 
 .. ." 
 
 -, '. j ~: t £ $®g f ^--^ 
 
 ^ilSB 
 
 ■■ - 
 
 k feflSil 
 
 
 -m 
 
 yfgSBSm 
 
 
 " ^ ' - * ■■ 
 
 •> - %{, n 4 b - • • * swmslji ?xi 
 
 J <• ’'''''>' £ * '} v 0!£*£' 
 
 - 
 
 -r -' • . , ■ ■..'•• * ? $, ^ili?* . 
 
 University of 
 Illinois Library 
 at Urbana-Champaign 
 Oak Street 
 
 m 1 
 
 ?£-®val 
 ?&”** ■* fiB 
 
 ■■8 a 
 
 • ■ Wm 
 
University of 
 Illinois Library 
 at Urbana-Champaign 
 Oak Street 
 
 LIBRARY U OF 1 URBANA-CHAMPAK3A 
 
. il. ' < : - : 
 
A 
 
 REPLY 
 
 TO THE 
 
 CHARGES 
 
 MADE BY THE 
 
 Rev, WALTER FARQUHAR HOOK, M.A., 
 
 (Chaplain in Ordinary to the King,) 
 
 AGAINST THE 
 
 CATHOLIC CHURCH, 
 
 AND THE 
 
 CATHOLICS OF ENGLAND: 
 
 TOGETHER WITH 
 
 LETTERS 
 
 ADDRESSED TO THE 
 
 Archbishop of Canterbury , to the Rev. W. F. Hook , M.A . , Sfc , on the 
 Apocryphal Books of Scripture, Sfc. Sfc. Sfc. 
 
 BY 
 
 VERAX, 
 
 CATHOLIC LAYMAN. 
 
 
 LONDON: 
 
 BOOKER AND DOLMAN, Gl, NEW BOND STREET ; 
 
 AND 
 
 KEATING AND BROWN, 38 , DUKE STREET, GROSYENOR SQUARE, 
 AND 63 , PATERNOSTER ROW. 
 
 1837. 
 
 LIBRARY U OF I URBANA-CHAMPAKS* 
 
W. Davy, Printer, 
 
 8, Gilbert-St. Oxford-St. 
 
ISL* \ 
 
 S+gS 
 
 CONTENTS. 
 
 Letter to the Rev. Walter Farquhar Hook i 
 
 References, &c . xvii 
 
 On Infallibility 1 
 
 On the Eucharist * , 4 
 
 On Purgatory 31 
 
 On Confirmation 52 
 
 On Confession of Sins 58 
 
 On Holy Orders 67 
 
 On Matrimony 70 
 
 On Extreme Unction . . .% 72 
 
 The Bishops of Rome have ever been acknowledged as 
 
 supreme head of the Church 74 
 
 On Supremacy 84 
 
 On the Intercession of the Saints 87 
 
 On praying in an Unknown Tongue 104 
 
 On Indulgences 116 
 
 APPENDIX. 
 
 No. 1, Strictures on the Rev. W. F. Hook’s publica- 
 tion 123 
 
 No. 2, To His Grace the Archbishop of Canterbury. . 134 
 
 No. 3, To the Rev. W. F. Hook, 142 
 
 No. 4, To my Readers 153 
 
Digitized by the Internet Archive 
 in 2017 with funding from 
 
 University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign Alternates 
 
 https://archive.org/details/replytochargesmaOOvera 
 
TO THE 
 
 REV. WALTER FARQUHAR HOOK, M.A., 
 
 Chaplain in Ordinary to the King , and Vicar of 
 Trinity Parish , Coventry. 
 
 Rev. Sir, 
 
 My object now is, as far as my humble endeavours 
 may extend, to warn the thinking portion of the community 
 from being misled by those false and malignant spirits who 
 are so busy to poison the public mind against us ; who dress 
 us up in a hideous garb, and put upon us all sorts of defor- 
 mities of their own invention, till people believe us to be 
 any thing but what, I trust, we really are : likewise would 
 I guard them against the injustice which we are doomed to 
 suffer from igfiorance and credulity; an injustice of which 
 we have, perhaps, the most reason to complain, because it 
 is the easiest to rectify. While every other species of 
 learning is pursuing a rapid, a triumphant career ; while the 
 press teems almost daily with authenticated expositions of 
 our doctrine ; and while well informed Catholics are to be 
 met with at every corner, ready to give evidence of our 
 faith ; it is too much to be reduced to the alternative of being 
 either neglected as unworthy of attention, or of seeing our 
 
 b 
 
11 
 
 tenets and our conduct studied only in the writings of our 
 adversaries ! The errors of the generality of mankind, may, 
 it is hoped, be extenuated, as arising from prejudices care- 
 fully instilled into the infant mind, fostered through every 
 stage of education, and, perhaps, matured by subsequent 
 habits of indifference in religious matters, or at least by a 
 neglect of all further enquiry ; but for men who profess to 
 make accurate research and profound study the basis of 
 every opinion which they deliver to the world — men of re- 
 puted learning and of extensive literary fame — there can be 
 no palliation, when, in the face of the strongest historical 
 evidence, they are guilty of deliberately advancing the most 
 gross and unfounded calumnies against their Catholic fellow- 
 countrymen, and the doctrines of the Universal Church. 
 
 Bishop Milner (the modern Bossuet) justly remarks, “ that 
 the shameful misrepresentations of our religion are an oc- 
 casion of the conversion of many Protestants : such characters 
 when they get into company with Catholics, or read their 
 books, cannot fail to enquire whether they are really such 
 monsters of idolatry, irreligion, and immorality, as the 
 writers of this day represent them to be. When, discovering 
 how much deceived they have been by calumny and mis- 
 representations, and viewing the fine face of the Catholic 
 Church instead of the hideous mask which had been placed 
 before them, they seldom fail to become enamoured with it, 
 and, in case religion is their concern, to become our best 
 Catholics.” 
 
 As to the friendly advice you give Roman Catholics 
 (page 165 in your book) to forsake the Catholic Church 
 and to become Protestants, I, for one, never could con- 
 scientiously follow it. Primo, for the first question I would 
 
Ill 
 
 put to you, Rev. Sir, (as a minister of the Established 
 Church,) would be in the words of Tertullian : “ Whence 
 do you come; prove your origin.” Your Church (the Pro- 
 testant Church) did not exist till one thousand five hundred 
 years after Christ, and, therefore, it came one thousand five 
 hundred years too late to be the true Church of Christ. 
 Martin Luther laid the first foundation of the Protestant 
 religion in the year 1517 ; and his followers took the name 
 of Protestants in the year 1529, before which time neither 
 the name or religion was ever heard of. Not a single man 
 before Luther ever heard of the thirty-nine articles, or any 
 other entire system of Protestantism as it is now professed. 
 Now, how can that be the true Church of Christ which, for 
 so many ages after Christ, had no existence in the world ] 
 The true Church of Christ can be no other than that which 
 had its beginning from Christ, and which, as he promised, 
 was to stand for ever. (Matt. xxvi. IB, and xxviii. 20.) 
 
 2dly. Because the Protestant religion cannot be true, 
 except the whole Scripture be false, which in so many 
 places assures us, that the Church of Christ should never 
 go astray ; for every one knows that the Protestant religion 
 pretends to be a reformation of the Church of Christ, and it 
 is evident that there could be no room for a reformation of 
 the Church of Christ unless it had gone astray. Now, if 
 this be true, the Scripture must be false, which so often 
 promises that Christ’s Church shall never fall into error. 
 “ Thou art Peter, that is a rock,” says our Lord, (Matt, 
 xvi.) “ and upon this rock will I build my Church, and the 
 gates of hell (the powers of darkness) shall not prevail 
 against it.” Therefore the Church of Christ could never go 
 astray. “ Go, teach all nations,” says the same Lord to 
 the apostles and their successors, the pastors of the church, 
 
 b 3 
 
IV 
 
 (Matt, xxviii.) “ and behold, I am with you always, even 
 to the end of the world.” Therefore the Church of Christ 
 could never fall into errors, because Christ has promised 
 his presence and assistance to her teachers, even to the end 
 of the world. See St. John, xiv, where Christ promises to 
 the same pastors and teachers of the church, the comforter, 
 the spirit of truth, to abide with them for ever, to teach 
 them all things, and to guide them unto all truth. (John xvi.) 
 Therefore, the Protestant cannot be the true church. 
 
 3dly. Because the Protestant Church has not those marks 
 by which the Nicene Creed directs us to the true Church 
 of Christ. It is not one holy catholic and apostolical. It is 
 not one, because the different branches of the pretended 
 reformation are divided from one another, in faith and com- 
 munion ; nay, scarce any two single men among them all 
 are of the same sentiments in religion ; and no wonder, since 
 every man’s private judgment is, with him, the only judge 
 to determine his religion ; so that it is not possible they 
 should ever be united in one and the same belief. 
 
 Their Church is not holy, neither in her doctrine, which 
 especially, in the first “ reformers,” was shamefully scan- 
 dalous in encouraging the breaking of vows, &c., and most 
 blasphemous in charging God with being the author of sin. 
 Nor is she holy in the lives, either of the first teachers, the 
 greatest part of whom were infamous for their vices, or of 
 their followers, who, as many of them have owned, instead 
 of growing better by embracing the “ reformed religion,” 
 grew daily worse and worse. Their Church is not Catholic : 
 they are sensible this name belongs not to them, and, there- 
 fore, they have taken to themselves another name, viz. that 
 of Protestants. And, indeed, how should their Church be 
 
Catholic or universal, which implies being in all ages and 
 all nations, since it had never been heard of for fifteen 
 ages ? The Protestant religion, as by law established, is 
 distinct in its faith and worship, and different from every 
 other sect of Protestants. “ Our articles and liturgy,” 
 says Tomline, Bishop of Lincoln, in his Charge, 1803, “ do 
 not correspond with the sentiments of any of the eminent 
 reformers on the continent, &c. consequently, the Pro- 
 testant religion is the religion of but one nation, and consists 
 of none else but English subjects; nor can it be said that 
 the greater part even of them are its members. The Pro- 
 testant religion then consists of a small portion of a small 
 community in a small country. One might as well call 
 England the universe as to call its religion Catholic, for 
 Catholic signifies universal. Their Church is not apostolical, 
 since it neither was founded by any of the apostles, nor has 
 it any succession of doctrine, communion, or lawful mission 
 from the apostles. 
 
 4thly. Because all kind of arguments are in favour of the 
 Catholic Church, and against the Protestant. Ours is the 
 Church in which all the saints both lived and died. Our 
 religion has been, in every age, confirmed by innumerable 
 undoubted miracles : we alone inherit the chair of St. Peter, 
 to whom Christ committed the care of his flock. (John xxi.) 
 By the ministry of our preachers alone, nations of infidels 
 have, in every age, been converted to Christ. In a word, 
 antiquity, perpetual visibility, apostolical succession and 
 mission, and all properties of the true Church belong to us, 
 and to us alone. 
 
 5thly. Because the Protestant religion can afford no cer- 
 tainty in matters of faith. She owns that she is fallible even 
 
yi 
 
 in necessary articles of faith, and that she may fall into 
 errors, even destructive to salvation. What security, then, 
 can she give her followers'! She has no certainty of the 
 scripture itself, which she pretends to make her only rule 
 of faith. If she appeal to tradition, this, according to her 
 principles, cannot ground a certain faith, since she makes 
 the scripture alone the rule of faith. If she appeal to 
 Church authority, this too, she pretends is not infallible: 
 what then must become of the infallibility of her faith, 
 when she has no certainty of the scripture, upon which 
 alone she pretends to ground her faith! Besides, though 
 she were infallibly certain of the scripture being the pure 
 word of God, it would avail her nothing ; except she were 
 also infallibly certain of her interpretation of the scripture. 
 And to this infallibility she neither can, nor does pretend 
 to lay claim. Thus, her children have no other ground for 
 their faith and religion, than her doubtful interpretation of 
 the word of God, opposite in many points to the interpreta- 
 tion of that Church, which is founded on certain and infal- 
 lible authority, such as she cannot pretend to. 
 
 But, Rev. Sir, Prostestants tell us that our Church has fallen 
 into error ; has supplanted the word of God by the traditions 
 of man ; that she has become superstitious, “ damnable and 
 idolatrous; ” that her chief pastor is “Antichrist,” the “man 
 of sin,” &c. We ask you then to point out the time when, 
 and the place where, these various errors first crept into 
 her formularies 1 Who first broached them 1 Who opposed 
 them 1 Point out even a single page of authentic history to 
 prove your assertions. Not so with us ; we can proudly 
 refer to the practice of the primitive ages of the Church. 
 W e can produce the concurring testimonies of the ancient 
 fathers, and of all ages down even to the present time, in 
 
Vll 
 
 evidence of the truth and sanctity of our faith. This is the 
 language of the Catholic, conscious of the rectitude of his 
 cause. Not so with his opponents ; for here we have a 
 proof of the absolute inutility of the Protestant rule of faith, 
 “ the Bible, and nothing but the Bible.” Latterly we have 
 seen a learned divine of the Church of England, in order to 
 defend one of the most essential articles of his faith, obliged 
 to lay aside his Bible altogether, and fly for refuge to the 
 Popish doctrine of tradition ; a doctrine which doubtless he, 
 (like most others of his brethren,) never misses an opportunity 
 of condemning and opposing. 
 
 Here is another reflection naturally arising from the fore- 
 going, which, whilst it affords to the Catholic a subject of 
 honest triumph, must tend to open the eyes of the thinking 
 and unprejudiced Protestant, to the real value of the religion 
 in which he believes. It is the admission, that the doctrine of 
 the necessity of infant baptism was never denied, or even so 
 much as doubted, during the long period of fifteen hundred 
 years preceding the pretended Reformation. No ! it was 
 reserved for these days of Protestant Bible reading and 
 private interpretation ; to witness thousands of professing 
 Christians living in a state of practical heathenism ; to see 
 thousands of human beings excluded from the joys of eternal 
 salvation, because their parents, in the exercise of their own 
 private judgment, think fit to believe that infant baptism is 
 either useless or unscriptural. Thus, whilst Protestantism 
 is fast spreading amongst her disciples the pernicious fruits 
 of novelty and irreligion ; the Catholic Church continues to 
 maintain her glorious unity of faith, and by preserving to 
 her children the truths once delivered to her by her divine 
 Lord and his Apostles, leads them in the secure path to 
 eternal life and everlasting happiness. 
 
Vlll 
 
 I will beg leave now to ask you, who were your Apostles ] 
 
 I answer, Luther, Calvin, and Henry the Eighth, (who 
 wrote a defence of the Seven Sacraments, for which he got 
 from the Pope, the title of “ Defender of the Faith,” and 
 which title all the Kings of England from his day to the 
 present, do take and assume.) Now these pretended Re- 
 formers, were men of the most corrupt and depraved lives. 
 Good heavens ; surely I never can believe that a God of all 
 purity and of all sanctity, could send such men as these 
 were to reform his Church; He that promised that his 
 Blessed Spirit should remain with his Church for ever, 
 teaching her, and guiding her into all truth. The very 
 idea to me is preposterous ; but you will probably say in 
 reply, that great and good events have been brought about 
 by the worst of men ; my answer would be, that though we 
 find many of God’s ministers going on in ordinary succession 
 to be bad men, yet we never find any but persons of the 
 most eminent piety and virtue charged by him with an 
 extraordinary commission of making known his will to men, 
 such as Moses, Abraham, Noah, St. John the Baptist, and 
 the Apostles. 
 
 But for argument sake, let us for a moment suppose 
 Luther’s commission to have been as sublime and as arduous 
 as was that of the Apostles, I wish first to ask you, if 
 “ coarseness of manners and writings, presumption and 
 impetuosity,” were allied with the character of these envoys 
 of the meek Jesus] Secondly, whether it was found that 
 the latter could not succeed in their great work without 
 qualities of this complexion 1 Lastly, I beg leave to in- 
 quire how far the language and behaviour of Martin Luther 
 correspond with the ideas we naturally form of a chosen 
 instrument of Providence, a new Elias, and an ecclesiastes 
 commissioned by divine revelation ] 
 
IX 
 
 In the first place, it was natural to expect that a personage 
 of this character would have entered upon the ministry of 
 reforming the religion of Christendom, from a thorough con- 
 viction of the errors with which it was infected; in other 
 words, from a principle of conscience. But no such thing : 
 it was a private quarrel between Luther’s order, the Augus- 
 tinian friars, and a rival order, the Dominicans, in a matter 
 of honor and profit, which first occasioned him to commence 
 reformer. He, after this, continued to submit himself to 
 the Pope as long as he had any prospect of cajoling or in- 
 timidating him ; and it was only when his doctrines were 
 condemned by the authority to which he himself had ap- 
 pealed, that he boasted of setting himself in opposition to 
 the united belief of all the Christians in the world. He 
 proceeded in his career with the same bad faith with which 
 he had entered upon it, taking up his theological opinions 
 from sudden gusts of passion and revenge ; as, when being 
 called upon to retract a certain condemned position of Huss 
 which he had advanced, he furiously exclaimed, that all the 
 positions of Huss were true, though in other circumstances 
 he loudly condemned them. Thus also he acknowledges, 
 that he had tried to persuade himself of there being no real 
 presence of Christ in the sacrament, on purpose to spite the 
 Pope, but that the words of scripture were too plain in 
 favour of it. In like manner he openly proclaims to the 
 whole body of Protestants, that in case they presume to 
 consult together, and determine about their common belief, 
 he will return back to the ancient church, and revoke every 
 word he had ever written or taught against it ; telling them, 
 that even in acting right, when they acted without his au- 
 thority, they were plunging themselves into the jaws of 
 hell. 
 
 Again, Rev. Sir, we have a right to expect from a new 
 
X 
 
 apostle, a second Elisha, that if he have any supernatural 
 communication, it should be with no other than with celestial 
 spirits. Instead of this, Luther has published to the world, 
 not only that he held frequent communications with the 
 Devil, but also that he learned the most material part of his 
 whole reformation, namely, the abolition of the mass, from 
 him. You will find, Rev. Sir, in his treatise on that sub- 
 ject, an account of Satan’s appearing to him by night, and 
 of a long dialogue that passed between them, in which 
 Luther defends the mass, and the Devil argues against it. 
 The conclusion is, that the new apostle yields to the motives 
 suggested by his infernal antagonist, and adopts the im- 
 portant reform which he proposes. 
 
 In a word, Rev. Sir, we should have expected in a 
 professed reformer of Christianity, the strictest morality 
 both of life and doctrine, and the most edifying piety, modes- 
 ty, meekness and charity. Let us examine, in a few words, 
 how far Luther was possessed of this character. He tells 
 us, that while he continued a Catholic monk, he “ observed 
 chastity, obedience and poverty ; and that, being free from 
 worldly cares, he gave himself up to fasting, watching and 
 prayer whereas, after he commenced reformer, he describes 
 himself as raging with the most violent concupiscence, to 
 satisfy which he broke through his solemn vow of continency, 
 in direct opposition to his former doctrine, by marrying a 
 religious woman who was under the same obligation. He 
 then proceeded to teach the shameful lessons we have seen 
 above with others still more licentious ; such as the per- 
 mission, in certain cases, of concubinage and polygamy ; 
 and that pestilential doctrine, which is the utter destruction 
 of all morality, that there is no freedom in human actions. 
 He accordingly asserts, that “ free will is an empty name. 
 
XI 
 
 and that when it does its best, it sins mortally that, “ it is 
 like a horse ; if God sit thereon, it goes as he wills ; if it 
 be ridden by the devil, it moves as he pleases that, “ when 
 the scripture commands good works, we are to understand 
 it to forbid them, because we cannot do them;” that, “ a 
 baptised person cannot lose his soul, whatever sins he com- 
 mit, provided he believe ; inasmuch as no sin can damn us 
 except infidelity.” The system contained in these propo- 
 sitions, Luther himself, on several occasions, proclaims to 
 be the quintessence and characteristic of the reformation, 
 and every other controverted point was a mere trifle com- 
 pared with it. Need we wonder at the multitude of prose- 
 lytes to such a theory, or at their subsequent conduct 1 But 
 how shall I speak of the phrenetic fury and outrageous 
 abuse to which he abandons himself, and of his indecent 
 buffoonery against all those persons, of whatever dignity, 
 whether in Church or State, who venture to oppose him ! 
 You must admit, Rev. Sir, that his language is “ coarse, 
 impetuous, and presuming.” But are these the proper 
 qualifications for such excesses ? The usual flowers of his 
 speech, when addressing the Pope, and other Catholic pre- 
 lates, are, villain, thief, traitor, apostle of the devil, bishop 
 of sodomites ; and the extent of his charity to them is, to 
 wish that their bowels were torn out, that they -were cast 
 into the Mediterranean sea, or into the flames, and that they 
 were hurried away to the devil! There are other pas- 
 sages, in great numbers, too indecent to admit of being 
 translated at all. His treatment of the king of England, 
 Henry VIII. with whom he had, at one time, a theological 
 controversy, though afterwards they grew into a better un- 
 derstanding with each other, was not more respectful than 
 his treatment of the Pope. Luther makes no difficulty to 
 call his royal antagonist a thomistical pig, an ass, a jakes, 
 
Xll 
 
 a dunghill, the spawn of an adder, a basilisk, a lying buffoon 
 disguised in a king’s robe, a mad fool with a frothy mouth 
 and a whorish face. He even addresses him as follows : 
 “ You lie, you stupid and sacriligeous king.” Mr. Hume, 
 in his Life of Henry VIII., says, “ Reason bore not any 
 considerable share in opening men’s eyes.” And again: 
 “ the rapid advance of the Lutheran doctrine, and the 
 violence with which it was embraced, prove sufficiently that 
 it owed not its success to reason and reflection.” See Mr. 
 Hume’s Hist, of Eng. vol. vii. 32. Dublin edit. 
 
 You will probably be offended with this portrait of the 
 first Reformer, and Father of the Reformation ; but remem- 
 ber, Sir, it is not I who trace it, but it comes from his own 
 pen. And as to the characters of the other leading Re- 
 formers abroad, such as Zuinglius, Carlostadius, QEcolam- 
 padius, Ochin, Calvin, and Beza, you will excuse me by not 
 introducing them here, otherwise it would be an easy 
 matter to trace from their own writings, and the accounts of 
 their professed friends, separate portraits of them, almost as 
 disgusting as that of Luther himself. 
 
 The Protestant Church, Rev. Sir, has no settled principles 
 of faith ; for neither her ministers or her laity can nor do 
 pretend to uniformity. I have never yet conversed with a 
 man who dared to take the “ Book of Common Prayer ” into 
 his hand, and declare his belief in all the doctrines therein 
 contained, because he reserves to himself the divine right 
 of examining his own judgment upon each of them. When 
 your Church seceded from the Catholic Church, she declared 
 the right of private judgment as to the meaning of the 
 scriptures ; but no sooner did she acquire power, than she 
 built up her liturgy and church establishment, denying to 
 
Xlll 
 
 all other sects the same conscientious freedom, under pain of 
 heresy and penal statutes. The secession of the Protestant 
 Church from the Catholic Church was not the result of 
 conscientious motives, and it is with deep regret (I say) 
 that they ever separated from the Mother Church, out of 
 which they could receive no mission. The Protestant 
 Church was originated by the very worst of men ; this is 
 a matter of history. If then this Church derived its religion 
 from such bad materials, how far does it accord with the 
 manner and the sort of men whom it pleased God to mahe 
 use of in instituting and maintaining the Catholic religion ! 
 But, Rev. Sir, this same Catholic and Apostolic Church 
 which you violently revile and calumniate, has now with- 
 stood for eighteen centuries, all the arguments, persecutions, 
 and penal enactments, which the ambition, the avarice, or 
 the malice of man could invent. That power which pre- 
 served our religion in her infancy, when she had, perhaps, 
 even stronger prejudices and passions to contend with than 
 she has at present, and which has brought her triumphantly 
 through the troubles and misfortunes of her manhood, will 
 continue to guide her in her old age, till, having accomplished 
 her destinies upon earth, she returns pure and spotless to 
 whence she came — to the bosom of the Divinity. 
 
 I have now given you, Rev. Sir, a few out of the many 
 reasons I could produce, which retain me in the bosom of 
 the Catholic and Apostolic Church ; assuring you at same 
 time, with the most perfect truth, that conviction alone deter- 
 mines me. For I have read, and thought a great deal on 
 these subjects, and the more I have done so, the more firmly 
 I am convinced of the truth of the religion I have the hap- 
 piness to profess ; in so much, that I exclaim with the great 
 St. Augustin : “ I would not believe the Scriptures, except 
 
XiV 
 
 on the authority of the Catholic Church.” Indeed I should 
 like much to hear you, Rev. Sir, on Protestant principles, 
 defend the authenticity of the noted text of the 1st epistle 
 of St. John, c. 5, v. 7, against an Unitarian , and which most 
 certainly is not to be found in several ancient manuscripts, 
 and as such, is considered by him as smuggled into the 
 sacred volume. The fact is, take away the authority of 
 the Catholic Church, and the Bible has not a leg to stand 
 on. Also how can you, on the same (Protestant) principles 
 pretend to defend the validity of St. Matthew’s Gospel. 
 These are stumbling blocks not to be got over ; therefore, 
 Rev. Sir, I prefer to remain within the ark in perfect secu- 
 rity, instead of exposing myself to every storm and tempest 
 in your uncertain vessel, exposed as it is to every wind of 
 doctrine. But in saying this, let me not be misunderstood, 
 for thank heaven I profess the most unbounded liberality 
 towards all mankind ; and in claiming perfect freedom of 
 religion for myself, it is my most sincere wish, that my 
 neighbour should possess the same on the most extensive 
 scale, for he is not answerable for me, nor am I for him. 
 Neither is it just or christian-like to force one’s opinion on 
 others, or to misrepresent their creed by all sorts of mis- 
 representations. Believe me, Rev. Sir, the only way to 
 make an impression is, “ by good example,” and not by 
 writing books full of calumnies and gross falsehoods, against 
 the religion of any one. Indeed I do believe if the devil 
 out of hell could invent a new calumny, it would be pawned 
 by him and his agents on the Catholic Church. But, Rev. 
 Sir, she laughs to scorn at her calumniators ; she proudly 
 proceeds in her triumphant career, bidding defiance to her 
 enemies, for she can brave all weathers and all storms, 
 having the Son of God at her helm, “ guiding her into all 
 truth,” and exclaiming with the great St. Pacian, (who lived 
 
XV 
 
 about the fourth century), “ Christian is my name, Catholic 
 is my surname.” This great Saint says, “ the name of 
 Catholic comes from God, and is necessary to distinguish 
 the Dove, the undivided Virgin Church, from all Sects 
 which are called from particular founders.” 
 
 In conclusion, I now beg leave to state, that if you are as 
 little able to prove the errors in Faith, as the immoralities 
 you have laid to our charge, I dare boldly say, you have 
 undertaken a very defenceless cause. But this will be fully 
 examined in the following sheets, where I assure you, and 
 my readers, they will find neither scurrility or slander ; but 
 a plain and modest vindication of Catholic doctrine, regard- 
 ing the dogmas of faith, and points of discipline, which you 
 so violently assail and misrepresent ; and which you assert 
 were not the doctrines of primitive Christianity. I prove 
 the contrary by unexceptionable evidence which I produce. 
 
 I now commit my case to the justice of my readers, 
 claiming their indulgence, and requesting to observe that I 
 am no Theologian, but a plain Country Gentleman. Duty 
 alone forces me as a Catholic, to come forward to refute 
 these gross calumnies and misrepresentations, which you 
 have so violently advanced against the doctrines of the 
 Catholic and Apostolic Church, and I am, 
 
 Rev. Sir, 
 
 Your obedient, and very humble Servant, 
 
 V E R A X. 
 
 London , April Ath, 1837. 
 
XVI 
 
 POSTSCRIPT. 
 
 Among the principal authors of the Reformation, as well 
 as restorers of literature, Protestants place the famous Eras- 
 mus. Certain it is, that he was an eye witness of the 
 effects of it in the manners of the greater part of those who 
 embraced this pretended reformation. Let us then listen 
 to his evidence on the subject: he says, “ What an evan- 
 gelical generation is this : nothing was ever more licentious 
 and more seditious : nothing is less evangelical than the 
 pretended gospellers .” — ( Erasm . Ep. i. 1, 4.) And again, 
 he says : “ Take notice of this evangelical people, and 
 shew me an individual amongst them all who, from being a 
 drunkard, has become sober, from being a libertine, has 
 become chaste. I, on the other hand, can shew you many 
 who have become worse by the change.” — (Erasm. Spong. 
 advers. Hatten , a. d. 1529.) “ Those whom I knew to have 
 been chaste, sincere, and without fraud, I found, after they 
 had embraced this sect, to be licentious in their conversation, 
 gamblers, neglectful of prayer, passionate, vain, as spiteful 
 as serpents, and lost to the feelings of human nature. I 
 speak from experience.” — Erasm. ad Frat. Infer. Germ. 
 
 Amongst the vices which Erasmus objects to in the first 
 reformers, were their turbulence and sedition. “ I beheld 
 them,” says he, “ coming from their sermons with fierce 
 and threatening countenances, like men that had been 
 hearing bloody invectives, &c.” — Epis. lxix. 113, also, de 
 Libero Arbit. 
 
 Erasmus also writes thus in another place : “ I see no 
 man better, but all worse for this evangelical liberty, so that 
 I am heartily grieved for all I have heretofore written or said 
 in favour of it.” — Surius Hist, ad Ebor. 1536. 
 
XVII 
 
 REFERENCES 
 
 To the Quotations from Luther , in the Introductory Letter 
 addressed to the Rev. W. F. Hook, M.A. 
 
 (Adversus falso Nomin. Episcop. Orp. tom. ii. folio 329.) 
 In another of his Treatises, he styles himself, “ Luther, the 
 second Elias, and the chariot of Israel,” (Lib. de Fals. Stat.) 
 In his book against the King of England, he says : “ my 
 ministry and calling are of that excellency, that it is in vain 
 for princes, or any person on earth, to expect submission or 
 forbearance from me.” — (Sleidan Comment, L. i.) (Luth. 
 Preef. Op.) (Opera, Luth. tom. i.) (Ibid. Prsefat.) See 
 also the Preface to his book (De Abrog. Miss. Priv.), in 
 which he testifies the difficulty he at first experienced in 
 condemning the Pope and all the Prelates and Universities of 
 the earth. “ How often,” said he, “ did my trembling heart 
 ask me, art thou alone right 1 Is all the world, except thee, 
 involved in error 1” (Assert. Artie, per Leon, 10. Condemn. 
 Opera, Luth. tom. ii. fol. 114.) (Nunquam mihi placuit, 
 nec in eternum placebit Huss. Luther in Collat. cum Eck. 
 Cochleus in Act. Luth. 1519.) (Op. tom. ii.) (Sermo. 
 Luth. tom. vii. fol. 276;) (tom. vii. fol. 276.) 
 
 Melchior Adams, and Manlius, his own followers, who 
 have written Luther’s life, speak of many other apparitions 
 of the devil to him. Luther himself, in one of his Sermons, 
 according to Cochleus, affirmed, that he had “ eat more than 
 a bushel of salt with Satan;” and in his Colloquies, which 
 are translated into English, he describes himself as con- 
 stantly haunted by the Devil, who, he says, “ sleeps nearer 
 to me than my Catherine.” (Opera, Luth. de Unet. et 
 Miss. Priv. tom. vii. fol. 228, 229, 230.) 
 
 The first enemy of the Real Presence was Zuinglius ; and 
 he professes also to have learnt his main argument against 
 it from a spirit which appeared to him in the night : but 
 whether it was a black spirit or a white spirit, he declares 
 
xviii 
 
 he does not remember. (Lib. de Subsid. Euch. tom. ii.) 
 (Comment, ad Gal. c. i. tom. v.) (Serm. de Matrim. tom. 
 v. p. 119.) (Declam. Pop. tom. i. fol. 36.) See the 
 Dispensation granted by Luther, Melancthon, Bucer, and 
 five other Ministers to the Prince of Hesse Cassel, to have 
 two wives at a time, first published by a descendant of that 
 Prince, and copied by Bossuet, Yariat, L. vi.) (Adversus 
 Execr. Bull. tom. ii. ;) (tom. iii.) (De Serv. Arb. tom. ii.) 
 (De Cap. Bap.) See the whole Treatise of Luther against 
 Erasmus, (Luth. de Serv. Arbit, tom. ii. fol. 525.) (Ad- 
 versum Papatum Passim.) tom. vii. (Ibid.) (In tom. ii. 
 fol. 424, we are presented with a caricature wooden print, 
 of a Papa-sinus, or a Pope-ass, according to Luther’s idea 
 of one; and fol. 429, with that of a Monacho-vitulus, or 
 Monk-calf.) (Yol. i. p. 321.) 
 
 (See Epist. Luth. ad Reg. Ang. An. 1525, tom. ii. fol. 
 533.) (Contra Reg. Ang. a. d. 1522, tom. ii. fol. 356, &c. 
 passim.) (Ad Maledic Reg. Ang. tom. ii.) On one occa- 
 sion Luther says : “ The Devil seems to have mocked 
 mankind, in proposing to them a heresy so ridiculous and 
 contrary to Scripture, as in that of the Zuinglians, (who 
 deny the real presence.) — (Op. Luth. Defens. Yerb. Con.) 
 
 Luther declared that he despaired of the salvation of 
 Zuinglius, because, not satisfied with opposing the sacra- 
 ment, (the real presence,) he admitted the founders of idola- 
 try, and the abettors of suicide, such as Numa, Cato, See. 
 equally to the kingdom of heaven, with the apostles and 
 martyrs. Zuinglius at length died, sword in hand, fighting 
 for the reformation which he preached. 
 
 Carlostudius was Luther’s first disciple, being Archdeacon 
 of Wittemberg ; but having dared to alter the mass in Lu- 
 ther’s absence in 1571, was condemned by him. Melanc- 
 thon, another disciple of Luther, calls him a brutal, ignorant 
 man, void of piety and humanity, and more a Jew than a 
 Christian. (Ecolampadius, who was a Brigittine F riar, quitted 
 
XIX 
 
 his convent, married a young wife, and which made Eras- 
 mus say, that the grand tragedy of the reformation, in most 
 instances, had the catastrophe of a comedy, inasmuch as it 
 generally ended in a marriage. Having met with a sudden 
 death, as was afterwards the case of Luther himself, the 
 latter published that he was strangled by the Devil. See 
 de Miss. Priv. Ochin was an apostate Capuchin Friar, 
 who fled from his Order to Geneva, for the purpose of get- 
 ting a wife : he afterwards wrote in favor of polygamy, 
 and became a professed Socinian. See a late work, Le 
 Voile leve. 
 
 Calvin was nearly as intemperate as Luther ; calling his 
 adversaries at every turn, whether Protestants or Catholics, 
 dogs, swine, asses, fools, madmen, rogues. He was much 
 more cruel than Luther : his burning Servetus is a memo- 
 rable instance. He preached that it is lawful for subjects 
 to take up arms against their sovereigns, if they neglect to 
 reform religion; (that is to establish Calvinism.) 
 
 I shall say nothing of his life and death, by Bolsec, (who, 
 having been an object of Calvin’s persecution, might be 
 suspected of prejudice against him). Conradus Schlusselburg, 
 a learned Lutheran, draws an equally frightful picture of 
 them. Beza was a true disciple of Calvin. He actively 
 promoted the different rebellions of his fellow-sectaries in 
 France, against their lawful Sovereign, and even the 
 assassination of the great Duke de Guise, the chief support 
 of the Catholics. He has left monuments of his intolerance 
 in his Tractatus de Hereticis Puniendis, and of his dissolute 
 manners in his Epigrams, printed at Paris in 1548. One 
 of .these contains the following lines. 
 
 Abest Candida quid moraris 1 
 Andebertus abest quid hie moraris 1 
 Sed utrum, rogo, prseferam duorum 1 
 Amplector quoque sic hunc et illam, &c. 
 
 Maimbourg Hist. Calv. Spondanus, &c. relate, that this 
 
 c 3 
 
XX 
 
 Candida of Beza, was the wife of a tailor of Paris, by name 
 Madame Claude, with whom this licentious divine, when 
 under prosecution there, fled to Geneva. 
 
 Luther, in the first volume of his works, folio 195, says 
 as follows : “ If we dispatch thieves by the gallows, high- 
 waymen by the sword, (observe this) Heretics by fire ! 
 why do we not rather attack with all kinds of arms those 
 sons of perdition, the Pope, the Cardinals, with the whole 
 of the Romish Sodom, and wash our hands in their blood V* 
 See him again, tom i. p. 408, folio 474. 
 
 Permit me to ask, did Peter Dens, or Peter anybody else, 
 ever equal this? Messrs. Hook, McGhee, O’Sullivan, 
 hoc genus omne, will of course reply by saying, does not 
 Peter Dens defend the death of Heretics on the score of 
 religion, and has not the work been lately re-printed with 
 its imperfections, and circulated through the kingdom ? That 
 such was the opinion of Dens and other Divines of his day, 
 cannot be denied ; Humanum est err are ; and it is surpri- 
 sing, nay, most lamentable, that such vile sentiments were 
 ever permitted to defile the work. But will those gentlemen 
 venture to throw the first stone after, the murder of no less 
 than 204 Catholics, solely for their being such, within the 
 twenty last years of the reign of the sanguinary Elizabeth, 
 of whom 142 were priests, three gentlewomen, the remainder 
 esquires and yeomen. Suppose for a moment, that a Cler- 
 gyman of the Church of England went through the country 
 preaching everywhere that it was lawful to murder Catholics ; 
 would it be just to blame the Church of England for this ] 
 most certainly it would not ; therefore, it would be equally 
 unjust to blame the Catholic Church for the acts of Peter 
 Dens, or of any other infuriated bigot. Both Churches 
 must be judged by their own acts ; not by the acts or wri- 
 tings of any enthusiast that may belong to them. The days 
 of bigotry and intolerance (thank Heaven) are gone for ever. 
 
A REPLY, 
 
 &c. & c. 
 
 ON INFALLIBILITY. 
 
 I will here content myself. Rev. Sir, with citing the sen- 
 timents of only one of those great and learned men, whom 
 all Christendom has agreed to honor with the distinctive 
 title of Fathers of the Church. St. Iraeneus, writing during 
 the second century, observes : “ Paul says, God appointed 
 in his Church, Apostles, Prophets, and Doctors; where, 
 therefore, the holy gifts of God are, there must truth be 
 learned ; with them is the succession from the Apostles, and 
 there is the society whose communication is sound and 
 irreprovable, unadulterated and pure. These preserve the 
 faith of one God, who made all things ; increase our love 
 towards his divine Son, and expound, without danger, the 
 Scriptures to us ; not blaspheming the name of God, nor 
 dishonoring the Patriarchs, nor contemning the Prophets.” 
 (Adversus Hcer., L. iv. c. 45, p. 345.) “ To him that be- 
 lieveth that there is one God, and holds to the head, which 
 is Christ, to this man all things will be plain, if he read dili- 
 gently the Scriptures, with the aid of those who are the 
 
 B 
 
2 
 
 ON INFALLIBILITY, 
 
 priests in the Church, and in whose hands, as we have 
 shewn, rests the doctrine of the Apostles.” — (Ibid. c. 52, 
 p. 355.) 
 
 The Infallibility of the Church of God, Rev. Sir, in ex- 
 pounding the Scriptures, and delivering the Doctrines of 
 Christ, is the only question which our adversaries have any 
 right to attack ; for till this point be carried, all others must 
 remain invulnerable. But it wears " a panoply against 
 which every arrow falls blunted to the ground.” There is 
 no proposition more true than this : — that if a Catholic be 
 once separated from that great sheet-anchor, the indefecti- 
 bility of the Church of Christ, he is drifted as a mere wreck 
 upon the waters, and, in point of religious belief, becomes 
 as mutable as the waves, and as uncertain as the winds. 
 “ Where such are the pretensions advanced,” viz. to Infal- 
 libility, says the then Bishop of London, in his Charge of 
 1826, (p. 17,) “ the truth or the falsehood of particular 
 articles of faith, becomes a secondary question. If Christ 
 has appointed the Church of Rome the exclusive possessor 
 of his promises, the sole depository of his authority, the 
 infallible Judge in Controversies regarding the Faith, it 
 is useless to debate on other matter. If this point be decided 
 in her favour, our only resource is, to acknowledge our errors, 
 to sue for reconciliation, and accept the system of doctrines 
 which is proved to be true by her sanction.” — (p. 16.) Now, 
 if this point be not decided in her favour, by the Bishop’s 
 own rule, namely, the language of Fathers and of Bishops, 
 and from the genuine records of ancient usage and practice, 
 I pledge myself to desert her communion on the morrow. 
 I refer my readers, on this important subject, to the im- 
 mortal work of the ' Rt. Rev. Doctor Machale, Catholic 
 Archbishop of Tuam. It is called, “The Evidences and 
 Doctrines of the Catholic Church.” This work is worthy 
 to be incased in cedar and gold : the Philosophy of Chris- 
 
ON INFALLIBILITY. 
 
 3 ' 
 
 tianity has been delineated with a beauty and sublimity 
 worthy of the subject : the most refined and classic ele- 
 gance, united with the rich genius of the writer, has strewn 
 the rugged paths of theological disquisition with the choicest 
 flowers, and bestowed fresh life and fertility on the trodden 
 exhausted field of controversy. 
 
 N.B. The Pope’s infallibility is no article of Catholic 
 faith, nor proposed by the Church as a condition of Com- 
 munion. She teaches, indeed, that the Church established 
 upon earth by Christ is infallible in all necessary truths. 
 But this is no error. On the contrary, it is a fundamental 
 truth grounded on the most express and positive promises 
 of Christ — that the gates of hell (the power of darkness 
 and of error) shall never prevail against his Church, — 
 (Matt. xvi. 16,) which undoubtedly they would, if she were 
 corrupted in her faith. 
 
 2. That the Spirit of Truth shall lead her pastors into 
 all truth — (John xvi. 13) ; and that for ever — (John xiv. 
 16 ; Matt, xxviii. 20,) which, therefore, cannot be under- 
 stood of the Apostles only, because they were not to remain 
 here for ever. 
 
4 
 
 ON THE EUCHARIST. 
 
 (St. John, vi., 11. — St. Matt., xxvi., 26, 28. — 1 Cor., x., 16.) 
 
 It cannot be expected in a small work like this, that I 
 could attempt to enter at large into the great mystery of 
 the Eucharist ; but those persons who may seek information 
 on this most important of all subjects, I would advise them 
 to peruse that admirable work of the Rev. J. A. Mason, 
 Catholic pastor of Stourbridge, (and once a eclebrated 
 Methodist preacher.) It is called “ The Safety Lamp,” the 
 “True Christian Faith in the Holy Eucharist,” and to be had 
 at Andrews’, bookseller, No. 3, Duke Street, Little Britain. 
 
 If Transubstantiation, Rev. Sir, were a modern doctrine, 
 a doctrine of human invention, why cannot those Protes- 
 tant divines, who assert it to be so, prove both the manner 
 and the period of so extraordinary an innovation in the faith 
 of Christianity] If, in our own times, a minister of the 
 Church of England were to ascend the pulpit, hold up to 
 the people the consecrated elements, and exclaim, “ This is 
 the Body and Blood of Christ,” what astonishment would 
 not fill the minds of his audience ] — what an outcry would 
 there not be raised through the country ? And is it to be 
 believed, that, if a similar oocurrence, under similar circum- 
 stances, had taken place during the first ages of the Church, 
 the effect would not have been the same ] Would it have 
 been so completely overlooked both by history and tradition ] 
 
ON THE EUCHARIST. 
 
 5 
 
 That such an assertion, under such circumstances, should 
 have met with success, is a monstrous supposition, because, 
 independent of its contradiction to our senses, it is a doctrine 
 which has nothing but revelation to recommend it ; for un- 
 like every other false tenet, it neither flatters our passions, 
 nor our pride; that under such circumstances, it should 
 have been eagerly embraced, and universally adopted, would 
 have required no less than the interposition of a miracle. 
 But it did not originate in such circumstances ; it rested not 
 upon the authority of man; it was a doctrine not confined 
 to a particular period, or a particular country ; it was co- 
 eval and co-extensive with Christianity itself. Of this abun- 
 dant evidence has descended to us, and whoever will take 
 the trouble of investigating the subject, will find no difficulty 
 in the discovery. (Let no one be deterred from this ex- 
 amination, under the idea, that he has neither the capacity 
 nor the leisure to explore the voluminous writings of the 
 early Fathers of the Church. He will find every passage 
 of moment, which bears upon this, or any other Catholic 
 tenet, selected, translated, and arranged to his hands, in an 
 admirable and most useful compilation of Scriptural and 
 Historical testimony, in a single volume, entitled : “ The 
 Faith of Catholics confirmed by Scripture, and attested by 
 the Fathers of the five first centuries of the Church ; by the 
 Rev. Joseph Berington and the Rev. J. Kirk to be had 
 at Booker’s, 61, New Bond Street. Should any doubt arise 
 as to the authenticity of any extract, or the fidelity of its 
 translation, the reference at the end of every passage will 
 afford a ready clue to the original.) 
 
 We are well acquainted, Rev. Sir, with the heresies of 
 Montanus and Tatian in the 2nd, of Tertullian and Origen 
 in the 3rd, and of Arius in the 4th century, and so on ; and 
 shall it be said, that the tenets of the Catholics alone are 
 without evidence and proof] and while the errors of every 
 
6 
 
 ON THE EUCHARIST. 
 
 petty Sect , and even sometimes of individual writers, were 
 carefully detailed in history and transmitted to posterity, 
 that the faith and practice of the Universal Church alone, 
 were left unnoticed and unattested 1 Let any one peruse 
 the passages in St. Ignatius, St. Justin, St. Irseneus, in 
 proof of the doctrine of Transubstantiation, during the 
 first, second, and subsequent centuries of the Christian eera, 
 and then determine whether it be the doctrine of primi- 
 tive Christianity, or the comparatively modern innovation 
 of the dark ages. I must also remark, that Transubstantia- 
 tion is equally the doctrine of the Greek Church, and of all 
 the Eastern Churches that have separated from the commu- 
 nion of the See of Rome ; and as this separation took place, 
 in some instances, as early as the fifth century, even they 
 can bear testimony to it for fourteen hundred years. The 
 Lutherans also believe in the Real presence. “ I clearly 
 saw,” says Luther, “ how much I should thereby (by dis- 
 proving the doctrine of the Real presence) injure Popery ; 
 but I found myself caught, without any hope of escaping, 
 for the text of the Gospel was too plain for this purpose,” 
 — (Epis. ad Argentin., tom iv, fol. 502, ed. Witten.) In 
 another place he says, “That no one among the Fathers, 
 numerous as they are, should have spoken of the Eucharist 
 as those men do (the opposers of the real presence) is truly 
 astonishing ; not one of them speaks thus : There is only 
 Bread and Wine ; or, the body and blood of Christ are not 
 present . And when we reflect how often the subject is 
 treated by them, it ceases to be credible. It is not even 
 possible that not so much as once such words as these should 
 not have dropped from some of them. Surely it was of mo- 
 ment that men should not be drawn into error, still they all 
 speak with a precision which evinces that they entertained 
 no doubt of the presence of the Body and Blood of Christ. 
 Had not this been their conviction, can it be imagined that, 
 
ON THE EUCHARIST. 
 
 7 
 
 among so many, the negative opinion should not have been 
 uttered on a single occasion ? On other points this was not 
 the case. But our Sacramentarians, on the other hand, can 
 proclaim only the negative or contrary opinion. These men 
 then, to say all in one word, have drawn their notions 
 neither from the Scriptures nor the Fathers.” — Defensio 
 Verborum Ccence, t. vii. p. 391, ed. Witt. 1557. 
 
 Again, Luther says, “ This I cannot deny, that had any 
 one five years ago, been able to persuade me, that in the 
 Sacrament, were only bread and wine, he would have laid 
 me under great obligations to him . .for I was clearly 
 sensible, that nothing would give so much pain to the 
 Roman bishop.” — (Ibid. p. 502.) I some time ago put the 
 following question to Dr. Burgess, bishop of Salisbury : — 
 Q. “ At what time did the change take place respecting the 
 Eucharist, to that professed by all Christians three hundred 
 years ago 1” — A., his Lordship said, “ It was introduced 
 gradually during the dark ages .” My reply was, “ In the 
 first place gradually, that is impossible. The question is, 
 my Lord Bishop, whether the body and blood of Christ is 
 really or figuratively present ? The people must have 
 known in which sense they believed it to be present, and 
 would have resisted innovation. Do you think it would 
 be easy at this day to make the people of England beli’eve 
 in the Real Presence! — No, because they have already 
 rejected it.” — “ His Lordship was obliged to admit the dif- 
 ference.” But at any time it must have been impossible to 
 change the faith of the people without their perceiving it ; 
 and the controversy which the attempt must have excited, 
 would have come down to us, in works written on both sides 
 of the question ; the memory of the Arian heresy is not lost ; 
 his Lordship was struck by the argument and the parallel. 
 I pressed him, — Q. “What does your Lordship call the 
 dark ages 1” “ The tenth century is called by Cave, a 
 
8 
 
 ON THE EUCHARIST. 
 
 learned English divine.” (Sceculum Tenebrorum.) Here 
 this conversation finished. 
 
 Berenger of Angers was the first person (in the eleventh 
 century) who ever taught the figurative sense, and he found 
 the whole world in the belief of the Real Presence . I now 
 therefore, call on you, Rev. Sir, to inform the Catholics of 
 England, at what time, did the change take place respecting 
 the Eucharist, to that professed by all Christians three hun- 
 dred years ago] But believe me, like every other Tenet of 
 the Catholic Church,' — She can trace the belief in Transub - 
 stantiation up to the very cera of the Apostles, by an unbroken 
 series of authentic history, by the luminous evidence of those 
 unexceptionable attestators of the truth, The Holy Fathers of 
 the Catholic Church. 
 
 It is a most singular fact, that Transubstantiation should 
 have been the characteristic both of the first and of the last 
 miracle which our Saviour performed in the course of his 
 sacred ministry. The conversion of water into wine at the 
 marriage feast of Cana, and the conversion of bread into his 
 body, and of wine into his blood, at the last Supper. It 
 would appear, that our Saviour intended to convey some 
 idea of the manner in which his flesh was to be given for 
 the spiritual food of mankind, since he adds, “It is the spirit 
 that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing. The words 
 that I have spoken to you are spirit and life.” That is, my 
 mere flesh, without my Spirit and divinity, would be of no 
 avail ; or without the Spirit of God, the carnal man is inca- 
 pable of comprehending or benefiting from the truths of 
 Christianity. “ No man can come to me, unless it be given 
 to him by my Father.” In judging of spiritual things, you 
 must be governed by the spirit, not by the gross ideas of 
 sensual man. It is not after the manner of common meat 
 that you are to eat of the flesh of the Son of Man, but 
 
 THOUGH IN A REAL and SUBSTANTIAL, YET IN A HEAVENLY 
 
ON THE EUCHARIST. 
 
 9 
 
 and spiritual form. “ The words which I have spoken 
 to you are spirit and life;” they will animate you with the 
 spirit of God, if you will but believe in them ; they will con- 
 duct you to eternal life, if you will but follow them as your 
 guide. Such appears to have been the meaning of a passage 
 which is frequently brought forward by Protestants, in a 
 vain endeavour, to controvert the previous declaration of our 
 blessed Saviour. Nothing however can be more certain, 
 from the whole context, that they nowise militate against 
 the positive promise of Christ, to give his real and substan- 
 tial, though spritualized body, for the food of mankind. Had 
 the Jews been less obdurate in their unbelief, they would, in 
 all probability, have understood the precise meaning of our 
 Saviour, who whould then have condescended to enter into 
 more explicit details. It is quite evident, however, that 
 the passage will admit of these interpretations ; and it 
 would be blasphemy to assert, that the God of Truth had 
 contradicted, in the latter part of his discourse, what he had 
 so positively and so strongly insisted upon in its commence- 
 ment. Knowing that the eyes of his disciples were not yet 
 opened to understand the Scriptures, and that it was not 
 the intention of our Saviour to explain himself more fully 
 upon this occasion. The whole difficulty is relieved. 
 
 An Almighty God has said it, and man, vain man, has 
 presumed to question it : 0 man ! who art thou, that re- 
 pliest against God] (Rom. ix. 29.) 
 
 A flimsy quibble is frequently resorted to for the purpose 
 of destroying the force of these expressions, namely, that all 
 that was required of us by these injunctions of Christ, was 
 a mere commemoration of the Last Supper. 
 
 “ Do this in commemoration of me.” But it is at once 
 overturned by the simple question : What was the impor- 
 tant this that was to be done ] Were the disciples to do 
 what our Saviour had just done, or something else that was 
 
10 
 
 ON THE EUCHARIST. 
 
 left to their own fancy] On one occasion Luther says: 
 “ The Devil seems to have mocked mankind in proposing 
 to them a heresy so ridiculous, and contrary to Scripture, 
 as is that of the Zuinglians, namely, the denial of the Real 
 Presence.” — ( Op . Luth. DefensVerb. Con.) In another place 
 he acknowledges, that he had tried to persuade himself of 
 there being no real presence of Christ in the Sacrament, to 
 irritate and offend the Pope ; but that the words of Scripture 
 were too plainly in favour of it. (See Letters to a Preb. 
 p. 154.) 
 
 St. Paul says, that the unworthy communicant “ is guilty 
 of the body and blood of the Lord.” The doctrine of the 
 Establishment renders the profanation of the Sacrament an 
 impossibility. I presume — and after all it is only a pre- 
 sumption, though I doubt whether any Protestant will con- 
 tradict me — that the Church of England denies the real 
 presence in toto ; and this being the case, what is there in 
 the Sacrament to profane ] Where is the body and blood 
 of the Lord of which he is to be guilty ] But, supposing, 
 according to the words of the 28th Article, an act of faith 
 really gives the body and blood of Christ to the commu- 
 nicant, who but a madman will make that act of faith, when 
 he receives the Sacrament unworthily and unprepared] 
 How can he be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord, 
 when, making no act of faith, he receives nothing but bread 
 and wine ? In one case, there is a certainty that the Sacra- 
 ment cannot ; in the other, there is a moral impossibility 
 that it can be profaned by an unworthy communicant, who 
 is a member of the Established Church ; hence the denun- 
 ciation of St. Paul becomes void and unmeaning. 
 
 If, Rev. Sir, the Eucharist be but a type and figure, how 
 much inferior in dignity and sublimity are the Christian to 
 the Jewish types and figures] and with how much greater a 
 degree of grandeur and solemnity is that ancient religion 
 
ON THE EUCHARIST. 
 
 11 
 
 invested ? If, on the contrary, the Catholic doctrine be true, 
 the Christian religion transcends that of the Jews, as far as 
 the reality transcends the type and figure. They eat the 
 paschal Lamb — we the divine victim whom it prefigured. 
 They eat the manna which descended from the clouds as a 
 prophetic emblem of that true bread “ which cometh down 
 from heaven, and giveth life to the world” — we eat him, 
 who, in a manner the most solemn, declared himself to be 
 the “ living bread which 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 for the life of the world.” Des- 
 troy the truth of this doctrine, sublime as it is in its charac- 
 ter, and tremendous in its mysteriousness, and you degrade 
 the “ tremendous mystery” into a bit of bread and a cup of 
 wine, — you make the spiritual food of Christians less mira- 
 culous than the corporeal food of the Israelites, — for the 
 manna did descend from heaven, while our sacramental 
 bread riseth from the earth. Compare, too, the consonancy, 
 the harmony of the language which he used on this solemn 
 occasion, with that which he used in his discourse at Ca- 
 pernaum. “ Except you eat the flesh of the Son of Man, 
 and drink his blood, you shall not have life in you. My 
 flesh is meat indeed ; my blood is drink indeed.” — (John 
 vi.) On the night before his passion, Take eat, this is my 
 body ; drink, this is my blood. On the former occasion. 
 The bread that I will give you is my flesh. — (John vi.) On 
 the latter, Jesus took bread, and said, This is my body. — 
 (Matt, xxvi.) The solemnity of the occasion, the fact of 
 his never speaking in private to his disciples in the lan- 
 guage of parable and figure, (Mark vi.) the consonancy and 
 harmony of his language, its plainness and simplicity, the 
 omnipotence of his power, and the universal acceptance (as 
 I shall shortly prove) in every age of the Church of his 
 words in their literal sense, all conspire to render to every 
 
12 
 
 ON THE EUCHARIST. 
 
 unprejudiced mind the conclusion irresistible, that in the 
 holy Eucharist (I adopt the language of St. Paul,) “ The 
 chalice of benediction which we bless, is the communion of 
 the blood of Christ ; and the bread which we break, is the 
 partaking of the body of the Lord.” — (1 Cor. x. 16.) 
 
 My readers will see (if they will only examine), how 
 beautifully the Catholic doctrine harmonizes and accords 
 with the divine language of the sacred Scriptures. Our 
 doctrine agrees with the word of God. We have also in 
 favour of the truth of our faith the consent of all Christian 
 antiquity. The most ancient Christian writers speak of the 
 blessed Eucharist precisely in the same language which all 
 the Catholics, spread over all the four quarters of the globe, 
 make use of at the present day. Nothing but the super- 
 intendances of divine Providence could have produced so 
 wonderful a harmony and accordance, which forms, next to 
 the testimony of the Scripture, the most striking evidence 
 of the truth of the Catholic Creed. Let us then go back to 
 the Apostolic age. St. Ignatius, who had been the disciple 
 of St. John, who was bishop of Antioch, and who suffered 
 martyrdom in the year 107, thus writes : — 
 
 “ These Gnostic heretics abstain from the Eucharist and 
 from prayer, because they do not acknowledge the Eucharist 
 to be the Flesh of our Saviour Jesus Christ, who suffered 
 for our sins, and whom the Father by his goodness resus- 
 citated.” — Ep. ad Smyrn. 
 
 “ I take no delight in food that perishes, nor in the plea- 
 sures of this life. What I desire is the Bread of life, 
 which is the flesh of Jesus Christ.” — Ep. ad Rom. 
 
 St. Justin, the great Christian apologist and martyr, who 
 suffered at Rome in the year 166, thus writes : — 
 
 “ This food we call the Eucharist ; — nor do we take these 
 gifts as common bread and common drink; but as Jesus Christ 
 our Saviour, made man by the word of God, took flesh and 
 
ON THE EUCHARIST. 
 
 13 
 
 blood for our salvation ; in the same manner we have been 
 taught, that, the food which has been blessed by the prayer 
 of the words which he spoke, and by which our blood and 
 flesh in the change are nourished, is the flesh and blood of 
 that Jesus incarnate.” — Apol. i. 
 
 Tertullian, who died in 216, thus wrote : — • 
 
 “ Our flesh is fed with the body and blood of Christ.” — 
 J De Resurr. Cam ., c. viii. 
 
 St. Cyril of Jerusalem, who died in the year 385, in his 
 Catechism thus speaks : — 
 
 “ The bread and wine, which before the invocation of the 
 adorable Trinity were nothing but bread and wine, become, 
 after this invocation, the body and blood of Christ.” — Cat. 
 Mystag. 1, n. 4, p. 281. 
 
 “ As Christ, speaking of the bread, declared and said: 
 This is my Body ; who shall dare to doubt it 1 And as 
 speaking of the wine, he positively assured us and said : 
 This is my Blood ; who shall doubt and say : that it is not 
 his Blood ? He once changed water into wine in Cana of 
 Galilee, and shall we think it less worthy of credit that he 
 changed wine into blood 1” — Cat., iv., n. 1, p. 292. 
 
 “ Wherefore, I conjure you, my brethren, not to consider 
 them any more as common bread and wine, since they are the 
 body and blood of Jesus Christ, according to his own words. 
 Judge not the thing by your taste ; but by faith assure your- 
 self, without the least doubt, that you are honored with 
 the body and blood of Christ. This knowing, and of this 
 being assured, that what appears to you bread, is not bread, 
 but the body of Christ, although the taste judges it to be 
 bread ; and that the wine which you see, and which has 
 the taste of wine, is not wine, but the blood of Christ.” — 
 Cat., n. 2, 3, pp. 293, 294. 
 
 How emphatic are the words of St. Cyril! Christ, the Son 
 of the living God, having the words of eternal life, said, “This 
 
14 
 
 ON THE EUCHARIST. 
 
 is my body, who shall say that it is not his body ! ” — “ This 
 is my blood, who shall say that it is not his blood ! ” What 
 a rebuke to the impious and presumptuous objectors of the 
 present day, who, in opposition to the express words of 
 Christ, declare that the Eucharistic bread is not his body, 
 and the Eucharistic wine is not his blood. But, what can 
 exceed the force of the following splendid attestation which 
 the great St. Ambrose, bishop of Milan, who died in 397, 
 in his writings bears to the truth of the Catholic doctrine. 
 The argumentation is as powerful as the eloquence is splen- 
 did and triumphant. 
 
 “ Consider now which is more excellent, the bread of 
 angels, or the flesh of Christ, which indeed is the body of 
 life. The manna was from heaven ; this is above heaven. 
 The former belonged to heaven ; the latter belongs to the 
 Lord of the heavens. The former was liable to corrupt if 
 it was kept till the second day ; the latter is exempt from 
 all corruption : and whoever shall taste it with piety, shall 
 himself be incapable of undergoing corruption. 
 
 “ For them (the Jews,) water flowed from the rock, for 
 you blood flows from Christ. The water satisfied them for 
 a time; blood refreshes (diluit) you for ever. The Jew 
 drinks and still thirsts ; you, when you drink, shall no longer 
 be able to thirst. That was in Shadow ; This is in Truth. 
 If that which astonished you is but a shadaw, how great 
 must that be, the very shadow of which excites your won- 
 der! That what happened to the fathers was a figure, 
 hear from the Apostle : They drank, he says, from the rock 
 which followed them, but the rock was Christ. But in 
 most of them God was not well pleased ; for they were 
 overthrown in the desert. Now these things were done in 
 a figure of us. (2 Cor. x. 4.) You have known more ex- 
 cellent things. For light is more excellent than the shadow, 
 truth than the figure , and the body of our Creator (Authoris) 
 
ON THE EUCHARIST. 
 
 15 
 
 is more excellent than the manna from heaven. Perhaps 
 you may say, I see something different, how is it that you 
 tell me I receive the body of Christ ] This remains for us 
 to prove. How great examples do we produce to shew that 
 this is not what nature has formed, but what the blessing 
 has consecrated; and that the power of the blessing is greater 
 than that of nature , since by it } nature itself is changed. 
 Moses held in his hand a rod ; he cast it down and it be- 
 came a serpent. Again, he seized the tail of the serpent, 
 and it is changed into the nature of a rod. You see then that 
 nature was here twice changed by the grace of the Prophet, 
 first in the rod, and then in the serpent. The rivers of 
 Egypt flowed in streams of pure water, when on a sudden 
 blood began to spring from the fountains, and the streams no 
 longer afforded drink. Again, at the prayers of the Pro- 
 phet, the blood disappeared, and the waters flowed in their 
 ancient channels. The Hebrew people were enclosed on 
 one side by a camp of the Egyptians, on the other side by 
 the sea : Moses lifted up his rod, the waters divided, and 
 assuming the appearance of solid walls, afforded a dry pas- 
 sage. The waters of the Jordan, contrary to the course of 
 nature, turned and flowed back to the fountains from which 
 they had sprung. Is it not evident that the nature of both 
 the sea and of the river was changed 1 The people thirsted, 
 Moses touched the rock, and water flowed from it. Did not 
 grace overcome nature , in causing the rock to pour forth 
 water, which by nature it did not contain 1 The waters of 
 Mara were most bitter, so that they could not be drunk by 
 the people, who were parched with thirst. Moses threw 
 wood into the water, which on a sudden, under the influence 
 of grace, laid aside its bitterness. In the time of the pro- 
 phet Eliseus, one of the sons of the prophets lost the head of 
 his axe, which fell into the water and sunk to the bottom. He 
 applied to Eliseus, who threw a piece of wood into the water, 
 
16 
 
 ON THE EUCHARIST. 
 
 and the iron swam. This also we know was contrary to 
 nature ; for the weight of iron is greater than that of water. 
 We see , therefore, that grace is more powerful than nature. 
 
 “ But, if the blessing of man was so powerful that it even 
 changed nature, what shall we say of the divine consecration 
 in which the very words of the Lord our Saviour work? For 
 this sacrament which you receive is consecrated by the words 
 of Christ. If the word of Elias was so powerful as to draw 
 down fire from heaven, shall not the word of Christ be suf- 
 ficiently powerful to change the forms (species) of the 
 elements 1 Of the works of the creation you have read, He 
 spoke, and they were made ; he commanded, and they were 
 created. — (Psl. cxlviii.) The word then of Christ, which 
 could, out of nothing, create the things that did not exist, is 
 it not able to change the things that do exist into that which 
 they were not before ? For to endow things at first with 
 being and nature, is not less than to change their natures. 
 
 “ But why do we use arguments'! Let us have recourse 
 to examples drawn from this body itself; (Suis utamur ex- 
 emplis) and from the example of the incarnation let us prove 
 the truth of this mystery. Was the course of nature pre- 
 served when Jesus our Lord was born of Mary? According 
 to the order of nature, the union of the sexes produce gene- 
 ration. It was evidently then contrary to nature that a 
 virgin gave birth ; and this body which we consecrate is that 
 which was born of a virgin. Why do you here look for the 
 order of nature in the body of Christ, when contrary to the 
 order of nature the Lord Jesus himself was born of a virgin ? 
 It was the true flesh of Christ which was crucified, and which 
 was buried, therefore truly it is the sacrament of his flesh. 
 The Lord Jesus himself proclaims, This is my body. Before 
 the blessing of the heavenly words, bread (species) is named ; 
 after the consecration, his body is signified. He himself 
 calls it his blood. Before the consecration it is called some- 
 
ON THE EUCHARIST. 
 
 17 
 
 thing else ; after the consecration it is called blood. And 
 you answer, Amen, that is, it is true. What the mouth 
 speaks let the inward mind confess : and let the affections 
 of the soul correspond with the expression of the lips ” — 
 Lib. de Us. qui Mysterius initiantur. 
 
 In another work (Lib. 4, de Sacramentis) he thus speaks: 
 “ You, perhaps, may say, my bread is common bread. But, 
 this bread is bread before the words of the Sacrament; 
 when the consecration comes, of bread it is made the body of 
 Christ. Let us establish this. How can that which is bread 
 be the body of Christ 1 By the consecration. Of what words 
 does the consecration consist, and whose words are they? 
 They are the words of the Lord Jesus. In the other things 
 which are said, praise is given to God. Prayers are offered 
 up for the people, for kings, and for others. But when the 
 priest has arrived at that part of the service when the vene- 
 rable sacrament is to be consecrated, he no longer uses his 
 own words, but the words of Christ : therefore the word of 
 Christ consecrates this sacrament. What word of Christ ? 
 That by which all things were made. The Lord commanded, 
 and the heavens were made ; He commanded, and the earth 
 was made ; He commanded, and the seas were made : at 
 the command of the Lord every creature was generated. 
 You see how full of energy (operatorius) the word of Christ 
 is. If then there be such power in the word of the Lord 
 Jesus, that those things began to exist which before did not 
 exist, how much more able will it be to change those things 
 which do exist into something else. The heavens did not 
 exist, the earth did not exist. But hear : He spoke, and 
 they were made ; He commanded, and they were created. 
 Wherefore I answer you : It was not the body of Christ 
 before the consecration, but after the consecration I tell you 
 that it is now the body of Christ. He has spoken, and it has 
 been made; He has commanded, and it has been created.” 
 
 c 
 
18 
 
 ON THE EUCHARIST. 
 
 Listen now to the great St. Chrysostom, bishop of Con- 
 stantinople. He died in 407. He derived the name of 
 Chrysostom, which signifies golden mouthed, from the splen- 
 dour and beauty of his eloquence, which never soars to so 
 high a pitch of grandeur and sublimity as when he discourses 
 of this sacrament. 
 
 “ Elias,” he exclaims, “left his garment to his disciple; 
 but the Son of God left us his own flesh. The prophet in- 
 deed threw off his covering ; but Christ ascending, took with 
 him his body, and left it also for us. Let us not therefore 
 repine nor fear any difficulties ; for he who refused not to 
 shed his blood for all, and communicated to us his body and 
 blood, what will he not do for our salvation?”' — Horn. ii. 
 ad Pop. Antioch. 
 
 “ Let us then touch the hem of his garment; rather let 
 us, if we be so disposed, possess him entire. For his body 
 now lies before us, not to be touched only, but to be eaten, 
 and to satiate us. And if they who touched his garment 
 drew so much virtue from it, how much more shall we draw 
 who possess him whole ? Believe, therefore, that the supper 
 at which he sat is now celebrated, for there is no difference 
 between the two. This is not performed by a man, and that 
 by Christ : both are performed by Christ. When, there- 
 fore, thou seest the priest presenting the body to thee, think 
 not that it is his hand, but the hand of Christ that is stretched 
 towards thee.” — Horn. ii. cxiv. in Matt. 
 
 In the following extract, does not this eloquent preacher 
 seem to be addressing the incredulous Christians of the pre- 
 sent day, who prefer the testimony of sense to the evidence 
 of revelation ? 
 
 “ Let us believe God in every thing ; and not gainsay 
 Him, although what is said may seem contrary to our reason 
 and our sight. Let his word overpower both . Thus let us 
 do in mysteries, not looking on the things that lie before us, 
 
ON THE EUCHARIST. 
 
 19 
 
 but holding fast his words; for his word cannot deceive, 
 but our sense is very easily deceived. That never failed: 
 this often. Since then his word says, This is my body ; let 
 us assent and believe, and view it with the eyes of our un- 
 derstanding. Christ left to us nothing sensible ; but things 
 intellectual under sensible forms. Thus the blessing of bap- 
 tism is given by water which is corporeal ; but what is done 
 by it, namely, the regeneration and renovation, is intellectual 
 or incorporeal. If you were only incorporeal, he would have 
 bequeathed to you gifts purely incorporeal; but as your 
 soul is united to a body, those gifts are to be comprehended 
 under corporeal signs.” — Horn, lxxxiii. in Matt. vii. p. 868. 
 
 “ How many now say, I wish I saw his form, his figure, 
 his garments, his sandals ? Behold you see him, you touch 
 him, you feed on him. You wish to see his garments. He 
 gives you himself, not only to see, but also to touch, to eat, 
 and to receive inwardly. Consider how indignant you are 
 against the traitor, and against those who crucified him. See 
 then that you be not guilty of the body and blood of Christ. 
 They put to death his most sacred body : you receive it 
 with a polluted soul after so many favours conferred upon 
 you. For he was not content to be made man, to be buffeted, 
 and put to death ; but he mingles himself with us, and not 
 by faith only, but in very deed he makes us his body. Who 
 then ought to be more pure than him that partakes of this 
 sacrifice! The hand which divides this flesh ought to be 
 purer than the sunbeam, and the mouth which is filled with 
 the spiritual fire, and the tongue that is reddened with the 
 terrible blood. Consider what kind of honor you receive, 
 what kind of a table you enjoy. For that which the angels 
 tremble when they behold, and cannot look at without fear, 
 on account of the splendour which beams from it — with this 
 we are nourished, with this we are mixed up, and we be- 
 come one body with Christ, and one flesh. Who will relate 
 
 c 2 
 
20 
 
 ON THE EUCHARIST. 
 
 the powers of the Lord, and make all his promises to be 
 heard? (Psl. lxiii.) What shepherd feeds his sheep with 
 his own members ? Shepherd, do I say ? There are many 
 mothers who deliver their infants to other nurses. But He 
 would not do this ; but He feeds us with his own body, 
 and joins us to himself.” — Horn, lxxxiii. in Matt. 
 
 Yes ! purer indeed than the sunbeam ought to be the 
 tongue that is reddened with the terrible blood, for it is the 
 blood of the purest and holiest victim that ever was sacri- 
 ficed. But what purity is required to eat mere bread and 
 drink mere wine ? What is there awful, what tremendous, 
 in such a shadow of a sacrament ? Do the angels tremble 
 when they behold mere bread and wine ? Could this great 
 saint have burst into the following exclamation, if, with the 
 eye of faith, he had not penetrated the veil which conceals 
 the tremendous mysteries from the eye of sense, and “ dis- 
 cerned,” as the apostle says, “ the body of the Lord?” 
 
 “ What sayest thou, 0 blessed Paul ? Willing to impress 
 awe on the hearer, and making mention of the tremendous 
 mysteries, thou callest them the cup of benediction (1 Cor. 
 x. 16), that terrible and tremendous cup. That which is in 
 the cup, is that which flowed from his side, and we partake 
 of it : it is not of the altar, but of Christ himself that we 
 partake. Let us therefore approach to him with all rever- 
 ence and purity ; and when thou beholdest the body before 
 thee, say to thyself : By this body I am no longer earth and 
 ashes. This is that very body that bled, which was pierced 
 by the lance.” — Horn. xxiv. in Ep. ad Cor. 
 
 “Wonderful! the table is spread with mysteries. The 
 Lamb of God is slain for thee, and the spiritual blood flows 
 from the sacred table. The spiritual fire comes down from 
 heaven ; the blood in the chalice is drawn from the spotless 
 side for thy purification. Think est thou, that thou seest 
 bread? That thou seest wine ? That these things pass off 
 
ON THE EUCHARIST. 
 
 21 
 
 as other foods do 1 Far be it from thee to think so. But, 
 as wax brought near to the fire loses its former substance, 
 which no longer remains, so do thou thus conclude, that the 
 mysteries (the bread and wine) are consumed by the sub- 
 stance of the body. Wherefore, approaching to them, think 
 not that you receive the divine body from a man, but fire 
 from the hand of the seraphim.” — Horn, de Pcenit. sen de 
 Euchar . 
 
 “ But are there many Christs, as the offering is made in 
 many places'? By no means. It is the same Christ every 
 where ; here entire and there entire ; one body. As then, 
 though offered in many places, there is one body and not 
 many bodies ; so there is one sacrifice.” — Horn. xvii. in 
 cap. x. Ep. ad Heb. 
 
 The evidence however which is to be derived from the 
 language of the ancient liturgies, is still stronger even than 
 the testimonies which I have adduced from the fathers. 
 For these liturgies are the testimony borne by the great 
 Churches that used them to the truth and perpetuity of 
 the Catholic Faith. I shall quote only two, that of St. 
 James, and the liturgy of Constantinople, or the liturgy of 
 St. Chrysostom. The first is supposed to have been per- 
 formed and used by the apostles in the Church of Jerusalem, 
 of which the apostle St. James, from whom it derives its 
 name, was the first bishop. It is the most ancient of all the 
 liturgies, and has been commonly used in Syria. The 
 second is the liturgy used by the Greek Church. I could 
 quote many more, were I not afraid of overloading these 
 pages. I wish not however to be believed on my own 
 assertion, with respect to the wonderful consent and agree- 
 ment both of the Eastern and Western Churches in their 
 liturgies. I shall therefore quote the authority of the Pro- 
 testant Grotius, who says : “ I find in all the liturgies, 
 
22 
 
 ON THE EUCHARIST. 
 
 Greek, Latin, Arabic, Syriac, and others, prayers to God 
 that he would consecrate, by the Holy Spirit, the gifts 
 offered, and make them his body and blood. I was right 
 therefore in saying that a custom so ancient and universal, 
 that it must be considered to have come down from the pri- 
 mitive times, ought not to have been changed .” — Votum 
 pro pace. 
 
 From the Liturgy of St. James I quote the following 
 prayer : — 
 
 “ Priest , — Have mercy on us, God the Father Almighty, 
 and send thy Holy Spirit, the Lord and Giver of life, equal 
 in dominion to thee and to thy Son, consubstantial and co-eter- 
 nal who descended in the likeness of a dove on our Lord 
 
 Jesus Christ, in the river Jordan ; who descended on the 
 
 Apostles in the likeness of tongues of fire that coming he 
 
 may make this bread the life-giving body, the saving body, 
 the heavenly body, the body giving health to souls and 
 bodies, the body of our Lord God and Saviour Jesus Christ, 
 for the remission of sins and eternal life to those who re- 
 ceive it. 
 
 “ People. — Amen. 
 
 “ Priest . — And may make what is mixed in this chalice 
 the blood of the New Testament, the saving blood, the life- 
 giving blood, the heavenly blood, the blood giving health to 
 souls and bodies, the blood of our Lord God and Saviour 
 Jesus Christ, for the remission of sins and eternal life to 
 those who receive it. 
 
 “ People. — Amen.” — Renaud. tom. ii. 33. 
 
 From the Liturgy of Constantinople : — 
 
 “ The Priest again bowing, prays secretly : — Even we 
 offer to thee this rational and unbloody worship, and we 
 beseech. . . .Send down thy Holy Spirit upon us, and upon 
 these offerings. 
 
ON THE EUCHARIST. 
 
 23 
 
 “ The Deacon goes to the Priest, and both adore thrice 
 before the holy table, and they pray secretly : — O God ! be 
 propitious to me a sinner. 
 
 “ The Deacon bending his head, shews the holy bread on 
 the stole, and says secretly : — Bless, Oh ! Lord, the holy 
 bread. 
 
 “ And the Priest standing erect signs the holy mysteries 
 thrice with a cross, and says secretly : — Make indeed this 
 Bread the precious Body of thy Christ. 
 
 “ The Deacon j — Amen. 
 
 “ And again the Deacon, shewing both the holy mysteries 
 on the stole, says : — *Bless, Oh ! Lord. 
 
 “ The Priest blessing both the holy mysteries with his 
 hands, says : — Changing by thy Holy Spirit. 
 
 “ The Deacon. — Amen, Amen, Amen.” — Goar. p. 77. 
 
 “ The Priest holding the holy bread presents it to the 
 Deacon, and the Deacon kissing the hand presenting it, 
 receives the holy bread, saying: — Give me, Oh! Lord, the 
 precious and holy body of our Lord God and Saviour Jesus 
 Christ. 
 
 “ The Priest says : — I give to thee the precious, holy, and 
 pure body of our Lord and God and Saviour Jesus Christ, 
 for the remission of sins unto life everlasting. 
 
 “ In like manner the Priest receives the holy bread, and 
 bowing down his head before the holy table, prays in this 
 sort : — I believe, Oh ! Lord, and I confess that thou art the 
 Christ, the Son of the living God.” — Ibid. p. 82. 
 
 “ Likewise the holy chalice : the Priest receives three 
 draughts : at the first he says, In the name of the Father; 
 at the second, And of the Son ; at the third, And of the 
 Holy Ghost. 
 
 “ Holding the chalice, he calls the Deacon, saying : Dea- 
 con approach. And the Deacon approaches and adores 
 
24 
 
 ON THE EUCHARIST, 
 
 once, saying : — Behold I come to the Immortal King ; and 
 I believe, Oh ! Lord, and confess, &c. 
 
 “ And the Priest says : — Servant of God, Deacon N. r 
 thou dost communicate of the precious and holy blood of our 
 Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, for the remission of thy 
 sins and everlasting life.” — p. 83. 
 
 Did the ancient Christians shrink from the belief of this 
 doctrine on account of this physical difficulty ! On the 
 contrary, they made use of this very remark to prove the 
 stupendous nature of the miracle, and the divinity of him 
 who instituted the sacrament. “ Our Lord,” says St. James 
 of Nisibis, “ gave his body with his own hands for food.” 
 St. Augustin, commenting on the words of the thirty-third 
 Psalm : “ et ferebatur in manibus suis,” boldly refers to the 
 difficulty as a proof of the divinity and miraculous power 
 of Christ. 
 
 “ And he was borne in his own hands '? How could this 
 be done by man, brethren? Who can comprehend! For 
 w hat man is carried in his own hands 1 Man can be car- 
 ried in the hands of others ; in his own hands no man is 
 carried. How could this be understood of David, to the 
 letter, we dont find ; but in the person of Christ we find 
 it literally. (Quomodo intelligatur in ipso David, Secundum 
 literam, non invenimus, in Christo autem invenimus.) For 
 Christ was borne in his own hands, when commending his 
 own proper body, he said : This is my body ; for he carried 
 that body in his own hands.” 
 
 I will conclude these quotations with the sentiments of 
 another eminent Father, which have been brought to light 
 within the last few years. The passage is remarkable in 
 itself, from the strong confirmation it gives our belief. It is, 
 moreover, a proof how little we have to fear from the dis- 
 covery of any new writings of the Fathers ; how much, on 
 
ON THE EUCHARIST. 
 
 25 
 
 the contrary, we should desire to possess them all, because 
 there is no instance of their being recovered, in which they 
 have not done us some good. St. Amphilochius, bishop of 
 Iconium, was the bosom friend of St. Basil, St. Gregory 
 Nazianzen, and St. Jerome, who speak of him as one of the 
 most learned and holy men of their time. Of this father we 
 possess only a few detached fragments, but the little we 
 have is worthy of the fame which he enjoyed. These few 
 remnants contained nothing on the Eucharist, and never even 
 glanced at the subject. Four or five years ago were pub- 
 lished, for the first time, the acts of a Council held at Con- 
 stantinople, in 1166, on the text, “ The Father is greater 
 than I.” The bishops there assembled, collected a great 
 many passages from the fathers to illustrate these words ; 
 and among the rest, one from St. Amphilochius, of which 
 we previously possessed a fragment. The remaining por- 
 tion, thus recovered, contains a powerful testimony in favour 
 of our doctrine. As it has not yet found its way into popu- 
 lar works, I beg to quote it at length. The writer is 
 asserting the equality of the Father and Son. But, as our 
 Saviour had said, that the Father is greater than he, while 
 on another occasion, he tells us that they are one ; St. Am- 
 philochius endeavours to reconcile the two assertions by a 
 series of antitheses, which show how, in some respects, the 
 Father is equal, and in others superior. This is the entire 
 passage: “The Father, therefore, is greater than he who 
 goeth unto him, not greater than he who is always in him. 
 And that I may speak compendiously, He (the Father) is 
 greater, and yet equal : greater than he who asked, ' how 
 many loaves have ye V ; equal to him who satisfied the 
 whole multitude with five loaves: greater than he who 
 asked, ‘ where have ye laid Lazarus?;’ equal to him who 
 raised Lazarus by his word: greater than he who said, 
 4 who toucheth me equal to him who dried up the inex- 
 
26 
 
 ON THE EUCHARIST. 
 
 haustible flux of the haemorrhoissa : greater than he who 
 slumbered in the vessel ; equal to him who chid the sea : 
 greater than he who was judged by Pilate ; equal to him 
 who freeth the world from judgment: greater than he who 
 was buffeted, and was crucified with thieves ; equal to him 
 who justified the thief freecost: greater than he who was 
 stripped of his raiment ; equal to him who clothes the soul : 
 greater than to whom vinegar was given to drink ; equal to 
 him who giveth us his own blood to drink : greater than he 
 whose temple was dissolved ; equal to him, who, after its 
 dissolution, raised up his own temple : greater than the 
 former, equal to the latter .” — Scriptorum Vet. Nova Collectio. 
 Rome, 1231, vol. iv. p. 9. 
 
 As the proof, then, that Christ and the Father are equal, 
 this Saint alleges that Christ gave us his own blood to 
 drink. Now, if he had believed him to present us nothing 
 more than a symbol of his blood, would that be a proof of his 
 divinity, or that the Father and he were equal? Is it of the 
 same character as justifying the sinner freecost, as clothing 
 the soul with grace, freeing the world from judgment, and 
 forgiving the penitent thief, or raising himself to life ? Can 
 the mere institution of a symbol be ranked on an equality 
 with these works of supreme power? And yet, St Am- 
 philochius brings it among the last of his examples of mira- 
 cles, as one of the strongest proofs of Christ’s equality to 
 the Father: and we must consequently understand it to 
 have been in his estimation a miracle of the highest order. 
 Nothing but a belief in the Real Presence can justify such 
 an argument. Here we have a testimony recently disco- 
 vered; see how completely it accords with the doctrine 
 which Catholics maintain. 
 
 I will quote a splendid testimony of the Oriental Church. 
 It is that of St. Isaac, priest of Antioch, in the fifth cen- 
 tury, who writes in these glowing terms : “ I saw the vessel 
 
ON THE EUCHARIST. 
 
 27 
 
 mingled, and, for wine, full of blood ; and the body, in lieu 
 of bread, placed on the table. I saw the blood and shud- 
 dered : I saw the body, and was awed with fear. Faith 
 whispered to me ; eat and be silent ; drink, child, and en- 
 quire not. She showed me the body slain, of which placing 
 a portion on my lips, she said gently : Reflect what thou 
 eatest. She held out to me a reed, directing me to write. 
 I took the reed ; I wrote ; I pronounced : This is the body 
 of my God. Taking then the cup, I drank. And what I 
 had said of the body, that I now say .of the cup : This is the 
 blood of my Saviour.” — Serm. de Fide. Bibl. Orient., tom. i. 
 p. 220 : Romse, 1719. 
 
 I will conclude my quotations with the opinions of the 
 following learned Protestant Divines. 
 
 “ We agree as to the object;” says Dr. Andrews, of Win- 
 chester : “ the whole difference respects the modus or manner 
 
 of the presence We believe a real and a true presence 
 
 no less than you do. The King too (James I) believes Christ 
 not only really present, but truly adorable in the Eucharist ; 
 and I myself do adore the very flesh of Christ in the mys- 
 teries.” — Answer to Cardinal Bellarmin’s Apology , c. i. p. 
 11, and c. viii. p. 194. Dr. Andrews died 1626. 
 
 Dr. Lawrence thus expresses himself : — “ As I like not 
 those who say he is bodily there, so I like not those who say 
 his body is not there ; because Christ says it is there; St. 
 Paul says it is there; and our Church says it is there, 
 really, truly, and essentially, and not only by way of repre- 
 sentation or commemoration. For why would our Saviour 
 bid us take what he would not have us receive ] We must 
 believe it is there. We must know what is there. Our 
 faith may see it — our senses cannot.” — Lawrence's Sermon, 
 pp. 17, 18. 
 
 Archbishop Laud says : “ The altar is the greatest place 
 of God’s residence on earth : yea, greater than the pulpit ; 
 
28 
 
 ON THE EUCHARIST. 
 
 for there it is, Hoc est corpus meum: in the pulpit it is, at 
 most, Hoc est verbum meum. And a greater reverence is 
 due to the body than to the word of the Lord ; and to the 
 throne where he is usually present, than to the seat where 
 his word is preached.” — Speech in the Star Chamber , p. 
 47. Laud was executed 1644. 
 
 “ Concerning the point of the real presence,” says Dr. 
 Montague, “ there need be no difference, if men were dis- 
 posed as they ought to peace ; for the disagreement is only 
 de modo Presentiae ; the thing being yielded to on either 
 side : viz. that there is in the Eucharist a real presence.” — 
 Appeal to Ccesar, p. 289. Dr. Montague died 1641. 
 
 Bishop Bramhall writes thus : “ No genuine son of the 
 Church (of England) did ever deny a true, a real presence. 
 Christ said, This is my body ; and what he said we stead- 
 fastly believe,” &c. — Answer to M. de la Militere , p. 74. 
 Archbishop Bramhall died 1663. 
 
 Bishop Cosin is not less explicit in favour of the Catholic 
 doctrine. He says : “ It is a monstrous error to deny that 
 Christ is to be adored in the Eucharist,” &c. — Hist, of 
 Transubstantiation, p. 139. Bishop Cosin died 1671. 
 
 Hooker thus expresses himself : “ Sith we all agree that 
 Christ, by the Sacrament, doth really and truly perform in 
 us his promise, why do we vainly trouble ourselves with so 
 fierce contentions, whether by consubstantiation or else by 
 transubstantiation 1” — Eccles. Polity , b. v. 67. Hooker died 
 1660. 
 
 “ It is evident,” says Dr. Samuel Parker, “ to all but or- 
 dinarily conversant in ecclesiastical history, that the ancient 
 fathers did, from age to age, assert the true and real presence 
 in very high and expressive terms. The Greeks called it 
 metaboli, and the Latins, conversion, transmutation, trans- 
 formation, transelementation, and at length, transubstan- 
 tiation ! by which expressions they meant neither more nor 
 
ON THE EUCHARIST. 
 
 29 
 
 less than the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist.” — 
 Parker's Reasons, p. 13. Parker died 1575. 
 
 “ I have often wondered,” says the learned Scaliger, “ that 
 all the ancient fathers should have considered the Supper as 
 a real oblation, and have believed, as they unquestionably 
 did, the change of the bread into the body of Christ; for 
 which reason, Protestants can never prove their doctrine 
 from them.” — Scaligerana, p. 78. 
 
 The first communion service drawn up by Cranmer, Rid- 
 ley, and other Protestant Bishops and Divines, and published 
 in 1548, clearly expresses the real presence, declaring that 
 “ the whole body of Christ is received under each particle 
 of the Sacrament .” — ( Burnet , tom. ii, p. 1.) Now I will give 
 you the testimony of another Protestant Divine on the Real 
 Presence. 
 
 “ God has given to priests a power over his natural body, 
 which is himself. They are commissioned to dispose of that 
 VERY body, given for the life of the world, and of that in- 
 valuable blood shed to redeem sinful man. They are the 
 makers of Christ's body; they do a work, which none but 
 the Holy Ghost ever did.” — Maios' Sermons on the Com- 
 munion of Saints, p. 6, 1621. 
 
 The Rev. Dr. Wiseman, in his “ Lectures on Transub- 
 stantiation,” says : “ In fact, my brethren, this seems so 
 obvious, that several writers, and not of our religion, agree 
 that on this point it is impossible to assail us ; and observe, 
 that this doctrine of transubstantiation does not, as is vul- 
 garly supposed, contradict the senses. One of these I wish 
 most particularly to mention, is the celebrated Leibnitz. 
 He left behind him a work entitled, “ A System of Theology,” 
 written in the Latin tongue, which was deposited in a pub- 
 lic library in Germany, and was not laid before the public 
 until a very few years back; when the manuscript was 
 procured by the late King of France, and published byM. 
 
30 
 
 ON THE EUCHARIST. 
 
 D’ Emery, in the original, with a French translation. Leibnitz, 
 in this work, examines the Catholic doctrine on every point, 
 and compares it with the Protestant ; and on this matter, in 
 particular, enters into very subtile and metaphysical reason- 
 ing ; and the conclusion to which he comes is, that in the Cath- 
 olic doctrine there is not the smallest opening for assailing it 
 on philosophical principles ; and that these form no reasons 
 for departing from the literal interpretation of the words. 
 
 “ Thus it would appear, that the ground on which it is 
 maintained that we must depart from the literal sense, is 
 untenable ; untenable on philosophical grounds, as well as 
 on principles of biblical interpretation. But besides this 
 mere rejection of the motives whereon the literal sense is 
 abandoned, we have ourselves strong and positive confirma- 
 tion of it .” — Lecture xvi. on Transub. p. 211. 
 
 Having now proved the doctrine of Transubstantiation, 
 from Scripture, from the writings of the sainted Fathers of 
 the Church, from the testimonies of learned Protestant 
 Divines, and having demonstrated from the liturgies, that 
 the doctrine of the Church of Rome is in accordance with 
 that of the Oriental Churches, I shall therefore close my 
 argument on this most important subject, by asserting that 
 there are no less than two hundred several interpretations of 
 these words, This is my body ; which interpretations, al- 
 though they be not allowed of by your religion, yet, they all 
 of them proceed from this very ground of your religion, taking 
 the word of God, not as it sounds, not as expounded by the 
 Church, but as every one in his private judgment does 
 really think it ought to be expounded. See, Rev. Sir, the 
 vast number of religions (all following and teaching different 
 doctrines) sprung up by following this, your principle of 
 private judgment. 
 
31 
 
 ON PURGATORY. 
 
 1st. “ And whosoever speaketh a word against the Son of 
 Man, it shall he forgiven him: but whosoever speaketh 
 against the Holy Ghost, it shall not be forgiven him, neither 
 in this world, neither in the world to come.” — Matt. xii. 32. 
 
 Agreeably to these words of our Redeemer, it cannot be 
 a matter of doubt that there are some sins which are not 
 fully pardoned in this world, but which will be pardoned in 
 the world to come, as the holy Fathers of the primitive 
 Church have remarked. 
 
 St. Augustin, commenting on this passage, says : “ The 
 prayers of the Church and of some good persons are heard 
 in favor of those Christians who departed this life, not so bad 
 as to be deemed unworthy of mercy, nor so good as to be 
 entitled to immediate happiness. So also, at the resurrection 
 of the dead, there will some be found to whom mercy will be 
 imparted, having gone through those pains to which the 
 spirits of the dead are liable. Otherwise it would not have 
 been said of some with truth, that their sin shall not be for- 
 given, neither in this world, nor in the world to come (St. 
 Matt. xii. 32), unless some sins were remitted in the next 
 world.” — (DeCivit. Dei, xxi. c. 24.) Now there can be 
 no sin in heaven, nor can sin be pardoned in hell. In oppo- 
 sition, therefore, to you, Rev. Sir, and to the opinions of 
 Protestants, there must be a third place, a middle state of 
 souls in the other world, in which sin can be forgiven, and 
 
32 
 
 ON PURGATORY. 
 
 this place is neither heaven nor hell. This, therefore, is a 
 Scriptural proof of the doctrine of Purgatory. 
 
 The ancient Fathers, whether Latin or Greek, in their 
 writings bear most ample testimony to this point of Catholic 
 doctrine. 
 
 St. Cyril, of Jerusalem, says : “ Then (in the service of 
 the Church) we pray for the holy Fathers and the Bishops 
 that are dead, and, in short, for all those who are departed 
 this life in our communion, believing that their souls receive 
 very great relief by the prayers that are offered for them, 
 while this holy and tremendous victim lies upon the altar. 
 This we will shew you by an example ; for I know there are 
 many who say, ‘ what good can it do to a soul which is 
 departed out of this life, whether with sins or without them, 
 to be remembered in this sacrifice V But tell me, I pray 
 you, if a king send into banishment any persons who have 
 offended him, and their friends should present him with a 
 crown of great price, to appease his anger, might not the 
 king on that account shew some favor to the guilty persons 1 
 So do we address our prayers to God for those that are 
 dead, though they were sinners ; not by presenting to him a 
 crown, but by offering up to him Christ, who was sacrificed 
 for our sins; thus he, who is so merciful and good, may 
 become gracious to them as well as to us.” — Catech. My stag. 
 v. n. 6, 7, pp. 297, 298. 
 
 2nd. “ According to the grace which is given unto me, as 
 a wise master builder, I have laid the foundation, and another 
 buildeth thereon. But let every man take heed how he 
 buildeth thereupon. For other foundation can no man lay 
 than that that is laid, which is Jesus Christ. Now, if any 
 man build upon this foundation gold, silver, precious stones, 
 wood, hay, stubble ; every man’s work shall be rn^ae manifest, 
 for the day shall disclose it, because it shall be revealed by 
 fire ; and the fire shall try every man’s work of what sort 
 
ON PURGATORY. 
 
 33 
 
 it, is. If any man’s work abide which he hath built there- 
 upon, he shall receive a reward. If any man’s work shall 
 be burned, he shall suffer loss: but he himself shall be 
 saved, yet so as by fire.” — 1 Cor. iii. 10 — 15. 
 
 Whether we understand by the words wood, hay, stubble, 
 of which the apostle speaks, those venial sins, those minor 
 imperfections to which all good Christians are subject, cer- 
 tain it is, that these terms, wood, hay, stubble, imply some 
 sort of sins or some deficiencies which are not punished 
 with eternal damnation ; since the Apostle assures us, that 
 those who are guilty of them shall be saved. They will, 
 however, be punished in the other world, as the Apostle 
 declares that they shall pass by the fire. Origen, alluding 
 to this text of the Apostle in several passages of his Homi- 
 lies, affirms, “ He that is saved, is saved by fire ; so that if 
 he has in him any thing of the nature of lead that the fire 
 may purge and reduce, till the mass become pure gold. For 
 the gold of that land which the Saints are to inhabit, is said 
 to be pure, and as the furnace trieth gold, so doth temptation 
 try the just. (Eccl. xxvii. 6.) We must then all come to 
 this proof, for the Lord sits as a refiner, (Malach. iii. 3,) and 
 he shall purify the sons of Levi. But when we arrive at 
 that place, who shall bring many good works, and little that 
 is evil, this evil the fire shall purify as it does lead, and the 
 whole shall become pure gold.” — (Horn. vi. in Exod. tom. 
 ii.) St. Ambrose having in a preceding part of the chapter, 
 spoken of the effect of penal fire on what the apostle calls 
 silver and gold, and hay and stubble, in our actions, con- 
 cludes thus : “ We must all appear before the judgment 
 seat of Christ, that every one may receive the things done 
 in his body, according to what he hath done, whether it be 
 good or bad. — (2 Cor. v. 10.) Take care that you do not 
 carry with you to the judgment of God wood nor stubble, 
 which the fire may consume. Take care, lest, having one 
 
 D 
 
 t 
 
34 
 
 ON PURGATORY. 
 
 or two things that may be approved, you, at the same time, 
 have much that may give offence. If any man’s works 
 burn, he shall suffer loss : but he himself shall be saved, 
 yet so as by fire. — (1 Cor. iii. 15.) Whence it may be 
 collected, that the same man is saved in part, and condemned 
 in part; ‘ salvatur ex parte, et condemnatur ex parte.’ 
 Conscious, therefore, that there are many judgments, let us 
 examine all our actions. In a man that is just, loss is suf- 
 fered ; grievous is the burning of some work : ‘ in viro justo 
 grave operis alicujus incendium;’ in the wicked man, wretched 
 is the punishment.” — Serm. xx. in Psalm cxviii. 
 
 Theodoret represents the Emperor Theodosius the younger, 
 kneeling before the tomb of St. Chrysostom, and praying for 
 his parents, Arcadius and Eudoxia, “ that God would pardon 
 the sins which they had committed through their imprudence, 
 for they had been long dead and whether we take this 
 fire for a material fire, or whether we interpret it in a me- 
 taphorical sense for extreme anguish of soul, it is neverthe- 
 less certain that these souls will experience great torments 
 in passing through this fire — that is, their works will • be 
 proved by fire, though their persons are to be finally saved, 
 yet with much pain and difficulty. Thus we see that, 
 agreeably to the doctrine of the apostle, Christians may 
 die guilty of venial offences, which do not deserve eternal 
 damnation, but which will, nevertheless, be punished in the 
 other world by fire ; either by a physical or metaphysical 
 — a real or metaphorical fire, in whatever sense we under- 
 stand it. And this is the real foundation of the Catholic 
 doctrine on the subject of purgatory. 
 
 3rd. “ For Christ also hath once suffered for sins, the just 
 for the unjust, that he might bring us to God, being put to 
 death in the flesh, but quickened by the spirit : by which 
 also he went and preached unto the spirits in prison which 
 sometimes were disobedient, whence once the long suffering 
 
ON PURGATORY. 
 
 35 
 
 of God waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was pre- 
 paring, wherein few, that is eight, souls were saved by 
 water.” — (1 Pet. iii. 18, 19, 20.) The holy father and 
 martyr, Cyprian, who was bishop of Carthage in the sixth 
 century, says : “ It is one thing to be a petitioner for par- 
 don, and another to arrive at glory ; one to be cast into 
 prison, and not to go out from thence till the last farthing 
 be paid, and another to receive at once the reward of faith 
 and virtue ; one, in punishment of sin, to be purified by long 
 suffering, and purged long by fire, and another to have ex- 
 piated all sins by (previous) suffering ; one, in fine, at the 
 day of judgment, to wait the sentence of the Lord, another 
 to receive an immediate crown from him.” — Ejp. cv. p. 109. 
 
 It is apparent from these words of the sacred text, that, 
 at the period of the death of our Redeemer, there were cer- 
 tain souls in a state of suffering (in carcere) in the other 
 world, in punishment of minor offences, who, at the same 
 time did not deserve eternal damnation. For it is decidedly 
 clear, that our Saviour would not have gone to preach to 
 those spirits, had they been deprived of all hopes of salva- 
 tion. These souls were, therefore, not in heaven, where 
 preaching would not have been necessary, much less in hell, 
 where such an effort of charity would have been totally un- 
 availing : they were, therefore, in a middle state, in which 
 souls are under the pressure of suffering. And this is Pur- 
 gatory, the existence of which is maintained by Catholics. 
 
 4th. “ Who will render to every man according to his 
 deeds.” — (Rom. ii. 6.) “ And then he will reward every 
 
 man according to his works.” — (Matt. xvi. 2.) “ And, be- 
 
 hold, I come quickly ; and my reward is with me, to give to 
 every man according as his work shall be.” — (Rev. xxii. 12.) 
 
 The Scripture here declares, in terms so clear as to admit 
 of no misconstruction, that God in the other world will 
 render to every man according to the exact rules of dis- 
 
 d 2 
 
36 
 
 ON PURGATORY. 
 
 tributive justice. We read, besides, that “ every idle word 
 that men shall speak, they shall give an account thereof in 
 the day of judgment.” (Matt. xii. 36.) 
 
 The Scripture, besides, informs us, that every sin, how- 
 over venial, certainly defileth the soul ; and that no one is 
 free from sin : “ There is no man that sinneth not.” (1 
 Kings, al. 3 Kings, al. 1 Kings, viii. 46.) If then, there is 
 no one that lives altogether uncontaminated with sin, doubt- 
 less many even of the more virtuous must depart life before 
 they have sufficiently cancelled their offences by the appli- 
 cation of the blood of the Lamb. Certainly, the righteous 
 go directly to heaven, without passing through purgatory. 
 But can it be said, that one person in a thousand has, at the 
 moment of his death, cancelled by true penance all the sins 
 committed by him in thought, in word, and in deed, from the 
 first dawn of his reason to the termination of his existence ! 
 Now, one of these alternatives must be admitted — either 
 you, Rev. Sir, (and all Protestants,) must maintain, with 
 the ancient stoics, that all sins are equal, and consequently 
 that whoever dies guilty of any fault unrepented of, is lost 
 for ever ; an extravagant doctrine, not to be reconciled with 
 sobriety of reason — or else, you and they must agree that 
 there are amongst men minor transgressions, slighter im- 
 perfections, which are denominated venial sins, that may 
 be committed by the just soul without incurring the fatal 
 penalty of eternal damnation. Now, if there are persons 
 who die without having done penance for those venial sins 
 which do not deserve an eternity of torments, they must, on 
 their decease, be immediately translated to the delightful 
 regions of paradise, without having undergone the just chas- 
 tisement of their offences, either in this world or in the next; 
 and, in that case, what would become of the truth of these 
 words, “ There shall in nowise enter into it any thing that 
 defilethl” — (Rev. xxi. 27.) Instead of “any thing that 
 
ON PURGATORY. 
 
 37 
 
 defileth,” the Vulgate says more correctly, “ any thing 
 defiled.” 
 
 But since we are taught by the Scriptures that “ God 
 will render to each one according to his works,” it conse- 
 quently follows, that these persons must be punished in the 
 other world in proportion to their delinquencies, in order to 
 be elevated afterwards to a crown of glory. All this is what 
 Catholics understand by purgatory. Can it then be deroga- 
 tory from the merits of Christ to say, that the just man 
 who falls seven times a day (and he could not be a just man 
 if these were mortal sins) must suffer for a time in purga- 
 tory 1 Did not our Saviour annex conditions to our obtaining 
 salvation, such as baptism, without which the atonement of 
 the cross cannot be applied to us 1 Does he any where say, 
 that man will be justified by faith without baptism] Does 
 he not, on the contrary, declare (Matt. xix. 17,) that, “ if 
 we will enter into life, we must keep the commandments]” 
 
 5th. “ But the most valiant Judas exhorted the people to 
 keep themselves from sin, forasmuch as they saw before 
 their eyes what had happened, because of the sins of those 
 that were slain. And making a gathering, he sent twelve 
 thousand drachms of silver to Jerusalem for sacrifice to be 
 offered for the sins of the dead, thinking well and religiously 
 
 concerning the resurrection It is therefore a holy 
 
 and wholesome thought to pray for the dead, that they may 
 be loosed from their sins.” — 2 Macab. xii. 42, 43, 46. 
 Vulgate. 
 
 Protestants, in order to relieve themselves from the con- 
 viction that they receive from these words, “making a 
 gathering,” in which the Catholic doctrine relative to the 
 prayers for the dead is so fully and so clearly explained, 
 have recourse to the expedient of rejecting this book of the 
 Maccabees from the canons of the Scriptures. But to avoid 
 whatever doubts may be entertained of their canonicity, it 
 
38 
 
 ON PURGATORY. 
 
 is now my intention to examine the evidence of the holy and 
 learned Fathers of the first five centuries, who acknowledged 
 these books as parts of the canonical scriptures. 
 
 Origen, towards the beginning of the third century, quotes 
 the books of Maccabees as a sure argument that the holy 
 men who have quitted this life assist us by their prayers 
 and their mediation with God. “ For it is written,” he says, 
 “ in the books of Maccabees, ‘ This is Jeremiah, the prophet 
 of God, who prays much for the people.’ ” — 2 Macab. xv. 
 14. Lib . iii. in Cant. Cantic. tom. 3. 
 
 In his second book of principles, the same Father quotes 
 also these books as parts of Scripture, and proves his doc- 
 trine from them. 
 
 It is true that the Council of Laodicea (in Asia Minor,) 
 held about the middle of the fourth century, having regulated 
 many points of ecclesiastical discipline, and forbidden to 
 read in churches any books which are not canonical, pro- 
 ceeds in its sixtieth and last canon, to enumerate these books. 
 If we do not find included in this Council’s Catalogue of the 
 Old Testament the books of Maccabees, neither do we in 
 its Catalogue of the New Testament the book of Revelation. 
 {Cone. Gen. tom. i. p. 1507.) 
 
 But in the same century, a Council held zlt Carthage in 
 397, enacted, that the Canonical Scriptures alone should be 
 read in the churches, the books of which it enumerates. In 
 this catalogue are the five books of Solomon, Tobit, Judith, 
 Esther, two books of Esdras, and two of Maccabees. In 
 the New Testament is the book of Revelation. {Cone. Gen. 
 tom. ii. p. 1177.) 
 
 St. Augustine, in his book De Doctrina Christiana, {a) 
 lays down some rules whereby canonical books might be 
 distinguished : “ In this enquiry, the authority of the greater 
 part of the Catholic Churches must be followed, and par- 
 ticularly of those that hold apostolical sees, and received 
 
ON PURGATORY. 
 
 39 
 
 epistles from the Apostles. Among the books, those that 
 are admitted by all Churches must be preferred before those 
 that are rejected by some. Again, among these we should 
 pay a greater regard to those that are acknowledged by a 
 great number of Churches, and by the most considerable, 
 than to those that are admitted only by a few Churches, 
 and those of no great authority. And if some have been 
 received by the greater number of Churches, and rejected 
 by those that have greater authority, though this can hardly 
 happen, they must hold the same rank.” He then states 
 the catalogue of the Canonical Scriptures, according to the 
 catalogues of the above said Council. 
 
 The same holy Doctor, in his book De Cura pro Mortuis, 
 c. i. quotes the books of Maccabees as canonical books : 
 “ The authority of the Universal Church,” says he, “ whose 
 practice is incontrovertible, must suffice to acknowledge 
 them as canonical.” He quotes them again in his book De 
 Civit Dei, lib. xviii. c. 36. 
 
 St. Jerom, who at the end of the fourth century trans- 
 lated the Old Testament from the Hebrew into Latin, and 
 published various Commentaries on it, in some passages of 
 his works quotes these books of Maccabees as Canonical 
 Scripture. 
 
 Now, before pursuing my investigations further, I feel it 
 my duty to remark, that the Church of England admits as 
 a canonical book the Revelations, though, in the like manner 
 as the books of Maccabees, it were included in the sacred 
 catalogue only in the fourth century, by the authority of 
 the Church. Can you, Rev. Sir, or any other Protestant, 
 prove the Revelations a canonical book 1 You have received 
 it from the same authority that confirmed to us the four 
 gospels, viz : “ The canons of the Holy Catholic and Apos- 
 tolic Church.” 
 
 In 494, Pope Gelasius, aided by a Council of seventy 
 
40 
 
 ON PURGATORY, 
 
 Bishops at Rome, published a decree respecting canonical 
 and uncanonical or apocryphal books. The canonical form 
 the same catalogue as that which the Church admits at this 
 day. 
 
 However, if, in spite of all these authorities, I should use 
 the books of Maccabees merely as an historical record, it 
 testifies that the practice of praying for the dead existed 
 among the Jews : and Grotius — an authority without sus- 
 picion in the estimation of Protestants — has traced this 
 practice to the time of the Babylonish captivity ; that is, to 
 the period when the Synagogue was the true Church, and 
 taught the true worship of God. From the existence of the 
 Synagogue, we find the same custom prevailing in the 
 Church of Christ; a custom attested not only by all the 
 Fathers, but by the collection of ancient Liturgies, or forms 
 of public Church Service, used in those primitive ages. 
 The substance of these ancient liturgies was derived from 
 the Apostles, and communicated by them to the Churches, 
 wherein they preached and established the religion of 
 Jesus Christ. St. Chrysostom says : — “ It was not in 
 vain that the Apostles ordained, that in the celebration of 
 the tremendous mysteries, mention should be made of the 
 dead. They knew that great advantage would thence be 
 derived to them. For all the people being present, and 
 raising their hands to heaven, and the sacred victim lying 
 there, shall not God be rendered propitious to them]”) — 
 (Horn. iii. in tom. i. Ep. ad Philip.) Some are called of St. 
 James, of St. Mark, &c. These Liturgies contain the com- 
 mon form and order of public worship observed in those 
 Churches, and consequently a public profession of the faith 
 of all the Clergy and Laity attached to them in the ages in 
 which those Liturgies were in use. The same doctrine 
 which the Catholic Church professes to this very day, re- 
 specting purgatory, is to be found in them. Among the 
 
ON PURGATORY. 
 
 41 
 
 Eastern Liturgies, those of the Greek Schismatical Church, 
 and especially those of the Nestorian and Eutychian Churches 
 are worthy of notice. All these three Churches have 
 received no rite of religion, no doctrine, no tradition, from 
 the Church of Rome ever since the time of their separation 
 from her communion. The Nestorians separated about 
 the year 431 ; the Eutychians about 451 ; and the Greek 
 Schismatical Church about the year 890. 
 
 The faith of these Churches was not borrowed from the 
 Church of Rome after the period of their separation : nor 
 can any reasonable suspicion be entertained that their forms 
 of public service were worded with any design of favoring 
 the doctrines of the Roman Catholic Church. Yet these 
 forms express the same faith and practice on the point now 
 in question of praying for the dead, equally with many 
 others which Catholics hold and practise to this very day. 
 
 We extract the following passages from the Liturgy of 
 the Church of Jerusalem, called the Liturgy of St. James, 
 the most antient of all, and in common use by the Syrian 
 Churches : — 
 
 “ Priest . — We offer to thee this tremendous and unbloody 
 sacrifice, for the repose and good name of those who have 
 already departed in the true faith.” And 
 
 “ Deacon . — Again and again, we commemorate all the 
 faithful departed. . . .We entreat Christ our God, who has 
 taken their souls and spirits to himself, that through the 
 innumerable acts of his mercy, he would render them wor- 
 thy to receive the pardon of their offences, and the remis- 
 sion of their sins, and would bring us and them to his 
 kingdom in heaven. 
 
 “ Priest . — 0 Lord, God of Spirits, and of all flesh, be 
 mindful of all whom we commemorate, who are gone out of 
 this life in the orthodox faith; grant rest to their souls, 
 bodies, and spirits ; deliver them from the infinite damna- 
 
42 
 
 ON PURGATORY. 
 
 tion to come, and make them worthy of that joy which is 
 found in the bosom of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, where 
 the light of thy countenance shines in splendour, where 
 there are no sorrows, &c.” — Renaudot, Collect, of Orient. 
 Liturgy. 
 
 From the Liturgy of St. Mark. — The Deacon reads the 
 catalogue of the dead (the dyptychs) : — 
 
 “To the souls of all these, 0 Sovereign Lord, grant 
 
 repose, &c Give rest to their souls, and render them 
 
 worthy of the kingdom of heaven,” &c. — Ibid. tom. i. p. 150. 
 
 From the Liturgy of St. Chrysostom. — The Priest says: 
 
 “For the repose and the remission of the soul of thy 
 servant N., in a place of light, from which grief and lamen- 
 tation are far removed, and him to rest, when he may see 
 around him the light of thy countenance,” &c. — Goar. 
 Ritual of the Greek Church. 
 
 From the Liturgy called the Holy Apostles, and from 
 the one called of Theodorus, both used by the Nestorians. 
 The Priest says : — 
 
 “ 0 Lord, graciously receive from us this sacrifice, 
 that it may be in thy sight a good memorial of those who 
 have passed out of this world in the true faith, that thou 
 mayest, 0 Lord, grant them pardon of all the sins and 
 offences by which in this world, in a mortal body, and in 
 a soul subject to inconstancy, they have sinned or offended 
 before thee, because there is no one who does not sin.” — 
 Renaudot, tom. ii. p. 620. 
 
 From the Liturgy of Nestorius : — 
 
 “ Priest. — We pray and entreat thee, O Lord, to be 
 mindful of all brethren in Christ, who are departed out of 
 this life in the true faith. . . .loosing and remitting to them 
 the sins and offences,” &c. — Ibid. p. 633. 
 
 From the Coptic Liturgy, called of St. Basil, used by 
 the Euty chians : — 
 
ON PURGATORY. 
 
 43 
 
 “ Priest. — Vouchsafe, O Lord, to grant rest to the souls 
 of them all.” — Ibid. tom. i. p. 18. 
 
 From the Coptic Liturgies, called of St. Gregory, and of 
 St. Cyril, used by the Jacobites or Eutychians. The Priest 
 in secret: — 
 
 “ Be mindful, 0 Lord, of our fathers and brethren, who 
 have already slept in the orthodox faith : grant rest to them 
 all with thy saints,” &c. — Ibid. pp. 33, 41. 
 
 Such is the language of these ancient Eastern Liturgies, 
 amply testifying the belief and practice of the Christian 
 Church from the beginning. As to the Western, the prin- 
 cipal liturgy is that of Rome. It is considered a form of 
 worship, originally received in substance from St. Peter. 
 It was inserted by St. Gelasius, Pope in 492, in his Sacra- 
 mentary: Pope Gregory put this in a new form, making 
 one book of the three. The present Roman Missal is, in 
 fact, the same liturgy as the Sacramentary of St. Gregory. 
 It must appear evident to any one who compares this Missal 
 with the Eastern liturgies above quoted, how uniform was 
 the doctrine of the Eastern and Western Churches, from 
 the beginning, on this point of prayer and sacrifice offered 
 for the repose of the souls of all the faithful departed, as 
 upon all the other points rejected by the reformed churches. 
 It was, therefore, the pure worship and doctrine of primitive 
 Christianity. (The Calvinist Whittaker, of whom Bishop 
 Hall said, that “ Never man saw him without reverence, or 
 heard him without wonder,” affirms, in his work on Anti- 
 christ, p. 31, that “ During the first 500 years, the whole 
 Church was pure, and inviolably taught the faith delivered 
 by the Apostles.”) In the Roman Missal, the commemora- 
 tion for the faithful departed is as follows : — “ Be mindful 
 also, O Lord, of thy servants N. and N., who are gone 
 before us with the sign of faith, and sleep in the sleep of 
 peace.” The Priest then prays for those whom he particu- 
 
44 
 
 ON PURGATORY. 
 
 larly commemorates, and proceeds thus : — “ To these, 0 
 Lord, and to all who rest in Christ, grant, We beseech thee, 
 a place of refreshment, light and peace, through the same 
 Christ our Lord. Amen.” 
 
 The Ambrosial Missal, and the ancient liturgies of Spain 
 and Gaul, are perfectly conformable in substance to that 
 of Rome. The Ambrosial Missal was in use at Milan, 
 when St. Ambrose was consecrated bishop in 374. 
 
 Besides the authorities of these ancient liturgies, I have 
 quoted in the notes the holy Fathers who adduce the same 
 texts of Scriptures in support of the doctrine of purgatory. 
 If these Fathers are admitted by Protestants in proof of the 
 authority of Scripture, (and they are so,) why are they not 
 to be received in evidence of the doctrine of purgatory, 
 since at the period when they wrote, they published what 
 was then the doctrine of the Catholic Church, and such 
 doctrine must have been true, as the Church is acknow- 
 ledged on all hands to have been pure in the primitive ages 
 of Christianity 1 To shew that the present doctrine of the 
 Roman Catholic Church, on the article of purgatory, is 
 exactly similar to the doctrine of the primitive ages of 
 Christianity, I shall recite the decree of the Council of 
 Trent on this subject. 
 
 Sessio xxv . — Decretum de Purgatorio. 
 
 “ As the Catholic Church, instructed by the Holy Spirit, 
 has taught in her councils, from the sacred writings, and 
 the ancient traditions of the fathers, and this synod has now 
 recently declared that there is a Purgatory, and that the 
 souls there detained are assisted by the suffrages of the 
 faithful, but principally by the acceptable sacrifice of the 
 Altar ; therefore this holy synod gives her commands 
 to the bishops to be particularly careful, that the sound 
 doctrine concerning purgatory, which has been delivered 
 
ON PURGATORY. 
 
 45 
 
 by the holy fathers and sacred councils, be taught, and 
 held, and believed, and be every where preached ; that all 
 abstruse and subtile questions, which tend not to edification, 
 and from which piety seldom draws any advantage, be 
 avoided in public discourses before the people ; that uncer- 
 tain things, and such as have the appearance of falsehood, 
 be not allowed to be made public, nor be discussed ; and 
 that whatever may tend to encourage idle curiosity and 
 superstition, or may savour of filthy lucre, be prohibited as 
 scandalous impediments to virtue.” 
 
 Tertullian in his book of Monogamy, chap. x. speaks of 
 the widow, “ who prays for the soul of her departed hus- 
 hand, and entreats repose to him, and participation in the 
 first resurrection, and makes oblations for him on the anni- 
 versary days of his death.” 
 
 St. Ephrem of Odessa, in a work entitled his Testament, 
 entreats his friends to offer up for him after his death, 
 prayers and oblations. “ When the thirtieth day shall be 
 completed,” adds he, “ then remember me ; for the dead are 
 helped by the offerings of the living : — Now listen with 
 patience to what I shall mention from the Scriptures: 
 Moses bestowed blessings on Reuben after the third genera- 
 tion. — (Deut. xxxiii. 6.) But if the dead are not aided, 
 why was he blessed? Again, if they be insensible, hear 
 what the apostle says : If the dead rise not again at all, 
 why are they then baptized for the dead?” (1 Cor. xv. 29.) 
 
 St. Epiphanius assures us, that “ there is nothing more 
 opportune, nothing more to be admired, than the rite which 
 directs the names of the dead to be mentioned. They are 
 aided by the prayer that is offered for them, though it may 
 not cancel all their faults. We mention both the just and 
 sinners, in order that for the latter we may obtain mercy.” 
 — Haer. lxxv. tom. i. 
 
 St. Jerom establishes the same doctrine against Jovinian 
 
46 
 
 ON PURGATORY. 
 
 ii. t. i. in these terms : “ If he, whose work has burned 
 and suffered loss (as the apostle says), shall lose the reward 
 of his labour, yet shall he be saved by the trial of fire ; so 
 he whose work shall abide which he built upon, shall be 
 saved without fire. Thus there will be some difference in 
 the degrees of salvation.” 
 
 Arnobius, the master of Lactantius, who lived about the 
 end of the third century, thus writes : “ Why were the 
 oratories (of the Christians) destined to savage destruction, 
 wherein prayers are offered up to the Sovereign God; 
 peace and pardon are implored for all men, magistrates, 
 soldiers, kings, friends and enemies, for those who are alive, 
 and for those who have quitted their bodies.” — Lib. iv. adv. 
 Genses. 
 
 Arnobius the younger, who lived towards the close of the 
 fifth entury, informs us, that “ They who offer money or 
 gifts to the Churches, and die in their sins, do it in order 
 that they may be relieved by our prayers : ut nostris pre- 
 cibus reviviscant.” — Bibl. P. P. Max. t. viii. 
 
 Let the unprejudiced reader, now judge if the doctrine of 
 purgatory be “ a fond thing, vainly invented, and grounded 
 upon no warrant of Scripture, but rather repugnant to the 
 word of God,” as it is termed in the twenty-second article 
 of the Protestant Religion ! ! 
 
 I will now lay before the reader the candid admission of 
 the doctrine of purgatory, by several learned Protestants, 
 whose authority no member of the Church of England will 
 be inclined to dispute. 
 
 Bishop Forbes of Edinburgh, in his discourse on Purga- 
 tory, says : “ Let not the ancient practice of praying and 
 making oblations for the dead, received throughout the 
 Universal Church of Christ, from the time of the apostles, 
 be any more rejected by Protestants as unlawful or vain. 
 Let them respect the judgment of the primitive Church, 
 
ON PURGATORY. 
 
 47 
 
 observing in public this rite, as lawful, profitable, and ap- 
 proved by the Universal Church, which has ever believed 
 this practice to be pious and charitable ; that by this means, 
 a peace, so earnestly desired by all honest men, may be 
 restored to the Christian world. Many of the ancient 
 fathers were of opinion, that some light offences, not re- 
 mitted in this life, as to their guilt and punishment, were 
 forgiven after death, at the celebration of the tremendous 
 mysteries : and it is no absurdity to believe that lighter 
 sins, not remitted in this life, are discharged after death, 
 whilst the ecclesiastical rites are piously performed. In 
 fine, the practice of the Church in praying for the dead is 
 derived, as Chrysostom asserts, from the institution of the 
 apostles.” 
 
 St. John Chrysostom : — “ Let us then aid these our 
 Brethren,” he says ; “ for if the offering of Job could benefit 
 his sons, why should you not believe, if you make offerings 
 for the dead, that they may receive some consolation from 
 them 1 God grants favors to the prayers of others, as St. 
 Paul teaches : You helping withal in prayer for us, that for 
 this gift obtained for us, by the means of many persons, 
 thanks may be given by many in our behalf. — (1 Cor. i. 2.) 
 Let us not tire in affording aid to the dead, in offering prayers 
 for them: prayer is the common victim of the world. — 
 (Horn. xli. Ep. i. ad Cor.) And again, God has said: I 
 will defend this city to save it for mine own sake, and for 
 my servant David’s sake. — (2 Kings xix. 34.) If the re- 
 membrance alone of a just man so prevalent, what may not 
 works effect] It was ordained by the Apostles, that in 
 celebrating the sacred mysteries, the dead should be remem- 
 bered ; for they well knew what advantage would thence be 
 derived to them.” — Horn. iii. in Ep. ad Philip. 
 
 Dr. Johnson, a Protestant whose orthodoxy cannot be 
 questioned, and whose piety and devotion were well known, 
 
48 
 
 ON PURGATORY. 
 
 offered up prayers for his mother. He allowed a middle 
 state, conscious that there are many judgments after death, 
 and admitted consequently the doctrine of the Catholic 
 Church : “ Salvatur ex parte, et condemnatur ex parte.” 
 
 Prebendary Thorndyke, in his Just Weights and Measures , 
 c. 16, says : “ The practice of the Church of interceding for 
 the dead at the celebration of the 'Eucharist, is so general, 
 and so ancient, that it cannot be thought to have come in 
 upon imposture, but that the same aspersion will seem to 
 take hold of the common Christianity.” 
 
 But the most striking admission of the doctrine of Pur- 
 gatory is to be found in a discourse on the Liberty of Pro- 
 phesying, by the eminent writer, Dr. Jeremy Taylor, bishop 
 of Down and Connor : “ But we find,” says the Romanist, 
 (though the learned bishop, by an important parenthesis, 
 says the Romanist, has evaded the charge of such being his 
 own doctrine, or individual opinion, yet as the argument, 
 than which none can be better, that he has put forth, is not 
 answered by him as a Protestant, it is not too much to pre- 
 sume, especially when we come to read the conclusion of the 
 whole, that he was favorable to the doctrine and practice, 
 and considered the grounds for it to be strong and cogent :) 
 “ in the history of the Maccabees, that the Jews did pray 
 and make offerings for the dead ; which also appears by 
 other testimonies, and by their form of prayers, still extant, 
 which they used in the captivity. It is worthy of considera- 
 tion, that since our Blessed Saviour did reprove all the evil 
 doctrines and traditions of the Scribes and Pharisees, and 
 did argue concerning the dead, and the resurrection against 
 tl>e Sadducees, yet he spoke no word against this public 
 practice, but left it as he found it ; which he, who came to 
 declare to us all the will of his Father, would not have done, 
 if it had not been innocent, pious, and full of charity. To 
 which, by way of consociation if we add, that St. Paul did 
 
ON PURGATORY. 
 
 49 
 
 pray for Onesiphorus, that ‘ the Lord would shew him 
 mercy in that day/ — (2 Tim. i. 18;) that is according to 
 the style of the New Testament, the day of Judgment, the 
 result will he that, although it be probable that Onesiphorus 
 at that time was dead (because in his salutations he salutes 
 his household, without naming him who was the ' Major 
 domo,’ against his custom of salutation in other places); 
 yet, besides this, the prayer was for such a blessing on 
 him, whose demonstration and reception could not but be 
 after death, which implies clearly that then there is need 
 of mercy, and, consequently, the dead, even to the day 
 of Judgment inclusively, are the subjects of misery, the 
 object of God’s mercy, and therefore fit to be commemorated 
 in the duties of our piety and charity ; and that we are to 
 recommend their condition to God, not only to give them 
 more glory in the re-union, but to pity them to such pur- 
 poses in which they need : which, because they are not 
 revealed to us in particular, it hinders us not in recommend- 
 ing the persons in particular to God’s mercy, but should 
 rather excite our charity and devotion. For it being certain 
 that they have need of mercy, and it being uncertain how 
 great their need is, it may concern the prudence of charity 
 to be the more earnest, as not knowing the greatness of their 
 necessity. And if there should be any uncertainty in these 
 arguments, yet its having been the universal 'practice of the 
 Church of God in all places and in all ages, till within these 
 few hundred years , it is a very great inducement for any 
 member of the Church to believe that, in the first traditions 
 of Christianity, and the institutions Apostolical, there was 
 nothing delivered against this practice, but very much to 
 insinuate, or enjoin it ; because the practice of it was at 
 the first, and was universal And if any man shall doubt 
 this, he shews how ignorant he is of the records of the 
 Church; it being plain in Tertullian (De Corona Milit. c. 
 
 E 
 
50 
 
 ON PURGATORY. 
 
 3, and Be Monogam, c. 10,) and St. Cyprian, ( Ep . 60,) 
 who were the oldest writers of the Latin Church, and that 
 in their times it was ‘ ah antiquo ’ the custom of the Church 
 to pray for the souls of the faithful departed in the dreadful 
 mysteries. And it was an apostolical institution, (says one 
 of them,) and so transmitted to the following ages of the 
 Church ; and when once it began, upon slight grounds and 
 discontent, to be contested against by Arius, the man was 
 presently condemned for a heretic, as appears in Epiphanius.” 
 
 “ But I am not,” concludes the learned Doctor, " to con- 
 sider the arguments for the doctrine itself, although the 
 probability and fair pretence of them may help to excuse 
 such persons who, upon these or the like grounds, do heartily 
 believe it ; but I am to consider that, whether it be true or 
 false, there is no manner of malice in it, and at the worst, 
 it is but a wrong error upon the right side of charity ; and 
 concluded against by its adversaries upon the confidence of 
 such arguments, which, possibly, are not so probable as the 
 grounds pretended for it.” 
 
 In this sentence we have the whole of the Protestant 
 argument; which declaration, I fear, leaves the opposite 
 Protestant doctrine in the very probable predicament of 
 being a wrong error, and what is worse, on the wrong side of 
 charity. In conclusion, I beg leave to offer to my readers, 
 the following quotation from the learned Protestant, Dr. 
 Deacon, “ On Prayer for the Dead!' “ The necessity of 
 prayer for the dead," says he, “ is a consequence of the law- 
 fulness of it. For it cannot be lawful to p*ay for them, 
 unless we suppose it will be of service to them. Whoever 
 refuses to pray for the faithful departed is most uncharitable. 
 Our blessed Lord offered himself a sacrifice as well for the 
 dead, as the living; commanding the Apostles and their 
 successors to offer the Eucharistic elements as he had. The 
 primitive Church always prayed for the dead, and since no 
 
ON PURGATORY. 
 
 51 
 
 account can be given of the how or when it came into the 
 Church, it must be Apostolical. Let our adversaries pro- 
 duce any one ancient Liturgy in which, the departed are not 
 particularly mentioned, any one Father who wrote against 
 Prayer for the Dead, any one part of the Catholic Church 
 from the Apostles to Calvin, for 1500 years, which did not 
 recommend the dead to God’s mercy. Let them do this, 
 and we will yield the cause. But, say they, ’tis but tra- 
 dition, not scripture. I answer, that, a tradition so general 
 in all churches must be followed ! 
 
 “ By such only, can we prove Infant Baptism, the Lord’s 
 Day, Episcopacy, and the Bible itself. How can we, for 
 example, prove that St. Matthew wrote his Gospel but by 
 tradition? It cannot prove itself. The following should 
 be restored in the Church of England. 1st. The oblation 
 of the Eucharist as the representative sacrifice of Christ’s 
 body. 2nd. The recommendation of the departed. 3rd. 
 The mixture of wine and ivater in the cup, as necessary 
 parts of the Christian religion.” — Deacon on Prayer for the 
 Dead, preface, pp. 8, 25. 
 
52 
 
 ON CONFIRMATION. 
 
 1st. “ Now when the Apostles who were in Jerusalem 
 had heard that Samaria had received the word of God, they 
 sent unto them Peter and John : who when they were come 
 down, prayed for them, that they might receive the Holy 
 Ghost, (for as yet he was fallen upon none of them : only 
 they were baptised in the name of the Lord Jesus.) Then 
 they laid their hands on them, and they received the Holy 
 Ghost.” — Acts viii. 14 — 17. 
 
 2nd. “ When they heard this, they were baptised in the 
 name of the Lord Jesus. And when Paul laid his hands 
 upon them, the Holy Ghost came upon them ; and they 
 spoke with tongues, and prophesied.”— Acts xix. 5, 6. 
 
 3rd. “ Therefore, leaving the elements of the doctrine of 
 Christ, let us go on to perfection ; not laying again the foun- 
 dation of repentance from dead works, and of faith towards 
 God, of the doctrine of babtisms, and of the laying on of 
 hands.”- — Heb. vi. 1, 2. 
 
 If a sacrament of the new law is an external and visible 
 sign of the grace conferred ; if such a sacrament has been 
 ordained by Christ himself, as a channel by which grace is 
 conveyed to the soul, we have here, in the case of confir- 
 mation, as given by the Apostles themselves, in the Apos- 
 tolic Church, an external and visible sign, namely, the 
 imposition of the hands of the Apostles : there was also in 
 this sacrament, an internal and spiritual grace, the divine 
 
ON CONFIRMATION. 
 
 53 
 
 spirit himself, whom those who were recently baptised 
 received by this means. — Besides the scriptural authority, 
 all the holy fathers unanimously agree that Confirmation is 
 as perfect a sacrament as Baptism. (See St. Ambrose, De 
 Sacr. lib. iii. c. 2. and De Spiritu San. c. vi. 7. ; Tertullian, 
 lib. De Bapt. vi. 8, and lib. De Resur. vi. 8 ; St. Jerome, 
 Contra. Lnicif. tom. iv. part 2 ; St. Cyprian, Ep. lxxiii. n. 
 3, &c. &c. &c.) 
 
 St. Augustin says : “ If the miraculous testimony of the 
 presence of the divine spirit is not given, how does any 
 person know that the Holy Ghost has come down upon 
 him ? Let him ask his heart : if he loves his brother, the 
 spirit of God abideth in him. Ask thy heart ; thou mayest 
 have received the sacrament, and not the virtue of the 
 sacrament.” (Tract, C. in 1 Ep. Joan.) He says also in 
 another place, that “ the sacrament of Confirmation, admin- 
 istered by the visible seal, is as sacred and holy as the bap- 
 tism itself.” ( Cont. lit. Petil. lib. ii. c. 10.) He also calls 
 confirmation the “ Sacrament of Chrism.” Chrism is an 
 ointment, made of oil of olives and balsam, which signifies 
 the odour of a good life diffusing itself by example and 
 edifying behaviour ; but to the validity of the sacrament it 
 is requisite that the chrism be consecrated by a bishop. 
 (In Ps. xliv. 9, et lib. 3, de Trinit. c. 27.) 
 
 That this sacred ceremony was ordained by Christ, as a 
 means of communicating that grace, is fully evident, since 
 the apostles never could have instituted, by an unauthorised 
 act, a sacrament to which grace should be annexed. For 
 which reason, the doctrine of the imposition of hands or 
 confirmation is, together with baptism, ranked among the 
 elements, or first principles of the Christian faith. Pope 
 Melchiades, who lived in the fourth century, in his epistle 
 to the bishops of Spain, says : “ I sought whether baptism 
 or imposition of hands was the greatest sacrament ; but 
 
54 
 
 ON CONFIRMATION, 
 
 know that they are both great sacraments.” “ In baptism,” 
 adds he, “ a man is received to warfare, and in confirmation 
 he is armed to fight ; in baptism we are regenerated to life, 
 after baptism we are confirmed to fight ; in baptism we are 
 washed, after baptism we are strengthened.” 
 
 In fact, as the sacrament of baptism consists of two parts, 
 viz: matter and form, water being the matter, and the 
 words, “ I baptise thee in the name of the Father, and of the 
 Son, and of the Holy Ghost,” the form ; so also a matter 
 and form exist in the sacrament of confirmation. The mat- 
 ter is the imposition of hands and anointing with chrism * 
 the form is these words, used by the Catholic bishop, “ I 
 sign thee with the sign of the cross, and confirm thee with 
 the chrism of salvation, in the name of the Father, and of 
 the Son, and of the Holy Ghost.” This matter and form 
 are well grounded both in scripture and in the unchangeable 
 tradition of the Church. This sign of the cross is made on 
 the forehead during the anointing with oil, which denotes 
 that it gives strength to profess the faith firmly, and makes 
 the receiver a perfect Christian. A blow is also given by 
 the bishop on the cheek of those who receive this sacra- 
 ment, to put them in mind of persecution, and the obligation 
 they lie under to suffer all sorts of hardships rather than 
 forsake their religion. The imposition of hands signifies the 
 overflowing of the Holy Ghost. 
 
 We have seen that the imposition of hands is mentioned 
 in the Acts of the Apostles, and anointing with oil is a con- 
 stant ceremony both in the Old and New Testament, when 
 persons are consecrated to the service of God. Tertullian 
 says: “Aaron was anointed by Moses, and the name of 
 Christ was from chrism, which is unction. Next follows 
 the imposition of hands, with the invocation of the Holy 
 Ghost .” — (Be Bapt . c. viii.) St. Paul also says: “He 
 who established us with you in Christ, and has anointed us. 
 
ON CONFIRMATION. 
 
 55 
 
 is God, who hath also sealed us, and given the earnest of the 
 spirit in our hearts.” (2 Cor. i. 21, 22.) 
 
 It is true, no express mention is made of anointing, where 
 the Scriptures speak of Confirmation, but the primitive 
 Fathers constantly assert, that chrism is necessary for the 
 sacrament of confirmation ; and, moreover, the practice of 
 it in the Catholic Church, from the very earliest times of 
 Christianity, justifies the ceremony, 
 
 St. Clement, the disciple and coadjutor of the Apostles, 
 as he is styled by St. Paul, in his Epistle to the Philipians 
 (iv. 3), says : “ All must make haste, without delay, to be 
 born again to God ; then at last to be signed and anointed 
 by a bishop, as we have received from Peter, and the rest 
 of the apostles have taught us, our Lord commanding it.” — 
 Decret Pon. De Consec. Dist. v. 
 
 Tertullian : “ Let us now, from the form of Christian 
 character, consider what advantages the soul derives from 
 the body. The flesh is washed, that the soul may be puri- 
 fied ; it is anointed, that the soul may be consecrated. The 
 flesh is sealed (signatur), that the soul may be strengthened; 
 and that the soul may be enlightened by the Holy Spirit, 
 the body is overshadowed by the imposition of hands .” — De 
 Resurrect. Carnis. viii. 
 
 St. Cyprian says : “ It is moreover necessary, that he 
 who has been baptised should be anointed, £ ungi quoque 
 necesse est eum, qui baptizatus sit in order that, having 
 received the chrism, that is, the unction, he may be the 
 anointed of God, and possess the grace of Christ.” — Ep. 
 lxx. 
 
 St. Cyril, of Jerusalem : “ To you, when you came out 
 from the font, was given the chrism, which is the image of 
 that with which Christ was anointed, that is, the Holy Spirit. 
 Take care that you think it not mere ointment with which 
 the forehead and your bodily senses are symbolically 
 
56 
 
 ON confirmation. 
 
 anointed ; the body, indeed, is anointed with that visible 
 chrism, but the soul is sanctified by the Holy Spirit.” — Cat. 
 Myst. iii. n. 1, 3.) 
 
 During the rigorous persecutions to which Christians 
 were formerly exposed, care was taken to have little children 
 confirmed immediately after baptism, lest afterwards they 
 might not have an opportunity, in those perilous times. 
 
 St. Cyril of Alexandria, commenting on the words of 
 Joel (ii. 24), “ the vats shall overflow with wine and oil,” 
 asserts that, “As in rain has been given to us the living 
 water of baptism ; as in corn, the living bread ; and in wine, 
 his blood ; so to these has been added the use of oil, which 
 may perfect those who have been justified through baptism 
 in Christ.” — Comm, in Joel. tom. iii. 
 
 And Theodoret, in remarking on this passage, “ Thy 
 name is as ointment poured forth,” (Cant. 1. iii.) says: “If 
 you would understand this mystically, look to the sacrament 
 of baptism, in which they who are initiated receive the 
 spiritual unction as a royal seal, and with it the invisible 
 grace of the Holy Spirit.” 
 
 And likewise in the council of Laodicea, held anno 374, 
 it was decreed, that “ the Catechumens could not be ad- 
 mitted to the sacred mysteries, without having beforehand 
 been anointed with the holy chrism.” — Con. vii. Cone. Gen. 
 tom. 1. 
 
 Finally, in the second council of Arles, assembled by St. 
 Hilary, about the year 442, mention is made of chrism, to 
 be joined to the imposition of hands. The canon runs thus: 
 “ As to Arians, and such heretics who are baptised in 
 the name of the Blessed Trinity, if, when interrogated, 
 they sincerely profess our faith, they may be received into 
 the Church by chrism and by the imposition of hands ; 
 ‘ chrismate et manus impositione.’ ” — Can. xvi. Con. Gen. 
 tom. 4. 
 
ON CONFIRMATION. 
 
 57 
 
 The thirtieth canon of the Church of England, (Constitu- 
 tions and Canons Ecclesiastical,) explains “ the lawful use 
 of the Cross in baptism,” and, amongst other reasons, asserts 
 “ to follow therein the primitive and apostolical Churches, 
 and the judgment of all the ancient fathers.” 
 
 Thus Roman Catholics adhere religiously to the Scripture, 
 following constantly the primitive apostolical Churches, and 
 refer to the judgment of all the ancient fathers, in believing 
 that Confirmation is a sacrament of the new law, instituted 
 by Jesus Christ. They use the sign of the cross and the 
 chrism as they were practised by the disciples and followers 
 of the apostles. Protestants have no such custom, because 
 their Church tells them that “ confirmation,” (see the Book 
 of Common Prayer in the order of Confirmation,) is only “ a 
 ceremony for instruction of youth in their faith, after they 
 are arrived at the use of reason, and to put them in mind of 
 their baptismal vows !” Which, therefore, of the two reli- 
 gions, Catholic or Protestant, is most consistent with the 
 doctrine of the primitive and apostolical Church ? 
 
 From the above testimonies it appears, that the sacred 
 rite of administering the sacrament of Confirmation, accord- 
 ing to the present practice of the Roman Catholic Church, 
 is not of recent institution, but is the same as was observed 
 in the earliest ages of the Christian Church. 
 
 Hence it appears, that these ecclesiastical ceremonies, 
 which are called Superstitious by men, who do not under- 
 stand their origin and import, are found to be the religious 
 rites and observances of primitive Christianity. 
 
58 
 
 CONFESSION OF SINS, 
 
 T he confession of sins is made to the lawful Ministers of 
 the true Church, with the view of obtaining the remission of 
 sin, by their ministry , through the merits of Christ. That 
 Christ granted the ministerial 'power of remitting sins, not 
 only to his Apostles, but to the lawful successors of the Apos- 
 tles, was the belief of the Christian Church, in the primitive, 
 and succeeding ages. 
 
 The Novatians denied to the Church the power of par- 
 doning sins, which power had been exercised from the be- 
 ginning. St. Ambrose (before the year 397), thus refutes 
 their doctrine. “ They pretend,” says he, “ that by reserv- 
 ing to him (Christ) alone the power of remitting sins, they 
 shew respect to Jesus Christ, and, in this very thing, they 
 dishonour him, by violating his commands, and rejecting 
 his ordinance. For, as Christ in his gospel said: What 
 things you shall bind on earth, shall be bound also in heaven; 
 and what you shall loose on earth, shall be loosed in heaven. 
 Who is it that honors him most ; he that obeys, or he that 
 rejects his commands'? The Church, by binding and loosing 
 sins, obeys in both. The Novatians content themselves 
 with binding only, and will not loose sinners : though the 
 power of doing both was given. Whence it follows, that 
 one cannot be permitted without the other. Both are 
 allowed to the Church : neither is allowed to heretics ; be- 
 
ON CONFESSION OF SINS. 
 
 59 
 
 cause, it is a right conceded only to priests. This right 
 the Church claims to herself, since she alone possesses true 
 priests.” — St. Ambrose de Poenit. lib. i. c. ii. tom. iv. pp. 
 386, 387. 
 
 St. Pacian, about the year 399, refuting the same Nova- 
 tians, says : “ But you Novatians will say, that only God 
 can grant the pardon of sins. That is true : but what he 
 does by his ministers, he does by his own power. What 
 did he say to his Apostles 1 What you shall bind on earth, 
 shall be bound in heaven ; and what you shall loose on earth, 
 shall be loosed also in heaven. And why this, if sinners 
 might be bound only, and not loosed 1 But, perhaps, the 
 Apostles only had this power 1 Then they only, it must be 
 said, had power to baptise ; to confer the Holy Spirit ; and 
 to purify the Gentiles from their sins: for, in the same 
 place, where he gives them power to administer the Sacra- 
 ment of Baptism, he also gives them the power to loose 
 sinners. Either then these two powers were peculiarly 
 reserved to the Apostles, or they both continued to their 
 successors ; and, therefore, since it is certain, that the power 
 of giving baptism and unction descended to the Bishops, to 
 them has likewise come the power of binding and loosing.” 
 Ep. i. ad Sympron. Bib. Patr. Max. tom. iv. pp. 306, 307. 
 
 St. Cyril, of Alexandria, about the year 444, writes : 
 “ It seemed good to Christ, that they, who had within them- 
 selves his divine spirit, should likewise possess the power of 
 forgiving sins, and of retaining such, as they judged proper : 
 that Holy Spirit himself, according to his good pleasure, 
 forgiving and retaining, through the ministry of men .” — In 
 Joan lib. xii. cap. i. tom. iv. 
 
 Concerning the particular confession of sins to the Minis- 
 ters of Christ, as a condition for obtaining pardon, we have 
 the following among many other ancient testimonies. 
 
 St. Cyprian, about the year 258, writes : “ Though some 
 
60 
 
 ON CONFESSION OF SINS. 
 
 of these persons be remarked for their faith and the fear of 
 God, and have not been guilty of sacrificing (to idols), nor 
 of surrendering the holy scriptures ; yet if the thought of 
 doing it have ever entered their mind, this they confess, 
 with grief and without disguise, before the Priests of God, 
 unburdening the conscience, and seeking a salutary remedy.” 
 De Lapsis, p. 134. 
 
 “ Every one must confess his faults, while he that has 
 offended, enjoys life ; while his confession can be received, 
 and while the satisfaction and pardon imparted by the 
 Priests, are acceptable before God.” — Ibid. 
 
 “ It is required that sinners do penance for a stated time, 
 that according to the rule of established discipline, they 
 come to confession, and that by the imposition of the hand 
 of the bishop and clergy, they be admitted to communion.” 
 Ep. xvii. p. 39. 
 
 Origen, about the year 254, says : “ There is yet a more 
 severe and arduous pardon of sins, by penance, when the 
 sinner washes his couch with his tears, and when he blushes 
 not to disclose his sin to the priest, and seek a remedy.” — 
 Homil. ii. in Levit. tom. ii. Here this ancient writer clearly 
 specifies two conditions required on the part of the sinner, 
 that he may obtain pardon of his sins by penance, viz : con- 
 trition, “ washing his couch with his tears,” and confession, 
 “ when he blushes not to declare his sins to the priest.” 
 
 To urge sinners to perform this arduous part of confession, 
 Origen says : “ At the last day all things will be revealed, 
 whatever we shall have committed ; what we have done in 
 private ; what in word only, or even in thought ; all will be 
 laid open. But, if while we are alive, we prevent this, and 
 become our own accusers, we shall escape the designs of 
 the accusing devil ; for thus the prophet says, Let us be our 
 own accusers.” — Horn. iii. in Levit. tom. ii. p. 196. 
 
 Having stated how much they suffer, whose stomachs are 
 
ON CONFESSION OF SINS. 
 
 61 
 
 loaded with humours and indigested food, he says : “ So they 
 who have sinned, if they hide and retain their sins within 
 their breasts, are grievously tormented ; but, if the sinner 
 becomes his own accuser, while he does this, he discharges 
 the cause of his malady. Only let him carefully consider 
 to whom he should confess his sin.” — Homil. ii. in Psal. 37, 
 tom. ii. p. 688. 
 
 “ They who are not holy, die in their sins. The holy do 
 penance ; they feel their wounds ; are sensible of their fail- 
 ings ; look for the priest ; implore health ; and, through him, 
 seek to be purified.” — Homil. x. in Num. tom. ii. p. 302. 
 
 Lanctantius, about the year 309, writes : “ Now, as all 
 heretical sects deem themselves particularly Christians, and 
 think theirs is the Catholic Church, it should be known, that 
 where is confession and penance, by which the sins, to which 
 weak men are subject, are cancelled, there is the true 
 church.” — Instil, lib. vii. p. 233. 
 
 St. Basil, about the year 379, writes : “ Necessarily, our 
 sins must be confessed to those to whom has been committed 
 the dispensation of the mysteries of God .” — In Quaest Brev. 
 Reg. 288, tom. ii. p. 516. 
 
 Paulinus, the secretary of St. Ambrose, relates in the 
 history of his life, “ That as often as any one, in doing 
 penance, confessed his faults to him, he wept, so as to draw 
 tears from the sinner. He seemed to take part, in every 
 act of sorrow. But as to the occasion, or causes of the 
 crimes, which they confessed, these he revealed to no one, 
 but to God, with whom he interceded .” — In Vita Ambrosii, 
 n. 39, p. 10, in fine, tom. ii. Operum Ed. Paris, 1686. 
 
 Pope Innocent I. in his canonical Epistle to Decentius, 
 written in 416, speaks thus : “ As to penitents. .If no sick- 
 ness intervene, they must be absolved on the Thursday 
 before Easter, according to the practice of Rome. But in 
 estimating the grievousness of sins, it is the duty of the 
 
62 
 
 ON CONFESSION OF SINS. 
 
 Priest to judge, attending to the confession of the penitent, 
 and the signs of his repentance ; and then to order him to be 
 loosed, when he shall see due satisfaction made. But if 
 there be danger of death, he must be absolved before Easter, 
 lest he die without communion.” — Can. vii. Cone. tom. ii. 
 p. 1247. 
 
 St. Augustin, before the year 430, writes : “ Ye that 
 have been guilty of the sin of adultery, do such penance as 
 is done in the Church, that the Church may pray for you. 
 Let no one say, I do it secretly ; I do it before God ; he 
 knows my heart, and will pardon me. Was it then said 
 without reason, what you shall loose on earth, shall be loosed 
 in heaven] Were the keys then given to the Church for 
 no purpose]” — Horn. 49. tom. x. 
 
 Here St. Augustin declares, that it is not sufficient for 
 the sinner to do penance before God, but that he must do it 
 as it is done in the Churchy by manifesting his guilt to those 
 who have power to loose the penitent sinner, by absolution, 
 and who have the keys of the kingdom of heaven. 
 
 Pope Leo the Great, about the year 450, writes thus : 
 “ Christ gave power to them, who are appointed to govern 
 his Church, to prescribe a course of penance to such as con- 
 fess their sins, and to admit them through the gate of recon- 
 ciliation to the communion of the sacraments, after they have 
 been purified by a salutary confession.” — Epist. cxxxii. 
 
 The practice of confession, for the purpose of obtaining 
 the remission of sin, by the absolution of the priest, has 
 constantly been observed in the Greek Church, as well as 
 in the Latin, from the earliest ages ; as appears from their 
 ancient penitentials, and books of the administration of the 
 sacraments, as well as from the testimonies of the Greek 
 Fathers cited above. 
 
 In the primitive times of Christianity, the necessity of 
 having frequent recourse to confession was less than in lat- 
 
ON CONFESSION OF SINS. 
 
 63 
 
 ter ages, when the fervor of Christians was diminished, 
 and they became less diligent in observing the precepts of 
 the gospel. In the beginning, they were severely tried, 
 and were well instructed and exercised in the rules and 
 duties of Christian morality, before they were admitted to 
 the sacrament of baptism. Their zeal to maintain the purity 
 of their character was great, as was also their horror of 
 whatever might defile that purity. Living in times of per- 
 secution, they were less exposed to dangerous occasions of 
 sin in the world, and they gave their attention more to God, 
 and the great affair of the salvation of their souls, having 
 their conversation in heaven. 
 
 Yet, even in those times of fervor, many fell into sin ; 
 who having lost the innocence imparted by their first bap- 
 tism, could only recover grace and find salvation, through 
 the second baptism of true penance. For the regulation of 
 the practice of doing penance, penitential canons, or rules 
 prescribing a proportioned penance for different kinds of 
 sins, were formed so early as the second century. The dis- 
 cipline of canonical penances was in force, both in the 
 Eastern and W estern Churches, in the second century, and 
 is treated of at large in whole volumes by Tertullian, the 
 the oldest Latin ecclesiastical writer, by St. Cyprian, and 
 others. We have extant the canonical epistle of St. Gre- 
 gory Thaumaturgus, in the East, written in the year 250, so 
 called, because in it he prescribes canons or rules, appor- 
 tioning penances to the quality and enormity of sins. We 
 have also, in that and the following century, the canonical 
 epistles of St. Dionysius, of St. Peter of Alexandria, of St. 
 Basil and of St. Gregory of Nyssa, and the penitential 
 canons of many councils. These canonical epistles of the 
 Greek Church are published by Bishop Beveridge, in his 
 Canones Ecclesiae Graecae, tom. ii. In England St. Theo- 
 dore, Archbishop of Canterbury, in the year 690, and Egbert, 
 Archbishop of York, in the year 740, published their peni- 
 
64 
 
 ON CONFESSION OF SINS. 
 
 tentials. This discipline, though with some mitigations in 
 several places, was enforced both in the Latin and Greek 
 Church, for the space of twelve hundred years. 
 
 In the long list of sins which the canons detail, and for 
 which specific penances were enjoined, some are such as 
 could have been known only by the voluntary confession of 
 the sinner. Therefore, the enforcement of the canons, and 
 the enforcement, or duty of confession, public or private, 
 went together. Penitents, before Lent, confessed their sins 
 to the Bishop, or some of the Priests approved by him for 
 this function. The very name of Shrovetide, signifies, 
 in the language of our Saxon ancestors, the time of con- 
 fessing sins, which they did, before the beginning of Lent. 
 If the Priest, who received the confession, found any case 
 to require canonical penance, the penitent was remitted to 
 the Bishop, or his penitentiary, who enjoined the terms 
 and conditions of the penance, according to the canons. 
 Those who were r guilty of public scandalous sins, were or- 
 dered to make a public confession of them : but a public 
 confession of secret sins was not required. The manifesta- 
 tion of some was strictly forbidden. Yet even those who 
 had privately confessed their secret sins, might perform a 
 course of penance, without betraying their guilt; as, in 
 those times, many, innocent of any crime, voluntarily sub- 
 jected themselves, out of devotion, to a course of penance, 
 such as the canons prescribed for sinners. 
 
 If a woman had been guilty of adultery, and her sin was 
 secret, it was forbidden to subject her to such a course of 
 penance, as would raise any suspicion of her crime. St. 
 Basil declared, in his Canonical Epistle to St. Amphilochius, 
 “ That women guilty of adultery, and who had confessed it, 
 should not be exposed to public notice, agreeably to what 
 the Fathers had appointed, lest it should be an occasion of 
 her death.” — St. Basil , Ep. 199, ad Amphiloc. Can. 34, tom. 
 ii. p. 171, or tom. iii. p. 295. 
 
ON CONFESSION OF SINS. 
 
 65 
 
 When some had indiscreetly required sinners to make a 
 public confession of secret sins, St Leo condemned their 
 presumption, which he calls unjust, and contrary to the 
 Apostolic rule ; “ since it is enough,” says he, “ to discover 
 the guilt of consciences in secret confession, to the Priests 
 alone .” — St Leo , Ep. 136. 
 
 It is evident, therefore, that the secret, as well as public 
 confession of sins, was practised in the Christian Church, 
 both in the East and West, during the twelve hundred 
 years, beginning with the second century, that the peniten- 
 tial canons were in force. This confession was made with 
 a view of obtaining sacramental absolution of the sins con- 
 fessed, which, according to the practice of Rome, was given 
 to public penitents on the Thursday before Easter, as Pope 
 Innocent I. testifies, in his Canonical Epistle to Decentius, 
 cited above. 
 
 And, Rev. Sir, I boldly point to the operation of the finger 
 of God, in the astonishing fact, that the long lapse of 1800 
 years does not produce one authenticated instance of the 
 violation of the confessional secret. Subject to all the infir- 
 mities, physical and moral, incidental to human nature, 
 many of them (the Catholic Clergy), too, having become 
 apostates from the faith, and virulent declaimers against 
 t his particular practice of the Christian Church, the Catholic 
 Clergy, good and bad, have, by a special interposition of 
 Providence, been ever withheld from the violation of the 
 confessional secret. To put this matter more forcibly, we 
 may, on a moderate calculation, compute the Clergy of the 
 Catholic Church, throughout the world, at 250,000, in the 
 active exercise of the duties of the sacred ministry. It is, 
 also, moderate to suppose that each one hears, on an aver- 
 age, one confession a day ; this calculation will give more 
 than ninety millions a year, for many centuries, heard 
 by men, including, among others, such as I have charac- 
 
 F 
 
66 
 
 ON CONFESSION OF SINS. 
 
 terized above, and yet not one well authenticated instance 
 can be adduced, of either an intentional or even an accidental 
 violation of the confidence reposed in them ; whereas, we 
 have the representation of the martyrdom of St. John of 
 Nepomue, who was thrown from the bridge of Prague into 
 the river Muldaw, as the punishment of his fidelity to this 
 sacred trust ; and, among the records of your Church, it 
 will be found, that, for a similar fidelity, in the case of the 
 late Lord Dunboyne, F. Gahan was sentenced to imprison- 
 ment. The reflecting Christian cannot but ask himself, 
 how it can happen, that, in regard to one Church, the annals 
 of eighteen centuries cannot produce an instance, from either 
 malice or infirmity, of the betrayal of the confessional secret ; 
 whereas, in your Church, if, here and there, a stray con- 
 fession find its way to the ear of the Pastor, it becomes, 
 instantly, the subject of the gossip, and the penitent the 
 object of the scorn of L the neighbourhood. The only answer 
 to be given to the question is, that, in one, confession is a 
 divine institution for the benefit of the souls of men, which 
 the “ author and finisher of our faith ” binds himself to guard 
 and protect, that his merciful and gracious designs may not 
 be altogether thwarted ; whereas, in the other, it is part of 
 a merely human machine, with which God has no concern, 
 and which, therefore, is abandoned to the operation of the 
 passions and infirmities of man. 
 
 When it is remembered, that the father of your sect, 
 Martin Luther, has left upon record his testimony, that, 
 “ while he was a Catholic, he passed his life in austerities, 
 in watchings, in fasts, and praying ; in poverty, chastity, and 
 obedience ” (see Amicable Discussion, vol. i. p. 69) ; but 
 that, after he became a Protestant, “ he burned with a 
 thousand flames of his unsubdued flesh ; that he felt himself 
 carried on with a rage towards women, that approached to 
 madness ; that he, who ought to be fervent in spirit, was 
 fervent only in impurity.” — Ibid. 
 
67 
 
 ON HOLY ORDERS. 
 
 The principal rite by which Bishops, Priests, and Deacons 
 were ordained from the beginning, was the imposition of 
 hands, accompanied with a set form of words ; to this, other 
 rites were added, which belonged at least to the integrity of 
 the ordination. By the sacred rite of ordination, the Minis- 
 ters of the Church were consecrated, and power and grace 
 were given to them to perform such offices as belong to their 
 order, and regard the worship of God and the salvation of 
 souls. 
 
 The rite of ordination by which this sacred character, this 
 power and grace are conferred on those who are made minis- 
 ters of Christ, was practised from the beginning in the Chris- 
 tian Church. 
 
 In the fourth Council of Carthage, in the year 398, men- 
 tion is made of the ordination of bishops, priests, and deacons, 
 by the imposition of hands, and prayer. On the ordination 
 of a priest, it is there said, “ When a priest is ordained, 
 while the bishop blesses him, and holds his hand over his 
 head, the other priests present shall hold their hands near to 
 that of the bishop, over his head.” — Cone . Carth. Can. ii. 
 Cone. Gen. tom. ii. 
 
 St. Ambrose, or the ancient author of the book on the 
 sacerdotal dignity among the works of St. Ambrose, speaks 
 of the character and grace conferred by the sacrament of 
 orders, in these words : “ Who gives the episcopal grace ; 
 God, or man] You will answer, without doubt, God: yet 
 
 f 2 
 
68 
 
 ON HOLY ORDERS. 
 
 God gives it by the ministry of man. It is man who imposes 
 his hand ; it is God who bestows the grace. The minister 
 imposes his suppliant right hand ; and God gives the blessing 
 with his powerful right hand. The bishop performs the rite 
 of the ordination ; but it is God who confers the dignity of 
 the sacred character.” — Cap. v. 
 
 St. Chrysostom speaks the same language in his 14th 
 Homily, on the Acts of the Apostles, on the words : And 
 when they had prayed, they laid their hands upon them. — 
 (Acts vi. 6.) “ They were ordained by prayer. This is 
 
 the laying on of hands, that is, ordination. The hand is laid 
 on, but God operates : it is his hand, when the ordination is 
 duly performed, that touches the head.” (Tom. ix.) The 
 holy Father here teaches that spiritual grace is conferred by 
 the operation of God, when this external right is performed. 
 
 The same doctor of the Church expresses himself in the 
 following words, on the origin and excellence of the powers 
 of the Christian priesthood. “ Though the priesthood be 
 exercised on earth, yet is of a heavenly character. For 
 neither man, nor angel, nor archangel, nor any created power, 
 but the Holy Ghost himself, established that sacred order, 
 and taught men to think, that they exercised a ministry of 
 angels in a mortal body. Wherefore, whoever is exalted to 
 the priesthood, ought to be as pure as if he were already in 
 heaven, among those blessed spirits. When you see our 
 Lord placed upon the altar, and there offered up, the bishop 
 celebrating the sacrifice, and praying, purpled as it were 
 with that precious blood, do you seem to yourself to be 
 amongst men, and still dwelling on earth ? Living, as yet, 
 upon earth, priest^ dispense the things of heaven, and they 
 have received a power which God would not give to angels 
 nor archangels. It was not to angels, but to priests that he 
 said, whatsoever you shall bind on earth, shall be bound in 
 heaven ; and whatsoever you shall loose on earth, shall be 
 
ON HOLY ORDERS. 
 
 69 
 
 loosed in heaven. — (Matt, xviii. 18.) Temporal princes 
 have power to bind the body ; the episcopal power binds 
 the soul, and is connected with heaven; God ratifying 
 above what the bishop does below ; the master confirming 
 the sentence of his servant.” — St. Chrysostom de Sacerdotio , 
 lib. iii. tom. iv. 
 
 St. Augustin teaches, that ordination is a sacrament, no 
 less than baptism. “ Both (baptism and order) are sacra- 
 ments, and both are, by a certain consecration, given to 
 man ; the first, when he is baptised ; the second, when he 
 is ordained : and, therefore, in the Catholic Church neither 
 of them is repeated.” — St. Aug. Contra Ep. Parmen. lib. 
 ii. cap. xiii. tom. vii. 
 
 St. Leo, writes : “ Besides the authority of general prac- 
 tice, which we know to have come down from the teaching 
 of the apostles, the Scripture declares, that when Paul and 
 Barnabas, by the command of the Holy Spirit, were sent 
 to preach the gospel to the Gentiles, they (Simon, Lucius, 
 and Manahen), fasting and praying, laid their hands upon 
 them ; and this, that we might know, how great should be 
 the caution of them that give, and of them that receive it, 
 that the sacrament of so high a grace be not performed neg- 
 ligently.” — Ep. xi. al lxxxi. ad Dioscor. Alex. 
 
 In the Sacramentary of Pope Gelasius, we have the 
 prayers for the blessing of those who are thereby promoted 
 to different orders. (Liturgia Romana Vetus, edente L. A. 
 Muratorio, tom. i. pp. 621, 622.) 
 
 In the Sacramentary of St, Gregory, the greater part of 
 the prayers and ceremonies, by which all the orders are con- 
 ferred, are given nearly in the same words and form as those 
 which are now observed in the Roman Pontifical. See Li- 
 turgia Romana , tom. ii. p. 405, &c. Ex Codice Vaticano, 
 Saeculi Decimi. 
 
70 
 
 ON MATRIMONY. 
 
 Christian Matrimony was, from the first ages of the 
 Church, considered as a sacrament, by which grace is given 
 to those who worthily receive it. 
 
 Tertullian, about 245, thus speaks of a Christian marriage : 
 “ How can I describe the happiness of that marriage, which 
 the Church approves, the oblation confirms, the angels pro- 
 claim when sealed, and the Father ratifies.” — Lib. ad Uxorem, 
 c. ix. p. 282. 
 
 St. Ambrose, about the year 397, writes : “We know, 
 that God is the Lord, and guardian of marriage, who will 
 not suffer another’s bed to be defiled. He that commits 
 this crime, sins against God, whose law he violates, whose 
 favour he renounces ; and, therefore, because he sins against 
 him, he loses the participation of this heavenly sacrament.” 
 Lib. i. de Abraham, (c. vii. tom. i.) In his 33d Epistle ad 
 Vigil , the same Father says : “ The marriage must be ren- 
 dered holy by the sacerdotal blessing.” 
 
 St. Augustin speaks of marriage as a sacrament in various 
 parts of his works. In his book, De Bono Conjug, he writes : 
 “ In the marriages of our women, the sanctity of the sacra- 
 ment is of the greatest weight ;” c. xviii. tom. vi. “ In all 
 nations, the great good of marriage consists in the propaga- 
 tion of children, and the fidelity of the parties ; but among 
 Christians, there is, besides, the holiness of the sacrament.” 
 Ibid. c. xxiv. 
 
ON MATRIMONY. 
 
 71 
 
 St. Leo, about 460, teaches, that “ the nuptial union has, 
 from the beginning, been so appointed, that, besides the 
 conjunction of man and woman, there should also be the 
 sacrament of Christ and his Church.” — Ep. ii. al. xcii. ad 
 Rusticum. 
 
 The doctrine, that Christian matrimony is a sacrament, 
 which confers grace on the parties who worthily receive it, 
 is, indeed, the common doctrine of the Latin and Greek 
 Church, even of all the heretical and schismatical Churches 
 in the East, as is evident from the rituals and books of the 
 administration of sacraments, used by the Greek Church, 
 and the Churches of the Copths, the Jacobites, the Nesto- 
 rians, and others. 
 
72 
 
 ON EXTREME UNCTION. 
 
 This sacred rite, which is administered in the Roman Cath- 
 olic Church to dying persons, in order to strengthen them 
 with grace to hear their sickness with patience, and to die 
 happily, has been used as a sacrament, both by the Latin 
 and Greek Churches, from the earliest times. 
 
 Pope Innocent I. about the year 417, in his Letter to 
 Decentius, an Italian bishop, after having remarked that 
 the traditions of the Apostles should be every where ob- 
 served, and particularly those of Rome, which are derived 
 from St. Peter, says: “ you cite the words of St. James; 
 Is any man sick among you, let him bring in the priests of 
 the church, &c. This passage, doubtless, is to be under- 
 stood of the sick among the faithful, who may be anointed 
 with the holy chrism ; which, when consecrated by the bishop, 
 not only priests, but all Christians, may use, in anointing 
 themselves and others, in cases of necessity. . . .When the 
 bishop can, or is inclined to attend, he may give his blessing, 
 and anoint with that chrism, which it was his office to con- 
 secrate.” — Ep. ad Decent. Cone. Gen. tom. ii. 
 
 St. Augustin thus spoke to the faithful: “As often as 
 sickness happens, the sick man should receive the body and 
 blood of Christ, and then anoint his body, in order to com- 
 ply with the words of the Apostle, Is any man sick among 
 you, & c. Consider, brethren, that he who, in his sickness, 
 has recourse to the Church, will deserve to obtain the resto- 
 
ON EXTREME UNCTION. 
 
 73 
 
 ration of his health, and the forgiveness of his sins.” — Serm. 
 ccxv. de temp. tom. x. 
 
 In the Sacramentary of St. Gregory the Great, are found 
 the ancient rite of blessing the holy oil with which the sick 
 are to be anointed, and the form of administering this sacra- 
 ment, by prayer, and the unction of the senses of the sick 
 person, with the blessed oil. It is there prescribed, that he 
 should be anointed in the form of a cross. The priest says, 
 “ I anoint thee with the holy oil, in the name of the Father, 
 and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, &c. and may this 
 sacred unction of oil be to thee an expulsion of disease and 
 weakness, and the wished-for remission of all thy sins.” 
 Then he communicates him with the body and blood of the 
 Lord. (St. Greg, lib . Sacrament Oratio ad infirmum un - 
 gendum .) 
 
74 
 
 THE BISHOPS OF ROME 
 
 HAVE EVER BEEN ACKNOWLEDGED AS SUPREME 
 HEAD OF THE CHURCH. 
 
 The truth of this assertion will be shewn by well attested 
 acts of the acknowledged exercise of this superior jurisdiction 
 over the Eastern and Western Churches, before and after 
 the division of the empire. 
 
 1st. Pope Victor, in order to maintain unity of discipline 
 in the Church, insisted on the Churches of Lesser Asia 
 conforming to the observance of the Church of Rome, and of 
 other Christian Churches, respecting the time of celebrating 
 Easter. Several Councils held at Rome, in Palestine, in 
 Gaul, and other places, had unanimously determined the 
 point according to the Roman custom. Polycrates, and other 
 Asiatic bishops, were determined to adhere to their own 
 custom. Pope Victor, at last, threatened to cut them off 
 from the communion of the Church. St. Ireneeus, in 200, 
 wrote a letter to the Pope, in his own name, and in that of 
 his brethren in Gaul, recommending a toleration of the cus- 
 tom some time longer, and advising him not totally to cut 
 off so many Churches from the body of the universal Church. 
 But neither the Asiatic bishops, whom Pope Victor had 
 threatened with excommunication, if they refused to comply 
 with his requisition, nor those who endeavoured to dissuade 
 him, out of motives of prudence and charity, from carrying 
 
THE BISHOPS OF ROME, &c. 
 
 75 
 
 his threat into execution, are known to have ever questioned 
 his right to enfore his requisition. What could have given 
 the Bishop of Rome jurisdiction over the Churches in Asia, 
 but the character of Supreme Pastor of the Universal 
 Church 1 (See Euseb. lib. v. hist. c. 24, et Epist. Polycrat. 
 ad Yict. ibidem. 
 
 2nd. About the year 255, St. Stephen, Bishop of Rome, 
 condemned the practice of re-baptising those who had been 
 otherwise, in due form, baptised by heretics. He required 
 that St. Cyprian, of Carthage, and Firmilianus, of Caesarea, 
 in Cappadocia, should conform to the tradition of the Church 
 in that respect ; and threatened them with excommunication 
 if they did not comply. By what authority did Pope Ste- 
 phen act 1 By the supreme authority of the Apostolic See, 
 as Firmilianus insinuates in his Epistle to St. Cyprian, tom. 
 i. Cone. p. 757. 
 
 St. Vincent, of Lerins, observes on this subject, in his 
 First Commenitorium, cap. v. “ Then St. Stephen, of bless- 
 ed memory, bishop of the Apostolic See, made resistance, to- 
 gether with his other colleagues, to the erroneous practice of 
 St. Cyprian, &c. distinguishing himself above the rest by his 
 zeal ; and thinking it becoming, I conceive, so much to sur- 
 pass all others by his exertions, in defending the faith, as 
 he was raised above them all by the authority of his see.” 
 
 St. Cyprian himself, in his letter to Pope Cornelius, calls 
 the Church at Rome the Chair of Peter, and the principal 
 Church, whence the sacerdotal unity took its rise, &c. (Ep. 
 59.) 
 
 3rd. About the year 269, some of the faithful of Alex- 
 andria, suspecting St. Dionysius, the patriarch of that see, 
 of entertaining opinions against the consubstantiality of the 
 Son, laid an accusation against him, before St. Dionysius, 
 Bishop of Rome. The Pope called upon the Patriarch to 
 give to him an account of his faith. The Patriarch cleared 
 
76 
 
 THE BISHOPS OF ROME, &c. 
 
 himself, by the letter, which he accordingly wrote, to refute 
 the charge and defend his character. St. Athanasius bears 
 testimony to this fact, in his book on the Synods of Rimini 
 and Seleucia. Why did the Catholics of Alexandria carry 
 the charge against their Patriarch to the Bishop of Rome T 
 Why did the Patriarch of Alexandria submit to justify 
 himself before the Bishop of Rome ; but because they ac- 
 knowledged in his see a superior tribunal and jurisdiction, 
 even over the Patriarchs of the East ? 
 
 4th. When St. Athanasius was expelled from his see by the 
 Arians, Pope Julius cited him and his enemies before the tri- 
 bunal of the Apostolic see. Why did these Patriarchs, and 
 other Bishops of the East, submit to these citations? Was 
 not this an acknowledgment of their subordination to the su- 
 perior authority of the Bishop of Rome? Pope Julius, in his 
 celebrated Epistle to the Eusebians, in the year 341, in- 
 serted by St. Athanasius in his Second Apology against the 
 Arians, says, that he had cited to a Synod at Rome Atha- 
 nasius, whom they had accused. “ He came,” says the 
 Pope, “ not of his own accord, but after he was sent for, 
 and had received our letters.” But why was not par- 
 
 ticular information communicated to us concerning the 
 Church of Alexandria ? Do you not know that it is the 
 custom for the case to be first laid before us in writing, in 
 order that from hence a just decision maybe sent? Cer- 
 tainly, if any such suspicion were entertained against the 
 Bishop of that see, it should have been communicated to this 
 
 Church The rule which I give you, is that which we 
 
 have received from the blessed apostle Peter, and I believe 
 it to be so well known to every body, that I should not have 
 mentioned it, had I not been thrown into such a state of 
 anxiety by what has taken place.” 
 
 From this letter to Pope Julius, which St. Athanasius 
 himself inserted in his apology, it appears that St. Atliana- 
 
THE BISHOPS OF ROME, &c. 
 
 77 
 
 sius, patriarch of Alexandria, obeyed the citation of the 
 Pope ; that what the Pope did on this occasion was not a 
 novel act, but an ancient custom ; and that in following it, 
 he proceeded according to the rule of government received 
 from St. Peter, 
 
 On this subject Theodoret writes, (Lib. ii. hist. c. 3, tom. 
 3,) “ The Eusebians sent to Julius, the Roman Bishop, the 
 calumnies which they had got up against Athanasius. Ju- 
 lius, following the ecclesiastical rule, commanded them to 
 come to Rome, and appointed a day for the hearing of Atha- 
 nasius.” 
 
 5th. Pope Julius, in the year 341, by his apostolical au- 
 thority, restored St. Athanasius, Patriarch of Alexandria ; 
 Paul, Bishop of Constantinople ; Marcellus, Bishop of An- 
 cyra; Asclepas, Bishop of Gaza; and Lucius, Bishop of 
 Adrianople, to their sees, of which they had been deprived 
 by the Arians. Of this proceeding Sozomen writes in the 
 following words, (Lib. iii. Hist. Eccles. cap. 7.) “ When 
 the Bishop of Rome had heard the accusations against them, 
 and had found that these Bishops all adhered to the faith of 
 the Council of Nice, he received them to his communion. 
 And as, by the dignity of his see, he was charged with the 
 care of all, he reinstated each one in his own respective 
 church.” Socrates, lib. ii. c. 15, also states, that “ Athana- 
 sius, Paul, Aselepas, Marcellus, and Lucius, went to Rome, 
 and exposed their case to Julius, bishop of that city. He, 
 by virtue of the prerogative of his see, sending them with 
 letters full of vigour, to the Bishops in the East, restored to 
 each of them his respective see.” It was by the supreme 
 authority and prerogative of the see of Rome, that this juris- 
 diction was exercised over bishops and patriarchs in Asia 
 and Egypt. 
 
 6th. When Eustathius, bishop of Sebaste, in Armenia, 
 had been condemned and deposed by a Council of Arians, 
 
78 
 
 THE BISHOPS OF ROME, &c. 
 
 held at .Melitina, in 360, he appealed to Pope Liberius. 
 The Pope restored him to his see, after he had complied with 
 the proposals made to him. Eustathius produced the letters 
 of the Pope before the Bishops assembled in council at Ty- 
 ana, in Cappadocia ; and in consequence, without any ques- 
 tion about the authority of Pope Liberius, he was put in 
 possession of his church. This is stated by St. Basil the 
 Great, in his 74th letter, Ad Occidentales Episcopos de 
 Eustathio Sebestano. 
 
 7th. In the year 403, Chrysostom, patriarch of Constan- 
 tinople, was unjustly condemned and "deposed by a Synod 
 of thirty-six Bishops, held in a Church at Chalcedon, called 
 the Synod of the Oak; where Theophilus, patriarch of 
 Alexandria, presided. St. Chrysostom wrote to Pope In- 
 nocent, entreating him to declare null and void all that had 
 been done, as no injustice could be more notorious. His 
 letter to the Pope is conceived in these words : “ Write, I 
 pray, and by. your authority decree, that these iniquitous 
 acts, done in my absence, and without any refusal on my 
 part to submit to a lawful tribunal, shall be of no effect. 
 Subject the authors of these proceedings to the censures of 
 the Church. Send your orders, that I, who am innocent, 
 who am not convicted, nor proved, nor found guilty of any 
 crime, may be restored to my church.” — (Epist. i. ad Inno- 
 cent .) Surely this appeal from St. John Chrysostom, the 
 most illustrious patriarch of Constantinople, to the Pope, 
 was a strong testimony of the authority of the tribunal of 
 the Apostolic See, and of the superior jurisdiction of the 
 Bishop of Rome over even the patriarchs of the East. The 
 ancient custom of appealing to Rome, had been confirmed 
 by the 3rd, 4th, and 7th, canons of the general Council of 
 Sardica, in 347, which was an appendix to the Council of 
 Nice. By these canons, it was declared, that any Bishop 
 deposed by a Synod in his province, has a right to appeal 
 to the Bishop of Rome. 
 
THE BISHOPS OF ROME^&c. 
 
 79 
 
 8th. When the Council of Milevum, in Africa, had, in 
 416, condemned the Pelagian errors, St. Augustin wrote a 
 letter to Pope Innocent I. in the name of the Council, in 
 these words : “ Since the Lord, by the signal gift of his 
 grace, has placed you in the apostolic see, and, in our times, 
 has exhibited such a character in your person, that it will 
 be rather imputed to our negligence, than to any haughtiness 
 or neglect of duty on your part, if we do not expose to your 
 Holiness what seems necessary for the good of the church ; 
 we therefore beseech you to give your pastoral attention to 
 the dangers of the weak members of Christ. A new heresy, 
 a pernicious tempest has been raised, by the enemies of the 
 grace of Christ, who are endeavouring, by their impious 
 discourses, to deprive us of the blessing we implore in the 
 
 Lord’s Prayer But, we think, that with the merciful 
 
 aid of our Lord Jesus Christ, who is pleased to direct you 
 when you apply to him for counsel, and to grant your peti- 
 tions ; those, who entertain these perverse and pernicious 
 doctrines, will yield to the authority of your Holiness, which 
 is derived from the authority of the Holy Scriptures, &c.” 
 Epis. 92, ad Innoc. 1. 
 
 Could Pope Innocent have exercised his apostolical au- 
 thority in the Churches of Africa, in suppressing the Pela- 
 gian errors, if he had not been the supreme Pastor of the 
 whole Church'! Could St. Augustin, and the Bishops of 
 this African Council, have declared that this authority, which 
 they invoked, was derived from the authority of the sacred 
 Scriptures, if they had not acknowledged it to be of divine 
 institution, and divine right ? 
 
 Pope Innocent, in his answer to this letter, writes : “ That 
 all ecclesiastical matters, throughout the world are, by divine 
 right, to be referred to the Apostolical See, that is, to Peter, 
 the author of its name and honor.” He commends the 
 Bishops of this Council for so doing : “ following,” says he, 
 
80 
 
 THE BISHOPS OF ROME, &c. 
 
 “ the ancient rule, which you know with me, has been always 
 observed by the whole world.” 
 
 The confirmation, given by Pope Innocent to the Council 
 of Milevum, and also to that of Carthage, held the same year, 
 being brought to Africa, St. Augustin said : “ The decisions 
 of the two Councils having been already sent to the Apos- 
 tolic See, the rescripts are also come from thence. The 
 cause is now finished: would to God, that the error may at 
 last have an end.” — St. Aug. Serm. 131, n. 10. 
 
 9th. Nestorius, patriarch of Constantinople, taught false 
 doctrine in his Church. Pope Celestine, well informed of 
 the fact, commissioned St. Cyril, patriarch of Alexandria, 
 in his name, to proceed against Nestorius, and to deprive 
 him of the communion of the Church, unless he retracted his 
 error. The Pope gave the commission to St. Cyril in these 
 terms : “ Wherefore you, with the authority of this See, 
 and acting in our name, place, and power, shall execute this 
 sentence with the utmost rigour, viz. that, if within ten days, 
 to be counted from the day on which this our admonition is 
 signified to him, he does not in express terms anathematize 
 his wicked doctrine, your holiness shall immediately provide 
 for that see, and he shall know that he is excommunicated.” 
 Epist. ad Cyrillum. 1 part. Cone. Ephes. cap. 15. 
 
 The Bishops of the General Council of Ephesus, in 431, 
 thought it their duty to comply with the injunction of this 
 letter of Pope Celestine. They motive the sentence of the 
 deposition of Nestorius in these words : “ compelled by the 
 sacred canons, and by the epistle of our most holy father 
 and fellow minister, Celestine, bishop of the Church of Rome, 
 bathed in tears, we proceed to pronounce this doleful sen- 
 tence against him .” — Act i. Cone. Ephes. 
 
 In the second action, or session, the Pope’s Legate spoke 
 in these terms : “We give thanks to this holy and venerable 
 Synod, that after the letters of our holy and blessed Pope 
 
THE BISHOPS OF ROME, &c. 
 
 81 
 
 had been read to you, you expressed your joyful feelings to 
 your Holy Head, by your acclamations. For you are not 
 ignorant, that the blessed apostle Peter is the head of all 
 the faithful, even of the apostles.” In this address to the 
 Fathers of the Council, the Bishop of Rome is called their 
 Head. 
 
 The same Legate spoke more explicitly on this subject in 
 the third action : “ There is no doubt, indeed it is known to 
 all ages, that the most holy and blessed Peter, prince and 
 head of the Apostles, pillar of the faith, and foundation of 
 the Catholic Church, received the keys of the kingdom from 
 our Lord Jesus Christ, the Saviour and Redeemer of mankind, 
 and that the power of binding and loosing was given to him ; 
 who, to this time, and at all times, lives and exercises judg- 
 ment in his successors. Hence our holy and most blessed 
 Pope Celestine, bishop, who is the successor in order, and 
 holds the place of Peter, has sent us to this Synod, to supply 
 his presence.” 
 
 Juvenal, patriarch of Jerusalem, spoke thus in the fourth 
 action : “ It was the duty of John, the most reverend bishop 
 of Antioch, considering this holy and great and general 
 Synod, to come without delay and clear himself of those 
 things which are laid to his charge, before the Apostolic See 
 of Rome, which is with us here ; and to shew obedience, and 
 to do honour to the apostolical holy and Roman Church of 
 God, by which the Church of Antioch must be directed and 
 judged, as custom, derived from the apostolical rule and tra- 
 dition, particularly requires.” This is the language of the 
 patriarch of Jerusalem, proclaiming, before a general Council 
 held in the East, the superior judicial authority of the bishop 
 of Rome over the patriarch of Antioch. 
 
 In the general Council of Chalcedon, held in 451, the Le- 
 gates of Pope Leo pronounced sentence against Dioscorus 
 patriarch of Alexandria, in these words : “ Wherefore the 
 
82 
 
 THE BISHOPS OF ROME, &C. 
 
 holy and most blessed Pope Leo, head of the universal 
 church, invested with the dignity of the apostle Peter, who 
 is named the foundation of the church, and the rock of the 
 faith, and the keeper of the gate of the kingdom of heaven, 
 hath, by us, his Legates, with the consent of the holy synod, 
 stripped him (Dioscorus) of his episcopal dignity, and re- 
 moved him from every sacerdotal function.” — (Epist. S. 
 Leonis ad Episcopas Galliae.) In this instance, pope Leo 
 exercised a high act of his primacy, in the general Council 
 of Chalcedon ; when, in his name, and by his authority, as 
 head of the universal church, and as invested with the dig- 
 nity of Peter, sentence was pronounced against the second 
 patriarch of the church, with the consent of the whole synod, 
 acknowledging this right and authority in the bishop of Rome. 
 
 Must there not then be an error in the assertion, that the 
 acts of councils, the language of fathers, of bishops, and even of 
 popes, contradict the pretensions of the papacy (to supreme 
 spiritual jurisdiction over every part of the church of Christ), 
 and trace its rise, after the division of the empire, which 
 took place about the year 378 1 
 
 Surely sufficient proof is given in the authentic testimo- 
 nies cited above, of the acknowledged exercise of the supreme 
 jurisdiction of the bishop of Rome over the bishops and 
 patriarchs of the East, in many instances before the period 
 of the division of the empire. Many instances might have 
 been cited of the exercise of the same jurisdiction in the 
 West, but they were not necessary; and it might have 
 been said by some, that the bishop of Rome acted, in regard 
 to these churches, in his quality of patriarch of the West. 
 
 This supreme jurisdiction exercised by the bishops of 
 Rome over so many great churches in different parts of the 
 world during the first three centuries, was not derived from 
 the concession of bishops, much less from the grants of em- 
 perors or princes ; but it was a jurisdiction derived from the 
 
THE BISHOPS OF ROME, &c. 
 
 83 
 
 authority of the sacred scriptures, as St. Augustin and the 
 African bishops assembled in council at Milevum declared; 
 it was a supreme judicial and governing authority, which des- 
 cended to the bishops of Rome, in succession from St. Peter ; 
 it was that same authority which was originally given by 
 Christ to St. Peter, who lives and exercises judgment in his 
 successors, according to the language spoken in the council 
 of Ephesus. The exercise of this same authority, by which 
 the true Church of Christ is held together in unity, may be 
 traced through all ages to the present time. 
 
 Thus whilst the holy scriptures and the genuine records of 
 ancient usage and practice supply us with proof of the real 
 authority, and of the legitimate privileges conferred on the 
 church, and derived from Christ on all particular churches 
 which are true members of his body ; they shew, also, that 
 all these particular churches are subordinate to the supreme 
 authority of the chair of Peter, and of the principal church 
 whence the sacerdotal unity took its rise (St. Cyprian) ; 
 and that they are subject to the legitimate successor of St. 
 Peter, the bishop of Rome, as members to the head of the 
 visible Church of Christ on earth. 
 
84 
 
 ON SUPREMACY. 
 
 In the primitive times it was held necessary that all 
 Churches, and the Faithful Disciples of Christ , wherever 
 they were dispersed, should he in Communion with the Patri- 
 archal Church of Rome, as the First Church in the Christian 
 World, and the Centre of Unity. 
 
 St. Irenaeus, who died in the year 202, thus expresses 
 himself on this subject : — “ As it would be tedious to enu- 
 merate the whole list of successors in all the episcopal sees, 
 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 
 doctrine, which was announced to all men, and which through 
 the succession of her bishops has come down to us. With 
 this church, on account of its superior headship, it is neces- 
 sary that every other church, that is, the Faithful of all 
 countries, should be in communion (convenire). They, 
 therefore, having founded and instructed this church, com- 
 mitted the administration thereof to Linus. To him suc- 
 ceeded 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, Eleu- 
 therius, the twelfth from the apostles, now governs the 
 church.” — Adv. Here . 1 . iii. c. iii. 
 
ON SUPREMACY. 
 
 85 
 
 Tertullian, who died in 245, writes: “Let them (the 
 heretics) produce the origin of their churches ; the regular 
 succession of their bishops. Smyrna has her Polycarp, 
 appointed by St. John ; Rome her Clement, ordained by St. 
 Peter; and so the other churches. . . .In Italy there is Rome, 
 an authority to which we can readily appeal. Happy 
 church, which the great apostles fully impregnated with all 
 their doctrine and with their blood.” — Be Praescrip. c. 
 xxxii. and xxxvi. 
 
 St. Cyprian, who suffered martyrdom in 258, writing to 
 Pope Cornelius, states the improper conduct of certain 
 schismatics, who had gone from Africa to Rome, and says : 
 “ After these attempts, having chosen a bishop for them- 
 selves, they dare to sail and 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 re- 
 flecting, that the members of that church are Romans, whose 
 faith was praised by St. Paul, to whom perfidy can have 
 no access.” — Ep. 59. 
 
 St. Optatus of Milevis, about the year 380, writes thus 
 to Parmenianus the Donatist : “ You cannot deny that St. 
 Peter, the chief of the apostles, established an episcopal 
 chair at Rome : this chair was one ; that all others might 
 preserve unity, by the union which they hold with it ; . . . . 
 so that now, he is a schismatic and an offender, who sets up 
 another, against the only chair.” — De Schismat Donat. 
 Lib 2. 
 
 St. Jerom, seeing a division in the church of Antioch, 
 and not knowing whom to adhere to, wrote two letters to 
 Pope Damasus, in 376 or 377, to consult him, how he ought 
 to act. In the first he says : “ I am joined in communion 
 with your Holiness ; that is, with the chair of Peter. Upon 
 that rock I know the church is built. Whoever eats the 
 lamb out of that house, is a profane person. Whoever is 
 
86 
 
 ON SUPREMACY. 
 
 not in the ark, shall perish in the deluge. . . .Whoever ga- 
 thers not with you, scatters ; he who is not Christ’s, be- 
 longs to Antichrist Order me, if you please, what I 
 
 should do.” Not receiving a speedy answer, St. Jerom 
 wrote a second letter, conjuring his Holiness to answer his 
 difficulties, and not despise a soul for which Jesus Christ 
 died. “ On one side,” says he, “ the Arian fury rages, sup- 
 ported by the secular power : on the other side the Church 
 (at Antioch), being divided into three parts, each would 
 needs draw me to itself. All the time, I cease not to cry 
 out, Whoever is united to the Chair of Peter, he is mine !” 
 Ep 14 and 16, ad Damas. 
 
 From these and other testimonies, which might be cited, 
 we may see, that in the early ages of the Christian Church, 
 the Bishop of Rome, as the successor of St. Peter, was 
 respected as the Visible Head of the Church of Christ on 
 Earth, as the Common Father of the Faithful, and as the 
 Centre of Unity, Faith and Government. We may also 
 see, that all true Christians felt it to be their duty, to be 
 united in communion with him, as members with their head, 
 as children with their father, and as subjects of the kingdom 
 of Christ, of which he Avas acknowledged to be the Supreme 
 Ruler on Earth. 
 
87 
 
 ON THE INTERCESSION OF THE 
 SAINTS, &c. 
 
 Protestants maintain that the Saints in heaven are not 
 acquainted with what takes place on earth, and cannot hear 
 the supplications which are addressed to them when we 
 implore their intercession. 
 
 This proposition is contrary to the Gospel. 
 
 1st. “ I say unto you, that likewise joy shall be in heaven 
 over one sinner that repenteth, more than over ninety-nine 
 just persons that need no repentance. Likewise I say unto 
 you, there is joy in the presence of the angels of God over 
 one sinner that repenteth.” (Luke xv. 7, 10.) 
 
 The angels in heaven, therefore,, have a knowledge of the 
 sinner who does penance ; so likewise the saints in heaven 
 possess the same knowledge, since we read in the gospel 
 that the saints are raised to equality with the angels, for it 
 is written, “ they are as the angels of God in heaven.” 
 (Matt. xxii. 30.) Now if the saints and angels in heaven 
 thus possess a clear and distinct knowledge of a sinner’s 
 repentance — a sentiment which resides in the heart of man, 
 and forms one of his most secret and hidden thoughts — if 
 God, who is the searcher of hearts, has revealed to them 
 this occurrence in their state of glory, what should prevent 
 them from having, by the same revelation of God, a know- 
 ledge of our prayers, when we desire to communicate to 
 
88 
 
 ON THE INTERCESSION 
 
 them our wants in spite of the distance between them and 
 us ] “ Neither can they die any more ; for they are equal 
 
 unto the angels, and are the children of God, being the 
 children of the resurrection.” (Luke xx. 36.) 
 
 2nd. “ And the four-and-twenty elders fell down before 
 the Lamb, having every one of them harps, and golden 
 vials, full of odours, which are the prayers of the saints.” 
 (Rev. v. 8.) “And the smoke of the incense which came 
 with the prayers of the saints, ascended up before God out 
 of the angel’s hand.” (Ibid. viii. 4.) 
 
 From these passages we learn that the saints offer to 
 God, not only their own prayers, but ours also, which would 
 be utterly impossible did they not possess a knowledge of 
 what passes on earth. “ Who can doubt,” says Origen, 
 “ that our holy fathers aid us by their prayers, and strength- 
 en and excite us by the example of their actions, as also 
 by the writings they have left us; herein teaching and in- 
 structing us how to fight against the adverse powers, and in 
 what manner these contests are to be maintained] Thus 
 they fight for us, and advance armed before us.” (Homil. 
 xxvi. in Num. tom. ii.) 
 
 Eusebius of Caesarea, in his Comment, in Psalm lxxviii. 
 asserts, that “We, indeed, have not been deemed worthy 
 to fight to the last, and to spill our blood for the Lord ; but 
 because we are the children of those who thus died, clothed 
 as it were with their virtue, we pray to find mercy through 
 them: Be propitious, 0 God, to the children of the slain.” 
 And again, Comm. In. Asai, “ May we be found worthy by 
 the prayers and intercession of all the saints.” 
 
 St. Cyril of Jerusalem, after giving an account of the va- 
 rious supplications addressed to God by the priests after 
 the holy sacrifice of the mass, adds : “We next commemo- 
 rate those who are gone before us, the patriarchs, prophets, 
 apostles and martyrs, begging that, through their prayers. 
 
OF THE SAINTS, &c. 
 
 89 
 
 God would receive our supplications.” — Catech. Mystag . v. 
 n. vi. 
 
 St. Basil, in celebrating the feast of the forty martyrs, 
 thus speaks to his hearers : “ Who is oppressed by care 
 flies to their aid, as does he that prospers : the first to seek 
 deliverance ; the second, that his good fortune may continue. 
 The pious mother is found praying for her children ; and 
 the wife for the return of the health of her husband. 0 ye 
 guardians of the human race ! O ye powerful messengers 
 before God ! let us join our prayers with yours.” — Horn. xx. 
 in forty Martyr, tom. ii. 
 
 St. Ephrem, of Edessa, in all his sermons entreated the 
 saints to intercede for him with God. “ Most merciful God,” 
 exclaims he in a sermon ( De Laude B. Mar. Virg.), 
 “ through the intercession of the most Blessed Virgin Mary, 
 and of all the angels, and of all the saints, shew pity to thy 
 creature.” 
 
 St. Gregory, of Nyssa, in the life of St. Ephrem, thus 
 addresses this holy deacon : “ Do thou now, being present 
 at God’s altar, and with his angels, offering sacrifice to the 
 prince of life, and to the most holy trinity, remember us ; 
 begging for us the pardon of our sins.” 
 
 3rd. “ And in hell he lift up his eyes, being in torments, 
 and saw Abraham afar off, and Lazarus in his bosom. And 
 he cried and said, Father Abraham, have mercy on me, and 
 send Lazarus, that he may dip the tip of his finger in water, 
 and cool my tongue, for I am tormented in this flame. But 
 Abraham said, Son, remember that in thy life time thou 
 receivest thy good things, and likewise Lazarus evil things : 
 but now he is comforted, and thou art tormented. And be- 
 sides all this, between us and you there is a great gulf fixed.” 
 Luke xvi. 23 — 26. 
 
 If this soul amidst the torments of hell could know what 
 passed in a place of rest, in which Abraham and Lazarus 
 
90 
 
 ON THE INTERCESSION 
 
 were stationed ; if Abraham could hear the supplication of 
 the rich man in torments, and the sufferer converse with 
 Abraham, though they were at such an immeasurable dis- 
 tance from one another, and there was an immense abyss 
 between them, Protestants may learn from this gospel his- 
 tory, that spirits may converse from afar, and that con- 
 sequently the distance between heaven and earth is no 
 impediment to the saints in glory from hearing the prayers 
 of those on earth who solicit their intercession. 
 
 4th. “ Therefore the heart of the king of Syria was sore 
 troubled for this thing ; and he called his servants, and said 
 unto them, will you not shew me which of us is for the 
 king of Israeli And one of his servants said, none, my 
 Lord, O king : but Elisha, the prophet that is in Israel, 
 telleth the king of Israel the words that thou speakest in 
 thy bedchamber.” — 2 Kings, vi. 11, 12, al 4 Kings. 
 
 Protestants are here to observe, that the prophet Elisha 
 knew what the king of Syria was saying in his chamber at 
 Damascus, while the prophet himself was at Dothan. In 
 the same book of kings is also notified what passed between 
 his own servant Gehazi and Haaman the Syrian, at a great 
 distance. iC But he went in and stood before his master, 
 and Elisha said unto him, whence comest thou, Gehazi? 
 And he said, thy servant went no whither. And he said 
 unto him, went not mine heart with thee, when the man 
 turned from his chariot to meet thee?” — Ibid. v. 25, 26. 
 
 Now, if this prophet knew by the light of prophecy, what 
 was passing at so great a distance from the place in which 
 he stood, the saints in heaven may assuredly, by the light 
 of glory, become acquainted with transactions on earth. 
 Grotius, in his Treatise of the Truth of the Christian Re- 
 ligion , says : “ It is not hard to be understood that the mar- 
 tyrs may have knowledge of our supplications at so greaf, a 
 distance, if we remember that the prophets also living in 
 
OF THE SAINTS, &c. 
 
 91 
 
 this gross body had the like privilege;” and according to 
 this opinion he continues the argument in such a manner : 
 “ That pious men departed from this life are touched with 
 a care of the living, and do pray to God for them, was an 
 opinion deeply fixed in the minds of the Jews in those times 
 when they were very far from idolatry, that is, after Esdras 
 to this day. Abraham in Josephus, being ready to slay his 
 son, utters these words : ‘ O son ! I poured out a vast num- 
 ber of prayers that I might have thee for my son ; when 
 thou wast come into the world, there was nothing that could 
 contribute to thy support for which I was not greatly so- 
 licitous, nor anything wherein I thought myself happier than 
 to see thee grown up to man’s estate, and that I might leave 
 thee, at my death, the successor of my dominions ; but since 
 it was by God’s will that I became thy father, and it is now 
 his will that I relinquish thee, bear this consecration to God 
 with a generous mind, for I resign thee up to God who has 
 thought fit now to require this testimony of honour to him- 
 self, on account of the favours he hath conferred on me, in 
 being to me a supporter and defender; accordingly thou, 
 my son, wilt now die, not in any common way of going out 
 of the world, but sent to God, the father of all men, before- 
 hand, by thy own father, in the nature of a sacrifice. I 
 suppose he thinks thee worthy to leave this world, neither 
 by disease, by war, nor any other severe way by which 
 death usually comes upon them, but so that he will receive 
 thy soul with prayers and holy offices of religion, and will 
 place thee nearer to himself, and thou wilt there be to me a 
 succourer and supporter in my old age, on which account I 
 principally brought thee up ; and thou wilt thereby procure 
 me God for my comforter instead of thyself.’ ” — Flavius 
 Josephus, Jewish Antiquities, book i. c. 13. 
 
 Moreover, Philo de Diris, says, “ the Israelites have three 
 advocates : God’s goodness, their ancestor’s prayers, and a 
 
92 
 
 ON THE INTERCESSION 
 
 life every day growing better. And concerning their an- 
 cestors thus he speaks : ‘ They being freed from the body, 
 do exhibit to the supreme Lord a naked and sincere worship, 
 and do make prayers for their sons and daughters not in 
 vain, God the father rewarding them with a gracious au- 
 dience.’ ” 
 
 Grotius, after quoting many other passages of valuable 
 authorities, closes his argument with these words: “ So that 
 a man not blinded by prejudice, may easily judge it more 
 credible, that the martyrs will have some knowledge of our 
 affairs, than that they have none.” 
 
 5th. “ And I heard a loud voice saying, in heaven, now is 
 come salvation, and strength, and the kingdom of our God, 
 and the power of his Christ ; for the incense of our brethren 
 is cast down, which incensed them before our God day and 
 night.” — (Rev. xii. 10.) 
 
 This passage is applied to the devil, who was perpetually 
 employed in bringing accusations against the servants of 
 God: it may therefore be presumed, that the infernal spirits 
 have a knowledge of what passes among men even in their 
 most secret communications. Indeed Protestants allow that 
 the devil is acquainted with what takes place in this world, 
 and that he receives the vows and invocations of magicians 
 and sorcerers who have abandoned themselves to him. Now 
 it is perfectly clear that the wicked spirits have not more 
 sagacity and knowledge than the good angels. I trust that 
 we may be permitted, without fear of contradiction, to as- 
 cribe to the glorified spirits knowledge at least as extensive 
 as that which Protestants acknowledge to be possessed by 
 the spirits of darkness. Hence I conclude that the saints 
 and angels in heaven have a knowledge of the whole purport 
 of our prayers and supplications. 
 
 The Catholic Church recognises two methods of praying 
 to God by the intercession of the saints : the first is, to beg 
 
OF THE SAINTS, &c. 
 
 93 
 
 of God, by the merits of the saints, to hear our petitions : 
 the second is, to supplicate the saints to intercede in our 
 favour before the throne of grace. Protestants reject both 
 these modes. 
 
 In the first place they maintain, that we ought not to 
 pray to the Almighty to hear our prayers through the merits 
 of the saints, who cannot serve us in obtaining the divine 
 grace. 
 
 This opinion is expressly contrary to the words of their 
 own bible. 1. “ Remember Abraham, Isaac, and Israel, 
 thy servants, to whom thou swearest by thine own self, and 
 saidst unto them : I will multiply your seed as the stars of 
 heaven, and all this land that I have spoken of will I give 
 unto your seed, and they shall inherit it for ever. And the 
 Lord repented of the evil which he thought to do unto his 
 people.” (Exod. xxxii. 13, 14.) 
 
 It is hence sufficiently apparent that Moses prayed to the 
 Lord to spare the children of Israel, by the merits of the 
 holy patriarchs, Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. The sacred 
 scriptures at the same time furnish ample testimony that 
 this prayer of Moses in favor of the Israelites was heard. 
 
 2nd. “ For I will defend this city to save it for mine own 
 sake, and for my servant David’s sake.” (Isa. iii. 37.) 
 
 We read here, that in the reign of Ezekias, God pro- 
 tected the holy city of Jerusalem, at the moment when it 
 was exposed to the danger of being pillaged by Sennacherib, 
 and that this protection of God was bestowed from the love 
 he bore to the holy king David, the merits of the saints 
 deceased may therefore be of service to the living. At the 
 same time we fully admit that the merits of the saints are 
 of no value in the sight of God excepting through the merits 
 of Jesus Christ, who by his death has enabled the saints to 
 deserve the grace of intercession which is granted to them, 
 and in virtue of which they obtain credit before the throne 
 of grace, with a view to those rewards which are promised. 
 
94 
 
 ON THE INTERCESSION 
 
 3rd. 0 Lord God, turn not away the face of thine 
 anointed. Remember the mercies of David thy servant.” 
 (2 Chr. vi. 42.) 
 
 Thus prayed Solomon at the consecration of the temple, 
 when he offered to God the merits of king David ; thus the 
 people of God, who lived under the old law, were accus- 
 tomed to pray. They made a remembrance before God of 
 the patriarchs Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, offering fre- 
 quently to God the merits of their deceased saints to calm 
 his anger and obtain his mercy ; and the holy scriptures 
 themselves attest, that in favor of the holy patriarchs God 
 often preserved from condign chastisement their guilty pos- 
 terity. 
 
 In the second place, Protestants say it is not lawful to 
 invoke the saints or angels, nor to ask them to intercede for 
 us before God ; an assertion which is in express contradic- 
 tion to the words of their own bible. 
 
 1st. “ The angel which redeemed me from all evil, bless 
 these sons, and let my name be named on them, and the 
 name of my fathers Abraham and Isaac ; and let them grow 
 into a multitude in the midst of the earth.” (Gen. xlviii. 16.) 
 
 We have here, in the written word of God, a decisive 
 proof of the invocation of angels, and consequently of the 
 saints. 
 
 St. John Chrysostom, in his sermon to the people of An- 
 tioch, on the feast of several martyrs, speaks thus: “ We, 
 on this day, celebrate their feast ; but, on all days, let us 
 pray and beseech, that they become our patrons: for not 
 only when alive, but much more when dead, they can in- 
 spire confidence.” {Horn. 51, de St. Bernice, &c. Ep. 1.) 
 And again, {Horn. 1, in 1 Thess. v. xi.) “ Let us invoke,” 
 says he, “ the intercession of saints, that they extend to us a 
 helping hand, while we ourselves remain constant in the 
 pursuit of virtue.” 
 
OF THE SAINTS, &c. 
 
 95 
 
 2nd. “ The angel of the Lord answered and said, O 
 Lord of hosts, how long will thou not have mercy on Jeru- 
 salem and on the cities of Judah, against which thou hast 
 had indignation these three score and ten years ?” (Zech. 
 
 i- 12 .) 
 
 This passage furnishes an evident proof that the holy an- 
 gels intercede for us before God ; and can it be made a 
 matter of doubt that the saints in heaven perform the same 
 charitable office ? Now if the saints and angels offer up 
 supplications for us in heaven, on what ground can it be 
 pronounced unlawful to ask for these intercessions? St. 
 Ambrose boldly states that, “ the angels who were appoin- 
 ted to be our guardians, must be invoked, and the martyrs 
 likewise, ‘ obsecrandi sunt angeli P pro nobis — Marty res ob- 
 secrandi,’ whose bodies seem to be a pledge for their patron- 
 age. They who in their blood washed away every stain of 
 sin, can implore forgiveness for us : they are our guides, and 
 the beholders of our lives and actions : to them, therefore, 
 we should not blush to have recourse.” — (Lib. de Viduis, 
 Ep. 4.) And again : “ He therefore who honours the mar- 
 tyrs, honours Christ, ‘ quisquis honorat martyres, honorat et 
 Christum;’ while he that despises the saints despises the 
 Lord. (Luke x. 6.) ‘ He that despiseth you, despiseth 
 
 me.* ” — Sermon ii. de SS. Petro et Paulo. 
 
 Did not Luther despise the Lord when he dared to say 
 the apostles were great sinners, vulgar and illiterate scoun- 
 drels ? “ Die apostel sind auch grosse sunder gewesen, und 
 
 gute, grobe, grosse schalk that St. Jerome was “ a here- 
 tic;” St. Chrysostom “a prattler;” and rejecting the in- 
 tercession of saints with ridiculous raillery, he blasphemed 
 his God : “ I beseech you, my dear little devil, that you in- 
 tercede with God for me ; my dear little devil, prav to God 
 for me!!! ’* 
 
 The Catholic Church, in the invocation of saints and 
 
96 
 
 ON THE INTERCESSION 
 
 angels, professes to solicit only their intercession ; and for 
 pursuing this innocent practice of devotion, many millions 
 of Catholics, distinguished by their eminent piety, are charged 
 by Protestants with the heinous crime of idolatry ! ! ! 
 
 To this article of the Catholic faith Protestants make 
 the following objection : that to have recourse to the inter- 
 cession of the saints is to do an injury to the mediation of 
 Jesus Christ. This sentiment is contrary to the doctrine of 
 the sacred scriptures, which expressly teach us, that we are 
 to resort to the prayers and intercession of holy persons. 
 In effect, we there read that Abimelech had recourse to the 
 intercession of Abraham, and that he received the benefit 
 of preservation (Gen. xx.) ; that the three friends of Job 
 asked the patriarch to pray for them (Heb. xiii. 18); that 
 St. Paul himself frequently solicited the prayers of his flock 
 (Thess. v. 25). Protestants themselves are constrained to 
 acknowledge that this practice is lawful, and conformable to 
 the written word. It would even seem that greater injury 
 is done to the mediation of Christ by asking the living to 
 intercede for us before God, than in addressing our prayers 
 to the saints for the same purpose. At all events, we must 
 rest satisfied that no injury whatever is done to the mediation 
 of Christ in soliciting the intercession of the saints, since the 
 saints themselves, whether during life or after their decease, 
 employ their intercession and prayers to God in our favour, 
 4t solely through the mediation of Jesus Christ, and never 
 without this mediation,” insomuch that both the saints and 
 ourselves have but one mediator between God and men, the 
 man Christ Jesus. “ For there is one God, and one media- 
 tor between God and men, the man Christ Jesus.” — (1 Tim. 
 ii. 5.) 
 
 Protestants reply, that it is useless to employ the inter- 
 cession of the saints, as we are fully aware that God is dis- 
 posed to lend a favourable ear to our petitions. 
 
OF THE SAINTS, &c. 
 
 97 
 
 To this we answer, that such an argument, if it possessed 
 any weight, would render unlawful any recommendation to 
 prayers of the living as well as to those of the saints who 
 are deceased. However, our requests to the living and to 
 persons of exemplary piety for prayer in our behalf, are 
 authorised in many parts of the holy scripture. We see that 
 St. Paul himself frequently adopted this practice, and that 
 he solicited the prayers of his flocks at Ephesus, Thessalo- 
 nica, Colossa, and other places. 
 
 “ Praying always with all prayer and supplication in the 
 spirit, and watching thereunto with all perseverance and 
 supplication for the saints ; and for me, that utterance may 
 be given unto me, that I may open my mouth boldly to make 
 known the mysteries of the gospel.” (Ephes. vi. 18, 19.) 
 
 Here is a striking proof of the estimation in which St. 
 Paul held the prayers of the virtuous. He who possessed 
 such transcendent merit before God, is seen to ask the 
 prayers of his brethren on earth. Who can induce himself 
 to think that the prayers of St. Paul, reigning with Christ 
 in heaven, can be without effect] But another truth is here 
 inculcated by the apostle, and it regards the obligations by 
 which Christians are bound to recommend to God in a spe- 
 cial manner the ministers of Christ and his Church, that he 
 may arm them with virtue and strength to preach his gospel 
 with a holy liberty, and that he may bless their apostolic 
 labours with an abundant grace. The passage I am about 
 to quote is entitled to peculiar attention : “ Now I beseech 
 you, brethren, for the Lord Jesus Christ’s sake, and for the 
 love of the Spirit, that ye strive together with me in your 
 prayers to God for me.” (Rom. xv. 30.) 
 
 This entreaty of St. Paul demands the most deliberate 
 reflection, as it alone serves to cover with shame and con- 
 fusion those persons who imagine that God is offended by 
 
 H 
 
98 
 
 ON THE INTERCESSION 
 
 the act of a faithful man imploring the intercession of saints 
 who rejoice with Christ in heaven ; while here we see that 
 the apostle, with marked affection and unbounded effusion 
 of heart, implores the succour and the prayers of the Chris- 
 tians on earth, all of whom were not particularly eminent 
 for virtue and sanctity. “ I beseech you, my brethren, by 
 our Lord Jesus Christ, in whom we are united, and by the 
 common charity which we have received from the Spirit, 
 that you would combat with me (this is the import of the 
 Greek text,) in your petitions in my behalf before God.” 
 
 Now why should we not be enabled to recommend our- 
 selves to the prayers of persons who lead a holy life 1 why 
 should it be deemed useless to employ the intercession of 
 others'! If, therefore, it is assuredly profitable to solicit the 
 prayers of the living, it is equally profitable to recommend 
 ourselves to the prayers of the saints who are deceased ; 
 since, if it be lawful for me to ask a holy man to pray for 
 me whilst he is in this vale of tears, by what right can I be 
 prevented from soliciting from him precisely the same thing 
 when he shall be translated to glory 1 I challenge the most 
 acute Protestant to resolve this problem, and to support his 
 opinion by any solid reasons. 
 
 St. Augustin, after asserting that the saints, by their 
 prayers to God, assist those who invoke their intercession, 
 adds, that “ God Almighty, every where present, hearing 
 the supplications of his martyrs, may, by the ministry of 
 his angels, grant the succours that are requested.” — (De 
 Cura pro Mortuis Gerenda } c. xvi.) It is moreover recorded, 
 that in the council of Chalcedon (4 Gen. Council ), the fathers 
 with one voice, exclaimed, “ Flavian, though dead, still lives ; 
 may the martyr pray for us .” — Act xi. Cone. Gen. Ep. 4. 
 
 Protestants proceed to reply, that the act of soliciting the 
 intercession of the saints is an offence to God, as it appears 
 
OF THE SAINTS, &C. 
 
 99 
 
 to indicate that we believe the saints more merciful towards 
 us, and more disposed to assist us, than God himself; and, in- 
 dependently of this consideration, they ask, why do Catholics 
 prefer the practice of addressing their prayers to the saints, 
 to an immediate application to God himself, the only author 
 of all good, and the distributor of all graces and blessings 1 
 
 (St. Asterius, of Amasea, says : “ The saints, in virtue of 
 their power with God, are the intercessors of the world. 
 Though dead, they can still do much. Precious in the sight 
 of the Lord is the death of his saints. (Ps. cxv.) Therefore, 
 let us offer up our prayers to God, and entreat the martyrs 
 that our common Lord would communicate the spirit of com- 
 punction to those who err.” — (Encom. in SS. Martyres. Ep. 
 1.) “ If the apostles and martyrs, while upon earth, and 
 
 while they must be anxious for themselves, can pray for 
 others, much more will they do it when victory has crowned 
 their triumphs ! Quanto Magis post Coronas, Victorias, et 
 triumphasl ” — Jerome adv. Vigilant. Ep. lx. tom. i. 
 
 In Theodoret’s History of the Lives of the Fathers, is to 
 be found: “ I wish and desire that by their 'intercession I 
 may obtain divine help.” And in another work he says : 
 “ They who are in health, pray for its continuance ; while 
 they pray to be freed who are oppressed by illness. But it 
 is not as gods that they address the martyrs, but as celestial 
 men, entreating them to become their intercessors.” — Serm . 
 viii. adv. Gentes. Ep. 4. 
 
 St. Gregory, of Nazianzum, in his Funeral Oration oh 
 his friend, St. Basil, says: “And now he indeed is in 
 heaven, there offering up sacrifices for us ; pouring out 
 prayers for the people ; for he has not left us, so as to have 
 deserted us. And do thou, sacred and holy spirit, look down, 
 I beseech thee, on us.”) 
 
 This objection Protestants deem unanswerable ; it is, 
 
 h 3 
 
100 
 
 ON THE INTERCESSION 
 
 however, expressly contradicted by the following passages 
 quoted from their own version of the scriptures. 
 
 “ Now, therefore, restore the man his wife ; for he is a 
 prophet, and he shall pray for thee, and thou slialt live. . . . 
 So Abraham prayed unto God, and God healed Abimeleck, 
 and his wife and maid-servants ; and they bare children.” 
 (Gen. xx. 7, 17.) 
 
 “ And it was so, that after the Lord had spoken these 
 words unto Job, the Lord said to Eliphaz the Temanite, my 
 wrath is kindled against thee, and against thy two friends : 
 for ye have not spoken of me the thing that is right, as my 
 servant Job hath. Therefore take unto you now seven 
 bullocks and seven rams, and go to my servant Job, and 
 offer up for yourselves a burnt-offering, and my servant 
 Job shall pray for you, for him will I accept ; lest I deal 
 with you after your folly, in that ye have not spoken of 
 me the thing which is right, like my servant Job.” (Job 
 xlii. 7, 8.) 
 
 These words of God destroy to the very foundation, the 
 whole system of objections raised by Protestants against 
 the invocation of saints ; for do we not here read that God 
 himself refers wicked persons to his holy servants, that they 
 may intercede for them] Yet assuredly no one will be 
 bold enough to infer from this fact, that these servants were 
 more distinguished than God himself for mercy and goodness. 
 The truth is, we are led to discover that God in his mercy 
 has ordained that these great saints should be empowered 
 to intercede for the wicked, and preserve them from des- 
 truction by their prayers. It has entered into the designs 
 of a merciful God that we should be favoured with the aid 
 and defence of powerful and illustrious advocates — be thus 
 preserved from the consequences of divine wrath. Sinners, 
 persons the most addicted to evil, and the farthest remote 
 
OF THE SAINTS, &c. 
 
 101 
 
 from every practice of virtue, who carry their evil propen- 
 sities so far as to delight in the slavery of the devil, will 
 probably never pray for themselves : hopes, nevertheless, 
 may be entertained that the saints and angels in heaven, 
 and holy servants of God on earth, may pray for them with 
 fervour, and may frequently appease the anger of God, who 
 is observed to grant to such sinners an efficacious sanctify- 
 ing grace, which moves their hearts and inspires their con- 
 version. When this beneficial result takes place, is not 
 the sinner infinitely indebted to the divine bounty, that he 
 has in the heavenly court some powerful intercessor to pray 
 for him, who paid so little attention himself to the impor- 
 tant concerns of his salvation 1 If I am asked why God, 
 who is infinite in mercy, should listen more favourably to 
 the intercession of saints in favour of sinners than to the 
 prayers addressed by sinners themselves, the sacred scrip- 
 tures furnish this answer. “ The effectual fervent prayer 
 of a righteous man availeth much,” (1 James v. 16,) and 
 assuredly more than the petitions of sinners, for this enters 
 into the order of divine justice ; at the same time the mercy 
 of God is displayed in the fairest light, when he spares the 
 sinners by suffering himself to be moved by the prayers of 
 the just man. 
 
 Without quoting more authorities, which I could adduce 
 from other holy fathers and ecclesiastical historians, I shall 
 close this argument with the Council of Trent. 
 
 Sessio xxv . — De Invocatione SS . 
 
 “ The holy synod commands all bishops and others, to 
 whom is entrusted the office of teaching, that, according to 
 the practice of the Catholic and Apostolic Church, received 
 from the earliest ages of the Christian religion, and accord- 
 ing to the united opinions of the fathers, and the decrees of 
 
102 
 
 ON THE INTERCESSION 
 
 holy councils, ( a ) they, in the first place, diligently instruct 
 the faithful on the intercession and invocation of the saints ; 
 the honour due to relics, and the lawful use of images ; 
 teaching them that the saints, reigning with Christ, offer up 
 their prayers to God for men ; that it is good and profitable 
 humbly to invoke them, and to have recourse to their sup- 
 plications and assistance, in order to obtain favour from 
 God, through his Son, Jesus Christ our Lord, who is our 
 only redeemer and saviour.” 
 
 (a) This is acknowledged also by Thorndyke, a learned 
 Protestant writer, who, in his Epilogue to the Tragedy of 
 the Church of England, expresses himself thus : “ It is 
 confessed, that the lights, both of the Greek and Latin 
 Church, St. Basil, St. Gregory Nazianzen, St. Gregory 
 Nyssen, St. Ambrose, St. Jerome, St. Augustin, St. Chry- 
 sostom, St. Cyril of Jerusalem, St. Cyril of Alexandria, 
 Theodoret, St. Fulgentius, St. Gregory the great, St. Leo 
 the great, and all after that time, have spoken to the saints 
 and desired their assistance or prayers.” 
 
 Who shall be bold enough to affirm, that all these lights, 
 both of the Greek and Latin Church, by addressing their 
 prayers to God through the saints, have agreed so exactly 
 together, for no other purpose than to adopt a practice 
 which Protestants repudiate as being rather repugnant to 
 the word of God] (See the Twenty-second Article of the 
 Protestant Religion.) 
 
 I will subjoin the opinion of Luther upon this point, 
 though rather as an object of curiosity, than for the purpose 
 of founding any argument upon it. 
 
 “ Concerning the invocation of saints,” says he, “ I agree 
 with the whole Christian Church, and am of opinion that 
 the saints in heaven are to be invocated ; for who can con- 
 tradict the wonders daily wrought at their tombs ?” — (In 
 
OF THE SAINTS, &c. 
 
 103 
 
 Purg. Quorund. Artie, tom. i.) Again : “ Some, however, 
 may say, of what use can the saints be to us 1 Thou art 
 to use them as thou dost thy neighbour ; for as thou sayest 
 to him, pray to God for me, so mayest thou to St. Peter, 
 pray for me .” — (In Festo Sti. Johannis Baptistae.) And 
 in another place r “ Let no one omit to invoke the Blessed 
 Virgin, and the angels and saints, that they may intercede 
 with God for them at that instant (the hour of death).” — 
 Luther's Praep . ad Mort. 
 
104 
 
 ON PRAYING IN AN UNKNOWN 
 TONGUE. 
 
 The Twenty-fourth Article of the Protestant religion runs 
 thus: — “It is a thing repugnant to the Word of God and 
 the custom of the primitive Church, to have public prayer 
 in the church, or to minister the sacraments in a tongue not 
 understood by the people.” 
 
 This sentiment is contradicted both by the Old and New 
 Testament. “ And there shall be no man in the tabernacle 
 of the congregation when he (the high priest) goeth in to 
 make an atonement in the holy place until he come out, and 
 have made an atonement for himself, and for his household, 
 and for all the congregation of Israel.” (Levit. xvi. 17.) 
 The Vulgate, Ibid., reads: — “When the high priest goeth 
 into the sanctuary to pray for himself and his house, & c. &c.” 
 
 “ And it came to pass, that while he (Zacharias) executed 
 the priest’s office before God, in the order of his course, 
 according to the custom of the priest’s office, his lot was to 
 burn incense when be went into the temple of the Lord. 
 And the whole multitude of the people were praying without, 
 at the time of incense.” (Luke i. B, 9, 10.) 
 
 We here see, that in the old law the priest offered sacri- 
 fice in the tabernecle and the temple, whilst the people 
 remained without in prayer ; and that so far from being in 
 a situation to hear what was recited, during the sacrifice. 
 
ON PRAYING, &c. 
 
 105 
 
 they were under a strict prohibition to be in the place where 
 the priest officiated. It is thus apparent that those who 
 assisted at the sacrifice, were debarred from hearing and 
 seeing what passed. It is therefore by no means necessary 
 that the public service of the church should be performed 
 in such a manner as to enable all the faithful to hear and 
 understand it ; and as in the old law it was sufficient that 
 the people of God should know that the sacrifice offered was 
 either a holycaust, an oblation, or a peace-offering, and that 
 the worship and adoration paid to the Deity related to these 
 different objects, although the people could neither see nor 
 hear the officiating priest; so in the new law it perfectly 
 suffices that the people assisting at the Eucharistic sacrifice 
 should be apprised that this sacrifice is instituted by our 
 Redeemer to fulfil the same exalted purposes, and to com- 
 plete the objects of the ancient sacrifices; that the great 
 oblation is at once eucharistic and propitiatory ; and that in 
 these great objects consists the adoration paid to God, 
 without any necessity on the part of the faithful of under- 
 standing the language in which the service is performed. 
 The reason of this is perfectly obvious ; for the design of 
 the liturgy, the public service of the church, is certainly not 
 the same as the object of a sermon, a catechistical lecture, 
 or any instruction addressed to the people ; and the daily 
 tribute of prayers or of thanksgiving and adoration, may be 
 paid to God by the priests of the church, while the assisting 
 faithful, by answering Amen, give their assent to the prayers 
 of the church, and thus become partakers of the graces and 
 benefits which those supplications are calculated to obtain. 
 
 It is here proper to advert to the known distinction be- 
 tween private and public prayer. Private prayer is that 
 which is addressed to the throne of grace by the people in 
 their own behalf; public prayer is that which is performed 
 by the priest for the benefit of the people. This latter kind 
 
106 
 
 ON PRAYING IN 
 
 belongs to the function of the priest, and is not within the 
 competence of the faithful. As to private prayer, it has in 
 every age been offered by the faithful in a language under- 
 stood by them; but with respect to the public service of 
 the church, it is not at all essential that it should be per- 
 formed in the vulgar tongue to be understood by the assis- 
 tants, since the sacrifice is not the action of the people, but 
 that of the priest for the benefit of the people. After this 
 clear and explanatory account of the nature of the public 
 service, may we not ask, with an air of confidence, whether 
 the public prayers of the priest may not penetrate the hea- 
 vens and reach the throne of grace, though recited in Latin, 
 in Greek, or Hebrew, without any recurrence to the verna- 
 cular language of each particular country 1 
 
 The Protestant Ross, in his view of all Religions, says, 
 that “ the Copthics, Jacobites, Georgians, Circassians, and 
 others, use not their vulgar language, but an unknown 
 tongue to the vulgar in their divine service.” We may 
 add, thus at the present time the Jews, the Greeks, and the 
 Abyssinians continue to perform their divine service in a 
 language unintelligible to the majority of them. 
 
 Protestants reply to this, that the apostle St. Paul pro- 
 hibits the use of the liturgy in an unknown tongue, and that 
 he assigns various reasons for this prohibition. “ For if the 
 trumpet give an uncertain sound, who shall prepare himself to 
 the battle? So likewise ye, except ye utter with the tongue 
 words easy to be understood, how shall it be known what 
 is spoken, for ye shall speak into the air ? Wherefore let 
 him that speaketh in an unknown tongue, pray that he may 
 interpret ; for if I pray in an unknown tongue, my spirit 
 prayeth, but my understanding is unfruitful. Else when 
 thou shall bless with the spirit, how shall he that occupieth 
 the room of the unlearned, say amen at thy giving thanks, see- 
 ing he understandeth not what thou sayest? For thou verily 
 
AN UNKNOWN TONGUE. 
 
 107 
 
 givest thanks well, but the other is not edified.” (1 Cor. 
 xiv. 8, 9, 13, 14, 16, 17.) 
 
 Protestants imagine that they can draw from this passage 
 an unanswerable argument against the use of the liturgy in 
 an unknown tongue. This is a pregnant proof of their 
 superficial simplicity in interpreting the scriptures, of their 
 facility in altering them ; since it is decidedly clear, that in 
 the whole of this chapter the apostle does not say a single 
 word respecting the public liturgy of the church, and does 
 not make use of the word unknown. The word unknown 
 is added no less than five times to the text in this chapter 
 of the Protestant Bible. (1 Cor. xiv. 13.) Vulgate . — “ Et 
 ideo qui loquitur lingua : oret ut interpretetur.” This fidelity 
 of the Vulgate to the text has been followed by the Italian, 
 German, Spanish, French, &c. translators of the Bible, 
 so Italian . — “ E percio chiparla una lingua domandi la grazia 
 di interpretarla.” German. — “ Darum, wer mit der Zunge 
 
 redet, dere bete also, das ers auche auslege.” Spanish . — 
 “ Y por esto el que habla una lengua, pida la gracia de inter- 
 pretarla.” French . — “ C’est porquoi, que celui qui parle 
 une langue, demande a Dieu le don de 1 interpreter.” Eng. 
 Cath. Vers. — “ And therefore he that speaketh by a tongue 
 let him pray that he may interpret.” Is not the addition of 
 the word unknown, which we find in the Protestant trans- 
 lation, introduced for the purpose of making it appear to the 
 ignorant people that mass and other ecclesiastical offices 
 practised in the Catholic church ought not to be said in 
 Latin ] 
 
 The divine service was unquestionably performed at 
 Corinth in the Greek language, which was that of the 
 country ; the apostle was therefore under no necessity of 
 giving lectures to the Corinthians on the subject of cele- 
 brating the divine service, or performing public prayers in 
 
108 
 
 ON PRAYING IN 
 
 an unknown tongue. What, therefore, was his design ] In 
 order to furnish Protestants with clear ideas respecting these 
 words of the apostle, it is necessary to remind them, that the 
 gift of tongues bestowed upon the apostles by the descent 
 of the Holy Ghost, was transmitted to the Christians of the 
 primitive church, and was enjoyed by them for a consider- 
 able period. In the public assemblies of the faithful, use 
 was made of this distinguished gift, either before or after 
 the celebration of the divine service. Extemporaneous 
 discourses were held, prayers, prophecies, hymns, and moral 
 entertainments, formed the subject of these discourses, which 
 were delivered in a language foreign both to the speaker 
 and the audience. Respecting this practice, St. Paul ob- 
 serves, that it is more calculated to display ostentation and 
 vanity, than to edify the audience. He forbids accordingly 
 this kind of extemporaneous prayer and instruction in un- 
 known tongues, unless the speakers should interpret what 
 they deliver, or the hearers understand it. True, replies 
 the Protestant; but these arguments of St. Paul against 
 prayers or discourses, made either before or after the divine 
 service, equally tend to discountenance all liturgies in an 
 unknown tongue. To this observation I reply, that all those 
 who attentively peruse this chapter of St. Paul, must clearly 
 see that in the passages under consideration, by which Pro- 
 testants imagine every kind of prayer in a tongue not gene- 
 rally understood to be forbidden, the apostle authorises the 
 Corinthians to speak and pray in any language whatever, 
 “ provided there be some among them possessed of the gift 
 of interpretation.” Wherefore, says he, “let him that 
 speaketh in an unknown tongue, pray that he may inter- 
 pret.” (1 Cor. xiv. 13.) And again: “ If any man speak 
 in an unknown tongue, let it be by two, or at most by three, 
 and that by course ; and let one interpret.” (Ibid. xiv. 27.) 
 
AN UNKNOWN TONGUE. 
 
 109 
 
 Does not the apostle here expressly permit the Corin- 
 thians to speak and pray “ in any tongue whatever, pro- 
 vided there be interpreters present]” 
 
 Now the Latin liturgy of the Catholic Church is suf- 
 ficiently interpreted and explained to all the faithful, inas- 
 much, that those who do not understand the Latin language 
 are well instructed in all the parts of the divine service ; 
 and the most ignorant among the faithful, as well as the 
 priest who occupies the place of the unlearned, possess suf- 
 ficient information on these subjects to be enabled to answer 
 amen to the prayers and thanksgivings recited by the priest. 
 
 Alban Butler, in his Sixth Letter on Mr. Archibald Bower’s 
 History of the Popes, speaks thus : “ The people daily hear 
 the scriptures read and expounded to them by their pastors, 
 and in good books. Even children have excellent abridg- 
 ments of the sacred history, adapted in the most easy and 
 familiar manner to their capacity, put into their hands. The 
 divine books themselves are open to all who understand 
 Latin, or any other of the learned languages, in every Cath- 
 olic country ; and every one may read them in' the vulgar 
 languages, if he first ask the advice of his confessor, who 
 will only instruct him in what spirit he is to read them.” 
 
 This irrefragable argument, therefore, which Protestants 
 pretend to discover against the use of the Latin liturgy in 
 this chapter of St. Paul to the Corinthians, may safely be 
 pronounced to have no validity. On the contrary, it appears 
 from this passage of the apostle, that the Catholic liturgy 
 and the holy scriptures in Latin, or in any other learned 
 tongue, are duly authorised, provided they be interpreted 
 for the edification of the faithful. It is a most undoubted 
 fact, that this liturgy has been effectually explained and 
 published in many satisfactory works ; and that with respect 
 to the substance of what is done and recited in the divine 
 service, the Catholic faithful are better versed in the Latin 
 
110 
 
 ON PRAYING IN 
 
 liturgy, than the members of the Protestant establishment 
 are in the service of the Anglican Church. 
 
 Finally, it is unquestionable that Christians have no spe- 
 cific command from God, directing in what language the 
 service is to be performed. Even the Jews, after having 
 corrupted their primitive language by the long captivity of 
 Babylon, continued to perform the divine service in Hebrew, 
 although this tongue was almost unintelligible to the ma- 
 jority of them. Had it been an abuse, undoubtedly Jesus 
 Christ, when disputing with the Pharisees, would have 
 strongly condemned them for it ; but by his silence on this 
 subject, he approved what they did, and what Catholics at 
 present do. 
 
 For a further illustration of this argument, I will cite in 
 its original, an interesting passage of De Rossi’s valuable 
 work, entitled, Della Lingua propria di Cristo e degli Ebrei 
 Nazionali della Palestina, da tempi dei Maccabei. “ L’Ebreo, 
 il linguaggio de ’ primi tiomini, de ’ Patriarchi, de ’ discendenti 
 di Sem, e consequentemente del Popoli Ebreo, dopo essersi 
 conservato vivo ed incorrotto per il Corso di trenta quattro a 
 trenta cinque Secoli, ' dovette alia fin fine soccombere al fato 
 degli altri linquaggi. La Cattivita del corpo intero degli Ebrei 
 Palestini sotto ai Caldei, non piu uniti come nella Egiziana, 
 in un distretto solo, ma dispersi qua e la in mezzo ai loro 
 Dominatori, e la necessita di servirli e di trattare continu- 
 amente con esso loro, sono 1’ origine della declinazione e 
 tracollo dell ’ Ebraismo, e di quell ’ uso e consuetudine di 
 Caldeo che osservossi in progresso negli Ebrie Palestini. 
 L’ uso pero del primo Idioma non era estlnto a tal punto, 
 che i primi ritornati nella Palestina non potessero ancora 
 parlarlo, e 1’ uso certo che del medesimo fecero insequito 
 Daniele, Esdra, Neemi, Aggeo, Zaccaria, Malachia, nelle 
 loro storie, profezie, concioni, mostra che nelle funzioni della 
 Religione e della sinagoga. e ne ’ sacri loro scritti, si con-* 
 
AN UNKNOWN TONGUE. 
 
 Ill 
 
 tinuava a far uso di una lingua presso che sconosciuta dal 
 Popolo.” 
 
 “ Dopo i tempi poi di Alessandro per lo Commercio, la 
 Communione, le guerre avute Coi Siri, e pel governo e 
 Diminco della Palestina da quelli ottenuto, il linguaggio 
 degli Ebrei Palestini participo del Siriaco, Che Scostavasi 
 dal Caldeo di Babilonia tanto quanto un dialetto di una 
 lingua medisima Si Scosta dall’ altro, e degenero m un 
 Caldeo impuro e misto, Che puo Chiamarsi Siro-Caldeo. 
 Tale era il linguaggio, che parlossi in Seguito dai Nazionali 
 della Palestina dai tempi de Maccabei fino ai tempi di Cristo.” 
 And in all cases where there is no divine injunction, the 
 Church possesses a decided right to weigh the various reasons 
 adduced by opposite parties, and to decide respecting them. 
 This right the Catholic Church has exercised, and, after the 
 most mature deliberation, she has judged that the inconve- 
 niences arising from the translations of the liturgy into the 
 vernacular languages of various nations were insurmount- 
 able ; that such translations, from the constant change in the 
 signification of words incident to every living language, 
 would infallibly be replete with errors, which might event- 
 ually lead to much confusion ; that the advantages of such 
 translations, if attended with any good effects, would be 
 felt only by the most ignorant portion of the people, and 
 that these advantages are sufficiently found in numberless 
 books of prayers and instructions written in the vernacular 
 languages. Acting on these principles, the Church has wisely 
 ordained, that throughout the western parts of the world, the 
 liturgy should be performed in one language only, which, 
 though unintelligible to many persons, is, however, the lan- 
 guage with which all nations are most generally acquainted, 
 and which is publicly taught in all the great cities of Europe. 
 
 As the Reformed Church is not universal, and as all the 
 conventicles of this reformed church are circumscribed within 
 
112 
 
 ON PRAYING IN 
 
 the narrowest limits, and rarely extend beyond the frontiers 
 of a country, of a province, or a canton, this church is not 
 under the necessity of having for public use books for divine 
 service, written in a single language, which is known in all 
 countries. But as the Catholic Church embraces in its com- 
 munion all nations and all tongues, this universal church, on 
 this account, is obliged to select for its liturgy the languages 
 which are generally spoken and understood by all nations. 
 To preserve uniformity in the public service, in the divine 
 worship, and to avoid the multiplied inconveniences, (Bede 
 says, (Lib. i. cap. 1, Hist. Eccl.) that there being then four 
 divers vulgar languages in England, the Latin, through the 
 scripture, was made common to them all. These are his 
 words : “ Haec in praesenti, juxta numerum librorum qui- 
 bus lex divina scripta est, quinque gentium linguis, unam 
 eamdemque Summae veritatis et verae sublimitatis scien- 
 tiam scrutatur et confidetur, Anglorum videlicet, Brittonum, 
 Scottorum, Pictorum et Latinorum, quae meditatione scrip- 
 turarum caeteris omnibus est facta communis.”) of numerous 
 translations of the liturgy of the Catholic Church has or- 
 dained that the use of the Latin language should be kept 
 up, a practice established in the time of the apostles ; and 
 we find that in this part of the world the divine service was 
 never performed in any other tongue. I affirm that no 
 other tongue but the Latin was employed for the service of 
 the Church throughout Europe and Africa, although that 
 was not the vernacular language of those parts of the world, 
 notwithstanding their subjection to the Romans; and the 
 Greek was certainly the only language used for the same 
 purpose in the greatest part of Asia, although this was not 
 the vernacular idiom of all the nations of the East. 
 
 We learn from the Acts of the Apostles (Acts ii. 9, 10), 
 that the Parthians, Medes, Elamites, the inhabitants of 
 Messopotamia, Judea, Cappadocia, Pontus, Asia, Phrygia, 
 
AN UNKNOWN TONGUE. 
 
 113 
 
 Pamphylia, Egypt, and the countries about Cyrene, had all 
 their peculiar languages. Nevertheless, this practice of the 
 Roman Catholic Church of having her liturgy in Latin, not 
 being an article of faith, but merely a point of church disci- 
 pline, may consequently be changed. Thus other Catholic 
 nations in communion with Rome, as the Sclavonians, 
 (iEneas Silvius, Hist. Bohemia, cap. xiii.), by Pope John 
 the Eighth, and the Chinese, by Paul the Fifth, were per- 
 mitted to make use of their own language in their worship. 
 A harmony of the Four Gospels, prepared by the Jesuits 
 in the Chinese language, is preserved in the British Mu- 
 suem. (The British and Foreign Bible Society commends 
 the elegance of this version.) The church therefore does 
 not hold it unlawful, but inexpedient everywhere to use the 
 vulgar tongue, as she declares in the Council of Trent : — 
 
 “ Though the sacrifice of the Mass contains great instruc- 
 tions for the faithful, the fathers judged it not expedient 
 that it should be everywhere celebrated in the vulgar tongue. 
 Each Church therefore, will retain its ancient and approved 
 rites. But that the sheep of Christ may not hunger for 
 want of food, and that little ones may not ask for bread, and 
 there be no one to break it to them ; the Holy Synod orders 
 all pastors and them that have the cure of souls, frequently, 
 and especially on Sundays and feasts, to expound some por- 
 tions of what is read, and some mystery of the holy sacri- 
 fice.” — ( Sess . xxii. c. 8.) 
 
 Experience, the surest as well as the most striking of 
 all proofs, has taught Protestants that “ the English lan- 
 guage has changed so much since the Homilies were written, 
 that they would scarcely now be understood by a common 
 congregation.” Thus wrote Dr. Tomline, in his “Elements,” 
 (vol. ii. p. 536), in the beginning of this century, and it 
 is worthy of observation that the first book of Homilies 
 (written by Cranmer), was published in 1547 ; the second 
 
 i 
 
114 
 
 ON PRAYING IN 
 
 (written by Jewell, bishop of Salisbury), 1560. Less than 
 three centuries have made their language unintelligible ! ! ! 
 
 Another strange opinion prevails among Protestants, viz. 
 that it is contrary to the general principles of the Catholic 
 religion to publish the Bible in a vulgar tongue. To be 
 convinced of the erroneousness of this opinion it is only 
 necessary to know, that when any nation has been con- 
 verted or reclaimed to the Catholic religion, the church of 
 Rome has been careful to supply it with a translation of the 
 scriptures, in its vernacular language. The numberless 
 translations of the whole scriptures, or of different parts of 
 them, into Latin, which was once the language of the whole 
 Western Empire, are well known. So early as the fifth 
 century, St. Augustin observed, that “ the number of those 
 who had translated the scriptures from the Hebrew into the 
 Greek might be computed ; but that the number of those 
 who had translated the Greek into the Latin, could not ; for 
 that immediately on the introduction of Christianity, if a per- 
 son came in possession of a Greek manuscript, and thought 
 he had any knowledge of the two languages, he set about 
 translating the scriptures.” — Lib. ii. de Doctr. Christ, cap. 2. 
 
 The Peshito, or genuine version of the Four Gospels into 
 Syriac, was made at the end of the first,, or the beginning of 
 the second century. An Arabic version of the whole Bible 
 was published at Rome in 1591. In 1548, as an opening 
 appeared for the introduction of Christianity into ^Ethiopia, 
 Pope Paul the third caused an ^Ethiopian version of the 
 New Testament to be published at Rome, for the use of the 
 new ^Ethiopian Christians. It is observable that all these 
 versions of the Bible are without notes, although it is the 
 acknowledged right of the Catholic Church and her pastors 
 to direct, when, where, and. what notes should accompany 
 them. Whence we see, that in every age it has been the 
 wish of the Catholic Church that the sacred writings, both 
 
AN UNKNOWN TONGUE. 
 
 115 
 
 in the original language and in translations from it, should 
 be circulated in every country into which the Christian 
 religion has penetrated; and thus the charge made against 
 Her of withholding the Bible from the faithful, has, to say no 
 more, been unmercifully exaggerated. The exaggeration 
 has been carried so far as to have made it nearly the univer- 
 sal belief of Protestants, that withholding the Bible from the 
 general body is the rule, and the liberty to read it the ex- 
 ception ; whereas, it is much nearer the truth to say, that 
 the withholding of it is the exception, and the liberty to read 
 it, the rule. 
 
 The works of the venerable Bede, and of holy Robert of 
 Lincoln, shew how much biblical learning was cultivated 
 and encouraged in England several centuries before the 
 Reformation. (See Johnson’s Historical Account of the 
 English Translations of the Bible.) 
 
 But the troubles occasioned by the Waldenses and 
 Albigenses, the Wickliffites and Lombards, and afterwards 
 by the Lutherans and Calvinists, and other Protestants, 
 who had perverted the Bible by their partial translations, 
 obliged the Catholic Church to have recourse to her strict 
 authority in refusing the undiscriminate perusal of the sa- 
 cred scriptures, for fear that the inexperienced and undis- 
 cerning multitude would be exposed to misinterpret and 
 abuse them. 
 
116 
 
 INDULGENCES. 
 
 Protestants assert, that the use of indulgences was not 
 established in the time of the apostles, and that it has no 
 warrant in the sacred scripture. 
 
 An opinion altogether contrary to the doctrine of St. Paul. 
 1. “ Sufficient to such a man is this punishment, which 
 was inflicted of many.” (2 Cor. ii. 6.) Theodoret, com- 
 menting on this passage, says : “ that the apostle pardoned 
 the Corinthian at the intercession of Timothy and Titus.” 
 
 We read also in the Eighteenth Epistle of St. Cyprian, 
 that indulgences, or remissions of penitential works, were 
 granted in the primitive church by the mediation of holy 
 confessors or martyrs, “ the abundance of whose merits 
 might be a supply for the want of their brethren,” (2 Cor. 
 viii. 14,) who wrote to the bishops in behalf of some of their 
 Christian brethren, who had fallen from their faith and then 
 repented ; otherwise they must have submitted to the tem- 
 poral punishments prescribed by the canons, before they 
 could be received again into the communion of the faithful. 
 And although the merits of one Christian cannot properly be 
 applied to another, one, nevertheless, may bear the burden 
 and discharge the debt of another both by divine and civil 
 laws. Moreover, the martyrdom of his saints is so accep- 
 table to God, that it is, as it were, a sacrifice in his sight, 
 and produces, therefore, many effects, both to those who 
 
ON INDULGENCES. 
 
 117 
 
 suffer, and to others who partake of the merits of the sacri- 
 fice. For this reason St. Paul tells the Collossians (i. 24,) 
 that he rejoices in his sufferings for them : “ I now rejoice 
 in suffering for you, and fill up those things that are wanting 
 ('adimpleo ea quae desunt,’ Vulg.) of the sufferings of 
 Christ in my flesh for his body, which is the Church.” 
 Sometimes he wishes to be anathema, (the word anathema 
 or accursed, expresses the desire of the apostle to die for 
 the salvation of the Jews. It certainly is a point of inim- 
 itable charity in the apostle’s heart, and an example to all 
 bishops and priests, how to love the eternal salvation of 
 their flock. The like expression was uttered by Moses 
 when he said to God, “ Either forgive the sin of this people, 
 or blot me out of thy book which thou hast written,” (Exod. 
 xxxii. 32,) which Origen interprets, a sacrifice for the Is- 
 raelites. (Rom. ix. 3.) In another place, he offers his 
 afflictions for the salvation of the Corinthians (2 Cor. i. 5, 
 6, 7); and in Philip, ii. 16, 17 ; 2 Tim. iv. 6, he speaks of 
 his death as a libation or offering, as the fathers do of all 
 the sufferings of the martyrs, calling them Christ’s own suf- 
 ferings ; not only because they are endured for him, but also 
 because there is so close a conjunction and communion be- 
 tween him who is the head and every one of the living 
 members of his body, which is the Church, that whatever 
 is endured by them is considered as a part of his own suf- 
 ferings. In like manner, good works done in behalf of any 
 of them, or by any of them, are agreeable to God as done 
 to or by Christ himself. 
 
 From all these scriptural passages, Catholics justly infer 
 that the satisfactory and painful works suffered by the saints 
 in this world can be applied to the use of the faithful by 
 those whom Christ has constituted his ministers and the 
 dispensers of God’s mysteries, “ et dispensatores mysteri- 
 orum Dei.” (1 Cor. iv. 1.) 
 
118 
 
 ON INDULGENCES. 
 
 2nd. To whom ye forgive anything, I forgive also ; for if 
 I forgave anything, to whom I forgave it, for your sakes 
 forgave I it, in the person of Christ.” (2 Cor. ii. 10.) 
 
 The apostle speaks here of a Christian of Corinth, who 
 had committed incest with his step-mother. This man had 
 been excommunicated by apostolic authority, as we learn 
 from the first epistle to the Corinthians. St. Paul assumes 
 to himself, in the person of Jesus Christ, that is, by the 
 authority of Jesus Christ, the power of dispensing this man 
 from a more lengthened penance for his sin, as judging it 
 expedient to use this indulgence for the greater good of the 
 sinner, lest, to use his own expression, “ he might be swal- 
 lowed up with over much grief.” Now this is precisely the 
 doctrine of the Catholic Church on the subject of indulgences. 
 In the same manner as the apostle St. Paul claims the au- 
 thority in the person of Jesus Christ, first, of imposing a 
 penance proportioned to the sin committed, then of remitting 
 a part of that penance, and of abridging the penitential 
 career of the sinner, when he judges that lenity available to 
 the sinner’s spiritual advantage ; so, in like manner, the 
 power of granting similar indulgences has been vested in, 
 and, in fact, exercised since the time of the apostles, by the 
 pastors of the church, successors of the apostles, and heirs 
 of that power which Jesus Christ bequeathed to the apostles 
 in these words: “ Whatsoever you shall bind on earth shall 
 be bound in heaven ; and whatsoever you shall loose on 
 earth, shall be loosed in heaven.” (Matt. i. 18.) 
 
 Thus the Church, by these indulgences, is empowered to 
 treat sinners with more or less rigour, and to impose penir 
 tential austerities, of which she abridges or prolongs the 
 duration, as she judges it conducive to the spiritual and 
 eternal advantage of the penitent. The design of these 
 penances and indulgences is the eternal salvation of souls, 
 “ that the spirit may be safe in the day of our Lord Jesus 
 
ON INDULGENCES. 
 
 119 
 
 Christ,” (1 Cor. v. 5,) an object that may be accomplished 
 sometimes by rigour, at other times by lenity. Hence the 
 Church resorts to both those means as she finds it advan- 
 tageous under the peculiar circumstances of the case, as 
 St. Paul says : (1 Cor. iv. 21,) “ What will you 1 Shall 
 I come unto you with a rod or in charity, and in the spirit 
 of meekness V ’ 
 
 In the council of Ancyra, held in 314, it was decreed, 
 that the bisliops, having considered the conduct of the peni- 
 tents, were empowered to shew them mercy, or lengthen 
 the time of their penance. ( Concil. Gen. tom. i. canon 5.) 
 
 St. Basil, writing to Amphilochius, bishop of Iconium, 
 sends him a collection of canons, which shew what, at that 
 time, were the laws of the church on the principal points of 
 its penitential discipline. These canons are eighty-five in 
 number, and to us they bear the character of great severity ; 
 but they were understood to apply to those only who were 
 willing to do penance, and by those works of satisfaction to 
 amend their lives. The obstinate were left to themselves 
 after suitable admonitions. 
 
 In the first ages, the church used greater severity in the 
 imposition of penitential austerities, and shewed more re- 
 serve in granting indulgences. In latter periods, the church 
 has been more liberal in the grant of indulgences, and less 
 rigorous in the infliction of penances, “ lest Satan should 
 get an advantage of us; for we are not ignorant of his 
 devices,” (2 Cor. ii. 11,) viz. from an apprehension that 
 the devil might excite despair in the breasts of great sinners, 
 who generally are persons possessing the smallest share of 
 fortitude, and that such characters might be tempted to 
 abandon altogether Christ and his church, and thus sacrifice 
 all hopes of salvation. 
 
 This is a real statement of the unchangeable doctrine of 
 the Church of Rome with respect to indulgences, and that 
 
120 
 
 ON INDULGENCES. 
 
 is what is defined by the holy Council of Trent, in these 
 words : “ That indulgences are extremely advantageous to 
 the Christian people.” — Decret. i. de Indulg. Sess. 25. 
 
 Protestants reply, that these indulgences are in their 
 estimation rather prejudicial than advantageous to Chris- 
 tians ; because, the faithful are more disposed to transgress 
 the law, and to indulge in greater liberties, — (It is a fun- 
 damental article of Catholic faith, that no power on earth 
 can license men to lie, forswear, or perjure themselves, to 
 maltreat their neighbours, or injure their native country, 
 on pretence of promoting the Catholic cause or religion. 
 Moreover, all pardons or dispensations granted, or pretended 
 to be granted, for the accomplishmennt of any such ends or 
 designs, can possess no validity, nor have any other effect 
 than to add sacrilege and blasphemy to the above-mentioned 
 crimes), — when they have an assurance of obtaining with so 
 much facility, pardon of their sins, and remission of all 
 penalties; the first of which, according to the Catholic 
 doctrine, is derived from the absolution of the priest, and 
 the second from the grant of plenary indulgences. 
 
 In answer to this objection, I affirm it to be impossible 
 that such a consequence should arise, since all the members 
 of the Catholic Church are taught from their infancy, that 
 no advantage can possibly be derived from indulgences, 
 unless they be accompanied, on the sinner’s part, with true 
 and sincere repentance. This is clearly apparent, from the 
 grants of indulgences issued by the proper authorities at 
 Rome, which are invariably accompanied with this clause, 
 or with words to the same effect; “ Yere contritis et con- 
 fessis ; vere poenitentibus et confessis which words im- 
 port, that the indulgence is granted to such only as are true 
 penitents ; to those who have true contrition, and have 
 confessed their sins; because the guilt of sin or eternal 
 punishment due to it, is not remitted by this dispensation of 
 
ON INDULGENCES. 
 
 121 
 
 mercy, but such temporal punishment only as in the order 
 of divine justice remains due after the guilt has been re- 
 mitted. This doctrine, therefore, being admitted by all 
 Catholics as the avowed doctrine of the Church, namely, 
 that no advantage can be derived from indulgences without 
 a sincere repentance, and a firm resolution of leading a new 
 life, it follows, that indulgences, published on these conditions, 
 so far from operating as an encouragement to sin, are, on 
 the contrary, calculated to remove it, by offering to the 
 sinner a powerful inducement to repentance. 
 
 This truth is confirmed in the Catholic Church by daily 
 experience. We often, very often, witness the conversion 
 of sinners on the occasion of indulgences; we see them 
 relinquish criminal habits of conduct, in order to return to 
 God, to make general confessions, and become altogether 
 new men. 
 
 In the first general council of Nice, (anno 325,) on the 
 subject of indulgences, it was decreed that, “ they who by 
 fear, by tears, by patience, and by good works, manifest a 
 sincere conversion when they shall have passed over a cer- 
 tain time, and begun to communicate in prayer with the 
 faithful, to these the bishop may shew more indulgence ; 
 but not to those who manifest indifference, and think it 
 enough that they are allowed to enter the church. They 
 must complete the whole period of penance.” — Can. xii. 
 Cone. Gen. tom. 2. 
 
 If abuses or mistakes have been sometimes committed, 
 either in granting or gaining indulgences, through the re- 
 missness or ignorance of particular persons, contrary to the 
 ancient custom and discipline of the church, such abuses or 
 mistakes cannot rationally be charged on the church, or ren- 
 dered matters of derision in prejudice to her faith and dis- 
 cipline. The council of Trent ( Session 25, De Indulg.) 
 decreed formally the suppression of the abuses which had 
 
122 
 
 ON INDULGENCES. 
 
 crept into the practice of granting or using indulgences, 
 whether arising from sordid motives or from other sources. 
 And, moreover, the holy Council expressed a wish “ that 
 moderation, agreeably to the ancient and approved practice 
 of the church, should be exercised, lest, by too great facility, 
 ecclesiastical discipline might be weakened.” 
 
APPENDIX. N° I. 
 
 A few strictures on a late Tract , entitled, “ Friendly Advice 
 to the Roman Catholics of England/’ by the Rev. Walter 
 Farquhar Hook, M.A., Chaplain in Ordinary to the 
 King, &c. 
 
 If any possible apology could be made for the appearance 
 of the above-named tract, it would be found in the date of 
 its first edition, a.d. 1677, when no Papist dared to utter 
 a word in defence of his creed, and the whole nation had 
 been worked up by the pretended plots of Oates and Bedloe 
 to a frenzy, bordering on insanity ; whilst the publication 
 of such a iarago of calumny, of falsehood and of misrepre- 
 sentation of fact at this time is shameful and abominable. 
 Just observe Mr. Hook’s motive : “ Because numbers in 
 the neighbourhood of the Catholic seminary of O scott have 
 been converted to the Roman Catholic Faith;” and what 
 then 1 have they not as good a right to choose their creed, 
 and return to the religion of their ancestors and the majority 
 of the Christian world, as he himself has to follow Luther, 
 Calvin, Zuinglius, and Elizabeth? Does he, or can he hope, 
 to Hook even one Popish fish, and bear him back in triumph 
 to the Law Church ? No, he despairs of it (page 9). What 
 then can be his motive for reviving a work on which the 
 learned Manning passed this eulogium : “ That, though 
 small in size, it actually contained the greatest number of 
 lies and calumnies that were ever before crowded together.” 
 ’Tis not my intention to wade through such a puddle of filth 
 as Comber’s book contains. Possibly some learned Oscatian 
 may yet enter fully on the odious task ; for my part, I shall 
 in this appendix only notice a few of such glaring calumnies 
 of his, as with his friend Tillotson, can be justly styled more 
 dint of effrontery and facing down of mankind than I ever 
 heard of. (Sermon xxvi.) 
 
124 
 
 appendix. 
 
 Page 4, he says, and would have us believe, “ That the 
 Church of England is not unwilling to have her doctrine 
 tried by scripture and antiquity.” Now, in direct hostility 
 to this, hear the learned Mr. Nightingale. “ If a Protes- 
 tant,” says he, “ cannot defend his cause from the Bible 
 alone, he may as well, or better, give up the cause; for it 
 is hopeless to contend against the army of councils and 
 fathers which the Catholics are enabled to bring against 
 him ,” — ( Portraiture of Catholicism, page 56); — a work 
 I recommend to Mr. Hook’s attention. 
 
 As to the Bible, do not Quakers, Anabaptists, and even 
 Unitarians, appeal to it as well as Mr. Hook? — if he will 
 only answer Robert Barclay’s Apology from the Scripture 
 alone. (Erit mihi Magnus Apollo.) 
 
 In page 11, he asserts, that the worship (he should have 
 said the invocation) of saints, prevailed not in the eighth 
 century; to which unblushing assertion I shall oppose the 
 honest concession of one of the most learned and impartial 
 divines the modern Anglican Church ever produced. 
 
 “ It is confessed,” says Dr. Thorndyke, “ that the fathers 
 both of the Greek and Latin Churches, viz. the Saints 
 Basil, a. d. 370; Gregory of Nazianzen, a. d. 390; Je- 
 rome, a. d. 392; Augustin, a. d. 420; St. Chrysostom, 
 a. d. 400; St. Cyril of Jerusalem, a. d. 381; St. Cyril 
 of Alexandria, a. d. 336; Theodoret a. d. 420; St. Ful- 
 gentius, a. d. 420; St. Gregory the great, a. d. 596; St. 
 Leo, a. d. 460; all these, and all after that time, have 
 spoken to the saints, and desired their prayers.” — (Epis. 
 part 3rd, page 348.) Now, reader, what think you of 
 Mr. Hook’s assertions ? 
 
 In another note, page 14, he has the confidence to assert, 
 in the teeth of all history, that the doctrine of transubstan- 
 tiation (which he impiously calls heresy,) first started in the 
 eighth century, though his own learned Humphries assures 
 us of its having been imported with other Popish works 
 into England in the sixth century. See Jesuitism, part 2d, 
 page 626. 
 
 To his objection of half communion, the non obstante of 
 the Council of Constance answered one thousand times ; I 
 shall merely oppose, (and for brevity sake alone,) the over- 
 whelming authorities of the parent of the Reformation, 
 Martin Luther himself, and his own bishop, Montague, both 
 of whom knew something more of the matter than Mr. Hook 
 appears to do. 
 
APPENDIX. 
 
 125 
 
 “Although,” says Luther, “ it would be good to receive in 
 both kinds, though Christ has not commanded it as neces- 
 sary, still it would be better to preserve peace, than to dis- 
 pute about both kinds. Therefore, if thou art in a place 
 where one kind only is given, take thou but one. Where 
 both are given, take both, and oppose not the practice.” — 
 (Luiher's de utraque specii , tom. vii. folio 360.) Which, in 
 plain English is, if in England, go to Church; if in Rome, 
 go to Mass. 
 
 The Protestant Bishop Montague (one of the most learned 
 divines that the Church of England ever had), says : “ Where 
 does the scripture command the baptism of an infant ? or 
 that the people should receive the sacrament, and in both 
 kinds ? nil tale docet scriptura. The scripture commands it 
 not.” — Orign. Sacra, page 396. 
 
 Well, readers, what say you to this ? Is not such a 
 blow from a friend worse than two from a foe? For a full 
 elucidation of this point of discipline, I refer you to Man- 
 ning’s triumphant Answer to Lesly’s Case stated, tom. ii. 
 section 39, page 240. 
 
 Worse, if possible now follows (page 19), in his having 
 the face to assert, that Purgatory was first built on the 
 credit of the dialogues of Gregory the first! Gracious 
 Heaven! did not St. Augustin live two hundred years 
 before St. Gregory? And does he not assert Purgatory in 
 the following passage ? “ He who doth not till his ground 
 
 properly in this life, but suffers it to be overrun with thorns, 
 will, after death , have either to undergo the fire of purgatory 
 or everlasting punishment.” — St. Augustin de Genesi Cont. 
 Manicheas , (20), and Psalm 37, Civitate Dei , c. 13. 
 
 Nay, does not his own Dr. Morton confess the fact, in 
 his attempted reply to the learned Cardinal Allen? where, 
 speaking of this very passage, “Austin,” says he, “ cer- 
 tainly speaks of the burning fire here.” — ( Answer to Allen , 
 page 73.) I shall end this point with the awful words of 
 the immortal Bellarmin : “ Qui non credit Purgatorium esse, 
 ad cum nunquam est perventurus, sed in gehanna igne 
 eterno cruci undus.” 
 
 Mr. Hook has in his appendix given us what he calls 
 the memorable challenge of Dr. Jewell, which he marvel- 
 lously tells us, was attempted to be answered by Dr. Hard- 
 ing, and to whom Jewell replied. Now would not the reader 
 suppose the whole to have ended here ? Did it do so ; by no 
 means. For, besides Harding’s reply, the Rev. J. Rustall 
 
126 
 
 APPENDIX. 
 
 gave it another in 1564. Jewell’s defence was also answered 
 by several, and so completely overthrown, that he never 
 ventured on a vindication. 
 
 I shall now mention one important fact, which I am cer- 
 tain the Rev. Mr. Hook is totally unacquainted with : no 
 less than this remarkable man’s (Jewell’s) return to the 
 Catholic Church on his death-bed. “A little before his 
 death,” says the learned Bishop Smith in the Prudential 
 Balance , page 53, (1609,) “ he charged his chaplain, John 
 Garbrand, as soon as he was dead, to publish to the world, 
 that what he had written, he had written against his own 
 knowledge and conscience, merely to comply with the wishes 
 of the State. And although Garbrand did not do so, through 
 fear, yet he avowed the fact to many at Oxford.” 
 
 In a large Latin work published by the same Bishop forty 
 years after, (Floris Ecclesise Anglican®, page 54, 1654,) 
 he confirms the above account of Jewell’s death bed, and 
 his recantation; which is still further confirmed by his 
 biographer Humphrey, who in his life, page 101, mentions 
 the rumour of his having elapsed into Popery in his dying 
 hour. The same report is also alluded to by Dr. Fulk in 
 his answer to the Censure, fol. 7, edit. 1583. 
 
 In page 123, he says, that the keys of heaven were given 
 as much to the other apostles as to St. Peter. Can he 
 really be serious when he advances such an assertion? The 
 Catholic belief, my readers, is founded on the words of Christ, 
 “ upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of 
 hell shall not prevail against it.” Since its foundation upon 
 the rock, (Peter), is to preserve the Church for ever from 
 destruction, the rock must be durable ; for if it had been re- 
 moved at the death of St. Peter, the Church being deprived 
 uf its foundation would have fallen to the ground, and the 
 inspired prophecies and promises of the eternal duration of 
 Christ’s kingdom would have been annulled. Peter must 
 therefore have successors who inherit his supreme power, 
 unto the consummation of the world. The Catholic faith how- 
 ever, in the supremacy of the successors of St. Peter, does 
 not rest merely on a deduction from scripture ; it appeals to 
 the perpetual practice and belief of the church, with whose 
 teachers Christ promised to remain, “ even to the end of the 
 world,” (Matt, xxviii. 20), to whose pastors he promised 
 “ another Paraclete, that he may abide with them for ever,” 
 (John xiv. 16.), “ and teach them all truth,” (John xiv. 
 13.), even “ all things whatsoever he himself had said unto 
 
APPENDIX. 
 
 127 
 
 them.” (John xvi. 26.) Now the Church has constantly 
 believed that the supremacy of spiritual power was entrus- 
 ted by Christ not only to Peter, but to Peter’s successors, 
 and that they are the Bishops of Rome. Therefore the 
 power which the Pope exercises over the Christian world, 
 he derives from Christ himself. The ground-work of my 
 argument is as follows : 1st, Christ gave to St. Peter, 
 supremacy of authority in his Church. 2d, Christ conferred 
 the same supremacy on the successors of St. Peter ; and 
 these successors are the Bishops of Rome : which I defy 
 Mr. Hook, or any other Protestant to disprove. In page 
 42, he mentions the corruptions of the Church of Rome, 
 taken by him from a book published by the Rev. Blanco 
 White ; which book from the beginning to the end, is no- 
 thing but one heap of calumnies and misrepresentations on 
 the Catholic Church : and which book has been answered 
 in a most masterly manner by the Rev. Mr. Husenbeth, 
 Chaplain to the Rt. Hon. Lord Stafford; to be had at 
 Booker’s, 61, New Bond-street. Apropos it is rather curious 
 to see a Chaplain in ordinary to His Majesty, taking his 
 Theological opinions from an Unitarian Minister, (Mr. 
 Blanco White being now, as is generally believed, an Uni- 
 tarian Minister at Liverpool) he that was once a Catholic 
 Priest, and after that a Protestant Parson. 
 
 As to the celibacy of the Clergy, page 21 in his book, 
 at which he so much reviles, and in his own usual ele- 
 gant manner of expressing himself, heaps all sorts of 
 calumnies on the Catholic Church, all of which are 
 totally void of foundation. The fact is as follows : though 
 marriage legally contracted be honorable in all, we are 
 all sure that celibacy, or a single life, is the perfecter 
 state. If St. Paul has not deceived us, for he writes thus 
 to the Corinthians, “ 1 would (says he,) that all men were 
 even as myself ; but every one has his proper gift of God ; 
 one after this manner, and another after that; I say there- 
 fore to the unmarried and widows, it is good for them to 
 abide even as I : ” (1 Cor. vii. 7, 8.) and “ again, he that 
 is unmarried, (says the apostle), careth for the things which 
 belong to the Lord, how he may please the Lord; but he 
 that is married careth for the things that are of this world, 
 how he may please his wife ;” (1 Cor. vii. 32, 33.) whence 
 he concludes (v. 38,) “ so then, he that givethhis daughter in 
 marriage, does well ; bu the that giveth her not, does better.” 
 This is what induced the Catholic church in ancient times 
 
128 
 
 APPENDIX. 
 
 to lay a restraint on the marriage of persons engaged in 
 Holy orders. And she was directed to it by the very 
 example of the apostles, of whom St. Jerome writes thus: 
 “ The Apostles (says he,) either were virgins, or they who 
 were married, had no commerce with their wives.) He goes 
 on thus, “ Bishops, Priests, and Deacons, are either chosen 
 virgins or widowers, or at least abstain from their wives 
 after Priesthood, as long as they live.” — (Epist. 50.) 
 
 St. Epiphanius writes in the following manner : “ He 
 that lives as a husband with his wife, though he never was 
 twice married, is not admitted by the Church to the order of 
 deacon, priest, bishop, or even sub-deacon. But only he, 
 who either breaks off all commerce with his wife, or is de- 
 prived of her by death.” — (Her. 59.) What authentic 
 witnesses are these of this ancient discipline of the Catholic 
 Church ; but though they had been silent, the canons them- 
 selves, and the decrees of Councils held even before the great 
 Council of Nice, would suffice to proclaim its antiquity. 
 That of Elvire, held under the great Osius, a. d. 300, for- 
 bids churchmen the use of marriage, under pain of being 
 deposed. (Canon 33.) The Council held at Nsecesarea, 
 about the year 315, under Vitalis, bishop of Antioch, forbids 
 priests to marry under the same penalty. (Canon 1.) Nay, 
 by a statute of the Council of Ancyra, held under the same 
 prelate, even deacons were put under the same restraint. 
 In the fifth age, it is manifest from the Council of Chalcedon 
 (Can. 14,) that even those who had received the lesser 
 orders, as readers, were not allowed to marry. 
 
 The great St. Chrysostom, writing to one who had at- 
 tempted to take a wife after making a vow of continency, 
 thus expresses himself: “ I grant that marriage is honour- 
 able, and the bed undefiled ; but it is no longer in your 
 power to embrace that state. Though you a thousand times 
 call what you have done marriage, I maintain it to be adul- 
 tery, and so much the worse in its kind, as God is preferable 
 to human creatures.” — Chrys. ad Theodor. Lapsum. 
 
 It is proper to add, that the second Council of Carthage, 
 held a. d. 428, testifies that the law of the celibacy of the 
 clergy was derived from the apostles. (Second Council 
 Carthag. can. 3.) Among the testimonies of ancient fathers, 
 
 I beg to mention that of Origen, of Alexandria, who was 
 born in the year 185, and holds much the same language : 
 
 “ Illius est solius offerre deo sacrificium, qui indesinenti et 
 perpetuse se devoverit castitati.” — Orig. Homil. xxiii. in 
 numeros. 
 
APPENDIX. 
 
 129 
 
 The learned Fleury says, the first instance he has been 
 able to discover of a Catholic priest who pretended to 
 marry after his ordination, took place in the year 893, in 
 the person of one Algeric, of the village of Yasnau, in the 
 diocese of Chalons. It appears, however, that the people 
 proceeded to violence against him for this unheard of at tempt, 
 and that his Bishop excommunicated him. (Hist. Ecc. I. 
 liv. 20. See also Dissert. Hist, from 600 up to 1100.) 
 
 It appears that the heretics Jovinian and Yigilantius, 
 who declared themselves enemies of continency so early as 
 the 4th century, argued much in the same manner as does 
 the Rev. Mr. Hook against it, and St. Jerome opposed to 
 them the practice and law of the Church, in each of the 
 great patriarchates of Rome, Antioch, and Alexandria, in 
 which none but those who had embraced a life of continency 
 were admitted to orders : “ Episcopi, Presbyteri Deaconi, 
 
 aut Virgines eliguntur, aut vidui aut in seternum pudici.” 
 Ep. 50. 
 
 2 Edw. VI. c. 21, the preamble of this act states : “ That 
 it would be better for the estimation of priests, and also for 
 the administration of the gospel, for them to live chaste, &c.” 
 Queen Elizabeth, in her injunctions to the clergy, dated 
 August 9, 1561, which she caused “ to be entered into the 
 statutes of all the cathedrals and colleges,” made use of the 
 same arguments, as likewise of the “ intent of the founders,” 
 for prohibiting the marriage of the clergy belonging to them. 
 (See the Life of Archbishop Parker, by Strype, p. 107.) 
 She had before, in her general injunctions to the clergy and 
 laity at the beginning of her reign, a. d. 1559, annexed 
 certain conditions of the most disgraceful nature to the 
 marriage of all the clergy. (See Bishop Sparrow’s Collec- 
 tion, p. 77.) For the comtemptuous manner of her treating 
 the aforesaid Archbishop’s wife in the visits she paid him, 
 see the Progress of Elizabeth, by Nicholls, a. d. 1573. 
 It has been partly owing to this disadvantage (allowing the 
 Protestant Clergy to marry) that the Protestants never yet 
 have succeeded in converting a single village of infidels to 
 Christianity; while the Catholics continue every year to 
 mak^ converts by thousands and hundreds of thousands, as 
 they have done in all past ages. See Nouvelles des Missions 
 Orientales, printed by Coghlan, 1797. And I do assert, 
 that those who are called to the exercise of the Christian 
 ministry, should, for the sake of their flocks, lead continent 
 lives. (See Matt. xix. 11.) They can have no other adequate 
 
 K 
 
130 
 
 APPENDIX. 
 
 motive for universally subjecting themselves to this restraint, 
 from the Pope himself to the mere Subdeacon. 
 
 And I must remark, Rev. Sir, and stand positively upon 
 it, that there is no example in antiquity, of any one bishop 
 or priest, that ever was permitted by the Catholic Church 
 to marry after he had received priesthood. I shall add one 
 word more, namely, that the single life of bishops and priests 
 is a matter of ecclesiastical discipline only, and that the 
 Church has always the authority to make it a law, or to 
 dispense with it, as she thinks best, for the good of her 
 children. 
 
 Mr. Hook, page 118 in his book, has the temerity to ad- 
 vance, that heretical baptism is considered by Catholics as 
 invalid. This is another gross calumny of his. My reply 
 is, it is not considered by Catholics as invalid, provided 
 the necessary matter and legitimate form of words are 
 used. 
 
 In page 18, Mr. Hook says, that the Mass is one of the 
 novelties of the Church of Rome. Now I answer by saying, 
 how any person, with the smallest pretensions to theological 
 learning or to theological research, could make such an 
 assertion, to me is inconceivable. Charity obliges me to 
 suppose that ignorance is the real cause of all those gross 
 calumnies and misrepresentations of the Rev. Divine, 
 which abound throughout his book. But to refute this 
 calumny I beg to say, that by the word Mass, we un- 
 derstand the sacrifice of the body and blood of Christ, 
 offered to God in an unbloody manner by the hands of the 
 Priest ; or, what amounts to the same, an external oblation 
 made to God of the body and blood of Christ, under the 
 forms of bread and wine. For it is manifest from the most 
 ancient records of Christianity, innumerable testimonies of 
 the Holy Fathers, ever since the time of the Apostles, by 
 the ancient liturgies of all nations, Latins, Greeks, Nesto- 
 rians, Armenians, Ethiopians, Copths, Goths &c. & c., and 
 even by the confession of Protestants themselves, (for which 
 you may see Dr. Field’s, B. 3 of the Church, chap. 19, p. 
 107), that the Holy Eucharist has always been used in the 
 Church, not only as a sacrament, but as a sacrifice. The 
 difference between Protestants and us, is chiefly this ; we 
 say it is both a sacrifice of thanksgiving, and also of mercy 
 or propitiation, as also the ancient Liturgies, (or acts of 
 Public Service,) represent it. 
 
 This sacrifice of mercy Christ instituted, when he said, 
 
APPENDIX. 
 
 131 
 
 “ this is my body which is given for you, and this cup is 
 the New Testament in my blood, which cup is shed for 
 you.” (Luke xxii. v. 19, 20.) For if the cup be shed for 
 us, that is, for our sins, it must needs be propitiatory, at least 
 by applying to us the fruits of the bloody sacrifice upon the 
 cross. To prove that the Holy Eucharist is a sacrifice, 
 the ancient Greek and Latin Fathers, St. Justin and St. 
 Irenaeus in the second age; St. Chrysostom and St. 
 Augustin in the fourth age ; alledge the words of God in 
 the Prophet Malachy, as they read them; “ From the rising 
 of the sun, to the going down of the same, my name is great 
 among the Gentiles ; and in every place is sacrificed and 
 offered to my name a clean oblation.” (Mai. i. 10, 11.) For 
 a further proof of it, these words of the Psalmist, “ Thou 
 art a Priest for ever, according to the order of Melchisedec,” 
 (Ps. cx. 4), are urged by St. Cyprian, in the third age; 
 St. Jerome, St. Augustin, St. Chrysostom, St. Epiphanius, 
 in the fourth age ; and by St. Isidore, St. Cyril of Alex- 
 andria, and Theodoret, in the fifth age. For as they argue, 
 “ Priests of the order of Aaron, sacrifice beasts, but Mel- 
 chisedec’s sacrifice was bread and wine;” (Gen. xiv. 18.) 
 a figure of the Holy Eucharist, by the daily offering whereof, 
 and the fruits of his passion, Christ is a Priest for ever. 
 
 St. Cyprian calls the blessed Eucharist, a true and full 
 sacrifice (Epis. 63) ; St. Augustin, a true and sovereign 
 sacrifice ( L . 10, de Civ. dei. c. 20); Eusebius, an expiation 
 for all the world ( L . 1, Bern. Ev. c. 10); St. Cyril of 
 Jerusalem, a spiritual sacrifice, an unbloody worship, a pro- 
 pitiatory victim (Cat. Myst. 5). For my own part, I need 
 no other arguments than what I have brought already. For, 
 if the body and blood of Christ, be verily and indeed taken 
 and received by the Faithful, and consecrated by the Priest, 
 it must of necessity follow, that the Priest offers them up 
 verily and indeed upon the altar, and that they are an obla- 
 tion of mercy : for how can Jesus Christ be unacceptable 
 to his Father! or, how could the fruits of his passion be 
 applied more effectually than by his own dear self] 
 
 Nor is the very name of Mass an invention of latter ages; 
 for thus the holy sacrifice was called above fourteen hundred 
 years ago by St. Ambrose : “ I continued the office, I began 
 to say mass.” (L. ii. Epist. xiv.) And St. Leo, whose 
 words are remarkable : “ When the multitude,” says he, 
 “ is so great, let there be no difficulty made to offer the 
 sacrifice oftener than once, for some part of the people must 
 
 k 2 
 
132 
 
 APPENDIX. 
 
 of necessity be deprived of their devotions, if following the 
 custom of saying mass but once, none can offer up the 
 sacrifice but they who come early in the morning.’ , — St. 
 Leo, Epist. ii. ( olim 81,) ad Dioscorum. 
 
 Now, we have the sacrifice of the Holy Eucharist 
 plainly spoken of by the very name of mass. I will here 
 subjoin a passage from the learned Cardinal Bona, who 
 flourished in Rome in the 17th century. He says, “ There 
 is an epistle of Pius the 1st, (acknowledged to be genuine,) 
 written about the year a. d. 166, to the Bishops of Vienne, 
 in the opening of which he thus speaks: ‘ Our sister, 
 Euprepia, as you will recollect, made over her house to the 
 poor, where we dwell and celebrate mass' ” — ( Cone. Gen. 
 tom. i. p. 576. A letter also from Pope Cornelius to another 
 Bishop of the same city, written about the year a. d. 254, 
 remarks : “ that on account of the persecutions, the Chris- 
 tians could not publicly ‘ celebrate mass.’ ” — (Ibid. p. 681.) 
 In the 4th century, St. Ambrose, writing to his sister, 
 mentions the mass, as likewise in his 34th discourse : “ I 
 exhort you to hear mass daily.” — (Tom. v. p. 48.) 
 
 St. Augustin, and other ancient fathers, use the same 
 expression, and they use it as if it were common and gene- 
 rally received at the time. (A. i. Rerum. Liturg. c. iii. p. 
 17, edit. Paris, 1678.) In this 4th century, various councils 
 were held, which, in plain terms, speak of the Christian 
 sacrifice. 
 
 I will now add, that the Church of England is the only 
 Church since the creation, that pretended to true priests 
 and altars without an external sacrifice, this being nothing 
 less than a solecism in religion ; because a priest is properly 
 one whose office it is to offer sacrifice, and the altar is the 
 place on which it is offered. It is true that Christ offered 
 himself but once a bloody sacrifice for us, because he can 
 but once pay the ransom which God demanded ; and it is 
 of this sacrifice of redemption that St. Paul speaks in the 
 whole chapter quoted generally by Protestants. 
 
 But since he is our High Priest for ever according to the 
 order of Melchisedec, he offers himself daily for us in an 
 unbloody manner ; not to redeem us again, but to apply by 
 this, as by other means appointed by him, the price of dur 
 redemption. 
 
 Page 31 of Mr. Hook’s book, I refer my readers to what 
 he says of apostolical traditions. And I reply by say- 
 ing, that the Protestant Church rejects the doctrine of tra- 
 
APPENDIX. 
 
 133 
 
 dition ; yet among her numerous inconsistencies, she grounds 
 a part of her creed upon it, namely, the sanctification of the 
 Sunday, the validity of infant baptism, and, indeed, the 
 ground- work of all her belief ; the authenticity and inspira- 
 tion of her sole, independent rule of faith, the canonical 
 books of the New Testament. For it is traditionary evidence 
 alone that can probably prove, in most cases, the inspiration, 
 and in all the authenticity and integrity of scripture. At 
 one period, the Gospels according to Peter, Thomas, Bar- 
 tholomew, Matthias, the Twelve Apostles, and a variety of 
 other spurious works, were in circulation among Christians. 
 And how, but by the authority of the Church, and the 
 evidence of tradition, were they to be detected among the 
 genuine productions of the inspired disciples of Christ ? In 
 her 29th article, the Church of England quotes St. Augustin 
 for his opinion ; yet she rejects his evidence on other im- 
 portant points. What inconsistency ! 
 
 As to what Mr. Hook says, (of the invocation of saints,) 
 again I repeat, that it is so ancient and so universal, that 
 the Greek Church, together with all the Eastern Churches 
 which separated themselves in the earlier periods of Chris- 
 tianity from the Church of Rome, still maintain it. Luther 
 (the father of the reformation), so far from finding anything 
 idolatrous in the doctrine or practice of the Church on this 
 point, exclaims: “ Who can deny that God works great 
 miracles at the tombs of the saints ! Therefore, with the 
 whole Catholic Church I hold, that the saints are to be 
 honoured and invocated by us.” Such also was the opinion 
 of several most eminent prelates of the Church of England. 
 The Protestant Bishop Montague, especially, says : “ The 
 blessed in heaven do recommend to God in their prayers 
 their kindred friends and acquaintances on earth.” ( Anti- 
 dote , page 20.) “ This is the common voice with the general 
 concurrence, without contradiction, of reverend and learned 
 antiquity, for aught I ever could read or understand ; and I 
 see no cause or reason to dissent from them touching the 
 intercession in this kind.” — (Ibid, page 23.) 
 
 Let me ask now, is it right, just, or charitable, for Pro- 
 testants to accuse Catholics of being idolaters for holding 
 this doctrine ? And I regret that a respectable clergyman 
 like Mr. Hook, should soil his paper with such gross calum- 
 nies and misrepresentations against the Catholic Church, 
 and the religion of the great majority of the Christian world. 
 Let him ponder well on these memorable words of the 
 
134 
 
 APPENDIX. 
 
 learned Protestant, Doctor Whitaker : “ I blush/’ says Dr. 
 Whitaker, “ for the honour of Protestantism, for forgery 
 seems to be peculiar to it, as a particular disease. In vain 
 I look for such a cursed outrage among the disciples of 
 Popery .” — Vindication of Mary, vol. iii. page 54. 
 
 “ I must accept,” says the learned Protestant Divine, 
 Doctor Thorndyke, “ the Church of Rome for a true church, 
 as in the Church of England I have always known it accept- 
 ed ; seeing that there be no question made but that it con- 
 tinueth the same visible body, by the succession of bishops 
 and laws that were first founded by the apostles. There 
 remaineth, therefore, in the Church of Rome, the profession 
 of all the faith necessary for the salvation of Christians to 
 believe either in point of faith or morals.” — Epil. p. 146. 
 
 y E R A X. 
 
 London, 
 
 April 1 5th, 1837. 
 
 APPENDIX, N° 11. 
 
 TO 
 
 His Grace the Lord Archbishop of Canterbury. 
 
 Your Grace’s amiable and Christian-like disposition 
 emboldens me to address this letter to you, on Private Judg- 
 ment ; but in so doing, be assured if I thought for a moment 
 I should give the least offence, I am the last man in the 
 community that would attempt it ; for no one can have a 
 greater respect for your Grace’s many public and private 
 virtues than I have. You never were one of those shallow 
 theologians, whose only hope to gain notoriety (and by that 
 means preferment) was, and is, to calumniate and misrepre- 
 sent every tenet of Catholic doctrine ; no, such was not 
 the course pursued by your Grace. It was not by such 
 means that you obtained the elevated station you now hold 
 on the Episcopal Bench, with so much honour and credit to 
 
APPENDIX. 
 
 135 
 
 yourself, and which you may long enjoy, is my sincere de- 
 sire. Your rule through life always has been to follow the 
 council of the apostle, “ have charity towards all men and 
 the only advice I would presume now to give to my Rev. 
 opponent, (the Rev. Walter Farquhar Hook, M.A., Chap- 
 lain in ordinary to the King,) would be, to take a leaf out 
 of your book, to walk in the footsteps of your Grace, and 
 by so doing he will avoid the ungenerous conduct of calum- 
 niating and misrepresenting the religion of his Catholic 
 fellow-subjects, which he has done with the' most unblushing 
 effrontery, in his book, ( Friendly Advice to Roman Catholics ,J 
 and which, as you will perceive, I have answered. The 
 days of prejudice and illiberality, my Lord Archbishop, are 
 gone by, never more to return. The time is past, when a 
 man would be persecuted for his creed ; no religion ought to 
 be calumniated nor misrepresented, but all should live in 
 peace and brotherly love : but pardon this digression. I shall 
 now proceed with the purport of my letter, as regards private 
 judgment, by remarking, that at that eventful period of the 
 reformation, the authors of these changes introduced the prin- 
 ciple of determining what are the doctrines and precepts which 
 Christ delivered, and commanded all to believe and observe, 
 not by the authority of the Church, but by the judgment 
 of every individual, or by his private interpretation of 
 scripture. The consequence naturally resulting from this 
 principle was, that according to each one’s judgment, or 
 interpretation of scripture, different, and not unfrequently, 
 most contradictory doctrines were held as the revealed doc- 
 trines of Christianity ; and articles of Christian faith which 
 had been uniformly and universally believed as revealed 
 doctrines for fifteen centuries, began to be rejected as not 
 revealed. Still, the divine revelation of a doctrine was 
 considered as a proof of its being true. 
 
 But it was not long before this principle of private judg- 
 ment was carried further, and was made the rule of deci- 
 ding, not merely the question, de facto, whether the doc- 
 trine was revealed or not, but also the question, dejure , 
 whether the doctrine, considered in itself, was true or not. 
 By this system the intrinsic nature of the objects of revealed 
 doctrines was made an object of scientific inquiry and ex- 
 amination ; and the truth or falsehood of revealed doctrines 
 was determined by the judgment formed of the agreement 
 or disagreement of the revealed mystery, with the principles 
 of natural science. Hence nothing was admitted as true in 
 
136 
 
 APPENDIX. 
 
 religion which could not be proved by intrinsic demonstra- 
 tive evidence, or by arguments drawn from self-evident 
 natural principles of reason. Thus mere natural reason was 
 made the only rule of faith. 
 
 Those who consistently followed up this principle, rejected 
 all the mysteries of revealed religion, and chose for them- 
 selves, what they called, a natural religion. They took the 
 name of Deists, professing to believe in the existence of 
 God, and to worship him according to the dictates of nature ; 
 they admitted also the spirituality and immortality of the 
 soul. But they did not long stop here; for, finding in the 
 nature of God and of the spiritual substance of their own 
 souls, mysteries which they could not comprehend, and 
 which they could not explain by the principles of natural 
 science, any more than they could the mysteries of revealed 
 religion, some denied the existence of God, and were 
 called Atheists; others rejected the existence of all spiritual 
 beings, and declared themselves Materialists: nor were 
 they yet come to the last conclusion flowing from their 
 principle; for some, not able to comprehend the intrinsic 
 nature and properties of matter, or to satisfy themselves of 
 its real and external existence, first doubted and then denied 
 it. Hence, by following this principle, of believing nothing 
 that is incomprehensible to the human intellect, or that 
 cannot be intrinsically demonstrated by mere natural reason, 
 men have been led to believe that neither matter or spirit 
 exist in the world, and that not only revelation, but the 
 universe itself, is a mere non-entity. 
 
 Does not this country at present, my Lord Archbishop, 
 exhibit all these descending gradations of error, leading to 
 the abyss of mental darkness ] On the ground of this prin- 
 ciple, do we not see the Lutheran denying tr an substantiation ; 
 and the Calvinist the real presence; the Unitarian denying 
 the trinity ; the Socinian denying the divinity of Christ ; 
 the Deist denying all revealed religion ; the Atheist de- 
 nying the existence of God ; the Materialist denying the 
 existence of spirits ; the Berkleian denying the extramental 
 existence of matter ; the Sceptic doubting of everything ! 
 
 Whoever denies any one mystery, for example, transub- 
 stantiation, because he cannot comprehend it, or because, 
 examining it intrinsically, he cannot reconcile it to the prin- 
 ciples of natural science; if he be consistent to his principle, 
 can find no intermediate point on the grouud of religion at 
 which he can stop between the belief of the whole Catholic 
 
APPENDIX. 
 
 137 
 
 faith and universal scepticism. To admit the existence of 
 a grain of sand, is to admit a mystery. How did this grain 
 come to exist? this is a mystery. Was it by creation? 
 the act of creation is a mystery. Is it uncreated and self- 
 existent ? this is still a greater mystery. Is this grain of 
 sand divisible in infinitum, or not ? Whether you adopt 
 the affirmative or the negative, you find yourself equally- 
 involved in a mystery. How are all the parts of which it 
 is composed, held together so as to form a solid extended 
 body ? this is a mystery. If it consists of an infinite num- 
 ber of extended parts, why is it not infinitely extended ? 
 this is a mystery. If it contain an indefinite number beyond 
 any calculation, how can so many extended parts be crowded 
 and compressed into the small dimensions of a grain of 
 sand? this is a mystery. 
 
 The most satisfactory proof of the divine mission of those 
 who at all times teach and enforce the doctrines and precepts 
 of revelation, is found in the public uninterrupted succession, 
 and in the public and sanctioned exercise of the spiritual 
 authority of that sacred ministry which was established in 
 the beginning by divine sanction, for the purpose of pro- 
 mulgating the revealed law, and which was uniformly taught 
 and enforced the same in all nations and through all nations 
 to the present time. The spiritual authority of this minis- 
 try is, my Lord Archbishop, as well established as the civil 
 authority of any government. No endless speculative dis- 
 cussions are necessary to verify the mission of the legitimate 
 and authorised teachers of the revelation of God; it is veri- 
 fied by public facts. The Deist says, that he sees different 
 sects of Christians, and different modes of worship, and asks, 
 which is in the right? He observes, that truth must be 
 everywhere the same ; that the worship of God should be 
 uniform ; that ever since men have taken it into their heads 
 to make the Deity speak, every people make him speak in 
 their own way. Had they only listened to what the Deity 
 hath said to their hearts, and followed the religion of nature, 
 he concludes, there would have been but one religion on earth. 
 
 It is indeed most certain, my Lord Archbishop, that truth 
 must be everywhere the same ; that the worship of God 
 should be uniform as to its rule and substance. It is certain 
 that there are different sects of Christians professing con- 
 tradictory doctrines, and following irreconcilable modes of 
 worship. This is unhappily nowhere more strikingly verified 
 than in Protestant England. Does not this fact favor and 
 
138 
 
 APPENDIX. 
 
 confirm the prejudices of the Deist against the divine reve- 
 lation of the Christian religion 1 But which of these different 
 sects is in the right 1 They cannot all collectively be in the 
 right. If any particular sect can shew that it is in the right, 
 let it produce its evidences. But truth must be everywhere 
 the same } and the worship of God should be uniform. So it 
 is in the Roman Catholic Church, which publicly teaches 
 and professes the same articles of faith, and offers the same 
 worship to God in all nations. The Deist observes, that 
 since men have believed that God has spoken, every people 
 make him speak in their own way. This is unhappily true of 
 those who interpret the word of God by their own private 
 judgments; but not of those who follow the ancient Chris- 
 tian rule of receiving it from the authority of that ministry 
 which was divinely appointed to teach it to all nations, and 
 which has ever delivered the same revealed doctrines in all 
 ages. From the discrepancy of doctrines and worship ob- 
 served among different sects of Christians, the Deist con- 
 cludes, that if all men had followed the religion of nature, 
 there would have been but one religion on earth. But did not 
 the learned and unlearned of the heathen nations follow the 
 religion of nature before the light of the Christian revelation 
 was conveyed to them? Was there but one religion then 
 amongst them? Was not the number of their imaginary 
 deities almost countless? Had not each deky his particular 
 form of worship, and that often of the most scandalous 
 description ? Such would have been still the polytheism and 
 scandalous worship of the Gentile world, and of these our 
 islands, if they had been left to the religion of nature, if the 
 light and blessings of Christianity had not been diffused over 
 them. 
 
 The Sophist says, if there be but one true religion, and 
 every man be obliged to adopt it, under pain of damnation, 
 it will be necessary to spend our whole lives in the study of 
 all religions, and to examine and compare them with each 
 other, in order to discover that which alone is the true one ; 
 by no means. If in a large city I am in search of an in- 
 dividual, clearly designated to me by his name, and by a 
 full description of his person and character, it may not at all 
 be necessary for me to examine every inhabitant, in order to 
 find the object of my search. As soon as I find the man 
 who bears that particular name, and who in every respect 
 corresponds to the designation and character given, all fur- 
 ther examination is useless. The true religion, and Church 
 
APPENDIX. 
 
 139 
 
 of Christ, in which his revealed doctrines and law are to be 
 found, bear a name that is borne by no other ; and have 
 distinctive and exclusive marks, by which they are easily 
 known ; the name is Catholic, and the distinctive marks, 
 signified by that name, are Unity and Universality . When 
 the Church is discovered, which bears the name of Catholic, 
 and which everywhere teaches one and the same faith, that 
 is the Church of Christ, in which the one true religion is 
 found : all further inquiry may be dispensed with. 
 
 Against this Church, my Lord Archbishop, “ the gates 
 of hell shall not prevail.” Already the Catholic and Apos- 
 tolic Church has subsisted during the long space of eighteen 
 centuries. Empires during this interval have flourished 
 and sunk to ruin; revolutions, accidents, persecutions, ty- 
 ranny, have consigned to oblivion cities, men, monuments, 
 actions and events, which, from their importance, it would 
 once have seemed could never be effaced from human recol- 
 lection. During this time the Church is everywhere dis- 
 cernible, and everywhere majestic; combated it is true, 
 but combated only to triumph ; persecuted only to acquire 
 new glory ; attacked only to display new vigour. Since 
 the period of the reformation, she has been frequently at- 
 tacked by arts unknown to the violence or malice of antiquity ; 
 not only by the mere storm of common persecution, death, 
 torture, banishments, imprisonments ; but we have seen her 
 also attacked by the more ingenious arts of solemn pre- 
 dictions of her downfall ; by prayers and curses ; by the 
 vociferations of uncooth eloquence; by insults, falsehood, 
 and folly. What was the consequence? Some individuals 
 suffered ; but the Catholic and Apostolic Church continued 
 to rear her head in awful greatness : not a stone was moved 
 in the sacred edifice. 
 
 However, notwithstanding the evidences which so power- 
 fully attest the indefectibility of the Catholic Church, we 
 know (such is the nature of human prejudices, and such is 
 the positive assurance of its divine founder,) that she will 
 always experience opposition, and meet with enemies some- 
 where. We expect it: but tracing in the past the cer- 
 tainty of her future victories, we expect it without much 
 solicitude. Catholicity is an edifice built upon a rock, 
 round which the winds may howl, and the tempests heave 
 with furious indignation ! she will be always found, as she 
 has been found hitherto, that the winds may howl in vain, 
 and that the waves which the tempest had excited, will 
 
140 
 
 APPENDIX. 
 
 approach and break harmless at her feet. Every species 
 of attempt to overturn her, will for ever prove impotent — 
 impotent as snow balls thrown against a citadel ; feeble as 
 human weakness against the omnipotence of the divinity. 
 The gates of hell shall not prevail against her. 
 
 I shall now, my Lord Archbishop, in conclusion, remark 
 the inconsistency of the father of the reformation, (Martin 
 Luther,) who, at the beginning of his reformation, professed 
 to teach that the scriptures were by no means obscure, but 
 easy of comprehension to the most illiterate mind, should, 
 two days before his death, discover that they were profound, 
 mysterious, and hard to be understood. These are his ideas, 
 as found in his own hand- writing : “ Let every man bear 
 in mind,’' says Martin Luther, “ that to be able to under- 
 stand the scriptures, he ought, during the space of one 
 hundred years, to have governed the Church, assisted by 
 the prophets Elias, Eliseus, St. John the Baptist, Christ 
 and his Apostles : attempt not to fathom this divine Eneid ; 
 but prostrate in spirit, and adore its wisdom. This is true, 
 16 February, 1546, Martin Luther.” 
 
 These were the words of Luther himself, (the father of 
 the reformation,) intimating thereby, that such was the 
 difficulty and obscurity of the sacred scriptures, so profound 
 their mysteries, so hard to be understood, that no man, 
 during the short period of human existence, could suffici- 
 ently understand them ; consequently, Luther himself was 
 never master of them. Why, therefore, do Protestants 
 blame the Catholic and Apostolic Church for being con- 
 sistent, and who has always declared that the sacred scrip- 
 tures are most hard to be understood, and that the Church 
 alone has a right to interpret them, because our blessed 
 Saviour has promised his Holy Spirit to his Church only, 
 and to remain with her for ever, guiding her into all truth. 
 His blessed Spirit is not promised to each individual, but to 
 his Church. Therefore, the Church alone (guided by the 
 Holy Spirit) is authorised to explain the holy scriptures to 
 her children : and I am, 
 
 My Lord Archbishop, 
 
 With very great respect, 
 
 Your Grace’s most humble servant, 
 
 London , V E R A X. 
 
 April 22, 1837. 
 
APPENDIX. 
 
 141 
 
 POSTSCRIPT. 
 
 I must remark, when our Blessed Lord said, “ Go, teach all 
 nations, baptizing them ; teaching them (all nations) to ob- 
 serve all things whatsoever I have commanded you (Matt, 
 xxviii.) thus, what Christ commanded men to believe and 
 to do in order to be saved, was the same for all nations, and 
 for all ages. He did not command that the doctrine of the 
 Trinity of persons in God should be taught and believed in 
 one country, and the doctrine of Unitarianism in another. 
 He did not command that baptism should be administered 
 in one country, and not in another. But he commanded 
 that the same doctrines should be taught, that the same 
 sacraments should be administered, and the same authority 
 exercised, in all nations and at all times ; consequently, he 
 founded his Church on the basis of unity and universality. 
 Nothing can be more contrary to the true notion of the 
 Church as established by Christ, than the idea that it is 
 composed of different religious societies, one of which may 
 profess its belief in certain doctrines, as articles of faith, 
 which another may reject as damnable errors ; one of which 
 may offer a form of religious worship as holy and acceptable 
 to God, which another may abhor as idolatrous ; one of 
 which may be governed by a spiritual authority, as ordained 
 by Christ, which the other may oppose as a tyrannical 
 usurpation. It cannot be said that two such religious 
 societies have one faith ; that they are one bod}^, animated 
 by one spirit ; that they are one fold, under one shepherd ; 
 in short, that they are the Church of Christ. As well might 
 it be said, that England and France are one kingdom. Why 
 are not the Episcopalian Church of England, and the Pres- 
 byterian Church of Scotland, one Church, but because they 
 differ in doctrine and in the constitutional form of eccle- 
 siastical government, and are not both subject in spiritual 
 matters to the same supreme head. 
 
 But, my Lord Archbishop, this supreme teaching and 
 governing authority, which is fixed in the see of Peter, is 
 the central power which, by its splendour and influence, 
 gives light and motion to the other subordinate ecclesiastical 
 authorities, with their dependencies, and holds all parts of 
 the Church strongly united together, as one regular har- 
 monious system. Every ecclesiastical power that breaks 
 asunder its connection with this centre of unity, ceases to 
 belong to this system; (Jude i. 13.) moving in devious 
 
142 
 
 APPENDIX. 
 
 tracts, and growing more and more obscure and languid as 
 it recedes further from the^central source of its light and 
 action. St. Irenseus, who died about the beginning of the 
 third century, bears testimony to this fact in the following 
 terms : “ The Church, which is propagated over all nations, 
 preserves the faith of Christ with the greatest care. Though 
 various languages are spoken in the world, yet the language 
 of tradition is everywhere one and the same. The doctrine 
 of faith which is taught and believed in the Churches that 
 are founded in Germany, is not different from that which 
 is taught and believed in the Churches which are established 
 in Spain, or in Gaul, or in the East, or in Egypt, or in 
 Lybia, or in the interior parts of the Continent. But as 
 one and the same sun enlightens the whole earth, so does 
 one and the same faith shine on the whole Church, and offer 
 the same heavenly light to all who are desirous of coming 
 to the knowledge of the truth .” — Irenceus Contra Hceres , 
 lib. i. b. 3. 
 
 Now, my Lord Archbishop, let me ask your Grace this 
 one question. How will you reconcile this doctrine of 
 St. Irenseus with the doctrine of Protestants of the present 
 day; for not two out of the many Protestant sects agree 
 together in matters of faith or even in discipline ? 
 
 APPENDIX, N° III. 
 
 TO THE 
 
 Rev. Walter Farquhar Hook, M.A., & c. &c. &c. 
 
 Rev. Sir, 
 
 As you have made (in your book, pages 31 and 
 36,) two most unfounded charges against the Catholic 
 Church ; namely primo, “ that in England at first it was 
 Catholic and pure, but in process of time it became Roman 
 Catholic, that is, the true Catholic Church corrupted by 
 the errors of Romanism.” 2dly, You shamefully accuse the 
 Catholic Church (for its own purposes ,) to have declared 
 
APPENDIX. 
 
 143 
 
 some books of Scripture canonical, which Protestants call of 
 uncertain origin. To refute both these calumnies, therefore, 
 is the object of my addressing this letter to you. Regarding 
 the first charge, I assert without fear of contradiction, that 
 the English Roman Catholics profess the same Faith now, 
 as was preached by St. Augustin above eleven hundred 
 years ago; but the Faith taught by St. Augustin was in all 
 points wherein Protestants and Catholics differ, the very 
 same that St. Fugatius and Damianus had preached to the 
 Britons four hundred years before; therefore, in all con- 
 tested points, the English Roman Catholics profess the same 
 Fahn now, as was preached by those Holy Bishops in 
 the very second age of Christianity, that is, in one of those 
 two primitive ages, in which, according to the common way 
 of speaking among Protestants, the Gospel was preached 
 in its full purity. If this argument be not conclusive, as 
 I conceive it is, point out, Rev. Sir, where the defect lies : 
 but if it be, the Reformed Churches are in a defenceless 
 condition, as teaching in every article, where they differ 
 from the Church of Rome, a doctrine directly contrary to 
 that of the Primitive Church. 
 
 I now come to the second point ; regarding those books of 
 Scripture which are considered by the Catholic Church as 
 canonical, and denied to be such by Protestants, Archdeacon 
 Nares says, that the apocryphal books were received 
 neither by Jews nor Christians before the Protestant Refor- 
 mation. This assertion is perpetually in the mouths of 
 Protestants ; and in the angry discussions which have been 
 going on relative to this subject, each party have shewn 
 how little they knew about the question. 
 
 It may therefore prove acceptable to my readers to be 
 put in possession of what I call the facts of the case, and 
 which are as follows : — 
 
 Among the many differences between Catholics and Pro- 
 testants, one of the most important regards certain portions 
 of Scripture, which the latter refuse to receive as canonical. 
 These parts of the Bible are by them considered as “ Apo- 
 cryphal,” that is, of uncertain origin, and doubtful autho- 
 rity ; while on the other side, the Catholic Church, guided 
 by the testimony of antiquity, and directed by the Spirit of 
 Eternal Truth, delivers these books to her children as the 
 pure word of God. The portions of the Scripture which 
 Catholics admit into the canon, and which Protestants 
 exclude from it, are as follows : — the Book of Wisdom,-— 
 
144 
 
 APPENDIX. 
 
 the Book of Ecclesiasticus, — the History of Tobias, — the 
 History of Judith, — and the first and second book of the 
 Macchabees. To these we must add the latter chapters of 
 Esther, some chapters of Daniel, and the Prophecy of 
 Baruch. According to the sixth of the Thirty-nine Articles, 
 the English Church “ doth read these books for example of 
 life and instruction of manners, but yet doth not apply them 
 to establish any doctrine.” The Catholic Church not only 
 orders her children to read them for the instruction of life 
 and manners, but also employs them to establish certain 
 articles of doctrine ; which articles, however, can be abun- 
 dantly proved from other sources. 
 
 Christianity, when first established, was subjected to 
 almost incessant persecutions, and its followers were com- 
 paratively few in number and widely scattered over the 
 whole world. Under such circumstances each particular 
 Church had scarcely any opportunities of consulting the 
 other Churches, and the reader of ecclesiastical history will 
 perceive that in those things which related to faith, as well 
 as in those which regarded morals, the belief both of the 
 people and the bishops was guided in most cases by the 
 tradition of the particular Church to which they belonged. 
 Now as many portions of the Scripture were addressed 
 only to particular Churches, it is not wonderful that the 
 Bishops of other Churches should have remained ignorant 
 of their canonicity ; and as there were many writings which 
 appeared scriptural, but which were really apocryphal, it is 
 quite natural that the pastors of particular churches should 
 have held different opinions as to a mere matter of fact : for 
 no one ever asserted that particular bishops, or particular 
 fathers, were incapable of mistaking a fact that could not be 
 ascertained without considerable difficulty. It appears, 
 therefore, most reasonable, that in determining the matter, 
 we should look rather to the decision of the Fathers when 
 assembled in council, than to their opinions when separated 
 from each other ; for to say nothing of the theological argu- 
 ment in favour of CEcumenical Councils, the principles even 
 of logic demonstrate, that as a motive of judgment, the tes- 
 timony of individuals is fallible ; but the testimony of many 
 men, assembled from different places, and guided by different 
 feelings, is conclusive. 
 
 The Council of Laodicea is one of the first that appears 
 to have turned their attention to this subject; for though 
 Jerome seems to say that the Council of Nice approved of 
 
APPENDIX. 
 
 145 
 
 one of those books which our adversaries reject, it must be 
 allowed that we have no authentic copy of their decision. 
 The Fathers at Laodicea, in their list of canonical books, 
 included only one of the disputed books of the Old Testa- 
 ment ; and Protestants, though on every other occasion they 
 refuse to pay any sort of attention to the decisions of Coun- 
 cils, are particularly fond of quoting the fifty-ninth canon of 
 Laodicea as a most conclusive argument in their favour. 
 I do not, however, see that the argument has any strength ; 
 for though the pious canons of this Council have always 
 entitled it to great respect, it was still merely a provincial 
 Council, consisting of a very small number of bishops, and 
 of course could only bear testimony to tradition of one small 
 province of the Universal Church. Moreover, the Council 
 merely gave a list of those books, the canonicity of which 
 was at that time clearly ascertained ; and if it passed over 
 some of those which we receive, it was because their authen- 
 ticity had not been, at that period, and in that place, finally 
 determined. It is also particularly worthy of remark, that 
 though Protestants object this Council to us, they do not 
 seem to think very highly of it themselves; and in point of 
 fact, we pay more respect to its authority than our adver- 
 saries are disposed to do, even on this subject . We receive 
 every one of the books mentioned at Laodicea, and if we 
 add to the number, it is because we think that the general 
 tradition was not then sufficiently ascertained. The Pro- 
 testants reject the Prophecy of Baruch, which this Council 
 inserted in their canon, and they receive the Apocalypse, 
 which the Council refused to admit. This species of incon- 
 sistency is, however, very common with our adversaries; 
 for I have remarked, that there is scarcely one ancient 
 authority which they quote, that does not differ from them 
 with regard to some particular books. 
 
 The Council of Carthage was held about thirty years 
 after that of Laodicea, and is undoubtedly one of the most 
 respectable that has ever met. The bishops of the great 
 and enlightened Church of Africa were assembled, and 
 Aurelius, the celebrated Archbishop of Carthage, presided. 
 What must add very considerably to the authority of this 
 Council is, that we have every reason to believe that the 
 great and learned Augustin was present; it is, at all events, 
 admitted, that he approved of its proceedings in every 
 respect, and particularly with reference to the canon of the 
 Scripture. When the Fathers assembled at Laodicea, the 
 
 L 
 
146 
 
 APPENDIX. 
 
 Church was scarcely recovered from the previous persecu- 
 tion ; but when the Council of Carthage was held, she had 
 enjoyed some years of repose, and the different national 
 Churches had availed themselves of the opportunity of com- 
 paring their respective traditions: and as the canon of 
 Scripture was a fact that, according to the Protestants them- 
 selves, must be decided by the testimony of historical tradi- 
 tion, the Council of Carthage possessed an advantage in 
 this respect to which the Council of Laodicea had no claim 
 whatever. Accordingly we find that this Council extended 
 the list of canonical books, by adding those whose authen- 
 ticity had been fully ascertained by inquiries made among 
 the other Churches; and the 47th canon of the Council of 
 Carthage contains precisely the same books which the 
 Council of Trent received about twelve hundred years after. 
 It is to be remarked, that the acts of the national synod of 
 Africa were afterwards confirmed by an (Ecumenical Coun- 
 cil held in Constantinople. 
 
 In a few years after the Council of Carthage, Exuperius, 
 bishop of Toulouse, wrote to Innocent the First, in order 
 to learn what were the canonical books ; and the Pope in 
 his answer gives the very same list which had been ap- 
 proved of at Carthage, and which we receive at the present 
 day. And Pope Gelasius, towards the close of the fifth 
 century, having assembled a Council of seventy bishops, 
 published the same canon which Innocent had previously 
 settled. Thus we find that the tradition of the Western 
 Church on this subject was complete, so early as the begin- 
 ning of the fifth century. 
 
 The decisions of the Council of Carthage, of Innocent the 
 First, and of the Roman Council under Gelasius, seem to 
 have produced unanimity on this subject in the Western 
 Church ; for we do not find that any other Council thought 
 it necessary to publish any list of the canonical books, until 
 the Council of Florence assembled in the early part of the 
 fifteenth century. In the interim, a few divines occasionally 
 expressed a doubt of the perfect canonicity of some of the 
 books, and by doing so at that time , they did not thereby 
 break the unity of the Church; for though the Fathers of 
 the preceding Councils had published their decisions on this 
 point for the instruction of the faithful, they had not pub- 
 lished them in such a form as to oblige all Christians to 
 believe them under pain of sin. It was sufficient to let the 
 people know what books the Church approved of; but it 
 
APPENDIX. 
 
 147 
 
 was not as yet necessary to render it imperative on all to 
 believe in their divine origin, particularly as those who 
 doubted of their perfect canonicity had no doubt of the pro- 
 priety of reading them with all the attention and respect 
 that was due, as well to their venerable antiquity, as to the 
 holy doctrine which they contained. 
 
 The Council of Florence is considered by Catholics as 
 (Ecumenical, and was assembled by Eugene the Fourth 
 for the purpose of effecting a reconciliation between the 
 Eastern and Western Churches. Besides the Pope and 
 the Bishops of the Latin Church, it was also attended by 
 the Emperor of the East, by the Patriarch of Constanti- 
 nople, and by many other bishops and abbots of the Greek 
 Church. The principal points of difference between the 
 Greeks and Latins were discussed with great energy during 
 twenty-five sessions ; and we may conclude that there was 
 no difference as to the canonical scriptures, from the fact of 
 there having been no discussion whatever on this point. It 
 would have been, therefore, unnecessary for the Council to 
 have come to any decision on the subject, were it not that 
 towards the close of their proceedings, a number of deputies 
 arrived from the Armenians, who then formed a large schis- 
 matical Church. The patriarchs of these people came in 
 order to have their Church once more united to the great 
 body of Christianity ; and this having been accomplished, 
 the Council ordered a decree to be drawn up for their in- 
 structions. In this document we find a list of the canonical 
 books, which corresponds precisely with the list which had 
 been published by the Council of Carthage, and which has 
 since been republished by the Council of Trent. The Council 
 did not think it necessary to frame this list in such a way 
 as to render the belief of its accuracy a necessary article of 
 faith. 
 
 It is known that many of the Greeks wIiq attended the 
 Council, relapsed into schism after returning into their own 
 country ; and that they are still separated from the unity 
 of the Catholic Church. It is, however, very remarkable, 
 that though they differ from us in other points, and though 
 they deny the supremacy of the Pope, they continue to 
 preserve the same canon of Scripture which we possess ; 
 and our adversaries have never been able to prevail upon 
 the Greeks to conform to the Protestant doctrine in this, or 
 indeed in any other point. This coincidence could not have 
 arisen from any influence we had over them, nor for any 
 
 l 2 
 
148 
 
 APPENDIX. 
 
 love they bear towards our Church, for though they approach 
 much nearer to the Catholic faith than any other sect, it is 
 quite notorious that a strong aversion for the Western 
 Church is a very general feeling among them. How then 
 does it happen that they receive the same canonical scrip- 
 tures'? From the fourth to the ninth century we find nothing 
 but jealousy and dislike on their part towards the Latin 
 Church. From the ninth century to the present day, the 
 two Churches have been openly opposed to each other; and 
 most certainly the Greek Church would not willingly agree 
 with us in the canon of the Scripture, if they could at all 
 avoid doing so. But the force of truth is too great, — they 
 cannot reject those books which their own most ancient 
 tradition obliges them to receive. 
 
 The early reformers rejected or admitted as it best suited 
 their purposes ; at least, they seldom rejected a book until 
 it had been quoted against them. When the epistle of 
 Saint James was quoted against Luther, he called it an 
 “ epistle of straw ;” and when a verse of the epistle to the 
 Hebrews was objected to Calvin, he answered the objection 
 by rejecting the entire book. Sometimes, indeed, they were 
 condescending enough to admit the authority of the book ; 
 but Luther had always in reserve a most amusing rule for 
 interpreting the Scripture backwards, which served as an 
 infallible recipe for answering all objections. He prescribes 
 as follows : “ Let this be your rule ; — when the Scripture 
 commands you to do a good wnrk, understand it in this 
 sense, that it forbids you to do a good work, because you 
 cannot do any good work.” 
 
 Luther refused to receive some of the Catholic epistles, 
 the Church of England receives them all; — Calvin rejected 
 the Apocalypse and the epistle to the Hebrews, the Church 
 of England, and even the Scotch Calvinists, have adopted 
 into the canon both of these books. 
 
 The following is the authentic declaration of the Estab- 
 lished Church on the canon of the Scripture : — “ In the 
 name of the Holy Scripture, we do understand those canon- 
 ical books of the Old and New Testament of whose authority 
 % was never any doubt in the Church.” (Art. 6th of the 39.) 
 On this rule for deciding the canon of scripture, I have but 
 two observations to make. First, the rule is not a good 
 one. 2d. The Established Church has notoriously and in 
 many instances departed from the very rule which they have 
 themselves established. 
 
APPENDIX. 
 
 149 
 
 First, the rule is not good, because the doubts that may 
 have existed of the canonicity of any book is not a sufficient 
 reason for rejecting it. I have shown in the second section 
 that the state of the Church for the first three centuries 
 enabled us to explain most clearly the cause of these doubts, 
 and that the impossibility of establishing any extensive 
 communication between the different churches, rendered 
 doubts almost unavoidable. A question on this subject is 
 often proposed by Catholic theologians : — “ Whether a book 
 of Scripture which had been once rejected by the Church, 
 could afterwards be received by the same Church ] ” To 
 this the answer is perfectly plain : — If they could declare 
 that any particular book was not divinely inspired, and that 
 it was only the work of man, that book could never after- 
 wards be received; because, as the decision of the Church 
 must be always true, so her doctrine must necessarily be 
 immutable. But if the Church should think that the inspi- 
 ration of any book was doubtful, and should on account of 
 that doubt decline inserting it in the canon, the same book 
 may be afterwards received, provided that the doubt be 
 removed, and that the Church becomes certain of its inspi- 
 ration. 
 
 For instance, the Council of Laodicea would not receive 
 the Apocalypse, but when the tradition became better 
 known, the Councils of Carthage, Rome, Florence, and 
 Trent received it; and the great Sir Isaac Newton says, 
 “ that there is not one book in the Bible which has a more 
 complete chain of evidence to prove its canonicity.” — Yet 
 this book we should reject, according to the rule laid down 
 by the Established Church ; for there have been doubts of 
 it in the Church, and at one time, very serious doubts 
 indeed. Therefore, in the first place, the rule adopted by 
 the Established Church is in its own nature erroneous. 
 
 2nd. — The Established Church has in many instances 
 notoriously violated the very rule it has adopted on this 
 subject. It is scarcely necessary to prove this, for every 
 person that is at all acquainted with biblical literature, will 
 recognise in the canon of the Established Church many 
 books “ whose authority has been often doubted of in the 
 church; ” for intance, Eusebius the historian (book 4. ch. 
 26,) Athanasius, (Ep. 39,) Gregory Nazienzen, (Carm. 33,) 
 not only doubt of the part of Esther which the English 
 church receives, but have even excluded it altogether from 
 
150 
 
 APPENDIX. 
 
 their catalogues ; and Luther himself had repeatedly ex- 
 pressed his wish to have the whole of Esther rejected. As 
 to the New Testament, it is notorious that the epistle of 
 Saints John, Peter, James, and Jude, the epistle of St. Paul 
 to the Hebrews, and the Apocalypse, had been repeatedly 
 doubted of in the church; yet the English Protestants 
 receive every one of them ; and they still have the modesty 
 to assure us, that by scripture “ they understand those books 
 of the Old and New Testament, of whose authority was 
 never any doubt in the church.” I have read the 6th of the 
 39 articles at least a hundred times, in order, if possible, to 
 discover some way of reconciling it with truth or with 
 common sense; and verily, unless there be some mystery 
 concealed under the words, I cannot understand it in any 
 sense that will deliver the framers of the Established Reli- 
 gion from the charge, either of gross and childish ignorance, 
 or of deliberate and notorious falsehood. Their ignorance 
 of antiquity might excuse them in some small degree, but 
 in the name of wonder, how could they avoid knowing that 
 the Lutherans and Calvinists were not only “ doubting,” 
 but rejecting these books at the very moment that they 
 themselves were receiving them! I cannot explain the 
 matter, for I do not chuse to impute, even to the English 
 reformers, so senseless a crime as a clumsy and notorious 
 falsehood. It is however perfectly evident, that in no way 
 can they be acquitted of the most palpable inconsistency. 
 
 As then the Established Church has not followed even 
 the erroneous rule which she had adopted for herself, it may 
 be asked — what rule then did she follow 1 My answer is 
 simply, that I have never been able to discover by what rule 
 she was guided. Perhaps, some of her champions would 
 point out to us even one Council, or even one ancient autho- 
 rity, which agrees, in all respects, with the canon of the 
 Established Church. 
 
 The Fathers quoted by Catholics giv e positive testimony ; 
 — the testimony given by those on whom Protestants rely, 
 is merely negative. The former, for instance, state posi- 
 tively, that the Book of Wisdom is the Word of God; the 
 latter do not deny this, but they say there are some doubts 
 of its canonicity, and therefore they omit it in their cata- 
 logues. Now, in my mind, the former opinion is of much 
 more weight than the latter : because, those who thus omit 
 the Book of Wisdom, might very naturally have been 
 
APPENDIX. 
 
 151 
 
 ignorant of the reasons for receiving it. Those who received 
 it, must have had some grounds upon which to found their 
 belief. 
 
 Others of the Fathers omit these books which we receive, 
 and give no reason for their omission. The mere fact of 
 not mentioning the Book, only proves that they were 
 unacquainted with some facts which the others knew ; but 
 by no means proves that the books must therefore be re- 
 jected. Jerome omitted the Epistle to the Hebrews in his 
 list ; but surely, it does not follow that Augustin could not 
 have had sufficient reasons for receiving it, as he did. Even 
 Protestants agree with us in thinking that Jerome was mis- 
 taken on this point, for they also receive the Epistle. 
 
 The authority of the Church, after all, is the only plain 
 and certain way of determining the canonicity of Scripture. 
 I have already shewn, that every other criterion possesses 
 more or less of uncertainty, and not one of them is suffi- 
 ciently plain; for where even the most learned cannot 
 agree, it is impossible that the generality of mankind could 
 come to any decision. Yet the rule, in order to be good, 
 should be fitted for all ; and the only rule that will suit all 
 capacities, is the authority of the Church. It is evident, 
 that this rule is at least a very plain one ; the declaration 
 of the Church cannot be mistaken ; and the Church herself 
 is well known. She is “a city seated upon a mountain 
 which cannot be hid.” She is "a mountain upon the top of 
 mountains,” which, asJ3t. Augustin says, all must discover, 
 because it is impossible to mistake what is so eminently 
 conspicuous. There can be, therefore, no rule more plain 
 at all events than her declaration. 
 
 Your obedient servant, 
 
 Y E R A X. 
 
 POSTSCRIPT. 
 
 Luther, speaking of the Bible, very justly says, “ but for 
 the Papists we should have known nothing at all about the 
 Bible.” And I beg leave, Rev. Sir, to say, that there is 
 no restriction whatever to Catholics reading or circulating 
 
152 
 
 APPENDIX. 
 
 the scriptures, numerous editions being to be found every- 
 where. False and bad translations of the Word of God, 
 are of course not countenanced by the Catholic Church. 
 The great Reformer Zuinglius, calls Luther, “ a manifest 
 corrupter and falsifier of God’s word, who erased out such 
 places of Holy Writ as were against him.” — (Lib. de Sacra , 
 fol. 124.) 
 
 Two Catholic German versions of the Scriptures were in 
 existence in 1467, a third edition appeared in 1473, a fourth 
 edition, Nuremberg, in 1478, a fifth edition, Augsburgh, 
 in 1479, and eight editions of this version appeared before 
 Luther’s edition. These editions make evident the activity 
 of the Catholic Church before the Reformation, in pub- 
 lishing the Bible. 
 
 The first Protestant Bible printed in England was in 
 1535, by Coverdale, began by Tindal in 1526, in the reign 
 of Henry the Eighth ; not till sixteen versions and editions 
 had been given in Germany. A Spanish version was 
 given in 1478, and printed with leave of the Inquisition. 
 Scios’ translation, (Bishop of Segovia,) in folio, with plates, 
 is considered a chef-d’oeuvre. The Bible by Fust and 
 Gurtemberg, was printed in 1540. Italian versions ap- 
 peared at Venice, in 1471, 1477 ; at Rome, in 1471 ; French 
 Catholic versions appeared in 1478, in 1484, and in 1487 : 
 this last version went through fourteen editions ; yet Pro- 
 testants in this Country would arrogate to themselves the 
 exclusive privilege of free liberty to peruse the Bible. 
 
 The first printed English Catholic version of the Bible, 
 was a Testament in 1582, and a Bible in 1600. Since that 
 period, we have had many Catholic editions in English. 
 
 Catholic versions of the Bible in manuscript, existed in 
 1290 ; the oldest known Spanish version is of 1210, the 
 Italian, 1270. 
 
APPENDIX. 
 
 153 
 
 APPENDIX, N° IV. 
 
 To my Readers. 
 
 I think it right to address this short letter to you, 
 regarding the rule of faith, as the conclusion of this work, 
 and I will lay down three fundamental maxims, the truth 
 of which I believe no rational Christian will dispute. 
 
 1st. Our Saviour, in establishing a religion here on earth, 
 to which all the nations of it were invited, (Matt, xviii. 19,) 
 left some rule or method by which those persons who sin- 
 cerely seek for it, may certainly find it. 
 
 2d. This rule or method must be secure and never failing, 
 so as not to be ever liable to lead a rational sincere inquirer 
 into error, impiety, or immorality of any kind. 
 
 3rd. This rule or method must be universal, that is to 
 say, adapted to the abilities and other circumstances of all 
 those persons for whom religion was intended; namely, the 
 great bulk of mankind. By adhering to these undeniable 
 maxims, we shall quickly and clearly discover the method 
 appointed by Christ, for arriving at the knowledge of the 
 truth which he has taught ; in other words, the rule of faith. 
 This is the short and satisfactory method of composing re- 
 ligious differences : to discuss them all separately would be 
 an endless task ; whereas this method reduces them to a 
 single question. 
 
 I shall here beg leave to remark, that our Saviour wrote 
 no part of the New Testament himself, and gave no orders 
 to his apostles to write it ; and I add also, that if he had 
 intended it to be, together with the Old Testament, the sole 
 rule of religion, he would have contrived rules for their 
 being able to follow it ; knowing, as he certainly did, that 
 ninety-nine in every hundred, or rather, nine hundred and 
 ninety-nine out of every thousand, in different ages and 
 countries, would not be able to read at all, and much less 
 comprehend a page of the sacred writings; yet no such 
 means were provided by him, nor has he so much as enjoined 
 it to his followers in general to study letters. 
 
 The Protestant writers, Kett and Robison, have shewn 
 how the principle of private judgment tends to undermine 
 Christianity; and Archdeacon Hook, in his Charge, shews 
 by an exact statement of capital convictions, in different 
 
 M 
 
154 
 
 APPENDIX. 
 
 years, that the increase of immorality has kept pace with 
 that of the Bible societies. 
 
 The learned Protestant Divine, Dr. Balguy, in combating 
 the Dissenters, says as follows: “ It has long been held 
 among them, that Scripture only is the rule and test of all 
 religious ordinances, and that human authority is to be al- 
 together excluded. Their ancestors, I believe, would have 
 been not a little embarrassed with their own maxim, if they 
 had not possessed a singular talent of seeing everything in 
 Scripture which they had a mind to see ; almost every Sect 
 could find it there, its own peculiar form of church govern- 
 ment, imposing on their own imaginations, they believed 
 themselves to be executing the decrees of heaven.” — (Dis- 
 course vii. 126.) “ Indeed it is so clear, that the canon of 
 
 scripture is built on the tradition of the Church, that the 
 most learned Protestants, with Luther himself, have been 
 forced to acknowledge it, in terms almost as strong as those 
 of the well known declaration of St. Augustin.” — Hooker 
 Eccl. Polit. iii. Dr. Lardner , in Bishop Watson's Col. vol. 
 ii. p. 20. 
 
 “ We are obliged,” says Luther, “ to yield many things 
 to the Papists, that with them is the word of God, which 
 we have received from them ; otherwise we should have 
 known nothing about it.” — Comment on John xvi. 
 
 That Great Doctor of the Church, St. Augustin, declares: 
 “ I should not believe the gospel itself, did not the authority 
 of the Catholic Church oblige me to do so.” — Contra Epist. 
 Fundam. And again this great Saint (St. Augustin), says: 
 “ If you think that you have been sufficiently tossed about, 
 and wish to see an end to your anxieties, follow the rule of 
 Catholic discipline, which comes down to us through the 
 apostles from Christ himself, and which shall descend from 
 us to the latest posterity.” — De Utilit. Cred. viii. 
 
 Relying upon the judgment of my readers between the 
 merits of this reply, and the charges set forth in the Rev. 
 Mr. Hook’s late publication, “ Friendly Advice to Roman 
 Catholics,” 
 
 I have the honour to be 
 My Readers, 
 
 Your obedient Servant, 
 
 YERAX. 
 
 London, 
 May 1 , 1837. 
 
APPENDIX. 
 
 155 
 
 POSTSCRIPT. 
 
 In the course of a short time, Yerax will publish a small 
 work, containing a Series of Letters, addressed to the Rev. 
 Walter Farquhar Hook, M.A., Chaplain in Ordinary to 
 the King, proving to a demonstration, the utter impossibility 
 for any man of common sense to place belief in the Scrip- 
 tures if he rejects the authority of the Church ; for it is 
 clear, standing upon human evidence, no copy can be free 
 from the guilt of corruption. “ He that will not hear the 
 Church, let him be unto thee as a Heathen or a Publican.” 
 
 In now taking my leave of the Rev. W. F. Hook, I cannot 
 refrain from remarking, how much more honourable and 
 Christian is the conduct of another Clergyman of the Church 
 of England, than that of this Chaplain in Ordinary to the 
 King. 
 
 The Rev. Mr. Bird, instead of calling in calumny and 
 misrepresentation to keep alive the prejudices already too 
 fatally enkindled against Catholics, eloquently exhorts those 
 who differ from us, " to examine our tenets accurately, and 
 expose them in such spirit and temper as may convince us 
 that their hearts’ desire is to convert us if we are in error. 
 If,” says he, “ this mode does not succeed, our own personal 
 experience, and the history of our own country, might serve 
 to convince us of the futility of any other. It is in vain 
 that our statute book has been disgraced by edicts more 
 ingeniously cruel and absurdly oppressive than ever dis- 
 graced the codes of imperial or Papal Rome. It is in vain 
 that parents were compelled to surrender the nurture and 
 education of their children, and the child bribed to rebel 
 against his parents, to expel them from their homes, and 
 consign them and their helpless families to beggary and 
 famine. In vain have we attainted as a traitor, the minister 
 for performing at the altar the established offices of his re- 
 ligion, and branded as a felon the pious devotee who assisted 
 at the solemn service. You have beaten them down to the 
 earth, but they have risen up from it with antsean energy 
 and hydra-like fecundity. They have sprung up from your 
 ungenerous oppression, and multiplied numbers to shame 
 and amaze you. But there is no particular in which we do 
 so much injustice to our brethren of the Romish communion, 
 and eventually to ourselves, as by the misrepresentation of 
 their tenets and principles.” See the excellent Sermon of 
 
156 
 
 APPENDIX. 
 
 the Rev. G. Bird, A.M., before the Judges at Appleby, 
 August 12th, 1825. 
 
 How much more honourable, I repeat, is the recommen- 
 dation of the Rev. Mr. Bird, than the whole design of the 
 Rev. W. F. Hook, in the work which I have hastily re- 
 viewed. His whole end and object appears to have been 
 to keep open and to widen those unhappy breaches which 
 every charitable Christian would gladly see closed for ever; 
 and this end is pursued throughout, as it has been my un- 
 pleasant task to show, by misrepresentations, calumnies, 
 and base insinuations, not to be equalled by any work that 
 ever came before me from the pen of' our prejudiced ad- 
 versaries. 
 
 FINIS. 
 
 W. Davy, Printer, Gilbert-street, Grosvenor-square.