arri'ttii

¦

^ 1

it KMtmil ¦'¦iOJI

' '!. iiil;!)

-mtiuw

';i''iuu;ini;,.;ii,,'si:>s,;j;'

THE END OF CONTROVERSY."
CONTROVERTED.

EEFUTATION

3fiilnn'3 "€nh d! Contromrsq,"

IN A SERIES OF LETTERS

A.DDBBSSED TO

THE MOST REVEREND FRANCIS PATRICK KENRICK,
SoDiaa dCatjialit aiclilirajjnp ot lultiiBow.

BY JOHN H. HOPKINS, D. D., LL. D.,
a3is|)oj) of ITcnnont.
VOL. IL

NEW-YORK :
PUDNEY & RUSSELL, No. 79 John-Strbkt.
STANFORD & SWORDS, 637 Broadway.
1854.

Entered, according to Act ot Congress, in the year 1854, by
PUDNEY & RUSSELL,
in the Clerk's Office of the District Conrt>of the United States for the Southern
District of New- York.

PuDNBY * Russell, Printers, 79 John-Street, N. T.

TABLE OF CONTENTS.
VOL. n.

LETTER XXV.

The validity of the Anglican Succession — ^The Unchurching dogma
falsely assumed by Jlilner — Episcopacy considered by the Reformers
and other standard divines of the Church of England as nfecessary, not
to the being but the well-being of the Church — The necessity of circum
stances — Analogy of the Ten Tribes — ^Milner's charge that the Church of
England denies the validity of lay-baptism — Proved to be false — The
consecration of Archbishop Parker — Cranmer's private opinion of no
consequence — The Jfagg's Head fable — The Episcopal character of
Bishop Barlow doubted — The doubt refuted — The whole of the four
consecrators of Archbishop Parker validly consecrated — The original
record — The validity and regularity of this consecration acknowledged
by Fleury, Courayer, and Lingard, all Romanists — Milner's falsehoods
— The mission of the English bishops denied — Milner claims that mis
sion is voided by idolatry — Corruption does not abolish lawful author
ity — The analogy of the bride — Duty of faithful sons towards a faith
less mother. Pp. 3 — 12. LETTER XXVL
The story of Pope Joan — Blondel and Bayle — ^Examination of the
evidence for the story — Similar cases of Eugenia, Theodora, and the
Chevalier d'Eon — Evidence of the contemporary Anastasius, the libra
rian — Hincmar, Nicholas, Ado, the Bertinian Annalist, Photius, and
Metrophanes — Agreement to suppress the fact — Ko conflict between
the witnesses — Bower's inference from Hincmar inconclusive — Evi-

iv Contents.

dence of the dates uncertain — Positive evidence for the story — Marianus
Sootus, Sigebertus, Martinus Polonus — A Romanist should not doubt
the truth of oral tradition — Local memory may suffice without a writ
ten record — No possible motive for fabricating such a story two hun
dred years after the time — The first writer of the story an honest and
faithful monk — No Protestants to gratify — The statue erected — The
processions avoided the spot — The perforated chair — General acquies
cence for centm-ies in the truth of the story — Theodoric of Nerin —
Another statue of Pope Joan in the Cathedral of Siena — Still seen in
the time of Baronius — Metamorphosed into Pope Zachary — Removed
and broken up before W*i1 — Testimony of Antonius Pagi — Testimony
of St. Antoninus, Archbishop of Florence — Never questioned till the
time of Pius II. — Sarau and Blondel — Why Pope Urban did not turn
away from the place — ^Summary of the argument on both sides — ^Pre
ponderance of evidence in favor of the truth of the stoiy — No theologi
cal importance to be attached to it — Inconsistency of Milner in scout
ing the story of Pope Joan, while he pretends to believe in the absur
dity of the Nagg's-Head ordination. Pp. 18 — 23.

LETTER XXVII.
Missions. — Success or failure of modern missions has no proper place
in theological controversy — Rapid spread of Mahometanism — Rapid
progress of the Reformation — Mormonism — Milner's character of Romish
missionaries — Carnal weapons employed to propagate Romanism —
Policy of Jesuit missionaries — Milner's objection that there are no mar
tyrs among Protestant missionaries — The apostles did not court mar
tyrdom — St. Augustine, of Canterbury, no martyr — The monks of Ban
gor — The Jesuit martyrdoms in distant lands, if true, probably resulted
from the same causes that produced their expulsion in Europe — Their
compromises with heathen idolatries — Dissipation of their boasted con
quests — Expulsions, dissolution, and restoration of the order  Milner's
misrepresentation of the Society for the Propagation of the Gospel, and
the Moravian missions — British and Foreign Bible Society — Work of
the S. P. G. since its foundation, in lYOl, in the colonies of North
America, the West Indies, Newfoundland, Guinea, Sierra Leone, the
Canadas, Cape Breton, New Brunswick, New South Wales, and Nor
folk Island— Also in India, China, and Australia, though Milner had
heard nothing of its doings— Permanency of the work— Operations of
the Bible Society— The Scriptures early translated in the primitive
Church — Rome has done comparatively nothing of this ip modern days

Contents.

— Summary of the defence of the Church of England — The surest and
tlie safest way of salvation. Pp. 24 — 35.

LETTER XXVm.
The true oiEoe of the Church as the interpreter — Milner assumes it
to be impossible that she should inculcate idolatry, superstition, or
other error — This argument refuted — Analogy of the Church of Israel
— Rome both a true Church and a false Church — Milner's distinction
between articles of faith and scholastic opinions — Authorized liturgy
and unauthorized devotions — This rule must work both ways — It neu
tralizes Milner's attacks on the Churdi of England — He declares that
the divines of the Church of England did not believe their own asser
tions — Archbishop Wake and Dr. Dupin — The whole story — Tlie con
troversial works of English writers said never to unsettle the faith of
Romanists — ^Because they are not allowed to read them — Implicit con
fidence in their priests — Protestant violence procures some converts to
Rome — A thousand times as many have left Rome for England — Euro
pean Romanists emigrating to America — Dr. Milner preaching " Thou
shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor I" Pp. 36 — i2.

LETTER XXLX.
Examination of the doctrines rejected by the Church of England at
the Reformation — Invocation of Saints — Implied omnipresence of the
Saints — ^MUner's explanation, from God's omnipotence — His statement
of the Roman doctrine — He withholds the real doctrine of Rome —
This fully stated from their books of devotion — True Piety, the Prayer
of St. Bernard, the Rosary of the Blessed Virgin — Tlie Assumption and
Coronation — Novena to the Infant Jesus — The image of the Bambino
at Rome — ^The Immaculate Conception of the Blessed Virgin — Tho
Devotion to the Sacred Heart of Mary — An angehcal exercise — All
power both in heaven and earth said to be given to the Virgin — Festi
vals to the Virgin a parody on those to Christ — Romish account of her
burial, preservation from corruption, and reception into heaven — Our
Lady's Psalter — Specimen of prayers to other Saints— Prayer to St.
Aloysius — The Litany of St. Joseph — Bellarmine says the Saints are
gods by participation — Divus — The classic Apotheosis reproduced in
the modern Canonization — Prayer to a guardian angel — All this Milner
denies to include any act of worship. Pp. 43 — 61.

¦n Contents.

LETTER XXX.
Evidence of Scripture and the primitive Church concerning angel and
saint-worship — Rome mates the Blessed Virgin a sharer, if not an ab
solute rival, in the powers and graces of the Saviour and the Holy
Spirit — This proved — Rome carries it into every possible particular —
Tet aU this is called mere invocation — Even if so, how can she hear so
many millions at once without ubiquity ? — Said to be revealed f o her
by God himself — Analogy of an earthly king — The Roman theory a
mere absurdity — The popular idea attributes to the Saints a universal
presence, one of the attributes of God alone — This is the^rst branch of
Roman idolatry — The attributes of God are incommunicable — The
angels not omnipresent — Omniscience another attribute of God — The
Virgin regarded as practically knowing all things — ^This is the second
branch of Roman idolatry— ^The third ascribes to her omnipotence, all
power both in heaven and earth- — Not said to be inherent, but ac
quired — Tet she is believed to possess it — Christ Himself possessed it
only by the hypostatic union of His human nature with the Eternal
Word— Milner's inconsistent rhapsody — Sublime and consoling privi
lege — How many petitions the Blessed Virgin hears (or receives by
revelation) daily, hourly, momently — -The attributes of God alone suffi
cient for this — The true doctrine infinitely more sublime and consoling.
Pp. 58—68.

LETTER XXXL
The Apostles and the Fathers not on the side of Rome — The whole
Scriptural proof claimed is from the Angelic Salutation — " Full of grace,"
not so correct a translation as "thou that art highly favored" — The Roman
translation of the same word in another place agrees with ours 
" Blessed among women" refers only to the Saints below — The same said
of Jael, and of Israel — As Mother of our Lord, we, also, call her Blessed
— " All power, both in heaven and earth," is another thing — Our Saviour
never calls his Mother by any title but woman — " What have I to do
with thee ?" — Our version again justified by the Romish in a similar
place — The miracle at Cana — Admitted harshness of our Lord's ex
pression— ^Our Lord foresaw the coming superstition — Christ's tarrying
behind at Jerusalem — His rebuke to Joseph and Mary — Yet St. Joseph
is addressed by Rome as the ruler, governor, and saviour of his Lord 
" Behold my Mother and my brethren" — No special pre-eminence at
tached to the earthly relationship—" Rather blessed are they that hear

Contents. vii

the Word of God and keep it" — " Woman, behold thy son" — Majesty
of the God in man, even in death — Negative testimony of Scripture —
The Blessed Virgin nowhere interferi-s, or counsels — Almost nothing
further recorded of her — Milner's claim that the Roman doctrine came
immediately from the Apostles before the New Testament was written
— The testimony of the primitive Church disproves this — St. Augustine
— In his time the Virgin not styled the " Mother of God" — He held her
to be a sinner, needing to be saved by the death of her Son — Difference
between honoring the Saints and worshipping them — St. Basil — Pope
Leo — Pope Gregory the Great — St. Epiphanius against the Collyridians
— Against the Assumption also — St. Isidore of Seville — Superstition
already begun — The ancient Liturgies — ^The Clementine Liturgy — The
Liturgy of St. James— The Liturgy of St. Mark— The Liturgy of St.
Chrysostom — The Liturgy of St. Basil — ^The Ethiopian Liturgy — The
Nestorian Liturgy — The Liturgy of Severus — St. James, the chief of
Bishops — The old Roman Missal does less honor to the Virgin than
some of the others ; no Hail Mary, nor is she entitled Immaculate — The
Sacramentary of Pope Gregory the Great contains no address to the
Virgin or the Saints — Service for the Festival of the Assumption — Sum
mary of proof drawn from all these quotations — The Fathers held that
the Virgin was not Immaculate ; that Saints were to be honored, not
worshipped ; and that the story of the Virgin's death, resurrection, and
assumption, were unknown at the end of the fourth century — Gradual
growth of superstition as proved from the Litu»gie8 — The primitive
Church prayed /or the Virgin, not to her — esciro/cot, Deipara — The Ora
pro nobis not adopted before the beginning of the seventh century —
Differences between Roman doctrine then and now — Formal idolatry
not charged upon the Church of Rome — Latria, Doulia, and Hyper-
daulia — Idolatry in substance may exist without idolatry in form — The
Church of England renders all due honor to the Virgin, acknowledges
her to be Blessed, and Qi6tokos, or the God-bearer, according to the
Council of Ephesus — Milner's misrepresentations of the Fathers — St.
Irenaeus — St. Justin the Martyr — St. Basil — None of all these prove
Milner's doctrine — The passages quoted by him critically examined —
Irrelevancy — ^False translation — Spurious epistles referred to by him
as genuine — Pious fraud — Summary of Milner's patristic proof. Pp.
69—101.

viii Contents.

LETTER XXXn.
Images and Relics — Milner's statement of Roman doctrine, and his
proofs in support of it from Scripture, and the members of the Church
of England — He claims only relative or secondary veneration for these
memorials of the Saints — Historical use — He acknowledges that the
memorials of religion form no essential part of it — Milner's omissions in
stating the Roman doctrine supplied^The doctrine as defined by the
Council of Trent — The Decree of the second Council of Nice in the year
'787 — The representation given by Milner proved from these to be
wrong, both in what it asserts and what it omits — Images required,
under anathema, to be adored with kisses, incense, and lighted candles
— Veneration for relics proved from the Breviary — Relics of St. Isidore,
St. Ubald, St. Januarius, St. Francis Xavier, the images of the Virgin at
Ancona and Mercatello — Milner's Scriptural proof examined — The
corpse touching the bones of the Prophet Elisha — A particular act of
Divine Power, not a standing system — The reference to ancient Israel
unfortunate for Rome — No images or relics of Moses, Elijah, Elisha,
Miriam, Deborah, Jael, and Hannah — Nehushtan — Veneration not paid
to the Ark, but to the Shekinah upon the Mercy-seat — The woman
healed of her issue of blood, not by Christ's garment, but by the Lord's
will and her own faith — The use of aprons and handkerchiefs had power
by the prayers of living Apostles — Relics are only of the dead — St
Stephen carried by devout men to his burial, not preserved for relics —
All this pretended Scripture proof weak and flimsy — Bowing to the
throne in the English House of Lords — The vacant throne not a relic —
No prayers addressed to it, or benefit expected from it — So of kneeling
to the Sovereign — Royal etiquette — Bowing at the name of Jesus — The
name of Jesus not an image, or a relic — Bowing the head is a true act
of worship to Christ himself — Kissing the Bible, or a miniature, or a
letter — In these cases no incense, no lights, no prayers, no hope of re
ceiving benefits, or of deliverance from evils — No fault found with paint
ing and sculpture as memorials merely — No objection to relics as simple
memorials of persons or events — The primitive Church entirely hostile
to Rome on these points — Clement of Alexandria — Jerome—The Council
of Eliberis — Ambrose — Augustine — Epiphanius — He tears the painted
veil at Anablatha — Cyril of Jerusalem — Optatus — Pope Gregory the
Great patronizes images, but carefully prohibits their being worshipped
— His letter to Serenus, who had destroyed the images — Slow but steady
progress of image-worship and papal power together — Gregory III.
Btill stronger in favor of images — Prayers addressed to the Saints 

Contents. ix

Images, not as afforc^ng instruction, but as exciting devotion — The
Second Council of Nice in 787 doci-ecs the very thing condemned by
Pope Gn'gyry I., using the same word — This Council not general — Its
decision opposed to Soripture — It did not truly represent the mind of
the Church — Tiie decrees of the Council at Constantinople in 754, con
sisting of 336 Bishups, and those of the Council of Frankfort in 794,
opposed to the Second Council of Nice — The Caroline Books — True
Catholicity condemns image-worship — Practical abuses — Relics in Eng
land at the time of the Kuformatiou — The miraculous Rood of Grace —
Comparison of offerings in Canterbury Cathedral to Christ, the Virgin,
and St. Thomas ii Beckett — The false skull of St. Thomas worshipped
— The same traffic carried on at this day in Romish countries — More
of Milner's misrepresentations — Engraving of Christ, as the good
Shepherd, on ancient Chalices — But it was not adored with kisses, salu
tations, candles, and incense — Tlie miraculous image of brass said to
have been seen b}" Eusebius — The whole passage quoted — The image
said hx Eusebius to have been erected by the heathen, and he calls the
paying honor to it, a heathen custom — Milner also interpolates the word
miraculous — This is a testimony against, rather than for, Rome- — The
worship of the Cross not to be confounded with the use of the sign of
the Cross — The Council of TruUo in 706 forbids crosses in floors —
Omission of the Second Commandment in ordinary Romish Catechisms
— Splitting the Tenth into two, to keep up the number — Artifice of Mil
ner's reply — A mere trick — The fact undeniable. Pp. 102 — 130.

LETTER XXXni.
Transubstantiation — Statement of the Roman doctrine — Statement
of the true doctrine — Milner claims that the Romanist cannot be guilty
of idolatry, even if Transubstantiation be not true, because the object
of his worsliip is Christ — His analogy of the mistaken courtier, and of
the people who thought John the Baptist to be the Christ — These anal-
ooies shown to be incorrect and sophistical — The argument itself an
absurdity — Placing idolatry not in the fact but in the intention, no
such thing as an idolater would be possible — All idolaters intend to
worship a true God — Transubstantiation more revolting to all ideas of
the proper majesty of an incarnate God, than any other form of idola
try — Idolatry a question of fact — The golden-calf worshipped as tho
true God — The intention cannot save Transubstantiation from the
charge of idolatry — Consnbstantiation — Silent change of doctrine
VOL. II. 1*

Contents.

among the Lutherans — No worship of the elements practised — Nothing
to fear, theologically or politically, from Consubstantiation — The
alleged Transubstantiation at the marriage of Cana of Galilee — A mira
cle which contradicts the senses is an absurdity. Pp. 131 — 136.

LETTER XXXIV.
The doctrine of the Holy Eucharist, as stated in the catechism of the
Church of England — The positions taken by Milner — The charge of
disguising the real meaning is untrue — The definition of a Sacrament —
The outward part committed to the priest, the inward conferred by
Christ himself — Neither contradiction nor inconsistency — The word
Sacrament often used for the outward sign alone — Carping at nothing
— Milner's ridicule of the variations of the English liturgy — What are
they in comparison of the variations in the Roman liturgy ? — Milner's
justification of Roman doctrine from the sixth chapter of St John's
Gospel — Some of the most important verses omitted by him — St.
Augustine's Commentary — Destroys the idea of Transubstantiation —
Milner's argument from the words of Institution — The Fathers in
terpret these words figuratively and spiritually — St. Augustine on the
similitude, which bears the name of the thing itself — The analogy of
Baptism — This applied by Augustine directly to the elements in the
Eucharist — All the other Fathers teach the same — Tertullian — Cyprian
on the signification of the mingled wine and water — Irreconcilable with
Transubstantiation — Jerome — Dr. Milner claims Ignatius, Origen, Cyril
of Jerusalem, and Ambrose — Multit\ides of passages in apparent agree
ment with Roman doctrine — Explained by the received rule of lan
guage — Such passages determine nothing certainlj' — ^Examination of
Milner's quotation from St. Ignatius — From Origen — Further testimony
from Origen — ^Ambrose — Conversion no Transubstantiation — Extract
from the Liturgy as used in the time of Ambrose — Cyril of Jerusalem
— Full view of his doctrine inconsistent with Transubstantiation —
Cyril's comment on the Liturgy — Isidore of Seville on tho water and
the wine — His definition of a Sacrament — Folly of the Roman analogy
of a masked prince — The Second Council of Nice conclusive against
Rome — The previous Council on images at Constantinople — Paschasius
Radbert, about the year 869, first teaches Transubstanti.ation — Opposed
by John Soot — ^The work of Ratram — Opinions allowed to fluctuate for
a couple of centuries — Berenger compelled to recant in 1079 in a Coun
cil at Rome — ^He retracts his forced recantation — The Council of Trent

Contents.

XI

forbids the interpreting of Scripture against the unanimous consent of
the Fathers — That consent is with England, and against Rome. Pp.
137—161.

LETTER XXXV.
Roman boast of literal adherence to Scripture — A figure necessary,
nevertheless — The literal expression not the real meaning — The chalice
a figure, for what it contained — So in the words, This Cup is the New
Testament in My blood — This is My Body — Representative meaning of
the verb to be — Quotations from the Old and New Testaments in the
Douay version, in which the verb to be is acknowledged to have a figu
rative, representative, or symbolical meaning — Incongruity compels the
same interpretation here — Divine omnipotence no fair solution of the
difficulty — No spiritual advantage gained by the doctrine of Transub
stantiation — No greater validity given by it — No Transubstantiation in
Baptism — It adds to the priests, but not to the Sacrament — Transub
stantiation not a triumph of faitli properly so called — Faith reasonable
— Faith above, but not in contradiction to, the senses — Argument of
Tertullian — Evidence of Transubstantiation is not in Scripture, nor in
the primitive Church, nor in the senses, nor in the reason, nor in its
utility, nor in analogy with Baptism ; in other words, belief in it is not
faith, but credulity — The docti'ine of the Real Presence — In the proper
spiritual sense, the Real Presence never doubted — The presence of
Christ none the less real because spiritual, but rather the more so —
Milner's unfair quotations from English divines — Hooker — His full
view from the same book — Statement of the doctrine as taught by the
standard divines of the Church of England — -Virtue of consecration
— Milner's ffimsy analogies — The Jews not at all deceived by their
senses in regard to their unbelief of our Lord's deity — What they
saw, they saw — God could not be seen with the eye of sense — The
patriarchs not misled by their senses — The forms they saw were really
assumed — The eyes of the disciples holden on the road to Emmaus —
Milner says that there is no essential connection between our sensations
and the objects which occasion them — Unreasonable and impious —
Transubstantiation involves not a mystery, but a contradiction — Not
necessary to know the essence of matter and space — The Transfigura
tion no proof of Transubstantiation, for it was apparent to the senses —
Christ standing by St. Paul in the castle of Jerusalem — Milner's last
argument, that God fills all space, and is Whole and entire in every
particle of matter — Pure Pantheism — Destroys Transubstantiation in-

xii Contents.
stead of proving it— Residence of the soul in the human body— Food
transubstantiated into flesh and blood — But not until evidenced to the
senses— So with the change of the infant to the man, and the resurrec
tion of the dead — None of these arguments or analogies has the slight
est weight. Pp. 162—183.
LETTER XXXVL
Communion in one kind — Claimed to be a matter of changeable dis
cipline — The Church has authority as the interpreter of Scripture only
as the whole Catholic Church, not a divided portion — No action by the
whole siuce the great schism between the East and the West — The
whole Catholic Church has no power to change an express precept of
Christ — Drink ye all of this — "The change sanctioned first by the Coun
cil of Constance in 1415 — The language of its decree — The Council ac
knowledges the primitive practice to have been otherwise — Manicheans
refused the wine, and were condemned by Pope Leo the Great in 450
— At the Council of Chalcedon, Bishop Ibas complained of for furnish
ing an insufficient supply of wine for the people at the Eucharist — The
Council of Bracara, in 675, condemns all irregularities in regard to the
wine — The Council of Clermont, in 1095, requires both the elements to
be received separately — The constitutions of Richard Poore, Bishop of
Salisbury, in 1217 — New laws required by Transubstantiation — Certain
dangers and scandals, occasioning the withdrawal of the Cup — Sucking
the wine through a tube — Milner's argument considered — He acknowl
edges the institution under both kinds — The Eucharist said to be a
sacrifice, a victim, present, mystically immolated, and the priests alone,
as priests, were to drink, and not the laity — The Eucharist a sacrifice —
In what sense this is true — The Roman theory requires the victim to
be only mystically immolated — The true doctrine as taught by St. Au
gustine — The Eucharist a commemorative sacrifice — We offer ourselves
— That the Apostles were told to drink, all of them, as priests, cannot
be ; for by Roman usage all the priests present do not drink, but only
the consecrator — Twelve persons cannot unite in consecrating — " Break
ing of bread" does not imply communion in only one kind — Even on
Roman ground, there can be no Eucharist unless there be a consecra
tion of both elements — Milner claims St. Jerome, St. Augustine, and St.
Chrysostom as in favor of his opinion, but prudently gives no reference
— He claims also our Lord's breaking of bread at Emmaus — This was no
more sacramental than the miracle of the loave.s — The same language
used of both — ^Dishonest reference to Bishop Porteus — " Breaking of

Co7iienfs. xiii
bread" admitted to refer to the Eucharist, but not admitted to bo a de
scription of the mode in which it was celebrated — Parallel between
Milner and Priestley — The Socinian the more honest of the two — Milner
imputes a heresy to the Apostles themselves — Jesuitically conveying a lie
without absolutely telliug it — Whoever shall eat this Bread or drink
the Cup of the Lord unworthily — 'Mere matter of discipline from primi
tive times, not true — The Bread alone taken home, not a Catholic, but a
local, custom — Milner himself builds his argument on doctrine — The
change of doctrine into Transubstantiation caused the change of disci
pline — None of the Oriental Churches denies the Cup — ^The Sacrament
shows forth the Lord's death — Therefore the elements must be received
separately — Transubstantiation destroys the fundamental design of the
Sacrament — The mode of administration naturally destroyed also — The
command of Christ himself no matter of mere discipline — Necessity no
law — Martyi-s saved without Baptism, though Baptism with blood in
stead of water is no true baptism — Milner confounds the rule with tho
exception — The rule of the Church of England the same with that of
the Council of Clermont, in 1095, with Pope Urban II. at its head — The
new rule of the Council of Constance a flat contradiction — It contradicts
Popes and Councils, Fathers and Apostles, and even Christ himself — Soli
tary Masses — Condemned in the Capitular of Theodulf, in 797 — And in
a Council held by order of Charlemagne, in 813 — And in another collec
tion of Canons — And in the Sixth Council of Paris, in 829, and many
others — Yet the Council of Trent anathematizes all who say that they
are unlawful — Dissolving views — The clergy forbidden to take money
for Masses by the Councils of Clermont, Rome, Toledo, Rheims, two
Councils of London, the Second General Council of Lateran, and the
Council- of Trent — Yet payment universally required, even from the
poorest — ^Purgatorian societies — Personal incident — If Masses are not
paid for, they do no good — The Church of England truly catholic — The
sacraments given without money and without price. Pp. 184—^209.

LETTER XXXVn.
The Mass considered as the sacrifice of the new law — The doctrine of
Rome, that it is a true, proper, and propitiatory sacrifice offered by the
priest for the living and the dead, the Church of England calls " a blas
phemous fable and a dangerous deceit" — Milner's definition of a sacrifice
— False and perilous definition^Not Christian, but deistical — Cain and
Abel — Scriptural use of the word saerifioe — It includes every offering

xiv Contents.

of faith to God — Not confined to the immolation of animals or sensible
things — It is granted that in the Eucharist there is a sacrifice, and a
true sacrifice, but not an animal sacrifice, or a propitiatory sacrifice, or
the sacrifice of a sensible thing — It is a spiritual sacrifice — The pro
phecy of Malachi truly verified in the Christian Church — The great
sacrifice under the new law — The proof of the true interpretation of
Malachi, given from the Fathers — Tertullian — Clement of Alexandria —
St. Augustine — St. Augustine's beautiful sermon on Easter-day, ex
planatory of the Eucharist and its elements — Totally irreconcilable
with Transubstantiation — St. Augustine's definition of sacrifice — St.
Jerome — St. Isidore of Seville on the sacrifice of the Eucharist — His
explanation of the meaning of the elements — No one denies the Eucha
rist to be a sacrifice — The question is, What kind of sacrifice ? — Sursum
Corda — The word Mass an innovation — Dr. Milner claims all the Eastern
Churches as agreeing in this doctrine with Rome — Assertion more easy
than proof — Seven reasons showing that Eastern practice is no justifi
cation of Rome — Milner's attack upon the " inconsistencies" of the
Church of England — She has priests, but no sacrifice ; altars, but no
victim ; an essential consecration of the elements, witliout any effect
upon them — True meaning of the word priest — It is both ujni; and
Tpsi70vT€poi, both Sacerdos and Presbyter — Sacrifice, properly under
stood, renders the distinction unnecessary — Sacerdotium and Sacerdotal
— Altars do not necessarily imply a victim — Altars of incense, altars
of memorial or testimony, altar in heaven — Altar as defined by St.
Augustine, St. Jerome, and St. Isidore of Seville — Ara and Altare —
Milner's notion thus inconsistent with Scripture and the Fathers —
Romanists themselves have no actual victim — The Council of Trent as
serts Him to be only mystically immolated, and defines the Mass to be
that whereby Christ's " bloody sacrifice once to be perfected upon the
cross might be represented, and its memory might remain to the end of
the world" — Immolation is only represented, under visible signs — But
this is not having a re(il victim — Milner's reproach of " altars, but no
victim," therefore, recoils upon his own Church — Consecration of the ele
ments — Before consecration they are common — After consecration they
are the outward and visible signs of an inward and spii-itual grace 
Milner's charge not only false but absurd— Analogy of holy water and
Chrism— The doctrine of Rome a blasphemous fable and dangerous
deceit — Blasphemous as injurious to the majesty of the Son of God, as
arrogating His authority for an act of profanity, and as subjecting the
glorious Saviour to the control of the priests — All aggravated by curs
ing those who hold the pure truth of the Holy Scriptures and the an-

Contents. xv

cient Fathers — It is a deceit, as claiming an actual Victim, while it pre
tends only to a mystical immolation — It is, moreover, dangerous both
to priests and people — Language severe, but necessary in answer to
such a coarse and unscrupulous libeller as MUner. Pp. 210 — 238.

LETTER XXXVm.
Auricular Confession — Common ground of agreement — Repentance,
confession, and absolution necessary to salvation — Rome has added the
Sacrament of Penance — Change of the Scriptural term repentance —
The integral parts of Penance are Contrition, Confession, and Satisfaction
— Contrition alone blots out sin, but seldom sufficiently intense — De
ficiency of intensity made up by aid of the priest — Confession as defined
by the Catechism of the Council of Trent — Rules as to the age, the fre
quency, the sins, the secrecy of Confession — Satisfaction — Prayer, fast
ing, and alms-deeds — Satisfaction by proxy — The power of the priests
really to absolve from sin — ^No pardon to be obtained, or even hoped for,
without Penance — The 21st Canon of the Fourth Council of Lateran in
1215 — Change of the form of Absolution — The true point of controversy
— Not in the necessity of contrition, confession, restitution — Not as to
the power of remitting sins, an essential part of the inward and spiritual
grace of the two sacraments — But in the private tribunal of compulsory
judgment — The differences between Rome and England in ten points —
Rome's idea of Christian liberty — The Apostolic power of forgiving and
retaining sins to be exercised through the Sacraments — The Apostles
held the keys of the kingdom of heaven — Opening the door, and closing
it again — The Apostles had no private confessional — Testimony of the
Fathers— The passage quoted by Milner nothing to the purpose — Ter
tullian proves nothing — Nor Origen — Basil refers only to the Monks —
St. Augustine spoke of public penitence, and public absolution — The
true doctrine of the Fathers — Tertullian — Public penitence, and only
once — Penitence of the heart — Athanasius — Augustine — Three kinds of
penitence — Condition of the Church then similar to the present — No
compulsory private Confessional — ^Fleury's acknowledgment that com
pulsory Confession began with Chrodegang in 763 — Absolution given
before penance fulfilled ; first by Boniface, the Apostle of Germany —
Penitentials — Commutation of penance for money — Penitences rendered
impossible by cumulation — Fleury condemns the Council of Trent — The
old canonical rules utterly destroyed by the Crusades — ^The Roman
system without warrant from antiquity — Milner's boasting — Transports,

xvi Contents.

joy, and comfort — Pride of heart, or strength of intellect, no preservative
against error — Influx of credulous barbarians — Adoption of heathen
days and festivals — Corruption not owing to any deliberate design on
the part of the clergy — Pious frauds — The world getting into the
Church — The spirit of accommodation — Public penance changed to
private — The Fourth Council of Lateran was no shock to the mind of the
Church — No resistance to it — The Confessional no safeguard against any
sin, except leaving the communion of the Church of Rome — Practical
working among the people — How much time to each penitent to confess
a year's sins of thought, word, and deed — No priest can do justice to all
his flock — Strange and mournful mockery — Impossible for the sinner to
remember a whole year's sins — The system of the Church of England
infinitely superior — The discipline of the primitive Church retained —
What the Church of England does not do — Excess of transport and joy
no proof of truth. Pp. 239—272.

LETTER XXXIX.
Indulgences — Milner declares it a sacrilegious crime in any person to
be concerned in buying or selling them — Fleury says the Plenary In
dulgence took the place of wages to the Crusaders — Leo X. and St.
Peter's — Indulgences notoriously a matter of open bargain and sale
throughout Europe — Milner silent about all this — Of this " sacrilegious
crime" Popes, Councils, Cardinals, and Bishops were all guilty for four
hundred years together — Milner compares the selling of Indulgences
to Judas selling his Master — He compares it with the selling of bene
fices in England — Milner always ready to strike boldly and confidently,
whether the spot be vulnerable or not — Policy of this unscrupulous
Jesuitism — Milner's statement of the Roman doctrine — Eternal and
temporal punishment both due to sin — The former expiated by Christ,
the latter by Satisfaction as a portion of Penance — The Church, spe
cially the Pope, has jurisdictiofi over this satisfaction, and can remit
it in whole or in part by an Indulgence — This statement entirely lame,
insufficient, and delusive — Nothing said about purgatory, or the treasury
of works of supererogation — Benefits expected from Indulgences — Their
sale highly lucrative — Public traffic only discouraged as too open a
scandal— Milner talks of the Indulgences of the Church of England!—
Canon of the Commutation of Penance— Indulgences in the celebration
of marriage — No commuting of penance without payment of fees  Petty
and contemptible parallel for the enormities of Papal Indulgences— -Tne

Content's. xvii

Silkworm a par.allel for the Anaeonda — The true character of an In
dulgence proved from the Pope's Bull for the jubilee of 1825 — Here is
the whole matter — Indulgences not granted for nothing — Plenary In
dulgence in this country may be had on nearly half the days in the year
— It is always, however, a cash transaction — How escape Milner's charge
of sacrilegious blasphemy ? — The people give the gift ; the priest gives
the Indulgence — Abundant supplies of Indulgences sold everywhere —
Decree of the Council of Trent concerning Indulgences — Moderation to
be observed — Wicked merchandisings to be altogether abolished — No
pains at all taken to prevent this detestable simony — All who do not
agree to the Council's novelties are anathematized — Leo X. naturally
confident as to the tenure of power — The merchandisings not very
wicked, for none of the agents were ever punished for their faults in
soiling then — Forty-six 3-ears had elapsed since Tetzel's abuses until
the Council of Trent passed its decree — Protestant censure has done
more to reform the Church of Rome than the Council of Trent. Pp.
273—284.

LETTER XL.
Purgatory and prayers for the dead — Milner's unwarrantable assump
tion that the admission of the latter proves the former — Purgatory in
cludes prayers for the dead, but prayers for the dead do not include
purgatory — The intermediate state — Hell, or the place of departed
spirits — Milner gives no definition of purgatory — All that is " necessary
to be believed on the subject" — purgatory, a well-known term — Milner
dishonestly claims the Fathers, and all the Oriental Churches, as teach-
inc the Roman doctrine — Material fire — The first prayer-book of Ed
ward VI. contained a special prayer for the departed — Many Anglican
divines in favor of such prayers — Rhetorical flourish — Faith rests not on
natural, but on revealed religion — Examination of Milner's argument
in detail — Full statement of the Roman doctrine of purgatory — The
strongest basis of priestly power over the Laity — No danger of any one
coming back from purgatory to disprove the Pope's claims — Masses for
the dead pay better than for the living — Scriptural proof — Text from the
Second Book of the Maccabees — Not canonical Scripture — The passage
proves too much for the Roman doctrine — The slain soldiers died in the
mortal sin of idolatry, which would carry them past purgatory — Sacri
legious to pray for them at all — " Baptized for the dead" in 1st Corm-
thians — Marcionite heretics — St. Chrysostom's interpretation — The same

sviii Contents.

given by the Romish annotator on Tertullian — ^The Douay Bible gives
three e.xplanations of the text, not one of which is sustained by the
Fathers — Yet Milner says that the case is " clear" from this text — He
states that the Jews to this day pray for the dead — Jews are no author
ity for Christians — Even so they do not believe in a purgatory — Inter
mediate state held by the Fathers from the Scriptures, and therefore
also by us — "Till thou payest the very last mite" — This is against the
Romish notion of purgatory, where the poor soul can pay nothing for him
self, but all must be paid by others for hira — " Saved, yet so as by fire"
— " The day of the Lord" is the Day of Judgment, before which time,
aceording to Roman doctrine, purgatory is to be closed — The sentence
spoken of to be delivered after the resurrection — ^St. Paul applies the
fire to' men's works, Rome to their souls — Saved " so as by fire," means
"as a brand from the burning," with great difficulty— " Saved" cannot
mean merely an alleviation or shortening of pain in one who was sure
of salvation at any rate — St. Paul uses fire as a comparison ; purgatory
uses the fire itself— "Not forgiven, either in this world or in the world
to come" — Not implied in this that sin will be forgiven in the world to
come — If this be imphed, our Lord taught what Rome calls heresy  It
is not sin, but only its temporal punishment, that is expiated in pur
gatory — Sin is forgiven by the priest's absolution in the Confessional 
Roman distinction between the eternal and the temporal punishment
of sin — -List of texts quoted by Milner in favor of this notion — The case
of Adam — Of Israel and the Golden Calf^Of David, both in regard to
Bathsheba and the Numbering of the People — The incestuous Corin
thian — Contrast between St. Paul's action and that of the Pope  The
Fathers — Confession of the Benedictine editors of St. Ambrose  Un
certain, various, and inconsistent, for 1400 years — Neither the Bible nor
the Fathers, Rome's real authority — Development and the Modern
Church — St. Chrysostom^The quotation continued by way of answer
to Milner's use of it — No disguise as to the opinion of the Fathers  ^Two
remarks — 1. The Liturgies of the fifth century pray /or the Virgin and
Saints ; was it to deliver them from the pains of purgatory ?  2. Love
of the brethren enjoined, and mutual remembrance, whether gone be
fore or yet in the flesh— This remembrance is refreshment and joy to
the blessed in Paradise— Founded in the instincts of human nature-
This commemoration retained in our Prayer for the Church Militant 
This has nothing to do with purgatory— Prayer for others does not imply
that they are in suffering- Universal duty of prayer— The connecting
of purgatory with prayer for the dead is at wai- with primitive practice
and the reason of mankind— Tertullian— Cyprian speaks of public

Contents. xix

penance, not purgatory — Fleury's interpretation — Augustine and his
mother Monica — Not the slightest hint of purgatory — Passages in Au
gustine showing the beginning of the Roman notion — Heathen or Pla
tonic ideas — Virgil — Augustine never speaks of it as a Catholic truth —
Augustine's comment on " saved yet so as by fire" — He states the
notion of purgatorial fire as uncertain — His doctrine as to the value of
prayers and offerings for the dead — Contradicted by the Pope's Bull
— Other proofs from the Fathers — Irenaeus — ^Tertullian — Ambrose —
growth of the notion of purgatory — The Summa of Aquinas — The Coun
cil of Florence — Nothing then strictly defined — Dispute as to fire —
Forced consent of the Greeks at the Council of Florence in regard to
this matter — Faithful conformity of the Church of England to Scrip
ture, and the substantial practice of the primitive Church — Com
memoration of the dead in the communion and burial offices — Specific
private prayers for the dead nowhere condemned — How far such
prayers attain their object known only to God — No certainty of the
result of prayers for the living — Unauthorized superstition — Satisfac
tion derived from the sympathy of Christian affection — The author no
advocate for the practice of prayer for the dead — Objection to their re-
introduotioa Pp. 285—326.

LETTER XLL
Extreme Unction — See Letter XIX. — Whether the Pope be Anti
christ — A question left by the Church of England entirely to the pri
vate judgment of individuals — Milner ridicules the idea that prevailed
among the Reformers — The character of Antichrist belongs pre-emi
nently to the Papacy — Milner's argument delusive and unsatisfactory
— Variation among Protestants as to the time when Antichrist arose
— A fact is none the less true, simply because the time when it
happened is not settled — Pope Gregory the Great's opinion as to the
forerunner of Antichrist — Arnulphus, Bishop of Orleans — Fluentius,
Bishop of Florence — The Abbot Joachim of Calabria — Waldenses —
Kings and Cardinals — No invention of the Reformers — The only question
is. Whether the Pope deserves the title ? — Milner argues the absurdity
of supposing Rome to have fallen away, while she maintains all the
Creeds — The adulteress must be a true wife — The "temple of God" to
be the seat of Antichrist — The Pope's confessor — The Pope not Anti
christ as a man, but as a sovereign — Proof that the marks of Antichrist,
as described in Scripture, are found in Popery — 1. The "falling off"

XX Contents.

admitted by Fleury — 2. The man of sin " revealed," or made manifest,
by plain acts of history — 3. Antichrist " opposeth and is lifted up above
all that is called God, or that is worshipped, so that he sitteth in the
temple of God, showing himself as if he were God," which is true of
Popery— 4. Popery is " according to the working of Satan, in all power,
and signs, and lying wonders" — 5. It " makes war with the Saints" — 6.
It agrees with the mystical number, 666, Aarcivas, Latin — Not a topic
to be chosen — Its discussion forced upon the author bj' what Milner had
written. Pp. 327—334. LETTER XLE.
The Pope's supremacy — See Letters XXIIL and XXIV. — Milner
disclaims the idea that the Pope has any civil or temporal supremacy
— No such jurisdiction is claimed by him beyond the States of the
Church — Milner disguises the real claim of deposing princes and similar
acts as a branch of his spiritual supremacy " to feed and govern the
whole Church" with full power — English Anti-Popery oath ingeniously
good for nothing — Milner's idea of a Christian Republic, of which the
Pope is the head — Contrary to facts, and to Papal principles also — The
Church a republic in primitive ages, and with us it is so still — The
Pope has nothing republican about him — Pure despotism of Gregory
VII. — Two great lights — Kings and princes acknowledged the claims of
the Pope only when it suited them, or when they eould not help it — No
city in Europe so often taken and pillaged by Christian armies as Rome
— Milner declares that, in later ages, the deposing power of the Pope
has been generally withdrawn — Not withdrawn in 1570 — Bull of Pope
Pius deposing Queen Elizabeth — Nothing republican in the claim to be
a prince by divine right over all kingdoms and peoples, with plenary
authority — The sun and moon, the Pope and Emperor — The Roman
Canon Law as laid down by Boniface VIII. — "Necessary to salvation"
for every creature to be subject to the Roman Pontiff — When or where
withdrawn? — Not in 1682, nor even in 1809, when Pope Pius VII. ex
communicated Napoleon — Ultramontane and Cismontane views — Papal
infallibility stated by Milner to be merely a scholastic question —
Whether the Pope is spiritual head of the Church, and centre of Catho
lic unity? — The title Papa given originally to all Bishops — Primacy of
honor conceded by certain eminent Protestant writers to the Pope, pro
vided he held the truth, and regarded the rights of his brethren — This
only an hypothesis — A primacy of honor would never satisfy the Pope
—Resemblance of the primitive Church to the constitution of the

Contents. xxi

United States — Steps in the growth of Papal power — Romish Repub-
licimisin — Appointment of Cardinals unrepublican — Practical despotism
in Church affairs — Nothing of old times lacking, but the power — Our
Church trulj- a Christian Republic — Construction of our Conventions,
diocesan and general — Powers of the laity — Our Bishops not lords over
God's heritage, but servants of Christ. Pp. S35 — 349.

LETTER XLin.
Bishop Kenricks book on the Primacy of the Apostolic See, in reply
to the author's work on the Church of Rome — Roman view of " Thou
art Peter, and on this Rock I will build My Church" — Mass of evidence
for the contrary view left untouched by Bishop Kenrick — Certain that
St. Peter was not the Bishop of Rome at his death — Testimony of Ire
naeus that Linus was the first Bishop of Rome, and made so by St.
Peter and St. Paul — Eusebius says the same-^— Even if St. Peter pos
sessed a primacy, it would not pass, by consecration merely, to Linus —
Absurdity involved in the very idea — St. John subject, on the Roman
theory, for thirty years, to the supremacy of Linus, Anaeletus, and
Clement — St. John totally silent on any such authority over him — The
theory of Rome disproved by history — The primacy so essential to
the unity of the Church, has been the chief cause of disunion — Only the
declension of the Papal power has produced more of peace among
Romanists since the Reformation — The Fathers testify to nothing more
than a Primacy of Honor — Very different from a supremacy of juris
diction — The evidence against Rome unshaken by Bishop Kenrick's
book — Small verbal criticisms upon translations — Quotation from Ire
naeus vindicated in a pamphlet — The chain of proof necessary to sup
port the claims or the Papacy — St. Peter's supremacy of government
and jurisdiction over the other Apostles must be proved from Scripture,
which can never be done — Primacy of Honor the most that can be in
ferred from Holy Writ — Next, it must be proved that St. Peter's seat
of government was at Rome, and that he transfeiTcd all his power and
prerogatives, by Divine command, to all his successors in that See,
which involves an absurdity, and is in direct contradiction to St. Paul
— The Roman assumption, that St, Peter was for seven years Bishop
of Antioch, and then for twenty-five years Bishop of Rome, irreconcil
able with Scripture — Opposed also to the statements of the older
Fathers — Lastly, the twenty -eighth Canon of the Council of Chalcedon
is fatal to the whole hypothesis — The Pope's refusal to sanction it is

xxii Contents.

no disproof, for no one ought to be the sole judge in his own cause-
The Papal theory thus not only unproved, but disproved — In making
it an article of faith, Rome stamps herself as Antichrist — Satan's
temptation of sovereignty over all the kingdoms of this world, and the
glory of them — Progress of Popery to power — The gradual decay of
that power since the Reformation — Steadily growing strength of the
Church of England. Pp. 350—357.

LETTER XLIV.
The Liturgy in an unknown tongue — Milner's justification, that it is
the people who have forgotten their ancient language — ^This does not
apply .to the Sclavonic, Teutonic, Celtic, and many other races — The
high-priest going alone into the tabernacle is no model for the public
worship of a Christian congregation — The translations used by the
laity only made since the Reformation — The people not allowed to
respond — St. Paul's denunciation of praying in an unknown tongue —
Milner says that no allusion is made in the whole chapter to the pubho
Liturgy ! — ^The empty pretence that an unknown tongue is necessary
for Uniformity, Decency, and Order — Three arguments more — 1. St.
Paul wrote an epistle to the Romans in Greek — 2. The Jewish Liturgy
continued to be in Hebrew after Chaldaic became the vernacular — The
Hebrew not properly a dead language — 3. The Greek Church retains
the ancient Greek Liturgy, though not intelligible to the people — ^The
ancient Greek not unintelligible — True reason of retaining an unknown
language — Omne ignotum pro magnifico — Latin more acceptable to
God, as the language of the priests — Mystery — Babylon the Great —
Aartivos — The Liturgy of the Church of England is for the people —
The Church of Rome undervalues the Scriptures, anS prohibits the use
of them — Milner calls this a wicked calumny — Rome does not value
them as the complete rule of faith and morals — Oral tradition substan
tially destroys the proper authority of. Scripture — Rome teaches, be
sides the gospel, "another gospel," notwithstanding St. Paul's ana
thema— rThis is the Usurpation of Antichrist — Analogy of the judges of
the Civil Law — Innovations established as articles of faith — Milner as
serts that the Scriptures are not prohibited to any of the laity who
can read them in their original tongues, or in the Latin Vulgate — This
was a virtual prohibition to the vast majority for a thousand years — The
permission of the priest confessed to be necessary before reading the
Bible in the vernacular — An attestation of piety and docility required

Contents. xxiii

— ^Turning the reading of the Bible into poison — Preadiing open to the
same objection — The priests have caused more scandals than the Bible
— Restricting the use of the Word of God another claim to the name ol
Antichrist — The real reason of this restriction omitted by Milner — It
is the most perilous of all things to the falsities and corruptions of
Rome — Burnmg the Bible — Opposite course of the Church of England.
Pp. 358—370.

LETTER XLV.
Various misrepresentations — The intention of the priest essential to
the effect of the Sacrament — Milner's inefficient defence — Mimicking or
mockery of a buffoon — Impious or irreligious priests — The wickedness
of the ] nest does not destroy the vahdity of the Sacraments as to the
faithful receiver — ^The intention of the priest a part of his personal
piety — Celibacy of the Clergy — The second Council of Carthage, Epi
phanius, and St. Paul — The true question — The Rule laid down by St.
Paul, notwithstanding his personal preference — This is the Divine Law
— General clerical incontinence the result of its violation — Celibacy a
state, not of greater perfection, but of greater temptation — Some
amendment since the Reformation — The " vile, hackneyed calumny"
about not keeping faith with heretics — Proved by history — ^Milner
says that more princes were deprived of the whole or a part of their
dominions by the Reformation, than the Popes had attempted to de
pose during the preceding 1500 years — Utterly false — The wars on
the Continent caused by Rome's refusing liberty of conscience — ^The
Reformers did not attempt to force their opinions by tlie sword — The
Pope was the assailant in these wars for Christian liberty — Specimen
of the Roman system in the Bull of the Pope deposing Queen Elizabeth
— Milner tries to shift the responsibility from the Roman Church to the
personal account of individual Popes — Absurdity of this — The power
claimed as inherent in their office from' the time of Gregory VII. —
Declaration of the clergy of France in 1682 — The claim never aban
doned to this day. Pp. 371 — 378.

LETTER XLVL
Milner's assertion that the Church of Rome expressly disclaims the
power to punish heretics with penalties, imprisonment, tortures, and
death — He refers to Gregory L and previous writers, in whose time his

XXIV

Contents.

assertion was true — In the ninth century some heretics burned alive —
This became the established law throughout Europe — During this time
the Pope, Bishops, and Priesthood had the greatest influence in mak
ing the laws — Milner's attempt to get rid of the Fourth Council of La
teran — He says there were temporal persons present, who passed de
crees of a temporal nature — Reply to this contemptible quibble — The
acts of the Council authorized by the votes of the prelates alone — ^The
laity have no formal power in Romish Councils — Milner says the main
work of the Council was to extirpate the Manichaean heresy ; that the
decree was never enforced, except against the Albigenses ; and that it
was never published or talked of in the British islands — ^Hardly a word
of truth in this — The true objects of the Council — The third Canon
against every heresy — Mosheim's testimony unwisely referred to by
Milner — No account of the Albigenses, except from Roman writers —
True summary as to the Council of Lateran — Action under the canon of
this Council in England — The bones of Wickliffe and his followers —
The Confessional enjoined by this same Council enforced in England —
Smithfield in the reign of Queen Mary — Milner " unanswerably demon
strates" what is notoriously untrue — Queen Mary was made a Perse
cutor by her Church — James II. did not lose his crown in the cause of
toleration, but in an attempt to restore the Papal bondage — Milner says
that the Pope cordially receives Protestants — No Protestant worship
allowed, nor any Protestant burial with religious rites permitted, in
Rome — Milner's assertion that persecution was more generally prac
tised and more warmly defended by Protestants than by the Church
of Rome — Persecution a fixed principle with Rome — Made obligatory
by Popes and Councils — England long in discovering and practising on
full religious toleration — Severe laws necessary, at first, in self-protec
tion — Dangers of England from Papal power and intrigue — The Papal
deposition of the Queen, and absolving her subjects from their allegi
ance — All this concerned the secular government — ^The Church could
not interfere — No act of the Church of England ever authorized perse
cution — Enormous difference between the two Churches — Comparison
of the two — Romish persecution only needs the power to revive. Pp.
379—391.

LETTER XLVn.
Summary of evidence brought forward in this work in favor of the
Church of England- The true facts of the Enghsh Reformation as
proved by Komish writers — Milner's axioms as to the rule of faith

Contents. xxv

accepted — Scripture, as interpreted solely by private judgment, proved
not to be the rule of faith of the Church of England ; but Scripture, as
interpreted by the primitive Church — The Church more of a living
teacher with ua than with Rome — Analogy of the corruption of the
ancient Church of Israel — Similar corruption foretold by the inspired
Apostles — Historical sketch of the actual progress of corruption from
Romish authorities — The Rule of Faith — Scripture as interpreted by the
Church — ^The Canon of Scripture and the English version — The Four
Notes of the Church — All found more clearly in England than in Rome
— Worship of the Blessed Virgin and the Saints, relics, and images —
Purgatory, indulgences, celibacy, auricular confession — Anti-Christian
papal sovereignty and persecution — Holy Scripture and real Catholicism
fully vindicated — Dr. Milner's reputation committed to Archbishop
Kenrick, his special admirer — His public call to us to read Milner's End
of Controvers}- — Proof that we have read it — Impossible to avoid strong
language — Kindly personal feelings — Rome not formally separated from
the original Catholic Church — But schismatical and heretical in con
demning and anathematizing us — Rome has departed from the Apostolic
system, both by taking away from, and by adding to, the truth — These
errors made articles of faith — Errors in faith obstinately and pertina
ciously maintained are heresies — All refusing to accept them anathema
tized — No return to pure Apostolicity to be expected from Rome —
Prophecy declares otherwise — Crumbling away of Papal power towards
its end — ^The Romish Laity becoming too enlightened for their priests
— ^Thousands of Romanists would rejoice to see the Church of Rome
reformed after the model of the Church of England. Pp. 392 — 398.
VOL. n. 2

%\t €\\)i d €mtxakxq, €mix(ikxtt)i.

LETTER XXV.

Most Reverend Sir :
I HAVE nowr gone over the four marks of the Church, de
rived from the Nicene Creed, where we profess to believe
in it as One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic. And I trust that
I have not only asserted, but proved, the superiority of our
claims, on every point, by evidence which any candid mind
will deem clear and incontrovertible. It remains that I
dispose of the arguments by which Dr. Milner, in his 29th
letter, attempts to impugn the validity of our succession ; and
this, as I believe, will be easily done, to the entire satisfac
tion of the unprejudiced reader.
My first duty, however, must be to point out some gross
misrepresentations which your favorite author scatters, in
his usual style, on the track of his sophistry. Thus, on
page 201, he asserts that the Church of England unchurches
all other Protestant communions, which are without the
apostolical succession of Bishops. Whereas, on the con
trary, not only does Hooker, whom he quotes on the previ
ous page, but all the Reformers, together with Jewel, An-
drewes, Usher, Bramhall, and, in a word, the whole of her
standard divines, agree in maintaining that Episcopacy is

Letter XXV.

not necessary to the being, but oilly to the well-being, of the
Church ; and hence they grant the name of Churches to all
denominations of Christians who hold the fundamental doc
trines of the Gospel, notwithstanding the imperfection and
irregularity of their ministry. This imperfection and ir
regularity arose, in the first place, from the calamity of the
times, since Luther, Calvin, and Zuinglius had no Bishops^
and were therefore compelled either to reform their respec
tive Churches without them, or not reform at all. While
Denmark and Sweden were favored with the means of con
tinuing the apostolic element' of Episcopacy, and England,
especially, enjoyed the privilege of counting her Bishops
amongst the leaders in the Reformation. And hence, the
Church of England excused the entrance of men into the
ministry in a novel form, from the supposed necessity of cir
cumstances, and acknowledged them as ministers of Christ,
de facto, if not strictl}' de jure ; likening their case to the
condition of the ten tribes in the time of the Prophets
Elijah and Elisha, when the faithful worshippers of God
were still regarded as His people, although they were cut
ofi" from the regular system of the priesthood and the taber
nacle which were in Jerusalem. This allegation of Dr.
Milner, therefore, is founded on anything but truth. And
it is not easy to believe that he was ignorant of his error,
because the contrary is apparent in the Thirty-nine Articles
of our Church, and in the whole strain of her acts and his
tory. The next gross misrepresentation of your unscrupulous
advocate is on the same page, where he alleges that the
Church of England, in A. D. 1575, "imanimously resolved
that baptism cannot be performed by any but a lawful minis
ter." The change to which he refers, however, was only
fhe omission of a direction, given in the Prayer-Book origi-

Validity of Lay-Baptism.

nally, that any of the laity might baptize, in case of neces
sity ; and stating in the Rubric for the future, that a lawful
minister should be called to administer that sacrament, but
without pronouncing any opinion against the validity of lay-
baptism. On the contrary, the Church of England has al-
waj-s held the doctrine of the ancient fathers and Councils
on that point, that a baptism, performed with .water in the
name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost,
is valid, although, with regard to the administration, it may
be irregular. Indeed, it is but a few years since this whole
question was brought up in England, in the celebrated case
of Mastin vs. Escott. A clergyman of the Established
Church refused to bury a child who had been baptized by
a ilethodist minister, on the ground alleged by Milner,
that, according to the doctrine of the Prayer-Book, it was
not baptized at all. But the Ecclesiastical Court con
demned the clergyman to be suspended, and vindicated the
true teaching of the Church, in precise accordance with
the old and settled law, which your own Church holds as
we do.
Passing by the quotations of Dr. Milner from Luther,
Wesley, &c., on the question of Episcopacy, with which
we have nothing to do, I come now to your author's pre
tended doubts as to the consecration of Archbishop Parker
in the reign of Queen Elizabeth. The opinion of Cranmer
to which he refers is quite irrelevant to the point at issue,
because it is certain that it had no place in the system of
the Church, nor in any of her standard writings. It was
expressed in a private answer to a private question, and in
volved, at most, an abstract notion as to what might be done
in case of necessity, and not what ought to be done in the
regular course of ecclesiastical order. But the facts which
your advocate alleges are important, and amount to an im-

Letter XXV.

peachment of Archbishop Parker's consecration, on the
ground that it was an irreverent act, performed at a tavern
in Cheapside, called The Nagg's Head, by men who were
not Bishops themselves, and by a defective form of conse
cration ! This mean and ridiculous story was first hatched,
with a multitude of other lies, by the unprincipled Sanders,
and repeated, on his authority, by more respectable men,
who made a merit of using any means, however foul, to dis
credit that Church which was the most formidable enemy
of Popery.
Dr. Milner, however, does not venture to endorse the
miserable falsehood altogether. He drops the story of the
tavern, and contents himself with doubting the Episcopal
character of Barlow, one of the four Bishops who officiated,
and the sutficiency of the form laid down in the Ordinal of
Edward VI. In answer to all such cavils, the following
statement will be a sufficient refutation : —
First, then, it is absurd to imagine that Queen Elizabeth,
a sovereign who particularly observed magnificence and
state in all public transactions, would tolerate such a wanton
contempt of religious order in the consecration of the high
est officer in her kingdom, the Archbishop of Canterbury,
and the Primate of all England. And no less absurd is it
to imagine, that the men whom she thought worthy to act
on such a solemn occasion could so far descend below the
level of common decency, and that, too, at a time when the
observant eyes of Rome, and I may add of all Europe, were
fixed upon every step which they should take in the work
of Reformation. The very extravagance of the story refutes
itself. It is a gross and vulgar lie, framed by a gross and
vulgar mind, and intended to work upon the vulgar and ig
norant mass of the population.
Secondly, two of the consecrating Bishops, Barlow and

Nagg's-Head Fable.

Coverdale, were Bishops in the reign of Henry VIII., and
were consecrated by the form of the Church of Rome, so
that Dr. Milner can find no fault with their authority. This
fact is expressly stated by Bishop Burnet in his confutation
of Sanders. (Vol. 4, App., p. 471 .)
Thirdly, the Ordinal of Edward VI. was sufficient, be
cause the essence of ordination consists in the laying on of
hands for the office, and the other rites appended to it by
the Church are variable, and in effect have been often
changed, the Apostles having left no precept nor example
binding their successors beyond the requisites which I have
mentioned. The other two Bishops, therefore, had been
consecrated with perfect validity. And with respect to
Parker himself, it is plain that he was presented, in the words
of the record itself, to be consecrated Archbishop, and there
is no dispute that he received the imposition of hands. But
besides all this, the questions and answers of the Ordinal
which determined the ofiice definitively, and the prayers
and suffrages, the exhortations, the administration of the
holy Eucharist — all are set down, showing the utter empti
ness and folly of the objection.
Fourthly, we have the original record of the transaction,
in Latin, drawn up with the utmost precision, showing that
he was consecrated on the Lord's Day, Dec. 17, 1559, in
his chapel at the Archiepiscopal Palace of Lambeth, which
was richly adorned for the occasion, and setting forth the
whole imposing ceremonial, from first to last, with all the
care of a practised notary.*
Fifthly, your own Roman historian, who was the continu-
ator of Fleury, though he notices in the margin the book of
Le Quien, written against the English ordinations, never-
" Bp. Burnet, Collection of Records, App. to History of Reforma
tion, vol. 4, p. 432.

8 Letter XXV.

theless accepts the record as worthy of all confidence, and re
peats all its details precisely, withotft the slightest attempt
at depreciation.
Sixthly, Father Courayer, a learned and candid priest of
your own Church, who resided some time in England, took
the pains to investigate the matter, and published a volume
which vindicated the truth against the absurd and malignant
cavils of some amongst his brethren.
And seventhly, your Roman Catholic historian, Lingard,
not only stated the matter rightly in his elaborate work, but
afterwards published a separate account of the evidence, to
defend his own diligent research, and disabuse his fellow-
Romanists of the old imposition.
It is humiliating to see Dr. Milner, in the face of such
evidence, struggling to make out his objection by saying
that " the record of Barlow's consecration has been hunted
for in vain during two hundred years ;" that " the learned
Catholics,'' fifty years after the consecration of Archbishop
Parker, " universally exclaimed that the Register of that
transaction was a forgery, unheard of till that date ; and
that, admitting it to be true, it was of no avail, as the pre
tended consecrator Barlow, though he had sat in several
Sees, had not himself been consecrated for any of them."
But the audacity of such falsehoods can impose on no one
who is not already predetermined to yield his reason to the
calumnies of any Romanist, without the slightest regard to
evidence or probability. Who ever heard before of people
that had b^en hunting for a record during Ivw hundred years ?
And how should they expect to find the record of Barlow's
consecration in the time of Henry VIII., after the reign of
the bigoted Queen Mary had put it in the power of the Ro
man Bishops to destroy every trace of those private records
which, in their eyes, were only the monuments of heresy 1

Idolatry does not void Mission.

And when, since the world began, did it happen that a man
should be able to occupy several Episcopal Sees, without
ever being consecrated for any of them ? Or by what rule of
proof shall the regularly enrolled record of Parker's conse
cration be called a, forgery, without the slightest attempt to
show who could have committed such a crime, why it should
have been committed, or hoto the imposture could have
availed to give him his public and acknowledged rank in
the face of the whole nation ? Truly, it is hard to say
whether an assault upon the facts of history like this, is
most to be admired for its amazing contempt of common
sense, or its audacious effrontery. The only apology which
I can imagine for the author is suggested by the fact that
he belonged to a class of men who are accustomed to ac
cept, in its broadest signification, the maxim, " I believe,
BECAUSE IT IS IMPOSSIBLE."
The next argument of Dr. Milner is directed against our
ministry, on the ground that, even if they possess a valid or
dination, yet they cannot have the apostolical succession of
mission or authority : first, because our Homily asserts that
" for eight hundred years, the laity and clergy, all sects and
degrees, were drowned in abominable idolatry ;" and if such
was the condition of the Church, she could not retain her
divine mission and jurisdiction during all this time, so as
to commission her ministry to preach. And secondly, be
cause the Church could not possibly give jurisdiction and
authority to the English Reformers to preach against her
self. This argument is ingenious, but totally unsound, since it
confounds the real authority of your Church, in those things
which were good and true, with her pretended authority to
perpetuate corruption and idolatry. The answer, therefore,
is very easy, when the distinction which I have already
VOL. II. 1*

10 Letter XXV.

explained in the previous volume is properly understood.
For the being, the duties, and the powers of the Church, are
neither more nor less than the Gospel of Christ has commit
ted to her. I have said that the Church of Rome still retains
the true faith of the Scriptures, and by virtue of this, has
authority to commission the ministry for the purpose of
propagating the same faith to the end of the world. Thus
far she is a true Church, and thus far she could give mis
sion and authority. But she never received from her di
vine Lord and Master the right to preach falsehood, super
stition, and idolatry, and therefore she never had His au
thority to commission others to preach them. Her power
to act for Christ extends no farther than the word of Christ,
and when she opposes His word, directly or indirectly, she
does it not by right, but by fraud and unfaithfulness. Thus,
the adulteress has power to order her children according to
the known will of her husband, but she has no power to
command them to approve her crime against her marriage
vow, much less to insist that, because she is their mother,
they are bound to aid and defend her in her acts of infidel
ity. And therefore when they discover that she is an adul
teress, it is their duty to remonstrate with her, and endeavor
to persuade her to return to the path of rectitude. And
when they find her hardened and irreclaimable, assertiiig
her innocence in the face of the clearest proof, assaulting
her sons with violence, and driving them away with curses
from her table, do they any the less inherit the property
which the common ancestor of the whole family entailed to
his offspring forever ? Can she with any justice deny their
claims, only because they are faithful to the rights and
honor of their father ? Can she say to them, " You charge
me with being unfaithful ; yea, some of you have said that I
was drow^ned in sin against my husband before you were

Duty of Children to a false Mother. 1 1
born. If this be so, you cannot be my children at all.
For I would not have brought you into the world, and sus
tained you up to manhood, in order that you should now ac
cuse me of impurity V Such an argument, it is manifest,
v.'ould be an absurdity. The crime of adultery could not
prevent her being a mother, nor deprive her lawful offspring
of their rights. It could only operate on them by making
it their duty to stand by their father's authority, and justify
their separation from their mother by the necessity which
her sin and her cruel despotism had forced upon them.
Even so it was between the Church of Rome and the
English Reformers. She was the covenant bride of Christ
by virtue of the original faith of the Gospel, which she
had never cast away. As such, she had a right to bap
tize her sons, and give them valid Orders and valid mis
sion. But when they discovered that she was a spiritual
adulteress, by a recurrence to the Scriptures and the pure
days of primitive Christianity, they renounced, as in duty
bound, their participation in the sin which they had ig-
norantly defended, and endeavored to bring back their
Mother to her first pure faith. Instead of acknowledging
her crimes, she boldly maintained them by appealing to
false traditions, threatened her reformed sons with her
vengeance if they dared to proclaim the truth, drove them
from her communion by her anathemas, and brought as
many as she could lay hands on to the torture and the
flames. It was beyond her power, however, to take from
them the authority which they rightfully possessed as the
commissioned priests and Bishops of the Church of Christ,
because it was conferred lawfully, in accordance with her
proper powers, and could not be nullified by the associa
tion with corruptions and idolatries, the falsehood of which
was not known at the time. And therefore they continued

12 Letter XXV.

to exercise it none the less, but rather the more, since the
command of Christ, their Father and their Master, obliged
them to bear testimony against the notorious sins of their
mother, the Papal Church, as the only way by which the
whole family. of Christ could be reclaimed to the truth and
simplicity of the Gospel, and guarded against her corrupt
and perilous influence.

The End of Controversy.^ Controverted. 13

LETTER XXVI.

Most Reverend Sir :
The 30th letter of Bishop Milner is devoted to a brief
refutation of what he calls the exploded fable of Pope
Joan, and much more largely to the evidence in favor of
your Church, which he supposed may be fairly derived
from the great extent and vast success of her missionary
enterprises. These must, therefore, be my next topics of
consideration. With regard to the first, viz., the history of Pope Joan, it
has become fashionable to call it a fable ever since the
Protestant Blondel, and the critic and philosoper, Bayle,
published their refutation. The story is, that in the earlier
part of the ninth century, an English girl, of twelve years
old, being seized with a strong passion for a young monk,
put on male attire, left her father's house, and obtained ad
mission into the same monastery, where she became dis
tinguished for her progress in learning, and all the outward
marks of sanctity ; that after some years she left the
monastery with her paramour, travelled extensively, greatly
increased her store of knowledge and her skill in disputa
tion, and finally took up her residence at Athens, where
her lover died ; that from Athens she went to Rome, and
attracted universal applause by her talents and acquire
ments, which were the more esteemed on account of her
remarkable zeal and piety ; that here, having perfectly
preserved her disguise (which was the more easy because

14 Letter XXVI.

the ecclesiastics of Rome wore no beard whatever), she
was elected Pope by the name of John VIII., after the
death of Leo IV., and held the See for two years and five
months ; that she was then discovered by the pains of labor
overtaking her, as she was walking in a public procession,
between the Coliseum of Nero and the shrine of St. Clement,
and there her child and herself died, or, as some authors as
sert, the child alone, while the mother was consigned to a
dungeon ; that Benedict HI. succeeded her, A. D. 855 ;
that her name was erased from the list of Popes and from
the contemporary chronicles, as the whole fact was so hu
miliating to the dignity of the Papal office ; that in order to
guard against the possibility of such deception in future, the
rule was adopted and kept up for seven hundred years, that
every newly elected Pope should be placed in a perforated
chair, called stercoraria, and that his sex should be modestly
and quietly ascertained from the back of that chair by the
hands of the youngest Cardinal Deacon ; that a statue was
erecte^ on the spot in detestation of the imposture ; and
that no Pope nor public procession ever passed over the
place where the catastrophe occurred until A. D. 1367,
when, as Fleury has already informed us, Pope Urban broke
through the custom, and destroyed it.
The evidence for and against this curious narrative is
worth examining, for I am by no means convinced that it
should be called. a fable, if we are to be guided in history
by any of the usual rules of proof. Against it we are told,
first, that such a deception is impossible. That this, how
ever, is an error, is easily proved by other cases of a simi
lar kind, the truth of which is not disputed. Thus, Eu
genia, daughter of the Governor of Alexandria, in the reign
of Gallienus, disguised herself so as to gain admission to a
monastery of monks, and was even made their Abbot ; and

Pope Joan. 15
she would have been undetected to the hour of her death, if
she had not revealed the truth, to save her character from
the charge of licentiousness with a woman of ill-fame, and
free her brethren from the scandal. So, too, Theodora of
Alexandria, having erred in her youth, resolved to conceal
the sex she had disgraced, and hide herself in a monastery.
She was admitted accordingly, and closed her days without
suspicion of disguise, till the truth was ascertained after her
dissolution. In modern times we have had a far more ex
traordinary case, namely, that of the Chevalier d'Eon,
equerry to Louis XV., who, after passing the first forty-nine
years of his life with great eclat as an advocate, an author,
a military officer, and a diplomatist, the last fourteen of
which were spent in London, adopted the strange notion of
playing the woman, put on female attire, and wore it till his
death, in A. D. 1810, with the universal belief of the com
munity that he was what he pretended. Yet the physicians
who dissected his body bore testimony that he was a man,
after all. A large number of similar examples might be
furnished, of the first sort especially, and hence it is plain
that there is nothing in this objection.
Next we are told that the story cannot be true, because
the book of Anastasius, the librarian, who wrote the Pon
tificate of Benedict III., and was living in Rome at the
time, says nothing of it, but states, on the contrary, that
Leo IV. was presently (mox) succeeded by Benedict.
With him agrees the testimony of Hincmar, Bishop of
Rheims, Pope Nicholas, the successor of Benedict HI.,
Ado, Archbishop of Vienne, the Bertinian Annalist, and
likewise the Greek •<vriters, Photius and Metrophanes, all
of whom were contemporaneous, and precisely alike in the
statement of the Papal succession.*
* Bower's History of the Popes, vol. 4, p. 241.

16 Letter XXVL

This is the real point of argument in the case, and there
is no other. But it is answered by the allegation on the
contrary side, that it was agreed by the influential heads of
the Church to suppress all notice of the strange and dis
graceful fact, because it could do no possible good to hand
it down to posterity, and would rather tend to the ridicule
of religion. That the impostor could not be entitled to a
place on the list of the Popes, because her sex disqualified
her. That this principle being admitted, there was no vio
lence done to the truth of histQEy^in'Omitfing her altogether.
That the two eminent prelates of the East, Photius of
Constantinople, and Metrophanes of Smyrna, could have no
interest in refusing to follow the lead of Rome on such a
subject, but rather avoided, as a matter of policy, inserting
a useless scandal, which. would be taken as an offence, and
only serve to aggravate the growing discord between their
respective Churches. That, in fine, the testimony, prop
erly considered, is no testimony at all, because it does not
meet the case. It only asserts that Benedict HI. succeeded
Leo IV., which was true, on the proper hypothesis that
Joan was no real Pope, but an arrant impostor. And there
fore there is no actual conflict, after all, between the wit
nesses. It is proper to state, however, that Bower, who is a perr
feet unbeliever in the history of this false Pope, regards the
evidence of Hincmar as conclusive. For he quotes that
Archbishop as saying, in a letter to Pope Nicholas, that he
had sent envoys to Rome, who, hearing on the road that Leo
was dead, pursued, nevertheless, their journey, and arriving at
Rome, obtained of Benedict the privilege which they were sent
to demand. From this. Bower argues that the woman Joan
could not have stepped in between Leo and Benedict for
two years and five months, unless the envoys of Hincmar

Pope Joan. 17
are supposed to have been all that time on their journey.
But this is a very hasty conclusion, because it takes for granted
the most unusual thing in the history of the Papacy, viz.,
that those envoys gained the assent of the Pope immediately
on their arrival, whereas there was no complaint so common
against the Popes, from the ninth century and upwards, as the
long delays which elapsed before suitors obtained a deci
sion. It cannot be forgotten that, at a later period, Henry
VIII. spent six years in trying to obtain the Papal judg
ment, and was compelled to act without it at last. Hence
it is evident that this letter of Hincmar proves nothing of
the kind which Bower takes for granted, and therefore does
not in the least interfere with the answer given to this sec
ond objection.
If the date were unanimously settled at which Leo died,
and also that at which Benedict was elected, it would be
the most satisfactory mode of ascertaining whether there
was any interval of time sufficient for the false Pope to
have come between them. But here there is a great dis
crepancy, for Ranulphus allows only four years to the pon
tificate of Leo, while Platina and others make it eight
years and three months. Who shall decide between them ?
But now, on the other hand, let me examine the positive
evidence in favor of the story.
First, it is related by Marianus Scotus, in the eleventh
century, two centuries after the fact, by Sigebertus in the
twelfth century, and by Martinus Polonus in the thirteenth.
It is objected that these writers are too late, because they
could not have known what happened so long before they
were bom. But this objection comes strangely from a Ro
manist, who places such faith in the truth of oral tradition.
It is easy to conceive that as the lapse of time, during
•which the heads of the Church had taken some pains to

18 Letter XXVL

suppress the written record of the event, had passed away,
while yet the local memory of the matter in Rome was
likely to go down from generation to generation, the first
chronicler of it, Marianus Scotus, felt free to mention the
facts without any danger of offence, and therefore did so in
perfect honesty. But supposing it to have been a lie, then
first invented, we are encountered at once by many greater
difficulties. For what could have been his motive ? He
had no possible interest to serve by Sil*t a fabrication.
There were no Protestaiits to gratify; and if there had been,
he was himself a faithful and highly esteemed monk of
Fulda, attached, heart and soul, to Rome. Such a story
could bring no honor to the Popes, no credit to the priest
hood, no gain to his monastery, no advantage to himself.
On the contrary, if it were a lie, his statement must have
raised a storm about his ears which would soon have com
pelled him to retract it. But instead of this, it appears
that his account was received with universal acquiescence
in its truth. The chroniclers who succeeded him repeat
the same, with further particulars ; especially; that a statue
was erected on the spot, that the processions went round about
to avoid passing over it, and that the perforated chair was
adopted to prevent the occurrence of a similar deception in fu
ture. How would they have dared to assert such facts if
they were not perfectly secure from contradiction ? Surely
it must be manifest to the slightest reflection, that the pub
lication of such things in the twelfth and thirteenth centu
ries, when the power of the Papacy was at the highest
point, would have been treated indignantly as a gross scan
dal upon the Holy See ; and hence the entire absence of
all censure against these authors, and the general acqui
escence in the truth of what they declared, amounts to a
demonstration in their favor.

Pope Joan. 19
Secondly, we have the testimony of Theodoric of Nerin,
who was secretary to two Popes, that the statue of this fe
male impostor was still extant in Rome at the time he
wrote, namely, in 1413. And Bower admits, in a note,
that this statue represented a woman and a child, that it
stood on the spot where she was said to have been de
livered, and that the story was universally believed at that
day. Thirdly, we have the strong corroborating evidence of
another statue of this female, which stood among the statues
of the Popes in the great Cathedral of Siena, placed be
tween those of Pope Leo IV. and Pope Benedict HI., with
this inscription — Joan VIII., an English woman. In the
time of Baronius, this statue was still to be seen in that
cathedral ; but Cardinal Tarugi, Archbishop of Siena, ap
plying to the Grand Duke, at his request the features were
altered, and the statue of Pope Joan was metamorphosed
into the statue of Pope Zachary. But this was not effect
ual, as every one knew that it once represented the female
Pope, and therefore it was removed and broken up before the
year 1677. And here I must quote the testimony of the
learned Romanist, Antonius Pagi, as given in a note of
Bower — " That as he passed through Siena, in the year
1677, and was very desirous of being informed, upon the
spot, of every particular relating to the famous statue of the
she-Pope in that cathedral, he applied for information to
the religious of his own order, the Minorites ; but they, to
his great surprise, pretended never to have heard of such a
statue. Hereupon, Pagi, finding that they, he knew not
why, avoided entering upon the subject, repaired to the
cathedral, and addressing the prebendaries as they came
out of the choir after Vespers, told them that he wanted to
see the statue of Pope Joan, and begged they would show

20 Letter XXVL

it to him, as it might afford him some new light to confute
the fable and confound the heretics. But they all walked
off, without so much as deigning to return him an answer.
When they were all gone, a man advanced in years, ac
costing him, told him that he had long belonged to that
cathedral, and that, as it was not to gratify his curiosity,
but, as he understood, for the good of the Church, he wanted
to be informed concerning the statue of Pope Joan, he
would give him the information for so good a purpose, pro
vided he engaged never to discover the person who had
given it. With this condition Pagi readily complied, and
thereupon the good old man answered all his questions to
his full satisfaction, showed him the place where the statue
had stood, told him when it was changed into that of
Zachary, and when it was removed, viz., in the pontificate
of Alexander VII., a native of Siena," &c.
Fourthly, we have the direct attestation of the same story
from St. Antoninus, Archbishop of Florence,* besides the
general acquiescence of those who were the most zealously
attached to the Papal system, so that the first who appears
to have questioned its truth was Eneas Silvius, afterwards
Pope Pius II., in the fifteenth century, and he only went
so far as to say that the story was not certain. Afterwards,
as the reformers began to make it a subject of reproach,
many undertook to confute it, but none with better success,
saith Bower, than the two zealous Protestants, Sarau and
Blondel, whose arguments, in his opinion, are quite unan
swerable. Certain it is, indeed, that it has been the fashion,
since their day, to treat it as an exploded fable, so that Dr.
Milner triumphs, as well he might, in the force of this Prot-
* See the article " Joannes VIII.," in the Historia Ecclesiastica of
the Magdeburg Centuriators, Cent, ix, p. 500.

Pope Joan. 21
estant advocacy. Whether their opinion is based on any
just grounds, however, is altogether a different question.
Lastly, we have the statement of your historian, Fleury,
that Pope Urban, returning to Rome A. D. 1367, and riding
in state through the city, it was remarked that he did not
turn away from the spot where it was said that Pope Joan had
been delivered, as was the custom of some of his predecessors.
" And this shows," saith the historian, " that they had be
gun to be disabused about this fable."* The facts, how
ever, as stated by himself, are a complete proof that the
Popes, before this time, were accustomed to turn away from
that place, and that it was the current understanding in
Rome that it was the spot where the event had occurred. The
statue of Joan and her child, as we have seen, was still
extant in 1413, and, of course, it was standing in 1367,
when Urban rode through the city. But his going by the
place is not stated to have been by any special design. It
may have been by inadvertence. It may have been from
ignorance of the locality, as he was then a stranger in
Rome. Be this as it may, however, the remarks created
by his unusual course are perfectly inexplicable, imless
we admit the truth of the story. For who could have im
pressed such a fact upon the public mind in Rome, and in
duced the previous Popes to avoid the spot, in compliance
with the universal belief, if it were a mere fable ?
Thus, then, the reader has the whole argument fairly
placed, on both sides, before him. On the one side, we
have the silence of certain contemporary writers, which I
think may, without any difficulty, be satisfactorily explained.
The dates are not in the way, becarse the length of the
pontificate of Leo IV. is stated variously, and the chronicle
* See page 95.

22 Letter XXVL

of Ranulphus allows sufiicient time. On the other side, we
have the positive assertion of many writers of good credit,
who would not have dared to publish a disgraceful lie, with
out any possible motive, and whose statements, instead of
being denounced at once, were received with universal ac
quiescence. We have, besides, the erection of a statue,
the custom of avoiding that part of the city by the Popes
and the public processions, the erection of another famous
statue in the Cathedral of Siena, and the extraordinary
custom of the perforated chair, which remained in the cere
monial of the Popes until the sixteenth century, and for
the introduction of which nothing but this story can account
historically. On the vyhole, therefore, I have no hesitation
in declaring that the evidence is decisive in favor of its
truth, Messrs. Bayle, Blondel, and Bower to the contrary
notwithstanding. And I am very confident that any candid
mind, accustomed to the weighing of evidence, will concur
in the result, and consider the proof amply sufficient to
establish any fact in history.
But although I have taken some pains to examine this
story, and have no doubt whatever of its truth, I do not
mean to be understood as attaching the slightest importance
to it as a point of theological controversy. It was no fault
in the clergy of Rome to have been deceived by an impostor
who possessed extraordinary learning and talent, and ap
peared to lead a life of piety and devotion. Far more re
proachful to your Church is the unquestioned fact that she
chose so many men to the Papal dignity, and endured them
so long, who were monstrous examples of licentiousness
and abomination. Indeed, so little value do I attach to the
case of Pope Joan, that I should not have mentioned it at
all, if Dr. Milner had not thought fit to introduce it with
such triumphant flippancy. Nevertheless, I must pray my

Pope Joan. 23
readers to weigh the easy self-complacency with which he
dismisses it, against his pretended doubts about the conse
cration of Archbishop Parker. Let them look at the evi
dence which he adduces in that, and compare it with the
evidence which I have quoted, yrom his own Church, in the
other. And then they will be able to estimate the measure
of candor and justice which he thought necessary for the
management of theological discussion.

24 The End of Controversy, Controverted.

LETTER X XVII,

Most Reverend Sir :
The 30th letter of Dr. Milner (p. 210) presents a strong
and very unfair attack upon the missionary work in the
Church of England, together with a most glowing and ex
aggerated account of the Missions of the Church of Rome ;
and this calls upon me next for a brief consideration.
It should first be well noted, however, that the apparent
success or failure of the work of modern Missions has no
proper place in a work of theological controversy. Success
and victory, in the end, are certainly promised to the cause
of the Gospel ; but th.* results of two or three hundred
years are not to be taken as the measure of fulfilment, nor
as, in any proper sense, a test of truth. Thus, we know
that the religion of the false prophet, Mahomet, advanced
with marvellous speed and prosperity during the first three
centuries of its existence, until it not only overran and
extinguished a multitude of Churches in Africa and Asia, ¦
but made inroads upon Europe itself, and established its
rule over Moldavia, Servia, and Wallachia. Was that a
proof of its divine authority 1 The Crusades were set forth,
at an enormous expense of blood and treasure, to reclaim
the Holy Land from the grasp of the infidels, and the Popes
and priesthood of those days confidently assured their peo
ple that it was the will of God, believing, I doubt not
very sincerely, that the plan was conceived by actual in

Success no Proof of Truth. 25
spiration. This effort, too, was kept up for centuries ; and
although, for a little while, the arras of Christendom did
establish what they called the Kingdom of Jerusalem, yet
the end was a total failure, and the Crescent prevailed
against all the efforts of the Cross. Was that a proof that
Mahometanism was the true religion ? At the period of
the Reformation, nation after nation was recovered from Pa
pal despotism, and the yoke of Rome was cast off victori
ously, until the religion of the Bible became the religion of
millions who had once bowed in submission before the
monarch of the triple crown. Would Dr. Milner acknowl
edge that wonderful success to be an argument in favor of
our principles 1 Nay, in our own day and country, the
new sect of the Mormons is increasing with astonishing
rapidity, and their missionaries succeed in making prose
lytes amongst the nominal members of all the Churches in
Christendom. But what Romanist would allow that this
was any evidence in favor of their system ?
The whole of this elaborate portion of Dr. Milner's work
is, therefore, built upon a perfect fallacy. Even if his state
ments were all true, which they are very far from being,
still the conclusion would be an absurdity, opposed to the
Scriptures, to the voice of history, and to the present state
of the world. It is, indeed, only another shape of his argu
ment for Catholicity, derived from numbers, the weakness
of which, I trust, has been already sufficiently exposed. Nev-.
ertheless, since he has devoted so large a space to this fa
vorite phantom of Romanism, I must add a few further re
marks upon his alleged facts, to show the little confidence
to which they are entitled.
I pass by his charges upon the supposed discrepancies
in religion amongst Protestant missionaries, upon their want
of a divine mission, and upon their defects of qualification,
VOL. II. 2

26 Letter XXVII.

partly because these points have been sufficiently treated,
partly because comparisons in personal attainments are in
vidious and unprofitable, but mainly because I am only con
cerned with the missionaries of the Church of England and
our own ; and any defence of them against his accusations
must be quite unnecessary. But he boasts that the Romish
missionaries have always been men of continency and self-de
nial, who have had no other defence than their breviary and
crucifix, no other weapon than the sword of the Spirit, which
is the Word of God. And here I cannot help admiring his
effrontery. For your modern Church of Rome has made
more use of carnal weapons than any other branch of Chris
tendom, and never fails to rely on the secular arm, when it
suits her policy. Had your favorite advocate forgotten the
Bishops, Abbots, yea. Popes, who are recorded by your own
historians to have led their troops to battle in person, and
shed blood without scruple or censure 1 Had he forgotten
their reliance on fire and sword to convert or exterminate
the heretical Albigenses, Waldenses, and Henricians ? Had
he forgotten the tender mercies of the inquisitions in Spain
and Goa, and the tortures and the flames provided, as the
bulwarks of the faith, wherever your Papal Church ob
tained an establishment ? Or had he only counted largely
upon the ignorance or credulity of his readers ?
I do not, however, mean to deny that the Jesuit mission
aries of Rome have gone upon their work among the hea
then without arms or armies to protect them. This is
doubtless true enough ; but it is true, not from any rule of
Christian principle on the part of Rome, as is manifest from
her whole history, so much as from policy and necessity.
The same course has been followed by the missionaries of
the Church of England, and by Protestant missionaries in
general. Nor is there any exception whatever, unless

Missio7is and Martyrs. 27
where the law of self-preservation, which your own casuists
do not pretend to invalidate, may have fully justified it.
The next fault found with our missionaries is, that there
have been no martyrs among them. How this may be, is
a matter which depends, under God, not so much on the
missionaries themselves, as on the peculiar circumstances
which may rouse the hatred of the people against them.
But the spirit of a martyr must inspire the heart of every
true missionary among the heathen. And that spirit has
certainly been exhibited by very many, amongst the men
sent out by the Church of England, who have willingly
abandoned home, society, and friends, at the risk of health
and life, to convert the savages of Africa, the Hindoos of
the East, and the bushmen of Australia.
It is a false assumption, however, that the work of Mis
sions to the heathen must necessarily be marked by actual
martyrdom. The Apostles Peter and Paul were preserved
throughout thirty -three years of the most extended and suc
cessful labors. And so far were they from courting martyr
dom, that they escaped their persecutors when they could,
in obedience to the precept of Christ, " When they perse
cute you in one city, flee ye to another." Hence, it was not
so much by their proper work as missionaries that their
lives were at last sacrificed, as by the cruel policy of the
Emperor Nero, to turn upon the Christians the odium of his
own act, in the burning of Rome. The first martyr, St.
Stephen, and the second, St. James, were not the victims
of the heathen, but of the Jews. The rest of the Apostles,
whether they were martyrs or not, which is uncertain, un
doubtedly labored during an average of from thirty to forty
years, before they were called^to their reward. And the
last of that sacred band, St. John, was continued until near
the close of the first century, and then died in peace.

28 Letter XXVIL

With these examples before our eyes, it is impossible to
suppose that actual martyrdom is to be taken as the regular
or the general end of the foreign missionary to the heathen.
It was assuredly not the end of that favorite missionary of
Dr. Milner, Augustin, vvho was sent to convert the Anglo-
Saxons, towards the close of the sixth century, and ended
his successful career in honor, as the Archbishop of Canter
bury. Neither do we read of any martyrs among the forty
monks who accompanied him, although, unhappily, his con
verts had a hand, before many years, in the cruel slaughter
of twelve hundred British monks at Bangor. Indeed, if a
fair survey be taken of the various missionary conquests
among the heathen nations of Europe, martyrdom will be
found to be not the general rule, but the very rare excep
tion. Hence, if the accounts which the Jesuits have given to
the world about the wonderful and incredible number of
their martyrs in Japan, Turkey, Abyssinia, Siam, Tonquin,
Cochin-China, &c., be accepted as true, it would only
prove that they had not contented themselves with the
proper work of a Gospel mission, according to the Apos
tolic pattern, but had provoked suspicion and hatred by those
odious acts of treachery, conspiracy, and ambition, which
we all know procured their expulsion, twice and even thrice,
by so many of the governments in Europe, and compelled the
Pope, however reluctantly, to abolish their order for a sea
son. We know that the East Indies had a plain proof of
the tender mercies of Romanism in the abominable Inqui
sition at Goa. And if the Jesuit missionaries, grown bold
by their first successes, manifested the same bloody spirit
of persecution elsewhere ; or if those heathen countries be
came acquainted with the principles of Romanism, so as
to comprehend that the new religion made it a duty to tor-

Frauds of Jesuit Missionaries. 29
ture and burn all dissenters for the love of God ; or if they
only discovered those atrocious maxims of Jesuit morality
which Pascal so admirably exposed in his Provincial Let
ters, and which are enough to "destroy all confidence in
government, law, or virtue : it is not at all surprising that the
priests should have been sacrificed, not as Christian mis
sionaries, but as the worst enemies of mankind. And in
such case, if they are to be called martyrs at all, it may
well be doubted whether they were so much the martyrs of
God as martyrs of the devil.
But this is far from being the whole of the difficulties
which attended these boasted missionary triumphs. They
were attacked on every side by the other Orders in the
Church of Rome herself, on the ground that they were con
ducted with the most shameful disregard of all really reli
gious principle ; that the heathen converts were allowed
to continue their idol worship, provided they adored, men
tally, Christ and the Virgin Mary ; that the missionaries
themselves were often examples of licentiousness, so that
the converted Iroquois Indians, in a treaty of peace A. D.
1682, stipulated for the removal of those libertine brethren
who did everything that Jesus did not do ; that it was evi
dent they were not promoting virtue and religion, but their
own interests ; that their extensive traffic injured the mer
chants ; that they were even prosecuted for their corrupt
management in Paraguay, and expelled from it in disgrace ;
that in the East Indies, Robert Nobili, their most cele
brated leader after Xavier, gave himself out to be a Bra-
min, adopted the customs of that caste and thus endeavor
ed to build up a surreptitious and false theory of the Gos
pel, in order to proselyt;e the masses throiigh the influence
of the Bramins, with the greater speed and certainty ;
finally, that of all these marvellous missionary successes,

30 Letter XXVIL

hardly anything remains at this day to prove their substan
tial character. It was not thus that the Gospel was dissem
inated by men who were real missionaries. The truth,
planted in the hearts of the heathen by genuine conver
sions, has usually taken root, and continued to propagate the
Church for many generations. And even in those quarters
where the sword of Mahomet overcame it, a seed has re
mained to manifest its vitality, as we see in the oppressed
Oriental Churches, under all the disadvantages of Turkish
despotism. Volumes have been written on this subject by the various
parties in the Church of Rome, the accusers of the Jesuits
upon the one side, and the Jesuit apologists upon the other.
That the general judgment of Rome and all Papal Europe
has been against the Jesuits, is notorious. In 1759, they
were expelled from Portugal. In 1764, they were expelled
from France. In 1767, they were expelled from Spain,
and soon afterwards from Naples, Parma, and Malta. In
1773, Pope Clement XIV. was compelled, though sorely
against his will, to abolish the Order through all the States
in Christendom, notwithstanding they were the very best
soldiers of Popery. Yet their secret continuance was con
nived at, until they were openly restored in 1814. And
they have been expelled again, in many Papal countries,
within our own day. All this, however. Dr. Milner keeps,
back, and only boasts of their apparent successes, to prove
how " God bestows His grace to execute the work of the
Apostles, as well as to preserve their doctrine, their Orders,
and their mission !"
On the other hand, to show the reckless character of your
advocate in the work of scandal, he undertakes (page 210)
to enumerate the missionary associations of the Church of
England. Among the rest, he particularizes the Society

The Society for the Propagation of the Gospel. 31
for the Propagation of the Gospel in Foreign Parts, and
adds, / hear nothing of its doings. He mentions the Mora
vian Missionary Society, which he admits to be more active
than the others, at the Cape, and in Greenland and Surinam ;
but he carefully avoids saying what had been achieved
there, although it furnishes, perhaps, the brightest page of
the missionary work, with the smallest means and the
largest personal sacrifices, since the days of the Apostles.
And then he sets down the British and Foreign Bible So
ciety, at which he sneers with sovereign contempt, in the
true spirit of the Papacy.
Now I shall notice but two of these, in order that my
reader may have another plain evidence of this writer's de
plorable obliquity. The Society for the Propagation of the
Gospel was founded in 1701. Missionaries were sent to the
American colonies and the Indian tribes, to the West In
dies, to Newfoundland, to Guinea, and to Sierra Leone, to
the Canadas, Cape Breton and New-Brunswick, to New
South Wales, and Norfolk Island. And ih& permanency of
the work is shown at this daj', by the fruits of established
dioceses, with their Bishops, their clergy, and their churches,
growing stronger and more numerous with the lapse of time.
In 1818, this Society took the charge of the East Indies,
and Dr. Milner's book bears date the same year, although
he had heard nothing of its doings. And yet, by the report
of those doings, published in 1851, the following aggregate
appears as the noble result : that in regions where, at the be
ginning of its labors, not a dozen of the ministers of the
Church of England could be found, there are now 57 Bish
ops, 2,750 clergymen, and three millions of the laity. Of
these, we have the following in the East Indies : — The dio
cese of Calcutta, established in 1813, five years before Dr,
Milner's work was printed, aud having the noble institution

32 Letter XXVIL

of Bishop's College, where natives of the Island of Ceylon
are pursuing their studies for the work of the Gospel minis
try. Next, the diocese of Madras, the diocese of Bombay,
and the diocese of Colombo. The last returns from the
diocese of Calcutta showed the present result with respect
to the heathen, viz., 113 villages of converted Hindoos, in
which were 2,451 persons baptized, 1,127 communicants,
and 26 houses of worship. In the single district of Tinne-
velly, four large and seven small churches, with accommo
dation for 3,000 persons, had been erected ; besides four
central and ten village schools. A seminary at Tanjore con
tained 50 native students, and another at Tinnevelly con
tained 140. The diocese of Victoria has also been estab
lished in China, and six dioceses in Australia, where the
conversion of the dark and degraded heathen is contem
plated with great interest. And this single society had then
452 missionaries in the various settlements in the West In
dies, Asia, Africa, and Australia, at an annual expenditure
of 375,000 dollars.
This is not, indeed, a matter of boast. On the contrary,
the Church of England, as weU as our own, is quite con
scious of the fact, that there is far less reason for boasting
that she has done so much, than for grieving that she has
done so little. Neither would it be just to hold Dr. Milner
accountable for omitting those results which have only
been attained since he passed away. But still, he is open
to grave censure in saying that, in 1818, he had heard noth
ing of the doings of this Society, when, if he had taken any
trouble to inquire, he must have known that his covert re
proach was perfectly unwarrantable. Still, he should have
had honesty enough to remember the vast differences in re
sources between the Church of Rome and the Church of
England, in the main point of men willing to undertake the

The Bible Society. 33
work of foreign missions to the heathen, for which so few
are adapted. If it had not been for the establishment of the
new order of Jesuits, even Rome herself, notwithstanding ¦
her mighty hosts of monks and priests, would have had but
little to claim in that direction. But yet, if a fair allowance
be made for the difference in numbers, I doubt whether the
Church of England has any cause to shrink from a com
parison of results, even in quantity ; while, in the far more
important point of quality, she has the advantage immeasu
rably on her side. What she has done she has done well
AND thoroughly. Her missionaries have not been, like
the Jesuits, the objects of universal suspicion and hostility.
Her successes have not been violent, and sudden, and enor
mous, beyond the bounds of credibility; but neither, have
they been purchased by the sacrifice of Christian principle,
by fraud or imposition. And therefore they have not melted
away, like snow before the sun ; nor have they been ac
cused as dangerous to the welfare and peace of nations.
On the contrary, they stand at this day strong and vigorous,
the centres of order and true civilization, the bulwarks of
moral truth, and the friends of moral progress ; giving prom
ise of the best result for the spiritual improvement and so
cial elevation of all around them.
With regard to the Bible Society, it never was supposed
that it would do the work of missions ; but, as an auxiliary
to that work, its labors have been invaluable. It suited
well with Dr. Milner's object to deride its claims and dis
credit its utility. And yet he ought to have remembered
that the translation of the Scriptures into the vulgar tongue
was one of the earliest products of Christian effort in the
primitive Church. He ought to have had honesty enough
to confess that the early fathers urged their flocks to read
the Scriptures, and that no Church which was faithful to
VOL. II. 2*

34 Letter XXVIL

the primitive model could expect the Gospel to take root
and flourish amongst any people who were debarred from a
full and free access to the Word of God. In this respect,
however, Rome, in modern ages, has done nothing to be
compared with England. By the zeal and munificence of
the Bible Society, the missionaries of the cross throughout
the globe have been supplied with millions of copies of the
Holy Scriptures, in more than two hundred different lan
guages and dialects. And the good work is going on, with
increasing proofs of its vast efficacy. Indeed, it would
seem to be the very madness of absurdity, even for a Ro
manist, to doubt it. For suppose that your own Church
had no translation of the Bible, but was obliged to take it
as the priests could present its meaning from the original
Hebrew and Greek, who is so insane as to believe that they
would not soon lose every vestige of the Gospel ? A con
sumptive patient may fret because the air cannot be breathed
without his lungs being painfully irritated ; but he must be
a lunatic to fancy, for that reason, that he could live better
without any air at all. And just so it is that your modern
Church of Rome is fretted by the reading of the Bible ; and
yet, if it were not for that, the life that still remains in
her would speedily end in total dissolution.
Having now gone through the letters of Dr. Milner to
the end of the 30th, where he sums up what he calls his
evidence in a postscript, I trust that I have fulfilled, thus
far, my promise, in the refutation of his claims. For I have
proved, by fair and competent testimony, that the Church of
England was compelled to the work of Reformation by the
highest duty of fidelity to the true Gospel of her Lord and
Saviour. That she existed and flourished ages before the
mission -of Augustin to the pagan King of Kent, at the close
of the sixth century. That her union with Rome was re-

Summary. 35

sisted by the British Bishops in the beginning, and was af
terwards accomplished by the hand of power through Anglo-
Saxon domination. That she had a full right to cast off
the Roman yoke, when the subsequent corruption of the
Papacy, witnessed by the extracts from Fleury, made it in
tolerable. That in accomplishing the mighty work, she
pursued the Rule of Faith as laid down by the fathers in
the primitive Church, taking the Holy Scriptures for her
guide, but in accordance with the primitive Catholic in
terpretation. That this interpretation has been embodied
in her Liturgy and Articles, so clearly and distinctly, that
every item of real Catholic truth is preserved and secured
from the possibility of serious departure. That on the four
notes of the Church, Unity, Sanctity, Catholicity, and Apos
tolicity, her claims are far superior to those of your modern
Church of Rome, because she possesses all of which Rome
can boast, but purified from her corruptions, and restored to
the original standard of true Catholicism. And hence I
conclude, in direct opposition to Dr. Milner, that the evi
dence is sufficient, and much more than sufficient, if fairly
weighed, to determine in her favor the choice of all who
desire the surest and the safest way of salvation.
My labor, however, is not yet completed, because your
favorite author proceeds to defend his Church against the
charges of her enemies, and tries to explain and justify her
unscriptural tenets with as much disingenuous art and bold
ness as we have found him using against ourselves. On
all of those points, I am prepared to prove his gross perver
sions of the truth, and to these, accordingly, I shall now ask
the serious attention of my readers ; confident, in the bless
ing of Him who is the way, the truth, and the life, that the
result will be entirely conclusive and satisfactory;

36 The End of Controversy, Controverted.

LETTER XXVIII.
Most Reverend Sir :
I am not at all surprised that Dr. Milner, in his 32d let
ter, takes the ground which has been common to all his
colleagues, especially since the time of Bossuet, the famous
Bishop of Meaux, namely, that as the Church is the inter
preter of the Word of God, her decisions should be accepted
implicitly, without any further examination. That if we be
convinced that she is the One, Holy, Catholic and Apos
tolic Church, it is utterly impossible she should inculcate
idolatry, superstition, or any other wickedness ; and that
those who believe her to be thus guilty, are, and must be,
in a fatal error. That, therefore, his Church cannot, strictly
and consistently, be required to vindicate the particular
tenets of their faith, either from Scripture or any other au
thority, it being sufficient for them to show that they hold
the doctrine of the true Church, which all Christians are
bound to hear.
This argument, however, has been examined and ex
posed sufficiently, I trust, in my 22d letter, where I proved,
from the Scriptures and the fathers, that just as the Church
of Israel was a divine institution, with the promise of per
petuity forever, and continued to retain the doctrines of her
first faith, while yet she became awfully infected with idola
try, false traditions, and licentiousness : even so the Church of
Rome, being apostolic and pure in the beginning, continued
to retain the true doctrine of the Gospel, and yet became

Preliminary Conditions. 37
corrupted from the same causes, and to a greater extent.
That, as the Scriptures of the Old Testament prophets, on
account of this very union of the false and the true, de
nounced the Church of Israel as an adulteress : even so the
same Scriptures denounce the Church of Rome, in the
Apocalypse, by the correspondent name of harlot. That
this Church, therefore, is a true Church, so far as she has
kept the original faith, and a. false Church, so far as she has
brought in her corrupt and idolatrous inventions. And that,
therefore, the object of the Reformers was not to found a
new Church, but to purify the old Church which had come
down from the beginning. Hence it is idle and absurd for
Dr. Milner to contend that his Church, if it be in any sense
a true Church, must therefore be incapable of error. Our
duty is to ascertain in what the characters of a true Church
consist ; and this we can only learn from the Word or
Christ, who alone has power to constitute His Church.
And next to this supreme law, we consent to be guided by
the decisions of the primitive Church, as she was when she
issued, in her purest form, from the teaching of the inspired
Apostles. All beyond this is the work of man, and not of
God ; and therefore it is to be likened to a disease, perilous
to her proper constitution, offensive in the sight of the di
vine Redeemer, and to be abandoned, as soon as it is dis
covered, by all His faithful people.
It is amusing enough, however, to see the conditions on
which your favorite author consents to discuss the claims of
Romanism. " I require," saith he, "that Catholics" (i. e.,
Romanists) " should be permitted to lay down their own prin
ciples of belief and practice, and, of course, to distinguish
between their Articles of Faith, in which they must all agree,
and mere scholastic opinions, of which every individual may
judge for himself ; as likevidse between the authorized Lit-

38 Letter XXV IIL

urgy and discipline of the Church, and the unauthorized devO'
tions and practices of particular persons." But this, it seems,
is not a rule which must be allowed " to work both ways."
In the whole of his wanton and malicious assaults upon the
Church of England, what has he been doing, all along, but
this very thing, against which he now guards himself so
carefully ? How has he confined himself to our Articles of
Faith and authorized Liturgy and discipline ? How, on the
contrary, has he sought to shelter his attacks under Watson,
Balguy, and a few other individuals, whom he knew per
fectly well to be most untrue exponents of the Church's
teaching? How has he labored to prove, from the expres
sions of these men, that we had no unity at all 1 How has
he boasted that in his Church every priest, all over the
world, has always taught, and now teaches, the very same
doctrine ? Here, then, every reader of common discern
ment may detect at once the consciousness of a deceiver.
And yet, he is welcome to enjoy his conditions, since I
shall employ no arguments nor evidence which I do not be
lieve fair and just, according to the universal course of ap
proved and honorable disputation.
Dr. Milner next launches forth into a long list of quota
tions from the writings of divines qf the Church of England,
and then gravely informs his readers that the authors them
selves did not believe their own assertions ! The modesty of
this is about equal to its logic. But he undertakes to ex
emplify it, as he saith, in a note, saying that Archbishop
Wake, who had strongly condemned the Church of Rome in
his controversial works, accusing it of heresy, schism, and
idolatry, yet afterwards, having entered into a correspond
ence with Dr. Dupin of the Sorbonne, in Paris, for the pur
pose of uniting their respective Churches, employed the
following words in his last letter, viz.': "In dogmatibm

Archbishop Wake and Dr. Dupin. 39
prout a te candide proponuntur, non admodum dissentimus, in
regimine ecclesiastica minus, in fundamentalibus, sive doc-
tnnam sive disciplinam spectemus, vix omnino." Here he
wishes the reader to infer that Archbishop Wake virtually
contradicted his own former opinions. Whereas, if he had
told the whole story, the absolute contrary would appear.
The very words he has quoted show that the Archbishop
was not speaking of the doctrines of Rome, but of the senti
ments of Dr. Dupin. " In points of faith" (dogmatibus),
" AS they are candidly proposed by you, we do not dif
fer greatly, in ecclesiastical order still less, and in funda
mentals, whether we regard doctrine or discipline, scarcely
at all." The fact was that Dupin, and many others of the
French Church, were highly dissatisfied with Romanism at
the time, and were seriously meditating the propriety or fol
lowing the example of the Church of England. In this
temper the correspondence was commenced, and the Arch
bishop, hoping that it might lead to a happy result, en
couraged it ; being led to believe, from the statements of
Dupin's own opinions, that he was in a fair way to see the
truth, and to follow it to the point of urging forward a real
reformation. It appeared, however, that the French clergy
were, not prepared to go to the full extent, and therefore the
correspondence ended. And this is the kind of evidence
which Dr. Milner ventured to impose upon his readers, as
an exemplification of his charge, that the English clergy did
not believe their own statements concerning the corruptions of
the Church of Rome, although he quoted from the appendix
to Mosheim's Church History, vol. vi., p. 121, where he had
the whole story !
The next observation which Dr. Milner addresses to the
controversial writers of our Church is, that their writings
never unsettle the faith of a single individual, much less do

40 Letter XXVIIL

they cause any one to quit the Roman communion. The
assertion is doubtless true to a very great extent, but the
reason is because the priests of Rome forbid their people to
read what they call heretical books, or listen on any occasion
to Protestant preaching ; while their private confessional
gives them complete power to enforce the rule. They have
no idea of exposing their flocks to the danger of examining
more than one side of the question. They prefer that their
laity should believe, with a blind faith, whatever their priests
tell them ; and the blinder the better, because it shows their
implicit confidence in their leaders, and gives no trouble. We,
on the contrary, desire that our people should be intelligent
and informed, not only as to whatihey believe, but also why
they believe it. And therefore there is no check whatever
placed in their way. Nor have we any fear that the examina
tion which they may make of the grounds and principles of
the Reformation will fail to strengthen and confirm their faith,
so long as it is conducted with prayer, and a religious rev
erence for the supreme authority of the Holy Scriptures.
And this brings me to another suggestion of Dr. Milner,
viz., that the very violence of the controversial attacks upon
the Church of Rome constantly leads Protestants to join
her communion, and become the most zealous in her pale.
That this has sometimes been the case, I freely admit ; but
I doubt not that in every instance it has arisen from such
individuals being deluded into a false idea of her unity, or a
weak admiration of her external sanctity or splendor,
coupled with a real ignorance of the true scriptural Church
of Christ, and a morbid impatience of the imperfections and
infirmities of their own reformed community. But how
strangely absurd was such an argument from Dr. Milner,
when, for every one thus perverted from the Reformed
Churches to Rome, he could have counted a thousand turn-

Which bears false Witness. 41
ing from Rome to England ! Surely, he must have forgot
ten that the kingdoms of Europe who abandoned his Church
in the sixteenth century were all trained up in the lap of
the Papacy. He must have been ignorant that of all the
European Romanists who emigrate to our American conti
nent, a full third part, at least, leave their Church, to return
to it no more. And had he lived a few years longer, he
would have seen how sixty thousand of the warm-hearted
and devoted Irish, in their own fair land, have renounced
their priests, and sought the pure faith of the Gospel in the
Church of England, in despite of all that prejudice, and
menaces, and peril of life and limb, could do to prevent
them. The concluding paragraph of this 32d letter, however, is
one of Dr. Milner's highest strains of dramatic piety, for
he gravely reminds his controversial accusers that they shall
answer at the tribunal of Christ for violating the command
of God, — Thou shah not bear false witness against thy neigh
bor. And this is from a man who stands pre-eminent above
the great majority of his brethren for the recklessness and
abundance of the most determined calumny ! Who abuses
systematically the characters, motives, and sacrifices of all
the Church of England; Bishops, priests, kings, queens, no
bility, commoners, missionaries, societies, without one re
deeming word of palliation or allowance ! Who does not
blush to charge the English clergy of his own day with
habitual hypocrisy in subscribing to articles which they do
not believe ! Who tells the English writers of controversy
that they are lying wilfully when they publish their charges
against the Papal system, and brands the very martyrs of
their Church with every possible charge of foul abomination
against the evidence of the most respectable historians of
his own communion ! But let it pass. I have already had

42 Letter XXVIIL

abundant work to answer his misrepresentations, and shall
have no difficulty in the remaining portion of my under
taking. Meanwhile, much as I shall oppose his false facts
and false reasoning, I shall abstain from judging their author.
God alone can tell how far the deceiver was himself de
ceived, or with how much personal sincerity he may have
prosecuted the work of delusion. I envy not his audacity
in claiming the power of reading the hearts of others, and I
would rather hope that he was really blinded by the long
course of his peculiar training, than assert that he was aware
of the truth, while he employed his ingenuity and talents iu
the service of error.

The End of Controversy, Controverted. 43

LETTER XXIX

Most Reverend Sir :
We come now to the specific examination of those other
doctrines which the Church qf England rejected at the time
of the Reformation, and Dr. Milner commences the list with
what he calls the invocation, and what I hold to be the wor
ship, of the saints. He denies that the Romanist prays to
the saints as to God, and quotes the Council of Trent on the
subject, as foUows : " That the saints, reigning with Christ,
offer up their prayers to God for men ; that it is good and
useful suppliantly to invoke them, and to have recourse to
their prayers, help, and assistance, to obtain favors from God,
through his Son Jesus Christ our Lord, who is alone our
Redeemer and Saviour." He compares this to the case of
mutual intercession amongst Christians upon earth, only
with this difference, that " as the saints in heaven are free
from every stain of sin and imperfection, and are confirmed
in grace and glory, so their prayers are far more efficacious
for obtaining what they ask for, than the prayers of us im
perfect and sinful mortals.''
In answer to the objection that the praying to the saints,
whom we cannot see, involves, of necessity, a belief in their
omnipresence, which is a divine attribute. Dr. Milner employs
the following language : " How does it follow, from my
praying to an angel or a saint in any place, that I necessa-
^'j f^rro^ Qf saint to be in that place? Was

44 Letter XXIX.

Elisha really in Syria when he saw the ambush prepared
there for the King of Israel 1 — 2 Kings, vi. 9. But it is
sufficient that God is able to reveal to them the
prayers of Christians who address them here on
earth." Again, he asserts that " the Church derived her tenets, on
this and other points, immediately from the Apostles, before
any part of the New Testament was written ;'' and he closes
his letter with these words : " How sublime and consoling !"
" how animating is the doctrine and practice of true Catho
lics" (i. e., Romanists), " compared with the opinions of
Protestants ! We hold daily and hourly converse, to our un
speakable comfort and advantage, with the angelic choirs,
with the venerable patriarchs and prophets of ancient times,
with the heroes of Christianity, the blessed Apostles and mar
tyrs, with the bright ornaments of it in later ages, the Ber
nards, the Xaviers, the Teresas, the Sales ; they are all mem
bers of the Catholic Church. Why should you not partake
of this advantage 1 Your soul, you complain, is in trouble ;
you lament that your prayers to God are not heard : continue
to pray to Him with all the fervor of your soul : but why not
engage His friends and compeers to add the weight of their
prayers to your own ? Perhaps the Divine Majesty may hear
the prayers of the Jobs, when he will not listen to those of an
Eliphaz, a Bildad, or a Zophar. You believe, no doubt, that
you have an angel guardian, appointed by God to protect you,
conformably to what Christ said of the children presented to
Him : Their angels do always behold the face of my
Father who is in heaven. — Mat. xviii. 10. Address your
self to this blessed spirit with gratitude, veneration, and confi
dence. You believe also, that among the saints of God, there
is one of supereminent purity and sanctity, pronounced by an
archangel to be not only gracious, but full of grace, the cho.ien

Worship qf the Blessed Virgin. 45
instrument of God in the incarnation of His Son, and the in
tercessor with this her Son, in obtaining His first miracle, that
of turning water into wine, at a time when His time for appear
ing to the world by miracles was not yet come. It is impos
sible, as one of the fathers says, to love the Son without loving
the mother. Beg of her, then, with affection and confidence, to
intercede with Jesus to change your tears of distress into the
wine of gladness, by affording you the light and grace you so
much want. You cannot refuse to join with me in the angelic
salutation. Hail, full of grace, our Lord is with thee ;
nor in the subsequer^ address of the inspired Elizabeth,
Blessed art thou among women, and blessed is the
fruit of thy womb. Cast aside, then, I beseech you, pre
judices, which are not only groundless, but also hurtful, and
devoutly conclude with me, in the words of the whole Catholic
Church upon earth : Holy Mary, Mother of God, pray
FOR us sinners, NOW, AND AT THE HOUR OF OUR DEATH.
Amen."
Here, then, we have the most specious form in which this
perilous doctrine could be placed, to beguile the simple and
credulous mind into the gulf of superstition. But first, I
have to charge on Dr. Milner a shameful withholding of the
real worship which the Church of Rome renders to the
Virgin and the saints. To show this as it is, I shall be
obliged to ask your attention to the following extracts from
your authorized books of devotion : —
" We fly to thy patronage, O holy Mother of God : despise
not our petitions in our necessities, but deliver us from all
dangers, O ever glorious and blessed Virgin."
" Holy Mother of God, Mother of divine grace, Mother of
our Creator, most powerful Virgin, most merciful Virgin, Mir
ror of Justice — ptay for us. Seat of Wisdom, Cause of our
joy. Tower of David, House of Gold, Ark of the Covenant,

46 Letter XXIX.

Gate of Heaven, Morning Star, Health of the weak. Refuge
• of sinners. Comforter of the afflicted. Help of Christians,
Queen of angels. Queen of patriarchs. Queen of prophets.
Queen of Apostles, Queen of martyrs. Queen of confessors,
Queen of virgins, Queen of all saints — pray for us.*
" 0 blessed Virgin, Mother of God : and by this august
quality worthy of all respect from men and angels, I come
to offer thee my most humble homage, and to implore the aid
of thy prayers and thy protection. Thou knowest, O blessed
Virgin, that from my tender years I looked up to thee as my
mother, my advocate and patroness : ^hou wert pleased to
consider me, from that time, as one of thy children, and
whatever graces I have received- from God, I confess, with
humble gratitude, that it is through thee I receive them. Why
was I not as faithful in thy service as thou wert bountiful in
assisting me ? But I will henceforth serve, honor, and love
thee. Accept, O blessed Virgin, my protestations of fidelity.
Look favorably on the confidence I have in thee : obtain for
me, of thy dear Son, a lively faith, a firm hope, a tender,
generous, and constant love. Obtain for me a purity that
nothing can soil, a humility that nothing can elate, a patient
submission to the will of God, that nothing can ever dis
turb. In fine, 0 glorious Virgin, obtain for me so faithful
an imitation of thy virtue in my life, that I may experience
the power of thy protection at my death. Amen."t
In the same authoritative book of Roman devotion, we
have what is called " A consecration of one's self to the
blessed Virgin," in the following words : 
" Holy Mary, Virgin Mother of God, I this day choose
thee for my mother, queen, patroness and advocate, and firmly

• True Piety, New-York edition of 1826,' p. 38-9
t Ibid. p. 180.

The Rosary of the Blessed Virgin. 47
resolve never to depart either by word or action from the
duty / owe thee, or suffer those committed to my charge to
say or do anything against thy honor. Receive me, there
fore, as thy servant forever, assist me in all the actions of
my whole life, and forsake me not in the hour of my death.
Amen." Then foUows " The prayer of St. Bernard to the blessed
Virgin," viz. : " Remember, O most pious Virgin, that it is
unheard of, through all ages, that any one who had recourse to
thee, implored thy aid, and begged the assistance of thy pray
ers, ever was forsaken. Animated with the same confidence,
I fly to thee, O Virgin of virgins. Mother of my God, I
come to thee, and cast myself at thy feet, a wretched sin
ner, groaning and weeping. O Mother of the Eternal Word,
despise not this my humble supplication, but graciously hear
and mercifully grant my request."*
The same book gives us what is called The Rosary of the
Blessed Virgin, in which it is ordered that for every single
repetition of the Lord's Prayer, there shall be ten repetitions
of the prayer to the Virgin called " Hail Mary." It is in this
favorite and universal exercise of the devout Romanists that
the use of their beads becomes so necessary ; telling their
beads being the common phrase for saying the Rosary.
This useful piece of mechanism keeps them right in the
number enjoined, because there is a large bead, followed
by ten small ones, upon the string ; and so the fingers re
mind them when the requisite number of Hail Marys is
completed, and the Lord's Prayer comes round again. Alas
for the devotion which needs such helps as these !t
The third part of this Rosary calls upon the worshipper
of Mary to contemplate what is termed The Fourth Mystery,
in the following words : —
* True Piety, p. 182-3. lb., p. 275.

48 Letter XXIX.

" Let us contemplate, in this mystery, how the glorious
Virgin Mary, after the resurrection of her Son, passed out
of this world unto Him, and was by Him assumed into hea
ven, accompanied by the holy angels." Then we have the
prayer, viz. :
" O most prudent Virgin, who, entering into the heavenly
palace, didst fill the holy angels with joy, and man with hope,
vouchsafe to intercede for us, in the hour of death, that, free
from the illusions and temptations of the devil, we may
joyfully and successfully pass out of this temporal state to
enjoy the happiness of eternal life. Amen."
The fifth mystery, accordingly, is set forth, under the ti
tle of—
" The Coronation of the most Blessed Virgin Mary in Hea
ven." " Let us contemplate in this mystery how the glorious
Virgin Mary was, with great jubilee and exultation of the
whole court of heaven, and particular glory of all the saints,
crowned by her Son with the brightest diadem of glory." Af
ter which, is another prayer :-^
" 0 glorious Queen of all the heavenly citizens, we be
seech thee accept this Rosary, which, as a crown of roses,
we offer at thy feet. Hail ! holy Queen ! Mother of mercy,
our life, our sweetness, and our hope, to thee do we cry, poor
banished children of Eve ; to thee do we send up our sighs,
mourning and weeping in this valley of tears. Turn, then,
most gracious arfwocate, thine eyes of mercy toward us, and, af
ter this our exile is ended, show unto us the blessed fruit
of thy womb, Jesus, O clement, 0 pious, O sweet Virgin
Mary."* The reigning idea which runs through all this is evi-

' True Piety, p. 285.

The Infant Jesus. 49
ently the indispensable importance of the Virgin's author-
y and influence in the salvation of mankind. And this is
1 perfect agreement with another form of devotion, drawn
p for nine successive da3S, and called for this reason a
Jovena, the whole of which is addressed to the Infant Je-
\is, as if the glorified Redeemer of the world had never
ttained the fulness of manhood, but remains an infant
till in the arms of his mother. In this surprising piece
f profanation, the Saviour is addressed by the title of in-
'ant fifty times. As thus : " Infant, Jesus Christ, have
lercy upon us. Infant, Son of the Virgin Mary — Infant,
trong in weakness — Infant, treasure of grace — have mercy
ipon us. From the malice of the world deliver us, O In-
^ant Jesus. From the pride of life deliver us, O Infant Je-
us ;" and so throughout.* Here, therefore, we have the
bsurd anti-Christian extravagance which meets us so con-
tantly in your favorite pictures, where the Virgin Mary is
epresented as if in heaven, surrounded by the angelic host,
nd holding the infant Saviour in her arms ; conveying to
he poor deluded worshipper the same idea set forth so plain
ly in this Litany, that the mother has as much power over her
^on, as if He were a baby. And in perfect harmony with the
ame profane abuse, it is notorious that the favorite image
if Christ in the City of Rome, and that which is believed
0 have the largest power of miracles attached to it, is the
bambino, that is, the Baby, a little image of a child ! O
larvellous infatuation ! Was it an infant that taught the
laviour's doctrine, and worked mighty signs and wonders ?
Vas it an infant that called the Apostles ? Was it an in
fant that died upon the cross 1 Was it an infant that rose
•om the dead, and ascended up to heaven ? Is it an infant
* True Piety, p. 316.
VOL. II. 3

50 Letter XXIX.

that now sits at the right hand of God, until He shall com
again in glory to judge the world ? But such is Romanisn
holding ki her left hand the ancient truth, while she offer
with her right hand the most transparent and degradin
falsehood. In complete accordance with all that I have thus far sf
before you, is the doctrine that the Virgin Mary was equ:
to Christ in this, that she was free from all sin, original or at
tudl. Thus, in one of the hymns appointed to be address
ed to her, we read as follows : —
" 'Twas meet Son so noble
Should save from stain,
"Wherewith Eve's children
Spotted remain,
The maid whom for mother
He had selected.
That she might be never
With sin infected."*
Another hymn from the same office calls the Virg
" Temple of the Trinity," and asserts that she was
" From sin original
Exempted solely. "i
And again, in an anthem and prayer, to the repetition
which Pope Paul V.~ granted a hundred days' indulgenc
we have this incontrovertible declaration of the same fali
doctrine : —
" This is the branch in which was neither knot of origini
nor bark of actual, sin found. In thy conception, O Virgi
thou wast immaculate." Then follows the prayer : —
" O God, who by the immaculate conception of the bless
* True Piety, p. 289. t lb. p. 290.

Mary the Refuge of Sinners. 51
Virgin, didst prepare a fit habitation for thy Son, we beseech
thee, that as by the foreseen death of her same Son thou
didst preserve her pure from all spot, so likewise grant that
we, by her intercession made free from sin, may attain unto
thee, through our Lord Jesus Christ, thy Son, who, with thee
and the Holy Ghost, liveth and reigneth one God, world
without end. Amen."*
Extracts of a similar kind from the authorized devotions
of your modern Church of Rome might be multiplied to the
size of a large volume, but I shall pass on to what may be
considered the climax of Marialotry, namely, the favorite
formulary called The Devotion to the Sacred Heart of Mary.
In this we read as follows : —
" As the adorable heart of Jesus was formed in the chaste
womb of the blessed Virgin, and of her blood and substance,
so we cannot, in a more proper and agreeable manner, show
our devotion to the sacred heart of the Son, than by dedi
cating some part of the said devotion to the ever pure heart
of the mother. For you have here two hearts united in the
most strict alliance and tender conformity of sentiments, so
that it is not in nature to please the one without making
yourself agreeable to the other, and acceptable to both. Go,
then, devout client, go to the heart of Jesus, but let your way
be through the heart of Mary."
" Come, then, hardened and inveterate sinner, how great
soever your crimes may be. Come and behold. Mary
stretches out her hand, and opens her breast to receive you.
Though insensible to the great concerns of your salvation ;
though, unfortunately, proof against the most engaging invi
tations and inspirations of the Holy Ghost, fiing yourself at
the feet of this powerful advocate. Her throne, though ex-
* True Piety, p. 294-5.

52 Letter XXIX.

alted, has nothing forbidding, nothing dreadful ; her heart is
all love, all tenderness. If you have the least remains of
confidence and reliance on her protection, doubt not she will
carry you through her own blessed heart in the most speedy
and favorable manner, to the truly merciful and most sacred
heart of her Son Jesus."
_ We have next what is called " An Angelical Exercise .•" —
" I reverence you, O Sacred Virgin Mary, the Holy Ark
of the Covenant, and together with all the good thoughts of
good men on earth, and all the blessed spirits in heaven, do
bless and praise you infinitely, for that you are the great me
diatrix between God and man, obtaining for sinners all that
they can ask and demand of the blessed Trinity."
Again : " I am the protectress of my servants, says the
glorious Mother of God. Give me your heart, my dear child,
and if it be as hard as a fiint, I will make it as soft as wax ;
and if it be more foul and loathsome than dirt, I will render it
more clear and beautiful than crystal. My blessed servant,
Ignatius, gave me one day power over his heart, and I did
render it so chaste and strong, that he never after felt any
motion of the flesh all his life. Give me your heart, my
child, and tell me, in the sincerity of a true Son, how much
you love me, your chaste Mother ? Hail Mary."
" O my dear mother ! I love you more than my tongue can
express, or even my very soul conceive" &c.
As a further specimen of the various salutations offered in
this approved book to the Virgin, I add but this : —
'' Hail Mary, lady and mistress of the world, to whom all
power has been given both in heaven and in earth."
In harmony with this kind of teaching, your modern
Church of Rome has established as many festivals in honor
of the Virgin as in honor of the Saviour Himself. There is
one festival of her conception, another of her nativity, an-

Assumption of the Virgin. 53
other of her presentation in the temple, and another of her
assumption into heaven. A similarity, indeed, between her
and Christ is studiously aflected. Her assumption into
heaven is not only made to parallel our Lord's ascension,
but her body is stated to have been, like His, preserved
from corniption. A whole week is devoted in honor of that
event, and on the fourth day, a lesson is read, which goes
far beyond the Scripture narrative with respect to the Sa
viour. For thus it runs : —
" At the time of her glorious falling asleep, all the Apos
tles who were employed in their holy mission through the whole
earth, for the salvation of mankind, were in a moment carried
aloft through the air, and brought together at Jerusalem.
WhUe they were there, they saw a vision of angels, and
heard the hymns of the hosts of heaven, and lo ! with divine
glory she delivered her soul into the hands of God. But her
body was taken amidst the,songs of angels and of the Apos
tles, and deposited in a coffin at Gethsemane, in which place
the melody of angels continued for three days. At the end of
those days the Apostles opened the tomb, to enable Thomas,
who alone had hitherto been absent, to fulfil a wish which
he felt, to adore that body which had borne the Lord. On
opening it, flie body was nowhere to be found, but only the
grave-clothes in which it had been wrapped, and from them
issued an ineffable odor, pervading the atmosphere around.
So wonderful and mysterious an event astonished the Apos
tles, who could draw from it but one conclusion — that it had
pleased the Word of God that her immaculate body, by which
He was incarnate, should be preserved from corruption, and
should be at once translated to heaven, without waiting for the
general resurrection."
In the service of the fifth day is the following lesson : —
" But who is sufficient to conceive how glorious on this

54 Letter XXIX.

day was the progress of the queen of the world ! With
what transport of devout affection the whole multitude of the
heavenly hosts went forth to meet her ! With what hymns
she was conducted to the throne of glory ! With how placid,
how serene an aspect, with what divine embraces she was
received by her Son, and exalted above every creature — with
that honor which became so great a mother, and that glory
which befitted so great a Son !"
" Providing in all things, therefore, and through all things,
for the wretched, she consoles our fear, she excites our faith,
she strengthens our hope, she drives away our distrust, she
raises our pusillanimity. You feared to approach the Father ;
terrified at only hearing Him, you fled among the trees. He
has given Jesus Christ to you as a mediator. What cannot
such a Son obtain from such a Father ! He will be
heard for His own sake, for the Father loves the Son. But
perhaps you fear also in Him tjie divine majesty, because,
though He was made man. He was still God. Do you de
sire to have an advocate with him ? Have recourse to Mary.
She also vnll be heard for her own sake. For the Son will
hear the Mother, and the Father will hear the Son."
I shall only observe, further, that Our Lady's Psalter is
an approved book in your modern Church of Rome, being
the work of the eminent Cardinal Bonaventura, and this is,
throughout, the same with the Book of Psalms in the Bible,
only with the substitution of Our Lady (the Virgin), in those
passages where the original uses the holy term. Lord.
The above extracts may have been tedious to the reader,
but they seemed absolutely necessary to show the true prac
tical understanding of your Church in this important matter,
so vastly beyond what the cautious language of Dr. Milner
would intimate. But before I close this letter, it may be
well to quote a specimen of the prayers offered to the other

The Saints, Gods by Participation. 55
saints, and to the angels, from the authorized book already
cited so largely.
Thus we have an address to St. Aloysius in these words :
" O glorious St. Aloysius, appointed by the Church of
Christ as a worthy advocate for her children, intercede for
me, obtain for me what I ask, if it be for the glory of God,
and the good of my soul. Or, at least, O faithful servant of
God, direct my request that it may turn to the honor of my
dear and blessed Redeemer, that through thy patronage He
may see in me the effect of His sacred passion and blood."*
In the Litany of Saint Joseph, we have a string of titles
intended, I presume, as a sort of companion to those of the
Virgin, whose husband he was, as follows : —
" St. Joseph, the Virgin Consort of a Virgin Mother,
pray for us. St. Joseph, Ruler of the Lord of the Uni
verse — St. Joseph, Governor of the Incarnate Wisdom — St.
Joseph, Nursing Father of Him by whom all creatures live
— St. Joseph, Saviour of the Saviour of mankind — St. Jo
seph, honored and served by the King and Queen of Heaven —
St. Joseph, seated on a throne of glory near those of Jesus
and Mary, pray for us."t
The real doctrine which your modern Church imparts to
her people in such forms as these, is immensely beyond the
statement of Dr. Milner and the Council of Trent, and it is
much more fairly expressed by your celebrated Cardinal
Bellarmine, where he saith that vows made to the saints are
only proper because they are "gods by participation."'^
And hence it has been common to prefix to the works of
the fathers the very word which the classical writers
* True Piety, p. 256.
+ lb. p. 172-3.
t Votum non convenit Sanctis, nisi auatenus sunt Dii per participa-
tUmem.

56 Letter XXIX.

among the Latins attached to their deified mortals, Divus.
Thus, as the old heathen Roman said Divus Augustus, the
god Augustus, when speaking of the deified emperor, so the
modern Christian Roman saith Divus Thomas, the god
Thomas, Divus Bernardus, the god Bernard, when speak
ing of the canonized saints. The ancient apotheosis, in
which the deceased hero was enrolled among the gods by
the heathen, has been succeeded by the Papal canonization,
through which the deceased is supposed to become a law
ful object of invocation in heaven. And thus the saints of
Rome occupy, in some important respects, the place of the old
Dii minorum gentium, being, according to Bellarmine, gods
BY PARTICIPATION. But this language, though well known
to scholars, is never used towards the people, because it
would startle them, and give a handle to the heretics.
Lastly, I shall close with the following specimen of your
devotion to a guardian angel, viz. : —
" O Holy Angel, to whose care God, in His mercy, hast
committed me, thou who assistest me in my wants, who con-
solest me in my afflictions, who supportest me when dejected,
and who constantly obtainest for me new favors, I return
thee now most sincere and humble thanks, and I conjure
thee, 0 amiable guide, to continue still thy care, to defend
me against my enemies, to remove from me the occasion
of sin, to obtain for me a docility to thy holy inspirations, to
protect me, in particular, at the hour of my death, and then
conduct me to the mansions of eternal repose. Amen."*
Here we have a prayer which asks an angel to do what
belongs to Christ and the Holy Spirit of God, without one
word of reference to the Redeemer ; and yet it is not an
act of worship at all, saith Dr. Milner, but only an act ofin-

•True Piety, p. 167.

Saint-worship Idolatrous. 57
vocation. Yet higher, in some respects, are the favors ex
pected from the saints, and especially from the Virgin, and
still we are assured that it is only the same thing which we
all allow when we ask the saints on earth to pray for us !
But that it amounts to idolatry, substantially if not formally,
I shall show, as I think, conclusively. And that it is quite
contrary to the teaching of the Scriptures, and to that of the
primitive Church, I hold myself fully prepared to prove by
evidence beyond the possibility of honest contradiction.
VOL. II. 3*

58 The End of Controversy, Controverted.

LETTER XXX.

Most Reverend Sir :
In entering upon the evidence of Scripture and the primi
tive Church against your Roman doctrine of angel and saint
worship, it will be most advisable, for the sake of perspicuity,
to show, first, the contrast between the extracts which I
have exhibited, and the express teaching of the Word of
God, in reference, especially, to the claims set forth in fa
vor of the Virgin Mary, from which it may be plainly seen
that your Church makes her a sharer, if not an absolute ri
val, in the powers and graces of the Saviour and the Holy
Spirit. Thus, Christ Jesus brought life and immortality to light,
saith the Scripture : and Mary brought life and benediction
to the human race, saith the Church of Rome. Christ is
our life and our hope, according to the Scripture : Mary is
our life, our sweetness, and our hope, according to the Church
of Rome. Christ is the blessed and only Potentate, the
King of kings and the Lord of lords, saith the Scripture :
Mary is the Queen of Heaven, the Queen of Angels, the Queen
of Patriarchs, the Queen of Prophets, the Queen of Apostles,
the Queen of Martyrs, the Queen of Confessors, the Queen of
all Saints, saith the Church of Rome. " All power is given
to me in heaven and in earth," saith the glorious Redeemer :

Mary, the Advocate with God. 59
Hail Mary, lady and mistress of the world, to whom all power
has been given both in heaven and in earth, saith the Church
of Rome. " There is one God, and one Mediator between
God and man, the man Ckrist Jesus," saith the Scripture :
O sacred Mary, I bless and praise you infinitely, for that you
are the great Mediatrix between God and man, saith the
Church of Rome. " Thou shalt love the Lord thy God
with all thy heart, and soul, and mind," saith the Scripture :
O my dear Mother ! I love you more than my tongue can ex
press, and more than my very soul can conceive, saith the
Church of Rome. " We have an Advocate with the Father,
Jesus Christ, the righteous," saith the Scripture : Hail,
Mother of Mercy, most gracious advocate, turn thine eyes of
mercy toward us, saith the Church of Rome. " Come unto
me," saith Christ, " all ye that travail and are heavy laden :"
Come, hardened sinner, saith the Church of Rome, come and
behold, Mary stretches out her hand and opens her breast to
receive you. " Greater love hath no man than this," saith
our Lord, " that he lay down his life for his friends." " Him
that cometh unto me I wiU in nowise cast out." And St.
John saith : " This is love, not that we loved Him, but that
He first loved us, and gave Himself for us :" But perhaps,
saith the Church of Rome to the sinner, you fear the divine
majesty in Christ, because, though He was made man. He was
still God. Do you desire an advocate urith Him ? Have re
course to Mary. She vnll be heard for her own sake. Her
throne, though exalted, has nothing forbidding, nothing dread
ful. Her heart is all love, all tenderness. Thus, the Church
of Rome teaches, that when the sinner is afraid to rely on
the infinite and amazing love of Christ, he may still depend
for his salvation on the love of the Virgin !
The rivalry of Mary with the Holy Spirit is equally plain.
" My son, give me thy heart," saith the Lord in the Scrip-

60 Letter XXX.

ture,* " and I will give you a new heart, and put a new
spirit within you ; and I will take away the stony heart out
of your flesh, and will give you a heart of flesh."t But the
Church of Rome represents the ^Virgin as saying, Give me
your heart, my dear child, and if it be as hard as fiint, I will
make it as soft as wax; and if it be more foul and loathsome
than dirt, I will render it more clear and beautiful than crystal.
Another office of the Holy Spirit is claimed for her, since
our Lord expressly names Him '' The Comforter" or the
Paraclete : But the Church of Rome calls the Virgin Mary
the comforter of the afflicted. " Every sin and blasphemy
shall be forgiven unto men," saith the great Redeemer,
" but the blasphemy against the Spirit shall not be forgiven :"
But the Church of Rome presumes to say to the hardened
and inveterate sinner, " Come, how great soever your crimes
may be, come and behold, Mary opens her breast to receive you.
Though insensible to the great concerns of your salvation ;
though, unfortunately, proof against the most engaging invita
tions and inspirations of the Holy Ghost, fiing yourself at the
feet of this powerful advocate .'"
It is painful to dwell on this wonderful delusion, which
thus exalts a mere mortal to the prerogatives of the Deity,
under the apology that she exercises them in a subordinate
capacity. But the ingenuity of Rome carries it into every
possible particular. If the Saviour of the world was " holy,
harmless, undefiled, and separate from sinnfers :" So, saith
the Church of Rome, was the Virgin, without the slightest
taint of sin, original or actual. If His blessed body saw no
corri(ption : Neither, saith the Church of Rome, did the body
of Mary. His resurrection and ascension are quite equalled,
if not excelled, by her resurrection and assumption into
* Prov. xxiii. 26. t Ezek. xxxvi. 26, Douay Bible.

Invocation implies Ubiquity. 61
heaven. All the Apostles fly through the air from distant
parts of the earth to be present at her death. There is a
vision of angels, who sing hymns for three days. Thomas
desires to adore her body ; but the coffin, when opened, dis
plays only the grave-clothes, which fill the air with an inef
fable odor. The Apostles conclude that it must have been
translated to heaven. And the Virgin's assumption is
painted with the most glowing words. All the celestial
hosts go out to meet her, and she is crowned, with the
brightest diadem of glory, as the Queen — ^yes, the Queen
OF Heaven !
And shall we be told, after all this, that the Romanist
does not worship the Virgin Mary, but merely asks her
prayers, just as he would do if she were again on earth,
and just as aU Christians are told, by St. Paul, to ask the
prayers of each other ? Such is the statement with which
your favorite advocate would delude his readers, for it is
hard to believe that it could delude himself. But let me
examine this theory and note its consistency with reason
and with Scripture, on the moderate scale presented by the
favorite and constant prayer to the Virgin, which is called,
from the first words. The Ave Maria, or " Hail Mary,"and
in which the worshipper saith, " Pray for us now, and at the
hour of our death.''
First, then, I ask. How does the Virgin hear this prayer,
offered by 128 millions of worshippers all over the world,
unless she possesses the divine attribute, incommunicable to
any creature, of Omnipresence 1 Dr. Milner replies that
God can reveal to the saints the prayers of Christians who
address them here on earth, and this, he saith, is sufficient !
But who ever seriously acted on such an argument as this ?
Who can suppose, for a moment, that the multitudes who
pray so constantly to the Virgin and the saints, would con-

62 Letter XXX.

tinue to do so, if they were frankly assmred by their priests
that their prayers were not heard by those whom they were
addressing, but only came to their knowledge, in so far as
God might please to reveal them i. Is that the theory which
the Apostle sets before us, when he asks his brethren to
pray for him 1 Suppose the Virgin were on earth again,
and I desired to have the benefit of her prayers, what Ro
manist would tell me that I might address her directly with
just as good effect, whether she were present or absent, be
cause God could reveal my prayers to her, though she were
a hundred miles away ? Let the statement be applied to any
human analogy, and its absurdity will be at once apparent.
Thus, let me be conceived to have an earthly king, whose
subject I am, and of whom I am most anxious to obtain the
favor. He has an only son, through whom he has ap
pointed all my intercourse with him to be conducted. I am
assured that he has also many favorite courtiers, whose en
treaties on my behalf, if I could secure them, would be likely
to prevail. His royal son, I know, is accessible to me at
all times, on my humble application ; because he has invited
me to come to him, with an assurance of a kind and gracious
hearing. The courtiers, on the contrary, are not accessible
to me at all. I know their names, but cannot gain admit
tance to their persons. What is to be done ? Not satisfied
with the condescending kindness and promise of the prince,
I am resolved to have the aid of the courtiers also. And as
I cannot hold any direct intercourse with them, I follow the
plan marked out by Dr. Milner. I go into the presence of
the king, and I address myself, not to his royal majesty, but
to one whom I imagine to be the chief of his favorite cour
tiers, and whom I know is not present to hear me. And I
tell this absent individual, as if she could hear me, although
I am conscious she cannot, that I know she possesses the

Idolatry of Saint-worship. 63
most absolute influence over the king's son, and that the
prince has all power with his father. And therefore I beg
most humbly that she will take me under her protection, and
obtain for me all I desire. And then I depart, quite satisfied
that the king will inform his absent favorite of my request,
that she wUl grant it, that the prince will be moved by her
prayer, and that the sovereign will fulfill my wishes !
Would such a piece of management be likely to avail ? Or
would it not rather be set down as the conduct of a fool or
a madman ?
The theory of Dr. Milner, therefore, is a mere absurdity,
and cannot possibly be the practical idea of those who pray
to the saints. They do, assuredly, suppose them, some how,
to be present ; and as the same belief is held by every wor
shipper, and they have no doubt that the same prayers are
heard at once in every quarter of the world, it results,
in spite of every evasion, that they do, in the bottom of
their hearts, ascribe to the saints, and especially to the
Virgin, the Queen of Heaven, a universal presence, which
is the sole attribute of God, the Father, Son, and Holy
Spirit. This constitutes the first branch of the idolatry, which
I consider inseparable from the worship of the departed
saints. For the Almighty has called Himself " a jealous
God," and " will not give His glory to another." It is not
giving the name of God to a creature which constitutes the
sin of idolatry. This is certain from the Scriptures, for
our Lord Himself saith :* " Is it not written in your law,
I said, ye are gods ? If he called them gods, to whom the
Word of God was spoken, and the Scripture cannot be made
void : Do ye say of Him whom the Father hath sanctified
and sent into the world, Thou blasphemest, because I said
* St. John, X. 34, Douay Bible.

64 Letter XXX.

I am the Son of God 1" Idolatry consists much more in giv
ing the attributes of God to the creature, for it is these attri
butes which make up the idea which we form, from His
own Word, of His essence and His powers. It is because
of these attributes that we worship and adore the Deity ; and
they cannot be communicated to a creature, no, not to the
highest archangel in heaven, because there must ever be, in
the nature of the case, an infinite distance between Him who
creates, and that which is created. Therefore, the Archangel
Gabriel is shown, in the Book of the Prophet Daniel, to
have been entirely destitute of this attribute of ubiquity, or
omnipresence.* For thus it is said expressly by the prophet,
" The man Gabriel, whom I had seen in the vision at the begin
ning, flying swiftly, touched me at the time of the evening
sacrifice." Even he, notwithstanding his pure spiritual na
ture, could not communicate with Daniel, without flying
down from heaven. How, then, shall the Virgin communi
cate at once with her 128 millions of worshippers, without
descending from her glorious throne at all, as they suppose,
unless, like God, she has the attribute of omnipresence 1
The second branch of this idolatry consists in the neces
sary inculcation of the Virgin's omniscience. For her wor
shippers are taught to regard her as knowing all their.
hearts, all their wants, all their difficulties. She is asked
to follow them with her eyes of mercy through life, to be
with them as their protector in death, and to bring them in
safety to final happiness. She is beheved to be able to do
all this, for all these millions, at the same time. And how
can she effect such a stupendous work, unless she has a
knowledge of their feelings and circumstances, which can be
in no respect distinguished, practically, from the knowledge
of God ? * Dan. ix. 21.

Dr. Milner's Inconsistency. 65
The third branch of this idolatry meets us in the ascrip
tion to the Virgin of omnipotence. For her worshippers are
told that she has all power in heaven and in earth. True,
this is said to be not inherent, but acquired. She has it,
not because it belongs to her, as it does to God, by her di
vine nature, but because it has been bestowed upon her as
the reward of grace. Nevertheless, however it may have
been acquired, she is believed to possess it, and that, after all,
is the practical question. But this, too, we hold to be an
absurd and most impious ascription. Absurd, because no
created being can hold or exercise the power of the only
living Potentate, the uncreated and eternal God. And im
pious, because the investing of His creatures with His attri
butes is rightly and justly held to be the deepest offence
against His majesty. Christ Jesus Himself does not pos
sess those divine powers, save only by the glorious hypo
static union of His human nature with the Eternal Word,
who is One in Substance with the Father. In His
wondrous incarnation, God and man became united in One
Person. And, hence, He only could say with truth. All
power is given unto me, in heaven and in earth. Nor can that
majestic authority be ascribed, in any real sense, to a mere
creature, without involving a fearful idolatry.
But your favorite author claims a high superiority of
privilege for his Church, on account of this very idolatry.
" How sublime and consoling .'" he exclaims ; " how animating
the doctrine and practice of true Catholics" (i. e., Romanists),
" compared with the opinions of Protestants ! We hold daily
and hourly converse vnth the angelic choirs, with the patriarchs,
the heroes of Christianity" &c. Here, by the way, he has
already forgotten his own statement, that the saints cannot
hear the prayers«addressed to them, but only know them
by the revelation of God. For now he saith, We hold daily

66 Letter XXX.

and hourly converse with them! Such, indeed, as I have
shown, must needs be the general belief of your Church,
and he falls naturally into the usual mode of expression.
Still it is an obvious abuse of words in him to talk of holding
converse with the saints, when, according to his own ac
knowledgment, neither of the parties could hear the other.
And if Dr. Milner offered his prayers to the departed spirits,
in the expectation that God would deliver a message which
was not even committed to His majesty ; and then chose to
call it holding converse with these departed worthies, I can
only say that such an idea of conversing strikes my humble
judgment as very peculiar and original.
But this is a trifle in the list of inconsistencies. Let us
rather look at the sublime and consoling privilege which we —
poor Protestants, though, as we claim, true Catholics — have
cast away. Let my reader, then, consider the position in
which this notion places, for example, the supposed Queen
of Heaven, the Virgin Mary. Every Romanist is bound to
offer to her at least two prayers every day, morning and
evening. All who use the Rosary (and the more devout
are accustomed to that exercise) extend this number to 150.
Let us take into the calculation the seven canonical hours
of the monks and the nuns, and the daily Masses of the
priests throughout the world, and I presume that the aver
age for the whole Church of Rome would be very moder
ately stated at ten Hail Marys each day for every man, wo
man, and child belonging to their communion. Now, there
are 128 millions of persons attached to that Church, to
say nothing of all the rest who, as ^hey claim, ought to be
attached to it, and whom, because they are not so attached,
they charitably shut out from the hope of salvation. This,
of course, gives the Virgin Mary the privilege of hearing
(or having revealed to her, as the case may be) 1 ,280,000,000

Neither sublime nor consoling. 67
petitions every day. Supposing the worship to be constant
and unceasing, each hour of the twenty-four would contain,
on the average, 53,333,333, or nearly fifty-four millions of
these petitions ; each minute would include about 889 hun
dred thousand ; and each second, 14,814, or nearly flfteen
thousand. And as we have allowed ten Hail Marys for each
worshipper, the result would be that fifteen hundred souls
must pass in review before the Virgin Mary every second,
day and night, even if she had no other occupation but to
attend to them ; and of these, she is expected to know all
their wants, all their feelings, all their temptations, all their
sins, and to give them the benefit of her influence, her
protection, and her prayers, so as to secure their salva
tion !
What wild absurdity to expect such a work as this at the
hands of a creature, unless we first contrive to believe that
creature to be invested with the attributes of God ! Against
Scripture, against reason, and, as I shall presently prove,
against the really Catholic Church, how wonderful the infat
uation which Romanism has succeeded in establishing du
ring the dark ages of European ignorance, and which the
assumed infallibility of your Church will not suffer her to
reform away, even in the light of the nineteenth century !
What is there, I ask, sublime or consoling in such a phantom
of extravagance ? What advantage could be gained to the
Church, even if it were possible that the Almighty should
have laid such a burden on the shoulders of the Virgin 1
How infinitely more sublime and consoling is it to know
that the mighty providence of God is exercised by Him
who alone can exercise it — by Him who is indeed Omni
present, Omniscient, Omnipotent — ^by Him who beholds,
without effort, the past, the present, and the future — ^by Him
who is the King Almighty, immortal and invisible, by whom

68 Letter XXX.

and for whom all things were created, and in whom all
things consist — by Him who has promised that He will
never leave us nor forsake us — ^by Him who is the true
Head of His Church — the Lord Jesus Christ, God over all,
blessed forever !

The End of Controversy, Controverted. 69

LETTER XXXI.

Most Reverend Sir :
I COME now to consider the evidence of Scripture and
the primitive Church, from which it will be easily seen that
Dr. Milner's claim to have the Apostles and the fathers on
his side, is the actual reverse of the true state of the ques
tion. And first, with respect to Scripture.
The whole proof which your modern Church of Rome
derives from the Word of God in favor of the Virgin's sup
posed prerogatives, depends on the Address of the Angel
Gabriel, in the Gospel of St. Luke :* " Hail, full of grace,
the Lord is with thee : Blessed art thou among women," taken
in connection with the fact itself, that she was chosen to
be the Mother of the great Redeemer.
We translate the text differently, " Hail, thou that art highly
favored;" and this version, we maintain, is much more
faithful to the Greek words, Xatpe, Kexaptrconevrj. Every
tyro in Greek, and especially every scholar, may perceive
at once that your Romish version is an unwarrantable gloss
upon the original. The word is the participle from the
verb XaptTow, which signifies to make agreeable, or accept
able, or lovely.^ And it occurs in the Epistle to the Ephe-
* Chapter i., v. 28.
+ Thus, Donegan, in his Greek Lexicon, translates the word.
Schrevelius gives the participial form itself, and translates it gratia
donatus, gratia ornatus, endowed with grace or favor, or adorned with
the same.

70 Letter XXXL

sians,* kv y ^;^aptTW(7ev rjfidg iv rfi ' riyar:r]p,iv(o, where
your own Douay Bible translates it as we do, " by
which He made us acceptable through His beloved Son."^
Now, highly favored and acceptable accord well enough in
meaning ; whereas full of grace and acceptable are
manifestly phrases which express a wide difference in privi
lege. There is no reason why we should translate the
same verb one way with respect to the Virgin, and another
way with respect to St. Paul and the Christians of Ephesus.
And hence, the Church of Rome herself justifies our ver
sion, and proves that, instead of attributing too little force to
the term which the angel applied to the Virgin, -our trans
lators have, in truth, given it as much as it will fairlj' bear.
The other part of the angel's address pronounces that the
Virgin is blessed among women. And she herself, in her in
spired hymn, saith. Behold, from henceforth all generations
shall call me blessed.
This is, undoubtedly, a high honor to the Virgin ; but it
is limited plainly to the estimation of the saints below, and
conveys no intimation whatever of the celestial prerogatives
claimed for her as the Queen of Heaven, &c. In like man
ner, we see that Jael, the wife of Heber the Kenite,^
is pronounced " Blessed among women." So the Lord de
clares to Israel,^ " All nations shall call you blessed." Hence,
it is plain that the Scriptures, thus far, give no support
whatever to your Romish doctrine.
We come, lastly, to the only remaining argument, derived
• Chapter i., v. 6.
t Our English Bible reads, " 'Wherein He hath made us accepted in
the Beloved." This is closer to the Greek, but the meaning is the
same, precisely.
t Judges, ch. v., v. 24.
& Mai. iii. 12.

Woman .'" 71

from the simple fact that the Virgin was the Mother of the
Redeemer. It is for this, undoubtedly, that she is accounted
Blessed among women. It is for this that all generations
shall call her Blessed, and we claim our full share in the
honor due to her, accordingly. But this eminent blessing
in the Church below is one thing, and all power in heaven
and earth is quite another. And hence, the enormous super
structure which Romanism has built upon the maternal re
lation to our Lord is contradicted throughout, and most em
phatically, by His own express teaching.
Thus, we find that the Saviour never calls her Mother at
any time, but Woman. As, for example, at the marriage
feast of Cana in Galilee,* your Douay Bible reads as fol
lows : " And the wine failing, the Mother of Jesus saith
to Him, They have no wine. And Jesus saith unto her.
Woman, what is that to me and to thee ? My hour is not
yet come. His mother saith to the waiters. Whatsoever He
shall say to you, do ye."
Here, by the way, let me notice another discrepancy in
the translation of our English Bible, where your writers ac
cuse us very unjustly. According to our version, the
words of Christ are, " What have I to do vnth thee ?" The
Douay Bible adopts the language which I have given above.
What is that to me and to thee ? The Greek original is, rt
ejuot Kal aol, literally. What to me and to thee ? Your
version would therefore seem to be nearer to the Greek ; and
yet it is not so, for the phrase is idiomatic, and signifies
precisely what our translators have given as its true mean
ing. Of this we have full proof from your Douay Bible it
self. Thus,t where the devils address to the Saviour these
words, " What have we to do with Thee, Jesus, Son of God,"
• St. John, ii. 3, 4, 5. t St. Matthew, viii. 29.

72 Letter XXXL

according to your own version (which, in this place, agrees
with ours), the original Greek gives the very same form. Tt
fiiitv Kol aol, literally. What to us and to thee ? Thus,
we have another example, from your own undesigned ac
knowledgment, of the superior fidelity of our English Bible.
But according to your Roman version, we have here an
expression, which the Douay commentators are obliged to
say, has been considered " as harsh," although they insist,
with Dr. Milner, that the Virgin " knew of the miracle
which the Saviour was about to perform, and that it was at
her request he wrought it." Assuredly, however, the sa
cred history itself shows the very contrary. She merely
tells her divine Son of the fact that there was no wine, and
she does not presume to make any request whatever. What
was to be done, or how, she leaves entirely to His own dis
cretion. She therefore tells the servants to follow His di
rections, in the hope that He would, in His kindness, de
vise some plan to meet the difficulty, while to Himself she
does not venture to make any reply. It is perfectly evi
dent, therefore, that the miracle which He saw fit to per
form was His own voluntary suggestion, and it is impossi
ble to infer, from his language to the Virgin, that He wish
ed to connect her in any way with the transaction. He
did not stand in need of her information, and evidently an
swered as if to discourage her well-meant officiousness.
Instead, therefore, of affording any warrant for your Romish
doctrine that the Virgin is the very medium through whom
Christ bestows His gifts, it is, in reality, rather a warning
against it. For why this admitted harshness of expression ?
Why address her by the name of woman, instead of the en
dearing title of mother ? Why disclaim her interference
rather than encourage it 1 Manifestly, because our Lord
foresaw the evils which a superstitious worship of His

Rebukes of Christ. 73
mother would bring into His Church, and therefore, from
first to last, mercifully, though sternly, set His face against it.
In strict accordance with this, when He was but twelve
years old, and had tarried at Jerusalem, in the temple, and
Joseph and His mother sought for Him and found Him there,
she undertook, though very gently, to rebuke Him.* " His
mother said unto Him, Son, why hast thou so done to us ?
Behold, thy father and I have sought thee sorrowing. And
he said unto them. How is it that ye sought me ? Did you
not know that I must be about the things that are my Father's!
And they understood not the word that He spoke unto them.
And He went down with them, and came to Nazareth, and
was subject to them. And Mary kept all these words in her
heart." Here we see that the Saviour, young as he was, answers
the rebuke of his mother with another rebuke, far better
justified. For she had said, " Thy father and I have sought
thee sorrowing." Whereas she knew that Joseph was not
His father, and He reminds them both of His true pater
nity by saying, " Do you not know that I must be about the
things that are my Father's ?" They ought not, therefore,
to have sought Him amongst " their kinsfolk and acquaint
ance," as if He were a common youth, seeking to amuse
Himself, during the rehgious festival. They should rather
have taken it for granted that He was at the Temple, His
Father's house, employed in preparing for the fulfilment of
the high and holy purpose for which He had been sent into
the world. Hence, they were to blame, and He shrinks
not from telling them so. Nevertheless, He had no inten
tion to withdraw from the ordinary fulfilment of His duties,
and therefore He went down with them, and was subject
? St. Luke, ch. ii., v. 43, Douay Bible.
VOL. II. 4

74 Letter XXXL

imto them, aiding them to the utmost of His power. But
He never departed from the sublime peculiarity of His na
ture and office, as the Redeemer of the world. He was
the Son of Mary according to the flesh, and He was the
ward of Joseph, while, nevertheless. He was the divine
Lord and Saviour of them both. Hence, they seem to "have
submitted to His rebuke without a murmur ; and though
they understood not His full meaning at the time, yet they
asked for no explanation, but Mary kept His words in her heart.
And yet, in the face of a narrative like this, your modern
Church of Rome does not shrink from saying, " St. Joseph —
ruler of the Lord of the universe — St. Joseph, Governor of
the Incarnate Wisdom — St. Joseph — Saviour of the Saviour
of mankind — St. Joseph, honored and served by the King and
Queen of Heaven !" as if our Lord could have been ruled
and governed by the will of Joseph, like an ordinary child,
instead of being guided, in all things, by His own perfect
sense of duty. The principle is the same on which He af
terwards submitted Himself to be baptized by John the
Baptist, not because He could be in any proper sense con
sidered as John's disciple, but because of the rule He had
prescribed to Himself, '' So it becometh us to fulfil all jus
tice."* The distinction is of the highest importance, be
cause it explains, throughout, the otherwise unaccountable
style of His language towards His mother.
The next part of the Gospel history which bears upon
this subject, is that conclusive passage, where we read,t
" As he was yet speaking to the multitudes, behold his
mother and his brethren stood without, seeking to speak
with him. 'And one said to him. Behold, thy mother and
thy brethren stand without, seeking thee. But he, an-

» St. Mat., iii. 15, Douay Bible.
t St. Mat., xii. 46, Douay Bible.

St. Mary, one of the Redeemed. 75
swering him that told him, said. Who is my mother and
who are my brethren ? And stretching forth his hand to
wards his disciples, he saith. Behold my mother and my bre
thren. For whosoever shall do the will of my Father who
is in heaven, he is my brother, and sister, and mother." It
may te observed that while the address of the Angel Ga
briel occurs only in the Gospel of St. Luke, this passage is
recorded by St. Luke,* St. Mark,t and St. Matthew. And
it proves, most clearly, that the blessed Redeemer refused
to attach any spiritual pre-eminence to the earthly relation
ship of His mother. This, indeed, would seem to result
necessarily from the unquestionable truth, that He was God
and man, in One Person. But the affinity to God must al
ways depend on holiness. Hence, the Virgin Mary could
claim no kindred to the divine nature of her Son simply be
cause she was His earthly mother. That relationship is a
question of the body. The heavenly relationship is a ques
tion of the soul. And therefore the Virgin mother, though
highly favored in being selected for such a purpose, and
being brought thereby so near to the Person of her divine
Son, during the years of His childhood and youth, was re
garded by Him as only one of the innumerable multitude
which He came to redeem, and, like all the rest, obliged to
work out her salvation in the appointed way of living faith
and holy obedience. Christ Jesus, as a man, would doubt
less have been subject, according to your Roman theory, to
all the usual partiality of ordinary human affection. But
Christ Jesus, as God, was raised infinitely aboA e them.
And as, in Him, the human will was always in strict sub
ordination to the divine, it is as God manifest in the flesh
that His whole conduct must be regarded.
In accordance with this decisive passage is another,
* St. Luke, viii. 20. t St. Mark, iii. 32.

76 Letter XXXL

which we read as follows :* " And it came to pass as he spake
these things, that a certain woman from the crowd, lifting
up her voice, said to him. Blessed is the womb that bare
thee, and the paps that gave thee suck. But he said. Yea,
rather blessed are they that hear the word of God and keep it."
This woman from the crowd took the Romish view of the
subject, and it is in nowise extraordinary that a crowd of wo
men should find it a very acceptable doctrine to this day. And
hence the frequent reference to the womb of Mary which we
meet with in the devotions of her worshippers. Neverthe
less, it is a low and sensuous notion, and therefore con
stantly opposed and discouraged by the divine Redeemer.
The last direct text bearing on this subject is the re
markable passage of St. John's Gospel,t " Now there stood
by the cross of Jesus his mother, and his mother's sister,
Mary of Cleophas, and Mary Magdalene. When Jesus,
therefore, saw his mother and the disciple standing, whom
he loved, he saith to his mother. Woman, behold thy Son.
After that he saith to the disciple. Behold thy mother. And
from that hour the disciple took her to his own."
Here we see, plainly, how our Lord regarded his earthly
relation to the Virgin. Though in the agony of death,
when the human heart is most apt to show the strength of
the natural feelings, and to utter, without disguise, the ten
derness of its affections towards the beloved mother and
the cherished friends of its domestic life, yet the majesty
of the God in man towers above it all, in the example of
the Saviour. As at other times, so now. He calls her Wo
man. His benevolence provides for her the special care of the
beloved disciple, St. John. But in the very words employ
ed, we see a strong intimation of the idea already given,

* St. Luke vii,, v. 27, Douay Bible.
t Chapter xi., v. 25, Douay Bible.

The Blessed Virgin in Scripture. 11
that the relation between them, being only of earth, was
now transferred to another. The Saviour might have said
to St. John, " Take care of her for my sake, and remember
that she is my mother." And had he been an ordinary mor
tal, such would have been, most probably, the form in which
the office of guardianship would have been imposed. But
instead of this. He saith. Woman, behold thy Son; and to the
Apostle He saith. Behold thy mother. As if He would in
struct them, by a fresh and powerful lesson, that He who,
as God, had power to form this temporary relation with
Mary in the beginning, had the same power to transfer it
to another at the end of His earthly course ; so that hence
forth, whatever afiinity she might claim to the divine Re
deemer of the world, must rest wholly on the spiritual ground
of that " holiness, without which no man shall see the Lord."
No candid and intelligent mind, therefore, can fail to
perceive the contrast between the language of Christ and
your Romish theory. And we have reason to be thankful
for the divine care and wisdom with which the whole has
been recorded, so as to guard, if anything could have
guarded, His Church, from the subsequent influx of this
sensuous and alluring delusion. Nor is the negative testi
mony of Scripture less, if it be not even more, conclusive.
For we nowhere find that the Virgin was suffered to inter
fere with the Apostles, or give the slightest counsel or ad
vice, on any subject whatever. We are told of the piety of
other women, but nothing is said of hers. She stood with
the rest at the cross, but nothing is related of her language,
her actions, or her feelings. Mary Magdalene and another
Mary go to the Sepulchre, but it does not appear that the
Virgin Mother accompanied them. Mary Magdalene was
even favored with a special sight of her beloved Lord, after
His resurrection, but it does not appear that this favor was
accorded to the Mother. She is mentioned once in the first

78 Letter XXXL

chapter of the Acts of the Apostles, as being with the rest
of the disciples in an upper room, but nothing more is re
corded concerning her. How is it possible to reconcile all
this with your Romish hypothesis, that she was nevertheless
destined to be the Queen of Heaven, the Queen of Apostles,
patriarchs, prophets, angels, and saints ! That she was
to be the great Mediatrix between God and man ! Yea !
that all power should be given to her in heaven and in
earth !
But your ingenious advocate seems to have guarded
against this total want of support from the Holy Scriptures,
by asserting, that " the Church derived her doctrine imme
diately from the Apostles, before any part of the New Testa
ment was written." And yet it is very obvious that this
affords no imaginable reason why the Apostles should not
have inserted it along with the rest of their inspired instruc
tions, after they began to write the Gospels and the Epis
tles, for the standing memorials of the faith which they had
preached. Let us turn next, however, to the fathers. Coun
cils, and Liturgies of the early ages of the Church ; and here
I shall furnish the plainest demonstration that the Apostles
could not have taught any such thing, since the modern
apotheosis of the Virgin Marj' formed no part whatever of
the ancient primitive doctrine.
Thus we find the great Augustine, in the fourth century,
and towards its close, addressing himself to God. " Whom
may I find that will reconcile me to Thee 1 Should I have
recourse to angels ? With what prayer ? With what sacra
ments 1 Many endeavoring to return to Thee, and not able
of themselves, have tried these things, as I hear, and have
fallen into the desire of curious visions, and were worthy of
such illusions. But the true Mediator whom Thou by
Thy secret mercy hast shown to the humble, and hast sent,

St. Augustine's Testimony. 79
that by His example they might learn humility, is the Medi
ator between God and man, the man Christ Jesus."*
That, in the time of Augustine, the Virgin Mary was not
called the Mother of God, seems very clear from the follow
ing passage : —
" Our Lord Jesus Christ was God and man. So far as
it concerned His Deity, He had no mother ; so far as it con
cerned His humanity, He had. Therefore she was the
mother of His flesh, the mother of His humanity, the mother of
the infirmity which He took upon Him for us." " For the
Lord of heaven and earth came by a woman. As He was
the Lord of the world, the Lord of heaven and earth. He
was also the Lord of ]Mary. As He was the Creator of the
heavens and the earth. He was the Creator of Mary. But
as it was said that He was made of a woman, made under
the law. He was the Son of Mary."t
That Augustine held the Virgin Mary to be a sinner is
plain from these words in his Commentary on the 34th
Psalm : " Mary, from Adam, was dead because of sin, Adam
was dead because of sin, and the flesh of the Lord from
Mary was dead, to take away sin."J
The same doctrine is manifest from those passages in
which he sets forth Christ alone as without sin, since
this can never be made consistent with the Romish notion
that the Virgin was immaculate. This opinion of St. Au
gustine is abundantly clear from the following discourse on
the eighth chapter of the Epistle to the Romans : —
" He sent His Son in the similitude of the flesh of sin.
Not in the flesh of sin. In the flesh, truly, but not in the
flesh of sin. Therefore all the fiesh of others is the flesh of
* Augustini Op., Tom. 1, p. 146, Confes. Lib. 10, ^ 67-8.
t Augustini Op., Tom. 3, 2d Div., p. 260-1, ^ 9, Com. in Johafi.
Ev. cap. 1, Trac. 9.
t lb. Op., Tom. 4, P. 1, D. 179. F.

80 Letter XXXL

sin. His alone was not the flesh of sin, because Hi
mother conceived Him not by concupiscence, but b
grace."* The distinction between honoring the martyrs and woi
shipping them, is plainly pointed out by Augustine, in ar
other discourse, on the martyrdom of the Bishop Fructuc
sus : " What was the answer of the holy deacon who su
fered and was crowned together with his Bishop ? Th
judge said to him. Dost thou worship Fructuosus ? An
he replied, I do not worship Fructuosus, but I worship Goi
whom Fructuosus also worshipped. How does he admoi
ish us, that we should honor the martyrs, and worship Go
with them ? For we ought not to be what we grieve to st
the heathen are. Since, truly, they worship dead men."\
The famous Basil must also be reckoned among thos
who counted the Virgin among sinners, for he saith e:
pressly that she doubted at the crucifixion. These are h
words : " According to the word of the Lord, All shall i
offended in me, Simeon prophesied of Mary herself, standii
at the cross and beholding the things which were done, ai
hearing the expressions around her : After the testimor
of Gabriel, after the hidden knowledge of the divine coi
ception, after so many miracles performed, yet there w:
be, saith he, in thine own mind, a certain fluctuation. Ai
therefore it was necessary that the Lord should taste dea
for all, and that a propitiation should be made for the wh
world, and that all should be justified by His blood. "|
Pope Leo the Great also expresses very clearly the do
trine of his day, which was still later than the former, beii
in the 5th century, that the Virgin Mary was not free frc
* Augustini Op., Tom. 5, p. 505, (j 8.
tib. Tom. 5, p. 771, ^3.
X Basilii Op., Tom. 3, p. 400, E.

St. Epiphanius against Mariolatry. 81
sin : " For the ground of human flesh," saith he, " which
was accursed in the first prevaricator, brought forth a
blessed scion in that only offspring of the blessed Virgin,
which was free from the vice of its stock."*
So, too. Pope Gregory the Great asserts the same doc
trine plainly, in his 4th Homily on Ezekiel, B. 2 : " Who,
therefore,'' saith he, " is without sin, but he who was con
ceived without sin ? — for one is the Author and Redeemer
of the Holy Church, to whom and by whom all proceed
who know themselves to be sinners."!
To these may be added the testimony of St. Epiphanius,
the Bishop of Cyprus, who flourished in the fifth century,
and who thus argues against the idolatry of the Virgin
Mary by a sect of heretics called the Collyridians : " I
acknowledge," saith he, " that Mary remained ever a Virgin,
but she never was proposed to us as an object of worship,
since she herself worshipped Him who was born of her
flesh, but who had descended from heaven and the bosom
of the Father. Wherefore the sacred Gospel also admon
ishes us, in which Christ saith. Woman, what have I to do
with thee ? my hour is not yet come. Here, He calls her
Woman, lest any one should suppose her to be of a superior
nature, and He used this word as if prophesying for the
refutation of those heretics which He knew would arise in
the world ; that no one should be led away by too great
admiration of the Holy Virgin, to adopt these puerile fol-
lies."J " Wherefore, truly, let Mary be honored, but let
the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost, be worshipped.
Let no one worship Mary."^
* S. Leonis Magni Op., p. 76.
t S. Greg. Op., Tom. 1, p. 1350, () 1-7.
X S. Epiphan., Tom. 1, p. 1061-2,
<) lb., p. 1064.
VOL. II. 4*

82 Letter XXXL

Again, we have in this ancient writer a conclusive tes
timony against the vain and profane doctrine of Rome about
the Virgin's assumption into heaven. " The minds of men,"
saith Epiphanius, " can never rest, and always incline to
evil. But whether the holy Virgin died and was buried, so
that her death, being in honor and chastity, the crown of
virginity was granted to her ; or whether she was slain, as
the Scripture seems to indicate by these words. The sword
shall penetrate her soul also, and so she obtained the glory
and honor of the martyrs, and her sacred body, by which
light came into the world, was laden with all felicity ; or
whether, finally, she may not be still alive, for God is able
to do whatever He pleases, but nothing is known certainly
about her departure. Wherefore it is unlawful to honor the
saints beyond what is just, but ^the God of the saints is
to be honored."*
And in the following century, we have the testimony of
Isidore, the eminent Bishop of Seville, to the same effect.
" Some," saith he, " assert that Mary died by the passion
of a bodily death, because the just Simeon, holding Christ
in his arms, had prophesied, saying, A sword shall pass
through thy soul also. But it is uncertain whether he spake
of the sword of martyrdom, or of the Word of God, stronger
and sharper than any two-edged sword. And it may be
observed, specially, that no history informs us of Mary hav
ing perished by the vengeance of the sword, since her death
is mentioned nowhere, neither is her burial reported. "t
We see, from the testimony of St. Augustine, as well as
of St. Epiphanius, that superstition had already begun to
display itself in this direction, but as yet it had obtained
* S. Epiph., Tom. ^ p. 1055.
t Isidori Hispal. de vita et morte sanct., p. 364,

The Clementine Liturgy. 83
— " i
no firm foothold in the Church, nor for a long period after
their day. But now let us look to the primitive Liturgies,
and examine whether any trace can be discovered in them
to warrant the bold assertion of your advocate, that the
modern doctrine of Rome was taught by the Apostles.
First, then, we have the Clementine Liturgy, as it stands
in the 8th book of the so-called Apostolical Constitutions.
And here, there is not a trace of veneration to the Virgin
or the saints, but they are commemorated in the Eucharist
in these words : —
" Farther, we offer to Thee for aU the saints who have
pleased Thee from the beginning of the world ; the pa
triarchs, prophets, righteous men, apostles, martyrs, confes
sors, bishops, priests, deacons, sub-deacons, readers, sing
ers, virgins, widows, laymen, and all whose names Thou
knowest. We farther offer to Thee for this people ; that for
the glory of Thy Christ Thouwilt render them a royal priest
hood, a holy nation, for the virgins," &c. Here, we have
the same language used with respect to the departed saints
and to the living, but no distinction of honor or authority,
no Hail Mary, no address to the Virgin, no asking for her
prayers ; in a word, not the slightest trace of anything re
sembling this portion of your modern Roman Liturgy.
Next we come to the Liturgy of St. James, so called,
being the same which was used in the ancient Church of
Jerusalem, as given in the original Greek of the Bibliotheca
Patrum.* And -here we have the following words : —
" Hail, Mary, full of grace, the Lord is with thee ; bless^
ed art thou among women, and blessed is the fruit of thy
womb, for of thee was born the Saviour of our souls."
" Then the priest says vnth a loud voice,"
• Tom. 2.

84 Letter XXXL

" But chiefly (be mindful, 0 Lord), of our most holy,
immaculate, superlatively blessed and glorious lady, the Mo
ther of God, and ever Virgin MaiV."
" The Singers. It is meet that we should truly magnify
thee, the ever blessed immaculate parent and mother of
God, who art of more honor than the cherubim, and incom
parably more glorious than the seraphim. Thee we extol,
who broughtest forth the Divine Logos without corruption,
and art truly the parent of God."
" And again they sing. Thou, O full of grace, art the joy
of the whole creation, both of angels and men, a temple of
holiness, a spiritual paradise, and the glory of virginity, of
whom the Deity was incarnate, and our God, whose being
was from eternity, was made a child. For thy womb was
his throne, the seat of Him whom the heavens contain.
Thou, O full of grace, art the joy of the universe. Praise
be to thee."
This Liturgy, which certainly was not published at an
earlier period than the 5th century, shows a large advance
towards your modern superstition, if, indeed, these passages
are not the work of still later ages, when the error had fas
tened firmly upon the Oriental Church. But still the read
er will observe that while there is abundance of praise, yet
there is no prayer to the Virgin. The Hail Mary stops
short without the subsequent addition, " Pray for us now, and
at the hour of our death." And therefore it proves that even
so late as the 5th century, the Liturgy was clear of anything
more than an extravagapt rhetorical laudation of the Virgin,
which, nevertheless, prepared the way for further and more
perilous innovation.
We come next to the Liturgy of St. Mark, so called,
being that used in the Church of Alexandria, and translated
from the edition of your own Renaudot, at Paris, 1716.

Liturgy of St. Mark. 85
Here we have a commemoration of the departed, in these
words : —
" Be mindful, 0 Lord our God, of our forefathers from
the beginning of the world, of the patriarchs, prophets,
apostles, martyrs, confessors, bishops, saints, just men, and
of the soul of every one who is gone before us in the faith
of Christ, especially of those whom we this day commemo
rate, and of our holy father St. Mark, the apostle and evan
gelist, who showed unto us the way of salvation."
" Hail, thou that art full of grace, the Lord is with thee :
Blessed art thou among women, and blessed is the fruit ot
thy womb, because thou broughtest forth the Saviour of our
souls. With a loud voice : Especially (be mindful, 0 Lord)
of the most holy, immaculate, blessed lady, the Mother of
God, and the ever blessed Virgin."
In this we see the same laudation of the Virgin, only a
little less amplified. But we must carefully remark that
the prayer is for her, i. e., " Be mindful, O Lord, of our
forefathers, the patriarchs, prophets, &c., especially of St.
Mark, and of the most holy Virgin," &c. Not a word is
said of their intercession for the Church, but the Church, on
the contrary, prays for them. Still, therefore, though we
behold an extravagant act of praise, yet no supplication
whatever is offered to the Virgin Mary.
The fourth of these old Liturgies — old, but by no means
primitive in all their parts — is that which bears the name of
St. Chrysostom ; and here we have substantially the same form
with the last, and I give the passage in full, for my reader's
greater satisfaction.
" We offer, moreover, this reasonable worship, for those
who are departed from us in faith, our forefathers, fathers,
patriarchs, prophets, apostles, preacher^, evangelists, mar
tyrs, confessors, chaste persons, and every spirit perfected

86 Letter XXXL

in faith. With a loud voice : Especially the most holy, im
maculate, blessed above all, most glorious lady, the Mother
of God, and ever Virgin Mary."
" The people sing : It is indeed meet to call thee blessed,
who art the Mother of God, most highly blessed forever,
beyond exception, more honorable than the cherubim, and
more glorious than the seraphim, who by an immaculate
conception didst. bear Gad. the Word : We magnify thee.
Mother of God." |
Hese'^ again, the Chuij'ch intercedes for the patriarchs,
p^hets, &c., and espa-tially for the Virgin Mary, but does
riot ask for her intercession, nor offer to her any -word of sup
plication. An allusion is made to her intercession, how
ever, in another prayer, in these words : " Remit, pardon,
and forgive, 0 Go'3, all the sins which I have committed
against thee, * * * according to thy goodness and pity forgive
them all, through the intercessions af thy spotless and ever
Virgin Mother." This is the whole on the subject in the
so-called Liturgy of St. Chrysostom ; and slight as it is, it
shows the natural progress of the error.
The Liturgy of St. Basil, so called, comes next in order,
as it is given by the same Renaudot, in the Paris edition.
And in this we have the following : —
" Vouchsafe, O Lord, to remember those who have pleased
Thee from the beginning of the world, the holy fathers, pa
triarchs, apostles, prophets, preachers, evangelists, martyrs,
confessors, and all just spirits, departed in the faith ot
Christ." " Especially, the most holy, immaculate, blessed above
all, most glorious lady, the Mother of God, and ever Virgin
Mary." " St. John, the glorious prophet, the forerunner of our Sa
viour, the baptist and martyr."

Ethiopian and Nestorian Liturgies. 87
" St. Stephen, the first deacon and martyr."
" And our holy and blessed father, Mark the Apostle and
evangelist, and our holy father, Basil, the worker of mira
cles." " And all other Thy saints, for the sake of whose prayers
and intercessions have mercy upon us, and save us for the
sake of Thy holy name, which is called upon, on our behalf."
We may here observe, from the mention made of Basil,
who is called " the worker of miracles," that this Liturgy,
though bearing his name, could not have been his compo
sition, but was subsequent to his day. He flourished, how
ever, a little before the 5th century, and we all know that
400 years is more than enough to bring in a multitude of
changes in any institution placed under human guardian
ship. Nevertheless, we have here, as before, a prayer to
God that He would remember the Virgin and the saints ;
and although there is a reference to the fact that they do
pray for the Church (which notion, in itself, is certainly
quite unobjectionable), yet there is, as before, not one
word of address to the Virgin, even in the rhetorical style
of some of the other Liturgies, much less is there any sup
plication asking for her prayers.
The Ethiopian Liturgy enters more largely into the in
strumentality of the saints, as in the following passage : —
"We render thanks toThee,0 God, through Thine only be
gotten Son * * * through Stephen the proto-martyr, Zachary
the priest, and John the Baptist, through all the saints and
martyrs, who are at rest in the faith of Christ ; through Mat
thew, Mark, Luke and John, the four evangelists, and
through Mary, the Mother of God, hear us, O Lord. * * * May
all their prayers for us be accepted." But there is far less
laudation of the Virgin, and no address to her, of any sort
whatever.

88 Letter XXXL

The Liturgy of Nestorius, who was condemned as a hei
etic by the Council of Ephesus, of which I shall speak b
and by, is perfectly clear of the Virgin's peculiar laudatioi
and resembles, in this respect, the oldest Clementine Liturg
first given.
Next we have the orthodox Liturgy of Severus, the pE
triarch of Antioch, in the latter part of the fifth and the b(
ginning of the sixth century. And this is worthy of no1
for two reasons. First, because there is no special con
memoration of the departed saints, by name, excepting " S
James, the chief of Bishops," a declaration directly at war wit
your Romish doctrine that St. Peter was the chief of Bishop
And secondly, that these words occur in one of the pra;
ers, " For our Lord and God, Jesus Christ, thine only b
gotten Son, was the only person who was ever united to
body of flesh, and entirely subdued all the sinful lusts therec
so as to leave no room for them to take hold of him.'' Tl
Virgin Mary, however, is called " the blessed Mother
God and ever Virgin," in a passage which speaks of tl
incarnation of the Saviour ; but there is no allusion, of cours
to her being immaculate, which is plainly excluded by tl
words which I have quoted. Neither is there any refe
ence to her intercession, nor the slightest approach to tl
other points of your modern Roman doctrine.
But now we come to the old Roman Missal of your u
changed . and unchangeable Church herself, as printed
Rome A. D. 1647, from the ancient manuscripts. Ai
here, strange to say, there is less honor to the Virgin th
we have found in some of the other Liturgies. The follo'
ing extracts give the whole of the passages alluding to her :-
" Commemorating and honoring the memory, in the fi:
place, of the glorious ever Virgin Mary, Mother of God a
our Lord Jesus Christ, as also of thy blessed Apostles a

The Sacramentary of Gregory the Great. 89
Martyrs, Peter and Paul, Andrew, James, &c., and of all
thy saints ; through whose merits and prayers grant that in
all things we may be defended by the help of thy protec
tion, through the same Christ our Lord. Amen."
" Deliver us, we beseech Thee, 0 Lord, from all evils,
past, present, and to come, and through the intercession of
the blessed and glorious ever Virgin Mary, Mother of God,
and of thy blessed Apostles, Peter, and Paul, and Andrew,
and all the saints, graciously give peace in our days * * *
through the same our Lord Jesus Christ."
Here we have the title, " Mother of God," and an allusion
to the merits as well as to the prayers of the Virgin and
the saints ; but there is no Hail Mary, even in the words of
Scripture, as we have seen in the Liturgies called by the
names of St. James and St. Chrysostom, no address to the
Virgin, of any sort whatever, and not the slightest intimation
that she was immaculate, much less that she could be a
proper object for the Church's invocation.
Lastly, I shall refer to the Sacramentary of Pope Greg
ory the Great, belonging to the close of the sixth century, in
which we have the whole order of the prayers of the Church
of Rome, for every day in the year, filling 119 pages folio ;
and from the beginning to the end, though her intercessions
are constantly referred to, yet not one address to the Virgin
or the saints can be found in the whole collection. The
following specimens are taken from the Festival of the As
sumption of the Holy Virgin Mary : —
" 0 Lord, pardon the sins of .thy servants, and grant that
we, who are not able to please thee by our works, may be
saved by the intercession of the Mother of thy Son, our
Lord." " May the prayer of the Mother of God, O Lord, aid thy
people, whom, although we acknowledge that she has df>-

90 Letter XXXL

parted through the condition of the flesh, yet we believe
that, in celestial glory, she prays for us : through the same
our Lord."
" Truly worthy and just it is, right and salutary, that we
should at all times and in all places give thanks to thee, O
holy Lord, Almighty Father, everlasting God ; and that we
should praise, bless, and confess thee in veneration of the
holy virgins with exulting minds ; among whom, the unde
filed Mother of God, the Virgin Mary, whose assumption
we this day celebrate, shines glorious, who also, by the
overshadowing of thy Holy Spirit, conceived the only be
gotten Son, and the glory of Virginity remaining, brought
forth eternal light into this world, Jesus Christ our Lord."
" The Benediction."
" May God, who, by the offspring of the Blessed Virgin
Mary, deigned to redeem the human race, deign to enrich
you with his blessing. Amen. May you always and every
where experience her patronage, from whose undefiled
womb you have merited to receive the Author of life. And
may you who have assembled this day, with devout minds,
to celebrate her festival, carry away with you the gifts of
spiritual joys and eternal rewards. Amen."
" Compline."
" Being made participants of the heavenly table, we im
plore thy clemency, O Lord our God, that we who venerate
the festival of the Mother of God, may be freed from the
evils which hang over us : by her intercessions, through the
Lord."* We may now see, without any difficulty, the plain ab
surdity of your Roman assumption, that your modern doc-
• S. Gregor. Mag. Op., Tom. 3, p. 123, Liber Sacramentorum.

Summary of Liturgies. 91
trine concerning the worship of the Virgin and the saints
was taught by the Apostles. For the quotations which I
have made from the fathers prove, 1st, that the Virgin was
not without sin, or immaculate ; 2d, that the saints and mar
tyrs were to be honored, but not worshipped ; 3d, that the
story of the Virgin's death, resurrection, and glorious as
sumption into heaven, was not received even in the time of
Epiphanius, which was the latter end of the fourth century.
And the Liturgies confirm all this, and conclusively prove
that the modern doctrine had no existence prior to the
first Council of Nice, which the Roman theologians them
selves agree to have been the period when the oldest of
these Liturgies, viz., the Clementine, was published, where
as the others did not see the hght until a century after
wards. Thus, then, stands the evidence. The Clementine Lit
urgy was by much the older Order for the public service
of the Church, and it does not contain the slightest trace of
your present Romish doctrine on the subject.
Next, we find the Liturgies called by the name of St. James,
St. Mark, St. Chrysostom, and St. Basil, as also the Ethiopic,
and the Old Roman, all distinguishing the Virgin, more or
less, and some of them in high terms of laudation ; but instead
of praying to her, they pray and offer the Eucharist for her,
as well as for the rest of the departed saints. The differ
ence here is enormous, since the very act of praying for
her supposes that the Church then believed she was in
d state which might be improved to a higher blessedness.
Happy she was, doubtless, in paradise, but not yet exalted
to a throne of glory in heaven. Hence the modern Ro
manist could not possibly use those Liturgies with any pro
priety. And hence, too, their language is entirely incon
sistent with the epithets of your subsequent idolatry. Queen

92 Letter XXXL'

of Heaven, Queen of Angels, Queen of Apostles, Martyrs,
and all Saints, &c.
Still, however, even the advance made towards corruption
in these Liturgies was not universal ; for we see that not
only the Liturgy of Nestorius, but also the Orthodox Lit
urgy of Severus, the Patriarch of Antioch, in the fifth cen
tury, preserves the simplicity and purity of the Clementine
Liturgy, with the single exception of calling her the blessed
Mother of God, a phrase which came extensively into fash
ion after the Council of Ephesus, and one which, at first
sight, seems susceptible of a perfectly sound and correct
meaning. For Christ was God, manifest in the flesh. And
Mary was -the Mother of Christ. Therefore, as the Son
was God, why, it might be plainly asked, should not His
Mother be called the Mother of God? In strictness of lan
guage, however, the decision of the Council did not author
ize this conclusion, because it turned only on the propriety
of the term ¦deoroKog, Deipara, or the God-bearer, which
Nestorius denounced, and in defence of his censure, fell
into the serious heresy of dividing Christ into two Persons,
thereby depriving His righteousness and His atoning sacri
fice of all the majesty and worth derived from the hypostatic
union of the divine with the human nature in One Person.
The Council condemned him for this, and justly. But there
is a difference, notwithstanding, between the Virgin's bring
ing forth Deity, and her being the Mother of Deity, and
therefore the title Deipara or ¦deoTonog did not strictly jus
tify the other title. Mother of God. For it is evident that
the mere fact of bringing forth from the womb does not, of
itself, constitute the relation of mother. To constitute a
mother, the woman must produce a living creature which
has derived its nature and its qualities through her instru
mentality, so that it is of the same race, and is truly her off-

No Mariolatry down to the Seventh Century. 93
spring or progeny. And therefore, although the Virgin
brought forth God, yet she was not the Mother of God ; but,
as St. Augustine (one of the canonized saints of Rome) most
truly saith, in the passage which I have quoted from him,
" Christ was God and man. So far as it concerned
His Deity, He had no mother ; so far as it concerned
His humanity. He had. Therefore, Mary was the Mother
of His flesh, the Mother of His humanity, the Mother of the
infirmity which He took upon Him for us. For the Lord of
heaven and earth came by a woman. As He was the Lord
of the world, the Lord of heaven and earth. He was also the
Lord of Mary. As He was the Creator of heaven and earth,
He was the Creator of Mary. But as it was said that He
was made of a woman, made under the law. He was_ the
Son of Mary."* The common mind, however, did not thus
distinguish. Few had the acuteness of an Augustine. And
therefore, the authorizing of the term ¦deoroKog or Dei
para, through the condemnation of Nestorius, gave a new
impulse to the honor of the Virgin, by seeming to justify
the phrase. Mother of God ; and it was rapidly adopted
throughout the Church, doubtless, from a zealous desire
to show how orthodox men, everywhere, abhorred his
heresy ; and yet without the slightest apprehension of the
awful idolatry to which the novelty would in after ages ex
tend. But even if we take the Liturgies which I have quoted
as being all free from interpolation, the result is. still con
clusive against your modern Church of Rome. For they
prove, incontestably, that up to the commencement of the
seventh century, the Church had not adopted the Ora pro
nobis, " Pray for us," in any form whatever — that the Hail
* See page 79, ante, first foot-note.

94 Letter XXXL

Mary had been introduced in some quarters, but without the
additional clause which supplicates the Virgin — that the
Church prayed /or her, instead of praying to her — that she
had not received, anywhere, the magnificent titles of Queen
of Heaven, Queen of Angels, Queen of Patriarchs, &c. —
that in the oldest of the Liturgies, the Clementine, she was
not specified by name at all — and that although the ten
dency to magnify her was manifestly growing, and had
already made a large advance, yet a vast change was still
required, before it was possible to elevate her to the idola
trous majesty of power and privilege, presented in your
modern Papal system.
Nevertheless, I do not charge upon your Church z. formal
idolatry in this matter. I know, perfectly well, your care
ful distinction between the kinds of worship rendered to
God and to the Virgin and the saints. That the worship
of Latria is paid only to the divine persons in the Adorable
Trinity ; that the worship of Doulia, or service and honor, is
what you pay to the saints ; while the Virgin professedly
receives the worship of Hyper-doulia, or the highest kind
of the second sort, which is lawful to a creature. All this
I place to your credit freely and cheerfully. But I have
shown, as it seems to me, that although you do not warship
the Virgin nominally as a God, yet you must necessarily
assume that she possesses powers which can only be claimed
by the Deity, since otherwise you could not authorize the
praying to her everywhere at once, nor imagine that she is
able, in effect, to dispense, to all her worshippers through
out the world, the care and government which can only
belong to the Providence of the Almighty. And hence,
while I willingly acquit you of idolatry in form, I cannot
acquit you of idolatry in substance. Even this allowance,
however, is only due to the popular belief, for we have seen

Due Honor to the Virgin. 95
that Cardinal Bellarmine, and other leaders in your Church,
do not scruple to go the whole way of formal idolatry,
boldly claiming for the saints that they are Gods by parti
cipation. Lastly, let me state, that while we utterly deny to the
Virgin Mary the extravagant and imauthorized powers
claimed for her by the modem system of Rome, yet we
hold her justly entitled to all the honor and regard which
the Angel Gabriel and her own prophetic hymn attribute to
her. We believe her to be " blessed among women." We
esteem her as " highly favored." We maintain that " all
generations should call her blessed." We venerate her
name and memory, with those of all the ancient saints and
martyrs. But we hold her to have been a sinner, needing
to be redeemed by her divine Son. We hold that .she her
self admitted the fact when she said,* '' My soul doth mag
nify the Lord, and my spirit hath rejoiced in God, my Sa
viour." For how could God be her Saviour, if, as your
modern Church asserts, she was perfectly free from sin,
whether original or actual ? And how can our interpretation
be doubted even by the Romanist himself, when it is so
manifest that all the primitive Church, including Pope
Gregory the Great, are with us in this doctrine ? We
hold further, with the Council of Ephesus, that she might
justly be called Qe&roKog, or God-bearer, but we likewise
hold, with St. Augustine, that she cannot be called, in strict
propriety, the Mother of God. We admit, also, that all the
departed saints pray collectively, in their Paradise of rest
and peace, for the Church of Christ on earth ; and therefore
we do not question that they perform this duty as they did
before their departure, nor do we doubt that it is done with
• St. Luke, i. 46-7, Douay Bible

96 Letter XXXL

greater zeal and affection. And therefore we hold that the
Communion of Saints comprehends them, with ourselves, in
the bonds of faith, and love, and hope, in the Lord Jesus.
But we deny that they are appointed, before the Resurrec
tion, tcJ'any special government on earth, that they are pres
ent with us, that they can see our hearts, and hear our
supplications, or that they have any part assigned to them
in the providential government of the world. We deny,
likewise, that there is any power in the Church militant to
decide what individuals the Lord may have chosen to glorify
among them, and we dare not venture to intrude, as St.
Paul saith, into those things which we have not seen* nor
legislate for the Almighty in the selection of His favored
ones. And in all of this, we claim the authority of Scrip
ture, the course of the primitive Church, and the assent of
enlightened reason, as being plainly on our side ; and charge
your modern Papal creed with a perilous, presumptuous,
and heretical innovation upon the true Gospel system.
Before I close this letter, however, I am bound to notice
some misrepresentations of the fathers, with which Dr.
Milner endeavors to sustain the modern doctrine of his
Church. " With respect to the earliest date of prayers
to the saints,'' saith he,t " I may refer you to the
writings of St. Irenaeus, who introduces the blessed Virgin
praying for Eve ; so the apology of his contemporary, St.
Justin the Martyr, who says, ' We venerate and worship the
angelic host, and the spirits of the prophets, teaching others
as we ourselves have been taught ;' and to the light of the
fourth century, St. Basil, who expressly refers these prac
tices to the Apostles, where he says, ' I invoke the Apos
tles, prophets, and martyrs to pray for me, that God may be
* Col. ii. 18. t P. 241.

Evidence of St. Irenceus. 97
merciful to me, and forgive me my sins. I honor and
reverence their images, since these things have been or
dained by tradition from the Apostles, and are practised in
all our Churches.'' Some time and trouble will be required
to rectify this delusive statement of your favorite advocate ;
but the truth is worth all the labor it may cost, to the faith
ful and candid seeker.
Beginning, then, with Irenaeus, who was Bishop of Lyons
in the latter part of the second century, I would first observe
that the part of his work to which Dr. Milner refers, has
not reached us in the original Greek, but only in a very
unskilful Latin version. Such as it is. however, the passage
is as follows ; —
Presenting to his readers a sort of parallel between the
Virgin Eve and the Virgin iNIary, he saith, " As Eve was
seduced through the speech of an angel, that she might de
part from God, and violate His word : so Mary was evan
gelized through the speech of an angel, that she might
carry God, being obedient to His word. And though the
one was disobedient to God, yet the other was persuaded
to obey Him, so that the Virgin Mary might be made an ad
vocate of the Virgin Eve. And as the human race was de
voted to death through a Virgin, it is saved through a Vir
gin, the disobedience of a Virgin being equally balanced by
the obedience of a Virgin. For even so.the sin of the first-
made man received a remedy through the chastisement of
the First-born, and the subtlety of the serpent has been
conquered by the simplicity of the dove, those chains being
loosed by which we had been bound to death."*

? St. Irena;i Op., Tom. 1, p. 316, Lib. 5, cap. xix. The special
clause referred to by Dr. Milner is, " uti Virginis Eva Virgo Maria
fieret advocata."
VOL. II. 5

98 Letter XXXL

Here we have the whole passage, and the reader may
readily see that it is altogether wide of the point for which
your author ventures to quote this ancient father. Not one
word is said of the Virgin praying for Eve. She may have
done so, for aught I know ; but whether she did or not, is
nothing to the purpose. Because the question is not about
what the Virgin might voluntarily introduce into her pray
ers, but about the authority which we have to pray to her, as
if she were present, and to rely on her intercession for each
individual soul, as if she were the appointed Mediatrix of
the world. Indeed, the whole paragraph is not so much a
statement of the doctrine or of the practice of the Church,
as a fanciful display of ingenuity, running a parallel between
Satan and Gabriel, between Eve's disobedience and Mary's
obedience, between Adam as the first made, and Christ as
the First or only begotten. So that, in sober truth, it has
not the slightest relation to the matter in controversy.
In order to make it applicable at all, look, I pray you, at
the process which would be necessary. Irenaeus saith (or
his translator makes him say), that the Virgin Mary might
become an advocate of the Virgin Eve. What this was in
tended to mean, is by no means a plain or easy question to
answer. But Dr. Milner desires us to understand that
M&xy prayed for Eve. Now Eve was dead nearly 4000
years before Mary was born, and her condition must have
been fixed, so long previous to the existence of her advo
cate. Probably, then, our author would have us suppose
that she was in purgatory, and that Mary prayed for the re
lease of her soul. But where did she so pray 1 While she
was on earth, or after her departure ? And why did she so
pray 1 Was it of her own spontaneous solicitude, or be
cause Eve applied to her for an act of intercession 1 And'
in what character did she so pray ? Was it in the charac-

Evidence of St. Justin Martyr. 99
ter of an obedient servant of the Lord, like any other ac
cepted disciple, or was it as the Queen of Heaven, &c. 1
And if Dr. Milner be allowed to have manufactured a reply
to all these questions, satisfactory to himself, there is yet
another, namely, how are we to conclude that because Mary
prayed for one Eve — our first mother — therefore she is able
and willing to hear and answer the prayers; at the same
time, of 128 millions ?
But dismissing this specimen of irrelevancy, let us pro
ceed to the second proof of your author, derived from the
alleged statement of the martyr Justin. And here, we find
the words of the original Greek susceptible of quite a dif
ferent meaning : " We worship and adore Him, and His
Son," saith Justin, " who came out from Him (and hath
taught us respecting these things, and respecting the host
of the other good angels who follow Him and are made
like unto Him), and the Prophetic Spirit, honoring them in
reason and in truth. And to every one who wishes to learn,
we freely deliver our opinions, as we have been taught."*
Now that this is the true meaning we maintain, not only be
cause it is the only one consistent with the doctrine of the
primitive Christians, for several centuries after the time of
Justin, but also- because it is the only one consistent with
other passages of the same father, in the very same book.
For thus Justin expresses his doctrine a little further on, in
terms which are not capable of misrepresentation : —
* 'AXX' iKEii'6v re, Kal rov zap' dvrov iidv i\36i>ra Kal SiSa^avra nfiSs ravra
Kal Tov r€iv SXXwv Izoiiivtav koI klofioiov^itvmv ayaidv dyytXojv arpardv, irvtvua
Tt ri TtpoipTiTiKoii t!tP6pLtia, Kal TpoaKvmditcv, Xdya xal iXqScla rifuDiTEj. I
have inserted the ordinary parenthetic marks in my version, to show
that the parenthesis which the Romanist is obliged to admit in the
words Kal Siia^avra rifias ravra should be extended to include tho dYyiXan
orrpaTiy, and thus the meaning is perfectly clear.

100 Letter XXXL

" We worship," saith he, " the Creator of this universe,
declaring, as we have been taught, that He requires not sac
rifices of blood, and libations and incense ; and we praise
Him to the utmost of our power, with words of prayer and
thanksgiving, for all things which we enjoy. Again, we
have learned that He who taught us these things, and for
this end was born, who was crucified under Pontius Pilate,
the procurator of Judea, in the time of Tiberius Cesar, was
the Son of Him who is truly God, and we esteem Him in
the second place. And that we with reason honor the
Prophetic Spirit in the third place, we shall hereafter show."
And again Justin saith: " Wherefore we worship God only ;
but in all other matters we joyfully serve you" (namely,
the Roman emperor and Senate, to whom his apology was
addressed), " confessing that ye are kings and rulers, and
praying that ye may be found to possess, together with your
royal power, a sound and discerning mind." Here, there
fore, this witness to whom Dr. Milner so boldly appeals in
his support, is found to testify, when honestly quoted, di
rectly against him.
And his third pretended authority from Basil, " the light
of the fourth century," is not a whit more reliable. For,
strange to say, the identical copy which he quotes, viz., the
Parisian edition of the Benedictines, places this epistle in
the third class, numbers it ccclx., and sets down the num
ber 205, by which Bishop Milner chose to refer to it, with
an Alias, in the margin only, while the whole class of which
it forms a part is put out of the list of Basil's genuine writ
ings, as dateless, doubtful and spurious, and the heading of
the very page on which it stands presents the title, Episto-
1<E Spuriee ! And hence I was gratified to find that, in the
copious index which closes the volume, the learned editors,"
though devoted to the Church of Rome, were too honest to

Irrelevancy, Falsity, Forgery. 101
insert the statements of this forgery amongst tho sentiments
of St. Basil, but passed it wholly by, as unworthy of their
notice. Nor was I able, after the most careful searching
of the index, to discover the source of Dr. Milner's state
ment anywhere, until, on recurring to the notes which I had
made for my own use, many years ago, upon this and the
other fathers, I found the reference, and then I turned to the
place and saw, with renewed surprise, that this Apostolic
Vicar had descended to cite the false and pretended testi
mony of Basil, with the title Spurious Epistles staring him
in the face !
Such, then, is the value of your advocate's appeals to
Christian antiquity. Such is the Jesuitical morality which
deems it no sin to use a pious fraud, for the sake of prose
lyting. And so powerful is the real evidence, both positive
and negative, which the primitive Church pronounces
against your modem doctrine, in this important matter of
the Virgin and the saints, that the audacity which claims for
it an Apostolic origin can only be supported by an irrelevant
passage of one father, a false translation of another, and a
downright forgery of a third !

102 The End of Controversy, Controverted.

LETTER XXXII.
Most Reverend Sir :
The next topic which Dr. Milner undertakes to clear
from misrepresentation, is the veneration which his Church
pays to images and relics, or, as he calls them, " the memo
rials of Christ and his saints, viz., crucifixes, relics, pious
pictures and images." He quotes the Council of Trent,
Gother and Challoner, to prove that the Church of Rome
does not authorize prayer or worship to images ; and then
proceeds to show, from the Bible, the reverence which the
religious Jews rendered to the Ark of the Covenant, how
the handkerchiefs and aprons were brought from the body
of St. Paul to heal the sick, and especially how a dead
man was restored to life, when the corpse was accidentally
brought into contact with the bones of the Prophet Elisha.
He endeavors, also, to prove that the members of the
Church of England do acts equally open to censure, on their
ground, with the alleged practice of Rome, by b6wing rev
erently at the name of Jesus, by kneeling to the king, by
bowing to the empty throne in the House of Lords, and by
kissing the Bible at the taking of an oath. And he con
cludes by asserting that " the end for which pious pictures
and images are made and retained by Catholics is the same
for which pictures and images are made and retajped by
mankind in general, to put us in mind of the persons and
things they represent. They are not primarily intended
for the purpose of being venerated ; nevertheless, as they

The Council of Trent on Relics. , 103
bear a certain relation to holy persons and things, by rep
resenting them, they become entitled to a relative or second
ary consideration." He also specifies an important use of
pious pictures, viz., " that they help to instruct the igno
rant." " Still," continues he, " it is a point agreed upon
among Catholic doctors and divines, that the memorials of
religion form no essential part of it."*
The first duty which I have to discharge in reference to
the foregoing part of Dr. Milner's work, is to supply his
omissions as to the real doctrine of j'our Church, since that
which he has stated is so far below the truth, that if his
book had not been written for the purpose of deluding Pro
testants, it would have been very likely to incur the Papal
censure. We have already seen how deceptive was his
representation on the subject of the Virgin Mary and the
saints, and he pursued precisely the same policy on the ob
noxious point of the worship of images and relics.
The evidence on this part of the case shall be taken from
the Council of Trent, the second Council of Nice, and the
Roman Breviary, three sources which no Romanist can dis
pute, for they are of the highest authority.
Thus, in the Twenty-fifth Session of the Council of Trent,t
we read as follows : " The holy bodies also of the martyrs
and others, living with Christ, are to be venerated by the
faithful, for they were, when living, the members of Christ,
and the temples of the Holy Ghost, and shall be raised again
and glorified ; and through them, many favors are bestowed
on man by the Almighty : so that those who affirm that ven
eration and honor are not due to the relics of the saints, or
that it js useless for the faithful to honor these and other sa
cred memorials, and that it is vain to visit the sepulchres of
* P- 237. t Hard. Concil. Gen., Tom. 10, p. 168.

104 Letter XXXIL

the saints in order to ask their help, are to be altogether con
demned, as the Church has already condemned, and does also
now condemn them."
" Moreover," continues this Council, " the images of
Christ, of the Virgin, the Mother of God, and of the other
saints, are to be had and retained, especially in Churches,
and due honor and veneration are to be rendered to them ; not
because it may be supposed that there is in them any divin
ity -or virtue on account of which they are to be worshipped,
or that anything is to be asked of them, or that confidence
is to be placed in images, as was formerly the case amongst
the heathen, who rested their hope on idols : but because the
honor which is exhibited to them is referred to the prototype
luhich they represent ; so that through the image which we kiss,
and before which we uncover our heads and bow down, we adore
Christ, and venerate the saints whose similitude those im
ages do bear. The same doctrine is sanctioned by the de
crees of the Councils, especially the second Council of Nice,
against the opposers of images." At the end, the Council
pronounces, " If any one shall teach or think contrary to
these decrees, let him be anathema."
I pass next to the second Council of Nice, which the
Council of Trent here endorses and ratifies, and this will
give us some further details upon the subject. The reader
will bear in mind, however, that the second Council of Nice
was held A. D. 787, more than four and a half centuries
later than the first Council of that name, and that the Church
had by this time admitted a large amount of unscriptural,
unprimitive and superstitious innovation. The Greek Em
peror Leo, whom Roman influence stigmatized as the Icon
oclast, or the Image-breaker, had warmly opposed the new
corruption of image worship a considerable time before, and
a Council had been called, A. D. 754, which unanimously

The Second Council of Nice on Images. 105
condemned it, in accordance with his opinions. The sec
ond Council of Nice was summoned to sustain the popular
uovelty, through the exertions of the Roman pontiff, who
stiffly maintained this attractive delusion, and the Roman
ists claim for it the authority of a General Council. But
this we deny, not only because it is historically certain that
it did not express the sense of the Church in the East, but
further because it was afterwards condemned by the Coun
cil of Frankfort, in the time of the famous Charlemagne, as
I shall prove specifically, by and by, from your own wit
nesses. Thus, then, speaks this second Council of Nice, as en
dorsed by the authority of Trent, in the definitive decree :*
" Taught by the ancient fathers, we salute the venerable
images. Whosoever does not consent herein, let him be
anathema." " And we also salute the figure of the precious
and vivifying Cross, and the holy relics of the saints. More
over, we honor and salute those precious and venerable im
ages, and honorably adore them, namely, the image of the
humanity of our great God and Saviour, Jesus Christ, and
of our most holy and pure lady, the Mother of God, and of
the holy incorporeal angels, who appeared in human form
to the just. In like manner also, the figures and effigies of
the divine and most famous Apostles and Prophets, and of
the martyrs and holy men, since they are able by their pic
tures to lead us to remember them, and draw us to the origi
nals, and make us partakers of a certain sanctification." " To
these," therefore, " kisses and honorable adoration shall be
rendered; but not that superior worship {latria) which is
according to faith, and alone becomes the Divine Nature.
And to the precious figure of the vivifying Cross, and to the
? Hard. Concil. Gen., Tom. 4, p. 262 and 266.
VOL. II. 5*

106 Letter XXXIL

holy Gospels, and the other holy memorials, let the offer
ing of incense and lighted candles be exhibited in their honor,
according to ancient, custom. For the honor of the image
passes to its original ; and whoever adores the image, adores
in it the substance of the representation."*
" If any one does not admit the evangelical narrations
made by titles or pictures, let him he anathema."
" If any one does not kiss them, as made in the name of
the Lord and His saints, let him be anathema."^
" And forasmuch as mahy of the venerable temples have
been consecrated without the relics of the martyrs, we de
cree that relics shall be pVced in them according to the ac
customed rule. And if, from the present time, any Bishop
be found to consecrate a temple without relics, let him be de
posed, as one who transgresses the ecclesiastical tradition."\
Here, then, we see plainly the exceeding unfairness of
Dr. Milner, whose statement of his Church's doctrine is so
defective that no one could derive from it the real truth.
Thus, he tells us that the Church of Rome does not author
ize prayer or worship to images, and that " it is a point agreed
on by Catholic doctors and divines that the memorials of re
ligion form no essential part of it." But the Council com
mands relics to be placed in every church ; that the images
shall be honorably adored, with kisses, and incense, and
lighted candles ; and that those who presume to omit this
duty shall be accursed, for such is the meaning of their re
peated anathema. They could not pronounce a heavier sen
tence on those who denied the highest doctrines of the
faith ; and yet your author coolly informs his Protestant
readers that these things are not regarded amongst the essen
tials of religion '.
* Hard. Con. Gen., Tom. 4, p. 455. t lb. 471. J lb. 491.

Image-worship. 107

To show the extent of the superstition which your Church
attaches to the- relics of the saints, a few extracts from your
own Breviary will be sufficient.
Thus, in the lesson appointed to be read on the Festival
of St. Isidore, we read, that his body was purchased at a
great price by Ferdinand I., King of Castile and Leon ;
" that a temple was forthwith built in his honor ; and that
there, distinguished by miracles, he is venerated with great
devotion by the people."
The same Breviary relates of St. Ubald, that " his body,
which remains uncorrupted after so many ages, is honored
with great veneration of the faithful in his country, which he
has more than once delivered from imminent danger."
We are also assured by the same authority that the body of
St. Januarius, at Naples, "formerly extinguished volumes of
flames breaking forth from Mount Vesuvius."
The body of St. Francis Xavier is said, in the same
Breviary, " to have extinguished a fierce pestilence in the
Malaccas." Nay, since the year 1790, the Pope instituted a pious
fraternity in honor of the miraculous image of the Virgin,
at Ancona, which opened and shut its eyes on public occa
sions. This image was solemnly crowned by Pope Pius
VII. on the 13th of May, A. D. 1814, an annual feast was
appointed in its honor, and a plenary indulgence was at
tached to it. We have many accounts, of late years, of other
images, which are related to have shed tears, and winked
their eyes in the most edifying manner. An old picture of
the Virgin and Child, at Mercatello, even changed color,
and the infant was seen to bend forward, to signify the sat
isfaction with which it received the devotions of the people !
Among Protestants, indeed, these things are prudently omit
ted by your priests, for the most part ; but wherever Ro-

108 Letter XXXII

manism is at home, and your clergy act without constraint,
the extravagance of the faith placed in images and relics is
cherished as much as ever, and volumes would not contain
the details of the degrading superstitions continually prac
tised in this fruitful and profitable branch of delusion.
Such, then, being a brief selection of the facts, in relation
to your doctrine, let us look at the effort which your advo
cate makes to press the Scriptures into his service, and then
we shall advert to a few testimonies from the fathers.
The Book of Kings states that a dead man was restored
-to life, when the corpse touched the bones of the Prophet
Elisha. And this is the nearest approach which your
Church can make to a claim of scriptural authority. But
in truth, the sacred history proves the very reverse of your
doctrine, because it was evidently a special wonder, re
garded by the Israelites as a single and peculiar display of
divine power, and not followed by any act of veneration to
the remains of the prophet. For, according to the Romish
view of the subject, they should have believed that the
bones of Elisha possessed an inherent and constant effcacy,
and they should have taken them from the sepulchre and
kept them in state, and exhibited them to the veneration of
the faithful. The sacred relics should have been enshrined
in gold and precious stones, and incense and lighted candles
should have been used in their honor, and miraculous cures
should have been performed by their touch from time to
time, and through them, Elisha should have protected the
nation from danger, healed the pestilence, delivered them
from their enemies, and manifested the same sort of power
which your people are taught to expect from the bones of
the saints to this day. But where is there a trace of any
such superstition among the Jews ? What honor did
they render to the skeleton of the prophet ? Famous as he

No Worship of Israelilish Saints. 109
was, when living, for the working of miracles, when did
the Israelites ever look to him for miracles after he was
dead 1 Prone as they were to all other kinds of idolatry,
they evidently had no idea of this degrading superstition.
They left the bones of Elisha to moulder into dust, and
hence they evidently regarded the wonder as a particular
act of divine power, instead of adopting it as an important
part of a standing system. And thus the case is so far from
justifying your doctrine of Rome, that it really administers
the strongest rebuke of your delusion.
Indeed, the reference of your author to the Church of an
cient Israel was a most unfortunate one for his hypothesis.
For there we behold at once the most admirable materials
for the establishment of image and relic worship, together
with a strong tendency in the people to all idolatry. What
saints in the Roman calendar can be more lofiy than Moses,
who conversed with God as a man talketh with his friend,
and what relic so precious as the rod with which he per
formed such stupendous miracles ! What ^ glorious line
of prophets succeeded him, whose bodies and garments
might have been so easily preserved ! What a splendid
relic would the mantle of Elijah have been, with which
Ehsha smote the river Jordan, and the waters separated
immediately ! What images might have been made to rep
resent the saints and heroes of the wondrous history, not
forgetting the female worthies, Miriam and Deborah, and
Jael and Hannah— prophetesses and heroines, deserving of
all honor ! And yet, amongst all this treasury of objects so
admirably fitted to the purpose, we find no images whatever
of the saints, and only one example of veneration for a
relic, when the people began to burn incense to the brazen
serpent, which Moses had erected in the wilderness ; and
the good King Hezekiah, shocked at the idolatry, brake it

110 Letter XXXIL
in pieces, calling it Nehushtan — a piece of brass, without
the least regard to the reverence due to a sacred memorial !
As to the veneration which the Israelites paid to the Ark,
your author quite forgets that the Almighty had conde
scended not only to give the pattern and the command for
its construction, but had also granted the glorious Shekinah
— the visible manifestation of His presence — to rest upon
the mercy-seat between the Cherubim. The act of wor
ship before the Ark was therefore an act of worship to the
Deity. What possible relation can any mind but that of a
Romanist discover between this and the veneration paid to
the fanciful products of sculptors and painters — to dead bones
and relics of men and women, who were no objects of wor
ship when they were living, but who would have started
back, with holy indignation, from receiving the smallest
portion of the idolatrous honor rendered to their fictitious
portraits and statues, their mouldering remains, and even
their very clothes, after they had departed to their reward !
Lastly, we come to the evidence which Dr. Milner seeks
to derive from the fact that the woman who touched our
Saviour's garment was healed of an issue, and that aprons
and handkerchiefs were brought from the body of St. Paul
to cure the sick. But did not our Lord know the humble
faith of the woman, and will her recovery ? And did not St.
Paul's prayers attend the use of those aprons and handker
chiefs ? And was not the result, in both cases, to be attri
buted to the miraculous power which Christ dispensed of His
own divine and inherent right, and afterwards granted to His
chosen Apostles, during their living and personal ministry ?
What, then, have these facts to do with your Romish doc
trine of relics ? For a relic (jelicta) is something left he-
hind after the decease of the owner, and therefore the gar
ments of the Redeemer and the handkerchiefs of the Apos-

Bowing to ti„e Throne. Ill
tie could in no sense be called relics, while they were living
upon earth. But where do we read that these things were
laid up, as sacred memorials, to be venerated and relied upon
for the curing of diseases through all time to come 1 On
the 'contrary, do we not find that, under the very eyes of the
inspired Apostles, the first martyr, Stephen, was carried by
devout men to his burial 1 Suppose your modem Church of
Rome had possessed a voice in that holy company, and St.
Peter had been told that the body of Stephen should not be
buried, but embalmed for preservation, put into a precious
case, have incense burned and candles lighted to its honor,
and be resorted to by all the faithful, with prayers and
prostrations, as a resource against diseases, earthquakes,
pestilences, and all calamities ! Would not the holy Apostle
have denounced such a suggestion as the device of Satan,
and probably visited upon the head of the proposer the sud
den judgment which fell, for a far less perilous sin, upon
Ananias and Sapphira ?
Thus, then, stands the weak and flimsy attempt to gain
the Scriptures into the interests of this degrading sort of
superstition and idolatry. Let us next look at the effort of
your author to manufacture some analogy out of the practice
in England of bowing in the House of Lords to the empty
throne, and Imeeling to the king, and the general custom of
bending the head at the name of Jesus, and kissing the
Bible when an oath is taker, upon it.
The first of these English customs, viz., the bowing to
the empty throne, has nothing to do with the subject, being
a mere piece of monarchical etiquette, totally distinct from
any pretence of faith, worship, or rehgious veneration. I
doubt the fact, however, because, when I visited the House
of Lords some fourteen years ago, I saw nothing of the
kind, but on the contrary, >:he temporal peers, with the ex-

112 Letter XXXIL
ception of the Lord Chancellor, sat with their hats on, only
taking them off when they rose to address the woolsack.
But even if our author's statement be admitted, I cannot see
any foundation for the supposed analogy. For the vacant
throne is certainly not a relic, neither is it an image, neither
are prayers addressed to it, nor incense burned before it, nor
candles lighted in its honor, nor is any benefit expected from
the passing bow of royal etiquette. And the same remarks
apply to the custom of kneeling to the sovereign. Were
nothing more than this involved in the doctrine or practice
of Rome, Dr. Milner well knew that his Church would
neither have found the worship of images and relics so
profitable to the priests and monks of her communion, nor
should we have ever thought the question worth an argu
ment. The second pretended analogy is equally wide of the
mark, although the practice to which it refers stands on a
very different foundation. We bow our heads at the name
of Jesus, because we bow our hearts and knees to Jesus,
according to the precept of the Apostle, that at His name
every knee shall bow. But the name of Jesus is not an
image, nor a picture, nor a relic of a mortal saint. Our
reverent bending of the head is an act of true worship, and
it is done because He is the rightful object of our worship,
which none but God can be. If the same argument could
be pleaded for the images and relics of Rome, her advo
cates might claim a sure and easy victory.
And the third illustration of your author, derived from
our custom of sealing a solemn oath by pressing the Bible
to our lips, is quite as little to the purpose. That this is a
token of reverent affection, is granted. That it is often a
dictate of natural love to kiss the miniature or the letter of
an absent friend, is granted also. But where i.s the incense 1

Relics unobjectionable as simple Memorials. 113
Where are the fights 1 Where are the prayers of faith ?
Where is the hope of receiving important aids and bless
ings T Where is the association of the act with the alleged
cures, the miraculous deliverance from sickness, calamity,
and danger ? It is these which stamp the doctrine of Rome
with the brand of a perilous idolatry. It is for the sake of
these that the deluded multitude pay their offerings of silver
and gold, to touch the holy coat at Treves, to adore the
holy tooth of St. Peter, or to fall down before the winking
statue of the Virgin at Ancona. And hence, in the total
absence of all that marks the influence of superstition and
idolatry, the reference to our kissing the Bible, as affording
any analogy with the doctrine and practice of Rome, is
simply ridiculous.
Equally absurd is the evasion attempted by your author,
when he compares the Romish view of the subject with
the Protestant use of statues, pictures, &c., as memo
rials merely. He knew, perfectly well, that all this was
only an ingenious effort to throw dust in the eyes of his
readers. No sensible man ever found fault with sculpture
or painting, as a memorial of past events, or of departed
friends, or as a tribute to peculiar greatness, either in Church
or State. No man of common feeling or reflection ever
censured the wish even to preserve a relic of remarkable
men or deeds, as an object of association which must inter
est posterity. Thus, the sword of Goliah was laid up by
the priest of the sanctuary, as a memorial of the victory of
David. Thus the sword of Frederick the Great is pre
served at Pottsdam. Thus the crozier of William of Wyck-
ham is kept at Oxford. Thus the chair of Edward I. is
exhibited in Westminster Abbey. As simple memorials, all
this is perfectly unobjectionable. And if Rome, beginning
with what is right, as in all other cases of her corruptions.

114 Letter XXXIL

had not gone on, adding more and more, until she converted
a wholesome truth into an enormous and idolatrous system
of imposture . there would have been no place for this
branch of our controversy.
To prove that the primitive Church was entirely hostile
to the doctrine of modern Romanism on this whole subject,
will be an easy labor, and to this I shall now invite your at
tention. To begin with Clement of Alexandria, in the early part
of the third century, thus he speaks on the subject of
images made for the purposes of religion : " Those images
which are made by vile and sordid men, are made of vain
and useless materials ; hence they are also vain, useless,
material and profane. Therefore the works of art are by
no means to be esteemed sacred and divine."*
Jerome, repelling with indignation the charge of Vigilan-
tius, in the fourth century, when the veneration for the relics
of the saints first began to appear, saith : " We do not wor
ship the relics of the martyrs, nor the sun and the moon, nor
angels nor archangels, no, not the cherubim and seraphim,
nor any name which is named either in the present or the
future, lest we might serve the creature rather than the Cre
ator, who is blessed forever."!
Many years before Jerome, however, the Council of Eli
beris, A. D. 313, in their 36th Canon, decreed: "That
there ought to be no pictures in the Church, lest that which
is worshipped and adored be' painted on the walls ."f
The testimony of the famous Ambrose, Bishop of Milan
in the fourth century, is express to the same point, where
he saith that " The holy Rachel hid the images, that is, the
* Clem. Alexand. Stromata, Lib. vii., p. 714.
t S. Hieron. Op., Tom. 2, p. 82, c.
X Hard. Concil. Gen., Tom. 1, p. 254.

SS. Augustine and Epiphanius. 115
Church, or prudence, because the Church knows nothing of
those empty ideas and vain figures of images, but acknowl
edges the true substance of the Trinity."*
And Augustine, a little la^er, speaking of those professing
Christians in his day, whose faith and conversation were
alike defective and impure, mentions the worshippers of
sepulchres and pictures with strong disapprobation. After
challenging the Manicheans to compare their morals with
those of Christians, he guards against the evil example of
such as these, in the following word^ : " Do not collect to
me the professors of the Christian name, who neither under
stand nor exhibit the proper power of their profession. Do
not reckon the crowds of the unskUful, who are either su
perstitious in that which is the true religion, or so addicted
to their lusts, that they forget what they promised to God.
I know that many are worshippers of sepulchres and pictures ;
I know that there are many who drink to excess over the
dead ; and spreading their feasts before the corpses, bury
themselves over the buried ; anu reckon their gluttony and
drunkenness for religion. I kn^w that there are many who
have renounced the world in words, and yet choose to be op
pressed by all the burdens of the world, and rejoice in their
oppression. Nor is this wonderful in so great a multitude
of people. But how vain art tho.te things, how hurtful, how
sacrilegious .'"f Here we see that the Church was beginning
to be infected by this superstition, while its great lights and
teachers condemned the rising abuse with strong and de
cided censure.
The same view of the subject appears most clearly in the
statement of St. Epiphanius, one of whose epistles, ad-
• S. Ambros. Op., Tom. 1, p. 429.
t S. Augustini Op., Tom. l,p. 531, De Moribus Ecclesiaj .

116 Letter XXXIL

dressed to John, the Bishop of Jerusalem, and warning him
against the errors of Origen, was translated by St. Jerome,
and from this I make the following interesting extract : —
" Travelling on a certain day," saith St. Epiphanius, " to
the holy place which is called Bethel, I came to the town
named Anablatha, where I saw a lamp burning as I was
passing by, and asked what place it was, and being told
that it was a church, I went in to pray. And there I found
a veil hanging over the doors, colored and painted, and hav
ing an image as if of Christ or some saint. For I do not
well remember whose image it was. Therefore when I
saw this thing, an image of a man hanging in the Church of
Christ against the authority of the Scriptures, I tore it, and
told the wardens of the place to wrap it together and carry
it away from thence, as if it were a dead pauper. And
they answered, murmuring against me : If he has chosen
to tear it, he ought to give another and a different one in
stead of it. When I heard this, I promised that I would
do so."* Thus we have another proof that the corrupt in
novation was growing, but was perfectly odious in the sight
of the eminent Bishops, whose names are distinguished by
a place in the calendar of the saints, and to whose doctrine
your modern Church of Rome pretends, with such marvel
lous effrontery, to conform.
The next testimony to which 1 shall refer is that of the
famous Cyril, Archbishop of Jerusalem, in the fifth century,
who, explaining that clause of the baptismal covenant in
which the candidate was called upon to renounce Satan, his
pomp and his worship, uses these words : —
" The worship of the devil is the supplication offered at
the shrines of idols, and those things which are done to the
* S. Hieron. Op., Tom, 2, p. 110, E. F. Epistola Epiphanii.

St. Optatus on Images. 117
honor of inanimate images, as the lighting of lamps, or the
burning of incense at fountains or rivers, so that some, being
deluded by dreams, or by the fraud of demons, come to these
waters, thinking that tliere they will obtain the cure of their
bodily diseases, and other things of the same kind. Be
ware that thou hast no part in them. Augury, divination,
omens, amulets, and inscriptions, magical and other evil arts,
and everything of a similar character, are also the worship
of the devil. Flee, therefore, from them all. For if you
yield to them after you have renounced Satan, and joined
yourself to Christ, you will experience a more cruel tyran
ny than ever."* Here is a description which contains
many of the elements of modern saint-worship — the lifeless
images, the lighting of candles, the incense, the supplica
tion, the holy wells of Ireland and other places, where the
poor devotees expect to be healed of their diseases, the
amulets and charms— all classed together with a solemn and
fearful warning, that they must be shunned by every bap
tized Christian.
From St. Optatus, the Bishop of Milevi, a little later, I
take a short passage, as follows : —
" It was reported," saith he," " that Paul and Macarius were
to come at that time, that they should be present at the sacri
fice, and, when the altars were solemnly prepared, that they
should bring forward an image, which they should first place
upon the altars, and so the sacrifice should be offered. When
our ears had heard this intelhgence, our hearts were struck,
so that every one that heard it said, Whoever tastes that,
tastes of an accursed thing. And it was rightly said, if the
report had proved true."t This shows plainly the horror
* S. CyrilU Hierosol., Cat. xix., Mystagog. 1, p. 308-9.
t S. Optati, De Schism. Donatist., Ijb. iii. p. 69.

118 Letter XXXIL

with which the eminent and consistent Christians of the
fifth century regarded the conu'^ction of an image with the
worship of the true God.
The tendency towards the extravagant veneration of the
saints was so strong, however, that their images, and pic
tures, and relics grew gradu=<lly into greater favor, until at
length, towards the close of the sixth century, we find Pope
Gregory the Great patronizing them as the regular orna
ments of every Church, rlthough still with a careful pro
hibition of their being worshipped. To make this perfectly
clear, it will only be necessary to set before my readers his
letter to Serenus, the Bishop of Marseilles, who had seen
with indignation that the people were not to be restrained
from this degrading species of idolatry, and therefore had
broken the images and cast them out of the churches of his
diocese in the same spirit which we have observed in the
famous St. Epiphanius, a century and a half before. A
great complaint arose, in consequence ; and the Pope re
monstrates with him in the following terms : —
" It has lately come to our ears that your Fratemity,behold-
ing certain persons adoring images [quosdam imaginum ado-
ratores), has broken those images, and cast them out of the
churches. And truly we have praised the zeal which you
have manifested to prevent the adoration of anything made
with hands ; but we declare that you ought not to have bro
ken the images. For a picture is therefore exhibited in the
churches, in order that those who are ignorant of letters
may read, at least, by loLking on the walls, what they can
not read in books. Your Fraternity ought, for this reason,
to retain the images, ard keep the people from adoring them,
so that those who are ignorant of letters may have some
what to teach them the knowledge of history, and that the
people, at the same time, may not sin by the adoration

St. Gregory II. and Gregory III. 119
OF the picture" (et populus in pictures adoratione minime
peccaret).* From a subsequent epistle of the pontiff to the same
Bishop, it appears that Serenus was by no means satisfied
with the counsel of the Pope, and therefore Gregory en
larged upon the scandal which the breaking of the images
had occasioned, and reiterated his opinion. " For truly,"
saith he, " we have altogether commended you in forbid
ding that they should be adored, but we have censured
you for breaking them."^ Here we see the slow but con
stant advancement of images and of Papal power together.
The Council of Eliberis, A. D. 313, had expressly forbid
den that pictures should be admitted into the Church. St.
Epiphanius, not quite a century later, had torn down a pic
tured veil which he found at Anablatha ; and now, about two
centuries after that, Gregory undertakes to censure the
Bishop of Marseilles because he had done the same thing
as Epiphanius, yet still commends him for prohibiting the
adoration of images, and only pleads for them on the ground
of the instruction which they gave to those who were too
ignorant to read. We have already seen that the same emi
nent Pope, in his famous Sacramentary of prayers for every
day in the year, referred constantly to the intercessions of
the Virgin and the saints, while he carefully abstained from
any addresses to them, and throughout directs his prayers
only to God.
» But when we come to the end of the next hundred and
thirty years, we find another Pope, Gregory HI., writing to
the Emperor Leo Isaurus, strongly reprehending him for
his opposition to images, representing the prayers of the
? S. Greg. Mag. Epistola ov., ad Screnum, Op., Tom. 2, p. 1006.
t lb. 1100.

120 Letter XXXIL

Church as Rome uses them now, addressed directly to the
Virgin and the saints, and defending images, not on the old
ground of his predecessor, as affording instruction to the ig
norant who could not read, but on the new ground that
they excited the devotional feelings of all the faithful.* Be
hold the change from A. D. 313 to A. D. 600, and from
, A. D. 600 to A. D. 726, showing the slow and stealthy
progress of corruption, until we have it fully acknowledged
and prescribed as a law, in A. D. 787, at the second Coun
cil of Nice, miscalled General, under the infamous Irene
and her son, Constantino, through the influence of Hadrian,
the Bishop of Rome. For this Council decrees the very
thing which Pope Gregory I., not two centuries before, had
expressly forbidden. " We honorably adore the precious
and venerable images." (Has pretiosas et venerabiles iconas,
honoramus et salutamus, ac honoranter adoramus.)\ I do not
wish you to understand, however, that this word adore is
here employed in the sense of' divine worship, for your
Church always distinguished between the worship of iain'a,
due only to God, and the worship of Doulia, given to the
saints. And the Synodical Letter of this very second
Council of Nice insists on the distinction very carefully .:(;
But I do expressly aver that the Latin translation of the
Council employs the very same word which the first Pope
Gregory employed, and it is to be supposed with the same
meaning ; and hence they stand in direct and palpable con
tradiction. The images must be retained ybr the instruction
* Hard. Con. Gen., Tom. 4, Ep. Prima Greg, ad Leonem Imper.
p. 3-14. The proof of the change in addressing the prayers to the
saints is on p. 7.
t lb. 266, c.
t lb 476.

The Second Council of Nice not General. 121
of the ignorant, saith Pope Gregory, A. D. 600, but must
not be adored. The images must be retained to excite the
devotions of the faithful, saith the Council, A. D. 787; and
if any one refuses honorably to adore them, let him be
anathema. I have said that this second Council of Nice was, in no
proper sense, entitled to the respect due to a General Coun
cil of the Church. And I shall demonstrate the truth of
the assertion from these facts : First, that its decision was
opposed to the Scriptures, and to the Catholic doctrine and
practice of the Church from the beginning. Secondly, that
it did not truly represent the sentiment of the Church, even
of its own age. This is manifest from the decrees of the
Council held near Constantinople, under the emperor, in
A. D. 75 1, and from those of the Council of Frankfort, held
in A. D. 794, which embraced the Churches of Saxony,
Germany, and France. Thirdly, that there were no repre
sentatives of the West in the Council of Nice, except the
legates of the Pope. Of these reasons, the first is all-suf
ficient in itself, because tho Holy Scriptures are above all,
and there can be no doctrine admitted as Catholic unless it
can be shown to have been held, in the words of Vincent
of Lerins, semper,ubique et ab omnibus. Nevertheless, I shall
prove the second and the third statements, for my reader's
satisfaction, from the testimony of your Roman historians
themselves. The Council held in the East, A. D. 754, under the Em
peror Constantino, according to your Roman historian,
Fleury, consisted of 336 Bishops, at the head of whom were
Gregory of Neocesarea, Theodosius, Bishop of Ephesus,
and Sisinnius, Bishop of Perga, in Pamphylia. They sat
during six months ; and finally, they decreed that every im
age, painted in whatever manner, ought to be rejected by
vol. II. 6

122 Letter XXXIL

the Church with abomination ; and they forbade all persons
to make, to adore, or to set up in the Church, any image
for the future, under the penalty of deposition to the clergy,
and anathema to monks and laymen. All the Bishops con
sented, saying. Thus we all believe, and we have subscribed it
with joy. And they return thanks to the emperors for hav
ing banished idolatry.*
So much for the testimony of the Eastern Churches, only
thirty-three years previous to the second Council of Nice.
I come next to the great Council of Frankfort, held by the
order of the famous Charlemagne, A. D. 794, only seven
years after the second Council of Nice, in which the sec
ond Canon condemns the decrees of that Council in these
words : —
" The question is brought before us concerning the new
Council of the Greeks, which they have raised about the
adoring of images at Constantinople, in which it is written,
that whoever shall not render, not only to the divine Trin
ity, but also to the images of the saints, service or adoration,
shall be adjudged by anathema. But all our most holy
fathers, rejecting entirely such adoration and service, have dis
dained this decree, and with one consent have condemned it."\
The third statement is taken from Fleury's account of the
Caroline Books, so called because they were prepared by the
Bishops of France, in the name of Charlemagne, to prove,
by argument and authority, the error of the second Council
of Nice. And here it is expressly objected that this
Council was not universal, not only Because the decrees
which it passed were hostile to the doctrine of the universal
Church, but also because it was not assembled from all

» Fleury, Hist. Ecc, Tom. 9, pp. 334, 338, 339.
t Hard. Con. Gen., Tom. 4, p. 904.

Summary of Evidence against Images. \ 23
parts of the Church, no one being present from the whole
West except the Papal Legates.*
Such, then, is the ground on which we deny the author
ity of this second Council of Nice, which your Council of
Trent has undertaken to ratify. True, indeed, it is, that
its doctrine at length became triumphant, because the tend
ency of the Church was constantly increasing towards cor
ruption. But that fact is no proof in favor of its claim to
Catholicity. Thirty-three years before, the Eastern Bish
ops had subscribed the direct contrary. Their number was
far greater, being 336 ; and their testimony as witnesses to
what they held to be the truth is as good as the testimony
of those who came after them. So, likewise, was the testi
mony of the Council of Frankfort, with the Bishops of
France who drew up the Caroline Books, and therefore we
have two Councils, one East and one West, united
against the second Council of Nice. The only difference
in its favor, on your Romanist principles, is, that Pope Ha
drian concurred in its decrees. But I have shown that
Pope Gregory the Great, in A. D. 600, gave the same de
cision as the Council of Frankfort. The Church of Rome
herself holds Gregory to have been far the greater Pope of
the two ; and why, then, should his authority in this ques
tion be less than the subsequent decision of Hadrian ? The
Church of Rome also allows that the older decisions are
the best ; and assuredly no good reason can be given for
the assumption that the Papal opinion of A. D. 600 should
be overruled by the Papal opinion of A. D. 787. Hence,
you have here another powerful evidence of the audacious
falsehood of your Roman claim to be unchanged and un
changeable. You have Popes against the fathers, Pope
• Fleury, Hist. Ecc,, Tom. 9, pp. 520, 523.

124 Letter XXXIL

against Pope, and Council against Council. And any can
did mind may see distinctly, that when our English Re
formers cast aside the whole idolatrous superstition of im
ages and relics, together with the worship of the saints,
they were justified by Scripture, by the primitive Church,
and by all the principles of true apostolic Catholicism.
The practical abuses to which this portion of Roman cor
ruption led the priests, in order to extract money the more
readily from the deluded and credulous people, would far
exceed my limits. I shall only give a few specimens, taken
from Burnet's History of the Reformation. Among the relics
found at the suppression of the monasteries, were the wing
of an angel who had brought over the spear's head that
pierced the Saviour's side ; some of the coals that roasted
the martyr, St. Lawrence ; the parings of St. Edmond's
toes ; the boots and penknife of St. Thomas a Beckett ;
pieces of the True Cross more than sufficient to make a large
whole one ; a piece of St. Andrew's finger ; and a vial of
crystal, one side of which was quite thin and transpare^
but the other very thick and opake, which was filled with
the blood of a duck once a month. This the people were
assured was the blood of Christ, which they could see when
their sins were forgiven, but not otherwise. The vial was
kept near the altar, with the thick side outwards, until the
priests were satisfied with the amount of the offerings which
the worshippers brought in, to obtain the divine favor: and
then the vial being turned round with the transparent side
towards the people, they received the miraculous proof of
their pardon with great joy, and went home, well satisfied
with their expense and trouble !
The most celebrated amongst the images, however, was
the crucifix of Boxley in Kent, commonly called the Rood
of- Grace, to which pilgrimages were made from all parts,

Frauds in Images and Relics. 125
because it was observed to bow and lift itself up again, to
shake the head, the hands, and the feet ; to roll the eyes,
move the lips, and make other motions ; all which (like the
Virgin's images at Ancona and Mercatello in our own day)
were regarded by the absurd multitude as effects of the di
vine power. But it was discovered to have been all done
by mechanical contrivances, springs, &c. The image was
publicly exposed to the people, and the cheat made openly
manifest ; and this did more to convince the popular mind
than a thousand arguments from Scripture, fathers. Councils,
or reason could have effected.
To show the immense attraction and profit produced by
this superstitious reliance on the saints, an extract was pub
lished from the account books of Christ Church, Canterbury,
where the reHcs of Thomas a Beckett were exhibited to the
veneration of the people. There were three great altars in
this Church, one dedicated to Christ, one to the Virgin, and
the third to St. Thomas. And in one year it appeared that
there was not a penny offered at Christ's altar. At the Vir
gin's only £4 Is. 8d. While at the altar of St. Thomas,
there was no less a sum than je954 6s. 3d. !*
Here, too, another imposture was discovered. The skull
of St. Thomas was exhibited, and drew large crowds to
worship it. But on opening his grave, the true skull was
found along with the rest of his body. In a word, volumes
would not suffice to contain the multitude of priestly and
monkish falsehoods engrafted on your modem Roman system
of saint and relic worship. In Protestant countries, such
things would not be borne, and therefore your priests are too
politic to attempt them. But in Papal Europe, every intel
ligent traveller knows that the same gainful superstition is
still carried on to this day. The results, however, are
* Burnet's Hist, of Reformation, vol. 1, p. 314-5-6.

126 Letter XXXIL

perfectly consistent with the doctrine. For the basis is
false, and the superstructure is naturally extended into all
imaginable fraud and imposition.
Before I conclude, I must expose a few more of Dr. Mil
ner's misrepresentations, for nothing can exceed the bold
dexterity with which he contrived to manufacture evidence
to suit his purpose. Thus, on page 240, he tells us, on the
authority of Tertullian, that it was usual to represent our Sa
viour in the character of the Good Shepherd, on the chalices
used in worship. And here, he purposely raises a false
issue to blind his readers, for he thereby insinuates that an
ornamental enchasement like this was objectionable accord
ing to our principles, when he knew perfectly well that the
contrary was the fact. If the embellishment thus innocently
placed upon the chalice in the time of Tertullian had been,
according to the second Council of Nice, an image set up to he
worshipped with kisses, salutations, lighted candles and incense,
it would have been somewhat to the point. As it stands, it
is only another proof of our author's Jesuitical dexterity.
But a graver example of false dealing occurs directly
after. " We are informed," saith he," " by Eusebius, the
father of Church history, and the friend of Constantine, that
he himself had seen a miraculous image of our Saviour in
brass, which had been erected by the woman who was cured
by touching the hem of his garment, and also different pic
tures of him and of St. Peter and St. Paul, which had been
preserved since their time." To prove the utter dishonesty
of your advocate, I shall place the whole passage from Euse
bius before my readers, as follows : —
After stating that he had seen in the city of Paneas the
house said to belong to the woman who had been healed by
touching the garment of the Saviour, Eusebius goes on to
say, that " near the door of that house there was a brazen

The Image at Paneas. 127
statue of a woman, standing on a pedestal of stone, with
bended knees and outstretched hands, like one supplicating.
Opposite to this, there was an image of a man, composed of
the same metal, standing clothed decently in a cloak, and
extending his hand towards the woman ; at whose feet, from
the bottom of the pedestal, a certain unknown plant is said
to grow, which rises to the fringe of the brazen cloak, and
is an antidote for all diseases. They said that this statue
bore the likeness of Jesus Christ. Moreover, it remains to
our day, and we, having entered that city, beheld it. But
truly, it is not wonderful that the heathen, being benefited by
our Saviour, should have done this, since we have heard of
their keeping the images of the Apostles Peter and Paul,
within our memory, painted on tables, as well as that of
Christ. For it was the mode of the ancients without dis
crimination to pay such honor, by a certain heathen custom,
to those, as saviours, who had conferred benefits upon them."*
Now here we find that Eusebius is speaking, not of an
image erected by Christians, but of an image erected by
the heathen. So far from its being the custom of the
Church, he calls it expressly a heathen custom. Dr.
Milner also styles the statue a miraculous image, which is
nowhere intimated by the historian. Our author, indeed,
would probably say that this must be inferred frtm the un
known plant which sprung from the ground at the pedestal,
and grew till it reached the border of the cloak, and was an
antidote against all diseases. But what right had he to put
that inference in the mouth of Eusebius, who only states it
as a report, and in no respect pledges himself, nor even in
sinuates his belief, either that the plant possessed such
medicinal powers, or that its growth or its qualities were
• Eusebii Pamph. Ecc. Hist., L. vii., c. 18, p. 216.

128 Letter XXXIL

occasioned by the image ? Thus, then, we see again, how
our author manufactures evidence, slipping in the word mirac
ulous, which gives a totally different sense, representing
the whole story as if the statue were a Christian work, ap
proved by the Church ; and speaking of the pictures of the
Apostles Peter and Paul, as well as those of Christ, as if
they were in the hands of Christians : when Eusebius ex
pressly states the whole matter as a mark of heathen respect,
according to the heathen custom, by which the ancients were
used to commemorate the benefits of all who acted as their
saviours from sickness or calamity, " without discrimination."
So far, therefore, is the passage from yielding the small
est support to your modern Romish doctrine, that it is, in
truth, rather a testimony against it. Nearly three hundred
years elapsed after the time of Eusebius, before Pope Greg
ory the Great had gotten so far as to authorize the use of
images in the Church, even as memorials ; while the notion
of their being miraculous, or proper objects of adoration in
any sense, was entirely alien from the mind of Christian
teachers. And yet this most unscrupulous writer, by adding
to the narrative on the one side, and taking away from it
upon the other, would try to cheat his unsuspecting readers
into the belief that the modern Romish doctrine of image
worship had a decided supporter in " Eusebius, the father
of Church history, and the friend of Constantine .'"
With regard to the worship of the cross, your author
tries to mislead us in the same way, confounding the cus
tom of using the sign of the cross, to which Tertullian bears
testimony, with the acts of salutation, prayer and incense of
fered to the IMAGE OF the cross, whith came in along v/ith
the worship of other images. Thus the Council of Trullo,
held A. D. 706, forbade the introduction of the figure of the
cross, on the ground or the floor of churches, lest it might

The Second Commandment omitted. 129
be walked upon, which seems to have been the practice of
many, previous to that time, without reprehension. Here,
therefore, we have another proof of the period when this
new superstition was introduced, viz., the eighth century.
The words of the Council are as follows : —
" As the cross exhibits to us our life-giving salvation, we
ought tck use all diligence that to it, by which we are re
deemed from our ancient fall, we shoifld render due honor.
Wherefore, giving to it adoration with the mind, with the
speech, and with the sense, we order that those figures of
the cross which have been made by some upon the ground
or the pavement shall be altogether destroyed, lest an injury
be done by the treading under foot the trophy of our victory.
Those also who hereafter construct the sign of the cross
upon the ground, we decree to be deposed."*
Lastly, I would briefly notice the way in which Dr. Mil-
nerf answers the charge that the priests of Rome, in their
ordinary Catechism for the people, leave out the Second Com
mandment: J " Thou shalt not make to thyself a graven thing,
nor the likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or in the
earth beneath, nor of those things that are in the waters under
the earth. Thou shalt not adore them nor serve them. I am
the Lord thy God."^ While, in order to prevent the cheat
from being discovered, they split the Tenth Commandment
into two ! His reply is a beautiful specimen of his charac
teristic artifice : " It is a gross calumny," saith he, " that we
suppress any part of the Decalogue, for the whole of it ap
pears in aU our Bibles, and in all our most approved Cate
chisms." Here, as in a hundred other instances, he seems
to say what he carefully avoids saying. The charge is, that
* Hard. Concil. Gen., Tom. 3, p. 1687, Can. Ixxiii. t P. 236.
t Exod. XX. 5. ^ Douay Biblo.
VOL. II. 6*

130 Letter XXXIL

you omit the Commandment against images in your ordinary
Catechisms, which is notorious and undeniable. He cannot
summon candor enough to admit the fact, but he says it is a
gross calumny that they suppress it, because they have it in
their Bible and their most approved Catechisms ! The read
er will perceive at once that this answer is a mere trick,
since it does not in reality meet the accusation at all. Dr.
Milner knew perfectly well that the mass of your people
never see the Bible ngyjhe approved Catechisms. And yet,
while he totally -evades the only question in the case, he af
fects to regard the allegation as a gross calumny ; thus dex
terously, and most dishonestly, making his adversaries ap
pear to be false accusers, exclaiming, like an injured man,
against an imputation which no one had made, but doing it
in such a shape as to make it pass for a defence against the
true charge, which he could not directly deny.

The End of Controversy, Controverted. 131

LETTER XXXIII
Most Reverend Sir :
The next topic, namely, Transubstantiation, is one of vast
importance to your modern Roman Church, and many a
faithful martyr has she burned alive, for refusing to believe
it. Your favorite Milner, therefore, defends it with his
usual dexterity. And I shall endeavor to follow his princi
pal arguments, as hitherto ; and I trust with the same con
fidence in the victory of tmth.
You are aware, of course, that your doctrine supposes
the bread and wine, which our Lord appointed as the em
blems of His body and blood, to be so perfectly changed
by the words of priestly consecration, that nothing remains
of their former substance, but that Christ Himself, perfect
and entire, in His whole body, blood, soul and divinity, oc
cupies their place ; and hence, the consecrated wafer, now
become the Deity incarnate under the appearance of the
bread, must be adored with the highest worship of latria,
as the corporally and actually present God and Saviour of
the world. This is the change which your divines call
Transubstantiation .
Our reformed Church, on the contrary, holds that the con
secrated elements of bread and wine become the body and
blood of Christ not corporally, actually, or reaUy, but sacra-
mentally or symbolically only. That the true presence of
Christ is indeed granted in the reception of the sacrament,
but only to the faithful receiver, and only after a heavenly and

132 Letter XXXIIL

spiritual manner. And by necessary consequence, as the
substance of the elements, though consecrated, and endued
with symbolical solemnity, is not otherwise changed, they
are not the proper objects of divine worship, but that such
worship is an act of idolatry.
This introduces us, regularly, to the first argument of Dr.
Milner, in his 36th letter, where he insists that the Roman
ist cannot be guilty of idolatry, even if he be mistaken in
his doctrine of Transubstantiation, because the object of his
worship is Christ ; and therefore, whether the Redeemer be
corporally and really in the consecrated wafer or not, the
worshipper is still mentally adoring Him who ought to be
adored, and consequently is in no proper sense open to the
charge of idol-worship. He complains, therefore, of the
injustice of our accusation. And by way of illustrating his
argument, he uses the following analogy : —
" Let me suppose," saith he, " that being charged with a
loyal address to the sovereign, you presented it by mistake
to one of his courtiers, or even to an inanimate figure of
him, which, for some reason or other, had been dressed in
royal robes, and placed on the throne, would your heart re
proach you, or would any sensible person reproach you with
the guilt of treason in the case ? Were the people who
thouglrt in their hearts that John the Baptist was Christ,
and 'who probably worshipped Him as such, idolaters, in
consequence of their error 1"
These illustrations I shall answer in their order. And
with respect to the first, I reply, that a mistake made once
by the simplicity of an individual, who took a courtier or a
dressed-up image for the king, would doubtless be laughed
at and forgiven. But if a large and powerful body of the
king's subjects were to make a creed of their mistake, and
persisted in it against all the light and evidence which could

Idolatry is in Fact, not in Intention. 133
be given them, I doubt much whether the monarch would
not regard it as a very grave mockery of his majesty. And
if, instead of only mistaking a courtier for their sovereign,
or paying their respects to a figure dressed in the royal
robes upon the throne, they insisted that the seal appointed
by the king was the king himself, and carried it abroad in
open procession, and addressed their petitions to it, and
bowed down before it with all the respectful devotion which
the monarch's own presence could inspire, I doubt whether
the sovereign would not think the mockery quite too much
to bear. Nay, I believe it highly probable that he would
call them to a serious account, and hold them guilty of a
high contempt against his royal dignity.
And so, in the other illustration, I grant that one mistake
of John the Baptist for Christ might be quite pardonable.
But if the worshippers of John refused to believe him when
he said, " I am not the Christ," and persisted in their error,
and continued to worship John in the face of all the evi
dence which could be asked to convince them of their sin,
I say, confidently, that they would have been idolaters, and
I doubt whether Dr. Milner himself could summon hardi
hood enough to deny it.
This may suffice for our author's illustrations. As to the
argument itself, it amounts to a blank absurdity, because it
places the sin of idolatry, not in the falsehood of the fact,
but only in the falsehood of the worshipper's intention, and
therefore, if his hypothesis be correct, there never was an
idolater since the world began. For it is as certain that there
is a living and tme God, as that there is a living and tme
Christ. And who can deny that the heathen intend to wor
ship the living and true God, when they bow down before
stocks and stones ? Who supposes that any of them ever
worshipped their idol, with the belief that it was an idol ?

134 Letter XXXIIL

Who doubts that in their souls they suppose they are wor
shipping the true object of worship, namely, the Siipreme,
all-governing Intelligence of' heaven and earth ? And yet,
if they unite with this intention a false and unauthorized
association with the creature — if, with the old Peruvians,
they imagine the sun to be that Supreme Deity ; or with
the old Persians, the fire ; or fancy, with the inhabitants of
Thibet, that He is incarnate in the Grand Llama ; or set
Him forth in the Trinity of the Hindoos ; or degrade His
divine attributes by presenting them in the thousand fan
tastic forms of subordinate deities, with the ancient Egyp
tians, Greeks, and Romans, instead of submitting all their
ideas concerning Him to the pure teaching of His own
word : it is not in the power of all the abstractions in the
world to save them from the sin of idolatry.
Like all other sins, however, the sin of idolatry contains
many varieties of aggrava,tion. There is somewhat of the
sublime, notwithstanding the grossness of the error, in the
Pantheism of the old Egyptians, who held that God was the
soul of the world, and that all created things might be wor
shipped, as the emanations of His wisdom and His power.
There was something yet more attractive in the idolatry of
the Aztecs, who believed the splendid orb of day to be the
visible glory of the Divinity. There was even somewhat
of plausibility in the supposed incarnation of the Grand
Llama, in the hero-worship of the Greeks, and in the poetic
grandeur of the Scandinavian mythology. But in the whole
range of heathenism, there is nothing so revolting to the
proper majesty of an incarnate Deity, as the theory of tran
substantiation. They were all abominable, all false, all
linked with more or less of cruel barbarism and moral licen
tiousness. And yet the dogma which presents the ineffable
glory of the Son of God to the adoration of His worshippers

Consubstantiation. 135

in the form of a little piece of bread, — ^that dogma which
grew into credit when the great mass of the priesthood were
sunk in the lowest depth of libertinism, — that dogma which
massacred its hundreds of thousands in the service of reli
gious persecution, and brought so many of the best and
purest Christians to the stake, seems the most inconsistent
kind of idolatry amongst them all, and the most degrading
to a proper conception of the Deity.
The tme test of idolatry, therefore, is not a point of ab
stract intention, but a question of fact. And hence the Is
raelites were guilty of idolatry when they worshipped the
golden calf, although they intended to worship, in this form,
the true God who had brought them out of the land of
Egypt. Consequently, if the Romanist worships the conse
crated symbols of Christ's body and blood, under the false
befief that they are Christ Himself, he does unquestionably
fall into the sin of idolatry. From this there is no escape,
except by proving that fhe dogma of Transubstantiation is
the truth. And, like every other article of the Christian
faith, this can only be done by the Scriptures, as interpreted
by the Catholic consent of the primitive fathers.
Your author next complains that although the Lutheran
doctrine of Consubstantiation is as objectionable to the
Church of England as the doctrine of Rome, yet the Eng
lish Parliament has only legislated against the Romish
dogma, and has tolerated every other variety of opinion
upon the subject. But in declaiming upon this instance of
what he calls " disingenuity and injustice," he chose to ig
nore altogether the reasons why the law of the land should
have guarded against the one error, and not against the
others. He chose to forget that the Lutherans, although
they were at first misled into the idea of consubstantiation,
yet, after the death of the great Reformer, gave it up, and

136 Letter XXXIlL

conformed quietly to the doctrine of Calvin. He chose to
forget that Luther himself at no time allowed any act of
worship to the consecrated elements, as to the present
Christ, in which consists the sin of idolatry. But, above
all, he chose to forget the point which made the Romish
error a fit subject of parliamentary prohibition, namely,
that Rome had made Transubstantiation the test of faith,
and had punished those who disclaimed it, with the dungeon
and the flames. The English nation had nothing to fear
from the Lutheran error, which did not concern them. But
they had everything to fear from that Papal despotism
which enforced its creed with the arms of cruel persecu
tion, and visited the effort to reform the Church from its
corruptions, with tortures and with blood.
The last remark of Dr. Milner, with which he concludes
his 36th letter, is, that " as transubstantiation was the first
of Christ's miracles, in changing the water into wine ; so it
may be said to have been his last during his mortal course,
by changing bread and wine into His sacred body and
blood."* To which I would reply by saying, that if our
Lord had changed the water into wine, at the marriage
supper, in no other way than the Romish priest changes
the bread and wine of the Sacrament, it would have been
no miracle at all, because the senses of the company would
have borne testimony that it was water still. Flesh and
blood are as much the objects of sense, as wine and water.
And a miracle which is so far from appealing to the senses
that all the senses refuse to acknowledge it, is a contradic
tion in terms, and involves a perfect absurdity.

* Page 244.

The End of Controversy, Controverted. 137

LETTER XXXIV.
Most Reverend Sir :
The 37th letter of your favorite, Milner, opens with an
attack upon the Catechism of the Church of England, which
declares that the body and blood of Christ are verily and
indeed taken and received by the faithful, in the Lord's
Supper. This he calls a " disguising of our real tenets by
adopting language of a different meaning from our sentiments,
in consequence of such being the language of the sacred
text." Next, in a note, he sets down what he calls the
variations in the Liturgy upon the subject. Thirdly, he
quotes the scriptural argument on which his Church relies.
Fourthly, he cites some passages from the fathers. Fifthly,
he undertakes to press many English divines into his ser
vice, amongst whom he particularly specifies Hooker. As
to his reference to Luther, I shall pass it by on the same
ground as formerly, being only called upon to vindicate the
truth of Christ, in reference to our own Communion. The
other topics I shall proceed to consider in the order pre
sented. With respect to the first charge, namely, the alleged dis
guising of our meaning in the Catechism, it is like all the
other charges of your reckless author — bold enough, but
totally wanting in fairness and candor. For the same
Catechism goes on to define a sacrament as consisting of
two parts — the outward and visible sign, and the inward invisi
ble grace. And the outward part or sign of the Lord's Sup-

138 Letter XXXIV.

per is declared to be Bread and Wine, which the Lord hath
commanded to be received, while the inward part or thing
signified is the Body and Blood of Christ, which are spiritu
ally taken and received by the faithful in the Lord's Supper.
Where is the disguise 1 Where the inconsistency 1 The
spiritual reception of the body and blood of Christ, granted
by Himself to the faithful believer, is verily and indeed as
real and true, as a bodily or corporal reception yrom the hand
of the priest could be, were such a thing possible as the act
claimed by your Romish system. According to our doc
trine, the consecrated symbols of the body and blood are
given by the priest, that is, the outward part of the sacra
ment, or the bread and wine, which the Lord hath commanded
to be received ; but the inward part or thing signified is the
gift of Christ Himself to the faithful. According to the
Church of Rome, the priest has transubstantiated the ele
ments ; the bread and wine are there no longer, but he holds
in his hands, and delivers over to the communicant, the ac
tual body and blood, soul and divinity of the Lord Jesus
Christ, and there is nothing left to be done by the grace of
God, who is the sole Dispenser of every heavenly blessing.
No language could be more simply expressive of the enor
mous difference between the two systems than the words
of the Catechism, taken together. Our author, indeed,
thinks fit to represent it as a contradiction. " It is saying,"
as he tells his readers, " you receive that in the sacrament
which does not exist in the sacrament." But, according to
the Catechism, a sacrament consists of two parts — the out
ward, which is committed to the priest, and the inward,
which is conferred by the Saviour. The di\ ine gift, there
fore, is in the sacrament, considered with respect to its
inward grace, and hence there is neither contradiction nor
inconsistency.

The Sixth Chapter of St. John. 139
It is true, however, that this word. Sacrament, is fre
quently employed in the outward sense only, and rightly,
because such is the mode in which it was used by the
ancient fathers. But in undertaking to censure our Cate
chism, Dr. Milner was obliged, in fairness, to notice the
definition given there ; and had he done so, he might per
haps have spared his readers this very small display of his
disposition to carp at nothing.
His next exhibition of spleen is in the attempt to ridicule
the " variations" of the English Liturgy. But what are they
m comparison of the variations in the Roman Liturgy ?
And when it is considered that from the very nature of the
case, the English Reformers could not have completed so
vast a work immediately — that their own views were ne
cessarily progressive — -that it was only by degrees that
their eyes were opened to the fuU amount of the corruptions
of doctrine in which they had all been educated, and that
they were careful to make no changes until the fullest
examination and most satisfactory proof had satisfied them
with respect to each : — the wonder will not be that some
amendments were found advisable, but rather that the task
of duty was completed so early and so well.
We come, in the third place, however, to the main point,
viz., the evidence on which your author undertakes to jus
tify your modem Romish doctrine. And this he finds
abundantly, as he supposes, in the Gospels. First, he
quotes the 6th chapter of St. John's Gospel, where our
Lord saith, " / am the living bread which came down from
heaven. If any man eat of this bread, he shall live forever ;
and the bread that I will give is my fiesh, for the life of the
world. The Jews therefore strove among themselves, saying.
How can this man give us His fiesh to eat ? Then Jesus said
unto them : Verily, verily, I say unto you. Except ye eat the

140 Letter XXXIV.

flesh of the Son of Man, and drink His blood, ye have no life
in you. For my flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink
indeed. — Many, therefore, of His disciples, when they had heard
this, said : This is a hard saying. Who can hear it ? — From
that time many of His disciples went back, and walked no more
with Him. Then Jesus said unto the twelve : Will ye also
go away ? Then Simon Peter answered Him : Lord, to
whom shall we go ? Thou hast the words of eternal life."
In this scriptural quotation, your author has omitted some
most important verses which are essential to our Lord's
meaning, and these, therefore, must be first supplied. Thus,
immediately after the words, " This is a hard saying. Who
can hear it ?" we read as follows : —
" When Jesus knew in Himself that His disciples mur
mured at it. He said unto them : Doth this offend you ? What
and if ye shall see the Son of Man ascend up where He was
before ? It is the Spirit that quickeneth ; the flesh profiteth
nothing. The words that I speak unto you, they are spirit and
they are life. But there are some of you that believe not. For
Jesus knew from the beginning who they were that believed not,
and who should betray him. And He said. Therefore said I
unto you, that no man can come unto me except it were given
him of my Father."
After these verses, we come to the concluding part of Dr.
Milner's quotation: "From that time many of His disciples
went back, and walked no more with Him.''
Now here let us pause a little, that we may have the
benefit of St. Augustine's Commentary.* And this you are
perfectly aware that you are bound to respect, since your
Council of Trent forbids the Scriptures to be understood
except according to the unanimous consent of the fathers.
* S. Augustini Op , Tom. 6. p. 446.

Spiritual Interpretation. 141
Thus, then, this prince of the fathers expounds the pas
sage, and my readers will find it, I trust, instructive and in
teresting, notwithstanding it is directly in the face of the
carnal literal sense, for which Dr. Milner contends.
After quoting the words of the Saviour, Except ye eat my
flesh and drink my blood ye have no life in you, Augustine pro
ceeds to say : " His disciples were offended — ^not all, indeed,
but the greater part — saying in themselves. This is a hard
saying. Who can hear it ? But when the Lord knew this
in Himself, and heard the murmurs of their thoughts. He
answered to the thinkers, who had not yet spoken, that they
might know that they were heard, and might cease to think
so. What then does He answer ? Doth this offend you 1
What and if you shall see the Son of Man ascending up where
he was before? 'What doth He mean by the question. Doth
this offend you ? Do you think that I ara about to divide
this body which you behold into parts, and cut my mem
bers into pieces, and give them to you ? What, therefore,
and if you shall see the Son of Man ascending up where he
was before ? Certainly, He who could ascend entire could
not be consumed. Therefore, He gave us the salutary re
fection of His body and blood, and resolved at once the
great question of His integrity. Let those eat who eat, let
those drink who drink, let them hunger and thirst : let them
eat life, let them drink hfe. To eat that, is to be renewed ;
but you are so renewed that the source of your renewal
may not be diminished. To drink this, what is it but to
live ? Eat life, drink life, you shall possess life, and that
life is entire. Then the body and blood of Christ will be
life to every one of you, if that which is visibly taken
IN the Sacrament shall be spiritually eaten and spir
itually drank in the truth itself. (Si quod in Sacra
mento visibiliter sumitur, in ipsa veritate spiritaliter manducetur,

142 Letter XXXIV.

spiritaliter bibatur.) For we have heard the Lord Him
self SAYING, It is the Spirit that quickeneth ; the
FLESH profiteth NOTHING. ThE WORDS WHICH I HAVE
spoken unto you are spirit and life."
Here we see that Augustine applies the language of the
Saviour to the Sacrament, so as perfectly to destroy the idea
of Transubstantiation. The flesh profiteth nothing. It is
the Spirit which quickeneth. And therefore, that eating
and drinking which is effectual is not corporal, but spiritual.
But the following passage will show his meaning yet more
clearly. " If a preceptive speech," saith this eminent
father, " either forbids a crime or a sin, or orders something
useful or beneficent, it is not figurative. But if it appears
to order a crime or a sin, it is figurative. Unless you Shall
eat, saith our Lord, the fiesh of the Son of Man, and drink his
blood, ye have no life in you. Here He seems to order a crime
or an outrage, and therefore it is a figure, directing the
communion of our Lord's passion, and that we should
sweetly and usefully lay up in our memory that for
US His flesh was crucified and wounded."*
Thus we see that the 6th chapter of St. John's Gospel,
instead of bearing the carnal and literal meaning which the
modern Romanist puts upon it, was interpreted flguratively
by the greatest light of the primitive Church in the fourth
century. And the same result will be shown in reference
to the next scriptural proof, which your author cites from
the Gospels as follows :
" For," continues Dr. Milner, " whilst they were at supper,
Jesus took bread, and blessed it, and brake it, and gave it to
the disciples, and said. Take ye and eat : This is my body.
* Augustin. Op., Tom. 3, p. 40, ^ 24, De doctiina Christiana, L.
iii., Ei. Benedict.

St. Augustine. 143

And taking the chalice. He gave thanks, and gave it to them,
saying. Drink ye all of this. For this is my blood of the
New Testament, which shall be shed for many unto
THE REMISSION OF SINS. Mat. xxvi. 26-8. This account
of St. Matthew is repeated by St. Mark, xiv. 22-4, and
nearly word for word, by St. Luke, xxii. 19, 20, and St.
Paul, 1 Cor., xi. 23-5, who adds : Therefore, whoever shall
eat this bread, or drink the chalice of the Lord unworthily,
shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord, and eateth
and drinketh judgment to himself. 1 Cor., xi. 27-9."
Now, let us see how the fathers interpret this : whether
Ziiera%, with the modem Romanist, oi flguratively and spiri
tually, with the Church of England.
Thus saith the same great Augustine : " If the sacra
ments had not a certain similitude of those things of which
, they are the sacraments, they could not be sacraments at all.
But from this similitude, for the most part, they take the
names of the things themselves. Therefore, according to a
certain mode, the Sacrament of Christ's Body is the Body of
Christ, and the Sacrament of Christ's Blood is the Blood of
Christ ; and in like manner, the Sacrament of Faith" (mean
ing Baptism) " is Faith. Hence the Apostle saith, speak
ing of Baptism, We are buried by Baptism into death. He
does not say. We have set forth the Sign of burial, but He
saith. We are buried. He calls the sacrament of the thing
by the word belonging TO THE THING ITSELF."*
Augustine, elsewhere, applies this directly as follows :
" Our Lord," saith he, " did not hesitate to say. This is my
body, when He gave them the sign of His body."\
The same interpretation precisely was given to the lan-
* Augustin. Op., Tom. 2, p. 202-3, ^ 9.
t lb. Tom. 8, p. 90, i) 3.

144 Letter XXXIV.

guage of our blessed Saviour by all the other primitive wit
nesses. Thus, Tertullian saith : " The Lord, in the Gos
pel, showed bread, calling it His Body, in order that you
might thence understand Him to have given to the bread
the figure of His Body."* And again: " Our Lord,"
saith he, " taking the bread, and distributing it to His dis
ciples, made it His body by saying. This is my body, that
is, fhe figure of my body."X " And that you may recognize
an ancient figure of blood in vfrine," continues Tertullian,
" Isaiah will teach you, saying,J Who is this that cometh
from Edom with red garments from Bozrah 1 — I have trodden
the wine-press alone, — and their blood is sprinkled upon my
garments. And still more clearly in the Book of Genesis,
where Jacob, in the blessing of Judah, delineates Christ :
He washed His robe in wine, and His garment in the blood of
the grape, indicating His flesh in the clothing, and His blood
in the wine. Thus, now He consecrates His blood in wine,
as then He figured wine for His blood. "§ -
Cyprian, the Bishop and martyr of Carthage, gives us
another plain proof of the same doctrine. It appears that
some foolish innovators, in his days, had undertaken to ad
minister the Eucharist with water only, and he rebukes
them in the following terms : " I wonder greatly from
whence this novelty has arisen, in certain places, that
against the evangelical and apostolical discipline, water is
offered in the cup of the Lord, which can never, by itself,
express the blood of Christ." " For the water signifies the
people : as the divine Scripture declares in the Apocalypse,
The waters which thou sawest, upon which the harlot sat, are
peoples, and tribes, and nations, and tongues. Which thing
* Tertul. adv. Maroion, Lib. 3, p. 408, f lb. Lib. 4, 457.
X Chap. 63. § lb. 458.

Sf. Cyprian. 145
we behold contained in the sacrament of the cup. For as
Christ carried us all by bearing our sins, we see that the
people are signified by the water, while by the wine
HE shows the blood OF Christ. Therefore, when the
water is mixed with the wine in the cup, the people are
united with Christ, and the whole host of believers is con
joined and incorporated with Him in whom they believe.
And thus it is manifest that, in consecrating the chalice or
cup, water alone cannot be offered, nor yet wine alone ; for
if any one offers wine alone, the blood of Christ begins
to be without us ; but if the water be alone, the people begin
to be without Christ: but when both are mixed together,
then the spiritual and celestial sacrament is perfected."*
Nothing can be more evident, from this decisive extract,
than the entire agreement of Cyprian with Tertullian and
Augustine. For he applies the same figurative language to
the water, as signifying the people, and to the wine, as sig
nifying the blood of Christ. And hence it is manifest that
he could not have believed in Transubstantiation in the one,
any more than he believed it in the other.
But Cyprian proceeds to speak of the other part of the
Sacrament, and it may be well to note his mode of explain
ing it. " As the cup of the Lord," saith he, " is not water
only, nor wine only, but both united ; in like manner, the
body of the Lord is not flour alone, nor water alone, but
both united together, so as to form one solid mass of bread.
By which is also signified one people united together ; for, as
many grains of wheat collected in one, and ground and mixed,
make one bread, so in Christ, who is the bread from heaven,
we know there is one body, to which our assembly is united and
conjoined."X It seems too plain for argument that this prim-
? Cyprian. Ep. 118, p. 63. Ed. Rigaltn. + lb.
VOL. II. 7

146 Letter XXXIV.

itive saint and martyr could never have used such words as
these, if the Church, in his time, had known anything of
the doctrine of Transubstantiation.
Let us now turn to the eminent Jerome, who occupies so
high a place on the Roman Calendar, and we shall find him
using precisely the same language as the others. Thus,
speaking incidentally of the Sacrament in his epistle against
Jovinian, he saith : " He" (i. e. Christ) " offered not water,
but wine, as a type of His blood."* So likewise, in his Com
mentary on the very te:^t in St. Matthew's Gospel, Jerome
speaks as follows : " After the typical Passover had been
fulfilled, and He had ea<«m the flesh of the lamb with the
Apostles, He took bread, which comforts the heart of man,
and proceeds to the trud sacrament of the Passover, even
as Melchizedek, the r<?efc ^ the Most High God, had done,
offering bread an(i|:^ne5^f.ii prefigtiration of Him, that he
also might represent: the truth of His body and blood."X And
again, in his Commentary on St. Mark's Gospel, Jerome
saith : " Jesus took bread, and blessed and brake it, trans
figuring His body into bread, which is the present Church,
received in faith, blessed in number, broken in sufferings,
exhibited in examples, taken in doctrines ; forming His
blood in the cup, mixed with wine and water, that by the one
we might be purged from our sins, and by the other, might
be redeemed from punishment. For by the blood of the
lamb the houses are kept from the stroke of the angel, and
by the water of the Red Sea the enemies are annihilated,
which are the mysteries of the Church of Christ. "J Here
this eminent father clearly shows that Transubstantiation was
* S. Hieron., Tom. 2, p. 52, C.
t lb. Tom. 9, Com. in Mat., p. 64.
X lb. Tom. 9, p. 87, Com. in Marc.

Origen. 147
not yet dreamed of in the Church of God. He speaks of
the consecrated elements 3.s figures, types, representations of
the real Body and Blood of Christ ; and saith that our Lord
transfigured His body into bread, which is the absolute con
trary of the modern Romish doctrine, that He transubstan
tiated the bread into His body, blood, soul and divinity.
But Dr. Milner adduces the authority of the fathers as
decidedly in his favor, and refers particularly to Ignatius,
Origen, St. Cyril of Jemsalem, and Ambrose. To these,
therefore, I must next invite your attention.
That there are multitudes of passages in those ancient
writers which, taken by themselves, agree apparently with
your doctrine, no divine of any patristic learning denies.
But the question cannot be settled by these, because Augus
tine has already explained to us the established phraseology,
and justified it by a reference to St. Paul, saying, that " if
the sacraments had not a certain similitude of those things
of which they are the sacraments, they could not be sacra
ments at all. But from this similitude, for the most part,
they take the names of the things themselves. Therefore, ac
cording to a certain mode, the Sacrament of Christ's Body
is the body of Christ, and the Sacrament of Christ's Blood is
the blood of Christ, and in like manner, the Sacrament of
Faith" (i. e. Baptism) " is faith." "Hence," continues
Augustine, " the Apostle saith. We are buried by Baptism
into death. He does not say. We have set forth the Sign of
Burial, but he saith. We are buried. He calls the sacra
ment of the thing by the word belonging to the- thing itself."
Such being the unquestionable rule of language, not only
in the Church, but, to a large extent, in all other depart
ments of society, it is evident that we can only determine
the real doctrine on the subject by those passages which
go to the point of the distinction. When, therefore, Igna-

148 Letter XXXIV.

tins, speaking of heretics, asserts that " they do do not ad
mit of Eucharists and oblations, because they do not be
lieve the Eucharist to be the flesh of our Saviour Jesus
Christ," his language, interpreted by the statement of St.
Augustine, affords no evidence at all with regard to the
doctrine in question, because the inquiry is not touched
Whether Ignatius meant the flesh of our Saviour, in actual
substance, or in symbol or figure ? But we know that the
most troublesome heretics of Ignatius' time were the Gnos
tics, who maintained that Christ had no real human body at
all, but only presented a phantom of mortal shape to the
eyes of men. We know also, that the sacrament could not
be the figure or symbol of Christ's Body unless He had a
real body, because it is impossible to establish 3. figure or
symbolical representation of that which is not believed to ex
ist at all. And thus we see why the Gnostic heretics
should have abandoned the Eucharist, whether the doctrine
of Rome or of England were the doctrine of the Church,
because both doctrines equally require faith in the Saviour's
real humanity.
From Ignatius I pass to Origen, and here we have abun
dant proof that. Dr. Milner has entirely misrepresented this
eminent father. The words which he has quoted, indeed,
are plainly inconclusive : " Manna was formerly given as
a figure, but now the flesh and blood of the Son of God is
specifically given, and is real food." This we do not deny,
but maintain it, the question not being whether Christ gives
His flesh and blood to the faithful recipient of the Sacra
ment, but whether He gives them after a heavenly and
spiritual manner, in connection with the faithful and devout
reception of the consecrated symbols of the outward and
visible sacrament ; or whether He gives them by transub
stantiating the bread and wine, so that they are no longer

St. Ambrose. 149

figures, signs, or sacraments of His Body and Blood, but
really and actually converted into His true Body and Blood,
Soul and Divinity. Of this the passage says nothing, and
what it does say is quite as consistent with the one doc
trine as with the other.
But now let us have some further testimony from Origen,
and it will appear very plainly that he agrees perfectly
well with the evidence of Tertullian, Cyprian, Augustine,
and Jerome.
Thus, for example, he saith : " There is in the New
Testament a literal interpretation (litera) which killeth him
who does not spiritually apprehend those things that are
spoken. For if you follow according to the letter what is
said. Unless you shall eat my fiesh, and drink my blood, this
letter kiUeth."*
And again, Origen delivers this conclusive statement :
" Since everything which enters into the mouth goes into the
belly and is cast out into the draught, so likewise the very
food consecrated by the word of God and prayer, insomuch
as it is material, goes into the belly, and is cast out into
the draught : but insomuch as prayer is joined to it, ac
cording to the proportion of faith, it becomes useful, and
causes the mind to become enlightened, looking to that
which profiteth ; nor is it the material bread, but the prayer
offered upon it which helps him, who, not unworthily of the
Lord, eats it. And thus much concerning the typical
and symbolical B0DY."t It is impossible, as it seems to
me, that any man could have written thus who was a be
liever in Transubstantiation.
Ambrose stands also on the list of Dr. Milner's witnesses ;
* Origen., Horn. 7 in Levit.
t Origen., Com. in MattluBvm, p. 354.

150 Letter XXXIV.

and yet, when we look at the whole of his testimony, we
shall find no discrepancy. For his language, even as quoted
by your author, is easily made to agree with the doctrine of
the Church of England : " Perhaps you will say. Why do
you tell me that I receive the body of Christ, when I see
quite another thing 1 We have this point, therefore, to
prove. How many examples do we produce to show you
that this is not what nature has made it, but what the bene
diction has consecrated it ] and that the benediction is of
greater force than nature, because, by the benediction, na
ture itself is changed," &c. Such are the words of this
father, and all that we have to do is to take his own ex
planation, as follows : —
" That I may further answer thee," saith Ambrose, " it
was not the body of Christ before consecration : but, after
consecration, I tell thee it is the body of Christ. He said,
and it was done ; He commanded, and it was created.
Thou also .wast ; but thou wast the old creature : after thou
wert consecrated, thou didst begin to be a new creature. Dost
thou desire to know how ? Every one, saith he,who is in Christ,
is a new creature."*
Here we have a sufficient key to the sentiments of Am
brose. The doctrine of the Church, to which we fully as
sent, was that the bread and wine were common, before
they were consecrated ; but after consecration, they be
came converted, by the words of Christ's institution, into
the figures, symbols, or emblems of the body and blood
of Christ. This was a change, and one which seemed to
challenge the senses, because the spectator might have
said, according to the question put by the father, " Why do
you tell me that I receive the body of Christ, when I see

* S. Ambros. Op., Tom. 2, p. 369.

St. Ambrose. 151

quite another thing V That is, " Why am I to believe that
this brea^ previously common bread, is now become the
figure of Christ's body, when I see nothing but bread, and
observe no change whatever in its appearance or its form ?"
The answer is, that it has become the ^^re of His body by
the word of His power who is Almighty. That it is now con
secrated to bear the new emblematic and sacramental cha
racter. That it is therefore invested with a new signifi
cance and a new solemnity, as a representative image, sym
bolically, of the Redeemer of the world. And that this must
be believed in faith, notwithsfanding there was no more
outward resemblance to Christ than there was before.
To prove this, therefore, Ambrose illustrates it by the
change which consecration produces on the Christian :
" Thou wast the old creature, saith he ; but after thou wert con
secrated, thou didst begin to be a new creature." And thus we
see plainly how far this venerable father was from teaching
Transubstantiation. For no one imagines that the Spirit of
God, in producing the new creature, through a change of
heart and the consecration of Baptism, effects any change
in the material substance of the man. The change is a
change of character and relation. No illustration could de
monstrate more plainly the meaning of the whole.
A little further on, however, Ambrose speaks yet more
clearly : " Perhaps, nevertheless," saith he, " you will say,
I do not see the appearance of blood. But it has a si
militude -.for as thou hast taken the similitude of death, even
so thou drinkest the similitude of precious blood, that there
may be no horror of blood itself, and yet the price of thy re
demption might be available. And thus you have learned
that what you receive is the body of Christ."* Here we

* S. Ambros. Op., Tom. 2, p. 370.

152 Letter XXXIV..

have the full development of his idea ; for instead of an
swering the- objection lik« a believer in TransuWtantiation,
he takes the true ground, that the thing which the eyes be
held had a similitude. The modern Romanist would have
replied by saying, that the objector must not trust his senses ;
that it was actual blood notwithstanding ; that it was not a
similitude, but a miraculous reality. And hence the mani
fest incompatibility presented by the language of this cho
sen witness, when compared with the doctrine which your
advocate would fain extract from his testimony.
One passage more from Ambrose must close this part of
our evidence, and this is taken from the words of the Litur
gy, as established in his day : " Listen,'' saith he, " to the
celestial words of consecration. The priest saith. Make
this to us, O Lord, a chosen, allowed, reasonable and ac
ceptable sacrifice, which is the figure of the body and
blood of our Lord Jesus Christ."* Thus, then, we have
this highest proof, from the very language of the Church's
public service, that the consecrated elements were esteem
ed, in the time of Ambrose, precisely what we hold them
to be, namely, the figure of the body and the blood ; and
hence we find no difference between this witness and the
others, notwithstanding the apparent confidence with which
Dr. Milner appeals to him.
We come now to the testimony of Cyril, the Archbishop
of Jerusalem, from whose mystagogical discourses your au
thor has made an extract resembling that which we have
seen from Ambrose. But there are other passages in the
works of this father which will furnish a much fairer view
of his doctrine.
Thus, warning the recently baptized against the use of

* S. Ambros. Op., Tom. 2, p. 371.

St. Cyr~il of Jeriisalem. 153
those sacraments which had been offered to idols, he speaks
as follows : —
" For in like manner as the bread and wine of the Eu
charist, before the holy invocation of the adorable Trinity,
were,bare bread and wine, but the invocation being finished,
the bread became the body of Christ, and the wine the blood
of Christ : in like manner the meats belonging to the pomp of
Satan, though by their nature they were bare and common,
are rendered profane and contaminated by the invocation of
the demons."*
Here is a comparison which no believer in Transubstan
tiation could think, for a moment", of making. The bread
and wine, consecrated by the invocation of the Trinity, to
be the emblems or symbols of the body and the blood of the
Saviour, might well enough be contrasted with the meats
which were contaminated by the invocation of devils. But
to compare the defilement of the one with the holiness of
the other, when that other was believed to be not a conse
crated emblem, but Christ Himself, body, blood„soul and di
vinity, would be a monstrous solecism, unworthy not merely
of the eloquent and pious Cyril, but of any man of common
sense. This eminent father, however, makes another comparison,
no less fatal to your modern Roman hypothesis, where,
speaking of the chrism or holy oil which was introduced
verj' early into the Church, he employs these words : —
" Beware that thou dost not think this ointment to be
naked or vile. For as the bread of the Eucharist, after the
invocation of the Holy Spirit, is no longer common bread,
but the body of Christ, even so this holy ointment is no
longer bare, or, if any one prefers so to call it, common
ointment, after the invocation, but it is the efiicient gift of
• S. Cyrilli Op., p. 308, Ed. of Tauttec.
VOL. II. ' 7*

154 Letter XXXIV.

Christ and the Holy Spirit, by the presence of His Deity.
Which truly is applied symbolically on thy forehead, and thy
other organs of the senses. And while the body is anoint
ed by the visible ointment, the soul is sanctified by the holy
and life-giving Spirit."*
Here, again, we have an illustration which proves incon-
trovertibly that Cyril's doctrine agreed with our own, and
was totally incompatible with that of modern Romanism.
For he compares the consecration of the Eucharist with the
consecration of the Chrism. In that, there was, confessed
ly, no Transubstantiation. It remained, in substance, what
it was before, but in figure and in sanctity, it was esteemed
a holy thing, and when used symbolically, the presence of
Christ and the Holy Spirit gave sanctification to the faithful
soul. I shall close the evidence of Cyril with his comment on
the language of the Liturgy, in which he saith expressly :
" For those who taste are not ordered to taste the bread and
wine, but the similitude (Gr. dvriTvirov, similitude, figure,
or representation) of the body and blood of Christ."!
If, instead of these, plain and conclusive words, this emi
nent father had said that they were not ordered to taste the
bread and wine, but to receive the real body, and blood, and
soul, and divinity of Christ Himself, Dr. Milner might have
appealed, with some honest confidence, to Cyril's testimony.
Having thus shown the doctrine of those fathers on
whom your author rests, I shall sum up the testimony of the
eariy writers with Isidore of Seville, who, like the others,
is one of the saints canonized by the rulers of the Church
of Rome. * S. CyrilU Op., p. 316-7, Ed. of Touttil
t S. Cyril., Cat. xxiii., Mystag. v., ^ xx., p. 331.

St. Isidore of Seville. 155
Thus he adopts the language of Cyprian, directing the
water to be mixed with the wine in the administration of
the Eucharist, saying : " For if any one offers wine alone,
the blood begins to be without the people ; but if the water be
alone, the people begin to be without Christ."* This lan
guage of itself sufiices to prove the figurative character of
the consecrated elements, for no one denies that the water
could only have signified the people metaphorically, as the
wine signified the blood of the Saviour metaphorically or in
a figure, according to the language of Tertullian and the
other fathers. But St. Augustine plainly declares that the
custom was to call the representations by the names of the
things themselves, on the authority of the Scriptures. And
Cyprian, in this very passage, gives us a strong example of
the rule. As, therefore, when the people begin to be, we
know that it was not the people, but the figure which repre
sented the people ; so, when the blood begins to be, it was
not really the blood, but the figure which represented the
blood. It must be evident, at a glance, that no believer in
Transubstantiation could have adopted such a comparison as
this, and yet we see it fully endorsed by Isidore in the be
ginning of the seventh century.
The same conclusion, however, is equally plain, from his
definition of the sacraments. "A sacrament," saith he,
" is in a certain celebration, when the thing performed is
so done, that it is understood to signify something which is
to be accepted sacredly. And the sacraments are. Baptism
and Chrism, and the Body and Blood of Christ, which are
called sacraments on this account, because under the out
ward covering of corporeal things, the divine virtue secretly
works the health of those sacraments, by reason of which
secret or holy virtues, they are termed sacraments."t
• S. Isidori Hisp. Op., p. 395, B. t lb., p. 52, A. B.

156 Letter XXXIV.

Here, by the way, as I have already shown, we see that
Chrism, which is now called Confirmation, was raised to the
rank of a sacrament in the time of Isidore, while the other four,
which modem Romanism has since added to the list, had
not yet been so accounted, notwithstanding your boast that
the Church of Rome has always been unchangeable. But
we also see that by the very definition of a sacrament, the
consecrated elements must be taken as a corporeal ^^re,
signifying what is to be accepted. And hence it is manifest
that if the figure could be transubstantiated into the divine
reality, it would be a sacrament no longer.
And this is demonstrated by the very highest Romish
authority, in the face of the sophistry by which some of
your writers contend that it may be the figure and the real
ity at the same time. As if a prince, say they, should put
on a mask, to hide his features, should we not have at once
a figure and the real prince together 1
This is ingenious, but totally inapplicable to the question.
For in the supposed analogy, the prince could only wear a
mask in order that he might not be known ; and if he put on
such a disguise, and at the same time proclaimed to every
one that he was the prince notwithstanding, we should all
agree that he was playing the fool. And yet such is the
illustration chosen by the advocates of this profane dogma.
Our Lord is supposed to present Himself under the mask of
a little wafer, while yet it is proclaimed to all the world
that He is actually present in His body, blood, soul and
divinity !
But let me now prove the absurdity of this evasion, by
your own highest testimony. In the second Council of
Nice, A. D. 787, which established the worship of images,
the acts of the previous Council were read, and condemned.
And amongst these acts we find the following : —

The Second Council of Nice. 157
" Let those rejoice and be glad, and let them act faith
fully, who make with sincerest mind the true image of
Christ, and desire it, and reverence it, and offer it for ^e
salvation of the body and the soul ; which He our most
sacred sacrificer and God, * * * according to the time, deliv
ered to His servants as a type and evident memorial of His
proper passion. For, being about to deliver Himself to His
memorable and vivifying death, He took bread into His
hands and blessed it, and giving thanks. He brake it, and
delivering it, said : Take and eat this for the remission of
sins. This is my body. In like manner giving them the
cup, he said : This is my blood : Do this in remembrance
of me. As if there was no other species or imaginary form
chosen by Himself under heaven, representing His incarna
tion. Behold, therefore, how this is preciously and honor
ably made the image of His vivifying body. * * * ^or this
is demonstrated to be the true image of the dispensation
made in the flesh, namely, of Christ our God, which He
Himself, the true Maker and vivificator of nature, with His
own voice delivered."*
Here we have plainly set forth the old doctrine of the
primitive Church, in accordance with the united testimony
of the fathers. But the second Council of Nice, in its zeal
for the popular fashion of image-worship, flatly denied it
all. " These men," say they, " willing to demolish the
spectacle of the venerable images, have introduced another
image, which is not an image, but the body and the blood. * * *
For if it be the image of the body, it cannot be the
divine BOE)Y."t
Thus, then, a Council which all Romanists esteem to be
general and infallible, had settled the question in the latter
• Hard. Concil. Gen., Tom. 4, p. 367-8.
t lb., p. 369, A.

158 Letter XXXIV.

part of the 8th century, that the consecrated elements could
not be both an image, or a. figure, and likewise the reality.
The idea, indeed, is sufficiently absurd in itself, and has
evidently been adopted in the vain attempt to reconcile the
old fathers with their modern doctrine. But to you, most
Reverend Sir, it ought to be the argumentum ad hominem,
because it is the authoritative decision of what you hold to
be a General Council, to which you profess to submit your
faith in all things.
I shall not here repeat the evidence on which, in my
letter on image-worship, this second Council of Nice was
shown to be no true exponent of the primitive Church, nor
even of the prevailing opinions and practice of the age in
which it was holdea. Certain it is, as we have just seen,
that the 336 Bishops of the Oriental Churches, who held
the previous Council, delivered their decrees against images,
and also against transubstantiation, expressly maintaining
that the Eucharist was the image, and the only authorized
image, of our Lord and Saviour. This proves conclusively
that so late as the latter part of the 8th century, the old
doctrine still existed, while the new and contrary opinion
was only partially sustained. But the tide was running
strongly in favor of superstition, and the victory was gained
in due season.
That it was not gained, however, soon, nor without seri
ous opposition, is clearly proved' by your own historian,
Fleury. He states that about the year 859, Paschasius
Radbert wrote a book, maintaining that the body of Jesus
Christ is the same in the Eucharist with that which was
born of the Virgin, and that it was reality and a figure both
together. The famous John Scot, who was confessedly
one of the lights of his age, published a treatise against this .
doctrine, which was condemned at the Council of Verceil,

John Scot and Berenger. 159
nearly two hundred years aftrr.* It does not appear that
his opposition to Paschasius brought him into any trouble
at the time, but another work, viz., a translation of Diony-
sius, the Areopagite, excited Pope Nicholas against him,
and Charles the Bald, instead of sending him to be tried
for this book, which favored the Greek Church and was
very obnoxious to the Roman hierarchy, allowed him to go
to England, where the famous Alfred placed him at the
head of the King's Hall, at Oxford, and there he lectured for
some years with great repiitation. Fleury admits that
" Paschasius knew weU that his doctrine was combated."
He also specifies the work of Ratram, monk of Corbie,
which was published against him, besides two other wri
tings without name, and mentions that a certain Frudegard
and others had difficulties about his book. The book of
Ratram, in opposition to his Joctrine, however, was one of
pecuhar importance, being written by order of Charles the
Bald, and in that it was maintained that we must distin
guish, according to the fathers, between the natural and the
eucharistic body. " That the body which our Lord took
of the Virgin Mary was a true body, visible and palpable,
while the body which is called the mystery of God is not
corporeal, but spiritual, and by consequence neither visible
nor palpable."!
Opinions were allowed to fluctuate between these oppo
site doctrines for a considerable time, nor was there any
attempt to settle the dispute authoritatively, until the vear
1079, when Berenger, a celebrated theologian of France,
opposed the growing figment of transubstantiation, and was
compelled by a Council, held at Rome, to make his recan
tation. Like Galileo, however, who was forced by the
? Fleury, Hist. Ecc., Tom. 10, p. 544-5. t lb., p. 548.

160 Letter XXXIV.

same infallible authority to recant his astronomical discov
ery that the earth moved round the sun, and just after he
rose from his knees, said to his friend, " It moves, not
withstanding ;" even so Berenger remained of the same
mind, and when he returned to France, continued to incul
cate his former doctrine. According to the truth of history,
therefore, it is impossible to assign the establishment of
the present teaching of your Church to an earlier period
than the eleventh century.
I have reversed my usual line of argument on this im
portant subject, with express regard to the decree of the
Council of Trent, in its fourth session, which enacted that
" no one should dare, in those things which belong to faith and
morals, to interpret the Holy Scriptures against that sense
which Holy Mother Church has held and holds, oif acjainst
the unanimous consent of the Fathers."*
The sense which the Church has held, in primitive times,
I have proved from the Liturgies of Ambrose and Cyril,
where the figure of the body and blood of our Lord is
stated expressly as the object of sacramental consecration.
In this, therefore, the Church of England stands justified
by the oldest and truly Catholic authority. And the unani
mous consent of the fathers I have also shown to agree with
the same interpretation. Your Council of Trent spake
well and wisely, in laying down the rule ; but when it is
alleged that the modern Church of Rome can demonstrate
her faithfulness in obeying it, we hold her claim to be a
bold pretence, opposed to the real evidence of antiquity in
this and every other point which was rejected by the prin
ciples of the English Reformation.
My next letter will lead me back to the language of the

* Hard. Con., Tom. 10, p. 23, D.

Plain Speaking necessary. 161
Scriptures themselves, in connection with which I shall no
tice the Jesuitical attempt of your favorite. Dr. Milner, to
enlist the divines of our Church in favor of your doctrine.
And I beg you to remember that, in refuting his book, I am
compelled to speak plainly, because it is, throughout, an
unscrupulous assault upon my own communion, and it is im
possible to defend the purity of our system against such an
opponent without candidly expressing my sincere convic
tion of its character. Most deeply do I lament the fatal
policy by which, I doubt not, he justified his course.
Most freely do I exonerate the deluded victims of his
misrepresentation from the sin of wilful error. And as
I ask no one to credit me any farther than I prove what
I assert, I tmst that the cause of divine truth wUl not suffer
in any mind by the frankness of its advocate.

162 The End of Controversy, Controverted.

LETTER XXXV.

Most Reverend Sir :
In the arguments of your divines on the subject of Tran
substantiation, they talk triumphantly of their faithful adhe
rence to the very words of Christ ; and yet it is very plain
that they cannot interpret those words without admitting a
figure of speech, notwithstanding their boast that they take
the literal meaning.
Thus, when our Lord saith. This is My blood which is
shed for you, how does the literal meaning agree with the
unquestionable fact that His blood was not actually shed for
them until the following evening 1 Hence the necessity of
understanding that it was then shed only in the divine de
cree and in His own will, which, in the agony of Geth
semane, He had submitted so absolutely to the will of His
Father. Here, then, clearly, the literal expression is not
the real meaning.
Again, we read, according to your Douay version, as
quoted by Dr. Milner, " Taking the chalice. He gave thanks,
and gave it to them, saying. Drink ye all of this." Not of .
the chalice, certainly, but of what the chalice con
tained. But this is a. figure of speech heyond. all contro
versy, and your divines are obliged to interpret it as a
figure, in despite of all their zeal for the strict literal
phraseology.

Scriptural Argument for Transubstantiation. 163
Again, St. Lukc states the words somewhat differently :*
" This cup is the New Testament in my blood, which is
shed for you.'' What will the literal meaning prove here ?
You do not pretend to maintain it ; and yet the language of
St. Paulf repeats the same expression, besides making an
other slight variation in sayhig, " This is my body which is
broken," instead of "given," for you. Thus, then, it is im
possible to interpret the meaning without admitting a figure
of speech. There was no literal covenant written in blood,
neither was it literally true that His sacred body was bro
ken. But the cup might weR be called a covenant, ^^ra-
tively, because our Lord shed His blood to accomplish His
covenant promise of forgiveness and redemption to His peo
ple. And His blessed body might well be pronounced bro
ken by the same well-known figure of speech, in which we
say that the heart is broken, when it is tortured unto death
by grief and anguish.
Hence, it is surely manifest to the slightest attention, that
the argument derived from the strict letter of St. Matthew
cannot, of itself, decide the controversy. Two of the Evan
gelists use one form of expression, St. Luke and St. PauL
employ the other. And the figurative meaning is absolutely ne
cessary, to a greater or a less degree, in interpreting them all.
But let us consider whether the doctrine of your modem
Roman Church is proved, even on your own ground. " This
IS my body." What is the sense of the verb ? Does it
mean the actual being, or a representation of being ? For
it is undeniable that it is currently employed in both these
senses in every language under heaven, and throughout the
Bible, from Genesis to Revelation.
To test this assertion by an appeal to the fact, I shall first
• Chapter xxii. 20. t 1 Cor., xi. 24-5.

164 Letter XXXV.

ask your attention to a few texts in which the verb is used
in the representative or figurative sense confessedly. And
in order to exclude all doubt, I shall quote your own Douay
Bible. Thus :—
Gen. xvii. 13. My covenant shall be in your flesh, \. e., ray
oovevant shall he represented by ciroumoi-
aion.
" il. 12. The three branches AV.ti yet three days,!, e., they
signify three days.
" " 18. The three baskets are yet three days, i. e., they
signify them.
" xii. 26. The seven beautiful kine and the seven full ears
are seven years of plenty, i. e., they signify
them.
" " 27. The seven lean kine — and the seven thin ears —
are seven years of famine, i. e., they signify
them.
" xlix. 14. Jssachar saxLii 'BE a strong ass, i. e., like a, stTong
ass.
" " 17. Let Dan be a snake in the way, i. e., like a snake
in the way.
Deut.xxviii.23. Be the heaven that is over thee, of brass, i. e., like
brass.
" " " And the ground thou treadest on, of iron, i. e.,
like iron.
" xxxii. 33. Their wine is the gall of dragons, i. e., like the
gall of dragons.
" xxxiii. 22. Dan is a young lion, i. e., like a young lion.
Josh, xxiii. 13. They shall be a pit and a snare, i. e., like a pit
and a snare.
Psalm V. 11. Their throat is an open sepulchre, i. e., like an
open sepulchre.
" xiii. 3. The poison of asps 1% under their lips, i. .6., thfoi
words are venomous, like the poison of asps.
" Ivi. 5. The sons of men, whose teeth are weapons and
arrows, i. e., like weapons and arrows.

The Verb " To Be," as used in Scripture. 165
Psalm Iviii. 8. A sword is in their lips, i. e., their words pierce
like a sword.
Daniel ii. 38. Thou art the head of gold, i. e., the hea.i of goli
represents thy majesty.
" iv. 19. The tree which thou sawest — it is thou, 0 King,
i. e., it represents thee.
" vii. 23. The fourth beast shall be the fourth kingdom,
i. e., the beast is a symbol of the kingdom.
" viii. 20. The ram is the Sing of the Medes and Persians,
i. e., symbolically.
Zach. V. 2-3. I see a volume flymg — And he said. This is the
curse that goeth forth, &o., i. e., it is a symbol
of the curse.
These are but a few specimens from the Old Testament,
to show how the verb to be is employed in a figurative sense
of representation, similitude, or figure. The New Testament,
however, is more immediately adapted to the question, and
from this, therefore, I shall make a larger number of quota
tions : —
St. Matt. V. 13. You are the salt of the earth, i. e., like the salt.
" xvi. 18. Thou ART Peter (Gr.,f£rpoj, a stone), i. e., figura
tively.
St. John vi. 70. Have not I chosen you twelve, and one of you is
a devil t i. e., like a devil, the enemy of Christ.
" X. 9. 1 AHL the door, \. e., figuratively.
" " 34. You ARE gods, i. e., like gods, by receiving the
Word of God.
" xi. 25. I AM the Resurrection, i. e., the cause and the
power of the resurrection.
" xiv. 6. I AM the way, i. e., figuratively.
" XV. 1. I AM the true vine, i. e., figuratively.
Bom. vi. 4. We are buried together with Him by baptism,
i. e., figuratively.
" " 6. Our old man IS crucified with Him, i. &., figura
tively, or spiritually.

166 Letter XXXV.

I Cor. X. 4. TAeiJocA WAS CTnrf, i. e., a figure of Christ.
2 Cor. iii. 2. You are our epistle, i. e., figuratively.
Gal. iv. 24. These are ZAe i?''o testaments, i. e., allegorically.
1 Tim. iii. 15. TAe Church is the pillar and ground of the truth,
i. e., figuratively.
Heb. V. 13. Every one that is a partaker of milk is unskilful
in the word of justice, for he is a little child,
i. e., spiritually.
" xii. 29. Our God is a consuming fire, i. e., /iie a consum
ing fire to the impenitent.
St. James, iv. 15. What is your life? It is a vapor, i.-e., like a
vapor.
St. Jude, 12. These are spots in their banquets, clouds without
water, trees uf the autumn, raging waves of the
sea, &c., i. e., figuratively.
Rev- i. 20. The seven stars are the angels of the seven
churches, and the seven candlesticks are the
seven churches, i. e., symbolically.
" xi. 4. These are the two olive-trees, and the two candle
sticks, i. e., the olive-trees and candlesticks
were symb"ls or figures of them.
xvii. 9. The seven heads are seven mountains, i. e., sym
bolically.
" " 12. The ten horns are ten kings, i. e., symbolically.
" " 15. The waters wnich thou sawest ARK peoples, and rM-
tions, and tongues, i.e., symbolically.
" " 18. The woman la the great city, a kingdom which
hath dominion over the kings of the earth, i. e.,
symholically .
" xix. 8. The fine linet^ are the justifications of saints, i. e.,
symbolically.
Now here are nearly fifty texts, all taken from your own
Bible, in which the verb to be is acknowledged on all sides
to sigaify a, figurative, representative, or symbolical being.
When, therefore, our divine Lord takes bread and blesses
it, and breaks it, and gives it to His disciples, and saith,

Gocis Omnipotence no Explanation. 167
Take, eat, this is my body, by what law of interpretation do
you deny His meaning to have been. This represents my
body, or this is a figure or a symbol of my body ? Why
must the verb to be bear, in this text, the sense of actual
existence, involving the monstrous idea of Transubstantia
tion, while yet your divines allow the same verb to signify
& figurative being m a\[ the other passages which I have
quoted from the same word of God 1
You may say, indeed, that you adopt the figurative mean
ing in those passages, because the other meaning would in
volve a gross incongruity. But I beseech you to point out
a greater incongruity amongst them all, than the notion that
a morsel of bread can actually be changed into the Incar
nate God, born of the Virgin — the true, real body and blood,
soul and divinity of the Lord Jesus Christ, while it continues,
to all appearances, just as it was before ! Or you may urge,
that in those various passages, the senses proved that no
change of substance was intended. But certainly this can
yield you no ground of argument, so long as the same senses
give a positive contradiction to the doctrine of Transubstan
tiation. I do not think it likely you would allege that the Almigh
ty could not have changed Isaachar into an ass, or Dan into
a snake, or Nebuchadnezzar into a head of gold, or a beast
into a kingdom, or a ram into a king. Or that our Lord
could not convert Himself into an actual door, way, vine,
rock, or consuming fire. Or that He could not transubstan
tiate stars into angels, and candlesticks into churches, or
waters into people, or heads into mountains, or a woman
into a city, if it pleased Him. For assuredly there is no
force in an objection addressed to Omnipotence. But there
is nothing more vast nor enormous in any of these changes
than the act which you suppose to transform your little wa-

168 Letter XXXV.

fers into the incarnate Deity. Indeed, the whole of these
wonders would sink into insignificance in comparison with
your doctrine that those little wafers are converted into the
actual body, soul and divinity of the Son of God in every
quarter of the world, and continually, so that your priests are
in this way working miracles all the while, far greater than
the most stupendous prodigies recorded in the Bible.
Perhaps, however, you may say that this change of the
consecrated elements is of more importance to the redemp
tion of mankind, and is therefore more worthy of the exer
cise of miraculous power. But this affords no reason for
your doctrine, since it is manifest that our views of the
subject are as high as yours, in the true spiritual incorpora
tion of the soul with Christ. The supposed change of the
bread and wine into the real body and blood of the Redeem
er, gives you no superiority in the essential privileges of
that blessed gift, and you gain nothing by it, beyond a dis
play of what we cannot but regard as a sensuous and idola
trous superstition.
But possibly you may suppose that Transubstantiation is
required to give greater efficacy to the Sacrament. If this
be your idea, we hold it to be another example of delusion.
The Sacraments are outward and visible signs of the grace
given by Christ Himself to the worthy receiver. And you
destroy the sacramental character, when you teach that the
sign is changed into the reality. Baptism is also a sacra
ment, and no less necessary than the Eucharist, not to say
even more so, according to your own doctrine, because you
hold that infants cannot be saved without Baptism, although
they may be saved without the Eucharist. And yet, you
do not ask us to believe that there is any Transubstantia
tion of the element in Baptism. You do not consider it ne
cessary that the water should be converted into the Holy

Faith rests on the Senses and Reason. 169
Ghost, but regard it as quite sufficient that the blessing of
God accompanies its application. The true idea of sacra
mental efficacy, therefore, instead of being a support, is
really fatal to your doctrine. That it adds to the dignity
and power of your priests, I doubt not ; but that it adds to
the efficacy of the Sacrament, is nothing better than a theo
logical contradiction.
Lastly, you may allege that Transubstantiation yields the
most powerful testimony to the triumph of faith over the
senses, and therefore it deserves to be cherished so devoutly.
But permit me to remind you, most Reverend Sir, that faith,
as propounded by the divine Redeemer, is not a blind as
sent to assertion without proof, but a spiritual and cordial
reception of the revealed Word of God, on the fullest evi
dence. Hence, miracles and prophecy bore witness to the
truth of the Mosaic system. Hence, miracles and prophe
cy bore witness to the Gospel of Christ, and the mission of
His Apostles. Hence, our Lord appealed to His works :
" If ye believe not me," saith He, " believe the works."*
" If I had not done among them the works which no other
man did, they had not had sin. But now they have both
seen and hated both me and my Father." Thus the appeal
which the great Redeemer made was addressed to the
senses and the reason of mankind. And what other course
would have been consistent with the laws of the human
constitution ? Has He not created us with those senses and
that reason ? And on what possible basis could our faith
in Him be placed, if the proofs of the Gospel were not
adapted to their testimony 1 *
In strict accordance with this indispensable principle,
therefore, the blessed Redeemer presented His divine truth
' John X. 37-8.
VOL. II. 8

170 Letter XXXV.

in constant harmony with the celestial exhortation delivered
through the Prophet Isaiah : " Come, now, let us reason toge
ther, saith the Lord." All His instructions were addressed
to the reasoning faculty. All His parables and illustrations
were master-pieces of reasoning power. All His miracles
were adapted to the senses. Thus the basis of proof,
throughout the whole, was laid in the testimony of sense,
and the just exercise of the understanding ; and then, when
belief was authorized by sense and reason, the power of
divine grace built up the Church by the internal work of
repentance and faith, in a true spiritual conversion.
The result must surely be perfectly manifest, that there
is nothing in the Gospel of our Lord contrary to the senses
and reason of mankind. That it leads us to a sublime range
of truth which is entirely above and beyond our natural sense
and reason, is indeed most certain. But this is a very dif
ferent thing from a contradiction to sense and reason. The
superstructure of a building is above the foundation, but it
is so far from being in contrariety or opposition to it, that it
rests on that foundation for its whole security. The in
habitants dwell in the upper rooms, and do not think of in
specting the basement wall unless there be danger of its
failing. And so the Christian's faith dwells in the upper
regions of his spiritual house, and he rarely recurs, on his
own account, to the process by which it was erected. And
yet he knows full well, that if a successful breach could be
made in the evidence of sense and reason, on which the
Gospel system is founded, the whole edifice would fall, and
involve his hope of happiness in ruin.
But this argument will probably commend itself more fa
vorably to your attention, in the words of the eminent
Tertullian. Thus, in his Treatise on the Soul, this cele
brated light of the third century expresses himself : —

Reason not to be contradicted. 171
" It is not allowable for us," saith he, " to cast doubt upon
the evidence of the senses, lest the facts of Christ's history
be destroyed, for it may then be said that He falsely saw
Satan fall from heaven, or that He falsely heard the voice of
the Father bearing witness of Him, or that He was deceived
when he touched the mother-in-law of Peter — or that the
fiavor was something else than of wine, which he consecrated
in memory of His blood. But nature did not thus make a
mockery of the Apostles. Faithful was their sight and
hearing on the Mount : faithful their taste of the wine which
had been water, in the marriage of Galilee : faithful the
touch of Thomas, who was thereby made a believer. Read
the testimony of John : That which we have seen, saith he,
which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, and
our hands have handled of the Word of Life. But all this
testimony is false, if nature hes to us in the senses of the
eyes, and the ears, and the hands."*
The same father pursues this argument in his treatise
against the heretic, Marcion, where he asks this significant
question : " Shall I believe the Lord concerning the interior
substance, who has deceived me concerning the exterior ?
If he is fallacious in what is manifest, how shall he be true
in what is concealed V'X
Thus, then, we see that faith can never be truly alleged
in that which, while it is, in itself, a proper object of the
senses, nevertheless contradicts their whole testimony. In
your supposed miracle of transubstantiation, your people
may have what you are pleased to call faith, but it is not
the faith of the Gospel, because this can only rest on the
Word of God, and is always consistent with the senses and
the reason of mankind. Instead of this, you insist on giving
• Tertul. de Anima, p. 276.
+ lb. adv. Marcionem, Lib. 3, p. 401.

172 Letter XXXV.

your own interpretation to the language of the Saviour,
which I have proved to admit of the representative or
figurative meaning by the usage of Scripture, and that
such was the doctrine of the primitive Church, according to
the fathers and the oldest Liturgies. But bread and wine
are the objects of sense, material things. And flesh and
blood are the objects of sense, material likewise. The sight
bears witness that the words are in the Scripture, but can
not settle the meaning in which they should be understood,
until it beholds the subject of your supposed miracle. And
then the same sight which proves the words to be in the
Bible, also proves that the bread and the wine remain un
changed in their material properties. While along with
the sight, there is the touch, the taste, and the smell, all cor
roborating its testimony.
Where, then, I pray you, is the evidence of your faith ?
Not in the Scriptures, which admit of a very different and
perfectly reasonable meaning. Not in the primitive Church,
for that is directly against you. Not in the senses, for four
out of five testify the contrary ; and the fifth, that is, the
hearing, is incapable of judging whether the consecrated
element be flesh or bread. Not in the reason, since nothing
can be more absurd than the proposition that bread and
wine can be transubstantiated into flesh and blood, and yet
retain all the sensible qualities of their proper nature, just
as they were before ! Not in the -utility of the supposed
miracle, because the true spiritual incorporation with Christ
is as well secured on our system as on yours : or rather, as
I should have said, much better ; for a false belief can expect
no benefit from Him who is the truth itself. Not in the
analogy with the other Sacrament of Baptism, since it is
confessed by all your own divines that the ingrafting of the
penitent sinner into the body of the Saviour is accompUshed

The Real Presence not Transubstantiation. 173
in that sacrament, without a change in the outward element
of water. In a word, your so-called /ai'iA in this monstrous
idea has no evidence at all. Your people take for evidence
the assertion of your priesthood, but that alone is no suffi
cient authority. True faith demands the divine testimony,
addressed to the senses and the reason of mankind. Taker
this away, and it is no longer /oiiA, but simple credulity.
Your favorite advocate, however, thinks something may
be gained for his cause by proving that the divines of the
Church of England maintain the doctrine of the real pres
ence '. But, in the proper spiritual sense, we have never
doubted it. He caUs that, indeed, the main point under con
sideration, and yet he could hardly have been ignorant that
it was not a point at all. Our Church, it is tme, does not
employ the phrase, lest it might be misapprehended, but
she declares distinct^ that the faithful receiver of the Eu
charistic Sacrament does verily and indeed receive Christ's
body and blood, in a heavenly and spiritual manner, through
faith ; while she utterly and absolutely rejects and protests
against the gross, sensuous, and idolatrous dogma of Tran
substantiation. This presence of Christ she holds to be
real, that is, true, and none the less real because it is spir
itual, but rather the more so, since it is the divine nourish
ment of the soul, which, being spiritual in its nature, could
not be strengthened by a partaking of actual flesh and blood.
Hence Dr. Milner raises here, as in many other places, a
false issue, to blind the eyes of his simple Protestant read
ers, and all he quotes on that subject, to an intelligent Epis
copalian, amounts precisely to nothing.
Even in this, however, his usual disingenuousness attends
him. The extracts he gives from the English divines are
garbled and unfair, stopping entirely short of their full
meaning. To prove my assertion, I will trouble you with

174 Letter XXXV.

only one example, where he quotes him whom he justly
calls the profound Hooker, as follows : —
" I wish men would give themselves more to meditate,
with silence, on what we have in the sacrament, and less
to dispute of the manner how. 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 ?"
What simple-minded reader would not suppose, from this,
that Hooker was well disposed to both these carnal views
of the real presence, and was ready to assent to the proba
ble truth of either \ And yet, in the very same division of
the work from which Dr. Milner has so dexterously culled
this passage, the admirable author states the true doctrine
in these words : — ^
" The real presence of Christ's most blessed body and
blood is not to be sought for in the Sacrament, but in the
worthy receiver of the Sacrament. And with this
the very order of our Saviour's words agreeth ; first. Take
and eat ; then. This is my body which is broken for you : fhst.
Drink ye all of this ; then foUoweth, This is my blood of the
New Testament, which is shed for many, for the remission of
sins. I see not which way it should be gathered by the
words of Christ, when and where the bread is His body, or
the cup His blood, but only in the heart and soul of him which
receiveth them. As for the sacraments, they really exhibit,
but for aught we can gather out of that which is written of
them, they are not really, nor do really contain in themselves
that grace, which with them or by them it pleaseth God to
bestow." " If on all sides it be confessed that the grace of Baptism
is poured into the soul of man, that by water we receive it.

Tr-ue Doctrine of the Real Presence. " 175
although it be neither seated in the water, nor the water
changed into it : what should induce men to think that the
grace of the Eucharist hust needs be in the Eucharist, before
it can be in us that receive it ?"*
Such is the doctrine of all o^r standard divines upon the
subject of the real presence ; not a corporeal presence on
the altar, and in the hands of the priest, but a spiritual pres
ence vouchsafed by Christ Himself to the faithful soul.
The bread and the wine are changed by the prayer of con
secration, so as now to represent what they did not represent
before, viz., the body and blood of the blessed Redeemer,
by virtue of His own appointment. By this, therefore, they
become the figure of His death and passion, in the words
of Tertullian, Jerome, and the Liturgies of Ambrose and
Cyril of Jerusalem ; or the sign of His body, in the words of
Augustine ; or the typical and symbolical body, in the words of
Origen. By this they become a Sacrament, for a Sacrament
is a sacred sign of the thing signified, and not the thing itself.
But when received with a faithful and a loving heart towards
the blessed Redeemer, with lively gratitude for His wondrous
sacrifice upon the cross, with charity towards all mankind,
and with an earnest desire to show our love towards our
crucified Lord, by-forsaking all sin, and obeying His pure
commandments : then He bestows His real presence on the
soul, and strengthens and refreshes it in the life of holiness,
and draws it more and more to Himself in a true spiritual
and heavenly union.
The efforts of youf favorite, at the close of his 38th letter,
to justify your dogma of Transubstantiation, are a display of
the most manifest sophistry. And yet, as he has evidently
thought his comparisons might impose upon the weak and
thoughtless reader, it may be my duty to consider them.
* Eccl. Pol., B. 5, ch. 67, ^ 6, 3d vol. of Keble's Ed., p. 540.

176 Letter XXXV.

Thus, in replying to the conclusive argument derived
from the contradiction of the senses, he hesitates not to say,
that such a test " would undermine the incarnation itself
With equal reason the Jews said of Christ, Is not this the
carpenter's son ? Is not His mother called Mary ? Hence
they concluded that He was not what he proclaimed Him-
¦self to be, the Son of God. In like manner, Joshua thought
he saw a man, and Jacob that he touched one, and Abraham
that he ate with three men, the different senses of the pa
triarchs misleading them. Again, were not tho eyes of the
disciples, going to Emmaus, held so that they should not know
Jesus ? Did not the same thing happen to Mary Magdalene
and the other Apostles 1 But independently of Scripture,
philosophy and experience show that there is no essential
connection between our sensations and the objects which
occasion them, and that, in fact, each of our senses fre
quently deceives us. How unreasonable, then, is it, as well
as impious, to oppose their fallible testimony to God's infal
lible word !"
Here we have a set of apparent analogies, put forth in
Dr. Milner's easy, dashing style, with as much apparent
confidence as if he thought they were really conclusive, in
stead of^ being, in truth, totally inapplicatiJe to the real ques
tion. Thus, in the matter of our Lord's divinity, how can it be
said that the Jews were deceived by their senses 1 They
beheld a man of humble parentage, though truly descended
from David. They heard His holy doctrine, they saw His
wondrous works, and in all this there was no deception of
their senses, but the very contrary. Hence, the Saviour al
ways appealed to the testimony of their senses, to prove
that He was divine. How ? Not because they could be
hold His Deity, for they knew that No man had beheld

Dr. Milner's sophistical Parallels. Ill
God at any time ; but because they saw Him do what
none but God could perform, and therefore were bound to
believe His Deity, as a certain conclusion from their rea
son, guided by the predictions of their own prophets, which
they saw Him fulfilling before their own eyes. Nothing,
therefore, can be more untrue than that the Jews were de
ceived by their senses. They were misled by an evil heart
of unbelief to attribute the miracles of Christ to the agency
of Satan, instead of to the power of God, and hence their
error was not an error of the sense, but of the reason.
What opinion of his reader's understanding could Milner
have entertained, to suppose that the sin of the Jews could
be confounded, by any mind of the most ordinary discern
ment, with the argument against Transubstantiation !
Equally irrelevant is his reference to the patriarchs' being
misled by their senses, when it pleased the Lord to appear to
them in a bodily form. For their senses were not misled.
They saw what was presented to their eyes, correctly.
They heard what was presented to their ears, correctly.
There was no error in the senses. But whether the being
who addressed them was the Deity, or an angel, or a man,
was not a question for the senses to determine. And when
they were informed of His true character, the sense of
hearing did not oppose the sense of sight, but only gave the
information to their reason, or their intellect, that the form
which they beheld was assumed by the Divinity. Hero .
therefore, there was no contradiction of the sense, because
the form assumed was really assumed, and the testimony of
the sense and the conclusions of the reason agreed perfect
ly together. What imaginable connection is there between
this, and the monstrous idea of Transubstantiation 1
Still less, if possible, can Milner make a parallel out of
the fact that the disciples' eyes were held so that they should
VOL. II. 8*

178 Letter XXXV.

not know Jesus. For it is absurd to suppose that their want
of recognition was caused by the error of the senses. They
did not believe, as yet, that He could rise from the dead.
They could not suppose that it was Himself they beheld,
and therefore concluded that it must be some other. Hence,
they saw truly what was the subject of the sense, and in
the testimony of sense, therefore, there was no deception:
but their reason was not enlightened, until He opened the
eyes of their understanding. Had it been otherwise, in
deed, what proof would the Church have had, that our Lord
had ever risen at all 1 Let us only, to humor Dr. Milner,
give up the evidence of eyesight, and the whole Gospel
history may be resolved into an error of the senses, and thus,
to favor the absurdity of Transubstantiation, the sure basis
of our entire faith in Christ will be effectually overthrovra.
And, to cap the climax of this preposterous sophistry,
your author coolly tells his readers that philosophy and ex
perience show no essential connection between our sensations
and the objects which occasion them, and that, in fact, each of
our senses frequently deceives us. But how do men discover
when any of their senses seem to have erred ? Is it not,
in every instance, because these very senses correct the
false impression, or because the senses of those around
them are enabled to decide that the deceived individual is
laboring under some disorder of the nerves or brain 1 Sup
pose, for example, that a man is deceived by an appearance
at night, which a superstitious fancy supposes to be super
natural, and he exerts courage to go up to it, and convince
himself that he was mistaken. Are his senses deceived?
Not at all ; but on the contrary, the senses, when fuUy ex
ercised, correct the error of the imagination. And if, in
stead of using his senses, he flies away in terror, is it not
manifest that he is still not deceived by his senses, but by

The Testimony of the Senses. 179
his own weak and superstitious thought ? The only excep
tions to the rule are those produced by disease and insanity.
And although these are apt to continue so long as their
causes are not removed, yet the rest of mankind are sure
to decide correctly, and therefore treat the case according
to the testimony of their senses, without doubt or hesitation.
What possible application can this bear to a doctrine like that
of Transubstantiation, which sets at naught the senses of the
whole world, and commands all mankind to acknowledge that
bread is flesh, and wine is blood, and that a little wafer,
when consecrated by the priest, is changed into the incar
nate Saviour, and must be worshipped forthwith as a pres
ent Deity ? And yet Dr. Milner gravely saith : " How un
reasonable is it, as well as impious, to oppose the fallible testi
mony of the senses to God's infallible word," as if any man
could know what is the Word of God except by using his
senses ! For the senses and the reason of man are the
work of the same Almighty Being who has given us His
word. Who, then, is the unreasonable and the impious, he
who sets the works and the word of the Deity in irrecon
cilable opposition to each other, or he who reverences both,
and preserves them in the constant harmony which marks
the wisdom and perfection of the Creator, the Redeemer
and the Sanctifier, as the One living and true God ?
I have not yet arrived, however, at the end of Dr. Mil
ner's irreverent and absurd paralogisms . In answer to the
question, How Transubstantiation can be true, he puts forth
what he intends his readers to understand as facts, present
ing an equal amount of difficulty. And first, he saith that,
" if we insist on using this How of the Jews with respect
to the mysteries revealed in Scripture, we must renounce
our faith in it." But what has that to do with Transubstan
tiation ? This is not a mystery, but a contradiction. It

180 Letter XXXV.

is not a doctrine revealed in Scripture, but a dogma neither
revealed in Scripture nor anywhere else, until it was started
by the corrupt superstition of the eighth century, and adopt
ed as a notion favorable to the power and influence of the
priesthood. 2dly, Dr. Milner informs us that we do not know
what constitutes the essence of matter and space. And what
then ? Does this prove that we do not know the difference
between bread and flesh, or wine and blood, or a conse
crated symbol and the incarnate Deity ?
" I say 3dly," continues our author, " that Christ transfig
ured His body on Mount Thabor, bestowing on it many of
the properties of a spirit, before His passion, and that after
He had ascended up to heaven. He appeared to St. Paul on
the road to Damascus, and stood by him in the Castle of Je
rusalem.'' No one doubts these facts, but what have they
to do with the question ? Because I believe that our Lord
was transfigured on Mount Thabor, must I therefore believe
that a Romish priest can transubstantiate a little wafer into
His sacred body, blood, soul and divinity ? Because I be
lieve that He appeared to St. Paul on the road to Damascus,
must I therefore believe that He is actually present where
He does not appear at all? Because I believe that He
stood by the Apostle in the Castle of Jerusalem, must I be
lieve that He submits himself, in the disguise of a morsel
of bread, to be handled, broken, and offered up afresh by
the superstitious invention of men, on every altar in Chris
tendom ? Was that the form in which He appeared to His
true servants, to claim their faith and adoration ? Assured
ly, if it were lawful to doubt Dr. Milner's earnest devotion
to his professed object, one would be tempted to believe that
by recurring to such manifestations of Christ as these, he
must have intended, covertly, to show, in bolder relief, the
enormous absurdity of the Romish doctrine.

Omnipresence not Pantheism. 181
And lastly, your author asserts, " that God fills all space,
and is whole and entire in every particle of matter."
The first part of this proposition is true, but the latter
clause is an enormous error, directly justifying the wildest
Pantheism. Nay, although it is evidently adopted to favor
the dogma of Transubstantiation, yet it destroys even this,
because if God be whole and entire in every particle of mat
ter. He must be present before the act of priestly consecra
tion, in the wafer ; and every other particle of matter, as well
as that, may lawfully receive the homage of our worship.
The defence which Dr. Milner would probably offer, is de
rived from the argument that the. Deity cannot be divided
into parts, and therefore, wherever He is. He must be whole
and entire ; from which it is plausibly inferred that as He
fills all space. He must be whole and entire in every atom.
But this is one of those so-called demonstrations of philos
ophy, with which the faith of the Christian would seek
no fellowship whatever. Neither is it lawful thus to spec
ulate upon a subject so awfully above our comprehension,
beyond the plain guidance of the Scriptures themselves.
That God is omnipresent. His own word declares : " Do not
I FILL heaven and EARTH ? SAITH THE LoRD." But the
proposition that He is whole and entire in every particle of
matter, is the deduction of fallible human reason, without
any warrant from revelation, and is moreover a perilous as
sertion, because it affords a basis for one of the most fatal
errors in the theosophy of mankind. To 'ray own mind, I
hesitate not to say that it is an absurdity. We might as well
say that because we cannot separate the sunlight into parts,
therefore the sun is whole and entire in every atom that it
illuminates. Or that because we cannot divide the ocean
into parts, therefore the ocean is whole and entire in every
particle of foam. If Transubstantiation stands in need of

182 Letter XXXV.

an argument like this, it is a very manifest sign of the em
barrassment which the doctrine inflicts on its defenders.
Kindred to this is the next assertion of Dr. Milner, that
" my own soul is in my right hand and in my left, whole and
entire," which is an assumption incapable of proof, and at
war with the prevailing opinion that the soul resides in the
brain, and that the nerves convey its will to all the other
]^ts'cJ!l*fte systfci,^iM',-carry the impressions of the senses
to the seat of tjfe mtelltect. I cannot perceive, therefore,
why your author shouldciave supposed that such a proposi
tion could help his catise, unless it can be shown that the
readiness of some men ih adopt one notion without evidence
or reason, affords a gq/od argument why all the rest should
hold another of a- still more absurd and revolting char
acter. The concluding proposition of Dr. Milner, however, looks a
little more like a fair analogy. " The bread and wine," saith
he, " that I eat "and drink, are transubstantiated into my own
flesh and blood. This body of mine, which some years ago
was of a small size, has now increased to its present bulk.
It will soon turn into dust, or perhaps be devoured by ani
mals or cannibals, and thus become a part of their substance,
and nevertheless, God will restore it entire at the last day."
This is plausible, and yet does not at all meet the point of
difficulty. The bread and wine do not become transubstan
tiated into my flesh and blood, while they retain the same ap
pearance and sensible properties which they had before. On
the contrary, the change which they undergo has been traced
to a great extent by the senses, in the process of dissection ;
and when it can be traced no longer, nothing remains to con
tradict the senses. This kind of transubstantiation, there
fore, is so far from aiding the doctrine of Rome, that it only
illustrates its absurdity.

Summary of Objections. 183
And the same observation may be applied to both the
other supposed cases of analogy. The body of the infant
increases to the size of man, but we test the change by the
evidence of our senses, and no one pretends that the infant
can become a man, and yet look as much like an infant as it
did before. And even in the last wondrous change of the
resurrection of the dead, it was never dreamed of by the
mind of mortal that the dust of death could be quickened
into life, and yet remain dust to all appearance. Nor yet,
that the body which may have become a part of the sub
stance of other bodies shall be called into a new and glori
fied existence at the Almighty word of God, and still continue
to form a part of those other bodies as much as ever.
With all the ingenuity of your favorite Dr. Milner, there
fore, we are quite safe in defying him or any other to pro
duce a single argument of the slightest weight in support of
your doctrine of Transubstantiation. It has no evidence
from Scripture, when the language of Scripture is fairly un
derstood ; but on the contrary, it undermines the whole tes
timony of Scripture, and leaves the Gospel of Christ with
out any foundation of sense or reason. It is opposed to the
teaching of the primitive Church. It contradicts all the
senses, though the subject-matter, bread and wine, and flesh
and blood, are the objects of the senses, and of the senses
only. In a word, it is the most enormous imposition on
the reason of mankind that was ever attempted or accom
plished since the world began. And its necessary results
are, therefore, in direct hostility to the tmth of God, inevita
bly leading its unhappy victims either to idolatrous supersti
tion on the one hand, or to total infidelity on the other.

184 The End of Controversy, Controverted.

LETTER XXXVI,

Most Reverend Sir :
The 39th letter of your favorite. Dr. Milner, is devoted
to the defence of your modern innovation, which he terms
Communion in one kind ; or, in other words, the administra
tion of the Eucharist, to all except the officiating priest, with
the bread only — depriving them of the wine — under the pre
tence, that as the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of our
Lord are perfect and entire under either species, the com
munication of one is equivalent to both, and hence the
Church was competent to regulate it, according to her dis
cretion, as a matter of " changeable discipline."
¦ The fntroductory remarks of your advocate with respect
to the authority of the Church as the interpreter of Scrip
ture, and the regulator of rites and ceremonies, have no
proper bearing on this point in our controversy. That we
admit the authority of the Church, has been already fully
shown in my letters on the Rule of Faith, where its proper
bounds and limits are defined. But we distinguish between
the authority of the whole Catholic Church and that of a di
vided portion, on your own principle ; and we deny that
there has been, or could be, any action by the whole, since
the ambition of the Papacy consummated the great schism
which separated the East from the West in the ninth cen
tury. We also deny that the Church has any power to
change the express precept of Christ, who is her divine

The Cup forbidden. 185

Head, Lord and Master. And therefore, when He, whose
sole prerogative it is to institute the Sacrament, gave the
positive command, "Drink ye all of this," and the whole
Catholic Church, for more than twelve centuries together,
interpreted it as including the laity : we utteily deny your
right to contradict both the Saviour and the Church by
taking one-half of the Sacrament away from the people.
It was not until the year 1415 that the Council of Con
stance, which you hold to be General, and therefore infalli
ble, ventured to legalize this crying innovation. The reader
will find a statement of your own historian, Fleury, on the
subject,* with some accompanying remarks ; but here I
shall set down the very language of the decree, by which it
will be plainly seen that the Council acknowledged the
change from the institution of Christ and the primitive sys
tem : —
"Although Christ instituted this venerable Sacra
ment," saith the decree, " under both the species of
bread and wine, — and although it was received un
der both the species in the primitive Church, — never
theless, in order to avoid certain dangers and scandals, it
was afterwards received by the administrators under both
species, and by the laity only under the species or
bread, as it is to be most firmly believed, and in nowise to
be doubted, that the whole body and blood of Christ are
contained as well under the species of bread as under the
species of wine. Wherefore, as this custom has been rea
sonably introduced by the Church and the holy fathers, and
observed for a very long period (diutissime), it is to be taken
for the law, which must not be censured, nor changed with
out the Church's authority. Therefore, it should be^held

* Pages 174, 175.

186 Letter XXXVL

erroneous to say that the observance of this custom is un
lawful or sacrilegious ; and those who pertinaciously assert
the contrary to the premises shall be imprisoned as here
tics, and heavily punished (tanquam hmreticii arcendi sunt et
graviter puniendi), by the diocesans of the places, or their
officials, or by the inquisitors of heretical pravity."*
Thus, we have the distinct testimony of the Council of
Constance itself that the Eucharist was received in both the
species of bread and wine in the primitive Church. But after
wards they say that the laity received it only under the spe
cies of bread. It may be well to show how long afterwards
it was before the old rule was done away, and the new
change was introduced, which grew, by degrees, into a
custom. Beginning about the year 450, we find Pope Leo the
Great severely censuring those who, being influenced by
the error of the Manicheans, received the Bread of the Sac
rament, but refused the wine, because flesh and wine were
both forbidden by the discipline of those heretics. This,
by the way, is another proof that the Bread was not then
supposed to be transubstantiated into flesh, for otherwise
they would have refused that also. The other point, how
ever, is the only one which concerns our present subject.
And here it is evident that the established rule of the
Church was to give both the species to the laity, since the
communicants whom the Pope reproves could not have been
exposed to censure for refusing the wine, unless it had been
offered to them.f
About the same time, viz., at the great Council of Chal
cedon, A. D. 451, we have an interesting case of an
* Hard. Con., Tom. 8, p. 381. Concil. Constant., Sess. xiii.
t Leonis Op., p. 106. Serm. xii.

The Council of Bracara. 187
accusation brought by three Presbyters of the Clujrch
at Edessa, against their Bishop, Ibas, in which the tenth
charge was, "that wine was not furnished to distribute
to the people at the sacrifice of the altar, except in very
small quantity, bad and muddy, as if it had been fresh from
the vintage ; that the clergy who were appointed to admin
ister were obliged to bring from the tavern almost six
measures, which did not suffice them, so that those to whom
they gave the sacred body made signs and went out, be
cause the blood was wanting."* This clearly shows that
the people not only received the wine, but expected to be
supplied well and liberally.
Again, in the Council of Bracara, held A. D. 675, we
have this full instruction on the subject : —
" We have heard," saith this Council, " that certain men,
influenced by a schismatical ambition, offer milk instead of
wine in the divine sacrifices, contrary to the divine orders,
and the institutions of the Apostles ; that others give the
people a dipped Eucharist as the performance of the Com
munion ; that some even do not offer expressed wine in the
sacrament of the dominical cup, but communicate the people
with the grapes. But how contrary this is to the evangel
ical and apostolical doctrine, and to the custom of the
Church, is easy to prove from that fountain of truth, from
whom the mysteries of the sacraments have proceeded.
For when the Master of trath commended the true sacrifice
of our salvation to His disciples, we know that He blessed
and gave to them not milk, but bread and the cup, in this
sacrament. And as to those who in the performance of the
Communion give a dipped Eucharist to the people, neither
does this accord with the testimony taken from the Gospel,
? Hard. Con. Gen., Tom. 2, p. 519, Con. Chalcedon.

188 Letter XXXVL

for,our Lord delivered both His body and His blood to the
Apostles, and the commendation of the body separately, and
of the blood separately, is recorded. But that the people
should communicate from the unexpressed grapes, is quite
disorderly. For, according to the rule which every teacher
sets forth, wine and water mixed together should be offered,
because we see the people to be understood by the water,
while the wine shows the blood of Christ. Therefore let
no one hereafter offer in the divine sacrifices, except ac
cording to the sentence of the ancient Councils, bread only,
and the cup of wine and water mixed ; and any who acts
otherwise than it is commanded, shall cease from sacrificing,
until, being corrected by the satisfaction of penitence, he
may return to the office which he had lost."*
Here we see, distinctly, that the primitive rule was in
sisted upon, until near the 8th century ; but there are other
proofs that it continued much longer. For in the Council
of Clermont, A. D. 1095, the 28th Canon reads as follows :
" Let no one communicate at the altar, but in the body
separately, and the blood in like manner, except it be from
necessity and caution. "f
This brings us to the 1 1th century, and still we can carry
the testimony yet later. Thus, in the constitutions of Rich
ard Poore, Bishop of Salisbury, in A. D. 1217, we have this
passage, addressed to his clergy : —
" You ought, moreover, to instruct the laity how often
they should communicate, that they may not doubt in any
manner of the truth of Christ's body and blood. For with
out doubt they receive, under the species of bread, that
which hung for us upon the cross : they receive from the cup
* Hard. Con., Tom. 3, 1032-3, Concil. Bracarense, cap. 3.
t lb., Tom. 6, p. 3, 1719. Concil. Claramont., Can. xxviu.

Constitution of the Bishop of Durham. 189
that which was effused from the side of Christ ; they drink
that, believing, as said Augustine, which they had first shed
in rage."*
This was the period when Transubstantiation was fully
established as the prevailing doctrine of the Church, and
the danger of spilling any portion of what was now believed
to be the actual blood of the Redeemer, gave rise to some
new laws, of which the following is a specimen : —
" We command," saith the Constitution of Walter de
Kirkham, Bishop of Durham, A. D. 1255, " that if by neg
ligence anything of the blood of Christ shall drop upon the
ground, it shall be licked up with the tongue, the table shall
be scraped on which it fell ; if there was no table, the place
must not be trodden, but scraped and consumed in the fire
and the ashes buried within the altar, and the priest shall
do penance five days."t
Thus we leam what the Council of Constance meant by
" certain dangers and scandals" having given rise to the
custom of withdrawing the cup from the laity entirely.
The danger and the scandal referred to the spilling of
the supposed actual blood of Christ, which was chiefly
to be apprehended in handing the wine to the people.
The necessity imposed upon the priest in such a case, re
quiring him to lick up the consecrated wine from the ground,
was a new and by no means an acceptable sort of discipline,
and in order to avoid it, the custom was introduced, for a
time, of sucking the wine through a tube. But, finally, the
more complete remedy was adopted of giving only the bread
to the laity, and thus the superstitious and idolatrous figment
of Transubstantiation produced an inexcusable departure
from the primitive doctrine and practice, in open despite of
* Hard. Con., Tom. 7, p. 99. t lb., Tom. 7, p. 493.

190 Letter XXXVL

the institution of Christ, the authority of the Apostles, and
the voice of the whole Catholic Church, for at least twelve
centuries together.
Having thus proved, from your own witnesses, that this
most serious depravation of the blessed Eucharist is a mere
novelty, established without authority or excuse, in the very
wantonness of power, I return to the argument of your
favorite author, which is worthy of the cause and the
advocate. He begins by acknowledging — what it was impossible to
deny — that our blessed Saviour instituted the Eucharist
under both the species of bread and wine ; " but it must be
observed," saith Dr. Milner, " that He then made it a sacri
fice as well as a sacrament, and that He ordained His twelve
Apostles as priests, to consecrate this sacrament and offer
this sacrifice. Now for the latter purpose," continues he,
" namely, a sacrifice, it was requisite that a victim should he
really present, and, at least, mystically immolated, which was
then, and is still, performed in the Mass, by the symbolical
disunion or separate consecration of the body and the blood.
It was requisite, also, for the completion of the sacrifice,
that the priests who had immolated the victim, by mystically
separating its body and its blood, should consummate it in both
of these kinds. Hence it is seen that the command of
Christ, on which our opponents lay so much stress. Drink
ye all of this, regards the Apostles, as priests, and not the
laity, as communicants."
The chief points in this statement which call for notice
are : first, that the Sacrament of the Eucharist is a sacrifice ;
next, that a victim should really be present, and at least
mystically immolated ; and thirdly, that the Apostles were
the priests who immolated the victim, and therefore were
told to Drink of the Cup, as priests, which of course

The Commemorative Sacrifice. 191
eprives the words of Christ of all application to the
lity. With respect to the first and second of these points, I
rant that as the Eucharist was instituted in commemoration
f our Lord's death, and as it is certain that His death was
he great sacrifice for the sins of the world, therefore the
howing or representing of His death, must also be a show-
ng or representing of the sacrifice. But it has been fully
iroved that as His death and sacrifice were consummated in
eality on Calvary, so they could only be e'^ihiieA figuratively
a. the sacrament. And Dr. Milner himself is compelled to
.dmit the fact, since, while he is obliged, of course, accord-
ng to your novel doctrine of Transubstantiation, to contend
hat the victim is really present, yet he only asserts that this
ictim is mystically (that is, allegorically or emblematically)
mmolated. It is very obvious, however, that a real host
which word signifies a victim, from the Latin hostia) must
equire a real immolation, because a victim who is not really
lain is a contradiction in terms. And hence, your doctrine
f the corporal presence, after aU, leaves you to the com
memorative and symbolical representation of the very point for
vhich the Eucharist was instituted, viz., the showing the death
f Christ until He come, in the words of the Apostle. For
Jthough you insist that the Saviour is really present, in His
lody, blood, soul and divinity, yet you do not pretend that
le is really sacrificed or offered up to His Father, except in
he mystical, figurative, or symbolical interpretation, which
efers of necessity to His sacrifice upon the cross. And
ence, notwithstanding your imaginary Transubstantiation
f the elements, your sacramental theory claims no more
sality in the sacrifice of Christ, or the offering of His death
y the priest, than our own.
The tme doctrine of sacrifice, however, is that which St.

192 Letter XXXVL

Augustine lays down so clearly in his Commentary on the
130th Psalm. " If thou wouldst have sacrifices," saith the
Psalmist, " I would give it, but thou delightest not in bumt-
offerings. Therefore it was superfluous to seek either rams,
or bulls, or any similar victim, in order to please God.
What means this, that God is not delighted with holocausts,
that He does not accept sacrifice, and is propitiated without
sacrifice 1 If there be no sacrifice, there is no priest. But
we have a High Priest in heaven, who intercedes for us
with the Father : (for He entered into the Holy of Holies,
within the veil, where the High Priest in figure entered
once a year, as the Lord has been offered, once for all time.
He offered Himself, He is the priest. He is the vic
tim, and He has entered in the most holy place once, and
dieth no more, nor has death any more dominion over Him.)
We are secure that we have this High Priest, and there let
us offer also our victim. And let us see what sacrifice we
ought to offer, since our God is not delighted with holo
causts, as you hear in the Psalm. But there He showed
what He would offer. The sacrifice of God is a broken spirit;
a broken and contrite heart, God does not despise."* And
again, saith the same great teacher, " What wilt thou offer
for thyself 1 Offer thyself. What does the Lord ask of
thee, unless thyself ?"t " For we ourselves are the best
and most eminent sacrifice. "J
This, therefore, is the sacrifice which we offer in the
Eucharist. We commemorate the atoning sacrifice of Christ,
once made for all, by the appointed symbols of His death
and passion, and we actually offer ourselves, saying, in the
true spirit of the primitive and Catholic Church : " And
here we offer and present unto Thee, 0 Lord, ourselves,
? S. Aug. Op., Tom. 4, p. 1094. + lb., Tom. 5, p. 288.
X lb., 7, p. 431.

The Apostles did not partake as Priests. 193
our souls and bodies, to be a reasonable, holy, and living
sacrifice unto Thee."*
The third point of your favorite Milner's statement, viz.,
that the Apostles were told to drink of the cup, as priests, is
easily shown to be a mere specimen of sophistry, by his own
testimony. For he is careful to inform his readers, in a
note, that " neither priests nor Bishops receive under more
than one kind, when they do not offer up the holy sacrifice ;"
that is to say, there is no one, except the officiating minis
ter, who does receive the mystical blood of Christ ; and all
the rest, though they be priests, or even Bishops, are placed
in the same category as the laity. How, then, does the ar
gument apply, that our Saviour's language. Drink ye all of
this, regarded the Apostles as priests, and not as laymen,
when the Church of Rome herself makes no difference be
tween the priests and the laity in the act of communing,
and withholds the cup equally from both ? He insinuates,
indeed, that the Apostles " immolated the victim ," but this,
whether in the Romish sense or in any other, is in the face
of the Scripture. For it is undeniable that our Lord Him
self was the sole officiating priest on the occasion : more
over, the institution was perfectly new to the Apostles, and
they could have been nothing more than receiving commu
nicants : in addition to which, it is obvious that the idea of
twelve persons uniting in the act of consecrating the ele
ments, is at total variance with your own doctrine, as well
as with the universal practice of the Church, since there
can be only One who acts as priest, in the celebration of the
Eucharist, and all the other communicants receive alike,
without distinction. Thus, then, it is plain that our Sa
viour's command. Drink ye all of this, could not possibly
* See the Prayer after the Consecration, in the American Liturgy.
VOL. II. 9

194 Letter XXXVL

have referred to the Apostles as priests. And were it other
wise, it is equally plain that your Church would sin against
Milner's interpretation by not giving the cup to the priests
and Bishops who communicate, any more than to the laity.
The next argument presented by this writer appears in
the assertion that the scriptural phrase, " Breaking of Bread,"
implies the communicating with bread alone. And assur
edly I cannot but marvel at its boldness and impiety. For
if such be the meaning of this expression, it must result that
the Apostles undertook to celebrate the Eucharist without
THE wine ! And yet it is certain, by your own doctrine as
well as ours, that this would be an impossibihty, /or Merc
can be no Eucharist, unless the blood accompanies the body,
by the consecration of both the elements.
Your author does, indeed, assert that St. Jerome, St. Au
gustine, and St. Chrysostom, were in favor of his opinion.
But I am sorry to say that such a statement will hardly pass
for evidence, in the total absence of any reference to their
writings, especially when I have detected, in so many pas
sages, the unscrupulous liberty which he took in misrepre
senting the fathers. He claims support, likewise, from the
text of St. Luke,* where it is said that our Lord took bread,
and blsssed and brake and gave it to Cleophas and the other
disciple, whose guest he was at Emmaus. It is perfectly
manifest, however, that this act was in no respect of a
sacramental character. For in the miracle by which the
Saviour fed the multitudes with a few loaves and fishes, the
language is the very same. " He blessed, and brake, and
gave the loaves to His disciples," saith St. Matthew ;t and
St. Mark:J: and St. Luke§ record the act in precisely a
* Ch. xxiv., 30. t Ch. xiv., 19.
t Ch. vi., 41. ^ Ch. ix., 13.

Milner and Priestley. 1 95
similar way. And here, no one pretends that there was
any celebration of the Eucharist. Doubtless it was the
mode which our Lord pursued on all occasions when He
gave bread to His disciples, and therefore it was this, in
part, most probably, that opened the eyes of Cleophas and his
companion, because they had often seen Him do the same
thing before. Whereas, they were not present when He
administered the Eucharist, and could not have recognized
Him by an act of which, as yet, they knew nothing.
It is true, however, that the phrase, " Breaking of Bread,"
which subsequently occurs in the Book of the Acts, and
which your author sets forth as a proof that the Apostles
" were accustomed, sometimes, at least, to give the sacra
ment under one kind alone, though Bishop Porteus has not the
candor to confess it," has usually been admitted to allude, in
a brief way of speaking, to the Eucharist ; but it never was
supposed, by any theologian of any school, to be a descrip
tion of the mode in which the Eucliarist was celebrated ; and if
Bishop Porteus had confessed that it was, so that the sacra
ment might be celebrated without the wine, his confession
would have been, as Dr. Milner well knew, not an act of
candor, but an act of heresy. His reference to such a text
for such a purpose is an exact parallel with the course of
Priestley, the English Socinian, who, in order to get rid of
the acknowledgment of the blessed Trinity in the Sacra
ment of Baptism, thought fit to rest upon another passage in
the same Book of the Acts,* where it is said that St. Paul
had certain disciples " baptized in the name of the Lord
Jesus." This conduct of the Socinian was a perfect ab
surdity, because he took the brief language of the historical
narrative, in which the mode of administering the Sacrament
* Ch. xix., 5.

196 Letter XXXVL

was not intended to be described, and made it control and
virtually nullify the positive command of the Saviour's institu
tion. Yet, absurd as it was. Dr. Milner's argument is pre
cisely the same. For look, I pray you, at the closeness of
the correspondence. Baptism is mentioned in the Book of
the Acts, as performed in the name of the Lord Jesus ;
therefore, says Priestley, as there is nothing here which
refers to the Trinity, the Apostles were accustomed, sometimes
at least, to give baptism in the name of Christ alone. The
Eucharist is mentioned in the same Book of the Acts, as
THE breaking OF BREAD ; therefore, says Milner, as there
is nothing here which refers to the wine, the Apostles
" were accustomed, sometimes at least, to give the sacrament
under one kind only .'" A beautiful harmony of sentiment,
assuredly, between Priestley and Milner, in which the So
cinian gets rid of Christian Baptism on the one hand, by the
very same logic which your favorite employs to mutilate
the Christian Eucharist upon the other !
But there was one great difference between these distin
guished men, notwithstanding, which candor obliges me to
confess. The Socinian was honest in his error, because he
actually made it the basis of the form in which he adminis
tered baptism. While Dr. Milner only intended to mystify
his simple Protestant readers, and knew that he was im
puting a heresy to the blessed Apostles, in the understand
ing of ninety-nine out of a hundred, who would never dream
of the subtle distinction which lurked under his employment
of the word give instead of the word administer.. He
only wanted to impress them with the doctrine of the Coun
cil of Constance, that the receiver of the Eucharist was just
as well provided for by taking the symbolic body of our
Lord without the blood, as with it. And provided he could
succeed in this, and so bring them blindfold into the Church

Breaking of Bread. 197
of Rome, there would be time enough to clear the fog from
their intellect afterwards, by showing them that he did not
say the Apostles administered the sacrament with bread
alone, but that they gave the sacrament under the form of
bread alone, the wine being offered and received, of course,
by the priest or the Apostle who officiated.
This is another specimen of the miserable juggling which
marks your order of Jesuits, where words are artfully used
on purpose to convey a lie, although they do not actually de
clare it. And yet it is most evident that the texts quoted
are perfectly incapable of the only sense which your adroit
and unscrupulous advocate could maintain consistently with
your Church's doctrine. They merely state that the disci
ples came together to break bread, and do not intimate, di
rectly or indirectly, anything further. A single act is there
fore mentioned, the breaking of bread ; and that single act
being an essential part of consecration, must have included
the whole administration of the sacrament. Yea, if there be
any difference, it is against the limitation which Dr. Milner
would maintain. Because the act of consecration, which
could not be performed without the wine, was the very act
which required the office of a priest or an Apostle ; while
the mere giving or distributing of the consecrated elements
might be as well committed to the deacons.
Your favorite author next proceeds to repeat his charge
against the rendering of and instead of or, in St. Paul's 1st
Epistle to the Corinthians, which I have treated in its
proper place, and shall not further notice, except by observ
ing that the text has not the slightest bearing on the present
question. The language of the Apostle is : that Whoever
shall eat this bread or drink the cup of the Lord unworthily,
shall be guilty of the body and' blood of the Lord. Most
manifest it is that if these words be taken to authorize the

198 Letter XXXVL

reception of the bread without the cup, they must be equally
taken to authorize the reception of the cup without the
bread. And this last, being an absurdity for which no man
ever contended, proves that the idea of Dr. Milner could
not possibly have been in the mind of the inspired writer.
We are next told that the Catholic Church, from the time
of the Apostles, regarded it as a mere matter of discipline
whether the sacrament was to be administered under the
species of bread or wine ; that the primitive custom in the
time of Tertullian, and during some centuries afterwards,
was to allow the Sacrament, under the form of bread, to be
taken home to the houses of the communicants, and eaten
in private ; while infants, on the other hand, received the
Eucharist by giving them a drop of wine.
All of this, however, in the construction for which Dr.
Milner contends, I deny confidently. The acts which he
alludes to are, indeed, mentioned by some of the fathers, in
cidentally, but never stated to be the custom of the Church
at large, or a Catholic custom. On the contrary, they rather
appear to have been cases of local and special allowance,
and hence they are never found in any Canon of a Council,
never recognized in connection with any ancient Liturgy,
and never sanctioned by the authority of the Church. If
it were otherwise, I ask how it has happened that the un
changeable Church of Rome has not retained them any more
than ourselves ? " Because it was a mere matter of disci
pline" saith your author. And this answer, as I shall now
proceed to show, is neither true in fact, nor, if it were true,
is it, in any proper sense, satisfactory.
That it is not true in fact, is sufficiently obvious from the
simple statement of Dr. Milner himself, who rests his whole
argument on doctrine. " The Catholic Church," saith he,
" from the time of the Apostles down to the present, ever

Depriving the Laity of the Cup. 199
firmly believing that the whole body, blood, soul and di
vinity of Jesus Christ equally subsist under each of the species
or appearances of bread and wine, regarded it as a mere mat
ter of discipline which of them was to be received in the
holy Sacrament." Here we have the direct avowal that the
question of discipline was made to depend solely on the
question oi faith, and therefore the change of the discipline,
in truth, was neither more nor less than the practical result
of the change of doctrine.
For how else did this new discipline, which deprives the
laity of the cup, originate ? There is no intimation of it in
Scripture. There is no consistency in it with the institu
tion nor the command of Christ, who expressly said. Take,
eat, this is my Body. Drink ye all of this, for this is my
Blood. There is no declaration resembling it in the primi
tive fathers. There is not the slightest trace of it in the
Councils of the Catholic Church. In point of historical
fact, it came in subsequently to your modern heresy of
Transubstantiation, which I have proved to have been en
tirely unknown before the eighth century, when the Coun
cils ceased to be Catholic, and which was not fully estab
lished before the twelfth, after the condemnation of Beren
ger. To this day, all the Oriental Churches repudiate your
modern practice, for none of them presumes to deprive the
laity of the cup. Indeed, the whole evidence upon the sub
ject demonstrates that your new discipline is essentially
connected with your new doctrine. Neither the one npr
the other were ever Catholic, but Roman. They grew up
in the darkest ages of the Church's history, and bear no
more relation to the true faith of Christ than the poison-vine,
which is sometimes seen to overtop the branches of the
spreading oak, can be said to bear towards the noble trunk
that withers under its noxious vigor.

200 Letter XXXVL

In marked contradistinction from both, therefore, the
apostolic system delivered to the Church in the beginning
was that which the Church of England restored at the time
of the Reformation, viz., that the consecrated Bread was
the appointed symbol or figure of the Body, and the conse
crated wine, of the Blood of our Lord ; and this it was which
gave them the sacramental character, since a sacrament is
" an outward and visible sign of an inward and spiritual
grace." The question of discipline, as Dr. Milner calls it,
corresponded with this doctrine, because the design of our
Lord was, that His Church should commemorate His death
for the sins of the world ; and hence St. Paul saith so ex
pressly, that as often as ye eat of this bread and drink of
this cup ye do show (or represent) the Lord's death till He
come. Therefore, the sacrament required the emblem of the
body to be broken, and the emblem of the blood to be poured
out, because these acts were proper figures of His flesh
pierced, and His blood shed upon the Cross. By neces
sary consequence, the Eucharist could never have been in
tended to exhibit His blessed body, blood, soul and divinity,
united together, as in life, since death, for the time, dissolves
the union. And in the case of the Saviour, this separation
is specially noted, for it is recorded that He gave up the
ghost, that is. His soul left the body, and went into the place
of departed spirits, according to the Creed.
Thus, the novel doctrine of Transubstantiation brought
in a contradiction to the fundamental design of the sacra
ment, and, with perfect consistency, Romanism, after hav
ing destroyed the sublime simplicity of the Eucharistic
feast, next destroyed the original mode of administration, by
taking away from all but the officiating priest the emblem
of the shed blood of Christ, without which His death is not
properly shown by the receivers at all. Y«t, St. Paul ad-

Changeable Discipline. 201
dressed his language to the whole body of the communi
cants : — " As often as ye eat of this bread and drink of this
cup, YE do show the Lord's death till He come." Why did
he not say. As often as the officiating priest eats of
-THIS BREAD AND DRINKS OF THIS CUP, ye do show the Lord's
death till He come ? Because it was the gracious wiU of
the Saviour that all His people should unite in the same
memorial of His passion, since all had the same interest in
its celestial benefits. And hence the Church was bound to
preserve the discipline as well as the doctrine, and did, in
fact, preserve it until the doctrine was changed.
Thus, then, I prove that Dr. Milner misrepresented the
case most seriously in saying, that whether the laity receive
the sacrament in one kind or in both kinds, is a mere matter
of changeable discipline. For this phrase can never be
properly applied except to those things which are indiffer
ent in themselves, and in which the Church is left free to
use her own discretion. But here the word of Christ com
mands, the word of the Apostle repeats, the primitive Church
establishes, one and the same doctrine and practice. And
the modern priesthof' of Rome, therefore, by this inexcusa
ble novelty of coa, aunion in one kind, through which all
their laity are deprived of the power of receiving the Eu
charist according to the appointment of the Saviour, stand
chargeable with a direct departure from true Catholic princi
ple, and a wanton and tyrannical invasion of the most sa
cred rights of the people committed to their care.
Your favorite author concludes his 39th letter on this
subject by an ingenious but perfectly idle argument, derived
from the fact, that Calvin and the English Parliament al
lowed of communion without the wine, in case of necessity.
He favors his readers also with one of his choice quota
tions from Luther, with which, whether it be true pr false,
VOL. II. 9*

202 Letter XXXVI.

I have no concern. But so far as it respects the English
Church, I maintain that the principle of necessity is a law
ful excuse in every duty, because the Lord asks no man to
do impossibilities. Hence the primitive Church never de
nied the salvation of those who died in the faith without
Baptism, believing that they were to be considered as bap
tized in veto, though death overtook them before they could
receive the Sacrament. And the principle assumed the
most positive form in the case of the martyrs, many of
whom were unbaptized, for all allowed that they were to be
considered as baptized in their own blood. But Rome
maintains, as well as we do, that a baptism with blood in
stead of water is no true Baptism. And therefore the act
of niartyrdom could only have been held equivalent to a true
baptism, on the very ground of that necessity, which your
unscrupulous author affects to deride as a plea of no va
lidity. And this is the argument which he considers quite suffi
cient to place us in a dilemma ! He even confounds the
allowance of an occasional exemption, from necessity, with
the principle of a changeable discipline : or, in other words,
he denies the difference between the rule and the exception !
He might as well have told his readers that the promise
of Christ to the penitent thief upon the Cross, This day shalt
thou be with me in paradise, was an allowance of a change
able discipline in the law established by Himself, that Ex
cept a man be born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the
kingdom of God. Baptism was the rule ; the case of the
penitent thief, like that of the martyrs, was an exception,
from necessity. And did Dr. Milner really expect such
weak sophistry as this to impose upon his readers ? Doubt
less he did, or he would not have employed it. And his
book is full of proofs which show the same contempt for the

Canons of Clermont and Constance. 203
intellectual faculties of other men — the same deliberate ef
fort to delude the mind of the unsuspecting inquirer with
fallacies which he knew to be worthless, while he trusted
that they might prevail.
But where is the resemblance which he affects to show
between the course of the Churches of Rome and England 1
Let me remind you again. Most Reverend Sir, of the
Council of Clermont, already quoted in the commencement
of this letter,* whose 28th Canon is. in these words : —
" Let no one communicate at the altar but in the Body
separately, and the Blood in like manner, except it be from
necessity and caution."
What was the rule which this great Council here af
firmed in the year 1095 ? Was it not the very same with
that of the primitive Church Catholic, and the Reformed
Church of England ?
And what was the new rule laid down by the Council
of Constance, A. D. 1415, but a flat contradiction, without
any pretence of necessity ? as indeed no such necessity could
exist for refusing, henceforth,- to give the cup to the laity,
which had been their undoubted privilege for twelve centu
ries together.
But the Council of Clermont was a Council in which
Pope Urban II. presided, and your Church, even so late as
the eleventh century, was orthodox and right in the old
CathoUc mode of giving the cup to the laity. And hence,
Rome herself, of an earlier day, condemns the Rome of the
fifteenth century, and justifies the Reformed Church of
England, both in the rule and fhe exception. The maxim,
in all other matters, is, that the exception proves the rule,
• * Page 188.

204 Letter XXXVL

But your modern Church has changed the exception into
the rule, and the rule into the exception. True, indeed,
the Council of Constance refers to certain dangers and
scandals, as a reason for the innovation. And yet it is hard
to imagine that the laity could not be made to observe as
much propriety in the year 1415, as they had for twelve
centuries together. This, therefore, was an excuse too
weak for their justification, and hence they must stand con
demned for presumptuously contradicting Popes and Coun
cils, Fathers and Apostles, and even Christ Himself, in the
exercise of their proud prerogative to change the original
law at their own mere will and pleasure.
This brings me to the end of your favorite author's letter.
But I may not conclude without adverting to two other
monstrous innovations and corruptions of modern Roman
ism connected with the subject, which he very wisely
passed by, namely, your solitary Masses, where the priest
administers the Eucharist to himself alone, and your ex
acting payment for the Sacrament ; the first being directly,
in the face of the Saviour's institution, and the second as
plainly against His precept to the Apostles : " Freely ye
have received, freely give," while both are condemned re
peatedly by the Canons of the Councils.
Thus, in the Capitular of Theodulf, the Bishop of Aure-
lia, A. D. 797, we find the following plain testimony against
solitary Masses : —
" The priest should by no means celebrate the Mass alone ;
because, as it cannot be celebrated without the salutation of
the priest, with the response of the people, so it ought not
to be celebrated by one. For there must be those around
him, whom he may salute, and by whom the response may
be given to him, and he must remember the. saying of our

Canons of other Councils. 205
Lord : Wherever two or three are gathered together in my
name, there am I in the midst of them."*
Again, in a Council held by order of Charlemagne, A. D.
813, Canon xliii., we read these words : —
" No presbyter, in our judgment, can rightly perform the
Mass alone. For how shall he say. The Lord be with you,
or how shall he give the admonition. Lift up your hearts,
and many others similar to these, when there is no other
person present with him ?"t
Again, in another collection of Canons, we have the fol
lowing : —
" It is decreed that none of the presbyters shall presume
to celebrate Mass alone : because neither the words of our
Lord and Saviour, nor the writings of the Apostle Paul, de
clare it, nor is it found in the Acts of the Apostles, that it
ought to be so done in anywise. This custom, therefore,
so contrary to Apostohc and ecclesiastical authority, must
be eradicated, and thoroughly extirpated by the priests of
the Lord ; and if any one shall hereafter presume to do this
thing, he shall be liable to degradation.":}:
And again, in the 6th Council of Paris, held by the Bish
ops of all the Provinces, A. D. 829, the 48th Canon re
peats the same prohibition, decreeing, " that none of the
presbyters shall presume to celebrate the Mass alone ; and if
any should transgress this rule, he should be subject to
canonical correction."^
A multitude of similar proofs might be added, to demon
strate that solitary Masses were held to be absurd and un
lawful by the Church of Rome herself for at least nine cen
turies. And yet, in the face of Scripture, reason and au-
• Hard. Con., Tom. 4, p. 914. + lb., p. 1015.
X lb., p. 1208. ^ lb., p. 1324.

206 Letter XXXVL

thority, your last great Council of Trent passed the follow
ing decree, in A. D. 1562 : — *
" If any one shall say that Masses, in which the priest alone
communicates sacramentally, are unlawful and ought to be
abolished, let him be anathema."
So that here we have your unchangeable Church pronoun
cing her solemn curse upon the very doctrine which she public
ly maintained so late as the ninth century ! Is not this, most
Reverend Sir, another evidence of the candor with which
your writers boast of your unity ? Are the " variations of
Protestantism" more extraordinary than the variations of
Rome 1 If your deluded but honest-minded laity knew the
history of their own Church, how soon would they insist
upon a thorough reformation, and abandon that figment of
infallibility which, when it is analyzed, resolves itself into
a set of dissolving views, shifted at the dictate of expe
diency !
I proceed, lastly, to the evidence of former ages, which
proves that the clergy were forbidden to take money for the
administration of the Sacrament. Thus, the 7th Canon of
the Council of Clermont enacted,
" That no one should sell the Eucharist, or Unction, or
Chrism, or Burial, to any one."t
Again, the 12th Canon of the 3d Council of Rome, un
der Urban II. , decreed as follows : —
" This also we command, that for Confirmation, Baptism,
and Burial, nothing shall be exacted. "J
Again, in the Council of Toledo, A. D. 1119, the Qtli
Canon sets forth the same prohibition.^

* Hard. Con., Tom. 10, p. 129.
t Hard. Con., Tom. 6, P. 2, p. 1739.
X lb., 1760.
l) lb., 1979.

Canons of Rheims, London, and Trent. 207
The same appears again, in the 4th Canon of the Coun
cil of Rheims, held about the same year.*
And in the Council of London, held A. D. 1125, the sec
ond Canon reads as follows : — ¦
" We command that no price whatever be exacted for
Confirmation, for Unction, for Baptism, for Penance, for
the Visitation of the Sick, for the Communion of the body
of Christ, or for Burial. "t
The same injunction is repeated again in another Coun
cil of London, A. D. 1138, in the first Canon.| And we
meet it again in the second Canon of the Second General
Council of Lateran, A. D. 1138, where the practice is
called simoniacal ; and the giver, as well as the receiver,
is included in the censure. §
The Council of Trent likewise added its prohibition, in
A. D. 1562,]( saying that " all conditions of reward, of any
kind, all agreements, and whatever is given for the cele
brating of new Masses, as likewise all importunate and il
liberal exactions, rather than requests, which are not far
removed from the sin of simony, should be entirely pro
hibited." And yet, in the face of all this, it is notorious that your
priests universally hold Masses to be of prime necessity, to
liberate the souls of your people from purgatory, and that
they never perform those Masses without the payment in
money of a stipulated sum ! That even the poorest per
sons in your communion cannot enjoy this melancholy priv
ilege, which they are taught to regard as a most sacred
* Hard. Con., Tom. 6, P. 2, p. 1984. t lb., p. 1125.
t lb., p. 1204. /) lb., p. 1208.
The pages of the last three are numbered erroneously in the volume,
II Hard. Con., Tom. 10, p. 130.

208 Letter XXXVL

duty to the dead, without the cash: and hence we have
seen that one of the modern institutions in Ireland is that
of Purgatorian Societies, to raise the funds required for the
Eucharistic sacrifices which your own Church, in former
ages, so expressly required to be performed without money
and without price.
Whether you have any fixed tariff for such services, I
know not. But I know that I was applied to, many years
ago, by a poor Irishman, who pleaded hard to be employed,
and to have a month's wages in advance ; and when I told
him that I did not need his labor, turned away with
a look of such distress, that I called him back, and inquired
what was the matter. He told me that his wife was dead,
and he wanted just ten dollars to pay the priest, for saying
Mass to take her soul out of purgatory. Surprised at the
amount, I asked him if the priest knew that he was a poor
man, and why he wa.s not willing to do this service for
nothing 1 And the answer made a deep impression on me.
He said the priest knew well enough that he was as poor
as he could be, and that his reverence would willingly say
the Mass for nothing, only that if it was not paid for, it
WOULD DO NO GOOD !
How far this single case was to be taken as a fair speci
men of the average, I have never tried to ascertain. But
I was well assured that the priest alluded to was a man of
more than ordinary standing for talents and respectability,
because I knew his character some years before. And I
have had several cases since then, in which I have been
applied to for Baptism, by your people from Canada, for no
other reason, as they said, than their inability to pay the
price which the priest insisted on, before he would admin
ister that sacrament to their children.
Thus, then, it is, that your united, unchangeable, and well-

The Profit of Purgatory. 209
ordered Church, tolerates the breach of her own professed
rule of giving the sacraments without money, and allows
her priests to make merchandise of the offering which the
poor man is taught to believe indispensable for the peace of
the departed parent, wife, or child. Thus the custom of
solitary Masses, which your former Church reprobated, as
an impious absurdity, is legalized by your modern Council
of Trent, sooner than give up such a profitable branch of
superstition, without which there would be small profit from
your imaginary purgatory. And thus, again, I claim for the
Reformed Church of England a true conformity to the
REALLY Catholic rules, which regard the Eucharist as a
Communion, not to be administered without three at the
least, besides the officiating priest, and command the sacra
ments to be given, without money and without price, to all who
are otherwise qualified to receive them.

210 The End of Controversy, Controverted.

LETTER XXXVII.
Most Reverend Sir:
The topic to which your favorite Milner next leads the
way is the Mass, which,-he considers as the Sacrifice of
the New Law. He b&gins by saying that Bishop Porteus
is brief on this subject, andi evidently embarrassed. I do
not think that you will find mq either the one or the other,
since there is abundance of' testimony, and the result is so
clear, that the advocate of triftth finds nothing to embarrass
his course, except the difficulty of making a topic, rather
dry in itself, interesting to the reader.
Your auth«(r presents tlAe Mass, which is the Roman
word for the celebration of the Eucharist, under the aspect
of a true, proper, and proj litiatory sacrifice, offered by the
priest for the living and ' the deai. And the Church of
England, in our 31st Article;, calls this " a blasphemous fa
ble, and a dangerous deceit." We shall see, in due time,
why this strong language is employed, and, if I am not
greatly mistaken, it wiU be found none too strong for the oc
casion. He commences by defining a sacrifice as " an offering up
and immolation of a living animal or other sensible thing tiJ
God, in testimony that He is the Master of life and death,
the Lord of us and all things." And here, in the very be
ginning, is a most false and perilous definition, because it is
perfectly destitute of every mark of a Christian faith, and at
open war with the Bible. According to the true and con-

What is a Sacrifice. 211

stant doctrine of the Church, animal sacrifices were ap-
jfointed by the divine command after the fall, to typify Christ,
that promised "Seed of the woman" who should bruise the
serpent's head, and restore our ruined race to the happiness
which the sin of our first parents had forfeited. Hence it
was BY FAITH, as St. Paul expressly saith, that Abel of
fered to God a more acceptable sacrifice than Cain. Because
Abel, believing in the promised Seed, brought the appointed
firstlings of his fiock, the commanded sacrifice which typi
fied the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world. While
Cain, in proud unbelief, refused to unite in the act, and
brought only the fruits of the ground. Yet there is no rea
son to doubt that Cain was willing to acknowledge God as
" the Master of life and death, the Lord of us and all things,"
in the words of Dr. Milner ; because the very fact of making
his offering imported his belief in God ; and his subsequent
language to the Almighty is the language of fear and sub
mission. In other words, Cain was a Deist, while Abel
was a Christian in his heart. The first rejected the prom
ised Saviour, and therefore would not bring the appointed
memorial of Him. The other embraced the hope set before
him with sincerity, and offered his lamb in faith. In totally
omitting this essential connection of animal sacrifice with
Christ, therefore. Dr. Milner has put forth, not a Christian,
but a deistical definition.
But this is not his only error. For although the term sac
rifice is properly applicable to the immolating of a living
animal or other sensible thing to God, yet he had no right
to confine the term to this, because it is also applicable to
many other offerings, some of a lower, and some of a far
more precious character, as the Scriptures abundantly tes
tify. A few of the proofs shall be given from your own
Douay Bible to substantiate this assertion. Thus : —

212 ¦ Letter XXX VIL

Lev. vii. 9. And every sacrifice of flour that is baked in the oven,
and whatsoever is dressed on the griddle or in tfea
frying-pan, shall be the priest's that offereth it.
Whether they be tempered with oil or dry, all the
sons of Aaron shall have one as much another.
This is the law of the sacrifice of peace-offering to
the Lord.
" " 13. Moreover, loaves of leavened bread with the Sacrifice
of thanks, which is offered for peace-offerings.
Psalm iv. 6. Offer up the sacrifice of justice.
" xxvi. 6. I have offered up in His tabernacle a sacrifice of jubila
tion.
" 1. 19. A s.acrifiA:e to God is an afflicted spirit.
" cvi. 22. Jjet theia sacrifice the sacrifices oi ^xeisa. Also, Psalm
cxv. 16.
" cxl. 2. Let the lifting up of my hands be as an evening sac
rifice.
Amos, iv. 5. Offer a sacrifice of praise with leaven.
Rom. xii. 1. I beseech you, brethren, by the mercy of God, that ye
present your bodies a living sacrifice, holy, pleasing
to God, your reasonable service.
Phil. ii. 17. Yea, and if I be made a victim upon the sacrifice and
service of your faith.
" iv. 18. I am filled, having received from Epaphroditus the
things you sent, an odor of sweetness, an accept
able sacrifice, well pleasing to God.
Heb. xiii. 15. Let us offer the sacrifi.ce of praise to God continually,
that is, the fruit of lips confessing His name.
" xiii. 16. And do not forget to do good and to impart, for by
such sacrifices God's favor is obtained.
1 Pet., ii. 5. Be you also as living stones, built up, a spiritual house,
a holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices, ac
ceptable to God by Jesus Christ.
Now here it is abundantly evident that the term sacrifice
is applied to every offering of faith to God. Not only to the
offering up and immolation of a living animal or other sensi
ble thing, according to Dr. Milner's definition, but to the of
fering of insensible things, such as the flour baked in the

The Prophecy of Malachi fulfilled. 213
oven, and the other peace-offerings, under the Mosaic dis
pensation, to the offering of thanks, of justice, of joy, of con
trition, of praise, of prayer, of ourselves, of the gifts of
Christian charity, and of all holy devotion. The whole
basis, therefore, of your author's reasoning is overthrown by
the plain evidence of Scripture. For if we grant that there
is in the Eucharist, or the Mass, a sacrifice, and a true sac
rifice, it does not follow that it is an animal sacrifice, or a
propitiatory sacrifice, or the sacrifice of a sensible thing : but
it may be, and, as I shall show in due time, it actually is, a
spiritual sacrifice of ourselves, our souls and bodies, in faith
and praise, and thanks, and holy obedience.
Your favorite author next proceeds to show that the pro
phecy of Malachi has been truly verified in the primitive
Catholic Church. And we grant, most fully, his statement
that God has not left His people destitute of sacrifice under
the New Law. No true Christian ever doubted it. For
Christ, to whom all the typical animal sacrifices of the Old
Law pointed, has fulfilled them by His great sacrifice once
for all upon the Cross. And His Church commemorates
that blessed offering in the Eucharist, according to His
own command. Do this in remembrance of me, and accom
panies the sacramental memorial of that only propitiatory
sacrifice by allthe other spiritual sacrifices of praise, grati
tude, and self-dedication, which are acceptable to God
through faith in the great Redeemer. " From the rising of
the sun," therefore, as saith the Lord by the Prophet Mal
achi, "even to the going doton thereof, my name is great among
the Gentiles ; and in every place there is sacrifice, and there
is offered to my name a clean oblation."* But all this is
plainly as applicable to our doctrine as to the system of
*i. H.

^14 Letter XXXVIL

Romanism, and far more so, by the testimony of Scripture,
and by the judgment of the truly Catholic Church, the
fathers being witness.
To them, therefore, I willingly appeal, not by assertion,
but by proof; and here you will find, most Reverend Sir,
that the Church, not of Rome, but of England, is faithful to
the really Catholic interpretation of Malachi, and all the
other Scriptures.
Beginning with Tertullian, we have a very express tes
timony on the point before us. For this father, quoting the
very passage of the prophet to which Dr. Milner refers,
saith as follows : —
" / will not receive sacrifice from your hands, for from the
rising of the sun even to the going down thereof, n-y name is
made great in all nations, saith the Omnipotent Lord. And in
every place clean sacrifices are offered to My name. * * * For
that God is not appeased by earthly, but by spiritual sacri
fices, we thus read as it is written : A contrite and an hum
ble heart is a sacrifice to God. And elsewhere : Sacrifice to
God the sacrifice of praise, and render your vows to the Most
High. Thus, therefore, the spiritual sacrifices of praise are
indicated, and a broken heart is shown to be the acceptable
sacrifice to God."* Again, this eminent teacher, in another
treatise, refers to the same text of Malachi. " In every
place," saith He, " sacrifice is offered to My name, and a
clean sacrifice, to wit, simple prayer from a pure con
science. "f
Clement of Alexandria gives us the same doctrine, as
follows : —
" Therefore," saith he, " we must offer to God, not sump
tuous and splendid sacrifices, but those which are pious and
* Tertul. adv. Judsos, p 187-8.
t Tertul. adv. Marcion., L. 4, p. 414.

St. Augustine on Sacrifice. 215
acceptable to Him, ***** with a pure mind, a just and
true system of life, and the prayer of righteousness from
holy works."*
Thus, too, Augustine saith, " What sacrifices can you
offer to Him ? That you are not unmindful of His benefitsi
is a sacrifice with which He is pleased. Bless the Lord,
O my soul! The sacrifice of praise shall glorify me.
Immolate to God the sacrifice of praise, and pay thy vows
to the Most High. God wills Himself to be praised, and
that in order that you may be profited, not that He may be
exalted."! Again, " I have within,'' saith Augujstine, " the victim
which I immolate ; within, I have the incense which I
offer ; within, I have the sacrifice by which I shall move
my God. The sacrifice of God is a troubled spirit.'''^
There is a very beautiful sermon of this pre-eminent
father addressed to the youth, on Easter day, which, though
it makes a long quotation for a work like this, I cannot
doubt wiU reward the reader for the time spent in the
perusal : —
" I am mindful," saith Augustine, " of my promise. I
promised to you, who have been baptized, a sermon, in
which I should expound the Sacrament of the Lord's table,
which now you behold, and of which you were yesternight
made the partakers. You ought to know what you have
received, what you are about to receive, and what you ought
to receive daily. This bread which you see upon the altar,
sanctified by the word of God, is the body of Christ. This
cup, or rather what the cup contains, sanctified by the word
of God, is the blood of Christ. By these otur Lord Christ
* Clem. Alex. Strom., Lib. 7, p. 719.
t S. Augustin. Op., Tom. 4, p. 835, E.
X lb., 272, 4 17.

216 Letter XXXVIL

commends His body and His blood, which for us He shed
in remission of sins. If you have received rightly, you are
WHAT you have RECEIVED. For the Apostle saith. We
being many, are one bread and one body. Thus he expounds
the Sacrament of the Lord's table : We being many, are one
bread and one body. He commends to you in this bread
how you ought to love unity. For was this bread made
from one grain ? Were there not many grains of wheat ?
But before they became bread, they were separate : by
water they were joined together, and after a certain bruis
ing. For unless the wheat is ground, and sprinkled with
water, it cannot take the form which is called bread. Thus
also you were after a. manner ground by the humiliation of
fasting and the sacrament of exorcism. Then came bap
tism and water ; you were as if sprinkled, and you came to
the form of bread. But bread cannot yet be without fire.
What, therefore, signifies the fire ? That is chrism. For
the oil of our fire is the Sacrament of the Holy Spirit.
Take notice of this in the Acts of the Apostles, when it is
read. For now this book begins to be read. _ This day
begins the book which is called the Acts of the Apostles.
Whoever wishes to make progress, has it from thence.
When you come to the Church, put away vain fables, and
be intent upon the Scriptures. We are your books. Attend,
therefore, and see that the Holy Spirit is coming at Pente
cost. And thus He will come : He shows Himself in
tongues of fire. For He inspires love with which we burn
towards God, and despise the world, and our stubble is
burnt up, and our heart is purged like gold. Thus the Holy
Spirit comes, the fire after the water, and you become bread,
which is the body of Christ. And so unity is signified in a
certain manner. You hold the Sacraments according to
their order. First, after prayer, you are admonished to lift

St. Augustine on the Holy Eucharist. 217
up your hearts. This becomes you as the members of
Christ. For if you are made the members of Christ, where
is your Head 1 The members have a head. If the head
does not precede, the members do not follow. Whither
has your Head gone ? What have you answered in the
Creed ? On the third day He rose from the dead, He as
cended into heaven, He sits at the right hand of the Father.
Therefore our Head is ix heaven. So when it is said.
Lift up your hearts, you answer. We have, to the Lord. And
this itself, that you have the heart lifted up to the Lord, you
may not attribute to your own powers, your own merits,
your own labors, because it is the gift of God to have the
heart lifted up, therefore the Bishop or the Presbyter who
offers, follows, and says, when the people have answered.
We have the heart lifted up to the Lord : Let us give
THA.\KS to our Lord God, that we have the heart lifted
up. Let us give thanks, because, unless He had granted
it, we should have our heart in earthly things. And you
bear your testimony, saying, It is just and right that we
should give thanks to Him who makes us to have our heart
lifted up to our Head. Then, after the consecration of the
sacrifice of God, because He wills us to be His sacrifice —
which was demonstrated where that point was placed first,
that the sacrifice of God is also ourselves, that is* the sign
of the thing which we are — behold, when the consecration is
completed, we say the Lord's Prayer, which you have re
ceived and offered. After this it is said, Peace be with you,
and the Christians salute each other with a holy kiss.
This is the sign of peace ; as the lips show, so it should be
done in the conscience. That is, in like manner as your
lips approach the lips of your brother, so your heart may
not depart from him. Great, therefore, are the sacraments,
and very great. Would you know how they are com-
VOL. II. 10

218 Letter XXXVIL

mended ? The Apostle saith, '' Whosoever eateth the body
of Christ, or drinketh the cup of the Lord unworthily, shall be
guilty of the body and blood of the Lord." What is it to re
ceive unworthily ? To receive scoffingly, to receive dis
dainfully. Let not that which you see, seem vile to you.
What you see passes away ; but what is invisibly signified,
does not pass away, but remains. Behold, it is received, it
is eaten, it is consumed. But is the body of Christ
CONSUMED ? Is the ChURCH OF ChRIST CONSUMED 1
Are the members of Christ consumed ? God forbid !
Here they are cleansed : there they are crowned. What
is signified, therefore, will remain eternally, although it may
seem to pass away. Thus, then, do you receive, that you
may think of yourselves, that you may have unity in your
heart, that you may have your heart lifted up always. Let
your hope be not in earth, but in heaven : let your faith be
firm in God ; let it be acceptable to God. For that which
here you believe, though you see it not, you shall see there,
where you shall rejoice forever."*
In this most interesting relic of the Church in the fourth
century, we have not only a valuable proof of the form and
order of the Liturgy, but a copious amount of instruction on
the Eucharist, which is totally irreconcilable with the
modern ^hypothesis of Romanism. I have translated the
whole discourse as closely as I could, that it might suffer
no mutilation. And it is as clear as the light, that no man
could have preached such a sermon, who believed in any
transubstantiation of the elements, or any sacrifice of Christ
Himself, as a real victim upon the altar. The bread and
the wine are treated as figures, emblems, or representations
only. Christ Himself is in heaven, and therefore the heart
• S. Augustin. Op., Tom. 5, Sermo. 227, p. 667.

St. Augustine on true Sacrifice. 219
is lifted up to Him, the Head. The real sacrifice is the
body of communicants. Nor is there any inconsistency
between the view which regards the consecrated bread as
a symbol of the body of Christ, broken upon the cross for
us, and that which considers it as a symbol of His collected
body, the Church, according to the foregoing sermon of
Augustine, because both are so closely connected that the
one necessarily suggests the other, since it was for the sake
of His body, the Church, that He gave Himself to be cruci
fied, and it is for the sake of His atoning sacrifice that His
Church receives the blessed privilege of being accounted
His members. Both these significations, therefore, are
sanctioned by Augustine, and most of the early fathers.
Both are agreeable to Scripture. But both of them are
symbolical, and neither of them accords with the modern
doctrine of Rome, to which this sermon of Augustine does
not make the slightest allusion.
Let us next look at the definition of sacrifice given by
Augustine in the great work of his most mature age. The City
of God, where he treats it as follows : —
" True sacrifice,'' saith he, " is every work which is done,
in order that we may inhere in God by a holy association,
having relation to that end of good, by which we may be
come truly happy.. Therefore, man himself, consecrated by
the name of God, and devoted to God, in so fer as he
dies to the world that he may live to God, is a sacrifice.
Our body also, when we chasten it by temperance, in order
that we may not exhibit oiu; members as arras for the sin of
iniquity, but as the arms of righteousness to God, is a sac
rifice. If therefore the body, which the soul uses as an
inferior servant, or instrument, when its good and right use
is referred to God, is a sacrifice : how much more does the
soul itself — when it refers itself to God, in order that, being

220 Letter XXXVIL

inflamed with the fire of His love, it may cast away the form
of worldly concupiscence — become a sacrifice ? Hence, as
thie true sacrifices are the works of mercy, either to our
selves or to others, which are referred to God ; it results
that the whole redeemed City, that is, the congregation and
society of the saints, is offered as a universal sacrifice to
God, through that Great High Priest, who also offered Him
self in His suffering for us, that we might be the body of
such a Head, according to the form of a servant. For this
form He took upon Him, in this He was offered, according
to this He is our Mediator, in this He is our priest, in this
He is a sacrifice. And therefore the Apostle exhorts us
that we render our bodies a living sacrifice, holy, accepta
ble to God, which is our reasonable service — that we are
ourselves a well-pleasing, and perfect, and entire sacrifice. This
IS THE sacrifice OF CHRISTIANS. Which also the Church
celebrates in that sacrament of the altar known to the faith
ful, as it shows to her, that in the thing which she of
fers, SHE herself is OFFERED.""*
And thus Augustine, in places almost without number,
speaks of the Eucharist as a memorial of the One true Sac
rifice of Christ Himself upon the Cross. " Wherefore,''
saith he, " in the oblation and participation of the body and
blood of Christ, Christians celebrate the memorial of His
FiNisHRTi'sACRiFicE ;"t and when he refers to the sacrifice
actually offered in the sacrament, it is in consistency with
the foregoing, as when he saith that the Church " immo
lates to God the sacrifice of praise in the body of Christ."!
But the modern notion of your Church, that the priest in the
Mass immolates Christ as a true, proper, and propitiatory
\
* S. Augustin. Op., Tom. 7, De Civ. Dei., Lib. x., cap. vi., p. 185.
+ lb., Tom. 8, p. 245, F.
t lb., Tom. 8, p. 404.

St. Isidore of Seville. 221
sacrifice, has no countenance whatever from this eminent
doctor, nor can it be doubted that he would have regarded
it as a gross impiety.
From Augustine, I proceed to Jerome, who applies the
term sacrifice in the same way. The true worshipper, ac
cording to this eminent father, " finds what he immolates to
God, that is, praise. Hence he saith, I will immolate in
His tabernacle the sacrifice of shouting."* Indeed, it was
plainly impossible that Jerome should have held the notion
of a propitiatory sacrifice in the Eucharist, when he so dis
tinctly opposed the Romish sense of the real presence, and
maintained the true primitive doctrine, that the consecrated
elements were only types of the body and the blood.f
But not to detain the reader by a. needless multiplication
of special quotations from the fathers, I shall pass finally
to Isidore of Seville, who belongs to the early part of the
seventh century, and whose writings show the transition
state of the Church, in several particulars. This author,
with many others, applies the word sacrifice to the Eucha
rist, but in such terms as agree with us, and are quite irre
concilable with your modem doctrine. I shall give his lan
guage on the point, so as to prove this clearly : —
" The sacrifice," saith Isidore, " which is offered by Chris
tians to God, was first instituted by our Lord and Master
Christ, when He commended His body and blood to the
Apostles before He was betrayed : as it is read in the Gos
pel, Jesus took bread and the cup, and blessing, gave to them.
Which sacrament truly Melchizedec, the King of Salem,
first offered figuratively, as a type of the body and blood of
Christ, and first expressed the same mystery of such a sac
rifice in imagination (imaginarie), exhibiting the similituds
* S. Hieron., Tom. 8, p. 31.
t See quotation on p. 146.

222 Letter XXXVIL
of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, the eternal priest,
according to the order of Melchizedec. This sacrifice,
therefore, it is commanded that Christians should celebrate,
the Jewish sacrifices being finished and abandoned, which
were ordered to be offered in the servitude of the ancient
people." " And the bread which we break is the body of Christ,
who said, / am the bread of life, &c. And the wine is His
blood, for this is what is written, / am the true vine. But
the bread is therefore called the body of Christ, because it
strengthens the body : and the wine, because it produces
blood in the flesh, is referred to the blood of Christ. And
these two are visible ; nevertheless, being sanctified by the
Holy Spirit, they pass into the Sacrament" (i. e., the sign,
according to Isidore and all the fathers), " of the divine body.
And for this reason,as holy Cyprian saith, the cup of the
Lord is offered of wine mixed with water, because we see
that by the water the people are understood, and by the wine
is SHOWN the blood of Christ. And when water is mixed
with wine in the cup, the people are made one with Christ,
and the multitude of believers is incorporated and joined with
Him in whom they believe. Which copulation and conjunc
tion of the water and the wine is so mixed in the cup of
the Lord, that the mixture cannot be separated, as the Church
cannot be divided from Christ. But as the cup of our. Lord
Jesus Christ cannot be water alone nor wine alone, unless
they are mixed together, so neither can the body of the Lord
be flour alone nor water alone, unless each of these be
joined together and united, and the bread be thus made one
solid mass. By which sacrament" (or sign) " also, our peo
ple is shown to be united, for in like manner as many grains,
collected in one, and ground and mixed together, make one
bread, so in Christ, who is the heavenly bread, we know

Doctrine of the Fathers. 223
that there is one body to which our number is conjoined and
united."* Thus, then, we see a plain and consistent testimony,
proving that even so late as the seventh century, there was
no such idea in the Church as the true, proper, and propi
tiatory sacrifice of Christ Himself, in the Mass, notwith
standing the apparent confidence with which your favorite
author claims the fathers as witnesses. Indeed, the pas
sages which he sets down in a note from Justin, Irenseus,
and Cyprian, are nothing to the purpose, for they only as
sert that the Eucharist is a sacrifice, which no one denies.
What kind of sacrifice, is the question. Whether it be
a true, proper, and propitiatory sacrifice of Christ Himself,
by the act of the priest : or a sacramental, symbolical, and
commemorative sacrifice, according to our Lord's appoint
ment. Whether it be an actual, present sacrifice of the Son
of God : or an actual, present sacrifice of His body, the
Church, who are bound to offer themselves to the Most
High, as a holy, living, and acceptable sacrifice. Whether
the hearts of the communicants are to be fixed upon the
transubstantiated wafer, in the hands of the priest, adoring it
as the real body, blood, soul and divinity of the Redeemer : or
whether they are to be lifted up (sursum corda), accord
ing to St. Augustine, to contemplate Him as seated at the
right hand of the eternal throne. And we may confidently
defy the ingenuity of man to justify the modem system of
Rome by the fathers, if their whole testimony be honestly
taken together; or to disprove, by that testimony, the sound
ness and consistency of the doctrine laid down by the
Chyj-ch of England.
But even the very name which you have chosen to adopt
for this solemn sacrament, is another innovation, which your
* S. Isidor. Hispal., Dp Off., Lib. 1, Cap. xviii., p. 394-5.

224 Letter XXXVIL

own writers cannot trace to a period earlier than the latter
part of the fourth, or, more properly, the fifth century. The
word Mass is derived from the dismission of the catechu
mens or the unbaptized, together with all the rest of the con
gregation except the communicants, when the Liturgy ap
pointed for the Eucharist was about to be commenced.
The deacons proclaimed aloud, Ite, missa est, that is. De
part ye, it is dismissed : meaning that the mixed assembly
of the Church (Ecclesia) was dismissed. The popular
sense, however, converting the participle of the verb into a
noun, conceived the term Missa to signify the Eucharist it
self, and your Church, in due time, adopted the novelty with
her usual facility, and thus has arisen this unseemly epi
thet, instead of the really primitive phrases, of the Lord's
Supper, the Eucharist, &c. Therefore this term Missa, or
the Mass, is not to be found in St. Augustine, St. Jerome, or
the fathers who preceded them. It is very old, I admit, but
the Church of Christ is more than four centuries older.
And hence, our English Reformers laid this, too, aside, and
restored, with perfect propriety, the original, correct, and ex
pressive appellation.
I proceed now to the assertion of Dr. Milner, that " all
the Christians in the world, except the comparative few
who inhabit the North of Europe, hold the same doctrine,
as the Greeks, the Armenians, the Muscovites, the Euty-
chians, the Christians of St. Thomas in Africa, the Copts
and Abyssinians in Africa, notwithstanding they have been
totally separated from the Church of Rome, some of them
eight hundred, and some fourteen hundred years."
To this I answer, first, that the assertion is more#asy
than the proof. We are not by any means furnished with
accurate or reliable information concerning the peculiarities
of those various Churches. The accounts given to us by

Testimony of other Churches. 225
the Romish missionaries, who have been, for the most part,
Jesuits, are not trustworthy, by the repeated acknowledg
ments of their own brethren. And Protestant missionaries
have not yet supplied the deficiency. But we know enough
to prove that Dr. Milner's statement affords no proper evi
dence upon the question, for the following indisputable rea
sons : —
1st. Because those Churches have never withdrawn the
cup from the laity. Would your favorite author allow this
fact to prove that Rome is in the wrong ?
2dly. Because they deny the authority, and deride the
assumed infallibility, of the Church of Rome. Would he
admit this to be an evidence against her ?
3dly. Because some of their Patriarchs, as Fleury re
lates, have excommunicated her. Does this prove that the
excommunication was lawful ?
4th. Because the Roman missionaries have had hardly
any success in proselyting them. Does this look like agree
ment in their doctrines 1
5th. Because the corruption of the Church had proceeded
to a considerable length before the great schism of the ninth
century, and most of these separated Churches had their
share in it previous to the separation, which was chiefly
produced by the overweening ambition of the Papacy.
What is the evidence worth, therefore, even if they were
found to agree ?
6th. Because the test of truth to which Dr. Milner would
here seem to appeal, is no test at all, upon his own princi
ples. For the mle which Rome herself professes to ac
knowledge is the Catholic rule of Vincent of Lerins, what
has been believed always, everywhere, and by all. And
hence she acknowledges, in theory at least, that every
question must be decided by the Scriptures and the fathers.
vol. II, 10*

226 Letter XXXVIL

7th. Because it is preposterous to extract evidence from
Churches which Rome does not allow to be witnesses at
all. These Oriental Christians are excommunicated heretics,
according to the Roman system, and hence she holds their
testimony to be inadmissible. By what rule of justice or
of law, therefore, can Dr. Milner ask us to hear them on
the one side, while he refuses to hear "them on the other ?
Your favorite author next presents to his readers what he
calls " the inconsistencies of the Church of England respect
ing this point. She has priests, but no sacrifice ! She has
altars, but no victim ! She has an essential consecration of
the sacramental elements, without any the least effect upon
them .'" To this flourish, which is certainly a good speci
men of the ad captandum style, I make the following reply,
which will be sufficient to show, to any intelligent mind,
that the inconsistencies are on the side of Rome, and not
on that of England.
For, in the first place, the term priest has no necessary rela
tion to the offering of sacrifice, in the Romish sense of the term.
I have proved at large, by your own version of the Scriptures,
and by the fathers, that sacrifice includes every offering of faith
and piety made to God, and that the best of them all is the liv
ing sacrifice of ourselves to His service, in the words of St.
Augustine. I have also shown that the Eucharistic oblation
may be considered as a sacrifice, according to the fathers ;
not in your sense of a true, proper, and propitiatory sacri
fice, but in the figurative, symbolical, and commemorative
acceptation. Moreover, Melchizedec is called a priest, al
though he offered np sacrifice but bread' and wine: It is,
therefore, a mere absurdity to limit the term priest to the
person who " immolates a living animal or other setisible thing
to God," or to confine the word sacrifice to the thing so im
molated. And hence, in this assumption, Rome is incon-

Sacerdos and Sacerdotium. 227
sistent with the Scriptures, with the fathers, and with the
true sense of the language which Dr. Milner employs in
his proposition.
In addition to this, however, many of our writers insist
that the -word priest is used in a double sense in Scripture :
the Greek Ispeig and the Latin sacerdos, being applied to
the priesthood of the Mosaic dispensation, whereas the
Greek TTge(T6vTeQog, and the Latin presbyter, are employed,
when we read of the corresponding ministry of the Gospel sys
tem. From the Latin presbyter came the old French prestre,
and from that is derived our English word priest. Hence,
as this one English term is employed to signify both the
terms m the Greek and the Latin, it does not necessarily
import the function of animal sacrifice, which belonged to
the Levitical priesthood, but is rather to be held in the New
Testament sense of the Elder or Presbyter ; and several of
our most esteemed authors consider this as its only proper
meaning. I state this, however, merely in deference to the opinions
of my brethren, who have adopted this view, For myself,
I do not consider it at all required to meet the supposed dif
ficulty. 1st, Because it is certain that the fathers, univer
sally, employ the word sacerdos, without scruple, when
speaking of the Christian priesthood. 2dly, Because the
true meaning of the term sacrifice, when properly under
stood, renders the distinction quite unnecessary. 3dly, Be
cause the word sacerdotium, considered etymologically, sig
nifies no more than the office exercised by special gift con
cerning holy things, being compounded of dos, a gift, and
sacer, holy. And 4th, Because, although we do not pos
sess the noun in English, yet we retain the true enlarged
meaning, established firmly, in the adjective sacerdotal.
Doubtless, the fact stated with respect to our English term

228 Letter XXXVIL

priest being derived from the Latin presbyter, through the
French prestre (now modernized into pretre by dropping
the letter s), is perfectly true and indisputable. But I do
not use it in the present argument, believing that the real
merits of the question are more satisfactorily settled with
out it, according to the genuine sense of antiquity.
I proceed, therefore, to the next alleged inconsistency,
viz., that the Church of England "has altars,h\ii no vic
tim." And here Dr. Milner has entirely overshot his mark,
although, to an uninformed or unreflecting mind, he may
seem to have hit it with singular precision. It will not be
a difficult task, however, to expose the fallacy. But I
must bespeak your attention. Most Reverend Sir, to the re
marks which I shall offer, because I hold the point before
us to involve a most instructive example of theological jug
gling. When Dr. Milner reproaches us with having altars, but
710 victim, he assumes, of course, that an altar must needs
be a place for the offering up of a victim, according to the
sacrificial theory, which I have already examined and dis
proved. But this is a plain and manifest error, in the very
face of the Word of God, according to your own Douay
Bible. For there we read* of " the altars of incense," where
no other sacrifice was offered. Again, we read,t that the chil
dren of Reuben, of Gad, and Manasses, when they returned
from the wars of Canaan, " built an altar immensely great
near the Jordan." And this altar was " not for holocausts,
nor to offer victims, but for ai testimony. "J Hence, they
" called the altar which they l^ad built. Our testimony, that
the Lord is God."§ Again, in the Apocalypse, || the Apos-
*
* Exod. XXX. 27. t Josh. xxii. IG.
% See V. 26-7. I) Verse 34.
IJ Chap. vi. 9.

Meaning of the Wor'd Altar. 229
tie John saith, " I saw under the altar the souls of them that
were slain for the word of God, and for the testimony which
they held." And your own commentators, in the note, say
that " Christ, as man, is this altar, under which the souls of
the martyrs live in heaven, as their bodies are here de
posited under our altars." In the same book,* we read fur
ther, that " another angel came and stood before the altar,
having a' golden censer; and there was given unto him
much incense, that he should offer of the prayers of all
saints upon the golden altar, which is before the throne of
God. And again,! '"'e read as follows : — " I heard a voice
from the four horns of the golden altar which is before the
eyes of God."
Here, then, we see that the word altar does not neces
sarily import a place to offer animal sacrifice, or to immo
late a sensible victim, since the Scriptures speak of an
altar for offering incense, an altar erected for a memorial or
testimony, an altar as a symbol of Christ in reference to
the souls of the martyrs, and an altar at which the prayers of
the saints were offered by the angel before the throne of
God, &c.
And in like manner, Augustine saith, that " we can re
ceive the altar spiritually in the inward temple of God (that
is, our heart), by receiving the faith itself, of which the visi
ble altar is the sign"'^
So, Jerome, in his Commentary an the text in the 50th
Psalm, " Then shall they place young calves upon thy altar,"
saith, " The altar is faith, because whatever thou offer-
est, thou oughtest to offer through faith. The calves are
* Rev. viii. 3. f lb. ix. 13.
t S. August., Tom. 3, p. 126, Pars. 2. And see, De Civit Dei, L.
10, cap. iii.

230 Letter XXXVII.
praises, or thoughts, or victims, to wit, that I should offer
myself as a living sacrifice, well pleasing to thee."*
And Isidore of Seville, defining the two words Ara and
Altare, both of which we translate Altar, saith, that " Ara
is said by some to be so named, because the incense of the
victim is burned there, while others say that it is so called
from the prayers which the Greeks call dpag.'' " Altare,"
he adds, " is so called from its height, as if we should say,
alta ara."\
Thus, therefore. Dr. Milner's Romish notion that there
can be no altar unless there be the immolation of an animal
or some sensible thing, is shown to be perfectly incon
sistent with your own Scriptures, and the fathers. And .
hence, though the Church of England " has altars, and no
victim," yet she is sustained by the highest authority to
which you profess to make your appeal. The altar of the
pure faith is there, the altar of the spiritual incense of prayer
and praise, the altar before which we devote ourselves, as
a holy, living sacrifice, acceptable to God, and along with
these, the altar of memorial or testimony, at which we offer
the fig«rative or symbolical body and blood of the blessed
Redeemer. But what shall I say of the gross inconsistency with
which Dr. Milner claims a superiority for your Church, on
the ground that your altars have a victim, when it is certain
that your own doctrine stands opposed to the idle boast, and
shows it to be a pure delusion ? For although you teU us
that by virtue of your dogma of Transubstantiation, the con
secrated bread and wine are changed into the actual Christ,
body, blood, soul and divinity, yet Dr. Milner knew, and
* S. Hieron., Tom. 8, p. 61, B., Com. in Psal. 4.
t Isid. Hispal. Originum, Lib. Ifi, t. 4, p. 131.

Immolation of a Victim. 231
you know. Most Reverend Sir, that your Council of Trent
did not presume to assert that the Saviour is actually immo
lated in the Mass, but only mystically, that is, figuratively,
symbolically, or sacramentally. Read, I pray you, the
words of your Council, that in the last Supper, our Lord
and Saviour " left a visible sacrifice to His Church, by
which that bloody sacrifice once to be perfected upon the
cross MIGHT BE REPRESENTED, and its memory might re
main to the end of the world." Relinqueret sacrificium visi-
hile, quo cruentum illud semel in cruce peragendum repr.2ESEN-
TARETUR, ejusque memoria in finem usque soiculi permaneret.*
And again, " He instituted the new Pasch, that He Himself
should be immolated by the Church through her priests
UNDER VISIBLE SIGNS, in memory of His departure from this
world to His Father." Novum instituit Pascha, seipsum ab
Ecclesia per sacerdote's sub signis visibilibus immolandum,
in memoriam transitus sui ex hoc mundo ad Patrem.\
It was in accordance with this that Dr. Milner, in his
statement, used the language quoted dn page 190. "For
this purpose, namely, a sacrifice,'' saith he, " it was requi
site that a victim should be really present, and at least mysti
cally immolated, which was then, and still is, performed in
the Mass." That is to say, the immolation, in the language
of the Council of Trent, is represented, under visible signs.
But this is not having a real victim. You would not, surely,
so mock the common sense of mankind as to contend that
there can be a real victim without a real immolation, because
it is the immolation which makes the victim. Hence, as
the immolation is only represented under visible signs, there
is only a representative or symbolical victim. And therefore,

* Hard. Con., Tom. 10, Con. Trident., Sess. xxii., cap. 1, p. 126.
tlb

232 Letter XXXVIL

even if your doctrine of Transubstantiation were true, and
Christ were really present, yet it would be perfectly absurd
to say, as Dr. Milner does, that a victim is really present,
when there is no real victim at all.
Thus, then, it is manifest, that when he reproaches us
with having altars, but no victim, he makes a charge which
rebounds upon his own Church, if he means a real victim..
And if he means the symbol or sacramental sign of a victim,
he asserts what is simply untrue, because the consecrated
elements, being the representative body and blood of Christ,
are the sacramental and visible signs of the real victim as
truly with" us as with you. And therefore the inconsistency
is not in the Church of England, but in the Church of Rome.
Because we maintain that the proper meaning of altar agrees
perfectly well with our commemorative sacrifice of the ap
pointed symbols, together with our real sacrifice of prayer
and praise, and of ourselves, according to the fathers.
Whereas Dr. Milner restricts the term altar to the immola
tion of a real victim, while he is obliged to admit that the
sacrifice of that victim is only mystical, or, in the words of
your Council of Trent, merely represented, under visible
signs, or emblems. A grosser inconsistency than this can
hardly be found in the whole range of theology, and yet it
passes current with your most approved masters in Israel.
The last rebuke of your favorite author, on the score of
our alleged inconsistencies, is founded upon the accusation
that the Church of England has an essential consecration of
the sacramental elements, without any the least effect upon
them. If he had said, without any change in their material sub
stance, he would have stated the truth. But as he repre
sents the matter, he has averred, first, what is false ; sec
ondly, what is absurd ; and thirdly, what implicates his own

The Change produced by Consecration. 233
Church to the same extent, in other parts of her doctrine.
Permit nie. Most Reverend Sir, to demonstrate the correct
ness of this assertion.
Before the elements are consecrated, they are common
bread and wine. After they are consecrated, we hold them
to have beconjt, by our Lord's appointment, the symbolical
images or symbols of His body and blood, and by virtue of
this, that the faithful receivers are made, in the act of their
reception, the partakers of His blessed sacrifice in a heavenly
and spiritual manner. Is there no effect here 1 Are not the
common bread and wine converted into a solemn sacrament,
and made the outward and visible signs of an inward and
spiritual grace ? Thus, then, I prove the falsehood of the
allegation. Its absurdity is equally manifest. For if there were no
effect produced, why should they be consecrated ? What
could be more absurd than to change them from a common
to a holy use, to change their names by a new and sacred
appellation, and to change their application from the ordi
nary purpose of nourishing the body, to the religious end of
strengthening and refreshing the soul, through the grace
attached to their faithful reception, and yet, notwithstanding
-all this, to maintain that no change at all has resulted from
the act of consecration ? Thus it is perfectly obvious that
Dr. Milner has charged us, not only with what is false, but
also with what imports a complete absurdity.
And thirdly, I have said that his accusation implicates
his own Church to the same extent, in other parts of her
doctrine. For tell me, I pray you, whether, you would ven
ture to say that when you consecrate the Holy Water, or
the Chrism in Confirmation, there is not any the least effect
produced upon them ? You know that you hold consecration
to be essential, in both these cases. And yet you do not

234 Letter XXXVIL

pretend that the material substance of the water or the oil
undergoes any physical change. But you maintain that
notwithstanding this, they are changed by virtue of their
consecration, in their names, their uses, and their qualities,
so as to be effective instruments for spiritual purposes,
which they could not have been without. it. With what
face, then, could Dr. Milner accuse the Church of England
of inconsistency, for holding consecration to be essential to
the Eucharistic elements, although there is not any the least
effect produced upon them in their material substance, when
your own Church holds the very same doctrine with respect
to two of her most cherished rites and usages 1 I have
already proved that some of the ancient fathers compared
the change of the elements in the Eucharist to this very
change of the consecrated Chrism ; for the use of Chrism,
being derived from the Jewish law, was introduced into the
Church as early as the time of Tertullian, in the latter part
of the second century, although it can lay no claim to Apos
tolic sanction. As to your Holy Water, however, I do not
find it mentioned by the fathers, nor is it easy to discover
any better paternity for it than the lustral water of Pagan
Rome. And now, having noticed all the material allegations of
your favorite author, on the Sacrifice of the Mass, and
proved that there is not the slightest warrant for your doc
trine in the Scriptures, or the primitive Church, I conclude
by showing the justice of the declaration in our Articles,
that it is a blasphemous fable and a dangerous deceit.
It is blasphemous, first, because it is injurious to the ma
jesty of the Son of God to assert that He can be offered
up as a propitiation for the living and the dead, at the will
of an earthly priest, since that blessed offering is the sole
work of His own divine mercy. Thus He declares in ref-

A blasphemous Fable. 235
erence to His actual sacrifice :* No man taketh my life from
me, but I lay it down of myself. I have power to lay it down,
and I have power to take it again. Yet here is a class of
clergy who claim the power to hold in their hands the body,
blood, soul and divinity of the infinitely glorious and Sov
ereign Lord of heaven and earth, and offer Him, in the guise
of a consecrated wafer, as a true, proper, and propitiatory sac
rifice, on ten thousand altars every day ! Truly, it seems
impossible to imagine a more stupendous piece of blas
phemous presumption.
It is blasphemous, secondly, because it arrogates the ex
press authority of God Himself for this act of profanity, in
direct opposition to His declaration : I will not give my
glory to another. For how does the glory of God dis
play itself most pre-eminently to our fallen race, but in the
marvellous act of His divine mercy in offering His only be
gotten Son as a sacrifice for the sins of the world ? Did
not the angels, at the birth of Christ, proclaim on this ac
count. Glory to God in the highest ? Yet Rome pre
tends to invest her priesthood with a similar majesty, giving
them authority to offer up the same Redeemer, in a true,
proper, and propitiatory sacrifice, and to apply this sacrifice,
at their pleasure, to the living and the dead ! And they
dare to assume this awful power, in the name of the Al
mighty !
It is blasphemous, thirdly, because it subjects the glorious
Saviour <jf the world to the control of the priests, who are
only His servants. For they undertake to offer him up as
a true, proper, and propitiatory sacrifice. But it is impossi
ble to sacrifice anything which God has not placed in our
control, and made our special property. All the sacrifices
* John X. 18.

236 Letter XXXVIL

of which we read, were thus subject to the will of the sac
rificer. The lambs, the cattle, the doves, the flour, the
oil, which were offered to God in the Old Testament, were
in this way the property of those who brought them in sac
rifice. The sacrifices of praise, of contrition, of obe
dience of heart and life, were also under the control of the
sacrificer, and hence it is a perfect absurdity to say that any
man can sacrifice what is not given to him as his own, so
that it is strictly subject to his individual will and disposi
tion. Therefore, if your priests have power to offer Christ
in sacrifice, it results of necessity, that Christ is subject to
them, and that they exercise dominion over the Son of God !
And how can we conceive a more awful blasphemy !
In these three respects, then, the denunciation of the
Church of England is fully justified. Your popular doc
trine she holds to be a blasphemous fable, because it de
grades the majesty of Christ, because it usurps the author
ity of God, because it treats the Sovereign Lord of heaven
and earth as if he were the property of His own servants.
And yet, we pronounce no curse upon you, notwithstanding.
It is YOUR Church, who, in her Council of Trent, commits
a further blasphemy by cursing, over and over again, in her
solemn Anathemas, ourselves, and all who hold, with us, the
pure truth of the Holy Scriptures, and the doctrine of the
primitive fathers ; thus daring to assume another divine pre
rogative — yea, overruling the Word of the Most High, and
proclaiming their insane decree as the infallibly standard
for the divine judgment !
But I have not yet done with this painful topic. The
Church of England pronounces your doctrine to be not only
a blasphemous fable, but a dangerous deceit. I proceed,
therefore, to this charge, as a task of duty.
First, then, it is a deceit, because your Council evades

A dangerous Deceit. 237
the error of declaring that Christ is actually immolated in
sacrifice by the priests, and admits that His real sacrifice is
only represented under «mJZes?]g'ns, while, nevertheless, they
maintain that Lie is ofl'ered as a real victim, in the Mass,
which is therefore a true, proper, and propitiatory sacrifice
for the living and the dead. But what is this fine distinc
tion worth, in the general apprehension of your deluded
people ? What more could you say of the awful atone
ment on the Cross of Calvary, than that it was a true, prop
er, and propitiatory sacrifice for the living and the dead *?
And is there, in the history of human sophistry, a greater
deceit than this, which, while it carefully avoids declaring a
direct falsehood on the one hand, claims boldly the whole
practical effect of the falsehood on the other 1
Secondlv, it is a dangerous deceit, because it chains your
priests to the continual maintenance of an awful imposture,
most perilous to their own souls ; because it deludes the
great majority of your people to a vain confidence in a false
assumption ; because it leads them to trust to your imagin
ary prerogative, far more than to the true sacrifice of their
own hearts and lives to the service of the Redeemer ; be
cause it tempts them to feel safe in the purchase of Masses,
instead of striving to work out their salvation by the fruits
of holiness ; in a word, because it virtually puts the priest
in the place of Christ, by making his sacerdotal will the
effectual arbiter of their eternal destiny.
I have now closed. Most Reverend Sir, this tedious exam
ination of the grievous errors and corruptions of your mod
ern Church, connected with your dogma of Transubstantia
tion, and your Sacrifice of the Mass. Doubtless you will
think my language severe, and sadly deficient in courtesy.
But I hope you will remember that I am engaged in the
work of defending the doctrines of divine truth, against a

238 Letter XXXVIL

writer whose whole book is a constant, unsparing, and bit
ter libel upon the Reformed Church of England, and upon
ourselves, who are her offspring. I hope you will remem
ber that I am vindicating the genuine principles of the Gos
pel, against a Church which gives us curses instead of
courtesy, and which, when she had the power, tortured our
forefathers in the dungeon, and burned them alive in the
flames. I hope you will remember that I make no attack
upon individual character, though Dr. Milner has assailed
our martyred reformers with the strongest and coarsest in
vectives ; that on the contrary, I have allowed the virtue
and piety of a portion amongst the members and priesthood
of your Church, even in the darkest times of her acknowl
edged licentiousness, and that I feel no other sentiment
towards them all, at this day, than that of the kindliest per
sonal good- will. My sole motive, in my humble work, is
to contend earnestly for the truth once delivered to the saints,
not only according to the precept, but in the spirit, of the
Apostle ; determined to do it thoroughly, that there might
be no loop-hole through which error might escape expo
sure ; and yet, I trust, with a constant recollection that for
all that I have written, as well as for the temper in which
I write, I have a solemn account to render to the Searcher
of Hearts, when you and I shall stand before His great tri
bunal. Let it only be read in the same temper, and I ask
no more.

The End of Controversy, Controverted. 239

LETTER XXXVIII.
Most Reverend Sir :
The doctrine of your Church in reference to your priest
ly absolution, enforced by means of the private confessional,
forms the subject of your favorite author's forty-flrst letter ;
and here we have his usual ingenuity in the quotations of
the Scriptures, the reference to the fathers, and the claim
ing of the Church and writers of England as being sub
stantially on his side, while there is, of course, a careful
suppression of the true history of the matter, and a strong
statement of the great advantages and comforts derived from
this part of your discipline.
The clearest method of explaining the controversy be
twixt our respective Churches in relation to this important
point, will be to show, first, the common ground in which
we agree, and then the contrasted particulars in which we
differ. After this will come the history of your Church's
innovations, with the proofs, and a few remarks on the al
leged superiority of her system. The result will exhibit
another example of the antagonism of Rome, and the fidel
ity of England, to the tme scriptural and primitive rule.
Both Churches, in common with all the other Churches in
the world, agree in the necessity of repentance of sin, con
fession of sin, and absolution from sin, without which (the
case of infants alone excepted) there can be no salvation.

240 Letter XXXVIIL
But Rome has erected uoon these what she calls the Sacra
ment of Penance, and this, from the Catechism of the
Council of Trent, prepared for the instruction of your par
ish priests, I shall now proceed to explain.
Penance includes, in the first place, repentance, accord
ing to the ordinary scriptural and correct meaning, about
which there is no controversy. But we utterly deny the
authority of Rome to change the scriptural term of Re
pentance into Penance, because on that change she has en
grafted various corruptions of doctrine, which could not
have succeeded so readily in deluding mankind, if the true
term had been retained. Thus, for example, when our Sa
viour saith, " Repent ye, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand"
your Douay Bible represents Him as saying : " Do pen
ance, _/br the kingdom of heaven is at hand." The perver
sion of meaning is obvious here, at a glance, and your Bi
ble repeats it in every place, where the structure of the
sentence made it possible.
But from penance, considered as repentance, and which is
rightly treated as an internal virtue of the soul, because it
is a godly sorrow for sin, attended by the resolution to for
sake it, I pass on to what your Church, in her Catechism,
terms external penance, which constitutes her Sacrament of
Penance, and consists of certain sensible things significant
of that which passes in the soul. And its integral parts are
contrition, confession, and satisfaction.
Contrition is well defined as " a sorrow and detestation
of past sin, with a purpose of sinning no more." But your
Trentine Catechism, though it allows that contrition blots
out sin, yet asserts that " few reach the degree of ardor and
intensity which is necessary to make it effectual." And
hence, the aid is required which is furnished by the powef
of the priest, through which absolution may be obtained.

The Sacrament of Penance. 241
when the sinner " does not bring with him that contrition
which may be sufficient of itself to secure his pardon."
Confession is next defined to be a " sacramental accusa
tion of one's self, made to obtain pardon by virtue of the
keys,'' that is, by virtue of the power of remitting sins with
which the priest is supposed to be invested. In the tribu
nal of penance, therefore, the priest is the judge who ex
amines the cause, in order to determine the condition of the
sinner. And " the voice of the priest," saith your Cate
chism of Trent, " is to be heard as that of Christ Himself,
who said to the lame man, Son, be of good cheer, thy sins
are forgiven thee,"
The age at which confession of sins to the priest
should begin, is " as soon as children are able to discern
good from evil, and are capable of malice." And the times
of confession are at least once a year.
All mortal sins must be revealed to the priest, although
buried in the darkest secrecy, and also sins of desire only,
together with all the accompanying circumstances. And
so important is this integrity to confession, that " if the
penitent wilfully neglects to accuse himself, or suppresses
anything that he ought to reveal, he not only fails to obtain
the pardon of his sins, but involves himself in deeper guilt."
" Secrecy must be strictly observed as well by the peni
tent as by the priest, and therefore no one can, on anv ac
count, confess by messenger or letter."
The third part of your sacrament of penance is satisfac
tion. And this word signifies " the compensation made by
man to God, by doing something in atonement for the sins
which he has committed."
It is granted in your Catechism that the first degree of
satisfaction, which stands pre-eminently above the rest, is
that for which we are indebted to Christ alone. But that
VOL. II. 11

242 Letter XXXVIIL
which constitutes a part of the Sacrament of Penance " must
be imposed by the priest, and be accompanied with a delib
erate and firm purpose to avoid sin for the future."
Every species of this last kind of satisfaction is included
under the three heads of prayer, fasting, and alms-deeds.
And God has granted to our frailty, saith your Cate
chism, " the privilege that one may satisfy for another."
If the penitent has been guilty of injuring his neighbor
in property or character, the priest should insist, before giv
ing absolution, that he make restitution or reparation for the
injury. And in imposing penances, the confessor must be
guided by justice, prudence, and piety.
The power of the priests " is not simply to declare that
sins are forgiven, but, as the ministers of God, really to ab
solve from sin . a power which God Himself exercises
through their ministry."
" Humbled in spirit, the sincere penitent casts himself
down at the feet of the priest. In the minister of God,
who sits in the tribunal of penance as his legitimate judge,
he venerates the power and person of our Lord Jesus Christ,
for, in the administration of this, as in that of the other sac
raments, the priest represents the character and discharges the
functions of Jesus Christ."
" To penance belongs, in so special a manner, the efficacy
of remitting actual guilt, that without its intervention," saith
your Catechism, " we cannot obtain or even hope for pardon''
These statements are taken direct from your Catechism
of Trent, and I shall only add to them the 21st Canon of
your fourth Council of Lateran, which established your mod
ern system in A. D. 1215, in these words : —
" Every believer of either sex, after coming to years of
discretien, shall faithfully confess all his sins alone, at least
once a year, to his own priest, and shall endeavor, to the ut-

The true Point in Controversy. 243
most of his power, to fulfil the penance enjoined, receiving
reverently, at least at Easter, the Sacrament of the Eucha
rist, unless, perhaps, through the counsel of his own priest,
for some reasonable cause, he should conclude to abstain at
that time from its reception : otherwise let him be prohibited
from entering the Church while living, and dying, be deprived
of Christian burial. Wherefore, let this salutary law be
frequently published in the Churches, lest any one may
assume the veil of excuse from the blindness of igno
rance."* It was soon after this that the form of absolution was
changed from the ancient prayer, " May the Omnipotent God
grant to thee absolution and remission," to your modern form,
" I absolve thee." This is admitted by all your really
learned and candid theologians, Morinus, Menard, &c.
And Thomas Aquinas himself, although he defends the
change as right and proper, does not deny that it was an
innovation. This may suffice to show what is the point of controversy.
It is not about the duty of confessing our sins to God, con
tinually, and beseeching Him, who alone has power, to for
give us for the sake of His Son Jesus Christ. Neither is
it about the duty of genuine repentance and contrition for
our offences. Nor is it about the duty of confessing our
sins to any of our brethren whom we may have offended,
and making all the reparation in our power. These things
are admitted by all Christians, and there is no dispute about
their obligation.
Nor does the controversy involve any question as to the
power of remitting sins granted by our Lord to the Apos
tolic office, and always believed to be an essential part of
* Hard. Con. Gen., Tom. 7, p. 35.

244 Letter XXXVIIL

the inward and invisible grace attached to the faithful recep
tion of the Sacraments of Baptism and the Eucharist.
But the controversy turns on your modern act of priestly
despotism, in erecting a private tribunal of compulsory
judgment, before which all believers of either sex, in order
to obtain absolution from their sins, are forced to come, once
a year, and accuse themselves at the feet of the priest, and
submit their conscience to be questioned about every act
and even every thought of mortal sin, according to the priest's
good pleasure, and receive his mandate as to the works of
penance which he shall think fit to impose, as if it were
the voice of Christ Himself, under the awful penalty of
being excluded from the Church and the Sacraments while liv
ing, and deprived of Christian burial when dead. And all
this, too, is done in secrecy, so that every priest is trusted as
if he were an infallible judge, and there is no remedy against
his mistakes, his ignorance, his licentiousness, or his pre
sumption, although the whole arrangement is such as to ex
pose him to the strongest temptations which can be held
out to human infirmity.
In addition to which, we charge your modern Church
with error in making Penance a sacrament; in changing the
ancient form of simple prayer, that God would mercifully ab
solve the penitent, into the positive form of "I absolve
thee ;" in the most superstitious and absurd doctrine, that
one man may perform satisfaction for the sins of another ; and
in the utterly false and unscriptural notion, that the sinner
may render compensation to God by doing something in atone
ment for his sins.
The difference between the Churches of Rome and Eng
land may therefore be stated as follows :—
1. Rome exalts Penance, including private confession
and absolution to the priest, into a sacrament, necessary to

Differences as to Penance. 245
salvation. England allows repentance and faith to be thus
necessary, which are states of the soul, and denies that
Penance is a sacrament at all.
2. Rome exacts auricular confession and priestly absolu
tion, as a distinct private preliminary to the reception of the
Eucharist. England requires only the uniting in the con
fession and prayers of the Liturgy, submitting the sincerity
of the communicant to God, who reads the heart.
3. Rome makes the neglect of her modem imposition lia
ble to the punishment of exclusion from the Church while the
party is living, and from Christian burial when dead. Eng
land abjures the whole of this, as a cruel act of priestly
tyranny. 4. Rome imposes penance, as a satisfaction to the justice
of God, at the private dictation of the priest in the secret
tribunal. England gives no power to the priest to impose
penance at all, and condemns the doctrine that the sinner
can do anything to satisfy the divine justice, as an invasion
of the sole, office of Christ, and destructive to the genuine
humility of the sinner.
5. Rome demands secrecy, not only from the priest, but
also from the penitent ; so that if the priest should err, the
people have no remedy. England requires no secrecy from
the penitent, and every error of the priest is open to the
fullest detection.
6. Rome exacts a full confession to the priest of every
mortal sin, and even of the secret thoughts, without which the
penitent not only receives no absolution, but increases his
guilt. England exacts nothing, but only allows her priests to
hear what any one may seek to communicate, so far as his
own voluntary desire and sense of propriety may incline
him. 7. Rome begins her work of the confessional with young

246 Letter XXXVIIL
children, before they are admitted to confirmation or com
munion. England limits her allowance to communicants
only. 8. Rome, in her Council of Trent, teaches that " the im
perfect contrition which is called attrition, since it is com
monly conceived either from the consideration of the infamy
of sin, or from the fear of hell and punishment, if it excludes
the intention of sinning, and has the hope of pardon,'' suf
fices for absolution from the priest. England promises the
pardon of sin, on the contrary, only to a genuine contrition,
and holds the doctrine of Rome to be a dangerous delu-^
sion. 9. Rome commands the penitent to cast himself down at
the feet of the priest, and to listen to his voice as the voice of
Christ Himself. England condemns this abject slavery, and
remembers the conduct of the Apostle Peter, saying to Cor
nelius, " Stand up, for I also am a man."
10. Rome holds that one man may satisfy God for the
sins of another. England condemns this, as a most false and
perilous impiety. In a word, the Church of England per
mits any communicant who cannot have peace in his con
science by his own prayers and pious exercises, to consult
his pastor, as his best and wisest friend and counsellor, and
open his grief in private, so far as he thinks fit ; and if he
desires it, he may receive not only comfort and advice, but
also the act of absolution, if his priest believes him to be
truly contrite for his sin. And even this allowance, though
only granted at the wish of the communicant himself, is
limited in our American Church, which has properly taken
away the Romish form of " I absolve thee," and allows of
no sentence of absolution except what is set forth in the
public Liturgy in connection with the Eucharist. Whereas
your modern Church lays upon all your people the yoke of

Forgiving and retaining Sins. 247
absolute bondage to the priest ; forcing them all, without
exception, to come up, whether willing or unwilling, and
bare their inmost thoughts to his inspection ; making him
the unlimited master of husband and wife, parent and child,
by his knowledge of their most secret faults, and even de
sires ; delivering them, bound by the strongest kind of
slavery, to hi.s secret disposal, and thus virtually putting
him into the place of God. And this. Most Reverend Sir,
is Rome's idea of Christian liberty !
I have now shovvu, as I trust sufficiently, the amazing ef
frontery with which your favorite author mystifies the sub
ject in his ingenious, but utterly uncandid, attempt to prove
that the doctrine of Rome is substantially justified by the
doctrine of England. And I shall next proceed to prove
that your modern system is entirely repugnant to the Scrip
tures and the primitive Church, and is, like all the rest of
your corruptions, a pure innovation upon the Apostolic rule.
With respect to the Scriptures, we acknowledge, of
course, that our blessed Lord and Saviour, after His resur
rection, " breathed upon His Apostles, and said to them : Re
ceive ye the Holy Ghost: whose sins you shall forgive, they are
forgiven to them ; and whose sins you shall retain, they are re
tained."* The question is. How did the Apostles exercise
this heavenly gift 1 Was it only in connection with the ad
ministration of the sacraments ? Or did they erect a distinct
tribunal of private confession and absolution besides, and
force every baptized man, woman, and child, to submit their
secret thoughts to secret priestly inspection ?
To this, every reader of the Acts, and other writings
of the Apostles, can easily furnish a decisive reply. These
inspired men required repentance towards God, and faith
* St. John, XX. 22-3.

248 Letter XXXVIIL
towards our Lord Jesus Christ, and then administered Bap
tism for the remission of sins,* to those whom they judged
to be truly penitent and believing. Then came the laying
on of the Apostles' hands, or what is now called confirma
tion, with the invocation of the Holy Spirit,t and then the
admission to the full fellowship of the holy Eucharist. J
Having thus become invested with all the privileges of the
members of Christ, they continued to enjoy them -until death,
unless they committed some gross offence against the rule
of the Gospel precepts which called for discipline. In this
case, they were put away from the communion of the
Church,^ and not restored again until their repentance and
reformation v/ere satisfactory to their brethren. ||
Now, it is certain that throughout the whole of this sim
ple and beautiful system, the Apostles exercised their office
of remitting or retaining sins. For the sins of those whom
they judged fit were remitted in Baptism, while the sins of
those whom they judged unfit were retained. The venial
sins of daily infirmity were forgiven by Christ, through daily
repentance, and confession, and prayer to Him. The gross
or mortal sins which scandalized the Church were only
those which called for discipline ; and that discipline was
administered by the judgment of the Apostles, who thus,
again, retained the sin, by putting away the transgres
sor from the communion of the faithful. And when he
had given satisfactory evidence of his grief and reforma
tion, they remitted his sins again, by restoring him to the
fellowship of the faithful. Thus, too, thsy held the keys of
the kingdom of heaven, that is, the Church, according to our
* Acts, ii. 38. t Acts, viii. 17.
t Acts, ii. 42. I) 1 Cor., v. 13.
II 2 Cor., ii. 7.

Penance tested by the Fathers. 249
Lord's promise to St. Peter ; opening the door of admission,
and closing it again, as the case required. So that we have
the clearest proof in the New Testament of the mode in
which they exercised their sacerdotal power.
But all of this was open and public to the whole body of
the faithful. The Apostles had no private confessional, no
dark holes and corners, to conceal, in the deepest secrecy,
the judgments which concerned each individual soul. On
the contrary, St. Paul gives this charge to Timothy, the first
Bishop of Ephesus, " Them that sin, rebuke before all, that
others also jnay fear."* The assertion of Dr. Milner, there
fore, that your modern Romish system is in accordance with
the gift of Christ to the Apostles, is a libel on them and on
the Scriptures. They were inspired, and could not have
erred in their mode of performing their divine Master's com
mission. And the fourth Council of Lateran, which pre
sumed, in the year 1215, to dispense, virtually, with the
apostolic rule of public discipline, and establish, instead of
it, the priestly bondage of the secret confessional, was guilty
of an awful act of rebellious contumacy.
Your favorite author next undertakes to prove his doc
trine by the testimony of the fathers ! forgetting, or choos
ing to ignore, the fact that the very decree of the Council
of Lateran proves the establishment of a compulsory private
confessional for all persons to have been a complete innova
tion, since it commands that this " salutary law should be
frequently published in the Churches, lest any one may assume
the veil of excuse from the blindness of ignorance."
The passages which Dr. Milner artfully quotes from the
fathers may seem, to a careless or -a shallow mind, to justify
his assertion, but in tmth they are nothing to the purpose.
Thus he cites Tertullian, saying : " If you withdraw from
? 1 Tim., V. 20.
VOL. II. 11*

250 Letter XXXVIIL

confession, think of hell-fire, which confession extinguishes."
How, I pray you, Most Reverend Sir, does this show whether
the confession was to God, or to the priest ; in. public or in
private ; voluntary or enforced 1
Again, he quotes Origen, inculcating the necessity of
confessing our most private sins, even those of thought, and
advising the sinner " to look carefully about him in choos
ing the person to whom he is to confess his sins." One
would really suppose that Dr. Milner imagined his Salopian
friends to be arrant fools, if they were to take these words
as proof on his side, when they are plainly against him.
For Origen evidently considers that the confession of sins
to another was a question of expediency. " Look care
fully," saith he," " in choosing the person." Why should he
look carefully in choosing, if the Church had settled it ac
cording to the Lateran rule, that he could have no choice
at all ? Why should he be advised to choose " the person,''
if the Church had determined that he must confess to his own
priest ? The passage proves, incontestably, therefore, the
very reverse to the object of your author, because it shows
that Origen held the confession of sins to an individual as
a matter of voluntary discretion, and had never dreamed of
your modern compulsory and priestly system.
Again, he quotes Basil, in the fourth century, saying :
" It is necessary to disclose our sins to those to whom the
dispensation of the divine mysteries is committed." But
he forgot to inform his readers that this was a rule laid
down to the monks, of whom Basil had instituted a special
order, and had no relation whatever to the practice of the
ordinary laity, nor to the Church at large. And even as
respected the monks, there is not a word about secrecy, nor
about the administering of private absolution, nor about
penance or satisfaction dictated by a single priest alone

St. Augustine on Confession. 251
Again, he tells us that St. Ambrose used to " weep over
the penitents whose sins he heard, but never disclosed them to
any but to God alone." Another proof of the effrontery with
which Dr. Milner reckons on the weakness of his readers.
For what does the passage testify to the points in contro
versy ¦? Does it inform us whether the penitents who sought
St. Ambrose, came of their own free will, or in obedience
to a compulsory rule like that of your modern system ? And
would it have been worth while to mention that he never
disclosed their sins, if the law of the Church had then been
settled that he dared not? As to his weeping over the
penitents, it only serves to show that they were gross and
grievous sinners, and you will hardly say that your modern
system has any similarity to the tender sympathy of Am
brose, either in precept or example.
And just as little has Dr. Milner's fourth and last quota
tion from St. Augustine to do with the true question. " Our
merciful God wills us to confess in this world, that we may not
be confounded in the other." Who ever doubted that ? Else
where, he says. Let no one say to himself, I do penance to
God in private. Is it, then, in vain that Christ has said.
Whatsoever you loose on earth, shall be loosed in heaven 1
Is it in vain that the keys have been given to the Church ?"
Your favorite advocate forgot, again, to let his readers under
stand that St. Augustine was here speaking of public peni
tence and public absolution, which was, as I shall show pres
ently, the established rule in his day, and for centuries
afterwards. And this is intimated plainly in the very pas
sage itself, where he saith. Let no one say to himself, I do
penance to God privately. Private penance would not an
swer where public penance was required. But this of itself
draws the line of broad distinction between modern Rome
and the primitive system, For, under your present disci-

252 Letter XXXVIIL
pline, the penance is enjoined by the priest in private.
The sinner performs it in private. And the mantle of
secrecy and deep concealment is imperatively commanded
to rest over the whole.
After this display of impotent sophistry, which would be
amusing if the subject were not of so serious a character,
let me refresh your memory. Most Reverend Sir, since Dr.
Milner is beyond my reach, with a few extracts from the
fathers which are to the point, and from which any intelli
gent mind can see how faithfully the primitive Church pre
served, for several centuries, the true Apostolic discipline.
Thus saith Tertullian : " The penitence which the grace
of God accords to Christians, and which recalls them to the
Lord, is allowed but once, and ought not to be permitted after
a repetition of the sin."*
Again, saith the same father : " The laver of baptism is
the seal of faith, which faith begins from penitence. We
are not washed in order that we may cease from sinning,
but because we have ceased, since we are already cleansed
in heart. A second penitence is opened to us in the porch of
the Church, but only once, because it is the second ; for oftener
than once, it would be vain."\
Here we see that the Church, in the days of Tertullian,
contemplated no acts of penitence, after baptism, except the
public penitence attached to gross and serious sins, in which
the party was separated from the communion, and only al
lowed to stand in the porch of the Church, until his brethren
and his pastor were satisfied that his repentance was sin
cere. Then he was allowed to come into the Church, and
hear a portion of the service, being obliged to depart, how
ever, before they proceeded to administer the Eucharist.
* Tert. de Poenitentia, 4 5, p. 123, B. t lb., () 6, and ^ 7.

Eusebius on Confession. 253
And, in due time, he was received into communion again,
with great solemnity. But this process could only be gone
through once ; for if he became a second time guilty of any
transgression which required that he should be separated
from the Communion, he could be restored no more. It is
to this that Tertullian refers, when he saith that " a second
penitence is opened to us in the porch of the Church, but only
once, because it is the second ; for oftener than once, it would
be vain."
The same author describes the severity of this public
penitence in very graphic terms, saying, that the penitent
should wear sackcloth, fast, groan and weep ; and especially
notes that he shall "fall down before the Presbyters, and em
brace the knees of those who are the beloved of God, beseeching
all his brethren to intercede for him."* Thus we see that
there was no secrecy, no private tribunal of the priest alone,
no discipline which was not equally noted by all the
faithful. The other kind of penitence, which is the constant duty
of every believer, is also frequently spoken of by the fathers,
but in such a manner as perfectly to exclude the priest, be
cause it was the exercise of the heart towards the Lord
only. Thus Eusebius, the Bishop of Caesarea, saith, in the
latter part of the third century, " The beginning of good is
to abandon the former evil by true penitence and confession,
•<^hich leads to a good end, namely, to God. For if there
is none good but God, the beginning of the best way leading
to God must be confession. Therefore it is written. It is
good to confess to the Lord. Moreover, it is meet that we
utter our confession, not to men, but to God, who searches the
heart."] * Teitul. de Poenit., ^ 9, p. 127.
+ Euseb. Ctesar. Com. in Psal , p. 608, C.

254 Letter XXXVIIL
In like manner, the famous Athanasius, about A. D. 340,
in answer to the question, " What law gives the pardon of all
sins?" gives this reply : —
" The law of the Lord, saying, Judge not, and ye shall not
be judged. And again. Forgive us our debts, like as we also
forgive our debtors. Hence it appears that not to judge our
neighbor gives pardon for all sins. The same applies to the
not remembering offences. Forgive, saith he, and you shall
be forgiven."* And in answer to another question, viz., " If a man shall
have committed a very grievous sin, and repented, how shall we
learn whether he has been forgiven by God or no ?" The same
Athanasius replies as follows : —
" This truly is made plain to few men upon earth ; never
theless, even as it is between the master and the servant,
so is it between the conscience of a man and God. Thus,
as the servant who has offended may know, from the ges
tures and language of his master, that he is not in the same
favor as he was before ; in like manner the sinner loses
the liberty of speaking which his conscience previously
possessed in his prayers. But when he has truly repented,
God grants to him again the liberty of speaking with Him,
which he had before his sin. And by this the man knows that
God has pardoned his sin."\ Here we see, distinctly, that
there could have been nothing in the fourth century at all
resembling your modern priestly confessional. When sm
was known, so that it gave scandal to the Church, it could
only be visited by public penitence, which was long and
severe, and continued till the Church as well as her priests
were satisfied. But when it was secret, the confession waa
* Athan. Op., Tom. 2, p. 366, Quisstio 76.
t lb., p. 367, Qufflstio 77.

St. Augustine on Confession. 255
only made to God, and the sinner knew that he was for
given, not by the sentence of the priest, but by the liberty of
prayer in his own conscience.
I proceed next to the statement of the great Augustine,
towards the end of the fourth century, which will clearly
show how the matter was held in his day.
" There are three kinds of penitence which your Eru
dition recognizes as I do ; for they are familiar in the Church
of God. One is that which travails with the new man, un
til, through saving baptism, the washing away of all past
sins takes place ; so that, as when a child is born, the pains
pass off by which the womb was urged to the birth, joy
may follow sorrow."*
" Another kind of penitence is that which is required in
the perpetual humility of supplication, through the whole
of this life which we pass in our fleshly tabernacle.
Whence also, when we pray, we say what through our whole
life we are bound to say. Forgive us our debts, as we also for
give our debtors."]
" The third kind of penitence is that which is to be per
formed for the sins committed against the laws contained
in the Decalogue, and concerning which the Apostle saith :
For those who do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of
God. Being bound, therefore, by the chains of those dead
ly sins — let him come to the presiding ministers, by whom
the keys of the Church are applied — and let him accept
the mode of his satisfaction from those who preside over
the sacraments, so that, being devout and suppliant in offer
ing the sacrifice of a sorrowful heart, he may do what shall
not only be profitable to his own salvation, but shall also
serve for an example to others. To this end, if his sin be
* S. Augustin. Op., Tom. 5, p. 942, ^2. + lb., p. 945, § 6.

256 Letter XXXVIIL
not merely to his own grievous injury, but is likewise a
cause of scandal to others, and if it shall seem expedient
for the good of the Church, in the judgment of the Bishop,
let him not refuse to exercise penitence in the presence of
many, or even of all the people : let him not resist, nor,
through shame, add inflammation to the mortal and deadly
wound."* Augustine proceeds, in the following section, to another
statement, which shows very plainly that the state of the
Church in his days resembled precisely our own condi
tion : —
, " Let no one think," saith he, " on account of these things,
that he ought to despise the use of this salutary penitence,
because he may, perhaps, observe and know that many
come to the sacrament of the altar, of whose crimes he is
not ignorant. For many are corrected, like Peter ; many
are tolerated, like Judas ; many are unknown, until the
coming of the Lord, who shall illuminate the hidden things
of darkness, and make manifest the thoughts of the
heart ; for most men are unwilling to accuse others, desir
ing to be excused by them. And many good Christians are
silent, and suffer the sins of others which they know, be
cause the testimonies are often wanting, and those things
with which they are themselves acquainted cannot be proved
to the ecclesiastical judges. For although certain things
may indeed be true, yet they are not to be easily credited
by the judge, unless they are substantiated by certain evi
dence. But we cannot prohibit any one from the Communion
(although this prohibition is not yet mortal, but medicinal),
unless he be accused and convicted, either by his own voluntary
confession, or by some secular or ecclesiastical judgment. For
» S. Augustin. Op., Tom. 5, p. 945 and 947, I) 9.

St. Augustine on Sin. 257
who would dare to take it upon himself, that he should act
against any man both as accuser and judge T*
Here, therefore, we have the plain and irrefragable evi
dence of the primitive Church, INIost Reverend Sir, in the
very face of your whole modem system. There was no
compulsory private confessional, in which every soul must
pass under the personal inquisition of the priest, before he
could come to the communion. There was no secret des
potism, by which sin was to be estimated, and absolution
conferred, and penance enjoined, once a year at least, in
order to receive the common privilege of the Sacrament, to
which every baptized and confirmed person was entitled.
And there was no evading of public penitence, by the substi
tution of a secret and concealed process, which saved the of
fender from the necessity of being made an example to his
brethren. On the contrary, although Augustine fairly ac
knowledges the already relaxed severity of the ancient sys
tem which Tertullian described, nearly three hundred years
before, yet he saith : " We cannot prohibit any one from the
Communion, unless he be accused and convicted, either by his
oum voluntary confession, or by some secular or ecclesiastical
judgment." One passage more may suffice to close this primitive tes
timony : " These are not our only sins," saith Augustine,
" which are called crimes, such as adulteries, fornications,
sacrileges, thefts, robberies, false testimonies. To look
upon anything which you ought not, is sin ; to hear willing
ly what ought not to be heard, is sin ; to think anything
which you ought not, is sin."t
" Wherefore, on account of those sins which are human

• S. Augustin. Op., Tom. 5, p. 948, § 10.
t lb., Tom. 7, De Civitate Dei., Lib. xx., c. x., p. 445.

258 Letter XXXVIIL
and tolerable, and so much the more frequent as they are
smaller, God has constituted in the Church, during the time
of obtaining mercy, the daily medicine of prayer, that
we may say : Forgive us our debts, as we also forgive our
debtors ; that our face being washed by these words, we may
go to the altar ; and our face being washed by these words,
we may communicate in the body and blood of Christ."*
Yet Rome, since the year 1215, suffers no one to go to the
altar until he has passed through the secret priestly inqui
sition, and has received absolution from his father confes
sor, before whose feet he must prostrate himself, and whose
voice he must listen to as to the voice of Christ Himself,
saying. Son, be of good cheer, tJiy sins are forgiven thee ! And
Dr. Milner has the effrontery to tell his readers that all this
is in accordance with the fathers !
But not to multiply this branch of evidence any farther,
I proceed to the honest acknowledgment of your learned
and usually faithful historian of the Church, Fleury. He
expressly states the commencement of compulsory confession
to have been the work of Chrodegang, Bishop of Metz, in
the year 763, who established the rule for his Canons res
identiary, a sort of monastic institution, that confession
should be made twice a year, either to himself or to a priest
appointed by him. " This is the first time," saith Fleury,
" that I find confession commanded.]
The same historian states that the earliest instance of
giving absolution to penitents immediately after confes
sion, without waiting until their penance was fulfilled, occur
red in the rule established by Boniface, the famous Apostle
of Germany, as he was called, and a martyr. This was
A. D. 750.$
* S. Augustin. Op., Tom. 5, p. 68. Sermo do Decern Chordis, A.
t Fleury, Hist. Ecc, Tom. ix., p. 390. t lb., p- 359.

Commutations for Canonical Penances. 259
In the ninth century, your historian states that the an
cient Canons on the subject of penitence were abandoned
in many places, and the priests began to introduce, instead
of them, new and easy methods of obtaining absolution, by
pilgrimages, by commutations and other modes. These in
novations appeared in certain little books called Peniten
tials, which many of the Councils denounced strongly, but
the course of error went onwards, notwithstanding. Still,
however, we hear nothing of the secrecy of the confessional,
which came in, along with other abuses, at a later day.
The Council of Worms, saith Fleury, A. D. 1022, under
took to legalize the commutation of penance for money :
" He that cannot fast," say they, " shall sing fifty psalms on
his knees in the Church for one day of fasting, and shall
feed one poor man for that day. One hundred genuflexions
shall be accepted instead of the fifty psalms, and the rich
may redeem themselves for money."*
" The Canonical penitences," saith the same historian
elsewhere, " were still in force at the end of the eleventh
century." " But they imagined, I know not on what ground,
that each sin of the same kind merited its penitence ; that
if, for example, a homicide ought to be expiated by a pen
ance of ten years, it must require a hundred years for ten
homicides, which rendered penitence impossible, and 'the
Canons ridiculous. "f
" After they rendered penitences impossible by thus mul
tiplying them, they were obliged to come to compensations
and estimations, such as we see in the decree of Bouchard,
and in the writings of Peter Damian. These consisted of
psahns, genuflexions, flagellations, alms, and pilgrimages ; all
* Fleury, Hist. Ecc, Tom. 12, p. 413.
t lb., Tom. 13, Discours Preliminaire, p. xxxiv.

260 Letter XXXVIIL
¦acts which men could perform without being converted.
Penances rendered by proxy were much less allowable, and
the castigation which a holy monk gave himself for the sake
of a sinner, was not a medicinal penance for that sinner : for
sin is not like a pecuniary debt, which any other person can
pay in discharge of the debtor, and in any sort of money
which is current, but it is a malady which must be cured in
the person of the sick."*
Here, by the way, your learned and honest historian, Ro
manist as he was, directly impeaches the doctrine of your
Catechism of Trent, that one may satisfy for another. But
to proceed with his testimony : —
" Another abuse,'' saith Fleury, " was ]h.e forced penances.
The Bishops, seeing many sinners who did not come to
submit themselves to penance, complained to the Parha-
ments, and besought the princes to constrain them by the
temporal power. But this showed a great ignorance of the
nature of penitence, which consists in repentance, and in the
conversion of the heart."t
Finally, this candid author states, that the old canonical
rules of penitence were utterly destroyed by the Crusades.
" While these Crusades continued," saith he, " they took
the place of penitence, not only for those who assumed the
Cross voluntarily, but for all great sinners, to whom the
Bishops would give absolution only on condition that they
would perform in person the service of the Holy Land du
ring a certain time, or would maintain for that purpose a
number of soldiers. It seemed, then, that after the end of
the Crusades, they ought to have returned to the ancient
penitences ; but the use of them was interrupted for two
• Fleury, Hist. Ecc, Tom. 13, Discours Preliminaire, p. xxxv
+ lb., p. xxxvi.

Dr. Milner's Account. 261

hundred years at least, and the penitences had become ar
bitrary. The Bishops scarcely any longer entered into the
details of sacramental administration ; the Mendicant Friars
were the most ordinary ministers of the sacraments, and
these transient missionaries could not follow long enough
the conduct of a penitent to examine the progress and so
lidity of his conversion, as the proper pastors had formerly
done ; for these monks were obliged to dispatch sinners
promptly, in order to pass to others."
These proofs clearly demonstrate the vast revolution
which the lapse of ages of manifold and constantly grow
ing corruption brought in upon the primitive system. The
specious hjrpothesis of Dr. Milner, that your modern rule
could never have been introduced if it had not been neces
sary from the beginning, is thus shown to be utterly false,
because it is opposed to the whole testimony of history.
He tells his readers, indeed, that " the pride of the human
heart would at all times have revolted at the imposition of
such a humiliation as that of confessing all its most secret
sins, if Christians had not previously believed that this rite
is of divine institution, and even necessary for the pardon of
them." He further says that, even " supposing the clergy,
at some period, had fascinated the laity, kings and emperors,
as well as peasants, to submit to this yoke, it will still re
main to be accounted for how they took it up themselves,
for monks, priests, and Bishops, and the Pope himself, must
equally confess their sins with the meanest of the people."
He boasts of the assent of the Oriental Christians to this
same discipline, which I simply repudiate, as being totally
destitute of proof And finally, he claims for the members
of his Church the enjoyment of inconceivable transport, joy,
* Fleury, Hist. Ecc, Tom. 18, Discours Prelim., p. xxxiv.

262 Letter XXXVIIL

and comfort, in the persuasion that they" possess such a
blessing. A few words on the more plausible parts of this
passage shall close this letter.
To assert that the pride of the human heart, or the
strength of the human intellect, would never have admitted
your present doctrine on this subject if it had not been estab
lished from the beginning, is simply absurd, because human
pride and human reason have been the slaves of error, since
the world began, in a thousand forms, and there is no pro
tection against it, save the standard of the Word of God,
and the illuminating grace of His Holy Spirit. The cor
ruptions of your Church were gradual, and had the most
complete field for the growth of superstition in all directions,
because the middle ages of Europe were the darkest ages
of ignorance ; and the little knowledge that existed was
confined to the priests, who had the best possible excuse, as
well as the largest possible opportunity, for concentrating
all power in their own order.
To understand this fully, it is only necessary to remem
ber that ancient Rome was subverted by barbarians from
every quarter, who were debased by heathenism, who de
spised learning, and knew nothing of arts or letters, but who
were already prepared, by the habits of their minds, to be
lieve anything wonderful or miraculous, and were accus
tomed, in the prerogatives exercised by their own Druids
and pagan priests, to acknowledge many of those superior
powers which the policy of the Christian priesthood found
it expedient to apply to themselves. In laboring to convert
those barbarians, which was a task of duty as well as of in
terest, it is perfectly conceivable that the priests of the
Church might readily avail themselves of all the reverence
and authority which their ignorant proselytes were willing
to accord to them, and indulge their converts in every su-

The tr'ue Account. 263
perstitious notion and practice which could, in any way,
be turned into the service of Christianity. And thus the
whole history of those ages shows how the Church prevailed
over heathenism, while a large infusion of heathenism was
introduced into the Church.
Hence the adoption of heathen days and festivals, by giv
ing them a Christian appellation ; the ascription of the pow
ers of the heathen deities to the Christian saints and mar
tyrs ; the despotic authority of the Dmids transferred to
the Christian priests ; the superstitious fables of heathen
ism matched and exceeded by false miracles and impos
tures ; the feudal system of the barbarians adopted by the
clergy; their admiration of warriors, leading priests and
Bishops to distinguish themselves in battle ; the heathen
ordeals of fire and water engrafted on the judgments of the
Church ; their veneration for celibacy made a law for
priests and monastics ; while all their monstrous tales of
enchanters, necromancers, evil spirits, elves, fairies — their
charms, and incantations, and amulets — remained in the bo
som of the Church, with no other change than the associ
ating them, as much as possible, with sacred days and sea
sons, Christmas, Halloween, &c.
I am very far, therefore, from imputing the corruption of
the Church to a deliberate design to do evil on the part of
the clergy. On the contrary, I doubt not that their inten
tion was only to do the best they could under the difficult cir
cumstances in which the universal ignorance and heathen
ism of those ages had placed them. I doubt not that they
thought themselves excusable in accommodating the Gospel,
as much as possible, to the characters with whom they had to
deal,through a well-meant but perilous adaptation of St. Paul's
rule, " I am made all things to all men, that I might by all
means save some." Nor do I question that in the arrogating to

264 Letter XXXVIIL
their own order as much power as possible, they thought
themselves influenced by the purest motives of expediency.
For who should govern the ignorant and debased multitudes
but those who had the largest share of knowledge and of
virtue 1 Who could harshly condemn the pious fraud which
was only practised for the ultimate benefit of mankind?
Who could blame the steadfast effort to concentrate all power
in the hands of those who could alone exercise it wisely ?
And if the only weapons with which the sword of bar
barian violence could be opposed were those of super
stitious veneration for the priesthood, who could wonder
that the priesthood were led to sanctify their natural love of
supremacy, by the belief that they were bound to use the
best instrument they had, in order to make the people, the
nobles, and the kings themselves, bow their untamed necks
to the obedience of the Gospel?
That this, which I hold to be the true historical viev/ of
the case, would operate, necessarily, upon the subject of
penitential discipline, must be obvious to the slightest re
flection. In the first ages of the Church, while, for three
centuries, she was under persecution, the doctrine and prac
tice of the pure apostolic system remained, in their original
form, though with diminishing vigor. When persecution
ceased, under Constantine, in the beginning of the fourth
century, and the Church was called to honor and to wealth,
while she was surrounded on all sides by the temptations of
heathenism in its most refined forms, the association began
to work, and the door was opened to many innovations.
And when, afterwards, the irruptions of the barbarian hordes
brought in another kind of heathenism, no worse in princi
ple, but debased, ignorant, and ferocious, the Church was
encompassed with dangers and difficulties, which tempted
her priesthood more and more to the employment of a false,

The Council of Lateran. 265
though seeminglyjudicious,spiritof accommodation. Hence,
as the cases of discipline multiplied, while the ancient faith
and piety decreased, and professed Christians would no
longer submit to the old public penitence, the priests grad
ually fell into the custom of indulging offenders with a pri
vate confession, made only to themselves, and the laity
willingly adopted a substitute which relieved them from the
disgrace of confessing before the brethren. Hence, for the
same reason, the ^juJZic penance which was required to satisfy
the Church in the days of Tertullian, was gradually ex
changed for the private penance imposed by the priesthood.
Hence, though the early Councils, beginning with that of
Eliberis, A. D. 313, passed many stringent canons to en
force the old rules, yet it was found so difficult to execute
them faithfully, that they were evaded more and more in
favor of the indulgent easiness of private priestly absolution,
until at length they fell into universal disuse, and the priests
came naturally into the whole exercise of Christian disci
pline, which they managed in the same accommodating spirit,
taking one thing when they could not get another, and
thinking that they did well when the duty of penitence
was performed in any way which was practicable, however
different from the ancient, pure, and apostolic system.
When, therefore, the fourth Council of Lateran, in A. D.
1215, passed the new and stringent law which forced all
Christians, whether they were penitents or not, to pass
through the secret tribunal of priestly confession and abso
lution, it was not by any means a violent shock to the set
tled habits of the time, for the Church had long before been
brought to the point of transacting the whole work of pen
ance through the private dictates of the priesthood. And
the pretext of expediency was not wanting, because the
measure was professedly and really adopted as a necessary
VOL. II. 12

266 Letter XXXVIIL
safeguard against the spread of the heresies which were
then, with but too much reason, threatening the Church in
every quarter. Hence, there was no resistance to it, al
though it was a perfect novelty to command that confession
should be made to the priests periodically by all, without dis
tinction, as Fleury honestly acknowledges. The kings,
nobles and people all knew, perfectly well, that the priests
were as indulgent to their sins as they could possibly desire,
so long as they were faithful subjects of the Church ; and
therefore, though the law invested their spiritual guides
with a new and despotic power, yet the laity had nothing
to fear from its severity. And thus, as the thirteenth cen
tury was the palmy period of Papal and priestly supremacy,
when the nations of Europe had no idea of any government
but that of force, and the powers, of the kings and the pow
ers of the Popes were linked most lovingly together, the in
fluence of circumstances and the argument of expediency again
concurred to establish the perilous innovation.
And this, as it was the real motive for the establishment
of your modern system, is still, Most Reverend Sir, the
principle on which it is exercised. Not really, as a remedy
for sin, but as a safeguard against the one sin, the leaving
your Church for any other communion. The casuistry of
your Jesuits, and the Provincial Letters of Pascal, together
with the moral condition of the priesthood themselves, before
the Reformation, have long proved that- with respect to sin,
as defined by the word of God, your confessional is no pro
tection, but the contrary. But it is certainly well contrived
to keep your people from straying into forbidden pastures,
and to secure their subjection to yourselves. For that it
was intended, and no one can deny that it answers, to a
very great extent, the objects of its institution.
Before it is possible, indeed, to extend it into the ima-

Time allowed for Confession. 267
ary region of benefit, on the broad ground which your
ory requires, we should ask for a little sober examina-
1 on the most favorable supposition of practical advantage
your people. Thus, you have, I believe, about 1,200
Bsts, and about 1,800,000 people in the United States,
king an average of 1,500 persons to each priest, all of
.om must confess and receive private absolution individ-
ly, a little before Easter, every year. How much time,
the rate of fifteen working hours each day, would it be
lessary for each priest to devote to that single duty ? I
not affect to inform you, of course, because you know
! secret working of the confessional incomparably better
m I do. But I do desire to set my other readers on the
ck of a fair consideration of your system.
Allow, then, only one hour to each person, in which the
irtal sins of act, word, and even of thought, during the
ole year previous, must be confessed with perfect sincerity
1 integrity. And suppose that each priest could devote
sen hours every day to his flock of 1,500, which is the
irage, and it would require 100 days to go through the
ole work, and then he must begin again, because the
s committed since he commenced have to be confessed
I absolved before the party can be received to his Easter
mmunion ! And yet I believe your practice is to get
ir the whole of this weighty business during Passion
!ek, in which your other duties do not allow of more than
en or eight hours instead of fifteen ; and so a matter of
irly four months, at the rate of fifteen hours each day,
I one hour to each confession, must be dispatched in six
IS, at the rate of seven or eight hours, or, in other words,
00 hours' work disposed of in forty-eight hours only !
But you may find fault with my statistics. You may say
.t no priest has 1,500 souls to examine. You may say

268 Letter XXXVIIL
that more than half your population do not come to confes
sion at all. You may tell me that the greater part of those
who come, confess nothing beyond the mere words of the
formula. I do not doubt it in the least. Let us, then, cut
down our average, if you please, from 1,500 to 600. That,
I presume, you will allow to be a very moderate calculation.
And let us suppose that two weeks before Easter, instead
of one, are devoted to the work, at the rate of ten hours
a day : and still, allowing one hour for each confession, only
one hundred and twenty out of the five hundred could be
submitted to your personal examination ; and nearly two
months, or fifty days, excluding Sundays, would be neces
sary to go over the whole.
Remember, I pray you. Most Reverend Sir, that I am
discussing, not the opportunities which your priests may
take through the rest of the year, and in which they do not
pretend to have any advantage over other Churches : but
this peculiar, special and admirable advantage, as Dr. Mil
ner considers it, of the confession and absolution which are
given as a necessary prerequisite for your Easter Sacra
ment. And I think I have demonstrated, by a very simple
calculation, that no priest can possibly perform the duty with
any real knowledge of the state of his people. He may devote
a reasonable time to one, or two, or half a dozen special
favorites. He may take great pains with a recent proselyte,
in order to give him or her, as the case may be, a deep con
viction (Jf the comfort and superiority of the confessional.
But he owes them no more duty than he owes to the mean
est of his flock. Nay, he owes the most of his time and
labor to the most ignorant ; the mass that cannot read, and
are therefore dependent entirely upon his instructions ; the
mass that cannot understand his Latin Liturgy, nor the por
tion of the Latin Scriptures, which, if they were in Enghsh,

Impossible to confess all Sins. 269
might give them from Sunday to Sunday, as with us, some
knowledge of the Word of God. But this mass of igno
rance he is obliged to dismiss, in the most summary style
which the brief formula of confession admits. Fifteen
minutes, on an average, is aU he can possibly allow them.
And thus they go away, quite satisfied that they are forgiven
a multitude of sin^ which they have never confessed. And
the priest contents himself with absolving, one by one, a
crowd of poor deluded souls, of whose real spiritual state
he knows precisely nothing. Is this the Apostolic power
of the keys ? Or is it not, rather, a strange and mournful
mockery ?
But, although I have based my calculations upon the no
tion that an hour, at least, should be allowed for the prac
tical administration of your system, I should be sorry to
have you suppose that I consider that would be sufficient to
make it admissible. I have shown that the duty is impos
sible to the priest, and I now proceed to show that it is
equally impossible to the sinner. For your Catechism of
Trent requires every one that undertakes this confession to
acknowledge, not only all the mortal sins, but all the wilful
thoughts of mortal sins, which have been indulged during
the past year ! What human being could do this ? And if
he could, would a week or a month suffice for the recital ?
It is no easy task for the best of men to recall, each night,
the sins of the heart which the past day has witnessed.
And therefore, what must be the practical result of such a
system on the vast majority of your people, but the habit of
tmsting to the supposed power of the priest, in-stead of the
real progress of the soul, feeling perfectly easy about those
sins which they expect to be forgiven, although they cannot
even recall them to their memory 1
How infinitely superior is the system of the Church of

270 Letter XXXVIIL
England, which requires neither her priests nor her people
to perform impossibilities, nor claims for her ministry a power
which belongs to the Searcher of Hearts alone I Which
gives her people, regularly, the teaching of the Scriptures
and the Liturgy, and tells them always to examine their own
consciences, and that not lightly, and after the manner of dissem
blers with God. Which calls upon them solemnly to judge
themselves, that they be not judged of the Lord. And which
pronounces absolution only in the form of the declaration,
that God absolveth all those who truly repent and unfeignedly
believe His holy Gospel ; or, at the Communion, directs her
priests to pray, in the words of the pure and primitive
Church, " Almighty God, our heavenly Father, who, of His
great mercy, hath promised forgiveness of sins to all those who,
with hearty repentance and true faith, turn unto Him ; Have
mercy upon you, pardon and deliver you from all your sins,
confirm and strengthen you in all goodness, and bring you to
everlasting life, through Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen."
Here, Most Reverend Sir, there is no false pretence, no
impracticable law, no absurd and delusive assumption. We
make no claim, indeed, to the rigorous severity of the an
cient penitential system, which has passed away from all
Christendom for seven hundred years. But we allow all
communicants to approach, as did the Primitive Church, un
less they be proved unworthy. We exercise the discipline
of St. Paul by putting away from the Sacrament those
whom we know to have offended ; and we receive them
again, after we have sufficient proof that they have repented
and reformed. We do it, too, like the Apostle, with the
knowledge of our brethren ; and, in conformity with his
precept to Timothy, we abjure the private and irresponsible
judgment of a secret priestly tribunal. We venture not to
lay upon the sinner any formal acts oi penance, because, foi

Transports no Proof of Truth. 271

such an exercise of priestly authority, there is not the
sUghtest warrant in Scripture. Neither do we fiatter him
with the impious illusion that he can perform a work of sat
isfaction, which your Trentine Catechism defines to be " a
compensation made by man to God, by doing something in
atonement for the sins which he has committed." Neither do
we presume to say, I absolve thee, to men, of the reality
of whose repentance we know and can know nothing.
Neither do we dare to usurp the prerogatives of God, who
ALONE forgiveth SIN ; uor do we take to ourselves the
honor of Christ's own Majesty, by humbling our brother at
our feet ; nor do we tell him that he must receive our secret
sentence as if he heard the word of the Saviour Himself
saying to him, " Son, be of good cheer, thy sins are forgiven
thee." But on the contrary, we say to him that he cannot
have real pardon, except he seek it from the Lord, with a
contrite heart, a true repentance, and a lively faith. And if
he would know whether he is indeed forgiven, we do not
lead him to rest on the perilous delusion of priestly absolu
tion, but we direct him, like the holy^ Athanasius, to dis
cover it in the fact that the cloud of divine displeasure has
passed away from his conscience, and that he enjoj's the
same liberty of addressing God in prayer which he had he-
fore. As to the transport and excess of joy and comfort which
Dr. Milner, in a garbled extract from Chillingworth, arro
gates to the private absolution of your confessional, I know
no more of it than Athanasius or Augustine knew, and that
is precisely nothing. But I know that as there may be a
false faith, so there may be a false peace, a false joy, and a
false consolation. And for myself, I would infinitely rather
go down to the grave a mourning penitent, looking in hum
ble hope to the pardoning mercy of Christ, than seek relief

272 Letter XXXVLIL.

in a baseless pretence of priestly power, or borrow trans
port itself from a delusive superstition.*
* For a fuller examination and detailed account of this whole sub
ject, 1 must refer the reader to my book on The History of the Con-

The End of Controversy, Controverted. 273

LETTER XXXIX.
Most Reverend Sir :
Your favorite JNIilner devotes his forty-second letter to
the subject of Indulgences, and occupies a considerable
part of it in proving what an indulgence is not. Thus, he
saith that it is not a license to commit sin, nor a pardon for
future sins, nor a pardon for any sin at all, but only a remis
sion of the temporal punishments annexed to sin. Neither
are indulgences to be considered as exempting men from
repentance. But especially he saith : " We hold that it
would be a sacrilegious crime in any person whomsoever, to
be concerned in buying or selling them."
The confidence due to these assertions will appear by
and by. In the first place, however, I must remind you of
the express statements of your own historian, Fleury, that
the plenary indulgence was introduced by Pope Urban II.,
to encourage the Crusade, at the close of the eleventh
century. He saith, moreover, that "the indulgence took the
place of wages to the Crusaders."* That it was afterwards
employed in the wars against the heretics, the Moors in
Spain, and generally,! of which Ke gives numerous in
stances. It was also attached to the years of the Roman
Jubilee : and, finally, to any work of piety in which the
Popes took a special interest. That the last extensive and
* Fleury, Sixieme Discours Preliminaire, § 2, Hist. Ecc, Tom. 18.
+ lb., § 6.
VOL. n. 12*

274 Letter XXXIX.

public issue of Indulgences was by Pope Leo X., in order
to raise money for the completion of St. Peter's Church at
Rome, is notorious. As is likewise the fact that they were
a matter of open bargain and sale throughout all Europe, and
that the scandal produced by them in this form gave the
first impulse to the Reformation, through the bold and efl'ec-
tive preaching of Luther in Germany.
Now, about all this Dr. Milner is as silent as the grave.
It did not suit his object to tell his simple and ignorant Sa
lopian correspondents that Rome had introduced this dan
gerous abuse in the eleventh century, and had practised it
until the Reformation. He calls it a sacrilegious crime for
any one to be concerned in buying and selling indulgences,
but did not choose to inform his friends that of this very
crime the Popes had substantially been guilty, with the
knowledge and assent of all their Councils, Cardinals, and
Bishops, for full four hundred years, until expediency — the
main principle of Roman policy throughout — compelled
them to modify the operation. He does not deny, indeed,
that indulgences have been sold, but tells his readers of the
selling of Christ by Judas, and of the advertising of bene
fices for sale in England ! As if the single act of the traitor
Judas, followed by suicide, had any relation to a .yeZ^Zerfjjrac-
tice of Rome for centuries together ! Or as if the adver
tising, of a benefice was anything more than a public notice
that a certain parish was either vacant, or to be vacated, in
order that some clergyman, properly qualified, might apply
for the place, subject to the approbation of the Bishop, with
out whose consent he could not be inducted.
This is the quality, doubtless, for which you value Dr.
Milner so highly, that he is not only a dexterous defender,
evading, withholding, and suppressing all the truth which is
inconvenient, but that he is, still more, a bold, unscrupu-

An Indulgence, according to Dr. Milner. 21b
lous, and adroit assailant, always ready to strike at his an
tagonist, without caring whether the spot is vulnerable or
otherwise. For his observation and experience had taught
him that in the battle of the pen, and in the battle of the
person, there is this great difl'erence : In the contest of the
body, the blow which does not tell is counted for nothing
by the spectator, because he sees its failure at the time.
While, on the contrary, in the contest of books, a blow
which does not tell may pass for a very palpable hit, in the
judgment of the reader, because he sees that it is intended
for a blow, but does not understand the subject sufficiently
to know whether it reaches the mark. Perfectly aware of
this, a writer of conscience considers it his duty to give
both sides of the argument fairly, and to use no reasoning
which he does not himself believe to be just and applica
ble. But Dr. Milner, like a true Jesuit, seems to have given
his conscience up to the single object of the triumph of Ro
manism, and therefore he never dreams of the duty of fair
ness to his absent adversaries, gives only so much of his
own story as suits him, and invariably acts upon the maxim
that to strike at the Church of England is the surest method
of defending the Church of Rome.
I pass on next, however, to his account of what an In
dulgence is. According to the doctrine of your Church, as
Dr. Milner states it, " The essential guilt and eternal pun
ishment of sin can only be expiated by the precious merits
of our Redeemer Jesus Christ; but a certain temporal pun
ishment God reserves for the penitent himself to endure,
lest the easiness of his pardon should make him careless
about falling back into sin. Hence, satisfaction for this
temporal punishment has been instituted by Christ as a
part of the Sacrament of Penance. Nevertheless, as the
promise of Christ to the Apostles, and St. Peter in par-i

276 Letter XXXIX.

ticular, and to their successors, is unlimited. Whatsoever
you shall loose on earth shall be loosed also in heaven, hence
the Church believes and teaches that her jurisdiction ex
tends to this very satisfaction, so as to be able to remit it
wholly or partially, in certain circumstances, by what is
called an Indulgence. St. Paul exercised this power in be
half of the incestuous Corinthian, at his conversion and the
prayers of the faithful,* and the Church has claimed and
exercised the same power ever since the time of the Apos
tles down to the present."
That this statement is entirely lame, insufficient, and de
lusive, is perfectly manifest to every man who knows the
true doctrine of your Church upon the subject. Not one
word does Dr. Milner utter about the real fact, that Indul
gences are designed to remit to the sinner the torments of
purgatory, after he shall have passed away from the Church
on earth. Not one word does he say about the treasure
from which the Popes pretend to dispense their power,
namely, in the words of Cardinal Wiseman, the infinite mer
its of Christ, AND the penitential works performed by
the saints beyond what their oWxN si.xs might exact,
WHICH ARE AVAILABLE TO OTHER MEMBERS OF ChRISt's
mystical body. This is your doctrine of works of super
erogation, by which you maintain, that as one drop of the
blood of Christ was sufficient to redeem the world, and as
the saints fulfilled a vast amount of suffering and voluntary
pain, over and above what was required for their salvation,
all the rest of that precious blood and those meritorious
works compose an inexhaustible treasure, which is placed
at the disposal of the Pope, to apply, by his Indulgences, to
the wants of sinners ; so that, by this means, a true satisfao-

¦ a Cor., ii. 10.

Indulgences in the Church of England ! 211
tion may be rendered to the justice of God for the purgato
rial punishment which they would otherwise be obliged to
endure, and their souls may ascend immediately to heaven !
Who would not willingly pay a few shillings for such an
advantage as this ! Or how could any one be so hard
hearted as to refuse purchasing such a happy release for
the suffering soul of his deceased father or mother ! No
wonder the Popes found this spiritual merchandise profit
able. It helped to pay the armies of the Crusades. It
helped to extirpate the Albigenses and Waldenses. It
helped to enlist soldiers for many other wars of the Papacy.
It helped to draw enormous gain from the years of Jubilee.
It helped to complete the magnificent edifice of St. Peter's.
It helped to enable the Popes to support a state of more
than regal splendor, and to be the most munificent patrons
of artists, sculptors, poets, and musicians, in the world.
And finally, by the good providence of God, it helped to
being on the true Reformation of the sixteenth century, by
creating such a scandal against your Church, that the Coun
cil of Trent was constrained to discourage the public traffic,
although the doctrine itself, with all its other advantages,
remained as before.
I shall not here stop to notice the preposterous attempt of
Dr. Milner to make the restoration of the penitent Co
rinthian, of whom St. Paul speaks, a warrant for your sys
tem ; because the whole subject will come up again, in the
examination of your doctrine of Purgatory. But I cannot
pass over the conclusion of his 42d letter, in which he tries
to escape from any further discussion of the matter, by aim
ing another blow against the Church of England, concern
ing what he calls " their own Indulgences."
This is, truly, an amusing specimen of his characteristic
effrontery. For he applies the term indulgence to one Canon

278 Letter XXXIX.

which prohibited the commutation of penance, unless for very
weighty causes ; to another, which moderated certain in
dulgences in the celebration of marriage ; and to a third,
which enacted that no chancellor, commissary, or offcial,
should commute any penance, without giving account to the
Bishop, who shall see that all such moneys shall be disposed of
for charitable and public uses according to law, — saving always
to ecclesiastical offcers their due and accustomable fees !
And this is the parallel which your author presents to
your Romish doctrine of Indulgences, notwithstanding there
is hardly a single element in common between them ! These
petty details, though never made a topic of controversy by
any one, are here paraded with a flourish of ridiculous im
portance, as worthy to be placed in competition with a
spiritual claim of Papal power which set all Europe in a
flame ! — which embraced the condition of every departed
soul !— which asserted the dominion of the Pope over the ap
plication of Christ's blood and the superfluous good works
of the saints, so as to relieve the sinner from Purgatory, and
admit him at once to heaven ! — which addressed itself to
every heart and purse in Christendom, and undertook to arm
warriors, and replenish exhausted treasuries, and, far be
yond them all, to administer a false peace to the trembling
consciences of millions ! — which assumed a higher efficacy
than all the appointed means of grace, and promised the
sinner, for a few shillings or crowns, and by a single sweep
ing act of universal prerogative, a surer and speedier ac
ceptance at the hand of God than he could gain by the or
dinary faith and obedience of a lifetime !
We might well commiserate the understanding of any
man who should gravely compare the humble silk-worm of
our garden with the devouring anaconda of the East. And
the puerile sophistry of your favorite author is about equally

An Indulgence according to the Pope. 279
respectable. I can only account for the fact that a writer
of his talents could descend to such trifling as this, by call
ing to mind the associations of his priestly office, which led
him so constantly to expect his own flock to believe a vast
amount of marvellous absurdity, that even when addressing
the public, notwithstanding his peculiar art and tact, he
could not always preserve a decent regard for common
sense ^nd reason.
The best evidence which I can give my readers of the
true character of an Indulgence will be from the bull of the
Pope himself, published in A. D. 1825, for the Jubilee : —
" During this year," saith this bull, " which we truly call
the acceptable time, and time of salvation, &c., we have
resolved, in virtue of the authority given to us by Heaven,
fully to unlock that sacred treasure, composed of the merits,
sufferings, and virtues of Christ our Lord, and His Virgin
Mother, and of all the saints, which the Author of salvation
has intrusted to our dispensation. We proclaim that the
year of atonement and pardon, of redemption and grace, of
remission and indulgence, is arrived ; in which we know
that those benefits which the old law, the messenger of
things to come, brought every fiftieth year to the Jewish
people, are renewed in a much more sacred manner by the
accumulation of spiritual blessings through Him by whom
came peace and truth. During which year of Jubilee, we
mercifully give and grant, in the Lord, a plenary Indulgence,
remission, and pardon of all their sins, to all the faithful of
Christ, truly penitent, and confessing their sins, and receiv
ing the Holy Communion, who shall visit the churches of
blessed Paul and Peter, Sfc, and shall pour forth their pious
prayers to God for the exaltation of the Church, the extirpa
tion of heresies, the concord of Catholic princes, and the
safety and tranquillity of Christian people."

280 Letter XXXIX.

" But you, venerable brethren," continues the Pope, in
another part of the same bull, "Patriarchs, Primates,
Archbishops, Bishops, co-operate with these our cares and
desires. To you it belongs to explain, with perspicuity,
the power of indulgences ; what is their efficacy, not only in
the remission of canonical penances, but also the temporal
punishment due to divine justice for sin ; and what succor
is afforded out of this heavenly treasure, from the merits of
Christ and His saints, to such as have departed real peni
tents in God's love, yet before they had duly satisfied, by
fruits worthy of penance, for sins of commission and omission,
and are now purifying in the fires of purgatory, that an en
trance may be opened for them into their eternal country,
where nothing defiled is admitted."
Here we have the whole view of the matter plainly de
clared — the plenary Indulgence, remission, and pardon of
all their sins — the remission of the temporal punishment
due to divine Justice — the delivery of the souls of the de
parted faithful from the fires of purgatory, that an entrance
may be opened to their eternal country, where nothing de
filed is admitted, that is, to heaven. But this is not granted
for nothing. It is necessary that they should visit the
churches of St. Peter and St. Paul, at Rome, besides offering
certain prayers, &c. And the privilege, in this form, is
confined to the year of Jubilee, which comes four times in
each century, and always brings a crowd of pious believers
in the Papal prerogative to receive the promised benefit,
and to dispense a vast amount of substantial treasure in re
turn for the spiritual gift supposed to be conferred.
But the liberahty of the Pope does not end here, for it
appears, from your book called True Piety, prepared ex
pressly for your people in the United States, that a Plenary
Indulgence may be obtained without travelling so far, on

Indulgences sold. 281

the following days in every year: — " 1st, From Christmas
Eve to Epiphany. 2d, From the first Sunday in I^ent to
the second, inclusive. 3d, From Palm Sunday to Low
Sunday, inclusively, except Good-Friday and Holy Satur
day. 4th, From Whit-Sunday to the end of the Octave of
Corpus Christi. 5th, On the five great festivals of tho
Blessed Mary, with their Octaves. 6th, On the festivals of
St. Peter and St. Paul, of St. Michael the Archangel, and
within their Octaves."*' Thus it appears that a plenary In
dulgence, for any individual, or for the souls in Purgatory,
may be had on nearly half the days in the year. And you
know. Most Reverend Sir, that they cannot be had without
the money. Neither promises nor credit will suffice. In
the words of the merchant, " It is a cash transaction."
Yet Dr. Milner presumes to say, " we hold that it would
be a sacrilegious crime in any person whomsoever to be con
cerned in buying or selling them .'" How are we to under
stand this 1. Perhaps your people give the price, and the
priest gives the indulgence ; and so, as it is a gift on both
sides, there is no buying or selling in the case at all !
Certainly, that must be quite conclusive and satisfactory.
It is well known, however, that immense numbers of
plenary indulgences are constantly exported to the Papal
States of South America, and as we cannot doubt the per
fect impartiality of your Popes in the matter, we must take
it for granted that all the rest of your spiritual territories are
equally well supplied. Still, the Council of Trent, says
Milner, " used its utmost pains to prevent" the sale of indul
gences. Was this really so ? Let us look a moment at
the record itself, and it will be easy to answer the ques
tion. * True Piety, New- York Edition of 1826, p. 226.

282 Letter XXXIX.

" Decree concerning Indulgences."
"As the power of conferring indulgences has been granted
by Christ to the Church, and has been used from the most
ancient times, this Holy Synod teaches and commands that
it is to be retained in the Church, as highly salutary to
Christian people, and approved by the authority of the holy
. Councils, and condemns with anathema those who either as
sert that they are useless, or deny that the Church has
power to grant them. It desires, nevertheless, that moder
ation be observed in conferring them, according to the old
and approved custom of the Church, lest ecclesiastical dis
cipline be weakened by too much facility. And this Synod,
desiring that the abuses which have broken in upon them,
and by occasion of which the excellent name of Indulgences
is blasphemed by heretics, should be amended and cor
rected, ordains generally by this present decree, that all those
WICKED merchandisings (pravos qucBstus), in disposing of
them, from which the cause of abuses has flowed in upon
Christian people, be altogether abolished. So that the
privilege of Indulgences may be dispensed piously, holily,
and uncorruptly to all the faithful."*
And these are the words by which the Council of Trent,
as Dr. Milner presumed to assert, " used its utmost pains to
prevent this detestable simony." And this is his authority for
telling his readers that you hold it to be a sacrilegious crime
in any person whomsoever to be " concerned in buying or
selling indulgences.''
But did the Coimcil say anything of the kind ? Not at
all. It only recommended the old moderation, and abolished
the wicked merchandisings which had caused scandal against
I
* Hard. Con., Tom. 10, p. 190 ; Con. Trid., Sess. 25, A. D I56a
can. 1.

Wicked Merchandisings. 283

go

the Church from the heretics, whom it condemned with a
curse, according to its usual charity. And therefore. Most
Reverend Sir, Indulgences are bought and sold as much as
ever, only it is doiie quietly and prudently, with how much
" piety, holiness and uncorruptness," is not for me to decide.
It may be said, indeed, that Leo X. erred in managing
the work with so much publicity, not only dividing Europe
into districts (which is done still), but appointing men like
Tetzel, who cried up the value of the article in foolish ser
mons, and, by his extravagant commendations and impieties^
brought the whole matter into general contempt. Your
Church, however, was then triumphant. The followers of
Wickliff had been imprisoned and burned alive in England.
WicklifPs bones had been dug up and consumed, and the
ashes scattered upon the water. Huss and Jerome had
been martyred in Bohemia. What had the Pope to fear,
that he should have used any special caution ? How could
he have foreseen that from this little cloud, no larger than a
man's hand, should come forth a storm which shook Europo
to its centre, and scattered the modem corruptions of Ro
manism to the four winds of heaven ?
The Council of Trent, therefore, was hardly just in talk
ing about wicked merchandisings. They could not have
been esteemed very wicked, since I cannot find that any of
the agents were punished for their faults. The scandal
raised by Tetzel's folly began in 1517, with the opposition
of Luther, and the Council enacted its decree in 1563, after
forty-six years' experience of the consequences, when Sax
ony, Germany, Switzerland, Denmark, Norway, Holland,
part of France, Ireland, and the whole of England and
Scotland, had cast off their allegiance to the Papal crown.
And doubtless, if the Providence of God had not raised up
the men who were His instruments in opening the eyes of

284 Letter XXXIX.

Christendom to the crying corruptions of the Church, the
wicked merchandisings of Indulgences would have passed off
without any special notice, as many things far more wicked
had done before.
Such, then. Most Reverend Sir, as you well know, is the
true history and present state of your Indulgences. Such
is the evidence on which Dr. Milner rested his strong and
unqualified assertions. I leave it to your skill in Roman
casuistry to defend the veracity of your favorite in the best
way you can ; only regretting that the cause of your Church
should require the services of an advocate who was so
ready and dexterous a master in the school of misrepresen
tation.

The End of Controversy, Controverted. 285

LETTER XL.
Most Reverend Sir :
In the 43d letter of Dr. Milner, he presents your Church's
doctrine of Purgatory, and Prayers for the dead, which, as is
usual with all your writers, he considers so connected, that
the allowance of the latter proves the former of necessity.
This assumption, however, I shall plainly show to be quite
unwarrantable. It is true that the doctrine of Purgatory
includes prayers for the dead ; but it is perfectly untrue that
prayers for the dead necessarily include the doctrine of
Purgatory. He also exhibits his usual skill in proving that there is
an intermediate state assigned to the departed soul, the same
which in the Apostles' Creed is called Hell, that is, the in
visible place, or the place of departed spirits, as our Rubric
explains it. But who, belonging to the Church of England,
or to any other orthodox Church, doubts this ? And why
does he take such pains to prove it, as if it were a point in
controversy ? Was it in order to gain the advantage of
mystifying his reader's mind, by leading him to take the
evidence in favor of an intermediate state, as the evidence
for the peculiar kind of intermediate state expressed by the
term Purgatory ?
But as, in his previous letter, he took such excellent care
not to inform his readers what an Indulgence really signified,
so, in the present letter, he takes equally good care not to
say what Purgatory signifies. He merely quotes the Coun-

286 Letter XL.

cil of Trent, declaring that " there is a Purgatory, and the
souls detained there are helped by the prayers of the faithful,
and particularly by the acceptable sacrifice of the altar." And
this, he asserts, is all that is " necessary to be believed on the
subject." Truly, if a question of religious doctrine were not in
volved, this would be amusing. For when I ask, what do
you mean when you profess that there is a Purgitory ? nei
ther the Council nor Dr. Milner condescends to give me
any satisfaction. But would the Council of Trent have
used this word without defining it, if it had not already
been a well-known term in the Church, understood at that
day by all men ? And why did not your favorite author
give his readers the advantage of the explanation, unless it
were with the hope that inasmuch as many of them might
be simple-minded Protestants, knowing little or nothing of
the real system of Rome, they might be induced to believe
that there was very little difference, if any, betvreen their
own faith in an intermediate state, and the doctrine of Pur
gatory ?
The next specimen of your favorite author's disingenu
ousness appears in his assertion that the fathers taught your
modern Roman doctrine, and that all the Oriental Churches
hold the same. He says, indeed, that those Churches do
not believe the souls in Purgatory are punished with mate
rial fire. And adds : " Neither does our Church require a
belief of this opinion, and accordingly, she made a union
with the Greeks in the Council of Florence, on their barely
confessing and subscribing the aforesaid two Artides.'*
Here, he uses a Jesuitical subterfuge by qualifying the word
" fire," with the adjective material, for it is incontroverti
ble that your Church holds the punishment of the souls in
Purgatory by fire, although you do not say it is material

Prayer for the Dead. 287
fire, because that would not be consistent with the condi
tion of the soul, in its disembodied state. How far your
favorite is reliable in his representation of the sentiments of
the Fathers and of the Oriental Churches, will be shown
presently. Lastly, he winds up, as usual, by striking at the Church
of England, Luther, Calvin, &c. Of his charges against
others, I shall say nothing, because, as I have frequently
stated, my object is confined to the vindication of my own
communion. But with respect to his accusations against
ourselves, they have no bearing on the points at issue. It
is true, doubtless, that the first Prayer Book of Edward VI.
contained a special prayer for the departed. But Cranmer
became convinced of its inexpediency, audit was expunged.
It is true, likewise, that many of our old divines have
spoken favorably of such prayers, while they entirely con
demned your doctrine of Purgatorjr. As to his other quota
tions from later 'writers, I do not conceive myself obliged
to examine whether they are correctly made or not, since
it is plain, on his own statement, that they have no proper
relation to the points in controversy ; and even if they had,
I cannot allow the right of their authors to misrepresent
their Church, or advance their private speculation as a part
of her received doctrine.
His conclusion, that your purgatorial purification is con
formable to the dictates of natural religion, and agreeable
to the distinction which the mercy and justice of God will
observe in rendering to every man according to his deeds, is a
mere rhetorical flourish, which has nothing to do with the
question. Our faith is to be regulated not by natural, but by
revealed religion — not by the notions of " Plato, Virgil, or
Mahomet," but by the teaching of the Bible. And as to
the distinction necessary to be supposed, in the future state,

288 Letter XL.

between the various conditions of the redeemed, it is as
fully provided for without Purgatory as with it.
Having thus noticed the general heads of your favorite's
43d letter, I shall proceed to examine his argument in de
tail ; but I must first supply his omissions by stating what is
your Church's doctrine on the subject of Purgatory, as
briefly and as fairly as I can.
You hold that after the penitent transgressor has received
the pardon of his sins, through the atonement of Christ, and
by the act of priestly absolution, there remains a debt of
temporal punishment due to the justice of God, which must be
strictly paid, either in this life, or in the intermediate state
beyond the grave. That penance is imposed by the priest,
in order to satisfy the divine justice for this temporal penalty.
That nevertheless, none but the most eminent saints are
able to satisfy it so completely as to escape a large amount
of suffering which still remains to be accomplished, and
therefore that all souls, except a very few, do certainly pass,
at death, into a Purgatory, where they are tormented by
FIRE (not necessarily material fire, but fire notwithstanding),
until the debt be paid. That out of this purgatorial tor
ment, the departed souls can do nothing to relieve them
selves, but that they may be relieved partly by the prayers
of the Church on earth, especially by Masses, performed by
the priests for that express purpose, and by the plenary In
dulgences of the Popes, who can apply for their benefit the
merits and sufferings of Christ, and the merits and suffer
ings of the Virgin and the saints, which they are supposed
to have laid up, over and above what was required for their
own salvation, and of which those Popes are supposed to be
the sole dispensers. That this Purgatory must continue
until the end of the world, and will only cease when Christ
shall come again to judge the quick and the dead. That

Masses for the Dead. 289
its torture is intense beyond all bodily suffering. And
finally, that all who pass through it, or who are relieved by
the Masses of the priest or the Indulgence of the Pope, go
straightway to heaven.
It is obvious, at the slightest glance, that this doctrine is
the strongest basis of your priestly power over the fears of
your people. It is the terror of Purgatory which exalts
your imaginary dominion in the unseen world of departed
spirits. It is the terror of Purgatory which invests j'our
official sway with such tremendous influence. Yea, it is in
Purgatory that the priests and the' Pope can reign without
control. In the present world, every one may see that your
Masses and your Indulgences are far inferior in effect to the
prayers of other Christians. But in the place of departed
spirits, you may claim the privileges of God, without the
danger of disproof, for no one can come from thence to con
tradict you.
It is equally obvious that the doctrine of Purgatory is of
vast importance to your temporal support. Masses for the
dead are of far more pecuniary value than Masses for the
living. Indulgences, I grant, have sometimes been cheap
enough ; but on the whole, their price is a serious item of
the priestly and the papal income. And therefore. Most
Reverend Sir, it must be granted that your writers have
many cogent reasons for their zeal in defending your claims ;
and it is to be feared that there are very few amongst you
who refuse to sympathize with the Council of Trent, which
so emphatically pronounced its hearty anathema upon the
heretics, for daring to question their validity.
And now let me pay all due attention to your proofs,
which you profess to derive, first, from Scripture, secondly,
from the primitive fathers, and thirdly, from the ancient
practice of praying for the dead.
VOL. II. 13

290 Letter XL.

Your favorite author begins his Biblical evidence with a
passage from 2d Maccabees, which I have already demon
strated in my 17th letter to be no part of the admitted
Canon of Scripture, since it was rejected by Origen, Je
rome, Cyril, Epip'hanius, Pope Gregory I., Pope Gelasius,
the Council of Rome, the Council of Laodicea, the Coun
cil of Aix-la-Chapelle, and the so-called Apostolic Canons.
But let us see, nevertheless, what it is worth, in our present
subject of controversy. The statement of the historian is
the following, viz. : that Judas Maccabeus sent 12,000
drachmas of silver to Jerusalem for sacrifices, to be offered
for his soldiers, slain in battle, on which he makes this ob
servation : " It is therefore,'' saith he, " a holy and a whole
some thought to pray for the dead, that they may be loosed
from their sins."
Unfortunately, however, for the doctrine of Purgatory,
this passage proves quite too much. For it appears that
those soldiers who had perished in the battle were found to
have had under their coats " some of the donaries of the
idols of Jamnia, which the law forbiddeth to the Jews, so
that all saw plainly that for this cause they were slain."* In
other words, they were cut off for the crime of idolatry,
and died in mortal sin. But the Church of Rome holds
such to be damned, beyond recovery ; and, according to
your own doctrine, it would be utterly sacrilegious to pray
for them at all. The writer of the 2d Book of the Macca
bees, therefore, whoever he was, shows himself to have been
altogether at fault in the religious aspect of the matter. The
probability seems to be, that Judas Maccabeus had, in his
own mind, the case of the army of Israel, who were de
feated at Ai on account cf the sin of Achan,t and that the
* 2 Mac. xii. 40.
t Joshua, ch. vii.

Baptism for the Dead. 291
money which he sent for the offering of sacrifices was not
on behalf of the deceased idolaters, but on behalf of the living
army, lest they should be involved in the sin of their com
panions. But be that as it may, the passage is perfectly
worthless to your cause, since, if we adopt the statement of
the historian, Judas committed a grievous mistake, accord
ing to the judgment of Rome herself, by having sacrifices
offered for men who were, so far as human knowledge could
ascertain, utterly excluded from all hope of salvation.
Your author's next attempt to borrow authority from Scrip
ture is equally unfortunate. " That the Jews," saith he,
¦" were in the habit of practising some religious rites for the
relief of the departed at the beginning of Christianity, is
clear from St. Paul's first Epistle to the Corinthians, who
mentions them, without any censure." And in the note, he
quotes the passage, " Else what shall they do who are bap
tized for the dead, if the dead rise not at all ? Why are they
then baptized for them ?"* But this text, properly under
stood, has no relation to the subject. I suppose he would
hardly contend for the interpretation of the Marcionite here
tics, which Chrysostom describes in his 40th Homily, and
treats it with derision as an impious mockery. For those
heretics, when one of their catechumens died without bap
tism, administered the sacrament to the senseless corpse, a
living man being hid under the bed, and making the re
sponses of the baptismal office in the name of the departed.
Chrysostom himself, however, rightly explains the passage
as referring to the connection of Baptism with the funda
mental doctrine, that as in Adam all died, even so, in Christ,
shall all be made alive. Hence, all who come to Baptism,
are obliged to profess their faith in the Resurrection.
• 1 Cor., XV. 29.

292 Letter XL,

Why, therefore, argues the Apostle, are they baptized for the
dead, if the dead rise not at all ? That is. Why do they,
who are dead under the sentence of the law, receive Bap
tism, if there be no Resurrection — no remedy for death,
secured in the Gospel ? Why are we, who are dead in
sin, baptized in order that we may rise again with Christ,
if the dead rise not at all ?* The same exposition is given.
Most Reverend Sir, by your own annotator upon Tertullian,
who, in his Treatise on the Resurrection, likewise con
demned this vicarious administration of Baptism, saying,
that the soul is sanctified, not by the washing, but by the an
swer (of faith. )t But, above all, your own Douay Bible
furnishes a commentary, in which there are no less than
three different meanings assigned to the text, plainly proving
how your own doctors differ, while not one of the whole
three is sustained by the fathers, to whose exposition the
Council of Trent professes to confine you ! And yet Dr.
Milner, with his usual confidence, saith that the case is
" clear" from a passage the true sense of which you refuse
to learn from your canonized Chrysostom, although you
have not settled upon any other sense among yourselves !
He next asserts that the Jews, to this day, " continue to
pray for their deceased brethren ;" as if the practice of the
Jews, unsustained by their own Scriptures, were a rule to
the Church of Christ ! It is a pity, however, since he
thought fit to refer to them at all, that he did not tell his
readers the whole story, by honestly stating, that although
the Jews pray for the dead, yet they reject, as an utter
abomination, your doctrine of Purgatory. This, at least
would have been fair, and would have gone far, of itself, to
* S. Chrysostomi Horn xl. in Ep. ad Corin., cap. 15.
t Tertul., p. 355, with the note.

Paying the last Mite. 293
show that there is no necessary connection between the
offering of prayer for the departed, and the belief in your
purgatorial torture.
The next two passages which Dr. Milner cites from the
New Testament are not liable to any objection, as he does
not pretend to infer from them anything more than the doc
trine of an intermediate state for the disembodied spirits of
the just, which we hold in the same sense as the fathers.
But his quotation from St. Luke* is altogether irrelevant.
The passage, as given in your own Bible, reads as follows :
" When thou goest with thine adversary to the prince,
whilst thou art in the way, endeavor to be delivered from
him, lest perhaps he draw thee to the judge, and the judge
deliver thee to the exactor, and the exactor cast thee into
prison. I say to thee, thou shalt not go out thence, till thou
payest the very last mite."
He undertakes to assure his readers that the fathers in
terpreted the prison, here mentioned, to be the place of de
parted spirits. But he must have been aware that the fash
ion which Origen introduced, of looking for mystical and
allegorical senses in every text, is no ground for any positive
article of doctrine. On the face of the passage, it is plain
that our Lord was not speaking of the state of the departed
at all ; His object being merely to enforce the same precept
of peace and non-resistance, which He laid down in His
sermon on the Mount. f And it is equally evident that if
the words were applicable to your Purgatory, it is so far
from being favorable, that it is rather a decisive proof
against you. For the Saviour saith. Thou shalt not go out
thence, till thou hast paid the very last mite : while
you make it a point of 'faith. Most Reverend Sir, that the
* Chap, xii., 59. t St. Mat., v. 25, 39, &c.

294 Letter XL.

poor soul in Purgatory cannot possibly pay anything ! His
debt to the temporal justice of God must all be paid by
others for him, viz., by the priest, and the Pope, and the
friends whom he has left in the Church on earth. So that
here, as in many other places, the attempt of your unscru
pulous advocate to make the word of Christ speak according
to your system, only serves to furnish a new testimony
against your error.
The main text, however, which Dr. Milner affects to rely
on, is in St. Paul's first Epistle to the Corinthians,* where
he saith, " The day of the Lord shall be revealed by fire, and
the fire shall try every man's work, of what sort it is. If any
man's work abide, he shall receive a reward. If any man's
work he burnt, he shall suffer loss, but he himself shall be saved,
yet so as by fire."
And here, again, the Sc pture quoted is directly opposed
to your whole doctrine. For the day of the Lord is the day
of Judgment, the constant sense which the phrase bears in
the writings of the Apostle. Whereas Purgatory is sup
posed to be the period of the intermediate state, comprising
thousands of years, and ending when the day of Judgment
begins. By what kind of transubstantiation do you convert
what St. Paul saith about the final Judgment, into what you
teach concerning a previous state, ichich must be closed
before ?
Again, the Apostle, in treating of the Judgment, speaks
of the great sentence to be delivered after the Resurrection^
when the whole man, body and soul, stands before the tri
bunal of Christ. But your Purgatory supposes the condi
tion of the soul in its separate state, and has no relation
whatff fer to the body !

Chap, iii., 13-15.

Saved, so as by Fire. 295
Again, St. Paul, when he speaks of the fire (as he else
where saith,* Our God is a consuming fire), applies it to the
works of believers. But Purgatory applies its fire to the
soul itself, and has no relation to the works at all.
And again, the Apostle declares, that the believer, even
though his work be burnt, and therefore he himself shall
suffer loss, by missing the rewards of an active faith, shall
nevertheless be saved, yet so as by (or through) fire. The
language plainly imports that the believer will thus be saved
with extreme diffculty, or, as it is elsewhere expressed, he
shall be plucked as a brand from the burning. But how does
this agree with your doctrine of Purgatory ? For you do
not pretend that the fire of Purgatory saves any one. You"
hold, on the contrary, that every one who enters Purgatory
has already had his sins forgiven, and must undoubtedly be
saved at last. And the only use of your intermediate fire
is to provide a state of torture for the soul, out of which the
priest and the Pope can deliver him, so as to shorten his
term of suffering. But it is one thing to save the sinner.
And it is quite a different thing to alleviate the previous
chastisement which his sins have deserved. In addition to
which, the language of St. Paul opposes your doctrine in
this, that he saith, so as by fire, while your doctrine leaves
out the words so as, importing a comparison or similitude,
and makes your Purgatory consist of j^re itself. Thus,
there is not a single item of the whole text which will
serve the purpose for which your favorite author advances
it so confidently. And I shall presently show that an au
thority no less than that of Augustine himself entirely con
demns your modern interpretation.
There is yet another passage, however, which Dr. Milner,
• Heb , xii. 29.

296 Letter XL.

in common witjj most of your theologians, cites from St.
Mat. xii. 32, where our Saviour, speaking of the blasphemy
against the Holy Ghost, saith that this sin shall not he for
given either in this world or in the world to come. " These
words," saith your author, " clearly imply that some sins are
forgiven iu the world to come." To which I answer that
they imply no such thing, but, on the contrary, state most
emphatically that this especial sin shall never be forgiven.
For were it otherwise, the blessed Redeemer would have
stated what your own Church holds to be a gross error.
You know, Most Reverend Sir, that your Purgatory is set
forth, not as a place in which sin can be forgiven, but only
as a place in which the temporal punishment due to the di
vine justice may be remitted, after the sin has been fully par
doned by the absolution of the priest in the tribunal of pen
ance. What a strait you must be in for scriptural authority,
when your writers are not only obliged to put a false sense
upon the words of the Apostle, but even to force what you
hold to be heretical doctrine on the Saviour Himself!
I conclude the scriptural branch of the argument by re
curring to the passages which Dr. Milner cited in the former
letter on the subject of Indulgences, where the same abor
tive effort is made to sustain your modern fallacies by texts
which have nothing to do with your Church's doctrine.
Thus he saith, with admirable complacency : " I suppose
that no person who is versed in the Bible will deny that
many instances occur there of God's remitting the essentia]
guilt of sin, and the eternal punishment due to it, and yet
leaving a temporary punishment to be endured by the penitent
sinner. Thus, for example, the sentence of spiritual death
and everiasting torments was remitted to our first father,
upon his repentance, but not that of corporal death. Thus,
also, when God reversed His severe sentence against the

Temporal Punishment due to Sin. 297
idolatrous Israelites, he added. Nevertheless, in the day when
I visit, I will visit their sin upon them.* Thus, again, when
the inspired Nathan said to the model of penitents, David,
The Lord hath put away thy sin, he added. Nevertheless, the
child that is born unto thee shall die.] Finally, when David's
heart smote him, after he had numbered the people, the Lord,
in pardoning him, ofl'ered him by his prophet. Gad, the
choice of three temporal punishments — war, famine, and
pestilence." Here is the whole list of texts, which Dr. Milner claims
as a justification of your doctrine that the Almighty exacts,
in every case, a debt of temporal punishment proportioned to
the sins which He has forgiven ; that this temporal punish
ment must be strictly paid, either by penance in this world,
or by sufferings in the terrible fire of Purgatory ; and that
the Church on earth, through the Masses of. the priest, or
the indulgence of the Popes, possesses the sole prerogative
of remitting the debt, and freeing the departed spirit from
its rigid exaction !
But how do these passages prove a single article of your
modern doctrine ? Adam, if he repented, was doubtless
forgiven, and yet he suffered the sentence of the fall, Dust
thou art, and unto dust thou shalt return, because the prom
ised Gospel was never intended to supersede that sentence,
but to give man life from the dead. What has this fact to
do with Purgatory and Indulgences ?
Israel, on the intercession of Moses, was pardoned with
respect to the sin of idolatry in worshipping the golden calf,
yet the Lord said that when their other sins should provoke
His correction, He would chastise them for this among the
rest. What had this to do with purgatorial fire in the fu-
* Exod., xxxii. 34. t 2 Kings, xii. 14.
VOL. TI. 13*

298 Letter XL.

ture world, and the power of priests and Popes to deliver
them from the divine decree ?
David, on his deep and sincere compunction of soul
under the faithful rebuke of the Prophet Nathan, was for
given, yet he was chastened by the death of his child.
Does this prove that God exacted a debt of temporal punish
ment proportioned to the enormity of the monarch's sins ot
adultery and murder ? Or can it be inferred from it that
David would otherwise have been obliged to pass, after his
own death, into purgatorial flames ?
Once more, the same David sinned by indulging the pride
of his heart in the increase of his people, and ordered a
census to be taken in opposition to the divine law. And
the Lord rebuked him, by the Prophet Gad, and decreed a
chastisement which should be as public as the sin, only giv
ing him his choice whether it should be war, pestilence, or
famine. The penitent king immediately acknowledged his
offence, and chose pestilence, because he would rather fall
into the hands of the Lord, than into the hands of men, and
knew that God was very pitiful and of tender mercy. How
does this prove your doctrine of purgatorial agony beyond
the grave ? Or what possible bearing has it on the power
of priests and Popes to remit it ?
But Dr. Milner tells us that " St. Paul exercised this
power in behalf of the incestuous Corinthian, at his conver
sion and the prayers of the faithful.-* And the Church has
claimed the same power ever since the time of the Apostles
down to the present." I would to God that the Church had
been content to exercise the power of the Apostle, since
about that there never was, and never could be, one word
of controversy. But what did St. Paul on that occasion ?

3 Cor., ii. 10.

The repentant Corinthian. 299
Precisely what we all do to this day. He directed the in
cestuous Corinthian, in his first Epistle, to be put away from
the communion of the faithfur", and afterwards, when it was
ascertained that his repentailce was sincere, and that " the
rebuke was sufficient," the Apostle, in his second Epistle,
tells the Corinthian Church thaf'lhey should now "forgive
him, and comfort him, lest perhaps -.he be swallowed up with
overmuch sorrow."* And this restoration of the repentant
and reformed sinner is taken as an authority for the Papal
Indulgence ! Where, I pray you. Most Reverend Sir, is
the resemblance between them ? St. Paul gives directions
concerning a single penitent, of whose case he was fully
informed. The Pope issues millions of pardons to people
of whom he knows nothing. St. Paul recommends the
restoration of the reformed sinner to the communion of the
Church. The Pope issues his Indulgences to those who
are in communion already. St. Paul says not one word
about Indulgence, but evidently rests his advice on the
Christian duty of charity and reason, because the end of
discipline had been fully attained, and it was contrary to
the law of love that the Corinthians should suffer their
penitent brother to be swallowed up with overmuch sorrow.
The Pope unlocks his special treasure of his own grace, and
connects it, not with the just claims of fraternal affection
and pity, but with the Crusades, or the war against the
Turks, or the extirpation of heretics by fire and sword, or
the completion of St. Peter's, or the supplying of his own
coffers. St. Paul limits his authority to the Church on
earth. The Pope extends his sceptre over the place of
departed spirits. St. Paul desires to free the penitent from
the suspension of his regular Christian privileges. The
Pope undertakes to free millions from the torments of Pur-
? 2 Cor., U. 6, 7.

300 Letter XL.

gatory. St. Paul seeks only to restore a single reformed
transgressor to the feast of the Chri.g^ian Eucharist. The
Pope sends unknown multitudes straight to heaven ! St.
Paul gives his judgment withput money and without price.
The Pope grants his Indulgepfce for " a consideration."
And yet you claim the act of the Apostle as a scriptural
warrant for the Papal prerogative ! Which shall we most
admire, the outrageou^a.bsurdity, or the cool effrontery of
such an argument ; whidh yet, by dint of priestly manage
ment, united to the policy of princes, and operating on the
ignorance of your deluded people, has gained so extensive
a mastery over the sense and reason of mankind !
But now, having exhausted his Biblical evidence. Dr. Mil
ner turns to the fathers, " on which head," he has the confi
dence to say that we are " so unwise as to challenge" the
priesthood of Rome. Yet it will be easy to show that there
are few points in our controversy where the challenge may
be made with a greater certainty of victory for the truth.
And in order that my readers may be able to anticipate, as
it were, the true state of this sort of evidence, I shall pre
mise the candid acknowledgment of your own celebrated
men, the Benedictine editors of the works of St. Ambrose.
" It is not surprising," say they, " that Ambrose should
have written as he has about the state of departed souls,
but it seems to be almost incredible how uncertain and how
various the holy fathers have been upon fhe same question,
from the very times of the Apostles to the Pontificate of
Gregory XL, and the Council of Florence, that is, the pe
riod of almost fourteen hundred years. For not only does
one father differ from another, as, in questions not yet defined
by the Church, was likely to happen, but they are not even
found to be consistent ivith themselves."*
* S. Ambros. Op., Tom. 1, p. 385, Admonitio ad lectorem.

The Admission by the Benedictines. 301
Here, then, is an honest confession, forced by the neces
sity of the case from those eminent scholars who are per
haps the best qualified, among your whole body of divines,
to deliver a decisive judgment on the question. For I need
not tell you. Most Reverend Sir, that the Benedictines have
earned themselves a reputation beyond all others, in this
very field of patristic learning. Their editions of the fathers
are the most^prized, for their accuracy, their critical dis
crimination, and the admirable fulness and fairness of the
copious index which invariably accompanies each volume.
And here 3'ou have the plain expression of their unhesitating
opinion, that the fathers cannot be taken as a guide by your
Church, upon the state of departed souls, and that your doc
trine in relation to the matter was not settled by yourselves
until the Council of Florence, in the fifteenth century !
There is no escape from this admission. It puts an end
to the absurd pretence that your Purgatorial system can be
founded on the Scriptures, on the tradition of the Apostles,
or on the faith of the primitive Church. You have, indeed,
been so long repeating the idle boast that the Christianity
of Rome has always been the same from the beginning
(since this only could be truly Catholic), that your writers
labor, hard and ingeniously, to sustain the delusion, lest the
world should lose confidence in your infallibility. But the
learned amongst you know that this is all moonshine. And
when they speak their real sentiments, they are compelled
to abandon the absurd claim, and rest their faith (if faith it
may be called) either upon the doctrine of Development, or
upon the supposed authority of the Councils to establish such
articles of belief, from time to time, as they may find it ex
pedient to sanction. In either form, you make the Church
an Autocrat. The Bible has long ceased to be your guide.
The fathers have ceased to be your oracles. You cannot

302 Letter XL.

help, of course, the profession of the highest reverence for
both, and you give them their old titles of honor, for titles
of honor cost you nothing,' when the ties of obedience are
broken. But your rule of faith is the modern Church,
and the appeal to the Scriptures and the fathers is only kept
up for the sake of the multitude.
Nevertheless, as I have undertaken the task of following
your favorite champion. Dr. Milner, through the whole of
his pretended proofs and specious sophistry, I shall proceed
to consider the evidence which he adduces from the fathers
in support of your Purgatorial system.
He begins by quoting Chrysostom, who properly belongs
rather to the fifth than the fourth century, as he died A. D.
407. " It was not without good reason," saith this father,
" ordained by the Apostles, that mention should be made
of the dead in the tremendous mysteries, because they knew
that these would receive great benefit from it." But if Dr.
Milner had gone on a little farther, to see how Chrysostom
defends his assertion, he would have given his readers a
much fairer view of the testimony. Let me supply the
deficiency. " For in that time," continues Chrysostom, " when the
whole people stand, with hands stretched out, with the com
pany of priests, and that sacrifice, impressed with horror full
of veneration, how can we do otherwise than please God by
praying for the departed ? But this truly concerns those
who have died in the faith. For the Catechumens are not
worthy of this consolation, but are destitute of all help ex
cept one. And what is this ? It is lawful to give alms to
the poor for them, and from this they receive some refreshment.
For God wills that we should give help to each other.
Why else has He commanded that we should pray for peaoe,
and for the welfare of the world ? That we should pray

Prayers for the Dead. 303
for all men ? Amongst all these, there are thieves, sacri
legious persons, robbers, and others scattering six hundred
evils, and yet we pray for them all ; because there may be
perhaps some conversion of them. Since, therefore, we
pray for the living, who differ in no respect from dead car
casses, it is lawful to pray for these also."*
Here, then, we see that Chrysostom says not one word
about your imaginary oral tradition, delivered by the Apos
tles, but infers his doctrine from the scriptural command to
pray for all men. Moreover, he gives it as his opinion that
the Catechumens (that is, the persons who were preparing,
by a course of instruction, to receive Baptism, but who had
died unbaptized) might derive some refreshment from the
charity of those who should give alms on their account to
the poor. But this your Church would hardly venture to
endorse as sound doctrine. The passage, on the whole,
however, proves nothing more than this : that it was lawful
and acceptable to God to pray for the departed saints, and
to give alms for the deceased Catechumens, and that such
acts of piety were believed, by Chrysostom, and doubtless
many others, towards the close of the fourth century, to
give consolation and refreshment to the disembodied souls.
On this opinion of the fathers, which I have no wish to
disguise, I must commend to your attention. Most Reverend
Sir, two remarks, as altogether necessary to a proper esti
mate of the evidence.
First, that the Liturgies, which were published in the
fifth century, and have been quoted at large in my 31st let
ter, p. 83-4, include the Virgin Mary, Apostles and martyrs,
with all the rest of the departed faithful, in these prayers
* S. Chrysostomi Op., Tom, 6, Homil. iii. in Epist. ad Philip., cap.
1, p. 33.

304 Letter XL.

which were offered at the altar. Take special notice of that
unquestionable fact, I beseech you, and tell me whether it
was then supposed, by any Christian man, that these emi
nent saints were suffering the pains of Purgatory, or that
those prayers were offered, under the idea that they needed
them in order to be relieved from any sufferings whatever ?
And if it be asked. What, then, did Chrysostom mean by
saying that the departed would receive benefit, consolation,
dr refreshment from such prayers, the answer is ready ; and
I think that, to any reflecting mind, it will be satisfactory.
In the second place, then, I would observe, that next to
the supreme love which the Christian owes to God, the
love of the brethren is enjoined as the highest duty. St.
John even makes this the test of our spiritual character :
" We know," saith he, " that we have passed from death unto life,
because we love the brethren."* But if this feeling of spiritual
love begins in the Church on earth, we are assured that it
will not end there. On the contrary, we believe that it is
a heavenly affection, which abides throughout eternity, and
will even reach its highest point in the realms of celestial
glory. Hence, when the saint passes away from his mortal state,
and is thus separated from the eyes of his brethren, no one
supposes that he is therefore to be separated from their mem
ory or their feelings. He has only gone before, where they
are soon to follow. He is only separated from them for a
time, in order that he may be united to them forever. Do
they not, therefore, desire that he may remember them, when
he joins the blessed assembly of the spirits of the just made
perfect ? Do they not hope that the privilege of his prayers
to God, on their behalf, may still be continued to them, now

1 John, iii. 14.

Prayers for the Dead. 305
that he is removed so much nearer to the fountain of all
grace and heavenly benediction ? And does not he also
desire that his brethren may remember him, — that the as
sembled Church in which he was so long permitted to
stand, as a burning and a shining light, when they come
together to celebrate<the feast of love, may still give him
the tribute of their prayers and their affections ? And does
not the thought that the departed saints are thus employed
in praying for their brethren here, give strength and comfort
to the Christian heart on earth ? And would not the know
ledge, that the Church, in her most precious and solemn
service, offered her memorials and her prayers for the de
parted saint, give to the loving spirit of that saint a sweet
sense of refreshment and joy, in his peaceful paradise of pure
felicity ?
So simple, yet so strong, is the basis for this practice of
the Primitive Church, that even the yearnings of the nat
ural heart are compelled to do it homage. For we know
how powerfidly it operates on the worldly mind itself.
Can any one fail to see that the longing for posthumous
veneration forms one of the highest incentives to the acqui
sition of fame ? Can any one doubt that the patriots of the
Revolution, for example, derived a true and intense satis
faction from the knowledge that when the people, in after
ages, should come together to celebrate their national in
dependence, their names would be commemorated with
grateful triumph, and thanks and praises in their honor
would be uttered from the lips of thousands of orators in
every quarter of the land for which they toiled and bled ?
And has not the same feeling animated the breasts and
nerved the efforts of heroes and sages in all ages, since
the world began ?
Nay, is there a man, however humble his sphere — how-

306 Letter XL.

ever limited his circle — that does not desire to be remem
bered by his family and friends, after he has passed away ?
Does it not cast a deeper gloom over the hour of departure,
when death overtakes us among strangers and alone ? And
would it not add a sharp pang to the last agony, to be told,
by those we loved on earth, that in a little space we should
be entirely forgotten ?
Thus loudly does nature herself plead in behalf of this
universal feeling. It is the instinct of love. It is the wit
ness of immortality, written on the heart, and no effort of
false philosophy can overcome it altogether. But the
Christian faith explains it, sanctifies it, ennobles it, and
gives it the only true and proper elevation. For here we
learn that death is no real separation to the children of God.
Here we imbibe the spiritual love that lasts forever. Here
we enter into the grand society which shall be united be
fore the eternal throne. Why should the departed saint be
supposed to forget that Church, for which he toiled, and
prayed, and in which were formed, by the grace of the
Holy Spirit, the principles and the character of holiness ?
Why should the Church on earth be supposed to forget him,
who is an everlasting member of their own body 1 And
therefore, when they meet together, they take comfort in
knowing that he is still united to them in soul. And he
takes comfort in knowing that they never fail to commemo
rate him in those precious words : " And we also- bless Thy
holy name, for all Thy servants departed this life in Thy faith
and fear ; beseeching Thee to give us grace so to follow their
good examples, that with them, we may be partakers of Thy
heavenly kingdom."
Surely, then, we have here a rational foundation for the
custom of the primitive Christians, and the sentiments of
the early fathers, without being in any sense obliged to con-

Prayers for the Dead. 307
nect the consolation taken by the departed with the horrible
idea of Purgatory. The notion which your Church long
afterwards adopted, that we should only pray for the de
ceased because they were in torment, is utterly at war with
Scripture, with primitive practice, and with reason itself.
And this I shall prove, conclusively, by authorities which
are indisputable, on the manifest ground that the motives
which induce us to pray for the dead must be the same as
those which govern us in prayer for the living.
Thus St. Paul saith :* " Brethren, pray for us, that the
Word of God may run and be glorified, even as among you."
Again,! the same Apostle saith : " Pray for us ; for we
trust that we have a good conscience."
Again,J " Brethren, pray for us."
Again, § " I make mention of you always in my prayers."
Again, II " I trust that through your prayers I shall be
given unto you.''
Again ,T1 " Strive with me in your prayers to God for me."
A multitude of other texts might be cited to prove that the
duty and privilege of prayer were not confined to the idea
that the subject of the prayer must be in a state of suffering,
much less of torment, at the time. And when it is remem
bered that the blessing and guardian care of God are equal
ly necessary for the happy and for the miserable, equally
essential to the joy of the most eminent saint, and to the re
lief of the most dejected sinner, it must be manifest that if
there be a duty which is strictly universal, under all states
and all circumstances, that duty is prayer ; because it is in
prayer that we acknowledge our dependence on Christ, and
? 2 Thes. iii. 1, + Heb. xiii. 18.
t 1 Thes. V. 25. ^Rom. i..9.
II Philem. 22. If Rom. xv. 30.

-308 Letter XL.

confess that we, and all His people, are only safe in His
protection. That your system of connecting the prayers of the Church
for the departed with the doctrine of Purgatory is at war
with the whole primitive practice, I have already shown by
the fact, that the earlier Liturgies offered these prayers for
the Virgin, the Apostles, and even the martyrs themselves,
though there was no doubt that their souls were in the para
dise of joy and peace, instead of being in a state of fiery
torment. And that your modem principle is equally at war with
the reason of mankind, is manifest. For what Christian
parent would be satisfied to pray for his children, or what
Christian child would pray for his parents, only when they
were in .a state of agony or suffering ? Prayer, at such
times, may be more intense, on account of the excitement
of the feelings, but it is equally felt to be a duty at all
times, for the plain reason that we are always equally in
need of the divine care and blessing.
With these remarks on the primitive opinion and prac
tice, I recur to the other testimonies of Dr. Milner, the next
of which is a quotation from Tertullian, who, speaking of a
Christian widow, saith : " She prays for the soul of her hus
band, and begs refreshment for him." There is evidently
nothing in this, beyond the general custom of prayer for the
dead, which I have fully explained.
After this, however, he gives his readers a passage from
Cyprian, which he claims as a direct proof of Purgatory.
" It is one thing," saith this father, " to stand for pardon
(ad veniam stare), another to attain to glory ; one thing to be
sent to prison, not to go thence till the last farthing is paid,
another to immediately receive the reward of faith and vir
tue ; one thing to suffer lengthened torments for sin, and to

St. Cyprian ignorant of Purgatory. 309
be cleansed and purged a long time in the fire (emundari et
purgari diu igne), another to have cleansed away all sins by
suffering, namely, by martyrdom." Here, Milner undertakes
to 4ecide that Cyprian was speaking of " the difference be
tween some souls, which are admitted into heaven, and others
which are detained in Purgatory." But the fact is, that he
was treating of quite a different matter.
In order to understand the case aright, it must be ob
served that Cyprian lived at a period when the ancient dis
cipline of public penance — along and very severe process —
was exposed to a dangerous relaxation. A pernicious cus
tom had come in, which gave him serious trouble. For,
under the Emperor Decius, a furious persecution had arisen
and many Christians were in prison, because they openly
confessed the truth, and refused to bum incense before the
idols of Paganism. These faithful men, being condemned
to death, and considered as martyrs already, were induced
to give letters of intercession to many of the weaker bre
thren, who had yielded to temptation, requesting that their
act of outward compliance with the heathen might be for
given, and that they might be again admitted to communion
without the public penance which their sin deserved. And
the veneration entertained for these prospective martyrs in
duced the priests to comply, so that the rules of Church
discipline were in danger of being quite overthrown by this
novel kind of intercession.
Now, the passage which Dr. Milner quotes occurs in con
nection with this, and both from what precedes and what
follows, it is manifest that the language of Cyprian could
have no application to the subject of Purgatory. The apos
tates who claimed the right to be received to the Commu
nion in this summary way, did it by the favor of the mar
tyrs ; and therefore Cyprian argues that there was a vast

J.JCrl,l/t^/

difference between the privileges of a martyr and theirs.
" It is one thing," saith he, " to stand" (as they should do
according to the ancient rule of penance, in the outward
porch of the Church, of which Tertullian speaks), " in or
der to obtain their pardon, and another thing to obtain the
glory of a martyr. One thing to be placed in the prison
(of penitence), and remain there until the last farthing was
paid (by undergoing its full infliction), and another thing to
secure by martyrdom the immediate rewards of faith ; one
thing to suffer a lengthened torment for their sin, and to be
cleansed and purged in the fire (of penance), and another
thing to have all their sins cleansed away by a martyr's suf
ferings." That such is the only rational interpretation of the pas
sage, is further proved, first, by the fact that your own histo
rian, Fleury, who gives a condensed translation of the epis
tle in which it occurs, at great length,* does not notice this
sentence at all, which he certainly would have done if he
supposed that it gave any support to your system. And sec
ondly, by the perfectly conclusive testimony which Cyprian
himself elsewhere bears against your purgatorial doctrine..
For thus speaks this eminent martyr and Bishop : " When
we depart hence, there is no more place for penitence, no more
effect of satisfaction ; here, life is either lost or gained ; here,
provision is made for eternal salvation by the worship of
God, and the fruits of faith. Let no one be kept back from
securing salvation, either by his sins or by his years. To
him who is still remaining in this world, penitence is never
too late. Thou mayest ask pardon for thy sins, even al
though it be in the last hour of thy temporal life, and thou
mayest implore the only and true God, in confession, and in
* Fleury, Hist. Ecc, Tom. 2, pp 355-8.

iS^ Cyprian ignorant of Purgatory. 311
the faith of his acceptance. Pardon is given to him who
confesses his sin, and the saving indulgence is granted to
the believer, by the divine goodness, and he passes, in death
itself, to immortality. This grace Christ imparts, this gift
of His mercy He bestows by the trophy of His Cross
which overcame death, redeeming the believer by the price
of His blood, reconciling man to God the Father, giving
life to the mortal by celestial regeneration. Let us all (if
possible) follow Him, let us be valued by His sign and
sacrament. Here, He opens to us the way of life ; here.
He brings us back to paradise ; here, He leads us to the
kingdom of heaven. With Him we shall always live, being
made by Him the sons of God. With Him we shall al
ways exult, being healed by His blood. We shall be
Christians, glorious together with Christ, blessed by God
the Father, always rejoicing in perpetual pleasure in the
sight of God, and always giving thanks to Him. For it is
not possible that he should be otherwise than always grate
ful and joyful, who, although he was once subject to death,
is made secure of immortality."*
The real sentiments of Cyprian, Most Reverend Sir, are
set forth in this eloquent passage, with the utmost clear
ness, showing, beyond cavil, that he knew nothing of your
purgatorial system. No contradiction of that monstrous
doctrine could be more positive. For Purgatory is the very
place, according to the modern teaching of Rome, for com
pleting the measure of penitence and satisfaction which are
due to the temporal justice of God, after the present life is
ended. But Cyprian saith expressly, that " When we de
part hence, there is no more place for penitence, no more effect
of satisfaction." And the same sentiment occurs again,
• Cypriani Ep. ad Demetrianum, p. 240.

312 Letter XL.

where he urges the duty of public penance upon those
Christians who had lapsed, or fallen away in the persecu
tion. " Let each one confess his crime, beloved brethren,"
saith he, " while he who has sinned is in this present life, while
his confession may be admitted, while the satisfaction and re
mission made through the priests is acceptable to the Lord.
Let us be turned to the Lord with our whole mind, and ex
pressing our penitence for the crime with real sufferings, let '
us invoke the mercy of God. Let the soul prostrate itself
to Him, to Him let sorrow be satisfactory, on Him let all
our hope rely. And how we ought to supplicate. He tells
us : Return to me, saith he, with all your heart, and with fast
ing and weeping and mourning, and rend your hearts and not
your garments," &c.* Thus we see how emphatically the
whole work of penance and satisfaction is limited by Cyp
rian to this life, and nothing is left which your Purgatory
professes to accomplish, in the life to come.
The only authority which Dr. Milner specifies particu
larly after Cyprian, is Augustine, and here he states, truly
enough, that Augustine's mother, Monica, entreated that her
soul might be remembered at the altar, and that he per
formed this duty, and prayed that God would pardon her
sins. But your favorite does not tell his readers that in the
whole long account which this eminent father left on record
concerning the matter, in his Confessions, there is not the
slightest hint of Purgatory. He prayed for his mother after
she was dead, precisely as any Christian would have prayed
for her, while she was living. And there is not a single
expression in the minute and interesting statement, which
can be twisted into a proof that the Church had yet adopted
your modern doctrine. f Indeed, it is apparent that the con-
'* Cyp. de Lapsis, p. 203.
t S. Augustini Op., Tom. 1, Confes. Lib. ix., cap. 27-37, p. 122-4.

St. Augustine on Purgatorial Ftr-e. 313
duct of Augustine was the result of his feelings, rather than
of his theology, in accordance with the view which I have
already given, that Christian love was the real basis of the
primitive custom, to remember the departed saints in prayer,
and at the sacrament of the Eucharist.
Nevertheless, I freely admit that there are several pas
sages in St. Augustine which prove the beginning of your
present system. Thus, for example, he saith, in one place :
" After the death of this body, truly, until the final day of
damnation and reward, following the resurrection, if the
souls of the departed are said to suffer this sort of fire in
that interval of time, which those do not feel who have not
built the wood, hav, and stubble of earthly morals and af
fections (upon the true foundation) in this life ; but which
others feel who have carried with them this kind of build
ing, whether this suffering is to be endured there only, or
both here and there, or whether here, that it be not there,
our worldly, although venial, sins, find a burning fire of tran
sitory tribulation, all this I do not contradict, because, per
haps, IT IS true."* Non redargue, quia forsitan verum est.
Here, it is evident enough that the existence of your pur
gatorial fire was favored by some, even in the fourth cen-
tur}' ; and no wonder, because it had been long taught by the
heathen poets and philosophers, many of whom had united
with the Church of Christ, and, though believers in the es
tablished doctrines of the Creed, continued to hold their for
mer opinions on a variety of questions which were not pos
itively settled by the authority of Scripture. Augustine
himself, in the same famous work Of the City of God, saith
the followers of Plato, or the Platonists, held that all sins
would be punished, either in the present life or in the life
• S. Augustini Op,, Tom. 7, De Civitate Dei, Lib. xxi., c. 26, p. 490.
VOL. II. 14

314 Letter XL.

to come, but also held that such punishment was only for
correction. And he quotes the well-known lines of Virgil,
in the 6th Book of the .^Eneid, where the poet describes the
torments of the infernal regions, remarking that " those
who think thus, insist that there are no punishments after
death except such as are purgatorial."* From the heathen
philosophers^^ therefore, this, and many other doctrines,
might be naturally derived, which after ages chose to at
tribute to the more respectable source of Apostolic tradition.
But it is certain that your purgatorial system, though begin
ning to be broached in the days of Augustine, was far from
being then acknowledged as a Catholic truth, by any one.
We may see this plainly by another passage, where the
same father explains the textf on which Dr. Milner mainly
relies, without the least hint of a purgatorial fire. " The
fire," saith he, " of which St. Paul speaks in this place,
ought to be so understood, that both may pass through it, viz.,
he who builds upon this foundation gold, silver, precious stones,
as well as he who builds wood, hay, stubble. Since the
Apostle adds, that the fire shall try every man's work, of what
sort it is. If the work of any man abide, which he shall
have built upon it, he shall receive a reward. If any man's
work be burnt, he shall suffer loss, but he himself shall be saved,
yet so as by fire. The fire, therefore, will prove the work of
both, and not of one only. "J Here we have the interpreta
tion of Augustine, cutting up by the root your main scrip
tural reliance, on the clearest evidence of the text itself
He then proceeds to explain the fire as being the tribula
tion of the present life, saying : " There is a certain fire,
* De Civitate Dei, Lib. xxi., cap. 13, p. 478-9.
t 1 Cor. iii. 13-15.
t S. Augustini Op., Tom. 6, p. 93-4, De Octo Dulcitii quaestioni-
bus, t) xi.

St. Augustine on Purgatorial Fire. 315
the trial of tribulation, of which it is plainly written in an
other place. The furnace proves the vessels of the potter, and
the trial of tribulation proves the just.* This fire, in the
present life, performs what the Apostle saith, if it happens
to two believing men : to the one, namely, who thinks of
those things which are of God, how he shall please God,
that is, building upon Christ, the foundation, gold, silver,
precious stones ; and to the other, who thinks of those
things which are of the world, how he shall please his wife,
that is, building on the same foundation, wood, hay, stubble.
The work of the first is not burnt, because he did not love
those things by the loss of which he is afflicted ; but the
work of the other is burnt, because those things do not
PERISH without GRIEF, wMcli Were posscsscd with the love of
them. Nevertheless, the alternative being proposed, since
he would rather want them than Christ, and does not desert
Christ from the fear of losing them, although he grieves at
their loss, he is saved indeed, yet so as by fire, because his
sorrow for those perishable things which he had loved, burns
him, but does not consume nor subvert him, being fortified
by the stability and incorruption of the foundation."
Such are the words of Augustine's own explanation. Yet,
in the very next paragraph, he alludes to the purgatorial no
tion of others, as a possible thing, saying : " It is not in
credible that something of the same kind may take place also
after this life ; and whether it be so, may be matter of in
quiry. That some of the faithful are saved through a cer
tain purgatorial fire, more slowly or more speedily, accord
ing to their greater or less love for perishable goods, may
be either found, or it may lie hidden."
It is thus manifest that the doctrine of your purgatorial fire
* Ecclus. xxvii. 6.

316 Letter XL.

was not adopted by Augustine, nor regarded by him as a
doctrine of the Church in his day, but merely as an idea
which he would not condemn, because it was not incredible,
and mi^t, perhaps, be true. How vast the change which
your modern system established. Most Reverend Sir, when
Purgatory was not only recognized, with all its appendages
as a fixed point of faith, but your Council of Trent even
fulminated its formal curse against all who refused to be
lieve it !
I shall close the testimony of this eminent father with
one quotation more, in which the precise statement is made
of the practice and importance of the prayers and offerings
for the faithful departed in his day : —
" It is not to be doubted," saith he, " that the dead are
aided by the prayers of the Holy Church, by the salutary
sacrifice, and by alms-deeds offered for their souls, that the
Lord may deal with them more mercifully than they have
deserved. For this custom, delivered by the fathers, the
whole Church observes, that for those who are deceased in
the communion of the body and blood of Christ, when they
are commemorated in their place at that Sacrament,
prayer is made, and for them also the Sacrament is offered.
It is therefore not to be disputed, that these things are prof
itable to the deceased, but only to those who have so lived
before death, that such services can profit them after death.
For as to those who have departed this life without the faith
which worketh by love, and its sacraments, these offices of piety
are useless; since, while living, they received not the grace
of God, or received it in vain, and thus laid up for them
selves wrath instead of mercy. Hence no new merits
ARE provided FOR THE DEAD, WHEN THEIR GOOD BRETH
REN PERFORM ANYTHING FOR THEM, but those things which
are consequent to their preceding lives are rendered to them.

St. Augustine and the Pope. 317
For nothing is effected, unless they had lived so that these
services' might profit them when they cease to live here.
And thus whoever finishes this life, can have nothing
AFTER IT, EXCEPT 'WHAT HE MERITED IN IT."*
Compare, now, I pray vou, the language of the Pope
with the words of Augustine. This eminent father saith,
that no new merits are provided for the departed soul, beyond
those of his own life on earth. The Pope, on the contrary,
by his indulgence, " unlocks the sacred treasure, composed of
the merits, sufferings, and virtues of Christ and his Virgin
Mother, and of all the saints committed to his dispensation,
and applies them to the full "remission of the temporal pun
ishment due to divine justice for sin, on behalf of the souls
PURIFYING IN THE FIRES OF PURGATORY, that an entrance
may be opened for them into their eternal country, where no
thing defiled is admitted."]
Here is a downright contradiction, which no subterfuge
can reconcile. Augustine says not one word about the de
parted soul being in a state of suffering, not a word about
Purgatory, much less of fires, nor yet about opening the
entrance to heaven, when he speaks of the Catholic prac
tice of prayer, and offerings for the dead ; but he confines
the whole benefit to what the deceased Christian had al
ready merited in his lifetime. But the Pope undertakes to
pay the whole debt of temporal punishment due to the divine
justice for sin, on account of which he declares that the
departed soul is purifying in the fires of Purgatory ! And
he does this by unlocking the sacred treasure committed to his
dispensation, consisting of the merits and sufferings of
Christ, the Virgin and the saints ! And the effect is to be,
• S. Augustini Op., Tom. 5, p. 576, Sermo clxxii., ^ 2.
t See the Papal Bulls on p. 279-80.

318 Letter XL.

the opening to the soul, in the anguish of this fiery torment,
AN ENTRANCE INTO HEAVEN ! Yet Dr. Milner gravely
assures his readers, that the modern doctrine of Rome is
the same 'with the faith of Augustine !
I shall only add to this examination of those fathers
which your favorite author himself has quoted, a few ex
tracts from those who lived at an earlier period.
Thus Irenseus, Bishop of Lyons, about A. D. 170, writes
upon the state of the departed : — " Since the Lord himself
obeyed the law of death, that He might be the first-born
from the dead, and remained until the third day in the lower
parts of the earth, and afterwards arose in the flesh, so that
He showed the very marks of the nails to His disciples, and
thus ascended to the Father ; how should they not be con
founded, who say that these lower regions are only this
world, according to the present bodily state, but that the in
ternal man, as soon as it leaves the body, ascends immedi
ately to heaven ? For even the Lord went into the midst
of the shadow of death, where the souls of the dead were ;
and after His resurrection, ascended up to heaven. And,
therefore, it is manifest that the souls of His disciples, for
whom the Lord did these things, will likewise depart into
the invisible place, appropriated to them by the Deity, and
will there remain until the resurrection ; expecting the
hour when they shall receive their bodies again, and, ris
ing in their perfect state, that is, corporeally, as the Lord
Himself arose, will thus come to the vision of God."*
In like manner, Tertullian, about A. D. 200, speaks
upon the same subject : — " Our lower regions," saith he,
" are not a naked cavity, nor yet a certain drain of the
world under the waters, but they are a profound and vast
* Iren. Cont. Hseres., Lib. 5, cap. 31, p. 331.

No Primitive Purgatory. 319
space, in the inmost bowels of the earth. Therefore we
read that Christ was in the heart of the earth during the
three days of His death, that is, in the internal recess, in
closed within its lower abysses. But if Christ, our God,
because He was also man, being dead and buried according
to the Scriptures, satisfied also this law of human death
amongst these lower regions, and did not ascend to the
highest heavens, until He had first descended to the lowest
parts of the earth, in order that He might make the patriarchs
and prophets His companions, you must needs believe that
these regions are subterranean, and drive far from you those
who proudly imagine that the souls of the faithful are not
to enter these lower regions ; thus placing the servants
above their Lord, and the disciples above their Master, and
despising the privilege of Abraham's bosom, where they
might enjoy the privilege of looking forward to the resur
rection. For not yet has the trump of the archangel been
heard. Not yet has our Lord come to meet us in the air,
along with those who shall first arise at His advent.
Heaven is discovered to none as yet ; the earth is still shut
up, nor will the heavens be opened until the world passeth
away."* " Into these lower regions, therefore," saith Ter
tullian, in another place, " all souls are taken. And there
are both punishments and pleasures, as you read in the
parable of the rich man and the beggar. "f
In neither of these primitive witnesses, therefore. Most
Reverend Sir, do we find the least trace of purgatorial fire,
or purgatorial punishment. But their belief concerning the
state of the departed is simply based upon the knowledge
communicated by the Scriptures, especially in the narrative,
? TertuUiani De Anima Liber, p. 303, D., i Iv.
t lb., p. 306.

320 Letter XL.

furnished by the Saviour himself, of Abraham's bosom, into
which the soul of Lazarus was taken, being the same with
the paradise which our Lord promised to the penitent thief
upon the cross : separate from which, and across an impass
able gulf, was the region of the lost, where we read, in
deed, of torment and of flame, but with no indication what
ever of an intermediate place of purgatorial punishment be
tween them.
The language of the famous Ambrose, Bishop of Milan,
who was the instructor of Augustine, is equally hostile to
your modem system. " Death," saith he, " is the separa
tion of the soul and the body ; but this dissolution is not
evil, because to be dissolved and be with Christ is far better.
The Scripture calls death sleep, according to that passage :
" Our friend Lazarus sleepeth ; I go that I may waken him."
But sleep is good, because it is rest : as saith the Scripture,
" I laid me down and took my rest ; I rose up, for the Lord
sustained me." Sweet, therefore, is the sleep of death.
But at length the Lord wakens those who are thus resting,
because the Lord is the Resurrection."*
Elsewhere, the same Ambrose speaks in the following
strain : — " Let us fearlessly go to our Redeemer, Jesus ;
fearlessly to the assembly of the patriarchs ; fearlessly let
us depart to our father Abraham, when the day approaches ;
fearlessly let us proceed to the congregation of the saints, to
the convention of the righteous. For then we shall go to
our fathers, we shall go to our instructors in the faith, and
although our works may be deficient, yet faith will assist,
that our inheritance may be preserved to us. We ehall go
where the holy Abraham opens his bosom, in order that he

» S. Ambros. Op., Tom. 1, p. 404. De bono Mortis, o. viii., fj() 33
and 34.

Groivth of the Notion of Purgatory. 321
may receive the poor, even as he received Lazarus, in
whose bosom they repose who in this life endured calamity
and sorrow."*
Much more of the same evidence might be added, if it
were necessary, but these extracts must be abundantly suf
ficient to satisfy any candid mind, that the claim of Dr.
Milner to the authority of the fathers is in the face of all
historical truth and honesty.
The opinion of the heathen poets and philosophers, how
ever, to which Augustine refers, that there was a purgatorial
fire allotted to men beyond the grave, gradually increased in
favor, along with all the rest of the superstitious additions
to the pure and scriptural faith of the primitive Church.
The priesthood were disposed to favor it, because it was a
powerful argument in aid of penance and pious works, be
sides the encouragement which it administered to valuable
legacies for religious uses. And it grew until, as we have
seen in the extracts from your historian, Fleury,t it ob
tained the positive sanction of a dream from the monk
Guetin, in the ninth century, followed by other marvel
lous revelations which your famous Bellarmine recounts,
all of which were published far and wide, and believed
with entire conviction. In due time, the schoolmen re
duced your modern system, of penance and satisfaction
into regular shape ; so that in the thirteenth century, the
Summa of your celebrated angelic doctor, Thomas Aquinas,
with its Supplement, exhibited the whole of your doctrine
in its present form, and no change has since been made in
it, notwithstanding the extremely moderate and vague terms
in which Dr. Milner and many other of your controvertists
express themselves.
* S. Ambros. Op., Tom. 1, p. 411, cap. xii., ^ 1.
t Letter v., voi. i., p. 73.
VOL. II. 14*

322 Letter XL.

As to the Council of Florence, to which your favorite re
fers, the definitive jdecree was drawn up with the intention
of effecting a union with the Greek Church, the representa
tives of which, notwithstanding the utmost efforts of Pope
Eugenius, and his Bishops, assisted by the Greek Bessarion
(who was made a Cardinal for his devotion to the Papal in
terests), resisted to the last the admission of a purgatorial
fire. They consented, however, with one honest exception,
Mark, the Bishop of Ephesus, to subscribe these words, on
the point before us : —
" If those who are truly penitent depart this life in the
love of God, before they have satisfied for their sins of com
mission and of omission by fruits worthy of repentance, their
souls are purged after death by punishments ; and in order
that they may be relieved from these punishments, the suf
frages of the faithful living profit them — viz., the sacrifices
of Masses, prayers, and alms, and other offices of piety — '
which the faithful are accustomed to perform for other faith
ful persons, according to the established customs of the
Church."* Here it is evident that there is nothing strictly defined.
The souls are said to be purged by punishments (pcenis), but
by what sort of punishments, whether with fire or without it,
is left undecided. Dr. Milrter endeavors to mystify his
readers by foisting in the word material before the word
fire. But it is simply untrue that this word material was
introduced into the controversy. The fact is, that the Ro
mans insisted, for a long while, that the punishments of pur
gatory should be admitted to be hy fire. And the Orientals
steadily refused. Hence the decree of union was so drawn
up as to leave the point undecided. Yet, even so, the

• Hard. Con., Tom. 9, p. 482.

The Councils of Florence. 323
Greeks, when they were called to account at home for their
conduct, excused themselves for yielding to the claims of
Rome by saying that they were constrained by the emperor,
and deceived by the hope of aid, as well as by the fear of
being deprived of the means of returning to their own coun
try. The words of your own record are, " Fatentur se coac-
tos ab imperatore, et spe auxilii deceptos, et ne expensis rede-
undi in patriam privarentur, subscripsisse."*
The truth is, that the common artifice of your writers, in
appealing to your Councils of Florence and Trent as con
taining all that you hold on this subject, is wholly inexcu
sable. Of course, you have a right to appeal to those Coun
cils on every point which they defined. But who will say
that your doctrine of Purgatory was really defined at Flo
rence or at Trent ? And as it is undeniable that the union
patched up with the Greeks at Florence was repudiated by
"the Greeks themselves, as soon as they returned to their
own country, and that they even charged the Pope and the
Roman clergy with deception and fraud, and denounced
their colleague Bessarion as a traitor, and in their Synod at
Constantinople specified no less than twenty-five particulars
in which they held the Church of Rome to be censurable,!
I should really suppose that the less you say about the defir
nitions of that Council, the better.
To conclude, then. Most Reverend Sir, I claim for the
Church of England a faithful conformity with the teaching
of the Scriptures and the substantial practice of the primi
tive Church, on the state of the departed ; and charge your
modem system with an extensive and dangerous innovation
upon the Catholic truth, which was held from the beginning.
Your present doctrine was not concocted until the thirteenth
* Hard. Con., Tom. 9, p. 1356. t lb., 1357, cap. 4.

324 Letter XL.

century, the age of your most celebrated schoolmen. The
primitive principle of commemorating the faithful dead, we
have retained in the prayer for Christ's Church Militant,
which forms a part of our Communion Office, in agreement
with the earliest Liturgies. Beyond this simple commem
oration, it has been judged expedient not to go, because
of the superstitions which your Church unhappily connected
with the subject. Enough is said to answer the purpose of
Christian unity and affection, and anything beyond this is
but a question of expediency. The same principle is ob
served in one of our prayers in the Burial Service ; and if
individuals in private choose to add specific petitions in the
manner of Tertullian and Augustine, as was the custom of
Dr. Johnson for his departed wife, and has been probably
the case of many others, our Church, like the primitive
Church, though she does not either enjoin or recommend
the practice, yet nowhere condemns it.
It ought, however, to be carefully remembered, that we
have no right whatever to attach to such prayers the prom
ise of any positive or specific effect upon the subject of
them, for this is more than we can undertake by any act of
supplication for others. We are commanded in Scripture
to pray for all men. The Apostles prayed for their people,
and charged the people to pray for them. But how far
such prayers do really obtain their object, must be, in every
case, a question which God alone can answer, and therefore
we hold it to be a dangerous impiety to attach a positive
result to any efforts in our power, with respect to the dead,
when we never can be sure of any similar result with
respect to the living. I have already admitted that it must
yield a certain comfort and satisfaction to our Christian
feelings to think that the departed saints pray for us in the
spiritual world, and that it must give them comfort and

Purgatory not Catholic. 325
satisfaction to believe that we remember them with cordial
affection. But to suppose that we may go farther, and
make it a point of faith that we do certainly receive specific
advantages from God through their prayers, or that they
can receive specific benefits from ours, we altogether con
demn, as an unauthorized and dangerous superstition.
Certain it is that Augustine, who advocates so strongly
the offering of prayers, &c., for the departed, expressly de
clares that they receive no benefit from them beyond what
they merited when living. And this is precisely equivalent
to saving that they receive no benefit at all, except the sat
isfaction derived from the sympathy of Christian affection.
For it cannot be supposed that God, who is infinitely just
as well as merciful, would deprive the departed soul of any
blessing which he deserved to receive on his own account,
through Christ, merely because his friends on earth had
neglected to ask for it. It is an absurdity to believe that
the Lord would make one of his people suffer, after death,
on account of the omission of others, who were yet living.
And therefore, when we come to the substantial meaning
of the primitive practice, we find that it is sufficiently pre
served by the passages which I have quoted from our Com
munion and Burial Offices, while the testimony of the fathers
is hostile, throughout, to your whole figment of purgatorial
punishment, and there is not a shred of evidence to show
that it was ever held as a Catholic doctrine.
I take leave to add, that although I have set forth the ar
gument in favor of prayers for the departed, not only as a
matter of justice to the primitive Church, but also as due to
the first Prayer-Book of our Reformers, and to the known
sentiments of many of our greatest divines, yet I do not
mean to be reckoned among the advocates for the practice.
Certain it is, that there is no injunction and no example of

326 Letter XL.

it in the whole range of Scripture. On this point, there
fore, the office of the primitive Church, as the best inter
preter of Scripture, fails, for the very plain reason that there
is no Scripture to interpret. And hence, while I cannot con
demn the practice as a positive error, I fully approve the
omission of such prayers from the subsequent Prayer-Book
of our Mother Church and of our own, and should assuredly
object to their re-introduction.

The End of Controversy, Controverted. 327

LETTER XLI.
Most Reverend Sir :
The subject of Milner's 44th letter, Extreme Unction, is
based upon the text in the Epistle of St. James,* and I have
already answered aU the argument which he adduces, in my
19th letter, vol. i., p. 362-4, to which I must refer my
readers. His 45th letter is devoted to a much more important
question. Whether the Pope be Antichrist. And I might
pass this question by altogether, because it is but a ques
tion of opinion, which the Church of England leaves en
tirely to the individual judgment of her priests and people.
Hence it has no place in our Articles, Offices, or Liturgy.
Hence, too, our own writers are at perfect liberty to specu
late about it, along with many other questions of prophetic
interpretation.* And therefore, in strictness, it does not be
long to the controversy between our respective Churches,
which only embraces the points brought to a positive issue.
Nevertheless, as Dr. Milner labors so strenuously to cast
ridicule on the opinion which certainly prevailed amongst
the Reformers of our Church upon this interesting subject,
and as I have no hesitation in avowing my own conviction
that the character of Antichrist belongs pre-eminently to the
Papacy, it becomes my duty to notice his track of argument,
and to show why I consider it perfectly delusive and un
satisfactory. » Chap, v., 14, 18.

328 Letter XLI.

He commences by asking at what period the grand apos-
tacy took place, and shows how various the calculations of
Protestant writers have been, in reference to that matter.
But it is evident that this, like every other corruption in re
ligion, could not have been otherwise than gradual and slow,
because no sudden change would have been possible in a
question which involved the assent of millions, scattered
over the whole European continent. The main point is to
determine the fact, whether an antichristian power has
arisen in the Church of God, and this can never be evaded
by showing how authors have differed about the time when
it first appeared. Who ever applied the same sort of cavil
to any other great truth of history ? Take, for example,
the undoubted fact that the languages of Italy, Spain, and
Portugal were formed from the corruption of the Latin.
Can this be disputed because the date cannot be agreed on
when the corruption began ? Take the undoubted fact that
the irruption of the barbarians into the old Roman Empire
produced the decay of. the civil law, and established, in
stead of it, the customs of feudalism. Can this be denied,
because it is impossible to fix the precise beginning or the
successive steps of the important change ? .Indeed, the ar
gument of Dr. Milner would be found an absurdity on any
subject whatever. If a government be tyrannical, can the
fact be impugned by a difference of opinion about the time
when it first became so ? If the body be diseased, can the
fact be set aside by a dispute about the commencement of
the symptoms ? If darkness covers the heavens, must I
doubt the fact because there may be various opinions about
the exact moment when the light of day disappeared from
the horizon ?
The work of your favorite author. Right Reverend Sir, is
full of this sort of paralogism, which deserves, in truth, no bet'

Antichrist before the Reformation. 329
ter name than that of the baldest sophistry. It may impose
upon the weak, but it is an insult to any intellect of fair ca
pacity. Dr. iNIilner, however, took care to give his readers
only the notions of certain Protestant interpreters. Why
did he not tell them the calculations of his own school 1
Why, especially, did he not communicate the declaration of
Pope Gregory the Great, who, addressing the Emperor
jMaurice, A. D. 595, against the ostentation of John, the
Patriarch of Constantinople, expressly saith : " I assert con
fidently, that whoever calls himself the universal Bishop, or
desires to be so called, is the forerunner of Antichrist in his
pride, because he exalts himself proudly above others."*
Why did he pass over the fact that Arnulphus, the Bishop
of Orleans, when sitting as president of a Council, in the
tenth century, applied the term Antichrist to the Pope of
Rome ? That Fluentius, Bishop of Florence, in the twelfth
century, taught publicly that Antichrist was born and come
into the world ; that Joachim, the famous Abbot of Cala
bria, asserted the same fact, and added that Antichrist would
be exalted to the Popedom ? That not only did the Walden
ses hold it as a settled doctrine, but that the term was cur
rently used all along in the Church of Rome itself, when
ever Kings or Cardinals were roused to resist the Papal
despotism ? It was therefore no invention of the English
Reformers, nor of any other reformers in the sixteenth cen
tury. On the contrary, it was familiar both in the Church
of Rome, and amongst all her opponents, from an early pe
riod. And the only true question is the simple matter of
fact, whether the system of your modern hierarchy, with
the Pope at its head, deserves the title.
The next argument of your favorite is derived from the
* Greg. Mag. Op., Tom 2, p. 881, D., Ep. 33, Ad Mauricium Aug.

330 Letter XLL

supposed absurdity of the notion that the " falling off," or,
as some translate the word, " apostacy," which St. Paul de
clares to be the forerunner of Antichrist, could be asserted
of the Church of Rome, when she maintains all the creeds
and doctrines of the primitive faith unchanged. But it is
evident that in this there is no inconsistency whatever.
For the adulteress may continue to be the spouse of her
husband, and does usually so continue, professing the old
faith of her marriage covenant, long after she has " fallen
off," or " apostatized" from her allegiance, by reason of her
sin. And the Church of Israel, when the prophets called
her by this very name, was still, by her profession, the
Church of God, though she had become a harlot, through
her idolatry. The Apostle intimates the same thing when
he declares that Antichrist should " sit in the temple of God,
showing himself that he is God."* And thus we see, dis
tinctly, that this impious opposer is to be looked for in the
Church itself, proving, beyond all honest doubt, that the
temple of God, or the Church, was to be the very seat of
Antichrist. ,
Dr. Milner next attempts to prove that the second char
acter of St. Paul's description, viz., that Antichrist " oppos
eth and is lifted up above all that is called God, or that is
worshipped,"! cannot apply to the Pope, because he has his
private confessor, and confesses his sins in private, like any
other member of your Church. This, however, is a mere
subterfuge, since no one ever applied the term Antichrist to
the Pope as a man, but as a tyrannical Sovereign ; and it is
only a trifling with the question to turn off the inquiry into
the character of his official acts, by telling us about his;?n'-
vate practice as an individual sinner.
• 2 Thes. ii. f 2 Thes. ii. 4.

The Man of Sin. 331

The only way to prove rationally that Popery is Anti
christian, is to show its accordance with the description
given by the Scriptures, and I freely grant that the burden
of proof lies on those who make the charge. Thus, then,
I establish it as a just and incontrovertible accusation.
First, the Apostle declares that there should be a " fall
ing off," or an " apostacy." And I have shown, from the
pages of Fleury, that this is clearly admitted by your own
writers. Your historian states expressly that the purity of
the Church passed away with the first six centuries, and the
old fathers lament its growing corruption, long before. I have
shown that the primitive Catholic faith drew all its Articles
from the Scriptures, and that your modern system added
new doctrines, unknown to the Apostolic ages, and founded
on a false tradition ; while licentiousness and ambition came
into the Church like a flood, so that the Popes and the
Kings, and the Councils themselves, were often afterwards
forced to declare that the Bishops and the priests were bring
ing the world to ruin. Certainly here was an Z'wful falling
off, or apostacy from scriptural faith and Christian practice.
Secondly, the Apostle declares that after this falling away
" the man of sin should be revealed," or made manifest.
And the Papacy was in due time made notoriously mani
fest by the plain acts of its history.
Thirdly, St. Paul asserts that Antichrist " opposeth and
is lifted up above all that is called God, or that is worship
ped, so that he sitteth in the temple of God, showing himself
as if he were God." And this I maintain to be precisely ap
plicable to your modern system of Popery. For it opposes
God, when it sets up another standard of faith besides His
Word. It opposes all that is worshipped, when it estab
lishes new objects of worship, and sets up a rivalry to
Christ, in the power and grace attributed to the Virgin Mary,

332 Letter XLL

telling the sinner that even when the Saviour and the Holy
Spirit are indifferent to his prayers, yet Mary is still able
and willing to save him. It lifts itself above God, when it
contradicts His Word in the celibacy of priests, in the wor
ship of images, in adding to His sacraments, in the as
sumed power _of deciding upon the satisfaction required for
sin, of declaring it to be forgiven by the act of the priest,
and of freeing the departed soul from the punishment de
manded by divine justice. It sits in the temple of God,
because it is the ruling power in the Church, and because
the new Pope is actually seated upon the altar, and adored
by the Cardinals who have elected him. And it " shows
itself as if it were God," when it makes its decrees the ab
solute and final source of all truth and authority, independ
ent of, and often contrary to, the Bible.
Fourthly, the Apostle declares that the coming of Anti
christ is " according to the working of Satan, in all power,
and signs, and lying wonders." And your modern Papal
system tallies with this throughout. It is " according to
the working of Satan," because it is false, deceptive, and
perilous to the souls of men, yet always cunningly disguised
under the aspect of zeal for their welfare, as Satan prom
ised our first parents an increase of knowledge and of priv
ilege, from their act of disobedience, and still deceives them
in the appearance of an angel of light. It is " in all power,"
because it succeeded in arrogating to itself the entire and
despotic control of faith, and office, and honor, and liberty,
and life itself, bringing kings before the Pope's footstool, and
punishing all rebellion against its dictates by the dungeon and
the stake. And it is displayed " in signs and lying wonders,"
because it deals in the assumption of continual miracles, by
relics, and pictures, and images, and marvellous impostures,
all directed to the increase of its own profit and dominion.

The Antichrist. 333

Fifthly, it " malies war with the saints," according to St.
John. Because it has sacrificed hecatombs of Christian
men, whose consciences refused to obey its dictates rather
than the Bible ; and, during those long ages when it had the
power, its constant remedy against all its opponents was the
sword of exterminating slaughter, and the tortures of the
inquisition. Sixthly, it agrees with the mystic number of 666, stated
in the Book of the Revelations, not by the " ingenious efforts
of Protestant expounders'' only, but by the express opinion
of Irenaeus, the Bishop of Lyons, in the year 170, who
makes Lateinos, or Latin, the exponent of that name. St.
John wrote in Greek, and the letters forming this word, in
that language, amount precisely to the number 666. But
this corresponds most accurately with Popery, because it is
Latin in its Roman origin, Latin in its language, Latin in
its laws, Latin in its superstitions, Latin in its dress, Latin
in its architecture, Latin in its imperial ambition, so that
no one word could be chosen to express its name and char
acter so comprehensively. Very true it is that the same
number of 666 has been applied to other names, as your
favorite author has stated, but there is not one amongst
them all which corresponds like this with the other parts
of the Apostolic prediction, and with all the facts of
history. Thus, .then. Most Reverend Sir, I state the principal
reasons for my own opinion, which agrees with the prevail-
inff sentiment of the English reformers, that Popery is the
Antichrist of Scripture. It is not a topic which I should
have chosen, of myself, to introduce into the discussion.
But it has been forced upon me by your favorite author, and
if it jars unpleasantly upon your feelings, you must ascribe
it to the necessity dictated by his course, rather than by

334 Letter XLI.

mine. The topic of the Pope's supremacy comes next in
order, and in this I shall endeavor to fulfil my promise of
replying, though briefly, to your own elaborate work upon
the same subject, in the full confidence that the truth is
mighty, and will prevail.

The End of Controversy, Controverted. 336

LETTER XLII.
Most Reverend Sir :
In answering the 46th letter of Milner, upon your doc
trine of the Pope's supremacy, I shall endeavor to follow
the track of his argument as usual, and show the irrelevancy
of his proofs as I pass along. But as I have already de
voted the 23d and 24th letters of this series to the same
topic, I must refer my readers to these, for a large portion
of the evidence, and content myself with noticing here those
matters which have not been disposed of previously.
He commences by informing his Salopian correspondent
what the faith of the Church is not. And here he expressly
disclaims the idea that the Pope " has any civil or tem
poral supremacy, by virtue of which he can depose princes,
or take away the property of other persons out of his own
domain." But in this, he artfully disguises the whole ques
tion, for no one, properly instructed, ever supposed that
the Pope claimed a civil jurisdiction beyond the States of
the Church. The right to depose princes, make war
upon heretics, and confiscate their property, has always
been treated as a branch of his spiritual prerogative " to
feed and govem the whole Church" with full power, ac
cording to the Council of Florence. And therefore the
oath of the English and Irish Romanists, which was so in
geniously worded to gull the British Parliament, is in real
ity no protection at aU against the largest claims of Papal
power, because that oath only denies his " civil jurisdiction,
power, superiority, or pre-eminence, directly or indirectly,

336 Letter XLLL

within the realm," and this is a kind of jurisdiction which
was never demanded by the highest advocate of Ultramon-
tanism. Your dexterous advocate next defends the exercise of
this deposing power, by representing the kingdoms, princi
palities, and States of Europe, as " a Christian Republic, of
which the Pope was the accredited head." As " the duty
of civil allegiance and submission," continues he, " cannot
extend beyond a certain point, and they ought not to sur
render their property, lives, and morality to be sported with
by a Nero, or a Heliogabalus, instead of deciding the point
for themselves, when resistance becomes lawful, they thought
it right to be guided by their chief pastor. The kings and
princes themselves acknowledged this right in the Pope,
and frequently applied to him to make use of his indirect
temporal power, as appears in numberless instances. In
latter ages, however, since Christendom has been disturbed
by a variety of religions, this power of the pontiff has been
generally withdrawn." And then he quotes Sir Edward
Sandys, saying, that " the Pope was the common father,
adviser and conductor of Christians, to reconcile their en
mities, and decide their differences."
Now this is a very pretty theory. Most Reverend Sir,
and it is a pity that it is entirely irreconcilable, not only
with historical fact, but even with the avowed principles of
the Papal assumption. But this contrariety I shall show to
the satisfaction of any candid reader.
In the first place, the notion of the whole Church being a
Christian republic, of which the Pope was the accredited
head, and. that he only interfered upon the application of
the people, is a perfect misrepresentation. The Church
was a Christian republic in the primitive ages, and with us
it is so still. But with you, since the twelfth century, there

The Popedom a Monarchy. 337
has been nothing republican about it. The Pope claimed
that his office invested him with the sovereignty of the
world as the vicar of Christ by the divine decree, and not
by the will of princes or people. Gregory VII. was the
leader in the matter, and he rested his right to depose the
Emperor of Germany on this ground alone, as the successor
of the Apostles Peter and Paul. And the cause of the dif
ficulty had nothing to do with an}- allegation of tyranny or
despotism — nothing to do with the rights of the people —
nothing to do with their morality, liberty, or lives — nothing
to do with the case of a Nero or a Heliogabalus. It was
simply a struggle between the Pope and the emperor for
the right of investiture, in which the monks and the great
body of the clergy took the Papal side, because they sym
pathized in the object, which they knew would result in a
vast aggrandizement of the power of the priesthood. And
so far were the Popes from being the friends of republican
principle, that all of them, for centuries in succession, held
the same doctrine that the Papal and the kingly powers
were the two great lights of the world, to which all others
should be in subjection.
That the kings and princes acknowledged the claims of
the Pope, and frequently applied to him to exercise them,
is another assertion which is far from being generally true.
For history shows that they only applied to him when it
suited their interest, and, for the most part, their wars and
their politics were managed with no regard to his opinion,
except as an ally or confederate on the one side or the
other. Indeed, it will be found that there were few wars
in Europe, after the power of the Pope became established,
in which he was not a party. And hence, there is not a
capital city on the whole of that large Continent, which has
been so often taken and pillaged by Christian armies as
VOL. II. 15

338 Letter XLII.

Rome itself, nor one from which the sovereigns have been
so often expelled by Christian kings and princes.
The third statement of your favorite author is equally de
ceptive, viz., that "in latter ages, this power of the pontiff
has been generally withdrawn." What he means by the
latter ages must be explained by his own language, that the
change has taken place " since Christendom has been dis
turbed by a variety of religions." As if Christendom had
not been much more disturbed by the quarrels, the schisms
and the wars, fomented by the Papacy during the ages be
fore the Reformation ! But to show at once, by a decisive
proof, the error of your author's whole statement, I shall ap
peal to the Papal bull put forth by this republican pastor,
A. D. 1570, for the purpose of deposing Queen Elizabeth,
and to this authoritative document I shall ask my reader's
best attention : —
" Pius, Bishop, Servant of the Servants of God."
" In perpetual memorial of the matter. He that reign
eth ON high, to whom is given all power in heaven and in
earth, hath committed His one Holy Catholic and Apostolic
Church, out of which there is no salvation, to one alone
upon earth, namely, to Peter, the chief of the Apostles, and
to Peter's successor, the Bishop of Rome, to be by him gov
erned WITH plenary authority. Him alone hath He
made prince over all people and all kingdoms, to pluck up,
TO DESTROY, TO SCATTER, TO CONSUME, to plant and tO
build, that he may preserve his faithful people (knit together
in the bond of charity) in the unity of the Spirit, and pre
sent them spotless and unblamable to their Saviour. In
discharge of which function, we, who are, by God's good
ness, called to the government of the aforesaid Church, do
spare no pains, laboring with all earnestness that unity and
the Catholic religion (which the Author thereof hath, for

The Bull of Pope Pius. 339

the trial of His children's faith, and for our amendment, suf
fered to be tossed with so great afflictions) might be pre
served sincere.
" But the number of the ungodly hath gotten such power,
that there is now no place in the whole world left which
they have not essayed to corrupt with their most wicked
doctrines ; and amongst others, Elizabeth, the pretended
Queen of England, the servant of wickedness, lendeth
thereto her helping hand."
Then follows a long enumeration of charges against
Elizabeth, after which, this Papal bidl concludes in these
words : —
" Being, therefore, supported by His authority, whose
pleasure it was to place us (though unable for so great a
burden) in this supreme throne of justice, we do, out of the
fulness of our Apostolic power, pronounce the said Elizabeth
to be a heretic, and the favorer of heretics, and her adhe
rents in the matters aforesaid to have incurred the sentence
of excommunication, and to be cut off from the unity of the
Body of Christ. And moreover, we do declare her to be
deprived of her pretended title to the kingdom aforesaid, and of
all dominion, dignity, and privilege whatsoever, and also the
nobility, subjects, and people of said kingdom, and all others
who have in any sort sworn allegiance unto her, to be for
ever absolved from any such oath^and all manner of duty, do
minion, allegiance, and obedience. And we also do, by au
thority of these presents, absolve them, and do deprive the
said Elizabeth of her pretended title to the kingdom, and all
other things before named. And we do command and charge
all and every the noblemen, subjects and people, and others
aforesaid, that they presume not to obey her, or her orders,
mandates, or laws ; and those who shall do the contrary, we
DO INCLUDE IN THE SAME ANATHEMA."

340 Letter XLII.

Here then. Most Reverend Sir, we have the genuine
character of your true system. There is not Dne word about
Dr. Milner's Christian republic ; not one allusion to the
Pope, as the father of Christendom, deciding the point that
resistance became lawful on the part of the people, when they
were oppressed by the despotism of a Nero or Heliogabalus ;
nor yet the slightest reference to his power being given
by general consent, as the accredited head of this same
republic. But on the contrary, there is the distinct claim
of a divine right, conferred by Christ Himself, and therefore
quite independent of human consent, to pluck up, to destroy,
to scatter, to consume, as a prince over all kingdoms and all
people, WITH PLENARY AUTHORITY. Truly, one cannot
help admiring the notions of government which could con
nect the term Christian republic with such a sweeping des
potism. But this was only a consistent adherence to -the whole
modern history of your Papal system. For Pope Innocent
III. expressed the true theory of your Church, long before,
in these words : " In the firmament of heaven, viz., of the
Universal Church, God made two great lights, that is. He
instituted two great dignities, the authority of the Pope, and
the power of kings. But that which rules over the day,
namely, in spiritual things, is the greater, and that which
rules over carnal things, .is the lesser. So that the dif
ference BETWEEN pontiffs AND KINGS may be Understood
to be as great as between the sun and moon.''
Nay, the principle is laid down in your Roman Canon
Law, on the authority of Pope Boniface VIII. : " All the
faithful of Christ are of necessity of salvation under the Ro
man Pontiff, who has both swords, and judges all men, but
is judged by none. We are instructed by the Gospel that
in the power of the Pope there are two swords, the spir-

Modern Papal assumption. 341

itual and the temporal. The one to be used /or the Church,
the other by it ; the one by the priest, the other by the hand
of kings and soldiers, but at the nod and sufferance of the
priest. For one sword ought to be under the other, and the
temporal authority to be subjected to the spiritual. Finally,
we declare, say, define, and pronounce, that it is necessary
TO SALV,\TION FOR EVERY CREATURE TO BE SUBJECT TO
THE Roman Pontiff."
Such is, and such has been, since the twelfth century,
the claim of your Papal supremacy. But Dr. Milner saith
that in these later ages, meaning since the Reformation,
" it has been generally withdrawn." When ? Where ?
On what occasion ? I have set forth the very words of the
bull in which the Pope assumed the power to depose Queen
Elizabeth. How has it been abandoned ? Is it not a no
torious fact that the clergy of France denounced this claim
of the deposing power in their celebrated " Declaration,"
A. D. 1682 ? And is it not equally notorious that this act
was condemned by Pope Innocent XL, and afterwards by
Pope Alexander VIII. ? Even so late as the present cen
tury, did not Pope Pius VII. absolve all Frenchmen from
their obedience to Louis XVIII., and authorize an oath of
allegiance to Napoleon Bonaparte ? And in A. D. 1809,
did not the same Pope excommunicate the same Napoleon,
because he invaded the Papal dominions ? The language
of this last bull breathes the old spirit. " Let our persecu
tors learn once for all," saith the pontiff, " that the law of
Jesus Christ has subjected them to our authority and our throne.
For we also bear the sceptre, and we can say that our power
is far superior to theirs. Already have so many sovereign
pontiffs been forced to proceed to similar extremities against
rebellious princes and kings, and shall we be afraid to
follow their example V

342 Letter XLII.

Thus, then, I show the utter delusiveness of Dr. Milner's
statement. True, indeed, it is, that the Romanists of France,
of Germany, England, and the United States, refuse to al
low that this Papal dominion is the doctrine of your Chiirch ;
but equally tme it is that the Popes themselves, ¦syhrnare
theoretically the ultimate judges in all your coBliogabsies,
have claimed the power from the tifc cf or°.gr bein^I.,and
have invariably exercised it whenever they were i the. It is
positively, therefore, a fraud upon the ignorancetiind sim
plicity of the public mind to pretend that Dr. Mf ^r's ac
count of the matter is either fair or candid. H^ Dught to
have set forth the true views of the Papacy ^©.lich divide
your Church, the ultramontane and the cismontane, as they
are termed in Europe. He ought to have stated that the
Italians, the Spanish, the Portuguese, and the Jesuits
everywhere, maintain, to this day, the same prerogatives of
the Pope which we have seen claimed by all your Pontiffs
even so late as the nineteenth century. He ought to have
stated that on this vitally important subject there is no real
unity amongst you. And instead of leading his readers to
suppose that there is anything republican about your idea of
the Church, even on the most moderate ground, he should
have honestly repudiated such a notion as abhorrent from
your whole system. \ and i
Your favorite author next notices the dogirto thajt 'apal in
fallibility, but only to pass it over by sayingV hat be has
nothing to do with it, as being merely a scholastic question.
This was wisely done, inasmuch as he couid not have de
nied it, without giving offence to the Pope, the ultramontane
party, and the whole Jesuit school. And he could not have
admitted it, without alarming his Protestant readers, and
thwarting his main object of making Popery look as mild
and moderate as possible. But in truth, if he had thought

Primacy of Honor. 343
that honesty was his best policy, he would have set forth
the two theories which divide your Church in this matter
also. These theories I have already explained in my ob
servations on the extracts from Fleury. Your Ultramon
tane, or High Church party, claim infallibility for the Pope,
whenever he speaks of the doctrines of faith officially, or
ex cathedra : while your Cismontane, or Low Church party,
only predicate infallibility of the decisions of a General"
Council. For to this day, your Church has not discovered
whether the Pope is superior to a General Council, or a
General Council to the Pope. So far are you from having
an}- real unity, even in this fundamental point of your Pa
pal system.
Dr. Milner proceeds, however, to what he calls " the
question itself, which is, whether the Bishop of Rome, who,
by pre-eminence, is called Papa (Pope or father of the faith
ful), is, or is not, entitled to a superior rank and jurisdic
tion, above other Bishops of the Christian Church, so as to
be its spiritual head here upon earth, and so that his See is
the centre of Catholic unity ?"
Now here, I must observe^ by the way, that this title of
Papa, or father, which your modern Church has confined to
the Pope, was given in the primitive Church to all Bishops
equally. But with respect to the string of proofs, which
your lavorite gives from Scripture and the fathers in favor
of the Pope's supremacy, I must refer my readers to the
23d and 24th letters, where he will find them all answered
by authorities which no sophistry can overthrow.
The concluding portion of Dr. Milner's 46th letter is de
voted to a statement of the sentiments of certain eminent
Protestant writers, some of them being men of high repu
tation in the Church of England. And here there is no
difficulty whatever, when the true character of such con-

344 Letter XLIL

cessions is properly understood. For the amount of all
these opinions is precisely this : that those writers would
have made no serious objection against granting a certain
primacy of honor to the Bishop of Rome, provided his of
fice and influence were only used in the service of truth
and holiness, with due regard to the doctrines of the Scrip
tures, as held by the primitive Catholic Church, and to the
rights of his brethren. Not because he is entitled even to
this, by any divine rule, or by any apostolic precept. But
because, in consideration of unity and peace, thus much
might be conceded to the established habits and feelings of
a large and powerful portion of Christendom, if such a con
cession would restore the Church of Christ to harmony, and
put an end to dissension and strife.
This, however, was only put forth as an hypothesis. In
point of fact, none of our writers ever supposed that a
primacy of mere honor would be enough to satisfy the am
bition of your pontiffs, or that the attendant conditions of a
return to scriptural and primitive truth could be accepted by
a Church which has boasted so long and so loudly of her
unchangeableness and infallibility. The prevailing senti
ment amongst our divines has been the very contrary.
There was much ground for hope that the principles of the
Reformation, in the early part of the sixteenth century,
would have operated to purify the whole mass of your mod
em corruptions, but the slavish subjection to the Papacy
which your great Council of Trent displayed, seemed to
rivet the bondage of your Church more firmly than ever.
And I believe that I speak the general opinion when I say,
that Popery will never be done away until the second ad
vent of the Redeemer, when the kingdom of Antichrist, ac
cording to the language of prophecy, shall be " destroyed
by the brightness of His coming."

Growth of Papal Power. " 345
Most true it is, indeed, that the primitive Church was
really a Christian republic, resembling, in many respects, the
Constitution of the United States. For every Bishop was
elected, not by the fiat of the Pope, but by the voice of the
clergy and the people ; and his office, in point of govern
ment, was like that of the Governor of each State, whose
main duty it is to see that the laws are obeyed, and that the
internal administration proceeds with regularity. Every
Bishop, too, like the Governor, might be impeached, and
deposed, not by the sentence of the Pope, but by a Coun
cil of his brethren. After the first three centuries of per
secution had passed away, the unity of the Church at large
was exhibited by the General Councils of Bishops, the pow
er which executed their decrees being the religious con
science of Christians, which, in case of violent opposition,
was sustained by the laws of the State, as it still is amongst
all civilized communities. But there was no supremacy of
jurisdiction given to the Bishop of Rome until the Emperor
Valentinian granted to him the prerogative of hearing ap
peals from his brother Bishops, A. D. 366. The Council
of Sardica had recommended the same kind of appeal some
years before, but only to the extent of authorizing the Pope
to commit the cause to a new tribunal of Bishops, which of
course did not vest in the pontiff the right of pronouncing
a final decision. Even this, however, was more than the
Church was willing to allow, as I have proved in the 24th
Letter, by the testimony of Jerome and the decrees of subse
quent Councils. And a long period elapsed before the Pope
rose to the eminence of undisputed supremacy over the
Churches of Europe ; while the Oriental Church steadily
and constantly resisted, contending that an equal jurisdic
tion should be allowed to the Bishop of Constantinople.
The result was a gradual concentration of power, a total
VOL. II. 15*

340 LiCtter AL.ll.

destruction of the original republican principle which main
tained the official equality of all Bishops, an incurable
schism between the East and the West, and a final substi
tution of monarchical and feudal law, on the pretended
foundation of divine right, derived from a false interpreta
tion of the words of Christ addressed to the Apostle Peter.
And thus the throne and the sceptre, of which Pope
Pius VII. spake so strongly in his Bull against Napoleon,
in the year 1809, took the place of the original Apostolic
system, and the kingdom of Antichrist was established over
the Church of God.
Where, then. Most Reverend Sir, do you find a trace of
this Christian Republic in your modern Church 1 Since
the twelfth century, the election of your Pope is confined
to the College of Cardinals, and these Cardinals are all
appointed by the mere will of the reigning pontiff. Thus,
each Pope has the monstrous power of limiting the choice
of his successor to a very small and partial circle, and the
rest of the Bishops, the clergy and the people, are totally
disfranchised, and have no voice whatever in the election
of the monarch of Christendom. Do you call this repub
licanism ?*
The style in which your Pope has used this prerogative
of appointing the Cardinals, from whom alone his successor
could be elected, was worthy of the kingdom of Antichrist,
for they were usually his own devoted partisans, elevated to
this high dignity by motives of personal partiality, or policy,
or caprice. Mere boys and children were sometimes nom
inated, of which Fleury gives many instances, and Pope
Julius III., even during the Session of the Council of Trent,
gave his own Cardinal's hat to a man who had been pre-

* Letter VI., vol. i., p. UO.

Our System tnily Republican. 347
viously the keeper of his monkey ! Since the Reforma
tion, I grant that these matters are managed with far more
prudence and discretion, but there is as little republicanism
about them as ever.
And what is the condition of your Church under this an
tichristian despotism, which Dr. Milner presumes to call a
Christian republic ? The Pope appoints the Bishops, the
Bishops appoint the priests. The priests are absolute over
the people. Have your congregations any power to elect
their own pastors ? Have the clergy and the people any
voice in the electing of their own Bishop ? Have the Bish
ops, clergy, and people any voice in electing the Pope 1
Can there be a greater outrage on the meaning of words
than the calling of such a government republican in any
thing 1 True, the history of your Church, as I have shown
by the extracts from Fleury, exhibits an abundance of com
plaint, resistance, schisms, bloody wars, mutual hatred among
contending parties, cruelties, tortures and blood — the natural
appendages of an antichristian tyranny. True, also, that
the salutary loss of Papal power has been succeeded by a
far milder administration, through necessity, and policy, and
fear. But your system remains to this day, as it has been
for seven centuries, a pure, unmitigated despotism. And
you lack nothing but a restoration of the element of power,
to display the old fruits, in all their former atrocity. Alas
for the principles of Christian republicanism, for Christian
liberty, for the personal right to read even the Word of God,
if ever the judgment of the Most High, in punishment for
our sins, should bring us to behold that day !
In perfect contrast to your whole system, our own branch
of the Holy Catholic Church is indeed a Christian republic,
respecting the rights of all our clergy and laity, from first to
last, in our whole system. Qur highest legislative Council

348 Letter XLLL.

is the General Convention, in which no law can be estab
lished or changed, without the free consent of a majority of
Bishops, priests, and laymen, in strict accordance with the
decree of the first Apostolic Council, which was published
in the name of " the Apostles, elders, and brethren."* The
Bishops sit in this assembly in a separate body, like the
Senate of the United States, but with equal powers, as in the
primitive Councils. The House of Clerical and Lay Depu
ties, like the House of Representatives, sit together in an
other body, but vote, when it is required, in separate orders ;
so that the laity alone, if so disposed, can nullify the action
of the clergy and the Bishops : proving the care with which
the rights of our people are guarded from invasion. These
clerical and lay deputies, moreover, are all freely elected in
the previous Conventions of every diocese, the members of
which are the Bishop, the clergy, and the delegates from
each parish. These delegates, again, are elected by the
vestrymen of the parishes. And the vestries are elected
annually by the free votes of the parishioners themselves.
Thus the republican principle is carried out from first
to last. Our Bishops are elected by the concurrent
votes of the clergy and the laity in every diocese ; and
when consecrated, they can exercise no arbitrary power.
They cannot ordain, without the consent of the Standing
Committee, who are themselves elected to their office by
the clergy and laity. They cannot appoint a rector to the
smallest parish, without the free election of the vestry, who
are laymen elected by the parishioners. They cannot de
pose a clergyman, or excommunicate a layman, without a
fair trial and a verdict by his peers. They cannot separate
^ pastor from his fiock, without the consent of the parties,
» Acts, XV. 23.

The true Christian Republic. 349
unless there be a trial and a sentence for some delinquency.
And thus we claim the privileges of a Church which is em
phatically a Christian republic, where we are governed by
the law a.nd order established by common consent, and in
which, nevertheless, the clergy and the Bishops, though all
equally subject to the laws, enjoy as much influence and
power as are consistent with the true nature of thei? office.
For we desire to remember that we are appointed, not to be
lords over our brethren, but to be the servants of Christ,
to lead them to Him, who is their Master and ours, in the
unity of faith, and love, and holy obedience, as members,
each in his own order, of that Church, which is His body,
the fulness of Him that fiUeth all in all.*
• Eph., i. 23.

350 The End of Controversy, Controverted.

LETTER XLIII.
Most Reverend Sir :
¦I HAVE promised, before I close my humble work, to de
vote a little space to your book on the Primacy of the Apos
tolic See, written in reply to my volume on the Church of
Rome, in the year 1837. And here I must content myself
with a few remarks on the general course of your argu
ment, not wishing to repeat what has been proved already.
In the first place, you labor very ingeniously to sustain
the Roman sense of our Lord's address to Peter, Thou art
Peter, and on this rock I vnll build my Church, <SfC. But
you have left untouched the large amount of evidence which
I adduced from the Scriptures, proving, conclusively, that
your doctrine is perfectly inconsistent with the language
and conduct of the other Apostles, and of St. Peter himself.
Not one sentence can be found in the Gospels or the Epis
tles to favor the idea that he was invested with a supremacy
over the rest, and the whole strain of the subsequent history
is at war with your position. I must refer to my book itself
for the various passages, and shall only observe here, that
in the interpretation of the Scriptures, the first great rule is
to give them the sense which makes them consistent with
themselves, instead of deriving, from a single text, found
only in St. Matthew, a meaning which involves a host of
other and clearer passages in confusion and perplexi;.y.
Secondly, I would observe that your hypothesis requires
not only the supremacy of Peter over the other Apostles,

St. Peter not the first Bishop of Rome. 351

but further, that he was the Bishop of the Church of Rome
at his death, and that his successors in office were intended
to continue the same supremacy to the end of the world.
But it is historically certain 'that Peter was not the Bishop
of Rome, for Irenaeus, the oldest witness on the point, posi
tively declares, A. D. 170, that the Church of Rome was
founded by the two most glorious Apostles, Peter and Paul,
and that they delivered to Linus the Episcopal right
OF governing it. To him succeeded Anaoletus ; AFTER
HIM, IN THE THIRD PLACE FROM THE ApOSTLES, ClEMENT
IS CHOSEN, &c. Eusebius, the father of Church history,
adopts the same statement in the following century : " Linus
WAS THE FIRST," Saith he, " THAT RECEIVED THE EPISCO
PATE AT Rome." It is demonstrably evident, however, that
even if Peter had been Bishop of Rome, and had also pos
sessed the supremacy which you claim for him, it could not
have passed to Linus without a special grant of authority
over the whole world, which was quite distinct from the
Episcopate. For the headship which your theory sup
poses, being personal to himself, not as a Bishop, but as an
Apostle, remained in him as much after as before the con
secration of Linus ; and hence your notion that it devolved
on Linus by the mere act of consecration, is a pure absurd
ity : since, in that case, Linus, the Pope, would have be
come immediately the superior of Peter the Apostle.
But there is a further absurdity attendant upon your doc
trine, derived from the unquestionable fact that the Apostle
John lived more than thirty years after the Apostles Peter
and Paul became martyrs under the tyrant Nero. On your
hypothesis, therefore, he must have been subject to Linus,
Anaeletus, and Clement, by virtue of St. Peter's supposed
supremacy ! And yet St. John does not even mention that
part of our Lord's address to Peter, on which you rest your

352 Letter XLIII.

whole Papal claim. His writings were published towards
the ojose of the first century, long after the establishment
of the Roman Church, which you call the Mother and Mis
tress of all the Churches. But neither in his Gospel, nor in
his Epistles, nor in his Apocalypse, does this inspired
Apostle give the least hint of this supremacy, which, as
you would fain persuade the world, was not only an au
thority above himself, but the very foundation of the whole
Church, and the essential bond and centre of Catholic
unity !
Thirdly, your theory fails when it is brought to the test
of history. Your hypothesis is, that the Papal supremacy
was a divine appointment, essential to the unity of the
Church, because the Pope is the centre of unity. But it is
certain, from the testimony of your own historian, Fleury,
that unity was not attained by this supposed enactment of
the Saviour. On the contrary, the claims of the Pope pro
duced the great schism of the Oriental Churches in the
ninth century. Disputes, wars, contentions, persecutions,
and, above all, a frightful declension into licentiousness and
immorality, marked the whole course of the Papacy, ante
rior to the Reformation. The order of the Jesuits, which
is distinguished, above all others, by its devotion to the
Pope, has been expelled over and over again from all the
Papal territories of Europe. And it is only since the
Reformation that the declension of this very Papal power
has produced a better and more peaceful state among your
selves. How, then, I pray you, could that have been in
tended as a centre of unity, which has been the chief cause
of destroying unity ? And why is not the profession of the
same primitive creed, protected, as at first, by the Councils
of Bishops, a far safer and more effectual preservative than
the maintenance of an irresponsible monarchical power,

Pr-imacy of Honor. 353
which nothing short of a continual miracle could possibly
keep from degenerating into a corrupt and irritating des
potism ?
Fourthly, you have adduced, from many of the fathers,
expressions of high, and sometimes very rhetorical, respect
towards the See of Peter and the Bishop of Rome, as if they
were proofs of your Papal theory, when, at the most, even
if those passages are genuine, they could only be taken as
indicating a primacy of honor. But this is a very differ
ent thing from the supremacy o{ jurisdiction. The one is
the language of reverence — the other is the acknowledg
ment of rightful power. The pre-eminent importance and
influence naturally attached to the wealthiest and greatest
of the primitive Churches,may easily account for these words
of deference. While, at the same time, the very same
fathers and Councils plainly demonstrate, not only by other
declarations, but by public acts, that they held no such
principles of Papal domination as were afterwards estab
lished and maintained. The proofs are given at large in
my 24th Letter, where Irenaeus, Origen, Cyprian, Eusebius,
Ambrose, Jerome, Augustine, and also the Council of An
tioch, the first General Council of Constantinople, the Coun
cil of Milevi, the sixth Council of Carthage, and the Gen
eral Council of Chalcedon, are cited in full on the point in
controversy, and in language which no general expres
sions of compliment to the See of Peter or the Bishop of
Rome can do away, in the judgment of any intelligent and
candid reader. For words of praise and outward rever
ence to men in high official station cost nothing. It is only
when the point of direct interpretation, or of positive jurisdic
tion, is presented, that the true opinions of the primitive
fathers can be correctly ascertained.
Tried by this sound rule. Most Reverend Sir, I hesitate

354 Letter XLIIL

not to say, that your able and elaborate reply has not in the
least shaken the evidence against your system. You have
favored me with several small verbal criticisms upon my
translations, for which I thank your superior accuracy. But
I am happy to see that even your microscopic eye has found
nothing in them all which affects the substantial truth and
correctness of my statements. The most important one
among the whole, viz., my quotation from Irenaeus, was vin
dicated fully in our pamphlet correspondence some years
ago. Nor could I fail to derive from your volume the most
satisfactory conviction of a success which I hardly ventured
to anticipate, when I saw that your eminent ability, united
with ingenious talent and research, had labored in vain.
Let me now briefly state the chain of evidence which
your Papal hypothesis w-ould strictly require before it could
deserve the assent of a sound judgment, in the face of its
antecedent improbability, and its historical failure as a cen
tre of unity to the Christianity of the world.
It should be clearly shown from Scripture, as the only
proper basis, that a supremacy of government and jurisdic
tion over the other Apostles was conferred on St. Peter.
But this can never be shown, because it is plainly incon
sistent wilih all the other Scriptures. Peter never claimed
it. The Apostles nowhere acknowledged it. And the Sa
viour Himself invariably put down the inquiry which they
frequently raised among themselves. Who should be the
greatest? by saying: " One is your Master, even Christ, and
all ye are brethren." Neither can such a doctrine be sup
ported from the fathers, as I have clearly proved already.
Their laudatory language of St. Peter as the chief, the
prince, the key-bearer of heaven, the rock of the Church,
&c., is manifestly insufficient to prove an official right of
superior jurisdiction, although it may pass well enough for a

St. Peter not the Bishop of Rome. 355
primacy of honor. But this kind of primacy would yield
no support whatever to the Papal superstructure.
Next, it should be clearly proved, not only that St. Peter
established the seat of his spiritual government as Bishop
at Rome, but also that he transferred his apostolic supremacy,
whole, entire, and unconditionally, to all his successors in
that See, by inspired command, to the end of the world.
But this can never be shown, because it involves, as I have
proved, an absurdity ; and further, because it is in direct
contradiction to St. Paul's claim, in the Epistle to the Gala-
tians, of having the Gospel of the Gentiles specially commit
ted to himself, as the Gospel of the Jews was to Peter : — a
claim assented to by Peter and all the rest, and acted upon,
as we see in the narrative of the Acts, where St. Paul's
journey to Rome, and his preaching successfully for two
years together, are expressly related, without one word
about St. Peter. The same appointment is further proved
by St. Paul's Epistle to the Romans, since this, like his
Epistles to the Corinthians, the Galatians, the Ephesians,
the Philippians, the Colossians, and the Thessalonians,
naturally suggests his relation to the Church of Rome as its
founder ; while, if St. Peter was actually the Bishop of
Rome at the time, according to your hypothesis, it would be
utterly unaccountable that St. Paul should have written such
an epistle without taking any notice of his brother laborer,
with whose diocesan rights he was thus so strangely inter
fering. In truth, however, your whole assumption that St.
Peter was for seven years Bishop of Antioch, and then, for
twenty-five years more. Bishop of Rome, is perfectly irre
concilable with the scriptural record. It is opposed also,
as I have shown, to all the statements of the more ancient
fathers, and deserves no confidence whatever from any
mind which values the rules of hisforical evidence.

356 Letter XLLII.

Lastly, you should be able to get rid of the positive and
plain contradictions to the Papal claims, which stand on the
face of the early Councils as I have cited them. The 28th
Canon of the General Council of Chalcedon, alone, is per
fectly fatal to your whole hypothesis. It is no answer to
this Canon that the Pope refused to adopt it, although he
assented to all the other acts of the Council : because that
special Canon concerned his own official prerogatives, and
it was against the first principles of justice that he should he
the only judge in his own cause. And hence, your Papal theory
stands not only unproved, but distinctly disproved, so late
as the fifth century, by the highest testimony in the Church,
the voice of one of the four General Councils, to which all
Christendom was bound to render the strongest confidence
and veneration.
I shall not spend any further time upon this fundamental
point, which has been more than sufficiently established by
all the evidence which the Scriptures, the fathers, and the
Councils, could furnish. In presuming to make it an arti
cle of faith, necessary to be believed in order to salvation,
your Papal Church has stamped upon her brow the char
acter of Antichrist, and has brought upon the whole cause
of Christianity a complicated mass of corruption and calam
ity, most clearly foretold in the divine prophecies, and
mournfully exemplified in the past history of the world. The
whole foundation of the monstrous doctrine was in the pride
of earthly ambition. Satan beguiled your Popes, as he
tried to tempt the Saviour, by the glittering bait of promised
sovereignty over " the kingdoms of this world and the glory
of them ;" and they did not see that before they could attain
the splendid prize, it would first be necessary that they
should "fall down and worship him." Policy, expediency,
and interest, became their- real guides, under the specious

Decline of Papal Power. 357
name of religion. Policy, expediency, and interest, have
continued to be their guides to this day. But their course
throughout the palmiest ages of Popery was marked with
wars and dissensions, plots and intrigues, licentiousness and
immorality, persecutions, cruelty, and blood, until at length
the sceptre of their despotism was broken. And now look,
I pray you, at the downward progress of Papal infiuence
and power since the English Reformation. What country
on the globe cares one straw for pontifical interdicts or ex
communications ? Where is the old majesty of the triple
crown, before which, four centuries ago, the nations trem
bled? What monarch values the alliance of the Pope, or
dreads his enmity ? And how manifestly, in every quarter,
has his usurped dominion dwindled away ! While the re
formed Church of England, strong in the word of God, is
growing, without effort or ambition, far beyond her own an
ticipation ; gaining, quietly and steadily, a foothold in every
land ; dispersing the blessed Scriptures of divine truth in
all directions ; enlightening the barbarians and the heathen
in China, Africa, Australia, and the East Indies, in union
with civilization and the arts ; reclaiming a multitude in
Ireland to the knowledge of the pure Gospel, and maintain
ing her unbroken apostolic unity, in connection with liberty,
gentleness, and perfect toleration, and in favor with God
and man.

358 The End of Controversy, Controverted.

LETTER XLIV.
Most Reverend Sir :
I NOW return to your favorite. Dr. Milner, whose 47th let
ter is devoted to the defence of your Church, in retaining
her Latin Liturgy all over the world, notwithstanding there
has not been, for nearly a thousand years, a single nation
upon earth, the mass of whose people could understand the
worship which your priests set before them.
His justification of this absurdity affords an amusing
specimen of his peculiar talent and sophistical dexterity.
First, he saith that it is not the Church which has introduced
a foreign language, but it is the people who have forgotten their
ancient language." This assertion of your author, however,
is not relevant, and it is not true. It is not relevant, because
it is the duty of the Church to accommodate her worship
to the understanding of the people ; and for that end, to trans
late the Liturgy as well as the Scriptures, everywhere, into
the tongue of the country. And it is not true, because the
Latin was not the universal language, even of Europe, at
any time. It was more general, doubtless, than any other,
during the old Roman Empire. But it never was the com
mon language of England, Ireland, Germany, Gaul, or Scan
dinavia. And hence it never was the proper medium of
worship among the numerous races of Sclavonic, Teutonic,
or Celtic origin.
Next he informs us, that " the High Priest, under the Mo
saic law, went into the tabemacle alone to make the atone-

The Liturgy in Latin. 359
ment, and Zachary offered incense in the temple by himself,
while the multitude prayed without." Suppose they did,
what then ? Are these parts of the old Jewish economy
set forth as models for the public worship of a Christian con
gregation ?
Thirdly, he saith, that the use of the Latin tongue is " no
detriment to the faithful, because they have translations of
the Liturgy in their hands, by means of which they can
unite with their priests." But he forgot to state that these
translations have only been made since the Reformation :
that they are of no use to those who cannot read : that in
point of fact, the people are not allowed to make a single re
sponse, although the Liturgy is full of responses which were
originally intended for them ; whereas, for many centuries,
all these responses are taken out of their mouth, and en
tirely confined to the boys or men who minister as the
priest's assistants at the altar. Moreover, it is perfectly ob
vious that since your Church has been compelled to allow
translations for the use of the people, there is no reason why
the same translations cannot be used by the minister, if you
really mean that they should unite in the same worship in
telligently. Your ingenious advocate comes next to the 14th chapter of
St. Paul's first Epistle to the Corinthians, in which the Apos
tle condemns so strongly the use of unknown tongues in the
worship of God, and here he tries to escape from the diffi
culty by boldly declaring that no allusion is made in the whole
chapter to the public Liturgy ! An admirable distinction,
truly ! As if the prohibition of an unknown tongue inpub-
lic prayer did not cover the whole question. For what is
the Liturgy, but the established form of public prayer ?
Fifthly, Dr. Milner defends your Church's rule on the
ground that it is neces.sary for uniformity of worship, for

360 Letter XLLV.

decency and order. But this is mere trifiing. The laws of
every land are in the common language of each nation. So
is the public administration of justice. So is your own
preaching. Are not conformity, decency, and order required
in them all ? Must the language of worship be in Latin,
in order that it may be uniform ? Or is it consistent with
the very nature of a living worship, that the language of it
should be dead and unintelligible ?
Sixthly, your indefatigable sophist edifies his readers
with three arguments more, as follows: 1st, that St. Paul
wrote an epistle to the Romans in Greek. I answer, so he
did ; and the Romans lost no time in translating it into Lat
in, which was then the common language of the people.
If the Apostle had ordered them to read the original Greek
to a Latin congregation, it would have been a case in point
for Dr. Milner ; but as the matter actually stood, the old
Church of Rome, in this, as in many other things, gave an
open and direct rebuke to the practice of her modern suc
cessor. 2. Your favorite tells us next, that the Jews continued
to perform their Liturgy in the Hebrew language, '¦ after they
had exchanged their original Hebrew for the Chaldaic tongue,
during the Babylonish Captivity, though the vulgar did not un
derstand it ;" and that" our Saviour and His Apostles attended
this service in the temple and the synagogue without ever cen
suring it." But where did your learned advocate find out that
the Hebrew language was lost in the Babylonish Captivity ?
Did he not know that the Chaldaic was a dialect of the
Hebrew, and bore to it a very close affinity ? Certain it
is that when Pontius Pilate placed the inscription on the
Cross, it was written in Latin, Greek, and Hebrew, which
it would hardly have been if the Hebrew had become un
intelligible to the mass of the Jewish popidation. Certain

' Worship in an unknown tongue. 3Q1
it is, moreover, that when the Apostle Paul addressed the
" multitude of the people" in Jerusalem, in order to defend
himself from the accusation of his enemies that he was hos
tile to the Jewish law, " he spake to them in the Hebrew
tongue." " And when they heard that he spoke to them iu
the Hebrew tongue, they kept the more silence."* Certain it
is, likewise, that Origen, and others of the old fathers, held
that St. Matthew's Gospel was first published in Hebrew,
and from thence translated into Greek. Nay, it is certain
that the Jews have not lost the knowledge of the Hebrew
to this day. Hence, your favorite author is again found
making his facts to suit his argument. He refers to Wal
ton's Polyglot and Key for his authority, indeed, without
specifying the page. But St. Paul knew better than any
modern philologist what language was understood by his
countrymen in Jerusalem. And the simple fact that he
chose the Hebrew in which to make a popular address to
the multitude, is decisive of the whole question.
Lastly, your favorite advocate asserts that " the Greek
Churches in general, no less than the Latin, retain their
original Greek tongue in their Liturgy, though the common
people have forgotten it, and adopted different barbarous di
alects instead of it." And here, too, he misrepresents the
main fact ; for the modern Greek, or Romaic, retains the
main body of the ancient language, so that it is still sub-
stantiall}' intelligible to the mass amongst their people.
And if it were otherwise, on what ground does Dr. Milner
seek to justify Rome, by appealing to a Church which you
denounce as heretical ?
Such is the specimen of argument by which your subtle
apologist tries to justify your practice of holding all your
* Acts, xxi. 40, xxii. 2, Douay Bible.
VOL II. 16

363 Letter XLIV.

public worship in the Latin tongue, although it is self-evi
dent that in doing so you oppose the maxim of the Apostle,
run counter to the whole primitive Church, your own among
the number, deprive your people of their unquestionable
right and privilege, shut up from them effectually the teach
ing of the Liturgy, and shock the common sense and rea
son of mankind. But, nevertheless, I doubt not that you
have a motive for your course, which your prudent advo
cate does not mention. You secure the superstitious vene
ration of the mass, who are led to imagine that the Latin
is more acceptable to God than any other language, because
it is the language of the priests. You probably prefer it,
too, because, to the common mind, there is always a touch
of the sublime about what is unintelligible. You under
stand perfectly the value of the maxim, omne ignotum pro
magnifico est, and you are quite aware that, in your Church,
ignorance is the mother of devotion.
Such reasons as these, however, did not suit the policy
of Dr. Milner, although, to my humble judgment, they are
much more likely to be the true ones, than those which he
thought proper to assign. You do not, of course, see any
thing to apprehend from the affectation of mystery, because
you do not apply to the Papal Antichrist the prophetic lan
guage of St. John : " Mystery, Babylon the Great." Nei
ther do you care for the interpretation which Irenaeus, in A. D
170, gave to the mystical number, 666, Xareivog, or Latin,
and which your Church so singularly fulfils in her worship,
as well as in her whole history.
But in this, as in every other feature of her reformation,
the Church of England takes the Scriptures and the prim
itive rule for her guide. Her Liturgy is intended for the
instruction and edification of her people, and all is plain, sim
ple, and intelligible. And the two systems are well ar-

Undervaluing and prohibiting the Bible. 363

ranged for their respective objects, for we only seek to make
men depend on Christ, while the great end to which modern
Romanism seems adapted is to keep them dependent on the
priesthood. Your author next discusses what he calls the " wicked
calumny that the Catholic" (i. e., Roman) " Church under
values the Scriptures, or prohibits the use of them." Here
are two denials — the first, of the charge that your Church un
dervalues the Bible ; and the second, that you prohibit its use.
I shall briefly remark on each in their respective order.
I maintain that the Holy Scripture, as St. Paul saith, " is
divinely inspired," and " is profitable to teach, to reprove,
to correct, to instruct in justice, that the man of God may be
perfect, furnished unto every good work."* This is the lan
guage of your own version, and you cannot dispute its
truth. In precise accordance with it is the doctrine of the
Church of England, as I have shown already in my 2d
Letter. And in the same accordance was the doctrine of
the primitive Church, as proved abundantly by the extracts
from all the eminent fathers, establishing the Holy Scrip
tures as the complete Rule of faith and morals, on the
express authority of God. Therefore we value them as
such, and deny that any other rule of faith can be set up
beside them.
In direct opposition to the Apostle and the primitive
Church, which was truly Catholic, your Papal Church sets
forth a set of doctrines in addition to the scriptural rule of
faith, on the ground of what she calls " Apostolical tradi
tions," and calls them the " unwritten word of God," and
commands them to be received under the penalty of her
* 2 Tim., iii. 16, Douay Bible.

364 Letter XLIV.

anathemas. These traditions I have examined and dis
proved, by the authority of Scripture, and also by the best
testimony of the fathers and Councils, and we reject them
as false, heretical, antichristian, and perilous to the soul.
On that strong and irrefragable ground stand the duty and
the WARRANT of the English Reformation.
Now, therefore, we maintain that your Church does ne
cessarily undervalue — nay, she utterly destroys the proper
character of the Holy Scriptures, because she deprives them
of their great office as the perfect rule of faith and morals,
and proclaims her own teaching in their place. St. Paul
saith, the " divine Scripture is profitable to teach, to reprove,
to correct, to instruct in justice, that the man of God may
be perfect, furnished unto every good work." Your Church
insists that the man of God cannot be perfect from its teach
ing, because it is not capable of teaching the whole faith :
that the man of God cannot be furnished unto every good work
by its instruction, because there is a large amount of good
works of which it makes no mention whatever. And herein
lies your fearful exposure to the condemnation invoked by
the Apostle, where he saith, " Though we or an angel from
heaven preach a gospel to you beside that which we have
preached unto you, let him be anathema."* Herein lies the
awful usurpation of the Papal dominion, as the predicted
Antichrist, who, sitting in the Temple of God, should show
himself that he is God, by prescribing another imperative
law of saving faith and obedience to Christ's flock and peo
ple, in entire independence and contempt of the divine
record of the Lord's perfect will.
That Dr. Milner did not see this subject in its true light,
I am very willing to believe, and as willing to make all al-
• Gal., i. 8, bouay Bible.

The Bishops as Judges. 365
lowance for every man who is subject to the same delusion.
But the real nature of such a claim is easily shown by an
obvious analogy.
Suppose that all the judges in the State should adopt the
notion that the existing laws of the legislature were just
and binding as far as they extended, but that they ought to
be greatly enlarged, in compliance with the wishes of the
citizens ; and thereupon should undertake to give their own
official sanction to a variety of popular measures, from time
to time, and should resolve, at last, that their decisions
shotdd be taken for the only law, independent of, and en
tirely superior to, the acts of the legislature, and should
proceed accordingly to enforce their assumed powers, even
to imprisonment and death, against all who presumed to
dispute their authority. Would not the combined act of
such judges amount to treason ? For it would be virtually
setting aside the true legislature, and assuming an irre
sponsible mastery over liberty and life which did not belong
to them, and thrusting themselves into the supreme seat of
government, instead of being content to administer the law
as it was laid down by the proper authority. And hence it
is obvious that those judges would not only be liable to im
peachment, but must actually be condemned for the gravest
offence against the duties of their office ; since they whose
express function it was to execute the law laid down to
them by the real legislature, were the very men who had
set the authority of that law aside, and presumed to usurp
the whole sanction of the law-making power, for new and
unauthorized acts of their own dictation.
Such has been, in effect, the course of your Papal system.
Your Bishops were commissioned to administer, as the judges
of the Church, the laws of faith and morals laid down in
the Bible, by the inspired messenfers of the " Only Law-

366 Letter XLIV.

giver, who is able to save and to destroy.'' Superstition
came in, after some centuries, and was patronized exten*
sively by the monks and the idolatrous tendencies of the
people. And the Bishops, after vainly trying to check and
to rebuke, gave themselves up to indulging it, and, by and
by, submitted to the Papacy, undertook to establish the pes
tiferous innovations as articles of faith, and persecuted, even
unto death, those who refused to receive their law from
anything except the original Scriptures, which were the
only true records of the divine legislation. And thus was
finally set up the Antichrist of Papal power, which dared to
exert the prerogative of Christ in the Church of God, to
supersede entirely the authority of the sacred records, and
to consummate, with a high hand, this act of treason
against the word of the Redeemer.
Dr. Milner next asserts that your Church never prohibited
the reading of the Scriptures to the laity, while he is obliged
to confess that she " required, by way of preparation for
this most difficult and important study, that they should
have received so much education as would enable them to
read the sacred books in their original language, or in that
ancient and venerable version, the fidelity of which she guaran
tees to them." But this was a virtual prohibition to the vast
majority for the last ten hundred years. Your own historian,
Fleury, expressly states that no restriction of the kind was
passed by any Canon, until the thirteenth century. And it
is notorious that the primitive Church of Rome had the
Scriptures as weU as the Liturgy in Latin, at the time
when Latin was the common spoken language of the peo
ple, and read the Scriptures in her public service, and en
couraged all others to read them, as we do.
Your subtle apologist proceeds to state, that " in case the
laity are desirous to reaU the Scriptures in a modern tongue

Reading the Bible restricted. 367

they must be furnished with some attestation of their
piety and docility, in order to prevent their turning this
salutary food of the soul into poison, as it is univer
sally confessed so many thousands constantly have done."
Here, we have an admission of the fact that your laity
must have the permission of the priest to read the Bible,
as if the right to read the revealed word of God was not
strictly a universal right, to every human being. And
the priest must limit his permission to those who furnish
an attestation of piety and docility, that is, to those who
are in no danger of taking the Bible for the rule of
FAITH, but merely peruse it as an interesting and divine
history : while it is to the unwritten word of Church tradi
tion, as laid down by the priest, that they look for all their
religious doctrine.
But here your apologist states by the way, quite' incident
ally, accoiiing^to his usual habit, how it is "universally
confessed" that thousands have constantly turned the reading
of the Bible into poison. And this is assigned among the
reasons for restricting the sacred volume to those who
are properly prepared ! And then he proceeds to set
forth the mischief which an indiscriminate reading of
Scripture did in the case of Hugh Peters, Oliver Crom
well, Swedenborg, Joanna Southcote, " hot-brained dissent
ers" in general ; and in particular, the advocates of the Bi
ble Society !
The whole of this, however, is absurd and irrelevant.
He might as well pretend to restrict preaching to those who
can give attestations of piety and docility, because thousands
turn it into ridicule, and treat it with contempt. And yet,
it was the commission of Christ to his Apostles, that they
should " go into all the world, and preach the Gospel to
every creature." Why should the Bible, which is the writ-

368 Letter XLIV.

ten message of God to mankind, be more restricted than the
ministry who are commanded to deliver the same message
orally ? That men in general are more disposed to turn the
Sariptures into a cause of scandal than they are the priests,
is notoriously untrue, for it is admitted by your own histo
rians that for long ages before the Reformation, it was not
the Bible, but the priesthood, that scandalized all Europe, and
made the whole Church a by-word and a hissing in the
mouths of multitudes. It was not the Bible, but the priests,
that gave point to the ridicule of Voltaire and Rousseau.
And in our own day, it is not the Bible, but the priests, that
are despised in South America and the States of Papal
Europe. It is not the Bible, but the Pope, and the Cardi
nals, and the Bishops, and the clergy, that are hated by
thousands in the city of Rome. And even' in Protestant
countries^ it is well known that for one tongue which is
moved against the Bible, there are hundreds employed
against the worldliness, the formalism, and the inconsisten
cies of the preachers.
Hence, Most Reverend Sir, I maintain that your ingeni
ous advocate has totally failed in his attempt to justify you
in restricting the reading of the Scriptures. You have no
right whatever to shut them up, directly or indirectly, by
any kind of management, from the universal and free access
of all mankind. You might as well presume to forbid the
light and air of heaven, until the individual has first obtained
a priestly license. For, like the air and the light, they are
intended for the whole human family. They are the re
corded wisdom and truth of the same God who made the
sun and the atmosphere. In them, the soul breathes the
breath of spiritual life. In them, the soul beholds the Sun
of Righteousness. And the Church which seeks to restrict
them to a favored few of her own " docile'' adherents, and

Unrestricted Use of the Bible. 369
gives them only to those who are sure to regard them
as an imperfect and insufficient Rule of Faith, only vindi
cates by her course another of her claims to the name of
Antichrist. And this brings me, in conclusion, to the real reason for
your restriction, which Dr. Milner, as in the case of your
Latin Liturgy, takes good care, like an adroit advocate, to
keep entirely back from his simple Protestant readers. It
is, then, precisely, because the reading of the Bible is the most
perilous of all things to the false doctrine, the idolatries and
superstitions, of the Papal Church of Rome. Therefore it
was that the first care of all the great Reformers was to
translate the Scriptures into the vulgar tongue, in order to
make them accessible to the people. Therefore it is that
the great instrument in the conversion of the sixty thousand
Irish Romanists, within the last ten years, is known to be
the Irish version of the Bible. Therefore it is that you re
gard, with such pious horror, the work of the Bible Society,
and that your priests bum the Bible, when they dare, with
so much zealous exultation.
Thank God ! the Church of England pursues in this the
very opposite course, because she reveres the written Word
of God, as the great constitution given by the divine Law
giver, to be the unerring standard of faith and practice to His
people. On it she rests for all her teaching and all her
principles. Whenever she authorizes the act of public wor
ship, she commands its solemn and simple records to be
read in the ears of all. She places it in the schools of the
young, according to the express precept of the Almighty to
His chosen Israel. She urges its diligent study upon the
old, to be their daily and nightly meditation. She ap
peals to it as the supreme rule of belief, of feeling, and
of conduct, through the whole course of life. She re-
voL. II. 16*

370 Letter XLIV.

coils, as against a deadly heresy, from all which contra
dicts, or presumptuously dares to add to, its perfect doc
trines. And she adopts to its full extent the counsel of the
holy Jerome : " Love the Scriptures, and Wisdom will love
thee."

The End of Controversy, Controverted. 371

LETTER XLV.

Most Reverend Sir :
The 48th letter of Dr. Milner is occupied with a defence
of his Church against what he calls " various misrepresen
tations." There are many among these topics which have
been fully discussed already, and a repetition of the argu
ment would be equally tiresome and useless. I shall only
notice, therefore, those subjects which now occur for the
first time.
The first of these is your doctrine that " the intention of
the priest is essential to the effect of the sacrament." And
your advocate remarks on this, that every sensible person
must see the essential difference " between an action that is
seriously performed, and the mimicking or mockery of it by a
comedian or buffoon."
Certainly this a very light and shallow mode of treating
a very important question. The statements of your own
historian clearly prove that, for many centuries before the
Reformation, the Church supported an immense number of
priests who were licentious, immoral, and even a cause of
extensive public scandal. During those ages, too, there
was abundant proof that the heathen philosophy of Aristotle
infected, to a fearful extent, the very schools of theology,
especially the famous University of Paris. Yet all these
priests were constantly engaged in administering baptism
and the Eucharist. Bishops, of like sentiments and life,

372 Letter XLV.

were performing ordination, which you hold to be a sacra
ment. It is, therefore, a very grave inquiry, whether the
efficacy of their acts with respect to others depended on the
integrity of the actors' intention. They may not have per
formed their official duties like a comedian or a buffoon, be
cause an open mockery would not have been borne by the
people. And yet it is impossible to suppose that such men
could have had the intention which the solemn nature of re
ligious acts requires, when they w-ere living, in all other re
spects, a life of open abomination. If, then, the intention of
the priest is essential to the effect of the sacrament, the con
sequence inevitably follows, that multitudes who thought
themselves baptized were not baptized at all ! That multi
tudes who supposed they had received the Eucharist, re
ceived nothing ! That, in a word, there could be no cer
tainty that there was any visible Church remaining, since
all agree that there can be no visible Church without the
sacraments. Now your Church, in this matter, has needlessly put
forth a very dangerous doctrine. It is perfectly hostile,
moreover, to another part of your system, where you teach,
as we also do, that the wickedness of the priest does not
destroy the validity of the sacrament with respect to the
faithful receiver. For the intention of the priest is a part of
his piety. He sins, undoubtedly, if he lacks the true inten-
tidn which belongs to his office, and for that sin he will be
condemned. But he sins, likewise, if he lacks the piety
belonging to his office ; and for that, too, he will be de
stroyed. Nevertheless, the grace of God is not withheld
from the faithful receiver of his priestly acts because the
priest himself is destitute of a pious intention, nor even if
he should be destitute of piety altogether ; for this' would
be to make one man suffer spiritually for the sin of aur

Priestly Celibacy. 373

other, which is quite opposed to the principles of the
Gospel, and even to the fixed maxims of justice and
equity. Next, your favorite advocate tries to justify your Church
in her rule of taking none for her clergy, except those who
voluntarily embrace celibacy. And he quotes the expres
sion of the English statute to prove that this is " better for
the estimation of the priesthood." He also declares, in a
note, that the second Council of Carthage and St. Epipha
nius trace the discipline of sacerdotal continence up to the
Apostles, and that St. Paul and the Saviour Himself gave
it a preference over matrimony, as " a state of greater per
fection." The question, however, is not whether it would be better
if priests were continent, nor whether, in such case, they
would enjoy a higher estimation, nor whether continence is
a state of greater perfection. But it is whether the Lord,
who instituted marriage in paradise before the fall, and who
commanded the priests of the Mosaic dispensation to marry,
thought fit to order the very contrary to his Christian min
istry. And here we have the direct rule laid down by the
inspired St. Paul, notwithstanding his own personal prefer
ence of celibacy, in the 3d chapter of his 1st Epistle to
Timothy :— *
" It behoveth a Bishop to be blameless, the husband of
one wife, — one that naleth well his own house, having his
children in subjection with all gravity. But if a man know
not how to rule his own house, how shall he take care of
the Church of God ?" " Let deacons be the husbands of one
wife, who rule well their children and their own houses.''
And again the same Apostle saith,t " Marriage" (is) " honor-
* Douay Bible. t Heb. xiii. 4,

374 Letter XLV.

able in all, and the bed undefiled. For God will judge for
nicators and adulterers."
Therfe is the divine law. Who gave your Church the
right to violate it ? And what did she gain by the viola
tion ? Let the reader recur to the extracts from your own
historian, and see the horrible consequences of the Anti-
Christian scheme which refused to let the priesthood have
lawful wives, but allowed them to indulge in the most shame
ful and public concubinage ; so that from the Pope on his
throne of pride, do-wn to the humblest sub-deacon, the gross
est licentiousness was the general rule, and chastity was
the rare exception ; and that for at least seven hundred
years together, during the whole of which there was a vain
outcry for priestly reformation.
Very certain it is, therefore, that if clerical celibacy is to
be adopted as a state of greater perfection, the style in which
your Church kept it up made it a state of dissolute de
pravity. But where does the Scripture call it a state of
greater perfection. Nowhere. To most men, on the contrary
it is a state of greater temptation ; and I doubt not that your
priesthood find it so even now, notwithstanding the im
proved sense of morals, established through the Reforma
tion in the sixteenth century, makes it impossible for any
class of Christian ministers to live, as the great majority of
your clergy were accustomed to live through all Europe,
four hundred years ago.
From this, your favorite author turns to another " vile
hackneyed calumny" about your not keeping faith with her
etics, if the promise made is to the prejudice of the Church.
But although he repels this charge with a show of -virtuous
indignation, it is too well established by multiplied facts in
your history to allow any intelligent mind to doubt its truth.
Nor do I regard it as by any means the worst or most dan-

Protestant Wars. 375
gerous feature in your system. I have already examined
the matter, however, largely enough, and shall not here
enter into it again. As to the power assumed by youi' Popes,
to absolve the subjects of heretical sovereigns from their
oath of allegiance, and give away their thrones to any Ro
man monarch they please, which your advocate very prop
erly connects with the former subject, he thinks it enough
to tell his readers that " more princes were actually dispos
sessed of the whole or a large part of their dominions, by
the pretended Gospel reformation, within the first fifty years
after it was proclaimed, than the Popes had attempted to
depose during the preceding fifteen hundred." And here,
he not only asserts what is wholly false, but he endeavors
to mislead his readers into a kind of comparison which has
not the slightest relation to the question.
For, in the first place, there would have been no wars at
all on the Continent, produced by the movement of the Ref
ormation, if your Church had been willing to allow mere
liberty of conscience. Her despotic tyranny, which deter
mined to extirpate the heretics in her old style, by fire and
sword, as she was unable to put them down by fair argu
ment, was the real cause of all those civil commotions. She
denied them their right to take their religion from the Word
of God, and to cast off the accumulated frauds and impo
sitions of centuries. And if Rome would have remem
bered the Saviour's declaration, " My kingdom is not of this
world," and have followed the command of our Lord to Pe
ter, " Put up thy sword into the sheath, for all that take the
sword shall perish by the sword," she would have saved
herself from the guilt of lighting those flames of religious
persecution, and again steeping her hands in blood.
Those wars, therefore, on the part of Protestants, were
wars of defence for Christian liberty, while they were wars

376 Letter XLV.

of tyrannical and impious aggression on the part of the
Papacy. It is notorious to all the world that such was their
history-. The Pope was the assailant, and your Church,
therefore, must take the responsibility. Point out, if you
can, a single instance, in which a reformed State or King
dom made an attack on any other, for the purpose of for
cing its own religion down their throats. There is no such
instance, and Dr. Milner knew it well. But this despotic
violence had been the policy of Antichrist for many centu
ries. In the same style, precisely, your Papal Church had
devastated Europe in the wars about investitures, in the
wars against the Paulicians, the Henricians, the Albigenses,
the Waldenses, the Bohemians, and others. In the same
spirit she established the laws throughout Europe, which
punished all that she called heresy with flames, and gave
existence to her favorite engine, the nefarious Spanish In
quisition. In the same spirit the Pope offered a Te Deum
and struck medals in honor of the horrible butchery of St.
Bartholomew's. And in the same spirit, I doubt not, Rome
would again proselyte the world, if God had not, in mercy,
broken the yoke of her proud and implacable dominion, and
cast her fierce and despotic empire to the ground.
With respect to England, I have already stated the mode
in which this characteristic of pontifical paternity was ex
hibited when your Pope Sixtus V. fulminated his Bull
against Queen Elizabeth, deposed her from her throne, ab
solved her subjects from their allegiance, gave away her
kingdom to Philip II. of Spain, and commanded every one
to obey the invader. In a word, it is your Papal system.
Dr. Milner says, indeed, that " some Popes may have been
too free in pronouncing such dispensations. Should this
have been the case, they alone personally, and not the Cath
olic" (i. e., Roman) " Church, were accountable for it, both to

The Deposing of Princes by the Pope. 377
God and man." But this I aver to be a most uncandid and
palpable evasion.
What I the Popes personally accountable for a preroga
tive which they claimed by virtue of their offce, and which
they exerted without scruple or remonstrance from any of
their own Councils since the time of Gregory VIL, in the
eleventh century ! During these 500 years, in which the
Papal Antichrist reigned in his maturest vigor, there were
many Popes accused by Councils for high crimes and mis
demeanors, and yet the assumption of this deposing power
was never named amongst their transgressions. Was this
because it was a trifiing or unimportant matter ? What
could be of more grave and even fearful significance than
a claim of divine right to depose sovereign princes, absolve
their people from their oaths of allegiance, transfer their
dominions, and light up the flames of war, at the Papal will
and pleasure ? Yet the rulers of your Church sustained it,
proclaimed it, defended it, and, by its means, kept Europe
in an almost constant fever of agitation, until the Refor
mation of the sixteenth century. The clergy of France,
under the eminent Bossuet, in 1682, were the first who
openly attacked the principle, and that was more than an
hundred years after the Council of Trent, which had not
lisped one word against it. And those French ecclesias
tics were immediately assailed by a storm of invective from
their Ultramontane brethren, in which they were stigma
tized as heretics, traitors, and enemies of the Holy See.
Nay, Pius VII. tried to exercise his prerogative again,
against Napoleon, in the early part of our own century, as
I have already shown. And yet your favorite coolly tells
his readers, that it was only a matter for which the Popes
were personally accountable, and that your Church has
nothing to do with the responsibility, although all your

378 Letter- XLV.

priesthood maintained it either tacitly or openly until the
Galilean declaration of 1682, and not one of your Popes,
your Jesuits, or your Ultramontane party have given it up to
this dav !

The End of Controversy, Controverted. 379

LETTER XLVI.
Most Reverend Sir :
The 49th letter of Dr. Milner is devoted to the defence
of his Church on the subject which I have just been occu
pied in noticing, and his argument is worthy of attention as
an admirable specimen of the most specious sophistry and
the boldest art ; put together with so much skill as to im
pose, without difficulty, on the ignorant or thoughtless
reader. He begins his defence with a positive assertion that your
Papal Church, so far from " maintaining a claim to punish
heretics urith penalties, imprisonment, tortures and death, actu
ally disclaims the power of so doing." And this he under
takes to prove by referring to Pope Leo, St. Ambrose, and
St. Martin, Tertullian, and Gregory I., in whose times the
Church did certainly disclaim the whole work of persecu
tion. But these ¦writers all flourished before the end of the
sixth century, while the Papacy was still unformed, and not
one of the more serious errors against which the English
Reformation was directed was yet established. What did
those witnesses know of your subsequent career ? Nay,
what have we been doing, all along, but proving, from the
authority of the early ages, how greatly your modem Church
differs from her own primitive original ? The adulteress
might as well attempt to establish her innocence by appeal
ing to the first innocent years of her marriage union ; or

380 Letter XLVL

the murderer, by calling witnesses to testify that his boy
hood was unstained with blood : as your Papal Church
might vindicate her present character, by showing what the
original faith of Rome had once been, before Antichrist pol
luted her.
But when the time arrived that the Church became di
vided, and the Papal power grew to such a height that its
true dominion could be displayed, how did it operate ? So
early as the ninth century, we find some heretics burned
alive ! This new and horrible punishment became univer
sal through all the countries in Europe, by established law.
Who were the men that had the greatest infiuence in
making the laws during the whole period of the dark ages ?
The Popes, the Bishops, and the priesthood. The little
learning that remained was all in their hands. The gov
erning and commanding power was in their hands. The
extracts from your o^wn historian show how it was exer
cised, and the cruel spirit of your Papal Church is written
on the annals of seven centuries of religious despotism, in
a series of systematic acts which have no parallel since the
world began.
Your apologist next passes to the fourth Council of Late
ran, A. D. 1215, which your Church holds to be one of the
General Councils, and here he cannot deny that the perse
cution of heretics was enjoined on all temporal rulers and
magistrates, even to the fearful extent of exterminating them :
under the penalty that if the lay lords and magistrates neg
lected this new duty, they should be excommunicated, and
their property and dominions should be confiscated to the
sovereign ; while the Bishops and clergy should be deposed,
and their goods should be taken into the revenue of the
Church. Dr. Milner's attempt to get rid of this is simply prepos-

The Fourth Council of Lateran. 381
terous. " It must first be observed," saith he, " who were
present at this Council, and by whose authority these decrees
of a temporal nature were passed. There were then present,
besides the Pope and the Bishops, either in person, or by
their ambassadors, the Greek and the Latin Emperors,
the kings of England, France, Hungary,- the Sicilies, Ar-
ragon, Cyprus, and Jerusalem ; and the representatives of
a vast many other principalities and States ; so that, in fact,
this Council was a Congress of Christendom, temporal as
¦well as spiritual."
Now, suppose it was, what then ? Was it the less a
Council of your Church ? Was it not summoned by Pope
Innocent III. ? Was it not attended by a larger number of
patriarchs. Bishops, and abbots, than any other ever holden
before or since 1 Were not the votes confined to the ecclesi
astical members, as in all your other Councils ? Did it not
deal, throughout, with excommunications, which belong to the
sole province of the Church ? Did it not establish the ob
ligation on all Archbishops and Bishops to search out the
heretics, by a regular visitation of their dioceses once or
twice a year, and give them the power of compelling the
laity to swear whether they knew of any heretics or secret
conventicles among them, and of bringing the accused persons
before them, who should be punished if they failed to clear
themselves of the imputation ? Did it not also establish the
compulsory private confessional, by which every individual
of the laity was compelled to pass the regular annual in
spections of the priest, under the penalty of being pro
nounced excommunicate, and deprived of Christian burial ?
And when, in the 3d Canon of the whole 70 enactments,
this famous Council fastened the duty of exterminating here
tics upon all the lay princes, governors, lords, and magis
trates in Europe, was there the slightest mark of difference

382 Letter XLVI.

to distinguish this act from the rest, as if it were the sepa
rate work of the laity ?
Indeed, the very suggestion of your crafty apologist in
volves a total absurdity, on your own principles. For, in
no case whatever have you ever allowed the laity a distinct
voice in your Councils. They are the sheep, committed,
along with the whole Church, to the supreme pastor, the
successor of St. Peter, the vicar of Christ, the king of
kings and lord of lords, the Pope ! And if their chief
pastor should play the wolf instead of the shepherd, it does
not belong to the sheep to rebel against his unquestionable
authority. The Cardinals may try to call him to account, if
they are able. But it is the duty of the laity to submit and
obey. Hence, the numerous attendance of the princes on this
occasion, as on others, was not intended to be any check
upon the Pope and the clergy. It was only to give the
Council a larger measure of eclat, and of influence. And
truly there never was a Council in your Church which was
so terribly effective. It gave new sanction, new principles,
and new powers to the horrid work of persecution in every
quarter ; and henceforth, the obligation to hunt out and ex
terminate the poor heretics, by conflscations, and fire, and
sword, and imprisonment, and torture, and every form of
studied cruelty, became engrafted on the Gospel of Christ,
as a primary work of piety and devotion.
The next effort of your dexterous but most unscrupulous
apologist, is, to show that the principal business of this great
Council was to defend the common cause of Christianity and
human nature, by the extirpation of the Manichean heresy,
which he proceeds to describe in the most revolting terms.
The decree of the Council, he saith, " regarded only the
prevailing heretics of that time, who were all tied together

The Canon of Lateran concerning Heretics. 383
in the same bond of Manicheisra. Nor was this extermi
nating Canon ever put in force against any other heretics
except the Albigenses : it was never so much as published or
talked of in these islands : so little have Protestants to fear,
by reason of the third Canon of the Council of Lateran."
Now it so happens that there is hardly a word of truth in
this whole argument. The objects for which the Council
was assembled were set forth in the circular epistles of the
Pope. The first was ybr the recovery of the Holy Land ; the
second, for the reformation of the Church ; the third, for the
extirpating heresies generally, without one word of specifi
cation about the Manichees. And in the third Canon itself,
the language is as follows : —
III. concerning heretics.
" We excommunicate and anathematize every heresy rais
ing itself against this holy orthodox and Catholic faith, which
we have set forth above ; condemning all heresies, by what
ever name they may be called ; for they have different faces,
but their tails are tied mutually together."
Your advocate refers, very unwisely for his cause, to the
testimony of " the Protestant historian, Mosheim," in a note,
and therefore I shall transcribe from this authority some
further proof upon the subject.
" During the whole of this (i. e., the 13th) century," saith
Mosheim, " the Roman Pontiff carried on the most bar
barous and inhuman persecution against those whom they
branded with the denomination of heretics, i. e., against all
those who called their pretended authority and jurisdiction in
question, or taught doctrines different from those which were
adopted and propagated by the Church of Rome. For the
sects of the Catharists, Waldenses, Petrobrussians, &c.,
gathered strength from day to day, spread imperceptibly

384 Letter XLVL

throughout all Europe, assembled numerous congregations
in Italy, France, Spain, and Germany, and formed by de
grees such a powerful party as rendered them formidable
to the Roman Pontiffs, and menaced the Papal jurisdiction
with a fatal revolution. To the ancient sects new factions
were added, which, though they differed from each other in
various respects, yet were all unanimously agreed in this
one point, viz. : That the public and established religion
was a motley system of errors and superstition ; and that
the dominion which the Popes had usurped over Christians,
as also the authority they exercised in religious matters,
were unlawful and tyrannical."*
With respect to the Albigenses, the term was applied
generally to a great variety of heretics by the Papal wri
ters, as we know from the express testimony of Petrus Sar-
nensis, who, in his book on the subject, addressed to this
same Pope, Innocent III., divides them into various sects,
and even counts the Waldenses amongst them. It is true,
however, that many of the Albigenses were supposed to be
strongly inclined towards the Manichean system, and these
were known by the names of Catharists, Publicans, Pauli
cians, and Bulgarians.! But it is necessary, in mere jus
tice, to remember, that we have no account of them except
from the Papal writers, whom Dr. Milner himself warrants
us in saying could hardly be trusted implicitly, when the
opponents of Romanism were to be held up to reprobation.
Certain it is, that if those authors exhibited no more regard
for truth in the case of the Albigenses, than he has mani
fested towards the English Reformation, the chance of a
fair judgment from posterity was hopeless indeed.

* Mos. Ecc. Hist, 3, 259.
i Mos. in note 3, 266.

The Canon of Lateran in England. 385
Thus, then, stands the evidence, in perfect contradic
tion to your reckless advocate's assertions. The fourth
Council of Lateran was « regular General Council of your
Church. All that was done in it was by your Church au
thority. It was called for three objects : the Crusade against
the Turks, the reformation of the Church, and' the extirpa
tion of heretics. And the Manichean heretics were not
once specified : but all heretics, of whatever name, who op
posed the Roman system, were excommunicated and cursed,
and were consigned to the sword of persecution, to be exter
minated without distinction.
As to the averment of Dr. ]Milner, that the decree of this
Council " was never so much as published or talked of in Eng
land," it is simply ridiculous. For England, like all the
rest of Europe at that time, was under the Papal Antichrist.
It was to this very Pope Innocent III. that the infamous
King John surrendered his crown. England had the same
laus as all other countries, for punishing heretics with the
flames. The Archbishops and Bishops of England were
obliged to the same duty of hunting for heretics, which the
Council imposed on all other prelates. And the followers
of the celebrated John Wickliff, long afterwards, were the
victims of the very process set forth by this Council of
Lateran. They were imprisoned, condemned, and bumed
alive, without even a pretence that they held any Manichean
doctrine. The bones of Wickliff himself were dug up from
the grave and bumed for the same crime of heresy. The
system of the compulsory confessional, established by the
same Council, was in as fuU operation in England as any
where else. And yet Dr. Milner asks us to believe that
the third Canon of the Council was never so much as pub
lished or talked of in these islands !
He proceeds next, however, to the Smithfield fires of
VOL. II. 17

386 Letter XLVL.

Queen Mary's reign, and here he saith, " I have unanswer
ably demonstrated elsewhere, that if Queen Mary was a
persecutor, it was not in virtue of the tenets of her religion
that she persecuted." But it is impossible that Dr. Milner
could unanswerably demonstrate this proposition, because it
is manifestly untrue. It was her religion, and nothing
else, that made Mary a persecutor. For, first, she had the
fourth General Council of Lateran, which is the highest
authority in your Church, commanding it as a duty to exter
minate heretics. Secondly, she had the example of aU the
most eminent Popes and Bishops of her Church for more
than three hundred years before. And thirdly, she could
look to the special case of the Holy Inquisition in Spain,
established under the express Papal sanction, and com
mended to her reverence by her own immediate ancestors,
Ferdinand and Isabella, where she knew that heretics were
imprisoned, tortured, and then bumed alive, year by year, in
the presence of the king and all the great ecclesiastics, with
the most constant and admirable spirit of pious devotion, for
THE glory of God ! How, then, I ask, could Queen Mary
have done otherwise, on the principles of her Church ? It
is impossible to blame her for a faithful adherence to the
rules in which she had been trained, however we may be
inclined to execrate the false system which set at naught
the plainest precepts of Christ and the Apostles, while it
claimed the sole prerogative of infallible guidance to the
kingdom of heaven.
Your unscrupulous apologist passes on from this to an
other plain violation of historical fidelity, where he saith
that James II. "forf his crown in the cause of toleration."
But all the worid knows that this monarch was a declared
Romanist, and had formed a regular plan to bring England
back to her old subjection under the Papacy. His tolera-

Protestant Persecutions. 387

tion had no other aim than this, and hence it was not the
spirit of religious liberty, but the manifest determination to
restore the Papal bondage, which roused the nation against
hini, and forced him to abdicate the throne.
The next argument of Dr. Milner is really amusing. He
tells his readers, gravely, that the gentlemen who travel to
Rome are as cordially received by the Pope himself in the
character of English Protestants, as if they were the most
zealous members of his own communion ! Truly, a won
derful proof of Papal toleration, that the Pope should be
willing to enrich his people by the influx of Protestant for
eigners, when he allows even the fixed residence of Jews.
But what has this to do with his religious policy ? Are
Protestants allowed to worship God according to their con
sciences within the walls of Rome ? Are they even able
to commit their dead to the ground with the rites of Chris
tian burial ? You know. Most Reverend Sir, that they are
not ; and your favorite apologist knew it also.
But now he comes to his main defence, which consists in
an elaborate display of recrimination. He says that he knows
of but " one argument to stop the mouths of accusers,"
which is, to prove to them that " persecution has been more
generally practised " and " more warmly defended and sup
ported" by Protestants than by the Church of Rome ! Then
follows a long enumeration of instances, set forth with
skilful art and misrepresentation, with just enough of truth
to give plausibility to error. It would be an interminable
task to follow him in detail, and as wearisome to the reader
as to myself, even if I were to undertake the labor. Nor
is it necessary. The whole matter is reducible to a very
narrow compass, and the result, to any candid mind, must
be perfectly conclusive.
Let it be remembered, then, that with the Church of

388 Letter XLVL

Rome, persecution of all heretics unto death was a fixed
principle. We have seen this in her whole history for five
hundred years together. We have seen it in the positive
enactments of her fourth General Council of Lateran ; in
her crusades against the Albigenses and Waldenses ; in
the laws for burning heretics throughout all Europe ; in the
establishment of the Inquisitions of Spain, Portugal, and
Goa ; in the strenuous efforts of the Popes, which your
own historian mentions, to establish the same nefarious tri
bunal everywhere else ; in the persecution of the followers
of Wickliff in England, and in the martyrs of Queen Mary's
reign. We have seen it in the massacre of St. Bartholo
mew's, for which the Pope offered a Te Deum, and struck
medals of commemoration in Rome ; and we know that, to
the present hour, your Church has repudiated everything
like toleration in every part of the world where she holds
the sway. These facts are indisputable.
Now I have not the slightest wish to disguise the truth,
that it took many years for England to discover and reduce
to practice the principle of religious toleration. But she
did discover it, and acted on it, to the full extent of all
the Protestant Dissenters, in the reign of William and
Mary ; and the course of her legislation has been such,
even in the case of Romanists, that they have been, for
many years, admitted even as members of Parliament, and
enjoy the entire exercise of their religion as freely and pub
licly as the Established Church herself.
That the laws passed in the reign of Queen Elizabeth
against Popish recusants were exceedingly severe, is cer
tainly true . But the claims and acts of Rome made them neces
sary, in self-protection. For the Pope had excommunicated
the queen and all her supporters, had undertaken to absolve all
her subjects from their allegiance, had transferred the king-

The Church of England no Persecutor. 389

dom to Philip II. of Spain, and had induced that powerful
monarch to malie a warlike attack, which was defeated by
the destruction of the Spanish Armada. The same danger
continued to hang over the head of England, and, accord
ing to your Papal theory, may be brought down upon her
at any moment when the Pope has the power which he
once possessed, and hopes to possess again. The right
which he professes is based upon a divine authority to reign,
in undisputed supremacy, over all the kingdoms of the earth.
And England could not exercise her Christian liberty, nor
hope to preserve it, if she did not regard the Pope as the
enemy of the State, as well as of the Church. For, as the
sole vicar of Christ, that paramount master of the world
claims, in his own person, the authority of God, and
saith, " By me, kings reign, and princes execute judg
ment." But all this concerns the secular government of England,
with which the Church of England does not and cannot in
terfere. By what act of that Church is persecution author
ized ? When and where did she pronounce anathemas
against Romanism, or any other form of religious error ?
When did she make it the duty of her Archbishops to hunt
out heretics, in their visitations every year ? When did she
affix the penalties of her severest discipline to the neglect
of this active barbarity ? In what part of her standard sys
tem does she recommend that heretics shall be exterminated
by direct attacks upon their liberty and life ? In what act
of hers will you find a Te Deum ordered to celebrate the
butchery of Romanists 1 When did her clergy publish
such nefarious rules of moral abomination as your Jesuits,
or direct the assassin's knife against the persons of kings 1
When did they hold up, as glorious martyrs, the perpetra
tors of such deeds as those of Jacques Clement and Ra-
VOL. II. 17*

390 Letter XLVI.

vaillac, in France ; and raise religious murders-to the rank
of the loftiest virtue ?
The difference, therefore, between the two Churches of
Rome and England is enormous. Your Papal system had
fastened upon all Europe, for centuries, the positive obliga
tion and duty to exterminate all heretics, by the laws of every
land, by crusades, by fire and sword, by inquisitions, dun
geons, tortures, and death by fiames. And yet, in the very
reign of Elizabeth herself, the Parliament confined the punish
ment of heretics to those who should oppose the decrees of
the first four General Councils, by which an immense num
ber of those whom your Church brands with that odious
name were set free from the terrible penalties which were
executed upon them in the reign of Mary. And in a little
more than one century, all Protestant Dissenters were toler
ated by law ; and in a little more than two centuries, all the
hardships of Romanists themselves were gradually removed,
with the approbation of the majority of the Bishops. For
a long series of years, the Government has even supported
your Irish Seminary at Maynooth, while an English Car
dinal, and all your accustomed array of Bishops, priests,
and convents, have been allowed to sustain your religious
principles, without let or molestation.
On the other hand, your Church stands precisely where
she placed herself, on principle, in the fourth General Coun
cil of Lateran. She curses with her multiplied anathemas,
all heretics ; and she holds all to be heretics who oppose
her awful assumption of universal sovereignty. She has
never retracted a single one of her antichristian claims,
and cannot consistently retract them, so long as she main
tains that she is infallible, unchangeable, and has, on her
side, the direct warrant of a divine and universal supremacy,
as the mother and mistress of all Christendom. She has

Persecuting Principles unchanged. 391
lost her pou-er, indeed, and even allows her priests and Bish
ops, in Protestant countries, to gull their ignorant and sim
ple dupes, by such artful sophistry as that of your favorite.
Dr. Milner. But in all this your Popes and Bishops are
only biding their time. Your supposed rights, privileges, and
authority are just what they have been since the days of
Gregory VII., in the eleventh century. And the fourth
General Council of Lateran is the law of your Papal Church,
carried out, whenever you had the power, throughout your
whole history ; and certain to be carried out in all its old
atrocity, if your Popes and priesthood should ever have the
same power again.

392 The End of Controversy, Controverted.

LETTER XLVII.
Most Reverend Sir :
I have now gone through the skilful, but most deceptive,
work of your favorite. Dr. Milner ; and as he has summed
up, in his last and 50th letter, the whol.e of his supposed
demonstration in support of the Church of Rome, I shall
follow his example by setting before my readers a general
statement of the evidence in justification of the Church of
England, and of our own, which is descended from her,
and forms a branch of her great and rapidly growing com
munion. I began by showing the true historical facts of the Eng
lish Reformation, in opposition to the absurd and false state
ments of our adversary ; and proved the real state of the
case by the highest testimony, from your own most respect
able and authoritative writers.
The first axioms of Dr. Milner, that Christ has appointed
some rule or method of learning His revelation ; that this rule
must be an unerring one, and that it must be adapted to the
capacities and situation of mankind in general, I willingly
accepted, precisely as he laid them down ; because they
are just and reasonable.
His accusation against Protestants, that they held the
Holy Scripture to be that rule, according to each individual's
conception of its meaning, I proved to be in no respect ap
plicable to the Church of England, because our Articles
and whole system, while they maintain the Bible as the

General Summary. 393

Rule of Faith, carefully protect it from the abuses of pri
vate judgment, and define the true interpretation of the Word
of God according to the fixed sense of pure Christian an
tiquity. I agreed, likewise, to his statement that the Gos
pel provided not only for the law of faith, but also for the
commissioned ministry, whose office it was to apply it, in
the actual work of the Church, to the end of time. And I
showed that the authority of the Church, as the living in
terpreter, was secured to a vastly greater extent and more
practical efficiency by the Church of England, than by the
Church of Rome, since with you, the Church only teaches
the priests, while with us, the people as well as the priests
hear the Church continually.
I proved next, however, that the ancient Church of Israel
was also a divine institution, founded by the express au
thority of God, in the midst of signs and wonders, with its
inspired Scriptures as the rule of faith and practice, and its
commissioned priests as judges and interpreters, and a sure
promise of perpetuity forever. That notwithstanding all
this, that divine Church became awfully corrupted by false
worship and idolatry, in the course of time. That this cor-
raption, together with the judgments of Heaven consequent
upon it, was all predicted by Moses and the other prophets,
as were, likewise, the reformation of Israel and their rein
statement in the divine favor, in the last days. And I then
proved that the Church of Christ, under the Gospel dispen
sation, had also become corrupted. That this corruption
was, in like manner, foreseen and plainly foretold by the
inspired Apostles ; so that if, in point of fact, it had con-.
tinued united and pure up to the present period, that alone
would constitute a ground of doubt, as to the prophetic cer
tainty of the New Testament Scriptures.
I then proceeded to give a regular statement of the his-

394 Letter XLVIL

tory and progress of corruption in the Church of Christ, in
which I took for my basis, as to the facts, the authority of
the fathers, the Councils, and your own historian, Fleury ;
thus assuming nothing but what was distinctly proved by
your own witnesses, and clearly showing that there was a
general complaint of flagrant corruption throughout all Eu
rope, and an urgent call for Reformation on all sides, for
seven centuries together, before any real reformation was
effected. This series of historical testimonies being closed, I re
curred to the argument of Dr. Milner, and proved from all
the primitive fathers that the rule of faith in the early Cath
olic Church was the written Word of God, or the Holy
Scriptures, and that the only place allowed by them to
tradition was in the office of interpretation, which great prin
ciples our Church has most carefully preserved and embodied
in her whole system. And hence it resulted that the notion
of an unwritten Word of God, on which Rome founds her
rule of faith in all those points which are not in the Bible,
was in truth uncatholic, false, and substantially heretical.
My next labor was to justify the Church of England
against the allegations of your favorite author, with respect
to her version of the Bible, her Canon of Scripture, and hei*
historical independence of the Church of Rome.
And then, I considered the great question, " Which is the
true Church ?" according to your author's own characteristic
notes of Unity, Sanctity, Catholicity, and Apostolicity, and
proved that by the principles of Scripture, of the fatthers,
and of right reason, the Church of England had the advan
tage, in all these respects, over the claims of the Church of
Rome. In answer to the third series of Dr. Milner's letters, I
exhibited the true scriptural and Catholic doctrine against

Dr. Milner's Reputation. 395
your corrupt worship of the Virgin and the saints, of relics
and images ; your purgatory, indulgences, celibacy, and
private and compulsory confessional ; your antichristian
Papal sovereignty, your laws against heretics, and your
system of persecution. And throughout the whole, I tmst
that I have fully vindicated the honor of God's own word,
the Holy Scriptures ; the character of His Church, ac
cording to the ancient rule of real Catholicism ; and the
irrefragable authority by which our own Communion is
entitled to claim the highest place in Christendom, as the
faithful exponent of the original, divine, pure and Apostolic
system. And now. Most Reverend Sir, I commit the care of Dr.
Milner's reputation to you, as his special admirer and friend.
You remember that you called upon us, by a public printed
circular, to read Milner's End of Controversy, and come at
once into your Church, lest our fiocks should come before us.
And I trust these volumes will prove that some of us have
read the book, thus endorsed -and recommended, and that
we are compelled to arraign it before the public as a work
which, though it does indeed abotmd in talent and dexter
ity, is yet totally unworthy of any confidence for justice,
for candor, or for tmth.
I have done what I could, in answering its calumnies, its
perversions, and its sophistry, to keep my own pen within
the bounds of Christian moderation. But it was totally im
possible, on such a subject, and dealing with a writer so
utterly reckless and abusive, to avoid strong and plain lan
guage, which will probably jar very painfully at times upon
your nervous system. Still, I cannot think that I have gone
farther, on any topic, than the vast importance of the ques
tion demands, and the facts of incontrovertible history most
fully justify. My personal feelings towards yourself, and

396 Letter XLVIL

the members of your Communion generally, are of the
kindliest character. I do not doubt that your people are
very honest and sincere in their delusion. I do not doubt
that even those among you who ought to know the truth,
have some mode by which you reconcile the defence of
error to your conscience. And my prayer for you all is,
that the Lord, in His infinite mercy, may lead you to the
genuine source of all religious knowledge, the inspired
Scriptures, as your only rule of faith, and thus bring you
back to the divine principles of that original Catholic
Church, which taught, in simplicity and purity, the celes
tial way of salvation.
I do not mean, by this, as I have fully shown elsewhere,
that you have formally separated from that original Catholic
Church, or that you are no longer entitled to a place in the
• comprehensive body of the Church Catholic or universal.
For you have retained the Scriptures, and the ancient
creeds, and the sacraments, and the Apostolic ministry, and
I doubt not, will retain them to the end. Neither do I
mean that you should leave your own Church, and come to
ours. But I do mean that, instead of vilifying and misrep
resenting the Church of England, you should rather imitate
her example, by casting away the multiplied innovations
and corruptions which deform and oppose the true Apostolic
system. That system is fairly represented in our Church,
and you are both schismatical and heretical in presuming
to condemn and anathematize it. You have taken away
from that Apostolic system on the one side, by robbing
the Scriptures of their prerogative as the rule of faith ; by
robbing the laity of the imposition of hands in Confirma.
tion, of the chalice in the holy Eucharist, of worship in the
¦vulgar tongue, and of the free access to the sacraments
without money and without price ; by robbing your priests

The Church of Rome heretical. 397
and Bishops of the right to marry, or to elect their own
Episcopal head ; and by robbing both priests and laity of
all voice in your ecclesiastical legislation. You have added
to it, on the other hand, by a fearful mass of errors — the
worship of the Virgin, of saints, of images and relics ; pur
gatory and indulgences ; enforced auricular confession and
private absolution ; solitary Masses for the dead, incense,
chrism and holy water, baptism of bells ; compulsory mo
nastic vows of poverty, celibacy, and obedience, the Papacy,
with its tremendous powers of persecution, anathema, and
interdict ; and the enormous figment of oral Apostolical tra
dition and consequent infallibility, by which the whole false
and perilous structure of imposition is sustained. Many of
those errors you have made articles of faith, and your Coun
cils and your Popes have excommunicated and anathema
tized, as heretics, all who would not subscribe to them. If,
therefore, they are false additions to the true Apostolic
creed, as they surely are, they are heresies on your own
principles. Our 19th Article does not, indeed, employ the
term " heresy" in speaking of your Church, merely declar
ing that " the Church of Rome hath erred, not only in their
manner of living and ceremonies, but also in matters of
faith." Yet it is certain that " error in matter of faith" is
heresy, if it be maintained obstinately and pertinaciously.
And no obstinacy can be equal to that of your priestly
rulers, in proclaiming their infallibility in these very errors,
anathematizing the maintainers of the truth, and even de
stroying them in multitudes, by the Inquisition, by the Cru
sades, and by the stake, for centuries together.
All this antichristian mass of heretical pravity, therefore,
we would gladly see you cast away, with the loathing it
deserves, that you might return to your " first love," and to
the pure Apostolic Church from which you sprang, and
VOL. II. 18

398 Letter XLVIL

from which, in these respects, you have so awfully departed.
But you will not ! Prophecy declares that Antichrist is
to be destroyed by the brightness of the Saviour's coming.
And therefore your Papal system will remain until the end
of the present dispensation. Let us be content and thank
ful that its strength is broken. Your old power has passed
away. Your laity are fast becoming too enlightened for
their priests. Excommunications, racks, and inquisitions
have lost their terrors. In vain may you struggle to regain
your dominion. In vain may writers like Dr. Milner be
cherished and sustained, in the hope of restoring that anti
christian supremacy which is gone forever. There are
thousands, I doubt not, among your ranks at this moment,
who think as we do. There are tens of thousands who
would rejoice to purify their Church after the English
model, if they had the power. And if only for their sakes,
we will still pray that the reforming light of Truth, and the
sanctifying grace of the Holy Spirit, may be poured in mer
ciful abundance upon your Church and people.

THE END.

YALE UNIVERSITY LIBRARY

3 9002 03741 9067