:*¦
-.¦^
,ib
, I

J:€,^,-<!hl<XS^Af

//^^Oi^//^^

"^Zft

^

THE

DIFFICULTIES

ROMANISM

BY
GEORGE STANLEY FABER, B. D.
1.' '
HECTOR or LONG-HEWTOjr,
AUTHOn OF "THE DIFFICULTIES OF INFIDELITY."

"Peraeque adversus universas Iifereses jam hine pra^judicatum sit: id esse
verum, quodcunque primum ; id esse adukerum, quodcunque posterius."
TeHull. adv. Prax. 5 ii. Oper. p. 405.

PHILADELPHIA:
TOWAR & HOGAN  255, MARKET STREET.
1839.

TO
THE RIGHT HONOURABLE
NICHOLAS, LORD BEXLEY,
AS
A TOKEN 01 SINCERE RESPECT BOTH TOR HIS PrBIIC
SERVICES AND HIS PRIVATE VIRTUES,
THIS MANUAL
IS INSCRIBED,
BT HIS OBLIGED AND OBEDIENT HUMBIE SERVANT,
THE AUTHOR.

PREFACE.

At various intervals, during the course of some
years~past, my attention has been turned to that part
of the Latin controversy, which respects the evidence
afforded by the early ecclesiastical writers.
I. It appeared to me, that, on all the great leading
points of divinity, those who conversed with the
apostles, and those who lived nearest to the times of
the apostles, must best have known the mind of the
apostles. Whence it seemed to follow, that, if the
Latin church really possessed that immutability of
character which is so constantly claimed on her behalf,
all those various doctrines and practices, which many
persons are wont to deem corruptions of the truth,
must have subsisted from the apostolic age itself, and
might therefore be clearly discovered in the productions
of all the early ecclesiastics.
Such a testimony as this in favour of the Roman
system of theology, should it actually exist, would be
so powerful, that it is difficult to conceive how it could
be reasonably set aside: for, if all the ancient writers,
with one voice, up to the very time of the apostles,
taught and maintained, as the familiar and acknow
ledged doctrines and practices of the primitive catholic
church, those identical doctrines and practices which
a2

VI PREFACE.
are now taught and maintained by the church of Rome ;
I see not how we can avoid the inference, that those
doctrines and practices rest ultimately upon the in
spired authority of the apostles themselves.
II. It is obvious, that, in collecting evidence of this
description, we require, as a point indispensably neces
sary to constitute its validity, both the unbroken con
tinuity of the chain of witnesses, and the strict mutual
harmony of the witnesses themselves.
Unless the chain of witnesses extend to the apostolic
age, the evidence is incomplete : and, since its whole
strength depends upon its completeness, if incomplete,
it is altogether worthless.
To discover any peculiar doctrine or practice of the
Latin church, in the works (we will say) of a writer of
the fourth century, will be of no avail, unless the same
doctrine and practice be also recognised, in orderly
succession, by a train of yet earlier writers from the
very beginning. The attested existence of the doctrine
or practice in the fourth century will indeed prove its
relative antiquity : but this will not afford to us any
satisfactory proof of its apostolic origination. An
error, which sprang up at that early period, is not the
less an error, because, by lapse of time, it has now be
come ancient. With a reference to the apostolic age,
it is still an innovation: nor does its relative antiquity
on the one hand obliterate its indelible character of
relative novelty on the other hand. We cannot justly
admit any peculiar doctrine or practice of the Latin
church to be apostolic, unless it can be regularly traced,
step by step, up to the time of the apostles. If, while a
suspicious silence pervades all the writings of the three
earlier centuries, a doctrine or practice be mentioned

PREFACE. VU
for the first time in the fourth century ; we must not
deem the novel and unsupported testimony of a later
age sufficient to justify the church of Rome in main
taining that such doctrine or practice existed from the
very beginning. Whatever is first, is true, says Ter-
tullian: whatever is more recent, is spurious. This
being the case, if a doctrine or practice, mentioned in
the fourth century, be not only left altogether unmen
tioned be writers of an earlier date ; but if it be even
contradicted and dissallowed by them : then, a fortiori,
that doctrine or practice must assuredly be, with re
ference to the apostolic age, an unauthorized and
untenable innovation.
Thus manifest is it, that any evidence from antiquity,
which can be brought in favour of the peculiar doc
trines and practices of the Roman Church, is of no
worth, in regard to proving their apostolic origination,
unless an unbroken chain of witnesses extend to the
apostolic age, and unless all the successive witnesses
themselves strictly harmonize together.
III. Before we can bring the system of the church of
Rome to this reasonable test, we must ascertain what
that system actually is.
Protestants have often been charged with giving a
false colour to the opinions of the Latins : and it is far
fi-ora impossible (such is the infirmity of human nature),
that, in the violence of controversy, each party may
have dealt unfairly with the other. I have now before
me a tract of the seventeenth century, said to have been
written by Mr. Gother; which, enforcing this identical
allegation, bears the inculpatory title of A Papist mis
represented and represented. Without entering into
the merits of that composition, this at least we must

vm PREFACE.
say, that, first to charge a Latin with what he holds
not, and then gravely to confute opinions which all the
while he strenuously disclaims, is alike unfair and un
profitable. In discussing the doctrinal system of the
Roman church, an honest inquirer will take for his
text-book, not the allegations of a protestant polemic,
but some work of credit, written _ by an esteemed and
responsible Latin himself. Thus acting, he will see
what the members of the Roman church profess to
hold : and, unless he can bring proof from authoritative
documents that his author disingenuously garbles the
real opinions of his own communion, the sentiments to
be brought to the test of antiquity are the sentiments
avowed in a work of this respectable description.
IV. While such thoughts occupied my mind, an
English gentleman of family and fortune, with whom
I have not the advantage of being personally ac
quainted, forwarded to me, from the south of France,
in the spring of the current year, a copy of a recent
publication' by M. Trevern, formerly vicar-general of
Langres, and now bishop of Aire.
The copy, thus transmitted to me, was accompanied
by a letter : in which my correspondent spoke in the
highest terms of the bishop's personal character; repre
sented his work, as having produced a very considerable
sensation among the travelhng English laity ; and, with
a degree of earnestness which I could scarcely have
anticipated, requested me to answer it.
1. On perusing the very able publication of the
learned and excellent prelate, I found its chief cha
racteristic to be that of a studied vindication of the
church of Rome, and a studied attack upon the church
of England.

PREFACE. IX
(1.) In vindicating the doctrines and practices of the
church of Rome, the bishop distinctly states, what, in
his judgment, those doctrines and practices really are.
Such being the case, I immediately perceived that 1
had here the identical text-book which I required : for,
in his lordship's work, I might safely study the system
of the Latin church, not as distorted by the prejudices
of an enemy, but as exhibited in its true colours by
a dignified ecclesiastic, to whom in all its bearings it
could not but be perfectly familiar.
(2.) Interested as 1 was on this account in the
bishop's publication, I was yet additionally interested
in it by the circumstance, that the same train of rea
soning from the evidence of antiquity, which had passed
through my own mind, had hkewise passed through
the mind of the bishop. This reasoning, which to
myself appears so natural and so unobjectionable, he
makes, in fact, the very basis of his work : for his gene
ral argument, in favour of the church of Rome and
against the church of England, may be briefly stated
in manner following : —
Those who conversed with the apostles, and those who
lived nearest to the times of the apostles, milst best have
known the mind of the apostles. With these primitive
theologians, the church of Rome agrees, and the church
of England disagrees. Therefore the former must
teach the truth, while the latter teaches falsehood.
2. Thus runs the bishop's argument : and thus, in
evolving his argument does he state and vindicate what
he himself defines to be the doctrines and practices
of the church of Rome. On both these accounts,
therefore, I was deeply interested by his lordship's
Amicable Discussion : and henceforth I determined to

X PREFACE.
adopt its authoritative statement of the Latin system,
as the unimpeachable basis of a work, which should
exhibit to the Enghsh laity the formidable Difficulties
of Romanism, even on the ground assumed by the .
bishop himself.
His lordship asserts, that, in all those pecuhar doc
trines and practices, which so grievously offend the
members of the Anglican church, and which he himself
specifies and explains with sufficient precision, the
firm and immutable church of Rome perfectly agrees
with those primitive theologians, who either conversed
with the apostles, or who lived nearest to the times of
the apostles : whence he contends, that the church of
Rome, unlike the innovating church of England, still
teaches and still acts, as the cathohc church of Christ
has ever taught and has ever acted from the mery
beginning. By this process, the question is resolved, as it ought
to be resolved, into a naked historical matter op
FACT, and, accordingly, the sole point to be decided
is, whether the doctrines ana practices of the Roman
church, as propounded and explained and vindicated by
the bishop of Aire himself, have or have not the unbroken
sanction of all primitive antiquity.
Such then is the ground, a ground of his lordship's
own selection, on which I am in no wise reluctant to
take up the discussion : and, when the early ecclesiasti
cal writers up to the time of the apostles shall have been
examined somewhat more fully,perhaps also somewhat
more impartially, than the bishop has performed the
task, I greatly mistake, if the alleged immutable church
of Rome will not stand convicted of palpable innova-

PREFACE. XI
tion, and thence (according to TertuUian's canon) of
manifest error.
V. Unwilling to waste my strength and my time in a
mere ephemeral controversy, talked of to-day and for
gotten to-morrow, I have endeavoured to impress upon
my work the character of permanent utility. Had
the bishop of Aire never undertaken the defence of the
church of Rome at the expense of the church of Eng
land; still a work, in which the claims of the peculiar
doctrines and practices of the Latin church to the support
of primitive antiquity are considered with some measure
of fulness, can never, so long as truth is valuable, be
useless and unseasonable. When a Roman ecclesias-
tic perplexes an English laymp'n by boldly asserting
the strict accordance of his church with the church
nearest to the times of the apostles,' it is desirable, that
the layman, without the trouble of any very extended
research imposed upon himself, should be provided with
a reply. 1. A wish, says my intelhgent correspondent, to be
able to answer the questions, repeatedly and triumphantly
proposed by the catholics upon topics of this description,
is everywhere now reigning.
Thus speaks a well-informed layman from actual
experience : the object of my work is to furnish an easy
reply to such questions, not merely in the present day,
but at any future period whatsoever.
2. Your awn theologians, says the bishop of Aire to
his English friend, no less than ourselves, have in their
hands the ancient liturgies of the primitive church and
the works of the earty ecclesiastical writers : but they will
have small inclination, I suspect, to bring you acquainted
with such documents. Ask them to communicate these

XU PREFACE. ns
documents to you: desire them to specify the opinio
which they express. You will soon find, that they take
your request with no very good grace : and, in truth, to
deal plainly with you, it is impossible that they should.
Ah well, Sir, 1 will spare them their embarrassment: and,
so far as you are concerned, I will go on to accomplish
their defective ministrations.*
Thus speaks a learned prelate of the Latin Church;
the object of my work is to furnish a permanent answer
to the supposed embarrassing questions, which, at his
lordship's suggestion, the English laity might propound
to the Enghsh clergy.
VI. In discussing the difficulties of Romanism on
the professed ground of primitive antiquity, an obstacle
occured, which, to a person situated so disadvantage-
ously as myself, might well have appeared altogether
insurmountable. To work without tools is impossible : the tools, abso
lutely necessary for an undertaking of this description,
are the works of the primitive fathers, the early eccle
siastical histories, and the acts of those councils which
claim to be ecumenical : and it is not the lot of eveiy
painful student to be enrolled among those highly-privi
leged divines, who, by their connexion with colleges or
with cathedrals, can leisurely expatiate in the free use
of such requisite instruments.
As for myself, buried in the deep oblivion of a se
questered northern village, possessing only a limited
collection of the ancient ecclesiastical writers, and from
local circumstances unable to profit by the rich stores
of a collegiate library of reference, I should have found
* Discuss. Amic. vol. ii. p. 8.

PREFACE. XUl
it physically impoSisible to execute the task which has
been imposed upon me, had not the means been sup
plied after a mode, which, in the ordinary course of
rustic life, could not rationally have been anticipated.
More ample opportunities might probably have render
ed my work less imperfect : yet, with some trifling
exceptions, the copious library of a valued clerical
friend, united with my own, left me but httle to desire.
Mr. Anstey will, I hope, permit a neighbour of twenty
years to say, that the service, which he rendered to me,
was only surpassed by the manner in which that ser
vice was rendered.
VII. The present work is a work of defence, not of
attack : for I claim to possess the advantage of appear-
ing in the light of a blameless defendant, not of an
unprovoked assailant.
When a Roman ecclesiastic, however excellent and
venerable his character may be, spontaneously assaults
the church of England ; and when he attempts to pro
selyte her members on the specious but insecure plea,
that, because she has rejected certain doctrines and
practices of the Latin church, she has therefore departed
from primitive antiquity : it becomes a matter of strict
defence to shew, by incontrovertible testimony, that
the really innovating church is not the church of Eng
land, but the church of Rome.
VIII. In prosecuting the subject which I have been
induced to take in hand, I felt the want of a term,
which should express both accurately and compen
diously the system of doctrine and practice maintained by
the church of Rome.
1 . The worA popery I was unwilling to employ : both
because I have no inclination to give needless offence ;
B

XIV PREFACE.
and because the marked difference of opinion in regard
to the papal authority, which subsists between the Cisal-
pines and the Transalpines, has rendered that word not
universally proper.
2. On the other hand, the word Catholicism I could
not employ : because such a term, when nakedly and
exclusively applied to the theological system of the
western Latin church, has always appeared to me most
singularly incorrect.
That the Latins are catholics in the same sense that
th^ Greeks and the Armenians and the Syrians and the
Abyssinians and the English are catholics ; in other
words, that the Latins constitute one of the many
branches of Christ's Universal Church ; I am far from
wishing to deny : but, when a generic name is applied
specifically to a single particular branch, this palpable
inaccuracy of nomenclature can only produce a corre
spondent erroneousness of conception.
The name catholic belongs equally to all the
members of Christ's catholic church, wherever dis
persed and however distressed. Hence a name, which
belongs equally to all whether oriental or occiden
tal, cannot be correctly employed, as the special and
exclusive and descriptive appellation of a part only :
because, when the term is thusused, the common cha
racter of Catholicism is by implication denied to every
christian, who happens not to be a member of that
provincial western church which is in communion with
the bishop of Rome, and which acknowledges him as
its chief or patriarch.
3. Rejecting then the two words popery and Catho
licism for reasons which to myself appeared fully suffi
cient, I have adopted the unexceptionable term Ro-

PREF.\CE. XV
manism : and I wish to be understood as employing it
to designa.te the peculiar system of doctrine and practice,
ivhich the church of Rome in all her branches maintains
and inculcates.
IX. Not ignorant of the impatient indolence of an age
which claims to have discovered the long-hidden royal
road to knowledge, I have laboured to be brief: yet,
aware at the same time that in one mode only can the
discussioa be satisfactorily conducted, I have endea
voured to condense within small space no small quan
tity of matter.
Should it please God to render this manual for the
English laity extensively and permanently useful, I
shall have my reward. The opprobrium is at least
avoided, that the English clergy, by their silence, have
accepted a Latin offer to spare them their embarrass
ment, and to accomplish their defective ministrations.
Long-Newton Rectory,
Sept. 17, 1825.

CONTENTS.

BOOK I.

THE DIFFICUITIES ATTENDANT UPON THE CBUncH OP ROME IM RE
GARD TO HEH PECULIAR DOCTRINES AND PRACTICES, p. 35.

CHAPTER I.
INTRODUCTORT STATEMENT, p. 35.
Apostolic antiquity and unbending imm.utabillty are the peculiar
boast of the cliurch of Rome, p. 35.
I. Its apostolic antiquity is no proof of its unbending immuta
bility, p. 35.
II. In considering tlie difficulties of Romanism, it is equitable
to hear a Latin himself propound his own scheme of
doctrine and practice, p. 36.
III. For this purpose, the bishop of Aire's Amicable Discussion,
professedly addressed to the English laity, is adopted as a
text-book, p. 37.
IV. The main object of this work is to proselyte the Enghsh
laity, partly by rendering them dissatisfied with their own
national church, and partly by a dexterous vindication of
the system inculcated by the- Latin church. Hence it may
be viewed, as exhibiting the most favourable statement of
the peculiarities of that church: and hence, in that capa
city, it is unexceptionable as a text-book, p. 37.

CHAPTER II.
THE DIPFICUITIES OP ROMANISM IN REOABD TO THE CEAIM OP
INPALIIBIIITT, p. 39.
The whole Romish controversy virtually hinges on the doctrine of '
the infallibility of the Latin church, viewed as claiming to
identify herself with the catholic church, p. 39.
I. Though by the Latin doctors the infalUbility of the church is
B2

XVIU CONTENTS.
strenuously maintained, there is a difference of opinion as
to where that infallibility resides, p. 39.
1. Popes have decided against popes, p. 40.
2. Councils have decided against councils, p. 40.
3. The church of one age has decided against the
church of another age, p. 42.
4. Councils have decided against Scripture, p. 48.
(1.) Instance from the case of oaths which are ad
verse to ecclesiastical utility, p. 48.
(2.) Instance from the case of the enforced celibacy
of the clergy, p. 50.
II. The abstract arguments of the bishop of Aire in favour of
ecclesiastical infalUbility, cannot stand against the direct
evidence of naked facts, p. 52.
1. His first argument, p. 52.
2. His second argument, p. 53.
3. His third argument, p. 54.
III. Remarks on the only true and legitimate mode of settling
points of doctrine or of practice, p. 56.
1. Whatever cannot be proved from Scripture either
explicitly or inductively, must be rejected, p. 56.
2. Whatever claims to be proved from Scripture rests,
- of necessity, upon the basis of the interpretation
adopted, p. 57.
(1.) The Latin theory, that all interpretation must
be regulated and fixed by the absolute autho
ritative decision of the church, p. 57.
(2.) The vague and unsatisfactory theory, that
interpretation depends wholly upon the exer
cise of insulated private judgment, p. 57.
(3.) The only genuine and satisfactory theory of an
appeal, where an appeal is possible,, to the
primitive church, 60.

CHAPTER HI.
THE DIFFICULTIES OP ROMANISM IN REGARD TO TRADITION AND
THE DOCTRINAL INSTRUCTION OF THE CHURCH, p. 64.
The bishop of Aire's vindicatory remarks on tradition and the
doctrinal institution of the church abound in fallacies, p. 64.
I. Fallacy of the objection, that protestants receive'some doc
trines of the Latin church, while they reject others, p. 64.
II. Fallacy of the objection against the principle of the ISnghsh
church, that nothing is to be enforced as an article of faith,
save what can be proved from Scripture, p. 65.
HI. Fallacy in regard to the formation of the canon of Scripture,
p. 67.

CONTENTS. XIX

CHAPTER IV.

THE DIFFICULTIES Or ROMANISM IN REGARD TO THE DOCTRINE OP
thansubstantiation, p. 68.
The doctrine of Transubstantiatiort, like that of the Trinity, ia
purely a question of evidence: whence it must be received
or rejected, according as the evidence shall be sufficient or
insufficient, p. 68.
I. The doctrine of Transubstantiatlon may be confuted from
Scripture alone, even independently of any other aid, p. 70.
1. Homogeneous passages must be interpreted homoge
neously, p. 71.
2. The very terms in which the institution of the Eucha
rist is described, are fatal to the doctrine of Tran
substantiatlon, p. 73.
(1.) Verbal argument from St. Matthew's statement,
p. 73.
(2.) Verbal argument from St. Paul's statement,
p. 74.
3. The doctrine of Transubstantiatlon contradicts other
parts of Scripture, p. 74.
(1.) Argument from our Lord's discourse at Caper
naum, p. 74.
(2.) Argument from the prophetic declaration of
David, p. 75.
(3.) Argument from the explicitly and repeatedly
declared /ac?, that Christ was only once offered
up as a sacrifice for the sins of the world, p. 76.
II. The docti'ine of Transubstantiatlon is a novelty, inasmuch as
it was the doctrine neither of the primitive church nor
even of the early church, p. 77.
1. The ancient ecclesiastical writers taught, as the
genuine doctrine of the catholic church, not a
pHTSicAi, but a MORAL, chaugc in the elements, by
virtue of the prayer of consecration, p. 77.
2. That sueh was the case, is clear, from the nature of
the multiplied comparisons used by the ancients in
the way of illustration, p. 80.
3. With this avowed doctrine of a moral change only,
agree the repeated and positive declarations of the
~ early writers, that the consecrated elements only
SYMBOLIZE the body ^nd blood of Christ, and that
the LITERAL body and blood of Christ are not
received in the Eucharist, p. 82.
(1.) Clement of Alexandria, p. 82.
(2.) Tertullian, p. 83.
(3.) Cyprian, p. 83.
(4.) Cyril of Jerusalem, p. 84.
(5.) Chrysostom, p. 84.

CONTENTS.
(6.) Augustine, p. 84.
(7.) Pope Gelasius, p. 85.
(8.) Facundus, p. 85.
Remarks on the context of the passage in Clement of
Alexandria, as cited above, p. 85.

CHAPTER V.
RESPECTING THE LATIN DEFENCE OP THE DOCTRINE OP TRANSUB8TAN-
TIATION, FROM THE LANGUAGE EMPLOYED BT OUR LORD, p. 88.
The bishop of Aire commences his defence of the doctrine of
Transubstantiatlon, by adducing and commenting upon the
words of Christ himselfi p. 88.
I. His defence of the doctrine from Christ's discourse at Caper
naum, p. 88.
1. The bishop's proposed interpretation of our Lord's
explanatory words is completely irreconcilable with
that adopted in the early church, p. 89.
2. The bishop's interpretation is not, as he contends,
required by the behaviour of the disciples, p. 92.
II. His defence of the doctrine from the language of Christ at
tlie institution of the Eucharist, p. 93.
1. When Christ ordained that sacrament, his phraseology
must have recalled to' the minds of tlie disciples the
language which he had previously held in the syna
gogue at Capernaum: but the question js, how such
language was understood by them, p. 93.
2. The bishop's objections to the ancient figurative
scheme of interpretation, as "revived and adopted by
the church of England, p. 94.
(1.) His objection, that bread had never, before the
institution of the Eucharist, been taken as a
sign of Christ's body, p. 94.
(2.) His objection founded on the denial of the
alleged homogeneity of .,apparently homoge
neous passages, p. 96.

CHAPTER VI.
RESPECTING THE LATIN DEFENCE OP THE DOCTRINE OF TRANSUB-
8TANTIATI0N, PROM THE SECRET DISCIPLINE OF THE EARLY
CHURCH, p. 98.
The bishop of Aire proceeds in his defence of the doctrine of
Transubstantiatlon, by entering into a discussion of the secret
discipline of the early church, p. 98.
I. His argument to prove, that the doctrine of Transubstantia-

CONTENTS. Xxi,
tion was the sole and grand secret of the christian mysteries,
p. 100.
-1. The true doctrine of the Eucharist was not the exclu
sive secl'et of the ancient christian mysteries, p. 101.
2. The true doctrine of the Eucharist was not even the
grant? secret of the ancient christian mysteries, p. 101.
(1.) Proof from the catechetical lectures of Cyril of
Jerusalem, p. 102. ,
(2.) Proof from the testimony of Jerome, p. 105.
^3.) Proof from Origen, p. 105.
(4.) Proof from Augustine, p. 108.
(5.) Proof from the Philopatris, p. 108.
3. So far from the doctrine of Transubstantiation being
either the sole or the grand secret of the mysteries,
it was, in truth, not taught by them at all, p. 110.
(1.) Since the catholic church of the five first cen
turies recognised no change in the elements
, save a moral change; it is impossible, that the
doctrine of a physical change could have been
taught in the mysteries which seemed to have
been instituted in the course of the second
century, p. 111.
(2. ) This position is fully established by the remark
able circum.stance, that none of the ancient
pagans ever ridicule the doctrine of Transub
stantiation, though they frequently ridicule the
genuine mysterloiis doctrines of Christianity,
p.> 112.
The bishop's argument in favour of Transubstantiation, from
the allegations of the pagans, that the christians in the
celebration of their mysteries devoured human flesh and
drank humanblood, .=:hown, from the explicit denial of the
christians themselves, to be altogether untenable, p. 116.

CHAPTER VH.
RESPECTING "JTHE LATIN DEFENCE OF THE DOCTRINE OP TRANSUB
STANTIATION, FROM THE LANGUAGE OF THE ANCIENT LITURGIES,
AND FROM THE PHRASEOLOGY OF THE EARLY ECCLESIASTICAL
'WRITERS, p. 121.
The bishop of Aire completes his defence of the doctrine of
Transubstantiation, by adducing the language of the ancient
liturgies and the phraseology of the early ecclesiastical
writers. In prosecuting this part of his subject, he diligently
quotes, in the sense of a physical change of the elements,
passages, which speak only of their moral change. Mean
while, he suppresses the passages which make directly against
his system. Attheir existence, indeed, he faintly hints: but,

XXII CONTENTS.
while he attempts, though unsuccessfully, to invalidate them;
he gives his Enghsh laic correspondent no opportunity of
judging for himself by an ocular inspection of such passages,
p. 121.
I. His first hne of argument proceeds on the ground, that the
type and ihe antitype, or the thing symbolizing and the
iking symbolized, may be perfectly identical: a mode of
reasoning, by which we may clearly demonstrate the smy-
bolizing woman Hagar to be identical with the symbolized
mount Sinai in Arabia, p. 122.
II. His second line of argument, which is palpably inconsistent
with his first, proceeds on the ground, that the old fathers
were in two different stories, as they severally addressed
the Catechumens and the Mystse, p. 124.
1. This argument is confuted by the explicit language
of Augustine's Enarrations, which were certainly
addressed to the Mystse, p. 125.
2. The true key to the occasional language of the ancient
liturgies and of the early ecclesiastical writers, is the
doctrine of a moral, as contradistinguished from a
puysical, change, p. 126.

CHAPTER VIII.
RESPECTING TUE RISE AND PROGRESS AND PINAL ESTABLISHMENT
OF THE DOCTRINE OP TRANSUBSTANTIATION, p. 128.
An historical sketch of the rise and progress and final establish
ment of the doctrine of Transubstantiatlon; as it gradually
sprang up, by an increasing departure from the old doctrine
of a MORAL change, to the new doctrino of a physical
change, in the consecrated elements, p. 128.
I. In the fifth century, Eutyches constructed an argument, in
favour of his own peculiar speculation respecting the trans
formation of Christ's human nature into the divine sub
stance, upon the hitherto unheard-of doctrine of a physical
change wrought in the elements by virtue of consecration,
p. 128.
1- The premises of his argument were immediately
denied by Theodoret, in the same century, p. 129.
2. They were also denied by Pope Gelasius in the same
century, p. 131.
3. And they were again denied by Ephrem of Antioch,
in the sixth century, p. 132.
II. In the year 787, the second Council of Nice, reversing the
decree of the Council of Constantinople in the year 754,
ratified the new doctrine of a physical change, p. 133.
III. In the ninth century, the present doctrine of Transubstan
tiation was first regularly drawn out and digested by
Paschase of Corby, p. 134.

CONTENTS. XXIII
IV. In the year 1079, that doctrine was maintained by Pope
Gregory VII. against Barenger, who adhered to the old
doctrine of a moral change: and, in the year 1215, it was
finally established by Pope Innocent III. in the fourth
Council of Lateran, p. 135.
V. When Paschase, in tlie ninth century, started the present
doctrine of Transubstantiation, it was immediately opposed
by Raban of Mentz, and many others, as an error of late
origin, and of only partial adoption, p. 135.

CHAPTER IX.
THE DIFFICULTIES OF ROMANISM IN RESPECT TO AURICULAR CON
FESSION, AS IMPOSED AND ENFORCED BY THE CHURCH OF ROME,
p. 139.
The church of F.ng\a.r\d allows auricular confession to a priest:
the church of Rome enforces it, p. 139.
I. The bishop of Aire attempts to prove the religious necessity
of auricular confession, by inductive reasoning from Scrip-
tui'e, p. 139.
1. His argument stated and considered, p. 139.
2. Remarks on the fallacy involved in the terms em
ployed by him, p. 141.
II. The bishop of Aire further attempts to prove his point from
ecclesiastical antiquity, p. 142.
1. Clement of Rome, p. 143.
2. Irenaeus, p. 143.
3. Tertullian,, p. 143.
4. Socrates and Sozomen, p. 144.
5. Practice of the West. Ambrose of Milan, p. 145.

CHAPTER X.
THE DIFFICULTIES OF ROMANISM IN RESPECT TO THE DOCTJIINE OP
SATISFACTION^ p. 148.
The bishop of Aire's statement of the Romish doctrine of satis
faction, p. 148.
I. His statement is unsatisfactory, because irreconcilable with
Scripture, p. 149.
II. Opinions of the fathers, p. 152.
III. To appease the anger of God and to satisfy his justice are not
phrases of the same import, p. 153.
IV. The evidence, adduced by the bishop, is insufficient, p. 154.

XXIV CONTENTS.
CHAPTER XL
THE DIFFICULTIES OF ROMANISM IN RESPECT TO INDULGENCES,
p. 156.
The origin and perversion of indulgences, p. 156.
I. The bishop of Aire's attempt to deduce indulgences from
the authority of St. Paul, p. 157.
n. The sale of indulgences at the time of the Reformation, p. 158.
III. The doctrine of Supererogation as now held by the church
of Rome, p. 159. CHAPTER XII.
THE DIFPICDLTIES OF ROMANISM IN RESPECT TO PURGATORY, p. 161.
The bishop of Aire confesses, that the existence of purgatory
cannot be proved from Scripture, p. 161.
I. Hence he attempts to prove it Inductively from the untena
ble doctrine of Satisfaction, p. 161.
II. The bishop claims all antiquity, as being in his favour: but
then, according to the tenour of his citations, all antiquity
commences about the middle of the third century, p. 163.
1. All antiquity commences with Cyprian: and Cyprian,
though cited by the bishop as favourable to his
cause, is directly hostile to it, p. 163.
2. All real antiquity is against the bishop : as we may
learn from Clement of Rome, Polycarp, Ignatius,
Irenzeus, Athenagoras, and the old writer in the
works of Justin Martyr, p. 165.

CHAPTER XIII.
THE DIFFICULTIES OF ROMANISM IN RESPECT TO PRAYERS FOR THE
DEAD, p. 167.
Holy Scripture is perfectly silent respecting the duty or benefit
of prayers for the dead, p. 167.
I. The insufficiency of the bishop of Aire's proof, from the Mac-
cabsean history, shown by the canon of Cyril of Jerusalem,
and his direct testimony against the authority of the
Apocrypha, p. 168.
II. The bishop's allegation, that the duty of praying for the dead
is taught by the silence of Christ, p. 169,,
in. The bishop's attempted proof from the fathers, that prayers
for the dead are pious and profitable, p. 170.
1. Omitting the earliest ecclesiastical waiters, the bishop
begins with Tertullian, p. 171.
(1). The meaning of the phrase, oblations far the
dead, as used by Tertullian, p. 171.

CONTENTS. XXV
(2.) TertuUian's speculation respecting prayers for
the dead, p. 172.
2. The bishop further adduces Cyprian, Chrysostom,
and Augustine, p. 173.

CHAPTER XIV.
AN HISTORICAL SKETCH OF THE RISE OP PRAYERS FOR THE DEAD
AND OP THE DOCTRINB OF PURSATOHY, p. 174.
The rise and progress of prayers for the dead, and of the con
nected doctrine of Purgatory, p. 174.
I. Tertullian, p. 174.
II. Cyril of Jerusalem, p. 174.
III. Augustine, p. 175.
1. Hesitation of Augustine, p. 176.
(1.) Exemplified from one of his treatises, p. 176.
(2.) Exemplified from one of his serinons,.p. 176.
(3.) Exemplified from another treatise, p. 177.
(4.) Exemplified from another discourse, 177.
2. Striking and essential difference between the purga
tory of Augustine and the purgatory of tlie modern
Roman church, p. 178.
3. Augustine's exposition of 1 Corinth, iii. 10 — 15. was
unknown to his predecessors Tertullian and Origen,
p. 179.

CHAPTER XV.
THE DIFFICULTIES OP ROMANISM IN RESPECT TO THE INVOCATION
OP THE SAINTS, p. 180.
The case made out by the bishop of Aire for the invocation of the
saints, p. 180.
I. Even on the alleged ground, that the invocation of the
saints is merely intercessory, the practice, not being
authorized by Scripture, and manifestly tending to idolatry,
is utterly unjustifiable, p. 181.
1. We might well be satisfied with the simple fact alone,
that Scripture, while it allows us to ask the inter
cessory prayers of the living, does not authorize us
to ask the intercessory prayers of the dead, p. 181.
2. But, of this striking circumstance, it is not very diffi
cult to ascertain the rationale, p. 182.
(1.) The nature and origin of the pagan hero-wor
ship, which was adopted by the apostate Israel
ites, p. 182.
(2. ) St. Paul's prophecy of the christian apostacy
was supposed, in the early church, to foretell
the worship of canonized dead men, p. 183.
C

XXVI , CONTENTS.
(3.) To ask the intercessory prayers of the living
could not lead to idolatry: hence, in Scripture,
it is allowed. To ask the intercessory prayers
of the dead has a direct tendency to produce
idolatry: hence, in Scripture, it is no where
authorized, p. 184.
II. The avowed ground, on which alone the bishop of Aire
defends the invocation of the saints, is, that they are merely
requested to give us their intercessory prayers, p. 185.
1. Yet he himself confesses that his statement is not
perfectly accurate, p. 185.
2. Its inaccuracy is yet further shown even by his own
citations from certain of the later fathers, p. 186.
3. Its inaccuracy is additionally shown by the authorized
prayers of the Latin church, in which not merely
the intercession of the saints is requested, but in
which they are implored to grant such gifts and
graces and blessings as God alone can bestow, p. 189.
III. The bishop, as usual, in his appeal to antiquity, quotes only
the later fathers, in whose time corruption had begun to
invade the church. For obvious reasons he refrains from
adducing the really primitive fathers, p. *194.

CHAPTER XVI.
THE DIFFICULTIES OP ROMANISM IN RESPECT TO THE WORSHIP OF
Relics, p. 193.
The case made out by the bishop of Aire for the worship of rehcs,
p. 193.
I. He professedly rests the whole matter upon the alleged fact,
that relics are simply used in the Latin church as recorda-
tory aids to devotion, p. 194.
II. His statement shown to be inaccurate, p. 195.
III. His account of the worship of relics unsatisfactory, p. 198.
IV. His proof of the legahty of relic-worship, from miracles said
to have been wrought over the relics of the saints, p. 199.
V. His attempt to trace relic-worship to the age of the apostles,
p. 200.
1. First proof, p. 200.
2. Second proof, p. 200.
3. Third proof, p. 201.
4. Fourth proof, p. 201.

CHAPTER XVII.
THE DIFFICULTIES OF ROMANISM IN RESPECT TO THE VEHEBATIOH
OF IMAGES, p. 202.
The case made out by the bishop of Aire for the veneration of
Images, p. 202.

CONTENTS. XXVU
I. The decision of the second Council of Mice, as adduced by
the bishop, p. 202.
II. The decision of the second Council of Nice, as understood and
expounded by James Naclantus, bishop of Clugium, p. 202.
1. The decision of the council given in full, p. 202.
2. The exposition of James of Clugium, as published in
Italy, during the sixteenth century, without any
censure from the church of Rome, p. 203.
III. The bishop's defence of image-worship, on the plea of the
difference between absolute-worship and relative-worship,
p. 204.
IT. The apprehension of protestants respecting imjge-worship,
though censured by the bishop as groundless, has been
too well justified by the event, p. 207.
1. The danger, in the case of new converts from pagan
ism, is allowed by the bishop himself, p. 207.
2. But this danger, in countries which have been long
converted to Christianity, he deems chimerical,
p. 208.
(1.) singular incongruity in the language adopted
by the bishop, p. 209.
(2.^ Specimen of authorized Roman devotion, p. 210.
(3.) Pope Gregory and Serenus of Marseilles, p. 212.
V. The bishop adduces the fathers on his behalf: but, as before,
he prudently adduces not one of the really ancient or
earliest fathers, p. 216.

CHAPTER XVIII.
THB DIFFICULTIES OF ROMANISM IN RESPECT TO THE AIJORATION OF
THE CROSS, p. 219.
The case made out by the bishop of Aire for the adoration of the
cross, p. 219.
I. The decision of the second Council of Nice, p. 220.
I[. The bishop, as a member of the church of Rome, is pledged
either to defend the adoration of the cross, or to censure
the decision of the council, p. 220.
1. The insufficiency of the plea, which the bishop
attempts to set up on the ground of the difference
between religious worship and civil homage, p .220.
2. Inconclusive reasoning of the bishop from Galat. vi.
14. p. 221.
3. The bishop's defence of the adoration of tiie cross,
from its alleged remarkable property of silencing
pagan oracles, p. 222.
4. The bishop claims the ancient fathers of the primitive
church, as favourable to the adoration of the cross :
but, as usual, he adducces only the later fathers; in

XXyiU CONTENTS.
whose time, a superstition, unknown to their pre
decessors, had crept intojthe church, p. 222.
(1.) Cyril of Alexandria, being evidently unable to
deny the allegation Of Julian, that christians
even in the middle of the fourth century
worshipped the material cross, proves more,
in the fifth century, than can be quite agreea
ble to the bishop, p. 222.
(2. J Tertullian, at the end of the second and at the
beginning of the third century, is not in the
bishop's favour; and says nothing, in the least
• degree, to the purpose, p. 223.
(3.) Minucius Felix, at the beginning of the third
century, is directly against the bishop, p. 224.
UI. A sketch of the rise and progress of cross-worship, drawn
out from materials furnished by the bishop himself, p. 225.

BOOK II.

THE DIFFICULTIES ATTENDANT UPON THE CHURCH OP ROME
REGARD TO HER CLAIM OP UNIVERSAL SUPREMACY, p. 227.

CHAPTER I.
RESPECTING THE POLITY OF THE PRIMITIVE CHURCH, p. 229.
To demonstrate, that the form of ecclesiastical pohty, which has
been adopted by the church of England, was of divine
appointment, nothing more is requisite than the Bible,
illustrated by the attestation of two of the oldest fathers to
a naked matter of fact, p. 229.
I. The testimony of Irenaus, the scholar of Polycarp, the
disciple of St, John, p. 230.
H. The testimony of Clement of Rome, the friendand companion
and fellow-labourer of St. Paul, p. 232.
1. His testimony respects a fact, which was occurring in
his own time, p. 233.
2. The theory, that the primitive bishops and presby
ters were identical, is irreconcilable with the testi
mony to facts, boi'ue by Tertullian and Irenaeus and
Clement of Rome, p. 236.
III. The testimony of Scripture, as interpreted by the attestation
of Irenseus and Clement to naked facts, which they beheld
with their own eyes, and in which mistake was physically
impossible, p. 238,

CONTENTS. XXIX
CHAPTER II.
RESPECTING THE LATIN OBJECTIONS TO THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND IN
GENERAL, AND TO THE ORDERS OF THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND IN
PARTICULAR, p. 240.
The bishop of Aire's historical account of the establishment of
the reformed church of England, p. 240.
I. His objection to the church of England in genera] rests upon
the character and conduct of two of our princes, 240.
1. The objection, deduced from the character of King
Henry VIII., p. 240.
2. The objection deduced from the conduct of Queen
Elizabeth, p. 241.
II. His objection to the orders of the church of England in par
ticular rests upon the allegation, that the chain of apostoli
cal succession has been broken, p. 244.
CHAPTER III.
RESPECTING THE ALLEGED SCHISM OF THE REFORMED CHURCH OP
ENGLAND, p. 247.
Tlie English church is charged with schism, on the ground, that
Peter, as the primate of the apostolic college, and the line of
the Roman bishops, as his successors, in place and preroga
tive, are the divinely-appointed centre of ecclesiastical unity.
Whence it follows, that any separation from Rome is unjusti
fiable schism, p. 247.
I. An examination of the alleged fact, which forms the basis of
the argument, p. 249.
1. Nothing, which is recordsd in Scripture, demonstrates
the imaginary primacy of Peter, p. 249.
(1.) First scriptural testimony, p. 250.
(2.) Second scriptural testimony, p. 251.
(3.) Third scriptural testimony, p. 251.
f4.) Fourth scriptural testimony, p. 252.
(5.) Fifth scriptural testimony, p. 252.
(6.) Sixth scriptural testimony, p. 253.
(7.) Seventh scriptural testimony, p. 253.
2. Nothing, which is recorded in Scripture demonstrates
the imaginary primacy of the see of Rome, p. 254.
II. The argument, built on Mat. xvi. 13 — 19, rests on the two
main positions: that Peter was the first bishop of Rome;
and that Christ, by declaring Peter to be the rock upon
which he would build his entire church, conferred upon
that apostle and his Roman successors the divine light of
an universally-controlling primacy, p. 255.
1. There is no evidence from antiquity, that Peter was
the first bishop of Rome : on the contrary, the evi
dence is directly against any such supposition, p. 257.
C2

XXX CONTENTS.
2. There is no evidence from antiquity, that Peter and
his alleged successors in the see of Rome were sup
posed by {he early christians to be conjointly the
rock on which Christ promised to found his church:
on the contrary, we find, that the primitive ecclesi
astical writers never interpreted the text as it is
now interpreted by the modern Latin church, p. 261.
ni. The perfect independence of the church of England on the
church of Rome, according to the principles of primitive
order, p. 263:
1. Even if the church of England perfectly agreed in
doctrine with the church of Rome, still that circum
stance would give the latter no right of authoritative
domination over the former, p. 264.
2i Neither is any right of authoritative domination given
to the church of Rome by the circumstance, that, in
point of ecclesiastical derivation, the Anglican church
is her daughter, p. 264.
3. The argument for the independence of the English
church is complete, even abstractedly from the alle
gation of idolatry against the church of Rome, p. 265.

CHAPTER IV.
RESPECTING THE PRACTICABILITY OF AN UNION OF THE CHURCH OF
ROME AND THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND, p. 267.
The bishop of Aire strongly recommends an union of the churches
of Rome and England, p. 267. •
I. The scheme of union, proposed by the bishop, is, that
England must adopt implicitly the whole doctrinal system
of Rome: and Rome, in return, will indulge her in the
matter of discipline, p. 267.
II. Remarks on the bishop's scheme of union, p. 269.
1. The bishop Tequlres, that the whole matter of con
cession shall be entirely on the side of the Anglican
church: for he demands an unconditional doctrinal
-submission to the behests of the church of Rome,
on the ground that the rehgious principles of Rome
are immutable, p. 269.
2. Such a submission, unattended by real conviction,
would be nothing better than base hypocrisy. To
effect any creditable and beneficial submission, there
fore, the bishop must first demonstrate the indubi-
, table truth of the Roman system of doctrine, p. 270.
3. Singular inconsistency of the bishop in regard to the
alleged invalidation of the Anglican orders by the
marriages of Scory and Barlow and Coverdale, p. 271.
4.' According to the bishop, the lamentable ignorance of

CONTENTS. XXXI
the. English reformers was the true cause, which
separated the church of England from the church of
Rome, p. 272.
5. According to the bishop, tiie no less lamentable igno
rance of the present English clergy keeps their de
luded church still Iq a state of schismatical separa-
V tion, p. 275.

CHAPTER V.
RESPECTING THE BISHOP OF AIRe's CENSURE OF THE REFORMATION,
HIS AP0L06y FOR THE INQUISITION, AND HIS PROTEST AGAINST
FREEDOM OF RELIGIOUS WORSHIP, p. 276.
The principles, advocated even by such a man as the bishop of
Aire, sei-ve in themselves to show the lamentable corruption
of the Roman system of doctrine, p. 276.
I. The bishop's censure of the Reformation, p. 276.
II. The bishop's apology for the Inquisition, p. 279.
1. Respecting the ground taken by the bishop, that any
unjustifiable acts, perpetrated by the Inquisition,
ought not to be charged upon the inquisition itself,
but upon its officers, p. 279.
2. Respecting the ground taken by the bishop, that the
number of innocent victims has been greatly exag
gerated, p. 280.
3. Respecting the ground implicatively taken by the
bishop, that the Inquisition is justified in the
slaughter of those whom the church of Rome
deems ^jV/?/ victims, p. 281.
ni. The bishop's protest against freedom of religious worship,
p. 283.
1. The freedom of religious worship, allowed by the
Anglican church, is openly reprobated, by a prelate
of the Roman church, as a dangerous and mischlev-
¦ ous policy, which must end in the downfal of the
Anghcan church, and which, therefore, no wise
ecclesiastical governors would tolerate, p. 283.
2. The future destiny of the church of England no man
can with certainty prognosticate : yet,4f the church
of Rome should be re-edified upon her ruins, it may
be doubted, whether the protestant dissenters will
experience any real benefit from the exchange,
p. 284.
3. The error of those modern protestants, who imagine
that the church of Rome has essentially changed
from her former self, is corrected by die express
declaration of the bishop, that her principles, once
defined, are irrevocable, p . 285.

XXXU CONTENTS.
4. The bishop's tempting proposal to the parochial cler
gy of England, on the part of the episcopal bench
of Rome, p. 285.

CHAPTER VI.
CONCLUSION.

The Author's parting valediction to the worthy and exemplary,
though, as he apprehends, lamentably mistaken, bishop of
Atte, p. 287.

APPENDIX.
RISPICTING THE AUTHENTIC LETTERS OP THE APOSTLIS
MENTIONED BY TERTULLIAN, p. 289.

BOOK 1.

THE DIPFICULTIES ATTENDANT UPON THE CHURCH
OP ROME, IN REGARD TO HER PECULIAR
DOCTRINES AND PRACTICES.
Certe sacramenta quae sumimus, corporis et sanguinis-Domini,
divina res est ; propter quod et per eadem divinae efficlmur con-
sortes naturae. Et tamen esse non- desinit substantia vel natura
panis et vini : et certe imago et similitudo corporis et sanguinis
Christi in actione mysteriorum celebrantur. — Papa Gelas. de Duah.
Christ. Natur. cont. Nestor, et Eutych. in BiUioth. Patr. vol. iv. p.
422. Spiritaliter inteUiglf e quod locutus sum. Non hoc corpus, quod
videtis, mandicaturi estis ; nee bibituri ilium sanguinem, quem
fusuri sunt qui me crucifigent. Sacramentum ahquod vobis com-
mendavi: spiritaliter intellectum vivificabit vos. — August, Enarr.
in Psalm, xcviii. Oper. vol. viii. p. 397. Colon, 1616.

CHAPTER L
Introductory Statement,
Apostolic antiquity, and unbending immutability,
are the peculiar boast of the church of Rome.
L So far as bare ecclesiastical existence is con
cerned, no person will be disposed to controvert its
apostolic antiquity ; for Scripture itself bears witness
to the fact of its existence, even while the great
Evangelist of the gentiles was still alive; and, accord
ing to the competent testimony of Irenseus, it was
founded by persons of no less dignity than the two
most glorious Apostles, Peter and Paul, who by
their joint authority, constituted Linus its first
bishop.* But the fact of its alleged immutability
rests upon a foundation by no means equally secure.
Whatever is first, says Tertullian, is true; what
ever is more recent is spurious.f
To the severe test of. this primitive canon, we
must ultimately bring the lofty pretensions of the
Latin church. The real question is not, whether
many of its doctrines and practices be not of very
remote antiquity; but the real question is, whether
they can claim such antiquity as reaches to the age
of approving apostolic authority. Unless a chain
can be constructed, which shall bind the modern
church of Rome to the primitive church of Christ,
the mere comparative antiquity of its peculiar doc
trines and practices will assuredly avail nothing.
"• Iren. adv. Haer. lib. iii. c. 3.
t TertuU. adv. Prax. § ii. p. 405.

36 INTRODUCTORT STATEMENT.
The connecting link will be wanted: and, let such doc
trines and such practices have been introduced when
they may, still, since they cannot be shown to have
existed from the beginning, tliey stand convicted
of novelty ; and, on that specific ground, they must,
agreeably to the canon of Tertullian, be rejected as
spurious. If the claim of immutability from the very age
of the Apostles could, indeed, be substantiated, every
dissident from the Latin church would forthwith
incur the just charge of manifest heresy. But here
lies the grand difficulty of Romanism : a claim is
preferred, which never has been, and which never
can be, substantiated. The very circumstance of
such a claim having been preferred, brings the whole
matter to a question of naked historic fact; and,
by the resolution of that question, the church of
Rome is clearly found guilty of innovation.
II. In considering the difficulties attendant upon
the Latin system of theology, I should be sorry to
appear in the light of a captiour and unfais objector.
I wish to give the system every advantage; and, for
that purpose, I would select as my text-book, not the
unfavourable representation of a protestant cofttro-
versialist, but the flattering delineation of a professed
Roman advocate. Certainly, it is the most equitable
to hear a Latin plead his own cause, and exhibit his
own scheme of doctrine; nor is such a plan less ad
vantageous than equitable. If, when the cause as
pleaded by himself shdW have been fairly heard, the
difficulties of his system still appear insurmountable,
he can have no reason to complain of having experi
enced controversial injustice. Meanwhile, if that
system shall prove to be untenable, even v/hen
managed by all the dexterity of a practised advocate,
what must be the condition of such a scheme, when
viewed through a less flattering medium?
III. The composition which I have chosen as my
text-book, is a very able work, recently published by

INTRODUCTORT STATEMENT. 37
the present excellent Bishop of Aire, under the title
of " An Amicable Discussion respecting the An
glican church in particular, and the Reformation
in general."*
In an epistle prefixed to it, this important work is
dedicated to the clergy of all the Protestant commu
nions; but it is specially addressed, in the form of
letters, to an English traveller, who is described by
the bishop as having stated to him certain doubts
that had sprung up in his mind, with respect to the
canonical legitimacy of his own church, and as hav
ing requested him to facilitate his honest research
after theological truth. The desire of the traveller,
whether real or fictitious, is granted; and the pro
duction of the bishop's work is the consequence.
IV. Of this work the main object is evidently the
proselytism of the English laity. Such being the
case, it was necessary, on the one hand, to attack the
principles and the authority of the Anglican church:
while, on the other hand, it was equally necessary to
vindicate and to recommend the peculiar doctrines
and practices of the church of Rome.
A work of this description I judged to be singu
larly adapted to the purpose which I had in view.
The respectable author of the Amicable Discus
sion is a prelate of the Latin church: he has under
taken to exhibit the peculiarities of his communion
as they really exist, not as they are alleged to have

• Discussion Amlcale sur I'Eglise Anglicane et en general sur la
Reformation, d^diee au Clerge de toutes Ies Communions Pro-
testantes, et redig6e en forme de Lettres, par Monseigneur
L'Ev^que d'Aire. A Paris, chez Potey, Rue de Bac, No. 46 
Let me be permitted to remark, that it is not inerely the talent
evinced in this publication which is likely to give it success; the
personal character of the bishop himself must, of necessity, with
all those who are fortunate enough to enjoy his acquaintance, add
a tenfold weight to his writings. His character, says the English
gentleman who transmitted to me his work from France, is well
kmnim here ; he is one of the very best of men. I deem it a privi
lege to adopt the work of such a man as my text-book.
D

38 INTRODUCTORT STATEMENT.
been disfigured by protestant misrepresentation; and
in his high episcopal character, he may be viewed as
one who speaks with a full measure both of know
ledge and of authority. Under the hands of the
exemplary Bishop of Aire, Romanism appears in its
most captivating habiliments: whatever might ofiend
the prejudices of an English layman is gracefully
and decorously explained: doctrines and practices,
which he had been taught to view with unutterable
dislike, are shown, on the professed score of primi
tive antiquity, to be not only innocent, but even
venerable and obligatory: and that alone catholic
church, which the distempered imagination of panic-
struck protestantism had pourtrayed as a misshapen
and ferocious monster, proves, upon a candid exami
nation, to be no other than a meek and harmless
Hind.* If, then, Romanism, even as exhibited by
such an advocate as the, Bishop of Aire, still pre
sents insuperable difficulties, the sober laic inquirer
will at least pause, before he ventures to adopt a
theological system thus unhappily circumstanced.
Nor did I deem the work useful to me solely on
the ground of its professedly giving a true and un-
garbled statement of the Latin faith. Since it
attacks the church of England no less than it vindi
cates the church of Rome, I am thence enabled, by
the aid of this valuable text-book, at once to point
out the difficqlties of Romanism, and to place before
the eyes of the English laic the impregnable ground
on which his own truly apostolic church has taken
her lofty station.
•  The rest amazed,
Stood mutely still, and on the stranger gazed;
Surveyed her part by part; and sought to find
The ten-horn'd monster in the harmless Hind,
Such as the wolf and panther had design'd.
Dredeh's Hini and Panther, Part i.

ON INPALLIBILITT. 39

CHAPTER II.
The Difficulties of Romanism in regard to the
Claim of Infallibility.
If the infallibility of the Latin church could be
clearly established, no person could rationally object
to her theological decisions: for it were palpable
madness in a fallible being to contend against ac
knowledged infallibility.
Hence I have ever thought, that the establishment
of infallibility is the very nucleus of the Roman
controversy; and hence I have always been specially
desirous to hear the arguments which could be
adduced in its favour.
Having never yet met with any thing satisfactory
on the subject, I felt gratified at perceiving it dis
cussed by such a man as the eminently learned
Bishop of Aire; and I entered, with no ordinary in
terest, upon the perusal of his vindication.*
I. The prerogative of infallibility, or (what
amounts to the same thing) the prerogative of entire
freedom from all doctrinal error, i-s, I believe, unani
mously claimed ^by the Latins on behalf of their own
particular church. For they claim the privilege on
behalf of the church catholic; and they exclusively
identify the church catholic with the Latin or Roman
church of the great western Patriarchate.
That the privilege, then, of ¦ infallibility resides in
the catholic church, is strenuously maintained: but,
as to the precise quarter where it is to be found,
* Discuss. Amic. Lett. iii.

40 DIFFICULTIES OP ROMANISM
there is not the same unanimity. Let it be sought,
however, where it. may, I greatly fear that its disco
very will prove to be a hopeless impossibility.
1. The Jesuits and those high Romanists who bear
the appellation of Transalpines, unless my informa
tion be wholly incorrect, contend for the personal
infallibility of the pope, when on any point of
faith he undertakes to issue a solemn decision.*
If this theory be adopted, I perceive not how we
can reconcile the authoritative declaration of Gregory
the Great, respecting an article of no small doctrinal
importance, with the completely opposite declarations
of the popes, his successors.
Whoever claims the universal episcopate, said
Gregory about the latter end of the sixth century, is
the forerunner of Antichrist. \
Such is the decision of Gregory: yet this identical
universal episcopate, as we all know, has been subse
quently claimed by numerous pontiffs who have sat
in what they deem the chair of St. Peter.J
Hence it plainly follows, that, if the decision, of
Gregory be received as an infallible truth, his suc
cessors in the pontificate are the forerunners of Anti
christ; while on the other hand, if his successors in
the pontificate be not the forerunners of Antichrist,
the decision of Gregory must be viewed as erroneous.
2. A protestant, however, may well spare himself
the trouble of formally confuting the theory, by
which the pope is decorated with the attribute of
personal infallibility: for the low Romanists, who
are distinguished by the name of Cisalpines, not
only deny this infallibility of the pope, but even hold

• Butler's Book of the Rom. Cath. Church, p. 121-124.
-[¦ Ego fidenter dico, quod quisquis se Universalem Sacerdo-
tem vocat, vel vocarl desiderat, in elatione sua, Antichristum
praecurrit. — Gregor. Magn. Epist. lib. vi. epist. 30.
\ Quod solus Romanus Pontifex jure dlcatur Universalis. — Gre
gor. sept, dictat. Epist. lib. ii. epist. 55. Labb. Concil. Sacrosanct.
vol. X. p. 110.

ON INFALLIBIIITT. 41
that he may be deposed by the church or by a gene
ral council for heresy or schism.* Under such cir
cumstances, if the prerogative of infallibility belong
to the church, we must seek its residence elsewhere
than in the person of the pope.
In what favoured region, then, shall we find this
exalted privilege? The moderate Romanists, who
claim infallibility for the catholic church collectively,
suppose it to be lodged, as a sacred deposit, with each
general council viewed as the legitimate organ and
representative of the catholic church.
This hypothesis, in the abstract, is not devoid of
plausibility; but, if we resort to facts, it will turn
out to be not more tenable than the last. From
faithful history we learn, that general councils, upon
points both of doctrine and of practice, have decided
in plain and avowed opposition to each other.
The Council of Constantinople, for instance, con
voked in the year 754, unanimously decreed the
removal of images and the abolition of image-wor
ship; but the second Council of Nice, convoked
in the year 787, decreed the re-establishment of
image-worship, and anathematized all those who had
concurred in its abolition.
I have simply stated a mere historical fact; but
the result from it is abundantly manifest. Two dis
cordant councils cannot both be in the right; and, if
a single council be pronounced by the counter-deci
sion of another council to have erred, the phantom
of infallibility forthwith vanishes.t
* Butler's Book of the Rom. Cath. Church, p. 121-124.
¦j- The variations of the Church, relative to the single point of
image-worship, are so extraordinary, that they well deserve the
attentic|n of those who contend for her infallibility.
I. The ancient Council of Elvira, which sat during the reign of
Constantine, and therefore, in the early part of the fourth cen
tury, strictly enjoined, that neither paintings nor images, repre
senting the person whom we adore, should be introduced into
churches. For this striking and undoubted fact the Bishop of Aire would
d2

42 DIFFICULTIES OP ROMANISM
3. To rid themselves of this difficulty, the theolo
gians of the Latin church contend, that the decisions
of no council are to be deemed infallibly true, unless
they shall have received the approbation of the holy
account, on the principle, that the Elviran Fathers dreaded lest
the new converts from paganism should unfortunately mistake-
Christian image-worship for pagan idolatry. Discus. Amic. vol.
ii. p. 350. Let his solution avail, as far as it may avail: the fact
he fully acknowledges.
II. In the early ages, then, of Christianity, not only was the
worship of images and pictures unknown, but their very intro
duction into churches was expressly disallowed.
Matters, however, did not long continue in this state. Images
and pictures in direct opposition to the Council of Elvira, having
at length been unadvisedly admitted on the plea that they were a
sort of books for the unlearned, the idolatrous worship of them
soon followed. About the end of the sixth century, a transaction
of this nature took place at Marseilles; and, in consequence of it,
Serenus the bishop wisely removed and destroyed the images.
Hereupon, Pope Gregory the Great praised him for the stand
which he had made against idolatry; but, under the fond pretext
of their utility to the unlearned, blamed him for destroying the
images. Wretchedly injudicious as was the latter part of this
decision, Gregory, at least, speaks fully and expressly against
ANT adoration either of pictures or of images. Omne manufactum
adorari non licet: — Adorari imagines, omnibus modis, veta. —
Gregor. Magn. Epist. lib. xi. epist. 13. aliter 9.
III. Thus stood the question at the close of the sixth century;
but, as might easily have been anticipated from the idolatry of the
Massilians, the introduction of images soon led to their adoration.
This gross abuse was strenuously opposed by the Emperor Leo
the Isaurian; but, as it still continued to increase, his son Con
stantine assembled a council at Constantinople in the year 754,
which formally condemned and forbade it.
IV. The Council of Constantinople, though it agreed in its con
demnation of image-worship both wltli the decision of Pope Gre
gory the Great and with the yet more ancient decision of the
Council of Elvira, was yet, on that very account, disowned as a
legitimate council by the innovating successors of Gregory; and
the cause of idolatry rapidly acquired such a degree of strength,
that the second Council of Nice, which sat in the year 787, reversed
the decree of the Council of Constantinople, pronounced it to be
an illegitimate council, and ordained the adoration of images in
language which strikingly contrasts with the express prohibition
of Pope Gregory. I confess, and agree, and receive, and salute,
and adore, ihe unpolluted image of our Lord Jesus Christ our true
God, and the holy image of tlie holy mother of God, who bore him

ON INPALLIBILITT. 43
see. Now, the Council of Constantinople did not
receive the approbation of the holy see, while the
second Council of Nice did receive it. Therefore,
the Council of Constantinople being a spurious coun-
uiithout conception of seed. — Concil. Nicen. secund. act. i. Labb.
Concil. Sacrosanct, vol. vii. p. 60.
V. Having thus wholly departed from her former self, the
Church, speaking through the mouth of a general council, had
now decreed the orthodoxy and legality of image-worship: but
this decree was not long suffered to remain undisputed either in
the West or in the East.
1. In the year 794, Charlemagne assembled at Frankfort a,
council of three hundred bishops, who reversed the decision of the '
second Nicene Council, and who with one voice condemned the I
worship of images.
2. Such was the solemn judgment of the West; and that of the
East speedily followed it. For, in the year 814, the Emperor
Leo, imitating the conduct of Charlemagne, assembled another
council at Constantinople, which, like that of Frankfort, rescinded
and abolished the decrees of the second Nicene Council relative
to the worship of images.
VI. Thus, as both the East and the West had concurred in
establishing image-worship, through the medium of the second
Council of Nice; so did both the West and the East concur ia
condemning image-worship, through the medium of the Councils
of Frankfort and Constantinople.
But we have not yet reached the end of this strange eventful
history of multiplied variations: we must prepare ourselves for
yet additional changes of opinion on the part ota professedly un
changeable and infallible church.
In the year 842, the Empress Theodora, during the minority
of her son, convened yet another council at Constantinople: and
this assembly, differing entirely from its immediate predecessor,
reinstated the decrees of the second Nicene Council, and thus re-
established image-worship.
VII. Meanwhile, the Church of the Western Patriarchate con
tinued to maintain, that the second Nicene Council had erred in
its decision: for, in the year 824, Louis the Meek assembled a
Council at Paris, which confirmed the decrees of the Council of
Frankfort, and which stncWy prohibited the payment of any, even
the smallest religious worship to images.
VIII. The church, however, of the Eastern Patriarchate, sub
sequent to tlie year 842, persevered in declaring, that the deci
sion of the second Nicene Council was an orthodox decision, and
that images ought to be devoutly worshipped by all good Chris
tians. To establish this point, therefore, an additional council
was held at Constantinople in the year 879; and the Fathers of

44 DIFFICULTIES OP ROMANISM
cil, and as such being justly denied by its Nicene suc
cessor to be the seventh oecumenical council, its
discrepance with the second Council of Nice, which
was undoubtedly a legitimate council, affords no satis
factory proof that the catholic church is fallible.*
The soundness of this argument plainly depends
upon the legitimate existence of the alleged prero
gative of the pope. Before its soundness, therefore,
can be admitted, the Latin theologians must demon
strate that, by unquestionable divine right, while
the approbation of any other see is wholly super
fluous, the approbation of the see of Rome is
necessary to constitute the validity of a general
council. Until this position can be established, it is
mere trifling to deny the legitimacy of a discordant
council, simply because it has not received the sanc
tion of an Italian prelate. Let it be proved, that the
bishop of Rome possesses by divine right the power
of a veto; and the argument now before us' will be
perfectly conclusive. But, unless this vital point shall
that Synod decreed the undoubted obligation of image-worship,
and confirmed and renewed the decrees of the second Council of
Nice. Their decision gave such entire satisfaction to the Greeks,
that they ascribed it to the peculiar interposition of heaven, and
commemorated it by a yearly festival, which they appropriately
called the Feast of Orthodoxy.
IX. Nor did the Latins long withhold their assent. The deci
sions of the Councils of Frankfort and Paris have been consigned
to the owls and the bats; and the second Council of Nice, which
enjoins the adoration of images, is now universally acknowledged
to have set forth the true faith and practice of the gospel.
X. Such have been the multiplied variations of the church, in
regard to the single point of image-worship; and yet, says the
learned Bishop of Meaux, The church, which professes to declare
and to teach nothing save what she has received, never varies; but
heresy, on the contrary, which began by innovation, perpetually in
novates, and never changes its nature. — Hist, des Variat. pref. § v.
* In using this argument, the Latin theologians are clearly jus
tified by the decision of Pope Gregory the Seventh, if indeed
his authority be sufficient to decide the question. Quod nulla
Synodus absque praecepto ejus (sell. Papac) debet generalis vocari.
Gregor. sept. diet. Epist. lib. ii. epist. 55. Labb. Concil. Sacros.
vol. X. p. uo.

ON INPALLIBILITT. 45
be previously established, the argument which is con
fessedly built upon it must, without doubt, be alto
gether insecure and inconclusive.*
I have no need, however, to press the matter; the
fallibility of the church may be independently de
monstrated, from the fact, that the church of one age
has contradicted the church of another age.
In the year 1215, the fourth Councilof Lateran
decreed the truth of that doctrine oi a. physical chAngQ
in the eucharistic bread and wine, which was then
first distinguished by the technical name of transub
stantiation.^ Now this council received the full ap
probation of the holy see, at that time occupied by
Pope Innocent the Third. Through it, therefore, as
through her strictly canonical organ, the catholic
church, according to the theory of the Latins, must
be viewed as having spoken with the voice of un
doubted infallibility. i .
Such being the case, since the catholic church of
the thirteenth century has pronounced the doctrine
of a physical change in the consecrated elements to
be a true doctrine, if the catholic church be really
infallible, she must invariably have taught and main
tained that identical doctrine from the very begin
ning. But we have positive historical evidence, that,
during at least the five first centuries, the catholic
church, so far from teaching the doctrine of a phy
sical change, positively and explicitly, and even con
troversially, denied the occurrence of any physical
change in the elements by virtue of the prayer of
consecration. Therefore, since the catholic church during one
* In order to establish the pope's divine right to a veto, it will
be necessary to estabhsh his divine right to an universal controlling
supremacy. But tiiat this cannot be done, is fully demonstrated
below. — See book ii. chap. 3.
f Concil. Later, iv. can. 1. Labb. Concil. vol. xi. par. 1. p.
143.

46 DIFFICULTIES OP ROMANISM
period has denied the doctrine oi & physical change,
while during another period she has enforced and in
culcated it; the catholic church, having successively
maintained two directly opposite dogmas, is thence
incontrovertibly demonstrated to be not infallible.
That the catholic church of the early ages denied
the doctrine of 2. physical change, and that she ac
knowledged no change in the consecrated elements,
save a moral change only ; a change, for instance,
avowedly declared to be similar to that which takes
place in a man, when, by virtue of the prayer of con
secration, he ceases to be a laic and becomes a priest;
that such was the decision of the church of the early
ages, may be easily shown, by direct evidence, beyond
the possibility of contradiction.* The fact is invin
cibly established by the united testimony of Clement
of Alexandria, Tertullian, Cyprian, Augustine, Atha-
nasius, Gregory of Nyssa,' Theodoret of Cyrus, Pope
Gelasius, Facundus, Ephrem of Antioch, and others
who might easily be enumerated. t For not only is
Ally physical change in the elements expressly denied,
while the occurrence of nothing save a moral change
is allowed ; but some of these writers, among whom
pope Gelasius in the West, and Theodoret and
Ephrem in the East, may be specially mentioned,
even argue copiously and professedly against the
identical doctrine, which in a subsequent age, the
church, speaking through the fourth Council of La-
• See below, book i. Chap. 4—8. f> • (^ S .
t Clem. Alex. Paedag. lib. i. c. 6. p. 104, 105. lib. ii. c. 2. p.
156, 158. Tertul. adv. Marcion. lib. i. § 9. p. 155. , lib. iii. § 12,
13. p. 209. Tertul. de Anim. p. 653. Cyprian. Epist. Coecil. Ixiii.
p. 153, 154. August, cont. Adamant, c. xii. oper. vol. vi. p. 69.
Enarr. in Psalm, iii. xcviii. oper. vol. viii. p. 7, 397. Athanas. in
illud evan. Quicunque dlxerit verbum contra filium hominis.
Oper. vol. i. p. 771, 772. Gregor. Nyssen. de Baptism, oper. vol.
iii. p. 369. Theodor. Dial. i. ii. oper. vol. iv. p. 17, 18, 84, 85.
Gelas. de duab. Christ, natur. in Biblioth. Patr. vol. iv. p. 422.
Facund. Defens. Coacil. Cbalced. lib. ix. c. 5. oper. p. 144.
Ephrem. Antioch. cont. Eutych. apud Phot. Cod. 229.

ON INPALLIBILITT. 47
teran, pronounced to be an undoubted scriptural
verity. Nor can it be said, that these authors spoke
only in their individual capacities, and that the catho
lic church must not be made answerable for their er
rors. Such a solution of the difficulty is, in every
point of view, inadmissible. In the first place, the
early church never condemned the doctrine which
they taught and maintained ; but this she assuredly
would have done, had she herself received and held
the directly opposite doctrine from the very begin
ning. In the second place, nothing can be rhore evi
dent, from the whole turn of their language, than that
they are not hazarding any novel s,peculations of their
own, but that they are propounding the well known
and familiar doctrine of the period during which they
flourished. In the third place, this matter is put
out of all doubt, both by the high rank of certain of
the writers, and by the avowed character controver
sially assumed and sustained by others of them.
When pope Gelasius undertook to write against the
then nascent doctrine of a physical change, we may
be morally sure that his pen set forth the universally-
received sense of the entire catholic church ; and, when
his contempory, Theodoret, in the East harmoniously
opposed the same doctrine of & physical change, un
der the specific title of the orthodox defender of the
genuine faith, we may again be morally certain,
that he could never have made his Orthodoxus argue
against transubstantiation, while transubstantiation is
defended by the heretic Eranistes, had he not well
known that the catholic church would readily acknow
ledge Orthodoxus as her accredited champion.
Thus it is manifest, that at two different periods
the catholic church has taught two opposite and irre-
concileable doctrines. Whence it follows, that the
catholic church cannot be infallible.*

* I need scarcely observe, that every innovation, which contra
dicts the doctrine and practice of the early church, furnishes an

48 DIFFICULTIES OP ROMANISM
4. The alleged infallibility of the church, however, ¦
is not only disproved by her own internal variations;
it is yet additionally disproved by the fact, that coun
cils, received as ecumenical, and thence deemed in
capable of error, have actually promulgated decrees,
which stand directly opposed to the unequivocal
declarations of Holy Scripture.
- (1.) We are repeatedly assured by the voice of
inspiration, that an oath is most imperiously binding
upon the conscience, that those who love false oaths
are hated by the Lord, that whatever goes forth from
a person's lips under the obligation of an oath must
be kept and performed, and that an oath must be re
ligiously observed, even though the observation of it
may be disadvantageous to the interest of the juror.*
Yet, in defiance of language thus clear and explicit,
the third Council of Lateran, which is ackno.wledged
as the eleventh ecumenical council, has ventured to
decree, that all oaths which are .adverse to the utility
of the church must in no wise be performed; but,
on the contrary, with .whatever solemnity and appa
rent good faith they may have been taken, they must
be unscrupulously violated, inasmuch as they are to
be deemed perjuries rather than oaths. t
Thus, while God, who has been invoked as a wit
ness, and while Holy Scripture, which solemnly
declares the inviolable sacredness of an oath, even

additional proof, that the church, under whatever aspect it
be viewed, is mutable and fallible. In the sequel we shall find so
many of these contradictory innovations fully developed, that the
Roman church, which in the nomenclature of the Latins is always
identified with the catholic church, instead of netier varying from
primitive antiquity, may be chiefly characterized by its singular
lave of innovation.
* Numb. XXX. 2. Levit. xix. 12. Deut. xxiii. 23. Zechar. viii. 17.
Psalm XV. 4. Rev. xxi. 8.
j- Non enim dicenda sunt juramenta, sed potius perjuria, quae
contra utilitatem ecclesiasticam et sanctorum patrum veniunt in-
stituta. — Concil. Lateran. tert. can. xvi. Labb. Concil. -Sacrosanct.
vol. s. p. 1517.

ON INPALLIBILITT. 49
though it be to a person's own damage, are alike
disregarded when placed in competition with the
power and aggrandisement of ambitious ecclesiastics:
the obligation or non-obligation of an oath is made,
by the third Council of Lateran, to depend solely
upon its utility or non-utility to the interests of the
church, as those interests shall be understood and
explained by the governors of the church for the
time being.*

* The exemplification of this extraordinary principle, in the
case of John Huss, is well known.
Huss had received a safe-conduct from the Emperor Sigismond.
But the oath of tliat prince was adjudged, by the existing gover
nors of the church, to he contra utilitatem ecclesiasticam. Whence,
as being no oath, but rather an act of perjury, he was bound in
duty to break it.
Respecting the present transaction, much has been warmly
said and w;ritten; but, if the infallibility of the church be admitted,
I see nothow we can justly blame either Sigismond or the Council
of Constance.
By the third Council of Lateran, the obligation of destroying
heretics had been imposed upon the faithful; and, by the same
ecumenical Council, the doctrine, that all oatlis, which are against
ecclesiastical utility, become ipso facto, null and void, had been fully
estabhshed. — Concil. Lateran. tert. can. xxvii. xvi. Labb. Concil.
Sacros. vol. x. p. 1522, 1517.
Such being the case, no person who holds the Infallibility of
the church, can consistently censure either Sigismond or the
Council of Constance. For, had they acted otherwise in the mat
ter of Huss, they would, by impugning the decisions of the third
Council of Lateran, have virtually denied the infallibility of the
church. >
I repeat it, therefore, that all who maintain the infallibility of
.the church, stand pledged to vindicate the conduct of Sigismond
and the Council of Constance.
In truth, they themselves stand pledged to act in the same man
ner, should they ever be placed in the same circumstances; nor
is it possible for them to deny this obligation without aZso denying
the infallibility of the church. Let the Romanist tie himself by
ever so solemn an oath, still, if the governors of his church pro
nounce that oath to be contra utilitatem ecclesiasticam, lie is re
ligiously bound by the sixteenth canon of the third Council of
Lateran forthwith to violate it. Should he, like an honest man,
indignantly disclaim any such obligation, - he then most assu
redly contradicts the decision of the eleventh ecumenical council,
¦E

50 DIFFICULTIES OF ROMANISM
(3.) So again, we are distinctly taught by an in
spired apostle, that marriage is honourable in all,
whether the married individuals be clerks or laics:
and, in strict accordance with this decision, the mar
riage of the clergy, whatever may be their special
order, is expressly mentioned by the same apostle
with full and entire approbation.*
Yet the second Council of Lateran, which is ac
knowledged as the tenth ecumenical council, strictly
prohibits the marriage of ecclesiastics, down to the
rank of the subdiaconate inclusive; and, by way of
making the prohibition more effectual, it forbids the
laity to hear mass performed by any priest who shall
have dared to violate this enactment.!"
In excuse for such a determined^ opposition to
God's own-word, it is commonly said by the modern
Romanists, that the enforced celibacy of the priest
hood is only a point of discipline, that it stands upon
the same footing as the observance of any mere rite
or ceremony, and that it may be enjoined or remitted
at the good pleasure of the church, j
So may the Romanists apologise for the infatuated
rashness of the council; but such an apology, even
to say nothing of its glaring insufficiency, upon their
own shewing, is itself founded upon a gross mis-
tatement. The second Council of Lateran prohibits
the marriage of ecclesiastics, not on the simple ground
of mutable and temporary expediency , but .on the
lofty ground of immutable, and eternal, and inhe-
and thus by a necessary consequence denies the church to be in
fallible. The third Council of Lateran, in short, has reduced every Ro
manist to the following most unsatisfactory dilemma: —
He must. either maintain, that no oath, pronounced to be against
ecclesiastical utility, is binding; or he must at once deny the in
fallibility of the church.
* Heb. xiii. 4. 1 Tim. iii. 2, 4, 8, 11, 12.
f Concil. Lateran. secund. can. vi. vii. Labb. Concil. Sacrosanct.
vol. X. p. 1003, 1004.
:t Discuss. Amic. vol. ii. p. 403, note.

ON INPALLIBILITT. 51
rent unholiness. Ecclesiastics are forbidden to
marry, not because such prohibition, under certain
circumstances of the church, may be convenient as
a point of discipline; but -because, as the council
assures us, it is an unworthtdeed, that those per
sons who ought to be the holy vessels of the Lord,
should debase themselves so far as to become the
vile slaves q/" chambering and uncleanness.*
Thus speaks and thus argues the second Council of
Lateran with respect to the marriage of ecclesiastics.
The case, therefore, between Scripture and the council,
stands in manner following:
Scripture both alloios and recommends the mar
riage of the clergy; but the council disctllows and
prohibits it.
Scripture declares, that marriage is honourable
in ALL men, whether they be clerks or laics; but
the council pronounces, that the marriage of the
clergy is an unwortht deed, being in truth no
better thana state of base thraldom to chambering
and UNCLEANNESst.

* Cum enim ipsi templum Del, vasa Domini, sacrarium Spirltus
Sancti, debeant et esse et dici: indignum est eos cubilibus et
iMMUNDiciTiis deservire. — Concil. Lateran. secund. can. vi. Labb.
Concil. Sacrosanct, vol. x. p. 1003.
f Pope Gregory the Seventh had already caused the marriage
of the clergy to be prohibited in the thirteenth canon of the first
Roman Council, which was convened in the year 1074. — See
Labb. Concil. Sacrosanct, vol. x. p. 326-328.
The effect produced by this inhibition is too remarkable to be
preteBHtCCei^in silence.
When it was published by the papal legates in Germany, the
clergy, so far from peaceably submitting, appeaeed to scripture,
and CHARGED Gregory and his council with contradicting
St. Paul.
The same opposition, on the same ground, was made also at
Milan; and the only individual who there yielded obedience was
Luitprand. How the charge of contradiction to St. Paul can be re
moved, I do not distinctly perceive. — See Lamb. Schasnabufgj.
Hist. German. A. D. 1074. p. 201. Sigebert. Gembloc. Chron. A.
D. 1074. Matt. Paris in Gulielm. I. Aventin. Annal. Boiord. Ub.

52 DIFFICULTIES OF ROMANISM
Hence it is evident, that in each of these two cases,
the decisions of ecumenical councils have directly
contradicted the dcTiisions of Scripture ; and hence
also it is evident, that, by the indisputable fact of
this direct contradictoriness, we are irresistibly driven
to the following very unpleasant alternative.
If the church, speaking through an ecumenical
council, be infallible, then the decisions of Holy Scrip
ture are erroneous ; and, conversely, if the decisions
of Holy Scripture be essential truth, then the church,
speaking through an ecumenical council, is undoubt
edly fallible.
From this alternative there is no possibility of
evasion. Holy Scripture says one thing, and the
second and third Councils of Lateran say another
thing; therefore Holy Scripture cannot stand with
the second and third Councils of Lateran.
II. I have rested my entire argument upon naked
facts; and these facts are, that the church both in
her doctrine and in her practice has directly con
tradicted herself, and likewise that the church both
in her doctrine and in her practice has directly
contradicted the inspired decisions of Holy Scrip
ture, Such being the case, it is utterly impossible
that the church should be infallible. The fond notion
of her perfect freedom from all error is confuted by
the invincible evidence oi naked facts; and, against
naked facts, no mere abstract reasoning, however
plausible and ingenious, can be allowed to stand good.
Here, then, I might fairly close the present dis
cussion ; yet, as I would not appear deficient in re
spect to the exemplary prelate of Aire, I shall notice,
though I deem it a work of supererogation, the argu
ments which he has advanced.
I. The bishop contends, that, from the very reason
of the thing, CJirist Tnust have left us some infallible
V. p. 564, cited in StiUlngfleet's Discourse on the Church of
Rome, chap. v. p. 369.

ON INPALLIBILITT. S3
mode of determining the truth, and. thereby of pre-
serving,and maintaining ecclesiastical unity. Whence
he concludes, that Christ actually has left us this
requisite infallible mode of determination.
In matters which respect the Deity, I am not very
fond of the adventurous a priori reasoning adopted
by the bishop. It is dangerous to argue that God
has done what we conceive he must have done. Had
I discovered the actual existence of a living infallible
umpire in points of faith and practice, I should
have felt assured that such a dispensation of the truth
was most wise and most fitting ; but I should hesitate
to maintain with the bishop, that this dispensation
must needs actually exist, because to myself it ab
stractedly appeared most fitting and most wise.
This latter method of reasoning is, I think, too
insecure to be adopted by any prudent theologian;
and of its danger we have recently had a very striking
example. The respectable bishop of Aire, simply
from his own private view of the divine attributes,
has ventured to maintain, that infallibility must
reside in the catholic church. Yet, if we can submit
to introduce into dogmatical theology the rational
Newtonian principle of experiment, we shall find the
direct opposite of the bishop's conclusion established
by naked facts,
2, The bishop further argues in favour of the in
fallibility of the chureh, from the interpretation which
he himself puts upon various promises and expres
sions of our blessed Saviour.
On the one side we have facts; on the other side
we have Me bishop's proposed interpretation of our
Saviour's language. That our Lord made certain
promises and employed- certain expressions, no per
son will deny; but, when the bishop's interpretation
of his language is found to be contradicted hy facts,
1 see not what conclusion we can rationally draw,
save that the interpretation is erroneous. Christ hi'm-
self cannot err ; but it is very possible that the par-
E 2

54

difficulties of ROMANISM

tisan of a particular set of opinions may misapprehend
his meaning.
The bishop, be it observed, does not argue from
our Lord's promises and expressions themselves,
but from his own interpretation of those promises
and expressions. Now, we protestants give an en
tirely different exposition of them; and, by our
exposition, (into which it is assuredly quite irrele
vant to enter,) no such result, as the infallibility of
the church and the supremacy of the see of Rome, is
produced. Doubtless, the bishop may object to our interpre
tation, just as we object to his. But, whether we be
right or wrong in our view of Christ's language, we
at least have this advantage over the bishop. His
interpretation is confutedhy facts; our interpretation
corresponds with them.
3. The bishop lastly argues, that the catholic church,
which he would confine within the pale of the west
ern Latin church, cannot err in her doctrines, because
they have regularly descended to her, step by step,
from the apostles themselves, whose inspired infal
libility-is acknowledged by all.
This argument is an extension of the well-known
argument from prescription, employed so success
fully by Irenaeus and Tertullian in the second cen- .
tury. Doctrines, they contend, received through the
medium of only two or three links from the apostles
themselves, and with one consent declared by all the
various churches then in existence to have been thus
received, cannot be false. Thus, for instance, Irenseus,
himself the pupil of Polycarp the disciple of St. John,
bears witness to the fact, that, in his time, all the
churches in the world held the doctrine of our Lord's
divinity; each professing to have received it, through
the medium of one or two or three links, from the
apostles ; and his testimony is corroborated by Hege-
sippus, who, about the middle of the second century,

ON INPALLIBILITT. 55
travelled from Asia to Rome, and found the same
system of doctrine uniformly established in every
church. Facts of this description form the basis of
the reasoning adopted by Irenasus and Tertullian ;
and the conclusion which they deduce from it is, the
moral impossibility of the catholic system of the
ology being erroneous.*
Such is the argument, as managed by those two
ancient fathers; but, as employed by the bishop of
Aire, it is a mere fallacy, the detection of which is
not very difficult.
-What was a very good argument in the second
century, when the various allied branches of the
catholic church universally symbolized in doctrine,
and when no church was separated from the apostles
by more than one or two or three links, is but a very
sorry. argument in the nineteenth century, when we
are separated from the apostles by some sixty links of
a chain, which extends through a long period of dark
ness and violence and superstition. That various
innovations would be introduced in the course of
such a period, we might well, from the cumulative
nature of tradition, reasonably anticipate; that various
.innovations have been introduced in the course of
that period, we learn most incontrovertibly from
documents yet extant. The argument from prescrip
tion, so far (we will" say) as it respects the nature of
God and of Christ, the matters specially set forth in
the ancient symbols of the church, is just as strong
now as it was in the days of Irenaeus and Tertul
lian; because we still possess their writings ; and,
consequently, for all controversial purposes with
heretics, ive occupy the identical place which they
occupied. But the argument from prescription, as
employed in the nineteenth century for the purpose

» Iren. adv. haer. lib. i. p. 2, 3. lib. iii. c. 1, 3, 4. Hegesip. Apud.
Euseb. Hist. Eccles. lib. iv. c. 21. TertuU. de praescript. adv. haeer.
oper. p. 95-117.

56 DIFFICULTIES OF KOMANISM
of establishing those various unscriptural tenets which
the bishop propounds seriatim as indispensable terms
of communion with the church of Rome, is certainly
inconclusive; because, by no mechanism, can the chain
be extended from the present age to the age of the
apostles. Faithful history will, for the most part,
enable us to ascertain the very times of their intro
duction; and, if in any case we cannot specify the
absolutely precise era (for the growth of error is fre
quently gradual), we can at least point out the period
when no such tenets existed. Some of them, no
doubt, are of considerable antiquity: but, let their
antiquity be what it may, if they originated subse
quently to the apostolic age, the connecting chain is
effectually broken; and they stand forth as convicted
novelties. Whatever is first, is true; whatever is
more recent, is spurious. The argument from pre
scription, in the hands of Irenaeus and Tertullian,
invincibly establishes the catholic doctrines of Christ's
godhead and the Trinity; because it clearly connects
them with the inspired apostolic college. But the
argument from prescription, in the hands of the
bishop of Aire, fails of establishing the various tenets
for which he so eagerly contends; because it wholly
fails of connecting them with the infallible apostolic
college, and thence of necessity leaves them branded
with. the stigma of detected innovation.
III. How then, it may be asked, in these latter
days of the world, are we to settle disputed points of
doctrine and practice? How are we to avoid those
divisions, which the bishop triumphantly exhibits as
the opprobrium of the reformation?
An answer, not altogether unsatisfactory, may, I
think, be given to this important question, without
calling in the aid either of a pope or of a council.
1. As the Bible is confessedly the revealed will of
God, and as no one pretends that we possess any
other written, and therefore any other certain, reve
lation, 'me must evidently begin with rejecting every

ON INPALLIBILITT. 57
doctrine and every practice built upon such doctrine,
which have clearly no foundation in Holy Scripture.
This process will at once sweep away El large heap
of mere unathorized innovations, which lamentably
encumber the church of Rome, and which assuredly
will never be adopted by those who take their divinity
from the Bible alone.
2. When sundry innovations have been thus re
moved, as supported by no scriptural authority, other
certain tenets will still remain, which, unlike the last,
profess to be built upon the sure foundation of God's
own inspired word.
Here our business is obviously reduced to a point
of interpretation; and, as very different expositions
may be given of the same passage, the question arises,
who is to determine which exposition is the truth?
(1.) The bishop of Aire will doubtless say; Con
sult the catholic church, the sole judge and deposito
ry of the true faith.
This may be very good advice in the abstract; but
the difficulty is to explain how such advice must be
followed. Had the church never varied, we might
have had some reasonable expectation of success; but,
unhappily, as it is well remarked by the deeply
learned Chillingworth, there have- been popes against
popes, councils against councils ; councils confirm
ed by popes against councils confirmed by popes;
the church of some ages against the church of
other ages.* Under such circumstances, therefore,
the bishop must not only advise us to consult the
catholic church; but he must also specify, giving rea
sons for his specification, the exact time when the
catholic church is to be consulted.
(2.) Others, perhaps, will exhort us to call in
the right of private judgment, which has often been
described more eloquently than wisely, as a main
principle of protestantism, and which the bishop of
• Chilllngworth's Relig. of Protest, chap. iii. p. 147.

58 DIFFICULTIES OF ROMANISM
Aire not unjustly reprobates as leading to nothing
but confusion.
Of this principle, as exhibited by the bishop, and
not unfrequently as exhibited also by unwary pro
testants, I entertain not a much higher opinion than
the bishop himself does. The exercise of insulated
private judgment, which in effect is the abuse of
legitimate private judgment, must clearly convert
the church catholic into a perfect Babel; and,
although I deny the right of such private judgment
to be a principle either of sound protestantism in
general, or of the Anglican church in particular, yet
I regret to say, that it has much too often, been exer
cised, to the scandal of all sober men, and to the
unspeakable detriment of genuine religion.
Having thus fairly stated my own sentiments, I
shall explain what I conceive to be the difference
between legitimate private judgment and illegiti
mate private judgment.
To a certain extent the bishop of Aire will allow,
that private judgment must be exercised. Thus,
I cannot read his lordship's very able work and
come to a conclusion upon it, without so far exer
cising private judgment: and the very tenor of the
whole composition implies, that private judgnient in
thethoice of their religion will be exercised by those
English travellers, for whose especial benefit it seems
to have been written. Thus, likewise, we shall
introduce an universal scepticism, if we deny the
right of forming a private judgment upon perfectly
unambiguous propositions. No authoritative expla
nation can throw any additional light upon the seve
ral prohibitions of murder and theft and adultery,
which occur in Holy Scripture. We read those pro
hibitions in the sacred volume; we involuntarily
exercise our private judgment upon their import;
and, by its mere simple exercise alone, we are all
brought, without any need of inquiring the sense of
the church, to one and the same interpretation. In

ON INPALLIBILITT. 59
these matters, and in various others which might
easily be specified, I hold private judgment lo be
strictly legitimate; and I feel persuaded that the
bishop of Aire will not disagree with me.
But, although there is such a thing as legitimate
private judgment in matters of religion, there doubt
less is such a thing also as illegitimate private judg
ment. Now this last modification I would define to
be private judgment, in the interpretation of
litigated passages of Scripture, exercised after a
perfectly independent or insulated manner.
Against this exerci.se of private judgment, which
is a lamentable abuse of the reformation, all prudent
and judicious men must strenuously protest. It
assuredly can only be the fruitful parent of discord
and error. For if, without using those means of
ascertaining the truth which God has put into our
hands, this man and that man, after a simple inspection
of a litigated text, shall dogmatically and independ
ently pronounce that such or such an interpretation
m,ust set forth its true meaning; we shall doubtless
have small prospect of ever arriving at a reasonable
certainty in regard to the mind of Scripture. The
absurdity of such a proceeding is self-evident; for, if
each individual, disdaining all extrinsic aid, is to be
his own independent expositor, we may well nigh
have as many expositions of litigated texts, as there
exist rash and ignorant and self-opinionated individ
uals; and, accordingly, we must not dissemble, that,
from the illegitimate exercise of insulated private
judgment, sects, rivalling each other in presumptuous
unscriptural folly, have sprung up like mushrooms.
Thus acted not the wise reformers of the church of
England. I-greiitly mistake if, in any one instance,
they can be shown to have exercised that insulated
private judgment which I agree with the bishop
in heartily reprobating. In fact, they possessed
far too much theological learning, and far too much

60 DIFFICULTIES OF ROMANISM
sound intellect, to fall into the palpable error now
before us.
(3.) Omitting then the mere dogmatism of the
Latin church on the one hand, and the wanton
exercise of illegitimate private jitdgment on the
other hand, the practice of those venerable and pro
found theologians, who presided over the refortnation
of the Anglican church, will teach us, that the most
rational mode of determining differences is a recur
rence to first principles, or an appeal to that
primitive church which was nearest to the times of
the apostles.
Certainly the inspired apostles of the Lord must
have fully known the genuine doctrines of Christianity.
What was the true sense of the written word, on all
important points, they would assuredly explain to
their immediate disciples. Their conversations and
their compositions could not disagree. JHence their
immediate disciples,. thus carefully taught and cate
chized, would teach and maintain the same doctrinal
system that the apostles taught and maintained. In
process of time, error and corruption might doubtless
creep into the church; but the introduction of error
is not instantaneous; experience shows its progress to
be gradual. On these perfectly intelligible grounds,
some considerable period, must have elapsed, before
any material inroad was made into the apostolic
doctrine within the pale of the catholic church her
self; and a yet longer period must have been evolv
ed, before any considerable doctrinal error became
the prevailing opinion. Polycarp of Smyrna was a
hearer of the apostles, and especially of St. John, who
seems, through , God's providence, to have been pre
served alive after all his brethren, for the purpose of
_authoritatively determining the -truth against the
growing heresies of the times. Irenseus of Lyons
was the scholar of Polycarp, the disciple of St. John ;
and from him he professed, in common with all the

ON INPALLIBILITT. 61
churches of proconsular Asia, to have received his
theology. Justin Martyr calls himself a disciple of
the apostles; by v\rhich, according to the phraseology
of the day, we must understand him to have been a
pupil of those apostolical men who were placed in the
several churches by the apostles themselves; and, ac
cordingly, since he flourished only about forty years
after the death of St. John, he must, by the very
necessity of chronology, have conversed with the
scholars of the apostles. Clement of Alexandria
professed to be the pupil of Pantenus, who by some
of the ancients is Said to have been a disciple of the
apostles, and who doubtless had heard the fathers
denominated apostolical. Contemporary with Clem
ent was Tertullian ; and to these succeeded Origen
and Cyprian; one generation of early teachers still
following another.*
The several writers here enumerated, though but
few out of many, form a chain which reaches up to
St. John and the apostles. Hence, if we can be
morally certain of any thing, we may be sure, that,
in their exposition of Scripture, so far as the great
leading doctrines of Christianity are concerned, they
would proceed, either on direct apostolic authority,
or at least according to the then universally known
* Clement of Alexandria, who flourished toward the latter end
of the second century, expressly teUs us, that some of the disci
ples pf Peter and James, and John and Paul, had hved even down
to this time, regularly conveying to that generation, Uke sons
from their lathers, the true apostolic doctrine. — Clem. Alex.
Strom, lib. i. p. 274, 275. Colon. 1688. — In a similar manner
Justin Martyr declares, that he and the men of his own eccle
siastical generation had been instructed, in the joint worship of
the Father and the Son and the prophetic Spirit, by the catechists
of the generation which preceded him, and which itself must
inevitably have conversed with St. John. — Justin. Apol. 1. vulg.
ii. oper. p 43. Sylburg. 1593. — Clement flourished about forty
years later thin Justin. - Hence, on chronological principles,
Clement, I imagine, must in his youth have conversed with the
apostolical men whom he notices; just as his partial contempo
rary IrenKus describes himself to have conversed with Polycarp.
— ^Iren. adv. haer. lib. iii. c. 3. § 3.
F

63 DIFFICULTIES OF KOMANISM
analogy of apostolic faith. Can we believe, for
instance, if John and the apostles had diligently
taught the bare humanity of Christ and the imper
sonal unity of the Godhead, that their immediate
disciples, and the scholars of their immediate disci
ples, would agree in expounding a variety of texts
after the precise manner in which they are expounded
by the Trinitarian ? Would not the very reverse
have proved to be the case? Should we not have
found all these litigated texts distinctly and unani
mously interpreted by them, not after the mode
adopted by the modern trinitarian, but after some
such mode as that which is recommended by the
modern anti-trinitarian?*
Here then, I apprehend, we have a rationally satis
factory method of determining those differences in
regard to the import of Scripture, which must ever
spring up from the illegitimate use of insulated
private judgment.
Where, in her yet existing docurnents, the primi
tive church is explicit, we must, so far as I can judge,
on the principles of right reason, submit ourselves
to her decision ; where she is silent or indefinite or
ambiguous, we must, I fear, hfe content still mutually
to differ in opinion.
* On this topic I venture to speak with positiveness and
decision. From my own personal examination I can attest, that
the passages in the New Testament, litigated by trinitarians and
anti-trinitarians, are constantly understood and interpreted by
the fathers of the three first centuries in the same manner as they
are now understood and interpreted by modern trinitarians. The
work, denominated The New Testament in an improved version, is
the mo.st perfect example of the illegitimate exercise of insulated
private judgment with which I am acquainted. Totally opposing
itself to the decisions of the catholic church nearest to the times
of the apostles, it exhibits interpretations of the litigated texts,
framed upen the mere independent dogmata of Dr. Priestley and
Mr. Belsham, but altogether unknown to the ecclesiastics of the
three first centuries. I adduce this production, to exemplify
what I mean by the illegitimate use of insulated private judgment.
If we ask a reason, why the litigated texts are thus expounded,
no answer can be give»f save the good ple^ure of the editor.

ON INPALLIBILITT. 63
It will readily be perceived, that the bishop's mode
of settling differences varies from mine in the import
ant article of extension.
He would carry the chain down to the present' time:
/deem it more prudent to stop in the primitive ages.
Perhaps it may be asked, where I would draw the
line? To this captious, but fallacious, question, I
judge it sufficient to give the following answer : —
Where a writer prQJDOunds a doctrine which rests
not upon the firm basis of Scripture, I would reject it
as a commandment of men, let the writer flourish
when he may; and, where a later writer differs from
an earlier writer in his exposition of a litigated doc
trinal text, I should generally deem the authority of
the earlier writer preferable, inasmuch as he stands
nearer to the fountain-head of apostolic purity.
Such a method of checking the license of private
judgment, and of attaining to the truth with as much
moral certainty as God has been pleased to allow,
seems, in the main, unobjectionable. To the ancient
ecclesiastical writers I ascribe not the infallibility of
inspiration ; but, as evidences of the doctrine of the
primitive church, and thence ultimately as evidences
also of the doctrine of the inspired apostles and of
our Lord himself, they may justly be deemed in
valuable.

64 DIFFICULTIES OF ROMANISM

CHAPTER III.
The Difficulties of Romanism in regard to tra
dition and the doctrinal Instruction of the
Church.
The bishop of Aire's remarks on the authority of
tradition and on the doctrinal instruction of the
church, I have been led, by the necessary course of
my argument, in a great measure to anticipate; my
few additional observations upon them will not,
therefore, extend to any very great length.*
No accurate investigator can read the bishop's
remarks on these topics, without being struck with
the singular fallacies which pervade them.
I. The Latin church, as we all know, has handed
down to the present time various doctrines and
various practices. Some of these are received by
protestants ; others of them are rejected. Now this
eclectic process is censured by the bishop: and he
requires us, as we value the praise of consistency,
either to receive the whole mass or to reject the whole-
mass.t His argument, when thrown into a regular form,
will run, I apprehend, as follows.
The Latin church has handed down to the present
time the several doctrines of the trinity, the Godhead
of Christ, the incarnation, the atonement, transubstan
tiation, purgatory, and the invocation of the saints.
But protestants receive the doctrines of the trinity,
the Godhead of Christ, the incarnation, and the
• Dkcuss. Amic. Lett. iv. v.
¦(• DHcuss. Amic. vol. i. p. 196.

ON TRADITION. 65
atonement: therefore they are bound also to re
ceive transubstantiation, purgatory, and the invoca
tion of the saints.
Such is the bishop's argument ; but I am unable to
discover the link by which he binds his conclusion to
his premises.
The first class of doctrines we certainly receive;
because we find them in Scripture, both according to
its natural interpretation, and as it was invariably
understood by the primitive church nearest to the
times of the apostles: the second class of doctrines
we certainly reject; because we find them neither
in Scripture nor in the creed of the earliest church.
Under such circumstances, because we differ from the
modern Latin church on some points, we discern no
reason why we should differ from her on all points.
It is to her praise that she has faithfully handed down
the great essential doctrines of our common Chris
tianity: it is-to her dispraise that, from a higher or
lower comparative antiquity, she has also handed
down an accumulated mass of vvood and hay and stub
ble.* Because we receive the former, are we to be
censured as inconsistent on the ground of our reject
ing the latter? I see not the justice of the charge.
It tacitly implies, that the two classes of doctrines
rest upon the same authority. But here is the fal
lacy : they do not rest upon the same authority.
II. The bishop quarrels with the principle of our
English church; that Holy Scripture containeth all
things necessary to salvation; so that, whatsoever
is not read therein, nor may be proved thereby, is
not to be required of any man, that it should be
believed as an article of the faith, or be thought
requisite or necessary to salvation.^
,. With this principle the bishop quarrels; and he
thinks that he can reduce us to an absurdity, not to
say a contradiction. Our article, we are told, while
• 1 Corinth, iii. 12. f Art. vi.
F 3

66 DIFFICULTIES OF ROMANISM
it claims to make Scripture its special basis, flatly
contradicts Scripture itself. For, in the second
Epistle to the Thessalonians, the observance of ver
bal, no less than of written, tradition is enjoined by
St. Paul.* But the article maintains, that written
tradition, as contained in Holy Scripture, is alone to
be received.
I am unable to discover the contradiction alleged
by the bishop. He seems to forget that our article
respects the Bible as it stood in the sixteenth century,
not as it stood when St. Paul addressed his second
Epistle to the ' Thessalonians. Now, at the time
when that epistle was written, the canon of the New
Testarhent was so far from being completed, that most
probably not one of the four gospels, most certainly
not all the four gospels, had been published. At the
same period also, the Acts of the Apostles, the Re
velation, the Epistles to the Corinthians, and Romans,
and Colossians, and Ephesians, and Hebrews, and
Timothy and Philemon, by St. Paul; the second Epis
tle by St. Peter, the Epistle by St. James, and the
three Epistles by St. John, were not in existence. In
short, when St. Paul charged the Thessalonians to
hold the traditions which they had been taught,
whether by word or by his epistle^ the canon of the
New Testament, even upon the most liberal allowance,
could not have contained more than the following
books: the Gospel of St. Matthew, the first Epistle
of St. Peter, the Epistle to the Galatians, the two
Epistles to the Thessalonians, the Epistle to Titus,
and the Epistle of Jude. This being the case, it is
no very chimerical supposition, that the matters, ver
bally delivered by St. Paul, were afterward, in the
course of God's providence, committed to faithful
writing. Whence it would follow, that the position
contained in the sixth article of the Anglican church,
though not strictly true when the apostle wrote his
• 2 Thess. U. 15. iii. 6.

ON TRADITION. 67
second letter to the Thessalonians, may yet in the six
teenth century have been an incontrovertible verity.
After all, I doubt not that the church- of England
will readily make a large concession to the bishop of
Aire. Notvyithstanding the very different states of
the canon at the present day, and at the time when
the second Epistle to the Thessalonians was written,
let his lordship prove that the traditions of the mo
dern Latin church are the identical verbal traditions
of St. Paul; and the Anglican church, I feel assured,
will forthwith receive them.
III. In the judgment of the bishop, tradition is of
such vital importance, that the very canon of Scrip
ture itself depends upon it. By renouncing, there
fore, the tradition of the Latin church, we effectively
invalidate the authority of the canon of Scripture.
From the frequency and confidence with which
this objection is adduced, one might almost imagine,
that our Latin brethren deemed us altogether ignorant
of the very existence of the early ecclesiastical
writers. For the settling of the canon, we resort,
not to the naked dogmatical authority of the see of
Rome, but to the sufficient evidence borne to that ef
fect in the yet existing documents of the primitive
church. Were the candlestick of the Roman angel
removed to-morrow, the totally independent testimo
ny, on which the English church receives the canon,
would remain altogether unaffected.

•68 DIFFICULTIES OF ROMANISM

CHAPTER IV.
The Difficulties of Romanism in respect to the
Doctrine of Transubstantiation.
The disagreement between the church of England
and the church of Rome, in regard to the doctrine of
the holy Eucharist, chiefly respects the supposed pro
cess denominated transubstantiation. On this point,
the church of England teaches that the consecrated
bread and wine symbolically represent the body and
blood of our Saviour Christ; while the. church of
Rome contends, that they are actually so transmuted
in their essential qualities, as to cease being any
longer literal bread and wine, and as henceforth to
become his strictly literal and proper, and substantial
and material flesh and blood. Here, if I mistake not,
is the main disagreement between the two churches.
With respect to the doctrine of the real presence,
they both hold it; but, as we might naturally antici
pate, it severally assumes in those two communions
its specific colour from the opinions with which it is
.severally connected. The church of England be
lieves Christ to be really, though spiritually, present
with all devout and faithful communicants; so that,
although his body and blood be verily and indeed,
for every saving and beneficial purpose, taken and
received by the faithful in the Lord's supper; yet
the body of Christ is given and taken and eaten
in the holy supper only after an heavenly and
spiritual manner, the mean whereby it is so re
ceived and eaten being faith.* On the other hand,
* Church Catech. on the Euch, and Art. xxvlii.

ON TRANSUBSTANTIATION. 69
the church of Rome believes Christ to be not only
really, but also corporeally and materially, present in
the Eucharist; whence of necessity she maintains,
that every recipient, good or bad, faithful or unfaith
ful, partakes of the proper and literal flesh and blood
of the glorified Saviour.
In regard then to the real presence, the two
churches differ only in their opinions respecting the
mode; but, in regard to the change produced in the
bread and wine by the words of consecration, their
disagreement is utterly irreconcileable. A moral
change the Anglican church allows to be produced;
the bread and wine ceasing to be common bread and
wine, and henceforth being sanctified and set apart
to the most solemn office of our religion; so that to
reserve and to use the consecrated elements, for any
mere secular purposes, were sacrilege and profana
tion of the most revolting description. But any such
physical change, as that which our Latin brethren
call transubstantiation, she most certainly denies
altogether. Hence, as I have already observed, the
disagreement between the two churches mainly
respects the alleged process thus denominated.
While arguing upon this subject, or while inci
dentally mentioning it, some persons, I regret to say,
have been. far too copious in the use of those unseemly
terms, absurdity 3.nd impossibility. To such lan
guage the least objection is its reprehensible want of
good manners: a much more serious objection is the
tone of presumptuous loftiness which pervades it, and
which (so far as I can judge) is wholly unbefitting
a creature of very narrow faculties. Certainly, God
will do nothing absurd, and can do nothing impossi
ble; but it does not, therefore, exactly follow, that
our view of things should be always perfectly correct
and wholly free from misapprehension. Contradic
tions we may easily /ancy, where in truth there are
none. Hence, before we venture to pronounce any
particular doctrine a contradiction, we must be sure

70 DIFFICULTIES OF KOM,ANISM
that we perfectly understand the nature of the matter
propounded in that doctrine; for, otherwise, the
contradiction may not be in the matter itself, but in
our mode of conceiving it. In regard to myself, as
my consciously finite intellect claims not to be an
universal measure of congruities and possibilities, I
deem it both more wise and more decorous to refrain
from assailing the doctrine of transubstantiation on
the ground of its alleged absurdity or contradictori
ness or impossibility.
By such a mode of attack, we in reality quit the
true field of rational and satisfactory argument. The
doctrine of transubstantiation, like the doctrine of the
trinity, is a question, not of abstract reasoning, but
of pure evidence. We believe the revelation of God
to be essential and unerring truth,. Our business,
therefore, most plainly is, not to discuss the abstract
absurdity and the imagined contradictoriness of'
transubstantiation, but to inquire, according to the
best means which we possess, whether it be indeed
a doctrine of Holy Scripture. If sufficient evidence
shall determine such to be the case, we may be sure
that the doctrine is neither absurd nor contradictory;
if the evidence be insufficient, we require not the aid
of irrelevant abstract reasoning, for we then reject
the doctrine because we have no sufficient evidence
of its truth. Receiving the Scripture as the infalli
ble word of God, and prepared with entire prostra
tion of mind to admit his declarations, I shall ever
contend, that the doctrine of transubstantiation, like
the doctrine of the trinity, is a question of pure
evidence. I. I greatly incline to think, that, even inde
pendently of other sources of information, we may,
by the aid of Scripture alone, arrive at a moral cer
tainty, that the doctrine of transubstantiation, as
received in the Latin church, must needs be erro
neous. For, if it can be shown, not only that siich
doctrine is incongruous with the general analogy of

ON TRANSUBSTANTIATION. 71
sacred tropical language, but also that it is irrecon
cilable with the very terms in which the institution
of the Eucharist has been recorded, and that it
directly contradicts other inspired declarations; the
erroneousness of the doctrine will, I apprehend, have
been demonstrated wjlh as much ihoral certainty as
the nature of unmathematical evidence can admit.
1. In the abstract, the expressions. This is my
body, and this is my blood, are doubtless capable,
either of the interpretation put upon them by the
church of England, or of the interpretation put upon
them by the church of Rome: for, as no one will
deny, that, on the strictest principles of grammar,
they may be understood literally; so no one, who is
in the least degree conversant with the phraseology
of Scripture, can deny that, on the strictest princi
ples of rhetoric, they may be understood figuratively.
Hence, so far as this part of the argument is con
cerned, the only question is, which mode of expo
sition best accords with the general analogy of sacred
tropical language, and whether on any legitimate
ground the i Latin exposition can be admitted con
sistently with such analogy.
I need scarcely remark, that the Bible abounds
with expressions, which by common consent are
allowed to be plainly metaphorical. God is said to
be a sun, and a shield; Christ styles himself a vine,
and a door, and a tvay. Such language we instinc
tively perceive to be tropical: no one contends that
it ought to be understood literally. Now, to the
catholic of the Anglican church, these expressions
appear strictly analogical to the expressions, This is
my body, and this is my blood. Hence he conceives,
that all the several expressions ought to be interpreted
homogeneously. If the expressions, This is my
body, and this is my blood, must needs be under
stood literally; then, so far as he can discern, the
various apparently analogical expressions, I am a
vine, and I am a door, and I am a way, must needs

72 DIFFICULTIES OF ROMANISM
be understood literally also. And, conversely, if the
latter set of expressions must needs be understood
figuratively; then, so far as he can perceive, homo
geneity plainly requires the figurative exposition also
of the former set of expressions. Unless this first
principle of interpretation be admitted, he appre
hends, that the exposition of Scripture^ becomes
altogether arbitrary. Christ does not more explicitly
say, of the bread and the wine. This is my body, and
this is my blood, than St. Paul says of the rock,
whereof the Israelites drank in in the wilderness,
The rock was Christ,* If, therefore, the catholic
of the Roman church may be allowed, simply because
it suits his humour, to interpret the two former
expressions literally; it is difficult to say, why the
catholic of the English church must not be allowed,
should it haply suit his pleasure, to interpret the lat
ter expression literally also. For, if once vve depart
from the fixed principle of homogeneous interpreta
tion, a door is opened to the wildest expository licen
tiousness; and the Bible itself becomes a field, upon
which every ^theological adventurer must be allowed
to try his unholy experiments.
The principle of homogeneity, then, is the basis
of the exposition advocated by the church of Eng
land; while the principle of arbitrary variation is
the basis of the exposition advocated by the church
of Rome. If the soundness of the latter principle be
admitted, the Roman catholic may still be able to
plead this soundness in favour of his own opinion;
but, if the soundness of the former principle be
absolutely undeniable, then an easy victory awaits
the Anglican catholic; for, unless the figurative
language of Scripture be altogether interpreted
literally, the literal interpretation of the expressions.
This is my body, and this my blood, cannot but be
untenable. • Compare Matt. xxxi. 26, 28, with 1 Corinth, x. 4.

ON TRANSUBSTANTIATION. 73
2. In his doubts as to the tenability of the Latin
interpretation, the catholic of the Anglican church is
confirmed by the very terms in which the institution
of the Eucharist has been recorded.
The Roman catholic builds much upon the alleged
expressness of our Lord's phraseology. This is my
body, and this is my blood; whence he infers, that
the elements, after consecration, altogether cease to
be literal bread and literal wine, and that they be
come henceforth the literal flesh and literal blood of
our Saviour Christ.
Now, to the Anglican catholic such an interpreta
tion seems plainly at variance with the terms in
which the institution of tlie Eucharist has been
recorded both by St. Matthew and by St. Paul.
(1.) At the institution of the Eucharist, as recorded
by St. Matthew, Christ is represented as saying of the
liquor contained in the cup subsequent to its conse
cration, I will not henceforth drink of this fruit
cf the vine,*
Such are the words of the Lord himself. What
then was the specific nature of the fluid contained in
the cup after this first consecration of the elements?
The Roman catholic' assures us, that the liquor
was not literal wine; on the contrary, he maintains
that it was literal human blood. Christ, however,
though he had previously said of that liquor, this
is my blood, immediately afterward most abundantly
explains the true meaning of his language, by adding,
I will not drink henceforth of this fruit of the
vine. Here we have our Lord's own explanation of his
own language. The liquor, which he had called his
blood, he still denominates-, even after consecration,
THIS fruit or offspring of the vine.
If, then, the liquor, even after consecration, was
still the offspring of the vine; the Anglican catholic
• Matt. xxvi. 29. *
G

74 difficulties of romanism
is unable to comprehend how tha,t identical liquor can
have been literal human blood. For Christ does not
mpre explicitly say this is my blood, than he deno
minates the consecrated fluid, this offspring of the,
vine. (2.) Exactly the same result is brought out from
the strictly analogovis language employed by St.
Paul. Speaking of the material substance on the patin
after consecration, he twice denominates it this
bread.* Now what, after consecration, was the specific na
ture of that substance? The Roman catholic assures us,
that the substance in question was not bread, but hu
man flesh. St. Paul assures us, that the substance in
question was not human flesh, but bread.
The Anglican catholic cannot reconcile St. Paul
and his Roman brother. If the' Latin interpretation
be adopted, the apostle is placed at direct variance
with his divine Master. For, in such case, that iden
tical substance, which Christ declares to be his own
literal flesh, Paul unreservedly pronounces to be
bread. 3. In addition to this incompatibility of the Latin
interpretation with the terms in which the institution
of the Eucharist has been recorded, it appears, so far
as the Anglican catholic can judge, directly to contra
dict other declarations of Holy Scripture.
(1.) St. John has preserved to us a very remarkable
discourse of our Lord, which was delivered in the
synagogue of Capernaum, both before the assembled
Jews and before his own\disciples.
On the subject of his feeding the church with his
own flesh and blood, his language was so strong, that
the disciples murmured, and that the Jews indignantly
asked. How can this man give us his fiesh to eat?i
From the tenor of the narrative, it is evident that
• 1 Corinth, xi. 26, 27. t Job" vi. 52, 60, 61.

ON transubstantiation. 75
both the disciples and the Jews understood him lite
rally; but then it is no less evident, that he corrected
their mistake, and that he taught them lo understand
him figuratively.
It is the spirit that quickeneth, said he in mani
fest explanation of the words which had given so miich
offence; the flesh profiteth nothing. The words
that I speak unto you, they are spirit and they are
life. *
Our Lord himself teaches us, we see, that his lan
guage is to be mtevpreted figuratively , not literally.
But the Roman catholic maintainSj that his language
is to be interpreted literally, not figuratively. The
exposition of the Roman catholic, therefore, directly
contradicts an inspired declaration recorded in Holy
Scripture. (2.) Nor is this the only declaration of Scripture
which clashes with the Latin theory.
It was foretold by the prophet Davidj^that G5CI
wuUidrnot. suffer his^Holy One to see corrxiption,\
Now, St. Peter, speaking by undoubted inspiration,
teaches us infallibly, that this prediction related to
the circumstance of the flesh of Christ not seeing
corruption according to the general lot of humanity:
for, agreeably to the purport of the sacred oracle, he
rose again on the third day, ere corruption had t^ken
place. I
The special privilege, then, of the human nature
of Christ was, that his flesh should never see corrup
tion. He would mysteriously unite the godhead to
the mflnhood; and, as man, he would suffer and die
on our behalf: but still, corruption should never in
vade that holy flesh, which, without confusion of sub
stance, had been assumed into God.
Thus ran the prophecy ; and thus, as St. Petei:
assures us, was it accurately accomplished. But, by
the Latin interpretation, the purpose of God, in
* Johnvi. 63, f Psalm xvi. 10. + Acts ii. 22—32.

76 DIFFICULTIES OF ROMANISM
regard to the human nature of Christ, is completely
frustrated. So far from the Holy One of God never
seeing corruption, the literal flesh and blood of Christ,
if the doctrine of transubstantiation be true, see cor
ruption again and again,- by the necessary process
of digestion, every revolving year and month and
week. (S.) There is yet another plain contradictoriness to
Scripture, which is fatally involved in the doctrine
of transubstantiation.
If we adopt the figurative scheme of exposition,
we may innocently call the celebration of the Eu
charist a spirituctl sacrifice; for even our very pray
ers are allegorical sacrifices offered up to God ;* but,
if we adopt the literal scheme of exposition, we im
mediately produce a direct contradiction to Holy
Scripture. The doctrine of the Latin church is, that, in the
^celebration of the Eucharist, the priest offers up
thef literal body~and blood of Christ id ^^od^ us a
true and proper expiatory sacrifice for the quick
and the dead. Christ, therefore, according to the
decision of the Latin church, is repeatedlt offered.
But, in Holy Writ, we are positively assured, that
Christ was offered only ONCE.t
Hence, so far as I can see, the Latin church and
Holy Writ, through the agency of the doctrine of
transubstantiation, are placed in direct variance with
each other. The term once bears a sense immedi
ately opposite to the term repeatedlt. According
to Scripture, Christ is once offered; according to
the Latin church, Christ is repeatedlt offered.
This variation can only be reconciled by proving,
that the term once and the term repeatedlt are
equipollent. Such are the glaring contradictions to Scripture,
• Hos. xiv. 2.
t Heb. ix. 28. x. 10. 1 Pet. iii. 18.

ON transubstantiation. 77
which inevitably attend upon the doctrine of tran
substantiation. How a doctrine so circumstanced
can be true, it is difficult. to comprehend; but, if the
doctrine be erroneous, the exposition, upon which
the doctrine is founded, must certainly be erroneous
also. The literal interpretation of our Lord's words.
This is my body and this is my blood, cannot, by
any conceivable hermeneutic mechanism, be esta
blished as the true interpretation. But, if the literal
interpretation be thus displaced by the very neces
sity of Scripture itself, the figurative interpretation
must inevitably be adopted.
II. Though the figurative interpretation of our
Lord's words be thus plainly required by Scripture
when compared with Scripture, yet so great is the
authority ot the catholic church nearest to the times
of the apostles, that we cannot hut be anxious to
ascertain the interpretation which she was led to
prefer and to adopt.
• What the apostles taught, relative to the Eucharist,
must assuredly for many years have been the doc
trine of the church. Through the lapse of ages, error
might gradually creep in; but it could not have sub
sisted from the beginning. If then, during' the term
of several centuries, we shall find that the figurative
interpretation was the interpretation adopted by th
early catholic church, we shall possess a moral cer
tainty of its truth. For, after we have been driven
to the scheme of figurative interpretation by the
very necessity of Scripture itself, if we find this
identical scheme of interpretation adopted by the
early catholic chureh, I see not what more decisive
evidence can be reasonably desired. In that case, let
the literal scheme have crept in when it may, it
must inevitably stand forth as an unauthorized and
convicted novelty. Whatever is first, is true;
whatever is more recent, is spurious.
1. It must be confessed, that the early ecclesiasti
cal writers frequently use language respecting the
G 2

78 DIFFICULTIES OF ROMANISM
Eucharist, which may easily either mislead the super
ficial theologian, or seduce, the interested polemic
into the iniquity of partial .citation.
Thus, even in the second century, Justin remarks,
that"'" We receive not the elements as common
' bread or as common wine: but, in what manner,
' Christ our Saviour, being made flesh through the
' word of God, took flesh and blood for our salvation;
' in like manner also we are taught, that the aliment,
' from which our blood and flesh are nourished by
' transmutation, beifig received with thanks through
' the prayer of the word instituted by himself, is the
' flesh and the blood of that Jesus who was made
' flesh."* Thus also, in the fourth century, Cyril of Jerusa
lem teaches the catechumens who had been recently
baptized: " When Christ himself hath declared and
' spoken concerning the bread. This is my body; who
'shall henceforth dare to hesitate? And, when he
'hath peremptorily pronounced and asserted. This is
' my blood; who shall venture to doubt, saying that
' it is not his blood ?- He once, at the marriage-feast
'in Gana of Galilee, changed the water into wine;
' shall we not then give him credit for changing the
' wine into blood ? If, when called to a mere corpo-
' real marriage, he wrought that great wonder; shall
' we not much ratjier confess, that he hath given the
' fruition of his own body and blood to the sons of
' the bridegroom ?"t
* Justin. Apol. i. vulg. ii. p. 76, 77.
-j- Cyril. Catech. Mystag. iv. p. 237. Lutet. Paris. 1631. I have
selected this passage, because, so far as I know, it is the strong
est which can be produced from antiquity in favour of the Latin
doctrine of transubstantiation. Its strength consists in an appa
rent comparison between the changing of the water into wine at
Cana, and the changing of the wine into blood by the prayer of con
secration,- whence an argument may immediately be constructed,
that, since the change in the sacramental elements is compared
to the confessedly physical change of the water at Cana, the
change in the sacramental elements must itself be physical also.

ON TRANSUBSTANTIATION. 79
These and other similiar passages, which might
easily be accumulated, appear at first sight to put it
out of all doubt, that the early church held a dtctrine
at the least very closely allied to the Latin doctrine

I. This argument would indeed be most powerful if the appa
rent comparison were a real comparison. But let us careftilly
examine the passage in Cyril; and the imagined comparison will
rapidly disappear.
In the passage itself, even as it stands in an insulated form, I
will be bold to say, that, upon a close inspection, no comparison
whatever can be detected. Cyril does not compare the one
change to the other change; but he simply argues from the mira
cle performed at Cana, just as he might argue from any other
miracle, that, if the Lord could work miracles transcending the
power of man, why should we doubt that he could also change
the bread |nd wine into his own body and blood ? Such is the
argument, not the comparison ; and it leaves the matter still un
decided, whether the change in the bread and wine be physical
or moral.
II. Thus would I say, even if Cyril had never written any thing
on the Eucharist save the passage now before us; but, in truth,
he elsewhere institutes a real comparison, w\nch demonstratively
proves, that the change, acknowledged by him in the consecrated
elements, was simply moral, and in no wise physical.
"Ye are anointed," says he, "with ointment, and ye have be-
' come pai-takers of Christ. But take care,-lest you deem that
• ointment to be mere ointment. For, as the bread of the Eucha-
'rist, after the invocation of the Holy Spirit, is no longer mere
'bread, but the body of Christ; so, this consecrated ointment is
' no longer mere or common ointment, but the free gift of Christ
' and the presence of the very Godhead of the Holy Spirit ener-
• getically produced. Hence ye are symbolically anointed upon
' the forehead and upon the other organs of sense. For with
' visible ointment the body is anointed; but by the holy and vivi-
' fying Spirit the soul is sanctified." — Cyi'il. Catech. Mystag. iii.
p. 235.
In this passage, ihe change produced in the sacramental elements
by consecration is directly and avowedly confpared to the change
produced in ihe ancient chrisrri by consecration. Now, confessedly,
no change was ever thought to be produced in the ancient chrism
by consecration, save a moral change; that is to say, the chrism
ceased to be common ointment, and henceforth became holy oint
ment, which was supposed eminently to confer the graces of the
Holy Spirit. Such being the case, since the change in the conse
crated elements is amonhedly and illustratively compared to the
change in the consecrated chrism, and since the change in the conse-
cg-ated chrism is most undoubtedly a moral change only,- it clearly

80 DIFFICULTIES OP ROMANISM
of transubstantiation ; and, accordingly, places of this
description are copiously adduced by Roman contro-
versiaidsts: but, in truth, if we can command patience
enougK to hear her explain herself, we shall find that
the change in the elements, which she recognised,
was a moral change by which they were converted
from a secular to a holy purpose, not a physical
change, by which they were literally transmuted
into human flesh and blood.
2. That such was the doctrine of the early church,
is abundantly evident from the multiplied compari
sons which were employed by way of illustration.
The change, wrought by consecration in the ele
ments, is discribed, by Cyril and Irenseus, and the
ancient Homilist in Jerome, and Gregory of Nyssa,
as heing similar in nature, to the change wrought by
consecration in oil, or in an altar, or in a church, to
the change wrought in our mortal bodies by their
being made capable of immortality, to the change
wrought in a layman by sacerdotal ordination, and to
the change wrought in the unregenerate by the
mighty efficacy of spiritual regeneration.*
follows, that, in the judgment of Cyril, the consecrated elements
experience no change save a mora/ change! that is to say, in the
language both of Justin and of Cyril, we receive not the elements
as common bread or as common wine; for, after the invocation of
the Holy Spirit, the bread of the Eucharist is no longer mere
bread, but bread henceforth set apart from secular use to a high
and sacred purpose.
I will venture to say, that no man, who thought with the mo
dern Latins, could ever have illustratively compared the change in
the consecrated elements to the change in the consecrated chrism: for,
had Cyril held the doctrine of transubstantiatlon, he must incon
gruously have compfcred a physical change to a mora/ change.
* See Cyrih Catech. Mystag. Hi. p. 235. Iren. adv. H;er. lib. iv.
c. 34. § 6. Homll. de Corp. et Sang. Christ, in Hieron. oper. vol.
ix. p. 212. Gregor. Nyssen. de Baptism, oper. toI. ill. p. .369.
As a specimen of the mode in which the early fatliers Illustrate
the change wrought in the sacramental elements by tiie prayer of •
consecration, I subjoin the pass.ige from Gregory of JN'yssa referred
to above.
" Tliis altar, before which we stand," says he, " is physically
' mere common stone, diflering nothing from the stones with

ON TRANSUBSTANTIATION, 81
Now, it is difficult to comprehend, how illustrative
comparisons of this sort could ever have been used
by persons who held the favourite doctrine of the
modern Roman church. According to the Latin
theologians, the change, produced in the elements by
consecration, is phtsical : yet the ancients compar
ed this change to a great variety of changes, which
are purely moral. Hence, by a necessary conse
quence, it seems to follow, that the change, which
the ancients believed to take place in the elements
by virtue of consecration, was moral, not phtsical.
' which our houses are built : but, after it has been consecrated by
' benediction to the service of God, it becomes a holy table, a sanc-
' tlfied altar. In a similar manner, the eucharistic bread is
'originally mere common bread ; but, when it has been consecra-
'ted in the holy mystery, it becomes, and is called the body of
' Christ. Thus also the mystic oU and the wine, though of small
• value beforfe'jshe benediction, work wonders after their sanctifi-
' catibn by the Spirit. The same power of consecration likewise
'imprints a new and honourable character upon a priest, when
' b^a new benediction he is s_eparated from .the laity. For he,
• who was previously nothing more than a common man, ig
' suddenly transformed into a teacher of religion, and into a stew-
' ard of the holy mysteries. Yet this great mutation is effected
' without any change in his bodily form and appearance. Exter-
' nally, he is the same that he already was ; but, internally, by
' an invisible and gracious operation, a mighty change is effected
' in his soul."
So far as I can understand Gregory, whose language perfectly
accords with that of Cyril and Irenaeus, and the ancient author of
the Homily in Jerome, he seems to have acknowledged no change
in the bread and wine by virtue of consecration, save such a
change as that which is wi'ought in a layman when by virtue of
consecration he becomes a priest. Now, the only change in the
layman, as indeed Gregory most carefully informs us, is a mobal
change. Therefore, the only change in the bread and wine, to
which this change in the layman is expressly compared, must
clearely be a moral change also. No person, who held the doc
trine of a phtsicai change in the elements, could possibly
compare that phtsicai, change to a variety of other changes, every
one of which is purely mobai,. Hence it is evident, that the
primitive church acknowledged only a mobai change in the
elements; and hence nothing can be more nugatory than the
conduct of the Roman controversialists, who perpetually quote
the Fathers as speaking of a phtsicai change, when they most
indubitably speak only of a mobai change.

82 difficulties of ROMANISM
3. With the avowed doctrine of the early Church,
that the change, wrought in the elements' by conse
cration, is not PHTSICAL, but moral, the language
employed respecting the elements themselves will be
found exactly to correspond.
Whenever the fathers descend to the strictness of
explanatory definition, they plainly tell us, again and
again, that the, consecrated elements are only the
types, or figures, or symbols, or allegorical images
of the body and blood of Christ; and, not unfrequently,
as if anxious to remove all possibility of misapprehet(-.
sion, they assure us, in express terms, that we do not
eat the literal body, and 'that we do not drink the
literal blood of Christ, when we participate of the
blessed Eucharist.
The subject is so important, that they must be
allowed to come forward, and in their ov/^ words to
bear their own testimony.
(i.) "Inasmuch," says Clement of Alexandria, in
the seeonthceirttK'jr; "Inacmueh as^-Christ declared,
'that the bread whieh I give you is my flesh; and
'inasmuch as flesh is irrigated by blood; therefore,
'the wine is allegoricallt called blood.* For
'the word is allegoricallt designated by many,
'different names, such as meat and flesh and nourish-
' ment, and bread and blood and milk ; for the Lord
'is all things for the enjoyment of us, who have
' believed in him. Nor let any one think that we
'speak strangely, when we say, that milk is alle-
' GORiCALLT CALLED the blood of the Lord : for is
'not wine likewise allegoricallt called by the
' very same appellation ?t The Scripture, then, has
^ named wine a mtstic stmbol of the Holy blood. f
' For be well assured, that Christ also himself partook
'of wine; inasmuch as he also was a man. He
'moreover blessed the wine, saying. Take, drink;
* clem. Alex. Pscdag. lib, i. c. 6. p. 104.
flbid. p. 105.
+ Ibid. lib. ii. c. 2. p. 156.

ON transubstantiation. 83
' this is my blood, the blood of the vine. The con-
'secrated liquor of exhilaration, therefore, allegori-
'mlly represents the Word, who poured himself out
' on behalf of many for the remission of sins."*
(2.) " God, in your Gospel," says Tertullian, who
flourshed at the latter end of the second, and at the
beginning of the third century, " has so revealed the
•matter, calling the bread. his own body, that you
' may hence understand how he gave bread to be the
^figure of his own body : which body, conversely, the
' prophet has figuratively called bread, the' Lord
' himself being afterward about to interpret this sacra-
' ment.t For we must not call our senses in question,
' lest we should, doubt respecting their fidelity even in
• the case of Christ himself. Because, if we question
'the fidelity of our senses, we might peradventure be
' led to say, that Christ delusively beheld Satan pre-
' cipitated from heaven, or delusively heard the voice
' of his Father testifying of him, or was deceived when
' he touched Peter's mother-in-law, or smelt a different
' odour of the ointment which he received for his
' sepulture, or tasted a different flavour of the wine
' which he consecrated in memory of his own blood. J
' Christ reprobated neither the water of the Creator
' with which he washes his people, nor the oil with
' which he anoints them, nor the/ellowship of honey
' and milk with which he feeds them as infants, nor
' the bread by which he represents his own body :
' for, even in his own sacraments, he needs the beg-
' garly elements of the Creator.''§
(3.) "By water," says Cyprian, in the third cen
tury, speaking of the ancient custom of mingling
water with wine in the eucharist: " By water, we
' perceive, that the people is intended; but, by
' wine, we may observe, that the blood of Christ is
* Ibid. lib. ii. „. 2. p. 158.
¦f TertuU. adv. Marcion. lib. iii. § 12, 13. p. 209.
^ TertuU. de Anim. in cap. de quinque sens. oper. p. 653,
§ TertuU. adv. Marcion. lih- i- § 9- flper. p. 155.

84 DIFFICULTIES OF ROMANISM
^ shown forth. Hence, when water is mingled with
' wine in the cup, the people are united to Christ,
'and the whole crowd of believers are linked and
'joined to him in whom they have believed. For,
'if wine only be offered, the blood of Christ is with-
.' out the people; and, if water only be offered, the
'people is without Christ. "But, when both are
' mingled and united together, then the spiritual and
' heavenly sacrament is complete."*
(4.) "With all assurance," says Cyril of Jerusa
lem in the fourth century, " let us partake as of the
' body and blood of Christ. For, under the type
' of bread, his body is given to thee; and, under the
'type of wine, his blood is given to thee: that so
' thou mayest partake of the body and blood of Christ,
' being one body and one blood with him."f
(5.) "Under the name of flesh," says Chrysostom
in the fourth century, "Scripliure is wont alike- to
' set forth both the mysteries and the whole church:
' for it says, that they are each the body of Christ.f
' Wherefore tet there approach no Judas, partaking
'of the poison of iniquity; for the Eucharist is
' spiritual food. "5^
(6.) "The Lord," says the great Augustine, in the
fourth century, " when he gave the sign of his
' body, did not doubt to say, This is my body. ||. In
' the history of the New Testament, so great and so
' marvellous was the patience of our Lord, that, bear-
' ing witli Judas, though not ignorant of his purpose,
' he admitted him to the banquet, in which he com-
' mended and delivered to his disciples the figure oi
' his own body and blood.lT Christ instructed his

• Cyprian. Epist. Csecil. Ixili. p. 153, 154. Oxon. 1682.
¦\ Cyril. Catech. Mystag. iv. p. 217.
+ Chrysost. Comment, in Epist. ad Galat. c. v. oper. vol. ix. p.
1022. Commel. 1603.
§ Chrysost. de Prodit. Jud. Serm. xxx. oper. vol. v. p. 464.
I August, cont. Adimant. c. xii. oper. vol. vi. p. 69. Colon. 1616.
i August. Enarr. in Psalm, iii. oper. vol. viii. p. 7.

ON TRANSUBSTANTIATION. 85
' disciples, and said unto them. It is the spirit that
' quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing. The words,
' which I speak unto you, are spirit and life. As if
' he had said : Understand spiritually what I have
'spoken. You are not about to eat this identical
' body, which you see ; and you are not about to
' drink this identical blood, which they who crucify
• me will pour out. On the contrary, I have com-
' mended a certain sacrament unto you,, which will
' vivify you if spiritually understood. Though it
' must be celebrated visibly, yet it must be under-
' stood invisibly."*
(7.) " Certainly," says Pope Gelasius in the fifth
century, " the sacraments of the body and blood of
' the Lord, which we receive, are a divine thing:
' because by these we are made partakers of the divine
' nature. Nevertheless, the substance or nature of
' the bread and wine ceases not to exist; and,
' assuredly, the image and similitude of the body
' and blood of Christ are celebrated in the action of
' the mysleries."f
(8.) "The sacrament of adoption," says Facundus
in the sixth century, " may be called adoption: just
' as the sacrament of the body and blood of Christ,
'which is in the consecrated bread and wine, we are
' wont to call his body and blood. Not, indeed, that
' the bread is properly his body, or that the wine is
'properly his blood, but because they contain the
* mystery of his body and blood within themselves.
' Hence it was, that our Lord denominated the con-
' secrated bread and wine, which he delivered to his
' disciples, his own body and blood. "|
4. It were easy to multiply extracts of a similar
description; but these may suffice. Respecting the
greater part of them, it is superfluous to offer any
• August. Enan\ in Psalm, xcviii. oper. vol. viii. p. 397.
¦f Gelas. 3e duab. Christ. Natur. cont. Nestor, et Eutych. in
Biblioth. Patr. vol. iv. p. 422.
t Facund. Defens. Concil. Chalced. lib. ix. c. 5. oper. p. 144.
H

86 DIFFICULTIES OF ROMANISM
remarks. They speak for themselves; and their
force cannot be heightened by the observations of a
protestant commentator. One, however, of the cited
passages may possibly be rendered even yet more
striking and satisfactory by a word of explanation.
Clement of Alexandria, in a manner which cannot
easily be misunderstood, informs us, as we have seen,
that the consecrated wine allegoricallt repre
sents the blood of the divine Word.* In the cita
tion, nothing save this bare statement appears: a
statement quite satisfactory no doubt; but still a bare
statement. From a simple extract, the argument,
contained in the context, of necessity vanishes; yet
that argument, when connected with the statement,
renders, it doubly forcible and efficacious. Hence I
must not withhold it from those who may not have
an opportunity of consulting the original.
In the days of Clement, certain sectaries, who
bore the name of Encratites, contended that the use
of wine was unlawful. Against these enthusiasts,
Clement brings a variety of arguments ; and, among
them, he takes occasion to construct one very power
ful argument upon the use of wine in the Eucharist.
His argument is to the following effect: —
Christ himself consecrated true and proper wine
in the institution of the Eucharist, This conse
crated wine he himself commanded his disciples
to drink. Thekepobe, on. the invincible authority
of our Saviour Christ, the use of wine cannot but
be lawful.
Thus runs the argument of Clement against the
Encratites, in the context of the passage where he
tells us, that the holy wine allegoricallt repre
sents the blood of Christ. Now, according to the
scheme of figurative interpretation adopted by the
church of England, the argument is perfectly conclu
sive; but it is grossly inconclusive, according to the
• Clem, Alex. Psdag. Ub. ii. c. 2. p. 158.

ON TRANSUBSTANTIATION. 87
scheme of /iVera/ interpretation adopted by the church
of Rome. Had Clement held with the Latin catholic,
that the consecrated liquor, drunk by the disciples
was NOT wine, hut proper and literal human blood,
he plainly could never have argued, from the fact of
the disciples having drunk literal human blood, that
the use of wine was strictly lawful. On the supposi
tion, at least, of his having, been a transubstantialist,
he must actually have reasoned as follows: — .
Whatever Christ ordains is laiuful. But the
disciples, by Christ's special ordination, drank
literal human blood. Therefore the use of wine
is lawful.
Between such premises and such a conclusion,
there is evidently not the least connexion; and yet, if
Clement were a transubstantialist, this most assuredly
must have been the mode in which he reasoned.
But no man of common sense could argue with such
gross absurdity. Hence we may be certain, that
Clement never did thus argue : and hence, finally,
we may be certain also, from the very tenor of his
own argument against the Encratites, that he was
not a transubstantialist.
His argument and his statement, in short, perfectly
accord. From the authorized use of wine in the
Eucharist, he dehionstrates the lawfulness of the
use of wine in general; and, in strict agreement
with such an argument, he tells us, that the conse
crated wine, not literallt is, but allegoricallt
REPRESENTS, the blood of Christ.
An argument against the Encratites, when built
upon this statement, is doubtless invincibly conclu
sive: but then Clement himself, without incurring
the least censure from his contemporaries, will sym
bolize, in the doctrine of the Eucharist, with the
church of England, not with the church of Rome,

88 DIFFICULTIES OF ROMANISM,

CHAPTER V.
Respecting the Latin Defence of the Doctrine of
Transubstantiation from the Language em
ployed by our Lord.
Were the doctrine of Transubstantiation capable
of defence, the task would have been accomplished
by the bishop of Aire. If its cause fail in the hands
of such a master, we must indeed pronounce that
cause to be desperate.
The bishop's first argument in favour of the doc
trine of transubstantiation is drawn from the words
of Christ himself, as recorded in Holy Scripture.*
I. Previous to the specific institution of the Eucha
rist, Christ is said by St. John to have delivered, in
the synagogue of Capernaum, before the Jews and his
own disciples, a very remarkable discourse, in which
he declared the necessity of eating the flesh of the
Son of Man and of drinking his blood.^
It may perhaps be recollected, that upon this iden
tical discourse was built one of my own arguments
from Scripture, against the doctrine of transubstan
tiation. J Yet so very differently does the same pas
sage sometimes strike different persons, that the
bishop has constructed upon it what he deems a con
clusive argument in favour of that doctrine.
When Christ declared the necessity of eating the
flesh of the Son of Man and of drinking his blood,
both the Jews and the disciples understood him in a
• Discuss. Amic. Lett, vi, vii. \ John vi. 26—65.
\ See above, Book i. chap. 4. ^ I. 3. (1.)

LATIN DEFENCE OF TRANSUBSTANTIATION. 89
literal sense; and, accordingly, they were vehemently
offended. Now, as they understood our Lord at the
time when the discourse was delivered, the bishop
contends that we also ought to understand it at the
present day.
1. His lordship is far too able a controversialist
not to perceive, ihsX the main question hinges upon
a subsequent most important declaration of our
Saviour, Certainly, the Jews and the disciples understood
our Lord to speak literally: but, before we adopt
their opinion, we must have some evidence of its pro
priety. Now, Christ's own exposition of his own
words fully demonstrates, in the judgment of many
persons, that the Jews and the disciples had hastily
4aken up an erro?ieous opinion. Finding that his
auditors understood him literally, he assured them
that they were mistaken, and that he meant to have
been understood figuratively.
It is the. spirit that quickeneth ; the fiesh pro
fiteth nothing : the words that I speak unto you,
they are spirit and they are life.*
In this manner did our Lord explain the words
which had given so much offence ; and, if his expla
nation be understood as protestants commonly under
stand it, the passage, adduced by the bishop in
support oi his cause, is in truth decidedly adverse.
Hence, as we might naturally expect from so intelli
gent a writer, he sets himself to discover a sense for
Christ's explanation, which shall not compel him to
relinquish the advocated doctrine as altogether unte
nable. It is well known, he remarks, that, in the ordinary
style of Scripture, the flesh oiten signifies the corpo
real senses, or the carnal and corrupt reason of
man; while the spirit denotes the grace of God, or
the inspiration of the Holy Ghost. Our Lord, then,
• John vi. 63.
H 2

90 DIFFICULTIES OF ROMANISM.
here declares, that the flesh or the corrupt reason of
man profits nothing to discover and to believe that
which he has announced. The real manducation of
his literal flesh and blood is a matter at which the
carnal or natural man has ever stumbled. Such a
doctrine can be received by the spirit alone. The
words spoken by Christ are indeed spirit and life;
but then they are spirit and life solely to that spiritual
man, who, renouncing the flesh or corrupt reason,
is enabled by the grace of God to understand them
literally.* I must confess, that the present appears to me a
somewhat extraordinary description of the two states
of the carnal man and the spiritual man.
If we may believe the bishop of Aire, the carnal
man displays his carnality by adopting the spirituri
interpretation of our Lord's phraseology; while the
spiritual man evinces his spirituality by preferring
the carnal interpretation.
Such a description may perhaps be thought para
doxical; and such a gloss will, I fear, satisfy none,
except those who are already satisfied. The true
meaning of our Lord's explanation will still be liti
gated : nor do I perceive how the matter is to be
decided, save by the calling in of an umpire. Let
that umpire then be the primitive church, speaking
through the mouth of certain of her most eminent
doctors. To such an arbitration, the bishop, who
repeatedly claims ecclesiastical antiquity as his o'v^n,
cannot reasonably object; and to such an arbitration
I myself am perfectly willing to submit our dif
ference. What then say the early writers of the church, as
to the true purport of our Lord's explanatory decla
ration? Do they understand it, as the bishop of Aire
is willing to understand it; or do they interpret itas
it is commonly interpreted by protestants?
• Discuss. Amic. vol. i. p. 265—267,

LATIN DEFENCE OF TRANSUBSTANTIATION, 91
Assuredly they prefer the protestant interpreta
tion ; for we find Tertullian, Augustine, Athanasius,
and Clement of Alexandria, all concurring in the
supposition, that our Lord meant to correct the mis
take into which the Jews and the disciples had fallen,
and to teach theni that his words ought to be under
stood, not literally, hut figuratively. On this point,
these great doctors of the church are full and ex
plicit and unambiguous. They all quote our Sa
viour's declaration ; and, expounding it precisely as
we protestants expound it, they all pronounce upon
the strength of it, that his antecedent language, re
specting the necessity of eating the flesh and drink
ing the blood of the Son of Man, ought to be inter
preted, not literally and carnally, but figuratively
and spiritually.*
* TertuU. de Eesur. Cam. § xxviii. oper. p. 69, August. Enarr.
in Psalm, xcviii. oper. vol. viii. p. 397. Clem. Alex. Paedag. lib. i.
c. 6. p. 104. Athan. in iUud Evan. Quicunque dixerit verbum con
tra filium hominis. Oper. vol. i. p. 771, 772. Commel. 1600.
That it may be the more distinctly seen how widely the
ancients differed from the bishop of Aire, I subjoin, as a specimen,
the gloss of Athanasius.
" When- our Lord conversed on the eating of his body, and
' when he thence beheld many scandalized, he forthwith added,
' Doth this offend you? What if ye shall behold the Son of Man
' ascending where he was before ? It is the spirit that quickeneth:
' the flesh profiteth nothing. The words which I speak unto you
' are spirit arid life. Both these matters, the flesh and the spirit,
•he said respecting himself: and he distinguished the spirit from
' the flesh, in order to teach men, that his sayings are not carnal
' but spiritual. For to how many persons, think you, could his
' body have literally been food; so that it might become the ali-
« ment of the whole world? But, that he might turn away their
• minds from carnal cogitations, and that they might learn that the
•flesh which he would give them was heavenly and spiritual food;
'he, on this account, mentioned the ascent of the Son of Man to
• heaven. The words, said he, which I speak unto you, are spirit
' and life. As if he had intimated: My body shall be given as food
' for the world; but then it must be imparted to each one only
' after a spiritual manner, that so to all it may be an earnest of the
' resurrection to eternal life."
The gloss of Augustine is equally full and explicit against the
bishop of Aire. I have already given it at large. See above.
Book i. chap. 4. § II. 3. (6.)

92 DIFFICULTIES OP ROMANISM,
Such authorities place the bishop of Aire in a situ
ation which is in no wise enviable. If he retain his
own gloss of our Lord's explanatory declaration, he
contradicts four of the most eminent doctors of the
early church: if he adopt the gloss, propounded alike
by those ancient doctors and by modern protestants,
he must inevitably give up the theory of transub
stantiation. 2. But, though the gloss projected by the learned
prelate enjoys not the high sanction of the ancients,
still he contends, that its propriety, however modern
it may be, is evinced by the very behaviour of the
disciples. Had they been satisfied (he argues) with our Lord's
explanation of the hard saying which had given them
so much offence, they would have remained with
him. But we are told, that from that time many
of his disciples went back and walked with him no
more.* Therefore (the bishop infers) they were not
satisfied with his explanation; and, consequently, the
purport of his explanation cannot be, that his flesh
and his blood were to be received only after a spiri
tual manner.
The argument is more ingenious than conclusive.
His lordship assumes, that the stubborn Jews and the
apostatizing disciples would have been quite satisfied,
if they had understood our Lord's explanation as
Tertullian and Clement and Augustine and Atha
nasius understand it. Whence he argues, that they
did not so understand it, because they were not
satisfied. Now, the justice of this assumption, which forms
the very basis of the bishop's argument, I must take
leave to doubt.
The idea of the precepts of a teacher being spi
ritually meat and drink was perfectly familiar to
the Jews ; and, as such, it would clearly have given
• John vi. 66.

LATIN DEFENCE OF TRANSUBSTANTIATION. 93
them no offence:* but the idea of the teacher
HIMSELF becoming the aliment of his disciples must
have been altogether new to them; and- 1 strongly
suspect, that, from their prejudiced minds, the offence
of such a doctrine would not be removed even by a
spiritualizing explanation.
According to the rules of just reasoning, the bishop
must establish the validity of his assumption before
he can be allowed to argue from it. For my own
part, I deny its validity altogether: for I believe,
that, even when our Lord had given a spiritualizing
explanation of his offensive language, the Jews and
the apostatizing disciples were still scandalized at
the strange and novel idea of a teacher becoming
the aliment of his pupils, however that idea might
be softened to them.
It may be added, what the bishop wholly overlooks,
that our Lord's discourse contained much to offend
them, beside his asserting the necessity of their eating
his flesh and drinking his blood ; and I take it, that
the general impression left upon their minds was,
that he was a dealer in unintelligible paradoxes, from
whom much offence and little useful instruction
could be received. Under the mingled operation of
these feelings, many of his disciples went back and
walked no more with him.
II. From the preparatory discourse at Capernaum,
the bishop passes to the specific institution of the
Eucharist. 1, On this subject he justly remarks, that, when
Christ ordained that sacrament, his phraseology could
not but have forcibly recalled to the minds of his dis
ciples the language which he had previously held in
the synagogue at Capernaum. Whence he argues,
that, as they understood him literally on the one
* See Ezek. iii. 1—11. Prov. ix. 5. Eoclus. xxiv. 21. Phil. Jud.
Leg. AUeg. Ub. ii. p. 90.

94 DIFFICULTIES OF ROMANISM,
occasion, they would also understand him literally
on the other occasion.
The conclusiveness of the present argument de
pends entirely upon the establishment or the non-
establishment of the bishop's opinion relative to the
matters which occurred at Capernaum. Now the
totally different views of that question taken by his
lordship arid myself, bring us of necessity to totally
different views of the language employed by Christ
in the institution of the Eucharist. The bishop,
maintaining that Christ was from first to last literally
understood by the disciples in the synagogue at Ca
pernaum, maintains also, that he was literally under
stood by them at the institution of the holy supper.
I, on the contrary, maintaining, on the ground of
Christ's own explanation as interpreted and received
in the early church, that he was at length figuratively
understood by the disciples at Capernaum, maintain,
that he was also figuratively understood by them
at the institution of the Eucharist. Under this aspect,
therefore, the matter resolves itself into the question,
which of the two litigants has most satisfactorily
established his opinion in regard to the purport of
Christ's language at Capernaum.
2, While the bishop thus argues, with whatever
cogency, in favour of the literal interpretation of the
language employed by Christ in the institution of the
Eucharist, he brings forward also certain- objections
to that figurative interpretation of it which is pre
ferred and adopted by the church of England.
(1.) He urges, that, previous to the institution of
the Eucharist, bread had never been taken as a sign
of our Lord's body. Whence he contends, that the
consecrated bread cannot be legitimately viewed as a
sign or type, or image or symbol.*
With the ostensible premises of this argument I
am little concerned. They may be very true, as the
• Discuss. Amic. vol. i. p. 293, 294.

LATIN DEFENCE OF TRANSUBSTANTIATION, 95
bishop thinks: or they may be very false, as the early
fathers of the church believe.* With the ostensible
premises I concern not myself: my business is with
the conclusion. Now that conclusion strikes me as
altogether unwarrantable. Let the objection of the
bishop be disguised as it may, when thrown into a
regular form, it will run as follows: —
Unless a word has already been used figura
tively, we have no right so to interpret it in any
particular instance. But the word bread was
never used figuratively as denoting Christ's body,
previous to the institution of the Eucharist.
Therefore the figurative interpretation of it, in the
case of the Eucharist, ts inadmissible.
Such, when regularly drawn out, is the bishop's
argument. In his own statement of it, the true pre
mises are altogether concealed; and certain spurious
premises, which- may be very accurate or which may
be very inaccurate, so far as matter of fact is con
cerned, are alone brought forward to notice. The
bishop makes his conclusion to depend upon the
alleged circumstance, th&t, previous to the institution
of the Eucharist, bread had never been taken as a
sign of our Lord's body: whereas the conclusion re
ally depends upon the proposition, that unless a word
has already been used figuratively , we have no
right so to interpret it in any particular instance.
Now the utter falsehood of this proposition must be
plain to the very meanest capacity. If it be received
as true, it will indeed make short work with the whole
family of metaphors: for it is quite clear, that, \i pre
vious use by earlier writers be necessary to consti-

* To a person so well skilled as the bishop in the works of the
ancient fathers, I do not think it necessary to point out, by a
formal adduction of instances, how perpetually they consider
bread and wine, when mentioned in the Old Testament, to be
signs or figures of our Lord's body and blood. Two of the most
favourite passages, adduced for this purpose, are Gfen. xiv. 18. and
Gen. xlix. 11.

96 DIFFICULTIES OP ROMANISM,
tutea legitimate metaphor, no metaphor whatsoever
can be in existence; inasmuch as, at some period or
other, every metaphor must have been used for the
first time.
(2. ) The bishop attempts to show, that the expres
sions, / am the door and / am the vine, are not
homogeneous with the expressions. This is my body
and This is my blood. Whence he contends, that
the homogeneous scheme of interpretation, insisted
upon by the church of England, is certainly unte-
able,* I am unable to comprehend the force of the rea
soning, by which he would disprove the homogeneity
of those several expressions. To members of his
own communion, who may perceive what I unfortu
nately cannot perceive, his reasoning will doubtless
appear valid ; but it will have small weight with those,
who have not been already convinced through some
other medium. I claim not to be a very profound
rhetorician ; but, after all the labour which the bishop
has bestowed upon the subject, the expressions, I am
the door and I am -the vine, and This is my body and
This ismy blood, strike upon my own apprehension,
as being strictly homogeneous, and as being alike
figurative or metaphorical. In the construction of
them I can see no difference. The fault may be my
own; but such is the fact. When Christ says, I am
the door; both the bishop and myself understand him
to speak figuratively: when he says of the conse
crated bread. This is my body; I am unable to per
ceive, why I must not understand him to speak
figuratively, and why I must understand him to speak
literally.t • Discuss. Amic. vol. i. p. 295.
f The bishop of Meaux, much in the same manner as the bishop
of Aire, attempts to make out a case, that, whUe the expression
I am the vine must be figuratively interpreted, the expression
This is my blood must he literally interpreted. Hist, des Variat.
livr. u. § 26, 27.

LATIN DEFENCE OF TRANSUBSTANTIATION, 97
His case works no conviction in my own mind; and, apparently,
it would have met with no better success, had it been propounded
to tiie ancient fathers. The speaker, at least, in Theodoret's Dia
logues, who bears the characteristic name of Orthodoocus, and who
argues against the doctrine of a physical change in the consecrated
elements then firsT; propounded by the JEutychian heretics, con
tends, that our Lord honoured the visible symbols with the name
of his body and blood, because he had previously called himself
a vine. Hence it is clear, that the orthodox church of the fifth
century understood the two expressions, lam the vine and This is
my blood, in Uie same sense: that is to say, she alike understood
them figuratively or metaphorically. See Theodor. Dial. 1, oper.
vol. iv. p. 17, 18. Lut. Paris, 1642. The reader will find the entire
passage cited helovv. Book i. chap. 8. § 1. 1.

98 DIFFICULTIES OF ROMANISM,

CHAPTER VI,
Respecting the Latin Defence of the Doctrine of
Transubstantiation, from the secret Discipline
of the early Church.
There are few matters of theological- antiquity
more curious and extraordinary, than the secret dis
cipline ef the early Christian church.*
Assuredly, as the bishop of Aire most justly re
marks, those persons greatly err, who would place
the rise of this institution no higher than the fourth
century. Origen, in the third century, perpetually
refers to it; and its existence in the second century
may dearly be gathered from the writings of Tertul
lian and Clement of Alexandria. I am myself unable
to trace it, at least distinctly, any higher than those
fathers. Justin ma.y possibly allude to it: but I can
not venture to hazard an assertion respecting the
words of that ancient author.*
The bishop thinks, that this discipline originated
with the apostles themselves; and he attempts, by
various authorities, to make good his opinion.
I more than doubt, whether he has succeeded. He
.shows indeed, what we all knew, that the primitive
christians, from a lawful wish to escape persecution,
conducted their worship secretly in regard to the
pagans: but this is a very different thing from that
discipline of the early church, which was conducted
secretly in regard to the catechumens. The rise of
• Discuss. Amic. Lett. viii.
¦j- See Justin. Apol. i, vulg. ii. p. 55.

LATIN DEFENCE OF TRANSUBSTANTIATION. 99
the last, I incline to think, cannot be placed higher
than about the middle of the second century ; and
both its mechanism and its phraseology show, not
obscurely, its true origin.
St. Paul, more especially when writing to the
Gentile churches, often alludes, with great felicity, to
the rites and ceremonies of the pagans. Among
other matters, he, again and again, refers most point
edly to the ancient mysteries.* This last illustrative
idea was caught up, more eagerly than wisely, by the
governors of the church, apparently, as I have said,
about the middle of the second century. The pagans
had their venerable mysteries, into which none were
admitted unless they had passed through a long pre
vious novitiate: St. Paul. might be supposed to coun
tenance the establishment of yet more venerable
Christian mysteries. Accordingly,, the church soon
determined to have an institution of this nature, into
which none should be admitted without passing
through the long probationary stage of catechumen-
ism. Henceforth then, with an ill-advised imitation
of gentilism, the bishop or officiating presbyter was
made to correspond with the hierophant; the deacon,
with the daduchus; the catechumen, with the aspir
ant; and the baptized communicant, with the illumi-
,fiated epopt. Such was the mechanism of this singu
lar institution; and the man must be ill-versed in the
compositions of the early ecclesiastical writers, who
has not observed a studied adaptation of language
plainly enough borrowed from the phraseology of
the pagan mysteries.t

• Rom. xi. 25. xvi. 25—27. 1 Corinth, ii. 4—8. xv. 47—51.
Coloss. i. 26—28. il. 1—4. iv. 2—5. Ephes. i. 9, 10, 16—18. v.
31, 32.
t See TertuU. Apol. adv. Gent. p. 821. Clem. Alex. Strom.
lib. V. p. 574 — 579. Origen. in Levit. Homil. ix. Comment, in
Johan. Oper. vol. ii. p. 97, 98. Lactant. Instit. lib. vii. § 26.
Cyril. Hieros. Prsefat. in Catech. p. 3, 6, 7, 8, 9. Chrysost.
Sanot. Miss, in Oper. vol. iv. p. 607.

100

DIFFICULTIES OF ROMANISM.

Now the theory of the bishop, as might be antici
pated from the purport of his work, is this.
The secret discipline of the primitive church had
for its *o/e cause the doctrine of transubstantiation:
for, in the very nature of things, it could not possi
bly have had any other cause than that which is
thus assigned to it. Hence it will follow, that the
grand, and exclusive, and special secret of the
Christian mysteries was the doctrine of transubstan
tiation.* I. It is easy to esJhibit a favourite theory under a
plausible aspect; and to his own theory this service
has been rendered, in an eminent degree, by the
deeply-learned bishop of Aire.
In the primitive church, he argues, a most extra
ordinary system of secret discipline was established.
The sole object of this discipline was to conceal,
from the pagan on the one hand, and from the cate
chumen on the other hand, the true doctrine of the
Eucharist. What then could be that single doctrine,
which was exclusively guarded with so much jealous
care, while every other doctrine was freely exposed
to the public gaze? Could it have been the doctrine
of the Eucharist, according to the Anglican interpre
tation of our Lord's phraseology? > The supposition
is incredible: for no satisfactory reason can be given,
why such a doctrine should have been so jealously
concealed from the uninitiated. Nothing then re
mains but the conclusion, that the real secret of the
Christian mysteries was the doctrine of the Eucha
rist, according to the Roman interpretation of our
Lord's phraseology. Admit this opinion; and the
whole conduct of the primitive believers becomes
lucidly intelligible. Reject this opinion; and their
• Or je me flatte i. present, Monsieur, que vous voyez claire-
ment que la discipline du secret sur I'Eucharistie a eu effective-
ment le dogme de la r6alit^ pour cause, et n'a pu en avoir d' autre.
Discuss. Amic. vol. ii. p. 2.

LATIN DEFENCE OF TRANSUBSTANTIATION. 101
whole conduct is a tissue of unaccountable inconsis
tencies. Thus argues the bishop of Aire; and such is the
impression which he would leave upon the mind of
his reader. Yet I can safely say, that, if his work
produces such an impression, it produces an im
pression which but ill accords with the testimony of
the ancients.
Let us, however, proceed to a discussion of the
theory, which, with no small dexterity, his lordship
has undertaken to advocate,
1, The bishop asserts, as the very basis of his
argument, that the true doctrine of the Eucharist,
whatever that doctrine might be, whether it were the
doctrine taught by the church of England or the
doctrine taught hy the church of Rome, was the sole
and exclusive secret of the ancient Christian myste
ries,* I acknowledge the force of the bishop's reasoning
from this position: but, unfortunately, the position
itself rests not upon any solid foundation. His argu
ment is avowedly built upon the alleged fact, that the
true doctrine of the Eucharist loas the exclusive
secret of the Christian mysteries. Now, for the
allegation of this pretended fact, the bishop has no
authority whatever. Let the true doctrine of the
Eucharist be what it may, that doctrine was not the
exclusive secret of the Christian mysteries. On the
contrary, as we shall soon learn from positive
evidence, the mysteries propounded many secrets;
and those many secrets were no other than the
whole circle of the higher and peculiar doctrines of
Christianity. Thus perishes the argument from the
alleged fact of exclusiveness.
2. Still it may be said, that, although the myste
ries were not instituted exclusively for the purpose
of concealing irom- the profane the true doctrine of
• Discuss. Amic. vol. ii. p. 2.
I2

102 DIFFICULTIES OF ROMANISM.
the Eucharist, yet, at all events, they were mainly
^nd principally \nst\tuted for that purpose.
So it may be said; but for such a supposed asser
tion there is no foundation. The true doctrine of
the Eucharist was neither the exclusive secret of the
mysteries, nor yet even their principal secret.
(1.) Perhaps one of the most curious works which
have come down to us from ecclesiastical antiquity,
is a volume containing the catechetical and mystago-
gical lectures of Cyril of Jerusalem. His catecheti
cal lectures were delivered to the illuminated, or to
that higher class of catechumens who were on the
point of being admitted into the church by the rite
of baptism : his mystagogical lectures were delivered
to those who had been recently baptized, and who
were preparing themselves to partake of the blessed
Eucharist. Now these lectures, as Cyril's own preface or in
troduction expressly tells us, contained the develop
ment of those secrets or mysteries, which it was the
object of the arcane discipline to conceal from the
lower classes of the catechumens.*
" When the catechism is recited," says he, " if a
' catechumen shall ask you what the teachers said,
'tell nothing to him that is without. For we have
' delivered to you the mystery and the hope of the
' future contest. Keep then the mystery to him who
'will repay you: and regard not, if any one shall
' say; What great harm can there be, should I also
'learn? Know, that sick men ask for wine: yet, if
' it shall be unseasonably given to them, it produces
'frenzy; and two bad consequences thence result,
' the sick man dies, and the physician is blamed. In
* The Auditorum tyrocinia, as Tertullian speaks. TertuU. de
Poenit. Oper. p. 481. One of the appellations of the Calechu-
me.ns -vf 'AS Auditares 01 Hearers,- and over them, presided an offi
cer styled a Catechist or Teacher, who was appointed by the
bishop of the see, and who acted under his authority. See
Cyprian. Epist. xxix. p. 55.

LATIN DEFENCE OF TRANSUBSTANTIATION. 103
' like manner, the catechumen, if he hear the myste-
' ries from the faithful, becomes phrenetical: for he
' understands not what he hears, and the faithful is
' condemned as a betrayer.* When you were a cate-
'chumen,I did not reveal the mysteries to you: and,
' when by experience you shall have learned their
' sublimity, you will then perceive that the catechu-
' mens are unworthy to hear them.t These cateche-
' tical lectures of the illuminated you may indeed
' communicate, either to those who are approaching
' to baptism, or to the faithful who have been already
' baptized: but reveal them not in any wise, either to
' the catechumens, or to those others who are not
' Christians; lest you should thus make yourself ac-
' countable to the Lprd."§
Nothing can be more explicit than this statement.
We clearly learn from it, that the series of lectures,
which it introduces, were delivered for the purpose
of developing those mysteries which the system of
the secret disciple concealed from the catechumens.
Would we then ascertain the mysteries, we have sim
ply to read the lectures.
Exclusive of the preface or introduction, the cate
chetical lectures are eighteen in number; and they
are followed by five mystagogical lectures, addressed
to the conipetentes who had been recently baptized.
Of the eighteen catechetical lectures, the three first
relate to baptism and its necessary qualifications ; and
the last treats of the holy catholic church, the resur
rection of the body, and the life everlasting. All
the intermediate lectures, fourteen in numBer, dis
cuss the doctrine of the Holy Trinity, viewed as
branching out into its various subordinate and con
nected doctrines of the godhead of Christ, the incar
nation, the atonement, the operations of he spirit,
and the like. In the whole series, I do not recollect
* Cyril. Prafat. in Catech. p. 6.
t Ibid. p. 6. § Ihid. p. 9.

104 DIFFICULTIES OF ROMANISM,
that more than a single short hint is given of the doc
trine of the Eucharist; and it is couched in language
not very favourable to the theory of transubstantia
tion. If the Lord shall deem theciuorthy, thou
shalt hereafter know, that the body of Christ, ac
cording to the gospel, sustained the type of bread.*
It is difficult to say what these words can mean, if
they do not intimate, that the bread is a type or sym
bol or figure or representation of Christ's most pre
cious body. They contain, however, a. promise, that
the subject shall hereafter he resumed; and, accord
ingly, it reappears in the mystagogical lectures.
These, as I have observed, are five in number. The
two first treat of baptism, which the persons address
ed had recently received : the two next treat of the
Eucharist: the last is chiefly practical, save that it con
tains an allusion to prayers for the dead; which had
then begun to be partially introduced, which Cyril
owns were objected to by many, and which he
attempts, thoiigh not very cogently, to defend and
vindicate. From the brief, though accurate, account of Cyril's
lectures to the illuminated and to the initiated, let
any impartial person judge, what must in common
equity be deemed the principal secret of the christian
mysteries. Certainly, it was the doctrine of the Holy
Trinity. Accordingly, Cyril himself reduces every
subordinate and dependent doctrine under that grand
and ineffable mystery, viewing it,. and speaking of it,
as the common centre of the whole circle of Chris
tianity, "These mysteries," says he, "the chureh comnju-
' nicates to him who is quitting the class of the cate-
' chumens. For it is not customary to reveal them
* to the heathens: nor do we propound to a heathen
' the mysteries concerning the Father and the Son
' and the Holy Ghost. Neither yet do we openly
• CyrU. Catech. xiii. p. 130, 131.

LATIN DEFENCE OF TRANSUBSTANTIATION, 105
« speak concerning them to the catechumens : but we
'often speak many things covertly; in order that the
' faithful who know them may understand us, and in
' order that the catechumens who are ignorant of them
' may not be injured."*
(2.) The result, to which we have been brought by
this examination of the lectures of Cyril, is confirmed
by the authority of Jerome.
That eminent father, when mentioning the ancient
practice of revealing the mysteries to the illuminated,
during the course of the forty days which imme
diately preceded their baptism at Easter, is so absorb
ed by the idea of the palmary secret, that he notices
that secret alone, as if it were exclusively the subject
of the arcane discipline.
"We have a custom," says he to Pammachius,
* of publicly delivering to those who are about to be
* baptized, during the forty days which precede their
* baptism, the mystery of the holy and adorable
' Trinity."^ To this custom of the probaptismal lectures being
delivered during Lent, antecently to the celebration
of baptism at Easter, Cyril, aS we might well antici
pate, specially alludes.
"You must pardon me to-day for my prolixity,"
says he to the illuminated: "your attention may
' perhaps be fatigued; but the holy festival of Easter
' is now approaching. "J
(3). With Cyril and Jerome agrees Origen, the
learned catechist of Alexandria in the. third century.
No one can have perused the commentary on St.
John by this great writer, without perceiving that,
from first to last, it is absolutely full of references to
the arcane discipline of the early church. § What
• Cyril. Catech. vi. p. 60.
f Hieron. Epist. 1x1. ad Pammach. c.4. Oper. vol. i. p. 180.
i Cyril. Catech. xvii. p. 201.
§ See Orig. Comment in Johan. p. 6, 8, 9, 18, 25, 30, 51—54,
57, 97, 125, 126, 203.

106 DIFFICULTIES OF ROMANISM,
then, according to Origen, was that grand secret of
the mysteries, which so threw every minor secret
into the background, that the catechist was tempted,
like Jerome, to mention it, as if it were in a manner
the only secret?
" This," says he " it was fit to know, that, as the
'law affords a shadow of good things to come, made
' manifest by the law which is preached according to
'the truth: so likewise the gospel, which is fancied
'to be understood by all those who indiscriminately
' address_ themselves to -it, teaches only a shadow of
'the mysteries of Christ. But what John calls the
' everlasting gospel, or what might fitly be styled the
' spiritual gospel, clearly sets forth, to those who
' really understand it, all things, even before their
'very faces, concerning the Son of God; wherefore
'it is necessary to Christianize, both spiritually and
'corporeally: and, where indeed it is fit to preach
' the coporeal gospel, saying to the carnal, that we
' know nothing save Jesus Christ and him crucified;
'this must be done: but, when they shall have
' become firmly compacted in the spirit, and when
'they shall bring forth fruit in it; then, as loving
' the heavenly wisdom, we may safely impart to
' them the hidden doctrine respecting the ascent of
' the incarnate Word to the state in which he was
' with God in the beginning."*
I need scarcely remark, that, in this passage, as the
whole of its previous context shows, the carnal are
the j'et uninitiated and imperfectly instructed cate
chumens; while the lovers of heavenly wisdom are
the competentes or illuminated, to whom, as prepa
ratory to their baptism,' the mysteries were about to
be revealed. These two different classes are treated
after a very different^ manner. To the former, gene
ral truth? are alone propoundet}, through the medium
of what Origen calls the corporeal gospel: to the
• Oi-ig. Comment, in Johan. p. 9,

LATIN DEFENCE OF TRANSUBSTANTIATION. 107
latter, through the medium of what he denominates
the spiritual gospel, the divinity of the incarnate
Word, and his eternal union with the Father and the
Spirit, are unreservedly imparted as the sum and
substance of the Christian myteries.*

* It may be useful to remark, that this passage, and two other
parallel passages in the same commentary (Comment, p. 49, 52),
have been adduced by Dr. Priestley for the express purpose of
demonstrating, that, in the days of Origen, the great multitude of
Gentile Christians were generally anii-trinitarians, who rejected
with abhorrence the doctrine of our Lord's Divinity. Hist, of Early
Opin. book iii. chap; 13, sect. 2. Works, vol. vi. p. 483.
In a professed historian, such a total ignorance of ecclesiastical
antiquity is indeed most lamentable. Dr. Priestley, incredible as
such an error may well seem, has actually mistaken avery peacea
ble body of primitive catechumens, to whom, in the course of their
religious institution, the higher mysteries of (Christianity had not a^
yet been communicated: Dr. Priestley has actually mistaken these
primitive catechumens, for a mighty army of strenuous and volu
ble anti-trinitarian confessors .'
Scarcely less extraordinary is another closely-connected error,
which, in the same section of his work, the historian has fallen
into, relative to a passage in Tertullian..
For the avowed purpose of showing, that, in the time of that
father, the imajority of believers were anti-triniiarians, who held ihe
doctrine of the Divinity of Christ in abhorrence,- Dr. Priestley
;; adduces a place, in which Tertulhah, after tritely remarking that
the bulk of believers must, in the very nature of things, be
ALWATS composed of ignorant men, proceeds to censure the then
no^el heresy of the Patripassians. Now, according to Dr. Priest
ley, the persons, censured by Tertullian, were a mighty inajority,
who held the doctrine of Christ's Godhead in abhorrence. Whereas,
in ti-uth, these very persons, whose- majority Tertullian never
asserts, absolutely identified the Son with the Father and the Spirit :
and thence contended, that oiir Lord, by whatever economical name
he might be distinguished, was himself God exclusively. — Hist, of
Early Opin. book ill. chap. 13, sect. 2. Works, vol. vi. p. 486.
TertuU. adv. Prax. § ii. iii. Oper. p. 406'.
The mischief which results from productions of such a stamp
as Dr. Priestley's two Histories, is almost incalculable. That
author bears a high name among persons of his own religious sen
timents; and, by the unlearned or hajf-learned of his party, all his
strange errors are greedily swaUowed without any further exami
nation. Of^hls Indiscriminating appetite we have a remarkable instance
afforded us, in a small book, lately published under the title of
Letters in Defence of Unitarianism, by another Barrister.

108 DIFFICULTIES OF ROMANISM.
(4.) We are still brought to the very same position
by the great Augustine of Hippo.
Like Cyril of Jerusalem, that luminary of the
fourth age has bequeathed to us a course of lectures,
addressed to those more advanced catechumens, who
were styled the illuminated, and who were prepar
ing themselves to receive the sacrament of baptism.
The work is comprised in four hooks; and, with the
exception of three brief allusions to, not explana
tions of, the doctrine of the Eucharist, it is wholly
occupied in developing the grand secret of the Holy
Trinity, with those other subordinate mysteries
which depend upon that graiid secret.*
(5.) With the evidence afforded by the fathers of
the church agrees also the testimony borne by the
gentiles. When we recollect the various apologies and other
controversial works produced by the early ecclesias
tical writers, in which they distinctly propound the
doctrines of Christ's Godhead and the Trinity, we
shall not wonder, that the principal secret of the
mysteries was more or less -known even to the
Full of the most unsuspecting simplicity, the heedless au
thor of this book has implicitly copied from Dr. Priestley all
that historian's mistakes relative to the passages in Origen and
Tertullian. With the anonymous barrister, as with the ecclesias
tical historian, Origen 's uninitiated catechwhiens are zealous syste
matic anti-triniiarians : while TertuUian's patripassian worship
pers of Christ as God exclusively, assume the unlooked-for aspect
ot persons who held the doctrine of Christ's Godhead in abhorrence.
Nor is the barrister the only writer, who has been so unhappily
misled by Dr. Priestley. The manifold errors of the unskUful
historiari have been industriously repeated by various other infe
rior workmen; and, on the insecure authority of Dr. Priestiey,
the saying, that, in the days of Tertullian and Origen, religionists,
who abhorred the doctrine of Christ's Divinity, were the greater part
of Christians, is commonly reported among the unitarians until
this day.
* August, de Symbol, ad Catech. Oper. vol. ix. The three
brief allusions to the Eucharist will be found in lib. ii. c; 1, p'.
260, lib. ii; c. 6, p. 263, lib. iii. c. 5, p. 268.

LATIN DEFENCE OF TRANSUBSTANTIATION. 109
pagans.* In fact, though the early church adopted a
system of secret discipline, she still knew and judged
wisely, that there might be times when it became
her to speak aloud, plainly and unreservedly. Under
such circumstances, even pagan testimony, in regard
to the grand secret of the Christian mysteries, may
be adduced not unprofitably.
Among the works of Lucian is usually printed a
very curious dialogue, entitled, Philopatris. Its
author is unknown; but, in regard to the time of its
composition, Gesner seems to have proved, so far as
matters of that kind can he proved, that it was writ
ten during the reign of the Emperor Julian. t Hence
it must have been composed much about the same
period as that during which flourished Cyril of Jeru
salem. In this dialogue, the speakers are Triephon and
Critias: the former a Christian, the latter a Pagan,
Critias, playing the buffoon, amuses himself with
assuming the character of a catechumen; and, in that
mock capacity, solicits instruction from Triephon,
The wretched humour of the piece consists in the
circumstance of the simulated catechumen's real
paganism perpetually, and as it were unguardedly,
betraying itself. Critias, at length, swears by Jupi
ter; and this is the moment, which Triephon is made
to select for the purpose of initiating him into the
grand secret of the Christian mysteries.
What then is the secret now revealed? Does the
mode of its communication favour the opinion of the
* See Justin. Apol. i. vulg. ii. p. 43. Dial, cum Tryph. p. 198.
Athenag. Legat. § ix. xi. xxii. p. 37, 38, 41, 96. TertuU. Apol.
adv. Gent. p. 850. TertuU. adv. Prax. p. 405, 406. Melit. Apol.
apud Chron. Pasch. in A.D. 164, 165. Clem, Alex. Protrep. p.
5, 6, 66, 68. Origen. adv. Cels. lib. iii. p. 135, lib. iv. p. 169,
170. Arnob. adv. Gent. hb. 1. p. 23, 24. Minuc. Fel. Octav. p.
280, 281, 284. Lucian. de Mort. Peregrin. Oper vol. ill. p. 33.3,
334, 337, 338.
t See Gesner. Disput. de JEtat. et Auctor. Philop. in Oper.
Lucian. ad calc. vol. iii. Reitz. Amstel. 1743.
K

110 DIFFICULTIES OF ROMANISM.
bishop of Aire; or does it .support the opinion, which
I have been led to advocate? The secret is unfolded
by Triephon the catechist in the manner following: —
" The lofty, the great, the immortal, the celestial
' God: the Son of the Father; the Spirit proceeding
' from the Father: one from three, and three from one:
'Deem these things Jove: reckon this to be God."*
3. I have now shown, in opposition to the bishop of
Aire, that the doctrine of transubstantiation was nei
ther the exclusive secret, nor even the principal se
cret, of the ancient' christian mysteries; and, to that
precise extent, therefore, I have invalidated his very
ingenious theory. Still, however, it may be urged
by his lordship, that, although neither the exclusive
secret nor the principal seer et, it was, at any rate, an
eminent secret of the mysteries: and, in proof of
such an opinion, he may adduce the language of that
very Cyril, whose lectures I have specially employed
for the purpose of demonstrating that the grand se
cret was the doctrine of the Holy Trinity.
Cyril, it may be argued by the bishop, devotes two
of his mystagogical lectures to the doctrine of the
Eucharist ; and, in those very lectures, he propounds
to the initiated, most clearly and most .distinctly, as
an eminent secret of the mysteries, the dogma of
transubstantiation. " The bread which we behold," says he, " though
'to the taste it be bread, is yet not bread, but the
'body of Christ: and the wine, which we behold,
'though to the taste it be wine, is yet not wine, but
' the blood of Chrisf't
Here, then, it may be urged on the authority of the
catechist Cyril himself, the doctrine of transubstan
tiation is unreservedly set forth to the baptized mys-
tse, as one of the grand secrets preserved and handed
• Philop. in Oper. Lucian. vol. iii. Reltz. Amstel. 1743.
t Cyril, Catech. Mystag. iv. p. 238, 239.

LATIN DEFENCE OP TRANSUBSTANTIATION. Ill
down from the beginning by the arcane discipline of
the church.
This, I apprehend, when divested of its various
inaccuracies, is the best and most plausible form, un
der which the theory of the bishop can be exhibited:
and, as I wish not to take any unfair advantage, I have
myself very honestly, in the present statement, given
his theory every possible chance of success.
I shall now, therefore, finally proceed to show,
that, as the doctrine of transubstantiation was neither
the exclusive nor the principal secret of the myste
ries; so, notwithstanding the apparently decisive lan
guage of Cyril, it was not taught at all in the
mysteries, even uader the form of the very smallest
and least important secret.
A doctrine, which existed not in the early church,
assuredly could not be taught by the secret discipline
of that church. Now it can be shown from evidence,
both christian and pagan, that the doctrine of transub
stantiation existed not in the church of the first ages.
Therefore, a doctrine, thus circumstanced, could not
possibly have been a secret of the mysteries.
(1.) On the subject of christian evidence, I have
already been so copious, that this branch of my argu
ment is completely anticip^ed.
Fully supported by the authority of Irenaeus, Ter
tullian, Clement of Alexandria, G-regory of Nyssa,
Cyprian, Chrysostom, Augustine, Gelasius, Facundus,
the ancient homilist in Jerome, and even Cyril of Je
rusalem himself, I have stated, that the church of at
least the five first centuries recognised no change save
a moral change in the consecrated elements; that she
expressly denied our participation of the Hteral'hody
and blood of Christ, and that she esteemed the bread
and wine to be only types or figures or symbols or
images of those awful realities which they were em
ployed to represent.* • See above. Book i. chap. 4. § II.

112 DIFFICULTIES OF ROMANISM.
Such being the case, the doctrine of transubstantiation
could have had no existence in the church of the five
first centuries: and, if it existed not, it clearly could
not have been made, in any, even the smallest degree,
the subject of the mysteries.
(2.) From christian evidence, then, I maybeallowed,
without further repetition, to pass to the consideration
of pagan evidence. This latter evidence is of a na
ture so remarkably strong, that, even alone, it is am
ply sufficient to decide the question. Through its
instrumentality, we may demonstrate, beyond the
possibility of confutation, that the doctrine now be
fore us was totally unknown to the church of the
first ages: whence, of course, it will inevitably fol
low, that it never could have been s. secret of the an
cient mysteries.
Every person, moderately versed in the documents
of antiquity, is well aware, that the pagans again and
again pleased themselves with ridiculing the well-
known christian worship of the Saviour as God: and,
in the dialogue Philopatris, we find them similarly
scoffing at the catholic doctrine of the trinity.* Such
ridicule proves the existence of those doctrines in the
primitive church: and, by a parity of reasoning, if
they had scoffed at the doctrine of transubstantiation,
they would equally have established the existence of
that doctrine. But, so far as I know, they never
deride the doctrine of transubstantiation. Yet, had
that doctrine formed one of the secrets of the mys
teries, they must, in all human probability, have come
to the knowledge of it; for we find demonstratively,
that they were not ignorant even of the grand and
palmary secret : and, had they knoivn the doctrine
* " Thou art teaching me arithmetic," says Critias, when the
secret of the mysteries- is. imparted to him: "thy oath is purely
'arithmetical: verily, in the science of numeration, thou rivalest
' Nicomachus the Gerasenian. . I know not what thou art saying.
'One, three; three, one! Certainly thou art dealing with the,
' tetractys, or the ogdoadjor the triad of Pythagoras."

LATIN DEFENCE OP TRANSUBSTANTIATION, 113
of transubstantiation, we cannot doubt that it would
have similarly experienced their ridicule. But they
never even so much as mention it. From their very
silence, therefore, we may learn, that in the early
church no such doctrine existed.
It may be said, that the pagans might possibly
have learned the doctrines of Christ's godhead and
the trinity, and yet that they very possibly might
not have learned the doctrine of transubstantiation:
for it does not follow, that, because they had learned
some of the secrets of the mysteries, they must,
therefore, have learned them all. Hence the argu
ment from their silence is defective in conclusiveness.
Be it so: but my argument does not stop short at
this point; nor, had such been the case, should I
have ventured to describe it as incapable of confu
tation. I can produce the negative evidence of a
pagan,' who flourished in the middle of the fourth
century, who delights to ridicule all the peculiar
doctrines of Christianity, who must have been ac
quainted with the doctrine of transubstantiation, had
it then existed; who certainly would have scoffed at
it if he had been acquainted with it, and who yet
never once mentions it, or even so much as alludes
to its very existence.
The pagan, whom I thus characterize, and whom
I summon as an unexceptionable witness, is the
Emperor Julian.
That extraordinary man was once, in profession at
least, a christian : but, hating the light of the gospel,
he apostatized to paganism. Now Julian, be it care
fully observed, had been, not merely an uninitiated
fiatechumeri, but a baptized christian.* As a bap
tized christian, he must have heard the preparatory
lectures of the catechist : as a baptized christian, he
• Sozomen. Eccles. Hist. lib. v. c. 2. According to Sozomen,
Julian attempted to wash out his mark of baptism with the blood
of victims sacrified to the averruncan demons. The fact of his
baptism is sufficient for my argument.
K 2

114 difficulties of KOMANISM,
must, according to the discipline of the church, have
been regularly initiated into the mysteries. If, then,
as the bishop contends, transubstantiation were the
secret doctrine most especially taught in the mys
teries, Julian must have been well acquainted with
the existence, oi that doctrine: and, if acquainted
with its existence, a man of his humour would not
have failed to make it the subject of his bitter ridicule.
How then stands the case with the imperial apos
tate, who, having been baptized, had indisputably
been initiated into all the secrets of the mysteries?
In the work against Christianity, which has been
substantially preserved, and which has been regularly
answered by Cyril of Alexandria, Julian ridicules the
adoration of Christ; the godhead of Christ; the birth
of Christ from the Virgin ; the conception of Christ
by the Holy Ghost ^ the doctrine, that Christ was the
creator of the universe; the doctrine, that Christ is
the Word of God, the Son of God, God from God of
the substance of his Father ; the doctrine of the trini
ty, which is the basis of the doctrine of Christ's god
head: he- amuses himself likewise with what he deems
the incurable absurdity of the purification of sin by
the mere element of water in baptism : and, approx
imating to the very subject of transubstantiation, if
any such doctrine had been then held in the church,
he laughs at the Galileans for saj'ing, that Christ had
once been sacrificed on their behalf, and that, conse
quently, they themselves offered no sacrifices. But
yet never, on any occasion, or by any accident, though
eagerly bent upon catching at everything in Christi
anity which he might turn to derision, doeis he
mention, or even so much as remotely allude to, the
Latin doctrine of transubstantiation.*
¦ Exactly the same remark applies to Julian's other
* See Cyril. Alex. cont. JuUan. lib. v.p. 159.Ub. vi.p. 191, 213.
lib. viii. P..253, 261, 262, 276. lib. ix. p. 290, 291, 314. lib. x. p.
327, 333. Ibid. lib. vii. p. 245. Ibid. lib. ix. p. 305, 306. lib. x.
p. 354. Lipsis, A. D. 1696.

latin defence of transubstantiation, 115
works. Again and again he ridicules the Galileans,
.their agapae and ministrations at tables, their base
superstition, their acknowledgment of Christ's god
head: Moses also, and the prophets come in for a
due share of his vituperation : Athanasius is reviled
as the enemy of the gods, and as the artful inveigler
of noble women to receive the sacrament of baptism :
and, through the side of the first christian Emperor
Constantine, the gospel is vilified, as encouraging
universal profligacy and dishonesty and licentious
ness, by its doctrine of cheaply purifying ablution
and free pardon on condition of repentance. Yet
NEVER does the emperor even once please himself,
either by ridiculing, or by simply noticing, that
doctrine which the bishop of Aire maintains to be the
grand and exclusive secret of the ancient mysteries.*
I may be mistaken in estimating the strength of
this argument: but it strikes upon my own apprehen
sion, as being perfectly irresistible.
Let any reasonable being consider the complete
knowledge which the baptized apostate possessed of
the doctrines of Christianity, his utter hatred of the
gospel, his perpetual recurrence to the detested Gali
leans and their more detested theology, his humour
of turning into ridicule whatever in Christianity he
thought capable of being made ridiculous : let any
reasonable being consider these several matters ; and
then let him judge, whether, if transubstantitation had
been a doctrine of the early catholic church, it could
possibly have been passed over in. total silence by
such a man as Julian.
The complete taciturnity of the profane emperor,
in everything that regards the doctrine of transub-
* See Julian. Imper^ Oper. Orat. vi. p. 192. Orat. Fragment, p.
305. Misopog. p. 363. Epist. vii. p. 376. Epist. xiii. p. 423, 4-24.
Epist. xlix. 429—431. Epist. 11. p. 432—435. Epist. lii. p. 435
—438, Epist. Ixii. p. 450. Epist. Ixiii. p. 453, 454. Ibid. Orat.
Fragment, p. 289, 295. Ibid. Epist. vi. p. 376. Epist. xxvi. p. 398.
Epist. Ii. p. 432, 435. Ibid. Cssar. p. 336. Lips. A. D. 1696.

116 DIFFICULTIES OF ROMANISM,
stantiation, is, I think, as complete a negative proof
of its non-existence in the fourth century, as can be
either desired or imagined. Repeatedly does he
scoff at all the peculiar doctrines of Christianity : but
he NEVER ridicules the Latin dogma of transubstanti
ation, II, As I have now sufficiently shewn the total
erroneousness of the bishop's theory, I might here
be vvell permitted to conclude. Since, however, by
way of establishing his speculation respecting the
object of the ancient secret discipline, he claims to
bring an argument from a recorded fact, I am un
willing to close the present subject without paying
all due attention to that argument.
It is well known, that the pagans, from a very early
period, were accustomed to charge the christians,
sometimes with devouring the flesh and drinking the
blood of a slaughtered man, and sometimes with first
murdering and then feasting upon the mangled limbs
of a young child.
This is the fact, on which the bishop would frame
an argument in favour of his system; and the argu
ment itself is to the following purport:
From the very first, christians were accused of
celebrating a Thyestean banquet in their accursed
mysteries. To elicit the truth, they were frequently
and violently tortured. Invariably, however, they
denied the cha,rge. Now, if they had esteemed the
elements in the Eucharist purely symbolical* why
did they not give an explanation of the matter,
which would at once have liberated them from tor
ture? Yet, in no recorded instance, did they give
any such exposition. Therefore they must consci
ously have held the doctrine of transubstantiation.
I have given the bishop's argument with as much
strength and compactness as I am able : and, after
weighing it with all care and attention, it strikes me
as being so very paradoxical, that I marvel at its adop-

±.ATIN DEFENCE OP TRANSUBSTANTIATION. 117
tion by a man possessing the acuteness of the respected
prelate of Aire.
From his lordship's premises, according to my own
notions of accurate reasoning, I should have been
brought to a directly opposite conclusion. The re
corded yizcif I should have deemed utterly y«^«/ to his
system : and, purposing myself to bring it forward
against him when a convenient opportunity should
offer, I was not a little surprised, as I advanced in the
perusal of his work, to find, that he had anticipated
me, and that he had preoccupied as his ground what
I had innocently supposed to be mine. Had not the
bishop thus got the start of me, I had intended to ar
gue as follows : —
Through a recorded misapprehension of the true
nature of the Eucharist, the pagans fancied, that the early
christians literally devoured human flesh and literally
drank human blood. To procure a confession of this
enormity, they applied the torture : but the christians
invariably denied the existence of any such abomina
tion in their religious ceremonial. Now they could
not with truth have denied its existence, if they had
held the doctrine of transubstantiation : for, in that
case, they must have been conscious, that, according
to their full knowledge and belief, they were in the
constant habit of literally devouring human flesh and
of literally drinking human blood. Yet, under the
most severe torments, they invariably and totally de
nied, the fact. Therefore, by denying the fact, they
of necessity denied also the doctrine of transubstan
tiation. Such, had I not been anticipated by the bishop,
was my intended argument : and, as its basis was that
identical fragment of Irenseus, to which his lordship
has referred less amply than I could have wished, I
shall subjoin the fragment itself, as it has been pre
served to us by Ecumenius. The fact, as the bishop
justly observes, took place during the persecutian at
Lyons in the year 177,

118 DIFFICULTIES OF ROMANISM.
" The pagans, wishing to ascertain the secret cere-
' monial of the christians, apprehended their slaves,
' and put them to the torture. Impatient of the pain,
'and having nothing to tell which might please their
'tormentors, the slaves, who had heard their masters
' say that the Eucharist was the body and blood of
' Christ, forthwith communicated this circumstance.
' Whereupon the tormentors, fancying that it was
'literalbloodandflesh which was served up in the mys-
' teries of the christians, hastened to inform the other
' pagans. These immediately appehended the martyrs,
' Sanctus and Blandina : and endeavoured to extort
' from them a confession of the deed. But Blandina,
' readily and boldly answered, How can those, who
' through piety abstain even from lawful food, be ca-
' pable of perpetrating the actions which you allege
' against them?"*
Now, after a full and impartial consideration of this
passage, I am compelled to conclude and to reason
from it as follows : —
• The pagans, misapprehending the testimony of the

* Iren. Fragment, apud CEcum. in 1 Pet. ii. 12. A further ac
count of these matters is given in the epistle from the churches of
Vienne and Lyons to the churches of Asia and Phrygla, as pre
served by Eusebius. The same ctccusafion is made against the
christians; a,nd the same expUcit denial is given, not only by
Sanctus and Blandina, but by au. the faithful. According to the
statement given in this epistle, Blandina was a christian slave of a
christian mistress, while Sanctus was a deacon of the church of
Vienne. The latter, therefore, as an ecclesiastic, must certainly
have well known the real doctrine of the Eucharist. With these
the epistle mentions Epagathus a youthful believer, Maturus a re
cently-baptized mysta. Attains the very column and basis of the
church, Byblis a christian woman, Ponticus a boy of fifteen years,
and the venerable bishop Pothinus, stooping under the burden of
more than nine decades. Young and old, male and female, bond
and free, ecclesiastic and laic, they all equally denied the partici
pation of literal human flesh and literal human blood in the cele
bration of the Eucharist. Under such circumstances, by what ima-
^nable possibUity they could all have been transubstantialists,
exceeds my powers of comprehension. See Euseb. Hist. Eccles,
lib. r. c, 1,

LATIN DEFENCE OP TRANSUBSTANTIATION, 119
slaves, charged the christians with literally eating
the flesh and with literally drinking the blood of a
m.an whenever they celebrated the Eucharist. But
the christians flatly denied the existence of any such
practice. Therefore, if the christians denied the
practice, when thus, in avoioed connexion with their
celebration of the Eucharist, explicitly charged up
on them, they must, to all intents and purposes, have
denied the doctrine of transubstantiation.
The bishop however contends, that, had the chris
tians of Lyons deemed the elements to be only sym
bols, they would readily have freed themselves from
the torture by giving to their persecutors this easy
explanation of the charge brought against them. But
no such explanation did they give. Therefore they
virtually acknowledged the justice of the charge, in
so far as the Eucharist was concerned.
I wonder to see so able a man argue, in every point
of view, with such utter inconclusiverfess. In the
first place, the charge of eating literal human flesh
and of drinking literal human blood in the celebra
tion of the Eucharist was, as we have already found,
constantly and explicitly denied by themr and, in the
second place, it is difficult to conceive, under their
circumstances, what possible benefit could have re
sulted from a formal explanation of their doctrine.
They were tortured for the express purpose of forcing
a confession, that, in the celebration of the Eucharist,
they devoured literal human flesh and drank literal
human blood. Now any such explanation, as the
bishop would have us expect- from them, would
plain-ly amount to a denial of the charge; which de
nial they had already made in so many words: and
it would be further attended only with the effect of
making their persecutors view them in no better light
than that of specious but dishonest equivocators.
Where then would have been the utility of the re
quired explanation? Torture was applied for the pur
pose of extorting a confession. The explanation

120 DIFFICULTIES OF ROMANISM.
required by the bishop, would have been considered
by the pagans as an equivocating denial And, accord
ing to the avowed philosophy of the rack, confession
liot haviag been extorted, the torture would have been
continued or increased. Where then, I may again
ask, would have been the utility of the required ex
planation? The sum and substance of the account,
given by Irenseus, is this. On the evidence of their
slaves, who had heard their masters say that the Eu
charist was the body and blood of Christ, the christians
of Lyons were tortured in order to extort a confes
sion, that they literally ate human flesh and literally
drank human blood in the celebration of the eucha
ristic mysteries. Such, in form, was the charge
brought against the christians. But this charge, even
upon the rack, they uniformly and constantly and
firmly denied.
From these unpromising materials, the bishop of
Aire has constructed an argument, by which he under
takes to prove that the primitive christians certainly.
held the doctrine of transubstantiation.

LATIN DEFENCE OP TRANSUBSTANTIATION, 121

CHAPTER VIL
Respecting the Latin Defence of the Doctrine of
Transubstantiation, from the Language of the
ancient Liturgies, and from the Phraseology of
the early Ecclesiastical Writers.
Nothing can be more easy and simple, than the
method of dealing with the ancient liturgies, and
with the phraseology of the early ecclesiastical
writers, which has been adopted by the bishop of
Aire.* The passages which speak of the consecrated ele
ments being changed into the body and blood of
Christ, he adduces with a copiousness which may
well perplex an unsuspecting English laic. But not
a single place does he cite, in which this change is
delared to be purely moral, in which the elements
are pronounced to be mere symbols, or in which we
are explicitly told that we do not eat the literal body
and that we do not drink the literal blood of our
Saviour Christ, Respecting passages of this latter
description, though they fiilly explain all passages of
the former description, the bishop displays a.prudent
reserve. If produced, they would be fatal to his-
system. Hence his lordship, more judiciously than
equitably, keeps them in the background. t
* Discuss. Amic. Lett, ix, x.
f The passages, suppressed by the bishop, I have already
brought forward; and I desire nothing more, than that any EngUsh
layman, who peruses his lordship's citations, will peruse also mine.
See above. Book I. chap. 4. § ii.
L

122 DIFFICULTIES OP ROMANISM.
I have said, and I say it with deep regret, that the
bishop has cautiously withheld from the eyes of his
English correspondent those passages, ivhich, if
produced, would have given an effectual death
blow to his own speculations. The passages have
NOT BEEN PRODUCED BY HIS LORDSHIP, Yet he WaS
too deeply learned in the fathers to be ignorant of
their existence: and he was too skilful a polemic to
venture upon the hazardous experiment of suppressing
all allusion to them. What then was- to be done?
Instead of fairly producing at full length the identical
passages themselves, so that the English laic might
be able to form a just and accurate estimate of the
litigated question, the bishop informs him, that in the
early ecclesiastical writers there are indeed places,
which a dexterous special pleader may turn .to some
little account : but, at the same time, he assures him,
that, when those writers speak of the consecrated
elements being symbols or figures of the body and
blood of Christ, they mean no such thing as a careless
or superficial observer might rashly fancy them to
mean. To establish this position, the bishop has adopted
two distinct and certainly unconnected lines of argu
ment. I. He admits, that the consecrated elements are
described by the early ecclesiastical writers, as being
figures or symbols or images or types of the body
and blood of Christ. This he admits: for, in good
sooth, the denial of a naked fact was impossible.
But then he assures the English laic, that the cir
cumstance of their being symbols does not prevent
the circumstance of their being also realities. Sym
bols, no doubt, they are of Christ's body and blood;
but then, at tlie same time, they are also Christ's
body and blood their own literal proper selves.
I have rarely met with a more singular experiment
upon the presumed obtuse intellect of a simple laic,

LATIN DEFENCE OF TRANSUBSTANTIATION. 123
than this which has been adventured by the learned
bishop of Aire.
An acknowledged symbol or image of a thing, if
we may credit a very able divine of the Latin church,
may be at once both a symbol of the thing in ques
tion, and yet the identical thing itself which it is
employed to symbolize!
By what new figure of rhetoric, or on what prin
ciple of plain common sense, the bishop reaches this
paradoxical consummation, I presume not to conjec
ture. Assuredly, his proposed solution of the pre
sent difficulty overturns every notion, which we had
previously been led to form respecting the nature of
type and symbol, of metaphor and allegory.
The Serpent, says Horapollo, teas, among the
Egyptians, a symbol of the world,* Hence, on the
bishop's new rhetorical arrangement, the serpent is at
once, both a symbol of the world, and the literal
identical world which it symbolizes.
Hagar, as we learn from St. Paul, allegorically
represented Mount Sinai in Arabia.t Therefore, if
we adopt the bishop's principle, Hagar was not only
a symbol of Mount Sinai, but the proper substantial
Arabic mountain itself.
The consecrated wine, as we are assured by Cle
ment of Alexandria, allegorically symbolizes the
blood of Christ.| Hence, as the bishop maintains, ,
the consecrated wine is at once, both the symbol of
Christ's blood, and the identical literal blood which
it S3'^mbolizes.§
• Horap. Hierog. lib. i. c. 2. f Galat. iv. 24, 25.
\ Clem. Alex. Paedag. Ub. ii. >;. 2. p. 158.
§ The bishop of Meaux had already attempted to manage the
stubborn fact, that the early fathers perpetually call the conse
crated elements types or signs or symbols or figures of the body
and blood of Christ: but he' has so completely failed, that the
bishop of Aire, probably on that account, neither refers to him
nor adopts his line of argument.
By the Romanist, the point to be established is, that the acknow
ledged sign or symbol of a thirig-ia3.y not only be the symbol of ihe

124 DIFFICULTIES OF ROMANISM.^
II. To imagine, that a man of the bishop's supe
rior attainments could himself admit such a tissue
of ihetorical absurdities, whatever he might think of
the less subtle intellect of his English correspondent,
is perfectly out of the question. Internally, his
thing symbolized, but also that it may additionally be the identical
thing which it is employed to symbolize. For, in the application of
this extraordinary principle to the sacrament of the Lord's Sup
per, the ancient fathers compel him to allow, that the cojisecrated
elements are symbols of the body and blood of Christ; and he himself
contends, that they are likewise additionaUy that identical body
and blood of Christ which yet they are employed symbolically to
represent. How then does the bishop of Meaux deal with a paradox, which
apparently bids defiance to the whole system of rhetoric?
He tells us, that the acknowledged existence of a sign or symbol by
no means forbids ihe actual presence of the thing ^gnifled or sym
bolized; and he illustrates this position by stating, that the signs of
life imply the actual presence of life, and that the temporary human
forms assumed by angels imply the actual presence of the angels.
Hist, des Variat. livr. iv. § II.
All this is perfectly true, but, unfortunately, it bears not in the
shghtest degree upon the paradox now before us.
The point, which the bishop had to establish, was, that any
given matter might be at once both the symbol of a thing and the
thing symbolized.
'Now his illustrative argument plainly estabUshes no such incon
gruous position. Were I disposed to be severely precise, I
might fairly say, that his lordship plays the sophist, and that he
illegitimately tampers with the word sign. For, when the fathers
speak of the consecrated elements being signs of Christ's body
and blood, by the word sign they mean a type or figure ox symbol-
hut, when the bishop speaks of a healthy pulse being a sign of
life, or of a temporary human body being the sign of an angel's
presence, he uses the word sign, not in the sense of a symbol, but
in the sense oi a token or indication. Let this, however, pass: let
bis lordship have the full benefit of his own sophistical IUustra
tion; and what follows? Has he established the position, which
he undertook to establish? Nothing of the sort. A healthy pulse
is a sign of life; but is not identical yf'Ah the life which it indicates.
The temporary bodies, assumed by angels, were signs of the
presence of those angels; but the temporary bodies were notthe
3.nge\s themselves.
Thus, evidently, is the whole Illustration of the bishop quite
foreign to the assertion; that the consecrated elements are, at once,
both symbols of Christ's body and blood, and the identical body and
blood of Christ which they are employed to symbolize.

LATIN DEFENCE OP TRANSUBSTANTIATION. 125
lordship no more admitted it, than I do; and, exter
nally, he has in effect confessed this to be the case,
by additionally adopting a totally different line of
argument, the very principle of which inevitably
destroys the principle of his last argument.
In the secret discipline of th& early church, argues
the bishop, the mystery of transubstantiation was
communicated only to the faithful: while, with the
most anxious jealousy, it was concealed alike from the
pagans and the catechumens. Such being the case,
we must not wonder to find the ancient ecclesiastical
writers in two directly opposite stories. To the
mystas, they declare, without reserve, the grand
secret of transubstantiation : to the pagans and to the
catechumens, they propound the symbolical or alle
gorical nature of the consecrated elements; assuring
them, that these elements are only types or figures or
representations of the body and blood of Christ. By
this contrivance, and at no greater expense than that
of a direct falsehood, every thing continued as it
ought to be. Pure unmingled truth attended upon
the initiated: while, by a holy untruth, the profane
curiosity of the pagan and the catechumen was effectu
ally baffled,
1, What degree of obligation the fathers would
feel to the bishop of Aire for this account of their
theological dexterity, could those venerable men start
out of their graves, it is not for me to estimate : I
shall content myself with the much easier task of
shewing, that his lordship's account of the matter is
totally void of all foundation.
The great Augustine wrote Enarrations, intermin
gled with discourses,, on all the hundred and fifty
psalms of the ancient Hebrew church. Now the
bishop of Aire, I presume, will not maintain, that
these Enarrations were composed for the exclusive
benefit of pagans and catechumens. Lest that,
however, should turn out to be the case, I shall begin
with demonstrating, that they must have been writ-
L 2

126 DIFFICULTIES 0F~ ROMANISM,
ten for the edification of the baptized or the mystm
or the initiated.
.^From Jerome and Origen and Cyril of Jerusalem
we learn, that the high doctrines of Christ's godhead
and the Holy Trinity were not revealed to the cate
chumens until the forty days which immediately pre
ceded their baptism; when they passed, from the
lower class of the junior catechumens, to the upper
class of the competentes or illuminated,* Now
Augustine's Enarrations on the Psalms explicitly and
unreservedly set forth those high doctrines.! There
fore Augustine's Enarrations must have been written
for the benefit of the mystae, who had been initiated
into all the arcane doctrines of the secret discipline,
and who consequently must have well known the
doctrine of transubstantiation, had it really been num
bered among those arcane doctrines.
Augustine's Enarrations, then, were assuredly
written for the benefit of the mystse. Consequently,
even on the bishop's own statement of the matter,
we may be certain, that, whatever he says in his
Enarrations respecting the Eucharist, is the true and
unveiled doctrine of the early catholic church.
Now it is in these identical Enarrations, clearly
written for the benefit of those who had been initiated
into the mysteries, that Augustine not only calls the
consecrated elements the figure of our Lord's body
and blood; but also unambiguously declares, that in
the Eucharist we do not eat and drink th& literal
body and blood of Christ, for the words of the
Saviour in the institution of that sacrament are
to be SPIRITUALLY Understood.^
2. What then, it may be asked, is the meaning of
those various strong passages, which the bishop has
• See above. Book I. chap. vi. § I. 2.
f August, Enart. in Psalm, xliv. vulg. xiv. Oper. vol. viii. p.
144, 145.
i August. Enarr. in^ Psalm, iii. Oper. vol. viii. p. 7, Enarr. in
Psalm, xcviii. Oper. vol. viii. p. 397.

LATIN DEFENCE OF TRANSUBSTANTIATION. 127
produced with such learned copiousness from the
ancient liturgies and the early fathers?
The key to such passages is furnished by the
fathers themselves; and I have already produced it
with quite sufficient evidence. While Augustine
tells us, that the consecrated elements are only the
figure of Christ's body and blood; and while he
assures us, that we do not eat the Lord's literal flesh,
and that we do not drink the Lord's literal blood in
the blessed Eucharist: the early ecclesiastical writers
intimate, after a manner which cannot be mistaken,
that the change in the consecrated elements, whereof
they speak so repeatedly and so strongly, is a change,
fxot physical, but moral.*
* See above. Book I. chap. iv. 4 H. 1, 2.

128 DIFFICULTIES OP ROMANISM,

CHAPTER VIII.
Respecting the Rise and Progress, and Final
Establishment of the Doctrine of Transubstan
tiation. I HAVE shown that the early fathers, from the
very necessity of the illustrations which they em
ploy, could have recognized no change in the conse
crated elements, save a wzora/ change: I shall now
show, that the same conclusion must inevitably be
drawn from the nature and purport of their argu
ments; for they actually argue against the doctrine
of a physical change, in favour of the doctrine of a
moral change.
This very curious part of my subject I the rather
take up, because it gives me an opportunity of briefly
stating the rise and progress, and final establishment
of the novelty denominated transubstantiation.
I. In the course of the fifth century, sprang up the
heresy, which owed its birth to the fertile brain of
Eutyches, Availing himself of the language, which, though
with abundant explanation of its real meaning, had
been employed in the ancient liturgies and by the
earlier fathers, this speculatist ingeniously contrived
to make it the basis of the doctrine which he wished
to introduce.
The language in question he chose to interpret, as
it had never been previously understood, in the sense
of its teaching the doctrine of a physical change in
the consecrated elements. Whence, according to

RISE AND PROGRESS OF TRANSUBSTANTIATION. 129
Theodoret, his argument, in favour of the heresy from
himself denominated Eutychianism, rah in manner
foUowins: —
As the symbols of the Lord's body and blood are
one thing, before their consecration by the priest;
but, AFTER their consecration, are physically
changed and become quite another thing: so the
material body of the Lord, after its assumption,
was physically changed into the divine substance.*
Thus ran the argument of Eutyches, as placed .by
Theodoret in the mouth of Eranistes, an imaginary
Eutychian speaker in one of his dialogues.
1. Now, against this same Eranistes, by way of
exhibiting orthodoxy as orthodoxy stood in the fifth
century, Theodoret brings an opponent, whom he
characteristically Aenoimna.tes Orthodoxus. Eranis
tes propounds his argument, as I have given it above,
built professedly on the alleged physical change in
the consecrated elements: but Orthodoxus imme
diately demolishes it by an explicit denial of t^e
premises on which it is founded.
" You are caught," says he," in the net which you
' yourself have woven. For the mystical symbols,
' after consecration, pass not out of their own
' nature : inasmuch as they still remain in their
i original substance and form and appearance;
' arid they may be seen and touched, just as they
' were before consecration. But they are understood
' to be what they become : and they are venerated, as
'being those things which they are believed to be.
' Compare, therefore, the image with the archetype;
'and you will perceive their resemblance: for the
'/^joe must needs be similar to the truth."\
Such is the replication of Orthodoxus, propounded,
as his very name implies, on behalf of the orthodox
catholic church of the fifth ceritury: and I wholly
• Theod. Dial. u. Oper. vol. iv. p. 84. Lut. Paris, 1642.
t Theod. Dial. ii. p. 85.

130 DIFFICULTIES OF ROMANISM;
mistake its purport, if, while Eutychianism is defended
on the principle of a physical chznge in the conse
crated elements, orthodoxy be not defended on the
directly opposite principle of a moral change alone
in the consecrated elements.
I am the less fearful of misapprehending the import
of the rejoinder framed by Orthodoxus, because I
find the doctrine of a moral, as contradistinguished
from a physical, change, expressly maintained by
the same speaker in yet another of Theodoret's
dialogues. "Jacob," says Orthodoxus, "called the blood of
' the Saviour the blood of the grape. For, if the
' Lord be denominated a vine, and if the fruit of the
' vine be called wine, and if from the side of the
' Lord fountains of blood and water circulating through
' the rest of his body passed to the lower parts; well
' and seasonably did the patriarch say. He washed his
' garments in wine, and his clothes in the blood of
'grapes. As we then call, the mystic fruit of the
'vine, after its consecration, the blood of the Lord:
' so he called the blood of the true vine the blood
' of the grape. — Our Saviour, indeed, changed the
* names : for to his body he gave the name of the
' symbol, while to the symbol he gave the name of
'his blood; and, having called himself a vine, he
' thence consistently applied the appellation of his
' blood to the symbol. — But the scope of such lan-
' guage is perfectly familiar to those who have been
' initiated into the mysteries. For our Lord required,
' that they who partake of the divine mj'steries should
' not regard the nature of the things which they see,
' but that in the change of names they should be-
' lieve that change which is wrought by grace. In-
' asmuch as he, who called his own natural body
'wheat and bread, and who further bestowed upon
' himself the appellation of a vine: he also honoured
' the visible symbols with the name of his body and

RISE AND PROGRESS OF TRANSUBSTANTIATION. 131
• blood, not changing their nature, but adding
' grace to nature,"*
The passage which I have here adduced is one of
singular importance. In every point of view, it is
fatal to the cause which the bishop of Aire has un
happily been led to espouse.
The bishop denies the homogeneousness of the
two expressions, / am the vine, and This is my
blood: whence he contends, that although the former
ought to be interpreted figuratively, the latter ought
doubtless to be interpreted literally.t But Ortho
doxus, in the fifth century, positively asserts their
homogeneousness: for he teaches us, that the reason,
WHY Christ denominated the sacramental wine his
own blood, was, because he had previously denomi
nated himself a vine.
The bishop strenuously maintains the doctrine of
a physical change in the consecrated elements.
But Orthodoxus, even in so many words, denies it.
Christ, says he, did not change the nature of the
elements. The bishop assures us, that the doctrine of 2. phy
sical change was the grand secret of the mysteries.
But Orthodoxus declares, that the language, which
inculcates the doctrineof a wzora/ change, is perfectly
familiar to, and well understood by, all those who
have been initiated.
2. In these latter days of unscriptural innovation,
it is pleasing to behold a Roman pontiff, who flourished
in the samecentUry with Eutyches and Theodoret, add
ing the sanction of his voice to that primitive doctrine
of 3.~moral change, which, so far as I know, was first
impugned by a convicted and acknowledged heretic.
In the attack uponthe then germinating speculation
of Eutychianism, Gelasius of Rome joined himself
to Theodoret of Cyrus : and, as he had to oppose the
• Theod. Dial. i. Oper. vol. iv. p. 17, 18.
f Discuss. Amic. vol. i. p. 295.

132 DIFFICULTIES OF ROMANISM,
self-same specious argument biiilt upon the alleged
circumstance of a physical change, he wisely op
posed it with the self-same weapons.
" Certainly," says he, " the sacraments of the body
' and blood of the Lord, which we receive, are a
' divine thing : because by these we are made par-
' takers of the divine nature. Nevertheless, the sub-
' stance or nature of the bread and wine ceases not
' to exist : and, assuredly, the image and similitude
' of the body and blood of Christ are celebrated in the
'action of the mysteries."*
Here again we may observe, that Gelasius, while
he speaks of the elements being the image and simili
tude of Christ's body and blood, expressly denies
the doctrine of any physical change. " The sub
stance or nature of the bread and wine," say's he,
" ceases not to exist."
3. Unhappily, the sound declarations of Theodo
ret's Orthodoxus, though supported by all the author
ity of Pope Gelasius, do not seem to have had
any effect on the Eutyehians. They still retained
their novel doctrine oi a. -physical change; and they
still employed it as an argument to demonstrate the
physical change of our Lord's material body into the
substance of the godhead. Hence, about the middle
of the sixth century, Ephrem of Antioch was com
pelled to resume the weapons of Theodoret and
Gelasius. "No man of common sense," he observes, " will
' assert, that the nature of things palpable and im-
' palpable, visible and invisible,' is the same. Thus
' the body of Christ, which is received by thefaith-
"^ ful, does not .depart from its own sensible sub-
' stance, though, by virtue of consecration, it is
' united to a spiritual grace : and thus baptism,
'though a spiritual thing itself, yet preserves the

• Gelas. de duab. Christ. Natur. cont. Nestor, et Eutych. in
BibUoth. Patr. vol. iv. p. 422.

RISE AND PROGRESS OP TRANSUBSTANTIATION, 133
'Water which is the property of its sensible sub-
' stance; it loses not what it was before."*
The same doctrine of a moral change only in the
elements, and the same strenuous opposition to the
novel Eutychian doctrine of a physical change, pre
vailed, we see, in the time of Ephrem, as well as in
the time of Theodoret and Gelasius. Ephrem, on
the true principle of analogical homogeneity, brings
the two holy sacraments into immediate comparative
juxtaposition. The symbols of bread and wine, he
argues, are no more physically changed into the
body and blood of Christ, than the symbol of water
is physically changed into the inward moral grace of
baptism. In neither case do the material elements
depart from their own sensible substance or nature.
They are severally united, indeed, by virtue of con
secration, to a spiritual grace; but the spiritual grace
is superadded to the material symbols. As for the
symbols themselves, they experience no physical
change. The bread and wine, in the one sacrament,
still remain bread and wine: just as the water, in
the other sacrament, still remains water,
II. From this determined opposition at its com
mencement, we might well have imagined, that the
doctrine of & physical change could never have esta
blished itself in any branch of the catholic church:
but the event has demonstrated the possibility of the
fact. Although the doctrine of a physical change was
first started by a heretic, and although it was strenu
ously opposed by a Roman pontiff, it gradually
worked its way into ecclesiastical favour. In the
fifth and sixth centuries, the doctrine of Eutyches,
in regard to a physical change, was condemned as
heretical: but, in the year 787, having now attained
the respectable antiquity of about three hundred
years, it was decreed to be orthodox by the fathers
* Ephrem. Antioch. cont. Eutych. apud Phot. Cod. 229.
M

134 DIFFICULTIES OF ROMANISM.
of the second Council of Nice, Reversing the deci
sion of the seventh Ecumenical Council, that the
only legitimate image or representation of Christ
was the consecrated bread and wine in the Eucha
rist; reversing this decision of their predecessors,
who met at Constantinople in the year 754, and de
nying to their synod the very name of a council, for
no better reason than' because they themselves dif
fered from it in opinion, the fathers of the second
Nicene Council pronounced, that the Eucharist is not
the mere image of Christ's body and blood, but that
it is Christ's body and blood their own literal and
proper and physical selves.*
III. Still, however, though at length sanctioned
by a council, the doctrine was in a rude and indi
gested state: it had received many severe blows, dur
ing its rugged infancy, from Theodoret and Pope Gela
sius; and it had with difficulty passed through the
period of a sickly and precarious childhood, branded
with the impress of heresy, and disowned alike by
the West and by the East.
A brighter day, however, was now beginning to
dawn upon it. An ecumenical council, though at the
expense of contradicting another council, had recog
nised the orthodoxy of its general principle : but to
Paschase of Corby, in the ninth century, must justly
be ascribed the honour of having first reduced it into
a compact and well-arranged system. If not, in ab
solute strictness of speech, its original parent, he
may certainly vindicate to himself the praise of hav
ing been its careful and tender foster-father. Pas
chase, says Cardinal Bellarmine, M;a!5 the first who
wrote seriously and copiously concerning the truth
of Ch?'ist's body and blood in the Eucharist.^
» 1 cannot understand the words of the council in any other
sense: and, of course, every Romanist will agree with me. — See
Concil. Nicen. secund. act. vi. Labb. Concil. Sacros. vol. vii. p.
448, 44-9.
•f Bellarm. de Scrlptor. Eccles.

RISE AND PROGRESS OF TRANSUBSTANTIATION. 135
IV. Such was the gradual progress of the tenet,
from its first invention by Eutyches, to its final com
pletion by Paschase. Nevertheless, many years
elapsed, before the church of Rome ventured to im
press upon it, in its matured state, the seal of indis
putable verity and the obligation of universal belief
In the year 1079, indeed, Pope Gregory the
Seventh, in a synod then assembled at Rome, com
pelled Berenger, who had opposed the Eutychian
novelty, to acknowledge, that the bread and wine,
placed upon the altar, are substantially and physi
cally changed into the true, and proper, and literal
flesh and blood of Christ by virtue of the prayer of
consecration. But it was not until the fourth coun- \
cil of Lateran, in the year 1215, that Pope Innocent
the Third finally enjoined and imposed upon the
whole body of the faithful, as a necessary article of
Christian faith, the present doctrine of transubstan
tiation.* V. It is worthy of note, that, as Theodoret and
Pope Gelasius opposed the doctrine of a physical
change, when it was first started by Eutyches ; so
Raban Maurus, archbishop of Mentz, equally opposed
it, when it was revived and digested by Paschase of
Corby. " Some persons, of late," says that prelate, "not
' entertaining a sound opinion respecting the sacra-
' ment of the body and blood of our Lord, have
'actually ventured to declare, that this is the identi-
'cal body and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ; the
' identical body to wit, which was born of the Virgin
' Mary, in which Christ suffered upon the cross, and
' in which he rose from the dead. This error loe
' have opposed with all our niight."\
* Before the fourth Lateran Councilf says Tonstal of Durham,
mere were at liberty as to the manner of Christ's presence in the sa
crament. — Tonstal. de Euchar. lib. i. p. 146.
-j- Raban. Maur. Epist. ad Heribald. c. xxxiii. The bishop of
Aire makes a very singular mistake in roundly asserting, that the

136 DIEFICULTIES OF ROMANISM.
The language of the archbishop is very remarkable
in three several points of view,
doctrine of transubstantiation was, for the first time, directly at
tacked by Berenger in the eleventh century. — Discuss. Amic. vol.
ii. p. 120. His lordship does not seem to have been aware of the
zealous opposition made to this identical doctrine, in the ninth
century, by Raban of Mentz, and many other assertors of wbat>
until my evidence be set aside, I shall venture to call the om
faith. On the disagreements among Luther and Calvin and Zuingle
respecting the doctrine of the Eucharist, the bishop is superflu
ously copious.
I see nothing extraordinary in the fact, that, when men first
open their eyes from a deep slumber, their vision should for a
season be defective in clearness. Be this, however, as it may, we
of the Anglican church are no way bound to answer for the diffe
rences of the continental reformers. We are neither Lutherans,
nor Calvinists, nor Zuinglians : we have received our appellation,
as Chrysostom speaks (Homil. xxxiii. in Act. Apost. xv. Oper;
vol. viii. p. 680.), /rom the faithitself : we are catholics of the An
ghcan church, no-iess than the bishop of Aire is a catholic of the
Galilean church. Certainly we honour both Luther and Calvin
and Zuingle for" their works' sake : but the bishop greatly errs,
if he imagines that we erect any one of them into our sphitual
master. Yet, though I feel myself no way pledged to act as an umpire
between, these three eminent foreigners, I cannot quite so readily
pass over the attack, which the bishop of Aire has made upon
one of our own most venerable EngUsh prelates.
On the authority of Smith, bishop of Chalcedon, his lordship
informs us, that Bishop Jewel charged his chaplain to publish to
the world after his death, that all which he had written against the
Bomish doctrine had heen written against his conscience and the
truth, and that he had thus acted purely to pay his court to the queen,
and to prop up the religion which she had introduced. — Discuss.
Amic. vol. ii. p. 135.
Thus condescends the respectable bishop of Aire to calumni
ate an English prelate on the testimony of a man, who published
his pretended facts, not in the reign of Elizabeth, and in England;
but in the year 1654, and at Paris; thus condescends the bishop
to mislead an English layman, forgetting, or ignorant, that this
very Jewel, besobe the accession of Elizabeth, and during ihe
reign of her sister, had been ejected from all his preferment.for
his stout adherence to the primitive catholic faith, and had him
self escaped the flames only by a timely flight to the continent.
Jewel is not the only English divine whom the bishop has un
dertaken to misrepresent. He further claims, as favourable to

RISE AND PROGRESS OF TRANSUBSTANTIATION, 137
Without the slightest hesitation, he pronounces
the doctrine to be an error, which he himself was
strenuously opposing: by the use of the word some,
he clearly testifies, as a naked matter of fact, that,
in his time, the doctrine was held only by a few ad
venturous admirers of Paschase: and, by the expres
sion OP LATE, he no less clearly indicates, also as a
naked matter of fact, that the doctrine, though its
outlines might have been traced by Eutyches, and
recognised by the second Nicene Council, was, in
the ninth century, resisted as a palpable innovation.*
the doctrine of transubstantiation, Porbes and Thorndike, and
Montague and Parker.— Discuss. Amic. vol. i. p. 333 — 336.
Bishop Forbes merely says, what I have myself said, that he
wo'jld not undertake to pronounce the doctrine of transub
stantiation an impossible absurdity : and as for Thorndike, Mon
tague, and Parker, they simply maintain, what the church of
England has ever maintained, a change produced in the elements
by virtue of consecration. For this doctrine they refer to the fa
thers ; and, with good reason, do they thus refer. The fathers,
Uke themselves, held the doctrine of a change indeed : but that
change was a moral, not a physical one.
Such controversial stratagems, in a work professedly addressed
to the English laity, are unworthy of the bishop of Aire. His
lordship must surely have known, that the divines of the Angli
can church hold the doctrines of a real presence, and oi a change
in the consecrated elements, after a totally different manner from
the divines of the Latin church. A layman, however, not con
versant in these topics, might easily be perplexed by his state
ment. * The bishop of Meaux roundly asserts, that, both in the East
and in the West, the doctrine of transubstantiation was unani
mously adopted from the words of our Lord, without causing the
least trouble or opposition: and he adds, that those who believed
it were never marked by the church as innovators. — Hist, des
Variat. livr. ii. § 36.
Greatly did I marvel when I read this extraordinary passage.
Is it possible, then, that the mass of evidence to the direct contrary,
which I have now produced, can have been utterly unknown to
such a man as theJearnedBossuet? Is it possible that he can have
been ignorant, that Pope Gelasius in the Westj and Theodoret of
Cyrus in the East, synchronically, and with one accord, opposed
the new doctrine of a physical change in the consecrated elements,
when it was first-started by the Eutyehians in the fifth century ?
Is it possible, that these and the other facts which I have brought
forward, can never have come within the cognizance of this very
m2

138 DIFFICULTIES OP ROMANISM,
Raban of Mentz, as we might well expect, was
not the only opponent of the Paschasian novelty.
It was equally impugned by Heribald of Auxerre,
Amalar of Triers, Bertram of Corby, Walafrid Strabo,
Christian Druthmar, Drepanius Florus, and John Scot
Erigena.able and acute Latin prelate ? To omit what a Romanist would
deem the inferior authorities of Theodoret and Ephrem and Fa
cundus and Raban of Mentz, a direct censure upon the palpable
novelty oi a physical change was specially pronounced by the pre
siding pope himself. Gelasius, the lawful head of the universal
church for the time being, expressly declared, with the full con
currence of that church, and even in controversial opposition to the
then new dogma of a physical change, that the substance or nature
of the bread and wine ceases not to exist. Yet does the bishop of
Meaux fearlesslj' assert, that the doctrine of transubstantiation was
unanimously adopted, both in the East and in the 'West, without
causing the least trouble: yet does he intrepidly pronounce, that
those who believed it were never marked by the church as inno
vators upon primitive antiquity!

AURICULAR CONFESSION, 139

CHAPTER IX,
The Difficulties of Romanism in respect to Auricu
lar Confession, as imposed and enforced by the
Church of Rome.
Auricular confession to a priest the church of
England allows, and in some cases recommends: the
chureh of Rome not only allows and recommends it;
but, also, as a matter of strict religious obligation,
imposes and enforces it.
Such being the case, if the bishop of Aire wish to
convict the Anglican church of error, it will be his
business to shew, that auricular confession to a priest
is, not merely a point of option, hut a point of strict
religious duty and absolute necessary obligation.
Accordingly, his lordship undertakes to perform this
task, partly from Scripture, and partly from the
practice of ecclesiastical antiquity.*
I. To discover in Scripture any explicit command
either of Christ or of his apostles, that we should
regularly make auricular confession to a priest, was
a thing altogether impracticable. The bishop, there
fore, does not attempt it. Yet, what cannot be
proved explicitly, may be proved, he thinks, induc
tively. 1. "The power of the keys, or the rights of abso-
' lution and retention," he argues, "has been given
' by Christ to his apostles and to their lawfully con-
* Discuss. Amic. Lett, xi.

140 DIFFICULTIES OF ROMANISM,
'secrated successors.'* But this power cannot be
* effectively exercised without auricular confession.
' Therefore, by a necessary consequence from Holy
' Scripture, the religious obligation of auricular con-
' fession has been demonstrated."
Of this syllogism I am willing to allow, the con
clusiveness, whensoever the bishop shall have proved,
that the power of the keys cannot be effectively ex
ercised without auricular confession as practised
in the church of Rome.
That important point he labours, no doubt, to
prove ; because he is conscious, that, without such
proof, his syllogism is invalid. But, even upon his
own principle of the power of the keys, as that
power is interpreted by himself, he has laboured in
effectually. The granting or the withholding of sacerdotal ab
solution, the bishop reasonably makes to depend upon
the actual dispositions of the sinner. t Hence the
question is, How these actual dispositions are to be
ascertained? Now, as the bishop truly remarks, spiritual judges
can no more read the thoughts and hearts of sinners,
than any other persons. What then is to be done in
order to ajust absolution or retention ?
The bishop says, that we must needs have auricu
lar confession. For, without auricular confession, we
cannot ascertain the actual dispositions of sinners :
and, unless the actual dispositions of sinners be' as
certained, the granting or the withholding of sacer
dotal absolution cannot be rightly and effectually
exercised. Such, in full, is his lordship's argument from
Scripture, The point, wherein it fails, is the defect
of proof, that we cannot ascertain the actual dispo-'
sitions of sinners without auricular confession.
* Mat. xviii. 18. John xx. 21 — 23.
t Discuss. Amic. vol. ii. p. 144,

AURICULAR CONFESSION, 141
2. There is a fallacy in the terms employed by the
bishop, which may very possibly have escaped even
himself. He speaks of auricular confession ; but he
does not define what he means by the phrase. Yet,
to the validity of his argument, an accurate definition
is of the first importance.
Auricular confession simply means confession
into the ear of a priest. But such confession may
be either general or particular.
That the auricular confession, defended by the
bishop, is particular Siur\cu\s.v confession, cannot be
doubted ; for this is the species of confession imposed
and enforced by the church of Rome. In his argu
ment, however, we hear nothing of particular con
fession. Had confession been thus defined, the utter
inconclusiveness of his reasoninig would immediately
have appeared : for, in truth, a particular confession
of sins is no way necessary for the ascertaining of
the actual dispositions of sinners. This will suffi
ciently appear from the following brief comparative
statement : — -
On the one hand, then, a man may duly and ex
actly confess all his sins to a priest, without any
concealment or extenuation ; and he may express the
utmost degree of sorrow for what he has done, with
full purposes of amendment. Yet, in the actual dispo
sitions of his mind, he maybe a mere superstitious
hypocrite, who has unhappily taken up the delusive
notion, that a priest, under any circumstances, must
possess the absolute and unconditional power of con
ferring an irrecoverable absolution.
On the other hand, without a single specification
in detail, a man may bitterly confess to his sacerdo
tal friend, that he has deeply sinned against God, that
he has offended in numerous instances against his
most holy laws, that his besetting sin weighs heavily
upon his conscience. And all this he may do with
such fervency and anguish of spirit, as to evince the
true penitent, unto whom the remembrance of his

142 DIFFICULTIES OF ROMANISM.
misdoings is grievous, and the burden of them is in
tolerable. Here we have two cases of confession : the one,
constructed upon the principle of the Latin church,
which requires confession in detail; the other, con
structed upon the principle of the English church,
which demands no confession of particulars beyond
what the penitent is willing to make of his own free
accord. Now the bishop's argument, if it would at all serve
the cause which he has been led to espouse, must
prove, that we cannot ascertain the actual disposi
tions of sinners without hearing a particular and
specific confession of all their sins. But this it
does NOT prove. For nothing can be more clear, than
that those dispositions may be ascertained, so far as
fallible man can ascertain them, just as well from a
general confession of sinfulness, as from thatparticu-
lar confession of every distinct sin which the church
of Rome requires in order to ajust absolution.
II. Since the bishop has thus totally failed of prov
ing, from Scripture, the religious obligation of auricu
lar confession, as enforced and practised in the Latin
church, I see not how it is possible to establish the
point from any mere human ordinance. Yet, even if
this were granted, which never can be granted, still
the bishop will again be found to have totally failed
on his own selected ground of ecclesiastical anti
quity. It will be recollected, that the dispute between his
lordship and myself respects neither the existence nor
the lawfulness of auricular confession, whether ge
neral or particular : our dispute simply respects its
alleged necessity and religious obligation upon the
conscience. Hence, in recurring to ecclesiastical an
tiquity, it was the business of the bishop to establish
the latter point wTiich is denied, not the former point
which is admitted.
Now, to establish the latter point, the point with

AURICULAR CONFESSION, 143
which ALONE he was concerned, he has not brought
even so much as the shadow of a proof
1. His oldest evidence is the venerable testimony
of the Roman Clement, the friend and fellow-labourer
of St. Paul. I subjoin it, precisely as given by the
bishop himself ; and, if it prove the point which he
has undertaken to establish, I acknowledge myself to
be a vanquished disputant.
So long as we continue in this world, says the
holy Clement, let us repent sincerely of all the evil
which we have committed in the fiesh. For, when
once we quit the world, no further opportunity is
afforded us either of confession or of penitence.*
His next oldest evidence is Irenaeus, who flourish
ed chiefly during the latter half of the second century:
for as his lordship produces not the testimony either
of Polycarp or Ignatius or Justin, I conclude that no
such testimony could be discovered.
To Irenaeus I have carefully followed him, accord
ing to his own two references ; but Irenaus says not
a single syllable to his purpose.
In the first of the two passages, we have an account
of an impostor named Mark, who seduced many silly
women to join his party, and whose conduct was not
remarkable for its correctness. The greater part of
these women, having been at length happily reclaim
ed, confessed, that the impostor had strangely gained
their affections, and that he had infamously abused
the influence which he had acquired.-}-
From the second of the two passages we learn, that
the heretic Cerdon, in his better days I suppose,
often went to church and made confession: but,
whether he confessed particularly to a priest, or whe
ther he joined in a general liturgical confession of his
sins to God, Irenaeus does not inform us.f
3. The bishop's next witness, as addaced in chron-
• Clem. Epist. ad Corinth, ii. § 8.
¦j- Iren. adv. Haer. lib. i. c. 9. 4 Ibid. lih. iii. c. 4.

144 DIFFICULTIES OF ROMANISM.
©logical order, is Tertullian ; who lived at the latter
end of the second and at the beginning of the third
century. I have followed his lordship to Tertullian : but
the testimony of that learned father strikes me as
being rather adverse, than favourable, to his cause.
Doubtless Tertullian speaks of confession revealing a
crime, of confession being the counsel of satisfaction,
of a penitent falling prostrate before the presbyters
and altars of God, of a penitent bending low at the
knees of his brethren, of the impossibility of conceal
ing our sins from the Lord though we may hide
them from men; of all these several matters he
doubtless speaks in a style somewhat verbose and
declamatory: but then, in the very passage wherein
he speaks of them, he describes confession as being
made, not to a priest, but to the Lord,*
4. The bishop's most promising evidence, which
therefore I have reserved to the last, is that of
Socrates and Sozomen, But the matter, which they
notice, even if we make the most of it, comes too
late by about three hundred years: for a mere canon
of the church, at the end of the fourth century, can
not religiously bind upon the conscience, what St,
John, the last surviving apostle, by his silence left a
matter of option at the end of the first century.
I have followed the bishop to both those ecclesias
tical historians; and small, I fear, is the emolument
which his cause Can derive from either of them.
The story, which they tell, is this. In the reign
of Theodosius, aboutt he end of the fourth century,
a canon of the church removed the presbyters, who
had been wont publicly to hear the confessions of
the penitent: for this discipline, which plainly
enough originated from the public confessions of the
lapsed ere they were readmitted into the bosom of
the church, was found to be intolerable as an ordi-
• TertuU. de Poenit. § ix. p. 483.

AURICULAR CONFESSION, 145
nary practice. In the room of these displaced pres
byters, another canon enjoined, that in each city
there should be appointed a certain discreet presby
ter, to whom a secret might be safely entrusted, and
who henceforth should hear confessions privately.
For a short time, the new machine worked tolerably
well; but an unhappy affair soon occurred at Con
stantinople, the particulars of which I think it no
way necessary to detail. The culprit was, of course,
immediately degraded; but the indignation of the
people, not very reasonably, was directed against the
whole body of the priesthood. Reasonably, however,
or unreasonably, still, in matter of fact, it was so
directed ; and Nectarius, the archbishop or patriarch,
was not a little perplexed what to do. In this emer
gency, the presbyter Eudemon gave him advice,
which Socrates censures, but which Nectarius fol
lowed. The new plan of auricular confession to a
priest was abolished ; and each person was freely ad
mitted to the holy communion, according as, in the
presence of God, he judged himself to be in a fit
state of preparation,*
Such is the joint narrative of Socrates and Sozo
men. If it can at all further the bishop's object, I
have no wish to deprive him of its full benefit.
5. But the bishop will say, that, although abolished
in the East ere it had well commenced, the practice,
by the very testimony of Sozomen himself, still pre
vailed in the western churches, and more especially
in the Roman church. t
Certainly it did: but, so far as I can discern, this
is no satisfactory proof of its absolute necessity and
of its religious obligation upon the conscience ;
the matter, if I mistake not, which his lordship has
undertaken to establish. Yet, even in Italy, for the
disgraceful truth must be confessed, the new system
• Socrat. Hist. Eccles. lib. v. c. 19. Sozomen. Hist. Eccles.
lib. vii. c. 16.
t Sozomen. Hist. Eccles. lib. vii. c. 16.
N

146 DIFFICULTIES. OF ROMANISM.
was far from meeting with universal acceptance,
Ambrose of Milan patronised it: but, as the bishop
remarks, it is too true, that already, even in his time,
some insensates, under a pretext since developed at
the reformation, refused to submit to this ministra
tion of the priests. Their refusal, it seems, was
grounded upon a deference to the supreme majesty
of God, who (as they imagined) could alone pardon
sins; and, according to the hishop,'they were fully
confuted by Ambrose: but they do not appear to
have been themselves convinced by that learned pre
late's argument.'* They conceived, I apprehend,
that absolution, pronounced by a priest, was only
conditional and declarative: conditional, as the bishop
himself seems to admit; declarative, as the church of
England additionally inclines to conjecture. Hence,
if sacerdotal absolution could be procured only on
the rack of auricular confession, they ventured to
think, that the absolution of God, after such a con
fession to the Lord as Tertullian defines primitive
* Discuss. Amic. vol. ii. p. 18?. The bishop, I regret to observe,
condescends to make, as it were, a Scriptural doctrine, that
strange distinction between repentance and doing penance, which
is one of the many unaccountable delights of the Latin church.
Repentance, he tells us, is the principle of the reformation:
but this is not sufficient: we must also confess and do penance.
Now I beg to ask. Where is there a single passage in the whole
New Testament, which enjoins the performance of a Latin
penance as necessary to eternal salvation?
An uneducated Romanist will tell us, that penance is enjoined
again and again in Holy Scripture; but the bishop of Aire is not
an uneducated Romanist. He knows perfectly well, that the
expressions joeraance and to do penance, which perpetually occur in
the Romish versions of the New Testament, do not exhibit the
true idea of the original words /uai-avoia and /^irmyoilv. Those
words, from the very necessity of their etymology, relate, not to
the outward austerities which the Latin church enjoins under the
name oi penance, but purely and exclusively to that moral change
of mind which we denominate repentance.
By this lamentable, and (I fear) systematic, mistranslation of
the Greek original, thousands 'and millions may have been se^
duced into a scheme of mere unauthorized and mis-deemed meri
torious will-worship.

AURICULAR CONFESSION, 147
confession to have been, might peradventure be
equally beneficial and efficacious,'*
* Exomologesis est, qua delictum Domino nostrum confitemur,
non quidem ut ignaro; sed quatenus satisfactio confessione dis-
ponitur, confessione pocnitentia nascitur, poenitentia Deus mitlga-
tur.— TertuU. de Pojnit. § ix. p. 483.

148 DIFFICULTIES OF KOMANISM,

CHAPTER X.
The Difficulties of Romanism in regard to the
Doctrine of Satisfaction.
The Romish doctrine of satisfaction is stated by"
the bishop of Aire in manner following: —
We are all sinful creatures; and we might justly
have been devoted to endless punishment. But
Christ laid down his life for us upon the cross; and,
through the alone meritorious efficacy of his death
and sufferings, we are exempted from the dreadful
penalty of everlasting woe. Yet, although the Sa-
vionr, by the infinite value of his blood, might no
doubt have delivered us both from eternal punish
ment and from transitory punishment; in matter of
fact, it has pleased him to deliver us only from the
former. The latter, as justly due to oUr sins, he has
left us still to undergo. Whence, consequently, we
must undergo it, either in the present world, or in
the next world, or jointly in both, worlds. Now the
undergoing of this transitory punishment is what the
Latin church denominates a making of satisfaction
to the justice of God.*
The moral efficacy, then, of Christ's death, so far
as I can understand the bishop's statement, may be
thus briefly specified. Our Lord's meritorious pas
sion on the cross delivers us, indeed, from the
eternal punishment of sin : but it does not avail
to deliver us from its temporal punishment.
* Discuss. Amic. Lett. xu.

DOCTRINE OP SATISFACTION, 149
I. I wish that his lordship had been a little more
explicit, in defining the precise idea which he would
attach to tlje word satisfaction. Had he done that,
some degree of trouble might have been saved.
If, by the word satisfaction, he means only to
describe an undoubted fact, ivhich presents itself
daily before our eyes; certainly the most hardy dis
putant would not incline to controvert his statement.
In the course of God's moral government, as we
all know, effect is so suspended upon cause, that vice
perpetually receives a temporal punishment. The
deepest repentance and the most exalted piety of later
life will not restore a constitution destroyed by early
depravity. Pardon, indeed, through Christ, is accord
ed to the penitent sinner: but he is not, on that
account, exempted from temporal punishment. To
the hour of his death he pays the penalty of his long-
forsaken and long-abhorred transgressions.
Now, if this naked matter of fact be all that the
bishop would express by the word satisfaction; or
if he would include in the i^ea punishments of sin,
like that of David, sent specially, and not in the
mere way of cause and effect, from God, I appre
hend, that, throughout all the protestant churches,
he would not find a single opponent.
From much eloquent declamation, employed by
the bishop in this precise line of argument, I had
begun to hope, that one at least of our differences had
originated from simple misapprehension: but my
hope became, more and more faint, as I advanced in
my perusal of his lordship's discussion.
Instead of viewing temporal punishment, either as
a righteous retribution, or as a fatherly chastise
ment — the only two modes in which I can find it
represented throughout Holy Scripture — the bishop,
not content with gratuitously carrying it into the
next world, seems evidently to consider it in the
light of a meritorious expiation made on our part,
when we either devoutly submit to it as sent from
N 2

150 DIFFICULTIES OF KOMANISM.
God, or when we freely and artificially inflict it upon
ourseh^es. I may be mistaken; and I hope that I am
mistaken in my estimate of his lordship's theory:
but, from his occasional intimations, though he never
explicitly defines the word satisfaction, I find it
difficult to form any other conclusion,*
In my fear that I am not mistaken, I am painfully
confirmed by yet another mode in which the bishop
seems inclined to view the Latin doctrine of satisfac
tion. It is not always, he apprehends, that a man makes
satisfaction to the justice of God by temporal suffer
ing: much also, he conceives, may be done in that
way by what he denominates satisfactory loorks;
such as, agreeably to his own express enumeration of
them, abstinence, and fasting, and thecareof widows
and orphans, and alms giving, and the visitation of
the sick; works, he observes, which in the Latin
church are reckoned among the most important satis-
factions.t The excellence, and (under one aspect) the neces
sity, of these good deeds, we of the reformed
churches most fully allow, but this is not precisely
the question. The bishop clearly deems them meri
torious: for, unless that be the case, I perceive not
how they can make an expiatory satisfaction to God
for our transgressions. Now it is under this precise
idea of their alleged merit or iousness, that the lan
guage and doctrine of our Latin brethren are thought
by us to be objectionable. We acknowledge, says the
accurate Hooker, a dutiful necessity of doing
well: but the meritorious dignity of doing well
* I give the bishop's own words. Satisfaire, autant qu'il est en
nous, a la justice, de son Pk'e. — Discuss. Amic. vol. ii. p. 211.
Parce que nous sommes hors d'etat d'acquitter la dette enti^re,
serions nous dispenses de faire quelques efforts pour entrer en
paiement suivaiit nos facult6s et nos moyens? — Ibid. p. 216. L'ob-
ligation de satisfaire et apaiser le ciel par des ceuvres expiatoires.
—Ibid. p'. 221.
-(- Discuss. Amic. vol. ii. p. 222.

DOCTRINE OP satisfaction. ISl
we utterly renounce.* This, I believe, is the doc
trine, not only of the church of England, but of all
the reformed churches; the doctrine, not only of the
reformed churches, but of that venerable and most
ancient church, which, by a long line of succession
connecting itself immediately with the primitive
ages, may claim the high and ' extraordinary praise
of not being a reformed church, simply because it
required not reformation. With the depressed, but
unextinguishable, church of the Piedmontese valleys,
we all, if I mistake not, agree in this important point.
We confess the duty, but not the merit, of good
works: and, viewing them under that aspect, we
thence consistently deny the possibility of their mak
ing any expiatory satisfaction to God for our trans
gressions. The same principle we, of course, extend to every
species of temporal punishment. When sent from
God,, we would humbly submit to it: and, as the
apostle speaks, we would deem it the fatherly chastise
ment of the Lord, " at present, indeed, not joyous
' but grievous, nevertheless, afterward yielding the
' peaceable fruitNof righteousness unto them that are
' exercised thereby. "t But, with such a view of
the question, in the language of our own Hooker,
" We dare not call God to reckoning, as if we had
' him in our debt-books. The little fruit which we
' have in holiness, it is, God knoweth, corrupt and
'unsound. We put no confidence at all in it: we
' challenge nothing in the world for it. Our constant
' suit to God is and must be, to bear with our infir-
' niities, and to pardon our offences."J
In this lowly estimate even of our best perform
ances, we hold ourselves to be justified, not ohly by
the express decision of Scripture, but by the entire
* Hooker's Disc, of Justlfic. § vii.
\ Heb. xii. 5—11.
\ Hooker's Disc, of Justlfic. S vii-

152 difficulties OP ROMANISM.
analogy of the Christian faith. So far from calculat
ing a proportionable correspondence between merit
and reward; we deem it more seemly, to adopt the
words which our Saviour Christ hath prepared for
us, and to confess that when we have done all, we
have done nothing more than our bare duty:* in
stead of ascribing to our works any even remote pos
sibility of making satisfaction to God for our many
evil deeds; the whole analogy of faith, as propounded
luminously by the great apostle himself to the church
of Rome, compels us to take up a doctrinal system
diametrically opposite.t The doctrine of merit, and
the doctrine of duty, in short, lie at the very root pf
the differences between the church of Rome and the
church of England.
II. As usual, the bishop quotes the fathers in
favour of his speculation: and it must be owned, that
Tertullian, Cyprian, Ambrose, and Augustine, all
speak of our-making satisfaction to God by the tem
poral pains which we endure.
If they use the term in his lordship's apparent
sense, I shall have no hesitation in saying, that their
grossly unscriptural language merely shows how soon
and how easily a specious and flattering corruption
crept into the church. But I greatly doubt, though
I would speak under correction, whether their mean
ing has not been altogether misapprehended. We all
know, that, in the idiom both of the Greek and of
the Latin, the same phrase indifferently signifies to
give satisfaction and to suffer punishment. This
very simple circumstance, I strongly suspect, is the
true key to the phraseology employed by certain of
the fathers. When they spake of a man making
satisfaction to God for his sins by any measure of
temporal suffering, they meant not, I apprehend, to
intimate, that his pains were meritorious, and that
they were capable of expiating his transgressions;
• Luke xvii. 10. -t- Kom. iii. 19—28. v. 16—21. xi. 6.

DOCTRINE OF SATISFACTION, 153
but they meant merely to say, that we must expect
sin to be attended by merited punishment.
Be thisi however, as it may, if we are to be guided
by the authority of the primitive doctors, I should
certainly prefer th^ very ancient testimony of St,
Paul's own fellow-labourer, the Roman Clement, to
the much later evidence of Tertullian, or Cyprian, or
Ambrose, or Augustine.
" All are glorified and magnified, not through
' themselves, or through their own works, or through
' the righteous deeds which they have done, but
' through the will of God. We, therefore, being
' called through his will in Christ Jesus, are not jus-
' tified through ourselves, or through our own wis-
' dom, or intellect, or^piety, or the works which we
' have wrought in holiness of heart; but through
' faith, by which the Almighty God hath justified all
' from everlasting. To him be glory and honour
' through all ages. What then shall we do, brethren?
' Shall we be slothful from good deeds, and shall we
'desert the faith? The Lord forbid such to be our
' case ! Rather let us hasten, with all vehemence
' and alacrity, to accomplish every good work,"*
So far as a positive argument will go, it is difficult
to believe, that the man who wrote thus could hold
the doctrine of a meritorious satisfaction to be made
to God either by holy deeds or by acute sufferings:
and, so far as we may build upon a negative argu
ment, the total silence of Clement, in regard to any
such satisfaction as that maintained by the bishop,
affords much reason for suspecting, that in his days
the catholic church knew nothing of the doctrine.
Equally difficult, unless I greatly mistake, vvill his
lordship find the task of extracting his theory from
the remains either of Polycarp or of Ignatius,
III. The bishop asks, whether to appease the
* Clem. Roman. Epist. ad Corinth, i. % 32, 33.

154 DIFFICULTIES OP ROMANISM,
anger of God, and to satisfy his justice, do not
ultimately come to the same thing.*
I readily answer, no. The difference consists in
the total dissimilarity of ideas conveyed respect
ively by those two phrases. Sincere repentance,
offered up through the alone merits of Christ, is no
doubt available to appease God's anger, when we
have sinned against him: but such repentance does
nothing to satisfy his justice in the way of making
a meritorious expiation. To talk, indeed, of the
eiQpiatory meritoriousness of repentance is a plain
contradiction in terms. By the very act of repent
ance we acknowledge ourselves to be sinners: but
what possible expiatory meritoriousness can there be
in a sorrowful acknowledgment and direct confession
that we are great and undeserving offenders? Clearly
there can be none: unless, indeed, we are prepared
to maintain the actual existence of that moral para
dox, a meritorious sinner or a holy transgressor.'^
IV. It has been confidently asserted by the bishop,
that Christ made satisfaction for our sins only so far
as to exempt ns from eternal punishment, and that
we ourselves must supply the defect by undergoing
temporal punishment, or by performing certain me
ritorious actions in the way of an expiatory satis
faction to God for our transgressions. This doctrine
his lordship boldly avows to be the undoubted mind
of Christ; and he claims to prove it, both from Scrip
ture and from the primitive church.
In each line of argument he has completely failed.
The earliest church is decidedly against him : and

* Discuss. Amic. vol. ii. p. 222.
f The bishop claims, as an ally, the proem of our commination
offic e. It seems to me, when viewed in connexion with the whole
tenor of our articles and homUies, merely to import, that penitence
and fasting are a useful mean of putting our souls in a proper
posture to meet their God. I cannot perceive any thing in it,
which at aU assimilates to the doctrine of meritorious expiatory
satisfaction.

DOCTRINE OF SATISFACTION, " 155
his meagre proof from Scripture is limited to the
mourning of Job on account of his trials, to' the
repentance of David, and Ahab, and the king of
Nineveh, and to a singular perversion of a very plain
passage of St. Paul, wherein the apostle speaks of the
afflictions of Christ the head being filled up in the
afflictions of his mystical body, the church.* How
these are to demonstrate, that either sufferings or
good deeds can make temporal expiatory satisfac
tion to God for our varied transgressions, I am
unable to comprehend. There is not so much as the
slightest perceptible coherence between the bishop's
premises and his conclusion. When thrown into the
form of a syllogism, his whole argument runs in
manner following: —
Job mourned on account of his trials: David,
and Ahab, and the king of Nineveh, repented in
sackcloth and ashes : and the afflictions of Christ
are still prolonged in the afflictions of his body,
the church. Therefore temporal punishments
and holy deeds are able, by their expiatory meri
toriousness, to satisfy the strict justice of our hea
venly Father.
In laying his foundation, the bishop has altogether
failed ; and th$ natural consequence will be the down
fall of his superstructure. As he himself is perfectly
aware, for the whole plan of his discussion evinces it,
the connected doctrines of indulgences, and purgatory,
and prayers for the dead, all rest ultimately upon the
basis of meritorious satisfaction. The basis being
unsound, the superstructure cannot stand.
* Coloss. i. 24.

156 DIFFICULTIES OF ROMANISM,

CHAPTER XL
The Difficulties of Romanism, in respect to
Indulgences.
Indulgences sprang out of the penitential disci
pline of the primitive church. Persons, who had
lapsed into idolatry, or who had been guilty of any
scandalous crime, were separated by ecclesiastical
authority from the body of the faithful : nor were they
re-admitted, until, by a course of austere penitence,
they had sufficiently evinced their sincerity and their
amendment. The church, however, which, like every
other well-organized society, possessed and exercised
the power of ejecting or receiving members, was in
duced, when she had well-grounded reason to believe
repentance sincere, occasionally to relax the severity,
or to shorten the time of this required probation.
When that was done, the grace, accorded to the peni
tent, was naturally styled an indulgence.
Such, and such only, were the indulgences of the
primitive church : and I know not what objection can
be rationally taken to the system of her moral disci
pline. But, when the unscriptural notion of a meritorious
expiatory satisfaction to God was annexed to the
ancient probationary penance required by the church,
the same idea infected also the simple primitive in
dulgence. If self-inflicted punishment for sin, or
punishment inflicted by ecclesiastical authority, could
make an expiatory .satisfaction to the divine justice:
then the power of remitting such punishment was
equivalent to the power of declaring, that the church,

indulgences. 157
according to her own good pleasure and discretion,
could assign to the divine justice a smaller measure of
expiatory satisfaction than that justice would other
wise have claimed. Now this extraordinary specula
tion, in pursuance of which the church undertook to
determine, that God not unfrequently was and ought
to be satisfied with a lighter degree of expiation, than
his own justice, if left to itself, would have exacted
from the offender: this extraordinary speculation
sprang naturally and of necessity from the new doc
trine pf an expiatory satisfaction to God engrafted
upon the primitive very harmless, or rather laudable,
discipline of penance and indulgence.
The revolting arrogance of so strange a speculation,
when plainly exhibited in its true colours, and when
no longer decorated or disguised by the specious elo
quence of the bishop of Aire, must, I think, shock
every well regulated mind.* To imagine that the
divine justice would agree to be satisfied with a
smaller quantity of expiation than the amount of its
original requirement, and that each priest enjoyed the
singular privilege of adjusting the terms of this yet
more singular bargain between God and his creature,
is contrary alike to Scripture and to every consistent
idea which we can form of the divine attributes. Yet
this theory was but the legitimate offspring of the
new doctrine of satisfaction as superadded to the old
penitential discipline of the church.
I. We are assured, however, by the bishop of Aire,
that indulgences, viewed (be it observed) under the
present precise aspect, rest upon the authority of St.
Paul. That great apostle, says he, teaches us positively,
that to the church belongs the double right of pre
scribing and of mitigating satisfactory punishments.t
For the establishment of this position, the bishop
refers to two connected passages in the two epistles
to the Corinthians : but, in neither of those passages,
* Discuss. Amic. Lett. xiii.
t Discuss. Amic. vol. ii. p. 227.
0

158 DIFFICULTIES OF ROMANISM,
can I discover the slightest vestige of any punishments,
which, in his lordship's sense of the word, can be de
nominated satisfactory.*
According to the ancient and godly discipline of
the primitive church, the Corinthians, as St. Paul ex
presses himself, had delivered an incestuous member
of their community unto Satan for the destruction
of the flesh, that the spirit might be saved in the
day of the Lord Jesus.] This they did under the im
mediate sanctionof the anxious apostle: and afterward,
when they were satisfied as to the sincerity of the
man's contrition, they pardoned him the disgrace
which he had brought upon the church, and read
mitted him to the enjoyment of his former privileges
as a baptized christian. The circumstance and the
ground of his readmission were communicated to St.
Paul; and St. Paul, in reply, informs them, that, as
they had forgiven the offender, so likewise did he for
their sakes in the person of Christ.J
Such was the very simple transaction, from which
the bishop has learned, that, by the special authority
of St. Paul, to the church belongs the double right of
both prescribing and mitigating satisfactory punish
ments: punishments, that is to say, according to the
bishop's avowed doctrine, which should be able to
make a meritorious expiatory satisfaction, not merely
to the outraged church viewed as a body-corporate,
but even to the divine justice itself. Yet, where is
there a single syllable about any such meritorious
satisfaction being made to the justice of God, from
the beginning to the end of the entire narrative?
II. Bad, however, as indulgences may be when
viewed under the present most unscriptural aspect,
their evil admitted of a still higher degree of subli
mation. The bishop of Aire, himself a most respectable
ecclesiastic, has no hesitation in pronouncing, with
or without the consent of his church, that the validity
• 1 Corinth, v. 1—5. 2 Corinth, ii. 6—10.
"t- 1 Corinth. V. 5. ^ 2 Corinth, ii. 10.

INDULGENCES, 159
of indulgences, like the validity of absolutions,
entirely depends upon the dispositions of the sin
ner.* This, no doubt, is making the best of the
matter: but a lamentable story yet remains to be told.
His lordship treads lightly over ground, which he
is too good and too sensible a man to deem hallowed.
What was the crying abomination, which first roused
the indignant spirit of the great and much-calumniated
Luther? The pope actually drove a gainful pecuniary
traffic in ecclesiastical indulgences! Instruments of
this description, by which the labour of making a
fancied meritorious satisfaction to God by penance
or by good works was pared down to the dwarfish
standard that best suited the purse of a wealthy
offender, were sold in the lump, to a tribe of monas
tic vagabonds, by the prelate, who claimed to be
upon earth the divinely-appointed vicar of Christ.
These men purchased them of the pope, by as good
a bargain as they could make; and then, after the
mode of travelling-pedlars, they disposed of them in
retail to those who affected such articles of commerce,
each indulgence of course bearing an adequate pre
mium. The madness of superstition could be strained
no higher: the Reformation burst forth like a torrent;
andLuther, with theBible in his hand, has merited and
obtained the eternal hatred of an incorrigible church.
Ill, It is worthy of observation, that the bishop is
wholly silent as to the imaginary fund, whence the
inexhaustible stock of papal indulgences is supplied.
Whether he was himself ashamed of the doctrine of
supererogation, or whether he thought it imprudent
to exhibit such a phantasy before the eyes of his
English correspondent, I shall not pretend to deter
mine. From whatever motive, the bishop omits it
altogether. His lordship's defect, however, is abun
dantly supplied by the authoritative declaration of
the reigning pontiff.
" We have resolved," says pope Leo in the year
* Discuss. Amic. vol. ii. p. 229.

160 DIFFICULTIES OF ROMANISM.
1824, " by virtue of the authority given to us from
'heaven, fully to unlock that sacred treasure, com-
' posed of the merits, sufferings, and virtues, of Christ
,' our Lord, and of his virgin mother, and of all the
'saints, which the author of human salvation has
' intrusted to our dispensation — To you, therefore,
' venerable brethren, patriarchs, primates, arch-bish-
' ops, bishops, it belongs to explain with perspicuity
' the power of indulgences: what is their efficacy in
' the remission, not only of the canonical penance,
' but also of the temporal punishment 'due to the
' divine justice for past sin; and what succour is
' afforded out of this heavenly treasure, from the
' merits of Christ and his saints, to such as have
' departed real penitents in God!s love, yet before
' they had duly satisfied by fruits worth}' of penance
' for sins of commission and omission, and are now
' purifying in the fije of purgatory, that an entrance
' may be opened for them into their eternal country
' where nothing defiled is admitted."*
From a stock of merits, which the pope claims to
have at his disposal, indulgences are issued, which
shall not only remit the canonical penance imposed
by the church, but which shall also liberate the for
tunate possessors from the temporal punishment due
for past sin to the divine justice, and which shall open
the doors of jDurgatory to those suffering spirits who
departed without having made full satisfaction for
their iniquities by fruits worthy of penance.
These then, it seems, are the avowed doctrines
and practices of the Latin church, not merely during
the dark ages of barbarous credulity, but in the full
light of the nineteenth century : these are the high
behests of that church, which, according to the ex
plicit declaration of its visible head to every protestant
community, is the mother and mistress of all other
chur-ches, and out of which there is no salvation.*
* BuU for the observance of the JubUee, a. jj. 1825,

PURGATORY. 161

CHAPTER XII.
The Difficulties of Romanism in respect to Pur
gatory.
For his mode of treating the subject of purgatory,
I feel it impossible not to honour the bishop of Aire.*
Instead of vainly labouring to establish the doc
trine on some one or two misinterpreted texts of the
New Testament, he fairly and honestly confesses,
that we have received no revelation concerning it
from Jesus Christ. Hence he judiciously wastes not
his time in adducing passages of Holy Writ which
are altogether irrelevant,
" Had it been necessary for us," says he, '* to be
' instructed in such questions, Jesus would doubtless
' have revealed the knowledge of them. He has not
' done so. We can, therefore, only form conjectures
' on the subject more or less probable."t
The doctrine, then, of purgatory is confessedly
NOT a matter of revelation: whether it be true or
false, we confessedly cannot ascertain from any
thing that Christ has said on the subject.
This difficulty would have startled an ordinary
theologian: but, though Christ himself has not re
vealed the doctrine, the bishop of Aire can clearly
demonstrate its truth by an easy and simple inductive
process, I, We must make, argues his lordship, an expiatory
satisfaction to the divine justice, either in this world
or in the next. Few men, however, make a full
expiatory satisfaction in this world : therefore they
• Discuss. Amic. Lett. xiii. f Discuss. Amic. vol. ii. p. 242.
n2 '

162 DIFFICULTIES OF KOMANISM.
must make it in the next. Now, in the next world,
they can no longer pursue good works, no longer
distribute alms, no longer offer any compensatory
reparations to heaven. One only method of making
satisfaction remains to them: that, to wit of suffer
ing. But, if suffering be the sole method of making
satisfaction which remains to them hereafter, then,
indisputably, there must be a place where this suf
fering is undergone. Now the place, which has been
thus proved to exist, is, by the Councils of Florence
and Trent, conventionally denominated purgatory.*
With the name appropriated to this scripturally
unknown land, I am no way disposed to quarrel :
for anything that I can see to the contrary, it is very
appropriate and expressive. The name is unexcep
tionable ; but the demonstration is faulty. As De
mosthenes says, the war itself will discover the weak
points of Philip.
The whole demonstration of the existence of pur
gatory, as set forth by the bishop of Aire, rests upon
the primary position, that we must make an expia
tory satisfaction to the divine justice, either in this
ivorld or in the next. If that position fail, the de
monstration fails with it. Now I have already shewn,
on the fullest evidence, that the doctrine of an expi
atory meritorious satisfaction, to be made by man
to the divine justice, through the medium either of
good works or of penal sufferings: I have already
shewn, that this doctrine is altogether false and

• Discuss. Amic. vol. ii. p. 242 — 244. The bishop attempts to
perplex the English layman by reminding him of the separate
abode of departed spirits, during the interval which elapses be
tween death and judgment.
" You believe," says he, " the existence of such a place, though
' its local position is unknown to you. Rest then assured of the
' existence of purgatory, though we may not be able to define
« its strict local position." Discuss. Amic. vol. ii. p. 242, 243. Note.
If any English layman be perplexed by such an argument, he
must certainly have forgotten, that the point at issue is not thb
LOCALITT, but TBE EXISTIKCE, of gUrgatOiy.

PURGATORY, 163
unfounded. Such being the case, the attempted de
monstration of the existence of purgatory, which
avowedly reposes upon it, must needs be wholly
inconclusive. But the bishop has confessed, that the
doctrine of purgatory has not been expressly revealed:
and I have shewn, that he has failed to demonstrate
its truth by inductive reasoning. Therefore, so far
as I can discern, we have no proof whatsoever of the
truth of the doctrine of purgatory,
II. The case might now well seem entirely hopeless:
but the bishop has yet another argument in reserve.
"All antiquity," says he, "speaks of an inter-
' mediate place, where souls, before they enter into
' heaven, must be purified from the slightest stains of
' iniquity,"* 1, On a point, confessedly riot revealed in Scrip
ture and incapable of proof by inductive reasoning,
I should not be disposed very greatly to defer to
antiquity, even if all antiquity were in one story,
which the bishop declares to be the case. His lord
ship's -own references, however, tacitly correct the
largeness of his phraseology.
Cypfian, who flourished about the middle of the
third century, chronologically ushers in the period
which the bishop denominates all antiquity: and
this very Cyprian, comparatively late as we must
pronounce his testimony, is not for him, but against
him. This father mentions, as a practice of the Christians
in the third century, that, as often as they comme
morated the passions of the martyrs on the anniversa
ries of their martyrdoms, they always offered up
sacrifices for them: and he also speaks with praise of
an episcopal arrangement, by which it was ordained,
that, in the case of persons under certain Specified
circumstances, no sacrifice should be celebrated for
their repose.t * Discuss. Amic. vol. ii. p. 243. Note.
t Cyprian. Epist. xxxix, p. 77. Epist. i. p. 3,

164 DIPPICULTIES OF ROMANISM,
Such is clearly the language of Cyprian; and, by
such language, the bishop has no less clearly been
deceived, 'The sacrifices, offered up for the martyrs and for
other pious members of the church on certain anni
versary days, were not, as the bishop imagines,
prayers for the liberation of their souls from pur
gatory: but they were sacrifices of praise and
thanksgiving to Almighty God, like those of more
than one of our canonical Anglican prayers, on
the ground that these pious men had now departed
out of this life in the faith and hope of Christ.*
It is possible, that the bishop may urge against me
a passage in the Epistle to Antonianus, where the
holy father speaks of persons being long purified in
fire for their sins, ere they are admitt;ed into the bliss
of heaven, t
I am fully aware of the existence of that passage:
but I deem it no proof, that Cyprian held the modern
Latin doctrine of purgatory. Had the bishop read
the note of Rigaud on the place, he must at least have
acknowledged, that, in the abstract, Cyprian's language
is ambiguous. To my own apprehension, the learned
commentator has fully established, that Cyprian speaks
only of the allegorical fire of penitential austerities
through which the lapsed were required to pass by
the early discipline of the church. Not only does
the context of the passage demonstrate Rigaud to be
in the right; but another passage also, not noticed by
him, clearly evinces the propriety of his interpreta
tion, "When once we have departed hence," says Cy-
* See the prayers in the communion service, the burial service,
and the fifty-fifth canon: and compare Heb. xiii. 15.
f Cyprian. Epist. Iv. p. 109. 1 am unable to say, whether the
bishop means to refer to this passage or not: for he and I use two
different editions of Cyprian. His only reference is to Epist. ii.
But, in this Epistle, as it stands in the Oxford edition of 1682,
which is the edition used by myself, there is no mention made
either of purgatory or of prayers for the dead.

PURGATORY, 1 65
prian, " there is no longer any place for repentance,
' no longer any effectiveness of satisfactipn. Here,
'life is either lost or held: here, we may provide for
' our eternal salvation by the worship of God and the
' fruitfulness of faith. Let not any one, then, be
' retarded, either by sins or by length of years, from
' attaining to salvation. To a person, while he
' remains in this world, repentance is never too late,
' Those, who seek after and understand the truth, may
' always have an easy access to the indulgence of God.
' Even to the very end of yolir life, pray for your
'sins: and, by confession and faith, implore the one
' only true Deity. To him, who confesses, pardon is
'freely granted: to him, who believes, a salutary in-
' dulgence is granted from the divine pity: and, imme-
' DIATELY AFTER DEATH, HE PASSES TO A BLESSED
' IMMORTALITY."* 2. In the large phraseology of the bishop of Aire,
ALL antiquity commences with Cyprian, who flou
rished about the middle of the third century.
Yet, I pray, was Cyprian the very earliest of the
fathers? Why did not his lordship cite, in favour of
the doctrine which he advocates, Clement of Rome,
and Polycarp, and Ignatius, and Justin, and Irenaeus,
and Athenagoras, and the old anonymous writers,
whose works are usually printed along with those of
Justin? Why were not these much more ancient
fathers adduced, aS unanimously vouching for the doc
trine of purgatory? If we attend to their testimony,
we shall discover the reason of the bishop's prudent
pretention. On the supposition, then, that all antiquity
teaches the doctrine of purgatory, how came Cle
ment to be totally silent respecting it, even when ex
pressly treating of death and the resurrection?! How
happened he so entirely to forget it, as to declare, that
• Cyprian. adDemetrian. p. 196. See also Epist. xii. p. 27, 28.
t Clem. Epist. ad Corinth, i. § 23—27.

166 DIFFICULTIES OF ROMANISM,
when once we shall have departed this life, there is
no room for us in another, either to confess or to
repent.* Why did Polycarp avowedly discuss the resurrec
tion of the dead, and yet wholly pretermit the doc
trine of purgatory?!
Why did Ignatius assert, that two states only in the
future world, a state of death and a state of life, are
set before us ; so that every one, who departs, shall
depart to his own proper place: and why did he not
set forth that yet addilional third state, which, under
the name oi purgatory, makes so conspicuous a figure
in the theology of the Latin church ?f
Why did Irenseus, without presuming to say a
word about purgatory, content himself with simply
intimating, that the souls of the dead shall depart
into an invisible place prepared of God for them,
where they shall abide in constant expectation of
the resurrection and reunion of the body?§
Why did the old writer, in the works of Justin
Martyr, pursue a train of reasoning, on the pardon of
the lapsed under the dispensation of grace, which is
wholly incompatible with a belief in the doctrine of
purgatory? II
Why did Athenagoras professedly write an entire
treatise on the resurrection of the dead; and yet, not
withstanding the nature of his subject, leave the state
of purgatory wholly unnoticed and unmentioned?ir
But I forbear. The English laity will ere now, I
trust, be sufficiently convinced, that all antiquity
does not speak of an intermediate place, where souls,
before they enter into heaven, must be cleansed from
their smallest pollutions in the fire of purgatory,
• Ibid, ii, § 8. f Polycarp. Epist. ad Philip. § ii. vii.
^ Ignat. Epist. ad Magnes. § v.
§ Iren. adv. Har. lib. v. c. 26. § 2, 3.
II Q.U3est. et Respons. ad Orthod. in Oper. Justin, quesest. xcvu.
p. 350, 351,
t Athenag, de Eesurr.Mort, in Oper. p, 143 — 219.

PRAYERS FOR THE DEAD, 167

CHAPTER XIII,
The Difficulties of Romani9hfi in respect to prayers
for the Dead,
Respecting the existence of purgatory, by the
bishop of Aire's very candid acknowledgment. Holy
Scripture is perfectly silent. Equally silent also is it
respecting the obligation or the benefit of prayers for
the dead offered up by the living. Neither the one
nor the other does it mention : to neither the one
nor the other does it even make so much as the very
slightest allusion. Concerning both, on the supposi
tion of the truth of the one and the duty of the other,
it maintains a reserve most singularly unnaccount-
able.* It is true indeed, that, from the few and indistinct
notices of a future state which occur in the Hebrew
Scriptures, we might not have much reason to be sur
prised at their silence on the present topics: but,
when we recollect that it was a special office of Christ
to illuminate life and immortality through the
Gospel,\ it is utterly incredible, that the light-giving
Saviour should have vouchsafed us no sort of revela
tion concerning purgatory and prayers for the dead,
had the former really existed, and had the latter been
a pious and profitable duty.
On the awful truths of the next world, our Lord
is copious and distinct, alarming and consolatory.
We have the whole fearful machinery of the last
day placed, as it were, visibly before our very eyes:
the sheep on the right hand of the Judge ; the goats
• Discuss, Amic. Lett. xiii. f 2 Tim. i, 10,

168 DIFFICULTIES OF ROMANISM.
on the left hand. We hear, as it were with our very
ears, the irreversible doom of weal or woe. The
doors of the adytum are thrown open : the mystery,
hidden or but dimly perceived through a long succes
sion of ages, is unreservedly declared to the whole
universe. Yet, respecting purgatory and prayers for
the dead, the great and all-knowing hierophant is
profoundly silent, #
I. In place pf any proof, either from the Hebrew
Scriptures, or from the Scriptures of the New Testa
ment, that prayers for the dead are the duty of
the living, the bishop produces a meagre and scanty
attestation from the apocryphal history of the Macca
bees, which his church has taken upon herself to pro
nounce canonical.
" If Judas had not hoped," says the author of that
history, " that they who were slain should have
' risen again, it had been superfluous and vain to pray
' for the dead."*
The poverty of the bishop I blame not. He has
done what he could: and mortal man can do no more.
Proof from the genuine Scriptures he was unable to
bring: and we cannot reasonably censure him for not
accomplishing an impossibility; we cannot equitably
impeach him for not producing a nonentity, Christ,
it is true, is silent on the subject: but what Christ has "
not taught, we may learn from Judas Maccabeus.
This is no time for discussing the canon of Holy
Scripture: nor shall I enter upon a topic, which has
already been handled most sufficiently by persons far ;
more competent than myself. Yet, since the bishop
has thought it good to inform the English laic, that
the reformers of the sixteenth century removed the
Maccabasan history from the canon, purely to rid
themselves of the evidence which it bears to mor
tuary supplications, and thence implicatively to the
doctrine of purgatory :t it may not be improper to
• 2 Mace. xii. 44. \ Discuss. Amic. vol. ii. p. 246.

PRAYERS FOR THE DEAD. 169
remind his lordship of the language employed by an
author, with whom he is intimately acquainted, and
who certainly had no concern in the evil deeds of the
sixteenth age,
" Have nothing in common with the Apocrypha,"
said Cyril of Jerusalem, in the fourth century, tothe
Competentes, who were preparing themselves for
baptism: " Have nothing in common with the Apo-
' crypha, biit study those books which we read in
' the church. The apostles and the ancient bishops,
' who delivered those, books to us, were much wiser
' than you. As children, therefore, of the church, set
' not upon her authorized documents the adulterat-
' ing seal of a false impression."*
The canon of the Old Testament, as propounde.d
by Cyril to his pupils, differs not from the canon re
ceived by the innovators of the sixteenth century,
save that it inserts the book of Baruch; which book,
as it exists not in the Hebrew, the Jews, who might
be supposed to have some slight acquaintance With
their own canon, have never recognised. Subsequent
more careful examination led Augustine, and the
Greek church, and the Councils of Carthage and
Laodicea, to reject from the canon this book, which
Cyril's list includes in it: the fathers of the Council
of Trent best know the grounds on which they rein
stated that composition. As for the Maccabsean his
tory, which has rendered such essential service to
the bishop of Aire, it is among those proscribed apo
cryphal books, which the archbishop of Jerusalem
exhorts the illuminated most diligently to renounce,
on the ground that it was not delivered to the church
by the apostles and the ancient bishops,
II. His lordship, however, meets us with a nega
tive, as well as with a positive argument.
If Christ did not teach us the duty of praying for
the dead by his words, he assuredly taught it no less
forcibly by his silence. * Cyril'. Catech. iv. p. o7.

170 DIFFICULTIES OF ROMANISM,
This is not so great a paradox, as, at first sight, it
might well be deemed: and the bishop has contrived
to niake out a very plausible case from very unpro
mising materials.
" The language of Judas Maccabeus, or of his his-
' torian," argues the bishop, "proves indisputably that
' the practice of praying for the dead prevailed among
' the Jews. Now Christ never censures this practice;
' THEREFORE he tacitly sanctions it."*
We must confess, I fear, that Christ never censured
the practice in so many precise words; yet his apostle
John received a communication, which can scarcely
be reconciled with the ordinance of praying for the
dead, that their souls might be liberated from the fire
of purgatory.
/ heard a voice from heaven, saying unto me:
Write; blessed are the dead which die in the Lord
from henceforth. Yea, saith the spirit, that they
may rest from their labours; and their works do
follow them.]
The dead in the Lord, then, are blessed: and,
whensoever they depart hence they rest from their
labours. Now, if it were necessary for them to
enter into purgatory, ere they were admitted into a
state of beatitude; which according to the bishop,
ALL must do, since the fire of pfirgafory must cleanse
us even from our slightest stains :J they would not,
immediately after death, rest from their labours ;' for
his lordship himself being judge, purgatory does not
hold forth to its inmates the accommodation of a bed
of roses. Therefore, by an inevitable consequence
from the plain words of Holy Writ, they enter not
into a purgatory, from which they may be prema
turely liberated by the suffrages of the living.
III. What the bishop cannot prove from Scripture
either positively or negatively, he hopes to prove from
the respectable human authority of the old fathers.
• Discuss. Amic. vol. 11. p. 248. f Rev. xiv. 13.
% DoiVent etre purlfiees de leurs moindres souUlures. Discuss,
Amic. vol. u. p. 243. Note,

PRAYERS FOR THE DEAD, 171
1, Among these, the most ancient, that he produces,
is Tertullian ; who flourished at the end of the second,
and at the beginning of the third, century : for his
lordship, doubtless because he found in them nothing
to his purpose, carefully pretermits the earliest eccle
siastical- writers.
From the bishop's small success with Cyprian,
whom Tertullian chronologically preceded, we shall
not anticipate much benefit to his cause through the
agency of Tertullian,*
(1.) "On a certain annual day," says that father,
" we make oblations for the dead and for nativities."i"
By the word nativities, as employed by Tertul
lian, we are to understand, according to the phraseo
logy of the primitive church, not the literal birthdays
of the living, but the allegorical birthdays of the
dead ; the days, that is to say, on which the departed
saints were born out. of this present evil world into a
new and better state of existence.
Now the same oblations, we see, were made both
for the dead themselves, and for these their allegori
cal nativities. Hence, plainly, the oblations must
have been made for each under the very same aspect,
and under the influence of tlie very same idea. But,
for the allegorical nativities of the departed saints, it
is evident, that the figurative sacrifice oi prayer could
not have been made: because, even were we so
inclined^ we cannot pray for the death of those who
are already dead. The oblations, therefore, men
tioned by Tertullian, must have been oblations, not of
prayer, but of thanksgiving.
Such being the case, his oblations for the dead,
being assuredly of the same nature as his oblations
for the allegorical nativities of the dead,are not, as
the bishop imagines, prayers for the dead, whereby
they may be extricated from the fire of purgatory :
but, on the contrary, they are thanksgivings for the
* See above. Book i. chap. 12. § II. 1.
t TertuU. de Coron. Mil. ^ iii. p. 449,

172 DIFFICULTIES OF ROMANISM.
dead, analogous to those mentioned by Cyprian ; in
other words, they are thanksgivings to Almighty
God for having taken unto himself the souls of the
departed brethren.
This, I think, is plainly the meaning of the sacrifices
and oblations for the dead, mentioned by Cyprian and
Tertullian. They were strictly eucharistic and com
memorative: eucharistic for the pious dead in general;
commemorative, of the martyrs in particular, whose
names were on these occasions publicly recited.*
(2.) But, though such be clearly enough the
meaning of the oblations noticed by Tertullian, we
must not dissemble, that, under one particular aspect,
even prayers for the dead are certainly, in his indi
vidual capacity, sanctioned by that father.
At the conclusion of his treatise on the sQul, he
advocates a notion, that the abode of a departed spirit
in the prison of the intermediate state might be pro
longed, and that its final resurrection might be delay
ed, on account of the smaller sins which it had com
mitted in the flesh. t This notion, having been once
adopted by the speculative African, forthwith prp-
duced the additional idea, that prayers might be
advantageously offered uj) by the living, both for the
comfort of a soul in hades, and for its participation of

* See Cyprian. Epist. xii. p. 27, 28. The language of Justin
Martyr sufficiently explains the true nature of the oWo/t'oras and
sacrifices mentioned by TertulUan and Cyprian. Writing about
the middle of the second century, he assures us, that christians, in
their form of worship, recognise no oblations and sacrifices save
the purely spiritual oljjations and sacrifices of prayer and thanks
giving. Apol. i. vulg. U. p. 46. Dial, cum Tryph. p. 270. Now,
that the ancient oblations for the dead were not prayers, I have
fully shewn. Therefore they must have been thanksgivings. I
have cited Justin lest any one should contend, that the obmions
for the dead me'in what the Latins call the sacrifice of the mass, in
which the priest is said to offer Christ both for the quick and for
the dead. The testimony of this early father, to the specific nature
of the ancient Christian oblations and sacrifices, is utterly fatal to
any such speculation.
fTertuU.de Anim. Oper. p. 689.

PRAYERS FOR THE DEAD. 173
the first resurrection without experiencing a procras
tination to the second resurrection.'*
Prayers, then, for the dead, under such an aspect,
he doubtless recommends: but these prayers, even to
say nothing of their resting on the mere authority of
a fanciful individual, bear not the slightest resem
blance to those prayers, by the instrumentality of
which, according to the theory of the Latin church,
the souls of the defunct are liberated from purgatory.
2. With Tertullian the bishop adduces Cyprian and
Chrysostom and Augustine, as being all favourable
to the doctrine of purgatory and to the practice of
praying for the dead,
Cyprian I have already disposed oft As for Chry-
' sostom and Augustine, who flourished at the latter
end of the fourth and at the beginning of the fifth
century, I freely allow (and the bishop may make
the most of my concession) that, in their time,
prayers for the dead and the notion of a purgatory
(though by no means identical with the purgatory of
the modern Latins) had crept into the church, now
rapidly declining into unscriptural superstition. J
* TertuU. de Monogam. § ix.. Oper. p. 578.
f See above. Book I. chap. 12. § II. 1.
+ For the sentinlents of Chrysostom himself, the bishop refers
to his sixty-ninth Homily tothe people of Antioch: and he ex
hibits him as there saying, that The apostles loiih good reason en
joined the commemoration of ihe dead, whenever the mysteries are
celebrated; for they well knew, that the dead thence derived both utility
and profit. Discuss. Amic. vol. ii. p. 251.
His lordship and myself may probably have used different
editions of Chrysostom, in which his Homilies are differently ar
ranged: but certainly, in the edition now before me, (Lutet. Paris.
1609), no such passage occurs in the sixty-ninth Homily, though-
its opening treats of the commemoration of the martyrs.
¦Where the a;uo.s<Zes enjoin the commemoration of the dead at
the celebration of the Lord's Supper, on the ground that the
dead are benefitted by such a practice,'! am constrained to pro
fess myself altogether ignorant.
P 2

174

DIPPICULTIES OF ROMANISM.

CHAPTER XIV,
An Historical Sketch of the Rise of Prayers for
the Dead and of the Doctrine of Purgatory.
To trace the rise of such speculations, as the doc
trine' of purgatory and the duty of praying for the
dead, is a matter of mere curiosity; nor shall I
attempt any thing beyond a bare sketch. The whole
is gratuitous and altogether unnecessary to my argu
ment : it may be viewed, as strictly a work of liberal'
supererogation. I. Prayers for the dead, that they might be com
forted in the separate abode of departed spirits, and
that without any penal delay they might be made
partakers of the first resurrection, wei'e recommended
by Tertullian at the latter end of the second century,*
This crude phantasj', then (so far as I know) first
started by an imaginative individual, though in itself
wholly unconnected with th'e doctrine of a purgatory,
was not suffered to rest under the form in which it
had, been originally exhibited : and the hint of the
African father was at length expanded into a theory,
which in his time could have been but little anticipated.
II. Of prayers for the dead, on a principle which
at least approximates to the purgatorian principle,
the earliest distinct traces, which have come within
the compass of my own reading, occur in the mysta
gogical lectures of Cyril of Jerusalem. t
* TertuU. de Anim. Oper. p. 689. TertuU. de Monogam. §
ix. Oper. p. 578.
-j- There is a prayer for the dead in the Apostolic Constitutions:
but, in this prayer, the existence of any purgatory is neither' men
tioned nor even supposed. The prayer merely supplicates, that
God would pardon all the sins of the dead and would fortbwitii
receive them into glgry. Constit. Apos. lib. viii. c. 41. The
prayer is followed by some directions respecting the commemora
tion of the dead. Ibid. li. 42. ,
Prayers for the de£id are also mentioned by Epiphanius of Sala-

DOCTRINE OF PURGATORY, 175
This author, it is true, does not precisely mention
purgatory; neither does he say any thing as to a fire,
which is appointed to purify men from their sins, and
from which they may be liberated soone.r than they
otherwise would ,have been by the suffrages of the
living: but, in his language, a place of penal though
not of eternal separation from God, whence departed
spirits might be extricated by the prayers of surviv
ing friends, is certainly implied and understood.
The souls of the dead, he thinks, are greatly benefited
by the prayers of the living, offered up during the
celebration pf.the Eucharist: and he illustrates the
condition of such souls, by the supposed case of a king,
who had banished certain 'of his rebellious subjects
from his presence, but who had afterward been per
suaded at the instance of their friends and relations to
remit their punishment. i
That both the speculation and the practice, how
ever, were then in their infancy, the language of
Cyril clearly demonstrates : for he himself mentions
the opposition which was made to them, nothy a few
merely, but by many.*
III. Such was the state of matters in the time of
Cyril : and it is evident, I think, that the earliest cor-
mis, who flourished dbntemporaneouslv with Cyril of Jerusalem:
but they are not connected with any thing which bears the least
resemblance to a purgatory. Epiphanius expresses himself with
much indignation against the heretic Aeriusj who, objecting to
the custom of reciting the names of the dead in the office of the
Eucharist,, inquires, how the dead can be benefited by the
prayers of the living; and remarks, that the adoption of such a
practice can only tend to promote immorality, because a wealthy
offender may always take care to purchase the venal suffrages of
a survivor. Yet, when he himself in reply comes to state his own
views of the subject, he is totally silent as to the' existence of
any purgatory: and, instead of intimating that the'prayers of the
living are effectual to liberate the souls of the dead from a place
of this description, he contents himself with comparing prayers
for the dead to prayers put up on behalf of afriend when engaged
in taking a long journey. In fact, so far from intimating that the
subjects of these prayers are in purgatoryi he expressly speaks of
them as existing and living with the Lord. Epiph. adv. Har»
Kb. iii. hser. 75.
• Cyril. Catech. Mystag. v. p. 241. •

176 DIFFICULTIES OF ROMANISM.
ruption, engrafted upon theoriginal fanciful speculation
of Tertullian, was the transmutation oi the old thanks
giving for the pious dead into prayers for the souls
of the dead in general; or rather, to express myself
; somewhat more accurateLy, prayers for the souls of
I the dead in general were superadded to the old
thanksgivings for the happy departure of the pious
dead. But, when we reach the days of Augustine,
we find incontrovertible proof, that both prayers for
the dead and the notion of a purgatory had become
familiar to a now unhappily degenerating church.
1. There is a very odd sort of hesitation in Augus- ¦
tine respecting the whole matter, which clearly
enough indicates, that in his days the superstition had
not been perfectly digested, though it gradually
acquired strength and consistency.
(1.) In a work, which professedly treats of the
care that ought to be taken for the dead, that great
father refers to the well-known passage of the Mac-
cabsean history, where prayers and sacrifices for the
souls of the defunct are mentioned and vindicated :*
but, unable to produce any legitimate sanction of the
practice iron:i canonical Scripture, he finally winds
up the whole disputation with the prudent remark,
that many things may profit us if we know them,
but that our ignorance of them can do us no very
serious mischief.
On this secure conclusion is built the doctrine, that
it is best to pray for the souls of all the regenerate
collectively; lest any departed person, who might
be benefited by our orisons, should unfortunately be
omitted : and thefc^eason assigned is, that it is far
more eligible, that;., souls, who will be neither the
better nor ' the wor^f or our prayers, should have
too much; than that^p'uls, wholmay really be bene
fited by them, shoulS\hdve too little.]
(2.) Thus speaks Augustine, in his treatise on the
• 2 Mace. xii. 43—45.
-j- August deCur. pro. Mort gerend. c. i. xvii. Oper. vol. iv, p.
855, 261,

DOCTRINE OF PURGATORY. 177
care of the dead : but, in one of his sermons, we find
him waxing somewhat bolder.
" Beyond all doubt," says he, " the dead are assist-
' ed by the prayers of holy church, and by the salutary
' sacrifice, and by the alms which are given for the
' repose of their souls ; so that the Lord may deal
' more mercifully with them than their sins deserve :
' for this has been handed down by the fathers, and
' is observed by the whole church. Such exercises
' most assuredly profit"the dead: but then those persons
' only are benefited, who have so lived before deathj
' that these things may be useful to them after death."*
(3.) So again, in his treatise on the eight ques
tions of Dulcitius, he half inclines to think, that
the fire, which St. Paul mentions as burning the de-' ,
fective works of a christian, though the christian
himself is saved as by fire, may perhaps be a purga
tory: through the fire of which all must pass alike,
whether they have built upon the true foundation gold
and silverand precious stones, or whether they have
only accumulated upon it wood and hay and stubble.f
That some such thing as this occurs after the pre
sent life, he observes, is far from being incredible.X
(4.) But, when he comes to treat directly oi pwr^
gatory itself, though still relying for his scriptural
proof upon . the self-same passage of St. Paul, he
speaks with alm.ost as mucji positiveness, as if the
silence of Christ had been subsequently remedied by
a. special revelation from heaven to himself.
" By that transitory fire," he remarks, " concern-
' ing which the apostle says, He himself shall be saved
' yet so as through fire; not deadly, but only minute,
' sins are purged. — Whoever is conscious that any
' deadly sin rules within him, that person, unless he
' shall have worthily reformed himself, and (if space
' be afforded him) shall have done penance for a long
' time, and shall have been bountiful in alms-giving,
• August. Serm. de Verb. Apost. xxxu, Oper. vol. x. p. 138.
f 1 Corinth, iii. 10—15.
4: August, de Oct. Dulcit. Qusest. Oper. vol. iv. p. 250.

178 DIFFICULTIES OF ROMANISM.
'and shall have abstained from his sins: that person
' cannot be purged in the transitory fire concerning
' which the apostle speaks; but the eternal fire win
' torment him without any remedy. As for minute
* sins, though they cannot slay the soul, yet they so
' deform it by a sort of leprosy, that, with difficulty,
' or at least with great confusion, they suffer it to
' receive the embrace of the heavenly bridegroom.
' Let such sins then be redeemed by continual prayer,
' and by frequent fasting, and by larger alms, and
' above all by the forgiveness of our enemies; lest,
' when accumulated, they should sink the soul into
' perdition. But, whatever of those sins shall not
' have been thus redeemed, it must be purged in the
'fire mentioned by the apostle. — On this principle,?:
' if we thank God for depriving us of our friends or
' of our substance, confessing with true humility that
' we suffer less than we deserve; our sins will be
' purged in this present world, so that in the future
' world that purgatorial fire shall find either nothing,
' or certainly but little, to burn away. But, if we
'neither give thanks unto God in tribulation, nor
' buy off our sins by good works; we must, under
' such circumstances, remain in the fire of purgatory
' just so long a time, as it may require to burn away
' our smaller sins, like wood and hay and. stubble."*
2. Thus, after much vacillation, Augustine seems
finally to have adopted, so far as principle is con
cerned, the identical dogma 'of a future purgatory
which is -now held by the church of Rome. Yet,
though in principle the purgatory of Augustine is .
the same as the purgatory of the Latins, in its arrange
ment it differs very widely and essentially.
According to the theory of the Roman church, the '
soul, immediately after its separation from the body,^ '
passes into a present purgatory : yet the duration and
intensity of its Sufferings in th«t place of torment may
be abbreviated and relaxed by the prayers of the living.
But, according to the theory of Augustine, the
• August, de Igne Purgat, Serm. iv, Oper. vol. x, p. 382,

DOCTRINE OP PURGATORY. 179
purgatorial fire, through which the soul must pass, is
ihe fire which consumes the world at the day of
judgment: whence it would follow, that the prayers
for the dead, recommended by that father, are not
prayers by which the soul may be liberated from a
present purgatory ; but^thatthey are prayers, which
may avail to give the soul a better passage through
the yet future transitory fire at the general con
summation.* The difference is striking: and, when united both
with the previous vacillation pf Augustine and with
the total silence of the fathers of the three first cen
turies, it clearly shews, that the doctrine of purgatory,
as now held by the church of Rome, was completed
only by slow degrees, and in the lapse of a consider
able period, .-pj
3, Augustine, we' see, rests his proof of a purgatory
upon a text of Holy Writ, which the bishop of Aire
has had the good sense and prudence not to adduce, t
The doctrine being a novelty, the exposi]tion of
the text is obviously a novelty also. Though Augus
tine could at length, after much hesitation, extract
from it the tenet of a purgatory, his chronological
predecessors, Tertullian and Origen, in the second
and third centuries, were not quicksighted enough
to discover in it any such extraordinary dogma.J
Their more ancient expositions of the text differ en
tirely from the more recent_ gloss of Augustine,
• August. Enarr. in Psalm, ciii. cone. 3. Oper. vol. viii. p. 430.
August, de Civit. Dei. lib. xx. c. 26. Oper. vol. v. p. 253. It is
not improbable, that Augustine may have borrovVed this notion
from a conjectural hint, which had been previously thrown out by
Origen. See Orig. adv. Cels. lib. iv. p. 168, 169. lib. v. p. 240,
241. lib^vi. p. 292, 293. The idea itself seems to have been ul
timately taken from those successive pui'gatorial catastrophes of
the world, whether by a deluge of wafer or by a delage of fire,
which constitute so conspicuous a feature in many of the ancient
systems of theological philosophy, both oriental and. occidental.
See Orig. adv. Cels. lib.iv. p. 173. lib. v. p. 244, 245.
1 1 Corinth, ill. 10—15.
- + See TertuU. adv. Marcion. lib. v. § 11. p. 304, Orig.adv. Cels,
lib.iv. p. 168, 169.

180 DIFFICULTIES OP ROMANISM,

CHAPTER XV,
The Difficulties of Romanism, in respect to the In
vocation of the Saints.
We are informed by the bishop of Aire, that the
inv6cation of the saints, as recomrhended and prac
tised in the Latin church, is nothing more than a
simple request of their intercessory prayers on our
behalf, *
Planting himself upon this ground, he certainly
exposes, with much felicity, the Weakness of some
very common, though very inefficient, protestant
objections. If it be lawful, argues the bishop, to solicit the
prayers of our living friends, how can jt be unlawful-
to solicit the prayers of our dead friends ? If the in
tercessory prayers of our living friends trench not.
upon the high speciality of Christ's prevailing media
tion; why should the intercessory prayers of our
dead friends be inconsistently charged with the
impiety of any such encroachment? If a knowledge
of distant transactions, and even a power of reading
the human heart, might be communicated to Elisha
and Peter upon earth ;t why may notthe same power,
to any extent which God shall deem expedient, be
communicated to the saints in heaven ? To say, that
the omniscience of God is invaded by the communi
cation of this knowledge, anil that the circumstance
of its communication must thence be physically im
possible, is most nugatory and most inconclusive.
For, if to a saint in heaven were communicated a
knowledge so large that he could hear at once the
invocation of all living men in all parts of the world:
still that knowledge would be immeasurably distant
• Discuss, Amic. Lett. xiv. f 2 Kings v. 26. vi. 12. Acts v. 3.

INVOCATION OP THE SAINTS. 181
from the omniscience of God. No reasonable man,
therefore, can venture to say in the abstract, that the
communication of such knowledge is a virtual impos
sibility.* Thus argues the bishop of Aire: but, as the strict
accuracy of his premises may well be doubted, so
the true principle of objection, even to that miti
gated invocation of the saints which he has under
taken to defend, he has never once mentioned.
I. By the voice of revelation itself, we are express
ly authorized to solicit the intercessory prayers of
our living friends: but Scripture no where enjoins or
even sanctions the practice of soliciting the interces
sory prayers of our dead friends.
Such being the case, when we ask the prayers of
our living friends, we act in strict conformity with
God's word,. and we are therefore assured that we
are acting properly: but, when we ask the prayers
of our dead friends, we gratuitously turn aside from
the royal highway, and we know not into what devi
ous paths we may ultimately be permitted to wander,
1, Were we unable to give any satisfactory rea
son for the singular and alarming difference which I
have pointed out; still, even in that case, it would,
be quite sufficient to say, that such a difference
actually subsists,
God, in his infinite wisdom, has thought fit to put
a marked difference between our soliciting the in
tercessory prayers of the living, and our soliciting
the intercessory prayers of the dead. The former
action he has expressly allowed: the latter action he
has not expressly allowed. Respecting the one, he
speaks permissively; respecting the other, he is
totally silent. Such a difference, we may be sure,
he would not have placed betvveen two apparently
homogeneous actions without some very good and
sufficient reason. Here, then, it is our duty and our
wisdom to rest; certain that, in all his matters, God
never acts lightly and fortuitously,
• Discuss. Amic. vol. ii. p. 265 — 275.
Q

182 DIFFICULTIES OF JIOMANISM,
2, But, while the mere existence of the difference
would be an amply-sufficient landmark for our con
duct; still, though with the deep humility befitting
worms of the earth, we may not unfrequently discern
the very principle of the divine proceedings. Such, I .
apprehend, is the case in regard to the present topic.
Why did God authorize us to solicit the prayers of
the living, and yet did not authorize us to solicit the
prayers of the dead.
The reason seems to have been this: When we
solicit the intercessory prayers of our living friends,
we are in no danger of lapsing into any undue or
superstitious veneration of them : but, when we soli
cit the intercessory prayers of the departed saints,
we are in very considerable danger of falling into
habits altogether irreconcilable with the undivided'
allegiance which we owe to the Creator,
(1.) This danger is bj' no means chimerical. Ex
perience of the past, and prophetic anticipation of the
future, might alike have taught the waning church its
dire reality.
Of the Gentiles, the entire polytheism consisted in
the worship of the demon-gods, most curiously asso
ciated with sabianism and materialism: and these
demon-gods, as we are explicitly assured by the best"
informed pagans, were no other than the departed
souls of canonized mortals.*
Such was the worship, into which the apostate
Israelites declined, when they joined themselves unto
Baal-peor, and ate the offerings of the dead.t It was
not that they ever absolutely renounced the adoratioa
of JehPvah : but, apparently deeming him far above
out of their sight, while they distantly viewed him
with a decent, ineffective reverence, they addicted
themselves to the more palpable funereal orgies of
Thammuz, or Adonis, or Baal, or Osiris.
Such also is the worship, into which, according to
the sure word of prophetic revelation, certain mem
bers of the church catholic would lapse in the latter
• See my Origin of t^agan Idol. Book I. chap. i. \ Psalm cvi. 28

INVOCATION OP THE SAINTS. 183
times. The Spirit, says St. Paul, speaketh expressly,
that in the latter times some shall apostatize from
the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits and doc
trines concerning demon-gods.*
(2.) Possibly the bishop of Aire may say, that this
exposition of the apostle's prophecy is a mere pro
testant gloss, excogitated for the evident purpose of
imprinting a stigma upon the Latins.
Should the bishop so say, he would err. 1 speak
not at present of the conduct of the Latins, whether
it be justifiable or unjustifiable : I put the church of
Rome entirely out of the question: I am concerned
only with the abstract interpretation of the prophecy:
I meddle not with its particular application.
Now the abstract interpretation of the prophecy, as
given above, was not devised by some protestant ex
positor, for the mere purpose of serving a turn in
controversy. This identical abstract interpretation
of the prophecy" was, in truth, the abstract interpreta
tion received by the early church, certainly twelve
centuries, probably more than twelve centuries,
before the era of the Reformation. The primitive
believers, as we learn from Epiphanius, understood
St, Paul to have foretold an apostasy in the christian
church to the worship of canonized mortals, which
should be strictly analogous to the apostasy in the
ancient Hebrew church to the worship of Baalim or
departed hero-gods. t
* 1 Tim. iv. 1.
f The passage, whence I collect that such was the interpreta
tion of the prophecy adopted in the early church, is too remark
able to be' omitted.
"Some persons," says Epiphanius of Salamis, who flourished in
the earlier half of the fourtli century, "are mad enough to honour
' Virgin as a sort of goddess. Certain women have transplanted
' this vanity from Thrace into Arabia. For they sacrifice a breaJ-
' cake ill honour of the Virgin: and, in her name, they blasplie-
• mously celebrate sacred mysteries. But the whole matter is a
• tissue of impiety, abhori-ent from the teaching of the Holy Spirit:
' so that we may well call it a diabolical business and a manifest
' doctrine of the spirit of impurity. In them is fulfilled this pro-
'phecy of St. Paul: Certain persons shall apostatize from the
• faith, attending to fables and doctrines concerning demon-gods.

184

DIFFICULTIES OP ROMANISM,

(3,) On the whole, when we consider the strong
tendency iri human nature to lapse into a supersti
tious veneration of the illustrious dead, and when we
further recollect the actual existence of a prophecy
that certain branches of the catholic church would
apostatize into this identical superstitious vene
ration; we shall- find no great difficulty in develop
ing the principle, on which God has allovved us
to request the prayers of our living friends, while he
has given us no authority to implore the prayers of
the departed saints.'
The former practice could not lead us into idola
try : the latter practice might, and most probably
would, produce that result,
« For the purport of the apostle's declaration is this: They shall
' pay divine worship to the. dead, even as men formerly paid such
' worship in Israel. In like manner also, the glory due unto God
' has been changed into error by those who see not the truth.
' For the natives of Neapolis still sacrifice to a girl, whom I take
'to have been the daughter of Jephthah: and the Egyptians
'honoured Thermutis, Pharaoh's daughter, as a goddess: and
' many such things as these have happened in the world to the
' seduction of those who are seduced. But we christians must'
' not indecorously honour the saints: rather ought we to honour
' him, who is their sovereign Lord. Let, then, the error of sedu-
' cers cease. The Virgin Mary is no goddess. To the peril,
' therefore, of his own soul, let no one make oblations in her
' name." Epiph. adv. Haer. lib. iii. haer. 78.
From the passage before us it is indisputable, that, by the early
church, the apostle's demonia were understood to mean, not devils,
but dcmon-gods: that is to say, his demonia were thought to be
the souls of canonized mortals. Equally indisputable is it, that the
prophecy was explained, as announcing a lamentable apostasy in
the christian church to the worship of dead men, who during their
lives hijd been revered on account of their virtues or their services.
The same apostasy to the worship of dead men is clearly forer
told also by St. John; who adds some additional particulars, by
which the predicted apostates might be the better distinguished
whenever they should be developed.
Md the rest of the men, which were not killed by these plagues, yet
repented not of the works of their hands, thai they should not worship
demon,-gods and idols of gold and silver and brass and stone and
wood, which can neither see nor hear nor walk. Rev. ix. 20.
The predicted worshippers of dead men, were also, it seems, to
be worshippers of images; which they would fabricate to them
selves out of various materials.

INVOCATION OF THE SAINTS'. 185
For, since the idolatrous worship of the dead is
foretold, as about hereafter to creep into the church,
we can scarcely conceive a more likely mean for its
introduction, than this precise unauthorized practice
of invoking the departed saints and especially the
blessed Virgin to intercede. with God on out behalf.
II. The basis, upon which rests the entire argu
ment of the bishop of Aire, is the position, that, If
it be lawful to ask the intercessory prayers of our.
living friends, it cannot be criminal to ask the in
tercessory prayers of our dead friends.
Such being the case; it is evident, that the bishop
defends the practice of invoking the saints solely
and EXCLUSIVELY on the ground, that nothing more
is requested from them than the benefit of their in
tercessory prayers.
Hence we must obviously conclude, that, in the
judgment of the bishop, genuine orthodoxy permits
not a single iota beyond a request to the saints that
they would intercede for us with God. For, since
the invocation of the, saints is defended upon this
special ground alone ; the bishop tacitly confesses,
that on any other ground it is indefensible.
The avowed premises, then, of the bishop are these:
In their invocation of the saints, theLatins merely
and SOLELY request the benefit of their intercession.
Now, of these very premises, which avowedly
form the basis of the entire argument, I more than
doubt the accuracy.
-1. That they are not perfectly accurate, is openly
acknowledged even by the bishop himself.
" If any one of our doctors," says he, " pushed on
' by a blind zeal, has gone so far as to ascribe to the
' saints a degree of power and efficacy which belongs
'only to Jesus Christ; know, that we vindicate not
' his excess : and it were unjust to make the catholic
' body in general responsible for certain exaggerations
' in particular."* • Discuss. Amic. vol. ii. p. 274, 275,
^2

186 difficulties op ROMANISM,
Doubtless such treatment of the collective Latin
church were unjust: yet, if an unauthorized and un
scriptural practice bring forth the evil fruits of certain
exaggerations injurious to the high dignity of our
only Lord and Saviour, I should think, that this cir
cumstance does not speak much in favour of the prac
tice. Be this, however, as it may, though the bishop's
reluctant confession be warily thrown into the hy
pothetical form, it clearly amounts to an acknowledg
ment, that certain of the Latin doctors, pushed on
by a blind zeal, have gone so far as to ascribe to
the saints a degree of power and efficacy which
belongs only to Jesus Christ. Hence, according to
the bishop's own confession, there have been doctors
in the Romar^church, who, not content with merely
asking the saints to intercede for therfi, hate invo-
cated those imaginary patrons in such a manner, as to
imply of necessity that they possess a degree of
power which belongs to God incarfiate alone. Such
conduct his lordship tenderly denominates an excess:
I am myself unable to distinguish it from idolatry.
2, But, while the bishop professes not to vindicate
this conduct, and while he avowedly rests hisdefence
of hagiolatry upon the exclusive innocence of begging
the mere intercession of the saints; he himself
shews, by the very adduction of his own selected
authorities, that he is prepared to go far beyond a
simple request that they would intercede for him in
prayer to the Almighty.
In vindication of the Latin practice, he adduces
Irenaeus, Origen, Chrysostom, Basil, Gregory Nazian-
zen, Ambrose, Gregory of Nyssa, Asterius, Ephrem,
Athanasius, and Cyril of Alexandria : and he says,
doubtless very truly, that he could have filled a whole
volume with such citations. Of whatever these fa
thers maintain, therefore, the bishop, by the very
circumstance of his adduction, professes his full and
entire approbation.
What then is-it, which these fathers do maintain?
In their invocation of the saints, do they confine

INVOCATION OF THE SAINTS. 187
themselves to a simple request, that those saints would
intercede for them? Or do they advance far beyond
any such narrow and limited and insipid petition?
The oldest of them, Irenaeus, says not a word about
any invocation whatsoever:* others of them merely
* Irenaeus call^ the Virgin Mary the advocate of the virgin Eve:
whence, I presume, the bishop is willing to infer thait, if in the
judgment of Iren<eus an advocate, Mary might in the judgment of
Irenaeus be safely invocaied. Discuss. Amic. vol. 11. p. 279.
Such implied reasoning, even if we choose to understand Ire-
n»us literally, is altogether inconclusive. It is neither impossible
nor improbable, though in truth we know nothing about the mat
ter, that glorified saints in heaven may pray for the well-being of
the church upon earth: but, on such a supposition that. the Vir
gin Mary is thus our advocate, I perceive not how we are thence
authorized to solicit her intercession. The conclusion does not
legitimately follow from the premises. .
I wish, however, that the bishop had compared Irenaeus with
Irenaeus, ere he had produced with so much confidence the
authority of that father.
" As Eve," says Irenaeus in the passage defectively cited by the
bishop: "As Eve, by the discourse of a fallen angel, was seduced
'to apostatize from God, disobeying his word: so Mary, by the
'discourse of a good angel, was evangelized, that she should bear
' God in her womb, obedient to his word. And, as the former was
'seduced to disobey God: so the latter was persuaded to obey
• God; in order that the Virgin Mary might thence become the
' advocate of the virgin Eve. Thus, as the human race was doomed
' to death through a virgin: so the human race might be delivered
' also through a virgin; the balance being equaUy held, between
'the disobedience of one virgin, and the obedience of another."
Iren. adv. Haer. hb. v. c. 16. § 3.
From a tasteless love of unmeaning antithesis, Irenaeus amuses
himself with running a laborious parallel between the virgin Eve
and the Virgin Mary: and, as man fell through the disobedience
of Eve and was restored through the obedient parturition of Mary,
he chooses, in the course of it, rhetorically to denominate the lat
ter the advocate oi the former. What he means, is plain enough
from his own concluding explanation; which, however, the bishop
has chosen totally to omit: but, if any one doubt the meaning of
Irenaeus, let him turn to another passage, where that father i uns
the selfsame parallel with a distinct and explicit statement of its
purport. " As Eve, by disobedience, became the cause of death both to
'herself and to the whole human race: so Mary, though having
' a predestined husband," yet being Obedient as a virgin, became
' the cause of salvation both to herself and to the whole human race,
' — Thus did the knot of Eve's disobedience receive its solution
• through the obedience of Mary.s for what the virgin Eve bound

188 DIFFICULTIES OF ROMANISM,
request the intercessory prayers of the saints,
according to the mode which the bishop has pre-,
scribed as the standard of Latin orthodoxy: but others
of them, again, so far as I can judge, certainly as
cribe to the saints a degree of power and efficacy
ivhich belongs to God incarnate alone.
Gregory Nazianzen, as 'Cited approbatively by the
bishop, beseeches Cyprian and Athanasius and Basil,
now called to their everlasting rest, that they would
cast down their regards upon him from on high, that
they would govern his discourse and his life, that they
would conjointly feed his flock, that they would give
'him a more perfect knowledge of the Trinity, that
they would draw him where they themselves are, and
that they would place him in the midst of them and
their assemblies,'*
Asterius, as also cited approbatively by the bishop,
supplicates the martyr Phocas, thathe would pray for
the sufferings and maladies of surviving christians, as
he himself had prayed to the martyrs his predecessors:
and he further begs, that Phocas, in the plenitude of
his power, would give to his survivors those blessings
which he himself possesses,t
Basil, as likewise cited approbatively by his lord
ship, advises that, whoever is in 'trouble, he should
address himself to the saints; whoever is in joy, he
should do the same: in the first case, that he may be
delivered from his troubles; in the second, that he
may be secured in his prosperity. f
Cyril of Alexandria, as finally cited by the bishop
with full approbation, prays to St. John the apostle,
that he would open to him the mystery of the Word
of God descending into this nether world, that he
would teach him something grand and sublime, that
• by her unbelief, the 'Virgin Mary loosed by her faith." Iren. adv.
Haer. lib. iii. c. 33. § 2, 3, 4.
No person, I think, can compare these two passages togethef
without perceiving, that, when Irenaeus calls Mary ihe "advocate of
Eve, he simply means to say, that, as death came into the world by
Eve, so Ufe was restored toEve and all her posterity, not excepting
the virgin-mother herself, throughtherhetoricaladvocacybf Mary.
* Discuss, Amic. vol, ii. p. 282. flbid. ^ Ibid. p. 285.

INVOCATION OF THE SAINTS, 139
he would remove the stone and discover to him the
well of life, that he would give him power to draw
water .from it after his own example, and that he
would conduct him to the proper source,*
The bishop defends the invocation of the saints,
on the express ground, that to ask their intereessory
prayers cannot be criminal; and he declares, that
he vindicates not the excess of any exaggerating
doctor, who, pushed on by a blind zeal, has gone so
far as to ascribe to the saints a degree of power
and efficacy xvhich belongs only to Jesus Christ :
yet does he cite, with entire approbation, four wri
ters, who, so far from limiting themselves to a bare
request for saintly intercession, actually beseech the
saints to grant to them various graces and blessings
and benefits which God alone can bestow, Cyril of
Alexandria erects St, John into a second Holy Ghost:
Gregory Nazianzen prays, for illumination and di
rection, to Basil and Cyprian and Athanasius: Basil
invocates the saints for (leliverance in adversity, and
for grace in prosperity: and Asterius beseeches Phocas
to grant to him an abundant entrance into the king
dom of heaven. If the hishoip justifies this offensive
idolatry, then he relinquishes the plea, that nothing
is requested from,' the saints except their friendly
intercession: if hecondemns it, then he has incongru
ously quoted Gregory and Asterius and Basil and Cyril
against his own certainly more reasonable opinion,
3,. Hitherto I have shewn the inaccuracy of the
bishop's premises, partly from his own acknowledg
ment that some of the Latin doctors have ascribed to
the saints a degree of power which belongs only to
God incarnate, and partly from his own approbative
citation of four of the early ecclesiastical writers: I
shall now shew it yet more fully from various Latin
prayers addressed to the saints, not for the purpose
oi simply requesting their intercession, but for the
purpose oi' receiving from them, what God alone is
able to bestow.
The bishop claims, that the catholic body in gene-
* Discuss. Amic. vol. ii. p. 285, 286.

190 DIFFICULTIES OF ROMANISM,
ral should not be made answerable for the excesses of
a few indiscreetly-zealous doctors in particular.*
I have no wish, to controvert the justice of his
* It would have been well, if the bishop, in his treatment of pro
testants, had always borne in mind the principle of his own claim.
I. His lordship exults over the discrepances of the continental
reformers in regard to the invocation of the saints. Discuss. Amic.
vohii. p. 291— 298.
Yet, if we quote against him an idolatrous passage from a Latin
author, we are then gravely told, that the Romanists do not vin
dicate those blindly-zealous doctors who ascribe to the saints a
degree of power which belongs ojily to Christ, and that it were
unjust to make the catholic body in general responsible for cer
tain exaggerations in particular. Discuss. Amic. vol. ii.p. 274, 275.
Why the bishop should be at liberty to exult over the discre
pances of the continental reformers when slowly emerging from
the darkness of many centuries, while it were palpable injustice in
a protestant to allege the acknowledged discrepances of the Ro
manists in the matter of saint-worship, I am unable to discern.
II. Against the reformers of our own church, the bishop, on
this point, has not pretended to bring any charge of discrepance.
Omitting every thing of the kind, he is satisfied with merely citing
our exceUent twenty-second Article.
From the works of Bishop Montague, however, he produces
what he would exhibit, as a discrepance from the doctrine of the
Anglican church, and as an honest acknowledgment of the inno
cence and propriety of the Latin practice.
Now, even had his lordship been accurate, still he ought to have
remembered the principle of his own claim, and to have refrained
from the injustice of making the Anglican body in general re
sponsible for Bishop Montague's exaggeration in particular. But,
in truth, he is altogether inaccurate '.• and, had he been careful
to consult the English prelate himself, instead of borrowin^f his
information at second-hand from some dishonest controversialist
of older times'; he would fully have acquitted Montague of ro-
manizing. I am not sufiiciently skilled in the works of Latin
¦writers, even to form a conjecture as to the faithless author, who,
by the iniquity of fraudulent citation, has thus unhappily misled
the respectable bishop of Aire : but I think it evident, that the
same culprit, who has misled Mr. Butler in England, has also
misled the bishop of Aire in Fiance. Mr. Butler and the bishop
ahke produce Montague, for the self-same purpose, and in the
self-same manner. But such a coincidence cannot be accidental:
they certainly must have equally borrowed from the same source
of misrepresentation. That the unprincipled author, whom at
second-hand they have incautiously followed, has exhibited Mon
tague under totally false colours, is a fact of' which any person
may satisfy, himself by a bare inspection of the original. It is,
however, superfluous for me to say any more on the subject: the
matter has already been fully discussed by Dr. Philpotts. See
Letters to Butler, p. 55—60.

INVOCATION OF THE SAINTS, 191
claim: but what will he say, should it turn out, that
the injurious exaggerations to which he darkly alludes,
are the property, not of mere foolish individuals,
but of the Latin church herself?
The following documents are extracted from the
collects and hymns to the saints, in the Hours accord
ing to the liturgical use of the church of Salisbury, as
printed at Paris in the year 1520: —
Holy mother of God, who hast worthily merited
to conceive him whom the whole world could not
comprehend; by thy pious intervention wash away
our sins, that so, being redeemed by thee, we may
be able to ascend to the seat of everlasting glory,
where thou abidest with thy Son for ever.*
Comfort a sinner; and give not thy honour to the
alien or the cruel, I pray thee, 0 queen of heaven.
Have me excused with Christ thy Son, whose anger
I fear and whose fury I vehemently dread: for
against thee only have I sinned. O Virgin Mary,
full of celestial grace, be not estranged from me.
Be the keeper of my heart: sign me with the fear
of God: confer upon me soundness of life: give m,e
honesty of manners: and grant me at once to
avoid sins and to love that which is just. O virgin
sweetness, there neither was -nor is thy fellow.]
O singularly special Virgin, mild among all
having delivered us from our sinS, make us mild
and chaste. Grant to us a pure life: prepare for
us a safe journey: that, seeing Jesus, we may
always rejoice together.\
Holy Mary, succour the miserable, assist the
pusillanimous, cherish the mourners, pray for the
people, interpose on behalf of the clergy, intercede
for the devout female .sex.^
Let our voice first celebrate Mary, through whom,
the rewards of life are given to us. O Queen, thou
who art a mother and yet a chaste virgin, pardon
our sins through thy Son. May the holy assembly
* Collect, in Hor. ad usum Sarum. Paris. 1520. fol. 4. in Bur
net's Hist, of the Reform, vol. ii. p. 143.
t Ibid fol. 44. ^ Ibid. fol. 33. § Ibid, fol. 30.

192 DIFFICULTIES OF ROMANISM,
of the angels, and the illustrious troop of the arch
angels, now blot out our sins by granting to us the
high glory of heaven.*
O. George, renowned martyr, praise and glory
befit thee, endowed as thou art withmilit ary glory.
Hy thee, the royal maid, existing in sorrow before
the worst of dragons, was preserved. In our soul
and inmost heart, we beseech thee, that, with all the
faithful, we, being washed from our sins, may be
joined to the citizens of heaven: that so, together
with thee we may joyfully be in glory, and that
our lips with glory tnay render praises to Christ. \
O martyr Christopher, for the honour of the
Saviour, make us to be in mind worthy of the love
of God. According to Christ's promise, for thou
obtainest what thou demandest, grant to thy sor
rowful people the gifts which thou hast demanded
by dying. Confer comfort, and remove heaviness of
mind: and cause, that the examination of the
Judge may be mild toward all.-f
O William, thou good shepherd, father and
patron of the clergy, cleanse us in our agony;
grant us aid; remove the .filihiness of our life; and
grant the joys of a celestial crown.\
O ye eleven thousand glorious maids, lilies of vir
ginity, roses of martyrdom, defend me in life by
affording tomeyour assistance: andshew yourselves
to me in death by bringing the last consolation.^
* Collect, in Hor. ad usum Sarum. Paris. 1520. fol. 80. in Burnet's
Hist, ofthe Reform, vol. 11. f Ibid. fol. 77. Hbid.fol. 78.
§ Ibid., fol. 80. Bishop Burnet has given the Latin originals of
all these extraordinary prayers. He adds another, not easily sur
passed in blasphemous absurdity. The votary supplicates Christ
to save him by the blood of Thomas a Becket, sometime archbishop
of Canterbury : and the Lord is reminded, how he has crowned this
same Becket with glory and honour, and how he has placed him
above all the works of his hands; that so, through the merits and
prayers ofthe said Becket, he may be delivered from the fire of hell.
Ibid. fol. 12. No modern Romanist can condemn these prayers, with
out at the same time condemning the approved liturgy of the entire
church of Salisbury, itself in full and uncensured communion with
the church of Rome, immediately before the Reformation in Eng
land. When such rituals were approved and commonly used in the
Latin church ofthe West, was, or was not, a reformation necessary ?

INVOCATION OF THE SAINTS. *193
The documents now before us are not the mere in
sulated and unauthorized productions of some indis
creet doctor, who, as the bishop speaks, pushed op
by a blind zeal, has gone so far as to ascribe to the
saints a degree of power and efficacy which belongs
only to Jesus Christ: they are not the "productions of
a rash individual, for whose exaggerations in particu
lar the catholic body in general must not be made
responsible. No such comparatively unimportant
character do the documents now before us sustain.
On the contrary, they form parts of a regularly-au
thorized liturgy, according to the use of the church
of Salisbury : and, that they met with very general
acceptation among what the bishop styles the catho
lic body, seems abundantly evident, from the circum
stance of the book, whence they are extracted, having
been printed at Paris. All doubt, however, of their
acknowledged" orthodoxy is removed by the express
stamp of papal approbation. To the industrious re
peaters of that prayer to the Virgin, which stands
the second in the preceding collection. Pope Celes-
tine was pleased to grant three hundred days of
pardon : and, as that prayer is one of the most objec
tionable in the whole number, we may be. morally
certain that he would be little inclined to, condemn
the others. Here, then, we have a collection of
prayers to the Virgin and to the saints, publicly
used in the liturgical service of the Latin church,
and sanctioned by the high authority of the pope
himself. But these prayers, thus circumstanced, go
far bej'ond a mere request, that the Virgin and the
saints would offer up for Us at the throne of grace
their intercessory supplications: because they idola-
trously beseech creatures to grant to creatures those
gifts and graces and blessings and benefits, which
the Almighty Creator himself is alone able to be
stow. The case, therefore, so far as respects the ar
gument professedly and spontaneously adopted by
the bishop of Aire, stands, I apprehend, in manner
following : —

*194 DIFFICULTIES OF ROMANISM.
If his lordship honour the preceding documents
with his approbation :.then,'he at once vindicates the
most revolting idolatry, and relinquishes the ground
freely chosen by himself ; for he has professed to de
fend the invocation ofthe saints, solely and exclu
sively on the principle, that, since it is right to
ask the intercessory prayers of the living, it cannot
be wrong to ask the intercessory prayers of thedead.
But, if he mark the preceding documents with his
indignant reprobation, as grossly and disgustingly
idolatrous : then he censures the authorized practice
of his church ; and thus hy unequivocally declaring
that this alleged infallible church both may err and
has erred, becomes tainted with what the Latins
deem heretical pravity.
III. An English laic, not much versed in ecclesi
astical antiquity, may perhaps be somewhat startled
at the bishop's copious adduction of authorities from
the early fathers in favour of hagiolatry; for, if such
were the practice of the primitive church, and if this
practice (at least as inculcated by Asterius and Basil,
and Cyril of Alexrndria, and Gregory of Nazianzum)
be idolatrous, we shall be compelled to charge idola
try upon the churcTi of Christ, even in that age of
purity which immediately succeeded the teaching of
the apostles themselves.
Thus may an unversed English layman be well
startled by an appalling consequence, which seems
inevitably to flow from the bishop's copiousness of
citation: nor has his lordship thought it expedient to
furnish his correspondent with any clue, by which he
may extricate himself from his perplexity. On the
contrary, he leaves his Anglican friend to infer, that
the primitive church up to the very time of the
apostles, was wont toinvocate deadmen and women,
not only to intercede with God on behalf of sur
vivors, but even to bestow upon them what the Deity
alone is able to give. Such being the case, I shall
supply that explanation of the apparent mystery,
which the bishop has left unsupplied.

INVOCATION OF THE SAINTS. *195
The oldest authority cited by the bishop, is Origen,
who flourished about the middle of the third century:
for, in regard to Irenaeus, whom he likewise cites, and
who lived about the year 180, this father, as I have
already observed, says not a single word relative to
any invocation either of the Virgin or of the saints.
His oldest authority, then, flourished about the mid
dle ofthe third century: and all the others flourished*
considerably later, when apostatic corruption was
now rapidly invading the church. As for the really
ancient fathers, such \s Justin and Polycarp and Igna
tius and Clement of Rome, the bishop altogether pre
termits them. Perhaps the English layman may be
curious to know the reason of this pretermission.
Nothing, in good truth, can be more simple. From
the really ancient fathers we hear not a syllable as to
the invocation of dead saints: and the bishop clearly
could not quote from them, in favour of the practice,
declarations which never existed. So far as riiy own
knowledge extends, the bishop cannot produce
A single authority, for the invocation op the
SAINTS HOWEVER MODIFIED, PROM THE TWO FIRST
CENTURIES.* The English layman will now under-
-* Dr. Priestley, I must allow, has discovered, that Justin Mar
tyr, if not precisely a worshipper of the saints, was at leasta wor
shipper of the angels. But it is no disparagement to the learned
bishop of Aire, that he has not studied Greek in the same school
as Dr. Priestiey. This circumstance will perhaps enable, us to ac
count for the fact, that his lordship has not cited Justin as a witness.
The bishop, I suspect, pretermitting the translation of Dr. Priest
ley, is content to render Justin's Greek in the same manner as
myself Lest, however, any inferior Latin theologian should be
tempted, in an evil hour, to supply the bishop's apparent defec
tiveness of citation, and should thence produce Justin as a primi
tive advocate of ang'el-worship, I shall subjoin the original passage,
accompanied by the Latin version of Langus, and by Dr. Priest
ley's, and my own English translations.
'AXX' 'Exefvov <tI, xoli tov *ap' olvtov 'Tiov JX^ovra xai
5i5a|avTa ¦ijfji.as Taura xai tov tojv aXXwv iiToikiyuv xai J|ofAo-
iouf*svuv dyaAdv dyys'Xuv tflpaTov, Ilvsiifjia ts to ifpocp'rjTixov,
t/sSinsda xai "TpotfjcuvoCf/iSv, Xoyu xa,i dXni^siix. ti(jiwvt£S, xcci •n'avTi
^ouXoiAEvy fAo^srv, its iSiSa,-)(d'i)iJ.sv, oUpimus ''fa.f SiSivrss, — Jus
tin. ApoLi. vulg, ii, p. 43,

*196 DIFFICULTIES OF ROMANISM.
Stand, why his lordship's very oldest authority ia not
more ancient than about the year 350,
Thus speaks Justin' in his own Greek: and his statement is
explained by Langus in manner following: —
Verum Hunc Ipsum (sell. Patrem); et, qui ab eo venit, atque ista
nos et aliorum obsequentium exsequatommque (ad voluniatem ejus)
bonorum angelorum exercitum docuit, Filium; et Spiriium prophe-
tieum; colimue et adoramus, cum raiione et veritate venerdntes, atque
uniaiique discere atque nosse volenti, pro eo atque edocti sumus, can-
Side (nseij tradenies.
Yet, omitting, for obvious reasons, the latter part ofthe sentence,
Dr. Priestley has given us the followii% translation of its former
part: —
" Him, and the Son that came from him, and the host of other
' good angels who accompany and resemble him, together with
• the prophetic Spirit, we adore and venerate, in word and truth
• honouring them." — Hist, of Corrupt, part i. sect. 7. 'Works, vol.
V. p. 59.
In the hands, then, of Dr. Priestiey, Justin appears as the wor
shipper of angels: but I can discover nothing in the passage, save
an avowal by Justin, on the part of the catholic church, that all
christians, within forty years from the death of St. John, wor
shipped conjointly the Father and the Son and the prophetic
Spirit; that they had been taught that dottrine and practice by
the generation which immediately preceded them, and which by
chronological necessity must have conversed with St. John and his
contemporaries; and that, as they had received from their prede
cessors, so they were prepared freely to communicate to their
successors. " Him the Father; and the Son, who came forth from him, and
' who instructed us both respecting these things, and respecting
' the army of the other good angels who follow him, and who
' resemble him; and the prophetic Spirit: these three we worship
'and we attore, honouring them in word and ,in truth, and
' ungrudgingly delivering to every person who wishes to learn, as
' we ourselves have been taught.-'
I apprehend, that Justin uses the expression otheii good angels
relatively to the Son; because it is his unvaried doctrine, that the
Son is that angel or messenger of Jehovah, who appeared to the
ancient patriarchs, and who always received their adoration as the
Supreme Being. — See Justin. Dial, cum Tryph, p. 278 — 281.
These other good angels or messengers humbly follow him the
chief messenger, resembling him in point of holiness and purity.
The Son and the prophetic Spirit, Justin and the whole
CHURCH, as the fact is abundantly indicated by the use of a plural
phraseology, adored in conjunction with the Father: but never
did that holy martyr worship the angels, save in the unrivalled
translation of Doctor Priestley.

worship of relics. 193

CHAPTER XVI.

The Difficulties of Romanism in respect to the
Worship of Relics.
' Some persons, who call themselves christians,'
says the bishop of Aire, ' blush not with shameful
' ingratitude to censure the honours which we pay to
' the memory of the martyred heroes of our religion.
'These men charge it upon us as a crime, that we
' preserve their remains, that we cherish their ashes,
' that we ornament and visit their tombs: and yet,
* with strange inconsistency, they attach themselves
' to the least object, which may recal to their recol-
' lection a beloved and departed friend. But, how
' can that, which in the institutes of society is natural
' or innocent or laudable, suddenly become, in the
' institutes of religion, absurd and criminal and ido-
'latrous? ' In beholding the relics of the saints, in approaeh-
' ing their mortal remains, a religious awe takes pos-
* session of our senses: and the recollection of their
' virtues and their good deeds vividly impresses itself
'upon our imagination. A still small voice seems to
' issue from their tombs, which invites us to admire
' and to imitate them. These feet, it exclaims, walk-
' ed constantly in the paths of justice: these hands
' were always innocent and pure: that mouth was
' never opened, save either to praise God or to bless
'and benefit mankind: those limbs ministered only to
'virtue and charity. Victims of martyrdom or of
' penance, an, eternal weight of glory recompenses
' them for their passing tribulations: and, while
' crowns are assigned by Christ to their happy souls
' in heaven, he will not leave their mortal remains
' without honour in the dust of the tomb. When we
R

194 DIFFICULTIES OF ROMANISM,
' pray for extraordinary graces, our supplications are
' not addressed to the relics which lie before us, how-
' ever holy and venerable they may be. It is God,
'whom we bless for having glorified them: it is he,
' from whom we implore through them the same
' mercies: it is he, from whom we invoke grace, with
' the assistance and concurrence of this or of that
'saint, whose relics are dear to us, and whose me-
' mory is precious before him. From God then, as
' its source, the worship, with which we honour re-
' lies, originates: and to God, as its end, it ultimately
^and terminatively reverts.
' These are our sentiments: nor. have we ever en-
' tertained any other. If a person believes that we
' hold a diflferent opinion, he deceives himself. Men
' talk of erroneous and superstitious notions, which
' we have often taken up concerning relics: but I have
' never been able to discover them. In the respect
' and the homage, which we pay to the holy relics,
' where can even a shadow of idolatry be discov-
'ered."* I. In this very eloquent passage, the bishop, it
must be confessed, has made out a sufficiently plau-
.sible case for the use and veneration of relics.
It is true, indeed, that ajealous scripturalist cannot
discover by what authority his lordship defends the
invocation of grace from God, with the assistance
and concurrence of some favourite saint, whose re
lics are dear to the ardent votary: neither can he
comprehend, why such assistance and concurrence
should be at all necessary to the operations of the
Lord omnipotent. It is true, moreover, that he is
somewhat staggered with the frank admission, that
worship, though professedly originating from God as
its source and reverting to God as its end, is never
theless paid in its progress to insensible relicst. But,
* Discuss. Amic. Lett. xv.
¦]¦ In saying worship, I use the bishop's own language. The ti
tle of the letter now under consideration is Culte des Reliques;
and, in the present passage he says, Le Culte dont nous honorona
ks Reliques. — Discuss. Amic. votii. p. 309.

worship of RELICS. 195
while these particulars in the bishop's case are not
altogether satisfactory, we must at least fairly ac
knowledge, that, if there be no great good, there can
be no great harm, in employing the relic of a saint as
we employ a lock of hair severed from the head of a
dear departed friend; in employing it, that is to say,
for the purpose of exciting devout reminiscences.
His lordship, .then, avowedly rests the whole
strength of his argument upon this explanation: and
so confident is he of its accuracy, that he declares,
that no other sentiments have ever been entertained,
and that he has never heen able to discover those su
perstitious notions which have been charged uponthe
veneration of relics. The entire merit, therefore, of
the case rests upon the alleged fact, that relics are
simply used as recordatory aids to devotion, and.
that at no period have they ever been viewed under
any other aspect, ,
This, if I mistake not, is the position taken by the
bishop. Consequently, by the accuracy or inaccura
cy of the position, his argument must either stand or
fall, II, The grand objection to the veneration of relics,
however innocent it may be in the first instance, is
the indisputable fact, that we have no authority for
it in Scripture, and the too reasonable apprehension
that it will soon degenerate into a rank and degrad
ing superstition.
That any such degeneracy has ever taken place,
the bishop strenuously denies: but, as I have already
observed, even in his own statement of the matter,
we are encountered by much that is highly objection
able; and, in the citations which he himself has made
from certain of the later fathers, and to which others
of a similar description may easily be added, we as
suredly meet with some strange superstitious phanta
sies, which convey an idea to the mind very difierent
from that of a mere excitation of devout recollections.
The bishop, however, rests his argument upon this

196 DIFFICULTIES OF ROMANISM,
last point exclusively; with a declaration, that no
other sentiments were ever entertained. But his
declaration is proved, even by his own citations, to be
inaccurate. His argument, therefore, by the very
terms of its statement, becomes untenable,
'Men,'^^^s his lordship, 'talk of erroneous
' and superstitious notions, which we have often taken
' up concerning relics: but I have never been able to
' discovw them,'
I marvel to hear such language from the learned
prelate, when he himself quotes with approbation Ba
sil and Chrysostom and Gregory of Nyssa, The word
superstition may doubtless convey very different
ideas to a catholic of the Galilean church and to a
catholic of the reformed English church: but, what
ever may be thought of the term itself, the bishop's
citations most certainly, prove, that notions, far ex
ceeding the measure laid down by his lordship, have
been attached to the efficacy of relics.
If we may credit Basil and Theodoret, and Chry
sostom and Gennadius, and Euagrius and Gregory
the Great, and Gregory of Nyssa, and various others
who might easily be mentioned, the relics of the saints
are not . only useful as exciting devotional remi
niscences: but they are likewise mighty ramparts,
which are capable- of protecting towns from the mili
tary assaults of their, enemies; they are champions, by
whom all disasters are turned away from us; they are
strong rocks, which dissipate and nullify the snares
of unseen demons, and all the craftiness of Satan; they
possess such astonishing virtues, that the very touch
even of the shrine which contains them will bring
down a blessing, and that the touch ofthe relics them
selves will accomplish all the desires of those who are
admitted to so great a favour.*
* Basil. Homil. xx. in quadrag. Martyr. Oper. vol. i. p. 533.
Homil. xxvi. de Mart. Mamant. Oper. vol. i. p. 600, 601. Theo
dor. de Grace, affect, curat. Serm. viii. Oper. vol. iv. p. 595, 594, ^
600. Chrysostom. HomU. xxxii. in Epist. ad Rom. Oper. vol. ix.

WORSHIP OP RELICS. 197
Several of these extraordinary declarations are ap
probatively cited by the bishop: and yet he roundly
declares, so widely does he differ from us Anglicans
in his ideas of superstition, that, let men talk as they
please of erroneous and superstitious notions in the
matter of relics, he himself has never been able to dis
cover them,
p. 759, Homil. Ixix. in Petr. ^t Paid. Oper. Vol. i. p. 856. Ho
mil. Ixx. Encom. Martyr. iEgypt. Oper. vol: i. p. 869. Gennad.
de Vir. lUust. c. vi. Euagr. Hist.' Eccles. lib. i. c. 13. Gregor.
Magn. Epist. Ub. vii. epist. 23. Gregor. Nyss.in quadrag. Martyr.
Orat. iii. Gregor. Nyss. de Martyr. Theod.
The two most curious specimens of reliquary .superstition are
those mentioned by Gennadius and Euagrius, as referred to
above. From the former we learn, tiiatNisibis, being a frontier town,
and thence liable to be attacked by the enemies of the Roman
empire, was fortified by the Emperor Constantine with the body
of holy James its defunct bishop ; who, for the express purpose
of defending it from hostile assaults, was carefully buried within
its waUs.
. By the latter we are taught, that, for a similar mihtary pui"-
pose, the body of holy Symeon the StyUte, with his iron chain,
was conveyed to Antioch. Here his credit as an efficacious cham
pion rose so high, that the Emperor Leo, anxious for the security
of his dominions, wished to obtain from the Antiochlans this
cheap and therefore pecuUarly valuable defence : but the prudent
citizens knew too well their own interest to part with it. Our
City has no walls, was their reply, as we are assured by Euagrius :
hence we brought hither the most holy body of Symeon, that it might
serve us in the stead bothof wall and of bulwark. Their reason was
so satisfactory to Leo, that he forthwith assented to their wishes.
Euagrius adds, that many parts of the body remained to his own
time, and that he himself had been privUeged to see the head. He
fiirther remarks, that, during the episcopate of Gregory, PhUip-
picus soUcited a loan ofthe holy relics, that so he might with the
greater safety make a military expedition into the East.
Yet, says tiie bishop of Aire, after stating his own view of the
subject: These are our sentiments; iron have we evik estee-
TilNEB Airv OTHEH.
An English layman, whose studies had run in a totaUy different
line, might probably have found himself unable to contradict the
bishop, and might thence have been led implicitly to receive his
assertion. It is painful, however necessary, to point out these
dangerous inaccuracies, into which I shall always regret that suclj -
a man as the bishop of Aire should have fallen.
B 2

198 DIFFICULTIES OP ROMANISM.
III. Mere unscriptural superstition, gross and ab
surd as it may be, is however, I fear, not the only
charge which must be preferred against the use of re
lics. The bishop himself, while he would exhibit them
as simple recordatory aids to devotion, speaks ne
vertheless of a certain worship as being their due:
and this worship, in his description of it, I am unable
to distinguish from the worabip which is rendered to
the Divinity.
According to his lordship's theological system, this
worship originates from God and reverts to God: but,
in its progress, it rests upon the relics of the saints.
With the bishop's statement I have no wish to deal
captiously: yet, so far as I can perceive, the following
is the only sense which it is capable of bearing: —
A worship, originating from God, and reverting
to God, must inevitably be a strict and proper wor
ship of God. But, according to the bishop, it is
with this identical worship, resting upon them in.
its progress from God to God, that relics are
honoured. Therefore, the self-same worship, which
originatively and terminatively is paid to God, is
paid transitively to senseless and inanimate relics:
for, so far as I can understand his lordship's account
of the matter, the worship in question is first ad
dressed to God, next addressed transitively to relics,
and then finally once- more addressed to God.*
This statement of the mental process of relic-
worship, must be received, L apprehend, as the
bishop's gloss upon the decision ofthe second Coun
cil of Nice,

• I give the bishop's own words, that, if I have been guilty of
any involuntary' perversion, my error may be immediately dis
covered and corrected.
C'est done de Dieu, comme de sa source, que provient le
culte dont nous honorons Ies reliques; et c'est ^ Dieu, comme 4
sa demiere fin, qu'U remonte et se termine. Discuss. Amic. vol.
ii. p. 309.

WORSHIP OP RELICS. 199
' I adore and honour and salute the relics of the
' saints, as of those, who have wrestled on behalf of
' Christ, and who have received grace from him to
' accomplish healings and to cure disorders and to
' eject demons: according as the church of the chris-
' tians hath received from the holy apostles and fa-
' thers down even to ourselves,'*
Such is the- authoritative decision of that famous
council, expressed in the unanimously adopted words
of Theodosius the lesser: and, to whatever extent it
may require the worship of relics to be carried, the
payment of any adoration to these objects cannot but
strike a plain man as a palpable breach of the second
commandment,t The council, we may observe, anathematizes all
persons, who refuse to adore and to honour and to
salute the relics of the saints: and, in favour of such
extraordinary worship, it boldly pleads the authority
of the holy apostles.
Whenever that authority shall be produced, I will
freely submit: but, until that requisite preliminary
shall have been accomplished, I shall incline to fear
the denunciation of God in the second commandment
much more than the anathema of the individuals
assembled in the second Council of Nice, At all
events, the actual use of relics is a matter, which far
exceeds their mere employment for the purpose of
exciting devout reminiscences. Any statement,
therefore, to th& latter effect, is a statement calculated
to mislead rather than to inform an unsuspecting
English laic.
IV. The propriety of relic-worship the Jiishop
would demonstrate through the medium of various
miracles wrought at the shrines or over the relics of
the martyrs.
• Ooncil. Nicen. secund. act. i. Labb. Concil. Sacros. vol.
vii. p. 60.
'j- By the second commandmenti mean the portion of Scripture
contained in Exodus xx. 4 — 6,

200 ¦ DIFFICULTIES OP ROMANISM.
Every miracle, recorded in Scripture, I devoutly
receive: but I do hot therefore pledge myself to ad
mit the portents, which are detailed in the thauma-
turgic calendar of a superstitious church. The
utterly unscriptural character of the practice, in fa
vour of which these miracles are alleged to have been
performed, is alone sufficient to make them suspi
cious or even worse than suspicious: and, in the
nineteenth century, the less his lordship says respect
ing such apocryphal wonders, the more prudently he
will act.
V. But the bishop is willing also to take a some
what more rational line of argument. Adopting the
declaration of the second Nicene Council, and supply
ing its deficiency of evidence, he would trace the
worship of relics to the very apostolic age itself, thus
establishing its undoubtedly divine origination.
1. In the Apocal3'pse, St. John beholds, under the
altar in the figurative heaven, the souls of them that
were slain for the word of God and for the testimony
which they held. *
Hence his lordship infers, that the bodies of these
martyrs had been buried under the altar of a literal
christian oratory, and that they were venerated in the
apostolic age precisely as relics are now venerated by
tihe Latin church.
2. When the protomartyr Stephen was dead,
devout men, as we Anglicans understand the passage,
carried him out for the evident purpose of giving him
decent christian burial.t
But the bishop proves from the place, that the
• Rev. vi. 9.
t Acts vui. 2. Compare Sophoc. Ajac. ver. 1071, 1072. The
same Greek verb, (rvyxtfil^a, is used both by Luke and by
Sophocles, for the purpose, as we Anglicans deem, of expressing
the same action. No person wiU suspect, that Menelaus was jea
lous, lest Teuser should carry offihe corpse of Ajax for the purpose
of converting its several members into reUcs: yet the bishop
would thus interpret the object of the devout men, when they
tarried o^the body of the murdered Stephen,

WORSHIP OP RELICS, 201
early believers, under the very sanction iOf the apos
tles, revered the relics of Stephen,
3, In a similar manner, when Polycarp was dead
in the flames, his affectionate flock wishing to extri
cate the scorched remnant of his body for the plain
purpose of decorously burying it, the centurion threw
it back into the fire: and the Smyrneans could pro
cure only the calcined bones, which with much
lamentation they disposed of where it was meet; that
is to say, they committed the bones to the grave in
which they would have buried the body,*
From these few recorded circumstances, the bishop
would establish the fact, that the church of Smyrna,
in the second century, preserved and worshipped the
relics of Polycarp.
4. Furthermore, the bishop adduces the churches
of Africa, in the second and third ages, as rivalling
the churches of Asia in their zeal for relic-worship:
and he proves his point by the authority of Tertullian
and Cyprian. According to his lordship, these fathers
speak of sacrifices being offered in honour of the
dead: according to myself, they speak of thanksgiv
ings being commemoratively offered up to the Al
mighty, for that he had been pleased to receive into
glory the souls of the departed martyrs, t
Hence the bishop demonstrates the zeal of the
early African churches for the alleged apostolic
practice of relic- worship.
If, what is well nigh impossible, the exemplary
bishop of Aire has a personal enemy; the bitter wish
of that enemy will be, that his lordship may always
thus argue against the principles of the church of
England. * Epist. Eccles. Smyrn. § xvii, xviii.
f TertuU. de Coron. MiU. § iii. Oper. p. 449. Cyprian. Epist,
i, xii, xxxix. Oper. p. 3, 27, 28, 77.

202 DIPPICULTIES OP ROMANISM,

CHAPTER XVII.
The Difficulties of Romanism in respect to the
Veneration of Images,
From his vindication of relic-worship, the bishop
of Aire proceeds to the arduous task of defending the
veneration of images.*
I. That images are actually 'worshipped in the
church of Rome, the bishop is so far from denying,
that he himself cites with praise the decision of the
second Council of Nice.
' The honour paid to the image passes to its proto-
' type: and he, who adores the image, adores in it the
' person of him whom it represents. 't
This passage, unless I wholly misunderstand it,
declares that we adore the image with the same spe
cies of worship as we adore its original. Hence, if
the image represent the Virgin Mary, we adore the
image with the same worship as we adore the Holy
Virgin : and hence, if the image represent Christ, we
adore the image with the identical worship which we
render to God incarnate,
II, Lest, however, we should labour under any
misapprehension, let us again hear the second Nicene
Council: and let us afterward attend to the exposition,
which has been given by James Naclantus, bishop of
Clugium, 1. In the first action of the council, we are pre
sented with the following explicit decision, under the
form of a creed or symbol: —
' I confess and . agree and receive and salute and
' adore the unpolluted image of our Lord Jesus Christ
' our true God, and the holy image ofthe holy mother
* Discuss. Amic. Lett. xvi.
f Council Nicen. secund. act. vii. Labb. Concil. Sacros, vol.
vii. p. 556.

VENERATION OP IMAGES. 203
' of God who bore him without the conception of seed.
' In like manner, also, I receive and adore the images
' of the holy apostles and prophets and martyrs and
'fathers and eremites; not, however, as gods. — To
' those, who adore not the holy and venerable images,
' let there be anathema. — To those who blaspheme the
' precious anti venerable images, let there be anathe-
'ma. — To those, who diligently teach not the whole
' Christ-loving people to adore and salute the venerable
' and holy and precious images of all the saints, let
' there be anathema.'*
2. Thus speaks the second Council of Nice: let us
now attend to the exposition of the bishop of Clu
gium, which was published at Venice in the' sixteenth
century, and which (so far as I am awarej has never
been censured or prohibited by the pope and church
of Rome.
' We must not only confess, that the faithful in the
' church worship before an image; as some over-
' squeamish souls might peradventure express them-
' selves: but we must furthermore confess, without
' the slightest scruple of conscience, that they adore
' the very image itself ;ior, in sooth, they venerate it
' with the identical worship wherewith they venerate
' its prototype. Hence, if they adore the prototype
' with that divine worship which is rendered to God
' alone, and which technically bears the name of
' Latria, they adore also the image with the same
' Latria or divine worship; and, if they adore the
' prototype with Dulia or Hyperdulia, they are bound
' also to adore the image with the self-same species of
' inferior worship.'t
* Concil. Nicen. secund. act. i. Labb. Concil. Sacros. vol. vii. p.
60, 61. See also act. vi. p. 541. In this place a distinction is ex
pressly made, between using images commemoratively only, and
using images adoratively: and those persons, who maintain the
former opinion to the exclusion of the latter, are condemned aa
heretics. The same idolatrous strain pervades the epistle of the
patriarch Tarasius to Constantine and Irene in the seventh action
ofthe council, p. 577 — 585.
f Ergo non solum fatendum est, fideles in ecclesia adorars

204 DIPPICULTIES OP ROMANISM.
Nothing is more evident, than that Naclantus is
here giving a regular exposition of the image-wor
ship, enjoined, under pain of its anathema, by the
second Nicene Council: and nothing, so far as I can
judge, is more evident also, than that his exposition
is perfectly accurate. Now the church of Rome
fully acknowledges the second Council of Nice, as a
legitimate and infallible council: therefore, the esta
blished doctrine of the church of Rome, as set forth
ably and clearly from the second Nicene Council by
James of Clugium, is, that ' the worship paid to an
' image of Christ is the very same in kind and degree
' as the worship paid to Christ himself.'
III. By way of hiding the deformity of this idola
trous council, the bishop of Aire attempts to set up a
difference between absolute worship and relative
worship. Absolute worship, of whatever degree, is paid to
the prototype alone: relative worship, on the con
trary, is the sole worship paid to the image.*
I admit, that, according to the council, 'he, who
'adores the image, adores in it the person of him
'whom it represents:' and thence I admit also, that
the image would not be adored, save on account of
its supposed relation to the person of whom it is
deemed the similitude. But still I am unable io dis
cern, how the bishop's distinction can absolve his
church from the awful charge of gross idolatry. The
most ignorant pagan, in bowing down before his idol,
never thought of adoring it, except with that species
of worship which the bishop terms relative. His
constant language, as we learn from Arnobius, was,
coram imagine, ut nonnuUi ad cautelam forte loquuntur; sed et
adorare imaginem, sine quo volueris scrupulo: quin et eo illam
venerantur cultu, quo et prototypon ejus. Propter quod, «
illud habet adorare Latria; et ilia, Latria: si DuUa vel Hyperdulia;
etUla pariter ejusmodi cultu adorandaest. Jacob. Naclant. Clug
Expos. Epist. ad. Boman. cap. i. cited in Homil. iii, against peril
of idolatry, p. 197. Oxon. 1802.
* Discuss. Amic. vol. ii. p. 326.

VENERATION OP IMAGES. 205
' Not that brass and gold and silver, when fashioned
' into statues, are gods; but that, through these images,
'the invisible gods are honoured and worshipped.'*
The ancient pagan and the modern bishop of Aire
alike contend for the propriety of what they alike
denominate relative adoration. But, if this relative
adoration be not idolatry, it is difficult to compre
hend how the sin of idolatry could ever have existed :
for no person ever yet worshipped an idol without
reference to the being, whom that idol was thought
to represent.
That the adoration of images is enjoined by the se
cond Nicene Council, and that the decision of that
council has been received by the church of Rome, is
certain and indisputable. The bishop, if it so please
him, may term such worship relative: hut it is not,
on that account, the less idolatrous. When the image
of Christ is worshipped, let the matter be disguised
as it may, that image is worshipped with the identi
cal worship that is rendered to Christ himself. Thus
evidently speaks the second Council of Nice: and
thus its decision was rightly understood and explained
by James Naclantus,
In fact, by no dexterity of evasion can it be other
wise understood. 'We adore,' say the Nicene fa
thers, ' the unpolluted image of our Lord Jesus Christ
'our true God: and, when we adore the image, we
' adore in it the person of him whom it represents. '
What then is the worship rendered to the image ?
Clearly it is the identical worship which is rendered
to Christ. I admit that the image is worshipped, be-
causeitis deemed a representation of God incarnate;
just as the image of Jupiter was worshipped, because
it was deemed a representation of Jupiter himself,:
but still the image is worshipped; and, let that wor
ship be relative or positive, the worship in question i.s
identical with the worship rendered to God incarnate.
• Arnob. adv. Gent. lib. vi. p, 103. See also Clementin. Homil.
X. § 21. S

206 DIFFICULTIES OF ROMANISM.
Let the bishop shift and explain as he will, this is
the point to which we shall always be ultimately con
ducted: and, sb long as the second Nicene Council is
the standard of Latin orthodoxy, James of Clugium
must ever be esteemed an honest and consistent ex
positor. With the Scripture in their hands, it is really mar
vellous, how the Nicene fathers could have dared to
establish idolatry, and to disfranchise" the genuine
seventh ecuinenical council which had expressly con
demned this horrible abomination.*
'Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image,
' or the likeness of that which is in heaven above, or
'in the earth beneath, or in the water under the
* The language of the Nicene fathers is so extraordinary, that
it ought not to be withheld from our English laity.
'The venei-able images, both of the dispensation of our Lord
'JeSus Chi'lst as he became man for our salvation, and of our
'unpoUutedlady the holy mother of God, and of tiie god-like
' angels, and of the holy apostles and prophets and martyrs, and
' all the saints, I salute and embrace and adore, according to their
'just degrees of honour, rejecting and anathematizing, from my
' whole soul and intellect, that synod, wlilch was congregated
' through madness and folly, and which has been denominated
' the Seventh CouncU: though, by persons who think rightly, it
' is lawfully and canonically styled a false synod, as being aliena-
' ted from all truth and piety, and as having rashly and boldly and
' atheistically barked against the heaven-delivered ecclesiastical
< legislation, and as having insulted the holy and venerable
' images, and as having commanded them to be removed from
' the holy churches of God — Anathema to the calumniators of
' Christians! Anathema to the breakers of images! Anathema
' to those who apply to images the scriptural denunciations
' against idols! Anathema to those who refuse to- salute the holy
'and venerable images! Anathema to those who call the holy
'images idols! Anathema to those who aid and abet the dis-
'honourers of the holy images!' — Concil. Nicen, secund. act. i.
Labb. Concil. Sacros. vol. vii. p. 56, 57.
The atheistical council, upon which all these curses are imp*-
cated, and upon which all this torrent of rancorous abuse is
poured, was guilty of no crime, save that of scripturally con
demning gross idolatry. To have a full conception of the mys
tery of imquit)'-, a person ought, like myself, to have perused the
acts ofthe second Nicene Council.

VENERATION OF IMAGES. 207
' earth. Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them,
*nor serve them,'*
Where, in the awful word of Jehovah thundering
from Mount Sinai, is there any idle distinction be
tween relative worship and positive worship? In the
book of God I read not such vain subtilties: their
existence was never dreamed of in the ancient church
of Israel. The command is positive, explicit, uni
versal. If the wisdom of the Lord hath made no ex
ceptions, shall the puny dexterity of quibbling school
men dare authoritatively to propound them, and
under an anathema to enforce them upon the catholic
church of Christ? If God hath spoken unlimitedly,
shall a presumptuous council dare to set limits to his
decision? The adoration of images is enjoined by
the second*Nicene Council, in express opposition to
the sound and scriptural determination of its imme
diate Constantinopolitan predecessor: and this adora
tion, lamentable to say, is justified and vindicated by
a Latin prelate of the nineteenth centiiry, to whose
general excellence report bears ample testimony. Yet
all adoration of images is straitly prohibited by that
jealous God, who is the sovereign Lord both of hea
ven and of earth. From one end of the Bible to the
other, not a hint is breathed of the bishop's vain dis
tinction between relative worship and positive wor
ship. The adoration of images, under any pretence,
is altogether forbidden. ' Thou shalt not bow down
thyself to them, nor serve them.'
IV. "Notwithstanding the decision of the second
Council of Nice, and the approved comment of James
Naclantus, the bishop esteems the apprehensions of
protestants, relative to the mischief which may flow
from image-worship, to be purely chimerical, t
Neither his own statement of its alleged principle,
nor absolute matter of fact, will allow me to adopt
his opinion.
1. The extreme danger attendant upon the unholy
• Exod, XX. 4, 5. f Discuss. Amic. vol. ii. p. 359.

208 DIFFICULTIES OP ROMANISM.
practice, in the case of recent converts from pagan
ism, he himself, very fully, though perhaps not very
discreetly, allows.
According to his own confession, image-worship
bears such an unhappy resemblance to pagan idolatry,
that it were easy for recent converts to mistake the
one for the other. On this ground he is willing to
account for the otherwise unaccountable conduct of
the ancient Council of Elvira, which strictly forbade
images and pictures to be introduced into churches:
and, on the same ground, he inclines to explain the
extraordinary though acknowledged fact, that the
apostles and their early successors did not adopt the
adoration of images. These primitive and holy men,
if we may credit his lordship, had no unseemly dis
like to image-worship in the abstract: but they
thought it prudent, in their own particular case, to
abstain from the practice, because they reasonably
dreaded lest the new converts from paganism, should
mistake orthodox Christian image-worship for unor
thodox heathen idolatry.*
Whether the tlue reason of the fact be assigned,
may admit of some dispute. The fact itself, that
the apostles and their early successors did not wor
ship images, I agree with the bishop in esteeming
most certain, t
2, But, whatever danger of a mistake there might
• Discuss. Amic. vol. ii. p. 350.
-t- The use of images, however, though they certainly were not
worshipped by the apostle.^, was at least oi apostolic antiquity: yet
I doubt whether this circumstance will much benefit the cause
which has been espoused by the bishop. We leai'n from Irenseus
and Epiphanius, tiiatthe Gnostics, who ' flourished in the age of
the aposties, worshipped ¦with misplaced devotion both pictures
and images of Christ. The manufacturer of these sacred imple
ments is said to have been Pontius PUate. Whether from this
circumstance they were conceived to derive any peculiar sanc
tity, we are not informed. Be that as it may, image-worship seems
to have been first associated with Christianity by the Gnostics,
and from them to have been adopted as a most sound and edify
ing practice by the fathers ofthe second Nicene Council.— Iren.
, adv. H!cr. Ub. i. c. 24. § 9. Epiph. adv. Hffir. Ub. i. hsr. 27-

Veneration of images. 209
be in the case of new converts from paganism, his
lordship, in full accordance with the Council of
Trent, deems the matter quite altered, when, by
lapse of time, the place of new converts shall have
been supplied by those more experienced believers,
whom the Spaniards denominate old Christians.
Pagan idolatry having altogether ceased to exist,
image-worship now becomes, not only exempt from
all danger, but even in a very high degree useful and
edifying. For, since Christianity has reigned among
us during, so many ages; and since, from their earliest
childhood, l^e faithful learn to put no trust in images,
and^to ask from them no favour; there cannot possi
bly be any danger in the use of such implements.*
(1.) In the latter part of this defence, even on the
supposition of its containing an accurate statement,
there seems to be a very singular species of incon
sistency. According to the bishop, the faithful, from their
earliest childhood, learn to put no trust in images,
and to ask from them no favour.
Now, if this statement be accuratie, it is impossible
to refrain from asking. Where then can be the benefit
or utility of adoring images? The second Nicene
Council curses all persons who refuse to worship such
puppets: and James Naclantus declares, that the faith
ful worship, not only before each imitative image,
but even each imitative image itself ; adoring the
image with the self-same adoration that is rendered
to its prototype. Yet the bishop of Aire assures us,
that, from their earliest childhood, they learn to put
no trust in images, and to ask from them no fa
vour. Truly, if this be the case, the adoration of
images, as prescribed by the second Nicene Council,
and as practised by the members of the church of
Home, seems to be a most unaccountably unreasonable
service. Our Latin brethren are required, under the
• Discuss. Amic. vol. ii. p. 35J,
s 2

210 DIFFICULTIES OF ROMANISM.
pain of a curse, to worship images: nevertheless, if
we may credit the bishop of Aire, they are carefully
taught that this adoration will do them no manner of
good ; for they learn, from their earliest childhood,
to put no trust in them, and to ask no favour
from them.
Certainly, the learned prelate, in his zeal to defend
his church from the imputation of idolatry, inadver
tently charges her with an almost incredible measure
of fatuity. The worship of images she strenuously
enforces: but its total inutility she diligently incul
cates. Images, indeed, we must adore; but then we
must put no trust in them, and ask from them no
favour. (2.) It. may be doubted, however, whether the
bishop's statement be perfectly accurate: it may be
doubted, whether the second Nicene Council, when
it enjoined the adoration of images, meant to teach
that we can derive no benefit from the practice.
The following specimens, at least, of Romish devo
tion, extracted from the book of the Hours of the Vir
gin, for the use of the church of Salisbury, as printed
at Paris in the year 1526, do not seem quite exactly
to accord with the bishop's statement of the matter,
' To all them that be in a state of grace, who de-
'voutly say this prayer before our blessed Lady of
'pity, she will shew them her blessed visage, and
'warn them of the day and hour of death: and, in
' their last end, the angels of God shall yield their souls
' to heaven. Such a person shall obtain five hundred
'years, and so many lents of pardon, granted by five
' holy fathers, popes of Rome.
'Our holy father, Sixtus the fourth, pope, hath
' granted to all them that devoutly say this prayer
'before the image of our Lady, the sum of eleven
' thousand years of pardon.
' These be the fifteen Go's, which the holy virgin
' St. Bridget was wont to say daily before the holy
' rood in St, Paul's church at Rome. Whoso says

VENERATION OP IMAGES, 211
* this a whole year, shall deliver fifteen souls of his
'next kindred out of purgatory, and shall convert
'other fifteen sinners to a good life: and other fifteen
' righteous men of his kind shall persevere in a good
'life: and, what ye desire of God, ye shall have it, if
' it be to the salvation of your souls,
' To all them that before this image of pity shall
' devoutly say five pater-nosters, and five ave-maries,
'and a credo, piteously beholding those arms of
' Christ's passion, are granted thirty-two thousand
' seven hundred and fifty -five years of pardon : and
'Sixtus the fourth, pope of Rome, hath made the
' fourth and fifth prayer, and hath doubled his afore-
'said pardon,'*
I am unable to reconcile the privileges thus devoutly
granted to the worshippers of images, with the asser
tion of the bishop of Aire, that the faithful learn,
from their very childhood, to put no trust in them,
and to ask from them no favour. At all events, if
his lordship's casuistry be able to draw some subtle
line of distinction, I greatly fear, that to al! plain un
lettered persons the line will be altogether invisible.
No man ever did, or ever will, adore an image, with
out putting his trust in that image, and without ex
pecting to receive some favour from it,t

• Hor, B. Mari^ Virg. ad usum Sarum. Paris. 1526, fol. 38, 42,
50, 54. apud Bp. Burnet's Hist, of the Reform, vol. ii. p. 138,
139. 't.It is denied by the bishop of Aire, that the Latins, after the
fashion of the old pagans, suppose their images to be the recep-
tacles or dwelUng-places of the persons whom they represent.
His lordship means, I presume, that no such doctrine has been
fofrmally promulgated by the church of Rome. This may very
possibly be the case; but, vmless, in mailer of fact, the doctrine
had long and generaUy prevailed, it is impossible to account fop
the extraordinary notions which have been entert^ned relative
to the consecrated images and pictures. Legends exist, in which
we are taught, that the images of the Virgin have spoken, that
they have sung, that they have soared in the air Uke birds, that
they have rolled their eyes, that they have sweat blood, that
they have been transmvited into flesh, that they have wept and

213 DIFFICULTIES OF ROMANISM,
(3.) The bishop, however, is quite sure, that, where
Christianity has been long established, image-worship
lamented and groaned. — Jurieu's Contin. chap. xiv. Such cir
cumstances are gravely asserted to have taken place even within
our own memory: for we are assured, that, at Rome, in the year
1796, pictures of Madonnas opened and shut their eyes, images
of saints altered tiieir position; and crucifixes moved their eye-
Uds. — Zouch on the Proph. p. 180. Exactly the same alleged
circumstances originally introduced and sanctioned the practice
of image-worship. 'At first, the experiment was made withcau-
'tion and scruple: and the venerable pictures were discreetiy
' aUowed to instruct the ignorant, to awaken the cold, and to gra-
'tify the prejudices ofthe heathenproselytes. By a slow though
' inevitable progression, the honours of the original were trans-
' ferred to the copy: the devout christian prayed before the image
'of a saint: and the pagan rites of genuflexion, luminaries, and
' incense, again stole into the , catholic church. The scruples of
' reason or piety were sUenced by the strong evidence of visions
' and miracles: and the pictures, which speak and move and bleed,
'must be endowed with a divine enbi-gy, and may be considered
' as the proper object of religious adoration. — Gibbon's Hist, of
Decline, vol. ix. chap. 49, p. 115.
These pretended miracles were doubtless mere tricks, per
formed by the priests through the agency of springs and wires:
for the imposture was discovered, when, -with other simUar im
ages, the crucifix of Boxley, which had been observed to bow,
and to lift itself up, and to stir its head and hands and feet, and
to roll its eyes, and to move its Ups, and to bend its brow, was
publicly broken in pieces, at St. Paul's cross, for the purpose of
disabusing tiie long-deceived people. — Bumefs Hist, of the Re
form. Book III. vol. i. p. 232. Doubtiess these pretended mira
cles were mere juggUng tricks; and the bishop believes their
divinity no more than I do: but stiU I perceive not, how such
tricks and such legends could ever have come into existence, had
not some vague superstitious notion prevailed, that the puppets
were animated by the spirit of the persons whom they severally
purported to represent. The very existence of the tricks and the
legends demonstratively proves, against the bishop of Aire, the
existence of the notion. For, assuredly, no person would con
trive such tricks and manufacture such legends, who did not -wish
to impress and confirm the behef, that the consecrated images,
like those ofthe ancient pagans, were the receptacles or dwelUng-
places of the persons whom they represent. The notions, at
tached by the pagans to the image of Minerva, exactiy correspond
with those, which have been attached by the Latins to the image
of the Virgin. Compare Virgil. .Sneid. Ub. ii. ver. If 1 — 175,
lyith Tasso's Gerus, Liberal, cant. ii.

VENERATION OF IMAGES. 213
can never lead to idolatry; though, in recently-con
verted countries, the circumstance may easily occur.
Such language, even in its very construction, is
singularly paradoxical, not to say contradictory. I
am perfectly aware, that the second Nicene Council
anathematizes all those persons, who presume to apply
the name of idols to the images which it requires us
to adore: but if, contrary to the second command
ment, a statue be worshipped, I see not how the
nature of the deed can be changed, by the mere ver
bal expedient of calling the statue an image rather
than an idal. St. Paul knew nothing of the distinc
tion, which has been set up by the Nicene fathers
and by the church of Rome after them. With him,
the worship of an image was the same as the wor
ship of an idol:* and so, in the judgment of plain
common sense, it must always be. Hence, to say,
that in long-christianized countries image worship
can never lead to idolatry, is a palpable contradiction:
for image-worship and idolatry are identical.
The opinion of Pope Gregory the great, as to the
identity of image-worship and idolatry, corresponds
with the opinion of St. Paul: but then it must be con
fessed that both Paul and Gregory flourished before
the fathers of the second Nicene Council.
According to the bishop of Aire, image-worship
can never lead old-established christians into idolatry.
Pope Gregory was of a different opinion: and, unhap
pily, he was borne out by facts.
Serenus, bishop of Marseilles, finding it impossible
to prevent his people from worshipping the images
which had been unadvisedly set up in the churches,
forthwith, like a faithful and vigilant pastor, brake
the contemptible puppets in pieces. For this action
he, was censured by Pope Gregory: not, however, on
the ground, that the people had not committed ido
latry, for this was most fully allowed by ihe Ro-
• See Kom. i. 23,

214 DIFFICULTIES OF ROMANISM.
man prelate; but on the totally different ground, that
images might be employed as a useful mean of con
veying instruction to the illiterate, though any wor
ship of them ought to be strictly prohibited.*
* Gregor. Epist. lib. ix. Epist. 105. Ub. xi. Epist. 13. aUter 9.
Oper. vol. ii. Paris. 1705. The bishop of Aire's representation
of this matter varies considerably from my own. His lordship
exhibits Serenus as only anxious to jorraerei that idolati-y which he
thought very probably would take place: whereas, upon a careful
inspection of the original, it appears to me, tiiat tiie idolatry
actually had taken place, and that Serenus brake the images on
that very account. See Discuss. Amic. vol. ii. p. 353; That tiie
public may judge between us, I annex the identical statements of
Gregory himself.
I. Gregorius Sereno Episc. Massil. Quod fraternitati vestry
tam sera scripta transmittiihus, non hoc torpori, sed occupationi,
deputate. Latorem vero prsesentium dilectissimum fiUum Cyria-
cum, monasterii patrem, vobis in omnibus commendamus, ut nuUa
hunc in Massiliensi civitate mora detineat, sed ad fratrem co'epis-
copum nostrum Syagrium, cum sanctitatis vestrse solatio, Deo
protegente, proficiscatur. Prseterea indico dudum ad nos per-
venisse, quod fraternitas vestra, anosuAM: imaginum ADoiiAToitES
AspiciEHs, easdem in ecclesiis imagines confregit atque projecit.
Et quidem zelumvos, ne quid manufactum adorari posset, habuisse
fauaaja'rotiS; sed frangere easdem imagines non debuisse, indica-
mus. Idcirco enim pictura in ecclesiis adhibetur, ut hi, qui Ute-
ras nesciunt, saltem in parletibus videndo, legant qu;e legere in
codicibus non valent. Tua ergo fraternitas, et illas servare, et
ab earum adoratu populum prohibere, debuit: quatenus etlltera-
rum nescU haberent unde scientiam historic coUigerent, etpopu-
lus in pictures adoratione minime peccaret. Gregor. Epist. Ub. ix.
epist. 105.
II. Gregorius Sereno Episc. Massil. Convocandi sunt dispersi
Ecclesiffi fiUi, eisque Scriptural sacrse est testimoniis ostendendum,
quia omne manufactum adorari non licet; quoniam scriptum est:
Dominum Deum tuam adorabis, et illi soli servies. Ac deinde
subjungendum, quia picturas imaginum, quze ad sdificationem
imperiti populi fuerant factte, ut, nescientes Uteras, ipsam histo-
riam intendentes, quid actum sit discerent. Quia than-sisse is
ADOnATIOlfEM VIBEBAS, IDCIHCO COMMOTUS ^ES, TJT EAS IMAGINES
ihangi piuEcipiiBEs. Atque eisdem dicendum: si ad hancin-
structionem, ad quam imagines antiqultus factje sunt, habere
vultisin ecclesia, eas modis omnibus et fieri et haberi permitto.
Atque iiidica, quod non tibi ipsa visio historise, quse pictura teste
pendebatur, displicuerit; sed iiia adobatio, avJB pictubis fue-
BAT incomfetenteb exhibita. Atquc, in his verbis eorum men-
tes demulcens, eos ad concordiam tuam revoca. Et, siquis ima-

VENERATION OF IMAGES. 215
Now I cannot find, that the Massilians did any
thing more, than what was subsequently commanded
by the second Nicene Council, which the bishop of
Aire stands pledged to obey. Images were origi
nally introduced into churches, on the plea of their
aiding devotion in the capacity of mere instructive
memorials. This use of images soon led to their be
ing worshipped: and, by Serenus and Gregory, such
worship was pronounced to be idolatry. Thus stood
the matter at the close of the sixth century: thus also
was image-worship viewed, in the year 754, by the
Council of Constantinople. But, when the second
Nicene Council sat in the year 787, the worship of
images was made to assume a totally different aspect.
The act of the Massilians, which Serenus and Gregory
had prohibited as manifestly idolatrous, was vindi
cated and sanctioned and enjoined, under pain of
an anathema, by the Nicene fathers. Between image-
worship and idolatry, the more ancient doctors could
perceive no difference: but the Nicene fathers threw
quite a new light on the subject, by pronouncing that
gines facere voluerit, minime prohibe: adorari vero imagines
omnibus modis veta. Sed hoc solllcite fraternitas tua admoneat,
ut ex visioue rei gestje ardorem compunctionis percipiant, et in
adoratione solius omnipotentis sanctae Trinitatis humUiter pros-
ternantur. Gregor. Epist. lib. xi. epist, 13. aUter 9.
The extract from the latter of tiiese epistles is chronologically
posterior to the former of tiiem, and in fact refers to it. One
might think the language sufficiently plain: I subjoin, however,
the bishop's comment in liis own words.
EcouteZj je vous prie. Monsieur, ce qu' ecrivolt un grand
pape i un eveque de Marseille, qui par un zele inconsider^ avoit
bris^ Ies images des saints, sous le pr^texte qu'il ne faut pas Ies
adorer. Discuss. Amic. vol. ii. p. 353.
The English laic con-espondent of the bishop has most proba
bly never opened the works of Pope Gregory. It may be doubted,
whether his lordship wiU have given him a very distinct idea of
ofthe transaction.
I beg to make my acknowledgments to my friends Dr. Eller-
ton and Mr. Crowe, for the trouble which they kindly took in
making the above extracts, in the original Latin, from the works
of Pope Gregory in the Bodleian library.

216 DIFFICULTIES OP ROMANISM.
a worshipped image was something totally distinct
from a worshipped idol.
The bishop of Aire will perhaps say with Pope
Gregory the second, that images are the representa
tions of Christ and his saints, while idols are the re
presentations cf pagan divinities: whence he may
argue, that, between the worship of the former and
the worship of the latter, there is a marked and essen
tial difference.
So may the bishop argue: but he will not, on that
account, the more agree with Pope Gregory the first.
The images, worshipped by the Massilians in their
churches, were representations, not of the pagan gods,
but of Christ and the Virgin and the saints; yet this
identical image-worship, which was afterwards en
joined by the Nicene fathers under pain of an anathe
ma, was confessed by Gregory the first to be idolatry;
and, on that precise ground, was prohibited.
But, contends the bishop of Aire, image-worship
can never lead old-established Christians into idolatry.
The bishop is perfectly in the right, provided only
we can admit, that the nature of an action can be to
tally -altered by a change of nomenclature. Here,
however, lies the dif&culty: and, notwithstanding all
that his lordship has said on the subject, protestants,
I apprehend, ,will still continue to think, with Sere
nus and Gregory the great, that the very act of wor
shipping an image, as that act is enjoined by the se
cond Council of Nice, inevitably causes the wor
shipped image to become an idol. As for denying
that images ought to be worshipped, no member of
the Romish church can take such a step without flatly
contradicting the second Nicene Council, and thereby
confessing himself to be an accursed heretic,
V, According to his wont, the bishop of Aire at
tempts to strengthen his cause by the authority of
the fathers.
Whom then of the fathers does he adduce? Truly
he adduces none save those, who flourished at a com-

VENERATION OF IMAGES, 217
paratively late period, when the innovation of image-
worship had doubtless been introduced into the church,
though by no means with universal consent.
Why did he not cite the two Clements, and Poly
carp, and Ignatius, and Justin, and Athenagoras?*
_ * If the bishop does not cite those ancient fathers, he at least
cites Tertullian as an advocate of image-worship, and as an unex
ceptionable ¦witness of its early-approved existence in the Chris
tian church,
Tertullian, it must be confessed, though less ancient than Cle
ment of Rome and Polycarp and Ignatius and Justin and Athena
goras, flourished toward the close of the second century and at
the beginning of the third century: yet, notwithstanding his an
tiquity, I doubt whether the bishop wUl find him a very effective
ally. f-
This father speaks of christians having cups ornamentally em
bossed ¦with the parable of the lost sheep. The bishop chooses
to consider these cups as being the sacramental chalices. I wiU
not undertake to contradict him: because, in truth, TertuUian
says nothing as to their precise character. They may therefore
have been, and probably enough were, sacramenta] chalices. But
what then? Because these sacramental chalices (we ¦wiU say)
¦were adorned, in embossed work, or possibly in enamel, with the
very appropriate parable of the lost sheep: have we here any
proof, that either TertulUan or his contemporaries were addicted
to image-worship.'
That the reader may be enabled to form a correct judgment of
the bishop's criticism, I subjoin, what his lordship has omitted,
the precise words of TertulUan,
A paraboUs Ucebit incipias, ubi est ovis perdita a domino re-
quisita et humeris ejus revecta. Procedant ipsse picturee calicum
vestrorum. TertuU. de Pudic. Oper. p. 748.
In this narrow space Ues the bishop's entire demonstration,
that Tertullian was an advocate of image- worship.
But, ill reaUty, while he thus cites TertuUian as an authority,
he destroys by his own hand the evidence which he had laboured
to extract from that father. Though the christians of that period,
if we may beUeve the bishop, were undoubted image-worship
pers, stiUthey possessed not any images: and his lordship apolo
gizes for the acknoTvledged fact of tfieir not having images, on
the ground, that, in their persecuted and uncertain condition,
they could not easily carry such articles along with them.
The sanctity and efficacy of an image depends not, I presume,
upon its magnitude. If the christians of the second age had
affected such manufactures, as Pope Gregory caUs them, they
might easily have fashiohed portable images of no greater size
T

218 DIFFICULTIES OP ROMANISM.
He himself incidentally informs us, The apostles
and their early successors knew nothing of image-
worship. Hence it were vain labour to seek a non
entity ig the writings of the primitive fathers.
than a chalice. The bishop's apology, however, is altogether
built upon the indisputable fact, that these alleged image-wor
shippers had, after all, wo images. Certainly, his lordship's demon
stration of the image-worship of the second age i« not a Uttle
paradoxical.

ADORATION OP THE CROSS. 219

CHAPTER XVIII,
The Difficulties of Romanism in respect to the
Adoration of the Cross.
A DISCUSSION of the worship of images finally con
ducts the bishop of Aire to a defence of the adora
tion ofthe cross,*
'After so many subjects of dispute,' says his lord
ship to the English layman, ' it is, in truth, a lamen-
* table circumstance, that, between us and you, there
' should still remain a difficulty to be surmounted.
' On the one hand, I am reduced to ask of you the
'reason of those injuries which are offered to the
' cross of my Saviour: and, on the other hand, I find
' it necessary to justify before christians those honours
' which we render to that distinctive badge of Christi-
' anity. I have traversed your country in all direc-
' tions: and I have never perceived in any part of it
'the consolatory sign, which advertises a christian
' stranger that he is travelling in a country of bre-
' thren. Your reformation has not spared the cross :
' every where has it cast that holy symbol to the
'ground. Would it be deemed incompatible with
' the cross: or has it acted under the often-confuted
' pretext of superstition and idolatry? Has England
' then forgotten, that she was delivered from idola-
'try by the cross, and that her first apostles came
'wifkh that sacred standard in their hand to liberate
'her from her errors and her idols? You will tell
'me, that England has not forgotten the cross; for
' she still retains it in the administration of baptism,
' Much honour, in good sooth, do you confer upon
'the cross! 'Nothing remained, save to exclude,
* Discuss, Amic. Lett. xvii.

220 DIFFICULTIES OP ROMANISM.
'from the sacrament which makes us christians, the
' sign by which we show that we are christians. And
'yet let us thank the divine mercy, that it has not
'been altogether obliterated among you. Perhaps
'the use of the cross in baptism, which you still
' retain, may eventually lead you to re-establish it in
' the credit and honours of which your ancestors have
'so unjustly despoiled it,'*
I, In prosecuting this subject, it will be useful, for
the purpose of ascertaining the ground upon which
we really stand, to resort to the authoritative decla
ration of the second Nicene Council,
' When we salute the life-giving cross,' says the
Constantinopolitan patriarch Tarasius, in the seventh
action of that famous synod, ' we all sing with united
'voices, the following hymn: —
' Thy cross, 0 Lord, we adore: and we adore the
' spear, which pierced the vivifying side of thy good-
'ness.'t II. The second Council of Nice, then, has received
and decreed the adoration of the cross. Hence the
bishop of Aire stands pledged, either to defend such
adoration, or to censure the decision of an acknow
ledged ecumenical council. The latter could not be
done without incurring the guilt of heretical pravity:
the former, consequently, was, without hesitation,
preferred, 1. In performance of the task, thus imposed upon
him by the Nicene fathers, his Iprdship has entered
into a discussion respecting the purport of the word
adoration: and he has doubtless shewn, that both in
the Hebrew and in the Greek, the term bears the two
fold sense of religious worship and civil homage.
This criticism, though not altogether new (for the
patjriarch Tarasius had .entered into something of the
* Discuss. Amic. vol. ii. p. 372, 373.
t Concil. Nicen. Secund. act. vu. Labb, Concil. Sacros. vol, vii.
p. 584. .

ADORATION OF THE CROSS, 231
same line of argument), is at least very just: but 1 do
not distinctly perceive its bearing upon the jore«en^
question. In which of the two senses does the bishop propose
that we should adore the cross?
If, in the sense of religious worship; he inculcates
idolatry: if, in the sense of civil homage; he recom
mends an absurdity.
Scripture recognises only these two senses of the
term: and, how either of them can benefit his lord
ship's cause, I am unable to discern.
In a word, the precise nature of the adoration of
the cross, vindicated by the bishop, is left, so far as I
can see, altogether undefined. He would be angry,
I presume, were we to call it religious adoration:
and he would accuse us of dealing iu unseemly ridi
cule, were we to pronounce it civil homage, such as
is paid to the worshipful chief magistrate of a respec
table borough. Yet neither the Greek nor the He
brew Scriptures recognise any other than these two
senses of the word adoration.
2, The bishop produces against us that well-known
text of St, Paul : ' God forbid that I should glory,
' save in the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ,'*
I cannot discern the relevancy of its production.
St. Paul, I apprehend, is not here speaking of the
material timber whereon our Lord suffered; for I am
not aware, that we have any scriptural authority to
esteem the mere wood of the cross more sacred than
any other piece of mere wood: but, by a very com
mon figure of rhetoric, so far from blushing at the
ignominious death of his Saviour, he professes himself
even to glory in the despised circumstance of his cru
cifixion. This circumstance, as a matter of disgrace
and obloquy, the bishop well knows to have been
perpetually cast in the teeth of the early christians
both by the Jews and by the pagans. To their vitu-
• Galat. yi. 14.
t3

222 DIFFICULTIES Off ftOMASflSM.
peration, the apostle clearly alludes: and, in return,
with a lofty spirit of holy superiority, he exclaims;
' God forbid that I should glory, save in the cross of
'our Lord Jesus Christ.' So spake St, Paul: and so
thinks every member of the Anglican church,
3, It is contended, however, by the bishop, that
there must be some extraordinary efficacy, either in
the bare wood of the cross, or even in the mere act
of making the sign of the cross: and, as a proof of
this position, he alleges, that, by the power of the
latter, the old pagan oracles were reduced to silence,
I venture to doubt the fact: both because I have
never seen any sufficient evidence for it; and because,
from the nature ofthe gospel, it strikes me as a mat
ter altogether incredible. That the juggling oracles
of paganism were gradually and naturally silenced by
the successful propagation of the gospel, I fully'be-
lieve; but, as for any specific oracle being instanta
neously reduced to silence by the mere circumstance
of some christian making the sign of the cross, I pro
fess myself quite incredulous,
4. As usual, the bishop resorts to antiquity: and, as
usual, he carefully shuns the really primitive fathers,
Clement and Ignatius and Polycarp and Justin, What
he actually does adduce, proves either too much or
too little for his purpose,
(1.) Julian reproached the degenerate christians of
the fourth century with adoring the material timber
of the cross; while they inconsistently, as he thought,
refused to worship the buckler which had fallen from
heaven; and the replication of his learned antagonist,
Cyril of Alexandria, who flourished in the fifth cen
tury, more closely resembles the retort courteous than
the honest and explicit denial.
' Would you have us reject the cross whence we ,
' derive our recollection of all virtue, to entertain our
* children and our woiiien with your idle mythologi-
' cal .stories^'-. .._
Such is the strain in which Cyril proceeds through

ADORATION OP THE CROSS, 223
more than three folio pages of eloquent declamation
relative to Ganymede and Alcmena and Semele and
Amymone and Daphne and Venus: for the bishop
has epitomized him with perfect fairness.
Now, so far as I can understand the principles of
sound reasoning, this does not strike me as being a
satisfactory answer to the charge preferred by the
imperial apostate.
'You christians adore the material timber of the
' cross,' says Julian, who, having himself been once a
christian, well knew the doctrines and practices of
the age, ' What if we adore the cross,' replies Cyril;
' we had better do that, than read lectures upon pa-
'gan mythology,'
This may be a very fair retort: but I cannot per
ceive in it any reply to the allegation of the emperor,
Cyril rambles, from the diopetic buckler, to the prac
tice of signing with the cross both inanimate houses
and human foreheads; and, from the impure loves of
the heathen deities, he passes to the great efficacy of
the cross in awakening holy recollections: but he
carefully shuns the distinct and precise charge of Ju
lian: from beginning to end, he never once denies
the alleged fact, that, the cross was idolatrously wor-
.shipped^ Under the circumstances in which Cyril
was placed, a non-denial amounts to an acknowledg
ment. *
(2.) The cross then seems to have been actually
worshipped with religious adoration about the middle
of the fourth century: and, if such authority be of
any use to the bishop, I wish not to deprive him
of it.
As for the practice of signing the forehead with the
cross, it clearly was very common in the time of
Tertullian, who flourished at the latter end of the se
cond, and at the beginning of the third, century.
To the simple use of this ceremony in baptism, for
* Cyril, Alex, cont Julian. Ub, vi. p. 194-^198.

234 DIFFICULTIES OF ROMANISM.
the purpose of merely setting forth the solemn conse
cration of the neopbyte to the service of his crucified
Redeemer, no sober person will object: but the case
is very different with that perpetual superstitious cru-
cisignation, let a man's business be what it may,
which the Latin church so strongly recommends to
her disciples. The custom, I acknowledge, had been
introduced even as early as the days of Tertullian:
but, from the evident peevishness of that father when
asked for a scriptural proof of its obligation, I suspect
that it was disliked and opposed by many who very
rationally wished to take the Bible as their standard
of religious duty.*
(3.) If Cyril of Alexandria prove too much for the
bishop, as Tertullian certainly proves too little; the
Octavius of Minuciu^ Felix, whom he also cites,
may perhaps stand him in somewhat better stead,
Minucius lived about the year 220 ; and the
bishop claims him as an ally: yet his lordship's mode
of dealing with this author may well be thought not
a little extraordinary.
In the work of Minucius, the pagan Cecilius ob
jects to the christian Octavius, the adoration of Christ
and his cross, Octavius, in reply, acknowledges the
adoration of Christ: but, as for crosses, he explicitly
and readily denies, that christians either adored them,
or even wished to adore them.t
One might have thought, that nothing could be
more intractable than such evidence as this: but the
bishop does not despair of moulding it according to
his wishes. He takes upon himself to interpret Oc
tavius as meaning to say, that christians adore not all
crosses' indiscriminately ; the crosses, for instance,
on which the two thieves were executed: but that
they certainly do adore those which are made in imi
tation of the true cross.
* TertuU. de Coron. Mil. § iii; Oper. p. 449.
I Minuc. Tel. Octav. p. 280, 284, Ouzel, Lugdun, Batav. 1673,

ADORATION OP THE CROSS. 225
To such a gloss upon a very plain passage I need
scarcely point out the sufficiently evideni objeetion.
Even to say nothing of the total silence of Octavius
respecting any adoration of Christ's cross, the gloss,
proposed by the bishop, is utterly irreconcilable with
the context. Cecilius alleges, that christians adored
Christ and his cross, in particular. Now, to this pre
cise allegation, a mere denial, that christians adored
the crosses of a// malefactors in general, were plainly
no answer: for it were nugatory to deny a matter
which had never been charged upon them. The
crosses, therefore, mentioned by Octavius in his re-
'ply, can only be material imitations of the true cross
of Christ, then apparently beginning to be introduced
into churches: and 'these imitative crosses,' saysOc-
tavius^ ' we neither adore nor wish to adore.'*
III. It is interesting to contrast the rapid and ex
plicit denial of Octavius with the rambling answer,
void of any denial, which Cyril of Alexandria gives
to the Emperor Julian: and I apprehend, that these
three several authorities, which have been adduced
by the bishop himself, will throw a strong light upon
the gradual progress of the staurolatrous superstition.
The earliest fathers, as the bishop tacitly confesses
by the circumstance of his never citing them, knew
nothing of any veneration either of the materiEll cross,
or of the sign of the cross. But the waning church
did not long continue in this happy state of scriptu
ral ignorance. Most probably, from the natural and
significant rite of imprinting the cross upon the fore
head in the administration of baptism, the practice of
those perpetual crucisignations, which are mentioned
by Tertullian, originated. The custom was not very
* 'When the meaning of a passage is disputed, it is always the
most fair to give the words of the original.
Nam quod reUgioni nostra homihem noxium et crucem ejus
adscribitis, longe de vicinia veritatis erratis; qui putatls Deum
credi, aut meruisse noxium, aut potuisse terrenum — Cruces nee
coUmus, nee optamus, Minuc, Fel. Octav. p. 280, 284.

226 DIFFICULTIES OF ROMANISM,
wise : but, at all events, it was not absolutely crimi
nal. That it involved no adoration of the cross, is
quite clear from the direct testimony of Minucius
Felix, But superstition is never stationary. Ac
cording to Julian, christians, about the middle of the
fourth century, adored the material timber of the
cross. That Julian meant religious adoration, and not
mere civil homage, is perfectly evident: and that
Cyril understood him so to mean, is no less evident.
Yet Cyril did not venture to contradict the taunting
emperor. flow then stands the matter, according to the evi
dence produced by the bishop himself? It stands, if
I mistake not, in manner following: —
At the beginning of the third century, the charge
of worshipping the cross, as we learn from Minucius
Felix, was ignorantly brought against the christians
of that period, and by them was instantaneously and
unambiguously repelled.
In the course of the fifth century, Cyril of Alex
andria could give no denial to an exactly similar
charge, which had been brought by Julian against the
christian church of the middle of the fourth century.
Nothing affords a more distinct idea of the progress^
of superstition, than a scrupulous accuracy in the
epecification of dates.

BOOK II.
THE DIFFICULTIES ATTENDANT UPON THE CHURCH
OP ROME, IN REGARD TO HER CLAIM OP
UNIVERSAL SUPHEMACV.

Fundata est Ecclesia super petram, unde Petrus nomen accepit.
Non enim k Petro petra, sed Petrus ^petrft: sicut non Christus a
Christiano, sed Christianus k Christo, vocatur. Ideo quippe ait
Dominus; Super hanc petram sedificabo Eccksiam meam: quia
dixerat Petrus; Tu es Christus filius Dei vivi. Super hanc ergo,
inquit, petram, quam confessus es, sedificabo Ecclesiam meam,
Petra enim erat Christus, super quod fundamentum etiam ipse
adificatus est Petrus. Fundamentum, qvuppe, aliud nemo potest
ponere, praiter id quod positum est; quod est Christus Jestis. —
August. Expos, in Evan. Johan. Tract, cxxiv. Oper. vol. ix.^. 206.
Est/ Tset/rji t^ verges' cd» iiTfel, 'B.'Jri ra IleTgu, Ovri
•yctg iwi TU 'aiSavu, «AA' itt) r^v '!r]ir1iv ni^ eavrcv, (VxAd-
o-*«» euKoSififia-i. T/ ^e jJv « a-Jo-?;?; Su si i XpiFJoi, i itii
rev QetZ TOU ^aitTei.— Chrysost. Serm, de Pentecost Ofier.
vo'. vi. p, 233, Lutet, Paris, 1624.

POLITY OP THE PRIMITIVE CHURCH, 229

CHAPTER I,
Respecting the Polity of the Primitive Church.
At the time of the reformation in England, the,
spiritual administration of the church was vested in
the three orders, denominated bishops, priests and
deacons : and the ground of this arrangement was,
that such, from the very beginning, had been the
polity ofthe primitive church.
Respecting the divine origin of that particular form
of ecclesiastical government, which, from its chief
officer, bears the name of episcopal, I am not about
to- produce a regular dissertation. The matter lies
¦within a very narrow compass. To demonstrate, that
this polity was of no mere human appointment, I
require nothing more than the Bible,, illustrated by
the attestation of two of the oldest fathers to a naked
matter of FACT.
The study of the old ecclesiastical writers will not,
as the bishop of Aire imagines, conduct us of neces
sity to Rome: but, without (I trust) making us fire
brands and bigots, it will be very apt, if pursued
with real candour and love of truth, to convert us
into what is sometimes called high churchmen.
From its abuse, this term may perhaps, in the present
day of capricious innovation and unlearned neglect of
antiquity, have become, with many, a sort of bug
bear: nevertheless, when rightly understood, the
term is, after all, a very good term. In its genuine
acceptation, it simply implies a love of Christian
unity through an instrumental medium appointed
by the wisdom of the Lord himself.
U

230 DIFFICULTIES OF ROMANISM.
I. Between Irenseus and St. John, there exists only
the single link of Polycarp. Irenasus was the scholar
of Polycarp; and Polycarp was the disciple of St,
John. Hence, I apprehend, Irenseus may be viewed as an
unexceptionable witness, not only of facts which
occurred in his own immediate time, but also of any
inseparably connected facts (if such there be) which
are alleged to have taken place in the time of the
apostles. Now the FACT, which Irenseus mentions as existing
in his own time, is the universal establishment of
ihe episcopate.
Respecting this naked pact, I perceive not how
he could have heen mistaken. We all know, without
a possibility of error, that episcopacy is at this present
moment established in England, The fact presents
itself to our very eyes: and we afe sure, that we can
not be deceived. In a similar manner, Irenaeus could
not but have known with absolute certaintj', what
form of ecclesiastical polity universally prevailed at
the time when he himself flourished. This form,
vouching for a mere cognizable pact, he declares to
have been the episcopal.
On the authority, then, of Irenaeus, we may be
quite certain respecting the naked pact, that in his
days the episcopate was universally established :
and from this early fact, (for the personal testimony
of Irenseus runs back to within forty years of the
death of St, John) we are naturally led to ask, whence
that universally-established polity could have origi
nated ?
The question is fully answered by the same Ire
nseus after a manner, which, I think, evinces the
moral impossibility of error.
He assures us, that in every church there had been
a regular succession of bishops from the time of the
apostles: and he himself, as we have observed, was
separated from John only by the single intervening

POLITY OF THE PRIMITIVE CHURCH. 231
link of Polycarp. To enumerate the successions of all
the churches, he remarks, would occupy too much
space and time ; he confines himself, therefore, as a
single specimen ofthe whole, to the succession of
the Roman church. On this topic he is very precise
and particular.
The Roman church itself, he tells us, was founded
by the two most glorious apostles Peter and Paul.
These inspired ministers of God, having thus jointly
founded that church, jointly delivered the episcopate
of it to its first bi.shop Linus, who is mentioned by
Paul in his second Epistle to Timothy.* Linus was
succeeded by Anacletus; and, after him, in the third
degree from the apostles, Clement received the epis
copate; which Clement, as Irenseus observes, saw and
heard and conferred with the apostles themselves, t
Clement was followed by Euaristus; Euaristus, by
Alexander; Alexander, by Sixtlis; Sixtus, by Teles-
phorus; Telesphorus, by Hyginus; Hyginus, by
Pius; Pius, by Anicetus; Anicetus, by Soter; and
Soter, by Eleutherius; who thus, as Irenseus remarks,
held, at the precise time when he was writing the
sentence, the Roman episcopate in the twelfth degree
from the apostles.
To this succession he incidentally subjoins the
origination of the episcopate in the church of
Smyrna. At Rome, as we have seen, he vouches for the
FACT, that the episcopate of that city emanated
from the two apostles Peter and Paul; at Smyrna,
he vouches for the pact, that the episcopate of that
city emanated from the apostle John, He himself
was the scholar of Pol j'carp: and Polycarp had not
only been specially the disciple of John, but in his
early youth he had received instructions also from the
other apostles. By the apostle John, Polycarp was
• 2 Tim, iv, 21, f See PhUip, iv, 3,

233 ' DIFFICULTIES OF ROMANISM,
appointed bishop of Smyrna:* and he presided in
that see for the space of half a century, until he
closed his career by martyrdom. Whatever he had
learned from the apostles, this venerable man, accord
ing to Irenseus, delivered to the church: and the same
testimony was borne, by all the churches of Asia and
by those who had succeeded Polycarp, down to the
-time when Irenseus himself was engaged in writing
his work against heresies, t
Thus we find, that the closely-connected fact,
for which Irenseus vouches in addition to the pact
which he beheld with his own personal eyes, is the
appointment of ihe first bishops by the apostles
themselves : nor, when we'consider the circumstances
under which he was placed, himself a bishop the
successor of the holy nonagenarian Pothinus, himself
the disciple ofthe martyr Polycarp, himself in point
of actual knowledge reaching within forty years of
the death of St. John, is it easy to conceive how he
could have been mistaken in the specification of a
pact which must at that time have been a matter of
public and universal notoriety.
II. Yet, though Irenseus alone might be deemed
sufficient for our purpose, it will be satisfactory to
, hear the additional testimony of a yet older witness.
Irenseus, it will have been observed, mentions
Clement, the friend and fellow-labourer of St. Paul,
as being the third bishop of Rome:- and he particu
larizes him by specifying, that, in the name of the
Roman church, he wrote most powerful epistles to
• Irensus loosely saysj that Polycarp was appointed bishop of
Smyrna by the apostles: but chronology, I believe, will evince,
that he must have been so appointed by the aj^ostle John alone.
Polycarp suffered martyrdom in the year 147; and he presided in
the church of Smyrna during fifty years. Hence he must have
been consecrated in the year 97. But, at that time, all the apos
tles, save ,Tohn, were dead. This last surviving member of the
apostolic college remained, as Irenseus observes, to the time of
Trajan. He died in the year 100.
f Iren. adv. Hsr. Ub. iu. c. 3.

POLITY OP THE PRIMITIVE CHURCH. 233
the Corinthians, Of these epistles, some persons,
though perhaps with no very sufficient reason, have
doubted the genuineness of the second: but none have
ever controverted the genuineness of the first. That
admirable letter, in every age ofthe church, has been
universally received as the indisputable composition
of Clement,
Now, exactly on the same principle that Irenseus
is an unexceptionable witness ofthe facts which oc
curred before his very eyes,Clement also is an unex
ceptionable witness of the facts which occurred to
his certain personal knowledge. The contemporary of
St. Paul, and A2TO*e//'(accordingto Irenseus) the third
bishop of Rome, Clement could not but have known,
simply as a matter of s act, whether the first bishops
ofthe several churches were, or were not, appointed
and consecrated by the apostles; and, if those bishops
toere so appointed and consecrated, he could not but
have further known, still simply as a matter of fact,
whether the apostles so appointed and consecrated
them merely to serve a temporary purpose of expe
diency, or whether they acted thus under a yet higher
authority and with a view to an irrevocable system of
ecclesiastical polity.
All this, simply as a matter of fact, Clement, the
companion and fellow-labourer of St. Paul, could not
but iiave known with absolute and perfect certainty:
for, if we deny so plain a proposition, we must deny
also, that we ourselves are certain, whether there are
at present bishops in England, and- whether those
bishops were consecrated by their predecessors,
1. What, then, says the primitive Clement ? Does
his testimony agree or disagree with the testimony of
Irenseus? Does he limit the institution of the episco
pate to the apostles, merely acting, for a brief pur
pose of expediency, as wise and prudent, but in this
respect uninspired, men: or does he carrry it back to
an authority, whence the apostles themselves derived
u2

234 DIFFICULTIES OF ROMANISM,
all the ecclesiastical power which they ever pos
sessed? Let us hear the holy man, in his own words, deli
ver his evidence on behalf of a mere naked historical
FACT, ' It will behove us to take care, that, looking into
' the depths of the divine knowledge, we do all things
' in order, ivhatsoever our Lord hath commaridedus
' to do; and, particularly, that we perform our offer-
' ings and service to God, at their appointed seasons:
' for these he hath commanded to be done, not rashly
' and disorderly, but at certain determinate times and
' hours. Therefoie he hath ordained, by his supreme
' zv'ill and authority, both where, and by -what persons,
' they are to be performed : that so all things, being
' piously done unto all well-pleasing, may be accepta-
' ble to him. Hence it is, that they, who make their
' offerings at the appointed seasons, are happy and ac-
' cepted : because that, obeying the commandments
' ofthe Lord, they are free from sin. And the same
' care must be had of the persons, that minister unto
' him. For the chief prie.H has his proper services :
' and to the prients their proper place is appointed: and
' to the Levites appertain their due ministrations ; and
' the layman is confined within the, bounds of what is
' commanded to laymen. Let every one of you,
' therefore, brethren, bless God in his proper station
' with a good conscience and with all gravity, not
'exceeding the rule of his service that is appointed to
' him. The apostles have preached to us from our
' Lord Jesus Christ : Jesus Christ, from God, Christ,
' therefore, was sent by God: the apostles by Christ.
' So both their offices were orderly fulfilled, accord-
' ing to the will of God, For, having received their
' command, and being fully assured by the resurree-
' tion of our Lord Jesus Christ, and being convinced
' by the word of God and the evidence of the Holy
' Spirit, they went abroad, publishing that the king-
' dom of God was at hand. Thus preaching through

POLITY OP THE PRIMITIVE CHURCH, 233
* countries and cities, and proving by the Spirit the
' first fruits of their conversions, they appointed out of
' them bishops and ministers over such as should af-
* terward believe. And in truth, what wonder is it,
' if they, to whom such a work was committed by God
* in Christ, established such officers as we before men-
' tioned; when even that blessed and faithful servant
* in all his house, Moses, set down in the Holy Scrip-
' tureis all things that were commanded him. For
' our apostles knew by our Lord Jesus Christ, that
' contentions would arise on account of the ministry,
' And therefore, having a perfect foreknowledge of
' this, they appointed persons, as %ue have before said;
' and then gave direction how, when they should die,
' other chosen and approved men should succeed in
' their ministry. Wherefore, we cannot think, that
'those may justly be thrown out of their ministry,
' who were either appointed by them, or who were
' afterward chosen by eminent men with the consent
' of the whole church,'*
It will be recollected, that I profess only to be con
cerned with evidence to facts. What then are the
PACTS, for which Clement, the friend and contempo
rary of the apostles, has undertaken to vouch ?
fle vouches, if I mistake not, in terms which can
not be misunderstood, for the divine institution and
the eternal obligation of that form of ecclesiastical
polity, which, from its highest order, is usually deno
minated episcopal ; he places the institution uponthe
same divine authority, as the matters ordained by
Moses according to the commandment which he re
ceived from heaven: he declares, that one great
object of the institution was the prevention of schism
and disorder; it being the duty of each individual to
serve God in his own appointed station, while the
episcopate, 'Viewed collectively, serves as a general
* Clem. Roman, Epist, ad. Corinth, i, § 40—44, Abp. 'Wake's
tmnslation.

236 DIFFICULTIES OP ROMANISM.
centre of uaion: he specifies, that, as the apostles were
ordained of Christ, so they, hy his authority, ordain
ed their successors; the same power afterward de
scending, from generation to generation, down to the
very end of time: and he intimates, as well knowing
the mind of the inspired apostles from direct personal
communication with them, that it was unlawful lo
eject from their ministry (save, of course, when some
unhappy and real necessity demanded their canonical
deposition) officers, who had been consecrated either
by the apostles themselves or by eminent men their
legitimate successors.
2. It has -been said by those of our brethren, who,
rejecting episcopacy, have adopted the presbyteriat
form of church-government, that the primitive bishops
and presbyters were identical, and that originally
there were no more than two degrees in the hierarchy,
, I have diligently resorted, not to the works of
partisans on either side, but to the genuine monu
ments of antiquity itself: and I have not observed
any evidence for such an opinion,
Irenseus, as we have seen, gives a regula,r catalogue
ofthe primitive Roman bishops: and he assures us,
merely as a fact, that each church in his time pos
sessed a strictly-analogous episcopal succession. With
Irenasus in Gaul, perfectly agrees his partial contem
porary Tertullian in Africa; for to the self-same na
ked fact he also most unequivocally bears witness,*
* Edant ergo origines ecclesiarum suarum: evolvant ordinem
episcoporum suorum, ita per successiones ab initio decurrentem,
ut primus ille episcopus aliquem ex apostoUa vel apostoUcis viris,
qui tamen cum apostolis perseveraverit, habuerit autorem et an-
tecessorem. - Hoc enim modo ecclesise apostoUcse census suos de-
ferunt: sicut Smyrnseorum ecclesia habens Polycarpum ab Jo-
hanne conlocatum refert; sicut Bomanorum Clementem 4 Peti'O
ordinatum edit; proinde utique et cseterse exliibent, quos, ab
apostolis in episcopatum constitutes, apostoKci seminis traduces
habeant. — TertuU. de Praescript. adv. Hzer. § xi. Oper. p. 107.
It is difiicult'to believe, that TertuUian, in the second .century,

POLITY OF THE PRIMITIVE CHURCH. 237
Now, if, contrary to the evident drift and purpose both
of Irenseus and of Tertullian, these bishops had been
identical with presbyters; then, in each church, how
ever large, there could have been no more than one
presbyter at one time: for, in the account of these two
ancient writers, it is quite clear that each church pos
sessed no more than a single bishop in each step of
the succession.
Such a speculation, even in the abstract, is strange
ly incredible: but, if we once more advert to the old
est extant testimony of Clement, we shall find, that
it is positively erroneous. Under terms borrowed
from the law of Moses, Clement distinctly specifies
the three orders of bishops and presbyters and dea
cons. Nor, I think, is it possible to mistake his
meaning. Though he employs Hebrew terms of no
menclature, he is indisputably .speaking of the organ
ization of the christian church, as it stood in his own
time while many of the apostles were yet alive. In
that church, he states the existence, and defines the
separate duties, of four different classes of individuals.
Each distinct provincial church is described as having
a single officer, whom in Jewish phraseology he calls
the high priest, an indefinite number of inferior offi
cers whom he similarly calls priests, an indefinite
number of yet lower officers whom he styles Levites,
and a numerically varying body of unofficial persons
whom he denominates laics. All these are members
of one provincial church: and all have their own re
spective duties. In Clement's perfectly unambiguous
words, "The chief priest hashis proper services: and
' to the priests their proper place is appointed: and to
' the Levites appertain their proper ministrations: and
' the layman is confined within the bounds of what is
' commanded to laymen," Such is Clement's picture
could thus, in a controversial work, have appealed to an alleged
notorious fact; if, all the while, every person knew, that this
alleged notorious Ji-CT was a positive riisBHooD.

238 DIFFICULTIES OP ROMANISM.
of a primitive provincial church, as modelled by the
apostles according to Christ's^ most holy institution,
and as actually subsisting in the first century \^ile
many of the apostles were still alive.
Ill, These venerable documents of remote ecclesi
astical antiquity, so grievously neglected in this our
evil day of shallow innovation, at once receive cor
roboration from Scripture, and teach us how we ought
to understand Scripture,
The twelve apostles, those first bishops and spirit
ual foundations of the holy catholic church, were or
dained by Christ himself,* But the apostles were
mortal men. Common sense, therefore, even inde
pendently of our Lord's own words, might teach,
that the apostles were similarly to ordain their succes
sors in the canonical government of the church, t Ac
cordingly, in exact agreement with Clement's testi
mony to the PACT, we find them, in the first instance,
consecrating Matthias:^ and, afterward, asthechurch
increased, so soon as diocesan bishops, as described
by Clement and Irenseus and Tertullian, became ne
cessary, we find bishops of this precise character re
gularly appointed by apostolic authority. §
That the Lord should specially ratify and approve
an institution of his own ordaining, were small won
der: yet, as if to prevent those contentions about the
ministry to which the primitive Clement alludes, and
which he pronounces the apostles to have foreseen,
Christ himself, the great high-priest and bishop of the
universal church, solemnly delivers seven distinct
charges, each afler the manner best adapted tothe ne
cessity of his particular condition, to those seven indi
viduals, who were the bishops of the seven Asiatic
churches at the time when St. John wrote the Apo
calypse. By thus officially addressing those bishops,
' Matt.x. xi. 1. Rev. xxi. 14,
t Matt, xxvui. 19, 20. + Acts i. 23—26.
§ 1 Tim. i. 18. Ui. 1—7. iv. 11—16. v. 1, 17, 21, 22. vi. H—
21. 2 Tim. i. 6—14, u. 2, iv, 1—8, Tit, i, 5—11. ui, 10,

POLITY OF THE PRIMITIVE CHURCH, 239
he virtually ratifies their office: for, whatever might
be their respective />er*ona/ conduct, such an address
clearly implies the divine validity of their function.
If the date assigned by Irenseus to the composition
of the Apocalypse be just, of which I see no sufficient
reason to doubt; in that case, the angel or messenger
of the church of Smyrna (for John adopts the phrase-
ology of the ancient prophets when he speaks of these
seven primitive bishops*) must apparently have been
the venerable Polycarp, then newly placed by the
apostle over that society, t
Here, then, Scripture corresponds with the tes
timony of Clement, that the apostles ordained bishops
as their successors: while it exactly meets the decla
ration of Irenseus, that his master, Polycarp, was ap
pointed hy John'to the see of Smyrna at the latter end
of the first cendiry,
I have now produced, in as brief a form as possible,
my evidence to pacts: and 1 know not where we
can learn primitive order and canonical discipline, if
we find them not in Scripture, explained by the une
quivocally recorded practice of the two first centu
ries. * See Malach. u. 7.
¦j- Neque enim antemultum temporis visum est (sell, oraculum
Apacalypseos), sed pene sub nostro sseculo, ad finem Domitiani
imperii.— Iren. adv. Hsr. Ub. v. c. 25. 4 6.

240 DIFFICULTIES OF ROMANISM,

CHAPTER II,

Respecting the Latin Objections to the Church of
England in general, and to the Orders of the
Church of England in particular.

Since the polity of the church of England at the
time of the Reformation was modelled upon the polity
of the primitive church, as instituted by Chi;ist and
his inspired apostles, it may appear sSmewhat extra
ordinary, that the bishop of Aire, however he may
dislike our doctrine, should object to our discipline.
Yet such is the fact. His lordship commences his
work with an historical" account of the establishrnent
of the reformed church of England: and, in that ac
count, he objects both to the Anglican church in ge
neral, and to the validity of her orders in particular,*
I, His objection to the church of England in gene
ral rests upon the personal character of Henry the
Eighth, and upon the arbitrary conduct of Elizabeth,
1, If, as in the case of King Henry the Eighth,
the Almighty never employed the bad passions of
men to bring about a beneficial result; if he was never
known to elicit good out of evil; if no instance could
be produced of his using an irreligious prince to ad
vance bis own purposes of mercy or of judgment:
then perhaps the objection of the bishop of Aire,
founded upon the personal character of an English
sovereign, might have some weight. But, as matters
now stand, I discern not, how the independence and
* Discuss, Amic. Lett, i.

objections to THE ENGLISH CHURCH, 2.41
the doctrines of the Anglican church can be at all
affected by the character of King Henry the Eighth,
The church of England denies the supremacy of
the bishop of Rome; and propounds, as the terms of
her communion, certain doctrines in her thirty-nine
articles. On these points she may be very right, as we think;
or she may be very wrong, as the bishop of Aire
thinks: but, let her be right or let her be wrong, it is
clear that the soundness of her expressed opinions
depends not, in the slightest degree, upon the personal
character of King Henry. Had he been the most
correct prince upon record, his virtues could never
have made that right which intrinsically is wrong.
Conversely, therefore, so far at least as I can under
stand the principles of accurate reasoning, his vices
and his violence cannot make that wrong which in
trinsically is right
All that the bishop has said respecting the personal
character of Henry, seems to me to leave the real
question at issue wholly untouched.- A bad man may
perform a very good deed from very bad motives.
In the course of God's providence, other persons may
be largely benefited by the goodness of the deed;
though, by a Being, who regards motives, it may
never be imputed as a truly religious act to the origi
nal performer. We may fairly doubt, whether the
character of Constantine will bear a severe scrutiny:
yet it were singular reasoning to impeach, on that
account, the christian religion. Julian, indeed, argues
in some such manner: but the bishop of Aire would
not wish to imitate Julian.*
2. Much the same remarks are applicable to that
part, of his objection, which rests upon the conduct of
Elizabeth. This great princess, as we all know, was very arbi
trary, both in church and in state: and she did much
• Julian. Cxsar. Oper. p. 335, 336.
X

243 DIFFICULTIES OF ROMANISM.
which could not be done, and would not be tolerated,
in the present day. But I see not how the submis
sion, which she exacted from her clergy, can affect
the merits of. the presentquestion. If we grant, that
she exacted, and that they submitted, further than
was justifiable, still the point cannot be finally and
legitimately determined by the conduct of mere indi
viduals. The true doctrine of the Anglican church,
on the topic of royal authority, must be obviously
learned from her own declaration, as set forth, in the
year 1562, by the archbishops and bishops and clergy
of both provinces: a declaration, approved and ratified
by Elizabeth herself, and again confirmed by the uni
versal subscription of. the whole clerical body in the
year 1571.
In what manner, then, does the church of England,
with the consent of this very Elizabeth, whose arbi
trary conduct is made the basis of an objection, express
her sentiments on the topic now before us ?
'The king's majesty hath the chief power in this
'realm of England and other his dominions, unto
'whom the chief government of all estates of this
'realm, whether they be ecclesiastical or civil, in all
' causes doth appertain.; and is not, nor ought t9be,sub-
' ject to any foreign jurisdiction. Where we attribute
' to the king's majesty the chief government, by which
' titles we understand the minds of some slanderous
' folks to be offended; we give not to our princes the
' ministering either of God's word or of the sacra-
' ments, the which thing the injunctions also lately
' set forth by Elizabeth our queen do most plainly tes-
' tify : but that only prerogative, which we see to have
' been given always to all godly princes in Holy Scrip-
'ture by God himself; that is, that they should rule
' all estates and degrees committed to their charge by
' God, whether they be ecclesiastical or temporal,
' and restrain with the civil sword the stubborn and
'evil doers.*'* " Art, xxxvii.

OBJECTIONS TO THE ENGLISH CHUKCH. 243
It might be thought, that nothing could be more
plain and explicit than this solemn and authoritative
declaration: the bishop, however, contends, that we
clergy of the Anglican church derive al! our spiritual
powers ultimately from Elizabeth; whence he main
tains, that our church is built upon human sanctions
alone, and that a link is effectually broken in the chain
which ought to unite us to the apostles.
From the crown we certainly derive our temporali
ties; from the crown also we receive a legal sanction
to exercise our functions, whether as bishops or as
presbyters, within the limits of certain regularly-
defined dioceses or parishes: hut I am at a loss to per
ceive, how this circumstance either snaps the chain of
apostolic succession or causes our church to be built
upon human sanctions alone. For let us suppose, that
we were deprived of our present legal establishment:
what would be the consequence? Should we lose our
spiritual authority as bishops or as presbyters ? Such,
I apprehend, would by no means be the result. We
should simply be brought to the state of our venerable
clerical brethren of the protestant episcopal churches
of Scotland and America. What the crown gav6, it
may resume: what the crown did not give, it cannot
take away. From the apostles we derive our spiri
tual power of order: from the crown we derive our
temporal power of jurisdiction. The continuance
of the former, in the church general, is independent
of any mere human ordinance: the continuance of the
latter, within certain prescribed geographical limits,
depends upon the law ofthe land. Doubtless, it may
please God to remove our candlestick altogether: but
the spiritual power of our clergy depends neither'-upon
our king nor upon our parliament. The spiritual
poioer qf order we assuredly derived not from Eliza
beth; hence, oi that power no present or futiire sove
reign of England can deprive us.*
* There are some exceUent remarks, on this frequently-misun
derstood subject, in a speech of the present bishop of Durham
before the House of Lords, p. 8 — 13.

244

DIFFICULTIES OP ROMANISM.

II. Yet, says the bishop of Aire, we owe every
thing in our eeclesiastical constitution to Elizabeth:
and the chain of apostolic succession is thence of ne
cessity broken.
His lordship, in making such an assertion, forgets
what he himself has stated respecting the measures
adopted by this identical Elizabeth.
In order to prove, that our spiritual pcijver of or
der is derived from that great princess, it would, I
apprehend, have been necessary to shew, that the
bishops, whom she introduced as fathers into the re
formed church of .England, were all solemnly conse
crated by herself. Could this fact have been ascer
tained, the bishop would clearly have gained his point:
but, in truth, his own statement nullifies his own
assertions. Elizabeth, conscious that she possessed
no power of conferring spiritual authority upon any
man, undertook not the preposterous task of herself
consecrating the new bishops: on the contrary, as the
bishop of Aire very truly states the matter, she called
in, for that purpose, Hoskins, Scory, Barlow, and
Coverdale; all of who;n, as he allows, had been cano
nically consecrated to the episcopate.*
Now, it is impossible to conceive a stronger prac
tical confession on the part of Elizabeth, that tho
church of England derived not from her any spiritual
authority, than the fact which has been adduced by
the bishop of Aire himself. According to his own
shewing, the spiritual authority of the Anglican
church, let it be valid or invalid, was derived, not
froih Elizabeth, but from the four regularly conse
crated bishops, Hoskins, Scory, Barlow, and Cover-
dale," These four ecclesiastics were themselves, con
fessedly, in regular episcopal orders: they, not the
queen, consecrated Parker to the metropolitan see of
Canterbury: and, when this matter had been accom-
* Barlow was bishop elect of Chichester; Scory, bishop elect
of Hereford; Coverdale, late bishop of Exeter; and Hoskins, or
Hodgkins, bishop suffragan of Bedford,

OBJECTIONS TO THE ENGLISH CHURCH. 245
plished, Parker, as primate, presided at the consecra
tion of all the other new bishops.*
Thus, according to the bishop's own account, the
Anglican church derived not an atom of spiritual au
thority from Elizabeth: on the contrary, the spiritual
authority of that church has been confessedly received
from four prelates, who had themselves already been
canonically consecrated to the episcopate by other ca
nonical bishops, their predecessors.
In what manner, then, we may well ask, are we a
church of mere human institution? In what manner
is the chain of succession, which ultimately binds us
to the apostles, snapped asunder? The bishop of Aire
objects to the validity of our orders. On what ground
does he make the objection?
* The following is a somewhat more detailed account of the
whole transaction: and it may serve to show the anxious care
which was taken by Elizabeth, that the bishops of the reformed
Anglican church shouldbe regularly consecrated by men who had
themselves received episcopal consecration.
The bishops of Durham, AVells, and Peterborough, who had
been included iri the first warrant under the great seal, refused to
concur in the consecration of Parker. A new warrant therefore
was issued, directed to Barlow, bishop elect of Chichester; Scory,
bishop elect of Hereford; Coverdale, late bishop of Exeter;
Hodgkins, bishop suffragan of Bedford; John, bishop suffragan of
Thetford; Bale, bishop of Ossory, and the bishop of Llandaff,
that they, or any four of them, should consecr.ite liim. Accord
ingly, on Dec. 9, 1560, Barlow, Scory, Coverdale, and Hodgkins,
met at the church of St. Mary-le-bow, where the Cong^ d'^lire,
and ihe election, and the royal assent to it, were read before
them; witnesses appearing to establish the legality ofthe elec
tion, and an opportunity being afforded to any person who might
be disposed to object. This preliminary ceremonial having been
performed, Parker, on Dec. 17, 1560, was consecrated by the
four bishops in the chapel at Lambeth, according to the form of
ordinations made in the time of King Edward. Parker, having
been thus consecrated to the primacy, joined afterwards in con
secrating bishops for the other sees.
It is evident, that the hinge of the whole matter entirely turns
upon the piremtms episcopal consecration of the four bishops. This
fact is not denied by the bishop of Aire. Notliing, therefore, can
invalidate their consecration of Parker, save the loss of their own
episcopal character.
x2

246 DIFFICULTIES OF ROMANISM.
Hoskins, he tells us, was only a suffragan bishop;
whose short-lived see of Bedford had been suppress
ed, and had never been re-established: Scory, Barlow,
and Coverdale, had been canonically deposed, in the
preceding reign of Mary, on the ground that they had
entered into the holy estate of matrimony: and, even
if none of these irregularities had existed, still the
consecration of Parker to the primacy was Invalid;
because neither the patriarch of the West, nor the
bishops of the province acting by his authority, as re
quired by the fourth canon of the first Council of
Nice, had ordained and confirmed such consecration.
To complete the bishop's demonstration, that the
orders of the reformed Anglican church are invalid,
nothing is wanting, save the establishment of a few,
perhaps, not unimportant particulars.
When he shall have satisfactorily shewn, thatasiif-
fragan bishop forfeits his episcopal orders upon the
suppression of his see by royal authority; when he
shall have clearly demonstrated, that a bishop in Eng
land may be lawfully deposed for the alleged crime of
marriage by the authority of a bishop in Italy; and
when he shall have fully proved, that a council, which
sat in the year 325, had a right to make null and
void the ancient simple mode of the consecration of
bishops by bishops, and to impose, as a matter of ne
cessity, the intervention of a patriarch: then, but not
until then, the bishop of Aire will have made good his
position, that the English chain of apostolic succes
sion has been snapped asunder in the midst.

RESPECTING THE REFORMED CHURCH. 247

CHAPTER III.

Respecting the alleged Schism of the Reformed
Church of England.

While the bishop of Aire demonstrates, at consi
derable length, the excellence and advantages of ec
clesiastical unity, he charges the reformed church o^
England with the crime of schism : whence he takes
occasion to urge a speedy reconciliation with, or ra
ther a complete submission to, the church of Rome.*
The advantages of ecclesiastical unity, where it can
be conscientiously obtained, I readily admit: nor can
the Latin bishop of Aire more strenuously deprecate
causeless schism, than the protestant church of Eng
land, But I am not aware, that a perfectly indepen
dent national church can be justly charged with
schism, simply because, deriving her theology from
the Bible and primitive antiquity, she denies the su
premacy of another equally independent national
church which groundlessly claims to possess the right
of universal spiritual domination. If, in resistance to
this pretended right of domination and in the in
ternal arrangement of her own private concerns, she
incur the fierce indignation and fall under the pre
sumptuous anathema ofthe lawlessly usurping church:
when a separation is thus produced, the guilt of schism
rests, not with the church which vindicates her own
just liberties, but with the church which arrogantly
* Discuss, AiniC' Lett, ji.

248 DIFFICULTIES OP ROMANISM,
seeks to invade them, and which makes absolute sub
mission the price of christian communion. At least,
the invading church cannot legitimately tax the inva
ded church with schism, because she resolutely main
tains her own independence; until it shall have been
satisfactorily shown, that the invading church pos
sesses a divine right of spiritual domination.
The ground on which a case of schism is made out
by the invading church of Rome against the invaded
church of England may be stated, I believe, in man
ner following:^
' St. Peter as the primate of the apostolic college,
and the line of the Roman bishops, his successors in
place and prerogative, constitute the divinely-ap
pointed head of the catholic church and the divinely-
appointed centre of ecclesiastical unity. Such being
the indisputable fact, those national churches, which
are in submissive communion with the see of Rome,
are sound branches of the church catholic: while
those national churches, which are not in submissive
communion with the see of Rome, though collec
tively they may count up as many, or possibly even
more, members than the national churches different
ly circumstanced, are cut off ipso facto from the only
genuine catholic church; and must thence be viewed,
as existing in a state of unhallowed schism or heresy,
or both. Now, in this condition, the national church
of England has undeniably placed herself. There
fore, the national church of England, even to speak
the most gently of-her,is clearly in a state of schism
from the only genuine church catholic.'*
* Quod Romana Ecclesia i solo Domino sit fundata: quod solus
Bomanus Pontifex jure dictatur Universalis: quod iUe_ solus possit
deponere episcopos vel reconcUiai-e: quod legatus ejus omnibus
episcopis przesit in concilio, etiam inferioris gradus", et adversus
eos sententiam depositionis possit dare: quod absentes possit
Papa deponere: quod cum excommunicatis ab illo, inter caetera,
nee in eadem domo debemus manere: quod Uli Uceat imperatores
deponere: quod nuUa synodus absque prsecepto ejus debet gene-

RESPECTING THE REFORMED CHURCH, 249
The basis of this favourite Latin argument is the
alleged fact, that ' St, Peter as the primate of the apos-
•tplic college, and the line of the Roman bishops his
'successors in place and prerogative, constitute the
' divinely-appointed head of the catholic church and
' the divinely-appointed centre of ecclesiastical unity.'
Let that alleged fact, then, be substantiated; and
the argument, I readily admit, will be conclusive: but
let it fail of being substantiated; and the argument,
which altogether rests upon it, will doubtless be incon
clusive. Hence our sole business is, to look to the
basis of the argument,
I, Since the basis of the argument is a declared
historical fact, we must obviously try and examine
it as we would do any other fact in history.
Now, in the sacred inspired volume, we have a
detailed narrative of the early actions of the apostles
subsequent to the ascension of their divine Lord and
Master: and, appended to this narrative, we have se
veral epistolary documents, which throw a very con
siderable degree of light upon those primitive matters.
Hence it is natural and reasonable, in the first in
stance, to examine these ancient historical records; in
order that we may so determine, simply as a point of
PACT, whether they do, or do not, establish the basis
of pur argument,
1, We must begin, then, with inquiring, whether
any special primacy seems, in practice, to have been
dutifully and religiously conceded to St, Peter by the
other inferior members of the apostolic college,
i-aUs vocari : quod sententia illlus k nullo deb eat retractari, et ipse
omnium solus retractare possit: quod ^ nemine ipse judicari de-
beat: quod Eomana Ecclesia nunquam erravit, nee in perpetuum,
testante Scriptura, errabit: quod Romanus Poiitifex, si canonic^
fuerit ordinatus, meritis beati Petri indubitanter efficitur sanctus:
quod UUus prscepto et Ucentia subjectis Uceat accusare: quod
absque synodati conventu possit episcopos deponere et reconci-
Uare; quod catholicus non habeatur qui non concordat Komanse
Ecclesia : quod ^ ficJeUtate iiiiquorum subjectos potest absolvere,
Dictat. Papze Gregor. sept, in Epist. lib. ii. epist. 35. Labb. Con-
oil, Sacros, vol, x. p. 110, 111,

250 DIFFICULTIES OF ROMANISM.
It will, of course, be understood, that I speak not
of mere communion. The inquiry before us respects,
not mere communion, but authoritative primacy.
Doubtless, the inspired apostles were in full com
munion with each other; but this is not the present
question : the present question is, ' whether they were
' in communion as the equal delegates of their com-
' mon divine superior, the great universal shepherd
' and bishop of souls; or whether they were in com-
' munion as suffragans, dependent upon and canoni-
' cally obedient to their divinely-appointed and con-
' scientiously acknowledged primate St, Peter,'
Now, so far as I can read and understand the his
torical documents before us, we have ample proof of
the former fact, but we have no adequate proof of the
latter fact: and it will be recollected, that our inquiry
regards an alleged naked pact only.
(1.) Shortly after the ascension, we find St, Peter
apparently taking the lead in the important business
of appointing a successor to the miserable Judas, He
acts at least as a sort of prolocutor; and, in so far, he
might seem to have some kind of pre-eminence: but,
as we advance in the narrative, the phantom of an
absolute primacy flits away from our grasp and van
ishes into impalpable ether.
Had Peter been the divinely-appointed vicar of
Christ upon earth; he, no doubt, acting as the Lord's
special representative, would have appointed, by his
own exclusive sovereign authority, the new suffragan
apostle: for, in regard to such elevated rank, it were
plainly inconsistent to come to any other conclusion.
But, in point of fact, we do not find, that this was the
case, Thev, not he, appointed two candidates for
the vacant office: and when that preliminary step had
been collectively taken, most probably by the votes of
the majority, the matter was referred, by lot, to the
supreme head of the church himself. *
• Acts i. 13—26,

RESPECTING THE REFORMED CHURCH, 251
From these recorded circumstances I infer, that the
prolocution of the zealous and warm-hearted Peter
was rather incidental than official,
(2.) The next time that we hear of Peter is on the
day of Pentecost. All the apostles equally speaking
with tongues, the strangers in Jerusalem are not a
little amazed. Whereupon Peter, standing up with
the eleven, explains to them the fact and nature and
object of the miracle.
Now the substance of the speech, ascribed by name
to Peter, must certainly, both from the turn of the
expression and from the necessity of the narrative,
have been alike delivered by all the apostles. Had
Peter alone spoken in a single particular tongue, a
small part only of the multitude would have under
stood him. Doubtless, .therefore, the same matters
were delivered by the other apostles in other tongues
to other divisions ofthe multitude: and, accordingly,
we read, not that Peter stood up solely, but that he
stood u^ jointly with the eleven; not that the multi
tude in return addressed Peter exclusively, but that
they spake unto Peter and unto the rest of the apos
tles:* (3.) Soon after this transaction, we find St. Peter,
not acting the primate, but submitting with St. John
to the collective authority of the apostolic college.
' When the apostles which were at Jerusalem heard
' that Samaria had received the word of God, they
' sent unto theni Peter and John.'t
It is easy to conceive that Christ's vicar might send
two of his dependant suffragans, in ttie 'quality of his
legates, upon an ecclesiastical errand: but it is very
difficult to explain, how the dependant suffragans took
upon themselves to send Christ's vicar and their own
lawful primate upon the business of the church. This
circumstance alone, I fear, will greatly endanger the
basis of our argument.
' Acts u. 1—37. t ll^id. vui. 14.

253 DIFFICULTIES OP ROMANISM.
(4.) In course of time, the Gentiles, no less than
the Jews, received the word of God from the honoured
hand of Peter. But this circumstance displeased those
ofthe circumcision: and they forthwith proceeded to
contend with their primate. Yet that high officer,
most unaccountably, did not silence them by the di
vine authority of his vicariate. So far from it, he
was content to vindicate himself on the very sufficient
score, that it was not for him to withstand God.
Satisfied by this rational process, the gainsayers held
their peace and glorified the Lord: it is evident, how
ever, that they submitted, not to Peter's primatic
mandate, but to the very ample reason which he gave
for his conduct.*
(5.) We next have an account of what is usually
called the first Council at Jerusalem.
In this assembly, after much previous disputation,
Peter is said to have risen up and spoken. He was
followed by Barnabas and Paul.- And the business
was finally closed by James: who, apparently as the
president of Ihe synod, gave his ultimate sentence.
Barsabas and Silas were then sent to Antioch with
Paul and Barnabas, not however by Peter in his sup
posed capacity of primate, but by the apostles and
elders in conjunction with the whole church; Peter
himself not heing even so much as once mentioned in
the decretal letter, which runs in the general name of
the apostles and presbyters and brethren.!
From such a narrative if we could collect anything
specific, it would h$, that James, not Peter, was the
primate ofthe apostolic college: but, in truth, we learn
nothing as to the primacy of either. James seems
to have presided on the occasion: but, if that were the
case, he was a mere temporary president. The de
cree of the council avowedly rests on the general col
lective authority of the apostles and presbyters, acting
in harmonious conjunction with the whole chureh.
* Acts xi. 1—18. t Ibid. xv. 4r-31.

RESPECTING THB REFORMED CHURCH. 253
Neither Peter, nor Peter's legate, ruled the assembly:
rior do the concurrence and sanction of Peter seem
to have been at all more necessary than the concur
rence and sanction of any other apostle, in order to
make the decree of the council valid and canonical.
This primitive council, in short, furnishes no warrant
for any of those arbitrary and fanciful rules, by which
the church of Rome, in the midst of jarring synods,
vainly attempts to preserve a shadow of chimerical
infallibility. (6.) After this, in the volume of the Acts, we hear
much of Paul, but nothing of Peter. The imaginary
primate disappears from the historic stage altogether.
Not once more is he mentioned to the very end of
the book. Paul evidently labours in perfect indepen
dence of him and without the slightest reference to
his supposed authority. In equal communion indeed,
and in christian amity, these two great apostles no
doubt lived: but, as for any primacy in the church,
Paul was no more subject to Peter, than Peter to
Paul. Not a hint on the topic is dropped in any
part of the history: nor is Peter throughout his two
epistles, or Paul throughout his fourteen epistles, at
all more communicative. The tone of Peter's epistles
argues no superiority over his apostolic brethren: and
the almost only epistle of Paul, wherein Peter is men
tioned, is fatal to the notion of a primacy. Paul care
fully, and (as it were) jealously, intimates, that he
derived his authority neither from Peter nor from
James nor from any other of the apostles, but by re
velation of Jesus Christ alone: and, agreeably to this
elaim of perfect independence, when he met Peter at
Antioch, he withstood him, as he assured the Gala
tians, to his face, because he was to be blamed.*
(7. ) Equally silent on the subject of that primacy,
which the Latins so greatly extol, are the epistles of
James and John and Jude: nor do we find the least
* Galat. i. 11—24, u, 1 16,
Y

254 DIFFICULTIES OF ROMANISM,
degree of light thrown on the topic in any part of the
Apocalypse, Now, if the doctrine had been so essential as the
Romanists contend, how are we to account, not only
for this extraordinary total pretention, but (what is
yet more remarkable) for the absolutely incompatible
language of St. Paul ? If the theory of the Latin
church be valid, if canonical submission to St, Peter
and his alleged successors in the see of Rome be abso
lutely necessary to ecclesiastical unity; I perceive not,
how we can exempt from the charge of schism even
the great apostle of the gentiles himself.
,2, Since then, in the apostolic practice and writ
ings, we can discover no vestiges of the primacy of
St. Peter, we shall not be very sanguine in our hopes
of detecting any recognition of the primacy of St.
Peter's alleged successors.
The documents, which we are the most naturally
led to examine for this purpose, are the two Epistles
of St, Peter, and St. Paul's Epistle to the Romans.
I need scarcely point out the reason. St, Peter, one
might well imagine, when writing two general epis
tles, would not fail to urge upon his readers, where
soever scattered, the great and religious importance
of acknowledging, as a divinelj'-appointed centre of
unity, both his own primacy and that of his Roman
successors. Such an admonition would the more na
turally flow from his pen, since he has been thought
to have written at least his first epistle from Rome.*
Be that however as it may, if the doctrine be so
vitally important as the Latins assert, we can hardly
suppose that Peter would have been altogether silent
on the subject. Yet silent he is, though not unpro
fitably. His silence speaks volumes. Much the same
remark applies to St. Paul's Epistle to the Romans.
• 1 Peter v. 13. There is no reason to suppose, tiiat Peter
ever resided in the literal Babylon. Hence the figurative Baby
lon, whence he dates his letter, has been thought not unreasona
bly to be Rome. See Euseb, Hist. Eccles. lib, ii, c. 15,

RESPECTING THE REFORMED CHURCH, 255
That letter is by no means a short one. The apostle
treats largely in it both of doctrine and of practice.
Yet, in no one part of it, does he give the slightest
hint as to either the existence or necessity of any pri
macy in the church of Rome. This, I think, could
scarcely have happened, more especially when we re
collect that the epistle was destined for immortality,
had St. Paul symbolized with the Latin doctors.
In fact, if St. Peter and his alleged Roman succes
sors had been the divinely-appointed primates of the
catholic church, we shall encounter, even at the very
first descent of the office, a most singular chronologi
cal difficulty. According to Irenaaus, the church of
Rome was jointly founded by the two most glorious
apostles Peter and .Paul: and the bishop, whom they
appointed in the first instance, was Linus.* Now
Peter certainly died before John, and probably before
several other of the apostles. Such being the case,
a most extraordinary inversion of all ecclesiastical
order must, according to the Latin theory, have in
evitably followed. If Peter himself were the first
primate, and if his primacy was ordained to descend
to his alleged Roman successors; then, upon the death
of Peter, the existing bi^op of Rome, whoever that
bishop might be at the death of Peter, would become
the canonical primate of the entire catholic church. St.
John, however, was undoubtedly alive when Peter died.
Hence, as John had been a suffragan of the primate
Peter, he would plainly,- on the death of Peter, he-
become a suffragan of the new Roman primate who
was Peter's legitimate successor in the primacy: and /
thus, at length, we shall be brought to the goodly/
conclusion, that an inspired apostle of the Lord owedj
canonical obedience to an uninspired bishop of Rome.'
II. Upon what then, it will naturally be asked by
the English laic, who (as we learn from the bishop of
Aire) has fallen into the sickly humour of being dis-
* Iren. adv. Hsr. Ub. iii. c. 3. § 3.

256

DIFFICULTIES OP ROMANISM.

contented with his own church: upon what then
rests the claim of Rome to the primacy of the church
catholic ?
It rests, let the English laic know, upon the follow
ing passage in the gospel according to St. Matthew: —
' When Jesus came into the coasts of Csesarea Phi-
' lippi, he asked his disciples, saying: Whom do men
'say that I, the son of man, am ? And they said:
' Some say, that thou art John the Baptist; some,
'Elias; and others, Jeremias or one of the prophets.
' He saith unto them: But whom say ye that I am ?
'And Simon Peter answered and said: Thou art the
' Christ, the Son of the living God. And Jesus an-
'sweredand said unto him: Blessed art thou, Simon
' Bar-Jona: for flesh anji blood hath not revealed it
' unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven. And
'I say also unto thee,'that Thou art Peter: and upon
'this rock I will build my church; and the gates of
' hell shall not prevail against it. And I will give
' unto thee the keys ofthe kingdom of heaven: and,
' whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth, shall be bound
' in heaven; and, whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth,
'shall be loosed in heaven.'*
The process of inductive reasoning, by which the
supremacy of the see of Rome is extracted from the
present passage, may be stated in manner following: —
' Christ declares Peter to be the rock, upon which
'he would build his church: and he communicates
' also to him the power both of binding and of loosing.
' Now, in this figurative but perfectly intelligible lan-
' guage, Christ grants to Peter the primacy of the uni-
' versal church, and constitutes him the centre of
'ecclesiastical unity. But Peter was a mortal man:
' and the office of primate, having been divinely ap-
' pointed as the preservative of ecclesiastical unity,
' was destined to be perpetual. Hence, as the office
' could not die with Peter, it must clearly descend to
' Peter's successors. Who, then, are the canonical
• Matth. xvi. 13—19.

RESPECTING THE REFORMED CHURCH. 257
'successors of Peter? Undoubtedly, they are the
' bishops of Rome. For, since Peter was the first
' bishop of Rome, all succeeding bishops of Rome are
'his canonical successors: and, since they are his
? canonical successors in the bishopric, they only can
' be his canonical successors in the primacy. Whence
' it follows, that those who are not built upon the rock
'Peter, or (in other words) those who render not
' canonical obedience to the supreme universal pri-
' mate, are manifest schismatics and convicted aliens
'from the catholic church of Christ.'
It is evident, that the whole of the present argu
ment rests ultimately upon the two following posi
tions: that 'Peter was the first bishop of Rome;'
and that ' Christ, by declar^g Peter to be the rock
'upon which he would build his entire church, con-
' ferred upon that apostle alid his successors in the see
'of Rome the divine right of an universally-control-
*ling primacy.'
Such then being the case, before we admit the con
clusiveness of the argument, we^must carefully exam
ine, whether the two main positions, upon which it
rests, be themselves tenable.
1. Whatever may be the precise nature of the grant
made by our Lord to Peter, it is clear that the bishops
of Rome can propound no valid claim to the inheri
tance of that grant, unless they can establish the alleg
ed historical fact, that they are the canonical succes
sors of Peter. But the medium, through which they
would establish this alleged historical fact, is the cir
cumstance, that Peter was the first bishop of Rome.
Therefore, the circumstance, that Peter was the first
bishop of Rome, is the point to be proved by them.
Now the position, that Peter was the first bishop
of Rome, rests not even upoiithe shadow of a foun
dation. All that we know, respecting the early history of
the Roman see, is derived ultimately from Irenaeus,
who flourished in the second century: for Eusebius
t2

258 DIFFICULTIES OP ROMANISM.
professedly gives the whole of his statement on the
authority of Irenseus.*
Does Irenffius then inform us, that Peter was the
first bishop of Rome, and that he handed down his
divine prerogative (whatever it might be) to his suc
cessors in that paramount diocese ?
Certainly we receive no such information from that
ancient father: and, if we receive it not from him, I
know not from what other authentic source we can
learn it.
According to Irenseus, the two most glorious apos
tles, Peter and Paul, were the co-founders of the
church of Rome: and he informs us, that, when they
had thus jointly founded that church, they jointly
delivered the episcopate of it to Linus. With respect
to either of the two co-founders ever having been
himself bishop of Rome, Irenseus is totally silent.
He simply states, that Peter and Paul, by their joint
authority, founded the church of Rome: and he adds,
that, when they had so founded it, they forthwith,
still by their joint authority, delivered the episcopate
of it to Linus, t
Such is the narrative of Irenseus: and I see not
what we can learn from it, save that Linus was the
first bishop of Rome, and consequently that neither
of the two co-founders of that church ever presided
over it in the capacity of a diocesan bishop.
To this conclusion we ar», in fact, irresistibly dri
ven, both by the general argument, and by the par
ticular statement, of Irenseus.
His general argament is, that ' the tradition of the
' apostles must exist in all the apostolic churches; be-
' cause each church .possessed an accurate list of her
* See Euseb. Hist. Eccles. Ub. iii. c. 2. 4. Ub. y. c. 5, 6. See
also a note by Cotelerius on Constit. Apost. Ub. vu. c. 46. J
+ Fundantes igitur et instruentes beati apostoU (Petrus et Pau-
lus) ecclesiam (Romanam), Lino episcopatum administrands
ecclesizc tradiderunt. — Succedit autem ei Anacletus. Post eum,
tertio loco ab aposfoUs, episcopatum sortitur Clemens . Iren, adv,
Hsr. llb.iii. c,3,§2.

RESPECTING THE REFORMED CHURCH, 259
' bishops, beginning with him to whom the episco-
' pate had been originally committed by the apostles
'themselves,' His particular statement is ' the episcopal succes-
' sion of the Roman church, which he gives as an
' avowed specimen of all other episcopal successions, '
If then the first bishop of each apostolic church was
the person, to whom in ^e first instance the aposto
lic founder of that church committed the episcopate of
it; Linus, being the person to whom in \}ne first in
stance the two apostolic founders ofthe Roman church
committed the episcopate of that church, must clearly
have been the first bishop of Rome,
Accordingly, the catalogue of the Roman bishops,
as given by Irenaeus, is plainly constructed upon this
identical principle.
He begins with specifying the two co-founders of
the church, Peter and Paul: and, when that has been
done, he gives a list of twelve successive bishops
down to his own time; the ^r*? of whom, Linus, he;
describes as having received the episcopate from the
hands of the two apostolic co-founders themselves.
Nor is this the only difficulty which impedes the
Latin speculation, that Peter was the first bishop of
Rome. Had Peter been the sole founder of that church,
a plea, though a very weak plea, might have been set
up, .that he was alsp its first bishop. But, in truth,
Peter and Paul were the joint founders of the Roman
church: whence it is evident, that Pefer does not
stand alone in the degree immediately before Linus,
but that Peter and Paul stand jointly in that degree.
No plea, therefore, can be advanced for the primary
Roman episcopate of Peter, which maynot be equally
advanced for the primary Roman episcopate of Paul,*
• It is worthy of note, that, in the Apostolic Constitutions, the
person who a;^ointed Linus the first bishop of Rome, is said to
have been St. Pavi. Constit. Apost. Ub. vU. c. 46. This state
ment, though it varies from the more fuU account ^ven by Ire-
nsus, yet does not absolutely contradict it. For, if Linus were

260 ' DIFFICULTIES OP ROMANISM,
Under such circumstances, it is perfectly clear, ac
cording both to the general argument and to the
particular statement of Irenseus, that the bishops of
Rome are no more, in any peculiar and exclusive
sense, the successors of Peter, than the bishop of any
other ancient church in the founding of which Peter
was similarly concerned. The bishops of any church,
founded by Peter, may, in a general sense, be called
the successors of Peter; but, why the bishops of
Rome, more than the bishops of any other church
similarly circumstanced, should claim to be specially
and exclusively the successors of Peter, we most as
suredly receive no information from Irenseus.
Thus untenable is one of the main positions, upon
which is built the papal claim to an universal control
ling supremacy.
Even if our Lord had intended to constitute Peter
the ruling primate of the apostolic college and the
alone centre of ecclesiastical unity, still his supposed
high prerogative would not descend to the line of the
Roman bishops, more than to the line of any other
bishops, unless the Roman bishops can demonstrate
themselves to be his special and exclusive successors
in the primacy.
appointed the first bishop of Rome by Paui and Peteb, he was
doubtless so appointed by the authority of Paui; though Paui,
in transacting the business, did not net singly hut jointly. Yet
the circumstance is remarkable : for since the name of Petbk
could be wholly omitted in an account of the foundation of the Ro
man church, and since the consecration of Linus could have been
nakedly ascribed to another person; such a circumstance clearly
shews, how Uttie stress coiild.have been laid in the early ages
upon the imagined primacy of Peter and his aUeged Roman suc
cessors. On the supposition, that the Roman church was jointly
founded by Petek and Paui, and on the additional supposition,
that tlie sentiments ofthe early ages respecting theprimaey ofPmxs.
corresponded with the sentiments ofthe modem Latins, it is evident,
that, in common parlance, though Linus would often be said to
have been simply appointed by Peteb, he would never be ssud to
have been simply appointed by Paui. The language of the
Apostolic Constitutions would never, 1 apprehend, be adopt|;d by
a zealous Latin of the present day,

RESPECTING' THE REFORMED CHURCH. 261
2. As the bishops of Rome are, in no eminent or
peculiar sense, the successors of St. Peter: so antiquity
recognised nothing of the claim to a dominant su
premacy, preferred by the present pontiffs and their
adherents, on the strength of our Lord's declaration,
that he would found his church upon a rock, and
would give to Peter the power of the keys.
To say nothing respecting the fact, that all the
twelve apostles are equally declared to be foundations
of the church, and that the power of binding and
loosing is equally conferred upon the whole collective
body;* to say nothing respecting this important fact,
the passage now before us is abstractedly capable of
no less than three interpretations.
The rock, spoken of by Christ, may either be Peter
individually or it may be Peter and his successors col
lectively, wherever those successors are to be found:
or it may be the open confession of our Lord's divini
ty, which had just been made by Peter, and which in
effect was the precise matter that led to Christ's re
markable declaration.
So far as the bare phraseology of the passage is
concerned, any one of these three expositions is per
fectly tenable. The church of Rome, therefore, can
not be allowed to build a most important doctrine
upon her own mere arbitrary and interested interpre
tation of an ambiguous passage.
With whatever degree of reason, the bishop of
Aire claims the early ecclesiastical writers, as his spe
cial friends and allies. To these writers, then, as
unexceptionable umpires, let the matter now under
litigation be referred.
I have stated, that, so far as mere phraseology is
concerned, the passage is capable of three interpreta
tions. Now, it is a curious circumstance, that not
one ofthe early ecclesiastical writers, so far as I have
had an opportunity of examining them, adopts the in-
• See Rev. x^i. 14, John xx. 23,

2G2 DIFFICULTIES OF ROMANISM.
Chrysostom, in one place, supposes Peter indi
vidually to have been the rock: but, what very cu
riously shews the great uncertainty which prevailed
in the early church relative to the true meaning of
this famous text, in another place, he pronounces the
rock to be Peter's confession of faith, and explicitly
condemns the' idea that Peterhimself could have been
intended. t
Athanasius, Cyril of Jerusalem,. Jerome, and Au
gustine, all agree in- preferring the old interpretation
which was first given by Justin Martyr. ' The
' chOrch,' says the great Augustine, ' is founded upqn
'a rock: whence Peter derived his name. For the
' rock was not so called from Peter; but Peter, from
' the rock: just as Christ is not so called from a chris-
>tian; but a christian from Christ. Accordingly, the
'reason why our Lord said. Upon this rock I will
' build my church, was, because Peter had said,
' Thou art the Christ the son of the living God. Upon
' this rock which thou, hast confessed, he means to
'say, I will build niy chureh. For the rock was
' Christ, upon which foundation Peter himself was
text now under discussion. He supposes the rock to mean Pe
ter: but he carefuUy restricts tiie character to Peter as an indi
vidual; he deems the privilege to be altogether persofial; and he
flatly denies, that it can be construed as belonging to what then
began to be esteemed Peter's church. — TertuU. de Pudic. p.
767, 768.
For the opinion of Cyprian and his friend Firmilian, see Cy
prian, de Unit Eccles. p. 106-108. Cyprian. Epist. -PlebiUni-
vers. xllii. p. 83. Pirmih Cyprian. Epist. Ixxv. p. 218, 225. In
the second of the places here referred to, Cyjprian speaks otme
chair founded upon Peter by ihe voice ofthe Lord. This the Latins
of course understand to. mean the see of Rome.' But the whole
tenor both of Cyprian's language and. of Cyprian's conduct de
monstrates, that, by tliis chair, he meant, not the see of Rome in
particular, but the^hair of ihe collective united episcopate in gene
ral. -Compare Cyprian, de Unit. Eccles. p. 108: and little doubt,
I think, will remain as to the true import of the one chair,
f Chrysost. HomU. Ixix. in Petr. Apost. et Eliam. Pfoph,
Oper. vol. i. p. 856. Serm, de Pentecost. Oper. vol. vi. p. 233.

RESPECTING THE REFORMED CHURCH. 263
/built: inasmuch as it is said. Other foundation can
'no man lay than what is laid, that is, Christ Jesus.'*
Thus untenable is the second of the two positions,
upon which is built the papal claim to an universal
supremacy. The primitive church no more recog
nised any such claim, than Holy Scripture: and,
'when it began to be propounded by Stephen of Rome
in the third century, it was immediately, with the
utmost contempt, opposed', as a silly-innovation, by
Cyprian and Firmilian, Lofty as were Cyprian's
idea:s respecting the authority of the collective episco
pate, his actions, no less than his words, most abun
dantly showed, that he was little inclined to pros
trate himself before a pretended Roman successor of
Peter. In the dispute concerning the rebaptiza-
tion of heretics, Stephen and Cyprian took opposite
parts: and neither of these resolute controversialists
would yield, in the slightest degree, to his antago
nist. Regardless of the vain anger and the impotent
excommunication of the intemperate Italian, Cyprian
assembled a synod of the African bishops: and, in
this synod, the independent prelate of Carthage, sup
ported by his own suffragans, decreed to adopt the
¦opinion of the Asiatics,
III, The Latin argument, deduced from the cele
brated passage which has now been brought under
discussion, rests ultimately, as we have seen, upon
two vital positions. Both those positions have been
shewn to be untenable. The argument, therefore,
deprived of its supporters, becomes a mere nullity.
Hence, from- what has been said, it is obvious, that
* Athan. Unum esse Chi-ist. Orat. Oper. p. 519, 520. Cyril.
Catech. vi. p. 54. xi. p. 93. Hieron. Comment, in Matt. xvi. 18.
lib. iu. Oper. vol. vi. p. 33. August. Expos, in Evan. Johan.
Tract, -cxxiv. Oper. vol. ix. p. 206. I have mentioned Cyril
among those who hold Peter's confession to be the rock. Such
strikes me as being most naturaUy his meaning. I will not, how
ever, be positive: he may mean the individual Peter. At any
rate, he never once thought of interpreting the rock to denote
Peter's imaginary successors in the see of Rome.

264

DIFFICULTIES OP ROMANISM.

we may safely pronounce, by right as well as by fact,
the perfect independence, both of the Anglican
church and of every other national church, upon the
bishop and see of Rome.
1. Such being the case, even if we wholly agreed
with the Roman church in oii* general doctrinal sys
tem, and even if .there were no reason whatever why
we might not be in perfect communion with her;
still that circumstance woiild give her no sort oi au
thority over the church of England.
According to the principle of Cyprian, that the
episcopate is one indivisible body, and that the
church catholic is spiritually an unit, though con
sisting of many distinct visible portions: according
to this principle of Cyprian, any union of the church
of Rome and the church of England, even if such an
union were doctrinally practicable, must needs be an
union of equal concordance, not an union of rule on
the one side, and of submission On the other.*
The very fact indeed of the perfect mutual inde
pendence, though entire theological agreement, of the
holy apostles, draws after it, by a plain necessity, th&
perfect rhutual independence of all national churches...
For, if the apostles themselves were mutually inde
pendent, no very intelligible reason can be assigned,
why a church founded by James or by John should
be subject to a church founded by Paul or by Peter.
2. It may be said, that the church of England is a
daughter of the church of Rome, and that as such she
ought to be subject to her spiritual mother.
If this theory were admiasihle, it might prove the
schism and rebellion of the Anglican church, biit it
would not prove the schism and rebellion of the
Greek church, which yet, as we alLknow, is equally
insisted upon by the uncanonically-encroaching La
tins. The theCry, however, is palpably inadmissible.
• * See Cyprian de Unit. Eccles, p. 108.

RESPECTING THE REFORMED CHURCH. 265'
By an easy figure of speech, we very naturally, in
ecclesiastical matters, talk of the relation of mother
and daughter: but it were grievously incoioalusive
reasoning to demonstrate, from a trope of rhetoric,
the literal subjugation of the allegorical daughter to
the allegorical mother. The episcopal churches of
Scotland and America are two hopeful dau.ghters,
whereof their mother, the church of England, has no
reason to feel ashamed: yet it were passing strange,
if the parent should, as a parent, claim any spiritual
domination over her children. Happily, the mother
and her daughters are in perfect communion : and
long, for their mutual benefit and spiritual edification,
may such continue 'to be the case! But their com
munion is an union of equal concordance, not an
union of rule and submission: and, if there unhappily
exist not the same communion between Rome and
England, the fault, we venture to think, is in the mo
ther, not in the daughter.
3. The Vatican, then, can claim no canonical su
periority to Lambeth, even on the supposition that
there existed the most perfect doctrinal harmony be
tween the two churches.
Some protestants, not quite so well informed as
they might have been in the ancient genuine princi
ple of ecclesisistical union; that principle, which has
been so happily revived in the case of the three epis
copal churches of England, Scotland, and America:
some protestants, it seems, have unguardedly argued
with the bishop of Aire, that their avowed indepen
dence of Rome is no schism, if the Latins be idola
ters. His lordship, whose acuteness will not suffer an
opponent to make a slip with impunity, takes these
paralogists at their word, and rapidly assails them on
their own most erroneous principle.
You confess yourselves to be schismatics, says he,
if we Latins be not idolaters : for upon our al
leged idolatry alone you avowedly rest your argu-
. z 3

266 DIFFICULTIES OP ROMANISM.
ment. Notv we Latins are not idolaters. Therefore,
on your own principle, you are convicted schis-
maticsjj ',
Without entering, even in the slightest degree, in
to the question, whether idolatry be justly or unjustly
imputed to the Church- of Rome, I deny the very
premises of this syllogism, on the ground which I
have already explained "quite sufficiently. We should
cordially rejoice, if the doctrine of the church of
Rome were in all points identical with the doctrine
ofthe church of England: but we should not, on that
account, the more perceive why the church of Eng
land ought to be subject to the church of Rome.
• Discuss. Amic. vol. ii. p. 301.

ON AN UNION OF THE CHURCHES. 267

CHAPTER IV.

Respecting the Practicability of an Union of the
Church of Rome and the Church of Englant^.
It is remarked by the bishop of Aire, that he
might have copiously discussed the errors taught by
protestants, respecting the number of the sacred
books, the number of the sacraments, the communion
under both kinds, the reservation of the consecrated
host, and other matters of importance. On these
topics, however, he is silent. I, therefore, shall be
silent also: for my purpose has been, not so much to
volunteer an attack, as to accept a challenge.- But a
projected plan of union, between the church of Rome
and the church of England, wears no face of hostility:
and it is refreshing, toward the close of a controver
sial composition, to hear the long-forgfttten sounds of
peace and amity.* '
I. The bishop's scheme of union, between the two
churches, may be stated briefly, in manner following:
' Once defined, the principles of the Latin church
' are irrevocable. She herself is immutably chained
'by bonds, which at no future period can she ever
'rend asunder. 't In regard, therefore, to doctrine,
any concession is plainly impossible. Yet, as the bi
shop undertakes to promise for 'her, she 'vrill cheerfully
do eyery thing that in reason can be expected. Let the
church of England adopt all the doctrines of the
• Discuss. Amic. Lett. xvui.
f Discuss. Amic. vol, ii, p. 324.

368 DIFFICULTIES OP ROMANISM.
church of Rome: and the church of Rome, on her
part, Will be disposed to make grand concessions on
points of discipline. Such concessions her principle
of IMMUTABILITY does not forbid. Hence, in return
for the sacrifice which we make on doctrinal points,
she will freely concede to us communion under bojji
kinds, the marriage of ecclesiasties, divine servicefin
the vulgar tongue, all the ceremonies, all the vest
ments, all the sacerdotal ornaments, all the decora
tions of the altars and churches. .By this arrange
ment, aa the bishop justly observes, matters would
seem precisely the Same as before. The change would
be absolutely in'visible. It v/ould be a simple altera
tion of our faith, which resides only in the intellec
tual part of our nature: while the external worship
would strike the eye, exactly as it did before the
union was thus happily effected,*
'In England,' says the bishop, 'the Reformation
' deprived 'public -worship of its ancient forms, and
' stripped ecclesiastical ceremonies of all their majesty,
'At one fell swoop, it abolished the, merit of
' satisfactory works, the doctrine of purgatory, pray-
* ers for the dead, invocation of the saints, honour
' paid to relics and to images and to the cross. The
' ritual, the liturgy, the mass with its sacrifice, the
?real presence with transubstantiation,'all were swept
' away. Not a particle was saved ; and. England
' wondered to find herself suddenly become calvin-
'istic't Until instructed by the bishop, I was not aware,
that England had even yet discovered the Calvinism
of her church: neither was I aware, that, in denying
the doctrine of transubstantiation, we denied also the
the doctrine of the real though spiritual presence of
the Lord, This, however, . is a matter of inferior
moment, so far as the present question is concerned.
The bishop of Aire vituperatively enumerates the
* Discuss. Amic, vol. ii, p, 403. f ^^^- wl. i. p. 5, ^

ON AN UNION OF THE CHURCHES, 869
ravages of the Reformation in England, and assures
us that the principles of the Latin church are immu
table and' irrevocable. In order, therefore, to an
union with the church of Rome, we must carefully,
except in so far as we are indulged with respect to
discipline, replace whatever the Reformation has
abolished. Let the church of England, then, admit
the merit of satisfactory works, inculcate a belief in
purgatory, enjoin prayers for the dead, establish the
invocation of the saints, adore with their due honour
relics and images and crosses, adopt into her liturgy
what was erased at the time of the Reformation, and
require of her children an unhesitating reception of
the doctrine of transubstantiation with all its con
comitants: let the church of England pay this price
for the procurement of an union with the church of
Rpme; and such an union will forthwith be accom
plished. If we like the terms propounded by the'
bishop of Aire, nothing more is wanted than a prompt
payment of the price,
II, Sincerely do I wish, that a scheme of greater
promise had been recommended by the excellent pre
late. The present, as marked out by hifnself, is as
suredly a mere theological chimera.
1. We are called upon, it seems, to adopt impli
citly the ENTIRE creed and consequent practice of
Rome: and, in return, we may entertain a hope of
being indulged in various matters of discipline, the
full possession of which privilege we already enjoy.
Now, by such arrangement, we obviously concede
EVERT thing: and the only advantage, which we re
ceive from our concession, is the benefit of subjecting
the bishops and clergy of the Anglican church to
the spiritual dornination of a foreign Italian bishop.
Thus, even if the terms were unexceptionable, it is
difficult to comprehend what particular advantage we
should derive from the arrangement.
The bishop" will probably state the benefit to be

270 DIFFICULTIES OP ROMANISM.
the accomplishment of union and the termination
of schism.
'These, in themselves, may be advantages: but!
perceive not, why their sole purchase must be un
conditional submission to an Italian prelate. Ac
cording to the principles of the early church which
held the episcopate to be one, the idea of communion
does not involve the idea of subjection. Canterbury
claims not to govern Rome: and it is by no means
clear, why Rome should claim to govern Canterbury.
If an union between the two churches be ever effected,
it must be upon the basis of a perfect independent
equality. - ..
2. But, in truth, the very terms, propounded by
the bishop, are altogether inadmissible. Because
the principles of the Latin church are pronounced to
be IRREVOCABLE, WC Anglicans, without the slightest
regard being paid to our prineipjes, are required to
adopt implicitly the entire creed and practice of
Rome. How, then, is such an adoption to be effected?
Even to omit the singular unreasonableness of a pro
posal/ that every doctrinal sacrifice shall be made on
one side exclusively; how-are we to make this- sacri
fice, unless we be first conscientiously satisfied as to
its propriety? At present we are wo? convinced, that
the entire creed of Rome is scriptural. On the con
trary, we hold it to be a mixture of truth and error.
With these sentiments, can the bishop seriously wish
us to adopt it? Can so good' a man, as the exem
plary prelate of Aire, deliberately recommend to us
the practice of gross deceptive hypocrisy? Certainly,
if with our present doctrinal views we Sho}jl& take
such a step, our dishonesty would reflect but small
credit upon our ostensible conversion. ' Let the bishop
by solid proof and sound argument convince -us, that
the entire creed of Rome is undoubted scriptural
verity: and we shall require no lengthened exhorta
tion to an union with that church. But our union

ON AN UNION OP THE CHURCHES, 271
must be preceded by our conviction: and I feel as
sured, that the bishop himself would be dissatisfied
with any union- which should be differently circum
stanced, 3, There is yet another difficulty, which his lord
ship, in the rapid zeal of a projector, seems to have
entirely overlooked.
' Every thing which has been done in the Angli-
' can church since the time of Elizabeth,' says the
bishop, ' is radically null in principle; null to-day,
' null to-morrow, null to the very end of time.'"*
If we ask the reason of this alarming nullity, the
bishop refers us to the marriage of Scory and Barlow
and Coverdale. The marriage of these prelates obli
terated their episcopal character. But from them our
English orders are derived. Therefore, our English
orders, springing from a nullity, are themselves
radically null in principle, t
The soundness of this extraordinary reasoning I
have' already had occasion to controvert: at present,
I mention it only for the purpose of bringing it iir
juxtaposition with his lordship's plan' of' conceding
the privilege of matrimony to the English ecclesias
ties, in case an union with Rome should ever be hap
pily effected.
Now his argument and his proposal,., when jointly
considered, bring him, so far as I can judge, into a
very singular dilemma.
The marriage of bishops either does, or does not,
obliterate their episcopal character. If it does; then
the marriage of the clergy cannot be conceded with
out their virtual degradation: ifit does not; then our
English orders are perfectly valid, and the bishop is
clearly mistaken in his remark, that every- thing done
in the Anglican church since the time of Elizabeth is
radically null in principle, |
* Discuss. Amic. vol. ii. p. 408. -j- Ibid. vol. i. p. 11-
;(: I am not altogetiier devoid of apprehension, that the bishop
of Aire, by his proposal to concede to the-English ecclesiastics

272 DIFFICULTIES OP ROMANISM.
4, His lordship dwells largely on the alleged igno
rance of our Anglican reformers in regard to eccle-
the privUege of matrimony, may have unwittingly incurred the
grave charge of manifest heresy.
By the sixth canon of the second Council of Lateran, aU eccle
siastics, down to the rank of the subdiaconate inclusive, are pro
hibited from marrying: and this prohibition is made to rest, not
upon a mere point of changeabk discipline, but upon the eternally
unchangeabk ground of alkged immorality; for the marriage of
ecclesiastics is affirmed to he an unwcfrihy deed, and is thence
asserted to be nothing better than chambering and uncleanness.
Concil. Lateran., secund. can. vi. Labb. ConcU. Sacrosanct, vol.
X. p. 1003,
Now the second CouncU of Lateran is reckoned as the tenth
ecumenical council. • Hence, on the principle of the Roman
church, it must assuredly be deemed infallible. . Such being the
case, the bishop of Aire has plainly reduced himself to the fol
lowing most unsatisfactory dilemma: —
If he beUeve the decision of the second CouncU of Lateran to
be infallibly true; then he purposes to confer upon the English
clergy the unhallowed privilege of chambering and uncleanness:
if he beUeve the marriage of ecclesiastics to be as free from im
morality as the marriage of laics; then, with a high hand, he im
pugns the infaUibUity ofthe second CouncU of Lateran.
The bishop, in short, by his unlucky proposal, must be content
to stand forth, either as the patron of Chambering and unclean
ness, or as the heretical opponent ofthe tenth ecumenical coun-
cU, ,
For my own part, I see not how the church of Rome can ever
decently concede to the clergy the privUege of matrimony, with
out first rescinding the sixth and seventh canons of the second
Council of Lateran. But, if the canons of an ecumenical council
be rescinded on the ground that they have falsely declared the
marriage of ecelesiasticslo be mere chambering and uncleanness;
it is difficult to conceive, how the infalUbility of the church can
be ever afterward consistently maintained. A protestant can
scarcely forbear smiUng at the whimsical and multlpUed difficul
ties, into which the ignis fatuus of ecclesiastical infalUbiUty is
perpetuaUy conducting his Latin brethren. It' meets them at
every turn of the controversy:' and it invariably leaves them
floundering on one of those unseemly quagniires, which are scat
tered with such unhappy profusion over the whole patrimony of
St. Peter. Perhaps tiiere is not a more worthy man breathing
than the bishop of Aire, brone who would more utterly abhor the
very idea of immoraUty: and yet we see in what evil plight the
chase of infaUibUlty has left him. He proposes to grant to the
English clergy, what the second Council of Lateran has infaUibly
pronounced to be chanibering and uncleanness.

ON AN UNION OP THE CHURCHES. 273
siastical antiquity: and he contrasts it with the pro
found erudition of Bull and Pearson and Beveridge;
'for whom,' as he truly remarks, 'christian antiquity
' had no secrets.'*
Such is his statement: but he draws from it the
very unexpected conclusion, that, rejecting the igno
rance of our reformers, we should forthwith renounce
our articles and our homilies, and court a reconcilia
tion with the church of Rome.
The bishop's conclusion surprised me not a little:
and I was the rather surprised, because, from his pre
mises, I should myself have been carried to a directly
opposite result.
Ridley and Latimer (I should have argued), pro
bably moreover Cranmer and Jewell, though they do
not appear to have been exactly -wha-tfivjeimight call
ignorant men, were yet perhaps unequal in erudi--
tion to Bull and Pearson and Beveridge, What then
am I to think of the English reformation, whereof
they may not unreasonably be deemed the fathers?
They, we will argue with the bishop of Aire, were
simple men, who groped their way through darkness
with what modicum of light they haply possessed,
and who perhaps were more frequently in the wrong
than in the right. But the matter wears quite a dif
ferent aspect, when such men as Bull and-Pearson
and Beveridge make their appearance. For them,
christian antiquity had no secrets: they penetrated
into the very adytum of the temple: they explored
its most recondite mysteries. Yet did these giants
of erudition adopt and sanction what their more sim
ple predecessors had done so ignorantly and incau
tiously. They adorned and defended the church,
which the others had purified and reformed. Their
superior information led them not to perceive that
necessity of an union with Rome, which, according
to the bishop of Aire, a deep knowledge of christian
• Discuss, Amic, vol, ii, p,397, 398,
Aa

274 DIFFICULTIES OP ROMANISM,
antiquity must perforce inculcate. They lived and
died faithful and devout rulers of the church of En
gland, Such being the case, what more satisfactory
proof can a plain unlettered man have, that increase
of knowledge does not teach the advantage of sub
mission to Rome, than the conduct of persons for
whom confessedly christian antiquity had no secrets?
Thus, through the medium oi facts, I should have
inclined to argue from the bishop's premises: they
bring his lordship, however, to a totally different
conclusion. He infers from them the duty and bene
fit of a speedy submission to Rome,
How, then, are we to dispose of Bishop Bull and
his learned colleagues: for it is clear, that they
grievously impede our journey to the Vatican?
His lordsWjf^nakes short Work with Bishop Bull:
and, fl'oin linalogy, I conclude, that we must employ
the same compendious process in the matter of Pear
son and Beveridge,
For a laborious investigation of the doctrine of the
antenicene fathers on the subject of the Holy Trinity,
the praise of Bishop Bull is in all the churches. Now,
the accurate acquaintance of that great prelate with
the works of the early ecclesiastical writers ought, in
the judgment of the bishop of Aire, to have brought
him over to the church of Rome. But that most de
sirable event never did take place. Therefore it fol
lows, that Bishop Bull was far too sober and prudent
a man to suffer his convictions to interfere with his
interest. So speaks and so reasons the bishop of Aire in a
composition specially addressed to the English laity,*
* Uu'est-ce done qui le retient? says the bishop of Abe re
specting his learned brother of St. David's, Quil'arrae? De
plorable foiblesse ! L'aveu de la y6nt& tout enti^re I'eut exposi
a de trop grands sacrifices. Discuss. Amic. vol. i. p. 435. _
The bishop, as if by a simultaneous movement with his friends
in England, condescends to repeat the now ancient calumny of

ON AN UNION OP THE CHURCHES. 275
5. As the bishop lays the deep foundations of our
English reform, in the profound ignorance of the re
formers themselves; so is he willing to ascribe its
otherwise unaccountable permanence to the scarcely
less profound ignorance of those birds of darkness,
our modern Anglican clergy,*
The solution of the problem is certainly more in
genious than flattering. Were we better informed,
we should lose no time in undertaking a journey to
Rome: being ill informed, we are content, in the
bliss of unmingled ignorance, to stay at home.
Every Galilean divine is not a bishop of Aire:
surely then, in common equity, his lordship must not
pronounce us Anglicans a generation of absolute theo
logical dunces, because every well-meaning clerk is
not a Bull or a Pearson or a Beveridge, After all,
so far as the church of Rome is concerned, perhaps it
were wisest in the bishop to leave us as we are. He
requests his laic correspondent to perplex us with
shrewd questions from the fathers; but, on second
thoughts, he is willing to spare us our embarrass
ment,! Now my own suspicion is, that, the more we
read the old ecclesiastics, the less we shall *be per
plexed by any shrewd questions. Whence it seems
not unnaturally to follow, that the study of antiquity
is adverse, rather than friendly, to the cause of the
Latin church. Such, at least, unless we adopt the so
lution proposed by the bishop, seems to have been its
effect upon Bull and upon Pearson, upon Hooker and
upon Beveridge.
Mr. Gibbon, that our EngUsh clergy sign the thirty-nine articles
with a sigh or a smile. Discuss. Amic. vol. ii. p. 400.
My regret, that the same utterly unfounded calumny should
have been re-echoed even by so estimable a man as Mr. Butler,
is considerably diminished, when I recollect, that it has called
forth the vindication of the present bishop of Chester.
• Discuss. Amic. vol. ii. p. 399 — 403, 409.
f Discuss. Amic. vol. ii. p. 8.

276 DIFFICULTIES OP ROMANISM.

CHAPTER V.
Respecting the Bishop of Aire's Censure of the
Reformation, his Apology for the Inquisition,
and his Protest against Freedom of Religious
Worship.
With whatever reluctance, I must now prepare
myself to attend upon the bishop of Aire in consider
ing his censure of the Reformation, his apology for
the inquisition, and his protest against freedom of reli
gious worship. Yet the task, though unpleasant,
will not be useless. We shall thence distinctly learn
the true character of the church of Rome, Since
the bishop of Aire, as a Latin ecclesiastic, does not
bluSh to advocate principles the most revolting; what
must the system be, which can thus corrupt the mind
everi of a Trevern!'*
I. The bishop's censure of the Reformation is
built upon the manifold evils which are said to have
resulted from it. His argument may be briefly stated
in manner following: —
Various religious wars, among which the bishop
specially mentions that which ended in the liberation
of Holland from the yoke of Spain; and various san
guinary persecutions, among which he specially enu
merates the massacre that occurred on the eve of St.
Bartholomew: these wars and these persecutions would
never have taken place, had they not been preceeded
by the Reformation. For such miseries, there.fore,
the Reformation alone is answerable. The blood of
* Discuss. Amic. Lett, xviii.

THE BISHOP OP aire's PRINCIPLES. 277
the protestants, who perished in the flames of a
pseudo-martyrdom, be upon their own heads ! The
blood both of protestants and of papists, which flowed
in battle, be also on the heads of the protestants! In
this matter, the enemies of the Reformation are
clear. They have nothing wherewithal to reproach
themselves. Had the protestants never opposed the
. church of Rome, not a finger would have been raised
against them. Nothing, therefore, can be more evi
dent, than that the papists are perfectly blameless:
nothing can be better established, than the exclusive
guilt ofthe protestants.*
From such a train of reasoning the bishop is brought
to the triumphant conclusion, that the Reformation of
the sixteenth century is an event which must ever be
deplored and reprobated.
' It seems to me impossible,' says his lordship,
' that these observationson the political effects of the
' Reformation in Europe can do otherwise than in-
' spire every impartial man with a strong aversion
' from it. In its partisans, they must needs weaken
' an attachment and an interest, which are solely pro-
' duced by the prejudices of education. They must
'infalliby terminate in a hearty wish, that it may be
'abandoned with all convenient celerity. 't
We may certainly pronounce with perfect truth,
that the various evils, enumerated by the bishop,
would never have occurred, had not a reformation
preceded them; but, whether it be altogether just to
make this reformation answerable for them, is a mat
ter by no means equally self-evident. His lordship's
argument is one of those ill-constructed machines,
which are calculated to do quite as much mischief
among friends as among enemies: and, if the Reforma
tion is to be condemned on the principle advocated

* Discuss. Amic. vol. ii. p. 411 — 416.
¦}¦ Discuss. Amic. vol. u. p. 417, 418.
Aa2

278 DIFFICULTIES OP ROMANISM.
by the bishop, I tremble for the security of Christian
ity itself.
Bad as the Reformation may be, it at least, in its
effects, is not much worse than Christianity. The ar
gument by which the bishop of Aire demonstrates
that we ought to detest and abhor the Reformation,
will no less demonstrate, that Christianity ought to be
visited with an equal share of our virtuous hatred.
Did not the very founder of this religion give a true
account of it, when he declared, that he came to send
upon the earth, not peace, but a sword ? Who, in all
just reason, were to blame ? The persecuting Romans ?
or the persecuted christians ? If the latter had not
fantastically abandoned the religion of their forefa
thers; they would never, by the former, have been
in the slightest degree molested. What bloodshed,
what murders, what tortures, what imprisonments,
vv'hat tumults did Christianity introduce! Most accu
rately were its early votaries stigmatized by the judi
cious and discerning Hebrews, as the mischief-loving
persons who turned the world upside down! Assur
edly, the fruitful parent of all these evils 'was chris-
tianitj^: for, had Christianity never existed, neither
would the evils, its consequents, have existed; inas
much as the cause must always precede the effect.
'To me, therefore;' an ancient pagan would argue,
in the words and on the principle of the bishop of
Aire: ' to me it seems impossible, that these observa-
' tions on the effects of Christianity can do other-
' wise than inspire every impartial man with a
' strong aversion from it. In its partisans, they must
' needs weaken an attachment and an interest, which
' are solely produced by th^ prejudices of education
' or by the fanaticism of recent conversion. They
' must infallibly terminate in a hearty wish, that it
' may be abandoned with all convenient celerity.'
Thus, with materials furnished by ' the bishop of
Airci might Julian in the fourth century have argu6d

THE BISHOP OP aire's PRINCIPLES. 279
against Christianity: and, so far as I am able to judge,
if the reasoning of the Galilean prelate against the
Reformation he conclusive, the supposed analogical
reasoning of the Roman emperor against Christianity
cannot be inconclusive.
II. As the bishop censures the Reformation,
because its bitter fruits were massacres and bloodshed
and war and torture and persecution: so, with strict
consistency, he vindicates and apologizes for the
Inquisition. * Some persons,' says he, 'accuse it (and would to
* heaven there was less ground for the accusation!)
' of having pushed rigour even to injustice and cru-
* elty. But it is not reasonable to confound the In-
' quisition with its abuse. We must not attribute to
' the Inquisition itself those crimes, for which its
' officers alone are culpable. It is at present generally
' agreed, that the number of innocent victims has been
' greatly exaggerated. After all, Spain, though she
' may reproach herself with all these cruel and unjust
' persecutions, has no great reason to regret the lot of
' other states. Religious wars, produced by the Re-
' formation, have deluged them with blood. But
' Spain, blessed with the Inquisition, has been happily
-^exempt.'* 1. The crimes, which have heen perpetrated by
the Inquisition, the bishop would charge, not upon
the Inquisition itself, but upon its ofiicers.
If those officers, who (according to his lordship)
alone are culpable, had ever been punished as they
deserved; the defence of the Inquisition, avowedly
set up on this special plea, might possibly, to some
certain extent at least, have availed. But, as to any
penalties being ever suffered by those hardened mis
creants, or even as to any censure being ofiicially
passed upon them by their ecclesiastical superiors, the
bishop is altogether silent. I will not venture to say,
• Discuss. Amic. vol. ii. p. 41/.

280 DIFFICULTIES OP ROMANISM.
that inquisitors have never been animadverted upon:
but I can safely affirm, that I never heard of such an
occurrence; and since this precise matter is the very
thing wanted to complete the bishop's argument,
from his ominous silence I more than suspect that he
is as little acquainted with any such occurrence as
myself. Hence, even upon his own principle, unless
he can show that the culpable officers of the Inquisi
tion have invariably been brought to condign punish
ment, we must assuredly ascribe to the Inquisition
itself every crime which has been perpetrated by its
abandoned instruments. If its tools are suffered to
escape with impunity, the Inquisition makes their
abominations its own, and henceforth incurs the
whole weight of a most awful responsibility.
2. Equally unavailing is the palliation attempted
by the bishop, on the ground that the number of in
nocent victims has been greatly exaggerated .
In the very terms of this plea there isadisingenuous-
ness, which is unworthy of such a man as the prelate of
Aire. The number oy innocent victims, we are told,
has been greatly exaggerated: but the bishop is not
careful to define what he means by innocent victims.
I may be mistaken: but I have always understood,
that the special object of the Inquisition was to take
cognizance of what the Latin church pronounces to
be heresy. Hence, if the bishop be a true son of that
church, no person, whom she determines to be a
heretic, can be deemed by his lordship an innocent
victim; and, consequently, the fact, that, within the
space of thirty years, the Inquisition destroyed, by
various 'modes of torture, one hundred and fifty
thousand reputed heretics, may be perfectly consis
tent 'with the somewhat fallacious allegation that the
number of INNOCENT victims has been greatly ex
aggerated.* The true question is: What are we to
• For this appalUng fact. Verger, who knew the Inquisition
weU, is my voucher: See Fran. Jun. et TUen. ad Sellarmin.
de Pont. Kom. Ub. iii. c.7.apudMedi Oper. p. 504.

the bishop OP aire's principles. 281
understand by the word innocent, as employed by
the bishop? If by innocent victims his lordship
means reputed heretics, that is to say, persons deem
ed heretics by the church of Rome: then there has
certainly been no exaggeration. If, on the contrary,
by INNOCEN^ victims he means some few unlucky
papists who in an evil hour have been 'mistaken
for damnable heretics : then he ought to have ex
plained himself accordingly, that so the purport of
his allegation might be clearly and distinctly under
stood. His complete silence on this most important
point compels me, however reluctantly, to tax him
with palpable disingenuousness.
3. There is, however, yet another aspect under
which the bishop's attempted apology for the Inqui
sition is altogether unsuccessful.
Since the apology proceeds on the ground, that the
slaughter of innocent victims is alone indefensible;
it follows, by inevitable implication, that the Inquisi
tion is perfectly justified in the slaughter of guiltt
victims. Now the GUILTY victims are those, whom the
Latin church, on full conviction of their guilt, has
pronounced to be heretics. In the slaughter oi such
persons, therefore, according to the necessary tenor
of the bishop's argument, the Inquisition is fully jus
tified. But this is the very point, on which I have the
privilege or the misfortune to differ from his lordship.
Many have been slaughtered by the Inquisition,
whom the bishop deems heretics, and whom /deem
good christians: some also have been slaughtered by
the Inquisition, whom both the bishop and ¦myself
deem heretics. But yet, according to my own view
of the question, every person, slaughtered by the
Inquisition, was, most certainly, so far as the judicial
right of that pandemonium is concerned, an inno
cent victim. Man, for his religious opinions, is
answerable to God alone. Those opinions may be

282 ' DIFFICULTIES OF ROMANISM,
very erroneous and very detestable: the individual
may be a grievous spiritual sinner before his Creator;
and, in the hour of doom ah awful retribution may
await him. But where has the Lord of heaven and
of earth conferred upon a pope or upon an inquisitor
the right to torture and to destroy tjbat man? I
greatly mistake, if the charter of any such judicial
right can be found under the christian dispensation:
Yet, unless this charter can be produced, evert
death occasioned by the Inquisition, no matter what
the religious principles of the individual may have
been, is clearly a murder,*
' * I sincerely pity the situation ofthe bishop of Aire and of
every other humane and well-disposed member of the church of
Rome_, AU such persons are inevitably pledged, either to vindi
cate and to practise persecution evento the last dreadful extremity,
or to deny the cherished infallibility of their irremutabU church.
_ Respecting the bounden duty of all the faithful to annoy and
distress and injure and persecute and slaughter those unfortunate
reUgionists whom the Latin church has pronounced to be heretics,
the twenty-seventh canon of the third CouncU of Lateran, held at
Rome under Pope Alexander thetliird in the year 117'9, and re
puted by all devout Romanists to be the eleventh general coun
cil, is full and peremptory and expUoit and unambiguous,
' As the blessed Leo says, ¦ although ecclesiastical dis^pUne,
• content with sacerdotal judgment, does not exact bloody ven-
< geance; yet is it assisted by the constitution of catholic princes,
' in order tiiat men, whUe they fear that corporal punishment may
' be inflicted upon them, may often seek a salutary remedy. On
' this account, because in Gascony, Albi, in tiie parts of Tou-
' louse, and in other regions, the accursed perverseness of here-
• tics, variously denominated Cathari or Patarenes or Publicans,
' or distinguished by sundry other names, has soprevaUed; that
• now they no longer exercise their wickedness in private, but
' publicly manifest their error and seduce into their communion
'the simple and infirm: we therefore subject to a curse both
' themselves and their defenders and their harbourers; and, under
• a curse, we prohibit all persons from admitting them into their
• houses, or receiving them upon their lands, or cherishing tiiem,
• or exercising any trade with them. Moreover we enjoin all the
• fmthful, for the remission of their sins, that they manfuUy op-
' pose themselves to such calamities, and that they defend the
' christian people against them by arms. And let their goods be
'confiscated, and let it be freely permitted to princes to reduce
' men of such a stamp to slavery. — 'We likewise, from tlie mercy

THE BISHOP OF AIRE's PRINCIPLES, 283
III, The bishop having thus censured the Reforma
tion and vindicated the Inquisition, nothing more was
wanting to the rotundity of his system than thathe
should bear his testimony against freedom of reli
gious worship. Accordingly, against this crying
abomination of the Anglican church his lordship has
raised his'voice like a trumpet,
1, In her own bosom, we are assured, the too
' of God, and relying upon the authority of the blessed apostles
' Peter and Paul, relax two years of enjoined penance to those
' faithful christians, who, by tiie counsel of tiie bishops or other
' prelates, shall take up arms against them to subdue them by fight-
' ing against them; or, if such christians shall spend a longer time
' inthe.business, we leave it to the discretion ofthe bishops to grant
' them a longer indulgence. As for those, who shall fail to obey
' the admonition ofthe bishop to this effect, we inhibit them from
• a participation of the body and blood of the Lord. MeanwhUe,
• those, who in the ardour of faith shall undertake the just labour
' of subduing them, we receive into tiie protection of the church;
' granting to them the same privileges of security in property and
' in peTson-, as are granted to those who visit the holy sepulchre.'
— Labb. ConcU. Sacrosan. vol. x. p. 1522, 1523.
If a Romanist hold the infalUbUity of liis church, then he is com
pelled by this infallible decree of an infalUble council, duly rati
fied by tUe pope himself, both to vindicate persecution in theory,
and zealously to promote it in practice: if he abhor persecution
in theory, and if he refuse to promote it in practice; then he is
compeUed, by this very abhorrence and refusal, to pronounce an
infalUbla councU to have grievously erred, and thence of neces
sity to deny the infalUbiUty of his church.
From this dilemma I see no possibUity of evasion : and, accord
ingly, no evasion is attempted.
' Vrhen a dogmatical point is to be determined,' says the late
Bishop Walmesley, • the cathoUc chui'ch speaks but once; and her
' decree is irrevocabk. The solemn determinations of general coun-
• oils have remained unalterabk and will ever be so. — Gen. Hist, of
the Church, chap, ix; p. 224. DubUn, 1812.
' The. principles ofthe catholic church, once defined,' says the
-bishop of Aire, ' are irrevocabk. She herself ih immutably chained
' by bonds,, which at no future period can she everiend asunder.' —
Discuss. Amic. vol. U. p. 324.
Thus speak two modem Latin ecclesiastics: and from their
'statement it is manifest that the persecuting twenty-seventh canon
ofthe third CouncU of Lateran, itself the reputed eleventh gene
ral council, is ibbevocabie and immvtabib both kow and ion
IVEB.

284 DIFFICULTIES OF ROMANISM.
tolerant church of England madly cherishes and
fondly carries the viperine principle of her own de
struction. The adder, which she thus warms only
, for the purpose of stinging herself to death, is free
dom of religious worship: and the rriode, by which
this baleful and impolitic principle operates to her
dissolution, is in the uncontrolled secession of the
dissenters and above all in the rapid accumulation of
the methodists.
What the bishop censures in the church of Eng
land is a principle which the church of Rome has
ever abhorred. The very fact of his censure demon
strates, by a necessary implication, that any such
censure of the Latin church would be wholly unme
rited: for, if the existing principle of the Latin
church were the same as the existing principle of the
English church, it is clear, that his lordship's censure
could not have been directed against the latter exclu
sively. When the bishop declares, that the English
church carries in her bosom a principle which- must
finally produce her destruction; he in effect declares,
that the Latin church is far too wise and too politic
to entertain and to harbour such a viper: for it were
plain fatuity to censure the practice of the English
church, if it were- equally the practice of the Latin
ohurch. But the principle in question is freedom
OP RELIGIOUS WORSHIP, Therefore,, in the judgment
of the bishop of Aire, freedom of rjiligious wor
ship is a foolish and impolitic principle, which no
wise chureh would tolerate as she values her own
safety, and which accordingly the sagacious church of
Rome does not tolerate,
2, The future destiny of the church of England
neither. the bishop nor myself can with certainty
prognosticate. To the Catholic church in general Christ has pro
mised perpetuity; but, in the lapse of ages, any par
ticular church may perish. Should the church of
England fall by the fickleness and defection of her

285
children, the principle, which destroys, will at least
not disgrace her : should the church of Rome be
established upon her ruins; those, who have indirect
ly contributed to her destruction, will have small rea
son to congratulate themselves, A church, which is
censured for granting freedom of religious worship,
were ill exchanged for the church which censures
her impolicy,
3. Some modern protestants are wont very inno
cently to maintain, that the church of Rome is now
quite different from her ancient self. But when did
we hear a Latin^roiess that his church had changed?
Never.
In proof of the immutability of the Roman church,
I cite not the wild and furious declamation of some
vulgar fanatic. I turn to a scholar and a gentleman :
I adduce the present bishop of Aire.
' The principles of the Latin church, once defined,
' are irrevocable. She herself is immutably chained
' by bonds, which at no future period can she ever
' rend asunder.'*
Thus speaks a very estimable Roman ecclesiastic:
and his meaning is fiilly explained by the line of argu
ment which he himself has chosen. He calls upon us
to unite, or rather to submit, to his church: and, as
the consistent advocate of that church, he vindicates
idolatry, stigmatizes the Reformation, patronises the
eve of St, Bartholomew, lays the blame of perse
cution upon the persecuted, palliates the Inquisition',
and censures freedom of religious worship.
The English laity are no longer ignorant of the
price of an union with Rome, Should the terms
please them, nothing remains save fo strike the bar-
gain. ' 4, If a reconciliation can thus happily be effected,
the bishop of Aire promises, that all the prelates of
the alone true catholic church will spring from their
* Discuss, Amic, vol, U. p. 324.
Bb

, 286 DIFFICULTIES OP ROMANISM,
chairs of office, and request the parochial clergy of
England to take their places, t
Certainly, to us plain rural divines, whose merit
has hitherto been overlooked by undiscerning pa
trons, and whose humility has never been endangered
by the flattering offer of ecclesiastical dignities, such
a proposal is no ordinary temptation: yet, if the epis
copate can only be obtained by an union with a pro
fessedly intolerant church, I trust we shall all have
sufficient virtue to pronounce the Nolo episcopari.
Much as we regret the secession of the dissenters,
and the half-separation of the methodists, and fully'
agreeing with the bishop that such unhappy divisions
have a direct tendency to promote the interest of the
church of Rome, still we cannot conscientiously pur
chase the dignities which are thus freely offered to us.
Since the price is the adoption of the whole Latin
creed on the one hand, and the entire extinction of all
freedom of religious worship on the other hand:
such a price, for our scanty means, we find to be far
too costly,
f si Ies grftces, Ies honneurs, manquoieht encore a son em-
pressement de vous en revStir, nos dyfiques sauroient bien, k
I'exemple de leurs anciens' pred^cesseurs, ddscendre de' leurs
sieges et vous presser d'y monter aleurplace, ' Epit. Dedic. au
Clerge, p. 8, 9. ¦*

CONCLUSION. 267

CHAPTER VI.
Conclusion.
To follow the example of the bishop of Aire, in
giving a recapitulation of what has been said, does
not appear to me to be necessary. The plan, in gene
ral, is an excellent one: and I have rarely seen it bet
ter executed than by his lordship. But, in my own
particular case at present, I deem.it superfluous. If
my statement of facts and authorities fail of leaving a
distinct impression upon the mind, no recapitulation
will render it more luminous,
I have now met the iJishop of Aire on ground se
lected by himself, With what success I have met
him, let others decide. In bidding farewell to my
learned and respectable ^ponent, he cannot be of
fended, if I express a hearty wish, by way of further
ing his projected union, that his church may more
and more resemble that portrait of it, which at the
close of the second century was drawn from the life
by the eloquent and gifted Tertullian.
' Happy, thrice-happy, church ! To thee, theapostles
' with their own blood, profusely communicated their
' whole doctrine. There Peter was assimilated to the
'passion of his Lord: there Paul was crowned by the
' evasion of John: there John himself, after suffering
' no ill from the boiling cauldron, was banished to
* Patmos. What learned she; what taught she:
< when, symbolizing also with the African churches,
' she acknowledged one God the Creator of the uni-
' verse, aiid Jesus Christ the Son of God the Creator

288 DIFFICULTIES OP ROMANISM,
' born from the Virgin Mary, and the future appoint-
' ed resurrection of the flesh ? She mingles the law
' and the prophets with the gospels and the apostolic
' letters: whence she drinks out that faith, which she
' so eminently illustrates. She signs with water: she
' clothes with the Holy Spirit: she feeds with the
'Eucharist: she exhorts to martyrdom: she receives
' no one in opposition to the institutes, which Christ
'once delivered to his church. Still do the very
' chairs of the apostles remain in their own places:
' still are their authentic letters recited, which sound
' forth their very tones, and which faithfully exhibit
' their very countenances, . If thou art in Achaia,
' thou hast Corinth: if, in Macedon; thou hast Philippi
'and Thessalonica, If thou journeyest into Asia;
' thou hast Ephesus: if Italy be thy residence; thou
' hast.RoME,* ,
• TertuU. de Praescript. adv. Hsr. § xiv. p. 108, 109.

(289)

APPENDIX.
RESPECTING THE AUTHENTIC LETTERS OF THE APOS
TLES MENTIONED BY TERTULLIAN.
It has been disputed, whether the ifisse authenticae
literse, mentioned by Tertullian in his treatise on Pre
scriptions, were Che autographs of the apostles, or only
accurate transcripts of them.*
From his expression, Percurre ecclesias atos'iolicas,
¦when viewed in connexion with the subsequent context
and with the avowed tenor of his argument, we may, I
think, collect, that he speaks of the apostolic auto-
grafihs. I. Of this opinion, I draw out the proof, in manner
following: —
The passage is introduced with the supposed case of
a person, who, for his soul's health, is laudably curious
to- ascertain sound christian doctrine. Age jam gut
voles curiositatem melius exercere in negotio salutis fuse.
Now the advice,which Tertullian gives to such a per
son, is, that he should resort to the apostolic churches,
in which the authentic letters of the apostles are still
recited: and these apostolic churches are evidently
* TertuU. de Prescript, adv. Hjcr. § xiv. p. 108, 109. See
above, book U, chap. 3, § II. 2. note.
Bb2

390 APPENDIX.
churches founded by the apostles themselves, as con
tra-distinguished from minor churches founded only
by their successors; for he immediately afterward ex
plains himself by enumerating the churches of Corinth,
Philippi, Thessalonica, Ephesus, and Rome. But of
necessity this advice implies, that the inquirer after
sound docti'ine would find in these apostolic churches
what he would not find in any other inferior churches:
and the matters, which he would find in these apos
tolic churches for' the settling of his faith, are dis
tinctly specified to be the very authentic letters of the
apostles; ifisae authenticae literse eorum.
What then must we consistently understand by thgse
x'cri/ authentic letters of the apostles.^
If we understand by them accurate transcrifita_ of the
original autographs, we shall be reduced, by the tenor
of TertuUian's argument, to the manifest absurdity of
supposing, that, at the latter end of th& second cen
tury, no churches possessed transcripts ofthe original
autographs, save those apostolic churches to which
the letters were directly addressed: for it is clear that
Tertullian would never have thought of sending his
inquirer sfiecially and exclusively to the apostolic
churches, if the very same satisfactory information
might have been gained from any other inferior church.
Hence, the bare reason of the thing makes it evident,
that the ipsae authenticse literse could not have been
mere accurate transcripts of the original autographs.
But, if they were not transcripts, they must have been
the autographs themselves.
1. Accordingly, this conclusion perfectly agrees
both with the whole context and with the evidently
necessary tenor of TertuUian's argument.

APPENDIX. 291
The learned father sends a curious inquirer after,
doctrinal truth to the apostolic churches, rather than
to any other churches which were not immediately
founded by the apostles themselves. Wh-y does he
thus send him to the former, rather than to the latter?
Because, in the apostolio churhes, he might satisfy
his curiosity by an actual inspection of the identical
autographs of the apostles: whereas, in other churches
not founded by the apostles, though he might meet
•with numerous transcripts made from these auto
graphs, he would peradventure be disposed to ques
tion their strict accuracy. The various Achaian
churches, for instance, would have transcripts of the
two epistles to the Corinthians: but the autographs
would be deposited with the apostoho church of Co
rinth. In a similar manner, the several churches of
Macedon and proconsular Asia and Italy would have
transcripts of the several epistles to the Philippians and
Thessalonians and Ephesians and Romans: butthe auto
graphs would be deposited with the apostolic churches
of Philippi and Thessalonica and Ephesus and Rome.
Hence says Tertullian to his inquirer, if you are in Ma
cedon, you may resort to Philippi and Thessalonica; if
in Italy, to Rome ; if in Achaia, to Corinth ; if in pro
consular Asia, to Ephesus: for, in each of these apos
tolic churches, a privilege which churches not found
ed by the apostles are unable to claim, you will find the
identical authentic letters, that is to say (as the sense
imperiously requires), the identical autographs of the
apostles themselves.
2. The present conclusion is confirmed, if it need
any confirmation, by a subsequent phrase of Tertul-

292 APPENDIX.
lian, which occurs in the course of the same general
passage. In his character of a catholic as opposed to all inno
vating heretics, he speaks of possessing, from the very
authors, the firm originals. Habeo arigines Jirmas ab
ipsis autoribus. Now, when both the. argument and
the entire context are considered, it is hard to say
what he can mean by these firm originals from the
authors themselves, if he do not mean the apostolic auto
graphs, II. The existence of the apostolic autographs, in the
time of Tertullian, draws after it a very important
philological consequence: namely, that the apostolic
letters were originally written in Greek.
Tertullian repeatedly intimates, that St. Paul em
ployed the Greek language in the composition of his
epistles.* Now, this intimation might, in the abstract,
be disputed: but, if the autographs of the apostles
were in his time still preserved in the apostolic
churches, any error on the part of such a man as Ter
tullian, in regard to the language of these autographs,
seems well nigh impossible. For a mere mechanical
inspection of the autographs would verify their lan
guage: and even if Tertullian had carelessly hazarded
an inaccurate assertion in consequence of his never
having seen the autographs himself, he must forthwith
have learned his mistake from some one of the many
persons who had inspected them ; and, in that case, he
would doubtless have corrected it. Or, at any rate, if
he had neglected to make a formal retractation, we may
be morally sure, that some other writer would have ex-
* TertuU. de Monog. | viu. p. 576. § xu. p. 580. TertuU. adv.
Marcion, Ub,v,§ 33. p. 332.

APPENDIX, 293
posed his singular mistake: inasmuch as the auto
graphs could not have existed to the end of the second
century in those apostolic churches to which there
was evidently a continual resort, without at the same
time their particular language being known almost
universally. Hence, if I have proved, that the i/isae authenticae
literse, which a curious inquirer at the end of the se
cond century could find no -where save in the apostolic
churches alone, must thence inevitably mean the auto
graphs of the apostles: I have also proved, through the
joint medium of that circumstance and the positive
evidence of Tertullian, that the apostolic epistles were
originally written in Greek,
III. I subjoin the Latin original, that the reader may
form a better judgment respecting the propriety of the
foregoing remarks.
Age jam qui voles curiositatem melius exercere in
negotio salutis tus, percurre ecclesias apostolicas,
apud quas ipsje adhuc cathedrse apostolorum suis lo-
cis prsesidentur, apud quas ipsae authenticae literae
eorum recitantur, sonantes vocem, et repraesentantes
faciem uniuscujusqe. Proxima est tibi Achaia? Habes
Corinlhum. Si non longe es a Macedonia, habes Phi-
lippos, habes Thessalonicenses. Si potes in Asiam
tendere, habes Ephesum, Si autem Italiae adjaces,
habes Romam, unde nobis quoque autoritas prxsto est.

THE END.

YALE UNIVERSITY L

3 9002 04055 5220

*;

^M