»r-/ 
 
 » 
 
( 
 
 
 * 
 
 LIBRARY 
 
 OF THE 
 
 Theological Seminary 
 
 PRINCETON, N. J-. 
 
 ^"•••'^V - Diy.isj.on....h- 
 
 ^^^^- S^Qtipn..../0, 4.J^? 
 
 Booh\ No \Jy '2-- 
 
 tv • • • . • . 
 
 A DONATION 
 
 PROM 
 
 JcuL /Ut 
 
 Beceiued // . /^ 
 
THE REMAINS 
 
 OF 
 
 THE REV. CHARLES HENRY WHARTON, D.D. 
 
 WITH 
 
 A MEMOIR OF HIS LIFE, 
 
 BT 
 
 GEORGE WASHINGTON DOANE, D. D., 
 
 BISHOP OF THE DIOCESE OF NEW-JERSEV- 
 
 VOLUME I I » 
 
 PHILADELPHIA: 
 
 WILLIAM STAVELY. 
 
 M D C C C X X X I V. 
 
Entered according to the Act of Coiigress, in the year 1834, by William 
 Stavely, in the Clerk's Office of the District Court of the Eastern District of 
 Pennsylvania. 
 
 {fy Tlic profits arising from the sale of this work will l)e appro pri- 
 ;iteil to the establishment of a Scholarship in the General Theological 
 Seminary of the Protestant Episcopal Church. 
 
TO 
 
 THE VENERABLE, 
 
 THE PRESIDING BISHOP 
 
 OP 
 
 THE PROTESTANT EPISCOPAL CHURCH 
 
 IN 
 
 THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 
 
 THE PATRIARCH 
 
 OF OUR HOUSEHOLD OF FAIT U, 
 
 THE RIGHT REV. WILLIAM WHITE, D.I)., 
 
 THESERE MAINS 
 
 OF ONE 
 
 WHO WAS FOR FIFTY YEARS HIS FRIEND, 
 
 ARE DEDICATED, 
 
 WITH SENTIMENTS OF FILIAL RESPEC^T AND L0\f:, 
 
 BY 
 THE YOUNGEST OF HIS BRETHREN, 
 
 THE EDITOR. 
 
 Burlington: 
 
 OCTOBER, 
 M D C C C X X X I 1 1. 
 
A 
 
 CONCISE VIEW 
 
 OF 
 
 THE PRINCIPAL POINTS OF CONTROVERSY 
 
 BETWEEN THE 
 
 PROTESTANT AND ROMAN CHURCHES: 
 
 CONTAINING 
 
 I. A Letter from the Rev. C. H. Wharton, to the Roman Catiio- 
 lics of the city of Worcester, England. 
 n. A Reply to the above " Letter," by the late Archbishop Carroll. 
 
 III. An Answer to the late Archbishop Carroll's " Reply," by the 
 ■ Rev. C. H. Wharton. 
 
 IV. A Short Answer to the Appendix to the " Catholic Question 
 
 in America," by the Rev. C. H. Wharton. 
 
 V. A few Short Remarks on Dr. O'Gallagher's Reply to the above 
 " Short Answer," by the Rev. C. H. Wharton. 
 
 THE SECOND EDITION. 
 
 PHILADELPHIA I 
 
 WILLIA^r STAVELT. 
 
 MDCCCXXXIV. 
 
 1* 
 
EDITOR'S ADVERTISEMENT 
 
 The Tracts which are contained in this volume, 
 had been out of print for some years before the death 
 of their venerable Author. It is to be lamented that 
 he had not put in execution the design of republishing 
 them, which, for some months, he had entertained j as 
 valuable additions might have been expected from his 
 practised pen. In the present publication of them, 
 the Editor, after mature reflection, has deemed it best, 
 to reprint, without deviation and without comment, 
 the edition of 1S17. His various avocations, and his 
 unexpected absence, for several weeks, from the press 
 from which they issue, have prevented his making 
 such occasional literal corrections as were necessary in 
 a text, which was not originally printed with accu- 
 racy. Should the volume, as is confidently expected 
 from the great anxiety which is expressed for its ap- 
 pearance by all Protestant Christians, pass to another 
 edition, the opportunity will be embraced for making 
 
Vlll ADVERTISTMENT. 
 
 such improvements, and furnishing such accompani- 
 ments, as may be found desirable. Meanwhile, the 
 Editor confidently commends the Tracts of Dr. Whar- 
 ton, to the inquiring and intelligent of every Christian 
 name, as admirable for their scriptural authority, their 
 extent of research, acuteness in argument, and ele- 
 gance of style, and unsurpassed in Christian tone and 
 temper. 
 
 G. W. D. 
 Burlington, October, 1833. 
 
PREFACE. 
 
 The two first and the third of the tracts here published, 
 have* for some years past been frequently called for, and 
 the author has been repeatedly solicited to allow a new 
 edition of them. Motives of delicacy only, have prevented 
 his compliance. He was unwilling to renew any uneasy 
 feelings in the breast of the venerable writer of the " Ad- 
 dress to the Roman Catholics in the United States of Ame- 
 rica," for whom, notwithstanding many illiberal insinua- 
 tions in this address, he never ceased to entertain sincere 
 esteem and attachment. By the decease of Archbishop 
 Carrol], every disinclination and obstacle to the republica- 
 tion of these tracts, is removed. They who may now enter 
 the lists against them, will not be able to advance any thing 
 unnoticed by him, and therefore no dread is entertained of 
 their being refuted. If it should be said, that publications 
 of this nature are only calculated to nourish the acrimonious 
 spirit of controversy, which Christian charity should rather 
 strive to suppress, let the reader turn to " the Appendix to 
 the Catholic Question," published at New-York in 1813, 
 and candidly determine whether such a wanton attack upon 
 the Protestant faith, did not call for more severe animad- 
 version than that which it received. 
 
 A pamphlet in support of this publication, and written 
 by a Dr. O'Gallagher, was put into my hands last fall. 
 With the exception of some coarse abuse, and an arrogant 
 affectation of theological superiority, it contains little or 
 nothing, which was not refuted in the Sliort Answer to the 
 Appendix, My friends, however, advised me to notice it, 
 and I have done so accordingly. The malignity of the 
 Doctor's remarks, meets the pity of the writer of these 
 sheets, and is freely forgiven; although, if unrestrained, he 
 has no doubt, that, by some fiery bigots, it would be extend- 
 ed to personal persecution. As an evidence, that such 
 
 [* The tracts by Dr. W. himself, here numbered I. III. IV. are probably 
 meant. The former edition was printed in 1817. G. W. D.j 
 
X PREFACE. 
 
 feelings exist, he will take the liberty of presenting the 
 reader with the copy of a letter which he lately received 
 from a Ronnish Priest, together with his reply to it. The 
 letter was written in French, and is literally translated. 
 The original is v/ith the printer. The spirit which dictated 
 it, is, I hope, confined only to few of that communion ; but, 
 however limited it may be, it is fraught with such ma- 
 lignant and mischievous materials, that no attempt to keep 
 it under, can be unseasonable or superfluous. It is hoped 
 that the present publication may contribute something to 
 this effect. 
 
 THE LETTER. 
 
 Baltimore, 20tk March, 1816. 
 Sir, 
 
 I WROTE to you about two years ago.* With equal sim- 
 plicity I will write to you again — solely for the good of 
 your soul, and for the glory of God and his church. 1 never 
 mentioned the first letter to any person, nor shall I men- 
 tion this. The same secrecy I have a right to exact from 
 you, until it shall be violated by some infidelity on my part. 
 You are very old. Mr. Carroll, your friend, has died first. 
 He has borne before God the testimony of the scandal, 
 which your renunciation of his Church, and of your sacred 
 priest-hood, has occasioned in his diocese ; of the scandal 
 of writings so outrageous, from your apology, down to that 
 Theological Magazine in the first number of which, you 
 begin by venting such strange effusions of hatred against 
 your Mother, the Church ; saying, for instance, in the eulo- 
 gium on Fenelon, that ignorance only can embrace, and 
 cruelty only propagate her doctrine — thus violently insult- 
 ting those of your former friends, whom not being able to 
 pronounce either ignorant or cruel, it remained only to con- 
 sider as hypocrites; (Mr. Carroll at their head) asserting 
 again, that charity is incompatible with the Catholic faith ; 
 that Fenelon, like Fra. Paulo, was nothing more than a 
 Protestant in disguise ; He, who wrote so many controver- 
 sial treatises against the Protestants, and the Jansenists ; 
 the Missionary of Poitou, which continued Catholic during 
 the French revolution ; the confessor, for ten years, of the 
 
 * This letter was equally insolent, and was burnt without being an- 
 swered. 
 
PREFACE. Xi 
 
 new female converts ; the friend of the Jesuits and of St. 
 Sulpice, societies so decidedly Catholic ; nay, further, the 
 antagonist of the liberties of the Gallican Church, and even 
 jealously attached to what is called, in France, the ultra- 
 mountain, or Italian system. Alas ! was it reserved to you 
 to make Fenelon also a hypocrite, than whom no man ever 
 enjoyed a higher reputation for sincerity? Rather read, O 
 wretched Priest! his beautiful treatise upon the minis- 
 terial functions, or his eight letters to a Protestant, and the 
 rational retractation which they occasioned. How dare 
 you ; how dare you, I say, go to death and to judgment in 
 your present melancholy situation? What account will you 
 have to render to Jesus Christ, of your conduct against his 
 Churcl^? You are imposed npon by the caresses of the sect 
 you have embraced. I have seen with grief, on your ac- 
 count, their efforts to entangle you to the last, by propos- 
 ing you as Bishop of New-Jersey. A Bishop, indeed ! A 
 Bishop, on Avhose account? A Bishop ! O miserable Priest, 
 a priest at present without faith^ without sacrifice^ I say, 
 without even faith ; for among all the Protestant sects, 
 what choice can be made, one opinion being as good as 
 another, whether it be Luther's, or Calvin's, Fox's, Wes- 
 ley's, Socinus's, Priestley's, or any other non-descript so- 
 ciety. 
 
 At Mr. Carroll's death, I was struck with the desire of 
 writing to you: at present this desire occurs very forcibly, 
 and 1 yield to it with simplicity, nay, with excessive emo- 
 tion. Return to the fatal moment of your separation. Re- 
 member poor Lucas ;* imitate his repentance ; abandon the 
 fatal courage to die in your apostacy, and plunge into des- 
 pair. Reflect, old man, still respectable for your age, and 
 the excess of your wretchedness, reflect on the good which 
 your return would yet do, and the true consolation it would 
 impart to yourself. I do not expect that you will answer 
 me, but ponder before God, what you had best do. Do 
 not die in this manner — rather follow to the other world 
 your favourite Fenelon, than the apostate Luther. A spirit 
 of indifference, the dissenters, the Bible Societies, are hast- 
 ening on the ruin of the establish me nt of IJcnry VIIL, Eliza- 
 beth, and Edward ; and Unitarianism, new commentaries, 
 
 * Of this person I know but little. I am glad, however, to find that he 
 died a penitent for his immoralities. I never heard that he became a Pro- 
 testant. 
 
Xil PREFACE. 
 
 liberality, &;c. threaten Christianity itself. Membership 
 with the only Church in possession of the promises, is the 
 duty of every enlightened and sincere Christian : how much 
 more so of the miserable Priest who has had the misfortune 
 to betray his divine priesthood. Does not an edifying re» 
 turn become urgent? Ah, do not be so dreadfully courage- 
 ous, as thus to die in your apostacy. In thinking myself 
 bound to give you my name, I am not afraid of dishonour- 
 ing it. My intention is pure, and I disavow any unneces- 
 sary affront. 
 
 A. BRUTE, (I believe,) 
 
 President of St. Mary's College. 
 
 The Rev. Mr. Wharton, Burlington, Neio-Jersey, 
 
 ANSWER. 
 
 Burlington, April 20fh, 1816. 
 Sir, 
 
 In answering yours of the SOth ult. I will begin by send- 
 ing you a parody of a celebrated letter written by the great 
 Dr. Samuel Johnson, to Mr. James Macpherson, whom he 
 considered as a literary impostor, and by whom he was 
 threatened with a personal assault.* 
 
 "I received your foolish and impertinent letter. Any 
 arguments against my religious opinions, I shall do my best 
 to repel ; and what I cannot do for myself against bigoted 
 abuse, my friends will do for me. I hope I shall never be 
 deterred from abandoning what 1 think an error, by the de- 
 nunciations of a fanatic. What would you have me re- 
 tract ? I thought your Church unscriptural in many points, 
 and I think so still. For this opinion I have given my 
 reasons to the public, which I dare you to refute. Your 
 unprovoked resentment 1 defy — your pity I reject. To 
 judge from your letter, your abilities are not formidable ; 
 and I am not sufficiently acquainted with your erudition, 
 to pay regard to what you can say, but what you can prove. 
 You may show this to whom you please, or print it, if you 
 will." 
 
 This parody will probably appear uncourteous language 
 to the president of a College ; but when a president throws 
 
 ♦ Seo Boswell's Life of Johnson, vol. ii. p, 133. Boston edit. 
 
PREFACE. Xiii 
 
 off the gentleman, and condescends to dabble in the dregs 
 of bigotry, he has no right to expect any other. The feel- 
 ings which your letter excited, would not have partaken of 
 any thing like resentment, had you not mentioned my vene- 
 rable relative and former friend, Archbishop Carroll, as 
 countenancing your denunciations and abuse. I knew him 
 well. I loved him during his lifetime, antl shall revere him 
 during my own. Were he still among us, I would have 
 transmitted your letter to him ; where, 1 am confident, it 
 would have met the reception it deserves. He was too well 
 acquainted with the sacred rights of conscience, and the 
 anomalies of the human mind, to condemn the exercise of 
 the first, or wish to regulate the latter by the standard of 
 his own opinions ; much less would he have presumed to 
 consign them both to perdition. Sir, we Americans are 
 better taught in these matters; and it must stir our bile to 
 hear arrogant foreigners, presuming to vilify the most nu- 
 merous classes of Christians in our country ; to find them, 
 when scarcely escaped from the fury of Jacobinism, breath- 
 ing among their kind receivers the spirit of Inquisitors. On 
 every occasion, both in public and private, 1 have uniformly 
 treated my former connexions with respect. In abandoning 
 6ome of their doctrines, I still entertained for their persons 
 and virtues the most tender attachment, and have never, for 
 a moment, harboured the presumption of passing condem- 
 nation on them for opinions, which to profess myself, would 
 be a sinful prevarication. If you had understood our lan- 
 guage, you could not have mistaken what is said of Fene- 
 lon in the Theological Magazine. It is merely asserted, 
 that although a member of the Roman Church, he was, in 
 some sense, a Protestant ; and, was not this the case, when 
 he protested against propagating religion by the sword, a 
 practice zealously advocated by Bossuet, and most Roman 
 Catholic divines, as emanating from religious intolerance, 
 and a holy incompatability, as they call it, with any other 
 Christian societies — a practical doctrine, involving the very 
 essence of heretical pravity, and calling loudly for the ana- 
 themas of an infallible Church, unless, indeed, she regard 
 practical errors, most destructive to society, beneath her 
 notice, when compared with speculative tenets, which seem 
 to shock the dictates of reason, and invalidate the evidence 
 of all our senses. These true principles of the Church of 
 Rome, viz. : intolerance and persecutioHy which she has al- 
 
XIV PREFACE. 
 
 ways professed, and frequenily realized, when possessing 
 civil power, these principles, 1 repeat, " cruelty alone can 
 disseminate, and ignorance alone receive ;"* and should 
 such principles be maintained by any other Church, which 
 never can be j)roved, all we can say, is, that they merit the 
 same unqualified abhorrence. Of the sincerity of the amia- 
 ble and saintly Fenelon ; of your late learned and venera- 
 ble Archbishop, and of innumerable other worthies of your 
 communion, I never entertained a doubt. It is the duty 
 of all real Christians, to "judge not before the time, lest 
 they be judged." Who, then, art thou, Mr. President, 
 *' that judgest another man's servant," or rather a man de- 
 voted to the service of Christ? Abandon this crying sin, 
 my good sir. But if you deem it an essential mark of your 
 Church to anathematize all, who dissent from her tenets, 
 permit me, in return for your menacing entreaties, (nay, I 
 am willing to suppose, your charitable exhortations, to aban- 
 don my apostacy,) to beseech you to ponder in tlie pre- 
 sence of God, and with a free and unshackled mind, the 
 reasons of Protestants for their separating from your Church, 
 and then, perhaps, you may be induced, by a similar act of 
 apostacy, " to come out of her, lest you partake of t|iose 
 plagues,'' which you presume to pronounce so confidently 
 against me. At any rate, you would oblige me by with- 
 holding the honour of any more of your letters, the disposal 
 of which you can have no right to control, as you seem to 
 imagine. When received, they become my property ; but 
 it is a property which I do not covet. Such letters siir up 
 angry feelings, which I wish to forget, and they pick my 
 pocket without an adequate consideration. 'JMiey may, 
 moreover, and probably will be mentioned, in a manner that 
 may prevent Protestant parents, from exposing their chil- 
 dren to instructors of this description. 
 
 With respect to your kind cautions against the caresses 
 of my new friends, as you are pleased to style them, and 
 their exertions to raise me to the Episcopate of New-Jersey, 
 they are entirely superfluous; as 1 was never a candidate 
 for that sacred and responsible office ; and as to your sneers 
 against Bible Societies, they may be entitled to some notice, 
 when the declaration of the Apostle shall become obsolete, 
 that *' the Scriptures are able to make us wise unto salva- 
 
 * See Tlieological Magazine No. 1, p. 22. 
 
PREFACE. XV 
 
 tion, through faith which is in Christ Jesus ; all Scripture 
 being given by inspiration of God, and being profitable for 
 doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in riwh- 
 teousness ; that the man of God may be perfect^ thoroughly 
 furnished unto all good works." (2 Tim. iii. 15, 16, 17.) 
 In the mean time, if the dissemination of scriptural know- 
 ledge should overthrow any Protestant Churches, either in 
 Europe or America, the sooner they fall the better. It 
 might, however, be probably more wise to transfer your idle 
 forebodings, respecting other Churches, to well-founded ap- 
 prehensions for your own, arising from such a circumstance. 
 At any rate, if, as you flatter yourself, Bible Societies are 
 calculated to destroy the Church of England, and her sister 
 Church in America, it evidently becomes your bounden duty 
 to support them. You tell me, in finishing your letter, that 
 you give me your name without fear of exposing it. Sorry 
 I am, that neither my friends, nor myself, are able to decy- 
 pher it. Turned every way, it remains unknown to us all. 
 Mine is that of your sincere well-wisher, 
 
 CHARLES HENRY WHARTON, D. D. 
 
 and Presbyter of the Apostolical Protestant Episcopal 
 Church in the U. S. of America. 
 
A 
 LETTER 
 
 TO 
 
 THE ROMAN CATHOLICS 
 
 OF THE 
 
 CITY OF WORCESTER, 
 
 FROM 
 
 THE LATE CHAPLAIN OF THAT SOCIETY, 
 
 MR. C. H. WHARTON, 
 
 STATING THE MOTIVES WHICH INDUCED HIM TO RELINQUISH THEIR 
 COMMUNION, AND BECOME A MEMBER OF THE 
 PROTESTANT CHURCH. 
 
 NEW-YORK; REPUBLISHED BY DAVID LONGWORTH, 1817. 
 
 PHILADELPHIA: WILLIAM STAVELY, 1833. 
 
" Give me understanding, O Lord, and I shall keep thy law -. Yea, I shall 
 observe it with my whole heart." 
 
 " Make me to go in the path of thy commandments ; for therein do I de- 
 light."— Psa/m cxix. 34, 35. 
 
 " Any private man, who truly believes the Scripture, and seriously endea. 
 vours to know the will of God, and to do it, is as secure as the visible 
 Church, more secure than your (the Roman Church,) from the danger of 
 erring in fundamentals : for it is impossible that any man so qualified should 
 fall into any error which to him will prove damnable. For God requires no 
 more of any man to his salvation, but his true endeavour to be saved. Lastly* 
 abiding in your Churches communion is so far from securing me or any man 
 from damnable error, that if I should abide in it, I am certain I could not be 
 saved. For abide in it, I cannot, without professing to believe your entire 
 doctrine true : profess this I cannot, but I must lie perpetually, and exulcer- 
 ate my conscience. And though your errors were not in themselves damna- 
 ble, yet to resist the known truth, and to continue in the profession of known 
 errors and falsehood, is certainly a capital sin, and of great affinity with the 
 sin which shall never be forgiven. — Chilling sworlh' s Religion of Protestants 
 a safe way to Salvation, Aih edition, p. 215. 
 
A LETTER, &c. 
 
 At a period of life, when discernment should be ripcj 
 when passions should be calm, and principles settled, if a 
 man relinquish the opinions of his youth ; if he break 
 through the impressions of early education, and the habits 
 of thinking with which he has been long familiar ; if he 
 abandon connexions, which he has cherished from his in- 
 fancy, to throw himself among strangers and begin the 
 world anew ; surely a consciousness of duty, or some un- 
 worthy principle must be the spring of such extraordinary 
 conduct. In this case, a decent respect to his own charac- 
 ter ; to the connexions which he quits ; and those which 
 he embraces, seems to call aloud for the motives of so im- 
 portant a change. 
 
 I am well aware that the public in general is but little 
 concerned at the fate of individuals. Their success, their 
 uneasiness, their struggles, their distress are felt only by a 
 few, who, formed in a softer mould, take delight in being 
 interested in the welfare of humanity. To such of those 
 exalted few of your society, or of any other description of 
 men, who may chance to know me, I beg leave to address 
 myself. 
 
 It is not my design to enter upon the wide field of con- 
 troversy, nor to combat the tenets which I have rejected, 
 by the shafts of ridicule or the full power of argument. 
 Truth does not require, nor does generosity allow us to 
 blacken a system because we abandon it. What appears 
 conviction to me may seem folly to you. It would there- 
 fore be equally absurd and unjust to censure you for 
 opinions, which you think it your duty to admit, as for you 
 to blame 7ne for rejecting such, as / deem unsupportabl^ 
 
and false. Wherefore my sole intention is to send you an 
 apology for my oicn conduct, not to throw the most distant 
 reflection upon your's. I mean to countenance, as far as I 
 am able, the candour of those, who may still wish to es- 
 teem me, or silence in some degree, the voice of preju- 
 dice, and zeal without knowledge. 
 
 If nevertheless, in the course of this letter, any argu- 
 ments should occur, that may tend to unhinge the security 
 of your minds, you will be candid enough to refer it to the 
 nature of the subject, not to any intention to disturb and 
 perplex you. 
 
 Were your belief, indeed, grounded solely on the autho- 
 rity, and credit of your teachers, on the prejudices of edu- 
 cation, on the dictates of fear, the allurements of interestj 
 or the horrors of a conscience perpetually harassed with 
 the idea of disobedience and heresy, you probably might 
 be staggered to see one of your ministers, who, you had 
 some reason to imagine, made religion his study, depart- 
 ing from a system, which you are taught to venerate as in- 
 fallible. But if your faith proceed from conviction, and 
 knowledge of the cause, if it be the result of mature deli- 
 beration, and rational inquiry, you can have nothing to fear 
 even from a deliberate attempt to raise doubts in your 
 minds. God requires no more of any man, than his true 
 and hearty endeavours to be saved ; and their endeavours 
 can never be ineffectual, whose reason and conscience tell 
 them, they are in the way to salvation. If these faithful 
 guides speak such a language to your hearts, continue to 
 listen to their saving lessons ; continue to be happy. But 
 let no security whatever, no conviction of your exclusive 
 happiness so warp your understandings, or exulcerate your 
 hearts, as to make you pronounce condemnation upon those 
 who, after consuming years in unbiassed inquiries, can 
 discover no unerring authority delegated to man, nor admit 
 many doctrines, which that authority proposes. For your 
 sakes, I deprecate such unchristian usage, as well as for 
 
Vny own. Yet I fear alas ! that happy period is still at a 
 distance when the charity, that hehaveth not unseemly, that 
 thinlceth no evil, shall compose the jarrings of religious an- 
 tipathy. The pride of opinion is too firmly riveted upon 
 the human mind to admit of any apology from those who 
 oppose it. A desertion from a favourite system bears too 
 hard upon the abandoned cause to be easily forgiven : and 
 the man, who is bold enough to adopt such a measure, will 
 soon find himself a profane object of abhorrence to the 
 persons whom he most esteemed, or by whom he had been 
 most tenderly beloved. 
 
 For it is a lamentable truth, that on every occasion simi- 
 lar to the present, unjust suspicions and illiberal censure 
 are indulged without remorse. They find their way into 
 minds, which, in other respects, are accustomed to startle 
 at the very shadow of evil. The most advanced in the ha- 
 bits of Christian meekness and forbearance, too often mis- 
 lake the workings of animosity for sentiments of pity to- 
 wards an unfortunate brother. Men of sense and educa- 
 tion too often make a merit of sacrificing- their temper and 
 understanding to the blind ardour of their zeal. The most 
 eloquent and powerful champion of the English Roman 
 Catholics; the professed advocate for unlimited toleration, 
 could not so far abandon his original prejudices, as to think 
 favourably of any one, who leaves the communion he be- 
 longs to.* What grounds have I therefore to expect any 
 partial indulgence, any unusual exertions of charity and 
 candour. No, my fellow Christians, I am not bold enough 
 to flatter myself, that such will be my lot. U, however, 
 contrary to my expectations, any among you should be 
 found generous enough to answer the voice of obloquy, 
 and assert my sincerity, to such I shall ever be happy to 
 
 * State and behaviour of tlie English Catholics, by the Rev. Mr. Bering- 
 ton, page 132. In the second edition of this spirited work the author softens 
 his censure of those, who may abandon his communion but the origin^i 
 sense of it remains nearly the same. 
 
 a2 
 
make my gratitude known. Under many distressful feel- 
 ings, it will be a comfort to reflect, that my slender endea- 
 vours have operated in the minds of some among you, a re- 
 vokition so congenial to the mild spirit of the Gospel. 
 
 Perhaps, were you acquainted with the painful struggles, 
 which this public declaration of my sentiments has caused 
 me, your pity on this occasion would be unmixed with re- 
 sentment. You would see the cruel impropriety of being 
 anofry with a man, who has endeavoured to discover the 
 truth of your doctrines, and striven with all the powers of 
 his soul to believe them ; who calls heaven to witness, that 
 he has weighed every argument for and against your mode 
 of religion, with the same impartiality, as if the world con- 
 tained no Being but God and himself. 
 
 I pretend not to any uncommon powers of reasoning, or 
 quickness of apprehension — I feel myself subject to pre- 
 judice and mistake — I am too well acquainted with the in- 
 stability of my own heart to boast of any exemption from 
 the usual frailties of man. But among the weaknesses to 
 which 1 plead guilty, none, I trust, ever argued indifference 
 to religion, contempt for morality, forgetfulness of honour, 
 or any propension to that lowest stage of depravity, which 
 makes men act habitually the parts of hypocrites. 
 
 There was a time, when, like you, I gloried in my reli- 
 gion ; 1 daily thanked God, that / icas not, like other men, 
 heretics, schismatics, and infidels; I subscribed with un- 
 feigned sincerity to that article of your belief; " That the 
 Roman Church is the mother and mistress of all Churches, 
 and that out of her communion no salvation can be ob- 
 tained."* I was persuaded that the arguments of her ad- 
 versaries were lighter than chaff; though, at the same time, 
 I should have deemed it an impiety to weigh them in the 
 scales of impartiality and candour. Common sense in- 
 
 * See the famous creed of Pope Pius IV. the present standard of orthodoxy 
 in the Roman Church. 
 
formed me, that inquiry implied a doubt, whilst the voice 
 of the Church was loud in proclaiming, that to doubt of 
 any doctrinal point was to be no longer a Roman Catholic. 
 Under such a dilemma, the inquisitive faculties of the mind 
 must remain in a state of torpid acquiescence, or be ex- 
 erted only after a previous and definite judgment has been 
 passed upon the truth, or falsity of the doctrines in debate. 
 I was, therefore, soon convinced, that no consistent Roman 
 Catholic can be a candid inquirer in matters of religion. 
 He cannot set out with that indifference to the truth or 
 falsity of a tenet, which forms the leading feature of ra- 
 tional investigation; and yet, at the same time, it was 
 painful to conclude, that an honest search into the truths 
 and nature of religion, could be any-wise offensive to its 
 merciful author. " 1 could never perceive why in religious 
 inquiries our reason should be particularly restrained ; as 
 the subject is of singular importance, it seemed that even 
 greater latitude should be allowed us."* To " prove all 
 things, and hold fast that which is good," was the important 
 advice of an inspired apostle. f I regarded it as an essen- 
 tial duty of a minister of religion " to be ready always to 
 glee an answer to every man that asketh him a reason of 
 the hope that is in him, with meekness and fear.":}: In a 
 word, the positive injunction of the beloved disciple of 
 Jesus. " not to believe every spirit, but try the spirits, 
 whether they be of God,"§ was a sufficient voucher for the 
 lawfulness and expediency of inquiry. || 
 
 My connexions, moreover, with many valuable Protest- 
 ants, with whom I lived in habits of intimacy and friend- 
 ship, served not a little to enlarge my ideas, and wean my 
 
 * State and behaviour of the Roman Catholics, page 139. 
 
 t 1 Thess. V. 21. t 1 Pet. iii. 15. $ 1 John iv. 1. 
 
 II Not to mention many other ancient fathers, who advise us to have re- 
 course to the Scriptures in all our doubts about religion, I will only lay be- 
 fore the reader two remarkable passages of St. Chrysostom. This eloquent 
 doctor shall speak for all the rest. "When you shall see an impious heresy 
 
8 
 
 mind from the narrowness of a system. In proportion as I 
 became acquainted with their persons, I ceased to view 
 their principles through the medium of prejudice. If 
 " pure and undefiled religion with God and the Father" be 
 this, "to visit widows and orphans in their tribulation, and 
 to keep one's self unstained from this world,"* I think I 
 know several who have a good claim to this religion. 
 
 which is the army of anti-christ, standing in the holy places of the Church i 
 then let those who are in Judea betake themselves to the mountains ; that is, 
 let those who are in Christendom betake themselves to the Scriptures. For 
 Christendom is the true Judea, the mountains are the writings of tlie prophets 
 and Apostles. But wherefore oiighr all Christians, at this time, to have re- 
 course to the Scriptures? Because at this time, since heresy has infected the 
 Churches, the divine Scriptures only can afford a proof of genuine Christi- 
 anity, and a refuge to those who are desirous of arriving at the truth of faith. 
 Formerly it could be evinced by various means, which was the true Church 
 of Christ, which the Church of the Gentiles; but at present there is no other 
 method left to those who are willing to discover the true Church of Christ 
 but by the Scriptures onhj. And why ? Because heresy has all outward ob- 
 servances in common with her. If a man, therefore, be desirous of knowing 
 the true Church of Christ, how will he be able to do it amidst so great a re- 
 semblance, but by the Scriptures only ? Wherefore our Lord, foreseeing that 
 such a great confusion of things would take place in the latter days, orders 
 the Christians who are in Christendom, and desirous of arriving at the firm- 
 ness of faith, to have recourse to noihifig but the Scriptures ; for if they 
 should look up to any thing else, they will be scandalized and will perish, as 
 not understanding which is the true Church." In Matth. c. 24. ham. 49. 
 Here I cannot help asking, whether such would now be the advice of a Ro- 
 man Catholic doctor to a person labouring under similar doubts ? Would not 
 such a person be rather discouraged from consulting the Scriptures, and re- 
 ferred to the decisions of popes and councils ? Again, m 2 ad. Corinlh. horn. 13. 
 " Let us not attend to the opinions of the many ; but let us inquire into the 
 things themselves. For it is absurd, while we will not trust other people in 
 peciuiiary matters, but choose to count and calculate our money ourselves, 
 that in affairs of much greater consequence, we should implicitly follow the 
 opinions of others; especially, as we are possessed of the most exact and per- 
 fect rule and measure, by which we may regulate our several inquiries, I 
 mean the regulations of the divine laws. Wherefore I could wish, that all 
 of you would neglect what this, or that man asserts for truth, and that you 
 would investigate all these things in the Scriptures." How one of the most 
 enlightened doctors of antitpiily could write this passage, and yet regard the 
 doctrine o[ private jiulgment as heretical, is a paradox, which all the fine-spun 
 subtleties of modern schoolmen would find it difficult to unravel. 
 * James i. 27. 
 
It soon became painful to regard such fellow Christians, 
 some of whom are very near my heart, as straying widely 
 from the only road to happiness, by refusing to submit to a 
 Church, out of the pale of which no salvation can be had. 
 I dismissed the cruel idea with contempt and indignation ; 
 but with it a leading principle of my former belief was 
 abandoned. I know that some of your late ingenious 
 apologists in England, where a writer must affect to be 
 liberal, if he mean to be read, have laboured hard to palliate - 
 the severity of this unpopular tenet. Others have rejected 
 it, as no article of their creed. But neither the sophistry 
 of the former, i.or the inconsistency of the latter, can do 
 away a doctrine so expressly delivered in every public 
 catechism and profession of Faith. Neither transubstan- 
 tiation, nor the infallibility of the Roman Church, are 
 taught more explicitly as articles of faith, than the impos- 
 sibility of being saved out of the communion of this Church, 
 That Roman Catholics profess some tenets supernumerary, 
 and inimical to Christian faith, may be the opinion of a 
 Protestant: but that Protestants of sense and education 
 are in a state of damnation, must be the religious belief oi 
 a consistent Roman Catholic, Look into any one of your 
 own writers upon controversy, and you will find this argu- 
 ment repeatedly made use of: " Protestants allow salvation 
 to Roman Catholics; but Roman Catholics do not allow 
 salvation to Protestants ; therefore the Roman Catholic re- 
 ligion is the safest of the two." 
 
 In the history of the follies and depravity of man, there 
 does not occur a stronger instance of both, than that such 
 an article should be interwoven into the texture of his be- 
 lief. Nor can the effrontery of false reasoning offer a greater 
 insult to common sense, than to plead the uncharitableness 
 of a tenet as an argument for its truth. But when we con^ 
 sider further, that this barbarous tenet laid the first founda^ 
 
10 
 
 tions for the cruel heresy of the persecutors,* who, under 
 pretext of compelling- men into the only road to heaven, and 
 saving their souls, inflicted on them torments, which huma- 
 nity shudders to relate, that, notwithstanding the enormi- 
 ties occasioned by this tenet, it was promulged under hor- 
 rid anathemas by the pretended vicar of the meek and 
 humble Jesus, was adopted by Christian princes and 
 bishops, enforced by canonized saints with all the horrors 
 of the inquisition,t justified by law, and sanctified in pul- 
 pits : the mind is bewildered in the contemplation of this 
 mystery of iniqidfy. The wild enthusiasm that first broach- 
 ed such a doctrine, and the stupid credulity that believed 
 it, is equally a matter of indignation and astonishment. 
 You will pardon the warmth with which I speak upon this 
 mischievous tenet: its baneful influence upon the dearest 
 interests of society, and the happiness of individuals, calls 
 for every exertion to exhibit its deformity and falsehood. 
 
 Nor will the colours of this picture, hideous as they are, 
 reflect any odium upon you in the eyes of your fellow sub- 
 jects. From my own observation I am happy to assure 
 them, that the Roman Church in this, as well as in many 
 other particulars, is daily undergoing a silent reformation. 
 The dark monsters of persecution and bigotry are retreat- 
 ing gradually before the light of genuine religion and phi- 
 losophy. Mankind begin to blush, that near fifteen centu- 
 ries have been necessary to convince them, that humanity 
 and toleration are essential branches of the religion of 
 Jesus. Among you, few are apprized of the mischiefs with 
 which the tenet I am speaking of is pregnant. The more 
 enlightened reject, or explain it away. Even the most or- 
 
 * If any doctrine can be contrary to the religion of Jesus Christ, and conse- 
 quently heretical, it must be that which teaches the justice of persecution for 
 conscience sake. If it be said that this doctrine has been taught and prac- 
 tised by Protestants, my answer is, that among Protestant Catholics, as well aa 
 among Roman Catholics, heresies may arise. 
 
 t Str Dorainick was the first inquisitor-general against the Albigenses. 
 
11 
 
 thodox give it so faint an assent, that, except among a few 
 of unusual ignorance and bigotry, its influence is but tri- 
 fling upon the harmony of society. 
 
 The absurdity and uncharitableness of believing with the 
 assent of faith, that the members of no Christian Church but 
 our own can be saved, is, therefore, to me quite palpable and 
 evideat. Yet no sooner do reason and religion sap the foun- 
 dations of this master-error, than the fabric raised upon it 
 must totter and fall. Even the boasted infallibility of a 
 living authority is no more, when salvation is allowed to 
 Christians who reject such a privilege. For, whoever ad- 
 mits this authority as an undoubted article of Christian re- 
 ligion, must necessarily pronounce condemnation upon 
 those who wilfully reject it. To refuse passing such a sen- 
 tence amounts to a tacit renunciation of the authority itself. 
 But in this, as in many other instances, it is happy for man- 
 kind, that consistency of opinion is not always to be found. 
 The uncorrupted feelings of the human heart will frequent- 
 ly set consequences at defiance, while their pernicious 
 principles are deemed sacred and irrefragable. This must 
 always be the case with the humane and virtuous, who 
 ground their belief upon authority alone ; who seldom in- 
 quire into the relations which the several branches of a 
 system bear to each other ; or who, though qualified by 
 nature and education, esteem it an impiety to think for 
 themselves, or to harbour the least suspicion concerning 
 notions which they have been taught from their infancy to 
 regard as infallible. 
 
 For my own part, no sooner had I relinquished this un- 
 warrantable tenet, than doubts began to arise concerning 
 some others, with which it is so nearly connected. I expe- 
 rienced very singular satisfaction in regarding my Protest- 
 ant brethren as fellow-travellers in the same road to happi- 
 ness, as entitled to the same grace and benefits of redemp- 
 tion with myself. In proportion as the dead weight of au- 
 thority was removed, the mind recovered its natural spring 
 
12 
 
 and energy, and indulged itself in the warm feelings of ex« 
 panded benevolence, which had hitherto been chilled by 
 early infusions of bigotry. To trace each religious truth to 
 its genuine sources of reason and revelation, I considered 
 as the most noble and important employment that can possi- 
 bly occupy the faculties of man. 
 
 Scarcely, however, had I entered upon this glorious task, 
 when I felt the whole force of Solomon's observation : that 
 " he who increaseth wisdom, increaseth sorrow." I foresaw 
 the difficulties to which this undertaking would expose me. 
 I knev/, that to seek religious information in the writings 
 of Protestants, was to incur the severest censures of the 
 Church I belonged to.* I was persuaded, that from such 
 an inquiry doubts would naturally arise, that might destroy 
 the texture of my former belief: and that I was bringing 
 upon myself a series of long and painful conflicts between 
 ancient habits of thinking and future conviction. As I was 
 determined to acquiesce ultimately in the authority of reve- 
 lation, the light of reason, and the dictates of conscience, I 
 anticipated in my mind the various disagreeable and dis- 
 tressful sensations, which a dereliction of former principles 
 would unavoidably occasion. The loss of reputation with 
 a respectable set of people, who, from calling me friend, 
 would style me an apostate ; the imputation of inconstancy ; 
 the suspicions attending the very name of convert, which, 
 with some o( all parties, is become a term of reproach ; the 
 mortification, affliclion, and perhaps aversion of kind and 
 tender relations, who used to regard me as doing some cre- 
 dit to my connexions ; pity from the benevolent and abuse 
 from the zealous, were the certain consequences of a change 
 
 * Whoever reads any books written by heretics, (or Protestants,) contain- 
 ing heresy, or treating about religion, without permission of the holy See, by 
 virtue of the Bulla Ccenoe, incurs excommunication ipso facto. Whoever 
 retains, prints, or defends them, is subject to the same dismal penalty. See 
 Arsdekiri's Theology, resolutiones practices ad hceresim edit. Antwerp, page 
 147. And every Roman Catholic divine. 
 
13 
 
 in ray principles. To a mind not callous to the importance 
 of a good name, to the endearments of friendship, to the 
 affections of consanguinity, and disclaiming any pretensions 
 to the apathy of a stoic, such bitter reflections could by no 
 means be indifferent. A dreary prospect opening at the 
 same time from a different quarter, served not a little to 
 enhance the gloomy prospect before me. Held back from 
 my native country and property by a long, distressful, and 
 iniquitous war,* destitute of connexions, to whom I might 
 look up for assistance, and with a constitution that promised 
 but a slender share of health, I could not reasonably hope 
 for any situation in life equally eligible with that which I 
 might determine to relinquish. A decent appointment, a 
 
 * These sentiments began to arise, when there was little probability of the 
 author being able to return quickly to his native country in North America, 
 where his whole property lies. He was sent to Europe when very young, 
 and after passing through some years of very rigid discipline in a foreign 
 academy, secluded from society, and debarred from every species of infor- 
 mation that could make him acquainted with himself or the world, he was 
 induced to take orders among a body of men equally distinguished by their 
 eminence and their fall. Whatever aspersions they may lie under of ambi- 
 tion, or avarice, the first raised very few of them to any dignities in the 
 Church, nor was the second directed in procuring the delicacies that pamper 
 the holy indolence of man)' other conventuals. The scanty revenues of 
 their establishments have been discovered ; the phantom of their imaginary 
 treasures is no more, and their bitterest enemies have never impeached the 
 purity of their morals. Cut off by the power, in defence of which they were 
 ever prodigal of their labours and their blood, they fell pitied by many, 
 who abhorred the object of their zeal ; and must be considered by all, as an 
 additional monument of the ingratitude and tyranny of Rome. Under the 
 eye of the pretended father of the faithful, they were oppressed by calumny, 
 and stript of their possessions, without being allowed to appeal to the tribu- 
 nal of the public, or the laws of their country. The Bull that pronounced 
 the suppression of their order, forbids them, or their friends, under pain of 
 excommunication, to utter or vwite a syllable in their defence. Such is the 
 tender mercy and justice of a Church, which styles hei-self the holy mother, 
 and mistress of all others. The humane reader will excuse this slender tri- 
 bute of gratitude, which the author pays to the memory of an unfortunate 
 society, in which he received the first lessons of virtue, and principles of re- 
 ligion. The first, he trusts, he shall never forget; although conviction 
 obliges him to abandon some of the latter. 
 
 B 
 
14 
 
 comfortable house in a beautiful and elegant city, and n 
 plentiful table, with a virtuous, disinterested colleague, were 
 advantages which I could hardly meet with elsewhere. 
 Neither ambition, avarice, nor pleasure, could have any 
 charms for me. The humble walk of a Roman Catholic 
 missionary, and the indigent obscurity usually attending his 
 vocation in England, had taught me early in life to contract 
 my expectations within very narrow limits. No opening 
 either to dignities or affluence could make any change, at 
 this time, on the temper of my mind ; nor could I be influ- 
 enced in any degree by the allurements of pleasure. How- 
 ever I might depart from the principles of my belief, the 
 code of my morality was to remain always the same. No 
 inquiry can alter the eternal laws of virtue ; no sophistry 
 can justify the cravings of vice. If any should say, (and I 
 expect it will be said,) that I was tired of the law which 
 obliged me to live single, and was willing to unite myself 
 to a more indulgent community, I can only refer such de- 
 claimers to the littleness of their own minds, where, per- 
 haps, they will discover the ungenerous source of so illibe- 
 ral a reflection. I make no scruple, indeed, here publicly 
 to acknowledge, that for some time back, I have considered 
 the law of celibacy as a cruel usurpation of the unalienable 
 rights of nature, as unwarantable in its principle, inadequate 
 to its object, and dreadful in its consequences. The various 
 mischiefs arising from it must be obvious to every man, who 
 will allow himself to reflect dispassionately upon this very 
 absurd and tyrannical institution.* Had this, however, 
 been the only exceptional injunction of your Church, I think 
 I can declare before the God who is to judge me, that as I 
 should have found it my interest, so I should have thought 
 it my duty not to abandon her communion. No action of 
 my life ever authorized you to suspect, that any gratification 
 
 *7Tie curious reader will find this subject treated with much impar- 
 tiality and erudition in an Essay on the Law of Celilacy, &c. Printed at 
 Worcester in 1781 , and sold by Rivington and Bew, London. 
 
15 
 
 whatever could induce me to part deliberately with my 
 peace of mind, my honour, and my conscience. How cir- 
 cumstances may determine me to act, in this particular, is 
 very uncertain at present ; this however is evident, that 
 when a person withdraws himself publicly from any society, 
 the discipline of that society must cease to be binding. 
 
 Withheld by the difficulties which I have mentioned on 
 the one hand, urged on by the irresistible force of truth 
 on the other, I remained for some time in a state of wretch- 
 ed, though 1 confide, not guilty suspense. To sit down 
 contented with the faith of the poor collier, so highly ap- 
 preciated by Roman Catholic ascetics, and by Bellarmin 
 himself;* who, when questioned about his creed, answer- 
 ed, " that he believed what the Church believed, and that 
 the Church believed what he believed," appeared such an 
 insult upon reason, that I could by no means digest it. If 
 a man's belief be not rational ; if he submit to human au- 
 thority without weighing or understanding the doctrines 
 which it inculcates, this belief is not faith — it is credu- 
 lity ; it is weakness. With equal merit might he be a Jew, 
 a mussulman, or an idolater, as each of these grounds his 
 principles upon authority, whose decrees he deems sacred, 
 whilst he neglects to examine them. 
 
 Convinced, at length, that in my circumstances^ inquiry 
 
 * De arte bene moriendi, lib. 2. cap. 9. 
 
 tThey whom neither education, nor abilities, nor leisure, qualify to enter 
 upon such inquiries, must rely principally on the authority of their teachers. 
 Turbam, non intelligendi vivacitas, sed credendi simplicitas tutissimamfacit. 
 5. Aug. contra epis. Tiind. I beg leave to trans-cribe in this place the rule 
 which the present learned and pious bishop of Chester [Porteus,] lays 
 down for the lower sort of people. " Let each man," says he, " improve his 
 own judgment, and increase his own knowledge as much as he can : ^nd be 
 fully assured, that God will expect no more. In matters for which he must 
 rely on authority, let him trust those who, by encouraging free inquiry, ap- 
 pear to love truth, rather than such as, by requiring all their doctrines to be 
 implicitly obeyed, seem conscious, that they will not bear to be freely tried. 
 But never let him prefer any authority to that, which is the highest autho- 
 jiiy, the written word of God. This, therefore, let us all carefully studjr, 
 
16 
 
 was become a duty, daily matter springing up for doubting 
 of former notions ; persuaded that cold and negative assent 
 was insincere and nugatory ; and confident, that the grace 
 of God would accompany an attentive and upright pursuit 
 after truth, I determined resolutely to discard all inferior 
 considerations, and to be influenced solely by the result of 
 my researches. 
 
 With this view, I had immediate recourse to the fountains 
 of information, which the bounty of Providence has laid 
 open to man. I read, I studied, I pondered the old and 
 new Testament with unremitting attention. Jn the latter 
 it was easy to discover the great fundamental and necessary 
 doctrines of the Christian dispensation. In both there ap- 
 peared a perfect code of morality calculated to render u» 
 virtuous and happy. But I could find in neither the dis- 
 criminating doctrines of the Roman Church. 
 
 After the volumes that have been written by Protestant 
 divines, to show the slender claim of these doctrines to so 
 sacred an origin, it would be useless to dwell any longer 
 upon the subject. It is, besides, a matter of so extensive 
 a nature, that it would carry me infinitely beyond the li- 
 mits of this short address. It would plunge me headlong 
 into the ocean of controversy, which, as I stated above, it 
 is my wish to avoid. Moreover, it must be obvious to every 
 man, who is but moderately acquainted with Roman Ca- 
 tholic polemics, that Protestant writers have thrown away 
 much erudition and ingenuity in refuting pretensions, 
 which were never claimed by their most learned opponents 
 — I say the most celebrated controvertists of the Roman 
 Church acknowledge, that some of her essential tenets are 
 not to be found a? oZZin the Scriptures, or are delivered in 
 
 and not doubt, but that whatever things in it are necessary to be believed, 
 are easy to be understood. This let us rely on, and trust to its truth, when 
 it declares itself " able to make us wise unto salvation, perfectly and 
 thoroughly furnished unto all good works." 2 Tim. iii. 17. Brief cov/utQtion 
 of the errors of the Church of Rome. 1782. 
 
17 
 
 them with great obscurity. This, perhaps, is a fact which 
 you never suspected ; I beg leave, therefore, to instance it 
 b riefly in a few particulars. 
 
 Transubstantiation, or " the conversion of the whole sub- 
 stance of bread into the body, and of the whole substance 
 of wine into the blood of Jesus Christ," is an essential ar- 
 ticle of the Roman Catholic religion. But is this article 
 clearly and evidently delivered in any passage of the Bible? 
 Hear what your own most eminent doctors have written 
 upon the subject : " Scotus says, that there is no text of the 
 Scripture so explicit, as evidently to claim our assent (o 
 transubstantiation, without the decision of the Church ; and 
 this is not at all improbable : for although Scripture may 
 appear tons so evident, as to command the belief of a dis- 
 passionate man, yet it may be reasonably doubted whether 
 it be so in reality, since men of the greatest learning and 
 penetration, among whom Scotus is eminently conspicuous, 
 have thought otherwise."* The elegant and learned Mel- 
 chior Canus, bishop of the Canaries, mentioning " several 
 particulars belonging to faith, which are not expressly de- 
 livered in the Scriptures," instances, among others, *' the 
 change of the bread and wine into the body and blood of 
 Christ."! Alphonsus de Castro, an orthodox and mighty 
 name in scholastic theology, has these remarkable words : 
 *' Indulgences are not to be despised, because the use of 
 them was lately introduced into the Church. Many things 
 are known to the moderns, of which ancient writers were 
 totally ignorant. For in old authors, there is seldom any 
 mention made of the transubstantiation of the bread into 
 the body of Christ.":}: 
 
 Since the decision of the Council of Trent, it is become 
 an article of your faith, " that a priest has power to forgive 
 sins." But Peter Lombard, the famous master of the sen- 
 
 * Bellarm. de Euch. 1. 3. cap. 23. t Loc. commun. lib. 3. fund. 2. | Vocab. 
 indulg. 
 
 b2 
 
16 
 
 tenceSf the Newton, the Aristotle of scholastic divines, was 
 so far from discovering this prerogative in the Scriptures, 
 that he rejects it at large, and is supported in his opinion 
 by almost all the ancient schoolmen of his time.* Their 
 doctrine is thus compendiously delivered by cardinal Hugo, 
 who lived at that period : " the priest cannot bind or loosen 
 the sinner with or from the bond of the fault, or the pu- 
 nishment : but only declare him to be bound, or loosened: 
 as the Levitical priest did not infect, or cleanse the leper, 
 but only declared him infected or clean. ''f 
 
 You will not, I presume, question the authority of Fisher, 
 the famous bishop of Rochester, who sealed with his blood 
 the doctrines he professed. Hear how faintly he discovers 
 the revelation of purgatory in the Scriptures. "As it is 
 necessary," says he, " that the doctrine of purgatory should 
 be known by all, we must presume ^ that it can be proved by 
 Scripture. ":|: Hence it follows, according to this learned 
 prelate, that unless the tenet be found in the Bible, it is 
 not necessary that it should be known to all men. But 
 supposing it to be an essential point of the Christian reli- 
 gion, from what passage of the Scripture can it possibly be 
 proved ? The books of Maccabees were not acknowledged 
 for canonical Scriptures by St. Hierom, Rufinus, Epipha- 
 nius, Athanasius, Gregory, and many other ancient and 
 eminent fathers. And the texts usually alleged from other 
 parts of the Bible,§ have been all rejected so expressly by 
 several of your own doctors, that an impartial man may 
 safely regard them as very doubtful sources of this extra- 
 ordinary tenet. That the Greek Church could never dis- 
 cover the proofs for purgatory in the Scriptures, and that 
 even the Churches of the West have lately become ac- 
 quainted with these cleansing flames, is the decided opin- 
 
 * Lib. 4. sentent. dist. 8. e. f. t In Matt. 16. X Art. 18. adversus Luth. 
 ^ Matt. V. 22, 25. Luc. xvi. 9. Act ii. 24. 1 Cor. iii. 11. 1 Cor. xv. 1. 
 Peter iii. 19. 
 
19 
 
 ion of the prelate above mentioned. " Let any man," says 
 he, " read the comments of the ancient Greeks, and, in my 
 opinion, he will find no mention of purgatory, or very 
 rarely. Neither was the truth of this matter known to all 
 the Latins at once, but only by degrees, pedetentimy* And 
 again, " to this very day purgatory is not believed by the 
 
 Greeks."t 
 
 I could easily prosecute this argument through a variety 
 of instances ; I could show you, that some of your most ce- 
 lebrated divines have acknowledged, that neither the supre- 
 macy of the Roman Church, nor the invocation of saints^ 
 nor the worship of images, nor the precise number oi seven 
 sacraments, with several other important articles of your 
 communion, can be proved from the Scriptures. Was it 
 therefore unreasonable to assert, that /could never discover 
 them there, since they escaped the notice of such acute 
 and interested inquirers? 
 
 It becomes, then, necessary to acknowledge, that these 
 discriminating doctrines derive their whole claim to your 
 assent from the infallible authority of the Church you be- 
 long to. Or, in the words of your catechism, " You must 
 believe these things, because God has revealed them to his 
 infallible Church." But where is this revelation to be met 
 with ? Not in the Scriptures, as you have alreedy seen. 
 God, therefore, has revealed these points by unv^ritten tra- 
 ditions. But how can I know, that such traditions are from 
 God? If you answer me, that the infallible authority of 
 the Church has pronounced them to be so ; then the whole 
 matter rests ultimately upon this infallible authority. This 
 being once admitted, all controversy must cease : but if it 
 be rejected, then must the only rule of our faith be looked 
 for in the Bible. 
 
 I am not ashamed to confess, that it was this claim to in- 
 fallibility, which prevented me so long from examining the 
 
 * Ibidem. t Ibidem- 
 
20 
 
 tenets of the Roman Church. Sheltered under the garb of 
 so gorgeous a prerogative, impressed upon the yielding 
 mind of youth by men of sense and virtue ; backed, more- 
 over, by the splendour of supposed miracles, and the hor- 
 rors of anathemas, opinions the most absurd and contradic- 
 tory must frequently dazzle and overawe the understanding. 
 Amidst the fascinating glare of so mighty a privilege the 
 eye of reason becomes dim and inactive — nothing can dis- 
 pel the darkening film, but the more steady and powerful 
 irradiations of truth; these, however, are so often blunted 
 by the mists of ignorance, the enchantment of prejudice, 
 by indolence, or the fear of disturbing ancient notions, that 
 they only find their way into the minds of a few, who are- 
 bold enough to embrace the hardihood of wisdom, and dis- 
 regard all authority that clashes with reason.* 
 
 Should it be said, that reason tells me to submit to an 
 infallible Church — my answer is, that reason tells me also, 
 that such submission is weakness, unless this infdlibility 
 be demonstrated. Show me the proofs of this pretension 
 and if I do not admit them with every faculty of my soul 
 you have my leave to brand me with the pride of Lucifer 
 Should you urge, that reason must tell every unpreju 
 diced man, that some texts in holy writ go to prove the in 
 fallibility of the Roman Catholic Church, may I not answer 
 with confidence, that reason and experience tell me much 
 more forcibly, that several articles are incredible and 
 groundless, which rest solely on that infallibility? Does 
 not reason, for instance, assure me with greater evidence, 
 that the Almighty requires not our belief of a doctrine, 
 which stands in direct contradiction to the only means he 
 has allowed us of arriving at truth — I mean our senses and 
 our understandings ? Do a few controverted texts of the 
 
 * " Reason tells those who are virtuous and truly philosophers to honour 
 and appreciate truth only ; and not to suffer themselves to be enslaved to 
 the opinions of the ancients, if they be erroneous." JusUnus Martyr, ApcL 
 »ec. 2. 
 
21 
 
 Scripture make infallibility as evident to reason, as it is 
 plain to the most ordinary capacity, that two bodies cannot 
 be in the same place at once ; that the same body cannot be 
 in a million of different places at the same time; that 
 whiteness cannot exist without a body that is white; nor 
 weight without a body that is heavy; nor liquifaction with- 
 out a body that is liquid ; that the eternal God is not to be 
 shut up in boxes, nor devoured corporally by vermin?* 
 Does not reason assure me with greater evidence, that no 
 creature is to be invocated, and honoured with religious 
 worship ; that public service ought not to be performed in 
 an unknown language ; that the beloved servants and 
 friends of God will not be punished after death- in the flames 
 of purgatory; that there is no common store-house, in 
 which are laid up the superfluous merits of the saints, to be 
 drawn from thence by the pope, and applied, as he thinks 
 proper, to the benefit of the living and the dead ? Such to 
 me is the language of reason, which was never yet rejected 
 with impunity — she will be heard — she must be respected 
 —her claim to our reverence and attention, arises from the 
 
 * These absurdities and contradictions, with many others, follow evidently 
 from the doctrine of transiibslantiation. I beg leave to mention in this place 
 two negative arguments, which seem to prove to a demonstration, that tran- 
 substantiation was unknown to the ancient Church. The first is this. "If 
 the ancient Church had believed this doctrine, and paid the same supreme 
 adoration to the holy sacrament, as Roman Catholics now do ; is it not proba- 
 ble, nay, is it not evident, that this tenet and practice would have been 
 urged by the Catholics against the Arians, as an incontestible proof of the 
 divinity of Christ ? This argument, however, was never alleged by any one 
 of the numerous and learned doctors, during the Arian controversy. A con- 
 vincing proof that such an argument was unknown." Again, " Is it not rea- 
 sonable to think, that the heathen writers, among their many charges 
 against the ancient Christians, would have retorted upon the77i the accusation 
 of idolatry in adoring a bit of bread, in reserving their God in gold and sil- 
 ver chalices, boxes, <fec. had the practice or belief of the Church given any 
 room for so plausible an argument?" I beg leave to add, moreover, that 
 the fathers of the second Council of Nice expressly confirm the opinion that 
 Christ's body in heaven is not flesh and blood : how, therefore, can bread and 
 wine be changed into his body, if they become flesh and blood ? See L'Abb« 
 Cone. Nic. 2 Act. T. 6. page 541. 
 
22 
 
 superiority of her counsels to those of fellow-mortals : — 
 Every human being must listen to her voice, or cease to be 
 rational. Created for us, and acting within us, she speaks 
 to us after the manner best suited to our several characters, 
 abilities and duties. Becojning all to all, she addresses her- 
 self with gentleness to some, and with energy to others ; 
 but when passions are silent, and prejudice suspended, her 
 language must ever be the language of truth. Religion and 
 reason can never be at variance, because the most rational 
 religion must always be the best. You remain Roman Ca- 
 tholics, because you think your reason tells you, that yours 
 alone is the true Church of Christ. You think it reasonable 
 to believe, that at these words, "This is my body," pro- 
 nounced by a priest, a bit of bread is changed into the true 
 natural body of Jesus Christ, and is to be adored as the 
 eternal God, because your reason convinces you, that Christ 
 spoke these words in a literal sense^ and because your 
 Church understands them in this manner. But when rea- 
 son assures me, that innumerable arguments evince their 
 meaning to he figurative; am I not bound to open my mind 
 to the light of conviction, and discard the infallibility which 
 enforces the absurdities of the opposite opinion 7 
 
 If from reason you appeal to revelation, the plea to infalli- 
 bility will be found equally unsupported. You will tell 
 me, doubtless, that the ancient fathers unardmously inter- 
 pret some scriptural passages in this sense. But, I appre- 
 hend, that upon inquiry, such an assertion would appear 
 very hazarded indeed. Let an iinpartial man read the 
 fathers upon this, and some other subjects, and I will 
 defy him to declare, that he has met with this boasted uni- 
 formity among them. But the Catholic Church has decreed 
 such to be the meaning of the fathers, and every Christian 
 is bound to acquiesce in her decisions. So that in fact, the 
 whole argument comes to this. The Church is infallible, 
 because lier infallibility is gathered from Scripture by the 
 unanimous consent of the fathers; and this unanimous con- 
 
2d 
 
 sent of the fathers is asserted, and established by the very 
 infallible authority which, in the first instance, it was al- 
 leged to demonstrate. Or, in other words, the Church of 
 Rome is infallible, because she herself has so determined. 
 Here is a circle of false reasoning-, out of which no advocate 
 for infallibility can ever extricate himself to my satisfac- 
 tion. It is an old, and hackneyed argument, but not less 
 conclusive on that account.* 
 
 As to the few scriptural texts which seem to countenanco 
 infallibility, they appeared no longer conclusive than I re- 
 fused to examine them. The divine author of the Christian 
 religion promised, it is true, " to teach his disciples all 
 
 * It is very remarkable, that all Roman Catholics are bound to admit an 
 infallible authority, yet few of them agree where, or in whom it resides. Some, 
 nay, almost all the old schoolmen have taught the infallibility of the pope. 
 But some popes, viz. Liberius Honorius, John 22, &c. having unfortunately 
 enbscribed heretical opinions, this doctrine is at present almost out of date. 
 Some place infallibility in a general council. Others in the pope and the 
 council received by the whole Church. But when all is said that possibly 
 can be said, the pope must be acknowledged by consistent Roman Catholics 
 as the sole depository of infallibility. For since the council of Trent, it is 
 unanimously taught in all Roman Catholic Churches, that a council can de- 
 cree nothing without the assent of the pope ; that he alone has a right to in- 
 terpret the council and explain its decisions; and that those tenets only are 
 of faith which he determines to be so. Thus it is evident, that infallibility 
 rests ultimately with the pope. The council declares the meaning of some 
 passage in Scripture, or of some point of tradition, and then the pope pro- 
 nounces infallibly upon the sense of this declaration. This ultimate decision 
 of the pope is supposed to be inspired by the spirit of God. But is the Chris- 
 tian, who has no means of coming to the knowledge of this decision but by 
 reading it, or hearing it read, equally secured from error by the spirit of God ? 
 If he be, then no private Roman Catholic can ever misapprehend the mean- 
 ing of any tenet ; and of consequence, he is as infallible as the pope himself 
 with regard to the right apprehension of any religious truth. If he be not 
 secured from error, then he may as well build his faith upon the words of 
 Scripture, which he is certain was written by divine inspiration. A Chris- 
 tian, therefore, may mistake the words of a pope, when he hears, or reads 
 them, as easily as he can mistake the words of Scripture. Why, therefore, 
 not content himself with what all parties agree to be the word of God ; m 
 humble confidence, that if he read, or hear it with due attention, diligence, 
 and sincerity, he will be as effectually secured from any dangerous error, aa 
 if he had read, or heard the formula of faith published by Pope Pius IV. 
 
24 
 
 truth;" (John xvi. IS,) and he undoubtedly did so. But 
 where did he so far ensure the faith of their successors, 
 whether presbyters, bishops, or popes, as to secure them 
 from building wood, hay, and stubble, upon the foundations 
 of the Gospel ? Does not St. Paul pronounce that such would 
 actually be the case ? (1 Cor. iii. 12.) He promised to 
 "be with his disciples to the end of the world." (Matt, 
 xxviii. 20.) And who denies it? He is with his Church 
 by his protection, by his grace, by the lights he communi- 
 cates to her, by the strength which he exerts in supporting 
 her against violence and temptation. But cannot he be 
 with his Church without rendering her infallible? Is he not 
 with every just man? Yet who would hence infer, that such 
 a man is secured from every error, beyond a possibility of 
 being at any time deceived ? Besides, why should the pre- 
 sence of Christ render the Church infallible, rather than 
 impeccable? Are not vice and error equally inherent in the 
 corruption of man? Is not the former as formidable an 
 enemy to religion as the latter? Is not the Christian system 
 as perfectly calculated to make us good men, as orthodox 
 believers? Would not the Church be equally overthrown, 
 should either of these evils become universal? Why then 
 was it not as necessary to secure her against the one as the 
 other? But the fact is, neither partial vice nor partial 
 error destroys the foundations of the Christian religion, and 
 therefore it was unnecessary to fence against eitiier. " That 
 the gates of hell," or rather of death, (as the word hades 
 manifestly imports,) "shall never prevail against the Chris- 
 tian Church," (Matt. xvi. 18,) is an article of my belief, as 
 well asof your's. Butthe obviousmeaning of Christ's promise 
 is only this, "That neither the subtlety of infernal spirits, 
 nor the passions of men, nor the violence of both, shall 
 ever succeed in overturning /lis religion, to which he has 
 been pleased to annex perpettnfy. However feeble and dis- 
 ordered his Church may be at times, the powers of death 
 shall never overcome her. She sliall then only cease to 
 
exist, when time shall be no more." The text, therefore, 
 does not even insinuate, that the Christian Church should 
 never teach any articles, besides such as are fundamental 
 and necessary, or that some overbearing society of Chris- 
 tians should not hold out many erroneous opinions as terms 
 of communion to the rest of the faithful. Against these 
 great and essential tenets, expressed in the Apostles' creed, 
 and adopted through every age by the most numerous body 
 of Christians, the gates of death nor of hell will never pre- 
 vail. The enemy may sow weeds and tares among this 
 heavenly grain ; he may build structures of straw upon 
 these unshaken foundations; the ignorance, and passions of 
 mankind may exhale around them some noxious vapours of 
 superstition and immorality ; but they will ever retain suffi- 
 cient light to conduct each upright and pious believer to 
 all points of his duty, upon which his salvation depends.* 
 
 The narrow limits within which I mean to restrain this 
 address, forbid me to dwell any longer on this fruitful argu- 
 ment. The little I have said, could not with any propriety 
 be omitted. It is impossible to apologize for deserting old 
 opinions without slightly mentioning the reasons that prove 
 them to be groundless. T shall only beg your attention to 
 one more consideration of this plea to infallibility, and I 
 have done. 
 
 Every person who is but moderately conversant with the 
 history of the Church, must have remarked, that at some 
 
 * The works which I have chiefly made use of on this and other subjects 
 are, The Religion of Protestants, a safe way to Salvation, by William Chilling- 
 worth. An Answer to a Challenge made by a Jesuit i7i Ireland, and a treatise 
 de successione et statu Christiano ecclesice, by archbishop Usher. Defense de 
 la nouvelle traduction du concile de Trent, par le Pere le Courayer. Alberti- 
 nus de sacramenfo eucharisticB. Defense de la reformation, par Mons. J. Claude. 
 Bishop Kurd's Discourses on the Prophecies. These I have read with all the 
 attention I am capable of. And to these, especially to the first, which Mr. 
 Locke pronounces the masterpiece of logic, I refer every impartial Christian, 
 who desires to find the great truths of the Gospel delivered in their genuine 
 simplicity, supported by astonishing powersof reasoning, and effectually win- 
 nowed from the chaff of modern corruptions. 
 
 C 
 
26 
 
 periods of time, several points of doctrine were defined as 
 belonging to faith, which at others were debated as matters 
 of opinion. The Millenarian system, or the opinion that, 
 after the renovation of the world, Christ will reign a thou- 
 sand years with his saints upon earth, was maintained as an 
 article of the Catholic faith by almost every father who 
 lived immediately after the times of the Apostles.* This 
 doctrine the Roman Church deems heretical at present. The 
 necessity and divine institution of auricular confession, now 
 principal points of Roman Catholic faith, were discussed 
 with great freedom by many ancient writers, and centuries 
 were requisite to settle this practice in its present form. 
 The learned Alcuin, who lived in the court of Charlemagne 
 during the ninth century, tells us expressly,! " that some 
 said it was sufficient to confess our sins to God alone." In 
 a very ancient and authentic copy of the Penitential of 
 Theodore, archbishop of Canterbury, who died in 690, 
 which archbishop Usher says he transcribed in Sir Robert 
 Cotton's library,^ we meet with these very remarkable 
 words : " It is lawful, that confession be made to God alone, 
 if it be requisite:" and again, "Learned men think dif- 
 ferently upon this matter, because the doctors seem to have 
 delivered various and almost opposite opinions upon it." 
 The great canonist Gratian, who wrote the Glossa, or com- 
 ment upon the famous Decretals, speaks very explicitly 
 upon the matter in question — " Some maintain," says he, 
 " that forgiveness of sins may be obtained without any con- 
 
 * See this particular clearly and learnedly demonstrated by Dr. Burnet, in 
 his very ingenious treatise de statu mortuorum et resurgent ium, cap. 10. It 
 was likewise the decided opinion of almost all the primitive fathers, that the 
 souls of good men did not enjoy the beatific vision previous to the general 
 resurrection. Dr. Stapleton, a Roman Catholic divine, cites St. Ireneus, 
 Terlullian, Origen, Chrysostom, Theodoret, Oecumenius, Theophylact, Am- 
 brose, Clemens Romanus, and St. Bernard as advocates for this doctrine, 
 (Defens. Auct. Eccl. 1. 1. cap. 2.) which, however, was condemned as here- 
 tical by the council of Florence. 
 t Epist. 26. X See Usher's answer, &c. art. confession, page 107. 
 
27 
 
 fession made to the Church, or a priest." He then cites 
 St. Ambrose, Austin, and Chrysostom, as patronising this 
 opinion. We have little reason, therefore, to be surprised 
 at what Maldonatus the Jesuit tells us :"^ " That all the 
 canonists, following their first interpreter, maintain, that 
 confession was introduced by ecclesiastical institution : 
 which opinion," continues he, "is now sufficiently declared 
 to be heretical by the Church." During the same deplora- 
 ble era of superstition and ignorance, *' an era," says Si- 
 gonius,t and other Roman Catholic historians, " surpassing 
 the darkest and most profligate ages of antiquity, as well 
 by the infamy of its princes, as the madness of the people;" 
 when the slender stock of knowledge possessed by the 
 clergy was employed in compiling the most contemptible 
 legends, or involving the plain meaning of the Scriptures 
 in the clouds of allegory, and the jargon of the schools : 
 when bishops sat as judges at councils, who were unable 
 to write their own names ;| when the lamp of science was 
 nearly extinguished in the western empire, and the extra- 
 vagance of a tenet was its best recommendation to the 
 credulous multitude ; at this woful period of the degrada- 
 tion of reason and prevalence of vice, the nature of Christ's 
 presence in the Eucharist began jSrst to be agitated. The 
 term transubstantiation was yet unknown to the Catholic 
 Church. An obscure bishop, § who lived eleven hundred 
 years after the time of the Apostles, was the inventor of 
 this mysterious word, which has proved for several centu? 
 ries the test of orthodoxy among some Christians, and the 
 scandal to others. The doctrine conveyed by it was no 
 article of faith prior to the council of Lateran, held in 
 1215, as Scotus assures us.|l It was towards the beginning 
 of the ninth century, that Paschasius Radbertus, first a 
 
 * Disput. de Sacram. de Confess, cap. 2. t Lib. 6. de Regno Italiae. t See 
 Nouv. Traite de diplom. torn. 2. p. 424. Par deux Benedictins. $ Stephen, 
 bishop of Autun> || Bellarm. lib. 3. de Euchar. cap. 23. 
 
28 
 
 monk, then abbot of Corbie, published his treatise upon 
 the corporal presence of Christ in the Eucharist, and as 
 Bellarmin tells us, was the "first who wrote seriously and 
 copiously concerning it."* This monk, however, informs 
 us himself, that his doctrine was by no means universal, or 
 settled. In his letter to Frudegardus, speaking of the cor- 
 poral presence, " You question me," says he, " upon a sub- 
 ject, about which many are doubtful.'* Nay, this is so very 
 evident, that Rabanus Maurus, who is styled by Baronius 
 the brightest luminary of Germany, about the year 847 
 wrote expressly against the novelty of this doctrine in a 
 letter to Heribaldus, bishop of Auxerres : he tells him, that 
 "some of late, (meaning Paschasius and his disciples,) not 
 having a right notion of the sacrament of the body and blood 
 of our Lord, said that this is the body and blood of our 
 Lord, which was born of the virgin Mary, and in which our 
 Lord suffered upon the cross, and rose from the dead ; 
 which error^"* continues he, " we have opposed with all our 
 might." I could show you further with what zeal and eru- 
 dition this growing error was confuted by other famous 
 men who lived in that century, and especially by Ratramus, 
 or Bertram, employed expressly by Charles the Bald to 
 oppose it. His work is still extant, and proved to be ge- 
 nuine by the learned Mabillon. 
 
 Thus we see, that the doctrine of the carnal presence 
 was no sooneF openly maintained, than some of the most 
 celebrated doctors of the time arose to combat it; without 
 incurring any suspicion of heresy from their opponents. A 
 convincing proof that, at the period 1 am speaking of, it 
 was regarded merely as matter of opinion. And such, in 
 fact, it continued to be for two hundred years ; when so 
 extravagant a censure was passed upon those who denied 
 it, by Pope Nicholas and a council assembled at Rome, 
 that unless, as the comment upon the canon law caution^ 
 
 * Bellarm. de Scrip. .Eccles. 
 
29 
 
 us, " we interpret it in a sound sense, we shall fall into 
 greater heresy than that of Berengarius himself."* 
 
 What I have hitherto said, was meant only to convince 
 you, that the Roman Church regards some doctrines, at pre- 
 sent, as articles of faith, which for many ages were debated 
 as matters of opinion. Now, from this fact, once admitted, 
 an argument arises against the system of infallibility, to 
 which I could never discover a satisfactory answer. For it 
 must be granted, these doctrines were delivered by Jesus 
 Christ and his Apostles as essential, or not essential. If the 
 first be said, then it is evident, that the Church has forfeit- 
 ed her claim to infallibility by omitting for many ages to 
 teach doctrines as essential, which Christ and his Apostles 
 delivered as such. If they were not delivered as essential, 
 what are we to think of that Church's infallibility, which 
 enforces doctrines as necessary and essential, which the au- 
 thor of Christianity did not teach, nor she herself for many 
 centuries conceive to be so ? To such dilemmas are the 
 advocates of this system reduced. In order to maintain a 
 uniformity, and catholicity of opinion, they imagine it ne- 
 cessary to erect an infallible tribunal. But do they reflect 
 that such a uniformity is entirely chimerical, and that every 
 solemn decision of this tribunal overthrows the unity it was 
 meant to establish ? For how is it possible for a Church to 
 be one in point of doctrine, which believes to-day, as an 
 article of her faith, what she yesterday conceived to be 
 matter of opinion? 
 
 It follows, moreover, from admitting such a living autho- 
 rity, that the number of necessary tenets must increase as 
 decisions are multiplied. It will be in the power of bishops 
 and councils to frame new articles of faith, by deciding ul- 
 timately uDon fresh matters of dispute, whether important, 
 or not; whether countenanced by the Scriptures, or other- 
 wise. What was not a doctrinal point yesterday may be so 
 
 * Glossa decret. de consecrat dis. 2. in cap. Ego Berengarius. 
 2 c 
 
so 
 
 to-day. Every age will give birth to new tenets, and thus, 
 instead of a uniformity of testimony, constant variety must 
 for ever take place, to the no small confusion and prejudice 
 of our belief. The preaching of Jesus and his Apostles so 
 far from being the rule of faith to succeeding ages, will be 
 regarded only as the imperfect draught of a religion, which 
 looks for perfection from human decrees. For the Church 
 must possess the same authority for ages to come, as she 
 has enjoyed in those that are passed ; so that if, as opinions 
 become fashionable, she be authorized to erect them into 
 articles of faith, as has frequently been the case, your 
 creed, perhaps, is still in its infancy, and the belief of suc- 
 ceeding ages, swelled with the additions of some future 
 Pope Pius, may be as different from yours, as is that of the 
 primitive Christians and Apostles. Under the specious 
 pretext of recurring to a living judge, in order to fix the 
 principles of our faith, these divines render it still more 
 wavering and uncertain. They are perpetually introducing 
 a succession of opinions into the system of religion, as un- 
 settled as the fancies that produced them, as doubtful as 
 the authority upon which they rest, as various as the imagi- 
 nations of those who have embellished them, and as tran- 
 sient as time which gave them birth, and will, sooner or 
 later, put a period to their existence. 
 
 After what has been said, it would be needless to lay be- 
 fore you my profession of faith. By relinquishing opinions 
 which I have striven in vain to reconcile to reason or reve- 
 lation, I trust, I cease not to be a Christian and a Catholic. 
 Both these appellations belong surely to the man who be- 
 lieves and professes, as I solemnly do, every point of Chris- 
 tian faith, which at all times, and in all places, has consti- 
 tuted the creed of all orthodox believers,* This vniversal 
 
 * lUe est verus el germanus Catholicus, qui in fide fixus et stabilis perma- 
 nens, quicquid universaliter antiquitus eccXesiava Catholicam tenuisse cogno- 
 verit, id solum sibi tenendum, credendumque decernit. Vine. Lerin. Com' 
 mon. c 25. 
 
ol 
 
 Christian Catholic faith is delivered compendiously in the 
 Apostles' creed : whoever subscribes to this in its full ex- 
 tent, must be a member of the Catholic Church.* The 
 Apostles, or their immediate successors, in drawing up no 
 other prefession of faith, discovered clearly what they in- 
 tended should be the belief of their disciples. By adher- 
 ing solely to this universal belief which alone possesses the 
 sanction of all times, all places, and all Churches, no man 
 can be said to embrace a neiv religion, however he may dis- 
 card some doctrines, which at different periods of time have 
 been engrafted upon the old one ; especially if he discover, 
 after mature investigation, that these doctrines were un- 
 known to the best ages of the Church, were conceived ori- 
 
 * It will here be objected by many, that if we admit the Apostles' creed in 
 its full extent, we must believe in the holy Catholic Church with the same 
 assent of faith with which we believe in God the Father, irj God the Son, and 
 in God the Holy Ghost; and that consequently we declare our implicit sub- 
 mission to all the decisions of this Church. This argument is as fallacious 
 as it is common and imposing ; the most authentic catechism of the Roman 
 Church entirely overthrows it. The catechism of the council of Trent has 
 these remarkable words, with which few religious instructors seem to be ac- 
 quainted : " It is therefore necessary to believe, that there is one holy and 
 Catholic Church : for we so believe the three persons of the Trinity, the Fa- 
 ther, and the Son, and the Holy Ghost, that in them we place our faith ; but 
 now, the form of speaking being altered, we profess to believe the holy 
 Church, but not to believe in it ; that by this different mode of expression, 
 God, the maker of all things, may be distinguished from creatures." I think 
 this passage, if well considered, might contribute much to finish all contro- 
 versies between us. It behooves every Christian, therefore, to pay it some 
 attention. We are taught by it from the Apostles' creed, which we both 
 admit, to believe in God the Father, in God the Son, and in God the Holy 
 Ghost. In this holy 'I'rinity we are taught to place our faith, but only to be- 
 lieve that there is one holy and Catholic Qiurch ; and the reason alleged for 
 this difference in our belief is most strong and unanswerable: for the whole 
 body of the Church consisting of mortal men, who are all creatures ; if we 
 should believe in the Church as we believe in the blessed Trinity, we should 
 not make a sufficient difference between Gnd and his creatures. This is the 
 plain and rational doctrine of your Church's catechism, and if they who have 
 the care of your souls, do not distinctly instruct you in it, but suffer you to 
 remain in an erroneous notion, that you are to believe in the holy Catholic 
 Church, they certainly do not deal with you as candidly as they ought. 
 
32 
 
 ginally in ignorance, fostered by superstition, supported by 
 pious forgeries, adopted by worldly policy, propagated by 
 artifice, and enforced by all the power that spiritual tyranny 
 could exert. If you ask me, therefore, to what Church I 
 now belong, my answer is, to the Christian Catholic Church. 
 Of that society of Christians I profess myself a member, 
 who adopt the holy Scripture for the sole standard of their 
 belief: the Protestant Churches in general know no other 
 rule : some shades of difference may subsist in their public 
 liturgies and speculative disquisitions; but among none of 
 the principal branches of the reformed Churches are the 
 latter obtruded as articles of faith, or the former found re- 
 pugnant to reason or morality. Through the same divine 
 Mediator they worship the same God ; and from the suffer- 
 ings and merits of the same Redeemer, they expect forgive- 
 ness of their sins, and happiness for evermore. In this 
 country, where the Christian only is the established reli- 
 gion, where tests and subscriptions are unknown, where re- 
 fined speculations are not likely to deform the simplicity or 
 interrupt the harmony of the Gospel, I look forward with 
 rapture to that auspicious day, when Protestants, opening 
 their eyes upon their mutual agreement in all the essentials 
 of belief, will forget past animosities, and cease to regard 
 each other as of different communions. Perhaps, at that 
 happy period, Roman Catholics also may awake from their 
 prejudices, and, disregarding the menaces of blind zeal or 
 ignorance, may begin to think for themselves, throw off the 
 galling yoke of old European prepossessions, and unite cor- 
 dially in restoring primitive simplicity both in morals and 
 belief. To indulge in these ideas may, perhaps, be extra- 
 vagant ; but to a mind of sensibility, it must surely be do- 
 lightful. My religion, therefore, is that of the Bible : what- 
 ever that sacred book proposes as an object of my faith, or 
 a rule of my conduct, was inspired by the unerring Spirit 
 of God, and for that reason I admit it with all the faculties 
 of mv soul. 
 
33 
 
 Your religion is the doctrine of the Council of Trent : 
 mine the plain truths delivered in the Scriptures. You 
 shelter yourselves under the decisions of a tribunal, which 
 you believe to be infallible: /rely solely upon the autho- 
 rity of God's word ; which, as St. Chrysostom assures us, 
 " expounds Itself, and does not suffer the reader to err."* 
 You think it necessary to recur to unwritten tradition ; but 
 /must demand, with St. Cyprian, " whence have you that 
 tradition ? comes it from the authority of the Lord, and 
 of the Gospel, or from the epistles of the Apostles? for 
 God testifies that we are to do those things that are writ- 
 ten, (fee : if it be commanded in the Gospel, or contained 
 in the epistles or acts of the Apostles, then let us observe 
 it as a divine and holy tradition."! You deem the Scrip- 
 tures deficient and obscure ; /am satisfied with the things 
 that are written, because all is written, " that the writers 
 thought suflicient for faith and morality.":]: I ask, more- 
 over, with St. Hilary,§ " where is this deficiency ; where is 
 this obscurity ? In the word of God," continues he, " all 
 things are full and perfect, as coming from a full and per- 
 fect being." You require the sanction of the Chnrch to 
 stamp the truth of each article of your creed : / am con- 
 tent to acquiesce in that authority, to which alone St. Aus- 
 tin and Chrysostom refer us, in order to discover which 
 is the true Church of Christ.|| In a word, you believe many 
 articles as essential to salvation, of which no mention is 
 made in the Bible; whereas, I am convinced, that who- 
 ever believes and practises what he discovers there, will 
 comply with every moral and religious obligation, and rise 
 to as high an excellency of character, as the exertions of 
 our imperfect nature can reach. Such is the religion 
 which, after a long, and, as I trust, sincere deliberation, I 
 have ultimately chosen. Every day convinces me that I 
 have chosen wisely. It is the religion of an Usher, a Wil- 
 
 * Horn. 12. in Genesim. t Epist. 74. t S. Cyr. lib. 12 Joan. $ Lib. 2. de 
 ^rin, II S. Aug. unit ecclesise. chap. 8. Chrys. in Maith. cap. 24. horn. 49. 
 
34 
 
 son, an Hoadly, and a Newton, and of innumerable other 
 worthies, whose admirable writings and Christian lives, 
 have been unanswerable apologies for the principles they 
 professed. This I will ever profess; according to this, 
 through God's grace, will I endeavour to regulate the tenor 
 of my conduct. Upon this will I stake my happiness for 
 eternity. This will I inculcate into those whom Provi- 
 dence may at any time place under my direction ; and for 
 this, if circumstances should require it, I hope I should be 
 willing to lay down my life. 
 
 And now, my fellow Christians, I must take my leave 
 of you. Some of you, perhaps, will believe me, when I 
 assure them that I do it with very painful regret. The 
 many civilities which I experienced during my residence 
 among you, have made a strong and lasting impression on 
 my mind. I trust no alteration in my religious opinions 
 will be ever able to efface it. Convinced by reason, and 
 taught by revelation, that true and genuine religion con- 
 sists more in perfect union of heart than entire conformity 
 of opinion, I shall still deem it my duty to cherish the sen- 
 timents of gratitude, esteem, and charity, which the worth 
 and behaviour of several characters among you first ex- 
 cited in my breast. To the last of these, moreover, you 
 are entitled, as fellow-men and fellow-Christians.« Senti- 
 ments like these, coming from a supposed enemy, and an 
 obscure individual, will probably be considered by many 
 with contempt or indifference. They who cannot discri- 
 minate between the personal merit and the speculative 
 opinions of men, will certainly rate them very low. But 
 to persons truly candid and sincere themselves, such affec- 
 tions can never appear less acceptable for being cherished 
 by a man, who, without any prospect of emolument, or pro- 
 mise of attention from the communion he embraces, has 
 sacrificed a certain and comfortable subsistence, and ha- 
 zarded a tolerable character among his nearest connex^ 
 ions, rather than incur the reproaches of his own mind, or 
 
35 
 
 the guilt of hypocrisy. Be this, however, as it may, it 
 must ever prove a point of great importance to myself, not 
 to lose sight of a commandment, which by special prefer- 
 ence our common Redeemer calls his own ; and which, as 
 you know, is nothing more than mutual forbearance, be- 
 nevolence, and love. If with these dispositions I may 
 be allowed so to do, I subscribe myself, with heart and 
 hand. 
 
 Your much obliged and affectionate 
 Humble Servant, 
 
 CHARLES HENRY WHARTON. 
 
AN 
 
 ADDRESS 
 
 TO 
 
 THE ROMAN CATHOLICS 
 
 OF THE 
 
 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. 
 
 BY A CATHOLIC CLERGYMAN, 
 
 [archbishop CARROLL.] 
 
 NEW-YORK: REPUBLISHED BY DAVID LONGWORTH, 1817. 
 
 PHILADELPHIA : WLLLIAM STAVELY, 1834- 
 
AN ADDRESS, &c 
 
 Saint Paul recommends to the ancients of the Church 
 of Ephesus, in his last and earnest address to them, " to 
 take heed to themselves, and to the whole flock, over which 
 the Holy Ghost has placed them overseers, to feed the 
 Church of God."* This duty is at all times incumbent on 
 those who, by their station and profession, are called to the 
 service of religion ; and more especially at periods of unu- 
 sual danger and temptation to the flocks committed to their 
 charge : whether the temptation arise from outward vio- 
 lence, a growing corruption of manners, or, " from men 
 arising from your own selves, speaking perverse things to 
 draw away disciples after them."t For, in the Church of 
 God, " the error of the teacher is a temptation to the peo- 
 ple, and their danger is greater, where his knowledge is 
 more extensive.''^ The ancient and venerable author, who 
 makes this observation, having instanced the truth of it in 
 the departure from the Catholic faith of several persons 
 eminent for their knowledge and writings, concludes with 
 an important instruction, and recommends it to be impressed 
 upon the minds of Catholics, " that they may know, that 
 with the Church they receive their teachers, but must not 
 with these abandon the faith of the Church. "§ 
 
 You will not now be at a loss to account for the occasion 
 of the present address. A letter to the Roman Catholics 
 of the city of Worcester in England, has been published 
 here by one of their late chaplains ; and had all the copies 
 of it been transmitted to those, for whom professedly it is 
 
 * Acts XX. ver. 28. t Ibid. ver. 30. } Vine. Lir. comm. cap. 22. $ Catho- 
 'ici noverint se cum ecclesia doctores recipere, non cum doctoribus ecclesis 
 tidexa deserere debere. Vive. Lir. comra- c, 23. 
 
40 
 
 intended, I should not dedicate to animadversions on it the 
 few moments of leisure left me from other employments 
 incident to my charge and profession ; especially with the 
 scanty materials of which I am possessed ; for I am desti- 
 tute of many sources of information, and unable to refer to 
 authorities, which 1 presume to have been collected on the 
 other side with great industry. By the chaplain's own ac- 
 count, he has long meditated a separation from us; and, 
 during that time, he had opportunities of resorting to the 
 repositories of science, so common and convenient in Eu- 
 rope. 
 
 But the letter not only being printed here, but circulat- 
 ing widely through the country, a regard to your informa- 
 tion, and the tranquillity of your consciences, requires some 
 notice to be taken of it. For the ministers of religion 
 should always remember, that it is their duty as well to en- 
 lighten the understanding, as improve the morals of man- 
 kind. " You are the salt of the earth,"* said Christ to his 
 , Apostles, to preserve men from the corruptions of vice and 
 immorality: and "you are the light of the world,"t to in- 
 struct and inform it. 
 
 Our duty being so clearly delineated by the divine author 
 of our religion, if we have been deficient in the discharge 
 of either part of it, if we have flattered your passions, or 
 withheld knowledge from your minds, we have certainly 
 deviated from the obligations of our state, and the positive 
 injunctions of our Church. For though you have often 
 heard it reproachfully said, that it was both her maxim and 
 practice to keep her votaries in ignorance, no imputation 
 can be more groundless: and for a full confutation of it, 
 we refer our candid adversaries to the ordinances of our 
 councils, the directions of our ecclesiastical superiois, and 
 the whole discipline of our Church, even in ages the most 
 inauspicious to the cultivation of letters. In those ages, 
 
 * Matt. V. 13. t Matt. v. 14, 
 
41 
 
 indeed, the manners of the times had great influence, as 
 they always will, on the manners of the clergy : but every 
 informed and ingenuous mind, instead of being prejudiced 
 by the vague imputations on monkish and clerical ignor- 
 ance, will remember with gratitude, that they owe to this 
 body of men the preservation of ancient literature; that 
 in times of general anarchy and violence, they alone gave 
 such cultivation to letters, as the unimproved state of sci- 
 ence admitted; and that in the cloisters of cathedral 
 Churches, and of monasteries, they opened schools of public 
 instruction, and, to men of studious minds, asylums from 
 the turbulence of war and rapine. The inference from 
 these facts is obvious: for if the ministers of religion, 
 agreeably to the discipline of the Church, cultivated and 
 taught letters at a time when they were generally neglect- 
 ed ; if the resurrection of sound literature was owing, as 
 it certainly was, to the most dignified of our clergy; who 
 can impute ignorance to us, as resulting from the genius of 
 our religion? 
 
 I forbear to add other numerous proofs of the falsity of 
 this charge : and I can with confidence appeal to your- 
 selves, whether your religious instructors have not, to the 
 extent of their abilities, and suitably to your respective 
 situations in life, endeavoured to suggest such grounds for 
 your adhesion to the doctrines of the Church, as might 
 make you ready always to "give an answer to every man 
 that asketh you a reason of that hope that is in you."* 
 We tell you, indeed, that you must submit to the Church ; 
 but we add, with the Apostle, that "your obedience must 
 be reasonable." Now, can obedience be reasonable, "can 
 any man give a reason of that hope that is in him without 
 a due examination of the grounds or motives that induce 
 him to it? No, surely ; and therefore nothing ought to hin- 
 der you from examining thoroughly the grounds of your 
 
 * 1 Pet. iii. 15. 
 d2 
 
42 
 
 religion. Nay, we exhort you to examine them over and 
 over again, till you have a full conviction of conscience that 
 it is not education, but the prevailing force of truth, that 
 determines you in the choice of it."* 
 
 But is not this recommendation a mere delusion? Can 
 a consistent Roman Catholic be a candid inquirer in mat- 
 ters of religion '? Why not ? " Because," says the Chap- 
 lain, " he cannot set out with that indifference to the truth 
 or falsity of a tenet, which forms the leading feature of ra- 
 tional investigation." Did the Chaplain weigh all the 
 consequences of the doctrine here advanced 1 Must we 
 then suspend all the duties of natural religion and moral 
 obligation? Must a son divest himself of filial love and 
 respect, that he may investigate rationally, and judge im- 
 partially, of the obligations resulting from the tender rela- 
 tions of parent and child ? Must we neglect to train the 
 tender minds of youth in the habits of virtue, and to guard 
 them from vice, by the prospect of future rewards and pun- 
 ishments, lest they should be inclined to judge hereafter 
 too partially of those great sanctions of natural and reveal- 
 ed religion? What an argument is here suggested to the 
 impugners of all religion ; to the enemies of Christianity I 
 Suggested, did I say, or borrowed from them ? For the 
 learned Dr. Leland, to whose writings the cause of revela- 
 tion is so much indebted, has informed us, that it has been 
 long ago made use of by them ; and his answer to it, more 
 especially as he was a Protestant, will save me the trouble 
 of making any observations on this extraordinary assertion. 
 " Another argument," says he, " with which he" (the au- 
 thor of Christianity not founded in argument,) " makes a 
 mighty parade, is to this purpose, that no religion can be 
 rational that is not founded on a free and impartial exami- 
 nation : and such an examination supposes a perfect neu- 
 trality to the principles which are examined, and even a 
 
 ♦ England's Conversion and Reformation compared, Sect. 1. 
 
temporal disbelief of them, which is what the Gospel con- 
 demns. But this proceeds upon a wrong account of the 
 nature of free examination and inquiry. It is not neces- 
 sary to a just inquiry into doctrines or facts, that a man 
 should be absolutely indifferent to them, before he begins 
 that inquiry; much less, that he should actually disbelieve 
 them : as if he must necessarily commence atheist before 
 he can fairly examine into the proofs of the existence of 
 God. It is sufficient to a candid examination, that a man 
 apply himself to it with a mind open to conviction, and a 
 disposition to embrace truth on which side soever it shall 
 appear, and to receive the evidence that shall arise in the 
 course of the trial. And if the inquiry relateth to prin- 
 ciples in which we have been instructed ; then, supposing 
 those principles to be in themselves rational and well 
 founded, it may well happen that in inquiring into the 
 grounds of them, a fair examination may be carried on 
 without seeing cause to disbelieve or doubt of them 
 through the whole course of the inquiry ; which, in tha.t 
 caspi will end in a fuller conviction of them than before."* 
 But Roman Catholics, it seems, are fettered with other 
 obstacles to free inquiry. They cannot " seek religious 
 information in the writings of Protestants, without in- 
 curring the severest censures of their Church." *' By the 
 Bulla Coenss excommunication is denounced against all 
 persons reading books written by heretics, containing 
 heresy, or treating about religion." 
 
 It is indeed true, that the Bull referred to contains the 
 })Tohibition, as mentioned by the Chaplain ; and it is not 
 less true, that in England, that Protestant country of free 
 inquiry, severe laws and heavy penalties were enacted, and, 
 if I am well informed, still subsist against the introduc- 
 tion, the printing, and vending of books in favour of the 
 Catholic religion. I know, that within these last twenty 
 
 ♦View of Deistical Writers, Vol. I. let. 11. 
 
44 
 
 years, these laws have been executed with severity. Such, 
 on both sides, were the precautions suggested by a jealous 
 zeal to preserve uninformed minds from the artificial co- 
 lourings of real or supposed error. The heads of the re- 
 spective Churches considered it as their duty to guard their 
 flocks from the poison of pernicious doctrines ; and did not 
 deem it essential to fair and full investigation, that their 
 adversaries' objections should be stated to the unlearned, 
 to unexperienced youth, or to the softer sex, with all the 
 acrimony of invective, with the aggravations of misrepre- 
 sentation, and powers of ridicule ; weapons too common in 
 controversies of every kind. Without examining how far 
 this zeal was prudent and justifiable in the present in- 
 stance, let me observe, that the proscription of books of 
 evil tendency is warranted by the example of St. Paul's 
 disciples at Ephesus, acting in the presence of, and pro- 
 bably by the instructions of their master. " Many of 
 them," says holy writ, " that had followed curious arts, 
 brought their books together, and burnt them before all."* 
 And what inference follows? " So mightily," continues 
 the inspired writer in the next verse, " grew the word of 
 God, and was strengthened." What good parent, what 
 conscientious instructor, feels not the anguish of religion, 
 when they find, that promiscuous reading has caused the 
 rank weed of infidelity to grow in that soil, the tender 
 minds of their children and pupils, where they had sown 
 and cultivated the seeds of virtue ? 
 
 But, be the prohibition of the Bull reasonable or not, I 
 will be bold to say, it was no prejudice to free inquiry. 
 First, Because that Bull not only was never received into, 
 but was expressly rejected from almost every Catholic state. 
 In them it had no force ; the very alleging of its authority 
 was resented as an encroachment on national independ- 
 ence ; and, in particular, the clause referred to by the 
 
 * Acts xix. 19. 
 
45 
 
 Chaplain was generally disregarded. For this I will ap- 
 peal to his own candour. Throughout his extensive ac- 
 quaintance with Catholics, has he not known them to read 
 Protestant authors without hesitation or reproof? Did he 
 not expect, that his letter would freely circulate amongst 
 them? To what purpose did he address it to the Roman 
 Catholics of the city of Worcester, if he knew, that, with 
 the terrors of excommunication hanging over them, they 
 dare not read it? In the course of his theological studies, 
 was he himself ever denied access to the writings of our 
 adversaries? Were not the works of Luther, Calvin, and 
 Besa, of Hooker, Tillotson, and Siillingfleet, and all the 
 other champions of the Protestant cause, open to his in- 
 spection ? In public and private disputations, were not 
 the best arguments from these authors fairly and forcibly 
 stated, in opposition to the most sacred tenets of the Ca- 
 tholic belief? Was not even literary vanity gratified, by 
 placing objections in the strongest light, and wresting the 
 palm of disputation out of the hands of all concurrents? 
 Knowing this, I must confess, that I cannot reconcile with 
 candour the following words : " I knew that to seek reli- 
 gious information in the writings of Protestants, was to 
 incur the severest censures of the Church I belonged to." 
 
 May I not then say with confidence, that rational inves- 
 tigation is as open to Catholics, as to any other set of men on 
 the face of the earth? No; we are told there still remains 
 behind a powerful check to this investigation. This article 
 of our belief, that " the Roman Church is the mother and 
 mistress of all Churches, and that out of her communion 
 no salvation can be obtained," for which the Chaplain cites 
 the famous creed of Pope Pius IV. makes too great an im- 
 pression of terror on the mind, to suflfer an unrestrained 
 exertion of its faculties. Such is the imputation ; and it 
 being extremely odious and offensive, and tending to dis- 
 turb the peace and harmony subsisting in these United 
 States between religionists of all professions; you will allow 
 
46 
 
 me to enter fully into it, and render, if I can, your vindi- 
 cation complete. 
 
 I begin with observing, that to be in the communion of 
 the Catholic Church, and to be a member of the Catholic 
 Church, are two very distinct things. They are in the 
 communion of the Church, who are united in the profession 
 of her faith and participation of her sacraments through 
 the ministry and government of her lawful pastors.* But 
 the members of the Catholic Church are all those who, 
 with a sincere heart, seek true religion, and are in an un- 
 feigned disposition to embrace the truth whenever they 
 find it. Now, it never was our doctrine, that salvation can 
 be obtained only by the former; and this would have mani- 
 festly appeared, if the Chaplain, instead of citing Pope 
 Pius's creed from his memory, or some unfair copy, had 
 taken the pains to examine a faithful transcript of it. These 
 are the words of the obnoxious creed, and not those wrong- 
 fully quoted by him, which are not to be found in it. After 
 enumerating the several articles of our belief, it goes on 
 thus : " This true Catholic faith, without which no one can 
 be saved, I do at this present firmly profess and sincerely 
 hold,'' &c. Here is nothing of the necessity of commU" 
 nion with our Church for salvation ; nothing that is not pro- 
 fessed in the public liturgy of the Protestant Episcopal 
 Church ; and nothing, I presume, but what is taught in 
 every Christian society on earth, viz. that Catholic faith is 
 necessary to salvation. The distinction between being a 
 member of the Catholic Church, and of the communion of 
 the Church, is no modern distinction, but a doctrine uni- 
 formly taught by aiicient as well as later divines. " What 
 is said," says Bellarmine, " of none being saved out of the 
 Church, must be understood of them, who belong not to it 
 either in fact or desire."t I shall soon have occasion to 
 produce other authors establishing this same point : " We 
 
 * JBeJlarm. de Eccl. milit. I 3. c, 2, t Ibid. 3, 
 
47 
 
 are accused of great uncharitableness in allowing salva* 
 tion to none but Catholics, But this also is a mistaken no- 
 tion. We say, I believe, no more than do all other Chris- 
 tian societies. Religion certainly is an affair of very se- 
 rious consideration. When therefore a man either neglects 
 to inform himself; or, when informed, neglects to follow 
 the conviction of his mind ; such a one, we say, is not in 
 the way of salvation. After mature inquiries, if I am 
 convinced, that the religion of England is the only true 
 one, am I not obliged to become a Protestant ? In similar cir- 
 cumstances, must not you likewise declare yourself a Ca- 
 tholic? Our meaning is, that no one can be saved out of 
 the true Church ; and, as we consider the evidence of the 
 truth of our religion to be great, that he, who will not em- 
 brace the truth when he sees it, deserves not to be happy. 
 God however is the searcher of hearts. He only can read 
 those internal dispositions on which rectitude of conduct 
 alone depends."* Let any one compare this explanation 
 of our doctrine with the doctrine of Protestant divines ; 
 and discover in the former, if he can, any plainer traces of 
 the savaore monster intolerance, than in the latter. Dr. 
 Leland is now before me, and after transcribing from him, 
 I shall spare myself the trouble of collecting the many 
 other similar passages, which I remember to have read in 
 Protestant divines. *'It seems to be obvious," says he, 
 " to the common sense and reason of mankind, that if God 
 hath given a revelation, or discovery of his will concern- 
 ing doctrines or laws of importance to our duty and happi- 
 ness, and hath caused them to be promulgated with such 
 evidence, as he knoweth to be sufficient to convince rea- 
 sonable and well-disposed minds that will carefully attend 
 to it, he hath an undoubted right to require those to whom 
 this revelation is published, to receive and to obey it; and 
 
 * The State and Behaviour of English Catholics.— -London, 1780. (p. 
 155—6.) 
 
48 
 
 if, through the influence of corrupt affections and lusts, 
 those to whom this revelation is made known refuse to re- 
 ceive it, he can justly punish them for their culpable neg- 
 lect, obstinacy, and disobedience.* 
 
 Where then is the uncharitableness peculiar to Catho- 
 lics? Where is the odious tenet that dries up the springs 
 of philanthropy, and " chills by early infusions of bigotry 
 the warm feelings of benevolence V 1 am ready to do jus- 
 tice to the humanity of Protestants ; 1 acknowledge with 
 pleasure and admiration their many charitable institutions, 
 their acts of public and private beneficence. I likewise, 
 as well as the Chaplain, " have the happiness to live in ha- 
 bits of intimacy and friendship with many valuable Pro- 
 f.estants ;" but with all my attachment to their persons, and 
 respect for their virtues, f have never seen nor heard of the 
 works of Christian mercy being exercised more exten- 
 sively, more generally, or more uninterruptedly, than by 
 many members of our own communion, though the Chap- 
 lain thinks our minds are "contracted by the narrowness of 
 a system." Let him recall to his remembrance the many 
 receptacles he has seen erected in Catholic countries for 
 indigence and human distress in every shape ; the tender- 
 ness and attention with which the unfortunate victims of 
 penury and disease are there served, not by mercenary do- 
 mestics, as elsewhere ; but in many places by religious men, 
 and in others, by communities of women, often of the first 
 nobility, dedicating their whole lives to this loathsome exer- 
 cise of humanity, without expectation of any reward on this 
 side the grave. Let him remember how many men of ge- 
 nius he has known to devote themselves with a like disin- 
 terestedness to the irksome employment of training youth 
 in the first rudiments of science ; and others encountering 
 incredible hardships, and, as it were, burying themselves 
 alive, to bring savages to a social life, and afterwards to 
 
 * View of Deistical Writers, Vol. I. let. 10. 
 
49 
 
 form them to Christian virtue. To what society of Chris* 
 tians does that body of men belong, who bind themselves 
 by the sacred obligation of a vow, even to part with their 
 own liberty, if necessary, by offering it up instead of, and 
 for the redemption of their fellow Christians groaning under 
 the slavery of the piratical states of Barbary ? How often 
 has the Chaplain seen the bread of consolation and the 
 words of eternal life carried into the gloomy mansions of 
 the imprisoned, before the humane Howard had awakened 
 the sensibility of England to this important object? Need 
 I mention the heroical charity of a Charles Borromeo, of a 
 Thomas of Villanova, of Marseilles' good bishop, and so 
 many others, who devoted themselves to the public relief, 
 during dreadful visitations of the plague, when nature sick' 
 ened, and each gule was death ? The Chaplain's recollec- 
 tion will enable him to add greatly to these instances of 
 expanded benevolence ; and I would fain ask, if the virtues 
 from which they spring, are not formed in the bosom of the 
 Catholic Church? Can a religion, which invariably and 
 unceasingly gives them birth and cultivation, be unfriendly 
 to humanity ? Can so bad a tree bear such excellent fruit? 
 
 You may perhaps think, that enough has been said to free 
 you from the imputation of uncharitableness in restraining 
 salvation to those of your own communion. But you will 
 excuse me for dwelling longer on it, conceiving it, as I do, 
 of the utmost importance to charity and mutual forbearance, 
 to render our doctrine on this head as perspicuous as I am 
 able. 
 
 First, then, it has been always and uniformly asserted 
 by our divines, that baptism, actual baptism, is essentially 
 requisite to initiate us into the communion of the Church; 
 this notwithstanding, their doctrine is not less uniform, and 
 the council of Trent (sess. 6. ch. 4.) has expressly establish- 
 ed it, that salvation may be obtained without actual bap- 
 tism ; thus, then, it appears, that we not only may, but are 
 
 E 
 
50 
 
 obliged to believe, that out of our communion salvation may 
 be obtained. 
 
 Secondly, With the same unanimity our divines define 
 heresy to be, not merely a mistaken opinion in a matter of 
 faith, but an obstinate adherence to that opinion : not bare- 
 ly an error of judgment, but an error arising from a per- 
 verse affection of the will. Hence they infer that he is no 
 heretic, who, though he hold false opinions in matters of 
 faith, yet remains in an habitual disposition to renounce 
 those opinions, whenever he discovers them to be contrary 
 to the doctrines of Jesus Christ. 
 
 These principles of our theology are so different from the 
 common misrepresentations of them, and even from the 
 statement of them by the late Chaplain of Worcester, that 
 some, I doubt, will suspect them to be those palliatives he 
 mentions, to disguise the severity of an unpopular tenet, to 
 which, he says, our late ingenious apologists in England 
 have had recourse. But you shall see, that they were 
 always our principles, not only in England, but throughout 
 the Christian world ; and I will be bold to say, that so far 
 from being contradicted in every public catechism and pro- 
 fession of faith y as is suggested in the same page of the 
 Chaplain's letter, they are not impeached in any one; so 
 far from our teaching the impossibility of salvation out of 
 the communion of our Church, as much as we teach tran- 
 substantiation, no divine, worthy to be called such, teaches 
 it at all. 
 
 1 will set out with the French divines, and place him 
 first, whose reputation, I presume, is highest. Thus then 
 does the illustrious Bergier express himself, in his admira- 
 ble work, entitled Deism refuted by itself: — " It is false, 
 that wc say to any one, that he will be damned ; to do so, 
 would be contrary to our general doctrine relating to the 
 different sects out of the bosom of the Church. First, with 
 respect to heretics" (the author here means those who, 
 though not heretics in the rigorous sense of the word, go 
 
51 
 
 ^nder that general denomination) " who are baptized and 
 believe in Jesus Christ, we are persuaded, that all of them, 
 who with sincerity remain in the error ; who through in- 
 culpable ignorance believe themselves to be in the way of 
 salvation ; who would be ready to embrace the Roman Ca- 
 tholic Church, if God were pleased to make known to them, 
 that she alone is the true Church ; we are persuaded, that 
 these candid and upright persons, from the disposition of 
 their hearts, are children of the Catholic Church. Such is 
 the opinion of all divines since St. Augustin."* 
 
 The bishop of Puy, whose learning and merits are so 
 much known and felt in the Galilean Church, writes thus : 
 •' To define a heretic accurately, it is not enough to say, 
 that he made choice of his doctrine, but it must be added 
 that he is obstinate in his choice. "f 
 
 The language of German divines is the same, or stronger, 
 if possible. " Heresy," says Renter, " in a Christian or 
 baptized person, is a wilful and obstinate error of the un- 
 derstanding, opposite to some verity of faith. So that three 
 things are requisite to constitute heresy : 1st. In the un- 
 derstanding, an erroneous opinion against faith. 2dly. In 
 the will, liberty and obstinacy." The third condition is, 
 that the erring person be a baptized Christian ; other- 
 wise his sin against faith is called infidelity, not heresy. 
 After which our author thus goes on : " The obstinacy re- 
 -quisite to heresy, is a deliberate and determined resolution 
 to dissent from a truth revealed, and sufficiently proposed 
 by the Church, or some other general rule of faith.":}: The 
 same doctrine is delivered by all the other German divines 
 to whom I now can have recourse, and they cite to the same 
 purpose Suarez, &c. 
 
 If the doctrine imputed to us could be found any where, 
 
 * Bergier, Deisme refute par lui meme— 1. par. let. 4. t Instruct, pasto- 
 rale sur I'heresie— page 67. edit, in 4to. t Reuter theol. moral p. 2. trac. 1, 
 
52 
 
 it would probably be in Spain and Italy : but you have just 
 heard Suarez, the first of Spanish theologians, quoted to 
 disprove it ; and with respect to Italy, Bellarmine's opinion 
 has been stated ; to which I shall add that of St. Thomas of 
 Aquin, whose great authority and sanctity of life have pro- 
 cured him the title of the angel of the school. He teaches 
 then, "that even they, to whom the Gospel was never an- 
 nounced, will be excused from the sin of infidelity, though 
 justly punishable for others they may commit, or for that 
 in which they were born. But if any of them conduct 
 themselves in the best manner they are able," (by conform- 
 ing, 1 presume, to the laws of nature and directions of right 
 reason,) " God will provide for them in his mercy."* 
 
 You will observe, that in the passage quoted from Ber- 
 gier, he says that the doctrine delivered by him " has been 
 the opinion of all divines since St. Augustin." This holy 
 father, who usually expresses himself with great force and 
 severity against real heretics, requires nevertheless the 
 same conditions of obstinacy and perverseness, as the di- 
 vines above mentioned. " I call him only a heretic," says 
 he, " who, when the doctrine of Catholic faith is manifested 
 to him, prefers resistance."t Again : " They are not to be 
 ranked with heretics who without 'pertinacious animosity/ 
 maintain their opinion, though false and mischievous, es- 
 pecially if they did not broach it themselves with forward 
 presumption, but received it from their mistaken and se- 
 duced parents ; and if they seek truth with earnest solici- 
 tude, and a readiness to retract when they discover it.":]: 
 
 To these decisive authorities of St. Augustin, might be 
 
 * Si qui tamen eorum fecissent, quod in se est, Dominus eis secundum 
 suara misericordiam providisset, mittendo eis praedicatorem fidei, sicut Per 
 trum Cornelio. Comm. in cap. 10. epis. ad Rom. lect. 3. 
 
 t Nondum haereticum dico, nisi manifestata doctrina Catholicae fidei, resis- 
 tere maluerit. Dc bapt. contr. Donat. lib. 4. c. 16. 
 
 t Qui sententiam suam, quamvis falsam atque perversam, nulla pertinaci 
 animositate defendunt, pra^sertim quam non audacia pra;suraptionis suae pe- 
 pererunt, sed a seductis atque in errorem lapsis parentibus acceperunt, quae- 
 
53 
 
 added others, as well from hira, as from Jerom, Tertullian, 
 &c. ; but surely enough has been said to convince you, 
 that we have no need to shelter our doctrines under the 
 covering of modern glosses, and that the language of English 
 and other divines of our Church, has, in this respect, been 
 perfectly uniform. 
 
 Yet in spite of this uniformity, we must still have ob- 
 truded upon us the doctrine of confining salvation to those 
 only of our own communion; for, without it, the "boasted in- 
 fallibility of a living authority," that is, of our Church, " is 
 no more." Why so ? Because, " whoever admits this au- 
 thority as an undoubted article of Christian religion, must 
 necessarily pronounce condemnation upon those who wil- 
 fully reject it." Therefore, we must likewise pronounce 
 condemnation upon those who reject it through ignorance 
 and inculpable error. Is this inference logical ? And yet, 
 must it not follow from the premises, to make any thing of 
 the Chaplain's argument ? 
 
 When I come to consider how a man of genius and ex- 
 tensive knowledge, as he surely is, could bring himself to 
 think, that we hold the doctrine imputed to us, I am at a 
 loss to account for it. He received his education in a 
 school, and from men who have been charged, unjustly in- 
 deed, both by Protestants and some Catholics, with giving 
 too great latitude to the doctrine of invincible, or inculpa- 
 ble ignorance. He heard from them, that, in certain cases, 
 this ignorance extended even to, and excused from, the 
 guilt of violating the law of nature.* Can he then imagine 
 
 runt autem eauta soHicitudine veritatem, corrigi parati cum invenerint, ne- 
 quaquam sunt inter hcEreticos deputandi. Aug. epis. 43. ad Glorium & Eleu- 
 sium. 
 
 * I will set down two propositions, which the Chaplain will remember to 
 have been generally taught in the schools of theology, which we both fre- 
 quented. 1. Possibilis est ignorantia invincibilis juris natures quoad conclu- 
 si(mes remotiores a primis principiis. 2. Ignorantia invincibilis juris natures 
 excusat a peccato. I will take this occasion to thank my former friend 
 for the justice he has done to the body of men to which in our happier 
 
 £ 2 
 
54 
 
 that we deem it insufficient to exempt from criminality the 
 disbelief of positive facts, such as the divine revelation of 
 certain articles of religion ? 
 
 For all this, he still labours to fix on us this obnoxious 
 tenet, with a perseverance which carries with it an air of 
 animosity. He says, that our controvertists make use of 
 the argument cited in his ninth page, Protestants allow sal- 
 vation to Catholics; Catholics allow it not to Protestants; 
 therefore the religion of Catholics is the safest. Hence 
 he infers, that we deny salvation to all but those of our own 
 communion. 
 
 If his inference were conclusive, I should have cause to 
 bring a similar charge of cruelty and uncharitableness 
 against Protestants. For their great champion Chilling- 
 worth, answering the very objection stated by the Chaplain^ 
 expressly teaches, that Catholics alloWf that ignorance and 
 repentance may excuse a Protestant from damnation, though 
 dying in his error; " and this," continues he, " is all the 
 charity which, by your own (his opponent's) confession also, 
 the most favourable Protestants allow to papists."* To 
 this I shall add, that both Chillingworth and the Chaplain 
 appear to misapprehend the argument of our controvertists; 
 which is this : You Protestants allow our Church to be a 
 true Church ; that it retains all the fundamental articles of 
 religion, without teaching any damnable error; your uni- 
 versities have declared, on a solemn consultation, that a 
 person, not pretending to the plea of invincible ignorance, 
 
 days we both belonged ; and whom the world will regret, when the want of 
 their services will recall the memoiy of them, and the voice of envy, of 
 obloquy, of misrepresentation, will be heard no more. I am sorry he mixed 
 one word with their commendations, which cannot be admitted ; and that 
 he should ascribe ironically to the tender mercy and justice of the Church 
 those oppressions and acts of violence, in which she had no part, and which 
 were only imputable to the unworthy condescension, and, I fear, sinister 
 views of an artful and temporizing pontiff. 
 * ChilUngworth's Religion of Protestants, &c. ch. 7. p. 306. 
 
55 
 
 may safely leave the Protestant Church, and become a 
 member of our's, because it is a safe way to salvation. The 
 Chaplain knows, that many of the most eminent Protestant 
 writers have asserted, that all the essentials of true religion 
 are to be found in our communion ; and surely the possi- 
 bility of obtaining salvation is one of these essentials ; he 
 knows, that on a great occasion this was the determination 
 of the Protestant university of Helmstadt. But on the 
 other hand, Catholic divines always teach, that the true 
 Church of Christ being only one, inculpable error alone 
 can justify a Protestant for continuing out of her commu- 
 nion ; and therefore that it is safest to become a Catholic. 
 Such is the argument employed by some of our contro- 
 vertists. I do not undertake to make it good, but I mean 
 only to prove, by stating it fairly, that the Chaplain is not 
 warranted to draw from it that odious consequence, with 
 which we are unjustly charged. 
 
 If then we do not hold the doctrine of exclusive salva- 
 tion, can the horrible tenet of persecution, which, he says, 
 is the consequence of it, be imputed to us? I do not in- 
 deed see their necessary connexion ; but 1 know, that Pro- 
 testants and Catholics equally deviate from the spirit of 
 their religion, when fanaticism and fiery zeal, would usurp 
 that control over men's minds, to which conviction and fair 
 argument have an exclusive right. 
 
 You now see, that neither the prohibition of reading he- 
 retical books, nor our doctrine concerning the possibility 
 of salvation, are any hinderances to free inquiry in matters 
 of religion. If for so many years they withheld the Chap- 
 lain from making it, he was withheld by unnecessary fears, 
 and a phantom of his own imagination. Another cause too 
 concurred, as he tells us, to hold him in ignorance. " I 
 am not ashamed," says he, " to confess, that it was the 
 claim to infallibility, which prevented me so long from ex- 
 gimining the tenets of the Roman Church." Here, indeed^ 
 
56 
 
 if he means the claim of infallibility, as it rests upon proofs 
 of every kind, I do not wonder at its preventing him from 
 examining minutely all the difficulties to which some of 
 our tenets singly may be liable. For if things beyond our 
 comprehension are proposed to our belief, the immediate 
 consideration should be, by whom are they proposed? When 
 the authority which proposes them claims to be infallible, 
 reason suggests this farther inquiry, on what grounds is this 
 claim established? Is it found to be established on solid 
 and convincing proofs? Then certainly it becomes agreea- 
 ble to the dictates of reason, and the soundest principles of 
 morality, to assent to the doctrines so proposed, though we 
 may not fully comprehend them, nor be able to give a satis- 
 factory answer to every difficulty that human ingenuity may 
 allege against them. This is the mode of reasoning used 
 by all defenders of revealed religion ; they first apply them- 
 selves to prove the divine revelation of Scripture ; having 
 done this, they then infer, that its mysteries and unsearcha- 
 ble doctrines must be received, as coming from an unerring 
 authority. And so far the Chaplain will surely agree with 
 me. 
 
 I cannot, therefore, see, why he speaks so contemptuously 
 of Bellarmine's creed, that *' he believed what the Church 
 believed ; and that the Church believed what he believed." 
 For what do these words import more or less, than that he 
 conformed his faith to that of the Church ; that to her deci- 
 sions he submitted his judgment and belief so entirely, that 
 the propositions recited from him were, in the language of 
 logicians, convertible. And is not this the duty of every 
 person who believes the Church to be infallible, as that 
 great cardinal certainly did, after examining, if ever man 
 did, all that was written against her infallibility. Where 
 lies the difference between this collier-like profession of 
 faith, and that of St. Augustin conforming his religion to 
 that of the fathers, his predecessors ? " I believe," says he. 
 
67 
 
 " what they believe ; I hold what they hold ; I preach what 
 they preach."* 
 
 The Chaplain goes on to tell the Catholics of the city of 
 Worcester, that " if a man's belief be not rational ; if he 
 submit to human authority without weighing or understand- 
 ing the doctrines which it inculcates, this belief is not 
 faith — It is credulity, it is weakness." Who doubts it? 
 But if he submit to divine authority, though he do not fully 
 comprehend the doctrines delivered, is this weakness and 
 credulity 1 or is it the rational obedience of faith ? From 
 his own account of the promises of Christ, his Church can 
 never fail in teaching ih.e fundamental and necessary articles 
 of religion, and the great and essential tenets expressed in 
 the Apostles'' creed. Is it then weakness and credulity, or 
 rather true wisdom, to believe with entire submission these 
 fundamental articles and essential tenets 7 For the Chaplain 
 has told us, that they are proposed by an authority, which 
 the promises of Christ, so far at least, guard from error and 
 delusion. And yet amongst these tenets, there are some 
 beyond the reach of human comprehension. The Trinity, 
 the mystery of the incarnation of the Son of God, his being 
 conceived of the Holy Ghost, his crucifixion and death, his 
 descending into hell, are, I presume, those doctrines of 
 Christianity which the Chaplain deems fundamental ; for 
 they are all contained in the Apostles' creed. He is cer- 
 tainly unable to weigh or understand them. Nevertheless, 
 he acts rationally in admitting and believing them, because 
 he conceives them to be revealed by an infallible guide. 
 Can it then be folly and credulity in you to believe, for a 
 similar reason, these and all other articles of your religion? 
 
 The vainest, therefore, of all controversies, and the most 
 ineffectual for the discovery of truth, is, to dispute on the 
 metaphysical nature of the doctrines of Christianity. For 
 instance, to prove the Trinity, should we set about reading 
 
 * Aug. 1. 1. cont. Julian, c. 5. 
 
58 
 
 lectures on the divine persons and essence, on the eternal 
 and necessary generation of the word, &;c ? This indeed 
 would be folly, and We should speak a language unintelli- 
 gible to our hearers and ourselves. In this, and all similar 
 cases, the only rational method is, to show that the contest- 
 ed doctrine is proposed to our belief by an infallible autho- 
 rity. This undoubtedly would be the Chaplain's method 
 in asserting against Arians,Socinians, and modern sectaries, 
 the Trinity, the Incarnation, and the eternity of future 
 punishments ; and such likewise is the method, by which 
 we endeavour to establish the tenets, which he calls the 
 discriminating doctrines of our Church. 
 
 Apply these principles to all his reasonings in his 20th, 
 21st, and 22d pages, and see what they will come to. Set 
 him in competition with a Deist, an Arian, a Socinian ; and 
 how will he extricate himself from his own arguments, 
 when urged to subvert the infallibility of Scripture, or the 
 Christian doctrines of original sin, of the Trinity, the Incar- 
 nation and redemption of mankind ? " Religion and reason 
 can never be at variance," will they say with the Chaplain, 
 " because the most rational religion must always be the 
 best.'' " The language of reason was never yet rejected 
 with impunity — she will be heard — she must be respected," 
 &c. Do then some controverted texts of Scripture make the 
 Trinity and Incarnation of the Son of God as evident to rea- 
 son as it is plain to the most ordinary capacity, that three 
 divine persons really distinct cannot be one and the same 
 God ? or that the eternal and immortal God cannot become 
 a mortal and suffering man, which is " a stumbling block to 
 the Jews, and to the Greeks foolishness ?"* 
 
 Will the Chaplain reply to the Deist, and tell him, that 
 the infallibility of Scripture warrants his belief of these seem- 
 ingly absurd tenets? He will be answered, that he begs 
 the question : and in his own language, that reason assures 
 
 * 1 Cor, i. 23. 
 
69 
 
 him, (the Deist,) with greater evidence than the infallibility 
 of Scripture is proved, " that the Almighty requires not our 
 belief of doctrines which stand in direct contradiction to 
 the only means he has allowed us of arriving at truth — our 
 senses and understanding." 
 
 Nor will the Deist stop here ; he will add, that the pre- 
 tended infallibility of Scripture must prevent the Chaplain 
 from examining the tenets of the Christian Church. "Shel- 
 tered under the garb of so gorgeous a prerogative, impress- 
 ed upon the yielding mind of youth by men of sense and 
 virtue ; backed moreover by the splendour of supposed mi- 
 racles and the horrors of damnation, opinions the most 
 absurd and contradictory must frequently dazzle and over- 
 awe the understanding. Amidst the fascinating glare of 
 so mighty a privilege, the eye of reason becomes dim and 
 inactive." Can the Chaplain, or any other person, tell us, 
 why a Bolingbroke, or a Hume, had not as good a right to 
 use this argument against the general doctrines of Chris- 
 tianity, as the Chaplain had to urge it against the discrimi- 
 nating doctrines of the Catholic Church ? 
 
 Such are the difficulties in which men involve them- 
 selves, by extending the exercise of reason to matters be- 
 yond its competency. Let this excellent gift of our provi- 
 dent and bountiful Creator be employed, as has been said 
 before, in examining the grounds for believing the Scrip- 
 tures to be infallible ; but let it go no farther, when that in- 
 fallibility is fully evinced. In the same manner, let your 
 reason investicjate with the utmost attention and sincere 
 desire of discovering truth, the motives for and against the 
 Church's infallibility; but if your inquiries terminate in a 
 full conviction of her having received this great preroga- 
 tive from Jesus Christ, " the author and finisher of our 
 faith," submit with respect and docility to her decisions. 
 The Chaplain himself, when less wrapt in extacy with tiie 
 beauties of reason, can acknowledge this : " Show me," 
 says he, " the proofs of this infallibility, and if I do not 
 
66 
 
 admit them with every faculty of my soul, you have my 
 leave to brand me with the pride of lucifer." 
 
 You will not expect me to enter fully into this subject, 
 and point out either to you or the Chaplain, the proofs 
 which he requires. Neither my leisure nor inclination, 
 now allow me to undertake, what has been done by much 
 abler hands. The Chaplain, and you too, I hope, know 
 where to look for these proofs. Let him peruse the con- 
 troversial works of Bellarmine, Bossuet, Nicole and Ber- 
 gier, Mumford's Question of Questions, Manning's and 
 Hawarden's writings on this subject ; let him contrast them 
 with Albertinus and Claude ; with Chillingworth, Usher, 
 and Bishop Hurd. There is no answering for the impres- 
 sions which the minds of different men may receive from 
 perusing the same authors. I can only say, for my own 
 part, that as far as my reading on this subject has extend- 
 ed, I have generally found, on one side, candour in stating 
 the opposite doctrine, fairness in quotations, clearness and 
 fulness in the answers, and consistency in maintaining and 
 defending controverted points. On the other hand, I have 
 often met with gross misrepresentation, unfair quotations, 
 partial answers, and inconsistency of character in the con- 
 trovertist; impugning and defending sometimes on the prin- 
 ciples of a Protestant, sometimes on those of a Socinian or 
 Deist, sometimes pretending to model his religion on the 
 belief of the four first ages of Christianity ; and at other 
 times finding corruptions immediately after, if not co-eval 
 with the apostolical times. 
 
 On this sul)ject, therefore, whatever disadvantage it may 
 be to our cause, I shall confine myself solely to the defen- 
 sive, and endeavour to satisfy you, that the Chaplain has 
 given no sufficient reason to shake the stability of your 
 faith, with respect to the infallibility of the Church. 
 
 He observes, that the few Scriptvral texts, " which seem 
 to countenance infallibility, appeared no longer conclusive 
 than he refused to examine themy Why he ever refused 
 
61 
 
 to examine them he is yet to explain ; especially as the 
 duty of his profession, and the particular course of his stu- 
 dies, called for a more attentive and fuller examination of 
 them, than the generality of Christians are obliged to. 
 Surely he does not mean to insinuate, that he was ever dis- 
 couraged from, or deprived of the means of making inquiry. 
 Nor do I know why he mentions only a few texts, as coun- 
 tenancing the doctrine of infallibility, since the writers 
 above named allege so many both of the Old and New 
 Testament. The author of the Catholic Scripturist, whom 
 the Chaplain might have found an adversary worthy of his 
 Chillingworth and Usher, enumerates thirty texts to prove 
 this point, besides others, to which he refers. Let us how- 
 ever hear the Chaplain's animadversions on the few he has 
 thought proper to consider. 
 
 Amongst other proofs of her infallibility, the Catholic 
 Church alleges these words of Christ to St. Peter, (Matt, 
 xvi. 18.) " Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build 
 my Church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against 
 it." The Chaplain observes that this text is wrongfully 
 translated, and that the Greek Avord hades manifestly im- 
 ports death, and not hell. The alteration is not very ma- 
 terial in itself, and might well pass unnoticed, were it not 
 for the sake of showing how unsafe it is to trust to private 
 interpretation of Scripture, in opposition to the general 
 sense and understanding of the Church in all its ages. 
 The Chaplain has taken up this interpretation from Besa, 
 who, I believe, first suggested it. But I would fain ask 
 these sagacious Greek critics, whether hell is not meant by 
 that place, out of which the rich man (Luke xvi.) lifted 
 up his eyes, and seeing Lazarus, wished he might be al- 
 lowed to cool with water his tongue ; for " I am torment- 
 ed," said he, " in this flame."* Was not hell that place of 
 torments, which he wished his brethren might be warned 
 
 * Luke xvi. 24. 
 P 
 
6-2 
 
 to avoid? Now what says the Greek text in this placet 
 *' And in hell, iv t® «cr«, lifting up his eyes when he was in 
 torments, he saw Abraham afar off." If I did not deem 
 this Scripture passage sufficient to prove that the word 
 hades does not mafiifestly import death, I could add many 
 others equally conclusive ; and could support them with 
 the authority of some of the best Greek authors, as well as 
 of Calvin, and even of Besa, in contradiction to himself. 
 Among the moderns, the Chaplain will not dispute the 
 palm of Hebrew and Greek literature with Dr. Lowth, now 
 bishop of London, or with his learned commentator, pro- 
 fessor Michaelis of Gottingen. Let him read the Bi- 
 shop's elegant work de sacra Poesi Hehraeoriim, prwlect. 1 ; 
 and the professor in his annotations on that preelection, and 
 he will find them both decided in their opinion, that the 
 Greek word hades, as well as its correspondent Hebrew 
 one, denotes not death, but the subterraneous receptacle 
 of departed souls, which is pointedly expressive of the po- 
 pular idea of hell. 
 
 But let us admit the Chaplain's interpretation ; let 
 Christ's words import, in their obvious sense, that the 
 Church shall never fail, not that she shall never err. Does 
 he not know, that the Church fails principally by erring I 
 How did she fail in the countries overrun with Arianism? 
 Was it not by error in faith ? and so in all countries cor- 
 rupted by heresy. Thus likewise would the whole visible 
 Church have failed, had she proposed any error to be be- 
 lieved as an article of faith. " For to do this is to pro- 
 pose a lie, as upheld by divine authority ; which is to fall 
 no less foully than he should fall, who should teach God to 
 be an affirmer and confirmer of lies. For whatsoever point 
 any Church held, as a point of their faith, they held it as 
 a divine verity, affirmed and revealed by God. Therefore, 
 if, in any age, the visible Church held any error for a point 
 of faith, it did fail most miserably."* 
 
 * Mnmford, Quest, of Quest, sect. 15. 
 
63 
 
 The Chaplain's charge of unfaithful translation of Scrip- 
 ture being thus removed, let us examine the meaning he 
 gives to the promises of Christ. The obvious one, he says, 
 is only this, " that neither the subtlety of infernal spirits, 
 nor the passions of men, nor the violence of both, shall ever 
 succeed in overturning his religion, to which he has been 
 pleased to annex perpetuity. Howeve?- feeble and disor- 
 dered his Church may be at times, the powers of death 
 shall never overcome her. She shall then only cease to 
 exist, when time shall be no more." If ever confident as- 
 sertion stood in the place of solid argument, here surely 
 is an instance of it. What! Does Christ's promise to his 
 Church obviously convey the meaning imported in the 
 Chaplain's exposition, particularly in the first member of 
 the second sentence of it, when there is not a single word 
 to justify that meaning? The promise is unlimited and un- 
 conditional ; what right therefore has he to limit it? or if 
 he have, why has not any one of us an equal right to limit 
 Christ's promises to teach his disciples all truth, which the 
 Chaplain says he undoubtedly did ? Why may we not say, 
 that he taught them truth so far, as to prevent their falling 
 into diViY fundamental error, sufficient to overturn the great 
 principles of religion ? Why may we not say, that his spirit 
 was so far with the evangelists, as to direct them in teach- 
 ing the essential doctrines of Christianity, but not in guard- 
 ing them against errors of less consequence ? And why 
 may we not thus give a mortal stab to the authority of 
 Scripture itself, by limiting its infallibility to those things 
 only, which it may please each man's private judgment to 
 deem fundamental 1 
 
 "The text," continues the Chaplain, "does not even 
 insinuate that the Christian Church should never teach any 
 articles, besides such as are fundamental and necessary ; or 
 that some overbearing society of Christians, should not hold 
 out many erroneous opinions, as terms of communion to 
 the rest of the faithful." If, by overbearing society of 
 
64 
 
 Christians, the author mean not the Church of Christ, he is 
 certainly right ; for to no such society was a divine promise 
 ever made, of its not falling into erroneous opinions ; but 
 if he mean, as he must, to say any thing to the purpose, 
 that it is not even insinuated in the promises of Christ, that 
 his Church shall never hold out erroneous opinions as terms 
 of communion, I am yet to learn the signification of plain 
 words. " For," says an excellent author, " if words retain 
 their usual signification, we cannot charge the Church of 
 Christ with error, even against any one single article of 
 faith, but we must draw this impious consequence from it, 
 that he was either ignorant of the event of his promise, or 
 unfaithful to it ; and that after having in so solemn a man- 
 ner engaged his sacred word to St. Peter, that the gates of 
 hell shall not prevail against his Church, he has neverthe- 
 less delivered her up to the power of Satan, to be destroyed 
 by him." 
 
 " This consequence will appear undeniable, if we con- 
 sider the two following truths : 1st. That faith is essential 
 to the constitution of the Church; and 2dly. That heresy 
 destroys faith. For it plainly follows hence, that, if the 
 whole Church fall into heresy, she is without faith, and is 
 no more the Church she was before, than a man can con- 
 tinue to be a man without a soul."* If the Church of 
 Christ hold out erroneous opinions as terms of communion, 
 does she not, by public authority, establish falsehood in- 
 stead of truth, and the lies of Satan for the genuine word 
 of God ? How shall we be assured that these errors are not 
 destructive of the fundamental articles of Christianity? 
 Suppose, for instance, she require an idolatrous worship, or 
 teach those mysteries of iniquity mentioned in the Chap- 
 lain's letter, the denying of salvation to all out of her oitm 
 communion, and the horrible heresy of persecution ; will 
 
 * Manning, Shortest Way to end Disputes about Religion, chap. 1 
 
65 
 
 not the gates of hell then prevail against her ? will not the 
 promises of Christ be vain and deceitful ? 
 
 But, it seems the promises were not made to the Church : 
 not against Aer, but *' against the great and essential tenets 
 expressed in the Apostles' creed, and adopted through 
 every age by the most numerous body of Christians, the 
 gates of death or of hell will never prevail — They will ever 
 retain sufficient light to conduct each upright and pious be- 
 liever to all points of his duty upon which his salvation de- 
 pends." So, before, in giving us the obvious meaning of 
 this disputed text, the Chaplain had found out, that the 
 gates of hell were never to succeed in overturning, not the 
 Church, but the religion of Christ. Are then the great 
 and essential tenets of the Apostles^ creed, and the Church, 
 one and the same thing? Is the Christian religion, that is, 
 the Christian system of belief and practice, the same thing 
 as the society of Christians professing that system ? When 
 we are directed, (Matt, xviii. 16.) to tell the Church of our 
 offending brethren, are we to go and tell their offences to 
 the great and essential tenets of Christianity, or to the Chris- 
 tian religion ? It is not difficult to discover the advantage, 
 or rather the fatal consequences to Christianity, which an 
 able but irreligious controvertist might hope to derive from 
 this alteration. He might lay down, as the only funda- 
 mental articles of Christian belief, some few, which offer 
 no violence to his understanding or passions; and such, as 
 having for this very reason been little contested, were ge- 
 nerally admitted by sectaries of all denominations. He 
 might then contend, that the promises of Christ refer only 
 to the upholding of these articles, and that the gates of hell 
 shall never prevail to their extinction. The religious so- 
 cieties professing to believe them may all perish in their 
 turns ; but the promises of Christ will abide, if a new so- 
 ciety arise adhering to the same supposed fundamental 
 tenets; she may adopt many errors indeed, and superin- 
 duce them on the foundation of faith. But for all this, the 
 
 f8 
 
66 
 
 promises of Christ would not be made void ; these promises 
 not being intended in favour of any religious society or 
 Church, however the letter of them may sound, but only of 
 the fundamental articles of religion. It will then be imma- 
 terial, whether we unite with Catholics, Protestants, or any 
 ancient or modern sectaries, provided they admit the few 
 doctrines which each of us may lay down as fundamental 
 of Christianity ; and we may call this being Catholic Chris- 
 tians ; though the sincere friends of Christianity, both 
 Catholic and Protestant, have deemed such principles lati- 
 tudinarianism in religion, and indeed subversive of all re- 
 vealed religion. 
 
 Will the Chaplain say, that he did not intend to put the 
 charge upon his readers, and that the expressions I have 
 noticed, fell inadvertently from his pen? Will he acknow- 
 ledge that, without prejudice to his cause, the word Church 
 may be substituted, agreeably to the Scriptural text, where 
 he has placed great and essential articles 1 Be it so ; and 
 let not his candour be impeached. But let us now see 
 what will come of his exposition. " Against the Church, 
 the gates of hell will never prevail — but she will ever re- 
 tain sufficient light to conduct each upright and pious be- 
 liever to all points of his duty, upon which his salvation 
 depends." If this be true, and necessarily true in virtue of 
 the promises of Christ, then even in the most " deplorable 
 era of superstition and ignorance,'' in every preceding and 
 subsequent era, even in that of the reformation, "the 
 Christian Church retained sufficient light to conduct each 
 upright and pious believer to all points of his duty, upon 
 which his salvation depended." Need I point out the con- 
 set^uences ensuing to the first reformers from this doctrine ; 
 and consequently to those who became their disciples? 
 Need I tell you, that, having separated themselves from the 
 great body of Christians throughout the world, they broke 
 asunder the link of unity, and left a society in which 
 " sufficient light remained to conduct each upright and 
 
67 
 
 pious believer to all points of his duty?" And since this 
 society is the same now it then was, or rather more pure, 
 for (the Chaplain says, " the Roman Church is daily under- 
 going a silent reformation,") it still retains that light, and 
 consequently still has the promises of Christ pledged for its 
 continuance. But what assurance has he, or any one, who 
 leaves this society, of the promises of Christ, extended to 
 that, which he embraces in its stead ? 
 
 Before I conclude upon this text, you will allow me to 
 state the Chaplain's objection to the Catholic explanation 
 of it, and to give you the answer, as I find it ready made to 
 my hands. The objection is, that the text might be as 
 well alleged to prove, that sin and wickedness cannot pre- 
 vail against the Church, as it is brought to prove that error 
 and heresy cannot ; for " vice is as formidable an enemy 
 to religion, as error ; and the Christian system is as per- 
 fectly calculated to make us good men as orthodox believ- 
 ers." " So far" the Chaplain " is in the right ; that in 
 virtue of this, and many other promises of the word of 
 God, sin and wickedness shall never so generally prevail, 
 but that the Church of Christ shall be always holy both in 
 her doctrine, and in the lives of many, both pastors and 
 people living up to her doctrine. But then there is this 
 difference between the case of damnable error in doctrine, 
 and that of sin and wickedness in practice, that the former, 
 if established by the whole body of Church-guides, would 
 of course involve also the whole body of God's people, who 
 are commanded to hear their Church-guides, and do what 
 they teach them ; whereas, in the latter case, if pastors 
 are guilty of any wicked practices contrary to their doc- 
 trine, the faithful are taught to do what they say, and not 
 what they do." (Matt, xxiii. 2, 3.)* 
 
 To show, farther, that infallibility in faith is not neces- 
 sarily attended with unfailing sanctity of manners, let it be 
 
 * Letter to a friend concerning infallibility. London, 1743. 
 
68 
 
 observed, that though in time of the Old Testament, God 
 was present with his infallible spirit to David and Solomon, 
 when they wrote their books received into the canon of 
 Scripture, yet he did not prevent the first from committing 
 adultery and murder, nor the second from " going after 
 Astaroth, the goddess of the Sidonians, and after Michom, 
 the abomination of the Ammonites." (1 Kings xi. 15.) 
 Neither did Christ render his Apostles and Evangelists 
 impeccable, though he conferred on them the privilege of 
 infallibility. When the Chaplain has discovered, in the 
 decrees of infinite wisdom, the true reason of this conduct, 
 he will at the same time be able to give a satisfactory answer 
 to his own objection, and tell us, why it may not please 
 Divine Providence to ordain the preservation of the Church 
 from error, and yet suffer the individual members of it to 
 be liable to sin and immorality. 
 
 I now proceed to the promises of Christ, made at his last 
 supper, in that discourse which " is, as it were, his last will 
 and testament ; every word whereof seems to be the over- 
 flowing of a heart filled with concern for his future 
 Church."* These promises the Chaplain has stated com- 
 pendiously enough. " The divine author of the Christian 
 religion promised," says he, " to teach his disciples all 
 truth. (John xiv. 1.5, 16.) And he undoubtedly did so. 
 But where did he so far ensure the faith of their successors, 
 as to secure them from building wood, hay, and stubble 
 upon the foundation of the Gospel ?" " He promised to be 
 with his disciples to the end of the world. (Matt. 20.) 
 And who denies it ? He is with his Church by his protec- 
 tion, by his grace, by the lights he communicates to her, 
 by the strength which he exerts in supporting her against 
 violence and temptation." 
 
 Such, according to the Chaplain, is the explanation of 
 these passages from St. John. His reasons for so explain- 
 
 * Shortest Way, &c. 
 
69 
 
 ing them shall be presently examined. 1 will first set the 
 texts down more fully, as they stand in the Gospel. Our 
 Saviour's words, spoken to his Apostles, and recorded by 
 St. John in his 14th chapter, are these : " I will ask my 
 Father, and he will send you another Comforter to abide 
 with you for ever." (John xiv. 16.) And soon after he in- 
 forms them who this Comforter is to be, and to what end 
 his Father will send him. " The Comforter," says Christ, 
 "whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach 
 you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, 
 whatsoever I have said unto you." This promise is again 
 repeated in the 16th chapter, which is a continuation of 
 the same discourse. " I have yet many things to say unto 
 you ; but you cannot hear them now ; however, when the 
 Spirit of truth is come, he will lead yon into all truth." 
 
 In these texts, we see the means clearly and distinctly 
 set down, by which the Church is to be for ever protected, 
 viz. the perpetual assistance of the Divine Spirit, teaching 
 and leading the Apostles and their successors, that is, the 
 body of pastors, into all truth necessary and relating to the 
 service of God, and salvation of man. 
 
 The Chaplain denies not the sufficiency of the means; 
 he even acknowledges, that the Spirit of God " undoubted- 
 ly led the disciples into all truth ;" but to them he limits 
 the extent of the promises ; the faith of their successors is 
 left to " be tossed to and fro with every wind of doctrine ;"* 
 or at best, to be modelled upon their own fallible inter- 
 pretation of Scripture. " For where," says he, " did the 
 divine Author of our religion ensure the faith of their suc- 
 cessors 1" I answer, in the plain, unambiguous words, as 
 1 have cited them from John xiv. 16 ; for they expressly 
 say, that the Comforter, or Holy Ghost, shall abide with the 
 Apostlesybr ever ; which, " though addressed to them, as 
 the whole sermon at our Saviour's last supper was, yet, like 
 
 * Epbcs. iv. 14. 
 
70 
 
 many other truths contained in it, could not regard their 
 persons alone ; for they were not to live for ever ; but com- 
 prehended likewise all those who were to succeed them in 
 after ages. And that this was the intent of our Saviour's 
 promise appears clearly from his last words before his as- 
 cension, recorded by St. Matthew."*' 
 
 These words of St. Matthew are in part cited by the 
 Chaplain, as you have seen ; but they deserve to be set down 
 at large. " All power is given unto me in heaven and 
 earth. Go ye, therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing 
 them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the 
 Holy Ghost, teaching them to observe all things which- 
 soever I have commanded you ; and behold I am with you 
 ALWAYS, (in the Greek, all days^) even unto the end of 
 THE WORLD, "f Here surely Christ promises to be per- 
 petually, even to the world's end, with them, who were to 
 teach and baptize all nations. Were the Apostles, to whom 
 these words were immediately addressed, to perform that 
 function for ever? He orders them, and consequently their 
 successors, in the ministry of the word, to teach all things^ 
 whichsoever he had commanded. Does not this evidently 
 imply, that they were themselves to be assisted by the 
 Spirit of God, to discover what those things are? or did 
 he impose upon them an obligation, without affording the 
 means of compliance? If they were to be assisted in dis- 
 covering and teaching all things delivered by Christ ; if 
 they were ordered to teach, and he was to be present with 
 them in the ministry of teaching, even to the world's end ; 
 does not this import a correspondent obligation in the hear- 
 ers, to receive and embrace the doctrines so delivered? 
 Will any one say, that, before he embraces them, he must 
 be assured that the doctrines which he hears, are the things 
 commanded by Jesus Christ ? Will he say, that he must 
 be satisfied, they are agreeable to the written word of God? 
 
 * Shortest Way, &p. sect. 2. + Matt, xxviii, 19, 20. 
 
71 
 
 1 will answer him, that by this proceeding he would render 
 the connmission of teaching, intrusted by Jesus Christ to 
 his Apostles and their successors, vain and nugatory • he 
 would transfer the ministry from them, and render it the 
 duty of every person to be his own teacher ; he would de- 
 stroy the divine economy of the Church, in which Christ 
 " gave some Apostles, and some prophets, and other some 
 evangelists, and other some pastors and doctors, for the 
 perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministiy, for 
 the edifying of the body of Christ." (Eph. iv. 11, 12.) 
 The rational inquiry remaining, after a conviction of the 
 divinity of the Christian religion is, are they, who deliver 
 these doctrines, the lawful successors of the Apostles ? 
 Can they trace to them their line of succession ? If they 
 can, we must " account of them as the ministers of Christ, 
 and the dispensers of the mysteries of God,"* from whom 
 we may learn certainly the truth of the Gospel. For 
 though each pastor be not so in his private capacity, yet, 
 as frir as he teaches us in concert with the rest, I mean, in- 
 asmuch as he delivers the faith of the Church, in that re- 
 spect he is infallible. 
 
 The Chaplain, in his comments upon the famous passage 
 of Matt. xvi. 18, insinuated, that, (hough the gates of 
 hell should never prevail against the Church, to the sup- 
 pression of the points of faith, deemed by him fundamen- 
 tal, yet false opinions might be superinduced, and so far 
 error might prevail. He here again would establish the 
 same doctrine; and though compelled, by the evident au- 
 thority of Scripture, to confess, that Christ communicated 
 infallibility to his disciples, he thinks this no security, that 
 their successors will not build on the foundation of the 
 Gospel " wood, hay, and stubble." If, by these words, the 
 Chaplain understand corrupt doctrines in faith and man- 
 ners, it is plain, from the very expressions of Christ, that 
 
 * 1 Cor. iv. 1. 
 
n 
 
 he is mistaken. For all truth in matters of faith and sal* 
 vation, into which the Spirit was to lead them, is exclusive 
 of all error in the same line. In a word, either the pro- 
 mises of the assisting Spirit of truth, are confined to the 
 immediate disciples of Christ, or not. If they are, then we 
 have no assurance of the Church's continuing even in the 
 profession of fundamental points ; if not, then upon what 
 authority are the promises to be restrained to the Church's 
 being guided into so7ne truth, when they expressly de- 
 clare, that she shall be guided into all truth ? 
 
 But is not Christ " with his Church, by his protection, 
 by his grace, &;c ? Can he not be with her without render- 
 ing her infallible 1 Is he not with every just man," &;c? 
 Yes, surely ; he aifords protection and grace ; he might not 
 have rendered her infallible; but when he informs us, that 
 he will direct his Church by the Spirit of truth, conse- 
 quently a spirit opposite to that error; when, in Matthew 
 xxviii. he promises to the pastors of his Church such a 
 kind of presence, assistance, and guidance, as shall qua- 
 lify them effectually to teach all those things, which he 
 himself taught, and this for all times ; shall we esteem him 
 to be no otherwise with them, than with particular righte- 
 ous men ? Where has he ever promised these, that singu- 
 lar and uninterrupted assistance of the Spirit of truth ? 
 To private persons the Holy Ghost is given, as the Spirit 
 of sanctification ; but to the Church, as the Spirit of truth, 
 as well as sanctification, guiding her into all truth, and di- 
 rectly excluding all error from her. 
 
 I hope it will now appear to you, that the proofs of the 
 Church's infallibilty, from St. John and Matt, xxviii., are 
 not invalidated by the Chaplain's objections. I have ad- 
 duced no arguments to confirm you in your belief of this 
 capital doctrine; but meeting the Chaplain on his own 
 ground, have only endeavoured to defend it from his objec- 
 tions, whom we are grieved to have for an adversary I 
 forbear to allege other numerous testimonies of Scripture, 
 the concurrent authority of holy fathers, and the whole con- 
 
73 
 
 duct of Church government, from the very days of the 
 Apostles, which necessarily supposes this, as an unques- 
 tionable article of Christian faith. " I know very well, that 
 no text of holy Scripture is so clear, but persons of much 
 wit, may find interpretations to perplex it, or set it in a 
 false light; but the question is not, whether the texts 1 
 have produced may, with some pain and study, be inter- 
 preted otherwise than the Roman Catholic Church has al- 
 ways understood them; but whether, in their natural, ob- 
 vious, and literal sense, they do not lead an unbiassed 
 reader to the idea and belief of an infallible Church. Now 
 then let us suppose, that the contradictories of the texts I 
 have quoted were found in holy writ. As for instance, 
 suppose our Saviour had said to St. Peter, ' I will not 
 build my Church upon a rock, and the gates of hell shall 
 prevail against it.' Suppose he had said to his Apostles, 
 * I will not be with you to the end of the world. I will 
 not send the Holy Ghost to abide with you for ever. He 
 shall not teach you all things, nor lead you into all truth.' 
 "Would not all men of sound sense have concluded from 
 such texts, that there is no such a thing as an infallible 
 Church on earth? They certainly would, because the na- 
 tural and obvious meaning of them is so plain, that it is 
 impossible not to draw that consequence from them. Now, 
 if one part of two contradictories, cannot but force a man 
 of an unbiassed judgment to conclude against the doctrine 
 of infallibility, the other part is surely of equal force, to 
 oblige him to conclude in favour of it. So that it is no- 
 thing to the purpose, whether Protestants can, or cannot 
 strain the texts I have produced, from their natural and ob- 
 vious meaning; but it is much to the purpose to consider, 
 whether they can bring any evidence from Scripture to dis- 
 prove the infallibility of the Church, of equal strength and 
 clearness to the texts 1 have brought to prove it."* 
 
 * Shortest Way to end Disputes, chap. 1 , sect. 2. 
 G 
 
74 
 
 The Chaplain's argument against infallibility, next to be 
 considered, is that which he truly calls a hackneyed one. 
 After reading this answer, you may likewise judge whether 
 it be a conclusive one. 
 
 In the author of 'Uhe Case stated between the Church 
 of Rome and the Church of England," the argument is 
 thus laid down : " You (Roman Catholics) believe the 
 Scriptures, because the Church bids you ; and you believe 
 the Church, because the Scriptures bid you." And he tri- 
 umphantly adds, " that this is the old circle, out of which 
 we can never conjure ourselves." 
 
 Let us now first examine the principles of logic, and find 
 out what is understood by a vicious circle. We shall find 
 it to be that kind of argument, by which two propositions 
 reciprocally prove each other ; and neither of them is proved 
 by any other medium ; as if a man were to attempt to prove 
 that a stone fell, because it was heavy ; and that it was 
 heavy, because it fell, without being able to assign any 
 other reasons, either of its falling or its gravity. But if its 
 gravity were demonstrable from other considerations, then 
 from that property its falling might justly be inferred ; and 
 if its having fallen should, for instance, be attested by 
 credible eye-witnesses, its gravity might be deduced from 
 its falling; the cause in this instance inferring the effect — 
 and the effect proving the existence of the cause. 
 
 Having premised so much, now let us analyze the Ca- 
 tholic faith, and see if we reason as badly as the Chaplain 
 asserts. 
 
 The Catholic reasoner has only to open his eyes, and he 
 will discover, that his Church is in the practice of deter- 
 mining controversies of faith, by the concurrent authority 
 of the episcopal body. But this view alone, does not give 
 him any undoubted assurance of the infallibility of her de- 
 terminations. He is led, therefore, next to consider, when 
 the Church first exercised this authority. Did she assume 
 it in ages of darkness and ignorance? Did she usurp it with 
 
75 
 
 a high hand, contrary to the usage of the first ages? What 
 information will the Christian collect in the course of this 
 inquiry ? He will find living monuments of this prerogative 
 being always exercised, even from the days of the Apostles, 
 and throughout every succeeding age. 1 say, living monu- 
 ments ; for they are now subsisting; and still afford as evi- 
 dent proof of the exercise of the authority, as if the facts 
 had passed in our own time, and within our own memory; 
 or as full proof as we have, of the courts of judicature of 
 this state, having heretofore decided the legal controversies 
 of the citizens thereof. For instance, the abrogating of 
 eircamcision, and other observances of the Jewish law, is 
 a still subsisting monument of the power of deciding being 
 claimed and exercised by the Church. Such likewise is 
 the custom of not rebaptizing persons baptized by heretics; 
 such is the Nicene creed, and particularly the word consub- 
 stantial, making part of it. These monuments, to omit in- 
 numerable others, owe their existence to the exercise of 
 the definitive authority of the Church in matters of faith. 
 The inquiring Christian will farther discover a most con- 
 spicuous monument of it, in the canon of holy Scripture. 
 Many books therein received were some time doubted of; 
 others were contended for which are now rejected. The 
 Church interposed her authority, and the canon of Scripture 
 became established. On these facts, palpable, manifest, 
 and of public notoriety, the Christian will reason thus : 
 The Church, even from the Apostles' time, has always ex- 
 ercised the authority of deciding controverted points ; her 
 interposition would be of no avail, if her authority were 
 not to be considered as definitive and infallible. The pri- 
 mitive Christians so considered it. Whoever refused sub- 
 mission was cast from the Church, and reputed as a heathen 
 and publican. On these grounds will the Christian be in- 
 duced to believe her infallibility ; happy, that his belief 
 ajise not fronj a series of abstruse reasoning, but is built 
 upon public, notorious facts, within the reach of the most 
 
76 
 
 common understanding. The Church has always, from the 
 first era of Christianity, exercised the right of judging in 
 matters of faith, and requiring obedience to her decisions ; 
 the monuments attesting it are certain and visible. The 
 exercise of such a right, without infallibility, would be vain 
 and nugatory ; therefore she is infallible. After thus dis- 
 covering her infallibility upon the evidence of notorious 
 facts, it is a subject of much comfort to the sincere Chris- 
 tian, as well as a confirmation of his faith, to find the same 
 truth attested by the words of Scripture ; and having be- 
 fore believed it for the evidence just mentioned, he now 
 likewise believes it for the authority of Scripture, at the 
 same time that he believes Scripture for the authority of 
 the Church. Where now is the circle of false reasoning? 
 Is not infallibility first demonstrated from other considera- 
 tions, before it is demonstrated from Scripture ? And is not 
 this alone, in the principles of sound logic, sufficient to de- 
 stroy the magic of this famous circle, and the argument 
 built upon it ? But indeed this argument is many ways vul- 
 nerable, and you may find it otherwise destroyed in the 
 authors referred to in the note.* 
 
 One word more concerning this hackneyed argument;, 
 and we will be done with it. Let it be taken for granted, 
 that our process of reasoning runs round a circle ; a deist, 
 an infidel, a disbeliever of Scripture, might with propriety 
 object to it. But how can the Chaplain do so, or any per- 
 son professing his belief of Scripture infallibility ? For, 
 admitting this infallibility, he admits one of the proposi- 
 tions, which reciprocally prove each other ; and therefore, 
 in arguing against him, we may logically infer the Church's 
 infallibility from texts of Scripture ; it bein^ a common 
 principle with us both, that Scripture is divinely inspired; 
 
 and no one is bound to prove a principle admitted by his 
 adversary. 
 
 * The true Church of Christ, p. 2. ch. 3. sect. 3. Shortest Way^ &c. p . 2. 
 sect. 2. *^ 1^ ir 
 
7Y 
 
 The Chaplain produces against the Church's infallibility 
 another argument, which he might likewise have called a 
 hackneyed one ; for it has been urged with great perse- 
 verance by our adversaries. He says, that " all Roman 
 Catholics are bound to admit an infallible authority ; yet 
 few of them agree, where, or in whom, it resides." When 
 I have met with this argument in the writings of opponents, 
 little acquainted with our principles, of whom there are 
 many, it has not surprised me. But that the Chaplain 
 should likewise insist upon it, is really matter of astonish- 
 ment. For he must know, that in the doctrine which we 
 teach, as belonging to faith in this point, and as an article 
 of communion, there is no variation ; and with all his read- 
 ing and recollection, I will venture to assert, that he cannot 
 cite one Catholic divine, who denies infallibility to reside 
 in the body of bishops, united and agreeing with their 
 head, the bishop of Rome. So that, when the Chaplain 
 says, that " some schoolmen have taught the infallibility of 
 the pope — some place it in a general council ; others in 
 the pope and council, received by the whole Church," he 
 is under a great mistake ; for the last is not a mere opin- 
 ion of schoolmen, but the constant belief of all Catholics ; 
 a belief, in which there is no variation. Some divines, in- 
 deed, hold the pope, as Christ's vicar on earth, to be infal- 
 lible, even without a council ; but with this opinion faith 
 has no concern, every one being at liberty to adopt or re- 
 ject it, as the reasons for or against may affect him. 
 
 The Chaplain adds in the same place, that, since the 
 
 Council of Trent, many things have been unanimously 
 
 taught respecting the pope's authority, which are, I own, 
 
 new to me, and which, I confidently aver, he cannot make 
 
 good. Nay, so far are they from being taught unanimously 
 
 since the Council of Trent, that they are not taught at all, 
 
 for instance, in France ; and are expressly contradicted by 
 
 the maxims and solemn determinations of the Gallican 
 
 clergy, in the year 1782 j to which maxims and determi- 
 
 62 
 
78 
 
 nations the theological schools there have constantly con- 
 formed. 
 
 Nor is it only in France, that many of the doctrines are 
 rejected, which, he says, are taught unanimously amongst 
 us ; but they are exploded in every Catholic country in the 
 world. The body of bishops every where claim a divine 
 right, in virtue of their ordination, to interpret the decrees 
 of councils, and the ordinances of the popes. The Chap- 
 lain having discarded his former religion, appears likewise 
 to have erased from his memory, the theological principles 
 of our schools. 
 
 He concludes his note with a curious piece of reasoning. 
 " A Christian," he says, " may mistake the words of a 
 pope, (the meaning of the words, I presume,) as easily as 
 he can mistake the words of Scripture." So, undoubtedly, 
 he may ; and, for this very reason, a living authority is 
 necessary to explain uncertainties, to remove ambiguities. 
 But perhaps he means to carry his argument into the very 
 heart of our principles, and deny that even a living autho- 
 rity can speak a language clear enough to determine doubts 
 and convict obstinacy. But few will be persuaded that 
 the powers of living language are so limited ; as well might 
 he attempt to persuade us, that when parties litigate on the 
 interpretation of the law, the judges cannot deliver sen- 
 tence in terms clear enough to determine the controversy. 
 
 You have hitherto seen the Chaplain endeavour to dis- 
 prove the Church's infallibility, by his interpretation of 
 certain passages of Scripture, and by discovering fallacies 
 and inconsistencies in our doctrine on this subject. Not 
 content with thus attacking this capital tenet of our reli- 
 gion, he sets about to prove that the Church may err, be- 
 cause in fact she has erred. To show it, he alleges, 1st. 
 That she formerly taught doctrines as of faith, which she 
 now rejects as contrary to faith. 2dly. She suppressed for 
 a time certain tenets, which ought to have been taught at 
 all times, or not taught at all. 3dly. She requires a belief 
 
79 
 
 of things which are not contained in Scripture, as is ac- 
 knowledged even by some of our own divines. 
 
 How does he prove the first of these charges ? By as- 
 serting that " the doctrine of the millennium," now reject- 
 ed by the Church, " was maintained as an article of the 
 Catholic faith by almost every father who lived immedi- 
 ately after the times of the Apostles." In opposition to 
 this very positive assertion, I will take upon me to say, that 
 not one of the primitive fathers held the opinion here men- 
 tioned, as an article of Catholic faith and communion. At 
 the very time of its prevalence (for it was indeed adopted 
 by Irenaeus, Justin the Martyr, &;c.) it was combatted by 
 others not less zealously attached to the Church's commu- 
 nion, as is acknowledged even by Justin himself, who, 
 speaking of the millennium, says : " I have already con- 
 fessed to you, O Trypho, that I, and many others of the 
 same mind with me, do think it will come to pass ; but I 
 have also signified that many who are of pure and pious 
 Christian sentiments do not think so."* Do these words 
 indicate, that the millennarian doctrine was maintained as 
 an article of the Catholic faith ^ by almost every primitive 
 father, as is asserted by the Chaplain ? Do they not clearly 
 prove, that even its ablest advocates, amongst whom Justin 
 surely was, did not consider it as such, but as an opinion 
 open to discussion and contradiction? And, accordingly, 
 Eusebius, in his Ecclesiastical History, cites passages of a 
 work written against this doctrine in the very beginning of 
 the third century, by Caius, a Catholic priest,f the co-tem- 
 porary of Justin and Irenasus. 
 
 I need take no notice of what the Chaplain adds,:}^ that 
 " it was the decided opinion of almost all the primitive 
 fathers, that the souls of good men did not enjoy the beati- 
 fic vision previous to the general resurrection ;" for since 
 he does not say, that this opinion ever became an article of 
 
 * Just. Mart. Dial. cum. Tryph. p. 306. edit. Colon, arm. 1687. 
 t Euseb. Hist. Eccl. 1. 3. c. 28. \ Note, ibid. 
 
80 
 
 Catholic faith, as it certainly never did, I may be allowed 
 to suspend any investigation of this subject, which has 
 been ably and solidly discussed by Bellarmine long ago.* 
 
 The Chaplain argues, secondly, that the Church has 
 erred, " because she regards some articles at present as 
 articles of faith, which for many ages were debated as mat- 
 ters of opinion." This we freely admit; and, I hope, 
 without any prejudice to the claim of infallibility : though 
 the Chaplain thinks, that a very forcible argument arises 
 from this fact ; for these doctrines having been delivered 
 by Jesus Christ and his Apostles, either as essential or not ; 
 if the first, she forfeited her claim to infallibility by omit- 
 ting to teach them for many ages ; and if the second, she 
 equally forfeits it by imposing, as necessary to be believed, 
 what neither Christ nor his Apostles did so teach. 
 
 Before I proceed to a direct answer, it may be proper to 
 premise, that the distinction of essentials and not essentials; 
 fundamentals and not fundamentals in faith, to which the 
 Chaplain so often recurs, is not admitted by us in his sense, 
 and that of other Protestant authors. We hold all revealed 
 doctrines, when sufficiently proposed to our understanding, 
 to be essential in this respect, that under pain of disobe- 
 dience and heresy, we are bound to believe and submit our 
 understanding to them ; and the reason is, because we con- 
 ceive of all doctrines so proposed, that they are revealed 
 by God, who neither can err, nor lead into error. Now, 
 whether the doctrine be in its own nature, or in our esti- 
 mation, of great importance, or not, it equally claims our 
 assent, if divine authority is pledged for the truth of it. 
 In another sense, indeed, some points of faith, are more 
 essential and fundamental than others; for without our 
 knowledge, or, indeed, without any revelation of some of 
 them, Christianity might subsist ; whereas, other points are 
 so interwoven with the system and economy of it, that the 
 
 * Bell, de Sanct. Beatilud. 1. 1. 
 
81 
 
 explicit profession and belief of them is implied in the 
 very idea of a Christian. But, as I before said, they both 
 rest upon the same authority, that is, the word of God ; and 
 demand an equally firm assent, when sufficiently proposed 
 to our understanding. Why are we obliged to believe 
 every fact and circumstance contained in the Old and New 
 Testament, as soon as we come to the knowledge of it? Is 
 it because nothing therein is related which does not affect 
 the very vitals of Christianity ? or is it not rather, because 
 divine authority is pledged for the entire truth of the 
 Scripture ? 
 
 This leads to a plain answer to the objection. All doc- 
 trines taught by Christ and his Apostles, were delivered as 
 necessary to be believed, whenever the faithful should re- 
 ceive sufficient evidence of their divine revelation. But 
 till they had that evidence, the belief was not obligatory ; 
 and Christians were at liberty to discuss the doctrines with 
 all freedom, provided they did so in an habitual disposition 
 to submit to the authority established by Jesus Christ, 
 whenever it should interfere in determining the uncertainty. 
 So, before the holding of the first council at Jerusalem, 
 some true Christians maintained circumcision to be neces- 
 sary.* And " when the Apostles and ancients came toge- 
 ther to consider of this matter, there was much disputing." 
 But after the decision of the council, " it pleased the Apos- 
 tles and the ancients, with the whole Church," to issue their 
 letter or decree against the necessity of circumcision, to 
 which decree all were now obliged to submit, under pain 
 of heresy. Here I would fain ask, if there were no true 
 Catholicity of belief before this council ; and whether this 
 decision destroyed the unity of Christ's Church. For after 
 the decision, all true Christians " believed, as an article of 
 faith, what they before conceived to be matter of opinion.'' 
 
 The Chaplain's formidable dilemma turns out therefore a 
 
 * Acts XV. 1. 
 
82 
 
 very harmless one ; the doctrines he refers to were deliver- 
 ed as essential, that is, I suppose, essentially to be believed, 
 whenever they came to be sufficiently proposed, as revealed 
 by God ; but they were not essentially to be believed, till 
 they were so proposed. And the Church, ever guided by 
 the Spirit of God, sees when the dangers threatening her 
 children, from false prophets arising and seducing many, 
 (Matt. xxiv. 11,) call upon her to examine the faith com- 
 mitted to her keeping, and preserved in holy Scripture and 
 the chain of tradition. In these perilous moments she un- 
 folds the doctrines, and presents them to Christians as pre- 
 servatives from the delusions of novelty, the refinements of 
 false philosophy, and the misinterpretations of private and 
 presumptuous judgment. Thus, when Arius and his fol- 
 lowers endeavoured to establish principles subversive of 
 the divinity of the Son of God, to check the growth of this 
 error, the Church defined clearly and explicitly, his consub- 
 stantiality with the Father. Previous to which decision, 
 the faithful contented themselves with acknowledging his 
 divine nature ; but that the belief of it included consub- 
 stantiality, was not yet sufliciently proposed to them, and 
 therefore could not be an object of their faith. 
 
 The principles indeed of the Chaplain would, if admit- 
 ted, clearly prove, that neither his, nor the faith of any one, 
 who admits all the books of Scripture, is the same with 
 that of the first Christians ; nay, more, that the faith of 
 these last was continually changing, as long as the Apostles 
 were alive. For he lays it down, that if any points are 
 believed, as essential, to-day, which formerly were not so 
 believed, there is no longer a unity of faith. Now, the 
 Apostles at distant periods of their lives sent epistles and 
 instructions to the different Churches, which they then, and 
 we now, receive as of divine inspiration. But did they not 
 from these writings collect information, which they had not 
 before ? and did they not believe the information given, as 
 infallibly true? For instance, when St. Paul wrote his 
 
83 
 
 second epistle to the Thessalonians, did they not understand 
 from it, contrary to what they had before conceived, that 
 the last general judgment was not immediately to happen ? 
 If so, then was their faith (according to the Chaplain) no 
 longer the same it had been. Moreover, some of Christ's 
 flock died before any, and many more before all the Apos- 
 tles ; St. John, it is known, lived upwards of sixty years 
 after his master's death, and wrote his Revelation and his 
 Gospel a very little while before his own. It follows then 
 again, that the Christians who died without having either 
 seen or heard of his Gospel, or Revelation, had not the 
 same faith with those who afterwards saw and believed 
 them. These consequences may be extended much far- 
 ther; and, by adhering to the principles of the Chaplain, 
 it may be shown, that for many ages Christians either did 
 not believe essential doctrines, or that it is not essential 
 now to admit many books of Scripture, which, nevertheless, 
 he who should reject would not be deemed a Christian. 
 For it is notorious that, long after the Apostles' time, seve- 
 ral Scriptural books were of uncertain authority, the authors 
 of them not being ascertained ; as, for instance, the Reve- 
 lation, the Epistle to the Hebrews, the second of St. Peter, 
 the second and third of St. John, those of St. Jude and St. 
 James. During all this time, therefore, it was not essential 
 to believe these writings to be divinely inspired ; but will 
 the Chaplain say, that it is not now essential to believe it ? 
 What would one of liis controversial heroes. Dr. Hurd, say, 
 if we were to deny the authority of St. John's Revelation ? 
 For though I have not had an opportunity to see his dis- 
 courses on the prophecies, yet I conclude, from the occasion 
 of his preaching them, that the Revelation has furnished 
 him his arguments, such as they are, to prove the apostacy 
 of papal Rome, as it did his predecessor Jurieu, whose re- 
 veries the illustrious Bossuet exposed as completely as, I 
 
84 
 
 doubl not, all those of the lecturers of the Warburton foun- 
 dation* will one day be. 
 
 To revert to our subject : Was all unity of faith destroy- 
 ed in the Church, when the above mentioned books of 
 Scripture were received into the canon ? For it is certain 
 that some things were then required to be believed, which 
 before were not required. After St. John published his 
 Gospel, wherein are contained many things not related by 
 the other Evangelists, did not these things became objects of 
 faith, which before had not been so ? As long as the 
 Apostles lived, and preached, and wrote to the Churches, 
 " teaching them to observe all things, whichsoever their 
 Divine Master had commanded them," (Matt, xxviii. 21,) 
 did not new matter continually arise to exercise the faith of 
 their disciples? If then it be any objection to a "living 
 authority, that the number of necessary tenets must in- 
 crease, as decisions multiply," the objection is as strong 
 against the authority of the Apostles, which the Chaplain 
 admits, as against that of a Church equally endowed with 
 infallibility in deciding on faith and morals. 
 
 The Chaplain's reasonings, from page 26 to page 29, pro- 
 perly belong to the division we are now considering; but 
 being desirous to place all his objections to particular tenets 
 of our Church in one point of view, I shall arrange them 
 under the last division. On this 1 shall enter, after no- 
 ticing that the Chaplain, in the conclusion of his argument, 
 indulges himself in some declamation, which however car- 
 ries no weight in it, as long as the Church's claim to infal- 
 libility is not invalidated by other arguments, than those 
 we have seen. For, supposing that claim well supported, 
 his forebodings can never come to pass ; and our faith has 
 nothing to fear from the additions of any future Pope Pius. 
 
 * Dr. Warburton, late bishop of Gloucester, founded an annual course of 
 lectures, to prove the apostacy of papal Rome. Dr. Kurd's discourses were 
 the first on this occasion. 
 
S5 
 
 And here, by the bye, it must be remarked, that though an 
 intimation is thrown out, that Pius IV., in his famous 
 creed, imposed new doctrines ; yet every article of that 
 creed was, long before him, a point of our belief. This is 
 known to every person conversant in the history of religion, 
 and is candidly acknowledged by Dr. Bramhall, the Pro- 
 testant Archbishop of Armagh, in his reply to the bishop of 
 Chalcedon : " For," says he, " those very points, which 
 Pius IV. comprehended in a new symbol or creed, were 
 obtruded upon us before by his predecessors, as necessary 
 articles of the Roman faith, and required as necessary arti- 
 cles of their communion." 
 
 To prove that the Church has fallen into error, it is urged 
 in the third place, as was noticed above, that she requires 
 a belief of tenets, which even some of our own celebrated 
 divines, acknowledge either not to be " found at all in the 
 Scriptures, or at least delivered in them with great obscu- 
 rity ;" and instances are given in the doctrines of transub- 
 stantiation and purgatory, auricular confession and the 
 power of loosening and binding, or absolution. These shall 
 now be distinctly considered, as far as is necessary to vin- 
 dicate them from the Chaplain's objections. For I propose 
 proceeding here, as before, concerning infallibility ; that is, 
 I shall not pretend to allege other proofs of these contested 
 doctrines, than such as may arise from the purely defensive 
 system I have adopted ; and, God be praised, the grounds 
 of our faith are so solid, that, I trust, the cause of truth and 
 religion will not be injured, even in my hands, by this mode 
 of repelling the attacks made against them. 
 
 But first, supposing it true, as the divines mentioned 
 by the Chaplain are alleged to have said, that the tenets 
 above cited, are not to be found in Scripture, does it follow, 
 that they were not revealed by Jesus Christ? With what 
 right does the Chaplain assume as a principle, that God 
 communicated nothing more to his Church, than is con- 
 
 H 
 
86 
 
 tained in his written word ? He knows that we have alwayif 
 asserted, that the whole word of God, unwritten, as well as 
 written, is the Christian's rule of faith. It was incumbent 
 then on him, before he discarded this rule, to prove either, 
 that no more was revealed, than is written ; or that revealed 
 doctrines derive their claim to our belief, not from God's 
 infallible testimony, but from their being reduced to writing. 
 He has not attempted this ; and I will venture to say, he 
 would have attempted it in vain, even with the assistance 
 of his Chillingworth. Happy indeed it is for mankind, 
 that no efforts to this purpose can succeed ; for if the Ca- 
 tholic rule of faith could be proved unsafe, what security 
 have we for the authenticity, the genuineness, the incor- 
 ruptibility of Scripture itself? How do we know, but by 
 the tradition, that is, by the living doctrine of the Catholic 
 Church, which are the true and genuine gospels? Can the 
 Chaplain, with all his ingenuity, devise, for instance, any 
 other solid motive, besides this already mentioned, for ad- 
 mitting the Gospel of St. Matthew into the canonical writ- 
 ings? This Gospel, according to the general opinion, was 
 written in the vulgar Hebrew, or Syriac. The original 
 text has been lost so long, that no traces of it remain ; who 
 translated it into Greek is quite uncertain. Now, where 
 is the written word of God assuring us of the correspond- 
 ence of this translation with the original ? Where shall we 
 find, but in the tradition, that is, in the public invariable 
 doctrine of the Catholic Church, any sufficient reason for 
 admitting the faithfulness of the translator? Why shall we 
 not reject it, as some early heretics did the Manichseans, 
 Marcionists, Cerdonists, &;c? 1 mention St. Matthew's 
 gospel, as coming first to my mind; but the argument is 
 applicable to other parts of Scripture, and to some with 
 much greater force. The testimony, therefore, of the Ca- 
 tholic Church, certified in the tradition of all ages, is the 
 ground, upon which we and others admit the divine autho- 
 
87 
 
 rity of holy writ.* I do not suppose, that the Chaplain, 
 after rejecting the Church's infallibility, will place it, for 
 the discrimination of true and false Gospels, in an inward 
 light administered to each sincere inquirer. I should be 
 indeed greatly mistaken in him, if he entertain any such 
 fanatical notions ; his own Chillingworth would rise up 
 against him. But if the testimony and tradition of the 
 Catholic Church, is to be necessarily admitted for receiving 
 the Scripture itself, which, according to him, is the sole 
 standard, the only rule of Protestant belief, why is her tes- 
 timony to be rejected, when offered in evidence of other 
 points of faith ? Why not as well admit it in favour of tran- 
 substantiation and purgatory, as of the lawfulness of infant 
 baptism, of the validity of baptism administered by heretics, 
 of the obligation of abstaining on Sundays from servile 
 works, &c 1 Scripture authority, for these and other points 
 admitted by Protestants, there is certainly none ; and they, 
 who have attempted to offer any, have only betrayed the 
 weakness and nakedness of their cause. Wherefore St. 
 Chrysostom, as I find him repeatedly quoted by authors, 
 whose accuracy I cannot doubt, commenting on these words 
 of St. Paul, " Stand and hold the traditions you have been 
 taught, whether by word or by our epistle," (2 Thess. ii. 
 14, alias 15.) observes, that " it is plain, that the Apostles 
 did not deliver all things in writing, but many things with- 
 out it; and these ought to be believed, as much as those; 
 let us then give credit to the tradition of the Church."t I 
 have in preference cited this holy father in support of the 
 Catholic doctrine, not because numerous testimonies of 
 others are wanting, both more ancient, and, if possible, 
 more full and express; but because the Chaplain in a note, 
 insists much upon two remarkable passages, which, he says, 
 are taken from the works of this eminent doctor. 
 
 * See this acknowledged by Dr. Cosin, bishop of Durham, in his Scholastic 
 History of the Canon of Scripture, ch. 1. sect. 8. edit. London, 1672- 
 t Chrys. hom> 3. in 2 Thess. 2. 
 
88 
 
 I will not deny, that I was surprised when 1 read the 
 first passage cited by the Chaplain ; it appeared so opposite 
 to the principles which St. Chrysostom had laid down in 
 several parts of his works. It was a mortifying circum- 
 stance, that I could not conveniently have recourse to that 
 holy doctor's writings, nor minutely examine the passage 
 objected, together with its context. I procured a friend to 
 examine the edition of Chrysostom's works, belonging to 
 the public library at Annapolis ; he has carefully and re- 
 peatedly read the 49th homily on St. Matthew ; and not 
 one syllable of the Chaplain's citation is to be found in it. 
 After receiving this notice, I was for some time doubtful, 
 whether it might not be owing to a difference in the edi- 
 tions. I could not persuade myself, that he, who so so- 
 lemnly calls heaven to witness for the impartiality and in- 
 tegrity of his inquiry, would publicly expose himself to a 
 well-grounded imputation of unpardonable negligence, in a 
 matter of such serious concern. But I have now the fullest 
 evidence, that the passage, for which Chrysostom on Mat- 
 thew, hom. 49, is quoted, is not taken from that father. It 
 is extracted from a work of no credit, supposed to be writ- 
 ten in the sixth century, entitled, "The unfinished work 
 on Matthew."* But had it even been fairly quoted from 
 him, the Chaplain would not have had so much cause for 
 triumph, as he imagines. For the passage he adduces car- 
 ries with it equal condemnation of the Protestant and Ca- 
 tholic rule of faith. It asserts, that it is only then necessary 
 to discover by Scripture alone., which is the true Church of 
 Christ, when heresy has all outward observances in common 
 with her. But if the outward observances are not the same, 
 
 * Opus imperfectum in Matlhceum. The author adopts the Manichaean, 
 the Montanist, and Arian heresies. In the first homily, he says that marriage 
 is a sin. In the 32d, that marriage is only an honourable fornication ; in the 
 49th, he calls the Catholic doctrine of the divinity of Christ, the homousian, 
 or consubstanliation heresy. 
 
89 
 
 \f the Church and heresy do not agree in offering the same 
 unbloody sacrifice; in administering the same sacraments; 
 in the apostolical and uninterrupted succession of their 
 clergy ; in their liturgy, their hierarchy, the whole frame 
 of their ecclesiastical government, &c. then it may be 
 evinced by various means, other than Scripture, which is the 
 true Church of Christ. But will this be admitted by the 
 Chaplain, who adopts the holy Scripture for the sole stand- 
 ard of his belief? Will it be admitted by the Protestant 
 Churches in general, ivhich know no other rule ? See then 
 how unsuccessfully this authority turns out for the Chaplain. 
 In the first place, it lays him under the reproach of a want 
 of impartial diligence ; and, 2dly, If it militate against us, 
 it is equally adverse to that religion, of which he now pro- 
 fesses himself a member. 
 
 The disrepute of alleging the authority of Chrysostom so 
 erroneously, will not be compensated by the other passage, 
 for which he likewise is cited : and which, indeed, I find 
 to be noticed by Bellarmine, as genuine ; but he observes, 
 that Chrysostom is not discoursing of doctrines obscurely 
 delivered, or contested amongst different sects of Chris- 
 tians ; but of such as, being clearly and unambiguously 
 taught in holy writ, are, nevertheless, disrelished or denied 
 by worldly-minded men ; who contend, contrary to the evi- 
 dent declaration of Scripture, that riches are more helpful 
 than hurtful to salvation ; and of such Chrysostom says, 
 that they ought to be disregarded, and all these things be 
 estimated by the rule of Scripture. 
 
 But if the Chaplain insist, that the direction here given, 
 is general to all men, who are advised to investigate all 
 matters of faith in the Scripture, without paying any re- 
 gard to " what this or that man asserts for truth ;" I answer 
 first, that this direction is very different from that of Chry- 
 sostom above cited, in his commentary on the 2d to the 
 Thessalonians ; and of the learned Vincent of Lerins, 
 
 h2 
 
90 
 
 whom the Chaplain quotes with singular complacency.* 
 This venerable writer having observed, that all religious 
 innovators accumulate texts upon texts to give credit to 
 their different systems, inquires, what Catholics, what the 
 children of the Church must do ? How can they in Scrip- 
 ture discern truth from falsehood ? " They will take care," 
 he continues, *'so to proceed — as to interpret holy writ 
 agreeably to the traditions of the universal Church, and the 
 rules of Catholic doctrine."! 
 
 In the next place, 1 observe, that the rule of investiga- 
 tion laid down as from St. Chrysostom, is insufficient and 
 inapplicable. Insufficient, because by Scripture alone it is 
 impossible to determine many points necessary to be be- 
 lieved and practised, and so received even by Protestants 
 themselves.^ 
 
 The rule is moreover inapplicable to much the greatest 
 part of mankind ; and I am really ashamed to enter serious- 
 ly on the proof of it, since it must be evident to every con- 
 siderate man in the world. For, if Scripture, as interpreted 
 by private judgment, is the only rule which all are to fol- 
 low, neglecting what this or that man asserts for truth ; if 
 all are to investigate all disputed things in the Scriptures, 
 it plainly follows, that the laborious husbandman, the illi- 
 terate mechanic, the poor ignorant slave, are to acquire the 
 knowledge in languages, and the critical discernment neces- 
 sary to compare translation with translation, text with text. 
 
 * In this author, tlie Chaplain may find the clearest condemnation of his 
 new religious principles. I refer him to the 35, 36, 37, 38, and 39 chapters, 
 which I wish I could translate without swelling this address to too great a 
 hulk. 
 
 t Quid facient Catholic! homines, & matris ecclesiae filii ? quonam modo in 
 scripturis Sanctis veritatem a falsitate discernent ? Hoc scilicet facere cura- 
 hunt, quod in principio commonitorii istius sanctos viros nobis tradidisse 
 sjcripsimus ; ut divinum canonem secundum universalis ecclesiae iraditiones, 
 <k juxta Catholici dogmatis regidas interpretentur. Vi-nc. Lir. Cam. c. 38. 
 
 t See p. 87 of this Address, and Mumford's Question of Questions, point 
 first and second. 
 
91 
 
 For without this comparison and many other precautions, 
 they never can form a reasonable judgment of the sense of 
 Scripture ; nor can they be sure of that book being Scrip- 
 ture, which is put into their hands as such. If to relate 
 this prodigious opinion be not enough to refute it, all aro-u- 
 ment, even demonstration itself, will be of no avail. 
 
 The Chaplain seems to be aware of its glaring absurdity ; 
 and therefore, in a note, he says, that they who are unquali- 
 fied to enter upon such inquiries as he made, " must rely 
 principally upon the authority of their teachers;" and he 
 quotes the bishop of Chester as recommending the same. 
 Thus then, after citing with so much complacency a pre- 
 tended passage of St. Chrysostom ; after bidding defiance 
 to our divines to explain away the saint's doctrine, requir- 
 ing " all of us to neglect what this or that man,'' even him- 
 self or the bishop of Chester, " asserts for truth ;" but to 
 " investigate all things in the Scriptures ;" after this, I will 
 not say, that he himself " unravels the difficulty with fine- 
 spun subtlety, like a modern schoolman ;" but like an 
 Alexander, he cuts the knot at once, and refers us to the 
 authority of our teachers. 
 
 While the Chaplain's letter is before me, I feel other impres- 
 sions too strongly upon my mind to indulge in the satisfac- 
 tion, which it might otherwise suggest, to observe, that 
 after decrying " the dead weight of authority ;'' after exalting 
 " private judgment," as the sole interpreter of Scripture, he 
 is obliged to confess that the generality of mankind, must 
 be guided in religious matters, " principally by the autho- 
 rity of their teachers ;" for he will hardly deny, that the 
 generality of mankind are neither " by education, nor abi- 
 lities, nor leisure, qualified to enter upon the inquiries" 
 necessary to judge for themselves. Did Jesus Christ then 
 leave a " rule of faith" so inadequate, as not to be capable 
 of application to much the largest portion of mankind ? 
 Do the Protestant Churches in general know no other 
 rule than one so miserably defective 1 and if defective now, 
 
92 
 
 what must it have been before the discovery of the art of 
 printing-, when the knowledge of letters was so rare, com- 
 paratively with the present times; and it was morally im- 
 possible, to multiply manuscripts sufficient to supply every 
 individual with the means, even if he had the ability, to 
 study Scripture 1 
 
 But who are the teachers, to whose authority the genera- 
 lity of mankind are referred ? Are they any, however in- 
 troduced to the exercise of that public function ? This in- 
 deed may be a doctrine well enough suited to latitudina- 
 rians in religion, or the scoffers at all religion ; but surely 
 not very agreeable to the principles of a Christian. Must 
 the teachers then, whose authority is to be so respected, be 
 the regular and authorized ministry of the country ? What 
 if that country should be Turkey, and the ministers the 
 deluded disciples of Mahomet? What if it should be a 
 country blessed, like this, with unlimited toleration, and 
 giving equal countenance to tlie professors and teachers of 
 every denomination of Christians ? In this case, the unlet- 
 tered, that is, the far greater part of the community, are 
 directed indeed by the Chaplain and the bishop of Chester 
 to follow their teachers ; but by what criterion they are to 
 choose their teachers, does not appear. If by their doc- 
 trine, if by Scripture, all the labour recoils back again upon 
 the uninformed multitude, without education, abilities, or 
 leisure to go through with it. On one hand, they are con- 
 strained to adopt Seneca's rule ;* and on the other, they 
 cannot possibly comply with it ; they would fain follow the 
 instructions of a faithful teacher ; but how to distinguish 
 him from a seduced or seducing one, they know not. I 
 disdain taking notice of the insinuations so scandalously 
 false, thrown out by the bishop of Chester, as if we dis- 
 countenanced free inquiry. From what was said in the 
 beginning of this address, you may judge how undeserved 
 
 * Omnia delibera cum amico ; sed prios delibera de amico. 
 
93 
 
 they are. His lordship is pleased to add, that " whatever 
 things are necessary to be believed, are easy to be under- 
 stood." Are not all doctrines laid down in Scripture, and 
 particularly those contained in the Apostles' creed, neces- 
 sary to be believed ? So at least the Chaplain teaches. In 
 these is delivered the tenet of three divine persons, that of 
 the incarnation of the Son of God, and of his descent into 
 hell. Are these things easy to be understood ? However 
 they may appear to the bishop, they have been generally 
 accounted mysteries incomprehensible to human under- 
 standing. 
 
 We likewise direct all to rely, in matters of faith, on 
 their teachers, while they exercise their functions uncon- 
 tradicted and unreproved by the body of pastors, or their 
 superiors in the hierarchy. But then their mission is es- 
 tablished on a fact of public notoriety, the investigation of 
 which requires no laborious discussion. They can trace 
 an uninterrupted succession of their ministry to the Apos- 
 tles, and consequently to Christ himself. As Christ sent 
 his Apostles to " teach all nations, baptizing and teaching 
 them to observe all things whichsoever he had command- 
 ed ;'' so did they send other pastors, to discharge the same 
 functions as themselves. They could not preach at all 
 times, and in all places ; they therefore appointed disciples 
 to found other Churches, as they themselves had founded, 
 and to exercise therein the same ministry. The pastors 
 thus associated to the Apostles, successively admitted 
 others; and this apostolical body, that is, the body of the 
 envoys of Jesus Christ, has never ceased. When new 
 members are incorporated into it, they receive from him 
 the same commission of teaching and administering the 
 sacraments; the Church of Christ cannot exist, without 
 the preaching of the Gospel ; and preaching, according to 
 St. Paul, is not to be exercised without a mission ; " how 
 will they preach if they be not sent?" (Rom. x. 15,) so 
 
94 
 
 that the Church and this apostolical body must always sub- 
 sist together, and can never be separated. 
 
 From these truths, founded on a plain matter of fact, an 
 argument is deduced equally clear and convincing. It is 
 as certain, that the Apostles appointed other pastors to suc- 
 ceed them, as it is, that they founded Churches. The ac- 
 tual pastors, then, of these Churches, descending in a law- 
 ful and unbroken line of succession from them, are cer- 
 tainly sent by the Apostles, and by Christ himself, since 
 those Churches have always subsisted, and still subsist. 
 Thus our faith is as assured and well grounded, in believ- 
 ing the public doctrines delivered by these teachers, as it 
 could have been, in receiving the preaching of the Apos- 
 tles themselves. 
 
 No books, no erudition is here necessary. The illiterate, 
 as well as learned Christian can easily be certified of the 
 fact on which the reasoning is founded. The prerogative 
 of tracing to the apostles an ordinary and regular succes- 
 sion of pastors, is so peculiar a prerogative of the Catholic 
 Church, that no other society can dispute it with her, or 
 appropriate it to themselves.* To this succession the pri- 
 mitive fathers constantly appeal, as demonstrative evidence 
 of the true Church, and challenge sectaries to exhibit a 
 like title to the divine commission of teaching and admi- 
 nistering the sacraments.f 
 
 After having thus shown, both from the nature of the 
 thing, and the Chaplain's own acknowledgment, that Scrip- 
 ture alone is not a general and sufficient rule of faith, I 
 might well contend, that transubstantiation, purgatory, au- 
 ricular confession, and the poiver of absolving, are to be 
 received as Christian doctrines, on the authority of the 
 Church, though no mention were made of them in Scrip- 
 
 * See Bergier, Deisme Refute, &c. let. 4. 
 
 t See IrencEus contr. Haer. 1. 3. c. 3. Tertui 1. de praescr. c. 32. Opt. 
 Milev 1. 2. cont. Farm. August, in ps. contra par. Donati, & lib. contra ep. 
 Fund. cap. 4. 
 
95 
 
 lure. But for your entire satisfaction, I will now consider 
 particularly all that has been advanced on the other side 
 respecting these articles of our faith. 
 
 To begin with transubstantiation, the Chaplain asserts, 
 that " the doctrine conveyed by that word was no article of 
 faith prior to the council of Lateran, in 1215;" and for 
 proof of it he refers to Scotus, as cited by Bellarmine, I. 3. 
 de Euch, c, 23. When I read this passage of the Chap- 
 lain's letter, I thought it remarkable in him to allege Sco- 
 tus' testimony to prove a point of ecclesiastical history ; 
 the subtleties of the school were much better suited to that 
 author's speculative genius, than a critical examination of 
 historical facts. And it was becoming the Chaplain's can- 
 dour to have acknowledged it, when he saw evident proofs 
 of Scotus' inaccuracy in the place cited out of Bellarmine ; 
 who observes, that Scotus could never have seen the de- 
 crees of the councils held at Rome against Berengarius, the 
 first in the year 1060, and the second 1079, in which the 
 doctrine of transubstantiation was asserted ; and Berensra- 
 rius, who had impugned it, retracted his error.* 
 
 The Chaplain continues, that towards the beginning of 
 the 9th century, " Paschasius Radbertus published his 
 treatise upon the corporal presence of Christ in the Eu- 
 charist ; and, as Bellarmine tells us, was the first who wrote 
 seriously and copiously concerning it." For this, he cites 
 Bellarmine de Scriptorihus Ecclesiasticis. Does not every 
 person who reads this passage, understand it to import, that, 
 according to Bellarmine, Paschasius Radbertus was the first 
 who wrote seriously and copiously concerning the corporeal 
 presence of Christ in the Eucharist? Now let us hear Bel- 
 larmine himself; and then let every one judge, whether the 
 Chaplain has carried into his researches after truth, all that 
 impartiality and painful investigation, mentioned in his 
 seventh page. Thus then Bellarmine, in the book cited by 
 
 * See Berengarius' Retractations, and his Profession of Faith, in Bellar- 
 mine, 1. 3. de Euch. c, 21. 
 
96 
 
 him : " This author (Paschasius Radbertus) was the first 
 who wrote seriously and copiously of the reality of the 
 body and blood of the Lord in the Eucharist, against Ber- 
 tram the priest, who was one of the first that called it in 
 question^* Is it the same thing to be the first to write 
 fully on the real presence, and the first to write fully on 
 that subject against Bertram, who impugned it? Does not 
 the former sense, suggested by the Chaplain, imply that 
 Paschasius was the first to establish a new doctrine ? and, 
 is not Bellarmine's real meaning, that Paschasius was the 
 first to defend an established doctrine against a recent op- 
 poser of it ? 
 
 But let us proceed ; and we shall find Paschasius him- 
 self clearly showing, that his view and design was, not to 
 set forth a new doctrine, but to expound that which was 
 common in the Church ; though the Chaplain says other- 
 wise. " This monk," says he, " meaning Paschasius, " in- 
 forms us himself, that his doctrine was by no means uni- 
 versal or settled." Let us now see how he gives us this 
 information ; and let his letter to Frudegardus (for to that 
 the Chaplain refers) determine the point. In this very 
 letter, then, he says, that " thouo^h some, through ignor- 
 ance, err in this point, yet not one openly contradicts, what 
 the whole world believes and professes. "f Here you will 
 observe, that Paschasius says, that not one was found openly 
 to contradict his doctrine on the Eucharist; and that it was 
 believed and professed by the whole icorld. Is this to in- 
 form us, that his doctrine was by no means universal or set- 
 tled ? But let us hear him farther. " If any man," says 
 
 * Hie auctor primus fuit, qui scrio & copiose scripsit de veritate corporis 
 «& sanguinis Domini in Eucharistia contra Berlramum presbyterum, qiii fuit 
 cxprimis, qui earn in dubiumrevocarunt. Bell, de Scrip. Eccl. ad. an. 820, de 
 Paschasio Radberto. 
 
 tQuamvisex hoc. quidam de ignorantia errent, nemo famen est adhuc in 
 aperto, qui lioc ita esse contradicat, quod totus orbis credit & confitetur- 
 Pasch. liadb. epis. ad Frudeg. Bibl. P. P. torn. 9 par. 1. pag. 246. 
 
97 
 
 he, in the same place, "should oppose this truth, rather 
 than believe it, let him take care what he is doing against 
 the Lord himself, and the whole Church of Christ. For it 
 is a horrible crime to join in prayer with all, and not to be- 
 lieve what truth itself attests, and what every where^ all 
 universally confess to be true."* From these passages, it 
 is evident, that the Chaplain could not make a more unfor- 
 tunate reference, to prove what he intended, than to Pas- 
 chasius' letter to Frudegard. But, continues he, Pascha- 
 sius, in this very letter, speaking of the corporal presence^ 
 says, you question me upon a subject about which many are 
 doubtful. Does Paschasius indeed say so? It would 
 strangely contradict what he has already told us. Let us 
 therefore return to the letter, and hear him himself. It 
 appears from its contents, that Frudegard was a young 
 monk, who had read in one of St. Augustin's works a pas- 
 sage that perplexed him ; and that he applied to Pascha- 
 sius, as his master, to explain the difficulty .t I will ven- 
 ture to assert, that the passage in the note is all the Chap- 
 lain's foundation for saying, as if they were the words of 
 Paschas us himself, that many were doubtful of the real 
 presence in the Eucharist. Is it possible, that Paschasius 
 should acknowledge this in the very letter, wherein he in- 
 forms hiL-^ scholar, that the whole Church professes the doc- 
 trine he deliversl That not even one person was found 
 openly to contradict it? The young man himself acknow- 
 ledge?, that he had always believed the real presence, 
 which shows, that it was at that time the common doctrine 
 of the Church, in which young persons were educated ; he 
 
 * Videat, qui contra hoc venire voluerit, quid agat contra ipsum Dominum ; 
 & contra omnem Christi ecclesiam. Nefarium ergo scelus est orarc cum om- 
 nibus, & non credere ; quod Veritas ipsa testatur, & ubique omnes universa- 
 lites verara esse fatcntwr.Ibid. 
 
 t Dicis te antea credidisse; sed profiteris, quod in libro de doctrina Chris, 
 tiana Beati Auguslini legisti, quod typica sit locutio : quod si fignrata locutio est, 
 est schema potius, quam Veritas ; nescio, inquis, qualiter illud suraere de. 
 beam. Ep- adJ^rude. ibid. 
 
 I 
 
98 
 
 informs Paschasius, that a perplexity had arisen in his 
 mind, not from hearing any public instruction of the pas- 
 tors of the Church, contrary to the real presence, but from 
 some expressions of St. Augustin. He applies to Pascha- 
 sius to explain the difficulty, relying on his knowledge and 
 orthodoxy ; he does not conclude from the passage of Au- 
 gustin, that it inclined him to change his faith, but ex- 
 presses an uncertainty as to its meaning. I know not how 
 lam to understand it. How then will the Chaplain make 
 o-ood his assertion, that Paschasius, in his letter to Frude- 
 gard, acknowledges, that many doubted of the corporal pre- 
 sence of Christ in the Eucharist 1 
 
 He next alleges Rabanus Maurus, as one who, " about 
 the year 847, wrote expressly against the novelty of this 
 doctrine, in a letter to Heribaldus, bishop of Auxeri'e." I 
 apprehend that here again, the Chaplain has followed an 
 unfaithful guide ; whom I suspect to be the French Hu- 
 guenot Aubertin, or Albertinus. For the Chaplain cites 
 his work on the Eucharist, as one of those which operated 
 in him a conviction of his former errors; and I observe a 
 great affinity between the mistal:es already noticed in^he 
 Chaplain's citations, and those which were detected in Au- 
 bertin, by the diuWiox oi La perpetuite de la foi. Now, 
 though I will not say positively, that Rabanus has no such 
 words in his letter to Heribaldus, (for I really neither have, 
 nor can any where hear of its being to be found in Ameri- 
 ca,) yet it may, I think, be inferred from Fleury's Eccle- 
 siastical History, that Rabanus did not write his letter to 
 Heribaldus expressly against the novelty of Paschasius* 
 doctrine, as the Chaplain says; and I much question, whe- 
 ther he so much as mentions it in that letter. For, accord- 
 ing to Fleury, Hist. Eccles. book 49, an. 859, the express 
 purpose of Rabanus' writing to Heribaldus, was, to an, 
 swer him on many penitential cases, concerning wh ch the 
 latter had consulted him, Rabanus being then archbishop 
 of Mentz. 
 
99 
 
 But as I wish to inform your faith at the same time that 
 I am endeavouring to confirm it, I will add from Fleury, 
 that there is extant an anonymous writing against Pascha- 
 sius, which is thought, with much probability, to be a letter 
 fiom Rabanus to Egil, abbot of Prum ; and it is not un- 
 likely, that the passage quoted by the Chaplain is taken 
 from this writing. 
 
 But what is the purport of the letter ? Is it to dispute 
 the real presence, and transubstantiation ? No, certainly ; 
 for the author of it clearly professes these doctrines, and 
 begins his letter with these words : " All the faithful must 
 believe and confess, that the body and blood of our Lord 
 is true flesh and true blood ; whoever denies it, shows him- 
 self an infidel." And a little after: " I add, that as Jesus 
 * Christ is the true Lamb of God, who is mystically offered 
 every day for the life of the world ; so, by consecration 
 and the power of the Holy Ghost, the bread becomes his 
 true flesh, and the wine his true blood, which is so certain, 
 that no Christian must doubt it." 
 
 The purport then of this writing against Paschasius, 
 was, to censure some modes of speech used by him in ex- 
 plaining the Eucharist. For, he had said, that the body of 
 our Lord, which the faithful receive in communion, is the 
 same body that was born of the Virgin Mary. This expres- 
 sion appeared to Rabanus particularly obnoxious, though 
 it was undoubtedly authorized by former usage. It was 
 therefore rejected by him, and thought improper, as not 
 conveying an idea of the different manner in which Christ's 
 body and blood exist in their natural state, and that which 
 they have in the sacrament. In the former, they are pal- 
 pable and sensible ; in tlie latter, they exist in a manner 
 supernatural and mysterious. 
 
 Paschasius maintained the propriety of his language in 
 treating on this subject, in which dispute many others took 
 part. Ratramus, or Bertram, wrote, by order of Charles 
 the Bald, a treatise on the body and blood of our Lord; 
 
100 
 
 but that he was employed expressly by that prince to oppose 
 Paschasius, is a fact no where proved, though confidently 
 asserted by the Chaplain. The French author of the Per- 
 petuity of the Faith, &;c. says expressly, that Ratramus 
 does not so much as mention Paschasius' name ; he ob- 
 jects, indeed, to the expression used by him, but, at the 
 same time, he plainly asserts in many passages the Catholic 
 doctrine; andBoileau, the celebrated Sorbonist, has proved, 
 that Bellarmine and others, were mistaken in thinking he 
 was an adversary to it ; as well as in saying, that Pascha- 
 sius wrote against him his treatise of the reality ^f Cirisfs 
 body and blood, &;c. For the occasion of Paschasius* 
 writing was, to instruct the Saxons, then lately converted 
 to Christianity. 
 
 I will not swell this address with copying from Ratramus 
 many passages to prove his belief of the real presence and 
 transubstantiation. Amongst others, this is one. *' The 
 bread which is offered, is, at consecration, changed into the 
 body of Christ ; as likewise the wine, expressed from the 
 grape, is made blood by the significancy," or efficacy " of 
 the sacred mystery ; not indeed visibly, but by the invisi- 
 ble operation of the Holy Ghost. Whence they are called 
 the body and blood of Christ, because they are received 
 not for that which they outwardly appear, but for that which 
 they are made by the intimate action of the divine Spirit ; 
 and because they are quite another thing through invisible 
 power, than what they visibly appear."* This, I think, is 
 abundantly sufficient to show, that the disagreement be- 
 tween Paschasius and Ratramus, consisted not in a dif- 
 ference of opinion respecting the real presence and tran-' 
 substantiation. 
 
 " We see," continues the Chaplain, " that the doctrine 
 of the carnal presence was no sooner openly maintained, 
 than some of the most celebrated doctors of the time arose 
 
 * Ratram, ap. auct. Perp.de lafoU 
 
101 
 
 to combat it, without incurring any suspicion of heresy 
 from their opponents.'' We have, I think, seen directly 
 the contrary. We have heard Rabanus say, that, hy conse- 
 cration, and the potver of the Holy Ghost, the bread becomes 
 the truefiesh, and the wine the true blood, of Christ, which 
 is so CERTAIN, that NO Christian must doubt it. And, in- 
 deed, it would be a most extraordinary thing, that Rabanus 
 should write expressly against the doctrine of the real pre- 
 sence ; and yet, that Baronius, an historian so fervently 
 attached to the doctrines of the Catholic Church, should 
 style him the brightest luminary of Germany. 
 
 We have heard Ratramus, in the last paragraph but one, 
 deliver no less clearly the doctrine of the real presence and 
 transubstantiation ; and if even they assert it so evidently, 
 whom the Chaplain has selected out of all antiquity, as 
 most favourable to his cause, I need not have recourse to 
 other authors, their cotemporaries, to prove, that a suspicion 
 of heresy would have been incurred by those, who should 
 have openly combated the above said tenets. 
 
 Finally, we have heard Paschasius represent the doctrine 
 of the real presence, as that of the universal Church, and 
 publicly affirm that it had not so much as one open adver- 
 sary. Where then is the convincing proof, that, at the pe- 
 riod indicated by the Chaplain, the doctrine of the carnal 
 presence was regarded merely as matter of opinion, and so 
 continued for 200 years ? I flatter myself, on the contrary, 
 that I have alleged from Paschasius and Rabanus convinc- 
 ing proof s of the doctrine of the carnal presence being at 
 that time the established sense of the Church ; and other 
 proofs more decisive will be added hereafter. 
 
 The Chaplain says, that the term transubstantiation was 
 unknown till an obscure bishop invented it, eleven hundred 
 years after the time of the Apostles. The bishop here meant 
 is Stephen of Autun, who lived about the year 950, that is 
 850, not 1100 years after the time of the Apostles, St. John 
 having lived to the year 101 of the Christian era, according 
 
 I 2 
 
102 
 
 to the common opinion. I mention this, not for the sake 
 of any advantage I mean to take of the Chaplain's mistake, 
 but merely to show, that he did not bestow on his investi- 
 gation, all that scrupulous attention, with which he flatters 
 himself. However, Stephen was the first to make use of 
 the term transubstantiation. I admit without hesitation", 
 that it is not to be met with in any more ancient author ; 
 but as our dispute is not about words, but things, the 
 Chaplain can derive no more advantage from this fact, than 
 an Arian, or Nestorian can from the terms consubstantialy 
 or S-gsToW, being never used before the first council of 
 Nice, and that of Ephesus. The term transubstantiation, 
 was found to convey a precise idea of Catholic doctrine, 
 and so became adopted by the council of Lateran into ec- 
 clesiastical language ; all which is perfectly agreeable to 
 ancient practice, as attested by Vincent of Lerins : " The 
 Catholic Church," says he, " moved thereunto by the inno- 
 vations of heretics, has always attended to this point in the 
 decrees of her councils ; that is, to transmit to posterity, 
 with the attestation of written authority, what she before 
 received by tradition alone ; comprehending much matter 
 in (ew words ; and for the better understanding, oftentimes 
 expressing an ancient doctrine, by a new word of determi- 
 nate signification."* 
 
 You have already seen how much the Chaplain was mis- 
 taken in saying, that the doctrine conveyed by the word 
 transubstantiation^ was no article of faith before the year 
 1215. But considering that his assertions coincide with 
 the prevailing prejudices in this country, I find myself 
 obliged to sacrifice my desire of shortening this address, to 
 the necessity of fully manifesting an error adopted from 
 Aubertin, or Dr. Cosin's History of Transubstantiation; 
 for I cannot persuade myself, that he gave so much credit to 
 Scotus, as to take it up on his authority. 
 
 * Vine. Lir. Coram, c. 38. 
 
103 
 
 In a council held at Rouen in Normandy, on occasion of 
 Berengarius' heresy, an. 1063, the fathers of the council 
 thus express their belief: " With our hearts we believe, 
 and with our tongues we confess, that the bread on the 
 Lord's table is only bread before consecration ; but that the 
 nature and substance of bread is, at the very time of con- 
 secration, by the unspeakable power of God, changed into 
 the nature and substance of that Jlesh which icas horn of the 
 Virgin Mary — and that the wine, which is mixed with 
 water in the cup, is truly and essentially changed into the 
 blood which mercifully flowed, for the world's redemption, 
 from the side of our blessed Saviour, when wounded by the 
 soldier's lance."* 
 
 In the Roman council, an. 1079, Berengarius retracted 
 his error, and professed the Catholic faith in these words : 
 " I, Berengarius, with my heart believe, and with my tongue 
 profess, that the bread and wine, which are placed on the 
 altar, are, by the mystical prayer and words of our Re- 
 deemer, substantially changed into the true, proper, and 
 life-giving flesh and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ."-\ 
 
 Six years after Berengarius' death, viz. 1094, a numerous 
 council was held at Placentia, of many bishops of Italy, 
 France, Germany, &c., wherein it was again defined, " that 
 bread and wine, when consecrated on the altar, are not only 
 figuratively , huttruly and essentially changed into the body and 
 blood of our Lord.^^X E'ght or nine other councils were held 
 during the same century, mostly in Italy and France, and 
 all of them equally condemn Berengarius' opinion ; so true 
 it is, that the doctrine of transubstantiation was universally- 
 received as an article of faith, long before the year 1215. 
 
 When Berengarius first published his erroneous opinion 
 of the real presence, and transubstantiation, between the 
 years 1038 and 1050 ; it was instantly rejected universally, 
 
 * See the decrees of this council, published by the learned Mabillon. 
 t Ap. Bell. lib. 3.de Euch. c. 21. t Labbe, C C.tom. 10. apud. auct. True 
 Ch. of Christ. 
 
104 
 
 andconcluded to be repugnant to faith. Adelmanus, whohad 
 been brought up with him under the discipline of Fuibert, bi- 
 shop of Chartres, and became himself bishop of Brixen, wrote 
 Berengarius a letter, expressed with much tenderness and 
 charity, wherein he tells his friend, that a " report was 
 spread of his being severed from the unity of the Church, 
 by holding a doctrine contrary to the Catholic faith, con- 
 cerning the body and blood of the Lord, which is immolated 
 every day on the altar." See the passage at length in the 
 Perpetuite de la foi, 1st section. This letter was written 
 before any council had been held against Berengarius ; and 
 yet Adelmanus tells him, that his doctrine was deemed to 
 be contrary to Catholic faith and unity ; a manifest proof 
 of the real presence and transubstantiation, being regarded 
 as tenets of the Church antecedently to Berengarius' error. 
 Lanfrank, who afterwards became archbishop of Canter- 
 bury, was present at the council held at Rome against Be- 
 rengarius, an. 1059, and wrote a treatise on the reality of 
 the body of Christ in the Eucharist. In the very beginning 
 of it he says, that Berengarius first " began to entertain 
 an opinion against the whole world;" and afterwards, that 
 he " composed a writing against the Catholic verity, and 
 against the sentiment of all the Churches."* And in his 
 18th chapter, he thus states the Catholic doctrine: "We 
 believe, that the earthly substances of bread and wine, being 
 consecrated on the altar by divine institution, and the mi- 
 nistry of priests, are changed, by the unspeakable, incompre- 
 hensible, and miraculous operation of Almighty power, into 
 the substance of our Lord's body. This is the faith which 
 the Church, that being spread through the world is called 
 Catholic, has held in all ages, and continues still to hold."t 
 The same thing is repeated in many other places of his 
 
 * Contra orbem sentire caepisti— contra Catholicam veritatem ; & contra 
 omnium ecclesiarum opinionem scriptum postea condidisti. Lanfr. c 1- 
 apud. auct. Ferp. de la foi. t Ibid. 
 
105 
 
 work ; in his 22d chapter, he calls upon Berengarius to 
 " question the Latins, to interrogate the Greeks, the Arme- 
 nians, and generally all the Christians of every country, and 
 they will all with one voice profess this faith."* 
 
 Guitmundus, archhishop of Aversa, another cotemporary 
 author, and who 'was prohably present at the council of 
 Rome, an. 1059, reproaches the followers of Berengarius 
 with holding a doctrine " that was not received so much as 
 in one borough, or even one village. "f 
 
 In fine, Berengarius himself was so much convinced of 
 the universal belief being contrary to his new tenet, that 
 he pretended, according to Lanfrank, " that the Church 
 had perished through the ignorance of those who under- 
 stood not her mysteries, and that she subsisted only in him- 
 self and his followers. "J 
 
 With this, and much more similar evidence before me of 
 the sense of the Church concerning transubstantiation, at 
 the rise of Berengarius' heresy, about the year 1038, I may 
 without rashness conclude, that the Chaplain was equally 
 mistaken in saying that it only became an article of our 
 faith in the year 1215; and in asserting, as we have be- 
 fore seen, that the doctrine of Christ's caimal presence in 
 the Eucharist was regarded as matter of opinion till the 
 council of Rome, under pope Nicholas, in the year 1059 
 or 1060. 
 
 The testimonies I have alleged are so full and decisive, 
 that the most learned Protestant writers have admitted, re- 
 luctantly, indeed, but still they have admitted, that the 
 Catholic doctrine had full possession of men's minds, when 
 Berengarius first began to dogmatize. They assign its ori- 
 gin, increase, and full establishment to the period between 
 the publication of Paschasius' writings, and the era of Be- 
 rengarius above mentioned. This period they represent as 
 
 * Ibid, t Nequc enim eis ulla civitatula, vel etiam una villula concessit. 
 Ibid. Ubid. 
 
106 
 
 the reign of darkness and absurdity. The Chaplain, with- 
 out adopting- iheir common opinion of the early prevalence 
 of our tenets, has however caught the infection, and with 
 wonderful sensibility laments the woful degradation of rea- 
 son, and the superstition and ignorance of the age. Ac- 
 cording to most of these authors, it was during this la- 
 mentable state of religion, virtue, and learning, that our 
 doctrine crept into men's minds; that it operated a total 
 change in their faith; that parents, who had heard another 
 lesson all their life-time, trained their offspring to the be- 
 lief of the real presence, and transubstantiation ; that the 
 pastors of the Churches did the same with their parishioners; 
 that the faithful, instead of believing, as before, that they 
 received Christ in the Eucharist figuratively, or spiritually, 
 now changed their ceed, and admitted the tenet of the real 
 presence so universally, that Berengarius could not, in the 
 whole world, find so much as one pitiful town or a single 
 village, to give countenance to his doctrine. What com- 
 pletes the wonder, is, that all this happened without any 
 commotion or opposition. No council was called to with- 
 stand the growing evil ; not one bishop throughout Chris- 
 tendom raised his voice against it. At all other times, the 
 least innovation, the slightest departure from the received 
 tenets, occasioned disputes and contests; every heresy, 
 however obscure or speculative, was combated at its first 
 appearance; but this doctrine of the real presence, which 
 involved in its nature a point of daily practice, as well as 
 of faith ; which proposed to Christians, as an object of in- 
 ward and outward adoration, that which in their former es- 
 timation it was idolatrous to adore ; this doctrine gently 
 insinuated itself without noise or disturbance into the minds 
 of all Christians, during that long sleep into which ignor- 
 ance had lulled them ; it operated this wonderful revolu- 
 tion so silently, that no historian either perceived it in 
 himself or others, to transmit us an account of it. Can men, 
 
107 
 
 who will believe this, find any mystery in religion, even 
 transubstantiation itself, too hard for their digestion? 
 
 But we are not yet come to all the wonders of this most 
 extraordinary phenomenon. The doctrine now held by the 
 Catholic Church was, at the rise of Berengarius' error, 
 and so continues to this day, the doctrine of all the eastern 
 and southern Christian Churches, the Greek, the Arme- 
 nian, the Cophtic, the Abyssinian, &;c. ; so truly did Lan- 
 frank, as above cited, refer to them as witnesses of the 
 universal belief. Many of those Christians, as the Nes- 
 torians, Eutychians, &c. were separated from the Church 
 of Rome near four hundred years before Paschasius wrote 
 on the Eucharist. Within a (ew years after his writing his 
 letter to Frudegardus, the Greek schism was in a great 
 degree begun by Photius, and rent asunder the eastern and 
 western Churches, and bred between them, especially in 
 the former, an animosity which they will with dijfficulty 
 conceive, who are unacquainted with the ardent spirits of 
 the Greeks. It is therefore incredible, I had almost said 
 impossible, considering the nature of the human mind, that 
 in this state of resentment, the oriental Churches should 
 not only adopt the innovations of the Latins, but adopt 
 them without reproach or opposition, of which not the 
 slightest testimony is come down to us; and that these pre- 
 tended innovations should be received and incorporated 
 into their religion not only by the abettors of Photius' 
 schism, but likewise by the Nestorians, Eutychians, &;c. 
 who had been so long separated from the communion both 
 of the Roman pontiff, and the patriarch of Constanti- 
 nople. • 
 
 Obstinacy, or ignorance, alone can deny, that our doc- 
 trine concerning the Eucharist agrees with that of all the 
 Churches 1 have mentioned. No point of history can be 
 supported with fuller evidence than this now is, that the 
 real presence and transubstantiation are the invariable 
 tenets of the eastern Christians ; and no other commence- 
 
108 
 
 went of this general persuasion can be assigned, with the 
 smallest show of probability, than the commencement of 
 the Christian religion itself. 
 
 From all that has been said, our inference is clear and 
 conclusive. The doctrine of the real presence and tran- 
 substantiation, were the established doctrines of the 
 Church, and not merely matters of opinion, long before 
 the eras assigned by the Chaplain, that is, before the years 
 1060 and 1215. They were universally taught previously 
 to the Greek schism, which may be said to have begun an. 
 857, by Photius' intrusion into the see of Constantinople, 
 and even before the Nestorian and Eutychian heresies, the 
 latter of which was condemned in the council of Chalce- 
 don, an. 454 ; and the former in that of Ephesus, an. 434. 
 But if they were the general doctrines throughout the 
 western and eastern Churches at so early a period, what 
 foundation can there be for assigning their commencement 
 to any other era, than that of Christianity itself? 
 
 It imports, then, little to the present subject, whether in 
 the interval between Paschasius and Berengarius, a gloom 
 of dark and universal ignorance overspread the face of the 
 Christian world ; and whether the bishops were unable to 
 write their names; for enough has been said, though much 
 more remains unsaid, to prove to every dispassionate man, 
 that the obnoxious tenets did not steal upon men's minds 
 during this fatal interval. If it were at all material to re- 
 fute the exaggerated imputations of supineness and ignor- 
 ance, it would be no difficult matter, for the period so out- 
 rageously abused was not so fatal to the cultivation of let- 
 ters as is represented ; and if, through the tyranny of tur- 
 bulent barons, and violence of contending factions, some 
 few prelates incapable of writing their names, perhaps not 
 six in all Christendou), were imposed upon difierent 
 Churches, there were many others, pious and well inform- 
 ed, who kept constant watch over the flocks committed to 
 their charjre. Whoever will read the acts of the council of 
 
109 
 
 Rheims, held within this period, viz. an. 992, will be sa* 
 tisfied that the bishops, who composed it, were perfectly ac* 
 quainted with ecclesiastical discipline and sacred antiqui- 
 ty ; and animated with a becoming zeal for the preserva- 
 tion of sound morals among the clergy. Baronius and Si- 
 gonius had their eyes principally turned on Italy, their own 
 country, and especially on Rome, when they wrote so un- 
 favourably of the age ; and there indeed contending fac- 
 tions imposed some pontiffs on the chair of St. Peter, who 
 disgraced their station by the corruption of their manners. 
 But France, England, and Germany, and even some parts 
 of Italy, were blessed with bishops of extraordinary virtue 
 and knowledge, and with princes, who encouraged learn- 
 ing, and endowed academies of science, in which, if the 
 true taste of literature did not yet flourish, at least the 
 study of religion, and zeal for improvement, did ; as is at- 
 tested of the schools erected at Paris, Arras, Cambrai, 
 Liege, &;c.* 
 
 The Chaplain cites some Catholic divines, who acknow- 
 ledge that the doctrine of transubstantiation is not to be 
 found in Scripture. It has been already observed, that no- 
 thing conclusive can be inferred from this, even supposing 
 these divines in the right, and that they are fairly cited. 
 But what if their meaning be only this, that in Scripture 
 there is no express declaration of the bread and wine being 
 changed into the body and blood of Christ? Might they 
 not say this, and still believe that the doctrine of the real 
 presence was so expressed in holy writ, as necessarily to 
 infer the change, which we call transubstantiation 1 For I 
 will venture to say, though I have never looked into some 
 of these divines, that there is not one of them who does 
 not teach that the words. This is my body, import Christ's 
 real, corporeal, and substantial presence in the Eucharist. 
 Accordingly, Scotus says only, that there is no text of 
 
 * Histoire Litteraire de Fr. t. 6. 
 K 
 
no 
 
 Scripture so explicit, as evidently to compel our assent to 
 transubstantiation.* 
 
 Melchior Canons elegant work I have heretofore read 
 with great pleasure ; and 1 wish that the Chaplain had 
 transcribed the whole passage referred to, that we might 
 fairly judge of his meaning ; for I own, that I grievously 
 suspect Cano of saying, that transubstantiation is certainly 
 implied, as a necessary consequence of Scripture doctrine, 
 if not expressly delivered in it ; and that the words of the 
 institution of the sacrament of the Eucharist would not be 
 true, if they did not import a change of the bread and wine 
 into the body and blood of Christ. 
 
 Alphonsus de Castro is very orthodox, and has the cha- 
 racter of being a divine of some credit; but as to his being 
 a mighty name in scholastic theology, I never before heard 
 it ; and I am sure, no divine can be entitled to that charac- 
 ter, who gravely says, that in " old authors there is seldom 
 any mention made of the transubstantiation of the bread 
 into the body of Christ ;" for so the Chaplain cites him. 
 How little conversant with old authors he must be, who 
 gravely advances such a proposition, will plainly appear 
 from Bellarmine, Du Perron, Tournely, &;c. I shall pre- 
 sently have occasion to recite some passages from old au- 
 thors ; but shall do it with a sparing hand, not forgetting 
 that the purport of this address is not to establish, but to 
 vindicate our doctrine from the attack made against it. 
 
 After exhausting his authorities against transubstantia- 
 tion, the Chaplain begs leave to mention " two negative 
 arguments, which seem to prove to a demonstration, that it 
 was unknow^n to the ancient Church." How capable this 
 is of demonstration, you may judge from what you have 
 already heard. Was it unknown to the ancient Church, 
 when Cyril, bishop of Jerusalem, wrote thus about the year 
 
 * Ut evidenter cogat transubstantiationem admittere. Scot, apua Bell. 1. 3. 
 de £uch. c. 23. 
 
Ill 
 
 350 1 " Jesus Christ, in Cana of Galilee, by his will only, 
 changed water into wine, which has some affinity with 
 blood ; and can we not believe him, that he changes the 
 wine into his own blood ? Let your soul rejoice at it, as a 
 thing most certain, that the bread, which appears to our 
 eyes, is not bread, though our taste do judge it to be so, but 
 that it is the body of Christ ; and that the wine, which ap- 
 pears to our eyes, is not wine, though our sense of taste take 
 it for wine, but that it is the blood of Jesus Christ."* 
 
 Was transubstantiation unknown, when, in the same 
 century, Gaudentius, bishop of Brescia, thus expressed him- 
 self: "The Creator, and Lord of beings, who produces 
 bread from the earth, yrom bread makes his own body, be- 
 cause he can do it, and has promised it; and he, that out 
 of water made wine, out of tcine makes his own blood.^^\ 
 It is, I hope, needless to add to these, the testimonies of 
 almost every Christian father ; and I think the Chaplain 
 might contend, with equal appearance of truth, that the 
 doctrine of the necessity of baptism was unknown to the 
 ancient Church, as that the Catholic doctrine of the Eu- 
 charist was. 
 
 We are now prepared to examine his negative arguments. 
 The first is, that if the ancient Church formerly adored 
 Christ in the Eucharist, as we now do. Catholics w^ould, in 
 arguing against Arians, have insisted on that adoration as 
 a proof of Christ's divinity. Such is his first demonstra- 
 tion ; but does it not equally prove, that the ancient Church 
 never adored Christ at all, in or out of the Eucharist ? For 
 pray, would it not be equally conclusive against Arians, 
 and in favour of Christ's divinity, to have alleged the an- 
 cient custom of adoring him out of the sacrament, for in- 
 stance, as he is seated in heaven on the right hand of his 
 Father 1 Why therefore was this argument not insisted on 
 by the ancient fathers ? For a very obvious reason ; because 
 
 * CyriL Hier. Catech. Myst 4. t Gauden. Brix. Serm. % 
 
112 
 
 the Arians, at the very time that they fell into heresy to 
 avoid the pretended contradictions in the doctrine of the 
 Trinity, swallowed other real ones j and, as ecclesiastical 
 historians observe, made no difficulty to acknowledge that 
 Christ was a divine person, true God of true God* eternal, 
 the same God with the Father, and possessing the same di- 
 vine pre-eminence or dignity /f and therefore an object of 
 divine worship. In a word, they seemingly admitted every 
 thing but the term consubstantial. Adoration they did not 
 refuse : and the Catholics, instead of having cause to re- 
 proach them with neglecting it, charged them, on the con- 
 trary, with introducing a plurality of God^jby paying divine 
 honours to him, to whom, consistently wdth their princi- 
 ples, they could not be due. if 
 
 Before I proceed to the Chaplain's second argument, 
 amounting likewise to demonstration, I must beg leave to 
 detain your attention a little while longeron the first. This 
 is his reasoning: the Catholics, in their dispute with the 
 Arians, did not object against the latter, the supreme ado- 
 ration paid to Christ in the blessed Eucharist ; therefore no 
 such adoration was paid him ; but that adoration would not 
 have been withheld, if the Catholics had indeed believed 
 Christ's real presence in the Eucharist; therefore, since it 
 was withheld, they did not believe in it. You have already 
 heard a very satisfactory reason, why Catholics did not ob- 
 ject against the Arians, as the Chaplain thinks they would ; 
 to that then I shall say no more ; but begging leave, for 
 once, to quit my defensive plan, I shall build one argument 
 in favour of our doctrine upon the foundation laid by the 
 Chaplain. According to him, adoration of Christ in the 
 Eucharist, imports a belief of his real presence ; but primi- 
 tive Christians adored Christ in the Eucharist ; they there- 
 fore believed his real presence. The second, or minor pro- 
 
 * Socrates' Hist. Eccl. I. 2 c. 20. t Ibid. c. 19. prope fiHem. | Soc Hist. 
 Eccl. 1. 1. c. 23, edit. Val. 
 
lis 
 
 position, which is the only disputable one, can be proved 
 by the clearest evidence of primitive Christians them- 
 selves. I shall omit relating passages to this point out of 
 Ambrose, the holy bishop of Milan,* Chrysostom,"f Gre- 
 gory Nazianzen, &;c., that I may come immediately to an 
 authority still more authentic, the public liturgy of the 
 Church of Constantinople, which commonly goes under 
 the name of Chrysostom, and was probably composed, and 
 certainly used by him. In this liturgy, not only the exter- 
 nal acts of adoration, expressed by incense, bending and 
 prostrating the body, &;c. are enjoined, but likewise inter- 
 nal adoration is clearly signified by the prayers addressed 
 to Jesus Christ in the sacrament. " Lord Jesus," is the 
 priest enjoined to say, " look down from thy holy habita- 
 tion, and from the throne of thy glory, come to sanctify us, 
 thou who art seated in Heaven with thy Father, and who 
 art here present with us in an invisible manner. Deign 
 with thy powerful hand to grant us thy pure and unsullied 
 body ; and through us to all the people." Then adds the 
 liturgy, "the priest and the deacon must make their ado- 
 ration." And to show, that this adoration refers to the 
 body of Christ upon the altar, we need only note the far- 
 ther directions of the liturgy. The priest taking up the 
 consecrated bread, and bending his head before the altar, 
 prays in this manner : " I confess, that thou art Christ, the 
 son of the living God, who came into the world to save 
 sinners, dec. Lord, I am not worthy that thou shouldst 
 enter into my house defiled with sin ; but as thou didst 
 vouchsafe to enter the house of Simon the Leper, so like- 
 wise vouchsafe to enter my soul, full of ungovernable pas- 
 sions, as a manger, or a house of filth and death, covered 
 all over with the leprosy of sin." Thus is proved the ado- 
 ration of Christ in the Eucharist, not only by the testi- 
 mony of the fathers, but by a law of ecclesiastical discip- 
 
 * De Spir. san. lib. 3. 12. t Chrys. horn. 60. ad. Fop. AnftocA.— and, de 
 Sacerd. lib. 6, 
 
 k2 
 
114 
 
 line, connected with daily and inviolable practice ; and 
 making part of the worship rendered to Jesus Christ agree- 
 ably to the public liturgy ; and consequently, the primitive 
 belief of the real presence is fully established. 
 
 The Chaplain's second negative argument, or demon- 
 stration against the Catholic doctrine of the Eucharist is, 
 " that heathen writers would have retorted upon Chris- 
 tians, the accusation of idolatry in adoring a bit of bread, 
 in reserving their God in gold and silver chalices," &c. 
 Violent, indeed, must be his prejudices against the religion 
 he has renounced, if such arguments appear demonstra- 
 tions to him. For how little do we know of the disputa- 
 tions between Christians and heathens ? Some fragments 
 of Celsus and Porphyry, and of the writings of Julian the 
 apostate, together with the little that can be collected from 
 the early apologies for Christianity, are almost all, that is 
 come down to us on this subject. The heathens may have 
 objected, as the Chaplain supposes they would ; so may 
 they have found, in the mystery of the Incarnation of the 
 Son of God, in his nativity, in his crucifixion, an appa- 
 rent apology for their fables concerning their own divini- 
 ties. They may have grounded on the Christian doctrine 
 of redemption, the same arguments as the Socinians now 
 do ,• and they may, from the example afforded them, have 
 attempted to justify their own human sacrifices. Above 
 all, they may have availed themselves of the tenet of the 
 Trinity, to uphold, or, at least, explain away, the absurdi- 
 ties of a plurality of Gods. But, have we any authority 
 for saying they did so? No; and except a single expres- 
 sion of the scoffer Lucian, which seems to glance at the 
 Trinity ; and a passage of Tertullian and Athanasius, im- 
 plying, that some Jews and Pagans reproached Christians 
 with admitting more Gods than one ; antiquity does not 
 furnish us with any proof of these arguments being used 
 by heathen writers. What wonder then, if they never made 
 the objection proposed by the Chaplain, especially, as of 
 
115 
 
 all the mysteries of our religion, the celebration of the 
 Eucharist was that, in which, during the reign of per- 
 secution and idolatry, the greatest privacy was observed. 
 
 The truth is, the heathens despised the Christians too 
 much to inform themselves minutely of their tenets. They 
 knew little of them, but what appeared outwardly ; their 
 aversion for idolatry, and their profession of following the 
 doctrine of Jesus Christ. Here their inquiries stopped ; 
 and Tertullian, in his Apology, ch. 1, upbraids them with 
 neglecting in this point alone to seek information. 
 
 To these negative arguments, the Chaplain begs leave 
 to add, " that the fathers of the 2d council of Nice ex- 
 pressly confirm the opinion, that Christ's body in heaven 
 is not flesh and blood ; how therefore can bread and wine 
 be changed into his body, if they become flesh and blood?" 
 For this most extraordinary passage, he quotes Labbe's 
 Collection of the Councils, torn. 0, p. 541. This collection! 
 know not where to find in America ; but I aver, that no 
 such doctrine was delivered or entertained by the fathers 
 of that council; and will therefore, without fear of being 
 convicted of rashness, undertake to say, that the Chap- 
 lain cannot support what he has here advanced. Neither 
 Cabassutius, in his summary of the councils, nor Fleury, 
 nor Natalis Alexander, who recite the decrees and canons 
 of this council with much exactness, say one syllable of 
 such a doctrine being taught in it. As in many other in- 
 stances, so likewise in this, the Chaplain has suffered him- 
 self to be misled by authors, whom, I hope, he will de- 
 servedly mistrust for the time to come. Their unfaithful- 
 ness is eminently conspicuous in the present instance. In 
 the fifth session of the council, some passages were read 
 of a fabulous book, entitled. The Travels of the Apostles. 
 Amongst other fables, it was there related, that John the 
 Evangelist had said, that Christ had no true body ; that 
 when the Jews thought they crucified him, he exhibited 
 only the appearance of a body, but was in reality without 
 
116 
 
 any corporeal figure. But so far was the council from con- 
 firming this doctrine, that they rejected it with horror. 
 This is the account given by Fleury, Hist, eccles torn. 9, b. 
 44. an. 787. It would be curious indeed, if the authors, 
 whom the Chaplain has followed, should have mistaken this 
 fabulous writing for the acts of the council.* 
 
 Nothing, I think, now remains unnoticed of all he has 
 said against our doctrine of the Eucharist, excepting the 
 collection of supposed absurdities and contradictions, with 
 which, in the same page, he charges transubstantia- 
 tion. In this, he uses a mode of reasoning not very libe- 
 ral, and yet not unpractised by many other writers against 
 us. The objected absurdities and contradictions, whether 
 real or imaginary, result more immediately from Christ's 
 real presence in the Eucharist, than from transubstantia- 
 tion ; but to impute them to that doctrine, would not be 
 quite so inoffensive. Some regards are due to Protestant 
 Lutheran brethren, and the doctrine of the Protestant Epis- 
 copal Church, who admit the real presence in their cate- 
 chisms at least, and according to their earliest writers. But 
 as to the Catholic tenets, too much cannot be said to ren- 
 der them an object of ridicule and detestation. "T/'tran- 
 substantiation he admitted,'''' says the Chaplain, ^Hhe true 
 God may he shut up in hoxes, or devoured corporally hy 
 vermin." Would to God it were possible, in answering 
 such objections, (which indeed I never should have suspect- 
 ed the Chaplain capable of drawing from the foulest dregs 
 of controversy,) to keep up your respect for this great mys- 
 tery of our religion, and adorable pledge of divine good- 
 
 * Since writing the above, I have found, in the Annapolis library, Binius' 
 Greek and Latin edition of the Acts of the 2d council of Nice; I have care- 
 fully examined these Acts, but can meet with nothing similar to the opinion 
 attributed to the council by the Chaplain, but the contrary doctrine repeated- 
 ly established, and the error rejected with horror, which ascribed to Christ 
 only an apparent or fantastical body. See Concil. Gener. Vol. V. Act 5. p. 
 703, 4, 5, 6. 
 
117 
 
 ness towards mankind ! How can he give us his flesh to eat ? 
 (John vi.) was the Jewish question ; and many hearing it, 
 said, this saying is hard, and who can hear it ? 
 
 So likewise the Marcionites, and other enemies of the In- 
 carnation, contended, that to be enclosed in a womb, and 
 to be laid in a manger, was unworthy of the Divine Majesty. 
 The Pagans and Jews ridiculed the credulity of Christians 
 in believing in a man crucified between two thieves ; but 
 the Church despised their mockeries, being taught by the 
 great Apostle, that the mystery of the cross was indeed " a 
 stumbling block to the Jews, and to the Greeks foolishness ; 
 but to those who are called — the power of God, and the 
 wisdom of God."* The divinity of Christ could not be in- 
 jured by his mortal sufferings ; and from them, great glory 
 came to him, and utility to mpn. The same answer we 
 may give to our opponents, when they compel us to take 
 notice of objections so unworthy of the greatness and sanc- 
 tity of the subject under consideration. But if this will 
 not satisfy them, I would beg leave to ask them, whether 
 they do not believe that the infant Jesus was confined in 
 the womb of the Virgin Mary, and wrapped in swaddling 
 clothes? Do they not believe that he was, like other chil- 
 dren, liable to be hurt, for instance, by the application of 
 fire, or the stings of insects ? If then he could suffer these 
 things in his own natural body, and be liable to be hurt by 
 them ; why may he not render himself subject, in appear- 
 ance, to the same accidents, when he is under the covering 
 of bread and wine, and incapable of being hurt thereby ? 
 
 I have already taken some notice of the objection, so 
 often repeated, and so often refuted, of transubstantiation 
 contradicting our senses and our understanding. Ought we 
 to trust our senses more than God himself? When Joshua, 
 who took the angel for a man, asked him, " Art thou for 
 us, or for our adversaries," and was told, he was not a man 
 
 * 1 Cor. i, 
 
lis 
 
 but " a captain of the heavenly host, he fell on his face, 
 and worshipped, and said, What says my Lord unto his ser- 
 vant?" (Joshua V. 14.) that is, he believed him rather than 
 his senses; for to all his senses he appeared a man ; but re- 
 velation informed him, that what he saw was an angel. In 
 like manner, if God has revealed to us, that under the ap- 
 pearances of bread and wine, is contained the body and 
 blood of Christ ; are we not to believe him rather than those 
 appearances? The evidence for the revelation, may be tried 
 by all the rules of criticism ; but when the mind is once 
 convinced of its existence, it must then submit, notwith- 
 standing all seeming contradiction, or opposition of our 
 senses. "Let us always believe God," says St. Chrysos- 
 tom, speaking of the Eucharist, " and not contradict him, 
 tJiougk that whir.h he says, sppms to contradict our thoughts 
 and our eyes. For his words cannot deceive us ; but our 
 sense may be easily deceived. Since, therefore, he says. 
 This is my body, let us be fully persuaded of it. How 
 many say now, oh ! that I could see him in his own shape ! 
 or his clothes ! or any thing about him ! Believe me, you 
 see him ; you touch him ; you eat him. You would be con- 
 tent to see his clothes ; and he lets you not only see him, 
 but also touch him, and eat him, and receive him within 
 you."* From this genuine quotation you may see what 
 St. Chrysostom, that enlightened doctor of antiquity, thought 
 both of the argument drawn from a supposed contradiction 
 of our senses and understanding, and of the real presence 
 and transubstantiation. 
 
 As the Chaplain has added to his reasoning against our 
 belief none of those innumerahle arguments which evince 
 the meaning of Christ's words, This is my body, to he figu- 
 rative, I likewise shall gladly waive the controversy; only 
 remarking, that he is neither terrified by the anathemas of 
 Luther against the defenders of a figurative sense, whom 
 
 * Chrys. hom. 82. (al. 83.) in Matt. 
 
119 
 
 he calls blasphemers, a damned sect, liars, hread-eaters 
 wine-guzzlers,* <kc., nor by the severity of Dr. Cosin, bishop 
 of Durham, in the beginning of his History of Transub- 
 tantiation, where, speaking of the words of the institution 
 of the sacrament, he says, " if any one make a bare figure 
 of them, we cannot and ought not either excuse or suffer 
 him in our Churches." 
 
 Another of our tenets, which the Chaplain has selected 
 as unsupported by Scripture and antiquity, particularly in 
 the Greek Church, is, the belief of purgatory. But before 
 he proceeded to impugn, he ought to have stated it ; which 
 not having done, the deficiency shall now be supplied- All, 
 therefore, which the Church requires to be believed on this 
 subject, is contained in the decree of the council of Trent, 
 which defines, that there is a purgatory, or middle state, 
 "and that the souls therein detained, are relieved by the 
 suffrages of the faithful, especially by the agreeable sacri- 
 fice of the altar.""!' Concerning the nature or extent of their 
 sufferings, whether by fire or otherwise, the place of punish- 
 ment, its duration, &c. we are not confined to any particu- 
 lar opinion. Now, is it true, that this doctrine has no foun- 
 dation in Scripture and antiquity? The books of Macca- 
 bees, which so decidedly establish it, must not be admitted 
 of suflBcient authority, because " they were not acknow- 
 ledged for canonical Scriptures by St. Hierom, Rufinus, 
 Epiphanius, Athanasius, Gregory, and many other ancient 
 and eminent fathers." If it be a sufficient reason for re- 
 jecting the books of Maccabees, that some early fathers 
 doubted of their canonical authority, though afterwards, on 
 a full investigation, they were received by the whole Church, 
 I wish to know, how Protestants came generally to admit 
 the authority of the epistle to the Hebrews, the 2d of Peter 
 and of James, the Revelation of John and others ; for of 
 
 * Blasphemes in Deum, damnatam sectara, mendaces homines, panivoros, 
 vini-bibones. Luth. in parva Conf. t Cone. Trid. sess. 25. 
 
120 
 
 all these, as well as of the books of Maccabees, doubts were 
 some time entertained, and the fathers held different opin- 
 ions concerning them. But I expect no satisfactory ac- 
 count of this matter: and am well convinced, that the pre- 
 vailing reason, which moved the compilers of the English 
 Bible to reject the one, and receive the other, was, the sup- 
 port which they observed the Catholic doctrine of purga- 
 tory would derive from the book of Maccabees.* But, 
 though it were destitute of this, there are not wanting other 
 passages of Scripture to confirm the same, as the Chaplain 
 may iind in our divines, though he so positively says the 
 contrary, and particularly in the Catholic Scripturist, with 
 whom he ought not to be unacquainted. 
 
 As to the doctrine of antiquity concerning purgatory, and 
 particularly of the Greek Church, we shall meet with little 
 difficulty. No article of the Christian belief has stronger 
 evidence from the testimony of the early fathers ; they 
 prove incontestably the practice of praying for the dead ; 
 they assert, that by the prayers of the faithful, in this life, 
 comfort and relief is obtained for those who are departed 
 out of it ; which is establishing as much of the doctrine of 
 purgatory, as we are obliged to believe. St. Epiphanius, a 
 bishop of the Eastern Church, ranks Aerius amongst the 
 founders of heretics, for teaching, that prayers and alms are 
 unavailing to the dead ;t and Augustin confirms the same, 
 adding, that his heresy was condemned by the universal 
 Church,^ Greeks therefore as well as others. Cyril, bishop 
 
 * Neither Jerome nor Gregory reject these books. The former says, they 
 are not in the Hebrew canon, (formed by Esdras, before they were written,) 
 nor universally received. But he himself held them to be of divine inspira- 
 tion. Coin, in c. xxiii. Isaise— in c vii. & ix. Eecl.— in c. viii. Daniel. And 
 Gregory, who was posterior to the council of Carthage, which declared their 
 canonical authority, can only mean, that they had not been so received by 
 all the Churches. As to Athanasius, if the Chaplain ground his assertion, as 
 I suspect, oft a writing entitled Synopsis, and bearing his name, that work is 
 rejected by all the critics, as falsely imputed to him. 
 
 t Epiph. Haer. 75, alias 76. X Aug. de Haeresibus— Haer. 53. 
 
1£1 
 
 of Jerusalem, another Greek father, expounding the liturgy 
 in a catechistical discourse, says, we remember those who 
 are deceased, first the Patriarchs, Apostles, and Martyrs, 
 that God would receive our supplications through their 
 prayers and intercession. Then we pray for our fathers 
 and bishops, and in general all amongst us, who are de* 
 parted out of this life, believing that thisicill he the greatest 
 relief to their souls, for tvhom it is made, whilst the holy 
 and tremendous victim lies present."* If this address 
 should chance to be seen by any one, who has access to the 
 works of this holy father, I would entreat him to read the 
 continuation of this passage, and see the perfect agreement 
 of our doctrine with that of the Greek Church in St. CyriPs 
 time. The enlightened Greek doctor, St. Chrysostom, is 
 equally decisive. " It is not in vain," says he, " that in 
 the divine mysteries we remember the dead, appearing in 
 their behalf, praying the Lamb, who takes away the sins of 
 
 the world, that comfort may thence be derived to them 
 
 Let us pray for them, who have slept in Christ ; let us not 
 fail to succour the departed ; for the common expiation of 
 the world is offered. "f Here is surely evidence enouo-h 
 to prove the antiquity of our doctrine, and its entire con- 
 formity with that of the Greek Church. I quote no Latin 
 fathers, as the Chaplain appears to lay particular stress on 
 the Greek ; otherwise it were easy to produce the most 
 unequivocal evidence, of their perfect agreement with those 
 just cited. The objection from the venerable bishop 
 Fisher, that to this very day purgatory is not believed by the 
 Greeks, &c. is either a mistake in him, or, what I much 
 more incline to believe, he meant only to say, that the 
 Greeks do not believe in a purgatory of fire, contrary to a 
 common, though not a dogmatical opinion of the western 
 Church. 
 
 * Cyril. Hler. Catec. Myst. 19. n. 9. edit. Bened. alias cat. 5. t Chrj-s. in 
 i. ad Cor. hom. 41 — alias 51. 
 
 L 
 
122 
 
 The Chaplain proceeds to tell us, that our present doC-* 
 trine of the divine institution and necessity of confession^ 
 was not always a settled point in our Church. What if it 
 were not ? what harm would ensue, if for some ages this 
 matter remained without minute investigation, and the 
 faithful contented themselves with humble and penitential 
 confession of their sins, not inquiring, whether the practice 
 was derived from divine or apostolical institution? Must 
 we, for this reason, refuse to believe the Church, when, 
 upon full inquiry and examination of the tradition preserved 
 in all the Churches, she defines, that confession is an obli- 
 gation imposed on us by divine authority ? This would 
 lead us back again into the question of infallibility. But 
 let us hear the Chaplain's reasons. " The learned Alcuin," 
 says he, *' during the ninth century, tells us expressly, that 
 some said it was sufficient to confess our sins to God alone." 
 Were the persons here mentioned Catholics or not? Does 
 it appear, that their opinion had any effect on the public 
 practice, so that it might alarm the vigilance of the pastors 
 of the Church ? Does he speak generally of all sins ? Does 
 he not refer to situations and cases of necessity, in which 
 confession cannot be made but to God alone ? Till these, 
 and several other things relating to this passage, are stated 
 more fully, it is impossible to determine Alcuin's meaning. 
 The same must be observed of the passage from the manu- 
 script penitential of Theodore, the genuineness of which, I 
 much doubt ; for I understand that Wilkins, the collector 
 and editor of the British Councils, long since Usher's time, 
 has not published it ; and surely he would not have omit- 
 ted so valuable a discovery ; and moreover, because 1 find 
 no mention of this passage, in a comprehensive abridgment 
 of Theodore's Penitential, which now lies before me. I do 
 not hereby mean to impeach Usher's integrity, or, in gene- 
 ral, his judgment; but, for the reasons just stated, I con- 
 clude there were good grounds to question the authority of 
 a manuscript, which does not appear to have had any of a 
 
123 
 
 similar tenor to support its credit. After all, to what do 
 these authorities amount, supposing them both genuine, 
 and conveying the sense intended by the Chaplain? Only 
 to this, that at the time, the Church was not known by 
 Theodore and Alcuin, to have made any authentic declara- 
 tion of the divine institution and necessity of confession. 
 The practice of it, we may fairly conclude to have been 
 general, from this circumstance, if all other proof were 
 wanting, which certainly is not the case ; that it was 
 doubted, whether forgiveness could be obtained without it ; 
 and in such a situation, what prudent and virtuous Chris- 
 tian, anxious to obtain reconciliation with his Maker, 
 would neglect the use of a mean, perhaps necessary to pro- 
 cure it 1 
 
 These observations are equally applicable to the autho- 
 rity of Gratian, whether he was of the opinion attributed to 
 him by the Chaplain and Maldonatus ; or whether he only 
 held, that the precept of confession was not obligatory im- 
 mediately after the commission of sin, as I find his words 
 understood by other divines. A general remark will not 
 be improper in this place ; that our faith is formed on the 
 public doctrine of the Church, and not on the opinions of 
 private theologians. It is indeed requiring too much of us, 
 to account for all the singularities, which any of them may 
 have committed to writing. Does the Chaplain think, we 
 cannot produce from Protestant authors many concessions, 
 many acknowledgments of the agreement of our tenets with 
 the sense of antiquity, with the practice of the first ages, 
 with the universal belief of early Christians? Does not 
 Dr. Cosin, in spite of all his animosity, acknowledge the 
 possibility of transubstantiation ? Does he not confess, 
 that the water was changed into wine at the marriage feast 
 of Cana in Galilee? Do not the traslators of Dupin's His- 
 tory, and other Protestants, bear witness to the ancient 
 practice of praying for the dead ? Have not the invocation 
 oi saints, the honouring of their remains, the celibacy of 
 
124 
 
 our clergy, been vindicated by Protestant writers of emi- 
 nence from the misrepresentations and objections of our 
 opponents? Yet, would the Chaplain think it worth his 
 while to advert to these authorities, were they brought 
 forth against him ? 
 
 This however is his method against us. When he comes 
 to object to the power of loosening and binding, committed 
 by Christ to his Apostles and their successors in the minis- 
 try, he tells us, that the famous Lombard, the Aristotle, the 
 Newton of scholastic divines, and some others, maintained 
 that power to be only declaratory of forgiveness ; whereas, 
 " since the council of Trent, it is become an article of our 
 faith, that the priest has power to forgive sins." 
 
 Peter Lombard, who lived in the 12th century, was in- 
 deed a man of acknowledged and methodical genius, and 
 had the merit of reducing the scattered opinions of divines, 
 into a regular system or body, which has since been the 
 groundwork of scholastic theology. But if the Chaplain, 
 by calling him its Newton and Aristotle, mean to convey 
 an idea, that all his opinions are held sacred, he is greatly 
 mistaken ; for many of them are controverted, many 
 universally rejected. The opinion, for which he is here 
 cited, is very different from that which might be supposed 
 by the Chaplain's imperfect representation of it. For the 
 natural inference from his representation is, that the sacer- 
 dotal order, not only do not exercise a ministerial and de- 
 pendent jurisdiction over repentant sinners, (which is what 
 we teach,) but likewise that they impart no absolution, that 
 they have no power of loosening or binding ; in a word, 
 that no grace is administered through the instrumentality 
 of their ministry, and consequently that there is no such 
 thing as the sacrament of pennance. Now, all this is ex- 
 pressly contrary to Lombard. He holds the divine institu- 
 tion of this sacrament ; he teaches that the ministry of ab- 
 solution truly confers grace ; that it has an inward effect 
 on the soul ; and though only declaratory with regard to 
 
125 
 
 the remission of the guilt of sin, is efficaciously and actively 
 so, with respect to the remission of the temporal punish- 
 ment annexed to it. The council of Trent censured, in- 
 deed, the doctrine of the reformers in such terms, as ap- 
 pear to the generality of divines, to import the falsehood 
 of Lombard's opinion ; but others do not think so ; and the 
 Chaplain might have remained in the bosom of our Church, 
 and still believed, that the power of absolution is only de- 
 claratory, in Lombard's sense, as Tournely* would have 
 informed him. 
 
 I have now finished my observations on the argumenta- 
 tive part of the Chaplain's letter, with abilities far inferior 
 indeed ; but, I trust, with a superiority of cause, which has 
 enabled me to leave nothing unanswered, that could carry 
 trouble into your minds, or shake the firmness of your 
 faith. Before he concludes his letter, he has thought pro- 
 per to make a profession of his new belief, and shows a 
 particular anxiety to vindicate to himself the appellation 
 of a Catholic. I am not surprised at his anxiety ; it is an 
 appellation characteristic of the true Church. " My name 
 is Christian," says Pacianus, "my surname is Catholic. 
 That denominates me, this distinguishes me."t And St. 
 Augustin ; " we must hold the Christian religion, and the 
 communion of that Church, which is Catholic ; and which 
 is called Catholic, not only by her own children, but by 
 all her enemies,"J But will the Chaplain now find this 
 characteristic in his new religion, any more than the sec- 
 taries of St. Augustin's times found it in their's ? This 
 lioly doctor having mentioned various reasons, which pre- 
 vailed on him to remain in the communion of the Church, 
 proceeds thus : " I am held in this Church by the succes- 
 sion of priests coming down even to the present episcopacy, 
 from St. Peter, to whom Christ after his resurrection com- 
 
 * De Poen. quaea. 2. art. 2. t Ep. 1, ad Sympron. Nov. | Aug. I. de 
 Vera Rel. c. 7. 
 
 l2 
 
126 
 
 mitted the feeding of his flock. Finally, I ann held to it 
 by the very name of Catholic, of which this Church alone 
 has, not without reason, so kept possession, that, though 
 all heretics desire to be called Catholics ; yet if a stranger 
 ask them, where Catholics meet, none of them will pre- 
 sume to point out his own Church, or his house."* 
 
 The Chaplain claims right to the title of Catholic, be- 
 cause he " believes and professes every point of Christian 
 faith, which at all times, and in all places, has constitu- 
 ted the creed of all orthodox believers." For such, we 
 are told, is Vincent of Lerins' description of a Catho- 
 lic. In the preceding, as well as subsequent part of his 
 work, Vincent has explained the characteristics of Catho- 
 licity so clearly, that it was impossible for the Chaplain to 
 mistake them ; and it was, perhaps, becoming his candour 
 to have stated that author's meaning, when he was alleging 
 his authority to the Roman Catholics of Worcester. " It 
 is necessary," says he, " to follow the universality, anti- 
 quity, and agreement of the Catholic and apostolical 
 Church ; and if a part revolt against the whole ; if innova- 
 tion rise up against antiquity ; if the dissent of one or a 
 few mistaken men disturb the agreement of all, or of a 
 great majority of Catholics, let the integrity of the whole 
 be preferred to the infection of a part. In this same uni- 
 versality, let greater regard be had to venerable antiquity, 
 than profane novelty ; in antiquity itself," (that is, with re- 
 gard to doctrines, for which antiquity is alleged,) "let the 
 decrees of a general council, if any exists in the first place 
 be opposed to the rashness of a few ; and if no such de- 
 crees exist, let Catholics follow, what is next in authority, 
 the agreeing opinions of many and eminent fathers ; which 
 things being faithfully, soberly, and anxiously observed, we 
 shall easily with God's help discover the pernicious er- 
 rors of rising heretics.''t Will the Chaplain's Catholicity 
 
 * Aug. cont. epis. Fundara. c. 4. t Vine. Lir. Comm. c. 38. 
 
127 
 
 stand the test of these rules ? Will the authority of the 
 learned Vincent of Lerins justify the religion which he has 
 adopted? 
 
 He next alleges, that the Apostles' creed is the standard 
 of Catholicity ; but it must be subscribed, he says, in its 
 full extent. Does he mean by these words, that every ar- 
 ticle of the creed is to be received, without addition, in 
 the terms in which it is written? Or that it is to be re- 
 ceived with such extension and explanation as may com- 
 prehend other points not clearly expressed, but only im- 
 plied therein ? If this last be liis meaning, who shall de- 
 termine what is implied? By what authority shall the 
 Arian or Macedonian be bound to acknowledge, that the 
 divinity of Jesus Christ, and of the Holy Ghost, is taught 
 in the creed? Will he, who receives the creed in the 
 Arian or Macedonian sense, be a Catholic ? If it be the 
 standard of Catholicity, it surely cannot be enough to ad- 
 mit its words ; but the sense conveyed by those words must 
 be the object of Catholic faith. I admit the creed, will 
 each of these say, which, whoever admits in its full extent^ 
 according to you, must be a member of the Catholic Church. 
 Show me that I do not so admit it ; show me, that by re- 
 quiring my assent to your explanation and extension of it, 
 you do not require a submission to human authority, and 
 thereby lay on us a yoke heavier than that, with which you 
 reproach the Church of Rome ; for when she requires obe- 
 dience, she does so in virtue of her claim to infallibility; 
 but you have no such pretensions. Thus will the Arian, 
 Macedonian, and other sectaries argue ; and I cannot see, 
 how the Chaplain will get over their objection, consistently 
 with the principles laid down in his letter; and therefore 
 the creed, as subject to extension and explanation, cannot 
 be with him, the standard of Catholicity. 
 
 But if the Chaplain mean, that the creed contains the 
 universal Catholic faith ; that the profession of it alone, 
 without understanding any thing more to be implied, than 
 
128 
 
 is literally expressed, constitutes us members of the Catho- 
 lic Church ; then are they not heretics, who condemn mar- 
 riage, and introduce a distinction of meats; whom never- 
 theless the Apostle describes as " giving heed to the doc- 
 trine of devils, speaking lies in hypocrisy, and having their 
 conscience seared ;"* nor they, who deny an eternity of pu- 
 nishment, or assert, that all the reprobated spirits in hell 
 shall at length be saved ; for none of these things are 
 touched on in the creed. Where shall we find in it these 
 necessary points, the profession of our obligation to love 
 God, and to keep holy the Lord's day ? For necessary 
 those points certainly are, the omission or transgression of 
 which, is a damnable sin. Where does the creed speak of 
 the necessity of baptism, or of the lawfulness of it, when 
 administered by heretics ? Did not the Catholic Church 
 always assert the first, as an essential doctrine, and esta- 
 blish the other against the Donatists ? Where finally, to 
 omit many other articles, which not even the Chaplain 
 would deny as belonging to Catholic faith, does the creed 
 propose to our belief, the receiving of the books of the 
 Old and New Testament, as of Divine revelation ? It may 
 therefore be concluded, and, I think, upon evident prin- 
 ciples, and in direct opposition to the Chaplain, that a per- 
 son may subscribe the Apostles' creed, even in its full ex- 
 tent, without being a member of the Catholic Church. I 
 only make this exception, that by declaring his assent to 
 these words, / believe the holy Catholic Church, he means 
 not to acknowledge her unerring authority ; for if he does, 
 that acknowledgment imports the belief of every article, 
 which she proposes as revealed by God.f 
 
 * 1 Tim. c. 4. 
 
 t The Chaplain, in a note, obviates the meaning here insinuated, and at- 
 tempts to show an opposition between the exposition of this article of the 
 creed, in the catechism of the council of Trent, and that of many of our re- 
 ligious instructors. But they must be ignorant instructors indeed, who know 
 not that by believing in God, we profess to believe both that he is, and that 
 
129 
 
 Another material objection to the Chaplain's doctrine is, 
 that it admits into the communion of the Church, almost 
 all those who in every age of Christianity have been deem- 
 ed heretics, and the corrupters of faith. The great council 
 of Nice, which the first Protestants pretended to respect 
 as replenished with a truly Catholic spirit, in their eighth 
 canon, speak of the Novatians as being out of the Catholic 
 Church. Their errors consisted, 1st. In denying the 
 power of the Church to forgive sins, particularly that of 
 apostacy from faith ; 2dly. In requiring the rebaptization 
 of those who had been baptized by heretics; 3dly. In 
 condemning second marriages. I doubt whether the Chap- 
 lain will find any of these errors reprobated in the Apos- 
 tles' creed. St. Cyprian expressly teaches,* that the No- 
 vatians made use of no other creed, than that of the Catho- 
 lics ; which undoubtedly was that of the Apostles ; and yet 
 they were deemed heretics, and out of the communion of 
 the Church. 
 
 The Donatists, in like manner, because they rejected 
 baptism administered by heretics, were denied communion 
 with the Catholic Church ; but the creed they did not deny. 
 " You are with us," says St. Augustin, " in baptism, m the 
 creed, in the other sacraments of God ; but in the spirit of 
 unity, and in the bond of peace ; finally, in the Catholic 
 Church, you are not with us."f I infer then again, that it 
 was not the intention of the Apostles to conclude in their 
 creed the universal Christian Catholic faith, 
 
 his word is infallible, as being founded in the divine perfections of infinite 
 wisdom and truth; whereas, by believing the Catholic Church, we make 
 profession of acknowledging her existence ; and that God communicates to 
 us, through her, those truths, which we must receive, not as the words of 
 man, but as they truly are, the words of God. Just so the Chaplain admits 
 the Scriptural doctrines delivered by the Apostles and evangelists ; never- 
 theless, he does not fail in making a sufficient difference between God and his 
 creatures ; but he knows that divine omnipotence can render mortal men in- 
 fallible in communicating revealed doctrines to others ,• and which must 
 ultimately be believed for the authority of God alone. 
 * Cyp. ep. 76. ad Magnum, t Aug. ep. 93. (olim 48.) ad Yincentium. 
 
130 
 
 You are now prepared to form a true estimate of the 
 Chaplain's universal belief, as expressed in the place we 
 have been considering. As I before said, almost every 
 sect, that ever deformed the face of Christianity, might be 
 taken into it. Sabellians and Arians ; Nestorians and Eu- 
 tychians ; Socinians and many Deists; and the disciples of 
 that modern author, (his name is celebrated in the literary 
 world,) who has lately discovered, that the doctrine of a 
 pre-existent nature in Christ, that is, of his having existed 
 before his Incarnation, is a corruption of Christianity ; all 
 these, however discordant in their principles, would sub- 
 scribe the Apostles' creed ; and might say that they em- 
 braced no new religion, bnt only discarded some doctrines, 
 which had been engrafted upon the old one. Thus, in a 
 short time, under pretence of reducing our faith to the 
 primitive simplicity of the creed, every tenet would be 
 successively rejected, which curbs our passions, or subjects 
 our understanding. " If once this impious licentiousness 
 be admitted," says the excellent Vincent of Lerins, " I 
 dread to say, how great will be the danger of destroying 
 and extirpating religion. For, if any one part of the Ca- 
 tholic doctrine be rejected, another and another will share 
 the same fate ; and at length it will become a practice, and 
 deemed lawful to discard others ; thus the tenets of reli- 
 gion being rejected one by one, what will finally ensue, 
 but the rejection of the whole together."* 
 
 The Chaplain proceeds to tell the Roman Catholics of 
 Worcester, that his religion is that of the Bible ; but that 
 their religion is the doctrine of the council of Trent; in- 
 sinuating thus an opposition between the two. But do not 
 Catholics, as well as he himself recur to Scripture, as the 
 foundation of their religion? Does not the council of 
 Trent profess the most profound veneration for, and impli- 
 cit belief of every part of Scripture ? Does it not, in all 
 
 * Vine, Lir. Coipm. c. 31, 
 
191 
 
 its decrees and definitions of faith, assert the tenets of the 
 Church on the authority of Scripture? Jf then both the 
 council and Chaplain be solicitous to form their faith on 
 Scripture, which is most likely to discover the true mean- 
 ing thereof? If the Chaplain deem it his duty to rely 
 most on his own private interpretation, the Catholics of 
 Worcester think it wiser, and more consistent with humi- 
 lity and obedience, to follow that Church, which Jesus 
 Christ has promised to lead into all truth ; and to hear 
 those instructors, whom he has appointed to " teach all 
 things whichsoever he has commanded." 
 
 "I rely solely," says the Chaplain, " upon the authority 
 of God's word;" and do we not likewise rely solely upon 
 the same authority? No, insinuates the Chaplain; you 
 Catholics think it necessary to recur to unwritten tradition. 
 And, pray, what is the tradition to which we recur, but the 
 word of God, delivered down to us by the testimony of the 
 fathers, and in the public doctrine of the Catholic Church? 
 Does not the Chaplain himself receive the written word of 
 God from the same testimony and tradition ? Why is it 
 less to be depended on in witnessing the unwritten word 
 of God, than in delivering down, and separating the true 
 and genuine books of Scripture from those which are false 
 or corrupted ? He demands, with St. Cyprian, "whence 
 we have our tradition ?" We answer, from the Apostles, 
 from their successors, from the attestation of Christians, 
 spread throughout the world ; and St. Augustin proves our 
 right to assign this origin ; because, says he, " what the 
 universal Church holds, and was not instituted in a council, 
 but was always maintained, is most reasonably concluded 
 to be derived from apostolical institution.* But. St. Cy. 
 prian requires, " that it be commanded in the Gospel, or 
 contained in the Epistles or Acts of the Apostles." What 
 wonder, that St. Cyprian, while he was engaged, as he then 
 
 * Aug. de Bapt. contra Donat. 1. 4. c. 6. 
 
132 
 
 was, in the error of the Donatists, should speak their lan^ 
 guage ; and, like all other opposers of* the authority of the 
 Church, should call for Scripture proofs, which can never 
 be effectual, because they can always be explained away 
 by human ingenuity? Wherefore St. Augustin, in his 5th 
 book, 23d. ch. on baptism, against the Donatists, particu- 
 larly refutes the writing now objected out of Cyprian; and 
 it is wonderful, indeed, if the Chaplain did not discover 
 this in the very place from which, I presume, he copied his 
 objection. He sometimes cites Vincent of Lerins. Will 
 he then allow one, who still retains the most sincere good 
 will for him, to recommend to his reading the eleventh 
 chapter of Vincent's excellent work? Will he notice what 
 Vincent there says, of those who endeavour to support their 
 false opinions, by quotations from Cyprian's works, written 
 while he was engaged in the defence of error ? 
 
 The Chaplain adds, that we deem the Scriptures defi- 
 cient and obscure; but he asks, " Where is the deficiency ? 
 Where is the obscurity ?" Deficient they certainly are not, 
 if it be meant, that they do not answer the views and designs 
 of divine Providence in causing them to be written ; but in 
 this sense they are deficient, that they do not contain all 
 necessary points of belief and practice; which, I think, has 
 been sufficiently proved ; and is declared by St. Paul in 
 the words before cited^ ; " Brethren, stand and hold fast 
 the traditions you have been taught, whether by word or 
 our epistle."* 
 
 But where shall we find the obscurity of tlie Scripture 7 
 We shall find it in almost every book of holy w^rit ; we 
 shall find it, where St. Peter tells us it is to be found, in 
 Paul's epistles, " in which are some things hard to be un- 
 deistood, and which, as well as all other Scriptures, the 
 unlearned and unstable wrest to their own destruction. "f 
 But St. Chrysostom assures us, that " Scripture expounds 
 
 * 2 Thess. ii. 15. 1 2 Pet. iii. 16. 
 
133 
 
 itself, and does not suffer the reader to err." The Chaplain 
 is conversant in history, and undoubtedly a person of ob- 
 servation. Can he then seriously believe or imagine it to 
 be Chrysostom's meaning, that the Scripture expounds 
 itself in all points to every reader, so that he cannot err? 
 Is every one able to make that conference and comparison 
 of the different passages of Scripture, which lead to its true 
 interpretation? Can any thing more be intended by that 
 great doctor, than that Scripture directs every reader to 
 such a rule of exposition, as secures him from error ? But 
 is his private interpretation this infallible rule? Or is it 
 that of the Church, manifested in her public doctrine, by 
 the ministers of her appointment? Hear St. Chrysostom 
 himself: "Take the book in your hand ; read a passage 
 throughout; keep present to your mind, what you under- 
 stand; but return frequently to the reading of tliose things, 
 which are obscure and (iifficult; and if by repeated read- 
 ing you cannot find out their meaning, go to a teacher, go 
 to one wiser than yourself."* To the authority of Chrysos- 
 tom might be added, I believe, that of every father of the 
 Church ; and most of tliem have delivered their opinions of 
 the insufficiency and obscurity of Scripture, not in frag- 
 ments of a sentence, but treating professedly and fully on 
 this very subject. To thtso, allow me to add an authority, 
 which, with many of our Protestant brethren, will weigh 
 more than that of all the fathers. Thus, then, Luther, in 
 his preface to the Psalms: "It is a most audacious pre- 
 sumption in any one to say, that he understands every part 
 even of one book of Scripture. "t Let the Chaplain recol- 
 lect all the disputes and variations even amongst Pro- 
 testants themselves, concerning the meaning of these words 
 spoken by Christ at his last supper, This is my body. If 
 
 * Chrys. hom. 3. de Lazaro. 
 
 t Scio esse impudentissimac temeritatis enm, qui audeat profiteri unum 
 scripturse libriim a se in omnibus pariibus intellect iim. Lulh. prcef.in Peal, 
 ap. Bell, de R. P. 1. 3. c 21. 
 
 M 
 
134 
 
 innumerable arguments evince to him their meaning to he 
 figurative, he cannot forget, that Luther and Dr. Cosin, a 
 bishop of the Church of England, pronounce anathemas 
 against the maintainers of a figurative sense. After this, 
 will he so confidently repeat his interrogation, " where is 
 the deficiency, where is the obscurity of Scripture ?" 
 
 *' He is content," he says, " to acquiesce in that autho- 
 rity, to which alone St. Austin and St. Chrysostom refer us, 
 insinuating hereby, that Scripture is that sole authority. 
 How he came to mention St. Augustin on this occasion, I 
 am at a loss to conceive. This holy father has made a clear 
 profession of receiving Scripture itself, only because it 
 came recommended to him by the Church. " 1 would not," 
 says he, " believe the Gospel, if the authority of the Ca- 
 tholic Church did not move me thereunto."* In his con- 
 troversies with the Manicheans and Donatists, he repeat- 
 edly appeals to the authority and practice of the Catholic 
 Church ; he tells the latter, that neither they, nor the Ca- 
 tholics, have any clear Scripture fcr their different opinions 
 concerning rebaptization ; but that the former, by refusing 
 to submit to the Church, resist not man, but our Saviour 
 himself, who in the Gospel bears testimony to the Church.t 
 The pretended authority from St. Chrysostom is no more 
 his than mine; it is a reference to the same exploded pas- 
 sage, as was cited in the Chaplain's note, of which enough 
 has been said. 
 
 I have now gone through a task painful in every point 
 of view in which I could consider it. To write for the 
 public eye, on any occasion whatever, is neither agreeable 
 to my feelings, my leisure, nor opportunities; that it is 
 likewise disproportioned to my abilities, my readers, I 
 doubt, will soon discover. But if reduced to the necessity 
 of publishing. I would wish that my duty led me to any 
 
 * Ego vero evangclio nou credercm, nisi me ecclesiae Catholics commove- 
 ret auctoritas. Aug. cont. Epis. Fuiidam. c. 5. 
 t Aug lib. 1. cont. Cresc. c. 33— & de Unit. Ecd. 
 
135 
 
 species of composition, rather than that of religious contro- 
 versy. Mankind have conceived such a contempt for it, 
 that an author cannot entertain a hope of enjoying those 
 gratifications, which in treating other subjects may support 
 his spirits and enliven his imagination. Much less could 
 1 have a prospect of these incitements in the prosecution of 
 my present undertaking. I could not forget, in the begin- 
 ning, progress, and conclusion of it, that the habits of think- 
 ing, the prejudices, perhaps even the passions of many of 
 my readers, would be set against all the arguments I could 
 oft'er; and that the weaknesses, the errors, the absurdities 
 of the writer, would be imputed to the errors and absurdity 
 of his religion. But of all considerations, the most painful 
 was, that I had to combat him, with whom 1 had been con- 
 nected in an intercourse of friendship and mutual good 
 offices ; and in connexion with whom I hoped to have con- 
 slimrriaied my course of oiii' common ministry, in the ser- 
 vice of virtue and religion. But when I found these ex- 
 pectations disappointed ; when I found that he not only had 
 abandoned our faith and communion, but had imputed to 
 us doctrines foreign to our belief, and having a natural ten- 
 dency to embitter against us the minds of our fellow citi- 
 zens, I felt an anguish too keen for description; and per- 
 haps the Chaplain will experience a similar sentiment, when 
 he comes coolly to reflect on this instance of his conduct. 
 It did not become the friend of toleration to misinform, and 
 to sow in minds so misinformed, the seeds of religious ani- 
 mosity. 
 
 Under all these distressful feelings, one consideration 
 alone relieved me in wTiting; and that was, the hope of 
 vindicating your religion to your own selves at least, and 
 preserving the steadfastness of your faith. But even this 
 prospect should not have induced me to engage in the con- 
 troversy, if I could fear that it would disturb the harmony 
 now subsisting amongst all Christians in this country, so 
 J)lessed with civil and religious liberty ; which, if we have 
 
136 
 
 the wisdom and temper to preserve, America may come to 
 exhibit a proof to the world, that general and equal tolera- 
 tion, by giving a free circulation to fair argument, is the 
 most effectual method to bring all denominations of Chris- 
 tians to a unity of faith. 
 
 The motives which led the Chaplain to the step he has 
 taken, are known best to God and himself. For the vindi- 
 cation of his conduct, he appeals to the dictates of con- 
 science with a seriousness and solemnity, which must add 
 greatly to his guilt, if he be not sincere. He is anxious 
 to impress on his readers a firm conviction, that neither 
 views of preferment nor sensuality had any influence on 
 his determination. He appears to be jealous, that suspi- 
 cions will arise unfavourable to the purity of his intentions. 
 He shall have no cause to impute to me the spreading of 
 these suspicions. But I must entreat him with an earnest- 
 ness suggested by the most perfect good will and zealous 
 regard for his welfare, to consider the sanctity of the solemn 
 and deliberate engagement, which at an age of perfect ma- 
 turity he contracted with Almighty God. I pray him to 
 read the two exhortations of that enlightened doctor St. 
 Chrysostom to his friend Theodorus, who, like the Chaplain,, 
 had renounced his former state, in which by a vow of celi- 
 bacy he had consecrated himself to Almighty God. " You 
 allege," says the saint to his friend, " that marriage is law- 
 ful ; this I readily acknowledge ; but it is not now in your 
 power to embrace that state ; for it is certain, that one, who 
 by a solemn engagement has given himself to God, as his 
 heavenly spouse, if he violate this contract, commits adul- 
 tery, though he should a thousand times call it marriage. 
 Nay, he is guilty of a crime so much the more enormous, 
 as the majesty of God surpasses man. Had you been free, 
 noone could charge you with desertion ; but since you are con- 
 tracted to so great a king, you are not at your own disposal."* 
 
 * Chrys. ad Theod. laps. Exh. 2. 
 
137 
 
 See liere, how far St. Chrysostom was from considering 
 the Jaw of celibacy as " a cruel usurpation of the una- 
 lienable rights of nature, as unwarrantable in its princi- 
 ple, inadequate in its object, and dreadful in its conse- 
 quences." He considered a vow of celibacy as an engage- 
 ment, or contract entered into with Almighty God ; inde- 
 pendent therefore of the discipline of any society as to its 
 binding power, and not to be released but by God's relin- 
 quishing his right to exact a rigorous compliance with the 
 obligation of it. He thought that the sanctity of religion 
 was interested in the performance of so sacred an engage- 
 ment, according to Deut. xxiii. 21. "When thou hast 
 vowed a vow to the Lord our God, thou shalt not be slack 
 to pay it, because our Lord thy God will require it. — That, 
 which is once gone out of thy lips, thou shalt observe, and 
 shalt do, as thou hast promised to our Lord thy God, and 
 hast spoken with thy proper will and thy own mouth." 
 
 u2 
 
REPLY 
 
 AN ADDRESS TO THE ROMAN CATHOLICS 
 
 OF THE 
 
 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. 
 
 BY THE AUTHOR OF A LETTER TO THE ROMAN CATHOLICS 
 OP THE CITY OP WORCESTER. 
 
 [the rev. DR. WHARTON.] 
 
 NEW-YORK: REPUBLISHED BY DAVID LONGWORTH, 1817. 
 
 PHILADELPHIA: WILLIAM STAVELT, 1834. 
 
A REPLY, 6lc. 
 
 It is with deep concern, that the late Worcester Chap- 
 lain finds himself under the disagreeable necessity of ap- 
 pearing again before the tribunal of the public. He is 
 well convinced, that of "making many books there is no 
 end," and has experienced that "much study is a weariness 
 of the flesh."* But an attack, of a complexion which he 
 did not expect, lately made upon his character, rouses 
 every faculty of defence, that reason suggests, or truth can 
 authorize. The weapon now levelled at his candour and 
 accuracy, must, if possible, be parried by the Chaplain : 
 and, what to him is exquisitely painful, must be made to 
 recoil upon the hand that wields it. From some partial 
 information, he had been led to expect, that the reverend 
 and learned author of the address would treat his little let- 
 ter with some degree of indulgence, and allow its writer 
 that credit for his uprightness and sincerity, to which the 
 most solemn professions of both, were entitled from a 
 friend. But he is grieved to find, that the Reverend author 
 honours him no longer with this endearing appellation. 
 Without the imputation of any personal offence ; nay, at a 
 time when his bosom was warm with something more than 
 the cold sentiment of perfect good will, when his tongue, 
 in every company, was almost eloquent at the bare mention 
 of the Reverend gentleman's name, when he was feasting 
 on tlie hopes that their united efforts were engaged in the 
 sacred cause of Christian toleration, and that a difference 
 in some religious speculations, would have little tendency 
 to cool their mutual affections — at this moment, I say, the 
 unfortunate Chaplain was experiencing a sad reverse in the 
 
 * EcqI. xii. 12. 
 
14^ 
 
 heart of him whom he had loved without reserve, and sink* 
 ing to the idea of a cast-off, former friend. Under the 
 weight of regret arising from this melancholy circumstance, 
 the Chaplain's mind is but ill disposed to strew over a dry 
 and exhausted subject those flowers of splendid diction, or 
 that gaiety of fancy, which alone can render it palatable to 
 the generality of readers. They, however, who may have 
 experienced a similar trial, will find an excuse in their 
 sympathy for the deficiency of amusement. Having dropt 
 this monumental tear over the Rev. gentleman's former 
 friendship, the Chaplain hastens to the object of this pam- 
 phlet, which is intended merely as a short vindication of the 
 sentiments contained in his little letter, and of the authen* 
 ticity of the quotations upon which they are grounded. It 
 is not his intention to follow the Rev. author of the address 
 through all the mazes of extraneous matter which he has 
 annexed lo his animadversions on some passages of the let- 
 ter, or to repel by fresh arguments any revived attacks upon 
 the Protestant cause. Neither his leisure nor inclination 
 now alloic him to undertake ivhat has been done by much 
 abler hands. The Rev. author and Protestants also know 
 where to look for these arguments. The writers cited by 
 the Chaplain will exhibit them with such profusion, perspi- 
 cuity, and candour, that the charge of gross misrepresenta- 
 tion, unfair quotations, partial answers, inconsistency, and 
 contradictions, so freely alleged against them by the Rev. 
 gentleman, will make but a slight impression upon minds 
 not previously warped by strong and early prejudices. In- 
 consistency and contradictions, indeed, are often compati- 
 ble with every virtue of the heart, and must be implied to 
 opinions that run counter to our own ; but ^7*oss misrepre- 
 sentations and unfair quotations are words of a harsh import, 
 and will hardly apply to the pious Claude, the candid Chil- 
 lingworth, and the venerable Usher : names too long conse- 
 crated in the temples of erudition and virtue, to be tar- 
 nished by the breath of indiscriminate accusation. O may 
 
143 
 
 the Chaplain's name be enrolled with these worthies in 
 the annals of sincerity, and as long* as his private history 
 shall be remembered, may his moral fame run parallel with 
 their's ! 
 
 The Chaplain has already hinted at the two points of 
 view, in which he considers the Rev. gentleman's address. 
 He conceives it to be an impeachment of his candour as a 
 gentleman, and of his accuracy as a scholar. He is far 
 from imagining, that the Rev. author intended that his 
 publication should be considered in so hostile a light. 
 Some expressions of regard for the Chaplain forbid the idea. 
 But surely, no man can admit his frequent suspicions of a 
 want of candour in his former friend, or his free arraign- 
 ment of his accuracy in quotation, but must conclude him 
 destitute of these essentials to character. To wipe away, 
 therefore, any unfavourable impressions, which his recent 
 connexions may experience from the address, the Chaplain 
 is compelled to enter the lists with a veteran divine of abi- 
 lities very superior to his own ; to contend with a man, 
 whose extensive knowledge, whose refined and elegant 
 mind, can polish even the roughness of scholastic theology. 
 Perhaps, in the benevolence of Iris heart, the Rev. gentle- 
 man himself will excuse the unequal contest, when he 
 comes to reflect, that the almost total loss and aversion of 
 the Chaplain's former connexions, must greatly enhance 
 the value of those, with which he has lately been ho- 
 noured. 
 
 The first assertion in the letter to the Roman Catholics 
 of Worcester, at which the Rev. gentleman takes offence, 
 is, " that no consistent Roman Catholic can be a candid in- 
 quirer in matters of religion." The Chaplain, when he 
 penned this line, was aware of the Rev. gentleman's objec- 
 tions, and therefore marked the word consistent with a spe- 
 cial emphasis. He trusts, that this precaution alone will 
 be able to reconcile his assertion with candour. For he 
 will only ask this one plain question. Can he be called an 
 
144 
 
 impartial inquirer, who, previous to his inquiry, is obliged, 
 under pain of damnation, to believe his own opinions to be 
 true, and those of his adversary groundless and false ? Now, 
 is not this precisely the case with every consistent Roman 
 Catholic ? Does he not believe with the assent of faith, that 
 every article of his creed is as incompatible with falsehood 
 as God himself? To what purpose, therefore, are Protestant 
 authors open to his inspection ? Can he read them with a 
 view to religious information, to discover truths, which he 
 is already persuaded are not to be found? And yet, he must 
 be allowed to do this, before the Chaplain's candour can bo 
 questioned. The fact is, he may seek for information, but 
 not religious information, in the writings of Protestants. 
 The Rev. gentleman passes by this material distinction, 
 upon which the Chaplain's candour principally rests. For 
 it is utterly impossible, that with a full conviction of the 
 truth and evidence of a tenet, a man can seek information 
 that may possibly refute it. He may look into the writers 
 upon the opposite opinion, in order to detect the inconsist- 
 ency of their principles, their unfair quotations, their par- 
 tial answers, ihe'w gross misrepresentations; but is this to 
 seek religious information, even in the sense that Leland 
 admits it? Is this a disposition to embrace truth on which 
 side soever it shall appear 7 When a man, for instance, con- 
 ceives himself obliged to admit the doctrine of transub- 
 stantiation at the peril of his soul, is he disposed to embrace 
 truth on which side soever it appears? Can he doubt for a 
 moment the truth of this tenet without ceasing to be a con- 
 sistent Roman Catholic? The Rev. gentleman knows what 
 line of duty is marked out by all casuists in cases of this 
 nature. He knows, that so far from harbouring a doubt of 
 any doctrinal point, the understanding must instantly shut 
 up every avenue, through which it had entered, and pro- 
 duce an explicit act of belief of that article.* Can the 
 
 * See ihe Casuists, passim. 
 
145 
 
 Rev. gentleman point out in all this any degree of that in" 
 difference so essential to rational investigation? With rea- 
 son, therefore, did the Chaplain affirm, that no " consistent 
 Roman Catholic can be a candid inquirer in matters of re- 
 ligion ;" and was authorized to add, moreover, that to seek 
 " religious information in the writings of Protestants, was 
 to incur the severest censures of the Roman Church." 
 
 The Rev. gentleman does not pretend to deny, that 
 wherever the Bulla Ccense is received, it must have its ef- 
 fect. In Italy, therefore, and some other countries, excom- 
 munication must still be their lot, who presume to peruse 
 any Protestant treatise upon religion. In the parts of 
 Christendom, however, where this Bull is not received, the 
 works of Protestants may be read with impunity. Thus a 
 grievous crime in one country, is not even a venial offence 
 in another. This must be the sentiment of every Roman 
 Catholic ; and yet its consistency can hardly be admitted. 
 For, if the Pope be a Doctor of the Church by way of emi- 
 nence, as he is frequently styled, if he be entitled to the 
 pompous appellations of Master of the World, of Universal 
 Father, which were frequently bestowed on him in the 
 eleventh century ^* if he be a Divine Majesty, the Husband 
 of the Church, the Prince of the Apostles, the Prince and 
 King of all the Universe ; if he be the Pastor, the Physi- 
 cian, and a God, to use the language of the council of La- 
 teran, speaking to Leo X.,f who will dare question his 
 right to proscribe such sources of information as, in his 
 wisdom, he shall deem pernicious to his subjects? Incon- 
 sistency apart, he must have a daring soul, who shall ven- 
 ture upon a pasture, which the Universal Shepherd pro- 
 nounces to be poisonous, and forbids his flock to taste, at 
 the hazard of their salvation. The Rev. gentleman will 
 not deny that these lofty pretensions have their effect to 
 this day. Else, why are Roman Catholics constantly ad- 
 
 * Mosheim's Church History, t Basnage, vol. 3, p. 556. 
 
 N 
 
146 
 
 vised to obtain permission to read heretical books fof the 
 security of their consciences? Among the faculties as they 
 are called, or parochial powers conferred on Roman Catho- 
 lic missionaries even in England, is not a special license 
 granted for keeping and reading heretical books? The 
 Chaplain's warrant on this head is expressed in these words ; 
 Conceditur facultas tenendi et legendi lihros hsereticorum de 
 eorum religione tractantes ad effectum eos expugnandu 
 " Leave is granted to keep and read the books of heretics, 
 which treat of their religion, in order to refute them.^' 
 These lines place this whole matter in its proper point of 
 view. They evidently evince to ivhat purpose Roman Ca- 
 tholics are indulged in the reading of Protestant authors. 
 Not, it is presumed, for the sake of impartial investigation, 
 but solely to combat and refute them. The Rev. gentle- 
 man may say, then, with as much confidence as he pleases.^ 
 that rational investigation is as open to Catholics, as to any 
 other set of men on the face of the earth. But persons of 
 real candour will still give the Chaplain credit for the same 
 valuable quality, until it be proved that religious informa- 
 tion also, is equally open to Roman Catholics as to others ; 
 or that the Protestant Churches forbid the reading of Ro- 
 man Catholic writers, unless it be with a view to confute 
 them. 
 
 Hitherto the Chaplain conceives his candour to be unsul- 
 lied. The Rev. gentleman, through eleven pages of his 
 address, has furnished a crowd of arguments to support it. 
 His whole train of reasoning goes evidently to illustrate 
 the Chaplain's assertion, " that the Roman Church is daily 
 undergoing a silent reformation : that the dark monsters of 
 superstition and bigotry are retreating gradually before the 
 light of genuine religion and philosophy, and, " that her 
 more enlightened divines reject or explain away her most 
 uncharitable tenets." For the Chaplain will be bold to 
 affirm, that the Rev. gentleman is the first Roman Catholic 
 divine, who has been eager, and zealous, and copious to 
 
147 
 
 demonstrate, that Protestants may be members of the Catho- 
 lic Church, and consequently, as such, in the way to salva- 
 tion. All who know the Rev. author have reason to re- 
 joice, that a man of such abilities and erudition should 
 thus declare himself the patron of genuine Catholicity. 
 The Chaplain has peculiar reasons for joining- in the gene- 
 ral congratulation : and most devoutly wishes, that the libe- 
 rality of this sentiment, unqualified by any restrictions, may 
 find its way into the minds of the Rev. gentleman's brethren. 
 Should this fortunately be the case, certain congregations 
 will be no longer amused with compliments upon the ex- 
 clusive soundness of their faith, nor Protestants provoked 
 by menacing declamations, much more calculated io disturb 
 the peace and harmony subsisting in these United States be- 
 tween religionists of all professions, than the Chaplain's re- 
 cital, or even reprobation of tenets, which it appears are 
 about to take leave of America. It is to be hoped that, 
 among others, the doctrine of there being no salvation out 
 of the Roman Catholic communion, will soon depart from 
 this continent, as so eminent a divine has already discarded 
 it from his creed. 
 
 The Rev. gentleman begins this article by observing, 
 that to be in the communion of the Catholic Church, and to 
 be a member of the Catholic Church, are two very different 
 things. But surely this inference does not follow from 
 the distinction — " Therefore a man may be a member of 
 the Roman Catholic Church without being in her commu- 
 nion." To make this conclusion good, the Rev. gentle- 
 man must first prove, that the Roman and Catholic Church 
 are synonymous terms,* which the Chaplain humbly con- 
 ceives would require a longer essay than the address 
 itself. Every Protestant divine is ready to acknowledge, 
 that, in the ordinary course of Providence, no salvation can 
 
 * Albertus Pighius, a celebrated canonist, was clearly of a different opin- 
 ion — " Quis per Romanam ecdesiam unquam intellexil aut univ€rsdl.em eccU- 
 $iam, aut generate consilium." Pigh. Eccles. Hierar. \i\i, G. cap. 3. 
 
148 
 
 be obtained out of the Catholic Church. The Rev. gen- 
 tleman would persuade us, that the sentiment of his 
 Church goes no farther than this, and he instances the 
 words of Pope Pius's creed to prove it. A reference pe- 
 culiarly fortunate for the Chaplain ! For, if the words of 
 that creed do not manifestly require communion with the 
 Roman Church as essential to salvation, he will relinquish 
 every claim either to accuracy or candour. Wherefore, to 
 obviate any unfair accusation in future, of citing from me- 
 mory, or neglecting to examine a faithful transcript of it, 
 he will set before the reader a few concluding articles of 
 this famous creed, literally translated from the original 
 
 Latin " I do embrace and receive all and every thing 
 
 that has been defined and declared by the holy synod of 
 Trent, concerning original sin and justification — I do, in 
 like manner, profess that in the mass there is offered a true, 
 proper, and propitiatory sacrifice for the living and the 
 dead ; and that in the most holy sacrament of the Eucha- 
 rist there is truly, really, and substantially the body and 
 blood, together with the soul and divinity of our Lord 
 Jesus Christ ; and that there is a conversion made of the 
 whole substance of the bread into the body, and of the 
 whole substance of the wine into the blood, which conver- 
 sion the Catholic Church calls transubstantiation — I con- 
 fess, also, that under one kind only, Christ, whole and en- 
 tire, and a true sacrament, is received — I do firmly hold, 
 that there is a purgatory, and that the souls there detained 
 are relieved by the suffrages of the faithful — And, in like 
 manner, that the saints reigning tc^ether with Christ, are 
 to be worshipped and invocated ; and that they do offeF 
 prayers unto God for us ; and that their relics are to be 
 worshipped — I do most firmly assert, that the images of 
 Christ, and of the ever Virgin mother of God, and of the 
 other saints, ought to be had and retained, and that due ho- 
 nour and worship ought to be given to them — Also, I do 
 affirm, that the power oX indulgences was left by Christ ir, 
 
149 
 
 the Church, and that the use of them is most wholesome 
 to Christian people — 1 acknowledge the holy Catholic and 
 Apostolical Roman Church to be the mother and mistress 
 of all Churches ; and I do promise and swear true obedi- 
 ence to the Roman pontiff, the successor of St. Peter, 
 prince of the Apostles, and vicar of Jesus Christ, dec. 
 This true Catholic faith, without which no man can he 
 saved, which at this time I freely profess, and truly hold, I 
 will take care, as much as shall lie in me, (with God's 
 help,) constantly to keep whole and inviolate, and to con- 
 fess the same unto the last breath of my life ; and that it be 
 taught, held, and preached by those under my power, or of 
 whom the care shall belong to me in my profession. This 
 I, the said N., do promise, vow, and swear, so help me 
 God, and these, God's holy Gospels." 
 
 Such are the concluding periods of Pope Pius's creed. 
 Can the reader peruse them without wondering at the acri- 
 monious censure thrown out by the Rev. gentleman, that 
 " the Chaplain labours to fix on Roman Catholics this ob- 
 noxious tenet with a perseverance which carries with it an 
 air of animosity ?" The severity of the remark is freely 
 forgiven, but surely its imprudence cannot be concealed. 
 This true Catholic faith, without which no man can he saved 
 — Mark the word this. Can its meaning possibly admit of 
 a doubt? Is it not, that no man can be saved, who has 
 not this faith ? No man, therefore, can be saved, who does 
 not believe the doctrine of transubstantiation, and of pur- 
 gatory. No man can be saved, who does not acknow- 
 ledge the Roman Church to be *' the mother and mistress 
 of all Churches." No man can be saved who believes not 
 these articles, says the Pope : They who protest against 
 them may he saved, says the Rev. gentleman. Was it pru- 
 dent to provoke a reference to this creed, when the mean- 
 ing of it is too clear and evident to admit of any pallia- 
 live, either from the subtlety of scholastic quibbles, or 
 
 n2 
 
150 
 
 from liberality struggling against the influence of pre^ 
 judice ? 
 
 The Chaplain, therefore, was authorized to advance, 
 upon the authority of this creed, that neither transubstan- 
 iiatiojiy nor the infallibility of the Roman Church, are 
 taught more explicitly as articles of faith, than the impos- 
 sibility of being saved out of the communion of this 
 Church. He is justified, moreover, in asserting, that soTne 
 have laboured hard to palliate the severity of this unpopu- 
 lar tenet, and that others have rejected it, as no article qf 
 their creed. " But," says the Rev. gentleman, " to be in 
 the communion of the Catholic Church, and to be a mem- 
 ber of the Catholic Church, are two very distinct things." 
 The Chaplain will not lead the reader through all the 
 mazes of controversy, to consider the propriety of this dis- 
 tinction. Suffice it to ask, if these in reality be two dis- 
 tinct things, viz : To believe the doctrines of transubstan- 
 tiation, of purgatory, of saint worship, <^c., to acknowledge 
 the liomun Church to be the mother and mistress of all 
 Churches; and to be in the coinmunion of the Roman Ca- 
 tholic Church 7 Are these indeed two distinct things ? 
 Do not these doctrines discriminate her from all other 
 Churches 1 Can a man promise, vow, and swear freely to 
 profess and truly to hold them without being a Roman Ca- 
 tholic, and, consequently, (unless under actual excommuni- 
 cation,), without being in communion with the Roman 
 Catholic Church ? Wherefore it is evident, that to profess the 
 faith set down in Pope Pius' creed, and to be in the com- 
 munion of the Roman Church, is one and the same thing; 
 and it follows of course, that, if no man can be saved 
 without this faith, no man can be saved without this com- 
 munion. 
 
 The accidental salvation which the Rev. gentleman's 
 authorities allow to Protestants, by no means softens the 
 harshness of the tenet. A few exceptions to a general 
 rule serve only to strengthea it. Not but what the Chap- 
 
151 
 
 lain most cordially wishes, that such in reality were the 
 doctrine of the Roman Church. A revolution of this na- 
 ture would be peculiarly fortunate for him. The unmerited 
 coldness and illiberal abuse, which he has experienced 
 from several of his former connexions, would subsist no 
 longer towards ^fellow CatJiolic; nor would the Rev. gen- 
 tleman himself indulge in distressful feelings, or waste his 
 pity on a brother whom he may regard consistently with his 
 principles, and ot/ght to treat as a member of the Catholic 
 Church. As every definition of heresy, which the Rev. 
 gentleman alleges, contains an explicit apology for the 
 Chaplain, he cannot but adopt them with singular satisfac- 
 tion. Nay, he will enforce the sentiment by an additional 
 passage from St. Augustin, which, he knows, excludes him 
 in a special manner from the guilt of this crime. *' In my 
 opinion," says he, " a heretic is a person who, for some 
 temporal convenience, but chiefly for the sake of glory and 
 pre-eminence, broaches new and false opinions, or adopts 
 them."* 
 
 " The Chaplain knows," says the Rev. gentleman, "that 
 many of the most eminent Protestant writers have asserted, 
 that all the essentials of true religion are to be found in 
 our communion, and surely, the possibility of obtaining 
 salvation is one of these essentials." But what follows 
 from this charitable assertion of some Protestant divines, 
 but a more powerful claim to Christian liberality, which 
 they only have a right to dispute, who expressly allow that 
 all the essentials of true religion may he found also i?i the 
 Protestant communion. Do the passages alleged by the 
 Rev. gentleman countenance this idea? On the contrary, 
 do they not all manifestly suppose, that every Protestant is 
 in reality a heretic, however his sincerity and ignorance 
 
 * Quandoquidem kcsreticus est, ul mea fert opinio, qui alicujus temporalis 
 commodi, et maxime glorias principalusque sui gratia, falsas ac novas opiniones^ 
 vetgignit, vet sequitur. Aug, de util. credendi. 
 
152 
 
 may accidentally excuse him from the guilt of heresy T 
 But the Chaplain will suppose that the Rev. gentleman 
 allows salvation not only to the simple and illiterate, but to 
 the inquisitive and learned of the Protestant communion. 
 He will suppose, with the illustrious Bergier, that all Pro- 
 testants, who, " with sincerity, or through inculpable ig- 
 norance, remain in their error, are really children of the 
 Catholic Church." He will suppose, moreover, that this 
 sincerity, this inculpable ignorance, may excuse a Protes- 
 tant minister, as well as the most illiterate of his flock. 
 Now, if this may possibly be the case ; if Protestants of all 
 degrees, conditions, and capacities, 7nay be children of the 
 Catholic Church, does not the spirit of charity command 
 us to consider, and the law of justice to treat them as such? 
 Or, if they receive not this treatment, does it not follow, 
 that they are not regarded in so favourable a light ? Here 
 is one of those cases, in which the conduct of a Christian 
 society, is the best comment upon the spirit and nature of 
 its belief. To conclude, the Rev. gentleman's reasoning 
 must be this : " that, notwithstanding the lofty pretensions 
 of the Roman Church,* the decrees of her pontiffs, the de- 
 
 * The most celebrated divine of the French Church, and its most eloquent 
 champion, thus delivers his sentiments on the spirit of toleration belonging to 
 his communion: "Thus we clearly see, that what renders this Church so 
 odious to Protestants, is principally, and more than all other tenets, her holy 
 and inflexible incompatibility, (incompatibilite,) if I may so speak. It is be- 
 cause she will stand alone, because she conceives herself to be the spouse, a 
 title that admits of no division ; it is, because she cannot suffer her doctrines 
 to be questioned, because she confides in the promises and perpetual assist- 
 ance of the Holy Ghost. For, in reality, this it is, that renders her so severe, 
 so unsociable, and, consequently, so odious to all sects separated from her, 
 which, for the most part, desired nothing more at the beginning, than to be 
 tolerated by her, or not to be fulminated by her anathemas. But her fioly 
 severity, and the holy delicacy of her sentiments, forbade such indulgence, or 
 rather such weakness, and her inflexibility, which makes her hated byschis- 
 matical sects, renders her dear and venerable to the children of God." 
 Bossuet, sixieme avertissement sur les letlres de M. Jurieu, page 302. Again, 
 p. 301, " She (the Roman Church,) subscribes to the holy Scripture with all 
 other Christians, as to a book inspired by God, and dictated immediately by 
 
153 
 
 cision of her councils, the writings of her champions, and 
 the execution of her anathemas, it is still, and ever was the 
 opinion of all her divines, since St. Augustin, that they 
 who protest against her doctrines wja?/and ought to be con- 
 sidered as true children of the Catholic Church." If the 
 old maxim be just, that He proves nothing who proves too 
 much, the reader may apply it in the present instance. 
 
 With respect to the Christian charity, which Protestants 
 entertain for Roman Catholics, the Rev. gentleman's own 
 words will evince how superior it is to that of their oppo- 
 nents : "You ProtestantSj" says he, " allow our Church to 
 be a true Church. Your universities have declared, on a 
 solemn consultation, that a person not pretending to the 
 plea of invincible ignorance, may safely leave the Protes- 
 tant Church, and become a member of ours, because it is a 
 safe way to salvation." Was the Rev. gentleman aware of 
 
 the Holy Ghost, and she is only excluded from this pretended society, (of 
 tderaling Christians,) because she is and ever will be opposed to religious 
 indifference by her essential constitutions; and, in one word, because, as M. 
 Jurieu says, she is the most intolerant of all Christian societies." How will 
 any thing soften so formal a confession, but the silent reformation mentioned 
 by the Chaplain? Again, at the end of the 2d vol. of his Avertissemens, &c. 
 among otiier heretics he reckons the advocates for religious toleration, and 
 sets this down as one of their doctrines, "They maintain, that the magistrate 
 has no power to punish heretics." Here is a short specimen of that flaming 
 orthodoxy, which was blended with all the refinements of gallantry in the 
 motley etiquette of Louis the Fourteenth's court. At a period preceding this 
 we meet with the following sentiment in the greatest controvertist of the 
 Roman Church : " In the Catholic Church many are bad, but of the heretics 
 (speaking of Protestants,) not one is good." In ecclesia Catholica sunt pluri- 
 mi mali, ex hcereticis nullus est bonus. Bellar. lib. 4. de eccles. milit. cap. 13. 
 Where the charitable Cardinal must mean, if he argue logically, that no 
 Protestant is good in tliat line, in which many Catholics are bad, that is, in 
 the line of morality. As to the decisions of the popes upon this head, one 
 instance out of many shall suffice : " We declare, say, define, and pronounce 
 that to every human creature it is absolutely necessary for salvation to be 
 eubject to the Roman pontiflf!" Subesse Romano pontijici omni humance crea- 
 iurcB declaramus, dicimus, definimus el pronunciamus omnino esse de necessi- 
 tate salidis. Bonifac. viii. in extra vag. de raajoritate et obedientia cap. Unani. 
 Banctara. 
 
154 
 
 the high compliment which he here pays to Protestant mo- 
 deration, to that Christian condescension, which the re- 
 formed Churches have ever manifested for composing the 
 differences of Christendom? They know nothing of that 
 sacred and inJJ.exible incompatibility, of that Jioly severity 
 and delicacy, so highly preconized by the bishop of Meaux 
 as the characteristics of his Church ; which we are told, 
 however, says no more on this head, than do all other Chris- 
 tian societies. They know nothing of the subtile distinc- 
 tions, the impossible suppositions, which are held out as 
 cloaks for an uncharitable tenet, but they know that cha- 
 rity itself is the soul of religion, the very bond of perfec- 
 tion ; they know, '* that God is no respecter of persons, 
 but that in every nation, he that feareth him and worketh 
 righteousness is accepted with him ;" (Acts x. 34, 35.) 
 they know, that faith will ever authorize concessions, 
 which charity may demand ; they know, that the faith 
 ought to be hept in the bond of peace ; they know, that all 
 who maintain the common principles of Christianity, 
 which at all times, and in all places, have constituted the 
 creed of all orthodox believers, and who walk according 
 to this rule, neither adding to this faith, tenets that may 
 abolish, nor committing immoralities, that may tarnish it ; 
 they know " that peace shall be upon them, and mercy, 
 and upon the Israel of God." (Gal. vi. 16.) These, the 
 Chaplain trusts, are the sentiments of Protestants. When 
 the Roman pontiff, his councils, his divines, and universi- 
 ties, hold a similar language; when " they shall declare, 
 on solemn consultations, that a person, not pretending to 
 the plea of invincible ignorance, may safely leave the 
 Roman Church and become a member of ours, because it 
 is a safe way to salvation ;" then, and not till then, can 
 they aspire to the same liberality with Protestants, or ob- 
 tain credit for apologies, which, though sincere in indivi- 
 duals, are not authorized by the Church, for which they 
 are intended. And now, perhaps, the reader will not be 
 
155 
 
 at a loss to account for the Chaplain's fixing this tenet on 
 the Roman Church. At any rate, let him compare the 
 grounds of this charge with the Rev, gentleman's reply, 
 and if, after divesting his mind of prejudice, he should 
 embrace this opinion, the Chaplain will still be comforted 
 in the humiliation of his defeat, at the accession of liberal 
 fame to his former connexions. 
 
 The field over which the Chaplain must next follow the 
 Rev. gentleman, is very intricate and extensive. Through 
 forty-five pages of his address, he displays all his powers of 
 reasoning, to uphold the system of infallibility upon the 
 ruins of the few arguments, which appeared to the Chap- 
 lain sufficient to overturn it. He had asserted, that many 
 discriminating doctrines of the Roman Church could not 
 be proved from the Scriptures ; and had made good this as- 
 sertion from the concessions of several Roman Caholic di- 
 vines. He therefore concluded, that they must rest 
 entirely upon the infallibility of the Church that taught 
 them. He then proceeded briefly to investigate the claim 
 to this mighty prerogative, and to examine it on the grounds 
 of reason and revelation. On the same foundations will he 
 now erect his fortress of defence. 
 
 The Rev. gentleman begins by observing, that if the 
 claim to infallibility be found to rest on solid and convinc- 
 ing proofs, then certainly it becomes agreeable to the dic- 
 tates of reason, and the soundest principles of morality, to 
 assent to the doctrines proposed by this infallible authority, 
 though we may notfidly comprehend them. And sofarihe 
 Chaplain will surely agree with him,. But does it follow 
 from this argument, that the collier's profession of faith, 
 mentioned by Bellarmine, could be rational, who is not 
 supposed to have examined on iDhat grounds this claim to 
 infallibility is established, or to have had abilities to disco- 
 ver that it rests on solid and convincing proof s ? Without 
 knowing probably, what either himself, or the Church be- 
 lieved, he satisfied his mind, and secured his orthodoxy, by 
 
156 
 
 a vague profession of believing what the Church believed, 
 upon every subject.* The Chaplain is still of opinion, that 
 to plead the merit and efficacy of this answer to every re- 
 ligious difficulty, is to offer an insult to reason; and the 
 Rev. gentleman must think so likewise, or he would hardly 
 have exhorted his friends to examine the grounds of their 
 religion over and over again. The Rev. gentleman asks 
 the Chaplain, if it be weakness and credulity to submit to 
 divine authority, although ive do not fully comprehend the 
 doctrines it delivers? The Chaplain will demand, in his 
 turn, where he even hints at the sentiment, which that 
 question insinuates? Does he not declare repeatedly, that 
 his belief is the Apostles' creed; the Bible his religion? 
 How then can he refuse his assent to the mysteries enu- 
 merated by the Rev. gentleman, which, his reason tells 
 him, are delivered in them both? The fact is, the Rev. 
 gentleman takes the proofs of infallibility for granted, and 
 then arraigns the Chaplain for dissenting from its decrees. 
 He adds, moreover, that the Chaplain's arguments, drawn 
 from reason, m.ust furnish powerful arms to the Deist, the 
 Arian, and the Socinian. But, the obvious application of 
 the Chaplain's mode of reasoning to the Rev. gentleman's 
 own principles, shows tliis charge to be groundless. For 
 does he not tell us that " the only rational method we can 
 pursue, in establishing a contested doctrine, is to show, 
 that it is proposed to our belief by an infallible authority ?" 
 Now, how does the Chaplain's reasoning, when applied to 
 this principle, countenance the Deist, the Arian, and the 
 Socinian? Will the following mode of arguing be admit- 
 ted? "Reason and religion can never be at variance; 
 therefore, we must adopt the principles of a Deist or an 
 Arian. The most rational religion must always be the best; 
 therefore, we must deny the infallibility of Scripture. The 
 
 ♦ This ridiculous story of the collier and his faith, is seriously related by 
 Bellarmine, dearie benemoriendi, lib. 2. cap. 9. frora Teter Barochius, Bishop 
 of Padua. 
 
157 
 
 language of reason was never yet rejected with impunity ; 
 therefore, we must deny the doctrine of the Trinity." How 
 would the enemies of revelation triumph at concessions of 
 this nature ? Is it prudent, in any matter, entirely to re- 
 linquish the field of reason to an adversary ? Again — 
 Will the Rev. gentleman be ever able to persuade a rea- 
 sonable man, that the mystery of the Trinity, for instance, 
 and the doctrine of transubstantiation, present the same 
 difficulties to his senses and understanding? What have 
 the senses to do with the Godhead? Or can the under- 
 ^ standing presume to point at contradictions, in an object 
 wrapt up in mystery unsearchable, and lying infinitely be- 
 yond the weak faculties of man ? But, with transuhstan- 
 tiatioUj the case is quite otherwise : Here is a matter that 
 admits of experiment, upon which our reason can argue, 
 and our senses can pronounce. The two former must be 
 respected, when they discover gross and evident contra- 
 dictions, and the latter attended to, when they decide upon 
 qualities within the range of their essential faculties. 
 Bread must be bread, while all its natural and discriminat- 
 ing properties are perceived by the senses, or there is an 
 end of this source of information and judgment. " That 
 which you saw," says St. Augustin, " is the bread and the 
 cup : which your very eyes declare unto you."* This ma- 
 terial difference being settled, well might the Chaplain dis- 
 claim an infallible Church authority for certain tenets, 
 which reason and experience tells him are incredible and 
 groundless ; and yet admit an infallible Scripture autho- 
 rity, which, however it may challenge our assent to in- 
 scrutable mysteries, yet ofTers no violence to our senses 
 and understanding. And now, the " Chaplain, or any other 
 Protestant, can tell the Rev. gentleman, why a Boling- 
 
 * Quod ergo vidistis, panis est et calix ; quod vobis etiam oculi veslri denun- 
 ciant. Aug. in serra. de sacrara. apud Bedam, in 1 Cor. 10. etRetrom. de 
 Corp. et sang, domini. vel in serm. de verb. dom. ut citatiir ab Algero lib. 1. 
 d e sacr. cap. 5. 
 
 O 
 
153 
 
 broke, or a Hume, had not as good a right to use the ar- 
 gument mentioned at page 56, against the general doc- 
 trines of Christianity, as he had to urge it against the 
 Roman Church.'' The reason is, because he and they, 
 after discussing every claim to infallibility, conclude, that 
 this prerogative belongs not to mortals, but to the word of 
 God only, delivered in the Scriptures. 
 
 But the Rev. gentleman's scattered arguments on this 
 head beginning now to converge to a point, it will be less 
 difficult to seize their meaning, and methodize their dis- 
 cussion. 
 
 He first endeavours to uphold the system of infallibility 
 upon the scriptural passages examined by the Chaplain. 
 He then proceeds to throw out some additional proofs for 
 its reality, and concludes by striving to vindicate the Ro- 
 man Church, from the imputation of variety or novelty in 
 her tenets, on which the Chaplain had grounded his last 
 short argument against her infallibility. Throughout the 
 whole of this controversy, he frequently repeats his former 
 insinuations of a want of candour and accuracy in the 
 Chaplain. 
 
 The Rev. gentleman appears displeased, that the Chap- 
 lain should say, that few scriptural texts seem to counte- 
 nance infallibility ; and that he should insinuate, he was at 
 anytime discouraged from examining them. Why he once 
 refused to do so, the Chaplain trusts he has not now to ex- 
 plain. The reader will recollect, whether the kind of ex- 
 amination formerlj allowed him is deserving of the name. 
 That few scriptural texts make for infallibility, he shall 
 still take the liberty to think, notwithstanding the thirty 
 enumerated by Father Mumfort, whose work he has read 
 without discovering him, in any line, an adversary worthy 
 of his Chillingworth, or his Usher. The truth is, the Ca- 
 tholic Scriptvristj like many others, has an admirable faci- 
 lity at finding whatever he wishes for in the Scriptures. 
 He knew the great advantage in not being over delicate in 
 
159 
 
 the choice of texts, and that it is no difficult matter to im- 
 pose them upon people, who value them more for their 
 number than their weight. 
 
 The Rev. gentleman begins by telling us, that, " among 
 other proofs of her infallibility, the Catholic Church alleges 
 these words of Christ to St. Peter.* ' Thou art Peter, and 
 upon this rock will I build my Church, and the gates of hell 
 shall not prevail against it.' " Regarding this text in a 
 very important light, he accordingly bestows upon it eight 
 pages of his address, and enforces it with all the ingenuity 
 of which he is master. The Chaplain wdll attend him over 
 as much of this ground, as may be necessary to illustrate 
 the few lines of his letter which refer to this passage. 
 
 Without citing any authority for a position, which he 
 took for granted, and knew to be certain, he just mentioned, 
 en passant, that the Greek word Hades ought rather to be 
 translated Death than Hell. At the bottom of the page, 
 however, he adopts both meanings of this controverted word, 
 and yet with all this precaution could not entirely escape 
 the Rev. gentleman's censure. But it is fortunately in his 
 power to produce so many authorities to support his accu- 
 racy in this instance, that were he inclined to indulge in a 
 parade of erudition, he could swell his answer, on this sub- 
 ject only, to a bulk superior to the Rev. gentleman's ad- 
 dress. He will just set down a few passages, which, he 
 trusts will carry conviction to the reader : observing first, 
 that by death, he meant rather the permanent, than actval 
 separation between the body and soul — a state of extinc- 
 tion, or a cessation of life. Now, in this sense, the word 
 Hades is perpetually used by the ancients. The Greek 
 poets apply it to death, as frequently as ThanatosA So- 
 phocles, in the beginning of his TrachinicB, puts this senti- 
 ment in Dejanira's mouth; "that although it were an old 
 man's saying, that happiness or wo cannot be known before 
 
 * Matt. xvi. 18. t See Pindar. Olyrap. Ode 8, &c. &c. 
 
160 
 
 death, yet she knew her own life to be unfortunate jt^/v uc 
 st^H /uoxiiv ; before she went to Hades;''^ these last words are 
 explained by the ancient scholiast by tt^o ^uvum before death. 
 The same poet, in his Ajax, says; that " He is better who 
 lies in Hades, than he who is afflicted with a mortal dis- 
 ease." Here also the scholiast expounds lying in Hades, 
 by the word Ti^vma>?y or being dead. Innumerable passages 
 from the ancient Greek writers, of a similar import, must 
 be omitted, to insist upon others of still greater weight. 
 What will be objected to the authority of the Vulgate, or 
 the Latin translation of the Bible approved of, and ordered 
 to be used by the council of Trent? KATctyuc «? Trvxug *«tcf« kai 
 Avstyii; " thou leadest to the gates of hell, and bringest 
 back again."* Now, how is Hadou rendered by the Vul- 
 gate? Is it not by the Latin word mortis, or of death ? De- 
 ducis ad portas mortis et reducis 1 It is written, (Proverb, 
 xiv. 12. and xvi. 25.) " There is a way, which seemeth 
 right unto a man, but the end thereof are the ways of 
 death." The Seventy Interpreters, in both these places, 
 use Hades for death. So in Hos. (xiii. 14.) where the He- 
 brew and Greek both read " I will deliver them from the 
 hand of Hades,''^ the Latin Vulgate has " de manu mortis 
 liberabo eos," that is, from the " hand of death ;''^ which 
 Cyril of Alexandria tells us, is in reality the same thing. 
 " He has redeemed us," says this father, " from the hand 
 of hell, that is, from the power of death:'-\ " The disso- 
 lution of the soul from the body," says St. Chrysostom, " is 
 not only called death but Hades also. For listen to the 
 patriarch Jacob saying, 'Ye will bring my old age with 
 sorrow to Hades.' (Gen. xlii. 38.) And the prophet again ; 
 ' Hades has opened its mouth.' (Isai. v. 14.) And in many 
 places will you find in the Old Testament, that in our trans- 
 lation we call death Hades.^^X The learned Eusebius, on 
 
 * Wisd. xvi. 13. t Cyr. in Hoseam. p. 371. 
 
 X Chrys. Serm. 2. in Pascha. torn. 5. edit. Savil. pag. 587. 
 
161 
 
 the very text that gave rise to this digression, writes ex- 
 pressly, as follows ; " That the Church doth not yield to the 
 gates of deaths Trvxnig ^-uyxtou, on account of that one saying, 
 which Christ did utter, 'Upon this rock will I build my 
 Church, and the gates of Hades shall not prevail against 
 it."* St. Ambrose concludes also from the same text, 
 ''That faith is the foundation of the Church : for it was 
 not said of Peter's jlesh, but of his faith, that the gates of 
 death should not prevail against it^"t The reader, no 
 doubt, is convinced by this time, and so, perhaps, is the 
 -Rev. gentleman also, that in this matter the Chaplain did 
 not "trust to his private interpretation of Scripture, in op- 
 position to the general sense and understanding of the 
 Church in all ages," or borrow his ideas from the sugges- 
 tions of Beza. Let the Rev. gentleman only confess, that 
 he was somewhat off his guard in this hasty accusation, 
 and it will be thought of no more. The meaning then of 
 the text is, that the gates or powers of hell, or rather of 
 death, will never prevail against the Christian Church. 
 
 The Chaplain had expressed, and expresses again, his 
 assent to this truth ; and concludes from it, that perpetuity 
 is annexed to the Christian Church. For if she shall 
 never be reduced by Hades, that is by death, to a state of 
 extinction, she must of consequence be perpetual and im- 
 mortal. Whereas, if Hades in the text be taken for Hell 
 only, this limitation will exclude the idea of perpetuity and 
 infallibility also. For, admitting that the infernal powers 
 sliould not prevail in abolishing the Christian Church, does 
 it follow, that no other powers shall succeed in their at- 
 tempts against her ? Let us suppose, that the eloquence 
 of Pagan philosophy, the allurements of human passions, 
 or the flames of persecution, had proved subversive of the 
 
 * Euseb. lib. 1. praeparat. Evang. pag. 7. 
 
 t Fides ergo est ecclesiae firmamentura : non enim de came Petri, eed de 
 fide dictum est, quia porta? mortis non ei prevalebunt. Ambr. de Incarnat. 
 sacram, cap. 5. 
 
 o2 
 
162 
 
 Christian name. In this case, the Church would have 
 failed, without the powers of hell being any wise concern 
 ed, or the promise of Christ being called in question. For 
 the world, the Jfesh, and the devil, are the mortal foes to 
 religious societies, as well as to the several individuals 
 who compose them. If so, how does the text, in securing 
 the Church against the last, necessarily ensure her against 
 her two former enemies ? If she fail principally by erring, 
 may not the world and the fesh contribute as effectually to 
 her downfall, as the powers of hell itself? Wherefore, it 
 appears certain, that perpetuity only is promised in the 
 text. Nor should we adopt the word Jiell, does it counte- 
 nance any other prerogative : for, even in this case, the 
 only meaning we can gather is, " that the infernal powers 
 shall not prevail against, that is, ultimately overcome, and 
 enslave the Church ; or abolish the great and essential 
 tenets expressed in the Apostles' creed.'''' The Rev. gentle- 
 man harshly brands a short and innocent paraphrase on the 
 text quite similar to this, as a "strong instance of confi- 
 dent assertion usurping the place of solid argument." But, 
 until he shows that Christ's Church can subsist without his 
 religion, or that he did not foresee that, at some periods of 
 time, she would be feeble and cZ^sorcZere6Z, the candid reader 
 will hardly accede to this censure. 
 
 As to the passages which he adduces from the " Question 
 of Questions," and " The Shortest Way to end Disputes 
 about Religion," they manifestly rest upon these false sup- 
 positions : that the Roman Church, and others in commu- 
 nion with her, was the only visible Church when she pro- 
 posed points of faith, which Protestants deem erroneous, 
 and that every error, in the line of religion, utterly de- 
 stroys the Church that teaches it. Now, both these posi- 
 tions appear to be groundless : First, because whenever 
 these points of faith were publicly held out as terms of 
 communion by the Roman Church, they were rejected by 
 other societies of Christians, who were equally branches of 
 
163 
 
 the Catholic Church. This was the case at the several 
 periods, when image-worship, purgatory, transubstantia- 
 tion, &;c. were added to the list of original tenets. Se- 
 condly, because the Church is not destroyed by every re- 
 ligious error, but by such only as are fundamental. 
 Wherefore, until an error pervades every Christian society, 
 which is directly levelled at some article of the Apostles' 
 or the Roman creed,* the common principles of Chris- 
 tianity must remain unshaken, and the professors of them 
 be members of the Catholic Church. Against these es- 
 sential tenets, this sole foundation, the powers of death, or 
 of hell, are never to prevail.! They may obscure, and 
 weaken, and shake them, by the superstructure of error, 
 and by the poisonous exhalations of vice ; but they shall 
 newer prevail against them. The Rev. gentleman asks 
 " if the gates of hell do not prevail against a Church re- 
 quiring an idolatrous worship, or teaching those mysteries 
 of iniquity, viz. the heresy of persecution, dec. mentioned 
 in the Chaplain's letter." The answer is, that as the whole 
 Catholic Church never adopted these maxims, the question 
 becomes useless. If, however, the Roman Church appear 
 guilty on this head, it belongs to her advocates to clear her 
 as well as they can. 
 
 The Chaplain had advanced, "that the gates of death or 
 of hell should not prevail against the essential tenets of 
 
 * This creed is the same with that which is repeated in the liturgy of the 
 Church of England at the communion service. 
 
 t This distinction between the fundamental articles of faith, and other 
 doctrines, appears very conformable to the notions of the elegant Melchior 
 Canus. His words are these: " Qusedam sunt Catholicce veri tales, quae ila 
 ad fidem pertinent, ut his sublatis, fides quoque ipsa tollatur. Quas nos usu 
 frequenti non solum Catholicas, sed fidei veritates appellavimus. Aliae 
 veritates sunt ipsae Catholicae et universalos, nempe quas universa ecclesia 
 tenet, quibus licet eversis, fides quatitur, sed non evertitur taraen. Atque in 
 hujusmodi veritatum contrariis erroribus, dixi fidem obscurari, non extingui : 
 infinnari, non pei-ire : Has ergo nunquam fidei veritates censui vocandaa, 
 quamvis doctrinse Christiance veritates sint." Melch. Can. loc Theol. lib. 
 12. cap. 11. 
 
164 
 
 the Christian religion." On this assertion the Rev. gen- 
 tleman builds a long catalogue of ideal absurdities. But 
 surely he did not reflect that, if doctrines take place, they 
 must necessarily have advocates ; that Christians and 
 Christian doctrines must stand or fall together. Perhaps, 
 when he comes to consider further, that the Chaplain bor- 
 rowed, nay, copied this interpretation of the text from the 
 council of Trent, he will regret having amused himself 
 and his readers, at the manifest expense of this infallible 
 assembly.. The words are these, *The Council " has 
 thought fit, that the symbol of faith which the holy Roman 
 Church uses, as that principle, in which all who profess 
 the faith of Christ necessarily agree ; and the firm and 
 only foundation against which the gates of hell shall never 
 prevail, should be expressed in the same words, in which 
 it is read in all the Churches." This passage, the Chap- 
 lain trusts, secures, both his candour and accuracy so far 
 in this matter, as to render any further vindication of either 
 extremely superfluous. The Roman Catholic will hardly 
 reject an apology so pointedly drawn from the council of 
 Trent. 
 
 The Rev. gentleman proceeds next to examine the pro- 
 mises of Christ, made at his last supper. (John xiv. 16. 
 &;c.) He thinks it necessary to set down the text more 
 fully ; to which the Chaplain can have no objection, as 
 not a syllable of it applies to infallibility. Let the reader 
 pronounce upon the logic of these inferences : " I will 
 ask my Father and he will send you another Comforter to 
 abide with you for ever;" (Ibid.) therefore the Roman 
 Church is infallible. *' The Comforter, whom the Father 
 will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and 
 
 * Symbolum fidei, quo S. Ecclesia Romana utitur, tanquam priiicipium 
 illud, in quo omnes, qui fidera Christi profitentur, necessario conveniunt, ac 
 firmamentum firmum et unicum, contra quod portae inferni nunquarn pre- 
 valebunt, totidem verbis, quibus in omnibus eccleaiis legitur, expriraendum 
 esse censuit. (Council. Trid. Sess. 3.) 
 
165 
 
 bring all things to your remembrance^ whatsoever I have 
 said unt© you ;" (v. 26 :) therefore the Roman Church is 
 infallible. " I have yet many things to say unto you : but 
 you cannot hear them now ; however, when the Spirit of 
 truth is come, he will guide you into all truth :" (Ibid. xvi. 
 13 :) therefore the Roman Church is infallible. The ab- 
 surdity of these conclusions did not escape the Rev. gen- 
 tleman's notice, and therefore he only infers from these 
 passages " the perpetual assistance of the Divine Spirit, 
 teaching and leading the Apostles and their successors, 
 that is, the body of pastors, into all truth necessary and re- 
 lating to the service of God and salvation of man." As 
 the Chaplain had expressed this very idea in his letter, he 
 may be allowed to waive any further discussion of these 
 texts, and to repeat his hearty accession to so rational a 
 comment. 
 
 The words of Christ, recorded in St. Matthew, (xxviii. 
 20,) " Behold I am with you always even unto the end of 
 the world," to be any wise conclusive for the cause of in- 
 fallibility, must suppose first, that by the word you are 
 meant the doctors and teachers of the Church of Rome, and 
 they only. Now, the Rev. gentleman himself disclaims 
 this supposition ; for he says expressly, that "they must be 
 the successors of the Apostles, whose line of succession we 
 can trace to them. This done, we must account of them 
 as the ministers of Christ, and the dispensers of the myste- 
 ries of God, (1 Cot. iv. 1,) from whom we may learn cer- 
 tainly the truth of the Gospel." The teachers therefore of 
 the Greek and Protestant Churches, who can trace an in- 
 disputable succession to the Apostles, must have as just a 
 claim to Christ's promise, as the teachers and prelates of 
 the Church of Rome. Secondly, these words must sup- 
 pose, that Christ will be with the successors of the Apos- 
 tles not only to keep them from all damnable and destruc- 
 tive errors, but absolutely from all erroneous doctrines 
 
166 
 
 whatever ; and yet, even granting all this, it then would 
 follow, if the promise be absolute, that not only the whole 
 Church of Rome, not only a general council, not the pope 
 alone, but every bishop, every priest, every person, who is 
 sent by Christ to baptize and preach the Gospel, might 
 claim this assistance by virtue of his words, and conse- 
 quently be infallible. " Now, in this case,'''' says Mr. Chil- 
 lingworth, " what a multitude of infallible Churches should 
 we have /" " But," says the Rev. gentlemen : " All truth, 
 in matters of faith and salvation, into which the Spirit was 
 to lead them, is exclusive of all error, in the same line :'' 
 and therefore it follows, doubtless, that the Spirit can never 
 lead the Church into error. But can we infer likewise, 
 that her teachers shall never hold out any tenets for truth, 
 besides such as the Holy Spirit has delivered? Or, in 
 other words, that they shall never build wood, hay, and 
 stubble upon the foundations of truth ? Does not the hete- 
 rodoxy of popes, bishops, and councils, which is upon re- 
 cord, demonstrate that this may possibly be the case ? If 
 a person be led into every geometrical truth relating to 
 trigonometry, does it follow, because all truth in this line 
 is exclusive of all error in the same, that he shall never 
 adopt any other positions that may confuse his ideas and 
 mislead his operations? Had our Lord assured us, that 
 the successors of his Apostles should never depart one tit- 
 tle from the truths of religion, nor add a single tenet to the 
 holy simplicity of his doctrine : had he told us that the 
 Roman pontiff, his councils and his pastors, should be se- 
 cured from every kind of error in the line of religion, had 
 he ordered us in all our doubts and difficulties to have im- 
 mediate recourse to the Roman Church only, as an infalli- 
 ble tribunal ; then, indeed, would it have been rash and 
 impious to withstand her decisions. But the ways of God 
 are not the ways of men, and it would be the highest pre- 
 sumption to expect, that his wisdom should ply to our ap- 
 parent convenience. Perhaps a familiar case will illustrate 
 
167 
 
 this whole matter. Let us suppose that the Almighty had 
 promised America, at the commencement of her late glo- 
 rious struggle, to guide her into all freedom^ and that the 
 powers of Great Britain should not prevail against her. 
 Could any thing more be inferred from this promise, than 
 that the attempts of her enemies should be baffled in the 
 end, and that all the essential branches of liberty should be 
 her's ? Her provinces might be ravaged, her inhabitants 
 distressed, her armies defeated. She might at times stand 
 trembling upon the brink of destruction. But her enemies, 
 notwithstanding, should not ultimately succeed. She 
 should still retain sufficient strength to preserve her free- 
 dom from the exertions of tyranny. Even this freedom itself 
 might at times be impaired. Its principles might be obscured 
 in some State of the Union, while they shone with their 
 original lustre in others. Ignorant or designing men might 
 build wood, hay, and stubble, upon the fundamental rights 
 of election, upon trials by jury, or the liberty of the press. 
 But would these abuses falsify the promises of the Almigh- 
 ty ? Might they not subsist for a time without abolishing 
 the essentials of freedom, to which perpetuity, is promised, 
 and which of course would remain entire, when the abuses 
 that obscured them, lie buried in oblivion ? 
 
 To break the enchantment of the magic circle, in which 
 the Chaplain conceives the advocates for infallibility to be 
 entangled, the Rev. gentleman shifts the general ground of 
 the argument, and endeavours to rear his system upon 
 other foundations than what the Scriptures supply. "The 
 Catholic reader has but to open his eyes," says he, " and 
 he will discover that his Church is in the practice of deter- 
 mining controversies of faith, by the concurrent authority 
 of the Episcopal body. The Church, even from the Apos- 
 tles' time, has always exercised this authority — which the 
 primitive Christians considered as definite and infallible. 
 Whoever refused submission was cast from the Church as a 
 heathen and publican. On these grounds will the Chris- 
 
168 
 
 tian be induced to believe her infallibility — To exercise 
 such a right (viz. of deciding and excommunicating) with- 
 out infallibility would be vain and nugatory : therefore, she 
 is infallible." Here, in his own words, is the Rev. gentle- 
 man's argument, that is to dissolve the charm of this for- 
 midable circle. It appears plausible at first sight, but 
 when urged for infallibility, is like applying the areas of 
 several small circles to ascertain the square of a large one. 
 In other words, it is nothing more than solving one vicious 
 circle by introducing another. For it is only in supposi- 
 tion that this infallibility exists, that the practice of the 
 Church can be alleged to evince it. The Church is infal- 
 lible, therefore she has a right to decide upon matters of 
 faith : She has a right to decide upon matters of faith, 
 therefore she is infallible. Will such reasoning be deemed 
 sufficient to uphold the highest privilege ever claimed by 
 mankind ? The fact is, in every well regulated society, 
 some supreme court of judicature must necessarily be es- 
 tablished, in order to terminate finally contentions among 
 individuals, which otherwise would for ever disturb the 
 peace of the community : but are such tribunals on this ac- 
 count to be deemed infallible 1 It is true, the decisions 
 concerning truth do not bear a strict resemblance to those 
 which regard our temporal interests. The first must never 
 depart an iota from the apparent light of reason and reve- 
 lation. The second may be modified as the common good 
 requires. But in both cases the manner of judging is the 
 same, and in both cases may the decisions of men be mis- 
 taken. Accordingly, we often see, when one supreme tri- 
 bunal has been compelled to yield to an adverse power, its 
 decrees have been reversed, and others enacted, which dur- 
 ing the prevalence of their authors are as binding as the 
 first. This was the case during the famous disputes con- 
 cerning the incarnation. For two hundred years the same 
 opinions were successively approved and condemned, as 
 their abettors, or adversaries, got the upper hand. It was, 
 
169 
 
 therefore, thought necessary to recur to some supreme au» 
 thority, in order to prevent disputes from becoming per- 
 petual. The spirit of charity, which is the very essence of 
 religion, was greatly impaired by these dreadful quarrels, 
 and it was judged a less dangerous expedient to decide de- 
 finitely upon these several questions, than to suffer Chris- 
 tians to tear one another to pieces in the fury of contro- 
 versy. But this could not deprive individuals of the right 
 of judging for themselves in speculative matters. In these 
 cases, reason cannot yield to human authority alone ; espe- 
 cially when it is known, that many final decisions have 
 been discovered at last disagreeing with truth. This made 
 St. Gregory of Nazianzum declare, " that he was never 
 present at an assembly of bishops, which did not increase 
 the evils they meant to remedy ; the spirit of dispute and 
 ambition always prevailing over the dictates of reason."* 
 And the judicious Turretin adds,f *' that if any man, hav- 
 ing read the acts of the councils, regard them as infallible, 
 a physician would be the proper person to undertake his 
 case." 
 
 As to the argument drawn from the right and practice of 
 excommunicating, what force can it have with those who 
 laugh at infallibility? They would say, no doubt, that this 
 also is running round a circle ; because the Church not be- 
 ing infallible, as is pretended, her practice on this head 
 is rather an abuse that ought to be reformed, than a law 
 of obligation ; that nothing is more dangerous, and less 
 logical, than to argue from matter of fact to matter of right; 
 because the latter must first be established before the former 
 can possibly be an argument for its justice. Thus, when 
 several popes presumed to enforce acts of jurisdiction, in 
 matters merely temporal, to the prejudice of princes, they 
 were withstood as so many usurpations, and abolished as 
 
 * Carmen, de vita sua. 
 
 t Qui lectis conciliorum actist ea pro errare nesciishabucrit, ad medicos 
 «blegandus est. Turret. 
 
 P 
 
170 
 
 tyrannical^ and no wise competent to prescribe agaiRSi 
 right. It is therefore a sign of a weak cause, to urge the 
 practice of excommunication as a proof of infallibility, since 
 nothing decisive can follow from it : for, even supposing it 
 to be just and warrantable, infallibility would not follow 
 from it as a necessary consequence. Excommunication 
 has often been employed upon very trifling occasions, where 
 articles of faith were no wise concerned. This was the 
 case with respect to the celebration of Easter, the repeti- 
 tion of baptism, the marriage of the clergy, the affair of the 
 three chapters, &;c. where each excommunicating party 
 could not surely challenge the privilege of being infallible. 
 This act of Church authority, therefore, when properly 
 exercised, is not grounded upon infallibility, but solely 
 upon the right, which all communities possess, of framing 
 laws and regulations for their own well-being, and of ex- 
 cluding every person from their society, who refuses to sub- 
 mit to its essential ordinances. Particular Churches have 
 frequently excommunicated each other, without the least 
 pretence to infallibility. The thunder of this ecclesiastical 
 artillery was echoed for ages from the East to the West, 
 although the contest was chiefly for pre-eminence and 
 power. Nothing then can be less satisfactory, than the ar- 
 gument drawn from the practice of excommunication, a 
 penalty often inflicted without necessity and justice; fre- 
 quently at the expense of reason and truth ; and conse- 
 quently but ill calculated to uphold the highest privilege 
 ever claimed among men. 
 
 The Chaplain, therefore, although he believes the infal- 
 libility of Scripture, has reason to insist upon this hack- 
 neyed argument; for, " the Roman Catholic must believe 
 his Church infallible, because she teaches, by an infallible 
 authority, that many texts of Scripture prove her to be so." 
 Here is the magic round, in which the advocates for this 
 system must continue to move until delivered by reasons 
 yet undiscovered. 
 
171 
 
 With respect to the other hackneyed argument mentioned 
 by the Chaplain, the Rev. gentleman thinks it " really 
 matter of astonishment, that he also should insist upon it." 
 The reader is requested to turn to the note, and if he there 
 find any matter of astonishment^ this sentiment must be 
 easily wakened in his mind. Where is the great mistake 
 in asserting, " that some divines place infallibility only in 
 the pope and council received by the whole Church?" Are 
 they not negatively distinguished, by this opinion, from 
 those who plead for the infallibility of the pope alone, or in 
 conjunction with a council? The Chaplain never meant to 
 deny, that all Roman Catholics profess to believe that in- 
 fallibility resides in the pope and council received by the 
 whole Church, but he maintains that they who make it con- 
 sist in this only must differ in their notions upon the con- 
 stituents of this prerogative from those who attribute it to 
 each separate branch. This is all the matter of astonish- 
 ment^ which can possibly be collected from the Chaplain's 
 words. He, indeed, has ample room for astonishment, when 
 he hears the Rev. gentleman denying it to be the doctrine 
 of his Church, "that a council can decree nothing without 
 the assent of the pope; that he alone has a right to inter- 
 pret the council, and explain its decisions; and that those 
 tenets only are oi faith, which he determines to be so." If 
 these be not the doctrines of the Roman Church, " the 
 Chaplain has indeed erased from his memory," among other 
 learned lumber, " the theological principles of her schools." 
 For he will declare upon his honour, that he thus under- 
 stood the doctrines on this head delivered in the lectures, 
 which he attended : and he trusts, his honour, even " after 
 discarding his former prejudices, is as sacred as theirs, who 
 choose still to uphold them." The explicit hint at gross 
 ignorance, or wilful misrepresentation, thrown out in this 
 place, makes the reader's further indulgence necessary, 
 while this matter is cleared up. Let the Rev. gentleman 
 inform us whether a council can make decrees in matters 
 
172 
 
 of faith, without the assent of the pope. If so, what becomes 
 of the infallibility arising from their mutual agreement, and 
 the consent of the Church? If, according to the Rev. gen- 
 tleman, infallibility "reside in the body of bishops united 
 and agreeing with their head, the bishop of Rome," how 
 can a council of these bishops give a sanction to tenets, to 
 which their head declares his dissent? Will any Roman 
 Catholic school allow a council to be oecumenical, or its 
 decrees to be of faith, if the pope do not preside personally, 
 or by his legates, and confirm its decisions ? The Rev. gen- 
 tleman denies, moreover, " that the pope alone has a right 
 to interpret the council, and that such interpretations only 
 are of faith; the bishops, also," says he, "claim a divine 
 right to this privilege." But let him tell us, if their in- 
 terpretations be of faith. If so, then is every bishopric an 
 infallible Church : if not, then has the pope only a right 
 to pronounce on them with definitive authority. Let the 
 practice of the Roman Church in this particular illustrate 
 her belief. Whenever disputes arose among Roman Ca- 
 tholic divines, or universities, was not the sovereign pontiff 
 always appealed to, to settle them? In the fierce and fa- 
 mous contests de auxilliis, or of grace, between the Moli- 
 nists and the Thomists, did not each party continually ap- 
 peal to the pope? And had he judged it prudent to decide 
 upon the matter, would not a rejection of his decisions have 
 been deemed heretical, and treated as such? Did not the 
 Jansenists repeatedly allege the authority of the Fathers 
 and Councils to support the five positions of the Bishop of 
 Ypres; and yet the Rev. gentleman must regard them as 
 heretical, and their opposite truths to be of faitli, since the 
 sentence passed on them by the Roman see.* Why are 
 
 * The inquisitive reader will not perhaps be displeased with a short ac- 
 count of a fanatical system of divinity, which for near a century agitated the 
 kingdom of France. It called forth all the airy humour, all the powers of 
 latire, all the profound erudition of this elegant nation. Princes and bishops, 
 frian and poets, divines and ladies, eagerly engaged in the mighty contest; 
 
173 
 
 long catalogues of propositions, which are condemned by 
 the pope, inserted in all books of casuistry, and laid down 
 as so many acknowledged errors against faith and morals? 
 This surely alone, is sufficient to authorize the Chaplain's 
 assertion, " that the pope only has a right to interpret coun- 
 cils; in order to determine what tenets are of faith." He 
 therefore, alone, must be the ultimate depository of infalli- 
 bility. When he speaks ex cathedra, as it is called, his 
 oracles must command submission from his adherents : and 
 
 while, to an impartial bystander, it was a matter of doubt whether the ob- 
 ject of contention was not a mere phantom at last. About the year 1630. 
 Cornelius Jansanius and John Verger, commonly called Abbe de St. Cyran, 
 contracted a close friendship, and concerted a new plan of doctrine concern- 
 ing divine grace, founded in part upon the opinions of Michael Baius, of the 
 university of Lovain. This system, Jansenius, by his friend's advice, en- 
 deavoured to establish in a book, which, from St. Augustin, he entitled Au- 
 gustinus. After being bishop of Ypres from 1635 to 1638, he died of the 
 pestilence, leaving his book in manuscript only ; vvhich, however, was given 
 10 the public after, by Fromondus, a learned Lovanian divine. This book 
 of Jansenius was condemned by Urban VIII. in 1641, and in 1658 Innocent 
 X. censured five propositions, to which he conceived the errors of this work 
 were principally reduced. This was the signal for the combat, and hosts of 
 zealous heroes sprang up on every side. " The principal errors contained in 
 the doctrine of the Jansenists," says the learned Butler, in his Life of Vin- 
 cent of Paul, " are, that God sometimes refuses, even to the just, sufficient 
 grace to comply with his precepts ; that the grace which God affords man 
 since the fall of Adam, is such, that if concupiscence be stronger, it cannot 
 produce its effect ; but if the grace be more powerful or victorious, by a ne- 
 cessitating influence, that then it cannot be resisted, rejected, or hindered ; 
 and that Christ by his death paid, indeed, a sufficient price for the redemp- 
 tion of all men, and offered it to purchase some weak, insufficient grace for 
 reprobate souls, but not to procure them means truly applicable, and suffi- 
 cient for their salvation. The main spring or hinge of this system is, that the 
 grace, which inclines man's will to supernatural virtue, since the fall of 
 Adam, consists in a moral, pleasurable motion, or a delectation infused into 
 the soul, inclining her to virtue, as concupiscence carries her to vice ; and 
 that the power of delectation, whether of virtue or vice, which is strongest, 
 draws the will by an inevitable necessity, as it were by its own weight." 
 To support, explain, modify, reject, and impugn such absurdities as these, an 
 enlightened and poli.shed nation was convulsed for near a century, exhibiting 
 a moat contemptible picture to every thinking man, of systems, and system 
 makers. 
 
 p2 
 
174 
 
 yet the reader may possibly mistake the meaning of his de- 
 crees, full as readily as some essential passage of the Bible ; 
 unless, indeed, with infallibility, the gift o( perspicuity a\so 
 be communicated to him in a higher degree than to the 
 word of God. As to the maxims and solemn declarations of 
 the Gallican clergy, they must first be proved consistent, 
 before they can have weight. It was a just remark of the 
 celebrated Archbishop Wake, that " the English prelates, 
 by renouncing all dependence on the Roman pontift', exhi- 
 bited a degree of consistency and candour not to be recon- 
 ciled with the professions and conduct of the bishops of 
 France." (Append, to Mosheim's Church History.) 
 
 The Chaplain's second consideration on the plea of infalli- 
 bility^ which was meant only to evince " that the Roman 
 Church regards some doctrines at present as articles of 
 faith, which for many ages were debated as matters of 
 opinion," is not fairly stated by the Rev. gentleman. It 
 is there said, " that at some periods of time several doc- 
 trines were defined as belonging to faith, which at others 
 were debated as matters of opinion." He instances the 
 opinion of the Millenarians to prove this assertion. Is this 
 to " allege that the Church formerly taught doctrines as of 
 faith, which she now rejects as contrary to faith?" "Be- 
 cause this doctrine was maintained as an article of univer- 
 sal belief, or of Catholic faith, by almost every father, who 
 lived immediately after the times of the Apostles,''^ does it 
 follow that the Catholic Church defined it as an article of 
 communion ? For some ages previous to the reformation, 
 we do not meet with a divine of any eminence, except 
 Thomas Aquinas, who was not a zealous advocate for the 
 doctrine o( persecution ; and yet the Rev. gentleman will 
 hardly allow it to be an article of Catholic communion* 
 The truth is, without the intervention any solemn decree, 
 the doctrine of a millennium was an article of Catholic belief ; 
 and, therefore, if the Church fail principally by erring, she 
 certainly must have failed, when neaily all her teachers 
 
175 
 
 were involved in an error, which has since been deemed 
 capital. At any rate the Rev. gentleman must confess, 
 that the doctrine of admission to happiness, or of condemna' 
 tion to punishment immediately after death, is now defined 
 as belonging to faith, which was formerly debated as a 
 matter of opinion, and rejected by almost all the ancient 
 fathers. This is all the Chaplain meant to advance as the 
 ground of his argument. This is all, that either accuracy 
 or candour calls upon him to maintain. It was never his 
 intention to investigate the merits of auricular confession, 
 of purgatory, transubstantiation. or any other tenet of the 
 Roman Church. He merely advanced, and clearly showed, 
 " that these and some other doctrines are not to be found 
 in the Scriptures, and that at some periods of time they 
 passed for opinions only." Until these assertions be con- 
 futed, the Chaplain stands acquitted of disingenuity and 
 mistake ; even allowing that the Rev. gentleman's argu- 
 ments, through thirty-six pages of his address, have proved 
 satisfactory in establishing these doctrines. Without lead- 
 ing the reader through all the beaten paths of the province 
 of controversy, which the Rev. gentleman travels over in 
 this part of his address, the Chaplain wishes only to detain 
 him at those passages which are intended to do away the 
 above mentioned assertions. 
 
 The Rev. gentleman begins with transubstantiation, 
 which the Chaplain asserts " was no article of faith prior 
 to the council of Lateran, in 1215." Scotus, who was 
 styled the subtile doctor, and has ever been regarded as a 
 prodigy among the schoolmen, maintains this to be the 
 case. But, say Bellarmine and (he Rev. gentleman, Scotus 
 was mistaken. Although he died in 1308, he knew no- 
 thing of the councils which established this doctrine, and 
 yet the first that did so, was held in 1060, or rather 1050, 
 under Leo IX. During two centuries and a half, the 
 opinion of Berenger was echoed through Europe, and had 
 innumerable adherents; yet Scotus, who lived at the conclu- 
 
176 
 
 sion of this period, had never heard of the councils that 
 condemned him. Will the impartial reader acquiesce in 
 improbabilities like these? The Chaplain goes on, "It 
 was towards the beginning of the ninth century, that Pas- 
 chasius Radbertus published his treatise upon the corporal 
 presence of Christ in the Eucharist, and as Bellarmine tells 
 us, was the first who wrote seriously and copiously concern- 
 ing it." The words of the learned cardinal, which imme- 
 diately follow " against Bertram the priest, who was among 
 the first that called it in question," are omitted by the 
 Chaplain ; and this omission is held up as a striking in- 
 stance of his deficiency in point of accurate and impartial 
 investigation. No censure in the Address surprised him 
 more than this. If the reader have been two years at a 
 Latin school, let him construe fairly the following sen- 
 tence. " Hie auctor primus fuit, qui serio et copiose scrip- 
 sit de veritate corporis et sanguinis domini in Eucharistia, 
 contraBertramumPresbyterum, qui fuit ex primis,qui earn in 
 dubium revocarunt.*" Now, if he can make out from this 
 sentence, or the latter part of it, that Paschasius was only 
 the first who wrote " seriously and copiously against Ber- 
 tram ;" and not the first who wrote " seriously and copious- 
 ly concerning the body and blood of the Lord in the Eu- 
 charist," he must have mispent his time egregiously, or 
 possess a happy talent at distorting the obvious meaning of 
 words. But another learned Jesuit shall clear his brother 
 Bellarmine from obscurity in this instance, and the Chap- 
 lain from the censure of ignorance or design. These are 
 the words of Father Sirmondus, in his life of Paschasius. 
 " Genuinum ecclesias Catholica? sensum ita primus expli- 
 cuit, ut viam caeteris aperuerit, qui de eodem argumento 
 multi postea scripsere." He was the first, who explained 
 the true sense of the Catholic Church in such a manner, as 
 
 * Bell, de Scrip. Eccl. p. 266. 
 
177 
 
 to open the way to many others, who wrote afterwards on 
 the same subject. 
 
 But to proceed : " Paschasius himself informs us," says 
 the Chaplain, " that this doctrine was by no means univer- 
 sal or settled." The Rev. gentleman styles this a most 
 unfortunate reference^ and boldly rejects the citation itself. 
 The Chaplain has not by him the original epistle of Pascha- 
 sius to Frudegard, but he finds his words cited by the accu- 
 rate Usher, in a manner that admits not a doubt of their 
 authenticity.* " You question me," says he, " upon a sub- 
 ject, about which many are doubtful." And again, "al- 
 though many hence be doubtful, how he remains entire, 
 and this can be theb ody and blood of Christ." If these two 
 passages be genuine, and they must be so, unless Usher 
 foisted them into the letter, it follows, that Paschasius is 
 guilty of a palpable contradiction, or in the heat of contro- 
 versy, as is often the case, compliments his own particular 
 notions as Catholic truths^ or that the words quoted by 
 Usher are omitted in the edition which the Rev. gentleman 
 consulted. The plausibility of this conjecture will shortly 
 appear, when the treatment of some of his cotemporary wri- 
 ters on this very subject comes to be mentioned. 
 
 The passage quoted by the Cliaplain from Rabanus 
 Maurus, in his letter to Heribald, is not rejected by the 
 Rev. gentleman, " because he has not this epistle, nor is 
 able to procure it; he suspects, however, that it is copied 
 from the Huguenot Alhertinus, whose mistakes have a 
 great ajinity with those of the Chaplain.'''^ But this very 
 passage shall shift the weighty imputation from the Hugue- 
 not and the Chaplain, to a quarter, where the Rev. gentle- 
 man little suspects it can belong. Let the reader peruse 
 the following words of the most diligent, as well as the 
 
 * '■'• QacBris enim de re. ex qua mulli dubilant."....Quamvis multi ex hoc 
 dubUent, quomodo ilLe. integer manet, et hoc corpus Christi et sanguis esse 
 possU. Pasch. Epist. ad Frud. citat ab Usher, p. 77. Answer to a Chah 
 lenge, ^c. 
 
178 
 
 most successful searcher into antiquity, and then pronounce 
 upon this additional instance of the Chaplain's inaccuracy. 
 "In the year 1616," says Archbishop Usher,* " a tome of 
 ancient writers, that never saw the light before, was set 
 forth at Ingolstat, by Petrus Stuartius ; where, among other 
 treatises, a certain Penitential^ written by Rabanus, that 
 famous Archbishop of Mentz, is to be seen. In the 33d 
 chapter of that book, Rabanus making answer to an idle 
 question moved by bishop Hcribaldus, concerning the Eu- 
 charist, (what should become of it after it ivas consumed, 
 and sent into the draught, after the manner of other meats,) 
 hath these words, (initio pag. 669.) ' Nam quidam nuper 
 de ipso Sacramento corporis & sanguinis domini non rite 
 sentientes, dixerunt : hoc ipsum corpus et sanguinem do- 
 mini, quod de Maria virgine natum est et in quo ipse domi- 
 nus passus est in cruce, et resurrexit de sepulchro. Cui 
 errori quantum potuimus, ad Egilum abbatem scribentes, 
 de corpore ipso quid vere credendum sit aperuimus.' For 
 some, of late, not holding rightly of the sacrament of the 
 body and blood of the Lord, have said, that the very body 
 and blood of our Lord, which was born of the Virgin Mary, 
 and in which our Lord himself suffered on the cross, and 
 rose again from the g'rave. Against which error, writing 
 to abbot Egilus, according to our ability, we have declared, 
 what is truly to be believed concerning CJirist's body. You 
 see Rabanus' tongue is dipt here for telling tales; but how 
 this came to pass is worth the learning. Stuartius frees him- 
 self from the fact, telling us in the margin, that " here there 
 was a blank in the manuscript copy;"f and we do easily be- 
 lieve him; for Possevine, the Jesuit, hath given us to un- 
 derstand, that manuscript books also are to be purged, as 
 well as printed.:}: But whence was this manuscript fetched, 
 think you ? " Out of the famous monastery of Weingart ;" 
 
 * Answer to a Challenge, p. 17, t Lacuna hie est in MS. exemplari. 
 \ Ad isios quoque purgalio pertinet. Lib. 1. Bib. Select, cap. 13. 
 
175 
 
 saith Stuartius.* The monks of Wiengart then, belikej 
 must answer the matter : and they, I dare say, upon exami- 
 nation, will take their oaths, that it was no part of their in- 
 tention to give any furtherance to the cause of Protestants 
 hereby. If hereunto we add, that Ueribaldus and Rabanus 
 are both ranked among heretics, by Thomas Walden,t for 
 holding the Eucharist to be subject to digestion and void- 
 ance, like other meats ; the suspicion will be more vehe- 
 ment, whereunto I will adjoin one evidence more, that 
 shall leave the matter past suspicion. In the libraries of 
 ray worthy friends. Sir Rob. Cotton, (that noble baronet so 
 renowned for his great care in collecting and preserving all 
 antiquities,) and Dr. Ward, the learned master of Sidney 
 College, in Cambridge, I met with an ancient treatise of 
 the sacrament, beginning thus : ' Sicut ante nos quidam sa^ 
 piens dixit, cujus sententiam probamus, licet nomen igno- 
 remus ;' which is the same with that in the Jesuits' college 
 at Lovain, blindly fathered upon Berengarius.ij: The author 
 of this treatise, having first twitted Heribaldus for propound- 
 ing, and Rabanus for lesolving, this question of the void- 
 ance of the Eucharist, layeth down afterwards the opinion 
 of Paschasius Radbertus, whose writing is still extant. 
 ' Contra quem,' says he, ' satis argumentatur et Rabanus in 
 epistola ad Egilonem abbatem, et Ratramus quidam libro 
 composite ad Carolum regem, dicentes (camera Christi) 
 aliam esse.' Against whom both Rabanus, in his epistle to 
 abbot Egilo, and one Ratramus, in a book which he made 
 to king Charles, argue largely ; saying, it. is another kind of 
 flesh. Whereby, what Rabanus' opinion was of this point, 
 in his epistle to abbot Egilo, or Egilus, and, consequently, 
 what that was which the monks of Weingart could not en- 
 dure in his penitential, I trust, is plain enough." 
 
 * Ex MS. cod celeherrimi monasterii Weingartensis. t Walden's Tom. 1. 
 doctrinal, in prolog, ad Martinum V. Id. Torn. 2 cap. 19, et 61. t Ant. Posse- 
 vin. Apparat. sacr. in Bereng. Turon. 
 
180 
 
 The Rev. gentleman must be seriously concerned for the 
 orthodoxy of Bertram, who was employed by Charles the 
 Bald to oppose Paschasius, when, in contradiction to Bel- 
 larmine, Turrianus, and other eminent divines, he adopts 
 his vindication penned by the flimsy author of the history 
 of the Whippers.* Bertram, we are told, plainly asserts 
 "in many passages the Catholic doctrine of transubstantia- 
 tion." The Rev. gentleman sets down but one, which is 
 probably the most explicit. *' The bread," says he, "is 
 changed into the body of Christ by the significancy of the 
 sacred mystery, by the invisible operation of the Holy 
 Ghost. Whence they are called the body and blood of 
 Christ," &c. It requires a happy talent to make out tran- 
 substa?itiafion from these words. They appear manifestly 
 to mean, if, indeed, they mean any thing, that in the holy 
 mystery bread and wine signify the body and blood of 
 Christ, and are called so from the invisible hallowing of 
 these elements. Here is the sound Protestant doctrine, 
 which made Turrianus confess, " that to cite Bertram, was 
 no more than to declare that the heresy of Calvin is not 
 new."t But, to clear the sentiments of this writer from 
 every shadow of doubt, let the reader be informed, that the 
 book which he wrote to Charles the Bald, contains, among 
 others, these remarkable passages, of which the Latin ori- 
 ginal is now before the Chaplain. " Your Excellency and 
 Grandeur inquires," says he, " whether the body and blood 
 of Christ, which is received by the mouth of the faithful in 
 the Church, be celebrated in a mystery or in truth ; and whe- 
 ther it be the same body which was born of Mary, which 
 did suffer, was dead and buried ; and which, rising again 
 and ascending into heaven, sitteth at the right hand of the 
 
 • Whoever has read the Historia Flagellantium, by the Abbe Boileau, or 
 another of his indecent productions, will sooner allow him any appellation, 
 than that of a judicious and solid historian. 
 
 t Franc. Turrianus de Euchar. contra Volanum lib. 1. cap. 22. 
 
181 
 
 Father ?''* To this question he makes answer, " that the 
 bread and the wine are the body and blood of Christ figura- 
 tively. "f That " according to the substance of the crea- 
 tures, that which they were before consecration, the same 
 also are they afterwards t''^: That " they are called the 
 Lord's body and blood, because they take the name of that 
 thing of which they are a sacrament :"§ That " there is a 
 great difference between the mystery of the blood and body 
 of Christ which is taken now by the faithful in the Church, 
 and that which was born of the virgin Mary, which suffer- 
 ed, which was buried, which rose again, which sitteth at 
 the right hand of the Father."]! Could the emperor, who 
 proposed his doubts upon this subject, or the writer who 
 thus solves them, believe the Catholic doctrine of transiih- 
 stantiation ? The Chaplain might father it with equal pro- 
 priety upon archbishop Tillotson, or the Huguenot Alberti- 
 nus. That Bertram wrote this treatise at the emperor's re- 
 quest, is evident from the first of these passages ; and it 
 is equally certain that, had the doctrine of transubstantia- 
 tion been notorious and universal, that prince, as a good 
 Catholic, would have been shocked and displeased at Ber- 
 tram for opposing it. The indefatigable Dr. Priestly, speak- 
 ing of Paschasius and his tenets, tells us,^ that, " among 
 others, the emperor Charles the Bald, was much offended 
 at it, and, by his paiticular order, the famous Bertram or 
 Rattram wrote against the new opinion of Paschasius." 
 
 One word more of Bertram, and the Chaplain will dis- 
 miss him: not, indeed, without some reluctance, for he has 
 stood forth an able advocate for his accuracy on this occa- 
 sion. His book upon this subject was deemed so inimical 
 to transubstantiation, that the Roman inquisition forbade it 
 to be read. But the university of Doway, perceiving that 
 
 * Bertram, in lib.de corp. etsang. Dom. edit. Colon. ann. I55I, p. 180. 
 tlbid. p. 183. tlbid. p. 205. $ Ibid. p. 200. || Ibid. p. 222. 
 If History of Opinions relating to the Lord's Supper, p. 39. 
 
182 
 
 the prohibition served only to excite the public curiosity, 
 thought it more advisable to publish the book, after prun- 
 ing away the exuberance of some exceptionable passages.* 
 *' Since," say they, " we bear with many errors in other 
 ancient Catholic writers, since we extenuate and excuse, 
 and, by frequently inventing some comment, deny them, 
 and annex some convenient sense to them, when they are 
 objected in disputes and contests with our adversaries ; we 
 do not see why Bertram may not deserve the same justice 
 and diligent revisal, lest the heretics cry out, that we burn 
 and forbid such antiquity as makes for them." Accord- 
 ingly, all the arguments of this writer, which prove, that 
 what the faithful receive in the sacrament is not the body 
 of Christ, that died upon the cross and rose again from 
 death, are ordered to be omitted. f Here is another in- 
 stance of unprincipled censure, that should for ever silence 
 the charge of gross misrepresentation and unfair quotations 
 being alleged against Protestants. 
 
 The Chaplain is accused, in the next place, of a palpable 
 anachronism and want of attention in mistaking the era of 
 the obscure bishop who first invented the word transubstan- 
 tiation. The Rev. gentleman asserts that he lived about 
 the year 950, and not in the twelfth century. The learned 
 Bellarmine, however, speaks less positively of this fact: "J/e 
 is said to have flourished about the year 950. "J And the 
 
 * Quum in Catholicis veteribus aliis plurimos feramus errores et extenue- 
 mus, excusemus, excogitate commento persaepe negemus el commodum iis 
 sensum affingamus dum opponuntur in disputalionibus aut in conflictionibus 
 rum adversariis : non videmus cur non eandem aequitatem et diligentem re- 
 cognitionem mereatur Bertramus : ne haeretici ogganniant nos antiqnitatem 
 pro ipsis facientem cxurere et prohibere. Index Expurg. Belg. page 5. edit. 
 Antwerp, ann. 1571. 
 
 t Nou male aut inconsulte omittantur igitur omnia haec. Ibid. The learned 
 Richer, syndic of the theological faculty of Paris, tells us, Council. General. 
 lib. 4. par. 2, "That the court of Rome suppresses and abolishes all those 
 acts which contradict its usurped rights ; and hence it is that many spurious 
 things are read as genuine, even in ancient councils." 
 
 X Dicitur autera floruisse anno Dom. 950. De Scrip. Eccl. p. 276. 
 
183 
 
 celebrated Dr. Priestly, whose chronological accuracy 
 stands so high at present, tells us, that " the term, transub- 
 stantiation was first used by Stephen, Bishop of Autun, in 
 the beginning of the twelfth century."^ He says, more- 
 over, " that he was cotemporary with Peter Lombard ;"-|' 
 who, according to Bellarmine, flourished in the year 1145. :(: 
 Many eminent divines are of the same opinion with the 
 Huguenot Albertinus, whose authority is at any time upon 
 a level with that of the Jansenist Nicole. § 
 
 This unmerited censure of inaccuracy being done away, 
 the Chaplain does not consider a regular attendance upon 
 the Rev. gentleman through the nine ensuing pages of his 
 address to be any wise material. They contain nothing but 
 historical facts, which he means not to controvert. For 
 upwards of two hundred years of the most deplorable ignor- 
 ance and depravity of manners that ever disgraced the an- 
 nals of mankind, the doctrine first broached by Paschasius, 
 had ample leisure to spread itself through the Churches of 
 Christendom. The dark genius of superstition snatched 
 eagerly at a tenet which came recommended by all the ex- 
 travagance of mystery ; and, having nothing to apprehend 
 from the hostile light of philosophy and science, played it 
 off with success upon the credulity of some, and the pas- 
 sions of others. Towards the middle of the eleventh cen- 
 tury, it appears to have gained many advocates, and was be- 
 coming universal ; when Berenger, the learned Archdea- 
 con of Angers, began to oppose it. This he did with such 
 abilities and success, that in spite of the several councils 
 mentioned by the Rev. gentleman, in spite of the fierce 
 menaces of implacable enthusiasts, mankind was awakened 
 
 * History of Opinions, &c. p. 41. t Ibid. p. 43. t Ibid. p. 321. 
 
 $ This writer and his associates, les Messieurs de Port-Royal, being the 
 avowed, and, it may be added, the malicious enemies of the Jesuits, it is won- 
 derful that the Rev. gentleman should so highly appreciate La Perpetuite de 
 la Foi, which is altogether a production of this school, and is justly styled by 
 ItC Courayer, le Triomphe de la dialeciique sur la raison. 
 
184 
 
 by the firm voice of reason, and France, Italy, and England 
 were filled with his disciples.* From that period to the 
 present, great and respectable bodies of Christians have 
 constantly rejected the tenet of transubstantiation. The 
 facility with which this doctrine was abandoned, shows 
 plainly that it had taken no strong hold upon men's minds. 
 It is to be presumed that the far greater part knew not 
 themselves what they believed on this head ; for, at periods 
 infinitely more enlightened, this has frequently been the 
 case. The Chaplain, therefore, with most learned Protes- 
 tants, admits, and he does it tvithout any reluctance, that the 
 doctrine of the carnal presence had greatly prevailed, when 
 Berenger arose to refute it ; but he denies that it had full 
 possession of men'' s minds : for authentic monuments of his- 
 tory evince, that, at the beginning of the eleventh century, 
 the matter was frequently debated, and an opposite opinion 
 sometimes taught. One proof, out of many, shall suffice 
 for this assertion. Alfrick, abbot of Malmesbury, in an 
 Easter homily, which he wrote about the year 1026, has 
 these remarkable words : " Men have often searched, and 
 do yet often search, how bread that is gathered of corn, and 
 
 * William of Malmesbury, who, as Usher asserts, de succ. et staf. Christ. 
 Eccl.p. 101, was the author of the Continuation of Bede, printed at Heidel- 
 berg in 1587, tells us, " that all France w'as full of his doctrine, which was 
 propagated by the poor students, whom he gained over by his daily alms." 
 De Gestis Anglorum lib. 3. Roger of Wendover, and Matthew Paris, in his 
 history of the year 1087, support the same fact. In a word, Matthew, who 
 collected the history of Westminster and Kochester, tells us expressly, " that 
 at this time Berenger of Tours falling into heretical pravity, had corrupted 
 all the French, Italians, and English with his errors." Eodein tempore Be- 
 rengarius Turonensis in ha;recticam lapsus pravitatem, omnes Gallos, Italos 
 et Anglos suis jam corruperat pravilalibus. Hence, as Usher observes, we 
 may justly call in question the assertion of Guitmundus, when, to serve his 
 own cause, he says that the doctrine of Berenger was not received in one bo- 
 rough, or even in one village. In a word, so fluctuating were men's opinions 
 on this matter, that Engelbert, Archbishop of Trevers, assures us, that Hiel- 
 debrand himself was doubtful, whether what is taken at the Lord's table be 
 the true body and blood of Christ. Constitut. Imp. Goldast. Tom. 1. p. 4!o- 
 apud Usserium. 
 
185 
 
 baked by the heat of the fire, may be turned into Christ's 
 body, or how wine that is pressed out of many grapes, is 
 turned through one blessing into the Lord's blood."* His 
 solution of these difficulties is not only similar to that of 
 Bertram, mentioned above, but in many places translated 
 literally from it. The text of each of these writers is now 
 before the Chaplain. And the argument he draws from 
 this fact is unanswerable. This homily was appointed to 
 be read publicly to the people in England, on Easter day, 
 before the communion. The same doctrine was delivered 
 to the clergy, by the bishops at their respective synods. In 
 one of these writings, directed to Wulffine, bishop of Sher- 
 burne, it is said, " that the housel (communion) is Christ's 
 body, not bodily but spiritually. Not the body in which 
 he suffered, but the body of which he spake, when he 
 blessed bread and wine to housel, the night before his suf- 
 fering," &c. Again, addressing himself to Wolfstane, 
 archbishop of York, the writer thus expresses himself: 
 "The Lord who hallowed housel before his suffering, hal- 
 loweth daily bread to his body, by the hands of the priest, 
 and wine to his blood in spiritual mystery, as we read in 
 books. And yet, notwithstanding, that lively bread is not 
 bodily so, nor the self-same body that Christ suffered in : 
 nor that holy wine is the Saviour's blood which was shed 
 for us in bodily thiiig, hut in spiritual understanding. Both 
 are truly that bread his body, and that wine also his blood, 
 as was the heavenly bread which we call manna, that fed 
 God's people for forty years ; and the clear water which did 
 then run from the stone in the wilderness, was truly his 
 blood ; as Paul wrote in one of his epistles."! The reader 
 is qualified by this time to pronounce upon the authorities 
 alleged by the Rev. gentleman for the universal belief of 
 
 * Homil. pasch. Anglo-Saxonica impressa Lond. per. Jo. Daium et MS. in 
 Pub. Cantab. Acad. Bib. apud Usserium Respons. p. 79. 
 
 t See this treatise impr. Lond. cum hom. pasch. et MS. in pub. Oxen. Bib, 
 et Colleg. S. Ben. Cantab, apud Usser. ibid. p. 82. 
 
 q2 
 
186 
 
 transubstantiation, at the period we are speaking of. He 
 will probably regard them as confident assertions usurping 
 the place of matters of fact, or as fresh instances of the ig- 
 norance of these assemblies. At any rate, no council that 
 condemned Berenger, before that of Lateran, in 1215, is 
 allowed to be general by Roman Catholic divines. That 
 held at Rome in 1050, by the confession of Gratian, con- 
 ceived its decrees in terms that render them doubtful or 
 absurd.* The others were merely provincial synods, by 
 no means competent to establish an article of faith. From 
 all which it follows, that, previous to the council of Lateran, 
 the doctrine of transubstantiation was no article of Roman 
 Catholic belief: which is all the Chaplain asserts in his 
 letter. 
 
 How this doctrine gained ground during the gloomy pe- 
 riod that intervened between Paschasius and Berenger, in 
 what year it was adopted by particular Churches, or why it 
 met not with more early opposition, is by no means incum- 
 bent on the Chaplain to demonstrate. He advanced a mat- 
 ter of fact, and he has proved it. They, however, who are 
 acquainted with the imbecility of the human mind, when 
 all its faculties are suffered to lie waste and uncultivated, 
 will deem the space of two centuries more than sufficient 
 to settle the usurpations of error upon the overthrow of 
 reason. The origin of an intellectual as well as of a bodily 
 plague, is very frequently obscure and uncertain, but when 
 the mind is prepared to receive the infection, its progress 
 and its ravages are rapid and distinct. It was during this 
 dark and woful period of astonishing ignorance, icliile men 
 rcere asleep, that the enemy of the Church came and sowed 
 tares among the wheat and loent his way. (Matt. xiii. 24, 
 25.) "An unhappy period," says Genebrandjf and other 
 Roman Catholic writers, "destitute of men either of genius 
 
 * These decrees may be seen in vol. 1. of Mosheim's Ecclesiastical History, 
 t Chronic, lib. 4. 
 
187 
 
 or learning, as also of famous princes or bishops." ** A 
 period in which were no famous writers, nor councils.^''* 
 " A period than which none was ever more unlearned and 
 unhappy."! A period which, " for want of writers, is 
 usually styled the obscure age.":{: A period, in a word, 
 when an aspiring pontiff, to secure the attachment and sub- 
 mission of the clergy, broke down the sacred enclosures of 
 connubial restraint, and thus let loose on Christendom an 
 inundation of vice, which raged with unabating fury down 
 to the reformation. § Now, although we be unable to mark 
 the several stages of error, or fix with precision every de- 
 vastation occasioned by the spirit of deceit, who, "as a 
 roaring lion, walketh about seeking whom he may devour ;" 
 (Pet. v. 8.) yet we cannot infer from hence that he lost the 
 opportunity of so dark a night, or neglected to avail himself 
 of the unbounded depravity which corrupted, and the ge- 
 neral lethargy which benumbed the faculties of men. Pro- 
 testants therefore may believe, that in such circumstances 
 an error may gradually spread, and even become universal, 
 and " still find transubstantiatioa too hard for their diges- 
 tion." 
 
 * Bellami. in ChronoL anno 970. This assertion of the learned Cardinal 
 runs directly counter to the Rev. gentleman's opinion, delivered in his Ad- 
 dress, page 108. 
 
 t Idem de Rom. Pont. lib-. 4. cap. 12. 
 
 X Baron. Annal. Tom. 10. ann. 900. sect. 1. 
 
 $ See the History of the Dismal Consequences of the Law of Celibacy, in 
 Usher, de successione & statu Christ. Eccl. and the Essay on this subject, 
 printed at Worcester, in England, in 1782. Sigebert, a cotemporary writer, 
 tells us in his chronicle, " that Pope Gregory (VII.) removed the married 
 priests from the divine functions by a new procedure, and (as it appeared to 
 many) by a rash prejudice against the opinion of the holy fathers, &c. From 
 which step," says he, " so great a scandal arises, that in the time of no he- 
 resy was the holy Church torn to pieces, by a more dreadful schism. Few 
 observing continency, some feigning it for the sake of lucre and reputation ,* 
 many adding to their incontinency, both perjury and adultery." How greatly 
 all this, and much more that could be alleged, to the credit of celibacy, and 
 to the age in which it was ultimately enacted ! 
 
188 
 
 " That this doctrine ever was, and is still, a tenet of the 
 Greeks, the Armenians, the Coptics, and Abyssinians," is 
 a position much more easily advanced than supported. It 
 positively contradicts the latest accounts of the most en- 
 lightened travellers ; who tell us, that the Greek prelates, 
 when questioned upon this doctrine, reject it with indigna- 
 tion.* As for the Cophs and Abyssinians, their ancient 
 liturgies explain the words of the institution by saying, 
 this bread is my hody,-\ which Bellarmine acknowledges to 
 be tantamount to a denial of the mystery.:}: Moreover, will 
 the Rev. gentleman persuade us, that the Greek Church 
 admitted transubstantiation in the time of Photius, when 
 we know from history, that the fathers of the council of 
 Constantinople, in 869, used the consecrated wine mixed 
 with ink to sign his condemnation ?§ What an abuse of 
 the Eucharistical elements, what a profanation would this 
 have been ! The belief of the Greek Church upon this 
 matter is illustrated by John Damascenus in the following 
 manner; "Isaiah saw a lighted coal ; now a lighted coal 
 is not mere wood, but wood joined to fire ; so the bread of 
 the sacrament is not mere bread, but bread joined to the 
 divinity, and the body united to the divinity is not one and 
 the same nature, but the nature of the body is one, and 
 that of the divinity united to it another." " This," says 
 Dr. Priestly, II " has been the faith of the Greek Church 
 ever since the time of this Damascenus, who wrote in the 
 beginning of the eighth century, and his name is as great 
 an authority in the Eastern Church, as that of Thomas 
 Aquinas was afterwards in the West. In reality, the 
 
 * See their several relations, in Dr. Kurd's History of all Religions. 
 Among others, the learned Wheeler and Chandler have deposed against the 
 Rev. gentleman's assertion. 
 
 t See Usher de success, et statu Christ. Eccl. 
 
 t Non igitur potest fieri, ut vera sit propositio, in qua subjectum proponit 
 pro pane, praedicatum autem pro corpore Christi. Panis enim et corpus 
 Domini res diversissimae sunt. Bellar.de Euch. lib. 3. cap. 19. 
 
 ^ Priestly's Hist, of Opinions, p. 27. |1 Ibid. p. 24. 
 
189 
 
 Greeks must consider the Eucharistical elements as another 
 body of Christ, to which his soul or his divinity bears the 
 same relation that it did to the body which he had when on 
 earth, and with which he ascended to heaven. They must 
 suppose that there is, as it were, a multiplication of bodies 
 to the same soul. No real change^, however, is by them 
 supposed to be made in the substance of the bread and ivine ; 
 only from being mere bread and wine, it becomes a new 
 body and blood to Christ." Here is a doctrine perfectly 
 suited to the subtile genius of the Greeks. It may be ab- 
 surd, but still it is not transubstantiation. The Rev. gen- 
 tleman, therefore, appears rather too sanguine, when he 
 asserts, " that obstinacy or ignorance alone can deny that 
 his doctrine concerning the Eucharist, agrees with that of 
 all the Churches he had mentioned." The reader has 
 just seen the decided opinion of a man who never yet was 
 accused of ignorance, nor charged with obstinacy, when 
 disengaged from the discussion of his peculiar opinions. 
 Wherefore, the Rev. gentleman's inference from his con- 
 tested premises will not, perhaps, be so conclusive as he 
 imagines ; nor will his apology for the dark ages be admit- 
 ted until more instances of knowledge than one be produced 
 to invalidate the profusion of authorities, which have ever 
 stamped them with a variety of infamy. 
 
 The Chaplain had advanced, " that many celebrated con- 
 trovertists of the Roman Church acknowledge that some of 
 her essential tenets are not to be found at all in the Scrip- 
 tures, or are delivered in them with great obscurity." He 
 briefly instanced this fact with respect to transubstantiation, 
 the priest's power to forgive sins, and the doctrine of pur- 
 gatory. He produced three or four eminent divines as 
 vouchers for the first, and this the Rev. gentleman calls 
 exhausting his authorities against transubstantiation. The 
 reader might conclude from these words that instead of 
 about thirty lines, the Chaplain had compiled a folio against 
 this tenet. Not that such a task would by any means be 
 
190 
 
 difficult ; were he merely to transcribe all the passages of 
 the ancient fathers, which declare that what Christ called 
 his body, is bread in substance, and his body in figure only, 
 and sacramental relation. The reader who may wish to 
 peruse these passages, will find them in abundance in every 
 Protestant controvertist who treats upon the Eucharist. 
 What the Chaplain meant to infer from the authorities 
 which he mentioned was merely the sentiment delivered by 
 Bellarmine in these words : " that it may be reasonably 
 doubted, whether Scripture in this matter appear so evi- 
 dent as to command the belief of a dispassionate person, 
 since men of the greatest learning and penetration, among 
 whom Scotus is eminently conspicuous, have thought other- 
 wise."* Here we have the learned Cardinal expressly 
 delivering the Chaplain's position, and his authority alone 
 shall supersede the trouble of looking for other great names 
 to support it. 
 
 With reason, therefore, did the Chaplain assert, " that 
 he could never discover this and some other doctrines in 
 the Scriptures, as they escaped the notice of very acute and 
 interested inquirers.'' He observed, consequently, " that 
 these discriminating tenets derive their whole weight from 
 the infallible authority of the Church which teaches them." 
 And he reasoned further, " that the arguments against 
 these doctrines, drawn from their palpable contradictions, 
 appear greatly an overmatch for such as are alleged for the 
 infallible Church that enforces them: therefore, reason 
 tells him that, rather than admit such doctrines, he should 
 not balance to discard such authority." To illustrate this 
 argument he mentioned a few consequences of transub- 
 stantiation, which appear to him absurd and contradictory. 
 The Rev. gentleman does not attempt to clear them of this 
 charge. He is of opinion, however, that these difficulties 
 " result more immediately from Christ's real presence in 
 
 * De Euch. lib. 3. cap. 23, 
 
191 
 
 the Eucharist than from transubsfantiation ; but," says he, 
 " to impute them to that doctrine would not be quite so 
 inoffensive." Nor would it in any degree be warrantable 
 so to do : for the doctrine of Protestants, on this head, can 
 defy the most subtle schoolman to fix a single contradic- 
 tion upon it, of those enumerated in the Chaplain's letter. 
 Transubsfantiation alone holds an exclusive right in them, 
 and will continue to hold it, until Protestants shall confess, 
 or their opponents demonstrate, that to receive the body and 
 blood of Christ verily and indeed,* implies not only a spiri- 
 tual and sacramental presence, but a corporal and substan- 
 tial presence, a physical and oral eating and drinking of 
 Christ's body and blood. From this idea only every diffi- 
 culty originates. Here our senses are bewildered, our re- 
 ligion recoils, our reason stands aghast. A bit of bread 
 becomes the substance of the Son of God, and yet retains 
 all the properties of bread ! A moment ago it was nothing 
 more. Four words are pronounced by a priest, and this 
 earthly substance becomes the physical body and blood of 
 a man — of a God ! And yet it appears, tastes, smells, 
 feels, and nourishes like mere bread ! At the same instant 
 of time in a million of different places, the same identical 
 body exists in a million of different circumstances. Here 
 it is at rest — there in motion. Here it is held up to public 
 adoration — there it descends into the stomach of a sinner. 
 In heaven it is a real organical body — on earth it is with- 
 out organs, without dimensions, without extent, without 
 weight, without any obvious property of a living body. 
 The Rev. gentleman may style such objections the " foulest 
 dregs of controversy ;" but this is not to answer them. 
 No wonder the Jews were astonished at the idea of Christ 
 skiving his flesh to eat : (John vi.) taken in a literal sense, 
 it was truly a hard saying. But our kind Redeemer pitied 
 their ignorance, and dispelled their perplexity. " It is the 
 
 * See the Catechism of the Church of England. 
 
 S 
 
192 
 
 Spirit," says he, " that quickeneth, the flesh profiteth Hd* 
 thing ; the words that I speak unto you they are spirit, and 
 they are life." (John vi. 03.) At this rational comment 
 every difficulty vanishes : faith and reason are no longer at 
 variance. Thrice happy had it been for the cause of hu- 
 manity and religion, if this solution which Christ gives of 
 his own words, had been seriously attended to by succeed- 
 ing ages. A principal subject of ridicule had been removed 
 from unbelievers, and the Arabian sage had not exclaimed 
 with exultation, " that since Christians eat what they adore, 
 he would wish his soul to abide with the philosophers."* 
 
 The Rev. gentleman is of opinion that many circum- 
 stances in the life of our Saviour are full as exceptionable 
 as the change of the. substance of bread into his natural 
 body. Were this really the case, it would be a further 
 justification of the sentiment of Averroes. But let a single 
 instance in the life of Christ be exhibited, that induces us 
 to discredit the evidence of our senses. The union of the 
 divine and human nature, although incomprehensible, falls 
 not within their sphere of action. But during his abode 
 upon earth, his form, his voice, his flesh, were those of a 
 man, while his sovereign control over nature proclaimed 
 him to be God. All, therefore, who saw, heard, and touched 
 him, from the evidence of their senses declared him to be 
 the former — they who reasoned upon his wonders, pro- 
 nounced him to be the latter. Is the case anywise similar 
 in transubstantiation ? The Rev. gentleman indeed pro- 
 duces 3. genuine passage from St. Chrysostom to prove that 
 we must submit to this tenet, however it seem to contradict 
 our senses. " Believe me," says this Doctor, " you see 
 him, you touch him, you eat him. You would be content- 
 ed to see his clothes ; and he lets you not only see him, but 
 also touch him, and eat him, and receive him within you." 
 
 * Quandoquidem Christian! comedunt quod adorant, sit anima mea cum 
 philosophis. Averroes, 
 
193 
 
 (Horn. 81. alias 82. in Matt.) Here the reader is present- 
 ed with one of those hyperbolical passages which in the 
 heat of declamation often dropt inadvertently from the 
 glowing fancy of the Greeks. The Rev. gentleman him- 
 self cannot surely admit the literal meaning of these words. 
 For does he not profess, that Christ is only present, under 
 the appearances of bread and wine ? How then can we see 
 his body, when nothing but bread and wine appears; or 
 touch it, when the sacramental elements are the sole ob- 
 ject of this sense? This genuine quotation, therefore, avails 
 but little — like many other expressions of the ancient fa- 
 thers, which escaped them during their extempore dis- 
 courses, it will not stand the test of analytical criticism. 
 However, to convince the reader that no passage from this, 
 or any other of the fathers, can be brought forth for tran- 
 substantiation, to which a counter-passage cannot be pro- 
 duced, let him peruse the following words of the same elo- 
 quent doctor, taken from his dogmatical epistle to Cesarius 
 against the heresy of Apolinarius :* " As, before the bread 
 is sanctified, we call it bread; but when God's grace has 
 sanctified it by the means of the priest, it is delivered from 
 the name of bread, and is reputed worthy of the name of 
 the Lord's body, although the nature of bread remain still 
 in itj''^ <SfC. Whoever will open any Protestant writer upon 
 this subject, or be at the trouble of perusing the ancient 
 fathers themselves, will quickly discover a variety of pas- 
 sages equally conclusive against any physical change in the 
 nature of the elements, and evidently proving that the old 
 writers spoke merely of a presence of unions ejficacy and 
 
 * This passage makes so powerfully against transubstantiation, that several 
 Roman Catholic writers have called the authenticity of this letter in ques- 
 tion. But Archbishop Usher says, he finds it cited in the collections against 
 the Severians, which are to be seen in Canisius' Lectiones Ayitiquce, Tom. 4. 
 page 238, translated by Francis Turrianus. It is also twice cited by John 
 Damascen against the Acephali, and the context of this passage is adopted by 
 the Jesuit Turrianus. Ush. Catalogue of Authors, ^c. ad ann. 400. 
 
 R 
 
194 
 
 grace. If in other parts of their writings they sometimes 
 countenance a physical and carnal presence, we must con- 
 clude that their notions on this matter were vague and un- 
 settled, and that they conceived themselves at liberty to ex- 
 plain the words of tlie eucharistic institution, in the manner 
 best suited to their audience, or the subject matter of their 
 several discourses. The Chaplain entreats the reader to 
 bear with him a few moments longer on this head, and he 
 will dismiss it altogether. It is with much reluctance that 
 he has dwelt on it so long. 
 
 He had mentioned in a note two negative arguments to 
 prove that transubstantiation was unknown to the ancient 
 Christians. They appeared to him to amount to a moral 
 demonstration; and they appear so still. The first is this — 
 It is well known that the orthodox writers against the Arians 
 exhausted every source of argument which a zeal for truth, 
 or the warmth of controversy, could suggest, to prove the 
 divinity of Christ. Now, would not this doctrine have de- 
 rived great support from the following fact, viz. *' that Chris- 
 tians from the days of the Apostles had always conceived 
 Christ to be really and corporally present in the Eucharist, 
 and that the elements were then and ever had been adored 
 with the same supreme worship as is paid to the Father?" 
 And yet this fact, so favourable to their cause, is never 
 mentioned by one of these numerous and eminent writers: 
 an evident proof that it did not exist. But, says the Rev. 
 gentleman, the Arians did not deny that Christ was "adi- 
 vine personjN^rue God of true God, eternal, the same God 
 with the 1 ather, — and, therefore, an object of divine wor- 
 ship." As a voucher for this doctrine of the Arians, he in- 
 troduces Socrates, a Novatian heretic, whose historical in- 
 accuracy is well known to the critics. Some few of the 
 Arians, however, may have made these concessions; but if 
 the reader will peruse the history of this heresy in the ele- 
 gant Mr. Gibbon, or the temperate Priestly, he will find, 
 that by far the greater part of the sect adhered to the ori- 
 
195 
 
 ginal doctrine of Arius, maintaining that " the Son of God 
 was a creature neither co-eternal nor con-substantial with 
 the Father," This opinion of Arius is gathered from 
 Epiphanius, Augustin, and Theodoret, by the learned Bel- 
 larmine, whose words are these. ''^ "Arius, a priest of 
 Alexandria, taught that the Son of God is a creature neither 
 co-eternal nor co-essential with the Father." Here is a 
 firm foundation for the Chaplain's argument, erected upon 
 an authority which the Rev. gentleman will hardly contro- 
 vert. The Arians taught that Christ is a creature, yet the 
 writers who refuted them never urged the practice of ador- 
 ing him with supreme worship in the Eucharist, to prove 
 him to be God. The omission of this circumstance must 
 evince the nullity of any such practice : it shows, more- 
 over, that the adoration mentioned in St. Chrysostom's 
 liturgy, means only an inferior act of reverence to the ele- 
 ments, or a supreme act of worship paid to Christ, either 
 spiritually present, or reigning personally with his Father 
 in heaven. 
 
 The second negative argument is drawn from the silence 
 of pagan writers with respect to the inconsistencies of 
 transubstantiation. Had this tenet been current when they 
 wrote, no privacy of worship could have concealed it from 
 them. Every persecution made many apostates who would 
 naturally communicate, expose, and ridicule so unnatural 
 a doctrine. It could not have escaped the knowledge of 
 a Celsus, a Porphyry, or a Julian. " The Philosophers," 
 says the learned professor Bullet,t "saw with concern the 
 success of Christianity. Whether out of zeal for their 
 
 * Chron. pars altera p. 495. de Scrip. Eccl. 
 
 t Histoire de rEtablissement du Christianisme trace des Auteurs Juifs «fe 
 Payens, &c. The History of the Establishment of Christianity, compiled 
 from Jewish and Heathen Authors only, exhibiting a substantial proof of the 
 truth of this religion, by Professor Bullet, Dean of the University of Besan- 
 con, &c. &c. This work is earnestly recommended to all those who wish to 
 satisfy their doubts relating to the system of Christianity. 
 
196 
 
 gods, or vexation to see themselves confounded, they re- 
 solved to exert their most vigorous efforts to stop the course 
 of this religion: they studied its doctrines: they perused 
 with attention its books, with a view to heighten all the 
 difficulties they could find there. Celsus, Porphyry, and 
 Julian, composed works, in which they employed all the 
 resources of their genius, to give a plausible turn to idola- 
 try, and to charge Christianity with contradictions and ab- 
 surdities.''^ — And yet among these alleged absurdities, we 
 do not meet with one that results from transubstantiation. 
 Although they studied the doctrines of Christianity, al- 
 though Julian was born and educated a Christian, yet this 
 tenet, so fraught with contradictions, escaped his ridicule 
 and his censure. To swallow such improbabilities, is to 
 set every rule of historical criticism at defiance. To sup- 
 pose, that objections of this nature might have been made 
 by the pagans, although not one of them be recorded in 
 their works which have come down to us, or in those of 
 the voluminous Christian writers who refuted them, will be 
 deemed, perhaps, an instance of as violent prejudice as that 
 to which the Chaplain's renunciation of some former opin- 
 ions is ungenerously attributed. In this instance, as in 
 others, let the informed and impartial reader pronounce. 
 
 At the close of the note above mentioned, the Chaplain 
 begged leave to add, " that the fathers of the second coun- 
 cil of Nice confirm the opinion, that Chrisfs body in hea- 
 ven is notfesh and blood : therefore, even supposing bread 
 and wine to be changed into his body and blood, they can- 
 not become his body as it now is in heaven." For this 
 passage he quoted I'Abbe's collection of the councils. 
 (Tom. 6. p. 541.) The Rev. gentleman tells us, that he 
 " knows not where to find this collection in America, but 
 I aver," says he, " that no such doctrine was delivered or 
 entertained by the fathers of that council ; and will, there- 
 fore, without fear of being convicted of rashness, undertake 
 to say, that the Chaplain cannot support what he has here 
 
197 
 
 advanced. As in many other instances, so likewise in this, 
 the Chaplain has suffered himself to be misled by authors, 
 whom I hope he will deservedly mistrust for the time to 
 come — their unfaithfulness is eminently conspicuous in the 
 present instance." It must give pain to all who know the 
 Hev. gentleman, to behold him thus battling with a sha- 
 dow, and accusing the Chaplain and Protestant writers, of 
 opinions which never entered into their heads to advance. 
 Does the quotation from the council insinuate in the most 
 distant manner, that " Christ had no true body upon earth, 
 or that he only exhibited the appearance of a body?" The 
 Chaplain will aver, that no such idea is held out in his let- 
 tcr, or by any author whom he is advised to mistrust. All 
 that the passage cited by I'Abbe says, is, that Christ's body 
 in heaven is not flesh and blood. This opinion, the Rev. 
 gentleman must know, was entertained by many of the pri- 
 mitive Christians. The fact is clearly demonstrated by 
 Burnet in his treatise de statu mortuorum et resurgentium ; 
 and it was grounded on this passage of St. Paul to the Co- 
 rinthians,. (xv. 50.) " Now this I say, brethren, that flesh 
 and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God, neither doth 
 corruption inherit incorruption." Not a word is mentioned 
 of Christ's human body previous to his ascension. The 
 Chaplain, therefore, stands acquitted of inaccuracy, and his 
 argument on this head is as formidable as ever. 
 
 The doctrine of purgatory is another discriminating tenet 
 of the Roman Church, which the Chaplain could not disco- 
 ver in the Scriptures. It must therefore rest solely upon 
 the infallibility of this Church. He instanced an eminent 
 Roman Catholic writer, asserting '• that the Greeks reject 
 this tenet, that their ancient doctors seldom or never men- 
 tioned it, and that the Latins became acquainted with it 
 only by degrees," (pedetentim.) He found some great 
 divines rejecting texts which others deemed conclusive in 
 favour of this doctrine, and discovered no plausible counte- 
 nance given it except in an apochryphal book of the Bible. 
 
 B 2 
 
198 
 
 After all this he ventured to assert that this doctrine is not 
 contained in the Scriptures. The Rev. gentleman offers 
 nothing to invalidate this position. He, indeed, refers the 
 Chaplain to the Catholic Scripturist for authorities to sup- 
 port this tenet ; and " is well convinced, that the prevail- 
 ing reason which moved the compilers of the English Bible 
 to reject the books of Maccabees, was the support which 
 tbey observed the Catholic doctrine of purgatory would 
 derive from it." As to the authorities in the Catholic 
 Scripturist, many of them have so little weight even with 
 Roman Catholic divines, that they can hardly be supposed 
 to contain much intrinsic evidence. With regard to the 
 compilers of the English Bible, the Chaplain trusts that 
 other motives can be offered for their rejecting the books of 
 Maccabees from the canon of the Scriptures, than one so 
 base and ungenerous as the Rev. gentleman suggests. Is 
 he able to penetrate into the hearts of these learned com- 
 pilers, and there discover the secret springs of their con- 
 duct ? After the most mature and upright deliberation, 
 might they not have been convinced, that the epistle to the 
 Hebrews, the second of Peter and of James, &;c. although 
 questioned by a few of the ancient fathers, were at all times 
 deemed canonical by the much greater part of Christians, 
 while at the same time they saw plainly that the books of 
 Maccabees were ever judged apocryphal by the primitive 
 Church 1 Perpetuity and uniformity of testimony was all 
 they could go upon. These they found vouching for the 
 authenticity of some books, whilst others were destitute of 
 such essential supports. Among the latter are these books 
 of the Maccabees. Previous to the council of Carthage, 
 St. Jerome tells us, "that the Church in his time, read, in- 
 deed, these books : but did not admit them among the ca- 
 nonical Scriptures."* " All these," says Rufinus, " were 
 
 * Legit quidem ecclcsia, sed eoa inter canonicas scripturas non recipit. 
 In. lib. Salom. 
 
199 
 
 read in the Churches, but not as authorities for proving the 
 faith :"* And after the same council, St. Gregery excuses 
 himself for citing the books of Maccabees, "although," says 
 he, " they be not canonical. "f Thus, notwithstanding the 
 alleged authority of this council, and of Pope Innocent, we 
 find these books rejected from the canon of Scripture, 
 through every age and every country, even down to the 
 council of Trent. They were deemed apocryphal by Juni- 
 lius and Primasius, in Africa, by Cassiodorus and Gregory, 
 in Italy, by Isodore of Seville, in Spain, by Alcuin, in 
 France, by Bede, in England, by Rabanus Maurus, in Ger- 
 many. Cajetan, writing to Pope Clement VII.ij: declares 
 them not to be canonical. Thus, the agreement of Chris- 
 tian writers upon this matter, before the 16th century, has 
 been nearly uniform ; so that among all the modern dog- 
 mas of the council of Trent, this has the least to boast of, 
 from uninterrupted tradition. Were this digression entire- 
 ly foreign to the subject, the reader would still pardon it as 
 an apology for the very learned and respectable divines who 
 translated the English Bible. 
 
 The Rev. gentleman next tells the Roman Catholics of 
 America, " that no article of the Christian belief has 
 stronger evidence from the testimony of the early fathers, 
 than the doctrine of purgatory. They prove incontestably 
 the practice of praying for the dead ; they assert that by 
 the prayers of the faithful in this life, comfort and relief is 
 obtained for those who are departed out of it ; which is 
 establishing as much of the doctrine of purgatory, as we are 
 obliged to believe.'' Are Roman Catholics then not 
 
 * Qua3 omnia legi quidem in ecclesiis volnerunt, non tamen proferri ad 
 auctoriatatem ex his fidei confirmandam. Expos. Syrnb. 
 
 t De qua re cavenda non inordinate facimus, si ex libris, licet non canoni- 
 cis, sed tamen ad aedificationem ecclesiae edilis, testimonium proferamus. 
 <S'. Greg. Expos, in Job. lib. 19. cap. 17. 
 
 I Non sunt hi libri canonici, hoc est, non sunt regulares ad firmandum ea 
 quae sunt fidei. Epistol. dedicat. ad Clem. VII. 
 
200 
 
 obliged to believe, that purgatory is a place of torment and 
 punishment? Is it not an article of their belief that the 
 guilt of venial sin, and the temporal punishment due to 
 mortal, are done away by the torments of purgatory ? What 
 says the most authentic catechism of the Roman Church, 
 published under the sanction of the Pope, in consequence 
 of an express decree of the council of Trent, for the in- 
 struction of parish priests ? " There is a purgatory," that 
 is to say, " a purgatory fire, by which the souls of the pious 
 being for a determinate time tormented, are expiated or 
 purged, that an entrance into their eternal kingdom may 
 be opened to them."* Now, had the early Greek or Latin 
 Christians any idea of a purgatory like this 1 Neither of 
 the passages alleged by the Rev. gentleman, from Cyril 
 and Clirysostom, throws out a distant hint of any such 
 thincr. That the ancient Christians commemorated and 
 prayed for the dead, no informed Protestant ever meant to 
 deny. But it does not follow, that they conceived them to 
 be in a state of purgation or punishment. Because we 
 pray for our absent friends, must we therefore believe them 
 to be tormented and miserable? The fact is, many of the 
 ancient fathers imagined, that the souls of the departed 
 faithful were not to be admitted into the complete enjoy- 
 ment of heaven, until the general resurrection ; but that in 
 the mean time they expected this great event in the bosom 
 of Abraham, in a state of tranquillity and rest, capable of 
 receiving additional happiness from the supplications of 
 their pious brethren upon earth. This idea laid the only 
 foundation for praying for the dead. However unwarrant- 
 ed it may be, it has certainly no affinity with the modern 
 doctrine of purgatory. The Chaplain has no inclination to 
 load his page with voluminous quotations. No occupation 
 requires less genius or more labour than that of a compiler ; 
 yet he cannot forbear instancing a {ew authorities, that 
 
 * See the Roman Catechism. 
 
201 
 
 place the ideas of the early Christians upon this subject in 
 their true point of view. Such an article of Church history 
 will be interesting to some readers, while to others it will 
 appear at least a matter of curiosity. " We observe,'' says 
 the ancient author of the commentaries upon Job, among 
 Origen's works,* " the memorials of the saints, and devout- 
 ly keep the remembrance of our parents and friends who 
 die in the faith, as well to rejoice for their refreshment, as 
 to request for ourselves a godly consummation in the faith 
 
 that our festivity may be for a memorial of rest to 
 
 the souls departed, .... and to us may become a sweet 
 savour in the sight of the eternal God." St. Cyprian, 
 speaking of Laurence and Ignatius, whom he acknowledges 
 to have received the crown of martyrdom, says, " We offer 
 sacrifices always for them, when we celebrate the passions 
 and days of the martyrs with an anniversary commemora- 
 tion. "f St. Chrysostom, discoursing on the funeral ordi- 
 nances of the Church, writes as follows : " Tell me, what 
 do the bright lamps mean ? Do we not accompany them 
 with these as champions? What mean the hymns? Con- 
 sider what thou dost sing at that time. Return, my soul, 
 into thy rest ; for the Lord hath dealt bountifully with 
 thee ! And again : thou art my refuge from the affliction, 
 that compasseth me.":}: 
 
 The liturgy used in the Church of Syria, and attributed 
 to St. Basil, has these words : " Be mindful, O Lord, of 
 them who are dead and departed out of this life, and of the 
 orthodox bishops who from Peter and James the Apostles, 
 until this day, have clearly professed the right word of 
 faith ; and namely of Ignatius, Dionysius, Julius, and the 
 rest of the saints of worthy memory. "§ And in the liturgy 
 ascribed to the Apostles we read : " We offer unto thee for 
 all the saints who have pleased thee from the beginning of 
 
 * Lira. 3. Comment, t Epist. 34. | In Epist. ad Hebraeos hora. 4, 
 $ Anaphora ab Andr. Maesio ex Syriaco conversa^ 
 
202 
 
 the world, patriarchs, prophets," &c. &:c.* In the liturgies 
 of the Churches of Egypt, said to have been written by St. 
 Basil, Gregory Nazianzen, and Cyril of Alexandria, we 
 meet with sentiments entirely similar. "Be mindful, O 
 Lord, of thy saints : vouchsafe to remember all thy saints 
 who have pleased thee from the beginning, &;c. and espe- 
 cially the holy, glorious, the evermore Virgin Mary, the 
 mother of God, and St. John the forerunner, St. Stephen," 
 (Scc-t And again, in the liturgy of the Church of Con- 
 stantinople, attributed to St. Chrysostom ; " We offer unto 
 thee this reasonable serviceybr those who are at rest in the 
 faith, our forefathers, fathers, patriarchs," &:c. &;c.:{: This 
 expression of offer ingybr the saints, becoming exceptiona- 
 ble some centuries after, was thus modified in the Latin 
 translation by Leo Thuscus, for the patriarchs, <^c. inter- 
 ceding for us ;^ which last words are not to be found in the 
 Greek original now before the Chaplain. Similar senti- 
 ments are delivered by St. Ambrose in several parts of his 
 writings, 11 and by the other fathers who have treated of this 
 subject. In a word, the commemorations for the dead, which 
 are read in the mass at this day, so far from mentioning any 
 place of torment, suppose on the contrary that the souls 
 who are prayed for are already in a state of tranquillity and 
 rest. Let this one prayer suffice for this assertion. " Re- 
 member, O Lord, thy servants and handmaids, who have 
 gone before us with the ensign of faith, and sleep in the 
 sleep of peace. To them, O Lord, and to all who rest in 
 Christ, we beseech thee that thou wouldst grant a place of 
 refreshment, light, and peace-"^ In none of these passages 
 
 * Conslitut. Apost. lib. 8. cap. 12. 
 
 t Litnrg. ^gyp. a Viclorio Scialach ex Arab convers. p. 22. 47 et 60. edit. 
 August, ann. 1604. t Chrys. liturg. Graec. $ Chrys. liturg. Lat. 
 
 II De obitu Valent. Imp. Idem de obitu Theodosii, &c. 
 
 T Missale Romanum. In the mass for the dead, some of the prayers en- 
 treat a deliverance from hell — but none from purgatory — because, as Bellar- 
 mine observes, " the Church prays for the souls in purgatory, that they may 
 not be condemned to the everlasting pains of hell ; not, indeed, because it is 
 
203 
 
 will the reader be able to discover the modern doctrine of 
 purgatory. He will therefore hardly assent to the Rev* 
 gentleman's position, " that no article of the Christian be- 
 lief, has stronger evidence from the testimony of the early 
 fathers." 
 
 Another point of doctrine of the Roman Catholic Church, 
 is the necessity and divine institvtion of confession. The 
 Chaplain had advanced as a matter of fact, that " this opin- 
 ion was discussed by ancient writers with great freedom, 
 and that centuries were requisite to settle this practice in 
 its present form." To support this fact, he alleged some 
 authorities, which the Rev. gentleman cannot possibly set 
 aside. And, indeed, if the passages from Cardinal Hugo, 
 Gratian, Alcuin, and Maldonatus do not completely justify 
 the Chaplain's assertion, words can have no explicit mean- 
 ing, but what may yield to the subtilty of a theological 
 quibble. But the truth is, that previous to the Lateran 
 council, in 1215, it was the opinion of many orthodox di- 
 vines, that Confession to God alone was sufficient. Thomas 
 Aquinas and Bonaventure are both vouchers for this fact. 
 "The master of the sentences," says the former, "and 
 Gratian, are of this opinion, but now, since the decision of 
 the Church under Innocent III., we must deem it hereti- 
 cal.''* The date of this tenet, therefore, can be traced no 
 higher than the 13th century : and even since that period, 
 several divines have not regarded the Lateran decision as 
 final. Of this opinion was the commentator upon Gratian, 
 Scotus, Panormitanus, Michael of Bologna, &;c. not to men- 
 tion Erasmus, Rhenanus, cardinal Cajetan, and others of a 
 still more recent date. So that the learned Richer had 
 good reason to conclude, and the Chaplain with him, " that 
 internal confession is, indeed, of divine right, but that out- 
 
 not certain, that they are not to be condemned to these pains ; but because 
 God is pleased, that we should pray even for those things which we are cer- 
 tainly to receive." Bell, de Purgat. lib. 2. cap. 5. 
 *In4dist. 17. 
 
204 
 
 ward confession is no more than an ecclesiastical institu- 
 tion," not enjoined by the Scripture, nor regarded as essen- 
 tial by the ancient Churches of Christendom. 
 
 The Chaplain trusts, that by this time the reader is con- 
 vinced, " that the Roman Church regards some doctrines 
 at present as articles of faith, which for many ages were 
 debated as matters of opinion." The Rev. gentleman him- 
 self admits the fact, yet lays the Chaplain under the tedious 
 necessity of proving it. Now, an argument arises hence 
 against the system of infallibility, which appears unan- 
 swerable. The solution at which the Rev. gentleman la- 
 bours from the 80th to the 85th page of his Address, can 
 only be supported on the idea of a progressive religion. 
 He allows, that doctrines not of faith yesterday, may be so 
 to-day, because evidence of their divine revelation may be 
 had to-day which was wanted yesterday. "In perilous 
 times," says he, " the Church unfold the doctrines" com- 
 mitted to her charge, which, in proportion as they are thus 
 unfolded, become objects of faith. It was principally, 
 when heresies were condemned, that the opposite Catholic 
 verity was established. Yet, previous to this condemna- 
 tion, these errors were for ages adopted by the faithful. 
 Where was infallibility during this prevalence of error? 
 Was the Church conscious of this prerogative, or did she 
 neglect to exert it? If, for instance, the opinion of svffi- 
 ciency of confession to God alone was opposite to a revealed 
 truth, which had been committed to her by Christ or his 
 Apostles, why did she tolerate it for more than twelve cen- 
 turies, and thus neglect to deliver a truth, and enforce a 
 practice, which Christ and his Apostles taught to be essen- 
 tial to salvation 1 What the Rev. gentleman remarks, of 
 the faithful receiving gradual information from the writings 
 of the Apostles, can have no weight with those who con- 
 ceive these writings to have been inspired with a view of 
 completing the Christian system of belief. These writings 
 being finished, and their authors dead, the gracious scheme 
 
205 
 
 of revelation was closed, and a dreadful wo pronounced 
 against those, who should add to, or abridge this work of 
 the Almighty. (Gal. i. 9.) From that period to the present, 
 the Christian Church "has authority in controversies of 
 faith, she is a witness and keeper of holy writ:* when her 
 decisions are supported by the testimony of antiquity and 
 universal consent, it would be equally rash and senseless 
 to contest them. But our assent in these cases rests not 
 upon any infallible authority. In facts of an historical as 
 well as a religious nature, a perpetual, general, and uniform 
 testimony is fully sufficient to command our belief. But 
 when we find a particular Church or body of Christians 
 proposing doctrines as of faith, which are destitute of this 
 testimony, doctrines, which, for many ages, men of sanctity 
 and erudition did not conceive to be essential, and which 
 she herself chose to tolerate, deeming them immaterial ; 
 may we not regard the infallibility of such a Church as 
 chimerical, and her pretensions to it as the principal ob- 
 stacle to the removing of abuses which have darkened the 
 pure simplicity of the Gospel, and rendered Christianity a 
 stumbling block to the weak-minded, and a scoff to the 
 philosopher? The Chaplain, with the conviction of this 
 upon his mind, resolved to have recourse " to the law and 
 to the testimony." (Isa. viii. 20.) Here alone is infallibi- 
 lity to be met with. Let the Church adhere to these, and 
 she shall never err. Upon these alone is grounded the 
 Christian Catholic faith, into which we are initiated at our 
 baptism, which we repeat in our Churches, and profess 
 upon our death-beds.f Here is that pure, that Catholic be- 
 lief which we find expressed in the Apostles' creed ; here 
 
 * Church of England's Articles. 
 
 1 It may be asked why the Chaplain abandoned the Roman Church, if her 
 children at baptism be initiated into the very same faith which Protestants 
 profess when they are admitted to that sacrament ? The answer is, because 
 many other doctrines not mentioned nor hinted at during the administration 
 of baptism are required as essential terms of her communion. 
 
 S 
 
206 
 
 that sacred deposit committed to the Christian Church, 
 which she is commanded to preserve, but not authorized 
 to alter. " The Church of Christ." says Vincent of Lerins, 
 ** being a diligent and cautioys guardian of the tenets de- 
 posited with her, changes nothing in them, abridges nothing, 
 adds nothing — but earnestly applies herself to this one 
 thing, that by discussing ancient matters with fidelity and 
 wisdom, she may perfect and polish such as are rude and 
 unfinished, establish and consolidate such as are explicit 
 and obvious, and preserve such as are confirmed and de- 
 fined."* Thus far Church authority may go, and no far- 
 ther. It is not allowed to announce new doctrines to the 
 faithful, but only to elucidate such as may appear obscure, 
 to offer fresh arguments to such as seem to want them ; it 
 merely determines if it be convenient or necessary to ex- 
 press some doctrine in terms more explicit and intelligi- 
 ble. "j" Upon this principle only does Vincent defend the 
 ancient councils. That of Nice, says he, did nothing more 
 than recall the faithful to the primitive belief: ad antiquam 
 fidem a novella pei'Jidid^ ad antiquam sanitatem a nomtatis 
 insania-X With respect to the Novatian heresy, the coun- 
 cil proceeded on the same luminous principle. It showed 
 their doctrine to be opposite to this primitive article of the 
 creed, "I believe the forgiveness of sins." The rebapti- 
 zation of infants was a point of discipline it had a right to 
 pronounce upon. And the forbidding of second marriages 
 (or indeed any marriages at all) had already been stigma- 
 tized as the doctrine of devils. (I Tim. 4.) Were the 
 Chaplain at leisure, he could venture to prove, that not a 
 single error was condemned by the primitive Church, but 
 what directly or indirectly ran counter to this creed.. The 
 Arians, Socinians, and Unitarians refuse to believe in Jesus 
 
 * f 'omn>on. cap, 32. 
 
 t Eadem tamen quae didicisti ita doce, ut cum dicas nove non dicas nov<x. 
 Vine. Ler. Com. cap. 27. 
 i Vine liCr. Comra. cap, 7. 
 
307 
 
 Christ, by denying his divinity and consubstantiality with 
 the Father : on the same pretext, the Macedonians would 
 not believe in the Holy Ghost : the Nestorians, by admitting 
 two persons in Christ, denied that this Man-God was born 
 of the Virgin Mary^ or suffered under Pontius Pilate : the 
 Eutychians, by confounding the divine and human nature, 
 must either reject this article, " I believe in Jesus Christ," 
 which shows him to be God ; or this, " he was crucified, 
 dead, and buried," which proves him to be man. And so of 
 all the rest. If, besides these primitive truths delivered in 
 the Bible and abridged in the creed, other matters were at 
 times deemed sufficient to exclude men from Catholic com- 
 munion, they could only be such as belonged to the line of 
 morality and discipline, to which Church authority has 
 been always judged competent ; with the divine truths of 
 religion no authority must meddle, unless it be to elucidate, 
 inculcate, and defend them. Such as are essential must be 
 obvious and simple, being mercifully calculated for the ig- 
 norant no less than the learned. They who reject them 
 must do it at their peril. But, that the man who embraces 
 these truths in their natural meaning, who subscribes the 
 Catholic creeds in their utmost extent, and assents sincerely 
 to every Scriptural doctrine, may still " admit into his be- 
 lief dAmosi every sect that ever deformed the face of Chris- 
 tianity," is one of those lofty assertions that thrills the un- 
 informed mind with reverential horror, whilst, with a man 
 of tolerable understanding and conscious integrity, its sole 
 effect is a transient smile of indifference. 
 
 The Rev. gentleman is unwilling to allow the Chaplain's 
 claim to the appellation of Catholic, because, to be so, " he 
 must belong," says St. Augustin, " to that Church which is 
 Catholic.^ and which is called Catholic not only by her own 
 children, but by all her enemies. Will the Chaplain," he 
 asks, " find this characteristic in his new religion 1" The 
 Rev. gentleman knows well, that Protestants esteem and 
 call themselves Catholics. For an enemy to withhold from 
 
20S 
 
 lliem this appellation is a poor plea to prescribe against 
 right. Will the Rev. gentleman own himself to have 
 been a rebel, because for more than eight years he was pro- 
 nounced to be so by the enemies of his country ? As to 
 the Chaplain's new religion,- were it really such, it would 
 doubtless exclude his claim to the title he assumes. But 
 he trusts, a religion can hardly be called new, which rests 
 entirely upon the foundations of primitive revelation, which 
 can trace all its tenets to the "law and to the testimony," 
 and is so jealous of these divine sources, as to suffer no 
 vague and arbitrary traditions to mix their sullied waters 
 with their original fountain : a religion which includes the 
 daily profession of believing a Catholic Church : a religion 
 which no one but a Catholic can profess, as he alone ad- 
 heres solely to the ancient and universal belief. " For," 
 says Vincent of Lerins, " he is a real and genuine Catholic, 
 who . . . remaining fixed and unshaken in faith, is deter- 
 mined to hold and believe that only, which he shall disco- 
 ver to be the universal and ancient doctrine of the Catholic 
 Church."* The Rev. gentleman finds that the Chaplain 
 also is acquainted with Vincent of Lerins. He had read 
 him over previously to the friendly advice contained in the 
 address. If, in the eleventh chapter, he appear to contra- 
 dict the general principle of his work, which goes to prove, 
 *' that we are not obliged to believe any doctrine, which was 
 not always believed by the Catholic Church," to them it 
 belongs to vindicate his consistency, whose cause may 
 stand most in need of his support : his authority can be no 
 further serviceable to the Chaplain, than to show what his 
 idea of a Catholic was, and that, were he living at this day, 
 he would hardly have rejected a pica to Catholicity found- 
 ed upon his own definition of it : " To this," says he, " we 
 must chiefly attend, that we maintain what every where and 
 always has been delivered by all : for this is truly and pro- 
 
 * Common, cap. 25- 
 
209 
 
 perly Catholic, as the very word imports and reason de- 
 clares."* And again, " It never was lawful, it is not law- 
 ful now, nor will it ever be so, to propose any thing to 
 Christian Catholics, which they had not received before. "f 
 The Chaplain, therefore, still humbly confides, that by ad- 
 hering solely to this universal belief, he is justly entitled 
 to the appellation of Catholic, and that he " does not em- 
 brace a new religion, however he may discard some doc- 
 trines which at different periods of time have been engraft- 
 ed upon the old one.'' 
 
 But with the Rev. gentleman and all Roman Catholics, a 
 separation from this Church necessarily involves the idea of 
 novelty. "Where was your religion before Luther?" is 
 the triumphant question of every smatterer in controversy. 
 " Where was your face before it was washed ?" was the 
 witty counter-question of a Protestant humorist. The 
 truth is, the Chaplain's Church was always where it actually 
 subsists ; that is, in every part of the world, where the 
 ancient foundations and the common principles of faith 
 were maintained, upon the profession of which men were 
 admitted by baptism into the Church of God. There he 
 doubts not but our Lord has his subjects and he his fellow 
 servants — for the Church to which he belongs introduces 
 no new faith — she is no new Church. What in ancient 
 times was deemed to be truly and properly Catholic, name- 
 ly, v/hat was believed every where, always, and hy all, has 
 in succeeding ages been constantly preserved, and is at 
 this day adopted entirely by this Church. If we should 
 take a view at present of the several Christian societies 
 which have acquired any considerable extent upon the 
 globe, of the reformed and Roman Churches in Europe and 
 America, of the Churches of Egypt and Ethiopia in the 
 south, of the Greek and other Christian societies in the 
 
 * Contra hsres. cap. 3. 
 
 t Annunciare ergo aliquid Christianis Catholicis praeter id quod accepe- 
 ruut minquara Ucuit, nusquam licet, nunquam licebit Comm. cap. H 
 
 8 2 
 
210 
 
 east ; if we should set aside the points >n which they mu- 
 tually dissent, and collect together the other articles in 
 which they generally agree, we should soon discover a code 
 of doctrine so genuine and catholic, that being joined to a 
 suitable line of conduct, it would be sufficient to conduct 
 us to everlasting salvation. These are the only truths 
 that bear the stamp of universality — From these alone can 
 the Church be called Catholic — These she must ever re- 
 tain, or she forfeits her title. The enemy may, indeed, 
 sow his tares among these original tenets ; nay, we are 
 told, (Matth. xiii. 24, 25,) that he may sow them in the 
 Lord's jield^ and among the Lord's wheat. They, there- 
 fore, who have been employed in destroying these weeds, 
 in separating the Lord's good grain from the chaff, cannot 
 be said to have substituted a new field, or changed the na- 
 ture of the ancient grain. The field is the same, but 
 weeded now, unweeded then — the grain is the same, but 
 winnowed now, unwinnowed then. Every Church, pro- 
 fessing these universal truths, must be Catholic. To her 
 belong the promises of Christ, the appeals of antiquity, and 
 the encomiums of the fathers. She suflers no monopoly of 
 her extensive prerogatives ; but embraces every Christian 
 who adheres to the foundations upon which she is built. 
 
 To this Christian Catholic Church the Chaplain trusts 
 he belongs. Happily for him, no society of Christians can 
 annul his right to this sacred communion ; among the va- 
 rious Churches, into which Christians are divided, he may 
 join that which best suits his ideas of Church government, 
 and which appears to him to be the farthest removed from 
 philosophical indifference on the one hand, and fanaticism 
 on the other ; but in the great and essential points of faith 
 he shall ever consider himself a member of all whose reli- 
 gion is that of the Bible only. Here the Chaplain has 
 found a resting-place, which he never means to abandon. 
 If Roman Catholics conceive b. double foundation more se- 
 cure, in God's name let them build their religion upon it : 
 
211 
 
 no man will dispute their right so to do; but let them, at 
 the same time, bear cheerfully with those, who are satisfied 
 that their faith is safe upon one. 
 
 The Rev. gentleman is surprised at the quotation from 
 St. Cyprian, which discountenances all authority in matters 
 of faith, except that of the Gospel, the Epistles, or Acts of 
 the Apostles, " No wonder," says he, *' that St. Cyprian, 
 while engaged in the errors of the Donatists, should speak 
 their language ... .St. Augustin, lib. 5. cap. 23. de bap. 
 against the Donatists, particularly refutes the writing now 
 objected out of St. Cyprian ; and it is wonderful indeed if 
 the Chaplain did notdiscover this in the very place from which 
 I presume he copied his objection." Here the Rev. gentle- 
 man confesses that Cyprian was unacquainted with the divine 
 authority of unwritten tradition. Mr. Rushworth, a Roman 
 Catholic controvertist, had acknowledged this long before.* 
 He should have proved, however, that this learned martyr 
 retracted his opinion, before he wondered at the Chaplain's 
 omitting the refutation of it penned by St. Augustin. 
 When the primitive fathers deliver contrary opinions, we 
 are certainly at liberty to adopt that which appears most 
 rational. But St. Augustin himself only combated this 
 sentiment of Cyprian, upon the subject of rebaptization of 
 infants, which he must have regarded as belonging rather 
 to Church discipline than io faith ; for, with respect to the 
 latter, no man was a stronger advocate for the all-sufficiency 
 of the Scriptures. He tells us, indeed, " that he would not 
 believe the Gospel, if the authority of the Catholic Church 
 did not move him thereunto." In this sentiment, the 
 Chaplain willingly acquiesces, because he believes the 
 Church to be the keeper and depositary of the Scriptures; 
 and because, from the perpetual and uniform consent of all 
 the Churches, the credibility of their canonical authority 
 must arise. But the Church derives from hence no plea to 
 
 * Dial. 3. sect. 13. 
 
212 
 
 infallibility, any more than our judges or courts of judica* 
 ture, by determining what is the fixed law of the land, and 
 the only books that contain it, can arrogate to themselves 
 so mighty a privilege. 
 
 The Chaplain asks, (and he does it with St. Hilary, whom 
 the Rev. gentleman passes by without notice,) " where is 
 the deficiency and obscurity of the Scriptures?" That is, 
 in matters fundamental and necessary. For, were they 
 really deficient, how would they " be able to make us wise 
 unto salvation?" as the Apostle expressly assures us they 
 are. (2 Tim. 3.) Nor is any attempt made to do away the 
 authority of Cyril, lib. 12 in Joan., who tells us, that " all 
 is written which the writers thought sufficient for faith and 
 morality." Was the credit of this father entitled to special 
 indulgence, because on another subject his authority is 
 deemed unanswerable? But it was indeed needless to 
 take notice of a line or two, if " most of the fathers have 
 delivered their opinions of the insufficiency and obscurity 
 of Scripture, not in fragments of a sentence, but treating 
 professedly and fully on this very subject." It has been 
 the Chaplain's misfortune never to meet with any of these 
 numerous treatises. On the contrary, all the fathers, whom 
 he has consulted on this head, repeatedly acknowledge the 
 sufficiency of Scripture in whatever belongs to faith and 
 morality. If in other passages of their writings they deny 
 this sufficiency, we should do well to discard their autho- 
 rity altogether, and be influenced only by our sentiments, 
 our reason, and the Bible. However, the venerable writers 
 of antiquity are too explicit on this matter to labour under 
 a similar reproach. The few following passages will suf- 
 fice to ascertain their notions on this subject " The 
 
 holy Scriptures given by the inspiration of God, are of 
 
 themselves sufficient to the discovery of truth."* " The 
 
 things which we find not in the Scripture, how can we use 
 
 * St Athan. contra. Gentea. 
 
213 
 
 them ?"* " It is well that thou art content with the things 
 
 that are written. "f — In another place St. Hilary commends 
 the Emperor Constantius for "desiring the faith to be or- 
 dered only according to those things that are written.":j: 
 "Believe the things that are written," says St. Basil, " the 
 things that are not written seek not.§ ... It is a manifest 
 falling from the faith, and a sign of arrogance, either to re- 
 ject any point of those things that are written, or to bring 
 in any of those things that are not written. '*|| Gregory of 
 Nyssen, brother to St. Basil, lays it down as a principle, 
 " which no man should contradict, that the truth must be 
 acknowledged in that only which exhibits the seal of Scrip- 
 lure testimony. "IT " As we deny not those things that 
 
 are written, so we reject those things that are not written."** 
 And again : " That which has no authority from Scripture 
 
 is as easily discarded as it is advanced. "tt " In those 
 
 particulars," says St. Augustin, " which are clearly set 
 down in the Scriptures, all tJiose things are found which 
 
 comprehend faith and direction of life.":j::j: And again : 
 
 "whatsoever ye hear from hence, (the holy Scriptures,) let 
 that relish well with you ; whatsoever is without them re- 
 ject, lest ye wander in a cloud. "§§ And in another 
 
 place : " All those things which in times past our ancestors 
 have recorded as done to mankind, and have delivered 
 down to us, all those things also which we see and deliver 
 to our posterity, so far as they belong to the investigation 
 and support of true religion, the holy Scripture has not 
 
 passed over in silence. "||11 It remains to say a word or 
 
 two of a passage to the same effect, which the Chaplain in 
 his letter cited from St. Chrysostom. In Matt, c. 24, horn, 
 49. It is not in his power to have recourse to the works 
 
 * St. Ambros. offic. lib. 1, cap. 23. t Hil. lib. 3. de Trin, t Hil. lib 2. ad 
 Conslan. Aug. § Basil hom. 29. advers. calumnianles S. Trinitat. || Idem 
 de fide. IT Greg. Nyss. dialog, de aniraa et resur. torn. 1. edit. Graeco-Lat. p. 
 639. ** Hieronynius advers. Helvid. tt Idem in cap. 23. Matt, tt De 
 doctr. Christiana lib. 2. cap. 9. $^ Lib. de pastor, cap. 11. |1|| Epist. 43. 
 
214 
 
 of this father. And as the Rev. gentleman says, he has 
 tlie fullest evidence before him that the passsge is not ge- 
 nuine, but extracted from a work of no credit, supposed to 
 he written in the 6th century, entitled, The unfinished work 
 on Matthew; the Chaplain will readily acknowledge his 
 mistake, and yet, perhaps, not expose himself to a icell- 
 grounded imputation of unpardonable negligence. For, in 
 the first place, the passage is certainly published among the 
 works of Chrysoslom, and therefore it was very natural to 
 suppose it was his : Secondly, Gratian, the great canonist, 
 frequently cites St. Chrysostom as the author of this unfi- 
 nished xcork.^' Thirdly, Bellarmine himself does not seem 
 quite decided on this point — He only says, " This work 
 does not appear to be Chrysostom'' s ; however, in other re- 
 spects, it is a learned book, and by no means to be despised. 
 It is, therefore, probable, that the author of it was a Catho- 
 lic, but that his work was corrupted by the Arians."t If 
 this apology be not sufficient to wipe away " the reproach 
 of a want of impartial diligence, and the disrepute of al- 
 leging the authority of Chrysostom so erroneously," the 
 Chaplain will pardon a triumph at this slight inaccuracy, as 
 it is the only one pointed out in the Address. 
 
 The Chaplain has now to thank the Rev. gentleman for 
 the important advice with which he closes his Address. 
 Had it come, however, from any other quarter, it would 
 have been regarded as an insult, and treated as such. It 
 would have appeared a premeditated design " to misinform, 
 and to sow in minds so misinformed the seeds of religious 
 animosity." But the Chaplain will not harbour a suspicion 
 of such intentions in a man whom he cherishes with all the 
 ardour of friendship. Yet he cannot help thinking that 
 
 * Plurimis in locis Gratianus citat Chrysostomum pro auctore operis im- 
 perfecli, Bell, de Scrip. Eccles. p. 321. 
 
 t Non videlur esse Chrysostomi . . . quamvis alioqui liber sit doctus et 
 minime spcrnendus . . . proindo credibile est auctorom fiiisse cathoiicum, 
 sod opus illius ab Arianis esse depravaturn. Idem ibid. p. 161. 
 
215 
 
 the Rev. gentleman has misapplied St. Chrysostorri's adtice 
 to his case. For did the monk Theodorus enter into his 
 engagements under the sanction of an authority which he 
 afterwards thought himself at liberty to discard? Did he 
 know, when he promised to lead a single life as a monk, 
 that the bishop of Rome could at any time release him from 
 this vow, and permit him to marry the beautiful Hermione ? 
 Did this bishop actually do so? Did he annul all his mo- 
 nastic engagements? Was this monk ever promoted to the 
 order of sub-deaconship, at which time only the law of ce- 
 libacy is hinted to the regular clergy ? Did he conceive this 
 exhortation of the bishop during that ceremony, castitatem 
 serva?'e oportet, you must live chastly* to imply a solemn 
 vow never to marry ? Or, if he viewed it in this light, could 
 he still be bound by this point of discipline, after the au- 
 thority enacting it ceased to exist in his regard ? When 
 these several questions can be answered in the affirmative, 
 then may a parrallcl be drawn between this monk and the 
 Chaplain. Moreover, let the Rev. gentleman inform us 
 whether a vow of celibacy be a stronger engagement or 
 contract with Almighty God, than a vow of perpetual po- 
 verty and obedience. Let him tell us, why one is more in- 
 dependent of the discipline of any binding power than the 
 other — Why, one more then the other, " cannot be released 
 but by God's relinquishing his right to exact a rigorous 
 compliance with the obligation of it." The begging friars 
 imagine that a solemn renunciation of all property is the 
 height of perfection, whilst the vow of obedience was chiefly 
 preconized by the Jesuits. Yet, by a dispensation 
 from papal authority, thousands of both have been re- 
 leased from their most solemn vows, and restored to the en- 
 joyment of property and freedom. Among these is the Rev. 
 gentleman himself, and his clerical brethren in America. 
 After renewing twice every year, and oftcner, the solemn 
 
 * Rit. Rom. 
 
216 
 
 vows, by which they renounce their property and their 
 liberty, each of them, without scruple, now possesses, inhe- 
 rits, enjoys, and disposes of the goods of this world, and 
 acknowledges no longer the spiritual control of a superior. 
 The same dispensing authority can at any time restore to 
 them the disposal of their persons, and allow them to marry. 
 Wherefore, to urge " that the sanctity of religion is inte- 
 rested in the performance of an agreement," entered into 
 under an authority which at any time can annul it, is mak- 
 ing that sanctity to depend upon the caprice of an intrigu- 
 ing court, or " the views of an artful and temporizing pon- 
 tiff:" and seriously to plead for the obligation of ritual ties, 
 when the power that enacts and dissolves them is no more, 
 is to nourish the prejudices of the uninformed, to bewil- 
 der the argument, and perpetuate the spirit of illiberal 
 cavil . * . The passage cited from the book of Deuterono- 
 my, with which the Rev. gentleman concludes his address, 
 is calculated to leave these impressions on the mind. But 
 the reader will recollect that all Roman Catholic divines 
 maintain in practice, " that any vow upon certain occasions 
 may be lawfully rescinded. Their bishops may dispense 
 with many, the pope with all. Nay, the faculties which 
 are granted to the missionaries in England, empower them 
 to dispense tvith, for a reasonable cause, and change, all 
 simple vows, excepting those of continency and religion, 
 which are reserved to Home.'''' (Essay on Celib. p. 184.) 
 Wherefore, as the Ciiaplain means to have no business with 
 Rome, he shall take the liberty of judging for himself in 
 this particular. It is really painful to be thus pleading the 
 cause of human nature and its unalienable rights, in the 
 eighteenth century, on the continent of America: rights 
 interwoven with the economy of our nature, calculated to 
 promote the welfare of the individual, and the great pur- 
 poses of society. Rights which mankind are not authorized 
 to sport with, any more than with the principle of self-pre- 
 servation or life. The recovery of these essential preroga- 
 
117 
 
 lives of humanity, will be deemed a substantial blessing, by 
 every liberal person ; if, however, it provoke any censure 
 from his former connexions, the Chaplain, having once ap- 
 pealed to their candour and charity, shall continue to treat 
 it with pity and indifference. "JEquo animo audienda 
 sunt imperitorum convicia, et ad honesta vadenti contem- 
 nendus est ipse contemptus." Seneca. 
 
 Before the Chaplain takes ^ final leave of the public on 
 these matters, which he very sincerely wishes to do at pre- 
 sent, he must beg its attention for a moment to the most 
 material accusation thrown out in the address. He is ac- 
 cused of " imputing doctrines to the Roman Catholics 
 foreign to their belief, and having a natural tendency to 
 embitter against them the minds of their fellow citizens.'' 
 He is accused of " misinforming, and of sowing in minds so 
 misinformed the seeds of religious animosity.'^ The Rev. 
 gentleman could not have wounded his former friend in a 
 more tender part. At such an attack he also felt an an- 
 guisli too Iceenfor description — for such accusations coming 
 from him, must extinguish every spark of good will towards 
 the Chaplain, which may still be lurking among his former 
 connexions. They go to alienate the esteem of his recent 
 friends, by holding him up as a disturber of the public peace, 
 as an enemy to his country. Did the Rev. gentleman per- 
 ceive the natural tendency of such a censure, or could he 
 think the Chaplain deserved it? The Rev. gentleman 
 might have known him better. There was a time when he 
 honoured him with his confidence and esteem, when he 
 condescended to become the depositary of liis little con- 
 cerns. At an early period of life, he kindly took him by 
 the hand, and led him through the paths of honour and of 
 virtue: his lessons were always those of friendship and of 
 wisdom ; from these flowed that sentiment o{ universal be- 
 nevolence which the Chaplain deems the most precious he 
 possesses. Could the Rev. gentleman be ignorant of the 
 growth of a plant, which he himself had nourished in the 
 
 T 
 
118 
 
 heart of his friend, and which he must have observed to 
 flourish there, with a luxuriancy nearly approaching to en- 
 thusiasm. ... It was this sentiment that banished every 
 word from his letter which could wound the feelings of the 
 most delicate Roman Catholic : this made him distinguish 
 between their persons and opinions, and prevented a dere- 
 liction of some of the latter, from impairing the social affec- 
 tions which he cherished for the former. Far from wishing 
 to " sow the seeds of religious animosity in the minds of 
 his countrymen," he would make any sacrifice to eradicate 
 them for ever : far from wishing " to embitter the minds 
 of their fellow citizens against the Roman Catholics of 
 America," he is proud to see them elevated to that equal 
 respectability, to which, as zealous supporters of their 
 country's freedom, and as a Christian society, they are 
 essentially entitled : far from harbouring any religious ani- 
 mosity or narrowness of sentiment, he only wishes for op- 
 portunities to show how much he despises them : far from 
 abandoning the cause of virtue and religion, as the Address 
 seems to insinuate, he means to exert his slender abilities 
 and consummate the course of his ministry in the service of 
 both — thrice happy, if the profession of the common princi- 
 ples of Christianity, and a perfect union of heart, could be 
 deemed sufficient by the Rev. gentlemnn, to perpetuate 
 their connexion in so noble a pursuit. Such are the immu- 
 table sentiments of the Chaplain. Whether his letter, or 
 this reply, tend to counteract or confirm them, it belongs 
 to the candid reader to determine. 
 
^-. 
 
 A 
 
 SHORT ANSWER 
 
 TO 
 
 « A TRUE EXPOSITION 
 
 OF THE 
 
 DOCTRINE OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH 
 
 TOUCHING THE 
 
 SACRAMENT OF PENANCE, 
 
 WITH THE 
 OROUNDS ON WHICH THIS DOCTRINE IS FOUNDED," 
 
 CONTAINED IN 
 
 AN APPENDIX 
 
 TO 
 
 THE CATHOLIC QUESTION 
 
 DECIDED IN THE CITY OF NEW-YORK, IN JULY, 1813. 
 
 BY CHARLES H. WHARTON, D. D. 
 
 Rector of St. Mary's Church, Burlington, N. J. 
 
 NEW-YORK : REPUBLISHED BV DAVID LONGWORTH, 1817. 
 
 PHILADELPHIA : WILLIAM STAVELY, 1834. 
 
Who is a God like unto thee, that pardoneth iniquity ? Mich. vii. 18. 
 
 I said, I will confess my sins unto the Lord; and so thou forgavest the 
 wickedness of my sin. Ps. xxxii. 6. 
 
 And the Scribes and Pharisees began to reason, saying, Who is this which 
 speaketh blasphemies? Who can forgive sins but God alone? Luke v. 21. 
 
 " Non potest hoc cuiquam hominum cum Christo esse commune ut peccata 
 condonet." 
 
 " No man can have this in common with Christ, that he may forgive sins." 
 
 St. Ambros. epist. 76. ad Studium. 
 
TO 
 
 THE RIGHT REVEREND THE BISHOPS, 
 
 THE 
 
 REVEREND THE CLERICAL. 
 
 AND 
 
 THE GENTLEMEN LAY DEPUTIES 
 
 OF 
 
 THE PROTESTANT EPISCOPAL CHURCH, 
 
 GENERAL CONVENTION ASSEMBLED, 
 
 THIS ANSWER 
 
 IS RESPECTFULLY INSCRIBED^ 
 BY THEIR AFFECTIONATE HUMBLE SERVANT AND BROTHKR, 
 
 THE AUTHOR. 
 
 T 2 
 
A SHORT ANSWER. 
 
 At a time when the spirit of religious controversy seemed 
 to be dormant in our land — when the different Christian 
 societies were convinced of the delicate propriety of con- 
 fining the enforcement of their peculiar tenets within the 
 pale of their own communions— when the few theological 
 publications now circulating among us were labouring to 
 inculcate the fundamental doctrines of our common Chris- 
 tianity, and on them to erect a goodly system of mutual 
 forbearance, harmony and love — the advocates of evangeli- 
 cal charity beheld, with considerable regret, the appearance 
 of a pamphlet calculated to diminish the influence and dis- 
 turb the serenity of this heavenly temper. Had the pub- 
 lisher of the Catholic Question been satisfied with com- 
 municating to us the issue of that interesting trial, which 
 every liberal mind must approve and applaud ; had he con- 
 fined himself to the gratifying of his readers with a display 
 of eloquent and ingenious declamation, and irresistible ar- 
 gument, although on a subject which never admitted of a 
 doubt ; nay, had he annexed to the account of this trial 
 an exposition of his creed, as adopted and enforced by the 
 council of Trent, unaccompanied with any illiberal reflec- 
 tions upon those who pay little regard to that council's de- 
 nunciations or decrees, the writer of this reply would never 
 have thought himself authorized to question a right to in- 
 struct the members of his Church in the tenets of their re- 
 ligion, or to throw over them fresh lights to demonstrate 
 their truth. 
 
 But the reverend author of the Appendix (for I suppose 
 him to be such) has manifestly seized upon what he con- 
 ceived to be a favourable opportunity to lay his doctrines 
 before the public, still alive to some favourable impressions. 
 
224 
 
 from the recent decision of liis cause, with an air of tri- 
 umph bordering upon insult, with a tone of defiance point- 
 ing to intimidation. 
 
 He enters upon his exposition by boldly asserting, as 
 "an undeniable fact, and which our adversaries," says he, 
 " have but too well known, that the Catholic doctrine can 
 never be attacked with any success, but by misrepresenta- 
 tion ; and that it wants only to be known to obtain the suf- 
 frages of upright men, and to silence the most inveterate 
 of its enemies. 
 
 Here the reverend author begins by indulging a spirit of 
 illiberality, which, it seems, all the candour of his pro- 
 testant advocates, all the enlightened justice of his pro- 
 testant judge, had not been able to allay. He confidently 
 throws down the gauntlet, and looks around him, either for 
 resistance or submission. Silence on the part of Protes- 
 tants, although deemed by some advisable on this occasion, 
 mi^^ht probably flatter the Rev. gentleman and his adhe- 
 rents with an idea of the latter; and as one of his learned 
 advocates, although a Protestant, has been induced to as- 
 sert, that "the Catholic," meaning clearly the Roman Ca- 
 tholic, "religion has existed for eighteen centuries, and 
 that the sacrament of penance has existed with it;" (Cath. 
 Ques. p. 26 ;) there are solid grounds for seriously appre- 
 hending, lest some persons not so well informed as the 
 learned counsellor, may be seduced into his opinion, and 
 into other unfounded doctrines contained in the Appendix. 
 
 The taste for religious controversy has, in great measure, 
 gone by; yet still, when opinions by many deemed erro- 
 neous are forced upon the public eye, by a great parade of 
 erudition, and a hardihood of assertion smiling contemptu- 
 ously at contradiction; when the teachers of any Christian 
 Church presume rashly to pronounce, that "in her bosom 
 only, man can enjoy the precious advantage of forgiveness 
 of sins ; that she is the true Jerusalem, in which the trve 
 temple exists, and the true probatic pond, which heals all 
 
225 
 
 sorts of diseases; that in her only are found the true Jor-* 
 dan, which cleansed Naaman and his leprosy ; that she is 
 the mysterious inn, in which the true Samaritan effects the 
 cure of the traveller, whom he finds wounded in the road 
 to Jericho;" I say, when such lofty pretensions as these 
 are obtruded upon the public, it cannot be expected that 
 they will pass unnoticed by those who are acquainted with 
 their futility, or by the Christian ministers of other socie- 
 ties, who consider themselves intrusted with the sacred de- 
 posite of religious truth, as its delegated guardians. 
 
 It is not the intention of this reply to follow the reverend 
 author of the Appendix into the extensive fields of polemic 
 cal divinity, which he has laid open to his readers. To 
 the avowed design of proving the divine institution of sa^ 
 cramental auricular confession, he has annexed all the 
 hackneyed and well-known arguments in favour of the col- 
 lateral tenets of the Romish Church. Of many of these 
 no notice can be taken in a short pamphlet : if, however, 
 they should disturb the belief of any Protestant reader, 
 let him only turn to some of the most eminent writers in 
 defence of the reformation, which every library furnishes; 
 let him only peruse the immortal and unanswerable work 
 of Chillingworth, entitled, " The Religion of Protestants 
 a safe way to Salvation," and every rising doubt and diffi- 
 culty will be quickly dissipated. 
 
 The sole object, then, of this reply is to investigate and 
 refute, as briefly as possible, the arguments alleged in the 
 Appendix in support of the divine institution of auricular 
 confession, or of the sacrament of penanee, as explained, de- 
 creed, and enjoined by the council of Trent. In doing 
 this, I trust it will be shown, first, that the doctrine of 
 auricular confession, as a divinely instituted sacrament of 
 the Christian Church, has no foundation in the Scripture. 
 Secondly, that this doctrine was unknown to the primitive 
 Church ; and that previously to the thirteenth century it 
 
226 
 
 had never been enacted into an article of faith and indis- 
 pensable discipline. 
 
 Thirdly, That neither the council of Lateran, nor the 
 council of Trent, nor any other earthly tribunal, has a 
 right to impose such a grievous yoke upon the faithful from 
 a plea to infallibility ; as this plea is altogether unsupported 
 either by reason or revelation. 
 
 The reader will readily perceive that whatever can be 
 urged in answer to the arguments for the divine institution 
 of auricular confession, must be comprehended under these 
 three heads: he will see no necessity of following the Rev. 
 gentleman through all the syllogistic forms, and imposing 
 arrangements of a great, but irrelevant mass of matter, 
 which frequently perplex, rather than elucidate the truth ; 
 for it must strike every mind with conviction, that a reli- 
 gious tenet, which is founded neither on Scripture, univer- 
 sal usage, nor competent authority, can have no foundation 
 at all, 
 
 PART FIRST. 
 
 " The doctrine of the divine institution of sacramental 
 auricular confession, not authorized hy Scripture^ 
 
 Before we enter on the proofs of this assertion, it is ne- 
 cessary to state precisely, in what consists the difference of 
 opinion between the Protestant and Romish Churches, with 
 respect to confession of sins: accurate notions of this dis- 
 agreement can alone enable the reader to perceive the 
 drift of the arguments that follow. This difference is 
 fairly stated by cardinal Bellarmine, and will not be ques- 
 tioned by the author of the Appendix. " Admittit Calvinus 
 generalem confessionem ; admittit etiam, privatam, coram 
 pastore ; sed addit, banc, liberam esse debere, nee ab om- 
 nibus exigendam, nee cogendos ad enumeranda omnia pec- 
 cata praecepto aliquo, aut arte inducendos, nisi quoad inte- 
 
227 
 
 resse sua putabunt, ut solidum consolationis fiuctum refer- 
 ant." (Bellar. lib. 3. de PcBuit. cap. 1.) And, " in this 
 doctrine," says he, in the same place, " all Protestants 
 agree," that is, all Protestant Churches admit, that it may 
 be occasionally advisable for a man burthened with sin, 
 to lay open his conscience in private to a minister of God, 
 and to seek at his hands the aids of instruction, and the 
 comfort of God's pardon : but they contend, at the same 
 time, that such private confession is a voluntary act, by no 
 means to be considered as a divine institution, and an in- 
 dispensable obligation, without which, no remission or par- 
 don of sin can be hoped for from God, as the council of 
 Trent has decreed it to be under a formidable anathema, 
 and the Romish Church professes to believe.* 
 
 * The error of the Romish Church concerning penance has been "probably 
 strenglhened by a misuse of the Latin term '' paenitentiam agere." It is 
 classical Latin for _uiTuvci:v, " or to repent;" but the expression " to do pen- 
 ance," conveys to an English ear a very different sentiment from either; 
 although strictly a rendering of the Latin expression. The Douay transla- 
 tion says, in a note on Matlhew iii. 2, that the Greek word is used in Scrip- 
 ture, and by the Fathers, for the sense of the said English expression : but 
 this may safely be denied. To show the difference of meaning, I will refer 
 to the following texts, selected out of many in the Douay translation. It has 
 "Do penance," in Matthew iii. 2, and in Acts ii. 38, and indeed generally. 
 But in Luke xvii. 3 and 4, and in Acts xi. 18, the incongruity is so manifest, 
 that the phraseology is varied essentially. In the former passage, the re- 
 pentance spoken of, is an act of justice to an offended brother. In the latter 
 it is descriptive of the conversion of heathen persons; who, on the principles 
 of the opposite system, are not required to do any acts comprehended under 
 the name of penance, in the usual sense of the word : such acts being re- 
 stricted to sins after baptism. 
 
 The verb /uiruvt^iCD, is either compounded of /"tT*, afler, and vouv, to under- 
 stand, which signifies, that afler hearing such preaching, the sinner is led to 
 understand, that the way he has walked in was the way of misery, death, and 
 hell. Or the word may be derived from ^.ira, after, and auoia, madness, 
 which intimates that the whole life of a sinner is no other than a continued 
 course of madness nm\ folhj : and if to live in a constant opposition to all the 
 dictates of irue wisdom ; to wage war with his own best interests in time and 
 eternity; to provoke and insult the living God; and, by habitual sin, to pre- 
 pare himself only for a state of misery, be evidences of insanity, every sinner 
 exhibits them plentifully. It was from this notion of the word, that the 
 
228 
 
 Now this divine institution of private, or auricular confes- 
 sion, and its absolute necessity for the remission of sins, 
 are, for many reasons, rejected from the creed of all Pro- 
 testants : and particularly, because they cannot discover 
 these doctrines in the Scriptures. They consider, and so 
 must every candid inquirer into religious truth, that if a 
 burthen so grievous as auricular confession, had been en- 
 joined as a Christian precept in the Gospel, it would have 
 been expressed in terms the most explicit and convincing; 
 in phrases at least as imperative and unambiguous, as those 
 which imposed the heavy yoke of the law ; a yoke, never- 
 theless, light and pleasant, when compared to that which 
 has since been fixed upon the necks of Christians, under 
 the mild and perfect law of liberty and grace. 
 
 The passages referred to by the Reverend gentleman, in 
 support of the divine institution, and absolute necessity of 
 auricular sacramental confession, are three from the Evan- 
 gelists, one from the Acts of the Apostles, one from St. 
 Paul's Epistle to the Corinthians, and the last from the 
 General Epistle of St. James. On each of these a few ob- 
 servations will suffice to show, that, all the inajors and mi- 
 nors of the Reverend gentleman notwithstanding, these 
 texts bear very lightly and remotely on the question before 
 us. They by no means carry with them that blaze of evi- 
 dence which should compel a man to unfold the most humi- 
 liating thoughts, desires, and actions of his life ; to corn- 
 
 Latins termed repentance resipiscentia, a growing wise again, from re and 
 sapere ; or, according loTertullian, Resipiscentia quasi receplio mentis ad se, 
 restoring the mind to itself: Contra Marcion, lib. ii. Repentance then im- 
 plies, that a measure of divine wisdom is communicated to the sinner, and 
 that he thereby becomes wise to salvation. That his mind ^ purposes, opinions, 
 and inclinations are changed: and that, in consequence, there is a total 
 change in his conduct. It need scarcely be remarked, that, in this state, a 
 man feels deep anguish of soul, because he has sinned against God, unfitted 
 himself for heaven, and exposed his soul to hell, Ilence, a true penitent has 
 that sorrow, whereby he forsakes sin, not only because it has been ruinous 
 to his own soul, but because it has been offensive to God. 
 
229 
 
 municate to a fellow mortal, often very ignorant, and inca- 
 pable of advising, those secrets of the heart, which to 
 know, is the exclusive privilege of Omniscience ; and of 
 which he is too jealous, to enact, under the sanction of a 
 precept, the participation of them with a sinful creature. 
 The control over its hidden emotions and propensities, 
 either in concealing or divulging them to others, must be 
 among the essential qualities of the mind, and the voice of 
 God must be as distinct as that which thundered upon 
 Sinai, before it can be imagined that he ever meant to in- 
 fringe them. 
 
 But to proceed to the Reverend gentleman's argument 
 drawn from the New Testament. — In the eighteenth verse 
 of the sixteenth chapter of St. Matthew, he finds, that 
 " Christ has instituted the Apostles and their lawful suc- 
 cessors, the priests of his Church, to be judges upon earth, 
 invested with a power, that without their sentence, no sin- 
 ner, fallen after baptism, can be reconciled." Here is a 
 discovery of great latitude indeed, and although somewhat 
 awkwardly expressed, contains a most awful and moment- 
 ous meaning : nothing less than " the impossibility of a 
 sinner's being reconciled to God, after baptism, without the 
 sentence of a priest." The first text is this, " Thou art Peter, 
 and upon this rock I will build my Church — and I will 
 give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven : and what- 
 soever thou shalt bind on earth, shall be bound in heaven ; 
 and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth, shall be loosed in 
 heaven." The second text is Matt, xviii. 18, where, in 
 the same terms, he makes the same promise afterwards to 
 his Apostles — " Verily 1 say unto you, whatsoever ye shall 
 bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatsoever ye 
 shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven." " The 
 third, and principal passage,'' says the Reverend gentleman, 
 "upon which the belief of the Catholic Church respecting 
 the divine institution and absolute necessity of confession 
 
 is grounded, is found in the twentieth chapter of St. John, 
 
 u 
 
230 
 
 where Christ, after his resurrection, thus addresses his dis- 
 ciples, (ver. twenty-first and twenty-second,) ' As the Fa- 
 ther hath sent me, even so send I you ; and when he had 
 said this, he breathed on them, and saith unto them, re- 
 ceive ye the Holy Ghost ; whosesoever sins ye remit, they 
 are remitted unto them ; and whosesoever sins ye retain, 
 they are retained.' '' 
 
 It might be sufficient here to observe, respecting these 
 passages, that they were never deemed by the fathers of 
 the primitive Church, to be conclusive evidence for the 
 divine institution of auricular confession, as it has been 
 since explained and decreed by the council of Trent: and 
 that during the ages preceding the Lateran council, in 
 1225, they have been generally understood as communi- 
 cating such power only to the ministers of the gospel, as 
 the Protestant Churches are willing to allow. If this should 
 be fully proved in the second part of this Reply, as I trust 
 it will, the confidence of the Reverend gentleman, and his 
 adherents, in applying these passages to support their doc- 
 trine, will be considerably abated. 
 
 The Reverend gentleman builds on these passages, many 
 arguments in favour of auricular sacramental confession, 
 for which Protestants conceive they furnish no foundation. 
 The words " thou a7'i Peierj''' &c. have no reference to the 
 subject immediately before us ; for even granting them to 
 imply a promise of exemption from error, they surely con- 
 vey no authority to St. Peter, to receive the private confes- 
 sions of the faithful, and forgive their sins by sacramental 
 absolution — But it is the power of the keys, conveyed in 
 these passages, on which the gentleman insists — He iden- 
 tifies this power with a judicial authority, which cannot be 
 exercised without a full disclosure of ail the sins of the 
 penitent, to a judge appointed by God to forgive or retain 
 them. He tells us, that to adjust any differences which a 
 subject may have with his sovereign, it is necessary to pre- 
 sent himself before him whom the sovereign should have de- 
 legated judge in his place. Now, is there any parity be- 
 
231 
 
 tween this case, and that of the sinner with God ? Suppose 
 this sovereign to be onaniscient, and, of course, intimately 
 acquainted with every action, thought, and disposition of 
 his subject, which might render him an object of pardon or 
 punishment; suppose, moreover, this most merciful sove- 
 reign had issued a solemn proclamation, inviting all who 
 "labour and are heavy laden, to come unto him, that he 
 may give them rest," would a commission to an officer, to 
 grant or refuse admittance into his kingdom, induce the sub- 
 ject to apply to him on a subject no wise connected with 
 this commission, especially if, by a solemn ordinance, he 
 had already been received as a regular subject into this 
 kingdom? Again, let us suppose that a sovereign should 
 appoint judges throughout his dominions, to absolve all his 
 subjects from the guilt and penalties of rebellion, who 
 should manifest satisfactory evidences of their repentance 
 and future allegiance, would it be necessary to specify 
 every act of rebellion of which these subjects had been 
 guilty? Would not a general confession of their guilt and 
 sincere resolutions to offend no more be sufficient grounds 
 for the judges to act upon, to declare them reinstated in the 
 favour of their sovereign and the privileges of his kingdom ? 
 The power of binding B.nd' loosening is committed to these 
 judges, and it can only be exercised by declaring those to 
 be still guilty, who remain obstinate in their offi^nces, and 
 those to be absolved who are sincerely penitent. Thus, we 
 see that one of the Reverend gentleman's main propositions, 
 " that if confession be not of divine institution, and of ab- 
 solute necessity for the reconciliation of the sinner, that is, 
 if there be any other ordinary means to obtain the remis- 
 sion of sins committed after baptism, different from con- 
 fession, the use and exercise of the power of forgiving and 
 retaining sins, would be rendered thereby wholly useless 
 and nugatory." We perceive, I say, that this assertion is 
 totally unfounded, A circumstantial enumeration of every 
 ginful thought, word, and deed, to be made to a priest by a 
 
232 
 
 private confession, is not required by any of these passages 
 of Scripture, for the due exercise of the Christian ministry 
 in the forgiveness of sins. 
 
 We find throughout the New Testament, that " Christ 
 has given power and commandment to his ministers to de- 
 clare and pronounce to his people, being penitent, the ab- 
 solution and remission of their sins ; and that he pardoneth 
 and absolveth all those who truly repent and unfeignedly 
 believe his holy Gospel." {Common Prayer.) This we find, 
 and we find nothing more ; for as to the ^o\\ ex oi retaining 
 sins, the Rev. gentleman will not, surely, conceive it to be 
 applicable to those, for which, the sinner exhibits every 
 reasonable mark of godly sorrow and repentance. Sins 
 thus repented of, God could never have given any man 
 power to retain. Such power would efface every idea of 
 divine placability, contradict the most positive declarations 
 of Scripture, and overthrow the whole economy of the Gos- 
 pel. Besides, the power of retaining sins can never, upon 
 the Rev. gentleman's own principles, constitute any part of 
 this sacrament of penance, because absolution is the form 
 of that sacrament, so that where there is no absolution there 
 can be no sacrament. The power, therefore, of the keys, 
 or the authority to bind and to loose, to forgive and retain 
 sins, communicated by Christ to his Apostles and their suc- 
 cessors, must be very different from that now exercised by 
 the priests of the Romish Church : and, truly, do we read 
 in the New Testament, that any such power as this was ex- 
 ercised by the apostles? The Rev. gentleman, indeed, 
 points out several passages, which mention, in general 
 terms, the confession of sins, but how he can seriously be- 
 lieve, that they establish auricular sacramental confession, 
 must be matter of astonishment to those who are accus- 
 tomed to think for themselves. Do the recorded instances 
 of our Saviour pronouncing forgiveness of sins mention any 
 confession but such as was general? Did the penitent wo> 
 man, when kneeling at the feet of Jesus, watering them 
 
233 
 
 with her tears, and wiping them with her hair, go into a 
 minute and circumstantial enumeration of her sins; or 
 rather, were not the unequivocal evidences of her repent- 
 ance deemed sufficient to procure her absolution? Was not 
 the simple confession of " God be merciful to me a sinner," 
 effectual in obtaining forgiveness for the contrite Publican 1 
 Where do we read that a private sacramental confession was 
 ever made to Christ or his Apostles? "If we confess our 
 sins," says St. John, " God is faithful and just to forgive us 
 our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness." 
 Confess our sins — to whom? not surely to a priest, but to 
 God, who alone can "cleanse us from all unrighteousness." 
 Can the Rev. gentleman imagine that any unfettered mind 
 will admit the following conclusions, drawn from the pas- 
 sages of Scripture which he alleges? "Christ left with his 
 Apostles, and their successors, the power of forgiving and 
 retaining sins;" therefore, no sins can be either forgiven 
 or retained, but such as are revealed to a priest in sacra- 
 mental confession. How does it follow that a power of for- 
 giving, in God's name, the sins revealed to his ministers, 
 implies an obligation or necessity of making a minute and 
 circumstantial confession of every deadly sin? How does 
 it follow, that God will not forgive sins which are not re- 
 vealed to a priest? Does this power in the Christian Church 
 invalidate the means of obtaining forgiveness adopted in 
 the Jeivish : or arc the motives of a pardoning God fluctu- 
 ating and uncertain? Would not a penitential spirit plead 
 as effectually for a Christian now, as it did for king David 
 in the olden time, when he said, (Ps. xxxii.) " I will ac- 
 knowledge my sin unto thee, and my unrighteousness have 
 I not hid. I said, I will confess my sins unto the Lord, 
 and so thou forgavest the wickedness of my sin :" or shall 
 Christians be compelled to believe, that a few ambiguous 
 expressions are to be diverted from their moie obvious and 
 consistent meaning, to bind on their consciences a most in- 
 tolerable burthen, inconsistent with the perfect law of 11- 
 
 u2 
 
234 
 
 berty, by which Christ has set us free, and tending fre- 
 quently, it is to be feared, to inspire a confidence of for- 
 giveness, resting rather on a compliance with so humiliat- 
 ing an ordinance, than on the full and perfect atonement 
 and satisfaction of Christ for the sins of the whole world 1 
 
 A more frequent, explicit, and impressive reference to 
 this fundamental article of Christianity would not fail to 
 detract from the imaginary importance of sacramental con- 
 fession, by convincing every scriptural believer, that no 
 satisfaction for sin can be made or required, but what has 
 been already made by the great Redeemer ; and that even 
 repentance itself, without it, so far from being sufficient to 
 ensure the sinner's amendment, is rather calculated to ren- 
 der him easy under his guilt, from the facility of reconcilia- 
 tion. There is, in fact, no other doctrine, or ordinance, or 
 discipline, which, exclusively of this tenet, can alarm or 
 rouse the sinner from the apathy of habitual transgression. 
 I know that the Rev. gentleman believes this doctrine in 
 its full extent ; and I know that Protestants feel grateful to 
 his Church, that amidst the prevalence of ignorance, su- 
 perstition, and folly, she still preserved inviolate this and 
 other vital principles of our holy faith ; for it was against 
 these that the gates of hell, or the powers of death and 
 darkness, were never to prevail. But I put it to tiie con- 
 science of the Rev. gentleman, whether his high encomiums 
 on the divine right, the indispensable necessity, and the 
 mighty benefits of auricular confession, do not tend to keep 
 this fundamental tenet out of sight, or at least to place it 
 in the back ground of the Christian system. 
 
 The following luminous exposition of these passages, by 
 the learned Dr. Adam Clarke, if duly considered, would 
 probably set at rest for ever, all controversy arising from 
 them. 
 
 " Thou art Peter. This was the same as if he had said, 
 I ack?ioioledge thee for one of my disciples — for this name 
 
235 
 
 was given him by our Lord when he first called him to the 
 apostleship. See John i. 42. 
 
 "Peter, ^rpo?, signifies a rock; and our Lord, whose 
 constant custom it was to rise to heavenly things through 
 the medium of earthly, takes occasion from the name, the 
 metaphorical meaning of which was strength and stability, 
 to point the solidity of the confession, and the stability of 
 that cause which should be founded on the Christ, the 
 Son of the Living God. 
 
 " Upon this very rock, in ravm t« Trirpx — this true confes- 
 sion of thine — that I am the Messiah, that am come to 
 reveal and communicate the living God, that the dead 
 lost world may be saved — upon this very rock myself, thus 
 confessed, (alluding probably to Psal. cxviii. 22. The 
 Stone which the builders rejected is become the Head-stone 
 of the Corner: and to Isa. xxviii. 16. Behold I lay a 
 Stone in Zion for a Foundation,) — will I build my 
 Church fAov Tiiv iKK\>icr:oiv, my assembly or congregation, i. e. 
 of persons who are made partakers of this precious faith. 
 That Peter is not designed in our Lord's words, must be 
 evident to all who are not blinded by prejudice. Peter was 
 only one of the builders in this sacred edifice, (Eph. ii. 20.) 
 who, himself tells us, (with the rest of the believers,) was 
 built on this living foundation stone ; (1 Pet. ii. 4. 5.) 
 therefore, Jesus Christ did not say, o?i thee, Peter, will I 
 build my Church, but changes immediately the expression, 
 and says, upon that very rock^ ^tti ruuTu m TnrpA to show that 
 he neither addressed Peter nor any other of the Apostles. 
 So, the supremacy of Peter, and the infallibility of the 
 Church of Rome, must be sought in some other Scripture, 
 for they certainly are not to be found in this. 
 
 " The gates of Hell, Trvxa-i aJov, i. e. the machinations and 
 powers of the invisible world. In ancient times, the gates 
 of fortified cities were used to hold councils in : and were 
 usually places of great strength. Our Lord's expression 
 means, that neither the plots, stratagems, nor strength of 
 
236 
 
 Satan and his angels, should ever so far prevail as to de- 
 stroy the sacred truths in the above confession. Sometimes 
 the gates are taken for the troops which issue out from 
 them — we may firmly believe, that though Hell should 
 open her gates, and vomit out her devil and all his angels 
 to fight against Christ and his saints, ruin and discomfiture 
 must be the consequence on their part ; as the arm of the 
 Omnipotent 7nust prevail. 
 
 " The keys of the kingdom. By the kingdom of heaven, 
 we may consider the true Church, that house of God, to be 
 meant, and by the keys, the power of admitting into that 
 house, or of preventing any improper person from coming 
 in. In other words, the doctrine of salvation, and the full 
 declaration of the way in which God will save sinners : and 
 who they are that shall be finally excluded from heaven ; 
 and on what account. When the Jews made a man a doctor 
 of the law, they put into his hand the key of the closet in 
 the temple, where the sacred books were kept, and also 
 tablets to write upon ; signifying by this that they gave 
 him authority to teach and to explain the Scriptures to the 
 people. Martin, This prophetic declaration of our Lord 
 was literally fulfilled to Peter, as he was made the^rs^ in- 
 strument of opening, i. e. preaching the doctrines of the 
 kingdom of heaven to the Jews, (Acts ii. 41,) and to the 
 Gentiles, (Acts x. 44 — 47. xi. 1. xv. 7.) 
 
 " Whatsoever thou shalt hind on earth,''"' This mode of 
 expression was frequent among the Jews : they considered 
 that every thing that was done upon earth according to the 
 order of God, was at the same time done in heaven : hence 
 they were accustomed to say, that when the priest, on the 
 day of atonement, offered the two goats upon earth, the 
 same were offered in heaven. As one goat therefore is 
 permitted to escape on earth, one is permitted to escape in 
 heaven ; and when the priest casts the lots on earth, the 
 priest also casts the lots in heaven. See Sohar, Levit. fol. 
 26, and see Lightfoot and Schoetgen. These words will 
 
237 
 
 receive considerable light from Levit. xiii. 3 and 23. The 
 priest shall look upon him (the leper) and pronounce him 
 unclean, Heb.lHJ^ KDD1 vetimeotho,^e sAa/ZpoZZi^^e/iiw, 
 i. e. shall declare him polluted, from the evidences men- 
 tioned before, and in ver. 23. The priest shall pronounce 
 him clean tllDIl inHDI vetiharo hacohen, the priest shall 
 cleanse him, i. e. declare he is clean from the evidences 
 mentioned in the verse. In the one case the priest de- 
 clared the person infected with the leprosy, and mifit for 
 civil society: and in the other, that the suspected person 
 was clean, and might safely associate with his fellows in 
 civil or religious assemblies. The disciples of our Lord, 
 from having the keys, i. e. the true knowledge of the doc- 
 trine of the kingdom of heaven, should be able at all times 
 to distinguish between the clean and the unclean, and pro- 
 nounce infallible judgment : and this binding and loosing, 
 or pronouncingj/?^ or unft for fellowship with the members 
 of Christ, being always according to the doctrine of the 
 Gospel of God, should be considered as proceeding imme- 
 diately from heaven, and consequently as divinely rati- 
 fied:' 
 
 That binding and loosing were terms in frequent use 
 among the Jews, and that they meant bidding and forbid- 
 ding, granting and refusing, declaring lauful or unlawful, 
 &;c. Dr. Lightfoot, after having given numerous instances, 
 thus concludes : 
 
 " To these may be added, if need were, the frequent, 
 (shall I say ?) or infinite use of the phrases njl^D*) 11DK 
 bound and loosed, which we meet with thousands of times 
 over. But from these allegations the reader sees abun- 
 dantly enough both the frequency and the common use of 
 this phrase, and the sense of it also ; namely, first, that it is 
 used in doctrine, and in judgments, concerning things 
 allowed or not allowed in the law. Secondly, that to bind 
 is the same with to forbid, or to declare forbidden. To 
 think that Christ, when he used the common phrase, was 
 
238 
 
 not understood by his hearers, in the common and vulgar 
 sense, shall I call it a matter of laughter, or of madness ? 
 
 " To this, therefore, do these words amount. When the 
 time was come wherein the Mosaic Law, as to some part of 
 it, was to be abolished, and left off, and as to another part 
 of it, was to be continued, and last for ever, he granted 
 Peter, here, and to the rest of the Apostles, (chap, xviii. 
 18,) a power to abolish or confirm what they thought good, 
 and as they thought good ; being taught this, and led by 
 the Holy Spirit, as if he should say, whatsoever ye shall 
 hind in the law of Moses that \^ forbid, it shall he forbidden, 
 the divine authority confirming it ; and whatsoever ye shall 
 loose, that is, permit, or shall teach that it is permitted and 
 lawful, shall be lawful and per7nitted. Hence they boundy 
 that is, forbad circumcision to the believers ; eating of 
 things offered to idols, of things strangled, and of blood for 
 a time, to the Gentiles: and that which they bound on 
 edrtk was confirmed in heaven. They loosed, that is, allow- 
 ed purification to Paul, and io four other brethren, for the 
 shunning of scandal, (Acts xxi. 24,) and in a word, by 
 these words of Christ it was committed to them, the Holy 
 Spirit directing, that they should make decrees concerning 
 religion, as to the use or rejection of Mosaic rites and judg- 
 ments, and that either for a time, or for ever. 
 
 " Let the word be applied, by way of paraphrase, to the 
 matter that was transacted at present with Peter. *I am 
 about to build a Gentile Church,' saith Christ, ^and to 
 thee, O Peter, do I give the keys of the kingdom of hea- 
 ven, that thou vaAyesi first open the door of faith to them; 
 but if thou askest by what rule that Church is to be go- 
 verned, when the Mosaic rule may seem so improper for 
 it, thou shalt be so guided by the Holy Spirit, that whatso- 
 ever of the law of Moses thou shalt forbid them, shall be 
 forbidden : whatsoever thou grantest them, shall be grant- 
 ed, and that under a sanction made in heaven.' Hence, in 
 that instant, when he should use his ketjs, that is, when he 
 
259 
 
 was now ready to open the gate of the Gospel to the GeU' 
 tiles, (Acts X.) he was taught from heaven, that the con- 
 sorting of the Jew with the Gentile, which before had been 
 hound was now loosed ; and the eating of any creature con- 
 venient for food, was now loosed, which before had been 
 bound ; and he, in like manner, looses both these. 
 
 " Those words of our Saviour, (John xx. 23,) Whose sins 
 ye remit, they are remitted to them, for the most part are 
 forced to the same sense with these before us, when they 
 carry quite another sense. Here the business is of doc- 
 trine only, not of perso7is ; there of persons, not of doctrine. 
 Here of things lawfvl or unlaurful in religion, to be deter- 
 mined by the Apostles ; there of persons obstinate or not 
 obstinate, to be punished by them, or not to be punished. 
 
 " As to doctrine the Apostles were doubly instructed. 
 1. So long sitting at the feet of their Master, they had im- 
 bibed the evangelical doctrine. 2. The Holy Spirit di- 
 recting them, they were to determine concerning the legal 
 doctrine and practice, being completely instructed and ena- 
 bled in both, by the Holy Spirit descending upon them. As 
 to the persons, they were endowed with a peculiar gift, so 
 that the same Spirit directing them, if they would retain, 
 and punish the sins of any, a power was delivered into 
 their hands of delivering to Satan, of punishing with dis- 
 eases, plagues, yea, death itself, which Peter did to Ana- 
 nias and Sapphira ; Paul to Elymas, Hymeneus, and Phi- 
 letiis,^^ &;c. 
 
 After all these evidences and proofs of the proper use of 
 these terms, to attempt to press the words into the service 
 long assigned them by the Church of Rome, would, to use 
 the words of Dr. Lightfoot, be " a matter of laughter or of 
 madness. No Church can use them in the sense thus im- 
 posed upon them, which was done merely to serve secular 
 ends; and least of all can that very Church that thus 
 abuses them." 
 
 Any further observations on texts relating to this sub- 
 
240 
 
 ject might safely be omitted ; for we may confidently pre- 
 sume that no unprejudiced reader will consider the other 
 passages of the New Testament, brought forward in the 
 second chapter of the Appendix, as bearing in the smallest 
 degree on sacramental confession. Let him, however, 
 judge for himself. 
 
 The first prssage is this: [Acts 19.) "And many that 
 believed, came and confessed, and showed their deeds." 
 Here mention is made of confession of sins, but is any 
 thing said of sacramental absolution ? These people openly 
 " acknowledged and confessed their manifold sins and 
 wickedness, they did not dissemble nor cloak them before 
 the face of their heavenly Father, but confessed them with 
 an humble, lowly, penitent, and obedient heart." In terms 
 approaching to the language of one Protestant Church, and 
 in the spirit of them all, tjiey probably vented the sorrows 
 of their hearts, " by acknowledging and bewailing their 
 manifold sins and wickedness, which from time to time they 
 most grievously had committed, by thought, word, and deed, 
 against the Divine Majesty, provoking most justly his wrath 
 and indignation against them ;" by declaring that they 
 " did earnestly repent, and were heartily sorry for all these 
 their misdoings; that the remembrance of them was griev- 
 ous unto them ; the burthen of them intolerable ;" and " by 
 imploring mercy and forgiveness of all that was past, from 
 their most merciful Father, for the sake of his Son, and 
 their Lord Jesus Christ." (Communion Service.) Such was 
 the nature of the confession made by these people, and, 
 upon this unequivocal evidence of their repentance, they 
 received, no doubt, from St. Paul, in virtue of the powers 
 of his sacred ministry, a declaration that their sins were 
 forgiven. This ministerial act, which is termed by some 
 absolution, is still exercised and highly appreciated in the 
 Protestant Churches. Every regular minister of the Gos- 
 pel conceives himself authorized to preach forgiveness of 
 sins to repenting sinners; to assure them, when they 
 
241 
 
 ■exhibit satisfactory proofs that their repentance is real and 
 sincere, that their sins are remitted, and they restored to 
 the grace and favour of God. " They perceive, indeed^ 
 in the words of their sacred commission, a manifest dis- 
 tinction between the sinner and the sin." It is not said 
 '* whatsoever sins, but whosesoever sins ye remit." There 
 may be satisfactory evidence of repentance without a mi- 
 nute and circumstantial disclosure of all the offences to 
 which it has a relation. i^See Bishop White''s Second Lec- 
 ture.) But whenever such evidence appears, as in the case 
 before us. God's ministers are authorized and bound to pro- 
 nounce to his people the absolution of their sins. And 
 whether the words of this absolution be, 1 absolve thee, as 
 they appear in the office of Visitation of the Sick, used by 
 the Church of England, or, 1 declare and pronounce you to 
 be absolved, as used exclusively by the Protestant Episcopal 
 Church in America, in neither case do they furnish any 
 countenance to the sense of sacramental absolution, as un- 
 derstood and taught by the Romish Church. The forms 
 of absolution, however expressed, are by all Protestants 
 held to be mexely deprecatory and declaratory ; and indeed 
 in this light were they considered by the whole Christian 
 Church down to the thirteenth century, as will appear 
 hereafter. 
 
 Upon the whole, the passage before us is perfectly ana* 
 logous to that in the second chapter of St. Matthew, where, 
 it is said, " all Jerusalem and all Judea, and all the region 
 round about Jordan, went out to John, and were baptized 
 by him in Jordan, confessing their sins." Now, will the 
 Rev. gentleman tell us that this confession affords any pre* 
 text for the sacrament of penance ? 
 
 With respect to the text from 2 Cor. v. it is really sur- 
 prising, that the Rev. gentleman should cite it in support 
 of his doctrine. "God," says the Apostle, "has given to 
 us the ministry of reconciliation ;" that is, he has commis- 
 sioned and charged us, the pastors of his Church, to publish 
 
242 
 
 and announce to mankind his reconciliation to our sinful 
 race in Christ, or through the sufferings and death of Christ, 
 as the grand principle and motive of this reconciliation. 
 "We then pray you, as ambassadors for Christ;" we pray 
 you in God's name ; " we pray you in Christ's stead, be ye 
 reconciled to God ;" that is, in other words, we implore, we 
 beseech you, in the name of God, and as the ministers of 
 Christ, lay hold by faith on the great atonement made by 
 Christ for the world, as the ground and assurance of your 
 reconciliation with your Maker. Now, what has the minis- 
 try of such reconciliation as this to do with auricular sa- 
 cramental confession? It relates entirely to the ministry of 
 the word, to the. preaching of the glad tidings of salvation 
 to a lost world, through the atoning blood of the Redeemer. 
 The third and last passage quoted by the Rev. gentle- 
 man is from the fifth chapter of the Epistle of St. James, 
 where the Apostle exhorts the faithful to *' confess their 
 sins one to another." This text can never subserve the 
 cause of sacramental confession, till it be shown, that to 
 *' confess to one another," means " to confess exclusively 
 to a priest." Besides, as understood by the Rev. gentle- 
 man, it proves too much, and therefore proves nothing: for 
 if it enjoin on all Christians the obligation of mutual con- 
 fession, and this confession be sacramental, then must 
 priests confess to laymen, as well as laymen to priests. 
 But the fact is, no passage could have been selected more 
 unfortunately to uphold the Romish doctrine on this head, 
 or more pointedly to enforce the Protestant opinions : for 
 why are we exhorted in this place " to confess our sins to 
 one another?" Not to obtain absolution of a priest; but, 
 as the context clearly proves, that from a mutual feeling of 
 our infirmities and sins, we may be induced to pray for 
 each other, as " the prayer of a righteous man availeth 
 much" — and by " the prayer of faith our sins may be for- 
 given us." 
 
 The arguments for pressing this passage into the cause 
 
243 
 
 of sacramental confession, are really too trifling to merit 
 further notice ; and therefore, having considered all the 
 scriptural proofs for this doctrine contained in the Appen- 
 dix, we leave them to the decision of the candid reader, 
 trusting confidently that after an impartial investigation, 
 like many Roman Catholic divines, he will be compelled to 
 look elsewhere for the divine institution of this sacrament, 
 and to adopt the opinion of the celebrated Peter Lombard, 
 styled by way of eminence the master of the sentences, and 
 considered as one of the theological luminaries of the 
 twelfth century. "Behold," says he, (lib. 4. dist. 18. fol. 
 108, 109.) "what a variety of opinions has been delivered 
 by the doctors upon these things ; and amidst so great a 
 variety, what are we to abide by ? This truly we can say 
 and think, that God o/iZy remits sins, and retains them: 
 and yet he has granted power to the Church to hind and to 
 loosen. But he binds and loosens in a different manner 
 from the Church. For he remits sin by himself only, be- 
 cause he both cleanses the soul from the inward stain, and 
 frees her from the debt of eternal death. But this he never 
 granted to priests, to whom, nevertheless, he gave the 
 power of binding and loosening : that is, of declaring men 
 either bound or loosened. Hence, our Lord first restored 
 the leper to health by himself, then sent him to the priests, 
 that by their judgment he might be pronounced to be 
 cleansed.'' Thus explicitly does this eminent divine, so 
 late as the twelfth century, deliver the doctrine of the Re- 
 formation, and contradict that of the council of Trent. We 
 proceed now to show, that Peter Lombard was not singular 
 in his opinion ; that it prevailed universally in the primitive 
 Church, and that the present Romish doctrine o{ sacramen- 
 tal confession was not enacted into an article of faith, and 
 indispensable discipline, previously to the thirteenth cen- 
 tury. 
 
244 
 
 PART SECOND. 
 
 The testimony of the ancient fathers does not 'prove sacra- 
 mental confession. 
 
 In casting his eye over the Appendix to the Catholic- 
 Question, from page forty-one, the reader will perceive a 
 formidable host of ancient Christian fathers, marshalled 
 .iccording to the respective centuries of the Church, and all 
 bearing testimony to sacramental confession. These pas- 
 sages are earnestly recommended to the attentive perusal 
 of the reader, with this observation, that as many more of 
 a similar cast might readily be added to their number, as 
 would fill the pages of a massive folio. The doctrine of 
 evangelical repentance and forgiveness of sins was always 
 deemed a primitive and fundamental article of the Chris- 
 tian Church. AVhat wonder, then, that all her learned and 
 orthodox writers should be found so zealously insisting 
 upon its necessity and truth? But let these passages be 
 exarnined by the rules of sound criticism and unprejudiced 
 judgment, and I will venture to affirm, that they mean no- 
 thing more than warm and high-strained exhortations to 
 repentance, either public or private, and can never, w^ith- 
 out manifest violence, be distorted to inculcate the neces- 
 sity of sacramental confession as a means, {necessitate 
 medii,) or as a divine precept, (necessitate prcBcepti,) for ob- 
 taining forgiveness of sin. It must indeed be readily ac- 
 knowledged, that on this, as well as on many other opinions 
 and points of discipline existing in their day, the fathers 
 frequently express themselves in a language little consist- 
 ent with that coolness and accuracy which should always 
 accompany polemical disquisitions. Being ignorant of any 
 divine precept XQ,s\)GQ,i\ng minute sacramental confession ^x\d 
 sacerdotal absolution, as they are now understood in the 
 Church of Rome, they indulged in a laxity and ambiguity 
 
245 
 
 of expression, which any controversy existing at the time 
 would have induced them to avoid. But no such contro- 
 versy did exist in their day. Confession to a priest, as a 
 divine and indispensahle institution^ was for many ages at 
 most nothing more than an embryo doctrine, and never 
 arrived at its full birth till the council of Trent, in the six- 
 teenth century, ushered it into the world under all its guar- 
 dian sanctions and anathemas. 
 
 The parade of passages brought forward by the Rev» 
 gentleman from the writings of the primitive fathers, and 
 of those who came after them, can make nothing to his 
 purpose, unless these passages exhibit the same features 
 which are attributed to confession by the council of Trent. 
 Now, will any person say that such is the fact? When St. 
 Ireneus tells us, that a sinful woman, "penetrated with 
 grief, spent her whole time in confessing and bewailing 
 her sins, and lamenting the crime she had been led, by a 
 magician, to commit;" can he be understood to mean any 
 thing more than is daily done in Protestant religious assem- 
 blies? Or shall we be seriously told that her wliole time 
 was spent in confessing the same sins to a priest, and 
 obtaining from him reiterated absolution ? Is there in 
 the passage quoted from Tertullian, the slightest allu- 
 sion to auricular confession, or sacramental absolution? 
 As a point of discipline, this writer must have entertained 
 very rigid notions concerning the disclosure of sins, and 
 we know that his inflexible obstinacy and severity on other 
 subjects, often led him into heretical opinions. The quo- 
 tation from Origen means, only, that " if we reveal our 
 sins not only to God, but to those who are able to heal 
 our wounds;" that is, "to wise and devout ministers, who- 
 can apply to our wounded consciences the healing balsam 
 of supplication and advice ;" then will our sins be blotted 
 out by Him who has said, " behold I blot out iniquities as 
 a cloud ;" and this is evidently the meaning of the passage : 
 {see Orig. in psal. 37, horn. 2.) With respect to the pas- 
 X 2 
 
2m 
 
 sages cited from St. Cyprian, and other fathers of the- 
 two following ages, their meaning may be easily ascer- 
 tained from a short view of Church discipline prevailing 
 at those periods. This discipline was extended gradually 
 to private as well as to public crimes. At first, public con- 
 fession was enjoined only for public offences, but when 
 afterwards the benefits resulting from this practice became 
 apparent, many zealous penitents, in the first fervour of 
 their conversion, willing to obtain, for sins committed in 
 private, the same consolatory declarations which the 
 Church pronounced on public penitents, voluntarily sub- 
 mitted themselves to her outward discipline, and by a con- 
 fession of private sins, underwent the penances appointed 
 for such as were public. This appears to be the case from 
 Origen and St. Cyprian, cited in the Appendix, from St. 
 Ambrose, (/i&. I. de psenit. c. 16,) and other writers of those 
 times. That this public confession of secret faults, how- 
 ever, might be attended with the greatest advantages, some 
 prudent minister was first made acquainted with them, by 
 whose direction the penitent might understand what sins 
 were proper for the public notice of the Church, and in 
 what manner the penance should be performed. For this 
 reason Origen advises, that great care, should be used in 
 choosing a skilful physician, to whom any disclosures of 
 this kind should be made. " If he understand," (Orig. 
 ibidem.) " and foresee, that thy disease is such as ought to 
 be declared in the assembly of the whole Church, and cured 
 there, whereby, perhaps, others may be edified, and thou 
 thyself more easily healed ; with much deliberation, and 
 by the very skilful counsel of thy physician, must this be 
 done." 
 
 In process of time, that is to say, soon after the persecu- 
 tion of the emperor Decius, the penitent was no longer at 
 liberty to choose his spiritual director, but by the general 
 consent of the bishops it was ordained, that, in every 
 Church, one particular discreet minister, should he ap- 
 
247 
 
 pointed to receive the confessions of such as relapsed into^ 
 sin after baptism. This addition to the penitential canon, 
 is expressly noticed by Socrates, in his Ecclesiastical His- 
 tory, (lib. 5. c. 19,) and was observed in the Church for a 
 considerable length of time. It was, however, finally abo- 
 lished, when Nectariuswas bishop of Constantinople, about 
 one hundred and forty years after the persecution of De- 
 cius. A woman confessed publicly a sin, in which a dea- 
 con of the Church was implicated, and a load of scandal 
 was thus cast upon the clergy, that furnished an induce- 
 ment to discontinue the practice, and liberty was now allow- 
 ed to every one, upon the private examination of his own 
 conscience, to approach the Lord's table. [Socrat, ibid, and 
 Sozomen, lib. 7. histor. cap. 16.) And thus was a rule of 
 conduct on this subject adopted, conformable to that of the 
 Apostle — (1 Cor. xi. 28.) "Let a man examine himself, 
 and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of that cup ;" 
 and agreeable to the primitive opinion expressed by Cle- 
 mens Alexandrinus, when he asserts, " that a man's own 
 conscience is his best director in this case ;" (lib. 1. Strom.) 
 This abolition of confession is an important event in the 
 liistory of the Church, and it evidently shows that no idea 
 of the divine rights and indispensable necessity of the sacra- 
 ment of penance, then prevailed among Christians. The 
 fact stands emblazoned witli irresistible evidence. By the 
 advice of a priest named Eudemon, Nectarius was prevailed 
 upon to abolish this practice ; and " this," says Socrates, 
 "I am bolder to relate, because I received it from Eude- 
 mon's own mouth." The historian Sozomen agrees with 
 Socrates, and adds, moreover, " that in his time (that is, in 
 the reign of Theodosius the younger) the practice was still 
 discontinued, and that the bishops had, in a manner, every 
 where, followed the example of Nectarius.'' 
 
 I am well aware, that in order to invalidate such clear 
 and unanswerable evidence against the undefeasible neces- 
 sity and divine institution of confession, the cardinals Bel- 
 
248 
 
 larmine and Baronius, are compelled to question the vera- 
 city of these historians, or to contend, that they spake only 
 of the abolition of public confession. The force of their 
 arguments, however, will be readily acknowledged to 
 weigh little v/ith a Protestant, when it is known that they 
 were disregarded by one of their own most eminent divines. 
 The learned Suarez reasons thus on the subject : " In this 
 manner Gratian and Baronius answer, understanding these 
 words of public confession. But some expressions of St. 
 Chrysostom are greatly repugnant to this interpretation ; 
 by which he seems to exclude the ministry of the tongue, 
 and to say, that confession ought to be made in thought 
 only," as liom. 31. in Epis. ad Hehrmos. "Confess your 
 sins before God ; pronounce your offences to your true 
 Judge in prayer, not with your tongue, but from the recol- 
 lection of your conscience. Wherefore this exposition ap- 
 pears to me probable, that Chrysostom spake of private 
 confession." {Suarez in Thom. part. 3. torn. 4. disp. 17.) 
 As to the degree of credit due to the narrative of Socrates 
 and Sozomen, the same learned divine delivers his opinion 
 of it, in the following words : {Suarez, ibidem.) " Some 
 answer by saying that no credit is to be given to this rela- 
 tion, because Sozomen wrote many falsities, and because 
 Socrates, being a Novatian heretic, does not challenge our 
 belief. Caesar Baronius answers nearly in this manner ; 
 but a falsehood concerning so important, so public, and so 
 manifest a matter, could not easily be forged. Some, there- 
 fore, acknowledge, that he (Nectarius) annulled the prac- 
 tice of penance." Thomas Waldensis, a divine much 
 commended by Dr. Stapleton, was entirely of Suarez's 
 opinion, and boldly asserts, {torn. 2. cap. 141.) " that Nec- 
 tarius actually annulled confession." 
 
 In conformity with this alteration in Church discipline, 
 St. John Chrysostom, who was the immediate successor of 
 Nectarius in the see of Constantinople, expounding the 
 words of the Apostle, (1 Cor. 11,) "Let every man ex- 
 
249 
 
 amine himself," &c. writes as follows: (Jiom. 28.) "He 
 doesnot bid one man toexamine another, but every one him- 
 self, making the judgment private, and the trial without 
 witnesses." And in the end of his second homily on Fast- 
 ingy which, in some editions, is the eighth de 'psenitentia^ 
 he exhorts in these words : " within thy conscience, none 
 being present but God, who sees all things, enter thou 
 into judgment, and into a search of thy sins, and passing 
 thy whole life in review, bring thy sins into judgment in 
 thy mind : reform thy excesses, and so with a pure con- 
 science draw near to that sacred table, and partake of that 
 holy sacrifice." Still, however, he solemnly charges mi- 
 nisters, not to admit known offenders to the communion. 
 {See horn. 82, in Matt, edit Graec. vel. 83, edit. Latin.) 
 From the writings of this father, and from the subsequent 
 practice of the Church, we learn that the godly and apos- 
 tolic discipline of public penance, was not entirely abro- 
 gated ; on the contrary, that open ofFenders were publicly 
 censured, and pressed to make public confession of their 
 sins. Nectarius, therefore, merely abolished the obliga* 
 tion of disclosing to a penitentiary, such sins as were of a 
 secret nature, and by so doing exhibited an unequivocal 
 proof of his ignorance of sacramental avi'icular confes- 
 sion, as a divine and indispensable obligation. With two 
 short observations on this subject, it shall be dismissed al- 
 together. One is, that the form of confession used by the 
 primitive Christians, was canonical; or, in other words, 
 belonged to that external discipline of the Church, which, 
 for good reasons, might be altered ; but, in no respect, sa- 
 cramental, and of divine right. The other observation is, 
 that this measure of Nectarius, was approved of, not only 
 by his successor, St. Chrysostom, but by most of the Ca- 
 tholic bishops, whilst the Arian and other sectarian 
 Churches, as Socrates and Sozomen inform us at large, re- 
 tained the former usage. 
 
 About seventy years after the innovation introduced by 
 
250 
 
 Nectarius, a custom began to prevail in Italy, for penitents 
 to write down their sins, and to have them read publicly 
 in the Church. St. Leo, bishop of Rome, disapproved of 
 this practice, and strictly forbade it. His own words on 
 this head shall be laid before the reader, that he may be 
 enabled to judge what reference they have to sacramental 
 confession and absolution ; or how far the Rev. gentleman 
 is justified in pronouncing the " testimony of this father, 
 at once so pointed, and so strong in every point, relating to 
 confession as taught in the Catholic Church, that none of 
 the reformers have ever offered to give a solution." 
 
 The Latin text is before me, but I will adopt, in part, 
 the translation furnished in the Appendix. " I forbid," 
 says he, " the recitation in public of the declaration, 
 which sinners shall have made of their faults in detail, 
 giving them in writing, because it is sufficient to discover 
 to the priests by a private confession, the sins of which 
 they may stand guilty ; for although we should commend 
 the great faith of those, who fear not to cover themselves 
 with confusion before men, from a great fear of God, never- 
 theless, because all men's sins are not of that kind, that 
 they may not fear to publish such of them as require re- 
 pentance, let so inconvenient a custom be removed ; lest 
 many be driven away from the remedies of repentance, 
 while they are either ashamed or afraid to disclose their 
 deeds unto their enemies, wherein they may be exposed 
 to the danger of the laws. For that confession is suflficient 
 which is offered first to God, and then to the priest, who 
 comes as an intercessor for the sins of the penitent. (Epist. 
 80, ad Episcopos Camp. Samnii et Piceni.) 
 
 The Rev. gentleman omits the last words, although he 
 must know, that on them turns the whole controversy be- 
 tween us. "Sacerdospro delictispaenitentium precator acce- 
 dit." " Hepra^s that the sins of the penitent may be forgiven." 
 Without the most distant hint at judicial sacramental ab- 
 solution ; although, indeed, the words may seem to imply 
 
251 
 
 absolution of a declaratory and inter cessional nature, 
 which the Protestant reformers never denied. The other 
 passage from the same venerable father, is equally irrele- 
 vant to the present question. It speaks of "the supplica- 
 tions of the priests, of imposing a competent penance, and 
 of enjoining a wholesome satisfaction on those who con- 
 fessed their sins," according to the discipline then preva- 
 lent in the Church ; but, of absolution, as defined by the 
 council of Trent, not a syllable occurs. It expresses no 
 other sentiment, but that contained in " the declaration of 
 absolution or remission of sins," in the beginning of the 
 morning service of the Protestant Episcopal Church, to 
 which every Protestant, I believe, would willingly say, 
 Amen. 
 
 This main support of the Romish doctrine of confession, 
 drawn from the authority of St. Leo, and by the Rev. gen- 
 tleman deemed so conclusive, as to bid defiance to the 
 whole body of the reformers, being thus easily removed, a 
 review of the other passages brought forward in the Ap- 
 pendix from the fathers, might readily be omitted without 
 any prejudice to the cause of truth : and if the reader will 
 be at the pains of perusing them, he will be led princi- 
 pally to observe, as many divines have done, and as Dr. Sa- 
 muel Johnson expresses himself in his forcible lauguage, 
 (Bos. Life, page 322. vol. ii.) " that it is probable, that 
 from the acknowledged power of public censure, grew in 
 time the practice of auricular confession. Those who 
 dreaded the blast of public reprehension, were willing to 
 submit themselves to the priest, by a private accusation of 
 themselves; and to obtain a reconciliation with the Church, 
 by a kind of clandestine absolution and invisible penance, 
 conditions with which the priest would, in times of igno- 
 rance and corruption, easily comply, as they increased his 
 influence, by adding the knowledge of secret sins, to that 
 of notorious offences, and enlarged his authority by making 
 him the sole arbiter of the terms of reconcilement. From 
 
252 
 
 this bondage, the reformation set us free. The minister 
 has no longer power to press into the retirements of con- 
 science, to torture us by interrogatories, or put himself in 
 possession of our secrets, and of our lives. But though 
 we have thus controlled his usurpations, his just and origi- 
 nal power remains unimpaired ; and this power consists in 
 the ministry of the word, the due administration of the 
 sacraments, and i\\Q forgiving or retaining of sins in the 
 scriptural meaning of the words." The opinion of the 
 learned Beatus Rhenanus, the friend of Erasmus, coincides 
 exactly with that of Dr. Johnson. His words are these : 
 (Argument, in lib. Tertull. de psenit ;) " For no other rea- 
 son have we here alleged the testimony of many writers, 
 but that none might be surprised at Tertullian's silence re- 
 specting the private confession of sins, which, as far as we 
 can conjecture, took its rise from public confession, in 
 order that the disclosure of secret sins might also be se- 
 cret. We read, however, no where, that it was ever enact- 
 ed as a precept." Of the manifold authorities adduced 
 in the Appendix from the ancient fathers, not one asserts 
 the " divine institution and indispensable obligation of sa- 
 cramental confession ;" and to obviate any apparent ten- 
 dency of them that way, passages without number might 
 easily be selected to prove that no such opinion existed in 
 their time. The reader may find them detailed in all Pro- 
 testant polemical writers on this subject ; and the very few 
 with which he shall here be presented, will carry witii 
 them, at least, sufficient conviction to every thinking mind, 
 that the opinions of the best divines, on this head, before 
 the council of Trent, were various, fluctuating, and un- 
 settled. 
 
 The passage from St. Chrysostom, which has been aK 
 ready mentioned, marks sufficiently the opinion of the 
 eastern Church in his day. Do not the following words of 
 the same eminent father set this controversy at rest? " Let 
 the inquiry and punishment of thine offences be made in 
 
253 
 
 thine own thoughts: let the tribunal at which thou ar>» 
 raignest thyself be without witness : let God alone see thee 
 and thy confession." (Horn, de Psea.) Again, {Horn. 31. 
 ud Hseh. et. in Ps. 59. Horn, de Paea. et Horn. 5. iii. incarn. 
 Itemque de Lazare.) " I wish thee not to accuse thyself 
 publicly, nor before others : but I wish thee to obey the 
 Prophet, who says, ' confess thy sins before God ; tell thy 
 sins to him, that he may blot them out.' If thou be 
 ashamed to tell unto another, wherein thou hast offended, 
 rehearse them every day in thy soul. I do not tell thee to 
 confess them to thy fellow servant, who may upbraid thee, 
 but tell them to God, who may cure them. I pray and be- 
 seech you, that you would more frequently confess to the 
 eternal God, and enumerating all your trespasses, implore 
 his forgiveness. I do not lead you into a theatre of your 
 fellow servants, 1 seek not to disclose your crimes before 
 men. Open your conscience before God, unbosom your^ 
 selves to him, lay open your wounds to him, who is the best 
 physician, and of him humbly implore a medicine." Now, 
 I put it to the candour of every reader, if such can possi- 
 bly be the sentiments of one who believes in the " divine 
 right and obligation of auricular confession?" Indeed, the 
 testimony of this father, appeared so pointed to the author 
 of the Glossce on the Decretals,* that he positively asserts, 
 (de P(Ba. dis. 5. in P^ea.) " In the Greek Church, private 
 confession of mortal sins was not necessary, this tradition 
 having never reached the Greeks. Some maintain that 
 forgiveness of sins may be obtained without any confession 
 made to the Church or the priest;" and he then cites 
 Saints Ambrose, Austin, and Chrysostom as advocates for 
 this opinion. Again, we find these words in the same 
 place, "But that the sin of an adult person cannot be re- 
 
 * These Decretals contain a body of canon law and decrees of the greatest 
 authority, they having been approved by Pope Eugenius III. ; and Gratian, 
 who commented upon them, is styled, in the Lyons edition of 1518, "a most 
 learned divine." 
 
 y 
 
254 
 
 mitted without oral confession, which is false^^^ &c. 
 These last words, which is false, have since been ordered 
 to be expunged in a famous Index Expurgatorius. 
 
 It would be needless, after what has been said, to load 
 these pages with counter-passages from the fathers of the 
 four or five first centuries, directly invalidating the conse- 
 quences, drawn from those which are produced in the Ap- 
 pendix. These were never understood as building the sys- 
 tem of auricular confession upon a divine foundation ; and 
 the most pointed phraseology on this head, flowing either 
 from the glowing imagination of the Greek, or the embar- 
 rassed theology, and frequently crude conceptions of the 
 Latin fathers, never met with more respect in subsequent 
 ages, than was due to men whose labours, though occa- 
 sionally inconsistent and erroneous,* were, nevertheless, 
 eminently serviceable in defending and promoting gospel 
 truth and holiness. The authority of these primitive wri- 
 ters made no other impression on those who followed them^ 
 than to convince them that Church discipline respecting 
 confession and repentance was subject to variation, and a 
 point still open to discussion, without any imputation either 
 of heresy or schism. Could Laurence, bishop of Novaria, 
 who flourished in the beginning of the sixth century, have 
 believed confession to be a divine and indispensable insti- 
 tution when he wrote these words? "After baptism, God 
 has appointed the remedy within thyself, he has placed re- 
 mission in thine own power, that thou needest not seek a 
 priest, when thy necessity requires; but thou thyself now, 
 as a skilful and prompt master, mayest amend thine error 
 within thyself, and wash away thy sin by repentance." 
 {Lau. Nov. lib. Pat. Tom. vi.) What was the opinion of 
 Cassian, the celebrated Ascetic, when he tells us, {Collat. 
 20. cap. viii.) " If any are withheld through bashfulness 
 from discovering their faults to men, they should be so 
 
 • See Daille de usu Patrura. 
 
255 
 
 much the more diligent and constant in opening them by 
 supplication to God himself, whose custom is to afford as- 
 sistance without the publication of men's shame, and not 
 to upbraid them when he pardons?" What was the opinion 
 of St. Prosper, who lived also in the fifth century, when he 
 asserts, " that it is a matter of indifference whether men of 
 ecclesiastical order, detect their sins by confession, or leav- 
 ing the world ignorant of them, voluntarily separate them- 
 selves for a time, from the altar, although not in affection, 
 yet in the execution of their ministry, and so bewail their 
 corrupt life?" {de Vita Contemp. lib. ii. c. 7.) The ad- 
 vice of the holy abbot Paphnutius, related by Cassian, and 
 inserted among the canons collected for the use of the 
 English Church, in the time of the Saxons, under the title 
 de psea soli Deo, confitenda, is very remarkable. His 
 words are these : " Who is it, that can humbly say, I made 
 my sin known unto thee, and my iniquity I have not hid- 
 den, that to this confession he may deserve to add what fol- 
 lows, and thou forgavest the iniquity of my heart : but if 
 bashfulness do so draw thee back, that thou blushest to re- 
 veal them before men, cease not by continual supplication 
 to confess them to him from whom they cannot be hidden," 
 &;c. {Cass. Coll. xx. c. 8.) " Tears wash away the sin which 
 the voice is ashamed to confess," says St. Ambrose, {Lib. 
 X. Com. in Luc. c. 22.) " tears confess our crime without 
 offering violence to our bashfulness ;" from which passage 
 the Glossa upon Gratian infers, " if, out of shame, a man will 
 not confess, tears alone blot out his sin." (Glos. de pas dist. 
 i. c. 2. lachrymcB.) 
 
 In the ages which followed the irruption of the northern 
 hordes into Christendom, when the lamp of science was 
 nearly extinguished, and the fair features of religion greatly 
 obscured by the prevalence of disgusting ignorance, and 
 its offspring superstition ; when, except by a chosen iew, 
 reference was seldom had to the all-sufficiency of Christ's 
 atonement, and to an entire reliance on his full and effec- 
 
256 
 
 tual satisfaction for the remission of sins, confession and 
 bodily austerities naturally obtained a great degree of im- 
 portance from their supposed efficacy in quieting the con- 
 sciences of sinners. Accordingly, we are not surprised to 
 meet with recommendations to confession, amounting nearly 
 to precepts, in some of the writers and councils of the mid- 
 dle ages. Yet_a germ of good sense and Scripture know- 
 ledge, still vegetated in the Church, which neither the jar- 
 gon of scholastic theology, nor the cullability of the ignor- 
 ant multitude, was ever able to wither. The obligation of 
 auricular confession and sacerdotal absolution, remained 
 for many ages a subject of altercation and doubt, nor was 
 it till the Protestants, in the valleys of Piedmont, began ta 
 settle the doctrines of the Gospel upon their scriptural 
 foundations, that any council conceived it to be its duty or 
 interest to pronounce definitively upon it. 
 
 It is not necessary to lead the reader through a long 
 catalogue of writers, who lived before the councils of La- 
 teran and Trent, as a few prominent authorities will answer 
 the purpose of a volume, and will convince the reader that 
 it is a real imposition on the public, to assert that throughout 
 every age of the Church, previously to these councils, uni- 
 formity of opinion existed on the obligation of confession* 
 
 Bede, who lived in the eighth century, would have us 
 confess our daily and light sins one unto another, but open 
 the uncleanness of the greater leprosy to the priest. Al- 
 cuin, who wrote shortly after, advises the " confession of 
 all the sins that can be remembered :" but it appears from 
 this same Alcuin, and Haymo of Halberstadt, who wrote 
 soon after him, that " some would not confess their sins to 
 the priest," but said, " it was sufficient for them that they 
 did confess their sins to God alone." {Ale. Epis. 26. Hayrn. 
 in Evang. in Dom. 15. Post Pent.) Others confessed their 
 sins to the priests, but not fully, as appears from the coun- 
 cil of Cavaillon, held in the reign of Charlemagne. Great 
 stress is laid on the determinations of this council, by the 
 
257 
 
 advocates of the sacrament of penance ; but to what, in 
 fact, do they amount? They censure, though but lightly, 
 this partial confession, and then a free acknowledgment 
 is made, that it remained still a question, whether men 
 should confess to God, or to priests also. The words of 
 the council are these, which may serve as a key to many 
 other authorities from councils and scholastic writers, pro- 
 duced in the Appendix, with imposing prodigality. " Some 
 say, that they ought to confess their sins to God only, and 
 some think, that they ought to be confessed to the priests, 
 both which practices exist, not w^ithout great fruit in the 
 holy Church ; namely, thus, that we both confess our sins 
 to God, who is the forgiver of sins, saying v.'ith David, ' I 
 have acknowledged my sin unto thee, and my iniquity I 
 have not hidden, and thou forgavest the iniquity of my sin :* 
 And, according to the Apostle, we confess our sins to one 
 another, and pray for one another, that we may be healed. 
 The confession, therefore, which is made to God, purges 
 away sin, but that which is made to the priest, teaches in 
 what manner they should be purged away. ' For God, the 
 author and bestower of salvation and health, sometimes 
 gives it by the invisible administration of his power, some- 
 times by the operation of physicians.' " {Con. Cavaillorij 
 cap. 33. Anno 813.) In the Paenitential of Theodore, 
 Archbishop of Canterbury, who died in 690, are found 
 these remarkable words, " It is lawful tliat confession be 
 made to God alone, if it be requisite." This document. 
 Archbishop Usher tells us, he transcribed from an ancient 
 copy in Sir Robert Cotton's library. From this Paeniten- 
 tial, Gratian erroneously quotes the canon above mentioned, 
 but in doing so, he asserts that, in the eighth century, the 
 Greeks denied the necessity of confession except to God 
 alone, " Quidam Deo solummodo confiteri debere peccata 
 dicunt, ut Grasci." (de Pcea. dist. 1. cap. tilt.) Whatever 
 doctrines or discipline afterwards prevailed in the Greek 
 
 Church, can have no bearing on the present subject, and 
 
 y2 
 
25S 
 
 must render the numerous quotations of the Rev. gentle- 
 man to press that Church into his service, nugatory and 
 useless. The opinions of theologians in the twelfth cen- 
 tury, are thus clearly stated by the learned Gratian : "upon 
 what authority," says he, " or upon what strength of argu- 
 ments both these opinions are grounded," (viz. of the ne- 
 cessary or optional practice of external confession,) "I 
 have briefly laid open. But to which of them we should 
 rather adhere, is reserved to the judgment of the reader- 
 For both of them have for their advocates wise and reli- 
 gious men." (de Psea. dist. 1. cap. 89.) Such was the state 
 of this controversy in the middle of the twelfth century, 
 and such it continued until the council of Lateran, in 1215, 
 riveted upon the understandings and consciences of Chris- 
 tians, a double yoke of unprecedented severity, by decree- 
 ing at the same time, under horrid anathemas, the doc- 
 trine of transubstantiation, and the obligation of confes- 
 sion. 
 
 The reader may expect, and probably also wish, that 
 this part of the controversy might terminate here, but the 
 range taken in the Appendix is so wide, and marked with 
 sucli an air of confidence and triumph, that not to notice 
 it in some degree, might appear like an abandonment of 
 truth to the glare of cumbrous and ostentatious theology. 
 Whatever displays are made in the Appendix of the ad- 
 vantages of confession, of the exliortations of /)iows m.en to 
 practice it, of its henejits to Church and State, of the im- 
 probability of a voluntary suhinission to so humiliating a 
 practice ; of its having been adopted by sick and dying 
 persons, by armies, kings, and emperors, or rather by some 
 of each of these descriptions of persons, of its having been 
 sanctioned by miracles and prodigies; all these add no 
 force to arguments in support of auricular sacramental 
 confession, ^nA judicial absolution, unless it can be proved 
 ^-hat such was the very confession always understood and 
 j[>ractised in the Church, and afterwards defined and com- 
 
259 
 
 manded by the council of Trent. Now, this never was, 
 and never can be proved. From the wholesome discipline 
 of the primitive Church, as sanctioned by the Scriptures^ 
 for the legitimate exercise of the ministerial office in the 
 remission of sins, and reconciliation of the sinner, con- 
 fession underwent many gradual alterations : it was occa- 
 sionally modified, as circumstances required, or as the 
 warm imaginations of some ecclesiastical rulers, and the 
 interested views of others, added to its importance. Like 
 many bodily austerities and humiliating restraints, confes- 
 sion began to be unduly appreciated, and in the lamentable 
 depression of biblical knowledge and sound theology, was 
 too often, as was observed above, made a substitute for 
 faith in the atonement and intercession of Christ. It is 
 among those galling fetters and grievous burthens, which 
 a mistaken devotion has, in every religion, deemed ef- 
 fectual towards propitiating the offended deity,* and al- 
 though a manifest perversion, is a striking evidence of the 
 innate and universal conviction of mankind, that without 
 some adequate satisfaction, some painful sacrifice, there 
 can be no forgiveness of sins.f Being considered as an ob- 
 servance conducive to piety by men of retired and scho- 
 lastic habits, it was first established as a point of disci- 
 pline, and by the Lateran council enjoined as such. It had 
 previously, indeed, been adopted by many, who venerated 
 every institution recommended in the cloister, or practised 
 by such as were renowned for their holiness. Supported 
 by idle and fictitious tales, to enforce the advantages, and 
 then the necessity of the practice, it arrived, by imper- 
 ceptible gradations, to such importance, as to become an 
 indispensable precept. Will the Rev. gentleman deny, 
 that this can be the rise and progress of such burthensome 
 observances? Can he point out, for instance, the time, 
 
 * eheu! 
 
 Quam temere in nosraet legem sancimus iniquam ? — Horace. 
 + See Magee on the Atonement, No. V. 
 
260 
 
 when the strict obligation of reciting daily the ecclesiasti- 
 cal office, or breviary, under the penalty of damnation, was 
 imposed upon the Roman clergy ; or will he consider it of 
 divine appointment? Yet this is also a most burthensome 
 task imposed upon themselves under the most awful sanc- 
 tions, and frequently, it is to be feared, giving rise to a 
 mockery of religious worship in light minds, or creating 
 uneasiness in the consciences of the scrupulously pious. 
 
 From what has been already said, the reader I trust will 
 feel himself authorized to conclude, that the divine right of 
 sacramental confession, was unknown in the Church before 
 the thirteenth century. And, indeed, where was the ne- 
 cessity of a solemn decree by the Lateran council, if the 
 doctrine had been previously established 1 However, this 
 important fact can be placed, I think, beyond the reach of 
 uncertainty. 
 
 Many passages from the writings of Bonaventure, Tho- 
 mas Aquinas, and others, may be found in Protestant po- 
 lemical authors, pointedly asserting, that before the council 
 of Lateran, in 1215, the opinion of confessing to God only 
 was allowed in the Church ; and the fear of satiating the 
 reader with quotations, is the only motive for omitting 
 them : one or two may suffice. " The master of the sen- 
 tences," says St. Thomas and Gratian, " mentions this as 
 an opinion," that is, the necessity of confession to God 
 alone ; " but now, after the determination of the Church 
 under Innocent III. it is to be accounted heresy." The 
 date, therefore, of this dogma, goes no further back than 
 the thirteenth century : and however the Rev. gentleman 
 may qualify as heretical all the Protestant Churches of the 
 present day, yet surely, if he credit the angelical doctor, 
 he will hardly extend his denunciations to those divines 
 who lived before the council of Lateran. Nay, since that 
 council, many orthodox Roman Catholic writers have ques- 
 tioned the absolute validity of its decisions ; of which 
 number are the commentator on the decretals of Gratian, 
 
261 
 
 Scotus, the abbot Panorrnitanus, Michael of Bologna, and 
 some others, to say nothing of Erasmus, Rhenanus, cardinal 
 Cajetan, and Richer, divines of a still more modern date. It 
 appears from " Pere Richard's analyse des conciles,''^ pub- 
 lished at Paris, with approbation of the censors, in 1772, 
 in four volumes quarto, that sinners vi^ere sometimes re- 
 fused absolution in the article of death ; yet were they ad- 
 mitted to the Eucharist without the reconciliatory imposi- 
 tion of hands, to use the words of the council of Orange in 
 four hundred forty-one, which is sufficient for the consola- 
 tion of the dying. And afterwards the council of Mentz, 
 in eight hundred forty-seven, (can. 27,) mentions it as the 
 discipline of that time, that criminals were to receive the 
 Eucharist if they appeared truly penitent, and had con- 
 fessed their sins to God: for, says Pere Longueval in his 
 history of the Gallican Church, (torn. 5. p. 549,) "they 
 were not always allowed to confess to a priest." Thus do 
 modern divines of the Romish communion freely deliver 
 the opinions of the primitive and middle ages on the sub- 
 ject of confession. They do not even hint that they were 
 founded on any divine right, and indispensable necessity — ■ 
 and the learned Richer, after passing in review all the pas- 
 sages from the fathers, &c. mentioned in the Appendix, in- 
 genuously acknowledges, that none of them relate to sacra- 
 mental confession. " Quorum patrum testimonia perpe^^ 
 ram a nonnullis ad nostram sacramentalem confessionem 
 trahuntur." 
 
 With respect to the benefits of auricular confession, so 
 much insisted on by the Rev. gentleman, it might be rea- 
 dily proved that it was deemed a dangerous institution, 
 even by the popes themselves. We find that bulls have 
 been published by Pius IV. and Gregory XV. — " Contra 
 sacerdotes, qui mulieres paenitentes in actu confessionis ad 
 actus inhonestos provocare et allicere tentant." Young 
 and pampered ecclesiastics, placed in delicate situations of 
 this kind, cannot be always exempt from temptation : noc 
 
262 
 
 is the fact to be unnoticed, that young persons of either 
 sex, and more particularly those of a timorous and modest 
 disposition, by the information they must acquire from their 
 tables of sins, the circumstantial cautions given them against 
 vice, and the details into which they must necessarily en- 
 ter, frequently have their imaginations perplexed and tor- 
 tured by unreasonable apprehensions of continual danger 
 and mortal guilt. By investigating all the ramifications of 
 sinful acts and propensities, they become far better ac- 
 quainted with vice in all its shapes, and their minds more 
 harassed, if not more defiled, than pious Christians of other 
 denominations: for it is found by experience, that nothing 
 contributes rtiore to the progress of vice in some persons, 
 by whom it might otherwise have never been admitted, 
 than the knowledge that it has sometimes been actually 
 committed. A natural aversion and shame attends the com- 
 mission of certain crimes, oftentimes alone sufficient to 
 prevent them, were it never acknowledged that such pro- 
 pensities had ever been indulged. 
 
 However, allowing all that is said in the Appendix re- 
 lating to the advantages attending confession of sins, which 
 advantages are often very questionable, and, unless, per- 
 fectly optional, sometimes counterbalanced by much delu- 
 sion and mischief; allowing that Protestant divines, and 
 Churches in general, contend earnestly for the exercise of 
 the power left by Christ in the Church for the forgiveness 
 of sins, by declaring in his name those to be absolved who, 
 with sincere faith and true repentance, confess and deplore 
 their manifold sins and wickedness, (and the w^ords cited 
 from the great and good bishop Andrews mean nothing 
 more.) Allowing,! say, all this, and as much moreof the same 
 strain as the Rev. gentleman may choose, what additional 
 weight can it add to his opinions ? Will he pretend that 
 Protestant divines, when appreciating the advantages of 
 confession, consider it in the same light as he does, or 
 that they ascribe to it any divine right or judicial absolu- 
 
263 
 
 tion ? If not, then such authorities make nothing to hig 
 purpose. The passage, indeed, which he quotes from a 
 Mr. Bayle, is more exactly in point : but who this Episco- 
 palian doctor of the English Church may be, the writer of 
 this Reply has yet to learn. Surely the Rev. gentleman 
 cannot be so far deceived as to mistake this Mr. Bayle for 
 the celebrated author of the general, historical, and criti- 
 cal Dictionary ; if so, the English Church will freely re- 
 sign all her pretensions to him, and ihe Romish, or any 
 other communion, is welcome to his authority. Should, 
 however, there be possibly such a writer of the Episcopal 
 Church, or the Rev. gentleman have mistaken his name, he 
 must be too obscure to oppose any weight of testimony 
 against the explicit and acknowledged doctrine of all the 
 reformed Churches.* Therefore the divine right and in- 
 dispensable obligation of sacramental confession, was no 
 article of Christian faith before the thirteenth century : and 
 all the declamation employed to establish it is a mere so- 
 phism, which the whole course of Church history tends to 
 refute. With good reason, therefore, did the learned 
 Richer conclude, that ^^ inward confession is indeed of 
 divine right, but outward is only oi positive right, and sub- 
 ject to such alterations as the Church may appoint." " Qua- 
 propter fide Catholica tenendum internam confessionem, et 
 mentis mutalionem esse juris divini et naturalis plane im- 
 mutabilis, modum vero extrinsecum ut secrete, aut publice 
 peccata confiteamur omnino a prudenti Ecclesia3 dispensa- 
 tione pendere ; consequenterque modum hunc externum 
 confitendi juris esse positivi, aut Ecclesiastici variabilis, 
 sicut et ritus reliquorum sacramentorura, quos Christus re- 
 liquit Ecclesiae moderationi." 
 
 This is nearly the general opinion of Protestants, and 
 
 * Since writing the above, I find the passage is from Dr. Bayley, bishop of 
 Bangor, in the reign of James I. The Puritans claimed the book from which 
 it is taken ; be this as it may, his authority avails nothing against the practice 
 of the Protestant Episcopal Church, and the meaning of her liturgy. 
 
264 
 
 with an exception or two, is rational and wise ; how it can 
 be reconciled to the decrees of the council of Trent, which 
 it is alleged to support, must be left to the ingenuity of its 
 advocates to decide. 
 
 We say that the nature of ministerial absolution as de- 
 fined by the council of Trent, and now practised in the 
 Church of Rome, appears to be repugnant to ancient 
 usage, to the principles of common sense, and unsupported 
 by Scripture. With respect to ancient usage, what can be 
 more conclusive than the concessions of some of the Ro- 
 mish divines themselves? Morinus {De pcBa. lib. 8. c. 8, 
 9, 10, and 20.) acknowledges, that the judiciary form, / 
 absolve, instead of the deprecatory, may Christ absolve, 
 was not introduced before the eleventh or twelfth cen- 
 tury ; till which time, absolutioji was invariably given by 
 prayer, as is evident from many of the ancient rituals pub- 
 lished by this writer. We read moreover in the works of 
 Thomas Aquinas, (opusc. 22. cap. 5.) that in his days a 
 learned writer objected to the indicative form of absolu- 
 tion then used by the priest, I absolve thee from all thy 
 sins, and preferred the mode of deprecation and prayer; 
 alleging that this was the opinion of Gulielmus Altisiodo- 
 rensis, William of Paris, and cardinal Hugo, and that 
 thirty years had scarcely elapsed, since all made use of 
 this form only, " Absolutionem et remissionem tribuat tibi 
 omnipotens Deus." " May Almighty God give unto thee 
 absolution and forgiveness." 7^he answer of Thomas Aqui- 
 nas to this assertion may be seen in his small treatise "Of 
 the form of Absolution," which on this occasion he wrote 
 to the general of his order. One ancient form of absolu- 
 tion used in the Latin Church was this: "Almighty God 
 be merciful unto thee, and forgive thee all thy sins, past, 
 present, and to come, visible and invisible, which thou hast 
 committed before him and his saints, which thou hast con- 
 fessed, or by some negligence, or forgetfulness, or evil 
 will, hast concealed : God deliver thee from all evil here 
 
265 
 
 and hereafter, preserve and confirm thee always in every 
 good work ; and Christ, the Son of the living God, bring 
 thee unto the life which remaineth without end." (CoU' 
 Jltentium ceremonias, Antiqiu edit. Colon, an. 1530.) As 
 late as the beginning of the seventeenth century, we have 
 the opinion of Jeremiah, the patriarch of Constantinople, 
 on this subject : " Whatsoever sins," says he, " the peni- 
 tent, either from shamefacedness, or forgetfulness, leaves 
 unconfessed, we pray thee, most merciful God, that those 
 also may be pardoned unto him, and we are persuaded, 
 that he shall receive pardon of them from God." (Jerem. 
 Pair. C P. respons. l,ad. Tubingences, cap. 11.*) Alex* 
 ander of Hales and Bonaventure, speaking of the form of 
 absolution used in their time, observe " that prayer was 
 premised in the optative, and absolution added afterwards 
 in the indicative mood ;^^ hence they conclude that the 
 priest's prayer obtains grace, his absolution presupposes it; 
 that by the former he ascends unto God, and procures par* 
 don for the fault, by the latter he descends to the sinner, 
 and reconciles him to the Church." (Jllex. Halens. sum. 
 part 4. quaes. 21. — Bonav. in. 4 senien. dist. 18. art. 9., 
 quses. 1.) "Although a man be loosed before God," says 
 the master of sentences, (Jih. 4. sent. dist. 18.) " yet is he 
 not accounted loosened in the face of the Church, except 
 by the judgment of the priest." This loosening by the 
 judgment of the priest, is generally considered by the fa* 
 thers as nothing more than a restoration of offenders to the 
 peace of the Church, or a re-admission of them to the holy 
 communion, and accordingly they usually express it by the 
 terms of "bringing them to the communion;" {Concil 
 
 * Dr. Cowell, in his account of the Greek Church, declares, on his person- 
 al knowledge, that confession is not required from all: although there are 
 confessors appointed in the several districts ; very few in proportion to the 
 population. Dr. Smith, in his account of the same Church, represents con- 
 fession as required of all, but governed in extent by the prudence of the 
 confessing party, and according to his knowledge of his own case. 
 
 z 
 
266 
 
 Laodinan, can, 2.) " reconciling them to, or with the com- 
 munion ;" (Cone, Eliberitan. can, 72.) " restoring the 
 communion to them ;" (^Ambr, de paea, lib, 1. &;c.) " ad- 
 mitting them to fellowship;" (Cyrp, epist, 53.) "granting 
 them peace," &c. (^Ibid, <^c.) Now in all these acts of 
 discipline we never find any using the form, I absolve thee 
 from all thy sins, which words, nevertheless, the council of 
 Trent decrees to be "the form of the sacrament of pe- 
 nance, and in which its virtue and efficacy principally 
 consist." 
 
 It would be a waste of labour to prosecute this subject 
 any further in order to establish the fact, that before the 
 councils of Lateran and Trent, neither the indispensable 
 necessity of sacramental confession, nor the present form 
 of absolution, nor penance as a sacrament of the Chris- 
 tian Church, were doctrines admitted and believed among 
 her articles of faith : they possessed not the sanction 
 arising from all ages, all places, and all Christian Churches. 
 They were never considered as a dogma, (" quod semper, 
 quod ubique, quod ab omnibus,'''') which was numbered 
 among the tenets of the Catholic Church. 
 
 And, indeed, how could this practice, as defined and 
 enjoined by the council of Trent, have been ever viewed 
 in this light? Does not the idea of a man's sitting in 
 judgment over the most secret sins of his fellow mortals, 
 and pronouncing definitively and juridically upon them, 
 effectually removing the guilt of some, or retaining that 
 of others, shock the obvious principles of common sense, 
 and encroach upon that inviolable privilege of concealing 
 our thoughts, so essential to the human mind ?* But, 
 above all other considerations, how plain and explicit 
 ought to be the terms of a commission which seems to 
 trench upon the attributes of the Deity himself, by cora- 
 
 * Feeling, in some subjects, is paramount to reason. To feel that we are 
 free, says Bishop Horsley, is the best argument to prove that we are so. 
 
267 
 
 municating any one of them to sinful man ! It was by his 
 incommunicable power to forgive sins, that Christ first 
 evinced his divinity to the world ; and it was from the ex- 
 ercise of this power that the ancient fathers drew their 
 great argument for this fundamental truth.* Now, if 
 priests had pretended, in their days, to any thing more 
 than a declaratory or ministerial power, this argument 
 would not have been conclusive, for it might have been re- 
 plied that Christ's power was also derived from God ; that 
 he acted in the capacity of his minister, and in his name. 
 And if it be said that, in the exercise of this power, 
 Christ performed many [stupendous miracles, was not this 
 the case also with many of the Romish saints, provided 
 any credit be given to the history of their lives. 
 
 The divine prerogative of forgiving sin, as belonging to, 
 and exercised by our Saviour, is clearly explained, and de- 
 voutly enforced by the Rev. gentleman, and must meet the 
 assent of every Christian reader ; nor will it be denied, 
 that this power was imparted by Christ to his Apostles and 
 their successors in the ministry, in a manner best suited to 
 the merciful plan of reconciling sinners to their offended 
 Maker. But, like other attributes of the Deity, this also 
 could be communicated to mortals, only in a limited and 
 restricted sense. Christ says, indeed, to his Apostles, 
 " As my father hath sent me, even so send I you." (John 
 XX. 21.) After which words, the Rev. gentleman adds, 
 with a hardihood of expression, at least unbecoming : *' He 
 hath sent me to savethe world, {John iii. 17.) you also shall 
 become in some sort its saviours." The text is this : 
 " God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the 
 world, but that the world through him might be saved." 
 If ministers also be sent for this purpose, truly the excep- 
 tion, in some sort, must qualify their mission, and it may 
 
 t See Irenaeus, lib. v. c. 17 — ^Tertul. contra Marcion, lib. iv. c. 10. — 
 Athan, oral. iv. contra Arian. Basil contra Eunomium. Hilary in Si. 
 Matt. &c. &c. 
 
268 
 
 equally apply to their delegated power of remitting or re- 
 taining sins. They have authority to do both ; but in a 
 qualified, limited, and improper sense, either by separating 
 from Church communion, public and impenitent offenders, 
 and in restoring to it, such as are penitent, or by declar- 
 ing and pronouncing, in general terms, that absolution and 
 remission of sins is promised and granted by Almighty 
 God, to all those, who, with hearty repentance and true 
 faith, turn unto him. " But," says the Rev. gentleman, 
 " that it should not be understood that they had to an- 
 nounce, or proclaim it only, or to promise it on his part, 
 he associates them with him in this divine power. He 
 wishes that they themselves should remit sin; that they 
 should remit it in his name and on his part ; he imparts his 
 authority to them to save sinners. He engages himself to 
 ratify in heaven the sentence they shall have pronounced 
 on earth." 
 
 The lofty strain of prerogative which runs through this 
 and other passages of the Appendix, must excite painful, 
 if not indignant feelings, in all who have not pinned their 
 faith upon the council of Trent. They will naturally ask 
 the question. Whether the guilt of sin, can, with any pro- 
 priety, be said to be forgiven by any but God alone 1 Can 
 any but the Divine Lawgiver pardon the guilt attached to 
 the violation of his lawsl Can any thing but his grace 
 blot out the deadly stain, and restore the vitiated soul to 
 his favour? Can any thing short of this, raise up one who 
 is dead in trespasses and sins, and clothe the soul in the 
 robes of righteousness? Is, indeed, the priest associated 
 with God in the power of forgiving sin ; or is not this God's 
 special and incommunicable property ? A collect of the 
 Roman Church begins with these words : " Deus, cui pro- 
 prium est misereri semper et parcere," iSjc. " O God, 
 whose property it is to have mercy always, and to spare," 
 &c : in other words, *' to whom alone it belongs to pity 
 and pardon repenting sinners." The prayer which is of* 
 
269 
 
 fered up by the priest, before he pronounces the absolu- 
 tion, proves that the latter can only be ministerial and de- 
 claratory. After receiving the confession of the penitent, 
 accompanied, as he conceives, with satisfactory marks of 
 inward repentance, the priest is directed to pray for him in 
 the following words : " Misereatur tui" dec. "Almighty 
 God have mercy upon thee, and, thy sins being forgiven, 
 lead thee to eternal life. Amen." " Indulgentiam^'''' &c. 
 " The Almighty and Merciful Lord grant thee pardon, 
 absolution, and remission of thy sins. Amen." " Domi- 
 nus noster,^^ &;c. " May our Lord Jesus Christ absolve 
 thee : and I, by his authority, absolve thee from every 
 bond of excommunication, suspension, and interdict, as 
 far as I am able, and thou requirest." " Deinde." " And 
 then (or after this, after God has forgiven thee, pardoned 
 and absolved thee from thy sins) I absolve thee from thy 
 sins, in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the 
 Holy Ghost. Amen." Now, who does not perceive in 
 these short prayers, the spirit of the ancient discipline of 
 the Church, mitigated, indeed, but still retained in some 
 measure ? After removing, by a delegated authority, the 
 penalty of excommunication from the penitent, if a lay- 
 man, and of suspension, if in orders, and thus restoring 
 him to the fellowship of the faithful, after praying that 
 " God would grant him pardon, absolution, and remission 
 of his sins," with full assurance that this exercise of out- 
 ward discipline is ratified, and this prayer is heard in hea- 
 ven, for true and Gospel penitents ; he then, deinde, " ab- 
 solves him from his sins, in the name of the Holy Trinity ,♦" 
 that is, in this glorious name, he pronounces and declares 
 that very absolution, for which he had previously prayed, 
 and which was certainly granted before it was proclaimed, 
 if granted at all. Thus the very form of absolution, pre- 
 scribed in the Roman ritual, materially lowers the high 
 and decisive tone of that ministerial act, and brings it 
 
 z2 
 
270 
 
 nearly to a level with the doctrine of Calvin, above men- 
 tioned, and of other Protestant divines. 
 
 But if this be the case, it will probably be said, why 
 have recourse to any minister at all ? Why make any public 
 or private confession of sins, in order to be assured of their 
 forgiveness, or what benefit can arise from any kind of ab- 
 solution in the sense admitted by Protestants? The answer 
 is, because the minister of God is his delegated functionary 
 to declare the terms of reconciliation and salvation held 
 forth in the Gospel ; " for he is the messenger of the Lord 
 of Hosts," and " they should seek the law at his mouth." 
 [Mai, ii. 7.) The ministers remit sin, as the Apostles did, 
 " by the word of God, by the testimonies of the Scripture, 
 and by exhortations to virtue." {St, Jerom. in ha, xiv. 17.) 
 They are supposed to be men of integrity, piety, and know- 
 ledge ; to have studied the human heart ; to be best ac- 
 quainted with the motives that lead to piety, and with the 
 preservatives against vice. They are, moreover, delegated 
 in a special manner to assure a sinner for his comfort, that, 
 according to their best judgment, he has complied with the 
 conditions required by Almighty God, and is entitled to 
 forgiveness and pardon on the Gospel terms. 
 
 And what is it, after all, that the priests of the Roman 
 Church do more than this, when their own doctrines are 
 fairly stated? They, indeed, pronounce penitents absolved 
 by positive assurance, and as they say, by a judicial exer- 
 cise of a power inherent in them : but even this is only 
 upon the presumption of a sincere repentance, without 
 which they allow that it is not iatifi,ed in heaven. In the 
 primitive Church, absolution was never granted until a se- 
 vere penance had actually been performed ; but now it is 
 given on a mere promise of submitting to one that is very 
 slight ; nay, is considered as valid, although this penance 
 should not be performed at all ; for were this not the case, 
 tiie absolution would be only conditional. It follows, there- 
 fore, that the absolution in the Roman ritual, is in reality^ 
 
271 
 
 like that of the Protestant Churches, strictly declaratory^ 
 with this only difference, that Protestants acknowledge it, 
 and Roman Catholics will not, although, according to their 
 own principles, it cannot possibly be any thing more. 
 
 With respect, however, to this private absolution, in 
 whatever light it be considered, it is a ministerial act of 
 modern date, never mentioned nor hinted at in the Scrip- 
 tures, nor known to the primitive fathers. Whoever will 
 read St. Augustin's letter to Macedonius, will be convinced, 
 that in his time, public penance was never granted but 
 once, and private absolution never at all. " La reponse de 
 St. Augustin," (says P. Richard, vol. 1. p. 192.) " prouve 
 invinciblement,qu'ilsneconnoissoientpas deux sortesde pe- 
 nitence, et d'absolution. Tune publique, qu'on ne recevoit, 
 qu'une fois ; et I'autre secrete, a laquelle on etoit admis 
 autant de fois que Ton tomboit dans le peche." The 
 contrary opinion, he adds, is indefensible, (insoutenable,) 
 Now, the council of Trent allows, that public confession 
 was not commanded ; and it was, moreover, never enjoined, 
 but for public offences of the most flagitious nature. Many 
 others, though of a mortal or deadly nature, such as pride, 
 detraction, anger, breach of trust, private enmity, treachery, 
 lying, intemperance, &c. together with sinful thoughts and 
 desires, did not exclude men from the Lord's table, if blot- 
 ted out by tears, prayers, and contrition. " Three ways," 
 says St. Augustin, (de Sym. ad Catec. lib. i. c. 7.) " are 
 sins remitted in the Church, by baptism, by prayer, and by 
 submitting to the humiliation of the greater penance." No 
 mention is here made, either directly or indirectly, of pri- 
 vate confession and judicial absolution. If, then, it be an 
 incontrovertible fact, that for more than four hundred years 
 after Christ, there is no instance of absolution but such as 
 was public, and that this was only granted for certain sins ; 
 it evidently follows, that there were many mortal sins, of 
 which no confession was required, and from which no ju" 
 
272 
 
 dicial absolution was granted. This argument admits of 
 no answer, nor has any, I believe, been ever attempted. 
 
 But the holy (ecumenic council of Trent, as the Rev. 
 gentleman styles it, has definitively and irrevocably fixed 
 the meaning, decreed the necessity, and enjoined the obli- 
 gation of auricular sacramental confession, as it is now 
 adopted and practised in the Church of Rome, and pro- 
 nounced dreadful anathemas against all who presume to 
 question its decisions. These it grounds upon the texts 
 which have already been considered, so that the reader 
 may judge of their claim to his assent. 
 
 To assist his determination on so weighty a point, and 
 to abate, if possible, the confidence on this subject, which 
 is generally derived from the decrees of this council, it may 
 be deemed advisable to say something respecting it in this 
 part of our reply. 
 
 With whatever veneration and submission Roman Catho- 
 lics believe themselves bound to receive the decrees of this 
 council, they will cease to command respect, from those 
 who know the unbecoming manner, the precipitation, in 
 which the whole business was conducted, by the haughty 
 legate Crescentio. The fact is, neither caution, nor com- 
 mon consent, nor universal tradition, was consulted in fram- 
 ing either its decrees or its canons, as appears not only from 
 the history of Fra. Paolo, but from authentic letters of 
 several bishops, and others, who were present at it. From 
 these it is manifest, that it was a most confused and irre- 
 gular assembly — that the presiding legatees were men of 
 consummate artifice and dissimulation, striving perpetually 
 to sow dissention among the members ; — that most of the 
 bishops who composed the council were men of very mo- 
 derate attainments, little conversant either in theology or 
 ecclesiastical antiquities ; — that several of them were self- 
 interested, worldly men, ever ready to stoop to the most 
 servile flattery, with a view of being translated to more 
 
273 
 
 opulent sees :* — that all the prelates were much dissatis- 
 fied at the overwhelming insolence of the legate, and tired 
 out by their long residence at Trent, as ruinous to them- 
 selves and their people ; — that when a bishop advanced any 
 thing displeasing to the legates, they first interrupted him 
 with a degree of contemptuous petulence, which gave uni- 
 versal ofFence,t and afterwards omitted neither menaces nor 
 entreaties to bring him over to their opinion, — that there 
 w^ere but seventy bishops in the whole council, who were 
 capable of discussing any point of theology, — that the de- 
 crees, particularly those on penance and tran substantiation, 
 were drawn up in a hurry, by a few creatures of the legate, 
 in such terms as he thought fit, and were then presented 
 for signing, without allowing any time for further examina- 
 tion ;X — that the doctors of Louvain, and the divines of the 
 Elector of Cologne, were obliged, secretly, to correct con- 
 siderable mistakes which were pointed out in several of 
 the decrees, after these good fathers had solemnly approved 
 of them in a public session ; — that although some able di- 
 vines were often allowed to speak, yet they were little 
 heeded ; and never permitted to attend, while the doctrinal 
 canons were drawn up ; — that the council was in effect 
 held at Rome, between which place and Trent messengers 
 
 * The letters of several of these bishops might readily be quoted, all full 
 of sentiments of this nature. 
 
 t This was particularly the case with the bishop of Verdun, a man venera- 
 ble for his piety and integrity, whom Crescentio, in the public assembly 
 called an imprudent, silly, young fellow. Lett. Varg, 26 November. See 
 also the memoirs of the bishop of Orense. 
 
 t The council was not even allowed to have its own secretary and nota- 
 ries, and the legates employed such only as were totally devoted to them, 
 hence the minutes of this council, have never even been suffered to appear; 
 and the very first edition of the council, printed at Rome by Manucius, was 
 corrupted. See Richer, 1. iv. p. 2. His. Con. Gen. In the like manner, the 
 Roman edition of the councils, has wholly omitted the council of Basil: 
 " which, (says the same learned man,) is an action worthy of the absolute 
 monarchy of the Church of Rome, determined to obtain in fact, what it 
 cannot defend in ri^^^" Quod^'urenon potest, id via facti consequi. Lib. 
 3. Q,l, 
 
274 
 
 were constantly passing, and that they only executed at 
 Trent the determinations of the pope ; — that whenever any 
 thing was likely to be carried against them, they secured a 
 plurality of suffrages, by sending for a fresh supply of 
 voters; — that whatever was proposed, the legates always 
 began by declaring their own sentiments on the subject ; — 
 that the ambassadors of the Emperor Charles V. thought so 
 meanly of the capacities of those who were alone admitted 
 to vote, as to urge the necessity of consulting the universi- 
 ties before any question was determined; — that many of 
 the bishops were pensioned by the pope, on the express 
 condition of opposing that reformation of his court, so loudly 
 called for by the whole Christian world, with the exception 
 only of the Roman clergy : — In a word, never did Diosco- 
 rus, in the tumultuous meeting at Ephesus, behave with 
 greater insolence than did Crescentio in the council of 
 Trent : nor was that assembly, in fact, less free, though this 
 was conducted with greater art and caution. 
 
 Fra. Paolo Sarpi, the theologian and counsellor of the 
 Venitian States, a man universally esteemed by all his con- 
 temporaries, and eminently qualified for the undertaking, 
 has left us the history of the proceedings of this council, to 
 which Palavicini's publication has only served to add 
 greater authority and credit. While the first has shown 
 how much may be said against it, the latter has proved how 
 little can be said in its favour. The history of the council 
 of Trent by Fra. Paolo is pronounced by Dr. Johnson to be 
 " a work unequalled for the judicious disposition of the 
 matter, and artful texture of the narration ; commended by 
 Dr. Burnet as the completest model of historical writing ; 
 and celebrated by Mr. Wotton as equivalent to any produc- 
 tion of antiquity ; in which the reader finds ' liberty with- 
 out licentiousness, piety without hypocrisy, freedom of 
 speech without neglect of decency, severity without rigour, 
 and extensive learning without ostentation.' " {John. Life 
 of Fr. Paolo.) Such is the history of Fra. Paolo Sarpi, 
 
275 
 
 which furnishes us with the disgusting sketch of the coun- 
 cil of Trent, just presented to the reader. If it be said, 
 that he was a secret friend to the reformation, this circum- 
 stance will probably detract from the credit of his narrative, 
 in the opinion of Roman Catholics ; but what will they 
 object to the famous Vargas, who assisted at the council, 
 and lived and died in the communion of their Church? 
 His letters, still extant, confirm the principal facts related 
 by Fra. Paolo, and the following few extracts from them 
 may, perhaps, induce some to pay less deference to this 
 pretended general council of the Christian Church, than 
 they have heretofore conceived to be its due. An appeal 
 is here made to facts related by Roman Catholic writers, 
 with which, however, they never intended Protestants 
 should be acquainted : but Providence has otherwise or- 
 dained it, by preserving their original letters, to bear testi- 
 mony to the truth. 
 
 " The council can do nothing of itself," says Vargas, in 
 a letter to the bishop of Arras, dated November 12 ; " it is 
 deprived of its authority. The legate is absolute master of 
 it, and conducts every thing as he pleases. After this, no- 
 thing can astonish us,'' &c. In another letter, addressed 
 to the same prelate, on the 29th, we find the following very 
 striking expressions and remarks : " He," (the legate,) " is 
 lost to all shame. He seeks to intimidate us by his haughty 
 and imperious language. He treats the bishops as so many 
 slaves ; he threatens and swears that he will leave us. The 
 issue of the council will be such as I always foretold, un- 
 less God prevent it by a miracle — he has got through that 
 session (the fourteenth) with a shameful and infamous re- 
 form. It will render us the fable and laughing-stock of 
 the universe — his conduct is a dishonour to God — the 
 bishops are offended at it. They are only detained here 
 by repeated entreaties and solicitations — they are scan- 
 dalized — all the sinews of ecclesiastical discipline are re- 
 laxed — the riches consecrated to God's service are become 
 
276 
 
 the objects of a scandalous traffic. By these measures, 
 (general councils) the court of Rome will hold the univer- 
 sal Church in subjection. The law suits occasioned by 
 these privileges (of wearing the tonsure) are a mine of gold 
 to the court of Rome. It is lamentable to see in what 
 manner they examine and define the doctrinal points — the 
 legate manages all as he pleases, without either counting 
 or weighing the suffrages of the divines and bishops. His 
 Majesty has sent many able divines hither ; and the dean 
 and other doctors of Louvain are men of erudition and 
 piety ; but they are not called in to give their opinions, 
 when the doctrinal canons are drawing up. Every body 
 complains of this — many have little respect for such de- 
 crees. We have reason to think that the pope^s ministers 
 intend to erect into articles of faith many doubtful and pro- 
 hlematical points. If they continue to act with the same 
 precipitation, they will lose even the small corner of the 
 world, which still remains subject to their obedience. The 
 prediction of St. Paul {cap. ii. Epis. ii. ad Thess. concern- 
 ing the falling away of the man of sin, &;c.) draws near to 
 its accomplishment in the Church of Rome. Many wish 
 that the council had never been assembled ; and would to 
 heaven it had never been thought of," (fee. 
 
 Again, he tells the bishop of Arras : "Many bishops de- 
 liver their suffrages on subjects which they do not under- 
 stand, and are not even capable of comprehending. The 
 doctors of Louvain, and the divines of the elector of Co- 
 logne, and some others, will protest against the council, as 
 well as the Lutherans. We are all so many dumb dogs — 
 the evils of the Church will become incurable, and abuses 
 will be confirmed. God grant that that blind court may 
 be converted. This only serves {lesjuges conservateurs,,) 
 to embroil together the two powers, ecclesiastical and civil, 
 and to occasion the spending of much money; and there- 
 fore this abuse is confirmed, instead of being abolished," 
 &c. See his Letters of November 26, December 29, and 
 20th and 25th January, 1552. 
 
277 
 
 Such is the account of the council given by Varo-as a 
 man eminent in the Jaw, who was employed at Trent by 
 the emperor Charles V. From his writings he appears to 
 have been a person of great integrity and erudition, an able 
 divine and canonist,* though, from early prejudices, warmly 
 opposed to the Reformation. He was a member of the so- 
 vereign council of Castile; was highly esteemed by Pope 
 Pius IV.; after the conclusion of the council of Trent, he 
 filled the most important offices at Venice, at Rome, and in 
 Spain, and was finally made counsellor of state. Whatever 
 he relates is from his personal knowledge and observations, 
 and is confirmed by the testimony still extant of several of 
 the Spanish bishops, and of Malvenda, a doctor of Paris. 
 Moreover, his memoirs and letters are addressed to the 
 famous Anthony Perennot, bishop of Arras, minister of 
 Charles V. and afterwards archbishop of Mecklin, and of 
 Besan^on, so well known in the annals of those times, by 
 the name of cardinal Granville. This prelate was an inve- 
 terate and cruel enemy to the Protestants : " Sa conduite 
 imperieuse et tyrannique," say the authors of the Nouveau 
 Dictionaire Ilistorique, printed at Caen, " et ses cruautes 
 centre les Protestans, qu'il faisoit bruler impitoyablement, 
 souleverent les peuples centre lui, et il fut obilge de s'en- 
 fuir en Espagne." And yet, nevertheless, from his answers 
 to Malvenda, Dom. Francis of Toledo, Vargas, and others, 
 fie seems to be fully persuaded of the truth of this honest 
 writer's information.! 
 
 Such being the authenticated account of the council of 
 Trent, as stated by cotemporary writers, who, notwithstand- 
 ing, by a strange inconsistency, submitted to its decrees, 
 
 • See his panegyric by Don Nicholas Antonio, from the Bibl. Author^ 
 Ilispan. 
 
 t Lettres et Memoirs de Frangois de Vargas, de Pierre de Malvenda, et de 
 quelques Evecques d'Espagne traduits de I'Espagnol, &c. Many similar 
 passages to those above cited, with several other curious and interesting 
 anecdotes relating to this council, may be seen in this work. 
 
 A a 
 
278 
 
 the Rev. gentleman cannot be surprised, that Protestants 
 should object to its being obtruded on them as of infallible 
 authority ; or rather, that with respect to confession, they 
 should consider its decisions as erroneous, founded neither 
 on Scripture, ancient usage, nor tradition. They humbly 
 conceive, that the Spirit of God could never have presided 
 at such a meeting, in which the spirit of knowledge, 
 meekness, honesty, and peace had so small a share. But 
 1 know it will be said, that whatever may have been the 
 characters of the fathers of this council, its decrees being 
 sanctioned and confirmed by the pope, and received as ar- 
 ticles of faith by the whole Catholic Church, they must be 
 considered as stamped with the seal of infallibility, and of 
 course must challenge the belief and assent of all the faith- 
 ful. From this infallibility of the Church, " which," he 
 tells us, " has repeatedly and solemnly declared this truth 
 in her general councils, and emphatically taught the same 
 in every age," the Rev. gentleman " draws his fourth and 
 last argument in favour of the divine institution of confes- 
 sion." Had he drawn from it his only argument he would 
 have saved himself much laborious investigation, and by 
 confining the controversy to a single point, have obviated 
 some doubts, which too circumstantial a discussion may 
 possibly excite in the minds of his readers. The lofty plea 
 of infallibility, once established, renders all further reason- 
 ing on the subject superfluous ; and it is to be regretted, I 
 say, that the Rev. gentleman did not confine himself to it, 
 as, in that case, it might have admitted of a more minute 
 discussion, than can be afforded to it when making only 
 one head of a short reply. The reader must be sensible, 
 that this subject opens a most extensive field of argument, 
 which, however, will be passed over with all possible des- 
 patch. 
 
279 
 
 PART THIRD 
 
 Neither this council of Lateran, nor of Trent^ nor any other 
 
 earthly tribunal^ had, or has, a right to impose such a 
 
 grievous yoJce as auricular confession upon the faithful^ 
 
 from a plea to infallibility, this plea being altogether un' 
 
 supported either by Reason or Revelation. 
 
 Infallibility being the greM fundamental tenet of the 
 Roman Catholic Church, by which all others are sanction- 
 ed ; and in virtue of which she claims the belief of many 
 points of faith, which, her own divines confess, would not 
 otherwise appear evidently revealed, nor manifest from 
 reason; one would naturally imagine, that it would be 
 very clearly and explicitly set down in the Scriptures, and 
 that Christ and his Apostles would have delivered it in the 
 most unequivocal terms. I will produce all the principal 
 passages, which are commonly alleged in support of this 
 infallibility, make a ievj remarks on them, and then leave 
 the candid reader to judge for himself. 
 
 The first text is, " The gates of hell shall not prevail 
 against the Church ;" (Matt. xvi. 18.) therefore she must 
 be infallible. Here I must beg leave to observe, that many 
 Roman Catholic divines, who have an admirable facility in 
 discovering whatever they wish for in the Scriptures, often 
 allege this same text to establish the primacy of St. Peter. 
 But they might as well apply it to transubstantiation, effi- 
 cacious grace, or any other doctrine. There is a great ad- 
 vantage in not being over delicate in the choice of argu- 
 ments, and it is no difficult matter to impose upon those, 
 who value them more for their number than their weight. 
 This text, like many others, has been alleged, and admit- 
 ted by thousands, who, from a point of conscience, or pre- 
 judice, never considered it. For my own part, I sincerely 
 believe that, in whatever light it be admitted, it cannot go 
 
280 
 
 to prove the infallibility of the Church. The obvious pro- 
 mise of Christ is this only — " That no violence or perse- 
 cution of men or devils shall ever succeed in destroying 
 the Christian religion, to which he has been pleased to 
 annex perpetuity, ^^ Now, what has infallibility to do with all 
 this ? If it be said that errors w^ould destroy the Church as 
 effectually as violence, and that, therefore, she must be in- 
 fallible in her decisions : I answer, this is very true under 
 two exceptions, each of which overthrows every plea to 
 infallibility. The first is — that all errors do not destroy 
 the Church, but such only as are fundamental. The se- 
 cond — that without infallibility, she may always secure 
 herself from these capital errors, by taking for her guide 
 the light of clear Revelation and the evidence of Reason. 
 With these two luminous principles in view, the Church 
 cannot fall into many material errors — by abandoning 
 either she is reduced to a level with every other fallible 
 society. The Church, therefore, that is to say, the whole 
 body of the faithful, cannot err in matters essentially con- 
 nected with the essence of Christianity; but the text does 
 not prove, in the most distant manner, that the Church, 
 besides the fundamental articles of religion, should never 
 teach any others, or enforce their belief, although they be 
 not authorized either by Reason or Revelation. And ac- 
 cordingly we lind, that the great body of orthodox Chris- 
 tians, through every age, have constantly believed and pro- 
 fessed the fundamental articles of the* Christian religion 
 contained in the Apostles' Creed, and in the decisions of 
 the four first councils. Against these great fundamental 
 tenets the gates of hell will never prevail. The enemy 
 may sow tares and stubble among this heavenly grain ; he 
 may build structures of straw upon this unshaken founda- 
 tion. Against his wiles and encroachments, the rulers of 
 God's Church should ever be upon their guard. It is a 
 main point of their duty to clear away the rubbish, which 
 the artifice of Satan, and the various passions of men.j 
 
281 
 
 liave been for ages heaping upon these foundations of 
 truth : but they may rest secure that these foundations 
 themselves, will never give way to any power in hell or on 
 earth. They may be obscured by the mists of superstition 
 and immorality, but will ever retain sufficient light to con- 
 duct every upright and pious believer, to all points of his 
 duty, essentially connected with his eternal salvation.* 
 
 2. "Jesus Christ promised his Apostles, that he would 
 be with them to the end of the world." (Matt, xxviii. 
 20.) And who denies it? He is with his Church by his 
 protection, by his grace, by the lights he communicates to 
 her, by the gifts which he confers, by the strength which 
 he exerts in supporting her against violence and tempta- 
 tions. But cannot he be with her without rendering her 
 infallible? He is with every just man; yet who would 
 
 *The following illustration of this text by the late learned Mr. Grenville 
 Sharp, and Dr. Middleton on the Greek Article, in addition to what has al- 
 ready been said, will evince its meaning beyond a doubt, and put at rest 
 every controversy arising out of it. 
 
 That the Romish hierarchy has founded its pretensions to dominion chiefly 
 on the text mentioned in the title, is well known ; and not less so, in this 
 country, that those pretensions, in all their forms, have been solidly refuted 
 by Protestant writers of various kinds. Mr. Sharp, however, calls the at- 
 tention of his readers to a point which has certainly been too much over- 
 looked, namely, that YlSTpoc Peter, does not mean a rock, as it has been in- 
 cautiously translated, but a stone.f Christ is the rock (Uilpu. ) Peter 
 (Uilpcg) is only a liUle piece of a rock, or a stone, that has been dug out of 
 the rock. Thus is the dignity of Christ preserved, and Peter properly kept 
 at a due distance from him. The passage, therefore, truly means, "Thou 
 art Peter, (or Cephas, both meaning a stone,) a fragment from that sacred 
 reckon which I will build my Church." The distinction is clearly made in 
 the original text, " Thou art Peiros, and upon this Petra, (namely, this rock, 
 which thou hast confessed,) will I build my Church." 
 
 Mr. Sharp produces the biblical expressions in which our Saviour is men- 
 tioned as a ROCK or a chief stone, and comments upon them with sagacity 
 and judgment. He remarks, also, more clearly than we can do in this con- 
 tracted space, the connexion between the words of Peter's confession and 
 our Saviour's immediate reply to it ; and in what manner it actually ear- 
 cludes the sense, which has been forced upon it by the Church of Rome, 
 
 t UiTOA is a rock, njT/>o? a stone. 
 
 A a 3 
 
282 
 
 thence infer his security from every error, unless from 
 such as might prove fatal to his integrity ? — Besides, why 
 should the presence of Christ render the Church infalli- 
 ble rather than impeccable? Is not vice as great an enemy 
 to religion as error ? Would not the Church be equally 
 undone by either of these evils becoming universal? Why 
 then was it not full as necessary to secure her against the 
 one as the other ? But dreadful experience evinces that 
 she has been insured against neither. 
 
 Perhaps it will be said that individuals alone are guilty, 
 but that the Church, by the mouths of her ministers, de- 
 tests the scandals she is compelled to tolerate : but in this 
 respect, the same thing may be said of error, with equal 
 truth and propriety. In this case also, individuals only 
 are guilty; and one portion of the Church oftentimes 
 anathematizes the other — besides, as I remarked above, 
 every kind of error is not destructive of religion, and the 
 Church may err in some points, without Jesus Christ ceas- 
 ing to be with her ; for nothing that does not attack the 
 essence of Christianity, can ever abolish it. While, there- 
 fore, the essentials of religion are maintained, errors in 
 collateral doctrines will never prove fatal. It is absurd, 
 moreover, to imagine, that the pretended infallibility of 
 the Church can secure her against error. Christ, in form- 
 ing his Church, did not alter the nature of man or of hu- 
 man societies. What they were before the establishment 
 of Christianity, such they still are, with this only excep- 
 tion, that now they possess the benefit of Revelation, to 
 serve as a rule for belief and conduct. In this Revela- 
 tion, and no where else, is infallibility to be found. If, in 
 some respects, the Church may be styled infallible, she is 
 only so in being the depository of this code of Revelation, 
 which contains all truth without any mixture of falsehood, 
 and in which every tenet of religion, necessary for salva- 
 tion, may be easily discovered by every diligent and can- 
 did inquirer. Thus it is that Jesus Christ is with us to 
 
283 
 
 the end of the world, without creating any necessity for an 
 infallible Church. 
 
 3. The next passage alleged by Roman Catholic di- 
 vines, is fiom the fourth chapter of St. Paul to the Ephe- 
 sians, 11, 14, where he says, "Jesus Christ has given to 
 his Church, some to be Apostles, others to be prophets, to 
 the end that we should be no longer children who suffer 
 themselves to be carried about by every wind of doc- 
 trine," &;c. 
 
 This text makes as little for infallibility as the other 
 two. The question here, is not concerning any judgment 
 of the Church, but the sending of pastors and ministers to 
 instruct the people. " For how can they hear the word of 
 God, unless it be preached to them ; and how can it be 
 preached but by those who are sent." (Rom. x. 14, 15.) 
 Apostles, therefore, and prophets are necessary to bring 
 back the people from error, to put them in the way of 
 truth, and secure them from illusion. But is it any wise 
 necessary that these ministers should be infallible? This 
 is what the Apostle had no idea of in the text. They have 
 a code of doctrine and morality to follow, which is infalli- 
 ble, but they themselves have no pretence to this privi- 
 lege. In the same manner, the Church possesses the in- 
 fallible Scriptures, and by following them can never err. 
 But the question is. whether this be always the case. One 
 part of the Christian Church pretends that it is so; the 
 other that it is not : I fear it will soon be found, that those 
 who maintain the impossibility of the Cliurch's receding 
 from the sense of Scripture, will meet with stubborn facts 
 to thwart their pretensions. For, among Roman Catholic 
 divines themselves, who are perpetually accusing each 
 other of errors, and defending their respective opinions by 
 the decisions of the Church, it is absolutely necessary that 
 some should be wrong. Wherefore, notwithstanding hei 
 infallibility, the doctors of the Roman Church are divided 
 eternally upon objects of faith. Notwithstanding her de- 
 
284 
 
 cisions, they deny, explain, and modiry them as they 
 please, or allege opposite decrees in support of their seve- 
 ral opinions. If, therefore, the Church's infallihility, be 
 deduced from the union of her bishops and doctors, she 
 has a slender plea, indeed, to that exalted privilege. For 
 a union, that is, such in words and formulas only, (and it 
 is no other,) cannot be deemed a proper union, which con- 
 sists in ascribing the same identical meaning to the words 
 which both parties adopt. 
 
 4. With as much propriety are many other passages of 
 Scripture alleged. St. Paul writes to the Galatians, and 
 tells them, that "if any man should announce to them 
 any other doctrine than what he had taught them, such a 
 person should be an anathema." (Gal. i. 9.) The ques- 
 tion here was concerning justification by faith, or by the 
 works of the law ; and it appears at first sight, that to 
 preach a doctrine contrary to that delivered by St. Paul, 
 was to re-establish Judaism upon the ruins of the Gospel. 
 Such was the prevarication w^hich St. Paul condemned, and 
 he had reason for doing it. Is it probable he would have 
 passed so severe a censure upon less important articles 1 or 
 did he imagine that no doctrine, contrary to his, could be 
 preached to the Galatians? If he did, why caution them 
 against an evil that was never to happen ? The fact is, 
 the Apostle was really apprehensive of such a thing, and 
 the more so, as St. Peter himself, by patronizing the cere- 
 monies of the law, seemed to support a doctrine, which St. 
 Paul so severely reprobated — Moreover, he was far from 
 pronouncing an anathema upon an opposition to less ma- 
 terial points, as appears evidently from his frequent ex- 
 hortations to the faithful, to bear with each other in the 
 difference of opinion which would arise among them. He 
 knew well that, as men, they could not be all of a mind, 
 and, therefore, recommended a charitable forbearance, in- 
 stead of a vague infallibility. This is an invention of a 
 later date, and was craftily adopted, when reason was de- 
 
285 
 
 ficent. Infallibility was engrafted upon the necessity of a 
 system which enforced opinions repugnant to common 
 sense. But this very necessity is an argument of its weak- 
 ness, if not of its falsity. 
 
 5. "Jesus Christ," they add, " commands us to regard 
 every person, who will not hear the Church, as a Heathen 
 or a Publican." (Matt, xviii. 17.) Therefore the Church 
 is infallible. St. Paul commands us to obey the powers 
 that are : Therefore, these powers are infallible. One of 
 these conclusions is as logical as the other ; but the truth 
 is, the passage in question bears not the most distant rela* 
 tion to infallibility of any kind. It does not so much as 
 hint at any doctrine, or decision in matter of faith. It 
 speaks only of a reconciliation between two persons, one 
 of whom refuses to make the other satisfaction, notwith- 
 standing the interposition of the Church or congregation 
 to w^hich he belongs. In this case, he is to be cut off 
 from the communion of the faithful, as a turbulent person : 
 he is not to be allowed to come to the public worship or sa- 
 crament, and is to be treated as those are, who do not be- 
 long to the Christian Church. Let us then respect the 
 voice of the Church, when Jesus Christ obliges us to hear 
 her ; but let as not draw general conclusions from Scrip- 
 tural passages, which are true only in particular cases ; let 
 us not convert the principles of the Gospel into sources of 
 illusion; nor build infallibility upon texts of Scripture, 
 which afford not the least ground for such a chimera. Let 
 us not open a door to error, by being over-solicitous to ex- 
 clude it. 
 
 6. It is said, moreover, that, in proportion as heresies 
 have arisen, the Church has always adopted the language 
 of St. Paul, to convey her threats ; and that the fathers 
 deliver it as a rule of faith to believe that ichich has al- 
 ways been believed. They were convinced, therefore, that 
 an infallibility resided in the Church, and that the profes- 
 sion of the true religion could never fail. 
 
286 
 
 This last assertion is very certain. The fathers never 
 believed that the profession of the true faith could be so 
 far obscured, as to be totally abolished. But did they be- 
 lieve, that the greatest part of the Church could not fall 
 into capital errors, or that the true faith could not subsist 
 together with some errors ? This is what can never be 
 evinced from their writings ; and yet, for the above objec- 
 tion to be of any force, we must first allow, that the primi- 
 tive fathers had the same notions as modern divines; and 
 believed, as they do, that the profession of the true faith is 
 incompatible with errors no wise essential ; but of this they 
 had never any idea. When they spoke of errors, they only 
 meant such as sapped the foundations of religion ; on other 
 points they allowed themselves great latitude of opinion. 
 I appeal to those who are well versed in their writings, and 
 in the ancient councils, for the truth of this assertion : I 
 ask them, moreover, whether they have ever discovered in 
 either, that every error is damnable, and deserving of an 
 anathema? Should this be said, nothing would be more 
 easy than to refute such a position, by demonstrating that 
 many of tlie most holy and orthodox prelates and doctors 
 were not exempt from error ; while they remained worthy 
 members of the Catholic Church. It is not true, then, that 
 all errors were thought deserving anathema in the ancient 
 Church; and it is equally false, that this ecclesiastical 
 commination is a proof of infallibility, unless we suppose 
 that no anathema was ever pronounced, but by an infallible 
 tribunal. Now, innumerable doctrines anathematized by 
 particular councils and bishops, who can have no claim to 
 infallibility, are so many unanswerable arguments against 
 this supposition. From anathemas, therefore, no conclu- 
 sion can be formed in favour of infallibility : especially as 
 the Church has often pronounced them, in cases where in- 
 fallibility was no wise concerned, and her sole object was 
 to maintain good order and discipline. I say, moreover, 
 that from this position, viz : " To deliver for truth, that 
 
2S7 
 
 which has always been believed," is no argument of the 
 Church's infallibility, but merely points out, in case of 
 doubt or dispute, the most obvious means of coming at the 
 truth ; for it may well be presumed, that what was believed 
 originally and generally^ ought to form the creed of the 
 piesent generation. This may be styled a moral rule of 
 conduct in the ordinary course of life, but is not, neverthe- 
 less, without its exceptions. Besides, if universal belief 
 should establish a species of infallibility, it would not be 
 the effect of an unerring judgment in the Church, but of 
 the moral impossibility, that an article of religion, which 
 had always been believed and professed, without any alte- 
 ration, should prove false in the end. But this cannot be 
 deemed any special privilege ; it would argue great folly, 
 not to say infidelity, to doubt of any human fact, were it 
 attested in this manner : not because any infallibility was 
 requisite to transmit it to posterity, but because, with re- 
 spect to facts delivered down to us, we have no rule to go 
 by, so certain as this uniform agreement of testimony. 
 
 Let divines, therefore, cease preconizing an infallibility 
 of judgment, which never subsisted out of their own ima- 
 ginations. It is the privilege of the Christian Church, as 
 it was that of the Jewish, to preserve the essential founda- 
 tions of religion, and the sacred deposite whence the know- 
 ledge of them is derived. By the guidance of this depo- 
 site, and the special protection of God, she never can pe- 
 rish. But neither her perpetuity nor indefectibility can 
 secure her from common mistakes, or raise her above the 
 level of common humanity. As long as she is made up of 
 fallible men, so long will the weaknesses, errors, and su- 
 perstitions of mankind insinuate themselves into her most 
 sacred tenets, and purest morality. But in this case she 
 has the same resource as the Jewish synagogue had ; she 
 must refer the matter to the law and to the testimony. (Isa. 
 viii. 20.) Here only is infallibility to be found. As lono 
 as the Church follows this rule she shall never err. But 
 
288 
 
 nothing insures her against mistake the moment she for- 
 sakes it, and takes upon her to decide upon mere probabi- 
 lities, without the warrant either of evidence or revelation. 
 For when she decides upon matters that are merely proba- 
 ble, whence can she derive her infallibility ? It cannot be 
 from inspiration, which, as all agree, she does not possess; 
 nor from any fresh revelation or evidence, for then it 
 would follow, that the doctrine delivered by Christ and his 
 Apostles was not complete. What, therefore, can be the 
 principle of this infallibility ? Is it the present belief? 
 But we have seen, that this is merely a moral rule of con- 
 duct, and carries with it no greater proof of infallibility in 
 the Church, than the general belief of the existence of 
 Julius Cgesar, confers infallibility upon the relations of his- 
 tory. Thus, neither reason nor authority furnishes a sin- 
 gle argument in favour of this pretended infallibility. The 
 most plausible supports of this system must therefore be 
 drawn from the practice of the Church, which we will now 
 proceed to consider. 
 
 It is said, that as often as any contest has arisen in the 
 Church, and has been determined by her decision. Catho- 
 lics have always thought themselves obliged to submit. 
 Those who refused to do so, were regarded as heretics, 
 were cut off from the body of the faithful, and were thought 
 to belong no more to the Christian society. Now, to have 
 a right to excommunicate those who will not submit, the 
 Church must be secured from error in those doctrines, 
 to which she claims our assent. Therefore, the prac- 
 tice of the Church in exacting submission to her de- 
 crees, is a proof of her infallibility ; because, without 
 this, such a claim, under such heavy threats, would be an 
 act of sacrilegious usurpation and tyranny. This argu- 
 ment is very plausible at first sight, but is, in reality, no- 
 thing more than a begging of the question. For, it is only 
 in the supposition that this infallibility does exist, that the 
 practice of the Chuich can be alleged to evince it. Were 
 
239 
 
 not this the case, what would they conclude, who question 
 this infallibility? They would say, no doubt, that the 
 Church not being infallible, as is pretended, her practice 
 on this head, is rather an abuse that ought to be reformed, 
 than a law of obligation ; that nothing is more dangerous, 
 and often less logical, than to argue from matter of fact to 
 matter of right, because the latter must first be established 
 before the former can possibly be an argument for its jus- 
 tice. Thus, when several popes presumed to enforce acts 
 of jurisdiction in matters merely temporal, to the prejudice 
 of princes, they were withstood as so many usurpations, 
 and abolished as tyrannical, and no wise competent to pre- 
 scribe against right. It is great weakness, therefore, to 
 urge this practice as a proof of infallibility, since nothing 
 decisive can follow from it, till it be demonstrated to be a 
 just and equitable practice, which I am very certain will 
 never be done. But even supposing it to be just and allow- 
 able, it furnishes no demonstration of infallibility, nor 
 would this follow from it as a necessary consequence : ex- 
 communication has been often employed upon very trifling 
 occasions, where articles of faith were no wise concerned, 
 and where both parties seemed equally in the right. Such 
 was the case with respect to the celebration of Easter, the 
 repetition of baptism, the marriage of the clergy, the afl^air 
 of the three chapters, &c. where the excommunicating 
 party could not surely challenge the privilege of being in- 
 fallible. This act of Church authority, therefore, is not 
 grounded upon infallibility, but solely upon the right, 
 which every community possesses, of framing laws and re- 
 gulations for its own well being, and excluding every per- 
 son from its society, who refuses to submit to the rules, 
 without which such a community cannot subsist. Parti- 
 cular Churches have frequently excommunicated each 
 other, without the least pretence to infallibility. The 
 Eastern and Western Churches fulminated against each 
 other for ages, although the contest was chiefly for pre- 
 
 B b 
 
290 
 
 eminence and power. St. Gregory Nazianzen complains 
 of their ambition in his time. 
 
 Non causa pietas, (bilis hoc exagitat ad mentiendum 
 prona,) sed lis ob thronos, (car, de sua vita.) Nothing, 
 therefore, can be less satisfactory than the argument drawn 
 from the practice of excommunication, a penalty often in- 
 flicted without necessity and justice, frequently at the ex- 
 pense of reason and truth, consequently but ill calculated 
 to demonstrate the existence of the highest privilege ever 
 claimed by mankind. 
 
 But it will be said, that, at least, it was never deemed 
 lawful to counteract the decisions of the Church ; and that 
 after the definitive sentence was passed, no man was at li- 
 berty to contest the point any longer, but was obliged to 
 submit. Now, this obligation could only arise from the 
 idea of the Church's infallibility, and of no appeal from her 
 judgments being legal. There might be some weight in 
 this argument, were it not the nature of every sovereign 
 tribunal to admit of no appeal from its sentence, although 
 not resting upon any infallible authority. 
 
 In every well regulated society some supreme court of 
 judicature must necessarily be established, in order to ter- 
 minate finally those contentions among individuals which, 
 if perpetuated, would for ever disturb the peace of the com- 
 munity. But are such tribunals, on this account, to be 
 deemed infallible ? It is true, that the decisions concern- 
 ing truth, do not bear a strict resemblance to those that re- 
 gard our temporal interests. The first must never deviate 
 an iota from the apparent light of reason or revelation — the 
 second may be modified or relaxed as the public good re- 
 quires. But in both cases the manner of judging is the 
 same, and in both cases the decisions of men may be 
 equally mistaken ; and accordingly we often see, when one 
 supreme tribunal has been compelled to yield to an ad- 
 verse power, its decrees have been reversed, and others 
 euxicted, which, during the prevalence of their authors, are 
 
291 
 
 as binding as the first. This was the case during the fa- 
 mous disputes concerning the incarnation. For two hun- 
 dred years the same opinions were alternately approved and 
 condemned, as their abettors or adversaries got the upper 
 hand. It was, therefore, thought necessary to recur to 
 some supreme authority, in order to prevent disputes be- 
 coming perpetual. The spirit of charity, which is the very 
 essence of religion, was greatly impaired by these dreadful 
 quarrels; and it was judged a less dangerous expedient to 
 decide definitively upon these several questions, than to 
 suffer Christians to tear each other to pieces, in support of 
 their respective opinions. But this could not deprive indi- 
 viduals of the right of judging for themselves in speculative 
 matters. In these cases, reason cannot yield to human au- 
 thority alone, especially when it is known, that many final 
 decisions have been discovered at last, disagreeing with 
 truth. This made St. Gregory Nazianzen declare, " that 
 he was never present at an assembly of bishops, which did 
 not increase the evils they were meant to remedy ; the spi- 
 rit of dispute and ambition always prevailing over the dic- 
 tates of reason." And the judicious Turretin adds, " that 
 if any man, having read the acts of the councils, should re- 
 gard them as infallible, a physician would be the proper 
 person to undertake his case;" " Qui lectis^conciliorum actis, 
 ea pro errare nesciis habuerit, ad medicos abligandus est." 
 But, perhaps, it will be said, that we are not to depend 
 so securely upon the decisions of councils, as upon the 
 subsequent consent of the Church. She being the de- 
 pository of tradition, cannot err in matters of faith, and, 
 therefore, when she admits of the decrees of councils, 
 stamps the seal of infallibility upon them. If this be the 
 case, then are these decrees no longer infallible in them- 
 selves : the universal testimony of the Church claiming 
 alone this exalted privilege. And this is what Roman Ca- 
 tholic divines have been compelled to maintain, when they 
 perceived the absurdity of defending the infallibility of 
 
292 
 
 councils. But even in this supposition, it is evident, T. 
 That an actual testimony, although it be universal respect- 
 ing articles of faith, as well as other matters of fact, is in- 
 sufficient, unless these facts be delivered down by tradition 
 as perpetual as it is universal. For the universal belief of 
 any fact is no argument for its existence, unless it be re- 
 lated by respectable cotemporary authors, who vouch for 
 its origin, an<l be transmitted down to us by an uninterrupt- 
 ed succession of credible witnesses. 2. This privilege is 
 not peculiar to the Church ; for in matters of religion, as 
 in all others, a perpetual, uniform, and general consent 
 must challenge our belief. 3. If this pretended universal 
 testimony be confined to any particular society, then does 
 it become only a partial testimony, and its weight is di- 
 minished, in proportion as it becoms less uniform and ge- 
 neral. To what, then, is this boasted uniformity reduced? 
 To a certain society of Christians ; which, although, per- 
 haps, more numerous than any other particular sect, is cer- 
 tainly less so than all the others collectively. This society 
 of Christians claims for it alone the privilege of infallibility, 
 and sets at nought the testimony of all other Churches ' 
 but, I apprehend, they ground their pretensions upon no 
 better reasons than the Laplanders do the preference they 
 give to the Christian religion. These being asked why 
 they believed it to be best, answered, that it must necessa- 
 rily be so, as the Norwegians, Muscovites, and Swedes had 
 embraced it. (La Moutraye Voyages, tom» iii. c. 16.) 
 Many divines argue in the same conclusive manner. They 
 support their opinions by the testimony of those only who 
 make it a point of conscience to think as they do, and, as 
 Turretin observes, setting themselves up for judges in 
 their own cause, pronounce themselves infallible. Quid' 
 quid de ecclesice infallibilitate et jurihus docent 'pontificii, 
 hue tandem redit, eos judices in propria causa sedere velle. 
 I do not mean, however, to deny, that a universal consent, 
 carries with it great weight, and that every wise man ought 
 
293 
 
 to acquiesce in it, when he cannot otherwise arrive at the 
 intrinsic evidence of the fact. But it is not any infallibility 
 annexed to this testimony, that challenges this assent. He 
 believes, because, in this case, neither reason nor prudence 
 will suffer him to do otherwise. But how very rare is such 
 a universal agreement? and how much more rare to find it 
 attested through a long series of ages, especially, when 
 neither subscriptions nor formulas were in fashion to force, 
 if not an inward belief, yet an outward profession, from 
 those who were too weak to oppose an overbearing majority, 
 or too indifferent about the truths of religion, to exert 
 themselves in her behalf'.' 1 say, outward professions have 
 frequently been forced, and these, it is evident, are of no 
 kind of authority, cum et ipsuin nomen sententice pereaff 
 quando non illnd diciUir, quod sentiiur, as Facundus ob- 
 serves, (lib, 12.) Now, to allege such a consent for the 
 truth of an opinion, is full as absurd as to argue from the 
 general submission of a nation to a tyrannical prince, in 
 favour of his usurpation, which they cannot, or dare not, 
 resist. And, indeed, may we not fairly conclude, that the 
 assent of at least three parts out of four, among the Roman 
 Catholics, does not proceed from conviction and knowledge 
 of the cause ; and that, in the rest, it is more the effect of 
 education, of fear, of interest, or of a conscience easily 
 alarmed at the idea of disobedience, which is perpetually 
 inculcated as an enormous crime, than the result of mature 
 deliberation and reason ? Such an agreement, therefore, as 
 this, can never be alleged as an argument for truth, with- 
 out destroying every possibility of distinguishing between 
 a false and true religion ; since, by a forced submission, an 
 involuntary obedience may pass for conviction ; and since 
 every sovereign power might compel its subjects to such 
 an assent, whether the object of it be true or false. 
 
 Such is the obvious consequence of a submission that is 
 exacted under the heaviest anathemas and punishments. 
 Let every man determine what consent must be, when ex- 
 
 Bb2 
 
294 
 
 torted by such methods : Nee aliquid prsestatur causse, de 
 qua sic fuerit jndicatum, et contradicentibus multum ex hoc 
 jirmitatis accedit. Convincitur enim non recte quisqueju- 
 dicasse, quod, compellente alio, judicavit. [Fac, 16.) And 
 yet it is often upon such a submission only, such a con- 
 sent, that the infallibility of the Church is defended. But 
 neither the one nor the other can have any weight, unless 
 they be perfectly free and rational : much less, if they 
 rest entirely upon an authority which requires a blind ac- 
 quiescence, and makes it criminal to listen to any diffi- 
 culty that may occur against its decrees. For it is ex» 
 tremely absurd to bring any uniformity of consent, to 
 prove the truth of a doctrine, unless this consent be ground- 
 ed upon conviction : nay, I should rather conclude, that 
 submission extorted by force and apprehension, so far 
 from establishing the truth of any system, is an argument 
 of its falsity : that an agreement in opinion, without a 
 competent knowledge of the matter, is no agreement at 
 all ; or nothing more than dissimulation and deceit, unless 
 springing from conviction. In a word, that a forced con- 
 sent, being neither general nor perpetual, can determine 
 no man to embrace an opinion, unless he have other power- 
 ful motives for doing it. 
 
 I have hitherto alleged all the common arguments for 
 infallibility, and I think, whoever will consider them at- 
 tentively, will discover them to be but slender props to so 
 weighty a privilege. I will allow, notwithstanding, that 
 such a system would be convenient, that it would be ad- 
 mirably calculated for ascertaining the truth, and quieting 
 the anxiety of uneasy consciences, provided it had pleased 
 the Almighty to establish it; or if experience did not 
 show he has not done so. But the convenience of a sys- 
 tem is a poor plea for its reality ; and if this argument 
 were sufficient to require our belief of it, new ones, for 
 the same reason, would be daily invented, and intruded 
 upon the public, as more convenient than the former. 
 
295 
 
 How wide a field would then be opened to the wild fancies 
 of system-makers ! What deviation from the simple me- 
 thods, which the Almighty has adopted to establish his re- 
 ligion I Had He been pleased, in His wisdom, to remove 
 every difficulty in matters of faith, and to propose them 
 with such evidence, that the most ignorant Christian could 
 not possibly have been mistaken. He certainly could have 
 done so. This system would have been at least as con- 
 venient as that of an infallible tribunal: nay, had Al- 
 mighty God regarded the convenience only, He would have 
 preferred the first; for evidence would undoubtedly have 
 made any inquiry quite useless ; whereas, the difficulties 
 attending examination, place the belief of infallibility as 
 much above the capacity of the simple and ignorant, as is 
 the inquiry into any other point of doctrine. But God, in 
 creating us to know and to love Him, has left to our un- 
 derstanding its privilege of investigating truth, and to our 
 hearts their freedom in the choice of moral good. To this 
 end, it was necessary, that man should not be influenced, 
 beyond resistance, by the charms of virtue, or the evi- 
 dence of opinions. In such a supposition, he could reap 
 no merit from practising virtue, or adhering to truths — 
 What I say of irresistible evidence, may be equally applied 
 to infallibility. Had man been allowed to choose for him- 
 self, one of these preservatives against error, had certainly 
 been adopted. But the ways of men are not the ways of 
 God ; and it would be high presumption, to expect that 
 His wisdom should ply to our apparent convenience. Now, 
 it is clear, from our innumerable disputes, that the Al- 
 mighty has not adopted this line of evidence, and it is 
 equally clear, from the uncertainty of our decisions, that 
 He has not established any infallible tiibunal. Such a pri- 
 vilege, therefore, is entirely chimerical ; it has no foun- 
 dation in Scripture, and the history of the Church gives 
 constant evidence against it. Forced and unnatural in- 
 terpretations of a few Scriptural passages, first gave it 
 
296 
 
 birth \ and illogical inferences, instead of solid argument, 
 have been employed to establish it. But they only are im- 
 posed upon, whom a painful discussion would cost too 
 much; who deem it better to indulge in an indolent ac- 
 quiescence in the determination of superiors, even at the 
 hazard of being deceived, than to enter upon inquiries that 
 might disturb ancient notions, and so bring on a painful 
 struggle between prejudice and reason. Thus, a love of 
 ease on the one hand, and ambition on the other, joined 
 frequently with an indifference about religion, the con- 
 venience of system, and an appearance of humility, have 
 sanctified an opinion, which reason rejects, and from which 
 the Church that pretends to it, reaps but trifling advan- 
 tages. For, in reality, when have we discovered, that this 
 notion of infallibility, ever silenced any disputes between 
 religious opponents ? Let us look back upon the first 
 ages of the Church, and see if her decisions, as soon as 
 pronounced, were sufficient to awe jarring disputants to 
 submission : yet this would have been the case, had any 
 idea of infallibility prevailed. How many centuries passed 
 away before men grew cool, and heresies were extinguish- 
 ed, even after the most solemn declarations of the Church ! 
 Whoever reads the history of the Arians, the Nestorians, 
 the Eutychians, the Monotholites, to say nothing of here- 
 tics of less notoriety, will soon perceive that infallibility 
 had little to do in settling these disputes. The faithful 
 throughout the world, were induced to submit, by con- 
 vincing themselves gradually of the solidity of the argu- 
 ments, upon which the Church's decisions were grounded. 
 When I say the faithful, I mean such as have some notion 
 of what they believe. For, as to those who limit them- 
 selves to words only, (and this is the case with the gene- 
 rality of men,) 1 am of opinion that their belief rests solely 
 upon authority. But this proceeds not from any persua- 
 sion of such authority being infallible : for, in other Chris- 
 tian Churches, where infallibility was never heard of, the 
 
297 
 
 people submit with the same docility, and pay equal de- 
 ference to the voice of their pastors. In this respect, the 
 unlettered multitude is every where the same. The ig- 
 norant man, who would be a sincere Roman Catholic at 
 Rome, would be fully as sincere a Protestant in England ; 
 or perhaps an honest mussulman at Constantinople; acting 
 in all places upon the same principle, viz. a blind obedi- 
 ence to his teachers, whether they lead him into truth or 
 error. Such are the obvious consequences of a faith, the 
 merit and excellence of which, consists in believing with- 
 out ideas. A person who knows no other religion, than 
 that which his superiors have taught him, and who is ac- 
 quainted with no teachers, but such as chance has thrown 
 in his way, believes every thing, and believes nothing ; for, 
 not having any idea of what he believes, all his religion 
 consists in words and formulas, let him belong to what 
 communion he may. To such, therefore, as these, infalli- 
 bility can be of little service ; since their belief rests 
 solely upon the word of their pastors. And as to those 
 who are more enlightened, this pretension would be equally 
 unavailing, as nothing but solid reasons can command their 
 assent. Convinced that no human authority can dispense 
 with a rational inquiry, they can find no peace of con- 
 science, no tranquillity of mind, but in the conviction of 
 having done their best to discover the truth, and the ways 
 of salvation, by calling in to the assistance of reason, the 
 light of revelation, by which alone they hope to be in- 
 fallibly secured against error. — Wherefore, the dangerous 
 consequences of a free inquiry, must appear greatly ex- 
 aggerated to every unprejudiced mind. Tone purpose are 
 we told by Roman Catholic divines, that, without this in- 
 fallibility, there can be no uniformity in belief, and that 
 each individual will have a religion of his own : for, al- 
 lowing this to be true to a certain latitude, where can be 
 the crime of judging for ourselves in a matter where each 
 one is personally concerned ? Besides, has this pretended 
 
298 
 
 infallibility ever produced a uniformity of sentiment in 
 the Roman Catholic Church ? Are not warm disputes and 
 uncharitable wranglings, perpetually echoing in their 
 schools, upon very important questions concerning grace, 
 the infallibility of the pope> the supremacy of councils, the 
 intention requisite for administering the sacraments, and a 
 variety of other weighty and doctrinal points ? Do not 
 Molinists and Thomists, and other bodies of theologians, 
 mutually accuse each other of material heresy ? And do 
 they not preserve an appearance of Catholicity, merely by 
 subscribing the same formulas of words, yet reserving to 
 themselves the liberty of interpreting them as they please ? 
 So that we may say of the Roman Catholic Church, what 
 the sage La Bruyere pronounced of a nation in general : 
 " It professes the same worship, and has but one religion ; 
 but the truth is, it has really many ; nay, almost every in- 
 dividual has one of his own." (Charac. des Esprits forts.) 
 Now, can it be suppose^l that such a uniformity as this, is 
 either necessary, or sufficient for salvation? If so — then 
 religion consists in nothing but words. If not — then of 
 what service is infallibility, which is productive only of 
 such a uniformity as those who support this system deem 
 insufficient? the Gospel, it is true, inculcates nothing so 
 frequently as charity and union, because nothing is so es- 
 sential to the interests of religion. But it is rather a union 
 of hearts, than a union of opinions ; and St. Paul, exhort- 
 ing the Philippians to adopt the sentiments with which he 
 had endeavoured to inspire them, advises them to make a 
 point of being united in those things with which they were 
 acquainted : leaving them at liberty upon other matters, 
 till God should be pleased to favour them with new lights. 
 (Philip, iii. 1-5.) This is a genuine Gospel regulation — 
 this only comes within the line of our duty, because it is 
 agreeable to the rules of reason and justice. If we adopt 
 this injunction, infallibility becomes useless; and uniform- 
 ity of belief is a duty in those matters only, to the Jcnoiv- 
 
299 
 
 ledge of which we have already attained. As to the other 
 articles, it is not by any means more criminal to oppose 
 them^ than such as are totally foreign to religion. Upon 
 these we may think with others, or dissent from them, 
 without either merit or reproach, unless other motives than 
 a love of truth should influence our opinions. In this case, 
 we should indeed be criminal : not because we do not 
 adopt the creed of other people, but because we suffer 
 ourselves to be actuated by the views of interest, fear, or 
 other motives too base to regulate the opinions of an ho- 
 nest man. It would have been, doubtless, a happiness to 
 mankind to be placed beyond the possibility of deception. 
 But the Almighty, for wise and merciful reasons, has order- 
 ed it otherwise. It is not for us to fathom the depths of 
 His providence, but to rest contented with the knowledge 
 He has been pleased to communicate, and not arrogate to 
 ourselves an infallibility, which belongs properly to Him 
 alone, and of which he does not choose to make any hu- 
 man society a partaker. It is our duty to pay a proper re- 
 spect to the decisions of the Christian Church, to revere 
 her tribunal, and never to reason upon her ordinances but 
 with decency and candour. But this does not deprive us 
 of our right to discuss the justice and truth of her de- 
 crees. And in this discussion, we must observe the same 
 rules that serve to guide us in other inquiries. Specula- 
 tive truths must rest entirely upon evidence or probability ; 
 and matters of fact upon the witnesses that support them. 
 In a word, all speculative religion consists in knowing, if 
 what is proposed to be believed, be certain from reason, or 
 evident from revelation ; or, in other words, the certainty 
 of an opinion must be demonstrated by argument : and the 
 revelation of it must be demonstrated by facts. Now, I 
 say, we may be fully convinced of the truth of either, 
 without having recourse to any infallible authority upon 
 earth. This system, therefore, was invented without ne- 
 cessity, is supported without proofs, rests upon manifest 
 
300 
 
 suppositions, and appears calculated solely to secure the 
 dependence of the people, and blind submission to the 
 rulers of the Church. Neither does it follow, that by re- 
 jecting the idea of a supernatural infallibility, every doc- 
 trinal point must become dubious and unsettled. In other 
 branches of knowledge, many truths are admitted as cer- 
 tain, without the interference of any living, infallible au- 
 thority. And, indeed, of what service would reason be to 
 us, that precious gift of heaven, if it were meant only to 
 lead us astray under the guidance of a living instructor, 
 who has no means of arriving at the truth, but such as we 
 ourselves may employ ? Were the Church gifted with the 
 light of divine inspiration, it would then be evident where 
 her infallibility could be found. But to this she does not 
 pretend : and builds her decisions upon testimony alone. 
 She can, therefore, claim no infallibility, but such as is 
 agreeable to the nature of testimony: viz. a moral pre- 
 sumption only resulting from it, when at any time it is uni- 
 versal and uncontradicted. This presumption, moreover, 
 being nothing more than what may belong to other mat- 
 ters of fact, is not a special privilege of the Church. It 
 claims our assent more from motives of reason than reli- 
 gion, because it would be as absurd to withhold it in mat- 
 ters of religion only, when it is supported by circumstances 
 that carry moral certainty with them, as it would be weak 
 and simple to acquiesce where these circumstances are 
 wanted. 
 
 The only method, therefore, of arriving at the truth, is 
 by analysis and investigation : I mean for men of learning 
 and abilities ; for, as to the common people, their faith 
 must rest chiefly upon authority ; but this authority need 
 not be infallible. Evident and simple truths are easily be- 
 lieved without infallibility in their teachers, and such as 
 consist in subtile discussions, seldom appertain to the es- 
 sence of religion. It would be cruel to challenge the be- 
 lief of them, from people who cannot possibly have an idea 
 
SOI 
 
 of their merits. In obscure cases, the decision of no infal- 
 lible authority is requisite, because such cases are gene- 
 rally necessary. But whether such a decision takes place 
 or no, it cannot certainly alter the nature of truth, nor 
 change the force of argument, that makes for or against it. 
 What, therefore, we must do, is to bear wnth each other's 
 opinions in meekness and charity. Both reason and religion 
 abhor the idea of domineering over the belief of our neigh- 
 bour. Each one has an unalienable right of thinking for 
 himself in matters of religion, as in all others, and adopting 
 the principles which good sense and an upright conscience 
 suggest. And, indeed, why in religion only should this 
 method be rejected ? Does not every man believe, because 
 he regards the object of his belief grounded upon reason 1 
 Must not even a Roman Catholic tell us, that he believes 
 his to be the only true Church, because such a belief ap- 
 pears to him rational and certain ? If his belief be not ra- 
 tional, if he submit to authority, without understanding or 
 weighing the doctrines it inculcates, his belief is not faith, 
 it is credulity, it is weakness. A man might with equal 
 reason be a Jew, a Mahometan, or a Deist, as they ground 
 their principles upon an authority, whose decrees they 
 deem sacred, and which they neglect to examine. Let the 
 merit, therefore, of a blind submission be ever so much ex- 
 tolled, I will maintain, that faith cannot be meritorious, 
 unless it be rational ; and it can be rational in him only, 
 who knows and weighs the arguments that enforce it. 
 Nay, should he be fortunate enough to hit upon truth, 
 without such an inquiry, his faith in that case would be of 
 little value, as he could assign no reasons for being secured 
 from error. The knowledge, then, of all religion, both 
 natural and revealed, depends upon inquiry. It is the only 
 method of arriving at truth, and every man who has his sal- 
 vation at heart, ought diligently to adopt it. The grace of 
 the Almighty will never be wanting to those who do it with 
 sincerity and attention. 
 
 c c 
 
302 
 
 Whether they who admit this plea to infallibility, or they 
 who reject it, would be more likely to arrive at the true 
 meaning of the Scriptures on doctrinal points, is a ques- 
 tion which Roman Catholic writers themselves have deter- 
 mined. 
 
 " In a work (says Dr. Magee,) which, within a few years, 
 has obtained the most distinguished mark of approbation, 
 from the highest learned society of a nation holding com- 
 munion with the Church of Rome, we meet with a detailed 
 statement of those causes, which have disqualified the vo- 
 taries of that Church for the task of Scripture interpreta- 
 tion. After an enumeration of the advantages derived to 
 the literature and civilization of Christendom, from reli- 
 gious houses, as depositaries of the remains of ancient 
 learning, the author thus proceeds : — ' If the churchmen 
 preserved in this manner the fctint tradition of knowledge, 
 it must, at the same time be acknowledged, that in their 
 hands it more than once became dangerous, and was con- 
 verted by its guardians to pernicious purposes. The do- 
 mination of Rome, built upon a scaffolding of false histori- 
 cal proofs, had need of the assistance of those faithful auxi- 
 liaries, to employ on the one side their half knowledge to 
 fascinate men's eyes, and on the other to prevent those 
 eyes from perceiving the truth, and from becoming en- 
 lightened by the torch of criticism. The local usurpations 
 of the clergy, in several places, were founded on similar 
 claims, and had need of similar means for their preserva- 
 tion. It followed, therefore, both that the little knowledge 
 permitted should be mixed with error, and that the nations 
 should be carefully maintained in profound ignorance, 
 favourable to superstition. Learning, as far as possible, 
 was rendered inaccessible to the laity. The study of the 
 ancient languages was represented as idolatrous and abomi- 
 nable. Above all, the reading of the Holy Scriptures, that 
 sacred inheritance of all Christians, was severely interdict- 
 ed. To read the Bible, without the permission of one's 
 
303 
 
 superiors, was a crime: to translate it into the vulgar 
 tongue, would have been a temerity worthy of the severest 
 punishment. The popes had indeed their reasons for pre- 
 venting the word of Jesus Christ from reaching the people, 
 and a direct communication from being established between 
 the Gospel and the Christian. When it becomes necessary 
 to keep in the shade objects as conspicuous as faith and 
 public worship, it behooved the darkness to be universal 
 and impenetrable.' {Viller''s Essay on the Reformation of 
 Luther, p. 88, 90.) The same writer, in another place, 
 thus contrasts the characters of the Protestant and Romish' 
 Churches, as to their grounds of assent to sacred truths. 
 The Church of Rome said, 'Submit, without examination, 
 to authority !' The Protestant Church said, ' Examine, 
 and submit only to thy own conviction.' 'The one com- 
 manded men to believe blindly : the other taught them, 
 with the Apostle, to reject the bad, and choose only that 
 which is good.' {Ibid. p. 294.) And when the Church of 
 of Rome, was, at length, obliged, by the necessities of self- 
 defence, to grant to her faithful sons the privilege of theo- 
 logical investigation, in what way does the same writer re- 
 present the system of studies permitted for this purpose ? 
 The theology of the Romanist, and that of the Protestant, 
 he describes as ' two worlds in opposite hemispheres, 
 which have nothing commom except the name.' ' The 
 Catholic theology rests (says he) on the inflexible authority 
 of the decisions of the Church, and therefore debars the 
 man who studies it from all free exercise of his reason. 
 It has preserved the jargon, and all the barbarous appen- 
 dages of the scholastic philosophy. We perceive in it the 
 work of darkness of the monks of the tenth century. In 
 short, the happiest thing which can befall him who has un- 
 fortunately learnt it, is speedily to forget it. The Pro- 
 testant theology, on the contrary, rests on a system of exa- 
 mination, on the unlimited use of reason. The most libe- 
 ral exegesis opens for it the knowledge of sacred antiquity; 
 
304 
 
 criticism, that of the history of the Church ; it regards the 
 doctrinal part, reduced to purity and simplicity, as only the 
 body of religion, the positive form which it requires; and 
 it is supported by philosophy in the examination of the 
 laws of nature, of morality, and of the relations of men to 
 the Divine Being. Whoever wishes to be instructed in 
 history, in classical literature, and philosophy, can choose 
 nothing better than a course of Protestant theology.' (Ibid. 
 p. 307, 308.) Such are the observations contained in a 
 work, which has been distinguished by a prize, conferred 
 by the national institute of France. 
 
 " Perhaps one of the most decisive proofs of the justice 
 of this writer's remarks on the state of sacred literature in 
 the Roman Church, has been supplied by the late republi- 
 cation, in this country, of that wretched specimen of Scrip- 
 ture criticism, Ward^s Errata. This powerless offspring 
 of a feeble parent, which was supposed to have perished 
 when it first saw the light above a century ago, has lately, 
 upon signs of reanimation, been hailed in Ireland with 
 shouts of joy. And the meagre abstract of ' Gregory Mar- 
 tin's discovery of the manifold corruptions of the Holy 
 Scriptures,' a work which has itself lain for two hundred 
 years overwhelmed by confutation, has been received by 
 the Romanists of this part of the empire, with agratulation 
 that might well become the darkest ages of the Church. 
 A work condemning the Protestant translation of the Bible 
 for using the term messenger instead of angel (in Mai. ii. 
 7, iii. 1. Matt. xi. 10. Luke vii. 27, &;c.) by which the 
 character of angel is withdrawn from the -priesthood, and of 
 a sacrament from orders: — for not rendering the words {in 
 
 Hehr. xi. 21,) Trpoa-inwHo-iv Em to «x.pov T«f pCJ« avTa, as the 
 
 Rhemish does, adored the top of his rod, and thereby surrep- 
 titiously removing one of the principal Scripture arguments 
 for image worship: — for ascribing to the word 7D^> in 
 the second commandment, the meaning graven imagCy 
 whilst the Rhemish renders it graven things which, with 
 
305 
 
 those who admit an image not to be a thing, will exempt 
 images from the prohibition of the commandment : — for not 
 givinsr to the words M^ra.votu^ and pcenitentia, the sense of 
 penance, but merely assigning to them their true interpre- 
 tation, repentance, and thus doing wilful despite to the sa- 
 crament of penance,- — a work, 1 say, condemning the Pro- 
 testant translations of the Bible for these, and some other 
 such errors ; and in all cases demonstrating the error by 
 one and the same irrefragable proof — that the Romish ver- 
 sion is the true one, and that the Protestant version, which 
 differs from it, must consequently be false — is certainly not 
 such a one as might, in the nineteenth century, be expect- 
 ed to be raked up by the clergy of a widely extended com- 
 munion, and exhibited triumphantly as a masterpiece of 
 critical erudition. In the opinion of many, this miserable 
 performance did not deserve an answer ; especially as 
 every argument which it contained had been in former 
 times repeatedly confuted. Perhaps, however, they judged 
 more rightly, who thought, that even the weakest reason- 
 ings should be exposed, lest they might be imagined to be 
 strong, and that even the most hackneyed arguments should 
 be replied to, lest they might be conceived to be new. 
 Accordingly, this work received an answer from Dr. Ryan, 
 whose zealous exertions in the cause of religious truth are 
 well known, and is about to receive another from the Re- 
 verend Richard Grier, of Middletown. .These gentle- 
 men, at all events, display courage in their enterprise, 
 since the author whom they attack, backed by the whole 
 council of Trent, has pronounced, that whosoever shall not 
 receive the books of Scripture, as they are read in the Ca- 
 tholic (Roniish) Church, and as they are in the Vulgate 
 Latin edition, shall he accursed. {Errata, p. 37.) 
 
 " How little the orthodox member of the Romish Church 
 is, at this day, to expect serious consideration in the walks 
 of serious criticism, may be inferred from the description 
 
 given of him by a doctor of his own communion. ' The 
 
 c c 2 
 
S06 
 
 vulgar papist rests his faith on the supposed infallibility of 
 his Church, although he knows not where that infallibility 
 is lodged, nor in what it properly consists : it is to him a 
 general, vague, indefinite idea, which he never thinks of 
 analysing. He reads in his catechism, or is told by his 
 catechist, that the Church cannot err in what she teaches : 
 and then he is told, that this unerring Church is composed 
 only of those who hold communion with the bishop of 
 Rome, and precisely believe as he and the bishops who are 
 in communion with him believe. From that moment rea- 
 son is set aside; authority usurps its place, and implicit 
 faith is the necessary consequence. He dares not even 
 advance to the first step of Des Cartes' logic : he dares not 
 doubt : for in his table of sins, which he is obliged to con- 
 fess, he finds doubting in matters of faith to be a grievous 
 crime.'' Such is Dr. Geddes' account of him whom he is 
 pleased to call the vulgar papist ; under which title he 
 in truth means to include, all who are sincere votaries of 
 the Church of Rome, and whom that Church would ac- 
 knowledge as such : in other words, he means by this 
 term to designate all who are actually within the pale of 
 popery. 
 
 " And let it not be supposed that this is the testimony 
 of an enemy in the disguise of a friend ; and that the au- 
 thor, whilst he assumed the name of Catholic, was influ- 
 enced by the feelings of a Protestant. On the contrary, it 
 is manifest from the following passage that his mind re- 
 mained under the powerful influence of Romish impres- 
 sion, and that he continued still a partisan of that faith 
 whose errors he affected to decry. ' For', says he, ' is the 
 faith of the vulgar Protestant better founded '.' He rests it 
 on a book called the Holy Bible, which he believes to be 
 thejinfallible word of God.' And thus he pronounces the faith 
 . of the Protestant and of the Papist to be alike implicit and 
 alike unfounded. ' If the instructor of the Protestant be 
 asked how he knows that the book which he puts into the 
 
307 
 
 hand of his catechumen is the infallible word of God ; he 
 cannot, like the priest^ appeal to an unerring Church ; he 
 acknowledges no such guide : and yet it is hard to conceive 
 what other better argument he can use.^ He goes on even 
 to pronounce, that ' in the popish controversy, the Roman- 
 ists have, on this point, the better side of the question ; 
 called, by some of their controvertialists, the question of ques- 
 tions.'' And in what way does their superiority appear 
 upon this question of questions ? By ' its never having 
 been satisfactorily solved by the Romanists themselves : 
 they having always reasoned in what is termed a vicious 
 circle ; proving the infallibility of the Church from the autho- 
 rity of Scripture, and the authority of Scripture from the 
 Church'' s infallibility,^ (^Preface to Critical Rema7'ks, p. 
 5.) This must undoubtedly have given the Romanists the 
 better side of the question; for what Protestant logician 
 could successfully reply to such an argument ? But the 
 reader must be wearied of this fatuity.'' 
 
 Much reasoning is expended, to no purpose, by the Rev. 
 gentleman in proving the perpetual visibility of the Chris- 
 tian Church. Can he be ignorant, or does he wish to mis- 
 lead his readers with the idea, that tiiis visibility is denied 
 by Protestants? No ; the Church, they contend, has been 
 always visible. Her features, indeed, have at some periods 
 been clouded with the mists of error, superstition, and 
 folly ; while at others they have displayed, in heavenly 
 effulgence, all the beauty of holiness. " This Church," 
 says the Rev. gentleman, " always discoverable,'''' &lq,. " can- 
 not^ cease to be the true Church.'''' And who denies it ? 
 " Therefore, we must conclude, at the same time, cannot 
 teach errors contrary to faith. Here is a very short and 
 simple reasoning, but which terminates at once all contro- 
 versies on matters of religion ; and, until it be answered, 
 (which will never be done wdth any success,) we have a 
 right always to refuse, if we please, to enter upon the dis- 
 cussion of any particular article." He then concludes : 
 
508 
 
 " The Church of Christ cannot err in matters of faith, 
 therefore all her decisions are true, all her doctrine the 
 true faith of Clirist ; therefore confession of sins, taught 
 by the same Church, to have been instituted by Christ, 
 and to be necessary to salvation, was, indeed, instituted 
 by Christ, and is indeed necessary to salvation." 
 
 Here is the Sampson of all the Rev. gentleman's argu- 
 ments, bearing him in trium{3h through every difficulty, and 
 scattering all opposition like dust before the wind ! But 
 what will be said to this simple position? Every Christian 
 Church, and the Roman among the rest, has taught erro- 
 neous doctrines ; therefore, they can teach them : " ah 
 actu ad potentiairi'^ is sound logical reasoning. In the 
 foregoing pages this has been proved respecting auricular 
 confession, and therefore, in the words of the Rev. gen- 
 tleman, terminates at once all controvei'sy respecting the 
 infallibility of his Church. 
 
 But, it is said, " if the Church should at any time teach 
 errors contrary to faith, she would cease from that instant 
 to be the true Church." Agreed — if such errors subvert 
 the foundations of the Christian religion, as revealed in 
 the Scriptures. Errors, however, of this description, 
 never infected the whole body of the Church : they were 
 either unknown to antiquity, or, when beginning to appear, 
 were reprobated, and resisted. This might readily be 
 proved of every doctrine which Protestants deem erro- 
 neous; and when at length the profligate abuses, and de- 
 grading tyranny of the Roman Church were carried to ex- 
 cesses no longer to be tolerated, the reformers of the six- 
 teenth century, treading in the footsteps of many illus- 
 trious predecessors, justified their separation, not by al- 
 leging that the foundations of Christianity were demolish- 
 ed, but that so much hay and stubble had been heaped 
 upon them, as to render further communion with a Church 
 which refused to remove them, incompatihle with Chris- 
 tian sincerity and worship. The great mistake of the Rev. 
 
309 
 
 gentleman, consists in confounding the Roman with the 
 Catholic Church, in applying to the former the promises 
 meant only for the latter. Against this the gates of hell 
 were never to prevail, either by overturning the founda- 
 tions of religion, or preventing its doctrines being preach- 
 ed to all nations. As long as the Church of Rome taught 
 nothing inconsistent with these fundamental doctrines, so 
 long was she a sound member of the Catholic Church : 
 and when, in latter ages, she engrafted upon Scriptural 
 doctrines such unwarrantable innovations, as occasioned 
 many individuals and societies to secede from her commu- 
 nion, she continued still to be a member of the Christian 
 Church ; but amalgamating with the doctrines essential to 
 salvation, a heterogeneous compound of scholastic subtle- 
 ties, burthensome observances, and superstitious practices, 
 as terms of communion, she obscured the divine simplicity 
 of the Gospel, she perplexed the consciences of Christians 
 with articles which the ignorant could not comprehend, nor 
 the learned explain. As far as this was the case, the 
 Church of Rome must drop her plea to infallibility ; and 
 that it has frequently been the case, and is so at this day, 
 history, and the known articles of her faith, sufficiently 
 testify. But as far as she adopts, in common with the 
 Protestant Churches, the same profession of faith as ex- 
 pressed in the Apostles' creed, and the fundamental arti- 
 cles of religion essentially connected with and emanating 
 from it, so far would Protestants be disposed to cultivate 
 with her a unitj/ of spirit and bond of peace, and excite a 
 holy emulation for righteousness of life. By acknowledg- 
 ing a liability to error, and adhering steadfastly and ex- 
 clusively to the plain and obvious doctrines of the Gospel ; 
 Christian morality, practical piety, and solid devotion, 
 would attract much of that attention which is now wasted 
 upon points of minor importance. " We have constantly 
 seen," (says Dr. Milner, Ch. Hisior. vol. 4. p. 208,) "in 
 the course of this history, that the holiness of heart and 
 
310 
 
 life, which real Christians have evidenced from age to age, 
 was always connected with the peculiar doctrines of Chris- 
 tianity. Sometimes one of these doctrines, and some- 
 times another, constituted the prominent feature of their 
 profession ; but it is in vain to look for men of real holi- 
 ness and virtue, who were inimical, or even indifferent to 
 the fundamentals of the Gospel. 
 
 These fundamental doctrines of salvation are clearly 
 and explicitly revealed in the Bible, which speaks a lan- 
 guage full as intelligible as that of any pope or council 
 can be. This book is the religion of Protestants, and af- 
 fords the greatest security that can be given in the present 
 state of things. It is the word of God himself, and ac- 
 knowledged as such by all Christian Churches. Nay, 
 Roman Catholics themselves consider it, on some occa- 
 sions, as a sufficient guide to truth ; for why else do they 
 appeal to it to prove the infallible authority of their 
 Church, and indeed almost every other tenet of their faith ? 
 Why does the Rev. gentleman appeal to its testimony in 
 favour of sacramental confession ? And have not Pro- 
 testants an equal right to this unerring testimony upon 
 points much more clearly delivered? An attentive reader 
 of the New Testament will hardly be persuaded, that the 
 doctrines of transubstantiation, of the pope's supremacy, 
 of auricular confession, or of infallibility, are as clearly 
 delivered there, as are, for instance, the precept of eating 
 bread and drinking wine, in commemoration of Christ's 
 death and passion, and the express command of receiving 
 this sacrament in both kinds? Ho will hardly be persuad- 
 ed that the metaphysical subtleties in favour of infalli- 
 bility can counterbalance the arguments against certain 
 doctrines, which set all our senses at defiance, and break 
 in upon the most secret recesses of our bosoms. In a 
 word, he will more readily acquiesce in the position, that 
 the same body cannot exist in many different places at the 
 same time ; that the sensible accidents of bodies cannot 
 
311 
 
 exist without their appropriate substances; that a stupen- 
 dous miracle is not performed at the celebration of every 
 mass : than in the evidence for infallibility which is col- 
 lected from the Scriptures. 
 
 The doctrine of a tribunal upon earth, which cannot err 
 in its decisions, appears to be inconsistent with our nature 
 as rational beings. Were it possible it might, indeed, pre- 
 vent all error; because where no judgment is formed, 
 there is no mistake. In this case, however, our faculties 
 must be altered ; for as they now are, no infallible teacher 
 could destroy our freedom of thought. Wemust jndo-e at 
 least of his authority to teach us, and whether what he 
 teaches be conformable to reason. This is the guide which 
 must finally direct us. Whether God himself vouchsafe to 
 speak to us, or manifest his will by an inspired messenger, 
 we must still be determined by our reason with respect to 
 what he requires of us to do or to believe : so true it is 
 that nothing can supersede the exercise of our judgment ; 
 although, when once convinced that God has spoken, it be- 
 comes our duty to obey without hesitation or doubt. 
 
 As our belief, then, must arise from conviction, the 
 course of argument, in all our inquiries, is this; " It is 
 revealed, therefore we must believe it," and not, " The 
 Church has taught it; therefore it must be revealed." 
 From a proper appeal to sense and reason, from the mo- 
 tives of credibility, we first convince ourselves that the 
 Scriptures are inspired by Almighty God, and consequently 
 possess a plenary authority : we then believe the doctrines 
 which they contain, because they are revealed. But the 
 method of reasoning adopted by Roman Catholics moves 
 on a different plan. They admit, with other Christians 
 that the Scriptures are revealed ; and then they tell us 
 that these Scriptures teach the infallibility of their Church. 
 In proof of this, they cite a few obscure and controverted 
 passages, the most forcible of which are so very inconclu- 
 sive, that unless their Church had pronounced them to 
 
312 
 
 be plain and obvious, it would never have entered into the 
 head of any man to rest so important a doctrine upon such 
 questionable evidence. 
 
 Moreover, if men could be certain of the truth of Chris- 
 tianity, when it was first embraced, without any appeal to 
 a living, infallible judge, they can surely be equally so of 
 any of its doctrines. Whatever is evident from the com- 
 mon principles of reason, is sufficiently certain; to be in- 
 fallibly so, is not necessary to salvation. The mercies of 
 God will be extended to the infirmities of our understand- 
 ing, as well as to those of our will. To be scriptural and 
 acceptable, our faith must be an act of both ; and there- 
 fore its evidence cannot be irresistible. 
 
 Another inconvenience seems also to flow from the doc- 
 trine of infallibility ; which is, its tendency to throw man- 
 kind into skepticism and infidelity. For, when a person 
 has, from his infancy, been taught the necessity of such a 
 guide, and yet is unable, from argument or Scripture, to 
 persuade himself of its existence ; this unhappy conflict 
 naturally inclines him to universal doubt. It creates an 
 indifference to all religion, and leads him to ascribe every 
 religious system on earth, rather to human policy, than to 
 any revelation from above. When taught to believe that 
 the doctrines of auricular confession, of the invocation of 
 saints, transubstantiation, &;c. rest on the same authority 
 as the divinity of Christ, as the fall of man, and his reco- 
 very through a Redeemer, he discards at once the whole 
 motley system, without allowing himself to examine the 
 respective claims of these doctrines to his assent, or in- 
 vestigating the authority which sanctions them all alike. 
 To affirm, therefore, that the evidences in favour of seve- 
 ral discriminating doctrines of the Roman Church, are of 
 equal weight with those, which are offered for the truth of 
 Christianity itself, is an assertion deserving the severest 
 censure, and involving consequences destructive both to 
 moials and faith. 
 
313 
 
 The pretence of tracing up the Roman Church to the 
 times of the Apostles, is grounded on mere sophistry, 
 which it it not the business of this reply to examine. The 
 succession which Roman Catholics thus unfairly ascribe to 
 their Church, belongs to every other, and exclusively to 
 none. But that portion of the Christian Church is surely 
 best entitled to this claim, which teaches, in the greatest 
 purity, the doctrines of the Apostles. The Roman Church 
 affirms, that she has succeeded to the Apostles, and, there- 
 fore, is infallible. Protestants show that many of her doc- 
 trines are unscriptural and novel, and that, therefore, she 
 is not so. Let any candid person pronounce, which of 
 these two arguments is fairest and most conclusive. " They 
 have not the inheritance of Peter," (says St. Ambrose^ 
 lib. 1, de pan.) " who have not Peter's faith." 
 
 If it be urged, that without an infallible guide there can 
 be no unity in faith, nothing but universal anarchy and 
 confusion, let its advocates show, that this tenet has al- 
 ways prevented heresy and schism : let them show, that 
 fewer dissentions have arisen in the bosom of the Roman 
 Church than among the adherents to the Westminster con- 
 fession of faith, or to the articles of the English Church. 
 It will be found, that since the first ebullitions of intem- 
 perate zeal, which took place at the period of the reforma- 
 tion, occasioned by the natural incapacity of the human 
 mind to bear the sudden effulgence of truth after a long 
 series of tyranny and delusion, have settled down into re- 
 gular systems of faith, and bodies of discipline in the Pro- 
 testant Churches, fewer instances have occurred among 
 them of destructive heresies, and desolating contentions, 
 than during an equal period of time disturbed the peace 
 of Christendom. 
 
 We may observe further, that the boasted uniformity of 
 the Roman Church is a mere fiction, amounting in fact to 
 nothing more than this, that all who believe as she does, 
 are of her religion : for when any persons are pointed out, 
 
 Dd 
 
314 
 
 however virtuous and learned, who have at any time dis- 
 sented from her doctrines, the answer is, that such per- 
 sons could not be deemed Roman Catholics. This is a 
 palpable evasion : as no one ever doubted, but that when 
 she has excommunicated all who dissent from her decrees, 
 those who remain in her communion must be of her re- 
 ligion. 
 
 The disagreements among Protestant communities are 
 neither very numerous nor very important, nor do they 
 spring from any want of an infallible guide. It is neither 
 the obscurity of the written law that divides them, nor the 
 infallibility of their Church, which keeps Roman Catholics 
 united. This pretended unity arises chiefly from the ri- 
 gorous strength of her external policy : and however the 
 sentiments of her adherents may differ, as they frequently 
 do, yet they continue to hold the same language, because 
 they dare not hold any other. Not only an expression, 
 but a voluntary doubt, incurs the severest penalties of their 
 Church. An apparent uniformity of worship and lan- 
 guage, upheld by measures thus violent, is much more 
 calculated to make men hypocrites, than to cement them 
 together, either in the bonds of the same sincere belief, 
 or of cordial affection and reciprocal kindness. It is the 
 fear of being considered as heretics and unbelievers, the 
 severity of Church discipline, the ignorance in which 
 Roman Catholics are educated with respect to the doc- 
 trines of Protestants, and the motives of their dissent ; but 
 above all, it is the certainty, in case they abandon their 
 communion, of never being cordially forgiven by those 
 with whom they were most intimately connected, by the 
 ties both of nature and friendship, which detains many in 
 their Church, rather than any sincere and rational con- 
 viction of the superiority of their belief to that of their 
 neighbours. 
 
 The reader will probably be now induced to acknowledge, 
 that slender indeed are the pretensions to infallibility, on 
 
315 
 
 which the Rev. gentleman builds the sacrament of auricu- 
 lar confession, and that he would have acted more prudently 
 by confining himself entirely to the Scriptures; but the 
 few equivocal and doubtful passages which he discovers 
 there, would not have answered his purpose. An over- 
 whelming authority was necessary to establish a point, 
 which seems an outrage to the sense and independence of 
 man. But neither is such authority as we have seen, nor 
 an obligation to resort to it, to be found in the oracles of 
 God. These alone, independently of the interpretations of 
 fallible men, constitute the rule and limits of a Christian's 
 belief. " Whatsoever things were written aforetime, were 
 written for our learning, for our instruction." {Rom. xv. 4.) 
 *' All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is pro- 
 fitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruc- 
 tion in righteousness." (2 Tim. iii. 16.) " Search the Scrip- 
 tures, for in them ye think ye have eternal life." 
 
 On this solid ground the Protestant plants the standard 
 of his faith. This is his rallying point amidst the conten- 
 tions of theologians, the bulls of popes, and the decrees of 
 councils, which have so frequently obscured, so seldom 
 elucidated the doctrines of the Gospel. A few passages 
 from the ancient fathers will show what was their opinion 
 on the subject, and if some of a contrary tendency should 
 be alleged, it will only prove that their notions of a rule of 
 faith were very vague and unsettled, and by no means in 
 unison with those who conceive that in tradition and the 
 Church, they possess an additional rule to that held forth 
 in the Scriptures. 
 
 The opinions of some of the ancient Fathers concerning 
 Scripture, as a rule of faith. 
 
 " The Apostles preached the Gospel, but afterwards de- 
 livered it to us in the Scriptures to be the foundation and 
 
316 
 
 pillar of our faith." — St. Irenceus adv. hsereses, lib, iii. 
 cap. 1. 
 
 " I do not follow men, or human doctrines, but I follow 
 God, and what he taught." — Justinus Martyr in collo* 
 cum. Trypone. 
 
 "The holy and divinely inspired Scriptures suffice for 
 our instruction in all truth." — St. Athan. contra. Gentes. 
 
 " Cannot God speak distinctly, who created our under- 
 standing, our voice, and our tongue? Yes, his divine pro- 
 vidence chose that divine things should be void of obscu- 
 rity, that all might understand those things which he spoke 
 to all men." — Lactantius lib. Institu. 6. cap. 21, 
 
 "For as the holy evangelist himself testifies, our Lord 
 said and did many things which are not written ; but those 
 things were selected to be written, which appeared suffi- 
 cient for the salvation of the faithful." — St, Augustinvs 
 super. Joan. cap. 11. tract. 4&. 
 
 "^What more shall I teach you, than what we read in 
 the Apostle? for the holy Scripture fixes the rule of our 
 doctrine, lest we presume to be wise beyond what is 
 proper." — Idem de bono viduitatis cap, 1. 
 
 " Those things which the Scripture plainly contains, it 
 speaks without disguise, like a familiar friend, to the heart 
 of the learned and unlearned." — Idem Epist. 3. 
 
 "Among those things which are plainly set down in 
 Scripture, all those things are to be found, which compre- 
 hend faith and good morals, viz. hope and charity." — Idem, 
 de doct. Christ. I. 2. cap. 9. 
 
 Rem. Can any reasonable man imagine, that St. Augus- 
 tine would have spoken in this manner if it had been an 
 article of his faith, that Scripture is not a sufficient rule of 
 our belief? 
 
 " All things which our Lord did are not written, but 
 only what the writers thought sufficient for our morals and 
 faith." — St, Cyrill, lib. 12, in Joan. 
 
317 
 
 " Without the authority of the Holy Scriptures, loquacity 
 has no credit." — St. Hieronymus in Titum cap. 1. 
 
 " The doctrine of the Holy Ghost is that which is de- 
 livered in the canonical books against which, if the coun- 
 cils should make any decree, I deem it impious." — Idemin 
 Gallatas. 
 
 "Whatever has no authority from the Scriptures, is de- 
 spised as easily as it is alleged." — Idem in 23. cap. Math. 
 
 "Let us not hear any more of these expressions, I say so 
 and so, and you say so and so, but rather thus says our 
 Lord. We have his books, which both of us profess to be- 
 lieve : there let us seek for the Church, there let us discuss 
 our pretensions. Again : Let every argument be suppress- 
 ed, which we allege against each other, if it be drawn from 
 any source but the canonical books. Perhaps somebody 
 will ask, why do you wish such arguments to be suppress- 
 ed? Because I am unwilling that the holy Church should 
 be demonstrated by human documents, but by the divine 
 oracles. Wherefore, in the holy canonical Scriptures, let 
 us seek for the Church. {Ct. cap. 6.) Read us this from the 
 psalms, from the law, from the prophets, from the Gospel, 
 read it from the epistles of the Apostles, and then let us be- 
 lieve it. Again, {cap. 16.) Let them demonstrate their 
 Church if they can; not in the discourses and reports of 
 the Africans, not in the councils of their bishops, not in the 
 letters of obscure disputants, not in fallacious signs and 
 prodigies, against which we are warned and prepared by 
 the word of our Lord: but in the code of the law, in the 
 predictions of the prophets, in the songs of the psalms, in 
 the words of the Sheplierd himself, in the preaching and 
 labours of the evangelists, that is, in all the canonical au^ 
 thorities of the holy books. Again : Let him not say thi& 
 is true, because this or that person has wrought such and 
 such miracles, or because some are heard who pray at the 
 monuments (ad memorias) of the martyrs, or because such 
 
 and such things happen there, or because he or she has seen 
 
 D d2 
 
318 
 
 such a vision whilst awake, or dreamed of it whilst asleep^ 
 Away with these fictions of lying men or prodigies of de- 
 ceitful spirits ! And {cap, 20.) Insist on their showing you 
 some manifest testimonies from the canonical books. Re- 
 member that it is the saying of our Lord, they have Moses 
 and the prophets.'*'' — St, Aug, de unitate Ecclas. cap. 3. 
 
 Rem. What unprejudiced man can read these passages, 
 and yet continue to believe that St. Augustine maintained, 
 as Roman Catholics now do, that besides the Scriptures, 
 there is another rule and ground of faith, of equal authority 
 with them ; viz. unwritten tradition ? Where would a man 
 have found in any part of the Scripture, that the Church of 
 Rome is the mother and mistress of all Churches, out of 
 which no salvation can he obtained ; or that the pope is 
 by divine right the visible head of the Christian Church, 
 &c. dec. &c. 
 
 " If God be faithful in all his sayings, and all his com- 
 mandments be righteous, it is a manifest apostacy from 
 faith, and sin of pride, either to reject any of those things 
 that are written, or to introduce any thing that is not writ- 
 ten." — St. Basil, in serm. de conf.Jldei. 
 
 " Wherefore, let the divinely inspired Scripture be 
 appointed our umpire ; and let those be allowed to profess 
 the truth, whose doctrines shall be found agreeing with the 
 Scriptures ; (sermonibus divinis.") — Idem. Epist. 80. 
 
 *' If any thing is alleged without the authority of Scrip- 
 ture, then the minds of the audience halt. But when the 
 testimony of the divine word is produced from the Scrip- 
 ture, it confirms the discourse of the speaker and the mind 
 of the hearer." — St. Chrys. in Psal. 95. 
 
 *' Let us not attend to the opinions of the many, but let 
 us inquire into tlie things themselves. For it is absurd, 
 while we will not trust other people in pecuniary matters, 
 but choose to count and calculate our money ourselves, 
 that in affairs of much greater consequence we should im- 
 plicitly follow the opinions of others ; especially as we are 
 
possessed of the most exact and perfect rule and measure, 
 by which we may square and regulate our inquiries, viz. 
 the regulations of the divine laws. Wherefore, I could 
 wish that all of you would abandon what this or that 
 man asserts for truth, and that you would investigate all 
 these things in the Scriptures." — Idem* in 2 ad. Corinth^ 
 horn. 13. 
 
 Rem. How a learned and holy doctor could write this 
 passage, and yet regard the doctrine of private judgment 
 as heretical, is a paradox which, I fancy, can never be 
 cleared up. 
 
 *' It is right that you should rest satisfied with those 
 things only that are written ; a7id, (lib. 7,) no other dis- 
 course is left for the treatises of men upon divine sub- 
 jects, except the word of God." — St. Hilarius, lib. 3. de 
 Trinitate. 
 
 *' We stand in need of no curiosity since Jesus Christ, 
 nor of any inquiry since the Gospel." — Tertull. lib. de pro- 
 scrip. Hceret. 
 
 " We receive, acknowledge, and venerate all things de- 
 livered down to us by the law, the Prophets, the Apostles, 
 and the Evangelists, but besides these, we seek for nothing 
 else." — St. Joan. Damas. dejide. Ortho. I. I.e. 1. 
 
 " The holy Scripture surpasses all science and doctrine. 
 It is not therefore shut up, that it may frighten us, nor 
 open, that it may become contemptible : but the tedious- 
 ness of it goes off by use, and the more it is meditated 
 upon, the more it is beloved." — St. Greg, in Moral. 
 
 " What is there, either deficient or obscure ? In the 
 word of God all things are full and perfect, as coming 
 from a full and perfect being." — St, Hilarius, lib, 2. <?« 
 Trinitate. 
 
 " All things are clear and perspicuous, and nothing con- 
 tradictory is to be found in the Scripture." — St. Epiph, con- 
 tra Noetianus hores. 57. 
 
320 
 
 " The Scripture expounds itself, and does not suffer the 
 reader to err. — St. Chrysos. horn. 12, in Genesim. 
 
 " Nor is it proper to assert any thing without witnesses, 
 or from fancy only. For when any affirmation is not 
 drawn from Scripture, the mind is in suspense, now it 
 assents, the next moment it is dubious, now it rejects the 
 frivolous assertion, and now again admits it as probable. 
 But when the testimony of the divine word is produced 
 from the Scriptures, it fixes both the discourse of the 
 speaker, and the mind of the hearer." — Idem in Psalm 95. 
 
 " Whence have you that tradition ? Comes it from the 
 authority of the Lord and the Gospel, or from the Epistles 
 of the Apostles ? For God testifies that we are to do those 
 things that are written, dec. If it be commanded in the 
 Gospel, or contained in the Epistles or Acts of the Apos- 
 tles, then let us observe it as a divine and holy tradition." 
 St. Cyprianus, Epist. 74. 
 
 Rem. This passage and some others of St. Cyprian, are 
 so very explicit, that Mr. Rushworth, a Roman Catholic 
 controveitist of the last cenrtury, is compelled to acknow- 
 ledge, that this father seems to think that the resolution of 
 faith was to be made into Scripture^ and not into tradition, 
 (Dial. 3. sect. 13.) 
 
 " Of those things that are in use among us, relating 
 either to doctrine or practice, some are expressly delivered 
 in the Scriptures, and others omitted. What are written 
 must by no means be overlooked, but as to what are omit- 
 ted, we have a rule delivered to us by St. Paul : All things 
 are lawful for me, hvt all things are not expedient,'''' — St. 
 Basil, in reg. hremor. 1 . 
 
 Such being the notions of some of the most eminent 
 among the primitive fathers, we cannot wonder at their 
 zeal and eagerness in exhorting all Christians, of every sex 
 and condition, to the unremitting reading and study of the 
 Scriptures. Every reader, who is the least conversant in 
 their writings, must be convinced of this fact. How differ- 
 
321 
 
 ent was the conduct of Christian teachers in the succeeding 
 ages. During the middle centuries, those lamentable eras 
 of astonishing ignorance, a few of the laity being able to 
 read at all, the greater part were of consequence totally 
 excluded from the benefits arising from the meditation of 
 the Holy Scriptures, and the others were taught that the 
 divine writings were not composed for the use of the multi- 
 tude, and that therefore they ought not to be permitted to 
 read them. And as for the explanations with which their 
 teachers favoured them, they were such as could contribute 
 very little to their knowledge or improvement. Let any 
 reasonable person peruse the commentators of the Roman Ca- 
 tholic Church even down to the seventeenth century, and let 
 him candidly assert what benefit or information he derived, 
 in general, from such a perusal. Will he not acknowledge, 
 that instead of the plain, obvious, genuine and literal sense 
 of the Scriptures, he was chiefly amused with strained in- 
 terpretations, with allegorical, tropological and anagogical 
 significations, which superstition and ignorance first invent- 
 ed, and then made sacred? 
 
 Before we dismiss this subject, and take a final leave of 
 the Rev. gentleman and the Catholic Question together, 
 it may not be amiss to notice the passport, which has been 
 adopted to recommend it to the notice and patronage of 
 the public. By a long and tremendous catalogue of penal 
 laws enacted against the Roman Catholics of England and 
 Ireland, the present hostile antipathies of the country were 
 to be kindled into a fiercer flame ; public compassion was 
 to be excited for a persecuted sect, and its doctrines thus 
 sheltered under the mantle of pity, and recommended by 
 the horrors of oppression, were to experience a more ready 
 and indulgent reception. It was calculated that the minds 
 of Protestants, softened by these enormities, would be 
 better disposed to receive the impressions which the bold 
 display of unfounded doctrines in the Appendix was in- 
 tended to make. But slender, indeed, must be the in- 
 
322 
 
 formation of those, who can be imposed upon by such an 
 artifice. Can the Rev. gentleman or his learned coun- 
 sellors be ignorant, or presume that any intelligent reader 
 is ignorant of the history of these statutes, and the policy 
 which enacted them? Are they unacquainted with the 
 bulls of popes and decrees of councils, which provoked 
 them? Will they contend, that when they were made, a 
 Protestant state or Church could have subsisted without 
 them ? At present, indeed, the thunders of the Vatican 
 are a mere hrutum fulmen, a telum imbelle sine ictn. But 
 they were not always so, and the co-existing spirit of the 
 times must be taken into the account, when we would de- 
 termine respecting these laws. 
 
 Having thrown off the papal yoke, and embraced the doc- 
 trines of the reformation, it was incumbent upon the Bri- 
 tish parliament to protect the independence of the nation 
 against all the intrigues and attacks of the adherents and 
 emissaries of Rome. Now, how could this be done but 
 by penal statutes? The doctrine of religious persecution, 
 previously to the reformation, had been so unquestionably 
 the doctrine of the Roman Church, that for some ages, 
 we do not meet with a divine of any eminence, except 
 Thomas Aquinas, who was not a zealous advocate for it. 
 Neither has this antichristian tenet to this day been re- 
 nounced by the see of Rome. The celebrated Bossuet 
 says expressly, " that heretics and schismatics are no 
 where excepted out of the number of those evil doers^ 
 against whom, St. Peter tells us, God has armed Christian 
 princes." (1 Pet. ii. 14.) And in another place, writing 
 against Jurieu, he places the advocates for religious tolera- 
 tion on the list of heretics. 
 
 The bull of Pope Pius V. published in 1569, against 
 queen Elizabeth, entitled " The declaratory sentence of 
 the most holy lord Pius V. against Elizabeth, the pretend- 
 ed queen of England, and the heretics adhering to her," 
 and that of Pope Sixtus V. in 1587, by which he bestows 
 
323 
 
 her kingdoms on the first that should seize them, were 
 surely sufficient to rouse the British parliament, to enact 
 and execute the severest statutes to obviate their baneful 
 influence upon the peace of the nation. What will be said 
 of the bull of Gregory XIII. May 13, 1580, which is di- 
 rected " To all and singular archbishops and other prelates, 
 princes, &c. and people of the kingdom of Ireland," and 
 grants to all the Irish who would join the rebellion of the 
 Fitzgeralds of Desmond, and fight against queen Eliza- 
 beth, the same plenary pardon and remission of all their 
 sins, which is granted to those engaged in a holy war 
 against the Turks? What of that published by Clement 
 VIII. in 1600, exhorting the Irish nation to join unani- 
 mously in Tir Owen's rebellion against the said heretical 
 queen ; and followed in a few months after by an exhorta- 
 tory letter to Tir Owen himself? And when the famous 
 universities of Salamanca and Valladolid, were consulted 
 on this point by the Irish Roman Catholics, they justify 
 the conduct of Tir Owen, O'Neal, and their associates, in 
 taking up arms against the queen ; and condemn, as guilty 
 of mortal sin, all the other Irish Catholics, that obeyed 
 the queen, and fought in her defence. {Vide O' Sullivan 
 Beares. Hist. Cath. Iber, compend.) 
 
 In 1626, Pope Urban VIII. published a brief, exhorting 
 the English Catholics to lose their lives rather than be 
 drawn to take that noxious and unlawful oath of English 
 fidelity, (condemned as such by his predecessor of happy 
 memory,) the object of which is, " not only that their faith 
 to the king should be secured, but that the sacred sceptre 
 of the universal Church should be wrested from the vicars 
 of Almighty God." And again, the same pontifl^, in the 
 year 1643, granted a bull or brief of "plenary indulgence 
 to all the Roman Catholics of Ireland, who joined in the 
 rebellion and horrid massacre of 1641." Now were not 
 these unblushing usurpations of the Roman see, and the 
 treasonable enormities which they encouraged and reward- 
 
324 
 
 od, to be encountered with rigorous laws and penalties by 
 a Protestant government ? 
 
 They who are acquainted with the perfidious machina- 
 tions of king James II. to overturn the established religion 
 of his country, in defiance of the most solemn promises 
 and oaths; with the religious ferment which his persever- 
 ing bigotry had excited in the nation, and was prepared to 
 avail itself of the first opportunity to burst out into open 
 rebellion, will not be surprised that very severe statutes 
 were deemed necessary to curb the zeal of fiery bigots, 
 during the reign of his immediate successors.* 
 
 Men of a truly Christian spirit, have ever lamented the 
 melancholy necessity which gave birth to the penal laws 
 in England and Ireland, and had the Churches of England 
 or Scotland countenanced or exercised persecution for 
 harmless and speculative opinions, which could have no 
 bearing on the peace and stability of the government, there 
 would be no hesitation in pronouncing them guilty of a ma- 
 nifest departure from the benevolent maxims and precepts 
 of the Gospel. Let Roman Catholics show that they have 
 done so, and Protestants will acknowledge to have been 
 themselves guilty of a grievous error in point of morality ; 
 and by this concession, they would act with a consistency 
 unknown to those who have violated the most sacred laws 
 of humanity and religion, by solemnly, and upon princi- 
 ple, shedding torrents of blood, for no other crime than 
 maintaining the sacred rights of conscience, and doctrines 
 totally unconnected with the state. These unchristian 
 atrocities cannot be questioned, and yet the Church, which 
 for ages enforced and sanctified them, pretends to be an 
 infallible guide, in morals as well as in faith, to the 
 
 • If the reader wishes for full and satisfactory information on this sub- 
 ject, he will find it in an admirable speech of the Earl of Clare, lord high 
 chancellor of Ireland, delivered in the Irish house of peers, March 13, 
 1793. 
 
825 
 
 kingdom of the meek and compassionate Saviour of the 
 world. 
 
 Mr. Berington, a sensible advocate of the Roman Churchy 
 when apologizing for the laws enacted against the Hugo- 
 nots in France, since the revocation of the edict of Nantes, 
 acknowledges that they are " extremely severe." " But it 
 must be allowed," says he, " that they were a dangerous 
 and powerful party, from whom the religion^ if not the civil 
 constitution of France, had every thing to apprehend." 
 {Reflec. p. 92.) How applicable this reflection to the sub- 
 ject before us ! For it is evident that the penal laws 
 against Roman Catholics originated principally from appre- 
 hensions, not of a religious, but of a political nature; if 
 ever they did not, no pretence can justify them. Let the 
 fact, however, be briefly examined. The act of supremacy 
 (1st Eliz.) was framed " for putting away all usurped and 
 foreign powers and authorities; and for disburthening sub- 
 jects of divers great and intolerable charges and exactions," 
 viz: the payment of annates, or first fruits, pope's bulls, in- 
 dulgences, dispensations, &c. the amount of which was in- 
 credible. The next penal law against popish recusants, 
 was 5th Eliz. cap. 1, *' because of the dangers by the fau- 
 tors of the usurped power of the see of Rome, at this time 
 grown to marvellous outrage and licentious boldness, and 
 now requiring more sharp restraint and correction of laws 
 than hitherto," &c. This was followed by a third, (13th 
 Eliz. cap. 11,) " because divers seditious and evil disposed 
 people were minding, very fastidiously and unnaturally, not 
 only to bring this reahn into thraldom and subjection to 
 the see of Rome, but also to estrange and alienate the 
 minds and hearts of her majesty's subjects from their duti- 
 ful obedience, and to raise and stir up sedition and rebel" 
 lion within this realm, to the disturbance of the most happy 
 peace thereof." And in like manner, the succeeding re- 
 straints and penalties of her reign, and the same may be 
 
 E e 
 
326 
 
 said of her successors, were levelled, not against the here- 
 tic or schismatic, but against the conspirator and the trai- 
 tor ; so that when some convicted priests and their pupils 
 would have assumed the glory of suffering for their religion, 
 Cecil, the most wise and honest statesman of that reign, 
 published a tract, proving that their execution was not for 
 religion, but for treason only.* It cannot, however, be 
 denied, that Elizabeth, to great and shining talents, united 
 some portion of her father's arbitrary and persecuting spi- 
 rit, and that a few of her subjects were put to death on 
 account of their religious opinions; but among them were 
 no Roman Catholics. The conviction of these was ground- 
 ed only upon treasonable practices, and pardon w^as after- 
 wards offered to them all, provided they would give the 
 government reasonable security for tlieir allegiance, by dis- 
 claiminfT the foreio-n and hostile jurisdiction of the see of 
 Rome, which, in those days, held out very difll-rent preten- 
 sions from the mitigated claims of the present times. Of 
 these, however, we may still observe, that although they 
 have received the sanction of so many Roman Catliolic uni- 
 versities, yet have they never been confirmed by the pre- 
 sent pontiff or his predecessor; and should their successors 
 ever recover the former influence of the Roman Church, 
 there can be little doubt, judging from past events and 
 pretensions, but the liberal concessions of the present day 
 will be stigmatized with her disaj)probation and severest 
 censures. f 
 
 *The reader will find this whole subject discussied with the utmost can- 
 dour, and illustrated by original and unquestionable docnrnents, in " A 
 survey of the modern state of the Church of Rome," &c. addressed to the 
 Rev. Dr. Butler, Slc. by William Hales, D. D. Rector of Killesandra, and 
 late fellow of Trinity College, Dublin. Among other important matters, 
 the reader will see that there was no violation of the famous treaty of 
 Limerick. 
 
 t That the reader may judge how far the Irish Roman Catholics agree 
 with these foreign universities, let him peruse the following passage from 
 the letters of Dr. O'Connor, published under the name of Columbanus : 
 
327 
 
 But the period of her despotism is, we trust, gone by for 
 ever. Little more than a shadow is left of this domineer- 
 ing power. Stat magni nominis umbra. Mankind is be- 
 come too enlightened to submit again to the intolerable 
 yoke, which " neither we nor our fathers were able to bear." 
 And could these pages contribute, in the smallest degree, 
 to this truly Christian emancipation, by leading to a revision 
 of some of the most obnoxious tenets and usages of our Ro- 
 man Catholic brethren, the time and attention bestowed on 
 them would be abundantly rewarded. The religious opin- 
 ions of many Roman Catholics, especially in this country, 
 are, we trust, undergoing a silent reformation, and the 
 " dark monsters of superstition and bigotry," as was remark- 
 ed on another occasion, "are retreating gradually before the 
 light of genuine religion and pJiilosophy.^^ In proof of 
 this, the learned Dr. Hales refers us (p. 203,) to the formal 
 answer of the doctors of Sorbonne to the consultation of the 
 Roman Catholics of Ireland, recorded by Dr. Butler. 
 " Compare, also," says he, " Veron's French rule of faith, 
 subjoined to Hooke's religionis natiiralis, et revelatcB prin- 
 cipia, with the canons and creed of Pius IV. and the dif- 
 ference is most striking and satisfactory. " This (rule of 
 Veron) at present, ^^ says Mr. Berington, " is the great hinge 
 on which our whole religion turns."* (p. 34, refect, x.) If 
 
 '' Notwithstanding the oath of allegiance, by which Roman Catholics swear 
 that the popo has no power over the temporalities of states, yet the Irish 
 titular bishops assembled in synod at Tullow, so lately as the 6th of June, 
 1809, extolled afijnsf, Iwhj, amV tegilimale, those bulls of Pius VII. by which 
 he has absolved all Frenchmen from their allegiance to the Bourbons ; ex- 
 pressly alienating, not only the ciown of France, but also the property of all 
 French loyalists, secular and ecclesiastical; and hurling down from their 
 sees above a hundred French bishops, who were guilty of no other crime, 
 than that of a conscientious regard to their oaths, and fidelity to their prince." 
 letters, Part. 2, p. 5. 
 
 * The rule is this: For any doctrine to become an article of Catholic faith, 
 two things are conjointly necessary ; first, that it be revealed by God : se- 
 condly, that it be proposed by the Church" — i. e. by the Catholic Church, of 
 ^vhich Protestant Churches are branches. 
 
328 
 
 we peruse his "English Roman Catholic principles, in re- 
 ference to God and the country," drawn up, as he tells us, 
 in the reign of Charles TI. hut retouched by hinnself, we 
 shall find many of the exceptionable tenets of the Roman 
 Church rejected or explained away. O, may the divine 
 Head of the Church further this blessed approximation to 
 each other, amonor all the members of his mystical body, 
 until they meet together " in the unity of the spirit, in the 
 bond of peace, and in righteousness of life." But this will 
 never be the case, unless modern apologists for the Roman 
 Church, shall deem it a more wise and Christian measure, 
 candidly to relinquish some untenable posts, than by round- 
 ly taxing Protestants with misrepresentation, to lay them 
 under the disagreeable necessity, of exposing the tenets 
 themselves, in all their weakness and futility, to the public 
 eye. 
 
 And now, having been induced from a sense of duty, and 
 the solicitations of friendship, partially to embark once 
 more on the tide of controversy, the writer of this reply 
 assures the Rev. gentleman and his brethren, that it is 
 neither his wish nor intention to be borne down the stream, 
 into the boundless ocean of polemical contention. But, as 
 a teacher of religious truth, it must ever be a branch of his 
 bounden duty, to refute the fallacy of the most lofty pre- 
 tensions, when they presume to confine forgiveness of sins, 
 or, in other words, the benefits of redemption, within the 
 limits of one particular communion ; when they would 
 shake that blessed assurance of safety and acceptance, 
 which arises from faith in the word of God alone, and en- 
 cumber practical religion, with observances unauthorized 
 by the Scripture, which have frequently driven the bold 
 offender into Atheism, and the timid into despair. In a 
 word, as a watchman stationed by Providence on the walls 
 of Zion, it is his duty to mark the approach of every error, 
 and to repel every attack upon the sanctuary, whether pro- 
 ceeding from open enemies, or mistaken friends, and to do 
 
329 
 
 this with weapons drawn exclusively from the sacred arse- 
 nal itself; namely, "with love unfeigned and that meek 
 ness of wisdom, which is from above, first pure, then peace- 
 able, gentle, and easy to be entreated, full of mercy, and 
 good fruits, without partiality, and without hypocrisy." 
 James iii. 17. 
 
 E e 2 
 
SOME 
 
 REMARKS 
 
 DR. O'GALLAGHER'S ^^ BRIEF REPLY" 
 
 TO 
 
 DR. WHARTON'S <^ SHORT ANSWER 
 
 TO 
 
 A TRUE EXPOSITION 
 
 OF 
 
 THE DOCTRINE OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH 
 
 TOUCniXG THE 
 
 SACRAMENT OF PENANCE," &c. 
 
 BY CHARLES H. WHARTON, D. D. 
 Rector of St. Mary's Church, at Burlington, New-Jerse}\ 
 
 NKW-YORK: republished by DAVID LONGWORTH, 1S17. 
 
 PHILADELPHIA: WILLIAM STAVELV, 1834. 
 
SOME REMARKS, &c. 
 
 It was sincerely hoped by the writer of the following 
 pa^es, that with the " Short Answer to the Appendix to the 
 Catholic Question,'" published in 1813, all controversy on 
 this subject should be terminated. The reader will recol- 
 lect, that the author of this Appendix took occasion, from 
 the issue of a public trial, to make a direct, unprovoked, 
 and illiberal attack upon the doctrines of the reformation ; 
 and to enforce all those lofty pretensions of his Church, 
 which have so frequently called forth solid refutation from 
 the learned, and smiles of pity from the good humoured 
 Protestant. In the present instance, "with whatever super- 
 cilious contempt, and coarse phraseology, the Doctor may 
 affect to treat the answer to the Appendix, or the following 
 hasty and cursory remarks ; with whatever confident ex- 
 ultation he may style them absurd, false, impious, and 
 blasphemous, (words very familiar to the Rev. Doctor, and 
 indicative of his high breeding,) he may yet be an object 
 of some innocent pleasantry to his Protestant friends. — 
 The very dedication of his book to one of our most ve- 
 nerable and illustrious citizens, who has always been a 
 member of a Protestant Church, seems, at first, to exhibit 
 some striking features, of what is vulgarly called a bull : 
 it is, at any rate, an awkward compliment to a Protestant 
 professor, to tell him, " that the false and impiovs conse- 
 quences in which his principles necessarily eventuate, prove 
 ihe falsehood ^x\(\ irreligion of the principles themselves." 
 Leaving, then, this matter to be adjusted between the 
 worthy gentleman and the Doctor, I proceed to make a 
 few short remarks upon his reply — I say short, for if the 
 reader will be pleased to revert to the " Answer to the 
 Appendix," he will readily become acquainted with the 
 
334 
 
 state and merits of the controversy ; and will there disco- 
 ver, I trust, an anticipated refutation of all the bold and 
 sophistical assertions in which the Doctor's reply so co- 
 piously and confidently abounds. It would, therefore, be 
 irksome, as well as unnecessary, to travel again over the 
 beaten ground. I am willing still to rest the validity of 
 the arguments against sacramental confession, or the sa- 
 crament of pena7ice, (so the Doctor would have it called,) 
 as defined by the council of Trent, on the authorities al- 
 leged in that answer.* The Doctor opens his battery 
 against the Short Answer, by the discharge of a syllogism, 
 which he feels confident will demolish all its bulwarks. 
 The major, or first jDroposition of this syllogism, no Pro- 
 testant will deny; viz. "that every doctrine of religion, 
 which is founded in the Scripture, and has been acknow- 
 ledged and venerated as divine by the Church, in the de- 
 crees of her councils, the declarations of her bishops and 
 holy fathers, and the veneration and practice of the faith- 
 ful through all ages, from the time of the Apostles to the 
 present day, must necessarily be orthodox and of divine in- 
 stitution. But the doctrine of the sacrament of penance, 
 and the necessity of confession for the forgiveness of sins, 
 is founded in the Scriptures, &;c. &;c : therefore, the doc- 
 trine of the sacrament of penance, and of the necessity of 
 confession for the forgiveness of sins, is orthodox and di- 
 vine." 
 
 " To answer the Exposition or the Appendix," says Dr. 
 O'Gallaghcr, "he," Dr. W. "should have solved the 
 
 * Dr. O'G. is very angry at auricular confession being called a sacrament ; 
 and yet, he says, " the whole procedure of the sacrament, often goes under 
 the appellation of confession, in the catechisms, instructions, and canons of 
 the Church." What will the Doctor say to one of the popes, who calls con- 
 fession a sacrament, as Bellarm. informs us : (c. ad abolend. de haeret.) This 
 pope was Lucius III. " Greater accuracy," says the Doctor, " might surely 
 be expected li-om a doctor of divinity ;" what! greater accuracy than from 
 a poi)e ? 
 
335 
 
 above syllogism, which constitutes the grand argument, and 
 effectual lever of the whole work : and to solve that syl- 
 logism, it was necessary to disprove the minor proposition.'' 
 Now, by what confusion of ideas could the Doctor be in- 
 duced to imagine, that this minor proposition could be re- 
 futed in any other way, than by denying it altogether in 
 the first instance, and then proving it to be utterly un- 
 founded ? This was done by showing, 1. " That the doc- 
 trine of auricular confession," or (to avoid a mere quibble 
 raised by the Doctor,) the doctrine of such confession, as 
 constitutes an integral act or part of a divinely instituted 
 sacrament of the Christian Church, called the sacrament 
 of penance, has no foundation in Scripture. 2. That this 
 doctrine was unknown to the primitive Church, and that 
 previously to the thirteenth century it had never been en- 
 acted, 1 say enacted into an article of faith and indispen- 
 sable discipline. 3. That neither the council of Lateran, 
 nor any other tribunal, has a right to impose such a griev- 
 ous yoke upon the faithful, from a plea to infallibility, as 
 his plea is altogether unsupported either by reason or re- 
 velation. 
 
 Novv^, will Dr. O'G. deny, that the proof of these three 
 points must contain the refutation of his minor proposi- 
 tion, and invalidate all the consequences of his syllogism. 
 He acknowledges that the " first of these positions is op- 
 posed to the assertion of the Exposition. The second, he 
 pronounces partIyy*aZse and partly absurd;'''' that is, it is a 
 falsehood to assert that this doctrine was unknown to the 
 primitive Church, and it is an absurdity to assert that pre- 
 viously to the thiiteenth century, it had never been enacted 
 into an article of faith and indispensable discipline. The 
 third proposition, he styles "a mere jargon of unmeaning 
 words, not expressing, or refuting any principle or tenet of 
 Catholics." From the 226th to the 243d page of the Short 
 Answer to the Exposition., the reader will find ample ma- 
 terials for refuting- the first clause of the Doctor's formida- 
 
S36 
 
 ble minor, and all Iha sophisms, plausible and irrelevant, 
 with which he labours to uphold it. lie will there see one 
 probable meaning of the power of the keys as conveyed to 
 St. Peter, and the other Apostles : (Matt. xvi. 18.) or, at 
 least, he will I trust be convinced, that, taken in any sense, 
 it can never apply to sacramental confession. Passing by, 
 therefore, the whole mass of sophistry, which the Doctor 
 has accumulated around this text, his unsuccessful attack 
 upon Dr. Adam Clarke, and Grenville Sharp, his feeble 
 endeavours to place St. Peter at the foundation of the 
 Christian Church, by confounding his doctrines with his 
 person, and in express contradiction to the assertion of St. 
 Paul, (I Cor. iii. 11.) " That other foundation can no man 
 lay, than is laid, which is Christ Jesus;'' passing by,l say, 
 these and. some other particulars altogether immaterial, 
 such as the parade of Biblical criticism respecting the 
 word oLKpoyceTTii^ which the learned Parkhurst, in his lexicon, 
 composed expressly to explain all the words of the New 
 Testament, interprets, " The foundation corner-stone," 
 applied figuratively to Christ ; I will here submit to the 
 Doctor's consideration, a few remarks upon this text, from 
 a sermon of the modern theological luminary. Bishop 
 Horseley, which may probably come nearer to his ideas on 
 this subject, than what he has met with in Protestant di- 
 vines, although manifestly confirming the first proposition 
 of the Short Answer to the Appendix. 
 
 * The learned bishop having proved to the entire satis- 
 faction of his own mind, and probably also to that of his 
 readers, *' that St. Peter (Matt, xvi.) answered only for 
 himself — that the blessing he obtained was for himself 
 singly, the reward of his being foremost in the faith which 
 he confessed ; that to be the carrier of the keys of the 
 kingdom of heaven, to loose and bind on earth in any 
 sense, which the expressions may bear in this passage, 
 
 * Bishop Ilorscley's Sermon, xiii. 
 
S37 
 
 Were personal distinctions of the venerable primate of the 
 Apostolic college, appropriated to him in positive and ab- 
 solute exclusion of all other persons ; in exclusion of the 
 Apostles, his contemporaries, and of the bishops of Rome 
 his successors, concludes by asserting, that " any interpre- 
 tation of this passage, or any part of it, founded upon a 
 notion, that St. Peter, on this occasion, spake, or was spo- 
 ken to, as the representative of the Apostles, is groundless 
 and erroneous." Having laid this foundation, he then pro- 
 ceeds to fix the sense of the first promise made to St. 
 Peter: "This," he says, " consists of these two articles, 
 that the keys of the kingdom of iieaven should be given to 
 him, and that whatever he should bind or loose on earth, 
 should be bound or loosed in heaven." 
 
 " The keys of the kingdom of heaven here promised to 
 St. Peter, by the principles we have laid down for the ex- 
 position of this text, must be something quite distinct from 
 that, with which it has generally been confounded ; viz. 
 the power of the remission and retention of sins, conferred 
 by our Lord after his resurrection, upon the Apostles in 
 general, and transmitted through them, to the perpetual 
 succession of the priesthood. This is the discretionary 
 power lodged in the priesthood, of dispensing the sacra- 
 ments, and of granting to the penitent, and refusing to the 
 obdurate, the benefit and comfort of absolution. The ob- 
 ject of this power, is the individual upon whom it is ex- 
 ercised, according to the particular circumstances of each 
 man's case. It was exercised by the Apostles in many 
 striking instances ; it is exercised now by every priest, 
 when he administers or withholds the sacraments of bap- 
 tism and the Lord's Supper, or, upon just grounds pro- 
 nounces, or refuses to pronounce, upon an individual the 
 sentence of absolution. St. Peter's custody of the keys 
 was quite another thing. It was a temporary, not a per- 
 petual authority ; its object was not individuals, but the 
 
 whole human race. The kingdom of heaven upon earth, 
 
 F f 
 
S38 
 
 is the true Church of God. It is now, therefore, the 
 Christian Church : formerly the Jewish Church was that 
 kingdom. The true Church is represented in this text, as 
 in many passages of holy writ, under the image of a walled 
 city, to be entered only at the gates. Under the Mosaic 
 economy, these gates were shut, and particular persons 
 only could obtain admittance ; Israelites by birth, or by 
 legal incorporation. The locks of these gates were the ' 
 rites of the Mosaic law, which obstructed the entrance of 
 aliens. But after our Lord's ascension, and the descent of 
 the Holy Ghost, the keys of the city were given to St. 
 Peter by that vision, which taught him, and authorized him 
 to teach others, that all distinctions of one nation from ano- 
 ther, were at an end. By virtue of this special commis- 
 sion, the great Apostle applied the key, pushed back the 
 bolt of the lock, and threw the gates of the city open for 
 the admission of the whole Gentile world, in the instance 
 of Cornelius and his family. To this, and to this only, our 
 Lord prophetically alludes, when he promises to Peter the 
 custody of the keys. With this, the second article of the 
 promise, the authority to loose and bind, is closely connect- 
 ed. This again being, by virtue of our rule of interpre- 
 tation, peculiar to St. Peter, must be a distinct thing from 
 the perpetual standing power of discipline, conveyed upon 
 a latter occasion, to the Church in general, in the same 
 fiopurative terms. St. Peter was the first instrument of 
 Providence in dissolving the obligation of the Mosaic law 
 in the ceremonial, and of binding it in the moral part. 
 The rescript, indeed, for that purpose, was drawn by St. 
 James, and confirmed by the authority of the Apostles in 
 general, under the direction of the Holy Ghost ; but the 
 Holy Ghost moved the Apostles to this great business by 
 the suggestion and persuasion of St. Peter, as we read in 
 the 15th chapter of the Acts of the Apostles: and this 
 was his particular commission to bind and loose. The 
 great Apostle fulfilled his commission in his life-time. He 
 
3S9 
 
 applied his key — he turned back the lock, he loosed and 
 he bound : the gates of the kingdom of heaven were 
 thrown open ; the ceremonial law was abrogated ; and the 
 successors of St. Peter in the see of Rome, can give 
 neither furtherance nor obstruction to the business. "(a) 
 
 And now let the impartial reader determine, whether or 
 not this promise to St. Peter, has any reference to sacra- 
 mental confession and absolution, as defined by the council 
 of Trent, to a power of unlocking, or binding up the con- 
 sciences of men, by claiming a circumstantial disclosure of 
 their most- hidden sins; let him pronounce upon the mo- 
 desty of the Doctor *' in declaring an appropriate allusion 
 of the very learned Dr. Lightfoot to be nonsense,'^^ in string- 
 ing on it affected witticisms totally irrelevant, and very un- 
 becoming a ^rave divine ,• in accusing Protestant theolo- 
 gians of a wilful perversion of the Scriptures, and in roundly 
 and grossly asserting that by adopting their unanswerable 
 arguments, and some indignant expressions against ground- 
 less and tyrannical pretensions, "the author of the Ansiver 
 has dearly purchased favour by the merited contempt of 
 learned, honest, and honourable men." This would be a 
 dear purchase, indeed ; but as the Doctor probably means 
 by learned, honest, and honourable men, the partisans of his 
 own bigoted and unfounded opinions, their contempt, in 
 addition to that of Dr. O'Gallagher, can weigh but lightly 
 on a mind, which shares it with such Christian champions 
 as Lightfoot and Clarke. Perhaps the Doctor has met 
 with the wise maxim of Seneca, " ^quo animo audienda 
 sunt imperitorum convicia, et ad honesta vadenti con- 
 temnendus est ipse contemptus." At any rate, however, 
 the Doctor's contempt is very immaterial to the present 
 discussion. 
 
 Men tridy learned, honest, and honourable, will proba- 
 bly pity such a sentiment in a Christian divine, while they 
 
 {a) See notes at the end. 
 
S40 
 
 look, and look in vain, for any arguments drawn from holy 
 Scripture, to support his assertions. If men of this descrip- 
 tion will turn to the Short Answer, they will readily per- 
 ceive what slender foundations are laid in the Scriptures, 
 for sacramental confession. The stronofest text is in Matt, 
 xvi. 18, and that has been shown to be a baseless pretext. 
 Hard, indeed, has the Doctor laboured to press others into 
 his service, but let the candid reader refer to the discussion 
 of them in the Answer ; and, I trust, he will conclude, that 
 something more is required to discover in holy writ, the 
 most sacred and lofty pretensions of mortals, than wily so- 
 phisms and strained interpretations, influenced by the pre- 
 judices of preconceived opinions, and never daring to ques- 
 tion them. The Scripture, therefore, affords no ground 
 for sacramental confession. The proofs of this position 
 may be found in the Short Answer, and Dr. O'Gallagher is 
 defied to refute them. 
 
 Before we proceed to vindicate the second part of the 
 Short Answer, it will be necessary to notice a transient re- 
 ference to Peter Lombard, a celebrated schoolman of the 
 12th century, merely to show that in his day, sacramental 
 confession was not deemed a scriptural practice of indispen- 
 sable obligation, or that the texts alleged by the exposition 
 to support it, were not deemed conclusive. It is really 
 astonishing, that the mention of this old divine, merely en 
 passant, should have put the Doctor's bile into such violent 
 commotion. He cries out imposition, imposture, Protestant 
 credulity, &:c. as if all the merits of his cause depended on 
 the authority of Peter Lombard. But whatwill the reader say, 
 when he sees that all the Doctor's iire evaporates into 
 smoke, or rather into invisible gas ? It was asserted in the 
 Short Answer to the Appendix, "That the famous master 
 of the sentences, delivers the doctrine of the reformation 
 respecting confession, and contradicts that of the council 
 of Trent." Now, what is the doctrine of the reformation 
 on this head ? Is it not, as Peter Lombard truly says, <' that 
 
341 
 
 God only remits sins and retains them, and yet that he has 
 granted power to the Church to hind and to loosen ; but he 
 hinds and loosens in a different manner from the Church. 
 For he remits sin by himself only, because he both cleanses 
 the soul from the inward stain, and frees her from the debt 
 of eternal death. But this he never granted to priests, to 
 whom, nevertheless, he gave the power of binding and 
 loosening, that is, oi declaring men either bound or loosen- 
 ed. Hence our Lord first restored the leper to health by 
 himself, then sent him to the priests, that by their judgment 
 he might be pronounced to be cleansed." The power, 
 then, of declaring penitent sinners absolved from their 
 sins, is that which the master of sentences delivers, and I 
 believe such power is considered, by every Protestant 
 Church, as constituting one part of " the ministry of recon- 
 ciliation," committed to it by Christ. The Doctor has not 
 questioned the authenticity of this passage. Had he done 
 so, its doctrine might have been easily elucidated by cor- 
 responding passages from many of the fathers. One from 
 Gregory the Great, bishop of Rome in the 7th century, 
 shall stand in place of them all. When commenting on 
 the 5th verse of the 3^d Psalm, "Thou who alone sparest, 
 who alone forgivest sins," he adds this paraphrase, " For 
 who can forgive sins but God alone 1" {Greg. Expos. 2. 
 Ps. Pcenitent.) Who, indeed, can exercise a prerogative 
 belonging exclusively to the Most High; or, as the pro- 
 phet says, (Micah vii. 18,) " Who is a God like unto thee, 
 that pardoneth iniquity ]" Such was the doctrine of the 
 Christian Church before the councils of Lateran and Trent. 
 Will the Doctor say that this is still the doctrine of the 
 Church of Rome? Will he say that the power of the priest 
 is declaratory only, and not judicial and ahsolute ? Will 
 he subscribe to the explicit opinion of Peter Lombard, in 
 another passage of his works, " that in remitting or retain- 
 ing sins, the priests of the Gospel, have that right and 
 
 office, which the legal priests had of old, under the law of 
 
 rf2 
 
342 
 
 ciiring lepers? These, therefore," these Christian priests, 
 " forgive sins or retain them, whilst they shoiu and declare 
 that they are forgiven or retained by God." (Lib. 4. sen- 
 tent, dist. 14./.) Besides all this, the very form of the 
 sacrament of penance, is defined to consist in these words, 
 " I absolve thee from thy sins," and, therefore, they con- 
 stitute an essential part of it. " Forgiveness," says Bellar- 
 mine, (de paenit. lib. 3. cap. 2,) " is denied to them whom 
 the priest will not forgive." His absolution is a sacramen- 
 tal act, which confers grace by the work wrought^ that is, as 
 this their most learned controvertist expounds it, " actively 
 and immediately, and instrumentally effects the grace of 
 justification," in such as receive it. " Active et proxime, 
 atque instrumentaliter efficit gratiam justificationis."* In 
 admitting all this as the doctrine of his Church, the Doctor 
 still maintains, that it was held by Peter Lombard, and all 
 other orthodox theologians, who lived before the 13th cen- 
 tury : and this he does, forsooth, because he takes it for 
 granted, that if they held it not, they were not Catholic 
 divines, as the Church can never innovate in matters of 
 faith. Thus, it appears, that even admitting the opinion of 
 Peter Lombard, appealed to by the Doctor, viz. that confes- 
 sion to a priest is necessary to salvation ; it is still true, 
 that with respect to the power of the priest, in this particu- 
 lar, the doctrine of the reformation prevailed, and that of 
 the council of Trent was unknown before the 13th century. 
 Again, can the Doctor demonstrate, that the confession to 
 a priest deemed necessary by Peter Lombard, is the same 
 particular, circumstantial, private confession, enjoined on 
 all Christians by the most bitter anathemas of that Church 
 in after ages, or that it was not that general, humble, and 
 sincere acknowledgment of sins, accompanied with marks 
 of hearty repentance, still practised in the Protestant Epis- 
 copal Church, and other Churches of Christendom ? Be 
 
 * Id. in sacram. in genere, lib. 2. cap. 1. 
 
343 
 
 this, however, as it may, the opinion of Peter Lombard on 
 this subject, is nothing more than that of a private divine, 
 which he telis us was controverted by many doctors of his 
 day. Among other questions which he propounds, (lib. 4. 
 senten. dist. 17,) he asks, " whether it be sufficient, that a 
 man confess his sins to God alone, or whether he must con- 
 fess to a priest ?" He then mentions a variety of opinions 
 upon the subject, and goes on to say, " to some it seemed 
 to suffice if confession were made to God only, without the 
 judgment of the priest, or the confession of the Church ; 
 because David said, ' I will confess unto the Lord :' he says 
 not unto a priest, and yet he shows that his sin was forgiven 
 him." " On these points," he continues, (ihid.) " even the 
 learned are found to have differed in their opinions, be- 
 cause the doctors seemed to deliver divers, and almost con- 
 trary judgments therein ;" that is to say, the ancient doctors 
 were divided in their opinions concerning auricular sacra- 
 mental confession, and although Peter Lombard appeared 
 obscurely to favour it, yet his idea of it was by no means 
 such as afterwards prevailed, and of course, his authority, 
 as cited in the Short Answer, remains unimpaired. I have 
 dwelt more fully than I intended on this accusation of the 
 Doctor, to show how easily his sophistry can be exposed, 
 and to check his constant propensity to cry out victory, be- 
 fore he is sure that he has conquered. To persons not la- 
 bouring under invincible prejudices, the express authority 
 of Thomas Aquinas, might have appeared sufficient to set- 
 tle this point: speaking of the opinion of those who con- 
 tended that it was lawful to maintain the validity of con- 
 fession to God alone, he says, {in 4. dist. 17,) " Magister et 
 Gratianues hoc pro opinione ponunt, sed nunc post deter- 
 minationem ecclesiae sub Innocentio IIL factam, haeresis 
 reputanda est." " The master of the sentences and Gra- 
 tian, lay down this as an opinion ; but now, after the deter- 
 mination of the Church under Innocent IIL it is to be re- 
 puted heresy." So that previously to that determination, 
 
344 
 
 during twelve centuries, an opinion was suffered to be cur* 
 rent in tlie Church, which was afterwards proscribed as 
 pernicious and heretical ; a striking instance, among many 
 others, that infallibility is a very inadequate and idle plea, 
 to secure the faith and practice of Christians, when it suf- 
 fers them to lioat with so much uncertainty, and for so 
 many centuries, in tlie writings of theologians. But, says 
 the Doctor, in reply to the second part of the Ansiver, 
 namely, " that the testimony of the ancient fathers does not 
 prove sacramental confession," " the first member is false, 
 the other ahsiirciy To prove its falsehood, he parades 
 again all the detached passages from the ancient fathers, 
 brought forward in the Appendix^ and explained in the 
 Answer. He adduces many others equally irrelevant, 
 which have a thousand times been invalidated and refuted, 
 as, in turning to the Answer, the reader will readily per- 
 ceive ; asj also, how very irksome it would be to enter 
 agafn upon their refutation. The merits of the question, 
 in this particular, are confidently rested on the reasonings 
 detailed in the Answer, from the 31st to the 47ih page. 
 As to the additional texts quoted by the Doctor, they con- 
 fer no further weight on those in the Appendix; and all of 
 them, of course, may be safely disregarded, as unconnected 
 with the Tridentine doctrine of sacramental confession. 
 But the fact is, on this, as on many other points, solitary 
 passages are culled both from the Scriptures and the 
 fathers, which have little or no bearing on the subject 
 under discussion : truths are contested which nobody de- 
 nies, while the real difficulties of the case remain unno- 
 ticed. Great compilers by profession, the Doctor and his 
 associates aim at astonishing their readers by an accumula- 
 tion of citations, and a pretended tradition foreign to the 
 question ; which few persons will be at the pains of exa- 
 mining, and then decree to themselves a triumpii, in which 
 they are the only applauders, while the rest of the world is 
 smiling at their folly. Like the theologians of the council 
 
345 
 
 of Trent, who, in order to prove their doctrine of confes- 
 sion from Scripture, cited every passage from the Old and 
 New Testament, where the word I confess, or confession 
 occurs, these confident gentlemen adduce from the ancient 
 fathers a multiplicity of texts, which establish about as 
 conclusively the divine right of confession, as they do any 
 other dogma to which they might wish to apply them. 
 
 But the testimony of the fathers, the Doctor contends, 
 clearly evinces that "confession (he must mean sacramen- 
 tal confession) was the solemn rite, and necessary means 
 inculcated by the pastors, and practised by the faithful for 
 obtaining forgiveness of sins, throughout all Christendom, 
 from the earliest ages." The reader will judge from what 
 has already been said, what he is to think of tliis asser- 
 tion : perhaps however he will pardon, and the Doctor will 
 challenge, a little further illustration of this matter. I 
 find it ready to my hand in a short and learned disserta- 
 tion of my venerable friend, the present bishop of the 
 Protestant Episcopal Church in the State of Pennsylvania, 
 on auricular confession, p. 233 of his lectures. *' The 
 passage recorded (Acts xix, 16.) < Many that believed 
 came and confessed, and showed their deeds,' means no 
 more, than that their application to the Apostles to be re- 
 ceived to Christian communion, was accompanied by an 
 acknowledgment of their former vicious courses : a matter 
 not uncommon in every Protestant communion at this day. 
 But that a speci^Z confession of all past miscarriages, was 
 not a prerequisite of initiation into the Church by baptism, 
 may be presumed from the many places, in which it might 
 otherwise have been expected to appear — as in the bap- 
 tism of the eunuch — in that of Cornelius and his house- 
 hold — in that of Jairus and his household. 
 
 " On the present subject, the works of the early fathers 
 have received a similar treatment with the holy Scriptures; 
 that is, the absolute duty of confession to God, and the 
 occasional one of opening the heart to the ministers of bis 
 
346 
 
 word, has been confounded with the indispensable neces- 
 sity of the latter, as a condition of divine pardon. Thus, 
 Tertullian is introduced, as to the purpose, because in his 
 treatise concerning patience, among many animated exhor- 
 tations to persons fallen from the peace of the Church, he 
 counsels them to implore, on bended knees, the prayers of 
 the presbyters, and of all others who were dear to God. 
 Cyprian and Origen are quoted to the same effect, and on 
 similar occasion given. But, on the other hand, it would 
 be easy to bring passages from the fathers — from St. 
 Chrysostom in particular, in various passages of his works 
 — prescribing confession to God in such a way as to show, 
 that they thought no other necessary to the pardon of sins. 
 Even in the legitimate releasing from Church censures, 
 there are sundry fiithers who maintain, that the act of the 
 minister is not judicial, but declaratory,'^'' After tracing 
 plainly the origin and progress, to the final enacting of au- 
 ricular confession by the councils of Lateran and Trent, 
 the Bishop proceeds, (p. 235.) " It would be easy to re- 
 cite from ancient fathers, exhortations to repentance under 
 a variety of circumetanccis ; and expressed in such forms, 
 as show that they are materially defective, if auricular con- 
 fession, so evidently wanting in them, were thought uni- 
 versally a duty. There shall be given the instance of 
 the Roman Clement — undoubtedly the person referred to 
 (Philip, iv. S.) as having "his name written in the book of 
 life." in his admirable epistle to the Corinthians, written 
 for the express purpose of reclaiming them from a schism ; 
 after having set before them the heinousness of their of- 
 fence, he exhorts them to beg God's forgiveness, enlarging 
 on the sentiment, without any intimation of a preparatory 
 step of auricular confession. This, if required, might also 
 have been pertinently introduced in another place, where 
 he aduionishes those who had laid the first foundation of 
 the schism, " to submit themselves to their presbyters, and 
 to be instructed to repentance, bending the knees of their 
 
347 
 
 hearts." It may be alleged that confession was an appen* 
 dage to the repentance, to which they were to be instruct- 
 ed. But this is the matter in question ; and it is contended 
 that the general requisition of such a condition woukl na- 
 turally have introduced the mention of it in this place. — 
 The Corinthians, it is true, in the very return from their 
 schism, must have acknowledged their fault therein. But 
 it is easy to perceive the difference between this, and the 
 disclosure of the heart, implied in the subject under con- 
 sideration. The same inference may be drawn from the 
 second epistle of St. Clement, if indeed it be his ; and not 
 rather, as some think, erroneously ascribed to him, although 
 confessedly very ancient. Be this as it may, we have there 
 an earnest exhortation to repentance, without a word of the 
 necessity of confession to a minister. But there is no rea- 
 son to confine to the first three centuries, what is here af- 
 firmed of the sense of the fathers. Those of the fourth 
 century were equally strangers to the doctrine in question." 
 The Bishop then quotes from St. Chrysostom an explicit 
 passage in proof of his assertion, which neither Dupin, nor 
 any of his followers, were ever able to answer, and which 
 might be supported by a crowd of other texts from contem- 
 porary writers, which those brought forwaid in the Short 
 Answer render it unnecessary to allege, and which would 
 probably rather tire the patience of the reader than add to 
 his information. Before he proceeds to quote his authori- 
 ties from the fathers, with a view of refuting the second 
 part of the Short Ansiver, the Doctor becomes outrageously 
 angry, and somewhat abusive, on account of a remark, that 
 " the fathers frequently express themselves on the subject 
 of confession, and many other points of discipline existing 
 in their day, in a language little consistent with that cool- 
 ness and accuracy, which should always accompany polemi- 
 cal disquisitions." "What an argument I" exclaims the 
 doughty Doctor, " he now attempts to criticise the style of 
 the fathers." Flimsy apology for argument ! Horrid im- 
 
348 
 
 piety, nodoubt, and ignoranceunparalleled,sho\ving,cIear]y, 
 " how well, in the estimation of every man of letters, the 
 writer was qualified to censure the Cyprians, the Augus- 
 tines, d:c. and other luminaries of the Catholic Church." 
 If this is not finessing, as the Doctor calls it; if this is not 
 throwing, not " handfuls," but basketfuls, " of dust in peo- 
 ple's eyes, and giving them talk instead of truths," the 
 Doctor will be puzzled to define what is so. Will he pre- 
 tend to affirm that the ancient fathers were always cooZ and 
 accurate? It surely can be only when measuring their 
 tempers by the standard of his own, that he presumes to 
 hazard such an assertion. In sincere respect, profound 
 veneration, and heart-felt gratitude to the persons and 
 writings of the ancient fathers of the Church, the writer of 
 these pages, will not yield to Dr. O'Gallagher, or any of 
 his associates. He appreciates them as intrepid cham- 
 pions, faithful witnesses, enlightened instructors, and glo- 
 rious martyrs of our holy religion; but to regard either 
 their persons or writings as exempt from human infirmities 
 and error, to hold up their testimony as uniform and con- 
 stant, except, indeed, in the fundamental and. leading doc- 
 trines of Christianity, is either to be unacquainted with 
 their writings, to impose upon the ignorant, or to flatter the 
 credulous. (5) " One does not know which to admire most," 
 says the Doctor, "the falsehood implied, or the calumny 
 expressed," in the assertion that the " fathers, being igno- 
 rant of any divine precept respecting sacramental confes- 
 sion, could not be expected to enter upon its discussion. 
 The fact is, no controversy on this point existed in their 
 day ;" and if this had been the case, it is not to be doubt- 
 ed, but they would have entered into it with as much 
 warmth, detail, and accuracy, as are to be found in mo- 
 dern manuals, casuists, and treatises innumerable. Let the 
 Doctor produce his documents of this kind ; let him show 
 
 (6) Sec notes at the end. 
 
S49 
 
 us from history, that kings and queens, and other great per- 
 sonages, had their stated confessors ; that at certain sea« 
 sons the Churches were crowded with those who repaired 
 thither for confession ; that plenary indulgences were an- 
 nexed to this exercise ; and that the absolution of some 
 crimes was reserved to the bishop, and others to the pope 
 alone. Let him, I say, favour us with any authentic ac- 
 counts of the primitive Christians, which state their devo- 
 tions in this particular, to resemble those of the present 
 Roman Church, or give any countenance to these and other 
 practices naturally resulting from sacramental, auricular 
 confession, and I will admit his imputation of falsehood 
 and accusation of calumny : if the Doctor cannot do this, 
 then these vulgar terms must recoil upon himself. He 
 would, however, do well to remember, that to take for 
 granted the testimony of the fathers, and then to abuse all 
 those who reject it, neither implies nor expresses accuracy 
 or candour, " Bold and censured opinions," he tells us, 
 •' have no weight with Catholic divines :" or, in other words, 
 the Roman Church has only to censure any passages in the 
 ancient fathers and modern divines, that clearly make 
 against her; and such passages are immediately excluded 
 from their testimony. A summary method, truly, of get- 
 ting rid of difficulties, which, nevertheless, runs through 
 the Doctor's whole performance. Presuming on the infal* 
 lible authority of his Church, he presents this attribute as 
 an impenetrable shield against every hostile weapon ; he 
 retires into this impregnable fortress, after all its outworks 
 are demolished. But to this last asylum, also, we will en* 
 deavour to follow him, even through the many and intfi* 
 cate labyrinths, with which he labours to impede our way. 
 Before we enter, however, on this subject, which consti- 
 tutes the third part of the Short Answer^ we entreat the 
 reader to consider attentively the obvious meaning of the 
 texts alleged on both sides of the question, and to decide 
 impartially on their merits. Let him discard the idea of 
 
350 
 
 any existing authority, in an infallible Church, to press 
 some of them into her service, and to disown others as er- 
 roneous, and then, perhaps, should this infallibility be 
 found chimerical and groundless, he will conclude that the 
 author of the Short Answer did not " throw away any spare 
 ammunition, in strings of questions, and a rant of interro- 
 gation,'' which the Doctor has endeavoured in vain to an- 
 swer, by passing them by " as the common resort of school- 
 boys in their juvenile compositions, to dazzle the eyes of 
 youthful and inconsiderate readeis." But readers of a dif- 
 ferent description, will possibly perceive from the fore- 
 going pages, that the Doctor also has made some proficien- 
 cy in ranting : and, indeed, two-thirds of his book consist 
 of nothing else. As to his humour, take the following 
 specimen : it was said in the Ansioer, that the power of the 
 keys, or the authority to bind and to loose, to forgive and 
 retain sins, given by Christ to his Apostles, &c. is very dif- 
 ferent from that exercised by the Romish priests, in the sa- 
 crament of penance ; and that, consequently, the retention 
 of sins is no part of this sacrament ; of course, that this 
 sacrament is not founded in the words of Christ's commis- 
 sion. This was all that was meant, and all that was said; 
 but, " as well," exclaims the Doctor, " might he say, refus- 
 ing to open a door, is not opening it : therefore, there is no 
 such thing as opening a door." Very witty, indeed ! as if 
 the power, or commission of opening and shutting a door, 
 could be completely exercised by opening it alone. One 
 word more on a verbal quibble of the Doctor, and this part 
 of the subject shall be dismissed. In the Answer it was 
 asserted, that " the doctrine of sacramental confession was 
 unknown to the primitive Church, and that previous to the 
 thirteenth century it had never been enacted into an ar- 
 ticle of faith, and indispensable discipline.'' Throughout 
 the preceding pages, and those of the Answer, the proofs 
 of these propositions will readily be found, and to them the 
 reader is again confidently referred. But the word enact, 
 
351 
 
 it seems, excites the Doctor's indignation, and absurdity 
 and imposture are dealt out with great liberality upon his 
 opponents; and this, forsooth, because "the Church never 
 creates a new article of faith ;" but merely " declares and 
 defines the ever-subsisting faith, once delivered to the saints, 
 and always retained and venerated by the body of the faith- 
 ful." In other words, she will not acknowledge that she 
 has ever erred, or that her doctrines have not always been 
 the same as they are at this day. Here is begging the very 
 point in question ; for Protestants contend and prove that, 
 by enacting new articles of faith, she has erred from the 
 truth. Was it not many ages after the Christian era, that 
 the sacrament of penance was made one of the seven 1 
 Was not a practice, deemed previously optional, enacted 
 into a law by the Lateran council ? However, if the Doc- 
 tor will curb his petulance and compose his temper, for the 
 sake of such a benefit, we will abandon the obnoxious 
 word, and agree that to declare a new article of faith, is the 
 same as to enact it ; and he will not refuse to admit the de- 
 claration of Thomas Aquinas, that " what was matter of 
 opinion before the council of Lateran, became heresy after 
 it ;" and that, of course, a new article was added to the 
 belief of his Church. 
 
 But, no, says the Doctor, my Church is infallible, she 
 cannot err, she is secured from every possibility of mistake, 
 so that all her declarations on matters of faith are irrefraga- 
 ble and binding, and without admitting them, there is no 
 salvation,(c) — so at least say all her confessions of faith. 
 On her declaration, therefore, we are bound to receive and 
 practise her doctrine of sacramental confession ; and this 
 declaration is manifestly founded on her claim to infallibi- 
 lity. Now, it was asserted in the third part of the Short 
 Anstcer, that " neither the councils of Lateran nor of Trent, 
 nor any other earthly tribunal, had, or has, a right to impose 
 
 (c) See notes at the end. 
 
352 
 
 such a grievous yoke as auricular confession upon the faith- 
 ful, from a plea to infallibility; this plea being altogether 
 unsupported either by reason or revelation." 
 
 This third proposition^ the Doctor styles " a mere jar- 
 gon of unmeaning words, not expressing or refuting (he 
 probably meant contradicting) any principle or tenets of 
 Catholics." " It is a mere jagon of unmeaning words," 
 says the Doctor, '' to assert that no authority upon earth 
 can bind on the faithful such a grievous yoke as auricular 
 confession, from a plea to infallibility :" and yet this is the 
 very plea on which it is done ; on what other plea could it 
 be done ? What but the claim of being an unerring guide 
 in matters of faith, arising from a supposed right to fix the 
 sense of the Scriptures, and to define traditions equally im- 
 perative, could have emboldened the Lateran council to 
 decree, (cap. 21,) " Omnis utriusque sexus fidelis," and 
 " Let every one of the faithful of either sex, being come to 
 the years of discretion, by him, or herself alone, once in 
 the year at least, faithfully confess their sins to their own 
 priest, &;c. Otherwise, let them, when living, be excluded 
 from the Church, and, when dead, be deprived of Christian 
 burial." Nothing surely but a consciousness of an exemp- 
 tion from error, or the plea of infallibility, could induce 
 the council to enact, or the faithful to obey, such an out- 
 rageous decree. The author of the Appendix, more logi- 
 cal, or more candid than the Doctor, saw this subject in its 
 proper light, and, therefore, declares without hesitation, 
 *' that his fourth and last argument in favour of the divine 
 institution of confession, is drawn from the infallibility of 
 the Church, which has repeatedly and solemnly declared 
 this truth in her general councils, and emphatically taught 
 the same in every age." On the plea of infallibility, 
 therefore, this doctrine has been declared, and taught, and 
 enforced by the Roman Church. "This plea," says the 
 Answer, " is unsupported either by reason or revelation :" 
 and, therefore, with respect to sacramental confession, is 
 
853 
 
 totally null and void. So much for the Doctor's " mere 
 jargon of unmeaning words," and his bold assertion, that 
 the proposition " does not contradict any tenet of his 
 Church." 
 
 We proceed now to the Doctor's animadversions on the 
 third part of the Answer to the Appendix. And we may 
 begin by observing, that the refutation of each of his argu- 
 ments and sophisms, has been anticipated in that Answer. 
 Of this, the reader is invited to judge, and he is moreover, 
 entreated kindly to overlook any repetitions, which must 
 necessarily occur in accompanying the Doctor over the 
 very same ground which is traversed by the Appendix, or 
 through any anomalous courses peculiar to himself. The 
 texts on which the Doctor grounds the infallibility of his 
 Church, are noticed and explained in the Answer, from the 
 280th to the 289tli page ; and although they have supplied 
 materials for many a ponderous volume, carry with them a 
 meaning so simple and obvious, that to an unprejudiced 
 mind they need no prolix discussion. The first that occurs 
 in the Answer, (Matt. xvi. 18,) " The gates of hell shall 
 not prevail against the Church," is that, on which the Ro- 
 man Catholic writers lay the greatest stress, and shall, 
 therefore, receive, exclusively, some additional attention. 
 I find a lucid and unanswerable explanation of this text, in 
 a sermon of the profound and accurate Bishop Horseley, 
 mentioned above. " On these words," says the learned 
 prelate, "that ' the gates of hell,' dtc— the time compels 
 me to be brief, nor is there need I should be long. In the 
 present state of sacred literature, it were an affront to this 
 assembly,* to go about to prove that the expression of * the 
 gates of hell,' describes the invisible mansion of departed 
 souls, with allusion to the sepulchres of the Jews and other 
 eastern nations, under the image of a place secured by 
 barricadoed gates, through which there is no escape, by 
 
 * The Society for the propagation of the Gospel in foreign parts. 
 Gg3 
 
554 
 
 natural means, to those who have once been compelled to 
 enter. Promising that these gates shall not prevail against 
 his Church, our Lord promises not only perpetuity to the 
 Church, to the last moment of the world's existence, not- 
 withstanding the successive mortality of all its members in 
 all ages ; but, what is much more, a final triumph over the 
 power of the grave. Firmly as the gates of Hades may be 
 barred, they shall have no power to confine his departed 
 saints, when the last trump shall sound, and the voice of 
 the archangel shall thunder through the deep." " The 
 promise of stability, in the text, is to the Church Catholic: 
 it affords no security to any particular Church, if her faith, 
 or her works should not be found perfect before God. The 
 time shall never be, when a true Church of God shall not 
 be somewhere subsisting on the earth ; but any individual 
 Church, if she fall from her first love, may sink in ruins; 
 of this, history furnishes but too abundant proof, in the ex- 
 amples of Churches, once illustrious, planted by the Apos- 
 tles, watered by the blood of the first saints and martyrs, 
 which are now no more. Where are now the seven Churches 
 of Asia, whoso praise is in the Apocalypse? Where shall 
 we now find the successors of tliosc earliest archbishops 
 ©nee stars in the Son of Man's right hand 1 Where are 
 those boasted seals of Paul's Apostleship, the Churches of 
 Corinth and Philippi? Where are the Churches of Jeru- 
 salem and Alexandria?" As these ancient Churches, so 
 those of our day may be abandoned and disappear, and in 
 some distant quarter of the globe, now lying in the gloom 
 of superstition or idolatry, when become enlightened with 
 the rays of the Gospel, the question may be asked, where 
 now is the Church of England ; where now is the Church 
 of Rome? " But," says the Doctor, "this latter supposi- 
 tion can never be realized, because the gates of hell can 
 never prevail against the Catholic Church, which is the 
 Roman Church," So thai, in the idea of the Doctor, a 
 particular and universal Church is the same thing. But 
 
355 
 
 let that pass. " With any error in doctrine," says he, 
 " there could be no Church at all ; for all errors destroy 
 the Church." This, indeed, is very high ground, and the 
 Doctor maintains it with a train of sophistry seldom sur- 
 passed. He assumes all along, that the Catholic Church 
 and the Roman Church, are synonymous appellations. 
 Now, this is the very point in question, and the difficulty 
 is to prove it ; " hie labor, hoc opus est." The Catholic 
 Church is, indeed, the pillar and ground of truth; and, 
 therefore, by teaching any doctrine subversive of, or con- 
 trary to, the Christian faith, she would cease to be a Chris- 
 tian Church. As this is never to be the case, so the teach- 
 ing of such doctrine can never take place. But can any 
 individual Church claim, from these premises, an exemp- 
 tion from error ? Protestants have proved that the Roman 
 Church has erred : and, if so, she cannot surely substantiate 
 such a pretension. The whole of the controversy, indeed, 
 turns upon this point, and, until it is settled, the contending 
 parties must remain as they are. It is only from a com- 
 prehensive view of all the points in litigation, that the mat- 
 ter can be determined : but when the Doctor asserts, that, 
 " in admitting a Church to be subject to error, some men, 
 (that is, the whole body of Protestants,) " pretend to indul- 
 gence and liberality, and that this is an impious indul- 
 gence /" he betrays a spirit very unbecoming his character. 
 Protestants affirm, and have repeatedly proved, that the 
 doctrines of religion generally maintained by all Christian 
 Churches, in all places, and at all times, constituted the 
 code of Christian faith and morals ; and that the great body 
 of her pastors should always teach, and the great body of 
 the faithful should always admit, these doctrines, in spite 
 of all the attacks of the infernal powers. Let a period be 
 pointed out, when God was left without a witness, when an 
 error prevailed universally through Christendom, subver- 
 sive of some fundamental tenet, and it will be acknowledged 
 that the Church ceased to exist. Against errors, how- 
 
356 
 
 ever, of minor importance, errors neither damnable nor de- 
 structive, no security has been given, and none is necessary. 
 Previously to the coming of Christ, the Jewish Church vpas 
 the Church of God ; it was instituted and taught by God 
 himself through his servant Moses; his Spirit was always 
 ready to lead this Church into all truth, and high priests, 
 priests, and Levites, were appointed to guard the sacred 
 deposit of its faith — the law and the prophets ; yet, who 
 will say the Jewish Church never erred? Perpetuity, indeed, 
 was not promised to this Church, yet it was founded, and, 
 while it existed, was guided by the Spirit of God. When, 
 however, by the exercise of that freedom of the will, which 
 is essential both to individuals and collective bodies, and 
 which was not to be controlled by any special interference 
 of Providence, it afterwards fell into gross idolatry and pal- 
 pable superstitions ; when one great portion of this Church 
 denied ihe resurrection of the dead, and our Saviour cautions 
 his disciples against the doctrines of the other, (Luke xii. 
 S,) who taught for doctrines the commandment of men, 
 (Mark vii. 7,) and rejected the commandment of God, that 
 they might keep their own traditions ; (v. 9,) then it was, 
 that the Talmud, having defaced, and, in some points, in- 
 validated essential points of the law, the Jewish Church 
 was abolished. And had not infinite wisdom decreed, that 
 of the kingdom, or Church of Christ, there should be no 
 end, and that he would support it to the consummation of 
 the world, the hay and stubble, which have occasionally 
 been heaped upon its foundations, would probably ere 
 now, have so far obscured them, that we should look in 
 vain for this blessed society. But thanks be to God, these 
 foundations are still conspicuous and evident ; the flimsy 
 superstructures, at times erected upon them, have been 
 thrown down by the strong hand of the Almighty ; and at 
 this day, as in that in which they were first laid, they aflford 
 to every believer solid security, and the assurance which 
 is of faith. These foundations are the essential doc- 
 
357 
 
 trines of the Gospel, and therefore styled fundamental. 
 The Doctor denies that there are any doctrines of this de- 
 scription, (p. 109,) and qualifies such a notion, as false and 
 absurd. The reader, perhaps, with the Doctor's leave, may 
 presume to think otherwise. What ! are there then no 
 doctrines that lie at the foundations of religion ? Are all 
 of equal intrinsic value, importance, and weight? Truth, 
 indeed, as such, is incapable of augmentation, and one 
 truth is as great as another. It is equally true, that Isaac 
 begat Jacob, as that Christ was born of the Virgin Mary ; 
 but will any man of sense, who dares to think for himself, 
 pronounce these truths to be equally essential to Christiani- 
 ty ? Can, I say, any man, with his mind unshackled by 
 prejudice, education and sophistry, really believe, that the 
 profession of faith enjoined by Pope Pius IV. has added 
 nothing to the foundations of Christian faith, contained in 
 the Apostolic and Nicene creeds ? Will he admit " that 
 the doctrine o( purgatory, o( the invocation of saints, of the 
 veneration of their relics, are as fundamental articles of a 
 Christian's belief, as the mystery of the ever blessed Tri- 
 nity ; that the images of Christ, of the mother of God, ever 
 virgin, and also of other saints, ought to be had and retain- 
 ed, and that due honour and veneration is to be given 
 them ?" (See Pope Pius' Creed.) Will he, I say, believe 
 that these truths are as fundamental, as essential to the 
 existence of the Christian Church, as that of Adam's fall ; 
 of the incarnation and death, the resurrection and ascension 
 of Jesus Christ ; of the descent of the Holy Ghost ; of a 
 state of future retribution, and of the duty of worshipping 
 God in spirit and in truth ? Well may we say with the 
 Doctor, " what does this jargon mean ?" What, indeed, 
 does it mean, but to bewilder the minds and consciences of 
 Christians, and when they could no longer relish sound 
 doctrine, to turn them to fables, often as oppressive in their 
 tendency, as unfounded in their origin? Now, if some 
 
358 
 
 truths only he fundamental, of course, some errors only can 
 partake of this denomination. 
 
 These errors may deform, but not destroy the Church. 
 She was, indeed, to be led into all truth necessarily con- 
 nected with the ends of her establishment, but no promise 
 is made her, that, besides such truths, none of her particu- 
 lar branches should ever teach and countenance errors of 
 any kind. But the Doctor will say, with Pope Pius, that 
 these doctrines, which Protestants style errors, constitute 
 " the true Catholic faith, without which no one can be 
 saved ;'' therefore they are fundamental. This I know is 
 said, and rung perpetually in the ears of Roman Catholics. 
 But by whom is it said — by Jesus Christ, their Lord and 
 their God, or by those who, like Levi's sons, have taken too 
 much upon them ? " Rash expositors of points of doubtful 
 disputation," (says the late liberal and worthy bishop of 
 Llandaff, Theol. Tracts^) "intolerant fabricators of meta- 
 physical creeds and incongruous systems of theology ! Do 
 you undertake to measure the extent of any man's under- 
 standing, except your own, to estimate the strength and 
 origin of his habits of thinking ,• to appreciate his merit or 
 demerit in the use of the talents which God has given him; 
 so as unerringly to pronounce that the belief of this or that 
 doctrine, is necessary to his salvation ? It is, undoubtedly, 
 necessary to yours, if you are persuaded that it comes from 
 God ; but you take too much upon you, when you erect 
 yourself into an infallible judge of truth and falsehood. 
 We, as Christians, arc under no uncertainty as to the being 
 of a God ; as to his moral government of the world ; as to the 
 terms on which sinners may be reconciled to him ; as to " the 
 redemption which is in Jesus Christ ; as to the resurrection 
 from the dead ; as to a future state of retribution, &c.; but 
 there are other subjects on which the academicorum '^-ojw, 
 may be admitted, I apprehend, without injuring the foun- 
 dations of our religion." But, unhappily for the peace of 
 the Church, the lust of dominion, and the rage for dogma- 
 
359 
 
 tizing, has identified with these sacred foundations other 
 extraneous materials, as the Spirit of God had explicitly 
 foretold, and thus held them out as equally sacred and im- 
 portant. This subject might be prosecuted to any given 
 length, and fresh arguments would continually spring up to 
 show the slender grounds of the Doctor's triumph in this 
 particular. The mazes of logical reasoning, with which he 
 endeavours to convince his readers, will serve only to be- 
 wilder them, and keep down the suggestions of common 
 sense to untutored minds. To instance this in one short 
 sentence. He says, " The Church that would admit and 
 teach an error in faith, would violate the whole faith." 
 The Church that would admit and teach such an error, 
 knowingly and willingly, and if such an error were subver- 
 sive of the Christian religion, would, certainly, violate the 
 whole faith, and cease to be a Church. But here the ques- 
 tion returns, whether such an error be fundamental or 
 otherwise ; for it is from such only that exemption is pro- 
 mised in the Scriptures. If the reader wishes to obtain 
 further satisfaction on this point, let him turn to the third 
 chapter of that elegant and acute reasoner. Dr. Chilling- 
 worth, where the distinction between fundamentals and non- 
 fundamentals, is logically and irrefragably established. 
 Perhaps, however, before this subject is finally dismiss- 
 ed, the following passage from the 3d ses. of the council of 
 Trent, may stagger the Doctor's confidence, or, at any rate, 
 puzzle him to defend its consistency : " Symbolum fidei, 
 quo sancta ecclesia Romana utitur, tanquam principium 
 illud, in quo omnes, qui fidem Christi profitentur, necessa- 
 rio conveniunt, ac firmamentum firmum et unicum contra 
 quod portaj inferi nunquam praevalebunt, totidem verbis 
 quibus in omnibus ecclesiis legitur, exprimendum esse cen- 
 suit." " The council has declared, that the symbol of faith 
 used in the holy Roman Church, as that principle in which 
 all who profess the faith of Christ necessarily agree, and 
 that firm and only foundation^ against which the gates of 
 
360 
 
 hell shall never prevail, shall be expressed in the same 
 tvords in which it is read in all the Churches.''(rf) And 
 now let the Doctor exclaim, as dogmatically as he pleases, 
 " away, then, with these fictions of fundamental and non- 
 fundamental faith ; (doctrines, he should have said ;) " such 
 language being calculated to amuse and mislead the credu- 
 lous or interested abettors of particular systems." Let him 
 indulge himself in his usual style of dictatorial importance ; 
 enlightened Protestants will smile at his presumption, and 
 still regard his realities as fictions, and their fictions as so- 
 lemn realities. 
 
 We proceed, next, to the third proposition collected from 
 the Answer^ and which is styled not on\y false, but proved 
 to be so, by experience. It is this : " That thQ-Church may 
 always secure herself from capital errors, by taking for her 
 guide the light of clear revelations, and the evidence of 
 reason." " No," says Dr. O'Gallagher, " this isfalse ; the 
 light of clear revelation and the evidence of reason, are 
 not sufficient to secure, nor ever did secure the Church 
 from capital errors." Here, indeed, is a most extraordinary 
 assertion. The Doctor is surely not aware into wh-at a 
 snare he is falling; but he is resolved to plunge on, heed- 
 less of consequences. " Neither the wisest man," says he, 
 " nor the wisest set of men, can secure themselves against 
 errors, whatever guide they may assume.'* So that they 
 cannot secure themselves against errors, even by assuming 
 for their guide the Church of Rome herself. " It is God 
 alone that can secure men from error :" so say Protestants 
 likewise. But how can he do this, except by the instru- 
 mentality of revelation and reason ? If these be not the 
 means of coming at the truth, to what purpose are all the 
 Doctor's appeals to Scripture and reason, to prove the in- 
 fallibility and doctrines of his Church ? By omitting these 
 appeals, he might have saved us both considerable trouble. 
 
 (rf) See notes at the end. 
 
S61 
 
 But how he could have proved that " the Church is se- 
 cured against errors by the special assistance of Jesus 
 Christ, without exercising the faculty of his reason to dis- 
 cover this promise in the volume of revelation, would re- 
 quire a train of sophistry more subtle than even that of the 
 Doctor. The fact, then, is, that the Protestant Churches^ 
 being lively branches of the Catholic Church, have the pro- 
 mise of Christ to secure them from destructive errors. 
 This promise they find in their Bibles; on him who made 
 it, they rely for its performance ; and his unerring guidance 
 they endeavour cordially to adopt and follow, as well as 
 every other doctrine and precept which they read in his 
 revealed word. As to the divisions among Protestants, 
 which the Doctor attributes to their making the Scripture 
 their sole rule of faith, they were such as did not aim at 
 subverting the foundations of Christianity, or, if they did 
 so, the communities thus guilty no longer deserved the 
 name of Christian Churches. Divisions or variations among 
 the first reformers did, undoubtedly exist, but they were 
 not destructive. Unanimity was not to be expected from 
 persons labouring under ancient prejudices, and striving to 
 remove various errors and abuses, novel tenets, and unjus- 
 tifiable observances, gradually accumulated through pre- 
 ceding ages. In this mighty work, the timid were afraid 
 of advancing too far, and the intrepid knew not, sometimes, 
 at what point to stop. Some years were necessary to calm 
 the tempest, and bring order out of confusion. This was 
 done much sooner than the most sanguine lovers of truth 
 had anticipated ; and the event was, that all the real or 
 pretended variations of Bossuet, collected with so much 
 ingenuity and research, prove nothing against the princi- 
 pies of Protestants ; they serve only to show, that man, in 
 spite of all his boasted knowledge and best resolves, is still 
 a frail, unsettled, and imperfect being, and that nothing 
 but a plain, revealed, and written code of faith, can restrain 
 his wanderings into fatal and damnable errors. This ele« 
 
 H h 
 
S62 
 
 gant libel received a complete refutation from Basnage, in 
 his " Historic de la Religion des Eglises Reformees." 
 
 However, as the Doctor seems to lay great stress upon 
 the authority of his illustrious Bossuet, famous for nothing 
 so much as for his cruel animosity against the truly illus- 
 trious Fenelon ; for his oppression of poor Madame Guion, 
 and his heretical opinions respecting religious persecution, 
 which he always maintained and realized when he could; it 
 may be well enough to inform the reader, that his famous 
 " exposition of the Roman Catholic faith," furnishes am- 
 ple matter for retaliation, on the subject of religious varia- 
 tions. Although this little book be now considered by the 
 Doctor as the standard of orthodoxy, yet, many years 
 elapsed, from its first publication, before it could obtain 
 the approbation of the pope, though sanctioned by the 
 Archbishop of Rheims, and nine other prelates. Even the 
 Sorbonne itself disavowed the doctrines it contained ; and 
 many Roman Catholic priests were severely persecuted, for 
 maintaining its principles, which were formally condemned 
 by the university of Louvain. The artifices employed in 
 the composition of this book, and the tricks that were 
 played off in the suppression and alteration of its first edi- 
 tion, may be seen fully detailed in Archbishop Wake's 
 " introduction" to his " exposition of the doctrines of the 
 Church of Enghind." The variations, therefore, among 
 Protestant Churches, afford no argument against the suf- 
 ficiency of Scripture, as the only rule of their faith ; and 
 their security in resting exclusively upon this immoveable 
 foundation. To say that all sects professing to follow 
 Scripture as their guide, have not actually secured them- 
 selves from fundamental errors, such as the Arians, Soci- 
 nians,&c. and that such a guide is of course insufficient for 
 salvation, is only to say, that some men have actually "per- 
 Terted the Scriptures, and denied the Lord who bought 
 them." Without impeaching her own rule of faith, does 
 not the Roman Church maintain, that they who have gone 
 
363 
 
 out from her, have broached " damnable heresies ;" and 
 may not Protestants pronounce the same opinion, of those 
 who have abandoned the orthodox tenets of all antiquity, 
 and of the great body of Protestants, from the time of the 
 reformation. Is their rule of faith insecure, because pride, 
 or prejudice, has chosen to abandon it ? The Doctor's 
 reasoning on this head is palpable sophistry : he argues 
 against the use of a thing, from its abuse. On the Scrip- 
 tures, then, alone the Protestant builds his faith: because 
 he believes them to be written by divine inspiration, and 
 that the language of the Holy Ghost is full as intelligible 
 as that of a pope or council can be : because, whatever the 
 presumed unerring guide of the Roman Catholics could do 
 for him, can be effected by the Bible with more certainty, 
 and with equal security : because, in adhering to the Scrip- 
 tures only, he would chiefly follow that by which they 
 prove their infallibility, since he must be more sure of the 
 proof, than of the thing proved : because, although in fol- 
 lowing Scripture, he must admit several doctrines, which 
 reason never could have discovered ; yet is he not required 
 to assent to any thing, which solid reason can refute, and 
 which involves a palpable contradiction : because, in ad- 
 hering to the Church of Rome, he must believe that 
 Church to be exempt from error, upon much less evidence 
 than that which points out many of her doctrines as un- 
 founded and irrational : because the Scripture worship is 
 replete with genuine dignity, simplicity, and plainness, 
 which speak its divine original ; whereas, he sees in her 
 worship a ritual, repugnant both to his understanding and 
 his feelings : because, in following the Scriptures, he 
 cleaves to what universal tradition assures him to be the 
 word of God ; but, in believing the doctrines of the Roman 
 Church, he must yield to a very partial tradition, which 
 many good and learned men have often contested : be- 
 cause, in following the Scripture, he follows a law, which 
 the more he studies, the more he loves, and the more he 
 
364 
 
 understands; but in following her discriminating articles, 
 the more he examines them, the more questionable they 
 appear, the more obscure, and uncertain, from every ap- 
 peal both to reason and revelation : because, in following 
 the Apostles, he follows disinterested guides ; whereas, it 
 is the interest of all Roman Catholic rulers and teachers, 
 that their dominion should be upheld, and their influence 
 over men's consciences be maintained. In one word, the 
 faith of Protestants is built exclusively upon the Scrip- 
 tures, because the inspired Psalmist assures us, that they 
 are "a lamp unto our feet, and a light unto our path:'* 
 (Ps* 119.) because our Lord continually refers to the 
 Scriptures to determine controversies, commanding them 
 to "be searched as testifying of him, who is the Author 
 and Finisher of our faith :" because his blessed Apostle 
 tells us, (2 Tim. iii. 16.) "That all Scripture is given by 
 inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, &;c. that 
 the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto 
 all good works :" perfect in his faith, and walking in God's 
 commandments; wanting nothing more to perfect his 
 Christian character; and again, {Rom. xv. 4.) "Whatso- 
 ever things were written aforetime, were written for our 
 learning, for our instruction, that we tiirough patience and 
 comfort of the Scriptures might have hope ;" thus ex^ 
 pressly teaching that the hopes, and, consequently, the se- 
 curity of Christians, are grounded on the Scriptures. Now, 
 if 4hese, and many similar texts, be not conclusive, it 
 must be because the Doctor lays it down as an evident 
 truth, that " these books (of the holy Bible) do not assert 
 or vouch their own divine inspiration ;" so that the prophets 
 and Apostles, when they wrote, did not, according to the 
 Doctor, pretend to, or indicate any divine inspiration. A 
 curious assertion, indeed, for a Christian divine ! — But let 
 this blunder also pass. We have thus far attended the 
 Doctor pretty faithfully, though with that brevity which is 
 consistent witii slJcw cursory remarks upon his hook. As 
 
365 
 
 to the various texts of holy Scripture, upon which he builds 
 the infallibility of his Church, they are all noticed, and, I 
 trust, candidly explained in the Short Answer to the Ap- 
 pendix; and, if the reader should wish for further informa- 
 tion on this head, he has only to turn to the polemical works 
 of Chillingworth. Usher, Barrow, and an innumerable host 
 of Protestant writers ; who have repeatedly and completely 
 annihilated these lofty pretensions of the Roman Church, 
 whenever men of real erudition and candour have thought 
 themselves at liberty, with unbiassed minds, to examine 
 them to the bottom. In these works, the reader will find 
 that all the arguments in support of her infallibility, drawn 
 either from its expediency, necessity, or advantages, or 
 from its vindicating the veracity of Christ and his Apos- 
 tles, are empty words and vain theology ; that it affords no 
 grounds for present consolation, or hopes of future happi- 
 ness, which communion with Protestant Churches, as in- 
 tegral parts of Christ's mystical body, does not equally and 
 more satisfactorily supply, and that after all that can be 
 said upon the subject, the great body of Christians have as 
 powerful, nay, more powerful inducements to rely upon 
 the teaching of a Protestant minister, than of a Romish 
 priest ; I say, more powerful, because the first refers them 
 for his doctrines to the unerring oracles of God, while the 
 latter enjoins implicit submission to his infallible Church, 
 without being able to tell him clearly where this infalli- 
 bility can be found. All the pages of this part of the 
 Doctor's reply, are laboured with much subtlety, and cal- 
 culated to lead the reader through many intricate windings 
 of his polemical labyrinth. But a clue may readily be 
 found to enable us to penetrate into its most hidden re- 
 cesses. Entrenched within these, the Doctor delivers his 
 oracular dogmata, and, like Virgil's Sybil, thunders out his 
 dark denunciations, blending truth with obscurity, and, 
 
 like her, surrounded only with sapless leaves. 
 
 Hh 2 
 
366 
 
 " Talibus ex adyto diclis Cumcea Sibilla 
 Horrendas canit ambages, anlroque remugit; 
 Obscuris vera involvens." 
 
 The clue alluded to, is this: in every instance, the Doc- 
 tor confounds the Catholic with the Roman Church ; all 
 the promises and privileges belonging to the former, he 
 appropriates to the latter, under the pretension, that to 
 her alone belongs the monopoly of all Gospel blessings, 
 and the name of a Christian Church. Let him prove this, 
 and his dark sayings will appear luminous, and the con- 
 troversy will be ended. But, " she is the Mother and 
 Mistress of all Churches ;" so says Pope Pius ; so has the 
 Doctor sworn. She has never swerved from the primitive 
 faith, nor can she do so j she has never innovated, nor can 
 she innovate. In her the man of sin, the false propAe^, can 
 never be found: in her the mystery of iniquity can never 
 begin to woi'k. She silteth as a queen, and never can be 
 driven into the wilderness ; and this, because " every suc- 
 ceeding generation of Christians bore constant and uni- 
 form testimony to the truth of her doctrines, from the 
 Apostolic to the present times. These numerous genera- 
 tions, constituting, at every period of time, the Catholic 
 Chuich, were all simultaneous witnesses of the doctrine 
 received, preached, and approved by common consent : so 
 that no one of these generations could make a change, or 
 a false report of the faith of its predecessors, to the en- 
 suing generation, without being contradicted and confound- 
 ed by all the other generations existing at the same time." 
 This is a favourite argument with Roman Catholic divines, 
 and the Doctor prosecutes it with tiresome prolixity. But 
 what does it amount to ? Merely to prove, what Protes- 
 tants never denied, that when destructive heresies arose in 
 the Church, great bodies of the faithful immediately op- 
 posed and condemned them, as levelled at those common 
 and essential doctrines of Christianity, which have been 
 delivered down, through successive generations, to the 
 
367 
 
 present day. These, however, have been greatly obscured 
 in some particular Churches, while others have preserved 
 them in all their purity ; and it might readily be shown, 
 and Dr. Milner has shown in his History of the Church, 
 that in every age, even the most ignorant and flagitious, 
 individuals and communities have adhered to the Scriptu- 
 ral doctrines of salvation ; while surrounding Churches, 
 and that of Rome in particular, encumbered them with 
 idle and superstitious innovations. But when, or where, or 
 by whom, were these innovations introduced? As well 
 might we be required to ascertain the origin of every na- 
 tion and language upon the earth, as to trace each religious 
 opinion or practice to its source. The beginning and pro- 
 gress of innumerable errors and superstitions, are wrapt in 
 obscurity. There was a time when the Church of Rome, 
 like others of Christendom, was pure and evangelical, and 
 " her faith was spoken of throughout the whole world ;" 
 but, like others, founded by the Apostles, she fell away, 
 gradually, from her first love, and during the long preva- 
 lence of brutal ignorance, and more than Cimmerian dark- 
 ness, in which all Christendom was enveloped, from the ir- 
 ruption of the northern hordes, almost down to the period 
 of the reformation, she enjoyed ample opportunities of in- 
 troducing any opinions, of imposing any burthens that 
 might swell her treasures, or gratify her ambition. When 
 the Doctor, then, contends, that to prove the existence of 
 an error, we must show when it began, or that it cannot be 
 received by one generation without being condemned by 
 the following, he is not aware of the consequences to 
 which his opinion leads him; for, should it be well found- 
 ed, idolatry could never have existed in the world. It is, 
 I believe, admitted on all hands, that the worship of Je- 
 hovah was originally universal, without any mixture of 
 idolatry among the sons of Adam, for some time after ths 
 creation ; and that it became universal again among the 
 descendants of Noah for some ages after the flood ; but in 
 
368 
 
 neither of these periods did this worship remain long un» 
 corrupted. The antediluvian Church was gradually infect- 
 ed with error, and, like the Christian, had her watchmen 
 ready to refute it. " In the days of Enos men began to 
 call themselves by the name of Jehovah." (Gen. iv. 26.) 
 At this time pious men became alarmed at the beginning 
 of idolatry in the reprobate family of Cain, and, like many 
 communities in the most gloomy night of the Christian era, 
 formed themselves into a distinct party from the dominant 
 religion, and assumed to themselves a name indicative of 
 the pure worshippers of God. Now, when or where did 
 this idolatrous worship begin ? Will the Doctor question 
 it, because he cannot fix its date or its authors ? The case 
 in the postdiluvian Church is precisely the same. Noah 
 and his family came forth from the ark the pure worship- 
 pers of the true God ; but their posterity soon began to ex- 
 hibit symptoms of idolatrous propensities, and to blend su- 
 perstitious observances with the worship of the Eternal. 
 Instead of every successive generation protesting against 
 the innovations of the preceding, it rather embraced them 
 with increasing eagerness, until at length incorrigible su- 
 perstition separated all the ancient idolaters from the pa- 
 triarchal Church, and ended in total apostacy. 
 
 Now, when, or by whom, was this mixture of idolatry 
 and superstition introduced? We find "Terah, the father 
 of Abraham, serving other gods;" and little doubt can re» 
 main, that the ancestors of Abraham, and Abraham himself, 
 before God's gracious call, were infected with the idolatry 
 which prevailed in that age. But in the interval between 
 the deluge and the calling of Abraham, an interval of 426 
 years, when, or where, did this idolatry begin ? This dis- 
 cussion might be extended to any length; but enough has 
 been said to check the triumphant strain of the Doctor, and 
 likewise to convince the reader, that with the worship of 
 the true God, and the acknowledgment of his providence, 
 some superstitious errors, not destructive of either, may 
 
369 
 
 subsist : " Just as at this day, in the Roman Church, the 
 worship of the ever blessed Trinity subsists in preposterous 
 conjunction with the worship of canonized men, and inani- 
 mate relics." — {See Bishop Horseley''s Dissertation on the 
 Prophecies of the Messiah, &;c.) We cannot, therefore, 
 fix with precision, the exact period when erroneous opinions 
 and practices crept into the Church. It is sufficient for 
 Protestants to show, that they have existed, do exist, and 
 have been refuted and renounced. But, blessed be God, 
 we can readily point to a time when such opinions were 
 unknown. We can turn to the books of the New Testa- 
 ment, and shall there find nothing of them. "If," says 
 Dr. A. Clarke, " they be not met with in an Apostolic 
 epistle directed to this very Roman Church, it would be 
 absurd to look for them any where else. But there is not 
 one distinguishing doctrine, or practice, of the Romish 
 Church, found in this epistle. Here is no pope, no exclu- 
 sive churchship, no indulgences, no auricular confessions, 
 purgatories, masses, prayers for the dead, justification by 
 works, transubstantiation, extreme unction, invocation of 
 saints and angels, worship of images, dec. &c. Here are 
 no inquisitions, no writs de hceretico comburendo ;^^ nor, it 
 may be added, that holy incompatihility which the illus' 
 friows Bossuet claims for his Church, and which, he tells us 
 exultingly, renders her the most intolerant of all Churches* 
 " But," continues the learned commentator, " here is no- 
 thing puerile, nugatory, or superstitious; no dogma de- 
 grading to the understanding; no religious act unworthy 
 of the spirit and dignity of the Gospel ; nothing that has 
 not the most immediate tendency to enlighten the mind 
 and mend the heart of man. In a word, every thing is 
 suitable to the state of man, and worthy of the majesty, 
 justice, and benevolence of that God from whom this epis- 
 tle came. Nor should we look for these doctrines and 
 practices with more success in the writings of the primitive 
 fathers. To pretend that there was a universal consent or 
 
370 
 
 agreement upon these points, during the first ages of the 
 Church, is to support a paradox, which deserves no consi- 
 deration. It is utterly destitute of all historical evidence, 
 which, however, is pointed and conclusive, that for several 
 centuries they were not known in the Church : Providence 
 has mercifully furnished this evidence in our day — the star 
 of truth has appeared in the East. A precious remnant of 
 primitive Christians has been discovered in India, which, 
 for more than thirteen centuries, has preserved the great 
 and fundamental doctrines of religion, pure and unadulte- 
 rated from more modern corruptions. When, in the begin- 
 ning of the 16th century, the Portuguese arrived in India, 
 they found upwards of a hundred Churches on the coast of 
 Malabar. They immediately claimed these Churches as 
 belonging to the pope ; but the answer was, " Who is the 
 pope? we never heard of him." " We," said they, " are of 
 the true faith, whatever you from the West may be, for we 
 come from the place where the followers of Christ were 
 first called Christians." They came, indeed, from Syria, 
 while Churches founded by the Apostles were flourishing 
 in that country, and boasted of enjoying, for 1300 years 
 past, a succession of bishops, appointed by the patriarch of 
 Antioch. The Portuguese soon perceived how formidable 
 these Churches might prove against many of their doctrines 
 and superstitious observances. They invaded these haim- 
 less people, and lighted up against the refractory the flames 
 of the inquisition. A compulsory synod was held, at 
 which 150 of the Syrian clergy appeared, where they were 
 accused of the following practices and opinions: "That 
 they had married wives ; that they owned but two sacra- 
 ments, baptism and the Lord's supper; that they neither 
 invoked saints, nor worshipped images, nor believed in 
 purgatory ; and that they had no other orders or names of 
 dignity in the Church, than bishop, priest, and deacon." 
 These tenets, they were called on to abjure, or to suffer 
 suspension from all Church benefices. It was also decreed, 
 
371 
 
 that all the Syrian books on ecclesiastical subjects, that 
 could be found, should be burned ; " in order," said the 
 inquisitors, " that no pretended apostolical monuments may 
 remain." [See Buchanan's Christian Researches in India, 
 p. 149.) " The doctrines of the Syrian Churches," says 
 this apostolic and learned man, "are few in number, but 
 pure, and agree in essential points with those of the 
 Church of England." 
 
 "Here is a fact, a clear, unquestionable, historical fact, 
 that sets all the Doctor's sophistry at defiance. Here is a 
 branch of the primitive Apostolic Church, subsisting uncor- 
 rupted through a long series of ages, and miraculously pre- 
 served as a living witness, that neither the head, nor many 
 doctrines of the present Church of Rome, were known to 
 antiquity. The candid attention of Roman Catholics, is 
 confidently invited to this fact, for it appears of sufficient 
 weight to silence every cavil on the subject, and to render 
 perfectly nugatory the very tedious train of sophistical rea- 
 sonings with which the Doctor concludes his book. I say, 
 his arguments all vanish before this luminous fact ; for it 
 is incumbent on him to prove, that either through a long 
 lapse of ages, these Churches held the discriminating doc- 
 trines and discipline of his Church, or that, at the period of 
 their emigration, they were no Churches at all. Now, the 
 facts mentioned by Dr. Buchanan, refute both these suppo- 
 sitions. They were, undoubtedly, sound and lively branches 
 of the Catholic Church. They claimed no infallibility, but 
 that which they derived from the Scriptures ; no traditions 
 but such as are evidently apostolical ; no Scriptural canon, 
 but that of the Old and New Testament, which prevailed in 
 the Eastern Churches when they arrived in India, and 
 which is nearly the same with that of the Protestant Churches 
 at this day. For 1300 years they professed and experienced 
 the sufficiency of the holy Scripture for salvation, as the 
 sixth article of the Protestant Episcopal Church expresses it. 
 
572 
 
 Against this article, the Doctor puts forth all his skill, 
 and calls up, through several pages, all his resources of 
 polemical sophistry : resources which have a thousand 
 times been proved empty and futile, but which, notwith- 
 standing, it is perhaps expedient briefly to notice in this 
 place. This, however, can be nothing more than a further 
 illustration of the argument in the Short Anstver, which the 
 Doctor embarrasses, but does not confute. He tells us that, 
 in forming our religious faith, we are not " to convince 
 ourselves, in the first instance, that the Scriptures are in- 
 spired by Almighty God, and consequently possess a plena- 
 ry authority ; and that then we are to believe the doctrines 
 which they contain, because they are revealed." All this 
 the Doctor denies : but, can he show how faith can be pro- 
 duced in any other way ? Can it be founded on any thing 
 but the veracity of God, as its formal and ultimate motive, 
 and the rational conviction that God has revealed his will 
 to man? " But," says the Doctor, " every man is bound to 
 believe the articles of his faith, with an entire certainty of 
 their being revealed by God." This belief, he calls " an 
 act of faith, totally distinct from opinion, moral certainty^ 
 and every persuasion, which admits of doubt, hesitation, or 
 possibility of being mistaken." This is the groundwork of 
 all his following reasonings, in favour of an infallible autho- 
 rity in his Church. If once subverted, the whole fabric 
 tumbles together. Now, this can easily be done, for what 
 is an act of religious faith, but a belief of a religio-us doc- 
 trine, because God has revealed it, who can neither de- 
 ceive nor be deceived. But, how are we to know that God 
 has revealed it? " Because,'' says the Doctor, *' my infal- 
 lible Church has decreed that he has done so." But how 
 shall I know, rejoins the person who is instructed, either 
 that your Church is infallible, or that she has made such a 
 decree ? " Because," says Dr. O'Gallagher, " 1 solemnly 
 assure you, that this infallibility is revealed in the Scrip- 
 tures, and these decrees have been made by popes and 
 
373 
 
 councils." Thus, the Roman Catholic acquiesces ultimately 
 in the authority of his teacher, while the Protestant 
 " searches the Scriptures as he is commanded, in order to 
 examine if these things be so." They both believe the 
 doctrine, because God has revealed it; but supposing eacli 
 incapable of close and deep investigation, the first is refer- 
 red by a fallible priest to an infallible Church, and the lat- 
 ter by his fallible teacher to the acknowledged oracles of 
 God. Which of the two will feel most secure, let the rea- 
 der determine. When, therefore, the Doctor asserts, " The 
 Scriptures contain a revelation from God, and of course 
 their doctrines are articles of Christian faith," the first of 
 these propositions must be previously established by the 
 deductions of reason, founded either on actual investigation 
 or satisfactory authority, before the second can be admitted, 
 and become an act of faith. A firm and rational conviction 
 that a doctrine is revealed in the word of God, is sufficient 
 to elevate it to an object of our faith ; but still it remains 
 to be proved that the Scriptures are the word of God, and 
 his infallible oracles. This can only be done by their own 
 intrinsic excellence, and the collateral arguments adduced 
 for this purpose. These indeed are unanswerable, but 
 they are not articles of faith, but only motives of believing. 
 Now, motives fur believing a fact cannot be belief itself, or 
 an act of religious faith. All, therefore, except those who 
 delight in cavilling, will readily understand the meaning of 
 the above mentioned article to be nothing more than that 
 all the divine truths which Christ revealed to his Apostles, 
 and which they delivered to the Churches, are contained in 
 the Scriptures ; in other words, all the material objects of 
 our faith, of which the Scripture is not one, but only the 
 means of conveying them unto us ; which we believe not 
 ultimately, and on its own account, but on account of the 
 matter contained in it. So that, if we should believe the 
 doctrines of the Scripture, and live accordingly, our salva- 
 tion would not be eflTccted, even if we were ignorant of the 
 
 I i 
 
374 
 
 existence of any Scripture whatever. The end proposed 
 by the Almighty is the belief of the Gospel, the covenant 
 between him and man ,* God has provided the Scripture as 
 a mean for this end, and this we must believe, not as the 
 ultimate object of our faith, but as its instrument only. It 
 follows, then, from what has been said, and from much 
 more that might readily be said on this subject, that the 
 Protestant grounds his faith upon the veracity of God, and 
 so far possesses an infallible assurance that it is sound and 
 divine. He wants no living, unerring interpreter, to inform 
 him what doctrines are contained in the Scriptures; he 
 discovers them himself, written in as plain and intelligible 
 language as any pope or councils can employ ; and which 
 he is satisfied to learn from pious, intelligent, and confiden- 
 tial instructors, fully as competent, he conceives, to teach 
 and demonstrate what are scriptural doctrines, as the high- 
 est pretenders to infallible decisions. Is any infallible tri- 
 bunal necessary to ascertain the articles of the Apostles' 
 creed, the great doctrines of man's fall and redemption, the 
 influences of the Holy Spirit, and other essential tenets of 
 the Catholic Church, which she always professed to receive 
 on the authority of the Scriptures? Now, these being the 
 fundamental doctrines of Christianity, the Protestant re- 
 quires no living authority to assure him that they are con- 
 tained in his Bible : he has only to open it to find them 
 there ; and when he learns, moreover, that the universal 
 Church has always received them, he endeavours to excite 
 in his heart such teachable dispositions as, with the grace 
 of God, eventuate in unwavering faith and assurance. The 
 Doctor, probably, never attended a pious Protestant on his 
 dying bed ; but he may be assured, that never was any un- 
 easiness felt or expressed, with regard to his faith being 
 grounded on the Scriptures alone : a few appropriate pas- 
 sages from these divine oracles compose and animate his 
 departing spirit, much more rationally and eflfectually than 
 any reference to the intercession of saints, or other practices 
 
375 
 
 of a Church self-denominated infallible, can do. But, con- 
 tinues the Doctor, " to follow up Protestant principles with 
 consistency, he must learn from the Scripture itself what 
 books of the Holy Bible are divinely inspired, and what is 
 the true canon thereof." The fallacy of the first part of 
 this position has already been shown, and, as to the canon 
 of the Scripture, no infallibility is requisite to ascertain it. 
 Protestants admit their canon of the Scripture upon the 
 credibility oi universal tradition, not upon the authority of 
 any particular Church: and it might readily be proved, 
 that of the authority of the canon of Scripture, generally 
 adopted by Protestants, there never was any doubt in the 
 Catholic Church. But, supposing we should submit in this, 
 and all other points, to the decision of the Roman Church, 
 how could she assure us that we should not be misled 1 
 She pretends, indeed, to infallibility ; but how can she con- 
 vince us that she possesses it? Will it be from Scripture? 
 That, says the Doctor, cannot assure us of its own infalli- 
 bility, and, therefore, not of his Church's. Will it be from 
 reason? That, surely, may deceive us in other things; 
 and why not in this? How then will she convince us 1 
 By saying so. But of this very affirmation, the same ques- 
 tion will return. How can it prove itself to be infallibly 
 true? So that there can be no end of multiplying such 
 -questions, until we can rest upon something self-evident, 
 which demonstrates to the world that this Church is infalli- 
 ble. Now, since no such rock can be found, on which to 
 build this mighty claim, it must of necessity, like the island 
 of Delos, float up and down for ever ; and yet upon this 
 point, according to Roman Catholics, all other controver- 
 sies of faith depend. 
 
 Wherefore, the Doctor needed not to urge any reason to 
 prove, " that questions about Scripture are not to be decided 
 by Scripture :" it is a self-evident proposition, and readily 
 granted : but the corollary which he infers from it, that 
 " jthereibre thej ajre to be decided by his, or any visible 
 
376 
 
 Church, is an illogical conclusion, much like that of the 
 sophist, who, because Pamphilus was not to have Glyceria 
 for his wife, concluded that he must have her himself: as 
 if there had been no more men in the world but he and 
 Pamphilus. So, the Doctor, having concluded that such 
 questions could not be settled by Scripture, appeals to his 
 infallible Church as the only authority remaining. But the 
 truth is, neither the one nor the other, has any thing to do 
 with this matter. For the question, " whether such or 
 such a book be canonical Scripture," although it may be 
 decided negatively out of Scripture, by showing apparent 
 and irreconcileable contradictions between it and some other 
 book confessedly canonical, yet affirmatively it cannot be, 
 except by the concurrent testimony of the ancient Churches. 
 " But Protestants," says the Doctor, " have excluded seve- 
 ral books from the canon of Scripture," which are made 
 part of it by the council of Trent. He then enumerates 
 these books, of all which, it would be easy to prove, that 
 doubts existed in the ancient Church. In every learned 
 commentator, the reader will find these proofs; so that the 
 sacrilegious cheats Luther, and all the Protestant Churches, 
 whom the Doctor classes with the Old Manicheans, are re- 
 probated for not admitting many books as canonical, which 
 were deemed apocryphal by the primitive fathers. Did not, 
 for instance, Melito, Athanasiiis, and Gregory Nanzianzen, 
 exclude the book of Esther from the canon : why then was 
 Luther more guilty than they ? Many similar instances 
 might readily be alleged, which, for brevity's sake are 
 omitted. Protestants then receive all the books as canoni- 
 cal, which were always deemed such by the ancient 
 Church. But, the Doctor will sny, " is not this to make the 
 Church a judge in this matter?" It certainly is so, but not 
 the present Church, much less the present Roman Church, 
 but the general consent of the ancient and primitive Church 
 of Christ. The Doctor will not pretend, that any Scrip- 
 tures, retained as canonical by Protestants, for instance, by 
 
J/ / 
 
 the Church of England, are not canonical. He will not 
 allow, that the infallibility of his Church, and all her discri- 
 minating doctrines, cannot be proved from these Scrip- 
 tures; why then is he so angry at others being omitted, 
 which never had the sanction of the universal Church, and 
 without which all necessary articles of Christianity may be 
 known 1 The book of Maccabees, indeed, is deemed ca- 
 nonical in the Roman Church, as favouring the doctrine of 
 purgatory; but the very learned Lyranus,*' and many other 
 Roman Catholic doctors, consider it as apocryphal, and so 
 did several ancient writers. 
 
 The Doctor passes from " the determination of the canon 
 of the Scriptures, to the consideration and study of the 
 books themselves ;" and here he indulges himself in a vein 
 of obloquy and sophistry, that is really surprising. Reas- 
 serts, that the German translation of the New Testament 
 by Luther, corrupts more than a thousand places in the 
 New Testament alone : among others, (and this is probably 
 selected as the most material,) he quotes Bom. iii. 28« 
 " A man is justified by faith :'' Luther adds to the text a 
 word, and makes it faith alone. " Other instances," says 
 he, "are unnecessary:" and so indeed they are, if this be 
 the most flagrant, for Luther adds nothing to the important 
 or evanofelical tenet delivered in the text, that man is 
 really justified by faith alone.; for the whole verf*e is 
 *' Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith, 
 without the deeds of the law;" — surely, then, " by faith 
 alone." The fact, however, is, we have nothing to do with 
 the corruptions and falsifications with which the Doctor 
 charges Luther, and other Protestant translators ; and these 
 charges may be readily retorted upon Lyranus, or Lucas 
 Brugensis, or Laurentius Valla, or Cajetan, or many others, 
 who have committed palpable errors in their several trans- 
 
 * Among others, Gregory the Great did not hold ihis book to be a caiiaat- 
 <:al Scripture. Mor. lib. 19. c. 13. 
 
 li 2 
 
378 
 
 lafions. " Now, let me ask," says tlie Doctor, " from which 
 of those translations of the Holy Scripture, a sincere and 
 intelligent Protestant can derive an infallible certainty of 
 the divine revelation of the doctrines apparently expressed 
 in them ?" The answer is, he derives his certainty from 
 arguments applicable to them all, for all of them, I believCy 
 express the great doctrines of religion; and, if they do noty 
 they must be rejected as heretical. The Doctor possibly 
 might not have perceived, that his question would involve 
 him in c/>nsiderable difliculty ; for it may be asked with 
 equal propriety, which, among the various translations 
 in the primitive Church, the fathers and doctors were to 
 adopt. Let us hear St. Augustin, lib. 2. de Chris, doc. 
 cap. 11. " They who have translated the Scriptures out of 
 the Hebrew into Greek, may be numbered ; but the Latin 
 interpreters are innumeraole ; for, whensoever any one, in 
 the first times of Christianity, met with a Greek Bible, and 
 seemed to himself to have some skill in both languages, he 
 presently ventured upon an interpretation," or translation: 
 of all these, that which was called the Italian was esteemed 
 the best ; as St. Austin assures us .■ [ibid. chap. 15.) 
 " Among all these interpretations," says he, " let the Ita- 
 lian be preferred.'' Yet, so far was the Church at that day 
 from presuming upon the absolute purity and perfection 
 of even this best translation, that St. Jerom thought it ne- 
 cessary to make a new translation of the Old Testament from 
 the Hebrew, and to correct the vulgar version of the New from 
 the original Greek. (»See lib. de Viris illustribus.) This 
 work he undertook and performed, at the request of Dama- 
 sus. Bishop of Home. Now, how was the sincere Christian 
 to discover Scripture truth, from all this variety of versions, 
 or where, all this while, was the infallible authority to 
 point out to him, which version contained the orthodox te- 
 nets of religion ? It was silent, it was unknown, and, if un- 
 necessary at that period, is unnecessary still, and, there- 
 
379 
 
 fore, in this matter, Protestants must either stand or fall 
 with the primitive Church. 
 
 It was expected that something would be said of the Vul- 
 gate in this place, but the Doctor has very prudently omit' 
 ted any mention of this standard version of his Church. 
 He well knows that it abounds with erroneous translations : 
 the departure from the original, at the 15th verse of the 
 third chapter of Genesis, where the important promise of a 
 Redeemer is generally supposed to be expressed, and where 
 the Vulgate has it, " ipsa conteret caput tuum," " she (in- 
 stead of it, or he) shall bruise thy head, is one among the 
 many mistakes that could be selected from this version." 
 Nay, its warmest advocates allow, that "it is impossible to 
 discern which is the true reading of the vulgar edition, 
 but by having recourse to the originals, and dependence 
 upon them." (Bell, de verbo Dei lib. 2 c. 11.) And Fr. 
 Laynes, the general of the Jesuits, who was present at the 
 council of Trent, and took a leading part in all its delibera- 
 tions, expressly tells us, (Pro. Edit. Vnlg. c. 21. p. 99.) 
 that, " If the council had purposed to approve an edition in 
 all respects, and to make it of equal credit and authority 
 with the fountains, certainly they ought, with exact care, 
 first to have corrected the errors of the interpreter." Yet 
 this was what they did not, and thus omitted a favourable 
 opportunity of creating in the minds of the faithful " an 
 assurance of the true Scriptures," which the Doctorcontends 
 can only be done by having recourse to his Church. But 
 of what service was her claim to infallibility, when she suf- 
 fered whole books of Scripture to be utterly lost, and the 
 originals of those that remain to be corrupted ? 
 
 From this train of reasoning, which is reluctantly re- 
 peated, in order to meet the Doctor's sophistry, continually 
 recurring in a hundred different shapes, it will readily be 
 perceived, that the three propositions, which he lays down 
 as " the foundation, plan, and rule of the Protestant creed 
 and faith," are combated with the weapons of errant sophis- 
 
580 
 
 try and polemical chicanery. The first proposition is, 
 " that, in his last religious inquiry, the first instruction the 
 Protestant receives from his teacher is this, that the Scrip- 
 tures alone contain every article of the Christian faith;" 
 and a very wise instruction it is, whether such a Protestant 
 be competent to examine the Scriptures or not. In the 
 first supposition he is referred to them; in the second, he 
 must rely for his motives in believing the Scriptures to be 
 God's word, on the learning and integrity of his authorized 
 teacher, whom God commands him to hear as his appointed 
 minister, and whose doctrines he can readily compare with 
 those of the Christian Church in general. Now, how will 
 the Doctor adopt any other mode of instruction ? How 
 will he convince his pupil that the Scriptures alone do not 
 contain every article of faith? Will he not refer him to 
 his unerring Church, and tell him that she teaches many 
 articles not to be found in Scripture alone ? Here is a di- 
 lemma, on one of the horns of which the Doctor must be 
 tossed. He must either acknowledge that every article of 
 faith is contained in the Scriptures, or that his doctrines of 
 purgatory, confession, transubstantiation, &c. &,c. are not 
 to be found in them. If this latter be the case, why appeal 
 to the Scriptures for the truth of these doctrines; if it be 
 not, tiien it is clear that all the articles of the Doctor's faith 
 are contained in them. 
 
 But, adds he. Scripture does not teach us that it contains 
 every article of faith ; nor does it teach that " no doctrine 
 is to be received as divinely revealed which is not express- 
 ly contained in it." Quo teneam vulius mutantem Protea 
 nodo ? How often must we repeat, that, provided we be 
 assured from other sources, from which moral certitude can 
 be derived, that the Scriptures are the word of God, no as- 
 sertions of their own are necessary in the first instance, be- 
 cause these, being part of (hem, cannot be proved satisfac- 
 tory from themselves ; but when once demonstrated, by 
 arguments drawn from any source whatever, to be the ora- 
 
381 
 
 cles of truth, they then become solid foundations of our 
 Christian faith. This source, the Doctor contends, is his 
 infallible Church ; without her, we cannot believe, with a 
 divine faith, that the Scriptures are God's word. But 
 where is this infallibility, this tenet of his Church, to be 
 found ? He will answer, in the Scriptures. But these do 
 not contain every article of Christian faith ; and, therefore, 
 possibly not this tenet of infallibility among the rest ; so 
 that, after all, the assurance of the Scriptures being a di- 
 vine revelation, is as much an act of religious faith with 
 the Protestant as the Romanist. The two Churches, then, 
 though from different motives of credibility, and different 
 sanctions, finally agree in coiifessing the divinity of the 
 Scriptures : this point once established, whatever they 
 afterwards declare of themselves becomes an article of our 
 belief. The Doctor contends, that in no passage in Scrip- 
 ture, " from the first of Genesis to the last of Revelations, 
 can be discovered even one of the above mentioned propo- 
 sitions:" though, indeed, if the Jirst of them be there, the 
 other two must necessarily follow ; for nothing can be 
 more evident than this conclusion, that " if the Scriptures 
 alone contain all the articles of Christian faith, none but 
 such articles can be received as divinely revealed; and 
 that from the Scripture alone, every sincere inquirer may 
 derive all the articles of his faith." The two last inferences 
 are perfectly superfluous. To prove the Protestant princi- 
 ple, " to wit, that each individual should (rather say can) 
 discover and ascertain all the articles of his faith by his 
 own personal examination and discussion of the Scrip- 
 tures," three texts, says the Doctor, are usually alleged. 
 In this statement of the matter, there is a palpable, I will 
 not say wilful, misrepresentation. Tt is intimated that 
 "each individual Protestant is obliged to discover and as- 
 certain all the articles of his faith, by his own personal ex- 
 amination and discussion of the Scriptures." It is not ne- 
 cessary to repeat the refutation of this obstinate sophism. 
 
382 
 
 Let us proceed to the three texts in question: if carefully 
 examined, they evidently countenance the Protestant rule 
 of faith ; but the Doctor has omitted others, which posi- 
 tively establish it. In " reading the Scriptures, from the 
 first of Genesis to the last of Revelations," how can we 
 account for the following text having escaped his notice ? 
 *' But continue thou in the things which thou hast learned, 
 and hast been assured of, knowing of whom thou hast 
 learned them." (2 Tim. iii. 14.) Here the Apostle points 
 out from whom his pupil had received the assurance of the 
 Scriptures ; evidently not from the Scriptures themselves. 
 Then, verses 15, 16, and 17, he continues : " And that 
 from a child thou hast known the Holy Scriptures, which 
 are able to make thee wise unto salvation, through faith, 
 which is in Christ Jesus. All Scripture is given by inspi- 
 ration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for 
 correction, for instruction in righteousness; that the man 
 of God may he perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good 
 works." This text wants no comment ; it establishes, 
 without a doubt, the full sufficiency of the Scriptures for 
 every purpose of Christian doctrine and Christian morality; 
 it supersedes the necessity of mentioning other Scripture 
 declarations to the same effect, and utterly annihilates the 
 cavils of the Doctor, in pages 159, and the two following of 
 his Reply. When, therefore, the Doctor argues, that ww- 
 learned^u^ ignorant men cannot understand the Scriptures, 
 we should be glad to know whether he means a//, or any 
 Scriptures whatever, or, whether he means they cannot un- 
 derstand them sufficiently, either from their own investiga- 
 tion, or from the faithful preaching of the Gospel, to " make 
 them wise unto salvation :" if the first, the most learned 
 are in the same situation : if the second, daily experience 
 will confute him : for, in the usual distribution of intellec- 
 tual blessings, every person can understand the story, the 
 precepts, the promises and threats of the Gospel : if the 
 third, the above text most positively contradicts him : so 
 
sss 
 
 that we may safely conclude with St. Austin, " Ea qua* 
 manifeste posita sunt in sacris Scripturis, omnia continent, 
 qua3 pertinent ad lidem, moresque vivendi." Whatsoever 
 things are clearly set down in the Holy Scriptures, contain 
 all things appertaining to faith and moral conduct. 
 
 " But," says the Doctor, " I go farther, and affirm, that 
 no Protestant doctrine," that is, as he explains it, no doc- 
 trine which distinguishes Protestants from Roman Catho- 
 lics, " can be proved or maintained by Scripture alone :" 
 which is merely saying, in other words, that such doctrines 
 must be false. This opens the whole controversy between 
 the Churches anew : for a Protestant is equally authorized 
 to say, that the discriminating doctrines of the Roman 
 Church cannot be proved from Scripture, or otherwise. 
 The Doctor has not probably remembered, in prosecuting 
 this argument, how unnecessary it is to prove a negative, 
 when an opposite truth can be clearly demonstrated. If it 
 be shown, that the three angles of a triangle be equal to 
 two right angles, will it be necessary to prove that they 
 are not equal to four? If the unity of the Godhead be 
 proved from the Scriptures, will it be necessary to demon- 
 strate the falsity of polytheism ? And here the Doctor in- 
 dulges his usual propensity to quihble; he says, for in- 
 stance, that the Protestant tenet is " the Church of Christ 
 is fallible, and subject to errors in point of faith." Now, 
 the Protestant tenet is no such thing ; it merely asserts, that 
 particular Churches arefaUihle, and subject to error ; that 
 in fact, many have been destroyed by adopting fundamental 
 errors, and that none are secure from sharing their fate, but 
 such as adhere to the foundations of truth delivered in the 
 Scriptures, against which alone, the gates of hell shall 
 never prevail. It is not necessary, therefore, for " the Pro- 
 testant divine to lay his finger on any particular text, ex- 
 pressing the Church of Christ to be fallible, and subject to 
 error," but merely to show that soxne imrticular Church has 
 erred, and is therefore subject to error. With respect to 
 
584 
 
 the Church of Rome, this has been abundantly shown. 
 Suppose the Doctor should be asked, how he proves thc.t 
 the Roman Church is the mother and mistress of all 
 Churches, (^See Pope Piuses creed.) Would he not have 
 recourse to the text, '' Thou art Peter," 6lc. and to others 
 of the same tendency ? " But no," says a Protestant, " the 
 Church of Jerusalem was the mother of all Churches." 
 Now, how can this assertion be lefuted, but by showing 
 either that the Scripture teaches the supremacy of the Ro- 
 man Church, or that she declares herself to be supreme 1 
 The reader will therefore see the fallacy of the Doctor''s 
 argument. It is equally evident in what he says of purga- 
 tory. " The Scripture," says he, " no where teaches that 
 there is no purgatory :" therefore, this Protestant doctrine 
 is unscriptural, and oversets the Protestant rule of faith. 
 But let it be asked, how the Scriptures could say any thing 
 on a question which had never been agitated when the 
 Scriptures were written ? The word of God deals not with 
 chimeras. As well might it be said, that the metempsy- 
 chosis of Pythagoras, or the craniology of Dr. Gall, cannot 
 be refuted by the Scriptures. The idea, indeed, of a state 
 between final happiness and misery, furnished matter for 
 poetical fiction, but could never have gained admission 
 into a system founded upon a full, " perfect, and sufficient 
 sacrifice, oblation, and satisfaction for the sins of the whole 
 world." 
 
 As to the doctrine of transubstantiation, which the Doc- 
 tor alleges as another irresistible argument in his favour, 
 it cannot surely be refuted explicitly from the Bible ; be- 
 cause the writers of the Bible knew nothing about it. The 
 word with them could have carried no meaning, of course 
 not that of its modern advocates. Protestants, therefore, 
 do not say that the refutation of this tenet is clearly con- 
 tained in the Bible ; but that the institution and nature of 
 the Lord's supper, is recorded and delivered in such terms 
 as must absolutely preclude the admission of this doc- 
 
S85 
 
 trine. (e) Sincerely is it regretted that the Doctor mentions 
 this tenet at all. At the present day of deep research and 
 biblical accuracy, when the human mind revolts at any au- 
 thority that countenances contradictions, which the obvious 
 use of our senses is competent to discover, it would be 
 gratifying to every liberal person, that as little as possible 
 should be said on this subject. The many illustrious mem- 
 bers of the Roman Church, who have defended by their 
 writings, and illustrated in their lives, the common doc- 
 trines and precepts of our holy religion, have established a 
 claim to the veneration of the writer of these sheets, which 
 he would forfeit with reluctance, and he is willing to be- 
 lieve that in refusing to examine impartially the arguments 
 of Protestant divines against this tenet of their Church, 
 they have also overlooked the spirit of intolerance and 
 horrid persecutions which have been inflicted on mankind, 
 for merely adhering, in this instance, to the testimony of 
 their senses. The detail of these atrocities is too disgfust- 
 ing to repeat, unless it were to create a suspicion in honest, 
 though misguided minds, that a doctrine which counte- 
 nances the heresy of persecution, and has filled Christen- 
 dom with blood, cannot descend from the Father of mer- 
 cies, and " the Giver of every good gift." May I presume 
 to suggest to pious Roman Catholics tlie expression of 
 Averroes, as the dictate of unsophisticated reason, " Quan- 
 (loquidem Christian! comedunt quod adorant,sit anima mea 
 cum philosophis :" — "since Christians eat what they adore, 
 let my soul be with the philosophers:" may 1 entreat them 
 to consider, if transubstantiation be a fiction, to what a 
 dangerous delusion they are exposed in adopting it: for 
 can any act of idolatry be more explicit, than the adoration 
 of a wafer, instead of the body, and blood, and divinity of 
 Christ? Their own writers allow there cannot. There is 
 a passage in the first Epistle to the Cor. x. 14, which seems 
 
 (e) See notes at the end. 
 
 K k 
 
386 
 
 to indicate that some danger of this kind was communicated 
 to the prophetic mind of the Apostle • " Wherefore, my 
 dearly beloved," says he, *' flee from idolatry. I speak unto 
 wise men : judge ye what I say. The cup of blessing 
 which we bless, is it not the communion of the blood of 
 Christ? The bread which we break, is it not the commu- 
 nion of the body of Christ ?" He says not that the cup, or 
 its contents, is the blood, or the bread the body of Christ, 
 but only the communion, or participation of both, in all 
 their pardoning and sanctifying effects. 
 
 The seven concluding pages of the Doctor's book, con- 
 taining little more than a repetition of his preceding argu- 
 ments against the Protestant rule of faith, require, of 
 course, no additional attention. They are made up of the 
 same bold assertions and sophistical reasonings, which run 
 through all the other parts of his work. He takes it for 
 granted, that no Protestant community is entitled to the 
 venerable appellation of a Church, and therefore, " Whilst 
 each individual Protestant," says he, " fondly flatters him- 
 self that he is a member of some Church, in the unity of 
 some faith, and in the communion of saints, expressed in 
 the Apostles' creed — he is, in fact, destitute of any settled 
 tenets of faith, devoid of any Church to direct and instruct 
 him therein, deprived of any certain rule or principle for 
 the interpretation of the Scriptures, delivered over to the 
 suggestions of his own weak reason, exposed to the delu- 
 sions of his own imagination, and even to the influence of 
 his own local prejudices and personal attachments.'' Now, 
 the preceding remarks will, I trust, be sufficient to put 
 every reader upon his guard against these dismal phantoms, 
 conjured up by the Doctor to frighten weak and untutored 
 minds : in them he will perceive the efficacy of the Scrip- 
 tures " to make us wise unto salvation," and to enable us 
 " to know of the doctrine, whether it be of God, if we do 
 his will :" he will clearly understand, that by no other 
 means can a man convince himself that religious truth is 
 
3f57 
 
 delivered in the Scriptures, than by the exercise of his rea- 
 son, in a candid and personal investigation, or a well- 
 founded deference to the authority of his teachers : and 
 that by these same means only, can the Roman Catholic 
 attain to the persuasion, that his Church is infallible ; un- 
 less, indeed, in fixing the first principles of his faith, he 
 deem it his duty to lull his reasoning faculty asleep, in obedi- 
 ence to a Church which claims an exemption from all error, 
 without permitting him to investigate this claim. Where- 
 fore, if in these circumstances, if in a blind renunciation of 
 his reason, to the imposing dictates of any branch of the 
 Catholic Church, founded upon vague and uncertain tradi- 
 tions, and palpable usurpation, the Roman Catholic can 
 flatter himself with a complete security, and " repose in 
 conscious safety on the bosom of his spiritual mother," how 
 much more solid must be the security of the regular and 
 conscientious member of any other branch of the Christian 
 Church, which refers him exclusively to the oracles of God, 
 and teaches him to acquiesce ultimately in them. In com- 
 plying with this direction, he may humbly, yet confidently 
 trust, that the same " blessed Lord God, who has caused all 
 Holy Scriptures to be written for our learning, will grant, 
 that he may in such wise hear them, read, mark, learn, and 
 inwardly digest them, that by patience and comfort of his 
 holy word, he may embrace, and ever hold fast the blessed 
 hope of everlasting life, which has been given him in our 
 Saviour Jesus Christ. {Collect for 2d Sun. in Advent.) 
 Such is the divine source of genuine consolation to every 
 believer ; and, blessed be God, the streams are now flowing 
 copiously from it, which are to water the whole earth. 
 Among every people, tongue, and nation, their circulation 
 is hailed with rapturous eagerness and joy, as the truth 
 which they contain, is the only ground of present comfort 
 and cheering expectation of future blessedness : it is wel- 
 comed by many thoughtful Christians, as ushering in that 
 om, holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church, which they con- 
 
388 
 
 ceive to be rather the future than present object of their 
 faith : and which, considered in this light, would lessen 
 some difficulties attending this article of our belief. The 
 Doctor may think as lightly as he pleases of these fountains 
 of Gospel security and assurance ; but it is hoped that his 
 opinions have not many advocates in America. Lamentable, 
 indeed, would be the reflection, that bigotry of any kind, no 
 longer able to hold its ground in Europe, should find an 
 asylum in any Churches among us. The Doctor will pro- 
 bably reply, that his opinions are those of all Roman Catholic 
 divines.(y) But, what will he say to the following senti- 
 ments, expressed in an address of a Roman Catholic priest 
 in Swabia, to the British and Foreign Bible Society, in 
 1804? After passing the highest encomiums and warmest 
 approbation on this institution, he rejoices " at the great 
 number of zealous friends of the Bible in London, who are 
 filled with the desire to send out the pure word of God, as 
 the best preacher, into the world." He then goes on to ex- 
 plain the meaning of the council of Trent, in prohibiting 
 the indiscriminate reading of the Scriptures, and concludes, 
 " Now, I beg you, my dear brother in Christ, (meaning the 
 Protestant Secretary to the Society, Dr. Owen,) to receive 
 these few lines in love — I cannot express, in terms sufficient- 
 ly strong, the fervency of my joy, and of my love toward? all 
 who, throughout England, heartily believe in Jesus Christ 
 as their only Saviour, and zealously endeavour to extend 
 the Redeemer's kingdom. I embrace them all, as the be- 
 loved and elect of God, as friends and brethren in Christ, 
 let them be ofivhatever name, or belong to whatever Church, 
 or denomination.'''' Here are sentiments truly becoming to 
 an enlightened minister of the Gospel. Nor are those of 
 the Rev. Mr. Wittman, Director of the Ecclesiastical Se- 
 minary at Ratisbon, where a Roman Catholic Bible So- 
 ciety had been established, less grateful and dear to every 
 
 (/) See notes at the end. 
 
dS9 
 
 Christian. In an address to the Roman Catholics through- 
 out Germany, in 1805, peculiarly simple, liberal, and 
 devout, he begins by saying, " It is desirable that the 
 Holy Scriptures of the New Testament, might be put into 
 the hands of many pious Christians at a low price : thereby 
 they would be comforted in their afflictions, strengthened 
 in their trials, and better preserved from the temptations of 
 the world. Many excellent persons do not find in the public 
 religious instruction, that for which they hunger : they are 
 also, often, in the confessional, only judged for their out- 
 ward deeds, without being led to an acknowledgment of their 
 inward corruption, and to faith in the blood of Jesus their 
 Redeemer : if these could read the Holy Scriptures of the 
 New Testament, in the quiet time of holidays, their faith 
 in the simple doctrines from the mouth of Jesus Christ, 
 would, by the mercy of their Saviour, be thereby enlivened ; 
 and the Lord's gifts in the Holy Spirit, be quickened in 
 them. They would hear the voice of the Father in their 
 inward part, drawing them to their Saviour, of which Christ 
 saith, " They shall be all tauglit of God ; and whosoever 
 hath learned of the Father, and received it, cometh unto 
 me." (John xi. 14. — German translation.) And he con- 
 cludes a prayer with this sentiment, " O Lord, Redeemer 
 of our souls — if it please thee, let thy holy history, the his- 
 tory of thy childhood, of thy ministry, of thy suffering, and 
 of the victory in the Holy Spirit, in the Apostles and first- 
 lings of the Christian Church, come into the hands of thy 
 little ones, for their comfort and consolation." Now, would 
 these good men have subscribed to the Doctor's opinion, 
 that, in reading the Scriptures, a Protestant cannot expe- 
 rience equal consolation and peace ? 
 
 But I have done : solemnly protesting, that on this, as 
 well as on every other occasion, my aim has been to con- 
 tend not for victory, but for truth ; not to nourish, but to 
 tear up the old and baneful root of bitterness ; to turn the 
 
 Kk2 
 
390 
 
 attention of every fellow Christian to those fundamental 
 principles of our common religion, which are delivered in 
 the Bible ; to bring to every tenet not discovered there, a 
 jealous, candid, and patient examination ; that all the truth 
 revealed by Almighty God may be received and supported, 
 in order to promote all the charity and godliness which it 
 enjoins. In dismissing this controversy, the writer of these 
 sheets, however indignant may be his feelings at some of 
 the high pretensions of the Roman Church, and their dire- 
 ful consequences, discards from his bosom every spark of 
 animosity towards any of her liberal, pious, and enlightened 
 adherents, " who love the Lord Jesus in 'sincerity" — To- 
 wards all such, he would willingly adopt the language of a 
 Roman Catholic priest, in an animated address to the British 
 and Foreign Bible Society, and pray that it might be uni- 
 versal : " United to Christ," says he, " we are united to 
 each other: neither continents, nor seas; neither various 
 forms of government, nor different outward confessions of 
 religion, can separate us : all things pass away — but love 
 abideth." 
 
NOTES. 
 
 Note (a) page 339. Perhaps the confidence of the Doc- 
 tor, in this passage, will be somewhat abated, when he 
 finds several of the ancient fathers, and divines of his own 
 Church interpreting it in the sense commonly adopted by 
 Protestants. Thus St. Chrysostom ; " Christ says, super 
 hanc Petranij upon this Rock. He says not super himc 
 Petrum ; that is, upon this Peter; for Christ built his 
 Church upon the faith, and not upon the man, 7ion enim 
 super hominem, sed super jidem edificahat ecclesiam. (Horn, 
 de cruce Domini. Ham. de Pentecost, et 55 i?i Matt.) 
 Hilary, Gregory Nyssene, and Cyril, all declare, " That 
 was the Rock which Peter confessed, saying of Christ, 
 Thou art the Son of God." {Hil. I. 2. de Trin. cap. 6. 
 Greg. Nyss. in Testimo. vet. test, de Trin. contra Judceos. 
 Cyril de Trin. lib. 4.) The learned Theophylact interprets 
 the words in the same way ; " Upon this Rock, meaning 
 Christ." (Comment, in Matt. 16.) Eusebius, Emissenus, 
 or, as some think, Empserius, are explicit on this subject. 
 Theodoret, Anselm, and others, are of the same opinion; 
 and as for the great St. Austin, thougli he sometimes varies 
 his interpretation, yet as Dr. Stapleton, an eminent Roman 
 Catholic divine, acknowledges, (Doctr. Princip. Controv. 2. 
 lib. 6. c. 3.) " he is inclined rather by the word rock, to 
 understand Christ : and to conceive him saying to Peter, 
 I will not build me upon thee, but thee upon me." The 
 Latin is explicit, " Super hanc Petram, &c. id est super 
 hanc Petram quam confessus es, quam cognovisti, dicens, 
 tu es Christus filius Dei vivi, super hanc aedificabo 
 ecclesiam meam, super me aedeficabo te, non me 
 super te." Angus, de verba dom. secund. Matt. serm. 
 13.) And again, {Tract. 124. in John.) " Petra erat 
 Christus, super quam ipse aedificatus est Petrus ;" "the 
 Rock was Christ, upon which Peter was built." Of the 
 same opinion was Gregory the Great, bishop of Rome, 
 when setting in the very supposed chair of St. Peter — 
 " Christ himself is the Rock from which Peter received his 
 name." {Greg, in Psal. PcBYxitent. in ilia verba Initio tu 
 
392 
 
 domine^ &;c.) So that Calvin had good reason to say, " that 
 it was not from want of clear and ample testimony of anti- 
 quity that he objected to the authority of the fathers on 
 this head, but from fear of tiring his readers." [Inst. lib. 
 4. c. 6.) Nor are the declarations of several Roman 
 Catholic divines less explicit on this head : Nicholas 
 Lyranus, a celebrated expositor of the 14th century ; Ni- 
 cholas de Cusa, commonly known by the name of Cardinal 
 Cusanus, and Cardinal Hugo, all agree in asserting, that 
 by the Rock in this place is meant Christ." {Lyr. inMati. 
 c. 16.) " Quanquam Petro dictum est, tu es Petrus, &c. 
 tamen per Petram, Christum, quem confessus est, intelligi- 
 mus." (Cws. Concord. Cath. lib. 2. cap. 13.) The learned 
 Jesuits, Pererius and Salmeron, interpret the words in the 
 same manner; the first declaring, (Comment, in Dan. 2.) 
 *' Christ is that Rock upon which the Church is built ;" and 
 the other contending, with Ven. Bede, that whenever the 
 word foundation occurs in the singular number, it means 
 Christ alone." These authorities are surely abundantly 
 sufficient to satisfy any reasonable mind, and to demolish 
 all the Doctor's arguments built upon this passage. 
 
 Note (b) page 348. If the Doctor had ever looked into 
 the work of the learned Dai lie de usu Patrujn, he would 
 have discovered there many opinions of the fathers, cal- 
 culated to check his implicit deference to their authority. 
 To instance only a few of the many that might be men- 
 tioned : Justin Martyr held the millenarian system ; and 
 it was for some time regarded as an article of Christian 
 faith, though afterwards anathematized. Irenaeus, bishop 
 of Lyons, says that it was a tradition from St. John, that 
 Christ was forty or fifty years of age when he began to 
 preach : and expressly affirms, that all the elders who were 
 in Asia with St. John witnessed that he delivered it to 
 them ; and that they who had seen the other Apostles, 
 attested that they also delivered the same tradition. [Adv. 
 Hoeres. lib. 2. c. 39.) Here we may learn what we are to 
 think of many other traditions, far less authenticated, and 
 which notwithstanding, have been imposed upon the faith, 
 ful as of equal authority with the Scriptures. Clement of 
 Alexandria, taught that the pains of hell are merely purga- 
 torial and are not to be eternal ; that the angels dis- 
 covered to the women whom they loved upon earth, many 
 secrets which Ihey ought not to have revealed. St. Cyprian 
 
393 
 
 thought that the Eucharist was necessary to the salvation 
 of children and should be administered to them almost as 
 soon as they are born. St. Hilary held that Christ suffer- 
 ed no sense of pain in his passion ; that baptism does not 
 cleanse us from all our sins ; that even the Virgin Mary 
 must pass through an expiatory fire. Origen is allowed by 
 all to have written many great and material errors. " St. 
 Basil," says the learned Jesuit Petavius, has " multa mi- 
 rifica, et si verum quasrimus, parum Catholica ;" i. e. " many 
 wonderful things, and, in truth, by no means Catholic :" 
 he also seems to have thought that the torments of hell 
 were not to be eternal ; and St. Gregory Naz. appears to 
 have been of the same opinion. St. Gregory of Nyssa 
 taught this doctrine in the most express manner. St. Am- 
 brose thought that all without exception, even St. Peter 
 and the blessed Virgin, must pass through the cleansing 
 fire. St. Epiphanius advanced many strange and unwar- 
 ranted dcctrines, as may be seen in Petavius's notes upon 
 his writings. St. Chrysostom appears to have believed that 
 the sin of Adam only made us subject to corporal death ; 
 he admitted none into heaven before the general resurrec- 
 tion, and recommended praying for the damned; as did 
 also St. Augustin and John Damascen. The rash and er- 
 roneous notions of St. Jerom were very numerous, and his 
 acrimonious vulgarisms fully as offensive as those of Luther; 
 but he offers as an apology, " that he sometimes indulged 
 himself a little in rhetorical flourishes." " In morem 
 declamatorum paululum lusimus." [In. Helv.) St. Au- 
 gustin maintained the necessity of infant communion ; 
 that children dying without baptism were condemned to 
 the torments of hell ; he also advanced other extraordinary 
 sentiments, many of which, however, he afterwards recalled 
 in his retractations. No satisfaction is felt in adducing 
 these aberrations of the human mind, even in the best of 
 men ; and it is done merely to show upon what w'eak foun- 
 dations every religious doctrine rests, when once we lose 
 sight of revelation. The several passages from the ancient 
 fathers, containing the above, and many other exceptiona- 
 ble opinions, are quoted at full length in Daille's work above 
 mentioned. 
 
 Note (c) page 351. See notes at pages 23 and 30 of the 
 Letter to the Roman Catholics of the city of Worcester. 
 
 Note (d) page 360. Of the council of Trent, no men- 
 
394 
 
 lion was at first intended in these Remarks. To unbiassed 
 minds the authority of Fra. Paolo, Vargas, &c., was deem- 
 ed amply sufficient. The accusation of wilful and reflected 
 misstatement, only excites a smile. For surely, when it 
 was said, in the Short Answer, " that the whole business 
 was conducted by the haughty legate Crescentio," it could 
 only allude to the business done during his presidency. It 
 was unwise in the doctor, by a high wrought panegyric on 
 this council, to provoke any discussion of its merits. How- 
 ever, in case the doctor should ever wish to renew his in- 
 quiries respecting this assembly, the 5th chap, of the 4th 
 book of Richer^s History of General Councils, is recom- 
 mended to his perusal. Richer, though professedly a 
 Roman Catholic doctor, was, it is acknowledged, no friend 
 to the court of Rome ; on which account his life was at- 
 tempted, as that of Paolo Sarpi had been : but he was a 
 man of integrity and erudition, whom Cardinal Richelieu 
 and his adherents could no otherwise confute, than by en- 
 deavouring to raise a party against him, and to ensnare him 
 into the hands of the inquisitors. " In the council of Trent," 
 says he, " the apostolic legates were alone permitted to pro- 
 pose and to prescribe whatever was to be done ; and this 
 was artfully contrived on purpose to prevent any effectual 
 reformation of the Church and Roman court." He tells 
 us, " that the Pope contrived that of 267 prelates who 
 assisted at the council, at least two-thirds should be 
 Italians, who, accustomed to the dominion of the Roman 
 couit, were entirely at the beck of the Pontiff, as of their ab- 
 solute sovereign." Hence we cease to wonder that Sanctius, 
 a doctor of Sorbonne, who accompanied the Cardinal of 
 Lorrain to the counsel, should congratulate his friend Dr. 
 D'Espence for not following him thither, as he intended. 
 " You never had," says he, " a better inspiration than when 
 you determined not to come to Trent. For, I believe you 
 would have died at seeing the indignities which are here 
 committed to prevent a reform. There is not one of us, 
 who would not wish, at the hazard of his life, to be back 
 at the Sorbonne. It is impossible to give you a distinct 
 account of all I have seen and heard in the council." And •» 
 Richer continues to remark, that " it is inbred in the 
 court of Rome to regard her ovvn temporal rights and ab- 
 solute monarchy, more than the patrimony of Christ, and 
 the salvation of souls ; that is, to prefer human claims to 
 
S95 
 
 the eternal law of God : from whence so many heresies 
 and schisms have arisen, have been propagated, and are 
 daily more and more increasing." " In short," adds this 
 learned Sorbonist, " this was the end and aim of the re- 
 form carrying on at Trent; not to have any real good in 
 view, but merely to attend to a certain outward show, and 
 specious semblance ; while, in the meantime, every thing 
 was accommodated to the private convenience and splen- 
 dour of the Roman court. Hence that magnificent and 
 almost theatrical manner of ornamenting their churches 
 and their altars ; their sacerdotal dresses of gold and silver 
 tissue — those frequent and solemn censures and condem- 
 nations of books — those swarms of new religious orders, 
 which are daily arriving from Rome. By these, and simi- 
 lar artifices, the attention of their people is dexterously 
 called off from every thought and hope of a reform, that 
 the princes and prelates of the Roman Church may still con- 
 tinue to gratify every wish, and to indulge themselves, 
 without control, in all their accustomed luxuries and enjoy- 
 ment'%" Can this be the result of those decrees, which, 
 we are told, "seemed good to the Holy Ghost?" But more 
 reflections are unnecessary. 
 
 Note (e) page 385. As some readers of these Remarks 
 may not possibly possess the valuable commentary of the 
 learned Dr. Adam Clarke, I cannot forbear soliciting their 
 attention to a note of his, at the end of chap. xii. 1 Coi\ — 
 " It may be necessary," says he, " to show that without the 
 cup there can be no Eucharist. With respect to the hread^ 
 our Lord had simply said, 'Take, eat, this is my body;' 
 but concerning the cup he says, ' Drink ye all of this :' 
 for as this pointed out the very essence of the institution, 
 viz. ' the blood of atonement,' it was necessary that each 
 should have a particular application of it ; therefore, he 
 says, ' Drink ye all of this.' By this we are taught that 
 the cup is essential to the Lord's supper : so that they who 
 deny the cup to the 'people, sin against God's institution ; 
 and they who receive not the cup, are not partakers of the 
 body and blood of Christ. If either could, without mortal pre- 
 judice, be omitted, it might be the bread ; but the cup, as 
 pointing out the blood poured out, i. e. the life, by which 
 alone this great sacrificial act is performed, and remission of 
 sins procured, is absolutely indispensable. On this ground, it 
 is demonstrable, that there is not a Popish priest under 
 
396 
 
 heaven, who denies the cuy to the people, (and they all do this,) 
 that can be said to celebrate the Lord's Supper at all ; nor 
 is there one of their votaries that ever received the holy 
 sacrament. How strange is it, that the very men who plead 
 so much for the hare^ literal meaning of ' this is my body,' 
 in the preceding verse, should deny all meaning to 'Drink 
 ye all of this cup,' in this verse ! And, though Christ has, 
 in the most positive manner enjoined it, will not permit one 
 of the laity to taste it !" " See," he adds, " the whole of 
 this argument at large, in my discourse ' On the Nature and 
 Design of the Eucharist.' '' On this subject, it may be 
 useful just to add, that had the doctrine of transubstantia- 
 tion prevailed generally in the ancient Church, when the 
 Arian heresy arose, how readily might it have been refuted 
 by alleging the practice of all Christendom in adoring 
 Christ in the Eucharist as the Supreme God ? And yet no 
 such argument occurs in the writings of the orthodox fathers. 
 Note (/) page 388. That the Doctor's theology is by no 
 means in unison with the system generally prevailing at this 
 day among Roman Catholic divines in Europe, will roadily 
 appear, by comparing it with Veron's famous rule of faith. 
 to which an appeal is commonly made, by modern apolo- 
 gists for the Roman Church. If this be in reality the rule 
 of her faith, the writer of these sheets, however he may ap- 
 prove of it in many points, solemnly declares, and in this 
 the Doctor will probably agree with him, that the doctrines 
 which he was taught in early life as articles of faith, were 
 very different. A few extracts from this famous rule are 
 here presented to the reader, in which he will perceive 
 such an approximation to Protestant principles, as with 
 mutual candour might possibly be ripened into church 
 communion. According to this rule we are informed, that 
 nothing is of faith, or necessary to be believed, which was 
 not revealed to us through the Prophets, Apostles, or canoni- 
 cal writers : nothing is of faith, which we know from reve- 
 lations made since the times of the Apostles : no doctrine 
 founded on the word of God, or any text of Scripture, which 
 has been variously expounded by the fathers, is a doctrine 
 of faith : no conclusion, however certainly and evidently 
 deduced from any proposition of faith, is a doctrine of Ca- 
 tholic faith: not all the practices even of the universal 
 Church, are sufficient to make any thing an article of Chris- 
 tian belief; even a general council may err, in controver- 
 
597 
 
 sies which chiefly depend on the information, and testimony 
 of men : although the Pope be not infallible in respect to 
 his decrees of excommunication, yet a person who should 
 not obey them, would sin mortally, and incur the excom- 
 munication : it is not of faith, that all our good works are 
 meritorious of eternal life : it is not of faith, that a just man 
 can make satisfaction for another: it is not of faith, that 
 there is a treasure in the church, consisting of the satisfac- 
 tion of the saints: it is not of faith, that the church has 
 power to grant such indulgences, by which the punishments 
 due either in this life, or in purgatory, for sins already re- 
 mitted, are relaxed : it is not of faith that the saints are our 
 mediators, and not Christ alone : it is not of faith that the 
 canonized saints are really saints, or that such persons ever 
 existed : it is not of faith that the body of Christ is con- 
 tained in the symbols, as in a place : it is not of faith that 
 the sacrifice of the mass is of infinite value ; that saints can 
 hear our prayers, or that Christians are bound to pray to 
 them ; that images, pictures, and relics, must be venerated 
 and honoured. All these opinions m'e, ov were, universally 
 taught in the Galilean Church; and no man was deemed a 
 heretic for maintaining them. Now, let me ask, if one Ro- 
 man Catholic, out of one hundred, would recognise, in this 
 exposition of his faith, the doctrines he has always been 
 taught to believe? Will Doctor O'Gallagher allow this ex- 
 position to be fair and candid ? Will he allow, that any 
 person, who should all his life refuse to address any prayers 
 to saints, or ever to invoke the Virgin Mary ; who should 
 never strive to gain indulgences, plenary or partial ; who 
 should withhold every kind of veneration to images and 
 relics; who should never pray for, nor assist at prayers for 
 the dead ; who should deny that the saints are our me- 
 diators, dec, would such a person, I ask, be considered as 
 an orthodox Roman Catholic? This argument might be 
 carried much further, and illustrated in many other in- 
 stances, so as to show that the boasted infallibility of the 
 Roman Church, is of little service in settling either the 
 principles or practices of her adherents. 
 
 THE END 
 

 
 ■^ V ^^^^^