.(/ 
 
 Jld*~:& 
 
 I theological seminary. I 
 
 Frincetcn, N. J. 
 
 | Case, Division... -• | 
 
 Shelf, Section f- 
 
 6 Bool, M I 
 
 
 
<" r 
 
 tW\A A > • 
 
* 
 
A 
 
 CONCISE VIEW 
 
 OF 
 
 THE PRINCIPAL POINTS OF CONTROVERSY 
 
 BETWEEN THE 
 
 PROTESTANT AND ROMAN 
 CHURCHES: 
 
 CONTAINING, 
 
 I. A Letter to the Roman Catholics of the City of Worcester in England. 
 II. A Reply to the above Address, by the late Archbishop Carroll. 
 
 III. An Answer to the late Archbishop Carroll's Reply. 
 
 IV. A Short Answer to the Appendix to The Catholic Question, decided in New- 
 
 York in 1813. 
 V. A few Short Remarks on Dr. O'Gallagher's Reply to the above Answer. 
 
 BY THE REV. C. H. WHARTON, D. D. 
 
 RECTOR OF ST. MARY'S CHURCH, BCRT.ITSGTON, (n. J.) AND MEMBER OE THE 
 PHILOSOPHICAL SOCIETY OK PHILADELPHIA,. 
 
 NEW-YORK : 
 
 PUBLISHED BY DAVID LONGWORTH, NO. 1 1 PARK, 
 Clayton & Kingsland, Printers. 
 
 1817. 
 
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 " Address to the Roman Catholics in 
 the United States of America," for whom, notwithstanding ma- 
 ny illiberal insinuations in this address, he never ceased to 
 entertain sincere esteem and attachment. By the decease of 
 Archbishop Carroll, every disinclination and obstacle to the 
 republication 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 enter- 
 tained of their being refuted. If it should be said, that pub- 
 lications of this nature are only calculated to nourish the acri- 
 monious spirit of controversy, which Christian charity should 
 rather strive to suppress, let the reader turn to " the Appen- 
 dix to the Catholic Question," published at New-York in 
 1813, and candidly determine whether such a wanton at- 
 tack upon the Protestant faith, did not call for more severe 
 animadversion than that which it received. 
 
 A pamphlet in support of this publication, and written by 
 a Dr. O'Gallagher, was put into my hands lasi fall. With 
 the exception of some coarse abuse, and an arrogant affec- 
 tation of theological superiority, it contains little or nothing, 
 which was not refuted in the Short Answer to the Appendix. 
 My friends : however, advised me to notice it, and 1 have 
 done so accordingly. The malignity of the Doctor's 
 remarks, meets the pity of the writer of these sheets, and is 
 freely forgive.! ; although, if unrestrained, he has no doubt, 
 that, by some fiery bigots, it would be extended to personal 
 per :;t cution. As an evidence, that such feelings exist, he 
 will take the liberty of presenting the reader with the copy 
 of a lrttei which he lately received from a Romipb Priest, 
 together with his reply to it. The letter was written in 
 French, and is laterally translated. The original is w ' p. 
 printer. The spirit which dictated it, is, I hope, confined 
 
IV 1'REF.U E. 
 
 only to few of that communion ; but, however limited it may 
 be, it is fraught with such malignant and mischievous materi- 
 als, that no attempt to keep it under, can be unseasonable or 
 superfluous. It h hoped that the present publication may 
 contribute something to this effect. 
 
 THE LETTER.", 
 
 Baltimore, 30th 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. I never 
 mentioned the first letter to any person, nor shall I mention 
 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 diocess ; of the scandal of wri- 
 tings so outrageous, from your apology, down to that Theo- 
 logical 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 eulogium on Fenelon, 
 that ignorance only can embrace, and cruelty only propagate 
 her doctrine — thus violently insulting those of your former 
 friends, whom not being able to pronounce either ignorant or 
 cruel, it remained only to consider as hypocrites ; (Mr. Gar- 
 roll at their head) asserting again, that charity is incompati- 
 ble with the Catholic faith ; that Fenelon, like Fra. Paulo, 
 was nothing more than a Protestant in disguise : He, who 
 wrote so many controversial treatises against/he Protestants, 
 and the Jansenists ; the Missionary of Poitou, which con- 
 tinued Catholic during the French revolution ; the confessor, 
 for ten years, of the 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 ultramountain, 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 ? Ra- 
 ther read, O wretched Priest ! his beautiful treatise upon the 
 ministerial functions, or his eight letters to a Protestant, and 
 * This letter was equally insolent, and was burnt without being answered. 
 
PREFACE. V 
 
 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 
 church ? You are imposed upon by the caresses of the sect 
 you have embraced. I have seen with grief, on your account, 
 their efforts to entangle you to the last, by proposing you as. 
 Bishop of New-Jersey. A Bishop, indeed ! A Bishop, on 
 whose 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, Wesley's, Socinus's, Priestley's, 
 or any other non-descript society. 
 
 At Mr. Carroll's death, I was struck with the desire of 
 writing to you : at present this desire occurs very forcibly, 
 and I yield to it with simplicity, nay, with excessive emotion. 
 Return to the fatal moment of your separation. Remember 
 poor Lucas ;* imitate his repentance ; abandon the fatal cou- 
 rage to die in your apostacy, and plunge into despair. Re- 
 flect, 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 pon- 
 der before God, what you had best do. Do not die in this 
 manner — rather follow to the other world your favourite 
 Fcnelon, than the apostate Luther. A spirit of indifference, 
 the dissenters, the Bible Societies, are hastening on the ruin 
 of the establishment of Henry VIII., Elizabeth, and Edward; 
 and Unitarianism, new commentaries, liberality, &c. threaten 
 Christianity itself. Membership with the only church in pos- 
 session 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 return become urgent ? Ah, do not be 
 so dreadfully courageous, as thus to die in your apostacy. In 
 thinking myself bound to give you my name, I am not afraid 
 of dishonouring it. My intention is pure, and I disavow 
 any unnecessary affront. 
 
 A. BRUTE, (I believe,) 
 
 President of St. Mary's College. 
 The Rev. Mr. Wharton, Burlington, New-Jersey. 
 
 * 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 honame a Protest 
 ant. Ed, 
 
yi PREFACE. 
 
 ANSWER. 
 
 Burlington, April 20th, 181G. 
 
 SIR, 
 
 In answering yours of the 30th 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 ar- 
 guments 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 I think an error, by the de- 
 nunciations of a fanatic. What would you have me retract ? 
 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 I defy — your pity I reject. To judge from your 
 letter, your abilities are not formidable ; and 1 am not suffi- 
 ciently 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 
 off the gentleman, and condescends to dabble in the dregs of 
 bigotry, he has no right to expect any other. The feelings 
 which your letter excited, would not have partaken of any 
 thing like resentment, had you not mentioned my venerable 
 relative and former friend, Archbishop Carroll, as counte- 
 nancing your denunciations and abuse. I knew him well. 
 I loved him during his lifetime, and shall revere him during 
 my own. Were he still among us, I would have trans- 
 mitted your letter to him ; where, I 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 numerous classes of 
 Christians in our country ; to find them, when scarcely es- 
 
 * See Boswell's Life of Johnson, vol. ii. p. 133. Bostoaedit, 
 
PREFACE. VH 
 
 caped from the fury of Jacobinism, breathing among their 
 kind receivers the spirit of Inquisitors. On every occasion, 
 both in public and private, I have uniformly treated my for- 
 mer connexions with respect. In abandoning some 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 condemnation on them 
 for opinions, which to profess myself, would be a sinful pre- 
 varication. If you had understood our language, you could 
 not have mistaken what is said of Fenelon 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 propa- 
 gating religion by the sword, a practice zealously advocated 
 by Bossuet, and most Roman Catholic divines, as emanating 
 from religious intolerance, and a holy incompatibility, as 
 they call it, with any other Christian societies — a practical 
 doctrine, involving the very essence of heretical pravity, and 
 calling loudly for the anathemas of an infallible church, un- 
 less, 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 in- 
 validate the evidence of all our senses. These true princi- 
 ples of the church of Rome, viz. intolerance and persecution, 
 which she has always professed, and frequently realized, when 
 possessing civil power, these principles, I repeat, " cruelly 
 alone can disseminate, and ignorance alone receive ;"* and 
 should such principles be maintained by any other church,which 
 never can be proved, all we can say, is, that they merit the same 
 unqualified abhorrence. Of the sincerity of the amiable and 
 saintly Fenelon ; of your late learned and venerable Arch- 
 bishop, and of innumerable other worthies of your commu- 
 nion, I never entertained a doubt. It is the duty of all real 
 Christians, to "judge not before the time, lest they be judg- 
 ed." Who, then, art thou, Mr. President, " that judgest 
 another man's servant," or rather a man devoted 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 cha- 
 ritable exhortations) to abandon my apostacy. to beseech you 
 £o ponder in the presence of God, and with a free and un- 
 ihackled mind, the reasons of Protestants for their separating 
 
 + See Theol. Mag. No. 1, p. 22. 
 
viii PREFACE. 
 
 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 those plagues," which you presume to pronounce 
 so confidently against me. At any rate, you would oblige me 
 by withholding die 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 proper- 
 ty ; but it is a property which I do not covet. Such letters 
 stir up angry feelings, which I wish to forget, and they pick 
 my pocket without an adequate consideration. They may, 
 moreover, and probably will be mentioned, in a manner that 
 may prevent Protestant parents, from exposing their children 
 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 I 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 salvation, 
 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 righteousness; 
 that the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished un- 
 to all good works." (2 Tim. iii. 15, 16, 17.) In the mean time, 
 if the dissemination of scriptural knowledge 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 apprehensions for your own, ari- 
 sing from such a circumstance. At any rate, if, as you flat- 
 ter 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 decypher 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, 
 
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 COM- 
 MUNION, AND BECOME A MEMBER OF THE PROTESTANT CHURCH. 
 
 " Give me understanding, O Lord, and I shall keep thy law : Yea, I shall observe it with ray whole 
 heart." Psalm cxviii. 34. 
 
 " Make me to, go in the path of thy commandments ; for therein do I delight." Verse 35. 
 
 " Any private man, who truly believes the Scripture, and seriously endeavours to know the will of 
 God, and to do it, is as secure as the visible Cnurch, 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 salva- 
 tion, 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 a.r. certain I could not be 
 saved. For abide in it I cannot, without professing to believe your entire doctrine true : profess ilns 
 I cannot, but I must lie perpetually, and exulcerate my conscience. And though your errors were 
 not in themselves damnable, yet to resist the known ruth, 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.— Chillingworth's Religion of Protestants a safe way to Salvation, 4th Edition, p. 215." 
 
 NEW-YORK : 
 
 REPUBLISHED BY DAVID LONGWORTH, NO. 11 PARK, 
 Clayton & Kingsland, Printers. 
 
 1817. 
 
LETTER 
 
 THE ROMAN CATHOLICS 
 
 OF THE 
 
 CITY OF WORCESTER. 
 
 At a period of life, when discernment should be 
 ripe, 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 educa- 
 tion, and the habits of thinking with which he has 
 been long familiar ; if he abandon connexions, 
 which he has cherished from his infancy, to throw 
 himself among strangers and begin the world anew ; 
 surely a consciousness of duty, or some unworthy 
 principle must be the spring of such extraordinary 
 conduct. In this case, a decent respect to his own 
 character ; to the connexions, which he quits ; and 
 those, which he embraces, seems to call aloud for the 
 motives of so important a change. 
 
 I am well aware that the public in general is but 
 little concerned at the fate of individuals. Their suc- 
 cess, 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 hu- 
 manity. To such of those exalted few of your socie- 
 ty, 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 
 controversy, nor to combat the tenets which I have re- 
 jected, by the shafts of ridicule or the full power of 
 argument. Truth does not require, nor does gene- 
 rosity allow us to blacken a system because we aban- 
 don it. What appears conviction to me may seem 
 folly to you. It would therefore be equally absurd 
 and unjust to censure you for opinions, which you 
 think it your duty to admit, as for you to blame me for 
 rejecting such, as / deem unsupportable and false. 
 Wherefore my sole intention is to send you an apolo- 
 gy for my own conduct, not to throw the most distant 
 reflection upon yours. I mean to countenance, as far 
 as I am able, the candour of those, who may still wish 
 to esteem me, or silence in some degree, the voice of 
 prejudice, and zeal without knowledge. 
 
 If nevertheless, in the course of this letter, any ar- 
 guments 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 inten- 
 tion to disturb and perplex you. 
 
 Were your belief, indeed, grounded solely on the 
 authority, and credit of your teachers, on the preju- 
 dices of education, on the dictates of fear, the allure- 
 ments of interest, or the horrors of a conscience per- 
 petually 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 ima- 
 gine, made religion his study, departing from a sys- 
 
tern, which you are taught to venerate as infallible. 
 But if your faith proceed from conviction, and know- , 
 ledge of the cause, if it be the result of mature delibe- 
 ration, 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 sal- 
 vation. If these faithful guides speak such a lan- 
 guage to your hearts, continue to listen to their sav- 
 ing lessons ; continue to be happy. But let no secu- 
 rity whatever, no conviction of your exclusive happi- 
 ness so warp your understandings, or exulcerate your 
 hearts, as to make you pronounce condemnation upon 
 those who, after consuming years in unbiassed inqui- 
 ries, can discover no unerring authority delegated to 
 man, nor admit many doctrines, which that authority 
 proposes. For your sokes, I deprecate such unchris- 
 tian usage, as well as for my own. Yet I fear alas ! 
 that happy period is still at a distance when the cha- 
 rity, that behaveth not unseemly, that thinketh no evil, 
 shall compose the jarrings of religious antipathy. 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 
 similar to the present, unjust suspicions and illiberal 
 * 
 
6 
 
 censure are indulged without remorse. They find 
 their way into minds, which, in other respects, are ac- 
 customed to startle at the very shadow of evil. The 
 most advanced in the habits of Christian meekness and 
 forbearance, too often mistake the workings of animo- 
 sity for sentiments of pity towards an unfortunate 
 brother. Men of sense and education 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 Catho- 
 lics ; the professed advocate for unlimited toleration, 
 could not so far abandon his original prejudices, as to 
 think favourably of any one, who leaves the commu- 
 nion he belongs to.* What grounds have / therefore 
 to expect any partial indulgence, any unusual exer- 
 tions of charity and candour. No, my fellow Chris- 
 tians, I am not bold enough to flatter myself, that 
 such will be my lot. If, however, contrary to my ex- 
 pectations, 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 make my 
 gratitude known. Under many distressful feelings, it 
 will be a comfort to reflect, that my slender endeavours 
 have operated in the minds of some among you, a re- 
 volution so congenial to the mild spirit of the gospel. 
 Perhaps, were you acquainted with the painful 
 struggles, which this public declaration of my senti- 
 ments has caused me, your pity on this occasion, would 
 be unmixed with resentment. You would see the 
 
 * State and behaviour of the English Catholics, by the Rev. Mr. Berington, 
 page 132. In the second edition of this spirited work the author softens his 
 censure of those, who may abandon his communion ; but the original sense of 
 it remains nearly the same. 
 
cruel impropriety of being angry with a man, who 
 has endeavoured to discover the truth of your doc- 
 trines, 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 contained no Being but God and himself. 
 
 I pretend not to any uncommon powers of reason- 
 ing, or quickness of apprehension — I feel myself sub- 
 ject to prejudice and mistake — I am too well acquaint- 
 ed with the instability of my own heart to boast of 
 any exemption from the usual frailties of man. But 
 among the weaknesses to which I plead guilty, none, 
 I trust, ever argued indifference to religion, contempt 
 for morality, forgetfulness of honour, or any propen- 
 sion 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 
 religion ; I daily thanked God, that I was not, like other 
 men, heretics, scfiismatics and infidels ; I subscribed with 
 unfeigned sincerity to that article of your belief; 
 w That the Roman church is the mother and mistress 
 of all churches, and that out of her communion no sal- 
 vation can be obtained."* I was persuaded, that the 
 arguments of her adversaries 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 informed me, that in- 
 quiry implied a doubt, whilst the voice of the church 
 was loud in proclaiming, that to doubt of any doctri- 
 nal point was to be no longer a Roman Catholic. 
 
 * See the famous creed of Pope Pius IV. the present standard of ortho- 
 doxy in the Roman church. 
 
8 
 
 Under such a dilemma the inquisitive faculties of the 
 mind must remain in a state of torpid acquiescence, or 
 be exerted only after a previous and definitive judg- 
 ment 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 in- 
 quirer 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 rational investiga- 
 tion ; and yet, at the same time, it was painful to con- 
 clude, that an honest search into the truths and na- 
 ture of religion could be any-wise offensive to its 
 merciful author. " I could never perceive why in re- 
 ligious inquiries our reason should be particularly 
 restrained ; as the subject is of singular importance, 
 it seemed that even greater latitude should be allow- 
 ed us." # To " prove all things, and hold fast that 
 which is good," was the important advice of an in- 
 spired apostle.t I regarded it as an essential duty 
 of a minister of religion " to be ready always to give 
 an answer to every man that asketh him a reason of 
 the hope that is in him, with meekness and fear."J In 
 a word, the positive injunction of the beloved disciple 
 of Jesus, " not to believe every spirit, but try the spi- 
 rits, whether they be of God,"§ was a sufficient 
 voucher for the lawfulness and expediency of t inqui- 
 
 ■7-11 
 
 * State and behaviour of the Roman Catholics, page 139. 
 
 t 1 Thess. v. $ 1 Pet. iii. 15. 
 
 { 1 John iv. 1. 
 
 || 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 before 
 the reader two remarkable passages of St. Chrysostom. This eloquent doc- 
 tor shall speak for all the rest. " When you shall see an impious heresy, 
 
My connexions, moreover, with many valuable 
 Protestants, with whom I lived in habits of intimacy 
 and friendship, served not a little to enlarge my 
 ideas, and wean my 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 undeliled re- 
 
 which is the army of antichrist, standing in the holy places of the church ; 
 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 the prophets 
 and apostles. But wherefore ought all Christians, at this time, to have recourse 
 to the scriptures? Because at this time, since heresy has infected the churches, 
 the divine scriptures only can afford a proof of genuine Christianity, and a re- 
 fuge 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 only. 
 And why? Because heresy has all outward observances 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 resemblance, 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 firmness of faith, to have recourse to nothing but 
 the scriptures; for if they should look up to any Iking else, they will be scan- 
 dalized and will perish, as not understanding which is the true church." In 
 Mafth. c. 24. horn. 49. Here I cannot help asking, whether such would now 
 be the advice of a Roman Catholic doctor to a person labouring under similar 
 doubts ? Would not such a person be rather discouraged from consulting the 
 scriptures, and referred to the decisions of Popes and coun< ils ? Again, in 2 ad, 
 Corinth, horn. 13. u 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 pecuniary 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 
 perfect 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 in- 
 vestigate all these things in the scriptures." How one of the most enlightened, 
 doctors of antiquity could write this passage, and yet regard the doctrine ot 
 private judgment as heretical, is a paradox, which all the fine-spun subtleties ot 
 modern schoolmen would find it difficult to unravel. 
 
10 
 
 ligion 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. 
 
 It soon became painful to regard such fellow Chris- 
 tians, some of whom are very near my heart, as stray- 
 ing widely from the only road to happiness, by refus- 
 ing 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 lead- 
 ing 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, nor the inconsistency of 
 the latter, can do away a doctrine so expressly de- 
 livered in every public catechism and profession of 
 faith. Neither transubstantiation, nor the infallibility 
 of the Roman church, are taught more explicitly as 
 articles of faith, than the impossibility of being saved 
 out of the communion of this church. That Roman 
 Catholics profess some tenets supernumerary, and in- 
 imical to Christian faith, may be the opinion of a Pro- 
 testant: but that Protestants of sense and education 
 are in a state of damnation, must be the religious belief 
 of a consistent Roman Catholic. Look into any one of 
 your own writers upon controversy, and you will find 
 this argument repeatedly made use of: " Protestants 
 allow salvation to Roman Catholics ; but Roman 
 Catholics do not allow salvation to Protestants : there- 
 
 • James i. 27. 
 
11 
 
 lore, the Roman Catholic religion 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 belief. Nor can the effrontery of false 
 reasoning offer a greater insult to common sense, than 
 to plead the uncharitableness of a tenet as an argu- 
 ment for its truth. But when we consider further, 
 that this barbarous tenet laid the first foundations for 
 the cruel heresy of the persecutors,* who, under pre- 
 text of compelling men into the only road to heaven, 
 and saving their souls, inflicted on them torments, 
 which humanity shudders to relate, that, notwith- 
 standing the enormities occasioned by this tenet, it was 
 promulged under horrid 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 justifi- 
 ed by law, and sanctified in pulpits ; the mind is be- 
 wildered in the contemplation of this mystery of iniqui- 
 ty. The wild enthusiasm, that first broached 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 indi- 
 
 * 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 Catholic*, as well as 
 among Roman Catholics, heresies may arise. 
 
 + St. Dominickwas the first inquisitor-general against the Albigenses. 
 
12 
 
 viduals calls for every exertion to exhibit its deformi- 
 ty and falsehood. 
 
 Nor will the colours of this picture, hideous as they 
 are, reflect any odium upon you in the eyes of your fel- 
 low subjects. From my own observation I am hap- 
 py 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 persecu- 
 tion and bigotry are retreating gradually before the 
 light of genuine religion and philosophy. Mankind 
 begin to blush, that near fifteen centuries have been 
 necessary to convince them, that humanity and tolera- 
 tion 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 orthodox give it so faint an assent, that, ex- 
 cept among a few of unusual ignorance and bigotry, 
 its influence is but trifling upon the harmony of socie- 
 
 The absurdity and uncharitableness of believing 
 with the assent of faith, that the members of n,o Chris- 
 tian church but our own can be saved, is, therefore, 
 to me quite palpable and evident. Yet no sooner do 
 reason and religion sap the foundations of this master- 
 error, than the fabric raised upon it must totter and 
 fall. Even the boasted infallibility of a living autho- 
 rity is no more, when salvation is allowed to Chris- 
 tians who reject such a privilege. For, whoever 
 admits this authority as an undoubted article of Chris- 
 fian religion, must necessarily pronounce condemna- 
 tion upon those who wilfully reject it. To refuse 
 passing such a sentence amounts to a tacit renuncia- 
 
13 
 
 ^ion of the authority itself. But in this, as in many 
 other instances, it is happy for mankind, that consist- 
 ency of opinion is not always to be found. The uncor- 
 rupted feelings of the human heart will frequently set 
 consequences at defiance, while their pernicious prin- 
 ciples are deemed sacred and irrefragable. This 
 must always be the case with the humane and virtu- 
 ous, who ground their belief upon authority alone ; 
 who seldom inquire into the relations which the se- 
 veral 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 in- 
 fallible. 
 
 For my own part, no sooner had I relinquished this 
 unwarrantable tenet, than doubts began to arise con- 
 cerning some others, with which it is so nearly con- 
 nected. I experienced very singular satisfaction in 
 regarding my Protestant brethren as fellow travellers 
 in the same road to happiness, as entitled to the same 
 grace and benefit ■* of redemption with myself. In pro- 
 portion as the dead weight of authority was removed, 
 the mind recovered its natural spring and energy, 
 and indulged itself in the warm feelings of expanded 
 benevolence, which had hitherto been chilled by ear- 
 ly infusions of bigotry. To trace each religious truth 
 to its genuine sources of reason and revelation, I con- 
 sidered as the most noble and important employment 
 that can possibly occupy the faculties of man. 
 
 Scarcely, however, had I entered upon this glori- 
 ous task, when I felt the whole force of Solomon's ob- 
 servation : that u he, who increaseth wisdom, in- 
 
14 
 
 ereaseth sorrow." I foresaw the difficulties to which 
 this undertaking would expose me. I knew, that to 
 seek religious information in the writings of Protes- 
 tants, 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 pain- 
 ful conflicts between ancient habits of thinking; and 
 future conviction. As I was determined to acquiesce 
 ultimately in the authority of revelation, the light of 
 reason, and the dictates of conscience, I anticipated 
 in my mind the various disagreeable, and distressful 
 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 
 q{ convert, which, with some of all parties, is become a 
 term of reproach ; the mortification, affliction, and 
 perhaps aversion of kind and tender relations, who 
 used to regard me as doing some credit to my con- 
 nexions ; pity from the benevolent, and abuse from 
 the zealous, were the certain consequences of a 
 change in my 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, 
 
 * 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 Cance, incurs excommunication ipso facto. Whoever re- 
 tains, prints, or defends them is subject to the same dismal penalty. See Ars- 
 dekrn's Theology ', resolutionea practical, ad hares im edit. Antwerp, pag. 147. And 
 every Roman Catholic divine. 
 
15 
 
 such bitter reflections could by no means be indiffer- 
 ent. A dreary prospect opening at the same time 
 from a different quarter, served not a little to en- 
 hance the gloomy prospect before me. Held back 
 from my native country and property by a long, dis- 
 tressful, 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 deter- 
 mine to relinquish. A decent appointment, a com- 
 fortable house in a beautiful and elegant city, and a 
 plentiful table with a virtuous, disinterested colleague. 
 
 * 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 youug, and 
 after passing through some years of very rigid discipline in a foreign academy, 
 secluded from society, and debarred from every species of information, 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 ambition, 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 many 
 other conventuals. The scanty revenues of their establishments have been dis- 
 covered ; the fantom of their imaginary treasures is no more, and their bitter- 
 est 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 al- 
 lowed to appeal to the tribunal 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 write a syllable in their de- 
 fence. Such is the tender mercy and justice of a church, which styles herseli 
 the holy mother, and mistress of all others. The humane reader will excuse 
 this slender tribute of gratitude, which the author pays to the memory of an 
 unfortunate society, in which he received the first lessons of virtue, and princi- 
 ples of religion. The first, he trnsts, he shall never forget : although convic- 
 tion obliges him to abandon some of the latter 
 
16 
 
 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 ob- 
 scurity usually attending his vocation in England, had 
 taught me early in life to contract my expectations 
 within very narrow limits. No opening either to dig- 
 nities or affluence could make any change, at this time, 
 on the temper of my mind ; nor could I be influenc- 
 ed in any degree by the allurements of pleasure. 
 However 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 sin- 
 gle, and was willing to unite myself to a more indul- 
 gent community, I can only refer such declaimers to 
 the littleness of their own minds, where, perhaps, 
 they will discover the ungenerous source of so il- 
 liberal 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 usur- 
 pation of the unalienable rights of nature, as unwar- 
 rantable 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 
 
 * The curious reader will find this subject treated with much impartiality 
 and erudition in an Essay on the Law of Celibacy, k.c. Frinted at Worcester 
 in 1781, and scld by llivington and Bew, London. 
 
17 
 
 church, I think I can declare before the God who is 
 to judge me, that as I should have found it my inte- 
 rest, so I should have thought it my duty not to aban- 
 don her communion. No action of my life ever autho- 
 rized you to suspect, that any gratification 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 particu- 
 lar, is very uncertain at present; this however is 
 evident, that when a person withdraws himself pub- 
 licly from any society, the discipline of that society 
 must cease to be binding. 
 
 Withheld by the difficulties which I have mention- 
 ed, on the one hand, urged on by the irresistible 
 force of truth, on the other, I remained for some time 
 in a state of wretched, though I confide, not guilty 
 suspense. To sit down contented with the faith of 
 the poor collier, so highly appreciated by Roman 
 Catholic ascetics, and by Bellarmin himself;* who, 
 when questioned about his creed, answered, " 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 di- 
 gest it. If a man's belief be not rational ; if he sub- 
 mit to human authority without weighing or under- 
 standing the doctrines which it inculcates, this belief 
 is not faith — it is credulity ; 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. 
 
 * De arte bene moriendi, lib. 2. cap. 9. 
 3 
 
J8 
 
 Convinced, at length, that in my circumstances* inqui- 
 ry was become a duty, daily matter springing up for 
 doubting of former notions ; persuaded that cold and 
 negative assent was insincere and nugatory ; and confi- 
 dent, that the. grace of God would accompany an at- 
 tentive 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 provi- 
 dence has laid open to man. I read, I studied, I pon- 
 dered the old and new testament with unremitting 
 attention. In the latter it was easy to discover the 
 great fundamental and necessary doctrines of the Chris- 
 tian dispensation. In both there appeared a perfect 
 code of morality calculated to render us virtuous and 
 happy. But I could find in neither the discriminating 
 doctrines of the Roman church. 
 
 After the volumes that have been written by Pro- 
 testant divines, to show the slender claim of these doc- 
 
 * They whom neither education, nor abilities, nor leisure, qualify to enter 
 upon such inquiries, must rely principally on the authority of their teachers. 
 Turbam, non iutelligendi vivacitas, sed credendi simplicitas u tutissimam facit.''' 
 S. Aug. contra epis. Tund. I beg leave to transcribe in this place the rule, 
 which the present learned and pious bishop of Chester lays down for the lower 
 sort of people. " Let each man," says he, u improve his own judgment, and in- 
 crease his own knowledge as much as he can : and 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, appear to love truth, rather than 
 such as, by requiring all tbeir doctrines to be implicitly obeyed, seem con- 
 scious, that they will not bear to be freely tried. But never let him prefer any 
 authority to that, which is the highest authority, the written word of God. 
 This, therefore, let us all carefully study, 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 u able to make us wise 
 unto salvation, perfectly and thoroughly furnished unto all good works.'' 2 
 Tim, -xiii, 17. Brief confutation of the errors of the church of Rome. 1752 
 
19 
 
 trines 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 limits of this short address. 
 It would plunge me headlong into the ocean of con- 
 troversy, 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 Catho- 
 lic polemics, that Protestant writers have thrown 
 away much erudition and ingenuity in refuting pre- 
 tensions, which were never claimed by their most 
 learned opponents — I say the most celebrated con- 
 trovertists of the Roman church acknowledge, that 
 some of her essential tenets are not to be found at all 
 in the scriptures, or are delivered in them with great 
 obscurity. This, perhaps, is a fact which you never 
 suspected ; I beg leave, therefore, to instance it brief- 
 ly in a {ew particulars. 
 
 Transubstantiation, or " the conversion of the whole 
 substance of bread into the body, and of the whole 
 substance of wine into the blood of Jesus Christ," is 
 an essential article of the Roman Catholic religion. 
 But is this article clearly and evidently delivered in any 
 passage of the Bible ? Hear what your own most emi- 
 nent doctors have written upon the subject : "Scotus 
 says, that there is no text of the scripture so explicit, 
 as evidently to claim our assent to transubstantiation, 
 without the decision of the church; and this is not at 
 all improbable : for although scripture may appear 
 to us 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 emi- 
 
20 
 
 nently conspicuous, have thought otherwise."* The 
 elegant and learned Melchior Canus, bishop of the 
 Canaries, mentioning " several particulars belonging 
 to faith, which are not expressly delivered in the scrip- 
 tures," instances, among others, "the change of the 
 bread and wine into the body and blood of Christ."1 
 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 wri- 
 ters 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 be- 
 come an article of your faith, " that a priest has pow- 
 er to forgive sins." But Peter Lombard, the famous 
 master of the sentences, 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 loos- 
 en the sinner with or from the bond of the fault, or 
 the punishment ; 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."|| 
 
 You will not, I presume, question the authority of 
 
 * Bellarm. de Euch. 1. 3. cap. 23. t Loc. commun. lib. 3. fund. 2. 
 
 \ Vocab. indulg. i Lib. 4. sentent. dist. 8. e. f. || In Matth. 16. 
 
21 
 
 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 un- 
 less the tenet be found in the Bible, it is not necessa- 
 ry that it should be known to all men. But suppos- 
 ing it to be an essential point of the Christian religion, 
 from what passage of the scripture can it possibly be 
 proved ? The books of Maccabees were not acknow- 
 ledged for canonical scriptures by St. Hierom, Rufi- 
 nus, Epiphanius, Athanasius, Gregory, and many 
 other ancient and eminent fathers. And the texts 
 usually alleged from other parts of the Bible,t 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 extraordinary 
 tenet. That the Greek church could never discover 
 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 
 opinion 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, pedetentim."X And again, " to this very 
 day purgatory is not believed by the Greeks."§ 
 
 * Art. 18. ad versus Luth. 
 
 -r Matth. 5. 22. 25. Luc. 16. 9. Act. 2. 24. 1 Cor. 3. 11. 1 Cor. 15. 
 1. Pet. 3. 19. 
 
 . Iliiiletn. 5 Ibidem. 
 
22 
 
 I could easily prosecute this argument through a 
 Variety of instances ; I could show you, that some of 
 your most celebrated divines have acknowledged, that 
 neither the supremacy of the Roman church, nor the in- 
 vocation of saints, nor the worship of images, nor the 
 precise number of 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 inte- 
 rested 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 belong 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 already seen. God, therefore, 
 has revealed these points by unwritten traditions. 
 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 au- 
 thority. 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 infallibility, which prevented me so long from exa- 
 mining the tenets of the Roman church. Sheltered un- 
 der the garb of so gorgeous a prerogative, impressed 
 upon the yielding mind of youth by men of sense and 
 virtue ; backed, moreover, by the splendour of suppos- 
 
23 
 
 ed miracles, and the horrors of anathemas, opinions 
 the most absurd and contradictory 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 dispel 
 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 an- 
 cient notions, that they only find their way into the 
 minds of a few, who are bold enough to embrace the 
 hardihood of wisdom, and disregard 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 
 infallibility 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 rea- 
 son must tell every unprejudiced man, that some 
 texts in holy writ go to prove the infallibility of the 
 Roman Catholic church, may I not answer with con- 
 fidence, that reason and experience tell me much 
 more forcibly, that several articles are incredible 
 and groundless, which rest solely on that infallibili- 
 ty ? Does not reason, for instance, assure me with 
 greater evidence, that the Almighty requires not our 
 belief of a doctrine, which stands in direct contradic- 
 tion to the only means he has allowed us of arriving 
 
 * '* Reason tells those who are virtuous and truly philosophers to honour and 
 appreciate truth only ; and not to sutler themselves to be enslaved to trit 
 opinions of the ancients, if they be erroneous." Justinus Marlyr, Jipol. II. 
 
24 
 
 at truth — 1 mean our senses and our understandings ? 
 Do a few controverted texts of the 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 without a body that is liquid ; that the 
 eternal God is not to be shut up in boxes, nor de- 
 voured corporally by vermin ?* Does not reason as- 
 sure 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 
 
 * These absurdities and contradictions, with many others, follow evidently 
 from the doctrine of trcnsubslantialion. I beg leave to mention in this place 
 two negative arguments, which seem to prove to a demonstration, that tran- 
 svbstantiation was unknown to the ancient church. The first is this. " If 
 the ancient church had believed this doctrine, and paid the same supreme ado- 
 ration to the holy sacrament, as Roman Catholics now do ; is it not probable, 
 nay, is it not evident, that this tenet and practice would have been urged by 
 the Catholics against the Arians, as an incontestable proof of the divinity of 
 Christ ? This argument, however, was never alleged by any one of the nume- 
 rous and learned doctors during the Arian controversy. A convincing proof 
 that such an argument was unknown." Again, M Is it not reasonable to 
 think, that the heathen writers, among their many charges against the ancient 
 Christians, would have retorted upon them the accusation of idolatry in ador- 
 ing a bit of bread, in reserving their God in gold and silver chalices, boxes, &c. 
 had the practice or belief of the church given any room for so plausible an ar- 
 gument." I beg leave to add, moreover, that the fathers of the second coun- 
 cil 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'Abbe Cone. Nic. 2 Act. T. 6. page 
 541. 
 
25 
 
 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 rea- 
 son, 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 
 superiority of her counsels to those of fellow mor- 
 tals : — 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 suit- 
 ed to our several characters, abilities, and duties — 
 Becoming all to all, she addresses herself with gentle- 
 ness to some, and with energy to others : but when 
 passions are silent, and prejudice suspended, her lan- 
 guage 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 Catholics, 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," pronounced by a 
 priest, a bit of bread is changed into the true natural 
 body of Jesus Christ, and is to be adored as the eter- 
 nal God, because your reason convinces you, that 
 Christ spoke these words in a literal sense, and be- 
 cause your church understands them in this manner. 
 But when reason assures me, that innumerable ar- 
 guments evince their meaning to be figurative ; am 
 I not bound to open my mind to the light of convic- 
 tion, and discard the infallibility which enforces the 
 absurdities of the opposite opinion ? 
 
 If from reason you appeal to revelation, the plea to 
 infallibility will be found equally unsupported. You 
 
 4 
 
26 
 
 will tell me, doubtless, that the ancient fathers unani- 
 mously interpret some scriptural passages in this sense. 
 But, I apprehend, that upon inquiry, such an asser- 
 tion would appear very hazarded indeed. Let an 
 impartial man read the fathers upon this, and some 
 other subjects, and I will defy him to declare, that 
 he has met with this boasted uniformity 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 her infallibility is gathered from 
 scripture by the unanimous consent of the fathers ; 
 and this unanimous consent of the fathers is asserted, 
 and established by the very infallible authority which, 
 in the first instance, it was alleged 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 satis- 
 ; faction. It is an old, and hackneyed argument, but 
 not less conclusive on that account.* 
 
 * 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 
 subscribed heretical opinions, this doctrine is at present almost out of date. 
 Some place infallibility in a general council. Others in the pope and the coun- 
 cil 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 decree nothing 
 without the assent of the pope ; that he alone has a right to interpret 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 scrip- 
 
27 
 
 As to the few scriptural texts which seem to coun- 
 tenance infallibility, they appeared no longer conclu- 
 sive than I refused to examine them. The divine au- 
 thor of the Christian religion promised, it is true, to 
 teach his disciples all truth ; (John 14, 15, 16.) and he 
 undoubtedly did so. But where did he so far ensure 
 the faith of their successors, whether presbyters, bi- 
 shops, 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 actual- 
 ly be the case ? (1 Cor. 3. 12.) He promised to be with 
 his disciples to the end of the world. (Matth. 1 9, 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. 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 ? 
 
 ture, or of some point of tradition, and then the pope pronounces infallibly 
 upon the sense of this declaration. This ultimate decision of the pope is sup- 
 posed to be inspired by the spirit of God. But is the Christian, who has no 
 means of coming to Ihe knowledge ot this decision but by reading it, or hear- 
 ing it read, equally secured from error by the spirit of God ? If he be, then no 
 private Roman Catholic can ever misapprehend the meaning 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 Christian, 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 par- 
 ties agree to be the word of God ; in 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, as if he had read, or heard the formula of faith pub- 
 lished by Pope Pius IV. 
 
28 
 
 Besides, why should the presence 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 ortho- 
 dox believers ? Would not the church be equally over- 
 thrown, should either of these evils become univer- 
 sal ? 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 founda- 
 tions of the Christian religion, and therefore it was 
 unnecessary to fence against either. " That the 
 gates of Hell, or rather of death," (as the word hades 
 manifestly imports,) " shall never prevail against the 
 Christian church," (Matth. 16. 18.) is an article of 
 my belief, as well as of yours. But the obvious mean- 
 ing 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 over- 
 turning his religion, to which he has been pleased to 
 annex perpetuity. However feeble and disordered 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." The text, there- 
 fore, 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 erro- 
 neous 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, 
 
29 
 
 the gates of death, nor of hell, will never prevail. The 
 enemy may sow weeds and tares among this heaven- 
 ly grain ; he may build structures of straw upon these 
 unshaken foundations ; the ignorance, and passions of 
 mankind may exhale around them some noxious va- 
 pours of superstition and immorality ; but they will 
 ever retain sufficient 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 argument. 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. I 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 periods of time, several points of doc- 
 trine were defined as belonging to faith, which at 
 others were debated as matters of opinion. The Mille- 
 
 * 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 in Ireland^ and a treatise 
 de successione et statu Christiana ecelesia, by Archbishop Usher. Defense de la 
 nouvelle traduction du concile de Trent, par le Pere le Courayer. Albertinus 
 de sacramento eucharistice. Defense de la reformation, par Mons. J. Claude. 
 Bishop Hurdh 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 sim- 
 plicity, supported by astonishing powers of reasoning, and effectually winnow- 
 ed from the chaff of modern corruptions. 
 
30 
 
 narian system, or the opinion that, after the renovation 
 of the world, Christ will reign a thousand 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 pre- 
 sent. The necessity, and divine institution of auricular 
 confession, now principal points of Roman Catholic 
 faith, were discussed with great freedom by many an- 
 cient 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 
 hinth century, tells us expressly ,t " 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 mee t with these 
 very remarkable words : " It is lawful, that confes- 
 sion be made to God alone, if it be requisite :" and again, 
 " Learned men think differently 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 comment 
 
 * Sec this particular clearly and learnedly demonstrated by Dr. Burnet, iu 
 his very ingenious treatise de statu mortuorum et resurgentium, 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, Tertullian, Origen, 
 Chrysostom, Theodoret, Oecumenius, Theophylact, Ambrose, Clemens Ro- 
 manus, and St. Bernard as advocates for this doctrine, (Defens. Auct. Eccl. 
 1. 1. cap. 2.) which, however, was condemned as heretical by the council of 
 Florence. 
 
 t Epist. 26. 
 
 | See Usher's answer, &c. art, confession, page 107. 
 
31 
 
 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 confession made to the church, or a priest." He 
 then cites St. Ambrose, Austin, and Chrysostom, as 
 patronizing 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 in- 
 troduced by ecclesiastical institution; which opinion," 
 continues he, " is now sufficiently declared to be here- 
 tical by the church." During the same deplorable 
 era of superstition and ignorance, " an era," says 
 Sigonius,f and other Roman Catholic historians, "sur- 
 passing the darkest and most profligate ages of anti- 
 quity, 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 involv- 
 ing the plain meaning of the scriptures in the clouds 
 of allegory, and the jargon of the schools ; when bi- 
 shops sat as judges at councils, who were unable to 
 write their own names ;| when the lamp of science 
 was nearly extinguished hi the western empire, and 
 the extravagance of a tenet was its best recommen- 
 dation to the credulous multitude ; at this woful pe- 
 riod of the degradation of reason and prevalence 
 of vice, the nature of Christ's presence in the Eucha- 
 rist began first to be agitated. The term transub- 
 stantiation was yet unknown to the Catholic church. 
 
 * Disput. de Sac ram. de Confess, cap. g. 
 
 t Lib. 6. de Regno Italiae. 
 
 | See Nonr. Traite dediplorn. torn. 2. p. 424. Par deux Benedictins. 
 
32 
 
 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.f It was towards 
 the beginning of the ninth century, that Paschasius 
 Radbertus, first a monk, then abbot of Corbie, pub- 
 lished 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 
 \V\ This monk, however, informs us himself, that 
 his doctrine was by no means universal, or settled. In 
 his letter to Frudegardus, speaking of the corporal 
 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 no- 
 tion 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 fur- 
 ther with what zeal and erudition this growing - error 
 
 * Stephen, bishop of Autun. 
 
 i Bellarm. lib. 3. de Euchar. cap. 23. 
 
 X Bellarm. de Scrip. Eccles. 
 
33 
 
 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 genuine by 
 the learned Mabillon. 
 
 Thus we see, that the doctrine of the carnal pre- 
 sence was no sooner openly maintained, than some of 
 the most celebrated doctors of the time arose to com- 
 bat it; without incurring any suspicion of heresy from 
 their opponents. A convincing proof that, at the pe- 
 riod I 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 wn- 
 less, as the comment upon the canon law cautions 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 con- 
 vince you, that the Roman church regards some doc- 
 trines, at present, 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 dis- 
 cover a satisfactory answer. For it must be grant- 
 ed, 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 
 forfeited 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 deli- 
 
 • Glossa decret. de consecrat dis. 2. iacap. Ego Bermqariu* 
 5 
 
J4 
 
 vered as essential, what are we to think of that 
 church's infallibility, which enforces doctrines as wc- 
 cessary and essential, which the author of Christianity 
 did not teach, nor she herself for many centuries 
 conceive to be so ? To such dilemmas are the advo- 
 cates of this system reduced. In order to maintain 
 a uniformity, and catholicity of opinion, they ima- 
 gine it necessary to erect an infallible tribunal. But 
 do they reflect that such a uniformity is entirely chi- 
 merical, and that every solemn decision of this tribu- 
 nal 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 livings 
 authority, 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 arti- 
 cles of faith, by deciding ultimately upon fresh matters 
 of dispute, whether important, or not ; whether coun- 
 tenanced by the scriptures, or otherwise. What was 
 not a doctrinal point yesterday may be so to-day. 
 Every age will give birth to new tenets, and thus, in- 
 stead 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 im- 
 perfect draught of a religion, which looks for perfec- 
 tion from human decrees. For the church must pos- 
 sess the same authority for ages to come, as she has 
 enjoyed in those that are passed ; so that if, as opin- 
 
35 
 
 ions 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 succeeding ages, swelled with the additions 
 of some future pope Pius, may be as different from 
 yours, as is that of the primitive Christians and apos- 
 tles. 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 un- 
 certain. They are perpetually introducing a succes- 
 sion of opinions into the system of religion, as unset- 
 tled as the fancies that produced them, as doubtful as 
 the authority upon which they rest, as various as the 
 imaginations of those who have embellished them, 
 and as transient 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 before you my profession of faith. By relinquish- 
 ing opinions which I have striven in vain to reconcile 
 to reason or revelation, I trust, I cease not to be a 
 Christian and a Catholic : Both these appellations be- 
 long surely to the man who believes and professes, as 
 I solemnly do, every point of Christian faith, which at 
 all times, and in all places, has constituted the creed of 
 all orthodox believers* This universal Christian Catholic 
 faith is delivered compendiously in the apostles' 
 , creed : whoever subscribes to this in its full extent, 
 ' must be a member of the Catholic church-t The 
 
 * Ille est verus et germanus Catholicus, qui in fide fixus et stabilis perma- 
 nens, quicquid universaliter anliquitus ecclesiam Catholicam tenuisse cognove- 
 rit, id solum sibi tenendum, credendumque decernit. Vine. Lerin. Common, 
 c. 25. 
 
 t It will here be objected by many, that if we admit the apostles' creed in 
 its f till ex lent ■, we must believe in the holy Catholic church with the same as- 
 
30 
 
 apostles, or their immediate successors, in drawing up 
 no other profession of faith, discovered clearly what 
 they intended should be the belief of their disciples. 
 By adhering 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 new reli- 
 gion, however he may discard some doctrines, which 
 at different periods of time have been engrafted up- 
 on the old one ; especially if he discover, after mature 
 investigation, that these doctrines were unknown to 
 the best ages of the church, were conceived origin- 
 ally in ignorance, fostered by superstition, supported 
 by pious forgeries, adopted by worldly policy, propa- 
 
 sent of faith with which we believe in God the Father, in 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 Reman 
 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 zs 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 (hem 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 controversies 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 trinity we 
 are taught to place our faith, but only to believe that there is one holy and Catho- 
 lic church ; 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 notmcvke a sufficient difference between God 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 belii-ve in 
 the holy Catholic church, they certainly do not deal with you as candidly as 
 }bey ought. 
 
37 
 
 gated by artifice, and enforced by all the power that 
 spiritual tyranny could exert. If you ask me, there- 
 fore, to what church I now belong, my answer is, to 
 the Christian Catholic church. Of that society of Chris- - 
 tians 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 repugnant to reason or morality. 
 Through the same divine Mediator they worship the 
 same God ; and from the sufferings and merits of the 
 same Redeemer, they expect forgiveness of their sins, 
 and happiness for evermore. In this country, where 
 the Christian only is the established religion, where 
 tests and subscriptions are unknown, where refined 
 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 cordially in 
 restoring primitive simplicity both in morals and be- 
 lief. To indulge in these ideas may, perhaps, be ex- 
 travagant; but to a mind of sensibility, it must surely 
 be delightful. My religion, therefore, is that of the 
 
38 
 
 Bible : whatever that sacred book proposes as an ob- 
 ject 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 my soul. 
 
 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 authority of God's word ; which, as St. Chrysos- 
 tom assures us, " expounds itself, and does not suffer 
 the reader to err." # You think it necessary to recur 
 fto 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 written, &c. : 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."f You deem the 
 scriptures deficient and obscure ; / am satisfied with 
 the things that are written, because all is written, 
 " that the writers thought sufficient for faith and mo- 
 rality."} I ask, moreover, 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 perfect being." 
 You require the sanction of the church to stamp the 
 truth of each article of your creed : 1 am content to 
 acquiesce in that authority, to which alone St. Austin 
 and Chrysostom refer us, in order to discover which 
 
 * Horn. 12. in Genesim. + Epist. 74. 
 
 t S. Cyr. lib. 12 Joan. * Lib. 2. de trin. 
 
39 
 
 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 con- 
 vinced, that whoever 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 Wilson, an 
 Hoadly, and a Newton, and of innumerable other 
 worthies, whose admirable writings and Christian 
 lives, have been unanswerable apologies for the prin- 
 ciples they professed. This I will ever profess ; ac- 
 cording 1o this, through God's grace, will I endea- 
 vour to regulate the tenor of my conduct. Upon this 
 will I stake my happiness for eternity. This will I 
 inculcate into those whom Providence may at any 
 time place under my direction ; and for this, if cir- 
 cumstances should require it, I hope I should be wil- 
 ling 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 re- 
 gret. 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 consists more in perfect 
 
 ■'■'■ S. Aug;, twit eccltr. chap. ft. Chrys. in Matlh. cap. 24. horn. 49 
 
40 
 
 union of heart than entire conformity of opinion, I 
 shall still deem it my duty to cherish the sentiments 
 of gratitude, esteem, and charity, which the worth 
 and behaviour of several characters among you first 
 excited in my breast. To the last of these, more- 
 over, you are entitled, as fellow men and fellow Chris- 
 tians. Sentiments like these, coming from a supposed 
 enemy, and an obscure individual, will probably be 
 considered by many with contempt or indifference. 
 They who cannot discriminate between the personal 
 merit and the speculative opinions of men, will cer- 
 tainly rate them very low. But to persons truly can- 
 did and sincere themselves, such affections can never 
 appear less acceptable for being cherished by a man, 
 who, without any prospect of emolument, or promise 
 of attention from the communion he embraces, has 
 sacrificed a certain and comfortable subsistence, and 
 hazarded a tolerable character among his nearest 
 connexions, rather than incur the reproaches of his 
 own mind, or the guilt of hypocrisy. Be this, however, 
 as it may, it must ever prove a point of great import- 
 ance to myself, not to lose sight of a commandment, 
 which by special preference our common Redeemer 
 calls his own ; and which, as you know, is nothing 
 more than mutual forbearance, benevolence, 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 
 
 THE ROMAN CATHOLICS 
 
 OF THE 
 
 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. 
 
 BY A CATHOLIC CLERGYMAN, 
 
 NEW-YORK: 
 
 REPUBLISHED BY DAVID LONGWORTH, NO. 1 1 PARfe', 
 Clayton & Kingsland, Printers 
 
 1817. 
 
4 
 
 persons eminent for their knowledge and writings, 
 concludes with an important instruction, and recom- 
 mends 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, chap- 
 lains ; and had all the copies of it been transmitted 
 to those, for whom professedly it is intended, I should 
 not dedicate to animadversions on it the few moments 
 of leisure left me from other employments incident t» 
 my charge and profession ; especially with the scanty 
 materials of which I am possessed; for I am destitute 
 of many sources of information, and unable to refer 
 to authorities, which I presume to have been collected 
 on the other side with great industry. By the Chap- 
 lain's own account, he has long meditated a separa- 
 tion from us ; and, during that time, he had opportu- 
 nities of resorting to the repositories of science, so 
 common and convenient in Europe. 
 
 But the letter not only being printed here, but 
 circulating widely through the country, a regard to 
 your information, and. the tranquillity of your conscien- 
 ces, requires some notice to be taken of it. For the 
 ministers of religion should always remember, that it 
 is their duty as well to enlighten the understanding, as 
 improve the morals of mankind. You are the salt of 
 
 * Catholici noverint ?e cum eccl^sia doctores recipere, non cum doctoribus 
 ecclesiae fidem deserere debere. Vine. Lir. comm. c, 23. 
 
the earth,* said Christ to his apostles, to preserve 
 men from the corruptions of vice and immorality: 
 and you are the light of the worldrf to instruct 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 coun- 
 cils, the directions of our ecclesiastical superiors, and 
 the whole discipline of our church, even in ages the 
 most inauspicious to the cultivation of letters. In 
 those ages, 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, in- 
 stead of being prejudiced by the vague imputations on 
 monkish and clerical ignorance, will remember with 
 gratitude, that they owe to this body of men the pre- 
 servation of ancient literature ; that in times of gene- 
 ral anarchy and violence, they alone gave such culti- 
 vation to letters, as the unimproved state of science 
 admitted ; and that in the cloisters of cathedral 
 churches, and of monasteries, they opened schools of 
 public instruction, and, to men of studious minds, asy- 
 lums from the turbulence of war and rapine. The in- 
 
 * Matt. v. 13. t Matt. v. 14, 
 
ierence from these facts is obvious : for if the minis- 
 ters of religion, agreeably to the discipline of the 
 church, cultivated and taught letters at a time when 
 they were generally neglected; if the resurrection of 
 sound literature was owing, as it certainly was, to the 
 most dignified of our clergy ; who can impute igno- 
 rance to us, as resulting from the genius of our reli- 
 gion ? 
 
 I forbear to add other numerous proofs of the falsi- 
 ty of this charge : and I can with confidence appeal to 
 yourselves, whether your religious instructors have 
 not, to the extent of their abilities, and suitably to 
 your respective situations in life, endeavoured to sug- 
 gest 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 ex- 
 amination of the grounds or motives that induce him 
 to it ? No, surely ; and therefore nothing ought to 
 hinder you from examining thoroughly the grounds of 
 your 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."t 
 
 But is not this recommendation a mere delusion ? 
 Can a consistent Roman Catholic be a candid inquir- 
 er in matters of religion ? Why not ? Because, says 
 
 V! 1 Pet. iii. 15. 
 
 t England's Conversion and Reformation compared, Sect. 1. 
 
the Chaplain, (p. 8.) he cannot set out with that indiffer- 
 ence to the truth or falsity of a tenet, which forms the lead- 
 ing feature of rational investigation. Did the Chaplain 
 weigh all the consequences of the doctrine here ad- 
 vanced ? Must we then suspend all the duties of na- 
 tural religion and moral obligation ? Must a son de- 
 vest himself of filial love and respect, that he may 
 investigate rationally, and judge impartially, of the 
 obligations resulting from the tender relations of 
 parent and child ? Must we neglect to train the ten- 
 der minds of youth in the habits of virtue, and to 
 guard them from vice, by the prospect of future re- 
 wards and punishments, lest they should be inclined to 
 judge hereafter too partially of those great sanctions 
 of natural and revealed religion ? What an argument 
 is here suggested to the impugners of all religion ; to 
 the enemies of Christianity ! Suggested, did I say, or 
 borrowed from them ? For the learned Dr. Leland, 
 to whose writings the cause of revelation is so much 
 indebted, has informed us, that it has been long ago 
 made use of by them ; and his answer to it, more es- 
 pecially as he was a Protestant, will save me the 
 trouble of making any observations on this extraordi- 
 nary assertion. "Another argument," says he, " with 
 which he" (the author Of Christianity not founded in 
 argument) " makes a mighty parade, is to this pur- 
 pose, that no religion can be rational that is not 
 founded on a free and impartial examination : and 
 such an examination supposes a perfect neutrality to 
 the principles which are examined, and even a tem- 
 poral 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 
 
8 
 
 necessary 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 neces- 
 sarily commence atheist before he can fairly examine 
 into the proofs of the existence of God. It is suffi- 
 cient to a candid examination, that a man apply him- 
 self to it with a mind open to conviction, and a dispo- 
 sition 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 principles in which we have been instructed ; then, 
 supposing those principles to be in themselves ration- 
 al and well founded, it may well happen that in in- 
 quiring 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 in- 
 quiry ; Avhich, in that case, will end in a fuller convic- 
 tion of them than before."* 
 
 But Roman Catholics, it seems, are fettered with 
 other obstacles to free inquiry. They cannot seek re- 
 ligious information in the ivritings of Protestants, with- 
 out incurring the severest censures of their church, (Ch. 
 Letter, p. 14.) By the Bulla Ccence excommunication 
 is denounced against all persons reading books writ- 
 ten by heretics, containing heresy, or treating about 
 religion. (Note ibid.) 
 
 It is indeed true, that the Bull referred to contains 
 the prohibition, as mentioned by the Chaplain ; and 
 it is not less true, that in England, that Protestant 
 countrv of free inquiry, severe laws and heavy penal- 
 
 * View of Deistical Writer?, Vol. f. lef. .11. 
 
ties were enacted, and, if I am well informed, still 
 subsist against the introduction, the printing, and 
 vending of books in favour of the Catholic religion. 
 I know, that within these last twenty years, these 
 laws have been executed with severity. Such, on 
 both sides, were the precautions suggested by a jea- 
 lous zeal to preserve uninformed minds from the arti- 
 ficial colourings of real or supposed error. The heads 
 of the respective 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 misrepresentation? 
 and powers of ridicule; weapons too common in con- 
 troversies of every kind. Without examining how far 
 this zeal was prudent and justifiable in the present 
 instance, 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 probably 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, con- 
 tinues the inspired writer in the next verse, grew the- 
 ivord of God, and ivas 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 
 
 * Acts xix. IP 
 
10 
 
 pupils, where they had sown and cultivated the seed? 
 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 en- 
 croachment on national independence ; and, in par- 
 ticular, the clause referred to by the Chaplain was 
 generally disregarded. For this I will appeal to his 
 own candour. Throughout his extensive acquaint- 
 ance with Catholics, has he not known them to read 
 Protestant authors without hesitation or reproof? 
 Did he not expect, that his letter would freely circu- 
 late 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 Stillingfleet, and all the other 
 champions of the Protestant cause, open to his inspec- 
 tion ? 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 
 Catholic belief? Was not even literary vanity grati- 
 fied, 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 : 
 / knew that to seek religious information in the writings of 
 
11 
 
 Protestants, was to incur the severest censures of the 
 church I belonged to. (Letter, p. 14.) 
 
 May I not then say with confidence, that rational 
 investigation 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. (p. 7.) makes too great 
 an impression of terror on the mind, to suffer an 
 unrestrained exertion of its faculties. Such is the 
 imputation ; and it being extremely odious and offen- 
 sive, and tending to disturb the peace and harmony 
 subsisting in these United States between religionists 
 of all professions ; you will allow me to enter fully 
 into it, and render, if I can, your vindication complete. 
 
 I begin with observing, that to be in the communion 
 of the Catholic church, and to be & member of the Catho- 
 lic church, are two very distinct things. They are in 
 the communion of the church, who are united in the pro- 
 fession of her faith and participation of her sacra- 
 ments 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 unfeigned disposition to 
 embrace the truth whenever they find it. Now, it 
 never was our doctrine, that salvation can be obtain- 
 ed only by the former ; and this would have mani- 
 festly appeared, if the Chaplain, instead of citing pope 
 
 * Bellarm. de Eccl. milit. 1. 3. c. % 
 
12 
 
 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 wrongfully 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 communion with our 
 church for salvation ; nothing that is not professed 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 be- 
 ing a member of the Catholic church, and of the commu- 
 nion of the church, is no modern distinction, but a doc- 
 trine uniformly taught by ancient 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.* I shall soon 
 have occasion to produce other authors establishing 
 this same point : " We are accused of great uncha- 
 ritableness in allowing salvation to none but Catho- 
 lics. But this also is a mistaken notion. We say, I 
 believe no more than do all other Christian societies. 
 Religion certainly is an aifair of very serious consi- 
 deration. 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 
 
 * Beljarm, de Eccl. mil. 1. 3. c. 3, 
 
true one, am I not obliged to become a Protestant ? 
 In similar circumstances, must not you likewise de- 
 clare yourself a Catholic ? 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 embrace the truth 
 when he sees it, deserves not to be happy. God how- 
 ever is the searcher of hearts. He only can read 
 those internal dispositions on which rectitude of con- 
 duct alone depends."* Let any one compare this 
 explanation of our doctrine with the doctrine of Pro- 
 testant divines ; and discover in the former, if he Can, 
 any plainer traces of the savage 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 di- 
 vines. " 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 con- 
 cerning doctrines or laws of importance to our duty 
 and happiness, and hath caused them to be promul- 
 gated with such evidence, as he knoweth to be suffi- 
 cient to convince reasonable and well-disposed minds 
 that will carefully attend to it, he hath an undoubted 
 right to require those to whom this revelation is pub- 
 lished, to receive and to obey it ; and 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 
 neglect, obstinacy, and disobedience."! 
 
 * The State and Behaviour of English Catholics.— London 1780. (p. 155—6.) 
 fr View of Deisticai Writers, Vol. I. let. 10. 
 
14 
 
 Where then is the uncharitableness peculiar to 
 Catholics ? Where is the odious tenet that dries up 
 the springs of philanthropy, and chills by early infu- 
 sions of bigotry the warm feelings of benevolence ? (Let- 
 ter, p. 13.) I am ready to do justice to the humanity 
 of Protestants ; I 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- 
 testants ; (Let. p. 9.;) but with all my attachment to 
 their persons, and respect for their virtues, I have 
 never seen nor heard of the works of Christian mercy 
 being exercised more extensively, more generally, or 
 more uninterruptedly, than by many members of our 
 own communion, though the Chaplain thinks our 
 minds are contracted by the narrowness of a system, 
 (Let. ibid.) 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 tenderness and attention with which the 
 unfortunate victims of penury and disease are there 
 served, not by mercenary domestics, 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 exoectation of any reward 
 on this side the grave. Let him remember how many 
 men of genius he has known to devote themselves 
 with a like disinterestedness to the irksome employ- 
 ment of training youth in the first rudiments of sci- 
 ence ; and others encountering incredible hardships, 
 and, as it were, burying themselves alive, to bring 
 
15 
 
 »aVages to a social life, and afterwards to form them 
 to Christian virtue. To what society of Christians 
 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 in- 
 stead of, and for the redemption of their fellow Chris- 
 tians 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 sen- 
 sibility 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, 
 ivhen nature sickened, and each gale was death ? The 
 Chaplain's recollection will enable him to add great- 
 ly to these instances of expanded benevolence ; and 1 
 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 hu- 
 manity? 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 commu- 
 nion. 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 assert- 
 ed by our divines, that baptism, actual baptism, is 
 
16 
 
 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 established it, that salvation maybe 
 obtained without actual baptism ; thus then it appears* 
 that we not only may, but are 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 barely an error of judgment, but an error 
 arising from a perverse 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, when- 
 ever 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, 
 (p. 10.) 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 profession of faith, 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 transubstantiation, (Letter p. 10.) 
 no divine, worthy to be called such* teaches it at all. 
 
17 
 
 I will set out with the French divines, and place 
 him first, whose reputation, I presume, is highest. 
 Thus then does the illustrious Bergier express him- 
 self, in his admirable work, entitled, Deism refuted by 
 itself: — " It is false, that we say to any one, that he will 
 be damned ; to do so, would be contrary to our ge- 
 neral doctrine relating to the different sects out of 
 the bosom of the church. First, with respect to here- 
 tics" (the author here means those who, though not 
 heretics in the rigorous sense of the word, go under 
 that general denomination) " who are baptized and 
 believe in Jesus Christ, we are persuaded, that all of 
 them, who with sincerity remain in their error; who 
 through inculpable ignorance believe themselve*s to be 
 in the way of salvation ; who would be ready to em- 
 brace the Roman Catholic church, ifGod 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 Gallican 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 Reuter, " in a 
 Christian or baptized person, is a wilful and obstinate 
 error of the understanding, opposite to some verity of 
 faith. — So that three things are requisite to constitute 
 
 * Bergier, Deisme refuted par lui meme — 1. par. let. 4. 
 t Instruct, pastorale sur 1'heresie — page 67. edit, in 4to ? 
 
 3 
 
18 
 
 heresy: 1st. In the understanding, an erroneous opi- 
 nion against faith. 2dly. In the will, liberty and ob- 
 stinacy." The third condition is, that the erring- 
 person be a baptized Christian ; otherwise 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 reso- 
 lution to dissent from a truth revealed, and sufficient- 
 ly 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, it would probably be in Spain and Italy : But 
 you have just heard Suarez, the first of Spanish theo- 
 logians, 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 procured 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 conforming, I presume, to the laws of nature and 
 directions of right reason,) " God will provide for 
 them in his mercy."t 
 
 * Reuter theol. moral, p. 2. trac. 1. quags. 3. 
 
 1" Si qui tamen eorum fecissent, quod m se est, Dominus eis secundu.ua suautt 
 misericordiam providisset, mittendo eis prsedicatorera tidei, sicut Petrum Cor- 
 nelio. Comm. in cap. 10. epis. ad Rom. lect. 3. 
 
19 
 
 You will observe, that in the passage quoted from 
 Bergier, 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 per- 
 verseness, as the divines above mentioned. " I call 
 him only a heretic," says he, " who, when the doc- 
 trine of Catholic faith is manifested to him, prefers 
 resistance."* Again : " They are not to be ranked 
 with heretics who without pertinacious a?iimosity main- 
 tain their opinion, though false and mischievous, es- 
 pecially if they did not broach it themselves with for- 
 ward presumption, but received it from their mistak- 
 en and seduced parents ; and if they seek truth with 
 earnest solicitude, and a readiness to retract when 
 they discover it."f 
 
 To these decisive authorities of St. Augustin might 
 be added others, as well from him, 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 
 obtruded upon us the doctrine of confining salvation 
 to those only of our own communion ; for, without it, 
 
 * Nondum haereticum dico, nisi manifestata doctrina Catholics fidei. 
 resistere maluerit. De bapt. contr. Donat. lib. 4. c. 16. 
 
 t Qui sententiam suam, quamvis falsam atque perversam, nulla pertinaci 
 animositate del'endunt, pra-sertim quam non audacia pnesumptionis sua; pe- 
 pererunt, sed a seductis atque in errorcm lapsis parentibus acceperunt, quae- 
 runt autem cauta sollicitudine veritatem, corrigi parati cum invenerint, 
 nequaquam sunt inter hareticos deputandi. Aug. epis. 43. ad Glorium & 
 Eleusium. 
 
20 
 
 the boasted infallibility of a living authority,, that is, of 
 our church, is no more. (Let. p. 12.) Why so ? Be- 
 cause, " whoever admits this authority as an un- 
 doubted article of Christian religion, must necessari- 
 ly pronounce condemnation upon those who wilfully 
 reject it." (Let. ibid.) Therefore, we must likewise 
 pronounce condemnation upon those who reject it 
 through ignorance and inculpable error. Is this infer- 
 ence logical ? And yet, must it not follow from the 
 premises, to make any thing of the Chaplain's argu- 
 ment ? 
 
 When I come to consider how a man of genius and 
 extensive knowledge, as he surely is, could bring him- 
 self to think, that we hold the doctrine imputed to us, 
 I am at a loss to account for it. He received his edu- 
 cation in a school, and from men who have been 
 charged, unjustly indeed, both by Protestants and 
 some Catholics, with giving too great latitude to the 
 doctrine of invincible, or inculpable ignorance. He 
 heard from them, that, in certain cases, this ignorance 
 extended even to, and excused from, the guilt of vio- 
 lating the law of nature.* Can he then imagine that 
 
 * I will set down two propositions, which the Chaplain will remember to 
 have been generally taught in the schools of theology, which we both frequent- 
 ed. 1. Possibilis est ignoranlia invincibilis juris natures quoad conclusiones 
 remoliores a primis principiis. 2. Ignoranlia invincibilis juris naturaz excusaf 
 a peccato. I will take this occasion to thank my former friend for the justice 
 he has done (p. 15. note) to the body of men to which in our happier days we 
 both belonged ; and whom the world will regret, when the want of their ser- 
 vices will recall the memory 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 acd tempo- 
 rizing pontiff. 
 
21 
 
 we deem it insufficient to exempt from criminality the 
 disbelief of positive facts, such as the divine revela- 
 tion of certain articles of religion ? 
 
 For all this, he still labours to fix on us this ob- 
 noxious tenet, with a perseverance which carries with 
 it an air of animosity. He says, that our controvert- 
 ists make use of the argument cited in his 10th page, 
 Protestants allow salvation 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 commu- 
 nion. 
 
 If his inference were conclusive, I should have 
 cause to bring a similar charge of cruelty and uncha- 
 ritableness against Protestants. For their great 
 champion Chillingworth, answering the very objection 
 stated by the Chaplain, expressly teaches, that Catholics 
 allow, that ignorance and repentance may excuse a Pro- 
 testant 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 favour- 
 able 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 universities have declared, on a solemn 
 consultation, that a person, not pretending to the plea 
 of invincible ignorance, may safely leave the Protest- 
 ant church, and become a member of ours, because it 
 
 * Chillingworth's Religion of Protestants, &c. ch. 7. p. 306. 
 
22 
 
 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 possibili- 
 ty of obtaining salvation is one of these essentials ; he 
 knows, that on a great occasion this was the determi- 
 nation of the Protestant university of Helmstadt. But 
 on the other hand, Catholic divines always teach, 
 that the true church of Christ being only one, incul- 
 pable error alone can justify a Protestant for continu- 
 ing out of her communion ; and therefore that it is 
 safest to become a Catholic. Such is the argument 
 employed by some of our controvertists. 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 flraw from it that odious consequence, with which 
 we are unjustly charged. 
 
 If then we do not hold the doctrine of exclusive 
 salvation, can the horrible tenet of persecution, which, 
 he says, is the consequence of it,* be imputed to us ? 
 I do not indeed see their necessary connexion ; but I 
 know, that Protestants 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 exclu- 
 sive right. 
 
 You now see, that neither the prohibition of reading- 
 heretical books, nor our doctrine concerning the possi- 
 bility of salvation, are any hindrances to free inquiry 
 in matters of religion. If for so many years they 
 withheld the Chaplain from making"it, he was with- 
 
 * Let, p. 11, 12, 
 
23 
 
 held by unnecessary fears, and a phantom of his own 
 imagination. Another cause too concurred, as he 
 tells us, to hold him in ignorance. J am not ashamed, 
 says he, to confess, that it ivas the claim to infallibility, 
 which prevented me so long from examining the tenets of 
 the Roman church. (Let. p. 22.) Here, indeed, if 
 he means the claim of infallibility, as it rests upon 
 proofs of every kind, I do not wonder at its prevent- 
 ing 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 agree- 
 able to the dictates of reason, and the soundest prin- 
 ciples of morality, to assent to the doctrines so propos- 
 ed, though we may not fully comprehend them, nor be 
 able to give a satisfactory answer to every difficulty 
 that human ingenuity may allege against them. This 
 is the mode of reasoning used by all defenders of re- 
 vealed religion ; they first apply themselves to prove 
 the divine revelation of scripture; having done this, 
 they then infer, that its mysteries and unsearchable 
 doctrines must be received, as coming from an uner- 
 ring authority. And so far the Chaplain will sureh 
 agree with me. 
 
 I cannot, therefore, see, why he speaks so contemp- 
 tuously of Bellarmine's creed, (p. 17.) that he believ- 
 ed what the church believed ; and that the church believed 
 what he believed. For what do these words import morn 
 
24 
 
 or less, than that he conformed his faith to that of the 
 church; that to her decisions he submitted his judg- 
 ment and belief so entirely, that the propositions re- 
 cited from him were, in the language of logicians, 
 convertible. And is not this the duty of every per- 
 son 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 
 (Let. ibid.) profession of faith, and that of St. Augus- 
 tin conforming his religion to that of the fathers, his 
 predecessors. / believe, says he, 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 ra- 
 tional ; if he submit to human authority without weigh- 
 ing or understanding the doctrines which it inculcates, 
 this belief is not faith — It is credulity, it is weak- 
 ness."t Who doubts it ? But if he submit to divine 
 authority, though he do not fully comprehend the 
 doctrines delivered, is this weakness and credulity ? 
 or is it the rational obedience of faith ? From his own 
 account of the promises of Christ, (p. 28.) his church 
 can never fail in teaching the fundamental and necessa- 
 ry 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? 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. 
 
 * Aug. J. H- coDt. JnlMHk. c. r, i- Let. p. 17. 
 
25 
 
 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 certainly unable to weigh or 
 understand them. Nevertheless, he acts rationally in ad- 
 mitting 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 rea- 
 son, 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 dis- 
 pute on the metaphysical nature of the doctrines of 
 Christianity. For instance, to prove the Trinity, 
 should we set about reading 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 unintelligible 
 to our hearers and ourselves. In this, and all similar 
 cases, the only rational method is, to show that the 
 contested doctrine is proposed to our belief by an in- 
 fallible authority. This undoubtedly would be the 
 Chaplain's method in asserting against Arians, Soci- 
 nians, and modern sectaries, the Trinity, the Incar- 
 nation, and the eternity of future punishments ; and 
 such likewise is the method, by which we endeavour 
 to establish the tenets, which he calls the discrimina- 
 ting doctrines of our church. 
 
 Apply these principles to all his reasonings in his 
 23d, 24th, and 25th pages, and see what they will 
 
 4 
 
26 
 
 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 Incarnation and re- 
 demption of mankind ? Religion and reason can never 
 be at variance, will they say wrth the Chaplain, because 
 the most rational religion must always be the best. (P. 25.) 
 The language of reason was never yet rejected with impu- 
 nity — she will be heard — she must be respected, &c. (ibid.) 
 Do then some controverted texts of scripture make the 
 Trinity and Incarnation of the Son of God as evident 
 to reason 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 seemingly absurd tenets ? He will be answered, 
 that he begs the question ; and in his own language, 
 that reason assures 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 
 pretended infallibility of scripture, must prevent the 
 Chaplain from examining the tenets of the Christian 
 church, Sheltered under the garb of so gorgeous a pro- 
 
 * 1 Cor. i. %}, 
 
•27 
 
 mgative, impressed upon the yielding mind of youth by 
 men of sense and virtue ; backed moreover by the splendour 
 of supposed miracles and the horrors of damnation, opi- 
 nions the most absurd and contradictory must frequently 
 dazzle and overawe the understanding. Amidst the fas- 
 cinating glare of so mighty a privilege, the eye of reason 
 becomes dim and inactive. (P. 23.) 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 Christianity, as the 
 Chaplain had to urge it against the discriminating 
 doctrines of the Catholic church ? 
 
 Such are the difficulties in which men involve them- 
 selves, by extending the exercise of reason to matters 
 beyond its competency. Let this excellent gift of our 
 provident and bountiful Creator be employed, as has 
 been said before, in examining the grounds for believ- 
 ing the scriptures to be infallible ; but let it go no 
 farther, when that infallibility is fully evinced. In the 
 same manner, let your reason investigate with the ut- 
 most 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 prerogative from 
 Jesus Christ, the author and finisher of our faith, sub- 
 mit with respect and docility to her decisions. The 
 Chaplain himself, when less wrapt in extacy with the 
 beauties of reason, can acknowledge this: show me, 
 says he, the proofs of this infallibility, and if I do not ad- 
 mit them with every faculty of my soul, you have my leave 
 to brand me with the pride of Lucifer.. (P. 23.) 
 
 You will not expect me to enter fully into this sub- 
 ject, and point out either to you or the Chaplain, the 
 
28 
 
 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 controversial works of Bellarmine, 
 Bossuet, Nicole and Bergier, 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 impressions 
 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 extended, 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 controvert- 
 ed 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 
 principles of a Protestant, sometimes on those of a So- 
 cinian or Deist, sometimes, pretending to model his re- 
 ligion on the belief of the four first ages of Chris- 
 tianity ; and at other times finding corruptions imme- 
 diately after, if not co-eval with the apostolical times. 
 
 On this subject, therefore, whatever disadvantage 
 it may be to our cause, I shall confine myself solely to 
 the defensive, 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 scriptural texts, "which 
 
29 
 
 seem to countenance infallibility, appeared no longer 
 conclusive than he refused to examine them.'''' (P. 27.) 
 Why he ever refused to examine them he is yet to ex- 
 plain ; especially as the duty of his profession, and the 
 particular course of his studies, 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 discou- 
 raged from, or deprived of the means of making in- 
 quiry. Nor do I know why he mentions only a few 
 texts, as countenancing 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, be- 
 sides others, to which he refers. Let us however 
 hear the Chaplain's animadversions on the few he 
 has thought proper to consider. 
 
 Amongst other proofs of her infallibility, the Ca- 
 tholic church alleges these words of Christ to St. Peter, 
 (Matth. xvi. 18.) Thou art Peter, and upon this rock 
 I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not pre- 
 vail against it. The Chaplain observes (P. 28.) that 
 this text is wrongly translated, and that the Greek 
 word hades manifestly imports death, and not hell. 
 The alteration is not very material 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 un- 
 derstanding of the church in all its ages. The Chap- 
 lain has taken up this interpretation from Besa, who, 
 \ believe, first suggested it. But I would fain ask 
 
30 
 
 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 allowed to cool with water his tongue ; 
 for / am tormented, said he, in tkis flame* Was not 
 hell that place of torments, which he wished his breth- 
 ren might be warned to avoid. (Ver 28.) Now what 
 says the Greek text in this place ? And in hell, 
 a tu *<f», lifting up his eyes when he was in torments, 
 he saw Abraham afar off. If I did not deem this scrip- 
 ture passage sufficient to prove that the word hades 
 does not manifestly import death, 1 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 contradic- 
 tion to himself. Among the moderns, the Chaplain 
 will not dispute the palm of Hebrew and Greek lite- 
 rature with Dr. Lowth, now bishop of London, or 
 with his learned commentator, professor Michael is of 
 Gottingen. Let him read the Bishop's elegant work 
 de sacra Poesi Hebrmorum, prazlect '. 7.; and the professor 
 in his annotations on that praslection, and he will 
 find them both decided in their opinion, that the 
 Greek word hades, as well as its correspondent He- 
 brew one, denotes not death, but the subterraneous 
 receptacle of departed souls, which is pointedly ex- 
 pressive of the popular 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 
 
 * Luke xvi. 24. 
 
31 
 
 by erring ? How did she fail in the countries over- 
 run with Arianisra ? Was it not by error in faith ? 
 and so in all countries corrupted by heresy. Thus 
 likewise would the whole visible church have failed, 
 had she proposed any error to be believed as an ar- 
 ticle of faith. " For to do this is to propose 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 whatso- 
 ever 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."* 
 
 The Chaplain's charge of unfaithful translation of 
 scripture 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 over- 
 turning his religion, to which he has been pleased to 
 annex perpetuity. However feeble and disordered 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." (P. 28.) If ever 
 confident assertion stood in the place of solid argu- 
 ment, 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 sen- 
 tence of it, when there is not a single word to justify 
 
 8 ATrimfnn], Ctup=t. of Qupst cprt. 1." 
 
32 
 
 that meaning ? The promise is unlimited and uncon- 
 ditional ; 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 alt truth, 
 which the Chaplain says (P. 27.) he undoubtedly 
 did ? Why may we not say, that he taught them 
 truth so far, as to prevent their falling into any fun- 
 damental error, sufficient to overturn the great princi- 
 ples of religion ? Why may we not say, that his spi- 
 rit was so far with the evangelists, as to direct them 
 in teaching the essential doctrines of Christianity, but 
 not in guarding them against errors of less conse- 
 quence ? 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 ? 
 
 " 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 opi- 
 nions, as terms of communion to the rest of the faith- 
 ful." If, by overbearing society of Christians, the 
 author mean not the church of Christ, he is certain- 
 ly 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 excel- 
 lent author, " if words retain their usual signification, 
 we cannot charge the church of Christ with error, 
 
3S 
 
 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 un- 
 faithful to it ; and that after having in so solemn a 
 manner engaged his sacred word to St. Peter, that the 
 gates of hell shall not prevail against his church, he 
 has nevertheless delivered her up to the power of 
 Satan, to be destroyed by him." 
 
 " This consequence will appear undeniable, if we 
 consider 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 continue to be a man without 
 a soul."* If the church of Christ hold out errone- 
 ous opinions as terms of communion, does she not, by 
 public authority, establish falsehood instead 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 wor- 
 ship, or teach those mysteries of iniquity mentioned in 
 the Chaplain's letter, (P. 11.) the denying of salvation, 
 to all out of her own communion, and the horrible heresy 
 of persecution ; will 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 her, but " against the great and 
 essential tenets expressed in the apostles' creed, and 
 
 Manning, Shorten Way to end Disputes about Religion, chap. 1. 
 5 
 
34 
 
 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 con- 
 duct each upright and pious believer to all points of 
 his duty upon which his salvation depends." (Let. p. 
 28, 29.) 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. (P. 28.) 
 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 be- 
 lief and practice, the same thing as the society of 
 Christians professing that system ? When we are di- 
 rected, (Matth. xviii. 16.) to tell the church of our 
 offending brethren, are we to go and tell their offen- 
 ces to the great and essential tenets of Christianity, or to 
 the Christian religion? It is not difficult to discover the 
 advantage, or rather the fatal consequences to Christi- 
 anity, which an able but irreligious controvertist might 
 hope to derive from this alteration. He might lay 
 down, as the only fundamental articles of Christian 
 belief, some few, which offer no violence to his under- 
 standing or passions; and such, as having for this 
 very reason been little contested, were generally ad- 
 mitted 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 re- 
 ligious societies professing to believe them may all 
 perish in their turns; but the promises of Christ will 
 abide, if a new society arise adhering to the same 
 supposed fundamental tenets ; she may adopt many 
 
-35 
 
 errors indeed, and superinduce them on the founda- 
 tion of faith. But for all this, the 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 
 immaterial, whether we unite with Catholics, Protest- 
 ants, 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 Christians ; though the sincere 
 friends of Christianity, both Catholic and Protestant, 
 have deemed such principles latitudinarianism in reli- 
 gion, and indeed subversive of all revealed 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 acknowledge that, without prejudice to his cause* 
 the word church may be substituted, agreeably to the 
 scriptural text, where he has placed great and essen- 
 tial articles ? 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 retain sufficient light 
 to conduct each upright and pious believer to all points 
 of his duty, upon which his salvation depends. (P. 29.) 
 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, (Let. p. 31.) in every pre- 
 ceding and subsequent era, even in that of the reforma- 
 tion, " 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 
 
36 
 
 I point out the consequences ensuing to the first re» 
 formers 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 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 undergoing a 
 silent reformation,}* . 12.) 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 ex- 
 planation 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 prevail 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 perfectly calculated to make 
 us good men as orthodox believers. (P. 28.) " 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 
 
-37 
 
 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 doctrine, the 
 faithful are taught to do what they say, and not what 
 they do." (Matth. xxiii. 2, 3.)* 
 
 To show, farther, that infallibility in faith is not 
 necessarily attended with unfailing sanctity of man- 
 ners, let it be 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 Asta- 
 roth, the goddess of the Sidonians, and after J\/Iichom, the 
 abomination of the Ammonites. (1 Kings xi. 15.) Nei- 
 ther did Christ render his apostles and evangelists 
 impeccable, though he conferred on them the privi- 
 lege of infallibility. When the Chaplain has disco- 
 vered, in the decrees of infinite wisdom, the true rea- 
 son 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 or- 
 dain 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 
 
 * Letter to a friend concerning Infallibility. London, 1743.' 
 
38 
 
 were, his last will and testament ; every word where- 
 of seems to be the overflowing of a heart filled with 
 concern for his future church."* These promises the 
 Chaplain has stated compendiously enough. " The 
 divine author of the Christian religion promised,''' 
 says he, " to teach his disciples all truth. (John xiv. 15, 
 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 ?" (P. 27.) "He promised to 
 be with his disciples to the end of the world. (Matth. xix. 
 [should be 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 strength which 
 he exerts in supporting her against violence and 
 temptation." (Ibid.) 
 
 Such, according to the Chaplain, is the explanation 
 of these passages from St. John. His reasons for so 
 explaining them shall be presently examined. I will 
 first set the texts down more fully, as they stand in 
 the gospel. Our Saviour's words, spoken to his apos- 
 tles, and recorded by St. John in his 14th chapter,, 
 are these : / will ask my Father, and he will send you 
 another Comforter to abide with you for ever. (John 
 xiv. 16.) And soon after he informs them who this 
 Comforter is to be, and to what end his Father will 
 send him. The Comforter, says Christ, whom the Fa- 
 ther will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, 
 and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I 
 have said unto you. (Ibid. 1 6.) This promise is again 
 repeated in the 16th chapter, which is a continuation 
 
 . * Shortest Way, fee. 
 
39 
 
 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 you into all truth. 
 
 In these texts, we see the means clearly and dis- 
 tinctly 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 
 undoubtedly 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 interpretation of scripture. For where, says 
 he, did the divine Author of our religion ensure the 
 faith of their successors ? (P. 27.) I answer, in the 
 plain, unambiguous words, as I have cited them from 
 John xiv. 16. ; for they expressly say, that the Com- 
 forter, or Holy Ghost, shall abide with the apostles 
 for ever ; which, " though addressed to them, as the 
 whole sermon at our Saviours last supper was, yeU 
 like many other truths contained in it, could not regard 
 their persons alone ; for they were not to live for 
 ever ; but comprehended 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 ascension, recorded by St. 
 Matthew."! 
 
 * Ephes. iv. 14 t Shortest Way. kc <=ert. g 
 
40 
 
 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 
 whichsoever I have commanded you ; and behold I am with 
 you always, (in the Greek, all days,) even unto the 
 end of the world.* Here surely Christ promises to 
 be perpetually, 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 or- 
 ders 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 discovering 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 correspon- 
 dent obligation in the hearers, 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 satis- 
 fied, they are agreeable to the written word of God ? 
 I will answer him, that by this proceeding he would 
 
 * Matth. xsviii. 20,21. 
 
41 
 
 render the commission 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 destroy 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 ministry, 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 reli- 
 gion is, are they, wlio 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 dis- 
 pensers 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 
 far as he teaches us in concert with the rest, I mean, 
 inasmuch as he delivers the faith of the church, in 
 that respect he is infallible. 
 
 The Chaplain, in his comments upon the famous 
 passage of Matth. xvi. 18., insinuated, that, though the 
 gates of hell should never prevail against the church, 
 to the suppression of the points of faith, deemed by 
 him fundamental, yet false opinions might be superin- 
 duced, and so far error might prevail. He here 
 again would establish the same doctrine ; and though 
 compelled, by the evident authority of scripture, to 
 confess, that Christ communicated infallibility to his 
 disciples, he thinks this no security, that their success 
 
 1 Cor. iv. 1. 
 
 
42 
 
 sors will not build on the foundation of the gospei 
 wood, hay, and stubble. If, by these words, the Chap- 
 lain understand corrupt doctrines in faith and man- 
 ners, it is plain, from the very expressions of Christ, 
 that he is mistaken. For all truth in matters of faith 
 and salvation, into which the Spirit was to lead them y 
 is exclusive of all error in the same line. In a word, 
 either the promises 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 pro* 
 mises to be restrained to the church's being guided 
 into some truth, when they expressly declare, 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? Is he not with every just man, &c. ? 
 (Let. p. 27.) Yes, surely ; he affords 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, consequently a spirit opposite to 
 that of error ; when, in Matth. xxviii., he promises to 
 the pastors of his church such a kind of presence* 
 assistance, and guidance, as shall qualify them effec- 
 tually 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 righteous 
 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 
 
43 
 
 of truth, as well as sanctification, guiding her into all 
 truth, and directly excluding all error from her. 
 
 I hope it will now appear to you, that the proofs of 
 the church's infallibility, from St. John and Matth. 
 xxviii., are not invalidated by the Chaplain's objec- 
 tions. I have adduced 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 objections, whom we are griev- 
 ed to have for an adversary. I forbear to allege 
 other numerous testimonies of scripture, the concur- 
 rent authority of holy fathers, and the whole conduct 
 of church government, from the very days of the apos- 
 tles, 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 per- 
 plex it, or set it in a false light ; but the question is 
 not, whether the texts I have produced may, with 
 some pain and study, be interpreted otherwise than 
 the Roman Catholic church has always understood 
 them ; but whether, in their natural, obvious, and lite- 
 ral 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, / will not 
 build my church upon a rock, and the gates of hell shall pre- 
 vail against it. Suppose he had said to his apostles, 1 
 will not be with you to the end of the ivorld. / will not 
 send the Holy Ghost to abide ivith 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 
 
44 
 
 texts, that there is no such a thing as an infallible 
 church on earth ? They certainly would, because the 
 natural 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, can- 
 not but force a man of an unbiassed judgment to con- 
 clude 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 nothing to the purpose, 
 whether Protestants can, or cannot strain the texts I 
 have produced, from their natural and obvious mean- 
 ing ; but it is much to the purpose to consider, whe- 
 ther they can bring any evidence from scripture to 
 disprove the infallibility of the church, of equal 
 strength and clearness to the texts I have brought to 
 prove it."* 
 
 The Chaplain's argument against infallibility, next 
 to be considered, is that which he truly calls a hack- 
 neyed one. After reading this answer, you may like- 
 wise judge whether it be a conclusive one. 
 
 In the author of the 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 triumphantly 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 
 
 •* Shortest Way to end Disputes, chap. 1. sect. £, 
 
45 
 
 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 reason, 
 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 dedu- 
 ced from its falling; the cause, in this instance, infer- 
 ring the effect — and the effect proving the existence 
 of the cause. 
 
 Having premised so much, now let us analyze the 
 Catholic 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 prac- 
 tice of determining controversies of faith, by the con- 
 current authority of the episcopal body. But this 
 view alone, does not give him any undoubted assu- 
 rance of the infallibility of her determinations. 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 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 suc- 
 ceeding age. I say, living monuments; for they are 
 now subsisting; and still afford as evident proof of 
 the exercise of the authority, as if the facts had pass- 
 ed in our own time, and within our own memory; or 
 
4<i 
 
 as full proof as we have, of the courts of judicature of 
 this state, having heretofore decided the legal contro- 
 versies of the citizens thereof. For instance, the ab- 
 rogating of circumcision, 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 rebaptiz- 
 ing persons baptized by heretics ; such is the Nicene 
 creed, and particularly the word consubstantial, 
 making part of it. These monuments, to omit innu- 
 merable 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 conspicuous 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 estab- 
 lished. On these facts, palpable, manifest, and of 
 public notoriety, the Christian will reason thus : The 
 church, even from the apostles' time, has always exer- 
 cised the authority of deciding controverted points ; 
 her interposition would be of no avail, if her autho- 
 rity were not to be considered as definitive and infal- 
 lible. The primitive Christians so considered it. 
 Whoever refused submission, was cast from the 
 church, and reputed as a heathen and publican. On 
 these grounds will the Christian be induced to believe 
 her infallibility ; happy, that his belief arise not from 
 a series of abstruse reasoning, but is built upon public, 
 notorious facts, within the reach of the most common 
 understanding. The church has always, from the 
 first era of Christianity, exercised the right of judg- 
 
47 
 
 ing 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 infalli- 
 bility, would be vain and nugatory ; therefore she is 
 infallible. After thus discovering her infallibility 
 upon the evidence of notorious facts, it is a subject of 
 much comfort to the sincere Christian, as well as a 
 confirmation of his faith, to find the same truth attest- 
 ed by the words of scripture ; and having before be- 
 lieved it for the evidence just mentioned, he now like- 
 wise 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 rea- 
 soning ? Is not infallibility first demonstrated from 
 other considerations, before it is demonstrated from 
 scripture ? And is not this alone, in the principles of 
 sound logic, sufficient to destroy the magic of this 
 famous circle, and the argument built upon it ? But 
 indeed this argument is many ways vulnerable, and 
 you may find it otherwise destroyed in the authors re- 
 ferred to in the note.* 
 
 One word more concerning this hackneyed argu- 
 ment, 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 csln the 
 Chaplain 3o so, or any person professing his belief of 
 scripture infallibility ? For, admitting this infallibility, 
 he admits one of the propositions, which reciprocal!) 
 prove each other ; and therefore, in arguing against 
 him, we may logically infer the church's infallibility 
 
 * The true Church of Christ, p. 2. ch. 3. sect. 3. Shortest Way, &c. p. 2. 
 sect. 2. 
 
48 
 
 from texts of scripture; it being 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 Chaplain produces against the Church's infal- 
 libility another argument, which he might likewise 
 have called a hackneyed one ; for it has been urged 
 with great perseverance by our adversaries. He 
 says, that all Roman Catholics are bound to admit an in- 
 fallible authority ; yet few of them agree, where, or in ivhom, 
 it resides. (P. 2b. note.) 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 like- 
 wise 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 reading and recollection, I will venture 
 to assert, that he cannot cite one Catholic divine, 
 who denies infallibility to reside in the body of bish- 
 ops, 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 coun- 
 cil, received by the whole church, (Note, ibid.) he is under 
 a great mistake ; for the last is not a mere opi- 
 nion of schoolmen, but the constant belief of all Ca- 
 tholics ; a belief, in which there is no variation. Some 
 divines, indeed, hold the pope, as Christ's vicar on 
 earth, to be infallible, even without a council ; but 
 with this opinion faith has no concern, every one being 
 
49 
 
 at liberty to adopt or reject 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 unani- 
 mously 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 so- 
 lemn determinations of the Gallican clergy, in the 
 year 1782; to which maxims and determinations the 
 theological schools there have constantly conformed. 
 
 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 Catho- 
 lic country in the world. The body of bishops every 
 where claim a divine ri°;ht, in virtue of their ordina- 
 tion, to interpret the decrees of councils, and the or- 
 dinances of the popes. The Chaplain having dis- 
 carded 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 rea- 
 soning. 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, un- 
 doubtedly, he may; and, for this very reason, a living 
 authority is necessary to explain uncertainties, to re- 
 move ambiguities. But perhaps he means to carry 
 his argument into the very heart of our principles, 
 and deny that even a living authority can speak a lan- 
 guage clear enough to determine doubts and convict 
 
 7 
 
so 
 
 obstinacy. But tew will be persuaded that the pow- 
 ers 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 sentence in terms clear enough to determine 
 the controversy. 
 
 You have hitherto seen the Chaplain endeavour to 
 disprove the church's infallibility, by his interpreta- 
 tion of certain passages of scripture, and by discover- 
 ing fallacies and inconsistencies in our doctrine on this 
 subject. Not content with thus attacking this capital 
 tenet of our religion, he sets about to prove that the 
 church may err, because in fact she has erred. To 
 show it, he alleges, 1 st. That she formerly taught doc- 
 trines as of faith, which she now rejects as contrary 
 to faith. 2dly. She suppressed for a time certain te- 
 nets, which ought to have been taught at all times, or 
 not taught at all. 3dly. She requires a belief 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 
 asserting (P. 29,30.) that the doctrine of the millennium, 
 now rejected by the church, was maintained as an arti- 
 cle of the Catholic faith by almost every father who lived 
 immediately 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 opi- 
 nion here mentioned, as an article of Catholic faith 
 and communion. At the very time of its prevalence 
 (for it was indeed adopted by Irenasus, Justin the 
 Martyr, &c.) it was combated by others not less zeal- 
 ously attached to the church's communion, as is ac- 
 knowledged even by Justin himself, who, speaking of 
 
51 
 
 the millennium, says : " I have already confessed 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 advo- 
 cates, amongst whom Justin surely was, did not con- 
 sider it as such, but as an opinion open to discussion 
 and contradiction ? And, accordingly, Eusebius, in his 
 Ecclesiastical History, cites passages of a work writ- 
 ten against this doctrine in the very beginning of the 
 third century, by Caius, a Catholic priest,t the co- 
 temporary of Justin and Irena3us. 
 
 I need take no notice of what the Chaplain adds,J 
 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 ar- 
 ticle of Catholic faith, as it certainly never did, I may 
 be allowed to suspend any investigation of this sub- 
 ject, 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 ; 
 
 * Just. Mart. Dial. cum. Tryph. p. 306. edit. Colon, ann. 1687. 
 
 t Euseb. Hist. Eccl. 1. 3.c. 28. 
 
 X Note, ibid. * Bell, de Sanc.t. Reatitud. 1. I. jf P. 3& 
 
52 
 
 though the Chaplain thinks, that a very forcible ar- 
 gument arises from this fact ; for these doctrines hav- 
 ing been delivered by Jesus Christ and his apostles, 
 either as essential or not ; if the first, she forfeited 
 her claim to infallibility by omitting to teach them for 
 many ages ; and if the second, she equally forfeits it 
 by imposing, as necessary to be believed, what nei- 
 ther Christ nor his apostles did so teach. 
 
 Before I proceed to a direct answer, it may be pro- 
 per 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 ad- 
 mitted by us in his sense, and that of other Protest- 
 ant authors. We hold all revealed doctrines, when 
 sufficiently proposed to our understanding, to be es- 
 sential in this respect, that under pain of disobedience 
 and heresy, we are bound to believe and submit our 
 understanding to them ; and the reason is, because 
 we conceive 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 estimation, 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 fundamen- 
 tal than others ; for without our knowledge, or, indeed, 
 without any revelation of some of them, Christianity 
 might subsist ; whereas, other points are so interwov- 
 en with the system and economy of it, that the expli- 
 cit 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 sum- 
 
53 
 
 ciently proposed to our understanding. Why are we 
 obliged to believe every fact and circumstance con- 
 tained 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 vi- 
 tals of Christianity ? or is it not rather, because divine 
 authority is pledged for the entire truth of scripture ? 
 This leads to a plain answer to the objection. All 
 doctrines taught by Christ and his apostles, were de- 
 livered as necessary to be believed, whenever the 
 faithful should receive sufficient evidence of their di- 
 vine revelation. But till they had that evidence, the 
 belief was not obligatory ; and Christians were at 
 liberty to discuss the doctrines with all freedom, pro- 
 vided they did so in an habitual disposition to submit 
 to the authority established by Jesus Christ, when- 
 ever it should interfere in determining the uncertainty. 
 So, before the holding of the first council at Jerusalem, 
 some true Christians maintained circumcision to be 
 necessary.* And when the apostles and ancients came to- 
 gether to consider of this matter, there ivas much disputing. 
 (V. 6, 7.) But after the decision of the council, it 
 pleased the apostles 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 ofopinion.'f 
 
 • Acts xv. 1. -f See Chap. Let. p. 34* 
 
54 
 
 The Chaplain's formidable dilemma (P. 33, 34.) 
 turns out therefore a very harmless one ; the doc- 
 trines he refers to were delivered 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 guid- 
 ed by the Spirit of God, sees when the dangers threat- 
 ening her children, from false prophets arising and seduc- 
 ing many, (Matth. xxiv. 11.) call upon her to examine 
 the faith committed to her keeping, and preserved 
 in holy scripture and the chain of tradition. In 
 these perilous moments she unfolds the doctrines, and 
 presents them to Christians as preservatives from the 
 delusions of novelty, the refinements of false philoso- 
 phy, and the misinterpretations of private and pre- 
 sumptuous 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 explicit- 
 ly, his consubstantiality with the Father. Previous to 
 which decision, the faithful contented themselves with 
 acknowledging his divine nature ; but that the belief 
 of it included consubstantiality, was not yet sufficient- 
 ly proposed to them, and therefore could not be an 
 object of their faith. 
 
 The principles indeed of the Chaplain would, if 
 admitted, clearly prove, that neither his, nor the faith 
 jof 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- 
 
35 
 
 day, which formerly were not so believed, there is no 
 longer a unity of faith. (Let. p. 34.) 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 inspira- 
 tion. 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 second epistle 
 to the Thessalonians, did they not understand fromit 7 
 contrary to what they had before conceived, that the 
 last general judgment was not immediately to hap- 
 pen ? 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 apostles ; 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 
 farther; and, by adhering to the principles of the 
 Chaplain, it may be shown, that for many ages Chris- 
 tians either did not believe essential doctrines, or that 
 it is not essential now to admit many books of scrip- 
 ture, which, nevertheless, he who should reject would 
 not be deemed a Christian. For it is notorious that, 
 long after the apostles' time, several scriptural books 
 were of uncertain authority, the authors of them not 
 being ascertained; as, for instance, the Revelation, 
 the Epistle to the. Hebrews, the second of St. Peter, 
 
56 
 
 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 di- 
 vinely inspired ; but will the Chaplain say, that it is 
 not now essential to believe it? What would one of 
 his 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 occa- 
 sion 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 prede- 
 cessor Jurieu, whose reveries the illustrious Bossuet 
 exposed as completely as, I doubt not, all those of 
 the lecturers of the Warburton foundation* will one 
 day be. 
 
 To revert to our subject : Was all unity of faith 
 destroyed 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 become objects of faith, which before 
 had not been so ? As long as the apostles lived, and 
 preachsd, and wrote to the churches, teaching them to 
 observe all things, whichsoever their Divine Master had 
 commanded them, (Matth. xxviii. 21.) did not new mat- 
 ter continually arise to exercise the faith of their dis- 
 ciples ? If then it be any objection to a living autho- 
 
 * 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. 
 
51 
 
 rity, that the number of necessary tenets must increase, as 
 decisions multiply, (Ch. Let. p. 34.,) the objection is as 
 strong against the authority of the apostles, which the 
 Chaplain admits, (P. 27.,) as against that of a church 
 equally endowed with infallibility in deciding on faith 
 and morals. 
 
 The Chaplain's reasonings, from page 30 to page 
 34, properly belong to the division we are now con- 
 sidering ; 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 
 I shall enter, after noticing that the Chaplain, in the 
 conclusion of his argument, indulges himself in some 
 declamation, which however carries no weight with it, 
 as long as the church's claim to infallibility is not in- 
 validated 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. And here, by the bye, it must be remark- 
 ed, that though an intimation is thrown out, (P. 35.,) 
 that Pius IV., in his famous creed, imposed new doc- 
 trines ; yet every article of that creed was, long be- 
 fore 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 
 Protestant archbishop of Armagh, in his reply to the 
 bishop of Chalcedon : " For," says he, " those very 
 points, which Pius IV. comprehended in a new sym- 
 bol or creed, were obtruded upon us before by his 
 predecessors, as necessary articles of the Roman 
 faith, and required as necessary articles of their com- 
 munion." 
 
58 
 
 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 he found at all in the scriptures, or at least delivered in 
 them with great obscurity ; (P. 1 9.) and instances are 
 given in the doctrines of transuhstantiation and purga- 
 tory, auricular co?ifession and the power of loosening 
 and binding, or absolution. These shall now be distinct- 
 ly considered, as far as is necessary to vindicate them 
 from the Chaplain's objections. For I propose pro- 
 ceeding 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 in- 
 jured, 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 contained in his written word ? 
 He knows, that we have always 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 
 
59 
 
 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 Chilling- 
 worth. Happy indeed it is for mankind, that no 
 efforts to this purpose can succeed ; for if the Catho- 
 lic rule of faith could be proved unsafe, what security 
 have we for the authenticity, the genuineness, the in- 
 corruptibility 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 admitting the gospel ot 
 St. Matthew into the canonical writings ? 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 
 correspondence 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 Manicha?ans, Marcionists, 
 Cerdonists, &c. ? I mention St. Matthew's gospel, as 
 coming first to my mind ; but the argument is applica- 
 ble to other parts of scripture, and to some with 
 much greater force. The testimony, therefore, of the 
 Catholic church, certified in the tradition of all ages, 
 is the ground, upon which we and others admit the 
 divine authority of holy writ* I do not suppose, 
 
 * See this acknowledged by Dr. Cosin, bishop of Durham, in his Scholmfu 
 History of the Canon of Scripture, ch. 1. sect. 8, edit. London, 167-2. 
 
t>0 
 
 that the Chaplain, after rejecting the church's infalli- 
 bility, 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 mis- 
 taken in him, if he entertain any such fanatical no- 
 tions ; his own Chillingworth would rise up against 
 him. But if the testimony and tradition of the Catho- 
 lic 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, (P. 37.,) why 
 is her testimony to be rejected, when offered in evi- 
 dence of other points of faith ? Why not as well admit 
 it in favour of transubstantiation 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? Scrip- 
 ture 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, comment- 
 ing on these words of St. Paul, Stand and hold the tra- 
 ditions 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 without it ; and these 
 ought to be believed, as much as those ; let us then 
 give credit to the tradition of the church."* I have 
 in preference cited this holy father in support of the 
 Catholic doctrine, not because numerous testimonies 
 
 * Chrys. hom. 3. in 2 Thess. 2. 
 
61 
 
 of others are wanting, both more ancient, and, if pos- 
 sible, more full and express ; but because the Chap- 
 Iain, in a note, (P. 8.,) insists much upon two remarka- 
 ble passages, which, he says, are taken from the 
 works of this eminent doctor. 
 
 I will not deny, that I was surprised when I read 
 the first passage cited by the Chaplain ; it appeared 
 so opposite to the principles which St. Chrysostora 
 had laid down in several parts of his works. It was 
 a mortifying circumstance, that I could not conve- 
 niently 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 pub- 
 lic library at Annapolis ; he has carefully and repeat- 
 edly 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 differ- 
 ence in the editions. I could not persuade myself, 
 that he, who so solemnly calls heaven to witness for 
 the impartiality and integrity of his inquiry, would 
 publicly expose himself to a well-grounded imputation 
 of unpardonable negligence, in a matter of such se- 
 rious concern. But I have now the fullest evidence, 
 that the passage, for which Chrysostom on Matthew, 
 hom. 49. is quoted, is not taken from that father. It 
 is extracted from a work of no credit, supposed to be 
 written in the 6th century, entitled, The unfinished 
 work on Matthew* But had it even been fairly quoted 
 
 * Opus imper/ectum in Matthmim. The author adopts the Manichrean, 
 the Montanist, and Arian heresies. In the first homily, he says, that marriage is 
 a sin. la the 32d, that second marriage is only an honourable fornication ; ia 
 
62 
 
 M 
 
 from him, the Chaplain would not have had so much 
 cause for triumph, as he imagines. For the passage 
 he adduces carries with it equal condemnation of the 
 Protestant and Catholic 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, if the church 
 and heresy do not agree in offering the same un- 
 bloody sacrifice ; in administering the" same sacra- 
 ments ; in the apostolical and uninterrupted succes- 
 sion 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 standard of his belief? Will it be 
 admitted by the Protestant churches in general, which 
 know no other rule ? (Let. p. 37.) See then how un- 
 successfully 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 professes himself a member. 
 
 The disrepute of alleging the authority of Chrysos- 
 tom 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 
 o-enuine ; but he observes, that Chrvsostom is not dis- 
 coursing of doctrines obscurely delivered, or contest- 
 ed amongst dilfercnt sects of Christians ; but of such 
 
 the 49th, he calls the Catholic doctrine of the- divinity of Christ, the homou- 
 sian, or consubstantiation heresy. 
 
63 
 
 us, being clearly and unambiguously taught in holy 
 writ, are, nevertheless, disrelished or denied by world- 
 ly-minded men ; who contend, contrary to the evi- 
 dent declaration of scripture, that riches are more 
 helpful than hurtful to salvation ; and of such Chry- 
 sostom 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 in- 
 vestigate all matters of faith in the scripture, without 
 paying any regard to what this or that man asserts for 
 truth ; I answer first, that this direction is very differ- 
 ent from that of Chrysostom above cited, in his com- 
 mentary on the 2d to the Thessalonians ; and of the 
 learned Vincent of Lerins, whom the Chaplain quotes 
 with singular complacency.* (P. 35.) This venera- 
 ble writer having observed, that all religious innova- 
 tors 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 
 scripture discern truth from falsehood ? They will 
 take care, he continues, so to proceed — as to interpret 
 holy ivrit agreeably to the traditions of the universal 
 church, and the rules of Catholic doctrinc.'l 
 
 In the next place, I observe, that the rule of inves- 
 tigation laid down as from St. Chrysostom, is insuffi- 
 
 * la tliis author, the 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 bulk. 
 
 t Quid facient Catholici homines, & matris ecclesiss h'lii? quonam modo in 
 acripturis Sanctis Yeritatem a falsitate discernent ? Hoc scilicet facere cura- 
 bunt, quod in principio commonitorii istius sanctos viros nobis tradidisse scrip- 
 simus ; ut divinumcanonem secundum universalis ecclesix' traditiones, Sz joxta 
 Catholici dogmatre metiers intprpretcntnr. Vine, IAr. Com. ''■ 38. 
 
64 
 
 cient and inapplicable. Insufficient, because by scrip- 
 ture alone it is impossible to determine many points 
 necessary to be believed and practised, and so receiv- 
 ed even by Protestants themselves.* 
 
 The rule is moreover inapplicable to much the 
 greatest part of mankind ; and I am really ashamed 
 to enter seriously on the proof of it, since it must be 
 evident to every considerate man in the world. For, 
 if scripture, as interpreted by private judgment^ is the 
 only rule which all are to follow? 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 illiterate mechanic, the 
 poor ignorant slave, are to acquire the knowledge in 
 languages, and the critical discernment necessary to 
 compare translation with translation, text with text. 
 For without this comparison and many other precau- 
 tions, they never can form a reasonable judgment of 
 the sense of scripture; nor can they be sure of that 
 book being scripture, which is put into their hands as 
 such. If to relate this prodigious opinion be not 
 enough to refute it, all argument, even demonstration 
 itself, will be of no avail. 
 
 The Chaplain seems to be aware of its glaring ab- 
 surdity ; and therefore, in a note, (P. 18.,) he says, 
 that they who are unqualified to enter upon such in- 
 quiries as he made, must rely principally upon the au- 
 thority of their teachers ; and he quotes the bishop of 
 Chester as recommending the same. Thus then, af- 
 ter citing with so much complacency a pretended pas- 
 
 * See p. 60 of this Address, and Mumford's Question of Questions, point 
 first and second, 
 t Chaplain's note, p. 9. 
 
65 
 
 sage 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 impressions too strongly upon my mind to in- 
 dulge in the satisfaction, which it might otherwise sug- 
 gest, to observe, that after decrying the dead weight of 
 authority; (P. 13.;) after exalting private judgment, as 
 the sole interpreter of scripture, (P. 9.,) he is obliged 
 to confess, that the generality of mankind, must be 
 guided in religious matters, principally by the authority 
 of their teachers ; for he will hardly deny, that the 
 generality of mankind are neither by education, nor 
 abilities, 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 (Letter, p. 37.) than one so miserably 
 defective ? and if defective now, what must it have 
 been before the discovery of the art of printing, when 
 the knowledge of letters was so rare, comparatively 
 with the present times; and it was morally impossi- 
 ble, to multiply manuscripts sufficient to supply every 
 
 Note, p. 9. 
 
66 
 
 individual with the means, even if he had the ability, 
 to study scripture ? 
 
 But who are the teachers, to whose authority the 
 generality of mankind are referred ? Are they any, 
 however introduced to the exercise of that public 
 function ? This indeed may be a doctrine well enough 
 suited to latitudinarians in religion, or the scoffers at 
 all religion; but surely not very agreeable to the prin- 
 ciples 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 de- 
 luded disciples of Mahomet ? What if it should be a 
 country blessed, like this, with unlimited toleration, 
 and giving equal countenance to the professors and 
 teachers of every denomination of Christians ? In this 
 case, the unlettered, 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 teach- 
 ers, does not appear. If by their doctrine, if by scrip- 
 ture, all the labour recoils back again upon the un- 
 informed multitude, without education, abilities, or 
 leisure to go through with it. On one hand, they are 
 constrained 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 P 
 they know not. I disdain taking notice of the insinua- 
 tions so scandalously false, thrown out by the bishop 
 of Chester, as if we discountenanced free inquiry. 
 
 * Omnia dclibera cum amico ; sed prius delibera de amico. 
 
67 
 
 From what was said in the beginning of this address, 
 you may judge how undeserved they are. His lord- 
 ship is pleased to add, that whatever things are necessa- 
 ry to be believed, are easy to be understood. (P. 18, note.) 
 Are not all doctrines laid down in scripture, and par- 
 ticularly those contained in the apostles' creed, neces- 
 sary to be believed? So at least the Chaplain teaches. 
 (P. 35.) In these is delivered the tenet of three di- 
 vine 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 understanding. 
 We likewise direct all to rely, in matters of faith, 
 on their teachers, while they exercise their functions 
 uncontradicted and unreproved by the body of pas- 
 tors, or their superiors in the hierarchy. But then 
 their mission is established on a fact of public noto- 
 riety, the investigation of which requires no laborious 
 discussion. They can trace an uninterrupted succes- 
 sion of their ministry to the apostles, and consequent- 
 ly to Christ himself. As Christ sent his apostles to 
 teach all nations, baptizing and teaching them to observe 
 all things whichsoever he had commanded ; 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, succes- 
 sively admitted others ; and this apostolical body, 
 that is, the body of the envoys of Jesus Christ, has 
 never ceased. When new members are incorporated 
 
68 
 
 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 that the 
 church and this apostolical body must always subsist 
 together, and can never be separated. 
 
 From these truths, founded on a plain matter of 
 fact, an argument is deduced equally clear and con- 
 vincing. It is as certain, that the apostles appointed 
 other pastors to succeed them, as it is, that they founded 
 churches. The actual pastors, then, of these churches, 
 descending in a lawful and unbroken line of succes- 
 sion from them, are certainly sent by the apostles, 
 and by Christ himself, since those churches have al- 
 ways subsisted, and still subsist. Thus our faith is 
 as assured and well grounded, in believing the public 
 doctrines delivered by these teachers, as it could have 
 been, in receiving the preaching of the apostles them- 
 selves. 
 
 No books, no erudition is here necessary. The il- 
 literate, as well as learned Christian can easily be 
 certified of the fact on which the reasoning is found- 
 ed. The prerogative of tracing to the apostles an 
 ordinary and regular succession of pastors, is so pecu- 
 liar a prerogative of the Catholic church, that no 
 other society can dispute it with her, or appropriate 
 it to themselves.* To this succession the primitive ■ 
 fathers constantly appeal, as demonstrative evidence 
 of the true church, and challenge sectaries to exhibit 
 
 * See Bergier, Deisme Refute, Szc. let. 4. 
 
69 
 
 a like title to the divine commission of teaching and 
 administering the sacraments.* 
 
 After having thus shown, both from the nature of 
 the thing, and the Chaplain's own acknowledgment, 
 that scripture alone is not a general and sufficient 
 rule of faith, I might well contend, that transubstantia- 
 tion, purgatory, auricular confession, and the power of 
 absolving, are to be received as Christian doctrines, 
 on the authority of the church, though no mention 
 were made of them in scripture. But for your en- 
 tire satisfaction, I will now consider particularly all 
 that has been advanced on the other side respecting 
 these articles of our faith. 
 
 To begin with transubsiantiation, the Chaplain as- 
 serts, (P. 32.,) 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, /. 3. de Euch. c. 23. When I read this 
 passage of the Chaplain's letter, I thought it remarka- 
 ble in him to allege Scotus's testimony to prove a 
 point of ecclesiastical history ; the subtleties of the 
 school were much better suited to that author's spe- 
 culative genius, than a critical examination of histori- 
 cal facts. And it was becoming the Chaplain's can- 
 dour to have acknowledged it, when he saw evident 
 proofs of Scotus's inaccuracy in the place cited out of 
 Bellarmine ; who observes, that Scotus could never 
 have seen the deer es of the councils held at Rome 
 against Berengarius, the first in the year 1060, and 
 the second 1079, in which the doctrine of transub- 
 
 * See Irenaus contr. Ha?r. !. ?<. c. 3. Terlul. 1. de prftscr. c. 32. Opt. 
 Mi 1 :.- 1. 2. coat. farm. .August, inps. contra par. Donati, & lib. contra ep. 
 Fund. cap. 4. 
 
70 
 
 stantiation was asserted ; and Berengarius, who had 
 impugned it, retracted his error.* 
 
 The Chaplain continues, that towards the begin- 
 ning of the 9th century, Paschasius Radbertus publish- 
 ed his treatise upon the corporal presence of Christ in the 
 Eucharist ; and, as Bellarmine tells us, was the first who 
 ivrote seriously and copiously concerning it. (Ibid.) For 
 this, he cites Bellarmine de Scriptoribus Ecclesiashcis. 
 Does not every person who reads this passage, un- 
 derstand it to import, that, according to Bellarmine, 
 Paschasius Radbertus was the first who wrote serious- 
 ly and copiously concerning the corporeal presence of 
 Christ in the Eucharist ? Now let us hear Bellarmine 
 himself; and then let every one judge, whether the 
 Chaplain has carried into his researches after truth, 
 all that impartiality and painful investigation, men- 
 tioned in his seventh page. Thus then Bellarmine, in 
 the book cited by him : " This author (Paschasius 
 Radbertus) was the first who wrote seriously and co- 
 piously of the reality of the body and blood of the 
 Lord in the Eucharist, against Bertram the priest, who 
 was one of the first that called it in question." 1 ^ 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 
 
 • See Berenjarius's Retractations, and his Profession of Faith, in Bellarmine, 
 J. 3. de Euch. c.Sl. 
 
 t Hir. au< tor primus fuit, qui serid & c.opioce scripsit de veritate corporis 
 & sanguinis Domini in Eu -haristia. contra Bertramum presbyterum, qui fuit ex 
 primix. rpii ram in dubium revocarunt. Bell, de Scrip. Eccl. ad. an. 820, de 
 Pascbasto Radberto, 
 
71 
 
 was the first to defend an established doctrine against 
 a recent opposer of it ? 
 
 But let us proceed ; and we shall find Paschasius 
 himself 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 otherwise. This monk, says he^ mean- 
 ing Paschasius, informs us himself, that his doctrine was 
 by no means universal or settled* Let us now see, 
 how he gives us this information ; and let his letter 
 to Frudegardus (for to that the Chaplain refers) de- 
 termine the point. In this very letter, then, he says, 
 that " though some, through ignorance, err in this 
 point, yet not one openly contradicts, what the whole 
 world believes and professes."f Here you will ob- 
 serve, 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 
 world. Is this to inform us, that his doctrine was by 
 no means universal or settled? But let us hear him 
 farther. " If any man," says he, in the same place, 
 " should oppose this truth, rather than believe it, let 
 him take care what he is doing; against the Lord him- 
 self, and the whole church of Christ. For it is a horri- 
 ble 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. "J From these pas- 
 
 * Letter, p. 32. 
 
 t Quamvis ex hoc quidam de ignorantin errent, nemo tamen est adhuc iu 
 aperto, qui hoc ita esse contradicat, quod totus orbis credit & confitetur. 
 Pasch. Radb. epis. ad Frudeg. Bibl. P. P. torn. 9 par. 1. pag. 24G. 
 
 \ Videat, qui contra hoc venire voluerit, quid ngat contra ipsum Dominum; 
 & contra omnem Christi ecclesiam. Nefarium ergo scelus est orare cum omni- 
 bus, & non credere; quod Veritas ipsa testatur, 8c ubiqv.t omnes nniver 
 v^ rum esse fatentur. lb ■' 
 
72 
 
 sages, it is evident, that the Chaplain could not make 
 a more unfortunate reference, to prove what he in- 
 tended, than to Paschasius's letter to Frudegard. 
 But, continues he, Paschasius, in this very letter, 
 speaking of the corporal presence, says, you question mc 
 upon a subject about which mayiy are doubtful. (P. 32.) 
 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 passage that perplexed him j and that he ap- 
 plied to Paschasius, as his master, to explain the diffi- 
 culty.* I will venture to assert, that the passage in 
 the note is all the Chaplain's foundation for saying, 
 as if they were the words of Paschasius himself, that 
 many were doubtful of the real presence in the Eucha- 
 rist. Is it possible, that Paschasius should acknow- 
 ledge this in the very letter, wherein he informs his 
 scholar, that the whole church professes the doctrine 
 he delivers ? That not even one person was found 
 openly to contradict it ? The young man himself ac- 
 knowledges, 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 per- 
 sons were educated ; he informs Paschasius, that a 
 perplexity had arisen in his mind, not from hearing 
 any public instruction of the pastors of the church, 
 contrary to the real presence, but from some expres- 
 
 * Di<is tc antea credidisse ; setl profiteris, quod in libro dc doctrina Chris- 
 iiana Beati Augustini legisti, quod typica sit locutio : quod si figurata locutio 
 est, est schema polius, quam Veritas ; nescio, inquis, qualiter illud sumere de- 
 beam. F.p. ad Prude, ibid. 
 
73 
 
 sions of St. Augustin. He applies to Paschasius to 
 explain the difficulty, relying on his knowledge and 
 orthodoxy ; he does not conclude from the passage of 
 Augustin, that it inclined him to change his faith, but 
 expresses an uncertainty as to its meaning. / know 
 not how I am to understand it. How then will the 
 Chaplain make good his assertion, that Paschasius, 
 in his letter to Frudegard, acknowledges, that many 
 doubted of the corporal presence of Christ in the Eucha- 
 rist ? 
 
 He next alleges Rabanus Maurus, as one who, about 
 the year 847, wrote expressly against the novelty oj this 
 doctrine, in a letter to Heribaldus, bishop of Auxerre* I 
 apprehend that here again, the Chaplain has followed 
 an unfaithful guide ; whom I suspect to be the French 
 Huguenot 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 ;f 
 and I observe a great affinity between the mistakes 
 already noticed in the Chaplain's citations, and those 
 which were detected in Aubertin, by the author of La 
 perpetuite de lafoi. Now, though I will not say posi- 
 tively, 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 America,) yet it 
 may, I think, be inferred from Fleury's Ecclesiastical 
 History, that Rabanus did not write his letter to He- 
 ribaldus expressly against the novelty of Paschasius' 's doc- 
 trine, as the Chaplain says ; (P. 32. ;) and I much ques- 
 tion, whether he so much as mentions it in that letter. 
 For, according to Flcury, Hist. Eccles.book 49, an. 859. 
 
 * Let. p. 32. t JVote, p. 29. 
 
 10 
 
74 
 
 the express purpose of Rabanus's writing to Heribal- 
 dus, was, to answer him on many penitential cases, 
 concerning which the latter had consulted him, Raba- 
 nus being then archbishop of Mentz. 
 
 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 Paschasius, which is thought, with much pro- 
 bability, to be a letter from Rabanus to Egil, abbot of 
 Prum ; and it is not unlikely, that the passage quoted 
 by the Chaplain (P. 32.) is taken from this writing. 
 
 But what is the purport of the letter ? Is it to dis- 
 pute the real presence, and transubstantiation ? No, 
 certainly } for the author of it clearly professes these 
 doctrines, and begins his letter with these words : 
 44 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 himself 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 consecra- 
 tion and the power of the Holy Ghost, the bread be- 
 comes 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 Pascha- 
 sius, was, to censure some modes of speech used by him 
 in explaining 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 expression appeared to Rabanus 
 particularly obnoxious, though it was undoubtedly 
 
 * Fleury, ibid. 
 
15 
 
 authorized by former usage. It was therefore reject- 
 ed 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 
 palpable and sensible ; in the latter, they exist in a 
 manner supernatural and mysterious. 
 
 Paschasius maintained the propriety of his lan- 
 guage 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 ; but that he was employed ex- 
 pressly by that prince to oppose Paschasius, is a fact no 
 where proved, though confidently asserted by the 
 Chaplain. The French author of the Perpetuity of 
 the Faith, &c. says expressly, that Ratramus does not 
 so much as mention Pal&hasius's name ; he objects, in- 
 deed, to the expression used by him, but, at the same 
 time, he plainly asserts in many passages the Catho- 
 lic doctrine ; and Boileau, the celebrated Sorbonist, 
 has proved, that Bellarmine and others, were mistak- 
 en in thinking he was an adversary to it; as well as in 
 saying, that Paschasius wrote against him his treatise 
 of the reality of Chris? s body and blood, &c. For the oc- 
 casion of Paschasius's writing was, to instruct the 
 Saxons, then lately converted to Christianity. 
 
 I will not swell this address with copying from Ra- 
 tramus many passages to prove his belief of the real 
 presence and transubstantiation. Amongst others, 
 this is one. " The bread which is offered, is, at con- 
 secration, changed into the body of Christ ; as like- 
 wise the wine, expressed from the grape, is made 
 blood by the significancy," or efficacy '* of the sacred 
 
76 
 
 mystery ; not indeed visibly, but by the invisible ope- 
 ration of the Holy Ghost. Whence they are called 
 the body and blood of Christ, because they are re- 
 ceived 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 an- 
 other thing through invisible power, than what they 
 visibly appear."* This, I think, is abundantly suffi- 
 cient to show, that the disagreement between Pascha- 
 sius and Ratramus, consisted not in a difference of 
 opinion respecting the real presence and transubstan- 
 tiation. 
 
 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 to 
 combat it, without incurring any suspicion of heresy from 
 their opponents. (P. 33.) We ^ave, I think, seen di- 
 rectly the contrary. We have heard Rabanus say, 
 that, by consecration, and the power of the Holy Ghost, the 
 bread becomes the true flesh, and the wine the true blood, 
 of Christ, which is so certain, that no christian must 
 doubt it. And, indeed, it would be a most extraordi- 
 nary thing, that Rabanus should write expressly against 
 the doctrine of the real presence ; and yet, that Baronius, 
 an historian so fervently attached to the doctrines of 
 the Catholic church, should style him the brightest lu- 
 minary of Germany. (Ch. let. p. 32.) 
 
 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 select 
 
 * Ratrarn. ap auct. Perp. de lafoi. 
 
77 
 
 ed out of all antiquity, as most favourable to his cause. 
 I need not have recourse to other authors, their co- 
 temporaries, 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 adversary. Where then is the convincing 
 proof, that, at the period indicated by the Chaplain, the 
 doctrine of the carnal presence was regarded merely as 
 matter of opinion, and so continued for 200 years ?* I flat- 
 ter myself, on the contrary, that I have alleged from 
 Paschasius and Rabanus convincing proofs of the doc- 
 trine 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, (P. 31.,) that the term transub- 
 stantiation was unknown till an obscure bishop invent- 
 ed 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 1,100 
 years after the time of the apostles, St. John having 
 lived to the year 101 of the Christian era, according 
 to the common opinion. I mention this, not for the 
 sake of any advantage I mean to make of the Chap- 
 lain's mistake, but merely to show, that he did not 
 bestow on his investigation, all that scrupulous atten- 
 tion, with which he flatters himself. However, Ste- 
 phen was the first to make use of the term transub- 
 stantiation. I admit without hesitation, that it is not to 
 
 * Let. p. 33, 
 
78 
 
 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 consubstantial 
 or Sto'rox.oc;, being never used before the first council of 
 Nice, and that of Ephesus. The term transubstantia- 
 tion, was found to convey a precise idea of Catholic- 
 doctrine, and so became adopted by the council of 
 Lateran into ecclesiastical language ; all which is per- 
 fectly agreeable to ancient practice, as attested by 
 Vincent of Lerins : " The Catholic church," says he, 
 " moved thereunto by the innovations 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 re- 
 ceived by tradition alone ; comprehending much mat- 
 ter in few words ; and for the better understanding, 
 oftentimes expressing an ancient doctrine, by a new 
 word of determinate signification."* 
 
 You have already seen how much the Chaplain 
 was mistaken in saying, that the doctrine conveyed 
 by the word transubstantiation, was no article of faith 
 before the year 1215. But, considering that his as- 
 sertions 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. 
 
 In a council held at Rouen in Normandy, on occa- 
 
 * Vmc.Lir. Coram, c. 32* 
 
79 
 
 ,ion of Berengarius's 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 be- 
 fore consecration ; but that the nature and substance 
 of bread is, at the very time of consecration, by the 
 unspeakable power of God, changed into the nature and 
 substance of that flesh which was born 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 re- 
 tracted 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 Redeemer, substantially 
 changed into the true, proper, and life-giving flesh ami 
 blood of our Lord Jesus Christ."^ 
 
 Six years after Berengarius's 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 con- 
 secrated on the altar, are not only figuratively, but 
 truly and essentially changed into the body and blood of 
 our Lord^X Eight or nine other councils were held 
 during the same century, mostly in Italy and France, 
 and all of them equally condemn BerengariusV 
 
 - ! See the decrees of this council, published by the learned Mabillpn^ 
 
 t Ap. Bell. lib. 3. de Euch. c. 21. 
 
 t Labbe, C. C\ torn. 10. ap<id. anct. Ttvv Ch. of Cftrfef 
 
opinion; so true it is, that the doctrine of transub- 
 stantiation 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 re- 
 jected universally, and concluded to be repugnant to 
 faith. Adelmanus, who had been brought up with 
 him under the discipline of Fulbert, bishop of Char- 
 tres, and became himself bishop of Brixen, wrote Be- 
 rengarius a letter, expressed with much tenderness 
 and charity, wherein he tells his friend, that a " re- 
 port was spread of his being severed from the unity 
 of the church, by holding a doctrine contrary to the 
 Catholic faith, concerning 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 coun- 
 cil had been held against Berengarius ; and yet Adel- 
 manus 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 re- 
 garded as tenets of the church antecedently to Be- 
 rengarius's error. 
 
 Lanfrank, who afterwards became archbishop of 
 Canterbury, was present at the council he!d at Rome 
 against Bcreng-arius, 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 wri- 
 ting against the Catholic verity, and against the sen- 
 
81 
 
 timent of all the churches."* And in his 18th chap* 
 ter, he thus states the Catholic doctrine : " We be- 
 lieve, that the earthly substances of bread and wine, 
 being consecrated on the altar by divine institution, 
 and the ministry of priests, are changed, by the unspeak- 
 able, incomprehensible, and miraculous operation of JlU 
 mighty power, into the substance of our horoVs 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."f The same thing 
 is repeated in many other places of his 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, archbishop of Aversa, another cotem- 
 porary author, and who was probably 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."^ 
 
 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 understood not her mysteries, and that she sub- 
 sisted only in himself and his followers."|| 
 
 * Contra orbem sentire cacpisti — contra Catholicam veritatem ; & contra 
 omnium ecclesiarum opinionem scriptum postea condidisti. Lanl'r. c. 1. apud, 
 auct. Perp. de lafoi. 
 
 t Ibid. $ Ibid. 
 
 i Neque enim pis ulla civitatula, vel etiam una villula concessit, fbid. 
 
 11 Ibid. 
 
 1% 11 
 
82 
 
 With this, and much more similar evidence before 
 me of the sense of the church concerning transubstan- 
 tiation, at the rise of Berengarius's heresy, about the 
 year 1038,1 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 before seen, that the doc- 
 trine of Christ's carnal 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 de- 
 cisive, that the most learned Protestant writers have 
 admitted, reluctantly, indeed, but still they have 
 admitted, that the Catholic doctrine had full posses- 
 sion of men's minds, when Berengarius first began to 
 dogmatize. They assign its origin, increase, and full 
 establishment to the period between the publication 
 of Paschasius's writings, and the era of Berengarius 
 above mentioned. This period they represent as the 
 reign of darkness and absurdity. The Chaplain, with- 
 out adopting their common opinion of the early pre- 
 valence of our tenets, has however caught the infec- 
 tion, and with wonderful sensibility laments the woful 
 degradation of reason, and the superstition and igno- 
 rance of the age. According to most of these authors, 
 it was during this lamentable 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 belief 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 
 
83 
 
 they received Christ in the Eucharist figuratively, or 
 spiritually, now changed their creed, and admitted 
 the tenet of the real presence so universally, that Be- 
 rengarius could not, in the whole world, find so much 
 as one pitiful town, or a single village, to give counte- 
 nance to his doctrine. What completes the wonder, 
 is, that all this happened without any commotion or 
 opposition. No council was called to withstand the 
 growing evil; not one bishop througho^ Msten- 
 dom raised his voice against it. At a«| Ker times. 
 the least innovation, the slightest departure^piWhe re- 
 ceived tenets, occasioned disputes and contests; every 
 heresy, however obscure or speculative, was combat- 
 ed 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 inward and outward adora- 
 tion, that which in their former estimation it was idol- 
 atrous to adore ; this doctrine gently insinuated itself 
 without noise or disturbance into the minds of all 
 Christians, during that long sleep into which igno- 
 rance had lulled them ; it operated this wonderful 
 revolution so silently, that no historian either per- 
 ceived it in himself or others, to transmit us an account 
 of it. Can men, who will believe this, find any mys- 
 tery 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 Beren- 
 garius's error, and so continues to this day, the doc- 
 trine of all the eastern and southern Christian 
 churches, the Greek, the Armenian, the Cophtiek, the 
 
84 
 
 Abyssinian, &c. ; so truly did Lanfrank, as above cited, 
 refer to them as witnesses of the universal belief. 
 Many of those Christians, as the Nestorians, Euty- 
 chians, &c. were separated from the church of Rome 
 near four hundred years before Paschasius wrote on 
 the Eucharist. Within a few years after his writing 
 his letter to Frudegardus, the Greek schism was in a 
 great d egre e begun by Photius, and rent asunder the 
 easternjOBjl western churches, and bred between 
 them, especially in the former, an animosity which 
 they WTll with difficulty conceive, who are unacquaint- 
 ed with the ardent spirits of the Greeks. It is there- 
 fore incredible, I had almost said impossible, consi- 
 dering 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 
 pretended innovations should be received and incor- 
 porated into their religion not only by the abettors of 
 Photius's 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 Constantinople. 
 
 Obstinacy, or ignorance, alone can deny, that our 
 doctrine concerning the Eucharist agrees with that of 
 all the churches I have mentioned. No point of his- 
 tory 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 commencement of this general persua- 
 sion can be assigned, with the smallest show of proba- 
 
85 
 
 bifity, than the commencement of the Christian reli- 
 
 gion itself. 
 
 From all that has been said, our inference is clear 
 and conclusive. The doctrine of the real presence 
 and transubstantiation,were the established doctrines 
 of the church, and not merely matters of opinion, long 
 before the eras assigned by the Chaplain, that is, be- 
 fore the years 1060 and 1215. They were univer- 
 sally taught previously to the Greek schism, which 
 may be said to have begun an. 857, by Pnotius's in- 
 trusion into the see of Constantinople, and even before 
 the Nestorian and Eutychian heresies, the latter of 
 which was condemned in the council of Chalcedon, 
 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 com- 
 mencement to any other era, than that of Christianity 
 itself? 
 
 It imports, then, little to the present subject, whe- 
 ther in the interval between Paschasius and Berenga- 
 rius, a gloom of dark and universal ignorance over- 
 spread 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 un- 
 said, to prove to every dispassionate man, that the 
 obnoxious tenets did not steal upon men's minds dur- 
 ing this fatal interval. If it were at all material to 
 refute the exaggerated imputations of supineness and 
 ignorance, it would be no difficult matter, for the pe- 
 riod so outrageously abused was not so fatal to the 
 
 * Chaplain's letter, p. 31, 
 
86 
 
 cultivation of letters as is represented ; and if, through 
 the tyranny of turbulent barons, and violence of con- 
 tending factions, some few prelates incapable of wri- 
 ting their names, perhaps not six in all Christendom, 
 were imposed upon different churches, there were 
 many others, pious and well informed, who kept con- 
 stant watch over the flocks committed to their charge. 
 Whoever will read the acts of the council of Rheims, 
 held within this period, viz. an. 992, will be satisfied 
 that the bishops, who composed it, were perfectly ac- 
 quainted with ecclesiastical discipline and sacred an- 
 tiquity ; and animated with a becoming zeal for the 
 preservation of sound morals among the clergy. Ba- 
 ronius and Sigonius had their eyes principally turned 
 on Italy, their own country, and especially on Rome, 
 when they wrote so unfavourably of the age ; and 
 there indeed contending factions imposed some pon- 
 tiffs 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 extraordi- 
 nary virtue and knowledge, and with princes, who 
 encouraged learning, and endowed academies of sci- 
 ence, 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 attested of the schools erected 
 at Paris, Arras, Cambrai, Liege, &c. # 
 
 The Chaplain (P. 19, 20.) cites some Catholic di- 
 vines, who acknowledge that the doctrine of transub- 
 stantiation is not to be found in scripture. It has been 
 already observed, that nothing conclusive can be in- 
 
 * Histoire Lilteraire de Fr. t. 6. 
 
87 
 
 ferred 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 tran- 
 substantiation? 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, corpo- 
 real, and substantial presence in the Eucharist. Ac- 
 cordingly, Scotus says only, that there is no text of 
 scripture so explicit, as evidently to compel our assent to 
 transubstantiation.* 
 
 Melchior Cano's elegant work I have heretofore 
 read with great pleasure ; and I wish that the Chap- 
 lain 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 de- 
 livered 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 
 character 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 enti- 
 
 * Ut evidenler cogat transubstantiationem admittere. Sent, ajipa Bell. t. ". 
 de Euch. c. 23. 
 
88 
 
 tied to that character, who gravely says, that in old au-* 
 thors there is seldom any mention made of the transubstan- 
 tiation of the bread into the body of Christ ; for so the 
 Chaplain cites him. (P. 20.) How little conversant 
 with old authors he must be, who gravely advances 
 such a proposition, will plainly appear from Bellar- 
 mine, Du Perron, Tournely, &c. I shall presently 
 have occasion to recite some passages from old au- 
 thors ; but shall do it with a sparing hand, not forget- 
 ting that the purport of this address is not to estab- 
 lish, but to vindicate our doctrine from the attack 
 made against it. 
 
 After exhausting his authorities against transub- 
 stantiation, the Chaplain begs leave to mention two 
 negative arguments, ivhich seem to prove to a demonstration, 
 that it was unknown to the ancient church* How capa- 
 ble this is of demonstration, you may judge from what 
 you have already heard. Was it unknown to the an- 
 cient church, when Cyril, bishop of Jerusalem, wrote 
 thus about the year 350 ? " 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 oicn 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 appears to 
 our eyes, is not wine, though our sense of taste take it for 
 wine, but that it is the blood of Jesus Christ."t 
 
 Was transubstantiation unknown, when, in the same 
 century, Gaudentius, bishop of Brescia, thus express- 
 
 * r. 24, note. f Cyril. Hier. Catecb. Myst. 4. 
 
89 
 
 ed himself: " The Creator, and Lord of beings, who 
 produces bread from the earth, from bread makes his 
 own body, because he can do it, and has promised it ; 
 and he, that out of water made wine, out of wine 
 makes his own blood."* It is, I hope, needless to add 
 to these, the testimonies of almost every Christian fa- 
 ther; and I think the Chaplain might contend, with 
 equal appearance of truth, that the doctrine of the 
 necessity of baptism ivas unknown to the ancient 
 church, as that the Catholic doctrine of the Eucharist 
 was. 
 
 We are now prepared, to examine his negative argu- 
 ments. The first is, that if the ancient church former- 
 ly adored Christ in the Eucharist, as we now do, Ca- 
 tholics would, in arguing against Arians, have insist- 
 ed on that adoration as a proof of Christ's divinity. 
 (P. 24.) Such is his first demonstration ; 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 al- 
 leged the ancient custom of adoring him out of the 
 sacrament, for instance, as he is seated in Heaven on 
 the right hand of his Father ? Why therefore was 
 this argument not insisted on by the ancient fathers ? 
 for a very obvious reason ; because the Arians, at the 
 very time that they fell into heresy to avoid the pre- 
 tended contradictions in the doctrine of the trinity, 
 swallowed other real ones ; and, as ecclesiastical his- 
 torians observe, made no difficulty to acknowledge, 
 that Christ was a divine person, true God of true GW,f 
 
 * Gauden. Brix. Serm. 2. 
 
 t Porrate?' Hist, Eccl. J. 2. c. 20. 
 
 12 
 
90 
 
 eternal, the sdme God with the Father, and possessing the 
 same divine pre-eminence or dignity ;* and therefore an 
 object of divine worship. In a word, they seemingly 
 admitted every thing but the term consubsiantial. 
 Adoration they did not refuse : and the Catholics, in- 
 stead of having cause to reproach them with neglect- 
 ing it, charged them, on the contrary, with introducing 
 a plurality of Gods, by paying divine honours to him. 
 to whom, consistently with their principles, they could 
 not be due.f 
 
 Before I proceed to the Chaplain's second argu- 
 ment, amounting likewise to demonstration, I must beg 
 leave to detain your attention a little while longer on 
 the first. This is his reasoning : the Catholics, in 
 their dispute with the Arians, did not object against 
 the latter, the supreme adoration 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 object 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 de- 
 fensive plan, I shall build one argument in favour of 
 our doctrine upon the foundation laid by the Chap- 
 lain. According to him, adoration of Christ in the 
 Eucharist, imports a belief of his real presence ; but 
 primitive Christians adored Christ in the Eucharist; 
 they therefore believed his real presence. The se~ 
 
 * Ibid, c 19. prope finem. 
 
 t Soc. Hist. Eccl. I. 1. c. 23. edit. VaL 
 
91 
 
 *:ond, or minor proposition, which is the only disputa- 
 ble one, can be proved by the clearest evidence of 
 primitive Christians themselves. I shall omit relating 
 passages to this point out of Ambrose, the holy bish- 
 op of Milan,* Chrysostom,t Gregory 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 
 Gf Chrysostom, and was probably composed, and cer- 
 tainly used by him. In this liturgy, not only the ex- 
 ternal acts of adoration, expressed by incense, bend- 
 ing and prostrating the body, &c. are enjoined, but 
 likewise internal adoration is clearly signified by the 
 prayers addressed to Jesus Christ in the sacrament. 
 44 Lord Jesus," is the priest enjoined to say, 44 look 
 down from thy holy habitation, 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 pow- 
 erful 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 
 adoration." And to show, that this adoration refers 
 to the body of Christ upon the altar, we need only 
 note the farther directions of the liturgy. The priest 
 taking up the consecrated bread, and bending his 
 head before the altar, prays in this manner : 44 1 con- 
 fess, that thou art Christ, the son of the living God, 
 who came into the world to save sinners, &c. Lord, 
 I am not worthy that thou shouldst enter into my 
 house defiled with sin ; but as thou didst vouchsafe to 
 
 * DeSpir. san. lib. 3. 12. 
 ■*t Chrys. horn. 60. ad Pop. Antioch. — and, de Sacerd. lib. ff. 
 
92 
 
 enter the house of Simon the Leper, so likewise 
 vouchsafe to enter my soul, full of ungovernable pas- 
 sions, as a manger, or a house of filth and death, co- 
 vered all over with the leprosy of sin." Thus is 
 proved the adoration of Christ in the Eucharist, not 
 only by the testimony of the fathers, but by a law of 
 ecclesiastical discipline, connected with daily and in- 
 violable practice ; and making part of the worship 
 rendered to Jesus Christ agreeably to the public li- 
 turgy ; and consequently, the primitive belief of the 
 real presence is fully established. 
 
 The Chaplain's second negative argument, or de- 
 monstration against the Catholic doctrine of the Eu- 
 charist is, that heathen writers would have retorted upon 
 Christians, the accusation of idolatry in adoring a bit of 
 bread, in reserving their God in gold and silver chalices, 
 &c. (P. 24, note.) Violent, indeed, must be his pre- 
 judices against the religion he has renounced, if such 
 arguments appear demonstrations to him. For how 
 little do we know of the disputations between Chris- 
 tians 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 Incar- 
 nation of the Son of God, in his nativity, in his cruci- 
 fixion, an apparent apology for their fables concern- 
 ing their own divinities. They may have grounded 
 on the Christian doctrine of redemption, the same ar- 
 guments as the Socinians now do ; and they may, 
 from the example afforded them, have attempted to 
 
93 
 
 justify their own human sacrifices. Above all, they 
 may have availed themselves of the tenet of the Tri- 
 nity, to uphold, or, at least, explain away, the absurdi- 
 ties of a plurality of Gods. But, have we any autho- 
 rity for saying they did so ? No ; and except a single 
 expression of the scoffer Lucian, which seems to 
 glance at the Trinity ; and a passage of Tertullian 
 and Athanasius, implying, 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 all the 
 mysteries of our religion, the celebration of the Eu- 
 charist was that, in which, during the reign of perse- 
 cution and idolatry, the greatest privacy was observ- 
 ed. 
 
 The truth is, the heathens despised the Christians 
 too much to inform themselves minutely of their te- 
 nets. They knew little of them, but what appeared 
 outwardly ; their aversion for idolatry, and their pro- 
 fession 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, ' 4 that the fathers of the 2d 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 be- 
 come flesh and blood ?" (P. 24, note.) For this 
 most extraordinary passage, he quotes Labbe's Collec- 
 tion of the Councils, torn. 6. p. 541. This collection! 
 
94 
 
 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 Chaplain cannot support what he has here 
 advanced. Neither Cabassutius, in his summary of the 
 councils, nor Fleury, nor Natalis Alexander, who re- 
 cite 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 instances, so like- 
 wise 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. 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 any corporeal figure. 
 But so far was the council from confirming this doc- 
 trine, 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 mis- 
 taken this fabulous writing for the acts of the coun- 
 cil* 
 
 • Siace writing the above, I have found, in the Annapolis library, Binius's 
 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 t'.ie error rejected with horror, which ascribed to Christ 
 only an apparent or phantastical bedy. See Concil. Gener. Vol. V. Act. 5. 
 p. 703, 4, 5, 6. 
 
95 
 
 Nothing, I think, now remains unnoticed of all he 
 has said against our doctrine of the Eucharist, ex- 
 cepting the collection of supposed absurdities and 
 contradictions,*with which, in the same page, (24.,) he 
 charges transubstantiation. In this, he uses a mode 
 of reasoning not very liberal, and yet not unpractised 
 by many other writers against us. The objected ab- 
 surdities and contradictions, whether real or imagi- 
 nary, 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 Episcopal church, who admit the real pre- 
 sence in their catechisms at least, and according to 
 their earliest writers. But as to the Catholic tenets, 
 too much cannot be said to render them an object of 
 ridicule and detestation. If transubstantiation be ad- 
 mitted, says the Chaplain, (p. 24.,) the true God may be 
 shut up in boxes, or devoured corporally by 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 mystery of our religion, and adorable pledge of 
 divine goodness towards mankind ! How can he give us 
 his flesh to cat? (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 Incarnation, 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 
 
96 
 
 the credulity of Christians in believing in a man cruci- 
 fied 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 injured 
 by his mortal sufferings ; and from them, great glory 
 came to him, and utility to men. The same answer 
 we may give to our opponents, when they compel us 
 to take notice of objections so unworthy of the great- 
 ness and sanctity 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 children, 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 ap- 
 pearance, 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,f and so often refuted, of transub- 
 stantiation contradicting our senses and our understand- 
 ing. 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, but a captain of the 
 
 * 1 Cor. i. + Ch. Let. p. 24. 
 
97 
 
 heavenly host, he fell on his face, and worshipped, and 
 said, What says my Lord unto his servant? (Joshua v. 
 14.;) that is, he believed him rather than his senses; 
 for to all his senses he appeared a man ; but revela- 
 tion informed him, that what he saw was an angel. 
 In like manner, if God has revealed to us, that under 
 the appearances 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 criti- 
 cism ; but when the mind is once convinced of its ex- 
 istence, it must then submit, notwithstanding all 
 seeming contradiction, or opposition of our senses. 
 ;i Let us always believe God," says St. Chrysostom, 
 speaking of the Eucharist, " and not contradict him, 
 though that which he says, seems to contradict our thoughts 
 and our eyes. For his words cannot deceive us; but 
 our sense may be easily deceived. Since, therefore, he 
 9ays, 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 content 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 geniviie quotation- you may see what St. Chrysos- 
 tom, that enlightened doctor of antiquity, thought both 
 of the argument drawn from a supposed contradiction 
 of our senses and understanding, and of the real pre- 
 sence and transubstantiation. 
 
 As the Chaplain has added to his reasoning against 
 
 Chrys. hom. 82. (al. 83.) in Matt. 
 13 
 
98 
 
 our belief, none of those innumerable arguments, which 
 evince the meaning of Christ's words, This is my body, 
 to he figurative, (p. 25.,) I likewise shall gladly waive 
 the controversy; only remarking, that he is neither 
 terrified by the anathemas of Luther against the de- 
 fenders of a figurative sense, whom he calls blas- 
 phemers, a damned sect, liars, bread-eaters, wine-guz- 
 zlers* &c, nor by the severity of Dr. Cosin, bishop of 
 Durham, in the beginning of his History of Transub- 
 stantiation, where, speaking of the words of the insti- 
 tution 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 se- 
 lected as unsupported by scripture and antiquity, par- 
 ticularly in the Greek church, is, the belief of purga- 
 tory. But before he proceeded to impugn, he ought 
 to have stated it ; which not having done, the defi- 
 ciency 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 suffra- 
 ges of the faithful, especially by the agreeable sacrifice of 
 the altar.^ Concerning the nature or extent of their 
 sufferings, whether by fire or otherwise, the place of 
 punishment, its duration, &c, we are not confined to 
 any particular opinion. Noav, is it true, that this 
 doctrine has no foundation in scripture and antiqui- 
 ty ? The books of Maccabees, which so decidedly es- 
 
 * Blasphemes in Deum, damnatam sectam, mendaces homines, panivoros, 
 vini-^i!>ones. Lutli. inparva Conf. 
 1 Cone. Trid. sess. 25. 
 
99 
 
 tablish it, must not be admitted of sufficient authority, 
 because they were not acknowledged for canonical scrip- 
 tures by St. Hierom, Rufinus, Epiphanius, jQthanasius, 
 Gregory, and many other ancient and eminent fathers. 
 (Ch. Let. p. 21.) If it be a sufficient reason for re- 
 jecting the books of Maccabees, that some early fa- 
 thers 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 all these, as 
 well as of the books of Maccabees, doubts were some 
 time entertained, and the fathers held different opi- 
 nions concerning them. But I expect no satisfactory 
 account of this matter ; and am well convinced, that 
 the prevailing reason, which moved the compilers of 
 the English Bible to reject the one, and receive the 
 other, was, the support which they observed the Ca- 
 tholic doctrine of purgatory, would derive from the 
 book of Maccabees.* But, though it were destitute of 
 this, there are not wanting other passages of scrip- 
 ture, to confirm the same, as the Chaplain may find 
 in our divines, though he so positively says the con- 
 trary, and particularly in the Catholic Scripturist, with 
 whom he ought not to be unacquainted. 
 
 * 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 inspiration. 
 Com. in c. xxiii. Isaire — in c. vii. & ix. Eccl. — in c. viii. Daniel. And Grego- 
 ry, who was posterior to the council of Carthage, which declared their ca- 
 nonical authority, can only mean, that they had not been so received byjal! thf. 
 churches. As to Athanasius, if the Chaplain ground his assertion, as I sus- 
 pect, on a writing entitled Synopsis, and bearing his name, that work is re- 
 jected by all the critics, as falsely imputed to him 
 
100 
 
 As to the doctrine of antiquity concerning purgato- 
 ry, and particularly of the Greek church, we shall 
 meet with little difficulty. No article of the Chris- 
 tian 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. Epipha- 
 nius, a bishop of the eastern church, ranks Aerius 
 amongst the founders of heretics, for teaching, that 
 prayers and alms are unavailing to the dead ;* and 
 Augustin confirms the same, adding, that his heresy 
 was condemned by the universal church,t Greeks 
 therefore as well as others. Cyril, bishop of Jerusa- 
 lem, 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 departed out of this life, believing 
 that this will be the greatest relief to their souls, for 
 whom it is made, whilst the holy and tremendous vic- 
 tim 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 con- 
 tinuation of this passage, and see the perfect agree- 
 ment of our doctrine with that of the Greek church 
 
 * Epiph. Hser. 75, alias 76. 
 
 t Aug. de Ha?resibus — Hasr. 53. 
 
 t Cyril. Hier. Catec. Myst. 19. n. 9. edit. Bened. alias cat. 5. 
 
101 
 
 in St. Cyril's 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 suc- 
 cour the departed ; for the common expiation of the 
 world is offered."* Here is surely evidence enough 
 to prove the antiquity of our doctrine, and its entire 
 conformity with that of the Greek church. I quote 
 no Latin fathers, as the Chaplain appears to lay par- 
 ticular stress on the Greek ; otherwise it were easy 
 to produce the most unequivocal evidence, of their 
 perfect agreement with those just cited. The objec- 
 tion 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 com- 
 mon, though not a dogmatical opinion of the western 
 church. 
 
 The Chaplain proceeds (p. 30.) to tell us, that om 
 present doctrine 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 en- 
 sue, if for some ages this matter remained without: 
 minute investigation, and the faithful contented them- 
 selves with humble and penitential confession of their 
 sins, not inquiring, whether the practice was derived 
 frern divine or apostolical institution ? Must we, for 
 
 * Chrys, in i. ad Cor. hom. 41 — alias 51. 
 
102 
 
 this reason, refuse to believe the church, when, upon 
 full inquiry and examination of the tradition preserv- 
 ed in all the churches, she defines, that confession is 
 an obligation 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 men- 
 tioned Catholics or not ? Does it appear, that their 
 opinion had any effect on the public practice, so that 
 it might alarm J;he 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 de- 
 termine Alcuin's meaning. The same' must be 
 observed of the passage from the manuscript peniten- 
 tial 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 omitted so valuable a discovery ; and moreover, 
 because I find no mention of this passage, in a compre- 
 hensive abridgment of Theodore's Penitential, which 
 now lies before me. I do not hereby mean to im- 
 peach Usher's integrity, or, in general, his judgment ; 
 but, for the reasons just stated, I conclude there were 
 good grounds to question the authority of a manu- 
 script, which does not appear to have had any of a 
 similar tenor to support its credit. After all, to what 
 do these authorities amount, supposing them both 
 
103 
 
 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 declaration of the divine institution and 
 necessity of confession. The practice of it, we may 
 fairly conclude to have been general, from this cir- 
 cumstance, if all other proof were wanting, which 
 certainly is not the case ; that it was doubted, whe- 
 ther 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 procure it ? 
 
 These observations are equally applicable to the 
 authority 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 confes- 
 sion, was not obligatory immediately after the com- 
 mission 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 an- 
 tiquity, 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 con- 
 fess, that the water was changed into wine at the 
 
104 
 
 marriage feast of Cana in Galilee ? Do not the trans- 
 lators of Dupin's History, and other Protestants, bear 
 witness to the ancient practice of praying for the 
 dead ? Have not the invocation of saints, the honour- 
 ing of their remains, the celibacy of our clergy, been 
 vindicated by Protestant writers of eminence 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 (P. 20.) to the power of loosening and 
 binding, committed by Christ to his apostles and their 
 successors in the ministry, he tells us, that the famous 
 Lombard, the Aristotle, the Newton of scholastic di- 
 vines, and some otners, maintained that power to be 
 only declaratory of forgiveness ; whereas, since the coun- 
 cil of Trent, it is become an article of our faith, that the 
 priest has power to forgive sins. (P. 20.) 
 
 Peter Lombard, who lived in the 12th century, was 
 indeed a man of acknowledged and methodical ge- 
 nius, 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 
 JYewton 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 sacerdotal order, not only do not exercise a minis- 
 
105 
 
 terial and dependent jurisdiction over repentant sin- 
 ners, (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 ad- 
 ministered through the instrumentality of their minis- 
 try, and consequently that there is no such thing as 
 the sacrament of penance. Now, all this is express- 
 ly contrary to Lombard. He holds the divine insti- 
 tution of this sacrament; he teaches that the ministry 
 of absolution truly confers grace ; that it has an in- 
 ward effect on the soul ; and though only declaratory 
 with regard to the remission of the guilt of sin, is effi- 
 caciously and actively so, with respect to the remission 
 of the temporal punishment annexed to it. The 
 council of Trent censured, indeed, the doctrine of the 
 reformers in such terms, as appear to the generality 
 of divines, to import the falsehood of Lombard's opi- 
 nion ; 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 argu- 
 mentative 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 unan- 
 swered, that could carry trouble into your minds, or 
 shake the firmness of your faith. Before he concludes 
 his letter, he has thought proper to make a profession 
 of his new belief, and shows a particular anxiety to vin- 
 dicate to himself the appellation of a Catholic. I am 
 
 De Pccn. quits. 2. art. 2. 
 14 
 
106 
 
 not surprised at his anxiety ; it is an appellation cha- 
 racteristic of the true church. " My name is Chris- 
 tian," says Pacianus, " my surname is Catholic. 
 That denominates me, this distinguishes me."* 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."t But will the 
 Chaplain now find this characteristic in his new reli- 
 gion, any more, than the sectaries of St. Augustin's 
 times found it in theirs ? This holy doctor having 
 mentioned various reasons, which prevailed on him to 
 remain in the communion of the church, proceeds 
 thus : " I am held in this church by the succession of 
 priests coming down even to the present episcopacy, 
 from St. Peter, to whom Christ after his resurrection 
 committed the feeding of his flock. Finally, T am 
 held to it by the very name of Catholic, of which this 
 church alone has, not without reason, so kept posses- 
 sion, that, though ail heretics desire to be called Ca- 
 tholics ; yet if a stranger ask them, where Catholics 
 meet, none of them will presume to point out his own 
 church, or his house."J 
 
 The Chaplain claims right to the title of Catholic, 
 because he " believes and professes every point of 
 Christian faith, which at all times, and in all places, has 
 constituted the creed of all orthodox believers." (P. 
 35.) For such, we are told, is Vincent of Lerins's 
 description of a Catholic. In the preceding, as well 
 as subsequent part of his work, Vincent has explain- 
 
 * Ep. 1. ad Sympron. Nov. 
 t Aug. 1. de Vera Re], c. 7. 
 \ Aug. cont. epis. Fundam. c. 4« 
 
]07 
 
 ed the characteristics of Catholicity 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, 
 antiquity, and agreement of the Catholic and apostoli- 
 cal church; and if a part revolt against the whole; 
 if innovation 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 in- 
 tegrity of the whole be preferred to the infection of a 
 part. In this same universality, let greater regard 
 be had to venerable antiquity, than profane novelty; 
 in antiquity itself," (that is, with regard to doctrines, 
 for which antiquity is alleged,) " let the decrees of a 
 general council, if any exist, in the first place be oppos- 
 ed to the rashness of a few; and if no such decrees 
 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 errors of rising heretics."* Will the 
 Chaplain's Catholicity 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 article of the creed is to be received, 
 without addition, in the terms in which it is written ? 
 Or that it is to be received with such extension and ex* 
 
 * Vine., Lir. Coram, c, 38. 
 
108 
 
 planation as may comprehend other points not clearly 
 expressed, but only implied therein ? If this last be 
 his meaning, who shall determine 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 stand- 
 ard of Catholicity, it surely cannot be enough to admit 
 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. (P. 35.) Show me that I do not 
 so admit it ; show me, that by requiring my assent to 
 your explanation and extension of it, you do not re- 
 quire 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 
 obedience, she does so in virtue of her claim to infalli- 
 bility ; but you have no such pretension. 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 is literally expressed, constitutes us 
 members of the Catholic church ; then are they not 
 heretic^, who condemn marriage, and introduce a 
 
109 
 
 distinction of meats ; whom nevertheless the apostle 
 describes as giving heed to the doctrine of devils, speak- 
 ing lies in hypocrisy, and having their conscience seared ;* 
 nor they, who deny an eternity of punishment, or as- 
 sert, that all the reprobated spirits in hell shall at 
 length be saved ; for none of these things are touch- 
 ed 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 here- 
 tics ? Did not the Catholic church always assert the 
 first, as an essential doctrine, and establish 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 evi- 
 dent principles, and in direct opposition to the Chap- 
 lain, that a person may subscribe the apostles' creed, 
 even in its full extent, 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 un- 
 erring authority ; for if he does, that acknowledgment 
 imports the belief of every article, which she propo- 
 ses as revealed by God.f 
 
 * 1 Tim. c. 4. 
 
 + The Chaplain, in a note, (P. 35, 36.,) obviates the meaning here insinuat- 
 ed, and attempts to show an opposition between the exposition of this article of 
 
110 
 
 Another material objection to the Chaplain's doc 
 trine is, that it admits into the communion of the 
 church, almost all those who in every age of Chris- 
 tianity have been deemed 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 apos- 
 tacy from faith ; 2dly. la requiring the rebaptization 
 of those, who had been baptized by heretics ; 3dly. In 
 condemning second marriages. I doubt whether the 
 Chaplain will find any of these errors reprobated in 
 the apostles' creed. St. Cyprian expressly teaches,* 
 that the Novatians made use of no other creed, than 
 that of the Catholics; 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 re- 
 jected baptism administered by heretics, were denied 
 communion with the Catholic church ; but the creed 
 
 the creed, in the catechism of the council of Trent, and that of many of our 
 ^religious 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 his word is infallible, as being founded in the divine perfections of infi- 
 nite 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 ; nevertheless, 
 he does not fail in making a sufficient difference between God and his creatures ; 
 but he knows that divine omnipotence can render mortal men infallible in 
 communicating revealed doctrines to others; and which must ultimately be 
 believed for the authority of God alone. 
 * Cyp. ep. 76. ad Magnum. 
 
Ill 
 
 they did not deny. " You are with us," says St. Au- 
 gustin, " in baptism, in the creed, in the other sacra- 
 ments of God; but in the spirit of unity, and in the 
 bond of peace ; finally, in the Catholic church you are 
 not with us." # I infer then again, that it was not the 
 intention of the apostles to conclude in their creed 
 the universal Christian Catholic faith. 
 
 You are now prepared to form a true estimate of 
 the Chaplain's universal belief, as expressed in the 
 placet 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 Eutychians'; 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-ex- 
 istent 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 subscribe the apostles' creed ; and might say 
 that they embraced no new religion, but 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," 
 sa)s the excellent Vincent of Lerins, " I dread to say, 
 how great will be the danger of destroying and extir- 
 pating religion. For, if any one part of the Catholic 
 doctrine be rejected, another and another will share 
 
 • Aug. ep. 93. (olim 48.) ad Vincentium. t P. 36. 
 
112 
 
 the same fate ; and at length it will become a prac- 
 tice, and deemed lawful to discard others ; thus the 
 tenets of religion being rejected one by one, what 
 will finally ensue, but the rejection of the whole to- 
 gether."* 
 
 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; insinuating 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 implicit belief of every part of 
 scripture ? Does it not, in all its decrees and defini- 
 tions of faith, assert the tenets of the church on the 
 authority of scripture ? If then both the council and 
 Chaplain be solicitous to form their faith on scripture, 
 which is most likely to discover the true meaning 
 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 
 humility and obedience, to follow that church, which 
 iesus 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 ; (P. 38.;) 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 
 
 * Vinc.Lir. Conam, c. 81. 
 
113 
 
 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 at- 
 testation of Christians, spread throughout the world ; 
 and St/ Augustin proves our right to assign this ori- 
 gin ; because, says he, " what the universal church 
 holds, and was not instituted in a council, but was al- 
 ways maintained, is most reasonably concluded to be 
 derived from apostolical institution."* But St. Cy- 
 prian requires, that it be commanded in the gospel, or cow 
 tained in the epistles or acts of the apostles. (P. 38.) 
 What wonder, that St. Cyprian, while he was en- 
 gaged, as he then was, in the error of the Donatists, 
 should speak their language ; and, like all other op- 
 posers of the authority of the church, should call for 
 scripture proofs, which can never be effectual, be- 
 cause they can always be explained away by human 
 ingenuity ? Wherefore St. Augustin, in his 5th book, 
 23d ch. on baptism, against the Donatists, particular- 
 ly refutes the writing now objected out of Cyprian ; 
 and it is wonderful, indeed, if the Chaplain did not 
 diseover this in the very place from which, 1 pre- 
 sume, he copied his objection. He sometimes cites 
 Vincent of Lerins. Will he then allow one, who 
 
 Ang. de Rapt, contra Donat. 1. 4. C. 6. 
 15 
 
114 
 
 still retains the most sincere good will for him, to re- 
 commend to his reading the eleventh chapter of Vin- 
 cent'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 
 deficient and obscure ; but he asks, Where is the defi- 
 ciency ? Where is the obscurity ? (Ibid.) 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 the scripture ? 
 We shall find it in almost every book of holy writ ; 
 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 understood, and ivhich, as well as all other scrip- 
 tures, the unlearned and unstable wrest to their own de- 
 struction.^ But St. Chrysostom assures us, that scrip- 
 ture expounds itself, and does not suffer the reader to err. 
 (P. 38.) The Chaplain is conversant in history, and 
 undoubtedly a person of observation. 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 ? Ie 
 
 * 2 Thees. ii. 15. t 2 Pet. iii. 16, 
 
115 
 
 every one able to make that conference and compa- 
 rison of the different passages of scripture, which lead 
 to its true interpretation ? Can any thing more be in- 
 tended by that great doctor, than that scripture di- 
 rects every reader to such a rule of exposition, as 
 secures him from error ? But is his private interpre- 
 tation this infallible rule ? Or is il 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 un- 
 derstand; but return frequently to the reading of those 
 things, which are obscure and difficult ; and if by re- 
 peated reading you cannot find out their meaning, go 
 to a teacher, go to one wiser than yourself."* To 
 the authority of Chrysostom might be added, I be- 
 lieve, that of every father of the church; and most of 
 them have delivered their opinions of the insufficien- 
 cy and obscurity of scripture, not in fragments of a 
 sentence, but treating professedly and fully on this 
 very subject. To these allow me to add an authori- 
 ty, 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 presumption in any one to say* that he un- 
 derstands every part even of one book of scripture."! 
 Let the Chaplain recollect all the disputes and varia- 
 tions even amongst Protestants themselves, concern- 
 ing the meaning of these words spoken by Christ at 
 
 * Chrys. hom. 3. de Lazaro. 
 
 t Sciq esse impudentissima? temeritatis eum, qui audeat profiteri uuuoo 
 scripturae librum a se in omnibus partibus intellectum. Lvth.pmf. in Ps*l 
 ap. Bell, de R. F. 1. 3. c, 21. 
 
116 
 
 his last supper, This is my body. \i innumerable argu- 
 ments evince to him their meaning to be figurative, he can- 
 not 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 de- 
 ficiency, where is the obscurity of Scripture ? 
 
 He is content, he says, to acquiesce in that authority, to 
 which alone St. Austin and St. Chrysostom refer us y 
 (P. 38.,) insinuating hereby, that scripture is that 
 sole authority. How he came to mention St. Augus- 
 tin 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. " I would not," says he, "believe 
 the gospel, if the authority of the Catholic church did 
 not move me thereunto."* In his controversies with 
 the Manicheans and Donatists, he repeatedly appeals 
 to the authority and practice of the Catholic church; 
 he tells the latter, that neither they, nor the Catho- 
 lics, have any clear scripture for 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 tes- 
 timony to the church.t The pretended authority 
 from St Chrysostom is no more his than mine ; it is 
 a reference to the same exploded passage, as was 
 cited in the Chaplain's note, (P. 9.,) of which enough 
 has been said. 
 
 I have now gone through a task painful in every 
 
 * Ego vero evangelio non crederem, nisi me ecclesiae Catholics commoTC» 
 ^et auctoritas. Aug. cont. Epis. Fundam. c. 5. 
 
 * Aug. lib. 1. cont. Cresc.c. 33.— & de Unit. Eccl. 
 
117 
 
 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 species of composition, rather than that 
 of religious controversy. Mankind have conceived 
 such a contempt for it, that an author cannot enter- 
 tain a hope of enjoying those gratifications, which in 
 treating other subjects may support his spirits and 
 enliven his imagination. Much less could I have a 
 prospect of these incitements in the prosecution of 
 my present undertaking. I could not forget, in the 
 beginning, progress, and conclusion of it, that the habits 
 of thinking, the prejudices, perhaps even the passions 
 of many of my readers, would be set against all the 
 arguments I could offer; and that the weaknesses, 
 the errors, the absurdities of the writer, would be im- 
 puted to the errors and absurdity of his religion. 
 But of all considerations, the most painful was, that 1 
 had to combat him, with whom I had Jbeen connected 
 in an intercourse of friendship and mutual good 
 offices ; and in connexion with whom, I hoped to have 
 consummated my course of our common ministry, in the 
 service of virtue and religion. But when I found 
 these expectations 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 tendency to embitter against us 
 the minds of our fellow citizens, I felt an anguish too 
 keen for description ; and perhaps the Chaplain will 
 
118 
 
 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 
 animosity. 
 
 Under all these distressful feelings, one considera- 
 tion alone relieved me in writing; 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 indu- 
 ced me to engage in the controversy, if I could fear 
 that it would disturb the harmony now subsisting 
 amongst all Christians in this country, so blessed 
 with civil and religious liberty ; which, if we have the 
 wisdom and temper to preserve, America may come 
 to exhibit a proof to the world, that general and 
 equal toleration, by giving a free circulation to fair 
 argument* is the most effectual method to bring all de- 
 nominations of Christians 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 vindication of his conduct, he appeals to the 
 dictates of conscience with a seriousness and solem- 
 nity, 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 suspicions 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 zeal 
 
119 
 
 ous regard for his welfare, to consider the sanctity ot 
 the solemn and deliberate engagement, which at an age 
 of perfect maturity he contracted with Almighty God. 
 I pray him to read the two exhortations of that en- 
 lightened doctor St. Chrysostom to his friend Theodo- 
 rus, who, like the Chaplain, had renounced his for- 
 mer state, in which by a vow of celibacy he had con- 
 secrated himself to Almighty God. " You allege," 
 says the saint to his friend, " that marriage is lawful; 
 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 con- 
 tract, commits adultery, 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, no one could 
 charge you with desertion ; but since you are con- 
 tracted to so great a king, you are not at your own 
 disposal."* See here, how far St. Chrysostom was 
 from considering the law of celibacy as a cruel usur- 
 pation of the unalienable rights of nature, as unwarrant- 
 able i?i its principle, inadequate in its object, and dreadful 
 in its consequences. He considered a vow of celibacy 
 as an engagement, or contract entered into with 
 Almighty God; independent therefore of the disci- 
 pline of any society as to its binding power, and not 
 to be released but by God's relinquishing his right to 
 exact a rigorous compliance with the obligation of it. 
 He thought that the sanctity of religion was interest- 
 f>xl in the performance of so sacred an engagement,, 
 
 * Chrys. ad Theod. laps. Exh. 2. 
 
120 
 
 according to Deuteron. 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. 
 
 THE EN13. 
 
A 
 
 REPLY 
 
 AN ADDRESS TO THE ROMAN CATHOLICS 
 
 ONITED STATES OF AMERICA 
 
 P.V THE AUTHOR OF 4 LETTER TO TIIF ROMAN CATHOLICS OT 
 THF. CITV OF WORCESTER. 
 
 isew-yokk : 
 
 1 '•! I TRMSHED HV DAVID I.OXf, WORTH, NO. 11 PARK 
 CJhunn fcc Kbtgsland, Priiitf iv. 
 
 IR17 
 
A 
 
 REPLY 
 
 TO 
 
 AN ADDRESS TO THE ROMAN CATHOLICS 
 
 ©F THE 
 
 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. 
 
 It is with deep concern, that the late Worcester 
 Chaplain finds himself under the disagreeable neces- 
 sity of appearing 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 par- 
 tial information, he had been led to expect, that the 
 reverend and learned Author of the address would 
 treat his little letter with some degree of indulgence. 
 
 » Eccl, \ii. \1. 
 
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 the 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 unfortu- 
 nate Chaplain was experiencing a sad reverse in the 
 heart of him whom he loved without reserve, and 
 sinking 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 gayety of fancy, 
 which alone can render it palatable to the generality 
 of readers. They, however, who may have expe- 
 rienced a similar trial, will find an excuse in their 
 sympathy for the deficiency of amusement. Having 
 dropt this monumental tear over the Rev. Gentle- 
 man's former friendship, the Chaplain hastens to the 
 object of this pamphlet, which is intended merely as 
 a short vindication of the sentiments contained in his 
 little letter, and of the authenticity of the quotations 
 upon which they are grounded. It is not his inten- 
 
 • Address, p. ?0. no^* 
 
tion to follow the Rev. Author of the address through 
 all the mazes of extraneous matter which he has an- 
 nexed to his animadversions on some passages of the 
 letter, or to repel by fresh arguments any revived at- 
 tacks upon the Protestant cause. Neither his leisure 
 nor inclination now allow him to undertake what has been 
 done by much abler hands. The Rev. Author and Pro- 
 testants also know where to look for these arguments. 
 The writers cited by the Chaplain will exhibit them 
 with such profusion, perspicuity, and candour, that the 
 charge of gross misrepresentation, unfair quotations, par- 
 tied answers, inconsistency, and contradictions, so freely 
 alleged against them by the Rev. Gentleman,*' will 
 make but a slight impression upon minds not previ- 
 ously warped by strong and early prejudices. Incon- 
 sistency 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 
 gross misrepresentations and unfair quotations are words 
 of a harsh import, and will hardly apply to the pious 
 Claude, the candid Chillingworth, and the- venerable 
 Usher : names too long consecrated in the temples 
 of erudition and virtue, to be tarnished by the breath 
 of indiscriminate accusation. O may 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 
 theirs ! 
 
 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 
 
 * Addres?, p, 2£. 
 
6 
 
 candour as a gentleman, and of his accuracy as a 
 scholar. He is far from imagining, that the Rev. Au- 
 thor intended that his publication should be consider- 
 ed 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 arraignment of his ac- 
 curacy 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 abilities 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 be- 
 nevolence of his heart, the Rev. Gentleman himself 
 will excuse the unequal contest, when he comes to re- 
 flect, that the almost total loss and aversion of the 
 Chaplain's former connexions, must greatly enhance 
 She valuo of those, with which he has lately been ho- 
 noured. 
 
 The first assertion in the letter to the Roman Catho- 
 lics of Worcester at which the Rev. Gentleman takes 
 offence, is, that no consistent Roman Catholic can be a can- 
 did inquirer in matters of religion* The Chaplain, 
 when he penned this line, was aware of the Rev. 
 Gentleman's objections, and therefore marked the 
 word consistent with a special emphasis. He trusts, 
 that this precaution alone will be able to reconcile his 
 assertion with candour.^ For he will only ask this one 
 
 * Letler, p. 8. t Address, p. 10. 
 
plain question, Can he be called an 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 Ro- 
 man Catholic ? Does he not believe with the assent 
 of faith, that every article of his creed is as incompa- 
 tible with falsehood as God himself? To what pur- 
 pose, therefore, are Protestant authors open to his in- 
 spection? 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 be questioned. The fact is, he may seek for in- 
 formation, but not religious information, in the writings 
 of Protestants. The Rev. Gentleman passes by this 
 material distinction, upon which the Chaplain's can- 
 dour 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 pos- 
 sibly refute it. He may look into the writers upon the 
 opposite opinion, in order to detect the inconsistency of 
 their principles, their unfair quotations, their partial an- 
 swers, their gross misrepresentations ; but is this to 
 seek religious information, even in the sense that Le~ 
 land admits it ? Is this a disposition to embrace truth on 
 which side soever it shall appear? When a man, for 
 instance, conceives himself obliged to admit the doc- 
 trine of transubstantiation at the peril of his soul, is 
 he disposed to embrace truth on which side soever it dp- 
 pears ? Can he doubt for a moment the truth of this 
 tenet without ceasing to be a consistent Roman Catho- 
 lic? 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 ewery avenue, through which it had entered, 
 and produce an explicit act of belief of that article.* 
 Can the Rev. Gentleman point out in all this any de- 
 gree of that indifference so essential to rational inves- 
 ts 
 
 tigation ? With reason, therefore, did the Chaplain 
 affirm, that no consistent Roman Catholic can be a can- 
 did inquirer in matters of religion ; and was autho- 
 rized to add, moreover, that to seek religious informa- 
 tion in the ivritings of Protestants, ivas to incur the seve- 
 rest censures of the Roman Church. 
 
 /The Rev. Gentleman does not pretend to deny, 
 that wherever the Bulla Camce is received, it must 
 have its effect. In Italy, therefore, and some other 
 countries, excommunication must still be their lot, who 
 presume to peruse any Protestant treatise upon reli- 
 gion. 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 Catho- 
 lic ; and yet its consistency can hardly be admitted. 
 For, if the Pope be a Doctor of the church, by way of 
 eminence, 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 ;t if he be a Divine Ma- 
 jesty, the Husband of the Church, the Prince of the Apos- 
 tles, the Prince and King of all the Universe ; if he be 
 
 * See the Casuists, passim. 
 t Mosheiui's Church History. 
 
9 
 
 the Pastor, the Physician, and a God, to use the lan- 
 guage of the council of Lateran, speaking to Leo X., # 
 who will dare question his right to proscribe such 
 sources of information as, in his wisdom, he shall 
 deem pernicious to his subjects ? Inconsistency apart, 
 he must have a daring soul, who shall venture upon 
 a pasture, which the Universal Shepherd pronounces 
 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 con- 
 stantly advised to obtain permission to read heretical 
 books for the security of their consciences ? Among 
 the faculties, as they are called, or parochial powers 
 conferred on R. C. missionaries even in England, is 
 not a special license granted for keeping and read^ 
 ing heretical books ? The Chaplain's warrant on this 
 head is expressed in these words : Conceditur facultas 
 tenei\di et legendi libros hazreticorum de eorum religione 
 tractantes ad effectum eos expugnandi. " Leave is grant- 
 ed 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 what purpose Roman 
 Catholics are indulged in the reading of Protestant 
 authors. Not, it is presumed, for the sake of impar- 
 tial investigation, but solely to comhat and refute them. 
 The Rev. Gentleman may say, then, with as much con- 
 fidence as he pleases, that rational investigation is as open 
 to Catholics, as to any other set of men on the face of the earth.'f 
 But persons of real candour will still give the Chap- 
 
 * Easnage, vol. 3. p. 556. t Address, p. 11. 
 
10 
 
 lain credit for the same valuable quality, until it be 
 proved that religious information also, is equally open 
 to Roman Catholics as to others; or that the 
 Protestant churches forbid the reading of Roman 
 Catholic writers, unless it be with a view to confute 
 them. 
 
 Hitherto the Chaplain conceives his candour to be 
 unsullied. The Rev. Gentleman, through eleven 
 pages of his address,* has furnished a crowd of argu- 
 ments 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 refor- 
 mation : that the dark monsters of superstition and bigo- 
 try are retreating gradually before the light of genuine 
 religion and philosophy, ~\ and, that her more enlightened 
 divines reject or explain a*way 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 demon- 
 strate, that Protestants may be members of the Catholic 
 churchy and consequently, as suchj in the way to sal- 
 vation. All who know the Rev. Author have reason 
 to rejoice, 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 general congratulation : and most de- 
 voutly wishes, that the liberality 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- 
 
 * From p. 11 to p. 23. t Letter, p. 12. 
 
 t Addres«, p. 11. 
 
11 
 
 elusive soundness of their faith, nor Protestants pro- 
 voked by menacing declamations, much more calcu- 
 lated to disturb the peace and harmony subsisting in these 
 United States between religionists of all professions,* 
 than the Chaplain's recital, 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 conti- 
 nent, as so eminent a divine has already discarded it 
 from his creed. 
 
 The Rev. Gentleman begins this article by observ- 
 ing, that to be in the communion of the Catholic church, 
 and to be a member of the Catholic church, are two very 
 different things.f 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 communion." To make this conclusion 
 good, the Rev. Gentleman must first prove, that the 
 Roman and Catholic church are synonymous terms,J 
 which the Chaplain humbly conceives would require 
 a longer essay than the address itself. Every Pro- 
 testant divine is ready to acknowledge, that, in the 
 ordinary course of Providence, no salvation can be 
 obtained out of the Catholic church. The Rev. 
 Gentleman would persuade us, that the sentiment of 
 his church goes no farther than this, and he instan- 
 ces the words of Pope Pius's creed to prove it.§ A 
 reference peculiarly fortunate for the Chaplain! For, 
 
 * Address, p. 11. t Address, p. 11. 
 
 \ Albertus Plgliius, a celebrated canonist, was clearly of a different opinion 
 — " Quis per Romanam eerlesiam unquam intellcxit aut universalcm e.cctesiam^ 
 aut generate consilium.™ Pigh. Ecctes. Hitrar. lib. 6. cap. 3. 
 
 * Address, p. 12. 
 
12 
 
 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 Siting from memory, 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 justifica- 
 tion — I do, in like manner, profess that in the mass 
 there is offered a true, proper, and propitiatory sacri- 
 fice for the living and the dead ; and that in the 
 most holy sacrament of the Eucharist 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 sub- 
 stance 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 
 confess also, that under one kind only, Christ, whole 
 and entire, 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 together with Christ, are to be worshipped 
 and invocated ; and that they do offer prayers unto 
 God for us ; and that their relics are to be worship- 
 ped — 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 honour and worship ought to be given to 
 
13 
 
 them — Also, I do affirm, that the power of indulgen- 
 ces was left by Christ in the church, and that the use 
 of them is most wholesome to Christian people — I 
 acknowledge the holy Catholic and apostolical Ro- 
 man 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, &c. 
 This true Catholic fciWJkvitkaut which no man can be 
 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 in- 
 violate, and to confess 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 won- 
 dering at the acrimonious censure thrown out by the 
 Rev. Gentleman, that " the Chaplain labours to fix 
 on Roman Catholics this obnoxious tenet with a per- 
 severance 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 be 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 transub- 
 
 * Address, p. 21. 
 
14 
 
 stantiation, and of purgatory. No man can be saved, 
 who does not acknowledge the Roman church to be 
 "the mother and mistress of all churches." Nomanl 
 can be saved who believes not these articles, says the| 
 Pope : They who protest against them may be saved, says' 
 the Rev. Gentleman. Was it prudent to provoke a \ 
 reference to this creed, when the meaning of it is too 
 clear and evident to admit of any palliative, either 
 from the subtlety of scholasljfc quibbles, or from libe- 
 rality struggling against the influence of prejudice ? 
 
 The Chaplain, therefore, was authorized to ad- 
 vance,* upon the authority of this creed, that neither 
 transubstantiation, nor the infallibility of the Roman 
 church, are taught more explicitly as articles of faith, 
 than the impossibility of being saved out of the communion 
 of this church. He is justified, moreover, in asserting, 
 that some have laboured hard to palliate the severity of 
 this unpopular tenet, and that others have rejected it, as no 
 article of their creed. " But," says the Rev. Gentleman, 
 " to be in the communion of the Catholic church, and 
 to be a member of the Catholic church, are two very 
 distinct things."t The Chaplain will not lead the 
 reader through all the mazes of controversy, to con- 
 sider the propriety of this distinction. JSuffice it to 
 ask, if these in reality be two distinct things, viz. To 
 believe the doctrines of transubstaniiation, of purgatory, of 
 saint worship, &fc, to acknowledge the Roman church to 
 be the mother and mistress of all churches ; and to be in 
 the communion of the Roman Catholic church ? Are 
 these indeed two distinct things ? Do not these doc- 
 trines discriminate her from all other churches ? Can 
 
 * Letter, p. 10. t Address, p. 11. 
 
15 
 
 a man promise, vow, and swear freely to profess ami 
 truly to hold them without being a Roman Catholic, 
 and, consequently, (unless under actual excommunica- 
 tion,) without being in communion with the Roman 
 Catholic church ? Wherefore it is evident, that to 
 profess the faith set down in Pope Pius's creed, and 
 to be in the communion 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 ivithout this communion. 
 
 The accidental salvation which the Rev. Gentle- 
 man's authorities allow to Protestants, by no means 
 .softens the harshness of the tenet. A few exceptions 
 to a general rule serve only to strengthen it. Not but 
 what the Chaplain most cordially wishes, that such ia 
 reality were the doctrine of the Roman church. A re- 
 volution of this nature would be peculiarly fortunate for 
 him. The unmerited coldness and illiberal abuse, which 
 he has experienced from several of his former connex- 
 ions, would subsist no longer towards a fellow Catho- 
 lic ; nor would the Rev. Gentleman himself indulge 
 in distressful feelings, or waste his pity on a brother 
 whom he may regard consistently with his principles, 
 and ought to treat as a member of the Catholic church. 
 As every definition of heresy, which the Rev. Gentle- 
 man alleges, contains an explicit apology for the 
 Chaplain, he cannot but adopt them with singular 
 satisfaction. 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 conve- 
 nience, but chiefly for the sake of glory and prp-omi 
 
16 
 
 nence, 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 essen- 
 tials."! But what follows from this charitable asser- 
 tion 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 es- 
 sentials of true religion may be found also in the Protes- 
 tant communion. Do the passages alleged by the Rev. 
 Gentleman countenance this idea ?| On the contra- 
 ry, do they not all manifestly suppose, that every 
 Protestant is in reality a heretic, however his sin- 
 cerity and ignorance may accidentally excuse him 
 from the guilt of heresy ? But the Chaplain will sup- 
 pose that the Rev. Gentleman allows salvation not only 
 to the simple and illiterate, but to the inquisitive and 
 learned of the Protestant communion. Pie will sup- 
 pose, with the illustrious Bergier, that all Protestants, 
 who, "with sincerity, or through inculpable ignorance, 
 remain in their error, are really children of the 
 Catholic church. "§ He will suppose, moreover, that 
 this sincerity, this inculpable ignorance, may excuse a 
 Protestant minister, as well as the most illiterate of 
 his flock. Now, if this may possibly be the case ; if 
 
 * Quandoquidem hazretkus est, ut mea fert opinio, qui alicujus temporalis 
 commodi, et maxime gloria principatiisque sui gratia, fulsas ac novas opinionts 
 vel gignit, vel sequitur. Atig. deutil. credendi. 
 
 t Address, p. 22. 
 
 X See pages 17, 18, 19, 20. 
 
 $ Address, p. 17. 
 
11 
 
 Protestants of all degrees, conditions, and capacities, 
 may be children of the Catholic church, does not the spi- 
 rit 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 arc 
 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 na- 
 ture of its belief. To conclude, the Rev. Gentleman's 
 reasoning must be this : " that, notwithstanding the 
 lofty pretensions of the Roman church,* the decrees 
 
 * 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 odi- 
 ous to Protestants, is principally, and more than all other tenets, her holy and 
 inflexible incompatibility, (incompatibilite,') if I may so speak. It is because 
 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 assistance of 
 the Holy Ghost. For, in reality, this it is, that renders her so severe, so un~ 
 sociable, 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 holy severity, and 
 the holy delicacy of her sentiments, forbade such indulgence, or rather such 
 weakness, and her inflexibility, which makes her hated by schismatical sects, 
 renders her dear and venerable to the children of God." Bossuet, sixiemt 
 
 acerlissement sur les lettres 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 the 
 Holy Ghost, and she is only excluded from this pretended society, (of tolera- 
 ting Christians,) because she is and ever will be opposed to religious indiffer- 
 ence 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 other heretics he reckons the advocates for religious toleration, and 
 sets this down as one of their doctrines, u 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 Ro- 
 
 3 . 
 
of her pontiffs, the decision of her councils, the wri- 
 tings 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 may and ought to be considered 
 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 Pro- 
 testants entertain for Roman Catholics, the Rev. Gen- 
 tleman's own w r ords will evince how superior it is to 
 that of their opponents : " You Protestants," says he, 
 (p. 21.,) " allow our church to be a true church. 
 Your universities have declared, on a solemn consul- 
 tation, that a person not pretending to the plea of in- 
 vincible ignorance, may safely leave the Protestant 
 church, and become a member of ours, because it is 
 a safe way to salvation." Was the Rev. Gentleman 
 aware of the high compliment which he here pays to 
 Protestant moderation, to that Christian condescen- 
 sion, which the reformed churches have ever mani- 
 fested for composing the differences of Christendom ? 
 They know nothing of that sacred and inflexible incom- 
 patibility, of that holy severity and delicacy, so highly pre- 
 plan 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 hmreticis 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 that Zm«, 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 maDy shall suffice : M We declare, say, define, and pronounce that to 
 every human creature it is absolutely necessary for salvation to be subject 
 to the Roman pontiff." Subesse Romano pontifici omni humana creaturce 
 declaramus. dieimus, defnimus et pronunciamus omnino esse de necessitate 
 zalutis. Bonifac. viii. in extravag. de majoritate et obedientia cap. Unara 
 sanctam. 
 
19 
 
 conizedby the Bishop of Meaux as the characteristics 
 of his church; which we are told, however, (p. 12.,) 
 says no more on this head, than do all other Christian so- 
 cieties. They know nothing of the subtile distinctions, 
 the impossible suppositions, which are held out as 
 cloaks for an uncharitable tenet, but they know that 
 charity itself is the soul of religion, the very bond of 
 perfection ; they know, that God is no respecter of per- 
 sons, but that in every nation, he that fear eth him andwork- 
 eth righteousness is accepted ivith 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 kept in the bond of peace ; they know, that 
 all who maintain the common principles of Christiani- 
 ty, which at all times, and in all places, have constituted 
 the creed of all orthodox believers, and who walk ac- 
 cording 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 Pro- 
 testants. When the Roman pontiff, his councils, his 
 divines, and universities, 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 j" then, and not till then, can they aspire to 
 the same liberality with Protestants, or obtain credit 
 for apologies, which, though sincere in individuals, 
 are not authorized by the church, for which they are 
 intended. And now, perhaps, the reader will not be 
 at a loss to account for the Chaplain's fixing this tenet 
 
20 
 
 on the Roman church.* At any rate, let him compare 
 the grounds of this charge with the Rev. Gentleman's 
 reply, and if, after devesting his mind of prejudice, he 
 should embrace this opinion, the Chaplain will still be 
 comforted in the humiliation of his defeat, at the ac- 
 cession of liberal fame to his former connexions. 
 
 The field over which the Chaplain must next fol- 
 low the Rev. Gentleman, is very intricate and exten- 
 sive. Through forty-five pages of his address,t 
 he displays all his powers of reasoning, to uphold the 
 system of infallibility upon the ruins of the few argu- 
 ments, which appeared to the Chaplain sufficient to 
 overturn it. He had asserted,^ that many discrimina- 
 ting doctrines of the Roman church could not be proved 
 from the scriptures; and had made good this assertion 
 from the concessions of several Roman Catholic 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 de- 
 fence. 
 
 The Rev. Gentleman begins by observing, that if 
 the claim 1o infallibility be found to rest on solid and 
 convincing proofs,^ then certainly it becomes agreeable 
 to the dictates of reason, and the soundest principles of mo- 
 rality, to assent to the doctri?ies proposed by this infallible 
 authority, though we may not fully comprehend them. 
 And so far the Chaplain will surely agree with him. 
 But does it follow from this argument, that the collier's 
 
 * Address, p. 20. t From p. 22. to 67. 
 
 t Letter, p. 19, 20, 21. * Address, p. 23. 
 
si 
 
 profession of faith, mentioned by Bellarmine, could be 
 rational,* who is not supposed to have examined on 
 what grounds this claim to infallibility is established, or 
 to have had abilities to discover that it r€sts on solid 
 and convincing proof s ? Without knowing probably, 
 what either himself, or the church believed, he satis- 
 fied his mind, and secured his orthodoxy, by 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 
 religious 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. (Add. 
 p. 6.) The Rev. Gentleman asks the Chaplain, if it 
 be weakness and credulity to submit to divine authority, 
 although ivedo not fully comprehend the doctrines it deli- 
 vers ?\ The Chaplain will demand, in his turn, where 
 he even hints at the sentiment, which that question in- 
 sinuates ? 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 
 enumerated 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 dissent- 
 ing from its decrees. He adds, moreover, that the 
 Chaplain's arguments, drawn from reason, (p. 23, 24, 
 25.,) must furnish powerful arms to the Deist, the Ari- 
 
 * Address, p. 24. 
 
 1 This ridiculous story of the collier and his faith, is seriously related by Bel- 
 larmine, dt arte bevf, mmitndiy lib, 2. can- P from Petrr Harorlii'i?. Bishop c' 
 Padua. 
 
 t P. 54, 
 
22 
 
 an, and the Socinian.* But, the obvious application of 
 the Chaplain's mode of reasoning to the Rev. Gentle- 
 man's own principles, shows this charge to be ground- 
 less. For does he not tell usf that " the only ra- 
 tional method we can pursue, in establishing a con- 
 tested 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 princi- 
 ple, countenance the Deist, the Arian, and the Socini- 
 an ? Will the following mode of arguing be admitted ? 
 " 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 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 relinquish the 
 field of reason to an adversary ? Again — Will the 
 Rev. Gentleman be ever able to persuade a reasona- 
 ble man, that the mystery of the Trinity, for instance, 
 and the doctrine of transubstantiation present the same 
 difficulties to his senses and 1 understanding ? What 
 have the senses to do with the Godhead? Or can the 
 understanding presume to point at contradictions, in 
 an object wrapt up in mystery unsearchable, and ly- 
 ing infinitely beyond the weak faculties of man? But, 
 with transubstantiation, the case is quite otherwise: 
 Here is a matter that admits of experiment, upon 
 which our reason can argue, and our senses can pro- 
 
 * Address, p. 26. t Ibid. % Letter, p. 25. 
 
23 
 
 nounce. The two former must be respected, when 
 they discover gross and evident contradictions, and 
 the latter attended to, when they decide upon quali- 
 ties within the range of their essential faculties. 
 Bread must be bread, while all its natural and dis- 
 criminating 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 de- 
 clare unto you."* This material difference being 
 settled, well might the Chaplain disclaim an infallible 
 church authority for certain tenets, which reason and 
 experience tells him are incredible and groundless ; 
 and yet admit an infallible scripture authority, which, 
 however it may challenge our assent to inscrutable 
 mysteries, yet offers no violence to our senses and 
 understanding. And now, the " Chaplain, or any 
 other Protestant, can tell the Rev. Gentleman, why a 
 Bolingbroke, or a Hume, had not as good a right to 
 use the argument mentioned at page 23, against the 
 general doctrines of Christianity, as he had to urge it 
 against the Roman church." The reason is, because 
 he and they, after discussing every claim to infalli- 
 bility, 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 discussion. 
 
 * Quod ergo vidistix, pan is esl el calix : quod vobis etiam oculi vestri dervunci- 
 ant Aug. in serin, de sacram. apud Bedam, in 1 Cor. 10. et Retmm. de corp. 
 et sang, dominj. vel in serm. de verb. dom. utcitalur ab Algero lib. 1. desacr. 
 cap. 5. 
 
'24 
 
 He first endeavours to uphold the system of infalli- 
 bility upon the scriptural passages examined by the 
 Chaplain. He then proceeds to throw out some ad- 
 ditional proofs for its reality, and concludes by striv- 
 ing to vindicate the Roman church, from the imputa- 
 tion 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 in- 
 sinuations of a want of candour and accuracy in the 
 Chaplain. 
 
 The Rev. Gentleman appears displeased,* that the 
 Chaplain should say,f that few scriptural texts seem to 
 countenance infallibility; and that he should insinuate, 
 he was at any time discouraged from examining them. 
 Why he once refused to do so, the Chaplain trusts, 
 he has not now to explain. The reader will recollect, 
 whether the kind of examination formerly allowed 
 him is deserving of the name. That few scriptural 
 texts make for infallibility, he shall still take the li- 
 berty to think, notwithstanding the thirty enumerated 
 by Father Mumfort, whose work he has read with- 
 out discovering him, in any line, an adversary worthy 
 of his Chillingworth, or his Usher. The truth is, the 
 Catholic Scripturist, like many others, has an admira- 
 ble facility at finding whatever he wishes for in the 
 scriptures. He knew the great advantage in not being 
 over delicate in the choice of texts, and that it is no 
 difficult matter to impose them upon people, who 
 value them more for their number than their weight. 
 
 * Address, p. 28. + Letter, p. 27. 
 
25 
 
 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.f 
 Thou art Peter, and upon this rock will I build my church, 
 and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it." Re- 
 garding this text in a very important light, he accord- 
 ingly bestows upon it eight pages of his address, and 
 enforces it with all the ingenuity, of which he is mas- 
 ter. The Chaplain will 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 
 accuracy in this instance, that were he inclined to in- 
 dulge in a parade of erudition, he could swell his an- 
 swer, on this subject only, to a bulk superior to the Rev. 
 Gentleman's address. 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 actual separation between 
 the body and soul — a state of extinction, or a cessa- 
 tion 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 Thanatos.% Sopho- 
 
 * Address, p. 29. t Matth. xvi. 18. 
 
 X See Pindar. Olymp. Ode 8, &c. &c. 
 
 4 
 
26 
 
 cles, in the beginning of his Trachiniai, 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 death, yet she knew her own 
 life to be unfortunate s*g» «« *<r* yoxuv ; before she ivent to 
 Hades ;" these last words are explained by the an- 
 cient scholiast by *•§<> 3-*v*ts before death. The same po- 
 et, in his jijax, says ; that " He is better who lies in 
 Hades, than he who is afflicted with a mortal disease." 
 Here also the scholiast expounds lying in Hades, by 
 the word ^a-™*^, 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 ap- 
 proved of, and ordered to be used by the council of 
 Trent? Kttrxytn t« ttvko.^ 'aS-is Ken niAyut "thou leadest to 
 the gates of hell, and bringest back again."* Now, 
 how is Hadou rendered by the Vulgate ? Is it not 
 by the Latin word mortis, or of death ? Deducis ad 
 portas mortis et reducis? 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 pla- 
 ces, use Hades for death. So in Hos. (xiii. 14.) where 
 the Hebrew and Greek both read " I will deliver 
 them from the hand of Hades,'' 1 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 dissolution of the soul from 
 
 * Wisd. xvi. 13. t Cyr. inlloseam. p. 371. 
 
27 
 
 ilie body," says St. Ghrysostom, " 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; Ha- 
 des has opened its mouth. (Isai. v. 14.) And in many 
 places will you find in the Old Testament, that in our 
 translation we call death Hades.' 1 ''* The learned Eu- 
 sebius, on the very text that gave rise to this digres- 
 sion, writes expressly, as follows ; " That the church 
 doth not yield to the gates of death, *n^*/c 3-*v*tou on ac- 
 count 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 eV."t St. Ambrose concludes 
 also from the same text, " That faith is the founda- 
 tion of the church : for it was not said of Peters flesh, 
 but of his faith, that the gates of death should not pre- 
 vail against it."| 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 opposi- 
 tion to the general sense and understanding of the 
 church in all ages," or borrow hit ideas from the sug- 
 gestions of Besa.§ 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. 
 
 * Chrys. Serm. 2. in Pascha. torn. 5. edit. SaviJ. pag. 587. 
 
 t Euseb. lib. 1. praeparat. Evang. pag. 7. 
 
 % Fides ergo est ecclesia? firmamentum : non enim de carne Petri, sed de 
 fide dictum est, quia porta: mortk non ei prevalebunt. Ambr. ie Incarnat. 
 sacram. cap. 5. 
 
 $ Addrcs?, p. 29. 
 
28 
 
 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 immortal. Whereas, if Hades in the 
 text be taken for Hell only, this limitation will ex- 
 clude the idea of perpetuity and infallibility also. For, 
 admitting that the infernal powers should not prevail 
 in abolishing the Christian church, does it follow, 
 that no other powers shall succeed in their attempts 
 against her ? Let us suppose, that the eloquence of 
 Pagan philosophy, the allurements of human pas- 
 sions, or the flames of persecution, had proved sub- 
 versive of the Christian name. In this case, the 
 church would have failed, without the powers of hell 
 being any wise concerned, or the promise oi Christ 
 being called in question. For the world, the flesh, 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 tlje world and the flesh contribute as effectu- 
 ally 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 
 hell, does it countenance any other prerogative : for, 
 even in this case, the only meaning we can gather is, 
 " that the i fernal powers shall not prevail against, 
 that is, ultimately overcome, and enslave the church j 
 
 * Address, p. 30. 
 
23 
 
 or abolish the great and essential tenets expressed in the 
 apostles'' creed." The Rev. Gentleman harshly brands 
 a short and innocent paraphrase on the text quite 
 similar to this, as a strong instance of confident asser- 
 tion usurping the place of solid argument* But, until 
 he shows that Christ's church can subsist without his 
 religion,f or that he did not foresee that, at some pe- 
 riods of time, she would be feeble and disordered, 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 Dis- 
 putes about Religion, they manifestly rest upon these 
 false suppositions : that the Roman church, and others 
 in communion with her, was the only visible church 
 when she proposed points of faith, which Protestants 
 deem erroneous, and that every error, in the line of 
 religion, utterly destroys the church that teaches it. 
 Now, both these positions 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 the Catho- 
 lic church. This was the case at the several periods, 
 when image-worship, purgatory, transubstantiation, 
 &c. were added to the list of original tenets. Second- 
 ly, because the church is not destroyed by every 
 religious 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 prin- 
 
 * Address, p. 31. t See the passage, Address, p. 32. 
 
 X This creed is the same with that which is repented in the liturgy of the 
 ;hurch of England at th* communion serrW, 
 
30 
 
 ciples of Christianity must remain unshaken, and the 
 professors of them be members of the Catholic 
 church. Against these essential 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 
 never prevail against them. The Rev. Gentleman 
 asks (p. 33.) " if the gates of hell do not prevail 
 against a church requiring an idolatrous worship, or 
 teaching those mysteries of iniquity, viz. the heresy of 
 persecution, &c. mentioned in the Chaplain's letter." 
 (p. 11.) The answer is, that as the whole Catholic 
 church never adopted these maxims, the question 
 becomes useless. If, however, the Roman church ap- 
 pear guilty on this head, it belongs to her advocates 
 to clear her as well as they can. 
 
 The Chaplain had advanced, (Let. p. 28, 29.,) that 
 the gates of death or of hell should not prevail against the 
 essential tenets of the Christian religion. On this asser- 
 tion the Rev. Gentleman builds a long catalogue of 
 ideal absurdities. But surely he did not reflect that, if 
 doctrines take place, they must necessarily have ad- 
 vocates ; that Christians and Christian doctrines must 
 
 * This distinction between the fundamental articles of faith, and other doc- 
 trines, appears very conformable to the notions of the elegant Melchior Canus. 
 His words are these : u Qunedam sunt Catholicre veritates, quae ita ad fidem 
 pertinent, ut his sublatis, fides quoque ipsa tollatur. Quas nos usu frequenti 
 non solum Catholicas, sed fidei veritates appellavimus. Aliae veritates sunt 
 ipsa; Catholicas etuniversales, nempe quas universa ecclesia tenet, quibus licet 
 eversis, fides quatitur, sed non evertitur tamen. Atque in hujusmodi verita- 
 tum contrariis erroribus, dixi fidem obscurari, non extingui : infirmari, non 
 perire : Has ergo nunquam fidei veritates censui vocandas, quamvis doctrina?^ 
 Christiana; veritates sint." Melch. Can. loc. Theol. lib. 12. cap. 11. 
 
31 
 
 stand or fall together. Perhaps, when he comes to 
 consider further, that the Chaplain borrowed, 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 Chaplain trusts, secures both his 
 candour and accuracy so far in this matter, as to ren- 
 der any further vindication of either extremely super- 
 fluous. The Roman Catholic will hardly reject an 
 apology so pointedly drawn from the council of Trent. 
 The Rev. Gentleman proceeds nextf to examine 
 the promises 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 cpplies to infallibility. 
 Let the reader pronounce upon the logic of these in- 
 ferences : " 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 bring all things to your 
 
 * Symbolum fidei, quo S. Ecclesia Romana utitur, tanquam principium 
 illud, in quo omnes, qui (idem Christi profitentur, uecessario conveoiunt, ac 
 Jirmamcntumjirmum et unicum, contra quod porta; inferni nunquam prevalc- 
 bunt, totideoi verbis, quibus in omnibus ecclesiis legitur, exprhoendum esse 
 censuit. (Concil. Trid. Sess. 3.) 
 
 t Address, p. 37. 
 
32 
 
 remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto 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. 
 1 3.:) therefore the Roman church is infallible. The ab- 
 surdity of these conclusions did not escape the Rev. 
 Gentleman's notice, and therefore he only infers from 
 these passages " the perpetual assistance of the Di- 
 vine 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 salva- 
 tion of man."* As the Chaplain had expressed this 
 very idea in his letter,t 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 infallibility, 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 Cor. iv. 1.) from whom we may learn 
 certainly the truth of the gospel." The teachers 
 therefore of the Greek and Protestant churches, who 
 can trace an indisputable succession to the apostles, must 
 
 * Address, p. 39. t P. 29. 
 
 % Address, p. 40. * P. 41. 
 
33 
 
 have as just a claim to Christ's promise, as the teachers 
 and prelates of the church of Rome. Secondly, These 
 words must suppose, that Christ will be with the suc- 
 cessors of the apostles not only to keep them from all 
 damnable and destructive errors, but absolutely from all 
 erroneous doctrines whatever: and yet, even grant- 
 ing 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. " Noiv, in this case,''' says Mr. 
 Chillingworth, " what a multitude of infallible churches 
 should we have /" " But," says the Rev. Gentleman:* 
 " 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 heterodoxy 
 of popes, bishops, and councils, which is upon record, 
 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 con- 
 fuse his ideas and mislead his operations ? Had our 
 
 * Address, p. 42. 
 5 
 
34 
 
 Lord assured us, that the successors of his apostles 
 should never depart one tittle from the truths of re- 
 ligion, 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 secured from 
 every kind of error in the line of religion, had he or- 
 dered us in all our doubts and difficulties to have im- 
 mediate recourse to the Roman church only, as an in- 
 fallible 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 presumption to expect, that his wisdom 
 should ply to our apparent convenience. Perhaps a 
 familiar case will illustrate this whole matter. Let . 
 us suppose that the Almighty had promised America, 
 at the commencement of her late glorious 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 hers ? Her provinces might be ravaged, 
 her inhabitants distressed, her armies defeated. She 
 might at times stand trembling upon the brink of de- 
 struction. But her enemies, notwithstanding, should not 
 ultimately succeed. She should still retain sufficient 
 strength to preserve her freedom 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 origi- 
 nal lustre in others. Ignorant or designing men 
 might build wood, hay, and stubble, upon the fundamen- 
 tal rights of election, upon trials by jury, or the liber- 
 
3d 
 
 ty of the press. But would these abuses falsify the 
 promises of the Almighty ? 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 infal- 
 libility 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,f " and he will discover 
 that his church is in the practice of determining con- 
 troversies of faith, by the concurrent authority of the 
 episcopal body. The church, even from the apostles' 
 time, has always exercised this authority — which the 
 primitive Christians considered as definitive and in- 
 fallible. Whoever refused submission was cast from 
 the church as a heathen and publican. On these 
 grounds will the Christian be induced to believe her 
 infallibility — To exercise such a right (viz. of de- 
 ciding and excommunicating) without infallibility 
 would be vain and nugatory : therefore, she is infalli- 
 ble.'*- Here, in his own words, is the Rev. Gentle 
 man's argument, that is to dissolve the charm of this 
 formidable 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. 
 
 * Letter, p. 2G. t Pages 45, 4fi. 
 
3b 
 
 i 
 
 For it is only in supposition that this infallibility ex- 
 ists, that the practice of the church can be alleged 
 to evince it. The church is infallible, 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 i-p'iold the highest privilege ever claimed by man- 
 kind ? The fact is, in every well regulated society, 
 some supreme court of judicature must necessarily be 
 established, in order to terminate finally contentions 
 among individuals, which otherwise would for ever 
 disturb the peace of the community : but are such tri- 
 bunals on this account to be deemed infallible ? It is 
 true, the decisions concerning truth do not bear a 
 strict resemblance to those which regard our tempo- 
 ral interests. The first must never depart an iota 
 from the apparent light of reason and revelation. 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 
 tribunal has been compelled to yield to an adverse 
 power, its decrees have been reversed, and others 
 enacted, which during the prevalence of their authors 
 are as binding as the first. This was the case du- 
 ring the famous disputes concerning the incarnation. 
 For two hundred years the same opinions were suc- 
 cessively approved and condemned, as their abettors, 
 or adversaries, got the upper hand. It was, there- 
 fore, thought necessary to recur to some supreme 
 authority, in order to prevent disputes from becoming 
 perpetual. The spirit of charity, which is the very 
 essence of religion, was greatly impaired by these 
 
37 
 
 dreadful quarrels, and it was judged a less dangerous 
 expedient to decide definitively upon these several 
 questions, than to suffer Christians to tear one an- 
 other to pieces in the fury of controversy. 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 reme- 
 dy ; the spirit of dispute and ambition always pre- 
 vailing over the dictates of reason."* And the judi- 
 cious Turretin adds,t " that if any man, having 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 prac- 
 tice 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; be- 
 cause 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 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 ju- 
 
 * Carmen, de vita sua. 
 
 t Qui lecli* conciliorum actis ea pro errare nesciis Uabucrit, ad medicos 
 \blegandus est. Turret. 
 
38 
 
 risdiction, in matters merely temporal, to the prejudice 
 of princes, they were withstood as so many usurpa- 
 tions, and abolished as tyrannical, and no wise com- 
 petent to prescribe against right. It is therefore a 
 sign of a weak cause, to urge the practice of excom- 
 munication as a proof of infallibility, since nothing de- 
 cisive 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 repetition of baptism, the marriage of the 
 clergy, the affair of the three chapters, &c, where 
 each excommunicating party could not surely chal- 
 lenge 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 submit to its essential ordinances. Particular 
 churches have frequently excommunicated each other, 
 without the least pretence to infallibility. The thun- 
 der 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 argument drawn 
 from the practice of excommunication, a penalty often 
 inflicted without necessity and justice ; frequently at 
 the expense of reason and truth ; and consequently 
 but ill calculated to uphold the highest privilege ever 
 claimed among men. 
 
39 
 
 The Chaplain, there lb re, although he believes the 
 infallibility of scripture, has reason to insist upon this I 
 hackneyed argument ; for, " the Roman Catholic | 
 must believe his church infallible, because she teach- • 
 es, by an infallible authority, that many texts of scrip- 
 ture 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. 
 
 With respect to the other hackneyed argument men- 
 tioned by the Chaplain,* the Rev. Gentleman thinks 
 it " really matter of astonishment, that he also should 
 insist upon it."t The reader is requested to turn to 
 the note, and if he there find any matter of astonish- 
 ment, 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 Chap- 
 lain never meant to deny, that all Roman Catholics 
 profess to believe that infallibility resides in the pope 
 and council received by the whole church, but he 
 maintains that they who make it consist in this only 
 must differ in their notions upon the constituents 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 Chap- 
 lain's words. He, indeed, has ample room for aston- 
 ishment, 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 ; 
 
 •'* Letter, p. 26. note. t Address, p. 48. % Address, p. 4?>. 
 
40 
 
 that he alone has a right to interpret the council, and 
 explain its decisions; and that those tenets only are of 
 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.'f For 
 he will declare upon his honour, that he thus under- 
 stood the doctrines on this head delivered in the lec- 
 tures, 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 indul- 
 gence necessary, while this matter is cleared up. 
 Let the Rev. Gentleman inform us whether a council 
 can make decrees in matters 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. Gentleman,! 
 infallibility reside in the body of bishops united and agree- 
 ing with their head, the bishop of Rome, how can a coun- 
 cil 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. Gentleman 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 interpretations be of faith. If so; then 
 
 * Letter, p. 26. note. t Address, p. 49. 
 
 ,% Address, p. 48. 4 Address, p. 49. 
 
41 
 
 is every bishopric an infallible church : if not ; ther 
 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. When- 
 ever disputes arose among Roman Catholic divines, 
 or universities, was not the sovereign pontiff always 
 appealed to, to settle them ? Jn the fierce and fa- 
 mous contests de auxiliis, or of grace, between the 
 Molinists and the Thomists, did not each party con- 
 tinually appeal to the pope? And had he judged it 
 prudent to decide upon the matter, would not a re- 
 jection 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 sup- 
 port the five positions of the Bishop of Ypres ; and 
 yet the Rev. Gentleman must regard them as hereti- 
 cal, and their opposite truths to be of faith, since the 
 sentence passed on them by the Roman see.* Why 
 
 * The inquisitive reader will not perhaps be displeased with a short account 
 of a fanatical system of divinity, which for near a century agitated the king 
 dom of France. It called forth all the airy humour, all the powers of satire, 
 all the profound erudition of this elegant nation. Princes and bishops, friars 
 and poets, divines and ladies, eagerly engaged in the mighty contest ; while, 
 to an impartial bystander, it was a matter of doubt whether the object of 
 contention was not a mere fantome at last. About the year 1630, Corne- 
 lius Jansenius and John Verger, commonly called Abbe de St. Cyran, con- 
 tracted a close friendship, and concerted a new plan of doctrine concerning 
 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 
 Augustinus. After being bishop of Ypres from 1635 to 1638, he died of the 
 pestilence, leaving his book in manuscript only ; which, however, was given 
 to 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, 11 says the learned Butler, in his Life of 
 
 6 
 
42 
 
 are long catalogues of propositions, which are con- 
 demned 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 councils ; in order to determine 
 ivhat tenets are of faith. He therefore, alone, must be 
 the ultimate depository of infallibility. (Lett. p. 26.) 
 When he speaks ex cathedra, as it is called, his oracles 
 must command submission from his adherents : and 
 yet the reader may possibly mistake the meaning of 
 his decrees, full as readily as some essential passage 
 of the Bible; unless, indeed, with infallibility, the gift 
 of perspicuity also be communicated to him in a high- 
 er 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 Arch- 
 bishop Wake, that " the English prelates, by renoun- 
 cing all dependence on the Roman pontiff, exhibited a 
 degree of consistency and candour not to be reconciled 
 
 Vincent of Paul, " are, that God sometimes refuses, even to the just, suf- 
 ficient 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 necessitating influence, that then it cannot be resisted, rejected, or hin- 
 dered : and that Christ by his death paid, indeed, a sufficient price for the 
 redemption of all men, and offered it to purchase some weak, insufficient 
 grace for reprobate souls, but not to procure them means truly applicable, 
 and sufficient 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 infu- 
 sed 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 en- 
 lightened and polished nation was convulsed for near a century, exhibiting a 
 most contemptible picture to every thinking man, of systems, and system makers. 
 
43 
 
 with the professions and conduct of the Bishops of 
 France." (Append, to Mosheim^s Church History.) 
 
 The Chaplain's second consideration on the plea to 
 infallibility, (Lett. p. 29.) which was meant only to 
 evince that the Roman church regards some doctrines at 
 present as articles of faith, which for many ages were de- 
 bated as matters of opinion, is not fairly stated by the 
 Rev. Gentleman. It is there said, that at some periods 
 of time several doctrines 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 faiths which she now rejects as 
 contrary to faith ?" (Address, p. 50.) " Because 
 this doctrine was maintained as an article of universal 
 belief, or of Catholic faith, by almost every father, ivho 
 lived immediately after the times of the apostles," does it 
 follow that the Catholic church defined it as an arti- 
 cle of communion ? For some ages previous to the 
 reformation, we do not meet with a divine of any emi- 
 nence, except Thomas Aquinas, who was not a zea- 
 lous advocate for the doctrine of persecution; and yet 
 the Rev. Gentleman will hardly allow it to be an ar- 
 ticle of Catholic communion. The truth is, without 
 the intervention of any solemn decree, the doctrine of 
 a millennium was an article of Catholic belief; and, 
 therefore, if the church fail principally by erring, 
 (Address, p. 48.) she certainly must have failed, when 
 nearly all her teachers 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 condemnation to punish- 
 
u 
 
 ment immediately after death, is now defined as belong- 
 ing to faith, which was formerly debated as a matter 
 of opinion, and rejected by almost all the ancient fa- 
 thers. 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, M 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 confuted, 
 the Chaplain stands acquitted of disingenuity and 
 mistake ; even allowing that the Rev. Gentleman's 
 arguments, through thirty-six pages of his address,* 
 have proved satisfactory in establishing these doc- 
 trines. Without leading 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 transubstantia- 
 tion^ which the Chaplain asserts was no article of 
 faith prior to the council of Later an, in 121 5.+ Scotus, 
 who was styled the subtile doctor, and has ever been 
 regarded as a prodigy among the schoolmen, main- 
 tains this to be the case. But, say Bellarmine and 
 the Rev. Gentleman, Scbtus was mistaken. Although 
 he died in 1308, he knew nothing of the councils which 
 
 * From p. 69. to 105. t Address, p, 69. J Letter, p. 32. 
 
45 
 
 established this doctrine, and yet the first that did 30, 
 was held in 1060, or rather 1050, under Leo IX. 
 During two centuries and a half, the opinion of Be- 
 renger was echoed through Europe, and had innu- 
 merable adherents ; yet Scotus, who lived at the 
 conclusion 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, M It was towards the beginning of 
 the ninth century, that Paschasius Radbertus publish- 
 ed his treatise upon the corporal presence of Christ 
 in the Eucharist, and as Bellarmine tells us, was the 
 first who wrote seriously and copiously concerning it." 
 (lb.) The words of the learned cardinal, which im- 
 mediately 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 strik- 
 ing instance 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 sentence. Hie auctor primus fuit, 
 qui serio et copiose scripsit de veritate corporis et san~ 
 guinis domini in Eucharistid, contra Bertramurn Presby- 
 lerum, qui fuit ex primis, qui earn in dubium revocarunt.'f 
 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 Bertram; 
 and not the first who wrote seriously and copiously con- 
 cerning the body and blood of the Lord in the Eucharist^ 
 he must have mispent his time egregiously, or posses* 
 
 * Address, p. 69. 
 
 f Bell, de Scrip. F.ccl. p. 266. 
 
4b 
 
 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 Chaplain from the censure of ignorance or 
 design. These are the words of Father Sirmondus, 
 in his life of Paschasius. " Genuinum ecclesice Catho- 
 licce sensum ita primus explicuit, ut viam cceteris aperue- 
 rit, qui de eodem argumento multi postca scripsere. " He 
 was the first, who explained the true sense of the Ca- 
 tholic church in such a manner, as 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 universal or settled."* The Rev. Gentleman 
 styles this a most unfortunate reference, and boldly re- 
 jects the citation itself. The Chaplain has not by 
 him the original epistle of Paschasius to Frudegard, 
 but he finds his words cited by the accurate Usher, in 
 a manner that admits not a doubt of their authenti- 
 city, f " You question me," says he, " upon a sub- 
 ject, about which many are doubtful." And again, 
 " although many hence be doubtful, how he remains 
 entire, and this can be the body and blood of Christ." 
 If these two passages be genuine, and they must be 
 so, unless Usher foisted them into the letter, it fol- 
 lows, that Paschasius is guilty of a palpable contra- 
 diction, or in the heat of controversy, as is often the 
 case, compliments his own particular notions as Cat/to- 
 
 * Letter, ibid. 
 
 t " Quceris tnim de re cs qua multi dubita?it."....Quamvis multi ex hoc 
 dubitent, cjuomodo Me integer manet, et hoc corpus Christi el sanguis esse possit. 
 Pasch. Epist. ad Frtid. citat. ab Usher, p. 77. Answer to a Challenge, &c. 
 
47 
 
 tie truths, or that the words quoted by Usher arc 
 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 writers on this very subject comes to be 
 mentioned. 
 
 The passage quoted by the Chaplain* from Raba- 
 nus 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 ;t he suspects, how- 
 ever, that it is copied from the Huguenot Albertinus, 
 whose mistakes have a great affinity with those of the 
 Chaplain." But this very passage shall shift the 
 weighty imputation from the Huguenot and the Chap- 
 lain, to a quarter, where the Rev. Gentleman little 
 suspects it can belong. Let the reader peruse the 
 following words of the most diligent, as well as the 
 most successful searcher into antiquity, and then pro- 
 nounce upon this additional instance of the Chaplain's 
 inaccuracy. "In the year 1616," says Archbishop 
 Usher,!f " 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 Arch- 
 bishop of Mentz, is to be seen. In the 33d chapter 
 of that book, Rabanus making answer to an idle 
 question moved by Bishop Heribaldus, concerning 
 the Eucharist, (what should become of it after it was 
 consumed, and sent into the draught, after the manner of 
 other mcats,)h&th. these words, (initio pag. 669.) A r am 
 quidam nuper de ipso sacramento corporis &f sanguinis 
 
 * Letter, p. 32. t Address, p. 71. • 
 
 \ Answer to a Challenge, p. 17. 
 
48 
 
 domini non rite sentientes, dixerunt : hoc ipsum corpus et 
 sanguinem domini, quod de Maria virgine natum est et 
 in quo ipse dominus passus est in cruce, et resurrexit de 
 sepulchro. Cui errori quantum potuimus, ad Egilum 
 abbatem scribentes, de corpore ipso quid vere credendum 
 sit aperuinius. 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 grave. Against which error, writing to 
 abbot Egilus, according to our ability, we have de- 
 clared, what is truly to be believed concerning Christ's 
 body. You see Rabanus's tongue is dipt here for 
 telling tales : but how this came to pass is worth the 
 learning. Stuartius frees himself from the fact, tell- 
 ing us in the margin, that here there was a blank in the 
 manuscript copy ;* and we do easily believe him : for 
 Possevine, the Jesuit, hath given us to understand, 
 that manuscript books also are to be purged, as well 
 as printed.f But whence was this manuscript fetched, 
 think you ? Out of the famous monastery of Weingart ; 
 saith Stuartius.J The monks of Weingart then, 
 belike, must answer the matter : and they, I dare say, 
 upon examination will take their oaths, that it was no 
 part of their intention to give any furtherance to the 
 cause of Protestants hereby. If hereunto we add, 
 that Heribaldus and Rabanus are both ranked among 
 heretics, by Thomas Walden,§ for holding the Eu- 
 
 * Lacuna hie est in MS. exemplari. 
 
 + Adistos quoque purgatio periinet. Lib. 1. Bib. Select, cap. 12. 
 $ Ex MS. cod. \.tlcberrimi monasterii TVeingartcnsis. 
 i Waldea's Tom. 1. doctrinal, in prolog, ad Martinum V. Id. Tom. % 
 cap. 19, et 61. 
 
49 
 
 charist to be subject to digestion and voidance, like 
 other meats ; the suspicion will be more vehement, 
 whereunto I will adjoin one evidence more, that shall 
 leave the matter past suspicion. In the libraries of 
 my worthy friends, Sir. Rob. Cotton, (that noble ba- 
 ronet so renowned for his great care in collecting and 
 preserving all antiquities,) and Dr. Ward, the learn- 
 ed master of Sidney College, in Cambridge, I met 
 with an ancient treatise of the sacrament, beginning 
 thus : Sicut ante nos quidam sapiens dixit, cujus senten- 
 tiam probamus, licet nomen ignoremus ; which is the 
 same with that in the Jesuits' college at Lovain, 
 blindly fathered upon Berengarius.* The author of 
 this treatise, having first twitted Heribaldus for pro- 
 pounding, and Rabanus for resolving, this question of 
 the voidance of the Eucharist, layeth down after- 
 wards the opinion of Paschasius Radbertus, whose 
 writing is still extant. Contra quern, says he, satis 
 argumentatur et Rabanus in epistola ad Egilonem ab~ 
 batem, et Ratrannus quidam libro composito ad Carolum 
 regem, dicentes (carnem Christi) aliam esse. Against 
 whom both Rabanus, in his epistle to abbot Egilo, and 
 one Ratrannus, in a book which he made to king- 
 Charles, argue largely ; saying, it is another kind of 
 flesh. Whereby, what Rabanus's opinion was of this 
 point, in his epistle to abbot Egilo, or Egilus, and, con- 
 sequently, what that was which the monks of Wein- 
 gart could not endure in his penitential, I trust, is 
 plain enough." 
 
 The Rev. Gentleman must be seriously concerned 
 for the orthodoxy of Bertram, who was employed by 
 
 * Ant. Possevin. Apparat. sacr. in Bereutf. Tiiron. 
 7 
 
50 
 
 Charles the Bald to oppose Paschasius, when, in con- 
 tradiction to Bellarmine, Turrianus, and other emi- 
 nent divines, he adopts his vindication penned by the 
 llimsy author of the history of the Whippers.* Ber- 
 tram, we are told, plainly asserts in many passages 
 the Catholic doctrine of transubstantiation. 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 sa- 
 cred mystery, by the invisible operation of the Holy 
 Ghost. Whence they are called the body and blood 
 of Christ," &c.f It requires a happy talent to make 
 out transubstantiation from these words. They ap- 
 pear 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 Turria- 
 nus confess, " that to cite Bertram, was no more than 
 to declare that the heresy of Calvin is not new."! 
 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 original is now before the Chaplain. " Your 
 Excellency and Grandeur inquires," says he, " whe- 
 ther the body and blood of Christ, which is received 
 by the mouth of the faithful in the church, be cele- 
 
 * Whoever has read the Historia FlageUantium, 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 Address, p. 75. 
 
 t Franc. Turrianus <ie Euchar. contra Volanum lib. 1. cap. 22. 
 
51 
 
 brated in a mystery or in truth : and whether it be the 
 same body which was born of Mary, which did suf- 
 fer, was dead and buried ; and which, rising again 
 and ascending into heaven, sitteth at the right hand 
 of the Father ?"* To this question he makes an- 
 swer, " that the bread and the wine are the body 
 and blood of Christ figurativeiy."f That according 
 to the substance of the creatures, that which they 
 were before consecration, the same also are they af- 
 terwards :"| 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 suffered, which was buried, which 
 rose again, which sitteth at the right hand of the Fa- 
 ther."|| Could the emperor, who proposed his doubts 
 upon this subject, or the writer who thus solves them, 
 believe the Catholic doctrine of transubstantiation ? 
 The Chaplain might father it with equal propriety 
 upon Archbishop Tillotson, or the Huguenot Alberti- 
 nus. That Bertram wrote this treatise at the empe- 
 ror's request, is evident from the first of these passa- 
 ges ; and it is equally certain that, had the doctrine 
 of transubstantiation been notorious and universal, 
 that prince, as a good Catholic, would have* been 
 shocked and displeased at Bertram for opposing it. 
 The indefatigable Dr. Priestly, speaking of Pascha- 
 
 * Rertram. in lib. de corp. et sang. Dom. edit. Colon, ann. 1551, p. 180. 
 t Ibid. p. 1«3. \ Ibid. p. 205. 
 
 \ Ibid. p. 20Q. || Ibid. p. 222. 
 
i)2 
 
 aius and his tenets, tells us,* that, *• among others, the 
 emperor Charles the Bald, was much offended at it, 
 and, by his particular order, the famous Bertram or 
 Rattram wrote against the new opinion of Pascha- 
 sius." 
 
 One word more of Bertram, and the Chaplain will 
 dismiss him : not, indeed, without some reluctance, for 
 he has stood forth an able advocate for his accuracy 
 on this occasion. His book upon this subject was 
 deemed so inimical to transubstantiation, that the 
 Roman inquisition forbad it to be read. But the 
 university of Doway, perceiving that the prohibition 
 served only to excite the public curiosity, thought it 
 more adviseable to publish the book, after pruning 
 away the exuberance of some exceptionable pas- 
 sages.t " 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." 
 Accordingly, all the arguments of this writer, which 
 prove, that what the faithful receive in the sacrament 
 
 P History of Opinions relating to the Lord's Supper, p. 39. 
 
 t Quum in Catholicis veteribus aliis plurinaos feramus errores et extenue- 
 H3up, excusemus, excogitato cominento persaepe negemus et commodum iis 
 ^ensutn affingamus dum opponuntur in disputationibus aut in conflictionibus 
 sum adversariis : non videmus cur non eandem aequitatem et diiigentem re- 
 eognitionem mereatur Bertramus : ne haeretici ogganniant nos antiquitatem 
 pro ipsis facientem exurere et prohibere. Index Expurg. BeJg. page 5, edit 
 Antwerp, aim. 1571. 
 
53 
 
 is not the body of Christ, that died upon the cross 
 and rose again from death, are ordered to be omit- 
 ted.* Here is another instance of unprincipled cen- 
 sure, 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,t of a 
 palpable anachronism and want of attention in mista- 
 king the era of the obscure bishop who first invented 
 the word transubstantiation. The Rev. Gentleman 
 asserts that he lived about the year 950, and not in 
 the twelfth century. The learned Bellarmine, how- 
 ever, speaks less positively of this fact : " He is said 
 to have flourished about the year 950."J And the 
 celebrated Dr. Priestly, whose chronological accura- 
 cy stands so high at present, tells us, that " the term 
 transubstantiation was first used by Stephen, Bishop 
 of Autun, in the beginning of the twelfth century.'^ 
 He says, moreover, " that he was cotemporary with 
 Peter Lombard ;"|| who, according to Bellarmine, 
 flourished in the year 1145.** Many eminent di- 
 vines are of the same opinion with the Huguenot Ah 
 bertinus, whose authority is at any time upon a level 
 with that of the Jansenist Nicole.tt 
 
 * Non male aut inconsulte omitlantur igitur omnia hsec. Ibid. The learn- 
 ed Richer, syndic of the theological faculty of Paris, tells us, Council, General. 
 lib. 4. par. 2., u 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." 
 
 1 Address, p. 77. 
 
 \ Dieitur autem floruisse anno Dom. 950. De Scrip. Eccl. p. 276. 
 
 i History of Opinions, &c. p. 41. 
 
 j| Ibid. p. 43. 
 
 ** Ibid. p. 321. 
 
 tt This writer and his associates, les Messieurs de Port-Royal, being the 
 
u 
 
 This unmerited censure of inaccuracy being done 
 away, the Chaplain does not consider a regular at- 
 tendance 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 hun- 
 dred years of the most deplorable ignorance and 
 depravity of manners that ever disgraced the 
 annals 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 extravagance of mys- 
 tery ; 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 
 century, it appears to have gained many advocates, 
 and was becoming universal; when Berenger, the 
 learned Archdeacon 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 implaca- 
 ble enthusiasts, mankind was awakened by the firm 
 voice of reason, and France, Italy, and England were 
 filled with his disciples.* From that period to 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 Le 
 Couraycr, le Triomphe de la dialect ique sur la raison. 
 
 * William of Malmesbury, who, as Usher asserts, de succ. et stat. Christ. 
 Etcl. pi 101., was the author of the Continuation of Bedc, printed at Heidel- 
 berg in 1*87, tells us, "that all France was full of his doctrine, which was 
 propagated by the poor students, whom lie gained over by his daily alms.'* 
 De Gestis Angloruvi lib. 3. Roger of Wendover, and Matthew Paris, in his 
 
55 
 
 present, great and respectable bodies of Christians 
 have constantly rejected the tenet of transubstantia- 
 tion. 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 believ- 
 ed on this head; for, at periods infinitely more enlight- 
 ened, this has frequently been the case. The Chap- 
 lain, therefore, with most learned Protestants, admits, 
 and he does it without any reluctance, (Add. p. 82..,) 
 that the doctrine of the carnal presence had greatly 
 prevailed, when Berenger arose to refute it ; but he 
 denies that it had full possessio?i of men's minds : for 
 authentic monuments of history evince, that, at the be- 
 ginning of the eleventh century, the matter was fre- 
 quently 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 baked by the heat of the fire, may be turn- 
 ed into Christ's body, or how wine that is pressed out 
 
 Listory of the year 1007, support the same fact. In a word, Matthew, who 
 collected the history of Westminster and Rochester, tells us expressly, 
 " that at this time Berenger of Tours falling into heretical pravity, had cor- 
 rupted all the French, Italians, and English with his errors." Eodcm tem- 
 pore Berengatius Tur'onensis in hwrecticam lapsus pravitatem, omnes Gallos, 
 Italos et Anglos suis jam corruperat pravitatibus. 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 ant 
 borough, or even one village. See Address, p. 81. In a word, so fluctuating 
 were men's opinions on this matter, that Engclbert, Archbishop of Trevers, 
 assures us, that Hildebrand himself was doubtful, whether ichat is taken at the 
 Lord's table be the true body and blood of Christ. Constitut. Imjt. Gvh' 
 Tsvt. I. p. A<i, apud Usserium. 
 
56 
 
 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 Chap- 
 lain. 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, be- 
 fore the communion. The same doctrine was deliver- 
 ed to the clergy, by the bishops at their respective 
 synods. In one of these writings, directed to Wulf- 
 fine, bishop of Sherburne, it is said, " that the housel 
 (communion) is Ghrist's body, not bodily, but spirit- 
 ually. 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 suffering, &c." 
 Again, addressing himself to Wolfstane, archbishop 
 of York, the writer thus expresses himself: " The 
 Lord who hallowed housel before his suffering, hal- 
 Ioweth 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 Sa- 
 viour's blood which was shed for us in bodily things 
 but 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 
 
 * Homil. pascb. Auglo-Saxonica impres»a Lond. per. Jo. Daiuia et MS. 
 in Pub. Cantab. Acad. Bib. apud Usserium Respons. p. 79. 
 
57 
 
 epistles."* The reader is qualified by this time to 
 pronounce upon the authorities alleged by the^Rev. 
 Gentleman for the universal belief of transubstantia- 
 tion, at the period we are speaking of. He will pro- 
 bably 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 coun- 
 cil that condemned Berenger, before that of Lateran, 
 in 1215, is allowed to be general by Roman Catholic 
 di vines. That held at Rome in 1050, by the confes- 
 sion of Gratian, conceived its decrees in terms that 
 render them doubtful or absurd. f The others were 
 merely provincial synods, by no means competent to 
 establish an article of faith. From all which it fol- 
 lows, that, previous to the council of Lateran, the 
 doctrine of transubstantiation was no article of Ro- 
 man Catholic belief: which is all the Chaplain as* 
 sorts in his letter. 
 
 How this doctrine gained ground during the 
 gloomy period that intervened between Paschasius 
 and Berenger, in what year it was adopted by par- 
 ticular churches, or why it met not with more early 
 opposition, is by no means incumbent on the Chap- 
 lain to demonstrate. He advanced a matter of fact, 
 and he has proved it. They, however, who are ac- 
 quainted with the imbecility of the human mind, when 
 all its faculties are suffered to lie waste and unculti- 
 vated, 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 
 
 • See this treatise impr. Lond. cum hom. pasch. et MS. in pub. Oxon. Bib- 
 et Colleg. S. Ben. Cantab, apud Usser. ibid. p. 82. 
 
 t Letter, p. 33. The?e decrees may be seen in vol. 1 . of IVPosheim's Eccle- 
 siastical History. 
 
 $ 
 
58 
 
 as well as of a bodily plague, is very frequently obscure 
 and uncertain, but when the mind is prepared to re* 
 ceive the infection, its progress and its ravages are 
 rapid and distinct. It was during this dark and wo- 
 ful period of astonishing ignorance, while men were 
 asleep, that the enemy of the church came and sowed tares 
 among the wheat and went his way. (Matth. xiii. 24, 25.) 
 " An unhappy period," says Genebrand,* and other 
 Roman Catholic writers, " destitute of men either of 
 genius or learning, as also of famous princes or bish- 
 ops." " A period in which were no famous writers? 
 nor councils. ,"f " A period than which none was ever 
 more unlearned and imhappy."J 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 submission of the clergy, 
 broke down the sacred enclosures of connubial re- 
 straint, and thus let loose on Christendom an inunda- 
 tion of vice, which raged with unabating fury down to 
 the reformation. || Now, although we be unable to 
 
 * Chronic, lib. 4. 
 
 t Bcllarm. inChronol. anno 970. This assertion of the learned Cardinal 
 runs directly counter to the Rev. Gentleman's opinion, delivered in his Ad- 
 dress, page 85. 
 
 % Idem de Rom. Pont. lib. 4. cap. 12. 
 
 $ 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 wri- 
 ter, tells us in his chronicle, " that Pope Gregory (VII.) removed the mar- 
 ried priests from the divine functions by a new procedure, and (as it appear- 
 ed to many) by a rash prejudice against the opinion of the holy fathers, &c. 
 Prom which step," says he, " so great a scandal arises, that in the time of 
 uo heresy was the holy church torn to pieces, by a more dreadful schism. 
 Few observing continency, some feigning it for the sake of lucre and repu- 
 tation ; 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 ! 
 
59 
 
 mark the several stages of error, or fix with preci- 
 sion every devastation occasioned by the spirit of de- 
 ceit, who, " as a roaring lion, walketh about seeking 
 whom he may devour;" (Pet. v. 8.) yet^ve cannot in- 
 fer from hence that'he lost the opportunity of so dark 
 a night, or neglected to avail himself of the unbound- 
 ed depravity which corrupted, and the general lethar- 
 gy which benumbed, the faculties of men. Protestants 
 therefore may believe, that in such circumstances an 
 error may gradually spread, and even become uni- 
 versal, and still find transubstantiation too hard for 
 their digestion. (Address, p. 83.) 
 
 " That this doctrine ever was, and is still, a tenet of 
 the Greeks, the Armenians, the Cophtics, and Abys- 
 sinians,"* is a position much more easily advanced 
 than supported. It positively contradicts the latest 
 accounts of the most enlightened travellers ; who tell 
 us, that the Greek prelates, when questioned upon 
 this doctrine, reject it with indignation.'!" As for the 
 Cophs and Abyssinians, their ancient liturgies explain 
 the words of the institution by saying, this bread is my 
 body,X which Bellarmine acknowledges to be tanta- 
 mount 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 historv, that the fathers 
 
 * Address, p. 83. 
 
 + See their several relations, in Dr. Hurd's History of all Religions, 
 Among others, the learned Wheeler and Chandler have deposed against the 
 Rev. Gentleman's assertion. 
 
 | See Usher de success, et statu Christ. Eccl. 
 
 } 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. Be.llar. <fe Euch. lib. 3. cap. 19. 
 
60 
 
 of the council of Constantinople, in 869, used the con- 
 secrated wine mixed with ink to sign his condemna- 
 tion ? # What an abuse of the Eucharistical elements, 
 what a profanation would this have been ! The be- 
 lief of the Greek church upon this matter is illus- 
 trated 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,t " 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 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. JYo real change, however, is 
 by them supposed to be made in the substance of the bread 
 and wine; 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 absurd, but still it is not tran- 
 substantiation. The Rev. Gentleman, therefore, ap- 
 pears rather too sanguine, when he asserts, " that 
 
 * Pritstly's Hist, of Opinions, p, 27. t Ibid. p. 34. 
 
61 
 
 obstinacy or ignorance alone can deny that his doc- 
 trine 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 ob- 
 stinacy, when disengaged from the discussion of his 
 peculiar opinions. Wherefore, the Rev. Gentleman's 
 inference from his contested premises will not, per- 
 haps, be so conclusive as he imagines ; nor will his 
 apology for the dark ages be admitted until more in- 
 stances of knowledge than one be produced to invali- 
 date the profusion of authorities, which have ever 
 stamped them with a variety of infamy. 
 
 The Chaplain had advanced,t " that many cele- 
 brated controvertists of the Roman church acknow- 
 ledge that some of her esseritial tenets are not to be 
 found at all in the scriptures, 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 
 purgatory. He produced three or four eminent di- 
 vines as vouchers for the first, and this the Rev. Gen- 
 tleman calls exhausting his authorities against transub- 
 stantiation.% The reader might conclude from these 
 words that instead of about thirty lines, the Chaplain 
 }iad compiled a folio against this tenet. Not that 
 such a task would by any means be 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 
 
 * Address, p. 84. [ etter, p. 10 | Address, p. 88. 
 
62 
 
 wish to peruse these passages, will find them in abun- 
 dance 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 per- 
 son, since men of the greatest learning and penetra- 
 tion, among whom Scotus is eminently conspicuous, 
 have thought otherwise."* Here we have the learn- 
 ed cardinal expressly delivering the Chaplain's posi- 
 tion, 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 observ- 
 ed consequently " that these discriminating tenets de- 
 rive their whole weight from the infallible authority 
 of the Church which teaches them." And he reason- 
 ed further, " that the arguments against these doc- 
 trines, drawn from their palpable contradictions, 
 appear greatly an overmatch for such as are alleged 
 for the infallible church that enforces them : there- 
 fore, reason tells him that, rather than admit such 
 doctrines, he should not balance to discard such au- 
 thority." To illustrate this argument he mentioned! 
 a few consequences of transubstantiation which appear 
 to him absurd and contradictory. The Rev. Gentle- 
 man does not attempt to clear them of this charge : 
 He is of opinion, however, that these difficulties " re- 
 
 * De Euch. lib. 3. cap. 28. t Letter, p. 22. % Lfttter, p. 24. 
 
63 
 
 suit more immediately from Christ's real presence i'n 
 the Eucharist than from transubstantiation ; 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 Protest- 
 ants, on this head, can defy the most subtle schoolman 
 to fix a single contradiction upon it, of those enume- 
 rated in the Chaplain's letter. Transubstantiation 
 alone holds an exclusive right in them, and will con- 
 tinue to hold it, until Protestants shall confess, or 
 their opponents demonstrate, that to receive the body 
 mid blood of Christ verily and indeed^ implies not 
 only a spiritual and sacramental presence, but a cor- 
 poral and substantial presence, a physical and oral 
 eating and drinking of Christ's body and blood. 
 From this idea only every difficulty originates. Here 
 our senses are bewildered, our religion 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 
 without organs, without dimensions, without extent, 
 
 * Address, p. 95 t Sre Ita Catechism of the church of England 
 
64 
 
 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 giving his flesh to eat : 
 (John vi.) taken in a literal sense, it was truly a hard 
 saying. But our kind Redeemer pitied their igno- 
 rance, and dispelled their perplexity. " It is the 
 spirit," says he, " that quickeneth, the flesh profiteth 
 nothing ; the words that I speak unto you they are 
 spirit, and they are life." (John vi. 63.) At this 
 rational comment every difficulty vanishes ; faith and 
 reason are no longer at variance. — Thrice happy 
 had it been for the cause of humanity and religion, if 
 this solution which Christ gives of his own words, had 
 been seriously attended to by succeeding ages. A 
 principal subject of ridicule had been removed from 
 unbelievers, and the Arabian sage had not exclaim- 
 ed with exultation, " that since Christians eat what 
 they adore, he would wish his soul to abide with the 
 , philosophers."f 
 
 The Rev. Gentleman is of opinion that many cir- 
 cumstances in the life of our Saviour are full as ex- 
 ceptionable 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 
 
 * Address, p. 9£i. 
 
 t Quandoquidem Christian! comedunt quod adorant, sit anima mea cum 
 fliilosophis. Avenoes. 
 
65 
 
 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 rea- 
 soned upon his wonders, pronounced him to be the 
 latter. Is the case any wise similar in transubstan- 
 tiation ? The Rev. Gentleman indeed produces a 
 genuine passage from St. Chrysostom* to prove that 
 we must submit to this tenet, however it seem to con- 
 tradict our senses. " Believe me," says this Doctor, 
 " you see him, you touch him, you eat him. You 
 would be contented to see his clothes ; and he lets 
 you not only see him, but also touch him, and eat 
 him, and receive him within you." (Horn. 81. alias 
 82. in Matth.) Here the reader is presented with 
 one of those hyperbolical passages which in the heat 
 of declamation often dropt inadvertently from the 
 glowing fancy of the Greeks. The Rev. Gentle- 
 man himself 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 object 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 
 discourses, it will not stand the test of analytical criti- 
 cism. However, to convince the reader that no pas- 
 sage from this, or any other of the fathers, can be 
 
 * Address, p.. 97. 
 9 
 
66 
 
 brought forth for transubstantiation, to which a coun- 
 ter-passage cannot be produced, let him peruse the 
 following words of the same eloquent 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 it, &c." Whoever will open any Pro- 
 testant writer upon this subject, or be at the trouble 
 of perusing the ancient fathers themselves, will quick- 
 ly discover a variety of passages equally conclusive 
 against any physical change in the nature of the ele- 
 ments, and evidently proving that the old writers 
 spoke merely of a presence of union, efficacy, and 
 grace. If in other parts of their writings they some- 
 times countenance a physical and carnal presence, 
 we must conclude that their notions on this matter 
 were vague and unsettled, and that they conceived 
 themselves at liberty to explain the words of the eu- 
 charistic institution, in the manner best suited to their 
 audience, or the subject matter of their several dis- 
 courses. 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. 
 
 * This passage makes so powerfully against transubstantiation, that several 
 Roman Catholic writers have called the authenticity of this letter in question. 
 But Archbishop Usher says, he finds it cited in the collections against the 
 Severians, which are to be seen in Canisius^s Lectiones Antiquaz. Tom. 4. 
 pag. 238, translated by Francis Turrianus. It is also twice cited by John 
 Damascen against the Acephali, and the context of this passage is adopt- 
 ed by the Jesuit Turrianus. Ush. Catalogue of Authors, &c. ad ann. 400. 
 
67 
 
 He had mentioned in a note* two negative arsru- 
 ments 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 derived great support from the following fact ? 
 viz. that Christians 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 evi- 
 dent proof that it did not exist. But, says the Rev. 
 Gentleman,t the Arians did not deny that Christ 
 was " a divine person, true God of true God, eternal, 
 the same God w T ith the Father, — and, therefore, an 
 object of divine worship." As a voucher for this 
 doctrine of the Arians, he introduces Socrates, a No- 
 vatian heretic, whose historical inaccuracy is well 
 known to the critics. Some few of the Arians, how- 
 ever, may have made these concessions ; but if the 
 reader will peruse the history of this heresy in the 
 elegant Mr. Gibbon, or the temperate Priestly, he 
 will find, that by far the greater part of the sect ad- 
 hered to the original doctrine of Arius, maintaining that 
 the Son of God was a creature neither co-eternal nor con- 
 
 * Letter, p. 24. ' Addres?, p. 89. 
 
68 
 
 substantial with the Father. This opinion of Arius is 
 gathered from Epiphanius, Augustin, and Theodoret, 
 by the learned Bellarmine, 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 controvert. 
 The Arians taught that Christ is a creature, yet the 
 writers who refuted them never urged the practice 
 of adoring him with supreme worship in the Eucha- 
 rist, to prove him to be God. The omission of this 
 circumstance must evince the nullity of any such 
 practice : it shows, moreover, that the adoration men- 
 tioned in St. Chrysostom's liturgy ,t means only an in- 
 ferior act of reverence to the elements, or a supreme 
 act of worship paid to Christ, either spiritually pre- 
 sent, or reigning .personally with his Father in 
 heaven. 
 
 The second negative argument is drawn from the 
 silence of pagan writers with respect to the inconsis- 
 tencies of transubstantiation. Had this tenet been 
 current when they wrote, no privacy of worship 
 could have concealed it from them. Every persecu- 
 tion made many apostates who would naturally com- 
 municate, expose, and ridicule so unnatural a doc- 
 trine. It could not have escaped the knowledge of 
 a Celsus, a Porphyry, or a Julian. " The Philoso- 
 phers," says the learned professor Bullet,| " saw 
 
 * Chron. pars altera p. 495. de Scrip. Eccl. t Address, p. 91. 
 
 $ Histoire de FEtablissement du Christianisme trace des Auteurs Juifs fc 
 Payens, &c. The History of the Establishment of Christianity, compiled 
 from Jewish and Heathen Authors only, exhibiting a substantial proof of the 
 
69 
 
 with concern the success of Christianity. Whether 
 out of zeal for their gods, or vexation to see them- 
 selves confounded, they resolved 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 re- 
 sources of their genius, to give a plausible turn to 
 idolatry, and to charge Christianity with, contradictions 
 and absurdities" — And yet among these alleged ab- 
 surdities, we do not meet with one that results from 
 transubstantiation. Although they studied the doc- 
 trines of Christianity, although 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 suppose, 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 opinions is ungenerously attributed.* 
 In this instance, as in others, let the informed and im- 
 partial reader pronounce. 
 
 At the close of the note above mentioned, the Chap- 
 lain begged leave to add,t " that the fathers of the 
 
 truth of this religion, by Professor Bullet, Dean of the University of Besancon, 
 &c. &c. This work is earnestly recommended to all those who wish to 
 satisfy their doubts relating to the system of Christianity. 
 
 * Address, p. 92". t Letter, p. 21. 
 
70 
 
 second council of Nice confirm the opinion, that 
 Chris? s body in Heaven is not flesh and blood : there- 
 fore, even supposing bread and wine to be changed 
 into his body and blood, they cannot become his body 
 as it now is in Heaven." For this passage he quoted 
 l'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 en- 
 tertained by the fathers of that council ; and will, 
 therefore, without fear of being convicted of rashness, 
 undertake 1o say, that the Chaplain cannot support 
 what he has here advanced. — As in many other in- 
 stances, so likewise in this, the Chaplain has suffer- 
 ed 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 
 Rev. Gentleman, to behold him thus battling with a 
 shadow, and accusing the Chaplain and Protestant 
 Writers, of opinions which never entered into their 
 heads to advance. Does the quotation from the coun- 
 cil 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 letter, or by any au- 
 thor whom he is advised to mistrust. All that the 
 passage cited by PAbbe 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 primitive Christians. The fact is clear- 
 
 * Address, p. 94. 
 
71 
 
 ly demonstrated by Blirnet in his treatise de stain 
 mortuorum et resurgentium ; and it was grounded on 
 this passage of St. Paul to the Corinthians, (xv. 50.) 
 " Now this I say, brethren, that flesh and blood can- 
 not inherit the kingdom of God, neither doth corrup- 
 tion inherit incorruption." Not a word is mentioned 
 of Christ's human body previous to his ascension. 
 The Chaplain, therefore, stands acquitted of inaccu- 
 racy, 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 discover in the scriptures. It must therefore rest 
 solely upon the infallibility of this church.* He in- 
 stanced an eminent Roman Catholic writer, asserting 
 ;t that the Greeks reject this tenet, that their ancient 
 doctors seldom or never mentioned it, and that the 
 Latins became acquainted with it only by degrees," 
 (pedetentim.)^ He found some great divines reject- 
 ing 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. After all this he ventured to assert that this 
 doctrine is not contained in the scriptures. The 
 Rev. Gentleman offers nothing to invalidate this po- 
 sition. He, indeed, refers the Chaplain to the Catho- 
 lic scripturist for authorities to support this tenet ;% 
 and, " is well convinced, that the prevailing reason 
 which moved the compilers of the English Bible to 
 reject the books of Maccabees, was the support which 
 they observed the Catholic doctrine of purgatory 
 
 * Letter, p. 20. f Ibid p. 21. % Address, p. 99. 
 
72 
 
 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 un- 
 generous as the Rev. Gentleman suggests. Is he 
 able to penetrate into the hearts of these learned 
 compilers, and there discover the secret springs of 
 their conduct ? 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 canoni- 
 cal 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 ? 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 sup- 
 ports. Among the latter are these books of the 
 Maccabees. Previous to the council of Carthage, St. 
 Jerom tells us, " that the church in his time, read, in- 
 deed, these books; but did not admit them among the 
 canonical scriptures."* "All these," says Rufinus. 
 " were read in the churches, but not as authorities 
 for proving the faith :"t And after the same coun- 
 
 * Legit quidem ecclesia, sed eos inter canonicas scripturas dob recipit. 
 In lib. Salom. 
 
 t Qua? omnia legi quidem in ecclesiis voluerunt, non tamen profr r n ad 
 mrctomtatpm ex his fidei ronfirmandam. Expos. Symb. 
 
73 
 
 cii, St. Gregory excuses himself for citing the books of 
 Maccabees, " although," says he, " they be not canoni- 
 cal."* 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 coun- 
 cil of Trent. They were deemed apocryphal by Ju- 
 nilius and Primasius, in Africa, by Cassiodorus and 
 Gregory, in Italy, by Isidore of Seville, in Spain, by 
 Alcuin, in France, by Bede, in England, by Rabanus 
 Maurus, in Germany. Cajetan, writing to Pope Cle- 
 ment Vll.f declares them not to be canonical. Thus, 
 the agreement of Christian writers upon this matter, 
 before the 16th century, has been nearly uniform ; so 
 that among all the modern dogmas of the council of 
 Trent, this has the least to boast of, from uninterrupt- 
 ed tradition. Were this digression entirely 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 Catho- 
 lics of America,! " t ^ la ^ 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 faith- 
 ful in this life, comfort and relief is obtained for those 
 who are departed out of it; which is establishing as 
 
 * De qua re cavenda non inordinate facimus, si ex libris, licet non canoni ■ 
 cis, sed tamen ad a?dificationem ecclesiiw editis, testimonium proferamu;;. 
 X . Greg. Expos, in Job. lib. 19. cap. 17. 
 
 t Non sunt hi libri canonici, hoc est, non sunt regulars ad firrmndtim ev> 
 «|uee sunt fidei. Epistol. dedieat. ad Clem. VII. 
 
 t Address, p. ion, 
 
 10 
 
74 
 
 much of the doctrine of purgatory, as we are obliged 
 to believe." Are Roman Catholics then not 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 pur- 
 gatory ? 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 instruction of parish priests ? 
 " There is a purgatory," that is to say, " a purgatory 
 fire, by which the souls of the pious being for a de- 
 terminate time tormented, are expiated or purged, that 
 an entrance into their eternal kingdom may be open- 
 ed to them."* Now, had the early Greek or Latin 
 Christians any idea of a purgatory like this ? Nei- 
 ther of the passages alleged by the Rev. Gentleman, 
 from Cyril and Chrysostom, throws out a distant hint 
 of any such thing. That the ancient Christians com- 
 memorated and prayed for the dead, no informed 
 Protestant ever meant to deny. But it does not fol- 
 low, that they conceived them to be in a state of pur- 
 gation or punishment. Because we pray for our ab- 
 sent 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 depart- 
 ed faithful were not to be admitted into the complete 
 enjoyment 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 tran- 
 quillity and rest, capable of receiving additional hap- 
 
 • See the Roman Catechism, 
 
75 
 
 piness from the supplications of their pious brethren 
 upon earth. This idea laid the only foundation for 
 praying for the dead. However unwarranted it may 
 be, it has certainly no affinity with the modern doc- 
 trine of purgatory. The Chaplain has no inclination 
 to load his page with voluminous quotations. No oc- 
 cupation requires less genius or more labour than 
 that of a compiler; yet he cannot forbear instancing 
 a few authorities, that place the ideas of the early 
 Christians upon this subject in their true point of 
 view. Such an article of church history will be in- 
 teresting to some readers, while to others it will ap- 
 pear at least a matter of curiosity. " We observe," 
 says the ancient author of tjie commentaries upon 
 Job, among Origen's works,* " the memorials of the 
 saints, and devoutly keep the remembrance of our 
 parents and friends who die in the faith, as well to 
 rejoice for their refreshment, as to request for our- 
 selves 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 ac- 
 knowledges to have received the crown of martyr- 
 dom, says, " We offer sacrifices always for them, 
 when we celebrate the passions and days of the mar- 
 tyrs with an anniversary commemoration."f St. 
 Chrysostom, discoursing on the funeral ordinances 
 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 ? 
 
 * Lib. 3. Comment. t F.pisf. 34. 
 
7b 
 
 Consider what thou dost sing at that time. Return, 
 my soul, into thy rest; for the Lord hath dealt boun- 
 tifully with thee ! And again : thou art my refuge 
 from the affliction, that compasseth me."* 
 
 The liturgy used in the church of Syria, and attri- 
 buted 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 pro- 
 fessed the right word of faith ; and namely of Igna- 
 tius, Dyonisius, Julius, and the rest of the saints of 
 worthy memory."t 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 the world, patriarchs, prophets, &c. &c."J 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 especially the holy, glorious, 
 the evermore Virgin Mary, the mother of God, and 
 St. John the forerunner, St. Stephen, &c."§ And 
 again, in the liturgy of the church of Constantinople, 
 attributed to St. Chrysostom : " We offer unto thee 
 this reasonable service for those who are at rest in 
 the faith, our forefathers, fathers, patriarchs, &c. 
 &c."|| This expression of offering for the saints, be~ 
 
 * In Epist. ad Hebrceos hom. 4. 
 t Anaphora ab Andr. Maesio ex Syriaco converse. 
 \ Constitut. Apost. lib. 8. cap. 12. 
 
 i Liturg. iEgyp. a VictorioScialachex Arabconvers. p. 22. 47 et 60. edit. 
 August, ami, 1604. j| Cbrys. liturg. Grsec. 
 
77 
 
 coming exceptionable some centuries after, was thus 
 modified in the Latin translation by Leo Thuscus,/or 
 the patriarchs, Sfc. interceding for us ;* which last words 
 are not to be found in the Greek original now before 
 the Chaplain. Similar sentiments are delivered by 
 St. Ambrose in several parts of his writings,'!" 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 mention- 
 ing 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. "Remember, 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."| ^ n none of these passages 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 belief, has stronger evidence from the testi- 
 mony of the early fathers."^ 
 
 Another point of doctrine of the Roman Catholic 
 
 * Chrys. liturg. Lat. 
 
 t De obitu Valent. Imp. Idem de obitu Theodosii, &c. 
 
 % Missale Romanum. In the mass for the dead, some of the prayers entreat, 
 a deliverance from hell — but none from purgatory — because, as Bellarmine ob- 
 serves, u the church prays for the souls in purgatory, that they may not be 
 condemned to the everlasting pains of he'l ; not, indeed, because it is not cer- 
 tain, 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 certainly to 
 receive." Bell, de Purgat. lib. 2. cap. 5. 
 
 8 Address, p. 100. 
 
78 
 
 church, is the necessity and divine institution of confes- 
 sion. The Chaplain had advanced as a matter of 
 fact, that " this opinion was discussed by ancient wri- 
 ters with great freedom, and that centuries were re- 
 quisite 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 meaning, but what may yield to the subtilty 
 of a theological quibble. But the truth is, that pre- 
 vious to the Lateran council, in 1215, it was the opi- 
 nion of many orthodox divines, that confession to God 
 alone was sufficient. Thomas Aquinas and Bonaven- 
 ture are both vouchers for this fact. " The master 
 of the sentences," says the former, " and Gratian, axe 
 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, Panormita- 
 nus, Michael of Bologna, &c, not to mention 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, 
 u that internal confession is, indeed, of divine right, 
 tout that outward confession is no more than an eccle- 
 siastical institution," not enjoined by the scripture, 
 
 * Letter, p. 30. t la 4 dist. 17. 
 
79 
 
 nor regarded as essential by the ancient churches of 
 Christendom. 
 
 The Chaplain trusts, that by this time the reader 
 is convinced, " 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 himself admits the fact,* yet 
 lays the Chaplain under the tedious necessity of prov- 
 ing it. Now, an argument arises hence against the 
 system of infallibility, which appears unanswerable. 
 The solution at which the Rev. Gentleman labours 
 from the 52d to the 58th 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 revela- 
 tion may be had to-day which was wanted yesterday. 
 " In perilous times," says he, " the church unfolds 
 the doctrines"f committed to her charge, which, in 
 proportion as they are thus unfolded, become objects 
 of faith. It was principally, when heresies were con- 
 demned, that the opposite Catholic verity was esta- 
 blished. Yet, previous to this condemnation, these 
 errors were for ages adopted by the faithful. — 
 Where was infallibility during this prevalence of 
 error ? Was the church conscious of this preroga- 
 tive, or did she neglect to exert it ? If, for instance, 
 the opinion of sufficiency of confession to God alone was 
 opposite to a revealed truth, which had been commit- 
 ted to her by Christ or his apostles, why did she tole- 
 rate it for more than twelve centuries, and thus neg- 
 lect to deliver a truth, and enforce a practice, which 
 
 * Address, p. 51. i Ibid, p. 34. 
 
Christ and his apostles taught to be essential to salva- 
 tion ? What the Rev. Gentleman remarks,* of the 
 faithful receiving gradual information from the wri- 
 tings of the apostles, can have no weight with those 
 who conceive these writings to have been inspired 
 with a view of completing the Christian system of 
 belief. These writings being finished, and their au- 
 thors dead, the gracious scheme of revelation was 
 closed, and a dreadful wo pronounced against those, 
 who should add to, or abridge this work of the Al- 
 mighty. (Ad Galat. i. 9.) From that period to the 
 present, the Christian church has authority in contro- 
 versies of faith, she is a witness and keeper of holy ivrit :f 
 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 testi 
 mony, 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 im- 
 material ; may we not regard the infallibility of such 
 a church as chimerical, and her pretensions to it as 
 the principal obstacle to the removing of abuses 
 which have darkened the pure simplicity of the gos- 
 pel, and rendered Christianity a stumbling block to 
 the weak-minded, and a scoff to the philosopher ? 
 
 * Address, p. 55. ; Church of England's Arti 
 
81 
 
 The Chaplain, with the conviction of this upon his 
 mind, resolved to have recourse to the law and to the 
 testimony, (Tsa. viii. 20.) Here alone is infallibility 
 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 initia- 
 ted at our baptism, which we repeat in our churches, 
 and profess upon our death-beds.* Here is that pure, 
 that Catholic belief which we find expressed in the 
 apostles' creed ; here 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 cautious guardian of the tenets deposited with 
 her, changes nothing in them, abridges nothing, adds 
 nothing — but earnestly applies herself to this one 
 thing, that by discussing ancient matters with fideli- 
 ty 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 defined."! Thus far church 
 authority may go, and no farther. 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 express 
 some doctrine in terms more explicit and intelligible.! 
 
 * It may be asked why the Chaplain abandoned the Rornan church, if her 
 children at baptism be initialed 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. 
 
 t Common, cap. 32. 
 
 % Eadem tamen quae didicisti ita doce, ut cum dicas nove con dicas now.. 
 Vine. Lev, Com. cap. 27. 
 
 11 
 
82 
 
 Upon this principle only does Vincent defend the an- 
 cient councils. That of Nice, says he, did nothing 
 more than recall* the faithful to the primitive belief: 
 ad antiquum jidem a novella perfidid, ad antiquam sanita- 
 tem a novitatis insania* With respect to the Nova- 
 tian heresy,f the council proceeded on the same lu- 
 minous principle. It showed their doctrine to be 
 opposite to this primitive article of the creed, 7 believe 
 the forgiveness of sins. The rebaptization 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 stig- 
 matized as the doctrine of devils. (1 Tim. 4.) Were 
 the Chaplain at leisure, he could venture to prove, 
 that not a single error was condemned by the primi- 
 tive church but what directly or indirectly ran coun- 
 ter to this creed. The Arians, Socinians, and Unita- 
 rians refuse to believe in Jesus 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 
 ivas crucified, dead, and buried, which proves him to be 
 man. And so of all the rest. — If, besides these pri- 
 mitive truths delivered in the Bible and abridged in 
 the creed, other matters were at times deemed suffi- 
 cient to exclude men from Catholic communion, they 
 
 * Vhr. Ler. Comm. cap. 7. t Address, p. 110, 
 
83 
 
 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 ignorant 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 na- 
 tural meaning, who subscribes the Catholic creeds in 
 their utmost extent, and assents sincerely to every 
 scriptural doctrine, may still " admit into his belief 
 almost every sect that ever deformed the face of 
 Christianity,"* is one of those lofty assertions that 
 thrills the uninformed 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, be- 
 cause, to be so, " he must belong," says St. Augustin, 
 " to that church which is Catholic, and which is call- 
 ed Catholic not only by her own children, but by all 
 her enemies. — Will the Chaplain," he asks, " find this 
 characteristic in his new religion ?"f The Rev. 
 Gentleman knows well, that Protestants esteem and 
 call themselves Catholics. For an enemy to with- 
 hold from them this appellation is a poor plea to pre- 
 scribe against right. Will the Rev. Gentleman own 
 himself to have been a rebel, because for more than 
 eight years he was pronounced to be so by the ene- 
 
 * Address, p. 111. [hid. p. 106. 
 
84 
 
 mies of his country ? As to the Chaplain's new reli- 
 gion, 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 entire- 
 ly 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 adheres solely to the ancient and 
 universal belief. " For," says Vincent oi Lerins, " he 
 is a real and genuine Catholic, who . . . remaining 
 fixed and unshaken in faith, is determined to hold and 
 believe that only, which he shall discover to be the 
 universal and ancient doctrine of the Catholic 
 church."* The Rev. Gentleman finds that the Chap- 
 lain also is acquainted with Vincent of Lerins. He 
 had read him over previously to the friendly advice 
 contained in the address.t If, in the eleventh chapter, 
 he appear to contradict 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 service- 
 able 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 plea to Catholicity 
 founded upon his own definition of it : " to this," says 
 
 • Common, cap. 25. + Page 114. 
 
85 
 
 he, " we must chiefly attend, that we maintain what 
 every where and always has been believed by all: for 
 this is truly and properly Catholic, as the very word 
 imports and reason declares :"* And again, " It 
 never was lawful, it is not lawful now, nor will it 
 ever be so, to propose any thing to Christian Catho- 
 lics, which they had not received before."t The 
 Chaplain, therefore, still humbly confides, that by 
 adhering solely to this universal belief, he is justly 
 entitled to the appellation of Catholic, and that he 
 " does not embrace a new religion, however he may 
 discard some doctrines which at different periods of 
 time have been engrafted 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 found- 
 ations and the common principles of faith were main- 
 tained, upon the profession of which men were admit- 
 ted 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, namely, what was believed every 
 
 * Contra haeres. cap. 3. 
 
 + Annunciare ergo aliquid Christianis Catholicis prater id quod acceperunt 
 aunquam licuit, nusquam licet, nunquam licebit. Comm. cap. 14. 
 
86 
 
 where, always, and by all, has in succeeding ages been 
 constantly preserved, and is at this day adopted en<= 
 tirely 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 east ; if we should set aside the points in which 
 they mutually dissent, and collect together the other 
 articles in which they generally agree, we should 
 goon discover a code of doctrine so genuine and Ca- 
 tholic, 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 field, and among the Lord^s wheat. 
 They, therefore, who have been employed in de- 
 stroying these weeds, in separating the Lord's good 
 grain from the chaff, cannot be said to have substitu- 
 ted a new field, or changed the nature of the ancient 
 grain. The field is the same, but weeded now, un- 
 weeded then — the grain is the same, but winnowed 
 now, unwinnowed then. — Every* church professing 
 these universal truths must be Catholic. To her 
 belong the promises of Christ, the appeals of antiqui- 
 ty, and the encomiums of the fathers. She suffers no 
 monopoly of her extensive prerogatives ; but embra- 
 
87 
 
 ces 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 righf to this sacred commu- 
 nion; among the various churches, into which Chris- 
 tians 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 in- 
 difference 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 
 religion is that of the Bible only. Here the Chaplain 
 has found a resting-place, which he never means to 
 abandon. If Roman Catholics conceive a double foun- 
 dation more secure, in God's name let them build their 
 religion upon it : 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 autho- 
 rity in matters of faith, except that of the gospel, the 
 epistles, or acts of the apostles. " No wonder," says he,| 
 Ki . that St. Cyprian, while engaged in the errors of the 
 Donatists, should speak their language ... St. Augus- 
 tin, lib. 5. cap. 23. de bap. against the Donatists, par- 
 ticularly refutes the writing now objected out of St 
 Cyprian; and it is wonderful indeed if the Chaplain 
 did not discover this in the very place from which F 
 presume he copied his objection." Here the Rev. 
 Gentleman confesses that Cyprian was unacquainW 
 
 * Letter, p. 38. t AMre«, p. 113. 
 
88 
 
 with the divine authority of unwritten tradition. Mr. 
 Rushworth, a Roman Catholic controvertist, had ac- 
 knowledged this long before.* He should have pro- 
 ved, however, that this learned martyr retracted his 
 opinion, before he wondered at the Chaplain's omit- 
 ting the refutation of it penned by St. Augustin. 
 When the primitive fathers deliver contrary opinions, 
 we are certainly at liberty to adopt that which ap- 
 pears most rational. But St. Augustin himself only 
 combated this sentiment of Cyprian, upon the sub- 
 ject of rebaptization of infants, which he must have 
 regarded as belonging rather to church discipline 
 than to 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 senti- 
 ment 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 credibili- 
 ty of their canonical authority must arise. But the 
 church derives from hence no plea to infallibility, any 
 more than our judges or courts of judicature, by de- 
 termining 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. Hila- 
 ry, whom the Rev. Gentleman passes by without no- 
 tice,) " where is the deficiency and obscurity of the 
 scriptures ?" That is, in matters fundamental and 
 necessary. For, were, they really deficient, how 
 
 * Dial. 3. pert. 13. 
 
89 
 
 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 autho- 
 rity 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 Chap- 
 lain's misfortune never to meet with any of these nu- 
 merous treatises. On the contrary, all the fathers^ 
 whom he has consulted on this head, repeatedly ac- 
 knowledge 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 authority 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 simi- 
 lar reproach. The few following passages will suffice 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."J 
 
 " The things which we find not in the scripture, how 
 
 can we use them ?"§ " It is well that thou art 
 
 content with the things that are written."|| — In 
 
 • Address, p. 88. t Address, p. 114. 
 
 % St. Athan. contra Gentes. i St. Ambros. offic. lib. 1, cap. 23 
 
 || Hil. lib. 3. de Trin. 
 
 12 
 
90 
 
 another place St. Hilary commends the Emperor 
 Constantius for " desiring the faith to be ordered only 
 according to those things that are written."* " Be- 
 lieve the things that are written," says St. Basil, " the 
 things that are not written seek not.f ... It is a mani- 
 fest falling from the faith, and a sign of arrogance, 
 either to reject 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 acknow- 
 ledged in that only which exhibits the seal of scrip- 
 ture testimony."§ " As we deny not those things 
 
 that are written, so we reject those things that are 
 not written."|| And again : " That which has no au- 
 thority from scripture is as easily discarded as it is 
 
 advanced."H " In those particulars," says St. Au- 
 
 gustin, " which are clearly set down in the scriptures, 
 all those things are found which comprehend faith and 
 
 direction of life."** And again : " whatsoever ye 
 
 hear from hence, (the holy scriptures,) let that relish 
 well with you ; whatsoever is without them reject, 
 
 lest ye wander in a cloud."ff And in another 
 
 place : " All those things which in times past our an- 
 cestors 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 
 
 * Ilil. lib. 2. ad Constan. Aug-. 
 
 f- Basil hom. 29. advers. calumniantes S. Trinitat. 
 
 | Idem de fide. 
 
 $ Greg. Nyss. dialog, de anima ct resur. torn, l.edit. Graeco-Lat. p. 639- 
 
 j| Hieronymus advers. Helvid. If Idem in cap. 23. Matth, 
 
 * Dc doctr. Christiana lib. 2, cap. 9. tt Lib. de pastor, cap. 11. 
 
91 
 
 holy scripture has not passed over in silence/'* — ~ 
 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 Matth. c. 24, horn. 49. It is 
 not in his power to have recourse to the works of 
 this father. And as the Rev. Gentleman says,t he 
 has the fullest evidence before him that the passage is 
 not genuine, but extracted from a work of no credit, 
 supposed to be written in the Q>th century, entitled, the un 
 finished work on Matthew ; the Chaplain will readily 
 acknowledge his mistake, and yet, perhaps, ?wt expose 
 himself to a well-grounded imputation of unpardonable 
 negligence.'^ For, in the first place, the passage is 
 certainly published among the works of Chrysostom. 
 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 unfinished 
 work.§ Thirdly, Bellarmine himself does not seem 
 quite decided on this point — He only says, "This 
 work does not appear to be Chrysostoni's ; however, in 
 other respects, it is a learned book, and by no means 
 to be despised. . . It is, therefore, probable, that the au- 
 thor of it was a Catholic, but that his work was cor- 
 rupted by the Arians."|| If this apology be not suf- 
 ficient to wipe away the reproach of a want of impar- 
 tial diligence, and the disrepute of alleging the authority 
 ef Chrysostom so erroneously. ,11 the Chaplain will par- 
 
 * Epist. 42. t Address, p. 61. t Address, ibidem. 
 
 } Plurimis in locis Gratianus citat Chrysostomum pro auctore operis im* 
 ■perfecti. Bell, de Scrip. Eccles. p. 321. 
 
 || Non videturesse Chrysostomi . . . quamvis alioqui liber sit doctus et 
 minime spernendus . . . proinde credibile est auctorem fussse catholicum, 
 3ed opus illius ab Arianis esse depravatum. Id.-'in ibid. p. 1(51 . 
 
 IF Address, p. 62. 
 
*J2 
 
 don 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. Gentle- 
 man 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 pre- 
 meditated 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 the Rev. Gentleman has misapplied St. Chry- 
 sostoni's advice, to his case. For did the monk Theodo- 
 rus 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 
 monastic engagements ? Was this monk ever promo- 
 ted to the order of subdeaconship, at which time 
 only the law of celibacy is hinted to the regular cler- 
 gy ? Did he conceive this exhortation of the bishop 
 during that ceremony, castiiatem servare oportet, you 
 must live chastlyrf 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 
 
 Addrcfs, p. 1W. t Rit. Rom* 
 
98 
 
 affirmative, then may a parallel 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 poverty and obedience : Let 
 him tell us, why one is more independent of the disci- 
 pline of any binding power than the other — Why, one 
 more than the other, cannot be released but by God's re- 
 linquishing 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 pre- 
 conized by the Jesuits. Yet, by a dispensation from 
 papal authority, thousands of both have been releas- 
 ed from their most solemn vows, and restored to the 
 enjoyment of property and freedom. Among these is 
 the Rev. Gentleman himself, and his clerical brethren 
 in America. After renewing twice every year, and 
 oftener, the solemn vows, by which they renounce 
 their property and their liberty, each of them, with- 
 out scruple, now possesses, inherits, enjoys, and dis- 
 poses 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 reli- 
 gion is interested iti the performance of an engagement, 
 entered into under an authority which at any time 
 can annul it, is making that sanctity to depend upon 
 the caprice of an intriguing court, or the views of an 
 artful and temporizing pontiff: (Add. p. 20, note.) and 
 
 ' Address, p 119. 
 
94 
 
 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 uninform- 
 ed, to bewilder the argument, and perpetuate the 
 spirit of illiberal cavil . . . The passage cited from the 
 book of Deuteronomy, with which the Rev. Gentleman 
 concludes his address, is calculated to leave these im- 
 pressions on the mind. But the reader will recol- 
 lect that all Roman Catholic divines maintain in prac- 
 tice, " 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 with, for a reasonable cause, and 
 change, all simple vows, excepting those of continency and 
 religion, which are reserved to Rome." (Essay on 
 Celib. p. 184.) Wherefore, as the Chaplain means 
 to have no business with Rome, he shall take the li- 
 berty 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 cen- 
 tury, on the continent of America: rights interwoven 
 with the economy of our nature, calculated to pro- 
 mote the welfare of the individual, and the great pur- 
 poses of society. Rights which mankind are not au- 
 thorized to sport with, any more than with the principle 
 of self-preservation or life. The recovery of these es- 
 sential prerogatives of humanity, will be deemed a 
 substantial blessing, by every liberal person; if, how- 
 ever, it provoke any censure from his former con- 
 nexions, the Chaplain, having once appealed to their 
 candour and charity, shall continue to treat it with 
 pity and indifference. JEquo animo audienda sunt m* 
 
95 
 
 jperitorum convicia, et ad honesta vadenti contemncndus 
 est ipse contemptus. Seneca. 
 
 Before the Chaplain takes a final leave of the pub- 
 lic on these matters, which he very sincerely wishes 
 to do at present, he must beg its attention for a mo- 
 ment to the most material accusation thrown out in 
 the address. He is accused of " imputing doctrines 
 to the Roman Catholics foreign to their belief, and 
 having a natural tendency to embitter against them 
 ihe minds of their fellow citizens." He is accused of 
 " misinforming, and of sowing in minds so misinformed 
 the seeds of religious animosity." (Add. p. 118.) 
 The Rev. Gentleman could not have wounded his 
 former friend in a more tender part. At such an at- 
 tack he also felt an anguish too keen for description — for 
 such accusations coming from him, must extinguish 
 every spark of good will towards the Chaplain, Avhich 
 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. Gentle- 
 man perceive 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 be- 
 come the depositary of his little concerns. At an ear- 
 ly period of life, he kindly took him by the hand, and 
 led Jiim through the paths of honour and of virtue : 
 his lessons were always those of friendship and of 
 wisdom ; from these flowed that sentiment of universal 
 benevolence which the Chaplain deems the most pre- 
 cious he possesses, Could the Rev. Gentleman be 
 
96 
 
 ignorant of the growth of a plant, which he himself 
 had nourished in the heart of his friend, and which 
 he must have observed to flourish there, with a luxu- 
 riancy nearly approaching to enthusiasm. . . It was 
 this sentiment that banished every word from his let- 
 ter which could wound the feelings of the most deli- 
 cate Roman Catholic : this made him distinguish be- 
 tween their persons and opinions, and prevented a 
 dereliction of some of the latter, from impairing the 
 social affections 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 animosity or narrow- 
 ness of sentiment, he only wishes for opportunities to 
 show how much he despises them : far from aban- 
 doning the cause of virtue and religion, as the Ad- 
 dress seems to insinuate, (p. 117.) 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 principles of Christianity, 
 and a perfect union of heart, could be deemed suffi- 
 cient by the Rev. Gentleman, to perpetuate their con- 
 nexion in so noble a pursuit. Such are the immuta- 
 ble sentiments of the Chaplain. Whether his letter, 
 or this reply, tend to counteract or confirm them, if. 
 belongs to the candid reader to' determine. 
 
 THE F.M>. 
 
A SHORT ANSWER 
 
 A TRUE EXPOSITION 
 
 DOCTRINE OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH 
 
 TOUCHING THE 
 
 SACRAMENT OF PENANCE, 
 
 WITH THE 
 
 GROUNDS 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. 
 
 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, xjm 1. 6. 
 And the Scribes and Pharisees began to reason, saying, Who is this which speaketh blasphe- 
 mies ? Who can forgive sins but God alone? Luke v. 21. 
 •' Non potest hoc cuiquam hominuin cum Christo esse commune ut peccata condonet." 
 " No man can have this in common with Christ, that he may forgive sins." 
 
 St. Ambros. epist. 79. nd Studium 
 
 NEW- YORK : 
 
 REPUBLISHED BY DAVID I.ONGWORTH, NO. 11 PARK 
 Clayton & Kingsland, Printer*. 
 
 1817 
 
TO 
 
 THE RIGHT REVEREND THE BISHOPS. 
 
 THE 
 
 REVEREND THE CLERICAL, 
 
 AND 
 
 THE GENTLEMEN LAY DEPUTIES 
 
 OF 
 
 THE PROTESTANT EPISCOPAL CHURCH, 
 
 # IN 
 
 GENERAL CONVENTION ASSEMBLED, 
 
 THIS ANSWER 
 
 IS RESPECTFULLY INSCRIBED, 
 BY THEIR AFFECTIONATE HUMBLE SERVANT AND BROTHER, 
 
 THE AUTHOR. 
 
A SHORT ANSWER 
 
 At a time when the spirit of religious controversy 
 aeemed to be dormant in our land — when the different 
 Christian societies were convinced of the delicate pro- 
 priety of confining 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 doc- 
 trines of our common Christianity, and on them to 
 erect a goodly system of mutual forbearance, harmo- 
 ny, and love — the advocates of evangelical charity 
 beheld, with considerable regret, the appearance of 
 a pamphlet calculated to diminish the influence and 
 disturb the serenity of this heavenly temper. Had 
 the publisher of the Catholic Question been satisfied 
 with communicating to us the issue of that interesting 
 trial, which every liberal mind must approve and 
 applaud ; had he confined himself to the gratifying of 
 his readers with a display of eloquent and ingenious 
 declamation, and irresistible argument, 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 reflections 
 upon those who pay little regard to that council's 
 denunciations or decrees, the writer of this reply 
 would never have thought himself authorized to 
 question a right to instruct the members of his church 
 
in the tenets of their religion, or to throw over them 
 fresh lights to demonstrate their truth. 
 
 But the reverend author of the Appendix (for I sup- 
 pose him to be such) has manifestly seized upon 
 what he conceived to be a favourable opportunity to 
 lay his doctrines before the public, still alive to some 
 favourable impressions from the recent decision of 
 his cause, with an air of triumph bordering upon in- 
 sult, with a tone of defiance pointing 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 misrepresentation; and that it wants only to be 
 known to obtain the suffrages of upright men, and to si- 
 lence the most inveterate of its enemies." {Jipp- p. 1.) 
 
 Here the reverend author begins by indulging a 
 spirit of illiberality, which, it seems, all the candour of 
 his Protestant advocates, all the enlightened justice of 
 his Protestant 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 Protestants, although deemed by some 
 advisable on this occasion, might probably flatter the 
 Reverend Gentleman and his adherents with an idea 
 of the latter ; and as one of his learned advocates, al- 
 though a Protestant, has been induced to assert, that 
 " the Catholic," meaning clearly the Roman Catholic, 
 " 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 
 apprehending, 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 erroneous are forced upon the public eye, 
 by a great parade of erudition, and a hardihood of 
 assertion smiling contemptuously 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 true 
 temple exists, and the true probatic pond, which heals 
 all sorts of diseases ; that in her only are found the 
 true Jordan, which cleansed Naaman and his leprosy; 
 that she is the mysterious inn, in which the true Sa- 
 maritan effects the cure of the traveller, whom he 
 finds wounded in the road to Jericho ;" {Jipp* p. 107.) 
 I say, when such lofty pretensions as these are ob- 
 truded upon the public, it cannot be expected that 
 they will pass unnoticed by those who are acquaint- 
 ed with their futility, or by the Christian ministers of 
 other societies, who consider themselves intrusted 
 with the sacred deposite of religious truth, as its dele- 
 gated guardians. 
 
 It is not the intention of this reply to follow the re- 
 verend author of the Appendix into the extensive 
 fields of polemical divinity, which he has laid open to 
 Eis readers. To the avowed design of proving the 
 divine institution of sacramental auricular confession, he 
 has annexed all the hackneyed and well-known argu- 
 ments in favour of the collateral tenets of the Romish 
 church. Of many of these no notice can be taken in 
 a short pamphlet : if, however, they should disturb the 
 
8 
 
 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 dif- 
 ficulty will be quickly dissipated. 
 
 The sole object, then, of this reply is to investi- 
 gate and refute, as briefly as possible, the arguments 
 alleged in the Appendix in support of the divine insti- 
 tution of auricular confession, or of the sacrament of 
 penance, as explained, decreed, 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 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 reve- 
 lation. 
 
 The reader will readily perceive that whatever can 
 be urged in answer to the arguments for the divine in- 
 stitution of auricular confession, must be comprehend- 
 ed 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 map? of matter, which frequent- 
 
iy 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, 
 universal usage, nor competent authority, can have 
 no foundation at all. 
 
 PART FIRST. 
 
 "' The doctrine of the divine institution of sacramental au- 
 ricular confession, not authorized by scripture." 
 
 Before we enter on the proofs of this assertion, it 
 is necessary to state precisely, in what consists the 
 difference of opinion between the Protestant and Ro- 
 mish churches, with respect to confession of sins: ac- 
 curate notions of this disagreement 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 questioned by the author 
 of the Appendix. " Admittit Calvinus generalem com- 
 fessionem; admittit etiam, privatam, coram pastore; 
 sed addit, banc, liberam esse debere, nee ab omnibus 
 exigendam, nee cogendos ad enumeranda omnia pec- 
 cata praecepto aliquo, aut arte inducendos, nisi quoad 
 interesse sua putabunt, ut solidum consolationis fruc- 
 tum referant." (Bellar. lib. 3. dePcmit.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 adviseable for a man 
 burthened with sin, to lay open his conscience in pri- 
 vate 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 con- 
 
10 
 
 sidered as a divine institution, and an indispensable 
 obligation, without which, no remission or pardon of 
 sin can be hoped for from God, as the council of Trent 
 has decreed it to be under a formidable anathema, 
 (scss. 14.,) and the Romish church professes to be- 
 lieve.* 
 
 * The error of the Romish Church concerning penance has beeD probably 
 strengthened by a misuse of the Latin term " pasnitentiam agere." It is 
 classical Latin for fiiTdwtiv, u or to repent ;" but the expression a 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 translation says, in 
 a note on Matthew iii. 2., that the Greek word is used in Scripture, 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 u 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 repentance 
 spoken of, is an act of justice to an offended brother. In the latter it is de- 
 scriptive 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 restricted 
 to sins after baptism. 
 
 The verb ujTavotu, is either compounded of uito, after, and vonv, to under- 
 stand, which signifies, that after 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 \\na, after, and avoia, madness, which 
 intimates that the whole life of a sinner is no other than a continued course of 
 madness and folly : and if to live in a constant opposition to all the dictates 
 of true 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 prepare him- 
 self 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 Latins term- 
 ed repentance resipisemtia, a growing wise again, from re and sapere ; or, ac- 
 cording to Tertullian, Resipiscentia quasi receptio mentis ad se, restoring the 
 mind to itself: Contra Marcion, lib. ii. Repentance then implies, that a 
 measure of divine tcisdom is communicated to the sinner, and that he thereby 
 becomes wise to salvation. That his mind, purposes, opinions, and inclina- 
 tions 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 hea* 
 yen, and exposed his soul to hell. Hence, a true penitent has that sorrow, 
 whereby he forsakes sin, uot only because it has been ruinous to his own souk 
 but because it has been offensive to God- 
 
u 
 
 Now this divine institution of private, or auricular 
 confession, and its absolute necessity for the remission 
 of sins, are, for many reasons, rejected from the creed 
 of all Protestants : and particularly, because they can- 
 not discover these doctrines in the scriptures. They 
 consider, and so must every candid inquirer into re- 
 ligious truth, that if a burthen so grievous as auricular 
 confession, had been enjoined 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 im- 
 posed the heavy yoke of the law; a yoke, nevertheless, 
 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 Gentle- 
 man, in support of the divine institution, and absolute 
 necessity of auricular sacramental confession, are three 
 from the Evangelists, one from the Acts of the Apos- 
 tles, 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 observations will suffice to 
 show, that, all the majors and minors 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 evidence 
 which should compel a man to unfold the most hu- 
 miliating thoughts, desires, and actions of his life ; to 
 communicate to a fellow mortal, often very ignorant, 
 and incapable of advising, those secrets of the heart, 
 which to know, is the exclusive privilege of Omnis- 
 cience; and of which he is too jealous, to enact, under 
 the sanction of a precept, the participation of them 
 
12 
 
 with a sinful creature. The control over its hidden 
 emotions and propensities, either in concealing or di- 
 vulging 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 infringe them. 
 But to proceed to the Reverend Gentleman's argu- 
 ment drawn from the New Testament — In the eigh- 
 teenth verse of the sixteenth chapter of St. Matthew, 
 he finds, that " Christ has instituted the apostles and 
 their lawful successors, the priests of his church, to 
 be judges upon earth, invested with a power, that 
 without their sentence, no sinner, fallen after baptism, 
 can be reconciled." {<App> p. 20.) Here is a discove- 
 ry of great latitude indeed, and although somewhat 
 awkwardly expressed, contains a most awful and 
 momentous meaning: nothing less than "the impos- 
 sibility 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 whatsoever 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 after- 
 wards to his apostles — " Verily, I say unto you, what- 
 soever ye shall bind on earth shall be bound in hea- 
 ven, and whatsoever ye shall loose on earth shall be 
 loosed in heaven." " The third, and principal pas- 
 sage," says the Reverend Gentleman, 4< upon which 
 the belief of the Catholic church respecting the di- 
 vine institution and absolute necessitv of confession 
 
13 
 
 is grounded, is found in the twentieth chapter of St. 
 John, where Christ, after his resurrection, thus ad- 
 dresses his disciples, (ver. twenty-first and twenty- 
 second,) 'As the Father hath sent me, even so send I 
 you; and when he had said this, he breathed on them, 
 and saith unto them, receive ye the Holy Ghost; 
 whosesoever sins ye remit, they are remitted unto 
 them ; and whosesoever sins ye retain, they are re- 
 tained.' " 
 
 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 evi- 
 dence 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 gene- 
 rally understood as communicating 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 doctrine, will be considerably abated. 
 
 The Reverend Gentleman builds on these passages, 
 many arguments in favour of auricular sacramental 
 confession, for which Protestants conceive they fur- 
 nish no foundation. The words " thou art Peter," &c. 
 have no reference to the subject immediately before 
 us ; for even granting them to imply a promise of 
 exemption from error, they surely convey no author- 
 ity to St. Peter, to receive the private confessions of 
 the faithful, and forgive their sins by sacramental ab- 
 solution — But. it i« the power of tho keys, convoy 
 
14 
 
 ed in these passages, on which the Gentleman 
 insists— He identifies this power with a judicial autho- 
 rity, which cannot be exercised without a full disclo- 
 sure of all the sins of the penitent, to a judge appoint- 
 ed by God to forgive or retain them. He tells us, 
 (p. 24.,) that to adjust any differences which a subject 
 may have with his sovereign, it is necessary to present 
 himself before him whom the sovereign should have dele- 
 gated judge in his place. Now, is there any parity be- 
 tween this case, and that of the sinner with God ? 
 Suppose this sovereign to be omniscient, and, of 
 course, intimately acquainted with every action, 
 thought, and disposition of his subject, which might 
 render him an object of pardon or punishment ; sup- 
 pose, moreover, this most merciful sovereign 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 ordi- 
 nance, he had already been received as a regular sub- 
 ject into this kingdom ? Again, let us suppose that a 
 sovereign should appoint judges throughout his domi- 
 nions, to absolve all his subjects from the guilt and pe- 
 nalties 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 govPTpigrn and the privileges o( his kingdom ? 
 
la 
 
 The power of binding and loosening is committed to 
 these judges, and it can only be exercised by declar- 
 ing those to be still guilty, who remain obstinate in 
 their offences, and those to be absolved who are sin- 
 cerely penitent. Thus, we see that one of the Reve- 
 rend Gentleman's main propositions, (p. 25.,) " that if 
 confession be not of divine institution, and of absolute 
 necessity for the reconciliation of the sinner, that is, if 
 there be any other ordinary means to obtain the re- 
 mission of sins committed after baptism, different from 
 confession, the use and exercise of the power of for- 
 giving and retaining sins, would be rendered thereby 
 wholly useless and nugatory." We perceive, I say, 
 that this assertion is totally unfounded. A circum- 
 stantial enumeration of every sinful thought, word, 
 and deed, to be made to a priest by a private confes- 
 sion, is cot required by any of these passages of scrip- 
 ture, 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 declare and pronounce to his people, be- 
 ing penitent, the absolution 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 power of retaining 
 sins, the Rev. Gentleman will not, surely, conceive it 
 to be applicable to those, for which, the sinner exhi- 
 bits every reasonable mark of godly sorrow and re- 
 pentance. Sins thus repented of, God could never 
 have given any man power to retain. Such power 
 would efface every idea of divine placability, contra- 
 
16 
 
 diet the most positive declarations of Scripture, and 
 overthrow the whole economy of the gospel. Be- 
 sides, 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 successors, 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, in- 
 deed, points out several passages, which mention, in 
 general terms, the confession of sins, but how he can 
 seriously believe, that they establish auricular sacra- 
 mental confession, must be matter of astonishment to 
 those who are accustomed to think for themselves. 
 Do the recorded instances of our Saviour pronounc- 
 ing forgiveness of sins mention any confession but such 
 as was general ? Did the penitent woman, when 
 kneeling at the feet of Jesus, watering them with her 
 tears, and wiping them with her hair, go into a mi- 
 nute and circumstantial enumeration of her sins ; or 
 rather, were not the unequivocal evidences of her re- 
 pentance 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 ? 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 
 
17 
 
 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 unrighteous* 
 ness. Can the Rev. Gentleman imagine that any un- 
 fettered mind will admit the following conclusions, 
 drawn from the passages of Scripture which he al- 
 leges ? " Christ left with his apostles, and their suc- 
 cessors, 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 sacramental 
 confession. How does it follow that a power of for- 
 giving, in God's name, the sins revealed to his minis- 
 ters, 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 revealed to a priest ? Does this pow- 
 er in the Christian church invalidate the means of ob- 
 taining forgiveness adopted in the Jewish : or are the 
 motives of a pardoning God iluctuating and uncer- 
 tain ? Would not a penitential spirit plead as effec 
 tually 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, thai 
 a few ambiguous expressions are to be diverted from 
 their more obvious and consistent meaning, to bind on 
 their consciences a most intolerable burthen, incon- 
 sistent with the perfect law of liberty, by which Christ 
 has set us free, and tending frequently, it is to be fear- 
 ed, to inspire a confidence of forgiveness, resting 
 rather on a compliance with so humiliating an ordi- 
 
18 
 
 nance, than on the full and perfect atonement and 
 satisfaction of Christ for the sins of the whole world ? 
 
 A more frequent, explicit, and impressive reference 
 to this fundamental article of Christianity would not 
 fail to detract from the imaginary importance of sa- 
 cramental confession, 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 render 
 him easy under his guilt, from the facility of recon- 
 ciliation. There is, in fact, no other doctrine, or or- 
 dinance, or discipline, which, exclusively of this tenet, 
 can alarm or rouse the sinner from the apathy of 
 habitual transgression. I know that the Rev. Gen- 
 tleman believes this doctrine in its full extent; and I 
 know that Protestants feel grateful to his church, 
 that amidst the prevalence of ignorance, superstition, 
 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 the 
 conscience of the Rev. Gentleman, whether his high 
 encomiums on the divine right, the indispensable ne- 
 cessity, and the mighty benefits of auricular confes- 
 sion, 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 passa- 
 ges, by the learned Dr. Adam Clarke, if duly consi- 
 dered, would probably set at rest for ever, all contro- 
 versy arising from them. 
 
19 
 
 " Thou art Peter. This was the same as if he had 
 said, I acknowledge thee for one of my disciples — for this 
 name was given him by our Lord when he first called 
 him to the apostleship. See John i. 42. 
 
 " Peter, mrpo;, 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 con- 
 fession, and the stability of that cause which should 
 be founded on the Christ, the Son of the Living 
 God. 
 
 " Upon this very rock, tun t*ut» t„ ^jt^* — this true con- 
 fession 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 be- 
 come the Head-stone of the Corner: and to Isa. xxviii. 
 16. Behold I lay a Stone in Z ion for a Foundation,) 
 —will I build my Church nou w tmkmnm, my assembly or 
 congregation, i. e. of persons who are made parta- 
 kers of this precious faith. That Peter is not design- 
 ed in our Lord's words, must be evident to ail 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 : (I Pet. ii. 4, 5.) 
 therefore, Jesus Christ did not say, on thee, Peter, 
 will I build my church, but changes immediately the 
 expression, and says, upon that very rock, m rem™ n nnpa, 
 to show that he neither addressed Peter nor any 
 other of the apostle?. So. the supremacy of Peter, 
 
20 
 
 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 gales of Hell, nu\a> aj u, 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, strata- 
 gems, nor strength, of Satan and his angels, should 
 ever so far prevail as to destroy the sacred truth? 
 in the above confession. Sometimes the gates art- 
 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 dis- 
 comfiture must be the consequence on their part ; ae 
 the arm of the Omnipotent must prevail. 
 
 " The keys of the kingdom. By the kingdom of hea- 
 ven, we may consider the true Church, that house of 
 God, to be meant, and by the keys, the power of ad- 
 mitting into that house, or of preventing any impro- 
 per person from coming in. In other words, the doc- 
 trine 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 ex- 
 plain the Scriptures to the people. Martin. This 
 prophetic declaration of our Lord, was literally ful- 
 filled to Peter, as he was made the first instrument of 
 
2J 
 
 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. J. xv. 7.) 
 
 " Whatsoever thou shalt bind 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 es- 
 cape 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 receive considerable light from Levit. xiii. 3 and 
 23. The priest shall look upon him (the leper) and 
 pronounce him unclean. Heb. "ifift NED1 vetime otho, he 
 shall pollute him, i. e. shall declare him polluted, from 
 the evidences mentioned before, and in ver. 23. The 
 priest shall pronounce him clean ?|"On "HIUDI 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 declared the person infected 
 with the leprosy, and unfit 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 doctrine ol 
 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 loos- 
 ing, or pronouncing fit or unfit for fellowship with the 
 
21' 
 
 Mtiiibtts of Christ, being always according to the doc- 
 trine of the gospel of God, should be considered as 
 proceeding immediately from heaven, and consequent- 
 ly as divinely ratified.'''' 
 
 That binding and loosing were terms in frequent 
 use among the Jews, and that they meant bidding and 
 forbidding, granting and refusing, declaring lawful or 
 unlawful, &c, Dr. Lightfoot, after having given nu- 
 merous instances, thus concludes : 
 
 " To these may be added, if need were, the frequent, 
 (shall I say ?) or infinite use of the phrases, "tiVft) T)Dtf 
 bound and loosed, which we meet with thousands of times 
 over. But from these allegations the reader sees 
 abundantly 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, con- 
 cerning things allowed or not allowed in the law. Se- 
 condly, that to bind'is the same with to forbid, or to de~ 
 dare forbidden. To think that Christ, when he used 
 the common phrase, was not understood by his hear- 
 ers, 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 j 
 being taught this, and led by the Holy Spirit, as if he 
 should say, whatsoever ye shall bind in the law of 
 Moses that is forbid, it shall be forbidden, the divine 
 mithority confirming it ; and whatsoever ye shall 
 
23 
 
 loose, that is, permit, or shall teach that it is permitted 
 and lawful, shall be lawful and permitted. Hence they 
 bound, 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 earth was confirmed in heaven. They 
 loosed, that is, allowed purification to Paid, and to 
 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 judgments, 
 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. 4 1 am about to build a Gentile Church,' saith 
 Christ, l and to thee, O Peter, do I give the keys of the 
 kingdom of heaven, that thou mayest first open the 
 door of faith to them; but if thou askest by what rule 
 that Church is to be governed, when the Mosaic rule 
 may seem so improper for it, thou shalt be so guided 
 by the Holy Spirit, that whatsoever of the law of 
 Moses thou shalt forbid them, shall be forbidden : 
 whatsoever thou grantest them, shall be granted, and 
 that under a sanction made in heaven.' Hence, in 
 that instant, when he should use his keys, that is, when 
 he was now ready to open the gate of the gospel to 
 the Gentiles, (Acts x.) he was taught from heaven, that 
 the consorting of the Jew with the Gentile, which be- 
 fore had been bound was now loosed ; and the eating 
 of any creature convenient for food, was now loosed, 
 which before had been bound; and he, in like manner. 
 looses both these. 
 
24 
 
 *• Those words of our Saviour, (John xx. 23.) if' host 
 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 doctrine only, not of persons ; there of 
 persons, not of doctrine. Here of things lawful or un- 
 lawful in religion, to be determined by the apostles ; 
 there of persons obstinate or not obstinate, to be punish- 
 ed by them, or not to be punished. 
 
 " As to doctrine, the apostles were doubly instruct- 
 ed. 1. So long sitting at the feet of their Master, 
 they had imbibed the evangelical doctrine. 2. The 
 Holy Spirit directing them, they were to determine 
 concerning the legal doctrine and practice, being com- 
 pletely instructed and enabled 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 diseases, ' 
 plagues, yea, death itself, which Peter did to Ananias 
 and Sapphira ; Paul to Elymas, Hymeneus, and Phile- 
 tus" &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 mat- 
 ter of laughter or of madness. No church can use 
 them in the sense thus imposed 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 
 subject might safely be omitted ; for we may confi 
 
25 
 
 dently presume that no unprejudiced reader will con- 
 sider the other passages of the New Testament, 
 brought forward in the second chapter of the Appen- 
 dix, as bearing in the smallest degree on sacramental 
 confession. Let him, however, judge for himself. 
 
 The first passage is this: {Acts 19.) " And many 
 that believed, came and confessed, and showed the ir 
 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 dis- 
 semble nor cloak them before the face of their heaven- 
 ly 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, they 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 grievous unto them ; the bur- 
 then 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 
 (he nature of the confession made by these people, 
 and, upon this unequivocal evidence of their repent- 
 ance, they received, no doubt, from St. Paul, in vir- 
 tue of the powers of his sacred ministry, a declaration 
 lhat iheir sins were forgiven Thus ministerial act 
 
 4 
 
26 
 
 which is termed by some absolution, is still exercised 
 and highlj appreciated in the Protestant churches. 
 Every regular minister of the gospel conceives him- 
 self authorized to preach forgiveness of sins to repent- 
 ing sinners ; to assure them, when they exhibit satis- 
 factory proofs that their repentance is real and sin- 
 cere, 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 distinction 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 minute and circumstantial dis- 
 closure of all the offences to which it has a relation. 
 (See Bishop Whitens Second Lecture.} But whenever 
 such evidence appears, as in the case before us, God's 
 ministers are authorized and bound to pronounce to 
 his people the absolution of their sins. And whether 
 the words of this absolution be, / absolve thee, as they 
 appear in the office of visitation of the sick, used by the 
 church of England, or, I declare and pronounce you to 
 be absolved, as used exclusively by the Protestant Epis- 
 copal church in America, in neither case do they 
 furnish any countenance to the sense of sacramental 
 absolution, as understood and taught by the Romish 
 church. The forms of absolution, however express- 
 ed, are by all Protestants held to be merely depreca- 
 tory 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 
 analogous to that in the second chapter of St. Mat- 
 thew, where, it is said. " all Jerusalem and all Judea, 
 
27 
 
 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 pretext for the sacra- 
 ment of penance ? 
 
 With respect to the text from 2 Cor. v. it is 
 really surprising, that the Rev. Gentleman should 
 cite it in support of his doctrine. "God," says the 
 apostle, " has given to us the ministry of reconcilia- 
 tion ;" that is, he has commissioned and charged us, 
 the pastors of his church, to publish 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 ministry of such re- 
 conciliation as this to do with auricular sacramental 
 confession ? It relates entirely to the ministry of the 
 word, to the preaching of the glad tidings of salva- 
 tion to a lost world, through the atoning blood of the 
 Redeemer. 
 
 The third and last passage quoted by the Rev. 
 Gentleman 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 
 
28 
 
 •• to confess exclusively to a priest." Besides, as un- 
 derstood by the Rev. Gentleman, it proves too much, 
 and therefore proves nothing: for if it enjoin on all 
 Christians the obligation of mutual confession, and 
 this confession be sacramental, then must priests con- 
 fess 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 abso- 
 lution 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 forgiven us." 
 
 The arguments for pressing this passage into the 
 cause of sacramental confession, are really too trifling to 
 merit further notice ; and therefore, having consider- 
 ed all the scriptural proofs for this doctrine contain- 
 ed in the Appendix, 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 only remit* 
 
29 
 
 sins, and retains them ; and yet lie has granted pow- 
 er to the church to bind and to loosen. But he binds 
 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, of decla- 
 ring 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 cen- 
 tury, deliver the doctrine of the Reformation, 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 doc- 
 trine of sacramental confession was not enacted into an 
 article of faith, and indispensable discipline, previously to 
 the thirteenth century. 
 
 PART SECOND. 
 
 The testimony of the ancient fathers docs not prove sacramental 
 confession. 
 
 In casting his eye over the Appendix to the Catholic 
 Question, from page forty-one, the reader will per- 
 ceive a formidable host of ancient Christian fathers, 
 marshalled according to the respective centuries of 
 the church, and all bearing testimony to sacramental 
 confession. These passages are earnestly recom- 
 mended to the attentive perusal of the reader, with 
 
30 
 
 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 evan- 
 gelical repentance and forgiveness of sins was always 
 deemed a primitive and fundamental article of the 
 Christian church. What 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 examined by the rules of sound 
 criticism and unprejudiced judgment, and I will ven- 
 ture to affirm, that they mean nothing more than 
 warm and high-strained exhortations to repent- 
 ance, either public or private, and can never, with- 
 out manifest violence, be distorted to inculcate the 
 necessity of sacramental confession as a means, (necessi- 
 tate medii,) or as a divine precept, (necessitate praiceptij) 
 for obtaining forgiveness of sin. It must indeed be 
 readily acknowledged, that on this, as well as on 
 many other opinions and points of discipline existing 
 in their day, the fathers frequently express them- 
 selves in a language little consistent with that cool- 
 ness and accuracy which should always accompany 
 polemical disquisitions. Being ignorant of any divine 
 precept respecting minute sacramental confession, and 
 sacerdotal absolution, as they are now understood in 
 the church of Rome, they indulged in a laxity and 
 ambiguity of expression, which any controversy exist- 
 ing at the time would have induced them to avoid. 
 But no such controversy did exist in their day. Con- 
 fession to a priest, as a divine and indispensable institu- 
 tion, 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 sixteenth century r 
 
31 
 
 ushered it into the world under all its guardian sanc- 
 tions 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, 
 {*App. p. 42.) that a sinful woman, " penetrated 
 with grief, spent her whole time in confessing and be- 
 wailing her sins, and lamenting the crime she had 
 been led, by a magician, to commit ;" can he be un- 
 derstood to mean any thing more than is daily done 
 in Protestant religious assemblies? Or shall we be 
 seriously told that her whole time was spent in confess- 
 ing the same sins to a priest, and obtaining from him 
 reiterated absolution? Is there in the passage quo- 
 ted from Tertullian (p. 42.) the slightest allusion 
 to auricular confession, or sacramental absolution ? 
 As a point of discipline, this writer must have enter- 
 tained very rigid notions concerning the disclosure of 
 sins, and we know that his inflexible obstinacy and 
 severity on other subjects, often led him into hereti- 
 cal opinions. The quotation from Origen (p. 43.) 
 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 ap- 
 ply 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 mean- 
 ing of the passage — {see Orig. in psal. 37, horn. 2.) 
 
32 
 
 With respect to the passages cited from St. Cyprian, 
 (p. 44, &c.) and other fathers of the two following 
 ages, their meaning may be easily ascertained from a 
 short view of church discipline prevailing at those pe- 
 riods. 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 declara- 
 tions which the church pronounced on public peni- 
 tents, voluntarily submitted themselves to her outward 
 discipline, and by a confession of private sins, under- 
 went the penances appointed for such as were public. 
 This appears to be the case from Origen, and St. Cy- 
 prian, cited in the Appendix, from St Ambrose, (lib. 
 1. cle pamit. c. 16.) and other writers of those times. 
 That this public confession of secret faults, however, 
 might be attendod 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 physi- 
 cian, to whom any disclosures of this kind should be 
 tnade. " If he understand," (Orig. ibide?n.) " and fore- 
 see, 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 delibera- 
 
33 
 
 tion, and by the very skilful counsel of thy physician, 
 must this be done." 
 
 In process of time, that is to say, soon after the per- 
 secution 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 ordain- 
 ed, that, in every church, one particular discreet mi- 
 nister, should be appointed to receive the confessions 
 of such as relapsed into sin after baptism. This ad- 
 dition to the penitential canon, is expressly noticed by 
 Socrates, in his Ecclesiastical History, {lib. 5. c. 19.,) 
 and was observed in the church for a considerable 
 length of time. It was, however, finally abolished, 
 when Nectarius was Bishop of Constantinople, about 
 one hundred and forty years after the persecution of 
 Decius. A woman confessed publicly a sin, in which 
 a deacon of the church was implicated, and a load of 
 scandal was thus cast upon the clergy, that furnished 
 an inducement to discontinue the practice, and liberty 
 was now allowed to every one, upon the private ex- 
 amination 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 sub- 
 ject 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 ;"t 
 and agreeable to the primitive opinion expressed by 
 Clemens Alexandrinus, when he asserts, that " a man's 
 own conscience is his best director in this case j" 
 (Jib. 1. Strom.) This abolition of confession is an im- 
 portant event in the history of the church, and it evi- 
 dently shows that no idea of the divine right, and in- 
 dispensable necessity of the sacrament of penance,then 
 
 5 
 
'54 
 
 prevailed among" Christians. The fact stands embla- 
 zoned with 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 
 Eudemon's own mouth.*' The historian Sozomen 
 agrees with Socrates, and adds, moreover, " that in 
 his time (that is, in the reign of Theodosius the young- 
 er) the practice was still discontinued, and that thr 
 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 unde- 
 feasible necessity and divine institution of confession, 
 the cardinals Bellarmine, and Baronius, are compelled 
 to question the veracity of these historians, or to con- 
 tend, that they spake only of the abolition of public 
 confession. The force of their arguments, however, 
 will be readily acknowledged to weigh little with a 
 Protestant, when it is known that they were disre- 
 garded by one of their own most eminent divines. 
 The learned Suarez reasons thus on the subject : 
 " In this manner Gratian and Baronius answer, un- 
 derstanding these words of public confession. But 
 some expressions of St Chrysostom are greatly re- 
 •pugnant 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 horn. 
 31. in Epis. ad Hebrceos. "Confess your sins before 
 God ; pronounce your offences to your true Judge in 
 prayer, not with your tongue, but from the recollec- 
 tion of your conscience. Wherefore this exposition 
 appears to me probable, that Chrysostom spake of 
 
3vi 
 
 private confession." (Suarez in Thorn, part. 3. torn. 
 •1. 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 relation, because Sozo- 
 men 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, 
 therefore, acknowledge, that he (Nectarius) annulled 
 the practice of penance." Thomas Waldensis, a 
 divine much commended by Dr. Stapleton, was en- 
 tirely of Suarez's opinion, and boldly asserts, {torn. 2. 
 cap. 141.) " that Nectarius actually annulled confes- 
 sion. 
 
 In conformity with this alteration in church disci- 
 pline, St. John Chrysostom, who w r as the immediate 
 successor of Nectarius in the see of Constantinople, 
 expounding the words of the apostle, (1 Cor. II.,) 
 ; ' Let every man examine himself," &c. writes as fol- 
 lows : (horn. 28.) " He does not bid one man to exa- 
 mine another, but every one himself, making the 
 judgment private, and the trial without witnesses." 
 And in the end of his second homily on Fasting, which, 
 in some editions, is the eighth dc pamitentia, he ex- 
 horts 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 pass- 
 ing thy whole life in review, bring thy sins into judg- 
 ment in thy mind : reform thy excesses, and so with 
 a pure conscience draw near to that sacred table* 
 
36 
 
 and partake of that holy sacrifice." Still, however, 
 he solemnly charges ministers, not to admit known 
 offenders to the communion. (See horn. 82. in Matlh. 
 edit. Graze, vel. 83. edit. Latin.} From the writings of 
 this father, and from the subsequent practice of the 
 church, Ave learn that the godly and apostolic disci- 
 pline of public penance, was not entirely abrogated; 
 on the contrary, that open offenders were publicly 
 censured, and pressed to make public confession of 
 their sins. Nectarius, therefore, merely abolished the 
 obligation 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, 
 auricular confession, as a divine and indispensable ob- 
 ligation. With two short observations on this sub- 
 ject, it shall be dismissed altogether. One is, that 
 the form of confession used by the primitive Chris- 
 tians, 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, sacra- 
 mental, 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 Catholic bishops, whilst the Arian and 
 other sectarian churches, as Socrates and Sozomen 
 inform us at large, retained the former usage. 
 
 About seventy years after the innovation intro- 
 duced by 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 ena- 
 
37 
 
 bled to judge what reference they have to sacramental 
 confession and absolution ; or how far the Rev. Gen- 
 tleman 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." (^pp> p. 51.) 
 
 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 de- 
 claration, 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 con- 
 fession, 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 be- 
 fore men, from a great fear of God, nevertheless, be- 
 cause 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 re- 
 pentance, 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 sufficient which is offered first to 
 God, and then to the priest, ivho comes as an intercessor 
 for the sins of the penitent. (Epist. 80, ad Episcopos 
 Camp. Samnii et Piceni.y 
 
 The Rev. Gentleman omits the last words, al- 
 though he must know, that on them turns the whole 
 controversy between us. '• Sacerdos pro delictis 
 pa?nitentium precator accedit." " He prays that the 
 sins of the penitent may be forgiven." Without the 
 
38 
 
 most distant hint at judicial sacramental absolution ; 
 although, indeed, the words may seem to imply abso- 
 lution of a declaratory and intercessional nature, which 
 the Protestant reformers never denied. The other 
 passage from the same venerable father, is equally ir- 
 relevant to the present question. It speaks of the sup- 
 plications of the priests, of imposing a competent penance, 
 and of enjoining a wholesome satisfaction on those who 
 confessed their sins, according to the discipline then 
 prevalent in the church ; but, of absolution, as defined 
 hy the council of Trent, not a syllable occurs. It 
 expresses no other sentiment, but that contained in 
 44 the declaration of absolution or remission of sins," 
 in the beginning of the morning service of the Pro- 
 testant Episcopal church, to which every Protestant, 
 I believe, would willingly say, Amen. 
 
 This main support of the Romish doctrine of con- 
 fession, drawn from the authority of St. Leo, and by 
 the Rev. Gentleman 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 Appendix 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 principally to 
 observe, as many divines have done, and as Dr. 
 Samuel Johnson expresses himself in his forcible lan- 
 guage, (Bos. Life, page 322. vol. ii.) " that it is proba- 
 ble, that from the acknowledged power of public cen- 
 sure, grew in time the practice of auricular confes- 
 sion. Those who dreaded the blast of public repre- 
 hension, were willing to submit themselves to the 
 priest, by a private accusation of themselves ; and to 
 
3D 
 
 obtain a reconciliation with the church, by a kind oi 
 clandestine absolution and invisible penance, condi- 
 tions with which the priest would, in times of igno- 
 rance and corruption, easily comply, as they increas- 
 ed 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 this bondage, the reforma- 
 tion set us free. The minister has no longer power 
 to press into the retirements of conscience, to torture 
 us by interrogatories, or put himself in possession of our 
 secrets, and of our lives. But though we have thu c 
 controlled his usurpations, his just and original pow- 
 er remains unimpaired ; and this power consists in the 
 ministry of the word, the due administration of the sa- 
 craments, and the forgiving or retaining of sins in the 
 scriptural meaning of the words." The opinion of 
 the learned Beatus Bhenanus, the friend of Erasmus, 
 coincides exactly with that of Dr. Johnson. Hk 
 words are these: (Argument, in lib. Tertull. de pamit :) 
 •' For no other reason have we here alleged the testi- 
 mony of many writers, but that none might be surpri- 
 sed at Tertullian's silence respecting the private con- 
 fession of sins, which, as far as Ave can conjecture, 
 took its rise from public confession, in order that the 
 disclosure of secret sins mig-ht also be secret. We 
 read however, no where, that it was ever enacted a* 
 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 
 tendency of them that way, passages without number 
 might easily be selected to prove that no micb onio- 
 
40 
 
 ion existed in their time. The reader may tind them 
 detailed in all Protestant polemical writers on this 
 subject; and the very few with which he shall here 
 be presented, will carry with 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 unsettled. 
 
 The passage from St. Chrysostom, which has been 
 already 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 thine own thoughts : let the tri- 
 bunal at which thou arraignest thyself be without 
 witness : let God alone see thee and thy confession." 
 (Horn, de Pad.) Again, (//om. 31. ad Hceb. et in Ps. 
 59. Horn, de Peed, et Horn. 5. in incarn. Itemque de La- 
 zaro.} " I wish thee not to accuse thyself publicly, 
 nor before others : but I wish thee to obey the Pro- 
 phet, 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, re- 
 hearse them every day in thy soul. I do not tell thee 
 to confess them to thy fellow servant, who may up- 
 braid thee, but tell them to God, who may cure them. 
 I pray and beseech you, that you would more fre- 
 quently 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, I seek 
 not to disclose your crimes before men. Open your 
 conscience before God, unbosom yourselves to him, lay 
 open your wounds to him, who is the best physician, 
 and of him humbly implore a medicine.'' Now. I put 
 
41 
 
 it to the candour of every reader, if such can possibly 
 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 Peed. dis. 5. in Peed.) " 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 Am- 
 brose, Austin, and Chrysostom as advocates for thib 
 opinion. Again, we find these words in the same 
 place, " But that the sin of an adult person cannot be 
 remitted without oral confession, which is false" &c. 
 These last words, which is false, have since been or- 
 dered to be expunged in a famous Index Expurgato- 
 rius. 
 
 It would be needless, after what has been said, to 
 load these pages with counter-passages from the fa- 
 thers of the four or five first centuries, directly invali- 
 dating the consequences, drawn from those which are 
 produced in the Appendix. These were never under- 
 stood as building the system of auricular confession 
 upon a divine foundation ; and the most pointed phrase- 
 ology on this head, flowing either from the glowing 
 imagination of the Greek, or the embarrassed theolo- 
 gy, and frequently crude conceptions, of the Latin fa- 
 thers, never met with more respect in subsequent 
 
 * These Decretals contain a body of canon law and decrees of the great- 
 est 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." 
 
 
 
42 
 
 ages, than was due to men whose labours, though 
 occasionally inconsistent and erroneous,* were, never- 
 theless, eminently serviceable in defending and pro- 
 moting gospel truth and holiness. The authority of 
 these primitive writers 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 dis- 
 cussion, 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 
 institution when he wrote these words? " After bap- 
 tism, God has appointed the remedy within thyself, 
 he has placed remission 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." (JLau. 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 
 much the more diligent and constant in opening them 
 by supplication to God himself, whose custom is to af- 
 ford assistance 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 mat- 
 ter of indifference whether men of ecclesiastical or- 
 der, detect their sins by confession, or leaving the 
 world ignorant of them, voluntarily separate them- 
 
 * See Daillc de usu Patrum. 
 
43 
 
 selves for a time, from the altar, although not in affec- 
 tion, jet in the execution of their ministry, and so be- 
 wail their corrupt life ?" (de Vita Contemp. lib. ii. c. 7.) 
 The advice 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 Sax- 
 ons, under the title de pcea soli Deo, conjitenda, 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 hidden, that to this confession 
 he may deserve to add what follows, and thou forgav- 
 est the iniquity of my heart : but if bashfulness do so 
 draw thee back, that thou blushest to reveal them be- 
 fore men, cease not by continual supplication to con- 
 fess 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. Am- 
 brose, (Lib. x. Com. in Luc. c. 22.,) " tears confess our 
 crime without offerins; 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 pcea dist. i. c. 2. lachrymce.} 
 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 dis- 
 gusting ignorance, and its offspring superstition ; when, 
 except by a chosen few, reference was seldom had to 
 the all-sufficiency of Christ's atonement, and to an 
 entire reliance on his full and effectual satisfaction for 
 the remission of sins, confession and bodily austerities 
 naturally obtained a great degree of importance from 
 fheir supposed efficacy in quieting the consciences of 
 
44 
 
 sinners. Accordingly, we are not surprised to meet 
 with recommendations to confession, amounting near- 
 ly to precepts, in some of the writers and councils of 
 the middle ages. Yet a germ of good sense and 
 scripture knowledge, still vegetated in the church, 
 which neither the jargon of scholastic theology, nor 
 the cullability of the ignorant multitude, was ever able 
 to wither. The obligation of auricular confession and 
 sacerdotal absolution, remained for many ages a sub- 
 ject of altercation and doubt, nor was it till the Pro- 
 testants, in the valleys of Piedmont, began to settle the 
 doctrines of the gospel upon their scriptural founda- 
 tions, 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 coun- 
 cils of Lateran and Trent, as a few prominent autho- 
 rities 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, uniformity of opi- 
 nion 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. Alcuin, 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 
 <ins to God alone." {Ale. Epis. 26. Haym. in Evang. 
 m Dom. 15. Post Petit.) Others confessed their sins 
 
4S 
 
 to the priests, but not fully, as appears from the 
 council of Cavaillon, held in the reign of Charle- 
 magne. Great stress is laid on the determinations of 
 this council, by the advocates of the sacrament of pe- 
 nance ; 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 re- 
 mained 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 con- 
 fessed to the priests, both which practices exist, not 
 without great fruit in the holy church ; namely, thus, 
 that we both confess our sins to God, who is the for- 
 giver of sins, saying with David, ' I have acknow- 
 ledged ray 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. l For God, the author and bestower of salvation 
 and health, sometimes gives it by the invisible admin- 
 istration of his power, sometimes by the operation of 
 physicians.'" (Con. Cavaillon, cap. 33. Anno 813.) 
 In the Psenitential of Theodore, Archbishop of Can- 
 terbury, who died in 690, are found these remarkable 
 words, " It is lawful that confession be made to God 
 alone, if it be requisite." This document, Archbish- 
 
46 
 
 op 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 solum- 
 modo confiteri debere peccata dicunt, ut Gireci." (dc 
 Pcea. (list. 1. cap. ult.) Whatever doctrines or disci- 
 pline afterwards prevailed in the Greek church, can 
 have no bearing on the present subject, and must ren- 
 der the numerous quotations of the Rev. Gentleman 
 to press that church into his service, nugatory and 
 useless. The opinions of theologians in the twelfth 
 century, are thus clearly stated by the learned Gra- 
 tian : " upon what authority," says he, " or upon what 
 strength of arguments both these opinions are ground- 
 ed," (viz. of the necessary or optional practice of 
 external confession,) " I have briefly laid open. But 
 to Avhich of them we should rather adhere, is reserv- 
 ed to the judgment of the reader. For both of them 
 have for their advocates wise and religious men." 
 (de Pcea. 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 
 Christians, a double yoke of unprecedented severity, 
 by decreeing at the same time, under horrid anathe- 
 mas, the doctrine of transubstantiation, and the obli- 
 gation of confession. 
 
 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 such an air of confidence and triumph. 
 
47 
 
 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 advantages of confession, of the 
 exhortations of pious men to practise it, of its benefits to 
 church and state, of the improbability of & voluntary sub- 
 mission to so humiliating a practice ; (p. 80, 81 :) of its 
 having been adopted by sick and dying persons, by ar- 
 mies, kings, and emperors, or rather by some of each of 
 these descriptions of persons, of its having been sanc- 
 tioned by miracles Mid prodigies ; (p. 68, 69 ;) all these 
 add no force to arguments in support of auricular sa- 
 cramental co?ifcssion, and judicial absolution, unless it can 
 be proved that such was the very confession always 
 understood and practised in the church, and after- 
 wards defined and commanded 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 exer- 
 cise of the ministerial office in the remission of sins, 
 and reconciliation of the sinner, confession underwent 
 many gradual alterations : it was occasionally modifi- 
 ed, as circumstances required, or as the warm imagi- 
 nations of some ecclesiastical rulers, and the interest- 
 ed views of others, added to its importance. Like 
 many bodily austerities and humiliating restraints, 
 confession 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 in- 
 tercession of Christ. It is among those galling fetters 
 and grievous burthens, which a mistaken devotion 
 has. in every religion, deemed effectual towards pro- 
 
48 
 
 pitiating the offended deity,* and although 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 
 observance conducive to piety by men of retired and 
 scholastic habits, it was first established as a point of 
 discipline, and by the Lateran council enjoined as such. 
 It had previously, indeed, been adopted by many, who 
 venerated every institution recommended in the clois- 
 ter, 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 imperceptible gradations, to 
 such importance, as to become an indispensable pre- 
 cept. Will the Rev. Gentleman deny, that this can 
 be the rise and progress of such burthensome observ- 
 ances ? Can he point out, for instance, the time, when 
 the strict obligation of reciting daily the ecclesiastical 
 office, or breviary, under the penalty of damnation, 
 was imposed upon the Roman clergy; or will he con- 
 sider it of divine appointment? Yet this is also a 
 most burthensome task imposed upon themselves 
 under the most awful sanctions, and frequently, it is 
 to be feared, giving rise to a mockery of religious wor- 
 ship in light minds, or creating uneasiness in the con- 
 sciences 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 
 
 * eheu ! 
 Quam temere in nosmet legem sancimus iniquam ? — Horacr. 
 
 * See Magee on the Atonement, No. V, 
 
49 
 
 the church before the thirteenth century. And, in- 
 deed, where was the necessity of a solemn decree by 
 the Lateran council, if the doctrine had been previ- 
 ously established ? However, this important fact can 
 be placed, I think, beyond the reach of uncertainty. 
 
 Many passages from the writings of Bonaventure } 
 Thomas Aquinas, and others, may be found in 
 Protestant polemical 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 quo- 
 tations, is the only motive for omitting them : one or 
 two may suffice. "The master of the sentences," 
 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 Pro- 
 testant 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. (Jlpp. p. 69.) Nay, since that 
 council, many orthodox Roman Catholic writers have 
 questioned the absolute validity of its decisions; of 
 which number are the commentator on the decretals 
 of Gratian, Scotus, the abbot Panormitanus, Michael 
 of Bologna, and some others, to say nothing of Eras- 
 mus, Rhenanus, cardinal Cajetan, and Richer, divines 
 of a still more modern date. It appears from Pere 
 Richard's analyse des conciles, published at Paris, with 
 approbation of the censors, in 1772, in four volume* 
 
 7 
 
50 
 
 quarto, that sinners were sometimes refused absolu- 
 tion in the article of death ; yet were they admitted to 
 the Eucharist without the reconciliatory imposition of 
 hands, to use the words of the council of Orange in 
 four hundred forty-one, which is sufficient for the conso- 
 lation of the dying. And afterwards the council of 
 Mentz, in eight hundred forty-seven, {can. 27.) men- 
 tions it as the discipline of that time, that criminals 
 were to receive the Eucharist if they appeared truly 
 penitent, and had confessed their si?is to God: for, says 
 Pere Longueval in his history of the Gallican church, 
 {torn. S. 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 subject of confes- 
 sion. 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 passages from the fathers, &c. mentioned in the 
 Appendix, ingenuously acknowledges, that none of 
 them relate to sacramental confession. " Quorum 
 patrum testimonia perperam 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 readily proved that it was deemed a dangerous in- 
 stitution, even by the popes themselves. We find 
 that bulls have been published by Pius IV. and 
 Gregory XV. — " Contra sacerdotes, qui mulieres pae- 
 nitentes in actu confessionis ad actus inhonestos pro- 
 vocare et allicere tentant." Young and pampered 
 ecclesiastics, placed in delicate situations of this kind, 
 cannot be always exempt from temptation : nor is the 
 
51 
 
 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 enter, frequently have their imagina- 
 tions perplexed and tortured by unreasonable appre- 
 hensions of continual danger and mortal guilt. By 
 investigating all the ramifications of sinful acts and 
 propensities, they become far better acquainted with 
 vice in all its shapes, and their minds more harassed, 
 if not more defiled, than pious Christians of other de- 
 nominations : For it is found by experience, that no- 
 thing contributes more 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 commission of certain crimes, often- 
 times alone sufficient to prevent them, were it never 
 acknowledged that such propensities had ever been 
 indulged. 
 
 However, allowing all that is said in the Appen- 
 dix relating to the advantages attending confession of 
 sins, which advantages are often very questionable, 
 and, unless perfectly optional, sometimes counterba- 
 lanced by much delusion 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 words cited 
 from the great and good bishop Andrews mean no- 
 
52 
 
 thing more) (<App> p. 96.,) Allowing, I say, all this, 
 and as much more of 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 confes- 
 sion, consider it in the same light as he does, or that 
 they ascribe to it any divine right or judicial absolu- 
 tion ? If not, then such authorities make nothing to 
 his purpose. The passage, indeed, which he quotes 
 from a Mr. Bayle (p. 95.) is more exactly in point : 
 but who this episcopalian 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 critical Dictionary ; if so, 
 the English church will freely resign all her preten- 
 sions to him, and the Romish, or any other commu- 
 nion, 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 indispensable obligation of sacra- 
 mental confession, was no article of Christian faith be- 
 fore the thirteenth century ; and all the declamation 
 employed to establish it is a mere sophism, which the 
 whole course of church history tends to refute. With 
 good reason, therefore, did the learned Richer con- 
 clude, that " inward confession is indeed of divine 
 
 * Since writing the above, I find the passage is from Dr\ Bayly, bishop of 
 Bangor in the reign of James I. The Puritans claimed the book from which it 
 is taken ; be this as it ma}', his authority avails nothing against the practice of 
 the Protestant Episcopal Church, and the meaning of her liturgy. 
 
53 
 
 right, but outward is only of positive right, and subject 
 to such alterations as the church may appoint. 1 ' " Qua- 
 propter fide Catholica tenendum internam confes- 
 sionem, et mentis mutationem esse juris divini et na- 
 turalis plane immutabilis, modum vero extrinsecum ut 
 secreto, aut publice peccata confiteamur omnino a 
 prudenti Ecclesia? dispensatione pendere; consequen- 
 terque modum hunc externum confitendi juris esse 
 positivi, aut Ecclesiastici variabilis, sicut et ritus reli- 
 quorum sacramentorum, quos Christus reliquit Eccle- 
 siae moderation!. " 
 
 This is nearly the general opinion of Protestants, 
 and with an exception or two, is rational and wise ; 
 how it can be reconciled to the decrees of the coun- 
 cil 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 
 defined by the council of Trent, and now practised in 
 the church of Rome, appears to be repugnant to an- 
 cient usage, to the principles of common sense, and 
 unsupported by scripture. With respect to ancient 
 usage, what can be more conclusive than the conces- 
 sions of some of the Romish divines themselves ? Mo- 
 rinus (De pcea. lib. 8. c. 8, 9, 10, and 20.) acknow- 
 ledges, that the judiciary form, labsolve, instead of the 
 deprecatory, may Christ absolve, was not introduced 
 before the eleventh or twelfth century ; till which time, 
 absolution was invariably given by prayer, as is evi- 
 dent from many of the ancient rituals published by 
 this writer. We read moreover in the works of 
 Thomas Aquinas, (ppusc. 22. cap. 5.) that in his days 
 a learned writer objected to the indicative form of ab- 
 solution then used by the priest, / absolve thee from 
 
54 
 
 all thy sinSi and preferred the mode of deprecation and 
 prayer; alleging that this was the opinion of Guliel- 
 mus Altisiodorensis, William of Paris, and cardinal 
 Hugo, and that thirty years had scarcely elapsed, 
 since all made use of this form only, M Absolutionem 
 et remissionem tribuat tibi omnipotens Deus." " May 
 Almighty God give unto thee absolution and forgive- 
 ness." The answer of Thomas Aquinas to this as- 
 sertion 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 abso- 
 lution 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 confessed, or by some negligence, or 
 forgetfulness, or evil will, hast concealed : God deliver 
 thee from all evil here 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." (Confitentium ceremo- 
 nim, Antiqu. edit. Colon, an. 1 530.) As late as the be- 
 ginning of the seventeenth century, we have the opin- 
 ion of Jeremiah, the patriarch of Constantinople, on 
 this subject : " whatsoever sins," says he, " the penitent, 
 either from shamefacedness, or forgetfulness, leaves un- 
 confessed, 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. 1. ad. Tubingences, 
 cap. 11.)* Alexander of Hales and Bonaventure, 
 
 * 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 
 
55 
 
 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;' 1 '' 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 sin- 
 ner, and reconciles him to the church." (Alex. Halens. 
 sum. part 4. quces. 21. — Bonav. in 4 senten. dist. 18. art. 
 2. qums. 1.) " Although a man be loosed before God," 
 says the master of sentences, (Jib. 4. sent. dist. 18.) 
 u 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 fathers as nothing more than a re- 
 storation of offenders to the peace of the church, or a 
 re-admission of them to the holy communion, and ac- 
 cordingly they usually express it by the terms of 
 "bringing them to the communion ;" (Concil Laodinan. 
 can. 2.) " reconciling them to, or with the communion;" 
 (Cone. Eliberitan. can. 72.) " restoring the communion 
 to them;" (Ambr. de pcea. lib. 1. &c.) " admitting them 
 to fellowship;" (Cypr. epist. 53.) "granting them 
 peace ; &c." (Ibid. Src.) Now in all these acts of 
 discipline we never find any using the form, / absolve 
 thee from all thy sins, which words, nevertheless, the 
 council of Trent decrees to be " the form of the sacra- 
 ment of penance, and in which its virtue and efficacy 
 principally consist." (App. p. 12.) 
 
 confessor3 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 con- 
 fessing party, and according to his knowledge of his own case. 
 
56 
 
 It would be a waste of labour to prosecute this sub- 
 ject 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 Christian church, were 
 doctrines admitted and believed araons; 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 juri- 
 dically 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 es- 
 sential 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 communicating 
 any one of them to sinful man ! It was by his incom- 
 municable power to forgive sins, that Christ first 
 evinced his divinity to the world ; and it was from the 
 exercise of this power that the ancient fathers drew 
 their great argument for this fundamental truth, t 
 
 * 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. 
 
 t See Irenaeus, lib. v. c. 17 — Tertul. contra Marcion, lib. iv. c. 10. Athan. 
 ©rat-iv. contra Arian. Basil contra Eunomium. Hilary in St. Matt. &c. fcc 
 
£7 
 
 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 replied 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 belong- 
 ing to, and exercised by our Saviour, is clearly ex- 
 plained, and devoutly enforced by the Rev. Gentle- 
 man, (p. 108, 109.,) 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 be3t 
 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 (p. 109.) adds, 
 with a hardihood of expression, at least unbecoming i 
 "He hath sent me to save the 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 con- 
 demn the world, but that the world through him might 
 be saved." If ministers also be sent for this purpose, 
 truly the exception, in some sort, must qualify their 
 mission, and it may equally apply to their delegated 
 power of remitting or retaining sins. They have 
 
 8 
 
58 
 
 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 declaring 
 and pronouncing, in general terms, that absolution 
 and remission of sins is promised and granted by Al- 
 mighty 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 announce, or proclaim it only, or to pro- 
 mise 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 Hea- 
 ven the sentence they shall have pronounced on 
 earth." (Jpp. p. 109.) 
 
 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 propriety, be said to be forgiven by 
 any but God alone ? Can any but the Divine Law- 
 giver pardon the guilt attached to the violation of his 
 laws ? Can any thing but his grace blot out the dead- 
 ly 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 col- 
 lect of the Roman church begins with these words ; 
 
59 
 
 " Deus, cui proprium est misereri semper et parcere, v " 
 &c. M 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 offered up by the priest, before 
 he pronounces the absolution, proves that the latter 
 can only be ministerial and declaratory. After receiv- 
 ing the confession of the penitent, accompanied, as he 
 conceives, with satisfactory marks of inward repent- 
 ance, the priest is directed to pray for him in the fol- 
 lowing words : " Misereatur tui" Sic. " Almighty 
 God have mercy upon thee, and, thy sins being for- 
 given, lead thee to eternal life. Amen." " Indulgen* 
 tiam" &c. " The Almighty and Merciful Lord grant 
 thee pardon, absolution, and remission of thy sins. 
 Amen." " Dominus 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 v 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 au- 
 thority, the penalty of excommunication from the peni- 
 tent, if a layman, and of suspension, if in orders, and 
 thus restoring him to the fellowship of the faithful, 
 after praying that " God would grant him pardon, ab- 
 solution, and remission of his sins," with full assurance 
 that this exercise of outward discipline is ratified, and 
 
60 
 
 this prayer is heard in Heaven, for true and gospel 
 penitents,: he then, deinde, " absolves him from his sins, 
 in the name of the Holy Trinity ; that is, in this glori- 
 ous name, he pronounces and declares that very abso- 
 lution, 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, 
 prescribed in the Roman ritual, materially lowers the 
 high and decisive tone of that ministerial act, and 
 brings it nearly to a level with the doctrine of Calvin, 
 above mentioned, 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 absolution in the sense admit- 
 ted by Protestants ? The answer is, because the 
 minister of God is his delegated functionary to de- 
 clare 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 
 bis mouth." (Malac. ii. 7.) The ministers remit sin, 
 as the apostles did, " by the word of God, by the tes- 
 timonies of the scripture, and by exhortations to vir- 
 tue." (St. Jerom. in ha. xiv. 17.) They are supposed 
 to be men of integrity, piety, and knowledge ; to have 
 studied the human heart ; to be best acquainted with 
 the motives that lead to piety, ancj with the preserva- 
 tives against vice. They are, moreover, delegated 
 ?n a special manner to assure a sinner for his comfort, 
 fchat, according to their best judgment, he has com- 
 plied with the conditions required by Almighty God^ 
 
61 
 
 and is entitled to forgiveness and pardon on the gos- 
 pel terms. 
 
 And what is it, after all, that the priests of the Ro- 
 man church, do more than this, when their own doc- 
 trines are fairly stated ? They, indeed, pronounce 
 penitents absolved by positive assurance, and as they 
 say, by a judicial exercise 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 ratified in Heaven. In the primitive church, 
 absolution was never granted until a severe 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 pe- 
 nance should not be performed at all ; for were this 
 not the case, the absolution would be only condition- 
 al. It follows, therefore, that the absolution in the 
 Roman ritual, is in reality, like that of the Protestant 
 churches, strictly declaratory, with this only differ- 
 ence, 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 scriptures, nor known to the primitive fathers. 
 Whoever will read St. Augustin's letter to Macedo- 
 nius, will be convinced, that in his time, public pe- 
 nance was never granted but once, and private abso- 
 lution never at all. " La reponse de St. Augustin," 
 (says P. Richard, vol. 1. p. 192.,) " prouve invincible- 
 ment, qu'ils ne connoissoient pas deux sortes de peni- 
 tence, et d'absolution, Tune publique, qu'on ne rece- 
 
62 
 
 voit qu'une fois ; et I'autre secrete, a Iaquelle on etoit 
 admis autant de fois que l'on tomboit dans le peche." 
 The contrary opinion, he adds, is indefensible, (m- 
 soutenable.) Now, the council of Trent allows, that 
 public confession was not commanded ; and it was, 
 moreover, never enjoined, but for public offences or 
 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 ta- 
 ble, if blotted 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 bap- 
 tism, by prayer, and by submitting to the humiliation 
 ef the greater penance." No mention is here made, 
 either directly or indirectly, of private 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 mor- 
 tal sins, of which no confession was required, and 
 from which no judicial absolution was granted. This 
 argument admits of no answer, nor has any, I be- 
 lieve, been ever attempted. 
 
 But the holy cecumenic council of Trent, as the Rev. 
 Gentleman styles it, (p. 7.,) has definitively and irre- 
 vocably fixed the meaning, decreed the necessity, and 
 enjoined the obligation of auricular sacramental confes- 
 sion, as it is now adopted and practised in the church 
 of Rome, and pronounced dreadful anathemas against 
 all who presume to question its decisions. These it 
 
m 
 
 grounds upon the texts which have already been con- 
 sidered, 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 sub- 
 ject, which is generally derived from the decrees of 
 this council, it may be deemed advisable to say some- 
 thing respecting it in this part of our reply. 
 
 With whatever veneration and submission Roman 
 Catholics believe themselves bound to receive the de- 
 crees of this council, they will cease to command re- 
 spect, 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 common consent, nor univer- 
 sal tradition, was consulted in framing either its de- 
 crees or its canons, as appears not only from the his- 
 tory of Fra. Paolo, but from authentic letters of se- 
 veral bishops, and others, who were present at it. 
 From these it is manifest, that it was a most confu- 
 sed and irregular assembly — that the presiding legates 
 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 moderate 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 opu- 
 lent sees;* — that all the prelates were much dissatis- 
 fied at the overbearing insolence of the legate, and 
 
 * The letters of several of these bishops might readily be quoted, all full 
 of sentiments of this nature- 
 
64 
 
 tired out by their long residence at Trent, as ruinous 
 to themselves and their people ; — that when a bishop 
 advanced any thing displeasing to the legates, they 
 first interrupted him with a degree of contemptuous 
 petulance, which gave universal offence,* and after- 
 wards omitted neither menaces nor entreaties to bring 
 him over to their opinion, — that there were but se- 
 venty bishops in the whole council, who were capa- 
 ble of discussing any point of theology, — that the de- 
 crees, particularly those on penance and transubstan- 
 tiation, 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 examination^ — that the doctors of 
 Louvain, and the divines of the Elector of Cologne, 
 were obliged, secretly, to correct considerable mis- 
 takes which were pointed out in several of the de- 
 crees, after these good fathers had solemnly approv- 
 ed of them in a public session ; — that although some 
 able divines 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 
 
 * This was particularly the case with the bishop of Verdun, a man vene- 
 rable 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 can- 
 not defend in right." Quod jure non potest, id vi& facti consequi. Lib. 3, c. 7. 
 
65 
 
 place and Trent messengers were constantly passing^ 
 and that they only executed at Trent the determina- 
 tions of the pope ; — that whenever any thing was 
 likely to be carried against them, they secured a plu- 
 rality 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 universities before any ques- 
 tion 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 call- 
 ed for by the whole Christian world, with the excep- 
 tion only of the Roman clergy : — In a word, never 
 did Dioscorus, 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 Venetian States, a man universally esteemed by 
 all his contemporaries, and eminently qualified for the 
 undertaking, has left us the history of the proceed- 
 ings 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; commend- 
 
 
 
66 
 
 ed by Dr. Burnet as the completest model of his- 
 torical writing ; and celebrated by Mr. Wotton as 
 equivalent to any production of antiquity; in which 
 the reader finds ' liberty without 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, 
 which furnishes us with the disgusting sketch of the 
 council of Trent, just presented to the reader. If it 
 be said, that he was a secret friend to the reforma- 
 tion, this circumstance will probably detract from the 
 credit of his narrative, in the opinion of Roman Catho- 
 lics; 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 ordained it, by preserving their origi- 
 nal letters, to bear testimony 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, nothing can astonish us," &c. 
 In another letter, addressed to the same prelate, on 
 the 29th. we find the following very striking express 
 
67 r 
 
 a-ions 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, unless God prevent it by a miracle- 
 He has got through that session (the fourteenth) with 
 a shameful and infamous reform. It will render us 
 the fable and laughing-stock of the universe — His 
 conduct is a dishonour to God — the bishops are of- 
 fended at it. They are only detained here by repeat- 
 ed entreaties and solicitations — They are scandalized 
 —All the sinews of ecclesiastical discipline are re- 
 laxed — The riches consecrated to God's service are 
 become the objects of a scandalous traffic. — By these 
 measures (general councils) the court of Rome will 
 hold the universal 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. — rHis majesty 
 has sent many able divines hither ; and the dean and 
 other doctors of Louvaine are men of erudition and 
 piety; but they are not called in to give their opin- 
 ions, when the doctrinal canons are drawing up. — 
 Every body complains of this — many have little re- 
 spect for such decrees. — We have reason to think that 
 the pope's ministers intend to erect into articles of faith 
 many doubtful and problematical points. — If they con- 
 tinue to act with the same precipitation, they will 
 lose even the small corner of the world, which still re- 
 
68 
 
 mains subject to their obedience. — The prediction of 
 St. Paul {cap. ii. Epis. ii. ad Thess. concerning 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," &c. 
 
 Again, he tells the bishop of Arras : " Many bi- 
 shops deliver their suffrages on subjects which they 
 do not understand, and are not even capable of com- 
 prehending. — The doctors of Louvain, and the divines 
 of the elector of Cologne, and some others, will pro- 
 test 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 (les juges conservateurs) 
 to embroil together the two powers, ecclesiastical 
 and civil, and to occasion the spending of much money ; 
 and therefore this abuse is confirmed, instead of 
 being abolished," &c. See his Letters of November 26, 
 ^December 29, and 20th and 25th January, 1552. 
 
 Such is the account of the council given by Var- 
 gas, a man eminent in the law, 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 Refor- 
 mation. He was a member of the sovereign 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 
 
 * See his panegyric by Don Nicholas Antonio, from the Bibl. Author. 
 Hispan. 
 
69 
 
 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 in- 
 veterate and cruel enemy to the Protestants : " Sa 
 conduite imperieuse et tyrannique," say the authors of 
 the Nouveau Dictionaire Historique, printed at Caen, 
 " et ses cruautes contre les Protestans, qu'il faisoit 
 bruler impitoy ablement, souleverent les peuples contre 
 lui, et il fut obilge de s'enfuir en Espagne." — And 
 yet, nevertheless, from his answers to Malvenda, 
 Dom. Francis of Toledo, Vargas, and others, he 
 seems to be fully persuaded of the truth of this ho- 
 nest writer's information.* 
 
 Such being the authenticated account of the coun- 
 cil of Trent, as stated by cotemporary writers, who, 
 notwithstanding, by a strange inconsistency, submit- 
 ted to its decrees, the Rev. Gentleman cannot be sur- 
 prised, that Protestants should object to its being ob- 
 truded on them as of infallible authority; or rather, 
 that with respect to confession, they should consider 
 its decisions as erroneous, founded neither on scrip- 
 ture, ancient usage, nor tradition. They humbly 
 
 *Lettres el Memoirs de Frangois de Vargas, de Pierre de Malvenda, et de 
 quelques Evecqucs d'Espagne traduits de l'Espagnol, &c. Many similar pas- 
 sages to those above cited, with several other curious and interesting anecdotes 
 relating to this council, may be seen in this work. 
 
70 
 
 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 I know it will be said, that what- 
 ever may have been the characters of the fathers of 
 this council, its decrees being sanctioned and confirm- 
 ed by the pope, and received as articles 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, (p. 82.,) " has repeatedly and solemnly decla- 
 red this truth in her general councils, and emphati- 
 cally taught the same in every age," the Rev. Gentle- 
 man " draws his fourth and last argument in favour of 
 the divine institution of confession." Had he drawn 
 from it his only argument he would have saved him- 
 self 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 fur- 
 ther reasoning 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 
 despatch. 
 
71 
 
 part nr. 
 
 Neither the council of Lateran, nor of Trent, nor any other 
 earthly tribunal, had, or has, a right to impose such a grie- 
 vous yoke as auricular confession upon the faithful, from 
 a plea to infallibility, this plea being altogether unsupported 
 either by Reason or Revelation. 
 
 Infallibility being the great fundamental tenet of 
 the Roman Catholic church, by which all others are 
 sanctioned ; and in virtue of which she claims the be- 
 lief of many points of faith, which, her own divines 
 confess, would not otherwise appear evidently re- 
 vealed, nor manifest from reason ; one would natu- 
 rally imagine, that it would be very clearly and ex- 
 plicitly 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 few remarks on them, and 
 then leave the candid reader to judge for himself. 
 
 The first text is, " The gates of hell shall not pre- 
 vail against the church ;" (Matth. xvi. 18.;) therefore 
 she must be infallible. Here I must beg leave to ob- 
 serve, 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, efficacious grace, 
 or any other doctrine. There is a great advantage 
 in not being; over delicate in the choice of arguments, 
 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 ad- 
 
72 
 
 mitted by thousands, who, from a point of conscience* 
 or prejudice, never considered it. For my own part, 
 I sincerely believe that, in whatever light it be ad- 
 mitted, it cannot go to prove the infallibility of the 
 church. The obvious promise of Christ is this only 
 — " That no violence or persecution of men or devils 
 shall ever succeed in destroying the Christian reli- 
 gion, to which he has been pleased to annex perpe- 
 tuity" Now, what has infallibility to do with all this? 
 — If it be said that errors would destroy the church 
 as effectually as violence, and that, therefore, she 
 must be infallible in her decisions : I answer, this is 
 very true under two exceptions, each of which, over- 
 throws every plea to infallibility. The first is — that 
 all errors do not destroy the church, but such only as 
 are fundamental. The second — that without infalli- 
 bility, she may always secure herself from these capi- 
 tal 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 so- 
 ciety. The church, therefore, that is to say, the 
 whole body of the faithful, cannot err in matters es- 
 sentially connected with the es-sence of Christianity : 
 but the text does not prove, in the most distant man- 
 ner, 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 accordingly we find, 
 that the great body of orthodox Christians, through 
 every age, have constantly believed and professed the 
 fundamental articles of the Christian religion contain- 
 
73 
 
 ed 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 tarea and stubble among this heavenly 
 grain ; he may build structures of straw upon this 
 unshaken foundation. Against his wiles and en- 
 croachments, 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, have been for 
 ages heaping upon these foundations of truth : but 
 they may rest secure that these foundations them- 
 selves, will never give way to any power in hell or on 
 earth. They may be obscured by the mists of supersti- 
 tion and immorality, but will ever retain sufficient 
 light to conduct every upright and pious believer, to 
 all points of his duty, essentially connected with his 
 eternal salvation.* 
 
 * 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 coun- 
 try, that those pretensions, in all their forms, have been solidly refuted by Pro- 
 testant writers of various kinds. Mr. Sharp, however, calls the attention of 
 his readers to a point which has certamly been too much overlooked, namely, 
 that Utrp or, Peter, does not mean a rock, as it has been incautiously translated, 
 but a stone.* Christ is the rock (Tlilpa.) Peter (Jltlpoc) is only a little piece 
 if 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 rock on which I will build my Church." 
 The distinction is clearly made in the original text, M Thou art Pctros, and upon 
 this Petra, (namely, this rock, which thou hast confessed,) will I build my 
 church." 
 
 * YlsTfi. is a rock, TltTpos astoae. 
 10 
 
74 
 
 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 con- 
 fers, by the strength which he exerts in supporting 
 her against violence and temptations. But cannot 
 he be with her without rendering her infallible ? He 
 is with every just man; yet who would 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 in- 
 fallible 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 be- 
 coming universal ? Why then was it not full as neces- 
 sary, to secure her against the one as the other ? But 
 dreadful experience evinces that she has been insu- 
 red against neither. 
 
 Perhaps it will be said that individuals alone are 
 guilty, but that the church, by the mouths of her mi- 
 nisters, detests the scandals she is compelled to tole- 
 rate : 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 — Be- 
 sides, as I remarked above, every kind of error is not 
 destructive of religion, and the church may err in 
 
 Mr. Sharp produces the biblical expressions in which our Saviour is men- 
 tioned as a rock or a chief stonk, 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 excludes the 
 sense, which has been forced upon it by the church of Rome. 
 
75 
 
 some points, without Jesus Christ ceasing to be with 
 her ; for nothing that does not attack the essence of 
 Christianity, can ever abolish it. While, therefore, 
 the essentials of religion are maintained, errors in 
 collateral doctrines will never prove fatal. It is ab- 
 surd, moreover, to imagine, that the pretended infalli- 
 bility of the church can secure her against error. 
 Christ, in forming his church, did not alter the nature 
 of man or of human societies. What they were be- 
 fore the establishment of Christianity, such they still 
 are, with this only exception, that now they possess 
 the benefit of Revelation, to serve as a rule for be- 
 lief and conduct. In this Revelation, 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 false- 
 hood, and in which every tenet of religion, necessary 
 for salvation, may be easily discovered by every dili- 
 gent and candid inquirer. Thus it is that Jesus 
 Christ is with us to the end of the world, without 
 creating any necessity for an infallible church. 
 
 3. The next passage alleged by Roman Catholic 
 divines, is from the fourth chapter of St. Paul to the 
 Ephesians, 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 doctrine," <fec. 
 
 This text makes as little for infallibility as the other 
 two. The question here, is not concerning any judg- 
 ment of the church, but the sending of pastors and 
 ministers to instruct the people. "For how can they 
 / 
 
76 
 
 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 in- 
 fallible, but they themselves have no pretence to this 
 privilege. In the same manner, the church possesses 
 the infallible scriptures, and by following them can 
 never err. But the question is, whether this be al- 
 ways 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 im- 
 possibility of the church's receding from the sense of 
 scripture, will meet with stubborn facts to thwart 
 their pretensions. For, among Roman Catholic di- 
 vines themselves, who are perpetually accusing each 
 other of errors, and defending their respective opi- 
 nions by the decisions of the church, it is absolutely 
 necessary that some should be wrong. Wherefore, 
 notwithstanding her infallibility, the doctors of the 
 Roman church are divided eternally upon objects of 
 faith. Notwithstanding her decisions, they deny, ex- 
 plain, and modify them as they please, or allege 
 opposite decrees in support of their several opinions. 
 If, therefore, the church's infallibility, 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 consists in ascribing the same identical mean- 
 ing to the words which both parties adopt. 
 
 4. With as much propriety are many other passa- 
 ges of scripture alleged. St. Paul writes to the Ga- 
 latians, and tells them, that " if any man should an- 
 nounce to them any other doctrine than what he 
 had taught them, such a person should be an ana- 
 thema." (Gal. i. 9.) The question here was con- 
 cerning 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 which St. Paul condemn- 
 ed, and he had reason for doing it. Is it probable 
 he would have passed so severe a censure upon less 
 important articles ? or did he imagine that no doc- 
 trine, contrary to his, could be preached to the Gala- 
 tians ? 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 ceremo- 
 nies of the law, seemed to support a doctrine, which 
 St. Paul so severely reprobated — Moreover, he was 
 far from pronouncing an anathema upon an oppo- 
 sition to less material points, as appears evidently from 
 his frequent exhortations 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, instead of a vague infallibi- 
 lity. This is an invention of a later date, and was 
 craftily adopted, when reason was deficient. Infalli- 
 bility was engrafted upon the necessity of a system 
 
78 
 
 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 re- 
 gard every person, who will not hear the church, as 
 a Heathen or a Publican." (Matt, xviii. 17.) There- 
 fore, 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 relation 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, re- 
 fuses to make the other satisfaction, notwithstanding, 
 the interposition of the church or congregation to 
 which 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 sacrament, and is to be treated as those 
 are, who do not belong to the Christian church. Let 
 us then respect the voice of the church, when Jesus 
 Christ obliges us to hear her ; but let us not draw 
 general conclusions from scriptural 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 exclude it. 
 
 6. It is said, moreover, that, in proportion as here- 
 sies have arisen, the church has always adopted the 
 language of St. Paul, to convey her threats ; and 
 
79 
 
 that the fathers deliver it as a rule of faith to believe 
 that which has always been believed. They were con- 
 vinced, therefore, that an infallibility resided in the 
 church, and that the profession of the true religion 
 could never fail. 
 
 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 believe, 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 objection to be of any force, we 
 must first allow, that the primitive 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 re- 
 fute such a position, by demonstrating that many of 
 the 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. 
 
so 
 
 unless we suppose that no anathema was ever pro- 
 nounced, but by an infallible tribunal. Now, innu- 
 merable doctrines anathematized by particular coun- 
 cils and bishops, who can have no claim to infallibili- 
 ty, are so many unanswerable arguments against this 
 supposition. From anathemas, therefore, no conclu- 
 sion can be formed in favour of infallibility : especial- 
 ly as the church has often pronounced them, in cases 
 where infallibility was no wise concerned, and her 
 sole object was to maintain good order and discipline. 
 I say, moreover, that from this position, viz: "To de- 
 liver for truth, that which has always been believed," 
 is no argument of the church's infallibility, but mere- 
 ly 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 present ge- 
 neration. This may be styled a moral rule of conduct 
 in*the ordinary course of life, but is not, nevertheless, 
 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 reli- 
 gion, which had always been believed and professed, 
 without any alteration, 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 respect to facts de- 
 livered down to us, we have no rule to go by, so cer- 
 tain as this uniform agreement of testimony. 
 Let divines, therefore, cease preconizing an infalli* 
 
81 
 
 Ibility of judgment, which never subsisted out of their 
 own imaginations. It is the privilege of the Chris- 
 tian church, as it was that of the Jewish, to preserve 
 the essential foundations of religion, and the sacred 
 deposite whence the knowledge of them is derived* 
 By the guidance of this deposite, and the special pro- 
 tection of God, she never can perish. But neither her 
 perpetuity nor indefectibility can secure her from 
 common mistakes, or raise her above the level of com- 
 mon humanity. As long as she is made up of fallible 
 men, so long will the weaknesses, errors, and supersti- 
 tions 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 testi- 
 mony. (Jsa. viii. 20.) Here only is infallibility to be 
 found, As long as the church follows this rule she 
 shall never err. But nothing insures her against mis- 
 take the moment she forsakes it, and takes upon her 
 to decide upon mere probabilities, without the warrant 
 either of evidence or revelation. For when she de- 
 cides upon matters that are merely probable, 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 pre- 
 sent belief? but we have seen, that this is merely a 
 moral rule of conduct, and carries with it no greater 
 proof of infallibility in the church, than the general 
 belief of the existence of Julius Ca?sar, confers infalli- 
 bility upon the relations of history. Thus, neither rea- 
 
82 
 
 son nor authority, furnishes a single argument in favour 
 of this pretended infallibility. The most plausible 
 supports of tliis system, must therefore be drawn from 
 the practice of the church, which Ave 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, 
 Catholics 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 as- 
 sent. Therefore, the practice of the church in exact- 
 ing submission to her decrees, is a proof of her infal- 
 libility; because, without this, such a claim, under such 
 heavy threats, would be an act of sacrilegious usurpa- 
 tion and tyranny. This argument is very plausible 
 at first sight, but is, in reality, nothing more than a 
 begging of the question. For, it is only in the supposi- 
 tion that this infallibility does exist, that the practice 
 of the church can be alleged to evince it. Were 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 prac- 
 tice 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 lat- 
 ter 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. 
 
83 
 
 m matters merely temporal, to the prejudice of prin- 
 ces, they were withstood as so many usurpations, and 
 abolished as tyrannical, and no wise competent to 
 prescribe against right. It is great weakness, there- 
 fore, to urge this practice as a proof of infallibilit' . 
 since nothing decisive can follow from it, till it be de- 
 monstrated to be a just and equitable practice, which 
 I am very certain will never be done. But even sup- 
 posing it to be just and allowable, it furnishes no de- 
 monstration of infallibility, nor would this follow from 
 it as a necessary consequence : excommunication has 
 been often employed upon \ery 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 affair of the three chapters, &c. where the 
 excommunicating party could not surely challenge the 
 privilege of being infallible. This act of church au- 
 thority, therefore, is not grounded upon infallibility, 
 but solely upon the right, which every community pos- 
 sesses, of framing laws and regulations for its own well 
 being, and excluding every person from its society, 
 who refuses to submit to the rules, without which such 
 a community cannot subsist. Particular 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-emi- 
 nence and power. St. Gregory Nazianzen complain^ 
 of their ambition in his time. 
 
 Non causa pietas, (bilis hoc exagitat ad mentienclum 
 proca,) sed lis ob thronos, (car. de sua vita.) Nothing, 
 
84 
 
 therefore, can be less satisfactory than the argument 
 drawn from the practice of excommunication, a penal- 
 ty often inflicted without necessity and justice, fre- 
 quently at the expense of reason and truth, conse- 
 quently 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 deem- 
 ed lawful to counteract the decisions of the church; 
 and that after the definitive sentence was passed, no 
 man was at liberty to contest the point any longer, 
 but was obliged to submit. Now, this obligation 
 could only arise from the idea of the church's infalli- 
 bility, 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 terminate finally those contentions among individu- 
 als which, if perpetuated, would for ever disturb the 
 peace of the community. But are such tribunals, on 
 this account, to be deemed infallible ? — It is true, that 
 the decisions concerning truth, do not bear a strict re- 
 semblance to those that regard our temporal interests. 
 The first must never deviate an iota from the apparent 
 light of reason or revelation — the second may be mo- 
 dified or relaxed as the public good requires. But 
 in both cases the manner of judging is the same, and 
 in both cases the decisions of men, may be equally mis- 
 taken: and accordingly we often see, when one su- 
 preme tribunal has been compelled to yield to an ad- 
 verse power, its decrees have been reversed, and 
 
85 
 
 others enacted, which, during the prevalence of their 
 authors, are as binding as the first. This was the 
 case during the famous disputes concerning the incar- 
 nation. For two hundred 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 su- 
 preme authority, in order to prevent disputes becom- 
 ing 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 danger- 
 ous 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 individuals of the right of 
 judging for themselves in speculative matters. In 
 these cases, reason cannot yield to human authority 
 alone, especially when it is known, that many final 
 decisions have been discovered at last, disagreeing 
 with truth. This made St. Gregory Nazianzen de- 
 clare, " that he was never present at an assembly of 
 bishops, which did not increase the evils they were 
 meant to remedy; the spirit of dispute and ambition 
 always prevailing over the dictates of reason." And 
 the judicious Turretin adds, " that, if any man, having 
 read the acts of the councils, should regard them as 
 infallible, a physician would be the proper person to 
 undertake his case ;" " Qui lectis conciliorum actis, 
 ea pro errare nesclis 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 depository of tradition, cannot err in mat- 
 
86 
 
 ters of faith, and, therefore, when she admits of the 
 decrees of councils, stamps the seal of infallibility up- 
 on them. If this be the case, then are these decrees 
 no longer infallible in themselves : the universal testi- 
 mony of the church claiming alone this exalted privi- 
 lege. And this is what Roman Catholic divines have 
 been compelled to maintain, when they perceived the 
 absurdity of defending the infallibility of councils. 
 But even in this supposition, it is evident, 1. That, an 
 actual testimony, although it be universal respecting 
 articles of faith, as well as other matters of fact, is in- 
 sufficient, unless these facts be delivered down by tra- 
 dition as perpetual as it is universal. For the uni- 
 versal belief of any fact is no argument for its exist- 
 ence, unless it be related by respectable cotemporarj 
 authors, who vouch for its origin, and be transmitted 
 down to us by an uninterrupted 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 chal- 
 lenge our belief. 3. If this pretended universal tes- 
 timony be confined to any particular society, then does 
 it become only a partial testimony, and its weight is 
 diminished, in proportion as it becomes less uniform 
 and general. To what, then, is this boasted unifor- 
 mity reduced ? To a certain society of Christians ; 
 which although, perhaps, more numerous than any 
 other particular sect, is certainly 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 ap- 
 prehend, they ground their pretensions upon no better 
 reasons than the Laplanders do, the preference they 
 
87 
 
 give to the Christian religion — These being asked 
 why they believed it to be best, answered, that it must 
 necessarily be so, as the Norwegians, Muscovites, and 
 Swedes had embraced it. {La Mov.traye Voyages, 
 torn. iii. c. 1 6.) Many divines argue in the same con- 
 clusive manner. They support their opinions by the 
 testimony of those only who make it a point of con- 
 science to think as they do, and, as Turretin observes, 
 setting themselves up for judges in their own cause, 
 pronounce themselves infallible. Quidquidde ecclesict 
 infallibilitate et juribus docent pontijicii, 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 
 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, nei- 
 ther reason nor prudence, will suffer him to do other- 
 wise. But how very rare is such a universal agree- 
 ment? and how much more rare to find it attested 
 through a long series of ages, especially, when nei- 
 ther subscriptions nor formulas were in fashion to 
 force, if not an inward belief, yet an outward profes- 
 sion, 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? 
 I say outward professions have frequently been 
 forced, and these, it is evident, are of no kind of au- 
 thority, cum et ipsum nomen sentential pereat, quando non 
 Mud dicitur, quod scntitur, as Facundus observes, (Jib. 
 12.) Now, to allege such a consent for the truth of 
 an opinion, is full as absurd as to argue from the gene- 
 
88 
 
 ral 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 delibera- 
 tion and reason ? Such an agreement, therefore, as 
 this, can never be alleged as an argument for truth, 
 without 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 ob- 
 ject of it be true or false. 
 
 Such is the obvious consequence of a submission 
 that is exacted under the heaviest anathemas and pun- 
 ishments. Let every man determine what consent 
 must be, when extorted by such methods : JVec ali- 
 quid prcestaiur causce, de qua sic fuerit judicatum, ct con- 
 tradicentibus multum ex hoc firmitatis accedit. Convinci- 
 tur enim Hon rectc quisque judicasse, quod, compellente 
 alio, judicavit. (Fac. 16.) And yet it is often upon 
 such a submission only, such a consent, that the infal- 
 libility 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 
 acquiescence, and ma^es it criminal to listen to any 
 difficulty that may occur against its decrees. For it 
 
*s extremely absurd to bring any uniformity of con- 
 sent, to prove the truth of a doctrine, unless this con- 
 sent be grounded upon conviction : nay, I should ra- 
 ther 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 consent, being 
 neither general nor perpetual, can determine no man 
 to embrace an opinion, unless he have other powerful 
 motives for doing it. 
 
 I have hitherto alleged all the common arguments 
 for infallibility, and I think, whoever will consider 
 them attentively, will discover them to be but slender 
 props to so weighty a privilege. I will allow, not- 
 withstanding, that such a system would be convenient, 
 that it would be admirably calculated for ascertain- 
 ing the truth, and quieting the anxiety of uneasy con- 
 sciences, provided it had pleased the Almighty to es- 
 tablish it; or if experience did not show he has not 
 done so. But the convenience of a system is a poor 
 plea for its reality; and if this argument were suffi- 
 cient 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. How 
 wide a field would then be opened to the wild fancies 
 of system-makers ! What deviation from the simple 
 methods, which the Almighty has adopted to establish 
 his religion ! Had He been pleased, in His wisdom, to 
 remove every difficulty in matters of faith, and to pro- 
 pose them with such evidence, that the most ignorant 
 
 12 
 
90 
 
 Christian could not possibly have been mistaken, He 
 certainly could have done so. This system would 
 have been at least as convenient as that of an infalli- 
 ble tribunal : nay, had Almighty God regarded the 
 convenience only, He would have preferred the first ; 
 .for evidence would undoubtedly have made any in- 
 quiry 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 understanding 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 evidence of opinions. In 
 such a supposition, he could reap no merit from prac- 
 tising virtue, or adhering to truth. What I say of 
 irresistible evidence, may be equally applied to infal- 
 libility. 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 presump- 
 tion, to expect that His wisdom should ply to our ap- 
 parent convenience. Now, it is clear, from our innu- 
 merable disputes, that the Almighty has not adopted 
 this line of evidence, and it is equally clear, from the 
 uncertainty of our decisions, that He has not establish- 
 ed any infallible tribunal. Such a privilege, there- 
 fore, is entirely chimerical ; it has no foundation in 
 scripture, and the history of the church gives constant 
 evidence against it. Forced and unnatural interpre- 
 tations of a few scriptural passages, first gave it birth ; 
 
91 
 
 and illogical inferences, instead of solid argument, 
 have been employed to establish it. But they only 
 are imposed upon, whom a painful discussion would 
 cost too much; who deem it better to indulge in an 
 indolent acquiescence in the determination of supe- 
 riors, even at the hazard of being deceived, than to 
 enter upon inquiries that might disturb ancient no- 
 tions, and so bring on a painful struggle between pre- 
 judice and reason. Thus, a love of ease on the one 
 hand, and ambition on the other, joined frequently 
 with an indifference about religion, the convenience 
 of system, and an appearance of humility, have sane* 
 tified an opinion, which reason rejects, and from which 
 the church that pretends to it, reaps but trifling ad- 
 vantages. For, in reality, when have we discovered, 
 that this notion of infallibility, ever silenced any dis- 
 putes 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, pre- 
 vailed. How many centuries passed away before 
 men grew cool, and heresies were extinguished, even 
 after the most solemn declarations of the church ! 
 Whoever reads the history of the Arians, the Nesto- 
 rians, the Eutychians, the Monotholites, to say no- 
 thing of heretics of less notoriety, will soon perceive 
 that infallibility had little to do in settling these dis- 
 putes. The faithful throughout the world, were in- 
 duced to submit, by convincing themselves gradually 
 of the solidity of the arguments, upon which the 
 church's decisions were grounded. When I say the 
 faithful. J mean such as have some notion of what 
 
 \ 
 
92 
 
 they believe. For, as to those who limit themselves 
 to words only, (and this is the case with the generali- 
 ty of men,) I am of opinion that their belief rests sole- 
 ly upon authority. But this proceeds not from any 
 persuasion of such authority being infallible : for, in 
 other Christian churches, where infallibility was 
 never heard of, the people submit with the same do- 
 cility, and pay equal deference to the voice of their 
 pastors. In this respect, the unlettered multitude, is 
 every where the same. The ignorant man, who 
 would be a sincere Roman Catholic at Rome, would 
 be fully as sincere a Protestant in England ; or per- 
 haps an honest mussulman at Constantinople ; acting 
 in all places upon the same principle, viz. a blind obe- 
 dience 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 without ideas. A person who knows no 
 other religion, than that which his superiors have 
 taught him, and who is acquainted 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 commu- 
 nion he may. To such, therefore, as these, infallibili- 
 ty 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 conscience, no tranquillity of 
 mind, but in the conviction of having done their bes*: 
 
93 
 
 :o discover the truth, and the ways of salvation, by 
 calling in to the assistance of reason, the light of re- 
 velation, by which alone they hope to be infallibly 
 secured against error.—- Wherefore, the dangerous 
 consequences of a free inquiry, must appear greatly 
 exaggerated to every unprejudiced mind. To no 
 purpose are we told by Roman Catholic divines, that, 
 without this infallibility, there can be no uniformity 
 in belief, and that each individual will have a religion 
 of his own : for, allowing this to be true to a certain 
 latitude, where can be the crime of judging for our- 
 selves in a matter where each one is personally con- 
 cerned ? Besides, has this pretended infallibility ever 
 produced a uniformity of sentiment in the Roman 
 Catholic church? Are not warm disputes and un- 
 charitable 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 doc- 
 trinal 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 ge- 
 neral : " It professes the same worship, and has but 
 one religion; but the truth is, it has really many; 
 nay, almost every individual has «one of his own." 
 (Charac. des Esprits forts.) Now, can it be supposed 
 that such a uniformity as this, is either necessary, or 
 
94 
 
 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 unifor- 
 mity as those who support this system deem insuffi- 
 cient ? the gospel, it is true, inculcates nothing so fre~ 
 quently as charity and union, because nothing is so 
 essential to the interests of religion. But it is rather 
 a union of hearts, than a union of opinions ; and St. 
 Paul, exhorting the Philippians to adopt the senti- 
 ments 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. 15.) This is a genuine gospel regulation 
 — this only, comes within the line of our duty, be- 
 cause it is agreeable to the rules of reason and jus- 
 tice. If we adopt this injunction, infallibility becomes 
 useless ; and uniformity of belief is a duty in those 
 matters only, to the knowledge of which we have already 
 attained. As to 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 our- 
 selves to be actuated by the views of interest, fear, or 
 other motives too base to regulate the opinions of an 
 honest man. It would have been, doubtless, a happi- 
 ness to mankind to be placed beyond the possibility 
 of deception. But the Almighty, for wise and merci- 
 
95 
 
 ful reasons, has ordered 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 in- 
 fallibility, which belongs properly to Him alone, and 
 of which he does not choose to make any human socie- 
 ty a partaker. It is our duty to pay a proper re- 
 spect to the decisions of the Christian church, to re- 
 vere her tribunal, and never to reason upon her or- 
 dinances but with decency and candour. But this 
 does not deprive us of our right to discuss the justice 
 and truth of her decrees. And in this discussion, we 
 must observe the same rules that serve to guide us 
 in other inquiries. Speculative truths must rest en- 
 tirely 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 evi- 
 dent 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 au- 
 thority upon earth. This system, therefore, was in- 
 vented without necessity, is supported without proofs, 
 rests upon manifest suppositions, and appears calcu- 
 lated solely to secure the dependence of the people, 
 and blind submission to the rulers of the church. 
 Neither does it follow, that by rejecting the idea of 
 a supernatural infallibility, every doctrinal point must 
 become dubious and unsettled. In other branches of 
 knowledge, many truths are admitted as certain, 
 without the interference of any living, infallible au- 
 
96 
 
 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 in- 
 spiration, it would then be evident where her infalli- 
 bility could be found. But to this she does not pre- 
 tend : 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 
 presumption only resulting from it, when at any time 
 it is universal and uncontradicted. This presumption, 
 moreover, being nothing more than what may be- 
 long to other matters of fact, is not a special privi- 
 lege of the church. It claims our assent more from 
 motives of reason than religion, because it would be 
 as absurd to withhold it in matters 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 believed without infalli- 
 bility in their teachers, and such as consist in subtile 
 discussions, seldom appertain to the essence of reli- 
 gion. It would be cruel to challenge the belief of 
 them, from people who cannot possibly have an idea 
 of their merits. In obscure cases, the decision of no 
 
97 
 
 infallible authority is requisite, because such cases are 
 generally unnecessary. 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 with each other's opinions in meekness 
 and charity. Both reason and religion abhor the 
 idea of domineering over the belief of our neighbour. 
 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 up- 
 right conscience suggest. And, indeed, why in reli- 
 gion only should this method be rejected ? Does not 
 every man believe, because he regards the object of his 
 belief grounded upon reason ? Must not even a Ro- 
 man Catholic tell us, that he believes his to be the 
 only true church, because such a belief appears to 
 him rational and certain? If his belief be not ration- 
 al, 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 De- 
 ist, as they ground their principles upon an authori- 
 ty, whose decrees they deem sacred, and which they 
 neglect to examine. Let the merit, therefore, of a 
 blind submission be ever so much extolled, 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 
 
 13 
 
93 
 
 all religion, both natural and revealed, depends upon 
 inquiry. It is the only method of arriving at truth, 
 and every man who has his salvation at heart, ought 
 diligently to adopt it. The grace of the Almighty 
 will never be wanting to those who do it with sinceri- 
 ty and attention. 
 
 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 question which Roman Catholic writers 
 themselves have determined. 
 
 " 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 communion with the church of Rome, 
 we meet with a detailed statement of those causes, 
 which have disqualified the votaries of that church 
 for the task of Scripture interpretation. After an 
 enumeration of the advantages, derived to the litera- 
 ture and civilization of Christendom, from religious 
 houses, as depositaries of the remains of ancient learn- 
 ing, the author thus proceeds : — 4 If the churchmen 
 preserved in this manner the faint tradition of know- 
 ledge, it must, at the same time be acknowledged, 
 that in their hands it more than once became danger- 
 ous, and was converted by its guardians to pernicious 
 purposes. The domination of Rome, built upon a 
 scaffolding of false historical proofs, had need of the 
 assistance of those faithful auxiliaries, 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 enlightened 
 by the torch of criticism. The local usurpations of 
 
99 
 
 the clergy, in several places, were founded on similar 
 claims, and had need of similar means for their pre- 
 servation. 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 inaccessi- 
 ble to the laity. The study of the ancient languages 
 was represented as idolatrous and abominable. Above 
 all, the reading of the holy Scriptures, that sacred 
 inheritance of all Christians, was severely interdicted. 
 To read the Bible, without the permission of one's 
 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 preventing the word of Jesus Christ from 
 reaching the people, and a direct communication from 
 being established between the gospel and the Chris- 
 tian. When it becomes necessary to keep in the 
 shade objects as conspicuous as faith and public wor- 
 ship, it behooved the darkness to be universal and 
 impenetrable.' ( Villers'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, i Sub- 
 mit, without examination, to authority !' The Protest- 
 ant church said, ' Examine, and submit only to thy 
 own conviction.' ' The one commanded men to be- 
 lieve blindly : the other taught them, with the apos- 
 tle, to reject the bad, and choose only that which is 
 good.' {Ibid. p. 294.) And when the church of Rome 
 was, at length, obliged, by the necessities of self-de- 
 
100 
 
 fence, to grant to her faithful sons the privilege of 
 theological investigation, in what way does the same 
 writer represent the system of studies permitted for 
 this purpose ? The theology of the Romanist, and 
 that of the Protestant, he decribes, as ' two worlds in 
 opposite hemispheres, which have nothing common 
 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 be- 
 fall him who has unfortunately learnt it, is speedily 
 to forget it. The Protestant theology, on the con- 
 trary, rests on a system of examination, on the unli- 
 mited use of reason. The most liberal exegesis opens 
 for it the knowledge of sacred antiquity ; criticism, 
 that of the history of the church ; it regards the doc- 
 trinal part, reduced to purity and simplicity, as only 
 the body of religion, the positive form which it re- 
 quires ; and it is supported by philosophy in the ex- 
 amination 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 litera- 
 ture, 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. 
 
 M Perhaps one of the most decisive proofs of the 
 justice of this writer's remarks on the state of sacred 
 
101 
 
 literature in the Roman church, has been supplied 
 by the late republication, in this country, of that 
 wretched specimen of Scripture 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 
 Martin'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 a gratulation that might well become 
 the darkest ages of the church. A work condemn- 
 ing the Protestant translation of the Bible for using 
 the term messenger instead of angel (in Mai. ii. 7, iii. 
 1. Mat. xi. 10. Luke vii. 27, &c.) by which the cha- 
 racter of angel is withdrawn from the priesthood, and 
 of a sacrament from orders : — for not rendering the 
 
 Words (in Hebr. xi. 21.) jrpoff«uvn<r«v Em to axpcv ms patSs aura, 
 
 as the Rhemish does, adored the top of his rod, and 
 thereby surreptitiously removing one of the principal 
 Scripture arguments for image worship : — for ascrib- 
 ing to the word 7D3> in the second commandment, the 
 meaning graven image, whilst the Rhemish renders it 
 graven thing, which, with those who admit an image 
 not to be a thing, will exempt images from the prohi- 
 bition of the commandment : — for not g-ivine: to the 
 words niravo.a, and pamitentia the sense of penance, but 
 merely assigning to them their true interpretation, 
 repentance, and thus doing wilful despite to the sa- 
 crament of penance : — a work, I say, condemning the 
 Protestant translations of the Bible for these, and 
 
102 
 
 some other such errors ; and in all cases demonstrat- 
 ing the error by one and the same irrefragable 
 proof— that the Romish version 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 expected to be 
 raked up by the clergy of a widely extended commu- 
 nion, 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. Per- 
 haps, however, they judged more rightly, who 
 thought, that even the weakest reasonings 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 reli- 
 gious truth are well known, and is about to receive 
 another from the reverend Richard Grier, of Middle- 
 town. These gentlemen, at all events, display cou- 
 rage 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 Catholic 
 (Romish) church, and as they are in the Vulgate Latin 
 edition, shall be 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 vulgar papist rests his fajth 
 
103 
 
 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 reason 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 Car- 
 tes's logic ; he dares not doubt : for in his table of 
 sins, which he is obliged to confess, he finds doubting 
 in matters of faith to be a grievous crime.' Such is 
 Dr. Geddes's 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 testi- 
 mony of an enemy in the disguise of a friend ; and 
 that the author, whilst he assumed the name of Catho- 
 lic, was influenced by the feelings of a Protestant. 
 On the contrary, it is manifest from the following pas- 
 sage that his mind remained under the powerful in- 
 fluence of Romish impression, and that he continued 
 still a partisan of that faith whose errors he affected 
 to decry. ' For,' says he, i is the faith of the vulgar 
 Protestant better founded ? He rests it on a book 
 
104 
 
 called the Holy Bible, which he believes to be the 
 infallible 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 hand of his catechumen is the 
 infallible word of God ; he cannot, like the priest, ap- 
 peal to an unerring church ; he acknowledges no such 
 guide : and yet it is hard to conceive what other better ar- 
 gument he can use? He goes on even to pronounce, 
 that ' in the Popish controversy, the Romanists have, 
 on this point, the better side of the question ; called, 
 by some of their controversialists, the question of ques- 
 tions.'' And in what way does their superiority ap- 
 pear upon this question of questions ? By 4 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 authority of Scripture, and the authority 
 of Scripture from the church' 's infallibility.'' (Preface to 
 Critical Remarks, 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 {Append, p. 8C,) in proving the per- 
 petual visibility of the Christian church. Can he be 
 ignorant, or does he wish to mislead his readers with 
 the idea, that this visibility is denied by Protestants ? 
 — No; the church, they contend, has been always vi- 
 sible. Her features, indeed, have at some periods 
 been clouded with the mists of error, superstition, 
 
10fy 
 
 and folly ; while at others they have displayed, (fa 
 heavenly effulgence, all the beauty of holiness* 
 '* This church," says the Rev. Gentleman, " always 
 discoverable" &c. (Append, p. 89.) " cannot cease to be 
 the true church.'''' And who denies it? "Therefore, 
 we must conclude, at the same time, cannot teach er- 
 rors contrary to faith. Here is a very short and sim- 
 ple reasoning, but which terminates at once all con- 
 troversies on matters of religion ; and, until it be an- 
 swered, (which will never be done with any success,) 
 we have a right always to refuse, if we please, to en- 
 ter upon the discussion of any particular article." 
 (Append, ibid.) He then concludes : " The church 
 of Christ cannot err in matters of faith, therefore all 
 her decisions are true, all her doctrine the true faith 
 of Christ; 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." (Ibidem.) 
 Here is the Sampson of all the Rev. Gentleman's 
 arguments, bearing him in triumph through every dif- 
 ficulty, 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 erroneous doctrines ; therefore, they 
 can teach them: " ab actu ad potentiam" is sound logical 
 reasoning. In the foregoing pages this has been pro- 
 ved respecting auricular confession, and therefore, in 
 the words of the Rev. Gentleman, terminates at once 
 all controversy respecting the infallibility of his church. 
 But, it is said, (ibidem,) " if the church should at any 
 time teach errors contrary to faith, she would cease 
 from that instant to be the true church." Agreed— 
 
 14 
 
106 
 
 It such errors subvert the foundations of the Christian 
 religion, as revealed in the Scriptures. Errors, how- 
 ever, of this description, never infected the whole body 
 of the church: they were either unknown to antiqui- 
 ty, or, when beginning to appear, were reprobated, 
 and resisted. This might readily be proved of every 
 doctrine which Protestants deem erroneous ; and 
 when at length the profligate abuses, and degrading 
 tyranny of the Roman church were carried to excess- 
 es no longer to be tolerated, the reformers of the 
 sixteenth century, treading in the footsteps of many 
 illustrious predecessors, justified their separation, not 
 by alleging that the foundations of Christianity were 
 demolished, 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, incom- 
 patible with Christian sincerity and worship. The 
 great mistake of the Rev. Gentleman, consists in con- 
 founding the Roman with the Catholic church, in ap- 
 plying to the former the promises meant only for the 
 latter. Against this the gates of hell were never to 
 prevail, either by overturning the foundations of reli- 
 gion, or preventing its doctrines being preached to all 
 nations. As long as the church of Rome taught no- 
 thing 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 communion, she continued still to be a mem- 
 ber of the Christian church ; but amalgamating with 
 the doctrines essential to salvation, a heterogeneous 
 compound of scholastic subtleties, burthensome ob- 
 
107 
 
 servances, 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 compre- 
 hend, nor the learned explain. As far as this was the 
 case, the church of Rome must drop her plea to in- 
 fallibility; 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 expressed in the apostles' 
 creed, and the fundamental articles of religion essen- 
 tially connected with and emanating from it, so far 
 would Protestants be disposed to cultivate with her 
 a unity 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 
 exclusively 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. 
 Histor. vol. 4, p. 208,) " in the course of this history, 
 that the holiness of heart and life, which real Chris- 
 tians have evidenced from age to age, was always 
 connected with the peculiar doctrines of Christianity. 
 Sometimes one of these doctrines, and sometimes 
 another, constituted the prominent feature of their 
 profession ; but it is in vain to look for men of real 
 holiness and virtue, who were inimical, or even indif- 
 ferent to the fundamentals of the gospel." 
 
 These fundamental doctrines of salvation are 
 clearly and explicitly revealed in the Bible, which 
 
108 
 
 speaks a language full as intelligible as that of any 
 Pope or council can be. This book is the religion of 
 Protestants, and affords the greatest security that 
 can be given in the present state of things. It is the 
 word of God himself, and acknowledged as such by 
 all Christian churches. Nay, Roman Catholics them- 
 selves consider it, on some occasions, as a sufficient 
 guide to truth ; for why else do they appeal to it to 
 prove the infallible authority of their church, and in- 
 deed almost every other tenet of their faith ? Why 
 does the Rev. Gentleman appeal to its testimony in 
 favour of sacramental confession ? And have not 
 Protestants an equal right to this unerring testimony 
 upon points much more clearly delivered ? An atten- 
 tive 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 ? He will hardly be persuaded that 
 the metaphysical subtleties in favour of infallibility 
 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 posi- 
 tion, that the same body cannot exist in many differ- 
 ent places at the same time ; that the sensible acci- 
 dents of bodies cannot exist without their appropri- 
 ate substances ; that a stupendous miracle is not 
 performed at the celebration of every mass : than in 
 
109 
 
 the evidence for infallibility which is collected from 
 the Scriptures. 
 
 The doctrine of a tribunal upon earth, which can- 
 not err in its decisions, appears to be inconsistent 
 with our nature, as rational beings. Were it possi- 
 ble it might, indeed, prevent 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 de- 
 stroy our freedom of thought. We must judge 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 su- 
 persede the exercise of our judgment; although, when 
 once convinced that God has spoken, it becomes 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 
 motives of credibility, we first convince ourselves that 
 the Scriptures are inspired by Almighty God, and 
 consequently possess a plenary authority : we then be- 
 lieve 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 
 
110 
 
 teach the infallibility of their church. In proof of 
 this, they cite a few obscure and controverted passa- 
 ges, the most forcible of which are so very inconclu- 
 sive, that unless their church had pronounced them to 
 be plain and obvious, it would never have entered 
 into the head of any man to rest so important a doc- 
 trine upon such questionable evidence. 
 
 Moreover, if men could be certain of the truth of 
 Christianity, 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 evi- 
 dent from the common principles of reason, is suffi- 
 ciently certain ; to be infallibly so, is not necessary to 
 salvation. The mercies of God will be extended to 
 the infirmities of our understanding, as well as to those 
 of our will. To be scriptural and acceptable, our 
 faith must be an act of both; and therefore its evidence 
 cannot be irresistible. 
 
 Another inconvenience seems also to flow from the 
 doctrine of infallibility ; which is, its tendency to throw 
 mankind into skepticism and infidelity. For, when a 
 person has, from his infancy, been taught the necessi- 
 ty 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 univer- 
 sal 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 doc- 
 trines of auricular confession, of the invocation of 
 saints, transubstantiation, &c. rest on the same autho- 
 rity as the divinity of Christ, as the fall of man, and 
 his recovery through a Redeemer, he discards at once 
 
Ill 
 
 the whole motley system, without allowing himself to 
 examine the respective claims of these doctrines to 
 his assent, or investigating the authority which sanc- 
 tions them all alike. To affirm, therefore, that the 
 evidences in favour of several 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 in- 
 volving consequences destructive both to morals and 
 faith. 
 
 The pretence of tracing up the Roman church to 
 the times of the apostles, is grounded on mere sophis- 
 try, which it is not the business of this reply to ex- 
 amine. 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 doc- 
 trines of the apostles. The Roman church affirms, 
 that she has succeeded to the apostles, and, therefore, 
 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 con- 
 clusive. " They have not the inheritance of Peter," 
 (says St. Ambrose, lib. 1 , de panJ) " who have not Pe- 
 ter's faith." 
 
 If it be urged, that without an infallible guide there 
 can be no unity in faith, nothing but universal anar- 
 chy and confusion, let its advocates show, that this 
 tenet has always prevented heresy and schism : let 
 them show, that fewer dissentions have arisen in the 
 bosom of the Roman church than among the adherent* 
 
112 
 
 to the Westminster confession of faith, or to the arti- 
 cles of the English church. It will be found, that 
 since the first ebullitions of intemperate zeal, which 
 took place at the period of the reformation, occasion- 
 ed by the natural incapacity of the human mind to 
 bear the sudden effulgence of truth after a long se- 
 ries of tyranny and delusion, have settled down into 
 regular systems of faith, and bodies of discipline in 
 the Protestant churches, fewer instances have occur- 
 red among them of destructive heresies, and desolat- 
 ing contentions, than during an equal period of time 
 disturbed the peace of Christendom. 
 
 We may observe further, that the boasted uniformi- 
 ty 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, however virtuous and learned, who 
 have at any time dissented from her doctrines, the an- 
 swer is, that such persons could not be deemed Ro- 
 man 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 religion. 
 
 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 di- 
 vides them, nor the infallibility of their church, which 
 keeps Roman Catholics united. This pretended unity 
 arises chiefly from the rigorous strength of her exter- 
 nal policy : and however the sentiments of her adhe- 
 rents may differ, as they frequently do, yet they con- 
 tinue to hold the same language, because they dare 
 
113 
 
 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 ce- 
 ment 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 here- 
 tics and unbelievers, the severity of church discipline, 
 the ignorance in which Roman Catholics are educated 
 with respect to the doctrines of Protestants, and the 
 motives of their dissent; but above all, it is the cer- 
 tainty, in case they abandon their communion, of ne- 
 ver 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 
 conviction of the superiority of their belief to that of 
 their neighbours. 
 
 The reader will probably be now induced to ac- 
 knowledge, that slender indeed are the pretensions 
 to infallibility, on which the Rev. Gentleman builds 
 the sacrament of auricular confession, and that he 
 would have acted more prudently by confining him- 
 self entirely to the Scriptures; but the few equivocal 
 and doubtful passages which he discovers there would 
 not have answered his purpose. An overwhelming 
 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 
 
 15 
 
114 
 
 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 profit- 
 able for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for in- 
 struction in righteousness." (2 Tim. iii. 16.) "Search 
 the Scriptures, 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 contentions of theologians, the bulls of popes, and 
 the decrees of councils, which have so frequently ob- 
 scured, so seldom elucidated the doctrines of the gos- 
 pel. 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 
 delivered it to us in the Scriptures to be the founda- 
 tion and pillar of our faith." — St. Irenozus adv. hcereses, 
 lib. iii. cap. I. 
 
 " 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 
 
115 
 
 for our instruction in all truth." — St. Athan. contra 
 Getites. 
 
 " Cannot God speak distinctly, who created our un- 
 derstanding, our voice, and our tongue? Yes, his di- 
 vine Providence chose that divine things should be 
 void of obscurity, 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 sufficient for the salvation of the faithful." 
 — St. Augustinus super Joan. cap. 11. tract. 49. 
 
 " 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. I . 
 
 " Those things which the Scripture plainly con- 
 tains, 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 com- 
 prehend faith and good morals, viz. hope and chari- 
 ty." — Idem de doct. Christ. I. 2. cap. 9. 
 
 Rem. Can any reasonable man imagine, that St. 
 Augus'ine would have spoken in this manner if it had 
 been an article of his faith, that Scripture is not a suffi- 
 cient 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. 
 
 "Without the authority of the holy Scriptures, lo- 
 
116 
 
 quacity has no credit." — St. Hieronymus in Tit tuff 
 cap. I. 
 
 "The doctrine of the Holy Ghost is that which is 
 delivered in the canonical books, against which, if the 
 councils should make any decree, I deem it impious." 
 — Idem in Gallatas. 
 
 " Whatever has no authority from the Scriptures, 
 is despised as easily as it is alleged." — Idem in 23 cap. 
 Math. 
 
 " Let us not hear any more of these expressions, / 
 say so and so, and you say so and so , but rather thus says 
 our Lord. We have his books, which both of us pro- 
 fess to believe : there let us seek for the church, 
 there let us discuss our pretensions. Again ; Let 
 every argument be suppressed, 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 canoni- 
 cal 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 believe it. Jlgain, 
 (cap. 16.) Let them demonstrate their church if they 
 can ; not in the discourses and reports of the Afri- 
 cans, 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 Shepherd 
 
117 
 
 himself, in the preaching and labours of the evange- 
 lists, that is, in all the canonical authorities of the 
 holy books. Again : Let him not say this is true, be- 
 cause 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 be- 
 cause such and such things happen there, or because 
 he or she has seen such a vision whilst awake, or 
 dreamed of it whilst asleep. Away with these fic- 
 tions of lying men or prodigies of deceitful 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 Ecclce. 
 cap. 3. 
 
 Rem. What unprejudiced man can read these pas- 
 sages, 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 be obtained ; or that the Pope is by di- 
 vine right the visible head of the Christian church, 
 &c. &c. &c. 
 
 "If God be faithful in all his sayings, and all his 
 commandments be righteous, it is a manifest aposta- 
 cy from faith, and sin of pride, either to reject any 
 of those things that are written, or to introduce any 
 thing that is not written." — St. Basil, in serm. de conf. 
 fidei. 
 
 " Wherefore, let the divinely inspired Scripture foe 
 
11B 
 
 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 
 Scripture, then the minds of the audience halt. But 
 when the testimony of the divine word is produced 
 from the Scripture, 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 the things themselves. For it is 
 absurd, while we will not trust other people in pecu- 
 niary matters, but choose to count and calculate our 
 money ourselves, that in affairs of much greater con- 
 sequence we should implicitly follow the opinions of 
 others ; especially as we are possessed of the most ex- 
 act and perfect rule and measure, by which we may 
 square and regulate our inquiries, viz. the regula- 
 tions 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. Co- 
 rinth, 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 ; and, {lib. 7,) no 
 other discourse is left for the treatises of men upon 
 divine subjects, except the word of God." — St. Hila- 
 rius, lib. 3. de Trinitate. 
 
119 
 
 " We stand in need of no curiosity since Jesus 
 Christ, nor of any inquiry since the gospel." — Ter~ 
 full. lib. de proscrip. Hceret. 
 
 " We receive, acknowledge, and venerate all things 
 delivered 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. 1. c. 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 contempti- 
 ble; but the tediousness 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 9 
 lib. 2. de Trinitate. 
 
 " All things are clear and perspicuous, and no- 
 thing contradictory is to be found in the Scripture." — 
 St. Epiph. contra JYoetianos hores. 57. 
 
 "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 wit- 
 nesses, or from fancy only. For when any affirma- 
 tion is not drawn from Scripture, the mind is in sus- 
 pense, 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 
 
120 
 
 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, &c. If it be com- 
 manded in the gospel, or contained in the epistles or 
 acts of the apostles, 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 controvertist of the last century, is compelled 
 to acknowledge, 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.) 
 
 44 Of those things that are in use among us, relating 
 either to doctrine or practice, some are expressly de- 
 livered in the Scriptures, and others omitted. What 
 are written must by no means be overlooked, but as 
 to what are omitted, we have a rule delivered to us 
 by St. Paul : All things are lawful for me, but all things 
 are not expedient." — St. Basil in reg. brevior. 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 con- 
 vinced of this fact. How different was the conduct 
 of Christian teachers in the succeeding ages ? Du- 
 ring the middle centuries, those lamentable eras of 
 astonishing ignorance, few of the laity being able to 
 read at all, the greater part were of consequence to- 
 tally excluded from the benefits arising from the medi- 
 tation of the holy Scriptures, and the others were 
 taught that the divine writings were not composed for 
 
121 
 
 the use of the multitude, and that therefore they ought 
 not to be permitted to read them. And as for the ex- 
 planations 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 Catho- 
 lic 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, genu- 
 ine and literal sense of the Scriptures, he was chiefly 
 amused with strained interpretations, with allegorical, 
 tropological and analogical significations, which super- 
 stition and ignorance first invented, and then made 
 sacred? 
 
 Before we dismiss this subject, and take a final 
 leave of the Rev. Gentleman and the Catholic Ques- 
 tion together, it may not be amiss to notice the pass- 
 port, 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 pre- 
 sent 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 calcula- 
 ted that the minds of Protestants, softened by these 
 enormities, would be better disposed to receive the 
 impressions which the bold display of unfounded doc- 
 trines in the Appendix was intended to make. But 
 slender, indeed, must be the information of those, who 
 
 16 
 
122 
 
 can be imposed upon by such an artifice. Can the 
 Rev. Gentleman or his learned counsellors be igno- 
 rant, or presume that any intelligent reader is igno- 
 rant 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 pro- 
 voked 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 brutum fulmen, a 
 telum imbelle sine idu. But they were not always so, 
 and the co-existing spirit of the times must be taken 
 into the account, when we would determine respect- 
 ing these laws. 
 
 Having thrown off the papal yoke, and embraced 
 the doctrines of the reformation, it was incumbent up- 
 on the British 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 doc- 
 trine of religious persecution, previously to the re- 
 formation, had been so unquestionably the doctrine 
 of the Romish 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 
 renounced by the see of Rome. The celebrated Bos- 
 suet 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 arm- 
 ed Christian princes." (1 Pet. ii. 14.) And in ano- 
 ther place, writing against Jurieu, he places the advo- 
 cates for religious toleration on the list of heretics. 
 
123 
 
 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 
 pretended queen of England, and the heretics adhering 
 to her" and that of pope Sixtus V. in 1587, by which 
 he bestows 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 directed "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 Fitz- 
 geralds 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 unanimously in Tir Owen's rebellion against the 
 said heretical queen ; and followed in a few months 
 after by an exhortatory 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. compcnd.) 
 
 In 1626, pope Urban VIII. published .a brief, ex- 
 horting the English Catholics to lose their lives rather 
 than be drawn to take that noxious and unlawful oath 
 
124 
 
 of English fidelity, (condemned as such by his prede- 
 cessor of happy memory,) the object of which is, 
 "not only that their faith to the king should be* se- 
 cured, but that the sacred sceptre of the universal 
 church should be wrested from the vicars of Almigh- 
 ty God." And again, the same pontiff, in the year 
 J 6 13, 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 encou- 
 raged and rewarded, to be encountered with rigorous 
 laws and penalties by a Protestant government ? 
 
 They who are acquainted with the perfidious ma- 
 chinations of king James II. to overturn the esta- 
 blished religion of his country, in defiance of the most 
 solemn promises and oaths ; with the religious fer- 
 ment which his persevering 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 
 reigns of his immediate successors.* 
 
 Men of a truly Christian spirit, have ever lamented 
 the melancholy necessity which gave birth to the pe- 
 nal 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 
 
 * If the reader wishes for full and satisfactory information on this subject, 
 .he will find it in an admirable speech of the earl of Clare, lord high chancel- 
 lor of Ireland, delivered in the Irish house of peers, March 13, 1793. 
 
125 
 
 hesitation in pronouncing them guilty of a manifest 
 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 reli- 
 gion, by solemnly, and upon principle, shedding tor- 
 rents of blood, for no other crime than maintaining 
 the sacred rights of conscience, and doctrines totally 
 unconnected with the state. These unchristian atro- 
 cities 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 kingdom of the meek and compassionate Saviour 
 of the world. 
 
 Mr. Berington, a sensible advocate of the Roman 
 church, when apologizing for the laws enacted against 
 the Hugonots in France, since the revocation of the 
 edict of Nantes, acknowledges that they are " extreme- 
 ly 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 ap- 
 plicable this reflection to the subject before us ! For 
 it is evident that the penal laws against Roman Ca- 
 tholics originated principally from apprehensions, 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 usurp- 
 ed and foreign powers and authorities ; and for dis- 
 
126 
 
 burthening subjects of divers great and intolerable 
 charges and exactions," viz. the payment of annates 
 or first fruits, Pope's bulls, indulgences, dispensations, 
 &c. the amount of which was incredible. The next 
 penal law against popish recusants, was 5th Eliz. cap. 
 1. "because of the dangers by the fautors 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 fasti- 
 diously and unnaturally, not only to bring this realm 
 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 dutiful obedience, 
 and to raise and stir up sedition and rebellion 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 said of her successors, were levelled, not against 
 the heretic or schismatic, but against the conspirator 
 and the traitor; 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, pro- 
 ving that their execution was not for religion, but for 
 treason only.* It cannot, however, be denied, that 
 
 * The reader will find this whole subject discussed with the utmost candour, 
 and illustrated by original and unquestionable documents, in " A survey of^he 
 modern state of the Church of Rome, &c." addressed to the Rev. Dr. Butler, 
 &c. by William Hales, D. D. rector of Killesandra, and late fellow of Tri li- 
 ty College. Dublin. Among other important matters, the reader will seethft* 
 there was no violation of the famous treaty of Limerick. 
 
127 
 
 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 grounded only upon treasonable practices, 
 and pardon was afterwards offered to them all, pro- 
 vided they would give the government reasonable se- 
 curity for their allegiance, by disclaiming the foreign 
 and hostile jurisdiction of the see of Rome, which, in 
 those days, held out very different pretensions 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 Catho- 
 lic universities, yet have they never been confirmed 
 by the present pontiff or his predecessor; and should 
 their successors ever recover the former influence 
 of the Roman Church, there can be little doubt, judg- 
 ing from past events and pretensions, but the liberal 
 concessions of the present day will be stigmatized with 
 her disapprobation and severest censures.* 
 
 But the period of her despotism is, we trust, gone by 
 forever. Little more than a shadow is left of this do- 
 
 * 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 Columbanu9 : " Notwithstand- 
 ing the oath of allegiance, by which Roman Catholics swear that the pope has 
 no power over the temporalities of states, yet the Irish titular bishops assem- 
 bled in synod at Tullow, so lately as the 6th of June, 1809, extolled, as just, 
 holy, and legitimate, those bulls of Pius VII. by which he has absolved all 
 Frenchmen from their allegiance to the Bourbons; expressly alienating, not 
 only the crown of France, but also the property of all French loyalists, secu- 
 lar 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, Fart 2, p. 5. 
 
128 
 
 mineering power. Stat magni nominis umbra. Man- 
 kind is become too enlightened to submit again to the 
 intolerable joke, which " neither we nor our fathers 
 were able to bear." And could these pages contri- 
 bute, 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 Roman Ca- 
 tholic brethren, the time and attention bestowed on 
 them would be abundantly rewarded. The religious 
 opinions of many Roman Catholics, especially in this 
 country, are, we trust, undergoing a silent reforma- 
 tion, and the " dark monsters of superstition and bi- 
 gotry," as was remarked on another occasion, " are 
 retreating gradually before the light of genuine reli- 
 gion and philosophy" 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 Ro- 
 man Catholics of Ireland, recorded by Dr. Butler. 
 U Compare, also," says he, " Veron's French rule of 
 faith, subjoined to Hooke's religionis naturalis, et reve- 
 latce principia, with the canons and creed of Pius IV. 
 and the difference is most striking and satisfactory. 
 M This (rule of Veron) at present" says Mr. Bering- 
 ton, M is the great hinge on which our whole religion 
 turns."* (p. 34, reflect, x.) If we peruse his " English 
 Roman Catholic principles, in reference to God and 
 the country," drawn up, as he tells us, in the reign of 
 Charles II. but retouched by himself, we shall find 
 many of the exceptionable tenets of the Roman church 
 
 * 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 
 which Protestant Churches are branches. 
 
129 
 
 rejected or explained away. O, may the divine Head 
 of the Churt.h further this blessed approximation to 
 each other, among < 11 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 roundly taxing Pro- 
 testants with misrepresentation, to lay them under the 
 disagreeable necessity, of exposing the tenets them- 
 selves, 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 reli- 
 gious truth, it must ever be a branch of his bounden 
 duty, to refute the fallacy of the most lofty preten- 
 sions, when they presume to confine forgiveness of sins, 
 or, in other words, the benefits of redemption, with- 
 in the limits of one particular communion ; when they 
 would shake that blessed assurance of safety and ac- 
 ceptance, which arises from faith in the word of God 
 alone, and encumber practical religion, with obser- 
 vances unauthorized by the scripture, which have 
 frequently driven the bold offender into atheism, and 
 the timid into despair, fn 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 re-^ 
 
 17 
 
130 
 
 pel every attack upon the sanctuary, whether pro- 
 ceeding from open enemies, or mistaken friends, and 
 to do this with weapons drawn exclusively from the 
 sacred arsenal itself; namely, " with love unfeigned 
 and that meekness of wisdom, which is from above, 
 first pure, then peaceable, gentle, and easy to be en- 
 treated, full of mercy, and good fruits, without par- 
 tiality, and without hypocrisy." — James iii. 17. 
 
 THE END. 
 
SOME 
 
 REMARKS 
 
 ON 
 
 DR. O'GALLAGHER'S BRIEF REPLY 
 
 TO 
 
 DR. WHARTON'S 'SHORT ANSWER 
 
 TO 
 
 A TRUE EXPOSITION 
 
 THE DOCTRINE OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH 
 
 THE SACRAMENT OF PENANCE," &c. 
 
 BY CHARLES H. WHARTON, D. D. 
 
 Rector of St. Mary's Church, at Burlington, N. J. 
 
 NEW-YORK : 
 
 PUBLISHED BY D4VJD LONGWORTH, 11 PARK!. 
 
 Clayton & Kingsland, 15 Cedaivst. Printers. 
 
 1817. 
 
4 
 
 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 
 impious consequences in which his principles necessari- 
 ly eventuate, prove the falsehood and irreligion of the 
 principles themselves." (Seep. 169.) Leaving, then, 
 this matter to be adjusted between the worthy Gen- 
 tleman and the Doctor, I proceed to make a few short 
 reaiarks upon his reply — I say short, for if the reader 
 will be pleased to revert to the " Answer to the Ap- 
 pendix," he will readily become acquainted with the 
 state and merits of the controversv ; and will there 
 discover, I trust, an anticipated refutation of all the 
 bold and sophistical assertions in which the Doctor's 
 reply so copiously 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 sa- 
 cramental confession, or the sacrament of penance, (so 
 the Doctor would have it called,) as defined by the 
 council of Trent, on the authorities alleged 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. 
 
 * Dr. O'G. is very angry at auricular confession being called a sacra- 
 ment; (p. 11.) and yet, (p. 42.) he says, u the whole procedure of the sacra- 
 ment, often goes under the appellation of confession, in the catechisms, in- 
 structions, and canons of the church." What will the Doctor say to one of the 
 popes, who calls confession a sacrament, as Bellarm. informs us : (c. adabolend. 
 de haeret :) This pope was Lucius III H Greater accuracy," says the 
 Doctor, "might surely be expected from a doctor of divinity;" what* 
 greater accuracy than from a pope ? 
 
(p. 10.) The major, or first proposition of this syllo* 
 gism, no Protestant will deny ; viz. " that every doc- 
 trine of religion, which is founded in the scripture, 
 and has been acknowledged and venerated as divine 
 by the church, in the decrees of her councils, the de- 
 clarations of her bishops and holy fathers, and the 
 veneration and practice of the faithful through all 
 ages, from the time of the apostles to the present day, 
 must necessarily be orthodox and of divine institution. 
 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 
 doctrine of the sacrament of penance, and of the ne- 
 cessity of confession for the forgiveness of sins, is or- 
 thodox and divine." 
 
 "To answer the Exposition or the Appendix," says 
 Dr. O'Gallagher, " he," Dr. W. " should have solved 
 the above syllogism, which constitutes the grand ar- 
 gument, and effectual lever of the whole work : and 
 to solve that syllogism, it was necessary to disprove 
 the minor proposition." Now, by what confusion of 
 ideas could the Doctor be induced to imagine, that 
 this minor proposition could be refuted in any other 
 way, than by denying it altogether in the first in- 
 stance, and then proving it to be utterly unfounded ? 
 This was done by showing, 1. " That the doctrine of 
 auricular confession," or (to avoid a mere quibble rais- 
 ed by the Doctor, p. 11,) the doctrine of such confes- 
 sion^ 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 
 
G 
 
 it had never been enacted, I say enacted into an arti- 
 cle of faith and indispensable discipline. 3. That 
 neither the council of Lateran, nor any other tribunal, 
 has a right to impose such a grievous yoke upon the 
 faithful, from a plea to infallibility, as this plea is al- 
 together unsupported either by reason or revelation. 
 
 Now, will Dr. O'G. deny, that the proof of these 
 three points, must contain the refutation of hi$\minor 
 proposition, and invalidate all the consequences of his 
 syllogism. He acknowledges that the " first of these 
 positions, is opposed to the assertion of the Exposition. 
 The second, he pronounces partly false and partly 
 absurd;" (p. 11.) 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 previously 
 to the thirteenth 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 prin- 
 ciple or tenet of Catholics." From the 9th to the 
 30th page of the Short Answer to the Exposition, the 
 reader will find ample materials for refuting the first 
 clause of the Doctor's formidable minor, and all the 
 sophisms, plausible and irrelevant, with which he la- 
 bours to uphold it. He 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 1 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 Clark, and Gren- 
 ville 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 contra- 
 diction 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, 1 say, these and 
 some other particulars altogether immaterial, such as 
 the parade of Biblical criticism respecting the word 
 AKpoyufyo/t, 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 divines, although manifestly confirming 
 the first proposition of the Short Answer to the Ap- 
 pendix. 
 
 *The learned bishop having proved to the entire 
 satisfaction 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, were personal distinctions of the 
 venerable primate of the apostolic college, appropri- 
 ated to him in positive and absolute exclusion of all 
 other persons ; in exclusion of the apostles his con- 
 temporaries, and of the bishops of Rome his succes- 
 sors, concludes by asserting, that " any interpretation of 
 
 v Bishop Horseley's Sermon, xiih 
 
this passage, or any part of it, founded upon a notion, 
 that St. Peter, on this occasion, spake, or was spoken 
 to, as the representative of the apostles, is groundless 
 and erroneous." Having laid this foundation, he 
 then proceeds 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 ok 
 Heaven 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 promi- 
 sed to St. Peter, by the principles we have laid down 
 for the exposition 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 re- 
 surrection, upon the apostles in general, and trans- 
 mitted 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 object of this power, is the individual upon whom 
 it is exercised, according to the particular circumstan- 
 ces 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 with- 
 holds the sacraments of baptism and the Lord's sup- 
 per, or, upon just grounds pronounces, or refuses to 
 pronounce, upon an individual the sentence of absolu- 
 tion. St. Peter's custody of the keys was quite ano- 
 ther thing. It was a temporary, not a perpetual au- 
 thority ; its object was not individuals, but the whole 
 
9 
 
 human race. The kingdom of heaven upon earth, 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 admit- 
 tance; Israelites by birth, or by legal incorporation. 
 The locks of these gates were the rites of the Mosa- 
 ic 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 com- 
 mission, 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 al- 
 ludes, 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 connected. 
 This again being, by virtue of our rule of interpreta- 
 tion, peculiar to St. Peter, must be a distinct thing 
 from the perpetual standing power of discipline, con- 
 veyed upon a latter occasion, to the church in gene- 
 ral, in the same figurative terms. St. Peter was the 
 first instrument of Providence in dissolving the obliaa- 
 tion of the Mosaic law in the ceremonial, and of binding 
 it in the moral part. The rescript, indeed, for that 
 
 * See Reply, p. 32. 
 
10 
 
 purpose, was drawn by St. James, and confirmed by the 
 authority of the apostles in general, under the direc- 
 tion 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 lifetime. He 
 applied his key — he turned back the lock, he loosed 
 and he bound : the gates of the kingdom of Heaven 
 w 7 ere thrown open; the ceremonial law was abrogat- 
 ed; 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, whe- 
 ther or not this promise to St. Peter, has any reference 
 to sacramental confession and absolution, as defined 
 by the council of Trent, to a power of unlocking, or 
 binding up the consciences of men, by claiming a cir- 
 cumstantial disclosure of their most hidden sins ; let 
 him pronounce upon the modesty of the Doctor " in 
 declaring an appropriate allusion of the very learned 
 Dr. Lightfoot to be nonsense" in stringing on it affect- 
 ed witticisms totally irrelevant, and very unbecoming 
 a grave divine ; in accusing Protestant theologians of a 
 wilful perversion of the Scriptures, and in roundly and 
 grossly asserting that by adopting their unanswerable 
 arguments, and some indignant expressions against 
 groundless and tyrannical pretensions, " the author 
 of the Answer has dearly purchased favour by the 
 merited contempt of learned, honest, and honourable 
 
 (a) gee notes at the end. 
 
11 
 
 men." (p. 41.) This would be a dear purchase, indeed J" 
 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 champi- 
 ons as Lightfoot and Clark. Perhaps the Doctor 
 has met with the wise maxim of Seneca, " iEquo 
 animo audienda sunt imperitorum convicia, et ad 
 honesta vadenti contemnendus est ipse contemptus." 
 At any rate, however, the Doctor's contempt is very 
 immaterial to the present discussion. 
 
 Men truly learned, honest, and honourable, will pro- 
 bably pity such a sentiment in a Christian divine, 
 while they look, and look in vain, for any arguments 
 drawn from holy Scripture, to support his assertions. 
 If men of this description, will turn to the Short An- 
 swer, they will readily perceive what slender founda- 
 tions are laid in the Scriptures, for sacramental con- 
 fession. The strongest text is in Matt. xvi. 18., and 
 ^hat 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 dis- 
 cussion 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 sophisms and strained interpreta- 
 tions, influenced by the prejudices of preconceived 
 opinions, and never daring to question them. The 
 Scripture, therefore, affords, no ground for sacrament- 
 al confession. The proofs of this position may be 
 found in the Short Answer, and Dr. O'Gallagher is 
 defied to refute them. 
 
12 
 
 Before we proceed to vindicate the second part of 
 the Short Answer, it will be necessary to notice a tran- 
 sient reference 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 indispensable 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, Pro- 
 testant credulity, &c, as if all the merits of his cause 
 depended on the authority of Peter Lombard. But 
 what will the leader say, when he sees that all the 
 Doctor's fire evaporates into smoke, or rather into 
 invisible gas ? It was asserted in the Short Answer 
 to the Appendix, (p. 30,) " That the famous master 
 of the sentences, delivers the doctrine of the reforma- 
 tion 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 P. Lombard 
 truly says, " that God only remits sins and retains 
 them, and yet that he has granted power to the 
 church to bind and to loosen ; but he binds and loosens 
 in a different manner from the church. For he re- 
 mits 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, 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 pronoun- 
 
13 
 
 ced 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 corresponding 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 32d 
 Psalm, " Thou who alone sparest, who alone for- 
 givest sins," he adds this paraphrase, " For who can 
 forgive sins but God alone ?" (Greg. Expos. 2. Ps. 
 Pcenitent.) Who, indeed, can exercise a prerogative 
 belonging exclusively to the Most High ; or, as the 
 prophet 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 absolute? Will he subscribe to 
 the explicit opinion of P. Lombard, in another pas- 
 sage of his works, " that in remitting or retaining sins, 
 the priests of the gospel, have that right and office, 
 which the legal priests had of old, under the law, of 
 curing lepers ? These, therefore," these Christian 
 priests, " forgive sins or retain them, whilst they 
 show and declare that they are forgiven or retain- 
 ed by God." {Lib. 4. sentent. dist. 14./.) Besides all 
 this, the very form of the sacrament of penance, is de- 
 
 3 
 
14 
 
 fined to consist in these words, " I absolve thee from 
 thy sins," and, therefore, they constitute an essential 
 part of it. " Forgiveness," says Bellarmine, (de 
 paenit. lib. 3. cap. 2.) " is denied to them, whom the 
 priest will not forgive." His absolution is a sacra- 
 mental act, which confers grace by the work wrought, 
 that is, as this their most learned controvertist ex- 
 pounds it, " actively, and immediately, and instru- 
 mentally effects the grace of justification," in such as 
 receive it. " Active et proxime, atque instrumenta- 
 liter efficit gratiam justifieationis."* 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 century: 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 P. Lombard, appealed 
 to by the Doctor, viz. that confession to a priest is 
 necessary to salvation; it is still true, that with re- 
 spect to the power of the priest, in this particular, 
 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 P. 
 Lombard, is the same particular, circumstantial, private 
 eonfession, enjoined on all Christians by the most bit- 
 ter anathemas of that church in after ages, or that it 
 was not that general, humble, and sincere acknow- 
 ledgment of sins, accompanied with marks of hearty 
 
 * Id. in sacram. ingenere, lib. 2. cap. 1. 
 
15 
 
 repentance, still practised in the Protestant Episco- 
 pal church, and other churches of Christendom ? Be 
 this, however, as it may, the -opinion of P. Lombard 
 on this subject, is nothing more than that of a private 
 divine, which he tells us was controverted by many 
 doctors of his day. Among other questions which he 
 propounds, (lib. 4. senten. dist. 17.,) he asks, " whe- 
 ther it be sufficient, that a man confess his sins to God 
 alone, or whether he must confess 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 con- 
 fession were made to God only, without the judgment 
 of the priest, or the confession of the church ; because 
 David said, c 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, 
 (ibid.) " even the learned are found to have differed in 
 their opinions, because the doctors seemed to deliver 
 divers, and almost contrary judgments therein ;" 
 that is to say, the ancient doctors were divided in 
 their opinions concerning auricular sacramental con- 
 fession, and although P. Lombard appear obscure- 
 ly to favour it, yet his idea of it was by no means 
 such as afterwards prevailed, and of course, his au- 
 thority, as cited in the Short Answer, remains unim- 
 paired. 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, before he is sure that 
 he has conquered. To persons not labouring under 
 invincible prejudices, the express authority of Tho- 
 mas Aquinas, might have appeared sufficient to set- 
 tle this point : speaking of the opinion of those who 
 
contended that it was lawful to maintain the validity 
 of confession to God alone, he says, (in 4. (list. 17.) 
 " Magister et Gratiajjl&s hoc pro opinione ponunt, 
 sed nunc post determinationem eccles'ia? sub Innocen- 
 tio III. factam, hasresis reputanda est." " The master 
 of the sentences and Gratian, Jay down this as an opi- 
 nion ; but now, after the determination of the church 
 under Innocent III., it is to be reputed heresy." So that 
 previously to that determination, during 12 centuries, 
 an opinion was suffered to be current in the 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 
 suffers them to float with so much uncertainty, and 
 for so many centuries, in the writings of theologians. 
 But, says the Doctor, (p. 61.) in reply to the second 
 part of the Answer, namely, " that the testimony of the 
 ancient fathers does not prove sacramental confes- 
 sion," " the first member is false, the other absurd.'''' 
 To prove its falsehood, he parades again all the de- 
 tached passages from the ancient fathers, brought 
 forward in the 'Appendix, and explained in the An- 
 swer. 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 perceive ; as, also, how wery irksome it would 
 be to enter again upon their refutation. The merits 
 of the question, in this particular, are confidently rest- 
 ed on the reasonings detailed in the Answer, from the 
 31st to the 47th page. As to the additional texts 
 quoted by the Doctor, they confer no further weight 
 on those in the Appendix', and all of them, of course, 
 
17 
 
 may be safely disregarded, as unconnected with 
 the Tridentine doctrine of sacramental confes- 
 sion. But the fact is, on t^iis, 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 denies, while the real dif- 
 ficulties of the case remain unnoticed. Great compi- 
 lers by profession, the Doctor and his associates aim 
 at astonishing their readers by an accumulation of 
 citations, and a pretended tradition foreign to the 
 question; which few persons will be at the pains of 
 examining, and then decree to themselves a triumph, 
 in which they are the only applauders, while the rest 
 of the world is smiling at their folly. Like the theo- 
 logians of the council of Trent, who, in order to 
 prove their doctrine of confession from Scripture, 
 cited every passage from the Old and New Testament, 
 where the word / confess, or confession occurs, these 
 confident gentlemen adduce from the ancient fathers 
 a multiplicity of texts, which establish about as con- 
 clusively the divine right of confession, as they do 
 any other dogma to which they might wish to apply 
 them. (See Answer, p. 51,) 
 
 But the testimony of the fathers, the Doctor con- 
 tends, clearly evinces that " confession (he must mean 
 sacramental confession) was the solemn rite, and neces- 
 sary means inculcated by the pastors, and practised 
 by the faithful for obtaining forgiveness of sins, 
 throughout all Christendom, from the earliest ages." 
 (p. 63.) The reader will judge from what has al- 
 ready been said, what he is to think of this assertion; 
 ^perhaps however he will pardon, and the Doctor will 
 
18 
 
 challenge, a little further illustration of this matter. 
 I find it ready to my hand in a short and learned dis- 
 sertation 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. 18.) 
 i Many that believed came and confessed, and show- 
 ed their deeds,' means no more, than that their appli- 
 cation to the apostles to be received to Christian 
 communion, was accompanied by an acknowledgment 
 of their former vicious courses: a matter not uncom- 
 mon in every Protestant communion at this day. But 
 that a special confession of all past miscarriages, was 
 not a prerequisite of initiation into the church by bap- 
 tism, may be presumed from the many places, in which 
 it might otherwise have been expected to appear — as 
 in the baptism of the eunuch — in that of Cornelius 
 and his household — in that of Jairus and his house- 
 hold. (See Answer, p. 28.) 
 
 " 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 confes- 
 sion to God, and the occasional one of opening the 
 heart to the ministers of his word, has been confound- 
 ed with the indispensable necessity of the latter, as a 
 condition of divine pardon. Thus, Tertullian is in- 
 troduced, as to the purpose, because in his treatise 
 concerning patience, among many animated exhorta- 
 tions 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 
 
19 
 
 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 confes- 
 sion 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 cen- 
 sures, there are sundry fathers 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 auricular confession by the councils 
 of Lateran and Trent, the Bishop proceeds, (p. 235.) 
 " It would be easy to recite from ancient fathers, ex- 
 hortations to repentance under a variety of circum- 
 stances; and expressed in such forms, as show that 
 they are materially defective, if auricular confession, 
 so evidently wanting in them, were thought univer- 
 sally a duty. There shall be given the instance of 
 the Roman Clement — undoubtedly the person refer- 
 red to (Philip, iv. 3.) as having " his name written in 
 the book of life." In his admirable epistle to the Co- 
 rinthians, written for the express purpose of reclaim- 
 ing them from a schism; after having set before them 
 the heinousness of their offence, he exhorts them to 
 beg God's forgiveness, enlarging on the sentiment, 
 without any intimation of a preparatory step of au- 
 ricular confession. This, if required, might also 
 have been pertinently introduced in another place, 
 where he admonishes those who had laid the first 
 foundation of the schism, "to submit themselves to their 
 presbyters, and to be instructed to repentance, bend- 
 ing the knees of their hearts." It may be alleged that 
 confession was an appendage to the repentance, to 
 ^vhich they were to be instructed. But this is the 
 
20 
 
 matter in question ; and it is contended that the ge- 
 neral requisition of such a condition would naturally 
 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 \t\ easy to perceive the difference between this, 
 and the disclosure of the heart, implied in the subject 
 under consideration. The same inference may be 
 drawn from the second epistle of St. Clement, if in- 
 deed it be his ; and not rather, as some think, erro- 
 neously 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 ne- 
 cessity of confession to a minister. But there is no 
 reason to confine to the first three centuries, what is 
 here affirmed of the sense of the fathers. Those of 
 the fourth century were equally strangers to the doc- 
 trine in question." 
 
 The Bishop then quotes from St. Chrysostom an 
 explicit passage in proof of his assertion, which nei- 
 ther Dupin, nor any of his followers, were ever able 
 to answer, and which might be supported by a crowd 
 of other texts from contemporary writers, which those 
 brought forward in the Short Answer render it unne- 
 cessary to allege, and which would probably rather 
 tire the patience of the reader than add to his inform- 
 ation. Before he proceeds to quote his authorities 
 from the fathers, with a view of refuting the second 
 part of the Short Answer, the Doctor becomes out- 
 rageously 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 
 
21 
 
 language little consistent with that coolness and ac- 
 curacy, which should always accompany polemical 
 disquisitions." (p. — .) " What an argument !" ex- 
 claims the doughty Doctor, " he now attempts to cri- 
 ticise the style of the lathers." (p. 63.) Flimsy apo- 
 logy for argument ! Horrid impiety, no doubt, and 
 ignorance unparalleled, showing, clearly, " how well, 
 in the estimation of every man of letters, the writer 
 was qualified to censure the Cyprians, the Augus- 
 tines, &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 basket- 
 fuls, " of dust in people's eyes, and giving them talk 
 instead of truths," the Doctor will be puzzled to de- 
 fine what is so. Will he pretend to affirm that the 
 ancient fathers were always cool 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 ve- 
 neration, and heart-felt gratitude to the persons and 
 writings of the ancient fathers of the church, the 
 w r riter of these pages, will not yield to Dr. O'Galla- 
 gher, or any of his associates. He appreciates them 
 as intrepid champions, faithful witnesses, enlightened 
 instructors, and glorious martyrs of our holy religion ; 
 but to regard either their persons or writings as ex- 
 empt from human infirmities and error, to hold up 
 their testimony as uniform and constant, except, in- 
 deed, in the fundamental and leading doctrines of 
 Christianity, is either to be unacquainted with their 
 writings, to impose upon the ignorant, or to flatter 
 the credulous/6) " One does not know which to ad- 
 
 (6) See notes at the end. 
 4 
 
22 
 
 mire most," says the Doctor, (p. 64.) " the falsehood 
 implied, or the calumny expressed," in the assertion 
 Ifjat the " fathers, being ignorant of any divine pre- 
 cept respecting sacramental confession, 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 doubted, 
 but they would have entered into it with as much 
 warmth, detail, and accuracy, as are to be found in 
 modern manuals, casuists, and treatises innumerable. 
 Let the Doctor produce his documents of this kind; 
 let him show us from history, that kings and queens, 
 and other great personages, had their stated confess- 
 ors : that at certain seasons the churches were crowd- 
 ed with those who repaired thither for confession; 
 that plenary indulgences were annexed to this exer- 
 cise ; and that the absolution of some crimes was re- 
 served to the Bishop, and others to the Pope alone. 
 Let him, I say, favour us with any authentic accounts 
 of the primitive Christians, which state their devo- 
 tions in this particular, to resemble those of the pre- 
 sent Roman church, or give any countenance to these 
 and other practices naturally resulting from sacra- 
 mental, auricular confession, and I will admit his im- 
 putation 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 testi- 
 mony of the fathers, and then to abuse all those who 
 reject it, neither implies nor expresses accuracy or can- 
 dour. " Bold and censured opinions," he tells us, (p. 
 98.) " have no weight with Catholic divines :" or, in 
 other words, the Roman church has only to censure 
 
23 
 
 any passages in the ancient fathers and modern di- 
 vines, that clearly make against her; and such passa- 
 ges are immediately excluded from their testimony. — 
 A summary method, truly, of getting rid of difficulties, 
 which, nevertheless, runs through the Doctor's whole 
 performance. Presuming on the infallible authority 
 of his church, he presents this attribute as an impene- 
 trable 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 endeavour to follow hirn, even through the many 
 and intricate labyrinths, with which he labours to im- 
 pede our way. Before we enter, however, on this 
 subject, which constitutes the third part of the Short 
 Jlnswer, 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 any existing au- 
 thority, in an infallible church, to press some of them 
 into her service, and to disown others as erroneous, 
 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, (p. 20.) in strings of questions, and 
 a rant of interrogation," which the Doctor has endea- 
 voured in vain to answer, by passing them by " as 
 the common resort of school-boys in their juvenile 
 compositions, to dazzle the eyes of youthful and in- 
 considerate readers." But readers of a different de- 
 scription, will possibly perceive from the foregoing 
 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 
 
24 
 
 following specimen : it was said in the Answer, that 
 the power of the keys, or the authority to bind and 
 to loose, to forgive and regain sins, given by Christ to 
 his apostles, &c. is very different from that exercised 
 by the Romish priests, in the sacrament 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 commission. 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, in- 
 deed ! 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 quib- 
 ble of the Doctor, and this part of the subject shall 
 be dismissed. In the Answer (p. 8.) it was asserted, 
 that u the doctrine of sacramental confession was un- 
 known to the primitive church, and that previous to 
 the 13th century it had never been enacted into an 
 article of faith, and indispensable discipline." Through- 
 out 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, it seems, excites the Doctor's in- 
 dignation, 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 faithful." (p. 60.) In other words, she will not 
 acknowledge that she has ever erred, or that her 
 
25 
 
 doctrines have not always been the same as they are 
 at this day. Here is begging the \ery point in ques- 
 tion; for Protestants contend and prove that, by enact- 
 ing 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? 
 Was not a practice, deemed previously optional, 
 enacted into a law by the Lateran council ? How- 
 ever, if the Doctor will curb his petulance and com- 
 pose 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 declaration of 
 Thomas Aquinas, that " what was matter of opinion 
 before the council of Lateran, became heresy after 
 it; 1 ' 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 irrefragable and binding, and without ad- 
 mitting them, there is no salvation, (V) — so at least 
 say all her confess^ of faith. On her declaration, 
 therefore, we are bound to receive and practise her 
 doctrine of sacramental confession; and this declara- 
 tion is manifestly founded on her claim to infallibility. 
 Now, it was asserted in the third part of the Short 
 Answer, (p. 72.) that " neither the councils of Late- 
 ran nor of Trent, nor any other earthly tribunal, had, 
 or has, a right to impose such a grievous yoke as au- 
 ricular confession upon the faithful, from a plea to in- 
 
 (c) Sec notes at (he end. 
 
26 
 
 fallibility : this plea being altogether unsupported 
 either by reason or revelation." 
 
 This third proposition, the Doctor styles " a mere 
 jargon of unmeaning words, not expressing or refut- 
 ing (he probably meant contradicting) any principle 
 or tenets of Catholics." " It is a mere jargon of un- 
 meaning words," says the Doctor, M 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, be- 
 ing come to the years of discretion, by him, or her- 
 self alone, once in the year at least, faithfully con- 
 fess 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 exemption 
 from error, or the plea of infallibility, could induce 
 the council to enact, or the faithful to obey, such an 
 outrageous decree. The author of the Appendix, 
 more logical, or more candid than the Doctor, saw 
 this subject in its proper light, and, therefore, declares 
 without hesitation, (p. 82.) "that his fourth and last 
 argument in favour of the divine institution of confes- 
 sion, is drawn from the infallibility of the church, 
 which has repeatedly and solemnly declared this 
 truth in her general councils, and emphatically taught 
 
27 
 
 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 sacra- 
 mental confession, is 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 arguments and sophisms, has been antici- 
 pated in that Answer. Of this, the reader is invited 
 to judge, and he is moreover entreated kindly to over- 
 look 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 72d to the 83d page; and although they have sup- 
 plied 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 Roman Catholic wri- 
 ters lay the greatest stress, and shall, therefore, re- 
 ceive, exclusively, some additional attention. I find 
 a lucid and unanswerable explanation of this text, in 
 a sermon of the profound and accurate Bishop Horse- 
 ley, mentioned above. " On these words," says the 
 
£8 
 
 learned prelate, " that ' the gates of hell,' &C. — the 
 time compels me to be brief, nor is there need I 
 should be long. In the present state of sacred litera- 
 ture, 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 se- 
 cured by barricadoed gates, through which there is 
 no escape, by natural means, to those who have once 
 been compelled to enter. Promising that these gates 
 shall not prevail against his church, our Lord promi- 
 ses not only perpetuity to the church, to the last mo- 
 ment of the world's existence, notwithstanding the 
 successive mortality of all its members in all ages ; 
 but, what is much more, a final triumph over the pow- 
 er 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 individu- 
 al church, if she fall from her first love, may sink in 
 ruins ; of this, history furnishes but too abundant 
 proof, in the examples of churches, once illustrious, 
 planted by the apostles, watered by the blood of the 
 first saints and martyrs, which are now no more. 
 
 * The Societj for the propagation of the Gospel in foreign parts. 
 
29 
 
 Where are now the seven churches of Asia, whose 
 praise is in the Apocalypse ? Where shall we now 
 find the successors of those earliest archbishops, 
 once stars in the Son of Man's right hand ? Where 
 are those boasted seals of Paul's apostleship, the 
 churches of Corinth and Philippi ? Where are the 
 churches of Jerusalem and Alexandria ?" As these 
 ancient churches, so those of our day may be aban- 
 doned 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 suppo- 
 sition can never be realized, because the gates of hell 
 can never prevail against the Catholic church, which 
 is the Roman church." So that, in the idea of the 
 Doctor, a particular and universal church is the same 
 thing. But let that pass. "With any error in doctrine," 
 says he, " there could be no church at all ; for all er- 
 rors destroy the church." This, indeed, is very high 
 ground, and the Doctor maintains it with a train of 
 sophistry seldom surpassed. 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, in- 
 deed, the pillar and ground of truth; and, therefore, 
 by teaching any doctrine subversive of, or contrary 
 to, the Christian faith, she would cease to be a Chris- 
 tian church. As this is never to be the case, so the 
 teaching of such doctrine can never take place. But 
 can any individual church claim, from these premises. 
 
30 
 
 an exemption 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 compre- 
 hensive view, of ail the points in litigation, that the 
 matter can be determined : but when the Doctor as- 
 serts, (p. Ill,) that, "in admitting a church to be 
 subject to error, some men" (that is, the whole body 
 of Protestants) " pretend to indulgence and liberali- 
 ty, and that this is an impious indulgence ;" he betrays 
 a spirit very unbecoming his character. Protestants 
 affirm, and have repeatedly proved, that the doc- 
 trines of religion generally maintained by all Chris- 
 tian churches, in all places, and at all times, consti- 
 tuted 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 ad- 
 roit, 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 pre- 
 vailed universally through Christendom, subversive 
 of some fundamental tenet, and it will be acknow- 
 ledged that the church ceased to exist. Against 
 errors, however, of minor importance, errors neither 
 damnable nor destructive, no security has been given, 
 and none is necessary. Previously to the coming of 
 Christ, the Jewish church was 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 
 
31 
 
 of its faith — the law and the prophets ; yet, who will 
 say the Jewish church never erred ? Perpetuity, in- 
 deed, was not promised to this church, yet it was found- 
 ed, and, while it existed, was guided by the Spirit of 
 God. When, however, by the exercise of that free- 
 dom of the will, which is essential both to individuals 
 and collective bodies, and which was not to be con- 
 trolled by any special interference of Providence, it 
 afterwards fell into gross idolatry and palpable su- 
 perstitions ; when one great portion of this church 
 denied the resurrection of the dead, and our Saviour 
 cautions his disciples against the doctrines of the 
 other, (Luke xii. 3.) 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 Tal- 
 mud, having defaced, and, in some points, invalidated 
 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 consum- 
 mation 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 conspicu- 
 ous 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 allbrd to 
 owary believer solid security, and the assurance which 
 is of faith. These foundations are the essential doc- 
 trines of the gospel, and therefore styled fundamental. 
 
32 
 
 The Doctor denies that there are any doctrines of 
 this description, (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 be- 
 gat Jacob, as that Christ ivas born of the Virgin Mary ; 
 but will any man of sense, who dares to think for him- 
 self, pronounce these truths to be equally essential 
 to Christianity? Can, I say, any man, with his mind 
 unshackled by prejudice, education, and sophistry, 
 reallv believe, that the profession of faith, enjoined 
 by Pope Pius IV., has added nothing to the founda- 
 tions of Christian faith, contained in the Apostolic and 
 Nicene creeds ? Will he admit, " that the doctrine of 
 purgatory, of 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 
 Trinity ; that the images of Christ, of the mother of 
 God, even virgins, and also of other saints, ought to 
 be had and retained, and that due honour and vene- 
 ration is to be given them." (See Pope Pius's Creed.') 
 Will he, I say, believe that these truths are as fun- 
 damental, as essential to the existence of the Chris- 
 tian 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. 
 
33 
 
 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 truths only be fundamen- 
 tal, 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 connected with the ends of her establish- 
 ment, but no promise is made her, that, besides such 
 truths, none of her particular 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?) " intole- 
 rant fabricators of metaphysical creeds and incon- 
 gruous systems of theology ! Do you undertake to 
 measure the extent of any man's understanding, 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 
 
34 
 
 you, when you erect yourself into an infallible judge 
 of truth and falsehood. We, as Christians, are 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 re- 
 surrection from the dead ; as to a future state of re- 
 tribution, &c. : but there are other subjects, on which 
 the academicorum s™*», may be admitted, I appre- 
 hend, without injuring the foundations of our reli- 
 gion." But, unhappily for the peace of the church, 
 the lust of dominion, and the rage for dogmatizing, 
 has identified with these sacred foundations other ex- 
 traneous materials, as the Spirit of God had expli- 
 citly foretold, and thus held them out as equally sa- 
 cred and important. This subject might be prose- 
 cuted 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 con- 
 vince his readers, (p. 112.) will serve only to bewil- 
 der 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 subversive of the Christian reli- 
 gion, would, certainly, violate the whole faith, and 
 cease to be a church. But here the question returns, 
 whether such an error be fundamental, or otherwise ; 
 for it is from such only that exemption is promised 
 in the Scriptures. If the reader wishes to obtain fur- 
 
35 
 
 ther satisfaction on this point, let him turn to the 3d 
 chapter of that elegant and acute reasoner, Dr. Chil- 
 lingworth, where the distinction between fundamen- 
 tals and non-fundamentals, is logically and irrefraga- 
 bly established. Perhaps, however, before this sub- 
 ject is finally dismissed, 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 Romany utitur, tanquam principium illud, in 
 quo omnes, qui fidem Christi profitentur, necessario 
 conveniunt^ ac firmamentum firmum et unicim con- 
 tra quod portae inferi nunquam praevalebunt, totidem 
 verbis quibtis in omnibus ecclesiis legitur, exprimen- 
 dum esse censuit." " 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 hell shall never 
 prevail, shall be expressed in the same words, in 
 which it is read in all the churches. ,, (J) 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 credulous or interested abettors of 
 particular systems." (p. 112.) Let him indulge him- 
 self in his usual style of dictatorial importance; en- 
 lightened Protestants will smile at his presumption, 
 and still regard his realities as fictions, and their fic- 
 tions as solemn realities. 
 
 (d) See notes at the end. 
 
36 
 
 We proceed, next, to the third proposition collect- 
 ed from the Answer, and which is styled not only 
 false^ but proved to be so, by experience, (p. 109.) It 
 is this : " That the church may always secure her- 
 self from capital errors, by taking for her guide the 
 light of clear revelations, and the evidence of rea- 
 son." " No," says Dr. O'Gallagher, " this is false ; 
 the light of clear revelation and the evidence of reason, 
 are not sufficient to secure, nor ever did secure the 
 church from capital errors." (p. 114.) Here, indeed, 
 is a most extraordinary assertion. The Doctor is 
 surely not aware into what a snare he is falling ; but 
 he is resolved to plunge on, heedless 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 as- 
 suming 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 instrumentality of revelation and rea- 
 son? 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 infallibility and 
 doctrines of his church? By omitting these appeals, 
 he might have saved us both, considerable trouble. 
 But how he could have proved that " the church is 
 secured against errors by the special assistance of Je- 
 sus Christ, (p. 114.) without exercising the faculty of 
 his reason, to discover this promise in the volume of 
 revelation, would require a train of sophistry more 
 subtle than even that of the Doctor. The fact, then, 
 is, that the Protestant churches, being lively branch- 
 
37 
 
 es of the Catholic church, have the promise of Christ 
 to secure them from destructive errors. This pro- 
 mise they find in their Bibles ; on him who made it, 
 they rely for its performance; and his unerring gui- 
 dance 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 foun- 
 dations of Christianity, or, if they did so, the commu- 
 nities 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 ex- 
 pected from persons labouring under ancient preju- 
 dices, and striving to remove various errors and 
 abuses, novel tenets, and unjustifiable observances, 
 gradually accumulated through preceding 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 principles of Protestants ; they 
 serve only to show, that man, in spite of all his boasted 
 knowledge, and best resolves, is still a frail, unset- 
 tled, and imperfect being, and that nothing but a 
 plain, revealed, and written code of faith, can restrain 
 
 6 
 
38 
 
 his wanderings into fatal and damnable errors. 
 This elegant libel received a complete refutation 
 from Basnage, in his " Historie de la Religion des 
 Eglises Reformers." 
 
 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 illustrious Fenelon ; for his oppression of 
 poor Madame Guion, and his heretical opinions re- 
 specting religious persecution, which he always 
 maintained and realized when he could; it may 
 be well enough to inform the reader, that his fa- 
 mous " exposition of the Roman Catholic faith," fur- 
 nishes ample matter for retaliation, on the subject of 
 religious variations. Although this little book be 
 now considered by the Doctor (p. 183.) as the stan- 
 dard of orthodoxy, yet, many years elapsed, from its 
 first publication, before it could obtain the approba- 
 tion of the Pope, though sanctioned by the Arch- 
 bishop of Rheims, and nine other prelates. Even the 
 Sorbonne itself disavowed the doctrines it contain- 
 ed; and many Roman Catholic priests were severe- 
 ly persecuted, for maintaining its principles, which 
 were formally condemned by the university of Lou- 
 vain. The artifices employed in the composition of this 
 book, and the tricks that were played off in the sup- 
 pression and alteration of its first edition, may be seen 
 fully detailed in Archbishop Wake's " introduction" to 
 his " exposition of the doctrines of the church of Eng- 
 land." The variations, therefore, among Protest- 
 ant churches, afford no argument against the sufficien- 
 cy of Scripture, as the only rule of their faith; and 
 
39 
 
 their security in resting exclusively upon this im- 
 moveable foundation. To say that all sects profess- 
 ing to follow Scripture as their guide, have not ac- 
 tually secured themselves from fundamental errors, 
 such as the Arians, Socinians, &c. (p. 11.) and that 
 such a guide is of course insufficient for salvation, is 
 only to say, that some men have actually " perverted 
 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 out from her, have broached " damnable 
 heresies ;" and may not Protestants pronounce the 
 same opinion, of those who have abandoned the or- 
 thodox 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 pre- 
 judice, has chosen to abandon it? The Doctor's 
 reasoning on this head is palpable sophistry: he ar- 
 gues against the use of a thing, from its abuse. On 
 the Scriptures, then, alone the Protestant builds his 
 faith : because he believes them to be written by di- 
 vine inspiration, and that the language of the Holy 
 Ghost is full as intelligible as that of a pope or coun- 
 cil 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 
 Scriptures 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 following Scripture, he must admit seve- 
 ral doctrines, which reason never could have disco- 
 vered ; yet is he not required to assent to any thing, 
 
40 
 
 which solid reason can refute, and which involves a 
 palpable contradiction : because, in adhering 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 wor- 
 ship 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 follow- 
 ing the Scriptures, he cleaves to what universal tradi- 
 tion assures him to be the word of God ; but, in believ- 
 ing thedoctrines of the Roman church, he must yield to 
 a very partial tradition, which many good and learn- 
 ed men have often contested : because, in following 
 the Scripture, he follows a law, which the more he 
 studies, the more he loves, and the more he under- 
 stands ; but in following her discriminating articles, 
 the more he examines them, the more questionable 
 they appear, the more obscure, and uncertain, from 
 every appeal both to reason and revelation : be- 
 cause, in following the apostles, he follows disinte- 
 rested guides ; whereas, it is the interest of all Ro- 
 man Catholic rulers and teachers, that their domi- 
 nion should be upheld, and their influence over men's 
 consciences be maintained. In one word, the faith of 
 Protestants is built exclusively upon the Scriptures, 
 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, com- 
 manding them to "be searched as testifying of him, 
 who is the Author and Finisher of our faith :" because 
 
41 
 
 i 
 
 his blessed apostle tells us, (2 Tim. iii. 16.,) "That all 
 Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is pro- 
 fitable 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 command- 
 ments ; wanting nothing more to perfect his Chris- 
 tian character ; and, again, {Rom. xv. 4.,) " Whatso- 
 ever things were written aforetime, were written for 
 our learning, for our instruction, that we through 
 patience and comfort of the Scriptures might have 
 hope ;" thus expressly teaching that the hopes, and, 
 consequently, the security of Christians, are ground- 
 ed on the Scriptures. Now, if these, and many simi- 
 lar texts, be not conclusive, it must be because the 
 Doctor lays it down (p. 151.) 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 inspi- 
 ration. 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 with a few cursory 
 remarks upon his book. As to the various texts of 
 holy Scripture, upon which he builds the infallibility 
 of his church, they are all noticed, and, I trust, can- 
 didly explained in the Short Jinswer to the Appendix; 
 and, if the reader should wish for further information 
 on this head, he has only to turn to the polemical 
 works of Cbillingworth, Usher, Barrow, and an innu- 
 merable host of Protestant writers ; who have re- 
 peatedly and completely annihilated these lofty pre- 
 tensions of the Roman church, whenever men of real 
 
42 
 
 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 
 apostles, are empty words and vain theology; that it 
 affords no grounds for present consolation, or hopes 
 of future happiness, which communion with Protest- 
 ant churches, as integral parts of Christ's mystical 
 body, does not equally and more satisfactorily sup- 
 ply, and that after all that can be said upon the sub- 
 ject, 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 in- 
 fallible church, without being able to tell him clearly 
 where this infallibility can be found. All the pages 
 of this part of the Doctor's reply, are laboured with 
 much subtlety, and calculated to lead the reader 
 through many intricate windings of his polemical la- 
 byrinth. But a clue may readily be found to enable 
 us to penetrate into its most hidden recesses. En- 
 trenched within these, the Doctor delivers his ora- 
 cular dogmata, and, like Virgil's Sybil, thunders 
 out his dark denunciations, blending truth with ob- 
 scurity, and, like her, surrounded only with sapless 
 
 eaves. 
 
 " Talibus ex adyto dictis Cumcea Sibilla 
 Horrendas canit ambages, antroque remugit ; 
 Obscuris vera involvens." 
 
43 
 
 The clue alluded to, is this ; in every instance, the 
 Doctor confounds the Catholic with the Roman church j 
 all the promises and privileges belonging to the for- 
 mer, he appropriates to the latter, under the preten- 
 sion, 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 controversy 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; she has never innovated, nor can she innovate. 
 In her the man of sin, the false prophet, can never be 
 found: in her the mystery of iniquity can never begin to 
 work. She sittcth as a queen, and never can be driven 
 into the wilderness; and this, because "every succeed- 
 ing generation of Christians (p. 130, 131.) bore con- 
 stant and uniform testimony to the truth of her doc- 
 trines, from the apostolic to the present times. These 
 numerous generations, constituting, at every period 
 of time, the Catholic church, 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 re- 
 port of the faith of its predecessors, to the ensuing 
 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 Protestants never denied, that 
 when destructive heresies arose in the church, great 
 bodies of the faithful immediately opposed and con- 
 
44 
 
 demned them, as levelled at those common and es- 
 sential doctrines of Christianity, which have been de- 
 livered down, through successive generations, to the 
 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 commu- 
 nities have adhered to the scriptural doctrines of sal- 
 vation ; 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 
 nation and language upon the earth, as to trace each 
 religious opinion or practice to its source. The be- 
 ginning and progress of innumerable errors and su- 
 perstitions, are wrapt in obscurity. There was a 
 time when the church of Rome, like others of Chris- 
 tendom, 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 
 prevalence of brutal ignorance, and more than Cim- 
 merian darkness, in which all Christendom was enve- 
 loped, from the irruption of the northern hordes almost 
 down to the period of the reformation, she enjoyed 
 ample opportunities of introducing 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 re- 
 
45 
 
 ceived by one generation without being condemned 
 bj the following, he is not aware of the consequences 
 to which his opinion leads him ; for, should it be well 
 founded, idolatry could never have existed in the 
 world. It is, I believe, admitted on all hands, that 
 the worship of Jehovah was originally universal, 
 without any mixture of idolatry among the sons of 
 Adam, for some time after the creation; and that it 
 became universal again anions: the descendants of 
 Noah for some ages after the flood ; but in neither of 
 these periods did this worship remain long uncor- 
 rupted. The antediluvian church was gradually in- 
 fected 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 Jeho- 
 vah." {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 them- 
 selves 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 ques- 
 tion 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 worshippers of the true God ; but their pos- 
 terity soon began to exhibit symptoms of idolatrous 
 propensities, and to blend superstitious observances 
 with the worship of the Eternal. Instead of every 
 successive generation protesting against the innova- 
 tions of the preceding, it rather embraced them with 
 increasing eagerness, until at length incorrigible su- 
 
 7 
 
46 
 
 perstition separated all the ancient idolaters from the 
 patriarchal church, and ended in total apostacy. 
 
 Now, when, or by whom, was this mixture of idola- 
 try and superstition introduced ? We find " Terah, 
 the father of Abraham, serving other gods ;" and lit- 
 tle doubt can remain, 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 discus- 
 sion 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 acknow- 
 ledgment of his providence, some superstitious er- 
 rors, not destructive of either, may subsist : " Just as 
 at this day, in the Roman church, the worship of the 
 ever blessed Trinity subsists in preposterous conjunc- 
 tion 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 Testament, 
 and shall there find nothing of them. " If," says Dr. 
 A. Clark, " they be not met with in an apostolic epis- 
 tle directed to this very Roman church, it would be 
 absurd to look for them any where else. But there 
 
47 
 
 is not one distinguishing doctrine, or practice, of the, 
 Romish church, found in this epistle. Here is no 
 pope, no exclusive churchship, no indulgences, no 
 auricular confessions, purgatories, masses, prayers 
 for the dead, justification by works, transubstantia- 
 tion, extreme unction, invocation of saints and angels, 
 worship of images, &c. &c. Here are no inquisitions, 
 no writs dc hceretico comburendo ;" nor, it may be added, 
 that holy incompatibility, which the illustrious Bossuet 
 claims for his church, and which, he tells us exulting- 
 ly, renders her the most intolerant of all churches. 
 *' But," continues the learned commentator, " here is 
 nothing puerile, nugatory, or superstitious ; no dogma 
 degrading to the understanding ; no religious act un- 
 worthy of the spirit and dignity of the gospel; no- 
 thing 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 epistle 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 agree- 
 ment, upon these points, during the first ages of the 
 church, is to support a paradox, which deserves no 
 consideration. 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 evi- 
 dence in our day — the star of truth has appeared 
 in the East. A precious remnant of primitive Chris- 
 tians has been discovered in India, which, for more than 
 thirteen centuries, has preserved the great and fun- 
 
48 
 
 daraental doctrines of religion, pure and unadulterat- 
 ed from more modern corruptions. When* in the be- 
 ginning 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 an- 
 swer was, " Who is the Pope ? Ave never heard of 
 him." " We," said they, " are of the true faith, what- 
 ever 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 flourish- 
 ing in that country, and boasted of enjoying, for 1,300 
 years past, a succession of Bishops, appointed by the 
 patriarch of Antioch. The Portuguese soon perceiv- 
 ed, how formidable these churches might prove 
 against many of their doctrines and superstitious ob- 
 servances. They invaded these harmless 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 sacraments, 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, that all 
 the Syrian books on ecclesiastical subjects, that could 
 be found, should be burned; u in order," said the in- 
 quisitors, " that no pretended apostolical monument* 
 
49 
 
 may remain." (See Buchanan's Christian Researches in 
 India, p. 149.) " The doctrines of the Syrian church- 
 es," says this apostolic and learned man, (p. 159.) 
 " 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 uncorrupted through a long series of ages, 
 and miraculously preserved as a living witness, that 
 neither the head, nor many doctrines of the present 
 church of Rome, were known to antiquity. The can- 
 did attention of Roman Catholics, is confidently in- 
 vited to this fact, for it appears of sufficient weight to 
 silence every cavil on the subject, and to render per- 
 fectly nugatory, the very tedious train of sophistical 
 reasonings, 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 doctrines 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 suppositions. They 
 were, undoubtedly, sound and lively branches of the 
 Catholic church. They claimed no infallibility, but 
 that which they derived from the Scriptures ; no tra- 
 ditions, but such as are evidently apostolical ; no 
 scriptural canon, but that of the Old and New Testa- 
 ment, 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 dav. 
 
 j 
 
 For 1,300 years they professed and experienced the 
 
50 
 
 sufficiency of the Holy Scripture for salvation, as the sixth 
 article of the Protestant Episcopal church expresses 
 it. 
 
 Against this article, the Doctor puts forth all his 
 skill, and calls up, through several pages, (146, &c.,) 
 all his resources of polemical sophistry: resources, 
 which have a thousand times been proved empty and 
 futile, but which, notwithstanding, it is perhaps expe- 
 dient briefly to notice in this place. This notice, 
 however, can be nothing more than a further illustra- 
 tion of the argument in the Short Answer, (p. 110.) 
 which the Doctor embarrasses, but does not confute. 
 He tells us, that, in forming our religious faith, we are 
 not u to convince ourselves, in the first instance, that 
 the Scriptures are inspired by Almighty God, and 
 consequently possess a plenary authority ; and that 
 then we are to believe the doctrines which they con- 
 tain, because they are revealed." All this the Doc- 
 tor denies : but, can he show how faith can be produ- 
 ced in any other way? Can it be founded on any 
 thing but the veracity of God, as its formal and ulti- 
 mate 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, to- 
 tally distinct from opinion, moral certainty, and every 
 persuasion, which admits of doubt, hesitation, or pos- 
 sibility of being mistaken." (p. 147.) This is the 
 groundwork of all his following reasonings, in favour 
 of an infallible authority in his church. If once sub- 
 verted, the whole fabric tumbles together. Now, this 
 can easily be done, for what is an act of religious 
 
51 
 
 faith, but a belief of a religious doctrine, because 
 God has revealed it, who can neither deceive nor be 
 deceived. But, how are we to know that God has 
 revealed it ? " Because," says the Doctor, " my 
 infallible church has decreed that he has done so." 
 But how shall I know, rejoins the person who is in- 
 structed, either that your church is infallible, or that 
 she has made such a decree ? " Because," says Dr. 
 O'Gallagher, " /solemnly assure you, that this infal- 
 libility is revealed in the Scriptures, and these decrees 
 have been made by popes and councils." Thus, the 
 Roman Catholic acquiesces ultimately in the authori- 
 ty 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 doc- 
 trine, because God has revealed it; but supposing 
 each incapable of close and deep investigation, the 
 first is referred by a fallible priest to an infallible 
 church, and the latter by his fallible teacher to the 
 acknowledged oracles of God. Which of the two 
 will feel most secure, let the reader determine. 
 When, therefore, the Doctor asserts, " The Scrip- 
 tures contain a revelation from God, and of course 
 their doctrines are articles of Christian faith;" the 
 first of these propositions must be previously establish- 
 ed by the deductions of reason, founded either on ac- 
 tual 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 re- 
 vealed 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 
 
52 
 
 his infallible oracles. This can only be done by their 
 own intrinsic excellence, and the collateral arguments 
 adduced for this purpose. These indeed are unan- 
 swerable, but they are not articles of faith, but only 
 motives of believing. Now, motives for 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 con- 
 tained in the Scriptures; in other words, all the ma- 
 terial 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 salvation would 
 not be affected, even if we were ignorant of the ex- 
 istence of any Scripture whatever. The end pro- 
 posed 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 in- 
 telligible language as any pope or councils can em- 
 
53 
 
 ploy; and which he is satisfied to learn from pious, 
 intelligent, and confidential instructors, fully as com- 
 petent, he conceives, to teach and demonstrate what 
 are scriptural doctrines, as the highest pretenders to 
 infallible decisions. Is any infallible tribunal necessa- 
 ry to ascertain the articles of the apostles' creed, the 
 great doctrines of man's fall and redemption, the in- 
 fluences 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 requires no living authority to assure 
 him that they are contained in his Bible : he has only 
 to open it to find them there ; and when he learns, 
 moreover, that the universal church has always re- 
 ceived 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 uneasiness felt or expressed, with regard to 
 his faith being grounded on the Scriptures alone: a 
 few appropriate passages from these divine oracles 
 compose and animate his departing spirit, much more 
 rationally and effectually, than any reference to the in- 
 tercession of saints, or other practices, of a church 
 self-denominated infallible, can do. But, continues 
 the Doctor, (p. 151.) " to follow up Protestant prin- 
 ciples with consistency, he must learn from the Scrip- 
 ture 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 
 
 8 
 
54 
 
 infallibility is requisite to ascertain it. Protestants 
 admit their canon of the Scripture upon the credibili- 
 ty of 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, gene- 
 rally 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 deci- 
 sion of the Roman church, how could she assure us 
 that we should not be misled ? She pretends, indeed, 
 to infallibility; but how can she convince us that she 
 possesses it? Will it be from Scripture ? That,_says 
 the Doctor, cannot assure us of its own infallibility, 
 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? by saying so. But of this very affirmation, the 
 same question 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 
 wprld that this church is infallible. 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 controversies 
 of faith depend. 
 
 Wherefore, the Doctor needed not to urge any rea- 
 son 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 " therefore they are to 
 be decided by his, or any visible church, is an illogi- 
 
55 
 
 cal conclusion, much like that of the sophist, who, 
 because Pamphilus was not to have Glyariam 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, ap- 
 peals to his infallible church, as the only authority re- 
 maining. 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 irrecon- 
 cileable 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, (p. 
 152.) "have excluded several books from the canon 
 of Scripture," which are made part of it by the coun- 
 cil of Trent. He then enumerates these books, of 
 all which, it would be easy to prove, that doubts ex- 
 isted in the ancient church. In every learned com- 
 mentator, the reader will find these proofs; so that 
 the sacrilegious cheat, Luther, (p. 153.) and all the 
 Protestant churches, whom the Doctor classes with the 
 Old Manicheans, are reprobated for not admitting 
 many books as canonical, which were deemed apo- 
 cryphal by the primitive fathers. Did not, for in- 
 stance, Melito, Athanasius, and Gregory Nanzianzen, 
 exclude the book of Esther from the canon : why 
 then was Luther more guilty than they? Many si- 
 milar instances might readily be alleged, which, for 
 brevity's sake, are omitted. Protestants then re- 
 ceive all the books as canonical, which were alwavs 
 
56 
 
 deemed such by the ancient church. But, the Doc- 
 tor will say, " is not this to make the church a judge 
 in this matter?" It certainly is so, but not the pre- 
 sent 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 Scriptures, retained as canonical by Protestants, 
 for instance, by the church of England, are not ca- 
 nonical. He will not allow, that the infallibility of 
 his church, and all her discriminating doctrines, can- 
 not be proved from these Scriptures; 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 ? The book of Maccabees, indeed, is deemed 
 canonical in the Roman church, as favouring the doc- 
 trine 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 stu- 
 dy of the books themselves;" (p. 158.) and here he 
 indulges himself in a vein of obloquy and sophistry, 
 that is really surprising. He asserts, that the Ger- 
 man 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 Rom. hi. 
 28. " A man is justified by faith :" Luther adds to the 
 text a word, and makes it faith alone. " Other in- 
 stances," says he, " are unnecessary :" and so indeed 
 
 * Among others, Gregory the Great did not hold this book to be a ca- 
 nonical Scripture. Mor. lib. 19. e. 13. 
 
57 
 
 they are, if this be the most flagrant, for Luther adds 
 nothing to the important or evangelical tenet deli- 
 vered in the text, that man is really justified by faith 
 alone; for the whole verse is, "Therefore we con- 
 clude 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 Doc- 
 tor 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 pal- 
 pable errors in their several translations. " Now, 
 let me ask," says the Doctor, " from which of those 
 translations of the Holy Scripture, a sincere and in- 
 telligent Protestant can derive an infallible certainty 
 of the divine revelation of the doctrines apparently 
 expressed in them?" (p. 155.) The answer is, he 
 derives his certainty from arguments applicable to 
 them all, for all of them, I believe, express the great 
 doctrines of religion ; and, if they do not, they must 
 be rejected as heretical. The Doctor possibly might 
 not have perceived, that his question would involve 
 him in considerable difficulty; for it may be asked 
 with equal propriety, which, among the various trans- 
 lations in the primitive church, the fathers and doc- 
 tors were to adopt. Let us hear St. Augustin, lib. 2. 
 dc Chris, doc. cap. II. " They who have translated 
 the Scriptures out of the Hebrew into Greek, may 
 be numbered ; but the Latin interpreters are innu- 
 merable : 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 trans- 
 lation : 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 Italian be preferred." Yet, so far 
 was the church at that day from presuming upon the 
 absolute purity and perfection of even this best trans- 
 lation, that St. Jerom thought it necessary to make a 
 new translation of the Old Testament from the He- 
 brew, 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 re- 
 quest of Damasus, Bishop of Rome. 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 tenets of religion? 
 It was silent, it was. unknown, and, if unnecessary at 
 that period, is unnecessary still, and, therefore, in this 
 matter, Protestants must either stand or fall with the 
 primitive church. 
 
 It was expected, that something would be said of 
 the Vulgate in this place, but the Doctor has very 
 prudently omitted any mention of this standard ver- 
 sion of his church. He well knows that it abounds 
 with erroneous translations : the departure from the 
 original, at the 15th verse of the third chap, of Gene- 
 sis, where the important promise of a Redeemer is ge- 
 nerally supposed to be expressed, and where the Vul- 
 gate 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 
 
59 
 
 *' 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 deliberations, 
 expressly tells us, (Pro. Edit. Vulg. 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 autho- 
 rity with the fountains, certainly they ought, with ex- 
 act care, first to have corrected the errors of the in- 
 terpreter." 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 Doctor contends can only be 
 done by having recourse to his church. But of what 
 service was her claim to infallibility, when she suffer- 
 ed 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 
 repeated, in order to meet the Doctor's sophistry, 
 continually recurring in a hundred different shapes, 
 it will readily be perceived, that the three proposi- 
 tions, which he lays down as " the foundation, plan, 
 and rule of the Protestant creed and faith," (p. 159.) 
 are combated with the weapons of errant sophistry 
 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 Scriptures 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 
 
60 
 
 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 teach- 
 er, 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 instruc- 
 tion ? How will he convince his pupil that the Scrip- 
 tures 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 dilemma, on one of the 
 horns of which the Doctor must be tossed. He must 
 either acknowledge that every article of faith is con- 
 tained in the Scriptures, or that his doctrines of pur- 
 gatory, 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 doc- 
 trines ; if it be not, then it is clear that all the arti- 
 cles 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 re- 
 vealed which is not expressly contained in it." 
 Quo teneam vultus 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 assertions of their own, are necessary in the first 
 instance, because these, being part of them, cannot be 
 proved satisfactory from themselves : but when once 
 demonstrated, by arguments drawn from any source 
 whatever, to be the oracles of truth, they then be- 
 
61 
 
 tome 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 con- 
 tain 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 be- 
 ing a divine revelation, is as much an act of religious 
 faith with the Protestant as the Romanist. The two 
 churches, then, though from different motives of cre- 
 dibility, and different sanctions, finally agree in con- 
 fessing 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 Scripture, 
 " from the first of Genesis to the last of Revelations, 
 can be discovered even one of the above-mentioned 
 propositions:" (p. 158.) though, indeed, if the first 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 re- 
 ceived as divinely revealed ; and that from the Scrip- 
 ture alone, every sincere inquirer may derive all the 
 articles of his faith." The two last inferences are 
 perfectly superfluous. To prove the Protestant prin- 
 ciple, " 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 Scriptures," three texts, says the Doctor, are 
 usually alleged. In this statement of the matter, 
 
 9 
 
62 
 
 there is a palpable, I will not say a wilful, misrepre- 
 sentation. It is intimated, that " each individual Pro- 
 testant is obliged to discover and ascertain all the ar- 
 ticles of his faith, by his own personal examination 
 and discussion of the Scriptures." It is not necessary 
 to repeat the refutation of this obstinate sophism. 
 Let us proceed to the three texts in question : if care- 
 fully examined, they evidently countenance the Pro- 
 testant rule of faith ; but the Doctor has omitted 
 others, which positively 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 them- 
 selves. Then, verses 15, 16, and 17, he continues: 
 4 * 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 inspiration of God, and is 
 profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for 
 instruction in righteousness; that the man of God may 
 be 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 Scrip- 
 ture declarations to the same effect, and utterly anni- 
 hilates the cavils of the Doctor, in pages 159, and the 
 two following, of his Reply. When, therefore, the 
 
63 
 
 Doctor argues, that unlearned and ignorant men can- 
 not understand the Scriptures, we should be glad to 
 know whether he means all, or any Scriptures what- 
 ever, or, whether he means they cannot understand 
 them sufficiently, either from their own investigation, 
 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 intellectual 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 that we may 
 safely conclude, with St. Austin, " Ea quae manifeste 
 posita sunt in sacris Scripturis, omnia continent, quae 
 pertinent ad fidem, moresque vivendi."* Whatsoever 
 things are clearly set down in the Holy Scriptures, 
 contain all things appertaining to faith and moral 
 conduct. 
 
 44 But," says the Doctor* (p. 161.) "I go farther, 
 and affirm, that no Protestant doctrine," that is, as 
 he explains it, no doctrine, which distinguishes Pro- 
 testants from Roman Catholics, " can be proved, or 
 maintained by Scripture alone :" which is merely say- 
 ing, in other words, that such doctrines must be false. 
 This opens the whole controversy between the 
 churches anew ; for a Protestant is equally authori- 
 zed to say, that the discriminating doctrines of the 
 Roman church cannot be proved from Scripture, or 
 otherwise. The Doctor has not probably remember- 
 ed, in prosecuting this argument, how unnecessary it 
 
 * S'ee many other texts to the same purpose, p. 115 et seq. Short Amwu 
 
64 
 
 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 an- 
 gles, will it be necessary to prove that they are not 
 equal to four ? If the unity of the Godhead be pro- 
 ved from the Scriptures, will it be necessary to de- 
 monstrate the falsity of polytheism ? And here the 
 Doctor indulges his usual propensity to quibble : he 
 says, for instance, (p. 162.) 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 
 are fallible, 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 Protestant divine, to lay his finger on any par- 
 ticular text, expressing the church of Christ to be fal- 
 lible, and subject to error," (p. 163.) but merely to 
 show that some particular church has erred, and is 
 therefore subject to error. With respect to the 
 church of Rome, this has been abundantly shown. 
 Suppose the Doctor should be asked, how he proves 
 that 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," &c, 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 re- 
 futed, but by showing either that the Scripture teach- 
 es the supremacy of the Roman church, or that she 
 
65 
 
 declares herself to be supreme ? The reader will 
 therefore see the fallacy of the Doctor's argument. 
 It is equally evident in what he says of purgatory, (p. 
 1C4, &c.) M The Scripture," says he, " nowhere teach- 
 es that there is no purgatory :" therefore, this Pro- 
 testant doctrine is unscriptural, and oversets the Pro- 
 testant 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 metempsycosis 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 gain- 
 ed admission into a system founded upon a full, " per- 
 fect, and sufficient sacrifice, oblation, and satisfaction 
 for the sins of the whole world." 
 
 As to the doctrine of transubstantiation, which the 
 Doctor alleges as another irresistible argument in his 
 favour, it cannot surely be refuted explicitly from the 
 Bible; because 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 advo- 
 cates. Protestants, therefore, do not say that the re- 
 futation of this tenet is clearly contained in the Bible ; 
 but that the institution and nature of the Lord's sup- 
 per, is recorded and delivered in such terms as must 
 absolutely preclude the admission of this doctrine. (e) 
 Sincerely is it regretted that the Doctor mentions this 
 tenet at all. At the present day of deep research^ 
 
 (e) See notes at the end. 
 
66 
 
 and biblical accuracy, when the human mind revolts 
 at any authority that countenances contradictions, 
 •which the obvious use of our senses is competent to 
 discover, it would be gratifying to every liberal per- 
 son, that as little as possible should be said on this 
 subject. The many illustrious members of the Ro- 
 man church, who have defended by their writings, and 
 illustrated in their lives, the common doctrines 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 
 believe that in refusing to examine impartially the ar- 
 guments 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 in- 
 stance, to the testimony of their senses. The detail 
 of these atrocities, is too disgusting to repeat, unless 
 it were to create a suspicion in honest, though mis- 
 guided minds, that a doctrine, which countenances the 
 heresy of persecution, and has filled Christendom 
 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 the 
 expression of Averroes, as the dictate of unsophisti- 
 cated reason, " Quandoquidam Christiani comedunt 
 quod adorant, sit anima me a cum philosophis :"— ■ 
 " since Christians eat what they adore, let my soul be 
 with the philosopher's :" may I entreat them to con- 
 sider, if transubstantiation be a fiction, to what a dan- 
 gerous delusion they are exposed in adopting it : for 
 can any act of idolatry be more explicit, than the ado- 
 ration of a wafer, instead of the body, and blood, and 
 
67 
 
 divinity of Christ ? Their own writers allow, there 
 cannot. There is a passage in the first Epistle to the 
 Cor. x. 14, which seems 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 communion 
 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, 
 containing little more than a repetition of his preceding 
 arguments against the Protestant rule of faith, re- 
 quire, 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 Protest- 
 ant community is entitled to the venerable appellation 
 of a church, and therefore, "Whilst each individual 
 Protestant," says he, (p. 171.) " fondly flatters himself 
 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 delusions of his own imagina- 
 tion, and even to the influence of his own local preju- 
 dices, and personal attachments." Now, the precc- 
 
ding 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 un- 
 tutored minds : in them he will perceive the efficacy 
 of the Scriptures " 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 con- 
 vince himself that religious truth is delivered in the 
 Scriptures, than by the exercise of his reason, 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 ; 
 unless, indeed, in fixing the first principles of his faith, 
 he deem it his duty, to lull his reasoning faculty asleep, 
 in obedience to a church, which claims an exemption 
 from all error, without permitting him to investigate 
 this claim. Wherefore, if in these circumstances, if 
 in a blind renunciation of his reason, to the imposing 
 dictates of any branch of the Catholic church, found- 
 ed upon vague and uncertain traditions, 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 ultimate- 
 ly in them. In complying 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 
 
69 
 
 such wise hear them, read, mark, learn, and inward- 
 ly 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 giv- 
 en him in our Saviour Jesus Christ." (Collect for Uh 
 Su?i. 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 peo- 
 ple, 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 owe, holy, Catholic, and Apostolic church, which 
 they conceive to be rather the future than present 
 object of their faith : and which, considered in this 
 light, would lessen some difficulties attending this ar- 
 ticle of our belief. The Doctor may think as lightly 
 as he pleases, of these fountains of gospel security and 
 assurance; but, it it 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 probably reply, that his opinions are those of all 
 Roman Catholic divines.(/) But, what will he say to 
 the following sentiments, 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 
 
 if ) Sec notes at the end . 
 10 
 
70 
 
 institution, lie rejoices "at the great number of zeal- 
 ous 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 
 explain the meaning of the council of Trent, in prohi- 
 biting 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 sufficiently strong, the 
 fervency of my joy, and of my love towards all who, 
 throughout England, heartily believe in Jesus Christ, 
 as their only Saviour, and zealously endeavour to ex- 
 tend the Redeemer's kingdom. I embrace them all, as 
 the beloved and elect of God, as friends and brethren in 
 Christ, let them be of whatever name, or belong to what- 
 ever church, or denomination.'''' — Here are sentiments 
 truly becoming an enlightened minister of the gos- 
 pel. Nor, are those of the Rev. Mr. Wittman, Di- 
 rector of the Ecclesiastical Seminary at Ratisbon, 
 where a Roman Catholic Bible Society had been es- 
 tablished, less grateful and dear to every Christian. 
 Tn an address to the Roman Catholics throughout 
 Germany, in 1805, peculiarly simple, liberal, and de- 
 vout, 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 confes- 
 sional, only judged for their outward deeds, without 
 
71 
 
 being led to an acknowledgment of their inward cor- 
 ruption, and to faith in the blood of Jesus their Re- 
 deemer: 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 taught of God ; and whosoever hath learn- 
 ed of the Father, and received ft, cometh unto me." 
 {John xi. 14. — German translation.) And he con- 
 cludes a prayer with this sentiment, "G Lord, Re- 
 deemer of our souls — if it please thee, let thy holy 
 history, the history of thy childhood, of thy ministry, 
 of thy suffering, and of the victory in the Holy Spirit, 
 in the apostles and firstlings of the Christian church, 
 come into the hands of thy little ones, for their com- 
 fort and consolation." Now, would these good men 
 have subscribed to the Doctor's opinion, that, in read- 
 ing the Scriptures, a Protestant cannot experience 
 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 contend not for victory, but for truth; not to nou- 
 rish, but to tear up the old and baneful root of bitter- 
 ness; to turn the attention of every fellow Christian 
 to those fundamental principles of our common reli- 
 gion, 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 
 
Ti 
 
 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 direful consequences, discards from his bo- 
 som every spark of animosity towards any of her li- 
 beral, pious, and enlightened adherents, " who love 
 the Lord Jesus in sincerity" — Towards all such, he 
 would willingly adopt the language of a Roman Ca- 
 tholic priest, in an animated address to the British 
 and Foreign Bible Society, and pray that it might be 
 universal : " 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 10. Perhaps the confidence of the Doctor, 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 cotnmonly adopted 1 by Protestants. 
 Thus St. Chrysostom ; " Christ says, super hanc Petram, upon this Rock. lie 
 says not super hunc Pelram ; that is, upon this Peter; for Christ built his 
 church upon the faith, and not upon the man, non envm super liominem, sed su~ 
 perfidem edijicabat eeclesiam. {Horn, decruce Domini. Horn, de Pentecost, et 
 55 in Matt!) Hilary, Gregory Nyssene, and Cyril, all declare, u That was 
 the Rock which Peter confessed, saying of Christ, Thou art the Son of God." 
 (Sil. I. 2. de Trin. cap. 6. Greg. Nyss. in Testimo. vet. lest, de Trin. contra 
 Judaeos. 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, though 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, lt Super hanc Petram, &c. id est super 
 hanc Petram quam coufessus es, quam cognovisti, dicens, tu es Christus filius 
 Dei vivi, super hanc aedificabo eeclesiam meam, super me a^dificabo te, non mc 
 super te." (Augus. de verbo dom. secund. Malt. serm. 13.) And again, 
 (Tract. 124. in John.) " Petra erat Christus, super quam ipse a'dificatus est 
 Petrus;" " the Rock was Christ, upon which Peter was built." Of the same 
 opinion was Gregory the Great, bishop of Rome, when sitting in the very sup- 
 posed chair of St. Peter--" Christ himself is the Rock, from which Peter re- 
 ceived his name." (Greg, in Psal. Panitent. in ilia verba Initio tu domino, 
 &c) So that Calvin had good reason to say, that it was not from want of 
 clear and ample testimony of antiquity that he objected to the authority of the 
 fathers on this head, but from fear of tiring his readers." (Inst. lib. 4. c. G.) 
 Nor are the declarations of several Roman Catholic divines less explicit on this 
 head : Nicholas Lyranus, a celebrated expositor of the 14th century ; Nicholas 
 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. in Matt. c. 16.) " Quanquam Petro dictum est, tu es Petrus, &c. tainen 
 per Petram, Christum, quern confessus est, intelligimus." (Cus. Concord. Cuth. 
 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 (6) page 21. If the Doctor had ever looked into the work of 
 the learned Daille deusu Patrum, he would have discovered there man\ r opinions 
 of the fathers, calculated to check his implicit deference to their authority. To 
 instance only a few of the many that might be mentioned : Justin Martyr held 
 the millenarian system ; and it was for some time regarded as au article oi" 
 
74 
 
 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 lie 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 tra- 
 dition. (Adv. Hares, 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 faithful as of equal authority with the Scriptures. 
 Clement of Alexandria taught, that the pains of hell are merely purgatorial, and 
 are not to be eternal ; that the angels discovered to the women whom they 
 loved upon earth, many secrets which they ought not to have revealed. St. 
 Cyprian 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. Hila- 
 ry held, that Christ suffered 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 ma- 
 terial errors. " St. Basil," says the learned Jesuit Petavius, has " mult£ mi- /Ls 
 rifica, et si verum qurerimus, parum Catholica ;" i. e. " many wonderful ftiinge t 
 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. Ambrose thought that all, without exception, even St. 
 Peter and the blessed Virgin, must pass through the cleansing fire. St. Epi- 
 phanius advanced many strange and unwarranted doctrines, 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 resurrection, and recommended praying for the 
 damned : as did also St. Augustin and John Damascen. The rash and erroneous 
 notions of St. Jerom were very numerous, and his acrimonious vulgarisms fully 
 as offensive as those of Luther ; but he offers as an apology, u that he some- 
 times indulged himself a little in rhetorical flourishes." M In morem declama- 
 torumpaululumlusimus." (In. Helv.) St. Augustin 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 abeirations of the human mind, even in the best of men; 
 and it is done merely to show upon what weak foundations every religious doc- 
 trine rests, when once we lose sight of revelation. The several passages from 
 the ancient fathers, containing the above, and many other exceptionable opin- 
 ions, are quoted at full length in Daille's work above mentioned. 
 
 Note (c) page 25. See Notes at pages 26 and 35 of the Letter to the Roman 
 Catholics of the city of Worcester. 
 
 Note (d) page 35. Of the council of Trent, no mention was at first intend- 
 ed in these Remarks. To unbiassed minds, the authority of Fra. Paolo, Var- 
 gas, &c, was deemed amply sufficient. The accusation of wilful and reflect- 
 ed mistatement, (p. 100.) 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 presi- 
 dency. It was unwise in the Doctor, by a high wrought panegyric on this 
 council, to provoke any discussion of its merits. However, in case the Doc- 
 tor should ever wish to renew his inquiries respecting this assembly, the 5th 
 chap, of the 4th book of Richer^s History of General Councils, is recommend- 
 ed 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 attempted, as that of Paolo Sarpi had been : but he was a man of in- 
 tegrity and erudition, whom Cardinal Richelieu and his adherents could no 
 otherwise confute, than by endeavouring to raise a party against him, and to 
 ensnare him into the hands of the inquisitors. u In the council of Trent, 1 " 
 
10 
 
 says fie, " the apostolic legates were alone permitted to propose, and to pre- 
 scribe whatever was to be done ; and this was artfully contrived on purpose to 
 prevent any effectual reformation of the church and Roman court." He tell* 
 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 court, were entirely at the beck of the Pontiff, as of their absolute 
 sovereign." Hence we cease to wonder that Sanctius, a doctor of Sorbonne, 
 who accompanied the Cardinal of Lorrain to the council, 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 own temporal rights and absolute monarchy, more than 
 the patrimony of Christ, and the salvation of souls ; that is, to prefer human 
 "-^claim's, to 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 
 reform 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 
 mean time, every thing was accommodated to the private convenience and 
 splendour of the Roman court. Hence that magnificent and almost theatri- 
 cal manner of ornamenting their churches, and their altars ; their sacerdotal 
 dresses of gold and silver tissue — those frequent, and solemn censures and con- 
 demnations of books — those swarms of new religious orders, which are daily 
 arriving from Rome. By these, and similar 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 continue to gratify 
 every wish, and to indulge themselves, without control, in all their accustom- 
 ed luxuries and enjoyments.'' Can this be the result of those decrees, which, 
 we are told, "seemed good to the Holy Ghost?" But more reflections are 
 unnecessary. — (See Short Answer, p. 64, k.c.) 
 
 Note (e) page 65. As some readers of these Remarks may not possibly pos- 
 sess the valuable commentary of the learned Dr. Adam Clark, I cannot for- 
 bear soliciting their attention to a note of his, at the end of chap. xii. 1 Cor. — 
 "It may be necessary," says he, u to show, that without the cup there can be 
 no Eucharist. With respect to the bread, 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 mor- 
 tal prejudice, 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 sacrilicial act is 
 performed, and remission of sins procured, is absolutely indispensable. Ou 
 this ground, it is demonstrable, that there is not a Popish priest under heaven, 
 who denies the cup 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 bare, literal meaning of " this iy my body," in the pre- 
 ceding 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, u the whole of this 
 argument at large, in my discourse 'On the Nature and Design of the Eu- 
 
76 
 
 diarist.' " On (.his subject, it may be useful just to acid, that had the doctrine 
 of transubstantiation prevailed generally in the ancient church, when the 
 Ariaa 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 69. That the Doctor's theology is by no means in unison 
 with the system generally prevailing at this day among Roman Catholic di- 
 vines in Europe, will readily appear, hy comparing it with Veron's famous 
 rule of faith, to which an appeal is commonly made, by modern apologists for 
 the Roman church. If this be in reality the rule of her failh, the writer of 
 these sheets, however he may approve 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 ex- 
 tracts from this famous rule are here presented to the reader, in which he will 
 perceive such an approximation to Protestant principles, as with mutual can- 
 dour 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 canonical wri- 
 ters : nothing is of faith, which we know from reveiations 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 Catholic faith : not all the practices even 
 of the universal church, are sufficient to make any thing an article of Christian 
 belief: even a general council may err, in controversies 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 excommunication : 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 satisfaction 
 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 remitted, are relaxed : it is not of faith that the saints are our me- 
 diators, 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 contained in the symbols, as in a place : it is not of faith that the sacri- 
 fice 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 are, or were, universally taught 
 in the Gallican church ; and no man was deemed a heretic for maintaining them. 
 Now, let me ask, if one Roman 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 exposition 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 in- 
 dulgences, 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 mediators, &c, 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 instances, 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. 
 
 F INIS. 
 

 fOf' 
 
 
 9R£ 
 
 
 &tiSKF 
 
 mi 'xm am