V, 
 
 
 
 * 
 
 % c 
 
 
 > V 
 
 
 o v 
 
 
 
 
 
1% 
 
 * \ A 
 
 ^ 
 
 
 
 = x° °, 
 
 ,0 o 
 
 fc. <* 
 
 
 
 
 
 ,** 
 
 
 
" The facts speak with a voice which nothing will 
 ever silence against the system of the Roman Com- 
 munion, as it now is. It is no pleasure to me, (God 
 knows ! ) to dip my pen in gall, and rail at Antichristian 
 corruptions, or the faults of any community ' that 
 nameth the Name of Christ. 7 And, in these times of 
 doubt and fear especially, every good man would rather 
 labor to * build up' than to 'pull down.' But some- 
 thing we have a right to say in our defence, against 
 those who deny that we possess anything ; and would 
 take from us everything which we have, if the power 
 were given them. 
 
 " On the other hand, no circumstances can make 
 falsehood, or that which is founded on falsehood, to be 
 Truth. No difficulties, perplexities, alarms, or dissatis- 
 faction which men may feel in that branch of the Church 
 of Christ in which the Providence of God has placed 
 them, can justify them before God in embracing a sys- 
 tem founded on a false principle. If there be any 
 among us who have ever thought of adopting the Roman 
 system, surely they are bound, under a fearful responsi- 
 bility, to look narrowly, and see to what that system 
 pledges them ; and judge candidly whether indeed this 
 thing be of God, or of man. 1 ' — Robert Hussey, on 
 the " Rise of the Papal Power" 
 
We are glad to learn that Messrs. E. P. Dutton 
 & Co. propose to republish, (with the author's consent, 
 and with additions from his hand,) the Letters of the 
 Rev. J. W. Burgon to a Convert to the Roman Church. 
 They contain a very thorough and well-argued view of 
 some of the most important points in controversy be- 
 tween the Anglican and Romish divines. We cordially 
 recommend them to the attention of churchmen. 
 
 W. R. WHITTINGHAM, 
 
 Bishoj) of Maryland. 
 
 J. WILLIAMS, 
 
 Bishop of Connecticut. 
 
 A. CLEVELAND COXE, 
 
 Bishop of Western New York. 
 
 E. D. ETONTINGTON, 
 
 Bishop of Central New York. 
 
 May, 1869. 
 
ENGLAND AND ROME: 
 
 %^ 
 
 €f)tee letters to a pettoett 
 
 BY THE 
 / 
 
 REV. JOHN W. BURGON, M.A., 
 
 VICAR OF S. MARY THE VIRGIN'S, AND FELLOW OF ORIEL COLLEGE, 
 OXFORD : GRESHAM LECTURER IN DIVINITY. 
 
 Stare super antiquas vias. 
 
 \ 
 
 E. P. DUTTON AND COMPANY. 
 
 New York: 713 Broadway. 
 Boston: 135 Washington St. 
 
 1869. 
 
Entered according to Act of Congress, in the year 1869, by 
 
 E. P. DUTTON AND COMPANY, 
 
 in the Clerk's Office of the District Court of the District of Massachusetts. 
 
 4 
 
 The Library 
 of Congress 
 
 WASHINGTON 
 
 -&$!< 
 
 Sicut erravit Ecclesia Hierosolymitana, Alexandrina, 
 et Antiochena, ita et erravit Ecclesia Bomana ; non 
 solum quoad agenda et cceremoniarum ritus, verum in 
 his etiam quoz credenda stmt. — Art. xrx. 
 
 CAMBRIDGE: 
 
 PRESS OF JOHN WILSON AND SON. 
 
TO THE PIOUS MEMORY 
 
 OF THE 
 
 RIGHT REV. JOHN HENRY HOPKINS, 
 
 FIRST BISHOP OF VERMONT, 
 
 AND SEVENTH PRESIDING BISHOP OF THE CHURCH IN 
 THE UNITED STATES, 
 
 2Tfjese $ages are most fjtimblg mscrifretJ 
 
 BY ONE WHO PRAYS TO BE, LIKE HIM, 
 "FAITHFUL UNTO DEATH." 
 
PREFACE. 
 
 These three Letters on modern Romanism, 
 now for the first time separately published, are 
 the concluding ones, (xxiv. xxv. xxvi.) of 
 certain Letters from Rome, which appeared 
 in 1862. In some of the earlier of those 
 Letters I had spoken of the sights of Rome 
 with such generous warmth, — had displayed 
 so much interest as well in the Churches, 
 the services of the modern City, as in the 
 precious relics of early Christendom which 
 have been disinterred from the Catacombs, or 
 burial-places of its ancient dead, — that I dis- 
 covered (to my dismay) that I was running 
 the risk of being misunderstood in certain 
 quarters. While some well-meaning persons 
 remonstrated with me for having found so 
 much to admire and to praise at Rome, others 
 ventured to address me in quite a different 
 strain. With the proverbial indiscretion, vio- 
 lence, and bad taste of perverts, — (who cease 
 to be Catholics when they become Papists^) — 
 some of these individuals took upon themselves 
 
Vlll PREFACE. 
 
 to try to reduce me from my allegiance to the 
 Church of my Baptism by abusing it. Shall I 
 say that I perused their miserable letters with 
 contempt and abhorrence ? or was it wonder 
 and pity and sorrow which I rather felt ? A 
 strong sense of the foolishness of the writers, — 
 the miserable weakness of their position, — the 
 imbecility of their arguments, — was, I believe, 
 the predominating sentiment with which I flung 
 their communications from me. 
 
 But it seemed to me unreasonable to let the 
 matter altogether drop, or to let off my assail- 
 ants quite so easily. I had reason to know 
 that many others besides myself had been 
 similarly assailed, and I felt deeply for them. 
 Many an ardent, enthusiastic girl, — many a 
 sentimental, self-willed youth, — has been led 
 away by the sophistries of a system which is 
 peculiarly calculated to impose upon the un- 
 derstanding through the feelings and the 
 imagination. Brought up, perhaps, in a 
 School which (by a flagrant abuse of lan- 
 guage) styles itself "Evangelical," — utterly 
 unaware of the impregnable strength of ~ their 
 position as members of the Anglican branch 
 of the Church Catholic, — and acquainted as 
 little with the fatal weakness of the cause of 
 modern Romanism, — these amiable persons 
 
PREFACE. IX 
 
 too often become the dupes of designing Pa- 
 pists. There has lately been some sharp sorrow, 
 perhaps ; and the mind is found in a highly 
 susceptible condition : or there has been some 
 cruel disappointment ; and the heart is adroitly 
 caught at the rebound : they give place in their 
 minds to the insinuated " doubt," and suffer 
 it to rankle there. They lend a willing ear to 
 the delusive promise. The prospect of peace 
 to those. — the dream of power to these, — to 
 both alike the pretentiousness of the Romish 
 theory, — proves overwhelmingly attractive. 
 Too late they discover its hollowness ; or Satan 
 is suffered to put out the eyes of those who 
 have thus first blinded themselves ; so that, 
 on this side the grave, they are perhaps not 
 even allowed to discover so much as the extent 
 of their own misery. 
 
 It was in order, if possible, to avert this 
 calamity at least from some of our people, that 
 I originally wrote the three ensuing Letters. 
 In what fitting language shall I express the 
 thankfulness of this unworthy heart at the 
 discovery which has been once and again made, 
 that they have already been found useful for 
 the end for which they were designed ? Re- 
 quested now at last by the Right Reverend 
 J. Williams, D.D., Bishop of Connecticut, to 
 
X PREFACE. 
 
 allow these Letters to be reprinted in America, 
 I have gladly edited them afresh ; and thank- 
 fully availed myself of the opportunity to sup- 
 plement them with some additional matter, as 
 well as to revise the text throughout, and to 
 correct several slight inaccuracies which had 
 before crept in. 
 
 A hundred fold rewarded for my pains shall 
 I account myself if it shall please the God of 
 Truth to bless what follows to the quieting 
 of one unsettled spirit, the satisfying of one 
 doubting mind ; if the remonstrance contained 
 in the following pages shall avail to deter one 
 wayward person from making shipwreck of 
 his Faith, and imperilling his prospects of 
 Eternal Life. Truly, men and women know 
 not what they do when, by an act of reckless 
 self-will, they transplant themselves from the 
 Anglican to the Romish branch of the Church 
 Catholic. Sin and sorrow await them at 
 every step. " And what will ye do in the end 
 thereof?" 
 
 J. W. B. 
 
 Oriel College, 
 Feast of S. Bartholomew, A.D. 1868. 
 
CONTENTS. 
 
 PAGE 
 
 Preface 7 
 
 LETTER I. 
 
 Ordinary history of one who falls away from the 
 church of england to the church of rome. — 
 review of the several objections and difficul- 
 ties commonly urged by such persons against the 
 church of england. — validity of her orders. — 
 her antiquity. — the doctrines she has repudia- 
 ted. — transubstantiation. — invocation of saints. 
 
 — purgatory. — prayers for the dead. — adora- 
 tion of relics. — development. — the faith of 
 the english church not indefinite. — unfaithful- 
 ness, undutifulness, and doubt. — misapplication 
 of the term "conversion." — the church of eng- 
 land not " small." — the case of those who have 
 forsaken her, considered. — the church of eng- 
 land the mother of saints. — books of devotion. 
 
 — closed and open churches. — no lack of de- 
 voutness in our people. — st. george' s-in-the- 
 east. — conditions of a church's existence. — 
 the church of england not indifferent to 
 truth. — her liturgy. — men of " moderate " 
 
 VIEWS 13 
 
 LETTER II. 
 
 Shortcomings discoverable in the romish, as well 
 as in the english church. — idolatry. — doctrine 
 of purgatory and indulgences. — mariolatry. — 
 superstition. — fabulous and foolish stories in 
 
Xll CONTENTS. 
 
 Page 
 
 THE ROMISH BREVIARY. — ENTIRE SYSTEM OF PUBLIC 
 WORSHIP IN THE ROMISH CHURCH. — NEGLECT OF AN- 
 TIQUITY. — MONSTROUS PRETENSIONS OF THE PAPACY. 
 
 — REBAPTIZATION. — ROMANISM A POLITICAL POWER, 
 AND ALSO A DEMORALIZING PRINCIPLE 114 
 
 LETTER III. 
 The only real question remains yet to be discussed : 
 namely, the validity of the papal claim to uni- 
 versal supremacy. — five theories briefly con- 
 sidered. — the patriarchal claim. — the claim 
 of conversion. — the claim of immemorial pos- 
 session. — the claim from infallibility. — the 
 claim, based on scripture and fathers, of being 
 the successor of st. peter. — no primacy of au- 
 thority given to st. peter. — st. peter not the 
 founder of the church of rome: nor the first 
 bishop of rome: nor recognised as having any 
 supremacy by early councils and fathers. — 
 cyprian's evidence. — conclusion 161 
 
 APPENDIX A. 
 
 THE TESTIMONY OF THE CATACOMBS 227 
 
 APPENDIX B. 
 
 " Invocation of saints " — " prayers for the dead " : 
 
 — testimony of the catacombs 254 
 
 APPENDIX C. 
 Relics . 259 
 
 APPENDIX D. 
 Modern romish service 267 
 
 APPENDIX E. 
 Hours of the modern romish breviary offices . . 275 
 
ROME AND ENGLAND. 
 
 LETTER I. 
 
 Ordinary history of one who falls away from the 
 church of england to the church of rome. — re- 
 view of the several objections and difficulties com- 
 monly urged by such persons against the church 
 of england. — validity of her orders. — her an- 
 tiquity. — the doctrines she has repudiated. — tran- 
 substantiation. — invocation of saints. — purgatory. 
 
 — prayers for the dead. — adoration of relics. — 
 development. — the faith of the english church 
 not indefinite. — unfaithfulness, undutifulness, and 
 doubt. — misapplication of the term " conversion." 
 
 — the church of england not "small." — the case 
 of those who have forsaken her, considered. — the 
 church of england the mother of saints. — books 
 of devotion. — closed and open churches. — no lack 
 of devoutness in our people. — st. george' s-in-the- 
 east. — conditions of a church's existence. — the 
 church of england not indifferent to truth. — her 
 liturgy. — men of "moderate" views. 
 
 To an unknown Correspondent. 
 
 Sir, — You have thought fit to address me 
 on the subject of my faith ; and to remonstrate 
 with me on my ' position,' (as you are pleased 
 to express it,) as a member of the Church of 
 England. You are evidently one of those per- 
 
14 ROME AND ENGLAND. 
 
 sons who have apostatised to Rome. And in- 
 asmuch as there are doubtless many to whom 
 you or your friends will have already written 
 in a similar style, my reply shall be made pub- 
 lic, for their help and advantage. Would to 
 God that the considerations which I am about 
 to offer may convince, if not yourself, at least 
 some of them; or suffice at least to arrest 
 them, — (if they have not already gone too 
 far,) — in their downward course ! 
 
 That last clause is added advisedly : for the 
 history and method of seceders to Romanism 
 is too often observed to be somewhat as fol- 
 lows. And first, for their history. 
 
 1. Born perhaps of Dissenting parents, — 
 or, to say the least, educated in what are 
 absurdly called " Low -Church principles ; " 
 (those principles being of a kind which, if 
 faithfully carried out, must infallibly conduct 
 their professor to the Meeting-house rather 
 than to the Church ;) — a man of superior 
 instincts speedily discovers the unsatisfying 
 nature of a purely human system. He is 
 struck by the insecurity of his position. The 
 absurdity of Dissent, in an intellectual point 
 of view, offends his reason : its unscriptural 
 character alarms his conscience : the practical 
 immorality in which it so largely results, of- 
 
ROME AND ENGLAND. 15 
 
 fends and disgusts him. He is taught the 
 nature, and becomes initiated in the principles 
 of the Church Catholic. The new wine at 
 first gladdens his heart : if he be weak, it well 
 nigh turns his brain. It has been unhappily 
 poured into an " old bottle." This was inev- 
 itable : but is it also inevitable that the bottle 
 shall " burst ? " Not so. That depends on 
 the method which is pursued by this weak 
 vessel. 
 
 2. The enthusiast, — (a young person most 
 likely, and not improbably of the gentler sex,) 
 — instead of resorting in the first instance to 
 some thoughtful and learned priest of the An- 
 glican Communion ; instead of seeking at his 
 hands instruction and advice, in order that he 
 may understand something of the History and 
 Constitution, as well as obtain some acquaint- 
 ance with the actual teaching of the Church 
 of England ; ascertain his actual position as a 
 member of that Church ; and in this way build 
 himself up in his own most holy Faith ; — the 
 young person of whom I am thinking, begins 
 by assuming that he shall never find in the 
 Church of his Baptism the peculiar nutriment 
 which he fancies that he requires. This, he 
 also assumes, that he shall find in the Church 
 of Rome. He seems to argue in the following 
 
16 ROME AND ENGLAND. 
 
 way : — It was Catholic teaching which he de- 
 siderated in the first instance ; and Rome 
 claims to be ' The Catholic Church.' More- 
 over, (as if it were actually the case that the 
 terms ' Romanist ' and ' Catholic ' are sim- 
 ply convertible,) that appellation, in common 
 parlance, is conceded to her members. He 
 observes further that certain persons calling 
 themselves " High Churchmen," are favour- 
 able to the externals of public worship ; which 
 externals Roine enjoys in the most profuse 
 abundance. Certain Doctrines which he ap- 
 proves, and which the same persons have to 
 maintain against popular opposition, are also 
 observed to be by the Church of Rome taken 
 for granted. A little coterie of persons pro- 
 fessing " thoroughly Catholic principles " is 
 now probably joined ; and nowhere in the 
 kingdom could a sect of Dissenters be found, 
 more wedded to the tenet that outside their 
 own small peculiar chapel, — nulla salus. The 
 narrowest party views are espoused. To over- 
 hear the conversation of this clique, you would 
 imagine that a nosegay, lighted candles, and a 
 Gregorian tone, — (the most primitive thing 
 in the world, all on one note!) — must cer- 
 tainly be in their estimation the articuli stantis 
 vel cadentis Ecclesice. Some vile piece of fop- 
 
ROME AND ENGLAND. 17 
 
 peiy in dress, they think worthy of approval 
 and imitation. Opposition to the teaching of 
 the Prayer-Book, offence given to weak breth- 
 ren, and disregard shewn to the counsel of 
 their Bishop, they call " contending for a prin- 
 ciple." I forbear to inquire into the furniture 
 of their private chamber ; or to scan too curi- 
 ously the decorations of their persons. 
 
 The rest of the story is soon told. No more 
 pains have been taken to ascertain the truth 
 about Romanism, than to understand how the 
 case stands with their own Church. Whereas, 
 therefore, at first, adaptations of Romish works 
 of Devotion were resorted to, now there is a 
 demand for the genuine article. Romish man- 
 uals are at last habitually employed ; and 
 acquaintance is freely formed with those who 
 have already lapsed to Romanism. Doubts 
 the most preposterous are now unblushingly 
 instilled : slanders the most gross are daily 
 insinuated : misrepresentations the most dis- 
 creditable are bandied from lip to lip, without 
 rebuke or contradiction. Let there be but an 
 ardent temperament and a lively fancy, and the 
 rest of the work goes on at railroad speed. 
 The boldness with which Rome advances her 
 pretensions overcomes the imagination. Some 
 trifle haunts the memory. Some specious 
 
 2 
 
18 ROME AND ENGLAND. 
 
 saying rankles in the heart. There was an 
 unscrupulous article, (anonymous, of course,) 
 in some third-rate Romish Review which upset 
 the judgment. The assurance that one's 
 " Conversion " is daily prayed for, keeps on 
 recurring like the cadence of some half-forgot- 
 ten song. The influence of a stronger mind 
 at this stage of the business is seldom want- 
 ing . . . Now, what I wish you to observe is, 
 that when things have come to this pass, — 
 (not before !) — the faithless one is commonly 
 found to bethink himself of the fact that he 
 has been for months steadily advancing in a 
 fatal direction ; that he has now reached the 
 very edge of the precipice ; that his footing is 
 unsteady, and that only a breath is wanted to 
 carry him over headlong. It is now that he is 
 commonly observed to make his first appeal 
 to a priest of the Communion which he has 
 already forsaken in heart ; and which he is 
 conscious that he shall soon forsake entirely. 
 Looking back, while already on the road to 
 Oscott, he remarks, — " If you have anything 
 to say, I am perfectly ready to hear it ; and 
 have no objection to read anything you partic- 
 ularly desire me to read. So please to say 
 on." . . . Such persons have been even known 
 to take the irrevocable step before your answer 
 
ROME AND ENGLAND. 19 
 
 has had time to reach them ! But even if there 
 is no precipitancy, and if at this stage of the 
 business letters are exchanged to any extent, 
 — who so blind and unpractical as not to see 
 at a glance how unavailing all must be ? A 
 rambling controversy, conducted on false prem- 
 ises on the side of the apostatising spirit ; and 
 too often a weak discussion of points which do 
 not affect the life of the question at all ; con- 
 cluded by a shameful act of secession to Ro- 
 manism at the end of a few weeks ; — such is 
 too often, in outline, the miserable history of 
 this form of error ! 
 
 3. I have designedly entered into these par- 
 ticulars, and set them like a beacon in the very 
 forefront of what I am about to say. Quite 
 absurd is it to place an Anglican Priest in the 
 position just described, and then to expect 
 that his words can avail. The conscience has 
 been too long tampered with. The poison has 
 been too perseveringly imbibed. The antidote 
 comes too late. A habit has been acquired 
 which cannot be undone by a single act. No 
 words on earth are sufficiently powerful now 
 to break the unholy spell. . . . The supposed 
 appeal should have been made at the outset, 
 when the early awakening came : not at the 
 very close of the business, when it only re- 
 
20 ROME AND ENGLAND. 
 
 mains for the deluded one to set his seal to 
 the fatal contract. 
 
 I shall yet, for the sake of others, consider 
 your strange appeal patiently and in detail. 
 Arguments, as you must be aware, you have 
 advanced none. But you make a number of 
 assertions, and you hint at a variety of con- 
 siderations, which seem to be (in your judg- 
 ment) a sufficient warrant why I should forsake 
 the Anglican branch of the Church Catholic, 
 and seek " admission " into the Romish Com- 
 munion. In my next letter, something shall 
 be said on the other side ; and in my last, I 
 will endeavour to shew you that if all your as- 
 sertions were true, and if every consideration 
 which you urge were well founded, it would 
 still not follow by any means that Romanism 
 must be my resource : for it shall be explained 
 that all such points as the following, — with 
 one single exception, — are absolutely irrele- 
 vant ; and do not touch the life of the question 
 in the least. 
 
 4. That solitary exception, I proceed to con- 
 sider and dispose of at once : for though you 
 introduce the remark only in passing, — (" The 
 very validity of the Orders of the English 
 Church has been doubted"} — I cannot per- 
 mit you to suppose that a charge of this nature 
 
ROME AND ENGLAND. 21 
 
 is like the rest of those you adduce. If our 
 Orders are invalid, then are we indeed in a 
 piteous case ; for then are we not, properly 
 speaking, a Church at all. I know nothing of 
 a Church which has not a threefold order of 
 Ministry. I- hold no Ordination to be valid 
 which a Bishop has not bestowed ; and I can- 
 not admit that any one is a true Bishop, whose 
 commission and authority have not been de- 
 rived to him in unbroken line from the Apos- 
 tles of Jesus Christ Himself. 
 
 That the preachers at Rome are accustomed 
 to class us with " the Chinese ; " and to repre- 
 sent our Church as a schism, — our Religion 
 as a very Babel of confusion, — ourselves as a 
 mere nation of sectarians ; — I am well aware. 
 The Archbishop of Ferrara, last January, put 
 forth a Notificazione Ecclesiastica, in which 
 the following notable passage occurs: — " Da 
 chi liaiino essi la loro missione ? poiche l'uomo 
 non e obligato in materia di Fede a credere se 
 non a chi ha prove d'essere mandate da Dio, 
 somma Verita, o da Chi ne tiene cospicuamente 
 e incontrastabilmente le veci in terra. — Do- 
 mandate loro quale mai, e per qual ragione, 
 fra tante loro sette diramantisi all' infinito, 
 meriti la preferenza d'essere ascoltata ; se a 
 mo' d'esempio la C/iiesa alta o la bassa, oppur 
 
22 ROME AND ENGLAND. 
 
 la larga; se il dono dell' infallibility l'abbiano 
 i Puseistij o gli Evangelici, o i Pietisti, o gli 
 Ernuti, o i Metodisti^ o i Quaqneri . . . Chie- 
 dete se almeno in qualche verita si sono ancor 
 convenuti fra loro ; poiche, non ha molto, fra 
 24,000 ministri anglicani non se ne trovarono 
 due che battessero a segno in fatto di dogmat- 
 iche dottrine, sicche, a detta di un Protestante 
 basterebbe Funghia del pollice per iscrivervi 
 sopra tutte le dottrine in cui vanno essi d'ac- 
 cordo ; e come diceva un altro, a forza di 
 riformare e protestare, il Protestantesimo si £ 
 ridotto ad una serie di zeri." 1 [" Prom whom 
 have they received their mission ? For in a 
 matter of the Faith, man is not obliged to be- 
 lieve any other than one who has proofs of 
 being sent by God — the Supreme Truth, — or 
 by him who visibly and incontestably stands 
 in His place on earth. Ask them which of so 
 many sects of theirs, branching out indefi- 
 nitely, deserves preference in being heard, and 
 for what reason: whether, for instance, the 
 high, the low or even the broad church : — 
 whether the gift of infallibility is possessed by 
 the Puseyites, the Evangelicals, the Pietists, 
 the Herrnhutters or United Brethren, the 
 
 1 Gicmale di Roma, 3 or 5 Jan., 1861. 
 
ROME AND ENGLAND. 23 
 
 Methodists, or the Quakers. . . . Ask them 
 whether they have yet agreed among them- 
 selves at least on some truth : since not long 
 ago, of 24,000 Anglican ministers, no two 
 were found to hold the same view of dogmati- 
 cal doctrines, so that, according to one Protes- 
 tant, all they agree upon might be written on 
 the thumb-nail ; and as another said, by dint 
 of reforming and protesting, Protestantism 
 has been reduced to a series of cyphers."] 
 
 This kind of statement is doubtless very con- 
 venient, where none are present to contradict ; 
 and may serve to blind the people of Italy to 
 the truth concerning the Church of England, — 
 Heaven only knows for how many years longer. 
 Even in France, strange to relate, the same 
 gross misconception of our position and prac- 
 tices, popularly prevails. But such mistakes, 
 — (I have no grounds for calling them wilful 
 misrepresentations,) — cannot prevail for ever. 
 Nor, (what is more to the purpose,) do they 
 impress one with much respect for the contro- 
 versial ability of those who put them forth. 
 You and I, at all events, know better. That 
 sad confusion of opinion prevails among cer- 
 tain members of the Church of England, is 
 true enough : but I question whether things 
 are not worse in Italy and in France. That 
 
24 ROME AND ENGLAND. 
 
 false brethren have been among us, the recent 
 secessions from our Communion show plainly ; 
 and that brethren quite as false (but not nearly 
 so conscientious) remain behind, a volume re- 
 cently published, entitled " Essays and Re- 
 views," abundantly proves. But, for all that, 
 we are not by any means so divided, practi- 
 cally, as the Archbishop of Ferrara supposes ; 
 while in theory , we of the English Church cer- 
 tainly all " walk by the same rule ; " and 
 " mind the same thing." Our ancient Brev- 
 iary and Missal (after the Sarum Use) reformed 
 and made " the Use of the united Church of 
 England and Ireland," 1 — is our own imme- 
 morial possession ; is in the hands of us all ; 
 and constrains every one of us to speak the 
 language of early Christendom to the present 
 hour. Can as much be said for the congrega- 
 tions of Italy, France, and Spain ? It is no- 
 torious that no single doctrinal tenet which, 
 can be truly called Catholic, is unrecognised 
 in our authorised Books. What need to re- 
 mark that " Methodists," " Quakers," and the 
 like, are external to our Church, and too often 
 its open enemies ? " High Church," — " Low 
 Church," — " Broad Church," — are names 
 
 1 Title-page of the Book of Common Prayer. 
 
ROME AND ENGLAND. 25 
 
 colloquially employed among ourselves, to de- 
 note persons whose private tastes and preju- 
 dices incline them to take widely diverse views 
 on all questions connected with Faith and 
 Practice, as maintained by the Church of 
 •England; but to the authoritative teaching 
 of that Church they nevertheless are pledged 
 ex animo to conform : and we, as a Church, 
 ignore their very existence. Distinctive tenets 
 in fact these schools have none. As for the 
 gift of " Infallibility," it certainly resides 
 neither with Puseyites nor with Freethinkers ; 
 neither with so-called Evangelicals, nor with 
 Papists. — But to return. 
 
 So long as the following words stand in the 
 Preface to the Ordinal of the Church of Eng- 
 land, it must be admitted that her Theory is 
 Apostolic : — "It is evident unto all men dili- 
 gently reading Holy Scriptures and ancient 
 Authors, that from the Apostles' time there 
 have been these Orders of Ministers in Christ's 
 Church, — Bishops, Priests, and Deacons. 
 Which offices ... no man might presume 
 to execute, . . . except he were . . . admitted 
 thereunto by lawful authority. Therefore . . . 
 no man shall be accounted ... a lawful 
 Bishop, Priest, or Deacon in the Church of 
 England, or suffered to execute any of the 
 
26 ROME AND ENGLAND. 
 
 said functions, except he be . . . admitted 
 thereunto, according to the Form, hereafter 
 following ; or hath had formerly Episcopal 
 Consecration, or Ordination." 
 
 And if the Theory be Apostolic, how about 
 the Practice of the English Church ? " The 
 validity of her Orders," (you say,) "has been 
 doubted" Are you not ashamed of thus re- 
 producing "the Nag's Head fable"? which 
 has been again and again proved to be an ab- 
 surd forgery, and impudent calumny ; 1 w r hile, 
 even by Romanists themselves the validity of 
 English Orders has been elaborately main- 
 tained. 2 I will not condescend to go further 
 into this question with you, unless you will 
 venture to give me a distinct challenge, and 
 instead of saying that our Orders " have been 
 doubted," — (as what Truth has not been 
 doubted, in this lower world ?) — will deliber- 
 
 1 See especially, The Story of the Ordination of our first 
 Bishops in Queen Elizabeth's reign at the Nag's Head Tavern in 
 Cheapside, thoroughly examined; and proved to be a late-invented, 
 inconsistent, self-contradicting, and absurd Fable. By Thomas 
 Browne, B.D., 8vo. 1731, pp. 495. 
 
 2 Especially by Le P. E. le Courayer. The English 
 reader will do well to consult the excellent Oxford Transla- 
 tion which appeared in 1844 : — A Dissertation on the Validity 
 of the Ordinations of the English, and of the Succession of the 
 Bishops of the Anglican Church, &c, pp. 500. 
 
R&ME AND ENGLAND. 27 
 
 ately inform me that you, after due inquiry, 
 are yourself in doubt on the subject. . . . And 
 now, to proceed a step. But not until I have 
 modestly asked you the following question, 
 which I shall thank you categorically to re- 
 solve. 
 
 The Church of Rome, as you are well aware, 
 holds the Priest's Intention to be essential to 
 the validity of a Sacrament. 1 Now, since this 
 can never be certainly ascertained, — (indeed, 
 for the most part, no security is either sought 
 or given on the subject,) — what possible 
 ground have you for your confident assump- 
 tion that their Ordinations (and ' Orders ' with 
 them is a Sacrament,) are valid, in any given 
 instance ? Where, according to your own 
 adopted theory, is your security for the val- 
 idity of any sacramental act, — except those 
 performed by yourself individually ? 2 
 
 5. You are requested therefore to observe, 
 in the next place, that I cannot allow you, 
 even incidentally and in passing, to hint that 
 the English Church is " only three hundred 
 
 1 Concil. Trid. Sess. vii. Can. xi. 
 
 2 The Canon was opposed at the Council of Trent, on 
 these very grounds, by one of the Bishops then present, — 
 Catharinus, Bishop of Minosi. — Scudaraore (Letters to a 
 Seceder, p. 120,) quoting Sarpfs Hist. ii. p. 191, ed. 1620. 
 
28 ROME AND ENGLAND. 
 
 years old" This is so entirely false a charge, 
 so utterly irrational a statement, — (contra- 
 dicted as it is by the plain evidence of His- 
 tory,) — that I must insist upon its absolute 
 withdrawal, before I condescend to argue with 
 you for another instant. 
 
 That the Church which we founded in Amer- 
 ica, is of recent growth, is true. Yet more 
 recent is the Church in India, in Australia, in 
 New Zealand, at the Cape : while that in Cen- 
 tral Africa is even now in process of founda- 
 tion. But you ought to be aware that none 
 of these Churches are any the worse on that 
 account. Britain seems to have received the 
 Gospel soon after Rome, as Rome seems to 
 have received the Gospel soon after Jerusalem, 
 — which is the Mother of all the Churches : 
 but neither Rome nor England are any the 
 worse for that. And the Gospel doubtless 
 came to us, in the first instance, (as it came 
 to Gaul,) from Asia Minor. 
 
 Granting however that the flame had well 
 nigh died out when Augustine the monk vis- 
 ited our shores in the sixth century, and 
 brought hither the Gallican, (not the Roman,) 
 succession ; even so, the difference will be but 
 this, — that Rome, (in consequence of her 
 geographical position,) was blest with her ac- 
 
ROME AND ENGLAND. 29 
 
 tual succession a few centuries before our- 
 selves. 
 
 Then, in the church so founded, you ought 
 to know that there was no break at the period 
 of the Reformation. The Church of England 
 did but reform herself. Romanists really are 
 sometimes heard to speak of the Reformation 
 as if " the Protestants " were a distinct race, 
 who came in and drove out " the Romanists," 
 — who fled, (I suppose,) to Rome! But you 
 at least ought to know better .... I have 
 heard Romanists sometimes say, — "We built 
 your churches." I should like to force them 
 to explain what they intend to imply. They 
 cannot mean that Rome supplied the funds out 
 of which our churches were built: for the 
 reverse is notoriously the case, — namely, that 
 for a few hundred years before the Reforma- 
 tion, England was drained of a great deal 
 of money with which Italian churches were 
 erected ! It cannot be pretended that the 
 Ritual now used in the Romish Church, was 
 before the Reformation used in the English 
 Church ; which Old English Ritual was, at 
 the time of the Reformation, by the English 
 Church abandoned ; for the diametrical re- 
 verse is notoriously the fact. First, it is de- 
 monstrable that the ancient and the modern 
 
30 ROME AND ENGLAND. 
 
 English Use is one and the same ; and next, 
 that our ante-Reformation Use was so widely- 
 discrepant from the Roman, that, (in the lan- 
 guage of the most learned of modern Ritual- 
 ists,) — "it may safely be affirmed that no 
 Roman or continental priest can possibly, for 
 many ages before the Reformation, have offi- 
 ciated at an English altar." 1 
 
 What can be meant then ? The same men 
 who before held certain modern Romish errors, 
 at last shook themselves free from those errors. 
 The Church reformed herself. She began no 
 new existence. She called in the aid of no 
 fresh agents. She experienced no change in 
 her succession. She remained what she was 
 before, — with the single exception of her 
 errors. Let the prosperous estate of England 
 ever since be accepted as some proof that no 
 wrath from Heaven descended upon her for 
 what she then did ! That her vitality was not 
 impaired thereby, let her daughter-churches 
 all over the world attest! .... You are 
 therefore requested to observe that you are 
 not allowed for an instant to assert that the 
 English Church is only three hundred years 
 old. . . . And now, to proceed. 
 
 1 Freeman, Principles of Divine Service, Part ii. p. 84. 
 
ROME AND ENGLAND. bl 
 
 6. In your very first remark, you beg the 
 whole question; for (1st), you assume that 
 the teaching of the Church of Rome is identi- 
 cal with the teaching of the first three or four 
 centuries: and (2ndly), you assert that the 
 Church of England has rejected the doctrines 
 of those early centuries. On the first of these 
 two assumptions, you proceed to build up a 
 considerable fabric of self-glorification : on the 
 second, you heap a mountain of abuse, and 
 insist that all Englishmen ought to do as you 
 have done, — namely forsake the Church of 
 England and join the Church of Rome. 
 
 But permit me to remind you that this is to 
 proceed a great deal too fast. Be assured that 
 you will find it utterly impossible to make out 
 either position. The contradictory of the first, 
 I propose to establish by-and-by. You shall 
 be convinced that the Church of Rome not 
 only does not hold the faith of the earliest age, 
 but does not even profess to do so. And yet, 
 the main thing which you have to remember 
 is, that until you have proved that the Church 
 of England has rejected the faith of the primi- 
 tive Church, you have shown no reason what- 
 ever why I should forsake her communion. 
 It is conceivable, surely, that two branches of 
 the Catholic Church may hold " the Catholic 
 
32 ROME AND ENGLAND. 
 
 Faith," and profess " the Catholic Religion ; " 1 
 and therefore be alike entitled to retain the 
 undivided attachment of their respective chil- 
 dren ! Now, — In which single particular will 
 you pretend to tell me that the Church of Eng- 
 land has departed from the faith of the first 
 three centuries ? 
 
 You open your indictment by informing me 
 that " the Faith of the primitive Church is 
 well known. We have Liturgies as far back 
 as the times of the Apostles ; St. Paul himself 
 having quoted," (as you say,) " from the Lit- 
 urgy of St. James. And it is proved beyond 
 a shadow of doubt by these ancient Liturgies, 
 as well as by letters of the ante-Nicene Fath- 
 ers, and by the Inscriptions in the Catacombs, 
 that, in the first two centuries, Christians 
 believed, (besides the Doctrine of the Real 
 Presence, which is a matter of course,) in 
 Transubstantiation, the Invocation of the B. 
 Virgin and of Saints, Purgatory, Prayers for 
 the Dead, and a reverence for Relics. What 
 then," (you ask,) " are the ' corruptions ' of 
 which the Church of England speaks, if these 
 doctrines were held in the first two centuries, 
 — which she deems so pure ? And how can 
 
 1 Athanasian Creed. 
 
ROME AND ENGLAND. 33 
 
 you rejoice in belonging to a Church which 
 confessedly rejects these doctrines ? " — This 
 is your charge, and these are your interroga- 
 tories. 
 
 I answer : — " The faith of the primitive 
 Church " is indeed " well known : " but if you 
 have been taught that (A) Liturgies of the 
 Apostolic age, — (B) Letters of the ante-Ni- 
 cene Fathers, — and (C) Inscriptions in the 
 Catacombs, — prove that the primitive Church 
 held (a) Transubstantiation, (b) the Invoca- 
 tion of the B. Virgin, and of Saints, (c) the 
 Romish doctrine of Purgatory, (d) Prayers for 
 the Dead as practised by the modern Church 
 of Rome, and (e) Adoration of Relics, — you 
 have been grossly deceived, and are utterly 
 mistaken. For in the first place, — 
 
 (A) You have to learn that there exists no 
 Liturgy of the date you imagine : (I heartily 
 wish there did :) while your notion that St. 
 Paul quotes from the (so-called) Liturgy of 
 St. James, is just one of those extraordinary 
 blunders which, in the judgment of any learned 
 person, would suffice to put you at once and 
 for ever out of court. It shows that you are 
 not competent even to have an opinion on the 
 subject on which you write with such confi- 
 dence : for you ought to know that the absurd- 
 3 
 
34 ROME AND ENGLAND. 
 
 ity of such a notion is gross and patent. 
 Take the truth however in the words of a 
 learned ritualist of your own adopted com- 
 munion, — Zaccaria. He is speaking of this 
 very Liturgy. " I cheerfully admit that the 
 Liturgies which pass under the names of the 
 Apostles are of much more recent date, and are 
 not authentic ." x The most ancient of all, is 
 the (so-called) " Liturgy of Clement ; " which 
 Bona conjecturally assigns to the 2nd or 3rd 
 Century. But, (as a plain matter of fact,) no 
 Liturgy seems to have been put into writing 
 before the latter end of the fourth century : 
 and the Liturgy of St. James, (of which we 
 are speaking,) contains unequivocal interpola- 
 tions which may be referred to a period subse- 
 quent to the fifth century. 2 The appellation it 
 bears, in the opinion of a competent judge, 3 is 
 later than a.d. 380 .... You are convicted 
 therefore of dogmatising on a subject which 
 you do not understand. Without at all deny- 
 
 1 Quoted by Maskell, Ancient Liturgy of the Church of 
 England, &c, p. xxxvi. 
 
 2 See Brett's Dissertation (§ 32) at the end of his Collec- 
 tion of the principal Liturgies, &c. 1720, and since reprinted. 
 The learned reader will have recourse to the volumes of 
 Renaudot. 
 
 3 Palmer's Origines, i. p. 44, 
 
ROME AND ENGLAND. 35 
 
 ing the essential antiquity of the primitive 
 Liturgies, (with which our own English Lit- 
 urgy entirely agrees,) I insist on your observ- 
 ing that they cannot be adduced as primitive 
 (much less as Apostolic) evidence in support of 
 any doctrines concerning which the Churches 
 of Eome and of England are at variance. 
 
 (B) You ought to produce your authorities 
 from the " Letters of the ante-Nicene Fathers," 
 — not simply refer to them as if they were a 
 known series. What " letters " do you allude 
 to ? Do you fancy that Cyprian, for example, 
 held any of these errors ? 
 
 (C) As for the testimony of the Catacombs, 
 I have discussed it sufficiently in a separate 
 publication ; 1 from which a large extract is 
 subjoined to these letters. 2 — And now, having 
 said all I can say about your supposed authori- 
 ties, I proceed to tell you something about the 
 history of those tenets for which you are so 
 anxious to claim not only primitive Antiquity, 
 but even Apostolic sanction : it being perfectly 
 clear to me that you know next to nothing 
 about them at all. 
 
 (a) Teansubstantiation, (as I hope you 
 
 1 Letters from Rome, p. 223 to 258. 
 
 2 Appendix A. 
 
36 ROME AND ENGLAND. 
 
 are aware,) denotes " the change of the sub- 
 stance of bread and wine" 2 and no other 
 thing. You are requested not to mix up this 
 question with quite a distinct one, — viz. " The 
 Doctrine of the Real Presence." Also, you 
 are requested not to insinuate that " the doc- 
 trine of the Real Presence " is anywhere repu- 
 diated by the Church of England. To the 
 phrase indeed, she lends no sanction. And 
 why ? Because she fears lest she should 
 thereby mislead her children. But that she 
 holds the Real Presence of Christ in the Holy 
 Eucharist is sufficiently proved by her teaching 
 that " the Body and Blood are verily and in- 
 deed taken and received by the faithful, in the 
 Lord's Supper:" for how can anything be 
 " verily and indeed taken and received" which 
 is not verily and indeed (i. e. really} present ? 
 It is only concerning the mode of her Lord's 
 Sacramental presence, that the Church of 
 England is severely silent ; because the mode 
 of it hath nowhere been revealed, and hath 
 never been decided. In the meantime, con- 
 cerning " Transubstantiation," she declares 
 boldly that it " cannot be proved by Holy 
 Writ; is repugnant to the plain words of 
 
 1 Art. xxviii. 
 
ROME AND ENGLAND. 37 
 
 Scripture ; overthroweth the nature of a Sac- 
 rament ; and hath given occasion to many 
 superstitions." x 
 
 Not to be tedious then, I invite your particu- 
 lar attention to the following words of Gela- 
 sius, who was Bishop of Rome a.d. 492-496. 
 That learned man was engaged in controversy 
 with the Eutychians. Now the heresy of Eu- 
 tyches consisted in this, — that he assumed a 
 conversion of the Human Nature into the 
 Divine. He taught that the Humanity in the 
 One Person of Christ was absorbed and wholly 
 turned into the Divinity ; so transubstantiated, 
 in short, that the Human Nature existed there 
 no longer. The ancient Fathers who opposed 
 this heresy made use of the sacramental union 
 between the Bread and Wine, and the Body 
 and Blood of Christ, in order to illustrate the 
 Catholic Doctrine. They thereby showed that 
 the Human Nature of Christ was no more 
 really converted into the Divinity, (and so 
 ceased to be the Human Nature,) than the 
 substance of the Bread and Wine is really 
 converted into the substance of the Body and 
 Blood, and thereby ceases to be both Bread 
 and Wine. A more unequivocal proof that 
 
 i Ibid. 
 
38 ROME AND ENGLAND. 
 
 the Church in those days understood no such 
 doctrine as that of Transubstantiation, can 
 scarcely be imagined. 1 I invite your attention 
 to the emphatic language of one of those 
 Fathers whom you must allow to be a most 
 unexceptionable witness. Gelasius (Bishop 
 of Rome) says, — " The Sacrament of Christ's 
 Body and Blood, which we take, is doubtless a 
 Divine thing, whereby we are made partakers 
 of the Divine Nature : and yet it ceases not to 
 be the substance, or to have the nature, of 
 Bread and Wine. Doubtless also the image 
 and likeness of Christ's Body and Blood are 
 celebrated in the celebration of those mys- 
 teries. To ourselves, therefore, it seems to be 
 with sufficient clearness demonstrated that the 
 self-same thing is to be thought of Christ our 
 Lord, which in His image we profess [to exist, 
 and believe that we] celebrate, and take, 
 namely, — that as, by the operation of the 
 
 1 Bishop Pearson remarks, — " There can be no time in 
 which we may observe the doctrine of the ancients so 
 clearly, as when they write professedly against an heresy 
 evidently known, and make use generally of the same ar- 
 guments against it. Now what the heresy of Eutyches 
 was, is certainly known, and the nature of the Sacrament 
 was generally made use of as an argument to confute it." — 
 Art. hi. p. 162, note. 
 
ROME AND ENGLAND. 39 
 
 Holy Spirit, they become this Divine sub- 
 stance, and yet remain in their own proper noc- 
 ture, — so do they demonstrate that that other 
 crowning mystery, whose virtue and efficacy 
 they faithfully exhibit, remains one Christ, 
 because very and entire ; while yet the parts 
 whereof He doth consist, abide in the propriety 
 of their own nature." 1 .... In other words, 
 — "One, not by conversion of the GoDhead 
 into the flesh, [nor of the flesh into the God- 
 head,'] but by taking of the Manhood into 
 God." 
 
 You perceive the conclusiveness of this quo- 
 tation, of course, at once. Well may the 
 
 1 " Certe Sacramenta quae sumimus corporis et sanguinis 
 Christi Divina res est, propter quod et per eadem Divinae 
 efficimur consortes naturae : et tamen esse non desinit sub- 
 stantia vel natura panis et vini. Et certe imago et simili- 
 tudo corporis et sanguinis Christi in actione mysteriorum 
 celebrantur. Satis ergo nobis evidenter ostenditur, hoc 
 nobis de ipso Christo Domino sentiendum, quod in ejus 
 imagine profitemur, celebramus, et sumimus ; ut sicut in 
 hanc, scilicet, in Divinam, transeant, Saxcto Spiritu per- 
 ficiente, substantiam, permanentes tamen in suae proprie- 
 tate naturae ; sic illud ipsum mjsterium principale, cujus 
 nobis efficientiam virtutemque veraciter repraesentant, ex 
 quibus constat proprie permanentibus, unum Christum, 
 quia integrum verumque, permanere demonstrant." — This 
 fragment of Gelasius may be seen in Pearson. It has also 
 been elaborately edited by the late venerable President of 
 Magdalen, in his Reliquice. 
 
40 ROME AND ENGLAND. 
 
 modern Roman Catholic editors write cauti 
 against the place. 1 It proves what was the 
 doctrine of the Church of Rome, as declared 
 by the Bishop of Rome, at the end of the fifth 
 century: — a sufficient refutation of your no- 
 tion that the doctrine of Transubstantiation is 
 as old as the Liturgy of St. James. 
 
 It may be new to you to hear that Chrysos- 
 tom had said precisely the same thing as 
 Gelasius. He was arguing against the Apol- 
 linarians, whose heresy was cognate to that of 
 the Eutychians. He says : — " As the bread 
 before it is sanctified is called bread, but after 
 Divine grace has sanctified it by the mediation 
 of the priest, it is called bread no longer, but 
 is accounted worthy to be called the Body of 
 the Lord, though the nature of bread remain in 
 it" &c, &c. Theodoret (a.d. 450) uses the 
 same illustration in a well-known passage 
 against the Eutychian heresy. To be brief, 
 Tertullian, (a.d. 200,) Gregory, Bishop of 
 Nyssa (a.d. 370), Augustine, Ephraem Bishop 
 of Antioch, (a.d. 540,) Pacundus (a.d. 550,) 
 Isidore Bishop of Seville, (a.d. 630,) — to- 
 gether with many others, are all witnesses to 
 
 1 See the quotation in Pearson On the Creed, — with that 
 learned prelate's remarks upon it. 
 
ROME AND ENGLAND. 41 
 
 the Catholic doctrine. You may see the places 
 at length in Bingham ; 1 but in fact they have 
 been a hundred times repeated. The term 
 Transubstantiation was unknown in the Church 
 for upwards of a thousand years ; and the doc- 
 trine was not established until a.d. 1215. And 
 so much for your first instance. 
 
 (6) Your notion that the Invocation of 
 Saints, and of the Blessed Virgin, is a primi- 
 tive practice, again shows your ignorance of 
 antiquity. For not only was the worship even 
 of Angels forbidden by the 35th Canon of the 
 Council of Laodicea, but the early Fathers 
 expressly discourage all prayers to Saints. 
 All this has been shown a hundred times. 
 " Look into the more ancient Liturgies," (says 
 Bp. Bull,) "as particularly that described in 
 the ' Ecclesiastical Hierarchy,' and the Clemen- 
 tine Liturgy, contained in the book entitled 
 the ' Apostolical Constitutions ; ' and you will 
 not find in them one prayer of any sort to An- 
 gels or Saints ; no, not so much as an oblique 
 prayer, (as they term it,) i. e. a prayer directed 
 to God that He would hear the intercession of 
 Angels and Saints for us." 2 
 
 1 Origines, Book xv. cli. v. 
 
 2 Works, vol. ii. pp. 26-56. 
 
42 ROME AND ENGLAND. 
 
 You will find in Bingham's ' Antiquities,' * 
 a sufficient proof made out, — (it can be but a 
 negative proof, but it is complete,) — that no 
 such worship as is now paid by the Romish 
 Church to Saints was known in the early ages 
 of Christianity. True enough it is that in the 
 fifth century, we meet with a passage, perhaps 
 with more than one, which seems to show that 
 the exclamation, " Holy such-an-one help me ! " 
 
 — casually uttered, is not, in the judgment of 
 the writer, to be reprobated. Several places 
 of a rhetorical or of a poetical kind are also 
 easily discoverable, which a lively imagination 
 might torture into the 4 Invocation of Saints.' 
 But none of these places are capable of being 
 pressed seriously into the argument. I refer 
 you to what I have elsewhere offered on this 
 subject. 2 You are requested to observe that a 
 casual apostrophe to a departed human being, 
 
 — (call it an ' Invocation ' if you please,) — 
 is a vastly different thing from those direct 
 prayers, for favours which God alone can 
 bestow, which the modern Church of Rome 
 systematically offers to Saints. For the sake 
 of brevity, I beg to refer you on this entire 
 
 1 B. xiii. ch. iii. §§ 1, 2, 3. 
 
 2 Letters from Rome, p. 237-41. — See the Appendix B. 
 
ROME AND ENGLAND. 43 
 
 subject to Palmer's 5th Letter to Wiseman. 
 You are requested to read from p. 51 to p. 75. 
 In the meantime you are to observe that the 
 burthen of proof rests entirely with yourself; 
 and that it is not such an invocation as was 
 above alluded to that you have to produce, but 
 a fair specimen of such invocations as by the 
 Church of Rome are addressed to the Saints at 
 the present day. I pass on, with the remark 
 that a greater contrast cannot be imagined, 
 than the ancient language of the Church re- 
 specting the Blessed Virgin, and the language 
 of the Modern Church of Rome on the same 
 subject. 
 
 (c) and (d) I must take your next two heads 
 together, for a reason which will speedily ap- 
 pear. That the early Church used Prayers for 
 the Dead is quite certain. Equally certain is 
 it that Prayers for the Dead as practised by the 
 modem Church of Rome are a corrupt innova- 
 tion, — altogether unknown to the purer ages 
 of Christianity, 1 and pregnant with nothing but 
 mischief. 
 
 For what is the Romish theory of prayers 
 for the dead, as at present practised ? It is 
 inseparably mixed up with the received and 
 
 1 See Bingham on this subject, — B. xv. ch. iii. §§ 16, 17. 
 
44 ROME AND ENGLAND. 
 
 approved doctrine that Purgatorial fire awaits 
 the souls of the just after death. Purgatory 
 is feigned to be a place and state of misery and 
 torment, whereunto faithful souls go presently 
 after death ; and there remain until they are 
 thoroughly purged from their dross, or deliv- 
 ered thence by Masses, Indulgences, &c. These 
 pains " are supposed to be inflicted in order to 
 satisfy the justice of God for the temporal 
 punishment still remaining due for remitted 
 mortal sin, or for venial sin still remaining." 2 
 For, (as the Council of Trent decrees,) " tem- 
 poral punishment remains, for the most part, to 
 be discharged, after eternal punishment has been 
 removed" 2 In short, it is held that God con- 
 signs the just, on their exit from this world, 
 for an indefinite period, to the torture of Hell- 
 fire ; and the Romish Theologians teach that 
 the punishment of Purgatory " is the very 
 same as that of Hell; its eternity only being 
 removed." 3 Now this doctrine of temporal 
 punishment is the very foundation, the key- 
 stone of the whole Romish system, as it comes 
 to view in respect of Satisfaction, Purgatory, 
 
 1 Palmer's Vlth Letter to Wiseman. 
 
 2 Concil. Trident. Sess. xiv. 
 
 3 See the authorities in Palmer, as above, p. 22. 
 
ROME AND ENGLAND. 45 
 
 Indulgences, Masses, and Prayers for the Dead. 
 To keep now to the last-named point. 
 
 Prayers for the Dead, according to the 
 modern Romish theory, have it for their 
 special object to deliver souls out of the pains 
 of Purgatory. But Purgatory itself has been 
 shown a hundred times to be a fiction, — with- 
 out foundation in Scripture, Reason, or Primi- 
 tive Tradition : x repudiated by the Greek 
 Church, — spoken of with hesitation by not a 
 few of the writers of your adopted Com- 
 munion, — maintained, I fear, for nothing so 
 much as for mercenary motives. Disconnect 
 the doctrine of Purgatory from the doctrine of 
 Prayers for the Dead ; — I mean, suppose only 
 that this corrupt fable had never sprung up to 
 teach the Church of England the practical 
 danger of encouraging her children to pray 
 for the departed ; — and it may reasonably 
 be suspected that she would have retained 
 in her public services some more distinct re- 
 cognition of this primitive practice than is 
 actually to be found in any of them, at the 
 present day. 
 
 And yet, I request you to observe that a 
 
 1 See Stillingfleet's Rational Account, &c, p. iii. ch. vi. — 
 Also Bp. Bull ; Sermon iii. p. 72. 
 
46 ROxME AND ENGLAND. 
 
 Christian of the primitive Age would have 
 been quite content with our existing practice. 
 A few expressions in the prayers which are 
 found in our Burial Service, and that general 
 commemoration of all the faithful departed 
 which we employ at the oblation of the Holy 
 Eucharist, — (' Finally we bless Thy holy Name 
 for all Thy servants departed this life in Thy 
 faith and fear,') ■ — are conceived in the true 
 spirit of the early Church. We include in the 
 last-mentioned eucharistic prayer, without nam- 
 ing her, the Blessed Virgin Mary, — whom the 
 primitive Church expressly named in the cor- 
 responding part of their service. The old 
 Roman Missals adopted this Catholic practice 
 of praying for all Saints, — Patriarchs, Proph- 
 ets, Apostles, Evangelists, Martyrs, Confessors, 
 Bishops, being of course therein included. But 
 the Church of Rome adopts very different lan- 
 guage at the present day. In a word, the 
 Romish fable of Purgatory has given to Prayers 
 for the Dead, as practised by the Church of 
 Rome, quite a new character and complexion : 
 and you are requested to observe that not one 
 of the Patristic places commonly quoted in 
 support of the Doctrine of Purgatory will 
 sustain any part of the burthen you purpose 
 to build upon it. 
 
ROME AND ENGLAND. 47 
 
 It would be easy to multiply authorities, and 
 to draw out in detail proofs of the modernness 
 of the practices under review. But this is not 
 my present object. I have said enough to show 
 you that Purgatory is the reverse of a Catholic 
 Doctrine, and that such Prayers for the dead 
 as Rome employs are a modern and a corrupt 
 practice. 
 
 (e) The Adoration of Relics you will be 
 pleased to remember is what I call a modern, 
 — you, a primitive practice. You would ap- 
 peal, I dare say, if hard pressed, to the many 
 indications extant of honour paid to relics from 
 the earliest period of the Christian Church. 
 But honour is not adoration. We ' honour ' 
 Men: we 'adore' only God! You, on the 
 contrary, pay " Latria," or Divine Worship, to 
 Relics. 
 
 That such Adoration is authorised and ap- 
 proved in the Romish Communion, you will 
 find demonstrated in Palmer's 8th letter to 
 Wiseman : and that it was unknown in the 
 primitive Church, you will find established by 
 Bingham in the last chapter of the last Book 
 of his great work. It has been shown, (he 
 says,) " that there was no religious worship 
 given to the Relics of Saints and Martyrs for 
 several of the first ages in the Church." Ma- 
 
48 ROME AND ENGLAND. 
 
 billon owns that there were no Relics set upon 
 altars even to the 10th century. 
 
 Permit me to invite your attention to a gal- 
 lant challenge which was given by an English 
 Bishop just 300 years since, but which to the 
 end of time will not be accepted. Bishop 
 Jewel thus spoke and wrote in 1560 : — "If 
 any learned man of all our adversaries, or if 
 all the learned men that be alive, be able to 
 bring any one sufficient sentence out of any 
 old Catholic Doctor, or Father, or out of any 
 old general Council, or out of the Holy Scrip- 
 tures of God, or any one example of the primi- 
 tive Church, whereby it may be clearly and 
 plainly proved (1) that there was any Private 
 Mass in the whole world at that time, for the 
 space of six hundred years after Christ; or 
 (2) that there was then any Communion 
 ministered unto the people under one kind ; 
 or (3) that the people had their Common 
 Prayers then in a strange tongue that they 
 understood not; or (4) that the Bishop of 
 Rome was then called an ' Universal Bishop,' 
 or the ' Head of the Universal Church ; ' or (5) 
 that the people was then taught to believe that 
 Christ's Body is really, substantially, corpor- 
 ally, carnally, or naturally, in the Sacrament ; 
 or (6) that His Body is, or may be, in a 
 
ROME AND ENGLAND. 49 
 
 thousand places or more, at one time ; or (7) 
 that the priest did then hold up the Sacrament 
 over his head ; or (8) that the people did then 
 fall down and worship it with godly honour ; 
 or (9) that the Sacrament was then, or now 
 ought to be, hanged up under a canopy ; or 
 (10) that in the Sacrament, after the words of 
 Consecration, there remaineth only the acci- 
 dents and shows, without the substance of 
 bread and wine ; or (11) that the Priest then 
 divided the Sacrament in three parts, and 
 afterwards received himself all alone ; or (12) 
 that whosoever had said the Sacrament is a 
 figure, a pledge, a token, or a remembrance 
 of Christ's body, had therefore been judged 
 for an heretic ; or (13) that it was lawful 
 then to have thirty, twenty, fifteen, ten, or 
 five masses said in one Church, in one day ; 
 or (14) that Images were then set up in the 
 Churches to the intent the people might wor- 
 ship them ; or (15) that the lay-people was 
 then forbidden to read the Word of God in 
 their own tongue : — If any man alive were 
 able to prove any of these articles by any 
 one clear or plain clause or sentence, either 
 of the Scriptures, or of the old Doctors, or 
 of any old General Council, or by any ex- 
 ample of the Primitive Church, I promise 
 4 
 
50 ROME AND ENGLAND. 
 
 them that I would give over and subscribe 
 unto him" 2 
 
 I have now said enough to prove that you 
 are utterly mistaken in supposing that the 
 several doctrines you enumerate are sanc- 
 tioned by the testimony of the first two or 
 three centuries of the Church. You have 
 been shown that the very reverse is the case ; 
 viz., that the evidence of the earliest ages 
 entirely condemns those doctrines. — Give me 
 leave to remind you however of a circumstance 
 which you clearly lose sight of: namely that if 
 the Doctrines in question were ever so true, it 
 would not by any means follow that I must 
 therefore become a Romanist. In order to 
 convince me of the necessity of that, you will 
 have further to convince me that a belief in 
 those Doctrines is generally necessary to Sal- 
 vation. Now pray mark how the case stands 
 between us. While you cannot even pretend 
 to assert this, 7 do most unhesitatingly assert, 
 (with Bishop Bull,) that it positively endan- 
 gers a man's Salvation that he should hold 
 some of the doctrines you advocate. 2 The 
 
 1 Sermon at Paul's Cross, 1560, Works (Parker Soc), i. 
 p. 20. 
 
 2 See Bp. Bull's Discourse on the Corruptions of the 
 Church of Rome, sect. i. ad init. Works, ii. p. 239. 
 
ROME AND ENGLAND. 51 
 
 case therefore between you and me, is some- 
 what peculiar. 
 
 7. You propose next to lead me a dance into 
 the Doctrine of "Development:" but excuse 
 me for telling you plainly that you have not 
 the necessary powers for a prolonged discussion 
 of this nature ; which moreover, (as it ought 
 to be plain to you,) is very little ad rem, after 
 we have seen that your appeal to Antiquity has 
 broken down. "Development" is a theory 
 which has been invented by the apologists of 
 modern Eomanism in order to account for the 
 actual corruption of Doctrine in the Romish 
 Church ; but it is attended with certain fatal 
 inconveniences, as I can easily show you : 
 while the argumentative worth of the theory 
 of Development is absolutely nothing at all. 
 Let me explain. 
 
 True enough it is that, in a certain sense, 
 "there have been Developments in Religion." 
 The " Te Deum " of the Western Church is, I 
 believe, the beautiful development (expansion 
 I should rather have called it) of a short East- 
 ern Hymn ; the germ of which is contained 
 in the " Trisagion," or cry of the Seraphim, 
 — as recorded by the prophet Isaiah, eh. vi. 
 The Hymn of the Blessed Virgin may be re- 
 garded as a development of the song of Han- 
 
52 ROME AND ENGLAND. 
 
 nah : and the germ of both, I have always been 
 taught to discern in the short hymn of Sarah, 
 set down in Gen. xxi. 6. Our Litany, in like 
 sort, may be regarded as a lawful develop- 
 ment, (expansion I must again prefer to call 
 it,) of the three-fold invocation which ritual- 
 ists call, " the lesser Litany." * Somewhat 
 thus, many parts of our Church service may 
 be accounted for. A code of Laws is con- 
 ceivable which might be regarded as the de- 
 velopment of the Divine command, — " Love 
 thy neighbour as thyself." Nay, if I under- 
 stand the words of Christ rightly, " the Law 
 and the Prophets " are, in a certain sense, a 
 development of Deut. vi. 5 and Levit. xix. 18. 
 But then it requires little wit to see that to 
 account in this manner for the doctrine of 
 Purgatory, for example, or for the Worship 
 of the Blessed Virgin Mary, — is to beg the 
 entire question. He who so argues forgets 
 that Development may be lawful, or it may be 
 unlawful; and that the name for an unlawful 
 Development in respect of Doctrine, is a cor- 
 ruption. Thus the Adoration of Relics as 
 practised in the Church of Rome, I hold to 
 be a manifold abuse of a sentiment in itself 
 
 1 " Lord, have mercy upon us, Christ," &c. 
 
ROME AND ENGLAND. 52 
 
 not only faultless but commendable. In the 
 Martyrdom of Polycarp, as related by the 
 Church of Smyrna, is read as follows : — " We 
 afterwards gathered up his bones, more valua- 
 ble than gold and precious stones, and depos- 
 ited them in a fitting place." 1 Turn from this 
 expression of natural piety, and survey the 
 picture sketched by myself elsewhere. 2 You 
 may call this "Development" if you please. 
 All persons of unsophisticated understanding 
 will hold it to be a corruption, depravation, or 
 abuse. 
 
 Development again may be perfectly law- 
 ful : but it may be the development of some 
 doctrine or practice which is in itself errone- 
 ous. Thus the doctrine of the Immaculate 
 Conception of the Blessed Virgin seems to be 
 a perfectly lawful development of the Adora- 
 tion paid to the Blessed Virgin. Indulgences 
 and Pardons are, (for aught I see to the con- 
 trary,) perfectly legitimate developments ; but 
 then they are developed from the Romish doc- 
 trine of Purgatory, — which is confessedly a 
 fable. 
 
 For, (to take Analogy still for our guide ; it 
 being quite unreasonable that we should for- 
 
 1 C. xviii. 2 See Appendix C. 
 
54 ROME AND ENGLAND. 
 
 sake Analogy when it begins to make against 
 us :) — What is the teaching of " moral, intel- 
 lectual, political, and social" life? (I accept 
 your challenge and quote your own words. In 
 " vegetable life," the exquisite phenomenon of 
 orderly growth and increase seems to make for 
 you: "first the blade, then the ear, after that 
 the full corn in the ear." 1 But what, I ask, 
 are the phenomena of moral, intellectual, politi- 
 cal, social existence ?) In the first and second, 
 does your conscience tell you nothing which it 
 is inconvenient just now to remember ? Has 
 not the full " development " of early faults of 
 character caused you many a time to cry out 
 " miserable man that I am " ? Have you 
 never heard of corrupt institutions in the 
 State; or have you never been the unwilling 
 witness of a disordered civil and social fabric ? 
 Where have you lived, and where has your 
 observation been, if in almost every depart- 
 ment of human agency, you have not noticed 
 the fatal tendency of seminal errors, — (or at 
 least the perversion of principles which in 
 themselves were true and good,) — to germi- 
 nate into corrupt practices ; and these again 
 to branch out into endless developments for 
 
 ■ St. Mark iv. 28. 
 
ROME AND ENGLAND. 55 
 
 evil ? . . . You will of course tell me that I 
 have no right to assume that in the Church of 
 Rome the germs of the Doctrines in dispute 
 were " seminal errors," or " perversions " of 
 true principles. But I must in turn again 
 remind you, that you are begging the whole 
 question when you assume that they were not. 
 For (I repeat) two phenomena are before 
 us : — The grown-up plant, gemmed all over 
 with fruit or flower, which is the lawful and 
 lovely result of a little insignificant seed : and, 
 The dead man, corrupt from head to foot, — 
 which is the lawful and loathsome result of a 
 few particles of poison received into the con- 
 stitution. It cannot, of course, be pretended 
 that the Church of Rome shall be the field for 
 the exclusive manifestation of the former class 
 of phenomena : and all the other Churches 
 of Christendom, including the Holy Eastern 
 Church, the scene for the exclusive manifesta- 
 tion of the latter. This were mere folly. 
 That the Holy Spirit dwells in the Church of 
 Christ, I believe as sincerely as you do ; but 
 then it cannot be thought to reside exclusively 
 in any one branch of it. And as for supposing 
 that He is the Author of all Romish Doctrine, 
 I hold on the contrary that " as the Church of 
 Jerusalem, Alexandria, and Antioch have 
 
56 ROME AND ENGLAND. 
 
 erred, so also the Church of Rome hath erred, 
 not only in their living and manner of cere- 
 monies, but also in matters of Faith." 2 . . . 
 The argumentative value of Development is 
 therefore absolutely nothing ; while the prac- 
 tical inconvenience of a theory which is as 
 likely as not to result in the condemnation of 
 its advocate, is obviously fatal. 
 
 I will dismiss the subject by reminding you 
 of a passage in Church History, — the first 
 which comes to mind. " In the course of the 
 correspondence" of the Patriarchs, Archbish- 
 ops, and Bishops of the Greek Church with the 
 Nonjurors, " the Patriarchs of the Bast are 
 not sparing in their censures of the Pope of 
 Rome." They describe him to be " deceived 
 by the Devil, and falling into strange novel 
 doctrines ; as revolted from the Unity of the 
 Holy Church, and cut off; tossed at a distance 
 with constant waves and tempest, till he re- 
 turn to our Catholic, Oriental, immaculate 
 faith ; and be reinstated from what he was 
 broken off." They declare " the Purgatorial 
 fire to have been invented by the Papists to 
 command the purse of the ignorant, and we 
 will by no means hear of it. For it is a fic- 
 
 1 Art. xix. 
 
ROME AND ENGLAND. 57 
 
 tion, and a doting fable, invented for lucre, 
 and to deceive the simple, and in a word, has 
 no existence but in the imagination. There is 
 no appearance or mention of it in the Holy 
 Scriptures, or Fathers, whatsoever the authors 
 or abettors of it may clamour to the con- 
 trary." 1 
 
 Now, suppose the Churches of England, Ire- 
 land, and America, (not to speak of India, 
 New Zealand, Southern Africa, Australia, and 
 the rest,) were one and all to endorse this 
 opinion of the Greek Church respecting the 
 Romish Doctrine of Purgatory, appealing as 
 the Greek Church does to Scripture and Fath- 
 ers ; — what possible weight can you suppose 
 would attach to a little babble about seeds, — 
 and growth, — and development, — and ma- 
 turity, — and perfection ? Further, If Purga- 
 torial Indulgences, — or the Immaculate Con- 
 ception of the Blessed Virgin, — or any other 
 single doctrine to which the Church of Rome 
 has solemnly and irrevocably pledged herself, — 
 may be thus disposed of, — what, I ask, be- 
 comes of the security of all the rest ? . . . . 
 I pause for an answer. 
 
 1 Life of Ken, by a Layman, 1854, p. 183, quoting Lath- 
 bury's Hist, of the Nonjurors, p. 350. 
 
58 ROME AND ENGLAND. 
 
 But let me not leave the question thus. I 
 would rather direct your eyes in the right 
 direction. You are requested therefore to 
 take notice that whenever in ancient times it 
 became necessary to define more accurately 
 than had been done before, any single depart- 
 ment of Christian doctrine, the invariable 
 method was to appeal to Holy Scripture. I 
 venture to say there is not to be found one 
 single ancient exposition of Doctrine where 
 the appeal is made to the principle of Develop- 
 ment, or to private Tradition. Universal belief 
 is indeed sometimes insisted on : but only 
 rarely. The appeal is generally made to Holy 
 Scripture ; and its probable meaning, as it may 
 be gathered from the consentient voice of an- 
 cient Fathers, and from the general analogy of 
 Holy Writ, — is discussed, just as it is dis- 
 cussed by ourselves at the present day : while 
 the unequivocal witness of the Spirit, (and 
 that only,) is accounted absolutely conclusive, 
 and altogether final. — Now, to proceed. 
 
 8. You assert that we of the English Church 
 " have no definite Faith." This charge is too 
 feeble to stand. No one can read the 89 Arti- 
 cles and complain that we have " no definite 
 Faith." What of our Prayer-Book, with its 
 occasional Offices ? All you can mean is that 
 
ROME AND ENGLAND. 59 
 
 Anglican teaching is not so definite as you wish 
 it was, and think it ought to be : that there is 
 a want of definiteness of teaching in the Angli- 
 can Church. Now, even if there were, that 
 would constitute no reason whatever for my 
 becoming a Romanist. As well might I expect 
 to persuade a Romanist to forsake his own 
 Communion, on the ground that, in the judg- 
 ment of myself and others, there is a vast deal 
 too much definiteness in Romish teaching. 
 
 But I simply deny the charge which you 
 bring against us; while I deliberately bring 
 the opposite charge against you. I maintain 
 that the teaching of our Prayer-Book is suffi- 
 ciently definite; and is altogether Catholic, — 
 which is certainly what cannot be said of yours. 
 No man can be at a loss as to the Church's 
 mind on any important point. That, within 
 certain limits, she allows to her children con- 
 siderable freedom of sentiment, is undeniable ; 
 and that they have not been slow to take ad- 
 vantage of her charity, is only too clear. But 
 I have yet to learn how it can be made a grave 
 ground of accusation against a Church that 
 terms of communion with her are of a large, 
 and altogether of a Catholic kind, — not multi- 
 tudinous, narrow, and in their character often 
 quite novel, as well as unheard-of in ancient 
 
60 ROME AND ENGLAND. 
 
 times. The Churches of Rome and of Eng- 
 land are built alike on a rock ; but not only 
 the materials out of which they are constructed, 
 but the very method of their construction are 
 somewhat different. The one boasts herself 
 rigid and unyielding ; the other (like the Ed- 
 dystone) is observed to rock slightly in the 
 storm. that she may stand for ever ! 
 
 Give me leave in the meantime to remind 
 you that you are not at liberty to assume that 
 perfect unanimity of sentiment on doctrinal 
 points prevails in the Church of Rome. Con- 
 cerning Purgatory, for instance, you will find 
 a great deal of contradictory teaching among 
 Romish Theologians. On the doctrine of Papal 
 Infallibility you will also find immense discrep- 
 ancy of doctrine. I shall have something to 
 say on this subject by and by. Are you aware 
 how solemnly the dogma of the Immaculate 
 Conception is repudiated by thousands of 
 Romanists ? condemned as sinful, in print ? 
 But I forbear to enlarge. 
 
 In the meantime, I insist on your observing 
 that no sooner do Romish controversialists find 
 themselves hard pressed in argument, than 
 they labour to show that their Communion is 
 characterised by that very feature which, at 
 other times, they make a point of casting in 
 
ROME AND ENGLAND. 61 
 
 our teeth as a ground of reproach. They find 
 it convenient to distinguish the doctrines and 
 practices prevalent in the Roman Communion 
 into two classes ; " the former consisting of 
 matters of Faith, or doctrines defined by the 
 Church ; the latter consisting of matters of 
 Opinion, or doctrines not so defined. The use 
 made of this distinction in all writings and 
 discourses intended for those who are opposed 
 to Romanism, is to avoid all responsibility for, 
 and all discussion on doctrines of the latter 
 class, by representing them as mere non-essen- 
 tials, which any member of the Roman Com- 
 munion may dispute or reject at pleasure ; 
 while the attention of opponents is drawn en- 
 tirely to the former class of doctrines, which 
 being commonly proposed in general terms and 
 with great caution, are far less assailable." 
 
 This is ingenious enough, but not honest, — 
 as the acute living controversialist on our side 
 of the question, just quoted, has ably shown. 1 
 At the same time, it is undeniably true that 
 the language of the Council of Trent is to the 
 last degree indefinite, — compared with the lan- 
 guage of Romish Divines : the falsity consists, 
 in the favourite assumption of your new friends, 
 
 1 Palmer's Letters to Wiseman, 1842. 
 
62 ROME AND ENGLAND. 
 
 (whenever the assumption suits them,) that 
 the Decrees of Trent are the only authoritative 
 teaching of the Church of Rome. 
 
 But as you complain of the want of definite 
 teaching in the Church of England, let me ad- 
 dress a few words to you about the definiteness 
 of teaching which is certainly conspicuous in 
 the Church of Rome. 
 
 For the character of her teaching, as already 
 hinted, is characterised by no more pernicious 
 peculiarity than this very definiteness, the want 
 of which in us you point out as a grave defect. 
 " Romanism professes to be a complete Theol- 
 ogy. It arranges, adjusts, explains, exhausts 
 every part of the Divine Economy. It may be 
 said to leave no region unexplored, no heights 
 unattempted ; rounding off its doctrines with 
 a neatness and finish which are destructive of 
 many of the most noble and most salutary exer- 
 cises of mind in the individual Christian. That 
 feeling of awe which the mysteriousness of the 
 Gospel should excite, fades aivay under this 
 fictitious illumination which is poured over the 
 entire Dispensation. Criticism, we know, is 
 commonly considered fatal to poetical fervour 
 and imagination ; and in like manner this tech- 
 nical Religion destroys the delicacy and reve- 
 rence of the Christian mind. . . Rome would 
 
ROME AND ENGLAND. 63 
 
 classify and number all things ; she would 
 settle every sort of question, as if resolved to 
 detect and compass by human reason what runs 
 out into the next World or is lost in this. . . . 
 Not content with what is revealed, Romanists 
 are ever intruding into things not seen as yet, 
 and growing familiar with mysteries ; gazing 
 upon the ark of God over boldly and long, till 
 they venture to put out the hand and to touch 
 it." " This mischievous peculiarity of Roman- 
 ism" (proceeds Mr. Newman,) — " its subject- 
 ing Divine Truth to the intellect, and professing 
 to take a complete survey and to make a map 
 of it, — it has in common with some other 
 modern systems." 1 Yes indeed. Prom Ro- 
 manism to Rationalism there is but a single 
 step. 
 
 And practically, the Romish method is mis- 
 chievous. It discourages a spontaneous ser- 
 vice of God. , It encourages formalism. " It 
 lowers the dignity and perfection of Morals ; 
 it limits, by defining, our duties, — in order to 
 indulge human weakness, and to gain influence 
 by indulging it." " If, indeed," (remarks the 
 thoughtful writer already quoted,) " there is 
 
 1 Newman's Lectures on the Prophetical Office of the Church, 
 pp. 110-12; 123. 
 
64 ROME AND ENGLAND. 
 
 one offence more than the rest characteristic 
 of Romanism, it is this, its indulging the car- 
 nal tastes of the multitude of men, setting a 
 limit to their necessary obedience, and absolv- 
 ing them from the duty of sacrificing their 
 whole lives to God. And this serious deceit 
 is in no small degree the necessary consequence 
 of that completeness and minuteness in its 
 Theology to which the doctrine of Infallibility 
 gives rise." 1 
 
 The same writer thus sums up his charge 
 against Eome, based on that very " definite- 
 ness," or " bold exactness in determining the- 
 ological points," which seems to you so attrac- 
 tive ; but which he justly describes as " a 
 minute, technical, and imperative Theology, 
 which is no part of Revelation." " It pro- 
 duces," (he says,) " a number of serious moral 
 evils ; is shallow in Philosophy, — as profess- 
 ing to exclude doubt and imperfection ; and is 
 dangerous to the Christian spirit, as encourag- 
 ing us to ask for more than is given us, as 
 fostering irreverence and presumption, confi- 
 dence in our Reason, and a formal or carnal 
 view of Christian obedience." 2 
 
 i Ibid. p. 126. 
 
 2 Newman's Lectures, ut supra, pp. 126 ; 146 ; 127. 
 
ROME AND ENGLAND. 65 
 
 9. You inquire, — "Do you never doubt? 
 Do you never ask yourself, am I in the 
 right?". . . . Never, — I answer. Why should 
 I? Does the owner of ancestral acres and 
 an ancient title wake up some fine morning, 
 troubled with a doubt as to the validity of his 
 right to all he enjoys, — all his Fathers enjoyed 
 before him ? . . . . WIw ever in his old age, un- 
 provoked, begins to doubt whether he is his 
 own mother's son, and vows that he will not 
 Test until he has had the point demonstrated 
 to him ; as well as until he has inspected the 
 marriage-certificate of his parents ? . . . . I re- 
 ject your question with equal scorn and abhor- 
 rence. 
 
 You proceed, — " How do you know you are 
 right?" 
 
 I may with far better reason rejoin, — And 
 pray, sir, How do you know that you are ? 
 You say that you are as convinced about your 
 own position as that there is a sun in Heaven. 
 — Exactly so am I about mine. — The differ- 
 ence between us is just this. / am in the 
 Church where God's good Providence origi- 
 nally placed me : you, by a reckless exercise 
 of the right of private judgment, have licen- 
 tiously transplanted yourself into a foreign 
 Communion. The burthen of proof rests alto- 
 
 5 
 
66 ROME AND ENGLAND. 
 
 gether with you. If there be no Salvation 
 except to members of the Romish branch of 
 the Church Catholic, I must depend on God's 
 tender mercies, with Andrewes, and Hooker, 
 and *Cosin, and Bull, and Pearson, and Bev- 
 eridge, and Butler, and all the rest of the 
 reverend Fathers of the Church of England. 
 But if you have erred, — sir, you have erred 
 indeed ! 
 
 10. You tell me that I have nothing to go 
 by: — that I cannot appeal to the Scriptures, 
 
 — for every sect finds its own tenets there : (in 
 which by the way you are quite mistaken, for 
 I defy any one to find some of yours there !) 
 
 — and that I cannot appeal to the English 
 Church, because it comprises every shade 
 of opinion: — in short that I hold certain 
 " opinions," but cannot pretend to any Faith 
 at all. 
 
 You are really very saucy. Permit me to 
 give you a plain man's view of this question. 
 
 I was born a member of the Church of Eng- 
 land, and I bless God for it. Its prima facie 
 claims upon my allegiance therefore I hold 
 to be altogether paramount. In fact, I can 
 scarcely conceive any adequate cause arising 
 for my ever quitting the Church of my Fathers. 
 To be sure, if that Church were to commit 
 
ROME AND ENGLAND. 67 
 
 herself irrevocably to all sorts of awful super- 
 stitions and heresies, — I might feel compelled 
 to consider with myself what was next to be 
 done. But, generally speaking, the errors 
 of our Ecclesiastical rulers, (which are the 
 Church's misfortunes,) — the unfaithfulness 
 of individual teachers, — the growth of heresy, 
 
 — the spread of unbelief ; — all these things 
 instead of driving me out of the Church, would 
 only rivet me the more firmly in it. I should 
 simply feel that there was the more to be done , 
 the greater mischief to be counteracted, — the 
 more need of men to " strengthen the things 
 which remain." The last thing which would 
 enter into my head would be to treat the 
 Church as an impatient child treats a toy: 
 namely, when out of humour with it, to in- 
 quire for another. Does an officer think of 
 deserting his men because they are thinned by 
 disease, and are become demoralised ? Does a 
 son think of forsaking his parents, a husband 
 his wife, — because of sickness, — misfortune, 
 
 — loss of comeliness ? 
 
 I should have felt and acted much in the 
 same way, I am persuaded, had I been born a 
 Romanist : and I think I should have felt and 
 acted rightly. The claims of that Church in 
 the bosom of which God causes us to be brought 
 
68 ROME AND ENGLAND. 
 
 up, — are, in the first instance, paramount. 
 We must try to improve the Church of our 
 birth, not to find excuses for forsaking' it. To 
 reform a corrupt Communion, not to work its 
 downfall, should surely be our aim ! To resist 
 State interference indeed, and to protect the 
 Faith, is reserved for very few. But to main- 
 tain sound Doctrine, and strenuously to oppose 
 every kind of error, is the province of a very 
 large number : while to raise the standard of 
 holiness, and to promote the growth of practi- 
 cal Religion, is within the power of all. . . . 
 Such seems to me to be the business of the 
 individual believer. His work is within the 
 Church, — not in the camp of the enemy. To 
 be busy there, is to be a traitor! . . . The 
 fundamental position on which these remarks 
 are built you will perceive to be the following, 
 — that in whatever branch of the Church 
 Catholic God has caused our lot to be thrown, 
 there we may reasonably hope to " save our 
 souls alive," if we make the most of the op- 
 portunities within our reach, and of the 
 advantages we enjoy. Individual obedience, 
 — personal holiness, — these are the only con- 
 ditions requisite for blessedness. 
 
 The fundamental position in your remon- 
 strance, on the other hand, seems ta be this, 
 
ROME AND ENGLAND. 69 
 
 — That men and women are not only at liberty, 
 but are called upon, and positively bound, to 
 doubt their position ; to weigh the claims of 
 one section of Christendom against those of 
 another: to exercise their right of private 
 judgment; and in a word, to set themselves 
 up above the Church. . . Now all this kind 
 of thing, give me* leave to tell you, is an evi- 
 dence of a sectarian spirit ; and shows a habit 
 of mind to which every sound Catholic instinct 
 is abhorrent. 
 
 11. But, (let me add,) — If such doubts and 
 inquiries are to be the order of the day, then 
 I fear your new friends will have to look out 
 for their flocks. Inquiry, in the spirit you 
 recommend, (which I altogether deprecate,) 
 would introduce into the ranks of Romanism 
 hopeless confusion, and a degree of insubordi- 
 nation which would make government impos- 
 sible, and would imperil the safety of souls ; 
 for dissatisfaction and dismay would infallibly 
 follow indiscriminate inquiry, in that quarter. 
 I pray that such a spectacle as my fancy draws 
 may not be witnessed in our own day. But I re- 
 peat, — If individuals are to be promiscuously 
 asked, " Do you never doubt? How do you 
 know you are in the right?" and the like, — 
 then confusion would inevitably follow ; and 
 
70 ROME AND ENGLAND. 
 
 schism would be the result ; and such a breach 
 would be witnessed in the Romish Communion 
 as never could be healed. " The mind seems 
 to reel for years after it has recoiled" from the 
 Roman system," says Archdeacon Manning: 
 who refers his readers to Southey's Colloquies, 
 (vol. ii. pp. 16, 31,) " for the moral effects of 
 Romanism in shaking the habit of Faith." 1 
 
 But I am not at all apprehensive of any 
 amount of inquiry which you or others may 
 be disposed to make here at home. Rather 
 does all my apprehension arise from the utter 
 absence of real knowledge of the subject which 
 I witness around me. May I ask, — Have you 
 ever examined Jewel's Controversy with Hard- 
 ing ? or that of Andrewes with Bellarmine ? 
 Have you studied Laud's Controversy with 
 Fisher, and followed the question up until it 
 was finally closed by Stillingfleet ? Do you 
 know Bishop Bull's Discourses, in answer to 
 Bossuet ? or the polemical writings of Bram- 
 hall, Ussher, and Barrow ? Have you more 
 recently read Palmer's Controversial writings, 
 including his Letters to Wiseman, as well as 
 Bp. Turton's encounter with the same gentle- 
 man ? and Bp. Phillpott's Letters to Butler ? 
 
 1 Archdeacon Manning's Rule of Faith, p. 109. 
 
ROME AND ENGLAND. 71 
 
 More recently yet, are yon acquainted with Dr. 
 Wordsworth's Letters to M. Gondon ? . . . . 
 You may sneer : but you will find out, if you 
 will inquire, that these men have all silenced 
 their adversaries, and remain masters of the 
 field. 
 
 And so, when you ask me " what I have to 
 go by," and so forth, I, as an individual Eng- 
 lishman of very moderate learning, think, that 
 besides the authoritative teaching of the Eng- 
 lish Church, I may with reason appeal to what 
 the most learned Fathers and Confessors of 
 that Church have written on the subject of her 
 relation to Rome. When I find, in addition to 
 the controversial ability of Ussher and Stilling- 
 fleet, Laud and Jewel, the learning and piety 
 of Andrewes and Hooker, — Taylor and Bull, 
 — Bramhall, Cosin and Beveridge, — Pearson, 
 Sanderson and Hammond, — Waterland and 
 Jackson, and the rest; — I think I may with 
 entire safety dedicate my leisure, (which is but 
 scant,) and my abilities, (which are not consid- 
 erable,) to something better than doubt and 
 controversy. Excuse me for saying that when I 
 survey this list of names, — ever increasing in 
 number and in splendour, — the insolences of 
 such an one as yourself appear to me unspeak- 
 ably paltry and worthless. What sufficed for 
 
72 ROME AND ENGLAND. 
 
 them 9 may surely, I say to myself, suffice for me 
 also ! 
 
 12. When therefore you talk of " converting 
 me," I really must trouble you to consider 
 what a preposterous abuse of language you 
 are guilty of. From what, and to what do 
 you propose to " convert" me ? You wish to 
 see me converted from being an Anglo-C&t\\o\\Q, 
 to becoming a itomaw-Catholic ! And can such 
 an arbitrary transfer of allegiance be con- 
 founded with the blessed act of the souFs 
 conversion to God ? Have you then so entirely 
 forgotten the Scriptural and Catholic teaching 
 of the Church of England, as to address me as 
 if I were a worshipper of false deities, or ad- 
 dicted to heathen rites ? The same Bible with 
 yourself, (all but the Apocryphal books) : — 
 the same three Creeds which you acknowledge, 
 (not, of course, adding thereto the Creed of 
 Pope Pius IV.): — the same Litany as your- 
 self, (bating the Invocations of Saints): — 
 much the same Missal and Breviary, (all but 
 the fabulous legends) : — the same Psalter, 
 (except that we read it in a language which 
 we understand) : — the self-same Collects, (only 
 that we have not put them to wrongs, as you 
 have) : — the same two Sacraments above all, 
 — the same Priesthood, — the same Councils 
 
ROME AND ENGLAND. 73 
 
 and Fathers which you yourselves acknowl- 
 edge ; all, all our own ! Good Heavens, then, 
 — what an abuse of terms is this ! that a man 
 should be persuaded to uproot himself from 
 one part of the Church Catholic, and to plant 
 himself down in another ; and flatter himself 
 that he has thereby been " converted ; " — the 
 Conversion resulting in his being now com- 
 pelled, under pain of anathema, to believe in 
 the Immaculate Conception of the Virgin 
 Mary ! . . . . Why, you must either be mad 
 yourself, or you must think me so, to think 
 that I can seriously contemplate such a " Con- 
 version " as this ! 
 
 13. As for your insinuations about fewness 
 of number, (the " little Church of England," 
 and so forth,) I counsel you to get up the sta- 
 tistics of the question a little more carefully, 
 before you so speak. I might indeed invite 
 you to remember that when the Ten Tribes 
 fell away from the primitive standard, the 
 Truth remained with the tribe of Judah ; 
 while " of [little] Benjamin he said, The be- 
 loved of the Lord shall dwell in safety by him ; 
 and the Lord shall cover him all the day long, 
 and he shall dwell between his shoulders." x 
 
 1 Deut. xxxiii. 12. 
 
74 ROME AND ENGLAND. 
 
 But I have no wish to resort to such an argu- 
 ment. The Church of England, — whether 
 absolutely or relatively considered, — is not 
 little. Her numbers are not small. She 
 counts her tens of millions even in this 
 country. She is stretching out on the right 
 hand and on the left, and is ready to 
 colonise the globe. Already does the sun 
 never set upon her altars. She has already 
 extended her Religion, and is destined yet 
 more effectually to extend it, over the whole 
 World. 
 
 14. But I have not yet replied to all your 
 charges. Let me be briefer with those which 
 remain. — You ask me how it comes to pass 
 that several men of undoubted piety and abil- 
 ity and learning have left us ? 
 
 Really, I am not concerned to account for 
 the unfaithfulness of these men : but the ar- 
 gument which you think may be derived from 
 their apostasy is worthless. That a few of the 
 Clergy and Laity should have left the Church 
 of England, during a period of unusual excite- 
 ment, is not at all surprising: neither is it 
 strange that these should have been among 
 the more earnest of her sons. Such a con- 
 tingency was, on the contrary, to have been 
 expected. Far more than a full set-off, how- 
 
ROME AND ENGLAND. 75 
 
 ever, against the supposed importance of the 
 unfaithfulness of those few men, is the unwa- 
 vering fidelity of the multitude who have re- 
 mained behind. 
 
 You appeal with especial satisfaction to the 
 names of three or four considerable authors, 
 w r ho were once accomplished English Divines. 
 I bid you note how, (like Samson on the lap 
 of Delilah,) their strength has already " gone 
 from them, and they have become weak, and 
 like any other men." 2 I request you further 
 to tell me why these writers are more to be 
 listened to at one stage of their motley history 
 than at another? Above all, I desire to be 
 informed on what principle their later utter- 
 ances are to be considered as entitled to any 
 consideration at all ? The question I am now 
 asking is of the following nature : — 
 
 A gentleman who became an Archdeacon in 
 the Church of England, who had been a fellow 
 of his college, and was known to be a man of 
 considerable ability and attainment, — (of no 
 great power, to be sure ; — I remember we 
 used, when I was an undergraduate, to desig- 
 nate him as " Newman and water," — ) Arch- 
 deacon Manning, I say, in the maturity of his 
 
 1 Judges xvi. 17. 
 
76 ROME AND ENGLAND. 
 
 powers produced a work on the " Rule of 
 Faith," which went through two editions, and 
 on which he bestowed considerable labour. 1 
 He proved that " the Roman Church, how 
 much soever it may appeal in words to An- 
 tiquity, does in practice, oppose Antiquity and 
 universal Tradition : " (p. 100) " has intro- 
 duced new doctrines unknown to the Apostles 
 of Christ : " (p. 103) " undermines the foun- 
 dation upon which Christianity itself is built ; " 
 (p. 104) and so forth. He explained " the 
 Catholic Rule of Faith," and proved " that it 
 is distinctly recognized by the English and the 
 early Church." " We may now go on," (he 
 said,) " to consider the following rules, which 
 have been in later ages, adopted by the Church ; 
 both therefore modern, and condemned as 
 novel, by universal tradition : I mean, the rule 
 of the Roman Church, and the rule that is held 
 by all Protestant bodies, except the British and 
 American Churches" (p. 81.) The learned 
 writer proceeded " to define the Roman rule 
 and to contrast it with the Catholic:" (p. vi., 
 referring to p. 82.) elaborately setting forth 
 
 l " The Rule of Faith," &c, by Rev. H. E. Manning, con- 
 sisting of a Sermon, (pp. 56,) and an Appendix, (pp. 136,) 
 2nd ed. 1839. 
 
ROME AND ENGLAND. 77 
 
 the Catholic method of the Church of England, 
 in opposition to the zm-Catholic method of the 
 Church of Rome ; and insisting that " the 
 Church of England protests against the Church 
 of Rome for departing from the universal tra- 
 dition of the Apostles, and for bringing in 
 particular traditions, having their origin in an 
 equal neglect of Scripture and Antiquity" (p. 
 84.) — Now, I ask, how can such a writer ex- 
 pect to be listened to when, a few years after, 
 he comes forth as the vehement assailant of 
 the English Church, and the strenuous advo- 
 cate of ultramontane Popery ? Shall I hesi- 
 tate to confess that I turn from that picture to 
 vdis with the same kind of wonder and amuse- 
 ment which I used to experience when a boy 
 at witnessing the transformations in a panto- 
 mime ? Sublimely forgetful of the past, the 
 Orthodox English Archdeacon, who, yester- 
 day, proved that the Romish Rule is con- 
 demned by " the universal Tradition of the 
 Apostles," — to-day, (transformed into aschis- 
 matical Romish Archbishop,) is heard ana- 
 thematizing the English Church! There 
 surely never was more unscrupulous tergiv- 
 ersation, more grotesque inconsistency ! The 
 man's insolence would make one angry if 
 a strong sense of the absurdity of his posi- 
 
78 ROME AND ENGLAND. 
 
 tion did not outweigh every other consid- 
 eration. Once, he was at least respectable. 
 What is he now ? 
 
 Again. An energetic parish priest, who 
 produced a series of " Discourses on Roman- 
 ism and Dissent " which went through several 
 editions, declared, as the result of his study 
 of the question, " that the real fact of the case 
 is this; — that out of eighteen centuries, dur- 
 ing which the Church of England has existed, 
 somevihat less than four centuries and a half 
 were passed under the usurped domination of 
 the see of Rome : so great is the absurdity, and 
 palpable ignorance of historical facts, evinced 
 by those who represent the Church of England 
 as a separating branch from the Romish com- 
 munion. Let it be remembered, that all which 
 the Reformers of our Church aimed at, and 
 which they so happily accomplished, was to 
 bring back the Church of England to the same 
 state of purity which it enjoyed previous to the 
 imposition of the Papal yoke. They put forth no 
 new doctrines ; they only divested the old ones 
 of the corruptions which had been fastened on 
 them. In all essential points, — in Doctrine, 
 in the Sacraments, in the unbroken succession 
 of ministers, — the Church of England is at 
 this day the same which it was in primitive 
 
ROME AND ENGLAND. 79 
 
 times" 1 — The same judicious writer further 
 defines the " gulph between us and the Roman 
 Church, which " (says he) " we can never 
 pass (!) and which the members of that cor- 
 rupt Communion can only pass by giving up 
 all that is peculiar to their own creed .... 
 We can have no fellowship," (he says) " with 
 those who practically exalt the Yirgin Mary, 
 (who, though ever blessed, was a creature, by 
 nature corrupt and sinful as ourselves,) to a 
 coequality with Christ, as the ground of their 
 dependance and trust. We can have no com- 
 munion with those who assign to the traditions 
 of men the same authority with the inspired 
 Word of God, and who corrupt and overthrow 
 the nature of the Sacraments." 2 " The king- 
 dom of England," (he proceeds,) " is not in 
 the diocese of the Bishop of Rome, nor yet in 
 the patriarchate of Rome When, there- 
 fore, the Church of Rome charges us with 
 breaking the unity of the body of Christ, our 
 reply is, that no such unity as she contends for 
 was known in Apostolic or Primitive times. 
 Let her cease from her attempts to tyrannise 
 over other bishoprics not her own ; let her 
 cleanse herself from corruptions ; let her re- 
 
 1 Disc. viii. pp. 8-9. 2 Ibid. pp. 4-5. 
 
80 ROME AND ENGLAND. 
 
 vive sound and Apostolic doctrines ; give the 
 sacraments to her people in their simplicity 
 and purity ; and cancel the decrees of the 
 schismatical Council of Trent ; — and we will 
 joyfully reunite with her, in the same sense 
 that the Church of Corinth was united to the 
 Church of Jerusalem." As for " the charge 
 brought against the Church of England, that 
 she herself has set the example of schism to 
 the Dissenters, by her own separation from the 
 Church of Rome, — common as the notion is 
 in our day that our Church did so separate, — 
 there never was a more groundless notion, or 
 one more contrary to fact. The Church of 
 England never separated from the Church of 
 Rome, or from any other Church. When she 
 sank under the usurpation and corrupting in- 
 fluence of the Church of Rome, she did not 
 thereby lose her own existence ; neither did 
 she forfeit her right to release herself from 
 that cruel bondage, when God put it into the 
 hearts of his servants to attempt it, and ena- 
 bled them to succeed in the attempt." 1 
 
 Now will you pretend to tell me that when 
 the selfsame individual who wrote these words 
 
 1 Dodsworth, On Romanism and Dissent. Disc. i. pp. 
 16-18. 
 
ROME AND ENGLAND. 81 
 
 changes his religion, (as a man would change 
 his coat,) and is heard flatly to deny what yes- 
 terday he had logically established, — his sec- 
 ond opinion is to outweigh his first ; or rather, 
 to cause that we should overlook it altogether ? 
 It were easy to multiply illustrations ad 
 nauseam,, and to show what a miserably weak 
 and foolish figure our own writers cut, when 
 having been " once enlightened, and having 
 tasted of the heavenly gift, and been made 
 partakers of the Holy Ghost, and tasted the 
 good Word of God, and the powers of the 
 world to come," * they thus fall away. The 
 Rev. T. W. Allies, in 1846, wrote 204 pages, 
 the gist of which was sufficiently expressed by 
 their title, — " The Church of England cleared 
 from the charge of Schism" In 1854, the 
 same gentleman altered his mind, — discovered 
 that " the see of St. Peter " is " the Rock of 
 the Church, the source of jurisdiction, and the 
 centre of unity ;" recanted all his former pro- 
 fessions ; reversed all his solid proofs ; and in 
 short, apostatised! The " Lecturer on the 
 Philosophy of History in the Catholic Univer- 
 sity" (wherever and whatever that precious 
 institution may happen to be !), — for by this 
 
 1 Hebr. vi. 4, 5. 
 6 
 
82 ROME AND ENGLAND. 
 
 new title the late " Rector of Launton and 
 Examining Chaplain to the Bishop of London " 
 now designates himself, — T. W. Allies, M.A., 
 in 1854, writes 203 pages, to quite the oppo- 
 site tune ; winding-up his labours with this 
 kind of thing: — " Whither then shall I turn, 
 but to thee, glorious Roman Church, &c, 
 &c. Thine alone are the Keys of Peter, and 
 the sharp sword of Paul " . . . . Can any one 
 forbear a contemptuous smile when he glances 
 from the reasoning of Mr. Allies in 1846, to 
 the bombast of Mr. Allies in 1854 ? . . . Take 
 one more example. 
 
 " If we are induced " (says Mr. Newman,) 
 " to believe the professions of Rome, and make 
 advances towards her as if a sister or a mother 
 Church, which in theory she is, we shall find 
 too late that we are in the arms of a pitiless 
 and unnatural relative, who ivill but triumph 
 in the arts which have inveigled us within her 
 reach. . . . Let us be sure that she is our 
 enemy, and will do us a mischief when she 
 can. . . . We need not depart from Christian 
 charity towards her. We must deal with her 
 as we would towards a friend who is visited by 
 derangement ; in great affliction, with all affec- 
 tionate tender thoughts, with tearful regret 
 and a broken heart, but still with a steady 
 
ROME AND ENGLAND. 83 
 
 eye and a firm hand. For in truth she is 
 a Church beside herself, abounding in noble 
 gifts and rightful titles, but unable to use 
 them religiously ; crafty, obstinate, wilful, mali- 
 cious, cruel, unnatural, as madmen are. Or 
 rather she may be said to resemble a De- 
 moniac. . . . Thus she is her real self only 
 in name ; and, till God vouchsafe to restore 
 her, we must treat her as if she were that Evil 
 One which governs her." So wrote the Rev. 
 J. H. Newman in 1838. Four or five years 
 after, he was " inveigled " into the arms of this 
 same " pitiless and unnatural relation." He 
 submitted himself to this " deranged " Church. 
 He enlisted his splendid abilities under that 
 banner where "noble gifts" are not "used 
 religiously." He received a second Baptism, 
 and fresh Orders from this (so-called) " De- 
 moniac." To that Church which " the Evil 
 One governs," — (a terrible sentiment surely 
 to utter or to subscribe to !) — he entirely 
 submitted himself. . . . Heaven forgive him! 
 Heaven help and guide us all in the exercise 
 of our powers, — be they considerable, or be 
 they very slender ! . . . But will you pretend 
 to mention such conduct with any self-con- 
 gratulation ? It seems to me, that the less 
 said about such acts, the better ! He who 
 
84 ROME AND ENGLAND. 
 
 being bred in ignorance, (whatever the Church 
 of his profession,) on due inquiry changes 
 sides, — is at least entitled to a hearing. But 
 he who is first, on deliberate conviction, a 
 powerful controversialist on the side of the 
 Church of England, — and then, a far more 
 vehement (but not nearly so powerful) com- 
 batant on the other ; this man, I cannot think 
 is entitled to any hearing at all. 
 
 To confess the truth, instead of feeling that 
 the apostasy of certain literary Priests of the 
 English Communion makes against that Com- 
 munion, I can view their act only in reference 
 to themselves. Next to astonishment at their 
 infatuation, a sense of the absurdity of their 
 actual position, overcomes me. It is too late 
 for them now to rail against the Church of 
 their Fathers. They have demonstrated its 
 purity and its primitiveness, long since ! It is 
 worse than absurd for them now to vaunt the 
 Romish claims. They have long ago disproved 
 them ! In an unguarded hour, they wrote a 
 book. Happily, " litera scripta manet," — at- 
 que in aeternum manebit. 
 
 Then, as for the gifts and graces of these 
 men, — their zeal and earnestness, — their 
 self-denial and learning, — what need to point 
 out that every one of these are of English, 
 
ROME AND ENGLAND. 85 
 
 not Roman growth ! Nay, Rome has proved 
 herself incapable of maintaining in their purity, 
 the spirits which spontaneously have joined 
 her ranks. For, one and all, these men are 
 found to have become demoralised and de- 
 based by their new connection. They may 
 say what they will, moreover ; but I am thor- 
 oughly convinced that they are not happy 
 where they are. They may be as vehement 
 in their protestations as they please ; but the 
 more learned among them have long since 
 repented the step they have taken. They have 
 discovered that they have lost something which 
 they could not afford to part with, as well as 
 gained something which they used to think 
 they could not live without. But, in the mean- 
 time, the exchange has not proved the kind of 
 thing they expected. The gain, they find out, 
 is by no means unmixed ; while the practical 
 deformities of Romanism become daily more 
 and more painfully apparent. At best they 
 have but exchanged the difficulties of one sys- 
 tem for the difficulties of another. Moreover, 
 there has been sorrow inflicted, and confidence 
 outraged, and precious ties severed ; and, what 
 is more, grand opportunities have been lost 
 for ever, and doubt has been sown broadcast 
 in a thousand quarters, and sacred pledges 
 
86 ROME AND ENGLAND. 
 
 have been violated, and solemn trusts have 
 been broken, and Ordination vows have been 
 scattered to the winds. 
 
 You are evidently struck by the strangeness 
 of seeing our Anglican Communion forsaken 
 by such men : but stranger sights will be wit- 
 nessed " in the last days," let me remind 
 you, — far stranger spectacles than we and 
 our Fathers have hitherto witnessed. Our 
 Lord declares that " there shall arise false 
 Christs, and false prophets, and shall shew great 
 signs and wonders ; insomuch that, if it were 
 possible, they shall deceive the very elect" l I 
 am sorry for what has happened, very. The 
 recollection of it will darken and embitter what 
 remains of life. But after this plain prophecy 
 of the Incarnate Word, it does not, — how 
 can it ? — surprise me. 
 
 15. Another of your charges against the 
 Church of England is that " it has not pro- 
 duced considerable Saints." — How, (I should 
 like to be informed,) do you know that ? 
 
 If you ask me to name a set of men equal 
 to Fran§ois de Sales, Vincent de Paul, and so 
 on, I really think I shall find no difficulty at 
 all in doing so. The Annals of the English 
 
 St. Matt. xxiv. 24. 
 
ROME AND ENGLAND. 87 
 
 Church supply us with as bright a galaxy of 
 names as are to be found in any sky. But 
 I prefer making a different, and (as I think) a 
 fairer answer. I would rather remind you 
 that to every Church must be allowed its own 
 proper praise ; for that every Church has its 
 own proper glory. It is conceivable that the 
 result of the teaching of the Romish Church 
 may be to produce exceptional cases of quite 
 extraordinary personal sanctity, occasional acts 
 of altogether heroic devotion ; while the great 
 bulk of the population shall be grossly vicious 
 and immoral, and the ranks of its very Clergy, 
 largely infected by the poisonous taint. On 
 the other hand, while our Bishop Wilsons at 
 home, and our Henry Martyns abroad, are 
 few, it seems to me that the result of our 
 Church's teaching is to produce a far higher 
 average standard of morality. Permit me, 
 for my own part, to declare that I conceive 
 our own to be herein the higher felicity : our 
 own, the greater glory. Our domestic life is 
 more pure : our homes are more sacred : our 
 national truthfulness is far higher, than that 
 in any country of the Romish obedience. I 
 believe there is a larger amount of average 
 goodness, far greater general piety, here, than 
 anywhere else in the world It shall 
 
88 ROME AND ENGLAND. 
 
 suffice to have indicated thus much. What 
 need to remark however that all this is nothing' 
 at all to the point ? Suppose the Church of 
 England could be proved not to have bred so 
 many great Saints as the Church of Rome ; 
 what then ? 
 
 16. You complain further that we are desti- 
 tute of Books of Devotion, and have got no 
 good Commentaries. One of these charges, 
 if you please, at a time. 
 
 Pray have you ever taken the trouble to 
 inquire how many books of Devotion the Eng- 
 lish Church actually possesses ? Have you 
 had recourse to Andrewes, and Taylor, and 
 Cosin, and Laud, and Leighton, and Sutton, 
 and Patrick, and Spinckes, and Ken, and Bev- 
 eridge, and Wilson, and Hele, and Keble, and 
 Williams, — and found them all insufficient ? 
 
 Permit me however to say that I decline 
 following your lead any further in this direc- 
 tion. You are assuming that the best Church 
 must be that which provides the best devo- 
 tional Manuals for her children; — a position 
 which I altogether deny. (Nay, you are im- 
 plying that a man's duty will be to unite 
 himself to that branch of the Church which 
 boasts itself most rich in this department of 
 sacred literature.) I, on the contrary, am 
 
ROME AND ENGLAND. 89 
 
 bold to assert that that Church is most faithful 
 which most encourages her children to make 
 the pure Word of God their habitual strength, 
 and help, and consolation. The English Prayer- 
 Book is the Englishman's habitual Book of 
 Devotions : and the Psalms of David he pre- 
 fers, — with the Saints of all ages, — to all 
 the paltry " little gardens of lilies," and " little 
 gardens of roses," and " little Paradises of 
 dainty devices," in the world. 
 
 You will please to take notice, therefore, 
 that I repel your charge against the English 
 Church, (that she is destitute of Devotional 
 Manuals,) with indignation, on every ground. 
 As a matter of fact, we have a vast number 
 of such works. As a matter of taste, I prefer 
 the honest homely flavour of the worst of 
 ours, to the very best of yours ; so mawkish 
 and unreal in their tone, — so unscriptural 
 and unsound in their teaching, — so alien and 
 strange in their manner, — so sectarian and 
 un- Catholic in their whole method and ten- 
 dency ! — But the chief point to which I invite 
 your attention is, that we have human helps 
 the fewer, because we have Divine helps the 
 more ! We habitually resort to, — the Bible : 
 your people, (the lay sort, I mean,) read, — a 
 vast amount of religious trash When a 
 
90 ROME AND ENGLAND. 
 
 devout Anglican wants spiritual entertainment, 
 his obvious resource is to turn to the Gospel 
 of Jesus Christ. He would rather hear one 
 of those four blessed Saints discourse to him 
 concerning his Saviour's acts or sayings, than 
 read any merely human book of cogitations. 
 Next to the Gospel, he loves the Psalter. If 
 he is very sad, the book of Job, or the peni- 
 tential Psalms, are quite sad enough for him ! 
 He seldom seems to want anything more, for 
 devotional purposes, than the Bible, or the 
 Book of Common-Prayer, supplies. 
 
 But if he does, (and this reminds me of the 
 other charge you bring against us,) one of Bp. 
 Andrewes', or one of Dr. Mill's, or one of the 
 late Charles Marriott's sermons, gives him 
 plenty to think about, — if he happens to feel 
 as I do. (But every man to his own special 
 taste, in this matter !) You complain that we 
 have but few Commentaries. There is no de- 
 nying it. (Your new friends, let me tell you, 
 have not got many good ones, either !) But 
 instead of reckoning up those we have, I will 
 take the liberty of saying that England's true 
 exegetical strength is to be sought and found 
 in the Sermons and Treatises of her greatest 
 Divines , — in the writings of Pearson, Bull, 
 Sanderson, Cosin, Andrewes, Waterland, anc 1 
 
ROME AND ENGLAND. 91 
 
 so on. A man will find that he understands 
 the texts which relate to Holy Baptism in- 
 finitely better by reading Wall's celebrated 
 treatise, or that of Bp. Bethell, than by dip- 
 ping into any number of Commentaries. Mill's 
 five Sermons on the Temptation are better 
 than any system of Notes on that portion of 
 the Gospel. Bp. Sanderson understood the 
 mind of S. Paul far better, I apprehend, than 
 Estius. But I must absolutely turn away from 
 the train of thought thus opening to me. I 
 pass on, with one remark, which I earnestly 
 recommend to your attention ; or rather, to 
 the attention of those who are likely to be 
 seduced by your bad example, and to fall into 
 the common cant of depreciating the stores of 
 English Divinity : — namely, that before gen- 
 tlemen of a Romanizing tendency make up 
 their minds that they must seek for help at 
 the hands of writers of the Romish Commun- 
 ion ; or before another, equally undutiful, class 
 of spirits resort to Germany for help ; it would 
 be well if both would take the trouble to ascer- 
 tain what their oivn language and literature 
 supplies, of purely English growth. How 
 many excellent writers there are, (as Frank, 
 Jackson, Horbery, Townson, and others) who, 
 (certainly for no fault of theirs,) experience 
 
92 ROME AND ENGLAND. 
 
 systematic neglect at the hands of English- 
 men ; — the very Englishmen who yet pretend 
 to be familiar with Continental Divinity ! Many 
 a man, believe me, has lost his way with the 
 Germans, or been misled by writers of the 
 Romish school, who never read a line of Bev- 
 eridge, or Bramhall, or Bull. But I must 
 absolutely pass on. 
 
 17. Your complaint that our Churches are 
 "never open, whereas Romish Churches are 
 never shut," — is just another of those utterly 
 irrelevant matters, as well as very incorrect 
 statements, which I am surprised to see you so 
 confidently urge. The Roman Basilicas are 
 always open indeed, — just as the English Ca- 
 thedrals are : but the same can be said of no 
 other Churches in Rome. Prom 12 o'clock 
 till 2 or 4 p.m. all Churches are closed : while 
 there are scores of Churches at Rome which 
 are shut all the week. You have to send for 
 the key, — just as in London: while, to some 
 of the Churches you will find it impossible to 
 obtain access at all. I remember trying in 
 vain to discover where the key of S. Saba is 
 kept. Many of those lesser Churches, (though 
 very curious,) are not opened from one end of 
 the year to the other : or Divine Service is cele- 
 brated in them once a-year. 
 
ROME AND ENGLAND. 93 
 
 But, — let me ask, — what has all this to do 
 with the question ? The methods of the two 
 Churches are wholly different. Our practice 
 of Family- worship, together with the superior 
 conveniences we enjoy for private devotion in 
 our dwelling-houses, explains partly why our 
 Churches are not so systematically kept open 
 as the Churches at Rome. The difference of 
 our public Service from theirs, (a subject on 
 which some details will be found at the end of 
 the present volume,) 1 further helps to account 
 for it. There may be a difference in our social 
 instincts, and general traditions. Lastly, I 
 freely confess that it is to be wished our 
 Churches were more generally open than they 
 actually are. But yet, — when all has been 
 said, — I see not what it can be thought to 
 have to do with the question before us ; which 
 is, — whether I am bound to transfer my alle- 
 giance from the Church of England to the 
 Church of Rome ? This is the only question 
 between you and me ! 
 
 18. Your remarks are, (many of them,) 
 purely sentimental. I expect, at every in- 
 stant, that you are going to say something 
 next about the climate of Italy ; or to urge, by 
 
 1 Appendix D. 
 
94 ROME AND ENGLAND. 
 
 way of argument, the sweet Vespers of the 
 little nuns at the Trinita di Monte ! I am sure 
 if the facts were reversed about the popular 
 style of Architecture of the two countries, 
 (Italy and England,) we should have had a 
 paragraph about that too ! What a pity that 
 stained-glass windows, the glory of our Eng- 
 lish Cathedrals, should be unknown in Rome ! 
 Come, — (for you really do provoke me !) — 
 let me say a few words to you on this head. 
 We are in Rome. Let us look about us. It 
 must be freely granted that many of the 
 Churches of this famous city are of exceeding 
 magnificence. A man had need to be devoid 
 of real taste and a large appreciation of beauty, 
 who can fail to acknowledge it. Mr. Pugin, I 
 am aware, left the place in disgust at its eccle- 
 siastical Architecture : but it was because he 
 could admire nothing that is not Gothic. 
 Now, it is the simple fact that there is not one 
 single Gothic Church in Rome. There are 
 some Saracenic or Moorish outlines in two of 
 the Churches, — (the Minerva, and a little 
 church of which I forget the name, built by 
 one who has apostatised from our commun- 
 ion ;) — but of Gothic, in the English sense 
 of the word, there is not a single specimen. 
 The Churches (as you see /) are all of the de- 
 
ROME AND ENGLAND. 95 
 
 based Roman style, — like our own London 
 City Churches ; for which, by the way, it is 
 clear that they afforded the miserable prece- 
 dent. 
 
 Splendid they are indeed : but then it de- 
 tracts somewhat from my admiration for the 
 zeal which has been at work here, to find that 
 the costliest ornaments of all, (the granite col- 
 umns, the precious marbles, the lapis lazuli, 
 verdo antico, and porphyry,) have been simply 
 transferred from a Pagan to a Christian use, 
 — having been found long since by these peo- 
 ple, ready made to their hand, and requiring 
 only to be appropriated. 
 
 Nay, do you not perceive that not only 
 heathen traditions remain, (witness the ex- 
 voto offerings which so often encumber these 
 walls!), but that the cold shade of heathen 
 Art broods strangely over this Christian me- 
 tropolis ? How has it impressed its influence 
 on everything we see ! These cold classical 
 outlines, — that debased style, — yonder pedi- 
 ment supported on a pair of columns in every 
 side-chapel, — how lifeless it all is as an ex- 
 pression of Christian Art ! And it is not 
 ancient either. It is the production of only 
 yesterday, after all, — the fashion of the pres- 
 ent day ; a fashion which is still going on. 
 
96 ROME AND ENGLAND. 
 
 This indeed is a feature which strikes us more 
 and more forcibly as we continue our survey : 
 namely, the intense modernness of the churches 
 at Rome. Their sites indeed are truly venera- 
 ble ; of even extraordinary antiquity : and 
 several of the objects they contain (though 
 sadly cooked) are very ancient also ; but the 
 actual structures are far more modern than is 
 commonly considered, or would perhaps be be- 
 lieved. Let us open Murray's handbook at 
 random: — " San Sabastiano. . . . The foun- 
 dation of this basilica is attributed to Constaji- 
 tine, but the present edifice is not older than 
 1611 when it was entirely rebuilt," &c. — "S. 
 Sabina was built in the form of a basilica in 
 423 by Peter, an Illyrian priest, as we learn by 
 a mosaic inscription over the door ; but Sixtus 
 V. in 1587 reduced it to its present form." — 
 " S. Maria Maggiore was founded a.d. 352 
 by Pope Liberius, and enlarged in 432 by Six- 
 tus III. on its present plan. The whole build- 
 ing was repaired by Gregory XIII. in 1575, 
 and the principal facade was added in 1741 by 
 Benedict XIV., when the interior was com- 
 pletely renovated, and the building generally 
 reduced to the state in which we now see it" — 
 " The old basilica of S. Giovanni in Later ano 
 was nearly destroyed by fire in the pontificate 
 
ROME AND ENGLAND. 97 
 
 of Clement V., but it was restored by that 
 Pope. In 1644, Borromini loaded the nave 
 with ornaments, &c, and Clement XII. com- 
 pleted the work of renovation in 1734 by add- 
 ing the principal fagade," &c. — Constantine 
 the Great founded the basilica of St. Peter's in 
 306. In 1506 was laid the foundation of the 
 present structure : of which, however, the nave 
 was not completed until 1612, nor the facade 
 till 1614, nor the colonnade till 1667! . . . 
 There is no need to multiply instances. Min- 
 gled with so many ancient temples, and con- 
 taining relics of every age since the epoch of 
 the Emperors, the Churches of Rome are, for 
 the most part, structures which have been 
 modernised and reduced to their present ap- 
 pearance during the last and the preceding cen- 
 tury. Nay, — painful and perplexing to relate, 
 — the work of cooking is going on to the pres- 
 ent hour ; and that, to an extent which renders 
 the greatest watchfulness necessary. A friend, 
 with whom I visited the Basilica of St. John 
 Lateran, assured me that the " Confessional," 
 (as the underground shrine under the high 
 altar is called,) did not exist, when he visited 
 the spot ten years ago ! 
 
 And then, how irrelevant as well as how 
 untrue is all you say about the comparative 
 
 7 
 
98 ROME AND ENGLAND. 
 
 devoutness of the people ! You seem to imply- 
 that reverence is to be found only among 
 Romanists ; irreverence only among Angli- 
 cans. Where can you have been living, and 
 what must your powers of accurate obser- 
 vation be ? Do you mean to tell me that a 
 Roman Catholic Church during the time of 
 public prayer is as devotional and reverential 
 a spectacle as an English Church ? Will you 
 tell me too that either the highest, or the low- 
 est ranks, exhibit the externals of devotion 
 more strikingly in Italy than in England ? 
 And pray, are we to be so besotted as to iden- 
 tify intensity of devotion with purity of Faith ? 
 Who more devout than a good Turk ? 
 
 But I deny your position entirely. I will 
 not track the worshippers into private life, or 
 inquire how they conduct themselves there; 
 and so, set off the " pure religion and unde- 
 filed" of the one, against the oth$r. I will 
 confine myself to the Sanctuary ; and I boldly 
 insist that, as a matter of fact, there is more 
 reverence, on the whole, among our own peo- 
 ple, than among your new friends. — You 
 must not ask me, Why then is no one ever 
 seen in the corner of an English Church on 
 week-days, &c. ? I reply, — You have to con- 
 sider the difference of the two systems. We 
 
ROME AND ENGLAND. 99 
 
 promise no Indulgences applicable to souls 
 in Purgatory, for slender religious exercises ! 
 I make little doubt that if we did ; if, for ex- 
 ample, there were a statue of the Blessed 
 Virgin in the church of the village in which I 
 write ; and if beneath it there were an inscrip- 
 tion stating that the Archbishop of Canter- 
 bury, (I really beg his Grace's pardon for so 
 wild a supposition,) granted in perpetuity a 
 hundred days of indulgence to every one who 
 once a day devoutly kissed its foot, and recited 
 a single "Ave Maria," — (as in the instance 
 specified at) ; 1 — if this were the English 
 method, I say, I make no doubt that the same 
 interesting spectacles would be witnessed here, 
 as in Italy. But would not that be to buy 
 such treats at somewhat too dear a rate ? 
 
 19. Lastly, you are eloquent about the dis- 
 turbances at St. George's-in-the-East, — the 
 number of sects in England, — the intense 
 worldliness of a great commercial country 
 like ours, — and so forth. I cannot prevent 
 
 1 In the Church of S. Agostino, at Rome, under the 
 image of "Maria santissima del Parto," you read, — "NT. S. 
 Pio PP VII concede in perpetuo 100 giorni d' indulge nza 
 da lucrarsi una volta il giorno da tutti quelli che divota- 
 menta baceranno il piede di questa immagine, recitando un 
 Ave Maria per li bisogni di S. Chiesa, 7 Giug. 1822." 
 
100 ROME AND ENGLAND. 
 
 you from thus mixing up the discussion of 
 things which are purely irrelevant, if you are 
 determined to do so. I can but say that all 
 such considerations are simply beside the 
 question ; and that I am not prepared to be 
 the apologist of these, or of any other blem- 
 ishes or shortcomings or sins of our people. 
 Nay, I quite grieve to think how divided we 
 are ; how far we fall short of the Gospel stand- 
 ard. But what then ? There is, (whatever 
 you may be pleased to insinuate,) a vast 
 amount of real practical piety among our 
 great Merchants and Traders, and a very mu- 
 nificent religious spirit at work also, here and 
 there ; although it may be that London, and 
 our great commercial towns generally, are 
 deplorably secularised. Let me ask, however, 
 — Has as much been done for them hitherto 
 as might easily have been done ? and, (excuse 
 me for adding ! ) do you not think that you 
 would have been much better employed, had 
 you stayed at home, in trying to diminish the 
 evil complained of, than in going over to the 
 enemy, in order to insult us ? — Besides, many 
 of the sects, misguided as we know them to 
 be, yet hold a vast amount of saving Truth ; 
 are in earnest, we hope, about the matter of 
 their salvation, and therefore are in a better 
 
ROME AND ENGLAND. 101 
 
 way than practical unbelievers. As for the 
 late scandalous disturbances at St. George's- 
 in-the-East, you should be aware that such 
 disgraceful outrages are not without precedent 
 in the very best times of Church history. It 
 was the mob, — the mere rabble-rout of the 
 metropolis, — who were the offenders on the 
 late occasion ; miscreants who rejoiced in any 
 excuse for dishonouring the House of God, — 
 any opportunity of disturbing the worship of 
 the Almighty. It was not the parishioners of 
 St. George' s-in-the-Bast who reproduced those 
 scenes, worthy of Constantinople or Alexan- 
 dria in the fifth century. Who sees not, more- 
 over, that an incumbent with two grains of 
 common sense might have prevented the whole 
 scandal ? . . . But, I must again and again 
 repeat, all such matters do not touch the ques- 
 tion before us ; no, not the least in the world. 
 I should be grieved indeed to see " toleration," 
 (in our popular and practical sense of the 
 word,) established in Italy. But suppose the 
 principle once recognised : and — how many 
 " St. George's-in-the-East " do you imagine 
 would be witnessed there ? 
 
 20. It may not be uninteresting or useless, 
 to some persons at least, that even so humble 
 a hand as mine should venture to trace out 
 
102 ROME AND ENGLAND. 
 
 certain very unfavourable conditions, under 
 which nevertheless any independent Church 
 might safely hope to maintain a healthy exist- 
 ence. 1 draw the portrait as follows, — per- 
 fectly conscious that the result will not be 
 very attractive : but taking leave to remark 
 that an attractive portrait, is not the thing 
 which it was proposed to draw. 
 
 If a Church be but constituted on the Apos- 
 tolic model, — namely, with three Orders of 
 lawful Ministers : — If the pure Word of God 
 be but " preached, and the Sacraments duly 
 ministered, according to Christ's ordinance, in 
 all those things that of necessity are requisite 
 to the same : " 1 (what need to declare that 
 the Cup of the Lord is not to be denied to the 
 lay-people ?) — If the Bible be but freely read, 
 and the three Creeds faithfully maintained by 
 the Church : — If there be but set forms of 
 Prayer ; (what need to say that public Prayer 
 in the Church must be in a known tongue ?) 
 
 — If no new dogmas are added to the Faith 
 (a7ta%) " once for all delivered to the Saints : " 
 
 — If truly Catholic observances be but re- 
 tained ; and if care be but taken that in all Rites 
 and Ceremonies of the Church which are of 
 
 1 Art. xix. 
 
ROME AND ENGLAND. 103 
 
 purely human authority, all things be done to 
 edifying: — If, lastly, in all cases of doubt or 
 difficulty, the appeal be but invariably made first 
 to Scripture, then to primitive Antiquity : — 
 If all this, I say, may but be predicated of any 
 Church, — then, no one of its members can 
 pretend to doubt of his safety in that Church ; 
 or, on the contrary, presume to quit it, without 
 endangering his own Salvation. 
 
 It would be idle to object to such a Church 
 that its shrines are not open all the week, or 
 that the State oppresses it : that some of its 
 Ministers, (or of its lay-members,) are un- 
 worthy, or unlearned, or at logger-heads, or 
 unsound in Doctrine : that some of its teach- 
 ers deny Baptismal Regeneration, and disclaim 
 or repudiate Apostolical Succession : that Her- 
 esy is winked at, and immorality not quite un- 
 known : that Discipline is slack, and good 
 books of Devotion scarce : that Lent and 
 Easter are badly kept, and the Saints-Days 
 generally neglected : that great irreverence 
 prevails, and not a little unbelief: that there 
 are as serious divisions among its members, 
 and as many party names, as when St. Paul 
 had done preaching at Corinth : that great 
 Saints are very uncommon, and real Martyrs 
 rarer still : that its Ritual is not very ornate, 
 
104 ROME AND ENGLAND. 
 
 and that the people would not like it if it 
 were: that most populous towns are practi- 
 cally in a very heathen state, and that scenes 
 of outbreak and disorder are a great scandal. 
 Charges of this kind against such a Church as 
 I have been describing, would be frivolous and 
 beside the mark. — (One might, to be sure, 
 make reprisals ; and draw up such a parallel 
 catalogue of supposed or real blemishes in 
 your own adopted Communion, as would drive 
 you mad. But I spare you. Let me advise 
 you, however, not to provoke one who has been 
 an attentive observer of the practical working 
 of the Romish system, to become the aggres- 
 sor ; for verily, in such case, you will find it 
 impossible to hold your own ! ) — All this kind 
 of thing, I repeat, multiplied a hundred-fold, 
 is all as irrelevant to the matter in hand ; just 
 as little affects the life of the question, — as 
 the expression on my friend's face, or the rent 
 in his clothes, or the mud upon his boots, or 
 the amount of business he has on his hands, 
 or the going of his watch, or his being hot and 
 weary, or his having a detestable wife living 
 somewhere in Westminster, (not that he or I 
 at all desire a divorce, remember /), or the way 
 he is forced to wear his hat, — affects the life 
 of the man .... It is absurd to mix up 
 
ROME AND ENGLAND. 105 
 
 points so purely irrelevant, with the real, — 
 the only real and vital question ! 
 
 You will perceive, (I desire to write without 
 levity,) that your correspondent is prepared 
 for much graver troubles falling on the Church 
 of England than she has hitherto experienced, 
 without yet feeling the least anxiety concern- 
 ing her life, and therefore concerning his own 
 position. She may see (God forbid !) her Lit- 
 urgy disfigured, and her rightful temporal in- 
 heritance taken from her. Her enemies, (under 
 the name of a " Society for the Liberation of 
 Religion from State Patronage and Control," 1 ) 
 may succeed in bringing her very low. She 
 may be forbidden — (it would not be the first 
 time it had happened !) — the very use of her 
 Liturgy. She may see her decisions reversed 
 by the Temporal power, and her Doctrines 
 practically set aside. (I am not for an instant 
 meaning that these things are coming upon 
 her : but I say they are, one and all, conceiv- 
 able.) Heresies may arise among us, which 
 will rend the very Church asunder. It may 
 become the fashion of our Clergy to imitate 
 the " Reverend " (but dishonest) authors of 
 
 1 See Archd. Hale's recent pamphlet. Rivingtons. 
 (1861.) 
 
106 ROME AND ENGLAND. 
 
 " Essays and Reviews," and to present to the 
 world the immoral spectacle of Ministers of 
 Religion professing one thing, — but, in real- 
 ity, teaching and believing quite another. All 
 this and more is conceivable. But it would 
 not destroy the life of the Church ; much less 
 would it make it the duty of a member of the 
 Church of England, to become a member of 
 the Church of Rome. The truly loyal heart 
 and dutiful spirit, the man with ever so little 
 of Christian chivalry in his composition, would 
 feel it impossible , in days dark as I have been 
 imagining, to forsake the Communion of his 
 Fathers. Suppose him a man of loftiest parts 
 and of most admirable genius, — of truly 
 primitive piety and of real learning ; — what 
 would be his resource ? He would do as 
 Richard Hooker did, when he put forth his 
 Books " Of the Laws of Ecclesiastical Polity;" 
 and so, depart in peace. I can never read the 
 magnificent opening words of Hooker's pre- 
 face, (addressed " To them that seek (as they 
 term it) the reformation of laws and orders 
 Ecclesiastical, in the Church of England,") 
 without feeling my heart beat faster, and my 
 whole spirit stirred with unutterable sympa- 
 thy: — "Though for no other cause, yet for 
 this ; that posterity may know we have not 
 
ROME AND ENGLAND. 107 
 
 loosely through silence permitted things to 
 pass away as in a dream, there shall be for 
 men's information extant thus much concern- 
 ing the present state of the Church of God 
 established amongst us ; and their careful en- 
 deavour which would have upheld the same." 
 .... He would do as Bishop Butler did, 
 when he observed as follows: — " It is come, 
 I know not how, to be taken for granted, by 
 many persons, that Christianity is not so much 
 as a subject of inquiry ; but that it is, now at 
 length discovered to be fictitious. And ac- 
 cordingly, they treat it as if, in the present 
 age, this were an agreed point among all per- 
 sons of discernment ; and nothing remained 
 but to set it up as a principal subject of mirth 
 and ridicule, as it were by way of reprisals for 
 its having so long interrupted the pleasures of 
 the world." 2 Seeing this, Bishop Butler pro- 
 duced his immortal " Analogy." .... In some 
 such way, I repeat, every loyal heart, accord- 
 ing to his opportunities, would certainly act. 
 The last thought which would ever occur to a 
 noble spirit would be to turn round and become 
 a Romanist. 
 
 21. It is quite idle therefore for you to tell 
 
 1 Advertisement to the Analogy, 1736. 
 
108 ROME AND ENGLAND. 
 
 me that " one of the most striking points of 
 contrast between the Church of England and. 
 the primitive Church, is that every shade of 
 unsound doctrine ma}' be held within the for- 
 mer, and treated as a harmless speculation." 
 For first, it is not true that " every shade of 
 unsound doctrine " may be held without re- 
 buke. Romanizers on the one hand, Essayists 
 and Reviewers on the other, are not tolerated. 
 You have lately seen the indignation of the 
 whole English Church aroused by a single 
 volume, and finding authoritative expression 
 through the entire Bench of Bishops and both 
 Houses of Convocation ; while a hundred in- 
 dividuals have come forward to refute the er- 
 roneous doctrines, and by no means harmless 
 speculations, of certain false brethren ; and in 
 the boldest and most unequivocal language, to 
 denounce them. Secondly, it is not true that 
 the primitive Church knew nothing of such 
 scandals : although it is perfectly evident that 
 you know next to nothing of the primitive 
 Church. . 
 
 Considerable diversity of opinion, I freely 
 admit, prevails within our Communion. A 
 considerable latitude is allowed, even to the 
 Ministers of Religion. But let me advise you 
 not to be too saucy on this subject. For I 
 
ROME AND ENGLAND. 109 
 
 shall be constrained to remind you that out- 
 ward uniformity may be purchased at too dear 
 a rate. An unlearned Clergy, a superstitious 
 people, and a country under a spiritual thral- 
 dom, — these are widely dissimilar conditions 
 from those under which we exist. You are to 
 consider that in periods of transition, and in 
 an age of great mental activity, and in a coun- 
 try where the freest discussion is allowed, and 
 where the Bible is in the hands of all, — we 
 must expect much in the practical working of 
 the Church, to distress and to sadden. The 
 questions to be asked by a fair observer are 
 such as the following : — Is the course of 
 things upwards, or downwards ? Does Heresy 
 go unrebuked ? What is the prevailing tone 
 of the Divinity which is issued weekly from 
 the press ? What are the counterbalancing 
 advantages of the system under which we in 
 England live ? Are there no indications of 
 immense activity and earnestness among our 
 people ? Above all, — What is the authoritor 
 tive teaching of our Church on the several 
 subjects in dispute ? 
 
 22. And so, with respect to our Liturgy, 
 which you are so rash as to bring into the 
 question. " All parties," (you say,) " wish to 
 see it altered." This I deny altogether. True 
 
110 ROME AND ENGLAND. 
 
 it is that many object to a few expressions, in 
 the Burial service, — and many, to a clause in 
 the Athanasian Creed. Some think the Table 
 of Lessons capable of improvement, and others 
 desire that the Services might be shortened. 
 Yet more wish, (not unreasonably,) for a sec- 
 ond Evening Service. But we may hope that 
 men will generally see the danger of uniting 
 for the redress of their several supposed griev- 
 ances ; as we believe that generally they are 
 content with the Prayer-Book as it is. On this, 
 at least, I insist emphatically, — that the sev- 
 eral " small peculiar " wishes of individuals 
 are not to be spoken of, in the lump, as a na- 
 tional desire for a revision of the Liturgy. An 
 aged friend of mine, (his name would com- 
 mand respect if I were to mention it,) pro- 
 posed to confide to me, many years ago, a 
 scruple he had in the use of the Liturgy. 
 I was all attention. "That expression, — 
 ' Changes and chances of this mortal life,' 
 troubles me," said he. (You can imagine the 
 reason why.) .... In the meantime, suffer me 
 to remind you that it is better to have a Liturgy 
 which many find fault with, than to have no 
 Liturgy at all. For, (as I have elsewhere 1 
 
 1 Appendix E. 
 
ROME AND ENGLAND. Ill 
 
 fully shown,) your own adopted communion 
 has practically parted with her ancient inherit- 
 ance, and is ivithout a Prayer-Book ! 
 
 23. I quite feel the fun and smartness of 
 your satire on men of " moderate views." 
 You are, doubtless, right in supposing that 
 the most saintly mediaeval Bishops on record 
 would not have looked about for such men to 
 work within their dioceses. But pray be fair. 
 To every age its own appropriate praise. And 
 even you w T ill not pretend that any objection is 
 entertained in England to a man however 
 immoderately g-ood and earnest, — however im- 
 moderately self-denying and laborious he may 
 be. No. What we all hate is a reverend cox- 
 comb, — whose religion displays itself, first, 
 in the style of his millinery; next, in the 
 warmth of his Romish sympathies. Then 
 comes an ultra-montane system of teaching, 
 and a half-emptied Church. Last of all the rev- 
 erend gentleman probably carries his strangely- 
 cut coat, and empty head over to the Church 
 of Rome. Such is the kind of individual, be 
 it remarked in passing, who has brought Rit- 
 ualism itself into disrepute, and caused that 
 " men of moderate views " should be inquired 
 after. The phrase (be assured) does but 
 denote persons who are not likely to make 
 
112 ROME AND ENGLAND. 
 
 immoderate fools of themselves : to do an im- 
 moderate amount of mischief. 
 
 In conclusion. You are requested to ob- 
 serve that we are quite agreed as to the 
 Church being the Ark, — outside which are 
 whelming waters : the Fold, — outside which 
 are ravening wolves. I entirely subscribe to 
 the axiom, extra Ecclesiam nulla salus. Like 
 yourself, I hold that the Catholic Church is the 
 Church which Christ commissioned to teach 
 all nations, and in which His Holy Spirit 
 dwells. All this I firmly believe and main- 
 tain. The only question between us is, What 
 is the Catholic Church ? We are quite agreed 
 that with the World there can be no compro- 
 mise ; and that " the Church holds on her 
 awful way, through storm and sunshine, wait- 
 ing for the Coming of her Lord." We are 
 quite agreed about all that. But you are absurdly 
 assuming all the while, that to be in the 
 Church means, — to acknowledge the Papal 
 supremacy ! You are forgetting that Christ 
 (not Rome) is the Vine, and we (Rome and 
 England) are [two of] the branches: — limbs 
 of the Body they ; and He, the Head ! You 
 evidently require to be taught, (and I proceed 
 next to show you,) that for many hundred 
 years the Church of Rome put forth no such 
 
ROME AND ENGLAND. 113 
 
 claims as those she now advances ; and that, 
 in the best ages of the Church, the doctrine 
 you so coolly seek to impose upon me, was 
 simply unknown. I request the favor of your 
 prolonged attention. 
 
114 ROME AND ENGLAND. 
 
 LETTER II. 
 
 Shortcomings discoverable in the romish, as well as 
 in the english church. — idolatry. — doctrine of 
 purgatory and indulgences. — mariolatry. — super- 
 stition. — fabulous and foolish stories in the romish 
 breviary. — entire system of public worship in the 
 romish church. — neglect of antiquity. — monstrous 
 pretensions of the papacy. — rebaptization. — ro- 
 manism a political power, and also a demoralizing 
 principle. 
 
 To the Same. 
 
 Sir, — I have been content hitherto to stand 
 on the defensive. You have brought sundry 
 charges against the Church of England, which 
 I have been content to repel. You clearly 
 overlook two important considerations ; the 
 first, — (I.) That if the shortcomings of the 
 Church of England are to be all industriously 
 raked up, — then, some notice must be taken 
 of the shortcomings of the Church of Rome 
 also : since it is not to be imagined for an 
 instant that the Communion into which you 
 have lately sought admission is immaculate ; 
 and that only we have something to deplore. 
 Next, — (II.) You forget that if the short- 
 comings of the English Church were much 
 
ROME AND ENGLAND. 115 
 
 more considerable than you attempt to make 
 out, they would constitute no adequate reason 
 for forsaking her. On both these heads, in 
 this and my next letter, I propose to offer a 
 few words. 
 
 I am not about to multiply charges against 
 the Church of Rome, as I easily might. I 
 will confine myself to a few points : and, — 
 
 1. The first charge I bring against her is, 
 that she is an idolatrous church. By which 
 I chiefly mean to say that she not only per- 
 mits, but encourages, the worship of Images. 
 
 You may not attempt to elude this accusa- 
 tion by the old shift of distinguishing between 
 different degrees of worship : and telling me, 
 (what is undeniable,) that the Greek word 
 Doidia means one thing, — the Greek word 
 Latvia, another. Such philological subtleties, 
 however commendable in their proper place, 
 are altogether foreign to the matter in hand. 
 For we are not going to discuss what two 
 Greek words strictly mean, but what the 
 Romish church actually does. Moreover, dis- 
 tinctions like these, however plausible in the- 
 ory, altogether disappear in practice, — as you 
 ought to know very well. Above all, the 2nd 
 Commandment is express and unconditional : 
 " Thou shalt not bow down to worship them" 
 
116 ROME AND ENGLAND. 
 
 — whether with one kind of worship or with 
 another. Neither may you attempt to per- 
 suade me, (even if you have succeeded in 
 persuading yourself,) that the graven image is 
 not worshipped, but that through the represen- 
 tation the worshipper looks up to the Being 
 represented. I shall show you that the wor- 
 shipper is taught to do nothing' of the kind: 
 and the authority which teaches him, is none 
 other than one which you think infallible, — 
 that, namely, of the Bishop of Rome himself. 
 For, if the idol is nothing, but the Object 
 represented everything, — pray, how does it 
 come to pass that one idol is preferred before 
 another ? If the intention of the Romish 
 Church is to lift the thoughts of her children 
 heavenward, how does it happen that worship, 
 (whether Doulia or Latria^) offered to one 
 image or picture rather than another, is en- 
 couraged by the highest authority ? If the 
 direct result of the Romish system is not to 
 arrest the heavenward aspirations, and to re- 
 strain them to the earthly image, how does it 
 come to pass that miracles are ascribed to so 
 many of the representations of the Saints ? 1 
 
 1 One has not far to look for examples. — " Yi e una Ma- 
 donna detta di S. Gregorio, della quale si dice, eke un giorno 
 
ROME AND ENGLAND. 117 
 
 And if this result is deprecated by the authori- 
 ties in the Komish Communion, how does it 
 happen that a volume pretending to authenti- 
 cate those miracles has been publicly put forth 
 by authority ? . . . You will find these ques- 
 tions hard indeed to answer. The volume of 
 which I speak shall be again alluded to, pres- 
 ently. 
 
 You will tell me, I doubt not, that the 
 theory of the Romish Church does not coun- 
 tenance Idolatry, however fatally that plague 
 may have developed itself in the Romish Com- 
 munion. I am sorry that I cannot admit the 
 validity of your plea. You are to observe that 
 the Romish Church does nothing to check or 
 disallow, — but, on the contrary, does much 
 to promote and encourage, — image-worship. 
 The statue of the Blessed Virgin in the Church 
 of S. Agostino, at Rome, 1 would be quite suffi- 
 cient to prove what I say : for the papal indul- 
 
 passando il detto Pontifice, e non salutandola, gli dicesse," 
 &c. (Rom. Modern. Gior. 5. Rion. di Campetalli. ) — "Ad 
 sanctum Paulum, ubi vidimus ligneam Crucifixi Imaginem, 
 quern sancta Brigida sibi loquentem audiisse perhibetur." 
 (Mabill. D. Italic, p. 133.) — "Imaginem Sanctae Marise cus- 
 todem Ecclesiae allocutam et Alexii singularem pietatem 
 commendasse." (Durant, De Rots. 1. i. c. 5.) — See also Let- 
 ters from Rome, p. 58-9. 
 
 1 See Letters from Rome, p. 60-1. See above, p. 99 note. 
 
118 ROME AND ENGLAND. 
 
 gence engraven on its base can be attended 
 with only one result ; can have been put there 
 with only one intention. The same may be 
 said of every image set up in Roman Catholic 
 Churches, so long as the people are taught 
 to visit that image with especial veneration. 
 Practically, the veneration paid to Images has 
 reproduced the method of heathendom. " Notre 
 Dame de Fourvieres," for example, is as much 
 the tutelary goddess of Lyon, as ever was 
 Minerva at Athens, or Diana at Ephesus. — 
 Permit me to refer you to an exhibition else- 
 where described by myself, — in which the 
 Pope took a conspicuous part. 1 Are such 
 transactions, (and they are very common in 
 countries of the Romish obedience !) to be 
 severed from the theory of the Romish sys- 
 tem ? 2 
 
 Leaving the question of image-worship, I 
 have to remind you next, that your Church 
 
 1 Letters from Rome, p. 59. 
 
 2 See the Rev. W. Palmer's VHIth Letter to Wiseman, 
 (1842,) wherein he demonstrates that "direct and formal 
 Idolatry, — what Romanists themselves admit to be Idolatry, — 
 is authorized and approved in the Romish Communion, and 
 that Romanists are prevented by their own principles from 
 condemning it." See p. 9. — The reader should also refer 
 to Stillingfleet, Works, vol. v. p. 459. 
 
ROME AND ENGLAND. 119 
 
 stands charged with being, in not a few re- 
 spects, DOCTRINALLY CORRUPT. It shall Suffice 
 
 to indicate only a few points. 
 
 2. — Your doctrine of Purgatory and In- 
 dulgences needs only to be stated, I should 
 think, to proclaim its own sufficient and en- 
 tire refutation. Concerning the former Doc- 
 trine I have already said enough. But what 
 is to be said of the complicated superstructure 
 of error which has been built up on the foun- 
 dation of that gross fiction ? The superfluous 
 merits of the Saints departed are assumed 
 to be deposited in a kind of Bank, in conjunc- 
 tion, (shocking to relate !) with the merits and 
 satisfaction of our Saviour. Of this Treasury, 
 the Bishop of Rome keeps the key ; and over 
 it, he has unlimited authority. He is thought 
 to enjoy the privilege of drawing upon this 
 fund at pleasure ; and to be at liberty, by a 
 stroke of his pen, to apportion some of it to 
 whomsoever he pleases. Nay, he claims to be 
 able to appropriate the merits of any definite 
 Saint to any indefinite person. Thus, over a 
 Chapel in the transept of the Basilica of S. 
 Lorenzo, at Rome, you read : — " This is that 
 tomb out of the catacomb of St. Cyriaca, which 
 is celebrated throughout the world. Whoso- 
 ever here celebrates Mass for the Dead, will 
 
120 ROME AND ENGLAND. 
 
 deliver their souls from Purgatorial pains, 
 through the merits of St. Laurence ." 1 
 
 This kind of inscription is even common. 
 In the Church of S. Onofrio, what follows is 
 framed, in the second chapel to the right as 
 you enter : — " Altare privilegiato nel quale 
 si libera dot Purgatorio quell' anima per la 
 quale si prega, come si celebrasse all' altare 
 di San Gregorio di Roma." ["A privileged 
 altar at which a soul is delivered from Purges 
 lory by prayer, as" if at the altar of St. Gregory 
 in Rome."] . . . Again, in the Church of S. 
 Carlo, is to be read as follows, (in the Chapel 
 of the Assumption) : — " Innocentius XI. 
 P.M. concessit ut quandocumq. in hoc Dei- 
 parae altari pro anima cujuscumq. fidelis sac- 
 rificium fuerit, ipsa a Purgat.poenis liberetur" 
 [" Pope Innocent XI. granted that whenever 
 mass is offered at this altar of the Mother of 
 God, for the soul of any of the faithful, it shall 
 be liberated from the penalties of Purgatory "~\ 
 .... It is needless to multiply examples. 2 
 
 1 " Hsec est tumba ilia toto orbe terrarum celeberrima ex 
 Coemeterio S. Ciriacae matronae, ubi sacrum siquis fecerit 
 pro defunctis, eorum animas a Purgatoriis poenis Divi Lau- 
 rentii mentis evocabit." 
 
 2 A few may be added in a note. Framed and glazed in 
 the church of S. Maria Traspontina is the following : — " La 
 
ROME AND ENGLAND. 121 
 
 You are hopelessly blind if you are not struck 
 with the senseless profanity of a system which 
 can develop such phenomena as these. 
 
 This whole article of papal "Indulgences" 
 is a sad blot on the Romish system. You may 
 find it briefly discussed in a manner which 
 you will discover quite unanswerable, by not 
 a few of our Theologians. 1 Not to wade into 
 
 santa memoria di Papa Paolo quinto, ad instanza del Card. 
 Domen co . Pinelli vescovo di Porto e protettore delf Ordine 
 Carmelitano concede la liberazione d'un anima dal Purgatorio a 
 qualsivoglia sacerdote che celebra in questo altare intitotalo delle 
 colonne dove furono flagellati i gloriosi Apostoli S. Pietro e 
 S. Paolo, come piu ampiamente appare dal suo breve spedito 
 dal Vaticano li sei Aprile mdcvi." . . . On the right of the 
 altar in the dilapidated but curious church of S. Bartolo- 
 
 meo: — " Gregorius XIII. P. 0. M apostolica auc- 
 
 toritate concessit cuilibet ex eadem familia [sc. Franciscana] 
 sacerdoti qui do mum hanc S. Bartholomaei incoleret si in ca- 
 pella hac Dei Matri dedicata, quam sanctam appellant, sacri- 
 ficium pro defunctis oflferret animam illam liberaret a Purgatorii 
 poenis, pro qua sacrificaret, idque diplomate sanxit, Romae, xi. 
 Kal. Septem. mdlxxxi." .... Under the Basilica of San- 
 ta Croce, on a title affixed to the iron gate of the Capella di 
 Pieta, is read : " Celebrandosi la S. Messa in questo altare 
 si libera un y anima dal Purgatorio, come risulta dalla bolla 
 della S. M. di Gregorio XIII." — Over the altar of S. Maria 
 Scala Coeli : — " Celebrans hie animam a poenis Purgatorii 
 liberate 
 
 1 See, for example, Bp. Bull, Works, vol. ii. pp. 282-87. 
 The reader is also referred to Newman's Lectures on the Pro- 
 phetical Office of the Church, pp. 145-47. 
 
122 ROME AND ENGLAND. 
 
 the depths of this iniquity, and to uncover the 
 revolting consequences of this sad corruption 
 of the primitive Faith, I am content to ask, 
 What more transparently worthless than such 
 promises as are attached to the performance 
 of almost every public religious act ? Think 
 only of a hundred days of indulgence for kiss- 
 ing the foot of a statue and saying one Ave- 
 Maria ! 1 seven years of indulgence for a visit 
 paid to certain Relics ! plenary indulgence for 
 eighteen visits paid with prayer, after confess- 
 ing and communicating ! 2 But " plenary 
 indulgence" is more easily attainable still. 
 It appertains to him who attends five of the 
 public catechisings, and is applicable to souls 
 in Purgatory. 2, So are the nine years of in- 
 dulgence which accrue to him who once as- 
 cends the Scala Sancta devoutly 4 . . . Surely 
 such fables are as foolish as they are profane. 5 
 
 1 See Letters from Rome, p. 61. — As you enter the Colos- 
 seum, on either hand you see in the wall a plain marble 
 inlaid cross. Beneath is written: — "Baciando la Santa 
 Croce si acquista un' anno e xl giorni oV Indulgenza." 
 
 2 Ibid. p. 50. 3 Ibid. p.. 68. 4 Ibid. p. 75. 
 
 5 As monstrous an instance as I ever met with, is the 
 following, written over the altar of the Crocifisso, in the 
 basilica of S. Lorenzo : — " Quisquis devoto ac contrito 
 corde accedit ad istam crucem et ad altarem, plenariam om- 
 nium suorum peccatorum indulgentiam consequitur." (!).... 
 
ROME AND ENGLAND. 123 
 
 You may think as you please on the subject : 
 but let me tell you the mischief of such Doc- 
 trines must infinitely outweigh, in the judg- 
 ment of persons of ordinary piety, sense and 
 candour, any of the practical inconveniences 
 which are experienced in our own branch of 
 the Church Catholic .... How modern this 
 entire system is, has been repeatedly shown ; 
 as well as to what monstrous scandals it has 
 paved the way. The sale of Indulgences be- 
 came at last so flagrant an abuse that (as you 
 are aware) it produced the Reformation. 
 
 3. The next serious charge which I bring 
 against your adopted Communion, is, that it 
 puts the Blessed Virgin in the place of God. 
 This is, in fact, the crowning iniquity of all, 
 and as such calls for distinct and detailed men- 
 tion. It is the great sin of modern Roman- 
 ism. Quite useless is it, worse than useless, 
 for any to pretend to disguise the plain fact 
 
 Above the confessional in the same church ; — " Hoc sub 
 fornice tumulata jacent corpora Ssr. Stephani protomartyris, 
 Laurentii Diaconi, et Justini presbyteri et mart, ubi est quo- 
 tidie asummis Pontijicibus concessa indulgentia plenaria" . . . . 
 The following inscription occurs perpetually over the doors 
 of Churches at Rome, e. g. over the door of S. Vincenzio 
 Anastatio : — " Indulgentia plenaria perpetua — pro vivis et de- 
 functis." What does this precisely mean 1 It cannot surely 
 mean what it says. 
 
124 ROME AND ENGLAND. 
 
 that the Mother of our Lord is more than 
 worshipped at Rome. Not only are the in- 
 communicable attributes of the Creator eagerly 
 transferred to the creature ; but she is set 
 before, and in the place of, her Divine Son. 
 She (not He) is styled the " unica spes pec- 
 catorum." [" Sinners' only hope."] Her image, 
 (not His,) meets you at the corner of every 
 street. In her Litany, she is addressed as 
 " Salus infirmorum, Refugium peccatorum, 
 Consolatrix afflictorum, Auxilium Christian- 
 orum." [" Health of the sick, Refuge of sin- 
 ners, Comforter of the afflicted, Help of 
 Christians."] The popular teaching with re- 
 spect to her is reflected in such verses as the 
 following, which are found at the close of the 
 most approved popular manual of devotions : — 
 " Se l'infernal nemico Va Talma mia tentando, 
 Maria, Maria chiamando, in fuga il metterd. 
 Ripeterd Maria in ogni mio periglio, Mi e 
 Madre, io son suo figlio, Mai non la lascierd. 
 II mio maggior conforto Nell' ultima agonia 
 Sara chiamar Maria, Chiamarla e poi morir." 1 
 [" If the infernal enemy tempts my soul, I will 
 put him to flight by repeatedly calling on 
 Mary. Mary I will repeat whenever I am in 
 
 1 Massime Eterne, &c., 1856, ad fin. 
 
ROME AND ENGLAND. 125 
 
 danger : she is my mother, I am her child, I 
 will never forsake her. My greatest comfort 
 in my last agony, will be to call Mary, to call 
 her, and then die."] Is it possible to read 
 such sentiments without turning sick at heart ? 
 
 — What ? Under temptation, — in all seasons 
 of adversity and peril, — on my dying bed, 
 and in the very hour of death, shall I make, 
 not the tender mercies of my Saviour and my 
 God, but the Virgin MaryQ.^), the strength 
 and stay of my fainting soul ? Is it possible 
 that a Christian man can seriously intend it ? 
 
 — That she was indeed a great Saint, incom- 
 parably the chief of female Saints, who can 
 doubt ? That she was Qeotoxoq, (for which, by 
 the way, " mother of God " is scarcely a fair 
 English equivalent,) — who shall presume to 
 deny ? 1 But then, she was human, not Divine : 
 and, " being by nature born in Sin," (as 
 Augustine repeatedly remarks, 2 ) she herself 
 
 1 The Greeks, (as early as the days of Origen,) had in- 
 vented this appellation, — the precise Latin equivalent for 
 which is Deipara. The Latin Church, substituting for Dei- 
 para the stronger expression Dei Genetrix and Mater Dei, was 
 in turn followed by the Greek Church, which hesitated not 
 to call the Virgin M.7]tt](j Qeov. See the two learned notes 
 in Pearson on the Creed. — Art. III. p. 177. 
 
 2 " Maria . . . de carnali concupiscent ia parentum nata est." 
 (Opus Imperfectum, lib. vi., c. xxii. Opp. x., p. 1334.) — 
 
126 ROME AND ENGLAND. 
 
 needed a Saviour ! ... Is not the folly, not 
 to say the blasphemy of the teaching above 
 alluded to, patent and horrible ? 
 
 What I have been describing pervades the 
 system. In the month of May, the same lion 
 ours are paid in Church to the Blessed Virgin 
 which at other times are paid to our Lord ; 
 and with far more enthusiasm. The "Annee 
 Liturgique " enumerates twenty-two festivals 
 in honour of Him : in honour of Aer, no less 
 than two-and-forty. — What need to advert to 
 the fatal dogma of 1854, whereby Rome has 
 effectually cut herself off from the rest of 
 Catholic Christendom, — ancient and modern ? 
 A marble column with figures, recently erected 
 at the corner of the Piazza di Spagna, com- 
 memorates the publication of that dogma ; and 
 a conspicuous inscription at the extreme east 
 of St. Peter's, on the north side of the altar, 
 records how the present Pope, on the 8th of 
 
 Again : " Virginis, cujus caro . . . de peccati propagine venit." 
 And again : " Corpus Christi, quamvis ex carne feminae 
 assumtum est, quae de ilia carnis peccati propamine concepta 
 fuerat, tamen, quia non sic in ea conceptum est, quomodo 
 fuerat ilia concepta, nee Ipse erat caro peccati, sed siniilitudo 
 carnis peccati/' (De Genesi ad literam, lib. x., c. xix., § 32. 
 Opp. iii., pp. 268-9.) — See more in Bp. Beveridge on Art. 
 XV. note (c) : Works, vol. ix., p. 350. 
 
ROME AND ENGLAND. 127 
 
 December, 1854, there proclaimed it, " and 
 satisfied the longings of the whole Catholic 
 world " ! ! ! Whereas, surely, no one deserving 
 the name of Catholic can read that inscription, 
 or contemplate the class of phenomena to 
 which I have been adverting, (phenomena 
 which are not of rare occurrence, but which 
 meet one at every step,) without the profound 
 est sentiment of perplexity and sorrow. How, 
 in the face of profanity so patent, any one of 
 sound mind who has been nurtured in the 
 bosom of our own holy Church, can apostatise 
 from it in order to adopt the communion of 
 Rome, is more than I am able to understand. 
 This great sin of Mariolatry is so great, — 
 so gross and patent, — that it calls for repeated 
 protest, and admits of endless illustration. 
 Thus, at Lyon, under the picture of " Notre 
 Dame de Fourvieres " is* read, — "0 Marie, 
 6coutez favorablement les vceux et les prieres 
 de vos fideles serviteurs." Behind, — " Sou- 
 venez vous, tres misericordieuse Vierge 
 Marie, qu'on n'a jamais ou'i dire qu'aucun 
 de ceux qui ont eu recours a votre protection 
 ait ete abandonne. Plein de cette confiance, 
 ma tendre Mere, je viens a vous ; et gemis- 
 sant sous les poids de mes peches, je me pros- 
 terne a vos pieds. JEcoutez favorablement 
 
128 ROME AND ENGLAND. 
 
 mapriere, et daignez Vexaucer." [" Mary, 
 listen favourably to the wishes and prayers 
 of your faithful servants." — " Remember, 
 most merciful Virgin, that it never was heard 
 that any one was forsaken who applied to you 
 for protection. Full of this confidence, ten- 
 der Mother, I come unto you ; and groaning 
 beneath the burthen of my sins, I prostrate my- 
 self at your feet. Listen graciously to my 
 prayer, and deign to grant i£."] .... Now, 
 let any honest person say whether this be not 
 addressing the Blessed Virgin as if she were 
 God ? Instead of " our Father," it is " my 
 Mother," " at whose feet " the sinner " groan- 
 ing beneath the burthen of his sins " " pros- 
 trates himself." To her he addresses " his 
 prayer ! " At her hands, he asks to have it 
 granted ! .... Is it not a mere trifling with 
 the Truth to affect to doubt whether this be a 
 breaking of the first Commandment or not ? 
 
 Approach the capital, and see whether things 
 are conducted differently there. Can anything 
 be worse than the ex-voto tablets which bid 
 fair soon to cover the walls of Notre Dame des 
 Victoires at Paris ? — e. g\, " J'ai prie Marie 
 pendant 8 ans pour une oeuvre impossible : et 
 j'ai et6 exauce, le 8 Dec. 1859." — Amour 
 et reconnaissance envers Marie qui a sauvS ma 
 
ROME AND ENGLAND. 129 
 
 fille, 30 Juillet, 1856." "J'ai prie J6sus, 
 Marie, et Joseph. J'ai 6t6 exaucee le 15 
 Nov. 1856." — " Marie, qui nous a conservee 
 noire enfant" &c. — "0 Marie, je vous re- 
 mercie d'avoir sauve mon pere. C.D.G. 29 
 Mars, 1857," &c. &c. &c. [" I prayed to Mary 
 for an impossible thing during eight years, 
 and my prayer was granted." — " Love and 
 gratitude towards Mary who has saved my 
 daughter." — "I prayed to Jesus, Mary, and 
 Joseph: my prayer was granted Nov. 15." — 
 " Mary who preserved our child." — " Mary, 
 I thank you for having saved my father."] 
 
 As for Rome, the extent to which this kind 
 of thing is there carried, is almost incredible. 
 An inscription outside the Church of the 
 Minerva records the height to which the Tiber 
 rose in the inundation of 1530, with this in- 
 scription : " Hue Tiber ascendit, jamque obruta 
 tota fuisset Roma, nisi huic celerem Virgo 
 tulisset opem." — [" Hither the Tiber rose, and 
 all Rome would soon have been destroyed, had 
 not the Virgin brought prompt succour."] — 
 The same is said elsewhere concerning an 
 earthquake which threatened the city in 1703. 
 — In the Church of S. Carlo, in the Chapel of 
 the Assumption, (over a picture representing 
 the legend), is inscribed, — " Tu sola uni- 
 9 
 
130 ROME AND ENGLAND. 
 
 versas haereses interemisti." [" Thou alone 
 hast destroyed all heresies."] But I have 
 already shown that the young and the illiter- 
 ate are taught by the popular books of devo- 
 tion to fly to the Virgin in every danger, as 
 well as to build upon her their confidence in 
 death : and that she enjoys a far larger amount 
 of popular worship even than our Saviour 
 Christ Himself. 
 
 The glaring offence against Catholic an- 
 tiquity and scriptural Truth which Rome com- 
 mitted in 1854, when she proclaimed the 
 blasphemous dogma of the Immaculate Con- 
 ception, has been already sufficiently adverted 
 to. It would do you good to read on this subject 
 L'Abb6 Laborde's " Relation et Memoire des 
 Opposants au Nouveau Dogme de Flmmacu- 
 lee Conception," 1855, p. 108. This impious 
 dogma constitutes of course the crowning of- 
 fence of modern Romanism, — a step which 
 must inevitably bring down the wrath of God 
 on that branch of the Catholic Church. For 
 this reason I have made the worship of the 
 Blessed Virgin a separate head of complaint 
 against your Church, 1 
 
 1 The fatal consequences of the introduction of this new 
 dogma, and the blasphemy which it implies, may be seen 
 
ROME AND ENGLAND. 131 
 
 As might be expected, the veneration with 
 which she is regarded, is freely extended to 
 other Saints. In the Church of S. Genevieve 
 at Paris, you read on the ex-voto tablets, as 
 follows : — " J'ai invoque S. Genevieve pen- 
 dant un incendie, elle m'a exauc^e le 28 Oct. 
 1859. C. G." — " J'ai prie S. Genevieve pour 
 la sante de mon fils, et j'ai 6t6 exaucee. 
 E. C." — J'ai prie S. Genevieve pendant la 
 maladie de ma fille. Elle Va sauvee." [" I 
 called upon St. Genevieve during a conflagra- 
 tion, and she granted my request." — "I 
 prayed to St. Genevieve for the health of my 
 son, and it was granted." — "I prayed to St. 
 Genevieve during the illness of my daughter : 
 she saved her."] — Will you pretend to tell 
 me, that the persons who so write do not mean 
 what they say ? or mean any other thing than 
 that S. Genevieve is " God, to kill and to make 
 alive " ? 
 
 4. If I do not dwell on the unscriptural 
 practice of your adopted Church of denying 
 the Cup to all but the consecrating Priest in 
 
 ably stated in the Bp. of Oxford's recent sermon, — Rome's 
 New Dogma and our Duties. At the end, is printed Dr. Mill's 
 Catena of Catholic evidence on the doctrine of the Immacu- 
 late Conception. 
 
162 ROME AND ENGLAND. 
 
 the Holy Communion, it is not because I think 
 this a light matter, but because it is needless 
 to enlarge on what is so patent a violation of 
 the Divine Command. 1 The sinfulness of 
 Half-Communion has been often exposed, 2 
 and ought not to require explaining. That 
 ■ the practice is of quite modern date, who 
 knows not ? 3 
 
 5. I declare next that the Romish Church 
 is grossly superstitious. It would be easy 
 to fill a volume with illustrations of this state- 
 ment, but I am about to do nothing of the 
 kind. I am content to refer you to what has 
 been already offered on the subject of Relics, 
 in the Appendix : and shall only remind you 
 of a few additional particulars. 4 
 
 What think you then of the following in- 
 scription ? It occurs on the right of the under- 
 
 1 St. John vi. 53. St. Matth. xxvi. 26, 27. 
 
 2 See the Sequel to Dr. Wordsworth's Letter to M. Gon~ 
 don, — p. 107, &c. Letters V. and VI. 
 
 3 " Habet enim magnam vocem Christi sanguis in terra, 
 cum eo recepto ab omnibus gentibus respondetur, Amen." 
 [Augustin. cont. Faust. Manich. lib. xii. c. 10. Opp. viii. 
 382. b.] " Quare," (remarks Bp. Andrewes,) "duo hie 
 egregia habemus : 1. Universam Ecclesiam participem esse Ca- 
 licis. 2. Cum accipiunt, dicere, Amen." [Works, xi, p. 
 157.] 
 
 4 Appendix C. 
 
ROME AND ENGLAND. 133 
 
 ground Chapel (of the Presepe) in the Sistine 
 Chapel, in the Basilica of S. Maria Maggiore : 
 — " Hie, S. Cajetanus, auspice Divo Hiero- 
 nymo, cujus ossa non procul jacent, in ipsa 
 natalitia Cbristi nocte, accepit a Deipara in 
 ulnas suas puerum Jesum." [" Here St. 
 Cajetan, under the auspices of St. Jerome, 
 whose bones rest not far off, received on Christ- 
 mas night, in his own arms, the child Jesus 
 from the Mother of God."] Now, does any 
 one in his senses really believe that the Blessed 
 Virgin put the Infant Saviour, (who now " sit- 
 teth at the Right Hand of God ! ") into Ca- 
 jetau's arms ? But even supposing that she 
 did (!), what on earth can Jerome's bones have 
 had to do with the circumstance ? . . . . You 
 must surely feel that a Church which can 
 perpetrate such absurdities, can so outrage 
 common sense, common decency, — however 
 successful she may be in conciliating indul- 
 gence, has yet need to be very slow in pointing 
 out the shortcomings of any other Communion 
 under the sun. 
 
 And then, what is to be thought of the su- 
 perstitions attaching to images and pictures at 
 Rome and elsewhere ? A portrait of the 
 Blessed Virgin for instance at S. Maria in 
 Cosmedin, — (a very interesting old church 
 
134 ROME AND ENGLAND. 
 
 near our English burial-ground,) — claims to 
 have worked miracles. Another, in a church 
 on the Coelian, is stated to have spoken to 
 Gregory the Great. At the church of S. Agos- 
 tino, there is a fine statue, called " Maria 
 santissima del Parto," which has also wrought 
 sundry wonders. But among all the objects 
 of this class to which the people of Rome " ha 
 fatto particolare ricorso in tutte le pid grandi 
 afflizioni della Chiesa," [" has had particular 
 recourse in all the greatest afflictions of the 
 Church "] (I am recalling the words of an 
 " Invito Sagro" dated 27 March, 1861,) 
 " speciale fiducia " [" special confidence " 
 has always been shown to an " antichissima 
 imagine di Gesii Crocifisso " [" a most ancient 
 image of Jesus on the cross "] preserved in 
 the Campo Vaccino. Let me earnestly invite 
 you to obtain access to a little volume which 
 was put forth only sixty-four years ago, under 
 the highest authority ; entitled, De' Prodigi 
 avvenuti in molte sagre Immagini, specialmente 
 di Maria Santissima, secondo gli autentici Pro- 
 cessi compilati in Roma, memorie, estratte, e 
 ragionate da D. Gio. Marchetti, Examinatore 
 Apostolico del Clero e Presidente del Gesti. 
 Con breve ragguaglio di altri simili Prodigi 
 comprovati nelle Curie Vescovili dello Stato 
 
ROME AND ENGLAND. 135 
 
 Pontificio. — Roma, 1797. [" On miracles 
 wrought in many sacred images, especially of 
 the blessed Mary, according to authentic docu- 
 ments collected at Rome, and records selected 
 and digested by D. Gio. Marchetti, apostolic 
 examiner of the clergy and president of Jesus 
 College. With a short account of other simi- 
 lar miracles, proved and admitted by the Epis- 
 copal courts of the Papal States."] — I cite 
 this curious publication, (which I believe is 
 sufficiently rare,) because it affords authentic 
 evidence on the subject under consideration. 
 It exhibits small engravings of 26 images, — 
 24 of which are representations of the Virgin. 
 The locality of each image is carefully speci- 
 fied ; and the opening and shutting of eyes 
 performed by each, as vouched for by 86 wit- 
 nesses, is duly recorded. At p. 221, is the 
 autograph attestation of Cardinal Delia So- 
 maglia, (the Vicar General of that day,) to 
 the whole inquiry, which he had been dele- 
 gated to conduct in person. This is followed 
 by a considerable Supplement and Appendix 
 of duly-certified wonders of the same descrip- 
 tion. The book was translated into English, 
 — but most rigorously suppressed. 
 
 6. I have no wish to be hard upon you, and 
 therefore will pass on. But I scruple not to 
 
136 ROME AND ENGLAND. 
 
 declare that the superstitious legends of fabu- 
 lous Saints, in the Roman Breviary, are alone 
 a fatal blot upon your adopted Communion : 
 for these at least are put forth by the very 
 highest authority, and therefore compromise 
 the whole Church. I must really enlarge a 
 little on this ; because it is so very important 
 and peculiar a matter. The altars, images, 
 and pictures set up here and there by private 
 piety, — however sanctioned by public authority 
 they may be, — are yet (you will say,) not 
 the official documents of the Church. " True 
 enough," (I reply,) "but the Papal Indul- 
 gences engraved upon them are." Be it so, 
 however, that they stand on a different footing 
 from the Roman Breviary itself, — of which, 
 by implication you vaunt the paramount merit 
 when you insinuate, with a sneer, that our 
 English Book of Common Prayer is remarka- 
 ble for nothing so much as its novelty. Let us 
 see exactly how this matter really stands. I 
 invite your best attention. 
 
 You are requested then first to note that our 
 Book at least has no references, (as yours 
 has 1 ) to the Decretals, (a known forgery of 
 
 1 Romish Breviary, 13th July, (Anacletus,) Lectio: — 
 26th April (Cletus.) 
 
ROME AND ENGLAND. 137 
 
 the end of the Eighth Century,) as if they 
 were authentic documents : no memoirs of 
 Early Bishops, 1 confessedly destitute of foun- 
 dation : 2 no lections, like those for 23rd No- 
 vember (Clement of Rome,) which are allowed 
 by Romanists themselves to be u une fable sotte 
 et ridicule." 3 Quite as untrustworthy, al- 
 though less ridiculous is the legend of Corne- 
 lius, Bishop of Rome ; 4 that of Marcellinus, 
 (26th April,) — the existence of which in the 
 Roman Breviary excited the astonishment of 
 Petavius ; that of Marcellus (16th January) ; 
 and that of Sylvester, (30th December,) — the 
 absurdity of which the Abbe Laborde has re- 
 marked upon in detail. 5 " Que diront de nous 
 les Protestants ? " (he asks :) " Que diront de 
 nous les savants ? " 
 
 Charity might perhaps have invented an ex- 
 cuse for legends untrustworthy even as these : 
 
 1 E. g. Anicetus, 17th April : Soter and Caius, 22nd : Cle- 
 tus, 26th : Alexander, 3d May: Urbanus, 26th : Felix, 30th : 
 Pius, 11th July: Anacletus, 13th: Victor, 28th: Zephyri- 
 nus, 26th August : Linus, 23d September : Calixtus, 14th 
 October : Euaristus, 26th : Fabian, 20th January. 
 
 2 Tillemont, artt. Anacletus, Linus, Clement (note 12), Eua- 
 ristus. (Laborde's Lettres Parisiennes, 1855. pp. 71-3.) 
 
 3 Tillemont, T. ii. pp. 605-9. See Laborde, pp. 72-5. 
 
 4 Brev. Rom. 16th Sept. 
 
 5 Lettres Parisiennes, pp. 78-81. 
 
138 ROME AND ENGLAND. 
 
 but when, quitting the early Bishops of Rome, 
 we get on holy ground, how shall we endure 
 apocryphal stories about St. Andrew ; 1 St. 
 James the Greater ; 2 St. Philip ; 3 St. Barthol- 
 omew; 4 St. Matthew; 5 St. Thomas; 6 St. Si- 
 mon and St. Jude ? 7 The hypothesis that 
 Dionysius the Areopagite and St. Denys of 
 France are identical persons, is rejected by all 
 French critics. The legendary history of Dio- 
 nysius, in like manner, is abandoned as belong- 
 ing to the regions of pure fable ; and the 
 French Breviaries exhibit no trace of it, ac- 
 cordingly. It is all to be found, however, in 
 the Romish Breviary, under 9th October : ex- 
 tending over three Lections. 
 
 Besides identifying Mary Magdalene, Mary 
 the sister of Lazarus, and the woman who was 
 a sinner, — the Roman Breviary presents us 
 with the Apocryphal legend which connects 
 Martha, Mary, and Lazarus, with the Church 
 of Marseilles, — a known fabrication of the 
 tenth century. 8 Upwards of thirty of its le- 
 gends are by the confession of Romanists them- 
 
 1 30th November, Lectt. iv. v. vi. 
 
 2 25th July, Lectt. v. vi. 3 1st May, Lectt. iv. v. vi. 
 4 24th Aug. Lectt. iv. v. vi. 5 21st Sept. Lectt. iv. v. 
 
 6 21st Dec. Lect. iv. * 28th Oct. Lect. iv. 
 
 8 29th July. Laborde, pp. 88-104. 
 
ROME AND ENGLAND. 139 
 
 selves, mythical : J some of the Saints are even 
 imaginary personages. Read the silly story 
 of Pascal Baylon, after he was dead, opening 
 and shutting his eyes twice at the elevation of 
 the host ; the preposterous anecdote of John's, 
 (Pope and Martyr) horse ; (17th and 27th 
 May) of Franciscus of Paula ; (2nd April) of 
 Peter Chrysologus ; (4th December) of St. 
 John of Matha ; (8th February) of Maria ad 
 nives ; of St. Peter ad Vincula ; (5th and 1st 
 August) — read such things as these ; and 
 then judge whether Rome is in a position to 
 charge England with novelty 1 2 
 
 1 As the legends of Boniface; of Venantius ; (18th May) 
 of Eustachius and his companions; (20th Septemher) of 
 Cecilia; of Catharine; (22nd and 25th November) of Pris- 
 ca; of Martina; (18th and 30th January) of the forty Mar- 
 tyrs; of Patritius; (10th and 17th March) of Pudentiana ; 
 (19th May) of Vitus, Modestus, and Crescentia ; of John 
 and Paul; (loth and 26th June) of Rufina and Secunda ; 
 of Alexius ; (10th and 17th July) of Cyriacus, Largus, and 
 Smaragdus; (8th August) of Cosmas and Damian ; (27th 
 September) of Babiana; of Nicolaus ; of Lucy ; (2nd, 6th, 
 13th, December) of Marius, Martha, Audifax, and Aba- 
 chus; of Agnes; (19th and 28th January) of Agatha; (5th 
 February) 
 
 2 The above instances are specified by M. l'Abbe La- 
 borde in chapters x. xi. xii. of his Lettres Parisiennes, — a 
 spirited remonstrance against the introduction of the Romish 
 Missal and Breviary into France as substitutes for the Books 
 
140 ROME AND ENGLAND. 
 
 7. Lastly, I must freely say that the entire 
 system of public worship of your new friends 
 is open to the gravest objections. I have writ- 
 
 of the Paris use. " Dans le Missel Romain, il y a un grand 
 n ombre de morceaux de composition d'auteurs ecclesias- 
 tiques ; souvent les paroles des homines y sont melees avec 
 les paroles de Dieu. Dans le Parisien, vous ne voyez rien 
 de pareil. A Texception des proses qui sont une espece 
 d'hymne ; des prefaces qui sont une oraison, et de quelques 
 prieres que Fusage de FEglise universelle a consacrees, tout 
 est exactement de Feeriture," &c, &c. Lettres Parisiennes, 
 ou discussion sur les deux Liturgies Parisienne et Romaine, pour 
 eclairer la determination de ceux qui ont a prononcer entre le Mis- 
 sel et le Bre*ciaire Romains et entre le Missel et le Breviaire de 
 Paris. [Par M. FAbbe Laborde]. Paris, 1855: p. 151. — 
 The whole work is well worth perusal. It is, in fact, a 
 triumphant vindication of the superiority of the Gallican 
 over the Romish Ritual. " Tout ce qu'il y avait de bon 
 dans le Missel Romain a ete conserve dans le Missel de 
 Paris : Mais on trouve dans le Missel de Paris mille excel- 
 lentes choses qui sont a desirer dans le Romain." (p. 158.) 
 It is instructive to hear a Romanist thus speaking of the 
 Ritual of Rome. In the text the excellence of our reformed 
 book is vindicated. " I have often been thinking," says a 
 learned non-juror, " that one could not do a greater service 
 to the Reformation than by translating into English the Mis- 
 sal, Breviary, Pontifical, Manual, and other public service- 
 books of the Church of Rome ; with brief annotations, 
 shewing the rise of all that is foolish and superstitious, and 
 the antiquity of what remains good and commendable in 
 them. This might be done in a very few volumes, and 
 
 those not very large It is certain that the leaders in 
 
 the Church of Rome would with reason look upon it as 
 
ROME AND ENGLAND. 141 
 
 ten sufficiently largely on this subject else- 
 where; 1 and even you will not accuse me of 
 having written those remarks in an unkind 
 spirit. I made the best of everything at Rome. 
 But when you twit me with my "position," 
 &c. it seems to be high time that I should re- 
 mind you a little of yours. 
 
 Suppose, moreover, instead of remaining at 
 Rome, we transport ourselves in thought to 
 the capital of " the eldest son of the Church." 
 It is Sunday morning at Paris. The open 
 shops, — the noisy traffic, — the cries, — the 
 din, — the whirl of vehicles, — the throng, — 
 all is oppressive and strange. Is this the way 
 Sunday is observed in the first of Roman Cath- 
 olic countries, — and in the very capital ? You 
 inquire for the principal church, and you pro- 
 
 a terrible blow given them, if such translations could be 
 published in all the vulgar tongues of Europe.'" — Preface 
 to Johnson's Collection of Canons &c. § xi. — How does it 
 come to pass by the way that all our most famous and most 
 learned elder writers, Andrewes, Taylor, Laud, Beveridge, 
 Bull, Butler, should have been thus honest and downright • 
 in their language concerning Popery ; while certain of our 
 more recent lights express themselves on the same subject 
 with such singular squeamishness, mawkishness and senti- 
 mentality ? 
 
 1 Letters from Rome, p. 36 to 98. See also the Appendix, 
 infra D. 
 
142 ROME AND ENGLAND. 
 
 ceed to the Madeleine. Surely, (you say to 
 yourself as you approach it,) this must be the 
 shrine of some heathen deity ; not a Christian 
 church ! The churches at Rome, (like our 
 own city churches,) are sufficiently uneeclesi- 
 astical in their structure ; but this is a bona 
 fide Temple. 
 
 Enter : and if Divine Service is going on, is 
 it not your first impression that you have lost 
 your way, and inadvertently entered a play- 
 house ? What else can be the meaning of that 
 multitude of personages in white, decked with 
 blue and pink sashes, lilac silk, transparent 
 muslin, black capes, red caps, gold fringe, lace, 
 and fur ; and all performing in such a strange 
 histrionic style in front of a pryamidal group of 
 angels, lighted up by eighty or ninety candles, 
 while boys are carrying tall candles, and young 
 men are throwing and catching censer-boxes, 
 — far more like jugglers playing a trick, than 
 persons assisting at the worship of the Lord 
 of Hosts ? Are these melodramatic evolutions 
 sanctioned by Breviary or Missal ? and are not 
 those mountebanks, rather than persons of the 
 clerical order? 
 
 Oh, but all this is mere prejudice, (I shall 
 be told.) A theatrical nation, fond of the pic- 
 turesque in Religion, as in everything else, has 
 
ROME AND ENGLAND. 143 
 
 adopted a gaudier ritual than your cold north- 
 ern taste is altogether able to approve. Boys 
 may wear pink dresses, I suppose, with white 
 muslin over them, without endangering An- 
 tiquity ? — Allowed. Let us inquire then what 
 is the order of the Service for the day, and as- 
 certain what these performers are all actually 
 about. " Aujourd'hui, 5 Fevrier, Septuage- 
 sime. Au choeur on celebre la Solemnity de la 
 Presentation de N. S. et de la S. Vierge. — A 
 8f h. la premiere grande Messe (du Dimanche) 
 suivie du Prone par M. le Cur£. — A 10| h. la 
 Benediction des cierges, l'Aspersion, et la sec- 
 onde grande Messe. — A 1 h. la derniere Messe. 
 — A 2 h. None, Vespres, Sermon, . . . et le 
 Salut. — Le soir, a 8 h. Reunion de la Con- 
 frerie et Procession." [" To-day, February 5, 
 Septuagesima. In the choir the Solemnity of 
 the Presentation of Our Lord and the Blessed 
 Virgin is celebrated. — At a quarter of nine 
 o'clock, the first High Mass, followed by a ser- 
 mon from the curate. — At a quarter of eleven, 
 the Blessing of Candles, the Aspersion or 
 Sprinkling of the People, and the second High 
 Mass. — At one o'clock the last Mass. — At 
 two o'clock, Nones, Vespers, Sermon, and the 
 Salutation. — In the evening at eight o'clock, 
 Meeting of the Brotherhood and Procession."" 
 
144 ROME AND ENGLAND. 
 
 Iii other words, the sacred solemnities of the 
 Feast of the Purification (2nd February) have 
 been transferred to Septuagesima, — the ensu- 
 ing Sunday (5th Feb.) in defiance of propriety 
 and of the Prayer-Book. The Sacrament of 
 the Lord's Supper is celebrated by the clergy 
 in the hearing of such of the lay people as 
 choose to attend, thrice in the morning, — the 
 earliest occasion being at a quarter to 9 (!). A 
 short address, a blessing of candles, and As- 
 persion, complete the programme. Nones and 
 Vespers, (by accumulation!) at 2 o'clock 1 (!) 
 are followed by a Sermon. Where then are 
 Matins, Lauds, and Prime ? The fancy- 
 prayers of a Confraternity, and " Procession," 
 close the day. ... If you admire this repre- 
 sentation of the Catholic method, — (and you 
 will please to observe that we have resorted for 
 it to the first Roman Catholic nation in the 
 world ; and ascertained how it is exhibited in 
 the best Church of the French metropolis,) — 
 I am sorry for you. Commend vie to the 
 Catholic method as it is to be seen in the best 
 Churches of the metropolis of Anglo-G&t\\o\iQ, 
 England. 
 
 1 At S. Roch, the second church in Paris, Vespers, &c. 
 are at 1.30. 
 
ROME AND ENGLAND. 145 
 
 And next, for the effect of all this on the 
 people. The public religion of the Parisians^ 
 as it may be called, is to be seen in the utter 
 desecration of the Sunday exhibited univer- 
 sally out of church. The veritable " Theatre " 
 begins a few hours later ! There will also ha 
 buying and selling going on till half-past 10 at 
 night, in the public streets. . . . In Church, 
 where are the men ? Why do all sit, — whis- 
 per, — look unconcerned, — or read books not 
 of the Service ? Why this coming in and 
 going out, at all hours ? Why so much gath- 
 ering of money? And then, that offensive 
 chaissiere, coming for her vile two or three 
 sous, in the middle of the Service ! Could no 
 other way be devised of paying for being un- 
 comfortable ? .... To be brief. " The Gal- 
 lican use " seen through Liturgical spectacles 
 at the end of a vista of a thousand years, looks 
 picturesque and venerable enough. So does 
 the Roman Use. So does the Use of Sarum. 
 But you seem to make Church-membership an 
 open question ; and talk as if you were " an 
 
 unattached Christian" (as Lady wittily 
 
 described herself;) and as if every one was 
 " in search of a Religion." Now, if contrast- 
 ing of methods is to be the order of the day, 
 then I have but to request that you will con- 
 
 10 
 
146 ROME AND ENGLAND. 
 
 trast like with like, and contrast fairly ; and I 
 have no misgiving whatever as to what will be 
 the result. You may not, at all events, de- 
 scribe Romanism as it is to be seen set off to 
 the greatest advantage in one of the best ap- 
 pointed and most sumptuous Churches in 
 Rome ; and straightway contrast the imposing 
 and attractive result with our Anglican method, 
 as it is to be seen in the ill-served church of a 
 neglected village in one of our remoter English 
 provinces. 
 
 No doubt I shall be told that the Madeleine 
 is a gay and fashionable Church, and that I 
 ought not to go there for a sample of the Rom- 
 ish devotion of the French capital. So, in 
 truth I thought ; and frankly stated my senti- 
 ments to a very pious person. " Go," (she 
 said,) " to Notre Dame des Victoires, at 7 in 
 the evening ; " and I went. 
 
 The devoutness of the congregation of that 
 Church delighted me, I confess ; but it was the 
 devotion of a Meeting-House. About five hun- 
 dred were assembled, all of the humbler class. 
 The prayers were altogether modern, and very 
 wretched compositions. The people sat while 
 the Psalms were being chanted. True, that 
 most of them joined in them heartily: but 
 they had not come together for common Prayer. 
 
ROME AND ENGLAND. 147 
 
 I tried to look over their books, and ascertained 
 that only some had come provided with the 
 manual of the confraternity : the rest were 
 otherwise employed. One near me was read- 
 ing the " Manuel des pieuses domestiques." 
 A single priest officiated, and the service lasted 
 exactly two hours and a half. It was called, 
 " Vespers of the Virgin," — for she is the pre- 
 siding Deity of Romanism, whether in, or out 
 of Rome. As for the Sermon, it was as worth- 
 less and weak as possible ; but the speaker was 
 fluent and earnest. — Now this is a true pic- 
 ture of popular Romanism as it is to be seen 
 in Paris since the great Revival effected by M. 
 Desgenettes, — who organized the " Archicon- 
 frerie du tres-saint et immacule coeur de Marie, 
 pour la conversion des p^cheurs." Does it ap- 
 pear to you particularly attractive ? Does it, 
 at all events warrant any saucy remarks in 
 disparagement of our Anglican method ? It 
 was, in fact, neither more nor less than a Re- 
 vival, in the modern popular sense of the term, 
 which M. Desgenettes contrived. But the 
 point to be observed is, that he compiled a set 
 of fancy prayers for the public worship of the 
 Confraternity, — and that Pope Gregory XVI. 
 (in 1836) solemnly ratified all that he had 
 done. The propriety of such sanction, I am 
 
148 ROME AND ENGLAND. 
 
 not going to discuss. But I wish that, instead 
 of being ensnared by the claim to Antiquity, 
 put forth by the Church of Rome, members of 
 our own communion would take the trouble to 
 acquaint themselves with the true state of the 
 case. I wish they would have the candour to 
 recognise the solemn fact that Antiquity abides 
 with us : that the Romish ritual, — the public 
 worship of Almighty God as it takes place 
 practically in the Church of Rome, — is an 
 invention of yesterday: weak, unscriptural, 
 "unsound, worthless. 1 
 
 8. I might prolong this kind of discussion 
 indefinitely. If I were to attempt to enume- 
 rate all the vices in the theory, all the mis- 
 chiefs in the practical working, of the Romish 
 system, the task before me would be endless. 
 I should have to give you a lecture " on Ro- 
 manism as neglectful of Antiquity : " 2 and 
 should have to preface it by a lecture on Ro- 
 
 1 The reader is referred to the Appendix, D and E. 
 
 2 " However we explain it, so much is clear, that the 
 Fathers are only so far of use in the eyes of Romanists as 
 they prove the Roman doctrines ; and in no sense are allowed to 
 interfere with the conclusions which the Church has adopted ; 
 that they are of authority when they seem to agree with 
 Home, of none if they differ. .... How hopeless then is it 
 to contend with Romanists, as if they practically agreed 
 
ROME AND ENGLAND. 149 
 
 manism as neglectful of Scripture. " She 
 assumes," (says Archdeacon Wordsworth,) 
 " a superiority over the Fathers and Councils 
 of the Ancient Church. This she has shown 
 a priori by affirming, that if Councils or Fath 
 ers speak in opposition to her, they are to be 
 regarded as pro tanto of no authority. Sec- 
 ondly, she exercises this assumed superiority 
 in practice, by mutilating, (or, as she terms it, 
 correcting) the records of the Early Church. 
 Sixtus Senensis 2 commended Pope Pius V. for 
 the care he took " in purging all the composi- 
 
 with us as to the foundation of faith, however much they 
 pretend to it! Ours is Antiquity, theirs the existing 
 Church. . . . 
 
 " I make one remark more. Enough has been said to 
 show the hopefulness of our own prospects in the contro- 
 versy with Eome. We have her own avowal that the Fath- 
 ers ought to be followed, and again that she does not follow 
 them ; what more can we require than her witness against 
 herself which is here supplied us ? If such inconsistency is 
 not at once fatal to her claims, which it would seem to be, 
 at least it is a most encouraging omen in our contest with 
 her. We have but to remain pertinaciously and immovably fixed 
 on the ground of Antiquity : and as truth is ours, so will the vic- 
 tory be also." — Xewman's Lectures on the Prophetical Office of 
 the Church, pp. 84, 68, 100. 
 
 1 Epist. dedicat. ad Pium Y. P. M. " Expurgari et ema- 
 culari curasti omnia Catholicorum scriptorum ac praecipue 
 veterum Patrum scripta." [This note and the three which 
 follow, are by Archd. W.] 
 
150 ROME AND ENGLAND. 
 
 tions of Catholic writers, and specially those 
 of the ancient Fathers : " and the mode in 
 which this work of purgation was performed 
 may be conceived from the following examples. 
 Augustine says, "Faith only justifies:" — 
 "Our works cannot save us:" — "Marriage 
 is allowed to all:" — "Peter erred in the 
 question of clean and unclean meats:" — 
 " St. John cautions us against the invocation 
 of Saints." The holy bishop, (says the Church 
 of Rome,) is to be corrected in all these 
 places. 1 — Chrysostom teaches that "Christ 
 forbids heretics to be put to death ; " that " to 
 adore martyrs is antichristian ; " that " the 
 reading of Scripture is needful to all ; " that 
 " there is no merit but from Christ ; " that it 
 is " a proud thing to detract from or add to 
 Scripture ; " that " Bishops and Priests are 
 subject to the higher powers ; " that the " Pro- 
 phets had wives." The venerable Patriarch 
 
 1 I copy these passages from the Index Expur gator ius, Im- 
 pensis Lazari Zetzneri, 1599. This Index was not to be 
 published. See Prsef. B. 6. "Praelati in omnibus urbibus 
 ubi bibliopolae inhabitant unum et item alterum sibi deligere 
 poterunt, quos idoneos judicabunt, sedulos et fideles : iique 
 ipsi privatim nullisque consciis apud se Indicem expurgato- 
 rium habebunt, quern eundem neque aliis communicabunt, 
 neque ejus exemplum ulli dabunt." 
 
ROME AND ENGLAND. 151 
 
 must be freed from all these heretical notions. 
 — Epiphanius affirms that "no creature is to 
 be worshipped." This is an error, and must 
 be expunged. — Jerome asserts that " all Bish- 
 ops are equal ; " he must here be amended. — 
 And further, the Fathers are not only to be 
 corrected by subtraction, but by addition also. 
 Thus Cyprian is to be made say, " hie Petro pri- 
 matus datur," and " qui cathedram Petri, 
 super quam fundata est Ecclesia, deserit, in 
 Ecclesia se esse confidit ? " 1 against his own 
 practice, for which he has been condemned by 
 Bellarmine as guilty of mortal sin. All this 
 is not wonderful, since the Church of Rome 
 has not spared even the Word of God. In the 
 Roman index 2 we read " deleatur illud ' Abra- 
 ham fide Justus,' " which is the assertion of 
 St. Paul." 3 
 
 9. The subject becomes wellnigh endless, if I 
 am seriously to set myself on specifying all the 
 
 1 See Dr. James On the Corruption of the True Fathers, p. 
 114, ed. 1688. 
 
 2 P. 48. See other passages of Scripture, expunged by 
 the Church of Rome, in Dr. James's work, p. 427. 
 
 3 Gall. iii. 6. Rom. iv. 3. — The quotation in the text is 
 from Archd. Wordsworth's Letters to M. Gondon on the de- 
 structive character of the Church of Rome both in Religion and 
 Policy, 1847, p. 252-4. 
 
152 ROxME AND ENGLAND. 
 
 grounds of my repugnance to that Communion 
 which you have elected for your own. " The 
 characters of the supremacy of the 13th and 
 14th Centuries are stereotyped by Papal In- 
 fallibility" . . . Nothing therefore that has 
 ever been done by Papal authority may be any 
 longer called in question. Such a monstrous 
 doctrine as the following, — that Popes can de- 
 pose Princes from their Thrones, and release 
 subjects from their obedience: — such a blas- 
 phemous doctrine as this, — that the Pope by 
 his plenary power can remit all sins : — such a 
 wicked principle as, — that all heretics are to 
 be extirpated by the civil power : — such a pat- 
 ent fiction as the following, — that all the prop- 
 erty of the Church belongs to the Pope, so that 
 he can dispose of it as he ivill: — such prepos- 
 terous assumptions as, — that all the Councils 
 of the Church have, and can have, authority 
 only from the Pope's Confirmation: — that all 
 Bishops and Clergy have mission and power to 
 minister by the authority of the Pope alone : — 
 that all jurisdiction proceeds from the Pope : 
 — all these doctrines, I say, no Romanist may 
 dfeny. Hear Pope Bonifacius VIII. (1303), 
 beginning a public decree in these words : 
 "Being set above Kings and Kingdoms by a 
 Divine pre-eminence of power, ice dispose of 
 
ROME AND ENGLAND. 153 
 
 them as we think fit" In the preceding year 
 (1302) in a famous Bull, he had said, — " We 
 declare, affirm, define, and pronounce that it is 
 altogether necessary for salvation, that every 
 human creature should be subject to the Roman 
 Pontiff" I end as I began, by inviting your 
 attention to the memorable sentence of Pope 
 Gregory VII., (1076,) whereby he released the 
 subjects of Henry IV. from their allegiance to 
 that Emperor : — "In behalf of Almighty God, 
 the Father, and the Son, and the Holy 
 Ghost, — I deny to Henry the government of 
 the whole Realm of Germany and Italy, and 
 release all Christians from the bond of the oath 
 which they have made or will make to him, and 
 forbid any one to serve him as if he were a 
 King" 2 . . . I think this may suffice. If it 
 strikes you as attractive, or even tolerable, that 
 all this must be acquiesced in on pain of eter- 
 nal banishment from the presence of Almighty 
 God, I can only say that I am very sorry for 
 you. Again, — Is Rome a spiritual, or apoliti- 
 cal power ; — which ? 
 
 10. If I were bent on prolonging this dis- 
 cussion, I might easily draw out a most heavy 
 charge against your adopted Communion of 
 
 Hussey, Rise of the Papal poiuer, passim. 
 
154 ROME AND ENGLAND. 
 
 having added fresh articles to the Faith, — not 
 for the first time in 1854 ; and for requiring 
 assent to them under pain of anathema. (I 
 allude especially to the Creed of Pope Pius 
 IV.) I should have to reproach the Church 
 of Rome with setting an example of schism by- 
 setting up rival Bishops in our sees at home 
 and abroad, — in defiance of the Canons of 
 (Ecumenical Councils, and the Laws of all the 
 Churches. 1 A Bible withheld from the people, 
 
 — and Divine Service in an unknown tongue, 
 
 — alas, it would be a long, long catalogue, if 
 I were to undertake to give you every reason 
 why I think the Church of England an infi- 
 nitely better Church to live and die in than the 
 
 1 " As the imperial City of Constantinople was the centre 
 of Catholic communion in the East, so once was imperial 
 Rome in the West, until her Bishops affecting an universal su- 
 premacy, she became the author of her own schism, by which 
 she still divides the Christian world. Then, it may be, for 
 her punishment, she was permitted to wander from the 
 straight and narrow path of scriptural truth, into the broad 
 road of error ; adding, at her own will, novel and strange 
 doctrines, unknown to the Apostles as articles of Faith ; 
 until, in this our day, as if to perpetuate her character of 
 the Great Schismatic, she has invaded the rights of other 
 independent Churches, setting up altar against altar, and 
 pretended Bishops, who, being secundi, are by the nominal 
 rule of the Church, nulli." — Life of Bp. Ken, by a Layman, 
 1854, p. 132. 
 
ROME AND ENGLAND. 155 
 
 Church of Rome ! Moral considerations would 
 have to be introduced also ; and I should feel 
 it my duty to direct your attention to Spain, 
 and to other parts of France and Italy besides 
 Paris and Rome. But I desist. To my next, 
 which will be a much longer letter, I beg to 
 invite your very special attention. One only 
 question do I feel disposed to put to you at part- 
 ing : — On what possible principle can you de- 
 fend the universal practice of your new friends 
 of rebaptizing, — insisting upon the Rebaptizch 
 tion, — of such members of the Church of 
 England as seek to unite themselves to the 
 Church of Rome ? . . . I have heard that 
 anxiety is feigned lest the person so seeking 
 admission into another branch of Christ's Holy 
 Catholic Church should never have been duly 
 baptized. But, two awkward considerations 
 here present themselves : — First, Why should 
 an English Priest be supposed to be a less 
 trustworthy agent than any old woman, — to 
 whom the Romish (not the English !) Church 
 expressly gives authority, in case of need, to 
 administer the Sacrament of Baptism ? And 
 secondly, since (according to the Romish 
 view,) Intention is necessary to the validity of 
 a Sacrament, what security have you that, in 
 any given instance, the Sacrament of Baptism 
 
156 ROME AND ENGLAND. 
 
 is administered, by a Romish Priest, at all? 
 .... I am really curious for an explanation. 
 Let me only request you to disabuse your mind 
 of the notion that the alleged plea of doubt is 
 the true reason why Rome pursues this sinful 
 course. For, even when a very learned Eng- 
 lish Doctor, (as in a well-known instance,) has 
 given a written assurance that the Sacrament 
 was duly administered by his own hands, Rome 
 has insisted on the repetition of the solemn 
 rite. Now, you are of course aware that Re- 
 iteration of Baptism is sacrilege. 
 
 P. S. — I feel myself constrained to give a 
 separate and emphatic place to two other ob- 
 jections which I entertain against the Popish 
 system. So diverse are they in their char- 
 acter from those which have been hitherto 
 specified, that they vindicate for themselves a 
 place apart. I request your best attention ; 
 promising not to abuse your patience, and 
 withal solemnly declaring that the considera- 
 tions which I am about to allege, weigh so 
 powerfully with me, as literally to extinguish 
 the force of almost everything which the most 
 able of your controversialists are wont to ad- 
 duce on the side of Rome. Listen ! 
 
 1. I abhor Popery because it is demonstrably 
 
ROME AND ENGLAND. 157 
 
 not so much a Religious Method as a Politi- 
 cal Power. You have but to acquaint your- 
 self ever so little with that teaching which is 
 specially designated as " Ultramontane" to 
 convince yourself that it is as I say. The 
 one doctrine that " Popes can depose Princes 
 from their thrones, and release subjects from 
 their obedience ; " — this one doctrine, resting as 
 it does on the right claimed by Popes Nicholas 
 II., Alexander III., Innocent III. and IV., 
 Gregory VII. and IX., John XXII., and Pius 
 V., — this one tenet, I say, is enough with me 
 not only to make Popery intolerable, but to 
 make any " concordat " between ourselves and 
 Rome simply impossible. 1 The Divine Head 
 of the Church hath said, "Render unto Caesar 
 the things which be Caesar's " : and " My 
 Kingdom is not of this World." The secular 
 ambition which not only affects temporal 
 power, but sets itself up against duly con- 
 stituted authorities, and claims dominion over 
 anointed kings, is by all loyal citizens to be 
 dreaded as well as detested and abhorred. 
 Such teaching is opposed to the whole spirit 
 of the Gospel of Jesus Christ, as that Gospel 
 
 1 The learned reader is referred to the teaching of the 
 Bull's Unigenitus and Unam Sanctam. 
 
158 ROME AND ENGLAND. 
 
 was interpreted by Fathers and Councils, with- 
 out a single exception, for the first thousand 
 years of the Church's History. 
 
 2. My other objection is a very solemn one. 
 It is based on the proved results of Romanism : 
 the known effect of the system on the heart 
 and on the life of the individual : (" By their 
 fruits ye shall know them," — said the Author 
 of Nature and of Grace.) And I do deliber- 
 ately declare Romanism to be a Demoralizing 
 principle. 
 
 I am saying that Deceit and Guile, — Du- 
 plicity, Equivocation, Untruthfulness, — these 
 are invariably observed to be the fatal concomi- 
 tants of the downward course which you have 
 been pursuing ; and which you now have the 
 audacity to invite me to pursue also. I am 
 saying that Falseness, in one or more of its 
 many shapes, is the invariable characteristic of 
 a lapse from Anglo-Catholicism to the Romish 
 schism. And I further declare this to be one 
 of its darkest features. There is observed to 
 come a loss of high moral Principle. The Fifth 
 Commandment, — (whose weakened sanctions 
 the Baptist came to re-inforce, lest God should 
 " come and smite the earth with a curse " *) 
 
 1 Mai. iv. 5, 6. 
 
ROME AND ENGLAND. 159 
 
 — the Fifth Commandment, I say, is, on 
 such occasions, habitually set at naught. A 
 very boy, a mere girl, will dare to put him- 
 self, herself, secretly into communication with 
 a Popish Priest : and he, clandestinely, will 
 dare to entertain the overture. Nay, your 
 Popish Priest will be so wicked as to tamper 
 with the faith of a youthful Anglican, — in 
 defiance of the known wishes of Parents or 
 Guardians. Worst of all, — he will pretend 
 that he does this in the sacred name of Reli- 
 gion ; — in the blessed name of Him who or- 
 dained the Fifth Commandment, and whose 
 very Name is Truth. 
 
 Yes, sir ! This indifference to, — this dis- 
 regard of, — this systematic contempt for, 
 Truth, is the plague spot of your hateful sys- 
 tem. The very power of discerning and appre- 
 ciating Truth, — the very love of Truth as 
 Truth, — seems to dwell feebly with members 
 of the Romish Communion. Witness the 
 grossness of the whole system of ' Relics,' 
 6 Indulgences,' c modern miracles,' — as well as 
 the arguments whereby they are extenuated if 
 not defended ! Witness the way in which 
 documents and monuments of antiquity of 
 whatever kind are by Rome misrepresented, 
 tampered with, kept back, falsified, suppressed ! 
 
lfiO ROME AND ENGLAND. 
 
 Witness, — I may truly say, — the damaged 
 condition of everything which Rome even so 
 much as touches ! Witness, above all, (as I 
 began by saying,) the deteriorating effects of 
 Popery on the human heart and conscience, — 
 its destructive effect on the daily life, from 
 which Truthfulness seems actually to disap- 
 pear ! As it is the sure token that the Leprosy 
 has begun, when Deceit begins conspicuously 
 to manifest itself in the Homeward disposition, 
 so is it certain that, unless it be checked, it 
 will spread until the whole man is " unclean " ; 
 until from the crown of the head to the 
 sole of the foot, there is no soundness in him. 
 The first step in this downward progress was 
 probably Disobedience to Parents. Next came 
 Falsehood, (whose name, like that of its 
 author, is Legion,) in a multitude of shapes. 
 The just retribution for all this is, that, in the 
 end, the foolish heart is darkened ; and be- 
 cause the Pervert would not retain God in his 
 knowledge, the weak and wayward one is by 
 God forsaken, and given over to believe a 
 Lie. 
 
HOME AND ENGLAND. 161 
 
 LETTER III. 
 
 The only real question remains yet to be discussed: 
 namely, the validity of the papal claim to univer- 
 sal supremacy. — five theories briefly considered. 
 
 — the patriarchal claim. — the claim of conver- 
 sion. — the claim of immemorial possession. — the 
 claim from infallibility. — the claim, based on scrip- 
 ture and fathers, of being the successor of st. 
 peter. — no primacy of authority given to st. peter. 
 
 — st. peter not the founder of the church of 
 rome : nor the first bishop of rome : nor recognised 
 as having any supremacy by early councils and 
 fathers. — cyprian's evidence. — conclusion. 
 
 Sir, — It is high time to bring the question 
 before us to a definite issue. Not one of the 
 various considerations urged in your letter, to 
 which I have hitherto directed rny remarks, 
 affects the real question before us, in the least ; 
 and I am surprised that you, and the many 
 others, (I thought they had been chiefly young 
 ladies?) — who adopt the same language, do 
 not perceive how utterly inconsequential and 
 weak it is. Whether the primitive Liturgies 
 are full of Romish doctrine, or whether they 
 are not ; — on which side of the Alps there is 
 more of sanctity or of ungodliness ; — whether 
 11 
 
162 ROME AND ENGLAND. 
 
 or no Images wink, and whether or no they 
 ought to be worshipped even if they do wink : 
 
 — all such points as these are absolutely irrel- 
 evant to the question which you bring before 
 me. You urge me to become a Roinanist. In 
 other words, you invite me to look upon the 
 English Church as a simply schismatic body ; 
 
 — a body to which it is impossible to belong 
 without such imminent danger to one's soul, 
 that every one of you ought positively to with- 
 draw himself from it. You invite me further 
 to show by my acts that I think the only way 
 of safety is to seek admission into the Church 
 of Rome. This, if I understand you rightly, 
 is the actual gist of your letter. 
 
 Now, in order to persuade me to take so 
 serious and solemn a step as this ; in order to 
 induce me to reverse my existing convictions, 
 and then to set up my own private judgment 
 against the collective wisdom, learning, and 
 piety of the English Church ; it is clear that 
 no small amount of logic is required on your 
 part. It will not suffice to show me that the 
 advantages of Romanism, — the disadvantages 
 of Anglicanism, — are manifold. The retort 
 is obvious and fatal. It will not suffice to ap- 
 peal to the fact that the Bishop of Rome now 
 claims supreme authority over all the Churches 
 
ROME AND ENGLAND. 163 
 
 of Christendom. That is precisely the circum- 
 stance which underlies the whole question, — 
 the very claim which requires to be made out. 
 In a word. The one thing you have to es- 
 tablish is the validity of the Romish claim to 
 universal Supremacy: or at least, you have 
 to demonstrate the rightful authority of the 
 Bishop of Rome over the English Church. I, 
 for my part, as you are aware, assert that " the 
 Bishop of Rome hath no jurisdiction in this 
 Realm of England." x You, with your new 
 friends, adopt precisely the opposite language : 
 nay, the most expert of your controversialists 
 declare that the Pope's Supremacy is the fun- 
 damental doctrine of Romanism. " On this 
 doctrine," (says Bellarmine,) " the whole 
 cause of Christianity," (he means Romish 
 Christianity,) " depends." 2 It is, in fact, 
 " the essence of the whole Romish system. 
 Take away the assertion of S. Peter's Su- 
 premacy and the Pope's equal power, (as his 
 successor,) and the Roman Church is then no 
 more to the rest of Christendom than the 
 Church of Ethiopia or Armenia would be ; ex- 
 
 1 Art. xxxvii. 
 
 2 " De qua re agitur cum de Primatu Pontificis agitur 1 
 brevissirne dicam ; de surnmd rei Christianas." — Yol. i. p. 
 494, ed. 1577, — quoted by Archd. Wordsworth. 
 
164 ROME AND ENGLAND. 
 
 cept so far as one branch might be more pure, 
 enlightened, or efficient than another." x The 
 validity of Rome's pretensions, then, in this 
 respect, is the one thing which you have to 
 establish. 
 
 I must give you yet another warning. It 
 will not suffice for you, in order to make out 
 the validity of the Papal claim, to do any of 
 the following things : one or more of which 
 every writer has done, who has hitherto written 
 on your side of the question, viz., (1) You 
 may not assume that " a Primacy of authority " 
 is given in Scripture to St. Peter over the rest 
 of the Apostles. You must prove it. (2) You 
 must not invite me to accept the remarkable 
 favour which occasionally attends the mention 
 of St. Peter's name in the Gospels and Acts, 
 as any proof whatever of a thing with which 
 I deny that it has any manner of connection ; 
 viz., the claim to Infallibility, and universal 
 Supremacy set up, in modern times, by the 
 Bishop of Rome. (3) I must caution you 
 against quoting, (as Dr. Wiseman has been 
 convicted of doing,) 2 spurious writings in sup- 
 
 1 Ilussey, p. xxx. 
 
 2 See Rev. W. Palmer's Vth Letter to Wiseman, (1841,) 
 p. 15 to p. 32. 
 
ROME AND ENGLAND. 165 
 
 port of the Romish side of the question. (4) You 
 must be on your guard against urging in argu- 
 ment, divorced from their context, short scraps 
 of the Fathers, which prove on examination 
 to be garbled extracts which entirely misrepre- 
 sent the mind and meaning of the author. 1 
 
 1 I allude to such a collection of shreds and patches as 
 Archd. Wilberforce accumulates at p. 131, — references taken 
 wholesale by himself, (as he informs us,). and by Mr. Allies, 
 from Passaglia "De Praerogativis B. Petri." Such utterly 
 worthless specimens of patristic lore, again, as Mr. Allies 
 sweeps together at p. 11, and indeed throughout his book, 
 are what I here condemn. The strange underlying fallacy 
 of these writers, and indeed of all who have taken the same 
 side of the question, is, — that laudatory expressions con- 
 cerning St. Peter are one and all assumed to be, ipso facto, 
 applicable to the seat of the Papacy. And again, that lan- 
 guage of high respect used concerning Kome, is tantamount 
 to a recognition of the modern claims of its Pontiff to spir- 
 itual supremacy. This, and the further fallacy that wher- 
 ever the Church is anywhere, and by anybody, mentioned, 
 the Romish branch of the Church is exclusively intended, — 
 really makes the sum of what nine-tenths of those who 
 have written on the other side will be found to have deliv- 
 ered concerning the Romish question . . . Their method, 
 to describe it in a few words, seems to he this : — Given the 
 truth of all Romish Doctrine, how may the language of Scrip- 
 ture, and the facts of Antiquity be warped into agreement 
 with it ? Now, our method is precisely the reverse of this. 
 Assuming Holy Scripture to be worthy of all acceptation ; 
 and assuming that deference is due to Antiquity, how does 
 Modern Romanism appear when tested by this twofold standard? 
 
166 ROME AND ENGLAND. 
 
 (5) You must be denied the privilege of quot- 
 ing in English what was originally written in 
 Greek or in Latin ; with a vague reference at the 
 foot of the page to " S. Cyprian," " S. Opta- 
 tus," " S. Ambrose," and so forth: for I posi- 
 tively declare that such cheap, (and generally 
 incorrect^) Patristic lore is wholly inadmissible 
 into so grave a question. We must really be 
 allowed to see clearly, and be quite sure of, 
 what it is we are talking about. Under these 
 very obvious conditions, I shall be happy to 
 attend to everything you are pleased to urge. 
 
 (6) What need to say that I will put up with 
 no fanciful analogies, as if they were proofs ? 
 This is too grave a question to be settled on 
 sentimental grounds. We are not now going 
 to discuss such an expression as the " Rock of 
 Peter," or the " Chair of Peter," or the " See 
 of Peter," or the " Boat of Peter," or any 
 other mere nourish of rhetoric, as if it were 
 an argument. However laudatory the language 
 which, in the fifth or sixth century, may have 
 been applied to the Romish Church, it is clearly 
 no proof that the Bishop of Rome enjoyed any 
 supremacy whatever over the other Churches 
 of Christendom. — None of these tricks of 
 controversy will I allow you to palm off upon 
 me for an instant. You may not imitate Arch- 
 
ROME AND ENGLAND. 167 
 
 deacon Wilberforce, in the logically worthless 
 volume with which he went over to Rome : 1 
 nor Mr. Allies, (who is a jet greater offender 
 in the same way,) in the little book which he 
 put forth when he apostatised. 2 I refuse to 
 admit any such methods as valid. 
 
 Do not imagine from this preamble that 1 
 am about to inflict upon you a complete argu- 
 ment against the Papal claim to universal 
 authority. I am about to do nothing of the 
 kind. Our Anglican position has at least this 
 advantage in all discussions of this nature ; 
 namely that the burthen of proofs rests wholly 
 with yourselves. The hollowness of the pre- 
 tensions generally set up, and the insufficiency 
 of the arguments generally urged, are easily 
 shown. I must nevertheless proceed methodi- 
 cally, and cannot dismiss the subject without 
 reminding you that those who argue on your 
 side of the question are bound to make out 
 their case on some definite ground. What 
 you have to prove is the Papal author- 
 ity in England, and you are at liberty to 
 
 1 An Inquiry into the Principles of Church Authority ; or Jly 
 Reasons for recalling my Subscription to the Royal Supremacy. 
 8vo, 1854. 
 
 2 The See of S. Peter the Rock of the Church, the Source of 
 Jurisdiction, and the Centre of Unity. 12mo, 1855. 
 
168 ROME AND ENGLAND. 
 
 adopt whichever of the following theories you 
 please : — 
 
 I. You may pretend that England belongs to 
 the Western Patriarchate, and that the Pope is 
 the Patriarch of the West : — the plea of 
 Patriarchal Authority. 
 
 II. Or you may pretend that the right of 
 authority was acquired by the Bishop of Rome, 
 and conveyed to his successors in perpetuity, 
 on the ground of having converted England : — 
 the plea of Conversion. 
 
 III. Or you may assert that he has a pre- 
 scriptive right to jurisdiction in England, 
 grounded on immemorial Possession. 
 
 IV. Or you may set up the Pope's Infalli- 
 bility ; and infer the deference due to him as 
 an unerring guide. 
 
 V. Or lastly, you may take your stand on 
 Scripture and the Fathers : and attempt to 
 prove the universal Pastorship of the Bishop 
 of Eome, as the successor of St. Peter : — the 
 plea of Universal Authority. 
 
 Let it only be remarked concerning all these 
 good reasons, that they are somewhat incon- 
 sistent with one another. If the Bishop of 
 Rome claims to be Universal Bishop, then, 
 why talk of his Patriarchal jurisdiction ? much 
 less of his right based on our Conversion. If 
 
ROME AND ENGLAND. 169 
 
 he has Rights, — then, why appeal to his pre- 
 tended immemorial Possession? — I proceed 
 briefly to refute the five pleas already stated. 
 
 I. The plea of the Pope's Patriarchal Au- 
 thority over England is easily disposed of. 
 We appeal to the celebrated language of the 
 Council of Nicsea (a.d. 325) : — " Let the an- 
 cient usages prevail, which are received in 
 Egypt," &c. " And .... let the privileges 
 of the Church be preserved." 1 We appeal 
 also to the decree of Ephesus : — "No bishop 
 shall interfere in other provinces which have 
 not, from the very first, been under himself 
 
 and his predecessors But if any one 
 
 should have taken (a province), or have caused 
 it to be subject to him by compulsion, he shall 
 restore it." 2 — " To these canons of Nicasa 
 and Ephesus," (says Palmer,) " we appeal 
 with confidence. They establish all jurisdic- 
 tions existing at the time when they were 
 enacted ; they forbid all usurpation of author- 
 ity by one Church over another. The British 
 Churches were perfectly independent of Rome 
 in the time of those synods : it was therefore 
 unlawful for Rome to assume authority over 
 them. That authority was an abuse ; it ought 
 
 1 Routh, Opuscula, vol. i. p. 358. 2 JUd. pp . 100-1. 
 
170 ROME AND ENGLAND. 
 
 to have been relinquished by Rome : it was 
 rightfully corrected by our Churches." 1 
 
 For, (as Fullwood, following Bramhall and 
 many others, has shown,) the territorial inde- 
 pendence of the English Church is matter of 
 historical notoriety. It is a simple fact that 
 the ancient Patriarchate of Rome did not in- 
 clude England. " According to Ruffinus, (a 
 Roman, who lived not long after the Council 
 of Nicsea,) it was limited to the suburbicary 
 cities ; i. e. a part of Italy, and their Islands, 
 Sicily, Sardinia, and Corsica : much less did it 
 ever pretend to Britain, either by custom, 
 canon, or edict of any of our princes." 2 But 
 I must be content to refer you on this subject 
 to the pages of our own learned Bingham. 3 
 What need to remind you of the answer of the 
 British Bishops to Augustine the Monk ? their 
 bold and emphatic assertion of their ancient 
 independence ? This evidence, remember, is 
 express, and ought to be decisive, — if the tes- 
 timony of History be worth anything at all. 
 
 The Pope, I repeat, must say nothing about 
 
 1 Even the plain language of the Canon has been trifled 
 with by Bellarmine and others. See Fullwood, pp. 34^5. 
 
 2 Fullwood, p. 35. 
 
 8 Eccl Antiq. Book ix. ch. i. §§ 9-12. 
 
ROME AND ENGLAND. 171 
 
 his claim as a Patriarch if he pretend to be 
 Universal Bishop, — for the two claims are in- 
 consistent ; as Fullwood, (after Bramhall,) has 
 convincingly shown. 1 
 
 II. And next, for the plea of Conversion, it 
 may happily be disposed of in a few words. 
 Even supposing that Christianity had been, 
 in fact, introduced into England, and our 
 Churches founded, by missionaries from Rome, 
 — by what process of reasoning is it concluded 
 that such circumstances necessarily or equit- 
 ably confer on the see of Rome a right of Pa- 
 triarchal jurisdiction? Gratitude, and love, 
 and veneration, would doubtless have been 
 due, in large measure, to the benefactor on the 
 part of the benefited : " but on what principle 
 of equity it can be proved that such a nation, 
 when formed into Churches, and governed by 
 its own Bishops, is bound to place itself under 
 the jurisdiction of this benefactor, — it would 
 be difficult to conceive." The testimony of 
 the early Church, and the experience of his- 
 tory, point unmistakably the other way. 2 
 " The argument," (says Fullwood,) " must 
 
 1 Ibid. pp. 37-8. 
 
 2 Palmer's Episcopacy of the British Churches vindicated 
 against Dr. Wiseman , (1840 J eh. xiii. 
 
172 ROME AND ENGLAND. 
 
 run thus : If the Bishop of Rome was the 
 means of the English Church's Conversion, 
 then the English Church oweth obedience to 
 him and his successors. We deny both propo- 
 sitions : — (a) that the Pope was the means of 
 our first Conversion : (b) that if he had been 
 so, it would follow that we now owe obedience 
 to that see." * 
 
 " Eusebius, who wrote nearer to the time of 
 the Apostles than Bede did to that of Eleuthe- 
 rius, declares that Britain was visited by the 
 Apostles themselves ; and Theodoret says 
 that St. Paul preached the Gospel here." 2 
 " Our adversaries, while insisting that the 
 grace of Orders was communicated to this 
 Island by Gregory, do not seem to be aware 
 that the very words of Pope Gregory estab- 
 lish two points in direct opposition to the right 
 of Ordination claimed by the Roman see : first, 
 that the bishops of England were ' always for 
 the future,' to appoint and consecrate their 
 Metropolitans ; secondly, that those Metropoli- 
 tans were to consecrate the Bishops of their 
 Provinces. ' We concede to thee,' (he writes 
 to Augustine,) ' the use of the pallium,' (the 
 
 1 Roma Rait, &c, pp. 28-29. 
 
 2 Palmer, ut supra, p. 117. 
 
ROME AND ENGLAND. 173 
 
 well-known mark of authority as vicar of the 
 Roman see,) ' that you may ordain in several 
 places twelve Bishops to be subject to your 
 jurisdiction, since the Bishop of the city of 
 London ought always in future to be conse- 
 crated by his own synod^ and to receive the 
 pallium of honour from this apostolical see. 
 We wish you also to send a Bishop to the city 
 of York, who also is to ordain twelve Bishops, 
 and to enjoy the honour of Metropolitan.' 
 Thus the ordination of the bishops and metro- 
 politans of England was given, according to 
 the canons, not to the Roman see, but to the 
 English Church itself. The present discipline 
 of our churches is therefore entirely conform- 
 able to that which Pope Gregory instituted. " 1 
 III. The plea of Prescription, and Immemo- 
 rial Possession, is simply untrue. "For 
 nearly twelve centuries, the Bishops of Rome 
 did not confirm or ordain our Metropolitans ; 
 nor did they acquire such powers over our 
 Bishops, till the 14th century, and then only 
 by the aid of the temporal power. These 
 powers were not given to the see of Rome by 
 any (Ecumenical Council, nor by any English 
 or Irish Synod. They were usurped, as a mat- 
 
 i Ibid. pp. 118-19. 
 
174 ROME AND ENGLAND. 
 
 ter of Divine Right, by the Roman Pontiff; 
 who, on the same ground, claimed the right 
 of confirming or naming all Bishops, Metro- 
 politans, and Patriarchs whatever." 1 
 
 The facts of the case, (for the full establish- 
 ment of the details you must be referred else- 
 where,) are briefly these: — "The English 
 Church, according to Pope Gregory, was al- 
 ways to ordain its own prelates without having 
 recourse to Rome ; two Bishops of Rome as- 
 sisted in the maintenance of the English hie- 
 rarchy on occasions of absolute necessity ; 
 another uncanonically disturbed the jurisdic- 
 tion of an English metropolitan : the sees of 
 Canterbury and York, at a late period, volun- 
 tarily made the see of Rome the arbiter of 
 their disputes : the metropolitans of Ireland 
 never received palliums from Rome till the 
 twelfth century." This is what Mr. Palmer 
 has proved in opposition to Cardinal Wiseman ; 
 " and most assuredly, it is altogether insuffi- 
 cient to prove the patriarchal jurisdiction of 
 the Roman see in general over our churches ; 
 
 1 Palmer's Jurisdiction of the British Episcopacy vindicated, 
 pp. 80-1. The reader is particularly invited to read the de- 
 tailed examination of the question contained in Sect. ix. pp. 
 99-115. See also what follows, down to p. 138 ; the end of 
 Sections x. and xi. 
 
ROME AND ENGLAND. 175 
 
 or in particular, to show that the ordinations 
 of our bishops or metropolitans in any degree 
 belonged to the Bishop of Rome." 
 
 You may like to have a more detailed and 
 definite statement of this matter. " From the 
 time of the Apostles till the twelfth century 
 of our era, amongst all the metropolitans of 
 our churches, only two individuals were conse- 
 crated by the Bishop of Rome or his legates. 
 There is not a trace of such ordination in our 
 churches during the ages which elapsed previ- 
 ously to the arrival of Augustine. Pope Gre- 
 gory did not claim the ordination of that 
 prelate, but wrote to the Bishop of Aries to 
 consecrate him bishop, and afterwards directed 
 that in all future times the metropolitans of 
 England should be appointed by their own pro- 
 vincial synods, as the sacred canons enjoin. 
 And accordingly, out of forty-one archbishops 
 of Canterbury, from a.d. 597 to a.d. 1138, 
 only two were consecrated by the Bishop of 
 Rome, namely, Theodore of Tarsus in 668, 
 and Plegmund in 889 ; the former of whom 
 was only so ordained in a case of absolute ne- 
 cessity .... Of the twenty-seven archbishops 
 of York who lived from a.d. 625 to a.d. 1119, 
 not one was ordained by the Roman Pontiff or 
 his legates. In the twelfth century, in conse- 
 
176 ROME AND ENGLAND. 
 
 qucnce of disputed elections, (which contend- 
 ing parties referred to Rome,) the Roman 
 Pontiffs took occasion gradually to usurp the 
 ordination of our metropolitans ; but even in 
 1162, and in 1234, Thomas a Becket and Ed- 
 mond Rich were elected and consecrated in 
 England according to the ancient custom. 
 Therefore the Bishop of Rome has no imme- 
 morial right to consecrate our metropolitans. 
 
 " Nor has he any immemorial right to con- 
 firm their elections ; for the learned Roman 
 Catholic Thomassinus has proved, that the 
 metropolitans of Prance, England, Spain, and 
 Africa, up to the year 800, were not confirmed 
 by the Roman patriarch, but by their own pro- 
 vincial synods. In particular he shows that 
 the confirmation and ordination of metropoli- 
 tans in England were reserved to the English 
 Church itself, by Pope Gregory ; and that the 
 confirmation of the Papal See was not to be 
 waited for. In fine, he proves, that the con- 
 firmation and consecration of the metropoli- 
 tans and bishops of the West, by the bishops 
 of Rome, commenced in the tenth and eleventh 
 centuries, in consequence of references being 
 made to Rome to determine doubtful or dis- 
 puted elections. It does not seem, indeed, 
 that there is any clear instance of the Pope's 
 
ROME AND ENGLAND. 177 
 
 confirming the elections of English metropoli- 
 tans, till the time of Richard, Archbishop of 
 Canterbury, in 1174, and Hubert in 1194 ; in 
 both which cases, the elections were disputed, 
 and the difference referred to Rome. In the 
 following century similar disputes afforded an 
 opportunity to the popes to usurp the confirma- 
 tion and even the election of English metro- 
 politans. 
 
 " So far were the Roman pontiffs from con- 
 firming the elections of our bishops and metro- 
 politans generally in those ages, that they did 
 not even confirm in cases when Bishops were 
 translated, and in which their interference 
 would have been especially called for, had they 
 possessed any power over our episcopal elec- 
 tions. On this subject Thomassinus has proved 
 that in the time of Charlemagne and his suc- 
 cessors, the Gallican and the German churches 
 always enjoyed the ancient right of making 
 translations ; and the Anglican likewise 
 
 " We, therefore, conclude that the Roman 
 Pontiff has no right, by immemorial or ancient 
 custom, either to ordain or to confirm our 
 metropolitans or bishops." 1 
 
 1 Palmer, ubi supra, p. 124 to p. 131. — For the authori- 
 ties, &c. adduced by the learned writer, his work must be 
 referred to. 
 
 12 
 
178 ROME AND ENGLAND. 
 
 Yet another word on this head : for the sin- 
 gular phenomenon is before us of foreign juris- 
 diction, de facto if not de jure, submitted to in 
 the 13th and two following centuries. Now it 
 is much to be noticed, — 
 
 (1) That during the 13th and two following 
 centuries, our Clergy were ignorant of the an- 
 cient canons ; the only collections then known 
 being those of Gratian and Gregory IX., which 
 included and were based on the false Decretals. 
 It is not to be wondered at, that under such 
 circumstances, our Clergy did not object to the 
 papal confirmation of metropolitans, or to the 
 assumption of jurisdiction in other respects. 
 They imagined that they were acting on the 
 canons and precedents of the purest antiquity 
 in so doing ; while in reality they were merely 
 guided by a series of forgeries of the eighth or 
 ninth centuries. And as our bishops were thus 
 entirely unconscious of their rights or duties 
 in reference to the See of Rome, their acquies- 
 cence could not afford any sanction to its 
 usurpations." 2 
 
 But (2) the Romish dominion, even down 
 to a late period, was not submitted to without 
 remonstrance or opposition. Instead of indirect 
 
 1 Palmer, ut supra, pp. 132-3. 
 
ROME AND ENGLAND. 179 
 
 historical evidence, hear William the Conqueror 
 addressing Pope Gregory VII., who had claimed 
 him as a feudatory of the Papal See : — " Hu- 
 bert, thy legate, holy Father, coming to me on 
 thy behalf, has admonished me to do fealty to 
 thee and to thy successors ; as well as to think 
 better of the money which my ancestors were 
 wont to send to the Romish Church. This last 
 claim I assent to : to the former claim I assent 
 not. To do fealty I neither have been willing, 
 nor am I willing now ; inasmuch as neither 
 have I done it in times past, nor can I find 
 that my ancestors have been in the habit of 
 doing it to thine." 1 
 
 I have quoted this letter of an early king, 
 because it occurs to my memory as a piece of 
 evidence not commonly introduced into this 
 controversy. But you are not to fancy that 
 the remonstrant voices which were raised 
 against the usurpations of the Papacy in this 
 country, even at that late period, were confined 
 to a few. As for the earlier centuries of our 
 history, the records of the Church are plain 
 and emphatic. Our kings and councils re- 
 fused to yield obedience to persuasion, injunc- 
 
 1 Sir H. Ellis, Original Letters, Third Series, Yol. i. See 
 also Letter VIII., from Lanfranc to the same. 
 
180 ROME AND ENGLAND. 
 
 tions, sentences, and legates. Our ancestors 
 unanimously resisted the Papal claims of what- 
 ever kind. You will find the subject carefully 
 worked out by Fullwood from p. 39 to p. 160, 
 (Ch. v. to Ch. xiv. inclusive,) of his admirable 
 little volume. 
 
 You are requested, in passing on, to ob- 
 serve, that there remains deeply and distinctly 
 graven on our ancient English Ritual the wit- 
 ness of the original independence of this 
 Church and nation. The wide discrepancy 
 between the English and the Roman rite has 
 been already noticed. By far the most im- 
 portant point of discrepancy, Archdeacon Free- 
 man discourses of as follows : — "The claim 
 of Divine Adoration, as properly due to the 
 Elements from the moment of their consecra- 
 tion, was indeed inculcated on English ground, 
 as elsewhere, from about the time of the Lat- 
 eran Council, or perhaps even earlier. But 
 there was this remarkable and important dif- 
 ference between the English Church and all 
 others throughout Europe, — that her regular, 
 written, and authorised Ritual contained no 
 recognition of that claim. The consecrated 
 Bread was indeed ordered to be elevated, so 
 that it might be seen by the people ; and there 
 were various diocesan or episcopal injunctions 
 
ROME AND ENGLAND. 181 
 
 for its being reverenced by them. But the di- 
 rection which was embodied in the rubrics of 
 all other Churches and monastic bodies of the 
 West, for the celebrant to kneel and worship 
 the Element, never found footing in those of 
 the English Church ; and if not in her rubrics, 
 we may be sure not in her practice either, since 
 in all these points the rubric was always rigidly 
 adhered to. And this peculiarity continued 
 down to the very time of the Revision of the 
 Offices in the sixteenth century. The Com- 
 munion Offices of the various dioceses of Salis- 
 bury, of York, of Hereford, or of Bangor, in 
 whatever else they might differ, agreed in this 
 point : — an unanimity, it must be admitted, 
 most striking and even astonishing, when the 
 universal prevalence of this direction elsewhere 
 throughout the West, and the immense im- 
 portance attached to it, are taken into consid- 
 eration. 
 
 " It clearly appears," (adds the same learned 
 writer,) " that the written ritual, at any rate, 
 of the English Church, retained its original 
 soundness in this particular, amid the uni- 
 versal corruption of the whole of Europe be- 
 side. It exhibited all along in the West an 
 almost perfect parallel, as far as concerned its 
 letter and its authoritative contents, to the 
 
182 ROME AND ENGLAND. 
 
 Liturgies of the East. The doctrine of ele- 
 mental annihilation, — however proclaimed, 
 almost from the very hour of its invention, 
 from archiepiscopal thrones, and followed up by 
 divers injunctions, based upon it, in diocesan 
 decrees, — wrought no material change in the 
 liturgical forms of the English Church. From 
 whatever causes, the accredited ritual expres- 
 sion of that doctrine, elsewhere universally 
 imposed by the Roman See, found here no 
 place. Viewed in its theoretic structure, the 
 stream of Liturgical service in this country 
 flowed almost unimpaired, in this particular, 
 from the Apostolic fountain-head." 1 
 
 It is scarcely necessary to add, " that what 
 Augustine introduced was not, strictly speak- 
 ing, the Roman daily Offices, at all ; but only 
 a kindred, though very closely allied member 
 of the family or stock of Offices to which the 
 Roman belonged." 2 Archdeacon Freeman 
 has in fact proved that the English and Ro- 
 man ordinary Offices, though closely akin, 
 were quite distinct. He shows that Cassian 
 and Leo were probably co-originators of the 
 
 1 Freeman's Principles of Divine Service, Introd. to Part 
 n., pp. 84-6. 
 
 2 Ibid. p. 41. 
 
ROME AND ENGLAND. 183 
 
 Roman rite, — Cassian alone of the English, 
 — but on the old Western basis : and that it 
 was Cassian's rite which was brought to Eng- 
 land by Augustine. But I mast refer you to 
 the delightful pages 2 of that excellent ritual- 
 ist and divine for the details of a subject 
 which only indirectly bears on the matter in 
 hand. 
 
 IV. The argument for the Pope's universal 
 authority derived from his Infallibility, need 
 hardly occupy us long. It is a plea which runs 
 up at once into the next ; that, namely, which 
 is derived from his being the Divinely ap- 
 pointed and Universal Pastor of the Church. 
 
 Enough for my purpose to remind you that 
 Rome " cannot even in theory give an answer 
 to the question how individuals are to know 
 for certain that she is infallible ; " nor in the 
 next place where the gift resides, supposing it 
 to have been vouchsafed. It neither deter- 
 mines who or what is " infallible, nor why." 
 Little room as there is in the Romish contro- 
 versy for novelty or surprise, yet it does raise 
 fresh and fresh amazement, the more we think 
 of it, that Romanists should not have been 
 
 1 Ereeman's Principles of Divine Service, Introd. to Part 
 II., pp. 245-54. 
 
184 ROME AND ENGLAND. 
 
 able to agree among themselves ivhere that In- 
 fallibility is lodged, which is the key-stone of 
 their system ! Archbishop Bramhall reckons 
 no less than six distinct opinions on the sub- 
 ject. " The Legate of the Pope at the Diet 
 of Ratisbon, a.d., 1541, asserted that Infalli- 
 bility is the personal privilege of the Pope, 
 given by the words of our Lord spoken to S. 
 Peter, ' Peter, I have prayed for thee.' " 1 
 " Bellarmine maintains that at least the Pope 
 in General Council is infallible : but even 
 granting this," " yet it is not a matter of faith, 
 (that is, it has not been formally determined,) 
 what Popes have been true Popes ; which of 
 the many de facto, or rival Popes, are to be 
 acknowledged ; nor again which of the many 
 professed General Councils are really so." 
 . . . " The theologians of Eomanism cannot 
 complete their system in its most impor- 
 tant and essential point. They can deter- 
 mine in theory the nature, degree, extent, 
 and object of the Infallibility which they 
 claim ; they cannot agree among themselves 
 where it resides. As in the building of Babel, 
 the Lord hath confounded their language ; 
 and the structure stands half finished, a mon- 
 
 1 P. Sarpi, v. i. p. 171, — quoted by Ilussey, p. 206. 
 
ROME AND ENGLAND. 185 
 
 ument at once of human daring and its fail- 
 ure." 1 
 
 V. The favourite claim remains to be con- 
 sidered. The most popular plea of all, doubt- 
 less, is this last, — namely, that the Bishop of 
 Eome, because he is Universal Pastor and 
 Supreme Head of the Church here on earth, 
 has authority over our Church of England, 
 and is entitled to her submission. 
 
 The first thing which strikes me in this plea, 
 (which, unlike I. II. and III., is not particular 
 in its effect but* universal,) is, that the Holy 
 Eastern Church, at all events, has never ad- 
 mitted, and to this hour knows nothing of 
 such a claim on the part of the Bishop of 
 Rome. 
 
 Let us however consider it on its own mer- 
 its. The nature of the Papal claim, then, 
 seems to be of the following nature : — 
 
 (1.) It is pretended that to St. Peter was 
 given by our Lord a Primacy of Authority 
 over the rest of the Apostolic Body. 
 
 1 Newman, ubi supra, pp. 148-52. — The plea of Infalli- 
 bility may be seen very closely and minutely argued in 
 Fullwood's Roma Ruit, pp. 161-81. The fatal consequences 
 of the fiction, (for a monstrous fiction it is,) have been 
 very well drawn out by Prof. Hussey, in the Rise of the Pa- 
 pal Power. 
 
186 ROME AND ENGLAND. 
 
 (2.) It is pretended that St. Peter founded 
 the Church of Rome. 
 
 (3.) It is pretended that St. Peter became 
 the first Bishop of that See. 
 
 (4.) It is pretended that the pretended 
 authority of St. Peter over the rest of the 
 Apostles, was transmitted by St. Peter to his 
 successor in the See of Pome ; and, when 
 transmitted, assumed the shape of a Primacy 
 of authority over the rest of the Bishops of 
 Christendom. 
 
 (5.) It is pretended that the pretended 
 authority so pretended to have been transmit- 
 ted, and pretended to be of such a nature, has 
 descended in regular succession to every Bishop 
 of that See which St. Peter is pretended to 
 have founded, down to the present day. 
 
 Shall I hesitate to declare that such a chain 
 of frivolous argumentation, — endangered as 
 it is at every link by a fresh improbability, — 
 seems to me the very weakest instrument by 
 which it was ever intended to support a se- 
 rious claim? Let me briefly remind you 
 that : — 
 
 (1.) No Primacy of Authority over the rest 
 of the Apostles is anywhere in the Gospel 
 given by our Lord to St. Peter. A dogma, 
 which was originally no part of Christ's Pe- 
 
ROME AND ENGLAND. 187 
 
 ligion, but really only a " development " of the 
 question " which should be the greatest among 
 the disciples ? " 1 has been made into a doc- 
 trine necessary for salvation ; and the condi- 
 tion without which the Roman Communion 
 offers no hope of Life." 2 Look the sacred 
 pages through ; and although you will find a 
 hint in St. Matt. x. 2, that a priority of order 
 was enjoyed by St. Peter, you cannot possibly 
 pretend to infer therefrom that the same Apos- 
 tle enjoyed any the least priority of authority. 
 Simon Peter was but primus inter pares. 
 Wherever there is order of sequence there 
 must be priority and there.must be posteriority ; 
 and, accordingly, in the catalogues of the 
 Twelve Apostles, it is three times implied, 
 (St. Mark iii. 16 : St. Luke vi. 14 : Acts i. 
 13,) and once distinctly stated, (St. Matth. 
 x. 2,) that among them came "first, Peter." 
 But, as I have already said, they were all 
 twelve, (to use the words of Cyprian,) " pari 
 consortio praediti et honoris et potestatis : " 3 
 " endowed with an equal share of honour and 
 power." 
 
 1 S. Mark ix. 33. S. Luke ix. 46. 
 
 2 Hussey's Rise of the Papal Power, p. xxxi. 
 
 3 The passage in wliich this sentence occurs will be given 
 in full presently. 
 
188 ROME AND ENGLAND. 
 
 Again, that singular favour and honour were 
 occasionally shown co St. Peter, is certain : — 
 in conjunction with St. James and St. John, 
 (as in St. Mark v. 37 : St. Matthew xvii. 1 : 
 xxvi. 37 and 40 : ) to him in conjunction with 
 St. John only, (as in St. Luke xxii. 8 :) to him 
 singly, (as in St. Matthew xvi. 15-19 : xvii. 
 25-27: St. Luke xxii. 32: St. John xxi. 
 15-19.) He is mentioned in a very remark- 
 able way in Acts v. 15. But surely you can- 
 not require to be reminded that favour enjoyed 
 by an Apostle is not the same thing as au- 
 thority given to him ! To whom was greater 
 favour shown than to St. John, " the disciple 
 whom Jesus loved ? " See St. John xii. 23-25, 
 (consider xxi. 20 :) and xix. 26, 27 : also xxi. 
 22 : lastly, Rev. i. 1, 2, 10-18. And yet, (as 
 Clement of Alexandria remarked within a 
 hundred years of S. John's death) " Peter and 
 James and John, after the Saviour's Ascen- 
 sion, set up no claim for their own glorifica- 
 tion, on the ground that they had been specially 
 honoured by the Lord Himself; but they 
 elected James the Just to be Bishop of Jerusa- 
 lem." 1 Now, do you not see that this true 
 
 1 Hypotyp. lib. vi : quoted by Eusebius lib. ii. 1, - 
 ferred to by Hussey, ubi supra, p. xxxii. 
 
ROME AND ENGLAND. 189 
 
 statement of facts is in itself conclusive against 
 the idea of the divinely-bestowed Supremacy 
 of S. Peter in the time of the Apostles ? — 
 But further, as Cyprian has pointed out, and 
 as it has been a thousand times remarked 
 since, the selfsame powers were conveyed by 
 our Lord to all the Apostles, in St. Matthew 
 xviii. 18, and St. John xx. 21-23. All had 
 the same Commission given them to teach, in 
 St. Matthew xxviii. 19, 20. 
 
 On the other hand, St. Peter is conspicuous 
 for his fall, (St. Matthew xxvi. 69-74 :) for his 
 inferiority in spiritual perception to St. John, 
 (St. John xx. 8, compared with St. Luke xxiv. 
 12 : St. John xxi. 7 :) for his imperfect faith 
 on a memorable occasion, (St. Matthew xiv. 
 29-31.) Once, when he spoke to our Lord, 
 he received for answer, — " Get thee behind 
 Me, Satan. Thou art an offence unto Me." 1 
 At Antioch, St. Paul " withstood him to the 
 face, because he was to be blamed ; " indeed, 
 he rebuked St. ' Peter with a severity of lan- 
 guage which must be admitted to be extraor- 
 dinary, and quite irreconcilable with the notion 
 that St. Peter enjoyed anything like a ' Pri- 
 macy' in the Apostolic body. (See Gal. ii. 
 
 l St. Matth. xvi. 23. 
 
190 ROME AND ENGLAND. 
 
 11-14.) But the one passage which sets the 
 question for ever at rest, is the account which 
 St. Luke gives us, in the Acts of the Apostles, 
 (ch. xv. 6-29,) of the part taken by St. Peter 
 in the first Church Council which was held at 
 Jerusalem, — a.d. 52. 
 
 You are requested to attend specially to this 
 circumstance ; because the transaction recorded 
 took place subsequently to the day of Pente- 
 cost, — belongs to the period when the Apostles 
 were in the full enjoyment of their ecclesiasti- 
 cal powers, — and exhibits them to us in their 
 official character, engaged in the performance 
 of one of the most august of their official acts. 
 I will not enlarge upon St. Luke's brief, but 
 most significant and emphatic narrative. The 
 order of the Council proves to have been as 
 follows : — (a) The Apostles and Elders, with 
 others (v. 12) came together : (6) There was 
 " much disputing : " (c) St. Peter spoke : (d) 
 St. Barnabas and St. Paul spoke : (?) St. 
 James, (our Lord's cousin,) — being the first 
 Bishop of Jerusalem, and evidently president 
 of the Council, — summed up what had been 
 delivered, and gave his sentence. He evi- 
 dently, — St. James the Bishop of Jerusalem, 
 — presided, of right, over the Council, and 
 was supreme head of the Church in Jerusa- 
 
ROME AND ENGLAND. 191 
 
 lem. With whatever respect St. Peter might 
 reasonably have been regarded by all present, 
 it is evident that primacy of Authority as yet 
 he had none /...'. And so much for the 
 scriptural evidence on the subject. We can- 
 not but conclude that no chief ecclesiastical 
 authority was ever given by our Lord to St. 
 Peter, seeing that he not only is never related 
 to have exercised any, but is even exhibited to 
 us in the Gospel as one over whom Ecclesias- 
 tical authority was exercised. — I pass on. 
 
 (2.) The pretence that the Church of Rome 
 was founded by St. Peter is wholly destitute 
 of foundation. " But even if he had founded 
 it, the church of Rome was no more entitled 
 to supremacy on that account than the church 
 of Jerusalem. Nor was it more entitled, than 
 the churches of Ephesus, Thessalonica, and 
 other churches founded by St. Paul, whose 
 authority was not inferior to that of St. Peter. 
 Still less was it entitled to this supremacy from 
 the mere circumstance, that St. Peter presided 
 over the church of Rome : for the same argu- 
 ment would give supremacy to every other 
 church, over which either St. Peter or St. Paul 
 presided." 1 
 
 1 Marsh's Comparative View, note D. 
 
192 ROME AND ENGLAND. 
 
 (3.) Equally destitute of truth is the state- 
 ment that S. Peter was the first Bishop of 
 Rome. For, — 
 
 (a) St. Peter being an Apostle, can never 
 have been the Bishop of any individual see. 
 Four notes of difference between the Apostoli- 
 cal and the Episcopal office are commonly 
 enumerated ; one of which is, " universality 
 of commission." 
 
 (b) Tested by an appeal to History, the 
 worthlessness of the statement becomes appar- 
 ent. The Catalogue of Bucherius, (a docu- 
 ment of the fourth century,) after declaring 
 that St. Peter became Bishop of Rome in the 
 next year after our Lord's death (!) and that 
 he governed that see for 25 years, adds that he 
 was succeeded by Linus, whose episcopate 
 lasted for 12 y. (or rather 11 y.) 4 m. 12 d. — 
 But 25+11=36; which, added to a.d. 29, 
 (the year of our Lord's Crucifixion,) brings 
 us to a.d. 65, — which is precisely the year 
 assigned to S. Peter's martyrdom ! The sup- 
 posed 25 years of St. Peter's episcopate, there- 
 fore, belong not by any means to the years 
 he presided over the Romish see ; but, (ac- 
 cording to the showing of the most respect- 
 able of your new friends,) to the beginning 
 of the period during which (according to 
 
ROME AND ENGLAND. 193 
 
 Romish writers) he presided over the Univer- 
 • sal Church ! 
 
 (e) The favourite escape from this difficulty 
 is to feign that Linus was St. Peter's vicar : 
 but, (as the late learned President of Magda- 
 len points out, 1 ) those same ancient catalogues 
 on which we depend for the chronology of the 
 early Bishops of Rome, say nothing at all 
 about the ' vicarship ' of Linus. They are ex- 
 press in the statement that Linus was Bishop 
 of Rome. 
 
 (d) Lastly, the most venerable ecclesiastical 
 traditions extant lend no countenance to the 
 theory under review. Irenaeus, (a.d. 179,) 
 does not reckon St. Peter among the Bishops 
 of Rome : neither does Eusebius, (a.d. 320.) 
 
 The last-named father does indeed state that 
 
 1 That venerable Divine, in 1848, called my attention to 
 most of what is here stated, by reading to me, or rather 
 making me read to him, (for the print was too small for his 
 aged eyes,) a note in the fifth volume of his own Reliquice, 
 
 — p. 369. "You will find this worth your attention, sir; " 
 
 — and (lest my attention should flag,) he kept tapping my 
 shoulder while I read the words, — " Et velim advertas, de- 
 can tatos Petri viginti quinque annos ad episcopatum per- 
 tinere universal ecclesise, non unius Romanae," &c. &c. — 
 The President of Magdalen reprinted that note, with im- 
 portant additions and corrections, in 1853, (the year before 
 his death,) in a valuable little tract, "De Episcopis." 
 
 13 
 
194 ROME AND ENGLAND. 
 
 St. Peter was the first Bishop of Antioch. 
 The truth is, the Churches of Antiquity, eager 
 to identify themselves with the Apostles of 
 Christ, caught at any tradition by which they 
 could connect their origin with the chiefest 
 Saints. Hence the venerable fiction which we 
 have been considering, by which it was sought 
 to increase the fame and to establish the im- 
 portance of the Romish See. True indeed it 
 is that, in later ecclesiastical writings, the 
 name of the Apostle Peter heads the series of 
 the early Bishops of Pome. True that by sev- 
 eral of the early Fathers the Church of Rome 
 is styled the ' see of Peter,' and the like. But 
 vague, ambiguous phrases, and rhetorical ex- 
 pressions like these, as any unprejudiced per- 
 son of good understanding must perceive at a 
 glance, will not sustain the weight which it is 
 proposed to lay upon them, and to which, in 
 truth, they lend no countenance. In a word, 
 — there is no reason for assuming that St. 
 Peter was ever Bishop of Rome at all : there 
 is abundant reason for supposing that he was 
 not. 
 
 (4 and 5.) Without inquiring too curiously 
 into the nature of the extraordinary privilege 
 supposed to have been conveyed to the first 
 Bishops of Rome, or into the manner of its 
 
ROME AND ENGLAND. 195 
 
 transmission, it is obvious to insist that, if it 
 existed at all, unmistakable traces of its exist- 
 ence ought to be discoverable in the earlier 
 pages of Ecclesiastical History. If the evi- 
 dence of Scripture is adverse ; if Councils and 
 Fathers, for many centuries are not only silent, 
 but even yield distinctly hostile testimony 
 also: then, (whatever other theory may be in- 
 vented in order to prop up the unfounded 
 claims of the Bishop of Rome to universal 
 authority,) it is plain that the usual appeal to 
 Scripture and Antiquity must be abandoned. 
 Let us see then briefly how the case stands. 
 
 I suppose we cannot do better than turn 
 to the history of the first four General Coun- 
 cils, — Niceea, (a.d. 325,) Constantinople, (a.d. 
 381,) Ephesus, (a.d. 431,) Chalcedon, (a.d. 
 451,) and survey their Canons, if we would 
 ascertain in what account precisely Rome was 
 held in those palmy days of the Church. Now 
 it is a memorable fact that at the first (Ecu- 
 menical Council, (that of Nicaea,) the Bishop 
 of Rome was not only not present, but he ivas 
 not even represented. Turn to the Canons of 
 that and the succeeding Councils ; and so far 
 fronf* acknowledging the supremacy of the 
 Romish see, the reverend Fathers then assem- 
 bled will be found to have known nothing at 
 
196 ROME AND ENGLAND. 
 
 all about it. They prescribe the limits of the 
 authority of individual Churches, and show 
 jealousy respecting the independence of each 
 several Province. " Let the ancient usages in 
 Egypt, and Libya, and Pentapolis, prevail," 
 (say they) ; " that the Bishop of Alexandria 
 have authority over them all, — since this is 
 also the usage with the Bishop who is at Rome. 
 In like manner also as regards Antioch, and in 
 the other Provinces, let the privileges of the 
 Churches be preserved." Cases of dispute are 
 anticipated, and provided against. But no- 
 where is there so much as a hint let fall that 
 Rome was the centre of authority, or enjoyed 
 any kind of supremacy over the rest of Chris- 
 tendom. 
 
 Nay, the very contrary is hopelessly estab- 
 lished against the seat of the Papacy by the 
 28th Canon of the Council of Chalcedon. 
 
 The 150 Bishops who had met at Constanti- 
 nople (a.d. 381,) having decreed that the 
 Bishop of Constantinople should have prece- 
 dence next after the Bishop of Rome, on the 
 ground that Constantinople was " new, (or 
 
 rather young ,) Rome," 1 the 630 Bishops who 
 
 9 
 
 1 Tbv fiivroL Kcjv oTavTLvov-6?„€G)g kirioKOTTOV ^x £CV r " 7Tp f ^- 
 8ela T?jg riiifiq (ietu rbv ryg 'Pupyg km<7,K07rov, 6lu to eivcu (ivttjv 
 veav 'Pufijjv. — Can. iii. 
 
ROME AND ENGLAND. 197 
 
 met at Chalcedon 70 years after, confirmed 
 the decree in the following remarkable lan- 
 guage : — " We, every where following the 
 decrees of the holy Fathers, and acknowledg- 
 ing the Canon which has been just read of 
 the 150 Bishops most beloved of God, do 
 also ourselves decree and vote the same things 
 concerning the privileges (ytoeo^ia^ of the 
 most Holy Church of Constantinople, — Rome 
 the younger ; for the Fathers, with reason, 
 gave precedency to the throne of Rome the 
 elder, because she was the imperial city : " 
 [not, (you are requested to observe,) be- 
 cause she claimed to be Divinely invested 
 with Supremacy over the other Churches 
 of Christendom : not because she was tra- 
 ditionally accounted to enjoy any sort of Ec- 
 clesiastical Primacy: nothing of the kind. 
 " The fathers with reason gave precedency 
 to the throne of the elder Rome, because 
 she was the imperial city : " ] " and the 150 
 Bishops most beloved of God, moved by the 
 same consideration, awarded equal prece- 
 dency to the most holy throne of Rome the 
 younger, reasonably judging that the city which 
 is honoured with the government and senate, 
 should enjoy equal privileges with the elder 
 Queen Rome ; and be magnified, like her, in 
 
198 ROME AND ENGLAND. 
 
 ecclesiastical matters, having the second place 
 after her." 1 
 
 The very opposition raised to this Canon by 
 the Roman legates is important : for (1) that 
 opposition was not based, (as one would have 
 expected,) on the plea of an infringement of 
 the privileges of the Romish see, but on quite 
 different grounds : and (2) it established in 
 the fullest manner the mind of the whole as- 
 sembly, (including the Patriarchs of Constan- 
 tinople, Antioch, Jerusalem, Heraclea, and 
 upwards of twenty metropolitans ;) who rati- 
 fied their decree by a fresh vote. So that " this 
 is beyond denial, — that we have, so late as 
 the middle of the fifth century, the concurrent 
 testimony of the largest assembly of bishops 
 ever collected together, that the claim for the 
 precedency of the See of Rome in the Chris- 
 tian Church, does not rest on the vain pretence 
 of the Bishop of that See being the chief or 
 sole successor of St. Peter ; but simply and 
 solely on this, — namely that the city of his 
 bishopric had been the seat of the civil govern- 
 ment" 2 
 
 1 For convenience, the English reader is referred to The 
 Roman Schism, illustrated from the Records of the Catholic 
 Church, by the Hon. and Rev. H. P. Perceval, 1836, p. 42. 
 
 2 Ibid. p. 60. 
 
ROME AND ENGLAND. 199 
 
 And that this was the sole foundation of the 
 Bishop of Rome's ancient " Primacy," (to 
 use the words of G-eddes,) " is manifest not 
 only from the 28th Canon of the Council of 
 Chalcedon, but indeed from the known rule 
 of all the primitive Councils in giving pre- 
 cedency to Bishoprics : which rule was, that 
 Bishoprics should have precedency according 
 to the dignity of their Cities, by the secular 
 constitution of the Empire. Accordingly, at the 
 same time the Bishop of Rome was made the 
 first Bishop, (because Rome was the metropo- 
 lis and first city of the Empire,) the Bishop of 
 Alexandria was made the second, because Alex- 
 andria was then the second city of the Empire : 
 and the Bishop of Antioch was made the third 
 Bishop, because Antioch was then the third city. 
 Antioch, to be sure, was thought to have had S. 
 Peter for its first Bishop ; yet was it postponed 
 to Alexandria, whose first Bishop (S. Mark) 
 was only S. Peter's disciple. The Bishop of 
 Jerusalem, again, had a precedency given 
 him on a Christian consideration : yet was 
 the secular consideration reckoned so much 
 stronger, that, not only was he postponed 
 to the three fore-mentioned Bishops, but he 
 was continued subject to the Bishop of 
 Csesarea, because that city took precedence of 
 
200 ROME AND ENGLAND. 
 
 Jerusalem in the civil constitution of the 
 Empire." 1 
 
 Scarcely less important, as bearing on the 
 present question, is the 9th Canon of the same 
 Council of Chalcedon : which ordains that, — 
 " If any clergyman have a matter against his 
 own Bishop, or against another, let it be judged 
 by the Synod of the Province. But if a Bishop 
 or clergyman have a dispute with the Metro- 
 politan of the Province, let him appeal either 
 to the Exarch of the Diocese, or to the throne 
 of Imperial Constantinople , and let it be there 
 judged." 
 
 Here is a canon of admitted genuineness, 
 which was passed in the presence and with the 
 approbation of the Roman legates ; and to 
 which the Bishop of Rome, when it was re- 
 ported to him, offered no objection ! " The 
 undeniable meaning of it is, that from the de- 
 cision of a Metropolitan and his Synod, an 
 appeal lay to the Patriarch of the Patriarchate 
 
 1 Dr. Michael Geddes, on the Papal Supremacy, (MisceU. 
 Tracts, vol. ii. p. 11. I have taken some liberties with the 
 style of this writer.) His "Tracts" are well worth atten- 
 tion. He was Chaplain to the English Factory at Lisbon 
 for ten years, and proved a very keen observer of Papal 
 corruptions. His works are again referred to at the close of 
 these Letters. 
 
ROME AND ENGLAND. 201 
 
 in which the province was situated ; or, if the 
 parties preferred it, directly to the See of 
 Constantinople ; which is thus (apparently) 
 by the authority of a general Council, vested 
 with greater pre-eminence than any other 
 bishopric has ever received from the same 
 source" 1 
 
 What at least is quite certain, the total 
 silence here as to any appeal to Rome, is con- 
 clusive evidence that, whatever the pretensions 
 of that see may have been, they were wholly 
 unrecognised so late as the middle of the fifth 
 century. 
 
 It is worse than absurd to overlook testi- 
 mony emphatic and considerable as this ; in- 
 finitely more important than any solitary 
 expression, however strong, — of any individ- 
 ual Father, however learned. Cyprian, (says 
 a recent pervert,) " speaks of the Church of 
 Rome as ' the root and mother of the Catholic 
 Church.' " 2 Cyprian cannot with truth be 
 said to do anything of the kind. On the other 
 hand, the 150 Bishops at Constantinople, in 
 their synodical epistle to the Western Bishops 
 assembled at Rome, declared that they " ac- 
 
 i Ibid. pp. 42-57. 
 
 2 Arehd. Wilberforce, Principles, &c. p. 104. 
 
202 ROME AND ENGLAND. 
 
 knowledged the most venerable Cyril, most 
 beloved of God, to be Bishop of the Church of 
 Jerusalem ) — which" (say they,) " is the 
 Mother of all the Churches " 1 . . . . The de- 
 crees of the first four General Councils were 
 deservedly held in supreme reverence by the 
 Universal Church. How shall it be thought 
 credible that so very important a circumstance 
 as the supremacy of the Bishop of Rome could 
 have remained unknown to those many hun- 
 dred Bishops of early Christendom ? 2 How, 
 still more, is it conceivable that, knowing it, 
 they should have met on four several occa- 
 sions, at long intervals of time, and enacted 
 Canons, the direct effect of which was to assert 
 the independence of other dioceses ; and to 
 provide for the settlement of disputes, without 
 any reference whatever to the supposed neces- 
 sity of an appeal to Rome ? How did it come 
 to pass that the see of Rome was legislated for 
 like any other see of ancient Christendom, 
 without complaint or remonstrance on her 
 part ? or with remonstrance — which the rest 
 of Christendom overruled and set aside ? 
 
 1 Perceval, ibid. p. 32, quoting Concil. ii. 966. 
 
 2 At Nicasa, 318 Bishops; at Constantinople, 150; at 
 Ephesus, 200 ; at Chalcedon, 630. 
 
ROME AND ENGLAND. 203 
 
 I quoted just now a passage from Clement 
 of Alexandria, a very early Father, " expressive 
 of the sentiment of the Church on this point 
 in the age of that writer, and showing that no 
 such divinely-bestowed Supremacy was ac- 
 knowledged by the Church then. Eusebius' 
 citation of the passage is also evidence that he 
 himself did not know of any Supremacy of 
 S. Peter and his successors in the beginning 
 of the fourth century. The writers of the 
 first three centuries," (proceeds the late 
 lamented Professor Hussey,) " do not recog- 
 nise any such Supremacy belonging to Borne. 
 They do not speak on the point in such terms 
 as they must have spoken if they had held the 
 same doctrine of the Supremacy which was 
 held in later ages ; and in all their strong ex- 
 pressions of honour to the Roman See, they just 
 omit that very point which a "Papal" writer 
 would have been careful to put first of all, the 
 essence of the Supremacy, the Government of 
 the Church by Divine Authority. 
 
 " If Irenaeus or Tertullian had held this doc- 
 trine, they could not but have expressed it, 
 when they had occasion to speak of Rome as 
 they have spoken. And how could S. Igna- 
 tius have written an Epistle to the Roman 
 Church, as he did, — without naming the Pope, 
 
204 ROME AND ENGLAND. 
 
 or alluding to his authority, if such doctrines 
 had been held by the Church in his time ? 
 Nay, — Is it credible that an Institution of 
 our Blessed Lord, of such vital moment to his 
 whole Church, as this Supremacy would have 
 been if it were His command, should have been 
 unknown to the Church for so long, — denied 
 as soon as declared, — and always resisted by 
 a great part of the Church ? Is it credible that 
 such men as S. Basil, S. Chrysostom, S. Cyp- 
 rian, Theodoret, and the Eastern and African 
 Churches generally, should have been so igno- 
 rant of the true Doctrine of the Church, as not 
 to have known that our Lord committed to 
 the Bishop of Rome the absolute government 
 of the Church, (and that too a doctrine neces- 
 sary for Salvation,) if the Church had ever 
 received such a command from Him ? " 1 
 
 But we need not linger over the earliest 
 ages ; still less need we adduce the language 
 of strangers concerning the early Bishops of 
 Rome. We may come on boldly to the end 
 of the sixth century, and hear the truth at 
 Rome itself from the pious lips of one of the 
 greatest ornaments of the Romish See, — 
 Gregory the Great. Addressing the Emperor 
 
 1 Hussey's Rise of the Papal Power, p. xxxii.-ir. 
 
ROME AND ENGLAND. 205 
 
 Mauricius, (relative to the conduct of John 
 IV., Archbishop of Constantinople, a.d. 582- 
 95,) Gregory says : — " It is plain to all who 
 are acquainted with the Gospel, that by 
 our Lord's own lips the care of the whole 
 Church was committed to St. Peter, the chief 
 of all the Apostles ; inasmuch as to him was 
 said," — (then follows St. John xxi. 17 :) " to 
 him," — (then follows St. Luke xxii. 31:) 
 " to him," — (then follows St. Matthew xvi. 
 18.) " Lo, he received the keys of the King- 
 dom of Heaven ; to him the power of binding 
 and loosing was assigned ; to him the care 
 and headship of the whole Church was com- 
 mitted. Yet even he is not called ' Universal 
 Apostle.' Whereas that right holy man, my 
 fellow-priest John, seeks to be called ' Univer- 
 sal Bishop ! ' I am compelled to exclaim, ' 
 the times ! the manners ! ' . . . Who then 
 is this, who, contrary to the precepts of the 
 Gospel, contrary to the Canons, presumes to 
 usurp and assume this new title ? ... If any 
 one in that Church arrogates to himself that 
 name, the whole Church will fall to pieces 
 (God forbid !) when he falls who is called uni- 
 versal. Far be that name of blasphemy, how- 
 ever, from all Christian hearts ; whereby the 
 honour of all other priests suffers diminution, 
 
206 ROME AND ENGLAND. 
 
 while it is senselessly arrogated to himself by 
 one. 
 
 " It was out of honour, truly, for St. Peter, 
 chief of the Apostles, that by the venerable 
 Council of Chalcedon the said title was offered 
 to the Roman Pontiff. But never did any one 
 of my predecessors consent to use this title of 
 singularity ; lest, while a private title is be- 
 stowed upon one Priest, all the rest should be 
 deprived of the honour which is their due. 
 How comes it to pass, that whereas ive covet 
 not the glory of this appellation, even when it 
 is offered us, this man presumes to arrogate it 
 to himself, though to him it has never been 
 offered at all ? " 1 
 
 There are not a few points worthy of atten- 
 tion in this passage, (a) The title of " Uni- 
 versal Bishop," so far from being confessedly 
 the immemorial privilege of the Roman See, 
 is, in the sixth century, claimed by the Arch- 
 bishop of Constantinople. (6) The Bishop of 
 Rome condemns his assumption of the title, — 
 not on the ground of its being an infringement 
 of his own prerogative, but of the manifest 
 sinfulness and impropriety of it, by whomsoever 
 claimed, (c) It had never been claimed at all 
 
 1 Gregorii M. Opera, vol. ii. p. 748 B. 
 
ROME AND ENGLAND. 207 
 
 by the Bishops of Rome, but had been offered 
 to them by the Council of Chalcedon : (^T) yet 
 not as any admission of their acknowledged 
 rights, but simply out of compliment to St. 
 Peter, the reputed founder of their Church. 
 (e) It had been declined when so offered, and 
 had never been borne by any of Gregory the 
 Great's predecessors. (/) Gregory rejects it 
 with indignation, and something like horror, 
 calling it a " name of blasphemy." Lastly, 
 (g*) not least interesting as an inference from 
 what goes before, is the distinction which 
 the venerable writer, by implication, emphati- 
 cally draws between the privileges accorded 
 by our Saviour to St. Peter, and any privi- 
 leges, (of which Gregory evidently knew noth- 
 ing,) supposed to be inherent in the See of 
 Rome. 
 
 This last point is thought worthy of atten- 
 tion ; because the circumstance of the entire 
 absence of connection between the premises 
 and the conclusion of the popular argument 
 for the Papal Supremacy, is so strangely ig- 
 nored by modern Romanists. Whatever is 
 said in commendation of St. Peter in the Gos- 
 pel is at once transferred, for some unexplained 
 reason, to the occupants of the Papacy in per- 
 petuity. Not only is the Romish Church called 
 
208 ROME AND ENGLAND. 
 
 " the bark of Peter," but the Pope is identified 
 with St. Peter himself. Remind a Romish 
 priest that nothing is discoverable from Scrip- 
 ture to warrant the assumption that not to 
 be in communion with Rome is not to be 
 within the pale of the Church Catholic, and 
 you are at once met with " Tu es Petrus ; " 
 or " Pasce oves meas:" just as if those 
 words had been actually addressed to Pope 
 Pius IX. ! 
 
 Really, to see the prominent place given to 
 the text Tu es Petrus, &c, all round the 
 base of the dome of St. Peter's, and to hear 
 its perpetual recurrence on the lips of Roman- 
 ists, one is led to conclude that it must contain 
 the pith and marrow of the whole matter. 
 
 It was under this impression that once (by 
 the help of the Indexes) I went through as 
 many of the Fathers as I could conveniently 
 refer to, in order to ascertain what they made 
 of that famous passage. The result of my 
 inquiry effectually established the following 
 proposition, — That there existed in no part 
 of the ancient church any tradition which con- 
 nected the text in question with the Romish 
 see ; or which favoured the claims of the Pa- 
 pacy, even in their most moderate form. For 
 (1) a surprising number of the Fathers offer 
 
ROME AND ENGLAND. 209 
 
 no interpretation of that text whatever : (2) 
 not a few of them expressly deny that our 
 Lord on that occasion applied the word 
 "Rock" to St. Peter at all! They interpret 
 our Lord's words, (strangely enough,) of St. 
 Peter's faith; or they declare plainly that the 
 rock spoken of is Christ .... The mere 
 silence of many Fathers would have been 
 enough to prove that there existed no ecclesi- 
 astical Tradition on the subject ; but this ex- 
 press denial sets the question entirely at rest. 
 (3) Some are undecided, as Chrysostom, — 
 who in one place says the rock was " the faith 
 of the confession ; " 2 and in two places implies 
 that St. Peter was the rock. 2 (4) Those 
 Fathers who consider, (with Pearson and the 
 whole body of our best Divines,) that our 
 Saviour meant that St. Peter was the Rock on 
 which He built his Church, — even they never 
 let fall a word, either directly or indirectly 
 serving to identify St. Peter with the Church 
 of Rome ; or connecting the famous delaration 
 which our Lord made to him. with the Bishop 
 of the same see. Let me briefly establish what 
 I have been saying. 
 
 1 Tovteotc, rrj iziGTEi ttjq dfioXo-yiag. Opp. vii. 548. 
 
 2 Opp. ii. 300. vi. 124, 282. 
 
 14 
 
210 ROME AND ENGLAND. 
 
 Augustine, in his latest work, 1 says that 
 when he was a Presbyter he had on one occa- 
 sion interpreted St. Matt. xvi. 18, as if the 
 words meant that the Church was founded 
 upon St. Peter : but since that, he had often 
 interpreted " this rock " of Christ, and taught 
 that the Church was founded upon Him whom 
 St. Peter had confessed. 2 — I am not defending 
 Augustine for thus " retracting." I humbly 
 think, (in common with the most learned of 
 English Divines,) that this eminent Father 
 was mistaken in this particular. But I re- 
 quest you to attend to the deliberate dictum 
 of Augustine,- — the greatest of the Fathers, 
 — shortly before the end of his episcopate in 
 the year a.d. 430. 
 
 Only one other Patristric witness shall be 
 quoted : but he is a most unexceptionable one, 
 certainly. I allude to Gregory the Great, 
 Bishop of Eome, a.d. 590-604. This writer 
 explains that in his opinion Christ is the 
 
 1 Retract. Lib. I. c. 21. Vol. i. p. 32 B. 
 
 2 As in the following passage : — " Super hanc ergo, in- 
 quit, petram quam confessus es, aedificabo Ecclesiam meam. 
 Petra enim erat Christus, super quod fundamentum etiam 
 
 ipse aedificatus est Petrus Ecclesia ergo, quse funda- 
 
 tur in Christo, claves ab eo regni coelorum accepit in Pe- 
 tro." — Tract, in Joan, cxxiv. 
 
ROME AND ENGLAND. 211 
 
 "rock" spoken of in St. Matt. xvi. 18. 1 He 
 further declares that the words, " Whatsoever 
 thou shalt bind on earth," &c, were addressed 
 by our Lord to the Universal Church? 
 
 Such passages, coming from such a quarter, 
 are really decisive of the question at issue : 
 for how could Gregory, Bishop of Rome, be 
 ignorant of the traditional interpretation of 
 words which concerned his see so nearly, if any 
 such traditional interpretation existed ? — But 
 I must add yet another extract from a more 
 ancient and far more important witness, Cy- 
 prian, Bishop of Carthage, a.d. 250. His tes- 
 timony on this subject has been often quoted, 
 but often quoted incorrectly. I shall give his 
 words at length ; and request you to attend to 
 the very important circumstance that they are 
 not thrown out incidentally ; but that they 
 embody a grave and deliberate opinion. The 
 following passage is found in the midst of a 
 Treatise on the very question at issue, — 
 
 1 Opera, vol. iii. p. 532 A. Compare the following pas- 
 sage : — "In petra Moyses ponitur, ut Dei speeiern contem- 
 platur : quia nisi quis fidei soliditatem tenuerit, divinam 
 praesentiam non agnoscit. De qua soliditate Domixus ait, 
 ' Super banc petram aedificabo Ecclesiam meam/ " — Opp. 
 i. 1149 B. 
 
 2 Ibid. vol. iii. p. 387 E. 
 
212 ROME AND ENGLAND. 
 
 namely On the Unity of the Church Catholic. 
 Cyprian's words are, — "The Lord is speak- 
 ing to Peter. ' I say unto thee,' (saith He,) 
 ' that thou art Peter ; and upon this rock I 
 will build My Church, and the Gates of Hell 
 shall not prevail against it. And I will give 
 unto thee the keys 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.' 
 He builds His Church upon one : and although, 
 after his Resurrection, He gives like power to 
 all the Apostles, and says, ' As My Father hath 
 sent Me, even so send I you. Receive ye the 
 Holy Ghost. Whose soever sins ye remit, 
 they are remitted unto them : and whose so- 
 ever sins ye retain, they are retained,' — 
 nevertheless, that he might make the Unity 
 manifest, He ordained by His own authority 
 the source of the same Unity, beginning from 
 one. Wliat Peter was, that certainly the rest 
 of the Apostles were also, endowed with an 
 equal share of honour and power ; but the 
 commencement sets out from unity, in order 
 that the Church might be set before us as one. 
 .... Doth he who holdeth not this unity of 
 the Church, believe that he holdeth the Faith ? 
 Doth he who strive th against the Church, and 
 
ROME AND ENGLAND. 213 
 
 resisteth her, flatter himself that he is in the 
 Church ? " i 
 
 I am at a loss to see how a primitive Father 
 could have spoken more plainly, or more em- 
 phatically, against the Romish claims. Noth- 
 ing can well be imagined more simple, or more 
 Scriptural, than Cyprian's view. He is insist- 
 ing, (with St. Paul in a well-known place, — 
 Eph. iv. 5,) on the oneness of the Church ; and 
 appeals to " the origination of the Church, 
 which was so disposed by Christ that the 
 unity might be expressed. For whereas all 
 the rest of the Apostles had equal power and 
 honour with St. Peter ; yet Christ did particu- 
 larly give that power to St. Peter, to shew the 
 unity of the Church which He intended to 
 build upon the foundation of the Apostles." 2 
 
 If Cyprian had known anything of the mod- 
 ern Romish theory, how did it come to pass 
 that he made no allusion to it on such an oc- 
 casion as this ? 3 
 
 1 De Cathol. Eccl. Unitat. c. iii. — I have employed the 
 text as recently established in the laborious edition of J. G. 
 Krabinger, (a learned Romanist.) — Tubingse, 1853. 8vo. 
 
 2 Bp. Pearson on the Creed, Art. ix. 
 
 3 Cyprian in another place (Ep. xxvii.) gathers from the 
 same text of St. Matthew not the Bishop of Rome's su- 
 premacy, but simply the Doctrine of Episcopacy ; and Firmi- 
 
214 ROME AND ENGLAND. 
 
 Identically of the same opinion with Cyprian 
 was Augustine ; whose very interesting and 
 instructive remarks on this subject, (Augus- 
 tine being so considerable a Father), have been 
 transferred in a note to the foot of the page. 3 
 
 lian, (Bishop of Csesarea in Cappadocia,) addressing Cyprian 
 in another epistle, (Ep. lxxv.) in the most striking manner 
 infers from our Lord's words, — not Rome's supremacy, (of 
 which indeed he speaks in terms the reverse of respectful,) 
 but, — that the power of remitting sins was given "to the 
 Apostles, and to the Churches which they founded, (being 
 sent by Christ,) and to the Bishops who were their succes- 
 sors." 
 
 1 " Inter [apostolos] pene ubique solus Petrus totius Ec- 
 clesise meruit gestare personam. Propter ipsam personam, 
 quam totius Ecclesise solus gestabat, audire meruit, ' Tibi 
 dabo claves regni Cceloruin.' Has enim claves non homo 
 unus, sed unitas accepit Ecclesice. Hinc ergo Petri excellentia 
 prsedicatur, quia ipsius universitatis et unitatis Ecclesice fig ur am 
 gessit, quando ei dictum est, ' Tibi trado/ quod omnibus tradi- 
 tum est. Nam ut noveritis Ecclesiam accepisse claves regni 
 coelorum, audite in alio loco quod Dominus dicat omnibus 
 Apostolis suis." (Then follows St. John xx. 22, 23.) " Hoc 
 ad claves pertinet, de quibus dictum est, ' Qua? solveritis in 
 — coelo.' Sed hoc Petri dixit. Ut scias quia Petrus uni- 
 versal Ecclesiae personam tunc gerebat, audi quid ipsi dica- 
 tur, quid omnibus fidelibus Sanctis." (Then follows St. 
 Matth. xviii. 15, &c.) 
 
 Augustine has much to the same effect, in his Commen- 
 tary on St. John, e. g. " Si hoc Petro tantum dictum est, non 
 facit hoc Ecclesia. ... Si hoc in Ecclesia fit, Petrus quando 
 claves accepit, Ecclesiam sanctam significavit." — Tract. 1. 
 " Ei dicitur ' Tibi dabo claves regni coeloruni/ tanquam li- 
 
ROME AND ENGLAND. 215 
 
 A careless reader, with Romish predilections, 
 would possibly carry away from a hasty peru- 
 sal of the place the notion that Augustine is 
 there delivering something highly compliment- 
 ary to the see of Rome ; and yet it is perfectly 
 evident, both from the letter and from the 
 spirit of the passage, as well as from its whole 
 logical bearing, that the Church of Rome was 
 not so much as in the learned writer's thoughts 
 while he wrote. He meant what Cyprian 
 meant, — and no other thing. Both Fathers 
 require to be largely interpolated in order to 
 bring out the proposed sectarian teaching, and 
 to graft a modern corruption upon the ancient 
 stock. 
 
 It is much to be noticed, however, that the 
 foregoing passage of Cyprian is one of the very 
 passages on which Romanists most rely in sup- 
 port of their claim. How have they proceeded ? 
 Why truly, by falsifying in a most unprinci- 
 pled manner, Cyprian's text. This subject is 
 so important, and the passage in hand affords 
 so apt an illustration of the controversial 
 method of our opponents, as well as of the bad 
 
 gandi et solvendi solus acceperit potestatern, cum et illud 
 unus pro omnibus dixerit, et hoc cum omnibus tanquam per- 
 sonam gerens ipsius unitatis. Ideo, unus pro omnibus, quia 
 unitas est in omnibus." — Tract, cxviii. 
 
216 ROME AND ENGLAND. 
 
 faith with which they habitually handle his- 
 torical evidence, that I claim your attention 
 for a few moments longer. Behold, then, the 
 passage as it has been interpolated by those 
 who make it their business to prove, in opposi- 
 tion to Scripture and to Fathers, " the neces- 
 sity of one Head of the Church upon earth, 
 and to show that the Bishop of Rome is that 
 one Head by virtue of his succession from St. 
 Peter." 1 What follows, I have transcribed 
 verbatim from the Benedictine edition of Cy- 
 prian's Works : but I have taken the liberty 
 of indicating the spurious additions by italics, 
 and have enclosed them within brackets. 
 
 " Loquitur Dominus ad Petrum, Ego tibi 
 dico," &c. [Et iterum eidem post Resurrec- 
 tionem snam dicit, Pasce oves Meas.~] Super 
 \illum~] unum aedificat ecclesiam \suam, et illi 
 pascendas mandat oves suasJ] Et quamvis 
 Apostolis omnibus post Resurrectionem suam 
 parem potestatem tribuat, et dicat," &c. "ta- 
 men ut unitatem manifestaret, unitatis ejus- 
 dem originem ab uno incipientem sua auctori- 
 tate disposuit. Hoc erant utique et caeteri 
 Apostoli quod fuit Petrus pari consortio prae- 
 diti, et honoris et potestatis, sed exordium ab 
 
 1 Bp. Pearson, ubi supra. 
 
ROME AND ENGLAND. 217 
 
 imitate proficiscitur [et primatus Petro datur] 
 ait [una] Christ! ecclesia, [et cathedra] una 
 monstretur. [Et pastores sunt omnes, et grex 
 unus ostenditur, qui ab Apostolis omnibus unan- 
 imi consensione pascatur, ut ecclesia Chrisli 
 una monstretur.] . . . Hanc ecclesise unitatem 
 qui non tenet, tenere se fidem credit ? Qui 
 ecclesise renititur et resistit, [qui catJiedram 
 Petri, super quern fundata est ecclesia, deserit,] 
 in ecclesia se esse confidit ? " (pp. 194-5.) 
 
 You will, of course, exclaim, (and certainly 
 with reason,) that I am making a large de- 
 mand upon your good-nature when I invite you 
 to receive my simple assurance of what the 
 true text of Cyprian is, in opposition to the 
 Benedictine editor of its works. Baluzius 
 (you will say) was a man of candour and 
 judgment ; and his edition of Cyprian was 
 the ma/tured result of his experience and learn- 
 ing. Is it likely that he would have adopted 
 a corrupt text of an important passage like 
 this ? 
 
 Please to listen to a plain tale. I will not 
 keep you long, and really the truth is worth 
 your hearing. 
 
 Baluzius did nothing of the sort. He easily 
 convinced himself of the highly corrupt state 
 of the foregoing passage, and rejected it ac- 
 
218 ROME AND ENGLAND. 
 
 cordingly, — assigning his reasons for so do- 
 ing, (quite overwhelming they are, be assured !) 
 in his notes. 1 But before his edition of Cy- 
 prian could appear, Baluzius died, at the age 
 of 88, in 1718. It was not until 1724 that 
 Denis de Sainte Marthe, (Superior of the Ben- 
 edictines of S. Maur,) put the sheet into the 
 hands of a nameless monk of the same Order ; 
 and this anonymous gentleman, in 1726, pro- 
 duced, (as he himself informs us in his Pre- 
 face,) the edition of Cyprian which passes as 
 that of Baluzius. Not a few things in the last 
 named learned writer's notes, this unknown 
 Komanist altered: (he would have altered 
 more, if he could have done it " commode," 
 he says : 2 ) and page 195, which contains the 
 passage under consideration, he had the immor- 
 ality ', just before sending the volume forth to 
 the world? to cancel: substituting for the text 
 
 1 See p. 545 of the (so-called) " Stephani Baluzii Notae ad 
 Cyprianum." The reasons were, that the bracketed matter 
 (1) is not found in MSS. of Cyprian: (2) nor in the early 
 printed editions : and (3) was unknown to the ancient bish- 
 ops of "Rome and others who expressly quoted this place in 
 Cyprian. 
 
 2 " Quinetiam necesse fuit (!) in Baluzii Notis non pauca 
 mutare, ac plura essent mutata, id si commode fieri potuisset." 
 — Ibid. 
 
 3 This is proved by the statement in the Preface, p. x : 
 also by an examination of the pagination of the notes. It 
 
ROME AND ENGLAND. 219 
 
 which Baluzius had deliberately adopted, the 
 interpolated text of the older editions, 1 which 
 you have already seen; which Baluzius had 
 rejected ; and which the editor of his labours 
 kneiv to be spurious ... I trust I have said 
 enough. You may convince yourself of the 
 accuracy of every word I have stated by read- 
 ing p. i. and the beginning of p. x. of the 
 Preface, — page 545 of the [garbled] Notes of 
 Baluzius, — and by examining the inside edge 
 of page 195, where you will infallibly discover 
 traces of the paste and the scissors. . . . 
 Verily, a cause which has to be supported by 
 tricks of this disreputable nature, must be a 
 very rotten cause indeed ! 
 
 Only one word more before I conclude. Will 
 you be surprised to hear me say, that after 
 such an instance of bad faith as this, — (and 
 it is but a specimen of the method of your new 
 friends!), — I habitually distrust their cita- 
 tions ? I desiderate a fresh collation of the 
 
 will be perceived that tivo leaves (i. e. four pages) were can- 
 celled. The pages which intervene between p. 542 and p. 551 
 bear a double pagination ; showing that these sheets were 
 tampered with after the work was completed. 
 
 1 "Reposita fuere in textu, propterea quod servata fue- 
 runt in omnibus editionibus, quse in Gallia ab annis centum 
 et quinquaginta prodierunt, etiam in Rigaltiana." — Ibid. 
 
220 ROME AND ENGLAND. 
 
 text of the Fathers, (in all passages of a cer- 
 tain kind,) by men at least of common probity, 
 if not of learning and candour. The very 
 Acts of Councils which bear even remotely on 
 the question of the Romish Supremacy, should 
 every one be examined with all the helps which 
 modern learning and scholarship supply. The 
 cause of Truth, (which is our cause,) has every- 
 thing to gain from such a searching scrutiny 
 as I desire. Rome, on the contrary, has every- 
 thing to lose. I will give you a single example 
 of my meaning : and with that I shall finish. 
 
 The Primacy of the Bishop of Rome natu- 
 rally resulted from the civil importance of the 
 City of Rome, as the seat of Empire. This 
 has been sufficiently established already, at p. 
 196-98 ; and the reader is invited to turn back 
 and refresh his memory in what has there been 
 offered. But a Primacy of Order and Dig- 
 nity is a thing quite distinct in its nature from 
 a Superiority of Authority ; a wholly different 
 thing from Universal Supremacy. What then 
 has been the history of this ? The Romish 
 claim of Universal Supremacy grew chiefly out 
 of its claim to appellate Jurisdiction : and that 
 claim is entirely founded on the (so-called) 
 third Canon of the Council of Sardica, which 
 was held in the year 347. 
 
ROME AND ENGLAND. 221 
 
 Now, I do not propose to dwell on any of 
 the fatal flaws in this title. I shall not insist, 
 (1) on the fact that the Canons of a Council 
 which was not (Ecumenical, cannot be held to 
 bind the universal Church : — or (2) on the 
 fact that this (so-called) Canon is contradicted 
 by the Canons of other Councils confessedly 
 (Ecumenical : — or (3) on the fact that the 
 very language of the Canon is fatal to the in- 
 ference which the Papists build upon it : for, 
 (&) No decree is made ; but " if it please your 
 charity: " so runs the Canon. And next, (6) 
 Nothing is said about the see of Rome ; but 
 " let us honour the memory of Peter the Apos- 
 tle," (proceeds the Canon,) " and let Julius 
 Bishop of Rome be written to." Then further, 
 (c) No appeal is granted even to him; but 
 only a Review is proposed : for the object of 
 writing to Pope Julius is declared to be " so 
 that, if need be, the cause may be tried over 
 again : " and yet, (d) Not by him, but " by the 
 neighbouring Bishops of the Province." Nor 
 is this all. For, (e) There is no talk here of 
 any already existing Canon : and still less (/) 
 of any Divine Right. On the contrary, (g») 
 The utmost pretended by the Papists is that 
 this Council gave to the Bishop of Rome the 
 power and the right of appeal. " Indeed the 
 
222 ROME AND ENGLAND. 
 
 very fact that it was now decreed by a Canon 
 that reference might be made to Rome, proves 
 that there was no primitive rule or custom to 
 that effect ; still less a Divine right belonging 
 to the succession of S. Peter : for then the 
 Canon would have been superfluous." 2 Last- 
 ly, (A) the Romanists ought to perceive that 
 there is " no authority here to evoke causes to 
 Rome, nor to summon Bishops ex officio, nor to 
 proceed to review and set aside the judgments 
 of Councils. Such a power is plainly denied 
 by these Canons ; for by defining the power 
 which they give to the Pope, they exclude his 
 pretensions to a much wider power." 2 — On 
 none of these points however shall I now in- 
 sist. 
 
 I confine myself to the simple declaration 
 that I do not believe that the Council of Sar- 
 dica, held a.d. 347, made any such Canons at 
 all. I believe the (so-called) Canons of that 
 Council, containing the Canon under dispute, 
 to be nothing else but an impudent forgery of 
 the following century, — a mere fabrication. 
 If any unprejudiced person will take the trou- 
 ble to consider the entire story with attention, 
 and then will read Dr. Geddes' " Essay " on 
 
 1 Hussey, p. 7. 2 Ibid. p. 5. 
 
EOME AND ENGLAND. 223 
 
 this very subject at the end of the second vol- 
 ume of his " Miscellaneous Tracts," — he will, 
 I verily believe, be entirely of the same opin- 
 ion. This at least is certain, — (1) That a 
 Canon which we never heard of, till Pope Zo- 
 zimus, a hundred years after the Council of 
 Sardica, produced it ; and (2) which when he 
 did produce it, he tried to palm upon the 
 Church as a Canon of the Council of Niccea : 
 (3) a Canon however which is attended with 
 all manner of improbabilities and difficulties, 
 — as, for instance, that it is one of a series 
 which Dionysius Exiguus (a known fabrica- 
 tor of ecclesiastical documents) is the first "to 
 mention at the end of a second century of 
 years : — this, I say, at least is certain : that 
 such a Canon as this labours under such grave 
 disadvantages ; comes before the world under 
 such very suspicious circumstances ; that it 
 cannot possibly be admitted as evidence. Its 
 testimony cannot be listened to for a mo- 
 ment. I do, for my own part, put it into the 
 same category with the passage of Cyprian 
 already considered. Rather do I place it in a 
 yet lower category ; for I do not believe that a 
 single sentence in it is genuine. .... And, 
 with this, I finish. 
 
 Farewell, Sir ! I will not delay you even 
 
224 ROME AND ENGLAND. 
 
 while I make a summary of what has been 
 offered. But I can and do assure you that, in 
 my small way, I have laid before you, (hastily 
 and imperfectly indeed, but not unadvisedly 
 nor, as I think, with any material inaccuracy,) 
 a body of evidence on the question, which you 
 will find it very hard to dispose of. As Arch- 
 bishop Laud said of the Jesuit, (not that I 
 presume to compare myself to Laud, because 
 I recall and venture to appropriate his quaint 
 language :) — " He did but skip up and downe, 
 and labour to pick a hole, here and there, 
 where he thought he might fasten ; and where 
 it was too hard for him, let it alone. But I 
 have gone thorough with him ; and I hope, 
 given him a full confutation, or at least such a 
 bone to gnaw as may shake his teeth, if he 
 look not to it." 1 
 
 Again farewell, Sir ! You have urged me 
 to apostatise from the Church of England, and 
 by a reckless exercise of private judgment, to 
 transplant myself into the Church of Rome. 
 I have explained to you at considerable length 
 w x hy I find it quite impossible to do so. I have 
 done more. I have, as I suspect, furnished 
 
 1 Laud's Letter to K. Charles I., prefixed to his Relation 
 of the Conference, &c. 1639. 
 
ROME AND ENGLAND. 225 
 
 you with not a few good reasons for repenting 
 of your own rashness in presuming to forsake 
 the Church of your Baptism in order to unite 
 yourself to the Communion of Rome, — which, 
 (excuse my plainness !) I verily believe to be 
 the " Babylon " of the Apocalypse. 1 Uncatho- 
 lic at all events, and corrupt to an alarming 
 extent, the Romish Church has been already 
 proved to be. And yet I was not concerned to 
 prove that. The burden of proof lay alto- 
 gether on your side, remember. . . . " No 
 man," (to adopt the noble language of Arch- 
 bishop Bramhall,) " can justly blame me for 
 honouring my spiritual Mother, the Church of 
 England, in whose womb I was conceived, at 
 whose breasts I was nourished, and in whose 
 bosom I hope to die. Bees, by the instinct of 
 nature, do love their hives, and birds their 
 nests. But, God is my witness, that, accord- 
 ing to my utmost talent and poor understand- 
 ing, I have endeavoured to set down the naked 
 Truth impartially . . . And if I should mis- 
 take the right Catholic Church out of human 
 frailty or ignorance, (which, for my part, I 
 have no reason in the world to suspect ; yet it 
 
 1 The reader is referred to the well-known treatise of my 
 friend Archdeacon Wordsworth. 
 
 15 
 
226 ROME AND ENGLAND. 
 
 is not impossible, when the Romanists them- 
 selves are divided into five or six several opin- 
 ions, what this Catholic Church, or what their 
 Infallible Judge is,) I do implicitly and in the 
 preparation of my mind submit myself to the 
 True Catholic Church, the Spouse of Christ, 
 the Mother of the Saints, the Pillar of Truth. 
 And seeing my adherence is firmer to the Infalli- 
 ble Rule of Faith, (that is, the Holy Scriptures 
 interpreted by the Catholic Church^) than to 
 mine own private judgment or opinions ; 
 although I should unwittingly fall into an 
 error, yet this cordial submission is an implicit 
 .retractation thereof; and I am confident will 
 be so accepted by the Father of Mercies, both 
 from me and all others who seriously and sin- 
 cerely do seek after Peace and Truth." 
 
 Your obedient servant. 
 Houghton Conquest, 7th Sept. 1861. 
 
APPENDIX. 
 
 A. 
 
 (Reeerked to on Page 34.] 
 
 THE TESTIMONY OF THE CATACOMBS. 
 
 HP HE spirit in which too many Romanists dis- 
 -*- course about the Catacombs, and indeed discuss 
 any object of Catholic antiquity, is very painful to a 
 Catholic mind. They go to work, apparently, not 
 so much to seek for Truth as to find — Romanism ! 
 Romanism, in the best times of Catholic antiquity, 
 beyond all doubt and question, they find not : and 
 accordingly, they are kept, and they keep you, in a 
 constant fuss while they are pretending to find, or to 
 have found it. The Roman Catacombs are com- 
 monly appealed to as if they were the very strong- 
 hold of modern Romanism, — with how much reason, 
 we shall see by-and-by : and as a necessary prelim- 
 inary, they are approached in a spirit of unbounded 
 imaginativeness. Every little bottle is assumed to 
 have once held a martyr's blood. 1 Every indication 
 
 l Fabiola, P. II., ch. 1. 
 
228 APPENDIX. 
 
 of a palm-branch, every sculptured wreath, — is as- 
 sumed to indicate a martyr's sufferings. Every 
 ugly pair of pincers is declared to have once grasped 
 the quivering flesh of a disciple of the Crucified. 
 Every lamp is believed to have once burned before 
 the spot where a Saint is sleeping. — It is forgotten 
 that the little glass bottles of the particular shape to 
 which they (and I) allude, abound in heathen tombs, 
 — whether of Greece or of Italy. These good peo- 
 ple forget that the palm-branch and the wreath occur 
 (with whatever propriety, and with whatever inten- 
 tion) on heathen and on Jewish tombstones. They 
 are not aware that the pincers are a part of the 
 sacrificial apparatus of Pagan Rome. They seem 
 to be unconscious that lamps were a part of the 
 heathen furniture of the grave. 1 No greater disser- 
 vice could be done to the cause of Christian An- 
 tiquity than this nonsensical way of dealing with the 
 question. 
 
 There is a peculiar mawkishness in the very tone 
 of the popular Romish writers, which repels one. 
 " Or haply, descend we (!) into the Catacombs," is 
 no unfair sample of the way they begin a para- 
 graph. 2 Describing a curious structure in the Cata- 
 
 1 " Quisquis hide tumulo posuit ardentem lucernam illius cin- 
 eres aurea terra tegat." — Gruter, p. 648. N. 17. The little 
 lamps in question, as well as the little glass vessels, (of 
 which the Florence-flask seems to be the modern develop- 
 ment,) are quite common in the graves of the ancients. 
 
 2 Dr. Bagg's The Papal Chapel Described, 1839, p. 8. 
 
APPENDIX. 229 
 
 comb of St. Agnese, (about which nothing whatever 
 is known,) the author of Fabiola writes, — " Two 
 cubicula or chambers are placed, one on each side 
 of a gallery or passage, so that their entrances are 
 opposite to one another. At the end of one will be 
 found an arcosolium, or altar-tomb ; and the probable 
 conjecture is that in this division the men under the 
 care of ostiarn, and in the other the women under 
 the care of deaconesses, were assembled." — An 
 " arcosolium," however, is not an altar-tomb, at all ; 
 but quite another thing. (By the way, " altar-tomb," 
 "altar-wise," and all such phrases, are exclusively 
 English. The notion, I mean, is altogether English, 
 — not a Roman notion.) As for the " probability " 
 of the use to which the chambers were applied, it is 
 a pure assumption of the writer's. — He finds a 
 chamber elsewhere, concerning the use of which 
 even conjecture is at fault; but this (he remarks) 
 "is very naturally (?) supposed to have been the 
 place reserved for the class of public penitents called 
 audie?ites, and for the catechumens not yet initiated 
 by baptism." (!) — Two small square golden boxes 
 with a ring at the top of the lid, were found in the 
 Vatican Cemetery in 1571. " These very ancient 
 sacred vessels are considered by Bottari," (says the 
 same writer,) " to have been used for carrying the 
 Blessed Eucharist round the neck ; and Pellicia con- 
 firms this by many arguments." The " many argu- 
 ments " by which a point of this nature, (which is a 
 pure assumption, after all,) is to be established, I 
 
230 APPENDIX. 
 
 leave any sensible man to imagine. In this way, 
 everything almost is discussed. The most gratuitous 
 propositions are introduced with a " doubtless," or a 
 " we may presume," or a " it is probable." This is 
 the 1st and principal rhetorical device. — (2nd.) A 
 bold assumption precludes the necessity for authori- 
 ties and arguments. Thus, the author of Fabiola 
 commenting on the early inscriptions, explains the 
 omission of the year of a person's decease in the fol- 
 lowing singular style. "In England, if want of 
 space prevented the full date of a person's death 
 from being given, we should prefer chronicling the 
 year, to the day of the month, when it occurred. It 
 is more historical. Yet, while so few ancient Chris- 
 tian inscriptions supply the year of people's deaths, 
 thousands give us the very day of it, on which they 
 died, whether in the hopefulness of believers, or in 
 the assurance of martyrs." (Martyrs again !) " This 
 is easily explained. Of both classes annual com- 
 memoration had to be made, on the very day of their 
 departure ; and accurate knowledge of this was ne- 
 cessary. Therefore it alone was recorded." — But 
 would it have prevented the commemoration to have 
 also recorded the year of death ? How does it hap- 
 pen too that so few, comparatively, record any date 
 at all ? And why is it generally the date of burial f 
 (3rd.) An unfair, or rather, an untrue statement is 
 as quietly put forward, as if it were a moral axiom. 
 " A principle (!) as old as Christianity regulated the 
 burial in Catacombs, — viz., the manner of Christ's 
 
APPENDIX. 231 
 
 entombment. He was laid in a grave in a cavern, 
 &c. ; and a stone, sealed up, closed His sepulchre. 
 It was natural for His disciples to wish to be buried 
 after His example." But how much truer it would 
 have been, to say, that the copying of our Saviour's 
 entombment had nothing whatever to do with the 
 question; but that the early Christians, in their 
 mode of burial, simply imitated the Jews ! Hence 
 the practice of embalming, which prevailed in the 
 primitive Church. 1 Nay, our Blessed Lord's en- 
 tombment, as it happens, is not at all a case in point. 
 For He was not buried " in a grave in a cavern ; " a 
 stone did not " seal up His sepulchre," in the manner 
 observable in the Catacombs. The sacred Body 
 seems to have been deposited on the floor of the 
 cave ; and merely as a temporary measure, a great 
 stone, (not a slab,) was rolled to, (not cemented 
 over,) the mouth of the cave, (not of the loculi in 
 which the body was deposited.) This misrepresenta- 
 tion of facts is so familiar a trick with a certain class 
 of controversialists that one begins to look for it as a 
 part of their style. 
 
 To turn from this slipslop, however, to plain mat- 
 ters of fact. — The question before us is clearly this : 
 What is the religious teaching of the Catacombs ? 
 What witness do they bear to the tenets of the early 
 Church ? And do they countenance modern Roman- 
 ism or not? .... I believe no man ever walked 
 
 1 Bingham, B. xxiii. c. ii. § 5. 
 
U32 APPENDIX. 
 
 down the long flight of steps which conduct to the 
 chief gallery of the Catacomb of Callistus with 
 more curiosity on this subject than I did. What 
 need to declare, that if what I found at the bottom 
 had been ever so distasteful to me, — ever so per- 
 plexing and disturbing, — I would have published it 
 freely, keeping back nothing ? 
 
 Now, as for the result of an actual walk in the 
 Catacombs, it really is not considerable any way, — 
 simply because (as already explained) everything of 
 interest or value has been removed from them. A 
 few fresco paintings, — sadly begrimed with smoke 
 of tapers most unfeelingly held against them by 
 visitors, — there are. By and by, I will say a few 
 words about them ; and on the symbolical represen- 
 tations of the early Church generally. The bearing 
 of those representations on the faith of the early 
 Church, (which is emphatic,) will also be noticed 
 most conveniently, then. At present, let it suffice to 
 say that such frescoes are few in number, and rude 
 in execution : moreover, their evidence (which, as 
 far as it goes, is striking.) may very well be consid- 
 ered, together with that of the ancient Christian 
 sculptures, — apart. 
 
 But the early Inscriptions from the Catacombs, — 
 what do they teach ? By sculptured symbol, or by 
 engraved record, what is their witness ? 
 
 Negatively then, — I find no allusion ivhatever to 
 the special tenets with which modern Romanism has 
 identified itself. There is no hint in the Catacombs 
 
APPENDIX. 233 
 
 that we are at Rome. Above ground, the Blessed 
 Virgin Mary is evidently the presiding deity of the 
 Eternal City. Go below ; and you seek for her in 
 vain. I was going to say that she does not appear 
 at all. I remember however one fresco, and one 
 only, where the upper half of a female figure 
 with a child in front of her, was pointed out as 
 a representation of the Blessed Virgin. But it cer- 
 tainly was not very ancient. On an isolated rep- 
 resentation, however, of doubtful antiquity, it is 
 obviously idle to dwell. A greater contrast than 
 that between Christianity above and Christianity 
 below ground, at Rome, — cannot well be imag- 
 ined. 
 
 The monogram of Christ, with the letters which 
 recall His mysterious saying in the Revelation of St. 
 John, — ( U I am Alpha and Omega,") — is the sym- 
 bol of most frequent recurrence ; often, enclosed in 
 a circle. The best instance of this symbol is' seen 
 on a circular piece of oriental alabaster in the Colle- 
 gio Romano. Another singularly beautiful stone, 
 combining an anchor between two fishes with the 
 inscription, IX0YC ZwNTooN, The fish of the living, 
 may be dismissed with this brief notice. 
 
 What need to say that these allusions, and the 
 like of them, are dear to the Church Universal^ 
 The anchor, (a heathen symbol, as every one who 
 has crossed the threshold of a certain house in Pom- 
 peii is aware,) seems to have been gladly adopted by 
 the early Christians, as allusive to that hope which 
 
234 APPENDIX. 
 
 " we have as an anchor of the soul, both sure and 
 steadfast." — The representation of a fish was espe- 
 cially dear to the primitive believers. Did not the 
 second Adam three times assert His dominion over 
 " the fish of the sea/' — which was the primal grant 
 to the first Adam ? And is it not true, (to quote 
 the saying of Tertullian), that we, "pisciculi, secun- 
 dum fydvv nostrum Jesum Christum, in aqua nas- 
 cimur ? " — The symbolism of a ship to denote the 
 Church, (wherein we pray that we " may so pass 
 the waves of this troublesome world, that finally we 
 may come to the land of everlasting life,") is well- 
 known. Clemens Alexandrinus, describing the rep- 
 resentations on the seals of the early believers, says, 
 — " On our seals be seen a dove, or a fish, or a ship 
 wafted along by the breath of Heaven (? ovqcivoSqo- 
 fAOvaa) : or a musical lyre ... or a nautical anchor 
 .... And if any one be a-fishing, he shall remem- 
 ber the Apostle, and the children who are taken up 
 out of the water." 1 It was the faith of the pagan 
 world which also suggested the retention of the 
 wreath. But this had so obvious a Christian signifi- 
 cation, that Christendom must have been unconscious 
 from the very first that she was doing more than em- 
 ploying her own. Is there not " laid up " a crown 
 " which the righteous Judge shall give unto all them 
 that love His appearing"? The palm-branch was 
 heathen doubtless ; but it was also Jewish. The fre- 
 
 l Pcedagogus, lib. iii. p. 106, al. 246, al. vol. i. p. 289. 
 
APPENDIX. 235 
 
 quent recurrence of the palm on the coins of Simon 
 Barchocab, (to say nothing of such places as St. John 
 xii. 13,) suggests that the early Christians did but 
 retain what had long been an approved Jewish se- 
 pulchral emblem. And does not every Christian 
 man think with awful anticipation of that great mul- 
 titude which no man may number, which stand " be- 
 fore the Throne and before The Lamb, clothed with 
 white robes, and palms in their hands " ? 
 
 But the commonest symbol of all on tombs is a 
 bird, generally with some leaves in its mouth ; and it 
 is doubtless to be explained by the formula which is 
 also the commonest of all, — " In pace." 
 
 However unlike a dove, for a dove doubtless this 
 bird is always intended. Its meaning may have 
 been (and doubtless was) strangely overlooked, — as 
 when it is represented pecking at a bunch of grapes, 
 or standing on a vase. But whether perched on a 
 tree, carrying foliage, or simply standing in fabulous 
 conventionality, with a long neck and long legs, it is 
 still an emblem of Peace. 
 
 In truth, I make no doubt that, taken as it is from 
 the history of Xoah, it was an established Jewish 
 emblem, before it passed into the symbolical treasury 
 of the Christian Church. The people who wrote 
 shalom on the resting-places of their dead, before 
 the veil was taken off' the Law, and the features of 
 the Gospel discovered ; that same people, doubt- 
 less, who from a coin of Apamea in Syria obtained 
 their singular representation of Xoah, looking 
 
236 APPENDIX. 
 
 out of the Ark, were doubtless the first to adopt 
 the dove for the symbol of the peace of the de- 
 parted. 
 
 The Eucharistic allusion conveyed by the repre- 
 sentation of five loaves and two fishes on a sepulchral 
 stone from the Catacomb of S. Ermete, is obvious 
 and striking. The loaves are made like our hot- 
 crossed buns, for the convenience of fracture. By 
 the way, the ancient loaf from Pompeii, preserved 
 in the Naples Museum, is made and marked in the 
 same way. 
 
 The same must be the meaning of the two-handled 
 vase, which sometimes appears on the monuments 
 of the early Christians ; and which suggests the re- 
 verse of the denial of the cup to the laity. At the 
 same time, I must request you to observe that 
 although, when the Christians had once adopted it, 
 the cup or vase must have been reasonably regarded 
 as allusive to the cup of the New Testament, it was 
 doubtless at first a Jewish symbol, — whatever its 
 meaning on the few surviving monuments of God's 
 ancient people may be supposed to have been. Did 
 it not represent the Passover cup ? I invite you to 
 call to mind the coins of Simon Barchocab ; * and to 
 recognise in the bunch of grapes, and the vine-leaf, 
 the favourite symbols of the nation who, (at the sug- 
 gestion perhaps of Psalm lxxx. 8,) represented a 
 
 1 See the plates in Bayer, De Numis Hebrmo-Samari- 
 tanis. 
 
APPENDIX. 237 
 
 vine upon their temple. The vase I pretend not 
 to explain. 1 But who sees not that when the 
 Jewish dove is represented pecking at a bunch of 
 grapes, those grapes were gathered from a Jewish 
 vine? 
 
 Who again perceives not that when birds and 
 vases come together, both alike were, in the first in- 
 stance, the property of God's ancient people ? 
 
 On inscribed sepulchral slabs, are frequently no- 
 ticed besides, the following sculptured representa- 
 tions : — a person with outstretched arms and 
 uplifted hands. This was doubtless the established 
 attitude of prayer in primitive times, certainly 
 among the Jews. Is it not what St. Paul meant 
 when he willed that men should " pray everywhere, 
 lifting up holy hands " ? 2 " Hie habitus orantium 
 est," says Apuleius, " ut manibus in ccelum extensis 
 precemur." Wetstein gives many more such pas- 
 
 1 It is obvious to suggest that it alludes to the Passover- 
 rite. Whatever this symbol meant on Jewish coins, and on 
 Jewish gravestones, is however clearly a distinct question. 
 Wondrous little is known about the coins of Simon Macca- 
 basus, — to whose time the only extant old Jewish coin, the 
 " shekel of Israel/' is (conjecturally) assigned. It bears on 
 one side, a branch of pomegranate (sic), with three buds or 
 blossoms: on the other, not a vase, but a cup, — exactly 
 like a modern chalice. 
 
 2 1 Tim. ii. 8. — Compare also Kom. x. 91 : Ps. exxxiv. 
 2 : cxli. 2 : Is. i. 15. 
 
238 APPENDIX. 
 
 The Good Shepherd is also of constant occurrence, 
 with a lamb on his shoulders, and a sheep on either 
 side of him. — His attire, (a short tunic and bus- 
 kins,) convinces me that some forgotten heathen 
 representation supplied the established type of this 
 affecting image. The most interesting representa- 
 tion I ever met with of the Good Shepherd, is in 
 the Museum Kircherianum ; but was found in a 
 Catacomb. 
 
 A shepherd, (Orpheus?) playing on a pan-pipe 
 under a tree, — a crook in his arm, and a sheep at 
 his feet, — shows plainly enough from what source 
 it came. The image was transferred to the capti- 
 vating power of the Gospel message, — but it prob- 
 ably savoured too strongly of heathendom to obtain 
 much favour with the Christian Church. 
 
 Altogether unique is the rude representation of 
 the Sower sowing his seed, on a stone in the Museum 
 Kircherianum. It suggests, in common with much 
 which precedes, the scriptural character of the repre- 
 sentation in which the early Church evidently most 
 delighted. 
 
 Then, for the actual Inscriptions, I need not say 
 that words of Peace are the common property of all 
 believers : while the image of Sleep, ever since the 
 Holy Spirit dictated the 4th and 5th Psalms, has 
 been familiar with the whole Christian world. Is it 
 not related of St. Stephen, the first Martyr, that 
 exoiuTjOrj, — " he fell asleep " ? — To say of one who 
 lived professing a pure faith, and who died with a 
 
APPENDIX. 239 
 
 good hope, that he " rests in God," or " in the Holy 
 Spirit," — is to say what is familiarly believed 
 (thank Heaven !) in all the Churches of Christen- 
 dom. 
 
 The pretended Invocations of Saints will be found 
 separately discussed further on. In conclusion, 
 let the following inscriptions on five of the early 
 Popes be considered ; and it will be felt that we are 
 dealing with an age when the pretensions of modern 
 Romanism were unknown. ANTEPooC EIII, (Ante- 
 ros was Bishop of Rome a.d. 235.) — $ABIANOC 
 EIII MTP (in monogram, Fabian, Bishop and Mar- 
 tyr, was from a.d. 236.) — AOYKIC, (Lucius, a.d. 
 252.) — ETTTXIANOC EniC, (Eutychianus, a.d. 
 275.) — CORNELIYS MARTYR EP. (Cornelius, a.d. 
 250.) . . . You perceive that once the occupant 
 of the Roman see knew himself, and was known 
 by the whole world, to be a Bishop and nothing 
 more : scarcely " primus inter pares." Witness the 
 extant writings of that same " Cornelius Ep., Mar- 
 tyr," to whose epitaph I am alluding. " Compres- 
 byteri nostri," " coepiscopi nostri," is repeatedly his 
 phrase. 1 
 
 It remains only to call attention to an epitaph 
 hastily copied in a cloister adjoining the Library of 
 S. Paolo fuori le Mura : — Gaudentius the presbyter 
 to himself and his wife Severa, a virtuous woman, 
 [what follows is clearly blundered] who lived 42 
 
 1 Reliquice, vol. iii. pp. 16, 17. 
 
240 APPENDIX. 
 
 years, 3 months, 10 days. Buried 4th of the nones 
 of April. Timasius and Promus being Consuls. 
 
 In the year a.d. 389 then, we are reminded by 
 the Catacombs that the Clergy were married, — an- 
 other note of contrast between ancient and modern 
 Romanism. 
 
 In what precedes it has been shown pretty clearly, 
 that when the Roman Christians of the first four 
 centuries address us by inscriptive writing, they 
 speak a language which we well understand ; for it 
 is the language of the Church Catholic as it is estab- 
 lished, (through God's Providence,) in these realms. 
 There is nothing peculiarly Romish, — (how could 
 there be ?) — in anything they deliver. — But what 
 of their Symbolism? There are early Christian 
 frescoes to be seen at Rome. There are also sculp- 
 tured sarcophagi, in great abundance ; and some are 
 of fine workmanship. Who can be unconscious of 
 a strong curiosity to know what is taught by such 
 objects as these ? 
 
 Let me explain myself a little. The ancients, (I 
 allude now, of course, to pagan Rome,) used to bury 
 their great in sumptuous sarcophagi of stone or mar- 
 ble. Battle-scenes, processions, representations of 
 famous events, — warriors, chariots and horses, and 
 the like, — figure largely on the front and sides of 
 these sarcophagi ; — a central compartment, (fash- 
 ioned like the concave of half a bivalve shell,) being 
 left for a representation of the deceased, and proba- 
 bly of his wife. Erect, at the two extremities of the 
 
APPENDIX. 241 
 
 lid of the sarcophagus, are often seen tragic masks. 
 Now, the early Christians adopted, and carried on 
 this method of interment. Witness those two colos- 
 sal sarcophagi of red Egyptian porphyry now to be 
 seen in the Vatican, which once contained the bodies 
 of the Empress Helena, (our countrywoman, the 
 wife of Constantine the Great) ; and of Constautia, 
 the Emperor's daughter. It not unfrequently hap- 
 pens that they even retained the ornament of the 
 tragic mask; and combined representations pecu- 
 liarly Christian with some of a pagan kind. But, 
 (to come to the point,) as a rule, they pourtrayed 
 subjects unequivocally Christian on the sarcophagi 
 of their dead : and it is chiefly to these subjects, that 
 I now wish to invite your attention. 
 
 The Christian Museum of St. John Lateran is 
 a spacious apartment, all round which, against the 
 walls, stand sculptured sarcophagi. Their date ap- 
 pears to be about the fifth century ; later rather than 
 earlier, I suspect : but I am not certain. A more 
 interesting set of monuments of early sacred Art, 
 can hardly be imagined. No one is allowed to 
 sketch ; but visitors may make as many memoranda 
 as they please. Accordingly, I made a memorandum 
 of every one, — which, considering their sameness, 
 was not very laborious. At the same time, the sar- 
 cophagi are so numerous, (about fifty-five in all,) that 
 I thought they would supply materials for a fair in- 
 duction as to which representations enjoyed the great- 
 est degree of favour with the early Church ; and the 
 16 
 
242 APPENDIX. 
 
 result of my memoranda, I propose to lay before you, 
 now. 
 
 But in order to be quite intelligible, let me de- 
 scribe to you one of the most interesting specimens 
 of these objects. It has been converted into an 
 altar, and is to be seen in the chapel of S. Lucia, in 
 the Basilica of S. Maria Maggiore. There are (as 
 usual) two series of representations ; and in the 
 centre, within a shell, is the upper half of (I think) 
 two male figures. The upper series consists of, (1) 
 the raising of Lazarus ; (2) the denial of St. Peter ; 
 (3) Moses receiving the Law ; (4) the sacrifice of 
 Isaac; (5) Pilate washing his hands. The lower 
 series represents (6) the smitten rock, with figures ; 
 (7) probably, our Lord's Apprehension, — see be- 
 low, the 4th representation ; (8) Daniel among the 
 lions ; (9) one reading under a tree, a man looking 
 through the branches ; (10) the blind restored to 
 sight; (11) the miracles of the loaves. — Having 
 premised thus much, I shall be most useful if I may 
 be allowed to describe, in succession, every repre- 
 sentation to be found in the room. There are but 
 about 30 subjects, after all. For convenience, I will 
 prefix to each a number ; and add a number at the 
 end expressive of the frequency of its recurrence. 
 Let it be remarked once for all, that the present con- 
 ventional type of our Divine Lord, (with a beard 
 and parted hair,) nowhere appears on these sarco- 
 phagi. He is, I think, always represented as a beard- 
 young man. 
 
APPENDIX. 243 
 
 1. The History of Jonah — The prophet be- 
 ing thrown out of the ship. A fish is gen- 
 erally represented open-mouthed to receive 
 him. 
 
 Jonah being cast out of the fish's belly. 
 
 Jonah reclining under the gourd. 
 
 These three very favourite representations are 
 often singularly blended together. More than 
 one instance is there of Jonah beneath the gourd, 
 with his legs not yet quite disengaged from the 
 jaws of the fish 23 
 
 2. The Smitten Rock is exhibited by a stream 
 flowing down from a rock ; before which stands 
 Moses, — generally, (not always,) with a rod in 
 his hand. There are always accessories here, the 
 meaning of which is not plain ; except when 
 (as often happens) these are bending to drink of 
 the water 21 
 
 3. The Miracle of the Loaves. — Our Lord 
 stands between two disciples, — one of whom 
 holds a basket containing loaves, — the other, a 
 vessel, in which are fishes. One hand is laid in 
 benediction upon either. But this representation 
 often takes another shape. Seven baskets are in- 
 troduced ; six on the ground, one in the hands of 
 
 a disciple, — as before 20» 
 
 4. I presume the Apprehension of our Lord 
 is indicated as often as a figure is seen with a sol- 
 dier on either side (wearing a peculiar kind of 
 hat,) who seem to be both arresting Him. . . 20 
 
244 APPENDIX. 
 
 5. The Giving of Sight to the Blind, (St. John 
 ix.) is exhibited by introducing our Lord, touch- 
 ing the eyes of a little figure who stands before 
 Him. There are accessories, of course. . . .19 
 
 6. The Miracle of the Water made Wine. — 
 Our Lord is seen extending a rod towards two, 
 three, four, five, or six water-pots. One or more 
 accessory figures are seen 16 
 
 7. In the raising of Lazarus, our Lord stands 
 before a tomb, which is represented like a little 
 temple, with a raised pediment, supported by two 
 columns. A veiled female (Mary ?) crouches on 
 the other side of him. More often, I think, Laz- 
 arus himself comes to view; but invariably in 
 the form of a mummy, blocking up the door. 
 Sometimes our Lord is extending a wand. . .16 
 
 8. Daniel in the Lions 9 Den is invariably rep- 
 resented by exhibiting a naked figure, erect, be- 
 tween two lions couchant and regarding him (as 
 the heralds express it). The prophet's uplifted 
 hands indicate that he is engaged in prayer. Not 
 unfrequently, Habakkuk is seen at his side offer- 
 ing him a basket of loaves 14 
 
 9. The Denial of St. Peter, would, I think, be 
 more properly called the prophecy of Christ 
 
 # that St. Peter would deny Him. Our Lord is 
 addressing St. Peter, at whose feet stands a 
 cock. — Let me remark, once for all, that there 
 is commonly an additional figure, (or more than 
 one,) in every subject. About these accessories, 
 
APPENDIX. 245 
 
 (which are generally indicated by a head, — to 
 all appearance put in to fill up the vacant space,) 
 I shall say nothing 14 
 
 10. In the healing of the Paralytic, — our 
 Lord, (almost always represented as a beardless 
 figure,) is standing with an older man at His 
 side. A little figure beneath seems struggling 
 under the weight of a mighty sofa which he car- 
 ries on his shoulders 12 
 
 11. The Creation of Adam, ( or qu. of JEve?) 
 — Our Lord with His extended rod, touches 
 the head of a little figure lying on the ground. 
 Another person is standing by 11 
 
 12. In the sacrifice of Isaac, Abraham extends 
 his right arm towards heaven, where another 
 
 *hand is seen with uplifted finger. The patri- 
 arch's left rests on the head of a little figure, 
 who kneels on one knee at his feet. On the 
 other side is a ram 11 
 
 13. In representations of the Adoration of the 
 Magi, the Virgin and Infant Saviour are on one 
 side, — and often with a very conspicuous star 
 above. On the other side three or four figures 
 are hastening forward with gifts. Sometimes a 
 camel appears. — This variety in the number of 
 the Magi is an interesting circumstance, — re- 
 minding one that the three gifts are the only 
 reason for assuming, (it does not amount to a 
 presumption,) that the Magi were three like- 
 wise 11 
 
246 APPENDIX. 
 
 14. The Temptation of our first Parents. — 
 Adam and Eve standing on either side of the 
 Tree of Knowledge, round which is twined the 
 Serpent. So old is this still prevalent type I 1 .10 
 
 15. The Healing of the Woman with the bloody 
 issue, I presume, is indicated by a woman crouch- 
 ing before our Lord, and apparently touching 
 his clothes. Over her head, He extends His 
 hand. Another figure stands by 8 
 
 16. The Good Shepherd (elsewhere described). 6 
 
 17. Our Lord's triumphal entry into Jerusa- 
 lem is represented by a figure seated on an ass, 
 — while others spread their garments before 
 Him. One discovered in a tree, suggests the 
 notion that the incident of Zaccheus is blended 
 with this 6 
 
 18. Noah's Ark. — A man with outstretched 
 arms stands up in a square box.. A dove is fly- 
 ing towards him 5 
 
 19. Our Lord before Pilate. — Among sev- 
 eral figures, two are chiefly conspicuous. A sol- 
 dier of rank is sitting in a thoughtful attitude, 
 
 1 On first visiting Oxford, (about 25 years ago,) I walked 
 to Forest-hill to see the house of Milton's father-in-law. 
 Upon the further end of one of the adjoining offices, (a kind 
 of barn,) facing the residence of the Powells was a quaint 
 old bas-relief of the scene described above, . executed in 
 stucco. Milton must have many a time looked upon that 
 representation of the subject of his Paradise Lost ! The 
 barn fell down one windy night, about 20 years ago. 
 
APPENDIX. 247 
 
 his face resting on his hand. Before him stands 
 one who holds a basin in his left, — an ewer in 
 his right. On a low table is a vase. — Occasion- 
 ally, our Lord is simply standing before the 
 Governor 5 
 
 20. Is the institution of Sacrifice represented 
 by exhibiting our Lord (?) standing before 
 Adam and Eve ? In His right hand are ears of 
 corn; in His left, a goat (?) 4 
 
 21. The giving of the Law. — Moses extends 
 his hand ; into which, another hand, from a cloud, 
 places the two tables 4 
 
 22. The Three Children appear, wearing Phry- 
 gian bonnets, standing in the attitude of prayer 
 among flames which issue from a low furnace. . 4 
 
 23. Christ bearing His Cross 3 
 
 24. Moses putting his shoes from off his feet. . 2 
 
 25. The Translation of Elijah. — The prophet 
 drops his mantle, — Elisha and two little sons of 
 the prophets behind 2 
 
 25. The Nativity of Christ. — The Holy 
 Child is in a cradle. The ox and the ass, — 
 those truly venerable types of the animal king- 
 dom, — appear above 1 
 
 26. Christ crowned with thorns 1 
 
 Let me say, once for all, that there are several 
 other subjects of rare occurrence, of which I failed 
 to detect the precise meaning. Rather let me pro- 
 ceed with my story. 
 
248 APPENDIX. 
 
 When we turn from early Christian Sculpture, to 
 early Christian Fresco painting, it is right that we 
 should be reminded of the nature of what we are 
 about to contemplate. Not the pictured walls of 
 Churches come to view, (for it was strictly prohib- 
 ited, in the primitive age, so to decorate the House 
 of God, 1 ) but the sepulchral chambers of the departed. 
 And these were adorned with symbols, and arabesque 
 ornaments, not because it was congenial to the mind 
 of Christianity so to illustrate the Faith, but because 
 it teas the heathen custom so to honour the dead. 
 Accordingly, you are not certain, for a few moments, 
 whether you are looking on a pagan or a Christian 
 work. There are the same fabulous animals in both, 
 — the same graceful curves, — the same foliage, 
 fruit, and flowers. Birds appear in both ; and the 
 peacock, (so common in heathen frescoes,) is found 
 to have been appropriated by the early Christians, 
 whether in allusion to the all-seeing eyes of God, or 
 not, I venture not to declare. 
 
 But more frequently, the subject tells its own tale. 
 The Good Shepherd, (in a well-known fresco in the 
 Cemetery of Callistus,) is seen with a lamb on his 
 shoulders, — two sheep being at his feet. From the 
 smitten rock on either side a figure rudely drawn is 
 catching the water in his hands : and two sheep are 
 in front of either. Close your ears to those amiable 
 
 1 Cone. Eliberit. c. xxxvi. The Council was held a.d. 
 305. See Bingham, B. viii. c. viii. § 6. 
 
APPENDIX. 249 
 
 and highly imaginative enthusiasts who, in that rude 
 fresco, pretend to discover that " one of the two 
 sheep is listening attentively, not quite understand- 
 ing as yet, but meditating, and seeking to understand. 
 The other turns his tail. It is an unwelcome sub- 
 ject, and he will have nothing to do with it. On the 
 other side, one of the two sheep is drinking in all 
 that he hears with simplicity and affection ; the other 
 is eating grass ; he has something else to do. He is 
 occupied with the cares, &c, of this world." ... I 
 am not insensible to the merits of a painting, slow at 
 catching an allusion, or unimaginative. But I hesi- 
 tate not to say that all this kind of thing, (of which 
 you hear so much in the Catacombs !) is mere moon- 
 shine. " Turning his tail " the sheep certainly is ; 
 but the design of the animal in so doing, and that of 
 the artist, I should think were almost upon a par 
 . . . Let this suffice. Such ingenuity, instead of 
 dignifying the subject, renders it only a matter of 
 ridicule ; and, like Romish fictions in general, can 
 result in nothing so much as in producing disbelief 
 of things which are really worthy of credit. The 
 early Christian Frescoes, (as one would have ex- 
 pected,) are as rude as the early Christian Sculp- 
 tures, and as the early Christian Inscriptions. 
 
 The favourite representations in fresco (whether 
 by allusive symbol or actual design) are still, (as be- 
 fore,) the smitten Rock, — the miracle of the loaves 
 and fishes, — the Good Shepherd, — the Sacrifice of 
 Isaac, — the receiving of the Law, — the history of 
 
250 APPENDIX. 
 
 Jonah. I tried in vain to ascertain the respective 
 frequency of these representations. 
 
 It is high time to bring these remarks to a con- 
 clusion. — On a review of all that has gone before, 
 the representations which are found to have enjoyed 
 greatest favour with the early believers, do, I con- 
 fess, somewhat surprise me. Out of all the possible 
 Old Testament subjects, to find that the story of 
 Jonah (23), Moses striking the rock (21) or receiv- 
 ing the Law (4), Daniel among the lions (14), the 
 Creation of Man (11) and his Fall (10), Abraham 
 offering Isaac (11), and the three Children in the 
 furnace (4), should enjoy special favour, — is cer- 
 tainly somewhat singular. It occasions less aston- 
 ishment to find that the miracles of our Lord which 
 stand out most conspicuous are, — the loaves and 
 fishes (20), the blind man healed (19), the water 
 made wine (16), Lazarus (16), the Paralytic (12), 
 the bloody issue (8). On the other hand, that the 
 events selected from our Lord's life should be His 
 Apprehension (20), St. Peter's Denial (14), the 
 visit of the Magi (11), and the Triumphal Entry (6), 
 
 — very reasonably, I think, surprises one. We 
 should have expected to see more often pourtrayed 
 the Virgin and Child, (a subject which is all but un- 
 known :) the Baptism, the Temptation, or the Trans- 
 figuration, (none of which are known ever to occur.) 
 Above all, one would have looked for the Crucifixion, 
 
 — which is altogether without example. Neither 
 the Entombment, nor indeed hardly any of the 
 
APPENDIX. 251 
 
 favourite subjects of modern Christian Art, make 
 part of the symbolism of the primitive age. The 
 omission strikes me as exceedingly interesting. 
 Hardly can it require to be added that the treat- 
 ment of these several subjects is utterly undevotional, 
 and the manner of representing our Blessed Lord, 
 most unworthy ; although of course nothing was ever 
 less intended than irreverence. 
 
 But it is well worth observing, (and with this I 
 shall conclude,) that the taste and temper of the an- 
 cient and of the modern Church of Rome, stand out 
 in wondrous contrast here. What traces are there 
 of the Mariolatry which at present prevails in the 
 seat of the Papacy ? Where is the pre-eminence 
 given to St. Peter? How comes it to pass that 
 there is no allusion to his exclusive possession of the 
 keys ? Why do the words " Tu es Petrus " appear 
 nowhere ? Why are there no allusions to Purgatory, 
 — to the worship of Saints, — or indeed to anything 
 that is Romish? Why does the Blessed Virgin 
 never once appear on the oldest monuments? We 
 find Popes named like the humblest Bishops, — al- 
 lusions to only two Sacraments, — hints that the cup 
 was for the Laity, — evidence of a married Clergy. 
 .... No ! the remains of early Christian Art, like 
 the most venerable of the Patristic writings, are one 
 loud protest against the corruptions of modern Ro- 
 manism. The favourite appeal to the Christians of 
 the Catacombs, is absolutely fatal. If those primi- 
 tive believers could revisit the earth, they would 
 
252 APPENDIX. 
 
 walk away with horror from the column of the 
 Piazza di Spagna which commemorates "the new 
 dogma of 1854." How shocked would they be to 
 find the Blessed Virgin everywhere, and her adora- 
 ble Son scarcely anywhere at all ! They would be 
 impatient of the many human objects of worship 
 which keep Him so nearly out of sight. Those huge 
 statues under the dome of St. Peter's, of Veronica, 
 Helena, and Longinus, would confound them. The 
 bronze figure of the Saint, — (especially if he had 
 his smart robes on,) — would fill them with conster- 
 nation. What would tbey say when they beheld his 
 foot well-nigh kissed away by his many devotees, — 
 the Bishop of Pome himself setting the example? 
 . . . They would inquire what the inscription over 
 every church-door, (" Indulgentia plenaria pro vivis 
 et mortuis,") meant : and when they were told, they 
 would reject the evidence of their senses. How 
 would they testify their indignation at the promise 
 of deliverance to any believer's soul out of Purga- 
 torial pain, for whom Mass should be celebrated at 
 one particular altar? .... Surely, those ancient 
 men would move in one goodly company towards 
 that gate, where the thoroughfares of Rome seem to 
 converge. They would repair to a well-known 
 building outside the Porta del Popolo, (which looks 
 more like a low theatre, — or a novel race-stand, — 
 or a petty club-house, — or a genteel barn, — than 
 a Church): and in the Ritual there daily practised, 
 — in the Eucharist there weekly celebrated, — they 
 
APPENDIX. 253 
 
 would recognise the lineaments of the public service 
 of their own best days ; not assuredly to be recog- 
 nised elsewhere at Rome. And ft What do ye 
 here ? " they would ask. And when one of our 
 own people made answer that we have been expelled 
 "without the gate" "bearing His reproach," — I 
 can anticipate the terrible rejoinder. . . . Right 
 sure am I that the Martyrs of that primitive age 
 now carry palms with our own Ridley, and Cranmer, 
 and Latimer ! As once they confessed the self-same 
 pure faith, so now they all rejoice in the same Beati- 
 fic presence, — wear the same white robe, — and re- 
 joice in the same amaranthine crown ! 
 
254 APPENDIX. 
 
 B. 
 
 (Referred to on Page 43.) 
 
 " INVOCATION OF SAINTS " — " PRAYERS FOR THE 
 DEAD " : — TESTIMONY OF THE CATACOMBS. 
 
 TT seems to be thought by persons of the Romish 
 -*- Communion, that a pious aspiration on behalf of 
 the departed, because it naturally assumes the form 
 of a prayer, is a rebuke to us of the English Church. 
 I cannot, for my own part, feel that it is any rebuke 
 at all. Waiving the recorded history of prayers for 
 the dead, there is nothing in the inscriptions from the 
 Catacombs which could be seriously maintained to 
 sanction the practice. It is to be observed that these 
 are all apostrophes, — addressed to the departed. 
 " Mayest thou live in God \" — " God refresh thy 
 spirit ; " — and the like. Now this is the language 
 of natural piety, which has found vent among all 
 people and in all ages. Thus, heathen Greece would 
 write above a grave as follows : — 
 
 Be of good cheer, Lady ; and to thee 
 Osiris give to quaff the cooling water. 
 
 Or thus : — 
 
 In precious odours be thy soul, my child ! 
 
APPENDIX. 255 
 
 And heathen Eome : — 
 
 fare thee well I Thy mother prays thee, take, 
 Yea take me to thyself. Again farewell ! 
 
 The simple truth is, that one who has followed the 
 object of his affection to the edge of the valley of 
 the shadow of death, cannot be mute. No one ever 
 suspected of " Invocation of Saints," (or of belief in 
 the " Shades " either,) the author of the epitaph, — 
 " Forgive, blest shade, the tributary tear," &c. ; or 
 Bishop Lowth when he wrote upon his daughter's 
 grave, — " Eja, age, in amplexus, cara Maria, 
 redi ! " 
 
 On Professor Hussey's tomb at Sandford, is writ- 
 ten, " Requiescat" But did any one ever suspect 
 that good and great man, — or his admirable rela- 
 tives, of a sneaking kindness for Romanism ? and 
 yet, what should we not have heard if, on the sepul- 
 chral slab of a famous teacher known to be buried in 
 the Catacombs, such words were found written ? — 
 Some verses once appeared in the Times on the 
 occasion of the funeral of the greatest Captain 
 of modern days, in which a passage began, — 
 " God rest his gallant spirit ! give him peace ! " 
 A lynx-eyed friend immediately inquired whether 
 that was not a prayer for the dead? Every 
 one must see that nothing is less intended on 
 such occasions. Was Lord Byron praying for the 
 dead, when he wrote, " Bright be the place of thy 
 soul"? 
 
256 APPENDIX. 
 
 The three following deserve to be classed together ; 
 all three containing what sounds like an invocation 
 of Saints. But, for that practice, be it observed in 
 passing, these inscriptions are no warrant at all. 
 These are not invocations of Saints in any sense ; 
 but still (as before) mere apostrophes to relations 
 recently departed, whom the survivors follow into the 
 unseen world with a passionate entreaty that they 
 would not discontinue their prayers for the beloved 
 ones left behind. 
 
 In the first inscription it will be perceived that the 
 parents implore the prayers of their infant child; 
 associating with him those " spirits and souls of the 
 righteous" among whom he was already dwell- 
 ing:— 
 
 Dionysius, a spotless infant, lies here with the Saints. do 
 ye remember us also, in your holy prayers I — aye, and the en- 
 graver and writer as well. 
 
 Again : — 
 
 Buried on the 13th of the Kalends of June. Augenda, may est 
 thou live, in the Lord, and pray for us! 
 
 Again : — 
 
 . . . May est thou live in peace, and pray for us ! 
 
 " That the Saints departed yet live unto God," 
 (w^rote the late venerable President of Magdalen 
 College,) " Holy Scripture teaches : as well as that 
 the Martyrs pray for the coming of God's judg- 
 
APPENDIX. 257 
 
 ment. From which it is reasonable to infer that the 
 same Saints pray not only for themselves, but also 
 for the people of God, and for their friends. On the 
 other hand, either that they know what befalls us on 
 earth, or that they hear our prayers, the canonical 
 books nowhere state ; much less do they command 
 us to request them to pray to God for us. Should 
 any however be of opinion that this, though not 
 commanded, ought yet to be done, it is for us all 
 anxiously to consider, that Holy Scripture, which 
 condemns ' the worship of Angels,' must perforce 
 forbid the religious ' cultus ' of men, who are lower 
 
 than the Angels In no book written before 
 
 the Council of Nicsea does mention occur either of 
 formulae (whether written or unwritten) employed in 
 public worship, or of any Hymn, in which the 
 Saints are invocated to intercede with God. In the 
 epitaphs of Martyrs and others, such petitions are 
 of most rare occurrence." It may surely be rea- 
 sonably questioned if a single instance of it is to he 
 found in the Romish sense. On the other hand, 
 our own Ridley could address his " brother Brad- 
 ford," on the eve of his martyrdom, as follows : — 
 " So long as I shall understand that thou art in 
 thy journey, by God's grace I shall call upon 
 our heavenly Father, for Christ's sake, to see thee 
 safely home : and then, good Brother, speak you, 
 and pray for the remnant that are to suffer for 
 Christ's sake, according to thai thou then shalt 
 know more clearly" Cyprian's language to Corne- 
 
 17 
 
258 APPENDIX. 
 
 lius is precisely similar : — " Memores nostri in- 
 vicem simus. Utrobique pro nobis semper oremus. 
 Et si quis istinc nostrum prior . . . p?*cecesserit, 
 .... pro fratribus et sororibus nostris apud miseri- 
 cordiam Patris non cesset oratioT 
 
APPENDIX. 259 
 
 C. 
 
 (Referred to on Page 53 and Page 132.) 
 
 RELICS. 
 
 I" MUST not pass by this subject of Relics with a few 
 ■*- cursory remarks ; for it evidently occupies a con- 
 siderable place in the public devotions of a Roman 
 Catholic. The " Invito Sagro " specifies which relics 
 will be displayed in each of the six churches enume- 
 rated — (e. g., the heads of SS. Peter and Paul, 
 their chains, some wood of the Cross, &c.) ; — grants 
 seven years of indulgence for every visit, by whom- 
 soever paid; and promises plenary indulgence to 
 every person who, after confessing and communicat- 
 ing, shall thrice visit each of the aforesaid churches, 
 and pray for awhile on behalf of the Holy Church. 
 There are besides, on nine chief festivals, as many 
 great displays of Relics at Rome : the particulars of 
 which may be seen in the Annee Litiirgique, pp. 
 189-206. I witnessed one, somewhat leisurely, at 
 the Church of the Twelve Apostles. 
 
 There was part of the arm of St. Bartholomew 
 and of St. James the Less ; part of St. Andrew's 
 leg, arm, and cross ; part of one of St, Paul's fin- 
 
260 APPENDIX. 
 
 gers ; one of the nails with which St. Peter was 
 crucified ; St. Philip's right foot ; liquid blood of St. 
 James ; some of the remains of St. John the Evan- 
 gelist, of the Baptist, of Joseph, and of the Blessed 
 Virgin ; together with part of the Manger, Cradle, 
 Cross, and Tomb of our Lord, &c, &c. Of course 
 many persons knelt, (though by no means all), while 
 this strange (and painful) exhibition was going on. 
 .... Are we to suppose, (one feels inclined to ask 
 one's self,) that these people believe all that they hear ; 
 or that they disbelieve it ? If they believe, — how 
 exceedingly infatuated must they be ! If they dis- 
 believe, — how damaging to the religious life must 
 the insincerity and hollowness of such a service be- 
 come ! Above all, how must it provoke unbelief in 
 things which are worthy of all acceptation ! 
 
 The veneration of Relics in the Pomish Church 
 is really carried to an extent which is scarcely cred- 
 ible. Does not the most ordinary instinct of piety, 
 not to say the merest common sense, compel one at 
 last to turn away with sorrow and displeasure ? At 
 Amalfi, they assert that St. Andrew is buried ; St. 
 Matthew at Salerno; St. Mark at Venice. Good. 
 Let us suppose that a skeleton, traditionally reputed 
 to be the skeleton of an Apostle, was long since con- 
 veyed to Amalfi, &c. But what of the many skulls, 
 arms, legs, &c, of the same saints which are to be 
 seen at Pome, and elsewhere ? St. Andrew's skull, 
 for instance, at St. Peter's, — his leg at the Church 
 of the Twelve Apostles, and one of his ribs at S. 
 
APPENDIX. 2(31 
 
 Maria in Canipitelli, — St. Matthew's arm at S. Ma- 
 ria Maggiore and at S. Prassede, &c. &c. &c. Why., 
 again, (if they will invent such things,) display (of 
 all heads in the world !) the head of John the Bap- 
 tist? 1 Why, (of all fingers,) pretend to show the 
 unbelieving finger with which St. Thomas touched 
 the side of his risen Lord ? 2 . . . What grotesque 
 notions, too, are they for ever laying hold of! The 
 idea, for instance, of showing the porphyry slab on 
 which the soldiers cast lots for the seamless coat : 
 the stone on which the cock stood when he crowed 
 twice: a column of the Temple which was split 
 when the veil was rent in twain ! (it has been sawn 
 lengthways, evidently :) the impression made in a 
 block of marble by our Saviour's feet, (and such 
 feet !) when He was taking leave of St. Peter in the 
 Via Appia (!) : the identical column against which 
 He used to lean when He taught in the Temple, — 
 and which possesses miraculous properties in conse- 
 quence, 3 &c. &c. . . . Must not all this, sooner or 
 
 1 At the Church of S. Silvestro in Capite. 
 
 2 At S. Croce in Gerusalemme. 
 
 3 This column is enclosed within iron rails, and kept 
 under lock and key, in the right-hand corner of St. Peter's 
 as you enter. The inscription on the base ; (which follows,) 
 is very singularly cut, with many strange contractions : — 
 
 Hec est ilea columna in quam dominus poster 
 jesus christus appodiatus, dem populo predicabat, 
 et deo patri preces in templo efpundebat, adher- 
 endo stabat : que una cum alus undecim hic cte- 
 
262 APPENDIX. 
 
 later, produce irreverence ? It certainly seems to 
 destroy the faculty of intellectual perspective ; for 
 one finds " a napkin stained with the blood of* St. 
 Philip Neri," mentioned in the same breath with " a 
 veil steeped in the blood and water which flowed 
 from our Redeemer's side " ! . . . I am not now 
 dragging into light a thing which the authorities of 
 the Romish Church desire to keep back ; or which 
 they seem half ashamed of; or which is disappear- 
 ing from public notice. If such w T ere the case, I 
 should certainly have passed it by in silence. But 
 it is not so. Wherever you turn, you are shown 
 nails of the Crucifixion, or fragments of the Cross, 
 or thorns of the Crown. It is no secret. These 
 relics are appealed to in the printed affiches, put 
 forth by authority ; nay, they are proudly blazoned 
 on the walls of the churches. At St. Peter's, for 
 example, above the four most conspicuous statues, 
 one reads in large letters, of, — "Partem Cruris 
 quam Helena Imperatrix e Calvario in urbem avex- 
 it : " (this is over St. Helena : — " Longini lanceam 
 quam Innocentius VIII. Pont. Max. a Bajazete Tur- 
 carum Tyranno accepit : " (this is over " Sanctus 
 Longinus Martyr," — a name invented for the sol 
 
 CUMSTANTIBUS DE SALOMINIS TEMPLO, IN TRIUMPHUM 
 HUJUS BASILICE, HIC LOCATA FUIT : DEMONES EXPELLIT, 
 ET AB INMUNDIS SPIRITIBUS VEXATOS LIBEROS REDDIT ' 
 ET MULTA MIRACULA COTIDIE FACIT : PEE, REVERENDIS 
 SIMUM PATEEM ET DOMINUM DOMINUS CARDINALIS DE 
 URSINIS ORNATA ANNO DOMINI, M°CCCC°XXX VIII. 
 
APPENDIX. 
 
 263 
 
 dier who with his spear Q.6y%rj) pierced the Redeem- 
 er's side) : — " Sancti Andreae caput quod Pius 
 secundus ex Achaia in Vaticanum asportandum 
 curavit : " (this is over St. Andrew) : — " Salvatoris 
 imaginem Veronica sudario exceptant" — which is 
 above the statue of " Sancta Veronica Ierosolymi- 
 tana ; " a name which I suppose has been in like 
 manner coined in allusion to the phenomenon of the 
 handkerchief. These several relics are exposed on 
 great days. ... At S. Prassede, on either side of 
 the tribune, is an enumeration of relics, (inscribed 
 on a large marble panel,) which would make you 
 stare. I copied the right-hand inscription, which is 
 verbatim as follows. (That on the left is in the 
 same strain exactly.) 
 
 HlC SITAE SUNT INFRASCRIPTAE EeLIQUIAE. 
 
 Dens Sancti Petri Apostoli. 
 
 Dens Sancti Pauli Apostoli. 
 
 De reliquiis S. Ananiae Apos- 
 toli. 
 
 Sancti Terentiani Martyris. 
 
 De camisia (!) Beatas Mariae 
 Yirginis. 
 
 De cingulo D. N. Jestj 
 Chbisti. 
 
 De brachio S. Philippi Apos- 
 toli. 
 
 De virga Moysi. 
 
 De brachio S. Barnabae 
 Apostoli. 
 
 De terra super qua D. N. 
 
 Jesus Christus oravit 
 ante Passionem. 
 
 De brachio S. Severini Mar- 
 tyris. 
 
 De Reliquiis S. Benedicti 
 Abbatis. 
 
 De Reliquiis S. Sabae Ab- 
 batis. 
 
 De Reliquiis S. Galli Ab- 
 batis. 
 
 De Reliquiis S. Constantiao 
 Imperatoris Filiae. 
 
 De Reliquiis SS. Quadra- 
 ginta Martirum. 
 
 De velo Sanctae Agatae. 
 
264 
 
 APPENDIX. 
 
 De arundine et spongia qua 
 potaverunt Dominum nos- 
 trum Jesttm Christum. 
 
 De capitibus Sanctor. Petri 
 et Pauli. 
 
 De Eeliquiis SS. Cosmae et 
 Damiani. 
 
 De costa Sancti Alexii. 
 
 De bracliio Sancti Coluni- 
 bani. 
 
 De bracliio Sancti Sebas- 
 tiani. 
 
 De bracliio Sancti Nicolai. 
 
 De sepulcro Beatae Virginis 
 Mariae. 
 
 Imago Salvatoris quam S. 
 
 Petro Apostolus donavit 
 
 Prudentio patri Sanctae 
 
 Praxedis. 
 De Eeliquiis Sancti Joannis 
 
 Baptistae. 
 De linteo quo Domixus ab- 
 
 stersit pedes Discipulo- 
 
 rum. 
 De pannis quibus involutus 
 
 fuit Dominus Jesus in 
 
 sua Nativitate. 
 De veste inconsutili D. N. 
 
 Jesu Christi. 
 Tres spinae de Corona D. N. 
 
 Jesu Christi. 
 
 When a fragment of human bone is shown you, 
 you cannot of course disprove the assertion that it 
 belonged to any Apostle or Evangelist who may be 
 named. So, of the hay said to have come from the 
 stable of Bethlehem. But of the inscribed Title of 
 the Cross, (preserved at the Church of S. Croce in 
 Gerusalemme,) one takes leave to form a private 
 opinion. It may be, (for aught that I see to the 
 contrary,) a thousand years old ; but it was evidently 
 the fabrication of some person who did not under- 
 stand Greek. He took the words from the Vulgate, 
 (St. John xix. 19,) and traced them from right to 
 left, — out of respect for the Hebrew, I suppose. 
 Above the word Nazarenus, he wrote what he evi- 
 dently considered a sufficient Greek equivalent, — 
 guvsQciQaN. Now, once more, let me not be thought 
 
APPENDIX. 265 
 
 ungenerous in bringing forward this transparent for- 
 gery. If well-informed Romanists disbelieved and 
 rejected, or openly disallowed and were ashamed of 
 it, — I should have been the last to call attention to 
 it. But, on the contrary, Cornelius a Lapide, (in his 
 Commentary on St. Matth. xxvii. 37,) deliberately 
 informs his reader, — " This title is extant at Rome 
 in the Basilica of S. Croce, &c. where I have often 
 seen and done my devotion to it," (" veneratus 
 sum.") He goes on to describe it minutely. The 
 same writer inserts several personal details concern- 
 ing Veronica, and notices her handkerchief in the 
 same way, in his note on ver. 32. 
 
 The Abbe Barbier de Montault, a very zealous 
 Romanist, has the following remarkable statement on 
 the subject of Relics, in the Annee Liturgique a 
 Rome, p. 151. With reference to the "foule d'osse- 
 ments de martyrs extraits des catacombes," exposed 
 on a certain Friday in Lent at the Church of S. Lo- 
 renzo in Lucina, he says — "La plupart des corps 
 saints trouves dans les catacombes manquant de 
 noms propres, out regu, lorsqu'on les a exposes a la 
 veneration publique, des noms de circonsiance, qui 
 rCont qiCune signification vague, com me Felix, Fortu- 
 nat, Victor," &c. Is this then the avowed history 
 of the skeletons in glass cases one sees in many of 
 the churches ? The skeleton of S. Felix, for in- 
 stance, at the Church of S. Maria de Angelis, — 
 dressed, and crowned with flowers, and kneeling on 
 one knee ; with a palm-branch in one hand, and a 
 
266 APPENDIX. 
 
 bottle of his own blood in the other? .... The 
 simplicity of such a confession silences criticism ; 
 for it calmly transfers the whole question of Relics 
 to a region with which criticism has no acquaintance, 
 i — the world of shadows ! But it is exceedingly 
 difficult, — (practically, God grant that it may ever 
 be impossible !) — for a people like ourselves, who 
 have been taught, above all things, to seek for the 
 Truth, to understand the intellectual position of 
 one who can reverence what he knows to be a non- 
 entity ; and who does not hesitate to use language 
 which, by common consent, has been consecrated to 
 severe matters of fact, concerning matters which, 
 according to his own showing, only pretend to be 
 matters of fable. 
 
APPENDIX. 261 
 
 D. 
 
 (Referred to on Page 93 and Page 141.) 
 
 MODERN ROMISH SERVICE. 
 
 XT used to be a frequent subject of secret wonder 
 -*- with the present writer, before he visited Rome, 
 how in the world the spiritual life of a Roman 
 Catholic population is sustained. The Breviary and 
 the Missal, — their Prayer-book, in short, — being in 
 Latin, (which is not, of course, generally " under- 
 standed of the people,") how, do the unlearned, — 
 how, in other words, do the great bulk of the popu- 
 lation, — contrive to satisfy their own spiritual ne- 
 cessities and yearnings ? It was no answer to these 
 questions to be assured that the Breviary services, 
 
 — Matins, and Vespers, and Compline, and the rest, 
 
 — are not used for purposes of parochial worship in 
 church. This rather increased the difficulty than 
 removed it. For it suggested the additional inquiry, 
 
 — If then, practically, the Breviary and Missal are 
 not the Romish people's Prayer-book, what becomes 
 of that boasted possession of theirs ? With us (God 
 be praised !) our ancient Breviary and Missal, — re- 
 vised, condensed, and improved in every page, — 
 are to this hour the people's Prayer-book. Has 
 
268 APPENDIX. 
 
 Rome, tnen, practically parted ivith her inheritance? 
 . . . What she lias done with it may reasonably 
 form the subject of a separate letter. Enough on 
 the present occasion that 1 should recall how the 
 Romish Church sustains the spiritual life of her 
 children, when they present themselves in the courts 
 of the Lord's House, and come together to worship. 
 The Breviary services she certainly does not give them. 
 Not to waste words, — if Going to Church be a 
 correct popular description of the Anglican notion 
 of being externally a religious person, Hearing 
 3fass l describes accurately the Romanist view of 
 the same character. By " going to Church," we 
 mean, of course, attending either " Morning Prayer," 
 or " Evening Prayer," or both : and these, as we 
 know, involve alike, almost invariably a Sermon ; 
 while the former implies inevitably the Communion 
 Service also. But " hearing Mass " is a very differ- 
 ent affair. It consists simply in seeing and hearing, 
 or at least observing, the priest celebrate. A devout 
 person tries to hear Mass as often as daily, and com- 
 municates once a month, or oftener. Carefully per- 
 formed, the service of the Mass lasts half an hour, 
 - — which is felt to be but a small space of time to 
 
 1 In the popular devotional manuals, is generally found 
 the " Modo di ndire la S. Messa." So in French books of a 
 similar class : " Priere avant la Messe pour se disposer a la 
 bien entendre." In the Compendium of Christian Doctrine, 
 it is asked, " Quanti e quali sono i Comandamenti della 
 Chiese ? Sono sei : Udir la S. Messa," &c. 
 
APPENDIX. 269 
 
 give weekly to public worship. Accordingly a pious 
 person will attend two or three Masses in succession. 
 on Sundays ; and, on occasions of communicating, 
 will stay to hear one Mass more. Such are the de- 
 votions of the forenoon. What need to remark on 
 the contrast (not to go any further) between the 
 method of the two Churches ? To say nothing of 
 the language employed, our general practice is to 
 have the ancient Prayers, Hymns, and Creeds of 
 the Church, — a portion of the Psalms, — a Lesson 
 from either Testament, — the Litany, and a Sermon, 
 — together with such parts of the Communion Ser- 
 vice as are read when there is no celebration. Their 
 general practice is to have none of thes£ ; but the 
 whole of the Communion Service, on the contrary ; 
 at which the congregation are present without com- 
 municating, — a thing which we, with the ancient 
 Church, entirely disallow. 1 
 
 The ordinary forenoon devotions of a Poman 
 Catholic are further attended with the following dif- 
 ferences of detail — viz., that a person goes to any 
 church (for the parochial feeling is unknown in this 
 respect) ; enters at any time between 5 a.m. and 
 noon; kneels in the vicinity of some altar where 
 Mass has not yet begun ; follows the Latin service 
 
 1 The detailed proof of this assertion, (which would be 
 out of place here,) has been offered by myself in a separate 
 publication. I should not have thought such proof neces- 
 sary, but that the statement in the text has been (with more 
 vigour than learning) assailed. 
 
270 APPENDIX. 
 
 as closely as the worshipper knows how ; and sel- 
 dom makes responses. (These are made by the 
 little boy who waits on the priest.) When a person 
 intends to communicate, the usual practice is to go 
 early, — at five, half-past five, or six o'clock, for ex- 
 ample ; on other occasions, at ten or eleven. At 
 that time Messa Cantata is commonly celebrated. 
 This is the Mass most largely attended, and lasts for 
 an hour. — I believe I have now fairly described the 
 sum total of the ordinary public worship of a re- 
 spectable Romanist on Sunday. For perhaps he 
 does not go to church in the afternoon at all. 
 
 A yet closer approximation to the Anglican 
 method is" exhibited by those people who are care- 
 ful, on Sundays, to listen to that celebration of Mass, 
 (called, I believe, " Messa conventuale,") in the 
 course of which the " paroco " delivers a discourse 
 on the Gospel for the day. I believe this is invari- 
 ably a " spiegazione del' Evangelio," and lasts for 
 three-quarters of an hour. Half an hour would be 
 thought distinctly too short a time. (A " predica," 
 or sermon, lasts for a " piccola ora," and is a differ- 
 ent thing.) This service occupies, in all, from an 
 hour and a quarter to an hour and a half. Persons 
 who are careful to attend it w r ill probably be of the 
 number of those who make a point of entering a 
 church in the course of the afternoon, " per vi si tare 
 il Sagramento e la Virgine." x This "visita" occu- 
 
 1 There is a little manual of Liguori's, — Visita al SS. Sa- 
 cramento ed a Maria Santissima, per ciascun giorno del mese, 1857 
 
APPENDIX. 271 
 
 pies a few minutes, and is employed in reciting five 
 " Pater-Nosters," as many " Ave-Marias " and " Glo- 
 rias," in honour of the five wounds of our Blessed 
 Lord ; or three of each, in honour of the Holy 
 Trinity. To these are added three Ave-Marias to 
 the Blessed Virgin. 
 
 I believe the only other ordinary service on Sun- 
 day evenings in a Roman Catholic church consists 
 of the Rosario della Madonna and the Benedizione. 
 Saying the Rosary, (a method stated to have been 
 devised by St. Dominic in the twelfth century,) 
 means nothing else but repeating 150 Ave-Marias, 
 15 Pater-Nosters, and as many Glorias, in honour of 
 the Virgin ; and at every tenth Ave and single Pa- 
 ter-Noster, meditating on one of the fifteen mysteries 
 of the Rosary, five of which are " gaudiosi," five 
 "dolorosi," and five "gloriozi." Thus, the first 
 " mistero gaudioso" was the Annunciation ; the sec- 
 ond, the visit to Elizabeth, &c. To this devotional 
 exercise certain indulgences are annexed. Benedic- 
 tion, (which the French call Salat,) denotes the 
 display of the consecrated wafer, with the Litany of 
 the Virgin, and the " Tantum ergo," (or two last 
 verses of the hymn " Pange lingua gloriosa.") — 
 Into that Litany, by the way, has been lately intro- 
 duced the invocation, " Regina, sine labe originali 
 concepta, ora pro nobis." — Such is the " evening 
 service " at Rome. But there are churches, of 
 course, in that city, where Vespers, (often with mu- 
 sic,) may be attended : because at Rome there are so 
 
272 APPENDIX. 
 
 many conventual societies, one or other of which is 
 attached to every principal church. For this reason, 
 by the way, Rome itself does not furnish a fair sam- 
 ple of the Romish system. However, it is of Rome 
 only that I here speak. 
 
 Opportunities are further afforded to devout peo- 
 ple of frequenting the church for the purpose of 
 congregational worship by the often recurring an- 
 nouncement of a Triduo or a Novena, as it is called, 
 in honour of a certain Saint. These special ser- 
 vices, extending (as their name implies) over three 
 or nine days, originate occasionally with the ecclesi- 
 astical bodies themselves ; on great festivals of the 
 Church, for example. More often, I believe, they 
 are the expression of individual piety. Any one 
 desiring a favour at the hands of one of the saints, 
 — S. Giuseppe, S. Luigi, S. Ignazio, or more likely 
 the Madonna, — orders a Triduo or a Novena in 
 their honour. But in time of national trouble, this 
 is done by public authority, and seven years of 
 indulgence are promised to those who are present on 
 any one of the days : plenary indulgence to as many 
 as, after confession and Holy Communion, shall at- 
 tend devoutly, on each day. Certain prayers in the 
 vernacular tongue, the Litany of the Virgin, hj^mns, 
 and the Benediction, together with sundry pieces of 
 vocal music, — these elements commonly make up 
 the office. A sermon is also often introduced. 
 
 Another devotional exercise which is highly popu- 
 lar with the people is the Via Crucis. Our Lord 
 
APPENDIX. 273 
 
 is feigned to have either halted with His Cross, or 
 to have sunk beneath the burthen of it, fourteen 
 times before He reached Calvary. These are called 
 the "stations" of the Cross. Accordingly, to move 
 from one station to another with the priest and his 
 attendants, and to join in the prayers which are of- 
 fered up at each, or to listen to the short exhorta- 
 tion which is often delivered at the same time, — 
 constitutes a distinct funzione, or office. What need 
 to say that it is written in the vernacular tongue, 
 and is altogether a modern invention ? Here is a 
 short and not unfair specimen : — " Stazione IV. 
 Gesu incontrala sua SS. Madre. O Divin Figlio 
 de Maria ! O Santissima Madre del mio Gesu : ec- 
 comi a' vostri santissimi piedi umiliato e compunto : 
 son' io quel traditore, che fabbricai, peccando, il col- 
 tello di dolore, che trappasso i vostri tenerissimi 
 cuori." 
 
 Another solemn act of worship consists in the 
 adoration of the Sacrament of the Lord's Body. 
 " L'Orazione dell' Quarant' Ore ad onore di Gesu 
 Sacramentato," is an act of devotion performed in 
 several of the churches of Rome in succession, 
 throughout the year, according to a printed scheme, 
 — a copy of which hangs in the sacristy of every 
 church. One priest kneels before the sacrament 
 until he is relieved by another ; and persons devoutly 
 disposed who enter the church, join silently in the 
 act of adoration. At night, members of the " Pia 
 unione di Adoratori del SS. Sacramento" present 
 18 
 
274 APPENDIX. 
 
 themselves at the church doors, and are admitted for 
 the purpose of prayer. This Office, said in round 
 numbers to last for " quarant' ore," lasts really for 
 forty-eight hours, beginning at noon on Wednesday, 
 1st February (for instance) at the church of SS. Yin- 
 cenzo ed Anastasio ; at noon on the ensuing Friday, 
 at S. Maria in Vallicella ; at noon on the Sunday 
 after, at the Trinita cle' Pellegrini ; at the same hour 
 on Tuesday, at S. Maria del Popolo ; and so on 
 throughout the year ; so that never for an instant, 
 night or day, shall the sacred object be without wor- 
 shippers. But observe, the Service of the " Quar- 
 ant' Ore " ceases abruptly at noon on the Thursday 
 in Holy-Week, and for twenty-four hours is entirely 
 discontinued. It is resumed at noon on Easter-Eve. 
 The sacrament is exposed for worship in many other 
 churches of Rome besides those contained in the 
 " giro ordinario," but without the same circumstances 
 of outward solemnity. 
 
APPENDIX. 275 
 
 E. 
 
 (Referred to on Page 110.) 
 
 HOURS OF THE MODERN ROMISH BREVIARY 
 OFFICES. 
 
 /^VNE approaches the inquiry into the modern 
 ^^ Romish usage in respect of the hours of its 
 Breviary Offices, (if I may judge of others' feelings 
 by my own,) with no little curiosity. The case of 
 our own Church and nation, (as Archdeacon Free- 
 man has fully demonstrated.) is just this:; — our 
 forefathers, in the fulness of their wisdom, and in 
 the free exercise of their own undoubted preroga- 
 tive, about three hundred and eleven years since, 
 consolidated those ancient Sarum Breviary Services 
 which were in general use throughout England at 
 the era of the Reformation; and out of "Matins," 
 " Lauds," and " Prime," constructed our present 
 Morning Service, (" Mattins " as it is still called in 
 the Calendar ;) out of " Vespers," and " Compline," 
 our Evening Service, — which the Calendar still calls 
 " Evensong." It was a work, as we of the present 
 generation have lately been taught (but our fathers 
 knew it very well,) not of mere abridgment, much 
 less of fusion or selection ; but of consolidation. 
 
276 APPENDIX. 
 
 For, in consequence of a general resemblance be- 
 tween the first three and the last two services just 
 named, both in respect of the elements out of which 
 they were constructed, and also in respect of the 
 order and sequence in which those elementary parts 
 anciently stood, — it was found possible to preserve 
 not only essential continuity, but practical identity 
 as well, between the ancient and the revised service ; 
 and yet to abridge and to consolidate into one, the 
 three and the two Offices respectively, which had be- 
 fore been distinct. Those Bishops and Doctors of 
 our Church to whom the work was intrusted accord- 
 ingly " expected the people and Church of their clay 
 to accept the Services as, for all practical purposes, 
 the same services revised ; and what is more, as such 
 the Church and people manifestly did accept them." 
 We have been shown that " in the earliest age, 
 and down to about the fourth century, the Church 
 thought it good to have in effect two, — at the ut- 
 most they may be called three, — solemn Services 
 of ordinary public worship in the day ; and no more. 
 At the last-mentioned epoch, she was induced under 
 the influence of the monastic system, or in emula- 
 tion of it, to institute public Service at other times 
 — viz. the 1st, 3rd, 6th, and 9th hours, and late in 
 the evening. . . . How far, in this respect, she acted 
 the part of a wise householder, may surely now at 
 least be questioned. The system, as a system of 
 numerous daily Offices of public worship, prescribed 
 for the use of the members of the Church, has been 
 
APPENDIX. 277 
 
 practically for hundreds of years abandoned through- 
 out Christendom." With ourselves, who reverted at 
 the era of the Reformation to primitive usage, — 
 with ourselves alone, at this day, survives a public 
 form which retains the characteristic outlines and 
 essential organization of the ancient Offices. 
 
 But it is not a little curious, — even more as 
 (what may be called) a question of Liturgical expe- 
 rience, than as a matter of ecclesiastical history, — 
 to bear in mind what had been the state of things 
 among ourselves with regard to the daily service 
 immediately before the period of the Reformation. 
 It is found that there had been three public Services 
 and no more, celebrated in our English Church pre- 
 vious to 1549. " Matins," " Lauds," and "Prime" 
 had been said by accumulation early in the morning, 
 and the whole service had been called " Mattins." 
 " Mass " had been said rather later. " Vespers " and 
 " Compline " (also by accumulation) had been said 
 in the afternoon ; and " Evensong" (the Anglo-Saxon 
 equivalent for " Vespers,") had given its name to 
 the Service. . . . This, in a few words, was the sum 
 of the knowledge of the subject with which I went 
 to Rome ; and bearing in mind how it had fared with 
 ourselves as to the practical question, not a little 
 curiosity did I feel to ascertain how the case stood 
 at present with our elder sister in the same behalf. 
 That for public congregational purposes, in every 
 Communion except our own, (as already explained,) 
 the Breviary Services are a thing of the past, — I 
 
278 APPENDIX. 
 
 was aware : but besides desiring to know what had 
 been substituted for them in the churches, I was ex- 
 cessively curious to ascertain what the Conventual 
 practice in respect of the Breviary actually is. The 
 result of the former inquiry is briefly given in Ap- 
 pendix D. The present note shall be devoted to the 
 other question. 
 
 The first thing I ascertained, and which filled me 
 with no small astonishment, was, that Matins and 
 Lauds are all but universally said overnight, — at 8 
 p.m. for instance ; and that they are said by accumu- 
 lation ; the two services together occupying an hour 
 and a quarter. Prime is said at 7.15 in the morn- 
 ing, and occupies a quarter of an hour. The time 
 of Mass is not fixed. Tierce, Sext, and Nones, (oc- 
 cupying half an hour,) are said by accumulation at 
 11.30: Vespers and Compline together, (also occu- 
 pying half an hour,) at 2.30. This was the method 
 of certain Camaldolese at Rome, observing the rule 
 of S. Benedict. 
 
 Certain " Canonici Pegolari di S. Agostino, Roc- 
 quettini " gave me their hours as follows : — Prime 
 and. Tierce at 7.30, lasting till 8 a.m. : Messa Con- 
 ventuale at 8: Sext and Nones from 8.30 till 9: 
 Vespers and Compline from 3.50 till 4.50 p.m. 
 Matins and Lauds, occupying an hour, were recited 
 at 8.15 p.m. 
 
 From a society of Franciscans, I obtained the fol- 
 lowing striking table of hours : — Mass at any time 
 from 5 to 8 a.m. Prime, Tierce, Sext, and Nones, 
 
APPENDIX. 279 
 
 (by accumulation !) occupying half an hour, are said 
 at 11.15 a.m. Vespers, Compline, Matins, and 
 Lauds, (also by accumulation!) at 3 p.m. These 
 take an hour. How nearly does this correspond 
 with our own ante-Reformation English use, — with 
 the exception of the impropriety of reciting Matins, 
 (with its collect referring to " the beginning of this 
 day,") overnight ! . . . Another small society of 
 Franciscans told me they had the same usage : 
 namely, of reciting Vespers, -Compline, Matins, and 
 Lauds by accumulation at 3.30 p.m. It occupied an 
 hour and a quarter. 
 
 Very similar was the scheme of hours observed by 
 another convent of Augustinians. They had Mass 
 at 6 : Choral Prime, lasting twenty minutes, at 7 
 a.m. Tierce, Sext, and Nones, lasting three-quar- 
 ters of an hour, at 10.15. High Mass at 11. Cho- 
 ral Vespers, lasting twenty minutes, at 11.45 a.m. 
 (before dinner, by special license during Lent.) 
 Compline, Matins, and Lauds, by accumulation, 
 (lasting in all three-quarters of an hour,) at 3 p.m. 
 These again are practically tivo Services, you see, — 
 one at 10.15, the other at 3. But only think of 
 having Vespers said in the forenoon, and Matins in 
 the evening! .... At other seasons of the year, 
 these same Augustinians recite Vespers, Compline, 
 Matins, and Lauds, by accumulation. The four Of- 
 fices occupy an hour and a quarter. As for the 
 time, — when the An gel us is at 8, Vespers begin at 
 3.45 p.m. 
 
 
280 APPENDIX. 
 
 The members of a famous Jesuit establishment at 
 Rome repeat Vespers and Compline (together) at 3 
 p.m. : Matins and Lauds (also together) at 8 p.m. 
 
 The chief body of Franciscans at Rome told me 
 that their practice was to say Vespers at twenty 
 o'clock — L e., (in winter,) 2.30 p.m. ; and Compline 
 at 3. Matins at 6.30 ; and Lauds at 7 in the even- 
 ing. 
 
 But how does all this happen ? (I often inquired.) 
 We, in England, are under an impression that Con- 
 ventual societies and Monastic bodies keep the hours 
 accurately. How is it you do not say Matins and 
 Lauds in the morning ? . . . I was reminded that 
 before celebrating Mass, Matins and Lauds must 
 have been recited. To avoid the possibility there- 
 fore of any breach of ecclesiastical rule in this re- 
 spect, it is now the almost universal practice to say 
 Matins and Lauds overnight. Next, it was urged 
 that so many of the society were engaged in visiting 
 the sick, and in other ways, that 'practically it had 
 been found necessary to modify the practice with re- 
 gard to the hours in that particular convent. And 
 sometimes illness was alleged, — the prevalent feeble 
 health of many of the society, — as a reason for 
 suspending until warmer weather the due discharge 
 of the earliest Offices. 
 
 The Francescani Cappucini, (whose head- quarters 
 are at the Church of the Conception,) chant Matins 
 and Lauds at midnight. It lasts for an hour and a 
 half. Mass is said at 6 a.m., lasting (with Tierce) 
 
APPENDIX. 281 
 
 for another hour and a half. Sext and Nones, (oc- 
 cupying half an hour,) are chanted at 11 a.m. The 
 hour of Vespers varies. They occupy half an hour, 
 and are chanted at any hour between 1 and 3 p.m. 
 Compline is at 5.30. 
 
 The Passiouists at Monte Cavi, (above Albano.) 
 have Matins and Lauds, (occupying an hour,) at 1 in 
 the morning : at 5.15 Prime and Tierce. Mass lasts 
 from 6 till 7. At 10, come Sext and Nones, — oc- 
 cupying, like Prime and Tierce, half an hour. Ves- 
 pers are at 2 p.m., and occupy the same time. At 5, 
 Compline, followed by an hour of meditation. The 
 same is very nearly the method of the Capuchins' at 
 the Convent of Albano. At the Camaldoli, a con- 
 vent of Benedictine monks on an eminence near 
 Naples, (for the Benedictines are almost the only 
 order which claims the dignified appellation of 
 monad?) Matins and Lauds are said at 1 in the 
 morning. Their hour for Prime is 5, and this is 
 followed by Mass. At 9 is Tierce, and Sext at 
 10.30. Nones are at 11.30. Then, in the afternoon, 
 Vespers at 4, and Compline, at 6.30. What with 
 " lettura spirituale " for three-quarters of an hour, 
 study for an hour and a half, "lavoro manuale" 
 (from 7 till 9 a.m.) daily, and silence every day in 
 the week except Tuesday and Thursday ; — those 
 twenty-seven monks must lead a severe life. They 
 seemed happy. 
 
 In all that precedes, (which, as you will observe, 
 mostly regards Rome and its environs,) I have not 
 
282 APPENDIX. 
 
 adverted to one part of the conventual practice, 
 which materially increases its severity, although it 
 must be admitted to impair the primitive simplicity 
 of its character. Besides " meditazione," to which 
 half an hour is commonly assigned, and often twice 
 a day, the frate repeatedly mentioned, while enume- 
 rating their Offices, the Litany of the Virgin, and the 
 JRosario, 
 
 But the day has gone by when Learning flour- 
 ished in the cloister, and Piety made it her favourite 
 refuge. Convents are no longer the nurseries of 
 the Fine Arts, or the retreats of learned men : nor 
 do they prove on inspection what one's indulgent 
 fancy paints, contemplating them through the grey 
 mist of more than half a thousand years. The 
 Convent library is little resorted to: and its con- 
 tents are but very imperfectly known, even to the 
 appointed u custode " of the books. The very library 
 is seldom what one would expect or desire to find, 
 — as, for example, that it should contain a respect- 
 able collection of some of the early Fathers ; or at 
 least rejoice in the most famous modern expositions 
 of Holy Scripture. I doubt whether one ecclesias- 
 tic in five thousand can read Greek The 
 
 very Breviary hours, as we have seen, are generally 
 found impracticable. They everywhere exhibit a 
 strange tendency to result in the same fatal phe- 
 nomena of accumulation, anticipation, and the rest, 
 which were witnessed in this country upwards of 
 three centuries since, and which led in the end to 
 
APPENDIX. 283 
 
 our consolidation of them. To be brief; without 
 judging others, or desiring to condemn any part of 
 the machinery of foreign Churches, have we not 
 good reason to thank God with all our heart that 
 our lot has been cast where it is ? and that their in- 
 stitutions are not ours ? 
 
 Cambridge : Stereotyped and Printed by John Wilson and Son. 
 


 
 V 
 
 ,\ x 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 > 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 * -\ 
 
 
 
 
 ^ A X 
 
 ' 
 
 ^ % 
 
 
 Deacidified using the Bookkeeper process. 
 f "& Neutralized aoent- Mannecium nviHo 
 
 
 
 x 00 ^. 
 
 .**■ * 
 
 
 Neutralizing agent: Magnesium Oxide 
 Treatment Date: Jan. 2006 
 
 \ PreservationTechnologies 
 
 A WORLD LEADER IN PAPER PRESERVATION 
 
 1 1 1 Thomson Park Dnve 
 Cranberry Township, PA 16066 
 (724) 773-2 W 
 
 r ' ^ ^ **" * 
 
 V* £ 
 
 s M 
 
\ s s**r 
 
 
 
 %^ 
 
 
 * 
 
 •\ 
 
 "*v 
 
 W 
 
 %. .c 
 
 
 ^'-