I












c^=r-~~c
@e 
t=-)~~~~-c
r            ( 
Ca 
CarCtFl 
4,=:
^>~~~~~~~ze
4ci^+ ^- 
~t








A VINDICATION
OP
dje 601021Ht 6juri^t
IN A
SERIES OF LETTERS
ADDRESSED TO
THE RT. REV. JOHN HENRY HOPKINS,
PROTESTANT EPISCOPAL 3TSHOP OF VERMONT.
BY
FRANCIS PATRICK KENRICK,
ARCHBISHOP OF BALTIMORE.
" Tacere ultra non oportet, ne jam non verecundive, sed diffidentiae esse
incipiat quod tacemus, et dum criminationes falsas contemnimus refutare,
videamur crimen agnoscere."-S. CYPRIAN. L. ad Demetrianum.
BALTIMORE:
PUBLISHED BY JOHN MURPHY & CO.
No. 178 MARKET STREET.
PITTSBURG-GEORGE QUIGLEY.
So7d by the Principal Catholic Bookseplers.
18 5 5.




ENTERED, according to.Ac or Congress, in the year 1855,
BY JOHN  MURPHY & COMPANY,
In the Clerk's Office of the District Court of Maryland.




THlE following pages have been hastily written
in reply to the late work of the Protestant
Episcopal Bishop of Vermont, styled "The End
of Controversy Controverted." The letters of
which it is composed are addressed to me, and
a special challenge to refute them is given,
towards the end, in these words: "I commit
the care of Dr. Milner's reputation to you, as his
special admirer and friend." Yet I should not
have noticed them, could I hope that the work
of Dr. Milner would be perused generally by
those who read the letters of Dr. Hopkins; for
I have entire confidence that every intelligent
reader must feel that the Catholic controvertist
is immeasurably superior in argument, and authorities, as well as style. At this time of public




vi               PREFACE.
excitement, I desired to remain silent, if it could
be without detriment to the interests of truth;
but from  the air of triumph assumed by Dr.
Hopkins, and the plaudits with which his work
has been received by the Church Review, and
other periodicals of his communion, I was persuaded that silence would be misconstrued. " I
could not then remain silent any longer," to
borrow the words of St. Cyprian, which I have
chosen for my motto, "lest my silence should be
ascribed, not to a love of peace, but to a distrust
of the merits of my cause; and lest my disregard
of false charges should be construed into an
avowal of their truth."* In repelling his attack,
I have been forced to make statements which
may prove painful to the Religious denomination, in which he holds so distinguished a
position; but as I give unquestionable authority
for the facts, I feel justified by the necessity
imposed on me, for bringing them  forward.
None are more willing than Catholics to bury
in oblivion whatever is odious in the legislation
* L. ad D)elnetrianmln.




PREFACE.                   Vii
or history of past ages, and to live in harmony
and peace with their fellow-citizens in all the
relations of life.  We hold the maxim  of St.
Augustin: "Love the men, destroy the errors;
be bold without pride in the maintenance of
truth; strive for the truth without harshness;
pray  for those whom  you  rebuke and  confound."*
Contra lit. Petiliari, 1. i. sAt) fillem.




ERRATA.
Page 43. For Jsos, read  E0os.
48, 1st line. For "Lexrins," read " Lerins."
58. For " When this magnet," &c., read: "This is our compass, for
want of which others are tossed," &c.
126, 6th line from bottom. For "' antiquity," read " ambiguity."




labhe  of (antenfts.
LETTER I.
ORIGIN OF THE CONTROVERSY.
First work of Bishop  Hopkins-Author's reply-No
Rejoinder-Letter  to Protestant Bishops-Bishop
Hopkins' Challenge-Author's Offer-Suspension  of
Hostilities-Unexpected  Renewal-Dr. Ives-Failure
of Dr. Jarvis-Conversions-Exaggerations-Conspiracy Against our Common Liberties-Dr. Hopkins'
Change of Tactics,.......13
LETTER II.
RULE OF FAITH.
Dr. Hopkins' Complaint of Misrepresentation Unfounded
-Symbols-Thirty-nine  Articles-Early  CouncilsEpiscopalians Reject the Athanasian Creed-Leave an
Article in Apostles' Creed discretionary-The Substance
of the Creed Anterior to the Bible-Meaning of Thirtynine Articles undetermined-Articles of Peace-Individual placed Above the Church-Explanation of Dr.
Hopkins-Church Authority in Privy Council-General
Convention cannot Claim Assent of the Mind-Council
Erroneously Appealed to-Vain Boasting of Prayerbook,...19
B




X                    cOECONTENTS.
LETTER  III.
ON THE SCRIPTURE.
Position of Dr. Milner-Rant of Dr. Hopkins-Difference
between Catholics and  Episcopalians-Dr. Hopkins
evades Objection-St. Augustin would not Believe the
Gospel but for the Church-Common Law-Canon of
Scripture-When Settled-Jerom's Authority-Ancient
Tradition-Canon of Laodicea-Corruptions of TextGod a Rock-Vulgate Editions of Sixtus V. and Clement
VIII.,.......... 32
LETTER IV.
INTERPRETATION OF SCRIPTURE.
Tradition not a distinct Revelation-Testimony of Irenseus-Tertullian-Clement of Alexandria-OrigenSt. Cyprian-St. Athanasius-Artful Misquotation-St.
Cyril of Jerusalem-St. Jerom-Mistranslation-St.
Augustin-Prohibition of Scriptures-Act of Henry
VIII.,.......... 47
LETTER V.
ON THE SACRAMENTS.
Confirmation-Penance-Extreme Unction-Orders-Matrimony-St. Augustin-Canadians,.... 61
LETTER VI.
ON TRANSUBSTANTIATION.
Jeremy Taylor-St. Augustin-Catechism of Church of
England-Sixth Chapter of St. John-Explanation of
St. Augustin-Tertullian's Style-The Martyr Ignatius
-St. Justin-St. Ambrose-St. Cyril of Jerusalem



CONTENTS.                         xi
Second Council of Nice-St. Cyprian-St. Jerom-Words
of our Lord  Wilberforce-Dr. Hopkins on Testimony
of Senses-St. Cyril of Jerusalem-Anglican Divines,. 70
LETTER VII.
ON THE SACRIFICE.
Definition of Sacrifice-Prophecy of Malachi-St. Justin
St. Irenoeus-St. Augustin-Anglicans-Mede, Overall,
Hickes-Priest and Altar-Sacrifice always Acknowledged-Assertions by Wilberforce-Anglican  Orders
Invalid-Sacrifice Ignored-Alms for Mass,.. 88
LETTER VIII.
ON COMMUNION UNDER ONE KIND.
Custom Introduced by Force of Circumstances-Belief of
Greeks-Like Change in Mode of Baptism-Sacrifice
needs Consummation-Discipline Varies-English Parliament and Calvin-Popes Leo and Gelasius-Communion Under Both Kinds enjoined to Discover Manicheans-Facts which Prove Communion in One Kind,.  98
LETTER IX.
ON PENANCE.
Agreement of Church of England and Catholic ChurchForce of Greek Term-Circumstances to be ConfessedConfession  not Private-Liberty to Choose Confessor-Attrition-Chillingworth-Form  of AbsolutionChange made by American Convention-Minister Arraigned for Exercising Power of Forgiveness-Tertullian's Testimony-Origen- Athanasius-Basil - Ambrose-Augustin-Irenseus-St. Chrodegang-Council
of Lateran-Council of Worms-Vicarious Satisfaction
-Manner of Confession-Advantages,... 104




xii                  CONTENTS.
LETTER X.
ON PURGATORY.
Misstatement of Dr. Hopkins-Proof from the Macchabees
-Testimony of Beveridge-Admission of Dr. HopkinsArguments of Dr. Milner-Views of St. Ambrose-St.
Cyprian distorted-St. Augustin's Sentiments-Greeks
and Latins-Anecdote-Prayer for the Dead under
Edward VI.,......122
LETTER XI.
ON INDULGENCES.
Plenary Indulgence first granted by Urban II.-Questors
of Indulgences-Argument from St. Paul-False Statement of Dr. Hopkins-Usage in Spain-Act under
Edward VI. for enforcing Abstinence-Treasure of the
Church,.......133
LETTER XII.
ON DEVOTION TO THE BLESSED VIRGIN.
Charge against Dr. Milner-Addresses to Infant JesusMariolatry-Temple of the Trinity-Address of the
Angelin Syriac-Title of Mother-Miracle of Cana-St.
Cyril of Alexandria-Newcome-Silence of ScriptureVirtues of Mary-St. Bernard-St. Ambrose-Mother
of God-St. Augustin-Assumption of the Blessed Virgin-St. Basil-St. Gregory the Great-St. Epiphanius
-Injurious Supposition-Ancient Liturgies-St. Irenaeus-Mary, Advocate of Eve,... 139




CONTENTS.                      xiii
LETTER XIII.
ON THE INVOCATION OF THE SAINTS.
Ambiguous Term  used by Bellarmin-St. Justin-Dr.
Milner's Argument not fairly Met or Stated-Intercession Admitted by Dr. Hopkins-Litany of St. JosephCanonization-Gibbon's Acknowledgment-MiraclesVoltaire's Tribute to Monasteries,..  162
LETTER XIV.
ON RELICS.
Councils of Trent and Nice-Consecration of AltarsBrazen Serpent-Relics of St. Stephen-Miracles testified by St. Augustin and St. Ambrose-Shrine of St.
Thomas a Becket-Offerings-Scriptural ExamplesAssociations-Eloquent Passage of St. Ambrose-Purchase of the Body of St. Isidore-Custom of Kneeling to
Sovereigns-Interested Motive-Kissing of Gospel-Testimony of St. Jerom,.......174
LETTER XV.
ON IMAGES.
Use of Sculpture or Painting as  Memorials-Second
Council of Nice-Testimony of St. Gregory-Fact of St.
Epiphanius-Eusebius-Garbled Quotation from  Clement of Alexandria-St. Ambrose-Picture of St. Stephen-Optatus-Serenus breaks Image-Good Shepherd
-Honor referred to Originals-Bowing at the Name of
Jesus-Miraculous Images-Omission of Second Commandment-Alleged Forgery,....                186




xiv                  CONTENTS.
LETTER XVI.
ON THE PRIMACY.
Text of Promise-Distinction Abandoned-Ambitious Tendencies checked-Linus, Bishop after Peter-OrigenCyprian-Eusebius-Ambrose-Author of Books on the
Sacraments doubtful-St. Jerom-St. Augustin-Appellate Power-Council of Constantinople did not place
the Bishop on a level with the Pope-Misstatement of
Proceedings at Chalcedon-Popess Joan-Acknowledgment of Succession by Beveridge-African AppealsMisnomer-Letter of St. Peter to Pepin-ScandalsCauses of Slander-St. Augustin's Reply-Boniface
VIII.-Blunder of Dr. Hopkins,..... 198
LETTER XVII.
ON TEMPORAL POWER.
Parliament Gulled-Confederacy of Christian NationsApplication of People-Grounds of Sentence-Investitures not Sole Cause of Contest-Bull of Pius V.-Excommunication of Napoleon-Mr. Brownson's ViewBishops not Responsible-Dr. Nevin's Avowal,..217
LETTER XVIII.
ON ABUSES.
Summary of Scandals-Authority of Fleury-St. Augustin-Butler's Analogy-Marriage of Clergy-Henry
VIII. enforces Celibacy-Elizabeth averse to the Marriage of Clergymen-St. Augustin Explains the Forbearance of the Church-Simony-Military Character
of Bishops-Dr. Nevin on Church Influence-University
of Paris-Mistranslation and Misrepresentation-The
Wicked are Known; the Virtuous are UnperceivedEnglish Schism not occasioned by Abuses,...229




CONTENTS                         XV
LETTER XIX.
ON PERSECUTION.
Avowal of Dr. Hopkins-First Instances of Burning Heretics by Emperor of Constantinople-Appeal of St. Augustin-Decree of Lateran-St. Leo-Third Council of
Lateran-Crusades against Sectaries-Force of Latin
Term-Civil Authorities required to clear their Territories of this Heretical Filth-Mixed Character of
Councils-Nature of Inquisition-Star Chamber-Persecuting Spirit of Archbishops of Canterbury,..243
LETTER XX.
ON HENRY VIII.
Dr. Hopkins denies that his Passion for Anne Boleyn led to
the Schism-Testimony of Sir James Mackintosh-Case
of Josephine-Documents Signed at Orvieto-Despair
of Success-Opposition of the Clergy-Policy of Henry
-Fisher and More-Cruelty of Henry towards his
Wives-Persecutions-Tyranny-Plea of Dr. HopkinsCountess of Salisbury-Plunder of Monasteries,.. 271
LETTER XXI.
ON CRANMIER.
Slander of Jesuits-Concubinage of Cranmer-CrueltyPliancy - Time-serving-Perjury- Vain Pleas-Signs
Death-Warrant of Sudeley-Treason-Repeated Prevarications,........ 289
LETTER XXII.
ON THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND.
Alleged Misrepresentation-Origin of British ChurchesCurious Mistake-False Charge of Force being Employed




xvi                  CONTENTS.
-Canterbury-Ordination of Matthew Parker-Ordinal
of Edward VI.-Invalidity of Orders-Cranmer's Views
-Bishops Ecclesiastical Sheriffs-Jurisdiction from the
Crown-Matthew Parker had no Ecclesiastical Mission
-Illustration adduced by Dr. Hopkins-Republicanism
-Parent Church,....302
LETTER XXIII.
ON THE CATHOLIC CHURCH.
The Church an Obedient and Faithful Spouse-Her Permanence Miraculous-Her Catholicity denied by Dr.
Hopkins, affirmed by St. Augustin-Maxim of Vincent
of Lerins-Her Unity-Religious Orders-Republican
Features-Death-bed Conversions,.... 322




VINDICATION OF THE CATHOLIC
CHURCH.
LETTER  I.
Olr t lt Orgir of t4is  n1Mtrcbrt,.
RIGHT REVEREND SIR:
M -ORE than seventeen years have passed away
since I had the honor of addressing you a
series of letters, "On the Primacy of the Apostolic See, and the Authority of General Councils," in reply to your work comparing "The
Church of Rome at the present day, with The
Church of Rome in its Primitive Purity." As
you had addressed "the Roman hierarchy," in
behalf of Christian unity, urging us to discard
our distinctive tenets, I felt authorized to review your book, and vindicate the claims which
we recognize in our head, and in the general
councils of bishops. You did not think proper
to publish any rejoinder. In 1841, I imitated
your zeal for unity, by writing a short letter to
the Protestant Episcopal Bishops, inviting them
9




14         ON TIIE ORIGIN OF
to follow up to its legitimate consequences the
movement towards the Catholic Church which
had begun in England. At length, in 1843, you
addressed me in a chivalrous spirit, challenging
me to a public discussion of all the points at
issue between our respective communions, and
allowing me to bring with me to the encounter
as many of my colleagues as I chose. I declined
this trial of strength as undignified and unsatisfactory, but offered to open a correspondence
with you on the various questions, through the
columns of the Catholic Herald and New York
Churchman. This proposition was not agreeable
to you, so that you broke off the correspondence,
intimating, however, that you would treat the
matters of controversy in books, to be published
at your convenience. On the refusal of the former
Protestant diocesan of Philadelphia to allow
you to deliver in the churches of that city "Lectures on the British Reformation," you gave
them through the press as " intended to be delivered." Of these I did not feel bound to take
any notice, as they had no reference to me, or
my work on the Primacy. When Dr. Ives, the
Protestant Episcopal Bishop of North Carolina,
who has since passed to our communion, was
engaged in recommending the practice of confession, you published" A History of the Confessional," with a view to counteract his dangerous
tendencies and influence. This also did not
concern me. In the mean time I published two




THIS CONTROVERSY.            15
editions of my work, which I divested of its epistolary form, and of all direct reference to you, enlarging it so as to serve as a general treatise on the
Primacy. You and I thus appeared to have bid
each other adieu, though, as you justly suppose,
I had not forgotten you, and you evince by your
late book that you have not forgotten me.
(Manet alta mente repostum.) I was somewhat
surprised, on my late return from Rome, after a
short absence, to learn that you had addressed to
me a series of letters, filling two large volumes,
and purporting to be a review of Milner's End
of Controversy.  My recommendation of this
work in my letter to the Protestant Bishops as
calculated to place before them the main points
at issue with their proofs, induced the late Dr.
Samuel Farmar Jarvis, some years ago, to undertake to answer it; but his failure is manifest
from the fact, that you have chosen the same
arduous task, as if nothing had been attempted.
He, indeed, interpreting the Apocalypse, ventured to calculate the overthrow of the Papacy,
in the year in which he was writing (1847),
whilst you, more wisely, avow your conviction,
that it will continue until the second advent of
our Redeemer. You call my attention to the
fact that my recommendation did not pass unheeded; which is certainly gratifying, especially
as it has taken so many years to prepare your
elaborate reply. You remind me, likewise, of
my anticipations, that "numbers would break




16          ON THE ORIGIN OF
from your ranks," in case you and your colleagues hesitated to join our communion, and
you insinuate that I must feel mortified and disappointed, although you acknowledge that more
than a dozen clergymen of the United States,
with a Bishop at their head, have passed over to
us, whilst in England more than a hundred,
among whom are two archdeacons, of high
learning and character, have abjured the Queen's
supremacy. Besides, many respectable laymen,
some of them in your immediate neighborhood,
have followed these examples.  To counterbalance these defections, you boast of sixty
thousand Irish Catholics that have embraced
the religion of the crown; but I fear that you
have been deceived by some interested parties,
whose exaggerations were directed to obtain
new supplies from their patrons, in order to
furnish the converts with soup, and other aids
for the diffusion of their tenets.
The number of emigrants, or their descendants, who you suppose are lost to the Church
in this country, is greatly overcalculated, for a
case of formal apostacy is extremely rare, and
many who for years neglect all practices of religious duty, are often regained with their whole
families. Indeed, if the defections were numerous, the alarm which is now excited in regard
to our increase, would be altogether void of pretext, and you would have no occasion to join in
the hue and cry which is raised against us, or to




THIS CONTROVERSY.            17
point to our principles as perilous to the safety
of the country. You might rather assume the
more amiable character of pacificator, and implore the public to wait with patience, since we
should soon disappear from the land under the
less violent process of dissolution or amalgamation. But you are alarmed that men of high
position and distinguished intelligence should
pass over to us, even at the sacrifice of every
worldly interest, and you feel that in the changes
which take place, the advantages are greatly on
our side; whence you abandon calm discussion,
and appeal to vulgar prejudice. At a moment
when we are likely to fall victims to a vast conspiracy against the common liberties of the
country, which are assailed in us, you reappear
on the field, and join in the general onslaught.
The tone of your former work was courteous,
almost to affectation; the select topics of which
you treated, were supported with a show of
learning and argument; but your controversial
tactics have undergone an unhappy change.
The same professions of kindliness are, indeed,
repeated with increased solemnity; the same
attempt is made to sustain your positions by a
display of authorities; but, for the most part,
you rely on the scandals and abuses of past ages,
to discredit and disgrace the Church, and you
meet the learned statements and reasoning of
Dr. Milner by abusive epithets, and unwarranted
imputations. On reading your letters, I deter2*




18        ON THE ORIGIN OF, ETC.
mined not to give any special reply to them, but
to refer to them in the preface and notes to a
fourth stereotyped edition of my work on the
Primacy, which was then in press, and which
anticipated most of your charges.  As, however, my manuscript arrived too late at the office,
the plates being already finished, I am induced
to answer briefly the chief points which you
have brought under discussion, but still beg to
refer to my larger treatise. Although I cannot complain of any gross violation of personal
courtesy, your raillery being pardonable in a
struggling controvertist, your charges are so
gross and groundless, that in refuting them I
may appear wanting in respect; yet I trust that
I shall not forget what is due to your position,
as well as my own, and to the interests of truth,
which are best maintained when charity is not
violated. " When I am under the necessity of
answering others verbally, or in writing, even
should I have been provoked by insulting
charges, I endeavor, as far as the Lord gives me
grace, to restrain and repress my feelings of
indignation, that I may edify the hearers or
readers, so that I seek not to prove superior to
my adversary in railing, but profitable to others
by exposing error."* St. Augustin is my guide
and model.
* Contra litteras Petiliani, 1. iii. n. 1.




LETTER II.
En ttt 1utt Df faitt.
RIGHT REVEREND SIR:
Y   OU accept the qualifications of the Rule of
Faith, as laid down by Dr. Milner, namely,
that it must be certain, secure, and universal.
For the Church of England you claim that she
is distinguished from fanatics, who take the
Bible for their guide, interpreting it according
to their fancy, whilst she holds the interpretation
given of it by the ancient church, as embodied
in the formularies, called symbols, and in the
truly general councils. You do not, however,
confine it to these, since you refer to the Book of
Common Prayer generally, and to the ThirtyNine Articles in particular, as exponents of
the primitive doctrine. Yet as these articles
were adopted only under Elizabeth, instead of
the forty-two articles approved by Edward, I do
not see how they can serve as sure guides to the
primitive interpretation of Scripture. Besides,
you blame us for doctrinal definitions made in
the Council of Trent, which you brand as additions to the ancient symbols, sanctioned by the




20        ON THE RULE OF FAITH.
early councils: how, then, justify the English
convocation or parliament in setting forth so
many points of doctrine not specified in the
ancient formularies? But be this as you please,
you are entitled to the full benefit of the Articles
and Prayer Book. It is for you to show that
they so qualify and determine the interpretation
of Scripture, that your members are not exposed
to the danger of mistaking their own imaginations for the true meaning of the text. Dr.
Milner insists that you must come down to the
level of the Protestant masses from the vantageground which you proudly occupy: since, although you profess to understand the Scripture
in conformity with the Articles, you have no
certain means of determining the meaning of
these, wherever they are open to ambiguity,
whence the same conflict of views is witnessed
among you, as in other Protestant communities.
As you refer to the ancient creeds, it may be
fair to ask you, on what ground you assign them
such high authority to determine the meaning
of Scripture? The origin of the simplest form,
called the Apostles' Creed, is a matter of question among critics, who likewise dispute as to
its correct reading. Its authority must entirely
rest on its ancient usage in the church. The
Nicene Creed is a fuller development of it, made
with a view to exclude the errors of Arius and
Macedonius, by authority of the Councils of Nice
and Constantinople. If their right to enlarge




)N THE RULE OF FAITH.          21
the ancient formulary be admitted, can it be
consistently maintained that councils of bishops
do not still enjoy the same power? Of the creed
called the Athanasian, which contains a still
clearer exposition of the mysteries of the Trinity
and Incarnation, together with a declaration of
the necessity of holding the Catholic faith, under
pain of eternal damnation, the Church of England professes that it, as well as the other two,
" ought thoroughly to be received and believed,
for they may be proved by most certain warrants
of Holy Scripture:" whilst Episcopalians, in the
United States, have expunged it altogether from
their Prayer Book, and even left it free to omit
the article of the Apostles' Creed: " He descended
into hell."
You speak of the great doctrines of the Gospel
Faith, embodied in the primitive creeds, as derived from  the Scriptures; but you must be
aware that the first formulary was not the result
of Scriptural examination, but a simple profession of the leading mysteries traditionally preserved from the earliest period. Although it
may not be demonstrable that the apostles composed it, its chief articles were certainly professed
almost in the same words, throughout all the
church, antecedently, as is probable, to the writing of several books of the New Testament.
They bear no appearance of being framed after
the perusal of the sacred books. Dr. Nevin
observes: "The creed does not spring from the




22        ON THE RULE OF FAITH.
Bible. This is plain from its history. Its main
substance was in use before the New Testament
was formed. Peter's confession,' Thou art the
Christ, the Son of the living God,' had no such
origin. It was produced from the living sense
of Christ's presence itself. And so we may say,
the whole creed, which lies involved in that
confession, is derived through faith, out of the
same living ground. It is, of course, in harmony
with the Bible; for it has to do immediately
with its central revelation, the mystery of the
Word made Flesh. It comes not, however, circuitously, in the way of reflection and study,
through its pages. The early church got it not
from the Bible. Strange that there should be
any confusion in regard to what is in itself so
palpable and clear. The Bible is not the principle of Christianity; nor yet the rock on which
the church is built. It never claims this character, and it can be no better than idolatry and
superstition to worship it in any such view."*
Yet you, Right Reverend Sir, gravely speak of
"the Scriptural Creed," as if its very words were
contained in the sacred volume.
In addition to the ancient symbols, you refer
to the Thirty-nine Articles adopted by the English
Convocation under Elizabeth, and by the Protestant Episcopal Convention in America in
1801, with some very serious modifications. Of
* Mercersburg Review, July, 1849, Article, The Apostles' Creed.




ON THE RULE OF FAITH.           23
them you say: "There is not a single topic decided by the councils and the fathers, in the pure
and primitive ages of the Church, which is not
here distinctly set forth with the most admirable
exactness and precision, leaving no room for
heretical private judgment in any important
point of Christian doctrine."* The first difficulty is, what can determine the individual
member of your communion, to give the unqualified assent of his mind to the Articles themselves? Are they recommended to him by an
authority which cannot err? Does he rely on the
testimony and judgment of the English Parliament, or Convocation, or of the American Convention? If he must first satisfy himself, by personal examination, that the Articles express the
doctrines of the early Church, the inquiry will
be tedious, and the result doubtful. What must
determine him to receive the decisions of the
Church in those early ages with entire deference,
if the Church at the present time has no claim
on the unreserved assent of his mind? Truly,
there is much room for private judgment on all
those points, as long as an infallible authority is
not claimed and exercised. Besides, few find
the Articles themselves so clear and definite as
you represent them, which is the cause of the
existence of two great divisions among you,
the High and Low Church divines, whose dif* Vol. 1, p. 15.




24        ON THE RULE OF FAITH.
ference of views regards points of great importance. The Articles are generally considered as
directing the individual judgment, rather than
determining it, which is impossible, for the want
of adequate authority. They are not regarded
by the very ministers who subscribe to them, as
binding them to assent, but rather as points to
be respected in their public teaching, and have
been styled, not improperly, Articles of Peace.
Paley observes: "They who contend that nothing less can justify subscription to the Thirtynine Articles, than the actual belief of each and
every separate proposition contained in them,
must suppose that the legislature expected the
consent of ten thousand men, and that in perpetual succession, not to one controverted proposition, but to many hundreds. It is difficult to
conceive how this could have been expected by
any, who observed the incurable diversity of
human opinion upon all subjects short of demonstration."* In order effectually to control Scriptural interpretation, they must be supported by
some authority better than an English Act of
Parliament, and there must be some tribunal
to determine their meaning.  The Church of
England claims, indeed, "authority in controversies of faith," but she nullifies her claim, by
avowing her liability to err in her decision.
Thus the guidance on which you rely is unsatisfactory, and you are left, like other Protestants,
* Pllilosophy. Book ITI. Chap. 22.




ON TIIE RULE OF FAITH.           25
with the Bible alone, to interpret it as you judge
proper.
The individual is placed above the Church in
the very article in which her authority is affirmed:
"yet it is not lawful for the Church to ordain
anything that is contrary to God's word written;
neither may it so expound one place of Scripture,
that it be repugnant to another." This presumes
that the Church is capable of abusing her authority, by commanding what is opposed to the
Scripture, and by expounding the text so as to
involve contradiction. The individual must necessarily judge for himself, whether she has in
fact so erred. He must examine and compare
the texts, in order to satisfy himself that she has
not abused her authority.
You have no reason, then, to find fault with
Dr. Milner, for saying that your rule is the Bible,
as interpreted by each reader for himself, since
you say the same in substance: " On this ground
we stand, and we ask no other. The Scriptures
as the Rule of Faith, according to the primitive
Catholic interpretation, with the right of private
judgment, in order to decide what that interpretation was."*  I fancy I hear some citizen whose
principles have been represented as inconsistent
with law and order, inasmuch as he professes to
respect the laws only as far as he understands
them, without reference to the authority of the
* Vol. 1, 1). 286.
3




26       ON THE RULE OF FAITH.
legal tribunals. He repels the imputation as
groundless, because he accepts them as they were
expounded by the judges soon after their enactment; but he insists that he must be allowed to
determine for himself what their decisions were,
and how far they are applicable to his circumstances. By claiming for the individual the
right to determine for himself, what was the
primitive Catholic interpretation, you give him
indirectly the right to determine the meaning of
the sacred text itself, and thus fall back on the
common ground of Protestants, the Bible as interpreted by each one's private judgment.
In truth you have no doctrinal tribunal which
can exercise this authority, claimed in the Articles. In England, the whole Church authority
is concentrated in the Queen and Privy Council,
who seem disposed to leave questions open rather than to decide them, as was seen in the Gorham case regarding baptismal regeneration. In
this country the General Convention is your
highest tribunal, which, I presume, may at most
censure some individual for teaching erroneous
doctrines, contrary to the pledges given at his
ordination. In such a case the symbols and Articles would naturally be referred to, and their
obvious meaning insisted on; but as many controversies have been raised on them, no decision
in any special case is likely to be given or to obtain weight so as to fix the meaning beyond dispute. You have then, practically, no rule of




ON TIIE RULE OF FAITII.          27
faith beyond the Presbyterians, Methodists, or
other sectaries, who claim and exercise a similar
right over their preachers, suspending or dismissing them for teaching doctrines opposed to
their confessions of faith. This exercise of authority is merely disciplinary, not capable of determining the assent of the mind, since it emanates from a tribunal confessedly liable to err.
The Articles may serve as guides to influence
and direct the judgment of the individual, and
as rules by which to try and judge him, in case
his teaching be deemed erroneous; but they altogether fail in that which is essential to a rule
of faith, which is, to determine the revealed doctrines, so that they may be accepted and held
with entire certainty.
In confining the rule of faith to the ancient
symbols or to the Thirty-nine Articles, you leave
without protection all the revealed doctrines
which are not formally embraced and specified
in them. Any truth recorded in the Sacred
Scriptures ought certainly to be received with
the homage of our understanding; yet it may
not be directly stated in those formularies. If
the Church can only point to them, without venturing beyond their specifications, her authority
as the witness of revealed doctrine becomes null
in all cases of this character. In all cases whatsoever it is necessarily null as regards the assent
of the mind, which it cannot claim, unless it has
a divine assurance of infallibility.




28       ON THE RULE OF FAITH.
You are most unfortunate, Right Reverend
Sir, in referring to the Council of Chalcedon as
forbidding any symbol of faith, or definition of
doctrine beyond the formulary which is called
the Nicene Creed. These fathers were, indeed,
for a time indisposed towards the adoption of
any new formulary; but finding that certain
Egyptian monks, infected with the Eutychian heresy, made no difficulty in assenting to the symbol of Nice, they deemed it necessary to exact
of them a fuller profession of faith, directly opposed to the error of which they were suspected.
Accordingly they drew up a decree, in which they
accepted, in the first instance, the Nicene Creed,
with the additions made by the Council of Constantinople, to exclude the heresy of Macedonius. They begin by remarking that "the wise
and salutary symbol of divine grace (the Nicene
symbol) was sufficient for the knowledge and
confirmation of piety; but since those who endeavor to reject the preaching of truth, have invented new terms, according to their respective
heresies, on this account this present holy, great,
and universal synod, wishing to close against
them all devices against the truth, teaching this
doctrine which is immovable from the beginning, has decreed before all things that the faith
of the three hundred and eighteen holy fathers
should remain entire and inviolate." In like
manner they approved the synodical letter of St.
Cyril of Alexandria, to which the fathers of




ON THE RULE OF FAITH.            29
Ephesus had assented, as a correct exponent of
the symbol, and an antidote against the error of
lNestorius. To all these they added "the letter
of the most blessed and holy Archbishop Leo,
prelate of the great and ancient city of Rome,
written to the Archbishop Flavian, of blessed
memory, to correct the perverse interpretation of
Eutyches, which letter is in accordance with the
confession of the great Peter, and is like a great
pillar of truth against erroneous teachers, serving
for the confirmation of the true doctrines." They
then embody the substance of the letter in their
definition, and it is only at the end of this long
document, that they use those words, which you
have quoted, as referring to the Nicene symbol:
" These things, therefore, being arranged by us
with all care and diligence, this holy and general synod has defined that it is lawful for no one
to utter, write, or compose any other faith, or to
think, or to teach others differently."* So far,
then, from condemning by anticipation the definitions of Trent, the Council of Chalcedon
broadly affirmed the right of the Church at all
times to meet the devices of heretics by a more
formal and precise definition of the doctrines
which are assailed, and added to the ancient
symbol a long declaration, which it required all
to subscribe, under penalty of forfeiting the communion of the Church. There is no way ofjus* T. II. Cone. Col. 455.
3*




30       ON THE RULE OF FAITH.
tifying your restriction of this canon to the Nicene symbol, unless by supposing that you did
not read the paragraph in which it occurs. It is
for you to explain it. The object of the decree
was to prevent any new formulary which might
conceal the condemned errors on the points then
at issue, and to make it obligatory on all to receive, not only the symbol of Nice in its enlarged
form, but also the dogmatical definition of St.
Leo. It never entered into the mind of the Council to restrain future councils from exercising
the same authority against every novel error.
Your boasting of the Prayer-Book and Catechism is vain, since although written in the vernacular tongue, they give occasion to much discussion as to the true teaching of the Church of
England, and her American daughter, and accordingly leave your members uncertain and
discordant. We are abundantly provided with
means of instruction for all classes, whereby we
give them certain knowledge of the doctrines of
the Church. They learn the Apostles' Creed
from their infancy; they have the Creed of Nice
in their Prayer-Book, and use it when assisting
at the holy sacrifice, at which it is solemnly
sung; and they recite the Athanasian Creed,
whenever their devotion prompts them, whilst
the clergy are bound to its recital in the office
for Sunday.  Our Catechisms are plain and
explicit. The teaching of the clergy everywhere
is uniform, and their efforts to impress the great
truths of religion on the minds of their hearers




ON THE RULE OF FAITH.          31
are incessant; so that we have all the advantages
which you prize, without the divisions which
distract and perplex you. It matters not that
each channel of communication be not absolutely
free from all danger of error, for from the variety
of ways in which we are instructed, publicly and
privately, by preaching and in writing, we have
full certainty of what the doctrine of the Church
is, so that we can give an unqualified assent to
her teaching, as she is the pillar and ground of
the truth. This necessary foundation of faith is
wanting to you. With whatever force the testimonies of Scripture may strike you, however
clearly the faith of the ancient church may be
expressed in the symbols, however strong may
be the language of your Prayer-Book and Catechism, doubt may still haunt your minds, because
you have no infallible authority on which to
rely. You may persuade yourselves that you
have arrived at a correct conclusion, but the
Protestant principle of private judgment isolates
you, notwithstanding your church connections,
and your assent to any revealed doctrine, properly analyzed on your own principles, and by
your own showing, amounts to this: I believe
that this doctrine is contained in Scripture,
because it is in harmony with the primitive
interpretation; and I believe such to be the primitive interpretation, because my own judgment
convinces me of the fact. This, I respectfully
submit, is an act of faith in your own private
judgment.




LETTER  III.
Onl t1t trxiptvt~.
RIGHT REVEREND SIR:
DR. MILNER states, that "If Christ had intended that all mankind should learn His
religion from a book, namely, the New Testament, he himself would have written that book,
and would have laid down as the first and fundamental principle of his religion, the obligation
of learning to read it." This you call " an impious attempt to lessen the Divine authority of
the Scriptures," " an impious slur upon the Word
of God," "an infidel suggestion!" "a most
irreverent and blasphemous specimen of argumentation." Abuse is no reply. You should
have shown, at least, that Christ supplied the
wants of men, by ordering the sacred penmen
to write down, either severally, or collectively,
His whole revelation; you should have proved
that they actually undertook and accomplished
the task, and gave the command to all to read
the book, with a promise of divine aid to understand it. Instead of this course, you lose patience,
because the Catholic apologist points to facts,




00
ON THE SCRIPTURES.           33
which show that the inspired books were written on special occasions for particular ends, and
do not appear as designed to form a complete
collection, or doctrinal summary. Your sixteenth letter is indeed declamatory and abusive,
wholly unworthy of a calm disputant.  We
charge on our Lord no incongruity, since we
show that he established a ministry, to deliver
all whatsoever He had taught, and He promised
to be with them to the end of time. The writing
of some books by inspired men did not annul
this commission, but facilitated its execution,
by recording it, and placing on record likewise,
much of that which was to be delivered. All
you say about our putting tradition above the
written word is mere assertion; we unfeignedly
venerate the Scripture, and guard against its
abuse by holding fast to the teaching which
comes down from the Apostles. The difference
between you and us is this, that you affirm that
the writing of the books of the New Testament
superseded the apostolic commission, inasmuch
as the written word was thenceforth to be the sole
guide of the teachers in the Church. This we
challenge you to prove. We hold that the commission by its very terms extends to the consummation of the world, and that the inspired books
must be declared and expounded by the pastors
of the Church, in accordance with the faith
originally delivered. You say the Apostles were
the lawgivers of the Church,-the bishops are




34         ON THE SCRIPTURES.
judges, who expound the law. We hold that
the Apostles were witnesses of what had been
revealed, and lawgivers in regard to discipline,
and all that appertains to order. They taught
not as of themselves, but they merely delivered
that which Christ had taught; they being enlightened by the Holy Ghost to deliver it accurately. Their preaching comprised the whole
counsel of God. Their writings contained the
same things as they preached, but not as fully,
or as distinctly as their discourses, incidental
references being sometimes made to matters
which they had already fully explained by word
of mouth. We demand proof that they purposed
to give a full written statement of the whole
revealed doctrine.  They were lawgivers, invested with ample power to legislate for the
church; but they have left us no code of laws.
Some of their ordinances are found here and
there recorded, but nothing like a formal statement of them occurs in the sacred writings. To
assign, then, to the bishops of the Church the
mere office of judges, confined to the duty of
expounding and applying the law, is to circumscribe it within narrow limits. They inherit the
governing power granted to the Apostles, and
they can consequently make laws for the Church,
over which the Holy Ghost has placed them.
You evade, rather than meet the objection of
Dr. Milner, that the Church of England has no
sufficient evidence of the inspiration of the Bible,




ON THE SCRIPTURES.           35
by replying: "We have all the evidence that
exists, and there can be no more." Not so, dear
sir; you must show that you are entitled to use
this evidence. There may be an excellent title
to an estate, which is not available to any one
but the rightful claimant.  You accuse Dr.
Milner of "an atrocious misrepresentation," as
charging the Reformers with rejecting the truth,
which the Church of Rome derives from the
pure ages of primitive antiquity, because they
rejected the errors which she had superadded.
This is not the charge. We hold them to be
inconsistent in retaining the Bible, whilst they
charge with corruption and idolatry the Church,
which is its witness and guardian. We challenge you to show why you believe the Bible to
be the inspired word of God. Its authenticity,
as a collection of books, is not in question. You
may prove this as you would that of any profane
work: but what certainty have you that it is
God's revelation to man?  "As for me," says
St. Augustin, " I would not believe the Gospel,
were I not moved to it by the authority of the
Catholic Church."*  You reject this authority,
and yet you profess to venerate, as divine, all
the books which you include in the canon. In
separating from the communion of the Catholic
Church, the Church of England forfeited all her
titles derived from that connection, and in order'  Ep. contra Fundam.




36          ON THE SCRIPTURES.
to be a consistent witness to the Bible, she needed
a new revelation.
Although many internal indications of its
divine origin may be discovered in the Scripture,
unqualified faith in its inspiration needs external
testimony-no other than the tradition of the
Church, which, from the beginning, has been
its depositary and guardian.  To say that it
proves itself, is begging the question. To allege
that we know it to be divine by the secret teaching of the Holy Spirit in our hearts, is to open
the way to fanatical illusions, and take from it
the credibility which might command the respect
of unbelievers themselves.  The testimony of
the Church at present is but the echo of tradition.
Dr. Nevin observes: "There is not merely room
thus, but an absolute necessity for what may be
styled a true Christian tradition in the Church,
not as something against the Bible or foreign
from it; but still not as a mere derivation either,
or efflux simply from its pages; a tradition
which starts from  the original substance of
Christianity itself, at it underlies the Bible, and
which, in such form, becomes the living stream
into which continuously the sense of the Bible
is poured, through the Holy Ghost, from age to
age, onward to the end of the world."*
Dr. Milner uses the common law'of England
to illustrate tradition.  It comprises all princi* Mteeer.-1iirg Review, July, 1849, Article. The Apostles' Creed.




ON THE SCRIPTURES.            37
pies of jurisprudence which have been, from
time immemorial, adopted by the judicial tribunals as rules by which the cases submitted to
their judgment, and not regulated by special
statute, should be decided.  The principles
themselves do not form a written code, being
nowhere recorded, but being gathered from
the decisions of the courts.  The doctrines
handed down by tradition, are in like manner
known with certainty from the uniform judgment of the ecclesiastical tribunals. Yet they
are far from being destitute of written evidence,
since the Scriptures embody most of them, or
allude to them; the ancient fathers record them,
and the various ecclesiastical documents of the
early ages bear witness to them. Besides, they
are supported by the public and solemn practices of the Church, in the most ancient times,
which are necessarily connected with them.
Thus they are recommended to us by evidence
far more satisfactory than that which is offered
for the common law.  You remark that the
Church, being a divine institution, could not
have mere custom as the origin of her laws.
The question is not, indeed, of laws, which certainly might originate in custom, but of revealed doctrines. These could not arise from
custom; but public usage, especially in worship,
may be one of the evidences of revelation, which
is all that Dr. Milner meant by the comparison.
If Christ had given us a written summary of
4




38         ON THE SCRIPTURES.
doctrine, and a code of laws, your reasoning as
to the office of bishops as expositors and judges
might be just; but as he gave neither, and as
the sacred penmen did not profess to give
either, the commission to preach remains in its
full force, and guarantees the teaching of the
Apostolic ministry to the end of time.
You can never determine with certainty the
canon of divine books, unless by the testimony
and judgment of the Catholic Church.  The
books which the Church of England treats as
apocryphal, were venerated by the whole church
as divine during ages. This conviction survived the schism, since even under Edward VI.
no distinction was made between the various
books, and many passages from them are quoted
in the Homilies as dictates of the Holy Ghost.
In re-opening the question afterwards, on the
plea that they were not included in the Jewish
canon, an undue importance was given to it, to
the neglect of Apostolic tradition. Even the
Hellenist Jews united them in a volume with
the inspired writings, as Beveridge testifies,*
giving them great authority, and acknowledging them to be highly instructive, although they
did not regard them as of the same divine character as the others.  From them  the early
Christians received them with high veneration.
S. Augustin observes, " We must not omit those
books which were written before the coming of
* Codex Can. Prim. Eccl. i. ii c. ix.




ON THE SCRIPTURES.            39
the Saviour, for although they be not received
by the Jews, they are received by the church of
the Saviour himself."* The doubts which existed
for a time in the minds of some fathers regarding their authority, arose from attending to the
Jewish canon; but the general tradition of the
Church is apparent from their writings, since
even they frequently quote the books in question as divine. The canon was settled by the
Councils of Carthage and Rome in the fourth
and fifth centuries, and by the authority of
Popes Innocent and Gelasius. The Council of
Florence recognized all the sacred books, precisely as the fathers of Trent afterwards. If
some discrepancies be found in certain manuscripts of the ancient catalogues as to the
number of the books of the Macchabees, or
if some other books be omitted, it belonged to
the Church to pronounce judgment on them definitively, and thus settle the matter for ever.
Deny her this right, and you leave the Scriptures to be the sport of human pride, one man
adding, and another taking away. The words
of S. Jerom, that the Church reads them for edification, not with a view to establish dogmas,
mean, that she does not rely on their authority
for convincing unbelievers; but she has always
read them as God's holy word, which all should
receive with faith and submission. It is in vain
that the Church of England seeks to take shelter
under the authority of this father.
* In Speculo.




40         ON THE SCRIPTURES.
They who question the right of the Church to
put in her canon, books which the Jews did not
hold to be inspired, undervalue greatly the tradition of the Apostles. The early Christians
read the Scriptures in the Greek version of the
Septuagint, which the Apostles always cited,
and which contained all the books bound up
together. The Apostolic writings and the Gospels have many allusions and references to these
books. The earliest fathers, such as Irenseus,
quote them like other Scripture.  Beveridge
testifies, that in the days of St. Cyprian, they
were received equally as the other inspired
books.*  If the doubt which subsisted in the
minds of some as to their divine origin should
have prevented their acceptance by the Church,
how were various books of the New Testament
admitted as canonical, although doubts had been
entertained of their authority?
The canon of Trent agrees with those of Carthage and of Rome. Baruch was included in
the ancient lists under the name of Jeremiah,
whose scribe he was. Two books of Macchabees,
as in the canon of Carthage, are found in some
manuscripts of the council under Gelasius; but
if the common reading be retained, it may be that
both books were regarded as one, since only one
book of Esdras is likewise mentioned. In specifying the parts of Daniel which regard the History of Susanna, and the Hymn of the Three
* Codex Can. Prim. Eccl. 1. ii. c. ix.




ON THE SCRIPTURES.           41
Youths in the Furnace, you lead the reader to
suppose that these were omitted in the ancient
lists; whereas, the book of Daniel, as it was read
in the churches, included them. The Council
of Trent, therefore, only held up to veneration
the books which in the fourth and fifth centuries
were regarded as canonical. The language of
St. Gregory, that the books of the Macchabees
do not appertain to the canon, has reference to
the Jewish canon. You are wrong in saying
that the Church has added to the Bible, " books
which the voice of all antiquity had excluded
from the canon."  The canon of Laodicea, on
which you rely, is, in the judgment of some
learned critics, supposititious. Paley admits that
it had no binding force beyond the province in
which it was enacted.*
You have not, Right Reverend Sir, explained
how a Church of England-man, or an Episcopalian, can make an act of faith in the divine inspiration of the Scriptures. You call it "folly
and effrontery" to doubt of it; "for how can
Christian men have faith in anything, if they
cannot have it in the written word of God?"t
But this is no answer to the question. You say,
indeed, that "the law of the Christian faith
given to the Church, in the New Testament,
could only be identified by the authority of the
church:t as our general constitution can only
* Evidences of Christianity, ch. ix. ~ 6. - P. 336. T P. 334.
4*




42         ON THE SCRIPTURES.
be known by the testimony of the nation." But
if the testimony of the Church be merely human,
if it go no farther than to certify the authenticity of the books called the New Testament,how can you hold them to be the inspired word
of God? We recognize the Church by her
marks and characters as a divine institution,
and we accept her testimony as worthy of all
belief, so that we venerate the written word on
her authority, as Augustin did. The perusal of
it confirms us in our belief of her divine commission. In this proceeding, it is easy to perceive how faith is formed; but you refer to the
Church only as to the witness of the written constitution and law of Christ, who gave nothing
in writing, and from your examination of what
you designate such, you profess to hold her
divine constitution. This cannot be faith.
Dr. Milner reproached the Church of England
with wilful corruptions of the sacred text. You
admit two instances of erroneous translations,
but contend that they are of little moment. In
return, you charge us with three "grave misrepresentations." Let me first observe that our
version cannot be suspected of any design to
misrepresent passages applicable to modern controversy, since it was made so many ages before
the Reformation. Whether the reading of Genesis iii. 15, be IT or SHE, is a fair matter for critical
inquiry, which cannot affect the high character of
the Vulgate, which presents a reading received




ON THE SCRIPTURES.            43
from the days of S. Ambrose.* SACRAMENTUM in
Latin corresponds to the Greek Eph. v. 31,
and means mystery. The English term is not
used with a view to ground a controversial argument, but from a close adherence to the Latin,
which the Rhemish translator chose to observe.
Hooker remarks that the term was used with
great latitude by the ancient fathers. The third
passage, which you brand as "a very gross perversion" (Hebrew xi. 21), is vindicated by the
learned Protestant critic, Tholuck, who says that
"the Protestant controversialists have very unjustly designated this passage of the Vulgate, as
one of the most palpable of its errors." I need
not trouble you with the vindication, which is
supported by the authority of S. Chrysostom and
Theodoret. Those who choose may find the
details in Kitto's Cyclopedia, Art. Vulgate.
Scrivener is there quoted, who says: " In justice
it must be observed, that no case of wilful perversion has ever been brought home to the Vulgate."
You elsewhere charge the Vulgate and Douay
versions with not being faithful to the Hebrew,
because the term',. is rendered in sixteen
passages of the Old Testament, "Deus," " God."
Had you consulted the Septuagint, you might
have included it in the censure, since slog is the
Greek translation. Infidelity on the part of the
translator, implies a departure from the meaning
of the text, which, however, the ancient inter* L. de fuga seculi, c. vii.




44         ON THE SCRIPTURES.
preters have faithfully adhered to, since it is
evident that God is figuratively styled a rock.
"The God of my salvation," or "God my
Saviour," is certainly expressive of the true
meaning of all those passages which you render
"the Rock of my salvation."  Pagnini and
Montanus have given the literal sense, which is
perfectly consistent with the plainer rendering
of the Vulgate. The unlearned reader may be
startled at your array of passages, with the
Hebrew characters interspersed; but the learned
must acknowledge that there is no ground
whatever forthe charge of unfaithfulness. There
is a commandment, " Thou shalt not bear false
witness."
You follow on the track of those who rail at
the Council of Trent and the Popes, in reference
to the authentic edition of the Vulgate. The
Council desired a most accurate edition to be
made of it, in compliance with which decree,
Sixtus V. gave his sanction to one prepared by
learned divines, chosen for the purpose. It was
soon found to contain about forty typographical
errors, which the Pope himself marked for correction. After his death a revision of it was
made on a new basis, namely, with special
reference to the original texts, which led to
several alterations, in a subsequent edition,
published with the sanction of Clement VIII.
The alleged conflict of authority in respect to
these versions, is purely imaginary. The Council




ON THE SCRIPTURES.            45
sanctioned the Vulgate as a version substantially
correct, and a safe standard in faith and morals;
but as many discrepancies were found in the
readings, the fathers desired that a most accurate
version should be prepared. Sixtus V. directed
the correctors to confine themselves chiefly to
the comparison of manuscripts, so as to give as
correctly as possible the true text of the Vulgate.
This was successfully done, and the edition was
sanctioned by him, which implied no more than
that it was to be received and adopted as a
standard, which no individual should change.
The few typographical errors discovered by him,
disposed him to wish for a more accurate edition,
which was published by Clement VIII., with
many other alterations, to render it more conformable to the original texts.  This latter
sanction was of the same character, marking the
work with the seal of the pontifical approval, so
that no private individual might attempt any
change in it.  Those who prepared it, freely
avowed that they left unaltered certain readings
which appeared to them  capable of improvement. This observation shows the maturity with
which they had proceeded, and their slowness to
change what further researches might prove to
be correct. It also proves that they did not put
forward the edition as absolutely perfect, but as
substantially correct and safe. You quote the
avowal in a tone of triumph, as if it did not do
honor to the judgment and candor of the learned




46         ON THE SCRIPTURES.
men employed in the arduous undertaking.
The matter itself-the greater or less accuracy
of the edition-did not fall within the range of
those things, in which infallibility is claimed by
Council or Pontiff.  There was no  room,
therefore, for your exclamation: "'There we
have, undoubtedly, a fair specimen of your
Roman infallibility." There was no occasion to
speak of " the audacity " with which Dr. Milner,
under such circumstances, could presume to
assail the fidelity of " our English Bible."




LETTER IV.
(It t8t 3utarntatilo of  trirturt.
RIGHT REVEREND SIR:
Y    OU charge Dr. Milner with proposing tradition as a distinct and additional revelation,
independent of the Scriptures, whilst you profess to regard it as the fixed and settled interpretation of the Scriptures in the Church of God.
It is of great importance that we should understand each other. Divine tradition, as maintained by the Catholic Church, is not a revelation
distinct from the written word, but in its amplest and most correct sense, it includes the
Scriptures, since it is the whole revealed doctrine
as handed down in the Church from Christ and
his Apostles. It certifies the inspiration of the
Scriptures; it illustrates them; and it instructs
us in several revealed truths, to which they allude or refer, as also in some which are not there
recorded. It is properly the entire deposit of
doctrine as it comes down from the beginning.
This is the idea of it presented by Dr. Milner,
whose proofs from S. Irenaeus, Tertullian, Ori



48       ON THE INTERPRETATION
gen, Basil, Chrysostom, and Vincent of Lexrins,
you seem to have overlooked. I beg to add some
few passages.  S. Irenaeus says: "There being
such proofs to look to, we ought not still to seek
amongst others for truth which it is easy to receive from the Church, seeing that the Apostles
most fully committed unto this Church, as unto
a rich repository, all whatsoever is of truth, that
every one that willeth may draw out of it the
drink of life. For this is the gate of life; but
all others are thieves and robbers. Therefore we
ought to avoid them, but to cling with the utmost care to whatever is of the Church, and to
hold fast to the tradition of truth."* You lay
stress on those passages, in which Irenseus refers
to the Scriptures; but he expressly qualifies these
references by insisting on interpreting them according to the tradition of the Apostles, as manifested in the teaching of the Church by the
bishops. He rejects, indeed, the tradition alleged by the Gnostics, who contended that a
more perfect doctrine than that which is on record had secretly been communicated by the
Apostles to chosen men, and had been preserved
in their sect. The Church knows no such clandestine teaching; her tradition has always been
publicly taught, and illustrated by her solemn
usages, so that it was easily discernible throughout the world for all who sincerely desired in* Adv. Haer. 1. iii. c. iv.




OF SCRIPTURE.              49
struction in the truth, as Irenseus observes:
" When, on the other hand, we challenge them
to that tradition which is from the Apostles,
which is preserved in the churches through the
successions of presbyters, they are adverse to
tradition."*
The early fathers, you allege, appealed to the
Scripture as the great means of deciding all controversy. Of Tertullian you say: "He argues
all questions of doctrine by appealing to Scripture."t Doubtless, he quoted the Sacred Text
whenever he found it opportune and convincing;
and he justly rejected the unauthorized teaching
of Hermogenes and Marcion, which was void of
all Scriptural sanction; but he uniformly rested
on the interpretation, which had come down from
the Apostles, and which was gathered from the
constant teaching of the Church, repudiating
in the most unqualified terms all attempts to
determine the revealed doctrines by the mere
letter of the Scripture, apart from Apostolic tradition. In his work " On Prescriptions," by which
he understands barriers against heresy, he advises us not to enter into contests about passages
of Scripture, they being easily distorted: " therefore there must be no appeal to the Scriptures,
nor must the contest be constituted in those
things in which the victory is either none or
doubtful, or too little doubtful. For even though
the debate of the Scriptures should not so turn
* Ib. c. 2.          t Vol. i. p. 54.
5




50       ON THE INTERPRETATION
out as to confirm each party, the order of things
required that this question should be first proposed, which now is the only one to be discussed,' To whom belongs the very faith; whose are the
Scriptures; by whom, and through whom, and
when, and to whom, was that rule delivered
whereby men became Christians?' for wherever
both the true Christian rule and faith shall be
shown to be, there will be the true Scriptures,
and the true expositions, and all the true Christian traditions. If these things be so, so that
the truth be adjudged to us, as many as walk according to that rule which the Church has handed
down from  the Apostles, the Apostles from
Christ, Christ from God, the reasonableness of
our proposition is manifest, which determines
that heretics are not to be allowed to enter upon
an appeal to the Scriptures, whom we prove
without the Scriptures to have no concern with
the Scriptures."* From your notice of Tertullian,
your readers would scarcely be prepared to find
such language from his pen.
Allow me to add another passage from this
work: "l Now whatt he Apostles preached, that
is, what Christ revealed unto them, I will here
also rule, must be proved in no other way than
by these same churches which the Apostles themselves founded; themselves by preaching to them
as well viva voce, as men say, as afterwards by
epistles. If these things be so, it becomes forth* De Pr-mscr, vi. 37.




OF SCRIPTURE.              51
with manifest that all doctrine which agrees with
these apostolic churches, the wombs and originals of the faith, must be accounted true, as
without doubt containing that which the churches
received from the Apostles, the Apostles from
Christ, Christ from God; but that every doctrine
must be judged at once to be false,which savoreth
things contrary to the truth of the churches, and
of the Apostles, and of Christ, and of God. It
remains, therefore, that we show whether this
our doctrine, the rule of which we have above
declared, be derived from the tradition of the
Apostles, and from this very fact, whether the
other doctrines come of falsehood. We have
communion with the apostolic churches, because
we have no doctrine differing from them. This
is evidence of truth."*
You supply us, Right Reverend Sir, with texts
from Clement of Alexandria and other fathers,
extolling the Scriptures, as we extol them, but
you leave us to present those passages which
designate the Church as their necessary interpreter, by means of that apostolic tradition which
she preserves.  "We children, avoiding the
winds of heresies, which puff up to swelling
pride, and not believing those who teach otherwise than the fathers, are then perfected, when
we are a church having received Christ the
head."t  Clement defends at large "the celebrated and venerated rule of tradition."t Some
* De Praescr, v. 21.    t Paedag. 1. i. c. v.    T Stromat, 1. i.




52       ON THIE INTERPRETATION
points of a sublimer kind, he says, have been orally
transmitted. "Knowledge itself is that which
has come down, transmitted without writing to
a few by successions from the Apostles."  "In
the same manner as if one became, from being
a man, a brute, as they did who were under the
drugs of Circe, so he has ceased to be a man of
God, and faithful to the Lord, who has thrown
aside the ecclesiastical tradition, and plunged
into the opinions of human heresies."*
Origen, you say, "lays down the rule that the
ministry must prove everything from Scripture,
not according to their private judgment, but by
the sense of the Holy Spirit, comparing each
passage with the rest."t  If by this you understand that he confines the Christian teaching to
that which is expressly delivered in the Scripture, you greatly mistake his meaning, for he
appeals to apostolic tradition in support of the
practice of baptizing infants. The passage on
which you rely, occurs in his commentary on
St. Matthew, where he speaks of the tradition
of the Pharisees opposed to the divine commandment, to honor our parents.  Indulging his
genius for mystical interpretation, he insists that
by an oath, in the text where our Saviour rejects
the Pharisaical distinctions of oaths made by
the temple and the altar, " must be understood
every testimony of Scripture, which is brought
Ib. 1 vii.           t Vol i. p. 65.




OF SCRIPTURE.                53
forward to confirm and bind fast the word which
we utter; so that all Scripture divinely inspired
is, indeed, the temple of the glory of God, and
its meaning is as gold. We should, therefore,
for a testimony of all the words we utter in teaching, bring forward the sense of Scripture; as it
were confirming the meaning which we give. For
as all gold out of the temple is not sanctified, so
every sense which is foreign to the divine Scripture, however admirable it may appear to some,
is not holy, because it is not contained in the
meaning of the Scripture, which is wont to
sanctify that meaning only which it has in itself,
as the temple sanctifies its own gold."* From
this whole reasoning it is manifest, that Origen
is only laboring to show, that we should not
attach to the Scripture a meaning foreign to it.
He does not say, that the Scripture interprets
itself, or that we must not have recourse to the
Church to ascertain its meaning in doubtful
places. On the contrary, he cautions us against
the interpretations of heretics, and against fanciful interpretations of our own, and directs us
to adhere to that teaching which is sanctioned
by the Church. " We must point out," he says,
"the manifest ways to those who hold to the
rule of the heavenly Church of Christ, according
to the succession from the Apostles."t  "Let
Basilides and whosoever agrees with him, be
* Vol. xii. p. 35, ed. Wirceburgi.
t T. i. de Princip. p. 164.
5*




54       ON TIIE INTERPRETATION
left in their impiety; but for us, let us turn to
the meaning of the Apostle, according to the
piety of the ecclesiastical doctrine."* Again, he
observes, " Since there are many who think that
their sentiments are conformable to the doctrine
of Christ, and some of them think differently
from others, let the preaching of the Church,
handed down from the Apostles by regular succession, and continuing in the churches down
to the present time, be attended to: that only,
which in no respect departs from the ecclesiastical and apostolic tradition, is to be believed to
be the truth."t  These are the views inculcated
by this celebrated writer, who, had he himself
followed them out in his interpretation of Scripture, would have escaped those errors into
which an exuberant imagination betrayed him.
In the defence of the usage of re-baptizing
those who had received baptism from heretics,
St. Cyprian rejected the proof from tradition, by
which the validity of the baptism was defended.
You recite his testimony as if you approved his
error. If you do not, how do you maintain the
contrary by Scripture alone? Cyprian himself
strongly insisted on the Lord's tradition for the
mingling of water with wine in the chalice.t
S. Athanasius appealed to the Scriptures as
affording splendid proofs of the divinity of our
* I. iv. in Ep. ad Rom. 1. v. p. 349.
t De Princ. praef. n. 2.
t Ep. lxiii. ad Cornel.




OF SCRIPTURE.               55
Lord, which was defined in the Council at Nice
and declared in the symbol; but he was very
far from excluding the tradition of the Church
as the light which must guide us in their interpretation: "Let us, nevertheless, in addition to
the above, see the tradition which is from the
beginning, and the doctrine and faith of the
Catholic Church, which the Lord indeed communicated, but the Apostles proclaimed, and
the fathers guarded; for on this has the Church
been founded, and he who falls away from this,
would not be, nor would he ever be called a
Christian."* You quote him as saying that the
Nicene fathers gave forth the confession of faith,
"in order to prove that this was not a new
opinion, but Apostolical, and that what they set
forth was not their invention, but THE DOCUMENTS OF THE APOSTLES."t  The capitals are
yours.  The text does not say this precisely
Tra~' ETrlv a7rep  CdSaGav 6d a&roqolot.  The Latin
translation gives it literally: "ea ipsa sunt quoe
docuerunt apostoli." Your object in giving this
turn to the phrase was evidently to limit the
teaching of the Apostles to their writings, which
the text does not warrant. Is this the fidelity
we are to look for in a respectable controvertist?
Nothing can be plainer from all the writings of
S. Athanasius, and from the whole proceedings
* Ep. i. ad Serap. n. 28.
t De Syn. Arim. et Seleucie Ep. t. i. n. 6. p. 893.




56       ON THE INTERPRETATION
in the case of Arius, than that the Catholic faith
was simply propounded as the ancient doctrine,
supported by Scripture and tradition. No attempt was made to rest it on Scripture alone;
on the contrary, the cavils of the Arians were
effectually set aside by referring to the faith as
handed down in the Church, which was accordingly put forward as the authoritative expression of divine truth. Do you seriously believe
that the mystery of the Incarnation, or the
divinity of Jesus Christ, can be sustained by
mere Scriptural passages, whilst so many testimonies apparently  conflicting  are arrayed
against them?
The language of S. Cyril of Jerusalem which
you recite, is directed to inculcate the mystery
of the Incarnation on the authority of the Scriptures, and to recommend the symbol of faiththe creed styled of the Apostles, as a summary
of high mysteries taught likewise in the sacred
books. No one can mistake it as designed to
exclude the traditionary teaching of the Church,
on which the creed wholly rests. The necessity
of a living authority to expound the creed and
the Scriptures appeared most manifestly at that
very period, since the fathers of Nice deemed it
all-important to add such expressions as would
leave no room for the evasions of the Arians.
You might well have spared yourself the recital of the eulogies of S. Jerom on the Scriptures, since in this regard there is no difference




OF SCRIPTURE.             57
between us. You are not very accurate in your
translation.  S. Jerom relied on the Roman
faith, handed down from the days of Peter and
Paul, not the mere letter of Scripture-as a protection against the errors of Origen, concerning
which Pammachius et Oceanus had consulted
him: "Whosoever thou art that assertest new
dogmas, I pray thee to spare Roman ears, spare
the faith which was praised by the mouth of the
Apostle. Why, after four hundred years, dost
thou endeavor to teach us what we never knew
before?  Why dost thou bring forward now
what Peter and Paul did not set forth? To this
day the Christian world was ignorant of that
doctrine?"* Instead of faith which was praised,
you have: " Spare them, because the Romans are
praised." You put in capitals WHAT PETER AND
PAUL WERE UNWILLING TO SET FORTH, leading
your readers to imagine that S. Jerom's words
are confined to their writing, whereas they
plainly embrace their whole teaching as known
from the tradition and faith of the Roman
Church.  In the same spirit he wrote: "Nothing is dearer to us than to guard the rights
of Christ, and not to move the landmarks of the
fathers, and ever to bear in mind the Roman
faith, commended by the mouth of an apostle."t
S. Augustin appealed to the Scriptures as
* Ad Pammach. et Ocean.
tT. I. Ep. lxiii. ad Theoph.




58       ON TIHE INTERPRETATION
bearing testimony to the Church, especially to
her catholic character, but he did not set aside
the authority of tradition on points of which
they have not distinctly treated. On the contrary, he called the usage of baptizing infants an
apostolical tradition;* he maintained "that the
dead are aided by the prayers of Holy Church,
and by the salutary sacrifice, and by the alms
which  are offered for their spirits," because
" this has been handed down by the fathers;"t
and he. upheld the validity of baptism administered by heretics on the same principle.T
This short review of your authorities on this
point, proves that the Scriptures were always
interpreted in conformity with ecclesiastical tradition, by which means "the faith once delivered to the Saints," was preserved unchanged.
When this magnet is not attended to, men
necessarily are tossed to and fro by every wind
of doctrine. The rule of traditionary interpretation was not limited to any particular period,
or any special controversy; it was to serve
always and in all circumstances for distinguishing divine truth from human errors.
It has always been the care of the Church to
guide her children in the reading of the Scriptures by the light of ancient tradition: for which
reason she has caused them to be publicly read
* T. III. de Gen. ad lit. 1. x. n. 39.
t T. v. Serm. clxxii. n. 2.
$ T. ix. 1. II. de Bapt. contra Donat. n. 12.




OF SCRIPTURE.                59
in the celebration of the holy sacrifice, and to
be expounded.  The private study of them was
also strongly recommended by S. Chrysostom,
S. Jerom, and other holy fathers; but the
scarcity of manuscripts necessarily confined it
to few, before the invention of the art of printing.
In the thirteenth century, for the first time, some
restriction was placed on it, in consequence of
its abuse by certain sectaries, who clandestinely
assembled, and without authority, took on themselves the office of teachers. Pope Innocent III.
avowed that the desire to study the Scriptures,
and to draw from them matter of exhortation,
is praiseworthy, rather than blamable; yet he
rebuked the presumptuous temerity of such
sectaries, and forbid the laity to have the books
of the Old or New Testament, with the exception of a Psalter, a Breviary, or the Office of the
Blessed Virgin. This prohibition grew out of
the abuse, and was but local and temporary; yet
you do not fail to note it down in order to foment
public prejudice. At no time whatever was the
Bible a sealed book for the laity, although during
the rage of controversy, in the sixteenth century,
certain qualifications, namely, instruction and
piety, were demanded in  the readers.  The
actual discipline of the Church leaves it entirely free, provided the version be approved, and
have notes taken from Catholic sources.*  You
* See Addition to IV. Rule of Index Deer. S. Cong. Tnd., 13
Junii, 1757.




60    ON THE INTERPRETATION, ETC.
assert that "the Church has forbidden the laity
to have the Bible in the vulgar tongue, by the
decrees of many Popes and Councils, and has
only allowed it since the Reformation, under
great restrictions, through fear and necessity."
The contrary is the fact. No such general prohibition was ever made. The Fourth Rule of
the Index, which imposes the simple restrictions
above stated, was a consequence of the abuses
which marked the Reformation, and even these
restrictions have been removed in regard to all
approved versions. Pius VI., in accepting the
Italian translation of the Bible by Martini, Archbishop of Florence, expressly said that the Scriptures should be left open to all, to draw from
them purity of morals and of doctrine, and to
eradicate the most corrupt errors which are
prevalent. It is a singular fact, yet incontrovertible, that the first restrictions on the reading
of the Bible in English, emanated from Henry
VIII. by Act of Parliament.*   "The Holy
Bible," as Sir Thomas More attests, "was long
before Wickliffe's days, by virtuous and well
learned men translated into the English tongue,
and by good and godly people, with devotion and
soberness, well and reverently red."t
* 34th Henry VIII. 1.  t Dial. iii. 14.




LETTER V.
RIGHT REVEREND SIR:
AS Dr. Milner and yourself are not greatly at
variance in regard to the definition of a
sacrament, I shall not enter into any discussion
on the subject. In the Catholic view some outward or sensible sign is required, to which grace
is attached by the institution of Christ. You
deny that confirmation can be considered such,
because its divine institution is not recorded,
and there is no visible sign or symbol of the
grace conferred. We deem this an instance fit
to illustrate the doctrine of tradition. From the
fact, which is stated by the sacred historian, that
Peter and John, at the instance of the other
Apostles, went to Samaria, to impart the Holy
Ghost to the neophytes whom Philip had baptized, and that by prayer and the imposition of
hands, the Holy Ghost was, in effect, communicated, we infer the divine institution of this rite,
since the acts of the Apostles furnish the best
evidence of the power given to them by Christ.
This inference is supported by the perpetual
6




62         ON THE SACRAMENTS.
usage of the Church, which has always recognized in her prelates the same power. Tradition,
then, supports our reasoning on the Scripture,
and illustrates what is compendiously stated by
the sacred penman.  There is a visible sign,
namely, the laying on of hands with prayer, for
although this action might be indefinite in itself,
it is determined, by the accompanying prayer, to
mark the descent of the Holy Spirit on the candidates. It is not necessary to determine the
precise time of the institution, it being sufficient
to know that the Apostles must have had a divine
warrant to undertake it. Our theologians conjecture, with great probability, that during the
forty days after the resurrection, in which our
Lord appeared to His disciples, "speaking of
the kingdom of God,"* He instructed them on
this and other points, for, as St. Leo well remarks, "these forty days, between the resurrection and ascension, did not pass away idly, but
great sacraments were confirmed in them, great
mysteries were revealed."t The anointing with
chrism in performing this rite is a very ancient
usage, of which mention is made by Tertullian, in
the second century. This warrants the presumption that it was practised and prescribed by the
Apostles; nor is the silence of the historian any
proof to the contrary, since it is clear that he took
on him to state facts, without entering into details
of rites or ceremonies. Granting that it is only of
*Acts i. 3.     t Serm. 1, de Ascensione, n. 2.




ON THE SACRAMENTS.             63
ecclesiastical origin, it is still venerable for its
antiquity, and is an apt symbol to express the
unction of the Holy Spirit. You mistake in
supposing that we substitute it for the laying on
of hands;* since the extension of the hands of
bishops over all who await confirmation, accompanied by a solemn prayer to God to send down
His Holy Spirit, with His sevenfold gifts, is itself
a laying on of hands.
Penance does not appear to you entitled to be
regarded as a sacrament.  Inasmuch as the
Scriptures always commanded repentance, you
argue that it could not have been instituted by
Christ.  Could He not give to the act of the
penitent a sacramental virtue, by attaching to it
pardon, to be pronounced by His representative?
What He actually vouchsafed to do is inscribed
on the sacred pages. He gave to His Apostles
the power of remitting and retaining sin, in
which is necessarily included the right to take
cognizance of the sins to be remitted or retained.
You say that auricular confession and sacerdotal
absolution were the work of the thirteenth century. Yet you had before you the testimonies
of Tertullian, Origen, Basil, Paulinus, and Augustin, quoted by Dr. Milner, which clearly prove
that confession of sin was made to the priests
in their respective times, even as far back as the
second century. St. Pacianus and St. Ambrose
* P. 307.




64         ON THE SACRAMENTS.
speak of absolution granted to penitents, by the
commandment of Christ our Lord.
Extreme unction, although plainly commanded
by St. James, the Apostle, is expunged by Protestants from the roll of the sacraments. You
maintain that the text has reference to a miraculous operation, by which sick persons recovered
health. Is it probable that a regular mode for
effecting miraculous cures was prescribed by the
Apostle? Were miracles directed to be wrought
by a certain class-the presbyters? Was a cure
to be effected in all cases, so as to become an
ordinary occurrence?  Such is not the view
which the Scriptures give us of the wonders of
Divine power, which are wrought in extraordinary cases to attest revealed truth, or show forth
the Divine attributes. The promise of our Lord,
that His disciples should lay hands on the sick,
and effect their cure, cannot be understood of a
uniform  or frequent act, but of occasional
displays of the power and goodness of God,
through the agency of His ministers and servants. You cannot explain the anointing as a
laying on of hands, since you deny it to be such
in the rite of confirmation. The prayer of faith,
to which the salutary effect of the act is ascribed,
is justly understood of the words which are
uttered whilst the sick man  is  anointed.
The Greek term  oaTcOs, rendered "will save,"
in scriptural usage, means to sanctify, or to
secure the eternal salvation of the soul. The




ON THE SACRAMENTS.               65
term, yrCps, "raise him up," may be explained
of exciting, or animating, as well as of restoring
to health, and it is verified by the communication
of grace, whereby the sick person is supported
in his last agony. You observe "that not the
anointing, but the prayer of faith, shall save
the sick, and the Lord shall raise him up."
The mere anointing could have no virtue, unless
its sacramental character were determined by
the accompanying prayer, as St. Augustin observes in regard to baptism: " Take away the
word, and what is water but water?  The word
is added to the element, and the sacrament is
completed."* A few lines above, you referred
the effect to the laying on of hands, according
to the prediction of our Saviour, and now you
maintain that it results wholly from  the prayer.
The sickness of which the Apostle speaks is,
that which is attended with danger of death, the
Greek  term  asvee, being the same as is employed when Lazarus was reported to be in a
dying state.t  The effects of the sacraments
arising from their Divine institution, are properly
ascribed to God, who alone can pardon sin, and
confer the gifts of grace; the priest being only
His agent, and the representative of Christ.
Thus, sir, all your objections are shown to be
groundless, whilst this rite, which has always
been practised in the Church, is warranted by
* Tract lxxx. in Joan.    t John x. 3.
6*




66         ON THE SACRAMENTS.
the express words of Holy Writ.  Tradition
here serves to illustrate and enforce this apostolic precept, which, strangely enough, is wholly
neglected by sects professing aloud that they are
guided in all things by the written word. It ill
becomes you to designate the faithful observance
of the apostolic command "a pious fraud."  It
is, at least, very unprofitable, since nothing whatever is received on occasion of its performance.
You deny the sacramental character of orders,
because they are confined to one small class of
men. Are they not of sufficient importance to
have grace attached to them for their proper
exercise? You admit that they were instituted
by Christ; but you remark that priests and
Levites were already of long standing, divinely
instituted. Was it not worthy of Christ to
bestow on His ministers greater gifts, as well as
higher powers? You say, that the Apostles, in
ordination, used only the imposition of hands,
with prayer. If to this simple rite was attached
the communication of power for the office, with
grace to enable them to exercise it, it is sufficient
to give it the character of a sacrament. But it
is wrong to infer that the rite was absolutely so
simple, from the terms used by the sacred historian, since it was foreign to his purpose to enter
into liturgical details. It was, indeed, when
sacrificing, or performing solemn worship, that
the command was given by the Holy Ghost, to
set apart Paul and Barnabas, for the special




ON THE SACRAMENTS.            67
work intrusted to them, as was accordingly done
by the laying on of hands and by prayer.
Although we are not informed that other ceremonies were used, there is nothing in this brief
statement that necessarily excludes them. Of
the grace bestowed we have the testimony of
St. Paul, who admonishes Timothy to stir up the
grace which was given him by the laying on of
hands.*
You find still greater objections to regarding
marriage as a sacrament, since it was instituted
in Paradise. Yet, even then it was a mysterious
type of the future union of Christ with His
Church, as the Apostle assures us.  It was
worthy of our Lord to give it sacramental dignity and character, when that union was consummated by His incarnation. The reasoning
of the Apostle on it shows its holiness and sublime signification. The indissoluble force of
the marriage tie, which our Lord Himself declares, persuades us that grace must be given to
enable the parties to bear the perpetual yoke.
His presence at the wedding of Cana, and the
miracles which He there performed, show His
sanction and favor. So many scriptural indications are supported by the public and solemn
teaching of the Church, her perpetual usage and
tradition. Although none are obliged to marry,
it is consoling to those who choose this state of
* 2 Tim. i. 6.




C8         ON THE SACRAMENTS.
life, to know that it is not only lawful, but
attended with grace and Divine blessing for such
as properly enter into it. The Church is perfectly consistent in teaching, with St. Paul, that
the state of celibacy is preferable, which leaves
the soul at liberty to devote herself wholly to
the things of God, and yet assuring her children
that they do not sin by embracing the married
state, if they take care to prepare themselves for
the grace which is attached to the sacred contract.
St. Augustin, in the passage which you quote,
speaks of the small number of the Christian
sacraments compared with the Jewish rites,
which were called by the fathers in the same
way. He gives baptism and the communion as
instances, without meaning to confine the term
to them. The like occurs in his first discourse
on the ciii. Psalm, where speaking of the gifts
of God bestowed alike on the good and wicked,
he observes that even the sacraments are received
by them. "Look to the gifts of the Church
herself. The gift of the sacraments in baptism,
in the Eucharist, in the other holy sacraments,
how great a gift it is! Even Simon the magician obtained it." In another place he describes
the eagerness of the dying to receive the aids of
religion, in these terms: "Do we not reflect
that, when the extreme danger is at hand, and
there is no possibility of escape, great is the
rush of persons, of both sexes and of every age,




ON THE SACRAMENTS.             69
in the Church, some demanding baptism, others
reconciliation, others the assigning of penance
itself, all of them seeking consolation, and the
celebration  and  dispensation  of the sacraments?"*
You make us, Right Reverend Sir, great reproaches in regard to the exactions practised in
the administration of the sacraments, of which
you allege some instances within your own
knowledge. You assure us that some Canadians
applied to you to have their children baptized,
being unable to pay the fees demanded by the
priest. I cannot suppose that they were residents of Canada, for the discipline of that country rigorously forbids the acceptance of the
smallest fee or offering on such an occasion, and
the high reputation of the clergy warrants me
in believing that it is most strictly observed.
Besides, the journey from the nearest part of
Canada to Burlington, would cost far more than
the most avaricious priest could demand.  I
must, then, believe that the application came
from Canadians, who had settled in your town,
and I must refer you for explanation to your old
neighbor and correspondent, who will no doubt
satisfy you that you have been imposed upon.
It is seldom that any even nominal Catholics can
be induced in any circumstances to avail themselves of Protestant ministrations.
"Quodcumque ostendis mihi sic, incredulus odi."
* Ep. clxxx. ad Honoratum.




LETTER VI.
RIGHT REVEREND SIR:
J EREMY TAYLOR volunteered his vindication of Catholics from the charge of idolatry
in adoring the Eucharist, because our intention
is directed to Jesus Christ, our Lord, whom we
believe to be present.* Dr. Milner claimed our
acquittal on the same ground; but you, kindly
as you profess to be disposed, reject the plea,
and insist that compared with the Pantheism of
the old Egyptians, the incarnation of the Grand
Llama, the adoration of the sun by the Aztecs,
and the whole range of heathenism, transubstantiation is the " most inconsistent kind of idolatry,
and the most degrading to a proper conception of
the Deity." Yet you might have paused before
uttering these censures, since we have, at least,
the respectable authority of St. Augustin for
adoring this mystery.  Commenting on the
passage, "adore His footstool," which the Protestant version renders "worship at His footstool," he says, "Since He (Christ) walked in
the flesh, and He has given us the same flesh to
* Liberty of Prophesying, sect. xx.




TRANSUBSTANTIATION.             71
eat for our salvation, and no one eats without
first adoring it, we find how this footstool of the
Lord may be adored, so that not merely are we
free from sin in adoring it, but we sin, if we do
not adore it."*
Your Catechism  states, that the inward part
of the sacrament is the Body and Blood of
Christ, which " are spiritually taken and received
by the faithful in the Lord's Supper;" and yet
you do not believe them to be really there, since
it is only by an effort of faith that you become
partakers of them. You insist that "the divine
gift is in the sacrament, considered with respect
to its inward grace."t  Your whole reasoning
shows, however, that you do not hold the Body
and Blood to be really there, so that you can
only mean that the sacrament is directed to
awaken faith, by which you may receive their
virtue; but how can the faithful, as Dr. Milner
asks, take that which is not there? Hence it is
that so many of the Puseyites, and others, profess to believe in the real presence, which you
very evidently reject.
For the variations of your liturgy in this respect, you plead that it was only by degrees that
the eyes of the English Reformers were opened.
Let this plea have its full force.
In canvassing our evidence, you at once meet
* Enarr. in Ps. xcviii.  t Vol. ii. p. 138.




72        TRANSUBSTANTIATION.
the proofs from the sixth chapter of St. John by
a long commentary of St. Augustin, who, like
the other fathers, often indulges in moral applications, or mystical interpretations of the sacred
text. The carnal understanding of the words
of our Redeemer is justly rejected. "Do you
think that I am about to divide this Body, which
you behold, into parts, and cut my members
into pieces, and give them to you?" He insists
on our eating spiritually, that is, receiving the
sacrament with such dispositions as will make
it profitable to our souls. "Then the Body and
Blood of Christ will be life to every one of you,
if that which is visibly taken in the Sacrament
be spiritually eaten and spiritually drank in the
truth itself. For we have heard the Lord Himself saying,'It is the spirit that quickeneth;
the flesh profiteth nothing. The words which
I have spoken unto you are spirit and life.' "*
If any doubt could exist as to the spiritual
eating and drinking here spoken of, it must
vanish when we attend to these other words of
the same father.  "With faithful heart and
mouth we receive the Mediator of God and
men, the man Christ Jesus, giving us His
Flesh to eat, and His Blood to drink, although
it seems more shocking to eat human flesh,
than to destroy it, and to drink human blood,
than to shed it."t In giving rules for the right
* Apud Hopkins, vol. ii. p. 141.
t T. ii. contra advers. legis et proph.




TRANSUBSTANTIATION.             73
understanding of Scripture, he observes, that in
case the Scripture appear to enjoin anything
criminal or cruel, it must be regarded as a figure
of speech, and he applies this rule to the saying
of our Lord, "Unless you eat the flesh of the
Son of man, and drink His Blood, you shall not
have life in you."  This taken as it sounds
seems to enjoin a crime, or outrage, namely
cannibalism. "It is, therefore, a figure, which
intimates that we should commune with the
passion of the Lord, and sweetly and profitably
treasure up in memory, that his flesh was crucified and bruised for us."*  The manifest scope
of this passage is to remove the idea of eating
the flesh, and drinking the blood of Christ, in a
natural and carnal way. Augustin justly insists
that this cannot be the meaning, because it
implies what is unnatural and revolting. It
must then, he says, be understood of communing with the passion of our Lord, remembering his sufferings, and thus becoming partakers
of his merits. This explanation is not directed
to exclude the sacramental perception of his
body and blood, which  in the place above
quoted St. Augustin distinctly affirms. The
language is strictly applicable to sacramental
communion, since whilst we receive His Body
and Blood under the veils of the elements, we
should commemorate his passion and death,
according to his command.
* De doct. Christ. 1. iii. c. xvi.
7




74         TRANSUBSTANTIATION.
You adduce Augustin again, to destroy the
force of the words of the institution. He teaches
that the sacraments having a certain resemblance
to the things which they are intended to represent, take the names of the things themselves.
"Therefore, according to a certain mode, the
sacrament of Christ's Body is the Body of Christ,
and the sacrament of Christ's Blood is the Blood
of Christ; and in like manner the sacrament of
Faith is Faith."* This language is intended to
convey to us that what strikes the senses in this
sacrament-the visible species-is styledthe Body
of Christ, because it is such after a certain mode,
inasmuch as it marks the presence of His Body.
In speaking of so great a mystery, it was difficult to use words not liable to be misunderstood.
Whatever obscurity may arise from occasional
expressions of this kind, is dissipated by the
clear and positive terms which are elsewhere
employed.  Thus, speaking of the converted
Jews, he says: "Through grace they drank the
very blood which they shed in frenzy."t
The last passage which you object from the
same father, admits of a similar solution: " Our
Lord did not hesitate to say,' This is My Body,'
when he gave them  the sign of His Body."T
Bread, which had been of old a sign, or type,
became the Body of Christ, being changed into
it by his word, when he instituted this sacrament.
* Op. Aug. t. ii. p. 203, n. 9.  t In Ps. lxv. n. 5.
$ Contra Adimantum, c. xii.




TRANSUB STANTIATION.           75
Speaking of it elsewhere, he says: " We are fed
with the cross of the Lord, since we eat his
Body."*
Persons unacquainted with the style of Tertullian, who refers often to a remote antecedent,
may easily mistake the words which you quote:
" Our Lord, taking the bread and distributing it
to His disciples, made it His Body, by saying:
THIS IS MY BODY; that is, the figure ofmybody."t
His meaning is, that what had been the figure
of his body, was made his body. He interpreted
a passage of Jeremiah, wherein mention was
made of bread, as a type of the body of Christ,
and showed against Marcion, that Christ recognized the works of the Creator, since he used
bread for the holiest purpose, changing it into
His Body in the mysteries. When speaking
directly and expressly of the Eucharist, his language is most unequivocal: "The flesh," he
says, "feeds on the Body and Blood of Christ,
that the soul may be fattened of God."t  Of the
returning Prodigal he says: " He is fed with the
richness of our Lord's Body, that is, with the
Eucharist."~ Speaking of Christian statuaries,
who made idols for sale, and afterwards approached the holy table, as if guiltless, because
they had not joined in their worship, he says:
" They lay their hands on the Body of the Lord."
Of those who advanced to the priesthood, with* In Ps. c. n. 9.  t Adv. Marcion, 1. iv. 457.
L L. de resur. carn.  ~ De Pudicitia, 9.




76)        TRANSU JBSTANTIATION.
out having expiated the sin, he exclaims: "!
enormity! the Jews offered violence to Christ
but once; these men violate His Body daily. 0!
hands that should be cut off!"*
You dispose rather summarily of the text of
the martyr Ignatius, quoted  by Dr. Milner.
Speaking of certain heretics of that early period,
he says: " They do not admit of Eucharists and
oblations, because they do not believe the Eucharist to be the flesh of our Saviour Jesus Christ,
that which suffered for our sins."t You observe,
that it is not stated whether Ignatius meant the
flesh of our Saviour, in actual substance, or in
symbol, or figure. The natural import of the
words leaves no room for doubt. What say you
to Justin? "As Jesus Christ, our Saviour, was
made flesh through the word of God, and took
flesh and blood for our salvation, so we have
been instructed that the food which has been
consecrated by His word of prayer..... is the
flesh and blood of that Incarnate Jesus."T
It is not necessary to dwell on the passages
which you have adduced from Origen and Ambrose, in order to destroy the force of the testimonies brought forward by Dr. Milner. The
intelligent reader, having in view the remarks
already made, will easily distinguish between
expressions regarding a mystery incidentally
mentioned, and the plain and positive declara* L. de idololatria.  t Vol. ii. p. 148.  $ Apol. i. 66.




TRANSUBSTANTIATION.              77
tion of its nature solemnly delivered: "This
Body which we consecrate," says St. Ambrose,
" is from the Virgin."*  "You may, perhaps, say
that which I see is something different; how do
you prove to me that I receive the Body of
Christ?' This is what it remains for me to
prove. What examples, therefore, am I to use?
Let me prove that this is not that which nature
has made it, but that which the benediction hath
consecrated it to be; and that the force of the
benediction is greater than that of nature,
because by the benediction nature herself is
changed."t  "Our Lord Jesus Christ Himself
proclaims, This is My Body. Before the sacred
words of benediction another species is named;
after consecration the Body is implied. IIe HIimself speaks of His Blood. Before consecration, it
is spoken of as another thing: after consecration, it is named Blood. And you say, Amen,
that is, it is true. What your mouth expresses,
let your inner mind confess-feel what you say."T
It will be difficult to persuade any impartial
reader of St. Cyril of Jerusalem, that his very
emphatic language concerning the Eucharist
loses all its meaning, because he employs occasionally comparisons which are not in all respects
adequate.  He asks most solemnly: " Since,
then, Christ Himself declares and says of the.bread,'This is My Body,' who will dare hence* L. de his qui rmysteriis initiantur, c. ix.
t De Mysteriis, ix. 50.      Ib. 54.
7*




78         TRANSUBSTANTIATION.
forward doubt? and since he affirms and says,' This is My Blood,' who shall ever doubt, and
say that it is not His blood? At Cana, of Galilee, he once changed water into wine, which
resembles blood, and shall we think him unworthy of belief, when He changes wine into
blood?"*  The term  airv-ruov, used by him, as
also in the liturgies, properly denotes that which
corresponds to the type, the reality of which the
type was the  shadow. It is used, however, for
the sacramental species, or sensible elements, by
St. Cyril, who nevertheless expresses the mystery in the most unequivocal way: "Do not
look to them as mere bread and wine, for they
are the Body and Blood of Christ, according to
the affirmation of our Lord."t
The second Council of Nice justly rejected the
language of the Iconoclasts, who called the Eucharist the image of his vivifying Body, although
even these did not mean to deny the real presence. As the term was equivocal, it was prudently set aside. Their reasoning on it is conclusive in the circumstances, although it cannot
determine the force of some terms used by
ancient writers, whose meaning is to be gathered
from the context. It is unnecessary to explain
the passages objected from St. Isidore, who
wrote in the same spirit of faith. The disputes
* Cat. xxii.
t Ibidem. See La PerpBtuit6 de la Foi, vol. iv. 1. i. ch. iv.
Also Wilberforce on the Eucharist, ch. viii. s. 1.




TRANSUB STANTIATION.           79
between Paschasius and his adversaries regarded
rather the language than the substance of the
mystery. Berenger, in the eleventh century,
was the first who boldly questioned the doctrine.
His errors, which excited general opposition,
were abjured by himself, by order of various
councils and popes. There is reason to hope
that he died in the communion of the Church.
Because St. Cyprian explains the mystic signification of the mixing of water with wine in the
chalice, the water serving to represent the people, the wine representing the Blood of Christ,
and explains the grains of wheat, of which the
bread is formed, as signifying the union of all
the faithful, you conclude that he must have
been a stranger to the doctrine of Transubstantiation. If you examine the passages more attentively, you will easily discover your mistake.
He insists on the mingling of water with wine,
in conformity with the tradition which had come
down from  the Apostles, certifying that our
Lord had tempered the sacramental wine with
water; and he took occasion to show, that as
waters in the Scripture sometimes represent the
people, and wine is employed in the mystery of
Christ's Blood, the union was full of signification. In like manner he dwelt on the perfect
union of the members of Christ, of which the
grains of wheat, formed into bread for sacramental uses, are apt symbols. All this is instructive, but does not regard the nature-of the




80        TRANSUBSTANTIATION.
sacrament itself. When Cyprian speaks of
apostates who approach communion, without
having performed suitable penance, in order to
manifest his horror for their crime, he says:
"they seize on the Body of the Lord," —"violence is offered by them to His Body and Blood."*
Whoever will read the entire work "On the
Fallen," will be satisfied that he not only believed the real presence of the Body and Blood
of Christ in the sacrament, but bore testimony
to several miracles, by which unworthy communicants were divinely punished.
The language of St. Jerom, which you object,
admits the like explanations. He spoke of wine
as having been a type of the Blood of Christ,
and as being a suitable element to be employed
in the mysteries. He considered Melchisedech,
in his offering of bread and wine, as foreshadowing the reality of the Body and Blood of Christ,
to be presented in the new dispensation. He
said that our Lord transfigured His Body into
bread, taking its appearance, as it was an apt
symbol of the Church, and forming His Blood
in the cup, mixed with wine and water, which
were changed into it by His power. When he
is speaking professedly of the sacrament, he
uses language that leaves no room for doubt.
"WE ALL ALIKE RECEIVE THE BODY OF CHRIST."t
Again, speaking of bishops, he writes:'"God
* L. de lapsis.      t L. ii. contra Iovinian.




TRANSUBSTANTIATION.             81
forbid that I should say anything disrespectful
of those who succeed to the rank of the Apostles, and consecrate the Body of Christ with
their own mouth."*  He says, "that deacons
ought not to rank with priests, by whose prayers
the Body and Blood of Christ are consecrated."t
You ask, Right Reverend Sir, "How does the
literal meaning of our Lord's words:'This is
My Blood, which is shed for you,' agree with
the unquestionable fact that His blood was not
actually shed for them until the following evening?"  By recalling to your recollection the Hebrew manner of using the tenses, you will easily
understand that what was soon to take place, is
expressed by the present participle: the evangelists having retained their Hebrew style in
writing in Greek. Ience the old Latin interpreter translates it in the future. It may also
be understood, with great propriety and strictness, of the mystical immolation then made under the sacramental veils, our Lord anticipating
the bloody offering of the cross, by presenting Himself as victim in the sacrifice which He
instituted. Bishop Wilson takes it in this sense,
which is also literal: "He then, at that instant,
gave His Body and Blood a sacrifice for the sins
of the world."t The figure by which the vessel
is taken for its contents is so familiar that every
one understands it, without any special notice
* Ep. i. ad Heliodorum.  t Ep. ci. ad Evangel.
t Holy Bible, with Notes, quoted in Tract No. 81.




82        TRANSUBSTANTIATION.
being given. It does not warrant the supposition that the whole sentence is figurative. The
different terms used by the sacred writers in
recording it, explain one another. The breaking of bread for distribution was equivalent to
the giving of it, and as our Lord gave His Body
to the Apostles under the appearance of bread,
and broke and gave the sacramental elements,
both terms are used by the inspired writers, not
figuratively but literally. As Archdeacon Wilberforce justly observes: "It is difficult to understand how the Holy Eucharist can depend
upon the principle of representations, because
why should bread and wine represent our Lord's
Body and Blood, except there were some real
connection between them? The elements have
no natural likeness to flesh and blood, nor, unless
the sacramental principle be admitted, have they
any special fitness to represent such objects."*
Your great array of scriptural passages in which
the verb substantive is equivalent to signify, or
represent, was unnecessary, because all must
admit that in parables, similitudes, allegories,
or other like forms of speech, where resemblance
or representation is avowedly treated of, the
verb substantive has such force, being a convenient and short way of expression, which in
the circumstances implies no ambiguity. This,
however, does not warrant us in giving it such
a meaning, when a solemn covenant is in ques* Wilberforce, on the Eucharist, ch. v.




TR, ANSUBSTANTIATION.           83
tion. Our Lord was not then engaged in proposing a parable. Ie was instituting, as we
believe, a sacrament and sacrifice. He was near
the consummation of His earthly career. He
addressed His confidential friends, His disciples,
to whom He was wont to speak plainly. He
was doing an act which was to continue to be
performed in His name to the end of time. It
was most important that its nature should be
well understood. In these circumstances He
was likely to speak plainly and distinctly. Foreknowing that His words would be taken by the
vast majority of His followers in their literal and
obvious meaning, He surely would have taken
care to prevent an error, which, according to
you, has resulted in the most degrading idolatry.
Four inspired writers have recorded His words,
without any variation, as regards those used in
consecrating the bread: "This is My Body."
Being the only instance, as one of the Tract
writers remarks, in which the words of our Lord
are recorded exactly the same by four inspired
writers, it implies that they are in a high degree
mysterious.
We do not set aside the testimony of the
senses as to all natural objects, for which they
were given us by our Creator, when we hold
that God requires us to form our judgment of a
revealed mystery on His testimony declared by
His Church, without regard to the impressions
made on them. Divine mysteries rest solely on




84         TRANSUBSTANTIATION.
His ievelation. Miracles wrought in confirmation of revealed truth fall under the senses; but
the sacramental change is not a miracle in this
sense. It is, indeed, a secret operation of Divine
Power, directed to convey to men a heavenly
gift, and to present to God the victim of Calvary.
In regard to the apparitions to the patriarchs
you observe: "Their senses were not misled.
They saw  what was presented to their eyes,
correctly.  They heard what was presented to
their ears correctly. There was no error in the
senses. But whether the being who addressed
them was the Deity, or an angel, or a man, was
not a question for the senses to determine."*  Was
then a real body present? If impressions were
made on the senses, without a real object before
them, such as the senses reported, then were
the patriarchs deceived, until from some other
source they learned their error. In the Eucharist the species remain, and make corresponding impressions on the senses; whether the
substance be there, or no, is not a question for
the senses to  determine.  They  only  report
impressions, which ordinarily warrant the judgment that the natural substance is present. In
case of a divine act by which the substance is
changed without a change of the appearances,
the senses are not at fault, but the observer is
mistaken in his judgment, which should not be
formed from  the impressions, but should rest
* Vol. ii. p. 177.




TRANSUBSTANTIATION.            85
on the word of God. Your observation, then,
is applicable to the Eucharist; for if the patriarchs seeing, hearing, touching their guests,
were deceived in regarding them as men, it is
evident that in supernatural and mysterious
works the senses must not be wholly and absolutely relied on. Hence St. Cyril of Jerusalem
thus addressed  the faithful: "Contemplate
therefore the bread and wine not as bare elements, for they are, according to the Lord's declaration, the Body and Blood of Christ; for
though sense suggest this to thee, let faith
stablish thee. Judge not the matter from taste,
but from faith be fully assured, without misgiving, that thou hast been vouchsafed the Body
and Blood of Christ."  "Be fully persuaded,
that what seems bread is not bread, though
bread by taste, but the Body of Christ; and that
what seems wine is not wine, though the taste
will have it so, but the Blood of Christ."*
You insist that Dr. Milner forces Hooker and
other divines of the English Church to bear
testimony to the real presence against their will.
It is certain that most of your divines qualify
their admissions of truth so as to destroy them,
or contradict themselves. You know, however,
that the Tractarians collected many passages,
which they considered fragments of the Catholic
doctrines which remained here and there in the
* Oxford Transl. p. 272.
8




86        TRANSUBSTANTIATION.
writings of former divines of the Establishment, especially in regard to the Eucharist.
Bishop Andrews replied to Bellarmine: " Christ
said:'This is my Body;' in this, the object, we
are agreed with you, the manner only is controverted. We hold by a firm belief that it is the
Body of Christ."  "It is inquired," says Bishop
Taylor, "whether when we say we believe
Christ's Body to be really in the sacrament, we
mean that Body, that Flesh that was born of the
Virgin Mary, that was crucified, dead, and
buried. I answer that I know none else that he
had or hath; there is but one Body of Christ,
natural and glorified; but he that says that Body
is glorified which was crucified, says it is the
same Body, but not after the same manner, and
so it is in the sacrament, we eat and drink the
Body and Blood of Christ, that was broken and
poured forth; for there is no other Body, no
other Blood of Christ; but though it is the same
which we eat and drink, yet it is in another
manner."*  Dr, Pusey, you recollect, startled
many by his bold assertion of the Real Presence,
and Archdeacon Wilberforce, whilst still in the
communion of the English Church, maintained
Transubstantiation.  Archdeacon Dennison is
now arraigned for the same obnoxious tenet, or
something approaching it. Yet I freely grant
that most of your writers who have spoken in
this way, have had little conception of our doc* The Real Presence of Christ, sec. i. ii.




TRANSUBSTANTIATION.             87
trine, and have vacillated in its belief, if not
manifestly involved themselves in contradiction.
It is a mystery which few can grasp firmly, even
in the apprehension of the mind, unless those
whom  God vouchsafes to  draw within His
Church. Others occasionally feel the force of
the words of Christ, and profess their belief in a
Real Presence; but how it is they know not,
and seldom care to inquire. The reason is that
which S. Augustin assigned for the vague replies of a catechumen when questioned as to
this mystery itself: "Jesus has not intrusted
Himself to him."*
* Tract. xi. in Joan.




LETTER VII.
O1  the  actrritc,
RIGIT REVEREND SIR:
Y OU very unnecessarily brand Dr. Milner's
definition of sacrifice as Deistical, because
it includes no mention of Christ. From  the
statement of St. Paul, that Abel by faith offered
to God a more acceptable sacrifice than that of
Cain, you infer that his reference of the victim
to a future Redeemer constituted the chief value
of his offering. It is not quite clear to me that
the term faith as there employed, imports this
distinct recognition. But, at all events, tkis regards the disposition which rendered the sacrifice more acceptable, and does not properly
enter into the definition. Your attempt to extend the term to acts of praise, prayer, compunction, beneficence, is apparently justified by many
scriptural texts, which, however, do not treat of
sacrifice strictly so called.  The prophecy of
Malachi has indeed reference to true sacrifice,
although the text means rather the offering of
incense, an accompaniment of sacrifice, and an
oblation of a minor class, such as flour and oil




ON THE SACRIFICE.            89
with incense.  You confidently appeal to the
fathers for its right interpretation, and I cheerfully accept the proposition, being willing to
abide by their testimony when they profess to
give the literal and strict exposition of the
passage.
You begin with Tertullian. Allow me to go
still farther back, to St. Justin, the Martyr, who
in his dialogue with Tryphon, a Jew, thus descants on the text in question: "Malachi, even
at that time speaking of the sacrifices of us
gentiles, which are offered in every place, that
is, the bread of the Eucharist, and in like manner
the wine of the Eucharist, foretold that we
indeed should glorify His name, which you prbfane."  He does not here unfold the mystery,
but he fixes the literal sense of the prophecy, as
regarding the Eucharistic oblation. St. Irenaeus
gives the like explanation. "Christ took in his
hands the bread, which is created, and gave
thanks saying:'This is My Body.' And in
like manner He avowed to be His Blood the
chalice, which is of that created substance which
is with us, and He taught a new offering of the
New Covenant, which the Church receiving
from the Apostles, offers to God throughout the
whole world, to Him who gives us nourishment,
the first fruits of His gifts in the New Testament,
of which Malachi, one of the twelve prophets,
thus foretold."  He then recites the entire pas8*




90          ON THE SACRIFICE.
sage, and adds:  By these words he more manifestly intimates that the ancient people indeed
ceased to offer to God, and that in every place
sacrifice is offered to God, and this a pure one,
and His name is glorified among the nations."*
This ancient father distinctly explains the prophecy of the Eucharistic sacrifice.
With these two interpreters of highest antiquity on my side, I can afford to give you the
benefit of the exposition of Tertullian, who understands contrition, praise, prayer, to be the
sacrifices everywhere offered.  Yet it would be
unjust to him to suppose, that in presenting
these views to Jews, or to a wild sectary, like
Marcion, he necessarily excluded the obvious
interpretation given by those fathers who preceded him. He elsewhere says: " We sacrifice
for the welfare of the Emperor."t
St. Augustin adheres to the literal exposition,
and connects it with the celebrated passages of
Genesis and the Psalms, regarding the priesthood of Melchisedech: " Since they see that this
sacrifice is offered everywhere from the rising
to the setting of the sun, by priests according to
the order of Melchisedech, they can no longer
deny that the sacrifices of the Jews, of whom it
is said:'I have no pleasure in you,' have
ceased."t This unequivocal language gives us
the key to those passages in which he treats of
*L. iv. de haer. c. xxxii.  t L. ad Scapulam, c. ii.
$ L. xviii. de civ. Dei. c. xxxv.




ON THE SACRIFICE.             91
spiritual offerings, acts of self-denial, and of consecration to God. The edifying address to the
new communicants, which you have given to
your readers, was intended to excite them to
offer themselves in sacrifice, by the exercises of
a holy life, and on that account he insists on their
becoming what they had received, by offering
themselves victims to the Divine glory. There
is nothing in it which does not harmonize with
the mystery. In the same spirit is to be understood his definition of sacrifice in his book on
the City of God. When he says, elsewhere, that
in "the oblation and participation of the Body
and Blood of Christ, Christians celebrate the
memorial of His finished sacrifice,"* he speaks
of the sacrifice of the altar, which is at once the
memorial and application of that complete atonement offered on the cross. Speaking of the
Jews, he says: "The passover, which they still
celebrate by the offering of a sheep, is different
from ours, which we take in the Body and Blood
of the Lord."t
Mede, quoted by the Tractarians, remarks on
the prophecy of Malachi: "This place of Scripture, however now in a manner silenced and forgotten, was once, and that in the oldest and purest
time of the Church, a text of eminent note, and
familiarly known to every Christian, being al* T. viii. p. 245, F., cited by Hopkins, vol. ii. p. 220.
t Contra lit. Petilian, 1. ii. N. 87.




92           ON THE SACRIFICE.
leged by their pastors and teachers, as an express
and undoubted prophecy of the Christian sacrifice, or solemn worship in the Eucharist, taught
by our Blessed Saviour unto His disciples, to be
observed of all that should believe in His name;
and this so generally and grantedly, as could
never have been, at least so early, unless they
had learned thus to apply it by tradition from
the Apostles." Overall, with whose words they
also furnish me, says in reference to this prediction, and that of the Psalmist concerning
Melchisedech: "both which the ancient fathers,
with one consent, understood of the sacrifice of
the Eucharist, and the priests of the Gospel."*
Hickes observes: " The ancients always spoke of
the Eucharist as the sacrifice of oblation of the
Gentiles, in opposition to those of the Jews,
when they argued against them  from the prophecy of Malachi."t
Dr. Milner remarks, that "the Church of
England has priests but no sacrifice, altars but
no victim, an essential consecration of the sacramental elements, without even the least effect
upon the elements." This you attempt to disprove; by a learned disquisition on the classical
and scriptural Greek terms, iepsvu and rpffritUTpo;,
but the shortest and most effectual way to destroy the alleged inconsistencies, is to avow that
you  have neither priest nor altar.  Hence,
* Tract N. 81.           t Tracts, p. 258.




ON THE SACRIFICE.               93
Bishop White, of Philadelphia, was opposed to
the use of these terms: "It has been acknowledged," he says, "that the here supposed error
concerning'sacrifice,''altar,' and'priest,' arose
at an early period of the history of the Christian
Church."*  Archbishop Whately is notorious
for the same opposition.t
When you call our doctrine "blasphemous
presumption," you remind me of those of whom
the Scripture speaks, "who blaspheme whatsoever things they know  not."   The consequences which you allege, do not flow from our
belief.  The priests are but the agents and
ministers of Christ, doing what He commanded,
and with trembling awe ministering in His
presence.
It is easy to show that a true priesthood,
with a real sacrifice, no other than the Body
and Blood of Christ, was always recognized in
the Christian Church, as it is still recognized by
all the Oriental sects, as well as by Catholics.
Archdeacon Wilberforce, in his learned work on
the Eucharist, written before his submission to
the Holy See, observes that "it may be asserted
without fear of contradiction, that no doctrine
of the Christian religion is affirmed with more
unanimity by all ancient writers, than the truth
* Dissertation viii. of the Eucharist, by William White, p. 402.
t See the Priesthood in the Church, by William R. Whittingham, Bishop of Maryland, p. 5.




94          ON THE SACRIFICE.
of the Eucharistic sacrifice."*  This he proves by
passages from St. Clement, St. Ignatius, Justin
Martyr, St. Irenaeus, St. Cyprian, St. Augustin,
and by the ancient Liturgies. "The judgment
of the Church to the time of the Council of
Chalcedon, may be expressed in the following
assertions:  " First,-The thing offered in the
Holy Eucharist, is affirmed in express terms to be
the Body of Christ." "Secondly,-The sacrifice
offered in the Holy Eucharist is affirmed not to
be anything superadded to that on the Cross, nor
yet a repetition of it."  "Thirdly,-The victim
offered in the Holy Eucharist, was said to be
identicalwith Him who offered it." "Fourthly,It was the habitual custom of ancient writers to
speak of the sacrifice of the Holy Eucharist as
awful, august, and terrible."  "Fifthly,-They
speak of the sacrifice of the Holy Eucharist, as
truly efficacious for the obtaining of all those
things which are the subject-matter of prayer
and of intercession." " Sixthly,-The sacrifice of
the Holy Eucharist is declared to have been that
which the Jewish ordinances were intended to
typify."  "Seventhly,-But the sacrifice of the
Holy Eucharist is said to differ from those of the
law, in that the latter were only a shadow, while
the former is a reality." "Eighthly,-To offerthe
sacrifice of the Holy Eucharist, is declared to be
an especial office, committed to the Apostles and
their successors."t  I shall not trouble you,
* The Holy Eucharist, ch. xi. p. 318.  t Ibidem.




ON THE SACRIFICE.            95
Right Reverend Sir, with the detailed proofs of
each assertion furnished by the illustrious author;
but if you will condescend to read them, I have
some hope that you will repent having branded
our doctrine with the characters of presumption
and blasphemy.
The loss of the Christian priesthood is the
greatest calamity which has befallen the Church
of England. In separating from the communion
of the chief Bishop, the proud prince who
swayed her destinies, fancied that he would preserve the hierarchy with its worship; but the
penalty of revolt soon overtook the children of
disobedience; and when the bold Elizabeth undertook to reconstruct the Church, she found
herself obliged to supply by royal edicts and
acts of Parliament, deficiencies in those who
were to be the fathers of the new prelacy. I am
quite willing-that you should treat as fabulous
the story of the Nag's head ordination, and that
you should assume as proved the ordination of
Barlow; but the total inattention to the sacrificial character of the priesthood, and to the Divine
powers of the episcopate, in the forms adopted
under Edward, and followed in the ordination
of Matthew Parker, and of all English bishops
and presbyters for more than a hundred years,
convinces me that all real priestly character has
vanished from your communion. Indeed, it is
scarcely claimed. Bishop Whittingham, in his
two sermons on the Priesthood, although stick



96             ON THE  SACRIFICE.
ling for the term, studiously avoids attributing
to it the distinctive office of presenting a real
sacrifice.   You  manifestly  discard  the idea.
" Yet what a mockery," cries Archdeacon Wilberforce, "is a priestly commission which  confers no  powers, and  a form  of consecration
whereby nothing is made holy?"*   Thus you
are destitute of all that antiquity judged essential to the Christian ministry. Very properly
you have laid aside the vestments which were
employed in the act of sacrifice, and although
some would fain place your communion  table
where the altar once stood, yet the instincts of
Protestantism prevent any general innovation of
this kind, which might give a coloring of reality
to that which is by your own avowal but the
shadow: magni nominis umbra.
As you take occasion to rail at the practice
of receiving a very small offering on occasion
of celebrating Mass, I must remind you that it
is a remnant of the ancient usage of making oblations of wine, flour, and other provisions at
the time of the sacrifice. It is presented as a
contribution towards the support of the priest,t
* Ibidem, p. 75.
t It was not thought unworthy of recording among the acts of
piety that marked the childhood of St. Peter Damiani, that he
made an offering of a small coin which came into his possession,
to have Mass celebrated according to his intention. The act is
an alms on the part of the donor, with the additional merit of
being consecrated to the maintenance of Divine worship. It is
not given as a price, or consideration.




ON THE SACRIFICE.            97
on the principle of God's own ordinance, that
"they who serve the altar should partake with
the altar."  You make a gross misstatement
when you assert of our clergy: "They never
perform those masses without the payment in
money of a stipulated sum."  Thousands of
Masses are celebrated without any offering whatever being made. All bargaining is strictly forbidden. The Church, in allowing us to receive
the free contributions of the faithful, for our necessary support, has cautiously guarded against
abuses by strict enactments, charging her ministers, as they have gratuitously received, to give
also gratuitously.
9




LETTER  VIII.
(e 60nuniun zu1er Oue AlO.h
RIGHT REVEREND SIR:
W HILST you deny the real Presence of the
Body and Blood of our Lord in the
Eucharist, and the true sacrifice of our altars, I
cannot hope to convince you of the reasonableness of our discipline in administering it under
one kind. This custom was introduced, indeed,
by force of circumstances, not by any positive
enactment; but it has been maintained especially with a view to oppose the grievous error
which regards the sacrament as mere bread and
wine. The Church believing the Body and
Blood of Christ to be truly present, and inseparably united, holds that both are received, even
when one kind only is taken. Although the
custom of communicating under both kinds still
continues among the Greeks, theybelieve with us
that the Body and Blood of Christ are contained
under each form, and even under each separate
particle. In the Council of Jerusalem, A. D.,
1672, they declared: " We believe that in every
portion, even to the minutest subdivision, of the




ON COMMUNION UNDER ONE KIND.  99
bread and wine after they have been changed,
are contained not any separate part of the Body
and Blood of the Lord, but the Body of Christ
is always whole and one in all its parts; and the
Lord Jesus is present in His substance, that is,
with His Soul and Divinity, as perfect God and
perfect man."*  Why we should adhere to this
usage of communion under one kind in apparent opposition to the original institution, perplexes the superficial observer; but Providence
has so directed that in this respect, as well as in
regard to baptism, we may not appeal to the
mere letter of Scripture against the teaching
and practice of those to whom Christ committed
the dispensation of the sacraments. Were each
one to judge of the mode of baptizing by the
scriptural statement of the baptism which our
Lord received, or of the manner of giving the
Eucharist by the transactions of the supperroom, we should change the place and mode of
baptism, and the time and all the circumstances
of the Eucharistic celebration. To be consistent,
you should in all matters which regard the administration of both sacraments defer to the
authority of the Church.
Our Lord in the Eucharist has given us a
sacrifice, as well as sacrament, and as the former
implies the immolation of a victim, the separate
* Quoted by Wilberforce on the Eucharist, ch. iii. ~ iii. This
is translated from the Russ version. Neal's Introd. p. 1155. The
Greek is in Harduin, xi. p. 254.




100 ON COMMUNION UNDER ONE KIND.
consecration of the bread and wine is directed to
present the Body and Blood separately, as they
were offered on the cross, the Body being
stretched upon it, while the Blood streamed
from the veins. In this consists the mystical
sacrifice of our altars; for which reason the
reception of both kinds is regarded as appertaining to its consummation, and is enjoined on
the celebrant.  The communicants are made
partakers of both the Body and the Blood under
either kind, because the Blood is not now actually separated from the Body, and therefore they
enjoy the full benefit of the sacrament. They
are under no necessity of receiving both, because
it does not devolve on them to consummate tle
sacrifice.  For many ages it was generally
allowed to receive both; but liberty was given
to receive either alone, when a just cause existed, as in times of persecution, and in sickness.
The occurrence of serious accidents, whilst the
sacred cup was handed from lip to lip, was one
of the chief occasions of introducing the custom
of receiving under the species of bread only.
No divine command can be shown to receive
both, since the words, "Drink ye all of this,"
were addressed to the Apostles, and by them
fulfilled at the moment: " and they all drank of
it."  There is an obvious reason, why they
should receive both on that solemn occasion,
when they were associated to the priesthood of




ON COMMUNION UNDER ONE KIND. 101
Christ, to be ever afterwards His agents in the
act of sacrifice.
You admit that the English Parliament, as
well as Calvin, allow the partaking of the bread
without the wine, in cases of necessity; but you
deny that this implies anything favorable to our
discipline.  Yet is it not evidence that the
Church of England does not regard both elements as absolutely essential?
The manner of administering the sacraments
appertains to discipline, and is consequently
subject to the discretionary power of the Church,
which regulates it according to circumstances,
in various places, or at various periods. The
Eucharist was given under both elements, for
nearly twelve centuries, which is still the practice of the Eastern churches. Throughout the
West, it is given only under the species of
bread, which usage was gradually introduced
from a variety of causes, some of which have
been specified above, and for about six hundred
years it has been fully established.
St. Leo complained of the Manicheans, who
abstained from the sacred cup, regarding wine
as a production of the evil principle. They also
disbelieved the reality of the sufferings of Christ,
and were therefore opposed to the receiving of
the Blood, which the faithful believed to be
given in the mystery. In order to discover and
separate them from the faithful, Pope Gelasius
ordered that all should receive under both kinds.
9*




102  ON COMMUNION UNDER ONE KIND.
You remark, that the established rule was to
give both the species to the laity. Of this there
is no dispute; but it was left free to receive
under both, until the errors of these secret heretics rendered it advisable to enforce their reception.  When that cause ceased to exist, it was
again left optional, and the custom of receiving
only in one kind at length prevailed. Archdeacon Wilberforce observes, that "both kinds
were held to communicate one gift, which was
supposed to be imparted perfectlythrough every
portion of either element." In proof, he quotes
St. Cyril, of Alexandria: " For as St. Paul says,'A little leaven leaveneth the whole lump,' so
the very smallest portion of the Eucharist transfuses our whole body into itself, and fills us with
its own energy, and thus Christ comes to exist
in us, and we in him."* He also states the custom
of bishops sending the Eucharist one to another,
and of deacons carrying it to the sick, of hermits
keeping it in their cells, and of the faithful
generally having it in times of persecution, in
all which circumstances one kind only was generally received.t  "The mention of bread only,
when the holy Eucharist was received in private
houses, leads to the conclusion that it was partaken in that kind alone. The story of Serapion,
as related by Eusebius, shows that this was sup* In Joan, vi. 57, vol. iv. p. 365.
t Wilberforce on the Eucharist, oh. iii. s. 111.




ON COMMUNION UNDER ONE KIND. 103
posed sufficient in the case of the sick, and from
a circumstance recorded by St. Cyprian, we learn
that infants were communicated under the other
kind only."*
Your proof, from the Council of Chalcedon,
is superfluous, as regards the acknowledged
usage. Your commentary is remarkable. The
text says, "That those to whom they gave the
sacred Body, made signs and went out, because
the Blood was wanting;" you add: " This clearly
shows that the people not only received the
wine, but expectea to be supplied well and liberally. t
The practice reproved by the Council of
Braga (Bracara), is still found among the Greeks,
who, on some occasions, dip the host in the
chalice, and give it thence to the communicant.
The Council of Clermont, in the canon given by
you, plainly held the mystery as we hold it, to
be the Body and Blood of Christ, and allowed
communion under one kind in cases of necessity, or when caution recommended it. The
Bishop of Salisbury, in his constitution, which
you recite, alludes to the general usage, and
bears testimony to the truth of Christ's Body
and Blood. The precautions against accidents
and the painful prescriptions to remedy them,
show that the faith of those times was identical
with our own.
* Wilberforce on the Eucharist, p. 72.   t Vol. ii. p. 187.




LETTER  IX.
RIGHT REVEREND SIR:
OF the established Church of England and the
Catholic Church you say: " Both churches
agree in the necessity of the repentance of sin,
confession of sin, and absolution from sin, without
which (the case of infants alone excepted) there
can be no salvation."  I did not before imagine
that we harmonized so far: but why any mention
should be made of infants, where actual sin is in
question, I am at a loss to understand.
You deny our right to change the scriptural
term " repentance" into "penance." The New
Testament was written in Greek; neither term
occurs in the original text. You think that the
Greek should be rendered "repentance."  By
closer observation, you will find that " penance"
is the English modification of the Latin poenitentia, and that "agere pcenitentiam" is an elegant
as well as correct translation of i-eravoctv. But it
is useless to detain our readers with a verbal criticism, since usage determines the force of words.
When the ancient Latin translation was made,




ON PENANCE.              105
there could be no motive for misrepresenting the
text, as the present controversies had no existence. The Rhemish translators scrupulously adhered to the Latin.
You are mistaken in stating that all the circumstances of sin must be confessed. No circumstance need be stated that does not aggravate
the guilt of the sinner; nay, divines more
generally hold, that such circumstances only as
change the character of the sin need be specified.
We take great care to guard penitents against
entering into any unnecessary details, particularly such as might point to individuals, and prejudice character. In stating that " all are forced
to come before a private tribunal of compulsory
judgment," you may lead some to suppose that
other means are employed besides an appeal to
conscience, under a threat of forfeiting the communion of the Church, which penalty is rarely
inflicted. In designating it private, you may be
thought to insinuate that the place of receiving
confessions is such, especially as your book
abounds with the basest insinuations; but the
Ritual directs that confessionals be erected in
the public church. The circumstances of a missionary country led in the beginning to the practice of hearing confessions in rooms, in which
the sacrifice itself was also offered, or which immediately adjoined the church; but measures
have been adopted by the councils to enforce
conformity to the general discipline. You insist




106            ON PENANCE.
that " Rome demands secrecy, not only from the
priest, but also from the penitent; so that if the
priest should err, the people have no remedy."
In this you are mistaken. Secrecy is recommended, that the priest may not suffer for advice
conscientiously given for the guidance of his
penitent; but if he impose unreasonable burdens, or in any way misdirect, or aggrieve, full
liberty is enjoyed to have recourse to any other
confessor; and even independently of any grievance, the change of confessors is unrestricted.
In case of any attempt to abuse the ministry,
even in the most indirect way, the penitent is
bound to denounce him to his ecclesiastical superior.
You are mistaken in supposing that the Council of Trent declared that attrition is sufficient
to insure pardon in the sacrament of penance.
The term  designedly employed is " disponit,"
which means only that it is a disposition for
pardon, without determining its sufficiency.
You must, however, have a very erroneous idea
of the meaning which we attach to the word
" attrition." It implies ahatred and detestation
of sin, on account of its baseness, and of the
punishments which God justly inflicts on the sinner. It is not a mere slavish fear of punishment,
with a continued affection to sin, since such a
disposition could not serve for our justification.
Contrition springing from the love of God is
strongly recommended in the Ritual; which the




ON PENANCE               107
confessor accordingly endeavors to excite; but
whenever he is assured that the penitent is truly
sorry for having sinned, and determined to shun
it for the time to come, he may feel encouraged
to absolve him, as having the necessary disposition. Chillingworth, whose fame you are said
to rival, says: "Though He (God), like best the
bright flaming holocaust of love, yet He rejects
not, He quenches not the smoking flax of that
repentance, if it be true and effectual, which
proceeds from hope and fear."*
Of the casting oneself down at the feet of the
confessor, the Ritual says nothing. The expression is used in some prayer-books to mark the
humility with which the penitent should kneel
in the confessional, which Tertullian declared in
similar terms: "advolvi presbyteris."  It is
never done literally.
You carp at our form of absolution, because it
is absolute, not deprecatory, as in some ancient
rituals; but you should reflect that the same
form is still retained in the English Book of
Common Prayer, which, however, the American Episcopal Convention has abandoned. This
is one of the striking points of difference between you and the Church of England. She
prescribes absolution to be given before communion, to individuals whose consciences prompt
them to seek its benefit, and she directs the
* "The Religion of Protestants a sure Way to Salvation," ch. i.




108            ON PENANCE.
minister to exhort the dying to confess whatever burdens his conscience, and to absolve him.
To deny the power of forgiveness is, as Bishop
Pearson avows, the heresy of Novatian.* Yet
you only retain in the morning service a form
of supplication, or general declaration that those
who repent will be forgiven, not venturing to
exercise real power and authority to forgive sins
in the name of Christ, although in the form of
ordination it is implied. Such of your ministers
as think that they ought to exercise it, expose
themselves to be called to answer before their
Bishop and the Standing Committee, on suspicion of Popery, as I believe took place a few
years ago in Boston.
All you say about "forcing all to come up,
whether willing or unwilling, and bare their
inmost thoughts to ourinspection," is imaginary.
No one confesses except of his own free will,
and as far as he pleases. He is bound to confess his sins, but not mere temptations, to which
he has given no consent, or occasion; much less
such thoughts, views, or intentions, as involve
no moral guilt.
When St. Paul charged Timothy to rebuke
them that sin before all, he spoke of public and
scandalous delinquents, not of the frail penitent
who seeks a remedy for secret faults. In the
same spirit, the Council of Trent directs that
open delinquents should be publicly reproved;
* Exposition of the Creed, art. ix.




ON PENANCE.                109
but the humble and contrite need milder treatment. You rail against the Council of Lateran
as having dispensed virtually with the apostolic
rule of public discipline; yet its enactment enforcing the duty of confession implied no such
dispensation. It was directed to awaken sinners
to  repentance, and  effect their reformation,
which needs their own free return to duty.
The testimonies of the fathers are disposed of
by you very readily.  Tertullian advises the
sinner who shrinks from confession, to " think of
hell, whose fires confession extinguishes."* You
ask me; " How does this show whether the confession was to God, or to the priest; in public,
or in private; voluntary, or enforced?"t  He
certainly does not mean secret confession to
God, since he represents sinners as delaying it
through false shame and unwillingness to expose
their frailty. He might be supposed to urge
public confession, as he details many penitential exercises; but that private confession is
specially meant, appears from  the penitents
casting themselves at the feet of the priests,
doubtless to obtain reconciliation through their
ministry. You, however, have neither private
nor public confession, and you deny the necessity of either.
Tertullian, you observe, speaks of penitence as
only allowed once, which you rightly understand
of public penance; but you cannot mean to ex* L. de pcenit. c. ix.    t Vol. ii. p. 250.
10




110             ON PENANCE.
elude the penitent from divine mercy, whenever
he returns to God with all his heart, and in deep
affliction of soul. As public penance was enjoined chiefly for notorious and heinous crimes,
and as it was accompanied with much solemnity, it was proper that it should not be trifled
with by repetition. Secret sins had always a
remedy in private confession, which also embraced sins that were public; but as the discipline then established required public penance
for these, it was wisely prescribed that in case
of relapse, the delinquent should not again enter
on the penitential course, but be left to mourn
and repair his fall privately.
The acts of penance are noted by Tertullian
in his very graphic description. The penitent,
he says, "falls down before the priests, and
embraces the knees of those who are the beloved
of God," (according to another reading, kneels
at the altars of God), "enjoining on all the
brethren the commission to intercede in his
behalf."  The first clause is naturally referred
to sacramental confession; the second, if we
retain your reading, "charis Dei," may have
the same meaning; the last manifestly implies
entreaties addressed to the faithful by penitents,
asking their intercession with the Church for
their speedy restoration to communion, or with
God for their pardon.  Your inference that
" there was no secrecy, no private tribunal of
the priest alone," is not justified by the text.




ON PENANCE.                111
Origen advises the penitent to look round
diligently, and select a confessor, as he would a
physician.*  You infer thence, that he regarded
confession as a mere matter of expediency. This
consequence does not follow; since it is necessary in serious illness to have a physician,
although a choice is not denied us. You contrast the liberty which Origen allows with the
law of Lateran, which obliges each one to confess to his own parish priest. The law, however,
is not quite so stringent, since there is an
alternative, " or to another priest by his leave."
Besides, custom has so mitigated it, that it is
sufficient to confess to any approved priest. St.
Francis De Sales gives the same advice as Origen,
urging those who aspire to perfection, to pray
for a safe guide, and choose a confessor of known
piety and prudence. Eusebius, who belongs rather
to the fourth century than to the third, commends "confession not to men, but to God, who
searches the heart;"t but this does not exclude
sacramental confession, which has always been
regarded as made to God, not to man, who is
merely His minister. It is certain that public
confession was extolled and practised, and that
it also was considered as made to God, because
it proceeded front motives of religion.
St. Athanasius, whom  you quote, says that
"not to judge our neighbor gives pardon for all
* Horn. ii. in Ps. xxxvii.  t Comm. in Ps. p. 608.




112             ON PENANCE.
sins;"* but this means only that it disposes us
to obtain their pardon, our Lord having said,
"Judge not, and ye shall not be judged." Such
language does not preclude the necessity of
employing the means which God has appointed
for securing forgiveness. In like manner, when
he assigns to the sinner as a test for ascertaining
whether he has recovered the grace of God, the
familiarity in prayer, by which his soul communes with the Creator,t he is only pointing
to a token that may afibrd reasonable confidence
to the penitent. He is not treating of the mode
of reconciliation.
St. Basil, you observe, prescribes to his monks
confession as an exercise of religious discipline.
The terms are general and applicable to all,
although the duty is specially inculcated   to the
monks in the Rule: "it is necessary to confess
our sins to those who are intrusted with the dispensation of the mysteries of God."t  He uses
the comparison, which Tertullian and Origen
had already employed, of the physician, to
whom we should disclose our most secret maladies and infirmities.  In addressing the people
at large, he says: " IHave you committed a great
and grievous sin? You have need of much confession and bitter tears."~
* Op. t. ii. p. 366, qu. 76.     t Ib. qu. 77.
j In Reg. brev. resp. ad qu. 288.
~ Horn. in hec verba:  "Attende tibi ipsi."




ON PENANCE.              113
St. Ambrose is praised for his sympathy with
his penitents, since he wept over their transgressions, and disclosed them to no one but to
God. This, you observe, would be unnoticed,
if he were bound to entire secrecy, which we
hold to be a necessary duty of the confessor.
There is some justice in this remark; but may
not his biographer, St. Paulinus, refer to his
extreme caution never to speak, even in general
terms, of what came to his knowledge through
the confessional? The strictest divines admit
that it involves no breach of the sacramental
seal to speak in this way, when there is no
danger whatever of suspicion lighting on the
penitent; yet it is seldom that such a practice
is free from all objections, so that a confessor is
worthy of praise, who never in any way alludes
to any class of sins which have thus come to his
knowledge.
St. Augustin, you say, speaks of public penance, when he forbids the sinner to flatter himself that he can obtain Divine mercy by private
penance. Yet his words are such as might be
addressed to you, or any other Protestant who
relies on the sufficiency of confession to God
alone. "Let no one say to himself: I do penance secretly; I do it before God; God, who is
to pardon me, knows the sentiments of my
heart."  To this specious reasoning against the
necessity of applying for pardon to the ministers
10*




114            ON PENANCE.
of religion, St. Augustin replies: " Then it has
been said to no purpose,' What ye shall loose
on earth shall be loosed also in heaven.' Then
the keys have been given to the Church of God
in vain! We make void the Gospel; we make
void the words of Christ."* He distinctly states
the duty of private confession in the third passage, which you yourself quote. Speaking of
one who is conscious of deadly sins against the
Decalogue, he says: "Being bound, therefore,
by the chains of those deadly sins,.... let him
come to the prelates, by whom the keys of the
Church are applied, and let him  accept the
mode of his satisfaction, and as it were already
beginning to act as a devoted child, keeping
the order that should exist between the members of the same mother, let him learn from
those who preside over the administration of
the sacraments, the manner in which he must
satisfy, so that, being devout and suppliant in
offering the sacrifice of a sorrowful heart, he
may do what not only shall be profitable to his
own salvation, but shall also serve as an example for others. So that, if his sin be not
merely to his own grievous injury, but is likewise a cause of great scandal to others, and if
it shall seem expedient for the good of the
Church, in the judgment of the Bishop, let him
not refuse to do penance in the presence of
* Serm. cccxcii.




ON PENANCE.               115
many, or even of all the people; let him not
resist, nor through shame, add inflammation to
the mortal and deadly wound."*  The private
disclosure of sin to the prelate, was necessary to
determine whether its public acknowledgment
was necessary or proper.
The principle of conduct which Augustin
lays down in the other passage which you cite,
harmonizes perfectly with our rules: "We cannot prohibit any one from the communion (although this prohibition is not yet mortal, but
medicinal), unless he be accused and convicted,
either by his own voluntary confession, or by
some secular or ecclesiastical judgment."t Confession is left entirely to the conscience of the
individual.  All who present themselves for
communion are deemed worthy, unless some
flagrant crime show the contrary.
The daily medicine of prayer is available for
venial sins, as Augustin teaches. We ask forgiveness before communion, that we may be
purified from every slight stain, and rendered
worthy of the Divine Gift.  Confession of slight
sins is not required by the divine law, although
it is constantly practised.1
The practice of confession in the second century is attested by St. Irenaeus, who speaks of
women deluded by a sectary of the name of
* Serm. cccli. alias L. c. 4.   t Ibidem.
t Tom. v. Op. p. 68. Sermo de decem chordis. A.




116             ON PENANCE.
Mark, who, on their return to the faith, confessed that they had been seduced and corrupted
by him.*  It is also attested by the ancient
fathers generally; and it is invincibly established by the fact that the practice has come
down in the Church; since it never could have
been introduced after the days of the Apostles,
for nothing less than a divine command promulgated by them, could have established an
observance so difficult.
Fleury, your guide, states indeed that the first
instance he has met with of confession being enjoined, is in the constitutions of St. Chrodegang,
Bishop of Metz, in the year 763, who required
his priests to confess to him twice a year, at
stated periods, under penalty of flagellation, if
they failed, or if they withheld any grievous
fault. The terms and the penalty show that this
was a monastic regulation, for in that age, when
the manners of men were not as yet free from
traces of their barbarous ancestors, the fierce
Northmen, the whip was sometimes a necessary
aid in preserving discipline. At other times of
the year confession might be made by the members of that institute to a priest delegated by the
Superior. The regulations which St. Chrodegang made were presented by him as a mitigation of the stricter rule of ancient monasteries,
which required their inmates to disclose all their
inmost thoughts.' L. i. ad. haer. ix.




ON PENANCE.              117
The first general law requiring confession was
passed in the fourth Council of Lateran, whose
enactments you bring under notice very frequently. But the divine law was always recognized, which obliges all sinners to confess their
sins, that the power of loosing and binding may
be discreetly and effectually exercised in their
behalf. As in the apostolic age, the faithful
came confessing their deeds and parting with
the superstitious books which in their previous
ignorance they had used, so in every succeeding
age, they continued to practise confession, although no ecclesiastical enactment enforced that
duty. In the thirteenth century it was found
necessary to urge it under the severest penalty
that the Church can inflict; but as the duty
was acknowledged by all, nothing was said to
prove it.
"Dr. Milner," you say, "has the effrontery to
tell his readers that all this is in accordance with
the fathers." I leave the readers to say who has
effrontery.
A  certain penitential canon prescribed that
one who could not fast on bread and water should
sing fifty psalms on his knees in the church for
one day of fasting, and feed one poor man for
that day. The Council of Worms, in 1022,
commuted the obligation of singing psalms for
a hundred genuflexions, and allowed money to
be given instead of actually feeding the poor
man. You have put this in capitals, translating




118             ON PENANCE.
"se rac7leter par argent" by REDEEM THEMSELVES
FOR MONEY, which is rather an equivocal expression. I take leave to add the remarks of Fleury,
which you have omitted: " It is proper to observe
that this exemption from penance was only for
such as could not possibly perform it as prescribed, and that this impossibility was not
deemed a reason for an absolute dispensation,
but merely for a commutation, so that the sinner
might punish himself as far as in his power."*
The money was not given to redeem themselves,
but to be employed in the feeding of the poor,
and thus to secure exemption from the literal
compliance with the canon. I hope this does
not strike you as simoniacal.  The penitential
discipline of that age, either in its strict form or
as modified by dispensation, will scarcely gain
your approval.
You reject, apparently on the authority of
Fleury, the principle that one may satisfy for
another; but perhaps you misunderstand your
author, as well as the application of the principle.
The Church certainly may remit something of
her penitential discipline, in regard to the atonement or satisfaction offered by one of her children for a frail brother, when he seeks reconciliation with a contrite heart. On that principle,
those who had suffered persecution in the age of
St. Cyprian, pleaded effectually in behalf of
* Vol. xii. 1. lviii. an. 1022.




ON PENANCE.               119
apostates, who returned penitent to the Church.
God sent the friends of Job to seek his prayers,
promising to accept them in their behalf. Christ
had regard to the faith of those who brought the
palsied man to him.  St. Paul supplied in his
flesh for the body of the faithful what was wanting to secure to them the application of the sufferings of Christ. This vicarious expiation is,
of course, unavailing to the sinner who remains
obstinately attached to crime; but it is profitable
to the penitent, through the merits of our Redeemer.
Your diligence in tracing the decline of penitential discipline, and your apparent zeal for the
system of public penance, might lead some to
suppose that it was still preserved in your communion; whilst the truth is, that public and private penance is equally discarded; fasting and all
commutation for it are ignored; penance is rejected as an unscriptural term; and the sinner is
flattered with the belief that he can obtain pardon by his secret repentance, without recourse
to any ecclesiastical authority, the testimony
and practice of all antiquity to the contrary notwithstanding.
Your statistics in regard to the confessional
are amusingly erroneous. We hear confessions
not during one week only in the year, but every
day, and often for hours together.  The time
occupied with each penitent is generally very
short, for confession is not a circumstantial detail




120             ON PENANCE.
of events. The sinner, in a few brief words,
recounts his prevarications, avoiding all unnecessary specifications, and the priest, after brief
admonitions and injunctions, when satisfied of
his true sorrow, pronounces him absolved. This
may appear to you to afford no evidence of the
disposition of the sinner; but an experienced
physician soon discovers the disease and applies
the remedy. You suppose that we give more
time to converts, to enable them to appreciate
the consolations of the confessional. They are
treated like all others, according to the state of
their consciences. Every penitent, by his own
statements, determines the amount of time to
be employed, the inquiries to be made, the
advice to be given, the obligations to be imposed. It is impossible for you, sir, to appreciate this ministry; but thousands who daily
experience its advantages, can attest that by
it they have been reclaimed from  vice, and
strengthened and directed in the path of virtue.
It affords relief to the despondent sinner; it
encourages the timid, it guides the unwary. It
wipes away tears of bitterness, that might end
in despair; it dissolves enmities; it heals rankling wounds; it covers shame, that exposed
might lead to self-destruction; it saves from unperceived precipices; it breaks chains forged by
long habits of vice; it snatches from the plunderer his prey, and gives it back to the despoiled
owner; it disarms the conspirator, and throws a




ON PENANCE.              121
shield around the unprotected; it raises the
sinner from death to life. Those who know
human weakness, and all the mental anguish
that in some form or other, distresses almost
every individual of the human family, may conceive something of the advantages of an institution which inspires entire confidence, and
secures advice and consolation in the most
afflicting circumstances. The confessor does not
mock the sorrow of his penitent, or reproach him
with his misfortunes. He bids him hope, when
all around have abandoned him, and as soon as
he discovers that his compunction is deep and
effectual, he says to him, in the spirit of Him
who does not break the bruised reed, "Son, be
of good heart: thy sins are forgiven thee."
It may be impossible to restore the unhappy
offender to his place in society, even to the
affection of a fond parent, whose feelings have
been outraged; or to rescue him from the arm
of the law, which is outstretched to inflict its
severest penalty; but in the name of Him who
came into this world to save sinners, the priest
of God assures him of pardon and salvation.
11




LETTER X.
OR il Mvatorg.
RIGHT REVEREND SIR: 
\ LTHOUGH Dr. Milner distinctly stated that
Catholic faith does not determine the nature
of the punishment endured in Purgatory, still you
maintain it to be fire, and accuse him of equivocating, because he said that we are not bound to
believe it to be material fire. He was above all
such quibbles. You ascribe to us interested
motives for the maintenance of this doctrine:
"Masses for the dead are of far more pecuniary
value than Masses for the living."  Not so; the
same small offering is allowed for both, and is
often given to the first beggar that solicits our
charity.
You meet the first proof from the second book
of the Macchabees, by denying the canonical
authority of the book. It is enough for me to
remind you that Beveridge acknowledges that
these books were spoken of by St. Cyprian, and
before him by Origen, precisely in the same
manner as the books now  received by all:
"Since Cyprian cites those books among the




ON PURGATORY.               123
canonical in the same breath, in the same series,
without any distinction whatever, it is manifest
that the Catholic Church of that age was wont to
count them among the canonical books, especially
since Origen also adds r Ma. JaxxaIaea to the books
delivered by the Jewish Church to the Christian."* Further, you object that it proves too
much, since those slain " were cut offfor the crime
of idolatry, and died in mortal sin." It does not
appear that they worshipped the idols, but that
they seized on donaries of the idols, contrary to
the law, by which transgression they drew down
vengeance on themselves. It was of itself a
grievous sin; but Judas may have hoped that
some acted in ignorance, or repented in death,
and found mercy.  You conjecture that the
sacrifices were offered for the living, to reconcile
God to them. The text says directly the contrary, and adds that Judas thought "well and
religiously of the resurrection;" and infers "it
is therefore a holy and wholesome thought to
pray for the dead, that they may be loosed from
their sins."  The Greek says that he made
an expiation for those who had died repI Tr
re&-xotwv. t
I will not discuss with you the obscure passage of St. Paul, respecting those who were
baptized for the dead. If you can explain it
satisfactorily in a different way from Dr. Milner,
* Codex Can. Prim. Eccl. 1. 2, c. ix.  t 2 Mac. xii.




124           ON PURGATORY.
you will have accomplished what learned interpreters have often tried unsuccessfully.
You admit an intermediate state, without
caring to define its character, and you allow Dr.
Milner's application to it of two scriptural testimonies, Luke xvi. 22, 1 Peter iii. 9. His interpretation of the prison, from which there is
no liberation until the last farthing is paid
(Luke xii. 59), does not please you, because souls
in Purgatory can do nothing to satisfy Divine
justice; but their endurance is accepted, and the
prayers of the Church may avail them, so that
their debt maybe discharged.
The inference drawn from Matt. xii. 32, that
some sins may be forgiven hereafter, whilst the
sin against the Holy Ghost shall never be forgiven, appears to you to force heretical doctrine
on the Saviour Himself; inasmuch as no sin is
forgiven in Purgatory, but punishment is endured for sins already forgiven. By reading our
divines more attentively, you will perceive that
we hold that venial sins are forgiven in that state,
so that there is no foundation for your charge.
The various scriptural facts brought forward
by Dr. Milner, namely, the punishment of death
inflicted on our first parents, though penitent,
the punishment of the Israelites, and of David
after his sin was forgiven, were intended to
prove that God often visits with temporal chastisements, sinners whose guilt HIe has pardoned;
which point they fully establish. The fathers




ON PURGATORY.               125
whom you quote, Irenseus, Tertullian, and Ambrose, seem to affirm that all souls, even those
of the Saints, pass to the region in which the
departed spirits were before the coming of our
Saviour, and remain there to the Day of Judgment. Other passages, however, occur in their
writings, especially in those of St.'Ambrose,
which are more in harmony with general tradition, and the Divine Scriptures, and with that
doctrine which the Church has sealed with her
solemn definition. Whatever may have been
their individual sentiments, nothing said by them
clashes with the doctrine of a middle state, in
which souls are detained for slighter sins.
The observations of the Benedictine editors of
St. Ambrose, to which you refer, are restricted
by themselves to matters not then defined by
the Church.  They regard certain expressions
and views, which some fathers put forward concerning the state of just souls before the final
judgment, but which in other passages of their
writings they modified or corrected, by adhering
more closely to the general teaching of their
predecessors. This does not imply any uncertainty as to the intermediate state, which we
style Purgatory, since their language on this
subject is sufficiently definite, and the usage of
praying for the dead, which even Calvin admits
to be very ancient,* is an evidence of the tradition that there is a state of departed souls, to
* In Acta Ap. c. xv. 10.
11*




126           ON PURGATORY.
whom prayer may be beneficial. "Not without
good reason," says St. Chrysostom, "it was
ordained by the Apostles that mention should
be made of the dead in the tremendous mysteries,
because they knew  that these would receive
great benefit from it."* The sequel of this
passage, which you give, does not weaken its
force. Deceased catechumens were not included
in the solemn prayers of the liturgy, because
they had died without partaking of the communion of the Church; but as hope was cherished
that their desire and disposition were acceptable
to God, almsgiving was recommended, that it
might be profitable to them, through Divine
mercy, since good works, as well as prayer, may
be offered for the departed. St. Chrysostom
remarks that as we pray for the worst of living
men, so we may pray for the departed, whose
actual condition we know not.
The passages from the ancient Liturgies contain a commemoration of the Blessed Virgin
and Saints, intended to express our communion
with them, and that they have been saved by
the merits of Christ, our victim. The words
which follow remove all antiquity, since the
priest asks, "that we may be helped by their
intercessions." St. Augustin remarks, that "it is
an insult to a martyr to pray in his behalf, for
we ought rather to commend ourselves to his
prayers.t"
Horn. xxix. ad pop. Antioch. t Serm. xvii. de verbis Apostoli.




ON PURGATORY.               127
The testimony of Tertullian is admitted by
you as proving the general custom of praying for
the dead, since the pious widow "prays for the
soul of her husband, and begs refreshment for
him."  He declares " oblationes pro defunctis " to
be a stated part of "Christian worship," as
Archdeacon Wilberforce avows.*  Your explanation of the text of St. Cyprian, as marking
the difference between public penitents, and the
faithful who had not fallen in persecution, is
ingenious.  "It is one thing," says this father,
"to stand for pardon (ad veniam stare), another
to attain to glory; one thing to be sent to prison,
not to go thence till the last farthing is paid,
another to receive immediately the reward of
faith and virtue; one thing to suffer lengthened
torments for sin, and to be cleansed and purged
a long time by fire (emundari et purgari diu
igne), another to have cleansed away all sins by
suffering," namely, by martyrdom. You explain
standing as referring to the posture of penitents
" in the outward porch of the church;" to be sent
to prison, as meaning to be put on penance; to
remain there until the last farthing is paid, by
undergoing its full infliction; and to be cleansed
and purged a long time in the fire, as implying
long and severe penance. The passage which
immediately follows, entirely upsets this fanciful
interpretation: "It is one thing to be in suspense
* The Doctrine of the Holy Eucharist, p. 325.




128           ON PURGATORY.
as to the sentence of the Lord until the Day of
Judgment, another to be immediately crowned
by the Lord."* In this letter he maintains the
propriety of pardoning and admitting to communion in death, repentant apostates, and undertakes to solve the objection of those, who thought
that such indulgence would take away every incentive to fidelity and martyrdom. He observes
that the pardon given to repentant adulterers
did not cause the abandonment of holy virginity.
Then he proceeds to show, that the penitent is
not put on a level with the martyr in the Divine
judgment, since he is kept in a state of suspense
and suffering, whilst the martyr is immediately
crowned with glory. St. Cyprian intimates that
this state continues even to the last judgment.
His work, addressed to Demetrian, a heathen,
who by calumnies attacked Christianity, contains
nothing inconsistent with what has just been
stated. At its close, he tells him to be converted
in time to the true God, for that at the Day of
Judgment, repentance and entreaty will be fruitless. Whilst life lasts, penance is never too
late. Even in death, mercy is granted to him
who implores the only true God with faith, confessing Him, and asking pardon. In stating
that the convert from heathenism at the very
hour of death passes to immortality,t St. Cyprian
doubtless relied on the grace of baptism, which,
* Ep. lii. ad Antonian.  t L. ad Demetrian.




ON PURGATORY.               129
as we also hold, conveys entire pardon; for
"there is no longer any condemnation to those
who are in Christ Jesus."  This case is very
different from that of the penitent apostate,
whose state of suspense and suffering is elsewhere depicted.
In his book on those who had fallen, St.
Cyprian exhorts to repentance, confession, and
satisfaction, whilst life remains, as after death
there is no room for any exercise of salutary
compunction. Tiis perfectly accords with the
Catholic teaching.
St. Augustin prayed for the soul of his mother
Monica, conformably to her request, but you
think that his conduct was the result of his
feelings rather than of his theology, which, indeed, is contrary to his own express testimony.
However, you admit that traces of our doctrine
are found in his writings. He does not reject
the sentiment of those who understand the
Apostle (Cor. iii. 13), as intimating that imperfect souls suffer a certain punishment of fire until the day of the resurrection; because it is perhaps true; " That some of the faithful are saved
through a certain purgatorial fire, more slowly
or more speedily, according to their greater or
less love for perishable goods, may be either
found, or it may lie hidden." The doubt here
implied seems to regard the punishment of actual fire, rather than the fact of such souls being
in a state in which they need prayer for their




130           ON PURGATORY.
relief. "It is not to be doubted," he says, as
you yourself quote, " that the dead are aided by
the prayers of the Holy Church, by the salutary
sacrifice, and by alms-deeds offered for their souls,
that the Lord may deal with them more mercifully than they have deserved. For, this custom
delivered by the fathers, the whole Church observes, that for those who are deceased in the
communion of the Body and Blood of Christ,
when they are commemorated in their place at
that sacrament, prayer is mate, and for them
also the sacrament is offered."* If you compare
this passage with the decree of the Council of
Trent,t you will find that it was present to the
mind of the fathers. What St. Augustin adds,
that these things are profitable only to such as
have lived, or at least died in a manner to be
capable of deriving benefit from them, is a Catholic principle.
No'serious difficulty, as you imagine, was
raised in the Council of Florence in regard to
the nature of the punishments endured in Purgatory. At all events, we need not go beyond
the definition in which the Greeks and Latins
united. There is no evidence that this point
was an occasion of the subsequent relapse of the
Greeks, which regarded the procession from the
Holy Ghost, and their subjection to the Roman
See. The Tractarians observe: "They agreed
together, as the Council shows, or at least, with
* T. V. op. p. 576, Serm. clxxii. ~ 2.  tSess. xxv.




ON PURGATORY.             131
the slightest difference, on the question in which
we are concerned, while the subsequent resentment of the Greeks at home had little or no reference to it; and their agreement, under such
circumstances, was only the more remarkable."*
You have then, Right Reverend Sir, the consent of the Greeks with the Catholic Church on
the existence of an intermediate state, in which
the departed benefit by the prayers of the living.
The perpetual custom of offering prayer for them
is a practical display of the faith which we cherish that they have slept in Christ, and are finally
to repose with Him in glory. This usage, taken
together with the public preaching of the Church,
serves to shed light on certain passages of Scripture, which might otherwise be deemed not sufficiently explicit. You admit, and strive to
explain away the usage, by making it common to
all the departed, even to the greatest saints, but
it is plainly directed to obtain refreshment and
repose for the imperfect only.
The anecdote which you give us of our countryman, who asked you for ten dollars to give
the priest for Masses, to get his wife's soul out
of Purgatory, shows how largely he calculated
on your prejudices. He meant, perhaps, to
drink your health at your own expense, and
treat his companions, whilst exulting in your
gullibility; but he was justly disappointed by
your discernment.
* Tract No. 79.




132          ON PURGATORY.
Prayer for the departed is one of those consoling practices of piety which the Reformers
did not venture at once to discard, either, as you
would say, perhaps, because they were still under
Popish influences, or because they felt that they
would provoke, unnecessarily, the popular indignation. The prayer which we use in the
canon of the Mass was adopted in the first edition of the Book of Common Prayer, with some
slight modification: "We commend unto Thy
mercy, O Lord, all Thy servants which are departed hence from us with the sign of faith, and
now do rest in the sleep of peace. Grant unto
them, we beseech Thee, Thy mercy and everlasting peace, and that at the day of the general
resurrection, we, and all they which be of the
mystical body of Thy Son, may altogether be set
on His right hand."* The words which follow
" peace" are easily discernible as an addition to
the prayer of the Missal. You appear not altogether opposed to this practice, but you do not
advocate its revival. Yet you know it to come
down from the earliest and purest period of antiquity.
* The two books of Common Prayer, compared. Oxford, 1841.
pp. 296.




LETTER XI.
RIGHT REVEREND SIR:
F  LEURY states, as you remark, that the plenary indulgence was introduced by Pope Urban II. to favor the crusade, at the close of the
eleventh century; but he adds that at all times the
Church had allowed the bishops to remit a portion
of the canonical penance. The complete remission of the whole, which he regarded as a relaxation of discipline, is what he alleges was first
granted by Urban II. to the crusaders. By remarking that the indulgence was instead of wages
to the soldiery, he does not mean that it was
convertible into money. On the contrary, the
crusaders not only served without pay, but even
equipped and supported themselves, deeming it
sufficient that they should gain the spiritual
blessing. Indulgences were likewise granted to
such as contributed to the expenses of these
wars, because such generosity was deemed worthy of approval, and spiritual treasures were
thought to be fitly distributed among those who
had sacrificed their wealth for Christ. They were
12




134            INDULGENCES.
granted by Leo X. to such as contributed to the
building of St. Peter's. As it was lawful to solicit the alms of the faithful throughout the
world for this great work of general importance,
so it was allowable to encourage it by the promise of spiritual treasures. There was nothing
simoniacal, sacrilegious, or improper in thus employing the power of the Church in favor of penitent sinners. You accuse popes, cardinals, and
bishops of it, as of a crime continued for four
hundred years; and call it a bargain and sale.
I see in it, in the abstract, nothing criminal, although abuses incidental to it led to the suppression of the office of Questors, or collectors
of alms, by the Council of Trent.
The decree of this Council, which you recite,
refers to the importunities and exaggerations of
the collectors, in urging the faithful to give contributions for the objects for which the indulgences were proclaimed. They brandthese abuses
as pravos qucestus, which you translate wicked merchandizings.  The abolition of that office took
from the sectaries an abundant source of defamation. Yet, although no vestige of it remains,
you insist that " indulgences are bought and sold
as much as ever." They, sir, were never bought
or sold; and if, at times, abuses grew out of
the custom of connecting with them collections
for objects of religion, charity, or public convenience, that custom has been abolished. You
say that "the price of indulgences is a serious




INDULGENCES.             135
item of the priestly and the papal income,"
whilst in fact, nothing whatever comes to priest
or Pope from their use or concession. You say:
"I leave it to your skill in Roman casuistry to
defend the veracity of your favorite in the best
way you can." It is easy to defend one who
speaks the truth, which the Catholic world can
attest, but I know only one way by which your
veracity can be defended, namely, thatyou make
your statements in entire ignorance of the facts.
The argument drawn from the conduct of St.
Paul towards the penitent Corinthian is not
fairly met by you. "St. Paul gives directions
concerning a single penitent, of whose case he
was fully informed. The Pope issues millions of
pardons to people of whom he knows nothing."
The question now simply is, Did St. Paul free
the penitent from further penance by authority
received from Christ? If he did, he granted
what is technically called an Indulgence. The
Pope grants it in general terms to all, who, being
penitent, comply with certain religious duties.
The number of persons in favor of whom the
power is exercised does not change its character.
" St. Paul gives his judgment without money
and without price. The Pope grants his Indulgence for a consideration." As you repeat this
calumny, let me use your own words: "Which
shall we most admire, the outrageous absurdity,
or the cool effrontery of such an argument?"




136           INDULGENCES.
The Jubilee, you allege, brings to Rome a
vast amount of substantial treasure in return for
the spiritual gift. In this you are mistaken; it
brings nothing whatever. Although almsdeeds,
with fasting and prayer, are usually prescribed
on that occasion, the object of the alms and the
amount are left to the discretion of the faithful.
No portion of it, whatever, goes into the Roman
treasury. The many indulgences specified in
"True Piety" are to be gained by confession
and communion, without almsgiving.  You
appeal to me as knowing that it is a cash transaction, since they cannot be had without the money.
I know no such thing. I know on the contrary that no money is given, or taken; and
despising the quibble by which you say the
people give the price, and the priest gives the
indulgence, I pronounce your statement utterly
false and groundless.
As to what is done in South America, your
information can scarcely be relied on, since you
are so grossly mistaken as to the usages which
prevail around you. I am aware that in the
dominions of Spain, a practice has existed which
may give some coloring to your allegations. The
Holy See was induced to grant certain privileges
and exemptions, like those granted to the crusaders, whence it is styled the Bull of the Crusade,
to persons contributing as alms a small sum, to a
religious purpose, chiefly, I believe, the maintenance of missionaries in Jerusalem. Persons




INDULGENCES.               137
obtaining the certificate, or Bula, are dispensed
with the obligation of abstinence, provided their
physician and confessor deem it expedient; con
el consejo de los dos medicos spiritual y corporal.
Its chief design is to impose a fine, by way of
commutation, on persons seeking to be dispensed from the Church laws, as is done by the
Church of England in case of marriage licenses,
and various other exemptions from law. It has
proved, I believe, fatal to that portion of our
discipline in the Spanish dominions; but it is
not, after all, a sale of dispensations, or indulgences. I am happy to say that no such usage
exists in the United States, or throughout the
Church generally. In the reign of Edward VI.
an Act was passed enjoining abstinence on fishdays, " as a mean to virtue, and to subdue men's
bodies to their soul and spirit, and also to encourage the trade of fishing, and for saving of
flesh; excepting  such  as should  obtain the
King's license;" for which, no doubt, some fees
of office were required.
The treasure of the Church is a figurative expression, which marks the sources from which
she draws in exercising her power. The merits
of Christ are infinite; but the communion of the
faithful is such that they also may benefit one
another, by prayer, good works, or sufferings
offered up one for the other. The excruciating
torments endured by the martyrs, the extreme
12*




138           INDULGENCES.
austerities of some penitents, the suffering of
apostolic men in the propagation of the Gospel,
may be profitable to the weaker members. The
saints have, indeed, received a reward exceedingly great; their sufferings were momentary
and light compared with the eternal weight of
glory, with which they are crowned; yet their
endurance may be advantageously pleaded before God to obtain for us some remission of the
punishment due to our sins. It can only be
offered through Christ our Lord, and through
Him only can become available.
You accuse Dr. Milner of omitting to state
that indulgences are designed to remit to the
sinner the torments of Purgatory, after he shall
have passed away from the Church on earth.
They are directed to remit the canonical penance,
which was enjoined to satisfy the justice of God,
who often inflicts temporal punishments for sins
whose guilt is forgiven. Dr. Milner expressly
states that indulgences remit not only the canonical penance, but the corresponding punishment in the sight of God. In this sense, indulgences may preserve from  purgatory; but
they are not given to any one, to take effect
after his death. Some are applicable to the souls
in purgatory, inasmuch as the living who gain
them, may offer them in behalf of the departed;
but as the Church has no control over her departed children, they are not strictly effectual,
but offered by way of suffrage, in the confidence
that God will accept them.




LETTER  XII.
qthitur to t tt NRs45 56 tr
RIGHT REVEREND SIR:
YOU charge Dr. Milner "with a shameful
withholding of the real worship which
the Church of Rome renders to the Virgin and
the Saints;" and in order to make good this
grave accusation, you give extracts from certain
books of devotion in use among Catholics. As
he, however, quoted the words of the Council of
Trent, in proof of our principles, justice requires
that the expressions and acts of devotion used
by us should be explained in conformity with
that standard. The passages which you quote
from  the popular prayer-book called "True
Piety," when thus understood, contain nothing
that is objectionable. They express great confidence in the prayers of the Blessed Virgin, as
one most highly favored by Almighty God, and
most dear to our Redeemer. I am  surprised
that you have not understood the addresses
which are sometimes made to Him as the Infant
Jesus. Dr. Pusey, in his treatise on baptism,




140         DEVOTION TO THE
admires the custom of the Church, by which she
makes present to her children the various mysteries which she celebrates, as if they happened
at the present time. Thus contemplating the
Incarnation, the Christian adores the Divine
Infant, calls on Him for mercy, and gives himself over to affections of gratitude and love. No
one,-not even the most unlettered, imagines
that He is still an Infant in the arms of His
Mother. We know that He sits on high, at the
right hand of His Eternal Father; but Bethlehem, with its wondrous scenes, is recalled to our
minds, and whilst we give homage to Him in
His humiliation, we implore grace and mercy
for ourselves. You ask, "was it an Infant that
taught the Saviour's doctrine, and worked
mighty signs and wonders?" I answer it was
He who lay an Infant in the arms of His Mother.
In Him were "hidden all the treasures of the
wisdom  and knowledge of God."  He was,
even in His infantile state, the God of majesty,
whom the angels adore with trembling. The
self-same Son of the Eternal appeared a helpless
babe, who redeemed us by His sufferings. What
you say in regard to the image of the " Bambino
Gesu," at Rome, is an instance of the piety of
individuals, who at a critical moment ask for
relief from our Lord through His holy Mother,
whose happy parturition they specially honor.
You call our devotion to the Blessed Virgin
Mariolatry; yet you must perceive in the pious




BLESSED VIRGIN.            141
exercises at which you carp, enough to qualify
their meaning. It may relieve you to be informed that as most of them are not sanctioned
much less enjoined by authority, the most devoted Catholic may abstain from  their use.
Idolatry, you remark, consists in giving the
attributes of God to creatures, and you allege
that we ascribe omnipresence, omniscience, and
omnipotence to Mary; but if you reflect that we
recognize her as a mere creature, having no excellence or power of herself, you will perceive
that she can have no divine attribute. God
is essentially self-existent, independent, and
sovereign. Mary is always addressed as a suppliant at his throne, which necessarily excludes
all idea of divine power or perfection. You
take exception at her being styled in some
private devotion'Temple of the Trinity;' but is
not every Christian such in some degree? " Ye
are the temple of the living God."* Omniscience
implies boundless knowledge'derived from no
other. Our communion with the world of spirits
is carried on with great simplicity. We learn
from Scripture that the angels are present, and
witnesses of our thoughts, and we conceive the
Saints and their Queen to have the like knowledge, without troubling ourselves to understand
the manner in which God imparts it to them.
You are pleased to review some of the texts
of Scripture which regard the Blessed Virgin.
* 2 Cor. vi. 16.




142          DEVOTION TO THE
The angelical salutation: " Hail, full of grace;"
is translated in your Bible: " Hail, thou that
art highly favored;" which you maintain is
much more faithful to the Greek words. Bloomfield, the Protestant commentator, approves the
Vulgate version, observing, after Valcknaer, that
verbs of this form imply heaping up, or filling
up. What is more important, the Syriac version, made in the first or second age, has precisely words corresponding to the Latin:"Peace be to thee, full of goodness."
Whatever tyros, to whom  you refer, may
think, scholars will scarcely agree with you
that our version, which is almost as ancient as
the Syriac, is " an unwarrantable gloss upon the
original."  As Syriac was the language used
by the angel, being the vernacular tongue, it
must be supposed that the Syriac interpreter
gave the precise terms, which were probably
retained in the pious exercises of the faithful.
You confess the force of the prophecy, uttered
by the Virgin herself: "Behold, from henceforth, all generations shall call me blessed."
"This," you say, " is undoubtedly high honor
to the Virgin; but it is limited plainly to the
estimation of the saints below." I see in it no
such limitation. The saints in glory no doubt
regard as blessed above all other creatures, HIer
who was chosen to be the living tabernacle of
the Incarnate God.  Those who have loved




BLESSED VIRGIN.            143
Him most on earth, have always honored her
with profound veneration. You "claim  your
full share in the honor due to her;" but how
do you manifest it? Is it by your systematic
endeavors to decry devotion to her as idolatry?
Is it by seeking out matter of reproach to show
her sinfulness?
You remark that our Saviour never calls her
Mother, but woman. Is it not sufficient that
the inspired evangelists frequently call her by
that glorious name-" the mother of Jesus?"
The inspired Elizabeth likewise styled her "the
mother of my Lord."  It was meet that our
Lord Himself should abstain from it when He
was called on to exercise His miraculous power,
over which she had no control. Yet, as Bloomfield again remarks, "woman" was a term of
affection and respect. If the words of our Lord,
addressed to her when she sought a miraculous
supply of wine, to relieve the parties from confusion at not being able to furnish their guests,
imply independence of Her control in such
works, as St. Augustin understands them, they
do not certainly intimate a refusal. The fact explains itself. She immediately directed the waiters to look for His orders, which she felt confident would be given. Forthwith He bade them
fill the vases with water, which, when brought
to the master of the banquet, proved to be delicious wine. "He clearly shows," says St. Cyril
of Alexandria, "hpw much parents should be




144         DEVOTION TO THE
honored, by proceeding at once to the performance of the miracle for His mother's sake,
which otherwise He would have deferred."* It
may please you better to hear the Protestant
Archbishop Newcome: "When our Lord had
given this gentle rebuke,-He suffered her request to sway Him, and seems to have made
the first display of His glorious power partly in
deference to her."
You dwell on the silence of the Scripture in
regard to her piety and virtue, as if the fact of
her having been chosen to be Mother of God
were not sufficient to warrant the belief of her
high excellence and perfection. The belief of
the mystery of God Incarnate, which preceded
the writing of the New Testament, was necessarily attended with high esteem of the holy One
who was its chief and immediate instrument.
But although no elaborate panegyric of her virtues was framed by the sacred penmen, an angel
proclaimed her acceptance with God, and the
fulness of grace with which she was adorned.
Her faith is declared eminent by Elizabeth, because she believed the revelation made to her
by the heavenly messenger. Several times it is
stated, that she treasured up in her heart the
things that regarded her Divine Child, and
weighed them attentively. That she stood at
the foot of the cross is more to her praise, than
* In locum.




BLESSED VIRGIN.           145
if she had followed Him throughout His journeys, when thousands hung with admiration on
His lips. It showed the tender, steadfast, fearless affection of a mother; it showed fortitude
greater than that of woman. Her unassuming
modesty, her meek devotion and profound humility, are sufficiently indicated by the silence
of the sacred writers on other occasions, when
it was a matter of honor and pleasure to be
near Jesus.  She is especially mentioned as
being in the company of the Apostles, when the
Holy Ghost, in tongues of fire, descended on
them. It was not her province to interfere with
the government of the Church, which was confided to them-it became her not to dictate;
but she persevered with them in prayer, and
can we doubt that her supplications gave increased force to theirs? Would you have hesitated to ask her to pray to her Divine Son for
you, if you had lived at that time?  Would
you have thought your chance of success equal
without her aid? She is now near Him in
glory-her maternal relation being not dissolved, as you most strangely fancy, but confirmed and illustrated by higher gifts and prerogatives, than suited her state of pilgrimage.
Saints and Angels, Cherubs and Seraphs must
be amazed that a daughter of Eve should have
been made worthy to give of her own substance
the matter of which the Body of God's own Son
was formed,-to bear Him as in a shrine,-to
13




146         DEVOTION TO THE
bring Him forth,-to see, to touch Him with
the familiarity and fondness of a mother. His
affection for her was natural, as well as holy;
and as on earth He yielded to her requests,
even when it seemed a departure from the ordinary rules of His high Providence, so in heaven
He grants her, with filial kindness, the favors
which she implores for frail mortals. All this
you may regard as fond imagining; but it is
founded in the natural, indissoluble tie which
binds the mother to the Son-in the very mystery itself, in which Mary gave to the world our
Redeemer, and was thus made the channel of
communicating to us every grace and blessing.
For this reason, St. Bernard says, "Let us cling
to Mary, let us venerate her with all our heart,
since such is the will of God, who decreed that
we should have all through Mary."*
Instead of offering you my own reflections on
those passages which seem to you to show, that
" the Blessed Redeemer refused to attach any
spiritual pre-eminence to the earthly relationship
of His mother," I will lay before you the remarks of St. Ambrose, on Luke viii. 20: "He
did not mean to reject the attentions of His
mother; for He Himself commands,'Let whosoever dishonors father or mother, die the
death;' but He acknowledges Himself obliged
to attend rather to the mysteries of His Father,
* Serm. in Nat. B. V. Mariae.




BLESSED VIRGIN.             147
than to indulge maternal affection. His mother
is not disowned here (as some heretics insidiously pretend); even from the cross He acknowledges her." The words in parenthesis are not
mine, but those of Ambrose. What you regard as an intimation, that the temporary relation of mother and Son was at an end,*-an
absurdity, not to say an impiety,-St. Ambrose
takes as a splendid proof of tender affection on
the part of the expiring Saviour. He remarks,
that John alone records what " the others passed
over in silence,-how Christ on the cross addressed His mother, deeming it of greater importance to state, that He who triumphed over
torments and punishments, the conqueror of the
devil, performed the duties of filial affection,
than that He bestowed the kingdom of heaven.
For if it be an edifying fact, that pardon is given
by the Lord to a robber, it is far more edifying
that the mother is honored by her Son. But
neither was Mary wanting in what became her
as mother of Christ; since whilst the Apostles
fled away, she stood before the cross, and with
tearful eyes looked on the wounds of her Son;
for she did not look to the death of her beloved,
but to the salvation of the world."t
I am sorry to find you asserting that in the
time of Augustin the Virgin Mary was not
* Vol. ii. p. 75.   t In Luc. 1. x  c. xiii.




148         DEVOTION TO THE
called " the Mother of God," whilst St. Cyril of
Alexandria proved to the fathers of Ephesus, in
the council held the year after the death of Augustin, 431, that this title had always been given
her, and was necessarily implied in the mystery of the Incarnation; which they also confirmed. What Augustin says, that "so far as
concerned His Deity, He had no mother," is a
self-evident truth; "but it is also true," as he
adds, "that so far as concerned His humanity,
He had."  " For the Lord of heaven and earth
came by a woman. IHe was made of a woman.
He was the son of Mary." This is what the Catholic Church holds. You quote Augustin, as
affirming that " Mary from Adam was dead, because of sin;" which words are the more common reading of a passage in his commentary on
the thirty-fourth psalm. It is well for you to
know that in the Vatican and Colbertine manttscripts the reading is different: "Mary from
Adam, Adam died because of sin;" and then is
added: " the flesh of the Lord, from Mary, died
to cancel sins." The other passage which you
object, says of our Redeemer: " His flesh ALONE
was not the flesh of sin, because His mother conceived Him not by concupiscence, but by grace."
This justly proves that He alone, in virtue of His
supernatural conception, was exempt from sin.
"All the flesh of others is the flesh of sin," because all others, in consequence of their natural
conception, are subject to that sin which is com



BLESSED VIRGIN.            149
mon to all the posterity of fallen man. Whether
Augustin meant thereby to deny any privilege
or exemption, even in regard of her from whom
the flesh of Christ was taken, I venture not to
say; but he himself has warned us that in general
expressions, however strong, he does not mean
to include the Blessed Mother of our Lord. In
arguing against the Pelagians, he stated that all
men but Christ alone, even the eminent servants
of God, are sinners, and fall into sin; and supposing some one to object the instances of several saints, whose virtues are praised in Scripture,
and among them, the Virgin, he answers with
confidence, that if they were to reappear on
earth they would all acknowledge themselves to
have been sinners, with the exception of her
alone; " excepting, therefore, the Holy Virgin, of
whom  when treating of sins, I am altogether
unwilling to entertain any question, for the honor
of the Lord; for hence we know that greater grace
was bestowed on her to overcome sin in every
respect, as she was made worthy to conceive and
bring forth Him who certainly was without sin."*
You surprise me, Right Reverend Sir, by the
novel meaning which you assign to the term
wiroxos or Deipara, which you translate Godbearer.
It certainly was employed by the Council of
Ephesus to express " Mother of God." All reasoning against her maternity is destroyed by the
* L. de Natura et Gratia, c. xxxvi. n. 42.
13*




150         DEVOTION TO TIIE
Apostle, who says, that " God has sent His Son
made of a woman."*  Your views of this subject are utterly opposed to sound doctrine, as solemnly declared by that ancient Council, on the
authority of the Sacred Scripture and of apostolic tradition. "To constitute a mother," you
say, "the woman must produce a living creature which has derived its nature and its qualities
through her instrumentality, so that it is of the
same race, and is truly her offspring or progeny."
According to this reasoning Mary was not the
mother of Jesus! Did she not conceive Him,
according to the prophecy of Isaiah, as well as
bring Iim forth? Do you imagine, with some
of the followers of Apollinaris, that His flesh
was not taken from  her substance, by the
Divine operation of the Holy Ghost, but gliding
down from heaven, passed through her as a conduit? Every one who has a correct view of this
mystery must be shocked at your language,
which betrays the most erroneous views. Dr.
Nevin has truly said: "The man cannot be
right at heart in regard to the faith of the Incarnation, whose tongue falters in pronouncing
Mary Mother of God!" This is the great source
of opposition to the veneration of the Blessed
Virgin. The mystery of the Incarnation is incorrectly viewed, and men who have but vague
notions of it, from want of theological training,
* Gal. iv. 4.




BLESSED VIRGIN.           151
are easily offended at the consequences which
necessarily flow from it when rightly understood.
The Church, on the contrary, by cherishing this
devotion, leads her children to give constant
homage to the mystery on which it is founded.
Allow me to draw your attention to other erroneous language which has escaped you, in your
effort to depreciate the maternal rights of the
Virgin. " That relationship is a question of the
body. The heavenly relationship is a question
of the soul." The body of Christ was, of course,
formed of the substance of His mother, whilst
His soul was created and united with it by the
act of Divine Power; but the relationship of the
Son to the Father is the relationship of the Second Divine Person to the First Divine Person,
which subsisted from eternity. The assumption
of the human nature, body and soul, by the second Divine Person, constitutes the mystery of
the Incarnation. If you refer to this relationship, it is by no means confined to the soul, since
the Apostle expressly says:'" Thou hast fitted
me a body;" intimating thereby, that Christ in
the flesh offered the atonement. The God man,
therefore, is the Son of God, the Father; the
second Divine Person having assumed, not the
body alone but the human nature. He is also
the Son of Mary, the body united with His soul
being assumed by Him. Mary is the Mother
not of the mere flesh of Christ, but of Christ
Himself, as our parents are called such, although




152         DEVOTION TO THE
our souls be created by the direct action of God.
For this reason she is called, and is Mother of
God, an appellation so closely connected with
the mystery, that it was made, as Dr. Nevin well
observes, a tessera, or standard of orthodoxy, by
the Council of Ephesus, no less strictly than the
term consubstantial had been made such by the
Nicene fathers. To suppose that the Divine
Person supplied the place of the soul, is the heresy of Apollinaris, condemned in the fifth century; to deny that Mary is Mother of God, is to
renew the exploded heresy of Nestorius.
The corporal assumption of the Blessed Virgin into heaven, although not an article of Catholic faith, is an ancient tradition, of which you
find traces in St. Epiphanius. The narrative
given by St. John of Damascus has been inserted in the Breviary; but you are aware that
this does not put it beyond question. The celebration of the feast by the Church affords the
strongest argument in support of the fact, although, as the object of it is not specially defined,
we can suspend our assent, without derogating
from her authority, or incurring censure. You
are mistaken in conceiving that the Virgin is
thus put on a level with her Son, whose ascension is believed on the testimony of the Sacred
Scriptures. There is an obvious difference between the terms assumption and ascension, the
former term implying the act of Almighty God,
who takes to happiness His humble handmaid



BLESSED VIRGIN.            153
the latter designating the act of Christ Himself,
who by His own divine power, rose to the highest heavens. You may not feel satisfied with
the evidence of the ancient tradition; but it is
remarkable that it should at all exist, if without
foundation, since the early Christians were wont
to preserve the remains of the eminent servants
of God; and yet none ever boasted that they
possessed the body of the Virgin.
St. Basil interprets the prophecy of Simeon,
that a sword should pierce the Virgin's soul, of
some fluctuation or agitation of mind, aa)u6ios;,
when beholding the crucifixion; but for which he
seems to think she would not have needed the
application of His Blood. This regards perplexity of mind, rather than moral fault; yet
even so you will scarcely insist upon its correctness. The sublime prediction marked the agonies of her maternal heart, as she stood at the
foot of the cross; which did not imply any defect
on her part. The narrative of the Evangelist
gives no indication of it, but presents her as a
model of fortitude, as well as of maternal affection, standing, where other mothers would have
swooned away. You know, Right Reverend
Sir, that our respect for the authority of the fathers does not oblige us to accept the interpretations which individuals among them may give
of particular passages of Scripture.
The testimony of Popes Leo and Gregory establish the stainless perfection of our Redeemer




154         DEVOTION TO THE
as necessarily resulting from His supernatural
conception, and the assumption of the human nature by the second Divine Person. Such general
expressions can scarcely avail to exclude a privilege such as the Church recognizes in the Virgin,
especially since the same writers elsewhere express the most exalted sentiments of her dignity.
St. Gregory, in his commentary on the books of
Kings, speaks of her as one " who transcended,
by the dignity to which she was chosen, the
highest elect creatures;" and as a mystical mountain, whose height is above that of all others.
" Is not Mary a high mountain, since in order to
be worthy to conceive the Eternal Word, the
summit of her merits rose above all the choirs
of angels, even to the throne of the Deity?"*
St. Epiphanius justly condemned the superstition of the Collyridians, who had priestesses offering cakes to the Virgin, whence they derived
their name. He forbade all worship to be given
her, such as is given to God, but he encouraged
all to honor her, as the Mother of our Lord.
The ambiguity of the term "worship," by which
you render the Greek, enables you to use his
testimony with effect for such as take words in
their popular signification, without regard to
the circumstances in which they are employed.t
It is injurious to our Lord Himself, as well as
to His Virgin Mother and St. Joseph, to suppose,
* L. i in 1 Reg. c. i. n. 5.  t L. iii. p. 400, E.




BLESSED VIRGIN.           155
with you, that when they missed Iim, as they
were about to return from Jerusalem, they sought
Him amongst their kinsfolk and acquaintance,
"as if he were a common youth, seekingto amuse
Himself during the religious festival." Such a
thought could not have entered into their minds.
They supposed Him to be on His way home in
the company of their kinsfolk, and sought Iim
accordingly in the different bands of travellers,
His age allowing Him to go with either company
of men or women. They knew well that He
was fully intent on doing the will of His Father,
but they were not aware that He would have
manifested His wisdom in the temple at that
early period of His life. Accordingly, after a
day's journey, being convinced that He had
remained behind for some high purpose, they returned. His Mother ventured to inquire of Him
the reason of His leaving them in anxiety and
pain. His answer shows, indeed, that His first
care was to fulfil the will of His Heavenly Father, but it does not imply any disregard of her
maternal claims on His affection and obedience.
The fact that " He went down with them, and
was subject to them,"* puts this beyond contradiction.
It is somewhat extraordinary, that after such
a determined effort to depreciate the dignity and
merits of the Holy Mother of our Lord, you
* Luke ii. 51.




156        DEVOTION TO THE
should have ventured to quote the passages of
the ancient Liturgies, especially those in use at
Jerusalem, Constantinople, and  Alexandria,
which so highly extol her. They contain those
expressions of her Divine maternity, which, to
you, appear so low and sensuous, although they
are sanctioned by Holy Writ, which tells us that
St. Elizabeth, inspired by the Holy Ghost, pronounced blessed the fruit of her womb. Your
delicacy shrinks from such plain language. The
Liturgy, bearing the name of St. James, was used
at Jerusalem before the days of St. Cyril, whose
fifth catechesis makes evident reference to it. In
this the Virgin is styled: " Our most Holy, immaculate, superlatively blessed, and glorious
Lady, the Mother of God, and ever Virgin Mary."
The singers assisting at the Holy Sacrifice say:
"It is meet that we should magnify thee, the
ever blessed, immaculate parent and mother of
God, who art of more honor than the cherubim,
and incomparably more glorious than the seraphim." Again they sing: " Thou, 0 full of grace,
art the joy of the whole creation, both of angels
and men; a temple of holiness; a spiritual paradise, and the glory of virginity, of whom the Deity
was incarnate, and our God, whose being was from
eternity, was made a child. For thy womb was
His throne, the seat of Him whom the heavens
cannot contain."* Do you find in our devotional
* Vol. ii. p. 86.




BLESSED VIRGIN.             157
books anything more sublime in praise of the
Virgin Mother? This language is common to
all the ancient liturgies, and is still employed
by the Greeks, who style the Virgin " all holy,
stainless, superlatively blessed, and glorious
Lady, the Mother of God, and ever Virgin
Mary."  It is generally admitted by the learned,
that the liturgies, in their actual form, can be
traced back to the fifth century, and that they
contain the substance of worship as prescribed
by the Apostles, so that wherever there is a general agreement in their language, it affords the
strongest presumption of apostolic tradition.
Here you find this entire harmony, which you
would fain disturb by conjecturing that these
liturgies have been interpolated in this regard.
You do not indeed venture openly to dispute
their authority, but you observe that they contain prayers for the Virgin and the saints. A
closerinspection may convince you, that they are
commemorated, only as Abraham and David are
mentioned in various parts of Scripture, to lay
before God their merits and services, that through
regard for them, He may have mercy on us; and
to show the communion which unites the saints
already glorified with the faithful on earth. In
fact, you yourself give passages from the liturgies of St. Chrysostom and St. Basil, in which
Christ is implored to pardon sin " through the intercessions of His ever spotless and Virgin Mother;" and again of her and all the saints: "for
14




158         DEVOTION TO THE
the sake of whose prayers and intercessions, have
mercy upon us." In the Ethiopian liturgy we
read: " May all their prayers for us be accepted."
St. Cyril closes his commemoration in like manner: " That God, through their prayers and supplications, may receive our prayers."* But you
observe that no address to Mary, or the saints,
in the form of prayer, is contained in these liturgies.  The same remark may be made in
regard to the Roman Missal, at this day. The
more ancient and solemn mode of intercessory
prayer is the indirect one; but it is the same in
substance as the more popular mode of addressing the saints themselves. In imitation of the
Scripture style: " Remember Thy servant David, O Lord, and all his meekness;" the priest
begs of God to remember His departed servants,
and for their sakes to grant us mercy. All those
objections which you urge against Dr. Milner's
theory of a revelation being made by God to the
saints, may be here again urged; but the fact of
this form having come down from the apostolic
times, shows satisfactorily that they are groundless. Besides, the difficulty which you advance,
of the prayer being heard, may also be alleged
against the praise which is here devoutly given
to the Mother of God; and must be as easy of
solution in both cases. All that you allege
against any mediation but that of Christ, our
Redeemer, is equally applicable to this ancient
* Vol. ii. p. 86.




BLESSED VIRGIN.            159
usage, as to our direct addresses, so that we stand
or fall with the Basils and Chrysostoms, and the
churches of Jerusalem, Antioch, and Alexandria. If you admit these formularies, you cannot consistently censure our practice.
Dr. Milner referred to St. Irenoeus, who calls
Mary the advocate of Eve, having compensated
by her obedience for the disobedience of our
first mother. You avow the difficulty of explaining this text, but deny that it can have reference to prayers offered by Mary for Eve, who
was dead more than four thousand years, or
that it can authorize us to seek her prayers.
The meaning of the saint is not quite so incomprehensible. He draws a parallel between our
frail parent and the Virgin Mother of our Lord:
"As Eve was seduced through the speech of an
angel, that she might depart from God, and violate His word; so Mary, through the speech of
an angel, was evangelized so as to bear God,
being obedient to His word. And if Eve disobeyed God, yet Mary was persuaded to obey
God, that the Virgin Mary might become the
advocate of the virgin Eve. And as the human
race was bound to death through a virgin, it is
saved through a virgin; the scales being equally
balanced;-virginal disobedience by virginal
obedience."* You perceive, Right Reverend
Sir, the prominent part which this early father,
after St. Justin, ascribes to Mary in the great
work of redemption.  The fate of Eve was
* Adv. hax. 1. v. c. xix.




160         DEVOTION TO THE
sealed four thousand years before; but it was
only in anticipation of the atonement to be
offered on Calvary, by the Son of Mary, that
her offence was pardoned. The obedience of
Mary to the angel's message was present to the
Divine Mind, with the mystery to be accomplished on her assent, and thus she became
virtually an intercessor for her frail mother. If
then her advocacy thus anticipated availed Eve,
so we may hope that it will prove profitable to
those who now earnestly seek it.
The contrast which you form between our
professions of devotion and confidence towards
God and our Saviour Jesus Christ, and those
which we use to the Blessed Virgin, is wholly
without foundation; for as we acknowledge her
to be a mere creature, and to possess no gift or
power, unless by the free concession of the
Creator, on account of her intimate relation to
Christ, there is an essential difference in the
force of all our expressions and acts regarding
her. God is an independent, all-sufficient, eternal Being. Jesus Christ, the God-man, has, as
God, all the divine attributes in their fulness;
and His human nature is replenished with all
holiness, in virtue of its assumption by the
second Divine Person. "No other name under
heaven is given to men, whereby they can be
saved."  These principles being fixed and unchangeable, the devotional expressions employed
towards the Virgin are necessarily qualified, and




BLESSED VIRGIN.            161
must be interpreted without prejudice to the
Divine perfections, or to the essential mediatorship of Christ. If you understood this matter
practically, you would soon feel that all is harmony, where you fancy rivalry and opposition.
We flee to Mary, as to the Mother of our Redeemer, asking her to plead with her Divine
Son, and obtain through His Blood pardon of
our manifold offences. You are offended that
she should be styled Queen of Heaven, which
implies only that she is first and greatest of
the saints. But what place would you assign
her?  It is her peculiar privilege to be the
Mother of our Divine Redeemer; and must she
not be nearest to Him in glory?
14*




LETTER XIII.
(Ol tlAft Utraftir  Df tte  irMts.
RIGHT REVEREND SIR:
THE honor which we render to the saints
and angels, and the petitions which we
address to them, that they may intercede with
God for us, are censured by you as idolatrous.
In order to support this charge, you avail yourself of an equivocal term employed by the great
controvertist Bellarmin, when explaining the
manner in which vows are made to the saints.
He maintains that vows, strictly so called, imply
a solemn promise to God; and adds that vows
made to the saints, are made to them only inasmuch as they partake of His glory, being united
with Him.  In this sense he uses the terms,
" dii per participationem."*  Instead of cavilling
at a word so carefully qualified, you should
have reflected, as you elsewhere admit, that " it
is not the giving the name of God to a creature
which constitutes the sin of idolatry."t  This
term, without the accompanying limitation, is
applied by the sacred penman to the judges, as
acting under divine authority.1  In order to
* De F.cl. Triumph. 1. iii. c. ix.
Vf     1 ii. p. 63.  $ Ps. lxxxi. 6;  John x. 34.




ON THE VENERATION OF THE SAINTS. 163
give coloring to your censure, you translate the
term divus, God, when applied to the saints,
although you must know that in our usage it
bears no such meaning. This may gratify the
bigot, or mislead the unlearned: it cannot supply the place of argument.
We reverence the saints only as servants of
God, on whom He bestowed the gifts of His
grace, and the glory of His kingdom. We
acknowledge in them no perfection which is
not derived from His bounty; and we ascribe
to them  no power, independent of His free
concession. Through the merits of Christ our
Saviour, they have been sanctified and rendered triumphant over the enemy of souls, and
through His atonement must be obtained whatever we hope from their prayers in our behalf.
We give them not that glory which belongs to
God, for we know that He is jealous of His
honor; but we honor them for His sake, and to
Him we refer ultimately all homage, saying
with the Apostle: "To the King of ages, immortal and invisible, the only God, be honor
and glory."* With our whole heart we say
with the holy deacon, whose words you recite
from St. Augustin, that we do not adore, but
honor them. The term worship, which you
employ, is ambiguous.
As you are unprepared to admit that the early
Christians gave religious veneration to the good
* 1 Tim. i. 17.




161        ON TIE VENERATION
angels, you translate the celebrated passage of
St. Justin after this manner: "We worship and
adore Him  and His Son who came out from
Him (and hath taught us respecting these things,
and respecting the host of the other good angels
who follow Him, and are made like unto Him),
and the Prophetic Spirit, honoring them  in
reason and in truth."* I take leave to submit
the translation given in the collection called
"The Faith of Catholics," which is strictly
literal, beginning somewhat higher to give a
clearer view: "Hence we have also been called
Atheists, and we confess that we are unbelievers
(Atheists) of such pretended gods, but not of the
most true (God) and Father of righteousness
and temperance, and of the other virtues, and
of a God in whom there is no mixture of evil;
but both Him, and the Son who came from
Him, and taught us those things, and the host
of the other good angels that follow and resemble
(Him, or them), and the Prophetic Spirit, we
venerate and adore, honoring in reason and
truth, and freely delivering, to every one who
wishes to learn, even as we have been taught."t
To those who understand the structure of a
Greek sentence, it will not appear possible to
admit your parenthesis, with the insertion of the
* Vol. ii. p. 99.
t AXX' iKevov r, Kai rOv trap' aria vitdv OAlovra Kai Mdaaavra;yanJ
raura  Kca  rdv TOV acXXv   rolevwv  Kai  0tolyouiblcvV  dyaawv  dyyXA(o
orptar(d, rveivpa rT  TO 7rponTrTcKdv eeolsVea Kai 7rpoacvvUtEV.   Apol. I. n. 6.




OF THE SAINTS.             165
term  "respecting;" but as this may be too
abstruse a discussion for most readers, I will
content myself with giving the passage in the
note, and leave you to justify your translation to
the learned. It may embarrass some to hear St.
Justin speak of venerating and adoring, if the
preceding terms regard the angels as the objects
of veneration, but as they chiefly regard God the
Father, and His Son, on whom the angels are
represented as waiting in attendance, and to
whom they are said to bear resemblance, the
terms must chiefly be applied to the Divine
Persons, and to the angels only in their relation
to them. In addressing Pagans, for whom the
apology was intended, it was unnecessary to make
nice distinctions, especially as the terms were
then applied without much discrimination, to
various acts of religious worship. The other
passages of St. Justin, which you quote, throw
no new light on this text. He elsewhere says,
that Christians adored the Creator, the Son, who
taught us the truths of life, and the Prophetic
Spirit,* without mentioning the good angels in
connection with the Son, which is not surprising,
since it was unnecessary to repeat that which
was only secondary and subordinate in worship.
Again, he observes that Christians pay tribute,
giving to Caesar the things which are of Caesar,
to God the things which are of God; and in this
connection he observes: "We therefore adore
* Ibidem, n. 13.




166        ON THE VENERATION
God alone, but cheerfully serve you in other
matters."*  This worship of God alone is of
course that supreme honor which to Him alone
is due, and which the Gentiles wished to be
given to idols. It nowise excludes that veneration of the good angels, in honoring whom
they honored the followers of God's only Son.
You quote Dr. Milner's answer to the objection that the invocation of the saints involves, of
necessity, a belief in their omnipresence: " How
does it follow, from my praying to an angel or
a saint, in any place, that I necessarily believe the
angel or saint to be in that place? Was Elisha
really in Syria when he saw the ambush prepared there for the King of Israel?-(2 Kings,
vi. 9.) BUT IT IS SUFFICIENT THAT GOD IS ABLE
TO REVEAL TO THEM THE PRAYERS OF CHRISTIANS
WHO ADDRESS THEM HERE ON EARTH."t  YOU do
not, as far as I can perceive, explain the fact, or
meet the reasoning; but, as if the Divine revelation here spoken of implied on the part of God
a formal communication to the saints of the
prayers addressed to them, you ridicule the
idea, and amuse your readers with some curious
calculations of the number of Ave Marias daily
recited. This low view of a supernatural operation is justly rejected by the author of Tract
No. 71.  "When it is said that the saints
cannot hear our prayers, unless God reveal
them  to them; so that Almighty God, upon
* Ibidem, n. 17.       - Vol. II. p. 43.




OF THE SAINTS.            167
the Roman theory, conveys from us to them
those requests which they are to ask back again
of Him for us, we are certainly using an unreal,
because an unscriptural argument, Moses, on
the Mount, having the sin of his people first
revealed to him by God, that he in turn might
intercede with God for them.  Indeed, it is
through Him, in whom we live, and move, and
have our being, that we are able in this life to
hear the requests of each other, and to present
them to Him in prayer. Such an argument,
then, while shocking and profane to the feelings
of a Romanist, is shallow even in the judgment
of a philosopher." Your illustrations, borrowed
from the court of an earthly king, are sadly
deficient. The revelation which God made to
Iis prophets of things distant, or future, was a
communication of Divine light, in which these
were presented; and His revelation to His
glorified saints, as conceived by St. Thomas
Aquinas, is a manifestation by which they view,
as in a mirror, all that it concerns them to know.
In these days, when information is communicated with the speed of lightning to parts the
most distant, shall men continue to measure the
knowledge of spirits by natural rules, and prescribe limits beyond which it cannot extend?
Most people ascribe to the devil greater knowledge than you are willing to admit in the saints.
By some chance you pass over the chief points
on which Dr. Milner insists, and leave a great




168       ON THE VENERATION
hiatus in your quotation, without giving any
hint of it to your readers. After the passage
from 2 Kings, vi. 9, he proceeds: "Again, we
know that there is joy before the angels of God
over one sinner that repenteth. (Luke xv. 10.)
Now is it by visual rays, or undulating sounds,
that these blessed spirits in heaven know what
passes in the hearts of men upon earth? How
does his Lordship (the Bishop of Durham) know,
that one part of the saint's felicity may not consist in contemplating the wonderful ways of
God's providence, with all His creatures here on
earth?" This might have been worthy of some
notice, but it was more convenient to pass it over.
May I add, that it appears to me sufficient
that the saints know in general the usage of
asking their intercession, without any special
knowledge of the petitions addressed to them.
They may plead with God for all who desire
their prayers, and thus benefit them in proportion to the earnestness with which each one supplicates them. I do not, however, doubt that
they have a clear intuition of the prayers themselves, in the Divine light with which they are
replenished. You, yourself, admit that they
plead with God for men, and you even suppose
them to be acquainted with the commemoration
made of them in the Liturgy. Concerning the
faithful, you ask: "Do they not desire that he
(the departed saint) may remember them, when he
joins the blessed spirits of the just made perfect.




OF THE SAINTS.             169
Do they not hope that the privilege of his
prayers to God, on their behalf, may still be
continued to them, now that he is removed so
much nearer to the Fountain of all grace and
heavenly benediction?"*  You thus admit their
intercession, and their knowledge of the commemoration made of them  on earth.  You
explain the testimony of St. Chrysostom regarding the refreshment and joy which departed
souls derive from prayer offered in the sacrifice,
of the satisfaction which is afforded them by
knowing that they are still loved and remembered by the faithful on earth!
You are scandalized, Right Reverend Sir, at
various expressions in the Litany of St. Joseph,
who, among many very high-sounding titles, is
styled "Ruler of the Lord of the Universe."
These were used to express that subjection
which our Lord practised to Joseph, as well as
to Mary, as Luke testifies. But it may relieve
you to be informed that Litanies are not in favor
with the authorities at Rome, excepting the few
very ancient and general formularies, found in
the Breviaries, Missals, Pontificals, and Rituals,
with the Litany of Loretto. The Rules of the
Index forbid them all, although the Litany of
Jesus has subsequently been  sanctioned. I
trust, that in this respect at least, they will
meet your cordial approval. If you ask me,
* Vol. ii. p. 305.
15




170       ON THE VENERATION
why they appear in our Prayer-Books, I must
answer that this form of prayer is so popular,
that our publishers despair of selling books
which have not a good supply of Litanies, and
the Bishops can scarcely urge the rule, without
exciting grave murmurs. The terms employed,
although sometimes bordering on exaggeration,
are generally reducible to strict theological
accuracy, and whilst they startle the indevout
and unbelieving, express the outpourings of a
heart earnest in its appeals for mercy, through
its favorite advocate.
You deny that "there is any power in the
Church militant to decide what individuals the
Lord may have chosen to glorify"* among His
saints; but do you question the propriety of
honoring the memory of the Apostles? Do you
blame the early Christians, who met on the anniversary of illustrious martyrs, such as Ignatius
and Polycarp, and gave God thanks, in solemn
worship, for their triumph? It was thus, as you
know, that the practice of celebrating the festivals of the saints was introduced. The process
of canonization is a safeguard against mistake,
which supposes miraculous evidence of the acceptance of the individual with God.  Such
evidence being furnished, it is God who manifests His good pleasure to glorify His servant.
The edification afforded to the faithful by the
* 1). p. 96.




OF THE SAINTS.            171
public judgment and testimony of the chief
Bishop, founded on it, is a sufficient reason for
proposing the virtues of the saint to veneration,
since we are more easily influenced by example
than by precept. If St. Paul ventured to propose himself as a model to others, inasmuch as
he studied to imitate Christ, it cannot be unbecoming for the Pope to propose to the Church
at large the examples of men, who have been
found true followers of our Lord. St. Francis
de Sales, St. Charles Borromeo, and others,
exercise a happy influence in the cause of virtue,
far greater than they could have exercised had
not the Church proclaimed their Sanctity and
happiness.
The infidel Gibbon ascribed to the honors
given by the early Christians to the martyrs, the
ardor with which so many exposed themselves
to death for the faith, and the great increase of
Christians.
Your reasoning on the miracles ascribed to
the saints, is not very philosophical.  Those
recorded in Scripture are, indeed, supported by
all those evidences which prove Christianity,
and are consequently far more credible than
facts which are unconnected with a great moral
revolution.  Yet miracles, accompanied with
the conversion of a nation, such as those of
Augustin in England, Xavier in the Indies and
Japan, derive great credibility from an event so
extraordinary. The miracles recorded in every




172        ON THE VENERATION
age of the Church, by witnesses of great integrity and discernment, are not easily to be
discarded, although we should be slow to believe
any deviation from the ordinary course of things
without strong proof. Facts attested by witnesses above suspicion, and approved by a tribunal remarkable for its severe scrutiny, should
not be slightly rejected. In making light of
evidence supporting modern miracles, a disposition may be fostered adverse to the belief of the
Gospel miracles themselves, and men may be
tempted to view with distrust, if not to mock, all
that is supernatural. Your language is far from
being characterized by that moderation which
your very solemn professions might lead us to
expect. "True, indeed, it is, that the impiety
of your Popes has presumed to institute the old
heathen apotheosis, by enrolling some hundreds
of saints amongst the angelic hosts, and authorizing your deluded people to address their
prayers to them, as the ancient pagans did to
their Dii minorum gentium."*  You, sir, are the
fit person to speak of "the atrocious malignity
of spirit" of Dr. Milner.t You are mistaken in
ascribing the ridicule of Voltaire and Rousseau
to "the false miracles of Popery, connected
with the notorious licentiousness of the priesthood," for their satire was chiefly directed
against the Holy Scriptures, and they paid, from
* P. 379.        t P. 381.




OF TIIE SAINTS.             173
time to time, homage to the virtues of our religious communities. Voltaire avows, that "it is
undeniable that eminent virtues have adorned
the cloister. Scarcely any monastery is without
admirable souls, who do honor to human nature.
Too many writers have taken delight in seeking
out the disorders and vices by which these
asylums of piety were sometimes defiled. It is
certain that the life of seculars has been always
more vicious, and that the greatest crimes have
not been committed in monasteries; but their
vices have been more remarked from their contrast with the Rule."*
Essai sur'Histoire, t. iv. ch. cxxxv.
15*




LETTER XIV.
RIGHT REVEREND SIR:
Y OUR answer to Dr. Milner's argument in
favor of the veneration of relics, is by no
means satisfactory. His statement of the mind
of the Church is fully sustained by the Council
of Trent, which you yourself cite, and by the
second Council of Nice, which you have misunderstood. The object of the Nicene fathers
was to vindicate the Church from the charge of
superstition and idolatry in the reverence paid
by her to the memorials of the saints, and they
very properly referred to the usages prevailing
among themselves, by which this veneration was
testified. Their anathemas do not fall on such
as omit these practices, which are devotional;
but only on those who condemn them, and
ground on them their unwarrantable charges.
The assertion of Dr. Milner, that such usages
are no essential part of religion, is perfectly consistent with the canon of this Council, cited by
you, which requires relics to be deposited on
the altars; because, though this be not essen



ON RELICS.               175
tial, yet the Church is at liberty to enjoin that
which is pious, and calculated to bring to the
minds of the faithful the martyrs, who are represented in the Apocalypse as under the altar
on which the Lamb stands as it were slain.
The resuscitation of the dead man, when his
corpse touched the bones of the prophet,* is an
evidence that God sometimes manifests His
favor towards His servants after their death, by
miraculous operations; and it naturally suggests that their remains should be viewed with
marked reverence.  The preservation of the
rod of Aaron, and of the vase containing manna,
near the tabernacle, was a memorial of miraculous events, and bore a resemblance to the care
which we employ in preserving sacred memorials with honor. The breaking in pieces of
the brazen serpent, which had become an occasion of idolatry, shows that in case of abuse, the
objects of religious veneration should be removed; but it proves nothing against due reverence being paid to them. The use of incense is
an act of idolatry, when it is directed to supreme
worship, as was the case with the heathen; but
of itself it does not imply it, so that it depends
on the intention, as also on external circumstances.
You refer to the burial of St. Stephen. Have
you read in St. Augustin, Orosius, and other
* 4 Kings xiii. 21.




176              ON RELICS.
authors of the fifth century, the account of the
divine revelation made of his relics, and of
their being transported to Africa, carried in
procession from place to place, and proving the
instrument of many miracles? If you refuse to
believe these venerable witnesses, I care not; but
I remind you that they bear the most unequivocal testimony to the usage of venerating relics;
and that they cannot be forced to your side,
although you have ventured to quote a passage
of St. Augustin which points out some abuses,
altogether foreign to this holy practice. He
states distinctly the fact: "They carry indeed
the relics of the most blessed and glorious
martyr Stephen, which your Holiness (he writes
to the Bishop Quintilian) well knows how you
should  suitably honor, as we have done."*
Again he says: "A little dust has gathered together so vast a multitude. The ashes are concealed; the favors are manifest. Reflect, dearly
beloved, how great blessings God reserves for
us in the land of the living, since He grants us
such, by means of the dust of those who are departed."t  You venture to quote St. Ambrose;
but have you not read that he discovered, at
Milan, the bodies of the martyrs Gervase and
Protase, and testified with Augustin,: to miracles wrought on that occasion, appealing at the
* Ep. ccxii. alias ciii. ad Quintil.
t Serm. cccxvii. alias xcii. de diversis.
T L. xxii. de civ. l)ei; c. viii.




ON RELICS.              177
same time to all the inhabitants of Milan, as
knowing the facts? If Dr. Milner thus sported
with authorities, you would have reason to say,
that " he presumed greatly on the ignorance of
his readers." In the work styled " The Church
of the Fathers," written by Dr. Newman long
before he became a Catholic, you will find full
evidence of this ancient and pious usage. It is
impossible to open the writings of the fathers
of the fourth and fifth centuries, Gregory of
Nazianzen, Basil, Chrysostom, or any other,
without meeting, almost on every page, passages
which prove that the remains of the martyrs
were believed by all to be frequently the instruments of miraculous operations.
The tales about the relics of St. Thomas a
Becket, are of no consequence whatever, where
a principle is in question. His truly was a hallowed shrine, consecrated to the memory of a
prelate who resisted the encroachments of the
second Henry on the rights and privileges of
the Church. The piety of the faithful had enriched it with costly ornaments, which excited
the rapacity of Henry VIII., disturbed as he
was by the silent reproach of the martyr. He
accordingly abolished his festival, caused a mock
trial to be held, and sentence to be passed on
him  as a traitor. His bones were to be exhumed, and publicly burnt; the plates of gold
which covered his shrine were carried away,
the gems with which it was studded were




178             ON RELICS.
seized, one of them, of special lustre, the gift of
Louis the Seventh, being thenceforward worn
by the tyrant. These disgraceful proceedings
might call even for your reprobation. As to
relics which are not recommended by satisfactory testimony, Catholics are free to reject them.
Let credulity be shunned; but let not a usage
as ancient as the Church herself be wantonly
condemned.  Offerings made at shrines are
usually silver tablets commemorative of some
favor believed to have been obtained; not gifts
to the priests. There is no rivalry between the
saints and Christ their Lord. Every act done
in their honor is grounded on the relation which
they bear to Him, and redounds necessarily to
His glory. You ask: " Did not our Lord know
the humble faith of the woman who touched
His garment, and will her recovery?"  Certainly; but it was on the occasion of her performing that act with confidence in His power
and goodness.  No one expects any benefit
from touching sacred memorials, unless in proportion to his faith, and to the benign will of
the Almighty. "Did not St. Paul's prayers
attend the use of those aprons and handkerchiefs?"  This I know  not. God may have
granted the cures to show His approval of His
servant and messenger, without any prayer specially directed by the Apostle to that end. But
no matter. No one hopes for any Divine favor
from the touch of any relic, unless through the




ON RELICS.              179
prayers of the saint. You say that the garment
of our Lord, and the aprons of St. Paul, were
not relics, since their owners were then living
on earth; but the principle is the same, since
these material objects were made the instruments of miraculous cures on account of the relation they bore to Christ and to His apostle: and
so the various objects which we call relics,-the
bones of the saints, or things belonging to them,
may be made the instruments of supernatural
favors, when it so pleases God.  That they
have been such, is attested by all the illustrious
writers of the fourth and fifth ages especially.
You observe: "No man of common feeling,
or reflection, ever censured the wish even to preserve a relic of remarkable men or deeds, as an
object of association, which must interest posterity."* In fact, an old box, which served
Washington in the war of Independence, is
preserved respectfully in the capitol; and the
sword of the hero of New Orleans, has lately
been presented with great formality to Congress.
The feeling is natural and just, which leads us
to cherish memorials of men whom we esteemed
and loved. It is hallowed and ennobled by
religion, and awakens a deeper sentiment and
stronger affection. "But if you say to me,"
observes St. Ambrose, "what do you honor in
that flesh which is already wasted and con* Ep. II. ad sororem Marcellin.




180             ON RELICS.
sumed? I honor in the flesh of the martyr the
wounds which he received for the name of
Christ; I honor the memory of one who still
lives on account of his undying virtue; I honor
ashes that have been consecrated by the confession of the Lord; I honor in those ashes the
seeds of eternity; I honor the body which points
out to me that I should love the Lord, and
teaches me not to fear death for His sake. Why
should not the faithful honor that body which
even demons reverence? which indeed they
afflicted in martyrdom, but which they glorify
in the tomb? I honor, then, the body which
Christ honored by the sword, and which will
reign with Christ in heaven."*
If you compare this language, and that of
the ancient fathers generally, with the language
of the Breviary, or of Catholic preachers at this
day, you will find no reason to accuse us of exaggerated views of the honor due to relics. The
parallel which you draw between the heathenish
superstitions which St. Cyril of Jerusalem describes, and the pious practices of devout Catholics, who humbly hope to be cured of infirmities
through the intercession of the saints, has no
foundation, since he expressly treats of the
shrines of demons, or of their worship by superstitious rites performed near rivers. The confidence of the faithful in the early ages of the
* Serln. xciii. de S. Nazar. et Celso, in fine.




ON RELICS.              181
Church was equally as strong, nay, far stronger,
because the instances of relief were frequent and
striking.
What you give as a proof of superstition will
not appear such even to your Protestant readers,
when they understand the circumstances, namely, that the body of St. Isidore of Seville, was
purchased at a great price, by Ferdinand I. King
of Castile and Leon. Some might imagine that
it was a matter of bargain and sale between Catholics; but the simple fact is, that the Saracens
had possession of the country where his body
was interred, and the Catholic king ransomed
it at a large price, through veneration for his
memory. The temple erected afterwards, in
which it was deposited, was, of course, consecrated to Almighty God, to whom  alone we
dedicate all our churches, although, as it was designed to honor the memory of the holy Bishop
of Seville, it bore his name, as is usual. The
various miracles ascribed to his body, and those
of other saints, do not surpass, if they equal,
that which the Scripture relates of the bones of
the prophet, the contact with which resuscitated
a dead man; and cannot be rejected merely on
account of their extraordinary character. Their
credibility must be judged of by the rules of evidence.
The custom of kneeling to sovereigns, and
the English usage of bowing before the vacant
throne, are referred to by Dr. Milner, to vindicate
16




182             ON RELICS.
the inferior and relative honor which we pay to
sacred memorials. You, Right Reverend Sir,
deemed it an honor to be allowed to bend the
knee, and kiss the hand of Queen Victoria. Did
you abjure your fidelity to God?
Assuredly every one understands that these
very solemn marks of respect imply nothing incompatible with the Divine honor. You say:
"Were nothing more than this involved in the
doctrine or practice of Rome, we should never
have thought the question worth an argument."
Something more is implied in it, because the respect shown to princes is of a civil character,
whilst that shown to sacred objects is religious;
but both are inferior and subordinate, so that they
are altogether different from the homage rendered
to God. You speak of the worship of images
and relics as profitable to the priests, thus endeavoring to prejudice your readers against our
practice as interested: but I am an utter stranger to any pecuniary gain attached to it. I have
visited the shrines of the saints, and bent before
their images, and seen thousands perform the
like acts of devotion, but I have never seen or
known the smallest sum of money to be given
or received on such an occasion. You may jeeringly speak of "the deluded multitude paying
their offerings of silver and gold, to touch the
holy coat at Treves, to adore the holy tooth of
St. Peter, or to fall down before the winking




ON RELICS.               183
statue of the Virgin of Ancona." I know nothing of St. Peter's tooth, and I have not visited
Treves or Ancona, yet from the universal practice of all the countries in which I have travelled,
or lived, I am perfectly assured that nothing
whatever is demanded or given for any exhibition of relics. It is only in places like Westminster Abbey, which have passed into the
hands of the stranger, that money is exacted for
visiting the shrines andtombs of the saints.
The kissing of the Gospels in courts of justice, when an oath is taken, was alleged by Dr.
Milner as an instance of religious honor rendered
to a material object in reference to Christ our
Lord, whose words they contain.  This is perfectly analogous to our veneration of sacred memorials; yet you deny its force, because it is not
alike in all the accompanying circumstances.
"Where is the incense? where are the lights?
where are the prayers of faith? where is the hope
of receiving important aids and blessings? where
is the association of the act with the alleged
cures, the miraculous deliverance from sickness,
calamity, and danger?" It is not necessary that all
things should be alike, if the main point be the
same. The act is plainly an expression of religious
homage, the same which is performed by the priest
when he kisses the Gospel at the altar. The incense and lights accompany it in the solemn celebration of the mysteries, both being directed




184             ON RELICS.
in like manner to honor Christ, whose words are
read to shed light on Jews and Gentiles. The
effects hoped for occasionally from the application of sacred things are wholly distinct from
the usage itself. It is rarely that they are sought,
whilst the marks of religious honor are incessantly given to the precious memorials. That
God has sometimes granted them is beyond all
reasonable question. The cure of the afflicted
woman by the touch of our Saviour's garment,
and of many sick persons by the application of
the handkerchiefs of St. Paul, prepare us for
similar manifestations of Divine power in behalf
of those, who, with faith and humility, seek relief in affliction.
Although it is notorious that St. Jerom defended the veneration of relics against Vigilantius, you have the courage to quote in your
behalf, a passage selected from a letter written
expressly for this purpose. That you may get
due praise for your skill in drilling witnesses,
I shall first state that the letter is addressed to
the priest Riparius, who had informed St. Jerom
of the attack, made somewhat in your own style,
by Vigilantius on Catholics as "gatherers of
ashes, and idolators, who venerated the bones of
dead men."  In reply, Jerom says: "We do
not worship and adore, I do not say the relics
of the martyrs, but not even the sun and moon,
not the angels, not the archangels, not the
cherubim, not the seraphim, or any name which




ON RELICS.               185
is named either in this world or in the other,
lest we should serve the creature, rather than
the Creator, who is blessed forever." This is the
passage which you quote. Now let your witness
proceed with his testimony: "But we honor
the relics of the martyrs, so as to adore Him
whose martyrs they are. We honor the servants,
that the honor may redound to the Lord, who
says:' He that receiveth you, receiveth Me.' Are
then the relics of Peter and of Paul unclean?
Is the body of Moses unclean, which, according
to the Hebrew truth, was buried by the Lord
Himself? and as often as we enter the basilics
of the apostles and prophets, and of all the
martyrs, do we venerate temples of idols? and
are the lights which are lighted at their tombs,
the evidences of idolatry?"*  Now, sir, we will
let the witness leave the stand.
* Ep. liii. ad Riparium.
16*




LETTER XV.
RIGHT REVEREND SIR:
AM  pleased to find that sacred images are
unobjectionable in your eyes, as mere representations. " No sensible man," you say, "ever
found fault with sculpture or painting as a
memorial of past events, or of departed friends,
or as a tribute to peculiar greatness, either in
Church or State."*  You assent, therefore, to
their use, as books for the unlearned, as St.
Gregory styles them: but you are scandalized
at the reverence paid to them, by those who kiss
them affectionately, bow their head to them, or
prostrate themselves before them.  All these
usages, together with some others, more common among the Greeks, are to be judged of by
the known intention and principles of those who
practise them, and especially by the solemn
declarations of the Church. The second Council
of Nice,t whilst approving of them, expressly
* Vol. ii. p. 113.  t Hard. Cone. Gen. t. iv. p. 455.




ON SACRED IMAGES.           187
says that " supreme worship which is according
to faith, and alone becomes the Divine Nature,"
must not be given to images. If you cannot
understand, why an intellectual Christian may
without sin kiss a crucifix, or prostrate himself
before it, neither may you account for the fondness with which a son, in a foreign land, presses
to his lips the miniature of a loved mother. St.
Gregory, writing to Secundinus, who had asked
for a picture of our Saviour, observes: " I know
that you seek the image of our Saviour, not with
a view of adoring it as God, but in order to have
present to your mind the Son of God, and to
excite His love in your heart, whilst you behold
His image. We also prostrate ourselves before
it, not as before the Deity, but we adore Him,
whom by means of the image, we recall to mind
in His birth, or passion, or seated on His
throne."*
The fact of St. Epiphanius tearing down an
image of some one, which he found hanging in
a church, as if it were the image of Christ, or of
a saint, tells rather in favor of the use of images,
than against it, for he seems to have been indignant that the picture of some unknown person
should occupy a place becoming only the image
of our Lord, or some of His eminent servants.
He accordingly promised to give one more suitable in its place.t This shows that his objection
* Ep. ad. Secundin. 1. ix. p. 411. t Hopkins, vol. ii. p. 118.




188         ON SACRED IMAGES.
regarded the particular picture in question, not
the usage itself.
Dr. Milner justly availed himself of a fact
recorded by Eusebius as an early instance of
statuary being employed for religious purposes,
namely, to commemorate a favor received from
Christ. The historian testifies to the erection
of two brazen statues at Edessa, in memory of
the cure of the woman by the touch of the garment of our Saviour, and mentions without rejecting it, the prevalent persuasion, that persons
were healed by the use of the plant which grew
at the bottom, and rose to the fringe of the
brazen cloak. He also states as notorious that
paintings of Christ and of His Apostles Peter
and Paul, were to be found. He accounts, indeed for this, from the usage existing among
the heathen to raise statues to their benefactors.
Nothing, however, is said by him condemnatory
of the practice, as continued by them after their
conversion, and applied to religious objects.
His testimony is not brought forward to prove
that pictures were then used in worship; but it
shows conclusively that statues and paintings
were already employed to represent sacred subjects.
Your mode of quoting testimonies is most unfair. You begin with Clement of Alexandria,
who, you say, "thus speaks on the subject of
images made for the purposes of religion,' Those
images which are made by vile and sordid men,




ON SACRED IMAGES.             189
are made of vain and useless materials; hence
they are also vain, useless, material, and profane.
Therefore, the works of art are by no means to
be esteemed sacred and divine."* You conceal
from your readers that the author is especially
treating of heathen idolators, and you mutilate
the text for this express purpose; it runs thus:
"It is ridiculous, as the philosophers themselves
say, for man, who is the sport of the gods, to
make a god, and that God should be made after
a ludicrous fashion; since the work is like its
material, so that of ivory you have an ivory god;
of gold, a golden one. Idols and temples which
are made by vile men are formed of sluggish
matter, so that they also are inert, material, and
profane; and, however perfect the art, they
partake of vileness. The works of art are not
then sacred and divine."t The term ayra/aara
simulacra, means idols, as the Lexicon explains
it; it is generally used of statues of horses, oxen,
or other animals, objects of idolatrous worship.
You have left out altogether lspa the temples. I
leave you to account for this dishonorable management.
St. Ambrose, whom you quote, moralizes on
the fact related in Scripture, that Rachel hid the
Teraphim, which she had taken from the house
of her father. What these were it puzzles interpreters to divine, but the saint takes them for
* Vol. ii. p. 114,   t Stromat. 1. vii. ~ v.




190         ON SACRED IMAGES.
objects of idolatrous worship; and as he considers
Rachel to be the type of the Church, he observes:
" Holy Rachel, that is, the Church, or prudence,
hid the idols (simulacra), because the Church
knows not empty ideas and vain figures of idols;
but she knows the true substance of the Trinity.
Finally, she has abolished the shadow, and manifested the splendor of glory."* I am at a loss
to know what force this passage can have against
the use and veneration of Christian images. St.
Ambrose spoke of the superstitious objects, or
idols, which Rachel concealed, and he stated that
the Church, having a knowledge by faith of the
Divine Trinity, imparts it to her children, and
leaves them not to seek God, as the heathens, in
vain idols. Elsewhere he expresses the same
sentiment: "Blessed Rachel, who, by her offspring took away our shame; blessed Rachel,
who hid the worship and errors of the Gentiles,
and declared that their idols are full of uncleanness."t
St. Augustin reproved most justly those who
eat and drank to excess at the tombs of the dead,
and practised certain superstitions, whom he
calls worshippers of tombs, or of pictures; but
he praised the picture of St. Stephen, which
hung in the Church, where he pronounced the
panegyric of the martyr: " This is a very sweet
picture, where you see St. Stephen stoned, and
* De fuga saeculi, c. v.  t De Jacob et beata vita, 1. ii. c. v.




ON SACRED IMAGES.             191
Saul in charge of the garments of those who
stone him."*
Optatus relates that a report was spread by
the Donatists, that on the arrival of Paul and
Macarius, the imperial officers, who were expected to assist at the holy sacrifice, an image
would be placed on the altar.t You infer that
it was a sacred image; but from the official character which they bore, and the previous measures taken by them in the name of the Emperor, to repress the schism, there is great reason
to believe that it was his portrait or arms. This
rumor got coloring from the fact, that Macarius
had condemned several Donatists for crimes
against the public peace. However, it proved a
false alarm, and all things proceeded as usual in
the celebration of the sacrifice.
St. Gregory reproved Serenus, Bishop of Marseilles, for breaking a sacred image, on the pretext that it had become the occasion of superstitious worship, yet he commended his zeal, to
prevent such abuse. You infer, thence, that he
was averse to any of those marks of reverence
which we now give to sacred pictures; but his
words already cited prove the contrary. The
contrast which you form between his teaching
and that of the second Council of Nice, rests on
an equivocal term, which by him is employed to
* Serm. cccxvi. alias xciv. de diversis.
t L. iii. de schismate Donat. sub finern.




192         ON SACRED IMAGES.
denote supreme worship, whilst it is used by
them of an inferior degree of worship, as they
expressly state.
The very ancient custom which Tertullian attests, of representing Christ on the chalice under
the image of the Good Shepherd,* is deemed unexceptionable by you; but you deny that it
avails to establish the usage and veneration of
images as now practised. It shows, however,
that in the earliest times such representations
were deemed suitable in connection with public
worship, and in the immediate celebration of its
highest mysteries. It is certain, also, from the
examination of the catacombs, that they were
made on the walls, on the sarcophagi, and in a
great variety of ways; so that although they
were chiefly designed for instruction as well as
ornament, they prove that the usage of sacred
pictures is most ancient. Every fact that establishes this usage serves to vindicate it in its
present form, for the marks of respect shown to
images are but a consequence of their being used
in worship. If the Council of Elvire forbade
" what is worshipped to be painted on the walls,"
it must have had local reasons to require this
prohibition, which never was general, and can
have no application to the circumstances of our
times. Dr. Milner has clearly stated that the
usage is purely disciplinary, and dependent on
* L. de pudicitia c. x.




ON SACRED IMAGES.            193
the discretion of the Church, who, however, hurls
her anathema against those who condemn it as
implying idolatry or superstition.
The honor given to images is wholly referred
to the objects represented by them, since in
themselves they have no virtue or excellence.
Hence the kissing of them, bowing to them,
prostrating ourselves before them, or any like
act of devotion, suggested by the piety of individuals, or prescribed in the solemn ritual of
the Church, is to be regarded as directed to such
object. Gardiner, Bishop of Winchester, under
Henry VIII., in defending certain acts of respect
then paid to sacred images, observed, that "if
they had been used to be censed and to have
candles offered unto them, none were so foolish
to do it to stock or stone, or to the image itself,
but it twas done to God and His honor before
the image,"*  The ritual of Good Friday directs that the Crucifix be uncovered, which
during the preceding weeks had been veiled,
and that as its arms are successively exposed,
the faithful should be admonished by the celebrant, and invited to adore. "Behold the wood
of the cross, on which the salvation of the world
hung; come, let us adore,"  It is then laid on.
the steps of the altar, and the clergy, after three
genuflexions, kiss the sacred image, which is
subsequently honored in like manner by the
* Strype Eccl. AMem. p. 52.
17




194         ON SACRED IMAGES.
people, or simply kissed by them at the communion railing, as is generally practised here.
These are the most solemn acts which we perform, and the only acts which are specially prescribed, if we except the bowing to the cross by
the priest, when he passes before it. The object
of our adoration, as explained by St. Gregory, is
the Saviour Himself. Dr. Milner pointed to the
ceremony of bowing at the name of Jesus, which
is practised by the members of the Church of
England, as calculated to illustrate our usages
in regard to the cross, and other sacred images.
You reply that the name is no image. It is
something less, it is a fleeting sound, directed
nevertheless to represent the Saviour to our
thoughts. You add that the worship is not
given to the name, but to God, who alone can
be the rightful object of worship. I trust you
do not deny that our Redeemer, even as man,
is rightfully worshipped, on account of the union
of the human nature with the Divine in the
second Divine Person. We then worship our
Redeemer Himself, whom the image, like the
sound, presents to our mind. "If the same argument could be pleaded for the images and
relics of Rome, her advocates might claim a
sure and easy victory."* These are your own
words. The victory is ours.
The miraculous opening of the eyes of certain
* Vol. ii. p. 112.




ON SACRED IMAGES.            195
images of the Virgin, which you ridicule, is to
be judged of on principles of evidence. The
Holy See is extremely cautious not to admit any
miracle without satisfactory proof, so that if, as
you assert, it allows even a local festival to be
celebrated in commemoration of such a fact,
there is the strongest presumption that the testimony has been found satisfactory.  Nowhere
in this age, are people so easily imposed on as
not to be able to discover trickery and fraud, if
it exist, in a matter which is public, and open to
observation for a long period. Intelligent individuals and men hostile to religion are always
found among the crowd of observers. When,
then, thousands attest a fact such as that which
you deride, I do not venture to reject it, lest I
fall into scepticism with regard to facts of a still
more extraordinary character recorded in the
Divine writings. Yet, as the Church does not
make such facts matters of necessary belief, I
use no effort to bring my mind to positive assent,
as long as the evidence is not brought under my
view. Thus credulity and temerity are avoided.
I am at no loss, however, to conceive why God
may vouchsafe to give such extraordinary indications of His favor, at periods when impiety
seems to triumph, to console and support His
servants, by the reflection that their Mother and
Advocate turns towards them eyes full of compassion, and pleads for them above, as also to




196        ON SACRED IMAGES.
manifest His approval of the devotion to her,
which is assailed by the profane.
You do not, Right Reverend Sir, think it
beneath you, to renew the charge of our omitting the second commandment, "while, in order
to prevent the cheat from being discovered, they
split," you say of us, "the Tenth Commandment into two."* All the words of the commandments, especially that appendage of the
first, which you make a distinct commandment,
are in our ordinary catechisms in use in this
country, from the beginning, as well as in our
larger catechisms, and the Bible. In the small
catechisms of Europe, it was customary to give
only the first words, that children might more
easily commit them to memory. On this very
reasonable custom that most unjust charge is
based. You know that in the division of the
commandments, we follow St. Augustin, and that
the Lutherans agree with us. Even Cranmer,
in the catechismus set forth under Edward, retained the same division.
You endeavor to fasten on Dr. Milner the
charge, if not of forging a testimony, at least of
producing it with full knowledge of its being a
forgery. The passage was quoted more than a
thousand years before his time, in the second
General Council of Nice, as an extract from a
letter of St. Basil to Julian the Apostate. To
Vol. ii. p. 129.




ON SACRED IMAGES.            197
prove that Dr. Milner knew it to be supposititious, as modern critics regard it, you state that
in the Parisian edition which he used, "the
heading of the very page on which it stands presents the title,'Epistole Spuriae."' Give me
leave to say, this is false. The extract begins,
and the greater part of it is found on the preceding page. You express "renewed surprise
that this Apostolic Vicar had descended to cite
the false and pretended testimony of Basil, with
the title Spurious Epistles, staring him in the
face."* The title stared Dr. Milner in the face,
only as a sign-board hanging on the opposite
side of the way. The general heading under
which this extract is given, includes some letters
having no date, some of doubtful authenticity,
and some certainly spurious. Various letters
are then given without any particular brand.
On the page following the one on which the extract commences, the title of'Spurious Epistles'
first appears. There is, then, no evidence to
support your accusation. Yet you add: "Such
is the Jesuitical morality, which deems it no sin
to use a pious fraud for the sake of proselyting."
What principle of morals can justify this wholesale calumny?
Ib. p. 197.
17*




LETTER XVI.
en t^  itimat
RIGHT REVEREND SIR:
AS you have not cared to substantiate your
quotations, or sustain your reasonings on
the Primacy, in detail, I must confine myself
to those points on which you specially join
issue. You maintain anew that Hppo; means a
stone, whilst 7ri-pa means a rock, so that according to you, the text of St. Matthew, xvi.
v. 18, runs thus:  "Thou art a stone, and
on this rock I will build my church."  The
utter want of connection in this mode of explaining the text, sufficiently shows its incongruity. You quote many passages of the Old
Testament, to prove that God is called a rock,
which you demonstrate by reference to the Hebrew term, literally rendered in the Protestant
version. Your erudition, however, is thrown
away in endeavoring to establish a distinction
in the text of the promise, on account of the
Greek terms, since it is certain that in the Syriac
the same term is employed in both places. As
this was the language which our Saviour used,




ON THE PRIMACY.             199
there is no possibility of distinguishing what is
so clearly identical. The most learned Protestant interpreters, English and German, as
Bloomfield avows, have long since abandoned
the distinction as untenable. 
In the text of Luke xxi. 24, which you quote,
our Lord checks the ambitious tendencies of
His disciples, and inculcates humility as the necessary duty of the highest in authority: "He
who is the greatest among you, let him be as
the least." He also warns Simon to confirm his
brethren, assuring him that He had prayed for
him specially, that his faith might not fail. This
you chose not to notice. Your other objections
from Scripture, as well as that just solved, have
been already met in my former work, so that I
shall content myself with stating that Cave, the
learned Anglican, acknowledges that Peter acted
the chief part in the Council of Jerusalem.
Grotius says that his epistles have an energy
characteristic of the prince of the Apostles; and
even Calvin admits that he appears as their leader.
You insist that Peter was not Bishop of Rome,
because Irenaeus says that " he delivered to Linus
the episcopal right to govern it." Yet this may
be understood of his directing him to take charge
of it after his death, since the same writer says,
that Clement, who succeeded Anaclitus, after
Linus, was "third in  succession from  the
Apostles;" which supposes that the chair was
first filled by either of them. He ascribes the




200          ON TIHE PRIMACY.
foundation of the Roman See to both Peter and
Paul. No one imagines that St. Peter remained
at Rome, or at Antioch, during the whole period
assigned to his occupancy of either See. His
special relation to the See did not abridge his
apostolic authority, or prevent his attention to
the Church at large.
Origen, when not indulging his usual fondness
for mystical interpretation, as in the passages
which you object, states distinctly that " supreme
power to feed the sheep was given to Peter."*
Cyprian, in numberless passages, even in that
which you quote, affirms that on "Peter the
Church was built," and praises him  for not
having put forward his primacy to silence Paul,
when reproved by him. You admit that "he
appears to have adopted, to some extent, the
notion which was now beginning to be maintained in favor of Roman supremacy."t
Eusebius testifies to the coming of Peter to
Rome, and that Linus was the first to hold the
episcopate after his martyrdom, which proves
that during his lifetime, Rome had no bishop
but himself.
St. Ambrose, in the passage which you object,
speaks of Peter's faith as the foundation of the
Church, referring especially to his belief in God
Incarnate, as he is refuting the Arians. His
privilege, he affirms, is communicated to each
In Ep. ad Rom. lv. n. 10.  t Vol. i. p. 450.




ON THE PRIMACY.             201
one who imitates his faith, since he also becomes
as it were, a foundation of the Church, his
example serving to support it, wherefore Ambrose adds: "If he cannot equal Peter, he can
imitate him."* Such applications of the sacred
text, which are common with the fathers, do not
interfere with its literal meaning. Ambrose, in
like manner, designates the faith of each one a
rock, on which a spiritual edifice may be erected.
When he teaches, that "what is said to Peter,
is said to the Apostles,"t he means that the
power to bind and loose is given to them likewise.
He is there arguing against the Novatians, who
denied to the Church the power of pardoning
very heinous offences, which he justly insists
was given to all the Apostles. He also says, that
the operation of the Divine Trinity is not confined to Peter, since all the Apostles share in
the great work of instructing and sanctifying
mankind. HIe looked on the labors and virtues
of Paul as equal to those of Peter, although he
distinctly recognizes his special privilege as the
foundation of the Church: "Paul was not inferior to Peter, although he is the foundation of
the Church; the other is a skilful architect, who
understands how to establish the steps of the
nations who believe."t The other passage which
you quote, as is your general practice, by re*L. vi. Luc. c. ix.  t Enarr. in Ps. xxxviii.
4 L. ii. de Sp. S.




202          ON THE PRIMACY.
ferring to the page and volume of a particular
edition,* without specifying the work, is taken
from a treatise on the Sacraments, which the
learned critic Cellier denies to be the work of
Ambrose. The sentiment it expresses is, however, a just one. The author, who is certainly
very ancient and orthodox, declares his wishes
to follow in all things the Roman Church; yet
claims a right to adhere to a pious usage of the
Church of Milan, although the same rite was not
observed at Rome, namely the washing of the
feet of the neophytes on their coming forth from
the font: "We know  well that the Roman
Church, whose example and pattern we desire
to follow in all things, has not this usage.
I wish to follow the Roman Church in all things;
yet we also as men have understanding, and
therefore we are right in observing that which is
elsewhere more properly practised. We follow
the Apostle Peter himself; we imitate his devotion. What does the Roman Church reply to
this?  Peter, who was Bishop of the Roman
Church, is our authority for this practice. Peter
himself says:' Lord, not my feet only, but my
hands and head likewise.' "t
St. Jerom acknowledged Pope Damasus, the
successor of St. Peter, to be the rock on which
the Church was built, and implored his direction
in regard to the terms to be used in speaking of
* Op. Ed. Bened, tom. 2, p. 664, ~ 158.
L. iii de Sac, c. 1.




ON THE PRIMACY.            203
the mystery of the Trinity.* He recognized,
indeed, each bishop, whether at Rome, or Eugubium, as having the same priesthood, but he
did not ascribe to them the same governing
authority, which would be manifestly in opposition to the testimony of all antiquity. He
admits that the strength of the Church is consolidated upon all the Apostles; Peter, however,
"being constituted head, that the occasion of
schism may be taken away."  Christ is called
by him the foundation of the Church, laid by
Paul the Apostle; but Peter also is the foundation, his name being derived from Him. The
passage which you quote, to show that bishops
and priests were originally the same, may please
the Presbyterians; it does not help your cause
as regards the Sovereign Pontiff. It may be
plausibly employed to show that bishops are not
of Divine institution, as perhaps you hold, since
you regard them as not necessary for the being
of the Church; but it does not interfere with
the prerogative of the one great Apostle.
It may be sufficient to observe with St. Augustin, that "in the Roman Church the princedom of the Apostolic chair always flourished."t
Instead of reciting anew passages from him and
the other fathers, which you had already quoted
in your former work, and I had explained in my
reply, you should have shown that my explana* Ep. xv. Damaso.  t Ad Gloriull  et Eleusium, Ep. xliii.




204         ON TIHE PRIMACY.
tions were not satisfactory, and you should have
strengthened your former conclusions by new
authorities or arguments. But as you are pleased
to ignore what I so fully treated, I must beg
again to refer to my larger work on the Primacy,
where all is set forth in great detail.
Although you discover some commencement
of Roman supremacy in the time of St. Cyprian,
you date the origin of its appellate power from
a decree of the Emperor Valentinian, A. D. 366.
Yet the decree of the Council of Sardica, which
recognized and regulated the proceedings in
case of appeal, was prior to this date; and even
before this council, appeals were made and received by Pope Julius and others. You observe, that if the right to receive them were
divine, the imperial decree would have been unnecessary; you must, however, perceive that it
served to enforce the action of the ecclesiastical
tribunal, by giving it a civil sanction, The
first Council of Constantinople, in regulating
the relations of diocesan bishops, made no enactment regarding the Bishop of Rome; but
undertook to invest the Bishop of Constantinople with privileges like those of the Roman
Bishop, on account of the civil pre-eminence of
the city. The words of the canon, as given by
you, are: " The Bishop of Constantinople ought
to have the primacy of honor with or after
(Gr. iltra) the Bishop of Rome, because that is
the New Rome."  Notwitlstanding that you are




ON THE PRIMACY.            205
pained at small verbal criticisms, I must observe
that the Greek preposition is determined to the
latter signification, by the accusative case which
follows it. The Council did not attempt to raise
the Bishop of Constantinople to the rank of the
Roman Bishop, but desired to give him  the
second place in the hierarchy, which seemed to
them to be due to the imperial city. In stating
that the fathers had given privileges to Rome as
the seat of empire, the Council did not insinuate
that such had been their chief motive; for they
well knew that its power had been recognized
under the Pagan emperors, and after it had
ceased to be the capital. If it had originated
from its civil greatness, it must have expired
with the translation of the seat of empire. This
council, in styling the See of Jerusalem the
mother of all churches, had regard to its antiquity, not to its authority.
I am sorry to be obliged to charge you with
a manifest misstatement of the proceedings at
Chalcedon. You state truly, that the Papal
Legates opposed the decree; and you represent
Paschasius one of them as detected in the attempt
to support it, by the fraudulent interpolation of
the Nicene Canon, which he began in these
words: "The Roman Church hath always had
the Primacy."  "The attempted fraud," you
say, "was detected, and the true meaning given,
which had no such words. The decree was
accordingly confirmed in favor of the Church of
18




206         ON THE PRIMACY.
Constantinople; and we may readily imagine
the expressions of indignation and contempt
with which the impudent forgery was branded
by the fathers."* This statement is altogether
at variance with the facts. The privileges of
the See of Rome were not at all called in question; but as the first Council of Constantinople,
eighty years before, had framed a decree, giving to the bishop of that city the second place
in the hierarchy, and the Oriental bishops
at Chalcedon, in the preceding session, held in
the absence of the legates, had confirmed it,
omitting even some restrictions, which had been
inserted by the fathers of Constantinople, to
save, to some extent, the ancient prerogatives
of Antioch and Alexandria, the legates complained of this proceeding, and desired that it
should be reversed, as contrary to the Nicene
Canon. The judges in the Council, who were
civil officers charged with the maintenance of
order, demanded that the legates and the friends
of the See of Constantinople, should produce the
canons; whereupon the Legate Paschasius read
the sixth canon of Nice, beginning with the
words above stated. A secretary of the Council
was furnished with another copy by the archdeacon of the Church of Constantinople, which
he accordingly read, without those prefatory
words. No observation whatever was made as
*Vol. i. p. 464.




ON THE PRIMACY.            207
to the apparent discrepancy, because no question was raised as to the primacy of Rome.
The only inquiry made by the judges was, whether the bishops had acted, in the preceding
session, free from all restraint; which being
affirmed by them, the judges pronounced sentence in these words: "From what has been
done, and from the attestation given by each
one, we consider, that before all, the primacy
and eminent honor should be preserved, according to the canons, to the most beloved of God,
archbishop of ancient Rome; but that it is
proper that the most holy archbishop of the imperial city of Constantinople, the new Rome,
should enjoy the same privileges of honor after
him, and that he should have full power to
ordain the metropolitans of Asia, Pontus, and
Thrace."*  From the very terms of this decree,
it may be inferred that the reading of the canon
by the Legate was approved of, since the very
term rd 7rporea is used in both places; and the
latter is professedly grounded on previous canons. So far, then, from any charge of fraud
being advanced, there is the strongest presumption that the reading was recognized as authentic. There is full evidence that no objection
was raised, no question entertained as to the
Roman primacy, which, on the contrary, was
formally avowed. The great desire of the Eastern
* Cone. vol. ii. p. 642.




208          ON THE PRIMACY.
fathers was to give the imperial city like privileges, which they express by a different term:
Vw avuwrv rpPoi3ewv. These, although sometimes
called equal "Iov, were only such as were suitable
to patriarchs, and were limited chiefly to three
provinces. The opposition of the legates was
owing to the instructions of the Pope, who was
aware that an effort of the kind was likely to be
made, which he ordered them to resist. The
influence of the court was sufficient to induce
the Oriental bishops to yield to the ambition of
its favorite, the bishop of the capital; but nothing could move the Pontiff, who, deaf to the
entreaties of the bishops, the emperor and the
empress, by the authority of the Blessed Peter,
annulled the canon, as an infraction of the
order of the hierarchy, recognized by the first
General Council. Your readers, Right Reverend
Sir, may have been easily led by your insinuations, to imagine that expressions " of indignation and contempt" were uttered by the fathers;
but there is no ground whatever for thinking
so. They respectively sought to gain the assent
of the legates to the measure, by showing that
it was not wrung from the bishops, but willingly
yielded for the honor of the Bishop of the imperial city. No forgery-no interpolation whatever, was alleged. The Roman primacy was
distinctly acknowledged, not merely on the
ground of the civil pre-eminence which Rome
had once enjoyed, as insinuated in the decree,




ON THE PRIMACY.              209
but because " the care of the vineyard was intrusted by our Lord to Leo in the person of
Peter," as the fathers distinctly state in their
letter to the Pontiff. Could you discover in
Dr. Milner any similar misstatement, you would
have reason to reproach him, as you most unwarrantably do elsewhere, with "dishonest insinuation, gross deception, and unmeasured
reliance on the prejudices of his hearers."
The effort which you have made to revive the
exploded tale of the Popess Joan, deserves the
praise of ingenuity, though not of good judgment or candor.  The disgusting details into
which you enter so minutely, shall not be handled
by me, for I have no fears that the succession
will, on this account, be called in question,
whilst Bayle, Gibbon, and Blondell, with the
host of writers of the present day, reject the absurd story, which is disproved by known facts
and dates. Besides, as the English bishops,
at the time of the alleged intrusion of a Popess,
about the middle of the ninth century, and for
nearly seven hundred years afterwards, were in
communion with Rome, and derived their jurisdiction from it, nothing can weaken the succession without involving your claims in still
greater uncertainty. The learned Bishop Beveridge felt this, when he observed: "We do not
deny that the apostolical succession hath been
continued in the Church of Rome."*  This re.
* Serm. 1, Christ's presence with His ministers, p. 24, vol. i.
18*




210          ON THE PRIMACY.
fiection should have made you pause, before asserting that the Pope is Antichrist, since you necessarily derive under him, if at all. Grotius
lamented that any Protestants should have
broached this impiety. That you should adopt
it, betrays a desperate resolution to overturn the
Papal chair at any hazard; but there it stands in its
lofty position. Whilst men, frenzied by passion,
gnash their teeth and blaspheme, the alleged
Antichrist repeats forever the divinely inspired
profession of Peter: "Thou art Christ, the Son
of the living God." He proclaims at all times
the mandate of the Father, that at the name of
Jesus all should bow in homage-those who are
in heaven, on earth, or in the lowest depths of
hell.
Your ingenuity discovers "a trick" and "a bold
scheme of pious fraud attempted in the service
of Papal ambition," in the proceedings in regard
to appeals to the Holy See from the African
clergy, in the early part of the fifth century.
Apiarius, a priest, excommunicated by Urban,
Bishop of Sicca, appealed to Pope Zosimus, who
soon despatched two priests, as his legates, with
powers to restore the appellant, excommunicate
the Bishop if he refused to submit to their decision, and regulate all appeals for the future in
accordance with the Nicene Canons. It is now
certain that the canons thus referred to were not
enacted at Nice, but in a council held at Sardica,
some twenty years after that of Nice; yet at




ON THE PRIMACY.            211
Rome they were called Nicene, and were contained in the same volume with those of Nice,
as even the Jansenist Quesnel confessed on inspection of a very ancient Vatican manuscript.
As the interval between the two councils was so
small, and many of the same prelates were present at both, it easily happened that the canons
of Sardica were regarded as a sequel and supplement to those of Nice. Innocent I., the predecessor of Zosimus, often refers to them under
this appellation. In Africa, however, they were
wholly unknown, and the fathers therefore hesitated to adopt them as a permanent basis of action until their authenticity should be ascertained
by special messengers sent to examine the archives of the great churches of Alexandria, Antioch, and Constantinople. Their reportwas unfavorable, inasmuch as the canons were not found
in those churches, so that the Council expostulated respectfully with the Pontiff, and prayed
him not to lend a ready ear to the complaints
of clergymen refractory to the authority of their
immediate superiors. On these facts you build
your charges of trickery and fraud, although the
canons are now universally acknowledged to
have been enacted at Sardica, and consequently
to have the same weight and authority as if they
had proceeded from the Nicene fathers. A mere
misnomer is the only pretext for so grave an accusation. The African fathers showed the most
marked deference for the Papal authority, since




212         ON THIE PRIMACY.
they submitted to it at once in the case in question; and on the report apparently adverse to
their authenticity, they limited themselves to respectful remonstrance and entreaty.
What you regard as an impious fraud of Pope
Stephen, was certainly no more than a rhetorical
fiction, which Pepin must have perfectly understood, when the letter in the name of St. Peter
the Apostle, urging him to come to the relief of
Rome, his favored city, was sent to him by the
Pontiff. It is incredible that even in the eighth
century, or in any other age, however credulous,
a prince so distinguished could have been imposed on by a fraud so destitute of probability.
The scandals given by certain occupants of the
Papal chair, are a fruitful theme of reproach, on
which you delight to expatiate; yet if we consider the turbulence of the times, the total disorganization of society, the temporary ascendency
obtained at Rome by some petty potentates, the
national partialities which favored some intruders, through jealousy of German influence, we
shall not be astonished that in the tenth and
eleventh centuries some instances occurred of
wicked and ambitious men, who seized on the
reins of government. Few, very few, were those
who deserved to be marked with the brand of
infamy. Towards the close of the fifteenth century, and in the early part of the sixteenth, two
or three Pontiffs appeared with the evidences of
early frailty near their persons; and it must be




ON THE PRIMACY.             213
avowed that they scarcely atoned for it by fervor
and devotedness, one perhaps excepted. Of Alexander VI. few have ventured to speak, even in
extenuation of censure; but, although I feel
convinced that his vices have been exaggerated,
and that crimes have been laid to his charge
without any just grounds, still I have no plea to
offer for his licentiousness, first indulged, it is
said, when a young officer of the army, but continued, I doubt not, under the mantle of the
Roman purple, and shamelessly avowed, when
he sat on high, in that chair, whose occupant is
styled " Holiness," to remind him of the sanctity
which becomes his station.
The character of several Popes has suffered
unjustly from the interested misrepresentations
of rivals, or their partisans, as also of the adherents of schismatical emperors and kings. National jealousies led the Italians to satirize the
French popes who sat at Avignon, while the
French viewed with no partiality several who sat
at Rome. The civil relations of the Pontiff to
his subjects have often cast odium on the exercise of his ecclesiastical authority, and his political associations with various princes have contributed in no slight degree to excite the rancor,
and provoke the animadversions of writers of
other nations. Certain historians assume the air
of candor, by reciting the very words of some
contemporary, who has recorded his view of the
personal character, or public acts of an indivi



214          ON THE PRIMACY.
dual Pope, without reflecting that he may have
mistaken rumors for facts, and followed the bias
of partisanship to the prejudice of truth and justice. I feel it unnecessary to enter into a detailed vindication of- the various pontiffs, whose
character is more generally the object of attack;
but I fearlessly say, that considering the long
succession of Popes, the convulsions of society,
the vicissitudes of Rome, and the endless variety
of circumstances in which the Popes have been
placed, it is nothing short of a miracle that, in
general, their character has been pure and exalted, whilst their succession has been inviolably
maintained. I take leave, then, Right Reverend
Sir, to remind you of the course of argument
pursued by St. Augustin, when Petilian, the
Donatist, made light of the boast of Catholics,
that they enjoyed the communion of the See of
Peter, which he impiously called the chair of
pestilence, unfit for saints to occupy. St. Augustin replied to the insult: "Do you not
feel that this is not argument, but wanton
contumely? You make this allegation without
proving it; and if even you proved it as to some
individuals, you could not, on their account,
prejudice the claims of others. Nevertheless, if
all throughout the world were such as you most
wantonly charge, what has the chair of the Roman Church done to you-in which Peter sat,
and Anastasius sits at present? or the chair of
the Church of Jerusalem, in which James sat,




ON TIHE PRIMACY.           215
and in which at this day John is sitting, with
which we are connected in Catholic unity, and
from which you are separated in wicked frenzy?
Why do you call the apostolic chair a chair of
pestilence? If it be on account of the men who
you suppose propound the law without fulfilling
it, did the Lord Jesus Christ, on account of the
Pharisees, of whom He said,'They say, and
do not,' dishonor, in any way, the chair on which
they sat? Did he not commend that chair of
Moses, and rebuke them without prejudice to the
chair? For He says,'They sit on the chair of
Moses; the things which they say, do ye; but
do not the things which they do; for they say
and'do not.' If you would reflect on these
things, you would not dishonor the apostolic
chair, whose communion you have not, on account of the men whom you slander. But what
else is this, unless to show oneself at a loss for
something to say, and yet to be able to utter
nothing but contumely?"*
Boniface VIII. may fairly be given as an
instance of the injustice which some Popes
have suffered from the partisans of crowned
heads.  His learning and talent are unquestionable; but his bold resistance to Philip
the Fair, in his aggression on the rights of the
clergy, and in the oppression of his subjects,
exposed him to tie royal resentment. To re* Contra lit. Petilian. 1. ii. n. 118.




216          ON THE PRIMACY.
lieve the king from the shame and odium of his
maltreatment of the Pontiff; who died in consequence of it, it was reported by the king's adherents, that Boniface was an atheist, and that
after his humiliation, he had yielded to despair.
Happily for the cause of truth, his body, after
three hundred years' repose, being identified, was
found in an admirable state of preservation, as if
Heaven would signify its approval of a faithful
and virtuous prelate. The process against his
memory proved a failure, and the General
Council of Vienne, not long after his death, pronounced him  orthodox.  You, nevertheless,
reopen the cause, produce anew the witnesses,
whose testimony was rejected as perjured, or
irrelevant, and after a mock tria' find him guilty
of atheism and infidelity. This is more ridiculous than painful, especially since you pathetically expatiate on the awful condition of the
Roman Church at that period, inasmuch as a
Cardinal and a Pope "both were downright
atheists."*  The name of the Cardinal which
you give, is Cajetan; the Pope, Boniface-who
were one and the same person. This curious
blunder is repeated several times with the like
expressions of horror and commiseration!
* Vol. i. p. 142, 144, 339.




LETTER  XVII.
In lEmporal l2m
RIGHT REVEREND SIR:
TYOU        count for nothing Dr. Milner's disclaimer of any civil or temporal supremacy
in the Pope, by which he can depose princes;
and you make light of the oath of the English
and Irish Catholics, both prelates and people, who
deny that " he hath, or ought to have any temporal or civil jurisdiction, power, superiority, or
pre-eminence, directly, or indirectly, within the
realm." This you consider to be "ingeniously
worded to gull the British Parliament," and you
avow that " this is a kind of jurisdiction which
was never demanded by the highest advocate of
Ultramontanism."  I thank you for this avowal,
which is calculated to remove some of the odium
which has been cast on the views of certain
divines, who favored the opinion, which has
long ceased to be advocated even in Rome itself.
I never before suspected that the British Parliament, with Pitt at its head, was altogether gullible. It is clear that if you had been there to
enlighten them, the Catholics would still remain
unemancipated.
19




218          TEMPORAL POWER.
You will scarcely venture to deny, that there
are circumstances in which the rights of sovereigns over their subjects cease, in consequence
of the enormous abuse of power. In such cases,
when  the European  nations were generally
Catholic, the Pope was looked up to, as the
proper authority to declare this forfeiture. By
the force of circumstances these nations coalesced
into a federal alliance, or republic, of which he
was the acknowledged head. You deny this,
which, however, is affirmed not only by Voltaire,
but by our own jurists, Kent, Wheaton, and
other respectable authorities. Voltaire expressly
says: "The nations belonging to the Roman
communion appeared to be one great republic."*
Chancellor Kent, speaking of the middle ages,
observes: " The Church had its councils or convocations of the clergy, which formed the nations
professing Christianity into a connection resembling a federal alliance, and those councils
sometimes settled the titles and claims of princes,
and regulated the temporal affairs of the Christian powers. The confederacy of the Christian
nations was bound together by a sense of common duty and interest in respect to the rest of
mankind."t  Wheaton says, that "during the
middle ages, the Christian States of Europe
began to unite and to acknowledge the obligation of an international law common to all those
* Essai snr'Histoire G6nerale, t. ii. ch. xlviii.
t Commentaries on American Law, by James Kent, New
York, 1836, part i. lect. i. p. 9, 10.




TEMPORAL POWER.               219
who professed the same religious faith."* This
sufficiently accounts for the interposition of the
Pope in regard to Sovereigns, apart from positive and formal concessions. The recognition
of the Christian religion as the supreme rule of
all the members of this confederacy, naturally
led to appeal to the judgment of the Pontiff, in
cases where the relative rights of princes in
regard to one another, or their rights over
their subjects, were in question.  When the
obligation of an oath was to be defined, he
was considered most competent to declare how
far it extended, and his declaration was accepted
as a safe guide to delicate consciences. You
deny that he only interfered upon the application of the people; yet it is certain that in the
very first instance on record, the Saxons had
appealed to Alexander II., the predecessor of
Gregory VII., and to this Pontiff himself against
the tyranny of Henry, long before the sentence
of deposition was pronounced.  " The Pope,"
you say, " claimed that his office invested him
with the sovereignty of the world, as the Vicar
of Christ, by the divine decree, and not by the
will of princes or people." I have never met
with any proof of such pretensions. Gregory
repeatedly acknowledged that Henry was placed
by Divine Providence in the pinnacle of power.t
* Elements of International Law, Pref. to third edition.
t " Tibi, quem Deus in summo culmine rerum posuit." Apud
Voigt, vol. i. p. 410; vol. ii. p. 57.




220         TEMPORAL POWER.
He, indeed, claimed and exercised the power of
deposing the prince, who, he alleged, "was
guilty of crimes so enormous as to deserve not
only to be excommunicated, but according to
all divine and human laws, to be deprived of
the royal dignity." The Saxons had, in fact,
already unanimously declared him  dethroned
for his crimes, and chosen Rudolph of Suabia to
reign in his stead, in a meeting held 1073, at
Gerstungen, after three days' deliberation; and
although this measure did not take effect, and
they were forced by the fortune of war to submit
to his domination, they appealed anew in 1076
to Gregory, as the only one who could check his
tyranny and cruelty. As he had not been
crowned Emperor, they besought the Pope to
exercise his power by setting aside the claims of
Henry. In passing the sentence, Gregory appealed to the words of Christ, empowering Peter
to loose and to bind, because his act was specially directed to the releasing of the people from
the oath of allegiance; but from the previous
allegations of crime and unworthiness, it is
manifest that he relied on these for his justification. His authority had been invoked by both
parties, and he exercised it, determining by his
judgment the extent of the obligations of conscience in their mutual relations sanctioned by
oath. The fathers of American Independence
declared the oath of allegiance taken to the




TEMPORAL POWER.              221
British King, to be no longer binding, and
without any pretensions to authority, they declared the people absolved from it, relying solely
on the fact, that the correlative duty of protection and just government had been manifestly
violated. The Pope grounded his sentence on
far more flagrant abuses of power than are
alleged in the Declaration of Independence.
The difference between the middle ages and the
present age is not in the principle, that the
abuse of power causes its forfeiture, which is still
maintained; or in the idea that the Church can
interfere with the just exercise of civil authority,
which was never asserted.  Gregory himself
says: "What regards the service and allegiance
due to the king, we by no means wish to oppose
or impede."*  It lies in this, that a religious
sanction was then given to the natural duty of
allegiance, and was sought for the exercise of
natural right in resisting oppression; whilst now
men act on their own sense of right. The fact
that the nations owed their civilization to the
influence of religion, accounts for the difference.
You are mistaken in asserting that "it was
simply a struggle between the Pope and the
Emperor for the right of investiture." This was
doubtless a highly important matter, intimately
connected with the purity of the prelacy, and
involving great civil consequences, but the docu* Ep. v. 5, quoted in Vie de Gregoire VII. vol. ii. p. 253, note
du traducteur.
19*




222         TEMPORAL POWER.
ments prove that unbridled licentiousness and
wanton tyranny concurred to call forth the censures of the Pontiff.
The Bull of St. Pius V. deposing Elizabeth,
shows that he shared the views of former Pontiffs
in regard to his power. The old principle of
English law, which made the maintenance of
the Catholic faith a condition for holding the
crown, as the profession of Protestantism is at
present, was considered to be still in force, since
her immediate predecessor had restored England
to the communion of the Holy See. She is
throughout styled "the pretended queen of England," because her right to the throne was regarded as null, on account of her illegitimacy,
which stood declared on the statute book. Yet
the plenary authority which the Pontiff claimed,
regarded the government of the Church; and in
this sense only does he allege that Christ made
Peter prince over all people and kingdoms,
" that he may preserve his faithful people in the
unity of the spirit."  The terms "to pluck up, to
destroy, to scatter, to consume," which are borrowed from the Prophet Jeremiah, regard all
acts of spiritual authority directed to extirpate
error and vice. Doubtless Pius believed that in
declaring Elizabeth a pretendant, and directing
her pretensions to be disregarded, he was but
stating authoritatively what the facts of the case
warranted; for even he did not claim an absolute
and arbitrary right to interfere in matters of this




TEMPORAL POWER.            223
nature. Elizabeth, however, had possession of
the throne, and succeeded in retaining it during
a long reign, despite of his sentence. His act or
views cannot prove what are the sentiments now
generally entertained by Catholics; for if, as you
acknowledge, the English Catholics continued
to obey Elizabeth notwithstanding her deposition, and the martyred Campion on the scaffold
proclaimed her queen, it may well be presumed
that Catholics, at this day, are equally disposed
to practise allegiance to their rulers. Sixtus V.
was the last Pope who attempted to exercise
this power, by renewing the sentence against
Elizabeth, and issuing a similar one against the
King of Navarre. More than two centuries have
passed away, without any similar effort; for Pius
VII., to whom you refer, only deprived Napoleon
of the communion of the Church; which was
certainly an exercise of spiritual authority.
What you allege of his having absolved all
Frenchmen from  their obedience to  Louis
XVIII., was a simple recognition of the existing
government of Napoleon, in which the nation
had already acquiesced. When, in his Bull
excommunicating the Emperor, he speaks of his
own sceptre, he means his spiritual authority,
which in its nature is far superior to that which
is temporal, as Divine things are to human. In
negotiations with the Emperor, he made no
difficulty, in regard to that article of the De



224          TEMPORAL POWER.
claration, which affirms the independence of
the civil power, although  he was inflexibly
opposed to the four Articles collectively, as his
predecessors had been, as emanating from an
assembly under the royal influence, and as a
premature attempt to determine points, not yet
decided by the supreme authority of the Church.
You assert that the Pope, "as the sole vicar of
Christ, that paramount master of the world,
claims, in his own person, the authority of God,
and saith,'By me kings reign, and princes execute judgment.' "   The manner of introducing
this text,t and the use of italics, naturally convey
the idea that the Pope applies these words to
himself, in order to express his supreme power
over princes; yet I have never met with any such
application of it, and until you produce or refer
to the document, I must regard it as your ingenious device. I find that St. Gregory VII.,
writing to Harold, King of Denmark, exhorts
him to govern with justice and wisdom, adding
" that of thee, the true Wisdom, which is God,
may say:'By me doth this king reign."' You
blame Dr. Milner for not giving the various
views of divines on this subject. I believe there
is no real difference at this day, for I do not
know that the most devoted to the Holy See,
claim for it any right of interference in secular
concerns in the actual state of society; whilst I
* Vol. ii. p. 389.     t Prov. viii. 15.




TEMPORAL POWER.              225
am persuaded that there is a very general disposition to regard the acts of former Popes, during
the middle ages, as fully justified by the principles of jurisprudence then prevailing, and by the
general consent of princes and nations, and as
fraught with great benefits to society.
Mr. Brownson, with his usual independence,
has ventured to seek the solution of the problems presented by the history of the middle
ages, in a principle which was put forward by
St. Gregory VII., and by the great defender of
the indirect power, Bellarmin.  He relies on
the natural subordination of the temporal to the
spiritual. As far as the middle ages are concerned, I conceive that this is satisfactory, because, in fact, that principle was then admitted
and applied, and thus it necessarily entered into
the compact between sovereigns and their subjects. The prince, at his coronation, swore to
maintain the rights and privileges of the Church,
of which he was the acknowledged protector,
and the people regarded his fidelity to this trust
as his most solemn duty. When he became a
persecutor of religion, he violated the first condition on which he reigned, and exposed himself to ecclesiastical censures, which, by general
law, were followed by the forfeiture of civil
rights, if not removed within a year. If Queen
Victoria were to profess the Catholic faith, you
know, Right Reverend Sir, that she would forfeit
her throne, because she is sworn to support the




226          TEMPORAL POWER.
Church as by law established. Her Protestant
subjects would at once feel themselves released
from their allegiance, as soon as her profession
of Catholicity was placed beyond doubt. Can
it be a matter of surprise, that Catholic nations
exacted from their rulers a pledge to maintain
their religion, and the rights of the Church,
and made it a prominent article in the Great
Charter of their rights and liberties? Those
who approve of the English Bill of Rights, and
Act of Settlement, cannot consistently condemn
the policy of the nations generally in the middle
ages, or wonder that when the coronation-oath
was flagrantly violated, the oath of allegiance
was declared no longer obligatory. The declaration of the Pope served rather to prevent the
breach of allegiance, on grounds not sufficiently
weighty to dissolve the obligation. This, however, does not concern us in the United States,
since by the General Constitution there is no
state-religion, and the Constitutions of the respective States guarantee liberty of conscience.
The effort which is now made by a formidable
party, to disturb these amicable relations, can
derive no coloring or pretext from a theory, applicable only to the confederacy of Catholic
nations as it subsisted in former ages, and
which, after all, is only the speculation of an
individual as to the causes of these historical
phenomena. Although I addressed this distinguished publicist, in 1846, in terms of high com



TEMPORAL POWER.             227
mendation of his zeal and ability in defence of
the Catholic faith, which he had embraced but
two years before, and the other bishops concurred with me, none of us thought of rendering ourselves responsible for whatever views he
might afterwards entertain, as he himself has
recently avowed most distinctly, to correct the
abuse made of our signatures, which are represented as implying an unqualified endorsement
of all his sentiments.* Most assuredly I dissent
from him, if he claim for the Pope any right to
interfere with our civil allegiance. With his
full knowledge and entire approval, Catholics
everywhere pledge and render it to the Government under which they live; knowing that it is
a duty independent of all ecclesiastical sanction.
However strong may be the language sometimes
employed by Mr. Brownson, I am  convinced
that he does not mean any such thing, and that
he, as well as every other Catholic in the States,
in the hour of trial will be found the devoted
supporter of our National and State institutions.
Dr. Nevin acknowledges the advantages of
the power exercised by the Popes in the middle
ages: " The barbarians bowed to the authority
of this power, as the only one that carried in it
any principle of order, or that offered any promise of stability. Where all was chaos, there
could be properly no usurpation. The right to
* Church Review, April, 1855.




228           TEMPORAL POWER.
rule fell where there was ability to rule. It is
dishonest to try such times by the standard of
a settled and well-ordered social state. The
power to regenerate society, in the middle ages,
lay wholly in the Church.  On her devolved
accordingly, as by Divine commission, the sovereign care of society and the duty of training it
for its proper destiny."*
* Mercersburg Review, March, 1851, art. Modern Civilization.




LETTER XVIII.
RIGHT REVEREND SIR:
TEN letters of your first volume, filling above
two hundred pages, contain a summary of
events which occurred from the commencement
of the Church down to the time of the so-called
Reformation. With the view of justifying this
revolt on the plea of enormous corruption among
the rulers of the Church and her clergy generally, you have gathered together all the scandals and disorders of which you could find traces
in history. Fleury has given you the chief materials. His testimony you hold to be conclusive
against Catholics, as he himself was a Catholic;
but this circumstance does not give weight to
his statements beyond what the documents, on
which he relies, demand. It is, however, unnecessary to examine the facts in detail, since,
even allowing disorders to have been as general
and as enormous as he has painted them, they
can furnish no argument against a Divine institution, whose Founder warned His followers
that scandals must come, and pronounced woe to
20




230             ON ABUSES.
the world because of scandals. These cannot
justify revolt against authority, which is necessarily grounded not on the personal merits of
those who exercise it, but on the will of Christ,
who imparted it. St. Augustin admonishes us:
" When, either through the neglect of prelates,
or by some necessity, or through unknown
causes, we find that wicked persons are in the
Church, whom we cannot correct or restrain by
ecclesiastical discipline, let not the impious and
destructive presumption enter our heart that we
shlould imagine ourselves obliged to separate
from them."*
All scandals and excesses should be put to the
charge of human frailty and perversity. The
authority of the Church rests on the commission
given by Christ, which is unqualified and perpetual. I must claim the right to apply here a reflection suggested by Butler, the learned author of the
Analogy, as an answer to the same objection
urged by unbelievers against the Christian religion: "It may, indeed, I think truly be said,
that the good effects of Christianity have not been
small, nor its supposed ill effects, any effects at
all of it, properly speaking. Perhaps, too, the
things themselves done have been aggravated;
and if not, Christianity hath been often only a
pretence, and the same evils, in the main, would
have been done, upon some other pretence. However great and shocking as the corruptions and
* S. Aug. 1. de fide et operibus, c. v.




ON ABUSES.                231
abuses of it have really been, they cannot be insisted upon as arguments against it, upon principles of theism. For one cannot proceed one
step in reasoning upon natural religion any more
than upon Christianity, without laying it down
as a first principle, that the dispensations of Providence are not to be judged of by their perversions, but by their genuine tendencies; not by
what they do actually seem to effect, but what
they would effect, if mankind did their partthat part which is justly put and left upon
them."*
The prevalence of concubinage among the
clergy in some countries and some ages is a melancholy evidence of human weakness, and of
the want of vigilance and zeal on the part of the
prelates of the Church, some of whom gave the
most scandalous examples. Yet we must take
into consideration that what is branded as concubinage by St. Peter Damiani, and other strenuous advocates of Church discipline, was regarded by many as a state of wedlock;t the
marriage, although originally unlawful, being regarded by many as valid. Cranmer is, therefore, said to have been twice married, in violation
of his collegiate and priestly obligations. You
can scarcely reject this plea, which at the time
was put forward by the priests, and supported by
* The Analogy of Religion, by Joseph Butler, Bishop of Durham; part ii. ch. i.
tSee Vie et Pontificat du Pape Gregoire VII. par J. Voiglit,
traduite par l'Abbe Jager, vol. i p. 143.




232             ON ABIJSES.
jurists, on which account the efforts of various
Popes to re-establish the ancient discipline, met
with strong opposition. Viewed in this light,
the relaxed state of clerical morals loses much of
its revolting character, since it implies no more
than the freedom of marriage, which ministers
of every sect now enjoy. The Popes, however,
especially Gregory, resisted the attempt to legalize the union, employed the censures of the
Church, invoked the aid of the civil authorities,
and even enlisted the zeal of the laity, generally,
to break up the usage, destroy all appearance of
prescription against the law of celibacy, and enforce the canonical observance. It would be a
great mistake to suppose that at any time, or in
any country, vice was so far dominant, as to
leave the Church without worthy priests to minister at her altars. In the worst of times there
were illustrious examples of purity and perfection
in the sanctuary and in the cloister; and often
when discipline became relaxed in a particular
country, it was in a flourishing condition in other
portions of the Church. Wars, civil dissensions,
the intrusion, by emperors and kings, of their
courtiers and dependents, into seats of authority,
and the general degradation and partial barbarism which prevailed from various causes, concurred to produce relaxation; but there was
still remaining a deep sense of the holiness that
became the priesthood, and a reforming power,
which finally raised them from the depth into
which they had sunk. Had the Popes yielded




ON ABUSES.                233
in despair to the overwhelming torrent, and legalized these disorders by their positive sanction,
History would not have had to record crimes so
revolting; but neither would she have inscribed
on her pages the brilliant virtues and glorious
achievements of the apostolic men, who at all
times shed lustre on the Church. The English
schism was not, in the first instance, directed
against clerical celibacy, on the contrary, Henry
VIII. was entirely opposed to the marriage of
the clergy, which was expressly proscribed in
one of his six articles; and Elizabeth viewed it
with no favor. In her reign it was regarded as
illegal, so that Parker and others sought letters
of legitimation for their children. In the diocess of Bangor, for some years after her accession, it was usual for the clergy to pay the bishop
for a license to keep a concubine!* Elizabeth,
of her own authority, suspended Fletcher, Bishop
of London, only for marrying "a fine lady, and a
widow."t
Married clergymen are less exposed to suspicion and censure than the professors of celibacy,
but not less liable to temptation, whilst they are
scarcely qualified to perform the high duties of
the Christian priesthood. Due regard to the
temporal interests and safety of their families,
prevents them from making the heroic sacrifices,
which at all times, but especially in seasons of
* Strype's Whitgift, p. 458.  - Strype's Parker, p. 203.
20*




234             ON ABUSES.
danger and distress, are expected from the ministers of Christ. It is not wonderful that they
abandon the confessional, and deny the daily
sacrifice, for they cannot hope to possess the confidence of the bruised heart, and they dare not
consecrate the Body which is from the Virgin.
Pestilence scares them from the couch of the
dying, to whom they have no mystic unction to
afford. In their habits, views, and pursuits, they
are like other men, only careful to observe certain rules of decorum suitable to their peculiar
station. When will they produce an Apostle
like Xavier, a benefactor of humanity such as
Vincent of Paul, a martyr of zeal like Borromeo?
In regard to all the disorders and crimes which
history attests, I have only to say with St. Augustin: " The Church is not defiled by the sins
of men, since being spread throughout the whole
world, according to the most faithful prophecies,
she awaits the end of the world, as the shore, on
reaching which she is at length rid of the bad
fish, which being contained within the nets of
the Lord, she bore their annoyance without
fault, as long as she could not rid herself of them
without impatience."*
Simony is one of those vices against which
St. Gregory VII., St. Peter Damiani, and other
holy prelates, inveighed with great earnestness,
employing all their power and influence for its
* Contra Petil. 1. iii. n. 43.




ON ABUSES.               235
extirpation. It chiefly regarded bishoprics, abbeys, and benefices in general, which, as they
had revenues attached to them, the Emperor
granted to his favorites on the payment of a
large sum to the royal treasury. By this means
the wealthy and the ambitious occupied seats of
honor in the Church, without possessing the virtues which should adorn her ministers. It was,
indeed, a great source of scandal and disorder.
Yet the Church of England does not view with
such horror, certain practices which bear a close
resemblance to it, such as the purchase of livings;
advertisements for their sale, setting forth the
revenue and other advantages, being frequent in
the public papers. The opposition of the Popes
to the practice of investiture, by the delivery of
ring and crozier, arose partly from its connection
with simoniacal traffic of this kind, and partly
from the apparent communication of spiritual
power by these symbols.  There would have
been little occasion for the inflamed invectives
of holy men, if the standard of clerical morals
had been reduced to the present level of the
Church of England. Livings might have been
sold, without a suspicion of simony; marriage
might have thrown its mantle over human frailty;
and kings or their ministers might have bestowed
sacred offices, without appearing to trespass on
hallowed ground.
The military character which attached to some
bishops of the middle ages, cannot fairly be




236              ON ABUSES.
judged of, without taking into consideration
their social position, and the general spirit of
the age. Under the feudal system many of them
had secular attributions, having vassals dependent on them.  The warlike spirit of the Northmen, who had overspread the southern portions
of Europe, had descended to their children, not
wholly divested of its ferocity, and as society
was split up into numberless sections, each baron
being the head of his vassals, dissensions easily
arose, and in the absence of legal tribunals, the
appeal to the sword was frequent. The want of
regular civil process led to the enforcement of
right by military display, and as the jarring claims
of certain bishops and abbots to jurisdiction, or to
precedence, involved civil rights and privileges,
they were sometimes supported and enforced by
their respective vassals, in sanguinary contests.
Elections to the vacant chair of Peter, were
often attended or followed by bloody strife, the
partisans of some ambitious aspirant using force,
which the friends of the lawful claimant were
under the necessity of repelling. Church prelates, like other feudal lords, were obliged to
send their vassals to the support of the lord paramount, and were often required to appear in person on the battle-field, although they were not
obliged themselves to take part in the contest.
I am not disposed to deny that those ages were
marked by many acts of cruelty and barbarity,
which at this day must excite amazement-such




ON ABUSES.               237
as the frequent scooping out of the eyes-the
cutting out of the tongue-the mutilation of
ears and nose-and various other punishments
of a revolting character. I admit that some
bishops displayed rather the bravery of the
soldier, than the mild virtues of their office,
which, considering the general temper of the
times, is scarcely a matter of wonder. The civilization of those nations could not be perfected in
a moment; it was progressing gradually, and
almost imperceptibly by the application of the
Christian maxims to daily life. Their influence,
even on the clergy, was not instantaneous and
absolute. These were taken from the midst of
their countrymen, whose sentiments and dispositions they shared. It was much to restrain
them within certain limits. By degrees they
became imbued with the meek spirit of their
Divine Model, and successfully exerted their
influence to promote peace and order.  Dr.
Nevin, the learned President of Marshall College, having stated that the Church was intrusted
by Providence, with the task of reforming and
training the nations, asks: "Was this providential trust, then, abused in its actual administration? Did the Church exercise her guardianship
over the infant nations of Europe, in such a
way as, instead of assisting, to repress their upward tendencies-in such a way as to retard
rather than to advance their progress in true
civilization? We have seen already that she




238             ON ABUSES.
was a fountain of order and law; that she
brought society into regular and settled form;
that she caused the wilderness to become a
fruitful field; that she curbed the passions of
men, and set bounds to their violence; that she
led them to dwell in families, and to cultivate
the domestic virtues; that she inoculated manners with a new spirit of gentleness and peace;
that she raised the standard of morality, and
purified the public conscience far beyond all that
was known in the ancient world; that she
established a reign and fashion of benevolence,
such as had not previously entered the wildest
dreams of philanthropy. We have seen all this,
and have felt that a power so employed could
not well be at war with the best interests of
humanity.*"
Among the exaggerations of the evils of those
times I must point to your account of the disorders of the University of Paris, in the thirteenth century. It is taken professedly from
Fleury, who recites the words of a cotemporary
author, and gives the enactments made to remedy
them. So far you are sustained by evidence;
yet you make a strange mistake in translating
the historian, which gives a false coloring to the
whole statement, and affords you matter for
much comment. The Papal Legate who visited
the University, complained that the students on
* ercersburg Review, March, 1851, art. Modern Civilization.




ON ABUSES.               239
certain festivals broke through all restraint, and
among other things in the very churches, in
which they should assemble to celebrate the
divine office, played at dice on the altars, on
which the Body and Blood of Christ are consecrated. You translate it: "on which they consecrate;" mistaking altogether the force of the
French phrase, "on consacre." Excuse this small
verbal criticism.  Thus you make them  all
priests, and instead of a college outbreak on a
festival in which the vigilance of Superiors was
relaxed, you actually charge the professors and
priests as guilty of habitual profanation of the
altars on which they offered up the Victim of
our ransom. The fact in question is difficult to
conceive, but it possibly may have been connected with some of those strange plays which
were in vogue in the middle ages. You give a
frightful picture of the morals of the students;
but you might have somewhat relieved its shades,
by some contrary  examples of virtue. You
might also have reflected, that where thousands
of youth from all nations were gathered together,
great disorders might be naturally expected.
Most probably they had not College Proctors traversing the streets of Paris, as now at Oxford,
even in open day, to watch the behavior of the
students. It was the glory of the Popes to foster
education everywhere, by great privileges bestowed on those who frequented the schools of
the University, as it was their care to interpose




240             ON ABUSES.
their authority to repress disorders.  That of
Paris had many holy youths within its walls,
some of whom like Innocent III. rose to the
highest dignity; others are now on the calendar
of saints. When occasionally disorder manifested
itself, it was punished and corrected. Under
Innocent, four of the professors, distinguished
for learning and piety, with a number of the
students, retired to a valley in the diocese of
Langres, and there devoted themselves to contemplation and other exercises of piety. It is
fair to counterbalance evil with good in estimating the moral influence of an institution.
You have studiously kept out of view the
brilliant examples of virtue with which the
history of the Church abounds, and seldom referred to them unless to caricature and mock
them. Yet even they give but a faint idea of
the amount of good which at all times was practised, since vice is of itself more forward and
remarkable, whilst virtue courts secresy, and
desires no witness or approver but God. St.
Augustin, when reproached by the Donatists
with the scandals of Catholics, observed that the
wicked are like chaff raised on high and driven
about by the wind, whilst the good are as wheat,
lying concealed on the threshing-floor.  "Let
us not imagine that the good are few in number; they are many, but they lie concealed
amidst a great multitude; for we cannot deny
that the wicked are in greater number, so that




ON ABUSES.               241
the good are scarcely discernible among them,
as the grains of wheat are not perceptible on the
threshing-floor.  A  man who looks on the
threshing-floor, may imagine that all is mere
chaff; yet there is a quantity of grain there to
be cleansed and winnowed. Then will appear
the wheat which lay amidst the chaff. Do you
wish to discover the good at present? Be good
yourself."*  Many monastic institutions arose
in the middle ages, and effectually fostered piety
and such learning as the circumstances of the
times admitted. From earliest youth during a
long life many preserved their innocence, under
the shelter of the cloister. Others went forth
from it, with the zeal of the Baptist, to confront
a corrupt world, and to announce the judgments
of God against the impenitent. It was in them
that St. Bernard, St. Peter Damiani, St. Gregory VII., with many other eminent saints, were
trained and prepared for vindicating the integrity
of faith and the purity of morals. Others fled
to the monasteries, as asylums from the prevailing corruption, or to atone by exercises of penance for the irregularities and disorders of their
early life. There were also, in all the walks of life,
blameless men, who lived by faith, whose conversation was in heaven, and who took occasion
from the evils by which they were surrounded,
to practise every sublime virtue.
* Enarr. in Ps. xlvii. 9.
21




242             ON ABUSES.
Whatever may have been the scandals and
abuses of the middle ages, is wholly irrelevant
to the English schism, which originated manifestly and exclusively in the ungovernable passion of the monarch. As long as his own feelings
were not interested, he took pride in professing
his attachment to the Church, and repelled, with
the applause of the Pontiff; the attack made by
Luther on her sacraments. There is not the
slightest evidence that he was moved in the least
degree by the consideration of the disorders
recorded in history, or of the examples in his
own times, to break the bonds of unity. As for
Cranmer, for whom  you claim  the praise of
leader in the work of Reformation, his two successive marriages, in violation of his college
obligations and priestly vows, show at once
that moral considerations did not influence his
career.




LETTER  XIX.
(on vasafi1thm.
RIGHT REVEREND SIR:
THE proofs which Dr. Milner adduced from
Tertullian, St. Leo, St. Ambrose, St. Martin,
and St. Gregory the Great, that the Church disclaims the principle of persecution, have elicited
from you an avowal of the fact, which, however,
you limit to their times. The first instance of
burning heretics alive, which you give, is in the
ninth century. "This new and horrible punishment became," you say, "universal through all
the countries in Europe by established law." You
then charge the Popes, the Bishops, and the
clergy generally, with the chief influence in the
enactment of the laws during the whole period
of the middle ages, and especially of these laws.
If you had told your readers, that Michael Curopalates, Emperor of Constantinople, was author of those executions in the ninth century,
you would not have had the opportunity to
charge them on the Church.  The Patriarch
Nicephorus opposed the imperial decree, and




244            PERSECUTION.
succeeded for a time in checking the too ardent
zeal of the Emperor, observing to him that it
was proper to leave room for repentance, and
that ecclesiastics are not allowed to condemn to
death.  The Emperor Justinian II. had decreed
that the Manicheans should be prosecuted, and
if found guilty, burnt alive, as was done in
regard to some of them. It is false that "the
Church first invented the diabolical law of burning heretics."  That law emanated from the
civil power, which alone could inflict capital
punishment. The influence of the Church was
employed in the days of St. Augustin, and for
ages afterwards, to prevent it. When the Circumcellions, by acts of violence and by bloodshed, had provoked the severity of the authorities, he wrote to the Proconsul of Africa, beseeching him through Jesus Christ not to punish
them capitally: " We wish them to be corrected,
but not put to death."*
Your chief reliance to fasten on us the principle of persecution, is the decree of the fourth
Council of Lateran, held under Innocent III.,
in the year 1215. "We excommunicate and
anathematize," say the fathers, "every heresy
that raiseth itself up against this holy, orthodox,
and catholic faith, which we have set forth
above; condemning all heretics, by whatsoever
names they may be designated, having indeed
* E. c. c im.   cxxvii.




PERSECUTION.              245
different faces, but their tails being joined
together, since they come to the same thing
through vanity." This canon is an act of the
ecclesiastical authority, of an unmixed kind,
and is necessarily received by all Catholics. The
enactments which follow are of a different character. They are practical measures adapted to
the circumstances of the times and places for
which they were made: they were never generally
carried out; and they have long ceased to have any
force whatever. You strive hard to prove that
they establish a principle which every Catholic
is bound to admit, although from the very terms
you must perceive, that they were directed
against the pernicious errors that then threatened
the destruction of society.
In the profession of faith, which is premised,
the fathers declare their belief in one God, the
Creator of all things, and that the devils were
not from eternity, but fell by sin: they add that
persons may be saved in the married state, as
well as in celibacy. From this we may easily
deduce the errors which were then prevailing,
the same as St. Leo described, which in his time
had provoked the severity of the civil authorities.
" Justly did our fathers, in whose times this impious heresy burst forth, use every exertion
throughout the whole world to expel the wicked
frenzy from the entire Church; since even secular princes had such horror of this sacrilegious
madness, that they struck the author of it, and
21*




246            PERSECUTION.
many of his followers, with the sword of the
public laws. For they saw that every regard
for decorum was removed, the marriage tie dissolved, and divine and human laws subverted,
if such men, professing such principles, were
allowed to live anywhere. That severity was
for a long time advantageous to the lenity of the
Church, which, although contented with her
priestly judgment, she shrinks from sanguinary
revenge, is nevertheless aided by the severe enactments of Christian princes, inasmuch as those
who fear corporal punishment, sometimes have
recourse to the spiritual remedy."*
It is remarkable that the third Council of Lateran, held in 1179, employed this passage to
explain and justify its decrees against the sectaries. The fourth Council proceeded in the same
spirit, and on the same grounds, having in view
their abominable practices and outrages, and accordingly directed that in case of conviction,
they should be left to the bailiffs or civil officers
to be punished according to law. No punishment
was specified; for the confiscation of property,
which is mentioned, was incidental to capital
punishment, which the civil law assigned to the
crime of heresy, and was only referred to probably because, by an arrangement with the authorities, the property of clergymen was excepted
from the general law, and reserved to the Church
* Ep. ad Turibium.




PERSECUTION.               247
in which they had ministered. This Council expressly forbids any clergyman to put his name
to any document connected with capital punishment.
I do not, however, dissemble that the approval of these penal laws appears to be implied in
this canon, especially since the authorities were
required to bind themselves to extirpate all heresies branded by the Church.
A  sanction also was given to the crusades
against these sectaries, grounded on the necessity of protecting the defenceless, and checking
those acts of violence which were constantly
practised. " They practise," says the preceding
Council, "such violence against Christians, as
not to spare churches or monasteries, widows or
orphans, aged persons or children, age or sex,
but heathen-like, they destroy and devastate all
things."*  These outrages were countenanced
and encouraged by some barons, and could not
be effectually repressed, unless by a combined
effort, in which volunteers from all parts should
be enlisted. Hence the fathers said: " We enjoin on all the faithful for the remission of their
sins, to oppose manfully such havoc, and defend
with arms the Christian people."
The term exterminate employed in those decrees does not, in its ecclesiastical or classical acceptation, bear the same force as the correspond* Can. ult.




248             PERSECUTION.
ing English word. Cicero speaks of those who
forbid foreigners to reside in the cities, " eosque
exterminant," that is, banish them beyond the city
limits.* The Council uses it to express all necessary measures for breaking up and disbanding
the sectarian hordes, which as armed banditti
infested the country.
The various civil authorities who " claimed to
be regarded as faithful," were required to cleanse
their territories of "this heretical filth," under
penalty of excommunication, and of forfeiting
their fiefs, in case they continued a year under
censure. The qualification inserted in the decree shows that it was as Catholics they were
brought within its operation, and that it supposed a league between the Catholic powers to
extirpate, by all just means, the prevailing sects;
all agreeing to the annexing of this condition
to the tenure of their fiefs. The consent of the
civil powers must have been given to this arrangement, which  otherwise  could not take
effect. There were, in fact, present there, the
ambassadors of Frederick, King of Sicily, Emperor elect; of Henry, Emperor of Constantinople; of the Kings of France, England, Hungary, Jerusalem, Cyprus, Aragon; and representatives of other powers, and of various cities.
It is well known, as Kent, Wheaton, and others
have distinctly stated, that the councils of the
* Offic. iii. xi. post init.




PERSECUTION.               249
middle ages bore in many respects a mixed character, so that they were in a great degree meetings of the States-General of Europe.
There is nothing to make it appear that these
enactments express any Catholic principle; still
less that they have any binding force at this day.
If the Inquisition be in some respects conformable to them, inasmuch as the culprit is delivered
over to the civil power, we must remember that
it is an institution of the same age, and originally directed against the same enemies of society. Its action ceased soon after they disappeared. Its revival in Spain, at the close of the
fifteenth century, was owing to political rather
than religious considerations, to guard the monarchy and the nation against the secret machinations of false Christians, combined with the
Moors and Jews, and its severity and cruelty,
under Philip II., were occasioned by the fears of
the prince, lest Spain should become the scene
of wars, for religion's sake, like France and Germany. It is now extinct altogether, the Roman
tribunal being merely ecclesiastical, with scarcely
any civil attributions, all of which are confined to
the Pontifical States. It should also be recollected
that as the Inquisition was a mixed tribunal, the
cognizance of the cause belonged to ecclesiastics,
whose province it was to judge of what constituted heresy, whilst the punishment depended altogether on the civil power. The clergy, on committing the culprit to the civil authorities, entered




250            PERSECUTION.
a protest against blood shedding, which, although
it was but a formulary, expressed, nevertheless,
the reluctance of the Church to see her apostate
children, by their own obstinacy in error, subjected to the highest penalty of the law. The
axiom, Ecclesia abhorret a sanguine, " the Church
abhors bloodshed," was universally acknowledged. Any clergyman concurring to the infliction of capital punishment was disqualified
from exercising the ministry.
The Star Chamber, instituted under Elizabeth for the cognizance of offences against
the penal laws regarding religion, consisted of
forty-four commissioners, twelve of whom were
bishops, many more privy councillors, and the
rest either clergymen or civilians. Inquisitorial
powers of the amplest kind were given to them,
and any three of them were authorized to punish any word or writing tending towards heresy,
schism, or sedition. All the ordinary restraints
on judicial proceedings were removed, and discretionary powers granted. Elizabeth seemed
to relent in this persecution of Catholics, "but
such of her advisers as leaned towards the Puritan faction, and too many of the Anglican clergy,
whether Puritan or not, thought no measure of
charity or compassion should be extended to
them."*  Archbishop Parker "complained of
what he called'a Machiavel government,' that
* Strype's Whitgift, p. 212.




PERSECUTION.            251
is, of the Queen's lenity in not absolutely rooting
them  out."  The most secret exercise of the
Catholic religion was sought out and punished.
"Thus we read, in the Life of Whitgift (Archbishop of Canterbury), that on information
given that some ladies and others heard mass in
the house of one Edwards, by night, in the
county of Denbigh, he being then Bishop of
Worcester, and Vice-President of Wales, was
directed to make inquiry into the facts; and
finally was instructed to commit Edwards to close
prison; and as for another person implicated,
named Morice, if he remained obstinate, he
might cause some kind of torture to be used
upon him, and the like order they prayed him
to use with the others." The same prelate censured a book, written about 1585, by Beale,
against the Commissioners, and marked as an
enormous proposition, that "he condemned,
without exception of any cause, racking of grievous offenders, as being cruel, heinous, contrary
to law, and unto the liberty of English subjects."
When, under James the First, it was proposed
to lessen the severity of the penal laws against
Catholics, the Archbishop of Canterbury remonstrated with him, assuring him that such a measure would call down upon him and upon his
kingdom God's heavy anger and indignation.
If I may compare the Inquisition and Star
Chamber, as Hallam, Mackintosh, and others
have done, I must say that the former was far




252           PERSECUTION.
less odious. The standard by which it judged
of heresy, was the doctrine of the Universal
Church, believed to be infallible in her teaching;
the culprits were those who had been baptized,
and had acknowledged her authority, since the
tribunal did not claim power over unbaptized
persons, or such as had been brought up in
heresy; so that its operation was confined to
apostates, or to those who dissembled their
heresy, in order to spread it more widely. The
Star Chamber was composed of men who acknowledged no infallible authority, and whose
opinions varied from those which for nearly a
thousand years had prevailed in the nation. Its
victims were men who, from conscientious conviction, clung to the faith of their ancestors, and
without tumult or display, sought to practise
the duties and enjoy the consolations of religion.
In the use of the rack, both tribunals were alike,
inasmuch as this mode of eliciting a confession
was then adopted in all courts; in the ultimate
penalty they resembled one another, although
the Inquisition did not order its infliction; but
in every other respect, as far as humanity, justice,
and truth are concerned, the Inquisition had
vastly the advantage of the Star Chamber.
You impute all the cruelty of this tribunal
and of the laws made under Henry VIII., Edward VI., and Elizabeth, to the principles of
Popery, which the reformers had not yet unlearned, of which you find evidence in the statute




PERSECUTION.             253
for the burning of heretics, "de h.eretico comburendo," passed in the fifteenth century, in
conformity, as you allege, with the canon of Lateran. As the Reformers professed no respect
for the principles of the Church, and boasted of
extraordinary light in the work which they had
undertaken, we should have expected them to
have soon rid themselves of any prejudice so
repugnant to humanity. The statute alluded to
was enacted in the year 1400, nearly two centuries after the Council of Lateran, and without
any reference to its canons. The civil law, long
before that Council, attached the penalty of
death to heresy, and the English statute was
passed conformably to that general jurisprudence, when the Lollards, by riots and insurrection, awakened the fears of the government.
To the honor of England it must be said, that
very few instances occurred of punishment on
the score of religion, up to the time of Henry
VIII. The principle on which the English
courts proceeded, is stated by the late Chiet
Justice of Delaware, Thomas Clayton, in justification of his judgment in a case of most revolting blasphemy, to which he attached an extremely mild penalty: "Infidelity is proved by
all history to be in character not less intolerant
than fanaticism. In all cases where the tendency of any man's acts or words was, in the
judgment of a common law court, to disturb the
common peace of the land, of which it was the
22




254            PERSECUTION.
preserver and protector, or to lead to a breach of
it, and the good order of society, considered
merely as a civil institution, the common law
avenged the wrong done to civil society alone.
He, therefore, who subverted, reviled, or ridiculed the religion of our English ancestors, was
punished at common law, not for his offence
against his God, but for his offence against man,
whose peace and safety, as they believed, was
endangered by such conduct...... To sustain
the soundness of this opinion, their descendants
point us to the tears and blood of revolutionary
France during that reign of terror, when infidelity triumphed, and the abrogation of the
Christian faith was succeeded by the worship of
the goddess of reason, and they aver that WITHOUT THIS RELIGION, NO NATION HAS EVER YET CONTINUED FREE." *
The same principle was doubtless common to
the legislators and courts of other Catholic nations, although from the usual connection of
violence with heresy, the mere profession of it
came to be regarded as a crime punishable by
the civil authority. Catholic jurists and divines
supported this legislation, and the Reformers,
Calvin, Beza, and many others, expressly maintained it, with this difference, that they limited
its application to those who, like Servetus, denied
the leading mysteries of faith, or extended it to
* State vs. Chandler, 2 Harrington, Delaware, p. 557.




PERSECUTION.               255
those who clung to the ancient religion. The
punishment of Jerom of Prague, and John Huss,
with which you reproach us, was not for innoxious errors, but for tenets which sapped the
foundations of society, by making obedience
dependent on the moral integrity of the ruler.
It was not in violation of the safe conduct granted
to them, which was in general terms to secure
them from molestation, that they might present
themselves for trial, without defeating the ends
of justice. It was not the act of the Council,
which expressly declared that its power did not
extend beyond the sentence of excommunication.*  It is untrue, then, that, as you assert,
"the fathers had the satisfaction of committing
them to the flames." In regard to all that has
been done at any time according to legal process,
it is fair to examine the nature of the errors
professed, and the actions of the sectaries themselves, before we pronounce judgment.  St.
Augustin, when reproached by the Donatists
with the persecuting laws enforced against them,
replied: "If any severity inconsistent with
Christian lenity has, at any time, been exercised
towards them, it displeases all true Christians;"t
and although he defended the laws as rendered
necessary by their outrages, he deprecated the
infliction of capital punishment: " No good man
* Sess. xv. See Labbe's Cone. t. xii. p. 129.
t L. 1 contra ep. Parmen. c. xiii.




256             PERSECUTION.
in the Catholic Church approves of the capital
punishment of a heretic."* If, in after ages,
ecclesiastics have defended such enactments, it
has been in consequence of the peculiar atrocities
which accompanied the profession of heresy.
As to treachery, assassination, and massacre,
words cannot express our horror for those crimes,
by whomsoever they may be committed.  The
massacre of St. Bartholomew was the unpremeditated act of Charles IX., instigated by his
mother, Catharine, under the  apprehension
of a conspiracy against the royal family, as
well as religion.t  The rejoicings at Rome arose
from the false representations of the French ambassador, who stated that by an act of summary
justice, the machinations of the rebels had been
frustrated. The crimes which they had already
perpetrated, the assassinations, revolts, and sacrileges of which they had been guilty, prepared
men to believe the evil designs which were imputed to them.  In like manner the assassinations ordered by Henry III., and the countenance given by him to the enemies of religion,
caused his own assassination to be regarded as
a just visitation of Providence, although the
treachery by which he fell deserved all execration. Cardinal Gotti maintains that Clement,
* Contra Crescon. 1. iii. c. 4, n. 55.
t See vindication of certain passages in the fourth and fifth
volumes of the History of England, by J. Lingard, D.D.




PERSECUTION.                257
his reputed murderer, had no share in his death,
but was himself a victim of the conspiracy by
which the monarch fell.*
The executions under Queen Mary, had no
reference whatever to the canons of Lateran, as
you allege.  Mary, herself, was humane and
disposed to be tolerant, until the treasonable
conduct of the Reformers led to the adoption of
severe counsels. When she first came to the
throne, she assured the lord mayor and the
aldermen of London, that " she meant graciously
not to compel or strain other people's consciences." This forbearance was soon abused;
preachers publicly styled her Jezabel; a priest,
celebrating Mass in the Church of St. Bartholomew, in Smithfield, was insulted;t a preacher
at St. Paul's Cross was hooted at, and narrowly
escaped with his life, a dagger being flung at his
head;t "as a priest was administering  the
eucharist in St. Margaret's Church, Westminster,
a man drew a hanger, and wounded him  upon
the head, hand, and other parts of his body;"~
a conspiracy was formed, of which Sir Thomas
Wyatt was leader, and to which Poinet, Protestant Bishop of Winchester, was a party, to
dethrone the Queen, and restore the Protestant
ascendency.  Another conspiracy of the like
nature was afterwards entered into.  To these
* Vera Ecclesia Christi, c. iii. ~ 3.  t Soames, iv. p. 31.
i Strype, Eccl. Mern. iv. p. 33; Heylin, Hist. Ref. p. 22.
I Soamnes iv. p. 403. Strype, Eccl. Mem. iii. p. 210-212.
22*




258            PERSECUTION.
lawless and treasonable proceedings we must
ascribe her change of policy. The two hundred
and eighty-eight executions of sectaries, which
are reported to have taken place during the last
four years of her reign, are reduced to two
hundred by Dr. Lingard, who regards the others
as cases of treason. The Catholic prelates, generally, especially Cardinal Pole, were averse to
these sanguinary measures: "He said, pastors
ought to have bowels, even to their straying
sheep; bishops were fathers, and ought to look
on those that erred as their sick children, and
not for that to kill them."*  Alphonsus di
Castro, a Spanish friar, the chaplain of Philip,
"in a sermon before that monarch, preached
largely against the taking away of the people's
lives for religion-and hereupon there was a
stop for several weeks to these severities."t
"The bishops," says Soames, "eagerly availed
themselves of any subterfuge, whereby they
could escape pronouncing these revolting sentences."t They could not decline the office
enjoined on them by law to try culprits arraigned
for heresy, and they were bound to deliver them
when convicted to the secular power, with a
recommendation to mercy. Bonner, Bishop of
London, wrote: "I marvel that other men will
trouble me with their matters, but I must be
* Burnet ii. p. 467.     t Ib. p. 477.
$ Hist. Ref. iv. p. 412.




PERSECUTION.              259
obedient to my betters, and I fear men speak of
me otherwise than I deserve."*  All Catholics
at this day deplore these executions, which can
only be ascribed to mistaken  state policy,
adopted under great provocation. No principle
of the Catholic religion dictated it.
When you charge the Jesuit missionaries in
the Indies with cruelty and persecution, you
mistake entirely their character. Indulgence
and kindness have always distinguished them
in their labors, whether to convcrt the heathen,
or to reclaim sinners; so that the charges against
them always turned on their extreme condescension, as you may judge from what you state of
their toleration of Chinese usages. They have
never been connected with the Inquisition, and
never advocated measures of severity towards
sectaries. If in Goa cruelty was practised at
any time, the Portuguese authorities should
bear the censure. You equally mistake Catholic
principles, when you assert that " our religion
makes it a duty to torture and burn all dissenters for the love of God." The direct contrary is the truth. Our religion teaches us to love
all mankind, to bear with their errors and vices,
to forgive the wrongs which they do to us, and
to return them  by blessings. We know the
spirit of Him who was meek and humble of
heart. When you justify the men who shed
the blood of our peaceful missionaries, and vir* Foxe, iii. p. 462; vol. ii. p. 29.




260            PERSECUTION.
tually instigate others to sacrifice us " as the
worst enemies of mankind;" when you call our
martyrs " martyrs of the devil,"* we pity your
ignorance of our real principles, and pardon
your impiety. To you, who are wont to speak
plainly, I need not apologize for this language.
You boast that the Church of England never
persecuted. I am at a loss to know what I am
to understand by that church.  If the legal
heads of it, and the authors and promoters of
the schism be considered, Henry VIII. and Elizabeth were certainly persecutors of the worst
kind. Edward VI. was so misled by his tutors
that he strove to force his own sister to abjure her
faith. Cranmer, for whom you claim the great
merit of spreading the new principles, concurred
with Somerset, the Protector, in procuring the
enactment of most sanguinary laws against the
professors of the ancient creed.  "All who
should deny the king's supremacy were for the
first offence to forfeit their goods and chattels,
and to suffer imprisonment during pleasure;
for the second, they were to incur the penalties
of proemunire; for the third, they were to be attainted as traitors."t From its first existence
as the creature of Royalty, it had no power of
action, no independent voice, it could only
speak or act through the Parliament, or the
sovereign; consequently those Acts which passed
* Vol. ii. p. 29.      t Soames, iii. p. 185.




PERSECUTION.              261
without opposition from its prelates, and still
more those which were suggested and supported
by them, such as the Acts under Edward, which
generally received the warm support of Cranmer,
may be fairly taken for their own. In the book
of ecclesiastical laws, which he composed by
order of Edward, the penalty of death, with confiscation of goods, is denounced against all who
deny the Catholic faith, by which the mystery
of the Trinity seems there specially meant.
Persons accused of heresy-which was a more
comprehensive term-were to be imprisoned,
until tried, in default of security for their appearance; and if on conviction they should refuse to abjure their errors, they were to be
delivered over to the secular power. The death
of George Van Parr, a Hollander resident in
London, found guilty of Arianism, is justly laid
to Cranmer's charge, as "truly the effect of
those principles by which he governed himself."*  When Elizabeth came to the throne,
an Act of Parliament was passed, declaring her
" supream governesse"t of the Church of England, which every ecclesiastical person was required to acknowledge on oath, under penalty
of forfeiture of his benefice; followed by another
Act, which decreed, that if "any should either
by discourse or in writing, set forth the authority
of any foreign power, or do anything for the ad* Burnet, ii. p. 181.    t Heylin, p. 108.




262            PERSECUTION.
vancement of it, they were for the first offence
to forfeit all their goods and chattels; and if
they had not goods to the value of twenty
pounds, they were to be imprisoned a whole
year; and for the second offence, they were to
incur the pains of a prcemunire; and the third
offence was treason."* This gentle means was
employed to enforce the claims of the Supreme
Governess of the Church of England! All the
bishops, except Kitchen of Landaff, fourteen or
fifteen in number, refusing to take the oath of
supremacy, were deprived of their sees and
committed to prison. Cranmer, Parker, Whitgift, and Bancroft, all occupants of Canterbury,
advocated the persecution of Catholics. The
Convocation, in 1577, ordered Roland Jenks, a
Catholic bookseller in Oxford, to be apprehended for speaking against the new religion,
put in irons, his goods seized, and his trial to
take place at the ensuing assizes; when he was
sentenced to have his ears nailed to the pillory,
and to set himself free by cutting them off with
his own hand. The Church by law established,
was forced on a reluctant people by penal laws,
devised with ingenuity, and executed without
mercy. Its rise and progress are written in the
blood of the professors of the ancient faith; and
at every attempt to loose the chains of its victims,
the hellish yell was raised to prevent their relief,
* Burnet, iii. p. 602.




PERSECUTION.               263
"The Church is in danger!"  "I cannot conceive," said Edmund Burke-insinuating the
truth of the charge, whilst he affected to repel
it —" how anything worse can be said of the
Protestant religion of the Church of England
than this, that wherever it is judged proper to
give it a legal establishment, it becomes necessary to deprive the body of the people, if they
adhere to their old opinions, of'their liberties
and of all their free customs,' and to reduce
them to a state of civil servitude."*
Some instances may be necessary to illustrate
the working of this penal system. Sir Edward
Waldgrave and his Lady, in 1561, were sent to
the Tower, for hearing Mass, and having a priest
in their house, and many others were punished
in like manner. Two bishops, in 1562, wrote to
the Council advising that a priest, found in Lady
Carew's house, be put to some kind of torment, to elicit a confession that might enable
the Queen to levy great fines for violation of the
law by the Catholic worship.t In the year 1563,
the obligation of taking the oath of supremacy
was extended to the whole Catholic population.
The refusal to take it was punishable with forfeiture and imprisonment, and a second refusal,
when tendered anew, after three months, subjected the recusant to the penalties of high
* Letter to Sir Hercules Langrishe, M. P.
t Hallam, Constit. Hist. i. p. 153.




264             PERSECUTION.
treason.*  In vain did Lord Montague plead:
"I do entreat whether it be just to make this
penal statute to force the subjects of this realm
to receive and believe the religion of Protestants
on pain of death."   Hallam  observes: "In
Strype's collections, we find abundance of persons harassed for recusancy; that is, for not
attending the Protestant Church, and driven to
insincere promises of conformity. Others were
dragged before the ecclesiastical commission for
harboring priests." "By stealth, at the dead of
night, in private chambers, in the secret lurking
places of an ill-peopled country, with all the
mystery that subdues the imagination, with all
the mutual trust that invigorates constancy,
these proscribed ecclesiastics celebrated their
solemn rites, more impressive in such concealment, than if surrounded by all their former
splendor."*
You admit that "the laws passed in the reign
of Elizabeth, were exceedingly severe," and add:
"but the alarms and acts of Rome made them
necessary, in self-protection."I  Now it is certain that Elizabeth  had been acknowledged
Queen with acclamation by her Catholic subjects, and had no cause of dissatisfaction with
them  during the first ten years of her reign,
during which these sanguinary enactments were
* Hallam, Const. Hist. i. p. 161, 163.
t V. Eliz. c. i.       4 Vol. ii. p. 388.




PERSECUTION.              265
made. You allege that she had been excommunicated by the Pope. The Bull is dated 25th
February, 1570, and cannot, therefore, have
been the cause of enactments made so far back
as 1559. These, followed by the process against
Mary Stuart, gave occasion to the excommunication. Even afterwards, the Catholics generally
continued to give undoubted proofs of their
loyalty, although extreme persecution maddened
some into revolt.
The chief victims under Elizabeth were sacrificed for their religion, without a shadow of
other offence against the laws. Edward Hanse,
formerly a Protestant clergyman, afterwards a
priest, was executed, for acknowledging that the
Pope had then the same authority in England
that he had a hundred years before. Campion,
a convert likewise, and a Jesuit, after having
endured the rack many times, was convicted of
treason, although he solemnly acknowledged
Elizabeth as Queen. Mackintosh and Hallam
acknowledge that the charge was groundless. He,
with Sherwin and Briant, suffered the death of
traitors. Six others, after long imprisonment,
were executed on 30th May, 1582.
"The rack seldom stood idle in the Tower for
all the latter part of Elizabeth's reign."* The
scavenger's daughter, or hoop, was another instrument of torture, in which the body was com* Hallam, Const. Hist. i. p. 200.
23




266             PERSECUTION.
pressed until the head and feet met. I shall not
undertake to describe the other instruments of
torture, or the cruelties practised towards individuals.
The offences for which Catholics suffered were
generally religious exercises. Cuthbert Mayne,
a priest in Cornwall, charged with having obtained a Bull from  Rome, (no other than the
copy of a Bull of Jubilee,) of denying the supremacy, and of saying Mass, was convicted on
mere presumptions, and hanged, "without any
charge against him but his religion."* Tregian,
in whose house Mayne had celebrated Mass,
lingered in prison eight-and-twenty years. Two
other priests suffered at Tyburn for the same
offence.
In the year 1585, thirteen clergymen, four
laymen, and a lady named Cithero, suffered the
death of traitors, merely for their religion. She
was found guilty of harboring priests. I forbear
narrating the barbarous manner of her execution. In 1586, Mrs. Ward was hanged, drawn
and quartered, for assisting a priest to escape;
in 1601, Mrs. Lyne was punished in like manner, for the same offence. In 1587, eight Catholics were executed; in 1588, nearly forty, the
majority of whom were priests.  "The Catholic
martyrs, under Elizabeth," says Hallam, " amount
* Hallam, Const. Hist. i. p. 196; see also Mackintosh, iii. p.
284; Bridgewater, p. 34, 35; Stowe, an. 1577.




PERSECUTION.              267
to no inconsiderable number. Dodd reckons
them at 191; Milner has raised the list to 204.
Fifteen of these, according to him, suffered for
denying the Queen's supremacy, 126 for exercising their ministry, and the rest for being
reconciled to the Romish Church. Many others
died of hardships in prison, and many were deprived of their property."*  The heavy fines
constantly levied for not attending at the new
service, the imprisonment of multitudes for this
offence, and the punishment of many, show the
most unrelenting persecution, on the largest
scale possible. Some of them had their ears
bored with a hot iron, others were publicly
whipped.
Your plea of necessity for these persecutions,
is by anticipation rejected by Hallam. "The
statutes of Elizabeth's reign, comprehend every
one of these progressive degrees of restraint and
persecution.  And it is much to be regretted
that any writers worthy of respect should, either
through undue prejudice against an adverse
religion, or through timid acquiescence in whatever has been enacted, have offered for this
odious code the false pretext of political necessity."t
I should never end were I to enter into a
detail of the persecutions endured by the Catholics of Ireland, for adherence to the ancient
* Vol. i. p. 221.           t Ibid. p. 229.




268            PERSECUTION.
faith. There, as well as in England, attendance
at the reformed worship was compulsory, and
the celebration of Mass, or the being present at
it, exposed priest and people to heavy punishment, even to the penalties of high treason. To
employ a Catholic teacher was rigorously forbidden, and to send one's children abroad for education, was a heinous offence, subjecting the
parent to loss of property, the child, if he did
not return within a limited time, to outlawry,
forfeiture of estate, and other severe penalties.
An apostate son could drive his aged parents,
and his brothers and sisters, from their home.
These are among the least of the grievances
which pressed down to the earth our faithful
ancestors. All this has passed away. To whom
should we be grateful? Not surely to the
Church of England or of Ireland, whose prelates,
with some rare exception, such as Bathurst of
Norwich, and Watson of Landaff, steadily and
strenuously to the last moment supported the
penal laws. Your own sentiments and dispositions are not questionable. You assert that
"England could not exercise her Christian
liberty, nor hope to preserve it, if she did not
regard the Pope as the enemy of the State, as
well as of the Church."* This is, doubtless, intended as a hint to those, who, under the pretext of opposing foreigners, are laboring to dis* Vol. ii. p. 389.




PERSECUTION.              269
franchise Catholics, in this land of freedom, and
accordingly you, although yourself of foreign
birth, have appeared in their ranks, stimulating
them in the career of intolerance.
In the United States, at least, Catholics are
without reproach on this head. The colony of
Maryland, founded by a nobleman of our communion, gave the first example of freedom of
conscience to an extent at that time considerable, namely, for all who professed to believe
in our Lord Jesus Christ. Since the achievement of our national independence, we have
never manifested the slightest disposition to
disturb the harmony which was provided for
by guaranteeing to all equal rights, irrespective of religious differences. In all the relations
of life, we have shown practical liberality and
charity, without compromising any principle of
our religion. Yet you would proscribe us, "because," to borrow  the language of Edmund
Burke, " in contradiction to experience and common sense, you think proper to imagine that
our principles are subversive of common human
society."*  If the example of Massachusetts,
which has just now  declared us ineligible to
office, be followed by other States, and the great
principle, which has hitherto been our boast as
a nation, that conscience should be free, be
abandoned, it requires no prophet to foretel that
* Letter to Sir Hercules Langrishe, M. P.
23*




270             PERSECUTION.
the various sects which now combine to proscribe us, will contend among themselves for the
mastery, and that dissensions and strife will
succeed the peace and harmony which our social
relations have hitherto presented. I venture not
to look further into futurity, lest I be a prophet
of evil; but I am consoled by the reflection that
if the grand fabric of our liberties be shaken by
any civil convulsion, Catholics will, at least, be
guiltless of having contributed, even in a remote
degree, to the catastrophe.




LETTER XX.
~fi 1ftuE  VIII.
RIGHT REVEREND SIR:
Y OU have become, to a great extent, the
apologist of Henry VIII.; but never did
you undertake a cause more desperate. You
labor to show that he acted from scruples of
conscience in regard to the validity of his marriage with Catherine; and in disregard of all
history, you maintain that his passion for Anne
Boleyn was not the cause of his revolt against
the authority of the Holy See. It is scarcely
necessary to enter into the details by which you
endeavor to support your first position, since, as
Sir James Mackintosh writes, no trace can be
found of such scruples before the year 1527,
when the parties had been more than seventeen
years united in wedlock.* If, at this day, you
yourself were consulted as to the existence of
any divine law, obligatory on Christians, forbidding marriage with the wife of a deceased
* History of England, p. 149.




272           ON HENRY VIII.
brother, I presume you would not hesitate to
give a negative reply. Such marriages are frequent among the various sects, and are contracted occasionally even by ministers. The
law of Leviticus regarded the Jews only, and
was limited by the exception of the case of a
brother dying without issue. The scruples of
Henry were simultaneous with his affection for
Anne Boleyn, according to the same historian;
and his whole conduct in pursuit of the divorce
was, as Tytler avows, "marked by hypocrisy,
selfishness, and a fixed determination to gratify
his passions."* The artifices employed to obtain a favorable answer from the Universities,
are well known; and the bribes which were
lavished, are matters of record.t
You infer from the fact that Josephine was
set aside by Napoleon, that Catherine might
have been discarded by Henry, without forfeiture of the communion of the Church; and
you discover no difference in the cases, unless
that the rights of Catherine were supported by
her nephew Charles V., whilst Josephine stood
unprotected. Yet the marriage of Josephine
had taken place irregularly, in times of confusion and disorder, which  occasioned strong
doubts of its validity. That of Catherine was
celebrated with solemnity by the express au* Life of Henry VIII. p. 242.
t See Burnet, 1 Rec. 2, xxxviii.; Strype, App. vol. v. pp. 476479.




ON HENRY VIII.             273
thority of the Church. Besides, the Pope never
sanctioned the divorce of Josephine, which he
could not effectually oppose at the time at
which it was declared. It is unnecessary to inquire how far Clement may have been influenced
by the fear of Charles V. It is known that he
cherished special affection for Henry; and if
he did not yield to his importunity, it is fair to
ascribe it to those considerations of justice and
right which become the chief Bishop of the
Church. You contend that he, in fact, did yield,
and that he authorized Henry to marry any other
woman whom he pleased, even although the relationship should be like that on which the plea
for divorce was grounded, provided it were not
the same precisely; but you mistake a conditional dispensation, which was to take effect
only in the contingency of the divorce being
pronounced by the legate, after cognizance of
the cause, for an absolute and unqualified concession. The envoys of Henry presented to
Clement, at Orvieto, two documents for his
signature, which, with some reluctance, he
attached to them; one of them, empowering
Wolsey as legate to hear the case, the other dispensing Henry, if the result were in his favor,
from other impediments which were believed to
exist in respect to Anne. Clement also was reported to have said, that if Henry felt assured
that his marriage with Catherine was null, his
shortest way to bring the matter to an issue,




274          ON HENRY VIII.
was to marry another woman, and then let the
validity of this second contract be tried. This
may have been no more than an intimation,
that the Pope did not believe him to be sincere.
Heylin, your own historian, says: " This king being violently hurried with the transport of some
private affections, and finding that the Pope
appeared the greatest obstacle to his desires, he
first divested him by degrees of that supremacy
which had been challenged and enjoyed by his
predecessors for some ages past, and finally extinguished his authority in the realm of England."*  Burnet concurs in this view: " When
Henry began his reformation, his design seemed
to have been, in the whole progress of these
changes, to terrify the Court of Rome, and
force the Pope into a compliance with what he
desired. t
You argue that the separation was not caused
by the refusal of Clement to grant the divorce,
since it took place before the adverse decision
was known in England. It is true that when
the Act of Parliament which separated England
from the Holy See, received the Royal assent,
the final judgment had not been reported; but
it was already anticipated, and all hope of success had vanished. On the 20th March, 1534,
the Act passed; on 23d March, sentence was
pronounced at Rome. Despair drove the dis* Preface to History of the Reformation.  f Preface, vol. i.




ON HENRY VIII.             275
appointed suitor to retaliate by acts of insubordination and revolt.
You represent all the English bishops but
Fisher, and all the distinguished laymen except
More, as favorable to the divorce, but history
attests the contrary. Cardinal Wolsey himself,
who lent his services to have the matter canvassed, and promoted, if the case admitted it,
was never satisfied as to its lawfulness, and often
employed remonstrance to dissuade the prince
from the prosecution of his design, as on his
death-bed he assured Kyngston, "I do assure
you I have often kneeled before him, sometimes
for three hours together, to persuade him from
his appetite, and could not prevail."*  His disgrace was brought on by his determination to
judge justly, without regard to the royal inclination.  The University of Cambridge was
opposed to it, although by great management a
favorable answer was obtained, clogged, however, with a condition which was thought to
vitiate it altogether.t Of Oxford, Tytler says,
that "the decision could not be considered as altogether unbiassed and impartial."j The Bishop
of Bayonne states "that few of their divines could
be induced to pronounce in favor of the King."~
The sense of the nation was evidently against
the divorce, and the people hesitated not to declare, that whosoever should marry the Princess
* Cavendish, p. 535.  t Burnet, 1 Rec. xxxii. pp. 125,127.
i Tytler, p. 299.  ~ Apud Le Grand, iii. 205.




276           ON HENRY VIII.
Mary, Catherine's daughter, would become the
rightful King of England on the demise of
Henry; the nobles, says Le Grand, thought the
same, if they were silent on the subject.*
Cardinal Pole writes to Henry: "In the beginning, your cause, together with all its patrons,
was exploded in all the schools of your own
kingdom."t Soames states that " the clergy had
become obnoxious to the King, because they
were generally unfavorable to his divorce.":
Sir Henry Spelman does not hesitate to ascribe
the determination of Henry to a penal judgment.
"Like Saul, forsaken of God, he falls from one
sin to another. Queen Catherine (the wife of
his bosom for twenty years), must now be put
away, the marriage declared void."~ That he
should have found men to pander to his passion,
by maintaining the invalidity of the marriage, is
not a matter of surprise; that others in greater
number withheld the expression of their opposition, may be easily imagined; but there is not
a shadow of proof for asserting that the free and
unbiassed judgment of the clergy, sustained him
in his effort to loose the sacred tie.
You say that "no earthly policy can possibly
account for Henry's course. It was the work of
Divine Providence, who raised up this man of
energy and passion to prepare the way for the
* Thompson's Memoirs, vol. ii. p. 91.  t F. lxxvii.
4 Vol. i. p. 279.  ~ De non temerandis ecclesiis.  Preface.




ON HENRY VIII.             277
restoration of His truth, in mercy to mankind."*
Every historian, Protestant as well as Catholic,
has pointed out the policy which led this prince
step by step to the fatal gulf. His passion for
Anne Boleyn was the spring of the whole movement. As long as he cherished hope of obtaining
the sanction of the Pope for abandoning Catherine, he did not think of resisting his authority;
but finding himself baffled, he had recourse
to intimidation. Acting under the advice of
Thomas Cromwell, by the disgrace of Wolsey,
and the penalties of the statute of provisors, he
terrified the clergy into an acknowledgment of
his new title of "Protector and Supreme Head
of the Church of England," qualified, however,
by them, in order to reconcile their consciences
to its admission, by the clause, "as far as the
law of Christ will allow." Tytler records the
opposition and protests of several prelates, when
Henry insisted on the omission of this qualification. Tunstal, Bishop of Durham, procured a
Bull of translation from Rome, without being
prosecuted according to statute-" a proof that
the King's mind was yet in a state of irresolution, and that probably, at this moment, his
purpose was rather to intimidate, than absolutely
to separate from the Roman See."t Even when,
in January, 1532, the payment of annates was
forbidden, " a clause in the Act gave it the air of
intimidation. It was enacted that the King be
* Vol. i. p. 52.    t Tytler, p. 313.
24




278           ON HENRY VIII.
empowered, at any time before Easter, 1533, or
before the next session of Parliament, to declare,
by letters patent, whether any, or what of the
provisions of this Act should be carried into
effect. None who considered this clause, could
doubt that the King's principal object in procuring its insertion, was to overawe the Court of
Rome by means of the discretionary power left in
his hands."* In January, 1533, another Act was
passed, declaring the King supreme head of the
Church of England, but containing a proviso
" which suspended its execution till midsummer,
and enabled the King on or before that day to
repeal it; probably adopted with some remaining
hope that it might have terrors enough to countervail those which were inspired by the imperial armies."t  Mackintosh imagined that
fear, rather than a sense of duty, swayed the
councils of the Pontiff. Henry, according to
the testimony of Gardiner, twice seriously
thought of returning to unity; but these visitations of grace were resisted, and the unhappy
man, whose work against Luther obtained from
Leo X. the title of " Defender of the Faith,"
which is still borne by the Sovereign, died out of
the communion of the Church, having to answer
to God for one of the worst schisms that ever
tried the strength of this Divine institution. I
agree with you that Divine Providence raised
* Soames's Hist. of Reform, vol. i. pp. 290, 295.
1 Mackintosh's Hist. of England, vol. ii. p. 174.




ON HENRY VIII.             279
him  up; but only as it raised up Pharao, to
show to the world how powerless are the machinations of Princes against the counsels of God.
With apparent complacency you state that
Bishop Fisher and Chancellor More suffered as
traitors. If you had explained wherein their
treason consisted, your readers would have been
better able to judge of their titles to respect and
veneration. Fisher, who was eighty years of
age, during his whole life had been devoted to
religion, and distinguished by his attachment to
his sovereigns, Henry VII., whose councillor he
had been, and his son, the eighth Henry. His
learning was a source of pride to the monarch,
who adopted as his own work the defence of
the Seven Sacraments against Luther, which is
thought to have been the production of Fisher's
pen, He had never faltered in his allegiance.
When accused for not having disclosed the
visionary dreams of Catharine Barton, who had
foretold the King's death, he gave a satisfactory
excuse, that he knew that the King was aware
of them from other sources. Yet on this pretext
he was found guilty of misprision of treason,
despoiled of his estate, and sentenced to imprisonment. When he had escaped the storm
by a sacrifice of three-hundred pounds, he was
called on to swear to support the succession, as
regulated by a special Act passed by order of
Henry, which he freely consented to do; but the
oath presented to him contained a declaration of
the invalidity of Ienry's first marriage, and the




280           ON HENRY VIII.
validity of the second, as also a disclaimer of all
foreign authority, even spiritual, in the realm of
England.  To this his conscience was invincibly
opposed, and for no other crime the hoary
prelate was cast into a dungeon, and left to
languish there with scarcely the necessary support of life, for above a year, thence to be
dragged to the scaffold, and perish as a traitor.
He died, however, with the serenity, fortitude,
and joy of a martyr, having dressed as for a
festival, and answered his servant, who expressed
surprise at his care in dressing: "Dost thou not
know that this is my wedding day?"  At his
last moments he declared most truly that he
died for the faith of Christ's Holy Catholic
Church.  Soames says: "Bishop Fisher is a
martyr to their cause, of whom  the Roman
Catholics have good reason to be proud."*
Mackintosh describes him as " a pious minister,
of extreme simplicity of life, and sweetness of
temper, and as an indefatigable and enthusiastic
restorer of learning, worthy to be had in all
honorable remembrance."t
Sir Thomas More, whom also you are pleased
to class with traitors, was guilty of no greater
crime than the venerable Bishop of Rochester.
He had cautiously abstained from uttering anything disrespectful to his Sovereign, but faithfully
resisted every effort to induce him to take the obnoxious oath. After lingering in prison for a
* Vol. ii. pp. 32, 36.  - Vol. ii. pp. 177, 179.




ON HENRY VIII.            281
year, he was brought to trial on the charge of
treason, pursuant to an Act recently passed
which created a new  kind of treason, that
of doing anything by writing or act which was
to the slander, disturbance or prejudice of the
marriage with the Lady Anne. The amount
of the testimony given by a law officer of the
crown, who had visited him in prison, with a
view to elicit some expression which might serve
for his condemnation, was, that " the statute was
a two-edged sword; for if he spoke against it, he
should be the cause of the death of his body;
and if he assented to it, he should purchase the
death of his soul."  On this ground he was
found guilty, and suffered as a traitor, although
by special favor, beheading was substituted for
the ordinary punishment. Thus perished the
first lay Chancellor of England, a man of great
learning, sweet manners, eminent piety, and unfaltering devotion to his Sovereign, in all things
consistent with the Divine law.  Cheerfully,
joyfully, he met death.  The butchery of
these two eminent men marks Henry as one
of the most infamous and cruel tyrants who
ever abused the sovereign power. The English schism, of which he was the author, was
begun in lust, and cemented in blood. To pretend that it was provoked by excesses on the
part of the Church, or that it was directed to
restore the primitive order of church government, or that it was accomplished by the free
24*




282           ON HENRY VIII.
action of the ecclesiastical authorities of England, is to falsify all history. Its rise and progress are plainly traced to the worst of human
passions.
You had better utterly abandon the defence
of a monster, in whom lust and cruelty struggled
for the ascendency.  The unfortunate Anne
Boleyn soon experienced his vengeance, when
Jane Seymour had won his affection. On the
day of her execution he dressed in white, went
a hunting, and the next day took Jane to his
bed as a wedded wife. Ie afterwards put aside
Anne of Cleves, who was accused of no crime,
and ordered Catharine Howard, another of his
wives, to the scaffold. Truly did Sir James
Mackintosh say, that "Henry approached as
nearly to the ideal of perfect wickedness as the
infirmities of human nature will allow."* Sir
Henry Spelman, after enumerating his wives,
says: "Here's wives enough. to have peopled
another Canaan, had he had Jacob's blessing;
but his three last are childless, and the children
of the two first are, by statute, declared illegitimate, and not inheritable to the crown." "They
all successively sway his sceptre, and all die
childless, and his family is extinct, and like
Herostratus, his name not mentioned but with
his crimes."t
The persecutions carried on by Henry VIII.,
and his abettors, were not directed against the
* Vol. ii. p. 204.   t De non temerandis ecclesiis. Preface.




ON HENRY VIII.            283
enemies of order and society, but against unoffending men, whose only crime was their
adherence to the ancient faith. Three Carthusian
priors, a monk of Sion, and two others, one of
whom was a secular priest, were charged with
high treason, and through the violence and
threats of Thomas Cromwell, found guilty by a
reluctant jury, who avowed their unwillingness
to give such a verdict. Prior Houghton, at the
place of execution, declared his entire devotion
to the King, but that he feared God, whom he
should offend by abjuring the doctrine of the
Church. They were all, nevertheless, hung, cut
down before death, disembowelled and quartered
in the most shocking manner. In expiring,
Houghton cried: " Most holy Lord Jesus, have
mercy upon me in this hour."  "Whilst in
prison they were horribly tortured, being each
fastened to an upright post by means of iron
chains drawn tight round their necks and thighs,
without being once loosened during the whole
fortnight of their imprisonment."*  Three other
Carthusians, for refusing to take the oath of Supremacy, were executed soon after. Nine or
ten more were put in such close confinement,
that they all died but one, who was executed.
Two Carthusians, at York, were put to death for
the same cause.  Fifty Franciscans perished
from the rigor of their imprisonment, the rest
were banished.  Fourteen Catholics suffered
* Waterworth, Lecture ii. on the Reformation, note. He cites
Stl pe, Eccles. Mem. vol. i. p. 314.




284           ON HENRY VIII.
subsequently for denying the King's supremacy
in ecclesiastical concerns, whilst ten Protestants
were also sent to the stake. On one occasion,
"to exhibit his impartiality, as head of the
Church, the King commanded them to be placed
together in pairs, Catholic and Lutheran, on the
same hurdle, and thus dragged from the Tower
to Smithfield, where the assertors of the Papal
authority were hanged as traitors, and their
companions consumed at the stake as heretics."*
In extenuation of the cruelty of Henry, you
say, "it was a small matter in comparison with
the tortures and death inflicted by your old Inquisition, and universally sanctioned throughout
Europe, previous to the Reformation." I know
of no atrocity to equal it. The Inquisition saved
from death the penitent heretic twice, and if in
the third instance it delivered the convict to the
civil authorities, it was because its power of
pardon was limited. The standard of its judgments was not the caprice of any individual
potentate or ecclesiastic, but the faith of the
Universal Church. Henry inflicted death on
peaceable men, who retained the faith which he
himself professed, because they would not recognize in him a supremacy in things spiritual,
which had never been claimed by any of his predecessors. You assert that it was "the same
* Tytler, p. 428.




ON HENRY VIII.              285
supremacy which was exercised by the Christian
emperors for more than ten centuries."*  What
power the Arian Emperors may have claimed
or exercised, I care not; but it is certain that
Catholic princes acknowledged that they had no
power in things spiritual, professing themselves
obedient children of the Church, and deeming
it a duty and a privilege to support her decrees
by their authority. St. Ambrose praises Constantine for not interfering in the case of two
bishops of Mcesia (Bulgaria), which he referred
to their colleagues in the episcopate: " He would
not wrong the priests; he appointed the bishops
themselves to be the judges."t The celebrated
Osius, Bishop of Corduba, nobly resisted the
attempt of the Arian Emperor Constantius, to
dictate to the bishops. "Do not meddle with
church affairs, or send us mandates in regard to
them, but be content to learn from us. God has
given you the empire. He has charged us with
the interests of the Church."4 Certainly no
Catholic King claimed the title or power ascribed
to Henry in the Act of Parliament, which recognizing him  as "supreme head on earth of
the Church of England," granted him  "full
power to correct and amend any errors, heresies,
abuses, &c., which, by any manner ecclesiastical
jurisdiction might be reformed or redressed."~
* Vol. i. 37.    t Cone. Aquil. col. 826, tom. i. col. Hard.
$ Apud Athanas. Ep. ad solit. vitam agentes,
~ Mackintosh Hist. of Eng. vol. ii. p. 175.




286           ON HENRY VIII.
The savage cruelty of the monster appeared
particularly in his sending to the scaffold his
nearest female relative, the Countess of Salisbury, in her seventieth year, accused of no
crime whatever, merely to avenge himself of her
son, Cardinal Pole, who had incurred his displeasure by accepting promotion in the Roman Court.
You labor to show that neither the prince,
nor his abettors, had need of having recourse to
violent measures for acquiring the property of
the various Orders, since even Wolsey had been
authorized to suppress forty small monasteries,
for the execution of a favorite project, the endowment of two colleges. But what Pope would
authorize the wanton and general plunder of all
the monasteries? Sir William Dugdale is an
unexceptionable witness, that reform was only
a pretext for spoliation, in order to enrich the
coffers of the King and of his accomplices: " It
was not the strict and regular lives, or anything
that may be said in behalf of the monasteries,
that could prevent their ruin thus approaching.
So great an aim had the King to make himself
thereby glorious, and many others no less hopes
to be enriched in a considerable manner."*
The strictest communities, whose good conduct
was acknowledged by all, fell under the general
ban. Among them, "the monks of the Charterhouse, in the suburbs of London, were committed
* History of Warwickshire, p. 801.




ON HENRY VIII.            287
to Newgate, where, with hard and barbarous
usage, five of them died, and five more lay at
the point of death." The Royal commissioners
charged the Abbots with robbing the Church,
if they presumed to secrete any of its ornaments
from them. Under this pretence, "the Abbot
of Glastonbury, with two of his monks, being
condemned to death, was drawn from Wells
upon a hurdle, then hanged upon the hill called
Tor, near Glastonbury, his head set upon the
Abbey gate, and his quarters disposed of to
Wells, Bath, Ilchester, and Bridgewater. Nor
did the Abbots of Colchester and Reading fare
much better, as they that will consult the story
of that time may see. And for farther terror to
the rest, some priors and other ecclesiastical
persons, who spake against the King's supremacy, a thing then somewhat uncouth, were
condemned as traitors and executed." This is the
testimony of Sir William Dugdale. The means
which Henry employed to get parliamentary
sanction for his rapacity, were such as we might
expect. Finding that the Bill stuck in the
lower house, he summoned the Commons to
meet him in his gallery, where he made them
wait for hours, before he made his appearance.
On presenting himself, he addressed them scorn.
fully: "I hear that my bill will not pass; but I
will have it pass, or I will have some of your
heads."  This determined the loyal Commons
to support the measure. It would be easy to




288           ON HENRY VIII.
swell this volume, by details of the plundering of
the monasteries and churches; but it is altogether unnecessary, since the fact is notorious.
Whoever will take in hand the work of Sir
Henry Spelman, will see numberless proofs of
it; as also awful instances of the punishment
which overtook the sacrilegious plunderers. It
was somewhat bold in you, sir, in the face of
history, to maintain that the Reformers were
influenced by no love of plunder, but by zeal
for pure religion!




LETTER XXI.
(u 6aneLr.
RIGHT REVEREND SIR:
YOU have undertaken to be the apologist of
Cranmer more decidedly than of Henry.
Notwithstanding your resolution to be kind
and charitable, you have penned this sentence
against Dr. Milner, for presenting a most true
picture of this hero of the Reformation. " The
best excuse I can frame for this wanton defamer
is to be found in the doctrine of that Jesuit
society, of which I presume he was a member.
For thus we find it laid down by some of their
divines:'It is only a venial sin, to calumniate
and accuse of false crimes, in order to ruin the
credit of those who speak ill of us.' " Dr. Milner
was no Jesuit, nor has this illustrious society
ever held any such principles-the assertion of
Pascal, the Jansenist satirist, to the contrary
notwithstanding. You should pause before you
speak of "those atrocious maxims of Jesuit
* Vol. i. p. 388.
25




290             ON CRANAER.
morality, which Pascal so admirably exposed."*
Who then is the wanton defamer? The libertinism charged on Cranmer, by Dr. Milner, is
attested by every historian, and should meet no
countenance from  you, who are so severe on
clerical delinquency. It is certain that after his
priesthood, he contracted marriage secretly, or
lived in concubinage with the niece of Osiander,
whom  he contrived to smuggle into England,
and afterward sent back, when Henry, in the
Six Articles, enforced sacerdotal celibacy under
threat of capital punishment; but his base hypocrisy and cruelty, deserve still greater execration. He approved of the condemnation of John
Fryth and Andrew Iewet to the stake, for not
believing " the very corporal presence of Christ
within the host and sacrament of the altar,"t
which it is probable that he himself at the time
disbelieved.  Henry ordered him, with three
other prelates, to convert or execute certain
German Anabaptists, who sought to propagate
their tenets. One man and woman were publicly
burnt alive, besides fourteen others, who had been
previously executed. His name, as well as that of
Latimer, was affixed to the death-warrant of Joan
Boacher and Von Parr. I am willing to pass your
extravagant eulogiums of Edward VI., whose
humanity or conscientiousness I honor, as manifested in his reluctance to sign the death-warrant
* Vol. ii. p. 29.
t Cranmer's Letter to Hawkins, Archeol. xviii, 1. S 1.




ON CRANAMER.             291
of Joan Boacher; but what must we think of
Cranmer, who used all his efforts to overcome
this feeling?*  "Cranmer himself confessed,"
says Foxe, " that he had never so much to do
in all his life, as to cause the King to put to his
hand, saying that he would lay all the charge
thereof upon Cranmer before God."t  The poor
youth, trained and surrounded by men of false
principles, is to be pitied, rather than condemned.
Can you respect Cranmer who under Henry not
only concealed his own sentiments, but became
his pliant agent in condemning others to the
stake, for holding the same views? Can you
account for his lending himself to every caprice
of the monarch, even with the sacrifice of those
who co-operated with him in the work of Reform? Anne Boleyn was his patron and support; yet no sooner had she incurred the displeasure of her capricious lord, than Cranmer
virtually prejudged her, offering his services to
the prince, and declared null, from the beginning, the marriage which he himself had sanctioned. With the same promptness, he dissolved the marriage of Henry with Anne of
Cleves, for no other reason than the disgust
which the prince had conceived of her. As his
agent, he obtained from  Catharine Howard,
under a solemn promise that her life should be
spared, a confession of her incontinence before
* Burnet, Ref. ii. 179.     t Foxe, 1179.




292            ON CRANMIER.
marriage; notwithstanding which she died on
the scaffold, without effort on his part to obtain
her pardon.
He appears to have been, in principle, a Protestant all the time; yet he accepted the office
of Archbishop, and by his proctor at Rome, swore
obedience to the Pope, and accepted the Articles
of Catholic faith, which pledges he gave personally again at his consecration. After some
demurring, he co-operated with Henry in enforcing his Six Articles, even with the penalty
of death. Under Edward, he began by inculcating the Real Presence, and cautioning the
people against those who denied it; as he himself did within a few months afterwards.*
You seriously undertake tojustify the manifest
perjury contained in the solemn profession of
faith and promise of obedience, made by a man
who in his heart disbelieved, and who was determined to revolt against the Papal authority.
A previous protest made by him in the Chapterhouse, before notaries, that he did not intend to
bind himself to anything contrary to the law of
God, prejudicial to the rights and prerogatives of
the King, or prohibitory of such reforms in the
Church of England as he might deem useful,
appears to you to warrant his public act, whereby he swore, without qualification, to render
obedience to the Papal mandates, and keep the
* See Soames, iii. p. 72.




ON CRANMIER.              293
Catholic faith inviolate. I must, however, state
your pleas in his behalf:
First, you refer to your extracts from Fleury's
Ecclesiastical History "for multiplied proofs that
Cranmer was under no necessity of making such
a protest at all, because the prelates of Rome
had given the same construction to the oath for
ages together, without any doubt or hesitation."
If so, why did he make it? Truly, at all times
it was understood that the obedience promised
by bishops to the Pontiff was not designed to
interfere with their civil allegiance, and the proviso in the oath: salvo meo ordine-without prejudice to my rank-might admit this interpretation. But what man of conscience could swear
obedience to the spiritual authority of the chief
Bishop, with the avowed intention of refusing
it, in order to serve the caprice of his King, in
things not appertaining to the civil order? Yet
you defend this trifling with oaths by the ministers of religion.
Secondly, you " refer to the cases in which the
cardinals took ground against the Popes, because in their opinion the Popes had gone astray, and the best interests of the Church
required their deposition. In all such cases there
was the same oath to the Pope, and it was necessary to break that oath before they could even
confer about the calling of a Council." We
are not now concerned with the interpretation
of an oath, to determine whether extraordinary
25*




294            ON CRANMER.
circumstances may occur, in which a departure
from its letter may be justifiable; though for
myself I hold to the strictest acceptation of the
words; but what has this to do with the act of
a man, who, at the time of taking the oath, protests in private that he does not take it in its
avowed and established signification?
Thirdly, you "refer to the construction of
the same oath by all the other bishops in the
reign of Henry VIII., since there was not one
amongst them, save Fisher, who did not go with
the King against the Pope."  The forced acquiescence of bishops, fearing the fate of their martyred colleague, is no proof of the construction
which they put upon their oath, much less can
it justify the hypocrisy of a public oath, and a
previous protest to the contrary. It is, however
untrue that they acquiesced.
Fourthly, you refer to the resistance made by
all the English Romanists (you mean Catholics)
" against the Papal Bull of Sixtus V., in which he
undertook to depose Queen Elizabeth."  All
these examples are most unhappily chosen, as
they afford no parallel to the case. The English
Catholics did not publicly swear what they secretly abjured, but they acted under a sense of
duty to the acknowledged sovereign of the kingdom, whose right to their allegiance they considered inviolable, whilst she actually occupied
the throne, with the assent of the legislature
and people.




ON CRANMER.              295
Lastly, you " refer to the established maxims
of human rights, on which all our patriots are
accustomed to defend the American revolution."
Had the signers of the Declaration of Independence publicly sworn allegiance to the British
crown, and at the same time secretly protested
that they did not mean to observe it, I should be
at a loss how to reconcile their conduct with
honor or truth. Every oath is taken in its obvious and well-known acceptation, and all devices to evade obligations which it manifestly
implies, are fraudulent and criminal.
You call the protest of Cranmer a public act,
because it was done before notaries and witnesses; but as it was done privately, whilst the
oath was taken publicly before the altar, in the
solemn circumstance of receiving Episcopal consecration, and as it was without the knowledge
of the Pope, or his delegate, it cannot be considered otherwise than clandestine. The author
of No. IV. in the Appendix to the 3d vol. of
Burnet, says: "I wish it could be proved. I
have two letters (MSS. Latin) of Cardinal Pole
to the Archbishop Cranmer, in which he charges
him with having done it only in a private manner, and brands his proceeding therein with such
expressions as I am unwilling to transcribe." An
oath is to be taken in the meaning of him to whom
it is pledged, as expressed in the words according
to their acknowledged acceptation; so that every
attempt to qualify them, without the knowledge




296           ON CRANMER.
of the party interested, must necessarily be
regarded as deceit aggravated by perjury.
Your justification of Cranmer's policy on divorcing the unfortunate Anne Boleyn, at the bidding of the tyrant, shows yourwillingness to sustain him in the discharge of his " official duty,"
as you designate it. Your plea for his condemnation of two heretics to death, and his exertions
to obtain the signature of the young Edward to
the warrant for their execution, betrays no great
aversion to the intolerance of that age, the entire odium of which you would fain cast on
the ancient Church, without reflecting on the
glaring inconsistency of Cranmer, in condemning others to death for errors in belief, whilst he
himself was engaged in the propagation of new
doctrines.
Although it was notorious that he had vacillated and dissembled, he showed no indulgence
to those who avowed with intrepidity their attachment to the ancient faith. The Bishops of
Winchester and London, at his instigation, were
cast into prison. The Bishop of Durham was
deprived of his seat at the Council table. Gardiner of Winchester, having been liberated after
a time, was ordered to preach by the Protector,
and although he delivered the same doctrine of
the Mass and Real Presence, which up to that
time was professed by Cranmer and his fellow
reformers, he was again thrown into prison, and




ON CRANMER.               297
detained there until the end of the reign of Edward.
It is hard to justify Cranmer for putting his
signature to the death-warrant of Lord Sudely,
condemned for treason on the accusation of his
brother, the Protector, without the ordinary
forms of trial. It had been always forbidden to
ecclesiastics to concur directly to any execution,
so that even under the Inquisition this was never
allowed, the canonical penalty called irregularity being attached to the act. This case was
further aggravated by the disregard of the usual
legal forms, and by the awful circumstance that
the unhappy victim was accused and condemned
by his own brother.
The perjury and treason of Cranmer should
not be forgotten when his claims to the title of
martyr are examined. Although he avowed his
conviction that by signing the instrument of
Edward, by which the succession was changed,
he would be guilty of both crimes, yet, after
some hesitation, caused by fear of the consequences, he affixed to it his signature. When
Mary challenged his obedience, he replied to her
insultingly, because she was apparently unable
to establish her right by force of arms. Almost
the only bold act of his life, was a scurrilous
publication denying that he had any share in
causing the Mass to be restored in the Canterbury Cathedral after the accession of Mary to
the throne. His crimes against religion were




298            ON CRANMER.
put forward at his trial, because he being an
ecclesiastic they were matters of cognizance
for his judges; but his treason was, no doubt,
uppermost in the mind of the sovereign, as Cole,
in preaching before his execution intimated,
" There are other reasons which have moved the
Queen and Council to order the execution of the
individual present."
To eulogize a man who never in his life
showed consistency even in the maintenance of
error, requires much boldness as well as ingenuity, but to justify his vacillation and hypocrisy, his repeated prevarications under the fear
of death, and his shameless apostacy, when all
hope of escape had fled,-to proclaim such a man
"a noble martyr," is, to borrow your language,
outrageous effrontery. Cranmer, guilty by his
own avowal of perjury and treason, as well as of
heresy, was most justly consigned to a dungeon,
and left there for eighteen months to reflect on
his crimes, and prepare to expiate them by his
death. A commission was issued to the Bishop of
Gloucester, and two other ecclesiastics, to try
him for being twice married whilst professing
celibacy, for having denied the supremacy of the
Pope, to whom he had sworn obedience, and
having blasphemed the Eucharist. When found
guilty, and sentenced to be degraded and executed, he signed seven successive instruments of
retraction, in order to save his life. " The sixth,
which was very prolix, contained an acknowledg



ON CRANMER.               299
ment of all the forsaken and detested errors and
superstitions of Rome, an abhorrence of his own,
and a vilifying of himself, as a persecutor, a
blasphemer, a mischief-maker, nay, and as the
wickedest wretch that lived. And this was not
all, but after they had thus humbled and mortified
the miserable man with recantations and subscriptions, submissions and abjurations, putting
words into his mouth which his heart abhorred;
by all this drudgery they would not permit him
to redeem his unhappy life, but prepared him a
renunciatory oration to pronounce publicly in
St. Mary's Church, immediately before he was
led forth to burning."*  This does not show
that hope of pardon was really held out to him;
but even were this the case, it could not extenuate his hypocrisy in penning documents
expressing sentiments foreign from his mind.
From the unsatisfactory nature of the five first
retractions, it is manifest that he himself composed them, as even probably the sixth. His
subscription made them  all his own. At the
stake he described them as "written for fear of
death."  He cherished hope, even when led to
execution, but carried with him, concealed in his
breast, a retraction of all his previous retractions,
with  a view  to mortify and  disappoint the
authorities, in case mercy were not extended to
him.  This is the heroism which elicits your
" Strype, F. ccl. iMem. vol. iv. c. 30, pp. 405-406.




300            ON CRANMER.
applause. You, sir, who are so horror-stricken
with the indulgent morality of the Jesuits, virtually adopt a foul maxim, unjustly imputed
to them, and plead that "he might begin
to regard his escape as a kind of duty to the
truth, and thus if he could only put to sleep the
suspicions of his persecutors, and gain his
liberty, he might dedicate his last years to the
defence and confirmation of the Gospel."*
Pray, in what Gospel have you learned that evil
may be done that good may come therefrom?
The example of Pope Pascal, which you allege
in extenuation of Cranmer's prevarication, is not
a case in point. He was suffering unjust duress
from the Emperor Henry V., and at the solicitation of his friends, he compromised some of his
rights, to obtain his liberty. The concessions
extorted from him implied the profession of no
error, although the pretensions of the Emperor
to control the Church, by giving to her prelates
the ensigns of ecclesiastical power, may have
savored of heresy. In stating with humility the
violence which he had suffered, and deploring
his compromise of the rights of his office, he
satisfied his duty to the Church, whilst in declining to revoke them, or to punish his oppressor
by excommunication, he fulfilled abundantly the
pledges which he had given. The Council of
Cardinals and Bishops rightly declared that
* Vol. i. p. 308.




ON CRANMER.              301
these forced concessions were of no avail, and
smote with anathema the tyrant who wrung
them from a prisoner. What resemblance does
this bear to the hypocrisy of a renegade, who,
when lingering in a dungeon for repeated
treasons to his sovereign, feigns conversion, professes his belief in doctrines which at heart he
repudiates, and when disappointed in this attempt to deceive, turns back, like a dog to the
vomit, and to spite his judges, goes to the stake
blaspheming the mysteries which a while before he affected to adore?
26




LETTER XXII.
In tat 6mr^ oft f1fIurg
RIGHT REVEREND SIR:
OU have put forward very prominently the
claims of the Church of England to distinct consideration, although you have carefully
avoided discarding those of the various other
Protestant sects, of which your Reviewers, notwithstanding their extravagant laudations, loudly
complain. You, indeed, charge Dr. Milner with
misrepresentation, in stating that she does not
recognize their orders, on account of their want
of episcopacy, and that she thus unchurches
them. I scarcely deem it necessary to vindicate
him on this head, further than to observe that it
is notorious she does not allow them to minister
without ordaining them. Whether Episcopal
ordination be necessary only for the well-being
of the Church, or for its mere existence, I
leave you to settle with your colleagues, whose
opinions are divided on this subject. Many of
your ministers rebaptize persons baptized in the
other sects, regarding the act as null for the
want of the ministerial character; since the




ON THE CHURCHI OF ENGLAND.   303
suppression, in 1575, of the Rubric allowing lay
persons to baptize, is deemed equivalent to the
statement made by Dr. Milner, that "the Church
of England unanimously resolved that it could
not be performed by any person but a lawful
minister."  You seem very desirous to stand
well with the various other sects.
You are naturally anxious to establish an
origin for the Church of England independent
of the Roman See; but unfortunately for you,
the only ancient tradition worth any notice,
is that preserved by Venerable Bede, which
refers it to Pope Eleutherius, in the decline of
the second century. It is fair, however, to hear
you: "First then, Ireneus, in A. D. 170, speaking
of the unity of the faith diffused throughout the
world, enumerates the Churches of Germany,
the Churches among the Hibernians, and the
Churches among the Celts." You take the last
for Britons.  Grabe, the learned Protestant
editor of the works of Irenaeus, understands
them to have been inhabitants of Gaul, about
Lyons, since the author says of himself: "We
live among the Celts."* " The south and centre
of France were known, even in the fifth century,
by the names of Celtica and Gallia."t  Our
countrymen, "the Hibernians," turn out to be
Iberians, inhabitants of Spain.T So far your researches are a failure. Nor are you more suc* L. 1 Adv. hter. Praf.  t Mona Mission, p. 1.
i L. 1 Adv. haer. c. iii.




304    ON THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND.
cessful in endeavoring to destroy our proofs by
the testimony of Tertullian, who boasted that
parts of Britain, which had been inaccessible to
the Romans, had been subjected to Christ.
"Britannorum inaccessa Romanis loca, Christo
vero subdita."  Had you reflected for a few
moments, you would scarcely have put the
translation in capitals, and added the observation: "There is the positive testimony, that
however, or by whomsoever, the Church was
first planted in Britain, which is a matter of
uncertainty, it was not planted by a missionary
from Rome." Youhave strangely misunderstood
your author, who contrasts the triumphs of the
Gospel with the achievements of the Roman
armies. He does not speak of the country
whence the missionaries came. His statement,
made at the close of the second or beginning of
the third century, harmonizes strictly with the
traditionary testimony of the English nation,
recorded by Bede, concerning the conversion of
the Britons under Eleutherius.
The origin of the Anglo-Saxon Church, is
undeniably Roman, the fruit of the apostolic
labors of the monk Augustin, and the favorite
object of the solicitude of Pope Gregory. Instead of exulting in the triumph of religion by
the zeal of the saintly missionary, you declare
his mission "a flagrant usurpation," and insinuate that he employed force to secure success.
Speaking of the refusal of the Britons to co



ON THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND.   305
operate with the envoy of Gregory, you say:
"Augustin left them with a menace, which the
Romans convert into a prophecy. An army of
the Anglo-Saxons attacked the Britons, slew
twelve hundred monks, because they prayed
against their enemies, and so, after a time, force
compelled the British Church to submit to the
authority of Rome. It was a just retribution of
Providence, when the day of Reformation came,
that force should break the yoke which force
imposed."*  The reader might suppose that
Augustin or his companions had suggested these
sanguinary measures, for the purpose of forcing
submission. You say elsewhere, that "his (Augustin's) converts had a hand, before many
years, in the cruel slaughter of twelve hundred
British monks at Bangor."  Yet history presents the facts in a wholly different light. The
teachings of the missionaries to King Ethelbert
were, "that the service of Christ ought to be
voluntary, not by compulsion."t No arms but
those of the Gospel were employed by them.
The words of Augustin were uttered as a warning of the impending wrath of God; but his
spirit had fled to rest before the sanguinary
Ethelfred, King of Northumbria, listening only
to his own wild hatred of the Britons, rushed on
them, and slew them in great numbers. His
arms made no converts. The Gospel spread by
* Vol. ii. p. 28.  t Bede, Eccl. Hist. 1. i. c. xxvi.
26*




306   ON THE CIURCH OF ENGLAND.
its own mild influence. The Britons continued
for a considerable time in the recesses of Wales,
and it was only gradually and almost imperceptibly, that their remains were amalgamated
with the Church of the Anglo-Saxons. There
is no foundation for asserting that " it was accomplished by the hand of power, through AngloSaxon domination."*
The Church of England, at the present day,
can in no sense be traced to the Britons, since
Canterbury, the chief see in the new organization under Gregory, is Anglo-Saxon.  The
validity of her claims altogether depends on her
connection with Rome through Augustin. That
the succession was maintained down to Cardinal
Pole is acknowledged, although the heresy and
schismatical efforts of Cranmer, caused an interruption for several years. When Elizabeth came
to the throne, Canterbury was vacant, and the
bishops of the other sees, with the exception of
Kitchin of Landaff, having refused to take the
oath of supremacy, were deposed, so that all
their sees were vacant. Elizabeth issued letters
patent for the consecration of Matthew Parker,
who is said to have been consecrated accordingly
by Barlow, assisted by Scory, Coverdale, and
Hodgkins, on 17th December, 1559. The fact
of the consecration of Barlow himself, has never
been proved from any Register, although it is
* Vol. ii. p. 35.




ON THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND.   307
certain that he was elected bishop, and transferred from one see to another, under Henry
VIII., and that he sat in Parliament in virtue of
his office. The consecration of Parker has been
denied, but it is admitted by Dr. Lingard, on
the authority of the Lambeth Register. I have
not time or disposition to canvass these points,
which, indeed, I deem unnecessary; but as all
the claims of the Church of England turn on the
valid consecration of Parker, I may be allowed
to state my conviction, that the form prescribed
in the Ordinal of Edward VI., and alleged to
have been used in his case, is altogether void
and invalid. I know, Right Reverend Sir, that
this is a delicate topic, on which you are scarcely
disposed to enter dispassionately, deeming it
enough to talk "of the utter emptiness and
folly of the objection," but the impartial Thorndyke confessed that it had weight and difficulty
in it.* You claim Dr. Lingard's admission in
support of your orders, although he cautiously
avoided any expression of opinion in regard to
their validity, confining himself, as became an
historian, to the statement of the fact of the
ordination. With the evidence on which he
relied, I am by no means satisfied; I care not
to discuss it, since the examination of the Ordinal is in my opinion sufficient to decide the
whole controversy.
* " Just Weights and Measures."




308   ON THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND.
It is known that the personal opinion of
Cranmer was, that bishops were mere officers of
the crown for ecclesiastical matters; which, however, you say had no place in the system of the
Church, nor in any of her standard writings.
Let us examine the Ordinal, which is known to
have been framed by him.
The oath of supremacy is a prominent part of
it. The elect says: "I from henceforth shall
utterly renounce, refuse, relinquish, and forsake
the Bishop of Rome, and his authority, power,
and jurisdiction. And I from henceforth, will
accept, repute, and take the King's majesty to
be the only supreme head in earth of the Church
of England; and to my cunning, wit, and uttermost of my power, without guile, fraud, or
other undue mean, I will observe, keep, maintain, and defend the whole effects and contents
of all and singular acts and statutes made and
to be made within this realm, in derogation,
extirpation, and extinguishment of the Bishop
of Rome and of his authority; and all other acts
and statutes made, or to be made, in confirmation and corroboration of the King's power, of
the supreme head in earth of the Church of
England."  This oath, which is common to all
the orders, gives them a character of hostility to
the divine constitution of the Church, by which
bishops are subject to Peter and his successors,
and of slavish subjection to the English monarch.




ON THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND.   309
You remark that the elect "was presented to
be consecrated Archbishop;" but this is not
enough. It must be well understood and defined by the rites and prayers, what constitues a
bishop, or archbishop, since the name was vague
and indefinite, especially as then employed in
the Church by law established. If you examine
the Ordinal, you will find nothing to determine
its meaning. At the end of the Litany, a prayer
is said for him, "now called to the work and
ministry of a bishop;" but nothing peculiar to
his office is set forth. In the questions put to
him, he is asked: " Are you persuaded that you
be truly called to this ministration, according to
the will of our Lord Jesus Christ, and the order
of this realm? " Then he is questioned as to his
persuasion that the "holy Scriptures contain sufficiently all doctrine required of necessity for
eternal salvation," and his determination to
instruct the people committed to his charge accordingly. Then the consecrating prelate asks
him: "Will you... such as be unquiet, disobedient and criminous within your diocese, correct
and punish, according to such authority as ye
have y God's word, and as to you shall be committed by the ordinance of this realm?"  Not a
word occurs in all these interrogatories to mark
the true office of a Christian bishop, they being
on the contrary, directed to pledge the aspirant to
exact conformity to the civil laws, which are stated
to be a source of his authority. The prayer after




310   ON THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND.
the hymn is equally unsatisfactory: "Grant, we
beseech Thee, to this Thy servant, such grace,
that he may evermore be ready to spread abroad
Thy Gospel, and glad tidings of reconcilement
to God, and to use the authority given unto
him, not to destroy, but to save."
The Archbishop and Bishops present lay their
hands upon his head, the Archbishop saying:
" Take the Holy Ghost, and remember that thou
stir up the grace of God which is in thee, by imposition of hands; for God hath not given us
the spirit of fear, but of power, and love, and of
soberness." Nothing here occurs expressive of
authority; so that in the solemn act of laying
on of hands, as well as throughout the whole
rite, nothing designates the office or character of
bishop. It is also worthy of remark that the
assistant prelates do not pronounce the words,
so that if any of them were validly ordained, as
was the apostate Archbishop of Spalatro, his presence would add no weight to the ceremony.
Although in our ceremonial the words used in
that act be simply, "Receive the Holy Ghost;"
the prayer which immediately follows, determines the character of the authority, which is
also expressed by the delivery of the Episcopal
ring, and pastoral staff with the mitre, and
other emblems of jurisdiction. All these were
wanting in the ordinal of Edward.
You state that "the essence of ordination consists in the laying on of hands, and that the




ON THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND.   311
other rites are variable." If you mean to assert that the mere act of imposing hands is sufficient, without any words to determine the object
for which it is performed, you oppose the practice and teaching of all antiquity. It has always
been believed that the act must be determined
by words to a definite object, since otherwise
confirmation could not be distinguished from
ordination. Great variety is, indeed, observable
in ancient Rituals in regard to the accompanying rites; which, however, are all strongly expressive of the Episcopal authority.
I beg your attention, Right Reverend Sir, to
another point of great importance, which you
overlook or disregard, namely, the jurisdiction
or mission necessary for the valid exercise of the
powers of the episcopate. According to St.
Cyprian, a bishop has no authority unless in
unity, that is as one of a vast corporation spread
throughout the world, and bound together in
indivisible union. Separation from the body of
bishops involves forfeiture of all right to exercise the powers of his office. The same father
regarded the See of Rome as the centre of
unity, as Hallam and Dr. Nevin acknowledge.
Barlow and his assistants were not actual occupants of any see, or united with the See of
Rome; they could not, therefore, communicate the governing power; so that Matthew
Parker should be called, in the language of Cyprian, a stranger, an intruder, and an enemy.




312    ON THE CHURCH OE ENGLAND.
Were it conceded that his ordination was valid,
his occupancy of the See of Canterbury would
be still an act of usurpation, contrary to all the
canons of the Church. The sole sanction which
can be alleged for his intrusion is the Queen's
letters patent, which professed, indeed, to supply all deficiencies, but which could not bestow
ecclesiastical jurisdiction.* He cannot, then, be
regarded as the successor of Pole; he cannot
derive under Augustin; he is the first bishop
of a church establishment with royal sanction,
which in the language of St. Cyprian, "is a
human Church."t,
From the days of Cranmer the Church ofEngland took this earthly character, since he ascribed
all his Episcopal jurisdiction to the crown, and
accordingly, under Edward, it was declared by
Act of Parliament that " all jurisdiction, both spiritual and temporal, was derived from the king;"
and that the bishops should " thereafter be made
by the King's letters patent."t " The intent of
the contrivers," says Heylin, " was by degrees to
weaken the authority of the Episcopal order, by
forcing them from their stronghold of divine institution, and making them no other than the
king's ministers only, his ecclesiastical sheriffs, as
a man might say, to execute his will, and disperse
* See " The Validity of Anglican Ordinations and Anglican
Claims to Apostolical Succession Examined, by Peter Richard
Kenrick, Archbishop of St. Louis." Philadelphia, 1848.
tEp. ad Antonian.   $Burnet Hist. of Ref., vol. ii. p. 69.




ON THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND.   313
his mandates."* On the death of Henry, Cranmer had petitioned the young prince to be restored to his jurisdiction, and received it accordingly during the royal pleasure,t so that he is
sometimes styled in his writings: " The Commissary of our dread Sovereign Lord KingEdward."$
Whilst, then, you extol his labors, and contend
for his superior merit in promoting the Reformation, you should not be offended if we explain
the Ordinal in conformity with his known sentiments, especially as its words are scarcely
capable of any other construction. The mention
made of " such authority as ye have by God's
word," is too indeterminate to imply governing
power derived from divine institution, and the
charge delivered with the Bible sufficiently intimates that it is no more than to preach, and
inculcate the contents of the divine book. The
laws of the realm being acknowledged as a source
of authority, the pledge to observe them is evidently directed to confine the Episcopal power
within their limits.
You are offended at the remark of King
James, repeated by Dr. Milner, that your service is an ill-said Mass. You know, however,
that Mass continued to be said, in Latin, in the
early part of Edward's reign, with an exhortation to the communicants in English, and a
* Heylin, Hist. of Ref., p. 51.
tBurnet, vol. ii. p. 9.  4 Strype, Mem. Cranm. 202.
27




314    ON THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND.
prayer.* It is even so styled in the first edition of the Book of Common Prayer, "The
Supper of the Lord, and the Holy Communion,
commonly called the Mass."t  Soames avows,
that the Book of Common Prayer, subsequently
prepared, was " little more than a selection from
the established liturgy."' It is true that the
most important parts were in many instances
omitted, and many things were inserted illsuited to the sublime simplicity of the ancient
formularies. Enough was retained to mark the
original sources, and make their loss a subject
of regret, whilst the additions showed the progress of the new opinions. In the ceremony of
Coronation, as still performed, the ancient vestments are worn, the sacred vessels are carried
to the Altar; but what constitutes the sacrifice,
has disappeared, so that the solemn ceremonial
turns out to be an empty pageant. Your ritual
brings to my mind the ruins of the Coliseum
-a grand fabric of ancient construction, supported by brick-work of modern labor.
The Book of Common Prayer was assented
to by three bishops only, besides Cranmer; yet
it was solemnly declared in the Act to have
been made by common agreement, and "with
the aid of the Holy Ghost."  It was forced on
* Burnet, ii. p. 103.
t The two Liturgies of Edward VI. compared. Oxford, 1841,
p. 266.
['oames, iii. p. 369.




ON THE CHIURCHI O  ENGLAND.    315
the clergy, under the heaviest pains and penalties, namely, in the first instance, the loss of
their benefices, then imprisonment during a
year, and in case of a third conviction imprisonment for life. Any person speaking in a
disrespectful manner of it, was fined two pounds
for the first offence, twenty pounds for the
second offence, and for the third was subject to
entire confiscation of his property and imprisonment for life.*  "To make sure work of it,"
says Heylin, "there passed an Act... for bringing in of all antiphonaries, missals, breviaries,
offices, horaries, primers, and processionals, with
other books of false and superstitious worship."t
Yet only four years passed when Cranmer, with
others, were commissioned by the young king
to revise the Prayer Book, and actually expunged from it many of the chief rites retained
from  the old Catholic ceremonial.  Chrism,
heretofore used in confirmation, was henceforth
omitted; extreme unction was no longer to be
administered to the dying, and all mention of
private confessions was avoided. The Forty-two
Articles, drawn up chiefly by Cranmer, were
adopted by royal authority, and passed before
the public as the expression of the doctrine of
the English Church. The Thirty-nine Articles,
published under Elizabeth, closely resemble
them. It is painful to see how the reformers
* 2 Edw. VI. 1.         t Hist. of Ref. p. 78.




316    ON THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND.
proceeded in the work of demolition, giving
evidence of their own changes of opinion in the
capricious alteration of the Liturgy. At one
time they insisted that the sacrament should be
received kneeling, conformably to the ancient
usage, but declared that the posture should not
be regarded as expressive of worship of the
sacrament. The words used by us in administering it were at first retained; then others more
consistent with the Calvinistic theory were substituted; then both were united. Communion
under both kinds, in the second of the Six Articles of Henry VIII., was declared not necessary
to salvation by the law of God. The Parliament under Edward, in 1547, ordered it to be
given under both, excepting cases of sudden
sickness, and other such like extremities. At
ohe time the wafer should be round, like the
Catholic host; at another, common bread was
prescribed to be used in the sacrament. Oil in
baptism, and prayers for the departed were first
prescribed; and then forbidden, under Edward,
in a few short years. The priestly ornaments
were required in the first book-" a white albe,
plain, with a vestment or cope;"* rejected in
the second, and then restored under Elizabeth.
These changes give us an idea of the narrow
compass to which the magnificent ritual of the
ancient Church of England is reduced.
The illustration which you give of your claims
* The Two Liturgies, p. 267.




ON THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND.   317
is certainly not drawn from  the Scriptures,
which never represent the Church of Christ as an
adulteress; still less do they sanction any usurpation of her power by rebellious children, on
the plea that they are entitled to their father's
inheritance. St. Paul proposes her as a model
to wives, who are exhorted to obey their husbands and be subject to them, as the Church is
subject to Christ. Children also are commanded
to obey their parents. Nowhere is it insinuated
that they should rise in revolt against their
mother, accuse her of adultery, and strip her of
those endowments with which Christ has enriched her. You must seek your justification
elsewhere than in the divine oracles.
Your boast of the republican character of your
communion ill suits its parent, the Church of
England, which is purely the creature and slave
of royalty. She lost her independence, when
she renounced the protection of the head divinely given to the whole Church, and bowed
in homage to an earthly sovereign. Accordingly, on complaint of the Parliament, of the
encroachments of the convocation, Henry VIII.
requested them "to forbear any more to make
ordinances or constitutions, or to put them in
execution, but with the royal assent and license."*  No matter can be discussed by the
clergy thus assembled without special leave of
the Queen, or King, as the case may be; and
See Strype, Eccl. Mem. p. 204-210.
27*




318    ON THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND.
no decision has force, unless confirmed by the
Royal sanction. In the reign of Queen Anne,
the Convocation condemned the writings of
Whiston, as infected with Arian doctrines, and
reported the condemnation to the Queen; but
waited a week for her approval, which not being
communicated, they broke up their meeting,
and adjourned to the following year. At the
opening of the next Convocation they sent a
deputation to inquire into Her Majesty's gracious pleasure, in regard to the matter; but the
report was ignored, and so the Convocation desisted from further action. This, I believe, is
the last sign of life given by them. At present
they meet for form sake, and adjourn.
The appointment of Bishops in the Church of
England is a purely royal or ministerial transaction. When the fortunate individual has been
fixed on who is to enjoy the vast revenues of
some diocese, with the title of Bishop, the Royal
conge d'elire issues, directed to the Dean and
Chapter, requiring them within a certain number
of days, to proceed to the election of a fit and
worthy person to fill the vacant See, accompanied
by letters missive, recommending and enjoining
them to choose a certain individual. Any delay
to exercise their elective privilege in favor of
the individual recommended, is punishable with
imprisonment.
Nous avons change tout cela. So you may
boast of the republican character of your Church




ON THIE CHURCH OF ENGLAND.   319
discipline. Your titles are not taken from the
cities in which you reside, as was the practice of
the Church in ancient times, and as is still the
custom in England and in Catholic countries,
but from the territory, over which you claim
jurisdiction. The control of an Archbishop is
removed, and precedency with a few privileges,
is allowed to the senior Bishop, so that authority
shifts her quarters, according to accidental
priority of ordination; the Bishops are elected
by Diocesan Conventions, in which the laity
are represented.  These annual conventions
regulate the local affairs of each diocese, and
appoint standing committees of clergy and laymen to assist the Bishop in the chief management of the diocese, or to control him. The
vestries of each parish, elected by the congregation, choose the Rector, who is instituted by the
Bishop at their instance. Triennial Conventions of the same mixed character, regulate the
general interests of your religious denomination.
This, I presume, is a fair outline of your Church
government.  That it is far more republican
than the government of the Church of England
is very manifest. How far it is advantageous to
the freedom of clerical action, and the just influence of the ministry, you can better tell, who
some years ago lamented that the episcopal and
pastoral relation is but the shadow of what it
once was. Many of your clergy regard it as
only a decent kind of Congregationalism, with




320    ON THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND.
the forms of episcopacy. The Rectors are practically independent of the Bishop, whose authority is reduced to the mere performance of
certain official acts, with little room for the
exercise of his conscientious judgment. Hence
he is forced to forbear, whilst some evangelical
clergyman fraternizes with the sects, or resists
his claims to the exercise of some sacred office
in a Church of his own Diocese. This independence, although in accordance with our civil
polity, does not exhibit unity and order, such as
we should expect to find in the Church of God.
The delivery of the keys of the Church by the
Senior Warden to the Rector, in the ceremony
of institution, though intended as a mere recognition of his office, is a practical indication
that its exercise is to a great extent, dependent
on the good-will of the congregation. As the
system is your own, you deserve to enjoy whatever popularity is attached to it, whilst you
experience its inconveniences and disadvantages.
In the exercise of holy functions, the priest
should act and be regarded as the messenger of
the God of hosts, the minister of Christ, and
dispenser of Divine mysteries. In order to be
useful to the faithful, he should be free from
their control, and subject only to the direction
and authority of his ecclesiastical superior.
Whatever disturbs this order, frustrates his
ministrations, and reduces religion to the level
of earthly things.




LETTER XXIII.
En ite t at btgolk  6 4.
RIGHT REVEREND SIR:
Y OUR attack on the Catholic Church, as corrupt and idolatrous, is qualified by the admission that she is, nevertheless, a true and real
Church, because she retains the great mysteries
of Christian faith, and the ministry instituted by
Christ. The comparison of an adulteress, who
is nevertheless a real wife, is employed by you
to illustrate this position. In truth you could
not reject her altogether, without abandoning
all the claims of your own communion. The
Holy Scriptures and the fathers, in speaking of
the Church, declare her to be the object of
the special love of Christ, and a model of entire
fidelity and obedience, whom Christian wives
should imitate: "As the Church is subject
to  Christ, so also let wives be subject to
their husbands in all things."*  If, with St.
Augustin, we are to understand the Apostle as
speaking of the Church triumphant, when he
describes her as glorious, not having spot, or
wrinkle, or any such thing, we must at least
recognize her as free from all idolatry or super* Eph. vi. 24.




322     ON TIE CATHOLIC CHURCH.
stition in her solemn worship, and from all error
in her teaching, since God would not otherwise
dwell in her as in his chosen temple, nor would
she be "the house of the living God, the pillar
and the ground of truth."  If not only scandals
from time to time spring up in her borders, but
depraved principles spread their poison, then in
no sense have the promises of Christ a meaning,
since the gates of hell have prevailed against
her. We must either disbelieve His words, or
maintain that the Church, despite of scandals,
has always been faithful to her mission, which
is to proclaim revealed truth, and furnish men
with means of sanctification.
The continuance of the Church is a standing
miracle of Divine Providence, which attests the
divinity of our Lord in a manner more striking
than any other proof which can be furnished. It
is the fulfilment, under our eyes, of the splendid
prophecy made by Himself, conformably to the
predictions of Daniel, David, and Isaiah, and
under circumstances which forbade any human
hope of a favorable issue. He foretold that His
Church should be spread throughout all nations,
and persecuted and oppressed, but never wholly
vanquished. The opposition of the Jews and
heathens threatened her with speedy ruin, but
at the opening of the fourth century, after the
sacrifice of millions of her children, she received
the homage of the successor of the Csesars.
Heresy, in all its endless forms, subsequently




ON THE CATHOLIC CHURCH.          323
assailed her, and emperors and kings used thdir
power to corrupt her faith, and restrict her action, but she guarded the deposit of divine truth
with unfailing watchfulness, and cast from her
the bonds that were thrown around her. The
jealousies of nations have constantly obstructed
her progress, and disturbed her tranquillity, sometimes despoiling her of her possessions, and
often loading her with chains, yet she advances,
diffusing blessings in her pathway, and confounding her enemies by her achievements. You
object to her success in missionary enterprises
being taken as a test of her truth, although you
should reflect that the speedy propagation of
Christianity is among the most brilliant evidences of the truth of the Gospel. But be it as
you say, " The results of two or three hundred
years are not to be taken as the measure of fulfilment" of the Gospel promises. The permanence of the Church, now more than eighteen
centuries, must count for something in estimating her claims to be regarded as the messenger of God to men. How has she contrived to
maintain herself, whilst so much corruption, as
you allege, was preying on her vitals, and so much
violence assailed her from  without? "Often
have they fought against me from my youth; let
Israel now say: Often have they fought against
me from my youth; for they could not prevail
over me."*  The infidel beholds the phenomenon, and is utterly amazed; the sectary views it
* Ps. cxxviii.




324     ON THE CATHOLIC CHURCH.
and blasphemes. One calls this wonderful institution a master-piece of human policy; the
other styles it agrand device of Satan; but there
it stands triumphant over every opposition. You
may well despair of overthrowing it, and avow
that it will subsist until the second coming of
our Saviour; but you should reflect that were it
a corrupt institution, with a merely human basis,
it could not possibly survive the attacks made on
it so incessantly. You should then give glory
to Christ our Lord for His mercy to mankind in
securing the transmission of revealed truth by
the Church, notwithstanding the unworthiness of
many of her children, and in affording us means
of sanctification, wholly independent of the personal merits of the officers commissioned to impart them.
I am surprised, Sir, that you should deny that
the Church is any longer Catholic in the sense
in which it was proclaimed by St. Augustin,
namely, as a united body spread throughout the
world. "Here is a test," you say, "which was
conclusive in the days of Augustin, but which
ceased to be so ever since the ambition of Rome
separated the Eastern from the Western churches,
in the ninth century." Is this, then, the mark
and attribute of the Church assigned in all the
ancient creeds, which are still repeated as words
of divine faith? In your public ministrations
you say: "I believe in the Holy Catholic
Church."  You write, the Church for nearly a
thousand years has ceased to'be Catholic. The




ON THE CATHOLIC CHURCH.           325
Donatists spoke to the same effect, to whom St.
Augustin replied: " All nations have believed in
Christ. But that Church which consisted of all
nations is now no more, it has perished. This
is said by those who are not in it.! shameless assertion. Does the Church no longer exist,
because you are not in it?  Take care lest you
be no more; for she shall be, although you be
not. The spirit of God foresaw this language,
which is abominable, detestable, full of presumption and falsehood, void of all semblance
of truth, illumined with no ray of wisdom, seasoned with no wit, vain, rash, reckless, destructive, and He spoke,'as it were, against them, in
announcing unity, when the people assembledtogether, and kings, to serve the Lord.''Declare
unto me the fewness of my days.' What does
this mean? How did he declare it?'Behold
I am  with you to the consummation of the
world.' "*
You quote St. Isidore, of Seville, as explaining
the term Catholic in a variety of ways, by which
you wish to insinuate that its obvious and direct
meaning, which implies general diffusion, need
not be insisted on; but can you honestly maintain that such is the scope of the author? "The
Church," he says, "is strictly so styled (Ecclesia)
because she calls all to her and gathers them
together. And she is called Catholic, because
she is established throughout the world." The
* In Ps. ci. Enarr. Serm. II. n. 8. vol. iv. col. 1105.
28




326     ON THE CATHOLIC CHURCH.
Latin term instituta, as here applied, has evidently this force. What he adds, is not to
weaken or render doubtful this explanation, but
to show that besides this general diffusion, she
is also Catholic in the universal character of her
teaching, which regards heavenly and earthly
things, and is addressed to men of all classes,
and intended to remedy all the moral disorders
of mankind.*
You strive to substitute another view for that
of Catholic diffusion. You appeal to that "which
the Catholic Church has universally taught
from days of old, that which has been believed
everywhere, always, by all." Tried by this standard, you will be found wanting. Compare, if
you will, the Thirty-nine Articles with the general teaching of antiquity, and you will be forced
to acknowledge the vast discrepancy.
The unity of the Catholic Church in all defined doctrines is a striking fact, which every
one knows and feels. In order to verify it, it is
not necessary, as you insinuate, to ask every
individual Catholic his faith; you can take any
one, even a child who has learned his catechism,
and satisfy'yourself. The books of instruction
published in various countries, the sermons
preached, the worship offered up, all attest it in
a manner not easy to be mistaken. Your kindliness acknowledges it after this fashion: "We
doubt not that there is quite as much of this sort
* De Offic. Eccl 1. 1. c. 1.




ON THE CATHOLIC CHURCH.    327
of unity among the Budhist and the Hindoo
idolaters, and the followers of the false prophet."
The freedom of opinion on all matters not of
faith, is no wise inconsistent with this strict unity.
But the Church of England cannot justly lay
claim to it, whilst the collision of views in regard
to the Thirty-nine Articles, is notorious.
To illustrate the mark of holiness, Dr. Milner
pointed, among other things, to the various
orders which are devoted to works of charity
and mercy. You deny the Church all merit in
this respect, because they originated from the
zeal of individuals, and not from any decree of
Councils or Popes, and "they may spring up in
any other church and receive its sanction, without touching a single point in controversy belonging to the Reformation." Individuals could
effect but little, were it not for the sanction and
guidance of authority, which gives a direction
and blessing to their labors. Protestants have
from time to time tried to rival these benevolent
institutions, with little success, precisely because
the soil was not congenial. Dr. Nevin, avows
this distinctly: "Such an institution as that of
the Sisters of Charity, can never be transferred
to purely Protestant ground; as no such ground
either could ever have given it birth. Attempts
are made in our own time to furnish a Protestant version of the same idea, under what
claims to be a higher and more evangelical
form; for the purpose of supplying an evident
want. But nothing of this sort will ever equal




328     ON THE CATHOLIC CHURCH.
the original design, or be more indeed than a
weak and stunted copy of this on the most narrow
and ephemeral scale. It is only in the bosom
of ideas, principles, and associations, which are
Catholic distinctively, and not Protestant, that
charity of this sort finds itself perfectly at home.
And just so it is with the piety of this Church
in general. It is fairly and truly native to the
soil from which it springs. That Church, with
all its supposed errors and sins, has ever had
power in its own way to produce a large amount
of very lovely religion.  If it has been the
mother of abominations, it has been unquestionably the mother also of martyrs and saints.
It is a sorry business to pretend to deny this, or
to try to falsify the fact into the smallest possible dimensions."*
The argument of Dr. Milner in favor of the
Church, derived from the miracles which attest
the sanctity of her children, does not interfere
with her claims to obedience in virtue of her
Divine commission.  She produces this as a
voucher for her authority altogether sufficient.
Yet those wonders, which from time to time
happen through the prayers of holy men, serve
to confirm faith, and show forth the Divine
attributes. The passage which you quote from
St. Gregory the Great, recognizes the principle
of Church authority as independent of miracles,
*Mercersburg Review, September, 1851. Art. Early Christianity.




ON THE CATHOLIC CHURCH.           329
so that if any one should perform them in opposition to the Church, they should be disregarded
as tainted with pride, and hateful to Him, who
at the last day will reject some wonder-workers
as doers of iniquity. This is a safe criterion, by
which we may distinguish the false wonders of
Satan from  works truly Divine.  But when
extraordinary works are performed in support of
revealed truth, and for ends every way worthy
of God, their Divine character being thus manifest, new lustre is added thereby to faith, and the
Church receives from them support, not indeed
necessary to substantiate her claims, but highly
serviceable to confirm the weak in faith, and to
confound unbelievers.  That St. Gregory so
regarded them is evident from his Dialogues in
which he records them. I must award you the
praise of ingenuity, in availing yourself of the
strongest passages that have been uttered against
heresy, to weaken the evidences which support
the Church. St. Gregory says: "The Holy
Church disregards the miracles of heretics, if
they perform any, because she does not recognize
them as an evidence of holiness. For the proof
of holiness is not to work miracles, but to love
others as ourselves, and to entertain correct sentiments in regard to God, and to think better of
our neighbor than ourselves...... The gift of
brotherly love is, therefore, a token that we are
disciples of Christ. Which love all heretics abjure, by separating from the unity of the universal
Church... Without doubt the Holy Church




330      ON THE CATHOLIC CHURCH.
considers all heretics unworthy of eternal life,
because in the name of Christ they war on the
name of Christ."* Elsewhere he says of miracles in general: " Those corporal wonders sometimes manifest holiness; but they do not constitute it."t
You call St. Isidore, of Seville, to your assistance, as if he undervalued miracles, and foretold that the Church would be utterly destitute
of their support.  He follows closely on the
footsteps of St. Gregory,$ who indeed avowed
that miracles were not now as frequent in the
Church as at its commencement, but distinctly
recorded many which had come to his knowledge. St. Isidore says, that the world was won
to the faith by the miracles of the Apostles, but
that the faithful are now to shed abroad the
light of good works as the fruits of their faith.
He does not deny, that miracles were occasionally performed in his own time, which, on
the contrary, he intimates by observing that
"miracles and virtues will cease from the Church
before the appearance of Antichrist." By virtues, "virtutes," he seems to understand miracles
according to the Scriptural force of the corresponding Greek term, so that the same idea is
expressed in a twofold manner; for he states
that the cessation of these gifts will afford occasion to the manifestation of the patience of the
saints, and the inconstan'cy of the reprobate
* Mor. L. xx. in cap. xxx. B. Job. t Horn. xxix. in Ev. Marci.
$ L. xxvii.; Mor. c. xviii.




ON THE CATHOLIC CHURCH.           331
who will fall away, and to fiercer persecution
on the part of the enemies of the Church.*
I shall take no pains to claim for the Church
a republican character, because she is a Divine
institution, deriving her authority from above, and
directed to lead men to eternal happiness. We
are not at liberty to model her according to our
political predilections, or to suit the popular fancy.
She is, if you will, a monarchy, since she has one
supreme ruler, representing Christ, her Divine
Founder; but the caprice, or will, of no individual can change her doctrines, or maxims; no
authority of an arbitrary character can be claimed
in the name of Him, the sceptre of whose kingdom is a sceptre of justice. The bishops, governing their respective flocks throughout the
world, share with their head the solicitude with
which he is specially charged, and feed the sheep
of Christ, not lording it over them, but becoming their model from the heart. The priests are
their fellow-laborers, discharging the duties of
their office under their authority and guidance.
The faithful generally, without distinction of
castes, or classes, are the objects of the tender
care of the pastors of the Church, who watch
incessantly as being to render an account for
their souls. Those who will examine closely the
features of the Church, according to her divine
constitution, will find enough to satisfy them that
she is not anti-republican. The common good
of all, is her great object; her offices are open to
* L. iii.  Sentent. c. xxvii.




332      ON THE CATHIOLIC CHURCH.
all, to the man of humble birth, as well as to the
nobleman; her power is limited by truth and
justice. As regards political institutions, she is
wholly independent of any, and suited to all. It
is not her province to model or fashion them;
but being indifferent to each particular form of
social organization, she studies only to infuse
the spirit and maxims of Christ, and thus to
modify and mitigate whatever may be exorbitant and unjust. "The Christian religion," says
St. Priest, "which has existed for near two
thousand years, is not indissolubly attached to
any political form. Under the shadow of absolute thrones, or of limited monarchies,-on the
borders of the republican lake of William Tell,
in America, which is still more republican, it
flourishes as an imperishable plant, nourished
by the juices of earth, and refreshed by the
waters of heaven.  It is not a local, but a universal religion."*
I remain, Right Reverend Sir,
Your obedient servant,
FRANCIS PATRICK KENRICK,
Archbishop of Baltimore.
BALTIMORE, May 1, 1855.
* Histoire de la Royaut6 par le Cointe Alexis de Saint Priest.
1. ii. p. 92.